U.S. Proposes New Disarmament Nuke Treaty

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2006/may/18/051809204.html

GENEVA (AP) - The United States on Thursday proposed that the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament negotiate a new treaty banning production of the nuclear material needed to make atomic bombs.

Stephen G. Rademaker, acting U.S. assistant secretary of state for arms control, told the body that developments in the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran showed it was time for a rapid agreement on the treaty to ban production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, known as "fissile material."

"The treaty text that we are putting forward contains the essential provisions that would comprise a successful legally binding FMCT," or Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, Rademaker said.

"It bans ... the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," he said.

<more>

would anybody sign a disarmament treaty proposed by the U.S.A.? Between Ronnie Raygun & Junior we've crapped on every arms treaty we ever signed.

US to the World: You disarm and we won't. We got a deal?

This is akin to a armed robber pointing a gun at a cop and telling him to drop his gun. You know as soon as he does that, cop is dead meat.

No, the only way there can be peace on this planet is if there is a proportional balance of power. I mean, what was the first thing US of A did in the wake of collapse of soviet communism? It invaded Iraq. What does this tell you? It tells you that if it wasn't for China, weak-but-still-feisty Russia, and several other nations, US would be probably invading Mexico and overthrowing the Canadian government right about now.

after Iraq, that is. The US had the field to itself after the fall of the USSR. No invasion of Cuba, no annexation of Canada, cautious and slow expansion of NATO, no series of regime changes throughout the world. Couldn't have said the same if the Soviets had won the Cold War.

the vast majority of Americans are not neo-cons.

"No invasion of Cuba, no annexation of Canada" <-- Because they couldn't.

"slow expansion of NATO" <-- Best they could do.

With Soviet Union out of the way US had a free-er hand in some parts of the world (Eastern Europe, and Balkans for example), but they didn't have completely free hand, much like they don't have it today. Regardless of the size and technological advancement of the US military machine, US does not have the logistics nor the ability to simply take what it wants. Best it can do, for now, is destabilization of unfriendly regimes and governments through covert operations, using force when opportunity shows itself. I'm not saying some of the other nations are much better, but they are not worse either.

You said: "no series of regime changes throughout the world."

Where have you been for the past twenty years?

When a Democrat was President. That's my take on why there were few imperialistic adventures. That why, I hope, things will change after a Democrat is in the White House.

(Unless you include the Balkans). That's a reassuring record.

This is an effort to appear to be doing something, anything about
nuclear proliferation so that the India nuke deal won't look so bad.

Related Reuters article: US to propose treaty on nuclear fuel production

The treaty does not contain provisions for verification and it won't stop
nuclear capable countries like India from making more bombs.