Re-Affirmation of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation Bill (Law'd) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 11:55:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Re-Affirmation of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation Bill (Law'd) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Re-Affirmation of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation Bill (Law'd)  (Read 2616 times)
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
« on: October 12, 2008, 05:18:54 PM »

This seems harmless enough. Is there any "bite" to this I should know about?

Smiley
The Bill is my reaction to this.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2008, 05:32:13 PM »

This seems harmless enough. Is there any "bite" to this I should know about?

Smiley
The Bill is my reaction to this.

You view this, as killing the Indian nuclear deal, as it were, or what?

Well that depends on the great philosophical question of our time: what is Atlasia's relationship with the United States? If we are the successor to the U.S. then India gets no deal; if we a country independent of the U.S. then we are making clear our objection to such a deal, the consequences of which would depend on just how influential Atlasia is.

The bill is designed to deal with whichever 'reality' Atlasia occupies.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2008, 07:10:29 AM »

Well, I like the Indian deal, and thus my question. If this proposal means killing deals to encourage peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it's unwise, and hostile to the planet for those who worry about the effects of the use of fossil fuels vis a vis terra firma.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the spread of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, nor does this measure necessarily inhibit same. It would though require India to become a party to the NPT before they could legally engage in transnational nuclear trade.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2008, 11:10:59 AM »

Well, I like the Indian deal, and thus my question. If this proposal means killing deals to encourage peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it's unwise, and hostile to the planet for those who worry about the effects of the use of fossil fuels vis a vis terra firma.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the spread of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, nor does this measure necessarily inhibit same. It would though require India to become a party to the NPT before they could legally engage in transnational nuclear trade.

Will India signing the NPT put it at a disadvantage vis a vis Pakistan in their little nuke arms race?

The NPT is available for viewing here. I believe the relevant sections that guide answering your question are Articles VI and X.

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."

Article VI is a subject of some disagreement between states as to just how much they are really committed to moving towards the goal of disarmament. Ultimately, the treaty doesn't appear (to me so farm, at any rate) to prohibit the continued production of further nuclear weaponry. Also for information, Article X offers the get out of jail free card, if necessary.

Article X
"1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

I'll also state that the official reason Pakistan give for not signing up to the NPT is that India haven't signed up. And so encouraging India into the club would leave Pakistan with much more limited political cover to remain outside.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2008, 11:38:52 AM »

Aye
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2008, 05:11:48 PM »

Aye. Thanks Jas for your posts. You changed my vote!

Grin
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.