Talk:Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)