Personal tools

Debate: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 06:38, 13 June 2009 (edit)
Arpi (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 06:39, 13 June 2009 (edit)
Arpi (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 37: Line 37:
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"|
-=== Pro/con sources === 
-|WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|  
-*[ Samuel Berger, Sam Nunn, and William Perry. "Case for ratifying Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". Politico. June 2nd, 2009] 
-|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| 
-'''Con-Not a comprehensive treaty''' 
-[ IK Gujral's comment] 
-"Commenting on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in September 1996, the then Minister for External Affairs, IK Gujral said “It is not a ‘comprehensive treaty,’ (as) it permits the nuclear weapon states to continue their weapons related research and development activity using non-explosive technologies; it lacks any meaningful commitment to nuclear disarmament and instead of being the definitive first step of the nuclear disarmament process, it only serves to perpetuate the existing discriminatory status quo.” This was the keystone of India’s stand on the CTBT in the 1990s." 
-''Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here'' 
-|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| 
==External links== ==External links==

Revision as of 06:39, 13 June 2009

Is the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and any ban on nuclear testing, a good idea?

Background and context

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996 but it has not yet entered into force.[1]

See Wikipedia's article on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Write Subquestion here...


Pro-Treaty can be a step towards freeing the world from the fears and dangers of radioactive fallout John F.Kennedy's Radio and Television Address to the American People on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Washington, D.C., July 26, 1963 "Our own atmospheric tests last year were conducted under conditions which restricted such fallout to an absolute minimum. But over the years the number and the yield of weapons tested have rapidly increased and so have the radioactive hazards from such testing. Continued unrestricted testing by the nuclear powers, joined in time by other nations which may be less adept in limiting pollution, will increasingly contaminate the air that all of us must breathe Even then, the number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in comparison with natural health hazards.These tests befoul the air of all men and all nations, the committed and the uncommitted alike, without their knowledge and without their consent. That is why the continuation of atmospheric testing causes so many countries to regard all nuclear powers as equally evil; and we can hope that its prevention will enable those countries to see the world more clearly, while enabling all the world to breathe more easily. "

Pro- One can shrug and say that such treaties are leftovers from the cold war. That is wrong, especially in a world where nuclear appetites are growing.

Published: May 24, 2009 ;NewYork Times by YANDREW ROSENTHAL, Editor 

"The bad news is that the test ban treaty, which would go beyond the voluntary moratorium and legally bind states to not test, has never come into force.That is because the United States and eight other nuclear-capable states whose participation is required — China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and Egypt — have not ratified it.Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden will have to invest considerable effort and political capital to win ratification. Senate sources say no more than 63 senators would now vote for the treaty, four less than the two-thirds majority needed.We hope they, and any others who are skeptical or undecided, will withhold final judgment until the administration completes a review that aims to answer their doubts with updated data. Another Senate defeat would probably doom the treaty forever.A test ban will make it technologically much harder for other countries to press ahead with weapons development. And if Washington has any hope of rallying diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions for constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions or North Korea’s program, it has to show that it, too, is willing to play by the international rules. For both of those reasons, the Senate needs to ratify the test ban treaty."

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits