Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Missiles & WMDs

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Arms Control & Disarmament Thread for WMDs (Chemical & Biological Weapons included)

This is a discussion on Arms Control & Disarmament Thread for WMDs (Chemical & Biological Weapons included) within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; This thread is designed for discussion on Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs/Agreements regarding WMDs. Although we usually count Nuclear Weapons ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 3.00 average.
Old January 27th, 2009   #1
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
SABRE's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,686
Threads:
Arms Control & Disarmament Thread for WMDs (Chemical & Biological Weapons included)

This thread is designed for discussion on Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs/Agreements regarding WMDs. Although we usually count Nuclear Weapons (all varients) as WMDs lets count Chemical and Biological weapons in this catogary as well. It is preferred that all discussion that fall under this category be discussed here rather then opening up new threads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latest update:

* Central Asian Republics (CARs) form Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ).

- Kazakhstan ratified the treaty on Dec 11th and thus the treaty Entered Into Force (EIF) in January 2009.

-The treaty asserts that the five CARs will not to manufacture, acquire, test, or possess nuclear weapons and to use nuclear materials only for peaceful purposes.

- All five countries must conclude an additional protocol to their safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) within 18 months of the treaty entering into force.

- Requires its members to comply with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

- Treaty requires the states to meet international standards for the protection of physical material

- France, UK and USA refuse to lend support to the treaty (as most of the NWFZ treaty calls upon them to do so) amid fears that Russia might be able to deploy Nuclear Weapons in the region regardless of the agreement.

> CANWFZ is 4th Nuclear Weapon Free Zone to enter into Force.

Importance: Central Asia is surrounded by Nuclear Weapons states such as Russia, China, Pakistan and India while Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons. Moreover US has strong presence in Afghanistan while neighboring continent of Europe has two nuclear powers; UK and France.
________________
"It is better to accept an end with a horror then face horror with no end." - Karl Von Clausewitz

Last edited by SABRE; January 27th, 2009 at 11:13 AM.
SABRE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2009   #2
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
SABRE's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,686
Threads:
  • GENEVA PROTOCOL 1925:

Singed: 17th June 1925
EIF: 1928

It prohibits the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, & of bacteriological methods of warfare.




  • BIOLOGICAL & TOXIN WEAPONS CONVENTION, BTWC

Opened for signature: 10th April 1972
Place(s): London. Moscow & Washington D.C
EIF: 26th March 1975
Depository States: UK, USA & USSR/Russia

It prohibits the development, production, stockpiling or acquisition by other means or retention of microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types & in quantities that have no justification of prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes, as well as weapons equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purpose in armed conflict.

The destruction of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment & means of delivery in the possession of the parties, or their diversion to peaceful purpose, should be effected not later than 9 months after EIF of the convention for each country.





  • CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

Opened for signature: 13th Jan 1993
EIF: 29th April 1997
Dep: UNSG

It prohibits the use, development, production, acquisition, transfer & stockpiling of chemical weapons.

Each party undertakes to destroy its chemical weapons & production facilities within 10 years of EIF of the treaty.
________________
"It is better to accept an end with a horror then face horror with no end." - Karl Von Clausewitz
SABRE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3
Just Hatched
Private
haveblue128's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 10
Threads:
Arms Control on Hold: Where are We Now?

In an attempt to kick-up the dust on the thread, read on. Regardless of the discussion of treaties, NPT in specific, most of them lie in a garbage heap-either unsigned by major nations, or 3rd world problem countries trying to develop multiple types of WMD without robust industrial bases or military C3.
BTW-The US aided Kazakhstan in becoming nuke free. We agreed to take over their entire stock of fissile materials soon after the Soviet Union collapsed. They were concerned they could not maintain positive control and didn't want nukes based at multiple facilities going back to Russia. Some of this was ABM work being done on the shores of Lake Balkhash. Without further comment, NPT and START-next round. Dead on arrival?

