It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the latest dead accord

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Russia is testing the S500 and has begun fielding the S400. China has an unknown missile and laser system. Haven't paid a lot of attention to the UK systems since we wouldn't have to get through them.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
So I read the OP and I have no idea how the Non Proliferation Treaty is dead. Out side of Iran no longer getting the bomb and thus the Saudis not seeing the need get, thus Egypt not needing to get etc. How exactly is it dead?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
a reply to: buster2010

I suppose you fancy yourself some sort of expert


Well Israel is a wealthy nation so let them pay for what they want instead of letting the American taxpayer foot the bill. Also it is well known that Israel doesn't allow inspections.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Let me answer your question with a question. How is it alive/effective? There is no enforcement, and now, apparently, no consequence for nuclear development.

The U.S. has drawn lines in the sand, so to speak, all for naught.

We have had for decades an almost pre-proliferation via NATO distribution of warheads in different NATO countries. Including Turkey, of all places.

Assuming the intent to develop nuclear arms by Iran is valid, then surely you would agree that won't sit well with Iran's neighbors. That they, in turn, will match that development and , in turn, use the same arguments/rational that Iran used.

Now the only barriers to that scenario lies in Congress and with Israel.

I am so convinced of this, that arguments citing otherwise strikes as spin...justification and double-speak.

The rate of proliferation will increase.


edit on 16-7-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I checked for 'tests' of these systems-apparently even India has tested one- and there's plenty covering test firings. I cannot, however, see any actual successful intercepts of ICBMs.

A couple of claims of Russia shooting down U.S. missiles fired from a NATO base in Spain directed to Damascus, I will believe that one five seconds after hell freezes over...


Have successful intercepts occurred? It doesn't make sense to deploy if they aren't sure the damn things do what is advertised.

The U.S. has hit satellites from ship fired ABMs , even an asteroid with two missiles- the hits visible to the naked eye in Hawaii.

I have heard of no similar achievements by other countries. Am I missing something? er...even more?


edit on 16-7-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

They don't advertise their tests. Unlike the US that announces successful or failed tests, most countries don't even admit the tests happened most of the time.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MrSpad

Let me answer your question with a question. How is it alive/effective? There is no enforcement, and now, apparently, no consequence for nuclear development.

The U.S. has drawn lines in the sand, so to speak, all for naught.

We have had for decades an almost pre-proliferation via NATO distribution of warheads in different NATO countries. Including Turkey, of all places.

Assuming the intent to develop nuclear arms by Iran is valid, then surely you would agree that won't sit well with Iran's neighbors. That they, in turn, will match that development and , in turn, use the same arguments/rational that Iran used.

Now the only barriers to that scenario lies in Congress and with Israel.

I am so convinced of this, that arguments citing otherwise strikes as spin...justification and double-speak.

The rate of proliferation will increase.



The NATO nuclear sharing is to prevent other European States from going nuclear in Particular at the time West Germany. If the US ended that program you would have multiple new nuclear powers in Europe over night.

And as for Iran it was placed under sanctions until it had no choice but, go to the table and give them up. Also the fact the US has been stockpiling bunker busting bombs may have helped. How Iran being forced to give up nukes encourages others to try and get them makes zero logical sense.

If no agreement had been made and Iran was bombed to try and slow the program down you would be rolling the dice on how long if at all you delayed them. And once they had one then the region would explode with nuclear powers, Pakistan would sell to the Saudi's and Egypt and stuff would get real.

Right now with the nuclear threat from Iran gone, the Arab states are not going to risk international sanctions on getting a nuke they do not need. As is we are unlikely to see any new nuclear power any time in the next few decades.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: nwtrucker

Russia must have some kind of ABM system right? I mean the US can't be the only country with both, since we know the US, Russia, UK, France, Germany, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea plus probably countless others have nukes and would have a way to protect themselves from the same.


The US and the USSR were both allowed an ABM system. Russia (The USSR at the time) has one deployed around Moscow and the US never deployed one. When the US withdrew from the accords under Bush our ABM system was developed an deployed.
As much as Russia likes to bitch about our ABM system they certainly don't mind having one of there own.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   
The first step in fixing a problem is to identify it. The reality is that NPT cannot be assured. The hard part is more in the knowledge than with the process. The grey zone is building as well with DU shells, mini nukes and other chemical mixes opening up.

One flag in this new frontier is in developing the technology to detect radiation.

The troubles with the Ozone layer are still ongoing with radiation resistance an increasingly beneficial genetic trait. There are also advantages with improved radiation resistance for any space faring adventures. Then there are also the disadvantages, if we go too far it will make Earth look like Mars.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

I think the ME "solution" is not going to be accepted by those countries who are neighbors to Iran. I still think we will see Saudi Arabia obtain (if they have not already) nukes.

I still think Iran is going to continue its nuclear weapons program. The restrictions they have placed on their facilities that are a part of their "civilian" program, namely some of their military installations, is a red flag. The fact Iran is also restricting access to their nuclear scientists, which is a violation of the IAEA protocols, is also an issue.

Iran still has not provided answers to several question the UN IAEA has asked regarding triggers as well as computer programs designed to calculate nuke yields / explosions. They have continued to refuse access to their military site where "supposed" explosion testing was being done (not the nuke but the trigger).

Iran had a nuclear weapon program up until 2003 when they supposedly stopped. I don't think they stopped and the revelation a few years back about their hidden military site containing enrichment facilities should have been a red flag. The only reason Iran disclosed that site is because it was exposed by other countries intelligence agencies. Had it not been discovered I doubt Iran ever would have disclosed it.

