Weapons Proliferation (Due Thursday 10/21)

[Mr. J.]

Define nonproliferation and then discuss whether you think the UN
Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is a good idea or not? Please use
specific examples from the book when discussing your rationale.

[h2fir...@comcast.net]

Nonproliferation is the regulation of the creation and distribution of
nuclear weapons. The UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treay is a treaty
designed to stop the development of nuclear arsenals in non-nuclear
countries and to regulate the nuclear weapons in countries that
already had them. I think that the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty
is theoretically a good idea, but in reality is not very effective in
stopping corrupt countries from obtaining and creating nuclear
weapons. While it has limited the growth and distribution of nuclear
weapons in some countries, such as US, it does not successfully
regulate nuclear development in countries that would potentially use
the nuclear technology for destructive purposes, as they can withdraw
from the treaty any time they wish. One example of this is North
Korea, which withdrew from the treaty after data showed that it had
the technology to build nuclear weapons, and because they withdrew
there was no way of regulating their nuclear developments. Since
countries can easily withdraw from the treaty if they want to create
nuclear weapons, the treaty is ineffective in stopping the development
of new nuclear weapons, which was its main purpose. It is restricting
the nuclear growth of countries that are part of the treaty while it
is powerless to stop corrupt countries who are not part of the treaty
from obtaining nuclear weapons, rendering it inneffective, so in
reality the treaty is not a good idea.

[Dan Maxwell]

Nonproliferation can be defined as the creation and distribution
of nuclear weapons. This term became relevant when nuclear technology
became available in the mid twentieth century. Since then, certain
countries have developed nuclear technology, like the U.S. and Russia.
More and more countries started developing nuclear technology, and it
became apparent that there was a need for restrictions on who could
develop WMA's. Thus, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was born. It
prohibited the development of new weapons in countries that do not
already have nuclear capability. I think that this treaty is a good
idea because trying to limit the number of countries with nuclear
weapons is a good thing and it is designed to reduce the danger of a
corrupt country bombing another country. This puts much less at stake
then if countries had the power to decimate one quarter of the world
whenever they wanted to. However, as good as the treaty looks on
paper, it doesn't work out very well in reality. Certain countries can
back out of the treaty as they please, which completely ruins the
effect of it. Iran has backed out of the treaty and is currently
suspected of developing nuclear weapons. The treaty does not say
anything about punishing countries that have not signed the treaty, so
Iran can go about pursuing nuclear technology without official
punishment. The treaty was a good idea and it is a good start but it
does not have the desired effect that it was supposed to, so I agree
that the treaty is a good idea; it just needs work.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Sarah]

Nucelar nonproliferation refers to reducing and ceasing production of
nuclear weapons. Nonproliferation is basically a fancy word for
absence: we want to eradicate all of the nuclear weapons so that we as
humans pose less of a threat to ourselves and the world. I believe
that at the time the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty was an
excellent idea because action clearly needed to be taken on the
nuclear mess that our world was turning into. During the Cold War, the
US and the Soviet Union stockpiled nuclear weapons simply to prove to
one another that any attack would turn out to be deadly to the whole
world many times over. It was not about having enough weapons to kill
them - it was about having more weapons than they did. According to
the packet copied from a previous Current Issues book, this was called
"Mutual Assured Destruction", or MAD. I think those initials say a lot
about how crazy and fearful life was in those days, and they are the
reason we needed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - to restore
sanity to the nuke-crazed leaders of those two very prominent nations
before they blew up each other or other nations followed their
example. Recently, however, we've discovered that a country can simply
pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and then, other than
imposing some sanctions, there is very little we can do to convince
them otherwise. It's not useless, but it no longer serves all of its
intended purpose. Therefore, while I think dismantling the treaty
would allow a potential Cold War II and therefore is not an option, I
believe we should also attempt diplomatic talks or at least more
powerful sanctions and other measures on all countries that won't
follow through - North Korea and Iran of course, but also the more
ignored ones like India and Israel. We also need to unite globally and
not let an alliance with one country allow them to pass under our
radar when searching out potential threats. (For example, we've
actually discussed supporting India's nuclear program, and in order to
improve relations with Israel we said that their proximity to Iran
justified their weapons.) This isn't okay. The treaty needs an update
- every country that has signed it should agree to unite against the
countries that haven't and take every diplomatic measure to ensure
that they see our point and stop posing such a threat. This would be
the more effective way to nonproliferation.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Joelle Khouri]

As it pertains to this chapter, nonproliferation is controlling the
spread and production of nuclear weapons. I believe that the UN
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is a good idea. This treaty,
created in 1968, involves both nuclear and nonnuclear countries. The
nuclear countries decided to reduce their store and allow nonnuclear
countries access to their nuclear technology. The nonnuclear countries
agreed to use this knowledge for peaceful purposes only. Over 187
countries are members of this treaty. Notable nonmembers include
India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea. I think the NPT is a good
idea because it limits nuclear weapons, which is very important.
Nuclear weapons and technology have very dangerous potential, and I
think that their use needs to be carefully watched.
On the other hand, I am not sure that the treaty is totally effective
in stopping countries from developing nuclear weapons. For example,
North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2006 after they were found to
be testing nuclear weapons. As a result, many countries imposed
sanctions on North Korea. However, this does not seem to be doing much
because North Korea tested another nuclear bomb in 2009. Furthermore,
despite sanctions, Iran also has enough enriched uranium to produce a
nuclear weapon. The situations in these two countries show that, while
the treaty may be work for the countries involved, there are still
serious issues that it can not address.
I think that, overall, the treaty should continue to go on as it does.
However, I believe that sanctions need to be added to countries not in
the agreement. They need to be pressured by many other countries to
join this treaty. The NPT does a good job of controlling the countries
involved, and since nuclear weapons and technology have such
destructive power, I think it is critical the all countries join this
treaty. Otherwise, there will always be a threat that even sanctions
cannot stop.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Hannah North]

