flghtr65: How do you know the scientists have not considered these variables?
First, they fail to address those variables and their letter. If they had considered these variables, and they felt that those concerns were "invalid" or something similar, they would've addressed them in the letter. They didn't.
The trend, theme, that you see in their letter focuses exclusively on their technical knowledge. They assume, erroneously, that the variables seen in the written agreement will be the only variables that they will deal with. For their letter to hold any validity, those additional variables have to be ignored.
We're dealing with professors, and people associated with academia. I know for fact that those people know better when it comes to writing a research paper, or something similar to it like a letter, when it comes to validating the information that they put on the paper. The academic standards have not changed since I started my undergraduate courses in the late 1980s.
As they teach their students, they included commentary by the opposition. However, they failed to include mention about these other variables in that same letter. Either those variables fell outside of their "bandwidth" with regards to the nuclear issues, or saw those variables and deliberately ignored them on the account that they hurt the scientists/engineers arguments.
Either way, the fact that the information about those variables does not show up in their letter speaks volumes to them not considering those variables. If they did considered those variables, and they failed to mention that in the letter, then they are being intellectually dishonest.
flghtr65: How do you know that Iran needs to collect more Uranium, they may already have what they need. They may just need to keep enriching the Uranium they have already stockpiled to create the radioactive isotope U-25 (the isotope needed to make a bomb)
Whether they have enough now, or don't, is irrelevant. The objective of any nuclear treaty, intended to prevent a country from developing a nuclear weapon, must take tactical consideration that the errant nation is not going to collect more items, resources, materials, etc.
Also, those scientists and engineers letter talks about "weeks or months." Nowhere in that letter is in suggesting that the Iranians already have enough to create or detonate the nuclear bomb.
I'm looking at this from a tactical standpoint. You have the agreement the way it is written. Two main variables to consider, Iran not being honest with everything that has, and Iran establishing ways to import the materials they need through areas not monitored.
Fail to block them in both areas, and you fail in the agreement's objective. A person could toss around what-ifs all day want. When it comes and agreement like this, you have to consider things from a tactical perspective, not just from a technical perspective.
flghtr65: Correct it doesn't, the purpose of the agreement to push out the time line by 15 years before Iran gets a bomb.
Not to prevent Iran from ever getting a bomb.
Then how could this written agreement be "unprecedented" with regards to preventing the development of nuclear weapons? The purpose of these agreements is to prevent a country from getting a nuclear weapon. This would not be consistent with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Even the letter, written by the scientists, tries to suggest that it would be hard for the Iranians to come up with a nuclear weapon. This is right after they talk about "weeks" versus "months" before the Iranians get the nuclear bomb.
This cannot be a "good deal" when the errant country is still allowed to produce nuclear weapons, regardless of when those nuclear weapons are created, tested, etc.
You've just made the point, made by the conservatives on this thread, on why this deal is not a "good deal," but a bad one.
flghtr65: Get rid of a nuclear reactor?
Yes. Again, you're thinking in western terms, and not in their terms. What our scientists and engineers could do in high speed, state-of-the-art, laboratories, people in Third World countries could do it in more simple environments. Again, take a look at that Swedish man who used his kitchen stove to make headway with nuclear technology on his stove.
The result of their efforts will not be as powerful as what the Western countries could produce. The North Korean nuclear weapons are primitive, and lightweight, compared to anything in the American or Russian nuclear arsenal. But the fact of the matter remains, they donated a nuclear weapon.
Also, keep in mind, the nuclear reactors that they have are what they want us to know about. We don't know what they have in their entire nuclear infrastructure.
flghtr65: If you could enrich enough Uranium to make a bomb, with just a standard household oven, then why do they make reactors for Nuclear Fission?
Keep this momentum up. I believe that you might be starting to understand the basic concept of unrestricted/asymmetrical warfare.
Currently, countries with nuclear weapons have programs controlled by the government. The trend, when it comes to who could do something better, the government or the civilian population via a free market, the free market tends to provide a superior product.
Outside of running an effective military, the civilian population, within the free market, tend to produce something better than what the government can produce, much more efficiently. They tend to provide better services, more efficient services, and do things better overall.
This means, if a group of civilian engineers, working for a civilian research and development organization, could visibly create a nuclear bomb is more efficient, deadly, and what the government has while also being cheaper, and requiring less resources and support to create. This is based on the trend of most everything else when it comes to government doing something, and the free market do the same thing.
In the third world, people would convert vendor carts into laboratories to provide simple versions of the same thing that the government produces.
flghtr65: The complex reaction needed to produce the isotope U-235 (which is needed to make a bomb) U-238 can't be used it is not radioactive.
That was just one guy, starting a process on his stove, that moved him closer towards a better working understanding of nuclear power/energy just by using the equipment he had available at his house. This was his first step, and what would've been his first step in a series of trial and error that would've ultimately led him towards creating something that could be peacefully or dangerously used.
This just emphasizes my point, under asymmetrical warfare, methods for accomplishing the same objectives, that are outside the "bandwidth" of those people that think in traditional terms, become the new norm. You may have your own interpretation of what constitutes the complexities involved with creating a nuclear weapon. That is only one way. There are other ways, more innovative ways, or more simpler ways, to potentially achieve the same objective.
If you keep looking for what fits "expectation," you will overlook what's outside of that expectation. This is how the Iraqis cheated the inspection team with regards to WMD. This is how the Iranians would cheat their inspection teams.
flghtr65: How do you know that this won't occur?
Because we do not yet possess the technology that would allow us to monitor, from space, every square inch of the ground in a way that would allow us to see activities. No matter how advance our satellite technology is, our satellites looking at an entire country are not going to pick up human sized details on the ground. However, if you focused a satellite to zero in on details, at the expense of looking at the rest of the country, then we could do things like see pebbles in the ground, or read newspaper headlines.
However, if we do not know where these other activities are going on, we will not know where to zero in these satellites.
Another thing that I said was being able to seal off Iran completely from the air, ground, and sea. Again, even if we were to send the entire United States military to Iran, we would not successfully be able to do that.
flghtr65: The scientists have access to information that you don't have access to with the "Q" clearance, with all due respect.
No, they do not have access to that information anymore. If you look at the background, for these scientists and engineers, as listed in one of my posts, you would see that the majority of them, perhaps all of them, no longer work for the government.
Since they no longer work for the government, in a capacity involving nuclear energy, and that the majority of them work for universities, any "Q" clearance that they would have would be inactive. These clearances have a "shelf life." They expire, and must be renewed. There's an excellent chance the majority of them no longer have a "Q" clearance.
Why is this important?
It doesn't matter if it's a military or federal government security clearance, these clearances only allow access to "Need to Know" information. None of those scientists were involved with the negotiations in Iran. Hence, none of them had a "need to know" requirement to know the details of what Iran had, and what surrounded the negotiations.
If they had access to information, it would be exclusively be restricted to information related to their immediate jobs. As you can see, by their backgrounds, there's an excellent chance that none of them would have that need to know.
So, no, they do not have access to information that "I would not have."
flghtr65: 1. Without a deal Iran will get a bomb much sooner than later. The purpose of the agreement is to move the out the time-line by 15 years for when Iran gets a bomb.
First, this idea about Iran getting a nuclear bomb "sooner", or within a certain number of years, is just arbitrary. We don't know when they would actually be able to create a nuclear bomb and donate it.
Second, any nuclear deal that does not remove the possibility that a country could detonate a nuclear bomb, does not matter when it happens, is a bad deal. These deals are supposed to prevent a country, altogether, from creating a nuclear weapon. If a country wants to use nuclear energy, for peaceful purposes, there is a way around that that doesn't require the country to enrich uranium. Other countries could import that technology, monitor its use, then remove all use nuclear material from the errant country.
This has been the spirit of previous nuclear agreements. Not this agreement. This agreement allows the Iranians, themselves, to go ahead and create their own nuclear energy. Those that negotiated the previous agreements, with previous errant countries, knew that this provision defeats the purpose of even having the agreement in the first place.
flghtr65: Enrichment takes a while to do. You not only need the raw Uranium, but you need reactors to do the nuclear fission to create the U-235 isotope. You need to run the nuclear fission process over and over again.
As the nuclear deal with Iran is written, there is no guarantee that this won't happen. Again, the Iranians have to be honest and disclose 100% of their nuclear infrastructure. Also, there has to be no way of getting needed material into Iran to feed and undisclosed nuclear infrastructure.
The Iranians could remain compliant with known sites, but that would not do any good if they are able to run their own program at undeclared sites.
flghtr65: 2. I am not going to speak for the scientists. The scientists must speak for themselves. Your arguments should be taken up with the scientists or Metz the energy guy who testified at hearings.
The reason that I am countering the scientists and engineers is because you continuously referenced them, even in areas where I have already countered you. This is why I took the letter, and took it apart point by point. This argument is against you, not the scientists and engineers.
flghtr65: 3. The idea was to give a diplomatic solution a chance to stabilize the region before considering a military option to prevent or slow down Iran getting a nuclear bomb.
If that was the intent, it failed.
The way the agreement is written, the Iranians have loopholes that are big enough for a truck to drive through. There are plenty of opportunities to cheat the agreement, and to move any material or resources from a suspected site, if the suspected site contain those materials. Already, the diplomatic solution fails.
Second, with president Obama in charge, there will be no military action. Even if they became blatantly obvious that the Iranians were going to develop a nuclear weapon, President Obama would just sit on his duff and expect the Iranians to play nice and to reverse themselves. He would not bomb their sites.
Regardless of what this deal does, if anybody is going to bomb suspected nuclear sites developing a nuclear bomb, it would be the Israelis. Even Saudi Arabia would support them in this endeavor:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-...o-attack-iran/
Saudi Arabia does not trust Iran, and were sidelined, along with the Israelis, with this deal.
flghtr65: 4. The deal is going through, so we will find out over time if Iran cheats and Obama or the president after him uses military force. Forty one senators have said they are voting for the agreement, so that is more than enough to block a veto override attempt by the republicans.
It doesn't matter. I've repeatedly said that the Republican led Congress should send a resolution of disagreement to the White House. This will force Obama to veto it. Then, the Republicans should turn around and attempt to override that veto, using the nuclear option to eliminate a filibuster in the Senate. This would force the Democrats in Congress to go on record twice for supporting this deal. This will put Obama on record for vetoing the deal.
If any of these Republicans are up for reelection, and they fail to do that, they will have a much harder time next year.
This is not a question of "finding out over time if Iran cheats." The Iranians WILL cheat. They were caught cheating with the program during the negotiations. They will cheat when the deal is in effect. Also, we have to be careful about "passing something" to find out later what's in it, or if it was a good idea.
flghtr65: Good point,
No, it's not a good point, but a poor one made.
flghtr65: the USA spends 1 Trillion on defense every year.
Defense spending peaked at over 700 billion in the beginning of Obama's term, then dipped to over 500 billion. Not exactly the 1 trillion that you talk about.
flghtr65: The rolling debt is what 16 Trillion dollars?
The deficit fell from 2004 through the beginning of 2007. This, even as the wars were going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This indicates that something else has to be looked at, and not the military budget. In fact, compared the deficit that we had in the beginning of Obama's term, and where it is now.
This deficit is increasing, despite the winding down of military operations in Afghanistan, and maintaining below minimum numbers needed in Iraq.
Now, had that deficit been allowed to continue to decline from 2007, we would eventually been able to go back to surpluses. The surpluses could've been used to pay down the debt. Keep in mind that Obama, and the Democrats, are big on huge spending on social programs. Perhaps that area is where you should look at when talking about debts and deficits.
flghtr65: How that is going to get paid for is a very good question.
First, ensure that Republicans keep the Senate, the House, and gain the White House.
Second, allow the Republicans to implement realistic economic policies that would give the economic engine the incentive to boost the economy. This economic engine happens to be the rich and super rich. They are the ones predominately responsible for the jobs that are created in this country.
Sound economic policies include allowing the economic engine to keep more of its earnings. When the economic engine is allowed to keep more of its earnings, and has confidence that the economy would bear fruit when invested in, these guys will spend money into the economy. This will result in job creation beyond the measly job creation taking place right now, given the number of people in the population.
Third, while this is happening, the government should cut wasteful spending. Both the second and third points would contribute towards increasing tax revenues relative to expenditures. This would lead to surpluses. We could then utilize the surpluses to cut down the debt.
People attribute the economic good times of the 1990s to Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth. It took a Republican Congress to cattle prod him into agreeing to policies that led to the surpluses. Remember, Congress, not the president, has the powers of the purse. They are responsible for the budget, not the president.
If the American population keeps voting in Democrats, expect that debt to grow exponentially. Democratic economic policies are to the economy what laxatives are to diarrhea. Obama's economic policies has left the US economy in a state of stagnation. The economic engine simply does not trust the current economic environment to spend the money that it is being accused of sitting on.
flghtr65: The Bush tax cut percentages for the 6 lowest tax brackets are frozen, effective 1/1/13.
That's not going to put a dent on improving economy in a way that allows it to cause the government to collect more in tax revenue. Those tax cuts, for the upper percentile, are what is needed to get the economy to fire on all cylinders.
flghtr65: The 7th and highest tax bracket percentage is 39.6%. I don't think anyone democrat or republican wants to make that higher.
Again, the economic policy that the Democrats embrace tends to stagnate or weaken an economy. The economic policy that the Republicans embrace is realistic, understand human nature, and does more to get an economy to run on all cylinders, in a way that benefits everybody on the income ladder.
woomby gets his sorry, swishy walking ass handed to him AGAIN !! And he's QUITE familiar with the taste of 
considering all of the rimming and ATM 
he does down at Talleywackers and his gloryhole franchises all over Arkansas ! 
:wave towel2: