In letter to Obama, US scientists praise Iran nuclear deal: report

[dunksby]

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=3&articleid=46137722


More than two dozen top US scientists, among them nuclear researchers and Nobel prize winners, praised the Iran nuclear deal as major security achievement in a letter to President Barack Obama, The New York Times reported.

The two-page letter, from some of the world's most knowledgeable nuclear experts, could prove to be a shot in the arm for Obama, who has launched a major effort to sell the deals to skeptical members of the US Congress.

The letter tells the US president that the Iran deal "will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements."

The Iran accord, the scientists said, has "more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework."

There were 29 signatories of the letter in all, some of whom are physicists who have held top level military security clearances. Others have advised Congress, the White House or federal agencies, on military security.

Among those who signed the letter are Leon Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- all Nobel laureates.
I guess this settles it for any thinking man with an open mind.

[UK2K]

OK? There are many scientists who say it is a dumb deal.

Its even borderline whether there are enough Democrats in Congress backing the deal to allow Obama to veto.

The more important aspect is, Obama made a deal with the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to his own government, and is willing to veto a majority vote of congress to shove it down our throats.

If a Republican president did this, you would be screaming dictatorship. But, Obama, you give him a pass.

[Godzuki]

well most scientists lean extremely left in their politics, and its not like most of the 'experts' were wrong about nuclear capability timetables for many of the countries with nukes today, or development of their programs. its like listening to economists who are regularly wrong.

besides the Iran deal has a lot of aspects to it outside of the realm of just nuclear like surge of income to put towards other anti US/Israel pursuits, of which their Ayatolah has blatantly stated they're not going to give up.

chuck schumer and other Dem's not supporting it speaks volumes.

[UK2K]

well most scientists lean extremely left in their politics, and its not like most of the 'experts' were wrong about nuclear capability timetables for many of the countries with nukes today, or development of their programs. its like listening to economists who are regularly wrong.

besides the Iran deal has a lot of aspects to it outside of the realm of just nuclear like surge of income to put towards other anti US/Israel pursuits, of which their Ayatolah has blatantly stated they're not going to give up.

chuck schumer and other Dem's not supporting it speaks volumes.

Remember in 2008 when scientists went on ABC and told us NYC would be underwater by 2015. :applause:

[GIF REACTION]

Russia and China are coming.

[Droid101]

OK? There are many scientists who say it is a dumb deal.

Cool. So where's your citation?

[Droid101]

Remember in 2008 when scientists went on ABC and told us NYC would be underwater by 2015. :applause:
[citation needed]

[dunksby]

There were 29 signatories of the letter in all, some of whom are physicists who have held top level military security clearances. Others have advised Congress, the White House or federal agencies, on military security.

Among those who signed the letter are Leon Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- all Nobel laureates.
Well, as I said, the thinking man; not self-absorbed morons.

[GIF REACTION]

Youre from WA hey? Same with me. Australia is going to have a big decision to make in 40 years. Stick it out with the US, or jump ship to the Chinese. All depends who offers us the best deal and where out national interests best lie. What the Chinese have done for our Western Australian economy is out of this world. Australia would be nothing without us
Yeah for sure. West coast do it best coast. If only we got money from those big mining companies that literally steal from us. Rhineheart is making a fortune off of our minerals.

[UK2K]

Cool. So where's your citation?

You really need a citation for scientists, military advisers, and politicians saying this is a bad idea? Really?

Even the Democrats in Congress aren't backing it. Do you think that's weird?


[citation needed]

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015

You'll like that, its funny.

On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015."

As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles." Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world.

He wondered, "I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?" Ultimately, ABC delayed the air-date for Earth 2100 and the one-hour show didn't debut until June 2, 2009. The program showcased the terrible impact of global warming from 2015 through 2100.

In the special, a "storm of the century" wiped out Miami. Other highlights included a destroyed New York City and an abandoned Las Vegas. By 2084, Earth's population will apparently be just 2.7 billion.

[UK2K]

And as a side note...

The scientists' position on the deal doesn't take into account any political aspects of the deal, they just approve of the science.


If this highly respected group of scientists is not aware, for example, that the 24-day cap on Iran’s ability to delay an investigation into a facility suspected of supporting clandestine activities could actually be much longer than that, why would we attribute any more authority to this letter than to other sources making similar arguments to support the deal? If the group had scrutinized paragraphs 75-76 in the Access section – that are not about science, but rather politics – they would have seen that Iran’s ability to play for time regarding inspections of suspicious military facilities begins when the IAEA first submits its concerns, and waits for Iran’s clarification. The 24-day count begins only after that, if and when the IAEA makes a request for access; but the preliminary phase has no time limit.

So Iran gets 24 days to get their facilities ready for inspection AFTER they respond to a request to inspect said facilities.

So they have about 60 days to clear out anything they aren't supposed to have before we are allowed to show up. :lol

You think they're going to leave behind illegal shit on accident? Cause thats the only way we'd catch them doing anything they aren't supposed to. IMO, I don't think our administration WANTS to catch them doing anything wrong.

Do we not see how stupid that is?

[UK2K]

Do you not see how stupid it is to think that little Iran is a threat to the largest most violent superpower in the history of civilization?
The #1 state sponsor of terrorism, per our government...

Yeah, no biggie.

[dunksby]

And as a side note...

The scientists' position on the deal doesn't take into account any political aspects of the deal, they just approve of the science.



So Iran gets 24 days to get their facilities ready for inspection AFTER they respond to a request to inspect said facilities.

So they have about 60 days to clear out anything they aren't supposed to have before we are allowed to show up. :lol

You think they're going to leave behind illegal shit on accident? Cause thats the only way we'd catch them doing anything they aren't supposed to. IMO, I don't think our administration WANTS to catch them doing anything wrong.

Do we not see how stupid that is?
It's uranium enrichment for atomic bomb purposes, not AK-47 manufacturing facilities, that's why politics is just games while science prevails in such issues. But after all we get to the same conclusion that according to you, all world six powers and the IAEA and now 30 other recognized scientists, Nobel laureates among them I might add are idiots and can't see obvious flaws.

[UK2K]

It's uranium enrichment for atomic bomb purposes, not AK-47 manufacturing facilities, that's why politics is just games while science prevails in such issues. But after all we get to the same conclusion that according to you, all world six powers and the IAEA and now 30 other recognized scientists, Nobel laureates among them I might add are idiots and can't see obvious flaws.
Again, their scientific opinion has nothing to do with the politics of the deal, so not sure why you keep touting them.

To make it clear, everyone wants a deal with Iran. Few want the deal Obama agreed to.

Nobody said don't attempt to strike a deal with Iran. That's just the straw-man argument in your head.

Democrats in Congress oppose the deal. Obviously, Israel opposes it. The public oppose it. Saudi Arabia oppose it, which is why they are now wanting to develop their own nuclear weapon.


Instead of voicing their displeasure publicly and directly to the US over its rapprochement with Iran, they have instead chosen to get their message across unofficially through articles in Arab owned-media and by leaking their strong discontent to the Western press.

Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya TV and former editor-in-chief of the popular Arab daily Asharq Alawsat, wrote a recent article in the Saudi-backed publication stating that the Iran deal “was viewed by some as a rather low move by Washington against its longtime allies in the Gulf, who were loyal for over five decades.”

And slowly but surely, we are losing our allies in the Arab States.

But 29 scientists say its awesome.

Dont worry though, even with a sixty day heads up, we can still catch them doing things they arent supposed to. Two months isnt enough time to prepare for an inspection.

[Godzuki]

And yall are the number #1 state sponsor to enemies that Iran considers terrorists (Israel/ISIS, Saudi Wahhabis). Not to forget your arming of Saddams Iraq against Iran and your support for him gasing pro-Iranian Kurds.

The Iranians are no threat to America or the average American whatsover. Theyre only a threat to the financial interests of less than 0.01% of your population who are starting wars in their region for monetary gain. If yall left the Middle East tomorrow, guess what America would stil be the richest most powerful country in the world. The only difference is your trillion airs wouldnt be able to build that solid gold mansion they promised their spoiled teenagers.


you're such a blowhard arab terrorist brainwashed idiot :facepalm

sure the Ayatollah backed marches chanting "death to America and Israel" are no threat. wtf reality are u liviing in? :biggums:

you'd have us believe the few hundred protesters getting their ass kicked and life sentences for dancing and protesting the regime run the country, and not the tens of thousands being indoctrinated by muslim extremism hate towards the west.

stop spouting your BS, no way any of u idiots can deny the very RECENT clips of Death to America and Israel :facepalm

ISH has too many retards that dont seem to follow current events and all their thoughts and arguments are based on 50 years ago history.

[Godzuki]

Agreed.


good argument jihadist :applause:

[UK2K]

And yall are the number #1 state sponsor to enemies that Iran considers terrorists (Israel/ISIS, Saudi Wahhabis). Not to forget your arming of Saddams Iraq against Iran and your support for him gasing pro-Iranian Kurds.

The Iranians are no threat to America or the average American whatsover. Theyre only a threat to the financial interests of less than 0.01% of your population who are starting wars in their region for monetary gain. If yall left the Middle East tomorrow, guess what America would stil be the richest most powerful country in the world. The only difference is your trillion airs wouldnt be able to build that solid gold mansion they promised their spoiled teenagers.

Ok? and they're stupid for dealing with us. We shouldn't deal with each other. Why can't we let the Arab states handle their own business? They dont want a nuclear Iran, but we do... So.....

Whats your point?

[Lakers Legend#32]

But, but, Joe Sixpack would disagree.

[KevinNYC]

The more important aspect is, Obama made a deal with the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to his own government,
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBWU8Z4W8AAxGV2.png

Conservatives always freak out when you negotiate. It's not a new thing.

[UK2K]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBWU8Z4W8AAxGV2.png

Conservatives always freak out when you negotiate. It's not a new thing.

Again, Kevin, if you read above, nobody is angry that a deal was struck.

The world (minus Iran and some Democrats) are angry that THIS deal was struck.

Do you think 60 days is enough time to move sensitive material from inspection sites? Simple yes or no will do.

[KevinNYC]

Again, Kevin, if you read above, nobody is angry that a deal was struck.

The world (minus Iran and some Democrats) are angry that THIS deal was struck.

Do you think 60 days is enough time to move sensitive material from inspection sites? Simple yes or no will do.

The World? Are you high? The World is angry with this deal?

The world agreed to this deal. On what other issue do you get Russia, China and the US to agree? The European Union is a party to this deal as is the individual countries of Germany, the UK, France

The UN Security Council was unanimous. 15-0 in favor. How often does that happen.

The countries that are party to deal represent over 2 billion people.

Others who approve of the deal: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Reactions)

UN Secretary General
the International Atomic Energy Association
NATO
The Arab League
The Gulf Cooperation Council
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Kuwait
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Egypt
Pakistan
Turkey
Australia
Canada approves the deal but keep their separate sanctions in place.
Colombia
Norway
Philippines

So who is against the deal? Who is this World you're speaking of
North Korea: The Foreign Ministry said that North Korea had no interest in a nuclear disarmament agreement, saying: "We do not have any interest at all on dialogue for unilaterally freezing or giving up our nukes."

and

Israel

What other countries do you have against it?

[KevinNYC]

Do you think 60 days is enough time to move sensitive material from inspection sites? Simple yes or no will do.

Yes.

However, the correct question is.

Do I think 24 days (this timeframe is the one used in the deal) is enough time to move sensitive material from inspections sites WITHOUT BEING DETECTED.

and the answer is based on the experts, No, I don't.


Syria's nuclear reaction was bombed, the site was scoured and then bulldozed over and they still were able to confirm nuclear activity there.

The main sites like Natanz will be under video watch 24 hours a day as part of the deal. The 24 day period is if inspectors want to look at a new site. Once they declare their interest, those sites will be under surveillance. There's no way to dismantle a centrifuge cascade that will not be noticed. Nuclear activity leaves behind atomic markers than remain long after 24 days. ALSO and this is very important. Inspectors can begin taking soil samples with 24 hours of notice.

If Iran pushes back on inspections and goes the full 24 days, the sanctions snap back in place.

[imdaman99]

Democrats in Congress oppose the deal. Obviously, Israel opposes it.
Schumer was under pressure by the Jewish community here in NYC to oppose the deal. So no, we don't really know if all these Democrats opposed the deal. Do they publicly have to oppose it to appease those that control the media? Yeah, I suppose so.

[UK2K]

Yes.

However, the correct question is.

Do I think 24 days (this timeframe is the one used in the deal) is enough time to move sensitive material from inspections sites WITHOUT BEING DETECTED.

and the answer is based on the experts, No, I don't.


Syria's nuclear reaction was bombed, the site was scoured and then bulldozed over and they still were able to confirm nuclear activity there.

The main sites like Natanz will be under video watch 24 hours a day as part of the deal. The 24 day period is if inspectors want to look at a new site. Once they declare their interest, those sites will be under surveillance. There's no way to dismantle a centrifuge cascade that will not be noticed. Nuclear activity leaves behind atomic markers than remain long after 24 days. ALSO and this is very important. Inspectors can begin taking soil samples with 24 hours of notice.

If Iran pushes back on inspections and goes the full 24 days, the sanctions snap back in place.
The time frame is 24 days from when Iran responds to an inquiry of inspection, which I'm saying 30 days but it could be less. Could be more, a lot more, however long it takes to move what needs to be moved.

Read it closer.


Paragraphs 74 to 78 govern the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to suspect sites. First, the IAEA tells Iran “the basis” of its concerns about a particular location, requesting clarification. At this point Iran will know where the IAEA is headed. Iran then provides the IAEA with “explanations” to resolve IAEA concerns. This stage has no time limit.

Opportunities for delay abound. Iran will presumably want to know what prompted the IAEA’s concern. The suspect site identified by the IAEA is likely to be remote, and Iran will no doubt say that it must gather skilled people and equipment to responsibly allay IAEA concerns. Iran may offer explanations in stages, seeking IAEA clarifications before “completing” its response. That could take a while.

Only if Iran’s “explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns” may the IAEA then “request access” to the suspect site. Oddly, the agreement doesn’t specify who judges whether the explanations resolve concerns. If Iran claims that it has a say in the matter, the process may stall here. Assuming Iran grants that the IAEA can be the judge, might Iran claim that the “great Satan” improperly influenced IAEA conclusions? Let’s assume that Tehran won’t do that.

Now the IAEA must provide written reasons for the request and “make available relevant information.” Let’s assume that even though the IAEA may resist revealing the secret sources or technical means that prompted its suspicions, Iran acknowledges that a proper request has been supplied.

Only then do the supposed 24 days begin to run. First, Iran may propose, and the IAEA must consider, alternative means of resolving concerns. This may take 14 days. Absent satisfactory “arrangements,” a new period begins.

During this period Iran, “in consultation with” the Joint Commission, will “resolve” the IAEA concerns “through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” The Joint Commission includes China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K, the U.S., the European Union and, of course, Iran. Not exactly a wieldy bunch.

The Iranians will likely claim that “consultation” with the Joint Commission doesn’t bind Tehran, just as the U.S. president isn’t bound by consultations with Congress. The agreement says the consultation process will not exceed seven days, but Iran can point out that the nuclear deal doesn’t specify when Iran and the IAEA must reach agreement and “resolve” IAEA concerns.

