The Iran nuclear deal, translated into plain English

[Nice Squirrel]

Tehran metropolitan area has a population of 12.4 million all by itself. You don't know what you are talking about!

But don't all those A-Rab Prussians live in sand tents in the desert and drive camels?

 

[maxparrish]

The following map shows some of the sites needing nuked. But there are, at most, about 20 sites on the list for cooking. No way this kills 70 million... ten million, tops.

Tehran metropolitan area has a population of 12.4 million all by itself. You don't know what you are talking about!

I sure do know. Not everyone will die in the Tehran area, and a sufficiently appropriate yield on the specific target might reduce actual deaths to less than a million. It might be as little as 100,000. The total deaths for all targets would likely be as low as 500,000.

Besides, as Hillary said, "What does it matter?"

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Tehran metropolitan area has a population of 12.4 million all by itself. You don't know what you are talking about!

I sure do know. Not everyone will die in the Tehran area, and a sufficiently appropriate yield on the specific target might reduce actual deaths to less than a million. It might be as little as 100,000. The total deaths for all targets would likely be as low as 500,000.

Besides, as Hillary said, "What does it matter?"

You mean this quote?

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Maybe you can explain how researching an event after the fact is the same as killing millions on innocent people?

And why do we have to use nukes to disable nuclear sites like power plants?

 

[maxparrish]

The following map shows some of the sites needing nuked. But there are, at most, about 20 sites on the list for cooking. No way this kills 70 million... ten million, tops.

And when nuclear armed China and Russia declare war on the US, how well does your mass murder plan turn out then?

China and Russia will never declare war over Iran. They'd just use it as an excuse to make more trouble. Mind you, it may be overdue the US settle with our differences with these nations - either by a winner-take-all war or through a grand bargain to slice up the rest of the world between three great empires.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I get it. You want to nuke brown people because...I don't know. Can you explain why you want 70 million Persians dead?

The following map shows some of the sites needing nuked. But there are, at most, about 20 sites on the list for cooking. No way this kills 70 million... ten million, tops.

Nuking these facilities will cause radiation to spread around the globe. Also attacking a sovereign nation in this way will only have a backlash against the US as the fanatics start to increase their recruitment.

 

[maxparrish]

I sure do know. Not everyone will die in the Tehran area, and a sufficiently appropriate yield on the specific target might reduce actual deaths to less than a million. It might be as little as 100,000. The total deaths for all targets would likely be as low as 500,000.

Besides, as Hillary said, "What does it matter?"

You mean this quote?

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Maybe you can explain how researching an event after the fact is the same as killing millions on innocent people?

And why do we have to use nukes to disable nuclear sites like power plants?

Maybe I ought to be using more smiley winks (which I added). Actually we may not need nukes for most targets. However for the one or two deeply buried in mountains there may be no other option. A 'quick and dirty' nuke tipped bunker buster would not be as clean as a specialized nuke weapon, but would almost certainly do the job.

Deaths would likely be in the hundreds, thousands, and perhaps (at most) 10s of thousands. But it sounds a bit more problematical than just nuking every site with a mega-kiloton bomb.

 

[Axulus]

And when nuclear armed China and Russia declare war on the US, how well does your mass murder plan turn out then?

China and Russia will never declare war over Iran. They'd just use it as an excuse to make more trouble. Mind you, it may be overdue the US settle with our differences with these nations - either by a winner-take-all war or through a grand bargain to slice up the rest of the world between three great empires.

 

[bilby]

Did you ever see a commie drink a glass of water?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet


And that's assuming they don't have anything else hidden.

It's currently at two to three months. This deal extends the time required to almost twelve months, plus gives us information on when they begin the process. In other words, plenty of time to re implement sanctions and prepare for the war you so desperately want (if necessary) if they violate the deal and start trying to go for the bomb.

It's certainly better than the status quo. The question is whether it's good enough to stop them from getting the bomb. I rather doubt it is.

 

[maxparrish]

Look, in all seriousness any agreement that does not totally expose the prior activities of Iran, provide at will inspections of any facilities (without warning), or end all heavy water work (including centrifuges) is pointless. Iran wants to be in the same position as it is now - IF it does not already have a bomb it wants to make sure it can produce several or many at will.

Reimposition of all economic sanctions and/or the military option is the only other course of action. The administration keeps conceding important points, chasing their approval. And they know it.

The military option is quite doable, at low risk. Ship and submarine launched cruise missiles would do the job on a majority of targets. EMP bombs could totally fry BOTH open site and bunkered electrical and computer equipment, as well as all power sources to facilities.

Many centrifuge manufacturing sites are above ground (e.g. Natanz and Tehran) as is the heavy water reactor at Arak . Some, like Natanz, are bunkered under reinforced concrete but none would survive the U.S. military’s newest bunker-busting bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, capable of penetrating up to 200 feet of reinforced concrete.

Finally, the one or two sites in mountains would require either the insertion of commandos to take and destroy the facilities OR an ad hoc nuke tipped bunker buster. There is nothing wrong with using a low yield nuke as a penetrator, other than some have an irrational antipathy to their practical use.

Ten to twenty strikes - scratch Iran's program for decades.

Nuking sites into green glass that glows at night sounds prettier, but the above option will do.

 

[bilby]

It's currently at two to three months. This deal extends the time required to almost twelve months, plus gives us information on when they begin the process. In other words, plenty of time to re implement sanctions and prepare for the war you so desperately want (if necessary) if they violate the deal and start trying to go for the bomb.

It's certainly better than the status quo. The question is whether it's good enough to stop them from getting the bomb. I rather doubt it is.

If they really want the bomb, you won't stop them getting one.

The trick is to make them want to comply with your wish that they don't get a bomb more than they want a bomb.

Only diplomacy can achieve that - if talks break down and sanctions appear to Iran to be both severe and permenant, then they have no reason not to build a bomb.

If they are under direct attack, or it appears to them that a major attack is imminent, then they may well feel that building a bomb is their best option.

The most important thing is that it is how THEY feel that determines whether or not they build a bomb. America taking a more belligerent stance is not going to make them feel a lesser need to arm themselves.

If the assessment that they can make a bomb in three months is correct, then if they really wanted one, they would have it by now. So clearly they don't really want one. Let's not persuade them to change their minds on that, eh?

 

[laughing dog]

And when nuclear armed China and Russia declare war on the US, how well does your mass murder plan turn out then?

China and Russia will never declare war over Iran. They'd just use it as an excuse to make more trouble. Mind you, it may be overdue the US settle with our differences with these nations - either by a winner-take-all war or through a grand bargain to slice up the rest of the world between three great empires.

You've watched "Dr Strangelove" too many times.

 

[untermensche]

The unmitigated hypocrisy is amusing.

The US has many nuclear weapons. The US has been attacking other nations at will and inflicting incredible damage at will for many decades. It is by far the greatest threat to peace that exists in the world.

But it is the Iranians we have to fear.

The world is turned on it's head in Wonderland.

 

[Ford]

Look, in all seriousness...

You're not being serious if you think that launching an unprovoked nuclear strike on Iran is a good idea.

You're not being serious if you think launching multiple missile strikes on Iran and landing commandos in their country is "low risk."

These ridiculous "options" you're putting forward in place of an actual serious plan are more or less all within the ability of our stalwart ally in the region - Israel - to accomplish if they chose to do so. They've got sufficient air power, well trained commandos, and nuclear weapons of their own. They could damage Iran's nuclear infrastructure very badly in a very short amount of time.

Yet they haven't done so. Why?

Well for all their faults, Israel isn't fucking stupid. They know that once word got out that all the mysterious explosions around Natanz and Tehran were their doing, they'd be at war with Iran, and with radioactive fallout spreading from the damaged reactors Iran would be absolutely justified in throwing everything they've got at Israel. Every Shiite Muslim male in the region would rush to join the assault on Israel, and the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and Jordan would become staging areas for terrorists to launch attacks on Israel.

It is also not inconceivable that the Arab countries would set aside their differences with Iran and join in the fight. Then the US would have to step in. Then maybe even Russia. It would be a disaster that would make our little foray into Iraq look like a nice picnic lunch on a sunny day.


Israel is throwing a temper tantrum over this framework agreement right now, but when push comes to shove they're not going to do a damned thing against Iran because they aren't stupid enough to believe that launching a shit ton of cruise missiles into Tehran will have no downsides.


"In all seriousness," my ass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's certainly better than the status quo. The question is whether it's good enough to stop them from getting the bomb. I rather doubt it is.

If they really want the bomb, you won't stop them getting one.

The trick is to make them want to comply with your wish that they don't get a bomb more than they want a bomb.

And while you're at it you might as well make them want to become atheists. Both are about equally likely.

If they are under direct attack, or it appears to them that a major attack is imminent, then they may well feel that building a bomb is their best option.

They feel a bomb is their best option because they saw what happened to Afghanistan for supporting a major terror attack.

Since they want to support major terror attacks they want the bomb.

If the assessment that they can make a bomb in three months is correct, then if they really wanted one, they would have it by now. So clearly they don't really want one. Let's not persuade them to change their minds on that, eh?

The assessment is they can make the fissionables. That says nothing about the rest of the engineering.

- - - Updated - - -

The unmitigated hypocrisy is amusing.

The US has many nuclear weapons. The US has been attacking other nations at will and inflicting incredible damage at will for many decades. It is by far the greatest threat to peace that exists in the world.

But it is the Iranians we have to fear.

The world is turned on it's head in Wonderland.

Look at the violence in the world. What's the most common factor?

It's not the US, it's Islam.

 

[Ford]

Look at the violence in the world. What's the most common factor?

It's not the US, it's Islam.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you in the past taken pains to make the distinction that your problem is not with Islam or Muslims, but with Islamists?

If this has changed, then why, and can you also prove that the most violent place in the world is the country with the most Muslims - Indonesia?

Take your time...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet


And that's assuming they don't have anything else hidden.

Shades of "We've got to invade. They have WMDs."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year

I'm still mildly puzzled as to what indications we actually have that Iran has any intention to DO that. If the CIA was wrong about them suspending their weaponization research in 2003, they would have ALREADY developed one by now. More to the point, the only reason Iran was interested in the first place was as a potential nuclear deterrent against Saddam Hussein's putative WMD stockpile. With Saddam gone (and those stockpiles turning out to have been a massive bluff by an incompetent leader), they don't actually need one.

And that's assuming they don't have anything else hidden.

If they do, it'll be for the purpose of leapfrogging western projections and fastracking a nuclear power generation industry capable of breaking their dependence on foreign petroleum refining. Without which, a blockade of the Persian Gulf shipping lanes would actually be a viable strategic move.

Failing that, this is Iran we're talking about; they're a lot more likely to CLAIM to have nuclear weapons than to actually go to the trouble of acquiring them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at the violence in the world. What's the most common factor?

It's not the US, it's Islam.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you in the past taken pains to make the distinction that your problem is not with Islam or Muslims, but with Islamists?

If this has changed, then why, and can you also prove that the most violent place in the world is the country with the most Muslims - Indonesia?

Take your time...

All Islamists are Muslim. The only way this wouldn't be relevant is if most Muslim violence wasn't from Islamists--but when we can identify the Islamists it's always them behind it.

 

[Ford]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you in the past taken pains to make the distinction that your problem is not with Islam or Muslims, but with Islamists?

If this has changed, then why, and can you also prove that the most violent place in the world is the country with the most Muslims - Indonesia?

Take your time...

All Islamists are Muslim. The only way this wouldn't be relevant is if most Muslim violence wasn't from Islamists--but when we can identify the Islamists it's always them behind it.

So all Muslims are violent. Got it.

And Indonesia? Billion Muslims there. Must be the most violent place on earth?