happythoughts 0 #26 November 5, 2008 Quote Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. S. 2433 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. That is the cost of developing a strategy. From the Millenium Project website. QuoteWhat is the 0.7% target? 0.7 refers to the repeated commitment of the world's governments to commit 0.7% of rich-countries' gross national product (GNP) to Official Development Assistance. In Paragraph 42 of the Monterrey Consensus, world leaders reiterated their commitment, stating that “we urge developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 percent of gross national product (GNP) as ODA to developing countries.” Fortunately, that hasn't happened, it is still at .22 instead of .7. The .7 of GNP would be an additional $60 billion, which over lifespan of the project is nearly $850 billion. I don't know how they do their math, because the UN estimates an additional $75-150 per US taxpayer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #27 November 5, 2008 QuoteThe treaty was signed to prevent exactly this type of thing. No. The NPT was signed to limit proliferation of nuclear weapons. Please go look at the NPT text (it’s short). The treaty has 3 ‘pillars’: prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons, disarmament of current nuclear weapons stockpiles, and furthering peaceful use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes. It’s the last one that relates to the US-India deal. I think that might be the source of the confusion. Disarmament (Article VI) and the expansion of peaceful nuclear energy used (Article IV) are less commonly mentioned in most reports that mention the NPT. Article IV: “1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty. “2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.” The conundrum of the NPT and the US-India nuclear agreement isn't India … it’s the US maintaining our commitments. As a nuclear weapon state (NWS), we agreed to not transfer to non-state parties (e.g., India) Under the NPT anything less than manufacture of a nuclear weapon is allowable for a non-nuclear weapons state (NNWS) party. When the NPT was negotiated, the line for prohibited use of what was to be considered peaceful (allowable) nuclear behavior was anything up to manufacturing a nuclear weapon. Everything up to that was considered allowable by the treaty. There were debates at the time of negotiation (late 1960s) on where to metaphorical draw the line. That the line was drawn so far to the right (toward having a bomb) is largely an artifact of the NNWS that wanted and were technically able to pursue peaceful nuclear energy at the time, e.g., West Germany and Sweden. India has already proliferated – “Smiling Buddha” test of 1974. The IAEA deal, as part of the US-India nuclear agreement, allows inspection of civilian nuclear energy facilities; military nuclear weapons facilities are exempt. QuoteAn exemption is a bad idea. I largely concur. But for a different reason (which relates back to Iran) than you seem to be suggesting. Nonetheless, if you have issue with the deal, perhaps you should take it with those who proposed and pushed through the agreement. QuoteThe exemption adds to proliferation, the stated problem. No, the US-India deal doesn’t. It adds to ambiguity w/r/t enforcement of international law (i.e., this is my non-concur w/the agreement). It gives Iran and Russia an example to which to point in arguing why Iran, an NPT party, should be allowed to pursue what they assert is a peaceful civilian nuclear energy. (Not that I believe them … but that’s what they assert.) QuoteIt should be pointed out that if someone has non-proliferation as a stated goal, then, as a member of congress, they can vote against it. State one goal, vote another. When the legislation to repeal the AEA was first introduced, Sen Obama co-sponsored amendments that would have required India to certify/verify it had stopped producing fissile material for nuclear weapons, among other things. This would be a “poison pill” or “killer” amendment. That amendment was voted down by the Senate. Remember the motivations: mangos and limiting Iran. QuoteThe other "non-proliferation" action mentioned is actually supervision of the "build down" that has been in process for years. So, showing up for a fact-finding tour of work-in-progress is not an achievement. That description of CTR is akin to limiting skydiving to dirt diving on creepers. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
