View Single Post
Old 2008-11-10, 15:58   Link #25
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
No, that's not what I was proposing. I suggested that the United States, or a coalition of like-minded nuclear powers, sign treaty agreements with potential target states that would provide for nuclear retaliation in the event the treaty state is attacked with a nuclear weapon. As I said in my follow-up posting, I don't expect we'd extend the "umbrella" without obtaining something in return. Submission to an extensive nuclear monitoring program would be at the top of the list.

Unlike Seifall, I have more faith in the abilities of the IAEA to monitor nuclear programs. They correctly concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear program, and North Korea felt compelled to oust the IAEA from its facilities in 2002. The DPRK conducted its first domestic weapon test some four years later. (There's some speculation the DPRK jointly tested a weapon in Pakistan as early as 1998.) Perhaps they could have developed the weapons under the gaze of the IAEA's monitors and equipment; we'll never know.
Except that is exactly what we'll end up with under the proposal. The US officially commited to use nuclear weapons if a signatory is attacked, with potential signatories being nations that we don't have particualy good relationships with. Even if they agreed to give some concessions, the very nature of the agreement invites duplicity. You specificly mentioned Israel attacking Iran as an example. If the moment actually comes, either the US attacks a nominal ally, or does nothing making the treaty worthless either way. WOuld Iran really have faith that the US would carry out it's end of the bargin? It's unworkable.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote