Timeline for Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 17, 2015 at 23:27 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | @user102008 So that is the counter-argument, but not really answer to the question. Plus, if I were Russia, and France activated the snap-back my response would be that no single security council member can obligate any other council member under the UN Charter without amending the charter, which this treaty does not do. They might be wrong, but it doesn't matter because it gives the appearance of lawfulness and stalls for time. The supporters of the treaty may be right, and the critics wrong, but these are their arguments, and they are not making ridiculous assumptions about Intl relations. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 22:01 | comment | added | user102008 | @ThePompitousofLove: According to the mechanism in the deal, any permanent member of the UN Security Council can unilaterally cause all sanctions to be snapped back in 65 days, legally speaking. No outside factors involved. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 19:06 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | 1) I am not saying anything; that is the argument in answer to the question. 2) The counter-argument is: Regardless of how well defined the rules are, there are still political factors that will slow any "snap-back." Who determines if there is a violation? Is there an appeals process? How long will it take for bureaucratically declare that a violation has occurred? These questions mean that re-instituting sanctions are likely to not be immediate even if all countries adhere to the the treaty. One need only look at how long it takes for the UN to declare Genocide to see the problem. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 18:27 | comment | added | user102008 | "Theoretically, the sanctions would snap back into place immediately, but that is unlikely to happen given the intransigence of Russia and China." Legally, all the sanctions as they exist now snap back into place. You are saying individual countries can disregard UN sanctions; sure, but the same thing is true now. If the US rejected a deal, I don't expect Russia and China to uphold the sanctions either, even though they legally exist. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 17:08 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | You are correct on the percentages. I vastly overstated what was necessary for controlled fission--teach me to trust memory--and have made the changes to reflect that, with a citation. Nevertheless, the logic of the complaint against the deal is the same, which is to say that 5% refinement is further away from 20% refinement, especially given that changes in refinement are not linear. Also, the purpose of this answer is not to make these arguments but to answer the question as to what peoples argument's are. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 17:06 | history | edited | The Pompitous of Love | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected the percetages of refined U-235 required at each level.
|
| Jul 16, 2015 at 12:49 | comment | added | Jose Luis | No sources to this answer?? Where does Iran insist on enriching beyond 80%? I read (in CNN) for example that with the deal they are not allowed to enrich beyond 5%!! Comparing North Korea and Iran is not a very fair comparison, North Korea doesn't hide the fact that they are developing nukes, while Iran insists it is a civilian program (and the contrary hasn't been shown, only suspected). Some criticisms are not consistent, as per my remarks. | |
| Jul 15, 2015 at 16:13 | vote | accept | duzzy | ||
| Jul 15, 2015 at 15:22 | history | answered | The Pompitous of Love | CC BY-SA 3.0 |