- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,350
- 10,626
Ok, but the specifics are important here - without them, it is impossible to evaluate the magnitude of the changes required or if they are a good idea. And without that, it is toug to answer your question.Art said:And here's an extract from state acknowledging the need to change the law to allow the deal to go through.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm" is the text of the NPT. It appears to me to say that supplying nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes is ok as long as there is international oversight:btw The USA will also need to breech it's agreements with the NPG to make the deal happen.
2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.
3. The safeguards required by this article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.
Last edited by a moderator: