Links – December 6, 2016

On the Donald Trump presidency and its effect on America:  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie says we need to speak clearly about the dangers. Similarly, Vann R. Newkirk II says we must confront racism.

Evan McMullin ran for president as an independent. Now, on Twitter and in the New York Times, he is warning about Trump’s autocratic tendencies.

The president alone can order a nuclear strike. Alex Wellerstein summarizes the procedure.

The Heritage Foundation recommends that Donald Trump withdraw from all nuclear treaties as president. Steven Pifer tells us why that’s a bad idea.

Meanwhile, in Russia. Putin and pseudoscience.

Fascinating long read on an Estonian dialect spoken in Latvia and the people who have researched it.

Long read on religion, politics, and foreign policy in Iran.

Issues in South Asia for the next president. (photo from here)

 

Can Donald Trump “Tear Up” The Iran Deal?

One of the points of competition during the Republican primaries was who could be most vehement in denouncing the nuclear agreement with Iran, the formal title of which is the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA). Donald Trump chose to focus on the negotiation aspect, supposedly one of his strong points. It was a bad deal; he would get a much better one, no specifics given. The negotiatiors used the wrong strategy. Presumably he expected something more like this: Read More

Links – October 14, 2016

This election campaign is utterly exhausting. It’s the drama that always accompanies a toxic personality. We try to keep Nuclear Diner relatively nonpolitical, but Donald Trump would do untold damage to the country – has done some damage already. Former ICBM launch officers say that Trump is not a person who can be trusted with the nuclear codes.

And here’s Michelle Obama’s response on how women should be treated. Short version: like respected people. But the video is very worth watching to see the emotion that many of us have been feeling. Read More

Confidentiality and the JCPOA

It appears that a number of people who might be expected to understand how diplomacy and international agreements work have become confused on some matters. They seem to be calling for complete transparency in the dealings of the IAEA with Iran and the P5+1. To be sure, there may be differences in how lines should be drawn, but radical transparency is new in diplomatic relations. Read More