I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
Comments
The monitoring regime on the Fordow plant is not unusually intrusive or effective - other enrichment facilities around the world are subjected to independent inspections involving nuclear measurements, continuous monitoring, and sampling for destructive analysis.
The biggest problem with the agreement is the removal of restrictions on installing advanced centrifuges starting after year 10. This will lead to break-out times measured in days by year 15.
The statement "This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework" is true with respect to the limitations on Iran's nuclear activities (over the short time frame of the agreement), but it is completely false with respect to the constraints imposed by the inspection framework.
The decision cost Britain her another generation of dead and her empire.
Cold War.
Compared to the uncertainty and benefits provided by this accord another path is vastly superior.
The alternative path of strangling a radical hostile state while being prepared to destroy real evidence of a emergent threat suits current US sentiment and US and Allies intersests better than this accord.
What's the big deal. It's not like they want to nuke us or something, right?
Read this web posting by David Stockman
and you will discover the Iran deal was
a good deal for everyone......
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/all-praise-to-the-iranian-nuclear-framework-it-finally-exposes-the-war-partys-big-lie/
All Praise To The Iranian Nuclear Framework—
–It Finally Exposes The War Party’s Big Lie
by David Stockman - April 7, 2015
Dem's need to reject this deal in congress. Kerry, Moniz and Obama are fools.
A nuclear bomb (take your pick fission or fusion) armed Iran will result in a nuclear exchange with Israel, sooner or later. And the US will be dragged in to destroy the Russian S-300 radar system that the Russians will install in Iran, paid for by the $100B signing bonus.
August 20, 2015 at 9:47 AM
NK developed nuclear weapons during the Clinton administration. They tested them during the Bush administration.
I think the point is, a conservative...the ultimate chicken little, Bush, did nothing to stop North Korea. Apparently, you agree Bush did nothing. In fact, you have inadvertently lumped your boy with Clinton and Obama. Oops.
Where is the outcry from the conservative contingent? Obama tries to do something, anything, to curb Iran's nuclear weapons program and the Cons rant and rave.
You can't have it both ways. Bush is no better, in fact, worse than Obama. That is a fact that cons just can't seem to get their hands around.