In the absence of Iran-IAEA agreement, a majority of the Joint Commission has seven days to “advise” on the “necessary means” to resolve the matter. Iran may fairly argue that the commission’s right to “advise” is not the same as a right to “determine” the “necessary means.” Lastly, the agreement provides that “Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.” But what “necessary means” are these? As noted, the agreement refers to “necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” So these additional three days don’t even begin until an agreement is reached.

Now what? Well, the U.S. may take a “Dispute” to the Joint Commission, on which Iran sits, which has 15 days to resolve the issue. Parties may or may not invoke a similar 15 days for foreign ministers to act. Parties may also request a nonbinding opinion within 15 days from an advisory board consisting of three members, one appointed by Iran, one by the complaining country and “a third independent member.”

But Iran may argue that nothing in the nuclear deal specifies how quickly a country must appoint its advisory-board member or even how the “independent member” is selected. In short, this stage may take at least 30 days and possibly 45 of consideration at the different levels, but Iran may argue that the last 15 days don’t start until an advisory board has been duly formed. Then we get another five days of Joint Commission deliberation, before a disappointed U.S. or other commission member seeking IAEA inspections can hobble off to the United Nations seeking resolutions reimposing sanctions.

In short, as Iran is free to interpret the agreement, 63 or even 78 days may pass, plus three potentially lengthy periods that Iran can stretch out: One of “explanations” before the clock starts, one to agree on necessary means and “resolve concerns,” and one for advisory-board selection near the end.

So from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass. All along, the Joint Commission is required to act in “good faith,” and to make only “minimum necessary” requests limited to verification, not “interference.” Tehran could also cite these terms to challenge particular requests.

The description of this process is based on the English-language text of the nuclear agreement. The text lacks a provision that it is the entire agreement, so Iran may claim support in supposed side agreements or statements during negotiations.


There's a million loopholes..

[TheMan]

The #1 state sponsor of terrorism, per our government...

Yeah, no biggie.
Lol, good thing you didn't live through the Cold War from the 50's to the 80's vs the Soviet Bloc, you'd have a mental breakdown every two weeks. Y'all youngsters are even scared of your own shadows and mentally weak af :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

The time frame is 24 days from when Iran responds to an inquiry of inspection, which I'm saying 30 days but it could be less. Could be more, a lot more, however long it takes to move what needs to be moved.

Read it closer.
Some block of text that is not the deal, but a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by ****ing Scooter Libby.:biggums:

Instead of the deal, you ask me to read an Op-Ed by a guy who was knee deep in bullshit regarding nuclear programs in the past, but was convicted of several felonies when he tried to retaliate against the folks calling out his boss's lies regarding these nuclear programs?
Seriously, Scooter ****ing Libby :biggums:

When you look at the real text 24 days is the total time (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/) mentioned in the agreement
78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of
the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA's concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.

It's
Work out inspection details with IAEA ....no more than 14 days
+
..if that fails they negotiate with the Joint Commission....no more than 7 days
+
implement Commission's requirements ....no more than 3 days.

That's 24 days. If they go beyond that they have violated the agreement and sanctions come back.

An arms control expert (https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/)explains what that means.

Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.

But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”

This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.

What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences.

[Patrick Chewing]

Cool. So where's your citation?


You never provide any for any of the crap you post on here.

[NumberSix]

The World? Are you high? The World is angry with this deal?

The world agreed to this deal. On what other issue do you get Russia, China and the US to agree? The European Union is a party to this deal as is the individual countries of Germany, the UK, France

Why should the United States give a flying fcuk what other countries think about the deal?

They aren't screaming "death to China" or "death to Europe" in the streets of Iran. They're screaming "death to America" and "death to Israel". It's only logical that the 2 countries who this poses a threat to should be the most skeptical.

