#1
Post rating: ~
Since there's never been any evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and even U.S., Israeli, and IAEA intelligence says they have no desire to, what's the actual purpose of Obama's deal with Iran?

http://fcnl.org/issues/iran/us_israeli_intelligence_officials_iran_is_not_pursuing_nuclear_weapons/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/has-iran-really-pursued-nukes/

is it related to Syria and ISIS? maybe the liberal opposition in Iran? maybe it's all pointless, a minor diplomatic tug of war between Israel-Iran-America that sounds significant when you believe in the nuke lie? Tell me what to think and how to think it lf.
#2
Post rating: +
Does anyone else here believe that Iran had been trying to get nuclear capability? Honestly it would be stupid of them NOT try to, the're surrounded by nuclear powers. They had a secret enrichment site built in Qum under a friggin mountain.
#3
Post rating: ~
Double poast
#4
Online
Post rating: ~

walkinginonit posted:

Does anyone else here believe that Iran had been trying to get nuclear capability? Honestly it would be stupid of them NOT try to, the're surrounded by nuclear powers. They had a secret enrichment site built in Qum under a friggin mountain.

Yeah getting a nuke is good. It worked for Korea. Iran should get the nuke or demand a huge bribe to not get the nuke

#5
Post rating: ~

walkinginonit posted:

Does anyone else here believe that Iran had been trying to get nuclear capability? Honestly it would be stupid of them NOT try to, the're surrounded by nuclear powers. They had a secret enrichment site built in Qum under a friggin mountain.



Actually since Israel is an insane rogue nation with nuclear weapons it's probably not in the interests of the most rational and humanitarian nation in the region to start an arms race. North Korea also never wanted nuclear weapons, it was the U.S. which forced them into it despite repeated pleas from the Kim regime to follow through on the 1994 agreed framework. Also the USSR repeatedly saved the world from nuclear destruction when U.S. belligerence forced them to back down and/or allow the U.S. to commit genocide on various 3rd world peoples. Basically capitalism is what drives nations and people towards suicide, anyone living in a rational political system wouldn't want the threat of nuclear destruction.

Also besides this all evidence points towards Iran not wanting nukes and not developing them.

#6
Poronto
Post rating: +

babyhueypnewton posted:

Also the USSR repeatedly saved the world from nuclear destruction when U.S. belligerence forced them to back down and/or allow the U.S. to commit genocide on various 3rd world peoples.



pls rewrite so this makes sense

#7
Post rating: +

ilmdge posted:

Yeah getting a nuke is good. It worked for Korea. Iran should get the nuke or demand a huge bribe to not get the nuke


i know you're joking but i think "nuclear power" is up there in the list of reasons that pyongang doesn't look like bahgdad

#8
mt.real
Post rating: +
it seems stupid not to have nukes, but that's beside the point... economic reintegration with the western sphere is the real thing that comes out of this
#9
Post rating: +
Why would anyone buy U.S. propaganda that it cares about nuclear war or preventing the use of nuclear weapons? Just in the middle east alone, the U.S. invasion of Pakistan (through drones and conventional forces) has increased the possibility of nuclear war more than at any point since the cuban missile crisis, another time when U.S. provocation almost caused nuclear war until the USSR backed down. Also U.S. opposition to making the middle east a nuclear weapons free zone actively creates conditions where nuclear war is likely. The U.S. is the most murderous empire in the history of the world and the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war, it never struck me as believable that it would get squeamish because of radiation.
#10
Post rating: ~

c_man posted:

ilmdge posted:

Yeah getting a nuke is good. It worked for Korea. Iran should get the nuke or demand a huge bribe to not get the nuke

i know you're joking but i think "nuclear power" is up there in the list of reasons that pyongang doesn't look like bahgdad



This is the opposite of the truth, North Korea was willing to work with the U.S. to normalize relations in exchange for international monitoring of its nuclear program, despite the repeated broken promises of the Clinton administration, up until Bush declared it part of the "axis of evil". In fact, North Korea only has nuclear weapons because the Bush administration pushed them to justify its belligerence and a possible future invasion. After all, North Korea has more than enough artillery to destroy Seoul, nukes have almost no practical purpose for it.

#11
Post rating: ~
so you're saying that NK having nuclear weapons makes it more likely to experience a direct invasion, not less
#12
political car tune
Post rating: ~
isn't the only reason that mutually assured distruction existed was due to the west's failure to respond to anything else?
#13
Kurdt
Post rating: +
mutual assured destruction existed because the NAture of man is Conflict; in a word, War
#14
Post rating: ~
Iran gets to produce as much as year 15 of the agreement, and allows it to conduct research on advanced centrifuges after the eighth year. Moreover, the Iranians won the eventual lifting of an embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles.

And they will have much less impeded access to world commerce.Pretty good trade off for projecting the appearance of laying aside nuclear weapon ambitions it likely never had in the first place (and if the IRI believes it needs nukes, it will be easier to build them later on once it has had breathing space to accumulate more economic resources, as Netanyahu has pointed out). This sounds more like a face saving deal for the Obama administration as it enters into last days than a substantial capitulation on the part of the Iranians.

If the American Congress rejects the deal, then the fault will lie clearly, for all the world to see, with the United States itself, while Iran will be able to point to this agreement as proof that, all slander aside, it really wanted peace.

Edited by RedMaistre ()

#15
Post rating: +
I do think babyhueynetwon is on to something: that for most of the states in the post-cold world which are not a certain pair of settler colonial war machines (or an ally of the same), trying to get nukes just doesn't pay. Arms races are expensive, and there is little chance of catching up with the capabilities of the United States, or the capabilities it could provide to its allies (like Saudi Arabia) if it so chose.

The DPRK just has fewer resources and connections in general than Iran with which to project power, so the desperate means of having a defensive nuclear weapons program is a more rational choice for it. Not so much because it provides a vastly greater military advantage than what it otherwise would have, but because of the psychological effect it has on debates about the costs of regime change.
#16
Post rating: +
There always were, and continue to be, US military strategists who dream of the US provoking a nuclear conflict with a comparatively far less nuclear capable antagonist, so that they could immediately glass the opposition and have an eternal propaganda excuse to justify use of nukes on whoever they want.

A couple thousand people die in 9/11 and they get to drown the world in blood, its not hard to imagine everyone in the pentagon creaming their pants if there was even a single small scale nuclear attack on a US-aligned target
#17
Post rating: +
#18
Post rating: ~
Anyway, it's hard to sell a war against a small country if a true blooded American has to suffer radiation poisoning on top of his ptsd/anxiety. But I still hold firm that we're willing and maybe even eager to go for ww3 and nuclear apocalypse because capital.
#19
Post rating: +
Iran doesn't want nukes, it wants a domestic infrastructure that will allow them to develop nukes on a relatively short time frame the next time Saudi nationals knock down some buildings. Also an end to sanctions, which it now has, goongrats to the Iranian people
#20
Post rating: ~

babyhueypnewton posted:

Actually since Israel is an insane rogue nation with nuclear weapons it's probably not in the interests of the most rational and humanitarian nation in the region to start an arms race.



Yeah it wouldn't really make sense for a state set up a deterrent program. Guess I've been listening to too much Amerikkan propaganda.

babyhueypnewton posted:

North Korea also never wanted nuclear weapons, it was the U.S. which forced them into it despite repeated pleas from the Kim regime to follow through on the 1994 agreed framework.



Edited by walkinginonit ()

#21
Post rating: +++++
Just like the point of the USSR nuclear program was to deter the bloodthirsty americans, the point of an Iranian nuclear weapon would be to deter the nuclear armed bloodthirsty isrealis. Like North Korea, they don't really need to fully weaponize and deeply extend into a full nuclear arsenal, merely demonstrating the capability cools the international rhetoric a degree and lets them negotiate from a position of geopolitical equality. If threatening the ability to create a nuclear weapon without having to bother with the expense of developing and testing one gets Iran what they need then it's just smart business.



The US military nuclear program has always and obviously been designed for a first strike and the Soviet nuclear program, wisely created by the foresight and scientific rigor of the great leader Stalin, is the only thing that's ever restrained the US from the orgasm of death our wretched and worthless parasite population dreams of and masturbates to unleashing upon the world.
#22
political car tune
Post rating: +

MarxUltor posted:

Just like the point of the USSR nuclear program was to deter the bloodthirsty americans, the point of an Iranian nuclear weapon would be to deter the nuclear armed bloodthirsty isrealis. Like North Korea, they don't really need to fully weaponize and deeply extend into a full nuclear arsenal, merely demonstrating the capability cools the international rhetoric a degree and lets them negotiate from a position of geopolitical equality. If threatening the ability to create a nuclear weapon without having to bother with the expense of developing and testing one gets Iran what they need then it's just smart business.



The US military nuclear program has always and obviously been designed for a first strike and the Soviet nuclear program, wisely created by the foresight and scientific rigor of the great leader Stalin, is the only thing that's ever restrained the US from the orgasm of death our wretched and worthless parasite population dreams of and masturbates to unleashing upon the world.


