You are correct, and the correct counter to that would have been to go to Sweden and face his day in court and to undermine his accusers. What Assange is doing is playing right into their hands, he makes himself seem as nothing more than someone trying to avoid being prosecuted for rape.
And trying to avoid being persecuted for rape makes him seem guilty. And people tend to have very little respect for rapists.
Yes he hasn't been convicted yet and ought to be considered innocent until proven otherwise but since when has the media ever cared about that?

Diplomatic mail can only contain stuff for official use, if the UK can prove that Ecuador is abusing that system they can go ahead and open it. The same thing has been done on multiple occasions where the host country has suspected that diplomatic mail was being used to smuggle drugs.

According to article 27 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations only official correspondence of the diplomatic mission is inviolable: Julian Assange can hardly be considered official correspondence of the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Mission to the United Kingdoms and hence his shipment is not inviolable.

No, the UK setting aside the international treaties regarding embassies etc would be a huge deal even if Ecuador is a tiny insignificant bug. Simply because it creates a very dangerous precedent, if the Brittish can do it then so can any dictator/despot as well.

Officially he is a suspect. The prosecutor filed a national warrant for his arrest(they can do that over here), but since then a district court has found that there is reasonable grounds for him to be detained, Assange appealed this verdict twice, first to the Svea Hovrätt(Svea Court of Appeals) which rejected the appeal, he later also appealed the rejection to the Swedish Supreme Court, the Supreme Court as well rejected that appeal.
So yes there was initially some doubt over the validity of the european arrest warrant(because the legal systems work somewhat different, swedish prosecutors have some powers their brittish equivalents doesn't) but that has long since been corrected.

The Swedish government or legal sytem CANNOT guarantee that he won't be extradited prior to receiving a request for extradition because it is largely a judicial matter, the government can overrule the court under some circumstances, such as if there is considered to be a risk that the extradition target risks torture or death if he is extradited.
On the other hand if Assange is handed over to the Swedish authorities both the Swedish authorities and the UK authorities would have to agree to extradite him to the US for that to actually happen because according to the framework for the European arrest warrants you cannot forther extradite somone without the permission of the original extraditing country.

The right of asylum enshrined there relates to persecution on certain protected grounds, such protected grounds may for example be persecution based on race, gender, nationality, political opinions etc.
Trying to avoid being persecuted for rape is not one of those protected grounds and thus the UK has no duty to accept Assange as having the right of asylum. I quote from the UNHCR Introductory to the treaty text:
"The Convention does not however apply to all persons who might otherwise satisfy the definition of a refugee in Article 1. In particular, the Convention does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and prin- ciples of the United Nations."

Rape is definitely not a political crime and most jurisdictions certainly recognize it as a serious crime. Thus there is plenty of reason to see Assange's pleas for Asylum as invalid.

Assuming that the UK recognizes Elbonia as a state that could possibly be true. If a country doesn't recognize a nation then it doesn't recognize that it has obligations any obligations, and hence there would be no diplomatic immunity.

Sure they can't act against the vehicle itself unless it poses a danger to the public. But if it boards a ferry they will just put a ring of police around the limo and order the ferry to come to a halt a few nautical miles off the coast and then Assange would really be in a shitty situation because instead of staying in an embassy indefinitely he would have to stay in a car indefinitely. Or they could just let the ferry get into international waters and then some "pirates" would conveniently appear.
Same thing if he tries to get on a plane, to get from the diplomatic limo to the diplomatic aircraft he would have to cross Brittish territory so you just place 50 police at the entrances of the aircraft, problem solved.
It is also completely legal to impound a diplomatic vehicle for traffic violations and the likes. So if they suspect Assange is hiding in a limo they'll either have a convenient prior reason to impound(a lot of diplomatic vehicles have at least one traffic ticked issued at some point or another) it or they can probably make sure the vehicle breaks some traffic violation during the transport and then they would have cause to impound it. Then Assange would be sitting in an impound lot surrounded by police until he decides to get out of the limo or risks starving to death in which the police can act to save his life and then arrest him.

A Google data center does not enjoy any extraterritorial status so the police would just waltz in there and drag him out kicking and screaming, case closed. Embassies are tricky things and could cause a minor crisis(minor because Ecuador is a pretty minor concern for most nations)

I wonder what he thinks will happen after those 5 years, the Swedish statute of limitations for the crime he stands accused of is 10 years so there will still be a warrant for his arrest, so he will be jailed and sent to Sweden, if Sweden finds him innocent of the charges he will be sent back to the UK to face charges for skipping bail and the costs directly related to that presumably(which presumably would include the costs of the surveillance of the Ecuadorian embassy).
So Assange will impose his own 5 year sentence and then some justice system will then impose their prison sentence on him.

Personally I think the chances of him going "missing" on the way to Sweden is nonexistent, this has too high a profile, and the chance of him actually being extradited to the US from Sweden is also pretty much zero. So the Irony is that he's willing to impose a 5 year prison sentence on himself rather than serve the 2 years he would likely be sentenced to if found guilty in a Swedish court. PLus that is still likely to happen if he walks out after holing up in there for 5 years.

Yes I agree that time is his enemy, the Swedes are going to do absolutely nothing, a court has decided that there is sufficient cause for an arrest(and thus an arrest warrant was issued).
So in the eyes of the Swedish legal system until Assange is remanded into Swedish custody nothing more will happen unless statute of limitations runs out on the crime(which in this case is 10 years).
So the next milestone as far as the Swedish legal system is concerned is either when he is brought into custody or when the most severe of the crimes he is accused of is prescribed , and the time for that is 10 years, and only then will the case be brought up again, either to be moved forward or to be closed. And even if Assange lasts that long in the Ecuadorian embassy1 I'm sure the UK will want to talk to him about jumping bail and the costs that has come as a direct result of that.

So barring that Assange sits in the embassy for another 9 years the most likely way this will end is if either the Ecuadorian embassy decides that they've tired of housing him and that they've taunted somebody enough and decides to kick Assange out or if Assange voluntarily walks out of the embassy.

Because there are also long tons(Imperial) and short tons(U.S.) A long ton is 1016kg and a short ton is 907kg so it's not as redundant as you might think.

Except that at least in parts of the world the ToS does not constitute a legally binding agreement and thus unless they receive your permission by other means they're still not permitted to do these things

A very large part of that is because wartime research is obviously focused on producing a working device. Admirals and Generals don't want to hear about how peer reviewed your theoretical physics paper, they want to know when they'll be getting their operational nuclear device. They want to know how soon you can have a working prototype for showcasing and how soon after that it can be put into mass production. So they keep throwing money on research groups that can show a pretty enough powerpoint presentation and who can woo their audience.

Huge amounts of money were "wasted" during WW2 on projects that were never going to bear fruit within a reasonable time frame, for example the German transatlantic rocket propelled bomber. The inventor knew that it would not bear fruit in the next 20 years or so at least but he told Hitler and the generals that it would be operational soon and no peers were around to tell them otherwise, and so they threw money at him until they were defeated. It's one of the reasons Nazi Germany was defeated, they wasted huge amounts of resources on unfeasible or outright impossible projects such as the Landkreuzer P 1000 Ratte which was set to dwarf even the already incredibly impractical Panzer VIII Maus.

But yes actual scientific knowledge of value other than the resulting device(if a device was even produced) is created during wartime and when the war is over you can go about getting it peer reviewed and all the other niceties of traditional empirical research but when the war is in full swing the only thing anyone ever cares about is producing weapons, preferably working weapons.

That's because public transportation in most places is not wholly subsidized by taxpayer dollars, only partially and your ticket fare covers the remaining part.