4 ms·
Different countries treat their responsibilities to these treaties differently. History has shown that the united states, in particular, takes its responsibili
by ghshephard 12y ago
Different countries treat their responsibilities to these treaties differently. History has shown that the united states, in particular, takes its responsibility to treaties very seriously, and would do it's utmost never to be in breach.
If they were considering placing nuclear missiles in orbit, they would almost certainly withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty first.
I'm wondering if there is any economic rationale for doing so - I would think that sub based missiles would be cheaper than placing them in orbit.
- netcan 12y agoThey could be exercising something similar to the "threshold capacity" of the NPT. Under the NPT signatories are allowed to enrich and stockpile nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. Under this restriction, states can go almost nuclear. The tech and materials for civilian and military nuclear use is similar enough that a country that can do power independently would be able to produce bombs within 2-5 years. Some countries have a "threshold strategy" where they stay within the bounds of the treaty but maintain an ability to withdraw and make up ground as quickly as possible. Japan & Australia, for example.
- devnonymous 12y ago> ...in particular, takes its responsibility to treaties very seriously, and would do it's utmost never to get caught being in breach. There fixed that for you. (ref: http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs10s/unespion.php http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs10s/unespion.php )