That Iran Deal

[Elixir]

Yeah, that seems to be the lie regurgitated to the ever-shrinking DKs. How’s that working out, telling the same shitty dick joke every hour of every day into a mirror trying to convince yourself that it’s still funny?

Yeah see, hillaryious!

OMG YOU’RE RIGHT! It’s so fucking funny. It is! It is SO fucking funny. OMG. OH MY FUCKING GOD! SO FUCKING FUNNY!!!! SO funny. OMG.

It's not nice to make fun of the easily amused, Koy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I’m not sure which is more pathetic, the misconception that Trump can destroy Obama’s “legacy” or the fact that so many of his followers don’t understand what a legacy is. A legacy is what you hand over to someone after you. What they then do with it is then their legacy to hand over to someone else.

History measures Presidents by their actions and accomplishments (and inactions and failure) while they’re in office. What happens after they leave office then becomes a measure of the next person to hold the office. So, for one of many many examples, history will record Obama’s brilliant end-run around a racist/obstructionist Congress to make an historic accord with Iran (and several world powers) to prevent it from achieving nuclear status, as one of many remarkable achievements.

When it comes to Trump, however, if history records anything other than “First President To Accidentally Tweet A Picture of Him Fucking His Daughter,” at best it would be something along the lines of, “For no logical or discernible reason other than either jealousy or a pathetic appeal to white bigotry, Disgraced President Trump reneged on the deal with Iran, which in turn led directly to Iran achieving nuclear status within a year.”

Or maybe they point to the extirpation of Obama's "legacy" because the reaction by #TheResistance is fricking hillaryious.

At what point did he exert strength? Was it when he said he was sending an armada towards North Korea, but actually didn't? Or was it just the mean sounding Tweets?

 

[Elixir]

I’m not sure which is more pathetic, the misconception that Trump can destroy Obama’s “legacy” or the fact that so many of his followers don’t understand what a legacy is. A legacy is what you hand over to someone after you. What they then do with it is then their legacy to hand over to someone else.

History measures Presidents by their actions and accomplishments (and inactions and failure) while they’re in office. What happens after they leave office then becomes a measure of the next person to hold the office. So, for one of many many examples, history will record Obama’s brilliant end-run around a racist/obstructionist Congress to make an historic accord with Iran (and several world powers) to prevent it from achieving nuclear status, as one of many remarkable achievements.

When it comes to Trump, however, if history records anything other than “First President To Accidentally Tweet A Picture of Him Fucking His Daughter,” at best it would be something along the lines of, “For no logical or discernible reason other than either jealousy or a pathetic appeal to white bigotry, Disgraced President Trump reneged on the deal with Iran, which in turn led directly to Iran achieving nuclear status within a year.”

Or maybe they point to the extirpation of Obama's "legacy" because the reaction by #TheResistance is fricking hillaryious.

At what point did he exert strength? Was it when he said he was sending an armada towards North Korea, but actually didn't? Or was it just the mean sounding Tweets?

You didn't hear him forcefully mocking "Little Rocket Man!"? Tell me you wouldn't be cowed by such forceful treatment!

 

[funinspace]

At what point did he exert strength? Was it when he said he was sending an armada towards North Korea, but actually didn't? Or was it just the mean sounding Tweets?

You didn't hear him forcefully mocking "Little Rocket Man!"? Tell me you wouldn't be cowed by such forceful treatment!

Yeah, this whole panting excitement about FFvC's international achievement regarding the Korean issue, sounds like a guy bragging about scoring great sex with on his first date with this doll, on his way over to pick her up so they can go to their first date called dinner out.

 

[Underseer]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/995020899014373376?s=19

BREAKING: Pompeo: US to assist North Korea with its economy if it gets rid of nuclear weapons.

Isn't that exactly what made Obama's Ian deal bad?

Oh. I forgot. It's good when Republicans do the same thing because Republicans believe in objective morality, unlike those stupid liberals who believe in moral relativism.

 

[Trausti]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/995020899014373376?s=19

BREAKING: Pompeo: US to assist North Korea with its economy if it gets rid of nuclear weapons.

Isn't that exactly what made Obama's Ian deal bad?

Oh. I forgot. It's good when Republicans do the same thing because Republicans believe in objective morality, unlike those stupid liberals who believe in moral relativism.

The Iranians never promised to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, just to delay it. And they got three weeks notice before inspections of nuclear sites; and military bases were off limits. NK seems to really be giving it all up.

 

[Axulus]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/995020899014373376?s=19

BREAKING: Pompeo: US to assist North Korea with its economy if it gets rid of nuclear weapons.

Isn't that exactly what made Obama's Ian deal bad?

Oh. I forgot. It's good when Republicans do the same thing because Republicans believe in objective morality, unlike those stupid liberals who believe in moral relativism.

Iran's support of ME terrorism and militant groups, and its expansionist agenda is what has people worried. No one is concerned about a NK expansionist agenda.

 

[jonatha]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/995020899014373376?s=19

BREAKING: Pompeo: US to assist North Korea with its economy if it gets rid of nuclear weapons.

Isn't that exactly what made Obama's Ian deal bad?

Oh. I forgot. It's good when Republicans do the same thing because Republicans believe in objective morality, unlike those stupid liberals who believe in moral relativism.

Iran's support of ME terrorism and militant groups, and its expansionist agenda is what has people worried. No one is concerned about a NK expansionist agenda.

Except, possibly, South Korea...

 

[Patooka]

The Iranians never promised to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, just to delay it. And they got three weeks notice before inspections of nuclear sites; and military bases were off limits. NK seems to really be giving it all up.

That is all bullshit. Firstly, the IAEA could go in any time at any of the nuclear sites, no notice required. Some of those sites were under constant surveillance. That also includes any mines, mills or storage facilities, not just nuclear plants or factories. And, as has been pointed out numerous times before, North Korea has nothing left to give up. They shot their load on September 3, 2017.

So, out of curiosity, where did you find the bullshit "three weeks notice" fabrication?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Iran's support of ME terrorism and militant groups, and its expansionist agenda is what has people worried. No one is concerned about a NK expansionist agenda.

Although they certainly are trying to expand their sphere of influence, there is absolutely no evidence of any intent to expand their borders. So what exactly are you referring to with the phrase "expansionist agenda"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/995020899014373376?s=19

BREAKING: Pompeo: US to assist North Korea with its economy if it gets rid of nuclear weapons.

Isn't that exactly what made Obama's Ian deal bad?

Oh. I forgot. It's good when Republicans do the same thing because Republicans believe in objective morality, unlike those stupid liberals who believe in moral relativism.

Iran's support of ME terrorism and militant groups, and its expansionist agenda is what has people worried. No one is concerned about a NK expansionist agenda.

Curious if North Korea received nuke help from North Korea.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/995020899014373376?s=19

BREAKING: Pompeo: US to assist North Korea with its economy if it gets rid of nuclear weapons.

Isn't that exactly what made Obama's Ian deal bad?

Oh. I forgot. It's good when Republicans do the same thing because Republicans believe in objective morality, unlike those stupid liberals who believe in moral relativism.

The Iranians never promised to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, just to delay it. And they got three weeks notice before inspections of nuclear sites; and military bases were off limits. NK seems to really be giving it all up.

Technically, correct me if I’m wrong, but Iran has never admitted to trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So they’d never make that concession.

 

[bilby]

The North Koreans are not stupid. When they had a nuclear weapons program, they had the clout to continue threatening and even engaging in acts of war against South Korea, secure in the knowledge that the threat of their nukes would likely prevent all out war. Being able to theraten Seoul with destruction by artillery is one thing; But to deter the USA, you need the ability to strike at the USA. With the threat of being able to nuke US assets in Guam, or better still, US cities in Hawaii or on the West Coast, they could continue their usual strategy of increasing belligerence, followed by reducing or eliminating their aggressive acts in exchange for concessions.

Why would they agree to give up their nuclear program? Well, they wouldn't. If they had one.

But if they accidentally broke it, and it was no longer available as a threat, then they have a small window of opportunity between when they broke it, and when the world knows for sure that they broke it, during which they could magnanimously exchange their (now useless) nuke program for whatever concessions the South Koreans, and the Americans, might give them in return for ceasing their nuclear program.

If you have a prized possession that you spent vast effort acquiring, you would be disinclined to sell it. But if you accidentally destroyed its value, you might well choose to trade it with a fool who was unaware that it was now worthless.

 

[jonatha]

The North Koreans are not stupid. When they had a nuclear weapons program, they had the clout to continue threatening and even engaging in acts of war against South Korea, secure in the knowledge that the threat of their nukes would likely prevent all out war. Being able to theraten Seoul with destruction by artillery is one thing; But to deter the USA, you need the ability to strike at the USA. With the threat of being able to nuke US assets in Guam, or better still, US cities in Hawaii or on the West Coast, they could continue their usual strategy of increasing belligerence, followed by reducing or eliminating their aggressive acts in exchange for concessions.

