Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-10-Speech-4-139"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-03-10"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Hääletuse kohta selgituste andmine⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050310.19.4-139"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-03-10-Speech-4-140⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Geoffrey Van Orden⁶
lpv:spoken text	"While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² vice-chair; AFET (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2004-09-28--2007-03-13)²² member; EPP-ED (2005-03-09--2009-07-13)²² member; SEDE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)²² substitute; TRAN (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)²² unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²²
lpv:translated text	"While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@cs¹ "Selv om vi støtter en stærk NPT og skridt til at indskrænke Nordkoreas og Irans atomprogrammer, har vi undladt at stemme på denne beslutning, især fordi vi ikke er enige i følgende punkter: punkt 10 og 19 - Vi mener, at konventionelle våben alene ikke kan sikre en troværdig afskrækkelse, at atomvåben yder et enestående bidrag til at gøre risiciene ved angreb mod Det Forenede Kongerige og dets allierede uberegnelige og uacceptable, og dermed at de fortsat er afgørende for at opretholde freden; punkt 15 - Vi mener ikke, at EU har til opgave at koordinere efterretningsvirksomhed; punkt 17 - Vi mener, at tilstedeværelsen af USA's konventionelle våben og atomvåben i Europa stadig er afgørende for kontinentets sikkerhed, og derfor ville det være forkert at anmode "USA om at præcisere de kvantitative og strategiske målsætninger for landets taktiske atomarsenaler på europæiske baser"; punkt 18 - Israel har ikke erklæret, at det er i besiddelse af atomvåben, og derfor er det forkert at inddrage Israel i denne sammenhæng; punkt 31 - USA har ikke erklæret, at det "ikke vil indlede nogen forebyggende militær aktion mod Iran", og det ville være forkert at udelukke nogen muligheder på nuværende tidspunkt."@da² ". Wir sind zwar für einen starken NVV und für Schritte zum Abbruch der Nuklearprogramme Nordkoreas und des Irans, haben uns aber dennoch bei der Abstimmung über diese Entschließung der Stimme enthalten, weil wir insbesondere den folgenden Absätzen nicht zustimmen können: Ziffern 10 und 19 – Nach unserer Überzeugung können konventionelle Streitkräfte allein keine glaubhafte Abschreckung gewährleisten, tragen Nuklearwaffen in besonderer Weise dazu bei, dass die Risiken einer Aggression gegen das Vereinigte Königreich und seine Verbündeten unberechenbar und unannehmbar hoch und Nuklearwaffen somit für die Erhaltung des Friedens notwendig bleiben; Ziffer 15 – Wir sind nicht der Meinung, dass die nachrichtendienstliche Koordinierung zu den Aufgaben der EU gehört; Ziffer 17 – Nach unserer Überzeugung ist die Anwesenheit der konventionellen und nuklearen Streitkräfte der Vereinigten Staaten in Europa weiterhin unabdingbar für die Sicherheit des Kontinents, weshalb es falsch wäre, die USA aufzufordern, „die Situation bezüglich der Menge und der strategischen Zielsetzung ihrer auf europäischen Stützpunkten stationierten taktischen Nukleararsenale klarzustellen“; Ziffer 18 – Israel hat nicht erklärt, Nuklearwaffen zu besitzen, und deshalb ist es unangebracht, Israel in diesem Zusammenhang zu erwähnen; Ziffer 32 – Die Vereinigten Staaten haben nicht erklärt, sie würden „keine präventiven militärischen Schritte gegen den Iran unternehmen“, sodass es ein Fehler wäre, in dieser Phase jegliche Option auszuschließen."@de⁹ "Μολονότι υποστηρίζουμε μία εύρωστη ΣΜΔ και διάφορα διαβήματα προκειμένου να δοθεί ένα τέλος στα πυρηνικά προγράμματα της Βόρειας Κορέας και του Ιράν, απείχαμε από αυτό το ψήφισμα, διότι δεν συμφωνούμε ιδίως με τις ακόλουθες παραγράφους: παράγραφοι 10 και 19 - πιστεύουμε ότι οι συμβατικές δυνάμεις δεν μπορούν από μόνες τους να εξασφαλίσουν ένα αξιόπιστο μέσο αποτροπής, ότι τα πυρηνικά όπλα συμβάλλουν μοναδικά στο να καταστήσουν ανυπολόγιστους και μη αποδεκτούς τους κινδύνους επίθεσης κατά του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου και των συμμάχων του και, συνεπώς, ότι παραμένουν απαραίτητα για τη διατήρηση της ειρήνης· παράγραφος 15 - δεν συμφωνούμε ότι η ΕΕ έχει κάποιον ρόλο στον συντονισμό των υπηρεσιών πληροφοριών· παράγραφος 17 - πιστεύουμε ότι η παρουσία των συμβατικών και πυρηνικών δυνάμεων των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών στην Ευρώπη παραμένει εξαιρετικά σημαντική για την ασφάλεια της ηπείρου και, συνεπώς, θα ήταν λάθος να απευθύνουμε έκκληση προς «τις ΗΠΑ να αποσαφηνίσουν την κατάσταση όσον αφορά τους ποσοτικούς και στρατηγικούς στόχους του τακτικού πυρηνικού οπλοστασίου τους που σταθμεύει σε ευρωπαϊκές βάσεις»· παράγραφος 18 - το Ισραήλ δεν έχει δηλώσει ότι κατέχει πυρηνικά όπλα και, συνεπώς, το Ισραήλ δεν μπορεί να συμπεριληφθεί σε αυτό το πλαίσιο· παράγραφος 31 - οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες δεν έχουν κάνει δηλώσεις σχετικά με «τη μη ανάληψη προληπτικής στρατιωτικής δράσης εναντίον του Ιράν» και θα ήταν λάθος να αποκλείσουμε οποιαδήποτε πιθανότητα σε αυτό το στάδιο."@el¹⁰ "Aunque apoyamos un Tratado de No Proliferación sólido y medidas para reducir los programas nucleares de Corea del Norte e Irán, nos hemos abstenido en esta resolución porque no estamos de acuerdo con los siguientes apartados en particular: apartados 10 y 19 - creemos que las fuerzas convencionales por sí solas no pueden asegurar una disuasión creíble, que las armas nucleares contribuyen como ninguna otra a hacer que el riesgo que acarrearía una agresión contra el Reino Unido y sus aliados sea incalculable e inaceptable y, por consiguiente, siguen siendo esenciales para preservar la paz; apartado 15 - no estamos de acuerdo en que la UE desempeñe un papel en la coordinación de la inteligencia; apartado 17 - creemos que la presencia de las fuerzas nucleares y convencionales de los Estados Unidos en Europa siguen siendo vitales para la seguridad del continente y por consiguiente sería un error pedir a «los Estados Unidos que precisen la cantidad y los objetivos estratégicos de su arsenal de armas nucleares tácticas estacionadas en bases europeas»; apartado 18 - Israel no ha declarado que posea armas nucleares, y por ello no procede incluir a Israel en este contexto; apartado 31 - los Estados Unidos no han declarado que «no tiene intención de emprender ninguna acción militar preventiva contra Irán» y sería un error descartar cualquier opción en este momento."@es²⁰ "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@et⁵ "Vaikka me kannatammekin vahvaa ydinsulkusopimusta ja toimia Pohjois-Korean ja Iranin ydinohjelmien rajoittamiseksi, äänestimme tyhjää tästä päätöslauselmasta, koska emme ole samaa mieltä etenkään seuraavista kohdista: kohdat 10 ja 19 – katsomme, etteivät tavanomaiset aseet voi yksinään riittää uskottavaksi pelotteeksi ja että ydinaseet ovat ainutlaatuinen osasyy siihen, että Yhdistyneeseen kuningaskuntaan ja sen liittolaisiin kohdistuvan hyökkäyksen riski on olematon ja mahdoton, minkä vuoksi ydinaseet ovat edelleenkin olennaisen tärkeä tekijä rauhan säilyttämisessä; kohta 15 – emme katso, että Euroopan unionilla olisi jokin rooli tiedustelutietojen koordinoinnissa; kohta 17 – katsomme, että Yhdysvaltojen tavanomaisten aseiden ja ydinaseiden läsnäolo Euroopassa on elintärkeää maanosan turvallisuudelle ja että näin ollen olisi väärin kehottaa "Yhdysvaltoja myös selvittämään eurooppalaisiin tukikohtiin sijoitettujen taktisten ydinasevarastojensa määrän ja niihin liittyvät strategiset tavoitteet"; kohta 18 - Israel ei ole ilmoittanut, että sillä olisi ydinaseita, ja näin ollen sitä ei pidä mainita tässä yhteydessä; kohta 31 – Yhdysvallat ei ole ilmoittanut, ettei se aikoisi "pidättyä Iraniin kohdistettavista ennaltaehkäisevistä sotilaallisista toimista", ja olisi väärin jättää jokin vaihtoehto pois laskuista tässä vaiheessa."@fi⁷ ". Bien que nous souhaitions un TNP solide et des mesures visant à restreindre les programmes nucléaires de la Corée du Nord et de l’Iran, nous nous sommes abstenus sur cette résolution, parce que nous n’approuvons pas les paragraphes suivants en particulier: paragraphes 10 et 19 - nous croyons que les forces conventionnelles seules ne peuvent garantir une dissuasion crédible, que les armes nucléaires contribuent de façon unique à rendre les risques d’agression à l’encontre du Royaume-Uni et de ses alliés incalculables et inacceptables et, par conséquent, que ces armes restent essentielles au maintien de la paix; paragraphe 15 - nous ne sommes pas d’accord que l’UE exerce un rôle de coordination des renseignements; paragraphe 17 - nous croyons que la présence des forces conventionnelles et nucléaires américaines en Europe reste indispensable à la sécurité du continent et que, par conséquent, nous aurions tort d’inviter «les États-Unis à clarifier la situation concernant la quantité et les objectifs stratégiques de leurs arsenaux nucléaires tactiques stationnés sur des bases européennes»; paragraphe 18 - Israël n’a pas déclaré posséder des armes nucléaires et il est donc inapproprié d’inclure Israël dans ce contexte; paragraphe 31 - les États-Unis n’ont pas déclarés qu’ils «n’engageraient pas d’action militaire préventive contre l’Iran» et il serait faux d’exclure toute option à ce stade."