Norge Stronk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2016
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
First of all MTCR is NOT a Treaty, so its rules are NOT legally binding on members.
US has exported tomahawk missiles and Trident missiles to UK despite the MTCR so this 'club membership' is flexible for those who dare challenge it.
MTCR treaty membership makes it easier for nations to export longer range missiles which otherwise might be not possible by their own state legislation.
MTCR was primarily signed by India to get US UAV's which can drop bombs and can travel a LOT longer than 300 km
Time for a history lesson, since you brought up Tomahawk and Trident:
https://defence.pk/threads/china-he...embership-bid-aziz.425048/page-3#post-8213232
You're not right on one point and only partially right on the other. The transfer (sale) of Trident under the Polaris Sales Agreement between the US and UK was not a violation of the MTCR because the early iteration of the MRTC did not cover transfers happening between MTCR member nations:
One of the earliest contributions of the MTCR was to set the parameter of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile as one that could carry a 500-kilogram payload to a range of 300 kilometers. Of course, here the regime erred on the side of caution as a first-generation nuclear weapon was likely to weigh closer to 1,000 kilograms. These parameters and guidelines were readily accepted by the first generation of MTCR members for two reasons. First, these restrictions did not apply to transfers within the MTCR membership, evident in the U.S. supply of Polaris and Trident ballistic missiles to the United Kingdom. Second, in the early 1980s, there was concern that nuclear-capable ballistic missiles or technology supplied by one G-7 country might be used by the recipient against another G-7 country. This worry was highlighted indirectly by Argentina 's use of French Exocet missiles to sink the British destroyer HMS Sheffield and support ship Atlantic Conveyor during the 1982 Falkland Islands War.
A transfer or sale of new Trident missiles to the UK would fall under the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the MTCR.
...
Depending on the justification given, the NPT may not have been violated either by the US sharing nuclear warheads/warhead making materials or by helping the UK develop such weapons, as an audit found in 2006:
The UK National Audit Office noted that most of the UK Trident warhead development and production expenditure was incurred in the US who would supply "certain warhead-related components". Some of the fissile materials for the UK Trident warhead were purchased from the US. There is evidence that the warhead design of the British Trident system is similar to, or even based on, the US W76 warhead fitted in some US Navy Trident missiles, with design and blast model data supplied to the UK
The 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Treaty and the NATO Nuclear Weapons Sharing Agreement both are loopholes, and controversial ones, that circumvent the NPT.
The former by pre-dating the NPT, and thus not being retroactively covered by it, and later with this argument:
At the time the treaty was being negotiated, NATO had in place secret nuclear weapons sharing agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.
Because the UK is technically leasing its Trident D5 and W76 warheads, they are functionally US property and the US came claim no transfer of custody for those weapons, until they are needed. It's the same scenario we see with US B-61s in Turkey.
@Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back anything to add?
Neither transfer is considered a violation of the MTCR.
So yes, compliance has benefits ... even at face value, especially at face value.
It certainly does. Though France has been known to be a bit of a loose-cannon at times with nuclear and weapons tech proliferation, it does value its partnership and business with the US and world at large. Compliance with the treaties guidelines, though it's not obligated to do so, prevents France from reaping counteraction by the US or other concerned parties.
...
I actually have a hard copy of the MTCR on my desk if anyone would like me to mail it to them. It's a holdover from a cross-training experience I underwent as a negotiating party, where I'm actually an engineer and rarely, only one occurrence, put my contract negotiation training to use.
And for those that don't know, the MTCR is rather relevant in my line of work as well. Though mainly noted as a missile and UAV proliferation deterrence measure, it actually does cover AUVs as well if their capabilities are beyond a specific threshold. I develop AIs for AUVs and write control code for their systems.
Last edited: