RSS

October 20, 2009

Member deleted

From my point of view Iran has the same right to develop its nuclear program for civil and military purposes as all the other states. Iran isn’t doing anything else than USA, Soviet Union/Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa and North Korea haven’t already done. Sure Iran’s programs have been implemented clandestine, but so is the case with all others too. More about latest developments with Iran's nuclear programme one may find from my article "Iran's nuclear program at the crossroads" - http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/irans-nuclear-program-at-...

October 20, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

Block's argument is childish legal sophistry at its worse: "Mother, mother, you told us not to fight. My brother pretended to hit me (broke the rules in spirit) 10 years ago, so that means I can punch him in the neck (break the rules in fact) today.

But it is worse than that. The argument might have approached being plausible in the 1980s when both superpowers and some of the other nuclear powers (UK, France, etc) were increasing their arsenals, or at least talking about increases. As Block admits, the NPT has no specific requirements for reduction, no specific limits on R&D or modernization, so none of these increases violated the letter of the NPT. But, they arguably violated the spirit of the NPT.

However, we don't live in the 80s. Since that decade, virtually all NPT members with nuclear weapons have continued to comply in fact, and shown a renewed commitment to the spirit. We've, generally speaking, decreased our arsenals; in the case of the US and USSR these decreases have been dramatic . Current worldwide inventory is estimated to be down to about one fifth (20%) of the cold war peak. This policy involves considerable risk, since when combined with testing bans and moratoria, the remaining, greatly reduced nuclear stockpiles become a somewhat unknown quantity as far as safety and effectiveness.

Furthermore, all nuclear powers have delayed or forgone largescale deployment of a non-nulcear, missile defense system that could provide an added margin of safety against rogue states that are hard to deter. This despite the fact that there is now bipartisan (US) and multilateral (NATO) consensus that missile defense, or at least, the medium-range naval component, works reasonably well (some claim it is so effective that the other components are no longer needed!). Nevertheless, resources are being stripped away from missile defense (even the well-proven parts) as a goodwill measure. Forgoing the option to self defense goes above and beyond even the spirit of the NPT, and yet we have signaled an openness to that, as well .. This policy also involves considerable risk.

Western nuclear powers, especially the US, have since the end of the Cold War taken enormous risks (and costs) to promote non-proliferation. Our current President has gone so far as to propose a pathway to the holy grail - a zero option. Iran declared this proposal dead on arrival.

Of the one-time NTP signers, only two (Iran and North Korea) keep their citizens in a constant state of terror, and make regular statements from primary education all the way to the highest politicians advocating imminent, large scale nuclear war or nuclear genocide.

Truly, some animals are more equal than others. Some make sacrifices for disarmament, some make none, while perpetuating or threatening crimes against humanity. On Orwell's farm, commentators like Block wouldn't know a horse from a pig or a human.

October 25, 2009

PhillipB

I have to disagree, an Iran with nuclear weapons only further destabilizes the Middle East. Iran's President has also called for the destruction of a key US ally and is a serious threat to US security at home and abroad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Totx7J1nf8U

February 12, 2010

Antonio Buttitta, -, Bronze Contributor (22)

I step in because I disagree with Mr. Block and Mr.Rusila.

The Non Proliferation Treaty is not a treaty on disarmament. It is a treaty on Non Proliferation.
Its content is not about disarmament. Moreover, dismantling is not a precondition to any other action. Which means that, according to the Treaty, Nuclear Weapons are not supposed to increase, but their decrease is not treated.

Well...Article 6 includes a statement about a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control" that is a different treaty from the NPT and whose existence depends on the fact that (same old Article 6, in all his shining glory ) "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

First of all, the Non Proliferation Treaty is about a simple distinction:
Nuclear Weapon States and Non Nuclear Weapon States.
These States agree to sign and ratify the treaty. In this sense, they recognize their position, belonging to one of the two abovementioned cathegories.
If a State belongs to the first one, it will avoid actions to spread nuclear weapons.
If a State belongs to the second one, it will avoid actions to acquire nuclear weapons.

AIEA Safeguards are key, in order to achieve (Article 3) "verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

Once a party signs and ratifies the treaty, it is obliged.
But
Iran has not yet ratified the NPT Additional Protocol on AIEA Safeguards stating deeper verifications.

In conclusion,
-Nuclear Weapon States assume no obligations on dismantling. They only assume obligations on Non Proliferation.
-Non Nuclear Weapon States will not develop nuclear weapons.
-Any obligation on safeguards in additional protocols which is not ratified is not boundary.
-(Article 4) "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty." (Ahmadinejad's statements take their legitimation from this same article.)

"Peaceful purposes" in Article 4 become a political matter. Now that, after this analysis, we are away from the legal matter, the issue of detecting Iranian offensive intentions can be raised.
The IAEA cannot report anything different from "No evidence can be provided" (IAEA Reports from 2003 on) mainly because the additional protocol is not ratified and IAEA experts cannot check Iranian sites at 100%.

Who will decide on diversion ?