Why Vietnam Will Be the Next Nuclear State

[BoQ77]

As previous posting, I pointed out :
1. USA ever transfered a reactor using HEU to Vietnam since 1963.
2. Vietnam surely own HEU and having experience of operating reactor of HEU during decades
3. Vietnam keep their right to enrich uranium in any agreement to others.
4. With fully support of rich experient countries in nuclear technology, Vietnam could harvest and process and enrich uranium right in Vietnam territory using domestic or imported materials ( agreed as 123 agreement )
So Vietnam could have HEU if they want.
Tell me Vietnam is a nuclear state or not.
---------------
Below is how HEU using.

Types of Fissile Material Main Uses
(Nuclear weapons uses in italics)


Highly Enriched
Uranium (HEU) many research reactors, U.S., British, and Russian naval propulsion reactors, nuclear weapons, military plutonium and tritium production reactors

Plutonium
nuclear weapons

Enriching uranium is both technically difficult and expensive,as it requires separating isotopes that have very similar chemical and physical properties. The enrichment process is thus the main barrier to producing uranium suitable for use in nuclear weapons.

Low-enriched uranium (LEU) contains between 0.7 percent and 20 percent uranium-235, and highly enriched uranium (HEU) contains 20 percent or more uranium-235. LEU is not directly usable for weapons. HEU produced for weapons ("weapon-grade" uranium) is typically enriched to 90 percent uranium-235 or greater, but all HEU can be used to make nuclear weapons. The difficulty and expense of the enrichment process has an important consequence: HEU can be diluted with natural uranium to produce LEU, effectively eliminating the risk that it could be used to make a nuclear weapon if stolen by terrorists.

-------------
Remember, there's only 9-12kg of HEU could make an atomic bomb in minimum.
Officially, Vietnam returned 16 kgs of HEU to Russia.
And uranium mines inside Vietnam have the capacity of hundreds thousand ton of uranium ores.

 

[gambit]

You write all those and just proved my point exactly that a non-NPT nuclear weapon member MUST DISARM their nuclear arsenal to join as Non-nuclear weapon state. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE FACT or do I have to say it more clearly? LOL The UN Security Council specifically passed Resolution 1887 in 2009 which called upon all non-NPT members (India, Israel, Pakistan) to give up nuke and join NPT as Non-nuclear weapon states in the following Resolution 1887, IV.



So again, the only way a non-NPT members such as India, Israel, and Pakistan can join NPT is by giving up nuclear weapon and join as Non-nuclear weapon state. I don't think I have to say it more clearly than that, my friend. LOL

No...The NPT does not even implied so. You have a serious reading comprehension problem compounded by lack of critical thinking skills.

Any UN resolution is nothing more than an official document of persuasion that India, Pakistan, and Israel to disarm their nuclear weapons and to join the NPT. But the NPT itself says nothing about disarmament AS A CONDITION to entrant. The reason why these three countries did not sign is simply because they cannot sign into the NPT as it stands. It would be contradictory for them, as highly suspected nuclear weapons states, to join as NCS status. The NPT made it clear that you are an NWS only if you detonated at least one nuclear explosion device prior to 1968. The NPT took NO stance on what happens if any country elevated itself to NWS status through clandestine means.

So under the high principles of the NPT, India, Pakistan, and Israel should not even apply to join the NPT unless they disarm, but the NPT have no legal conditions that says they must. Do you understand the differences between principles and legality ? It looks like NOT. The principle of honesty say 'Do not lie', but the legality of 'Do not lie' exists only under very narrow circumstances, such as when you are sworn under oath. So if I lie to you about your ugly shoes, who cares ? But if I lie to a jury or an investigator after I swore an oath to tell the truth, then the law will kick in.

So if India, Pakistan, and Israel want to enter the NPT, as the treaty is CURRENTLY WRITTEN, they must disarm their nuclear weapons. But if we amend the NPT to include any detonations of nuclear explosive devices (India and Pakistan) and/or acquisition of nuclear weapons (Israel) after 1968, then there now exist a legal condition for the three to enter as NWS status.