As for the NPT I have seen people make this argument about the deployment of US nukes in foreign countries and it somehow being a violation, which it is not since its still under Us control and command.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Our key difference in views is you see the nuclear threat as gone. I see as that threat as enhanced.

Apparently, others do as well. The protests of this being a bad agreement go from all over the political spectrum in the U.S., including some democrats, to Israel.

I recall in the sixties, that even Canada had U.S. nukes located at various military sites, also under U.S. control, but got rid of them just before the NPT was implemented.

As far as your point that Europe would already be "nuked up" if the U.S. hadn't deployed their nukes in various sites may be accurate. However, I've never seen any public demand, especially by Germany, by European countries stating they would develop nukes without the U.S. deployment.

Although as proliferation has continued. even with the NPT, cough, cough, they would these days have no choice but to develop nukes, if for no other reason than to balance the development of nukes in India and Pakistan.

Therefore, your own statement regarding European nuclear development is proof of the failure of the NPT.

I see the Iran agreement as a legacy building act by Obama, you see it as an actual, valid agreement that deters Iran from nuclear weapons development.

Now they have extra money and time to ensure a fait accompli development at which point Iran becomes another "Oh well, nothing we can do about it now" mentality.

Now it all rides in Israel's hands. Thank a lot Obama.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'd point out comparing cold war era ABM systems to today's versions of ABM systems is similar in name only.

The U.S. has successfully hit in flight ICBM's-albeit not one for one hits, even those were over a decade past- and I have seen no public evidence that any other country has done the same or even approached that level of effectiveness. Couple that with the multi-layered system, of which the full capability isn't known publically, and without evidence that shows otherwise, the U.S. has the only system that can even approach anything called an actual ABM system.

Even the U.S. system is limited to small or single weapon attacks.

Which brings the subject back to the original point. That system would be ideal for a very small nation like Israel with, at least for the short term, only required to stop small or single weapon attacks.

Offering that system to Israel may be sufficient to induce an agreement not to act pre-emptively against Iran.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The GBI system could stop a single missile if they fired every interceptor in its path at it.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Are these systems actually deployed, in-service systems?

I've seen outbound single ICBM flights out of Vandenberg AFB ten, fifteen years back...from as far as Arizona. At night they have a freaky white with a blue tint exhaust as it headed for the south pacific...to be shot down..




They are in service. The Type 45 Destroyer been in service since 2009. But as Zaph said information on the UK/French system is not easy to come by. I know the Sea Viper system the UK has is meant to be pretty good but they for obvious reason haven't published much. I know the army has a missile defense system too that been around just as long but I cant recall the name. But again I don't think much as been said on it.

Either way its all likely based of US technology or developed in conjunction which is why the UK and France likely cant say much.


To be fair the UK doesn't have much need for one as we are not really in range of North Korea or Iran as they don't have Nuclear subs and a ABM is likely useless against Russia or China anyway.

Here is a artical on the RN SAMPSON and Sea viper system, again its not much detail. The sea viper system wasn't originally designed for ABM but seems to have such capability. How effective seems to be a closely guarded secret.
edit on 17-7-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Thanks for the Link.

When I see BAE connected to it, credibility is almost automatic...



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
The NPT treaty is not dead because of Iran. It is dead because of Italy. Italy has orchestrated a completely fraudulent referendum against nuclear energy in 2011. To be precise that was in June 2011. The referendum in itself, on the pretext of so called "Fukushima disaster" provided a helping hand to be interpreted as the Italian government wanted to interpret it. The referendum in Italy are all abrogative or confirmative. In the 2011 case, that was abrogative. That means it abrogates a law or parts of it. From that point on the law will cease to have legal force.
The law abrogated by the referendum in 2011, did not concern at all nuclear energy production. It instead, provided a framework on which nuclear energy could be used in Italy, under certain types of supervisory activities of the EU and IAEA.
The abrogation of that law essentially deprived the EU or other supervisory international bodies to have some oversight over Italian nuclear research and activities. In other words, the initial Fukushima pretext was surreptitiously turned into a popular mandate for the construction of nuclear weapons facilities in Italy. This has successively led to the construction and test of nuclear weapons within italian territory. Most notably in 2013, a nuclear warhead was detonated in Abruzzo under the disguise of what was dubbed, fireworks factory explosion.
Useless to say this kind of activity represents massive violations of the NPY treaty and requires some form of response from the international community in forms of sanctions against Italy, unless the IAEA is allowed into those facilities, and all nuclear weapons are disposed of.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86

The NPT has nothing to do with nuclear energy / power generating plants as its a nuclear weapons agreement.
There is no evidence of a nuclear explosion in Abruzzo.

Had one been detected Russia nor China would keep it quiet.

Also for what it is worth the last post in this thread was from 2015.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: JHumm

Sorry, but the Russians are having problems even with their PAK-FA. Their engine development is just now matching the F-22 F-119 engine with 'bench tests" scheduled for next year. The F-119 is aq full generation-20 years old- ahead of Russia and China's are even worse.

The Russians have cut their first order of the PAK-FA to 12 planes. Money and technology issues.

The traditional advantages the U.S. had over the Soviet Union still seems in play...




Soviets were always really good at missiles and human (Boris n' Natasha) intelligence. US was good at IT and aircraft.

Pattern still persists.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join