Sturgeon Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 WeaponsMan on the Iran nuclear deal. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Yes, I'd fight Walruses and Muskoxen with an AR-10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Oh, whoops, hahah. That's tomorrow's POTD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 The arms control people that I follow like the deal. The deal isn't a problem and would keep Iran away from the bomb if they follow it. If they cheat, then it isn't the deal's fault, but apparently the deal would have to make Iran get really creative with how to cheat with a program without getting caught. Iran will still support Shiite militias around the Mid East, but that isn't what the deal was about so that is rather irrelevant. The Ayatollah refuses to recognize that Iran accepted the deal, that has to be a good sign. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks and renhanxue 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 I havent read alot about it other than it twist's peoples pantie's real good, i guess its time enough to have someone tell me what to think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Fight Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 The arms control people that I follow like the deal. The deal isn't a problem and would keep Iran away from the bomb if they follow it. If they cheat, then it isn't the deal's fault, but apparently the deal would have to make Iran get really creative with how to cheat with a program without getting caught. Iran will still support Shiite militias around the Mid East, but that isn't what the deal was about so that is rather irrelevant. The Ayatollah refuses to recognize that Iran accepted the deal, that has to be a good sign. I'm sensing a fair bit of scheming going on in Iran. There's some stuff happening, and I'm getting a few theories on what's happening. Possibly: 1) The current president is trying to pull some power away from Iran's council. Thing is, with how much of a grip their military and intelligence agencies typically seem to have, this means that he has some power working beneath him or this would have been stopped a while ago. 2) The "moderate" president Rouhani and his administration are kept on as tight of a leash as Ahmedenijad was, but they want to give the appearance of a new, moderate Iran after the Iranian protests a few years back. They're trying to throw a bone to the protestors while maintaining their traditional policies on the more substantial issues. 3) The ISIL crisis has them in much more of a tizzy than a lot of us realize, and there's some serious fractures created as the different arms of the government focus on different issues. Or that could all be 100% wrong (likely). I think, for better or worse, Iran is less worried about their empire-building and in more of a defensive crisis right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I'd be very surprised if option 1 was even possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Interestingly enough there is a regular arms trade section of the deal that states the UNSC has to agree for arms purchases from Iran or something to that effect. In practical terms this means that Russia will likely be the sole salesman to Iran as they can veto their other purchases while charging Iran however much they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 I have intentionally avoided following this too closely. Public discussion of nuclear energy throws me to despair. From a historical and technical perspective, here's what I think: -The only meaningful barrier to the acquisition of nuclear weapons is enrichment. It takes forever, it's conspicuous, and you can pay money to make it either faster and more conspicuous or you can scale back and make it sneakier but take longer. -There's not really that much experience with monitoring programs and inspections. Syria and Iraq both got imploded before any sort of long-term monitoring could happen. -People who think they can hasten the arrival of the twelfth imam with a global nuclear exchange should maybe not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There are reasons to think they are not entirely rational or responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 My thoughts? Will radioactive Saudi/Middle East oil make my car go faster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 just paint flames on it you casual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 As some have no doubt noticed, I am an unabashed and not particularly closeted Persiaphile. I can't pretend to like the current government of the place, however. What is the US government thinking? Is there any particular reason they couldn't have maintained sanctions indefinitely? Do they see some sea change in Middle Eastern power politics, and want to get in good with the strong horse while the getting is still good? And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 There are politicians in this country on both sides of the aisle who like to have their pictures taken while signing Deals. When you have signed a Deal, you have accomplished Something. And you get to go on television shows and talk about how you accomplished Something. Later on you can write a book telling how you signed the Deal. And then blame someone else when the Deal didn't live up to expectations. Tied 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 I'm going to optimistic about the deal itself. I don't really think that softer sanctions will turn Iran's military into a juggernaut that doesn't have to use M47s and having to build fake airplanes to make themselves feel better. I don't think that Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shiites to form a super Shiite state spanning across the Middle East because of the deal. I don't think the US or EU will lessen their own sanctions on Iran that much and might even get tougher over time, the UN sanctions don't really matter since it is the UN(and would snap-back on if Iran cheats). I don't think Iran can build a nuclear weapon and get away with it before the US/Israel/Saudi Arabia bombs the facility. I don't want to be wrong. I'm also pretty sure I'm wrong. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 I'm going to optimistic about the deal itself. I don't really think that softer sanctions will turn Iran's military into a juggernaut that doesn't have to use M47s and having to build fake airplanes to make themselves feel better. I don't think that Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shiites to form a super Shiite state spanning across the Middle East because of the deal. I don't think the US or EU will lessen their own sanctions on Iran that much and might even get tougher over time, the UN sanctions don't really matter since it is the UN(and would snap-back on if Iran cheats). I don't think Iran can build a nuclear weapon and get away with it before the US/Israel/Saudi Arabia bombs the facility. I don't want to be wrong. I'm also pretty sure I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the facilities they need to build a nuclear weapon are explicitly permitted under the deal, it's just the practices being undertaken at those facilities that are verboten. In other words, they can do it but we can't catch them doing it. Anyone feel free to correct me, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the facilities they need to build a nuclear weapon are explicitly permitted under the deal, it's just the practices being undertaken at those facilities that are verboten. In other words, they can do it but we can't catch them doing it. Anyone feel free to correct me, please. I'm pretty sure Fordow fuel enrichment plant is going to be shut down. That is the only place where uranium can be currently produce highly enriched(bomb grade) Uranium by my understanding. All the other plants don't seem like they can produce weapon grade stuff, and they aren't allowed anywhere near weapon grade stuff under the sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 I'm pretty sure Fordow fuel enrichment plant is going to be shut down. That is the only place where uranium can be currently produce highly enriched(bomb grade) Uranium by my understanding. All the other plants don't seem like they can produce weapon grade stuff, and they aren't allowed anywhere near weapon grade stuff under the sanctions. Erm, can't you just keep enriching the stuff? Like, if you can enrich it a little bit, can't you just keep enriching it? Or do I have that wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Erm, can't you just keep enriching the stuff? Like, if you can enrich it a little bit, can't you just keep enriching it? Or do I have that wrong? I'm not Colli, but I'm guessing it is more complex than just that since they had a facility just for making HEU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 I'm not Colli, but I'm guessing it is more complex than just that since they had a facility just for making HEU. Colli should chime in. I can't comment further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Colli should chime in. I can't comment further. It seems like you can use the same centrifuges. I don't know about any other tech limitations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaustianQ Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Everything from extraction to storage and distribution is going to monitored, in exchange 3/4 of all centrifuges will be shitdown, and all but one will old types, the last remaning "advanced" one will be for research purposes. Enrichment is limited to 3.67%, signigantly below medical grade of 20% and far below 90% needed for a good nuclear weapon. Basically 90% of Irans uranium has been confiscated and they're strictly limited on maximum storage. The US signed this deal so it could have influence on Iran and personally open up negoatiations. If they refused to take part, the US would basically lose out on having any input on the deal, which the remaining Euro members and China would have gone through with anyway. Iran would have gotten a better deal if the US did not participate, serious. Further, the US likely is seeing a sea change for ME politics - Saudis don't seem to lan on being reliable partners for long, and while Iran does fund terrorists, they're not Wahhabists like what SA churns out. Wahhabism is the direct root of basically all islamic extremism right now, and the US can't make headway in important foreign policy matters when your own "ally" is undermining you. Iran is less worse bad faith actor, it's people are signigantly more cosmopolitan and wish to be part of the global economy, and while