The Iran Deal

[Guest]

Do you even know what I'm talking about when I said CICH-4 and CHANGAI-I?

Can u elaborate on those two ....

Internet search shows the latter to be the late 90s test conducted by Pakistan
Cannot find anything on the first item.

[Officer of Engineers]

CICH-4 is a Chinese nuclear test. The blueprint for that warhead was given by the Chinese to AQ Khan. We found a copy of that blueprint in Libya from AQ Khan and his lecture notes from the Chinese. He sold that blueprint to Libya.

CHANGAI-I is indeed the Pakistani nuclear test. The blueprint for that warhead was found in Geneva in 2006 in an AQ Khan's associate's office. Two years later, two retired Pakistani Generals in interviews confirmed that AQ Khan had indeed sold that blueprint to Iran. In fact, AQ Khan sold Iran all the materials and plans for a nuclear weapons factory, including centifuges.

AQ Khan's saving grace was that he was more interested in money than in arming Iran. He sold Iran junk.

[Officer of Engineers]

I am just curious here. What prohibits the inspectors to send 365 teams. Yes, IRI can delay the first one for some time, but then? Airlift on Berlin comes to mind.

Will you find anything at the other 364 sites. I mean searching the Ayatollah's bathroom ain't going to give you a nuke.

And let's be clear exactly what we're looking for, a zero yield device that can fit inside a rocket's payload. Do you really need 24 days to move that kind of thing?

[Guest]

AQ Khan's saving grace was that he was more interested in money than in arming Iran. He sold Iran junk.

... Only if they had shopped through Amazon.com where they could write up their dissatisfaction with the junk

[SteveDaPirate]

Colonel,

If AQ Khan already sold Iran the blueprints and know how to create a bomb small enough to fit on a missile, that knowledge isn't going back into Pandora's box no matter what kind of deal is worked out.

As such, it seems fitting that the currently proposed deal focuses so heavily on the infrastructure used for breakout capacity. Inspectors can verify that centrifuges have been removed, stockpiles diluted, and reactors bricked.

It sounded like you wanted a deal that forces Iran to "give back" the blueprints. How do you verify such a thing? They could copy that information to USB drives, give back the originals and nobody would be any the wiser.

I have difficulty seeing Iran putting a device on a missile without conducting their own testing first. Surely they don't trust AQ Khan to have delivered unadulterated plans.

[Officer of Engineers]

If AQ Khan already sold Iran the blueprints and know how to create a bomb small enough to fit on a missile, that knowledge isn't going back into Pandora's box no matter what kind of deal is worked out.

South Africa, the Ukraines, and Kazakhstan did it. Their nuclear weapons program were effectively and verifiably destroyed to the IAEA's satisfaction.

As such, it seems fitting that the currently proposed deal focuses so heavily on the infrastructure used for breakout capacity. Inspectors can verify that centrifuges have been removed, stockpiles diluted, and reactors bricked.

You're missing the other pieces of this. They can't do anything more without a nuclear test but that is not their concerns right now. Their concerns are missiles and how to fit a device effectively into their missiles and that is going full bore.

It sounded like you wanted a deal that forces Iran to "give back" the blueprints. How do you verify such a thing? They could copy that information to USB drives, give back the originals and nobody would be any the wiser.

But implosion chambers and verifying warhead tests are not.

I have difficulty seeing Iran putting a device on a missile without conducting their own testing first. Surely they don't trust AQ Khan to have delivered unadulterated plans.

AQ Khan actually sold them dud plans. CHANGAI-I were failures. However, that doesn't mean the Iranians could not have figured out where the Pakistanis went wrong.

[Doktor]

Will you find anything at the other 364 sites. I mean searching the Ayatollah's bathroom ain't going to give you a nuke.

And let's be clear exactly what we're looking for, a zero yield device that can fit inside a rocket's payload. Do you really need 24 days to move that kind of thing?

I wasn't clear, just swarm the heatspots with inspectors. Do it on random, every week.

However, I do believe in two things, Iran wont go nuclear in ten years, what's the incentive? Preserving the regime? The regime with most nukes ever collapsed.

They will stay out of trouble, gathering cash and expanding conventional military and export their way.

I still see them collapsing. Now even without sanctions, because of the fracking and Saudis they will yield less cash.

[Officer of Engineers]

I wasn't clear, just swarm the heatspots with inspectors. Do it on random, every week.

The inspectors won't be looking what we want to look for. They will look for IAEA violations. Re-entry vehicle development is not illegal under this agreement.

[Doktor]

The inspectors won't be looking what we want to look for. They will look for IAEA violations. Re-entry vehicle development is not illegal under this agreement.

Well than, too bad. Is it a violation of NPT? Is it a violation of anything?

[Officer of Engineers]

Yeah, it's a violation especially when we had documented proof that it was for a nuke.

[astralis]

ultimately, it's a deal and not terms of surrender. as I see it, it's about the best that can be gotten under the circumstances, as the main lever of US pressure is dependent on parties (ie China/Russia) that were, at best, lukewarm about acting as pressure.

certainly it's significantly better than the 1994 deal with NK.

[Officer of Engineers]

ultimately, it's a deal and not terms of surrender.

You said so yourself. Iran is going to cheat and we just figured out how and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it now. They are going ahead with warhead development full bore and we can't even stop it now. Re-entry vehicles and implosion chambers "to make diamonds." Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they now flaunt a zero yield device since technically, it is not a nuke.

as I see it, it's about the best that can be gotten under the circumstances, as the main lever of US pressure is dependent on parties (ie China/Russia) that were, at best, lukewarm about acting as pressure.

That circumstance is Obama. The Iranians came back begging for Pete sakes!

certainly it's significantly better than the 1994 deal with NK.

The NKs withdrew. They didn't cheat.

[SteveDaPirate]

That circumstance is Obama. The Iranians came back begging for Pete sakes!

The circumstance was Obama and Rouhani in office at a time when a global oil glut dropped the bottom out of Iran's revenue stream. Iran can live with sanctions if oil remains near where it was when those sanctions were applied, and will be able to get by when oil prices recover, sanctions or no.

Neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad could have made this deal happen, and as it stands there is significant opposition in both countries from people who either want to maintain the status quo or attack each other.

The US Congress is unlikely to muster enough votes to defeat the deal on this end, and unless Khomeini bows to domestic pressure on his end, it appears it will be going through.

[Officer of Engineers]

That doesn't mean that I can't point out the flaws and at least be warned about it.

[SteveDaPirate]

That doesn't mean that I can't point out the flaws and at least be warned about it.

We'd expect nothing less. : )