Nuclear prohibition has failed

[Martin Luther King]

[exploited]

Your quote states that when war breaks out, the weapons would be mounted on the host countries planes. Which again means control rests with the host country. My quote comes from the second paragraph, in the main summary.

As for a nuclear deterrence pact, sure, the US could back out - and therefore shatter all other deterrence pacts while allowing a nuclear weapon to be used offensively with no devastating consequences. Not going to happen.

America categorically would not encourage other nations to build weapons. Why would it do that?

I don't think more nuclear states is a good thing. What I know is that disarmament isn't happening, and that there is an astounding incentive to secure nuclear weapons regardless of their legality. I also know that their stigma is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Between Iraq and the sanctions of Iran, how many have died? And for what? To ensure that Iran never had a chance to never use a nuke to murder-suicide Saudi Arabia? Come on.

[Martin Luther King]

[exploited]

The weapons are under control of the USAF. Until war breaks out. In which case the Treaty is invalidated, according to the US and France and the UK. The weapons are then mounted on the host countries planes, and they assume total control over them. Why else do you think they'd allow nuclear weapons on their soil? Just to be a nice guy?

[Sparse1]

[John Galt]

i agree with saz, it has indeed worked amazingly.

of the signatories, only nkorea developed a nuke, and after they withdrew. 189 states have signed. india, pakistan, isreal did not sign. only one other un-nation didn't: south sudan. sure, maybe they could get nukes. have at it

"At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25–30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, five states are not parties to the NPT, and they include the only four additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons" - wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_No ... ion_Treaty

you're wrong exploited

[exploited]

[John Galt]

only one of the countries that signed ever got nuclear weapons, and that country left before they did. all others did not. and only 4 didn't sign. india would have signed if the cutoff date was after 1975. the thing is, those who have them don't want others to have them, but if they have them, they won't give them up.

i really don't even understand what you're talking about man. it's the most successful arms treaty in history. the prohibition is with signatories, but it gives them benefits, e.g., access to nuclear power just not weapons. out of nearly two hundred nations in 40 years only 3 gained nuclear weapons. without this... i would assume there'd be 100+ nuclear powers right now. let the genie out of the bottle and it's not going back in. for christsake north korea which is like what the depression would be in hell managed to make them

[Kane]

[Aaron]

Nuclear prohibition is on par with abstinence education in complete lack of intelligence.

Humans will be curious, and humans will engage in the things they are curious about. How they interact with each other while they are being curious is the only intellectual ground to stand on... not whether or not they should be curious.