Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question on Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question on Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Is the sale of a nuclear powered submarine to a non-nuclear weapon state a violation of the NPT if the submarine is not carrying any nuclear missiles? I mean the reactor is basically just a heat engine that produces steam to move propellers. I don't know, what do you all think?
    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

    George W. Bush

  • #2
    I think any technology transfer involving nuclear power and submarines would trigger a rapid and decisive response from the US regardless of the legalities involved.
    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

    Comment


    • #3
      I believe somewhere I heard that such transfer does not violate the proliferation. At least on the face terms.
      Attn to ALL my opponents:

      If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

      Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello,

        I would like to point out a nuclear-powered submarine is more than just a submarine with a nuclear reactor. The advantages of manning a nuclear-powered submarine are so substantial that no sane nation would ever think of selling one unless it is for a strong ally.

        Having a nuclear-powered submarine means it can stay underwater for a longer period of time and is much more silent than a diesel-powered submarine, though there are some varients of diesel-powered submarines that are just good as Typoon-class or Los Angelos-class. The ranges of a nuclear-powered submarine are longer than most conventional submarines.

        You would have to think twice before selling one to any country.

        As for the legalities, I'm not sure, but even if such sales were legal, I think America would step in and end the sale effectively with the threat of force.

        I don't think even Russia would risk doing that. Oh, it might sell some missile technology, but the submarines are much more powerful weapons and not just for military but spying purproses as well.

        Dan
        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."

        Comment


        • #5
          It is not illegal to my knowledge. However, that doesn't mean it is not a crime. Many countries have laws restricting the sell of certain technology to certain countries. For example: Shortly after taking office, The Bush Administration acknowledged it was selling Taiwan between two and eight diesel-powered submarines. This really pissed off Germany and another Allie from Europe (I forget who) because the sell included technology produced by their countries. Pentagon officials either assumed, or didn't care to consider their laws, which prohibited the sell of this kind of military technology to Taiwan.

          A number of third world countries are at least have expressed an interest in procuring nuclear-powered submarines. Ship-building companies looking for new costumers are also eager to cooperate. However, nuclear subs are expensive to build and maintain in the long run.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cheetah772
            Hello,


            Having a nuclear-powered submarine.......is much more silent than a diesel-powered submarine, though there are some varients of diesel-powered submarines that are just good as Typoon-class or Los Angelos-class. The ranges of a nuclear-powered submarine are longer than most conventional submarines.

            Dan
            Wrong.

            Nuclear subs require coolant pumps to be run continuously; hence generating noise. There is nothing quieter in the ocean than a diesel sub running on batteries; though their endurance submerged is limited.

            The major advantage of nuclear subs is indeed their "range" if you will. They have the ability to stay submerged indefinitely if need be; limited only by the endurance of the crew and the amount of supplies carried(food,etc..).
            Given recent advances in electrical storage systems, diesel subs continue to evolve; though they will never match the staying power of nuclear powered subs.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cheetah772
              Hello,

              I would like to point out a nuclear-powered submarine is more than just a submarine with a nuclear reactor. The advantages of manning a nuclear-powered submarine are so substantial that no sane nation would ever think of selling one unless it is for a strong ally.

              Having a nuclear-powered submarine means it can stay underwater for a longer period of time and is much more silent than a diesel-powered submarine, though there are some varients of diesel-powered submarines that are just good as Typoon-class or Los Angelos-class. The ranges of a nuclear-powered submarine are longer than most conventional submarines.

              You would have to think twice before selling one to any country.

              As for the legalities, I'm not sure, but even if such sales were legal, I think America would step in and end the sale effectively with the threat of force.

              I don't think even Russia would risk doing that. Oh, it might sell some missile technology, but the submarines are much more powerful weapons and not just for military but spying purproses as well.

              Dan
              There is not a whole lot we can do to prevent proliferation of nuclear-powered submarines. I think it is only a matter of time before the very wealthy drug organizations begin to employ subs as a method to move their products. Given FARCs intake last year, they can afford a SeaWolf Class sub!

              Our best solution is to:

              a.) discourage the need for such vessels by working more closely with nations. People won't spend money if they don't feel they have to. The US Navy should expand cooperative training programs with countries like Brazil, who are considering the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines;

              b.) expand our own attack sub fleet, which has seen reductions since the end of the Cold War.

