How is this Ted Cruz poster not totally homoerotic and weird for a presidential candidate?

The radiation goes with its source, but if the radiation is stuck to the inside of a centrifuge, then the whole centrifuge needs to be moved. That’s not a suitcase. That’s a centrifuge, a piece of equipment that is larger than a person:

And they need thousands of them to make enough material for a bomb. Again, this is not suitcases. These are devices the size of a man. Read more about the scenarios for them to produce a weapon here.

Known sites are going to be monitored in real-time, so the 24 day thing doesn’t apply to the places we already know about. The 24 day thing only applies to new suspected activity sites. As if there are going to be “sites.” They will put it in trucks and move it around, if they haven’t already. And they are likely to be hard at work building secret underground skunkworks facilities to run more centrifuges and construct their bomb.

Who are we kidding? The Revolutionary Guard isn’t stupid. I’m sure they are already well on their way or even have completed construction on secret facilities, or have mobile units in production. If the Mexican drug cartels can dig a mile-long tunnel to a prison, then the government of a nation with a $415 billion GDP can pour concrete underground in a place nobody knows about but them.

The only thing we have going for us is that centrifuging uranium takes massive parallel effort of many centrifuges working around the clock to amass enough fissile material to become useful. Or to allow a power reactor to enrich it, but that was stopped by the treaty. For them to construct such an enrichment facility under our noses, we hope, would not be possible. But as I said, no agreement or amount of time is going to save us from secret activity.

Logically then, why even enter an agreement? The reason is that for the known sites, the agreement does the best that it can to keep those facilities peaceful and allows for a return to economic sanctions should it be discovered that Iran has violated the terms.

Think about it. It’s estimated that Iran has between $50 and $120 billion frozen in European banks. That freeze is about to be lifted. Initially Iran will take a large withdrawal. But as Iran’s economy heats up again, that amount of money in foreign hands is likely to skyrocket. At that point, should there be a bomb and should they threaten Israel, then all that money would again be subject to a re-freeze. Iran will be at a crossroads: is playing fairly on the world stage more or less important than unilaterally trying to destroy Israel?

This game of logic could end with the detonation of a few bombs in Israel, followed by the total annihilation of Iran. Or it could end with Iran finally realizing they aren’t the big kid on the playground and learning to play nice. My opinion is that the smart people in Iran will eventually prevail and prevent disaster.

As far as the agreement: just one piece in the complicated pie, but a useful tool.

7 Likes

I have been looking at the picture for a few days, and i still can’t find “the other man”. Why is a picture of a man’s head and torso “homoerotic”? As @ChuckV said: the male gaze as the norm (my words). Why deny (straight) female sexuality/lust/…

My understanding was that they would have immediate access to nuclear sights and then delayed access to sites the inspectors had some reason to suspect. The delay might be helpful in hiding nukes but is also helpful in keeping inspectors from assessing non nuclear military assets or identifying assassination targets as they likely did in Iraq.

Also I would like to hear from a scientist on that one because I am pretty sure it rains in Bikini Atoll, Chernobyl and Fukushima but people didn’t just moved back in. Maybe a contained bomb could be moved around without residuals but I think its pretty uninformed to say an enrichment facility could be packed up and moved in 24 hours or a month and not leave a clear footprint.

1 Like

I think it’s an homage to the shot of Churchill with a tommy gun, as an attempt to suggest that Obama is Chamberlain while Cruz would be Churchill.

This confused analogy they like to pull out seems to suggest that Chamberlain had managed to get Germany to agree to stop producing pocket battleships, stop the Mmesserschmid brothers from their covert warplane development, and end most other covert weapons development in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

You are wrong. Those places have residual radiation from the very bad kind of radiation, alpha particles. If you have alpha particles floating around your nuclear bomb building facilities, people are literally dying. Radiation isn’t magic. It has to come from a source. If you remove the source, you remove the radiation completely. No, really. If you have a radiation source outside of whatever you are working on, you have very seriously screwed up and again, people are dying. No, seriously, you can completely scrub a work site working with contained radioactive in days. The idea that Iran can’t build a place so that it can move in the 24 days they have is really hopelessly naive. The reason why it is so long to go to a new site is specifically because it is more than enough time to move it. Iran agreed to that number for a reason, and it wasn’t so that they are easy to catch.

It is okay to be for the agreement without being hopelessly naive about how effective it is. The agreement is perfectly good if Iran truly intends to surrender its nuclear program and needed a face saving agreement to do so. The agreement is also perfectly okay if don’t care if Iran gets the bomb and don’t want to invade them to stop it. If either of those sounds good, and they sure as shit do to me, then the agreement is fine. If on the other hand you believe that Iran wants the bomb and you are willing to invade to stop them, this agreement is shit. This agreement will allow Iran to continue a clandestine nuclear program with lower key development, but that can be restarted in full at basically anytime. The agreement is utterly powerless to detect a continued nuclear bomb program, much less stop an Iran that really wants the bomb. I am okay with that. Israel can fuck right off as far as I am concerned, and I have no fears about Iran running around with nukes. Hell, I almost want them to be nuclear armed so that we can’t invade them. It is pretty hard for me to articulate how thoroughly uninterested I am in another fucking Middle Eastern war.

Honestly, this is what is wrong with politics today. Your “side” has to be 100% correct, reality be damned. If you are for the agreement, it must be 100% bullet proof. If you are against it, it has to be 100% crap. There exists nothing in-between. Almost no one has the capacity to be for it, realizing how useless it is if Iran is going to violate it. Almost no one has the capacity to be against it and admit that it would give Iran a way out of the mess and buy some time.

I am sorry, the world is gray. Your side isn’t right or wrong all the time. We have a agreement that has a big obvious failure built in. I am okay with that flaw. I can handle the cognitive dissonance of being for something as the best option that has an obvious and glaring failure mechanism because I am okay with it failing in that way.

2 Likes

I get that there isn’t a lot of radiation bouncing around the control room at a nuclear facility, but there would be inside a reactor of any kind, which is what makes it complicated to pack up without leaving any behind.

1 Like

Also, I accept that this is possible, but it seems unlikely to me for a few reasons. First, there were the diplomatic envoys and nuclear experts from China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany involved and second so far the only source of criticism I have seen has come from conservatives, those with strong allegiance to Israel, and internet commenters. The idea that Iran hornswaggled that group of individuals and agencies seems like a remote possibility. Additionally the idea that if it was a bad deal that the criticism of the deal nationally and internationally would break on partisan lines seems downright impossible.

The democrats do make a whole ton of mistakes and I generally think Obama’s first term had its fair share of poorly executed policy negotiations, but that said, the only non partisan criticism of this seems to be that it will restore Iran’s economy and therefore increase their power and the only viable alternative I have heard is going to war. And those weak critiques make me think its about the best we were going to get.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.