Geneva deal reached

[citanon]

I'm not sure I see the down side here.

• Deal or no, technology will march on, and as computers continually increase in power, designing a successful nuke becomes ever easier.
  
• Without a deal, breakout time goes to zero in what? A year or so rather than a decade?
  
• Sanctions clearly haven't stopped Iran from acquiring the infrastructure to build a nuke. Time to try something different.
  
• The military option is unaffected by any deals.

The initial nuke has not been a design problem since the fifties. It's the production of nuclear materials that has been the problem.

Design of more advanced nuclear weapons require a much more extensive nuclear research program, which Iran is not constrained from doing under the current deal AFAIK.

Sanctions have vastly constrained Iran's overall ability to develop its military capabilities, ballistic missile programs, fund its proxies and develop that more extensive research program. Look at, for example, NK. Ostensibly they claim to "have nukes". But sanctions have heavily constrained their program. Even today there are questions regarding their nukes' effectiveness. More importantly, they have been slowed from building effective deliverable weapons and missiles at a pace that can overtake ABM defenses.

Without a deal, if Iran close the break out time, Iran will face increasing covert sabotage and if they break from that they will be bombed back by years. More importantly the toll of sanctions is starving them of resources to developd and produce deliverable weapons mounted pn ballistic missiles at a pace that would overwhelm regional abm deployment. Furthermore, sanctions place heavy constraints on their development of aa/ad capability so that their weapons and programs are vulnerable to attack.

With the deal, they can wait 13 years to !ake the actual nukes while doing all the auxiliary research and development they want using vastly more resources due to lifting of sanctions, build up their defenses and economic ties until there would be no easy way to attack them and no apetite for new sanctions from eu, and then test with likely minimal consequences. In other words:

Obama has just given them a smooth, sanctions free and highly advantageous 13 year road map to becoming a nuclear power!!!

[SteveDaPirate]

The initial nuke has not been a design problem since the fifties. It's the production of nuclear materials that has been the problem.

With the deal, they can wait 13 years to !ake the actual nukes while doing all the auxiliary research and development they want.

You said it yourself, the production of nuclear materials is the main challenge, and that's exactly what this deal addresses. R&D will continue deal or no deal, as advanced computers become ever cheaper and more powerful as long as nukes are a national priority.

Lifting sanctions won't suddenly turn Iran into a conventional powerhouse that can hold off an attack from NATO. Maybe they can afford to trade in their boghammars for Frigates. That could make a difference in a tussle with Iraq, but it won't affect the outcome of a conflict with the West.

How much time would covert sabotage or even airstrikes buy anyway? A couple of years until they can finish moving their production under mountains? Certainly not 13 years. Unless it is followed with an invasion, it is a temporary measure that will reinforce the idea that nukes are the only way to be safe from the big bad West.

Countries like Iran and North Korea don't respond well to pressure from the International Community because they have so little to lose. Let Iranians experience a decade of foreign investment and rapid growth as sanctions are lifted and suddenly the West has a lot more leverage as Iran become enmeshed in the global economy.

Looking to the future, Iran is a country that needs a way out of their current predicament of being isolated and vulnerable that allows them to save face. Getting nukes is one way to solve their vulnerability problem. This deal allows them another way out that lets them rejoin the international community as a productive member rather than a problem child, and most importantly leaves their pride intact.

Besides, if they renege on the deal, it practically invites an attack.

[citanon]

No. I said production of nuclear materials is the hard challenge compared to designing the first bomb ~which is no challenge at all~. The even harder challenge us to gain the knowledge needed to put something on a missile and acquiring the missile technology and production infrastructure, which this deal is going to enavle them to do with much greater resources from day one!

Then after 10 years, they will be allowed to operate advanced centrifuges that will make producing large quantities of weapons grade material child's play.

Also, youve missed our upgrade of the MOP. No bunker in Iran is beyond reach. And if they rebuild, we can bomb again. Which do you rhink is more expensive, their reactor and sanctions, or our bombs?

