4 ms·

There is no international oversight of nuclear weapons.

• zinekeller 5y ago
  Very good note. There should be (in the sense that treaties were signed), just not that those treaties are ratified by important countries (and therefore enforced). IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking), as I know the only reduction treaties (it's a series) that are successful is between US and Russia (nuclear arms successor of the Soviet Union), which is only two of nine who openly have nuclear weapons, not to mention the (around) five alleged-but-never-admitted nuclear states, and many more that may have dormant technical capability that can be used when it really gone bad. (edited because I forgot about New START)
  • indymike 5y ago
    "International oversight" implies there is a powerful enough entity to impose oversight. Even North Korea is powerful enough to refuse international oversight.
  • nuerow 5y ago
    > IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking) The problems tackled by WHO are mostly cooperative, while the ones tackled by the IAEA are mainly competitive. It's easier to get consensus on subjects where everyone stands to benefit than in subjects where everyone is looking to take power away from you.