Hospitals & Asylums
1. The 2005 Review
Conference of the Parties to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is in New York 2-27 May 2005.
3. On May 2, 2005 Charles J. Hanley of
AP at the United Nations wrote, Koffi Annan Urges U.S. to Slash Nuclear
Arsenal. The article reported that more
than 180 nations convened Monday to review the nonproliferation treaty with
hearings for Iran and North Korea, America, Russia and others to move toward a
world free of the nuclear threat. In
the opening of the month long conference Secretary-General Kofi Annan said all
nations must work toward, "a world of reduced nuclear threat and,
ultimately, a world free of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the only way to
guarantee that they will never be used is for our world to be free of such
weapons.''
2. Mohamed ElBaradei,
director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), renewed his call for a moratorium on new fuel-cycle facilities
while international controls are negotiated.
ElBaradei proposes putting nuclear fuel production under multilateral
control by regional or international bodies. Nuclear energy generates 16% of the world´s
electricity in 30 countries - including seven developing countries - with almost
no greenhouse gas emissions. Radiotherapy is widely used to combat cancer.
Other nuclear techniques are used to study child malnutrition and fight
infectious diseases. Nuclear research produces higher yielding, disease
resistant crops for farmers. We cannot abandon the promise that these and other
advanced nuclear technologies hold for addressing the needs of the developing
world. According to ElBaradei the core of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons can be summed up in two words: "Security"
and "Development". While the States Party to this Treaty hold
differing priorities and views, they all share these two goals: development for
all through advanced technology; and security for all by reducing - and
ultimately eliminating - the nuclear threat. These shared goals were the
foundation on which the international community, in 1970, built this landmark
Treaty. They agreed to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons. They
agreed, while working towards this goal, to prevent the acquisition of nuclear
weapons by additional States. And they agreed to make the peaceful applications
of nuclear energy available to all.
Folded together, these agreements - these commitments - are mutually
reinforcing. They are as valid today as when they were first made - and even
more urgent. What should be all too evident is that, if we cannot work
together, each acknowledging the development priorities and security concerns
of the other, then the result of this Conference will be inaction.
3. This proposal has been prepared pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure to direct the Secretary
General of the Conference to copy and distribute documents to the delegation
for discussion and decision. The issues
of this proposal for the vote of delegates are (1) setting a quota for the US
to disarm a total of 800 – 1,000 nuclear warheads this 2005 and annually in
order to meet the agreed total of 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012 through annual proportional reductions (2) prohibiting
the deployment of nuclear warheads in US military bases abroad this year (3)
convincing North Korea to accede the NPT and be rewarded with a welfare grant
in the billions of dollars when donors are satisfied that nuclear weapons have
been destroyed. Both of these issues
can be universalized for a general (1) proportional reduction in disarmament of
nuclear weapons states to meet 2012 quotas (2) prohibition on the export and
warehousing of nuclear warheads abroad (3) prohibition on the new development
of nuclear weapons.
4.
Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May
1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 188 parties have
joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries
have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement,
a testament to the Treaty's significance.
The NPT is a landmark international treaty
whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons
technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and
to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete
disarmament. Considering the
devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the
consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to
take measures to safeguard the security of peoples, the world community has
achieved numerous agreements aimed at reducing existing nuclear arsenals,
banning their deployment from certain environments (e.g., outer space, ocean
floor) and regions, limiting their proliferation and ending testing. The NPT represents the only binding commitment in
a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by nuclear weapon States. The
Report of the Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and
Change found, “Any use of nuclear weapons, by accident or design, risks human
casualties, and economic dislocation on a catastrophic scale. Stopping the proliferation of such weapons,
and their potential use, by either State or non-State actors, must remain an
urgent priority for international security.” The NPT
is reviewed every five years at conferences whose consensus political
commitments are not legally binding, like a treaty, but give valuable support
to nonproliferation initiatives. At the 2000 sessions, the nuclear powers
committed to "13 practical steps'' toward disarmament, but critics
complain the Bush administration - by rejecting the nuclear test-ban treaty,
for example - has come up short.
5. Under the 35 year old NTP States without nuclear arms pledge not to pursue them, in
exchange for a commitment by five nuclear powers - the United States, Russia,
Britain, France and China - to move toward nuclear disarmament. Four other
nuclear states - Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan - remain outside the
treaty. The NPT affirms the
principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology
should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty. Despite
these achievements, nuclear weapons and their continuing existence remain a
major threat to peace and a major challenge to the international community in
this new century. Recalling that,
in accordance with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, States must
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and
that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are
to limit expenditure on arms. Article I states, each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons. Article III 1. Each
non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards,
as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the
International Atomic Energy Agency. 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. 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. Article VI Each of the
Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on
effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early
date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control.
6. Under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States and Russia are
to cut back their deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 each, by 2012.
When it's implemented, "the United States will have reduced the number of
strategic nuclear warheads it had deployed in 1990 by about 80%.'' The agreement has been criticized for not
requiring destruction of excess warheads taken off deployment, or providing a
transparent timetable and open verification of reductions. Washington and Moscow were asked to slash
their nuclear arsenals irreversibly to just hundreds of warheads. The nuclear
powers must find ways to rely less on nuclear deterrence, Washington and Moscow
must " commit themselves - irreversibly - to further cuts in their
arsenals, so that warheads number in the hundreds, not the thousands.'' Malaysia's foreign minister, representing
the 116-nation Non-Aligned Movement, said a "lack of balance'' - the U.S.
emphasis on nonproliferation over disarmament - "threatens to unravel the
NPT regime.'' The
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Stephen G. Rademaker said. "We are proud
to have played a leading role in reducing nuclear arsenals''. Speaking
for the European Union, Luxembourg's foreign minister, Jean Asselborn the EU
"expects further reductions in the Russian and U.S. arsenals.''
7.
The Iran question hinges on Article IV of the NPT
which guarantees the right to peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium
enrichment equipment to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. Iran was urged to renounce potential bomb
technology, in return for international guarantees of nuclear fuel. The
Tehran government is negotiating on and off with Germany, France and Britain
about shutting down its enrichment operations in return for economic
incentives. Speaking for the European
Union, Luxembourg's foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, cited its endorsement of
international guarantees of access to nuclear fuel” That
same technology, with further enrichment, can produce material for nuclear
bombs, and the United States alleges that's what Iran plans. "We dare not
look the other way,'' Rademaker said. Tehran denies the charge, but Annan said
states such as Iran "must not insist'' on possessing such sensitive technology,
but instead should have access internationally to nuclear fuel.
8. Also on May 2 Barry Schweid of AP in
Washington wrote, Rice Talks Tough Toward North Korea U.S. Responds to News That Communist Land
May Have Tested Missile. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice informed North Korea on Monday the United States is able to
defend itself and its allies against nuclear and missile threats. Responding to reports that North Korea launched a
short-range missile into the Sea of Japan on Sunday, Rice said, ''I don't think
there should be any doubt about our ability to deter whatever the North Koreans
are up to.'' And, in reassuring South
Korea, Japan and other allies in the Pacific area, Rice told reporters: ''This
is not just between the United States and North Korea.'' A suggestion Thursday
by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
that North Korea might be able to strike American territory with a
nuclear-tipped missile also has raised tensions and concerns. Negotiations with
North Korea on its nuclear weapons program are stalemated. But Rice said North
Korea's missile program should be put on the agenda when and if the talks are
resumed. Syed Hamid Albar said, "The nuclear weapons states
continue to believe in the relevance of nuclear weapons,'' said. "We must
all call for an end to this madness”.
North Korea, which pulled out of the NPT in 2003 with the expulsion of
IAEA inspector at their nuclear facility, said in February 2005 it has already
built nuclear weapons. The
Nonproliferation conference provides a venue to improve upon the diplomacy of
the stalled 6 party talks. Rice used a measure of
diplomatic ambiguity in her message Monday to North Korea. But it was clearly
intended to be a tough one.
''I don't think anyone is confused about the ability of the United
States to deter, both on behalf of itself and on behalf of its allies, North
Korea's nuclear ambitions or gains on the (Korean) Peninsula,'' she said. ''We
have, after all, a very strong alliance with South Korea and a very strong
alliance with Japan. And, of course, the United States maintains significant -
and I want to underline significant - deterrent capability of all kinds in the
Asia-Pacific region,'' she said.
9. South Korea and other Asian governments appeared to take
Sunday's missile test in stride. They said it was a short-range weapon that
could not reach even Japan and it had no link to Pyongyang's nuclear weapons
program. The missile ''is far from the one that can carry a nuclear weapon,'' South
Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said in an interview with South
Korea's Yonhap news agency. ''This isn't a case to be linked to the nuclear
dispute.'' Japanese Foreign Minister
Nobutaka Machimura said after a 40-minute meeting with Rice at the State
Department that they hoped China would try harder to get six-party negotiations
resumed. The United States, Japan,
China, South Korea and Russia hope to negotiate an end to North Korea's nuclear
program in exchange for security assurances and economic benefits. Talks were supposed to be resumed last
September, but North Korea withdrew its promise to attend. Since then, North
Korea and the United States have been exchanging angry rhetoric. Andrew H. Card
Jr., the White House chief of staff, denounced North Korea on Sunday as a bully
and called its leader, Kim Jong Il, ''not a good person.'' On Saturday, North Korea called President
Bush a ''philistine'' and a ''hooligan.''
The blunt aspersions were similar to those two years ago between Undersecretary
of State John R. Bolton and Pyongyang that have become an issue in Bolton's
struggle for Senate confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. Critics have called Bolton
undiplomatic for his verbal attacks on North Korea.
10.
In the
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
ICJ No. 95 (1996) the International
Court of Justice examined the legal aspects of the threat or use of nuclear
weapons, and in an advisory opinion unanimously stated that States are under an
obligation under Article VI of the NPT to pursue in good faith to
achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Mr. Takashi Hiraoka, Mayor of
Hiroshima and Mr. Iccho
Itoh, Mayor of Nagasaki were present at the proceedings in the Hague. Noting
that nuclear weapons are explosive devices whose energy results from the fusion
or fission of the atom. By its very nature, that process, in nuclear weapons as
they exist today, releases not only immense quantities of heat and energy, but
also powerful and prolonged radiation. Nuclear weapons are vastly more powerful
than the damage caused by other weapons, while the phenomenon of radiation is
said to be peculiar to nuclear weapons. These characteristics render the
nuclear weapon potentially catastrophic. The destructive power of nuclear weapons
cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy
all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. The radiation released
by a nuclear explosion would affect health, agriculture, natural resources and
demography over a very wide area. Further, the use of nuclear weapons would be
a serious danger to future generations. Ionizing radiation has the potential to
damage the future environment, food and marine ecosystem, and to cause genetic
defects and illness in future generations. States which hold the view that the
use of nuclear weapons is illegal have endeavoured to demonstrate the existence
of a customary rule prohibiting this use. They refer to a consistent practice
of non-utilization of nuclear weapons by States since 1945 and they would see
in that practice the expression of an opinio juris on the part of those
who possess such weapons. Some other States, which assert the
legality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances,
invoked the doctrine and practice of deterrence in support of their argument.
They recall that they have always, in concert with certain other States,
reserved the right to use those weapons in the exercise of the right to
self-defence against an armed attack threatening their vital security
interests. In their view, if nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, it
is not on account of an existing or nascent custom but merely because
circumstances that might justify their use have fortunately not arisen.
11. In general, international
humanitarian law bears on the threat or use of nuclear weapons as it does of
other weapons. The very first General Assembly resolution, unanimously adopted
on 24 January 1946 at the London session, set up a commission whose terms of reference
included making specific proposals for, among other things, "the
elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major
weapons adaptable to mass destruction". In a large number of subsequent
resolutions, the General Assembly has reaffirmed the need for nuclear
disarmament. "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the
enemy is not unlimited" as stated in Article 22 of the 1907 Hague
Regulations relating to the laws and customs of war on land. The St. Petersburg
Declaration had already condemned the use of weapons "which uselessly
aggravate the suffering of disabled men or make their death inevitable".
The aforementioned Regulations relating to the laws and customs of war on land,
annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907, prohibit the use of "arms,
projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" (Art.
23). These principles of international
humanitarian law have been incorporated into the Conferences of Geneva of 1949
and 1974-1977 which respectively adopted the four Geneva Conventions of 1949
and the two Additional Protocols however do not deal with nuclear weapons
specifically. States must never make civilians the object of attack and must
consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between
civilian and military targets. According to the second principle, it is
prohibited to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants: it is accordingly
prohibited to use weapons causing them such harm or uselessly aggravating their
suffering. In application of that second principle, States do not have
unlimited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use.
12. Article VI of the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of an obligation to negotiate in good
faith a nuclear disarmament. This provision is worded as follows: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty
undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating
to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear
disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict
and effective international control." The legal import of that obligation goes beyond that of a
mere obligation of conduct; the obligation involved here is an obligation to
achieve a precise result nuclear disarmament in all its aspects by adopting a
particular course of conduct, namely, the pursuit of negotiations on the matter
in good faith. This twofold obligation to pursue and to
conclude negotiations formally concerns the 182 States parties to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or, in other words, the vast majority
of the international community. One of
the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal
obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith. Trust and
confidence are inherent in international co-operation, in particular in an age
when this co-operation in many fields is becoming increasingly essential."
(Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December
1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 268, para. 46.) There exists an obligation to
pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear
disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international
control.
13. The
US and Russia are obligated to cut back their deployed warheads to between
1,700 and 2,200 each, by 2012. When it's implemented, "the United States
will have reduced the number of strategic nuclear warheads it had deployed in
1990 by about 80%.'' Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads
not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a
"hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900. In 1998 the US had a Nuclear Weapons Budget of $35.1 billion States with
the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia
(2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140). In 2002 the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
estimated that there are more than 10,600 nuclear warheads in the U.S.
stockpile (see table). Almost 8,000 of these are active or operational; nearly
2,700 inactive. The United States is
therefore obligated to reduce the number of operational missiles by 6,000 by 2012
- 857.2 warheads a year. To uphold the agreement on nuclear disarmament in
“good faith” this 2005 the United States should un-deploy between 800 to 1,000
nuclear missiles annually. This 2005
the United States of America is encouraged to demonstrate their “good faith
under the NPT” by disarming 800 through
1,000 nuclear warheads – perhaps all nuclear warheads deployed in US military
bases in foreign countries and naval vessels in international waters – this
2005.
14. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) reported that this 2005 the
US maintained 480 nuclear weapons stored in eight air bases in six European
countries. The number of missiles
deployed by the US in Europe is larger than the entire Chinese arsenal. The improving European security situation
since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and 1993 when NATO set the 480 weapon
limit have eliminated the need for US to keep nuclear weapons in Europe. It is reported that US soldiers stationed in
Turkey on a US military base had the option to take classes on disarming the
nuclear warheads deployed at the base. To
uphold the prohibition of the threat and use of force in international
relations the 2005 Review Conference on the NPT should give serious
consideration to enforcing Article I of the NPT by prohibiting
the export of nuclear warheads by the US to US military bases abroad, as “each
nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any
recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of
control over such weapons”. By
prohibiting the export of nuclear warheads from the US to US military bases in
foreign nations the US be recognized to uphold the international obligation to
refrain from the threat or use of force and foreign nations would be more
inclined to reciprocate by disarming themselves. Eliminating the deployment of
nuclear warheads in US military bases in foreign nations would in no way affect
the deterrence of long range US nuclear weapons stockpile that would be
warehoused and maintained exclusively in the United States and her waters. The
prohibition of the export of nuclear warheads would significantly reduce the
risk of such weapons falling into the hands of foreign terrorist
organizations. The prohibition of the
export of nuclear warheads by the US to US military bases around the world
would be greatly appreciated by diplomats and the nuclear weapon states would
be more inclined to disarm because they would be greatly reassured with the
contemporary statement of international non-aggression agreement if the US had
made significant progress eliminating the threat of the use of nuclear force in
their region. The prohibition of the
export to US military bases abroad would require the defusing of nuclear
warheads in US military bases outside of the geographic limits of the United
States. This prohibition of export
presents an singular opportunity for the United Nations and the United States
to claim a victory under Article I of the NPT there under completely prohibiting the
export of nuclear warheads, to all nations, both at land and at sea and
disarming those missiles currently deployed abroad.
15. The United States, Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are highly encouraged to
accede to the NPT by signing before its entry into force in
these countries that posses nuclear weapons pursuant to Article IX (1) that states, Any
State which does not sign the Treaty before its entry into force in accordance
with paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time. Iranian
behavior regarding the development of nuclear power is patently legal under Article
IV of the NPT which guarantees the right to
peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment equipment to produce
fuel for nuclear power plants. The
Conference urges Iran to renounce potential bomb technology of uranium
enrichment, in return for international guarantees of nuclear fuel to alleviate
worries that Iran might develop nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew from the NTP pursuant to Article X of the NPT that
states, Each Party
shall in exercising its national sovereignty shall have the right to withdraw
from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject
matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. Article
III (1) of the NPT encourages non-nuclear weapon
states to accept the safeguards preventing the diversion of fissionable
material to nuclear weapons while promoting the peaceful use and accountability
for upholding international agreements under the Statute of the International
Atomic Energy Association or the Structure and Content of Agreements Between
the Agency and States Required in Connection with the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons INFCIRC/153(1972), as it is alternatively called.
16. The State undertaking to accept
safeguards, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement under Structure and
Content of Agreements Between the Agency and States Required in Connection with
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons INFCIRC/153(1972), on all source or special fissionable material in all
peaceful nuclear activities within its territory, under its jurisdiction or
carried out under its control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying
that such material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices. The Agreement there under shall provide that the Agency and
the State shall co-operate to facilitate the implementation of the safeguards
provided for therein. The Agreement
should provide that safeguards shall be implemented in a manner designed: To avoid
hampering the economic and technological development of the State or
international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities,
including international exchange nuclear material. The Agreement should
provide that safeguards shall terminate on nuclear material subject to
safeguards there under upon determination by the Agency that it has been
consumed, or has been diluted in such a way that it is no longer usable for any
nuclear activity relevant from the point of view of safeguards, or has become
practicably irrecoverable. The State
shall arrange that records are kept in respect of each material balance area.
Provision should also be made that the Subsidiary Arrangements shall describe
the records to be kept in respect of each material balance area. In
determining the mater al balance area advantage should be taken of any
opportunity to use containment and surveillance to help ensure the completeness
of flow measurements and thereby simplify the application of safeguards and
concentrate measurement efforts at key measurement points. The initial report shall be dispatched by the
State to the Agency within 30 days of the last day of the calendar month in
which the Agreement enters into force, and shall reflect the situation as of
the last day of that month. The Agreement should provide that the Agency may
make routine and ad hoc inspections in order to: Verify that reports are
consistent with records.
17. All nations are
encouraged to exercise their right to vote under Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure for the Conference as one of
the more than 180 signatory Nations to the NPT. Both nuclear weapons and
non-nuclear weapon States may be party to the NPT pursuant to Article IX.
Under the NPT nations are differentiated by their responsibilities under Article
I for nuclear weapons states and Article II for non-nuclear states.
Under Article
VI Each of the
Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on
effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early
date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control. The United
States, and Russian are encouraged to declare the amount of nuclear warheads they
are willing to forfeit this 2005.
France, China, Pakistan and India are encouraged to achieve the
cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the
direction of nuclear disarmament. Iran
is commended for their development of peaceful nuclear power and encouraged to
work with international suppliers supervised by the IAEA
to eliminate worries that they might develop nuclear weapons. North Korea, more
than other states, is highly recommended to uphold the Agreement under Structure and
Content of Agreements Between the Agency and States Required in Connection with
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons INFCIRC/153(1972) in order for
the IAEA to monitor the material balance of fissionable matter to the
satisfaction of donor nations that have established the elimination of nuclear
weapons by North Korea as the criteria for sending billions of dollars of AID,
tentatively $1 billion from just the US, for the health and welfare of the
people living in the impoverished Asian nation that has suffered fame, famine
and fascism HA-10-2-05 in prelude to the unification of North
and South Korea pursuant to a Draft
Transitional Constitution and North Korea v. South
Korea HA-31-5-04.
18. The 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would not be complete without a ruling on whether or not the record 9.0 earthquake and tsunami the day after Christmas on 25 December 2004 that took nearly 150,000 lives and 8.7 earthquake the day before Easter on 28 March 2005 that took 1,000 lives without any tsunami of merit HA-26-12-04 might have been caused by the detonation of a nuclear device or large conventional bomb in the continental shelf? Wherefore the United Nations is requested to commission an investigation of radioactivity and other evidence of manmade explosions on the sea floor near the epicenter of the earthquakes. As it is very unlikely that a private terrorist organization, such as Al Queda, could afford both a nuclear device and an underwater delivery apparatus it is more likely that such an attack, if it was a man made disaster at all, was perpetrated by one of three nuclear states listed from least likely to most likely - Russia, North Korea and the United States of America.
19. The
possibility that the earthquakes and tsunamis were man made obligates the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Review Conference to investigate the undersea
continental shelf at the epicenter for the presence of radioactivity. The size of the earthquake inclines one to
believe that only nuclear weapons could have caused the environmental catastrophe. Whereas there are more than two weeks
between today and the end of the Conference on 27 May 2005 it should be
possible to conduct a thorough sweep of the continental shelf near the
epicenter for radioactivity so that an official ruling can be made as to
whether or not the temporally and seismically suspicious earthquakes and
tsunamis were the result of nuclear testing?
Certificate of
Service Tony Sanders title24uscode@aol.com this Wednesday 11 May
2005.
Preliminary
Investigation HA-11-5-5
NPT Conference Reforms Defeated HA-28-5-05