Agreement in Iran Nuclear talks

[Varana]

Or "what you really need to do is show an alternative way of dealing with the issue".

[kgambit]

Frankly, a source that says Iran can build a bomb in a month, in 2013, 22 months ago rather helps me rather than hinders me, since they haven't built a bomb in that timeframe but instead agreed to limit their nuclear programme.

 

Except that isn't what the IAEA numbers meant and you've continually misinterpreted them.  What the numbers in my post actually showed (again) were two things:  (1) That Iran's enrichment program is incapable of meeting civilian fuel needs in a timely fashion in its present state and only the deal with Russia meets the fuel needs.  Iran needs nearly 12 to 13  times (~128,000) as many IR-1 centrifuges as they currently have on hand (~10,000 give or take) to be able to enrich enough uranium to 4% for civilian needs) and;  (2) that the breakout times are the times required only to enrich enough uranium to weapon grade material and nothing more.   The breakout times actually represent enrichment times required to produce sufficient weapon grade material only.  The breakout times can only be interpreted as weapon breakout times if you assume that Iran already has a device and a delivery system built. 

 

That's what the numbers mean.  And there is nothing in the IAEA reports that ever come close to specifying time frames for device and delivery systems. And nothing in my post that attribute those to weapon breakout times.  In fact,  ISIS* draws the exact same conclusions over the numbers in the IAEA report:

 

As in the October 2012 iteration, the estimates in this report do not include the additional time that Iran would need to convert WGU into weapons components and manufacture a nuclear weapon. This extra time could be substantial, particularly if Iran wanted to build a reliable warhead for a ballistic missile.

 

 

http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Breakout_Study_24October2013.pdf

 

That's from the same source you rely upon to debunk Parchin.  

 

Any further conclusions about how long it might take Iran to build a bomb are raw guesswork and nothing more, and that's assuming Iran even wants to build a bomb.

 

 

And while I am at it, my comment about skepticism over Rostere's comment had absolutely nothing to do with skepticism over Iranian intentions but that was sure one hell of a nice strawman attempting to make THAT leap.     I don't know if Iran is trying to build a bomb and I honestly hope you and Rostere are right. 

 

*not the bad^TM ISIS

Edited July 23, 2015 by kgambit

[Gromnir]

dear lord.  you again is misattributing your mossad drops... from al-jazeera.  HA! as has been noted many times, the breakout options is what has been the focus o' the nuclear weapons program o' iran.  isis is unambiguous and refers to iranian efforts as a "nuclear weapons program" frequent. you use israeli findings from al-jazeera (still tickles us considering your reflex dismissal of wsj) out-o'context.  that iran ain't working on the actual weapon is in agreement with rand, and isis and even the iaea who is all take as given that not only were iran working on the weapons until 2003, but that their activities regarding breakout options has likely continued since that time.  in fact finding alternative explanations that would explain iranian actions is far more in need o' proof.

 

we posted the quotes above 'cause they is from a source you find credible enough to use, and the source is not being shy that iran's efforts in advancing a nuclear weapon program is alarming and destabilizing to the region.

 

is considerable proof o' an active iranian nuclear weapon's program.  from heavy-water sites to spherical geometry studies, there is a large body o' evidence.  you don't find such proofs as been offered by various sources to be compelling?  okie dokie.  is a bit hypocritical in light o' your pakistani stand, but am never having seen anybody accuse zor o' being unbiased.

 

oh,  and go ahead keep ignoring the unwillingness o' iran to allow inspections is monumental obtuse.

 

again, play ostrich if you will.  

 

wanna deflect now that is obvious how ridiculous (and frequent self-defeating) were zor comments?  fine.  

 

#1 failure of the deal to address concerns:  inspections

 

"Iran would have also defeated a central tenet of IAEA inspections—the need to determine both

the correctness and completeness of a state’s nuclear declaration. The history of Iran’s previous

military nuclear efforts may never come to light and the international community would lack

confidence that these capabilities would not emerge in the future. Moreover, Iran’s ratification

of the Additional Protocol or acceptance of additional verification conditions, while making the

IAEA’s verification task easier in several important ways, would not solve the basic problem

posed by Iran’s lack of cooperation on key, legitimate IAEA concerns. Other countries

contemplating the clandestine development of nuclear weapons will certainly watch Tehran

closely.

 

"With a seven month extension, there is plenty of time for Iran to address all the IAEA’s

outstanding concerns. Moreover, an approach can be implemented whereby Iran can choose to

admit to having had a nuclear weapons program, or at least accept or not publicly dispute a

credible IAEA judgment that it had one, and allow IAEA access to key military sites, such as

Parchin, and to critical engineers and scientists linked to those efforts. If no such concrete

demonstration is forthcoming during the extension, a deal should not be signed. If it is, the deal

should not offer any significant relief from financial and  economic sanctions until Iran fully

addresses the IAEA’s concerns." --your isis guys

 

isis observed that any nuke deal should be contingent 'pon, 'mong other items,

 

"5) Iran’s binding agreement to intrusive and comprehensive inspections that are at

a minimum as stringent as those outlined in the IAEA’s Additional Protocol (to the

comprehensive safeguards agreements states must implement under the Nuclear

Nonproliferation Treaty), plus additional measures that reflect that Iran has been

found in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations."

 

 

and 2: enforcement

 

"The agreement’s primary enforcement mechanism, the threat of renewed sanctions, emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry, which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct. Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt “snap-back.” If the follow-on process does not unambiguously define the term, an attempt to reimpose sanctions risks primarily isolating America, not Iran."  -- from the recent kissinger and shultz letter.

 

the biggest concerns previous to the deal were realized. the deal offers no genuine intrusive inspection ability that could determine if iran is complying, and the west has given up its enforcement capability save for direct military action and... appeals to the humanity o' the iranian people?

 

regardless, we must once again thank you for your contributions to the thread.  your dismissal o' scaremongering were much reinforced by your observations that the saudis could/would buy nuke weapons off-the-shelf from pakistan.

 

 wait, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Wonder what kind of deal would placate the "This is Munich 2.0 crowd".

[BruceVC]

I have to admit I would HATE to be having a debate against Kgambit and Gromnir ....they are both far too analytical, intelligent and dogmatic

 

Shame poor Zora....the only consolation is I tend to agree  with him that this negotiation is the right decision for the region. And it feels weird to agree with Zora because our core political views are so different 

 

But this is one case where my American friends are not seeing the strategic big picture. And I can understand that as NO Republicans will agree with this deal for various reasons  ....

[Zoraptor]

Except that isn't what the IAEA numbers meant

 

I was talking about the JPost article Grommy posted there- title "ISIS estimates Iran could build a bomb within a month". That article doesn't cite the IAEA at all, only ISIS. I agree that there's a lot more to making an actual bomb than just enrichment, which also rather helps me since it has never been proven that they've taken those steps.

 

Frankly, if Iran decided they wanted to build 100k+ centrifuges that would only be taken as evidence they want to build hundreds of bombs a year instead of a dozen, by those convinced their only aim is weapons. That's the nature of things.

 

dear lord.  you again is misattributing your mossad drops... from al-jazeera. 

 

Nerp, from Mossad via RSA intelligence, only published by Al Jazeera and confirmed as genuine by Israeli sources. Puling about it won't make it less true, I'm afraid, there's no comparison to your easily debunked explosion claims.

 

is considerable proof o' an active iranian nuclear weapon's program.  from heavy-water sites to spherical geometry studies, there is a large body o' evidence.  you don't find such proofs as been offered by various sources to be compelling?  okie dokie.  is a bit hypocritical in light o' your pakistani stand, but am never having seen anybody accuse zor o' being unbiased.

