What's new

Why Vietnam Will Be the Next Nuclear State

Status
Not open for further replies.
well, first of all I think that the 2 communist countries should be at peace. They should at least look at it that way. I know this looks awkward that the 2 countries should be at peace just for being two communist regimes but at least it would prevent any conflict. But still , History tells us something else given the ex. of Sino-russian war. But, these countries according two me should have been like brothers like U.S and Canada because of their culture. Again, this cultural bond contradicts the fact that India and Pakistan are the countries whose relations should have been rock solid. But they are not. I wish that my fellow Chinese and Vietnamese members understand my part !
 
.
the issue between china and viet has nothing with communist and culture relevance.
just think about the similar case, Myanmar recognized nicobar belong to india by all means before 2013, but this year, Myanmar suddenly turn back from its original position and required india should cede this islands to it. how the india people think about it?
that's exactly the same case between china and viet.

well, first of all I think that the 2 communist countries should be at peace. They should at least look at it that way. I know this looks awkward that the 2 countries should be at peace just for being two communist regimes but at least it would prevent any conflict. But still , History tells us something else given the ex. of Sino-russian war. But, these countries according two me should have been like brothers like U.S and Canada because of their culture. Again, this cultural bond contradicts the fact that India and Pakistan are the countries whose relations should have been rock solid. But they are not. I wish that my fellow Chinese and Vietnamese members understand my part !
 
.
Sometime we overestimate (Iraq), and sometimes we underestimate (North Korea, Syria). The problem is that once a country has produced nuclear weapons, it's too late to do anything. Iran's lack of full cooperation with the IAEA makes its program appear suspicious, at the very least.

Iraq was never overestimate the US crushed Iraq in Desert Storm, faulty intellegence caused the hunt for WMD's, and I agree with you on that that's why Syria and Iraq's Nuclear reactors were bombed by Israel. Iran is cooperating with IAEA and the US/Israeli claims on it attaining nuclear weaponry has been proven false so far.



North Korea is an unstable regime that sits on your border. China can't dismiss its violations of the NPT simply because it's an ally (or Iran's simply because China needs its oil), and then turn around and demand NPT compliance from Vietnam. As far as India, I will agree that the US deal with India violated the spirit of the NPT, but on a practical level, it didn't change anything. India already had a nuclear weapon at that point, so the best that could happen was to bring India partially in line with the NPT, which is what the US-India agreement accomplished. As far as I am aware, Pakistan remains fully outside of the NPT, and its role in proliferation leads me to believe that it would be a far greater regional danger than India, at least as far as nuclear technology goes.

I hope China is consistent, and applies heavy pressure on Iran to dismantle programs that could lead to nuclear weapons development.[/quote]

Not really we have seen the US play that game several times, like I've great powers can indeed bend rules no matter how much of a hypocrite they look like. It's neither in China nor the US interest for other countries to gain nuclear weapons at the current time Iran or in this dream situation Vietnam. But it's still breaking the NPT with both the US and China nuclear deals with India and Pakistan doesn't matter if one is more trustful whats done is done.

China has agreed with the US deal with Iran.
 
.
Israel never signed the NPT, so the US has no reason to bomb Israel. North Korea did sign the NPT and blatantly violated it, taking the nuclear technology provided under the NPT, then using it to build a bomb. In any case, since China will not bomb North Korea, we know it won't bomb Vietnam over NPT matters, either.
It's only a matter of technicality. Israel obtains nuke technology from the US, and they don't want to sign NPT which will force them to give up their nuke. The US will not bomb Israel regardless if they are a NPT signee or not because you provide them the tech to begin with. North Korea builds a dirty nuclear bomb and they get sanctioned by the rule. Whether bombing them or not is up to the 6-party talk and the level of danger NK poses to each parties. For us, we don't fear a NK threat directly to us so we don't need to. Vietnam is a different matter. It is a real threat if she posses nuclear bomb.
 
Last edited:
.
When you sign NPT, you agree to give up nuclear weapon in exchange for civil nuclear use. Do you understand? You are not allow to build nuclear bomb.
Do some basic research.

There is a difference between a 'nuclear state' and a 'nuclear weapons state'.

Under the NPT:

- An existing nuclear weapons state pledged not to increase existing nuclear weapons stockpile and not to export nuclear weapons technology. No 'giving up' of existing weapons stockpile.

- An existing nuclear state, or nuclear capable state, pledged not to enter nuclear weapons state status by not developing an indigenous nuclear weapons program or acquiring nuclear weapons capable technologies or acquiring actual functional nuclear weapons.

Viet Nam is already a nuclear state. Any country that know how to run and maintain a nuclear reactor is a nuclear state.

Vietnam | Country Profiles | NTI
Vietnam became a non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1982.
 
.
Do some basic research.

There is a difference between a 'nuclear state' and a 'nuclear weapons state'.

Under the NPT:

- An existing nuclear weapons state pledged not to increase existing nuclear weapons stockpile and not to export nuclear weapons technology. No 'giving up' of existing weapons stockpile.

- An existing nuclear state, or nuclear capable state, pledged not to enter nuclear weapons state status by not developing an indigenous nuclear weapons program or acquiring nuclear weapons capable technologies or acquiring actual functional nuclear weapons.

Viet Nam is already a nuclear state. Any country that know how to run and maintain a nuclear reactor is a nuclear state.

Vietnam | Country Profiles | NTI
I think you are the one who needs to do research, my friend. LOL

The existing nuclear weapon states refer to the official recognizable nuclear states, namely the P5.
 
