Pros And Cons Of Keeping The Nuclear Deal

Pro Nuclear warfare should be used when the time is right and a war needs to be ended

Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make

There are seven key points in this nuclear deal: Iran has to reduce their centrifuges, reduce their uranium enrichments, they can’t over produce anything nuclear for at least two months, their Fordow Facility has to stop producing uranium for fifteen years, they can keep doing research and development but can only do it with a break of three months, they will have inspection by the U.N., and we have to lift our sanctions that we have on Iran. President Barrack Obama said this deal, “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” (Cato Institute 1/3) This applies to the quote by Barrack Obama wanting to make history. He wants to ensure the safety on America by declining the top producing nuclear war-heads country in the world, their production of nukes. President Obama will go into the books by already stopping a future nuclear

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there widespread debate as to whether the agreement would benefit both sides of the pact. Due to the numerous amount of steps taken to ensure Iran’s compliance, the accord between Iran China, France, Russia, the U.K, the U.S, Germany and the EU (P5+1+ Eu countries) provides both sides with comfortable allowances that allow each state to thrive. Though highly contested, as demonstrated from the varying opinions in the supplied articles, the JCPOA solidified the deconstruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which is one of the hardest objectives to achieve in the field of international relations. As shown by the world’s quandary

The article, written by David Sanger and Michael Gordon from The New York Times on August 23, highlights main controversies about Iran-US nuclear agreement. After months of negotiations between USA and Iran, the deal is waiting to be approved by Congress. However, there are many points of debate regarding the approval of this pact. The main point of polemic is the capacity of Iran to produce nuclear weapons after 15 years, when the agreement is supposed to end. Many people, like the Democrat Representative Adam B. Schiff from California, agree Iran would “have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability” (Gordon & Sanger, 2015). Others argue in favor of the agreement because, as R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of

“An atom is the fundamental block of all matter, atoms are composed of smaller subatomic particles neutrons, [Neutral], protons [Positive (+)] and electrons [negative (-)]. Nuclear energy is the energy formed from the nucleus of an atom through different methods as fission (which is the way in which an atom is split into smaller subatomic particles by hitting its nucleus with a neutron) and fusion (which is the process in which new heavier atoms and large amounts of energy are produced by bonding atoms together). (Nuclear Energy).Nuclear energy has various pros and cons, some of its advantages are that it reduces global warming as a result of decreasing greenhouse gases emission and CO92 production. While, its main disadvantage, is that the

On the White House website, a 112 pages’ document called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) gives some detailed about the deal with Iran. It says that the deal:

When the deal was signed on July 14, 2015, it successfully achieved the limitation the aforementioned threats, as Iran will have no nuclear weapons and be subject to intense U.N oversight for at least ten years. This oversight, sanctioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), consists of stringent daily facility and centrifuge inspections, with a clause that states “the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). To quote President Barack Obama, the Iranian Deal “is not built on trust; it is built on verification” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). Lifting sanctions placed on Iran in exchange for these allowances is not a difficult decision. A deal that restricts and checks enrichment, and also renders Iran a non nuclear- weapon possessing country is a good deal that allows states around the world to sigh a breath of relief.

Moreover, Iran will be able to access 100 billion dollars of assets that are frozen in overseas banks. However, if Iran violates the JCPOA there is a provision within the contract to implement the sanctions back on Iran. Consequently, the JCPOA international agreement was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015 by Iran and the P5+1 nations. The Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid stated “A nuclear-armed Iran would pose the gravest imaginable threat to Israel. If America walks away from this agreement and loses the support of our allies in the sanctions regime, Iran could have enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb in a matter of months. Iranian leaders have regularly stated that they intend to wipe Israel off the map and I believe those threats should be taken with the utmost seriousness. This agreement is the best way to prevent Iran’s leaders from obtaining the nuclear weapons that would empower them to follow through on their threats to Israel.” (U.S. Democratic Leader Harry Reid >> Reid Statement On The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action.). Therefore, the majority of Democrats support the JCPOA and believe it is a better alternative to peace than using a military preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities (Joint Comprehensive Plan of

