Nuclear weapon proliferation?

we have heard that north korea, iran and some others are playing silly with some dangerous substances. As Hiroshima's mayor said, in his speech this morning, the united states are also to blame for not signing the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapon. why the united states refuse to sign such document? do they have a plan on taking over?

Update:

well, yes Mr Perky. the mayor said so. between 2min 28 and 2 min 38; he says about a handful of old fashion leaders rejecting global democracy. and if that is not convincing enough at 5min 31 he says no to obsolete and mistaken US policies.

any other questions?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    An excellent, relevant question.

    And the answer is "Because bush is a MORON."

    ****************************************

    “The United States is a signatory to nine multilateral treaties that it has either blatantly violated or gradually subverted. The Bush Administration is now outright rejecting a number of those treaties, and in doing so places global security in jeopardy as other nations feel entitled to do the same. The rejected treaties include: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). The U.S. is also not complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Commission (CWC), the BWC, and the UN framework Convention on Climate Change.

    The ABM Treaty alone is a crucial factor in national security; letting Bush get away with facilitating its demise will destroy the balance of powers carefully crafted in our Constitution. The Bush Administration has no legitimate excuse for nullifying the ABM Treaty since the events that have threatened the security of the United States have not involved ballistic missiles, and none of them are in any way related to the subject matter of the ABM Treaty. Bush's withdrawal violates the U.S. Constitution, international law, and Article XV of the ABM Treaty itself. The Bush Administration says it needs to get rid of the ABM Treaty so it can test the SPY radar on the Aegis cruisers against Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) and so that it can build a new test facility at Fort Greely, Alaska. In addition, some conservatives have willingly dismissed the ABM Treaty because it stands as the major obstacle towards development of a "Star Wars" missile defense system. Discarding treaty constraints and putting weapons in space is nothing short of pursuing absolute military superiority.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is crucial to global security because it bars the spread of nuclear weapons. The U.S. is currently in noncompliance with the NPT requirements, as demonstrated in the January 2002 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review. Moreover, critics charge that the National Ignition Facility (NIF) under construction at Livermore lab violates the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the U.S. signed in 1996 but has not ratified. The CTBT bans nuclear explosions, and its language does not contain any "exceptions allowing laboratory thermonuclear explosions."

    The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history, with a total of 174 million people killed in genocide and war. The world increasingly needs an international legal framework from which the people of the world can be protected from heinous criminal acts, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This reasoning explains the votes of the 139 countries that signed the Rome Treaty, and the 67 ratifications that have resulted in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    Former U.S. president, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Treaty supporting the ICC when he held office. However, in an unprecedented action, George W. Bush actually erased Clinton's signature (a United States president has never before 'unsigned' a treaty). Moreover, his Administration has declared it has no intention whatsoever of cooperating with the ICC.

    Furthermore, in what is being called The Hague Invasion Act, or the Services Members' Protection Act, the G.O.P.-controlled House Appropriations Committee voted to authorize the use of military force to "rescue" any American brought before the ICC. Erica Terpstra, a parliamentary representative in the Netherlands where The Hague and ICC is located, states that this "is not only a gesture against the Netherlands…but against the entire international community."

    While proponents of ICC consider it the most important development in international law since the Nazi war crimes Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, the Bush Administration insists it would limit U.S. sovereignty and interfere with actions of the U.S. military.

    This unprecedented rejection of and rapid retreat from global treaties that have in effect kept the peace through the decades will not only continue to isolate U.S. policy, but will also render these treaties and conventions invalid without the support and participation of the world's foremost superpower.”

    http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/7...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is inevitable that nuclear weapons manufacture and maintenance will proliferate. These are superweapons, and nearly all superweapons (existing now and other types that might emerge) have a tendency to give its user unchallengable sovereignty ( whether that user is a state, a breakaway militia secessionists, or even individuals). Thus if the user desires to become sovereign (real sovereignty not paper sovereignty), he, she, or they will have demand for it. Since there is demand and the technology is available, the demand will eventually be met. The good news regarding nuclear weapons (and only nuclear weapons) is that the limiting factor to their numbers is that they need hugely expensive materials and infrastructure to be useful. After all, North Korea's recent test was a dud, and they used alot of their meager resources just to make this dud test. Another is that while Iran's leaders Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei are psychotic, the basic bureacracy of Iran is not. Still, psychos with nukes are pretty disturbing. The bad news is the emergent superweapons of the Twenty-First Century, Nanoweapons and Microbial Weapons. As technology advances, the manufacturing devices for these weapons will get smaller (distributed manufacturing technologies such as the Fab Lab can make helpful tools, vehicles and machines but they can also produce weapons for defense and attack). Since one doesn't need exotic materials (just Carbon, Iron, Aluminum, Silica, living soil bacteria, etc.) for these superweapons, they will eventually be homemade. So much for large states or World Government.

    Its not just superweapons that would make World Government impossible. There is no unified concensus or value system in the World TODAY. Without that unified value system, there is no World Democracy period (or even a dictatorship!). Paradoxically the future looks strange and amazing yet it looks quite bleak as well.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The US is a signatory, as is Iran. North Korea withdrew over objections about intrusive IAEA inspectors, but really because of the deterioration of relations with the US during the Bush II term.

    Iran has followed the NPT to the T.

    The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on civilians. It continues to develop nuclear weapons in breach of the NPT. The US constitution mandates that the US follow its foreign treaties. Developing nuclear weapons in the US is against international and domestic law.

    The US is also the leading proliferator of nuclear weapons in the world.

    The US is the leading proliferator of conventional weapons.

    Anyone who wants to end war, the biggest obstacle is the US.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why you writing with Japanese accent, Fred?

    Bush didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty for the same reason he didn't sign the UN Accord on Land Mines.

    The US is one of the world's leading suppliers of land mines and the equipment needed to make not only nuclear weapons but WMD's of all kinds.

    You can get thrown out of the Republican Party these days for giving National Security or even the Survival of Humankind priority over corporate profits.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Is there a new treaty out there? The US signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty in 1968.

  • 1 decade ago

    Whether the US should have signed the non-proliferation document is better left to the politicians and foreign policy experts. The reason why they didn't is that we are the lone superpower, as in all eyes are on us. With the emergence of China as a rival, many feel that it would be wise to have trump cards.

  • 1 decade ago

    The US refuses to limit its weapons development, or to allow any other country to tell it what to do.

    Yet, the US also seems to believe that it has the right to limit any other country, or tell any other country what to do.

    Seems like a curious hypocrisy --- but nothing new.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    sure , sure , if not without a plan , then , how you gonna play a tricks on others LOLL.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.