Talk:Treaty of Tlatelolco

Untitled
Is starting with the quote appropriate for an encyclopedia?
 * No, I removed it. Tuf-Kat

DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO HAVE A PICTURE OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN NEVADA (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) ON THIS PAGE? NO NUCLEAR TEST WAS EVER CONDUCTED IN THE ZONE ARE. WON'T A PICTURE OF THE MEXICAN FOREIGN MINISTRY BUILDING IN TLATELOLCO BE MORE APPROPRIATE? OR WHAT ABOUT A PICTURE OF ALFONSO GARCIA ROBLES WHO WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THE TREATY? 80.121.81.130 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Tovish

Protocol 1
Have the US, UK and France really agreed to keep their nuclear weapons out of their territories in this region? --JWB (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

When did Brazil sign the treaty?
It is my understanding that Brazil did not sign the treaty until the mid-90s. This article declares that Argentina and Cuba were the only countries not to sign it in the 60s. Please confirm.

Thanks

BenBen unt (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See . --JWB (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Improve Article
I don't know the answer, but I think the article would be improved if it were to include an explanation as to why this regional nonproliferation treaty is necessary. There is already an international nonproliferation treaty. Why, then, is Tlatelolco necessary? Obviously, Tlatelolco predates the Nonproliferation Treaty by a few years. The point, however, is that Tlatelolco should have logically become irrelevant once the NPT was signed. That didn't happen, so it seems that Tlatelolco has something that NPT doesn't. What does it have? --Lacarids (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tlatelolco differs from the NPT in a few ways. First, it bars not just possession of nuclear weapons but deployment of another country's nuclear weapons, as in NATO.  Second, under Protocol II, the nuclear weapon states make legally binding commitments not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against states in the zone, known as negative security assurances.  In addition, Tlatelolco bans any military use of nuclear energy, not just nuclear weapons.  This has led Brazil to claim that its nuclear submarine program is a peaceful use. NPguy (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion 2
There is a sentence that I suggest needs expansion. It reads "Argentina ratified in 1994, more than 26 years after signature, and was thus unprotected by the zone during the Falklands War."

Without turning this into a debate over sovereignty, are there any editors that can explain how/why the treaty didn't apply in this case? As I understand it (after reading this article), countries that sign it agree to refrain from deploying or possessing nuclear weapons in the region. It seems that whether or not Argentina was party to the treaty is irrelevant. IF UK had nuclear weapons in the region, they were in violation of the treaty.

So, please indicate how/why the treaty didn't apply to the Falklands War. If that can be done, please cite reliable sources that show that UK had weapons in the region during the War. --Lacarids (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a reference to Protocol II, under which the UK committed not to use or threaten use of nuclear weapons against Tlatelolco parties. But this did not apply to Argentina during the Falklands War since it was not a party. NPguy (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Tlatelolco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002213442/http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/P-Tlatelolco-i.htm to http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/P-Tlatelolco-i.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)