0
masterblaster72

Nuclear Deal with Iran

Recommended Posts

Andy9o8

***>Sounds to me like there's built-in delay, as I noted above.

Yep. It's not great, but it's better than nothing.



Is it?

Of course it is. "Nothing" would probably result in another war that only the USA is really in a position to fight. And war would still not solve the issue because although many in the US are willing to start wars in the middle east, few are willing to see them through. And for good reason. So yes, an imperfect deal (that is imperfect for both sides) is much better than no deal.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive heard another opinion saying that the whole negotiation thing and sudden change in approach is a reaction of the US government to Iran selling their oil dirt cheap to China.

p.s. when it comes to hypocrisy, Israel is the most aggressive occupier in the Middle East, that has the "world's biggest open air prison", that shreds thousands of civilians to pieces every couple of years, bombs UN shelters, uses weapons outlawed by Geneva Protocol, jails kids for throwing freaking stones to tanks etc yet they are free to have nuclear bomb and nobody else can. hmm
'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suslique

ive heard another opinion saying that the whole negotiation thing and sudden change in approach is a reaction of the US government to Iran selling their oil dirt cheap to China.

p.s. when it comes to hypocrisy, Israel is the most aggressive occupier in the Middle East, that has the "world's biggest open air prison", that shreds thousands of civilians to pieces every couple of years, bombs UN shelters, uses weapons outlawed by Geneva Protocol, jails kids for throwing freaking stones to tanks etc yet they are free to have nuclear bomb and nobody else can. hmm



Oil is already dirt cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>ive heard another opinion saying that the whole negotiation thing and sudden change in
>approach is a reaction of the US government to Iran selling their oil dirt cheap to China.

Perhaps. But given that we are currently selling oil to China at an even cheaper price than Iran is, that's unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iago

If Iran claims the whole point of the program is civilian nuke power, wouldn't it be possible to just say 'hey no problem, we'll sell you the rods. We'll even put them in and service them for you.'



Would that fly if China tried to do it with us?

AT SOME POINT, you have to allow the country to hope it can be in charge of itself.

This has been one of the major sticking points in the area since the Crusades.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So maybe you can answer this.

If Iran claims the whole point of the program is civilian nuke power, wouldn't it be possible to just say 'hey no problem, we'll sell you the rods. We'll even put them in and service them for you.'

In that case they wouldn't even need an enrichment program.



Sure, that would work, and we should absolutely do that if asked to.

If I were Iran, would I take that deal? Hell no. I wouldn't want one of our enemies ("bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran") in charge of our power grid. Would you? If North Korea offered "hey, let us take over your nuclear reactors. We will run and fuel them, and dispose of the waste perfectly safely. We'll even do it for free!" would you be an advocate for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Quote

So maybe you can answer this.

If Iran claims the whole point of the program is civilian nuke power, wouldn't it be possible to just say 'hey no problem, we'll sell you the rods. We'll even put them in and service them for you.'

In that case they wouldn't even need an enrichment program.



Sure, that would work, and we should absolutely do that if asked to.

If I were Iran, would I take that deal? Hell no. I wouldn't want one of our enemies ("bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran") in charge of our power grid. Would you? If North Korea offered "hey, let us take over your nuclear reactors. We will run and fuel them, and dispose of the waste perfectly safely. We'll even do it for free!" would you be an advocate for that?



You have to know deep down inside electrical power is not the main reason they want this. Anyone that believes the "we want stable long term cheap power" lie is kidding themselves.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You have to know deep down inside electrical power is not the main reason they want
>this. Anyone that believes the "we want stable long term cheap power" lie is kidding
>themselves.

Agreed. They want to (among other things) be able to research nuclear weapon technology. Fortunately, we now have a way to slow that down a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iago

So maybe you can answer this.

If Iran claims the whole point of the program is civilian nuke power, wouldn't it be possible to just say 'hey no problem, we'll sell you the rods. We'll even put them in and service them for you.'

In that case they wouldn't even need an enrichment program.


I've been saying that for years.

And to the other respondents, no, of course they wouldn't accept it from the US. However, perhaps they would have been comfortable exchanging civil nuclear ideas from, say, Japan. Or some other agreeable country that uses nuclear power-generated electricity.

The bottom line with that scenario is that it gets SOMEONE with nuclear expertise into the country. Someone from/to whom it would be much more difficult to hide or misrepresent a militaristic nuclear program.

Since we didn't go there 30 years ago, we found ourselves in today's situation. This week's proposed deal is simply a starting point for helping Iran come back into the greater world community. It certainly does not solve all of America's concerns (or the concerns of other countries), but at least it's a step in the right direction. Certainly we can agree that all these years of non-negotiable, single-perspective ultimatum has done nothing to encourage Iran to change its behavior, and has instead facilitated the growth of that hate rhetoric.

Where's that option in the poll? :P
See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TriGirl

***So maybe you can answer this.

If Iran claims the whole point of the program is civilian nuke power, wouldn't it be possible to just say 'hey no problem, we'll sell you the rods. We'll even put them in and service them for you.'

In that case they wouldn't even need an enrichment program.


I've been saying that for years.

And to the other respondents, no, of course they wouldn't accept it from the US. However, perhaps they would have been comfortable exchanging civil nuclear ideas from, say, Japan. Or some other agreeable country that uses nuclear power-generated electricity.

