motori jan ... pansari is right as the countries who already had nuclear weapons are not supposed to be developing them further where as the uk is considering spending 76 billion pounds for development and maintenance of trident which is clearly illegal but you don't really hear about that on the news everyday around the world with threats of sanctions etc! and yeah obviously whoever has the power dictates the rules but at least let's not fool ourselves into thinking everyone else is playing by the rules!
Abouzar jAn,
No Pansari is not right!!
I PERSONALLY believe the Treaty works as designed
The amount of the nuclear arsenal in the world has actually decreased after the advent of NPT, check out the US-Soviet nuclear disarmament (reduction) that happened during 70s and 80s, and from the date of the Treaty (1970) until today only 3 Nations has join the NWS club and only 1 was a member (N.Korea which had to withdraw from the pack) and the other 2 were not members (India and Pakistan) not a bad track record.
I would say it is better to read the guidelines of NPT then one will realize that maintaining existing arsenal of recognized Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) will not breach NPT's guideline. US (singed 1968), China (1992), Russia (back then USSR signed 1968), France (1992) and UK (1968) are allowed to develop and maintain NW under the guidelines. Why are they allowed? because US, USSR and UK were the only nations openly possessing such a weapons among the original ratifiers of the Treaty. So other nations had 2 choices when dealing with these 3, don't let them sign and basically let them be on their own (considering the terrifying atmosphere of the atomic 60s) or let them sign the Treaty and keep what they had at least this way they could expect some level of responsibility from them, so other ratifying nations decided to choose the latter.
According to "Article I" of NPT Here are what NWS nations (N5) can or can not do:
These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons. (Note that the word "development" is not stated in the Article)
According to Article II here are the responsibilities of NNWS nations:
NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons"
Article III
NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Did Iran have to sign the Treaty? NO!! but Iran voluntarily signed on the doted line and if we think these rules and regulations are not fair and balance then we have all the RIGHT in the world to withdraw from it, but staying in the boundaries of the Frame and not playing by the rules makes us look like a hypocrite. Israel, India and Pakistan didn't want to sign and that is why they are home free. Iran has to follow the rules unless she decides to withdraw but Israel doesn't have to because the doted line in their application form is still blank, although many people including Noam Chomsky claim Israel is indeed a NWS but it is not officially confirmed because they have never tested a NW and no one has presented any evidence of the existence. Do these NPT guidelines make sense? It depends, if you want to argue from moral stand point may be not, but legally all signatories including IRI must follow the rules until we reach a point of global status in which we will be capable of changing them.
The other problem with Iranian nuclear R&D is not the RIGHT of the nation but it is the manner in which IRI has handled the program so far, examples:
1- NPT allows enrichment R&D to all of its signatories but it MUST be transparent and IAEA must be informed of every step of the way. Iran instead maintained grave secrecy and failed to report actions dated from 1989 to 2003, even in 2003 it was not IRI who informed the IAEA but a MKO operative who blew the whistle.
2- If the program was for peaceful purposes then why did IRI purchased a copy of Chinese Thermo- Nuclear Weapon blueprints from Pakistani AQ Khan? and why did IRI kept this purchase info from IAEA all the way until it was surfaced by AQ Khan himself. Libya also purchased a copy of the same plan from same person but later on abandoned the ambitions in 2003. Iran could easily inform IAEA of this purchase and claim it was for Research only and not for Development purposes.
3- Almost every nation who has or want to extract energy from Uranium has built Conventional Light Water Reactors but contrary to the norm Iran has decided to go with clandestine # centrifuges all under ground. When you have nothing to hide then why should you hide?
4- Why is IRI so pre-occupied with enrichment program when there is NO single reactor being even close to operational level so IRI could pump the controversial FUEL in? That is equivalent of some one pumping gasoline (petrol) without even owning a Car.
5-Let me admit it again I'm economic illiterate but even using a simple calculator you can come up with this conclusion that economically it is feasible for Iran to build conventional light water reactors and import the necessary fuel from abroad because Iran needs around 4% grade U-235 to get the reactors HOT but considering the quality and amount of Uranium available from domestic resources, cost of building and maintaining over 4000 Chinese designed centrifuges will exceed the amount which we can spend to import the light water multiple times. Some one with more knowledge in this field convinced me (and many others) that only cost of maintaining several 1000 centrifuges will actually be higher than the cost of importing readily available fuel in the world market let alone the gazillion $ we must spend to build them.
Above are the examples of ambiguities from legal stand point which comes to my simple mind and if we are talking from moral stand point then I could say that is one word which has never been included in IRI's dictionary and I'm yet to be convinced that IRI is morally equivalent and/or equally responsible like many other nations in the world as a matter of fact it is fair to claim IRI stands alone on those regards.
