Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
13. They argeed.
Sat Jun 22, 2013, 07:07 PM
Jun 2013

cprise states:
Would you turn your entire country over to IAEA inspectors?

The only nations that have to allow IAEA inspectors are the non-weapon state signatories of the NPT - the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

In other words, by signing the NPT Treaty; those nations AGREED to let in IAEA inspectors.

Nobody "made" them do it. They agreed to it. In return, the non-weapon states get access to nuclear information and data and technical support. It's all information and assistance that would be prohibitively costly for them otherwise. However, the weapons-states promised to provide access in return for access by the IAEA inspectors who are the "police" to make sure that technology is not misused for weapons.

Again, the signatory nation agreed.

It's a little like having someone paroled from prison, i.e. released early. Part of getting the early release is for the convict to submit to drug testing at any time the parole officer wishes. Then you have the former convict complain about getting drug tested.

It was a condition of the release. If you don't want to be drug tested; then stay in prison and serve your entire sentence. We are giving you a break, but that break has a condition associated with it that you can voluntarily accept. Of course, if you don't accept the condition; you don't get the break.

The convict has no case to complain about a condition of his release that he freely accepted.

Likewise, the NPT signatory country agreed to IAEA inspections in return for information and access. I don't see where there's any room to complain about conditions that you voluntarily accepted.

PamW

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fully half from russian nukes? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #1
Don't doubt it; believe it - it's TRUE PamW Jun 2013 #9
Hi Pam RobertEarl Jun 2013 #10
Not half of total PamW Jun 2013 #11
So you proved wt was wrong RobertEarl Jun 2013 #16
Not odd at all - different parts of the government PamW Jun 2013 #18
How much $$ do they need? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #19
Answers to questions PamW Jun 2013 #20
What about Columbia Generating Station? That's the operational nuclear plant on the Hanford site. suffragette Jun 2013 #21
What is "Hanford" PamW Jun 2013 #22
The State of Washington disagrees with you suffragette Jun 2013 #23
Reading Comprehension Problem??? PamW Jun 2013 #25
Compared to Pandora's Promise, the Breakthrough Institute and the nuclear industry writ large... kristopher Jun 2013 #2
This is what the corporate media uniformly do cprise Jun 2013 #3
We've shot ourselves in the foot on Iran. wtmusic Jun 2013 #4
There is no inspection regime that is good enough cprise Jun 2013 #5
I guess that's my point wtmusic Jun 2013 #6
This is a nuclear problem cprise Jun 2013 #7
You do know that it's impossible to build a weapon with reactor grade fuel, don't you? wtmusic Jun 2013 #14
"We need...a roadmap for guarding against weapons proliferation" kristopher Jun 2013 #8
100% WRONG as ALWAYS PamW Jun 2013 #12
What a fucking flake. kristopher Jun 2013 #15
Nothing of substance, I note PamW Jun 2013 #17
Ha! oldhippie Jun 2013 #24
They argeed. PamW Jun 2013 #13
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Memo to Fox News: Nuclear...»Reply #13