[navy]

The science behind the deal is fine, from what i've seen.

We need to stop with the politics though. Just say that you want sanctions and military action to stop iran. We dont need to beat around the bush in every debate.

[KevinNYC]

Why should the United States give a flying fcuk what other countries think about the deal?

A. Because he was making an argument about what the world thought. And when you claim "the world" is angry with this deal as he did, that is easily disproven.

Beyond that

B. Domestic opponents of this deal keep claiming that "Obama" negotiated a bad deal and pretending that Obama alone is a party to this.

C. These other countries have serious self-interested reasons to be invested in nuclear non-proliferation.

D. These other countries have serious self-interested reasons to solve thorny international through use of diplomacy and the use of non-military power before going to war.

[K Xerxes]

If more conservative rights would embrace science and technology, then maybe there would be a lot more rightwing/conservative scientists?

Or they turn liberal after developing some critical thinking...

[bladefd]

So Iran gets 24 days to get their facilities ready for inspection AFTER they respond to a request to inspect said facilities.

So they have about 60 days to clear out anything they aren't supposed to have before we are allowed to show up. :lol

You think they're going to leave behind illegal shit on accident? Cause thats the only way we'd catch them doing anything they aren't supposed to. IMO, I don't think our administration WANTS to catch them doing anything wrong.

Do we not see how stupid that is?

You clearly have no idea how long it takes to clear out highly enriched radioactive substances like uranium-235.

It's not like clearing out a bunch of grenades, bombs and weapons. Trace amounts of highly enriched uranium for bomb purposes would take YEARS to clear out.. not 30 days (or 24 or 60) :lol :lol

And yes, they can tell approximately what % the trace amounts were enriched at-- probably not exactly but close enough.. you're looking for 80% or higher (you usually need 90% enrichment for bomb). Anything up to 15% enrichment should be fine for reactor purposes, in my opinion- dunno what the agreement says.

[NumberSix]

You clearly have no idea how long it takes to clear out highly enriched radioactive substances like uranium-235.
So..... Then why is a 24 day waiting period necessary? Why not 3 days?

[dunksby]

So..... Then why is a 24 day waiting period necessary? Why not 3 days?
State secrets? This deal is to make sure Iran doesn't get its hands on nukes, it achieves that purpose.

[NumberSix]

State secrets? This deal is to make sure Iran doesn't get its hands on nukes, it achieves that purpose.
How the hell would you know that? There are secret parts of the deal that John Kerry has even read. But somehow, you know all the ins and outs?

[KevinNYC]

So..... Then why is a 24 day waiting period necessary? Why not 3 days?
Because this is an invasive procedure that has never been part of any arms deal previously. Previous deals allowed the inspected country to delay for years. This deal is the most intrusive ever
Iran nuke deal depends on most intrusive inspection system ever (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article27255193.html#storylink=cpy)

Thomas E. Shea, who spent 24 years at the IAEA devising safeguards for nuclear facilities, said that the inspection regime would be unprecedented in its sweep. It would not only deter Iran from violating the accord, he added, but it could dissuade other nations from covertly trying to develop weapons, research that Tehran is suspected of pursuing until late 2003.
The facilities that are part of the 24 day thing are not Iran's declared nuclear sites like Natanz those will be under 24 hour camera surveillance and covered in fiber optic, data encrypted sensors
Under the new inspection system, inspectors will have 24-hour access to all of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities. That will allow them, aided by their monitoring tools, to track the entire enrichment process, from the mining of uranium ore to the ore’s conversion into uranium hexafluoride gas to the injection of the gas into the 5,060 centrifuges that Iran will be allowed to keep running only at Natanz.

