should the USA allow nuclear inspections?

[vidcc]

Should the USA allow inspections of it's nuclear programs like every other country ?

[DanB]

Yes, they should, if they expect other countries to listen to them about their nuclear plants (Iran) they should allow themselves or as the option says it is blatant double standards

[TheDave]

it'd have no effect anyway

[Samurai]

I chose
yes so it can't be accused of double standards when it insists other countries are inspected

[vidcc]

i voted yes so a double standard isn't an issue. I believe if one wants to be diplomatic in the world better results are achieved if one says "hey, we are open about our weapons so please be open about yours" instead of "show us yours or else".

[hobbes]

If the US were to allow inspections, what exactly would be the point?

It seems to me that the only countries that allow nuclear weapons inspections are those that are FORCED to.

Weapons inspections are an alternative to regime change, if you are a good boy.

Weapons inspections have nothing to do with fairness, it is about those with power looking to keep it. Why would anybody be confused about this?

Our biggest threat is the unknown proliferation of nuclear weapons. These can be produced by an able country and given to a terrorist group, that is not from their country, to use. So Iran could give a bomb to Al-Queda who rents a plane in South America and detonates a nuke in Miami. Iran pretends to know nothing, and Al-Queda slips back into the rocks. That is our greatest fear and that is why the US will attempt to keep nukes under the wraps as tightly as possible.

Allow inspections of the location, quantity, and type of our nuclear weapons. Expose our most guarded technical secrets to the world?

Daft, anyone who even considers this reasonable is daft beyond measure.


My answer, which amazingly is not a choice, because I find them all a wee bit anti-US is : No, because we don't have to.

[Busyman]

If the US were to allow inspections, what exactly would be the point?

It seems to me that the only countries that allow nuclear weapons inspections are those that are FORCED to.

Weapons inspections are an alternative to regime change, if you are a good boy.

Weapons inspections have nothing to do with fairness, it is about those with power looking to keep it. Why would anybody be confused about this?

Allow inspections of the location, quantity, and type of our nuclear weapons. Expose our most guarded technical secrets to the world?

Daft, anyone who even considers this reasonable is daft beyond measure.


My answer, which amazingly is not a choice, because I find them all a wee bit anti-US is : No, because we don't have to.
:clap:

[DanB]

i didn't realise it was about weapons specifically I just thought it was for the plants etc

[Busyman]

Are UK plants inspected?

India?

Pakistan?

China?

[vidcc]

it's about everything.

[vidcc]

@ hobbes surely then your answer would be no because they are not a threat to anyone

or the one where the us doesn't have to answer to anyone


My answer, which amazingly is not a choice, because I find them all a wee bit anti-US is
To make it fair and balanced i tried to put as many options as possible within limits. you have to remember that some countries will see us as a threat, it's all relative to which side of the fence one sits. So i have to have options that allow for that viewpoint. I don't feel they are anti-US or pro US

[Busyman]

@ hobbes surely then your answer would be no because they are not a threat to anyone
That's what I put.

[hobbes]

@ hobbes surely then your answer would be no because they are not a threat to anyone

It would be "no" because you can't make us.

As to not being a threat to anyone, I don't even see the relevance of that point to the question.

The only place which is not a threat is the South Pole.

But the United States does not see the United States as a nuclear threat to the United States. And we won't want to inspect the United States because we know what we have.

[vidcc]

It would be "no" because you can't make us.

.option 4 then

no they are the most powerful nation on earth and as such don't have to answer to anyone

[hobbes]

option 4 then

no they are the most powerful nation on earth and as such don't have to answer to anyone


No, that is wrong, Vidcc.

It is because we are strong enough, to refuse inspection.

To answer #4 would be to insinuate that only the most powerful country can defer inspections. Many less powerful countries fit this bill as well.

Any country that has the minimum amount of power to resist inspections will do so.

I was also not aware that all other countries allowed nuclear inspections. Are you sure?

[Cheese]

Yes.

And whilst they're at it shake america down for any chemical and biological weapons they've been developing.

[DanB]

It would be "no" because you can't make us.

As to not being a threat to anyone, I don't even see the relevance of that point to the question.

The only place which is not a threat is the South Pole.

But the United States does not see the United States as a nuclear threat to the United States. And we won't want to inspect the United States because we know what we have.


Its not all about the US you now


edit - and when did this becaome purely about nucelar weapons?

I might be mistaken but Vid did you mean power plants etc?

[hobbes]

Its not all about the US you now


edit - and when did this becaome purely about nucelar weapons?

I might be mistaken but Vid did you mean power plants etc?


Well DanB, you might be right. Perhaps in countries without nuclear weapons, inspections of nuclear powerplants could be made to ensure that the "powerplant" wasn't a ruse for another endeavor- like a bomb, perhaps.

Or less blantantly, a place to perform tests in which to gain knowledge on how to actually construct a bomb.

At any rate, it would be ridiculous to inspect our nuclear powerplants for such activity as we have fully functioning nuclear weapons already.

[vidcc]

No, that is wrong, Vidcc.

It is because we are strong enough, to refuse inspection.

To answer #4 would be to insinuate that only the most powerful country can defer inspections. Many less powerful countries fit this bill as well.

Any country that has the minimum amount of power to resist inspections will do so.

I was also not aware that all other countries allowed nuclear inspections. Are you sure?
But the question is about the usa which at the moment is the ones pushing loudest for other countries to be inspected.
the question is for opinion as to should they allow inspections.not asking if anyone can force us to

[hobbes]

But the question is about the usa which at the moment is the ones pushing loudest for other countries to be inspected.
the question is for opinion as to should they allow inspections.not asking if anyone can force us to

No, that would stupid. It would give away military secrets. Next question.

[vidcc]

No, that would stupid. It would give away military secrets. Next question.but it's right that others should have to give theirs away? and the fact that we insist they do while we won't will not cause resentment and will make for a more peaceful and friendly world or even attitude to the US and it's allies ?


your answer could be ....no it's nobody elses concern


you "seem" offended that the subject matter was even raised

[hobbes]

but it's right that others should have to give theirs away? and the fact that we insist they do while we won't will not cause resentment and will make for a more peaceful and friendly world or even attitude to the US and it's allies ?


your answer could be ....no it's nobody elses concern


you "seem" offended that the subject matter was even raised


I think "inspections" are not about fairness. They are about countries with power wanting to keep it and checking in on those lesser countries that are worrying them.

To suggest that this is some sort of "right thing to do" situation is quite a naive appraoch to me.

So I said "No, we shouldn't, that would be daft". We would just be giving away important military knowledge that could otherwise be airtight. No country does that voluntarily. Their willness to share is based directly on their military power and the ability of other countries to cripple them with politcal pressures.

I think my first post says it all.

I'm going to vote #11: spinal tap- just to get this over with.

[Busyman]

Are UK plants inspected?

India?

Pakistan?

China?
Can anyone answer this?

[Cheese]

Can anyone answer this?

We'll show you ours if you show us yours.

[Strangelove]

IAEA does inspect UK Nuclear Plants, although they cannot inspect Military Nuclear Facilities.

France, Pakistan, India and China also allow the inspections... in fact France has requested (as part of the EU) inspections of Sellafield (UK) and one of its own plants recently, as part of an EU Nuclear safety drive..

I think thats all the poll is asking for, as the US will not even allow this...


Pakistan is also quite open that it will give Nuclear Technology to anyone that has the cash.... but they are "Friendly" to the US "War on Terror", and so do not get any crap thrown their way.

[DanB]

]Can anyone answer this?


IAEA does inspect UK Nuclear Plants, although they cannot inspect Military Nuclear Facilities.

France, Pakistan, India and China also allow the inspections... in fact France has requested (as part of the EU) inspections of Sellafield (UK) and one of its own plants recently, as part of an EU Nuclear safety drive..

I think thats all the poll is asking for, as the US will not even allow this...


Pakistan is also quite open that it will give Nuclear Technology to anyone that has the cash.... but they are "Friendly" to the US "War on Terror", and so do not get any crap thrown their way.


There you go. yes they do

[Busyman]

IAEA does inspect UK Nuclear Plants, although they cannot inspect Military Nuclear Facilities.

France, Pakistan, India and China also allow the inspections... in fact France has requested (as part of the EU) inspections of Sellafield (UK) and one of its own plants recently, as part of an EU Nuclear safety drive..

I think thats all the poll is asking for, as the US will not even allow this...


Pakistan is also quite open that it will give Nuclear Technology to anyone that has the cash.... but they are "Friendly" to the US "War on Terror", and so do not get any crap thrown their way.
Sources please. Thanks.

[Cheese]

Sources please. Thanks.


Additional Protocols extend IAEA safeguards.
On 30 April, the Additional Protocol to the safeguards agreements with 15 European Union countries entered into force. The countries were Britain, France and the 13 non-nuclear-weapon states of the EU - all had signed the Protocols in 1998. Seven of the ten countries joining the EU on 1 May already have Additional Protocols in force. This brings to 56 (+ Taiwan) the total of countries adopting it, and giving the IAEA inspection teams enhanced access to counter nuclear proliferation. There are 71 countries with significant nuclear activities, and 25 of these have yet to bring into force the Additional Protocol, though many are in process.
IAEA 30/4/04, ASNO.

Source (http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/2004/wd_may07.htm)

Anything else we can do for you?

[Cheese]

Here's the IAEA's site, quite interesting read.

http://www.iaea.org/index.html

[hobbes]

IAEA does inspect UK Nuclear Plants, although they cannot inspect Military Nuclear Facilities.

France, Pakistan, India and China also allow the inspections... in fact France has requested (as part of the EU) inspections of Sellafield (UK) and one of its own plants recently, as part of an EU Nuclear safety drive..

I think thats all the poll is asking for, as the US will not even allow this...


Pakistan is also quite open that it will give Nuclear Technology to anyone that has the cash.... but they are "Friendly" to the US "War on Terror", and so do not get any crap thrown their way.


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.

[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. :D

[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. (http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm)


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.