6 ms·

Sort of on-topic, and about the Iran deal: It basically green-lights Iran's continuing atomic weapons program. I have read the agreement, and there is nothing i

Sort of on-topic, and about the Iran deal: It basically green-lights Iran's continuing atomic weapons program. I have read the agreement, and there is nothing in there that actually will impede Iran's progress towards creating nuclear weapons. Also, it lets them keep their centrifuges (!) and ballistic missiles (!). I really am at a complete loss to explain what the purpose of the "deal" was, considering it does absolutely nothing towards our goal of stopping Iranian atomic weapons development.

joosters 11y ago
The deal doesn't mean they have to abandon all weapons. I'm sure Iran would argue they have ballistic missiles for the very same reason the USA has them - for defence, i.e. to dissuade other countries from attacking them.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Ballistic missiles with just a bunch of TNT or C4 on the tip aren't all that much of a deterrent...
lisper 11y ago
> I have read the agreement You must not have read it very carefully. On page 3 it says: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  Indeed. Here's a copy of the deal: http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/ir... Plus the entire agreement talks extensively about scaling back their enrichment, areas of research, and international monitoring. Here's a nice easy to consume summary: http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal-say-the-big-plan-blocks-these-4-pathways-to-nuclear-weapons http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal... The OP is either being untruthful about having read the agreement, or has some type of agenda and is intending to mislead. Hard to argue that they're making claims in good faith giving out inconsistent their claims are with facts.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel. The fact that they have them -- and are allowed to keep them -- flies in the face of any paperwork claiming that it wants to dismantle a nuclear weapons development programme. I personally have friends living in Iran who tell me that the people of that nation widely believe their government is developing nuclear weapons, and are terrified that this deal will allow them to continue, and I can't say I blame them one bit. This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words.
    - lisper 11y ago
      > You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel Not true. Centrifuges are used to make reactor fuel too. > allowed to keep them They are being phased out over the next ten years. Under close IAEA scrutiny. > This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words. You know, it's not just Obama and Kerry who signed off on this, it's China, France, Russia, the UK, and Germany too. The only ones who don't like this deal are the Republicans, Benjamin Netanyahu, and you. And the Republicans reflexively oppose anything Barack Obama supports, so their opinion can pretty much be discounted. Just out of curiosity, though, what exactly do you suggest we do?
      - fapjacks 11y ago
        Draft up a document that doesn't let Iran keep centrifuges and missiles and schedule their own inspector visits at their leisure? "They are being phased out" but the thing you're not mentioning is that they're only phasing out a portion of those. If Iran abides by the entire agreement, they will come out the other end with working centrifuges (and therefore the ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade). Elsewhere in your response, ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity. Come on.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  Right. No nation state in the history of mankind has ever lied. Inconceivable.
  - lisper 11y ago
    But that's not the claim that you made. The claim that you made was: "It basically green-lights Iran's continuing atomic weapons program. I have read the agreement, and there is nothing in there that actually will impede Iran's progress towards creating nuclear weapons." And that is simply flat-out false. The document does not "green-light" Iran's atomic weapons program, and there is actually quite a lot in there that will impede their progress if they try to cheat.
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      They let them keep their centrifuges. They have everything they need to create nuclear weapons, and all of those things (including being able to dictate/schedule their own nuke inspector visits) are right there in the document. Whatever the "restrictions" spelled out in there, and whatever the "punishments", this document gives (or lets keep) everything Iran needs to continue developing nuclear weapons. That is what I am saying.
danbruc 11y ago
As long as the existing nuclear powers are not considering to bring their nuclear arsenal down to zero, trying to force other countries not to develop nuclear weapons is pure hypocrisy. Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives, guarantee military support, pay them or whatnot. Embargoing them and attacking them with Stuxnet is just evil.
- davmre 11y ago
  > Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. Most non-proliferation activists, Obama included, have the stated goal of a "world without nuclear weapons", in which the US and Russia also bring their stockpiles down to zero. Superpowers are already wealthy enough to win wars by conventional means, and they have the most to lose from rogue nuclear strikes, so they have strong incentives to work in this direction. That said the fact of the matter is that the US and Russia do have large nuclear stockpiles, and don't like each other very much, so coordinating simultaneous arms reductions is a tricky game-theoretic dance. Hopefully we'll get there, but it may take a long time. While that progresses, preventing new nuclear powers from springing up is an equally important part of the nonproliferation agenda. > If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives. That's exactly what the sanctions regime against Iran has been: a set of incentives engineered so that giving up nukes is in their best interest.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. At worst you would have to break or cancel the agreement one day and I can hardly imagine negative consequences if the situation in the world developed in a way that doing so is deemed necessary. Also unilaterally decreasing the nuclear stockpile from about 5000 right now to say 4000 or 2000 is not really dangerous. If you ever come into a situation where you need more than 2000 nuclear weapons I can't imagine that it makes any real difference whether you have one more or 3000 more. And this would really send a strong message to the other nuclear powers. Russia one, USA one, Russia one, USA one, ... is pretty silly in the current situation. Maybe if there is only a handful left. Sanctions is exactly what I did not mean. Yes, it provides incentives but absolutely in the wrong way. If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage.
radmuzom 11y ago
Even if they do develop nuclear weapons, so what? I can see only see a positive side to it where the USA will think twice before messing with the internal affairs of a country again.
- nextweek2 11y ago
  The greater threat is the Middle East destroying each other. Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Then you'll also find Sunni verses Shia. The region is a powder keg of history.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Israel's real concern is probably that its own nuclear arsenal stops being an absolute trump card that makes it undeterable as soon as any of its regional rivals also has nuclear weapons. But, you know, that's obviously not the way any government is going to publicly frame their concerns, for obvious reasons.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  A country that regularly has mobs chanting "Death to America", and you don't see anything but positives to them having nuclear weapons? Seriously?
davmre 11y ago
The entire point of the deal, politically speaking, is to dismantle Iran's nuclear program in a way that allows Rouhani and the Iranian moderates to save face to their own people by maintaining the apparent shell of a nuclear program. So they get to claim, "we still have centrifuges, we still do nuclear research", and those claims are literally true but substantively false. In fact they're only keeping a small number of very old centrifuges that are carefully monitored, the equipment necessary to make new centrifuges is locked down with constant inspections, future imports of such equipment are highly restricted, extraction of their natural uranium deposits is carefully monitored, along with many other measures designed to make it impossible to move towards a bomb. Ernest Moniz, the US energy secretary who helped negotiate the deal, is a nuclear physicist. US national labs employ many of the world's top nuclear experts, who consulted on the deal. When they, and most of the rest of the world's experts on nuclear physics and nuclear policy, say this is a good deal (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good), I'm inclined to think it has some merit. Could it be flawed? Sure. But you need a better argument than "OMG it lets them keep some centrifuges".

joosters 11y ago

The deal doesn't mean they have to abandon all weapons. I'm sure Iran would argue they have ballistic missiles for the very same reason the USA has them - for defence, i.e. to dissuade other countries from attacking them.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Ballistic missiles with just a bunch of TNT or C4 on the tip aren't all that much of a deterrent...

lisper 11y ago

> I have read the agreement You must not have read it very carefully. On page 3 it says: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
Indeed. Here's a copy of the deal: http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/ir... Plus the entire agreement talks extensively about scaling back their enrichment, areas of research, and international monitoring. Here's a nice easy to consume summary: http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal-say-the-big-plan-blocks-these-4-pathways-to-nuclear-weapons http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal... The OP is either being untruthful about having read the agreement, or has some type of agenda and is intending to mislead. Hard to argue that they're making claims in good faith giving out inconsistent their claims are with facts.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel. The fact that they have them -- and are allowed to keep them -- flies in the face of any paperwork claiming that it wants to dismantle a nuclear weapons development programme. I personally have friends living in Iran who tell me that the people of that nation widely believe their government is developing nuclear weapons, and are terrified that this deal will allow them to continue, and I can't say I blame them one bit. This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words.
  - lisper 11y ago
    > You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel Not true. Centrifuges are used to make reactor fuel too. > allowed to keep them They are being phased out over the next ten years. Under close IAEA scrutiny. > This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words. You know, it's not just Obama and Kerry who signed off on this, it's China, France, Russia, the UK, and Germany too. The only ones who don't like this deal are the Republicans, Benjamin Netanyahu, and you. And the Republicans reflexively oppose anything Barack Obama supports, so their opinion can pretty much be discounted. Just out of curiosity, though, what exactly do you suggest we do?
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      Draft up a document that doesn't let Iran keep centrifuges and missiles and schedule their own inspector visits at their leisure? "They are being phased out" but the thing you're not mentioning is that they're only phasing out a portion of those. If Iran abides by the entire agreement, they will come out the other end with working centrifuges (and therefore the ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade). Elsewhere in your response, ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity. Come on.
fapjacks 11y ago
Right. No nation state in the history of mankind has ever lied. Inconceivable.
- lisper 11y ago
  But that's not the claim that you made. The claim that you made was: "It basically green-lights Iran's continuing atomic weapons program. I have read the agreement, and there is nothing in there that actually will impede Iran's progress towards creating nuclear weapons." And that is simply flat-out false. The document does not "green-light" Iran's atomic weapons program, and there is actually quite a lot in there that will impede their progress if they try to cheat.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    They let them keep their centrifuges. They have everything they need to create nuclear weapons, and all of those things (including being able to dictate/schedule their own nuke inspector visits) are right there in the document. Whatever the "restrictions" spelled out in there, and whatever the "punishments", this document gives (or lets keep) everything Iran needs to continue developing nuclear weapons. That is what I am saying.