Nuclear nonproliferation pertains to the restriction of the
production and distribution of nuclear weapons. The main goal of
nonproliferation is to rid the world of nuclear weapons that are
essentially harmful to the human race and serve as a potential threat
to humanity. Although the U.N Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not
ban the use of nuclear weapons altogether it obligates current nuclear
powers to reduce their arsenals and makes it impossible for nonnuclear
countries to obtain nuclear weapons by legal means. While the I
support the creation of the NPT, it is evident that its policies and
requirements could use some adjustments simply because of the changing
times. The nuclear community has clearly progressed throughout the
years since NPT was first enacted in 1968. It seems to me that new
requirements in regards to how strictly the IAEA monitors certain
countries such as North Korea and Pakistan to ensure that the spread
of nuclear weapons is not occurring. While the NPT is certainly a good
way to be able to control and keep in check who has what weapons,
however amendments need to be made to the treaty in order to ensure it
is fulfilling its intended purpose in the most effective way possible

[Allie Ziegler]

Nuclear nonproliferation is described as the regulation of the
distribution of nuclear weapons. The UN Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty was signed in 1968 by both nuclear and nonnuclear nations in
efforts to reduce the amount of available nuclear weapons on our
planet. The "nonnuclear nations" agreed to use their nuclear
technology for purposes other than making weapons, such as uranium
enrichment, or other peaceful purposes. On the other hand, the
"nuclear" nations agreed to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons they
produce, and give nonnuclear nations access to their nuclear
technology. In general, this treaty was an important first step in
regulating the amount of nuclear weapons created on our planet. I
think that the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is a good idea because
since 1968 over 187 parties have joined the treaty, more than any
other arms limitation, which just emphasizes its global significance.
I believe that the regulation of nuclear weapons is extremely
important because of the dangers that they pose to our entire globe.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has done a much better job at
regulating these dangers weapons than any other efforts imposed over
time. However, there is certainly a downside to the NPT. In article
ten of the treaty it states, "Each Party shall in exercising its
national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it
decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of
this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."
This regulation basically means that any nation can withdraw its
"membership" with the treaty at any point they deem necessary. This
has proven to be a problem because Iran has recently withdrawn from
the treaty, and because of this they are suspected to be creating
nuclear weapons. North Korea has also withdrawn from the treaty in the
past, and it is yet another example of this weakness of the NPT. I
believe that despite this flaw in the NPT, the treaty still does a
good job in regulating the amount of nuclear weapons present around
the globe. Therefore, I think that the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty
is a good idea.

[Becky Maz]

Nonproliferation is defined as of, pertaining to, involving, or
calling for cessation of the production of nuclear weapons.
I think that the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is a good idea,
but it also has its down side. First of all, I feel that the NPT is
overall a good plan, because it shows us that the people willing to
sign the treaty have nothing to hide, or in this case, they aren't
hiding nuclear weapons that they plan to use in the future. For the
countries who do not have nuclear weapons, the means to create them,
or reasons to use them, this treaty serves as a formality, and is
effective most of the time. However, it is a completely different
story when it comes to the countries who are just now developing the
technology to make nuclear weapons. For countries such as Iran and
North Korea it is unlikely that this treaty will have any affect on
their production of nukes whatsoever.
In the current events book, it was pointed out that both North Korea
and Iran were signed on to this treaty at one point in time. All of
the sudden, they backed out, which made the rest of the world
suspicious. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il signed the treaty, and then
backed out in 2003. He continues to tell UN inspectors that they are
not allowed to inspect the nuclear power plants, and then, as it is
widely thought, once he hides the nuclear weapons, the inspectors are
allowed back in. As a result, North Korea poses a threat to the rest
of the world because of its government and the nuclear weapons we are
sure exist. As it is said in the book, "...Kim Jong Il and his regime
are in vulnerable political positions, may view nuclear weapons as the
only guarantee of their survival."
In Iran's case, the country had signed the treaty, but it was later
discovered (in 2002) that Iran had been making secret, underground
nuclear powerplants which were recently found. Obviously, the treaty
did not do its job. Iran also recently built its first nuclear power
plant (above ground) which they claim is being used for energy and
electrical purposes. Which is really funny because, as electricity is
not illegal, it would not be such a big deal for UN inspectors to
check in with the program every once in a while. But the UN inspectors
have been turned away, leading us to believe that nuclear weapons are
being developed there. And we also know that these weapons would be
quite effective, as Iran's president says, in "blowing Isreal off the
map".
One thing I noticed in the book is that signing this treaty seems to
come with a sense of weakness for the countries who have signed it.
The terms used to describe the relationships between the treaty and
the people who sign it seem very negative and powerless. Some of the
terms used are, submitted, sanctions, and policymakers. Perhaps, if we
were to do all of these things without making these countries feel so
powerless at the same time, they would be more likely to comply to our
agreements.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[ds]

Nonproliferation is the prevention of the spread of nuclear
weapons.The U.N. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was created in 1968
when nuclear powers agreed to reduce their arsenals and give
nonnuclear signatories access to their nuclear technology. I think
that the treaty is a good idea because nuclear weapons post a huge
threat to human life. In fact, analysts agree that enough nuclear
weapons exist on earth to wipe out almost all life on earth. Nuclear
weapons have serious health and environmental effects on the entire
world. If the world was able to rid itself of nuclear weapons, it
would be a huge step forward in diplomacy and environmentalism.
Converting the nuclear weapons into nuclear energy is also a great
source of alternative energy. Promoting peace is essential for the
world to become more civilized. The U.S. and Russia have started to
set an example of promoting peace, having signed a series of Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaties, which say that each country will gradually
reduce its number of nuclear weapons. Leading by example is important,
because as long as countries with nuclear power do not reduce their
weapons, there is no reason for other countries to stop pursuing
nuclear power. The U.N. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a symbol of
coming peace and should be adhered to.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Christine]

