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

[Gimmesometruth]

Yeah to bad none can disprove him wrong on how much material is actually needed.

Um, it is not so much about how much, but how long it would take to create...derp.

Its why when he printed his piece with the NY Times. BO and his Team avoided the call out. For obvious reasons.

There is that twins secret language again. I don't understand it.....and I don't really care.

 

[jmotivator]

North Korea didn't start trying to process the spent fuel rods until after Bush sabotaged the deal and stopped the heavy oil shipments that were part of the framework agreement. North Korea didn't know what the hell the US was doing. In 2002 the Bush administration accused N. Korea of having nukes and they denied it. Then in 2003 when North Korea started processing their spent fuel rods and said they had nukes, the US said they were bluffing....

"....CIA estimates in the 1990s about North Korean weaponry, however questionable and flawed, seem both careful and modest compared to the exaggerations of the Bush Administration and its emissary to Pyongyang, James Kelly. Coming into office when the CIA's 'one or two devices' estimate was nearly a decade old, Bush contrived to hype the threat, while at the same time downplaying the idea that its size made a difference: the North might have two or six or eight atomic bombs, but that didn't constitute a crisis. Rather, Saddam Hussein -- whom we now know to have been disarmed by years of UN inspections -- was so much more dangerous as to justify a preventive war. The result was chaos as far as US policy was concerned, and free rein for North Korean hardliners to move ahead with producing nuclear weapons.

Bush resisted holding high-level talks with Pyongyang for more than a year after assuming office, although the Clinton Administration had left on the table a tentative agreement to buy out all of the North's medium and long-range missiles. When Bush finally dispatched Kelly to Pyongyang in October 2002, Kelly accused the North of having a second nuclear programme, to enrich uranium and build more bombs by that method....

Within days of Kelly's return, Administration officials told the New York Times that the 1994 Agreement was dead. Then they cut off the supply of heavy heating oil that Washington had been providing as interim compensation under the Agreement. Pyongyang quickly announced that the Agreement had collapsed, withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, kicked out the UN inspectors, removed the seals and closed-circuit cameras from the Yongbyon complex, regained control of 8000 fuel rods that had been encased for eight years, and restarted their reactor. (Basically, this was a lock-step recapitulation of what they had done in 1993-94 in order to get Clinton's attention.) The North hinted darkly that the hostile policies of the Bush Administration left it no choice but to develop 'a powerful physical deterrent force'. In spite of all this, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Administration continued to downplay its own evidence that the North now had not one but two bomb programmes and refused to call the situation a 'crisis'. This clearly confused the North: 'When we stated we don't have a nuclear weapon, the USA [said] we do have it,' one DPRK general told a Russian visitor, 'and now when we are [saying] we created nuclear weapons, the USA [says] we're just bluffing.' ..."​

Wrong Again:US policy on North Korea | The Asia-Pacific Journal

Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy | Arms Control Association

And again, as Albright himself pointed out, the plutonium that North Korea was producing in 1993 and 1994 was capable of being turned into a bomb, but processing would make better weapons.

Also, since it was shown clearly that North Korea was running a clandestine nuclear weapons program I would say that taking North Korea's word for anything is foolish.

 

[MMC]

Um, it is not so much about how much, but how long it would take to create...derp.There is that twins secret language again. I don't understand it.....and I don't really care.

The time is based on the material needed. That's why you couldn't figure it out. As the professor stated. It was really simple math. :lol:

Oh and you can't figure out why BO peep nor none on his team responded back to this guys NY Times Piece.....when he came out with it. Its kind of like that simple math you had trouble with, while talking about time. :mrgreen:

 

[t4pi0k4]

Yeah to bad none can disprove him wrong on how much material is actually needed. Its why when he printed his piece with the NY Times. BO and his Team avoided the call out. For obvious reasons.