You are proven wrong...Again...Drop the subject.

 

[untitled]

.....
If Pakistan can afford it, Vietnam definitely can.

In this scenario the Vietnamese should follow the Indians instead
They detonated their first bomb in the namee of peace and called it "Smiling Buddha"

You guys should pull of a similar trick

 

[Genesis]

No...The NPT does not even implied so. You have a serious reading comprehension problem compounded by lack of critical thinking skills.

Any UN resolution is nothing more than an official document of persuasion that India, Pakistan, and Israel to disarm their nuclear weapons and to join the NPT. But the NPT itself says nothing about disarmament AS A CONDITION to entrant. The reason why these three countries did not sign is simply because they cannot sign into the NPT as it stands. It would be contradictory for them, as highly suspected nuclear weapons states, to join as NCS status. The NPT made it clear that you are an NWS only if you detonated at least one nuclear explosion device prior to 1968. The NPT took NO stance on what happens if any country elevated itself to NWS status through clandestine means.

So under the high principles of the NPT, India, Pakistan, and Israel should not even apply to join the NPT unless they disarm, but the NPT have no legal conditions that says they must. Do you understand the differences between principles and legality ? It looks like NOT. The principle of honesty say 'Do not lie', but the legality of 'Do not lie' exists only under very narrow circumstances, such as when you are sworn under oath. So if I lie to you about your ugly shoes, who cares ? But if I lie to a jury or an investigator after I swore an oath to tell the truth, then the law will kick in.

So if India, Pakistan, and Israel want to enter the NPT, as the treaty is CURRENTLY WRITTEN, they must disarm their nuclear weapons. But if we amend the NPT to include any detonations of nuclear explosive devices (India and Pakistan) and/or acquisition of nuclear weapons (Israel) after 1968, then there now exist a legal condition for the three to enter as NWS status.

You are proven wrong...Again...Drop the subject.

hmmm, I'm not sure where this started, but pretty much you guys are essentially saying the same thing.

@xunzi is saying disarm and join, and you are saying you can't have nuclear weapons after 1968 and join, but nothing says disarm.

then you go on to say that certain things can be changed.....Well anything can be changed, if you change it then this argument is not longer relevant.


What I will say is this, is there another way of making nukes disappear without disarming or join for these three countries without disarming. Assuming no changes to the act?

I'm not familiar with this so maybe, there are certain clauses that allows it?

 

[xunzi]

hmmm, I'm not sure where this started, but pretty much you guys are essentially saying the same thing.

@xunzi is saying disarm and join, and you are saying you can't have nuclear weapons after 1968 and join, but nothing says disarm.

then you go on to say that certain things can be changed.....Well anything can be changed, if you change it then this argument is not longer relevant.


What I will say is this, is there another way of making nukes disappear without disarming or join for these three countries without disarming. Assuming no changes to the act?

I'm not familiar with this so maybe, there are certain clauses that allows it?

That dude has one of the thickest skull I ever read. LOL He continues to insist that there is no implied condition in NPT to disarm nuke despite Article VI specifically mentioned a COMPLETE DISARMAMENT. The issue here is that NPT is vague and will not provide a date for disarmament, so the P5 can interpret however they like.

If the NPT provisions are amend to allow India to join NPT, then what is the whole point of NPT to begin with? LOL Everyone will ask to become a recognizable nuclear member, then the point to stop nuclear proliferation is useless. This is why India can never join because they set a dangerous precedent for nuclear capable state like Japan and German to copy and follow. The P5 will never allow such loophole that will set a dangerous precedent.

 

[gambit]

That dude has one of the thickest skull I ever read. LOL He continues to insist that there is no implied condition in NPT to disarm nuke despite Article VI specifically mentioned a COMPLETE DISARMAMENT. The issue here is that NPT is vague and will not provide a date for disarmament, so the P5 can interpret however they like.

