The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of sovereign states (189) are parties to the treaty. The parties to the treaty decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions. However, not all nuclear powers (those states that have openly tested nuclear weapons) have ratified the treaty. In addition, one possible nuclear power has not ratified the treaty, and one self-proclaimed nuclear power has withdrawn from the NPT.
The treaty has three main pillars:
First pillar: Non-proliferation – Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia (originally the Soviet Union), United Kingdom, and the United States. These were the only states possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was opened to signature, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These five Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer technology for “nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” to other states, and non-NWS parties agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons.
Second pillar: Disarmament – The treaty calls for NWS to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles, “...general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” The NWS declare not to “induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to ... acquire nuclear weapons.” A preemptive-strike doctrine and otherwise threatening postures can be viewed as induction by non-NWS parties. The NPT states that any state can withdraw from the treaty if they feel that “extraordinary events” (for example a perceived threat) force them to do so.
Third pillar: The right to peacefully use nuclear technology – Since very few states are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel for use in energy generation, the third pillar of the NPT provides states with the possibility to develop and use nuclear power, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons. For some states, this third pillar of the NPT (which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons) seems to be a major loophole. The treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel. It follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Peaceful uranium enrichment can arguably be considered a small step away from developing nuclear warheads, and this can be done by withdrawing from the NPT. No state is known to have successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to NPT inspection.
The question before the conference is: Should nations that are not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty be held to the same standards of the signatories and face automatic economic and political sanctions enforced by the United Nations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love you Wade.
ReplyDeleteMALAYSIA
ReplyDeleteNICOLE RINGSDORF
CURTIS
Malaysia: Nuclear Non-Proliferation
As of May 3, 2010 the country of Malaysia, on the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Malaysia supports Nuclear Non-Proliferation. They also support a nuclear free region. We would also like to promote nuclear security. We are not a nuclear country, but we do wish to share are views on it. We, in Malaysia, do not produce nuclear weapons and wish to have a nuclear-free world. Malaysia has signed the NTP, along with most major countries in the world. Although some countries have nuclear weapons and it is assumed that some others have them, but have not openly tested them.
Malaysia would like to see the Eurasian Conference sign the NTP. This would help with global peace and unity between the countries. Helping to insure the well being of those countries. If those countries sing the NTP, it would help reach the medium-term minimization point, which will be in 2025. This would consist of 2,000 less nuclear warheads and more than 90% reduction on nuclear arsenal.
GEORGIA
ReplyDeleteTAYLOR OLIVER
HAMMONS
Georgia: Nuclear Non-Proliferation
As of 5/5/2010, Georgia, on the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation
The issue of nuclear non-proliferation is important to Georgia because of its close proximity and rocky relationship with Russia. The recent issues with the disposal or uranium made Georgia more motivated about nuclear non-proliferation. Georgia firmly believes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and would like to see that the rules and regulations of the agreement are followed by all, particularly any of its neighbors, though, as what goes on around it can have an effect. Georgia’s small size and lack of money also makes it more conscious about the use of nuclear weapons. If something were to happen nearby there would be little hope for Georgians in the aftermath.
Georgia is asking those countries taking part in the Eurasian Conference to consider its concerns. Georgia believes that, to ensure that countries who have signed NPT’s are really staying true to their agreement, frequent checks and reports from the countries government should come in. All suspicious nuclear-related activity should also be thoroughly investigated and put to a stop. Georgia would also like to see that negotiations with countries who have not yet signed a NPT’s continue. Georgia’s biggest concern is for the safety of its people and the people of countries in a similar place where protection and recovery from any kind of nuclear attack would be difficult.
MYANMAR
ReplyDeleteEMILY ROGERS
WIEBE
As of May 1, 2010, the country of Myanmar, on the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, is opposed.
Myanmar firmly believes in a country’s right to make its own decisions. We believe that forcing one country’s ideals onto another is unacceptable. Myanmar does not have any nuclear weapons and is not trying to build any, but we still firmly believe in a country’s right to nuclear weapons. We think that, as long as a country keeps to itself, it should be allowed to do as it pleases. Nuclear Non-Proliferation is unethically and over steps the bounds and meddles to much in other country’s business. This idea was thought by nuclear powerhouses to guaranty their continued dominance over smaller, poorer countries.
The Eurasia Conference should decide against Nuclear Non-Proliferation because it is a widely unpopular idea. If, as a conference we decided for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, it would not prevent nuclear war, since many countries already have nuclear weapons. It would cost millions to thoroughly enforce this law, and would leave a huge divide between countries. Many smaller countries would lose their biggest hope for national security, though they are too afraid to stand up against the issue. Voting against Nuclear Non-Proliferation could possibly prevent major conflict and give smaller countries a chance to catch up with nuclear powerhouses such as, the US and Russia.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation is unfair, and costly and should to be supported by the Eurasia Conference.
Germany
ReplyDeleteMarly Hunt
Hamill
Germany: Nuclear non-proliferation.
As of May 7, 2010 the country of Germany, on the issue of Nuclear non-proliferation is supportive.
Germany is supportive of nuclear non-proliferation due to the fact that was signed earlier last year. Germany has agreed to dismiss all further nuclear activity, and get rid of nuclear power plants. Germany is determined to help the United States in the race to get rid of nuclear energy around the world. Si through other country’s help and compliance Germany will be of great value to the assistance and recovery of control on the issue of nuclear power.
During the Eurasian conference Germany will be in “good shoes” because we are upping our control over our country’s nuclear energy. Germany is becoming more and more peaceful to attempt to erase history. In the Eurasian conference other counties will be compliant to assist us in controlling nuclear power. Germany will work throughout the conference to gain more countries on the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Russia
ReplyDeleteJacob Triplett
Russia
Kendall Lawless
Russia Nuclear Non-Proliferation
As of 2010, the country of Russia, on the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, supports all nations being apart of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Russia feels that allowing the whole of the world to develop nuclear power. Will help increase the worlds power supply. It will bring the world to a more modern age, and allow the parts of the world who have no power to finally get it. Though Russia does not agree with allowing the rest of the world to get nuclear arms, but they do agree with giving aid to secure countries who have nuclear powers. They aim to profit or find a better use for there disarmed nuclear arms.
Russia's view is well aligned with the rest of the worlds. The (NPT) is a treat signed by all of the nuclear armed countries, and Russia is one of them. So all the big main powers are in line, and they should all agree or try to agree with the rest of the world. Russia only wants peace, and for there to be a balance in the world, and so this is the primary reason why Russia's ideas about Nuclear Non-proliferation should be followed.
India
ReplyDeleteSamantha Clevenger - NEIHS
Diaz
India: Nuclear Non-Proliferation
As of May 7, 2010, the country of India, on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation, supports the continued use of nuclear weapons. It is important that we feel protected from these adversaries that have nuclear weapons such as Pakistan. Because of the current dispute between India and Pakistan over Jammu Kashmir, India will not confiscate nuclear weapons because Pakistan also has them which poses threat. India is one of the few countries to have a no first use policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. Thus shows India will not abuse the right to obtain such deadly ammunition, instead use it for protection use only.
At the Eurasian Conference we would like to see more countries support the idea of having nuclear weapons even if they don’t want or don’t have them. Peace is a common goal that India has with the rest of the world, but giving up our nuclear weapons is not what’s best for our country, A nation should not be held to the to the regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty if they have not signed onto it. This would show, and give respect to those countries who choose to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
The United Kingdom
ReplyDeleteCaitlin Castillo - SHS IHS
Hamill
The United Kingdom: Nuclear Non-Proliferation
As of May 5, 2010, the country of the United Kingdom, on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation, is supported. The UK has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and feels that in order prevent nuclear warfare, all countries who have not yet signed and/or ratified should do so and those who have withdrawn should reinstate this treaty. We fear that without restrictions, and consequences for breaking such restrictions, nuclear warfare could occur. The results of nuclear warfare are extremely detrimental to not only the countries it is targeted to, but also to the international community. Within the effected region, there would be countless fatalities. Internationally, the detonation of nuclear weapons could globally disrupt climate for a decade or more. However, we do support efforts in nuclear energy. We must share the earth and global efforts in green energy are accepted.
In order to maintain international nuclear peace and prevent future all countries should agree to either sign the NPT or create a new treaty with the same general objectives, although some ratifications may be made, that all of the international community will sign and ratify. The international community should strive towards nuclear peace. The possible benefits of nuclear warfare completely outweigh the possible negative results. The extremely detrimental possible results from nuclear warfare should not be bestowed on any country. Also the effect on global climate is completely undesirable. A decade of global climate destruction is a consequence the entire international community will have to deal with and no country should put this burden on the world and its leaders.
LIBYA
ReplyDeleteMIKAYLA HULSING
DUNCAN
Libya: Nuclear Non-Proliferation
As of May 8th ,2011, the country of Libya, on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation, supports nuclear non-proliferation. We as the people of Libya have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and herby want to stay with the treaty and follow its rules. We used to have nuclear proliferation, but the United States got us to sign the non-proliferation treaty in 1968, which then ratified in 1975. We then dismantled the nuclear program that we had running with the help of the United States and Great Britain. Our nuclear program was very strong, but we had to let it go in order to keep good relations with other countries. By signing the nuclear non-proliferation it has also kept the violence between Libya and other countries to a minimum. Libya is a very strong country and we continue to stay strong by keeping our relations with others positive.
THAILAND
ReplyDeleteMELISSA MOCCASIN
POWELL
As of May 2011, the country of Thailand, on the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation is supportive.
Thailand is very concerned and interested in this issue. Thailand feels that signing the treaty should be a major priority for other countries. Thailand strongly urges countries who posses such weapons to submit to a UN inspection for nuclear arms. Thailand believes that limiting the spread of nuclear weapons will result in a more peaceful country. The same views are seen from other major countries around the world.
At the Eurasian Conference we would like to see other countries see Thailand’s concern on this issue. As well as negotiate with other countries who have not yet signed the treaty. We fully respect other countries views but we hope other countries see this issue from Thailand’s perspective. Thailand will also check with other nuclear non-proliferation signers to make sure they are standing by the guidelines of this treaty. Countries around the world should take action and see the possible dangers of a nuclear catastrophe.
Vietnam
ReplyDeleteJared Yali
Wiles
As of July 1st, 1968, Vietnam has complied with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Vietnam has never possessed any documented nuclear weaponry. There has been thought of use of nuclear weapons and bombs, but that was during the time of WWII, when the U.S. had just dropped the bomb on Japan. Vietnam thought that if the U.S. could do it, so could they. Vietnam never pulled through with that thought and to this day Vietnam has not. The nuclear weapons would not have been much use in the war for vietnam anyways, Vietnam was not getting bombed and they did not need them.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty was not a treaty that Vietnam needed to hesitate to sign. The only reason Vietnam would need to think about that is if they already had nuclear weapons, which they did not, and if they would want the weapons, which they did not. Vietnam could not go wrong with this treaty, because other countries can have less power and Vietnam can feel less threatened and weak. The whole world should get rid of what nuclear weapons they have and especially, stop producing the weapons. This could be a 5-way agreement between the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, and the United States, to immediately and safely disable all of their nuclear weaponry and no longer make more.