Why would they agree to give up their nuclear program? Well, they wouldn't. If they had one.

But if they accidentally broke it, and it was no longer available as a threat, then they have a small window of opportunity between when they broke it, and when the world knows for sure that they broke it, during which they could magnanimously exchange their (now useless) nuke program for whatever concessions the South Koreans, and the Americans, might give them in return for ceasing their nuclear program.

If you have a prized possession that you spent vast effort acquiring, you would be disinclined to sell it. But if you accidentally destroyed its value, you might well choose to trade it with a fool who was unaware that it was now worthless.

Well, they certainly seem to have broken their warhead test site.

I do not see how it follows that the rest of their program (warhead inventory, enrichment facilities, etc.) went boom also.

(They may of course have run out of Russian rocket engines to put in their boosters.)

 

[Jayjay]

The North Koreans are not stupid. When they had a nuclear weapons program, they had the clout to continue threatening and even engaging in acts of war against South Korea, secure in the knowledge that the threat of their nukes would likely prevent all out war. Being able to theraten Seoul with destruction by artillery is one thing; But to deter the USA, you need the ability to strike at the USA. With the threat of being able to nuke US assets in Guam, or better still, US cities in Hawaii or on the West Coast, they could continue their usual strategy of increasing belligerence, followed by reducing or eliminating their aggressive acts in exchange for concessions.

Why would they agree to give up their nuclear program? Well, they wouldn't. If they had one.

But if they accidentally broke it, and it was no longer available as a threat, then they have a small window of opportunity between when they broke it, and when the world knows for sure that they broke it, during which they could magnanimously exchange their (now useless) nuke program for whatever concessions the South Koreans, and the Americans, might give them in return for ceasing their nuclear program.

If you have a prized possession that you spent vast effort acquiring, you would be disinclined to sell it. But if you accidentally destroyed its value, you might well choose to trade it with a fool who was unaware that it was now worthless.

How do you "break" a technological advancement like a nuclear ICBM? If they ever had a working nuke, they would continue to possess the know-how and industrial capability to repeat it even if there were a few failed tests. So either they never had the capability and are bluffing (which I think is likely), or they still have it and just decided to stop the tests like they are saying.

 

[jonatha]

The North Koreans are not stupid. When they had a nuclear weapons program, they had the clout to continue threatening and even engaging in acts of war against South Korea, secure in the knowledge that the threat of their nukes would likely prevent all out war. Being able to theraten Seoul with destruction by artillery is one thing; But to deter the USA, you need the ability to strike at the USA. With the threat of being able to nuke US assets in Guam, or better still, US cities in Hawaii or on the West Coast, they could continue their usual strategy of increasing belligerence, followed by reducing or eliminating their aggressive acts in exchange for concessions.

Why would they agree to give up their nuclear program? Well, they wouldn't. If they had one.

But if they accidentally broke it, and it was no longer available as a threat, then they have a small window of opportunity between when they broke it, and when the world knows for sure that they broke it, during which they could magnanimously exchange their (now useless) nuke program for whatever concessions the South Koreans, and the Americans, might give them in return for ceasing their nuclear program.

If you have a prized possession that you spent vast effort acquiring, you would be disinclined to sell it. But if you accidentally destroyed its value, you might well choose to trade it with a fool who was unaware that it was now worthless.

How do you "break" a technological advancement like a nuclear ICBM? If they ever had a working nuke, they would continue to possess the know-how and industrial capability to repeat it even if there were a few failed tests. So either they never had the capability and are bluffing (which I think is likely), or they still have it and just decided to stop the tests like they are saying.

If they never had the capability, what caused all those seismic events and the implosion of the mountain?

 

[bilby]

The North Koreans are not stupid. When they had a nuclear weapons program, they had the clout to continue threatening and even engaging in acts of war against South Korea, secure in the knowledge that the threat of their nukes would likely prevent all out war. Being able to theraten Seoul with destruction by artillery is one thing; But to deter the USA, you need the ability to strike at the USA. With the threat of being able to nuke US assets in Guam, or better still, US cities in Hawaii or on the West Coast, they could continue their usual strategy of increasing belligerence, followed by reducing or eliminating their aggressive acts in exchange for concessions.

Why would they agree to give up their nuclear program? Well, they wouldn't. If they had one.

