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...."

 

The USA was once very close to a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union.

RADIO AND TELEVISION ADDRESS (click here) TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE SOVIET ARMS BUILD-UP IN CUBA, 22 OCTOBER 1962 

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 (click here) was a direct and dangerous confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and was the moment when the two superpowers came closest to nuclear conflict. The crisis was unique in a number of ways, featuring calculations and miscalculations as well as direct and secret communications and miscommunications between the two sides. The dramatic crisis was also characterized by the fact that it was primarily played out at the White House and the Kremlin level with relatively little input from the respective bureaucracies typically involved in the foreign policy process.

Aerial view of missile launch site at San Cristobal, Cuba. (John F. Kennedy Library)

That intelligence photo is not from 30,000 feet either. The pilot could have been shot down if the Cubans and Russia were preparing for war. They weren't. They simply were preparing to kill all people in the USA. Is there a reason to believe that is still not the aspirations of Putin's Russia?

After the failed U.S. attempt to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and while the Kennedy administration planned Operation Mongoose, in July 1962 Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev reached a secret agreement with Cuban premier Fidel Castro to place Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter any future invasion attempt. Construction of several missile sites began in the late summer, but U.S. intelligence discovered evidence of a general Soviet arms build-up on Cuba, including Soviet IL–28 bombers, during routine surveillance flights, and on September 4, 1962, President Kennedy issued a public warning against the introduction of offensive weapons into Cuba. Despite the warning, on October 14 a U.S. U–2 aircraft took several pictures clearly showing sites for medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) under construction in Cuba. These images were processed and presented to the White House the next day, thus precipitating the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Kennedy summoned his closest advisers to consider options and direct a course of action for the United States that would resolve the crisis. Some advisers—including all the Joint Chiefs of Staff—argued for an air strike to destroy the missiles, followed by a U.S. invasion of Cuba; others favored stern warnings to Cuba and the Soviet Union....

The Non-Proliferation Treaty is reviewed every five years for progress being made to end nuclear weapons on Earth.

Since 1970. Why is it taking so long?

    

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): our dossier (click here)

The NPT (click here) allows for the parties to gather every five years to review its operation. At the 1995 Review and           Extension Conference, the parties extended the Treaty indefinitely and formalized the practice convening a Review Conference every five years. The Tenth NPT Review Conference has been delayed by the global COVID-19 pandemic, but parties aim to hold the meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York in 2022. The official NPT Review Conference page can be found at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs....

Office of Disarmament Affairs (click here)

All the necessary people needed to secure reliable disarmament are in place. It is time for all countries owning nuclear weapons to act in earnest to end the existence of nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology is more dangerous today than ever before and it leads to a dead end. The nuclear holocaust must never be engaged as the only survivor may be Earth and certainly not in it's current state.

It is difficult to believe 52 years has gone by and far less progress has occurred than originally expected. 

Nuclear non-proliferation has been pursued for decades. Reducing the nuclear arsenal globally has been a purposeful pursuit so some idiot like Trump wouldn't do something so stupid it could cause a global retaliation that would destroy civilization. If nuclear weapons were ever used again, there would be little hope in the future for peace.

This is not a point of pride for the USA. It was survival with the understanding it was under attack.

A person's shadow on bank steps in Hiroshima, Japan, (click here) which was created during the 1945 nuclear blast.

Vaporized. There is nothing to be proud of and survival is not something we openly sought, it was a defense of the country we called home.

If nothing else, know this, the USA was not ended. After the first nuclear detonation to the beginning of the attacks on Japan to end a war cast upon the USA was a matter of weeks. The ideas of nuclear supremacy was not being sought by the scientists in the country, the Nazis were destroying Europe. The USA was very reluctant to go to war, even with the pleadings of strong allies such as Winston Churchill.

But, the attack from the Pacific was completely unexpected. Who, in their right minds would have conceived of Kamikaze pilots? What kind of enemy was this? We were astounded when al-Qaeda carried out such attacks. Seeing young children in Palestine march into crowds or enter a bus in Israel to kill themselves in a misdirected ideology. What KIND OF PEOPLE ARE THESE enemies?

The USA carried out it's attacks and destroyed cities with one blast. Putin is a fool.

On 16 July 1945, (click here) U.S. scientists working on the Manhattan Project successfully detonated the first-ever nuclear explosion in the ‘Trinity’ test at Alamogordo, New Mexico. With World War II still dragging on in the Pacific, preparations moved forward to use nuclear bombs against Japan.

On 6 August 1945, at 08:15, the first bomb was dropped on the centre of Hiroshima. ‘Little Boy’ was a gun-type fission bomb, using a conventional explosive charge to fire one sub-critical mass of uranium into another. This kind of device had never been tested before, but the scientists were confident it would work.

And it did. The bomb had an explosive yield of around 13 kilotons. At the moment of detonation, a fireball was generated that raised temperatures to 4,000 degrees Celsius, turning Hiroshima – where many buildings were made of wood and paper - into an inferno. The blast created shock waves faster than the speed of sound. This and the radiation immediately killed everything within one kilometre of the hypocentre.

After the blast, those who approached ground zero searching for the missing were exposed to radiation. Black rain, containing large amounts of radioactive fallout, caused widespread contamination. Estimates of casualties vary greatly. A more conservative estimate by the atomic archive lists 66,000 people killed immediately and a total death toll of 135,000, while the U.S.-Japanese Radiation Effects Research Foundation indicates a range of 90,000 to 166,000 deaths within the first four months....