Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
It's been a long while since I looked at it, but my understanding of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is that it is designed to limit nuclear armaments among signatory states, but encourage the development of nuclear technology for power purposes. In fact, I think it's a right for signatory states to develop nuclear power.
If that's still the case, and Iran's a signatory, then they're very much entitled to nuclear power (allowing, of course, for other restrictions they may be subject to).
If I had more time and inclination, I'd look this up again myself. But it might be an interesting thing for someone with more motivation to take a gander at.
It will be interesting to see how Israel responds. Particularly if the US is not inclined to act and, implicitly anyway, withholds Israel's carte blanche. This is a very concerning development for them, regardless of what Iran's rights might be.
|
I studied this treaty last year.
The goal of it is to encourage safe nuclear technology while discouraging the development of weapons.
So basically there are 2 types of signatories to it. Those with nuclear weapons techonology and those without. Those without vow never to have weapons, and those with encourage the have nots to develop safe nuclear power.
To deal with the Israel question first. Israel was never a signatory to it, so it simply doesn't apply to Israel. The reason for that, Israel did not require any help from anyone in developing their technology. In fact, a large reason why they have so many nukes is they traded their technology to France in exchange for nuclear material. Israel had nuclear technology before the NPT came into existence. As the NPT works to limit new nations from acquiring weapons, as opposed to taking weapons from those that already possess them, Israel wouldn't be affected by the provisions had they become signatories anyway. All it would have done is forced disclosure of their weapons. Something they along with India and Pakistan have refused to do.
The problem with Iran, however, is two fold.
1) they have been a signatory to the treaty and have as such made a vow never to have nuclear weapons in exchange for the technology and goodwill they have been receiving; and
2) Some countries just don't believe that Iran's program is entirely peaceful.
So Iran has had the advantages of being a signatory, as they have been getting technology both nuclear and not from other signatory states. If they were ever to possess a nuclear weapon this would then be a huge slap in the face to the other signatories.
IF they had never signed the NPT, an instead developed the technology 100% on their own, there would be nothing that the other NPT member states could say about Iran's program.
The problem here is once Iran has a weapon, what can you really do about it. It makes dealing with them in any kind of a military way almost impossible.
For the record, it is not just the Israel/US alliance that is worried about these weapons, it is the Arab states as well. More specifically, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Iraq has already lost several million lives in wars with Iran and would prefer not to have a Persian nuclear power in the region.