Just as it is the right of other countries to take actions against the conversion if they feel it is advantageous for themselves to do so.
I realize that’s what you WANT it to say, but you are factually wrong on this count. The treaty reads: " 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."
It doesn’t say that nuclear powers are required to disarm. It only says that ALL members of the treaty are required to undertake negotiations on “cessation of the nuclear arms race,” which, so far as I can tell, exists no more. However one might feel about mininukes or bunker busters (I oppose development of both), the qualitative improvements in nuclear arms being explored by the US, Russia, and China has nothing to do with an arms race. The number of nuclear arms deployed in the world is around a third or a quarter of the Cold War heights. In any case, negotations on ending the arms race have continued from SALT to START to the Moscow Treaty. By any objective measure, one must tick this box.
As far as general and complete disarmament, that’s a term that refers to ALL weapons, not just nuclear. A GCD treaty would limit the number of pistols as well as tanks, aircraft, and chemical weapons. There’s been some minor progress on this front – the CWC and the landmine ban – but the shortcomings can arguably be shared by ALL members of the NPT, not just the nuclear ones.
You can read into it that if you want, but I would think that unneccesarily broad given that the treaty is specifically addressing nuclear weapons.
It does say the words ‘nuclear disarmament’ you agree as you have quoted them. Now we can accept your argument that this was just a big con job by the nuclear powers that they pretend to have ‘negotiations’ on disarmament but never actually intended to do it. But that negates the ‘pursue in good faith’ clause and so you must agree that the treaty is in disrepute?
The question still remains: why should a non-nuclear state who is a signatory to this treaty continue to consider themselves bound by it?
No, it is a very commonly used term in international relations to describe, quite literally, GENERAL and COMPLETE disarmament. It’s one of those rare terms that means exactly what it says. GCD is a goal that has been promoted by the so-called “ameliorative” school of arms control advocates. See here, for example, in which President Kennedy promoted a GCD plan that involved cutting conventional arms of all countries by 30 percent in three years, 50 percent in the next three years, and completely by year nine.
Oh, I see. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If nuclear powers didn’t negotiate on arms control, they’re in violation of the treaty. But nuclear powers negotiate and approve a dozen major arms control treaties since the NPT, and it’s not good enough for you. What’s next, you’re going to complain that nuclear stockpiles in the world have been reduced by something like 2/3 in the last 15 years?
They could be doing the right thing and recognizing that nothing good would come of a world in which nuclear weapons were everywhere. If that’s the case, there’s a powerful incentive for these like-minded countries to maintain strength in numbers to show rogue countries that their pursuit of nukes is an act that places them far outside the accepted norms of behavior.
By the way, I just saw this, and it is laughable. Are you seriously contending that tactical nuclear weapons did not exist before the Bush Administration proposed to conduct new research on them? And the idea that DU weapons are WMD is simply preposterous.
I’m very curious as to why you would accuse the US of using WMD (in the form of DU) but promote the “right” of each country to develop real, full blown nuclear weapons. This apparent stance – if it is indeed what you are saying – reeks of simpleminded anti-Americanism, and not much else.
Yeah, we’ve already done this. You still haven’t explained why you don’t believe them to fall within whatever definition of WMD you are using. If you define it merely by the potential for ‘destruction’ you would be right (but would have to include those big fuck off bombs that destroy bunkers before you got to more traditionally considered things like nerve gas. Most definitions focus on the contamination of the area beyond the scope of the initial effects of the weapon.
I’m not sure, are you contending that they did? All of the stories I’ve seen regarding development of battlefield nukes presented them as a new development.
How is it anti-Americanism? The ideal position would be for no countries to possess the weapons. I’m just pointing out the hypocracy of the US position at present and asking why a non-nuclear regional power (lets take Iran as an example) should still feel bound by the NPT given that.
For the record, any party that pledges to abolish the UK nuclear ‘deterrent’ (for want of a better word, I’ve no idea who it could possibly be dettering or from what) can have my vote.
Tactical nukes have been around almost as long as nuclear weapons. In fact, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs would be termed tactical weapons by some modern standards. There were plans for using nuclear weapons in WWII for tactical purposes. The development of weapons specifically designed for these uses go back to the fifties.
Because despite your opinions to the contrary, we’ve honored the treaty. So other coutries should as well.
As for the goal of complete disarmament, can you explain how ignoring the treaty and allowing more countries to build nuclear weapons in defiance of it, will help achieve that goal? As a person who favors disarmamant, I’d figure you’d be one of the strongest supporters of strict enforcement of the NPT.
The existing treaty is a basket case. The intention (notwithstanding the posters in this thread who believe that it was a deliberate con job by the nuclear powers) was to lead to nuclear weapons being eliminated. It has failed, and failed also to prevent proliferation. I’d love to see a real effort by World leaders to replace with something that will actually address both problems. Really don’t see it happening though.
In the meantime I’ll do my bit to continue to pressure my government to eliminate our entirely superflouous weapons.
So you really believe that a world in which every country has the right to build nuclear weapons is better than a world in which five countries have the right to build nuclear weapons? And you consider this an anti-nuclear position?
Congratulations on getting that from my post!