[Blademaster]

Iranian centrifuge technology is crap at the very least. AQ Khan's enrichment design leaves a lot to be desired and it's way even behind the 30s and 40s technology. Other countries have figured out a way to enrich uranium using less centrifuge and better enrichment technology.

No matter what, Iran cannot hide its enrichment activities. This deal is good because even if you say after 13 years they will be back where we are, the world lose nothing and can easily slap back sanctions. We lose nothing except removal of sanctions. We are just pushing the timeline back at least 15 years. You say that the Iranians will improve the nuclear technology. Well technology doesn't stand still for the rest of the world. In 15 years, US and Israel will develop better technology to counter Iran and Iran would even be further behind. This deal forces Iran to start over if they decide to make a nuclear weapon. This deal forces Iran to give up all of its enriched materials so instead of having enough materials to build nukes, they have to start all over again and the game gets repeated.

[SteveDaPirate]

Then after 10 years, they will be allowed to operate advanced centrifuges that will make producing large quantities of weapons grade material child's play.

After 10 years, a new deal will be negotiated. If Iran tells everyone to take a hike, we are back to where we stand today with sanctions and sabotage with the possibility of airstrikes.

Except we are now a decade down the line, Iran still doesn't have a nuke, still isn't strong enough to repulse a Western assault, and may have even reformed and moderated.

[Vargas]

They ganined for not being bombed. I say that is a big one.

Of course they can. They just agreed not to do it. Does not mean they're physically prevented to do it.


Your infro is incorrect. They have plenty of oil, just not enough refineries. That, they have to rely on outside sources.

They're allow to use it, just not for U-235.

Israel attacked Iraq, not Iran and we went through the scenario. Israel is incapable of knocking out Iran.

Bullshit. AQ Khan. Look him up. We know AQ Khan gave him both CICH-4 and CHAGAI-1 warhead blueprints. And the IAEA has confirmed the Iranians had tested a zero yield device.

Why do you think Iran wants a nuke in the first place.

Hogwash. Nukes have been used throughout the Cold War as a threat. We lived through several crisis that were averted because someone saw the insanity of nukes and the last time, during the Kuwait War, that there would be no holds bar if Saddam used chems.

If you mean only sporadic bombings, Israel was the one who mainly did it, and probably will do it in the future, deal or no deal.
If by that you mean a war, I think we will not attack Iran directly at all, they are bigger and more well prepared than Iraq and are part of the sphere of influence of Russia and China.

We are talking about in the case they follow the treaty. In this case they wouldn't be able to process fuel anymore.

Exactly as I said: they have plenty of oil, but they are not able to process enough of it for them to be self-sufficient and rely in importing fuel for 30% of their consumption. Now they would need to import 100%.
It is a similar, yet different situation with Brazil. Brazil produces a lot of oil, but of the hard type, that is good to make asphalt but not gasoline, so they import the soft type to be able to process gasoline and,
At the same time, the government lies that Brazil is "self-sufficient" in oil, when even their state-run oil enterprise Petrobras acknowledges that that is a lie.

The Fordow facility, the biggest and thought to be invulnerable to air strikes one will be converted in a physics facility and not able to be used as a nuclear plant for 15 years.
Natanz facility will be the only one capable of enrich uranium and it is vulnerable to air strikes.

Israel never attacked with a land force Iran, that is true, but they bombed nuclear facilities before. Israel with its land forces is not capable of take down Iran, that is true. Hezbollah gave them trouble enough in Lebanon.
But Israel don't need to attack or to fear Iran for two simple reasons: Iran and Israel don't share a border and if Iran tried to lunch a nuclear weapon against Israel it would be committing suicide.
The only thing Iran can possible do - and already does - is to sponsor groups like Hezbollah that can only annoy Israel but not actually damage it. Hezbollah's and Hamas' rockets are like a rocket of 4th July compared with Israel's missiles and white phosphorus.

This CIA link: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ce-report.html and hundreds of other articles say otherwise. Iran doesn't need and it is not even remotely close to make a nuclear bomb.

The nuclear era ended in the XX Century.