If the NPT provisions are amend to allow India to join NPT, then what is the whole point of NPT to begin with? LOL Everyone will ask to become a recognizable nuclear member, then the point to stop nuclear proliferation is useless. This is why India can never join because they set a dangerous precedent for nuclear capable state like Japan and German to copy and follow. The P5 will never allow such loophole that will set a dangerous precedent.

Let me guess...You have never heard of contract amendments ?

Regarding Article 6...

UNODA - Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

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.

This is not a legal edict towards disarmament. That is why I asked you on how many nuclear weapons have China destroyed under a treaty or treaties. Article 6 only demand that members PURSUE disarmament NEGOTIATIONS. What does that mean ?

Nuclear Disarmament United States | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

Legal obligation to pursue global disarmament under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). [12]

Care to show us how many disarmament treaties are China obligated to performed, not pursued ? Care to explain why the above have only US and Russia ? Where is China ? Or are you admitting that China is shirking her moral obligations as member of the NPT ?

What is a 'treaty' ? It is an agreement that contains rules of behaviors and often is accompanied by an outline of punitive measures should those behaviors are not followed.

So when you made a blanket statement like this...

When you sign NPT, you agree to give up nuclear weapon in exchange for civil nuclear use.

...You effectively said that there are LEGAL provisions inside the contract that demands members disarm their nuclear weapons. So show us how many disarmament treaties have China entered into and how many nuclear weapons have China destroyed.

Further...A disarmament treaty between the US and Russia cannot be applicable to other members, otherwise both the US and Russia who have far more nuclear weapons than China, can force their treaty on to China and effectively disarm China without her consent. That is why Article 6 only demands that members pursue negotiations, not outright disarmament.

The document is in the public domain and you refused to even do basic research about it.

 

[gambit]

hmmm, I'm not sure where this started, but pretty much you guys are essentially saying the same thing.

@xunzi is saying disarm and join, and you are saying you can't have nuclear weapons after 1968 and join, but nothing says disarm.

then you go on to say that certain things can be changed.....Well anything can be changed, if you change it then this argument is not longer relevant.


What I will say is this, is there another way of making nukes disappear without disarming or join for these three countries without disarming. Assuming no changes to the act?

I'm not familiar with this so maybe, there are certain clauses that allows it?

We are...???

I doubt your friend even understand the document.

How do you proliferate ?

As a nuclear weapons state (NWS), you can :

1- Increase your own stockpile.
2- Export either functional nuclear weapons or technology.
3- Both 1 and 2.

As a nuclear capable state (NCS), you can :

1- Develop an indigenous nuclear weapons program.
2- Acquire functional nuclear weapons.
3- Acquire nuclear weapons technology.
4 - All of the above.

The NPT stated that in order to qualify as an NWS, you must have detonated a device prior to 1968. Anything after that, you are an NCS. Assuming you are either a member of the NPT or petitioner to the NPT. Either way, you agree not to behave according to your current capabilities.

When a contract, or in this case a treaty, does not have specific instructions on how to deal with a situation, the contract is considered 'incompetent'. That is not to be an insult towards the creators and parties to the contract. The word 'incompetent' simply mean: I do not have a rule or rules for what you gave me.

The NPT is incompetent towards India, Pakistan, and Israel. For India and Pakistan, who used to be NCS, both countries did options 1 and 3. For Israel, it was option 2. Now all three countries are NWS, or highly alleged to be. But since the NPT is contractually incompetent on how to deal with situations after 1968, it is flat out wrong to say or even imply that there are legal provisions inside the contract that demands disarmament prior to entry.

Anyone can be a party to the spirit of the NPT. Fiji can be a spiritual member. So can Tibet or the Ivory Coast. If you are an NCS and became an NWS, no matter how, and did not sign the contract, there are no legal provisions inside the NPT on how to deal with you. Official UN Resolutions cannot force you to disarm and sign. You can proliferate all you want. Any punishments that others put upon you will be outside of the scope of the NPT and depends on the good/ill will of others.

So no, I am not saying the same thing as your friend is. Am saying it much better, clearer, and more honest. But of course, since he is Chinese, you are obligated to try as best you can to salvage face for him.

