Bush says UN can help stop spread of nuclear weapons. How serious is he?

[90's sc vet]

ok your completely mixing up your own points. al qaeda and the taliban: two seperate entities. attacking a terrorist base: not a preemptive war against a country. you can't combine the two to justify something other then what it was. preemptive war against the taliban would not have stopped 9/11 because they had nothing to do with it. they just would have hidden in the mountains where they are now, or set up in Saudi Arabia instead.

No, I'm not. I'm being completely practical.

Al Qaeda existed within Afghanistan, which was run by the Taliban. There was ample evidence that the Taliban was supporting al Qaeda with money, al Qaeda in return supplied soldiers and security.

Just how would anyone have attacked the al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan without going through the Taliban? My point has been proven by actual events, the US went to Afghanistan to find bin Laden and the Taliban mounted a defence of al Qaeda with over 20,000 troops. That was the entire point of Bush's doctrine, that not only terrorists but states harbouring terrorists would be subject to attack.

The US attacked both the Taliban and al Qaeda in 2001 and there haven't been any attacks on US soil since that time. If the US had done the same thing in 1998 (when Clinton did lob cruise missiles at the al Qaeda camp) or in 1993 after the first WTC attack, I claim that the same thing would have happened, al Qaeda would have gone into the mountains and 9/11 would never have happened, just as there haven't been any attacks since the US overturned the Taliban.

Al Qaeda had the luxury of having stable base camps and a steady income from the Taliban. From that steady base, they were able to plan and execute an attack that took years to prepare. Running around in mountain caves with 10,000 US troops trying to kill you makes that kind of planning impossible.

Let me get this straight. You're actually arguing that if the US knew about 9/11 and attacked both the Taliban and al Qaeda, that 9/11 would still have occurred?

Then you have to explain why the best bin Laden has been able to do is issue a few audio and video recordings since 2001, why the only attacks they've been able to mount since 2001 have occurred only in Muslim countries and why 2/3's of al Qaeda's leadership is dead or in jail.

Al Qaeda attacked the WTC in 1993, blew up two US embassies in Africa, blew a hole in the USS Cole and the US did nothing but throw a handful of cruise missiles at the main al Qaeda camp in 1998. The result was 9/11.

After 9/11, the US overthrew the Taliban, has chased and captured most of the al Qaeda leadership and bin Laden has been too afraid to use a cell phone or even produce a new video tape. No new attacks since the US entered Kabul.

I think the weight of evidence supports my contention, that preemptive attacks can prevent future attacks. I think you now have to provide evidence to support your contention, that the non preemptive US policy prior to 9/11 was somehow beneficial to the US. I don't see it.

 

[Cobster]

He's a complete and utter moron...wait, no, he's an utter, period.

I shouldn't say this, but what the hell, like i give a shit.

Bush being president is the worst thing for the US and this world.
I forgot exactly what it was that really made me go mental for what he was planning to do, in his policies, but one of them was nuclear related as well as I THINK the possible advancement of Reagan's former plan, Star Wars project. Laser defense capabilities or what not.

Regardless, he's a stupid born again Christian yahoo, with his "us against them" *gee, wonder what us and them meant*, policies.

I hope he loses the next election.
He's entertaining with his Bushisms and ya he's got a heart, but what a fucktard, when it comes to running a country.

Christ, Dick Chenney is out "hunting" birds, while this dumbass is running a country, let alone he couldn't run a baseball team properly.

Chenney isn't any better.

American politics is entertaining, but not fruitful.

Idiots.

 

[90's sc vet]

He's a complete and utter moron...wait, no, he's an utter, period.

I shouldn't say this, but what the hell, like i give a shit.

Bush being president is the worst thing for the US and this world.

Let's see. Clinton did whatever he did for 8 years and 9/11 was the result. Bush was left with the mess and cleaned it up.

To me, Clinton was the worst President ever, not just sleeping during his watch but getting BBBJTC in the Oval Office while bin Laden attacked US citizens all over the world.

Bush has taken the hard, unpopular choices, forced Libya and Iran to give up their nuclear weapons, kicked out murderous dictatorships in Baghdad and Kabul (do you remember that video tape of the Taliban summarily executing that women in the soccer stadium) and you think he's been bad for the world?

But in a way, I can see why liberals hate Bush so much. He's the disciplinarian who has decided to clean up. No one likes that kind of guy, he's a pain in the ass, just like the police. But who do you call when you're in trouble?

9/11 was a terrible thing and Bush decided that that kind of thing would never happen again. Sounds good to me.

 

[Cobster]

Don't forget rushing into Iraq, claiming weapons of mass destruction, now his CIA boy is gonna take the heat for it.

Surprisingly to my dismay, he didn't plant any WMD in Iraq.
Gotta give him some credit for not doing that.

 

[90's sc vet]

Don't forget rushing into Iraq, claiming weapons of mass destruction, now his CIA boy is gonna take the heat for it.

Surprisingly to my dismay, he didn't plant any WMD in Iraq.
Gotta give him some credit for not doing that.

Grown ups are in the White House now. Bush honestly thought that WMD would be found in Iraq, as did every other country in the world. He's not going to plant evidence, he doesn't need to.

There was already overwhelming evidence that Hussein was a danger to the entire region. Hussein attacked Iran and a million people died. Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, as we've all seen, he attacked Kuwait. After 9/11, there was obvious evidence that there were people in this world who would take WMD and deliver them to US cities. So a regional threat could instantly become a global threat.

But you know what's interesting? Make a list of the worst regimes in the world prior to 9/11. My list would have been North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and China. Bush has removed two of those from the list. China's behaviour is being modified through trade, Iran is now under extreme pressure because of the upcoming democracy that is going to come to Iraq. There's only North Korea left on the list and then the world will be a much safer place.

 

[Snook.fr]

Sorry... Newbie Question....
Who is this "Bush" everyone seem to know?

I'm ready to take one for the Team..... Is daty on the Bush Menu?
(The Same Way Greek was on his Predecessor's?)

 

[*d*]

I've never seen any restriction in the NPT on nuclear nations developing more advanced weapons. The articles you quoted explicitly do not exclude such development. Actually, none of them do.

I suggest you read the Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament, in the 1995 and again in the 2000 NPT updates. There you'll find 13 practical steps agreed upon by nuclear weapon NPT members to implement disarmament, Article VI of the NPT. Take note of these words in the 2000 update- "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all states parties are committed under Article VI." I think that's straight to the point.

BTW, the US has, to date entirely fulfilled the obligations of Article 6. Like I said before, the weapons count of the US and Russia has fallen from 50,000 to about 6,000. Article 6 called for a cessation of an arms race, which, IMO has happened.

Please clarify. First you said Article VI does not exclude nuclear weapon NPT members from developing new nuclear arms, and then you say the US(a nuclear weapon member) is fulfilling its obligation of Article VI by disarming. Sorry if I scratch my head a bit. Article VI is about disarming, not allowing development.

What 'negative security assurance" clause in the NPT? All I see is a general statement that nations should "refrain" from threats of the use of force, but nothing specifically about the use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear nations. Which Article are you referring to?

I refer to step 8 of the '95 Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament. I also suggest you read the last point of last years US state department's nuclear weapons policy fact sheet, US actions and policies supporting article VI. It also addresses 'negative security assurance'.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/nptsheet.htm

Qaddifi himself admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a factor in his decision to abandon nuclear weapons development in an interview on, IIRC, CNN.

Never saw the interview, but there is this article from CNN- www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/italy.libya.ap/index.html
It seems the Lybian foreign minister claims to Blair on Tuesday that the Lybian weapons decision was not prompted by international pressure. Plus back in 2002 Gadhafi stated that Lybia would no longer be a rogue state.
www.intellnet.org/news/2002/08/31/11317-1.html

Don't forget, Libya and Iran started developing nuclear weapons because Hussein started to.

Gadhafi also said in the above 2002 article, before the Iraqi invasion- "Saddam Hussein's regime is better for them. It is a strong regime" that will not allow Islamic extremists to take over, he said.-
But I will agree with you that nuclear disarmament is important. That's why the latest amendments to the NPT should be followed by ALL nations.

Scenario 1:

US and Israel are the only two countries with nuclear weapons. Europe, Asia, Africa, South America are nuclear free zones. Nuclear weapons count falls to about 3000.

Scenario 2 (which is right now):
North Korea is willing to sell nuclear weapons to anyone with enough money. Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has publicly stated that they will use their bomb as soon as it's finished. Pakistan and India both have atomic bombs and Pakistan has a public first nuclear use doctrine. Al Qaeda is continually seeking to buy nuclear weapons from any source, disaffected Russian officers, North Korea, Pakistan, anyone who has the technology. Nuclear weapons count is about 8,000.

