• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iran Nuclear Agreement

GreNME

Philosopher
GreNME
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
8,276
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8318258.stm

It appears we're a few days away from what could be a monumental agreement with Iran. If they officially agree, they'll basically be agreeing to allow the nuclear material they have be sent to Russia and France to be enriched and manufactured into fuel rods (respectively), which would go a long way toward solidifying the direction of Iran's nuclear program. Additionally, it would put a huge damper in the speculation about Iran supposedly building nuclear warheads to lob at Israel.

Does anyone think it's not going to happen? Anyone have odds on it?

I'd appreciate opinions in non-slogan, essay format. ;)
 
I am not sure. If I understand correctly, the proposed deal is that Iran will have a fixed, but large quantity of Uranium enriched abroad. (~70% of their declared stocks.)

It still leave Iran with Uranium which it can enrich. There is also an unknown, that is, whether Iran has undeclared Uranium.

If Iran has no undeclared Uranium the plan can set a possible nuclear weapon plan back for a while. (Say a year, but that's a guess). If they have Uranium which is not under supervision then they just tricked the rest of the world.

Which is it? I do not know.
 
Doctor Evil said:
I am not sure. If I understand correctly, the proposed deal is that Iran will have a fixed, but large quantity of Uranium enriched abroad. (~70% of their declared stocks.)

It still leave Iran with Uranium which it can enrich. There is also an unknown, that is, whether Iran has undeclared Uranium.

If Iran has no undeclared Uranium the plan can set a possible nuclear weapon plan back for a while. (Say a year, but that's a guess). If they have Uranium which is not under supervision then they just tricked the rest of the world.

Which is it? I do not know.
Click to expand...

Nice response.

Honestly, if Iran agrees to this, I think it's a clear implicit admission that they don't have any viable nuclear weapon program running right now. That wouldn't necessarily mean the Supreme Leader doesn't wish for a viable program, but if wishes were fishes we'd all own boats.
 
I think Iran's main concern would wanting uranium that's no longer in easy reach. Behold my list of bullet points!
  • If Iran plans to perpetrate shenanigans, they won't let any significant amount of uranium out of their control, for fear of not getting it back again when they want it.
  • Therefore, either they will commit little or none of their known uranium inventory to this agreement...
  • ... Or they have significant amounts of uranium we don't know about...
  • ... Or they think France and/or Russia will work out a favorable arrangement with them in a few months or so, after everybody's milked this "monumental" agreement for all the PR brownie points they can.
 
GreNME said:
Nice response.

Honestly, if Iran agrees to this, I think it's a clear implicit admission that they don't have any viable nuclear weapon program running right now. That wouldn't necessarily mean the Supreme Leader doesn't wish for a viable program, but if wishes were fishes we'd all own boats.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Frankly, I will be very surprised is Iran has no weapon program, for several reasons. One is their active long range missile program which makes no sense by itself. Another is their long history of hiding elements of their nuclear program, the last hidden enrichment center is just one example. There is no sense in hiding information from the IAEA if you are not developing a nuclear weapon.

As far as I remember, a few years ago the IAEA found a computer with nuclear warhead designs in Iran. These designs probably originated from Pakistan. Again, this points to a nuclear weapons program.

I do not think the deal is that significant. As best, the Iranian are delaying a possible nuclear weapons program by a year or two:
The plan is to take about 75% (1,200kg) of the low-enriched uranium Iran has stockpiled and convert it into fuel rods in Russia and France for use in the research reactor Iran has run for years. This produces isotopes for use in medical treatments.



It is potentially significant because it would lower tension with Iran and get most of the enriched uranium out of Iran, reducing fears that it could be further enriched and made suitable for a nuclear device.



However, Iran will still go on enriching and it could make up the amount in about a year
Click to expand...
In return they are gaining a big political bonus. Its a mostly positive deal for them, and I do not see how one can conclude from such a deal mean they give up on developing nuclear weapons. They can easily afford the short wait.
 
Last edited:
Doctor Evil said:
There is no sense in hiding information from the IAEA if you are not developing a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...


Of course, if you're trying to develop nuclear weapons, there is no sense in being an IAEA member and letting them "watch your fingers" at all. ;)
 
Doctor Evil said:
I disagree. Frankly, I will be very surprised is Iran has no weapon program, for several reasons. One is their active long range missile program which makes no sense by itself. Another is their long history of hiding elements of their nuclear program, the last hidden enrichment center is just one example. There is no sense in hiding information from the IAEA if you are not developing a nuclear weapon.

As far as I remember, a few years ago the IAEA found a computer with nuclear warhead designs in Iran. These designs probably originated from Pakistan. Again, this points to a nuclear weapons program.

I do not think the deal is that significant. As best, the Iranian are delaying a possible nuclear weapons program by a year or two:
In return they are gaining a big political bonus. Its a mostly positive deal for them, and I do not see how one can conclude from such a deal mean they give up on developing nuclear weapons. They can easily afford the short wait.
Click to expand...

and i have not seen any evidence that leeds to the conclusion that they are developing Nuclear weappons.
 
