We ratified the NPT in 1970
(and it was Ireland that proposed it initially).
Edit to add: and I almost forgot, you left out India and Pakistan: they didn't sign or ratify, and they are nuclear powers. Apparently whoever lied
to you didn't have a problem with those nations though, only with America and Israel (only one of which, i say again, actually failed to sign the
treaty). It also bears mentioning that Israel would actually be allowed to have nukes under the treaty if they had ever conducted a test, since they
had their weapons before 67. If they had gone nuclear during the 6 days war, they could have signed the treaty with a clean conscience. Ironic, isn't
it? (end edit)
Is research a completely
foreign concept to those who would rather denounce America than actually focus on the issue at hand, namely nuclear
We have been repeatedly accused of violating the treaty via NATO nuclear weapons sharing arrangements, and we've tended to focus on non-proliferation
rather than disarmament of existing nuclear powers, which has irked some, but at least on paper, we're party to the treaty.
That being said, the treaty is symbollic. As I have previously explained, our current system of international law (established through treaties) has
not yet reached maturity and is fairly toothless. Case in point, any state can simply withdraw from the NPT. The question is, what kind of law do we
want the current system to grow into? If we want a binding international law, a precedent needs to be set through action against those who violate
certain widely agreed-upon standards of conduct, and if we want fair international law, we're going to have to establish objective criteria for
prompting that action from a broad-based international organization.
In order to live up to its objectives, the UN is going to have to start enforcing treaties, even when it's not convenient to the signatories, and,
yes, violating the sovereignty of nations who use that sovereignty to threaten others- that's nothing unfamiliar to us on the individual level:
police do it to criminals all the time. This is what it will take to create more than convenient respect for international law from all nations (yes,
before anyone assumes that I'm an idiot, that does include the United States).
How many of you personally approve of every law you are bound to follow? That's not how the law works, is it? It's the law because most of us have
decided to impose it on ourselves and everyone else, and even the people who voted no have to follow it, or else. Or can I just withdraw from the
penal code "treaty" and go around setting stuff on fire?
[edit on 11-2-2007 by The Vagabond]