CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[irosie91]

nope------I am paying close attention

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

what "ideas"? I am probably a bit luckier than are you-------I have had close
relationships with LOTS OF PEOPLE ------right here in the USA -------way back in the mid 60s I encountered IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS-----and---Syrian immigrants to the USA The Iranian immigrants back then were jewish teens-----being sent out by their parents ------to save them from ISLAMICISM -----growing way back then in Iran. I also got to know SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ----way back in the 60s ----and Lebanese----escaping the stink of islamicism --------feel free to ask questions

you still do not explain why you are against the deal.

simple----I do not trust the Irnanians----take this thing out of CDZ and
I will explain. I have known ruling Iran. Take this out of CDZ and I
will explain what I do know about the Iranians ruling Iran from Iranians
in the USA

...except that we do not need to trust Iran. the inspections are more than sufficient.

you are very naïve. ------think a bit more----no one knew about the MANHATTAN PROJECT-----where it was and what it was and who was in
on it. Ask some elderly aunt if she knew. Did Germany know? Did
Japan know?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

what "ideas"? I am probably a bit luckier than are you-------I have had close
relationships with LOTS OF PEOPLE ------right here in the USA -------way back in the mid 60s I encountered IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS-----and---Syrian immigrants to the USA The Iranian immigrants back then were jewish teens-----being sent out by their parents ------to save them from ISLAMICISM -----growing way back then in Iran. I also got to know SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ----way back in the 60s ----and Lebanese----escaping the stink of islamicism --------feel free to ask questions

you still do not explain why you are against the deal.

simple----I do not trust the Irnanians----take this thing out of CDZ and
I will explain. I have known ruling Iran. Take this out of CDZ and I
will explain what I do know about the Iranians ruling Iran from Iranians
in the USA

...except that we do not need to trust Iran. the inspections are more than sufficient.

you are very naïve. ------think a bit more----no one knew about the MANHATTAN PROJECT-----where it was and what it was and who was in
on it. Ask some elderly aunt if she knew. Did Germany know? Did
Japan know?

that is not even remotely similar to the situation with Iran. Germany and Japan and your elderly aunt didn't know because the IAEA wasn't closely inspecting the USA to make sure that they weren't building a bomb. besides, it is hard to find out that somebody is trying to build a nuclear bomb when nuclear bombs do not yet exist. also, we have much better technology to detect radioactive materials and much more knowledge about them than WWII Germany and Japan and your aunt did.

P.S. please stop using excessive dashes and ellipses. it doesn't make you look smart or dramatic.

 

[RoccoR]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

It has just been over a decade that the US had its last major intelligence failure concerning the nuclear capacity of a potential enemy. We need to be careful. The only significant difference in the intelligence collection capability is more bureaucratic then relevant. And layers of added bureaucracy do not improve operational collection capabilities.

IAEA wasn't closely inspecting the USA to make sure that they weren't building a bomb. besides, it is hard to find out that somebody is trying to build a nuclear bomb when nuclear bombs do not yet exist. also, we have much better technology to detect radioactive materials and much more knowledge about them than WWII Germany and Japan and your aunt did.

(COMMENT)

You must remember that the IAEA was all over Iraq before the intelligence community came back and declared:

• Attempts to acquire uranium
• Aluminum tubes and magnets for use in a gas centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment program
• Hussein was meeting with top nuclear weapons experts and that Iraq maintained the scientific know-how to produce nuclear weapons.

There is no real reason to assume that there has been a significant improvement in the ability of the US IC to effectively direct, collect, process, analyze and disseminate reliable intelligence on this subject matter has taken place. No reason what-so-ever.

Yes, it is true that technology has made some advancements in the packaging and sensitivity of some of the technical surveillance equipment, the leadership and use of HUMINT to collect and gain critical inside information has no real improvement. It take years and years to establish a set of HUMINT collection systems that can operate effectively behind the line of security protection and countermeasure systems employed by a totalitarian Islamic State.

