Iran Nuke deal reached with 6 major powers

Why is Federal Failure babbling about reparations? No one gets any reparations in this deal. Seriously, all of the people opposed to this agreement are lying about what was in it and even the raving Republican candidates who spouting nonsense about it later admit they haven't read it nor even been briefed on its contents so they are just lying and making shit up.

That is, sadly, is their SOP.

Yesterday Iranian courts said the US has to pay them $50 billion dollars in reparations.

No problem with that, we already have an 18 triliom dollar debt, what's another50 billion?

Pretty much sums up the Republican position.

Well, given that the agreement guarantees the extermination of the Jews, why would any Democrat oppose it?

Kill yourself. You are too stupid to live.

And nukes in the hands of the Iranians is a good thing because?

It's a bad thing, hence the deal.

50 billion dollars would go a long way to putting a manned mission on Mars.

The deal that guarantees that Iran will get nuclear weapons to put on top of its ballistic missiles.

In his press conference, Obama was babbling about a "snap back" that's not in the agreement and can't happen because the treaty exempts any contracts or commercial agreements from a re-imposition of sanctions. Further, under the agreement Iran gets $100 to $150 billion dollars to spend on weapons development and terrorist activities. Does Obama think they'll return the money?

It certainly would not.

I've seen reliable cost estimates for a manned mission to Mars. The U.S. only option for development and the first two manned missions is 74 billion dollars.

This includes cost overruns of 50%. Which is comparable to the Apollo program.

If that's true, then what you've seen are inaccurate cost estimates. Reliable costs estimates would be an order of magnitude higher.

That is ridiculous with no basis in reality. The only people overestimating the costs of a manned mission to Mars are those who don't want the effort made in the first place.

I can quote the books "The Case for Mars" and "Entering Space" and various others that contradict that completely.

Published in 1996 and 1999 respectively.

Dayton, are you dumb enough to believe the US would ever pay them a penny?

Dinner, are you dumb enough to believe the Iranians will abide by this "treaty"?

How fast do you think they'll break it? Are you fully, 100% expecting a nuclear attack tonight?

The question was polled and only 5 percent of Americans think the Iranians will abide by it.

Meanwhile:

=

ETA: Polling report

"The U.S. is trying to get Iran to agree to dismantle its nuclear program and allow independent inspections. How much would you trust Iran to abide by the terms of such an agreement: a lot, a little, or not at all?"

5% - A lot
35% - A little
55% - Not at all
5% - Unsure​

That 5% that said "a lot" is also the demographic that's bought the Brooklyn Bridge three times.

"Would you say that the following represent a very serious threat to the United States, a moderately serious threat, just a slight threat, or no threat at all. Iran."

39% - Very serious threat
33% - Moderately serious threat
16% - Just a slight threat
11% - No threat at all
1% - Unsure​

Let's be honest, the average American doesn't know shit about Iran except for the boogie man narrative they have been fed by the media. So the poll is pretty worthless. This deal is a good first step, and it's way better than the default Republican position of continued warfare in the Middle East.

Break it? What makes you think they'll pay any attention to it beyond lip service? No, I don't expect any mushrooms blooming tonite . . . as far as we know, they haven't actually built a bomb yet. But if you think this agreement will restrain them from pushing ahead with their program, well, just see how well that worked out with North Korea.

I notice we are not in a nuclear war with North Korea.

I cannot think of a better scenario than this deal, among all realistic outcomes. If you can, name it.

I notice North Korea now possesses nuclear weapons after agreeing not to develop them.

A better deal with Iran would involve a hell of a lot more engagement than we've been doing, making us seem less threatening to them, while at the same time making it very clear that use of nukes on Israel (which is why they're developing them, after all) would result in their whole country going ker-poof.

That's very vague.

You want more specific? Free and open trade with Iran, barring certain military technologies. Embassies and Consulates again. Iranian students at American universities and American students at Iranian universities. Tourism. Joint anti-piracy patrols in the region. Search and rescue cooperation. You buy our shit, we'll buy your shit. Information sharing on issues of common concern (ISIS, Syria's disintegration, etc). You know, normal relations between countries. With the explicit understanding that Israel is under the US nuclear umbrella and if you pop one off at them, life in your country is going to kind of suck for the next 50,000 years.

All of that sounds great. One of the things I like about the current deal is that I see it as a step towards possible further normalisation; if you want it even faster, then it's really just a question of best possible speed.

However, I don't see anything in there that makes it less likely for Iran to build nukes; a lot of it would make it easier.

I've got no heartburn with that.

Historically, the nuclear deterrent has worked, at least in part, because of MAD. If we operate under the position that there's no such thing as a "proportional response" in the use of nuclear arms, there's no "Mutual" to this destruction. Lets say Iran does get its hands on a crude weapon, they strap it to a regional missile, and they decide to do the unthinkable. Okay. They vaporize Tel Aviv and kill the 1.3 million people living in its metropolitan area. We respond and we kill 30-40 million people. The US people, out of direct danger, aren't going to support that kind of response.

No, the math just doesn't work out for me. In other words, you can sign all the treaties you want, I don't see any President using nuclear arms unless there are hundreds of ICBM's inbound to North America.

Absolutely right.

Why do people believe that the United States (which goes all out to avoid killing civilians) is going to start vaporizing cities with millions of people just because the North Koreans or Iranians detonate a single, crude nuclear warhead somewhere thousands of miles away from here?

I do not even advocate that and I've been called "warmongering".

Ninety-five percent of NYPost readers can't distinguish Iran from Ifaq and couldn't find either on a map if their lives depended on it.

Israel might be the one country where this sort of policy would work. We all know the history of WWII and the Jews and all. And besides, this was precisely US policy for most of our non-nuclear NATO allies, and IIRC Japan as well. Japan hasn't developed their own nukes because they're under our "massive retaliation" umbrella.