COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, they have signed it
Just a guess.
So next time one is thinking "why is it okay for India / Pakistan / Israel to have nuclear weapons but not North Korea / Iran , etc?" - come back to this ballot and you will remember why.
Voted : No, they have never signed it
I know Israel haven't. I assume the others would be the same.
"Article X (of the NPT) allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice."
North Korea gave notice and left the NPT, so why isn't it okay for NK to have nukes, then?
And, Soc, did you, or do you, support Israel, Pakistan, and India having nuclear weapons?
And if Iran hadn't signed the NPT, would you support it getting nuclear weapons?
Voted : No, they have never signed it
Won't claim to know for sure, but I don't believe any of those three did sign the NPT.
Soc -- "So next time one is thinking 'why is it okay for India / Pakistan / Israel to have nuclear weapons but not North Korea / Iran , etc?' - come back to this ballot and you will remember why"?
North Korea formally pulled out of the treaty some time ago. They did not break it.
Iran did not break the treaty. They are in violation of a codicil of the treaty that their legislature never ratified.
Cathexis- "North Korea formally pulled out of the treaty some time ago. They did not break it."
- By pulling out, they did break it. It is a binding agreement, and one cannot just pull out of it without proper reason. Not only that, but it is higly beleived that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons before it pulled out. So of course North Korea broke the NPT.
As for Iran? If they are not violating the NPT, why do they not allow international inspectors access to all requested sites? If they have nothing to hide, then what is their problem?
^If you have nothing to hide, then why wouldn't it be okay for Homeland Security to monitor all of you phone and internet communications?
North Korea followed the policy stated in the NPT for withdrawing, so does Bush get to decide if the reason was good enough? And where is that stated in the NPT? Or is the NPT like the mafia, once you are in, you are in forever? Since Bush, Rumsfeld, and the neocons tend to think like gangsters, maybe that's their position.
North Korea DID sign the treaty and violated the treaty when it withdrew without cause.
cranky- Firstly, yes, the UN is supposed to be an international organisation that checks whether or not international law is being broken. They have the right to check under the international framework.
Now, I will go on to the issue of hypothetically withdrawing from the NPT. One can only withdraw from the NPT if and only if they are in an extraordinary circumstance of being directly threatened. North Korea's claims of being threatened by the US are not feasible. Having mere tensions with a country is not a good enough reason to withdraw. If that were so, right now, every single NPT signatory has just as much ground as North Korea to withdraw. That would make the NPT useless. For that reason the withdraw part of the NPT must only be when under blatant and imminent threat of war, and not mere diplomatic tension. North Korea therefore broke the treaty by withdrawing without just cause.
When there is a state of general war the treaty no longer applies. Effectively the states involved can leave the treaty with no notice. Many states do not accept this argument, but the U.S.A. and the NATO alliance does.
The U.S.A. has been in a general war with North Korea since 1950, and in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.
IMO: The U.S.A. has been in a general war with Iran since 11/4/1979, when the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran was taken over.
The fact that the U.S.A. has been in a general war with North Korea since 1950, raised the bar that much further for North Korea to claim that they are in an extraordinary circumstance of being directly threatened. No extraordinary circumstantces currently exist for North Korea that were present prior to 1/20/2001.
cranky- I honestly did not see your prior questions:
"And, Soc, did you, or do you, support Israel, Pakistan, and India having nuclear weapons?"
- No. But to get technical about international law does view it as a competely different circumstance in which opposing their actions is more difficult and not so cut and dry.
"And if Iran hadn't signed the NPT, would you support it getting nuclear weapons?"
- No, I don't support anyone getting nuclear weapons. If they had not of, it would be even more difficult dealing with them right now. That is the reality of the situation. I am not implying that the international framework is good or desirable, I am merely stating what the reality of it is.
Voted : No, they have never signed it
No.
I brought up this issue a while back when a certain user was trying to say that Iran's program was peaceful and that they were innocent and pure like angels. On the contrary. They are engaging in the same pattern of deceit and evasiveness as North Korea. North Korea kept refusing the IAEA access to certain areas even though the NPT says they should allow this. Sound familiar? It should. Iran is doing the exact same thing.
So, Cathexis. You are wrong. They were breaking the treaty prior to leaving it. Just like Iran is. This isn't a "US issue" or Bush the Cowboy thing. The matter was referred to the UN Security Council by the IAEA, NOT the United States.
The NPT has a binding REQUIREMENT that allows the IAEA access to nuclear facilities at essentially any time. This is to ensure compliance with the treaty.
All this blah blah negotiating with Iran. And you wonder why some of us consider this to be appeasement to Iran. Why? Because it is.
Excellent ballot Socrates. It is amazing the level of ignorance on this subject.
Soc:
I would suggest that the bellicosity of the necons who run the Bush foreign policy, their philosophy of perpetual war, Bush declaring North Korea part of the Axis of Evil, then Bush invading another member of the Axis of Evil, and Bush threatening to invade the other member, would qualify as a legitimate threat.
Also, it was Bolton who was demanding that the recent resolution about North Korea contain the military option. That sounds like a threat to me.
And even if North Korea had violated international law, does that give the U.S. the right to use military action, including the use of nuclear weapons against them?
No they are not part of the treaty.
They shouldn't be encouraged to produce nukes, but I guess they aren't specifically banned from doing so.
However, this doesn't help with bashing bush so these facts should be covered up, ignored or diverted.
Voted : No, they have never signed it
Don't think so.
Voted : No, they have never signed it
Doubt it.
The Neocon Pussy Treaty? Hmm, not sure.
Voted : No, they have never signed it
Okay relax Socrazog its a joke. I vote no, they have not signed it. Though I've already seen the quiz answer
cranky- "I would suggest that the bellicosity of the necons who run the Bush foreign policy, their philosophy of perpetual war, Bush declaring North Korea part of the Axis of Evil, then Bush invading another member of the Axis of Evil, and Bush threatening to invade the other member, would qualify as a legitimate threat."
- I strongly disagree. Extraordinary events related to the treaty was of course supposed to be a reference to a nuclear threat. There was no such case with North Korea. The treaty was not meant to imply that if a state feels threatened by any war that it has the right to withdraw, because that's just not practical. The country's of Africa for example are constatnly having tensions- and that is not grounds for all of them to be free to leave the NPT. IT has to be an extraordinary even relating to the Treaty. This has not been so for North Korea. Besides which, North Korea has long been thought of as in the process of developing nuclear weapons long before it withdrew from the NPT.
"Or is the NPT like the mafia, once you are in, you are in forever?"
- Yes. It is a signed legal document, and can only be withdrawn from in accordance with that treaty, as North Korea has not done.
"And even if North Korea had violated international law, does that give the U.S. the right to use military action, including the use of nuclear weapons against them?"
- In my opinon, no.
|
