I suggest you do some more research on Iran's nuclear program.
You can start here:
Watchdog fears Tehran has key component to put bombs in missiles, the Guardian has learned
www.theguardian.com
Maybe you should do better research instead of relying on Iranian propaganda.
www.armscontrol.org
One of the most important issues in the U.S. internal policymaking process was how the safety and reliability of U.S. nuclear warheads would be maintained in the absence of testing.
The “physics packages” of all U.S. nuclear warheads have been designed by two Department of Energy laboratories, the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories, located in New Mexico and California, respectively. The associated electronic controls for the warheads are designed and procured by the Sandia National Laboratories, which has sites near both of the weapons physics labs. These three weapons laboratories therefore had to recommend whether any tests were required before the United States ended testing and, if so, bring them for approval to the secretary of energy.
...U.S. warheads were so highly refined to have the highest possible yield-to-weight ratio that they could not be kept operational without testing. They argued that, in contrast, Russian warheads, with their lower yield-to-weight ratios, would fare better under a test ban.
This mean that occasionally, we to test detonate to see if our
CURRENT nuclear weapons stockpile would function
IF there is a need to use them. What it also mean is that if you never had nuclear weapons before, you definitely has to test detonate to see if your indigenous program -- works. What you argued for is like saying even though you never design a car before, you are so confident that you will enter an F1 race.
