Pandoras box has been opened and can never be closed again. Recent events have proven that the only truely effective protection against a nuclear armed country (or a 'pact' of countries with massive conventional potential) is a deliverable nuclear weapon. Israel were very quick to learn this lesson and developed (with lots of outside help) an effective nuclear deterant against possible agression from its neighbours. Although illegal, there is nothing anyone outside of Israel can do to remove thier stockpile. Pakistan developed its nukes as a deterant against India (but they currently serve to deter the US from mounting a full scale invasion of Pakistan in their spreading 'war of terror', sorry I meant to say 'war on terror'. North Korea developed its nukes as a deterant against threats from the United States (again). If Iran are indeed moving towards 'breakout' capability, which many countries including the old WW2 powers of Japan and Germany already have, then this will be as a deterant against publically threatened attack by both the United States (yet again) and Israel. Only the warmongers, or the unenlightened, think that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon in a first strike senario. Nukes are primarily a deterent as any country that uses them against an enemy faces having their enemy use them against them too. Mutually assured destruction kept the world safe during the cold war, and MAD will again keep us safe from individual nations using these weapons in the future. The only nuclear armed states I fear are the United States and Israel, as they currently seem to have the mindset that aguments are best settled on the battlefield. I do hope that oneday these two great nations will come to realise that you do not have to first subjugate, or even like, your neighbours in order to work with them, and that it is possibe to settle differences through talk and negotiation.

The difficulties with any new treaty will probably be much the same as with the current NPT: the countries that have not ratified the NPT or have withdrawn from it are likely to take the same approach with any new treaty. The idea of restricting and controlling the refinement of nuclear materials is nice but would likely be avoided by countries determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Rumour has it that in the 1970s, Israel stole nuclear materials in western Europe which were then taken to South Africa for processing. Both countries subsequently produced nuclear weapons, although South Africa later renounced their nuclear weapons and joined the NPT. It seems unlikely that any of the five permanent members of the UN security council would actually use any of their nuclear weapons - the political ramifications would be too great and these countries could expect to achieve their military aims using conventional weapons. For these countries, nuclear weapons truly area a weapon of last resort. For the countries who are currently developing nuclear weapons or have only recently acquired them, the picture might not be so rosy. It is not hard to imagine an isolated and desperate government in Iran or North Korea actually using nuclear weapons against their neighbours or even their own populace. Biological weapons are also a matter of concern - many believe that several Arab countries have some stocks of biological weapons to counter Israel's nuclear capability. If true, let's hope they know what they are doing.

Well, I'd send a plague before a nuke. That doesn't damage the environment as much and its a quiet death without much of a source. There's always the fear that it'll come back to you when your population isn't dying as much as everybody else. I think I'm going to just wipe out humanity after evolving another species - or containing mankind in nature again instead of against itself with a little more awareness.

The Additional Protocols, which Iran refuses to ratify and implement, are the upgrades to the original NPT. Close to 100 signatories of the NPT have already ratified and implemented them. Other NPT signatories are in the process of ratifying and implementing them. The fact that they are upgrades to the existing NPT, implemented after the IAEA realized that the existing NPT was not adequate to monitor potentially illegal nuclear activity, is what makes it so significant when a country refuses to implement them. I would also like to point out that the IAEA does blind testing on the materials taken during on-site inspections. That means that those doing the testing do not have any idea where the samples have come from, and their findings are fair and unbiased. Personally, I would like to see all nuclear development banned, but since that is not possible, the IAEA is the best possible way of managing, inspecting and controlling nuclear activity. Contrary to the accusations raised against it by certain parties, it's processes are fair and unbiased. It reports the facts as it finds them, even if those facts are not as certain members would wish, or if certain members wish those facts were not reported. From that perspective, refusal to co-operate with the IAEA, or attempts to interfere the IAEA, should be met with heavy repercussions. But I'd like to see it go one step further; I'd like to see international zero-tolerance towards any country even threatening to start up a nuclear weapons program. You threaten it; you lose the right to even a domestic energy program. With the need to curb the growing ambitions of many non-nuke possessing nations these days, I am happy to see someone like Yukiya Amano heading the IAEA. He walks softly, but carries a big stick, and that is just what is needed. The fact that he's Japanese, and knows only too well the horrors of nuclear weaponry, adds weight to his Director Generalship of the IAEA.

Start disarming from USA.