w11.zetaboards.com Webutation
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

- NATIONS

Domestic News: | International News: P | Military News: | Financial News: | Other News: |
Add Reply
50th Anniversary of the NPT
Topic Started: Dec 18 2017, 06:06 PM (1,018 Views)
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

As the world approaches the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, I would like to invite the world's nuclear powers for talks in Seattle, Washington to discuss our obligations under the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. The second pillar of the Treaty is disarmament, yet across all of the nuclear powers, more money is being invested in the development and production of nuclear weapons than is often being spent on foreign aid and development. I would hope for positive and practical talks, free from finger pointing and needless hostile language.

In recent years the world has seen the agreement between the P5+1 to reach an agreement with Iran over its alleged nuclear program. We have a duty to set an example to aspirant nuclear states, and to the international community as a whole, that we take our obligations seriously. The New START agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation should be lauded as a positive step, but I believe we must all go further. My own government will be making a pledge to reduce our nuclear stockpile at these talks, and I would urge those attending to consider their own stockpiles and discuss ideas for reductions.

50 years ago, on 1 July 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature. The treaty recognized five states as nuclear-weapon states: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and the Republic of China (then succeeded by the Peoples Republic of China). Since then, India, Pakistan and North Korea have joined the nuclear powers, and there are rumours about an additional country, but this is not the place for discussion on that matter. Nuclear weapons undoubtedly pose the gravest threat to security. The talk of 'global terrorist networks' is a pin prick compared to the implications of an accidental launch, a mistake in handling or a deliberate use of such weapons. There are too many weapons held around the world, and action must be taken.

Article VI of the NPT declares that "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." This has been interpreted by the International Court of Justice as meaning that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

Looking around the world, this just isn't the case. Only the United Kingdom looks set to reduce its stockpile, with other nations either maintaining existing levels or seeking to expand their arsenals. Following the removal of President Trump from office, President Pence has ordered a full review of the United States nuclear program, a review which will look to reduce the number of warheads needed to safely provide the United States and it's allies with a credible nuclear deterrent, and we would like to call on all other nuclear powers to come here and sit down to discuss where reductions can be made in the worlds nuclear stockpiles.
Edited by Gabe, Dec 18 2017, 06:06 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mogg
Member Avatar
Joseph Chamberlain | Secretary of State for the Colonies
Boris Johnson
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

The United Kingdom will of course attend and remains committed to the aims and objectives of the NPT. We call on all nuclear states to participate and to work toward stockpile reductions, the removal of nuclear weapons on alert status, a 'no first-use' policy by all states and greater international cooperation to secure fissile material.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Redbirdfan
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Minister Tariq Fatemi
Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Pakistan

While previously, Islamabad has stated that we will not accede to such a agreement we have often made compromises - such as if New Delhi agrees to sign as well we would explore that opportunity.

However, Islamabad is willing to sign it with or without New Delhi on the condition that the Security Council and the NPT signatories recognize Pakistan as a legitimate nuclear state with full rights to posses such technology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Litos
Member Avatar
Itō Hirobumi
Posted Image

RI YONG HO
Minister of Foreign Affairs


The DPRK remains committed to disarmament of its nuclear arsenal provided the right terms and conditions. We are eager to hear any proposals regarding the denuclearization of the world. We further suggest that the State of Israel be invited as an observer to these private discussions, for no reason whatsoever, but we have an inexplicable intuition that would be beneficial if we are to achieve productive dialogue.
Edited by Litos, Dec 19 2017, 11:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

I'd like to thank those who have responded here so far, and I presume those who have not joined us are still interested in the talks regardless, therefore I'd like to push the conversation forward a bit.

SIPRI reports the following arsenals
Country - Total Inventory
United States - 6,800
Russia - 7,000
United Kingdom - 215
France - 300
China - 270
India - 120–130
Pakistan - 130–140
North Korea - 10-20

Where Israel and North Korea aren't recognized as nuclear states, the other 7 nations are. Of these, both India and Pakistan has been increasing their stockpiles in the years leading up to this report (2017). The first step there must be to convince India and Pakistan to stop increasing their stockpiles. When it comes to North Korea, we strive for a complete nuclear disarmament.

