Atomic Treaties

  1. http://www.michaeljacksontalkradio.c...n_Journal.html

    Atomic Treaties
    Thursday June 17, 2004
    Israel is a nuclear power, as are Pakistan, India and North Korea. Over the past few years South Africa bowed out of the nuclear club and so did Taiwan. Most recently Libya ended its nuclear-weapons program. I don't trust Iran, which claims it has the right to develop nuclear power simply for electricity ...even though it is an oil rich nation. The IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Commission) doesn't trust them either, as it appears they caught Iran lying about its technical capabilities that suggests that it is developing into a nuclear power. Just what the already unstable Middle East needs! Now that we are fully involved in an international terrorist war, the world must find the means to contain the spread of nuclear weapons among nations.

    Back in 1968 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed, the aim of which was meant to prevent the kind of proliferation we have been facing these past few years. The agreement was that nuclear arsenals would be limited to the United States, The Soviet Union (Now Russia), Britain, China and France. All the other nations were to be limited to gathering nuclear technology for peaceful uses. At the same time the nuclear powers promised to phase out their weapons. That, of course, has not occurred, nor is it likely to happen in the foreseeable future. What is foreseeable is catastrophic. If the world does not find a way of preventing regional nuclear wars we are faced with horrendous battles and mass destruction. If we don't manage to keep nuclear weaponry out of the hands of terrorists, then what? Your guess is as good as mine.

    At the recently concluded G-8 Summit the Bush administration proposed a global freeze on the exportation of nuclear technology to try to prevent any further nations from cheating. But, you know what? The European allies agreed, simply, to a one year ban. This will take decades to accomplish. After the debacle of Iraq I can't imagine the next president (whether it is to be a continuation of Bush and his pre-emptive policy), or the more reasoned approach of his successor, it would be hard to picture this country putting troops on the ground in Iran or North Korea, without a massive provocation. Diplomacy might end up being the best Winston Churchill put it ..."rather jaw,,jaw,,jaw than war,war, war."
  2. 3 Comments

  3. by   renerian
    Thank you for posting that. THis is one of my CAUSES so to speak.

  4. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from renerian
    Thank you for posting that. THis is one of my CAUSES so to speak.

    Me too. "What is foreseeable is catastrophic. If the world does not find a way of preventing regional nuclear wars we are faced with horrendous battles and mass destruction. If we don't manage to keep nuclear weaponry out of the hands of terrorists, then what?"
  5. by   pickledpepperRN

    Report Faults U.S. Action on Nuclear Proliferation
    By Dafna Linzer
    Washington Post
    Monday 21 June 2004
    Carnegie study recommends more aggressive tactics.

    Within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush highlighted the menace posed by weapons of mass destruction, declaring: "We will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

    That promise led to designations, such as the "axis of evil" for Iraq, Iran and North Korea; to steps, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, which allows the United States to search ships for weapons material; and to war with Iraq, based on the belief that Saddam Hussein's government was sitting on a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and working toward an atomic bomb.

    But according to a critical report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, it has not helped secure vulnerable nuclear facilities, criminalized the transfer of weapons technology or meted out punishments for countries that renege on their commitment to remain nuclear-free.

    "If you're really worried that terrorists are going to get nuclear materials and build a bomb, then we have to be acting a lot more aggressively and thinking more comprehensively to lock down the global nuclear complex," said Jon Wolfsthal, one of five co-authors of the Carnegie report, "Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security." The report is being released today at the start of a two-day conference here on nuclear weapons sponsored by the think tank.

    More than 600 members of the arms control community are expected to attend the conference, including Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Mitchell Reiss, director of policy planning at the State Department; former senator Sam Nunn, co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative; and Hans Blix, who led the U.N. hunt for weapons in Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

    Among the toughest claims in the 95-page report, which will be the focus of today's opening session, is that the United States is undermining its own policies by continuing to build nuclear weapons and strengthening ties with nuclear states - India, Pakistan and Israel.

    The report also chides the administration's approach to Iran, a country censured on Friday by the IAEA for failing to cooperate with international inspectors. The toughly worded rebuke at the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency was written by France, Britain and Germany, which have been trying to offer Iran incentives to give up its nuclear ambitions.

    The Bush administration has taken a tougher line, saying it wants to bring the issue to the U.N. Security Council in the hope of forcing Iran to back down. But officials in Washington have quietly conceded there is little they can do if Iran decides to go nuclear.

    "The U.S. should more fully back the European Union leaders," the Carnegie group wrote. "Resolving the nuclear proliferation challenge should be the highest priority in relations with Iran."

    On North Korea, the report recommends that Bush appoint a special envoy to negotiate with Pyongyang for the complete dismantlement of its nuclear capabilities. The United States will take part in a new round of six-party talks in Beijing this week aimed at ending a 20-month crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. But the administration has refused to talk directly to Pyongyang or reward the country before it gives up its arsenal, which U.S. intelligence now estimates to include as many as eight nuclear devices.

    The Carnegie report also focuses on protecting nuclear materials, reactors and sites around the world from sabotage and theft and creating tough international measures to punish black marketeers.
    "In many countries, stealing nuclear materials is no more of a crime than stealing money," the report said.

    Earlier this year, a massive black market run by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, was exposed when Libya announced it was giving up its clandestine attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    Khan was pardoned by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally of the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks.