Article 6 of the NPT obliges the US, and other nuclear powers, to make good faith efforts to reduce, and eventually eliminate, their massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
The US is so far away from ever putting any effort into this that Article 6 is all but unknown, and no one even remotely takes it seriously. International law is for nations without the power to effective ignore it.
I didn't down vote you and I'll show you hard evidence when you show me hard evidence Iran is in violation of the NPT. We don't want any sort of hypocrisy going on around here, right? What the hell, here's some evidence just for kicks:
You are changing the subject a little. The burden of proof for a strong and controversial claim is still on the person making the claim.
I haven't made any claim about what the Iranian revolution is doing, so I don't know why I would be obligated to show you evidence regarding what they are doing. Nobody else really knows what they are doing, that is the nature of intelligence secrets in Iran and everywhere else. If the general public knew, they would not be intelligence secrets any more. That is not license for inferring whatever you want to see.
I'm certainly not carrying water for the Bush administration's attempt to legitimize 'tactical' nukes (which accounts for the entire substance of your links, as far as I can tell). On the contrary, I strongly oppose that idea. But saying stupid, obnoxious, unwise things doesn't amount to a material violation of NPT. If it did, then there would definitely be plenty of hard evidence against the Iranian regime, which routinely says things just as gob-smackingly stupid and undiplomatic and ultimately harmful to Iranians as Bush's best.
It seems that you have stereotyped me as holding a whole package of views that I do not hold, and implied that I am engaging in some kind of hypocrisy, simply because I asked for substantiation of a claim. But if I disagree with you on one thing, it does not follow that I hold all the views of your rhetorical enemies.
Changing the subject? I provided everything you asked for and it shows America blatantly disregards Article 6 of the NPT while expecting other countries to follow it. Hypocrisy at its finest.
From your article, 'Article VI of the NPT explicitly obliges signatories "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."'
And your argument is that the US is in breach of NPT because Bush said stupid things about tactical nukes?
Question: at which date is a signatory in violation? What is the deadline?
I think the (debatable ) key point here is that the treaty was a bargain between the then possessors of nuclear weapons and non-nuclear states. The deal was that non-nuclear states wouldn't develop weapons and the nuclear states would disarm. After the treaty was signed and non-nuclear states (largely) complied the number of weapons increased radically for decades and the destructive power of weapons in theater today is still massively greater than the weapons at signing. It can therefore be argued that the holders of the weapons have consistently acted contrary to the terms of the treaty. They have undisputably acted contrary to the spirit of the deal underlying the treaty.
