There is no racism in the USA
|
Posted:May 2, 2016 2:06 am
Last Updated:Sep 25, 2018 10:21 am 22753 Views
|
Announcement from the White House that Malia Obama is to accept a place at Harvard after taking a gap year was reported on FOX.
Malia is the eldest of the Obamas’ two daughters. She’s 17 and a senior at the exclusive Sidwell Friends School in the District of Columbia.
She’s set to graduate high school in June, then celebrate her 18th birthday on the Fourth of July.
Obama recently said he turned down an invitation to speak at Malia’s high school graduation because his emotions would get the best of him.
The viewers of this hate channel responded in the only way they know how.
This is a small selection of the racist abuse levelled at the of the POTUS - but there is no racism in the USA. Some of the comments will not post here as this site would not allow the wording but one word (Ni**a) abounds.
How can this be acceptable in a civilised democracy?
|
|
|
13
Comments
|
|
An interesting list of characteristics
|
Posted:Feb 27, 2016 5:36 am
Last Updated:Mar 11, 2016 6:21 am 21004 Views
|
Just found a psychological profiling paper on the net with a self administered questionnaire about gifted adults.
Interestingly there is absolutely NO reference to KNOWLEDGE.
If you want to administer the test to yourself, just for fun, I have posted it below. There is no quota of 'right' answers to reach but the more yes answers you get the more likely you are to be gifted in some form or other.
1. Are you a good problem solver, or like to spend time working on solving problems?
2. Do you generally understand new ideas quickly?
3. Do you have an extensive vocabulary?
4. Are you a complex person?
5. Do you have good long-term memory (not necessarily across the board)?
6. Do you concentrate for long periods of time?
7. Are you highly sensitive, either positively or negatively?
8. Are you unusually compassionate?
9. Are you a perfectionistic?
10. Do you have passionate, intense feelings?
11. Do you feel compelled to critique or improve upon the status quo?
12. Do you have strong moral or philosophical convictions?
13. Are you very curious?
14. Do you persevere with your interests?
15. Do you have a great deal of energy (mental or physical)?
16. Do you often feel out-of-sync with others?
17. Do you feel overwhelmed by many interests or abilities?
18. Do you have an extraordinary or philosophical sense of humor?
19. Are you an avid reader?
20. Do you often take a stand against injustice?
21. As a were you considered mature for your age in any way?
22. Are you a keen observer?
23. Do you have a vivid imagination or have a perpetual flow of ideas?
24. Do you feel driven by your creativity?
25. Do you often question authority or feel unimpressed by authority?
26. Do you have facility with numbers?
27. Do you spend time doing puzzles (any kind, not necessarily pencil and paper, or jig-saw)?
28. Do you love ardent discussions?
29. Are you perceptive or insightful?
30. Do you have organized collections?
31. Do you need periods of contemplation?
32. Do you often connect seemingly unrelated ideas?
33. Do you thrive on challenge?
34. Do you often search for meaning in your life?
35. Are you fascinated with paradoxes?
36. Do you have extraordinary abilities and deficits?
37. Are you often aware of things that others are not?
38. Do you set high standards or goals for yourself?
39. Do you have unusual ideas or perceptions?
40. Do you find you race ahead of folks in ways that they deem surprising?
41. Do you notice patterns or exceptions to patterns, even subtle ones?
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
Vous n’aurez pas ma haine
|
Posted:Nov 17, 2015 1:48 pm
Last Updated:Jul 5, 2020 2:48 am 21909 Views
|
This powerful and emotional message of defiance was posted on Facebook by Antoine Leiris whose wife was killed in Paris on Friday. His courage and indomitable spirit shine through in his words. This is one of the most humbling pieces of prose I have ever read.
"Vous n’aurez pas ma haine”
Vendredi soir vous avez volé la vie d’un être d’exception, l’amour de ma vie, la mère de mon fils mais vous n’aurez pas ma haine. Je ne sais pas qui vous êtes et je ne veux pas le savoir, vous êtes des âmes mortes. Si ce Dieu pour lequel vous tuez aveuglément nous a fait à image, chaque balle dans le corps de ma femme aura été une blessure dans coeur.
Alors non je ne vous ferai pas ce cadeau de vous haïr. Vous l’avez bien cherché pourtant mais répondre à la haine par la colère ce serait céder à la même ignorance qui a fait de vous ce que vous êtes. Vous voulez que j’ai peur, que je regarde mes concitoyens avec un oeil méfiant, que je sacrifice ma liberté pour la sécurité. Perdu. Même joueur joue encore.
Je l’ai vu ce matin. Enfin, après des nuits et des jours d’attente. Elle était aussi belle que lorsqu’elle est partie ce vendredi soir, aussi belle que lorsque j’en suis tombé éperdument amoureux il y a plus de 12 ans. Bien sûr je suis dévasté par le chagrin, je vous concède cette petite victoire, mais elle sera de courte durée. Je sais qu’elle nous accompagnerai chaque jour et que nous nous retrouverons dans ce paradis des âmes libres auquel vous n’aurez jamais accès.
Nous sommes deux, mon fils et moi, mais nous sommes plus fort que toutes les armées du monde. Je n’ai d’ailleurs pas plus de temps à vous consacrer, je dois rejoind Melvil qui se réveille de sa sieste. Il a 17 mois à peine, il va manger goûter comme tous les jours, puis nous allons jouer comme tous les jours et toute sa vie ce petit garçon vous fera l’affront d’être heureux et libre. Car non, vous n’aurez pas sa haine non plus.
"You will not have my hatred "
On Friday night you stole the life of an exceptional being, the love of my life, the mother of my , but you will not have my hatred. I do not know who you are and I do not want to know, you are dead souls. If the God, for whom you kill blindly made us in his image, every bullet in the body of my wife has been a wound in his heart.
So no, I will not give this gift to hate you. You've sought for hatred but if we were to meet hatred with anger it would yield to the same ignorance that made you what you are. You want me to fear you, to look on my fellow citizens with a suspicion, to sacrifice my freedom for security. You have lost. I am the same person, I will continue to live my life ( Same player still playing.)
I saw her this morning. Finally, after days and nights of waiting. She was as beautiful as when she left last Friday night, as beautiful as when I fell in love with her more than 12 years ago. Of course I am devastated by grief, I grant you this small victory, but it will be short lived. I know she will accompany us every day and we will be in this paradise of free souls that you will never access.
We are two, my and I, but we are stronger than all the armies in the world. I have no more time for you, I must join Melvil who is waking from a nap. He is 17 months old, he will eat his lunch like every day, then we will play like every day and his whole life that little boy will be an affront to you by being happy and free. Because no, you will not have his hatred either.
|
|
|
7
Comments
|
|
Geocaching and sightseeing go together,
|
Posted:Oct 26, 2015 12:52 pm
Last Updated:Oct 28, 2015 6:10 am 21664 Views
|
Not quite the weather for the beach but a pleasant Autumn day in Barnstaple, N.Devon so we decided to do a geocaching trail round the town, taking in some of the amazing history of one of the oldest boroughs in the UK - founded in 930 AD.
For those who don't know geocaching is basically treasure hunting with a GPS. People hide caches and give the GPS coordinates along with clues to get you to your destination.
Today there was a bit of a twist as the first eight locations had to be found to give clues to solve which gave you the coordinates of the final cache.
Through the town square and one clue is found on the clock tower.
Into the old town and one old school endowed for the education of 20 poore girls (maids); by the Mayors wife in 1659
Next stop the Old Branham Pottery building - part of the heritage trail and a beautiful example of a building constructed in the local Marland bricks made from locally quarried clay and exported all over the world.
Alms houses abound in the town. They were set up to house the poor. Old servants and those who left tied cottages when their service ended, were often granted tenancies in their old age. Mrs J's aunt lived in an alms house until she was well into her 90's. These almshouses are still kept up by charitable donations to the Rotary Club.
The holes in the doors of the almshouses were made by musket bullets when the almshouses were used as a refuge by Royalist forces fleeing the Parliamentary forces in April 1646.
The trail leads out of town along the river
Crossing the river and headed back towards the town with dusk just beginning to fall.
The cache is finally found (no pics of this as it is a secret) and back into the town just as the lights come on.
You never really see how beautiful the buildings in your own town can be until you really look. Barnstaple really does have some lovely old architecture.
A good afternoon spent finding clues,solving a puzzle and taking a 3-4 mile walk in the most pleasant of surroundings. Time to head off to a local hostelry for a meal and a pint or two of real ale.
|
|
|
3
Comments
|
|
Sometimes the UK just seems such a quaint old country.
|
Posted:Oct 5, 2015 5:47 am
Last Updated:Oct 9, 2015 2:47 pm 21411 Views
|
An article from The Economist 5th October 2013. No comment needed.