Of course scenario 2 is worse, but scenario 1 is imposssible when the US and Israel are the threatening source.

 

[90's sc vet]

Your logic for attacking Afghanistan is flawed: there is *more* evidence of all types of support coming from other countries and yet Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not smoking craters like Afghanistan. If your above assertion was correct, there'd be lots of ruined countries right now (as in most of the Middle East).

PAL

Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan which Clinton attacked with cruise missiles in 1998. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia support al Qaeda in the form of money and indirect support, the Taliban supported al Qaeda directly.

There is no doubt that al Qaeda received support from many countries but their training bases and main base of operation was in Afghanistan. Which is why the US attacked there an not anywhere else. But if it had turned out that al Qaeda's base had been in Saudi Arabia, the US would have attacked there as well.

I think the problem is, you're trying to assert that the US has to be stupid in applying force. In other words, unless the US reduces every nation that had any connection to al Qaeda to a smoking ruin, their justification for going to war is flawed.

The fact is, just like in the attack in Iraq, the US applied as little force as they needed. They wanted to get bin Laden and his associates, they were in Afghanistan ( I don't think there is any doubt about that) , so that's where the US attacked. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[90's sc vet]

I suggest you read the Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament, in the 1995 and again in the 2000 NPT updates.

Take note of these words in the 2000 update- "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all states parties are committed under Article VI." I think that's straight to the point.

But I still don't see any prohibition against development of new weapons. You made a blanket statement saying that there were severe limitations outlined in the NPT that constrained new weapons development and I don't see anything like that anywhere in the text.

I think you're trying to shoehorn the definition of non proliferation into something none of the texts mentions. Non proliferation in the various texts means not spreading nuclear weapons to other countries. You appear to be interpreting non proliferation to mean no more new nuclear warhead designs. That is a much different definition of proliferation than what I read in the actual language of the treaty and updates.

Where is the clause that prohibits or otherwise constrains the development or refinement of nuclear weapons?

I would assert that if the intent of the NPT was to limit development of nuclear weapons, it would have said so in plain language. The language of the NPT is clearly all about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, it is silent on the numbers, use and development of such weapons.

First you said Article VI does not exclude nuclear weapon NPT members from developing new nuclear arms, and then you say the US(a nuclear weapon member) is fulfilling its obligation of Article VI by disarming. Sorry if I scratch my head a bit. Article VI is about disarming, not allowing development.

I only mentioned Article 6 to show that the US has met the requirements of the NPT, something that you appeared to dispute.

When you read the State Dept summary of the efforts the US has taken to adhere to the NPT, I think it seriously undermines your contention that the US hasn't gone a very long way to being a good NPT citizen.

I refer to step 8 of the '95 Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament. I also suggest you read the last point of last years US state department's nuclear weapons policy fact sheet

Can you point me to a clause that explicitly forbids nuclear powers from threatening non nuclear powers?

Article 8 of the 1995 update says this:

"further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument."

AFAIK, no legally binding instrument was ever negotiated or signed, so I don't think you can claim that the US is now in violation of any form of the NPT with Bush's new doctrine.

But was such a legally binding agreement ever reached? I don't remember reading anything about that.

There was a Presidential declaration in 1995 that said this:

"The President declares that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the NPT except under certain circumstances"

But that clearly was not a blanket negative security assurance.

Never saw the interview, but there is this article from CNN-

I can't remember where I saw that story but here is another reference to the interview I read about:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106721,00.html

Of course scenario 2 is worse, but scenario 1 is impossible when the US and Israel are the threatening source.

Libya and Iran are both considering becoming non nuclear states. How can that be the case if the US and Israel are still threatening sources?

That evidence seems to directly contradict your assertion, especially when you consider that Israel is in the same region as Libya and Iran.

I think the problem is that we're talking about three very different things.

a) Non proliferation of nuclear weapons.
b) Criticism of the US.
c) Criticism of Israel.

I don't see any connection between the NPT and Israel. Iran and Libya are becoming non nuclear states and both ot those countries started developing nuclear weapons in response to Iraq, not Israel.

Israel has no connection to the proliferation problems in Pakistan and India or North Korea, at least none that I know of.

So what is the threatening connection you talk about? Who is Israel encouraging to develop nuclear weapons? AFAIK, Egypt has no nuclear program, nor does any other state in the Middle East, except for Iraq, Iran and Libya and all three of those states are in various stages of becoming non nuclear states.

What evidence do you bring forward to support your assertion? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

[90's sc vet]

Sorry... Newbie Question....
Who is this "Bush" everyone seem to know?

I'm ready to take one for the Team..... Is daty on the Bush Menu?
(The Same Way Greek was on his Predecessor's?)

I don't think it was Greek Clinton wanted. AFAIK, he got BBBJTC and a very special sauce for his cigar. ;->

However, someone did mention to me that Laura Bush has a really big rack. I've seen Christy Canyon in street clothes and you'd never think that she had large breasts. But you can see that Laura Bush has big'uns, so I can only imagine what W sees every night.

 

[*d*]

But I still don't see any prohibition against development of new weapons. You made a blanket statement saying that there were severe limitations outlined in the NPT that constrained new weapons development and I don't see anything like that anywhere in the text.

Again you must look at the NPT updates which include the 1995 and 2000 'Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament' additions.
http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/1995dec2.htm
Take note of the Security Assurance in step 8.

http://ccnd.gn.apc.org/Thirteen Steps.htm
Take note of step 6 -- An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.--
It can't get much more straight forward than that.

I think you're trying to shoehorn the definition of non proliferation into something none of the texts mentions. Non proliferation in the various texts means not spreading nuclear weapons to other countries. You appear to be interpreting non proliferation to mean no more new nuclear warhead designs. That is a much different definition of proliferation than what I read in the actual language of the treaty and updates.

I can't see how developing new nuclear weapons is okay when, under step 6 above, nuclear weapons members must plan to eliminate their total nuclear arsenal.

When you read the State Dept summary of the efforts the US has taken to adhere to the NPT, I think it seriously undermines your contention that the US hasn't gone a very long way to being a good NPT citizen.

I think you'll find that the US state department is not following their Nuclear Weapons Policy. Take the first item --U.S. is reducing reliance on nuclear weapons. Placing more emphasis on conventional deterrence and missile defense.--
Emphasizing ABM defense is definitely stepping away from preserving the ABM Treaty, which is step 7 of the 2000 NPT principles and objectives.

Next item --U.S. is not developing, testing or producing any nuclear warheads and has not done so in more than a decade.--
The US is now working to develop new bunker basher nukes.

Next --U.S. maintains its moratorium on nuclear testing. It has no plans to conduct nuclear tests.--
The US no longer honors the Test ban Treaty.

Next --We do not target any countries with nuclear weapons. There has been no change in U.S. negative security assurances policy toward NPT parties.--
Under the US Nuclear posture review, Bush asks for authority to use preemptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear NPT members. And this week he acted in bad faith(NPT article VI) by threatening non-nuclear members while violating the NPT himself.

Article 8 of the 1995 update says this:

No, as I said, see STEP 8 of the '95 NPT principles and objectives.

There was a Presidential declaration in 1995 that said this:

"The President declares that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the NPT except under certain circumstances"

But that clearly was not a blanket negative security assurance.

'Certain circumstances' I would think means self-defence. So yes it sounds to me like a blanket negative security assurance to non-nuclear members.

Libya and Iran are both considering becoming non nuclear states. How can that be the case if the US and Israel are still threatening sources?

Libya and Iran are already non-nuclear members.

I don't see any connection between the NPT and Israel. Iran and Libya are becoming non nuclear states and both ot those countries started developing nuclear weapons in response to Iraq, not Israel.

But Iran as well as Syria and the entire 22 member Arab league want Israel to disarm and follow UN resolution 687. That's the beef and that's why I started this thread. As I said in the opening post, Syria drafted a new UN resolution to make the entire mid-east WMD free. The draft is backed by the entire 22 member Arab league. So it looks to me like Israel is the big threat to most of the middle east.

 

[90's sc vet]

I can't see how developing new nuclear weapons is okay when, under step 6 above, nuclear weapons members must plan to eliminate their total nuclear arsenal.

Here's what you originally said:

"No!!! The NPT places many restrictions on nuclear weapon member states. The US is in breach of 'Article VI'

Then you said this:

"Sorry if I scratch my head a bit. Article VI is about disarming, not allowing development."

You first argued that Article VI is meant to prevent development, then you argued the exact opposite about Article VI. It's my turn to scratch my head.

It is painfully evident that there are no NPT clauses that put any restrictions on the development of nuclear weapons. You should have just admitted that you made a mistake and moved on.

We're talking about the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, not a mythical Nuclear Elimination Treaty.

If the framers of the NPT had meant to halt development of new weapons, they would have said so. It's pretty easy, just include a clause that says "Signatory States agree to halt all new development of ...." and it's done.
Obviously no such clause was ever included.

What you're trying to do is exactly what contracts and treaties are designed to prevent, vague clauses subject to subsequent re-interpretations that were not intended by the original designers of an agreement.

For instance, according to your interpretation, since the signatory states of the NPT still have nuclear weapons, all of them are in material breach of the NPT, since elimination of all weapons was allegedly a binding part of the NPT.

Since the 1968 original draft of the NPT, the US and USSR have probably redesigned all their nuclear warheads two or more times. I don't remember anyone complaining that they were in breach of the NPT when they did that.

But where does your interpretation of the NPT end? If the US repairs a defective nuclear weapon, does that put the US in a breach of the NPT? How about building more of the same design? And how many changes are allowed before a design is considered to be new? Why did the US and USSR create the various START treaties if the zero nuclear weapon clause of the NPT was already sufficient?

No, what you're saying makes no sense at all. If all development of new nuclear weapons had been intended to be halted, it would have clearly been stated in the 1968 version of the NPT or in any of the subequent extensions.

The UN preamble to the NPT says it all:

"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology"

I think you'll find that the US state department is not following their Nuclear Weapons Policy. Take the first item --U.S. is reducing reliance on nuclear weapons. Placing more emphasis on conventional deterrence and missile defense.--

First of all, the US State Dept report is not a binding part of the NPT.

Second, developing a non nuclear ABM defense can hardly be considered a breach of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and is entirely consistent with the notion of relying on non nuclear technology.

Third: All the items in the US State Dept findings were voluntary efforts by the US. This whole thing started when you claimed that the US was in material breach of the NPT and now you're discussing the US reversing it's own Presidential Directives, which the US is obviously free to do at any time.

'Certain circumstances' I would think means self-defence. So yes it sounds to me like a blanket negative security assurance to non-nuclear members.

Oddly enough, we may be in agreement here. Bush has said that he will may use nuclear weapons against non nuclear powers in self defense. If destroying a deep underground command and control base that will disrupt an attack on the US is regarded as self defense then the US is allowed to do so under it's own policies.

But Iran as well as Syria and the entire 22 member Arab league want Israel to disarm and follow UN resolution 687. That's the beef and that's why I started this thread.

Like I said before, we're in agreement about Israel giving up it's nuclear weapons.

However, you still haven't answered my main criticism of your argument, just who has Israel motivated to develop nuclear weapons?

Libya and Iran apparently have agreed to end their nuclear programs, which destroys your argument that Israel is a provocative proliferating state. You still haven't explained just how Israel has caused a nuclear arms race in the region, when no Arab state is in the race at all.

There is no longer a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, pending Iran's acceptance of UN inspections. If that is the case, then I don't see how you can argue that Israel is a nuclear threatening state that prevents nuclear disarmament.

 

[90's sc vet]

Originally posted by *d*

I refer to step 8 of the '95 Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament. I also suggest you read the last point of last years US state department's nuclear weapons policy fact sheet

Article 8 of the 1995 update says this:


No, as I said, see STEP 8 of the '95 NPT principles and objectives.

There seemed to be some confusion about this one point. I referred to "Article 8" of the 1995 Update, which was identical to the 1995 NPT Principles and Objectives. So with that minor correction, my original point is still outstanding.

Step 8 of the 1995 P&O says this:

"further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument."

AFAIK, no legally binding instrument was ever negotiated or signed, so I don't think you can claim that the US is now in violation of any form of the NPT with Bush's new doctrine.

But was such a legally binding agreement ever reached? I don't remember reading anything about that.

 

[Ickabod]

Let's see. Clinton did whatever he did for 8 years and 9/11 was the result. Bush was left with the mess and cleaned it up.