You are just proving my point. To use nuclear weapons is insanity. You don't accomplish anything by it other than probably receiving a retaliatory strike. Hitler had a bunch of chemical weapons and never used it, even when the Russians had Berlin encircled. And even when these kind of weapons were used in the Great War it was never a decisive factor. As bombings, they had only a temporary morale effect because men don't like the idea of dying in a painful and slow death.

[citanon]

c

After 10 years, a new deal will be negotiated. If Iran tells everyone to take a hike, we are back to where we stand today with sanctions and sabotage with the possibility of airstrikes.

Except we are now a decade down the line, Iran still doesn't have a nuke, still isn't strong enough to repulse a Western assault, and may have even reformed and moderated.

that s not what the deal actually says. I thought too at first that it was something like this. Its not.

Obama confirm ed to NPR that Iran's timeline can shrink to zero on year 13. That's why john boehner went ballistic.

[Double Edge]

that s not what the deal actually says. I thought too at first that it was something like this. Its not.

We've got nothing in writing yet :)

Obama confirm ed to NPR that Iran's timeline can shrink to zero on year 13. That's why john boehner went ballistic.

What about the rest of his comments....

Transcript: President Obama's Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal | NPR | Apr 07 2015

What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.

Keep in mind, though, currently, the breakout times are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates. So essentially, we're purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year ... that — that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we'd have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.

And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished.

So, it's a hard argument to make that we're better off right now having almost no breakout period, no insight, and letting them rush towards a bomb, than saying, over the course of 15 years, we have very clear assurances that they're not going to do anything.

And at that, at the end of that period, maybe they've changed, maybe they haven't. If they haven't changed, we still have the options available to me — or available to a future president that I have available to me right now.

[Officer of Engineers]

If you mean only sporadic bombings, Israel was the one who mainly did it, and probably will do it in the future, deal or no deal.

Israel had NEVER BOMBED IRAN.

If by that you mean a war, I think we will not attack Iran directly at all, they are bigger and more well prepared than Iraq and are part of the sphere of influence of Russia and China.

Iran is in NO ONE'S SPHERE'S OF INFLUENCE.

The Fordow facility, the biggest and thought to be invulnerable to air strikes

No, it's not.

Israel never attacked with a land force Iran, that is true, but they bombed nuclear facilities before.

The only nuclear power plant the Israelis ever attacked was the IRAQI OSIRIS nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israel has NEVER attacked Iranian nuclear facilities.

This CIA link: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ce-report.html and hundreds of other articles say otherwise. Iran doesn't need and it is not even remotely close to make a nuclear bomb.

Oh for freak sakes, they've got enough materials for a single gun type nuke and they have done enough component testing to the point of a zero yield device. They're far from an implosion weapon but on the verge of a test device.

You are just proving my point. To use nuclear weapons is insanity. You don't accomplish anything by it other than probably receiving a retaliatory strike. Hitler had a bunch of chemical weapons and never used it, even when the Russians had Berlin encircled. And even when these kind of weapons were used in the Great War it was never a decisive factor. As bombings, they had only a temporary morale effect because men don't like the idea of dying in a painful and slow death.

I lived through that insanity as did quite a few here.

[Vargas]

Israel had NEVER BOMBED IRAN.

Well, maybe I confused it with Iraq... But they surely can do the same with Iran. I read Israeli newspapers with certain regularity and there are a lot of commentators there saying Netanyahu should just bomb there instead of only talking about the "Iranian danger".

Iran is in NO ONE'S SPHERE'S OF INFLUENCE.

Iran is a regional power, or a secondary power at best. Saying it is completely independent or that is not under the sphere of influence of Russia and/or China is being naive.

No, it's not.

Prove your point.

The only nuclear power plant the Israelis ever attacked was the IRAQI OSIRIS nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israel has NEVER attacked Iranian nuclear facilities.

Okay, maybe I was mistaken about this part.

Oh for freak sakes, they've got enough materials for a single gun type nuke and they have done enough component testing to the point of a zero yield device. They're far from an implosion weapon but on the verge of a test device.

If that is the case, why even the American intelligence agencies deny it?

I lived through that insanity as did quite a few here.

...

[Officer of Engineers]

Well, maybe I confused it with Iraq... But they surely can do the same with Iran. I read Israeli newspapers with certain regularity and there are a lot of commentators there saying Netanyahu should just bomb there instead of only talking about the "Iranian danger".

Bibi is bluffing. We have gone through this entire scenario. No one but the US has the ability to pinpoint and destroy those Iranian facilities. Namely because the US has never given those technologies to anyone, not even Israel.

Iran is a regional power, or a secondary power at best. Saying it is completely independent or that is not under the sphere of influence of Russia and/or China is being naive.

You're the one being naive. Iran is under NOBODY'S NUCLEAR UMBRELLA!

Prove your point.

You're not military. Therefore, you are ignorant. You don't have to destroy the undergroung facility. You just have to kill their fresh air intack or their heat exhaust.

If that is the case, why even the American intelligence agencies deny it?

You're just reading the newspaper reports. What intel is telling us is that Iran is having a hell of a time fitting a nuke onto a missile tip. It does not mean that Iran can't drop a nuke out of a cargo plane.

...

Yeah, read the tags. There are those of us here trained and ready to fight WWIII. You, however, ain't one of us.

[Vargas]

Bibi is bluffing. We have gone through this entire scenario. No one but the US has the ability to pinpoint and destroy those Iranian facilities. Namely because the US has never given those technologies to anyone, not even Israel.

You're the one being naive. Iran is under NOBODY'S NUCLEAR UMBRELLA!

You're not military. Therefore, you are ignorant. You don't have to destroy the undergroung facility. You just have to kill their fresh air intack or their heat exhaust.

You're just reading the newspaper reports. What intel is telling us is that Iran is having a hell of a time fitting a nuke onto a missile tip. It does not mean that Iran can't drop a nuke out of a cargo plane.

Yeah, read the tags. There are those of us here trained and ready to fight WWIII. You, however, ain't one of us.

Okay then, mister know-it-all. Actually I was for a brief period of time in the military. Just not the American one.

[Officer of Engineers]

Neither was I.

[Doktor]

Okay then, mister know-it-all. Actually I was for a brief period of time in the military. Just not the American one.

Vargas,

OOE is a retired Col from the Canadian Army. He forgot more of what he knows then us the civvies will ever learn.

Just sit back, relax and open your mind that he is right (he is, but you just don't know this yet ;) ).

[citanon]

We've got nothing in writing yet :)


What about the rest of his comments....

Transcript: President Obama's Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal | NPR | Apr 07 2015

In order to buy into Obama's sales pitch one has to reconcile several differing sets of realities. EG:

• We know nothing about Iran's nuclear research facilities, except we knew enough to configure a computer virus specifically for Natanz.
• Inspectors will tell us everything about those facilities, except according to both sides, military installations will be strictly off limits. The ones this deal will allow inspections in will be converted to fully civilian facilities. The facilities that are not fully civilian will not be covered by the deal, but they can still do research as long as they don't do large (read detectable) scale enrichment.
• In years 13 and 14, future presidents will be able to take action, except by then, Iran will be allowed to have advanced centrifuges, will be allowed to do more enrichment, and will have other research facilities that we have no access to. Against that background, the US is supposed to somehow distinguish the possession of these capabilities from the intent to develop and test a weapon. How? How well did the US call the India and Pakistan tests?
• Lastly, at that time, the options available to Obama today will still be available to a future president, except there will be no UN Security Council resolutions (which will in part depend on our worsening relations with Russia), no existing sanctions regime, Iran will have many more resources both in terms of military capabilities and international economic ties, especially to EU, to both defend from a military attack and delay or defuse action towards economic sanctions. So, the same options? By what measure?

This deal hasn't stopped Iran from getting nukes. It just delayed Iranian testing to a later point in their development roadmap, ie, they will be making and testing missile mountable fission weapon 13 years down the line with far fewer consequences instead of trying for Fatman or Little Boy next year and running very high risks.