#23
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
Obama told Iran and Cuba that if they gave up he'd give them fascist rape dollars and both countries jumped at the opportunity. Where are all the heroes....
#24
Post rating: +
they're at the mall spending obamas fascist rape dollars on buying guns to destroy imperialism
#25
Post rating: ~
Pity the country that needs heroes
#26
Post rating: +
hey drwhat maybe if you spent more time learning about the victorious proletariat peoples and less time doing monopoly finance capital bULL FUCKIN sHIT, u wouldnt consider Bertolt Brecht "pretentious" U ass.
#27
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +++++
D-d-d-d-dont come in here! I have a...a GUN! And a centrifuge capable of producing weapons grade enriched uranium! And a really big dog! *makes growling noises*

Edited by Superabound ()

#28
Post rating: ~
Knowing/caring almost nothing about the actual details of the deal, the spit-spraying hyperventilating wild eyed lunatic apocalyptic denunciations of it coming from israel make it totally justified and good and righteous. At least unless and until they actually go all the way off the deep end and nuke tehran and gaza and damascus and fuck knows where else
#29
Post rating: +
I'm not sure the Saudis/Israel/NATO (SIN?) could directly attack Iran without suffering terrible loses. Russia has already sold them S-300 SAM missile systems. What's left of the Ukrainian Air Force* will tell you about its effectiveness. The next gen S-400 is being exported too. NATO tries to limit themselves to high altitude strikes to avoid ground fire but these weapons can reach those altitudes, as Malaysian Airlines discovered *tugs collar*. The window where SIN could cavalierly launch airstrikes might be closing, though cruise missiles and drones still have no answer.

Iran's also been developing it's own anti-tank missile tech, mainly from Russian designs. They were good enough to stop the Israelis in Lebanon . Though the Israelis have developed a countermeasure called Trophy. It's like an automated skeet shooter that tries to destroy in coming warheads. I only bring it up because its code-name was "Windbreaker". A tank that can break wind.

*The Russians handed back Ukraine's Air Force at the outset of the war. They'd captured a few squadrons of Ukrainian MIG-29s in Crimea and they were like "No, this isn't right, you take them". Quite sporting of them.
#30
Post rating: +++++
how do you find out what equipment the iranian army has? Well you go to the wikipedia page of the equipment of the iranian army
#31
meet me in st louis
Post rating: +
Since 03, Iran wasn't trying to build a weapon but simply bolster their enrichment capabilities for the very purpose of leverage in an ultimate negotiations. Even "breakout capability" wasn't really the point to that extent, so long as they had the potential to breakout (i.e. enriching enough U235 or making Pu239 via the Arak heavy water reactor).

As far as fielding a weapon - no country would ever field an untested weapon and there's not really any circumstance Iran could have tested a built weapon without some major retaliation. To that end, a weapon never really made sense.

The deal was a Good Thing except for future impacts of globalization on my pristine aryan culture.
#32
Post rating: +
Yeah what's going to happen to sandpoint Idaho now that Iranian modernity will be flooding into every corner of our so called western so called culture
#33
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

gyrofry posted:

mutual assured destruction existed because the NAture of man is Conflict; in a word, War



came here to post this

#34
meet me in st louis
Post rating: ~
a male iranian grad student arriving in the US noted that he expected american women to behave as in the film 'american pie'
#35
Post rating: ~
so he was relieved that he didnt have to defile himself
#36
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +
oh lol thats right almost forgot to solve the thread









bonus:







indeed. red salute comrades
#37
Post rating: ~

Soviet_Salami posted:

I'm not sure the Saudis/Israel/NATO (SIN?) could directly attack Iran without suffering terrible loses.

Iraq folded like wet cardboard in the invasion. Not being defeated in Gulf War I or suffering under a no-fly zone indicates that Iran would do better, but I doubt they'd do that much better.

Of course, the Iranian people would undoubtedly drive out the occupation during the subsequent guerrilla campaign, but the human costs of the invasion and the occupation (while it persisted) would be horrific.

#38
Online
Post rating: +
I don't think you can compare Iraq to Iran
#39
Post rating: +
The Sanctions against Iran are a set of arrangements narrowly imposed by the United States on its own commerce with the IRI and that of any third parties it can intimidate into following them. The sanctions against Iraq, by contrast were a near total embargo declared by the United Nations itself, reflecting the far greater diplomatic isolation of the Iraqi government compared to Iran. Hence the much greater severity of its effects.
#40
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

I don't think you can compare Iraq to Iran

My thinking is that given that they fought a long war to what was basically a draw within recent memory that it makes for a good starting place when it comes to comparing military capabilities. ... but I'm not exactly an expert!!