With Russian families abandoning their country…

 …cam Russia still claim sovereignty? 

We saw young men leave for Canada during Vietnam, but, what percentage of US military was left to defend the country?

The problem with Putin’s war is that it is destroying two countries at once. His invasion into Ukraine was based in tank dominance. That didn’t happen and a large number of the men in those tanks died because it was a tinderbox once ignited by a armor penetrating middle. 

This strategy worked in Syria because the opposing forces were not armed to defeat Russian tanks. Syria was destroyed in many places, including hospitals. 

Russia’s conventional military is weak. When realizing the conventional military is weak, what is left is Putin and missiles. Not much else.

The nuclear power plants are estimated to be used as shields to prevent attack.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/satellite-images-show-damage-building-ukraine-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-russia-2022-8%3Famp

It sounds right. Nothing else makes sense. So, Putin sees two footholds in Ukraine at the nuclear power plants. Putin is treating the plants as forts. These facilities are not built to be forts. Putin has lost the war and the only thing allowing those soldiers at the plant to stay is the delicacy of the circumstances.

Soldiers at nuclear power plants are another human rights violation as it threatens the lives of so many including any accidental release into the atmosphere to be carried by wind anywhere.

Is there actually a Russia? It is disappearing everyday. The land is there. Some of the people remain including the ruling elite, but, other than an ocean naval fleet Russia has no military to defend its borders. 

There is Putin. There are missiles. Global Russian assets are being absorbed by foreign governments to assist Ukraine in it’s need for humanitarian aid as well as a national defense.

So, realistically is there a Russia. In my opinion, no. In name only. Putin counted on its propaganda and nothing of substance.

Putin’s anger with the world is destroying Russia from the inside and Ukraine from the outside. 

So, what to do? 

Wait it out until Putin realizes he is the leader of an emptied country except for the remnants of communism. Global leaders, including Xi of China, need to realistically assess any possibility of a victory and refuse assistance to prolong the end.

No power, including Ukraine, wants to invade Russia and kill Russians. Russia needs to stop and first turn over the nuclear power plants. Those reactors are neutral zones and no soldiers belong there. The soldiers there, are hiding from reality as is there president.

It appears Russians with young men to be conscripted are leaving.

Russia is claiming it has it's own iPhone now with premeir salesperson Maria. Butina, former spy. Putin claims the war that is not a war is going as planned to protect civilian lives. I guess having him represented at the NPT meeting at least got a message to him that he is killing a lot of innocent people.

August 29, 2022
By Yesica Fisch

Sloviansk, Ukraine - Russia and Ukraine traded claims (click here) of rocket and artillery strikes at or near Europe’s largest nuclear power plant on Sunday, intensifying fears that the fighting could cause a massive radiation leak.

Ukraine’s atomic energy agency painted an ominous picture of the threat Sunday by issuing a map forecasting where radiation could spread from the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which Russian forces have controlled since soon after the war began.

Attacks were reported over the weekend not only in Russian-controlled territory adjacent to the plant along the left bank of the Dnieper River, but along the Ukraine-controlled right bank, including the cities of Nikopol and Marhanets, each about 10 kilometers (six miles) from the facility.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said Sunday that Ukrainian forces had attacked the plant twice over the past day, and that shells fell near buildings storing reactor fuel and radioactive waste....

Real world evidence, please. The global community seemed to have their own significant evidence at the NTP meeting. Shouting matches really don't matter. Where are the two nuclear lab persons taken to Belarus. No one has spoken to the kidnapping or worse by Russian soldiers.

Ukraine officially acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on December 5, 1994

The treaty became effective in March 1970 and was to remain so for a 25-year period. Additional countries later ratified the treaty; as of 2007 only three countries (India, Israel, and Pakistan) have refused to sign the treaty, and one country (North Korea) has signed and then withdrawn from the treaty.

Currently only five countries have not signed NPT which are, India, Pakistan, Israel, South Sudan and North Korea.

China: Accession to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) On July 1, 1968, the Treaty was signed at Washington in the name of the Republic of China. An instrument of ratification of the Treaty on behalf of the Republic of China was deposited at Washington on January 27, 1970.

The NPT has no veto rights by the five nuclear powers. It is not controlled by the UN Security Council.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Remains Strong Despite Russian Obstructionism. After weeks of intensive but productive negotiations, the Russian Federation alone decided to block consensus on a final document at the conclusion of the Tenth Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

I really think a high profile visit to the Ukraine nuclear reactors needs to include an energy minister from Russia, Ukraine and the IAEA. It should seek to settle this dispute and put forward the neutral country that will oversee the reactors and shut them down until this war is ended. Taking custody of the reactors by a neutral global power should allow Russia to return to the NPT without complaints. 

These reactors are in a war zone of which Russia admits it is a special military operation, hence, things going boom. So, the idea of a neutral party taking custody of the reactors to provide protections for human beings in the area and beyond is highly reasonable.

 

It has been a while since Artemus engines were fired up.

August 29, 2022

By David W. Brown and Kenneth Chang

On Monday (click here for video) we didn’t get to see the Space Launch System travel to space. But NASA’s moon rocket has fired its engines before, although it stayed firmly on the ground. Sometime between then and now, something went wrong with engine #3.

On March 18, 2021, NASA completed a “hot fire test,” when the four engines in the core stage of the Space Launch System ignited and continued firing for more than eight minutes, performing what they would do during a trip to space but firmly anchored to the ground.

"Don't believe them." is a great reply to the political lies of the anti-Constitutionalists.

"Don't believe them or it and this is the truth...and this is where it can be verified."

I think that is a real answer to most lies being peddled when someone states an obvious manipulation of an issue.

August 15, 2022

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision (click here) overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s essential that California voters amend the state Constitution to ensure reproductive choice.

California’s existing laws protect an individual’s right to make decisions about abortion and contraceptives. And the state constitutional right to privacy has been interpreted by California’s Supreme Court to safeguard those choices.

But as we’ve seen with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent shocking decision and the rush by other states to ban abortion, reproductive rights that are not explicitly granted in a constitution are vulnerable to the whim of justices and lawmakers. And, as Justice Clarence Thomas foreshadowed in his concurring opinion, the federal right to contraception could be overturned next.

Thus, Californians can no longer count on federal protections. They need to explicitly embed rights to choose an abortion and to choose or refuse contraception in their state constitution. Proposition 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot would do just that. Vote yes.

The law would ensure that only future state voters, not politicians nor justices, could alter those rights. It is perhaps the most important measure on the upcoming ballot.

And it is certain to face an onslaught of campaign misinformation. Californians should expect to be bombarded this fall by political ads arguing that Prop. 1 would allow unrestricted late-term abortions that would cost taxpayers millions. Don’t believe them....

"Morning Papers"

The Rooster

"Okeydoke"

August 29, 2022
By Amy B. Wang

The judge presiding over the Georgia grand jury investigation (click here) into possible election interference by Donald Trump and his allies on Monday denied a motion from Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to quash a subpoena requiring him to testify.

However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert C.I. McBurney also delayed Kemp’s appearance before the grand jury until “some date soon after” Election Day in November. Kemp, who is running for reelection against Democrat Stacey Abrams, has alleged that the investigation is politically motivated.

McBurney had previously expressed skepticism over arguments from Republicans that the prosecution, led by a Democratic district attorney, was politically motivated.

“It is not my space” to focus on politics, McBurney said last week as lawyers for Kemp argued that the subpoena had already become a political issue this election season. “I don’t think it is the right forum” to debate the political ramifications of the case, said the judge....

Really?

Must every legal DELAYING maneuver be tried by the people that should be cooperating? Seriously? What kind of lawyers are these that don't even try something legally that will work? They are criminal in their purpose and content.

Lawyers when they receive a license takes an oath. 

Atlanta, April 22, 2002

The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. (click here)

The following order was passed:

The order entered by this Court on April 8, 2002, amending the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law is hereby vacated. It is further ordered that the Attorney’s Oath, found in the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, Part B, Section 16, be amended to read as follows:

I, ________________, swear that I will truly and honestly, justly and uprightly conduct myself as a member of this learned profession and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, as an attorney and counselor, and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. So help me God.

I realize oaths and state and federal constitutions don't mean anything to people like Kemp and Graham, but, this is such nonsense. For those involved with Trump that have a law license, there needs to be complaints brought to the state law agencies to file at the very least ethics complaints.

...The legal maneuvering is the latest sign of tension between prosecutors and high-profile witnesses in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s expansive criminal probe of alleged election interference by Trump and his allies....

Even the Washington Post recognizes for what it is. Let me add a few words to that, evasion and fraud. Every person involved with Trump knows they are pulling stunts and not practicing law. The judge in his instance made it clear there is no politics in his court. So, with that, legal remedies need to be sought in every state these bozos are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters. They are practicing politics rather than submitting to the law. That in any other court would not be tolerated, as it isn't here, but, at what point are licenses pulled and fines levied for DELAYING the right of the people to try those breaking the law?

The Sixth Amendment to the USA Constitution guarantees all those charged with crimes a speedy trial. When does the right to a speedy trial also satisfy "the people."

It is no different than Big Tobacco and the State of California. It isn't just what is in question, it is what is gained.

August 29, 2022
By Scooty Nickerson

Win or lose, (click here) tobacco companies are reaping hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to a California proposition that they spent a fraction of that amount to get on this fall’s ballot.

The measure, known as Proposition 31, asks voters if a 2020 legislative ban on flavored tobacco products, including electronic and menthol cigarettes, should be upheld.

But here’s the thing: The No on Prop. 31 campaign secured a nearly two-year pause on the ban when it collected 623,000 signatures to force the Legislature’s handiwork to a vote in the next general election. That delay cost Big Tobacco about $20 million, half paid to a signature-gathering firm.

Qualifying a referendum on the ban cleared the way for manufacturers to continue selling flavored tobacco products to Californians, including everything from mango-flavored vape pens to menthol cigarettes, until voters weigh in this November....

Those involved in the Trump Republican Circus are trying to delay any proceedings in hopes Trump makes it back to the Oval Office to hand out pardons immediately and get on with the revolution of ending the US Constitution. That is unethical if not illegal. Can we get on with all this, please.

The State of California should sue for the entire amount of money Big Tobacco gained in it's "gaming the system."

Flavored tobacco is a gateway to hook young smokers for life and the addiction to the product remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the state, killing 40,000 Californians a year.

"Good night, moon."

New moon

1.6 day old moon

2.9 percent lit

Now that Artemis is announced and on its launch pad, the reach into space has to be sincere and earnest.

The USA should be looking to the moon as an interim weigh over to Mars. It should be looking to Mars as the initial move to interstellar space and beyond.

The James Webb Space Telescope (click here) is bringing in incredible information and NASA needs to start mapping our way to other solar systems and quite possibly other reaches to the universe. I think the American people need to have a realistic vision of tomorrow beyond the Milky Way.

I believe the USA is Atlas.

It is time to move the NPT forward. It has been long enough and the Non-Proliferation Treaty must be honored. It clearly means that every country in the world with any nuclear weapons needs to be moving to a nuclear free world. No excuses. No more China and Russia from using it strategically to wait and see if the Free World will back away enough so they are more nuclear than any other.

The move away from nuclear weapons has to be pursued with vigor and get it done. No more weapons of mass destruction globally.

Every American President facing the potential use of nuclear weapons since WWII has invoked the spirit and language of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Every Russian leader, except, Putin in recent weeks has backed the NPT.

All this nonsense by Putin is to keep his voting base in Russia of the communists. He needs to stop touting the Soviet Union will return because it won't. He needs to return to the leader of a country that needs to stop it's aggressions and develop and economy that will eventually be able to be trusted to return to a larger economy outside of Russia.

Vladimir Putin wants to build two nuclear reactors in a NATO country, Hungry. The handshake probably already took place. Putin doesn't know what he doing with nuclear weapons or energy. He has to stop pretending Russia rules the world and continually making plans to end the Free World. It isn't happening and he needs to stop denying it.

The world has a problem and it is one man named Vladimir Putin. He has lost the war in Ukraine. Someone needs to take custody of the out of control nuclear reactors in Ukraine and soon.

Secretary Antony J. Blinken’s Remarks to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

Secretary of State Blinken spoke to the issues with North Korea and Iran.

The five permanent nuclear nations of the NPT all agree that "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." One month after that affirmation to each and every country on Earth, Russia invaded Ukraine and has been nuclear saber rattling ever since.

Nuclear Non-Prolifertion was a focus of President Obama. He wanted the world to be free of these weapons of mass destruction.

March 28, 2016
By Steven Mufson

A group of nuclear nonproliferation experts (click here) gathered in the White House Situation Room last Halloween to talk about how President Obama could still make nuclear security an important part of his legacy.

The timing was coincidental, but the location reflected the sensitivity and gravity of the agenda: loose nuclear material, superpower nuclear arsenals, nuclear terrorism, tensions with Russia and the unpredictability of North Korea. The administration also was hunting for ideas about what might be still doable in the president’s waning days in office.

The muted, closed-door White House meeting was a far cry from the rousing speech Obama delivered on April 5, 2009, before a crowd in Prague’s Hradcany Square. There, a hopeful Obama set high goals for reducing the risk of nuclear weapons. He vowed to shrink the U.S. nuclear arsenal, secure poorly guarded nuclear materials such as uranium and plutonium, convene international nuclear summits, and confront and contain North Korea, which just that morning had tested a long-range missile....

Given the ridiculous position Russia took at the 5 year review of the NPT it is time the USA assign a special council with enough staff to build a global consensus to move this forward for every country on Earth. It is necessary. It is time the communists stop using the NPT as part of a strategy against the Free World and disarm from nuclear weapons.

April 4, 2019

By Steven Pilfer of Brookings

April 5 marks the 10th anniversary of the speech (click here) in which Barack Obama laid out his vision for a world without nuclear weapons. It did not gain traction. Instead, the United States and Russia are developing new nuclear capabilities, while the nuclear arms control regime is on course to expire in 2021. The result will be a world that is less stable, less secure, and less predictable.

A Worthwhile Vision

Just 10 weeks after his inauguration, President Obama’s first trip to Europe took him to Prague. Speaking in Hradcany Square, Obama voiced his deep interest in reducing nuclear arms, including a “commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” He added that reaching that goal would require time, and that, as long as nuclear arms existed, the United States would maintain a “safe, secure and effective” nuclear arsenal....

President George W. Bush was deeply committed to ending weapons of mass destruction.

March 30, 2004

By Joseph Cirincione

...The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (click here) has served as the backbone of nuclear non-proliferation efforts for almost thirty-five years. Overall, the regime has been remarkably successful but recent developments have illustrated three serious gaps in the treaty:.

states can legally pursue civilian nuclear programs that can later be used to produce nuclear weapons;

a newly-discovered nuclear black market flaunts the treaty's export provisions; and,

a treaty designed to block state acquisition now must grapple with non-state terrorists intent on getting nuclear weapons.

President Bush's speech of 11 February was a positive step towards covering these gaps. The measures he announced would, overall, help forge a stronger, more effective and more international non-proliferation policy. Many of the initiatives, if implemented, will increase the ability of the United States and other nations to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. On 25 March, the administration also introduced at the United Nations Security Council a Draft Resolution on Non-Proliferation that, if adopted, would also strengthen international anti-proliferation laws and cooperation. The draft resolution would go a long way towards integrating some of the administration's policy innovations, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, with established international legal norms and institutions. This, in turn, would greatly facilitate the participation of many other nations in these efforts.

Serious questions remain, however, as to the willingness of the President to back up these proposals with financial and political capital. For example, although the President called for expanding the Nunn-Lugar programs which have proven so effective in securing and eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the former Soviet Union, the administration's budget for the coming fiscal year actually cuts funding for Nunn-Lugar programs by ten percent. Similarly, the President called for enhancing the International Atomic Energy Agency's capabilities to detect cheating and respond to treaty violations, but he did not provide any increase in the U.S. contribution to the IAEA....

Acting as the Atlas of the World, the USA pledged peace to all non-nuclear countries.

Among the sculptures (click here) present in the National Archaeological Museum of Naples and belonging to the Farnese collection , one is of particular importance for the studies that have been conducted on it. This is the statue of the Farnese Atlas .

The United States (click here) believes than universal adherence to and compliance with international conventions and treaties seeking to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a cornerstone of global security. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a central element of this regime. March 5, 1995, was the 25th anniversary of its entry-into-force, an event commemorated by President Clinton in a speech in Washington on March 1, 1995. A conference to decide on extension of the treaty will begin in New York City on April 17, 1995. The United States considers the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons without conditions as a matter of the highest national priority and will continue to pursue all appropriate efforts to achieve that outcome.

It is important that all Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons fulfill their obligations under the treaty. In that regard, consistent with generally recognized principles of international law, Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be in compliance with these undertakings in order to be eligible for any benefits of adherence to this treaty.

As a nuclear-weapon state the United States has consistently recognized its responsibilities under the treaty, and the importance of addressing the special needs of non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the treaty with regard to measures that would alleviate their legitimate security concerns. To that end, the president directed that the United States review its policies on security assurances for such non-nuclear-weapon states and that consultations be held with other nuclear-weapon states on this important topic.

