International Iran begins attack on Israel, launching dozens of drones that’ll take hours to arrive

[Rod1]

I have repeatedly said to you that I think it could have been a mistake to drop the Iran deal, but it is simply not as comprehensive as you claim it to be.

And neither was sanction relief as comprehensive, it wasn't a surrender negotiation after all.

But if anything Iran actually compromised more considering most relevant sanctions were still in place (with good reason).

 

[Samjj]

"total denuclearization" again, this is the whole grammatical argument you are trying to make.

You have your own definition for what words means and then claim im wrong based on your personal definitions.

"Denuclearization" is the term for nuclear disarmament, your argument is that "denuclearization" means "Iran would never, ever be able to build a bomb and it must abandon all its nuclear research", that's beyond the scope of the JCPOA and beyond what the term denuclearization means.

Plenty of countries are in a position where they have the technical knowledge to build a bomb and none of them is considered a nuclear state.

Ok, but we can agree that the political goal of intervention on Iran would be to ultimately prevent them from building a bomb, correct?


The term denuclearization is also used to describe the process leading to complete nuclear disarmament.[2][

This is not splitting words - complete and total are part and parcel of that definition.

The JCPOA would not accomplish that - it would temporarily hinder and delay that development. Are we in agreement?

 

[Rod1]

Ok, but we can agree that the political goal of intervention on Iran would be to ultimately prevent them from building a bomb, correct?

And in that regard JCPOA worked, because it limited Iran's ability to get materials to build a bomb.

The term denuclearization is also used to describe the process leading to complete nuclear disarmament.[2][

Iran doesn't has nuclear weapons

The JCPOA would not accomplish that - it would temporarily hinder and delay that development. Are we in agreement?

Hinder and delay for as long as the treaty stands, i don't see the point of arguing that the deal was bad because it would need to be renegotiated in 15 years.

In 15 years if Iran decided to pull out there would had been nothing that could be done, just like there was nothing that could be done when the US decided to pull out 3 years into the deal.

 

[Samjj]

And in that regard JCPOA worked, because it limited Iran's ability to get materials to build a bomb.




Iran doesn't has nuclear weapons



Hinder and delay for as long as the treaty stands, i don't see the point of arguing that the deal was bad because it would need to be renegotiated in 15 years.

In 15 years if Iran decided to pull out there would had been nothing that could be done, just like there was nothing that could be done when the US decided to pull out 3 years into the deal.

We don’t know at this point if Iran has a nuclear weapon.

Iran at the time of the agreement had a weapons program; no stipulations about said program were made in the JCPOA. It thus would not have prevented them from continuing weapons developing, rather it would have provided political cover for that work. It therefore would not have resulted in denuclearization.

 

[Rod1]

Iran at the time of the agreement had a weapons program; no stipulations about said program were made in the JCPOA.

Source? because everyone kind of agrees that its almost impossible to verify.

It thus would not have prevented them from continuing weapons developing

They could develop a theoretical bomb and in this case even Bibi agreed that was of no concern, but having a theoretical working bomb doesn't means a state is considered nuclear.

, rather it would have provided political cover for that work. It therefore would not have

It would also prevent them from actually building a working bomb.

resulted in denuclearization.

It would have because we would know for certain Iran would not have a working bomb since all its enriched uranium was accounted for as opposed to right now where we don't know.

 

[Rod1]

And we still have the whole implication of assuming the IAEA and the US DOD are just dumbfucks and that Bibi is the guy that knows better.

 

[Rholk]

Israel used radar-evading missile to hit S-300 defenses near Natanz nuke site – report

NYT says attack was 'calibrated' to show Israel's capability to dodge Iran's air defenses, make Tehran 'think twice' before another assault; Iran's FM claims it merely faced 'toys'

www.timesofisrael.com

Looking like the entire strike was more of a message that Israel can infact strike them if they wish to

 

[Samjj]

Source? because everyone kind of agrees that its almost impossible to verify.


They could develop a theoretical bomb and in this case even Bibi agreed that was of no concern, but having a theoretical working bomb doesn't means a state is considered nuclear.


It would also prevent them from actually building a working bomb.


It would have because we would know for certain Iran would not have a working bomb since all its enriched uranium was accounted for as opposed to right now where we don't know.

What do you mean that Bibi agreed that a bomb was of no concern? He literally stood in front of the U.N. with a cartoon picture of a bomb.

It would temporarily prevent them from building a nuclear bomb - temporarily being the key word and not resulting in denuclearization.

Dealing in what could have been is aside, the entire contention was always what was included in the deal. The unknowns which are pretty big unknowns were part of the caveats and limitations of the agreement.

 

[Samjj]

And we still have the whole implication of assuming the IAEA and the US DOD are just dumbfucks and that Bibi is the guy that knows better.

I think you're conflating two ideas.

1) that the Iran deal was a preferable diplomatic option in dealing with the nuclear issue in that it decreased their isolation internationally and strengthened moderates internally and thus set the stage for future negotiations where Iran would be on better terms with the West and would hopefully abandon all ambitions of a weapons program
and
2) It was a deal which necessarily would have lead to denuclearization.

IAEA and US DOD agreed with the former, BIbi pressed against the latter.

 

[Rod1]

What do you mean that Bibi agreed that a bomb was of no concern? He literally stood in front of the U.N. with a cartoon picture of a bomb.

The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse.

That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder. In the case of Iran’s plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium.

The fuse is a nuclear detonator. For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse. For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb.

That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very bigindustrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they’re still vulnerable.

In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months.

The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It maybe very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran.

That’s a country that’s bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined.

The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship.

Chances are you won’t find that facility either. So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

EDIT

This is a transcript from the cartoon bomb speech.

 

[Rod1]

I think you're conflating two ideas.

Im not.

1) that the Iran deal was a preferable diplomatic option in dealing with the nuclear issue in that it decreased their isolation internationally and strengthened moderates internally and thus set the stage for future negotiations where Iran would be on better terms with the West and would hopefully abandon all ambitions of a weapons program
and

Indeed.

2) It was a deal which necessarily would have lead to denuclearization.

Because Iran is not a nuclear state (or at least wasn't back when Trump pulled out), so you can't denuclearize something that its not nuclear, you can prevent it though, by putting limits on the key component what makes a nuclear bomb.

IAEA and US DOD agreed with the former, BIbi pressed against the latter.

Again, Bibi's own words said that without enriched Uranium you can't be a nuclear state and that the only way to stop Iran from getting a nuke is to limit their nuclear enriching.

 

[Samjj]

The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse.

That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder. In the case of Iran’s plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium.

The fuse is a nuclear detonator. For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse. For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb.

That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very bigindustrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they’re still vulnerable.

In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months.

The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It maybe very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran.

That’s a country that’s bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined.

The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship.

Chances are you won’t find that facility either. So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

EDIT

This is a transcript from the cartoon bomb speech.

so he was clearly concerned with the bomb...

 

[Samjj]

Im not.


Indeed.


Because Iran is not a nuclear state (or at least wasn't back when Trump pulled out), so you can't denuclearize something that its not nuclear, you can prevent it though, by putting limits on the key component what makes a nuclear bomb.


Again, Bibi's own words said that without enriched Uranium you can't be a nuclear state and that the only way to stop Iran from getting a nuke is to limit their nuclear enriching.

Limiting enrichment is only one part of the puzzle, as we have so far gone in circles.

denuclearization means disarmament.

Implicit in that, is also the ongoing pursuit and development of nuclear weapons - which no stipulations were made in the agreement.

 

[Rod1]

so he was clearly concerned with the bomb...

He literally said that the only CREDIBLE way to stop Iran from getting the bomb was stopping enriching, which is what JCPOA did.

 

[Samjj]

He literally said that the only CREDIBLE way to stop Iran from getting the bomb was stopping enriching, which is what JCPOA did.

You literally just said that he was not concerned with the bomb.

From his address to congress in 2015 against the Iran deal.

“Well first of all the removal of the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon is a game changer in terms of our ability to engage with Iran."

So he clearly did not believe that the Iran deal would achieve that.

====
That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

 

[Rod1]

Limiting enrichment is only one part of the puzzle, as we have so far gone in circles.

Because its clear you are being extremly dishonest here


So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

He didn't said its one part of the puzzle, he didn't said its the most important part, he said its the ONLY CREDIBLE way.

Want me to pull the dictionary again? or are you going to get into a super anal way to scrutinize what ONLY and CREDIBLE means?

 

[Samjj]

Because its clear you are being extremly dishonest here


So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

He didn't said its one part of the puzzle, he didn't said its the most important part, he said its the ONLY CREDIBLE way.

Want me to pull the dictionary again? or are you going to get into a super anal way to scrutinize what ONLY and CREDIBLE means?

You're repeatedly choosing to ignore the caveats of the deal which we have already discussed. If we're talking about maximalist goals of Israel and being HONEST - he probably meant the TOTAL removal of their civilian nuclear program as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/03/03/full-text-netanyahus-address-to-congress/

The LIMITATIONS ON ENRICHMENT were clearly not CREDIBLE ENOUGH in order to create a situation for DENUCLEARIZATION.

 

[Rod1]

You literally just said that he was not concerned with the bomb.

See you are being caught in your own web of dishonesty and lies he was not concerned with your theoretical bomb that somehow makes Iranian a nuclear state, the bomb in YOUR DEFINITION means a theoretical untested NUCLEAR DETONATOR-

We are not in a grammatical limbo where you go back and forth with your own BS definitions and then revert to the commonly accepted ones when convenient.

Normal world.

Nuclear bomb = Nuclear bomb
Nuclear detonator = Nuclear detonator
Denuclearization = No nuclear weapons.

Samjj world

Nuclear detonator = Nuclear bomb.
Nuclear latent = Nuclear capable.
Denuclearization = Permanent inability of a State to acquire nuclear bombs.

Glad to see you fall in your own BS lies.

 

[Copper Burner]

Because its clear you are being extremly dishonest here


So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

He didn't said its one part of the puzzle, he didn't said its the most important part, he said its the ONLY CREDIBLE way.

Want me to pull the dictionary again? or are you going to get into a super anal way to scrutinize what ONLY and CREDIBLE means?

All of this babble is meaningless. How about Israel stops bombing sovereign nations and then surprise, their country will not be attacked. Do you see how that works?

Muh axis of evil

 

[Rod1]

The LIMITATIONS ON ENRICHMENT were clearly not CREDIBLE ENOUGH in order to create a situation for DENUCLEARIZATION.

And yet the IAEA and the USA own experts disagreed.

But i guess for you Bibi can't do no wrong and say no lie, his word is the supreme authority of god on earth i guess.