interested in regional hegemony, they are more so in a nationalistic, rather than religious sense ala SA. Further, Iran is simply in a good strategic position, has a competent military (no really) for the region, and is likely to moderate over time due to stability combined with an increasingly secular population. What I am saying is, fuck the Gulf States, Kurds, Turks and Persians are the better choice. Belesarius, Tied and xthetenth 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Everything from extraction to storage and distribution is going to monitored, in exchange 3/4 of all centrifuges will be shitdown, and all but one will old types, the last remaning "advanced" one will be for research purposes. Enrichment is limited to 3.67%, signigantly below medical grade of 20% and far below 90% needed for a good nuclear weapon. Basically 90% of Irans uranium has been confiscated and they're strictly limited on maximum storage. The US signed this deal so it could have influence on Iran and personally open up negoatiations. If they refused to take part, the US would basically lose out on having any input on the deal, which the remaining Euro members and China would have gone through with anyway. Iran would have gotten a better deal if the US did not participate, serious. Further, the US likely is seeing a sea change for ME politics - Saudis don't seem to lan on being reliable partners for long, and while Iran does fund terrorists, they're not Wahhabists like what SA churns out. Wahhabism is the direct root of basically all islamic extremism right now, and the US can't make headway in important foreign policy matters when your own "ally" is undermining you. Iran is less worse bad faith actor, it's people are signigantly more cosmopolitan and wish to be part of the global economy, and while interested in regional hegemony, they are more so in a nationalistic, rather than religious sense ala SA. Further, Iran is simply in a good strategic position, has a competent military (no really) for the region, and is likely to moderate over time due to stability combined with an increasingly secular population. What I am saying is, fuck the Gulf States, Kurds, Turks and Persians are the better choice. WHOHOO. Bele's middle east opinions in one sentence. 'Tho Turks and Kurds together can be a bit complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted July 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Everything from extraction to storage and distribution is going to monitored, in exchange 3/4 of all centrifuges will be shitdown, and all but one will old types, the last remaning "advanced" one will be for research purposes. Enrichment is limited to 3.67%, signigantly below medical grade of 20% and far below 90% needed for a good nuclear weapon. Basically 90% of Irans uranium has been confiscated and they're strictly limited on maximum storage. The US signed this deal so it could have influence on Iran and personally open up negoatiations. If they refused to take part, the US would basically lose out on having any input on the deal, which the remaining Euro members and China would have gone through with anyway. Iran would have gotten a better deal if the US did not participate, serious. Further, the US likely is seeing a sea change for ME politics - Saudis don't seem to lan on being reliable partners for long, and while Iran does fund terrorists, they're not Wahhabists like what SA churns out. Wahhabism is the direct root of basically all islamic extremism right now, and the US can't make headway in important foreign policy matters when your own "ally" is undermining you. Iran is less worse bad faith actor, it's people are signigantly more cosmopolitan and wish to be part of the global economy, and while interested in regional hegemony, they are more so in a nationalistic, rather than religious sense ala SA. Further, Iran is simply in a good strategic position, has a competent military (no really) for the region, and is likely to moderate over time due to stability combined with an increasingly secular population. What I am saying is, fuck the Gulf States, Kurds, Turks and Persians are the better choice. I like the sound of all of that, except that I have hardly any faith in the ability of UN inspectors. Don't take this to mean I think Iran will get the bomb and nuke everybody, because after all Pakistan and India have managed to not nuke each other, but I think it will create problems in the long run. Now, did we have a choice? No idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaustianQ Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Ugh, I hate posting from a tablet, I type like a retard on facebook. But no, the US really doesn't have a choice (the sanctions would drop anyway as the other 5 signiatories would have just moved on without us), and the deal is better for the US in the long run. More influence in Iran, and it's better to open up Iranian energy markets to reduce Saudi influence and hurt Russia through petrodollar depression. Plus, maybe we can eventually also dump Pakistan or at least make that a threat if we can be cordial instead to Iran. This would make for better relations in the area anyway - not having to deal with Pakistans shit means closer ties to India and less toleration of funding of extremists in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.