True, several nations turned battle cruisers into aircraft carriers because of the Washington Treaty. The treaty DID achieve it's primary goal which was to limit expenditures on the most expensive of weapons systems for a period needed for economic recovery by the nations which had suffered WW I. The NPT places little limit upon any nation already possessing nuclear weapons when adopted. They are restricted from sales of nuclear technology to non-signatories. Big deal. Aside from that they are pledged to work towards disarmament which no one takes seriously. So why not? Israel is no longer in a comfy relationship with South Africa. The USA has made it perfectly acceptable for a signatory to supply nuclear technology to India. Where is the negative for Israel Doctor Klein? Israel already HAS a mutually satisfactory relationship with the IAEA for safeguards over it's NON-WEAPONS nuclear program. Dimona is off limits, it would still be off limits. Every nation in the world and any person who has a clue seeing the overhead photos commercially available knows what the photos of Dimona show. Israel would rob the Iranians and their friends of the spurious argument that there is a 'double' standard by becoming a signatory. All that is at 'risk' is a policy which had a VERY sound reason 40 years ago, but has no rational purpose now. The USA no longer finds it necessary to have Israel protect it from being embarrassed by it's support of a NPT renegade nation. Time for Israel to stop being a renegade nation and become an admitted nuclear power.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Iraqi foreign minister: Paris attacks mark new stage in global war against extremism (AP)
from the article: Obama 'strongly' opposes singling out of Israel at nuclear conference