29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama

[Chomsky]

Article Overview - Introductory Paragraph:

"Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent."

Article Summation - Concluding Paragraphs:

"The deal’s plan for resolving disputes, the letter says, greatly mitigates “concerns about clandestine activities.” It hails the 24-day cap on Iranian delays to site investigations as “unprecedented,” adding that the agreement “will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern.

It also welcomes as without precedent the deal’s explicit banning of research on nuclear weapons “rather than only their manufacture,” as established in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the top arms-control agreement of the nuclear age.

The letter notes criticism that the Iran accord, after 10 years, will let Tehran potentially develop nuclear arms without constraint. “In contrast,” it says, “we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely.”

Poster's Comments:

The President's Iran nuclear deal is highly contested, highly politicized, and filtered through the lens' of our media sources, politicians, PACs, and other interested and vested parties.

In an effort to see past the bias, I decided to post the letter recently drafted by a consortium of some of the top nuclear scientists in the nation. Do we know they are unbiased? No, we do not. Some may even argue a 'letter to the President' in and of itself denotes bias - fair enough. But I thought we'd like to hear from non-politician, non-media, sources who appear to have high stature & gravitas in the nuclear community - six are Noble Laureates.

Unfortunately, the online content of the letter itself does not seem to be 'copy & pasteable', so I was forced to use the introduction & concluding paragraphs of the NYT article in my post. But my intention is to use the letter itself as the main basis for discussion, since it is the source document and therefore free of media bias (but the article is fair-game, too).

The letter itself is linked in my sources.

Sources:

Article: NYT - '29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama'

Document: Scientists’ Letter to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal

 

[WSUwarrior]

Top businessman praises high school football team.

 

[Chomsky]

Top businessman praises high school football team.

Beyond a coy snippet of a one-liner, do you have anything substantive to add for or against the content of the letter?

 

[WSUwarrior]

Beyond a coy snippet of a one-liner, do you have anything substantive to add for or against the content of the letter?

College professor praises local restaurant.

 

[jmotivator]

Beyond a coy snippet of a one-liner, do you have anything substantive to add for or against the content of the letter?

Scientists are no more credible a source for international affairs opinion than a random collection of Walmart shoppers.

 

[WSUwarrior]

Scientists are no more credible a source for international affairs opinion than a random collection of Walmart shoppers.

But but but...theyre scientists! Those people are like Gods to liberals.

 

[Chomsky]

Scientists are no more credible a source for international affairs opinion than a random collection of Walmart shoppers.

But but but...theyre scientists! Those people are like Gods to liberals.

Obviously scientists can be political too, particularly if dependent upon funding with strings attached. But what are the sources for you two gentlemen? Politicians? Biased cable news? Internet forums?

I find it interesting that you're producing unsupported attacks upon the source individuals' credibility, while not addressing the contents of their document.

It's also interesting that a random Walmart shopper would be found as credible to you with respect to giving advice on nuclear armaments, as that of the nation's foremost nuclear experts.

You two are not sounding very credible yourselves, to be honest.

 

[Ray410]

The problem is that one always senses the hand of Obama at work behind the scenes when the purported masses of true believers all fall onto their knees to give praise at the same time. Always just when Obama is trying to get Congress to pass some sort of his endless nonsense that is terrible for the United States of America.

 

[Moot]

Scientists are no more credible a source for international affairs opinion than a random collection of Walmart shoppers.

When it comes to using nuclear weapons scientists have more credibility than any other group, since science invented them and knows what destruction they can cause.

 

[WSUwarrior]

Obviously scientists can be political too, particularly if dependent upon funding with strings attached. But what are the sources for you two gentlemen? Politicians? Biased cable news? Internet forums?

I find it interesting that you're producing unsupported attacks upon the source individuals' credibility, while not addressing the contents of their document.

It's also interesting that a random Walmart shopper would be found as credible to you with respect to giving advice on nuclear armaments, as that of the nation's foremost nuclear experts.

You two are not sounding very credible yourselves, to be honest.

Sorry but I dont really care what sycophants think of this deal, and it is not breaking news.


This just reminds me of the "Climate scientists say climate change is real!"....uh yea, that is how they get their funding, of course they will say its real. This deal means that inspectors (like the people writing this letter may qualify for) could get very high paying jobs.

