should the USA allow nuclear inspections?

[Busyman]

If they cannot inspect nuclear facilities than the entire concept of inspections is pointless.

If their inspections are not to document who has what where, but to lend tips on safety, I see their role as trivial in the US. Only countries developing nuclear facilities need this type of direction, we have had nuclear facilities for a long time.

I guess my honest question is:

What is the scope of these inspections and what is their purpose?

And the intial post indicated that the US was the only country to not allow inspections, which is not true, and thus the poll has been opened under a false premise.

I recommend we close this.

[Cheese]

I think Hobbes is oversimplyfying the work IAEA does.

IAEA & NPT: Key Roles

Three decades after its entry into force in 1970, the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has nearly 190 States as Parties.

Parties are preparing for the next conference, in 2005, to review the Treaty's implementation. Such Review Conferences have been held at five-year intervals since 1975, when the first one was convened in Geneva.

The IAEA is not a party to the Treaty but is entrusted with key roles and responsibilities under it. Under the NPT, the IAEA has specific roles as the international safeguards inspectorate and as a multilateral channel for transferring peaceful applications of nuclear technology:

NPT Article III: The IAEA administers international safeguards to verify that non-nuclear weapon States party to the NPT fulfill the non-proliferation commitment they have made, "with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

NPT Article IV: The Agency facilitates and provides a channel for endeavours aimed at "the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world."

In practical terms, the IAEA also is seen as having roles in connection with verification of nuclear-weapon-free zones and in the context of verifying ex-nuclear weapon material.

Another interesting read.


Should usa be bound to the same rules as everyone else? Yes, of course. They should be checked to make sure they store weapons correctly, that they are upholding the treaties they signed (like the Sea Bed treaty), checked to make sure they are not developing newer weapons and checked that materials aren't being diverted elsewhere (would be ironic if Miami was bombed with american nuclear materials...).

Any other countries should be checked as well. No excuses. With 190 states on the NPT that doesn't really leave a lot of countries though.

[Strangelove]

@Hobbes,

UK has had Nuclear Power as long as the USA, as has France... both countries allow inspections.

The Poll has not suggested opening up Military Facilities for inspection, that can only be done via the UN Security Council, and rightly so... every country has its secrets with regard to the Military.

The PRIMARY reason is your own interests... no one is willing to follow someone into something that they will not do themselves, it shows double standards, which is the USA's main perceived problem in the world.

[vidcc]

well of the people that voted the opinion seems to be mostly that the US should lead by example if they wish to increase the chances of other countries being more open.

thank you for all your opinions..even if you didn't vote


i have asked for this to be closed as i feel it has served it's purpose.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

My understanding of the inspections is that are undertaken is one to observe safety and security. Heaven forbid that any civil US site should lose nuclear material but it is the IAEA's role to ensure best practice in such matters. Those who feel they have nothing to learn often take a tumble when they least expect it.

I guess, following Three Mile Island, you guys probably have the safety issue sorted. I am intrigued as to why you would decline the expertise of the IAEA on the other matter though.

I can only see it being in the interest of the citizen's of the US, but, at the end of the day, it is for them to decide. Setting such an example might, however, be considered unfortunate. Those countries that have not set good practice in place might deem inspections embarrassing and refuse on the grounds of precedent.