2005
DOI: 10.1080/10357710500231230
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

It's time to scrap the NPT

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Feiveson and Hogendoorn (2003) consider and refute each of these arguments in turn, and conclude that 'Nuclear weapons may legally and morally be used under such a narrow range of circumstances that contemplating their use is not just pointless, but counterproductive. ' Michael Wesley (2005) reaches a similar conclusion:…”
Section: Current Positions Of the Nuclear Weapon Statessupporting
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Feiveson and Hogendoorn (2003) consider and refute each of these arguments in turn, and conclude that 'Nuclear weapons may legally and morally be used under such a narrow range of circumstances that contemplating their use is not just pointless, but counterproductive. ' Michael Wesley (2005) reaches a similar conclusion:…”
Section: Current Positions Of the Nuclear Weapon Statessupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Arguably, this dilemma was at the root of the failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference, where the participants could not even agree on a final communiqué (Hanson 2005). Michael Wesley has even suggested that the NPT should be scrapped, and replaced with a more realistic regime (Wesley 2005).…”
Section: The Bargain That Cannot Be Fulfilledmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…62 Conversely, the EU may fear a worstcase scenario characterised by continuing American counter-proliferation policies and growing calls for a wholly new regime of controlled proliferation. 63 Reality is likely to unfold somewhere in between these two scenarios, leaving the EU to develop its adherence to a 'balanced order' by taking on the zone of discomfort ( Table 5). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, as Michael Wesley succinctly observes, "the NPT represents a failing regime that is consuming diplomatic resources that could be more effectively used to build an alternative arms control regime." 42 Moreover, incorrectly assuming that the treaty and its associated instruments can prevent nuclear proliferation into the twenty-first century, when it has failed to do so since the end of the Cold War, squanders valuable intellectual time and effort that could be better spent thinking about how to integrate new nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan, and emerging nuclear powers such as North Korea, into the international nuclear community. In continuing to adhere to the anachronistic definition of a NWS as one that has tested a nuclear device prior to 1967, the NPT denies the legitimacy of new and emerging nuclear states and encourages an environment where these states are isolated from the international mainstream.…”
Section: Reconfiguring the Policy Agendamentioning
confidence: 98%