As you might guess, after the second picture, the licking turned to biting, and then there were squeaks, and now the kittehs are off the desk. But they can be sweet about grooming each other.
By request, a pet and no-politics open thread!
Cheryl Rofer wrote at Balloon Juice from 2017-21.
Cheryl is a retired chemist who has has been particularly active with nuclear policy. Cheryl has her own blog, Nuclear Diner, and she also posts at Lawyers, Guns & Money.
Twitter: @CherylRofer
This post is in: Cat Blogging, Open Threads
As you might guess, after the second picture, the licking turned to biting, and then there were squeaks, and now the kittehs are off the desk. But they can be sweet about grooming each other.
By request, a pet and no-politics open thread!
This post is in: Dolt 45, Open Threads, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome, Blatant Liars and the Lies They Tell
Ronan Farrow comes out with more info about the ratfvking deal that the Trumpies contracted out to try to defeat the Iran deal.
The campaign is strikingly similar to an operation that Black Cube ran on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, which was reported in The New Yorker last fall… In a statement, Black Cube said, “It is Black Cube’s policy to never discuss its clients with any third party, and to never confirm or deny any speculation made with regard to the company’s work.” The statement also read, “It is important to note that Black Cube always operates in full compliance of the law in every jurisdiction in which it conducts its work, following legal advice from the world’s leading law firms.”
I suspect there is more to come.
A while back, in a comment thread, I pointed out that part of the problem with the New York Times’s reporting on Donald Trump is that they are immersed in the New York culture that permitted his rise. I didn’t realize how true and how ugly that culture is. Frank Rich does. I know it’s a great hate-read, but there’s a lot there that helps with analysis.
Have a good night before the full force of the week hits.
This post is in: Foreign Affairs, Rofer on Nuclear Issues, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome, Assholes, Blatant Liars and the Lies They Tell, I Read These Morons So You Don't Have To, Into the weeds
Reuel Marc Gerecht has an article titled “The Iran Deal Is Strategically and Morally Absurd” at the Atlantic website. It is a good example of the repetitive and tendentious tripe that the opponents consistently offer up.
I am not fond of the bloggy format of dissecting a piece of writing sentence by sentence by sentence, although Gerecht’s piece could easily provoke such a response. Each sentence presents a misrepresenation or other ugliness that it seems wrong to allow to pass. But I’d like to make my response more succinct.
Since the title begins with “The Iran Deal,” one might expect that that would be the subject of the article. But few words are expended on the substance of the deal compared to, for example vituperation against Barack Obama. The personalization of Gerecht’s argument is typical of criticism by opponents on Twitter and elsewhere.
The Opposition To The Iran Deal Is Intellectually and Morally BankruptPost + Comments (147)
So we have, in Gerecht’s words,
That’s representative of the content of the first six paragraphs. There are a few more whacks at Obama, along with Ben Rhodes and John Kerry, further down in the article. All is asserted with no support.
The first indication in the article of the content of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, nowhere fully spelled out) comes in paragraph 3:
the strategic and moral absurdity of paying, via sanctions relief, for Iranian imperialism in the Middle East so we can have a short surcease to the mullahs’ quest for the bomb
This is larded with judgments – “strategic and moral absurdity,” “Iranian imperialism,” “short surcease,” and the assumption that “the mullahs” are driving toward a bomb. The fact goes unnoticed that the purpose of sanctions was to bring the Iranian government to the negotiating table and thus removing those sanctions was likely to be part of those negotiations.
Then come four paragraphs with more invective against Obama, speculations on the motivations of various Iranian factions, and Gerecht’s conclusions as to likely futures in the Middle East.
Gerecht then plays dumb about why missiles were not a part of the agreement, something which was addressed many times by the Obama administration: In order to reach an agreement, that agreement had to be circumscribed. If Iran has no nuclear weapons, it cannot put one on a missile. Another point emphasized during and after the negotiations was that the JCPOA was intended to be the first of a series of agreements. That intention is being sabotaged by the neverending attempts of the opponents to undermine the deal.
More speculation and invective follow, again with little to no evidence. The next few paragraphs implicitly outline a familiar theme of the opponents: All of Iran’s military bases must be open for inspection at all times, lest they hide some component of their nuclear program. No country will agree to such inspections. This concern also ignores the power of overhead satellite photos to detect unusual activity. Gerecht mocks the agreement as applying to the part of Iran’s efforts less likely to be seen (nuclear weapon research) but not on the more-likely-to-be seen missiles. But that makes sense: open up the closed, and monitor the more open.
Gerecht then shifts to “post-JCPOA” and criticism of the Trump administration. He finds Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis as feckless as Obama and his people. But now the team of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo has arrived to frighten Tehran.
However, Gerecht recognizes the possibility that Trump may pull out of the JCPOA and do nothing afterward. Gerecht presents what he believes to be the way forward: “Contain, roll back, and squeeze.”
Gerecht mentions military power throughout. Again, his words:
And, of course, the masculine virtues accrue to such warlike intentions, as opposed to the weaker (= feminine) diplomacy of Barack Obama, very personalized:
The three bulleted lists overlap in a marriage of invective, warmongering, and gendering. The whole piece is rhetoric, not argument, as is all too common from those opposing the JCPOA.
Daniel Larison has another take on the opponents’ dishonesty.
Update: Gerecht assured us in 2002 that a war against Iraq would not destabilize the Middle East.
Cross-posted at Nuclear Diner.
This post is in: Foreign Affairs, Rofer on Nuclear Issues, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome, Assholes, Blatant Liars and the Lies They Tell, Flash Mob of Hate
Two of the key people in the Obama administration for the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), were investigated by an Israeli private intelligence agency trying to find dirt on them, The Guardian reported today.
The agency talked to reporters in order to find whether Ben Rhodes and Colin Kahl, advisors to President Obama, had shared sensitive information. Presumably they found nothing, or we would have heard about it.
This has been the modus operandi of the JCPOA opponents all along. On Twitter, they indulge in ad hominems and personal attacks rather than present a coherent argument. They set up straw men with views that misrepresent the case for the agreement. They all seem to have the same talking points and slogans (“sunset clauses,” “give Iran nuclear weapons”) in what I might have called an echo chamber if they hadn’t seized on that accusation first.
Back in the summer of 2015, they tried to set up a phony controversy about “secret side agreements.” Several of the supporters of the agreement, including me, responded strongly and, I think, managed to squash their propaganda before it fully bloomed. For that, we were attacked again and again on Twitter.
All the opponents have is lies and false accusations. This latest exposure of their dirty tactics is of a piece with the tactics they have used all along. It’s an indication that they have nothing else.
In case you were in doubt, Rudy says the quiet part out loud.
Giuliani: Trump is 'committed to' regime change in Iran https://t.co/lgfOdtMKR8 pic.twitter.com/rVN0wbZmoY
— POLITICO (@politico) May 5, 2018
Cross-posted to Nuclear Diner.
This Is What You Do When You Don’t Have A Real ArgumentPost + Comments (176)
This post is in: How about that weather?, Open Threads, Bring On The Meteor, Fowl Weather
Cracks in the ground are spewing lava in the Leilani Estates subdivision on the Big Island of Hawaii.
The USGS Volcanoes Twitter account is a good one to follow for information.
Earthquakes migrate east of Pu‘u ‘Ō‘ō, signaling an intrusion of magma along the middle and lower East Rift Zone. Orange dashed line marks the approximate area within which most of the earthquakes are located. https://t.co/vJRUw2HRvh pic.twitter.com/nhMbMH20yW
— USGS Volcanoes? (@USGSVolcanoes) May 3, 2018
Short-lived plume of ash from Pu‘u ‘Ō‘ō captured during an HVO overflight. https://t.co/Lt84auZeSP pic.twitter.com/0xQgH1FPEI
— USGS Volcanoes? (@USGSVolcanoes) May 3, 2018
Kilauea Erupts in a Housing SubdivisionPost + Comments (121)
@bigislandnews
produced this footage that clearly shows deep crater at #PuuOo & west-side steaming #fissure https://t.co/FHWHZmXz3Q #Kilauea #groundcracks— USGS Volcanoes? (@USGSVolcanoes) May 3, 2018
HVO Kilauea ORANGE/WARNING – Lava erupting from lower East Rift Zone https://t.co/lnBX8qi2Rn
— USGS Volcanoes? (@USGSVolcanoes) May 4, 2018
#Lava from #Kilauea #Volcano reached the surface Late in the afternoon today. A fissure ~150m (492ft) long erupted spatter and intermittent bubble bursts for about 2 hrs. Lava traveled only a few m (yards) from the fissure. #HVO staff are on the ground assessing & monitoring 24/7 pic.twitter.com/GXaNwvSLK4
— USGS Volcanoes? (@USGSVolcanoes) May 4, 2018
HVO Daily Update for May 4: An eruption is in progress along Kīlauea Volcano's lower East Rift Zone. Since late afternoon May 3, at least three small fissure vents have opened in Leilani Estates subdivision in the lower Puna district. https://t.co/7sDZqcOJ5s
— USGS Volcanoes? (@USGSVolcanoes) May 4, 2018
New map of locations of first three eruptive fissures in Leilani Estates Subdivision (Hawaii) as of this morning (May 4). Fissures are jetting sulfur dioxide gas and lava spatter. Updated maps will be posted on the USGS-Hawaiian Volcano Observatory page at https://t.co/TD5y5GV1Xk pic.twitter.com/ACS76UibXv
— USGS Volcanoes? (@USGSVolcanoes) May 4, 2018
Prelim M 5.7 – 18km SW of Leilani Estates, Hawaii. https://t.co/U1IsW6ipY0 Did You Feel It? Tell us: https://t.co/NZLUNUwoQ2 pic.twitter.com/C119Ac4ueK
— USGS (@USGS) May 4, 2018
I think Tengu Phule is on Oahu? Any BJ’ers on the Big Island, stay safe!
Open thread.