Let's go along with your scenario, let's assume that Iran goes nuclear on the sly! What are we talking about here? One nuclear bomb, possibly a couple that will be only uranium based, that means that the actual reach of such bomb will be more limited than a plutonium based bomb since you need a lot of more Uranium to do some actual damages!
The thing is that the moment this bomb will be in the air, there are a lot of countries who will have every right to go full Dr Strangelove on Iran!
So what good is it to Iran to launch a nuclear bomb somewhere, a bomb that will have merely a suppository effect on its target while at the same time this country will face immediate and total annihilation, forever erased from the world genetic pool!
Besides, maybe we should welcome a nuclear threshold Iran, because the historical record suggests that every country that have mastered the way of the atom have started to behave responsibly (North Korea excepted, but its nuclear bombs are mere jokes compared to the extent of destructions that a B29 fully loadedof conventional bombs could perform)!

 

[t4pi0k4]

delete

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Um, it is not so much about how much, but how long it would take to create...derp.

The time is based on the material needed.

I know, that's why I said the critical calculation is the TIME to create the necessary amount. Can you read that? TIME.

That's why you couldn't figure it out.

I did figure it out, much better than you did.

As the professor stated. It was really simple math.

Actually, the calculation for the time needed to create the material is not so easy to calculate.

Oh and you can't figure out why BO peep nor none on his team responded back to this guys NY Times Piece.....when he came out with it. Its kind of like that simple math you had trouble with, while talking about time. :mrgreen:

I'm not sure which is more endearing, your 5th grade level posts....or your use of smileys! They're so cute! Like "to" for "too"! You're my fav! Do u have a facebook page 2?

 

[MMC]

Let's go along with your scenario, let's assume that Iran goes nuclear on the sly! What are we talking about here? One nuclear bomb, possibly a couple that will be only uranium based, that means that the actual reach of such bomb will be more limited than a plutonium based bomb since you need a lot of more Uranium to do some actual damages!
The thing is that the moment this bomb will be in the air, there are a lot of countries who will have every right (and every incentive) to go full Dr Strangelove on Iran!
So what good is it to Iran to launch a nuclear bomb somewhere, a bomb that will have merely a suppository effect on its target while at the same time this country will face immediate and total annihilation, forever erased from the world genetic pool!
Besides, maybe we should welcome a nuclear threshold Iran, because the historical record suggests that every country that have mastered the way of the atom have started to behave responsibly (North Korea excepted, but its nuclear bombs are mere jokes compared to the extent of destructions that a B29 fully loadedof conventional bombs could perform)!

When you figure out why all those would become militarized to protect their alleged peaceful nuke programs due to the several Islamic Jihadists. Then you will have part of the answer. It goes beyond just State actors. Oh and that sounds like the argument presented by Waltz.....Yeah there was an answer for that too.




Today, Waltz argues that Israel has had a nuclear monopoly that “has long fueled instability in the Middle East” and suggests that a nuclear Iran would become a stabilizing balance. The first assertion is simply wrong: would a non-nuclear Israel be viewed as significantly different by Arab states? The second assertion at best, oversimplifies the reality.

Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous in the region for those concerned with the proliferation of nuclear technology and its possible militarization in later flashpoints. Several countries in the region, from the UAE to Jordan, are developing their own nuclear energy programs. As NPT members, they have a right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, and in some cases have legitimate energy needs. Yet Iran’s ambitions and the tension it causes in the region have the potential to change the nature of regional programs from peaceful to militarized.

In fact, it is this Iranian imperialism — with a Shia missionary overlay — that makes Iran’s nuclear ambitions particularly troubling. Iran’s actions suggest that it is still a revolutionary state, not a status quo power seeking acceptance in the global order. One metric for that sort of behavior is the fate of the “5+1” nuclear talks. A failure of Iran to reach a nuclear bargain–despite unprecedented global sanctions crippling its economy, and looming threats of military action –would say a lot about the character of the regime......snip~

A Response to Waltz: Why Iran Shouldn?t Get the Bomb | The Diplomat

Robert A. Manning is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He has served as Senior Strategist, DNI National Counterproliferation Center until June 2012 , on the National Intelligence Council, and on the State Department Policy Planning staff (2005-08).

 

[Absentglare]

The time is based on the material needed. That's why you couldn't figure it out. As the professor stated. It was really simple math. :lol:

Oh and you can't figure out why BO peep nor none on his team responded back to this guys NY Times Piece.....when he came out with it. Its kind of like that simple math you had trouble with, while talking about time. :mrgreen:

You can struggle to poke holes in someone else's argument, but let's see, what do you propose we do to Iran? More sanctions?

1) war with Iran. Iran becomes the next Iraq.
2) sanctions on Iran. UN sanctions become lifted when they accept the deal. US-only sanctions put us in a weaker bargaining position. Just basically provoke Iran for political posturing.
3) do nothing. Let them get the bomb.
4) accept the deal and stop expecting the absolute worst about everyone else like a paranoid lunatic.

 

[MMC]

You can struggle to poke holes in someone else's argument, but let's see, what do you propose we do to Iran? More sanctions?

1) war with Iran. Iran becomes the next Iraq.
2) sanctions on Iran. UN sanctions become lifted when they accept the deal. US-only sanctions put us in a weaker bargaining position. Just basically provoke Iran for political posturing.
3) do nothing. Let them get the bomb.
4) accept the deal and stop expecting the absolute worst about everyone else like a paranoid lunatic.

Struggle? Basic math on the material needed isn't struggling. :roll: Although with the left I am beginning to wonder. Not unless you trying to go for some new revisionist history on the basic concepts of math.

War with Iran is a false misnomer. Iran isn't going to declare war. Nor are we. Now someone else might end up declaring war and then all this sticking up for BO peep wont matter and he will be made to look like a bigger fool than he already was born to be.

 

[MMC]

Um, it is not so much about how much, but how long it would take to create...derp.
I know, that's why I said the critical calculation is the TIME to create the necessary amount. Can you read that? TIME.

I did figure it out, much better than you did.Actually, the calculation for the time needed to create the material is not so easy to calculate.

I'm not sure which is more endearing, your 5th grade level posts....or your use of smileys! They're so cute! Like "to" for "too"! You're my fav! Do u have a facebook page 2?

Mr. Obama assumes that a dash for the bomb would start mainly from unenriched uranium, thereby lengthening the breakout time. But the deal would appear to also permit Iran to keep large amounts of enriched uranium in solid form (as opposed to gas), which could be reconverted to gas within weeks....snip~


Yet you couldn't figure out the difference between 29 lbs and 59lbs. That's material in hard form. Which affect BO peeps original stated timelime. (and Yours) Proving he isn't good at math. While at the same time showing why your smart powers went on the blink.

But thanks for showing all why you can't handle small sentences and need more than what is there to try and make a useless point.

 

[CMPancake]

As opposed to the OP's appeal to authority replacing a real argument?

Op didn't appeal to authority, but rather simply stated these Nuclear scientist approve of the Iran deal.

 

[Absentglare]

Struggle? Basic math on the material needed isn't struggling. :roll: Although with the left I am beginning to wonder. Not unless you trying to go for some new revisionist history on the basic concepts of math.

War with Iran is a false misnomer. Iran isn't going to declare war. Nor are we. Now someone else might end up declaring war and then all this sticking up for BO peep wont matter and he will be made to look like a bigger fool than he already was born to be.

Basic math? Excuse you. My grandfather worked on the SALT talks and i'm quite confident that i'm well qualified to tell you that this is so very much more than "basic math."

So we're over the ad hominem, thanks for that. Insult lefties, oh that's new and constructive, thanks for that too, your credibility is doing great by the way.

Then you close with semantics and deflection. The US doesn't officially declare war when war is, for all intents and purposes, declared.

State your alternative proposal so that we can show you how it is obviously and completely worse than accepting the Iran deal. If you have no alternative to propose, then i will consider the argument settled in my favor.

 

[t4pi0k4]

When you figure out why all those would become militarized to protect their alleged peaceful nuke programs due to the several Islamic Jihadists. Then you will have part of the answer. It goes beyond just State actors. Oh and that sounds like the argument presented by Waltz.....Yeah there was an answer for that too.




Today, Waltz argues that Israel has had a nuclear monopoly that “has long fueled instability in the Middle East” and suggests that a nuclear Iran would become a stabilizing balance. The first assertion is simply wrong: would a non-nuclear Israel be viewed as significantly different by Arab states? The second assertion at best, oversimplifies the reality.

Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous in the region for those concerned with the proliferation of nuclear technology and its possible militarization in later flashpoints. Several countries in the region, from the UAE to Jordan, are developing their own nuclear energy programs. As NPT members, they have a right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, and in some cases have legitimate energy needs. Yet Iran’s ambitions and the tension it causes in the region have the potential to change the nature of regional programs from peaceful to militarized.

In fact, it is this Iranian imperialism — with a Shia missionary overlay — that makes Iran’s nuclear ambitions particularly troubling. Iran’s actions suggest that it is still a revolutionary state, not a status quo power seeking acceptance in the global order. One metric for that sort of behavior is the fate of the “5+1” nuclear talks. A failure of Iran to reach a nuclear bargain–despite unprecedented global sanctions crippling its economy, and looming threats of military action –would say a lot about the character of the regime......snip~

A Response to Waltz: Why Iran Shouldn?t Get the Bomb | The Diplomat

Robert A. Manning is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He has served as Senior Strategist, DNI National Counterproliferation Center until June 2012 , on the National Intelligence Council, and on the State Department Policy Planning staff (2005-08).

If you want to talk serious about the situation in the Middle East, let's talk serious and not beat around the bush: The single and only factor of destabilization of the region is the Israeli right wing in power who refuses to strike a peace with its Palestinian neighbor, who refuses to fix once and for all the borders of Israel (They built a wall but why not build it along the internationally recognized 1967 green line), who basically wipes its butt clean with UN Resolution and the West repeatingly turning a blind eye on this while at the same time demanding that all other countries in the region respect the international law to the tee! The middle-east pan is boiling with outraged Arabs because their rulers are powerless to help their Palestinian brothers! And presently these very same rulers have ignited a feud between shia and sunnis to keep their population in check. The problem is that we will be able to maintain the cover over the pan for so long, because while we are piling on debt, they breed! And at one point, we won't be able to do anything to protect Israel if in the meantime it failed to come to peace with its neighbors!
This is why walking out of this deal today, essentially amounts to perpetuating an antagonistic posture against the people of the region, which in the long-term is a recipe for disaster!

 

[Absentglare]

If you want to talk serious about the situation in the Middle East, let's talk serious and not beat around the bush: The single and only factor of destabilization of the region is the Israeli right wing in power that refuses to strike a peace with it Palestinian neighbor, that refuses to fix once and for all the borders of Israel (They built a wall but why not build it along the internationally recognized 1967 green line), and the West repeatingly turning a blind on this while at the same time demanding that all other countries in the region respect the international law to the tee! The pan is boiling with outraged Arabs because their rulers are powerless to help their Palestinian brothers! And presently these very same rulers have ignited a feud between shia and sunnis to keep their population in check. The problem is that we will be able to maintain the cover over the pan for so long, because while we are piling on debt, they breed! And at one point, we won't be able to do anything to protect Israel if in the meantime it failed to come to peace with its neighbors!
This is why walking out of this deal today, essentially amounts to perpetuating an antagonistic posture against the people of the region, which in the long-term is a recipe for disaster!

Thank you for articulating this context!

 

[WSUwarrior]

Op didn't appeal to authority, but rather simply stated these Nuclear scientist approve of the Iran deal.

Which is the dictionary definition of appeal to authority...

 

[Moot]

And again, as Albright himself pointed out, the plutonium that North Korea was producing in 1993 and 1994 was capable of being turned into a bomb, but processing would make better weapons.

Also, since it was shown clearly that North Korea was running a clandestine nuclear weapons program I would say that taking North Korea's word for anything is foolish.

Clearly shown...where?

 

[MMC]

If you want to talk serious about the situation in the Middle East, let's talk serious and not beat around the bush: The single and only factor of destabilization of the region is the Israeli right wing in power who refuses to strike a peace with its Palestinian neighbor, who refuses to fix once and for all the borders of Israel (They built a wall but why not build it along the internationally recognized 1967 green line), who basically wipes its butt clean with UN Resolution and the West repeatingly turning a blind eye on this while at the same time demanding that all other countries in the region respect the international law to the tee! The middle-east pan is boiling with outraged Arabs because their rulers are powerless to help their Palestinian brothers! And presently these very same rulers have ignited a feud between shia and sunnis to keep their population in check. The problem is that we will be able to maintain the cover over the pan for so long, because while we are piling on debt, they breed! And at one point, we won't be able to do anything to protect Israel if in the meantime it failed to come to peace with its neighbors!
This is why walking out of this deal today, essentially amounts to perpetuating an antagonistic posture against the people of the region, which in the long-term is a recipe for disaster!

