Iranian Nuclear treaty

Status
Not open for further replies.

Torpedo

Male
Gold Member
I think the treaty with Iran was a typical example of Barack Obama being more concerned about his legacy than actually doing something beneficial. He is hardly unique but he has been better at being self serving than anyone in recent memory

The Shi'ite's have a long history of deception. Iran wants to be at a minimum a Mideastern power and at best a global power. I would look carefully at anything that Putin thinks is a good idea. Another sure fire indication is that Israel and Saudi Arabia both agree the treaty is bad. When was the last time you saw the Saudi's and Israeli's in agreement on much of anything?

Nuclear Physicist Earnest Moniz who has been involved in negotiation since at least 2013 has said that the the Iranians were 2 or 3 months out from having enough material for a bomb far less than the official line of the White House of several years

Iran get to continue enriching Uranium

As of February this year Iran had a 10,000 Kilograms of enriched uranium. That works out to a bit more 22,000 pounds. That's 11 tons. What they have doesn't appear to be and likely isn't weapons grade but it is a Hell of a lot of Uranium. According to the treaty all but about 300 kilograms is supposed to be exported to Russia for processing and then returned to Iran in the form of fuel pellets/rods for peaceful purposes. The treaty doesn't appear to provide any mechanism to verify shipments and shipment quantities. Having Russia and Iran working together isn't particularly comforting to me.

Iran currently has about 20,000 centrifuges running. Initially we were asking for a limit 500 to 1500 centrifuges. I was totally blow away when I found out they got to keep 6,104 centrifuges. The real cooker is that there is no apparent distinction being made between the older IR-1 centrifuges and the newer IR-8. Once the treaty goes into effect they can start using the IR-8 which are 20 times faster than the IR-1 so instead of curtailing enrichment it could increase by a factor of 5 or 6. They are supposed to be using IR-1 but they were caught with some IR-5's but I haven't been able to find out how many so it is hard to determine how much enrichment will increase.

The enrichment facility at Fordow was allowed to continue unabated. The treaty allows them to keep roughly 1,000 centrifuges there. If they are using IR-8 centrifuges their enrichment capacity on that site alone would be equal or nearly so to their total enrichment program before the treaty. For those not familiar the Fordow facility is built into a mountain. It would be impervious to conventional bombing, it would likely take a ground burst nuke to take out the facility. They have promised it will be used for peaceful purposes. If there intentions are peaceful why bury a facility in a mountain? The area is geologically unstable and is very prone to earthquakes. According to USGS there have been 43 measurable quakes in Iran in the last 7 days

The 40 megawatt heavy water reactor at Arak is continuing operation. A peaceful nuclear program doesn't need a heavy water reactor. Heavy water reactors are great for making Plutonium a better bomb material than Uranium. Plus there reactor contains about a 100 tons of heavy water

The U.S. dropped the demand that they not develop ICBM's

Most of the terms of what little control there is sunset in 10 to 15 years

We have to give them 24 days notice to do an inspection. That is laughable it it weren't so dangerous.

I can see why President Obama wanted to get this travesty on the floor of the UN before Congress got a good look at it. It will be interesting to see how many jump ship
 
All though everyone has an opinion on this treaty, this is not the forum for it. Iranians never attacked another country but have certainly furthered the cause of Terrorism. IMHO
 
I don't understand why USA and their allies are entitled to have nuclear weapons and Iran and other countries don't have the same entitlement??
Iran is not a dangerous country
Iranians never attacked other countries!
I totally agree with you girl!
 
hey torpedo, as a black man from Africa who's been to iran (Persia) and has had multiple Persian gf's, i have to let you know that you need to read some books about the history of Persia and the Middle East before putting crap up here! Don't be a typical ignorant hill-billy boi!
I have a pretty good understanding of the history of the middle. If the Iranians aren't to be considered dangerous why are the Saudi's and the Israeli's concerned. As far as "my crap" the points are made about the terms of the treaty are a matter of record.
 
All though everyone has an opinion on this treaty, this is not the forum for it. Iranians never attacked another country but have certainly furthered the cause of Terrorism. IMHO
The "Off Topic" is actually the correct forum for this. Discussing IR sex would actually be inappropriate in this forum.
 
I don't understand why USA and their allies are entitled to have nuclear weapons and Iran and other countries don't have the same entitlement??
Iran is not a dangerous country
Iranians never attacked other countries!
Iran is a well known sponsor of terrorism. They have routinely lied and bullied as much as they have been able. China and Russia have nuclear weapons and they are not allies of the United States. The main point of nuclear non proliferation is to limit the number of countries that have nuclear weapons. The smaller the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons the smaller the chance someone will do something stupid. The troublesome problem with Iran is that they are a theocracy that has been at odds with Sunni majority of the Mideast for a long time. If they have nuclear weapons they are quite likely to use them. There is nothing more dangerous than a person or a country that believes they are on a mission for God or in their case Allah
 
Torpedo, as one of the more mature and literate contributors to BtW, I have to disagree with your argument. No the treaty is not perfect, Iran will not be totally disarmed. Neither is Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, UK, France or North Korea (who is really problematic).
Iran is and has one of the most literate populations in the Middle East. Do they subscribe to the notion of greater influence, probably yes. However, the Iranians are rational operators with their own self interest. For them or anyone to consider using a nuclear weapon on a US ally, would be suicidal. They could do it, but probably only once, and then their nation and society would be obliterated. They have families, and relationships that are important to even the leadership, why would they threaten to use nuclear weapons, on another country, and have the consequences and collateral damage that would entail.
Obama, does want a legacy, and knowing the opposition to that legacy from certain corners of the US electorate, it will be grudgingly if given at all.
Considering the warmongering and incompetence of the previous administration, we were not only lucky but Blessed to have had Obama leading this country the past 61/2 years.
One more thought, I wonder if the Republican war-mongerers and Obama haters are willing to go or send their children into harm's way if we allowed the treaty to fail due to their visceral and unrealistic opposition to Obama.
OSP
 
Torpedo, as one of the more mature and literate contributors to BtW, I have to disagree with your argument. No the treaty is not perfect, Iran will not be totally disarmed. Neither is Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, UK, France or North Korea (who is really problematic).
Iran is and has one of the most literate populations in the Middle East. Do they subscribe to the notion of greater influence, probably yes. However, the Iranians are rational operators with their own self interest. For them or anyone to consider using a nuclear weapon on a US ally, would be suicidal. They could do it, but probably only once, and then their nation and society would be obliterated. They have families, and relationships that are important to even the leadership, why would they threaten to use nuclear weapons, on another country, and have the consequences and collateral damage that would entail.
Obama, does want a legacy, and knowing the opposition to that legacy from certain corners of the US electorate, it will be grudgingly if given at all.
Considering the warmongering and incompetence of the previous administration, we were not only lucky but Blessed to have had Obama leading this country the past 61/2 years.
One more thought, I wonder if the Republican war-mongerers and Obama haters are willing to go or send their children into harm's way if we allowed the treaty to fail due to their visceral and unrealistic opposition to Obama.
OSP
I am not fan of the Bush but I see many of the same weaknessesin Obama that FDR had that led to the war in the Pacific. Iran has been as big a barrier as Israel to the peace process. Iran has dreams of a new Persian empire empire. The one very dangerous difference between Iran and other Nuclear powers is they are a theocracy. Their leadership believes they are on a path dictated by God or in their case Allah. Any power with that mindset and nuclear weapons scares the Hell out of me. If they used nukes and we or anyone else retaliated they wouldn't see citizens of their country as victims but as martyrs.
 
And if Roosevelt had grown a pair before Pearl Harbor the war in the Pacific might have been averted.
well, wasn't the war in the pacific already ongoing prior to pearl harbor? albeit, we weren't yet involved in this war until after the attack...at least directly involved? sorry if i err.
 
And if Roosevelt had grown a pair before Pearl Harbor the war in the Pacific might have been averted.
He was strong enough to survive the "Business Plot" (Traitor to his class that he was accused of being)...with the help of former USMC Brevet Major Smedley Butler. It was sort of an underhanded "impeachment" attempt, except with a very corporatist fascist twist.
 
Something interesting to know when we like talking about the peaceful United States of America. And we wonder why a lot of the world hates us?

View attachment 621424

View attachment 621425
Not entirely accurate. The military has been deployed on a multitude of occasions but most of those time were in defense of our national interest. MOST of the military action were quite limited in scope. There hasn't been much in the way territorial expansion outside of North America by our military. Perchance you would prefer the Chinese ran the world, how about Putin, or maybe let Iran have their way and we can all be dead infidels or devout Muslims? Of course if we hadn't gotten involved with WWII Hitler would likely have ended up on top and we would have been well on our way to the "Thousand Year Reich". And there is a pretty good chance the Chinese, Putin and radical Islam would not have been much of a concern. The United States is a super power. Winning a popularity contest doesn't go with the title. There has been some royal fuckups in our history but I am firmly convinced the world is a better place because of the United States. If you truly feel that the United States is so bad you are free to leave. Try China, maybe Iran would be a good choice for a preachers' *******
 
He was strong enough to survive the "Business Plot" (Traitor to his class that he was accused of being)...with the help of former USMC Brevet Major Smedley Butler. It was sort of an underhanded "impeachment" attempt, except with a very corporatist fascist twist.
I didn't say he wasn't strong just inept. The United States had no real foreign policy prior to Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto understood that and advised against attacking Pearl Harbor. He was convinced that the Japanese could do anything they wanted in Asia and the United States wouldn't interfere. He was probably quite right. However he was ordered to bomb Pearl Harbor because analysts in the Japanese military didn't think we could have a viable fleet in the Pacific until at least 1946. What I will give Roosevelt credit for he did come up speed on a foreign policy pretty quickly after Pearl Harbor. However his domestic policy wasn't working all that well. In December 1941 the unemployment rate was 16%. If the war hadn't come along I doubt he would have been a three term president.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top