 

[gambit]

In this scenario the Vietnamese should follow the Indians instead
They detonated their first bomb in the namee of peace and called it "Smiling Buddha"

You guys should pull of a similar trick

I am all for a nuclear weapons free world. But China does not have good will towards Viet Nam. China have never respected Viet Nam and that contempt came from the historical attitude of Chinese towards Vietnamese, a people who effectively refused to identify themselves with China despite long history and cultural ties with Chinese. My family came from North Viet Nam and have Chinese ancestry. But we have no desire to make that ancestry the defining factor of who we are: Vietnamese.

So as much as I want a nuclear weapons free world, I want the survival of Viet Nam as a country and as a people even more. Viet Nam should either:

- Have an alliance with the US that contains a mutual defense treaty.

...Or...

- Develop an indigenous nuclear weapons program.

 

[xunzi]

Let me guess...You have never heard of contract amendments ?

Regarding Article 6...

UNODA - Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

This is not a legal edict towards disarmament. That is why I asked you on how many nuclear weapons have China destroyed under a treaty or treaties. Article 6 only demand that members PURSUE disarmament NEGOTIATIONS. What does that mean ?

Nuclear Disarmament United States | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

Care to show us how many disarmament treaties are China obligated to performed, not pursued ? Care to explain why the above have only US and Russia ? Where is China ? Or are you admitting that China is shirking her moral obligations as member of the NPT ?

What is a 'treaty' ? It is an agreement that contains rules of behaviors and often is accompanied by an outline of punitive measures should those behaviors are not followed.

So when you made a blanket statement like this...


...You effectively said that there are LEGAL provisions inside the contract that demands members disarm their nuclear weapons. So show us how many disarmament treaties have China entered into and how many nuclear weapons have China destroyed.

Further...A disarmament treaty between the US and Russia cannot be applicable to other members, otherwise both the US and Russia who have far more nuclear weapons than China, can force their treaty on to China and effectively disarm China without her consent. That is why Article 6 only demands that members pursue negotiations, not outright disarmament.

The document is in the public domain and you refused to even do basic research about it.

A contract amendments can only be modified if the parties involved agree to it. Don't try to be funny, here, my friend.

Here you are my friend. Continue to spill out technicality. On one hand, you say the NPT is a legal treaty and on the other hand, you claimed clause in NPT is not a legal edict even though Article 6 clearly stated "nuclear arm states" shall negotiate on reducing nuclear weapon AND demand them to work toward COMPLETE DISARMAMENT. The key word is "COMPLETE". This is a requirement that all nuclear arm NPT members must abide. However due to strategic interest of various actors and vague term of NPT clause, the nuclear arm members can interpret however they want since there is no exact date set in the article.

You call us to disarm. First you need to disarm to less than 1,000 nukes, than come back to knock on our door. LOL

Both the US and Russia are conducting bilateral negotiation on "reducing nuclear arm" because they are the two with the most nukes. However they are not on the "complete disarmament" path which specified in the 2nd sentence of Article 6. In addition, all international treaties required member goodwill to follow. This is like sanctioning Iran and North Korea for not abiding with NPT, but each member states can participate in the sanction according to their goodwill.

I stand correct. India cannot join NPT unless they disarm their nuke or NPT is amended with all members agreement. In both case, neither is going to happen.

 

[gambit]

A contract amendments can only be modified if the parties involved agree to it. Don't try to be funny, here, my friend.

No...The one who is trying to be funny here is YOU, pal. What you said is obvious, Captain Obvious.

Here you are my friend. Continue to spill out technicality. On one hand, you say the NPT is a legal treaty and on the other hand, you claimed clause in NPT is not a legal edict even though Article 6 clearly stated "nuclear arm states" shall negotiate on reducing nuclear weapon AND demand them to work toward COMPLETE DISARMAMENT. The key word is "COMPLETE". This is a requirement that all nuclear arm NPT members must abide. However due to strategic interest of various actors and vague term of NPT clause, the nuclear arm members can interpret however they want since there is no exact date set in the article.