China, France and the United Kingdom are all the same division when it comes to size of stockpile, and we would suggest a reduction down towards 150 weapons per nation. For Russia and the United States, we would suggest a larger reduction, with a potential goal being no more than 4,000 total warheads per nation. To account for the French and UK arsenals, we would consider 4,000 weapons for the US and 4,250 weapons for Russia.

We would also like to see limits on the number of actively deployed warheads at any given time, though restrictions on their specific deployment methods such as bombers, ICBM's, SSBN's and the such we feel would be counter productive to these talks.
Edited by Gabe, Dec 19 2017, 02:12 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mogg
Member Avatar
Joseph Chamberlain | Secretary of State for the Colonies
Boris Johnson
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

I can confirm that the current British arsenal consists of a maximum of 96 operational warheads at any one time, only during a period of changeover between patrolling submarines. Upon entry into service of the new Dreadnought class SSBN, this will reduce to 64, and the Royal Navy stockpile will shrink to a holding of 48 missiles with a maximum of 16 deployed (8 per submarine) and a maximum of 48 warheads (24 per boat) operationally deployed at any one time during that overlapping period. Our warhead holdings will be reduced to ~70 warheads, a reduction of two-thirds from the figure put forward by Secretary Tillerson. I see no reason why similar cuts in percentage terms by France, China, India and Pakistan would not be achievable or desired. If we are to honour the NPT and expect countries not to pursue these weapons, then we must demonstrate that they are neither required nor beneficial, and this cannot be achieved by expanding stockpiles.
Edited by Mogg, Dec 19 2017, 02:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Litos
Member Avatar
Itō Hirobumi
Posted Image

RI YONG HO
Minister of Foreign Affairs


We are willing to disarm for a payment of $100 billion over two years from any source in cash or industrial machinery and will open our economy to investment accordingly, as well as conventional disarmament talks with the South. Without nuclear weapons our nation is essentially defenseless, so an economic investment is necessary to convince any members of the politburo that disarmament is an option to avoid us being eaten by imperialist powers as a colony once more. This will bring the standard of living to par with the South on more rapid terms, making reunification under peaceful conditions less painful and an actual possibility. The economy is growing at the highest rates in the world even with sanctions, so we stress that this process will happen inevitably, but it is just a question of speed and the interests of non-Korean entities. Either we will achieve peaceful reunification in 20 years, where the United Korea possess hundreds of warheads, or will achieve it in seven, where the United Korea does not. A modernization investment in the economy of the DPRK is mandatory either way if the stated goal of peaceful reunification, held in common by South Korea, the United States, China, and the DPRK, is to be achieved - nobody doubts this principle. We solve two political problems with one stone if we combine the question of nuclear disarmament with the price of peaceful reunification - while we still have time. As our arsenal, military funds, and economy continue to rapidly expand, it will be more and more difficult for comrade Kim Yong Chol to convince his colleagues to abandon tactical nuclear weapons, which have long been thought of as a sacred symbol of the DPRK's defense.

We will also report that our arsenal has expanded to 100 warheads, not that this is particularly relevant in the negotiation of sums.
Edited by Litos, Dec 19 2017, 04:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will
Member Avatar

Sushma Swaraj
Minister of External Affairs

India is committed to nuclear non-proliferation and has stood firm on this commitment for many years. We are also willing to enter discussions into the possibility of signing the agreement if the Security Council and the NPT signatories recognize India as a legitimate nuclear state with full rights to posses such technology.

India would, nonetheless, be unwilling to agree to any weapons program reduction that would compromise its ability to establish and maintain a credible minimum deterrence. We cannot be expected to maintain a deterrent any less capable than that of any regional power which does or may constitute a substantive threat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Russia applaudes the initiative taken by Secretary Tillerson. We agree that these talks are of the outmost importance, and I can reaffirm the world that Russia is committed to see these talks find a solution that is satisfactory to all parties. To address the parts already brought up:
Firstly, formal recognition of India and Pakistan as nuclear powers. Russia will support this, as long as the two states in question signs, ratifies and adheres to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Secondly, on the reduction in terms of nuclear weapons, it is the position of Russia that the limits imposed by the "New Start" agreement is made permanent, that is neither the United States, nor Russia, can have more than 1,550 operative strategic nuclear weapons at any time. We also would like to suggest that the reductions made by the United States and Russia be, in keeping with those proposed by the United Kingdom and Secretary Johnson, be far greater than to 4,000 weapons overall. I would suggest that instead of 4,000 warheads for the United States and 4,250 warheads for Russia, we aim at 2,250 warheads for the United States, and 2,400 warheads for Russia.

The limits proposed by Secretary Tillerson with regards to China, France and the United Kingdom, at 150 warheads in total for these nations would be a significant reduction. For these three nations, as well as for India and Pakistan, I would not suggest any specific limits of strategic weapons. I would suggest that India and Pakistan work to reduce their stockpiles to 100 warheads per nation, rather than just stop building them.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the strategic delivery system restrictions imposed on the United States and Russia, of 700 system (ICBM, SLBM and strategic bombers) is made permanent, and that a similar restriction is imposed on the other nuclear powers. Here, Russia would suggest a limit of 100 such systems for the United Kingdom, France and China, while India and Pakistan would see a limit of 50 such systems. Russia would also like to suggest that IRBM systems is to be counted as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

Expanding off of the comments from Minister Lavrov. The United States is ready and willing to make the New START restrictions permanent, though we would like to see a reform of the New START terms as we feel they are perhaps to broad in their scope of lumping ICBM's, SSBN's, and Bombers into one limit. It would be possibly better to place specific limits on different systems as they each have different potency's.

That said, the United States is prepared to offer the following framework for an agreement, and believes this can be a suitable starting point for the reduction of nuclear weapons across the board. What we are proposing will be a tiered system much like what has been discussed so far in these talks. In addition, will be limitations on the delivery systems such as SSBN's, similarly to the previously agreed on terms of the New START Agreement of 2010/11. We would propose that this agreement not have an expiry but rather be left in place permanently.

AMERICAN PROPOSAL FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Approximate Arsenals (according to SIPRI)Target Arsenal ReductionsApproximate Fleets of SSBN's (nuclear warhead capable)Proposed Limitation of SSBN Fleets (nuclear warhead capable)Approximate Fleets of SSGN's (non-nuclear warhead capable)Proposed Limitation of SSGN Fleets (non-nuclear warhead capable)Approximate Strategic Bomber FleetsProposed Limitation of Strategic Bomber FleetsProposed Limitation of MRBM/IRBM/ICBM's
Tier 1United States of America- 6,800
Russian Federation- 7,000
United States of America - 2,250
Russian Federation- 2,400
United States of America - 14
Russian Federation - 14
United States of America - 8
Russian Federation - 8
United States of America - 4
Russian Federation - 7
United States of America - 8
Russian Federation - 8
United States of America - 162
Russian Federation - 145
United States of America - 130
Russian Federation - 130
United States of America - 500
Russian Federation - 650
Tier 2United Kingdom - 215
Republic of France - 300
Peoples Republic of China- 270
United Kingdom - 150
Republic of France - 150
Peoples Republic of China- 150
United Kingdom - 4
Republic of France - 4
Peoples Republic of China - 6
United Kingdom - 4
Republic of France - 4
Peoples Republic of China - 4
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 0
United Kingdom - 4
Republic of France - 4
Peoples Republic of China - 4
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 170
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 100
United Kingdom - 100
Republic of France - 100
Peoples Republic of China - 125
Tier 3Republic of India - 120–130
Republic of Pakistan - 130–140
Republic of India - 100
Republic of Pakistan - 100
Republic of India - 1
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 0
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 0
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 2
Republic of Pakistan - 2
Republic of India - 0
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 0
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 50
Republic of Pakistan - 50

As can be seen, this proposal would reduce each nuclear party's current warhead stockpile, as well as limit the number of the delivery systems available at sea. SSGN's would be required to not carry any nuclear-capable warheads, and conversion of SSBN's to SSGN's would be an available option for any and all parties currently operating fleets of SSBN's.

We hope that this proposal is acceptable and can begin the groundwork of a deal between the nuclear powers, and would like to hear the thoughts of other delegations on this proposal. Additionally, as can be noted, is the omission of the DPRK. We believe that instead of including the DPRK into this arrangement, that the parties here agree to condemn the attempts to build a nuclear arsenal by the DPRK, and urge the continuation of six-party talks and other negotiations with the DPRK.

(accidental edit, was trying to grab the table)
Edited by Gabe, Dec 20 2017, 01:00 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Round 10 · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Skin created by tiptopolive