Talk:Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

India and Pakistan Correct[edit]

India and Pakistan *were not* and *are not nuclear weapons states*. A nuclear weapons state is defined in the context of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty as only the 5 permanent member of the security council, Russia, USA, UK, France, China. This is a common misconception for people not familiar with this subject. Nuclear weapons state is not equal to a state having nuclear weapons.

India and Pakistan[edit]

This article erroneously reported that India and Pakistan were not nuclear weapons states at the time of the 1996 signing of the CTBT. In fact, India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 ( and Pakistan reached the ability to produce a nuclear weapon in 1987 according to FAS (FAS). --Subversive 15:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This page has clearly been ripped from

That page is copyrighted - even if it does ask people to reproduce the material. How can we release copyrighted work under the GFDL?

Tompagenet 17:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually the text originates from Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which allows copying but requires a source acknowledgement. Rmhermen 14:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
We should italicize or otherwise differentiate the nations that have ratified from those that haven't, in the sidebar. Nathan256 29 June 2005 02:42 (UTC)

Unlikely to be ratified?[edit]

It also pays no mention to the fact that it hasn't been ratified, nor is likely to be anytime soon, since many of the 44 required ratifications are not going to happen.

    That sounds like a political statement from a neocon to me.
In this wording, yes. The statement that ratification is unlikely in the near future, however, is quite neutral and realistic given the IND<>PAK and USA<>DPRK deadlocks, in addition to the U.S. Senate's rejection. --QEDquid 10:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Please sign your comments.

---I don't think this article should make political statements - keep in factual. I suggest that the text speak for itself - it shows the countries that have ratified and those who have yet to ratify. TheodoreB 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)TheodoreB


I don't think the introduction to this article is very clear. It says that it needs to be ratified by 11 more countries, and then in the sidebar it says it needs to be ratified by 44 more countries. Which is correct? Atinoda 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the sidebar says 44 total, and the text says 11 more (3 to sign, 8 to ratify). I've re-written this a bit, let me know if it is clearer now. --QEDquid 10:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


The correct full name of the treaty appears to be "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty" [1]. In the article the name is given as "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". But neither of these are the article name, or indeed redirect here.

I propose the article be moved to "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". Any objections? Rwendland 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bold editorial statements[edit]

Whoever was responsible for the bold (typeface) editorial questions in the main text, knock it off. That discussion goes on this page, not the article. Moonsword 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Why is this treaty not being enforced? Even if the US doesn't sign, surely there's value in enforcing it? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]comment added by (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Legally, it can't come into force until the 44 Annex 2 states have ratified it. -- (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested map[edit]

A map would be useful here to show which states are signatories and which states have ratified this treaty. Basically, a wikified version of this map. Thanks to anyone who can help. --Allstar86 (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Stuck with the existing map and updated legend. --Allstar86 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


As you can see here, the correct name is "comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty", with online one hyphen between "test" an "ban". I don't know why, but the organization uses two hyphens (like in the article's title). -- (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an error in the document you linked to. There should be a hyphen between "nuclear" and "test" as well, see here (pdf of the Treaty). --Richardrj talk email 14:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Annex 2[edit]

What is Annex 2? The article is not clear.

Annex 2 of the CTBT is the list of 44 countries who must ratify before the treaty can enter into force. NPguy (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Safeguards[edit]

Should there be a section including the United States Six Safeguards? Cmlmcmillan (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can say what they are or provide or link to them, then we can discuss. --Richardrj talk email 09:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) If you do a search for safeguards within the article, it should pop up under the Stockpile Stewardship heading. Another source for these same safeguards is here: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards) Cmlmcmillan (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, so if I'm understanding those links, what we're talking about here are a set of preconditions for US ratification that were stated by Clinton. So yes, that's interesting and relevant but it can go in the section that is already in the article headed US ratification of the CTBT. It would also be important to know if these safeguards are still a precondition today under Obama or if they are no longer relevant. --Richardrj talk email 05:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Safeguards were put in place to satisfy various factions in the Senate in an effort to get the CTBT ratified in 1999 (obviously it wasn't enough). However, because the U.S. is still operating under the signing of the treaty (i.e. no testing) the Safeguards have been put into use with such programs such as Stockpile Stewardship, and our national labs such as those in Livermore,CA, Sandia, NM, or Los Alamos, NM, or the Nevada Test Site (i.e. Area 51) More info can be found on this at CQ Researcher's Nuclear Disarmament: Will President Obama's efforts make the U.S. Safer?.
Probably going under the same heading, the page could use more intact, in-depth arguments made for and against the ratification of the CTBT such as those found in Chapter 9 of America's Strategic Posture: The Final Report of the Congressional Commission of the Strategic Posture of the United States (published 2009). What do you think? Cmlmcmillan (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No comment on[edit]

The health concerns that scientists and media were raising at the time of the ban?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)