|
| 50th Anniversary of the NPT | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 18 2017, 06:06 PM (1,021 Views) | |
| Gabe | Dec 18 2017, 06:06 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acer | Jan 6 2018, 07:36 PM Post #51 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
.
|
Jean-Yves Le Drian Ministre de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères Minister Wang Yi, France has been a responsible nuclear military power for over 55 years now, and have been actively working towards a more peaceful nuclear world as evidenced by the 50% reduction of our nuclear arsenal over the past 10 or so years. In fact, among the many voluntarily actions we have taken, we have dismantled all our ground-to-ground nuclear missiles as of 2008 and reduced our SSBN force by one third already. From your statement, it seems China is using its later acquisition of nuclear weapons in an attempt to receive preferential treatment, while other responsible powers have been actively decreasing our arsenals while you have been increasing yours. Our belief is simple: nuclear disarmament on an equally fair basis. We would be less concerned if the allocations for Strategic Bombers and IRBMs would be sunsetted at a known date in the future, as that would bring the signatories to an equally fair status. However, while we have no current plans to build many of these restricted delivery systems, we cannot allow the French Republic’s security to be potentially compromised in the indefinite future. As an example, it is possible a couple decades from now that Strategic Bombers will be the only guaranteeable method of nuclear weaponary delivery. If that is the case, France cannot be in a position where certain other nations are allowed that capability by this treaty, but we are not. - - - I must remind my fellow attendees here again that France has, both through treaty-compliance and large amounts of voluntarily action, already significantly reduced our nuclear deterrence as a responsible world power. It has been the stated, public, stance of my government since 2015 that our nuclear arsenal has been at a level of "strict sufficiency" – the lowest level possible to maintain strategic security. In the interests of goodwill, and bowing to the seemingly great progress at the beginning of this conference, my nation was willing to agree to a FURTHER 50% reduction of our nuclear arsenal, despite our stated policy based on rigorous analysis, and the lack of prior consultation of my government. However, as other nations seek to further their own self-interest, our concerns grow, and we must ensure that this treaty will not risk the strategic security of the French Republic. - - - To Minister Lavrov - France is in agreement on the limit of 4 MIRV’s per missile and the limit of 500 kilotons per nuclear warhead, the latter of which we are even willing to agree to a lower kiloton limit. On the matter of the number of nuclear warheads listed, our agreement is contingent on our approval of the weapons delivery limits. sources
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Will | Jan 6 2018, 07:43 PM Post #52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sushma Swaraj Minister of External Affairs The Republic of India remains committed to the passage of an amenable agreement of some kind. As a composition of the recent proposals of the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, and on the basis of many proposals by the United States of America, we provide the following proposed agreement, in good faith:
The above numerical limitations are supplemented by the following:
All of the above would be regulated by the inspection methods previously proposed by Secretary Tillerson. We do not believe we can suggest any changes to be made to the allotment of the Republic of France without first hearing from other representatives per Minister Drian's requests. We are open to arguments from both France an others on this topic. The Republic of India remains committed to both nuclear limitation/disarmament and our own national security, goals which we believe can be pursued together. We thus wish to craft an agreement that maximally disarms while maintaining a set of capabilities on the part of each nation sufficient to achieve minimal credible deterrence in relation to other nuclear powers. In this vein, we would have preferred Secretary Tillerson's previous agreement, which contained no specifications on the basis of missile type. But we would prefer an agreement to none at all, and even the above would constitute a major step in the right direction. Pending the resolution of Minister Drian's requests, we agree to the above and hope other nations will as well. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gabe | Jan 9 2018, 08:33 PM Post #53 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
|
Deputy Secretary of State Given the recent conversations I've listened to here and the private conservations I've had outside of this room the United States proposes this as the final count.
Along with the further rules.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mogg | Jan 10 2018, 02:45 AM Post #54 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joseph Chamberlain | Secretary of State for the Colonies
|
Tom Tugendhat Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs The only change that my government would like to see is the removal of the provision for four British SSGNs, purely on the basis that it provides a rationale for future governments or forces chiefs to undertake a programme to acquire something that will later need to be negotiated away again. In this regard, it does not appear in the spirit of the NPT to endorse such a capability where no requirement exists. Outside of that, we would like to see the removal of ICBMs on 'hair trigger' alert status, a return to the policy of de-targeted weapons during peacetime and a declaration of 'no first-use' by all states. It is the opinion of my government that all three of these things would result in a safer global environment, free from the risk of inadvertent, mistaken or accidental nuclear launch, and mitigating the effects if such a launch did take place. The removal of systems from hair trigger alert was agreed at the review conference of the NPT in 2000, and all parties agreed to pursue “concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems.” Since then, a UN endorsed high-level panel on security challenges called for “a progressive schedule for de-alerting,” and another panel of experts led by former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix urged the United States and Russia to “agree on reciprocal steps to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.” Most recently, two forme secretaries of state, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, joined with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) to endorse “changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time.” This is a simple task that does not undermine the security posture of any party. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Will | Jan 11 2018, 11:41 AM Post #55 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sushma Swaraj Minister of External Affairs India will, regardless of the results of these negotiations, reaffirm it's commit to a 'no-first-use' policy. In addition, assuming all other nations involved abide by the suggestions of Secretary Tugendhat, India will agree to them as well, and thus second the notion that they should be added to the stipulations of this agreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Acer | Jan 12 2018, 01:48 PM Post #56 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
.
|
Jean-Yves Le Drian Ministre de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères France is amenable to Deputy Secretary Sullivan's revised table and conditions, assuming no other nation is seeking further changes. We are also in support of Secretary Tugendhat's proposal of de-targeting all nuclear and strategic weapons - at least against other treaty signatories and nations not suspected of having nuclear/ballistic weapons. In the cases of nations suspected of having nuclear/ballistic weapons, and who are unwilling to be parties to this treaty, we believe that all of us signatories should reserve the right to pre-target them if the need arises. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| winisle | Jan 12 2018, 11:52 PM Post #57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
|
Sergey Lavrov Minister of Foreign Affairs Russia is also in a position where we agree on the revised proposal. We suggest that all those nations that hasn't expressed their acceptance of the latest, and we hope final proposal, do so forthwith, so we can put a successful round of nuclear disarmament talks behind us. As for the suggestions made by Secretary Tugendhat, Russia will not entertain the notion of any further changes to the proposal on the table, but we are at the same time willing to agree to de-target the Russian nuclear arsenal, and to assume a lower readiness posture. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mogg | Jan 16 2018, 08:17 AM Post #58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joseph Chamberlain | Secretary of State for the Colonies
|
Tom Tugendhat Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Minister Lavrov, I understand your reluctance to add further conditions to the proposal, but I'm very pleased at your offer to de-target and lower the readiness of your nuclear forces. Likewise, I'd like to praise the Indian and French delegations for their agreement to adopt them. Minister le Drian, de-targeting simply means that in the event of an accidental launch, the missiles won't target inhabited areas or will simply not launch. Given that targeting data can be input within minutes, de-targeting is a simple precaution against an accidental nuclear war, and has no negative effects that I can see. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| winisle | Jan 18 2018, 03:19 PM Post #59 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
|
Sergey Lavrov Minister of Foreign Affairs With none else coming forth, I suggest that we are ready to move on to signing this historical agreement! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mogg | Jan 18 2018, 03:27 PM Post #60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joseph Chamberlain | Secretary of State for the Colonies
|
Tom Tugendhat Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs I second the motion for signing the agreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 10 · Next Topic » |










5:04 PM Jul 10