 

Lol. There is no proof that they did any spherical geometry studies. From your own quote, previous post, emphasis left such as Parchin, a facility where high-explosive experiments linked to nuclear triggers may well have occurred. That's not a definite any more than up to 40% means 40%. And apart from that everything else is dual use, you have to show military use for a nuclear weapons program.

 

oh,  and go ahead keep ignoring the unwillingness o' iran to allow inspections is monumental obtuse.

 

Well of course, when Brazil refused inspections in 2004 that was because they had a clandestine program... hmm, no it wasn't. It's also yet another out of date complaint, given the agreement made.

 

#1 failure of the deal to address concerns:  inspections

 

What you need to do is show how the 2015 agreement fails to fulfil those requirements. Because if it does address them, you've lost and I've won.

 

"5) Iran’s binding agreement to intrusive and comprehensive inspections that are at

a minimum as stringent as those outlined in the IAEA’s Additional Protocol (to the

comprehensive safeguards agreements states must implement under the Nuclear

Nonproliferation Treaty), plus additional measures that reflect that Iran has been

found in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations."

 

Heh, well I can't say I didn't give you a chance. Here's some choice quotes from ISIS on the current state of things after the 2015 agreement, not from two, three, six or twelve years ago. Note, the JCPOA is the 2015 agreement.

 

"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) appears to require Iran to resolve the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) concerns about the possible military dimensions (PMD) to Iran’s nuclear programs."

 

"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provides extensive provisions that collectively provide an adequate base for blocking the plutonium pathway to nuclear weapons in Iran for at least 15 years."

 

"For ten years, this agreement creates the conditions that any serious effort by Iran to build nuclear weapons will be highly time consuming and will be vulnerable to detection, allowing time for a harsh response. The JCPOA will likely do as it claims and this is the most notable strength of the agreement"

 

Their sole substantive complaint is about what happens in 10-15 years time. It's gone from your posted articles talking about a one month time scale to 10- 15 years. Yet somehow I'm sure I'm about to be told that it's still an epic failure because Something.

 

the biggest concerns previous to the deal were realized. the deal offers no genuine intrusive inspection ability that could determine if iran is complying, and the west has given up its enforcement capability save for direct military action and... appeals to the humanity o' the iranian people?

Oh dear, your only mention of the actual 2015 agreement and it's directly contradicted by ISIS's own summary statements- they say plainly that it will resolve concerns about possible military dimensions and make it basically impossible for Iran to make a nuke for at least ten years, and will 'do what it claims'. Really, "what kind of deal do you want?" is a pretty decent question to ask, under these circumstances.

 

"The agreement’s primary enforcement mechanism, the threat of renewed sanctions, emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry, which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct. Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt “snap-back.” If the follow-on process does not unambiguously define the term, an attempt to reimpose sanctions risks primarily isolating America, not Iran."  -- from the recent kissinger and shultz letter.

 

 

And that's why you shouldn't rely on deprecated blogs and opinion pieces, they tend to get invalidated when you can go straight to the horse's mouth and read the agreement and its mechanisms.

 

"37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. [..]"

 

The only thing that can be vetoed is continued lifting of the sanctions, it's the exact reverse of the normal situation. If President Trump wants to throw the deal in the trash all he has to do is bring a complaint, then veto continued lifting of the sanctions and they go back on. Nothing China or Russia can do about it.

[BruceVC]

http://fareedzakaria.com/2015/07/24/obamas-critics-are-the-real-gamblers-on-iran/

 

 

Fareed Zakaria is my favorite  political commentator in the media at the moment. The guy is seriously accurate, erudite and reasonable 

 

He hosts the famous GPS (Global public square ) series   on  CNN and arranges some of the best think tanks and interviews you will ever see on international news channels

 

Anyway read this link and see why he is supportive of the negotiations 

[BruceVC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/head-of-group-opposing-iran-accord-quits-post-saying-he-backs-deal.html?_r=0

 

This is a very significant development  for those like me who support the Iran nuclear deal, Gary Samore was one of the original founders of United Against Nuclear Iran which is a prominent bipartisan group based in the USA that is opposed to the current deal. He adds credibility to the overall agreed negotiations as he now supports the direction Obama has gone.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

A nuclear armed Iran would be the greatest achievement for peace in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, and the USA would have to play nice in the sandbox for the first time...ever. The total encirclement of Iran by USA military installations, bases, forces, and navies would also be rendered impotent. It would become very difficult to keep Iran from selling oil for things other than US Dollars...like Euros or *gasp* even gold!

 

Now queue up Iraq 2.0, as "refusing inspectors" becomes the pretext for an invasion 30 years in the making.

[Agiel]

Even though one would have to try pretty damn hard to convince me that Iran is trying to develop anything more than a threshold capability, If you believe that _more_ nuclear weapons will result in a more peaceful world, be they Iranian, Israeli, American, or Russian nukes, than I'm afraid your head has, in the words of General William Y. Smith, "left the world of reality." And that's before we get to such "trivial" matters like the safety issues of sitting on top of your own "buckets of instant sunshine" on permanent 5 minute alert.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Agiel

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Even though one would have to try pretty damn hard to convince me that Iran is trying to develop anything more than a threshold capability, If you believe that _more_ nuclear weapons will result in a more peaceful world, be they Iranian, Israeli, American, or Russian nukes, than I'm afraid your head has, in the words of General William Y. Smith, "left the world of reality." And that's before we get to such "trivial" matters like the safety issues of sitting on top of your own "buckets of instant sunshine" on permanent 5 minute alert.

 

Are you kidding? An armed society is a polite society. There is a reason why the Cold War was a proxy war. The moment things could have potentially become a direct conflict, suddenly both sides realized how terrible war is. Do you think that's a coincidence? Do you really think Pakistan and India have made it this long without a major war for any other reason? When war assures mutually assured destruction, nobody profits. The implicit threat of Russia getting involved (and possibly the Chinese) is the SINGULAR reason why Iran isn't looking exactly like Iraq right now.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Mr. Magniloquent

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Nukes making the world safer, especially when one party involved wants to destroy the other, is one of the strangest arguments I've seen.

[Agiel]

The enormous armies, the fleets of battleships, and the factories turning out artillery pieces by the thousands didn't stop the proverbial stuff hitting the fan in 1914, and when both sides had the means of producing mustard gas, that little fact didn't stop them from employing them. Even if one thinks this is irrelevant to the discussion of deterrence theory, consider how even at their most rational, _BECAUSE_ they were rational, the leaders of the world were willing to stake eternity over ideological differences.

 

But most of all, even if the deterrence regime was absolutely waterproof in logic, it falls apart due to one key detail: the human beings who design them and are at the keys are fallible. By any objective measure the United States Navy and Air Force have at their disposal the safest nuclear arsenal and the most well-trained personnel at the helm, having been pioneers of the field and having high-tech industries backing it that leave the next best competitors in the dust; this has not stopped a multitude of nuclear weapon related accidents and mishaps. What the hell does that say about powder keg regimes in Tehran, Tel Aviv, Islamabad, New Delhi, and soon Riyadh if Iran tests a weapon? The technology, materials, and expertise to develop nuclear arms are astoundingly simple to procure, but the culture of safety and competence from the US strategic forces and the Russian Strategic Rocket Troops is not so easy to absorb.

 

So, if you don't know a Skiff from a Sturgeon...

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by Agiel

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Blah blah blah. The USA, the only nation to ever employ nuclear weapons (on civilian population centers no less), standing on a moral high ground of responsibility towards their use? Laughable. The notion that the Ayatollah of Iran is willing to wipe itself off of the map to destroy Israel...also laughable. Their demagoguery is exactly that. Saudi Arabia is also a religious state...a monarchy actually, yet nobody would ever regard The House of Saud as zealous enough to bathe the world in fire.

 

When you state the plain facts of the actors involved, this whole Iran nuclear business becomes all the more transparent.

 

1. Israel possesses both nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, yet refuses to sign or abide by the NNPT.
2. Iran is signatory to the NNPT.
3. The USA collaborates with India nuclear activities, particularly in weaponization, despite that India uses civilian reactors to do so---these are both violations of the NNPT.
4. Even the USA's own intelligence agencies, like the CIA, have stated that there is zero evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

That's just with things specifically regarding nuclear activity. That's before even reviewing VERY relevant other circumstances, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and Bahrain financing equipping, arming, and training terrorist organizations--including ISIS to use them as a foil against their regional competition (Syria, Iran, (formerly) Lybia). Israel has been barking up this tree for three decades, and yet nothing. The USA has Iran completely encircled by military bases, navies, and air forces.

 

This is all a farce, and you're all blind to the reality of the situation. You know what it took for the USA, erm, UN to dethrone Saddam Hussein? It wasn't that he was gassing Kurds with chemical weapons Donald Rumsfeld's chemical company and the CIA supplied him with. It wasn't for gassing Iranians when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with those same weapons either. It was when he refused payment for oil in US dollars, and only accepted Gold and Euros. The same thing happened to Gaddafi. He was the USA's good 'ol buddy in the region for most of a decade until he refused payment for oil in US Dollars, and accepted only gold. This is a cardinal sin. Are any of you getting this yet?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Mr. Magniloquent

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I suppose a Molyneux video to show us "how it really is" is the follow up to that rant?

 

Israel wants war with Iran and it will go to great lengths to get it. Deal with it.

[BruceVC]

Blah blah blah. The USA, the only nation to ever employ nuclear weapons (on civilian population centers no less), standing on a moral high ground of responsibility towards their use? Laughable. The notion that the Ayatollah of Iran is willing to wipe itself off of the map to destroy Israel...also laughable. Their demagoguery is exactly that. Saudi Arabia is also a religious state...a monarchy actually, yet nobody would ever regard The House of Saud as zealous enough to bathe the world in fire.

 

When you state the plain facts of the actors involved, this whole Iran nuclear business becomes all the more transparent.

 

1. Israel possesses both nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, yet refuses to sign or abide by the NNPT.
2. Iran is signatory to the NNPT.
3. The USA collaborates with India nuclear activities, particularly in weaponization, despite that India uses civilian reactors to do so---these are both violations of the NNPT.
4. Even the USA's own intelligence agencies, like the CIA, have stated that there is zero evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

That's just with things specifically regarding nuclear activity. That's before even reviewing VERY relevant other circumstances, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and Bahrain financing equipping, arming, and training terrorist organizations--including ISIS to use them as a foil against their regional competition (Syria, Iran, (formerly) Lybia). Israel has been barking up this tree for three decades, and yet nothing. The USA has Iran completely encircled by military bases, navies, and air forces.

 

This is all a farce, and you're all blind to the reality of the situation. You know what it took for the USA, erm, UN to dethrone Saddam Hussein? It wasn't that he was gassing Kurds with chemical weapons Donald Rumsfeld's chemical company and the CIA supplied him with. It wasn't for gassing Iranians when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with those same weapons either. It was when he refused payment for oil in US dollars, and only accepted Gold and Euros. The same thing happened to Gaddafi. He was the USA's good 'ol buddy in the region for most of a decade until he refused payment for oil in US Dollars, and accepted only gold. This is a cardinal sin. Are any of you getting this yet?

No I don't get it because I don't accept conspiracy theories 

I operate in the world of facts 

[Meshugger]

Yeah! Facts become conspiracy theories the moment they are politically incorrect! You tell them Bruce! You go girl!

 

Woooo!!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If war with Iran is going to happen, it will happen in September.

 

[Agiel]

Blah blah blah.

 

You make no bones of having your fingers in your ears, that much is certain. Particularly when you had this to say:

 

 

 

Even the USA's own intelligence agencies, like the CIA, have stated that there is zero evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

 

Failing to read this:

 

 

 

Even though one would have to try pretty damn hard to convince me that Iran is trying to develop anything more than a threshold capability.

 

And thinking that I'm on any moral high horse makes some pretty dangerous assumptions (made evident by your reflexive Iraq circle-jerk) that I'm anything but _extremely_ critical of not just American nuclear doctrine and policy but deterrence regimes in general (which was made painfully evident in my previous post if you bothered to read it, which is a position I've been nothing but consistent with). I'm even supportive of unilateral disarmement to a state of minimum deterrence as outlined by the great Pavel Podvig (something even practical military men agree with).

 

You have also failed to address the issue of "nuclear safety" outlined in my post. Keep in mind that one of the chief reasons the US and the Soviet Union were able to stave off the Unthinkable through all the false alarms and mishaps was because the flight time of a weapon coming over the Pole would have been about 30 minutes, which gave Early Warning teams and political and military leaders ample time to re-examine their systems (which was a case with one of my favourite episodes of the Cold War). For neighbours such as India and Pakistan who have no love lost between them and thus "don’t understand how [the other side] think to a very high degree of precision" armed with nuclear tipped SRBMs and MRBMs, that time is reduced to five to ten minutes. Deterrence Theory is reliant upon a completely mathematical approach to nuclear policy, coined by game theorists with unlimited license to speculate, ignoring the simple fact that, as K said "people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals".

 

And take for instance a speculative Iranian Strategic Military arm (which if you had also been paying attention, I don't put a lot of stock in either). However progressive Rouhani is now, the civilian government remains a "toy democracy" at the mercy of the clergy of Iran. Just who do you think the Mullahs want at the keys? The regular military that draws from a progressive, cosmopolitan citizenry or the Basij "True Believers" who answer directly to them? Even if the Ayatollahs are rational players (I think they are), what of the men below them who can potentially be a whole Missile Wing of General Ripper characters?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Agiel

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Here we go Bruce, all of the uncomfortable truths erased. I'll stick with strict, open, and known facts.

1. Israel possesses both nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, yet refuses to sign or abide by the NNPT.
2. Iran is signatory to the NNPT.
3. The USA collaborates with India nuclear activities, particularly in weaponization, despite that India uses civilian reactors to do so---these are both violations of the NNPT.
4. Even the USA's own intelligence agencies, like the CIA, have stated that there is zero evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

That makes the USA and India both violators of international law. Rogue nations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's just a brief example of the painful hypocrisy of this farce. The rabbit hole goes much much deeper. How do you reconcile this?

 

@Agiel: You dance around the obvious. The USA and USSR avoided open war because of M.A.D. That's it. Do you honestly think that the visceral hate between India and Pakistan is restrained by anything else? There is no other explanation. They have all glimpsed into the abyss and they collectively blinked--for very good reason. Do you think Iran would be embargoed and ringed with dozens upon dozens of military bases, armies, navies, and squadrons of air craft if it had even one nuclear weapon?

 

This isn't about reigning in some crazy mullahs. It's about maintaining total dominance in the region. Saudi Arabia, along with their good fascist pals in Israel and Bahrain need Iran under their thumb. The same goes for Syria. As far as the USA is concerned, those two nations are the only two which threaten petrodollar hegemony. Iran directly and Syria indirectly through Russia. It's not about saving the world. Quite the contrary, it's about making sure nobody is safe from said countries (USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.) For someone who obvious prides themselves on being supposedly informed, you're doing an excellent job of buying into the false narrative that this situation has anything to do with nuclear weapons.

[Agiel]

@Agiel: You dance around the obvious. The USA and USSR avoided open war because of M.A.D. That's it. Do you honestly think that the visceral hate between India and Pakistan is restrained by anything else? There is no other explanation. They have all glimpsed into the abyss and they collectively blinked--for very good reason. Do you think Iran would be embargoed and ringed with dozens upon dozens of military bases, armies, navies, and squadrons of air craft if it had even one nuclear weapon?

