Argument: Nuclear weapons ban could accompany chem/bio weapons ban
(Difference between revisions)
|Revision as of 18:27, 15 June 2010 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Current revision (03:39, 25 June 2010) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Argument: A nuclear weapons ban could accompany a chem and bio weapons ban moved to Argument: Nuclear weapons ban could accompany chem/bio weapons ban)
- Frederick N. Mattis. "Nine Points For Abolishing Nuclear Weapons". July/August 1997 - "7. Only ratified signatories of the current Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) should have standing to sign the nuclear ban treaty; therefore abolition of nuclear weapons would also result in worldwide elimination of biological and chemical weapons.
- If accession to the BWC and CWC by states was not a prerequisite for signing the nuclear ban treaty, then states such as the U.S. might not sign the nuclear ban-because of the existence of other, non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction" possessed by states which had not acceded to the BWC or CWC.
- The CWC does contain compliance/verification provisions, but the BWC does not. A BWC inspection protocol is currently being drafted and probably will be instituted before worldwide accession to a nuclear ban. In that case all nuclear ban signatories (i.e. all states) would have to agree, by terms of the treaty, to the BWC protocol before the nuclear ban treaty goes into force."