Iran / P5+1 - Nuclear Program Negotiations

[Firecat]

I know this has been discussed a bit in Random, but feel it's important enough to break out into its own thread. There seems to be some pessimism about reaching a final deal, although personally I am a bit optimistic. Certainly those at the table seem to want a deal, but hard liners from various corners continue their efforts to try and derail negotiations.


Came across this gem...

House Armed Services Committee member says you can't trust Middle Easterners in negotiations. Suggests using tactical nukes in any future military strike. The notion of using nukes (even "tactical" ones) in this scenario... *roll eyes*

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20...-tactical-nukes-Iran-strikes-become-necessary

I think it's quite dangerous to suggest using any sort of nuclear weapon. Especially pre-emptively.

 

[Spectre]

I think it's quite dangerous to suggest using any sort of nuclear weapon. Especially pre-emptively.

You *do* know this was NATO and Soviet standard procedure for Europe for decades, right? Russia still maintains the policy vice China, with whom they had 30 years of border wars.

 

[Firecat]

The Soviets and Chinese are nuclear weapon states. If the aim is to dissuade a nation from pursuing nuclear weapons, threatening them with nuclear weapons isn't the way to go. It's a motivator IMO and against the NPT which states that you can't....

induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices

 

[SpitfireMK461]

You *do* know this was NATO and Soviet standard procedure for Europe for decades, right? Russia still maintains the policy vice China, with whom they had 30 years of border wars.

Yes, because Cold War policies are the ideals we want to base ourselves off.

It's a horribly idiotic thing for someone to say these days, especially a US Congressman.

As for the negotiations, I'm hopeful that they'll go well, but the initial deal already has some problems, that being the disagreement between Iran and the US if Iran's right to enrich uranium was recognized. Being part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they technically already have that right, but I don't think the disagreement bodes well for the future.

I'd also be concerned about Israel. Of course they are supposed to be the ones opposing anything Iran does and says, but we don't want them to be opposing anything too strongly, else they become the match that starts the fire.

 

[Spectre]

Actually the doctrine is still sound - when attacking a country known to have nuclear weapons (probably Iran in less than a year, by some independent estimations), especially one with ballistic missiles (such as Iran) you make damn sure those weapons are dead and that they can't make more. Whether that means a massive alpha strike with conventional munitions or glassing a facility with a couple of tacnukes to make sure access is very difficult in future depends on what it is, where it is, etc.

As one writer put it: "When dealing with weapons that could kill millions if they got off the ground, {doctrine is} explicit; bounce the rubble."

 

[Firecat]

Did you ever consider that what might make sense from a military or strategic point of view may not from a political point of view (in terms of relations with the rest of the world).

Even if in your scenario the ability to develop a weapon is thwarted. What would stop that nation from purchasing a weapon from Pakistan or North Korea...or finding alternate ways to create chaos in the region using bio, chemical, or even conventional munitions.

I don't think the threat (for those that see one) can entirely be eliminated by war. Only exacerbated.

 

[Spectre]

Did you ever consider that what might make sense from a military or strategic point of view may not from a political point of view (in terms of relations with the rest of the world).

Well, making nice-nice with everyone else as the current Administration has tried doesn't seem to have worked either. Countries are falling into the orbits of Russia and China who *are* saying such things instead.

Even if in your scenario the ability to develop a weapon is thwarted. What would stop that nation from purchasing a weapon from Pakistan or North Korea...or finding alternate ways to create chaos in the region using bio, chemical, or even conventional munitions.

I don't think the threat (for those that see one) can entirely be eliminated by war. Only exacerbated.

No, my posted scenario is what to do *after* someone gets nuclear weapons. Which, with the Chamberlain-like moment the President just had with the P5+1 negotiations, is now pretty much inevitable with Iran.

The real threat to the US isn't Iranian nuclear weapons in Iranian hands, short of smuggled weapons being detonated in the US - the Iranians could detonate a petroleum/natural gas tanker in an American port already and get about the same effects. No, the problem is who Iran would give or sell them to, and I guarantee that within ten years of their building a nuke, someone will use one of theirs unless they are stopped. Europe is a different story; they're going to be in for a fun round of nuclear blackmail as Iran has missiles that *can* reach Europe with a nuclear payload.

The other thing is that this totally ineffectual joke of a treaty/deal means that there is likely going to be a Middle Eastern arms race. Saudi Arabia is now considering building nuclear weapons of their own. And Israel, which *probably* already has nukes even though they refuse to confirm or deny it, will almost certainly build a lot more.

 

[Firecat]

So prior to them acquiring nuclear weapons, you wouldn't opt for a military strike and would favor a peaceful approach?

 

[Spectre]

So prior to them acquiring nuclear weapons, you wouldn't opt for a military strike and would favor a peaceful approach?

