Effectiveness of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1 Viewer)

[Chris]

I feel that the treaty has been effective in many areas and I would definitely favor keeping it. I have no problem in principle with any nation pursuing nuclear technology. The non-proliferation treaty’s ability to encourage openness towards nuclear technology, while at the same time discouraging the pursuit of nuclear arms, is an excellent balance. The treaty has no doubt played a large part in preventing some of the worst dictators of modern times from getting their hands on nuclear weaponry.

In light of recent events however, I am also frustrated by the inability of the treaty to prevent the continuation of India’s weapons programs and to prevent Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and the former Apartheid regime of Sough Africa from developing nuclear weapons. With the Iranian rulers now actively pursuing the bomb, I feel it is time that the treaty was revised and expanded upon to keep it effective.

IMO the two biggest problems threatening to undermine the treaty are Russia and China. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union Russia has proven completely incapable of securing and accounting for its nuclear technology and arms (and by extension chemical and biological weapons). I know the Russian government is too proud to admit it, but the reality is that their security systems are simply too corrupt and cash strained to effectively safe guard the old Soviet build up. I can think of literally dozens of nations I would feel much better safe guarding Russia’s stockpiles.
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke-weapons/nonproliferation/27301.html

I know virtually every industrialized nation is heavily invested in China’s economic boom; nonetheless the fact is that underneath it China is still run by an authoritarian regime with little regard for its own laws much less international agreements. Why in the hell anyone would think that the Chinese dictators would respect the NPT boggles my mind. China has openly admitted to supporting Pakistan’s nuclear program (another dictatorship and a volatile one at that), why are people not outraged by this? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB114/

As far as I’m concerned neither of these countries should be in control of a single warhead until they are competent and reasonable enough to trust with the responsibility. My suggestion is that the sharing of nuclear technology should still be encouraged among the majority of the world’s nations, but restricted from those that pose a high degree of risk for proliferation of nuclear arms (ex: North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, Libya, Syria, etc). I think that protecting the majority of the world’s people should be given preference in these extreme cases.

 

[Kandahar]

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a nice idea, but it's not very effective. It doesn't apply to countries or organizations that aren't signatories, and has no means of enforcement for those that are.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

It seems to me that a very nationalistic and irrational person thought the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a good idea. The basic consensus is that the U.S. should be the only one allowed to have nukes and spy sattelittes which is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Can anyone here name one country that really obeyed the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Soveirgn nations have a right to defend themselves..period.

 

[Chris]

It seems to me that a very nationalistic and irrational person thought the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a good idea. The basic consensus is that the U.S. should be the only one allowed to have nukes and spy sattelittes which is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Can anyone here name one country that really obeyed the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Soveirgn nations have a right to defend themselves..period.

I also fail to see why Britain, France, USA, Russia, and China should be the only ones allowed to "legally" have nuclear weapons and technology. This exclusive 5 member nuclear club is just a small part of a much larger problem with the structure of the UN. Why should these countries be given disproportionate power and preference over everybody else, simply because they had the fortune of being the most powerful countries on the winning side of WWII? It's 2005 not 1945!

As I've pointed out in my earlier post, Russia and China are no where near competant or responsible enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons. Both countries, despite being permanant members of the security council have consistently been among the worst violators of human rights and contemptful towards UN principles in general.

Once again I don't have a problem in principle with any nation developing nuclear technology. But like any self respecting person I don't want some paranoid scum bag like Kim Jong Il getting nuclear weapons and using them to further manipulate the international community.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Once again I don't have a problem in principle with any nation developing nuclear technology. But like any self respecting person I don't want some paranoid scum bag like Kim Jong Il getting nuclear weapons and using them to further manipulate the international community.

Well unfortunatley we've opened a can of worms that can't ever be closed.

 

[tryreading]

Well unfortunatley we've opened a can of worms that can't ever be closed.

That's it. The thing can't be undone. But any limitations we can effect (we meaning the U.S., and/or other non-proliferation signees, and/or other countries desiring no mushroom clouds) will at least delay the inevitable.

Iran wants nuclear power now, but says it has no interest in nuclear weapons. This is a lie. Russia is going to help them build nuclear power plants, despite our objections, because there is a lot of money involved. This radical country should not be allowed to have this technology, especially after their leader recently recommended the extermination of all Israelis. They will not have it, because before their first plant is online, Israel will destroy it, like they did in Iraq in the 80's. This is appropriate. If Canada, for example, said all United States citizens should be killed, and were working on technology that would lead to weapons that could kill us, we would destroy that process.

You can't do anything about the countries that already have the weapons. What I have wanted for a long time is a pact between all countries armed with nuclear weapons that would require two things. First, all stockpiles would be reduced to a very low level, no more than a couple hundred actual bombs or warheads per country (this is overly simplified). The second requirement would be that any country that first employed nuclear weapons in a confrontation would have twice as many bombs detonated in their country as they had originally used on the other country. Then, if possible, we should disarm the offending country completely.

 

[Chris]

What I have wanted for a long time is a pact between all countries armed with nuclear weapons that would require two things. First, all stockpiles would be reduced to a very low level, no more than a couple hundred actual bombs or warheads per country (this is overly simplified).

I agree that this would be an excellent idea, and optimally this is what the NPT should do. The problem is how to actually find a consensus between all the nuclear nations. Reaching an agreement between the US, France, and UK wouldn't be a problem it's dealing with the corrupt and authoritarian nuclear states that creates the problems. As long as these nations continue to sell to the highest bidder, there is little hope of containment.

The only way I can see any meaningful changes taking place is if there were a greater public outcry and concern. If people were as concerned and passionate about containing the old Soviet build up as ending Aprarthied, or the Cold War we wouldn't have so many problems now. Unfortunately the general public just isn't aware of the danger or that they have the power to actually do something about it.

I'm confident that if enough of the public demanded a hard line stance against Russia, China, Pakistan, etc it would get results. The west is much less dependant on many of these nations than they are on us. Under pressure their leaders would cave to the demands of the international community much faster than we would.

 

[gwynn]

The NPT has nothing to do with current nuclear stocks. It has no teeth, as countries which do not sign are allowed to do whatever they wish. Those which decide to go nuclear after signing merely withdraw from it without repercussions. It is a nice idea, but really has little effect.

As far as current nuclear stockpiles go, I doubt you would get either the US or Russia to agree to disarming down to a couple hundred warheads. Russia probably can't afford to pay for it and the US won't unless everyone else has even less. No other country would even be affected by such an agreement.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

As far as current nuclear stockpiles go, I doubt you would get either the US or Russia to agree to disarming down to a couple hundred warheads. Russia probably can't afford to pay for it and the US won't unless everyone else has even less. No other country would even be affected by such an agreement.

Right. The only way for this to work is for the UN to buy the warheads from the states that have them and dissassemle them. It also needs to have some sort of insentive for the nations to agree to the terms of the treaty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right. The only way for this to work is for the UN to buy the warheads from the states that have them and dissassemle them. It also needs to have some sort of insentive for the nations to agree to the terms of the treaty.

So... in effect... to have the US buy them thru the UN and disassemble them.

The UN is a farce; solutions based on effective action from the UN are doomed to fail.

There are only two ways to keep countries with the intention of having nukes from getting them:
-Get them to decide they'd be better off without them;
-Remove their ability to create them.

The thing about stating that "country X should not have nukes" is that in order to make that statement stick, you have to be willing to back your position with force of some sort. If you aren't/can't/don't, then you might as well be complaining about rain.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

So... in effect... to have the US buy them thru the UN and disassemble them.

No. The UN uses it's membership fees and donations to pay for it's bills. All they have to do is add the purchase of the nuclear warheads.

There are only two ways to keep countries with the intention of having nukes from getting them:
-Get them to decide they'd be better off without them;

By offering insentives which is precisely what I said.

-Remove their ability to create them.

Which costs an absorbant amount of money and human lives.

The thing about stating that "country X should not have nukes" is that in order to make that statement stick, you have to be willing to back your position with force of some sort.

Providing insentives is a better way to go about it.