Global treaty banning nuclear weapons

it needs to be done

that's a nice thought... I only hope that these weapons will be destroyed in my lifetime.

I'm with Matt

Dan, if there are radicals in abundance worldwide, hiding weapons of mass destruction with the intention of terrorizing the world, then apparently the current arrangements don't work. Time to agree on a better arrangement, i.e. a global treaty.

Such a treaty could have a number of escalation procedures. As the article says, such a treaty should include details such as verification and inspections, as well as access for the media to military facilities worldwide. Of course, media access should be given to other places as well. I see a key role for the media in exposing efforts to build such weapons. If media access is refused, trade sanctions could follow. Force would only be needed as a method of last resort and - in my view - isn't necessary as long as all countries stick to the agreement to take a firm stand against a place that allows people there to develop such weapons.

Dan, great information, and thanks for presenting it. That famous Peace Symbol, the Circle with the bird foot print is a very special symbol in this discussion. It is the Semaphore symbol for ND, representing NOT peace, but Nuclear Disarmament. It was adopted by the peace movement because so many people who want Nuclear Disarmament also seek world peace, and because rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise it is Semaphore for SW...Stop War. Now, if you want to check my facts, just check this website. "Semaphore." "Cute cartoon girls demonstrating Semaphore." Not animated, but cute anyway.

Doggone it, I addressed this to the mysterious and vanishing Dan, when the person I should have been addressing is SAM...my bad.

No worries about the mix-up, Karl. Note that there's a difference between disarmament and reform. The military is consuming huge amounts of money and we always need to think of ways to improve and reform things - one of the first questions is what should happen with nuclear, chemical and biological missiles. If there is an opportunity to discuss internationally what is happening with Iran, North Korea and the like, then this opportunity should be grabbed.

I heard on the news this morning (NPR) that Abu Dhabi is proceeding with a nuclear energy program. No doubt, this is in reponse to Iran's program. All we need is a nuclear mideast. I have no illusions that Iran's or Abu Dhabi's nuclear programs are really about providing energy. The separation between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is very thin. This is, to say the least, very bad news. Ironically, both Iran and Abu Dhabi are situated in a part of the world, in which solar energy makes incredible sense. But what makes sense in that part of the world anyway?

I share your concerns, Steve. It's absurd for a place with so much sun to even consider nuclear power plants. We should continue to point out that:
- nuclear power makes a country more dictatorial;
- the risks associated with nuclear technology are unacceptable;
- nuclear power isn't price-competitive with alternatives that are clean and safe, such as solar and wind energy.

Very good article, Sam, and thanks for making me aware of it. I don't quite trust Sarkozy just now, seeing it from a European perspective, and certainly would not trust anything Putin and Bush would turn into a treaty... but the Sarkozy bias I have is probably just that, a bias. France is a very unique nation, which seems to have a lot of contradictions in it.

Just saw an interesting propaganda film at the NYT at

Syria

It's almost 12 minutes long.

If I remember correctly the USA had some good restrictive agreements with the USSR ... but I suppose when that became Russia the language was voided ... a convenient excuse for us to turn away first from the intentions done in good faith originally ...

So now a days, who the hell would trust us of all people ... ?

There are moments in history when it's possible to make huge progress towards banning nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. One such moment was the summit in the mid 1980s in Reykjavik when Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan discussed to reduce ballistic missiles by 50% and have zero intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

Eventually, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in December 1987 and it has in the meantime resulted in the scrapping of 2,692 missiles. However, Gorbachev wanted to go further than that. "The ultimate goal was to eliminate nuclear weapons," Gorbachev said in a 2007 speech. "You can't get rid of nuclear weapons overnight, but we should be working in that direction. We should persuade policy makers that this is the way to go."

As I said in the article A Global Treaty Banning All Nuclear Weapons, the US should declare its intention to ban all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This should make other countries follow and join a global treaty to work out details such as verification and inspections, as well as access for the media to military facilities worldwide. I wrote that article shortly after Barack Obama's call for elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world.

It won't happen. There will always be one country that refuses to give up it's most powerful weapons.

That's why such a treaty will have to include joint sanctions against a country that goes against the treaty.