Bearing the above considerations in mind, the president declares the following:

The United States reaffirms that it will now use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.

Aggression with nuclear weapons, or the threat of such aggression, against a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would create a qualitatively new situation in which the nuclear-weapon state permanent members of the United Nations Security Council would have to act immediately through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, to take the measures necessary to counter such aggression or to remove the threat of aggression. Any state which commits aggression accompanied by the use of nuclear weapons or which threatens such aggression must be aware that its actions are to be countered effectively by measures to be taken in accordance with the U.N. Charter to suppress the aggression or remove the threat of aggression.

Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have a legitimate desire for assurances that the U.N. Security Council, and above all its nuclear-weapon state permanent members, would act immediately in accordance with the charter, in the event such non-nuclear-weapon states are the victim of an act of, or object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States affirms its intention to provide or support immediate assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is a victim of an act of, or an object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

Among the means available to the Security Council for assisting such a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would be an investigation into the situation and appropriate measures to settle the dispute and to restore international peace and security.

U.N. Member States should take appropriate measures in response to a request for technical, medical, scientific or humanitarian assistance from a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is a victim of an act of aggression with nuclear weapons, and the Security Council should consider what measures are needed in this regard in the event of such an act of aggression.

The Security Council should recommend appropriate procedures, in response to any request from a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is the victim of such an act of aggression, regarding compensation under international law from the aggressor for loss, damage or injury sustained as a result of the aggression.

The United States reaffirms the inherent right, recognized under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, of individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack, including a nuclear attack, occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Frequently, making enormous progress in trust and disarmament from nuclear weapons depends on the partner a president has.

In a December 1989 summit between Bush and Gorbachev in Malta, (click here) the two leaders discussed arms reductions and strengthening their relations. At a summit in Washington, D.C., in June 1990, the two men signed a broad arms reduction agreement in which the United States and Soviet Union consented to decreasing their nuclear arsenals. Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker, worked hard to establish a meaningful relationship with Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze, the Soviet foreign minister. By most accounts, they were very successful in redefining relations with the Soviet Union in a post-Cold War environment. In July 1991, Bush met Gorbachev in Moscow and signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as START.

When Gorbachev's opponents attempted a coup to oust him from power the next month, the Bush administration waited anxiously for the outcome. The coup failed, and Gorbachev resumed his position but the Soviet Union was in evident decline. Throughout the fall, the Soviet Republics began to declare their independence from the Soviet Union, and in December, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus announced they were forming a new confederation of states. Gorbachev resigned as the President of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991.

The efforts of Bush, Gorbachev, Baker, and Shevardnadze achieved results in improving U.S.-Soviet relations in ways that would have been unthinkable ten years earlier. Critics of the Bush administration faulted it for being aligned too closely with Gorbachev and too willing to compromise; many thought that Bush should have made more overtures to Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia who often wanted reforms to proceed more quickly than Gorbachev and eventually oversaw much of Russia's transition away from Communism. Nonetheless, Bush's relationship with Gorbachev helped facilitate improved U.S.-Soviet relations....

Not since Reagan has the NPT been valued as an international goal.

The point of view that the NPT is neglected is not an unusual point of view.

Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 40, Issue 6 (2017) 

Eight Lost Years? (click here) Nixon, Ford, Kissinger and the Non-Proliferation Regime, 1969–1977

The years following the signature of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 have generally been seen as a period of neglect in US non-proliferation policy. While joining recent scholarship questioning this, the article also shows that the policies that emerged from the Nixon–Ford years were the product of a broad range of factors that constrained both the United States’ ability and willingness to build an effective non-proliferation regime. These included the Nixon administration’s initial skepticism regarding the NPT, as well as the global dispersion of power away from the US, combined with the continued importance of anti-Soviet containment.

President Jimmy Carter probably received more attention for his work toward peace after he left office.

President Carter was in office from 1977-1981.

February 22, 1997
By President Jimmy Carter

The Nuclear Crisis

...Now it is time for the 30-year-old NPT (click here) to be reviewed (in April, by an international assembly at the United Nations), and, sad to say, the current state of affairs with regard to nuclear proliferation is not good. In fact, I think it can be said that the world is facing a nuclear crisis. Unfortunately, U.S. policy has had a good deal to do with creating it.

At the last reassessment session, in 1995, a large group of non-nuclear nations with the financial resources and technology to develop weapons--including Egypt, Brazil and Argentina--agreed to extend the NPT, but with the proviso that the five nuclear powers take certain specific steps to defuse the nuclear issue: adoption of a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996; conclusion of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and "determined pursuit" of efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals, with the ultimate goal of eliminating them.

It is almost universally conceded that none of these commitments has been honored. India and Pakistan have used this failure to justify their joining Israel as nations with recognized nuclear capability that are refusing to comply with NPT restraints. And there has been a disturbing pattern of other provocative developments:...

So, while the NPT still existed and exists there seems to be a chronic wanding away from it, except, every five years. What bothers me about this drifting away from the NPT is that communists in general will sign on to these agreements in hopes the Free World will diminish importance of their nuclear arsenal due to the existence of the NPT. In other words, it is a tool to attempt to have the Free World allow themselves to be weaker in the face of potential elimination of nuclear arsenals worldwide.

That is what the NPT is about, dissolving nuclear arsenals over time with countries hopefully moving to conventional weapons and war. What we are seeing with Russia is leaning heavily into this reality. But, Russia has proved itself to be incompetent in conventional warfare. So, due to that fact, rather than accepting it's own borders rather than the old Soviet Union borders, and declare itself neutral for it's incompetency, Putin is muscle flexing all the time about his nuclear prowess. Same status is true with North Korea.

Saving Nonproliferation

By Jimmy Carter

Renewal talks for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (click here) are scheduled for May, yet the United States and other nuclear powers seem indifferent to its fate. This is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs. A recent United Nations report warned starkly: "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation."

A group of "Middle States" has a simple goal: "To exert leverage on the nuclear powers to take some minimum steps to save the non-proliferation treaty in 2005." Last year this coalition of nuclear-capable states -- including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and eight NATO members -- voted for a new agenda resolution calling for implementing NPT commitments already made. Tragically, the United States, Britain and France voted against this resolution....

Carter - Ford debate

President Gerald Ford was in office for three years. He was great, but, it was a short period of time.

 Nuclear Policy 

Statement by the President (click here)

October 28, 1976

We have known since the age of nuclear energy began more than 30 years ago that this source of energy had the potential for tremendous benefits for mankind and the potential for unparalleled destruction.

On the one hand, there is no doubt that nuclear energy represents one of the best hopes for satisfying the rising world demand for energy with minimum environmental impact and with the potential for reducing dependence on uncertain and diminishing world supplies of oil.

On the other hand, nuclear fuel, as it produces power also produces plutonium, which can be chemically separated from the spent fuel. The plutonium can be recycled and used to generate additional nuclear power, thereby partially offsetting the need for additional energy resources. Unfortunately-and this is the root of the problem-the same plutonium produced in nuclear powerplants can, when chemically separated, also be used to make nuclear explosives.

The world community cannot afford to let potential nuclear weapons material or the technology to produce it proliferate uncontrolled over the globe....

President Nixon and Non-Proliferation

With the number of nuclear weapon states (click here) steadily rising, and tensions between the Cold War superpowers continuing to intensify, world leaders on both sides of the Iron Curtain recognized that “the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war.”

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) became effective on March 5, 1970, when the United States and the Soviet Union, along 41 other individual states, submitted their depositions of the treaty in Washington, London, and Moscow.

Although the decade long process to produce the treaty began before Nixon’s presidency, the NPT was the first of several important international agreements signed between the US and the USSR under the Nixon Administration. At the time, many believed that non-proliferation through international cooperation was essential to protecting human lives around the world. For President Nixon, who ratified the treaty in November 1969, the NPT formed a crucial component of what he referred to as his “era of negotiation” with communist leaders.

While peaceful negotiations proved to be a hallmark of President Nixon’s policy towards the USSR, support for his course of action was not universally felt among all Americans. In 1969, Senator Barry Goldwater voiced his opposition to the NPT to the President, speaking for conservatives across the United States who felt a firmer hand was needed when dealing with communism, and its perceived threat to the American way of life. In a memorandum dated March 5, 1969, a year before the enforcement of the NPT, Henry Kissinger, acting as President Nixon’s National Security Advisor, detailed Senator Goldwater’s objections to the treaty in preparation for a meeting between the Senator and the President. However, the Administration was more than prepared to defend the NPT, and the security it brought to the American people.

President Johnson signed the NPT on July 1, 1968. He would celebrate the Fourth of July in three more days.

..."The atoms are for the enrichment of man, not his destruction...."