This post is in: Foreign Affairs, Rofer on Nuclear Issues, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome, Fuck Yeah!
Nuclear weapons programs come with costs: financial, reputational, and the potential for being made a target by other nuclear powers. There is also an opportunity cost in diverting smart scientists, engineers, and managers from work that might produce improvement to people’s daily lives and the economy.
Leaders understand that there are costs. In starting his nuclear weapons program in the 1970s, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan declared “’We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get [a nuclear weapon] of our own.”
The Iranian documents presented by Benjamin Netanyahu yielded one new piece of information: That Iran planned an arsenal of only five rather small (10 kiloton yield) warheads. Likewise, Kim Jong Un has declared his arsenal complete after what seems a rather sketchy set of tests.
Deterring Regime ChangePost + Comments (187)
Those in favor of war against both countries or trying to strangle their economies with sanctions claim that those countries are acting out of aggression, that if they are successful in their quest for nuclear weapons, they will immediately use them. But the actions of Iran and North Korea indicate otherwise.
In his 2002 State of the Union speech, George W. Bush listed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil. The next year, the United States invaded Iraq, whose nuclear weapons program had been removed after the 1991 war. Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Libya gave up its nascent nuclear program. In 2011, Muhammar Ghaddafi was deposed and killed. The lesson for Iran and North Korea was obvious: Only nuclear weapons would deter the United States from attempting regime change.
Both Iran and North Korea, like many other nations, most of which never went nuclear, probably investigated the possibility of nuclear weapons from their first acquisition of nuclear technology. In 1957, the United States provided a research reactor to Iran. In 1963, the Soviet Union provided a research reactor to North Korea. Additionally, some of the capabilities developed in peaceful applications of nuclear energy can be transferred to nuclear weapons design and production.
In response to their designation a “Axis of Evil” and actions that followed against Iraq and Libya, it would be reasonable for Iran and North Korea to design deterrence strategies against forcible regime change by the United States. Nuclear weapons seem like a good bet, but how many and what kind?
That need must be balanced against national resources. Bluffing worked in the past, notably by the United States after it had expended its only two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. President Harry Truman’s statements indicated that the United States had many more atomic bombs in reserve, when in fact it had one more plutonium pit but was building more. A few demonstrations plus a good bluff can equal deterrence.
North Korea has demonstrated a very powerful nuclear device that likely has some thermonuclear features. It has also demonstrated missiles that could reach the United States. It has supplemented these demonstrations with photos of what it claims are its nuclear devices and diagrams of how they might fit onto those missiles. We do not know that those photos represent what was tested, nor do we know how much fissile material they have, how much is needed for each device, or how many missiles they have. We do not know how quickly they can manufacture nuclear weapons or missiles.
But given the demonstrations, and given what we know about their plutonium-producing reactor and the centrifuge facility shown to Siegfried Hecker, we in the United States cannot assume that there are no weapons aimed at the United States or our allies, South Korea and Japan. North Korea already had a strong deterrent in its ability to destroy Seoul with conventional artillery. Now a capability to hit the United States with nuclear weapons must be assumed.
Iran had the same objective but decided on a different path. They developed a simple weapons design along with a variety of missiles and planned to build five nuclear weapons that they would keep secret until needed. Again, bluffing was part of the strategy. Detonating a nuclear weapon or two, whether as a demonstration test or against Israel would change the expectations of an aggressor. When the opportunity came to trade the program for improved economic conditions, they agreed to restrictions beyond what was expected by Western experts.
The nuclear strategies of North Korea and Iran, up to now, are not the strategies of aggressors. They have left their options open to grow the programs in the future, but that is only prudent. The programs might be called “minimum deterrence.”
Threats of nuclear destruction, as Trump has issued, fit with both countries’ worst-case fears of regime change by the United States. John Bolton, now the President’s National Security Advisor, has explicitly advocated regime change in both countries. North Korean and Iranian government officials should be thinking hard about their deterrents.
A more effective strategy would be to show how the threats can be removed via negotiations.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is Iran’s test of whether it can back off from its nuclear weapons program. If Trump violates the plan, Iran will reconsider its deterrent.
North Korea now seems to be in a position where it is willing to negotiate with its nuclear program. If they can feel safe from regime change and have ways to grow their economy, the weapons program will become less important to them.
The Trump administration seems to believe that these two countries can be threatened into compliance with its desires. That is a naïve and dangerous view. States act in what they perceive to be their own interests. Bowing to threats is likely to incur further intimidation or worse. Their response to a threat-only posture is likely to be to ramp up their deterrent. And the end of threats would be wars that the United States can ill afford.
Cross-posted at Nuclear Diner.
This post is in: Cat Blogging, Open Threads
By request. It’s hard to get pics when I have to monitor for coyotes, which way the kittehs want to go, and whether or not they are going to pounce. I take them out one at a time, because they inevitably want to go in different directions, and then when it’s time to go in, 27 pounds of squirming cat can be difficult to handle. Zooey is in purple, and Ric in denim.
Open Thread!
Open Thread – Ric And Zooey On Their WalkPost + Comments (105)