 

Nice self-defeating logic there. By the dictates of Deterrence Theory, if Iran had one nuclear weapon, not only would US weapons previously pointed at the ocean by treaty be re-targeted on Iran and Operation Chrome Dome (so as to avoid them being pre-emptively destroyed at their bases in Guam, you see) re-instated, but Tehran formerly just in the crosshairs of no less than two (and even three in short order. Wouldn't take much for Riyadah to get Islamabad to loan them some "buckets of instant sunshine") hair-trigger nuclear powers will be a key-turn away from being blotted out.

 

Which brings us back to the prime issue I've raised on my posts: "What about accidents? What about early warning false alarms?" Things not accounted for by MAD. The Unthinkable quickly descends into the realm of the Thinkable when you put human fallibility in the mix, and those who invest everything into the system can't be counted upon to admit they have a problem. After Stanislav Petrov correctly deduced that the Soviet Union was not under attack in 1983, he was refused commendation and promptly demoted because the the generals of the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Soviet "Metal Eater's Alliance" couldn't have word get out that the entire doctrine and technology they staked their careers and reputations rested on pretty shaky foundations. And if a freshly-minted nuclear power came about with all the inexperience and blaise attitude as shown by the likes of Pakistan and North Korea (and I freely admit it was by sheer luck the US and Soviet Union managed this threat before becoming "mature" nuclear powers), would anyone want to be in the same county, nay, _continent_ of what is surely an incredibly crude and unsafe weapons systems? An accidental groundburst detonation (as is likely would be the case for the hypothetical Iranian device) would throw up far more radioactive fallout than an airburst weapons like Little Boy and Fat Man (and pretty much every countervalue weapon which made them look like cherry bombs that followed), and thus to think of the "Right of Boom" catastrophe is to describe a humanitarian situation _VERY_ different from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Agiel

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I have no idea what you're talking about, positing about the theoretical. The only reason Iran is encircle by US armies, navies, and fleets of aircraft is because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. If they did, none of those would make any difference at all. That's it. That's all there is to it. On the contrary, collective aggression from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, and the USA only provides motive for Iran to seek nuclear weapons, because that's the only thing that will get those collective nations to play nice in the sand box. Regardless, they don't have them.

 

You're also waxing historic about situations that are not relevant to this situation. Iran lives and dies by its oil production. They source nearly all of their water from reverse osmosis plants, which is incredibly energy intensive. They are also aware that the oil is, and will run out. There are also a dearth of secondary products derived from nuclear activity, like isotopes for medical application, positron generation, and genetic marking. There is no self interest in negligent treatment of waste--particularly in a country the size of Iran. There is also extreme hazard in ground testing nuclear weapons in a country that pumps nearly its entire economy out of it.

 

This isn't about nuclear weapons. This is actually less about nuclear weapons than Saddam Husein's overthrow was about WMDs--which wasn't. It's about Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain teaming up to eliminate their only regional rival (politically & militarily for Israel), and economically (oil & natural gas for Saudi Arabia & Bahrain). The USA chimes in because it lives and dies by oil through the Petrodollar standard.

 

Inhale.

 

This is not about the boogeyman of imaginary nuclear weapons.

 

Exhale.

 

Repeat.

[Agiel]

I have no idea what you're talking about, positing about the theoretical.

 

Hilarious, when you keep bringing the theoretical into the discussion.

 

 

 

A nuclear armed Iran would be the greatest achievement for peace in the middle east

 

and...

 

 

 

Do you think Iran would be embargoed and ringed with dozens upon dozens of military bases, armies, navies, and squadrons of air craft if it had even one nuclear weapon?