Nonpoliferation is defined as controlling and curbing a extensive and
rapid spread. In context with the current status of nuclear programs
and weapons, nonpoliferation is more linked towards the U.N. Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. This treaty was established in 1968, after
the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. During
the Cold War, there was a brutal and fearful battle going on between
these two nations. They were instigating fear by creating nuclear
weapons. It, in a sense, a game of "my horse is bigger than your
horse" but in a completely extremed manner. They believed that in
order to deter from a nuclear war, they must make more weapons to show
that they could both potentially devastate the world. After the Cold
War, the U.N. established the Nonproliferation Treaty, where nuclear
powers came together to reduce their weapons and allow other countries
to have access to these nuclear technology. In the beginning, this was
a great idea, because nuclear technology was still a bit foreign. The
transferring of nuclear technology was carefully watched and this
treaty seemed to be a start to the more peaceful handling of nuclear
weapons and power. But in 2003, when North Korea backed out of the
treaty, it proved that this treaty did not have a very big impact on
the global goal of peacefully handling nuclear weapons and
establishing a more global community on the nuclear programs in every
nuclear power country. As North Korea backed out, the rest of the
world became more unaware of what they were doing in their nuclear
programs, proving that this Nonproliferation treaty was losing its
impact. In this present day, we know that India, Pakistan, and Israel
have no signed this treaty. This means that we do not have access or
much knowledge to their nuclear programs, which results in possible
dangers for the rest of the world. I believe that in order to create a
stronger global community with nuclear weapons, we must create ties
with other countries and communicate with other countries. Although
countries such as Iran and North Korea wish to have no communication
with certain countries, such as the U.S. about their nuclear programs,
I believe that the United States should not force them into signing
any treaty. Rather, we should strive for more diplomatic ties with
these countries and hopefully in the future, attempt at a global
agreement to control nuclear technology and programs. We have to allow
these countires that have yet signed the treaty to see the positive
outcomes of establishing a global treaty.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[kevin]

Nuclear nonproliferation is the restriction and control of the
production and distribution of nuclear weapons. The UN Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty is an agreement centering around three main
points: the banning of the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the
gradual disarmament of nuclear weapons, and the allowance and
regulation of nonmilitary nuclear technology. Overall, I think that
the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a good idea because it
ultimately advocates the complete removal of nuclear weapons from the
globe, an understandable goal. Were the treaty to entirely succeed,
the world would be left a much safer place, for everyone. However, the
treaty depends mostly on the cooperation of the nations which are
interested in nuclear technologies. For example, North Korea is not
party to the treaty, but is known to possess nuclear weapons. The
treaty has no explicit tactic for dealing with such unsupportive
countries, and it is left to the other nations to put pressure upon
them for disbanding their nuclear programs. In general, however, the
UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an appropriate and effective
way to moniter and discourage the spread of nuclear weapons.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Lindsay Korzekwa]

Nuclear nonproliferation refers to the global attempt at creating a
nuclear-free world. The Nonproliferation treaty puts sanctions on its
members preventing the creation of new weapons and calling for those
existing to be dismantled. As of today, 187 countries have signed this
treaty, but many, including India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan
have not. Although the treaty was created to solve a pressing problem,
it is by no means perfect. For one thing, it is relatively easy for a
country to withdraw from their obligations, as demonstrated by North
Korea when their nuclear program was discovered in 1996. Also, if a
nation has not singed the treaty, they do not have any limits on what
kinds of weapons they can create. This is a source of much uneasiness,
especially with regards to countries such as Pakistan, who have
powerful terrorist networks within the country. In my opinion, the
treaty's biggest flaw is the fact that, if a country is willing to
destroy countless lives by using a nuclear weapon, I doubt that they
will care that they are violating a treaty. Overall, while I feel that
the eradication of nuclear weapons is a pressing issue, I am not sure
that the current treaty is as effective as it could be.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[dalton morris]

The nonproliferation treaty is a treaty that limits the creation and
distribution of nuclear weapons. This treaty was created in March of
1970 and currently 189 countries are participating. During the mid-
twentieth century countries started developing nuclear programs. Since
then, many countries have developed nuclear technology and weapons.
The United States, Russia, and China are all countries that have
developed nuclear technology. With these countries and many more
developing these programs, restrictions and limitations had to come
into place. I believe that the nonproliferation treaty was a good move
by the U.N. During the cold war, Russia had enough nuclear weapons to
blow up the earth many many times over. They weren't necessarily
planning on using these weapons but if they did, the whole earth would
be destroyed. The U.N had to come in because if all those weapons were
to get into the wrong hands then that would definitely not be good.
This treaty heavily limits the amount of nuclear material any country
that is participating in the treaty can have. There is one downfall to
the treaty though, the treaty does not really have a way to deal with
the countries that do not sign the treaty. These countries, such as
North Korea and Iran, are possibly the most dangerous. The U.N has no
way of regulating and limiting the amount of nuclear materials in
these countries and that can be very dangerous. I believe that besides
this one flaw, that the treaty is a very good idea.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Adam]

Nuclear nonproliferation is the act of controlling the excessive
spread of nuclear weapons. I believe that the UN Nuclear
Nonproliferation treaty is a good idea. Even though there are some
countries that won't sign the treaty, the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation
treaty exposes those countries that want to hide their nuclear
programs. Some examples of these countries that are given from the
book are Iran and North Korea. This treaty is also beneficial because
it encourages countries to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons they
have. One way of getting rid of weapons is by converting the nuclear
energy from the weapons into electricity. This type of electricity
doesn't use up nonrenewable natural resources and doesn't hurt the
environment. It is said that there are enough nuclear weapons on the
planet to destroy almost all life on Earth. Nuclear weapons are
dangerous towards human safety and the environment. I understand how a
country would want to have a few nuclear weapons in order to prevent
other countries from attacking them, but the amount that Russia and
the US have are just completely unnecessary. The NPT is a treaty that
encourages countries like the US and Russia to reduce their amount of
WMD's and use them for environmentally friendly energy purposes, and
that is why I believe that it is a good idea.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[k.Borkovitz]

Nonproliferation is essentially a ban on the development of nuclear
weapons/WMD’s. In my opinion, the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
is a good concept, but is ultimately ineffective in stopping the
development of WMD’s is some of the most dangerous countries in the
world. Since the treaty was formed in 1968 and the IAEA followed in
1974, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea are not members of NPT.
Despite the fact that they are not members, they still possess nuclear
technology. In addition, Iran is suspected of having nuclear weapons,
though they claim that their possession of enriched uranium is for
peaceful use only (nuclear energy, not weapons). Many countries are
suspected of developing their nuclear technology further.
Additionally, new developments that escape the NPT guidelines in
weaponry prove further that the treaty is ultimately unsuccessful. New
weapons that aren’t considered nuclear are EMP’s, which can disable
all technology, sending a region back into the 19th century. Though
there are bans on other types of weapons, such as biological weapons,
countries including Egypt, Iran, Israel, Syria, North Korea, China and
Russia are all suspected of continuing to develop these technologies.
Al Qaeda is also suspected of pursuing these weapons as well. All in
all, the Nonproliferation Treaty is a very good concept, but is
failing to deliver.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Leah Coppage-Gross]

Nonproliferation is definied as the curbing and controlling the
development of nuclear weapons. I believe that the UN
nonproliferation treaty is a very good idea and is in the best
interest and safety of the world. By reducing the number of arsenals
and allowing nonnuclear signatories access to their nuclear
technology, many countries established trust with one another. It
also allowed the U.S. to be sure that countries were not developing
an excessive amount of nuclear weapons and that they could trust other
countries to not go over the limit with their nuclear technology.
This is also important in order to keep a close eye on countries that
could possibly develop a large amount of weapons and use them to
threaten other countries. For example, in 2003, North Korea withdrew
from the treaty after there was reliable information showing that it
was pursuing nuclear weapons. This is a big problem, because without
being part of the treaty, North Korea would be able to create nuclear
weapons at a rate that is not controlled or monitored. Also, the U.S.
is able to monitor countries who we suspect of nuclear activity, such
as Iran. If Iran was not part of the agreement, the U.S. would not be
able to check up on their nuclear advancements. Overall, the
nonproliferation treaty is very important for the U.S to monitor and
control the amount of nuclear weapons produced all over the
world.

> > specific examples from the book when discussing your rationale.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alison Mosier-Mills]

Nonproliferation regulates the creation of new nuclear weapons and
controls the distribution of existing ones. I believe that yes, the UN
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a good idea; however, as I've seen
with many of the current issues we've studied, I'm not sure that it
actually works when put into practice. Frankly, countries that plan to
develop nuclear weapons will most likely continue to carry out these
projects, regardless of a treaty -- just look at North Korea (which
eventually withdrew from the NPT). However, I do believe that a treaty
is necessary, because it formally establishes the issue of nuclear
weapons as a global priority. Throughout history, we've seen the
various problems that have arisen as a result of nuclear proliferation
-- during the Cold War, we competed with the Soviet Union to stockpile
the most weapons, should we be attacked. However, after the war ended,
many of Russia's nuclear weapons had gone MIA. This was proof that the
more weapons created, the more likely they were to get lost in the
shuffle of weaponry and potentially fall into the wrong hands. And, of
course, as two big world powers began competing for nukes, other
nations followed suit, and today it's estimated that there are more
than 20,000 nuclear weapons spread across the globe. If this
phenomenon continues to go unchecked, the world will become a much
more dangerous place.

I believe that in order for the treaty to work, nonproliferation must
be a world-wide commitment. Because so many weapons exist today
because of arms races that occurred throughout the 20th century, if
the United States and its allies continue to create and distribute
nuclear weapons, what makes us believe that our enemies wouldn't make
weapons as well in order to keep up with us? We've also seen the
immense irony that is our past weapons deals in Afghanistan and Iraq
-- our current soldiers are being shot down by Taliban forces and
Afghan rebels bearing the same weapons that we provided them with 30
years ago. How do we know that our current allies will not become
enemies? If we continue to distribute nuclear weapons, it's difficult
to know whom they'll be used against, whether they fall into the wrong
hands intentionally or accidentally. Therefore, I believe that the
U.N. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is necessary because we need to
curb the prevalence of nuclear weapons throughout the world. However,
the treaty will not be effective unless it is actually carried out by
all world powers, not just select ones.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Yuichiro Iwamoto]