The 24 day thing is for sites that not under this deal that the IAEA is asking to inspect. Basically the IAEA can ask to go anywhere, any Iranian facility including military facilities. Let's says that Iran has a manufacturing facility that is developing a new shaped charge like the ones to supplied to Iraqi insurgents. They obviously don't want international inspectors going in there and seeing secret military work. And that secret military work is not a violation of these agreement and Iran doesn't have to allow them to barge in anywhere. They will have time to move equipment out, but they will not be able to cover up evidence of radioactivity. The science of nuclear forensics is they now can detect evidence of nuclear actvity down to a picogram, that's one trillionth of a gram.


How the hell would you know that? There are secret parts of the deal that John Kerry has even read. But somehow, you know all the ins and outs?
What secret parts of the deal are you talking about? Are you speaking of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action because that text is public?

[bladefd]

The 24 day thing is for sites that not under this deal that the IAEA is asking to inspect. Basically the IAEA can ask to go anywhere, any Iranian facility including military facilities. Let's says that Iran has a manufacturing facility that is developing a new shaped charge like the ones to supplied to Iraqi insurgents. They obviously don't want international inspectors going in there and seeing secret military work. And that secret military work is not a violation of these agreement and Iran doesn't have to allow them to barge in anywhere. They will have time to move equipment out, but they will not be able to cover up evidence of radioactivity. The science of nuclear forensics is they now can detect evidence of nuclear actvity down to a picogram, that's one trillionth of a gram.

I truly wonder if there is a way to somehow circumvent it.. I don't know enough nuclear physics to even think of the difficulty of it.

Maybe if you created a small mobile platform where you did your research in, and it keeps the radiation in. When the IAEA folks come knocking, you push a secret button, and the platform goes down into the ground. The platform itself has radioactive substances IN it but nothing escapes the protective barrier. IAEA folks search everywhere but find no radiation because it never escaped the barrier. Once they leave, the researchers push the secret button, and the platform rises. Back to work.

Fiction or possible? I know it is very hard to deflect nuclear radiation to keep it in, but might be something out there that you can create.

[KevinNYC]

I truly wonder if there is a way to somehow circumvent it.. I don't know enough nuclear physics to even think of the difficulty of it.

Maybe if you created a small mobile platform where you did your research in, and it keeps the radiation in. When the IAEA folks come knocking, you push a secret button, and the platform goes down into the ground. The platform itself has radioactive substances IN it but nothing escapes the protective barrier. IAEA folks search everywhere but find no radiation because it never escaped the barrier. Once they leave, the researchers push the secret button, and the platform rises. Back to work.

Fiction or possible? I know it is very hard to deflect nuclear radiation to keep it in, but might be something out there that you can create.

Well the Nantanz facility where they had most of their centrifuges was 100,000 square meters.

And you need to link them all together like this to enrich uranium.
http://gdb.rferl.org/F7E4C880-481D-461C-B1ED-87B13AD06BFF_w640_r1_s.jpg

So I don't think a small mobile platform would do it.

[KevinNYC]

Instead of the deal, you ask me to read an Op-Ed by a guy who was knee deep in bullshit regarding nuclear programs in the past, but was convicted of several felonies when he tried to retaliate against the folks calling out his boss's lies regarding these nuclear programs?
Seriously, Scooter ****ing Libby :biggums:

When you look at the real text 24 days is the total time (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/) mentioned in the agreement

It's
Work out inspection details with IAEA ....no more than 14 days
+
..if that fails they negotiate with the Joint Commission....no more than 7 days
+
implement Commission's requirements ....no more than 3 days.

That's 24 days. If they go beyond that they have violated the agreement and sanctions come back.

An arms control expert (https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/)explains what that means.
ArmsControlWonk discovers Scooter Libby's claim[QUOTE]An absurd reading

[dunksby]

ArmsControlWonk discovers Scooter Libby's claim
Despite being proven wrong, in every discussion regarding the deal these morons will just ignore the points raised and try spewing their bullshit whenever and wherever this deal is brought up. I guess it's too much to ask of rednecks to give the black president's administration the due credit.

