It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Full Text Of Iran Nuclear Deal, Have You Read It?

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Well, me neither. But I guess I just crawled out from under a rock and realized it's public info-

s3.amazonaws.com...

www.documentcloud.org...

At first glance, looks like a dry read, gov. style...Lots of references like "upon request by Iran", it almost reads like we are letting them police themselves in this matter. But, I have not had time to read the entire document.

This gem from page 146 has me scratching my head-




5. Review and approve in advance, upon request by Iran, the design, development, fabrication, acquisition, or use for non-nuclear purposes of multi-point explosive
detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device and explosive diagnostic systems (streak cameras, framing cameras and flash x-ray cameras) suitable for the
development of a nuclear explosive device
, as provided for in paragraphs 82.2 and 82.3 of Annex I;


Wait, am I reading this right??

Yeah, this is starting to sound like a bad deal....




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Signals

I would have bolded it like this:

non-nuclear purposes of multi-point explosive
detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device


kaaawhaaattt?

the question is which paragraphs are 82.2 and 83.3..

So I went back and read those..

The deal is they can't do that without approval and monitoring..

Meaning that if they so much as make a computer simulation of a nuclear device they violate the agreement.

What happens if they violate?
edit on 18-8-2015 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Ooooh yeah, Iran is certainly not getting the bomb. /s

Lets see what the sheep say in 3...2...1...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

What "non-nuclear" purposes could there be for such a device?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Signals

The 5060 centrifuges is odd. It's up to the politicians to posture and debate now. As always guess we'll see what happens. Thanks for posting.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I've been reading through the material and so far it seems pretty thorough and very restrictive of Iran's capability to produce anything that can lead to weaponized nuclear material.

This seems like a good step towards building trust with Iran and I hope we can continue to be diplomatic, not aggressive.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
They've been telling us Iran is weeks/months away from having a nuclear weapon for over 30 years -- that's almost my entire life.

If Iran really wanted one, they'd already have one.

Hell, North Korea has a nuke and they can't even feed their own people.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Considering the history I think it will be quite sometime before we are really dimplomatic.

If the npt which is pretty specific wasn't good enough and UN resolutions didn't cut it the trust factor might be on the light side.

Is what it is, time will tell. 5060 centrifuges are still odd. Let the games begin.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Signals
a reply to: Reverbs

What "non-nuclear" purposes could there be for such a device?


no in my interpretation it's saying basically,
violate this agreement by doing any needed steps to make a detonation device for nuclear material, and....

I don't know what the terms for violating the agreement are.

sounds like a trap



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We're being diplomatic now. No threats of war or retaliation, just talking with each other to find a deal that builds trust towards an eventual friendship.

Many years down the road Iran may be one of our allies.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I hope so.

That sounds way better than other alternatives.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

Exactly, we need to know what those terms are.

Is this all a tricky setup for Iran for future strikes or are we giving them everything they want?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If this were true on both sides you'd think we wouldn't still hear the "death to America" chants during and after the agreement...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We're being diplomatic now. No threats of war or retaliation, just talking with each other to find a deal that builds trust towards an eventual friendship.

Many years down the road Iran may be one of our allies.


To the public we are, background, we've been running operation Olympic games since Bush and stepped up by Obama, nothing as large scale as 2012 but still being waged.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Signals

And we wouldn't hear people in the US calling for the same. There are extremists on both ends of this equation.


originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We're being diplomatic now. No threats of war or retaliation, just talking with each other to find a deal that builds trust towards an eventual friendship.

Many years down the road Iran may be one of our allies.


To the public we are, background, we've been running operation Olympic games since Bush and stepped up by Obama, nothing as large scale as 2012 but still being waged.


Indeed. I hope this changes that, we begin to build trust, and that we move forward. I've noticed that the deal included trade options, including American aircraft, and it would be ideal for us to trade goods with Iran, not blows.
edit on 18-8-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You will never hear from me getting it on is better than getting along. We just have a lot of history and baggage , even pretty recently, to heal before trying to be true partners. Lot of ifs out there. The biggest, if it works. If it does great.

Now we get subjected to the political theatre. As I said , let the games begin



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Over 30 years?? You must be joking.

That's before Pakistan, India and China developed nukes. Not prone to exaggeration are you...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I suppose you are correct in the sense that the 2 biggest supporters of terrorism on the planet should make a pact and work together but...

This thing stinks to high heaven either way.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Signals
a reply to: introvert

I suppose you are correct in the sense that the 2 biggest supporters of terrorism on the planet should make a pact and work together but...

This thing stinks to high heaven either way.


Why does it stink to high heaven? What parts of the deal lead you to believe that?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The parts I've read so far! It's going to take some time to sift through it though.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join