IN A turf war in Birmingham, the two gangs involved used the same gun for their tit-for-tat shootings, renting it in turn from the same third party, says Martin Parker, head of forensics at the National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS). The paucity of guns in Britain is both testament to the success of its gun-control regime and one of the reasons for it.
Tucked discreetly away on a Birmingham back street, NABIS has become a key weapon in the fight against gun crime. In a nearby laboratory, and in hubs in Glasgow, London and Manchester, the staff of around 40 identify firearms using the marks left on the bullets from them, using a database to determine whether they are from known guns. Where the bullet is found but not the gun, they list it as an “inferred weapon”. When a gun is found, they fire it and check the bullets’ markings to see if they match previous shootings.
Gun crime in Britain was low to start with and is falling. NABIS was set up in 2008 when the police and politicians worried that shootings were on the up. Cases such as the murders of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis in Birmingham in 2003 fanned fears. That the police can name such individual victims, however, highlights their rarity. London had 99 fewer shootings in 2012-13 than the previous year, a 20% drop, says detective superintendent Gordon Allison of Trident, the Metropolitan Police’s anti-gang unit.
Shootings are rare because guns are scarce. Some criminals steal legally owned shotguns. Some new ones are posted to Britain using fast-parcel services. Others are smuggled through ports. But the risks are higher and the returns lower than for smuggling drugs. Some crooks also reactivate decommissioned guns. Antique firearms are increasingly popular. During the 2011 riots a 19th-century St Etienne revolver was fired. The use of such heirlooms suggests that it is hard to find new weapons. Bullets are in short supply so volatile homemade ones are often deployed.
Shortages also mean criminals use weapons repeatedly, leaving a useful trail of evidence. Some, like the Birmingham gangsters, hire them from others. Clean guns—ones that have not been used before—are both rare and expensive. Other countries, such as Ireland and Spain, use the same database system, allowing NABIS to share information and track guns beyond Britain’s borders. America uses it too, but tracking the guns used in crimes there would be a Sisyphean task: few guns are used repeatedly there because it is so easy to buy new ones. Gun-starved Britons cannot be so cavalier.
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
Go ahead and hate
|
Posted:Sep 25, 2015 5:43 am
Last Updated:Dec 10, 2019 2:20 am 21575 Views
|
Listen, , to a story
That was written long ago
About a Kingdom on a mountain
And a valley folk down below
On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath a stone
And the valley people swore
They'd have it for their very own
Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven
You can justify it in the end
But there won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day
On the bloody morning after
One tin soldier rides away
So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill
Asking for the buried treasure
Tons of gold for which they'd kill
Came an answer from the Kingdom
With our brothers, we will share
All the riches of our mountain
All the secrets buried there
Now the valley swore with anger
Mount your horses, draw your swords
And they killed the mountain people
So they won their just rewards
Now they stood beside the treasure
On the mountain dark and red
Turned the stone and looked beneath it
Peace on Earth, was all it said
Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of Heaven
You can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day
On the bloody morning after
One tin soldier rides away
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
US Presidents often negotiate with the enemy and sign deals with them.
|
Posted:Sep 11, 2015 8:19 am
Last Updated:Oct 8, 2015 3:09 pm 21334 Views
|
Various US Presidents have negotiated deals with a mortal enemy. In fact they have negotiated deals with an enemy sworn to destroy them and whose citizens have been known to chant 'Death to the USA'. Those deals were held up to the people as triumphs of the diplomatic art and Presidents from Kennedy to both Bushes, Reagan to Clinton and Carter have been lionised for their skill in negotiating these treaties. These treaties made the world a safer place and all of them still stand. Only one President has been vilified for negotiating a treaty to limit nuclear arms and with the intention of making the world a safer place.
The USA should trust Iran to a certain extent - the same extent they trusted the Soviet Union and Russia when they made dozens of agreements and treaties with them regarding nuclear weapons:
Signing a treaty with an enemy is not impossible apparently.
1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty
1970s Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
1991 START I
1993 START II
1994 United States – Russia mutual detargeting
1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (not in force)
1997 START III
2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty
2010 New START
Some of these treaties were signed at the height of the Cold War in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and outright paranoia. They were all signed between two countries who regarded each other as mortal enemies and portrayed each other as 'evil', as 'blinded by ideology', and as 'madmen', who 'want to destroy us'.
Just because you hate a foreign country, just because you have incompatible geopolitical interests, an unfortunate mutual history and immutable ideological differences, just because you regard them as an enemy and as a threat, doesn't mean you can't come to an agreement with them. It just means you have to make sure the agreement is carefully negotiated, verifiable and doesn't leave loopholes.
If the USA could trust the Soviet Union enough to make an agreement with them about nuclear weapons then they can trust the Iranians in the same way.
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
Walking in the mountains (2)
|
Posted:Aug 28, 2015 2:41 pm
Last Updated:Nov 30, 2015 5:50 pm 20942 Views
|
The weather has been absolutely magnificent all week and it has been so hot that a long walk in the sun was always going to be hard work but the views are so beautiful it is worth the effort.
As it did not seem to be cooling down - in fact it was 32C (90F) today and the forecast is even hotter for tomorrow and Sunday - I decided it was time to get in a long but less arduous walk on the 'softer' mountains to the south of Ellmau.
They are considerably lower (about 6000 ft /1800m at the highest point and 5000 ft/ 1500m) along the flatter parts where they prepare the ski pistes.
The walks are more like hill walking than mountain climbing but the downhill is still severe with drops of over 1000m or 3500ft.
There are numerous alpine huts scattered over the hills to get a cold drink and snack but I wanted to get in about 20 - 21 km (13 miles) so could not visit them all lol.
 Just starting out. Looking into the blue and contemplating the universe.
The panorama view to the north - the Wilderkaiser range (the rocky mountains I was climbing last time).
Plenty of fresh snow on the mountains further south but they are almost twice as high. Tallest is the Grossvenedigger at 3,666 m (aover 12,000 ft).
The paths are well maintained and very well used. This is the shoulder between three of the higher peaks , all of which were on my itinerary.
First stop the Jochstub'n - a pretty little hut on a man made lake - the Jochstub'n see. The lakes hold water for the snow blowers used to keep the slopes in good repair in winter. They also breed trout in them and you can choose one for lunch lol.
Looking down on another man made see/lake. Heading down to the lake then through the woods to the next peak.
The Bergkaiser restaurant - top of the mountain above the village.
The village is far below
The Rubezahl is one of the oldest huts in the area. It has many stories about the family of woodcarvers who own it and there is a trail of carved signs and heads along the path to it. The original builder was a dwarf (only about 4 feet tall ) so all the doors and beams are so low even someone of below average height like me has to duck down or risk concussion. This is one of the most popular huts in the valley.
Back home to the Hubenhof where we have a flat. Our flat is on the second floor and the balcony is great for sitting out in the afternoon sun.
There are too many pictures to put in one blog so I will do a separate one for the Alpine huts as they are picturesque and often have stories attached to them.
|
|
|
6
Comments
|
|
A walk in the mountains
|
Posted:Aug 26, 2015 3:31 am
Last Updated:May 9, 2016 12:23 pm 20808 Views
|
To make a change from pictures of cakes (and to burn off a few calories ) today was my annual pre-breakfast jaunt up the mountains. An early start at 7 am and a view up the way I was planning to go. 
The first target is the Gaudeamushutte, the start of the real climbing and gateway to the higher passes.
Onward and upward . The sun was beginning to warm up now and the climb was getting steeper.
The Gaudeamushutte shrinking below me now.
Don't look down
Or maybe don't look up
Top of the climb -the Gruttenhutte
A welcome rest on the way down - Riedlhutte - but unfortunately it was ruhetag (their day off ) so the hut was closed.
A long walk through the woods bringing me back to my start point.
From the car park an excellent view of the complete route - about 13km (8miles) round trip -
All done by 10.30 am and time to get home for a well earned breakfast.
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
The 6 most common myths about the Iranian Nuclear deal.
|
Posted:Jul 17, 2015 1:40 pm
Last Updated:Sep 26, 2015 2:44 pm 23659 Views
|
The Iran deal mythmaking predates the Iran deal itself. When the actual agreement was still but a glint in the negotiating team's eye, it had already been declared to be both savior and downfall of nations as varied as the United States, Israel, Syria, and Iran itself. But while there were kernels of truth in many of those arguments, they were largely composed of spin, exaggeration, and often a degree of straight-up nonsense.
It can be easy to get lost in all of those myths, and hard to separate them out from what this deal actually does. (The answer is quite straightforward: It limits Iran's nuclear program to prevent it from producing a bomb, imposes monitoring and inspections, and grants Iran relief from sanctions.) Here are a few of the most common myths about the Iran deal.
Myth #1: The Iran deal is abject surrender and will make it easier for Iran to get a nuclear bomb
This is probably the most common talking point about the Iran deal, and certainly the most common one against it: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been making it for months, as have some Republicans.
This is total nonsense and is, in fact, the exact opposite of what is happening. Iran has accepted enormous cuts to its nuclear program, not to mention invasive and politically humiliating inspections.
Iran gets to keep some stuff, sure. But the US won on every major issue that was really important, and the upshot is that Iran is surrendering most of its nuclear program. Here are the bullet points:
Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.
It's worth looking at what actual arms control experts say: that the deal is very good at limiting Iran's nuclear program and is favorable to the United States. Given that many of those analysts were initially pessimistic, that they took this as a welcome surprise tells you something.
One nuclear weapons expert, Aaron Stein, told us the that deal "makes the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely remote."
In short, the terms of this agreement will make it far, far, far more difficult for Iran to get a nuclear bomb. It is exactly what the United States sought out of this deal, and it got it.
Myth #2: The Iran deal will pave Iran's way to regional and/or global domination
This is the second major component of the Iran deal criticism. It's on much more solid ground — but it's still ultimately false.
The argument goes like this: Iran is bent on hegemonic expansion of power in the Middle East (true), it uses violence and terrorism and sponsors terrible groups to achieve this aim (very true), and every penny it gets from economic sanctions relief will go to furthering this violent agenda (not so true).
It seems likely that Iran will spend some of its new cash on its cold war with Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. That will increase human suffering in the region, and could turn up the temperature on some of the proxy conflicts Iran is already involved in.
But it's simply not the case that Iran will devote every penny of its economic windfall to sowing regional havoc. At the moment, most of the country's budget goes toward routine governance expenses, like salaries for government employees and the costs of social services. There's no reason to believe those priorities will suddenly change now.
Don't take it from me: The CIA itself predicts that Iran will probably put most of the money from sanctions relief toward its domestic economy. Iranian civilians are human beings, too, and they've been suffering real humanitarian hardship due to sanctions. This won't solve that problem, but it will ease it.
The CIA prediction is just that, and could be wrong. But even the pessimistic view, that Iran will put its money toward nefarious activities, concedes that this would happen even without the Iran deal. As Brookings scholar Tamara Wittes wrote, "Iranian meddling across the region will get worse in the wake of an Iran deal — but it was going to get worse anyway."
It's worth remembering that this problem would be infinitely worse if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, which would grant it far more power and military cover than any amount of sanctions relief. That's one of the main reasons the nuclear deal was so important in the first place.
Myth #3: The Iran deal will usher in a kinder, gentler, friendlier Iran
This myth is the bizarro twin of #2 above: the idea that now that sanctions have been removed and Iran will be more economically connected with the rest of the world, it will inevitably lead to a less hostile, friendlier Iranian government. This theory tends to rely on a lot of reasoning from counterfactuals: Its proponents point out that embargoes on Cuba and North Korea haven't caused the end of hostile regimes in those countries, and that therefore closing off a country from the rest of the world must make it more extreme, and more openness must make it more friendly.
But while there may be some truth to that theory in general, there's a lot that it misses about Iran specifically. This nuclear deal isn't going to end Iran's struggle for regional dominance, which means that it isn't going stop Iran from backing brutal dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad or violent militant groups across the Middle East. There is simply no reason to believe that Iran has changed its ambitions in the Middle East or its willingness to sponsor bad actors.
Nor is hostility to the West something that can be solved so easily. As Steve Coll pointed out recently, Iran's regime sees hostility to America as a core value and an essential pillar to maintaining its power. The nuclear deal isn't going to change that.
Myth #4: The Iran deal will ring in a new era of prosperity and openness for Iran
This is a myth heard not in Washington, but in Iran. Many Iranians flooded into the streets when the deal was announced, reflecting a widespread — and dangerously false — belief that the nuclear deal will bring a swift end to the years of economic suffering they experienced under sanctions.
A recent poll found that a majority of Iranians said they expected an improvement in living standards and better access to foreign investment within a year. But the reality is that the Iranian economy will likely continue to struggle for a long time. Iran's economy is plagued by problems such as corruption, a middle-income trap, and a heavy reliance on oil and natural gas exports. Those are hard problems to solve, and if they get solved at all it will take years.
And the sanctions regime will only be suspended, not gone completely, for years to come. During that time, sanctions can "snap back" if Iran violates the terms of the nuclear deal. That means Iran will still be a risky place to invest: Foreign companies that sink money into infrastructure or long-term investments run the risk of losing that cash if sanctions return. They will behave accordingly.
