The Critical Issues Forum Program

Presents

2005-2006 L.B.J. High School

Student Research Project on

"Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation"

The Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) developed the Critical Issues Forum (CIF) to increase awareness of disarmament and nonproliferation issues and to engage and recruit the next generation of nonproliferation specialists.

The CIF topic for the 2005-2006 school year is "Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation." Students will address Benchmarks for this topic from the following perspectives: scientific, environmental, political/geopolitical, economic, and social/cultural.

L.B.J. High School

Johnson City I.S.D.

505 North Nugent

Johnson City, Texas 78636

Research prepared by: Kaznie Jureczki, Jake Bacon, Ashley Phillips, Nick Banfield, Johnny Solis III, Alyssa Lukenbach, and Amber Shultz

Benchmark One: (CTRL + click Benchmark one for active hyperlink)

• The purposes of Benchmark I are to consider the motivations and the “resources” (physical and intellectual) a nation needs to pursue a nuclear weapons policy.
• The leaders of any country must first “want” to have nuclear weapons. Next, they must be able to justify that “want” to their own citizens and they must try to justify their decision to the world community.
• Finally, they then must have the necessary scientific, technological, industrial, and economic abilities to carry out the development, testing, and production of those weapons.
• Your task is to examine decisions that have been made, or that are being made, by various nations in the world today to develop nuclear weapons. You are to analyze these decisions in the context of nuclear proliferation, nonproliferation, and counter proliferation.
• In your investigations you will examine the objectives from the point of view of the scientific & environmental; social & cultural; economic; political & geopolitical domains to gain a comprehensive understanding of these topics.

Objective One

What materials do they use and why?

The uranium bomb contains Uranium-235 and an explosive devise to shoot the Uranium pellet into the Uranium sphere. Also you need a barrel for the pellet to travel and a tamper, which is usually made of uranium-238.

How are they built?

JOHNNY

How do they work?

An explosive fires the Uranium-235 pellet down the barrel to the Uranium sphere. When the pellet strikes the Uranium sphere the fission reaction begins which in turn creates an enormous explosion. And of course something to encase the all of this.

What kind of industrial infrastructure is needed to produce each?

Countries and their Nuclear Capabilities
Countries with Nuclear Power	Nuclear Capabilities
United States	10,656
Russia	~10,000
United Kingdom	200
France	350
People's Republic of China	400
India	60-90
Pakistan	28-48
North Korea	0-18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
Countries without Nuclear Capabilities
Canada
Mexico
South Africa
Brazil
Argintina
Greenland
Norway
Scandanavian Countries
Countries with suspected Nuclear Weapons
Suspected Countries
Israel	Is not a member and refuses to officially confirm or deny the Nuclear Weapons
Iran	It is interested in nuclear technology
North Korea	Withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty January 10, 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Egypt
Nazi Germany
Iraq
Imperial Japan
Libya
Poland
Romania
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Socialistic Republic of Yugoslavia
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
For Complete information on countries with Nuclear Weapons Click Here

Think about a neighborhood. In this neighborhood for many years there were no guns. Recently, some homeowners have acquired guns; others have not.

a. Who do you think feels unsafe and why?

Business Men and Women- “I’m usually dressed for business and look like a typical, law-abiding person, going about their affairs. Looking like a law-abiding citizen may be great for meetings, sales calls and traffic stops, but on the streets of New York, Chicago, Maryland and D.C. it's like wearing a big "PLEASE ROB ME - I'M HELPLESS" sign across your back. Taken from an article concerning the lack of gun control in bigger cities”, http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/thanks_dc.html My Opinion: Businessmen and women have every right to feel unsafe criminal activity is at its peaks with so many differential opinions, races, and cultures. Its Common Knowledge the minority in every situation is normally the victim weather its race, culture or what kind of pudding you like, a 30 year old White Man in a nice suit isn’t going to fit into the population Majority of Bronx, New York which only contains 29.9% Caucasian population according to the 2000 census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651001.html)

Home Owners- 42% believe it would make the home a safer place. Taken fromhttp://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Over 50% of a polled population believe the gun control taken from (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm) My Opinion: You’re the wife of a Military Man no matter the Country and he gets sent to fight for your country or aide a country in need. You’re now all alone with your child in a dark house what happened when a couple of men decide they want your fine china?

Parents- Over 50% of parents polled for stricter gun control laws taken from (http://www.icrsurvey.com/Study.aspx?f=Gunpoll.html) My Opinion: I can say this in one question. Would you want you 18-year-old son to run the streets with a new gleaming hand gun.

b. Would it be better for no one to have guns? For everyone to have guns? For some to have guns and others not to have guns?

According to the Treasury and Justice departments in the U.S 18-20 year olds who make up a estimated 4 % of the population in the U.S are responsible for 24% of all gun related murders (http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/guncontrol.HTM ) . My Opinion: I’m not sure if I would want to completely ban guns but I do believe The laws and requirements to purchase a gun should be tightened and the age limit should defiantly raise allowing more mature adults to own guns rather than young adults, apparently I am not the only one who feels this way. In 1994 Governor Weld OF Massachusetts signed a law banning the sale and possession of handguns to any person or persons less than 21 years of age. Fact Boston went 2 ½ years without the gun murder of a child after the law was signed. (http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/guncontrol.HTM)

c. If it would be best for no one to have guns, how would you take them away from those who do have them? My Opinion:

We don’t have to ban guns, after all some gun engravings are beautiful pieces of art, we ban the killer, the ammunition. Honestly without the bullet what’s the gun. Ed Cohn says it best in part two of his article Public enemy no.1: “the Constitution doesn’t endow any particular firearm with untouchable status. (An alternative to banning guns, of course, would be to ban ammunition.)” (http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/guns2w99.htm)

d. If it is best for only some to have guns, how do you determine who those “some” are?

My Opinion: We can’t tell who those “some” are and who those “some” are not all we can do is up the application process, better back ground checks and possible upping the age limit. Other than that we can’t tell. Missouri's concealed-carry law lets sheriffs deny permits for various reasons -- including a discharge from the military "under dishonorable conditions. ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501215/posts )" See how can you honestly decide whose “worthy”.

What is the world’s perception on nuclear powers?

Those who have nuclear capabilities have great influence in world affairs, and thus hold the obligation of ensuring World safety and the restriction of nuclear reactions.

Is nuclear status a determinant of great status?

In a world where there are many starving, it would seem probable that the country with economic power has the most to gain. Yet in a day and age where military might is necessary, to hold nuclear status IS the same as holding a steady global status.

What power does a nuclear state really have?

A nuclear state does not just have military might, yet the power to involve itself in global affairs, and act as a world police. A nuclear state does indeed have the power to threaten non-nuclear states, and even other nuclear states with less nuclear capabilities. This eventually became the backdrop of the Cold War.

Do we need nuclear weapons?

That’s like asking do we need air to breathe. In our time, where economic competition has reached its highest, it is imperative to maintain a nuclear arsenal to protect us. As well it would be a major security risk to not hold nuclear capability, now that nuclear states HAVE held nuclear weapons for some time. Yet it is not ok to “need” nuclear weapons to scare and bully your way into getting whatever you want.

What responsibility do we have to non-nuclear states?

It is the duty of those bearing nuclear capability to ensure that non-nuclear states are not harmed specifically for the gain of those who do have nuclear capability. The age of imperialism led to two world wars, and it is for this reason we have created a global forum (United Nations) to see to it that weaker nations are excluded from the nuclear ring, that is of nuclear combat.

What are the benefits for our nation of being nuclear? What are the risks?

The greatest benefit would be that of international security. With the absence of a nuclear weapons program our nation would become the main target in the desire for economic gains. Nuclear capability can also lead to horrible and devastating reactions inside our own nation. This is seen in the horrifying Chernobyl explosions and test sites harming our natural resources think about a neighborhood. In this neighborhood for many years there were no guns. Recently, some homeowners have acquired guns; others have not.

