If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

the NPT

Page history last edited by Andrew Alder 1 year, 9 months ago

a page on energy issues and peace and one of my hobbyhorses

The Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, really deserves a bit more promotion, understanding and support.

But it's not surprising that it doesn't get any of these. As so often in politics, the discussion on matters nuclear is polarised, and a rational approach has very few friends as a result.

Take the current Wikipedia entry at NPT which reads Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an international treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968, to limit the spread of nuclear weapons (my emphasis). Well, sort of. That's probably how most people see it. Even some of its authors!

But let's look at what the treaty, which has been signed and ratified by many states both with and without nuclear weapons, actually says. The text is here.

There are three main provisions:

States without nuclear weapons agree to take no steps to acquire them, and to submit to inspections to verify compliance.
States with nuclear weapons agree to get rid of them, and to submit to inspections to verify compliance.
All states agree to actively promote access to peaceful nuclear technology and industries.

Food for thought?

It's not about trying to "limit the spread" of nuclear weapons. It's about eliminating them.

That first provision is as far as most people seem to read. But we can't expect non-weapons states to comply with the first provision without the other two. It's a brilliant piece of negotiation, with a very reasonable result.

That second provision is probably the most important. An impossible dream? I have a dream...

But that third is also important, and the most controversial. It commits signatories to resisting the anti-nuclear-power movement, at least in part. Doesn't it? It doesn't commit anyone to nuclear power. But it does commit everyone to permitting those who want it to have it. Doesn't it? How can any signatory permit its residents, let alone its government, to engage in activities specifically targetted at preventing other countries from having access to nuclear power, if they want it?

Do you begin to understand why some groups want to quietly ignore the NPT? Do you really think that's a good idea?

I repeat, a brilliant piece of negotiation, with a very reasonable result, and by far the best chance we have of avoiding the Second Nuclear War. Perhaps the only chance. Because regardless of any treaty, no nuclear armed state is ever likely to be defeated in a conventional war.

When the choice is between killing and being killed, there are no rules of war. When the chips are down, every level of the command structure will be under immense pressure. Do we trust the system to fail safe and for them all to allow defeat rather than use the weapons they have? For politicians and field commanders alike to allow the citizens and soldiers under their care to be killed rather than use the codes that might just save them? For them to assess the threat of mutual destruction and say, oh well, might as well be a good loser? Really?

And it's about time the people of the world recognised the wisdom of the NPT negotiators, and told the politicians of the world (Green and otherwise), many of whom build careers on promoting conflict, where they get off.