3 ms·

This is a silly pedantic point... I don't think Israel (or India, Pakistan & North Korea) broke the npt rules. The treaty doesn't regulate non signatories and

This is a silly pedantic point... I don't think Israel (or India, Pakistan & North Korea) broke the npt rules. The treaty doesn't regulate non signatories and allows countries to withdraw from the agreement. North Korea is the recent one. They gave their 3 month notice, withdrew and tested nukes without violating the treaty. Ultimately, I don't really think the treaty was the biggest direct factor limiting proliferation. When it was signed, peaceful nuclear tech was expected to be the most important technology of the century. The treaty was supposed to exclude non-members from accessing peaceful nuclear technology. It did that quite effectively (Israel never had nuclear power for this reason). But unexpectedly, it's 2019 and nuclear energy isn't that important. The npt did help forming a consensus though, and policing that consensus outside of the treaty. Helping anyone nuclearize is taboo. Five more countries (possibly six) did develop nuclear weapons after the npt, but the barriers were pretty huge, diplomatically and technically... because they got very little help.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Helping anyone nuclearize is taboo Only because most of the nations that haven't got them but are seeking them are poor nations that don't have a lot of close friends among the nuclear nations. It's kind of a "got mine, screw you" deal. Iran and the like have just as much right to develop and hold nuclear weapons as everyone else. The thought of "regional troublemaker" having nuclear weapons countries bothers nations like the US, Russia, France, (etc) for the same reason some people at the top of the social hierarchy doesn't want poor people to have easy access to firearms. Those already at the top generally don't like seeing the playing field leveled and it's true all the way from the individual level to the national level. In a democratic society if the party you want to push around is well enough armed to hurt you back that limits your ability to push them around to cases where you are actually consider to be "in the right" by the court of public opinion otherwise the people will promptly decide that it's not worth it.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  It's not about rich or poor. It's about whether or not you had them at the time the treaty was written. China, UK & France are in. Japan & Germany are out, because they were occupied and demilitarised at the time. Both large, rich countries. China was large, but poor at that time.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    I agree that rich and poor is probably too broad of a brush but there's definitely an in group and out group with which rich/poor generally, but not perfectly aligns. I'm talking more about the current political landscape anyway. Everyone turns a blind eye to Israel (they're in the in group) but if any middle eastern, African or South American nation were to seriously pursue nuclear weapons the hand wringing would be immense (and is, in the case of Iran).

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>Helping anyone nuclearize is taboo Only because most of the nations that haven't got them but are seeking them are poor nations that don't have a lot of close friends among the nuclear nations. It's kind of a "got mine, screw you" deal. Iran and the like have just as much right to develop and hold nuclear weapons as everyone else. The thought of "regional troublemaker" having nuclear weapons countries bothers nations like the US, Russia, France, (etc) for the same reason some people at the top of the social hierarchy doesn't want poor people to have easy access to firearms. Those already at the top generally don't like seeing the playing field leveled and it's true all the way from the individual level to the national level. In a democratic society if the party you want to push around is well enough armed to hurt you back that limits your ability to push them around to cases where you are actually consider to be "in the right" by the court of public opinion otherwise the people will promptly decide that it's not worth it.

dalbasal 8y ago
It's not about rich or poor. It's about whether or not you had them at the time the treaty was written. China, UK & France are in. Japan & Germany are out, because they were occupied and demilitarised at the time. Both large, rich countries. China was large, but poor at that time.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  I agree that rich and poor is probably too broad of a brush but there's definitely an in group and out group with which rich/poor generally, but not perfectly aligns. I'm talking more about the current political landscape anyway. Everyone turns a blind eye to Israel (they're in the in group) but if any middle eastern, African or South American nation were to seriously pursue nuclear weapons the hand wringing would be immense (and is, in the case of Iran).