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 (1,025 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
 
Replies:
Litos
Member Avatar
Itō Hirobumi
Posted Image

RI YONG HO
Minister of Foreign Affairs


That is a terrific idea - if you wanted to continue the Six Party Talks, maybe you should not have been the only power at this negotiation who walked out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Redbirdfan
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Minister Tariq Fatemi
Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Pakistan

Pakistan would be willing to agree to the proposed limitations provided the official agreement recognizes Pakistan as a legitimate nuclear power.
Edited by Redbirdfan, Dec 20 2017, 11:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will
Member Avatar

Sushma Swaraj
Minister of External Affairs

As previously stated, India is amenable to this agreement, but only if it does not prevent us from maintaining a credible minimum deterrent. To analogize, Russia is allotted a greater arsenal than the United States given the other nuclear armed powers that could possibly be expected to come to the side of the United States if a conflict did occur. India only requests the same. We will not eliminate our SSBN program while other regional powers that could potentially prove hostile to our nation maintain theirs.

In short, we would request the limitation of Indian forces to be commensurate to 94% of the summation of combined Pakistani and Chinese forces, as is the case for Russia when compared to the combined forces of NATO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

Minister Swaraj,

While we understand the sentiment that you're a approaching these talks with, I don't believe it would be fair to equal Pakistani-Chinese relations to NATO relations where there is a clear and undeniable defense pact. That said Russia is not receiving a larger arsenal than the US because of NATO but rather the United States is accepting a larger cut in order to allow this deal to have any chance of working which is in the interest of all of us here today. India would also see an net improvement in it's nuclear deterrent as currently according to your decried threats (China and Pakistan) they hold 410 warheads to India's current 120-130 warheads. This would be lowered down to 250 vs 100, a certain improvement to the situation for India while all nations would still retain their nuclear deterrent.

With regards to the Indian SSBN program we would certainly hope that this is not a certain tone that you're insistent on maintaining. We are here to speak of the reduction of nuclear weapons platforms overall and that means each nation will be required to make serious cuts to their weapons programs. There are also certain concessions that India must make if it wishes to be accepted as a nuclear power and we believe that moving your SSBN program into an SSGN program is a fair ask for this.

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/SLBM'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 - 140
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 - 75
Republic of Pakistan - 50

We believe given the regional situation it would be fair to grant India 25 more ballistic missiles than Pakistan. This would still however allow Pakistan and India to operate roughly equal nuclear deterrents enough to destroy each other a few times over. We have also slightly increase our requested number of stragic bombers due to their widespread use in our War on Terror and other campaigns of the past. However we still will retain fewer ballistic missiles than Russia along with fewer overall deployed warheads.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will
Member Avatar

Sushma Swaraj
Minister of External Affairs

India does accept the sentiment that China and Pakistan cannot be considered equivalent in the same terms as the members of NATO. What is non-negotiable is that India be able to maintain a deterrent at least equivalent to any other single actor in the region for all elements of a nuclear triad. We are willing to negotiate on the exact level to which that deterrent exceeds that of other actors in the region, and may be willing to compromise reasonably on those terms. We are also willing to keep a smaller deterrent should other regional actors decrease theirs commensurately.

India is attempting to extend an olive branch to the current signatories of the NPT and guarantee that we will not have a stockpile of unreasonable size. We have an untarnished history of nuclear non-proliferation and never intend to break with this history. After a test launch of India's latest ICBM, the Agni-V, a US State Department spokesperson specifically stated "We urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear capabilities. That said, India has a solid nonproliferation record", with the White House Press Secretary at the time stating that "India's record stands in stark contrast to that of North Korea, which has been subject to numerous sanctions, as you know, by the United Nations Security Council." US political analysts at the time called this reaction "[A demonstration] that the US is comfortable with Indian progress in the nuclear and missile fields and appreciates India's need to meet the emerging strategic challenge posed by rising China.”

We quote the above to make a point: India has no intent to break with the spirit of the NPT, and the government of the United States is well aware of this. A request that India reduce its current arms capability by a specific percentage ignores the strategic reality of our nation's positioning in the world. We hope to reach an agreement to limit our weapon capacity to a level that will not cause substantial global destabilization. We do this in good faith. But we will not place our nation in danger, nor will we be reliant on others for our safety.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Minister Swaraj, you state that India "will not have a stockpile of unreasonable size" and demand that "India be able to maintain a deterrent at least equivalent to any other single actor in the region". It is appalling that India comes to a conference dedicated to the reduction in nuclear arms in the world, and ask that we trust India to not increase its arsenal of nuclear arms beyond what India considered reasonable. That position in itself is unreasonable, and shows that India lacks a willingness to take these negotiations in the manner that they deserve. We hope that India will reconsider some of the categorical positions that it has taken so far, and join in working for a tomorrow with fewer nuclear weapons in the world.

You have quoted the difference in nuclear weapons between the United States, France and the United Kingdom on one side, and Russia on the other side, and talked about needing a similar relation towards Pakistan and China, even though you have agreed that they do not have the same relationship. If it helps India accept a limit equal to Pakistan and lower than China, then Russia will be willing to agree to warhead equality with the United States.

You also state that you seek to keep a nuclear triad, which means retaining the Ashanti-class submarine in service, and the ones under construction. Would you accept limits on the size and capabilities of those submarines, or future ones, in order for them to be accepted?

I also call on China to share its position on the US proposal, which, baring a few minor matters are acceptable to Russia. Russia will require that the New START provision that limits nuclear warheads carried on strategic weapon systems to 1,550. We also seek a clarification, and thus a jointly accepted definition of what an SSGN is. The Russian proposal is that submarines carrying more than 50 cruise missiles are considered SSGN's. We agree with the US proposal that the SSGN's be strictly non-nuclear.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

In addition, Russia would like to suggest the implementation of limits on warhead yields, as well as an limit on the number of warheads that a single ballistic missile can carry, so called MIRV's. Russia suggest a upper yield limit of 500 kiloton per warhead, and a MIRV limit of 4 warheads per ballistic missile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

Minister Swaraj,

While we understand India's wish to maintain a creditable nuclear deterrent I believe we disagree on exactly what that would look like. Simply put everyone here has agreed to reduce the number of weapons they have while India seems to be on the path of wanting more weapons not less, which simply put, isn't acceptable for these talks. We are also concerned with a seeming unwillingness to provide any counter offers rather only resorting to simply rejecting the proposals which is not conductive to good faith negotiation. With that said however, following talks with my Russian counter part we believe we have come to a fair compromise that would see India retain it's ability to maintain a creditable nuclear deterrent while also reducing it's overall stockpile of weapons.

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/SLBM'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 - 140
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 - 4
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 0
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 2
Republic of Pakistan - 4
Republic of India - 0
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 0
Republic of Pakistan - 0
Republic of India - 100
Republic of Pakistan - 50

In this new agreement India would retain the right to operate 4 SSBN's and 100 ballistic missiles along with a total of 100 warheads. That said however we would also like to introduce considerations regarding the number of SLBM's per SSBN, MIRV's and yield limits for the entire agreement. We would like to see a limit of 4 MIRV's per missile imposed on all missiles along with a maximum yield limit for all nuclear weapons of 500 kt. Along with this a limit of 16 SLBM's per SSBN should be imposed in order to bring parity across the board with SSBN's and prevent a displacement race from occurring where the size of SSBN's becomes ever increasing in response to the limit on the number of ships.

If these terms are agreeable to all nations we would encourage an entry into force date of January 1st 2025 where all signatories must be in compliance by that date. In order to ensure compliance a multilateral inspection force should be created which will allow us all to police each other in our abidement of the terms of this deal.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Russia considers the latest proposal to be a fair one, and would only like to raise one last question, and that is the definition of an SSGN. Russia would suggest that any submarine designed to carry, or modified to carry, equal or more than 50 cruise missiles be designated as an SSG/SSGN and that these would fall under the limits proposed by Secretary Tillerson.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will
Member Avatar

India will agree in full to this deal. We are glad an amenable deal was formulated, and hope it will be equally amenable to all parties.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Round 10 · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Skin created by tiptopolive