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 (1,022 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

At this point we no longer believe an agreement is attainable. The United States hereby withdraws from these talks.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Russia is deeply, deeply disheartened by the statement made by Secretary Tillerson, and would like to urge the United States to reconsider their decision to abandon the NPT talks at what I would consider the finishing kilometer of a marathon race. We have together, under the leadership of Secretary Tillerson solved almost all of the various issues that faced us, and to stop now, is tantamount to treason to the world.

Russia has been in contact with the People's Republic of China regarding the suggestion made by India that IRBM's be counted in the same category as MRBM's, and China is willing to agree to that, and to a weapons split of 100 SLBM/ICBM and 200 MRBM/IRBM. This is a solution that Russia finds agreeable, and we hope that India does as well. If so, it is Russia's hope that Secretary Tillerson and the United States are willing to sign the NPT Agreement, and help usher in the largest reduction of nuclear weapons in the history of man, with total numbers of weapons being reduced to less than the current arsenals of either the United States or Russia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabe
Member Avatar

Posted Image Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State

The movement of IRBM's into the category with MRBM's is unacceptable for the United States, it places much of NATO, and various US territories within the striking distance of China while the United States (who is mostly relied upon for security in NATO) would be further restricted not having access to increased stockpiles to counter these weapons. The continued demands for more and more weapons has shown the lack of understanding of the point of these talks by both the Chinese and Indian delegations and has been extremely disappointing to say the least. The continued increasing demands of both China and India have severely hampered the effectiveness of this proposed agreement and at this point with the inclusion of 200 IRBM's to the stockpiles of both China and India it would provide effectively no threat reduction.

The United States government no longer has an interest in pursuing this agreement given the attitudes taken towards it by the Chinese and Indian delegations.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mogg
Member Avatar
Joseph Chamberlain | Secretary of State for the Colonies
Tom Tugendhat
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

I must convey my disappointment with the Chinese obstinacy on MRBMs. Frankly, I find it perverse that it is preferable not to reach an agreement on arms limitations than to conclude one. Is China's security enhanced more by having more nuclear missiles pointed at it, or fewer missiles pointed at it?

In the hopes of some semblance of agreement being reached, as a sign of good faith and in the interests of honouring our NPT commitments, I can assure the international community that the new Prime Minister intends to honour the commitment laid out by her predecessor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

Wang Yi
Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China
Posted ImagePeople's Republic of China
Given that you have single-handedly spearheaded the world's single most comprehensive arms limitation treaty in modern history Secretary Tillerson I was going to complement you and President Pence on the great strides have been made towards a solution that would remove more nuclear weapons from the global inventory's than any time since the late 1960's. But instead we find the sudden and unexpected shift in the American position to be very disingenuous, and to be lacking both clarity as well as factual basis. Those of us who are serious about disarming our nuclear weapons stockpile all accept that any deal we make involving so many country's there will half to be a lot of compromise to make everyone satasified, and we are very nearly at the finish line as Ambassador Lavrov so elequently put it.

An intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) according to western classification systems is any missile that can strike at a range of 3000 km to 5500 km. The only system's currently in service in Chinese inventory that meat these criteria are the DF-3A, and the DF-26, the later of which is seldom used for nuclear weapons and both with ranges well under the maximum restrictions of IRBM's. India fields the Agni-III and Agni-IV which the first class I would classfy as a light ICBM I would half to check with the second artillery corps for clarification, but according to information available in the public realm few Chinese or Indian MRBM's or IRBM's could concievably strike European soil, even if they streatched the IRBM definition to the maximum, and there is little reason in current geo-political climate for either China or India to point said classification of missiles at Europe. We have no objections to India and Pakistan recieving the same classification for IRBM's as MRBM's, and no increase in the numbers of their MRBM/IRBM's if Chinese long-range missiles are increased accordingly.


Below are some graphics for your consideration involving the ranges of the missiles we are talking about. As you can see the ability of IRBM's to reach Europe from Indian or Chinese launch sites are very limited if not non-existant.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Redbirdfan
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Minister Tariq Fatemi
Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Pakistan

Islamabad is growing increasingly concerned over the intentions and militaristic stance by India. Besides the recent development plans for conventional weapons, they are showing a refusal to work with - in good faith - the international community on these issues.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

Wang Yi
Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China
Posted ImagePeople's Republic of China
While China also has similar concerns as Pakistan about recent Indian militarization we have refrained from brining them up because the goal of these talks is to secure a major reduction in nuclear weapons as well as delivery systems. The United States has brought up concerns in private about the DF-4 IRBM. This missile which is scheduled to be replaced by the DF-31 by the 2020's is fielded by the Second Artillery corps which currently we have fewer then ten in Chinese inventory. The DF4 IRBM has a range of 5500 km, and is on the border line of the IRBM / ICBM catagory. We have agreed to retire said weapons system by 2019, and also agreed to in princible a 20% range reduction in the accepted western definition of IRBM's and MRBM'S. In exchange Pakistan and India will both recieve the exception of having a unique IRBM's/MRBM catagory with no further changes to the numbers of allotted missiles for any country.

New IRBM Range: 2400 km to 4400 km
New MRBM Range: 1000 km to 2400 km

We hope this is a acceptable compromise that the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the United States of America can be happy with.
Edited by Vonar Roberts, Jan 6 2018, 02:30 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acer
Member Avatar
.
Jean-Yves Le Drian
Ministre de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères

France is concerned about all the exceptions and additions being granted. While we were Ok with the original American proposal, under the currently proposed revisions, we must insist on the following:

- France’s SSGN allotment be increased to 6
- France to be given a Strategic Bomber allotment of 60
- France to be given an IRBM/MRBM allotment of 100

While we have no current plans to research or produce any of the above, we believe it is in the interests of our nation’s future security and self-reliance to leave the possibility open in the event unfortunate circumstances dictate their necessity.

We would also be willing to accept an alternative increase of our nuclear warhead allotment to 200.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

Wang Yi
Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China
Posted ImagePeople's Republic of China
Minister Drian, The MRBM/IRBM catagory as proposed is exclusive to India and Pakistan. As stated NO other country will have exceptions for IRBM's, and IRBM's will be classed in the same catagory as SLBM/IRBM/ICBM's for the rest of the parties, those parties being China, the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom... We have no problem with France getting missiles in the MRBM catagory, but would ask why France needs said missiles as they under the ranges proposed of up to 2400 km would have a hard time striking Russia from launch sites in France.. We are concerned about why France requires an increase in Strategic bombers when it does to our knowledge not operate anything that would be classified in modern military terms as an strategic bomber in development or in service. We are also curious as to why your government feels it deserves additional SSGN's as our request for credits towards more SSGN's took into account existing naval production program on the Type 096 SSBN. Does France have a new line of SSBN's/SSGN's under construction that it hasn't told the world about?

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
winisle
Member Avatar

Sergey Lavrov
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I am very much in awe of the ambitions Secretary Tillerson has shown, and of the way he drove us so far. If we look at what has been agreed upon, I just want to acertain that we are still in agreement on those matters.

Level One - concerning nuclear warheads:
- Levels of nuclear warheads as listed
- Limit to four (4) MIRV's per missile
- Limit on yield of nuclear weapons to 500 kT

If we can agree on these matters, we can revisit the delivery systems that Secretary Tillerson pushed for, and that Russia agrees on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Round 10 · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Skin created by tiptopolive