__________________________________________________ ___________
The Bush administration dumped arms control over the side when they came into office. That action put yet another nail in the coffin of the NPT. While the Obama admin is trying hard to revive it and get the next round of START negotiations moving forward between the Russia, the US Senate will not allow any forward motion on treaties. Sec State Clinton is working on this matter along senior staff and DOD Chief Bob Gates

I would like to see some of the Russians whose presence is felt strongly on many forums to make comment on these issues. At present, the biggest problem all nuke powers and most of the world community has is agreeing on a strategy to deal with many third nations working on nukes. It is the shortest route to be dealt into what was once a stable 5-nation poker game. Interesting that while much saber rattling has occurred, none of the self-proclaimed nuke powers such as Iran and N. Korea has an advanced industrial base, funding and technical knowledge needed to create a significant nuclear threat. Recent reports note that Iran’s enrichment cascades are deteriorating fast. Where they really stand is anyone’s guess, but all nations hope that Israel will hold fire if they determine that this activity is taking on a serious face beyond the present posturing and rhetoric. . India and Pakistan are a different issue, but after each nation successfully tested a nuke bomb, they both started talking about signing the NPT. We know that Israel has successfully weaponized nukes although even their hardware is low-tech.

This leaves me where I began. Asking where does the world stand in regards to unstable nations owning nukes. While it would be impossible for the 5-nuke powers to dictate the terms by which any new members of the "Nuke Club,” the question is who can we trust-it may not be for us to decide. However, if one of the new nuke nations were to undertake an IAEA overseen demonstration of robust C3, perhaps that would help with this otherwise destabilizing problem. One thing is certain: The US will continue to develop a ballistic missile defense program. Given the fact that the majority of arms control treaties are ineffective or simply ignored by the problem nations, or potential "sub-national" actors-terrorists-[the latter would likely use any on which they get their hands]-it is incumbent on the nuclear powers and the IAEA to take stock of the present world situation regarding nukes. At present, none of the nations outside of the 5 Country Nuke Club has been able to translate their desire for nukes into weaponized hardware that is ready to go. A failure rate of near 100 percent helps me to sleep better at night at least for now. What the future holds is anyone’s guess. I hope this generates some interest in this thread-- some serious thought would be different. Given the amount of rhetorical hot air that has been blown over Russia’s-Indian 5th Gen Fighter, it’s time to change the subject. To date, the specs on this aircraft are not wildly impressive and don’t come close to the F-22. (That will create debate if nothing more.) If Russia is co-developing this aircraft with India, two things must be true: 1) Russia’s defense industrial base is in disrepair; 2) Given this is the first major aerospace platform that has been co-developed, Russia’s finances cannot be good. Just a few thoughts after watching the 5th G Fighter thread for some time. I will be adding a long piece on that thread soon. The recently announced mufti-billion dollar deal between Russia and India that involves direct arms sales as well as support for India's nuclear infrastructure, it will raise the blood-pressure of many at DOD. Arms control onward…..

Last edited by haveblue128; March 14th, 2010 at 09:21 AM. Reason: grammer problem-reorged part of the piece
haveblue128 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2010   #4
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3
Threads:
Mitt Romney's Comments on the New START Treaty

The current debate that has been going on over the last week regarding Mitt Romney's (R, MA) critique of the New START Treaty brings up some interesting questions about the future of our nuclear stockpile. Romney's comments, which can be read at the washington post online (I'm too new to put a link in my blog), blast President Obama for giving in to the Russians for little in real concessions by the Russians in return.

I tend to agree with Romney for a couple of reasons:

First and foremost, I don't think the Russians are to be trusted when it comes to nuclear weapons. The only reason that they ever fell behind us in the nuclear arms race is because they ran out of money. That is no longer the problem. Now that their economy is growing, due to their exportation of oil, they will try again to get the upper hand. We should not give in to their demands, especially when we are giving up more than they are. Plus, I think Romney is right about this new treaty seriously diminishing our missile defense plans.

Second, Romney is partially right about the tactical nukes issue, although I don't believe that there is such a thing as a tactical nuke (even the smallest yield nuke has strategic consequences). The Russians have the upper hand on us in this category. And while some may say that tactical nukes are not a problem because they can't reach us here, they can reach our allies in Europe and Asia and more importantly our troops that are deployed.

The New START Treaty has many issues that strike right at the heart of our national security. I hope congress gets the right information before that vote to ratify this mess.

MAJ John Snyder
Student, Intermediate Level Education
Command and General Staff College
Ft. Lee, VA

The views in this blog are the views of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
usachemo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011   #5
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Middlesex
Posts: 3
Threads:
hehe. Big aids to US foreign policy in the CA region

Since Kazakhstan was the 4th largest nuclear armoury in the world. And it IS now the world largest uranium producer. And now Russia lost test fields in Semipalatinsk in North Kazakhstan.

Is there any US base going to be established to help with "detention" in Kazakhstan?
mahasvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25th, 2011
gurkolet
This message has been deleted by Preceptor. Reason: One-liner posts to build thread count.
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 PM.