((((((((((((((((((((((((journalists)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Nobody cares. Hurricane Matthew is now the news.

(10-05-2016 04:07 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 11:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Iran still has enough centrifuges to make a bomb, yet not enough to produce enough material for nuclear power. The centrifuges they have under the agreement (6,014) means that they can produce enough material for a bomb in 12 months.

Iran still has the ability (and permission) to enrich uranium to over 3.5%. Thats 2/3 of the work need to get it to 90% for a bomb.

Only declared nuclear facilities are subject to inspection.

You are being obtuse if you think that all the infrastructure needed to produce a bomb is being removed. You are also misrepresenting the amount of time that Iran will need to build a bomb. Its one year, not fifteen years.

What the US has done is to essentially say that Iran can 'just put the tip in' by continuing to enrich uranium. 'You can enrich uranium to 3.5% which isn't enough or a bomb, but 2/3rds the work has already been done and the amount that you can enrich to 3.5% isn't enough to run a reactor for power.' The deal also plays the 'out of sight, out of mind' card by only subjecting declared sites to inspections.

Bottom line is iranian nuclear work is continuing, the infrastructure is still there, and the sanctions were lifted for nothing.

You're moving the goalposts. First you said it "leaves all the infrastructure in place." That was false, because they lost almost all of their enriched uranium stockpile and most centrifuges. Now you come back saying they "still have enough centrifuges." Well, the centrifuges they lost hurt their infrastructure by elongating their breakout time from 2-3 months to a year.

I was not misrepresenting the amount of time needed. It's 15 years until they'll have the unfettered ability to race again with enrichment and building centrifuges. When that time comes it's estimated to be a year, yeah, but you even admit that could be 15 years out, and when that times approaches we can negotiate again.

The "declared facilities" have unfettered unannounced inspection but inspectors can inspect other suspected facilities, just with 24 days notice, and experts say you can't clean up a nuclear testing site in that time, not to mention the fact we'll be able to see via satellite if they try to move it all. So really that line is a big nothingburger.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. Did Iran lose some centrifuges? Yes. Did they lose them all? No. Did they lose some enriched uranium? Yes. Did they lose it all? No. Do they still have enough centrifuges to enrich uranium for a bomb? Yes. Do they have enough to enrich uranium for nuclear power? No. Is the infrastructure still in place for them to enrich uranium and make a bomb? Absolutely. Obama's grand deal extended the breakout time by 10 months. That's it.

It also bought us many years in the meantime. I don't think we disagree on very much here, but first you said it leaves "all" the infrastructure in place, and now you're saying they didn't "lose it all". There's a difference between not losing any infrastructure and losing 97% of the enriched uranium. Yes they were left with some, but that's not what you said, which is all I took issue with.

(10-06-2016 12:37 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  ((((((((((((((((((((((((journalists)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Whoa, we've got some legit alt right posters here!

Some background for those unfamiliar:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/6/11860796/ech...es-twitter

I certainly hope that wasn't mean to be antisemitic.

(10-06-2016 08:11 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't think we disagree on very much here, but first you said it leaves "all" the infrastructure in place, and now you're saying they didn't "lose it all". There's a difference between not losing any infrastructure and losing 97% of the enriched uranium. Yes they were left with some, but that's not what you said, which is all I took issue with.

You're right, we aren't far apart. We just differ on what is infrastructure and if the infrastructure needed to make a nuclear weapon is still in place. The uranium itself isn't infrastructure, it's material that they are still able to produce using infrastructure still in place, or more likely buy on the black market. The centrifuges necessary to build a bomb are still there and even though they are not the most efficient, they can still be utilized for that purpose.

Don't you find it strange that Iran claims it wants nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes (power), yet the restrictions in the deal essentially prevent them from being able to enrich enough uranium to use in nuclear power plants? Power plant require tons of material, where bombs only require a few kilograms. Under the deal Iran just doesn't have enough centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for nuclear power plants, but can still do 65% of the work enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb.


If we were "fact-checked" both our claims would probably be rated 'Mostly True' which demonstrates how subjective these fact-checkers can be.

If what you're arguing is that the lack of centrifuges doesn't allow them to build many operational nuclear power plants, sure, but it allows them to keep their existing power plant in Bushehr operational, and they're starting construction this year on a second. It's a matter of national pride and allows them to export instead of consuming oil (which given low energy prices isn't what it looked like a few years ago).

(10-06-2016 08:12 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 12:37 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  ((((((((((((((((((((((((journalists)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Whoa, we've got some legit alt right posters here!

Some background for those unfamiliar:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/6/11860796/ech...es-twitter

I certainly hope that wasn't mean to be antisemitic.

Bro, stop being so perpetually triggered. Calm down. Caaaaaalmmmmm.

(10-06-2016 08:58 AM)Max Power Wrote:  If what you're arguing is that the lack of centrifuges doesn't allow them to build many operational nuclear power plants, sure, but it allows them to keep their existing power plant in Bushehr operational, and they're starting construction this year on a second. It's a matter of national pride and allows them to export instead of consuming oil (which given low energy prices isn't what it looked like a few years ago).

Not true.

Quote:Today, Iran has just one nuclear power station, the plant at Bushehr that it bought from the Russians. To keep that facility running, Iran would need to increase its centrifuge capacity ten-fold. A steady supply of fuel from Russia is what keeps Bushehr online.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...-not-powe/

Ah okay so it's still operational because Russia is supplying it with fuel (and removing it after its use), got it. It looks like they're building the second plant with the hopes that they can get it online by the end of the deal and expand their infrastructure so they don't need help from the Russians.

(10-06-2016 09:02 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 08:12 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 12:37 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  ((((((((((((((((((((((((journalists)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Whoa, we've got some legit alt right posters here!

Some background for those unfamiliar:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/6/11860796/ech...es-twitter

I certainly hope that wasn't mean to be antisemitic.

Bro, stop being so perpetually triggered. Calm down. Caaaaaalmmmmm.

It's just like Pepe the Frog. Trump has made these kind of people feel it's safe to come out and show their true colors.

People for some reason love the Abortionist.

(10-06-2016 08:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 08:11 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't think we disagree on very much here, but first you said it leaves "all" the infrastructure in place, and now you're saying they didn't "lose it all". There's a difference between not losing any infrastructure and losing 97% of the enriched uranium. Yes they were left with some, but that's not what you said, which is all I took issue with.

You're right, we aren't far apart. We just differ on what is infrastructure and if the infrastructure needed to make a nuclear weapon is still in place. The uranium itself isn't infrastructure, it's material that they are still able to produce using infrastructure still in place, or more likely buy on the black market. The centrifuges necessary to build a bomb are still there and even though they are not the most efficient, they can still be utilized for that purpose.

Don't you find it strange that Iran claims it wants nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes (power), yet the restrictions in the deal essentially prevent them from being able to enrich enough uranium to use in nuclear power plants? Power plant require tons of material, where bombs only require a few kilograms. Under the deal Iran just doesn't have enough centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for nuclear power plants, but can still do 65% of the work enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb.


If we were "fact-checked" both our claims would probably be rated 'Mostly True' which demonstrates how subjective these fact-checkers can be.

The Democrat would be rated "Mostly True." The Republican would be rated "Mostly False" with the same answer.