AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proposed Rebuttal to the Laura Weldon Articleinbold Text

Dan W McCarn hotgreenchile at
Thu Jan 24 23:03:06 CST 2008

Dear Steven:

The IAEA gives a short-course to all new employees on the non proliferation
treaty (NPT). They lock you in a room, tie you down for a week and the NPT
is drilled into your head!  Maybe you could find some time to read about the
treaty first.

But yes, non-weapon signatories of the NPT give up part of their national
authority to the IAEA to allow them access to any and all nuclear facilities
and materials with the ultimate understanding that the weapons states
negotiate and someday draw down their stockpiles. To the best of my
knowledge, this has been taking place: Inspections are routinely carried-out
all over the world, nuclear technology and materials are transferred in
accordance with the treaty, missile silos have been decommissioned, delivery
systems chopped-up, and decommissioned nuclear materials used in weapons
manufacture have been down blended and burned in reactors.

It isn't perfect. I keep my copy of the treaty next to my bible because if
the treaty fails, then I'll need it! :-)

Originally there were 4 weapons states (USA, France, Russia, UK); China
became the 5th.  The rest gave up their right to build nuclear weapons (or
transfer technology to do so) upon entry into the treaty with the
understanding that they could have "peaceful uses" of nuclear energy or
technology.  The IAEA is the organization to provide assurance that the
purposes were / are peaceful.

I'll repeat: transfer of technology for potential weapons production is
specifically prohibited in the NPT.  If technology is transferred, it has to
be in accordance with the NPT which means that the IAEA is involved as

India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea are not currently signatories.
North Korea was, broke the treaty, then withdrew.  That's why Australia has
heartburn over selling uranium to India but not China.  China is a
signatory, and India is not.

So your premise is false: The IAEA has every right to inspect nuclear
facilities in any "non-weapons" signatory country for as long as they are
signatories. And there are hundreds of folks at the inspectorate that do
just that every day for a living!

But the issue between Abu Dhabi and the USA is on a broken promise to
deliver information between two countries, and has nothing (as far as I
know) to do with the IAEA.  This has been chugging along for years.

Dan ii

Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA
Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Fax: +1-713-241-1012; Office:
+1-713-241-5726; Austria:  +43-676-725-6622
mccarn at           HotGreenChile at

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at [mailto:radsafe-bounces at] On Behalf
Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:32 PM
To: radsafe at
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proposed Rebuttal to the Laura Weldon
Articleinbold Text

Jan. 24

         So far, I'm with Franz on this one.  The IAEA has no business 
imposing sanctions on anyone over bomb building.  Funny, isn't it, how the 
USSR could have all the nukes it wanted, along with a vast fleet of 
missiles to deliver them, and no one said anything -- including the 
IAEA.  The same goes for Communist China, and it's still a going concern 
(for anyone who might want to offer the excuse that the USSR is no 
more).  What goes for the IAEA also goes for the UN Security Council.  It's 
not running the world.

         Gary wrote:  "Iran is confident that once they possess just a few 
nuclear weapons, no one will dare to prevent them from making more."  The 
same could be said of the afore-mentioned and now defunct USSR, and the 
current regime in Peking.  In fact, I remember seeing a news item online in 
the last week or two wherein Putin said Russia might use nukes in the 
future in the need arose.  Something doesn't match up here.  Does Israel 
have The Bomb, or is it only fooling around still trying to separate enough 
U to build one?  (hint, hint)

Steven Dapra

At 08:05 PM 1/24/08 -0600, garyi at wrote:
>On 25 Jan 2008 at 1:03, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
>. The reluctance of the IAEA
>to impose sanctions on Iran is a very good sign, that Iran has until
>now fulfilled all conditions of the IAEA - no other country is
>therefore entitled to demand whatsoever.
>That reluctance is by no means any indication of compliance.  IAEA, which 
>has my best
>wishes, could sooner suspend the motion of the earth around the sun than 
>make Iran comply
>with any directive.  IAEA  (and the EU in general) is a source of derision 
>for many Iranians,
>exactly because they repeatedly defy Security Council sanctions and ignore 
>deadlines. Then
>they play a PR game and pretend to be the offended party.
>No, I imagine that the real reason that no effective sanctions have been 
>imposed is that
>Russia and China have too much to lose.  And if it is nationalistic 
>thinking you hate, cast your
>gaze upon Iran (the ruling regime, that is).  Most of the world knows what 
>game is being
>played there.  Iran is confident that once they possess just a few nuclear 
>weapons, no one
>will dare to prevent them from making more.
>Gary Isenhower
>Gary Isenhower, M.S.

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list