.
coming soon uranium mining in Quang Nam
logo.gif
- The good news and surprises Mining Vietnam when survey work 7/11 uranium deposits were discovered in Quang Nam have completed and prepared exploited for economic development.


At each assessment workshop the strategic planning, exploration, mining and processing of radioactive ores by the Quang Nam Department of Trade and Industry and the Research Institute for Industry Policy and Strategy - Ministry of Trade and Industry held yesterday, 26/8 at the Quang Nam scientists and leading experts 7 officially announced uranium ore deposits were discovered in Quang Nam. Here are 7 of 11 mines, detected radioactive ore in the country.

20110828150745_THAN-NONG-SON.jpg

Nong Son coal mine where identifying high uranium ore reserves.

According to official documents published at the workshop, radioactive ores (uranium ore is (U) and / or thorium) in Quang Nam Vietnam best quality.Placement mines, radioactive ore This low-lying districts Nong Son and Nam Giang district, including mine Pa Trick U, U Pa Rong mine, quarry States U Khe - Khe high, mine southeast Christmas party U, U An Diem mines, coal mines (U ) Nong Son, graphic mine (U) An Tien. In particular, U Pa Trick mines, U Pa Rong polls scheduled for completion before 2015.Arrive 2016-2020 will build mines and uranium mining in this capacity 100-130 tons of ore / year in each mine. ore volume will be turned Vietnam dead spot required to serve the country's economic development. Currently Quang Nam is completing procedures for the government to allow mining and processing . Vu

 
.
It's only a matter of technicality. Israel obtains nuke technology from the US, and they don't want to sign NPT which will force them to give up their nuke. The US will not bomb Israel regardless if they are a NPT signee or not because you provide them the tech to begin with. North Korea builds a dirty nuclear bomb and they get sanctioned by the rule. Whether bombing them or not is up to the 6-party talk and the level of danger NK poses to each parties. For us, we don't fear a NK threat directly to us so we don't need to. Vietnam is a different matter. It is a real threat if she posses nuclear bomb.

1) France provided the nuclear technology to Israel. Whatever technology Israel obtained from the US was obtained through illicit means.

2) North Korea is not a danger to China now. What happens when North Korea collapses?
 
.
I think you are the one who needs to do research, my friend. LOL

The existing nuclear weapon states refer to the official recognizable nuclear states, namely the P5.
Did they gave up their nuclear weapons, like you claimed the NPT demanded ?
 
.
1) France provided the nuclear technology to Israel. Whatever technology Israel obtained from the US was obtained through illicit means.

2) North Korea is not a danger to China now. What happens when North Korea collapses?
1. France, UK, and US play a role in it. They are allies after all.

2. As long as their nuclear weapons do not get into the hand of "bad force", it poses no danger to us. In fact, terrorist is the only concern. We always keep an eye on NK dealing with underground party. The good thing is their nuclear force is small so very manageable in an event of a collapse. We have contingency plan.

Did they gave up their nuclear weapons, like you claimed the NPT demanded ?
Like I said, if you are a recognizable nuclear weapon state, that NPT clause apply to you. It doesn't apply to the non-recognizable weapon state. India, for instance, is a non-recognizable weapon state. Despite call for India to become a recognizable weapon state, so they can participate in NPT legally and don't have to give up nuclear weapon, there are still resistances by others. India is in a headlock. They will remain a non-recognizable weapon state and those who exchange civil nuclear technology with India is done unilaterally without subject to NPT. In other case, South Africa giving up nuclear weapon to join NPT in exchange for civil nuclear use.
 
Last edited:
.
1. France, UK, and US play a role in it. They are allies after all.

2. As long as their nuclear weapons do not get into the hand of "bad force", it poses no danger to us. In fact, terrorist is the only concern. We always keep an eye on NK dealing with underground party. The good thing is their nuclear force is small so very manageable in an event of a collapse. We have contingency plan.

I wonder if you can provide proof that the UK and US actively helped the Israeli nuclear program. That said, I'm not sure why we're even talking about Israel, as its nuclear reactor came online even before the NPT was created.

If your contingency plans include invading North Korea to secure its nuclear weapons, good luck to you. When a country collapses, it's no simple matter keeping strategic assets out of the hands of undesirables.
 
.
Like I said, if you are a recognizable nuclear weapon state, that NPT clause apply to you. It doesn't apply to the non-recognizable weapon state. India, for instance, is a non-recognizable weapon state. Despite call for India to become a recognizable weapon state, so they can participate in NPT legally and don't have to give up nuclear weapon, there are still resistances by others. India is in a headlock. They will remain a non-recognizable weapon state and those who exchange civil nuclear technology with India is done unilaterally without subject to NPT. In other case, South Africa giving up nuclear weapon to join NPT in exchange for civil nuclear use.
Where in the NPT does it say to give up nuclear weapons upon signing ?
 
. . .
Then you should have no problems showing where in the NPT does it say so: Give up nuclear weapons.

NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology. NPT is vague, true. But its purpose is quite clear.

Have a look at this map, it clearly shows why is that the case.

NPT_parties.svg


In the map above you'll see that the countries that are Non-signatory are also nuclear weapon states. Whereas, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Germany, etc.. for instance are capable of being so, but they choose not to, and they're all ratifier.

It doesn't need to explicitly state "give it up", its purpose is to prevent building nukes in the first place. Vagueness of NPT is actually the very reason that Iran demands the right to nuclear fuel production capability but West based on its own different interpretation believes Iran doesn't have such right. However, in this case you went even further than Iran and believe in case of already owning nukes, you don't need to give it up. What's the use of NPT if everyone could interpret it to them own liking? And they all could be right you know!
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom