tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-948363160730323915.post7548654596508484584..comments2023-06-05T08:04:58.065-07:00Comments on Nukes on a Blog: The Proliferation Security Initiative: Neither fish nor fowl (but perhaps a vehicle)Douglas B. Shawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798376383416946320noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-948363160730323915.post-3133520783770082312009-03-17T11:48:00.000-07:002009-03-17T11:48:00.000-07:00Thanks, Drew, for your comment. Unfortunately, I ...Thanks, Drew, for your comment. Unfortunately, I do not have a transcript of Bob Joseph's remarks.Douglas B. Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798376383416946320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-948363160730323915.post-4155545985853878162009-01-29T11:29:00.000-08:002009-01-29T11:29:00.000-08:00Doug,Is there a transcript of Bob Joseph's talk av...Doug,<BR/><BR/>Is there a transcript of Bob Joseph's talk available anywhere? Wade has been a consistent skeptic of PSI. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it colors his analysis at times. In this case, while it is true that Germany and Italy have acted against proliferation in the past (prior to PSI), they have also declined to act in cases prior to PSI. The question is whether participation in PSI has made them more likely to act against proliferation than they otherwise would have been. It's a very tough thing to measure and analyze. Bob Joseph's comments give some information that indicate this may be the case. it would be great to hear from policy makers in Germany and Italy about their deliberations on this and whether the recently stood up PSI (Paris declaration of principles issues in Sept 03) was raised or discussed in their internal deliberations on the BBC China.<BR/><BR/>PSI is also interesting as an element in building an antiproliferation trafficking regime, although I do not thing the Bush administration thought about it in this way or as part of a greater whole.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08484207491027449349noreply@blogger.com