Nonproliferation is a movement to reduce and ultimately eradicate
nuclear weapons and other WMD's from the globe. I believe that the UN
Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is not a good idea, because as of now,
it is not proving to be very effective. Countries use the treaty as a
bargaining chip to lift sanctions or to ask for foreign aid and trade
opportunities. They merely threaten to advance their nuclear weapon's
program if their demands are not met by the countries relating to the
Nonproliferation treaty. One such example is North Korea. North Korea
signed this Nonproliferation treaty on the agreement that the UN and
other countries would lift sanctions. After this was done however,
North Korea withdrew from the treaty and started their nuclear program
yet again. Other countries such as Iran and Israel just refuse to
sign. There is no point to this treaty if all countries that are major
concerns of the world right now are not taking part in it. There
should be a policy similar to "join or die" where countries have
almost no choice but to join this agreement to reduce the nuclear
weapons in their position. I agree with the critics that state that
the United States should also work towards this goal at a
significantly faster rate along with Russia considering that these two
countries possess 95% of all nuclear weapons in the world. If US and
Russian efforts are made even more towards this goal, I am sure more
countries will become more optimistic about this. However, for
countries like Iran and North Korea that use nuclear weapons as a
bargaining chip, I believe we must take these weapons away by force.
Overall, I think that the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is not a
effective idea because there are loopholes that the countries of the
main concern use to continue their quest towards obtaining WMD's.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Saad Imran]

nonproliferation can be defined as the reduction and control of
nuclear weapons. I personally believe that the UN Nuclear
Nonproliferation treaty is a good idea. The UN Nonproliferation treaty
first of all by definition is when the the Nuclear powers agreed to
reduce their arsenals of nuclear weapons, and that countries without
nuclear weapons could use the technology solely for peaceful purposes
like energy. Three countries did not sign the treaty, and they were
Pakistan, Israel, and India. These countries not signing the treaty is
huge as if the weapons are granted to the wrong hands than the world
could go in a disastrous state. I personally believe that the treaty
is a good idea as first of all it is an attempt to create peace in the
world. As President Obama has plans to reduce the world's stock of
nuclear weapons, if deemed successful I believe it could be a huge
step in achieving world peace. This would be as if the nuclear
countries for some apparent reason decide to nuke each other most, or
even all life on Earth would be destroyed. I also believe as the
treaty is a necessary step to success, I still believe it is not that
practical in eliminating nuclear weapons. I propose this as the treaty
wont stop countries like Iran and North Korea from creating Nuclear
weapons no matter how many sanctions you impose on them. Also as the
Cold War is over U.S and Russia should decrease their nuclear weapons,
and also try to make corrupt countries like North Korea and Iran to
stop their pursuit of nuclear bombs (if they ever will). Although, if
they do want to halt these countries in their quest for nukes, then
America themselves should stop the testing before they expect other
countries to do so. Overall, if the world overcomes these obstacles
then I believe the NPT treaty is a good idea and a good step towards
progress in eliminating nukes and creating world peace.

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[jblr...@aim.com]

Nonproliferation is defined as the practice or action of controlling
or curbing an excessive rapid spread, or refusal or failure to
proliferate. The meaning of nonproliferation in terms of dealing with
Nuclear Weapons and other WMDs tends to lean towards the first
definition. The U.N. wants to control the amount of Nuclear Weapons
and WMDs that countries possess and also make an attempt to lower the
quantity of Nukes that countries withhold. The Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) bases itself on reducing the arsenals of
the Nuclear Power countries and giving nonnuclear powers access to
their technology. Our text tells us that as of 2009, over 187 nations
were members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I believe that
the countries that have joined this treaty have made the right choice
in doing so; I am a definite supporter of the NPT. I think that the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a good idea because in order to
keep the world at peace and to keep one country from becoming too
threatening with Nukes and other Weapons of Mass Destruction, someone
needs to step up and keep an eye on the amount of weapons countries
have and making sure that access to this nuclear technology is spread
fairly, which is what the United Nations is doing with this treaty.
The IAEA or the International Atomic Energy Agency shoulders
responsibility for ensuring that transfers of nuclear technology are
done safely and in accordance with the NPT (Weapons Proliferation pg.
272), making sure that all safety concerns dealing with WMDs and Nukes
are covered. I agree with this article when it says, “there is an
urgent need to amend the NPT with additional IAEA monitoring
requirements to combat the spread of nuclear technology.” We need to
control how nuclear technology spreads and make sure that Nukes, WMDs,
and nuclear technology do not get into the wrong hands (i.e.
terrorists, Al Qaeda, dictators, etc.), and that powerful dangerous
countries (North Korea, Iraq, Pakistan) do not gather too many Weapons
of Mass Destruction to be able to cause major world damage if possible
threats turn into action. The article that we read (Weapons of
Proliferation) also states that “experts estimate that there are more
than 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world today—enough to kill the
world’s population many times over and destroy nearly all life on
Earth” (pg.270). This statement is a petrifying one. We need the
nonproliferation treaty and other treaties like it to lower the amount
of Nukes and WMDs worldwide so that an event like this could never
take place. We are risking the entire life of the Earth if there were
ever to be a Nuclear War; we need to stop the idea of this from ever
occurring so that nothing ever destroys our world.

Kelly Colton

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[sean young]

As it is written in the book, nuclear nonproliferation is
the control of the production and spread of nuclear weapons. In
response to the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, I think that it is a
terrible idea. Because of the fact that a country can just leave the
treaty, it really isn't effective at all. The only thing this treaty
actually does is make the countries that are truested with the WMD's
like France and the U.S, reduce their production, while the countries
that we are really worried about, like North Korea and Iran, just left
the treaty and are still producing/ still have WMD's. As you can see,
this treaty doesn't really accomplish anything other than take nuclear
powerhouses like Russia and the U.S out of the picture if a war comes,
and doesn't do anything to control the nuclear production of the
countries that we are actually worried about, like North Korea and
Iran.
It isn't right for me to outright bash this treaty without
proposing another way of getting the job done. I believe that a better
direction to go in would be to establish a nuclear nonproliferation
declaration, not a treaty. If a country doesn't agree to this
declaration, then they should be punished with sanctions at first,
then if they continue to not agree, then they should either lose a say
in the U.N, or something equally as drastic. The reason punishments
should be so harsh is because nuclear weapons are a serious matter,
and countries as unpredictable as North Korea and Iran just can't be
trusted with them.

>On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emily Lu]

Nonproliferation is the prevention of countries seeking out nuclear
weapons and the cessation of production of nuclear weapons in
countries that already have developed nuclear programs. The ultimate
goal of the nonproliferation treaty is to lower the total number of
nuclear weapons in the world, possibly getting rid of them completely.
After reading about all the negative impacts of nuclear weapons, I
view the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a positive move.
According to today's experts, there are more than 20,000 nuclear
weapons in the world today, which is a sufficient amount to destroy
all life on Earth multiple times. Were a single radiological dispersal
device, or a dirty bomb, slipped into a crowded area, it would be a
cause for immediate panic. Dirty bombs also result in radioactive
contamination that can last for many years, and will therefore take
many innocent lives. An example of a country that has seen many
negative impacts of a nuclear program is Iran, which is the focus of
more than 150 sanctions by the U.S., U.N., and the European Union.
Iran's refusal to put a halt to its enrichment program has caused much
apprehension to its neighboring countries of facing a nuclear Iraq.
Because the Bush Administration's solution of diplomatic efforts-
including economic and diplomatic isolation-was unable to achieve its
desired effect, The Nonproliferation Treaty is a good choice. Although
its productivenss is questionable due to the fact that India, Israel,
Pakistan, and North Korea, which are some of the most dangerous
nations, have not signed it, the Treaty is one of the better solutions
to the nuclear program at the present. As I believe its effectiveness
will develop as more of the world signs it, it is better to put the
treaty into use as early as possible. On Oct 18, 8:39 am, "Mr. J."

[preeya...@live.com]

Nonproliferation is the regulating, and controlling of the possession
and use of nuclear weapons around the world as well as within specific
countries. This concept of maintaining control over the nuclear
technology around the world is incorporated into the UN Nuclear
Nonproliferation treaty. Personally I believe that the UN Nuclear
Nonproliferation treaty is both a good idea, and a bad idea. It’s a
good idea because it would lower the risk of a nuclear war. The
elimination of the option of using nuclear weapons for attacks would
allow for the nuclear technology to produce clean energy, and
enrichment for fuel. Also, the NPT would allow for countries without
nuclear technology to have access to it, enabling them to use the
nuclear technology for clean energy. On the other hand, I believe that
the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty could also be a bad thing. This
is because there are many un-accounted for nuclear weapons. These
could potentially be used by terrorist groups. Also, there is still
some nuclear technology in countries that were part of the Soviet
Union. Since no one really knows where they are or how they are being
used, it is possible that they could fall into the wrong hands and be
abused. In conclusion, I believe that the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation
treaty is both a good and bad idea.

[Irina Ahn]

Nonproliferation is the limiting of the production or spread of
nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The Nonproliferation Treaty,
is a treaty that nuclear powers agreed to to reduce their arsenals and
give nonnuclear powers access to their nuclear technology for peace
keeping reasons only like uranium enrichment for fuel. I believe that
the nonproliferation is a good idea and was a step in the right
direction, but its just not very effective. It is not very effective
because some countries with nuclear power such as, Pakistan, India,
and Israel did not sign the treaty. And also, countries who had signed
the treaty could back out of it at any time they chose to. Unlike in
the US, some of the other countries don't know how to limit the use of
nuclear technology and how to stop the use of nuclear technology to
make weapons. For instance, North Korea, once was part of the NPT, but
as the other countries were suspicious that North Korea was still in
the process of making nuclear weapons, North Korea backed out of the
treaty. The treaty is ineffective in stopping nuclear technology to be
used to make weapons once the country leaves the treaty which is why
everyone is so worried and North Korea left the treaty. North Korea is
still testing nukes today and the whole point of the treaty was to
stop this from happening, but since the treaty is so flexible with
countries just backing out, its hard to limit, control, and monitor
the usage of the nuclear technology that has the potential and is
capable of creating nuclear weapons.

[Emerson Congleton]

Nonproliferation is the prevention of an increase or spread of nuclear
weapons among nations. Parts of the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty
are good, however some are not. The nuclear powers who signed the
treaty agreed to reduce their supplies of nuclear weapons and to share
their nuclear technology with nonnuclear parties. A reduction of
nuclear powers' arsenals is an excellent step in the right direction
and the next treaty the UN should ratify is the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. The CTBT would stop all forms of nuclear explosions except for
certain maintenance tests, a ban on nuclear tests/explosions is good
because the environment could be damaged by all the tests. However the
part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty I disagree with is
sharing this information just sounds like a horrible idea. Giving this
information to other countries will presumably led to an increase of
countries who are interested in nuclear power and weapons, but it will
also give them instructions on how to carry out their nuclear desires.
The treaty says that the nonnuclear countries would use this
information for only peaceful purposes, but we have no proof that this
is the case. A great example of a country with unclear nuclear motives
is Iran. After an inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the inspectors said that the Iranian facilities have enough
enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran's government says
that the uranium enrichment program is for civilian power plants,
however Iran's neighbors are wary of a nuclear Iran. In the long haul
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a good idea, however we need to
keep an eye out for countries who are still developing nuclear
weapons.