Your firm has been hired as consultants to a government that is considering developing nuclear weapons. You must prepare a report on the impact of developing nuclear weapons. You must answer the following questions:

a. Why would a country want nuclear weapons? A country would choose to pursue nuclear capabilities in order to force its way into international politics, and have some sort of bargaining power in areas where it desired a certain commodity. Other reasons may be attributed to a simple desire to hurt other nations, or even for “protection”.

b. Why have some nations with the capability chosen not to develop nuclear weapons (like Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil) and others to arm and then disarm themselves (like South Africa)? How should a government considering nuclear weapons view these decisions? It may be that the countries listed above are already major economic competitors and don’t need nuclear weapons to obtain what they need. And others may have armed and disarmed themselves only after they saw how useless and dangerous nuclear weapons were. They could have also been to costly to keep up with. Other nations should learn from these countries ways of obtaining different forms of power, not solely through nuclear weapons but through economic and domestic build-up.

c. What might motivate a country to change direction and begin a nuclear weapons program? Simple factors such as the desire for protection and a sense of power could easily motivate a country to change direction and begin building nuclear weapons.

d. Would the world be a safer place if no nation had nuclear weapons? What if all nations had nuclear weapons? What would be a realistic goal, and why? In response to the second question, of course the world would NOT be in a safer place if every nation were equipped with nuclear weapons. A realistic goal would be for the non-proliferation of all nuclear weapons in all countries. This leads to the answer of the first question. Yes the world would be a much safer place if NO nation had any nuclear weapons. Why would it be realistic to push for the extermination of all nuclear weapons??? That’s like asking why do we need air to breathe? The answer is self-explanatory.

e. What would be considered a reasonable number of weapons for the US and Russia to maintain? For China? India? Pakistan? How should a government considering nuclear weapons view these numbers? It would be entirely imperialistic, and nationalistic to impose any certain amount of nuclear weapons numbers on any country. Of course a person from The United States would say that the U.S. would need the most nuclear weapons, same with a person from Russia or China etc. Yet if a true reasonable number were sought after, it would be sensible to set a cap off number at 100, for each and every one of these nations with the ability to reach the 100 mark.

f. Should North Korea or Iran have any? Some? If these two countries develop nuclear weapons, how would other countries react? Again, how should a government considering nuclear weapons view the answers to these questions? Not because they are of a different race, ethnicity, or religion should a country be denied the right to develop nuclear weapons. Yet Iran and North Korea have made it clear that the “West” would in some way pay for their actions, and the threats already made by both countries only furthers our need to prevent them from gaining nuclear capability. Yet in any event, if the two countries WERE to develop nuclear weapons, other countries would react with shock and fear, because nuclear weapons in the hands of these two nations is mass nuclear war waiting to happen.

g. How will nuclear weapons affect the international status of a country? Can a country truly be considered a great civilization today without having nuclear weapons? As it has been said already, nuclear weapons would catapult any nation, which possesses them, to the top of the world order. As for the second question, yes it is extremely possible for a country to be considered a great civilization; all we must do is to look at present-day Germany and Japan. Japan is a major leader in the world economy and a major powerhouse in the technology sector.

h. How could a nation’s nuclear capabilities be exploited within the framework of existing treaties and current power structures? It would be difficult to promote a nation’s nuclear capabilities in present-day treaties. But if we were to think of our past world history and how we went to war with other countries, it wasn’t because a treaty prohibited certain desires, it was simply because other countries ignored treaties and “current power structures”, and went on with what they were trying to accomplish. In simpler terms, if I wanted nuclear capabilities bad enough, I wouldn’t listen to a treaty or other countries that had what I wanted, yet were trying all they could to prevent me from getting what they had.

OBJECTIVE TWO

1. Once the leaders of a country have determined that they will develop nuclear weapons, they must draw on many different physical resources and intellectual knowledge to actually accomplish what they want to do. You are to produce an overall analysis and definition of the physical infrastructure, the scientific, and technological knowledge needed to develop nuclear weapons. Infrastructural capital refers to any physical means of production or means of protection beyond that which can be gathered or found directly in nature, i.e. beyond natural capital and that which is not considered as "fluid capital". It may include tools, clothing, shelter, irrigation systems, dams, roads, boats, ports, factories or any physical improvements made to nature. This term can overlap with the notion of internal improvements and public works.

In macro-economics the term "infrastructure" usually refers to the added-value of a nation-state relative to the raw natural capital of its `excoriations, e.g. dams, roads, ports, canals, sewers, border posts, etc. - although it can also be used to describe firm-specific infrastructure such as factories, private roads, capital equipment, and other such assets.

Physical Infrastructure is- The more generic term physical capital is sometimes used to refer to any combination of either infrastructural capital or natural capital -- recognizing that often an infrastructural improvement, e.g. a dam or road, becomes impossible to differentiate from the natural ecology within which it is embedded. Although it is confusing to consider personal property carried on the individual human body part of an "infrastructure", it is also contrary to refer to joint products of nature and man as being "manufactured" or "built" rather than as being "grown" or "developed", e.g. vines or other plants which grow on a manmade trellis. As both infrastructural and natural capital serve as means of production and means of protection from the elements, macro-economists rarely differentiate the two in their analysis. (Wikipedia)

2. What kind of infrastructure is it? Infrastructural capital (Wikipedia)

3. What does it cost? U.S.-$5.48 trillion dollars and maintenance is $98 billion per year (http://www.issues.org/15.2/mendelsohn.htm) Estimated Minimum Incurred Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Programs, 1940-1996*

Total: $5,821.0 billion in billions of constant 1996 dollars

*Includes average projected future-year costs for nuclear weapons dismantlement and fissile materials disposition and environmental remediation and waste management. Total actual and estimated expenditures through 1996 were $5,481.1 billion.

Source: Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 (Brookings Institution Press, 1998)

First, what did nuclear weapons cost the United States? From 1940 through 1996, we spent nearly $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs, in constant 1996 dollars. From 1948 through 1996, the United States spent $165.5 billion manufacturing plutonium, highly-enriched uranium, tritium, and other materials necessary to make nuclear explosives.

4. What sacrifices will have to be made? The vast amount of money needed to build and maintain a nuclear weapon, the security of other countries protecting non-nuclear countries, use of natural resources needed to build nuclear weapons, land needed to test nuclear weapons, and land and water needed to store nuclear weapons.

5. What kinds of people will be necessary? Military men, scientists that will know how to build them, and educated people to actually build and maintain them

6. What fields of study will be important? Chemistry and Calculus and Physics

Select two or three nations for this study.

*********GOOD STUFF***************

"The military industrial complex is too powerful," some will say. I have no illusions about what happens when the people seek to correct their rulers. It took a hundred years and a terribly bloody war to free the slaves in the US, then another century to free them from the terror of lynching and the humiliation of segregation. It took 30 years for Gandhi to free India from British rule. It took 15 years to stop the Vietnam War. Bottom-up change takes time and great sacrifice, but, unfortunately, people of moral and spiritual vision must again take up the struggle. The abolition of nuclear weapons is no less important and no less just than the abolition of slavery. We are not just fighting a technology or a weapon. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, we are fighting nuclear weapons in our own minds. We are fighting the very idea that anyone could, for any reason that he feels legitimate, unleash a nuclear holocaust. We are fighting the idea that a small group of powerful men should have the capacity to launch Armageddon. We are fighting the idea that we should spend trillions of dollars on military overkill while billions of us live in dire, life-threatening poverty.

Our immediate target is nuclear weapons, but our long-term aim is a new world order. In this new world, no man is foolish enough to kill or be killed to defend his master's wealth or ego. We seek a world in which no man, woman or child goes to bed wondering whether he or she will live through the hunger, pestilence, or violence of the next day; a world in which we look around this room and see not murdering, thieving enemies against whom we have to defend ourselves but brothers and sisters on whom our own safety, security, survival and enjoyment depend. (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/04/30_akiba_urgent-call.htm © Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 1998 - 2006 | Powered by Media Temple)

WORKS CITED PAGE

Eggleston, T.S. "more gun control please." the-eggman. 12 2005. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/thanks_dc.html>.

Census, U.S. "Quick Facts." Quick Facts from the US census Bureau. 2007. US Census Bureau. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651001.html>.

report, Polling. "GUNS." Polling Report . 2006. . 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm>.

Lester, Will . "Gun Poll: Support for stricter gun laws jumps after Colorado shootings." ICR. ICR. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.icrsurvey.com/Study.aspx?f=Gunpoll.html>.

Control, Gun . "Gun Control Debate." you debate. Gul Control Debate and Poll. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/guncontrol.HTM>.

Control, Gun . "Gun Control Debate." you debate. Gul Control Debate and Poll. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/guncontrol.HTM>.

Cohen, Ed. "Public Enemy No. 1, Continued." Notre Dame Magazine. 2000. notre dame magazine. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/guns2w99.htm>.

Republic, Free. "State Supreme Court Won't hear concealed guns case." Free Republic. 10 Dec 2005. Free Republic. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501215/posts>.

bbc, . "Nuclear Fuel Cycle." BBC.CO.UK. 3 march 2004. BBC NEWS. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/

"NPT Tutorial." 2004. CNS. 28 Feb. 2006 <http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/npttutorial/index.html>.

Benchmark Two: (CRTL + click Benchmark for active hyperlink)

Objective One

1. What are the scientific and technical requirements to transform a nuclear power program into a nuclear weapons program?

2. List possibilities that would cause a nation that was determined to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to change its mind and embark on a weapons program. Consider these questions in relation to Iran and North Korea. One possible reason a nation might make this change is to protect itself from other imperialistic nations. For example, the Cold War. The U.S. and the USSR both built up large arsenals of weapons in order to defend themselves from possible attacks orchestrated by one another. Nations are likely to make the change in order to gain power and prestige in world affairs. Iran could possibly be an example of this.

a. What would that have to do in the scientific area? In the area of technology? Diplomatically? In the scientific area most steps are already met with the creation of the nuclear power program. No additional technological steps are needed besides the assembly of bomb and the steps I listed in question. Diplomatically the nation would either seek approval of the United Nations or conceal the program.

b. How would the rest of the world find out about these changes? Would science and technology play a part? Intelligence gathering? Other methods? The problem is there is no definite way to find out about these changes. Through an underground development program a country could possibly change from a peaceful program to a weapon producing program without being discovered. The world could find out the hard way and the damage could already be done.

c. What could the rest of the world do about this nation diplomatically? Economically? Using science or technology? Diplomatically all that could be done is putting the subject up for debate. This is a generally ineffective measure of resolution though it has worked in North Korea. Economically an embargo would be an effective measure. By cutting of a nation’s source of wealth they would no longer have the means to continue a nuclear weapons program. Through the use of science and technology the source of the weapons could be discovered and steps could be taken towards non-proliferation.

Objective Two

Prepare for your investigations of nonproliferation issues by reviewing one or more of the following: the "Arms Control and Treaties" lesson from the LLNL Education Program paper (link), the Arms Control Association, www.armscontrol.org/treaties, The CNS developed NPT tutorial www.nti.org/h_learnmore/npttutorial/index.html and the CIF website “Resources” collection

Consider the various international treaties negotiated to control nuclear arms proliferation? Again, use one or more of the resources on international nuclear treaties in the CIF website resources collection. How effective is each? NATO and the Warsaw Pact were both effective in that they provided nuclear defense guarantees by the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet the NPT or Non Proliferation Treaty is ineffective in that countries would join and receive support for peaceful nuclear purposes, yet once they received help they would immediately withdraw and then use their nuclear capabilities for nuclear weapons. North Korea was a prime example when they withdrew from the NPT and then immediately began working on nuclear weapons.

a. What are the relationships among the NPT, CTBT, SALT series, START series, NWFZ’s, and other treaties and recent bilateral agreements that are not codified as “treaties”? All share a common desire to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons and prevent the tragedy of worldwide nuclear war.

b. Some treaties have international organizations that monitor the member nations in the treaty. For the NPT the organization is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Prepare a short paper describing the organization of the IAEA, its roles and duties, and its responsibilities.

The IAEA serves as the world’s center for cooperation in the world’s in the nuclear world and works within the United Nations. The IAEA’s roles and duties and among that, its responsibilities, is Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification.

The IAEA headquarters is centered in Vienna, Austria, with operational offices in Geneva, Switzerland; New York, USA; Toronto, Canada; and Tokyo, Japan. Research centers are located in Vienna and Seibersdorf, Austria; and Monaco and Treiste, Italy. The IAEA serves as a team of 2200 professional and support staff from 90 different countries. The agency is led by Director General Mohammed El Baradei and there are six Deputy Directors General who head the major departments

c. What does a nation sacrifice by joining the NPT? Joining the CTBT? Joining an NWFZ? Joining any other nuclear weapons related treaty? A nation sacrifices the loss of nuclear weapons capability, the number of nuclear weapons, and the monitoring and presence of other technicians from many different countries: As in the case of the NPT. Yet in a more superstitious sense, the country could be easily opened for spying. It would be like a bully allowing a victim to defend itself with rocks, yet the bully would choose which kind of rocks would be uses against him/her and how many.

d. What would a nation gain by joining any one or all of these agreements? They would gain peaceful nuclear power capability, NOT nuclear weapons capability.