Police chief says PD needs bigger budget or crime levels will explode!!!!

Pro bodybuilder says one weird trick (buying his products) will boost muscle growth!


Its a junk deal, just like the LED light bars and crappy hormone supplement are junk. Iran will break the sanctions, Iran gets over $100 billion to fund terrorism and the nuclear program, they get a month long warning and can deny inspections, they keep their ICBMs, they get to say they beat America...Obama legitimized the Iranian terror regime....and we get, uh....nothing, except another topic to argue about.

 

[WSUwarrior]

When it comes to using nuclear weapons scientists have more credibility than any other group, since science invented them and knows what destruction they can cause.

They are also holding the assumption that Iran will not break sanctions which they have already started doing.

 

[jmotivator]

Obviously scientists can be political too, particularly if dependent upon funding with strings attached. But what are the sources for you two gentlemen? Politicians? Biased cable news? Internet forums?

I find it interesting that you're producing unsupported attacks upon the source individuals' credibility, while not addressing the contents of their document.

It's also interesting that a random Walmart shopper would be found as credible to you with respect to giving advice on nuclear armaments, as that of the nation's foremost nuclear experts.

You two are not sounding very credible yourselves, to be honest.

I read it. These scientists are lost in the weeds of the technical aspects of the deal and not on how it works when you can't trust Iran. At this point Iran will have access to billions of dollars and an unknown quantity of Plutonium. This is about where we were in July of 1993 with the North Koreans when they agreed to IAEA inspections. The North Koreans got all the concessions they wanted, and within 6 months they had a bomb and the IAEA was still running through the diplomatic channels trying to end the North Korean stalemate.

Read my link, It's essentially spoilers for the next few years with Iran.

 

[Paschendale]

It's really a shame how the right wing tries to vilify intelligence. Scientists are intelligent and educated, so clearly they cannot be trusted. It's sad. And it's one of the reasons why the US is declining.

 

[Chomsky]

Sorry but I dont really care what sycophants think of this deal, and it is not breaking news.


This just reminds me of the "Climate scientists say climate change is real!"....uh yea, that is how they get their funding, of course they will say its real. This deal means that inspectors (like the people writing this letter may qualify for) could get very high paying jobs.

Police chief says PD needs bigger budget or crime levels will explode!!!!

Pro bodybuilder says one weird trick (buying his products) will boost muscle growth!


Its a junk deal, just like the LED light bars and crappy hormone supplement are junk. Iran will break the sanctions, Iran gets over $100 billion to fund terrorism and the nuclear program, they get a month long warning and can deny inspections, they keep their ICBMs, they get to say they beat America...Obama legitimized the Iranian terror regime....and we get, uh....nothing, except another topic to argue about.

If you want to say you think these guys are on the take or have potential conflicts of interest, fair enough, I can respect that, it that's what you really believe.

But right now there's no inspections occurring, and this gets us in the door. Better to be inside, than outside looking in.

As to the 24 day inspection window, I'll again reiterate the current window is infinity.

Short of military action, what would your solution be? Or would it be military?

 

[Chomsky]

I read it. These scientists are lost in the weeds of the technical aspects of the deal and not on how it works when you can't trust Iran. At this point Iran will have access to billions of dollars and an unknown quantity of Plutonium. This is about where we were in July of 1993 with the North Koreans when they agreed to IAEA inspections. The North Koreans got all the concessions they wanted, and within 6 months they had a bomb and the IAEA was still running through the diplomatic channels trying to end the North Korean stalemate.

Read my link, It's essentially spoilers for the next few years with Iran.

Thank you for the link, and it is chilling.

You make a compelling argument here, but I'm not sure anyone has the inside knowledge to know the status of these two programs (N. Korea & Iran) in relation to coincident periods of time. How did you determine Iran is at the coincident point to Korea in July '93? (I'm thinking in technical terms, here)

But I'm not trying to discredit you - your point is valid in that 6 mos after IAEA inspections N Korea was sitting on weaponized material.

 

[WSUwarrior]

As to the 24 day inspection window, I'll again reiterate the current window is infinity.

Short of military action, what would your solution be? Or would it be military?

