Shortforbob

Members
  • Content Count

    28,979
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Shortforbob last won the day on May 16 2019

Shortforbob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,023 F'n Saint

About Shortforbob

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist
  • Birthday 09/13/1959

Profile Information

  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Interests
    Fixing old things

Recent Profile Visitors

7,185 profile views
  1. Yeh, the grown ups are back. Where have you been?
  2. For anyone who's actually interested rather than self aggrandising https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2019/npt-and-tpnw-compatible-or-conflicting-nuclear-weapons-treaties#:~:text=Article 1 of the TPNW,of use of nuclear weapons.&text=In comparison%2C in NPT Article,pursue disarmament in Article VI. The NPT and the TPNW: Compatible or conflicting nuclear weapons treaties? excerpt Legal compatibility of the treaties Article 1 of the TPNW prohibits the development, deployment, possession, use and the threat of use of nuclear weapons. Its key prohibitions also include the stationing of nuclear weapons on states parties’ territory, as well as the assistance, encouragement or inducement of any activity prohibited by the treaty. These obligations apply equally to all states parties, but they do not bind countries that are outside the treaty. Although none of the nine nuclear-armed states are likely to join the TPNW in the immediate future, the underlying assumption is that they will ultimately be affected by the strong stigmatization of nuclear weapons in the Treaty. In comparison, in NPT Article II non-nuclear weapon states commit themselves not to acquire nuclear weapons, whereas the five nuclear-armed states parties agree to pursue disarmament in Article VI. More specifically, the latter article requires ‘Each of the Parties to the Treaty… to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.’ Further stressing the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, the NPT preamble points to the need ‘to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.’ In other words, while the TPNW seeks to make nuclear weapons illegal for all countries, the NPT provided a monopoly on such weapons to the five countries that had proliferated before 1968. This exception and its subsequent acceptance by the nearly universal NPT membership reflected concerns about an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons, which were particularly high in the 1960s. At the same time—although it does not mention any specific time limits—the NPT clearly points to the need for the eventual disarmament by the five countries. While not identical, the core obligations of the two treaties thus seem to be perfectly consistent with one another. For this reason, the recent flurry of legal analyses on the TPNW rarely problematizes the Treaty’s relationship with the NPT, but instead tends to focus on potential inconsistencies with existing security arrangements. Indeed, the TPNW can be seen as putting the NPT Article VI into practice. (Whether the TPNW actually amounts to the kind ‘effective measure’ envisioned in Article VI or whether it will eventually become the normative framework regulating the complete abolition of nuclear weapons are speculative questions that are best answered with the benefit of hindsight at a later point in time.) Conclusion It would be difficult to make the case of legal incompatibility between the TPNW and the NPT, as the former so clearly builds on NPT Article VI on disarmament. Instead, the perceived incompatibility between the two treaties mainly has to do with the indirect negative consequences that the TPNW could potentially have on the NPT’s non-proliferation objectives. While it is indeed possible that some non-nuclear weapon states could withdraw from the NPT and umbrella states might lose faith in extended deterrence, the TPNW is unlikely to be the sole or even primary trigger for such developments. Essentially, the dispute over the TPNW is based on political disagreement regarding how to advance nuclear disarmament. While the NPT reflected the need to prioritise non-proliferation over the long-term goal of disarmament, the TPNW represents the view that—half a century after the adoption of the NPT—progress on disarmament is long overdue. At the same time, the TPNW seeks to promote disarmament by delegitimising the continued possession of nuclear weapons by all countries, including the five nuclear-armed members of the NPT. This puts the Treaty at odds with the existing nuclear order. However, it does not make the TPNW incompatible with the NPT; in addition to codifying the existing nuclear monopoly of a few countries in 1970, the NPT also foresaw the need for change, and therefore cannot be used indefinitely to defend the status quo. ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) Dr Tytti Erästö is a Senior Researcher in the SIPRI Nuclear Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme.
  3. Shortforbob

    Local Asshole

    What's an American's understanding got to do with anything? "Here" being? The USA? This Forum? This thread? Work on your grammar (and realize is spelled realise in all civilised countries. France, Germany, Netherlands...)
  4. Shortforbob

    Local Asshole

    1) I find it hard to comprehend that you only just installed metal detectors 2) It's impossible to comprehend that someone who takes a gun into your chambers of Government would not be immediately arrested. 3) what sort of place even allows members of congress to have guns in the building? The mind absolutely boggles.
  5. Shortforbob

    Local Asshole

    Why isn't he sitting in gaol right now? Serious question.
  6. Yeah right. If one was to ask that question with a preamble that we were about to be attacked by: USA? "sure we need to get us some NUKES to defend ourselves." Don't make me laugh. China ? "sure we need to get us some NUKES to defend ourselves." Don't make me laugh. NZ? "sure we need to get us some NUKES to defend ourselves." Why go to all that bother, we could use the Humour. You forget that you're attitudes are those of not only the relative right but also those of an older and dying generation. I try to remember that, maybe you should too.
  7. However, these polls are a good indicative of a countries attitude. We don't like Nuclear anything. But, like most countries, if it doesn't directly and obviously affect us, we don't engage.
  8. FWIW, I think the majority of Australians would want us to sign. However, like many of these "smaller" issues, Palestinians right to state etc, they slip under the public conscience radar. We have had a conservative government for almost 8 years now. Our economy is and has been reasonably stable for a long time. It would take a strongly left wing Labor government to upset the status quo with our relationship with the USA's policies. Most Australians probably assume we are signatories to this treaty anyway. With things as they are in Australia, most people reasonably happy and contented with the big local issues (Public health, education, employment, Covid management) that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
  9. Shortforbob

    Photo op is over, now fuck off

    chicken
  10. Shortforbob

    Photo op is over, now fuck off

    Why not? I dare you
  11. Hmm..I think I read about it in the "failing" NYT? Mainstream media? Why are you so dim?
  12. Shortforbob

    Day 1, Press Conference 1

    It's like someone just threw a ton of draino down a blocked gully trap. Whoosh