The problem with that is that their development of nuclear weapons (and their stance on same) is so far beyond the point where a peaceful resolution is likely to be possible (unless you want to pull a Chamberlain and give Iran everything they want including selling out our allies and breaking our word,) but not quite yet to the point that military intervention is required beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[GRtak]

I will again ask why aren't nukes in the same boat as chemical weapons?

 

[Spectre]

I will again ask why aren't nukes in the same boat as chemical weapons?

For which purposes? For most practical and legal uses, they are.

 

[GRtak]

They should be banned, end of story. The only reason they are still around is the countries that have them are not willing to give them up.

 

[Spectre]

They should be banned, end of story. The only reason they are still around is the countries that have them are not willing to give them up.

Okay, say we ban them. All of them are destroyed.

Next week we discover an asteroid heading for earth. Would have been nice if we had something to deflect it with.

 

[GRtak]

Will that work in space? Everything I have read indicates that the weapons are most effective within the atmosphere.


And there can always be a few set aside for such an emergency. But they would have to be put on larger missiles anyway.

 

[Spectre]

Will that work in space? Everything I have read indicates that the weapons are most effective within the atmosphere.


And there can always be a few set aside for such an emergency. But they would have to be put on larger missiles anyway.

They work in space, but not with blast effects (i.e., big boom does not push rock aside) - they work by converting part of the rock to plasma and vapor and *that* pushes the rock aside.

As for how many we'd need? Thousands depending on how big it is and how far out it was when we saw it. Not 'a few'. Nuclear weapons would also be highly useful as a propulsion system to get the rest of them to the hypothetical asteroid. See the Orion drive, or nuclear pulse propulsion. This was a plot element the writers of the movie Deep Impact used (albeit in skewed form). It is the only drive we know we can build that can get a heavy payload out into the middle solar system quickly (or at all in a timely fashion); it is also the only drive we have that can make a real spacecraft accelerate like a science fiction vessel.

There are also peaceful, if messy, uses for nuclear weapons. They have been used to extinguish otherwise out-of-control and unextinguishable gas field fires, for example. There are low-fallout weapon designs in the archives and IIRC there's a couple of no-fallout device designs on the drawing boards of late (no fission trigger, laser-initiated fusion).

Nuclear weapons can be used both constructively and defensively. There are no constructive uses for a bioweapon or chemical weapon; further, it has been proven that while it is possible to discriminately use a nuclear weapon (see the 'peaceful' cites above) it's very hard to do so with chem or bio weapons - those damn things always seem to go places you didn't want them to when you deploy them. Just look at WW1: Releasing chemical weapons on the battlefield with the intent to have them float towards your enemies often as not had the wind changing and blowing it back to your own lines. Bioweapons are worse, because unlike even persistent chemical weapons like mustard gas, the damn things can mutate out of control and then nobody has any countermeasures.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Every peaceful use of nuclear weapons has been thrown in the Bad Idea bin because of the insurmountable dangers they pose from fallout and radiation release. Even the Orion spacecraft is essentially politically impossible because of the dangers of launching large numbers of nuclear devices into space and the problems with igniting nuclear weapons in space near the Earth. Because of the radiation issues, there really is no constructive use of nuclear weapons.

Also, NASA's favored ideas for throwing an asteroid of course involve either pushing it with Earth-based lasers or with a spacecraft that lands on the asteroid.

IIRC there's a couple of no-fallout device designs on the drawing boards of late (no fission trigger, laser-initiated fusion).

There are no feasible designs for a pure fusion weapon as of now. There hasn't even ever been a fusion test that releases more energy than was needed to start it. Even if there were a pure fusion bomb, there are still huge releases of radiation. The idea is no cleaner than the fission bombs we have today.

 

[Firecat]

A new bill is being circulated in Congress (sponsored by 2 top democrats), despite repeated attempts by the white house to allow for the negotiations without interference

It's quite appalling...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/18/exclusive_top_senate_democrats_break_with_white_house_and_circulate_new_iran_sancti#sthash.FIF1wakI.dpbs

Dubbed the "Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013"

The legislation would broaden the scope of the sanctions already imposed against Iran, expanding the restrictions on Iran's energy sector to include all aspects of its petroleum trade and putting in place measures targeting Iran's shipping and mining sectors.

Among those conditions is a provision that only allows Obama to waive new sanctions, even after a final deal has been struck, if that deal bars Iran from enriching any new uranium whatsoeverThe bill states Obama may not waive sanctions unless the United States and its allies "reached a final and verifiable agreement or arrangement with Iran that will ... dismantle Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities." (Congress could also block Obama's waivers by passing a "joint resolution of disapproval" against a final deal.)

The scariest part....

The bill includes a non-binding provision that states that if Israel takes "military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program," the U.S. "should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence." That language mirrors that introduced in February by another Iran hawk, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). With the support of AIPAC, the Graham resolution, a non-binding bill, was passed by the Senate in April.*

Can I just point out that if Israel doesn't like whatever program Iran has...Pre-emptively striking it can not be considered "legitimate self-defense"