Ok, you seem pretty outspoken on this whole Bush is God thing going on. Perhaps you can step up to the plate and finally give me an answer to this question that i've been asking for 3 years now and have yet to get an answer. Not one answer. Name one thing Bush did before 9/11 to battle terrorism. One thing. If i don't get a valid answer from you, then you and your conservative buddies really oughta shut the hell up with this "Clinton didn't do anything but Bush is God" crap. And let's remember, word is Saddam hasn't had any WMD program since 1998. That's 1998. Let's look back and think....who was President back in 1998 when he gave up his programs? Think hard, it'll come to ya. So fact is Bush had to start a war to attempt to get rid of what Clinton got rid of 5 years ago without a war. Hmmmmm. Kinda makes ya think.

 

[Ickabod]

In that case, why not get rid of Hussein? How is the case of Iraq different from Germany in WW2?
Germany posed no threat to the US at that time.

Well, for starters, Hitler had a military that Saddam could only dream of so these comparisons between Hitler and Hussein are just silly. Hussein was closer to Idi Amin than Adolf Hitler.

And besides that.......i dare you to ask me what Colin Powell said in February 2001. Go ahead, i double dare ya.

 

[Ickabod]

What really bothers me is that it was the US that was the target, not any other country. So one country is at risk, every other country suffers no risk, so you're saying that the US isn't allowed to defend itself when it thinks it's national survival is at stake?

Fair point. And i wonder what the US position would have been had Hussein said back prior to Gulf War I that he went into Kuwait because he feared an attack from them. With zero evidence to back it up. You would have thought of him as i now think of George Bush. He's a clown.

As a liberal, what principle are you defending when you defend Hussein's right to continue as a murderous dictactor?

This is a problem with you conservatives. Take a liberal position, turn it into something it's not just so you can say liberals are wrong. Against the war? Then you don't support the troops so you're wrong. Believe in progressive tax system? Then you're a communist so you're wrong. Believe Presidents shouldn't lie their country into a war? Then you think the world would be better off with Hussein still in power.

Think back to the very beginnings of this whole mess. It wasn't about regime change, or liberating the Iraqi people. It was about Iraqi disarmament. If Hussein disarmed, the story went, Bush would leave him alone. War only as a last resort, remember? Well, now that we find out he did disarm, only now is it about removing a murderous tyrant. Bush lied us into war, and i'll be damned if i'm gonna believe his post war rationale is any more credible than his pre war rationale.

 

[*d*]

You first argued that Article VI is meant to prevent development, then you argued the exact opposite about Article VI. It's my turn to scratch my head.

Sorry if I scratch my head again, but what are you talking about? Article VI and it's amendments are about general and complete disarmament. No where does it sanction nuclear weapon development. In fact no where on the whole NPT document does it say nuclear weapon states can continue developing new nukes unimpeded. The original NPT was to stop nuclear proliferation and for disarmament of 'each party'. The amendents draw up the process for total disarmament. So how is it one can develop new weapons and totally disarm those weapons at the same time? You ask, where does it say nuclear states can't develop new weapons? I ask, where does it say they can?

It is painfully evident that there are no NPT clauses that put any restrictions on the development of nuclear weapons. You should have just admitted that you made a mistake and moved on.

The restriction on development is in the fact that Article VI and its amendments are there to disarm 'each party'. The treaty does legalize the existance of nuclear weapons but only for a transitory period before disarmament.

For instance, according to your interpretation, since the signatory states of the NPT still have nuclear weapons, all of them are in material breach of the NPT, since elimination of all weapons was allegedly a binding part of the NPT.

And what other nuclear weapon states besides the US, are developing more technologically advanced nuclear weapons? Any new developments would need to be done on the sly because if done offically it would appear that that country wasn't pursuing disarmament.

But where does your interpretation of the NPT end? If the US repairs a defective nuclear weapon, does that put the US in a breach of the NPT? How about building more of the same design? And how many changes are allowed before a design is considered to be new? Why did the US and USSR create the various START treaties if the zero nuclear weapon clause of the NPT was already sufficient?

Looking for loopholes only goes against what the NPT is all about. Which is making the world safer. Not, what can I get away with? Remember Article VI? --each party to the treaty must pursue negotiations in good faith on effective disarmament measures.--

The UN preamble to the NPT says it all:

"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology"

Yes, voiced to all member states.

First of all, the US State Dept report is not a binding part of the NPT.

Correct, but I wish the report was worth more than the paper its written on. Why bother with such a report if its all BS?

Second, developing a non nuclear ABM defense can hardly be considered a breach of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and is entirely consistent with the notion of relying on non nuclear technology.

Like it or not, its in the NPT amendents; step 7.

Third: All the items in the US State Dept findings were voluntary efforts by the US. This whole thing started when you claimed that the US was in material breach of the NPT and now you're discussing the US reversing it's own Presidential Directives, which the US is obviously free to do at any time.

Yes, the US can write what ever it likes. It even can become a rogue state and drop out of the NPT completely. But I doubt it that's a safer move.

Oddly enough, we may be in agreement here. Bush has said that he will may use nuclear weapons against non nuclear powers in self defense. If destroying a deep underground command and control base that will disrupt an attack on the US is regarded as self defense then the US is allowed to do so under it's own policies.

Not just in self-defense but preemptively as well. That's a threat in my eyes.

However, you still haven't answered my main criticism of your argument, just who has Israel motivated to develop nuclear weapons?

Didn't Bush just threaten countries like Iran for sneaking in nuclear technology? Iraq's not the threat, so who else in the region can Iran be afraid of?
Here's a hint. Iran's '99 statement to the UN concerning NPT-www.nuclearfiles.org/hinonproliferationtreaty/99-npt-iran-artVI.html
--The un-safeguarded nuclear facilities in the Middle East are a real threat to the non-proliferation regime. Israel, in defiance of numerous calls from the international community, has rejected to place its nuclear program and facilities under the IAEA safeguards and continues with its clandestine programs. This is an alarming policy that threatens global and regional peace and security.--
No word about Iraq.

 

[cogterb]

There is no doubt that what the US wants is nuclear weapons only in the hands of nations that can be trusted not to use them except under the most extreme *defensive* conditions.

Who can be trusted?

Who will be the judge of that?

The man with the biggest stick?

There is only one nation so far who has used nukes in warfare.

They should therefore be the last to be trusted.

 

[*d*]

Article 8 of the 1995 update says this:


No, as I said, see STEP 8 of the '95 NPT principles and objectives.

There seemed to be some confusion about this one point. I referred to "Article 8" of the 1995 Update, which was identical to the 1995 NPT Principles and Objectives. So with that minor correction, my original point is still outstanding.

Step 8 of the 1995 P&O says this:

"further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument."

AFAIK, no legally binding instrument was ever negotiated or signed, so I don't think you can claim that the US is now in violation of any form of the NPT with Bush's new doctrine.

But was such a legally binding agreement ever reached? I don't remember reading anything about that. [/QUOTE]
Step 8 of '95 NPT principle and objectives --8. Noting United Nations Security Council resolution 984 (1995), which was adopted unanimously on 11 April 1995, as well as the declarations of the nuclear-weapon States concerning both negative and positive security assurances, further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument.--
Step 8 (agreed to by all members in '95) refers to UN resolution 984. 984 recognizes a non-nuclear state's interest in receiving security assurances from nuclear states.

 

[90's sc vet]

Ok, you seem pretty outspoken on this whole Bush is God thing going on. Perhaps you can step up to the plate and finally give me an answer to this question that i've been asking for 3 years now and have yet to get an answer. Not one answer. Name one thing Bush did before 9/11 to battle terrorism. One thing.

First of all, Clinton had 8 years to take action and Bush only had about 8 months, considering that he didn't take office until Janurary 20, 2001. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but to me, the worst thing Clinton did was during the transition to the Bush administration, Clinton didn't indicate to anyone in the incoming administration that al Qaeda was a top priority security issue. Clinton has tried to rewrite history on that issue, but the fact remains, he had 8 years to take action and failed.

Here is an excerpt from ABC news just after 9/11:
..........

"Plan to Dismantle Al Qaeda

As information about possible hijack threats were being received last summer, though, U.S. security officials were drawing up a presidential order to begin a military and financial campaign to dismantle bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which was later blamed for the attacks of Sept. 11. Al Qaeda was already blamed for the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and of two U.S. Embassies in Africa in 1998.

The draft was only completed on Sept. 10, and Bush had not seen it before the hijacked airliners were crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Fleischer said.""
..........

The Bush adminstration had elevated the risk of al Qaeda and were preparing to take action (remember, only a few months after taking office and after 8 years of Clinton) when 9/11 occurred.

So tell me this, what did Clinton do that was so effective in fighting al Qaeda?
For the past 3 years, no one has ever answered that question. Take your best shot.