Along with the decrease in plutonium manufacturing, Iran will cut back their bomb enrichment from 20 percent to a meager 3.7 percent; along with shipping bomb fuel out of the country and not building heavy water reactors for at least 15 years (Broad). The main argument over the bill is that the republicans believe that the deal is setting low standards for international inspectors that will be monitoring Iran and that it will only delay Iran for a few years. In turn the republicans are trying to block the bill from becoming a filibuster in hopes that the senate will turn down the bill. However the Democrats have rallied and have received the needed 34 pledges to support Obamas veto of the Republican’s resolution to dissolve the bill. I believe that in this case the Democrats are doing the logical thing when it comes to the nuclear deal, protecting our country from a nuclear attack, for however long, is an important aspect of our government. I described a logical action, from the government, as having the support of the people and carrying out

One positive of the NAFTA agreement was the GPD value increasing, “In Mexico the GDP has nearly tripled, rising from 11 percent in 1980 to 32 percent in 2002.” (Bacon, 2014) But To avert a flood of capital to the north, then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin engineered a $20 billion loan to Mexico, which was paid to bondholders, mostly U.S. banks. In return, U.S. and British banks gained control of the country’s financial system. Before NAFTA the Mexican government had no problem providing subsidies to farmer in areas such as Veracruz but once the structures were put in place, preventing that, farmers headed North. And Mexican rail employment dropped from more than 90,000 to 36,000. The benefits of liberalization also helped

Today is the day the Comprehensive Peace Agreement will be signed. News leaked about a few of the protocols that it outlines. One of the first protocols is that South Sudan will finally be able to form its own country. Therefore, we will no longer have to be under the control of the north, isn’t that just amazing? The next rule is that all the bad behavior between the countries must come to an end. So basically no more attacks are allowed. Another law to be put enact is that South Sudan will have to split its government up between two political parties. It is rumored to be that those parties will be Sudan’s People Liberation Movement and the National Consumer Panel. However, those decisions are not definite, yet. A supposed new protocol is

The Paris Accord is an international pact in which 195 countries agreed to the common goal of reducing carbon emissions in attempts to keep the Earth from heating up 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius more. With the election of President Trump, the importance of global climate change shifted on America’s agenda, with Trump even proposing a withdrawal from the accord. Negative impacts such as an undermining of the whole pact, the U.S. falling behind in the clean energy movement, and the closing of a window of time that is not replicable could ensue. America is a key player in the agreement and was one of the first countries to buy into it. If the country decides to leave, other countries may follow suit. The rest of the more developed world all seems

Equally important to the safety standards forced upon nuclear engineers, is the prospect of nuclear weapons proliferation as a byproduct of energy production. It has been a topic of debate since the mid-1940s when the first nuclear bombs were being produced for war under the United States Manhattan Project, and since then has received varied attention throughout the years. In its simplest form, there is concern that the same technologies that are being used to produce nuclear power, may also be able to allow access to nuclear weapons in the process. The Nuclear Threat Initiative covers these issues, pointing explicitly to fuel enrichment and reprocessing as the most dangerous. It is believed that high-grade uranium (which is only used in laboratory

James Franck, a German physicist who worked with other scientists on the Manhatten Project, argues that the United States should not be dropped on Japan. As Germany relentlessly attempted to develop nuclear weapons, the United States joined the arms race to counteract the Germans with the knowledge that the German government would drop the bomb with no conscience. With no international authority, an atomic bomb could result in destruction and be used for political pressure and sudden destruction in war. Nuclear power cannot remain a secret from other countries if we discover or create a nuclear bomb. The fundamental knowledge of nuclear power is common knowledge and other nations may retrace our steps if we discover a nuclear weapon. The attempt