The bottom line with that scenario is that it gets SOMEONE with nuclear expertise into the country. Someone from/to whom it would be much more difficult to hide or misrepresent a militaristic nuclear program.

Since we didn't go there 30 years ago, we found ourselves in today's situation. This week's proposed deal is simply a starting point for helping Iran come back into the greater world community. It certainly does not solve all of America's concerns (or the concerns of other countries), but at least it's a step in the right direction. Certainly we can agree that all these years of non-negotiable, single-perspective ultimatum has done nothing to encourage Iran to change its behavior, and has instead facilitated the growth of that hate rhetoric.

Where's that option in the poll? :P

Though to be fair enrichment is part of the "smart" nuclear cycle wherein they reprocess and recycle the fuel. We as a nation are stupid and don't do that, but everyone else should probably try and do it since ~95% of nuclear "waste" can be reused. That's something you don't probably want to be dependent on an outside nation to do if you can avoid it, at least conceptually.

Politically speaking despite all the brouhaha over Iran being the devil and such, they are traditionally not the aggressor in any serious combat in the modern era, insofar as I'm aware. Might they have supported resistance against foreign invaders in their neck of the woods, and even have American blood on their hands? Perhaps (and I really don't know for sure), but when you step back and look at it, if someone invaded Canada or Mexico it's hard to imagine us sitting back and watching it happen without trying to make sure it doesn't happen to us, too.
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfect summary of the GOP's position on the deal (from AP) -

"Republicans fall into two camps when it comes to President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Some are against it. Others want to read it before announcing their opposition."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9ca4c057cc0946bda2be9e7aa72aa90c/analysis-gop-against-iran-deal-or-without-reading-it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

***>Sounds to me like there's built-in delay, as I noted above.

Yep. It's not great, but it's better than nothing.



Is it?

That is the million dollar question isn't it? There is a 24 built in delay to know sites, and to inspect new sites, well, the bureaucratic nightmare built in to gain access to new suspected sites is endless.

Not to mention in 6 years they can openly trade weapons and start openly working on their ballistic missile program. What could go wrong?

I mean I'm sure the largest state sponsor of Terror will use the $100 billion in frozen assets that it will immediately have access too, to provide relief to the Iranian people rather than further fund proxy wars in Yemen, Syria, Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon.

And I'm pretty sure that even though their Ideology says that it is perfectly OK to break deals with Infidels, we can trust them this time.:S

In all honesty, no deal is better than this deal. No deal and applying the sanctions hard keeps them from funding that fuels terrorisms and grows their nuclear program.

Under the deal we legitimize their nuclear program and agree to lift all sanctions all together eventually while providing them lots of loopholes to continue to develop the bomb in secret.

If it unites Israel with all the Sunni Nations, you know it's not a good deal. (Not that unity is a bad thing, you know what I mean...:ph34r:)
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade



AT SOME POINT, you have to allow the country to hope it can be in charge of itself.

This has been one of the major sticking points in the area since the Crusades.



The problem is Iran shows no signs of changing. After the crusades Christianity went through a reformation where we took on a more humanist approach to religion. Radical Islamists still live their life hoping for a glorious death that will get them 72 virgins.

I've got no problem with any nation that wants to go nuclear. As a nuclear power, it's hypocritical to deny those same benefits to anyone else.

However, this deal is more like giving someone who wants to kill you and all your relatives the tools to do it. You don't give a baseball bat to someone who wants to hit you over the head with it. How do you feel about felons with guns?
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Under the deal we legitimize their nuclear program and agree to lift all sanctions all together eventually while providing them lots of loopholes to continue to develop the bomb in secret.



You can't just pack up a high tech development program in boxes and put it in the back of your mini-van.

And if you think the US, Israel, and the UK aren't going to be doing the same level (or higher) covert minitoring, then you're just being naive.

We'll know if they are doing real development behind the scenes.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG


And if you think the US, Israel, and the UK aren't going to be doing the same level (or higher) covert minitoring, then you're just being naive.

We'll know if they are doing real development behind the scenes.



This is where you are 100% wrong my friend. Not 50%, 75% or even 99.999995%, but absolutely 100% wrong.

Exhibit A: U.S. monitoring of WMD's in Iraq. We'll leave it at that.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Exhibit A: U.S. monitoring of WMD's in Iraq. We'll leave it at that.



Ah, you're one of those people that believe Iraq had an active WMD program, even though no concrete evidence of it was ever found.

Well then of course you believe that Iran will develop nukes while being monitored. In fact, they'll probably do it in a complete invisible building, just like Saddam did.

I get it now.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think it's impossible to hide things like this. Tell me how many technologies were developed at Area 51, was deployed in operation for decades then finally released to the public without ever being revealed before that.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You think it's impossible to hide things like this. Tell me how many technologies were developed at Area 51, was deployed in operation for decades then finally released to the public without ever being revealed before that.



Of course you can hide the details. The fact that you have heard of Area 51 means that you can't hide the existence of the program. If Iran had an Area 51, the US and international partners would know about it, and ask to inspect. My point was that you can't just put Area 51 in a box and hide it within a couple weeks. If you do, as soon as you set it up again, you'll have to dismantle it. We're not talking about some basement meth lab here, we're talking about significant research infrastructure.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0