I remember --- oh so very distinctly --- how Secretary Rumsfeld boasted about how he knew this and how he knew that. ("We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003) When, in reality he "knew" nothing of the sort:

NYT By Brian Knowlton Published: January 29, 2004: David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector for Iraq, told a keenly attentive Senate hearing Wednesday that "we were almost all wrong" in believing before the war that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons.​

We have to be cautious on both sides of the equation: What we actually know about their program, --- and --- what we do not know about their program; or even if they have a viable program.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

your

what "ideas"? I am probably a bit luckier than are you-------I have had close
relationships with LOTS OF PEOPLE ------right here in the USA -------way back in the mid 60s I encountered IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS-----and---Syrian immigrants to the USA The Iranian immigrants back then were jewish teens-----being sent out by their parents ------to save them from ISLAMICISM -----growing way back then in Iran. I also got to know SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ----way back in the 60s ----and Lebanese----escaping the stink of islamicism --------feel free to ask questions

you still do not explain why you are against the deal.

simple----I do not trust the Irnanians----take this thing out of CDZ and
I will explain. I have known ruling Iran. Take this out of CDZ and I
will explain what I do know about the Iranians ruling Iran from Iranians
in the USA

...except that we do not need to trust Iran. the inspections are more than sufficient.

you are very naïve. ------think a bit more----no one knew about the MANHATTAN PROJECT-----where it was and what it was and who was in
on it. Ask some elderly aunt if she knew. Did Germany know? Did
Japan know?

that is not even remotely similar to the situation with Iran. Germany and Japan and your elderly aunt didn't know because the IAEA wasn't closely inspecting the USA to make sure that they weren't building a bomb. besides, it is hard to find out that somebody is trying to build a nuclear bomb when nuclear bombs do not yet exist. also, we have much better technology to detect radioactive materials and much more knowledge about them than WWII Germany and Japan and your aunt did.

P.S. please stop using excessive dashes and ellipses. it doesn't make you look smart or dramatic.

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

It has just been over a decade that the US had its last major intelligence failure concerning the nuclear capacity of a potential enemy. We need to be careful. The only significant difference in the intelligence collection capability is more bureaucratic then relevant. And layers of added bureaucracy do not improve operational collection capabilities.

IAEA wasn't closely inspecting the USA to make sure that they weren't building a bomb. besides, it is hard to find out that somebody is trying to build a nuclear bomb when nuclear bombs do not yet exist. also, we have much better technology to detect radioactive materials and much more knowledge about them than WWII Germany and Japan and your aunt did.

(COMMENT)

You must remember that the IAEA was all over Iraq before the intelligence community came back and declared:

• Attempts to acquire uranium
• Aluminum tubes and magnets for use in a gas centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment program
• Hussein was meeting with top nuclear weapons experts and that Iraq maintained the scientific know-how to produce nuclear weapons.

There is no real reason to assume that there has been a significant improvement in the ability of the US IC to effectively direct, collect, process, analyze and disseminate reliable intelligence on this subject matter has taken place. No reason what-so-ever.

Yes, it is true that technology has made some advancements in the packaging and sensitivity of some of the technical surveillance equipment, the leadership and use of HUMINT to collect and gain critical inside information has no real improvement. It take years and years to establish a set of HUMINT collection systems that can operate effectively behind the line of security protection and countermeasure systems employed by a totalitarian Islamic State.

I remember --- oh so very distinctly --- how Secretary Rumsfeld boasted about how he knew this and how he knew that. ("We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003) When, in reality he "knew" nothing of the sort:

NYT By Brian Knowlton Published: January 29, 2004: David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector for Iraq, told a keenly attentive Senate hearing Wednesday that "we were almost all wrong" in believing before the war that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons.​

We have to be cautious on both sides of the equation: What we actually know about their program, --- and --- what we do not know about their program; or even if they have a viable program.

Most Respectfully,
R

your response is dim. -----there is nothing wrong with my use of dashes. My aunts are all dead andnone knew anything about fusion, fission, or radioactivity and neither do you. A bomb TEST might produce detectable radioactivity -----ie enough to be a means of surveillance. but the making of a bomb in some remote
area of a large country will not. I do not know you David Kay was or is----but the issue was not entirely about"banned weapons" -----It was about MASS DESTRUCTION-----there is no question that Saddam did engage in MASS DESTRUCTION-----he did not do it with a toothpick. He did have people working extensively on biologicals-------I am not even sure that his huge stash of NITROGEN MUSTARD GAS was " illegal "----try to
learn something-----ALKYLATING agents are used in making medicines and dyes (you may have no idea what an alkylating agent is. ---you do not seem to understand the term
"mass destruction" . You seem to imagine that it is synonymous with fission and fusion bombs. Pol pot, stalin and adolf used neither

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

It has just been over a decade that the US had its last major intelligence failure concerning the nuclear capacity of a potential enemy. We need to be careful. The only significant difference in the intelligence collection capability is more bureaucratic then relevant. And layers of added bureaucracy do not improve operational collection capabilities.

IAEA wasn't closely inspecting the USA to make sure that they weren't building a bomb. besides, it is hard to find out that somebody is trying to build a nuclear bomb when nuclear bombs do not yet exist. also, we have much better technology to detect radioactive materials and much more knowledge about them than WWII Germany and Japan and your aunt did.

(COMMENT)

You must remember that the IAEA was all over Iraq before the intelligence community came back and declared:

• Attempts to acquire uranium
• Aluminum tubes and magnets for use in a gas centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment program
• Hussein was meeting with top nuclear weapons experts and that Iraq maintained the scientific know-how to produce nuclear weapons.

There is no real reason to assume that there has been a significant improvement in the ability of the US IC to effectively direct, collect, process, analyze and disseminate reliable intelligence on this subject matter has taken place. No reason what-so-ever.

Yes, it is true that technology has made some advancements in the packaging and sensitivity of some of the technical surveillance equipment, the leadership and use of HUMINT to collect and gain critical inside information has no real improvement. It take years and years to establish a set of HUMINT collection systems that can operate effectively behind the line of security protection and countermeasure systems employed by a totalitarian Islamic State.

I remember --- oh so very distinctly --- how Secretary Rumsfeld boasted about how he knew this and how he knew that. ("We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003) When, in reality he "knew" nothing of the sort:

NYT By Brian Knowlton Published: January 29, 2004: David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector for Iraq, told a keenly attentive Senate hearing Wednesday that "we were almost all wrong" in believing before the war that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons.​

We have to be cautious on both sides of the equation: What we actually know about their program, --- and --- what we do not know about their program; or even if they have a viable program.

Most Respectfully,
R

while what you say is true, this is still a different situation than any of the ones you mention. inspection teams will have access to all of Iran'd nuclear sites, from the mines to the reactors, and it sis impossible to erase traces of radioactive materials. to build a bomb in secret, Iran would have to create and entirely new supple line in secret, meaning mines, conversion facilities, refineries, and reactors.

 

[RoccoR]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

I appreciate your confidence in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Inspection Team; but, they are not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. That information has to come from other compartmented national level assets; usually from somewhere within the P5+1.

while what you say is true, this is still a different situation than any of the ones you mention. inspection teams will have access to all of Iran'd nuclear sites, from the mines to the reactors, and it sis impossible to erase traces of radioactive materials. to build a bomb in secret, Iran would have to create and entirely new supple line in secret, meaning mines, conversion facilities, refineries, and reactors.

(COMMENT)

Theoretically, if everyone is playing according to Hoyle, the IAEA Inspection Team (divorced of any US Inspection Representative) will have access to all the various locations crucial to the Critical Nuclear Weapons Design Information (CNWDI) Programs, and production and testing facilities. But I don't think for a minute that Iran is going to permit snap/spot inspections beyond their ability to manage or allowed to pursue an un-vetted inspection regiment; but they may allow a compromise of a short notice roll-out. And I do not think that Iran is ever going to permit the Inspection Team access to facilities or materials that are not in the best interest of Iran's future. We will have to see exactly how this is actually implemented.

Now do I think that Iran is going to forge ahead with the prohibited aspects of the Basic Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the modified (3.1) Additional Protocol? No --- at least not immediately. Iran's best interest at the moment are re-entering the economic mainstream and being able to exploit the commercial aspects of their foreign trading partners.

The Intelligence Community (the IC) simply is not in a position to determine the Launch Vehicle Capability and the or Plutonium Production either for nuclear delivery or EMP deployment. And their is no reason to think that the intelligence resource will improve over the next 36 months. The US Technical capacity is on a downward slope. The nations that once put a man on the moon now has to hitchhike into space. And the US HUMINT capacity is not all that strong.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[I amso IR]

I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.


This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.

This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.

The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.


This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.

I amso IR responds

Hi Phil, seems this thread has hit a dead end. About the other "essay" you offered to post, why not go ahead and do that. It might gain yourself a bit more support on your way to a Nobel Peace Prize. How is that making friends with Iran thing working out for you? Good talking to you.