[ RadSafe ] Subject: Re: For Critics of the Iran Nuclear Deal
john.ahlquist at sbcglobal.net
Sun Aug 9 01:59:34 CDT 2015
Thank you to Dan and Mike for their thoughtful posts and to Dan for the valuable links. I urge all of you to at least glance through the Wikipedia article provided by Dan. At the end there are links to the actual agreement. And, as Dan points out, all signatories to the NPT are entitled to their nuclear research and power programs. Verification that their activities are used as intended for peaceful purpose is done by IAEA inspection. The inspection process is a remarkable accomplishment of the NPT. It is probably the only time in history when nations opened their borders and facilities to inspectors from other nations to monitor their work. Under the agreement, major facilities will have continuous inspection and the number of inspectors assigned to Iran will triple from 50 to 150. Wow! With continuous surveillance and that number of inspectors, it will be difficult to carry out a clandestine program.
I agree with the remarks of Sig Hecker [former LANL director] [see Wikpedia comments], that this is a surprisingly good deal and it should be implemented. As was so brilliantly pointed out by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, it is sad that the strident opposition in the Congress occurred well before the commenters had even read the document. So many in Congress show no hints of statesmanship but are caught up in closed-minded partisanship.
For the record I was an HP in underground nuclear testing for LANL and have worked in other parts of the weapons complex and was a nuclear safeguards inspector for the IAEA from 1980 to 1983.
You should contact your Senators and Representatives and urge them to vote for the deal.
John AhlquistWalnut Creek, CA
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:50:02 +0000
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] For Critics of the Iran Nuclear Deal
<E4F1B81B652DC342A8CD6E11BF16BDA0136E0E64 at WAXMXOLYMB013.WAX.wa.lcl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thank you, Dan.
I come at this from a different direction, having spent the formative years of my adulthood in the Nuclear Deterrent biz, as an officer in the submarine community, in particular the weapons community of the SSBN branch. I was, if you will, at the "end user" portion of the nuclear weapons chain.
I would note, as the President has, that we and the Soviets managed to not like each other for a pretty long time, but still negotiated with each other. The treaties were not "and they all lived happily ever after" documents, but rather things aimed at improving the situation a little bit, for at least a little while. That made them possible. If the standard had been "they all lived happily ever after", or even worse "the US lived happily ever after and everyone else marinated in the shame of being losers" the treaties couldn't have happened. The same is true with Iran: if the only acceptable standard is that we get everything we want for the end of time and they get nothing but the bitter taste of endless defeat, it isn't going to happen.
This process reminds me of several things, including the situation between the US and Cuba. We could have "won" more than 20 years ago by opening relations and establishing trade, but bitter old men and their equally bitter prot?g?es refused to snatch victory from the jaws of status quo. They insisted unobtainable humiliation of the other party, and so turned down obtainable victory.
But I think the resistance on the political Right currently is based in part on the ideological of never wanting a deal the other side can live with, never wanting anything the Democrats can take any credit for, and never wanting anything the President Obama wants, even if it is what they wanted just days before.
And I think the public tires of this.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:36 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] For Critics of the Iran Nuclear Deal
Though this opinion does not directly relate to nuclear safety, It is topically related to an important nuclear issue that, I believe, we are all concerned about. This is my opinion. I'd like to hear your opinions.
*For Critics of the Iran Nuclear Deal *
For critics of the Iranian nuclear deal: I worked for years (1980-1988) at the IAEA in Vienna and a total of 15+ years overseas in, guess what?
Uranium resources, exploration, development & mining as well as other focus areas in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle including nuclear waste management and decommissioning. To place this in context, it has been 35 years since I first sat down at a table with an Iranian counterpart. I cannot dismiss the Safeguards challenges, but I believe that they are manageable.
I'm quite familiar with the nuclear capabilities of most countries in that area including Iran. Every president except Obama since the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 has been a badly misguided because you do not cut off communications with an enemy or potential enemy because it drives them deeper into a certain desperation that results in the worst outcome. Are you not familiar with the street riots against the mullahs in Teheran during the last election? The Iranians are ready to negotiate; their people want to reintegrate into the world society. So why tell 'em "Stuff it!"?
Had we done that with the Former Soviet Union, I think most of the world would be a cinder by now...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1970/infcirc140.pdf
Read the NPT. First, Iran has the right under the NPT to develop capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle including mining, UF6 conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, operating a reactor, spent-fuel storage, and disposal. All of these activities are required to be under IAEA Safeguards.
Also note that power reactor fuel, despite some other comments to the contrary, cannot be processed to make a plutonium weapon because of the isotopic "lack of purity" of discharged reactor fuel. It takes a very special type of reactor to produce weapons-grade plutonium. All enrichment activities must remain "Low-Enriched Uranium" or LEU. Current stockpiles can be easily down blended to produce power reactor fuel or shipped overseas. In this case, the agreement reached is pretty invasive for inspections.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - The Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
If at any point in time we see that the Iranians are not acting true to their agreement, we have a full range of responses that we can take including direct military action.
But more than that, the reason that we know so much about the attempted weapons program is that Iranians have leaked massive amounts of information to the west. For that, I'm thankful and proud that those courageous individuals are ready to give their lives to prevent a nuclear and national disaster. Who do you think deployed the computer viruses that delayed the weapons program? It was Iranians.
The time of the revolution is over and the mullahs will soon go the way of the McCarthy-types of the Red Scare in the '50s. The moderates are winning back the country. I just hope that the USA and the other western powers have the courage to assist that change to a more secular Iran. But, If Netanyahu and the Republicans in Congress have their way we are going to be at war with yet another country, with which we share a great deal in common
- fighting an even worse group in ISIS. I've already had family displaced due to ISIS in Iraq, and they've lost everything, again.
One more thing: Some compare North Korea with Iran. In the 35 years since I began work at the IAEA, I've met scores of Iranian nuclear scientists, most quite willing to discuss their programs. How many North Koreans have I met?
Zero, zip, nada, none. Comparing Iran to North Korea is comparing apples to oranges.
We have an opportunity here.
This agreement can be enforced by the IAEA. I have the advantage since I read the language of the NPT and Safeguards fluently. But since you will hopefully read the NPT and then the Agreement, the more the USA and the West can become involved in the Iranian nuclear program (consulting, hardware, software, safety, safeguards, personnel, etc.) the more verifiable the agreement becomes.
Dan W McCarn
Los Alamos, New Mexico
More information about the RadSafe