If you think you spot an inconsistency, you are wrong. In fact, it is YOUR argument that is inconsistent.

On the one hand, you declare that Article 6 is a legal demand for disarmament, but then you turn around and say that its vagueness allows for 'wiggle room'. Which is it ? Either I demand that you build a fleet of cars each with four doors, or two doors, but I cannot phrase the contract so that you have the 'wiggle room' to build some cars with four doors and some with two doors according to your mood that day.

The fact that you cannot come up with a single disarmament treaty for China while I provided sources of US-Russia disarmament treaties mean I am correct.

You call us to disarm. First you need to disarm to less than 1,000 nukes, than come back to knock on our door. LOL

Good...This mean Article 6 is not a legal edict for disarmament as you claimed. Article 6 only expects members to initiate, or pursue, negotiations towards disarmament. It means you can propose a negotiation and if you do not like the elements, you can withdraw from negotiation any time. That means you just satisfied Article 6. No disarmament occurred.

Here is an example of one of the many commentaries about Article 6...

How many times do you want to be proven wrong by your own arguments, fool ?

 

[Mao1949]

Vietnam will NOT become a nuclear state. I guarantee it.

 

[areal]

no, i don't think so.
if they continuously evolve at the current speed, maybe they can become so after 1000 years pass.

Vietnam will NOT become a nuclear state. I guarantee it.

 

[BoQ77]

I wish Vietnam never need to have nuclear weapon.

I never want to see Japan re-arm their army, but I blamed China give the chance to them.
At this moment, there's no reason to restrict Japan to re-arm, even owning nuclear magic wand.

Because Japan is at risk.

Vietnam own nuclear weapon. ONO. But it could come true soon or late . Depend on China.

Give me any other reason ? No other reason, no other countries

 

[areal]

brag more, please
big mouth and daydreaming will help viet nam, the most powerful and advanced state in this planet, first send a manned-spacecraft to mars.

I wish Vietnam never need to have nuclear weapon.

I never want to see Japan re-arm their army, but I blamed China give the chance to them.
At this moment, there's no reason to restrict Japan to re-arm, even owning nuclear magic wand.

Because Japan is at risk.

Vietnam own nuclear weapon. ONO. But it could come true soon or late . Depend on China.

Give me any other reason ? No other reason, no other countries

 

[seven7seven]

Vietnam would have to be very dumb if they sought nuclear weapons. There's a reason why only a handful of countries in the World operate a nuclear weapons program, and it's not because all non-nuclear countries can't produce them, but rather they are not permitted to make them by one or more of the great powers in the World, namely USA, China and Russia. Although in Vietnam's case, I believe Vietnam are a long way away from developing even a crude nuclear weapons program, as they lack the technical and industrial base to develop one at present. More developed countries, like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, probably already possess the ability to enrich weapons-grade nuclear material and have bomb making know-how.

Great powers like USA, China and Russia monitor all countries, especially hostile ones, for nuclear enrichment production and potential nuclear weapons development. None of these powers want more countries, than is necessary, to have nuclear weapons because it complicates the geopolitical landscape for everyone and causes greater instability and a higher probability for miscalculation, and escalation of a crisis. None of these great powers will tolerate a hostile nation on their doorstep, like Vietnam is to China, to have nuclear weapons that can be used against them, either directly or coercively. If Vietnam wanted nuclear weapons, then they would have to convince either Russia or USA to protect them, without hesitation, from Chinese reprisal, if they were to start developing nuclear weapons. That, of course, will never happen because neither USA nor Russia are particularly strong allies of Vietnam, and Vietnam has shown itself to be quite fair weather and changeable in its allegiance.

Should Vietnam foolishly start developing nukes, then China would not hesitate to take out Vietnamese nuclear enrichment sites, under the pretext of protecting regional security and non-proliferation of nuclear arms. The USA and Russia would just spectate and observe, and understand that it's a necessary lesson to make an example of Vietnam, to send a message to all client states, like Vietnam, to not get lofty ideas of making nukes, without their prior consent.