Gee, I suspect a hidden agenda...

[Tyrion]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-nation&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28806-2004Jul30.html

 

[You have to register, so I'll just post what the article says}

 

In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

 

For several years the United States and other nations have pursued the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. At an arms-control meeting this week in Geneva, the Bush administration told other nations it still supported a treaty, but not verification.

 

Administration officials, who have showed skepticism in the past about the effectiveness of international weapons inspections, said they made the decision after concluding that such a system would cost too much, would require overly intrusive inspections and would not guarantee compliance with the treaty. They declined, however, to explain in detail how they believed U.S. security would be harmed by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.

 

Arms-control specialists reacted negatively, saying the change in U.S. position will dramatically weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. The announcement, they said, also virtually kills a 10-year international effort to lure countries such as Pakistan, India and Israel into accepting some oversight of their nuclear production programs.

 

The announcement at the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament comes several months after President Bush declared it a top priority of his administration to prevent the production and trafficking in nuclear materials, and as the administration works to blunt criticism by Democrats and others that it has failed to work effectively with the United Nations and other international bodies on such vital global concerns.

 

"The president has said his priority is to block the spread of nuclear materials to rogue states and terrorists, and a verifiable ban on the production of such materials is an essential part of any such strategy," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association. "Which is why it is so surprising and baffling that the administration is not supporting a meaningful treaty."

 

The bolded part pretty much is what I'm also thinking right now.

[Kurgan]

The reason we don't sign a treaty to prevent THEM from having nukes is that such a treaty would likely also prevent US from having them.

 

At least that's why I think things are the way they are.

 

Those with nukes don't want to give the up, they just want to prevent the other guy from having them too, since the logic behind nukes is that they give you leverage.

[Master_Keralys]

Exactly. It may be "surprising" in that the US hasn't supported any such weapons monitoring treaties for almost 2 decades now... maybe it's just me, or maybe people like to see a hidden agenda in almost everything that President Bush does. At least he's consistent, that's all I can say. Even if he were a liar (which is not to be debated here) he would at least be a consistent liar, not one who changes his opinion every week on which lie he wants to tell (also not a debate for here... but I needed to vent).

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Exactly. It may be "surprising" in that the US hasn't supported any such weapons monitoring treaties for almost 2 decades now... maybe it's just me, or maybe people like to see a hidden agenda in almost everything that President Bush does. At least he's consistent, that's all I can say.

 

Yes, a consistent liar, hypocrite, and fascist. Fire the liar. Vote Kerry/Edwards.

[Doomie]

O_o Creepy...

[toms]

ahem.... anyway...

 

Surely if iraq and korea have proved anything it is that inspections work a lot better than people though, and definatley a lot better than intelligence.

 

Of course, you can't rely on the politicians to do anything with the results of those inspections, or even believe them... but that is hardly the inspector's fault.

 

I'd have thought that, if the US insists on relying on CIA intelligence rather than inspections, they should work towards a treaty that allowed a last minute "strike force" of inspectors to swoop in on anywhere that the intelligence deemed as dangerous (before the culprits had time to fix it).

 

At least that way we might avoid the US bombing as many baby milk factories and hospitals and making so many new terrorists.