And even if foreign investment does turn out to be available, Iran's economy will take time to increase its productivity. In the meantime, Iranian businesses will face competition from foreign firms that will have access to its markets. That's arguably great for Iranian consumers, but it could be difficult for local businesses.
This myth risks more than just disappointing Iranians who believe it. One reason the nuclear deal went through at all, with all of the painful and humiliating concessions it required Iran to make, was the overwhelming popular demand for it. That gave Iran's moderates the political mandate they needed to overcome hard-liners who oppose the deal. When regular Iranians start to realize that they're not headed for overnight economic relief, they may lose enthusiasm for the deal or even turn against it. They could put more hard-liners into Iran's elected parliament, who might be tempted to cheat on the deal or defy it outright.
Myth # 5: Iran will be able to block enforcement of the deal
Since the deal was announced, a number of critics have claimed that it will be ineffective because Iran will be able to evade the monitoring regime, or because it will be able to block the reimposition of sanctions, or both. Under that theory, Iran has basically just gotten something for nothing: The current sanctions will be lifted, but with a little luck and sneaking around, the Iranians will be able to get a bomb anyway.
When you look at how this deal is structured, it becomes clear that this is just not the case. Arms control experts say the inspections regime is the strongest element of the deal. Inspectors will be monitoring the only two mines where Iran can get uranium ore, the fuel for a bomb, and the mills where it's processed. They will keep tabs on every single centrifuge in the country, as well as the centrifuge factories, the machines that could be used to make a centrifuge, even on imports of technology that could be used to build a machine that could be used to build a centrifuge.
According to Stein, if Iran tried to cheat on the deal, "the likelihood of getting caught is near 100 percent."
And if it does get caught, the deal is set up to make punishment swift and almost totally certain. If one of the parties to the deal believes Iran is cheating, it can first go to the joint committee that's in charge of deal enforcement. But if it's not happy with that committee's decision, it can go to the Security Council, at which point sanctions will "snap back" into place after 30 days unless a new resolution is passed — and the US can veto any resolution, effectively allowing it to force the UN to reimpose new sanctions.
This also applies if, say, Iran tried to block inspectors. Sure, they could lock out inspectors, but that would blow up the deal — it would effectively prove that Iran was cheating without the world even having to catch them red-handed. This was something that so infuriated the world when Iraq's Saddam Hussein tried it in 1998 that it ended with his country getting bombed shortly thereafter.
Even if Iran decided to cheat anyway, it will have surrendered so much of its program that it would take it a full year of cheating, with every centrifuge spinning at full capacity, to get enough material for a single bomb. That's more than enough time for the world to see it coming and respond.
Myth #6: The deal makes it physically impossible for Iran to build a bomb
This is the Obama administration's favorite myth. The White House fact sheet on the Iran deal says that the agreement "will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," and that it will "block" "all of Iran's potential pathways to a bomb."
It's definitely true that this deal makes it much, much harder for Iran to acquire a bomb. The country will give up most of its centrifuges and most of its stockpile of nuclear material, and it will put all of that under the watchful eyes of inspectors. But it will keep small amounts of each, and Iran is still a sovereign country.
By the White House's own estimate, Iran's "breakout time" — the time it would take Iran, if it kicked out inspectors one day, to assemble the material for one nuclear bomb — will be extended by the terms of this deal from three months to about a year. That's great news if you want to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb. That year is more than enough time for the world to discover what Iran is doing and respond however necessary.
But while a year is more than three months, it is also less than forever. Iran's pathway to a bomb is considerably longer, better monitored, and more dangerous for it to tread — all of which is meant to deter the country from walking it. But it is not correct to say that the pathway is entirely "blocked." And preventing Iran from testing its limits, from the temptation of cheating, will be a constant responsibility for the international community.
Even if you were to grant the White House's language massaging when it conflates a 12-month breakout time with "all pathways are blocked," it's still not entirely accurate. The provisions in the deal will last between 10 and 25 years. Arms control experts tend to see the 25-year provisions — the inspections — as the most important, which is why Stein told us "this will take us into 2040. So it's not the next president's issue."
But even that most optimistic assessment of 25 years is not forever. It is more than 10 years, and certainly more than the two-year delay that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would impose on the program. This deal is certainly still meaningful. But it doesn't block all pathways to Iran ever getting a bomb. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that this problem is solved forever.
|
|
|
10
Comments
|
|
