Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Iran Nuclear Deal Discussion

  1. Jul 16, 2015 #1
    So nuclear experts out there tell me does this deal make it very difficult for Iran to make the bomb?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 16, 2015 #2
    This deal will enable Iran to have a bunch of nukes within our lifetimes.
  4. Jul 16, 2015 #3
    I find it all baffling. I was against going into Iraq and Afghanistan. However, my stance on Iran would have been 'You have 14 days to stop all nuclear research or we are going to bomb the facilities and your regime into oblivion.' Zero negotiations...zero.

    The only logic I see on this is 'perhaps' Iran would have aligned themselves more with Russia and China. This move heads that off for now.

    At the end of he day, the Israelis will act by whatever means necessary, conventional or a tactical nuclear strike, to prevent religious whackos from getting the Bomb. It is unlikely that the Israelis would need a nuke but they will not be held hostage by Ayatollah Nutbar.
  5. Jul 16, 2015 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Have the actual terms of the deal been released yet?
  6. Jul 16, 2015 #5
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf [Broken] here are some of the details russ_watters
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  7. Jul 16, 2015 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Exactly. I'd like to read them before making up my mind. Or even having an opinion.
  8. Jul 17, 2015 #7
    Would this "preventing religious whackos from getting nukes" involve bombing for example Chasid districts in Israel? (or as minimum plan destroying Israel nuclear weapons in case of too religious party forming a gov after next election?) I mean because of quite serious burnt out of Islamic revolution in Iran, I don't see in A.D. 2015 some huge chasm in number religious freaks between Israeli and Iranian societies. Except that in Iran some remnants of them are in gov and policies, however its being subject to change / very serious friction underneath.
  9. Jul 17, 2015 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why dont you consider that to be a significant difference?
  10. Jul 17, 2015 #9
    How long has Israel had nukes without using them?

    How long do you think the militant Muslim extremists in Iran will have nukes without using them?
  11. Jul 17, 2015 #10
    You mean coolheaded Ayatollahs? Or maybe semi-democratically elected parliament where is normal left wing or Jewish member of parliament? They seek for nukes from the same reasons that Jews - deterrence against surrounding hostile Sunni Muslims. The difference is that just in case they can't call US support, but after conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq (in case of Iraq on made up casus belli), they may be a bit paranoiac concerning US intentions. (honestly, shouldn't they be paranoiac?)

    From stats hard to manipulate - Iran fertility rate fell below 2.1 already in 2001. (Sure, in 1979 it was 6.4) Or more than 60% of university students are women. I have problems to believe that's a really ultra conservative, fanatically Islamic society. Because nowadays such stats look more like taken from a Western country.

    By the time they get it the theocratic character of the regime would crumble even further, so the difference would be quite small. Additionally, if the benchmark is a country like Israel, then in spite of political alignment Israel is not so extraordinary a Western secular republic. Let's forget even bthe high level of militarization, we may blame it on enemies (but we would have to give the same benefit to Iran... Coup of 1953... Supporting Iraq with satellite photos to make chemical weapons targeting easier...) Let's look at Israel - secular marriage? Nope. ID card with ones religion stated? Yup. Not granting Israeli citizenship to a holocaust survivor solely because he adopted faith of a family that was hiding him (Roman Catholic)? Yup.

    The only thing with nuclear Iran that I'm worried with is starting a nuclear arms race with such nice countries joining it like Egypt or Saudi Arabia... There in case of regime collapse it could be indeed unpleasant.
  12. Jul 17, 2015 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Seriously, all, could we at least look it over before we set our opinions in concrete?
  13. Jul 17, 2015 #12
    Would the Ayatola Nutbar or other officials use a nuke?

    No idea...thus why they should be stopped now. Not worth the future risk.

    As for using one. There are circumstances in which stable, sane leaders would...including the USA. And...they did and would again if the situation warranted it.

    Crazies Think of all the crazy leaders of countries in the past hundred years. There will be equally as many in the next hundred.

    Perhaps there is another logic to all this. If (more likely 'when') Iran doesn't fulfill it's obligations, the Israelis will act militarily. Military action will be seen to have more legitimacy. Threatening to destroy Israel, stalling on inspections, etc. The green light for Israel to strike hard. In the aftermath of an Israeli strike there would be complete support of the US President and Congress...some statement like 'regrettable but necessary'.
  14. Jul 17, 2015 #13
    Does this idea of bombing country to prevent it having nuclear bomb because it may have in unspecified future a crazy leadership applies also to Israel?

    Because you know, somewhere between increasing number of Hasidic Jews who are subsidized to study holy scriptures and new settlement on West Bank (what the hell for they are built for?) I would not give Israel leadership sanity top grades...

    (Sorry, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...)
  15. Jul 17, 2015 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This might be of interest.
    Revealed: Israel Built and Tested Dirty Bombs

    It is highly likely that israel already has nukes. They just want to be the only power in the middle east which would help them create the so called "Greater Israel"
  16. Jul 17, 2015 #15
    I really doubt that "Sputnik" pass any test as reliable source. Any more reasonable source also say so?

    Taking it at face value - nuclear armed Israel has no point in researching dirty bombs for offensive reasons. No idea what are rules for dirty bombs, but in case of chemical weapons countries are allowed to produce small quantities of them for testing their own defensive equipment.

    Greater Israel? Come on...
  17. Jul 17, 2015 #16
    I haven't checked the deal in detail and so I haven't yet formed an opinion. My general impression is that I'd be very alarmed if Iran acquired nuclear bombs. However I'd be less worried about Iranian leadership using them (I'm of the opinion that the leadership are sensible players, most of the fanaticism is for local public consumption. Also I'd be surprised if Iran remained a theocracy 20 years from now. I can't say that about any other middle eastern theocracy). My main worry would be about the nuclear arms race that would follow and the potential Israeli pre-emptive strike, both would be disastrous for the region.

    I quite like this discussion to keep going and not be terminated by the admins so I'd suggest keeping the Israel discussion to a minimum.
  18. Jul 17, 2015 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes that would be better.
  19. Jul 17, 2015 #18
    Good point concerning overemphasising Israel here. Let's look at other players:
    -Saudi Arabia - a sworn enemy of Iran, fighting with them proxy wars all over region. Theoretically an important ally of the US, in practice export of Wahhabi Islam is not interest... not only the US, but any civilized country. I don't know... maybe the US should reassure them by selling them some extra guns...
    -Russia - theoretically a not bad friend of Iran, just sold them some SAM kit. Some bad tongues were saying that in order to boost hard liner faction within Iran in order to make them able to defend nuclear sites against air strikes, thus unwilling to forge a compromise. Because a deal can be really dangerous for Russia - Iran that's no longer under sanctions would export plenty of natural gas to Europe, which would seriously hit Russian main export product. In worst case scenario Iran may not only be a source of gas, but also a transit country for Turkmenistan.

    And masses were celebrating making an intrusive agreement the Great Satan? I hope that at least they were not chanting "Deal to America" ;) I think that already demand inside Iran is somewhat limited and that is more a problem of some kind of inertia of official ideology.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  20. Jul 17, 2015 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So...you're saying that you hope by the time Iran gets nukes it has moderated enough not to use them? And that logic doesn't scare you?
    What does any of that have to do with anything? You're not seriously considering Israel and Iran to be equal in the "responsibility" required to not use nukes, are you? I find it hard to take this line of discussion seriously. Just for funzies though, here's a top 20 list of Iranian threats (mostly threats to annihilate Israel): http://www.buzzfeed.com/jerusalemcenter/sworn-to-destruction-20-threats-iranian-leaders-m-hys5
    You aren't worried about Iran using nukes if it gets them? Are you worried about Iran giving nukes to Syria or a terrorist organization (either on purpose or due to an extremist element stealing them)?
  21. Jul 17, 2015 #20
    Huh? Israel has over two hundred nuclear weapons and precision delivery systems. Not exactly a secret.
    Like the USA, Israel will use a nuke if necessary. Period.

    Unlike Obama, Netanyahu will not 'hope' that 'maybe' the Regime that vows to destroy Israel will stop its progress towards acquiring a nuke.

    As for the thread not getting sidetracked? Not at all. Obama knows that Israel will definitely attack Iran. 100% certain 'if' there is no legitimate reduction of Iran's nuclear ambition. It's all about Israel and security. The US knows that all hell could break lose if Israel attacks Iran.
  22. Jul 18, 2015 #21
    Not specially. I see plenty of countries that region that are moderate enough to hopefully not use them... like Pakistan, Russia or Israel. (with worst grades going to Pakistan, I mean in case of Iran both contemporary regime and gov that could form after a populous uprise would be OK, and I can't say the same in case of political change in Pakistan) But we're talking about bombing Iran not Pakistan, right?

    Equally? I grade Israel a bit higher in responsibility, but not extraordinary much.

    Do you think it's more serious threat that Regan's: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."? (If you are curious - SU leadership was really worried by Reagan posturing and ordered its spies to look carefully for any signals that he starts WW3). I mean in the case Ahmadinejad it seems more being a sexied up translation.

    Anyway if we're comparing rhetoric shouldn't we also compare Israeli rhetoric? Concerning bombing Iran and so on?

    Not specially. Too expensive toy to give plus rational enough to understand that would be kept liable in form of massive nuclear retaliation.

    Stealing from them? That's an interesting argument... Why such regimes should be more vulnerable to than any other?
  23. Jul 18, 2015 #22
    The public is keen on lifting the sanctions. Besides, you can always spin the deal and make it appear as a national achievement. Especially that the leadership has always maintained they never intended to build a bomb anyway.

    Some of them were.
  24. Jul 18, 2015 #23
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf [Broken] here are some of the specifics of the deal. Lets try to keep more of a technical rather then a political discussion.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  25. Jul 18, 2015 #24
    Again, it is political...that's the reality.

    Technical...the Bible says blah, blah.... It doesn't make it reality.

    Reality...the Iranian regime is a terrorist state vowing death to Israel. It encourages nut bars to murder Rushdie for the Publication of 'Satanic verses'. It supports suppression of women, gays, etc. This is not a regime that has the same moral compass as most westerners.

    Fortunately, there will be large opposition to this in Congress. However, It will pass because Obama is a dud like Bush jr ...and 'politics', not reason will get it passed. Reason will eventually prevail once Iran, once again, starts quibbling about inspections, etc. Israel will have even more support if and when it attacks Iran.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  26. Jul 18, 2015 #25
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook