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.

 

Who should replace the IAEA?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
In nearly every thread about nulear technology, Dr, Horacid has negative comments to make about the IAEA but offeres no opinions on who should replace them.

I've asked the question before and I'll ask again, if the IAEA is such a failure, who should replace them?

Should a new International group be formed to stop Nuclear Proliferation?
If so, what rights should they have in regards to controlling what goes in and out of other countries and should they be able to search military installations of all countries including the US and israel?

Please offer some solutions on how the Nuclear Proliferation should be prevented.




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The IAEA could be just overhauled. Fire Mohammed El Baradei and the entire staff. Replace them with people who care about nuclear proliferation.

Replace rules that allow the IAEA to holdoff on reporting violations to the UN Security Council with clear mandates that any violation, however minor, has to be reported and then acted upon by the Security Council.

Perhaps then we'd have some semblance of NPT compliance.

Until then it's just this:



From: Cox & Forkum


[edit on 2/3/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
www.monbiot.com...

Have a read of this by George Monbiot....

Heres a quote :

"The IAEA, its statute says, should assist “the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities” to non-nuclear states. It should train nuclear scientists and “foster the exchange of scientific and technical information”.(4) Its mission, in other words, is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, while spreading nuclear technology to as many countries as possible. It is also responsible for enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has the same dual purpose."


It's unrealistic and indeed insulting to expect nations of the 2 tier not to want to arm theselves.. especially when 1st tier countries are showing no signs of diminishing their arsenals. In fact the US has just ignored several arms treaties by wanting this bunker-buster nuke.

So the solution is pretend were disarming by arming everyone, the mutuallty assured destruction thing all over again. Oh and did i mention profits from the tec and resource sales? Lovely...

[edit on 3/2/2005 by Corinthas]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I've asked the question before and I'll ask again, if the IAEA is such a failure, who should replace them?

The IAEA has as one of its responsibilities the dissemination of nuclear science and techonology and capabilities. It also is charged with preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. These two tasks, perhaps, are in fact at odds. Changing who does the IAEA (ie the UN, or whatever) is cosmetic, changing its mission might be a better idea.


Should a new International group be formed to stop Nuclear Proliferation?

I hear some very nice boys called the illuminati could help out!



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The NPT allows signatories to receive assistance in building peaceful nuclear powerplants if the country agrees to not develop nuclear weapons and submit to monitoring to ensure this.

The problem with the IAEA is that they are not aggressive enough with inspection and doesn't even report violations to the Security Council in a timely fashion. Perhaps the enforcement arm of the IAEA should be made a separate agency?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The NPT allows signatories to receive assistance in building peaceful nuclear powerplants if the country agrees to not develop nuclear weapons and submit to monitoring to ensure this.

The problem with the IAEA is that they are not aggressive enough with inspection and doesn't even report violations to the Security Council in a timely fashion. Perhaps the enforcement arm of the IAEA should be made a separate agency?


IAEA NPT should be from a non-diplomatic agency. The UN is nothing but diplomats. The IAEA needs teeth.................



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Oh all these wonderfull and opionated replies..

My post actually ahd a quote from the IAEA statute but we will ignote that fact and continue with wonderful insights like "it needs more teeth".

The IAEA should see dentist then...



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Corinthas,

We're just saying that it should actually do what you said it should do.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Ok i can aprreciate that but have a read of the statute... it was founded to do exactly what its doing now. So it is functioning exaclty as it was supposed to.


The solution therefore is very far removed from giving them dentures.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Ok i can aprreciate that but have a read of the statute... it was founded to do exactly what its doing now. So it is functioning exaclty as it was supposed to.


The solution therefore is very far removed from giving them dentures.


Thanx, you made our point. The IAEA is doing its job of not doing its job. The UN set up the IAEA to fail...................



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
In nearly every thread about nulear technology, Dr, Horacid has negative comments to make about the IAEA but offeres no opinions on who should replace them.


While I don't wish to comment on a conversation I was not involved in I will say based of the statement here I have to answer not without replacement.

However I too have doughts in an agency that commands no respect and has very little real life recourse of consequence for violations, IE as we know embargo can be circumvented , as in Iraq, and forget war cause of the public out cry of the world turns anyone who starts a war into a villian because the world is wiery of war as a whole, and really dont want one to go nuke. This then brings me to the conclusion this agency is no more than a bigger version of the grade school tattle tale and not much more.




I've asked the question before and I'll ask again, if the IAEA is such a failure, who should replace them?


With out a more stronger enforcement element within their organizations none will be good enough if you want the IAEA to be more effective they must be of a presence of force , by that I mean all they do and can do is make threats of embargos, who cares they will just smuggle in and out goods, that does nothing.....They or whom ever replaces them must have a strong policing and enforcement element to back up their threats, they are tattle tales nothing more right now and if I was the leader of Iran for example I wouldnt be intimidated by a dog that cant bite.




Should a new International group be formed to stop Nuclear Proliferation?
If so, what rights should they have in regards to controlling what goes in and out of other countries and should they be able to search military installations of all countries including the US and israel?



They need an autonomy to use policing ,military forces in there organizations to force countries to comply both with the inspection and violation control issues they are a joke with out power to back them.

They still should and must report to the world before using the forces but the fact they have the forces to use would make them more credable to rebellious factions who think the IAEA as nothing more of a risk than a paper cut.




Please offer some solutions on how the Nuclear Proliferation should be prevented.



More legal and military powers to those responsible for seeking out and enforcing nuke policies , an agency free of singular goverment attachment essentially run with a rotating presidency much like the EU and restricted to 1 or 2 year terms instead of 6 month terms of presidency, is a good start.

[edit on 3/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Everyone should keep in mind that the IAEA is not supposed to smash its way into suspected nuke facilites and conduct 'raids' like say a tax bureau or something. Its supposed to distribute technology and verify that its being used peacefully. Baradi, especially considering that he's iranian (and could perhaps be forgiven for going soft on his home country, especailly when lives are at stake) has been acting quite rationally and appears to be doing his job. HIs job is not to kick down the doors of an iranian nuke facility and break open canisters of illegal nuke material. He's not "Mohammad al-Ness" or something and IAEA isn't some weird anacronym for 'The Untouchables'.



Originally posted by Corinthas
Ok i can aprreciate that but have a read of the statute... it was founded to do exactly what its doing now.

Yes, and that rationale was poor. It was made to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was made, in effect, to ensure the western/soviet bloc monopoly on nukes, to put it one way. At the same time it was charged with proliferating nuclear technology.

Since there is so much that is 'dual use' between nuke power generation, and nuke weapon production, it has to prevent weapons proliferation by expansive inspections of 'non nuclear weaponized' countries.



The solution therefore is very far removed from giving them dentures.

Indeed, it needs no 'teeth'. Any non-nuke-weaponized country that inhibits its inspectors has demonstrated that its building nukes. After that, or after, say, the IAEA was to state 'we were given full inspection, and found they are making nukes', its up to the global powers to take whatever action they choose.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I do not see why they need replacing, they are doing exactley what they were designed to do.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
I do not see why they need replacing, they are doing exactley what they were designed to do.

Well, to sort of contradict what I said, they, in a sense, aren't doing what they were made to do. They aren't ensuring the peaceful use of nuclear power.

But, also in a sense, it was never up to them. It was allways up to global powers, whether the US, the UN, the UK, the USSR ( i guess you need a 'U' in your name, so we'd all better watch out for uzbekistan, or....Ukraine!) to actually do something about it all.

The 'system' is broken, since Pakistan, Indian, Iran, and North Korea all have indigenous nuke programs. Hell, the IAEA jump started some of those programs, thats part of its purpose, to provide the nuke technology! There was just never any follow up on the part of the 'international community' or the world powers.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
nygdan



Isnt that the point they need more strength to be taken seriously I dont fear a dog that only barks at me when I tease it , I fear the one the dont bark and just growls and bites, now dont think the need to stomp on everyone but they need to stomp on some, and the favortism issue you brought up reaks of corruption, that why I think it should have a rotating leadership of 1 to 2 year per term much like the EU has but theres is only 6 months , this cuts short the time that corruption of the leader in seat , to a max of 2 years before someone else gets a chance and hopefully corrects the corruption.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
nygdan



Isnt that the point they need more strength to be taken seriously I dont fear a dog that only barks at me when I tease it

To continue the analogy, I think that the IAEA or anything like it should bea pointer dog or blood hound. I don't think an organization like that should have the kind of power required to do something about the problem. The IAEA should be an organization that can quickly detect secret nuke programs, and its up to the world to do something about it, like with iraq. The Inspectors weren't there to prove to the world the hussein had no weapons, he had them. They were there so that hussein could prove to them that he destroyed them. Blix and the others never stated that he had destroyed them or that he had at least demonstrated to them that he did. The ball fell into the court of the international community. Similarly, Tehran has demonstrated that it is at least on the verge of violating the rules here. Once it does, the US must then decide if its willing to go to war.

I can't see the power to wage war being given to an internationalist unelected buecracy, especially since its not going to be doing the actual fighting or have any real reason/restraints on the fighting. War is up to populations and nation states.

I think the thing wil baradie is that he doesn't infact appear to be corrupt.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
nygdan



Isnt that the point they need more strength to be taken seriously I dont fear a dog that only barks at me when I tease it

To continue the analogy, I think that the IAEA or anything like it should bea pointer dog or blood hound. I don't think an organization like that should have the kind of power required to do something about the problem. The IAEA should be an organization that can quickly detect secret nuke programs, and its up to the world to do something about it, like with iraq.


The way the IAEA is now is a pointer and they are totally worthless, they can only tattle on people and nothing gets done because people are afraid of making there neighbor or friend mad.



I can't see the power to wage war being given to an internationalist unelected buecracy, especially since its not going to be doing the actual fighting or have any real reason/restraints on the fighting. War is up to populations and nation states.


Im talking of the organization becoming like a mini UN type set up with people who sign the treaty have 2 reps and those reps all vote on war or not, they should also have a non - proliferation force like the UN peace keeping forces, and be focused 100% on nuke programs peaceful and non peaceful and they should have a rotating presidency like the EU but with one or two year terms.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
[T]hey can only tattle on people and nothing gets done because people are afraid of making there neighbor or friend mad.[/quote
Then the reform has to be amoung those with power to become more willing and determined to use it.

The alternate plan you outline is interesting, however I have to wonder if anything will prevent a 'IAEA with teeth' from becomming as corrupt as say the UN and what not.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

The alternate plan you outline is interesting, however I have to wonder if anything will prevent a 'IAEA with teeth' from becomming as corrupt as say the UN and what not.





Sadly where there is goverment there is corruption but the limited terms of presidency from the EU theory offers fair change of power to all members and also places corruption if it appears on a time table , now their time table allows for six months of presidency my allows for 2 years but in the bigger scope 2 years is more praticle as inverstigations take time and six months wont allow enough time to resolve issues under taken by the organization under a particular president.

[edit on 6/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]

[edit on 6/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join