Iran nuclear deal reached

[Mr. Coffee]

They have two options: sit and do nothing, or nuke the US. Not being either USian, Russite, or Sinoese, I think the former is the more likely.

Third option, move in large amounts of military personnel as "advisors" and ship in shitloads of weapons. Bang, Vietnam all over again.

Fourth Option, Russia puts pressure on Europe by limiting or just shutting off the gas for most of Europe, we find ourselves gradually isolated from our allies. Meanwhile, the PRC starts playing trade fuck-fuck games with us, floods North Korea with all the guns, bombs, and missiles and does the exact same shit the Russian's are doing only with our allies in Asia.

Fifth Option, aka the "Let's Not Be A Bunch Of Retards" option, we try to engage Iran diplomatically. We make ourselves out to be the reasonable party, eventually forcing Iran to behave reasonably as well. Sure, it takes a lot longer, but less people die this way, we don't look like bigger assholes than we already are, and no worries about a game of Thermonuclear War breaking out.

Then you're talking off the topic. No one has suggested US should have invaded Iran because of the Embassy Crisis, or whatever they were doing wrong in your mind in the mid-90s, but because of the unique threat of nuclear proliferation in the Mid East.

We're specifically talking about US-Iranian relations, you dishonest hatfucker. Of course the history of that diplomacy should be considered. Fact is, we didn't do anything with the embassy bullshit because north of Iran was this country called the USSR and we didn't want to risk WWIII over something that could be settled peacefully. Our relations with Iran have been like that ever since with the exception of incidents like Operation Praying Mantis. Saying "Oh, none of that matter, just everything since this current thing started" pretty much confirms you have no goddamn idea what you're talking about, kid.

This is the sort of put down hack writers give the nerd character in a kids' TV show.

Welcome to SDN, cunt. We're all nerds here, get used to it or GTFO, you thin-skinned pussy.

Chirst you're a dumbass, all of your posts are poorly thought out, and quite frankly, not a damn bit of it is really even interesting. Tell ya what, go down to the Bursar's office of whatever community college it is you're studying at and demand your money back. If this shit is an example of your quality of education then you got swindled, son.

[Lord Relvenous]

Re-read the posts: "Mr. Coffee" explicitly disagreed with my claim that Russia and PRC would not militarily attack the US over Iran. Not impose some nebulous other penalty, but fight them in an open war. This is made even more clear if you read his previous posts, with references to "starting WWIII". Precisely what I am saying is that a real situation wouldn't work out anything like he envisions, and PRC and Russia would not fight the US over Iran.

You pretty unambiguously stated that there are two options, nukes or doing nothing.

What would you call a strike against US bases/carrier fleets or those of US allies in the South Pacific? Is that nothing? Because that's certainly not nuking and it's also pretty clearly an option.

Now do I think that's likely? No. But it is a possibility and one that must be considered when arguing for military action. The US is vulnerable to attack worldwide for the very same reason it can project power worldwide.

[Elfdart]

They have the seventh largest military budget in the world, ahead of India (8th), Israel (16th), Pakistan (25th) and South Africa (38th), all of which have produced nuclear weapons domestically. Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons is a serious possibility and practically inevitable if Iran gets them. This is one of the major reasons why there are a lot of people who do not want Iran to go nuclear for reasons other than having been paid off by rich Jewish lobbyists.

You know who used to have one of the world's biggest military budgets -including the 4th or 5th largest air force?

South Vietnam.

[SMJB]

@ OP:
That's great news. Hopefully we don't focus exclusively on nukes and forget our many other issues with Iran, but Obama has always struck me as smarter than that.

The sooner the Iranians build an atomic bomb, the better.

Um, no. Let's not let a theocratic state get its hands on nuclear weapons, kthnx.

Fourth Option, Russia puts pressure on Europe by limiting or just shutting off the gas for most of Europe, we find ourselves gradually isolated from our allies. Meanwhile, the PRC starts playing trade fuck-fuck games with us, floods North Korea with all the guns, bombs, and missiles and does the exact same shit the Russian's are doing only with our allies in Asia.

I'm trying to avoid this incredibly stupid fight you two are having, but...no. Just no. China is not going to give North Korea implicit permission to fuck with some of the world's most important economies.

They have the seventh largest military budget in the world, ahead of India (8th), Israel (16th), Pakistan (25th) and South Africa (38th), all of which have produced nuclear weapons domestically. Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons is a serious possibility and practically inevitable if Iran gets them. This is one of the major reasons why there are a lot of people who do not want Iran to go nuclear for reasons other than having been paid off by rich Jewish lobbyists.

You know who used to have one of the world's biggest military budgets -including the 4th or 5th largest air force?

South Vietnam.

Firstly, dude's talking strictly about Saudi Arabia's ability to create a nuclear bomb, so what's the point of that? Secondly, obviously spending's not the only factor in military might...so even in general, what's the point of that?

[Simon_Jester]

I'm confused as to how Iran accepted these conditions:
-Restrict nuclear enrichment capacity, as in how many kg/year, in addition to percentage
-Lose millions in centrifuges being dismantled, not allowed to start up or unlinked for lower efficiency
-Lose the power plant they probably spent millions starting construction already
-Accept all that in return for billions of aid dollars.... that came out of your own frozen money.

For one, they retain the ability to make civilian nuclear infrastructure and radioisotopes for civilian use- that last is potentially a valuable export.

For another, this means they have actual freedom and flexibility in diplomatic affairs, they're not locked into an endless staring match with the US. Nor are they stuck with a US-supported 'containment' policy designed to limit their nation's ability to make security arrangements and grow its economy.

In short, they decided to lay down their guns and join the community, which makes perfect sense if you aren't a hermit gun-nut.

You know who used to have one of the world's biggest military budgets -including the 4th or 5th largest air force?

South Vietnam.

Firstly, dude's talking strictly about Saudi Arabia's ability to create a nuclear bomb, so what's the point of that? Secondly, obviously spending's not the only factor in military might...so even in general, what's the point of that?

Actually, Elfdart has a point.

South Vietnam's huge military budget was the result of outside support. Basically, a Third World country suddenly found itself with oceans of cash (from US military aid) and equipped itself lavishly with modern weapons. However, South Vietnam was still a Third World country. They still had a very limited population of educated people in general, let alone technicians and engineers. They couldn't design their own weapons, they often couldn't maintain the foreign-bought weapons without foreign technicians helping them.

So while South Vietnam was well armed, their military capability was "thin:" it existed only because of foreign support, and was not functional without that support.

Saudi Arabia is in much the same position, except with oil money taking the place of foreign military aid (mostly). Their massive supply of tanks and fighter planes proves very little because they didn't build those tanks and planes. They don't have an appreciable-sized native system for training people in advanced engineering or nuclear physics, either.

When confronted with a military challenge where they can't just buy what they need, the Saudis do not have a good track record. The obvious example of this problem is a high-performing officer corps: Saudi military officers tend to be relatively inept by Western standards, because too many of them are undertrained aristocrats. Spending more money on officers won't make the officers better- they need a larger talent pool of educated, responsible people to staff their army.

To make a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia would have to change its basic approach from "buy what we need" to "make what we need." This can be a very laborious process. So far, the only countries that rely heavily on "buy what we need" who have made nuclear bombs are Pakistan and North Korea, and in both cases it took them decades to arrive at a relatively crude result.

In short, money isn't everything.

[Civil War Man]

Um, no. Let's not let a theocratic state get its hands on nuclear weapons, kthnx.

Honestly, it is incredibly disingenuous to try to claim that Iranian leaders are insane and will immediately use a nuke if they get their hands on them. Every time a country the US does not like tries to develop nuclear weapons, there's screeching about how the leaders of that country are unhinged fanatics trying to blow up the planet. But the truth is, that has never happened. Nukes have existed for almost 70 years, and the US is only country to ever use them as weapons, and we've used them twice. And quite frankly, the only reason the US stopped after 2 is because the Russians had developed their own by the time the Korean War started.

The real reason the West does not want a nuclear Iran is because they'd have to stop trying to bully the Iranians if they successfully develop nuclear weapons.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not that the present leadership of Iran is insane. There are three separate issues that cause this alarm, among people who think: Proliferation, instability, and polarization. To lay them out one at a time:

---

1) Proliferation is a concern if Iran gets nuclear weapons, because many of the countries in the region might realistically foresee war with Iran, and if you are worried about fighting a nuclear power, you get your own nuclear arsenal. Common sense. So as noted, Saudi Arabia will want a nuclear arsenal, so might Iraq, maybe even Turkey... and then anyone who might foreseeably have one of those countries as an enemy will want nuclear weapons in turn, and so on.

By the time this process proceeds to completion, we're looking at a multipolar nuclear Middle East, with a large number of different countries that all have the ability to deliver annihilating nuclear surprise attacks to any of their neighbors. This creates a very tense geopolitical situation, where the risk of something like this incident happening and going horribly awry becomes a lot higher than it is for the US-Soviet staredown. And such incidents have already happened in the US-Soviet staredown.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether the government of Iran is competent and responsible. Nothing whatsoever. All that needs to happen is that half a dozen different governments build nuclear bombs, then IRBM missiles which could potentially strike their neighbors in a matter of a few minutes, then detection and warning networks to get at least a bit of advance notice so their first hint of an attack isn't a mushroom cloud. Then one of those warning networks hiccups, in the hands of leaders who (perhaps with good reason) anticipate a sneak attack, and... boom.

It's no one's fault, it in no way speaks ill of any single government, and yet it can happen- all it takes is one nuclear Camlan.

---

2) Instability is an issue because we don't actually know how gracefully the current Iranian government will continue to function in the future. It's not a major concern with Iran, nowhere near as serious an issue as it is with Pakistan, but it's on people's minds.

So far, there has been only one case of a nation undergoing radical political change while equipped with nuclear weapons- the fall of the Soviet Union. This was enough to cause very real anxiety, even though it was a peaceful and orderly transition.

Anyone who has cause to think that there might some day be a revolution or civil war in Iran would be worried about this aspect of what might happen if Iran becomes a nuclear power. It's not a big concern, since a priori there's no reason to expect the current Iranian government to be less stable than, say, the PRC government of China. But nevertheless, Iran is an autocratic/oligarchic country with no real means by which power can leave the hands of the dominant group in a peaceful way. Civil wars, coups, and so on in such a country are far from unheard of.

This makes thinking people a bit more nervous. Then we have a related problem...

---

3) The issue of polarization. The problem is that when you look at a country and ask "what will happen if they have the atomic bomb," you must look at both best and worst-case scenarios to get a realistic picture. Take the US. From the point of view of someone who doesn't want nuclear war, some US presidents and potential presidents (say, Jimmy Carter) do not pose much cause for concern. On the other hand, someone with a known track record of ruthlessness and militarism (say, Dick Cheney), or someone who might through incompetence provoke a political crisis with a nuclear power (Kennedy did exactly that at the Bay of Pigs)... that's a problem.

By comparison, if we look at a country like the USSR, the best case is someone like Khrushchev or Gorbachev, who hesitates to cause mass death and desires that the state be made more humane. Someone more like Stalin would not have such scruples, and might be seen as more likely to order a nuclear first strike.

In Iran, we do know there are some truly hardcore religious fundamentalists in the country, and we do not know of any reason to assume they couldn't take over at least one or two of the multiple factions within the Iranian government. Which leads to the other issue that might make a thinking person worry: the Iranian government contains several semi-independent jurisdictions- different militias, paramilitary forces, and so on with different chains of command.

Absence of a unified military chain of command is bad in a nuclear power, because it increases risk and anxiety about one faction doing something another faction would have sought to prevent.

[K. A. Pital]

So, no comments about the recent Geneva deal, guys?

It seems that naysayers (this is business as usual) are proven wrong. Iran will stop their enrichment program in exchange for the end of sanctions. If true, this points clearly to the fact Iran is not looking to make an atomic bomb as of now.

[Borgholio]

Haven't been paying attention to the news recently. So there's a deal in place, eh? Does it have teeth?

[K. A. Pital]

Haven't been paying attention to the news recently. So there's a deal in place, eh? Does it have teeth?

Enriched uranium will be downgraded and diluted under IAEA supervision:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25080217

[Borgholio]

Crossing fingers here. Let's hope it works out.