 

The point of my posts that you spectacularly ignore is that contrary to your, as Herman Kahn would call it, "sloppy and emotional thinking", "a nuclear armed Iran" (and you can insert nearly any other country in that space) or even a world where a credible nuclear weapons program can be acquired by nation states as easily as I a new Gmail account carries a very high probability of escalation through a costly arms race and more. As opposed to the current paradigm where sabre-rattling and border conflicts would at most result in a few dozen military casualties between conventionally armed forces for a given incident, a misstep with nuclear weapons as a result of carelessness, lapses in security, sabotage, rogue launches et al. means civilian casualties that are at minimum in the thousands, and unlike conventional forces that you can stand down and withdraw, you absolutely _cannot_ recall a warhead descending at Mach 12, and contrary to what the movies might tell you, neither can you remotely steer it into the ocean (though small comfort if the guy who pressed the button suddenly wanted to take it back, "no one would ever know, would they?").

Edited August 20, 2015 by Agiel

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Your selective quotations are pointless. You pull at straws while completely ignore and fail to address the reality of the situation.

 

Israel has been barking about Iran's imminent nuclear weapons for three decades. Thirty years. 30. That's how long they've been "imminent".

Saudi Arabia & Bahrain are chomping at the bit to remove their only world-wide contender for oil production.

The only thing propping up USA hegemony, is the petrodollar. No petrodollar, no unlimited military, no reserve currency. Instant banana republic.

There is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. None. Zero.

 

All the while, the USA has Iran entirely encircled by armies, navies, and aircraft. Israel has been actively assassinating Iranian scientists and using all available sabotage, like STUXNET. Saudi Arabia & Bahrain have been funding and equipping, funding, training, and arming ISIS to topple the last domino before Iran itself, Syria.

 

Concisely, you have a cabal of aggressors lying and marauding at the gates of Iran, yet you continue to buy into a false narrative. There is no spoon nukes. Wake up. You're allowing yourself to be controlled.

[Agiel]

Your selective quotations are pointless. You pull at straws while completely ignore and fail to address the reality of the situation.

 

If you commit stuff to writing, prepare to defend it. And unlike your nuclear deterrence theory (which remains that*, a theory), I speak entirely of historical experience, of the practical military realities of human fallibility when it comes to complex systems, the illogical nature of brinkmanship, and its potentially monumental cost to human civilisation.

 

 

 

There is no spoon nukes. Wake up. You're allowing yourself to be controlled.

 

You really have some nerve to so blatantly second guess me and while betraying the fact that you have only glossed over everything I've said as yet:

 

 

 

And take for instance a speculative Iranian Strategic Military arm (which if you had also been paying attention, I don't put a lot of stock in either).

 

 

 

one would have to try pretty damn hard to convince me that Iran is trying to develop anything more than a threshold capability

 

Everything I have said so far was critiquing your notion that "A nuclear armed Iran would be the greatest achievement for peace in the middle east", that "An armed society is a polite society." Not anything close to resembling any pro-Israel agenda (and those who know me on this board will say I've been among the strongest critics of the political leadership of Israel and the United States' patronage of it). History has shown us that proliferation of nuclear arms does nothing but put both strategic and conventional forces on heightened alert and the citizenry in the crosshairs, ordinary people not much different than you or me ready to be blotted out at a key-turn, even by accident, a _very_ real possibility, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that a freshly-minted nuclear military arm entering the stage will make that play out any differently. And this goes for just about any country out there. For instance, do you agree that we live in a far safer world where an economically broken country like Ukraine who cannot guarantee to safely maintain the world's third largest nuclear arsenal gave up its own nuclear weapons (I think we do), even though if they had kept it it _might_ (and I can't emphasise this enough, operative word being "might") have made Russia's actions in Crimea and Donbass far more measured?

 

---------------

 

*The idea that nuclear deterrence is the reason the Cold War ended without a nuclear exchange, and that it will continue to work flawlessly reminds me of this story:

 

A man on a train is tearing up pieces of paper, and tossing them out the window. Puzzled, the other passengers ask him why he is doing that.

 

"I'm keeping the elephants away." He responds

 

One passenger says what they're all thinking: "That's crazy. There are no elephants anywhere near here."

 

The man smiles and says: "Of course not. I'm keeping them away."

Edited August 21, 2015 by Agiel