              We can't depend on our ability to react to situations. After the sale done, we're pretty much screwed. Instead, the US should try to work with nations before they buy.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cheetah772
                Hello,

                I would like to point out a nuclear-powered submarine is more than just a submarine with a nuclear reactor. The advantages of manning a nuclear-powered submarine are so substantial that no sane nation would ever think of selling one unless it is for a strong ally.

                Having a nuclear-powered submarine means it can stay underwater for a longer period of time and is much more silent than a diesel-powered submarine, though there are some varients of diesel-powered submarines that are just good as Typoon-class or Los Angelos-class. The ranges of a nuclear-powered submarine are longer than most conventional submarines.

                You would have to think twice before selling one to any country.

                As for the legalities, I'm not sure, but even if such sales were legal, I think America would step in and end the sale effectively with the threat of force.

                I don't think even Russia would risk doing that. Oh, it might sell some missile technology, but the submarines are much more powerful weapons and not just for military but spying purproses as well.

                Dan

                Initally I thought your posts were biased away from reality due to your political views. But now I understand that no amount of your political sincerity can make up for a simple lack of knowledge.

                Not only are diesels the quieter subs, but the Russians (Soviets) have leased a nuclear powered sub to the Indian Navy (no, not those indians - the Indians in India ... in Asia) about 15 years ago to allow them to become familiar with the technology and not have to build it from scratch.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Prester John
                  Initally I thought your posts were biased away from reality due to your political views. But now I understand that no amount of your political sincerity can make up for a simple lack of knowledge.

                  Not only are diesels the quieter subs, but the Russians (Soviets) have leased a nuclear powered sub to the Indian Navy (no, not those indians - the Indians in India ... in Asia) about 15 years ago to allow them to become familiar with the technology and not have to build it from scratch.
                  Who said I am an expert on military hardware? Nobody.

                  I have to laugh at your reference to Indians, apparently, you're one of those foreigners who think Americans are nothing, but idiots who couldn't India on the map.

                  Just because I am not an expert on military doesn't mean I am way off from the reality or that I am not a sane man.

                  Dan
                  Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                  "Aim small, miss small."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cheetah772
                    Who said I am an expert on military hardware? Nobody.

                    I have to laugh at your reference to Indians, apparently, you're one of those foreigners who think Americans are nothing, but idiots who couldn't India on the map.

                    Just because I am not an expert on military doesn't mean I am way off from the reality or that I am not a sane man.

                    Dan
                    No, having met, worked with, and served with a number of US servicemen and civilians I have a great deal of respect for most of them as citizens of the world. However I have no desire to put up with people who make claims about military equipment which are not true and can easily be verified as such. I wouldn't object if you were wrong about arcane subjects like number of heads on sub class X, but to make pronouncements about things which are well known by people with only a passing interest in the subject, and to be clearly wrong in that pronouncement, marks you as one who probably needs a little help with your geography.

                    Perhaps if you just limited your pronouncements to those things (if any) that you do know something about there would be less eau de bovine in the air.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Prester John
                      No, having met, worked with, and served with a number of US servicemen and civilians I have a great deal of respect for most of them as citizens of the world. However I have no desire to put up with people who make claims about military equipment which are not true and can easily be verified as such. I wouldn't object if you were wrong about arcane subjects like number of heads on sub class X, but to make pronouncements about things which are well known by people with only a passing interest in the subject, and to be clearly wrong in that pronouncement, marks you as one who probably needs a little help with your geography.

                      Perhaps if you just limited your pronouncements to those things (if any) that you do know something about there would be less eau de bovine in the air.
                      Aside from his mistake about the noise emisson of a nuclear-powered sub, Cheetah was correct. Nuclear-powered submarines are more stealthy because they can limit the number of methods employed against them. Sonar, though advanced, is far from perfect. Radar and the almost flawless human eye are far more accurate. Subs can reducse their radar return because of how they are shaped and it's hieght, but should still be detectable from long ranges using look-down radar.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh
                        Aside from his mistake about the noise emisson of a nuclear-powered sub, Cheetah was correct. Nuclear-powered submarines are more stealthy because they can limit the number of methods employed against them. Sonar, though advanced, is far from perfect. Radar and the almost flawless human eye are far more accurate. Subs can reducse their radar return because of how they are shaped and it's hieght, but should still be detectable from long ranges using look-down radar.
                        Deltapooh,

                        Thank you.

                        I still question the wisdom of allowing various countries to sell off sensitive military technology. Granted, it's like NFL, when you make a beautiful play or how a team builds upon either defense or offense, every team is going to want to copy that. That is why NFL is famous for "copycat" plays. It's no different in the military matters.

                        The way technology is progressing, I'm pretty sure the nuclear technology will in time become inexpensive and readily available for some lesser wealthy countries to use. In fact, the stealth technology is starting to be incorporated into various countries' armies, if only in limited numbers. It is only possible that the nuclear technology will follow as well.

                        The science and formulas are all right there in front of our eyes. It's just the implementation of scientific formulas into practical use is the most difficult task to accomplish. A lot of countries including the United States have a tough time doing that with different experimental or even conventional technologies.

                        Please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the US Navy moving away from using nuclear-powered ships to less expensive ships with more advanced stealth ships? I heard there were some discussions of splitting off several large naval task forces we have right now into smaller strike groups deployed across the world. How would this change the mission of nuclear-powered submarines?

                        Dan
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Deltapooh
                          Aside from his mistake about the noise emisson of a nuclear-powered sub, Cheetah was correct. Nuclear-powered submarines are more stealthy because they can limit the number of methods employed against them. Sonar, though advanced, is far from perfect. Radar and the almost flawless human eye are far more accurate. Subs can reducse their radar return because of how they are shaped and it's hieght, but should still be detectable from long ranges using look-down radar.
                          This may be true in the classic thoughts on blue water submarine warfare; but diesel subs are better suited for the littoral warfare operations prevalent in today's regional conflicts.
                          Several technological strides are now becoming a reality for conventional submarines; including air-independent propulsion systems, which would allow the sub a minimum of exposure time.
                          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A pity he didn't mention any of those things regarding the advantages of nuclear powered subs, and instead said that a nuclear sub is quieter than a nuclear powered sub (wrong) and that bit about the Russians, when they were Soviets, parting with nuclear sub technology was also wrong (a pattern forms).

                            To return to the topic of stealth though, wouldn't nuclear subs, both attack and boomers, be easier radar targets due to their larger size. Or are you referring to the necessity of diesels remaining in routine contact with the surface for breathing? Diesels are usually not compared to nuclear subs when it comes to the combat efficiency because they are often deployed differently. Diesels are best used in coastal patrols where their smaller size is an advantage in the shallower waters and the requirement for breathing is not unduely detracting from the purpose of the mission (coastal patroling). I am also under the impression that passive sonar is still far and away the most effective method of detecting and tracking submarines.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Prester John
                              A pity he didn't mention any of those things regarding the advantages of nuclear powered subs, and instead said that a nuclear sub is quieter than a nuclear powered sub (wrong) and that bit about the Russians, when they were Soviets, parting with nuclear sub technology was also wrong (a pattern forms).
                              I got it wrong on two counts, okay, I can live with that, but do you have to assume everything I've said in the other posts and right now are always automatically wrong and that I am one craziest man alive on this world?

                              If so, then it's obviously, it's not just me who is harboring some political biases, it's you as well. At least admit you do have some political biases and not an expert on everything.

                              Dan
                              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                              "Aim small, miss small."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Karri
                                Prawn heads
                                by Karri
                                How do you cook them? How do you eat them?

                                So far I've always just twisted them off, and discarded it along with the shells and such, only...
                                Yesterday, 11:40
                              • Jose50
                                Thoughts on the US abandoning NATO
                                by Jose50
                                Now may be a good time for the NATO countries to start beefing up their materiel, personnel and alliances. There is a decided wave here in the US that...
                                Yesterday, 08:41
                              • Von Richter
                                Sagittarius Rising...
                                by Von Richter
                                Just having a re-read of this book after it's stood for donkey's years on the bookshelf. Once again, within the first couple of pages, I'm transported...
                                Yesterday, 01:19
                              Working...
                              X