Is it time to junk the NPT - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 08-03-2005, 06:56 AM

NPT = Non-Proliferation Treaty

The NPT was introduced in order to discourage other nations from becoming nuclear powers. It was a deal all around.

The nuclear powers agreed to reduce their arsinal. The non-nuclear powers agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons. The non-nuclear powers gained, in exchange, help with non-weapon nuclear power technologies.

There are a number of nations that currently are not signatories to the NPT. Amoung them are North Korea, India and Isreal.

Isreal, as a matter of policy, neither confirms nor denies its ownership of nuclear weapons. It is generally assumed that she has nukes.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, and have tested them.

North Korea has nuclear weapons.

India in particular is now getting technical aid from the USA in for it's non-weapon nuclear industry, dispite it not agreeing to the NPT.

As far as I can tell, the NPT is now obsolete. Nations that build nuclear weapons gain as much help as nations that do not. NK, a nuclear power that is belligerant and hostile, is left alone, while Iraq, a non-nuclear power that is belligerant and hostile, is invaded. Isreal, a nuclear non-signatory to the NPT, gets large amounts of US military help.

In effect, having nuclear weapons in this day and age is a benefit for your nation. No matter your situation, you are treated better by other nations.

The main nuclear power is has drawn up plans to build more nuclear bombs for tactical battlefield use, has unilaterally withdrawn from international anti-missile treaties that helped keep the number of nuclear weapons required by the large powers down, and treats NPT signatories worse than non-NPT signatories.

So, really, what is the point of the NPT?

politicophile · 08-03-2005, 07:27 AM

The point of the NPT is to prevent additional countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The treaty has succeeded in slowing down the nuclear progress of a host of countries including North Korea. As for the future, the NPT will be useful in preventing regimes in eastern Europe and Africa from getting nuclear weapons.

Yeah, we invaded Iraq "instead" of North Korea, but that also had to do with the fact that NK's conventional army was far, far more powerful than Iraq's. Yeah, we give aid to Israel despite the fact that they have nukes, haven't signed the NPT, but we all know that Israel is a very unique case in many ways.

As for India, don't you think it makes sense to negociate with them seeing as they will continue to have nuclear weapons regardless of whether or not we are on good terms with them? Anyone with nukes is a good ally and a terrible enemy!

Yakk · 08-03-2005, 09:06 AM

But, why not withdraw from the NPT?

Being in the NPT seems to screw you. Not having nuclear weapons seems to screw you.

Signing the NPT is supposed to be useful to non-nuclear nations. It isn't. So there is no reason for them to continue being signatories. They really should withdraw from it, ideally en-mass.

And they should seek to gain nuclear arms by hook or by crook, because it seems to be the only guarantee against invasion by what currently is the worlds most aggressive military.

I'm not asking why the US should support the NPT. There are many reasons why they should support it. I'm asking why should anyone else consider it to be more than toilet paper?

joshbaumgartner · 08-03-2005, 02:03 PM

The reasons NOT to gain nuclear weapons as a small country are numerous. If you are a rogue/unique (depends on your perspective) nation like N. Korea or Israel, then it might be worth it, but nukes are incredibly expensive and a liability as well as an asset. Building a few nukes for say a terrorist type of attack is not so hard, but maintaining a viable nuclear deterrant indefinitely is a major national program. Nations which once were a 'rogue/unique' case but ceased to be such later have abandoned their nuclear weapons programs for precisely this reason (re: S. Africa). You also can see this in the willing abandonment of nuclear weapons by former Soviet states like Belorus and Ukraine, who recognized the high cost and risk of such systems without seeing commensurate benifit given their position in the world.

The Bush Administration has a bad record of supporting NPT activities for those kinds of states, despite their rhetoric about the dangers of WMDs. But on the whole, nations like Belorus have gotten a lot of help from others under NPT to dismantle their nuclear facilities, and small nations have seen benefits. For example Clinton bought Moldavia's MiG-29s that had nuclear carrying capabilities to keep them off the global arms market.

So in general, with the exception of a few states with very unique situations, nuclear weapons are not necessarily a good option at all, NPT or no NPT. Thus at least using the NPT as a goal and framework for doing what they can to slow down proliferation and to encourage nuclear powers to not bulk up but instead wind down their arsenals is not a bad thing for most signatories to the treaty.

Josh

politicophile · 08-04-2005, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Signing the NPT is supposed to be useful to non-nuclear nations. It isn't. So there is no reason for them to continue being signatories. They really should withdraw from it, ideally en-mass.

I thought that only nuclear nations signed the NPT. Isn't it just a deal to not give your nuclear secrets or technology to other countries? Obviously, even countries who do not sign a treaty are still affected by it...

Yakk · 08-04-2005, 07:24 AM

No. The NPT is signed by most nations in the world.

Non-nuclear nations, in exchange for not seeking nuclear weapons, get help with non-weapon nuclear technology. In addition, the nuclear nations agreed in principle to reduce their arsinals and stop or slow down the ridiculous nuclear death spiral.

If non-nuclear nations gain neither of the benefits (nuke nations help with non-military technology and nuke nations stoping or slowing down the arms race), they should withdraw.

Josh, compare S. Africa to Isreal and India. S. Africa was the first small nation to publicly claim to have nuclear weapons. If I remember rightly (and I'm fuzzy on this), S. Africa's nuclear capabilities is why they started up the NPT agreements.

The USA defines what is a rogue nation, and has demonstrated an unflinching willingness to lie and make up evidence in order to justify doing whatever it pleases. Recently, it seems to please to invade a nation every presidential reelection cycle. Having nuclear weapons seems to be an effective -- if not the only effective -- way to prevent this.

Remember, the regeme in Iraq was a heavily US-backed one just two decades ago. The regime in Afghanistan was armed and trained by US money. The regime in Afghanistan even offered to put Bin Laden up for trial to see if he was guilty, but the USA demanded unconditional capitulation. Being a friend of the USA isn't a defence. Iraq at least claims that they asked the USA if invading Kuwait in response to Kuwaiti cross-border drilling was acceptable, and claims that the USA was ok with it -- so, it is possible that even doing what the USA says is alright isn't even a defence against being invaded.

But, if you are belligerant, childish, egotistical dictator with nuclear weapons, you are treated with kid gloves and fed technological and economic aid.

Possibly South Africa managed a good deal by getting rid of his nukes. But India and Pakistan, both of which built nukes well into the non-proliveration era, are getting even sweeter deals than South Africa did, and get to keep their weapons for future bargaining chips.

So, I'm asking you, why stay in the NPT? You get a much better deal outside of it.

politicophile · 08-04-2005, 08:09 AM

I'm sorry: I was terribly mis-informed about who had signed the treaty: only three countries have not signed it: India, Pakistan, and Israel. Additionally, North Korea, which did initially sign the treaty, is clearly not holding up its side of the deal.

I think that the uniqueness of these few abstainers must be taken into account in order to understand why they are treated well even after they didn't abide by the treaty.

First off, India, Pakistan, and Israel never violated the treaty, so they weren't subject to its sanctions. You can't violate an agreement you didn't make. North Korea, the best example of a nation that violated the treaty, is not receiving the same cushy treatment being afforded to the three non-signees. And if you look at North Korea as your paradigm, and see the utter economic isolation and devastation there, it becomes much easier to understand why staying in the NPT is such a good deal.

Charlatan · 08-04-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

And if you look at North Korea as your paradigm, and see the utter economic isolation and devastation there, it becomes much easier to understand why staying in the NPT is such a good deal.

I'm not so sure that North Korea's current state has anything to do with breaking from the NPT than it does for being a communist dictatorship...

It was in bad shape long before it declared it had broken the NPT. Granted, the continued lack of support in the face of its worsening condition may have something to do with its nukes.

One of the major factors of North Korea's downfall is the combination of the fall of the Soviet empire, the international sanctions imposed. (Yes, there are other internal reasons but they would moot if they had a trading partner).

joshbaumgartner · 08-04-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

If non-nuclear nations gain neither of the benefits (nuke nations help with non-military technology and nuke nations stoping or slowing down the arms race), they should withdraw.

Josh, compare S. Africa to Isreal and India. S. Africa was the first small nation to publicly claim to have nuclear weapons. If I remember rightly (and I'm fuzzy on this), S. Africa's nuclear capabilities is why they started up the NPT agreements.

Well not just S. Africa at that time but also places like Brazil and Argentina had significant research efforts underway, while a large number of nations were 'considering' making the effort. There was a real potential for there to be more than twenty nuclear states by the end of the century if something was not done.

Quote:

Possibly South Africa managed a good deal by getting rid of his nukes. But India and Pakistan, both of which built nukes well into the non-proliveration era, are getting even sweeter deals than South Africa did, and get to keep their weapons for future bargaining chips.

So, I'm asking you, why stay in the NPT? You get a much better deal outside of it.

What is the deal that India is getting? I guess I'm not sure that I know of them getting anything necessarily. Paki's situation I would think has a lot more to do with the Afghanistan operations than with their nukes, although undoubtedly the nukes helped assure them more control over how they participated.

I can't really see how a nation like Brazil or Argentina would stand to benefit from maintaining a nuclear program costing billions of $.

The primary reward of nuclear possession is security for your nation and interests against other nuclear states. But I disagree that it is the only way to acheive that security.

Josh

Yakk · 08-04-2005, 09:18 AM

Politico, compared to the state of Iraq's government, NK is doing quite fine. It appears NK chose the correct route.

Secondly, the benefits that non-nuclear powers where supposed to get are being given to non-NPT signatories. India. Isreal.

Thirdly, the nuclear powers are not living up to their end of the bargain.

Forthly, the NPT was used as an excuse to invade and topple a government with no nuclear weapons program. The nation that did the invasion is unapologetic about its lies and deception, and has started using the same excuse to threaten a neighbouring nation.

North Korea withdrew from the NPT, just like the Americans withdrew from the anti-ballistic-missile treaty. North Korea, with nuclear weapons, is not under threat of invasion.

Non-NPT nations are getting all of the benefits of NPT membership (India and Isreal).

The treaty and it's application is morally bankrupt. The end of the cold war, the invasion of Iraq, the new India/Pakistan nuclear powers, the withdrawl of North Korea from the treaty, the withdrawl of the USA from the ABM treaty, American plans to beef up their nuclear arsinal with tactical weapons for use against non-nuclear nations -- all are extrodinary events that could, and possibly should, justify an Article X withdrawl from the treaty.

The NPT is morally bankrupt.

08-03-2005, 06:56 AM	#1 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Is it time to junk the NPT NPT = Non-Proliferation Treaty The NPT was introduced in order to discourage other nations from becoming nuclear powers. It was a deal all around. The nuclear powers agreed to reduce their arsinal. The non-nuclear powers agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons. The non-nuclear powers gained, in exchange, help with non-weapon nuclear power technologies. There are a number of nations that currently are not signatories to the NPT. Amoung them are North Korea, India and Isreal. Isreal, as a matter of policy, neither confirms nor denies its ownership of nuclear weapons. It is generally assumed that she has nukes. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, and have tested them. North Korea has nuclear weapons. India in particular is now getting technical aid from the USA in for it's non-weapon nuclear industry, dispite it not agreeing to the NPT. As far as I can tell, the NPT is now obsolete. Nations that build nuclear weapons gain as much help as nations that do not. NK, a nuclear power that is belligerant and hostile, is left alone, while Iraq, a non-nuclear power that is belligerant and hostile, is invaded. Isreal, a nuclear non-signatory to the NPT, gets large amounts of US military help. In effect, having nuclear weapons in this day and age is a benefit for your nation. No matter your situation, you are treated better by other nations. The main nuclear power is has drawn up plans to build more nuclear bombs for tactical battlefield use, has unilaterally withdrawn from international anti-missile treaties that helped keep the number of nuclear weapons required by the large powers down, and treats NPT signatories worse than non-NPT signatories. So, really, what is the point of the NPT? __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

08-03-2005, 07:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	The point of the NPT is to prevent additional countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The treaty has succeeded in slowing down the nuclear progress of a host of countries including North Korea. As for the future, the NPT will be useful in preventing regimes in eastern Europe and Africa from getting nuclear weapons. Yeah, we invaded Iraq "instead" of North Korea, but that also had to do with the fact that NK's conventional army was far, far more powerful than Iraq's. Yeah, we give aid to Israel despite the fact that they have nukes, haven't signed the NPT, but we all know that Israel is a very unique case in many ways. As for India, don't you think it makes sense to negociate with them seeing as they will continue to have nuclear weapons regardless of whether or not we are on good terms with them? Anyone with nukes is a good ally and a terrible enemy! __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

08-03-2005, 09:06 AM	#3 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	But, why not withdraw from the NPT? Being in the NPT seems to screw you. Not having nuclear weapons seems to screw you. Signing the NPT is supposed to be useful to non-nuclear nations. It isn't. So there is no reason for them to continue being signatories. They really should withdraw from it, ideally en-mass. And they should seek to gain nuclear arms by hook or by crook, because it seems to be the only guarantee against invasion by what currently is the worlds most aggressive military. I'm not asking why the US should support the NPT. There are many reasons why they should support it. I'm asking why should anyone else consider it to be more than toilet paper? __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

