US backs out of nuclear inspections treaty

[TheOne]

US backs out of nuclear inspections treaty
By Dafna Linzer in Washington
August 2, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
In a significant shift of US policy, the Bush Administration has announced that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

For several years the US and others have been pursuing the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons.

At an arms control meeting in Geneva last week the US told other countries it supported a treaty, but not verification.

US officials, who have demonstrated scepticism in the past about the effectiveness of international weapons inspections, said they made the decision after concluding such a system would cost too much, require overly intrusive inspections and would not guarantee compliance with the treaty.

However, they declined to explain in detail how they believed US security would be undermined by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.

Arms control specialists said the change in the US position would greatly weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. They said the US move virtually killed a 10-year international effort to persuade countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan to accept some oversight of their nuclear production programs.

article

 

[Annie]

article

Noticeably absent are the problems with NK and Iran.

It's called facing reality.

 

[dilloduck]

article

Haven't seen all the details of the treaty so it's hard to say if this was a wise move or not. Is it fair to assume that you feel that this is a big mistake on the part of the US?

 

[TheOne]

Absolutely a big mistake. Bush doesn't want international inspectors in the US and I believe Bush supports a new line of tactical nukes. If we want the world's supply of WMD reduced, we need to stop producing them ourselves. What is "cutting edge" now and being developed in the US defense arsenal, will be more readily available to rogue states and terrorists in a couple decades. Do we need "bunker buster" nukes that badly that we will risk their proliferation in the future? Once Israel steals the plans for them, the rest of the world will soon follow.

 

[dilloduck]

Absolutely a big mistake. Bush doesn't want international inspectors in the US and I believe Bush supports a new line of tactical nukes. If we want the world's supply of WMD reduced, we need to stop producing them ourselves. What is "cutting edge" now and being developed in the US defense arsenal, will be more readily available to rogue states and terrorists in a couple decades. Do we need "bunker buster" nukes that badly that we will risk their proliferation in the future? Once Israel steals the plans for them, the rest of the world will soon follow.

Israel probably helped develop them so it's no secret to them. If the US stops making WMDs then the terrorists will say " cool, let's disarm" too?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Once Israel steals the plans for them, the rest of the world will soon follow.

Maybe Clinton sold the plans to China already

 

[DKSuddeth]

It shouldn't be difficult to follow the administrations thinking on this. Backing out of the inspection treaty now saves room for us to back out of the non-proliferation treaty later. The shifting global alliance will most likely require us to either arm another country with nukes or to station ourselves there with nukes. Backing out also gives the US the ability to launch a nuke at a country without nukes.

 

[Annie]

It shouldn't be difficult to follow the administrations thinking on this. Backing out of the inspection treaty now saves room for us to back out of the non-proliferation treaty later. The shifting global alliance will most likely require us to either arm another country with nukes or to station ourselves there with nukes. Backing out also gives the US the ability to launch a nuke at a country without nukes.

Well said, I should post slower and explain more. Then I could look smart too! :clap1:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Well said, I should post slower and explain more. Then I could look smart too! :clap1:

Some of us look smart and some of us look beautiful. You do just fine doing the latter.

 

[Annie]

Some of us look smart and some of us look beautiful. You do just fine doing the latter.

Just for that, I won't do this, for the next 15 minutes!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Just for that, I won't do this, for the next 15 minutes!

:rotflmao:

 

[TheOne]

It shouldn't be difficult to follow the administrations thinking on this. Backing out of the inspection treaty now saves room for us to back out of the non-proliferation treaty later. The shifting global alliance will most likely require us to either arm another country with nukes or to station ourselves there with nukes. Backing out also gives the US the ability to launch a nuke at a country without nukes.

And this is a good thing?

 

[DKSuddeth]

And this is a good thing?

we can't turn back time and prevent the invention of the nuke. We apparently can't stop all developing nations from inventing or building the nuke. So, you tell us, whats a better feasible alternative than deterrence?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

we can't turn back time and prevent the invention of the nuke. We apparently can't stop all developing nations from inventing or building the nuke. So, you tell us, whats a better feasible alternative than deterrence?

Discussing our differences over a nice cup of Earl Grey perhaps?

2 sugars in mine please.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Discussing our differences over a nice cup of Earl Grey perhaps?

2 sugars in mine please.

would you like milk or cream?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

would you like milk or cream?

1/2 and 1/2 if I may......with a nice toasted bialy with a shmear

 

[Annie]

Thanks for reminding me, breakfast time!