Wait, where are the obligatory "making deals with an apocalyptic suicide cult is a fool's errand" postings??
 
Making deals with an apocalyptic suicide cult is a fool's errand.

What that has to do with Israel and Iran finally talking to one another in Cairo I don't know, but we aim to please, sir. :D

As a pro nuke power generation person, I am pleased to see that the benefits of nuclear power will be spread to our Persian friends soon if this deal goes through. Risks on weapons? Still greater than zero, but maybe reduced.

DR
 
Last edited:
Doctor Evil said:
I disagree. Frankly, I will be very surprised is Iran has no weapon program, for several reasons. One is their active long range missile program which makes no sense by itself. Another is their long history of hiding elements of their nuclear program, the last hidden enrichment center is just one example. There is no sense in hiding information from the IAEA if you are not developing a nuclear weapon.

As far as I remember, a few years ago the IAEA found a computer with nuclear warhead designs in Iran. These designs probably originated from Pakistan. Again, this points to a nuclear weapons program.

I do not think the deal is that significant. As best, the Iranian are delaying a possible nuclear weapons program by a year or two:
Click to expand...

Instead of posting wild speculation on their capabilities-- really, there is not one whiff of publicly available information that the "year or two" thing is even realistic, and I've heard this song-n-dance before (in 2002/2003)-- why not actually discuss things about the cards we can all see right now at this point? I mean, crap, give me sufficiently enriched uranium or plutonium manufactured into the shapes I'd require, and with the resources available to Mozambique I could construct a simple nuclear bomb. The hard work was already done around sixty years ago. That doesn't make me an existent threat to my neighbors, no matter how much crap I talk about them (though it would make me a right a-hole).

Doctor Evil said:
In return they are gaining a big political bonus. Its a mostly positive deal for them, and I do not see how one can conclude from such a deal mean they give up on developing nuclear weapons. They can easily afford the short wait.
Click to expand...

And most of the world could easily afford a little freaking good faith, but precious little of it gets spent because of crappy partisan excuses. Let's see if a different tactic than chest-beating gets some results for once.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Making deals with an apocalyptic suicide cult is a fool's errand.

What that has to do with Israel and Iran finally talking to one another in Cairo I don't know, but we aim to please, sir. :D

As a pro nuke power generation person, I am pleased to see that the benefits of nuclear power will be spread to our Persian friends soon if this deal goes through. Risks on weapons? Still greater than zero, but maybe reduced.
Click to expand...

This I can agree with. I accept that 'greater than zero' is a reasonable assumption. I predict that the level of actual discussion that goes on during the talks leading up to a decision will determine how much "maybe" that will be reduced.
 
GreNME said:
Instead of posting wild speculation on their capabilities-- really, there is not one whiff of publicly available information that the "year or two" thing is even realistic, and I've heard this song-n-dance before (in 2002/2003)-- why not actually discuss things about the cards we can all see right now at this point? I mean, crap, give me sufficiently enriched uranium or plutonium manufactured into the shapes I'd require, and with the resources available to Mozambique I could construct a simple nuclear bomb. The hard work was already done around sixty years ago. That doesn't make me an existent threat to my neighbors, no matter how much crap I talk about them (though it would make me a right a-hole).
Click to expand...
I'm confused.

Either Iran is more than two or three years away from building a bomb, or building a bomb is so trivial that Iran could build one at any time and it's likely they've built two or three already. Which is it?

On a related note, right a-holes who talk a lot of crap about their neighbors are pretty high on my list of people who probably shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
 
theprestige said:
I'm confused.

Either Iran is more than two or three years away from building a bomb, or building a bomb is so trivial that Iran could build one at any time and it's likely they've built two or three already. Which is it?
Click to expand...

It's the situation without the false dichotomy you've just created.

theprestige said:
On a related note, right a-holes who talk a lot of crap about their neighbors are pretty high on my list of people who probably shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what "hubris" means?
 
Brainster said:
In probably my first post on this board that could be considered anti-Israel, would anybody really trust them on this?
Click to expand...
I'd trust them on this.

I mean, I think nuclear weapons suck. I'd prefer a nuke-free world. I'd enter into any discussion about a nuke-free world in good faith. I'd bring to the table a sincere willingness to seriously consider any reasonable proposal.

I would also insist on a strict, bi-lateral principle of "trust, but verify". Obviously.

And I'd trust Israel to do pretty much the same.

And that's before we talk about Iran.
Click to expand...
You mean before we talk about how there will never be a nuke-free middle east, no matter how much good faith Israel brings to the table?

Iran won't even let the IAEA trust but verify.
 
theprestige said:
I'd trust them on this.

I mean, I think nuclear weapons suck. I'd prefer a nuke-free world. I'd enter into any discussion about a nuke-free world in good faith. I'd bring to the table a sincere willingness to seriously consider any reasonable proposal.
Click to expand...

There are no discussions about a nuke-free world that are conducted in good faith. It's a pipe dream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom