nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

The Low-Information Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal

The Low-Information Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal Pulls a Full Chelsea Clinton, The Blaze

Jan. 15, 2016

“……..Didn’t you hear? Iran has poured concrete into their nuclear reactor at Arak (so that it no longer generatesweapons-grade plutonium), it’s put 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium – 98 percent of all it possessed – on a boat to Russia, and it is dismantling two-thirds of its uranium-enriching centrifuges.

If you’re an opponent of the Iranian nuclear deal, there’s a good chance you didn’t know any of that. Because, as often as the deal has been pilloried by critics such as Donald TrumpRush Limbaugh,Thomas Sowell, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, they hardly ever mention that Iran has had to settle for a mere 660 pounds of low-enriched uranium, far too little for a nuclear arsenal.

No, you hardly ever hear these critics spell out the concessionsIran has already made. Instead, we keep hearing that “we get nothing” out of the deal, that President Barack Obama is“giving” Iran the bomb, even that he wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon (which certainly explains why he unleashed theStuxnet virus to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities).

Funnily enough, the same pundits who rail against “low-information voters” – people who’ve been “dumbed down” by media misinformation to the point that they “don’t know what they think they know” – have generated exactly that level of opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal. They’ve devised a selective information gap just like what they (often correctly) berate the mainstream media for creating…..

if you’re going to oppose the deal, you have a responsibility do it honestly, based on giving people the full story about what it involves, rather than covering up details that don’t support your case…….. After all, it’s hard to see how Iran could fake giving away 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium.

And even if you take the position that there’s more wrong with the deal than right about it, rejecting the deal would have involved risks of its own. How would Iran be further from getting a nuclear weapon if it held on to 11 tons of enriched uranium, kept running thousands of additional centrifuges, retained a nuclear reactor that spits out weapons-grade plutonium, and were allowed to keep its known nuclear supply chain free from prying eyes?….

the notion that the deal simply green-lights Iran’s nuclear program, giving them the go-ahead to get a nuke, is just flat-out untrue.

It’s a blatant falsehood……http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-low-information-opposition-to-the-iran-nuclear-deal-pulls-a-full-chelsea-clinton/

Advertisements

January 15, 2016 - Posted by | general

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: