Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals

[bush_cheney2004]

I know what I said was accurate and you agreed with me. Your repeated position, that you avidly support war crimes and war criminals is exactly what any group of Nazis or Russians or Chinese or Indonesians or Contras would say.

Yes...I agree that your position is superficial and absurd. Adding other nationals to the mix does not make it any more credible.

At least be consistent and add Canada to the list.

[Big Guy]

"Have the maturity to know sometimes silence is more powerful than having the last word." Thema Davis

[Je suis Omar]

"Have the maturity to know sometimes silence is more powerful than having the last word." Thema Davis

Who was Thema addressing, bush, Cheney, Obama, ... ?

[WWWTT]

Their government is ultimately a religious dictatorship, for one. Israel is an ally, for another.

LOL!

You ever see the Israeli flag before?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I know what I said was accurate and you agreed with me. Your repeated position, that you avidly support war crimes and war criminals is exactly what any group of Nazis or Russians or Chinese or Indonesians or Contras would say.

What about the Canadians British French Dutch Belgian German Americans?

Bias!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Yes...I agree that your position is superficial and absurd. Adding other nationals to the mix does not make it any more credible.

At least be consistent and add Canada to the list.

Why you disagreeing with this guy?

The both of you are practically finishing each others sentences!

WWWTT

[Je suis Omar]

What about the Canadians British French Dutch Belgian German Americans?

Bias!

WWWTT

No bias at all. Your additions would work too in the particular context.

[Moonlight Graham]

None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed.

From the White House summary of the deal (echoing Obama's speech), as explained at: http://news.yahoo.com/iran-nuclear-talks-summary-framework-deal-214435586.html

"Iran is also promising to reduce its nuclear facilities. It currently has two enrichment sites, one at Fordow, and one at Natanz. The briefing says that Iran will not enrich fuel at Fordow for at least 15 years and that the facility will be converted to a nuclear and physics research center. Research into uranium enrichment would also be prohibited. The site will remain under UN nuclear monitoring."

Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact

"The briefing released today says that Iran has agreed to cut the number of centrifuges, the key machinery to enrich uranium, from roughly 19,000 today to 6,100, with about 1,000 kept offline. Iran also agreed to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium – the first step toward producing either fuel for a nuclear reactor or a bomb – from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms for 15 years. It also promised not to build any new enrichment facilities during the same time period."

Edited April 4, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

Their government is ultimately a religious dictatorship, for one. Israel is an ally, for another.

Saddam was a friend before he was an enemy.

[kimmy]

Trying to figure out what's really in this agreement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32166814

'Unprecedented verification'

According to a US factsheet issued after the talks, the outline deal includes the following conditions:

• Iran will reduce its installed centrifuges - used to enrich uranium - by two-thirds and reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium
• The centrifuges that are no longer in use will be placed in storage, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
• All of Iran's nuclear facilities will be subject to regular IAEA inspections
• Iran will redesign its heavy-water reactor in Arak so that it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium
• US and EU sanctions related to Iran's nuclear programme will be lifted in phases, but can be brought back if Iran does not meet its obligations.

Some questions I have about this are:

-what role do centrifuges and enriched uranium play in a non-military nuclear program?

-is there a good reason for not shutting down all the centrifuges, rather than 2/3 of them?

-is there a good reason for not removing all the enriched uranium rather than most of it?

-isn't 300kg of enriched uranium still enough to build some number of nuclear weapons?

I've never actually built a nuclear weapon myself. Is enriching uranium the hard part? I had always assumed that causing fission was the hard part of building a nuclear weapon. Does this deal actually halt Iran's ability to research nuclear weapons? Seems like it still leaves them enriched uranium to experiment with, facilities to build more if they wish, and time to keep researching how to actually turn it into weapons.

-k

[Je suis Omar]

Saddam was a friend before he was an enemy.

To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal

Henry Kissinger

[Bob Macadoo]

-what role do centrifuges and enriched uranium play in a non-military nuclear program?

-is there a good reason for not shutting down all the centrifuges, rather than 2/3 of them?

-is there a good reason for not removing all the enriched uranium rather than most of it?

-isn't 300kg of enriched uranium still enough to build some number of nuclear weapons?

If you are using a light water power reactor you need low enriched uranium.....to get that you need a limited amount of enriching centrifuges....the more centrifuges the higher the enrichment. 300kg depends on the enrichment level....I would believe its LEU though.

I've never actually built a nuclear weapon myself. Is enriching uranium the hard part? I had always assumed that causing fission was the hard part of building a nuclear weapon. Does this deal actually halt Iran's ability to research nuclear weapons? Seems like it still leaves them enriched uranium to experiment with, facilities to build more if they wish, and time to keep researching how to actually turn it into weapons.

I'm not the warhawk that Derek is but with the equipment made already....enrichment is easy. The precise detonation device to achieve thermo-nuclear is the hard part......takes research, experimentation and detectable testing.

[sharkman]

Is there any reason that Iran shouldn't nuclear weapons when Israel has them, Shady?

What kind of logic is that?

Since the US has nukes, any of the South American nations should have them. Canada should have them. Cuba should also have them. Mexico, ditto.

In the ME, why are you wrongfully isolating Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Syria? Shouldn't they have access to nukes too?

I love how the left thinks nukes are the end of the world, should be banished and all that which is a reasonable side to the debate. But then the logic takes a back seat to the dogma, and presto! Iran should have nukes. LOL, they can't even see the idiocy.

[kimmy]

If you are using a light water power reactor you need low enriched uranium.....to get that you need a limited amount of enriching centrifuges....the more centrifuges the higher the enrichment. 300kg depends on the enrichment level....I would believe its LEU though.

I'm not the warhawk that Derek is but with the equipment made already....enrichment is easy. The precise detonation device to achieve thermo-nuclear is the hard part......takes research, experimentation and detectable testing.

Thanks, this is good information.

-k

[On Guard for Thee]

The speech and highlights.

http://theuptake.org/2015/04/02/obama-calls-iran-nuclear-deal-historic/

[Je suis Omar]

What kind of logic is that?

Since the US has nukes, any of the South American nations should have them. Canada should have them. Cuba should also have them. Mexico, ditto.

In the ME, why are you wrongfully isolating Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Syria? Shouldn't they have access to nukes too?

I love how the left thinks nukes are the end of the world, should be banished and all that which is a reasonable side to the debate. But then the logic takes a back seat to the dogma, and presto! Iran should have nukes. LOL, they can't even see the idiocy.

Speaking of illogic, you've created a scenario that wasn't presented. Not because the USA has them - if Israel has them why shouldn't Iran have them.

I didn't specifically exclude any other country either. That's a non sequitur.

[Je suis Omar]

Thanks, this is good information.

-k

Are you starting to build your own, Kimmy?

[sharkman]

Speaking of illogic, you've created a scenario that wasn't presented. Not because the USA has them - if Israel has them why shouldn't Iran have them.

I didn't specifically exclude any other country either. That's a non sequitur.

Nonsense. You specifically identified only Iran who should have nukes. Iraq in '82 should have had them. Rumour has it that at least one other was close, so to jump on Iran like you have as if they are the ones who matter is intellectually bankrupt.

One nation having them is obviously not a good reason to start letting others have them whether you can see this or not. And how is it that the US should be the Nuclear Authority granting nuclear status in the first place? No one nation should be taking the lead on this, where the hell is the UN?

[Je suis Omar]

Nonsense. You specifically identified only Iran who should have nukes. Iraq in '82 should have had them. Rumour has it that at least one other was close, so to jump on Iran like you have as if they are the ones who matter is intellectually bankrupt.

One nation having them is obviously not a good reason to start letting others have them whether you can see this or not. And how is it that the US should be the Nuclear Authority granting nuclear status in the first place? No one nation should be taking the lead on this, where the hell is the UN?

A plethora of non sequiturs. I didn't say Iran SHOULD have nukes. I was questioning why Israel should be able to possess them but Iran can't.

When you talked of Iraq, did you use 'should' in a deontic/social sense, "it would have been a good thing" or in an epistemic/level of certainty sense, as "it was likely that ..."?

[sharkman]

I'll open this up to the floor, since Je is too confused by the issues involved. Are we all okay that the US gets to decide who should have nukes?

What about the logic that says if one nation in a region has nukes, then another should have the right simply because there shouldn't be just one, the left's hatred of nuclear power be damned.

[kimmy]

Are you starting to build your own, Kimmy?

No, I'm trying to assess the merits of this deal, and certainly I don't know enough about operating either a military or non-military nuclear program to assess what the terms actually mean.

It's easy to parrot stuff off the fact-sheet, like "the deal still leaves Iran with 6000 centrifuges" or "they still have 300kg of enriched uranium". But what does that actually mean in practical terms? What does dropping from 19,000 centrifuges to 6000 centrifuges mean, in practical terms, for Iran's nuclear capability? Is 300kg of enriched uranium enough to build a single bomb, or is it enough to wipe out the entire earth? I don't know the answer to those questions, and I doubt that more than a small fraction of the people discussing the deal know the answers to those questions either.

Based on Bob's comments above, my hunch at the moment is that the parameters of the deal were to allow Iran to continue to operate a civilian nuclear program, while limiting their ability to produce weapons-grade uranium.

-k

[On Guard for Thee]

No, I'm trying to assess the merits of this deal, and certainly I don't know enough about operating either a military or non-military nuclear program to assess what the terms actually mean.

It's easy to parrot stuff off the fact-sheet, like "the deal still leaves Iran with 6000 centrifuges" or "they still have 300kg of enriched uranium". But what does that actually mean in practical terms? What does dropping from 19,000 centrifuges to 6000 centrifuges mean, in practical terms, for Iran's nuclear capability? Is 300kg of enriched uranium enough to build a single bomb, or is it enough to wipe out the entire earth? I don't know the answer to those questions, and I doubt that more than a small fraction of the people discussing the deal know the answers to those questions either.

Based on Bob's comments above, my hunch at the moment is that the parameters of the deal were to allow Iran to continue to operate a civilian nuclear program, while limiting their ability to produce weapons-grade uranium.

-k

I fall into the same category of those who dont know exactly how much stuff I need to blow a big hole in the planet, but I can certainly get the drift the deal is meant to allow Iran to continue with nuclear power, but not bombs. I think one main feature is the level of enrichment allowed. But you dont have to be a nuclear physicist to notice how the Obama haters immediately jumped on the bandwagon to discredit his framework of the deal up to and including completely denying the very facts that are published in the deal. Talk about a rush to judgement.

[Bob Macadoo]

But you dont have to be a nuclear physicist to notice how the Obama haters immediately jumped on the bandwagon to discredit his framework of the deal up to and including completely denying the very facts that are published in the deal. Talk about a rush to judgement.

I like to call them "immknowledgable".

[Moonlight Graham]

Trying to figure out what's really in this agreement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32166814

Some questions I have about this are:

-what role do centrifuges and enriched uranium play in a non-military nuclear program?

-is there a good reason for not shutting down all the centrifuges, rather than 2/3 of them?

-is there a good reason for not removing all the enriched uranium rather than most of it?

-isn't 300kg of enriched uranium still enough to build some number of nuclear weapons?

I've never actually built a nuclear weapon myself. Is enriching uranium the hard part? I had always assumed that causing fission was the hard part of building a nuclear weapon. Does this deal actually halt Iran's ability to research nuclear weapons? Seems like it still leaves them enriched uranium to experiment with, facilities to build more if they wish, and time to keep researching how to actually turn it into weapons.

From the White House summary.

"- For ten years, enrichment and enrichment research and development will be limited to ensure a breakout timeline of at least 1 year. Beyond 10 years, Iran will abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan submitted to the IAEA, and pursuant to the JCPOA, under the Additional Protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity.

- Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of its program."

I know as much as you about nuclear programs, but from what it sounds like, you need centrifuges to enrich uranium in order to produce the needed concentrated radioactive uranium material for both civilian and weapon uses. I found this from Wikipedia under "nuclear reactor":

"Thermal reactors generally depend on refined and enriched uranium...Under 1% of the uranium found in nature is the easily fissionable U-235 isotope and as a result most reactor designs require enriched fuel. Enrichment involves increasing the percentage of U-235 and is usually done by means of gaseous diffusion or gas centrifuge. The enriched result is then converted into uranium dioxide powder, which is pressed and fired into pellet form. These pellets are stacked into tubes which are then sealed and called fuel rods. Many of these fuel rods are used in each nuclear reactor."

Also, a helpful page:

"Enriched uranium is a critical component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons."

From that page, you can see the chart showing that you need a much lower % of enriched uranium needed for reactor-grade (3-4%) than the highly-enriched uranium needed for weapons grade (80%+). I guess that's why they used to be always talking about the enrichment % of Iran's program a few years ago (ie: "Iran now at 20%!"):

"Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a 20% or higher concentration of ²³⁵U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapon primaries usually contains 85% or more of ²³⁵U known as weapon(s)-grade, though theoretically for an implosion design, a minimum of 20% could be sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable) although it would require hundreds of kilograms of material and "would not be practical to design"...The very first uranium bomb, Little Boy dropped by the United States on Hiroshima in 1945, used 64 kilograms of 80% enriched uranium."

Edited April 4, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

Is there any reason that Iran shouldn't nuclear weapons when Israel has them, Shady?

Because Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship run by crazy people?