We can do it, but you cannot II

[2pac Shakur]

America and Britain rebuffed President Bashar Assad of Syria yesterday, telling him bluntly that Damascus must give up its weapons of mass destruction or face ostracism - even if neighbouring Israel keeps its nuclear arms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$2LJXDU5ENWKMFQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2004/01/07/wsyria07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/07/ixworld.html

[Werewolf]

Again, if Israel were as bad as its critics made it out to be, it wouldn't have nuclear weapons, but Cairo, Riyadh, Amman, Medina, Mecca, Baghdad, Beirut, Tripoli, Damascus, and Tehran would be glass-lined craters.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Again, if Israel were as bad as its critics made it out to be, it wouldn't have nuclear weapons, but Cairo, Riyadh, Amman, Medina, Mecca, Baghdad, Beirut, Tripoli, Damascus, and Tehran would be glass-lined craters.

So why are we demanding Syria, Iran and N. Korea give up nukes?

[Werewolf]

Originally Posted by 2Pac Shakur

So why are we demanding Syria, Iran and N. Korea give up nukes?

Because we believe they will turn Tel Aviv or Seoul into glass-lined craters.

[The Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Because we believe they will turn Tel Aviv or Seoul into glass-lined craters.

NK already has nukes. Last I checked, Seoul is still there.

[whisper]

Originally Posted by 2Pac Shakur

So why are we demanding Syria, Iran and N. Korea give up nukes?

This is not that hard to understand. There is this treaty - its called the "the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons."

This is basically what the NPT states:

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. If information from routine inspections is not sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or outside declared facilities.

These are the countries that have signed this agreement:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm

Syria and Iraq have signed the NPT. North Korea signed the NPT but has withdrawn from it after admitting it had violated the treaty and now has nuclear weapons.

These countries (and all the others who have signed) have agreed NOT to acquire nuclear weapons. This is a ratified treaty, so it IS international law. So, these countries are in violation of this treaty.

Isreal never signed the NPT. It never agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons. So, there is no legal justification to demand that it gives up its nuclear weapons.[/quote]

[Plato]

Originally Posted by whisper

Isreal never signed the NPT. It never agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons. So, there is no legal justification to demand that it gives up its nuclear weapons.

Great. We know Iraq never signed the NPT. So demanding they give up their nuclear weapons (assuming they had any) did not have legal justification, right?

Does your argument help Iran and North Korea?

[whisper]

Originally Posted by Plato

Great. We know Iraq never signed the NPT. So demanding they give up their nuclear weapons (assuming they had any) did not have legal justification, right?

Does your argument help Iran and North Korea?

You know, I supplied the links for a reason. Before you make an assertion, you could go and check to see if you're assertion is correct. Otherwise, you just sound like an idiot.

If you go to that link that I supplied, you will see that Iraq SIGNED the NPT. That is WHY I put that link there. If you'll look, you'll also see that Iran did as well. North Korea isn't there, they withdrew from it January of last year.

[2pac Shakur]

Article VI

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.

USA has like 6500 nukes. Still!
So, how are we living up to our requirements under the NPT?

[whisper]

Originally Posted by 2Pac Shakur

USA has like 6500 nukes. Still!
So, how are we living up to our requirements under the NPT?

Good question.

Here is the U.S. official report.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03050503.htm

Sherwood McGinnis, deputy U.S. representative to the Conference on Disarmament, told the second session of the Preparatory Committee to the 2005 NPT Review Conference that the United States has made important strides toward nuclear disarmament -- as called for in Article VI of the NPT -- by signing the Moscow Treaty with Russia, eliminating stocks of fissile material, and supporting Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.