If necessary, yes....or continue to strangle them with sanctions. I prefer to strangle them with sanctions...and probably, you know, not approve uranium sales to them like our state dept did....


I think the strategy of taking military action completely off the table is not a sane strategy at all. Why WOULDNT you want to threaten military action? Its the same about Obama publicly stating that we would not put boots on the ground. Why would you give away so much strategy to the enemy? It just emboldens them.

I would say...you dismantle the centrifuges now or we will dismantle them for you, catch my drift? Playing nice with these guys will not work...they sense the blood in the water....and they are ready to feast.

Obama gave legitimacy to a government who openly states its purpose is to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. Obama gave legitimacy to a government who chants death to America. Legitimacy, vast wealth, an economy, and for what?

For weeks Ive been asking what WE gain with this deal, and so far I havent got an answer from anyone. Mind taking a crack at it?

 

[Chomsky]

If necessary, yes....or continue to strangle them with sanctions. I prefer to strangle them with sanctions...and probably, you know, not approve uranium sales to them like our state dept did....


I think the strategy of taking military action completely off the table is not a sane strategy at all. Why WOULDNT you want to threaten military action? Its the same about Obama publicly stating that we would not put boots on the ground. Why would you give away so much strategy to the enemy? It just emboldens them.

I would say...you dismantle the centrifuges now or we will dismantle them for you, catch my drift? Playing nice with these guys will not work...they sense the blood in the water....and they are ready to feast.

Obama gave legitimacy to a government who openly states its purpose is to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. Obama gave legitimacy to a government who chants death to America. Legitimacy, vast wealthy, an economy, and for what?

For weeks Ive been asking what WE gain with this deal, and so far I havent got an answer from anyone. Mind taking a crack at it?

Fair enough.

But I've never heard of the military option ever being taken-off the table. If you're speaking of something along the lines of "we will not attack if the agreement is carried-out to our liking", than I believe that could be accurate, but even then that would apply only to the specific terms of this agreement, not the use of military force in it's broad sense - the U.S. does not ever give-up it's options for military force.

Iran has essentially agreed to constant inspection and shutting down & dismantling the bulk of it's centrifuges, not only suspending their weaponizing program, but reducing the current stock of potential material to be weaponized.

What we get is monitoring and deweaponizing.

jmotivator's source actually has a two-page synopsis of this, though it's a bit technical:

Arms Control Association - 'An Effective, Verifiable Nuclear Deal With Iran'

FWIW, There was also an immediate 'snap-back' clause for the sanctions as well.

 

[Moot]

They are also holding the assumption that Iran will not break sanctions which they have already started doing.

Did it ever occur to you that the IAEA are scientists?

 

[Texmex]

It's really a shame how the right wing tries to vilify intelligence. Scientists are intelligent and educated, so clearly they cannot be trusted. It's sad. And it's one of the reasons why the US is declining.

It's because they possess so little of it. Just look at the right-wing comments on this thread.

 

[Paschendale]

It's because they possess so little of it. Just look at the right-wing comments on this thread.

I actually want to amend what I said. It's knowledge, not intelligence. It does nothing to just dismiss right wingers as dumb. Many are smart people. But their ideas are driven by ignorance. And sadly, conservative culture embraces the idea that knowledge is elitist and not for the common person. People should seek to learn, not to justify ignorance. The general distrust by the right for science and academics is a sad result of that.

 

[Anomalism]

The general distrust by the right for science and academics is a sad result of that.

I think a lot of their distrust exists because of people like Richard Dawkins. Instead of just promoting scientific learning and literacy people like him use science to go for the throat of religion. Attacking religion from a scientific standpoint is counterproductive.

 

[Paschendale]

I think a lot of their distrust exists because of people like Richard Dawkins. Instead of just promoting scientific learning and literacy people like him use science to go for the throat of religion. Attacking religion from a scientific standpoint is counterproductive.

How so? Isn't science about illuminating truth and dispelling falsehood? The modern conflict between religious establishment and science started with Darwin. The discovery of evolution is what made it impossible to be well educated and believe religious myths without cognitive dissonance. But what should Darwin have done? Should he have suppressed his discovery because it would have upset people who believed in fake things? No. Knowledge should displace myth. And besides, a great deal of the attacks on religion, including by figures like Dawkins, Hitchens, or the other "four horsemen of atheism", were from a moral standpoint. Their arguments weren't just that religion (primarily western monotheisms like Christianity and Islam) are wrong, but that they are actually evil as well. But you can't really have a moral discussion and criticize religion unless you dispel the argument from authority fallacy that is invoking a god to justify yourself. You have to attack religion from a scientific standpoint. You need a real authority (that is, the factual basis of reality that contracts myths and fables) to dispel the false authority that it is a god.

Also, I doubt that your notion is correct. Conservative anti-science is nothing new. They were doing it in the 1920s when they put John Scopes on trial, and they did it four hundred years earlier when they put Galileo on trial. Science is discovery and discovery dispels orthodoxy, which is what conservatism is all about.

 

[Anomalism]

How so? Isn't science about illuminating truth and dispelling falsehood? The modern conflict between religious establishment and science started with Darwin. The discovery of evolution is what made it impossible to be well educated and believe religious myths without cognitive dissonance. But what should Darwin have done? Should he have suppressed his discovery because it would have upset people who believed in fake things? No. Knowledge should displace myth. And besides, a great deal of the attacks on religion, including by figures like Dawkins, Hitchens, or the other "four horsemen of atheism", were from a moral standpoint. Their arguments weren't just that religion (primarily western monotheisms like Christianity and Islam) are wrong, but that they are actually evil as well. But you can't really have a moral discussion and criticize religion unless you dispel the argument from authority fallacy that is invoking a god to justify yourself. You have to attack religion from a scientific standpoint. You need a real authority (that is, the factual basis of reality that contracts myths and fables) to dispel the false authority that it is a god.

Also, I doubt that your notion is correct. Conservative anti-science is nothing new. They were doing it in the 1920s when they put John Scopes on trial, and they did it four hundred years earlier when they put Galileo on trial. Science is discovery and discovery dispels orthodoxy, which is what conservatism is all about.

It's one thing to promote scientific reasoning despite the protests of religious people, but in my opinion people like Dawkins bring it a step beyond that. I think you did a very good job of illustrating that when you mentioned that he sees religion as evil. To him religion is a problem and he has dedicated a significant portion of his life to fighting that problem, but I believe outspoken atheists like him actually do more harm than good. When thinking about the problem it's important to legitimately consider the perspective of the people we're talking about. They don't just believe in religion; they know their God is real and nothing on this Earth is going to get between them and their faith, including science. It doesn't matter how much evidence or sound reasoning science uses. If it is being used to attack their religion there must be something wrong with it at its core, because their God is real and the possibility that they have lived their life believing the wrong thing does not exist. Attacking religion with science is counterproductive because if you make people of faith choose between science and their faith most of them will choose their faith.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

If you want to say you think these guys are on the take or have potential conflicts of interest, fair enough, I can respect that, it that's what you really believe.

But right now there's no inspections occurring, and this gets us in the door. Better to be inside, than outside looking in.

As to the 24 day inspection window, I'll again reiterate the current window is infinity.

Short of military action, what would your solution be? Or would it be military?

Why do liberals keep pushing military action in Iran? No military action has been taken to date to stop Iran from getting a nuke and guess what, Iran has no weaponized nuclear capabilities.

But due to the Obama deal they will. Fact...

 

[MrT]

Why do liberals keep pushing military action in Iran? No military action has been taken to date to stop Iran from getting a nuke and guess what, Iran has no weaponized nuclear capabilities.

But due to the Obama deal they will. Fact...

So let's be clear, there are really only three primary options - The Deal, Sanctions, or a Military strike.

During the time of the sanctions, the amount of centrifuges has grown dramatically and the amount and level of enriched uranium has increased dramatically for Iran. The only reason that the number of Centrifuges has stopped growing and the amount/type of enriched uranium has stopped in the past year is because Iran agreed to an interim deal and they stuck to that deal.

As such, it is fairly safe to reach the conclusion that sanctions will not keep Iran from obtaining the nuke. And indeed, if you listen to Netanyahu, Iran has been perpetually less than two months away from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

If sanctions do not work, and you do not want a diplomatic agreement, then you are opening yourself up to the inevitable conclusion that a military strike (and thus war if a retaliation occurs) will take place.