danbruc 11y ago

As long as the existing nuclear powers are not considering to bring their nuclear arsenal down to zero, trying to force other countries not to develop nuclear weapons is pure hypocrisy. Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives, guarantee military support, pay them or whatnot. Embargoing them and attacking them with Stuxnet is just evil.

davmre 11y ago
> Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. Most non-proliferation activists, Obama included, have the stated goal of a "world without nuclear weapons", in which the US and Russia also bring their stockpiles down to zero. Superpowers are already wealthy enough to win wars by conventional means, and they have the most to lose from rogue nuclear strikes, so they have strong incentives to work in this direction. That said the fact of the matter is that the US and Russia do have large nuclear stockpiles, and don't like each other very much, so coordinating simultaneous arms reductions is a tricky game-theoretic dance. Hopefully we'll get there, but it may take a long time. While that progresses, preventing new nuclear powers from springing up is an equally important part of the nonproliferation agenda. > If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives. That's exactly what the sanctions regime against Iran has been: a set of incentives engineered so that giving up nukes is in their best interest.
- danbruc 11y ago
  The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. At worst you would have to break or cancel the agreement one day and I can hardly imagine negative consequences if the situation in the world developed in a way that doing so is deemed necessary. Also unilaterally decreasing the nuclear stockpile from about 5000 right now to say 4000 or 2000 is not really dangerous. If you ever come into a situation where you need more than 2000 nuclear weapons I can't imagine that it makes any real difference whether you have one more or 3000 more. And this would really send a strong message to the other nuclear powers. Russia one, USA one, Russia one, USA one, ... is pretty silly in the current situation. Maybe if there is only a handful left. Sanctions is exactly what I did not mean. Yes, it provides incentives but absolutely in the wrong way. If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage.

radmuzom 11y ago

Even if they do develop nuclear weapons, so what? I can see only see a positive side to it where the USA will think twice before messing with the internal affairs of a country again.

nextweek2 11y ago
The greater threat is the Middle East destroying each other. Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Then you'll also find Sunni verses Shia. The region is a powder keg of history.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Israel's real concern is probably that its own nuclear arsenal stops being an absolute trump card that makes it undeterable as soon as any of its regional rivals also has nuclear weapons. But, you know, that's obviously not the way any government is going to publicly frame their concerns, for obvious reasons.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
A country that regularly has mobs chanting "Death to America", and you don't see anything but positives to them having nuclear weapons? Seriously?

davmre 11y ago

The entire point of the deal, politically speaking, is to dismantle Iran's nuclear program in a way that allows Rouhani and the Iranian moderates to save face to their own people by maintaining the apparent shell of a nuclear program. So they get to claim, "we still have centrifuges, we still do nuclear research", and those claims are literally true but substantively false. In fact they're only keeping a small number of very old centrifuges that are carefully monitored, the equipment necessary to make new centrifuges is locked down with constant inspections, future imports of such equipment are highly restricted, extraction of their natural uranium deposits is carefully monitored, along with many other measures designed to make it impossible to move towards a bomb. Ernest Moniz, the US energy secretary who helped negotiate the deal, is a nuclear physicist. US national labs employ many of the world's top nuclear experts, who consulted on the deal. When they, and most of the rest of the world's experts on nuclear physics and nuclear policy, say this is a good deal (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good), I'm inclined to think it has some merit. Could it be flawed? Sure. But you need a better argument than "OMG it lets them keep some centrifuges".