So when were you going to start talking serious. Trying to blame Israel doesn't work.


Waltz argues that Israel has had a nuclear monopoly that “has long fueled instability in the Middle East” and suggests that a nuclear Iran would become a stabilizing balance. The first assertion is simply wrong: would a non-nuclear Israel be viewed as significantly different by Arab states? The second assertion at best, oversimplifies the reality......snip~ same link.


If you think Israel is Iran's Priority #1. You are sadly mistaken. Its the Sunni!!!!!

 

[polgara]

:roll: Here let this Professor of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin help you with all that touchy emotional feely stuff.



The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw.....

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S main pitch for the pending nuclear deal with Iran is that it would extend the “breakout time” necessary for Iran to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. In a recent interview with NPR, he said that the current breakout time is “about two to three months by our intelligence estimates.” By contrast, he claimed, the pending deal would shrink Iran’s nuclear program, so that if Iran later “decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond.”

Unfortunately, that claim is false, as can be demonstrated with basic science and math. By my calculations, Iran’s actual breakout time under the deal would be approximately three months — not over a year. Thus, the deal would be unlikely to improve the world’s ability to react to a sudden effort by Iran to build a bomb.

Breakout time is determined by three primary factors: the number and type of centrifuges; the enrichment of the starting material; and the amount of enriched uranium required for a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama seems to make rosy assumptions about all three.....snip~

Log In - The New York Times

What I don't understand is why those who are going along with this and aren't at least somewhat concerned about the future - Iran hasn't ceased shouting "death to America" and they apparently aren't saying this just to hear themselves talk - somehow seem to feel they will be exempt from any attacks, should they occur here - BHO included. Nuclear Bombs do what bombs do...they kill things and turn them into puddles. Do he and Kerry really trust Iran to abide by any agreement that is made, even the parts they claim they haven't seen? Really? Most of their neighbors in the ME don't!

Most of us in the US don't either, simply because the terrorists have made it quite clear that they believe that Allah approves of killing non-believers in Islam. Will those who are agnostic or atheist get the opportunity to let the bombs know that? Just because NYC and DC were the targets on 9-ll doesn't mean squat in today's world, IMO!

:rantoff:

 

[MMC]

What I don't understand is why those who are going along with this and aren't at least somewhat concerned about the future - Iran hasn't ceased shouting "death to America" and they apparently aren't saying this just to hear themselves talk - somehow seem to feel they will be exempt from any attacks, should they occur here - BHO included. Nuclear Bombs do what bombs do...they kill things and turn them into puddles. Do he and Kerry really trust Iran to abide by any agreement that is made, even the parts they claim they haven't seen? Really? Most of their neighbors in the ME don't!

Most of us in the US don't either, simply because the terrorists have made it quite clear that they believe that Allah approves of killing non-believers in Islam. Will those who are agnostic or atheist get the opportunity to let the bombs know that? Just because NYC and DC were the targets on 9-ll doesn't mean squat in today's world, IMO!

:rantoff:

You know how it is Lady P......BO peep sycophants that put BO over Country only look at those who favor the BO peep plan.

Then they forgot that the American people. The Majority are opposed to the deal. Plus the more they find out, the more that opposes it. What do you think that says about those that defend BO over Country? No matter reality at hand.

Look at BO himself telling that lie that Israel was the only Country opposed. Then the Canadians opposed it making BO not only look like the liar he is. But the fool too.

 

[CMPancake]

Which is the dictionary definition of appeal to authority...

What is the dictionary definition for ad hominem? Op merely presented an article that stated these scientists approve of the Iran deal. Instead of arguing against their position, you rather attack their credibility. I expected nothing less from you.

 

[polgara]

You know how it is Lady P......BO peep sycophants that put BO over Country only look at those who favor the BO peep plan.

Then they forgot that the American people. The Majority are opposed to the deal. Plus the more they find out, the more that opposes it. What do you think that says about those that defend BO over Country? No matter reality at hand.

Look at BO himself telling that lie that Israel was the only Country opposed. Then the Canadians opposed it making BO not only look like the liar he is. But the fool too.

The UN was against it from the beginning - what are they saying now? I haven't heard.

 

[Absentglare]

You know how it is Lady P......BO peep sycophants that put BO over Country only look at those who favor the BO peep plan.

Then they forgot that the American people. The Majority are opposed to the deal. Plus the more they find out, the more that opposes it. What do you think that says about those that defend BO over Country? No matter reality at hand.

Look at BO himself telling that lie that Israel was the only Country opposed. Then the Canadians opposed it making BO not only look like the liar he is. But the fool too.

The UN was against it from the beginning - what are they saying now? I haven't heard.

Ugh ...

Why do you keep saying BO peep? It's really strange.

Cite your sources. Then you can say "see, see President Obama said something that was wrong!" And you'll still be wrong about this Iran deal because, let's face it, you'd be opposed to whatever President Obama said. Little more than an anti-BO peep.

 

[t4pi0k4]

So when were you going to start talking serious. Trying to blame Israel doesn't work.


Waltz argues that Israel has had a nuclear monopoly that “has long fueled instability in the Middle East” and suggests that a nuclear Iran would become a stabilizing balance. The first assertion is simply wrong: would a non-nuclear Israel be viewed as significantly different by Arab states? The second assertion at best, oversimplifies the reality......snip~ same link.


If you think Israel is Iran's Priority #1. You are sadly mistaken. Its the Sunni!!!!!

I acknowledge that terrorism is essentially a sunni thing! Yet i disagree strongly with your narrative. Since this is not the place to discuss it, let's agree that there are three chief problems in the region among others, Sunni terrorists, Iran about to become nuclear, and the israelo-palestinian conflict! Let's solve these problems one after the other: Since the idea is essentially compelling other countries to do our bidding, let's start with the israelo-palestinian conflict, Indeed, Israel is supposedly our ally, so it is the easiest to solve and incidentally the oldest one!
Because if behind the nuclear deal the bigger picture, the final objective is to live in peace with the Arabs and the Persians, what is demanded to us in priority is to put an end to this damned conflict!
And i will tell you what is going on: Sunni terrorism is about making the djihad against the crusaders and Arab corrupt rulers, and roughly speaking the crusaders slaughtering Palestinian arabs! Now the only way to defeat terrorism is to void the idea which is behind it! So if overnight the israelis come to peace with the Palestinians there will be no reason for these people to commit suicide attacks! Similarly if we can show that we can make peace with the Palestinians, then Iran will have to change its antagonistic tack towards us (this very tack which is derived from a checkered past of deception against Iran by the West)
You see even if the israeli-palestinian conflict were not a priority at the very least if we put an end to it every country in the region will inevitably welcome a reset with the west!
I did not go into details, but that's the idea, at least my take on the situation!
There is a context to take into consideration when discussing if Iran will or will not abide by its end of the bargain! If you fail to do that, if you chose to turn a blind eye on that, you find yourself talking uselessly in circles about the subject

 

[polgara]

You know how it is Lady P......BO peep sycophants that put BO over Country only look at those who favor the BO peep plan.

Then they forgot that the American people. The Majority are opposed to the deal. Plus the more they find out, the more that opposes it. What do you think that says about those that defend BO over Country? No matter reality at hand.

Look at BO himself telling that lie that Israel was the only Country opposed. Then the Canadians opposed it making BO not only look like the liar he is. But the fool too.

I congratulate Schumer for showing some backbone, no matter his reasons! That could not have been an easy decision for him to make! :applaud

 

[MMC]

The UN was against it from the beginning - what are they saying now? I haven't heard.

The Europeans are not against it as they are desperate to do anything they can to save their economies from tanking. Kerry went to Asia to drum up support there.

Germany and the French were the first to run down to Iran to kiss some ass in getting that trade going.