[Grace]

Nuclear nonproliferation is the regulation of the distribution of
nuclear weapons. The UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty was designed
to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology, to promote
the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to achieve nuclear
disarmament. 187 countries have joined this treaty, five being nuclear
states. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other
disarmament agreement. This stands as a testament to the treaty's
importance. The nonproliferation treaty is a smart idea. The NPT
enables the UN to monitor nuclear capability and weapons. It helps
ensure that nuclear weapons will not be used by one country on another
and encourages cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear
technology. From reading this the nonproliferation treaty sounds like
a great solution to the nuclear problems of the world, when in reality
it effectiveness must be questioned. The NPT does not include two of
the biggest nuclear threats of the world, Iran and North Korea. Iran
has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs and South Korea has been
testing nuclear weapons since 2006 when they left the treaty. If the
nonproliferation treaty is not controlling the most capable nuclear
countries in the world we must ask if it is serving a purpose at
all.

[Matt Ming]

In the case of nuclear weapons and technology, nonproliferation is the
process of reducing arsenals of nuclear weapons and ensuring that
nuclear technologies are used for peaceful purposes. There are two
reasons for nonproliferation: one is to prevent countries with
existing nuclear capability from making more, and the other is to
prevent countries without nuclear weapons from creating them. I think
that the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is a good idea on paper.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should have the
authority to enter any country that has signed the UN treaty to review
its nuclear stockpile or energy program. In reality, however,
countries such as Iran and North Korea have defied the IAEA
inspections and turned away the monitoring teams. Their actions
indicate an indifference and disregard of the UN treaty despite the
threat of sanctions. For example, North Korea had originally signed
the Nonproliferation treaty, but withdrew after it was discovered that
it had secretly been developing nuclear weapons. North Korea acted
unilaterally to withdraw from the Nonproliferation treaty and continue
nuclear proliferation. Another country, Iran, has recently been
accused of using its nuclear program to create weapons. IAEA
inspectors have attempted to enter Iran but have been denied entrance,
further raising suspicions about Iran’s nuclear arsenal. According to
the handout from class, the countries Israel, India, and Pakistan have
also declined to sign the Nonproliferation treaty. Israel, which is
currently locked in a violent conflict with Palestine over homeland
territory, wants to be able to produce nuclear weapons to ready itself
against potential future Palestinian aggression. India and Pakistan,
neighboring countries but bitter adversaries, have also refused to
sign the Nonproliferation treaty. Each may want to have nuclear arms
capability so that it will not be at a disadvantage and can use the
threat of nuclear retaliation to intimidate the other into
nonaggression. While I believe that nuclear weapons present a very
real threat to global security, and that limiting nuclear
proliferation is necessary to ensure the safety and peace-of-mind of
the citizens, I do not feel the current treaty has gained full
acceptance. It seems that the treaty is inadequate in monitoring the
signatory countries and that many countries adopt the terms of the
treaty only when it is convenient for them to do so. Thus, the
Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is a good idea and, in my opinion,
essential, but only if the UN is able to more effectively regulate the
actions of countries that possess or are developing nuclear
capabilities.

[Andrew Lin]

Three pillars – three intangible ideas and concepts – make up the
basic structure of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Nonproliferation (the titular one), disarmament (the controversial
one) and peaceful use of nuclear energy (the easiest one) are these
three giant supporting concepts, and within this towering framework of
intangibles is the rest of the treaty. Proposed by Ireland and Finland
(two non-nuclear-warmongering powers) in 1968, the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (hereby to be referred to as NNPT) has over
189 signatory parties that have vowed to follow the guidelines for
nuclear energy specified within the NNPT’s pages and pages of
regulations – a very good thing for the world indeed.
The 570,000 pages of the NNPT all are designed to, when united, convey
a simple and unequivocal statement: use nuclear power only for
peaceful purposes. This statement covers a basic side sentiment that
every human doubtlessly shares across the world – namely, the wish not
to be exterminated by some furious fireball or insidious radiation.
The 570,000 pages that the NNPT has, however, deal with all the
technicalities of nuclear weapon/power ownership, and the
responsibilities that come with the power to destroy cities in
minutes. Fundamentally, the NNPT does something extremely important:
it keeps all the nuclear countries of the world in line, preventing
any potential world catastrophe from occurring. Only non-signatories
such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are dangerous with intent
(accidents can and do happen) on a geopolitical scale – all three
acquired their nuclear weapons through shady means in direct violation
of the NNPT. Countries that have not signed the NNPT are the dangerous
truculent children that may doom the world.
In this lies the fundamental problem – not merely with NNPT, but with
the United Nations in general. The United Nations, in its actions, can
often be equated to an enormous 196-headed dragon, with each head
bickering and arguing over what to do and leading to the eventual
death and starvation of said dragon. The rogue “heads” – countries
such as North Korea and Iran – will be the ones who the NNPT will not
foil. The NNPT is a good thing, laying down the proverbial law on
nuclear weapons and nuclear power. It, however, is not backed up with
enough in the way of repercussions and consequences for violators for
it to be effective in our modern, rebellious, and very dangerous
world.

[Claire]

Nuclear nonproliferation, as described by the article, is essentially
abstinence from the use and production of nuclear weapons. The UN's
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, drafted in 1968, outlines guidelines
concerning nuclear technology use that countries should follow. These
include that nuclear powers would agree to reduce their arsenals and
give nonnuclear power access to their nuclear technology, but only as
long as these non-nuclear countries agree to use the technology for
peaceful purposes. Even though about 187 nations are currently members
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a majority of the countries in
the world, some countries known for being nuclear hotspots are not a
part of the treaty. Countries not part of the NPT like North Korea and
Iran both are nuclear powers, and they pose a threat to the U.S. and
the world as a whole. Because of this, I believe that that the UN
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is not a good idea. It is an
ineffective method to regulate control, as the countries that need to
be controlled the most by the guidelines of this treaty are the ones
that don't even agree to it. North Korea has proven to be a country
that poses a threat to other countries because of their continuous
nuclear weapons testing, despite the fact that the US and other
nations have attempted to make agreements to get them to abandon their
nuclear program. By continuing to develop their nuclear arms, North
Korea has created a dangerous reputation and has ultimately isolated
itself from the world. Iran is another country that is suspected of
having interest in expanding its nuclear program, and has not agreed
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In particular, they have
announced that they will triple their efforts to produce enriched
uranium, a product which they say will be used for energy, but there
is high speculation that these stores of enriched uranium will to
towards nuclear weaponry. Iran's inferred nuclear ambitions have
created strained diplomatic situations, as countries around the world
become increasingly wary of the nuclear power that Iran holds. Here,
it is clearly demonstrated how the NPT is not helpful in controlling
nuclear proliferation, and not effective in decreasing the danger of
hostile nuclear power countries which have not signed to the treaty.

[Julia Bryck]

Nonproliferation is essentially the prevention of the spread and
production of something, in this case, nuclear weapons. The Nuclear
Nonproliferation treaty is really a good idea, theoretically. The
problem is that is has no power over countries that realistically pose
a nuclear threat. Many countries that don't even have capabilities or
would want to pursue nuclear capabilities have signed the treaty, but
dangerous countries such as Iran and North Korea continue their
nuclear programs without any sort of international regulation. The
greatest shock was that North Korea actually had signed onto the
treaty, and they withdrew after it was discovered they were still
developing their nuclear program. This is just one example of the
ineffectiveness of the treaty. Who's to say that even despite IAEA
regulation, more countries couldn't just withdraw from the treaty as
well? The treaty contains no sort of incentive or threat regarding the
production of nuclear weapons. It resembles a "pinky promise" more
than an international law. Without any sort of pressure apart from a
scolding from the international community, there is little obligation
to uphold the Nonproliferation treaty. The only purpose I can see for
the treaty is to get an idea of what countries are legitimately
dangerous and which are expected to remain peaceful. So far, we can
see that Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are countries to
watch because, after all, if they had nothing to hide, why wouldn't
they make the "pinky promise"? Overall, while the Nuclear
Nonproliferation treaty is effective in concept, its lack of power
exposes its major flaws.

[Katherine Singh]

Nonproliferation means regulating the distribution of nuclear weapons
and technologies. It is the opposite of nuclear proliferation, which
is a country discovering or using nuclear weapons and technologies.
The UN's Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty was created by nuclear and
nonnuclear states, stating that nuclear powers would reduce their
nuclear weapons and factories, giving nonnuclear countries who signed
the treaty access to the technology to use as an energy source. I
think the treaty is a great idea and symbol of the future, but leaves
room for improvement. The problem with the treaty is, as always, some
countries don't comply and the treaty has no official enforcement
method for taking care of those countries. If there is a problem with
a noncompliant country, the UN has no official method or even
obligation to deal with it. An example is North Korea, because ever
since their withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, the country has developed
fully capable nuclear weapons. The NPT was ineffective at preventing
the proliferation and definitely could have told the UN about North
Korea potentially dropping out of the treaty ever since they
threatened to leave in 1993. Another problem is that the NPT could do
nothing once North Korea dropped out of the treaty and since developed
nuclear weapons. The NPT's main problem is that of enforcing
cooperation and making nonproliferation efforts to countries not in
the treaty. If the NPT created a section in the treaty adressing how
to deal with uncompliant countries effectively, it could be a great
thing. As nuclear powers reduce their stockpiles, lesser countries
won't feel obligated or threatened to make nuclear weapons to protect
themselves. Once nuclear weapons and proliferation are out of the
way, nulcear power as an alternate energy can develop more. It
already proves to be more cheap and efficient than current energy
sources. Loosing the ability to completely wipe out the Earth will be
a great step towards better diplomacy and environmental efforts. If
the NPT could create better enforcement plans and make IAEA checkups
more thorough and mandatory, the NPT would be a lot better off and
more effective.

[Alex Kim]

Nonproliferation is when countries agree to stop spreading weapons,
especially nuclear weapons to countries that do not already have them.
I think that the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty is a very good
idea. I honestly do not think that any country truly needs to use
nuclear weapons, but because they exist, many countries feel the need
to possess them as a security measure. I think it is within the UN's
rights to control the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and I also
think that the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty should, in theory,
help stop any use of nuclear weapons. I think that every nation should
join the nonproliferation treaty, and that those who do not should be
thoroughly sanction, including India, Pakistan, and North Korea. As
the book says, "Many assert there is an urgent need to amend the NPT

with additional IAEA monitoring requirements to combat the spread of

nuclear technology". I think it is both in the UN's right, as well as
its responsibility to promote the NPT, and to impose sanctions on
countries that refuse to adopt it.
(Sorry it's late...)

[mclax...@aol.com]

Nonproliferation is the limiting of the production of nuclear
bombs or the reduction of nuclear bombs. The UN Nuclear
Nonproliferation is a good idea and is on the right track to help the
global nuclear problem, but there are some flaws with the treaty. Its
a good idea because it decreases the danger of the thousands of bombs
in the world through programs like the START program between the U.S.
and Russia. Also, the parts of the bombs can be useful such as the
uranium for fuel. It is also a good idea because its spreading the
wealth of the nuclear technology that other countries such as
developing countries can't produce. So, the nuclear bombs in the world
are being decreased and the technology is getting put to good use, put
with the amount of bombs still in the world, the earth could be blown
up hundreds of times over. Therefore the treaty isn't fully
successful. However, it is on the right track and the world is safer
through the NPT and the U.N.. The NPT sees through the safe
transferring of nuclear technology. Also, nations that are nuclear
active that are not in the NPT or are suspicious, such as North Korea,
Iran, and Pakistan, are closely monitored and receive many sanctions
for their actions.