e. How should the states permitted to have nuclear weapons by the NPT respond to claims that the NPT amounts to "nuclear apartheid"? Consider these questions in relation to India, Iran and North Korea. The nations should agree to join the NPT and have their weapons monitored, and the number of weapons limited as well as the helping on the nuclear weapons project in Iran, India, and North Korea by IAEA personnel.

f. It is a common conception that if there is a "breaking of the rules", that there must be some sort of punishment. What kinds of punishments are available when nuclear treaties are broken? What kinds of punishments can be administered to nations who have not signed current treaties if they break the “rules” of an existing treaty? What is being done or being considered in relation to Iran and North Korea? What was done in relation to India and Pakistan? The typical punishment for breaking the NPT treaty is a sanction placed on the country, as was seen in the Pakistan situation. Iran and North Korea are another story. Their punishments have been endless negotiations leading to nothing. Another possible and more extreme punishment is war as was seen with the Iraq situation.

g. Which countries have refused to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and why? India, Pakistan, Israel, have all refused to join the NPT. They have done so because in joining the treaty they would have to destroy the nuclear weapons they have already created.

3. Throughout history great thinkers have talked about war. For the most part they have condemned it. Still they realize that war will happen. Their answer is then, “well, if there must be war, then these are the conditions under which war is justified and these are the conditions under which it can be carried out.” Investigate the concept of justifying waging war in various cultures, in various religions, and various ways of thinking and present a short paragraph on several different ones.

4. Consider the following scenario: Country A has recently begun work that could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. Country B has been researching similar programs, but has not yet been successful. Country C has a poor economy and does not have the resources to even begin thinking about such weapons. Country C, therefore, is very intimidated by the invention of these advances in its neighbors. Your task is to develop a treaty for these three countries that will restrict the use of nuclear weapons technology, limit or stop its proliferation, provide safety for other countries that are concerned about the use of this technology, and that will verify all treaty points. As you develop your Nonproliferation Control Treaty, consider the four domains and the following questions:

a. Why do international treaties work? Why not? They work because they provide positive benefits to all involved. They fail when one side gets power hungry or the benefits outside the treaty outweigh the benefits of the treaty.

b. What does it take to make a treaty successful? It takes commitment to the treaty and reasonable terms. There must also be means of enforcing these terms.

c. What incentives would make all these countries "join" the treaty? The treaty will offer positive traits to all counties involved. In this scenario the countries will all receive nuclear power and one country will receive a territory bonus.

5. Does technology make a difference? What are the scientific methods used to verify compliance with current treaties, describe scientific or technical methods currently in use and tell how these methods actually work. Technology does make a difference in verifying a treaty. Through satellite photos and other high-tech surveillance systems it can be easier to monitor countries nuclear activities. These methods are currently in use all over the world. A country will take a picture with a satellite of any suspected areas.

Nuclear Weapons Treaty:

The development of nuclear weapons will not be banned, however the use of nuclear power will be allowed.

The first country to develop nuclear capabilities will provide nuclear power for the other countries.

The other countries must pay material cost for the nuclear power with no extra fees.

The country providing nuclear power will receive the privilege of a military base surrounding the nuclear power plant and unrestricted access to the nuclear power plant and base.

Objective Three

Consider the following questions and create an “Op-Ed” piece that expresses your opinions on the subject of Treaty Accountability. Make sure to address the four domains.

a. Can treaties be trusted? Why?

No, treaties cannot be trusted. Here’s an example to explain why: Boy 1 wants some trading cards from boy 2 so, Boy1 tells boy 2 I have a piece of paper here saying ill give you 100 dollars for that trading card, boy 2 agrees and they both sign it. Boy 1 then tears up the paper and runs away laughing. Basically when a country can get something out of another country a treaty will be signed but as soon as another country offers something better the treaty is worthless. The 2^nd country doesn’t gain anything.

b. What does it take to make an arms control treaty successful?

Countries must be willing to abide by the guidelines set down by the treaty with the understanding the consequences.

c. Which areas seem to be weak and in need of strengthening?

The Consequences:

d. What can be done to strengthen them?

Worldwide Military can be enforced to enforce the consequences laid down in the treaty.

What role does verification play in international treaties? What technical measures are available to verify compliance with various nuclear weapons treaties?

Countries may enter each others countries to verify by the standards set in the treaty that country is following the rules, if the inspected country does not comply the treaty may be terminated and consequences may follow.