Posted on 05/01/2005 12:22:02 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
The Free Traitors have been trading with China for 40 years now. It is still a dictatorship that opressess people, murders people, forces a one-shild policy, threatens neighbors and threatens to nuke Los Angeles. Is THAT your idea of democracy?
What is a "negative security assurance"?
I was curious as well.....
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/issues.html#NSA
Negative Security Assurances
A Negative Security Assurance (NSA), is a promise by the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) made to the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) never to attack them with nuclear weapons. Many NNWS believe that these assurances should be codified in an unconditional, legally binding instrument.
Historically, NSAs were implicit in the NPT bargain. In 1995, the Security Council passed resolution 985 on NSAs. But since the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, wherein the United States made it official policy to retaliate a biological or chemical attack with nuclear weapons, many NNWS and NGOs believe that a legal instrument codifying NSAs is long overdue. In addition, codified NSAs could also serve as an incentive for the last remaining hold-out countries (DPRK, Israel, India, Pakistan) to join the NPT.
The Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change also voiced tepid support for NSAs (as well as Positive Security Assurances) without calling for codification of these assurances. The panel recommended that: "The nuclear-weapon States...should reaffirm their previous commitments not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. (120)
For a more in-depth historical look at security assurances, see an NTI Issue Brief by CNS' Jean duPreez.
The New Agenda Coalition tabled a working paper on the issue at the 2002 PrepCom.
Iran also tabled a working paper on NSAs at the 2002 PrepCom.
At the 2004 PrepCom, NNWS were pushing hard for a subsidiary body on NSAs at the 2005 Review Conference. Read the Cluster 1 Statements on Negative Security Assurances.
In preparation for the 2004 PrepCom, Reaching Critical Will delivered a presentation to various governmental representatives on "Contextualizing the NPT", in which NSAs were a featured topic of discussion. Click here to download the PowerPoint presentation.
You can also read reports on NSAs in the First Committee Monitor, or check out BASIC's newest contribution on the topic on their website.
Return to top
(the explanation above is full of hotlinks....link above)
" I can't believe even the Rhino Bush SR would sign something like that. "
You mean RINO?
good point meatloaf...
"The Free Traitors have been trading with China for 40 years now. It is still a dictatorship that opressess people, murders people, forces a one-shild policy, threatens neighbors and threatens to nuke Los Angeles. Is THAT your idea of democracy?"
I suppose your are a protectionist...how very NeoCon..most people don't know that NeoCons stem from the Trotskyites...anyway as was mentioned before, why would China kill the golden goose? It's non-sensical from their standpoint...however through free trade...and the spread of information and ideas with that...communism's grip in China is sliding and will eventually fall...it will happen.
Neocons? How very 'liberal' of you. Most people don't know that your brand of "protectionism' toward dictators stem from DU.
If it takes being protectionist to stop the PRC's military machine from growing then so be it.
the saudi pigs need to be afraid too for spreading Wahabbism!!!!
I believe this is true, however the U.S. still maintains a fleet of Trident SSBN's with missiles that are nuclear tipped.
At any given time (24 x 7 x 365) there are more than enough warheads at sea available for targeting anything N.K. or Iran might wish to loose.
---
Glad to hear this. Then this article is incredibly misleading and should issue a corrrection.
well DUUUUuuuuhhhh~! maybe the author would like us NOT to consider things in advance...
Please do not act as if I have never studied the Constitution.
Absolutely zero that you have posted in any way disagrees with what I posted.
Having the absolute authority as CIC has nothing to do in with declaring war, or with using the military as he sees fit.
It is your view that is twisted.
Why not enlighten us all with your rendition of the last war that congress declared?
Physically, but not legally.
Also incorrect.
Again, you confuse the definition of "War" with being CIC.
The president is valid, legal, and entirely within the framework of the Constitution.
Congress can pay or not.
That's it, and that's what you elect when you elect a president. Commander in Chief.
"If it takes being protectionist to stop the PRC's military machine from growing then so be it."
You have to face that the paradigm in this world is shifting as information sharing becomes faster and faster and the world comes closer together...we are all becoming one...national soverignity will give way to individual soverignity as the most important thing to preserve. You seem very fixated on the macro outlook when the world is evolving to the micro outlook. National interests don't mean anything anymore.
Especially for our Israeli allies. We really don't want to leave them twisting in the mullah nuclear breeze. If we stand by and watch them be blackmailed, we'll be asking for it ourselves.
Besides which, North Korea is a humanitarian crisis in the making. Once the Ill one is deposed, the region will need to be ready to help his afflicted millions. Then, like Iraq, expect jubilant elections.
But first things first - have to get rid of the dictator.
Besides which, North Korea is a humanitarian crisis in the making. Once the Ill one is deposed, the region will need to be ready to help his afflicted millions. Then, like Iraq, expect jubilant elections.
But first things first - have to get rid of the dictator.
Then don't write as if acting without Congressional authority has no consequences. BTW, I doubt you've read Farrand's Records, without which, you don't know as much as you think you do about what the document means.
Why not enlighten us all with your rendition of the last war that congress declared?
That would be World War II. There has not been a declared war since the founding of the United Nations.
Just because the government of the United States has been operating illegally for a long time does not mean that such is legitimate behavior, much less moral or politically wise. To so believe gives legitimacy to a "living Constitution," under which the government executes everything from land grabs to anchor babies (specifically forbidden by the original intent of the 14th Amendment).
That's what I'm thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.