Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

6chars

(3,967 posts)

2. the difference is in the breakout time

Reply to Wounded Bear (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 18, 2016, 06:47 PM

Jul 2016

after ten years, this lets them have a breakout time of 6 months or even less, instead of 1 year which was touted at the time of the deal. breakout time is the time it takes to go from having the capability of constructing bombs to actually having the physical bombs, e.g., by ramping up production. is that a good thing or a bad thing? depends on your perspective.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Passage In Nuke Deal May Allow Iran To Build Bomb Before Deal Expires [View all] Purveyor Jul 2016 OP

I think this is alarmism... Wounded Bear Jul 2016 #1

the difference is in the breakout time 6chars Jul 2016 #2

Which speaks more to improvements in technology... Wounded Bear Jul 2016 #5

That is what the article said. 6chars Jul 2016 #6

Perhaps we should look at it like... Wounded Bear Jul 2016 #7

I think it is news, not alarmist. 6chars Jul 2016 #8

It is arrant bullshit, is what it is. nt bemildred Jul 2016 #9

just because you don't like it, doesn't make it errant 6chars Jul 2016 #10

"arrant". nt bemildred Jul 2016 #11

I just learned a new word, and stand by my point. 6chars Jul 2016 #12

OK. nt bemildred Jul 2016 #13

Gee thanks jehop61 Jul 2016 #3

Nonsense philosslayer Jul 2016 #4