[KevinNYC]

The British Ambassador to the US explains why Britain thinks this is the best deal possible and the myths about the deal he keeps hearing from US politicians and pundits.


In July, after 12 years of international pressure and negotiations, a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran was reached. This deal has global support, including the unanimous approval of the UN Security Council and the European Union.

In our view, it is unequivocally the best available option we have to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nuclear experts, military experts, and the international community are all in favour of this agreement, which has been negotiated and agreed by the UK, US and the rest of the P5+1 (France, Germany, Russia and China).
....

This deal secured by the P5+1 is about Iran’s nuclear programme, not about its role in the region. It doesn’t change our very serious concerns about Iran’s behaviour or its human rights record. But it does represent a step forward in global security. Tackling Iran’s nuclear programme is not only in British and American interests, but in the interest of the entire world.

https://medium.com/the-iran-deal/why-the-iran-deal-is-our-best-option-54cfdb39fed2

[KingBeasley08]

They only need 34 Dems to get the bill through. I know Schumer is voting against it but I think it's got a high chance of getting done

[KevinNYC]

They only need 34 Dems to get the bill through. I know Schumer is voting against it but I think it's got a high chance of getting done
There's at least 20 confirmed NOs. In this case, they want 34 Dems to STOP the bill getting through.

That is the deal goes through if the bill does not.

[KingBeasley08]

There's at least 20 confirmed NOs. In this case, they want 34 Dems to STOP the bill getting through.

That is the deal goes through if the bill does not.
yeah miswrote that. I think the Dems need at least 34 of their guys to keep the Republicans from overriding a veto. The deal is guaranteed to get rejected but Obama's veto puts the ball back in court.

Republicans need 13 Democrats to override the veto. Schumer and Menendez are voting no so that means they needa flip 11 more

[KevinNYC]

yeah miswrote that. I think the Dems need at least 34 of their guys to keep the Republicans from overriding a veto. The deal is guaranteed to get rejected but Obama's veto puts the ball back in court.

Republicans need 13 Democrats to override the veto. Schumer and Menendez are voting no so that means they needa flip 11 more
Both the House and Senate need 2/3rds

If the Republican majorities in Congress vote as a bloc against it, they will need 44 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 13 in the Senate to knock down the veto.

[HitandRun Reggie]

Well what do you know. Iran is thumbing there nose at the US, and Obama sits there refusing to throw out his proposed deal with Iran just because Republicans are pointing at him and saying, "We told ya so".


Iran has conducted a new test of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, Fox News reported Monday, just as international officials met to discuss the lifting of sanctions under the nuclear agreement reached in July.

The test of the Ghadr-110 missile, with an estimated range of about 1,200 miles, was conducted Nov. 21, Fox News said, quoting western intelligence officials. It's likely to further inflame U.S. lawmakers' concerns about Iran, coming on the heels of a previous test Oct. 10 which was condemned by the international community as a violation of U.N. bans on such activities.

The Obama administration took no action after Iranian officials announced the Oct. 10 test of a missile with a range sufficient to reach Israel, and a maneuverable warhead that could defeat anti-missile defenses. That angered Republicans and some Democrats, who cite that as one of many reasons why sanctions against Iran should not be lifted as the deal require...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-iran-tests-new-ballistic-missile/article/2577812?custom_click=rss

Iran in October:

"To follow our defense programs, we don't ask permission from anyone," he said, according to state-run news agency IRNA.

The new rocket is "capable of scrutinizing the targets and destroying them completely," IRNA reported.


Iran is basically telling us they won't be listening to anything the US or anyone else tells them, but Obama is still stubbornly pushing his sanctions lift.

[poido123]

while iran is ruled by a fundamentalist government, it was foolish to agree to a deal.


Until that country goes back to being more civilised, we cannot be making these kind of agreements with them. If anything, we should be at war with fundamentalist governments like Turkey, Iran and other Saudi nations.