Jump to content

Talk:Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.70.186.150 (talk) at 19:16, 28 December 2015 (→"Diverting nuclear energy": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

UK "independent" deterrent

The UK plans to upgrade its "independent" Trident system, considerably increasing its capacity and number of warheads. This stands to be a flagrant violation of the NPT, and this aspect should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.192.137 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't believe the UK has any such plan. Second, I suggest you read Article VI of the NPT and explain this would be a violation of the NPT if it were true. NPguy (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK have been looking into upgrading Trident. This is common knowledge and can be found quite easy if you use Google. There's even a page on Wikipedia about it. Whether or not they will be upgrading the capacity I'm not so sure on though. 94.196.219.163 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no UK plan to increase its number of warheads. NPguy (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NPT Participation.svg

It seems hard to see the difference in the shade of green for smaller countries, and somehow gives a impression that that whole world except for Israel and India is nuclear-free. The similar color also makes it appear that whether or not the country is succeeding in the treaty is not important, as if it was not a sincere or solid treaty, but just some random label to feel good about.

I see absolutely no reason why we should not change the light green into another color such as yellow (Taiwan can be changed into pink or light green). 173.183.69.134 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the distinction between accession and ratification is insignificant. There are three main categories: nuclear-weapon states party to the NPT (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China); non-nuclear-weapon states party to the NPT, and non-parties to the NPT (India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea). I'm not sure how to address Taiwan, which is recognized as a state only by a small number of countries. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space

Question: is the subject of weapons or nuclear material in space commented on at all by the treaty? Dlamblin (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Outer Space Treaty predates the NPT and bars nuclear weapons in space. NPguy (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-signers beyond India, Israel, and Pakistan

One of the things that I think most discussions of the NPT today obscure is that the current state of things — where there are three total non-signatories — is a fairly recent one. France and China did not sign until 1992 (and each have extremely problematic histories of proliferation, France with Israel, China with Pakistan). Many other countries also did not sign until after the Cold War ended.

I feel this article (like many) somewhat obscures this. You have to read between the lines to get that the NPT did not in fact have all five nuclear weapon states acceding to it until really quite recently. This focus on the three current non-signatories makes it seem (to me, anyway), like the NPT is an obvious thing every state would want to sign unless they happened to be known to have unaccepted nuclear programs. It makes it implicitly look like the current state of things fell into place rapidly in the 1960s, which is not the case.

It would be great if the history section could discuss, for example, why France and China refused to sign until really recently (and why they changed their minds). Other late signatories include Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa.

I write this not as a partisan one way or the other (I admit: I think the NPT was a good idea, even if implementation hasn't been perfect), but as someone who is pretty well versed in nuclear history but was surprised to find how late the above states joined the NPT, because the standard narrative is "only three states never signed," which, while technically true, should be better stated as "three states never signed, but a lot of other states didn't sign until after the Cold War ended". Which has a very different feel to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added text on the chronology of accessions in the 1990s and 2000s. I don't have references handy on the late signers' reasons for not signing earlier; please add what you have. --JWB (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism by Benjamin Sovacool

The section on criticism of the NPT seems to rely heavily on a single source - a book on nuclear energy by Benjamin Sovacool. As far as I can tell he is basically an advocate of renewable energy over nuclear power - an opinion for which I do not fault him - but not (as far as I can tell) particularly knowledgeable about nuclear proliferation issues except as a basis for criticizing nuclear power. Assuming he's being cited correctly, he makes some rather silly claims about terrorist use of uranium mines. I think the section (if it is needed at all) needs better, more representative sources and more balance.

There is also an undue focus on disarmament - the third and least developed element of the NPT - compared to the central provisions on nonproliferation. Peaceful uses of nuclear energy are ignored. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article spends much time saying how good the NPT is. But there has been a lot of criticism of the NPT, from many different authors, in many different reliable sources, and this article must reflect that to be neutral. Putting up a POV tag after a few short paragraphs of criticism have been added is not appropriate, and so I am removing it. Removing a sourced claim that you personally don’t agree with (see [1]) is also not appropriate, so I am adding it back. Also, trimming the lead so that just one sentence of criticism is left at the end, is not appropriate, so I am restoring the last paragraph. Johnfos (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly correct. Just look at this excerpt:

"Criticism and responses[edit] This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. (February 2012)

Over the years the NPT has come to be seen by many Third World states as “a conspiracy of the nuclear 'haves' to keep the nuclear ‘have-nots’ in their place”.[105]"

The mere statement of what is in fact the "elephant in the room" elicits a complaint from "on high" that what the "authorities" regard as NPOV may be thereby compromised.

Let's get real with articles like this and tell it as it is. ---Dagme (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a lot in the article that talks about how good the treaty is. I see a dry factual description. NPguy (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I started editing here, this article left me with the impression that the NPT consisted of Pillars and Articles which were part of some grand design. But there are other competing perspectives which are presented in the literature, and I have introduced two of these: the NPT as a “bargain”, and a “conspiracy of ‘haves’ over the ‘have nots’.” Including all of these competing perspectives, and not just the one that makes the NPT look good, makes the article neutral. But my efforts have been thwarted at every turn by an editor who is simply removing or tagging reliably sourced material, from several authors, that he personally doesn’t agree with or approve of. So I am restoring my changes. Johnfos (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles and pillars is a neural presentation. The "bargain" concept is an interpretation - usually oversimplified as nonproliferation in exchange for disarmament (NWS vs. NNWS) or nonproliferation in exchange for the right to peaceful use (haves vs. have nots). I have no problem with presenting the concept as long as it is presented in a more complete way - including the idea of bargain (between NNWS) of nonproliferation for nonproliferation, or all of the above. The conspiracy of "haves" against "have nots" is at best a caricature, based more on misunderstanding of what the treaty could accomplish.
But none of this discussion addresses the edits that were recently reverted. The clause "the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads between them and have shown a reluctance to disarm further" is wrong in several ways - both the numbers and the supposed reluctance. The sentence "Several high-ranking officials within the United Nations have said that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons" also seems off. It seems like either an oversimplification or a misunderstanding of what these former officials said. This is why I asked the question about the author, who does not seem to be an expert on this topic.
How about an explanation for deleting the reference to the NSG and the Additional Protocol? NPguy (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on the pillars, articles, and review conferences is a narrow bureaucratic perspective on the NPT. But academics and some other commentators have other perspectives to offer and it is these that need to be incorporated into the article to make it neutral.
As to whether any particular author is an expert or not, that is not for us to judge. As long as the source is reliable, as World Scientific is, then we can use that information. If the information somehow seems questionable, then there should be other sources that provide clarification, and these can be referenced in the usual way. It is not up to us to censor or remove sourced information that we don’t personally agree with. Johnfos (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my latest revert is that I didn't see any response here to the substance of my questions. I don't have the book in question and couldn't validate the claims attributed to the author. It might help to provide excerpts upon which the cited claims were based. This might help to rephrase them in a more accurate way or to assess the reliability of the source. If the claims are accurate renditions of the author's claims, it casts doubt on his reliability on this topic. NPguy (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPGuy, please be careful not to remove content supported by WP:reliable sources. It seems to me your interpretations might be considered WP:original research.We are supposed to keep a NPOV regardless of our opinions. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion above, I question whether this is indeed a "reliable" source. At a minimum, I think proponents of this source should produce excerpts that provide context for the cited claims to enable an assessment of whether they (1) accurately reflect the author's statements and (2) appear reliable in context. I will mark these claims as dubious for now. NPguy (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having read this page, and having had the displeasure of coming across Benjamin Sovacool gaining a soap box on wiki before, which has apparently not only resulted in me, but clearly other editors too, spending a considerable amount of time balancing his published opinions and wild claims. I think it is about time we, at the very least, have a discussion on Sovacool in the Reliable Sources board, as he is pretty WP:FRINGE on every single nuclear related topic.
Boundarylayer (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I am very pleased to hear you interested in trying DR and encourage you to try the noticeboard route. However, if you try to talk "fringe" at the RS board you probably won't get far and your suggesting that venue make me wonder if you still haven't really studied WP:RS very carefully. Instead, to talk "fringe" try the board that focuses on FRINGE claims, WP:FTN. You should leave a link or diff to that discussion on the talk pages for all the articles where the same material has been included/debated/discussed so that all interested parties are aware regardless of their viewpoint. Doing that is encouraged and is explicitly not canvassing. Bear in mind the result doesn't always go the way you want.... but consensus and DR mean someone who is disappointed has to live with the resulting consensus, whatever it turns out to be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPguy, let me know which sections of the book you think are making silly arguments, and I can both check the book to see if it's being cited properly and also go back to the original sources and tell you what they are. Boundarylayer I don't think anybody has ever called me wild before, but, yes, as someone who has been studying energy security for almost a decade with multiple research grants, I do believe I am a credible source, probably more so than the authors you usually read (most websites are not peer-reviewed). I wouldn't consider publishing 200+ peer-reviewed articles on energy topics and 14 books a "fringe" source. Also, almost every single one of my publications on nuclear energy has been peer-reviewed, and the book you keep slamming has had unanimously positive reviews by academics writing in yet more peer-reviewed journals. That said, I am still happy to share the original data for any and all of the claims made in my book. Let me know if you have any specific questions, and let's engage this matter constructively.Bksovacool (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claims that appear to be based on Benjamin Sovakool's book are:

  • Critics argue that the NPT cannot stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons or the motivation to acquire them. They express disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads in their combined stockpile and have shown a reluctance to disarm further. Comment: note the reference to unnamed "critics."
  • Several high-ranking officials within the United Nations have said that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons. Comment: again cites unnamed sources. The claim as written (to focus on nuclear reactors rather than the nuclear fuel cycle) seems dubious.
  • There has been disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads between them and have shown a reluctance to disarm further. Comment: The figure 22,000 is inflated/outdated.
  • A "number of high-ranking officials, even within the United Nations, have argued that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons". Comment: needless repetition.
  • A 2009 United Nations report said that: The revival of interest in nuclear power could result in the worldwide dissemination of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies, which present obvious risks of proliferation as these technologies can produce fissile materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons. Comment: This is somewhat more plausible, but I suspect it is a selective and unrepresentative quote. It would be better to have a citation for the actual report. Also, was it the UN or the IAEA? They are independent organizations.
  • Moreover, the NPT says nothing about aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle “such as uranium mines and mills, from which terrorists could easily acquire fissile material”. Comment: fissile material cannot be obtained from uranium mines or mills.
  • Dozens of nations remain potential "weak links" in the global defense against nuclear terrorism and tacitly ignore UN mandates on controls over fissile material at uranium mines. Niger, a major uranium exporter, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the source of uranium for the first atomic bomb, are "among the states falling short in complying with UN Security Council Resolution 1540". Comment: raw or concentrated uranium ore are not the highest priority concerns for nuclear terrorism. They are a concern, but near the bottom of the list.
  • According to critics, those states which possess nuclear weapons, but are not authorized to do so under the NPT, have not paid a significant price for their pursuit of weapons capabilities. Also, the NPT has been explicitly weakened by a number of bilateral deals made by NPT signatories, notably the United States. Comment: Again a reference to unnamed critics. It would be better to quote articulate critics than a vague generalization. Note also the non-specific reference to "a number of bilateral deals," with none explicitly named.

In summary, this appears to be a litany of vague, general, and even careless criticisms. NPguy (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of intent.

I found the text under the heading Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty#Second pillar: disarmament surprisingly biased. It starts as if is about to present one view (of several), but in the middle in some way changes to describing this point of view as the unambiguous truth. The second and the beginning of the third paragraph now runs thus:

The wording of the NPT's Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament, saying, "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."<ref>[http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf]</ref> Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0502/doc13.htm |title=U.S. Compliance With Article VI of the NPT |publisher=Acronym.org.uk |date= |accessdate=2010-11-25}}</ref> The International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued 8 July 1996, went beyond the text of Article VI in its unanimous conclusion that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."<ref>[http://www.lcnp.org/wcourt/opinion.htm]</ref>
Some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, have interpreted Article VI's language as being anything but vague. ...

I checked the history, and found that the text was changed from a more neutral "Some think that... on the other hand, others think that..." kind of presentation here, in the single non-logged in edit ever from that IP. The edit was partially an improvement, since the clearly relevant interpretation of the second pillar obligations by the International Court of Justice was added to this section. However, it was added in the paragraph which otherwise presented a different point of view; it was presented as a clear extension of the true meaning of the treaty text (without sourcing this interpretation); and "On the other hand" was removed from the next paragraph, making the point of view described there to appear more as a fringe opinion than as the other opinion on equal footing with the first one.

My intention is to restore what I consider as a more neutral point of view, thus:

  1. I revert the aforementioned edit.
  2. I do add the reference to the ICJ decision, but in the "On the other hand" paragraph, after the text about "some countries", and introduced by a "Likewise, ". The phrase "went beyond the text of Article VI in its unanimous conclusion that" will be reformulated, e.g. as "interprets the text of Article VI as implying that".
  3. I'm going to try to fix and wikify the references to the ICJ. In addition,
  4. I plan to fix the "broken quotation" of the ICJ under the Criticism and response heading.


My main reason for not doing this directly is this: I see from the history and from this discussion page that the article has been subject to some debate and editing in various direction, which have lead to its present state. Mostly, the editing and discussion concerned the criticism section. Thus, although at least parts of the article were scrutinised by some of you, the changes by the IP have been left for nearly a year. If this is not an oversight, but rather because some of you approve of the present description,you should have the chance to explain why. In other words, I do not wish to risk inadvertently to start an edit war or infringe on a reached consensus.

Moreover, my redisposition would remove the claim that ICJ "went beyond the text" completely. Now, I read through the ICJ text provided by the link, and IMHO the intention of the court was exactly the opposite. In fact, they "turn down" some other demands, like declaring the use or threat of using nuclear weapons as against the international law, with the argument that the court only may pronounce their decision based on existing international law, which in turn isthe result either of treaty obligations or of an established world wide consensus; neither of which they find completely prohibits the use or threat of using nuclear powers. On the other hand, they argue that the treaty obligations undertaken by the nuclear powers, to negotiate a nuclear disarmament "in good faith", does include the obligation to bring the negotiatins to a conclusion. On some of the other points, there were dissenting opinions; but here they were unanimous in their interpretation of what the signatory nuclear powers actually have agreed to.

On the other hand, there is no obligation for everybody else to agree with the ICJ. I could well imagine that there are others than the anonymous IP who think that the ICJ (contrary to their own opinion) went beyond the text in their interpretation. If indeed e.g. some government representatives or academics have taken this stand, and it is possible to confirm this from a reliable source, then it would be good to include this re-interpretation of the ICJ advisory decision immediately after the quotation.

IMHO, all this really is suitable in the second pillar section, since it neither focuses on criticism of the agreement itself, nor on the compliance, but rather discusses the content of the "second pillar", and different opinions of what tme meaning of the text is. The article now treats the ICJ advisory decision in two places; but this is the more important of them, if we should choose to retain quotations in just one place. JoergenB (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this approach. But I would like to see a slight note of skepticism on the ICJ opinion on the obligation to disarm, particularly in the context where states outside the NPT have nuclear weapons and some states party to the NPT have unresolved violations of their nonproliferation obligations. The Article VI disarmament obligations apply to all NPT parties, but NPT parties alone cannot achieve nuclear disarmament. I think this is the view of the NPT NWS, but they tend not to emphasize this point in public. But I did a quick web search and didn't find any analysis along these lines. NPguy (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the existence of NWS's apart from treaty parties is a factual complication; more so to-day than in 1996, though. At the time of the ICJ decision, there was no "recognised" nuclear power outside the treaty parties (although I was and am fairly sure that Israel had nukes then, and that at least the US government was fully aware of this). The situation to-day is rather different. (However, as far as I recall, India "threatened" the powers with the possibility that it would develop its own atomic weapon system, if the established nuclear powers did not reach any agreement on when and how their disarmament should start.)
This is neither here or there, of course. If you mean that we should add notes on how the principally interested parties reacted to the ICJ decision, if we find it, I agree with you. I'm sure we also are in agreement that our own opinions are not very important for the article.
I've just noted, that we do have an article about this decision, namely, International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons; it does contain a section on the UK reaction to the decision, but (as far as a quick glance showed me) on no others. In the UK response, as quoted in our article, they seem not to have questioned the decision, but rather to have interpreted it as having no impact on the further development of their single nuclear weapons system:
Renewal of the Trident system is fully consistent with our international obligations, including those on disarmament. ...
They actually refer to "obligations... on disarmament"; it would be rather interesting to know if the US ever has acknowledged an "obligation on disarmament", in those or similar words. I'll link to that article; but I refuse to use the full article title in the text:-).
So, I'll make a change according to the outline, hope that this improves the article somewhat, and expect that it will be further improved when further sources are found. JoergenB (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

npt-tv.net

I'd like to add the link to the external link list of the article on the NPT, since it provides a whole lot of information on current events and progress at the npt-conferences. I guess that once unblocked, the site can be used to enhance the article and be used as a reference-source. I can't figure out what "repeated spam by IPs and SPAs" actualy means. However, I don't see any reason why it should stay blocked. Jojona (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the State of Palestine sign the treaty?

Should it be included in the article that it hasn't signed the treaty? [Soffredo] 21:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any sources which clarify this. If we can find sources which state that they are eligible to sign the treaty, then I agree that they should be added. But in the absence of such sources, I don't think they should be listed. Otherwise we get into the issue of whether we should list the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Taiwan, etc. TDL (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The four states listed as non-parties are members of the UN, as are all NPT Parties other than the Holy See. If we start adding List of states with limited recognition where will it end? NPguy (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, the State of Palestine is a UN observer like Vatican City, which has signed the treaty. [Soffredo] 11:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My initial guess is that you are right Soffredo and that Palestine could join now. This is a complicated political area however and I prefer to see the position of the UN first; in other words: let's wait until Palestine signs/accedes to/ratifies one treaty open to "all states" of which the UN secretary-general is the depostary; otherwise our interpretation of the meaning of its non-member status is synthesis... L.tak (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The complicating factor is that the depositary of the NPT isn't the UN, it is the USA, UK and Russia. So it isn't clear that what the UNSG decides must be followed by these states. Given that the USA and UK still don't recognize Palestine, they could refuse to allow them to accede vie them. Could Palestine accede via Russia, who does recognizes them? Perhaps, but the USA and UK could still refuse to acknowledge this (like they did when Ukraine and Belarus acceded to treaties via Russia before they became independent from the USSR). I think it really comes down to whether they are recognized by the depositaries. Presumably Kosovo has just as much of a chance to accede because they are also recognized by 2/3. TDL (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC) .[reply]
TDL, you are right; I was under the impression the UN was the depositary, but since that's not the case, it boils down to what the US/UK/RU will be doing indeed! L.tak (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Parties Present

Side bar says 189 parties are present, but introduction says 190 are present, not sure if mistake or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.129.29 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea joined, but later withdrew. I moved some stuff in the lead around to help clarify this. TDL (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put that back because it fit better where it was. Note that there is some ambiguity about North Korea's current status. The article should probably reflect this. NPguy (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware that there is ambiguity over North Korea's status. This article already covers this in detail at Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#North_Korea. This is precisely why my wording was chosen very carefully: "A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty, though North Korea, which acceded to the NPT in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal in 2003." This wording doesn't take a position on whether North Korea is still a party or not, leaving that complicated discussion until later in the article.
The wording you reverted to is extremely misleading as it completely ignores the ambiguity. The statement "A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty" without any sort of qualification implies that there are are still 190 parties, which of course is up for debate. If we are going to give the number 190, we must explain where that number comes from (ie that it includes North Korea) and present the alternative viewpoint that North Korea is no longer a party (ie that there are arguably only 189 parties). Relegating that viewpoint to several paragraphs later is confusing (as evidence by this thread), misleading and not NPOV.
If you don't like my wording perhaps you could propose some alternative that addresses the legitimate issues raised rather than just reverting? TDL (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ribbon International

The Ribbon International was invited by the United Nations exhibit committee, after several meetings, the committee requested an exhibit of Ribbons for the Conference being held in Geneva, Switzerland for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in 1990. (Susan Macafee (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Macafee (talk • contribs)

Hi, please provide a source for this on the talk page. It is my belief that this does not belong on this page, although if others disagree I would be happy to be shown to be wrong. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is true, an invitation by a UN exhibit committee does not make this noteworthy. NPguy (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense on fissile materials and uranium mines

"“such as uranium mines and mills, from which terrorists could easily acquire fissile material”.[5] Dozens of nations remain potential "weak links" in the global defense against nuclear terrorism and tacitly ignore UN mandates on controls over fissile material at uranium mines. Niger, a major uranium exporter, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the source of uranium for the first atomic bomb, are "among the states falling short in complying with UN Security Council Resolution 1540"

Uranium mines and mills produce raw, natural uranium ore or oxide. Unenriched uranium ore or oxide _is not fissile material_. Look it up: fissile material. The idea that terrorists could get fissile material from mines/mills, much less "easily," is completely scientific incorrect, and goes against every other source you can find regarding the proliferation dangers of nuclear weapons.

To turn uranium ore/oxide into fissile material you have to either enrich it or put it into a nuclear reactor to turn it into plutonium, which then has to be chemically extracted from the spent nuclear fuel. Neither are "easy" tasks. There is an obvious reason that the NPT regulates enrichment technology and reactor technology and not uranium mines.

One can say that the NPT ought to regulate raw uranium resources, because that is a necessary prerequisite for a state developing nuclear weapons. But to imply that terrorists can acquire nuclear weapons because of the lack of regulation of uranium mines is ridiculous.

The book cited here is obviously pretty unreliable if this is what the guy actually thinks. --108.35.16.9 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wording about enforcement

Comes 117.217.92.29 to add the italicized wording to the paragraph on Article VI:

Article VI: The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international controland could not stop any agreed assistance until the country is found to be wrong.

I am not an expert on the treaty, nor do I have a copy handy, and so do not complain about the substance of the addition, if it is indeed correct in what it seems to say. There is a missing space at the beginning of the addition, and the addition is tortuously worded. To have the proper sense, the sentence it was added to probably would have to be reworked. The sense of the "and" is wrong, and probably should have been "but" (maybe). It leaves unanswered the questions "What assistance?" and "Which country?". If this is to be left in the paragraph, it needs more work than the editor was willing to give. Finally, it sounds like it is trying to make some veiled, unstated political point. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, but NPT?

Could someone clarify what this expression means? The options "nuclear weapons state", "nuclear weapon free state" and "nuclear sharing" seems to cover all possible options. What does the "neither" in "neither, but NPT" refer to? How can a NPT signatory both have, and not have nuclear weapons? Sapiocrat (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gather it is meant to refer to states that don't have nuclear weapons, but also have not declared themselves nuclear-weapon-free. But isn't being a signatory to the NPT effectively the latter? Sapiocrat (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is further noteworthy that the Nuclear-weapon-free zone page uses the term "NPT only", which I find to be less ambiguous. The Nuclear sharing page however uses the same expression as on this page. Sapiocrat (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A better description would be "other NPT parties. A bigger problem is that the map uses the term "nuclear weapons states" to refer to all states that possess nuclear weapons. Under the NPT, the term "nuclear-weapon state" applies only to states that conducted nuclear tests before 1967. Other states may possess nuclear weapons, but they are not recognized by the NPT as "nuclear-weapon states." The map should probably be redone with a fifth category of NPT non-parties, in order to distinguish those states. The final line would then be "other NPT parties." Without those changes, this map is unsuited to this article and should be deleted. NPguy (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Diverting nuclear energy"

According to the article history, the phrase "diverting nuclear energy" has been changed and reverted multiple times. The reason is probably obvious: people with partial knowledge about the topic realize that it's not nuclear "energy" (i.e. the electricity and heat), but nuclear materials like uranium, and some dual-use technology like maraging steel, that must not be diverted. However, people who have done more research know that "energy" is the wording that actually appears in the English text of the treaty.

Since "energy" is verbatim but unintuitive, I'm going to add a [sic] behind it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons&oldid=697171412"