But if they accidentally broke it, and it was no longer available as a threat, then they have a small window of opportunity between when they broke it, and when the world knows for sure that they broke it, during which they could magnanimously exchange their (now useless) nuke program for whatever concessions the South Koreans, and the Americans, might give them in return for ceasing their nuclear program.

If you have a prized possession that you spent vast effort acquiring, you would be disinclined to sell it. But if you accidentally destroyed its value, you might well choose to trade it with a fool who was unaware that it was now worthless.

Well, they certainly seem to have broken their warhead test site.

I do not see how it follows that the rest of their program (warhead inventory, enrichment facilities, etc.) went boom also.

(They may of course have run out of Russian rocket engines to put in their boosters.)

The North Koreans are not stupid. When they had a nuclear weapons program, they had the clout to continue threatening and even engaging in acts of war against South Korea, secure in the knowledge that the threat of their nukes would likely prevent all out war. Being able to theraten Seoul with destruction by artillery is one thing; But to deter the USA, you need the ability to strike at the USA. With the threat of being able to nuke US assets in Guam, or better still, US cities in Hawaii or on the West Coast, they could continue their usual strategy of increasing belligerence, followed by reducing or eliminating their aggressive acts in exchange for concessions.

Why would they agree to give up their nuclear program? Well, they wouldn't. If they had one.

But if they accidentally broke it, and it was no longer available as a threat, then they have a small window of opportunity between when they broke it, and when the world knows for sure that they broke it, during which they could magnanimously exchange their (now useless) nuke program for whatever concessions the South Koreans, and the Americans, might give them in return for ceasing their nuclear program.

If you have a prized possession that you spent vast effort acquiring, you would be disinclined to sell it. But if you accidentally destroyed its value, you might well choose to trade it with a fool who was unaware that it was now worthless.

How do you "break" a technological advancement like a nuclear ICBM? If they ever had a working nuke, they would continue to possess the know-how and industrial capability to repeat it even if there were a few failed tests. So either they never had the capability and are bluffing (which I think is likely), or they still have it and just decided to stop the tests like they are saying.

North Korea is nothing if not paranoid about security (probably with good reason). From a security perspective, it makes sense to have everything in one place, preferably underground, and to keep your specialists and workforce in that place pretty much permanently. If you accidentally bury the lot under a mountain, then you are going to have to start from scratch.

Even the USA, with its much more dispersed facilities and expertise managed to forget how to make some critical H-Bomb components, and had to re-invent them ( FOGBANK).

I find it very easy to believe that the North Koreans could have set themselves back decades by accidentally destroying the facility, the information, and the experts who knew how those things could be reproduced, all in one big clusterfuck.

 

[Patooka]

How do you "break" a technological advancement like a nuclear ICBM? If they ever had a working nuke, they would continue to possess the know-how and industrial capability to repeat it even if there were a few failed tests. So either they never had the capability and are bluffing (which I think is likely), or they still have it and just decided to stop the tests like they are saying.

*sigh* Have you considered the possibility that the North Koreans who had the know-how to make the nuke are no longer among the living? Or that having a nuclear weapons program costs money and North Korea is not only broke, it has maxed out it credit cards? There is nothing left in the tank for them.

Perhaps I should speak in a language right wingers can understand. When I was younger, I read a lot of Tom Clancy novels. One of them, Debt of Honor has a side plot of Russia giving up a significant amount of its nukes for some very favourable trade concessions. When Robby Jacksons team inspect the silos, they discover the silos have deteriorated to the point of being useless. The US were duped and gave a shit ton of money away for no reason. That's what's happening here. Curiously, the novel was written in 1994, and ends with a 747 crashing into the US Captiol, 9/11 style. Strange how life imitates art.

Iran, on the other hand, will most likely not trust another western agreement for at least a decade. And the hard liners will be able to cement their power in that regime, informing the citizens that only they can stop US aggression. So forget about regime change anytime soon. Fuck, burning flags in parliament is fashionable again, so welcome back 1980s.

 

[jonatha]

The North Koreans are not stupid. When they had a nuclear weapons program, they had the clout to continue threatening and even engaging in acts of war against South Korea, secure in the knowledge that the threat of their nukes would likely prevent all out war. Being able to theraten Seoul with destruction by artillery is one thing; But to deter the USA, you need the ability to strike at the USA. With the threat of being able to nuke US assets in Guam, or better still, US cities in Hawaii or on the West Coast, they could continue their usual strategy of increasing belligerence, followed by reducing or eliminating their aggressive acts in exchange for concessions.

Why would they agree to give up their nuclear program? Well, they wouldn't. If they had one.

But if they accidentally broke it, and it was no longer available as a threat, then they have a small window of opportunity between when they broke it, and when the world knows for sure that they broke it, during which they could magnanimously exchange their (now useless) nuke program for whatever concessions the South Koreans, and the Americans, might give them in return for ceasing their nuclear program.

If you have a prized possession that you spent vast effort acquiring, you would be disinclined to sell it. But if you accidentally destroyed its value, you might well choose to trade it with a fool who was unaware that it was now worthless.

How do you "break" a technological advancement like a nuclear ICBM? If they ever had a working nuke, they would continue to possess the know-how and industrial capability to repeat it even if there were a few failed tests. So either they never had the capability and are bluffing (which I think is likely), or they still have it and just decided to stop the tests like they are saying.

North Korea is nothing if not paranoid about security (probably with good reason). From a security perspective, it makes sense to have everything in one place, preferably underground, and to keep your specialists and workforce in that place pretty much permanently. If you accidentally bury the lot under a mountain, then you are going to have to start from scratch.

Even the USA, with its much more dispersed facilities and expertise managed to forget how to make some critical H-Bomb components, and had to re-invent them ( FOGBANK).

I find it very easy to believe that the North Koreans could have set themselves back decades by accidentally destroying the facility, the information, and the experts who knew how those things could be reproduced, all in one big clusterfuck.

Putting your research facility underground near where you set the bombs off sounds like something Trump would do and then brag about...

Anyway, we at least know that the plutonium comes from the reactor in Yongbyon and the tests took place at Punggye-ri. The two are over 500km apart.

 

[bilby]

North Korea is nothing if not paranoid about security (probably with good reason). From a security perspective, it makes sense to have everything in one place, preferably underground, and to keep your specialists and workforce in that place pretty much permanently. If you accidentally bury the lot under a mountain, then you are going to have to start from scratch.

Even the USA, with its much more dispersed facilities and expertise managed to forget how to make some critical H-Bomb components, and had to re-invent them ( FOGBANK).

I find it very easy to believe that the North Koreans could have set themselves back decades by accidentally destroying the facility, the information, and the experts who knew how those things could be reproduced, all in one big clusterfuck.

Putting your research facility underground near where you set the bombs off sounds like something Trump would do and then brag about...

Anyway, we at least know that the plutonium comes from the reactor in Yongbyon and the tests took place at Punggye-ri. The two are over 500km apart.

Sure. But the reactor alone is not much use. You need a lot of things to make useful, lightweight and deliverable nuclear bombs - in particular, you need detailed knowledge that is jealously guarded, and divulged to only those handful of trusted people with a 'need to know'. It's easy to envisage a situation where that knowledge could be lost - and rebuilding it from scratch could take decades. Any fool with a load of centrifuges and a few years can make a crude plutonium fission implosion weapon; But such a device is not small or light enough to deliver via ICBM. And ICBMs are hardly simple technology - they are literally rocket science. In an environment of paranoiac security, loss of critical knowledge is a constant risk. You don't need to lose every last trace of your nuclear missile program to find yourself in a situation where nobody knows some critical detail that is essential to keep it going.

We know that there was a cave-in at the test site, and that the NK stance suddenly changed about the same time that that happened. Now, we could ascribe that change of heart to Donald Trump's mastery of the art of the deal, and his incredible skill at international diplomacy; Or we could surmise that something has set back the NK nuclear missile program very sharply, and that NK are trying to play the best hand they can with the cards they have left. I know which I find more plausible.

One of the things that sets Iran apart from NK here is that Iran has a history of using terrorists as proxies - A crude plutonium bomb wouldn't be much use to NK, because of the practical difficulties delivering it to a target present - they could perhaps sneak it over the border by road to Seoul, but if they want to wipe out Seoul, they can do that without a nuke. Hitting the USA (or plausibly threatening to do so) is far harder. But the Iranians could deliver a large bomb to a target in the Middle East, or in Europe or North America ,much more easily. A bomb hidden in a shipping container could be delivered to any port city of their choice, with a reasonable chance of success. Whether that would suit the Iranian agenda I don't know - but certainly if they nuked New York, Rotterdam, or Haifa, doing it in such a way as to make the identity of the perpetrator hard to prove might prevent their nation from being wiped off the map in retaliation.