Or they sign it. And don’t stop research and Development. As they have with every bloody Arms limitation treaty.
Without enforcement mechanisms that go beyond a sternly worded letter and diplomatic/economic slap on the wrist.
It’s words on paper that make bleeding hearts feel better. But don’t actually solve or fix anything. And if you have a kinetic enforcement mechanism. For example signatories pledge to make War on treaty violators. To say prevent development of whatever experimental weapon system provoked the attack from completing.
Then you’ve got the problem of who decides when a Violation has occurred. Is it just one signatory nation with that power? Or do a majority need to declare a violation.
Or is an international body created to decide? And if it is. Then who decides who sits on it and what powers they have?
Or they sign it. And don’t stop research and Development. As they have with every bloody Arms limitation treaty.
Without enforcement mechanisms that go beyond a sternly worded letter and diplomatic/economic slap on the wrist.
It’s words on paper that make bleeding hearts feel better. But don’t actually solve or fix anything. And if you have a kinetic enforcement mechanism. For example signatories pledge to make War on treaty violators. To say prevent development of whatever experimental weapon system provoked the attack from completing.
Then you’ve got the problem of who decides when a Violation has occurred. Is it just one signatory nation with that power? Or do a majority need to declare a violation.
Or is an international body created to decide? And if it is. Then who decides who sits on it and what powers they have?