Talk:Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the International law WikiProject, which aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of international law. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 India and Pakistan Correct 2 India and Pakistan 3 Unlikely to be ratified? 4 Clarification 5 Rename? 6 Bold editorial statements

[edit] India and Pakistan Correct

India and Pakistan *were not* and *are not nuclear weapons states*. A nuclear weapons state is defined in the context of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty as only the 5 permanent member of the security council, Russia, USA, UK, France, China. This is a common misconception for people not familiar with this subject. Nuclear weapons state is not equal to a state haveing nuclear weapons.

[edit] India and Pakistan

This article erroneously reported that India and Pakistan were not nuclear weapons states at the time of the 1996 signing of the CTBT. In fact, India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 (GlobalSecurity.org) and Pakistan reached the ability to produce a nuclear weapon in 1987 according to FAS (FAS). --Subversive 15:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

This page has clearly been ripped from

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hictbt/ctbt-docs.html

That page is copyrighted - even if it does ask people to reproduce the material. How can we release copyrighted work under the GFDL?

Tompagenet 17:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually the text originates from Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which allows copying but requires a source acknowledgement. Rmhermen 14:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

We should italicize or otherwise differentiate the nations that have ratified from those that haven't, in the sidebar. Nathan256 29 June 2005 02:42 (UTC)

[edit] Unlikely to be ratified?

It also pays no mention to the fact that it hasn't been ratified, nor is likely to be anytime soon, since many of the 44 required ratifications are not going to happen.

    That sounds like a political statement from a neocon to me.

In this wording, yes. The statement that ratification is unlikely in the near future, however, is quite neutral and realistic given the IND<>PAK and USA<>DPRK deadlocks, in addition to the U.S. Senate's rejection. --QEDquid 10:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Please sign your comments.

[edit] Clarification

I don't think the introduction to this article is very clear. It says that it needs to be ratified by 11 more countries, and then in the sidebar it says it needs to be ratified by 44 more countries. Which is correct? Atinoda 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the sidebar says 44 total, and the text says 11 more (3 to sign, 8 to ratify). I've re-written this a bit, let me know if it is clearer now. --QEDquid 10:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

The correct full name of the treaty appears to be "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty" [1]. In the article the name is given as "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". But neither of these are the article name, or indeed redirect here.

I propose the article be moved to "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". Any objections? Rwendland 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold editorial statements

Whoever was responsible for the bold (typeface) editorial questions in the main text, knock it off. That discussion goes on this page, not the article. Moonsword 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)