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 (1,023 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:
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

To say MRBM's don't carry nuclear warheads is completely disingenuous, the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly others have all fielded or continue to field nuclear armed MRBM's. Removing MRBM's from this list would also give China a massive advantage over other nations in the region as it would be able to target almost anywhere in Asia while most of China would be safe from retaliation of the same kind. Nations simply saying they will not arm their MRBM's with nuclear weapons is a fairly weak restriction as the second a nation decides it no longer wishes to abide by the agreement it could have hundreds of extra MRBM's ready to go with limited time needed to place a nuclear warhead aboard. The inclusion of MRBM's is not a negotiable position for the United States.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

Wang Yi
Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China
Posted ImagePeople's Republic of China
Unfortunately to China the inclusion of these kinds of restrictions on MRBM's is a non-starter, and would result in an dramatically weaker security position in Asia as we all ready field hundreds of various types of MRBM's and thousands of short ranged ballistic missiles and are not willing to give up. But we are willing to make a concession on all MRBM's deployed being armed with non-nuclear warheads. If a separate figure for MRBM's was considered we might consider them being included, but as is we would half to give up over 70% of our medium-range missile inventory just to become treaty-compliant and have been working on expanding inventory's of MRBM missiles... What is the term that President Ronald Reagan used in arms reductions talks with the then-Soviet Union, trust but verify?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

So the Chinese government rather leave the world in a more risky position for a global nuclear conflict than accept a restriction on these dangerous weapon systems that have an extremely high likely hood of leading to nuclear war? It's extremely disappointing that the Chinese government remain so short sighted in it's view of these systems, preferring to continue it's ill-advised military build up than work with the international community to agree upon arms restrictions that limit the possibility for war. Your attempt to invoke a term used by President Reagan when he spoke on a deal that has now failed to be upheld is quite laughable. President Reagan used that term when speaking about the INF treaty, a deal that banned the use of MRBM's and IRBM's by the USA and the USSR, however in recent years this agreement has been violated showing that "trust but verify" is not exactly a phrase to live by.

The removal of MRBM's offers China a massive strategic advantage over ti's regional neighbors and it's no one the United States is willing to accept and I highly doubt India would either. And seeing the continued attempts to stall this deal the United States has to question if China ever had any intention on actually signing this deal? Or if they rather just attempt to drag our talks as long as humanly possible before leaving them all together. If China insists on continuing these ridiculous demands we will have to ask that they leave these talks, in turn we fully expect India and Pakistan to leave as well, in which case we will carry out talks with the responsible powers of the world being Russian, France, the UK, and the USA.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

Wang Yi
Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China
Posted ImagePeople's Republic of China
As your fully aware Secretary of State Tillerson MRBM's have more uses than just nuclear weapon delivery, and in our opinion don't need to be regulated to the same extent as SLBM's or ICBM's do. I want a deal, but one that is in the interest of the People's Republic of China, and not one that adversely harms the overall security position of the People's Republic of China. Now your forcing us to make a double sacrifice, next to no MRBM's as well as equality with India on the number of Ballistic Missile Submarines. We have with minimal input on the crafting of said agreement, and minimal attention has been given to our own very valid concerns that we have brought up. If the United States is serious about de-arming and wants a deal with China it appears that the United States will half to accept either our proposal of the MRBM's being removed from the list of regulated missile's with a general agreement covering them, and a agreement covering their non-use as nuclear weapon delivery platforms. Or the weapons will half to be treated under a separate category then the ICBM's and SLBM's with different rules.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

You've had very little input on the crafting of the agreement as you decided to wait until the last possible second to begin raising your concerns, not only that you continue to raise new ones after the last crisis has been resolved, you've not made it conducive to the creating of an agreement at all. MRBM's main use continues to be the delivery of nuclear weapons with rare off spins into specialty weapons however most are not considered actual viable systems. The launch of an MRBM at a state like Japan or India by China would more likely than not result in the United States or India retaliating with their own nuclear strikes before the missile lands which would result in the end of the world as we know it. Yet for some reason these weapons that have very little strategic value outside of nuclear delivery have become a sticking point for your government.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

If I may weigh in on the somewhat spirited discussion between my two valued fellow colleagues. Regardless of the earlier voiced opinion by Secretary Tillerson, I feel that China being part of these talks are a crucial thing, and Russia does not agree with the position that China "fall in line or go home". We are all better than that, and should be able to find a reasonable solution. The one Chinese weapon system that currently fits within the MRBM category is the DF-21 missile family. Its use, as my military aide has informed me is either nuclear or conventional, with the most talked about conventional use being the carrier for a long-range and high-speed anti-ship warhead.

Russia would suggest that the route of limiting the number of MRBM's is the more sensible choice. Russia would suggest that the number be limited to 200 weapons, and that China takes a substantial cut in the numbers of strategic bombers and ICBM's in order to compensate for these extra weapon systems. We also understand that this means India will desire a similar change.
Edited by winisle, Jan 1 2018, 09:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

Following off the proposal Minister Lavrov we've created a revised chart.

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 SLBM/IRBM/ICBM'sProposed Limitation of MRBM'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 - 600
Russian Federation - 650
United States of America - 50
Russian Federation - 50
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 - 6
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 170
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 75
United Kingdom - 100
Republic of France - 100
Peoples Republic of China - 110
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 175
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
Republic of India - 100
Republic of Pakistan - 50


If this table is agreeable to all parties I believe that we should discuss a verification method to ensure all parties are abiding by the terms of this agreement. The United States would like to propose that all party nations be required to submit biannual reports as to the status of their stockpiles of weapons, with specific location information regarding the storage locations of nuclear weapons. Ballistic missile numbers should also be required to be reported. With the biannual reporting we would also like to see annual joint inspections of nuclear and missile storage facilities, by a joint committee consisting of 1 member from each party nation. Weapons that are deployed would not be subject to verification however they would need to be included in reports. All party members should be required to disclose the locations nuclear and missile stockpiles and make them open to annual inspections. If a member nation believes that a site is being used to host nuclear or ballistic weapons that was not reported by the accused nation the committee should have the ability to inspection the location if all members aside from the accused nation are in agreement.

In a measure of good faith regarding the potential verification method the United States would allow for inspections in deployed ICBM sites within the United States despite not being required under this proposed framework.
Edited by Gabe, Jan 1 2018, 02:55 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Russia would suggest that the 50 MRBM's allowed to the United States and Russia under the revised proposal are transferred into the SLBM/IRBM/ICBM category, due to the fact that neither the US, nor Russia, possesses MRBM systems, and due to other treaty constraints that prevents both Russia and the United States from fielding weapons in that category.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

I believe your suggestion is acceptable Minister Lavrov, however the United States would like to move 25 of our MRBM's to strategic bombers instead of ICBM's if this is agreeable.

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 SLBM/IRBM/ICBM'sProposed Limitation of MRBM'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 - 165
Russian Federation - 130
United States of America - 625
Russian Federation - 700
United States of America - 0
Russian Federation - 0
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 - 6
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 170
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 75
United Kingdom - 100
Republic of France - 100
Peoples Republic of China - 110
United Kingdom - 0
Republic of France - 0
Peoples Republic of China - 175
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
Republic of India - 100
Republic of Pakistan - 50
Edited by Gabe, Jan 1 2018, 03:29 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will
Member Avatar

The provision for the possession of MRBMs puts India at a strategic disadvantage, as few MRBM launch locations in India can strike the eastern portion of China, while many Chinese MRBM launch locations can target all of India. As such, India can only sign on to this agreement if the MRBM limit becomes an MRBM and IRBM limit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Round 10 · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Skin created by tiptopolive