08-04-2005, 07:24 AM	#6 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	No. The NPT is signed by most nations in the world. Non-nuclear nations, in exchange for not seeking nuclear weapons, get help with non-weapon nuclear technology. In addition, the nuclear nations agreed in principle to reduce their arsinals and stop or slow down the ridiculous nuclear death spiral. If non-nuclear nations gain neither of the benefits (nuke nations help with non-military technology and nuke nations stoping or slowing down the arms race), they should withdraw. Josh, compare S. Africa to Isreal and India. S. Africa was the first small nation to publicly claim to have nuclear weapons. If I remember rightly (and I'm fuzzy on this), S. Africa's nuclear capabilities is why they started up the NPT agreements. The USA defines what is a rogue nation, and has demonstrated an unflinching willingness to lie and make up evidence in order to justify doing whatever it pleases. Recently, it seems to please to invade a nation every presidential reelection cycle. Having nuclear weapons seems to be an effective -- if not the only effective -- way to prevent this. Remember, the regeme in Iraq was a heavily US-backed one just two decades ago. The regime in Afghanistan was armed and trained by US money. The regime in Afghanistan even offered to put Bin Laden up for trial to see if he was guilty, but the USA demanded unconditional capitulation. Being a friend of the USA isn't a defence. Iraq at least claims that they asked the USA if invading Kuwait in response to Kuwaiti cross-border drilling was acceptable, and claims that the USA was ok with it -- so, it is possible that even doing what the USA says is alright isn't even a defence against being invaded. But, if you are belligerant, childish, egotistical dictator with nuclear weapons, you are treated with kid gloves and fed technological and economic aid. Possibly South Africa managed a good deal by getting rid of his nukes. But India and Pakistan, both of which built nukes well into the non-proliveration era, are getting even sweeter deals than South Africa did, and get to keep their weapons for future bargaining chips. So, I'm asking you, why stay in the NPT? You get a much better deal outside of it. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

08-04-2005, 08:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	I'm sorry: I was terribly mis-informed about who had signed the treaty: only three countries have not signed it: India, Pakistan, and Israel. Additionally, North Korea, which did initially sign the treaty, is clearly not holding up its side of the deal. I think that the uniqueness of these few abstainers must be taken into account in order to understand why they are treated well even after they didn't abide by the treaty. First off, India, Pakistan, and Israel never violated the treaty, so they weren't subject to its sanctions. You can't violate an agreement you didn't make. North Korea, the best example of a nation that violated the treaty, is not receiving the same cushy treatment being afforded to the three non-signees. And if you look at North Korea as your paradigm, and see the utter economic isolation and devastation there, it becomes much easier to understand why staying in the NPT is such a good deal. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

08-03-2005, 02:03 PM	#4 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	The reasons NOT to gain nuclear weapons as a small country are numerous. If you are a rogue/unique (depends on your perspective) nation like N. Korea or Israel, then it might be worth it, but nukes are incredibly expensive and a liability as well as an asset. Building a few nukes for say a terrorist type of attack is not so hard, but maintaining a viable nuclear deterrant indefinitely is a major national program. Nations which once were a 'rogue/unique' case but ceased to be such later have abandoned their nuclear weapons programs for precisely this reason (re: S. Africa). You also can see this in the willing abandonment of nuclear weapons by former Soviet states like Belorus and Ukraine, who recognized the high cost and risk of such systems without seeing commensurate benifit given their position in the world. The Bush Administration has a bad record of supporting NPT activities for those kinds of states, despite their rhetoric about the dangers of WMDs. But on the whole, nations like Belorus have gotten a lot of help from others under NPT to dismantle their nuclear facilities, and small nations have seen benefits. For example Clinton bought Moldavia's MiG-29s that had nuclear carrying capabilities to keep them off the global arms market. So in general, with the exception of a few states with very unique situations, nuclear weapons are not necessarily a good option at all, NPT or no NPT. Thus at least using the NPT as a goal and framework for doing what they can to slow down proliferation and to encourage nuclear powers to not bulk up but instead wind down their arsenals is not a bad thing for most signatories to the treaty. Josh

08-04-2005, 09:18 AM	#10 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Politico, compared to the state of Iraq's government, NK is doing quite fine. It appears NK chose the correct route. Secondly, the benefits that non-nuclear powers where supposed to get are being given to non-NPT signatories. India. Isreal. Thirdly, the nuclear powers are not living up to their end of the bargain. Forthly, the NPT was used as an excuse to invade and topple a government with no nuclear weapons program. The nation that did the invasion is unapologetic about its lies and deception, and has started using the same excuse to threaten a neighbouring nation. North Korea withdrew from the NPT, just like the Americans withdrew from the anti-ballistic-missile treaty. North Korea, with nuclear weapons, is not under threat of invasion. Non-NPT nations are getting all of the benefits of NPT membership (India and Isreal). The treaty and it's application is morally bankrupt. The end of the cold war, the invasion of Iraq, the new India/Pakistan nuclear powers, the withdrawl of North Korea from the treaty, the withdrawl of the USA from the ABM treaty, American plans to beef up their nuclear arsinal with tactical weapons for use against non-nuclear nations -- all are extrodinary events that could, and possibly should, justify an Article X withdrawl from the treaty. The NPT is morally bankrupt. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.