@fr⁸ "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@hu¹¹ "Sebbene appoggiamo un Trattato di non proliferazione rigoroso e giudichiamo positivamente i passi intrapresi per contenere i programmi nucleari della Corea del Nord e dell’Iran, ci siamo astenuti su questa risoluzione perché non ne condividiamo specificamente taluni paragrafi. Per quanto riguarda i paragrafi 10 e 19, siamo del parere che le sole forze convenzionali non possano assicurare una deterrenza credibile. Riteniamo inoltre che le armi nucleari contribuiscano in maniera determinante a rendere incalcolabili e inaccettabili i rischi di un’aggressione contro il Regno Unito e i suoi alleati, restando dunque fondamentali per il mantenimento della pace. Per ciò che riguarda il paragrafo 15, non condividiamo che l’Unione europea abbia un ruolo nel coordinare l’ . In merito al paragrafo 17, siamo dell’avviso che la presenza di forze convenzionali e nucleari degli Stati Uniti in Europa rimanga fondamentale per la sicurezza del continente e, pertanto, sarebbe sbagliato esortare “gli USA a chiarire la situazione relativa alla quantità e agli obiettivi strategici del loro arsenale nucleare tattico stoccato nelle basi europee”. Per quanto concerne il paragrafo 18, Israele non ha dichiarato di detenere armi nucleari e, dunque, non è opportuno inserirlo in questo contesto. Infine, in riferimento al paragrafo 32, gli Stati Uniti non hanno dichiarato la loro intenzione di “non intraprendere azioni militari preventive nei confronti dell’Iran”, e sarebbe sbagliato escludere qualsiasi possibilità in questa fase."@it¹² "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@lt¹⁴ "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@lv¹³ "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@mt¹⁵ "Hoewel wij voorstander zijn een robuust NPV en stappen om paal en perk te stellen aan de kernprogramma’s van Noord-Korea en Iran, hebben wij ons onthouden van stemming over deze resolutie omdat wij niet akkoord kunnen gaan met de volgende paragrafen: paragrafen 10 en 19 – wij geloven dat conventionele troepen alleen geen geloofwaardige afschrikking kunnen vormen, dat kernwapens een unieke bijdrage leveren, gezien de onberekenbare en onaanvaardbare risico’s van een eventuele aanval op het Verenigd Koninkrijk en zijn bondgenoten, en dat kernwapens bijgevolg van cruciaal belang zijn voor de vredeshandhaving; paragraaf 15 – wij zijn het er niet mee eens dat de EU een rol heeft bij de coördinatie van de inlichtingendiensten; paragraag 17 – wij geloven dat de aanwezigheid van conventionele en nucleaire strijdmachten van de Verenigde Staten in Europa van vitaal belang is voor de veiligheid van het continent en het bijgevolg verkeerd zou zijn de VS te vragen "duidelijkheid te verschaffen over de aantallen en de strategische doelen van het Amerikaanse tactische kernarsenaal op Europese bases"; paragraaf 18 – Israël heeft niet verklaard over kernwapens te beschikken en daarom is het niet gepast om Israël in deze context te noemen; paragraaf 31 – de Verenigde Staten heeft niet verklaard dat zij "niet tot een militair optreden tegen Iran zal overgaan", en derhalve zou het verkeerd zijn in dit stadium bepaalde opties uit te sluiten."@nl³ "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@pl¹⁶ "Embora apoiemos um TNP forte e os passos dados no sentido de reduzir os programas nucleares da Coreia do Norte e do Irão, abstivémo-nos relativamente à presente resolução, na medida em que não concordamos, em particular, com os seguintes números da mesma: Números 10 e 19 – consideramos que as forças convencionais, por si só, não conseguirão ser, de forma credível, dissuasoras; que as armas nucleares são um contributo único para tornar os riscos de agressão contra o Reino Unido e seus aliados incalculáveis e inaceitáveis; e, consequentemente, que continuam a ser essenciais na preservação da paz; Número 15 – não concordamos com o facto de a UE ter um papel na coordenação da informação; Número 17 – consideramos que a presença das forças convencionais e nucleares dos EUA na Europa continuam a ser vitais para a segurança do continente, logo seria errado convidar “os EUA a esclarecerem a situação no que diz respeito à quantidade e objectivos estratégicos dos seus arsenais nucleares tácticos estacionados em bases europeias "; Número 18 - Israel não declarou possuir armas nucleares, como tal não tem cabimento incluir Israel neste contexto; Número 31 – os Estados Unidos não declararam que "não pretendem desencadear uma acção militar preventiva contra o Irão ", pelo que seria errado excluir qualquer possibilidade nesta fase."@pt¹⁷ "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@sk¹⁸ "While we support a robust NPT and steps to curtail the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, we have abstained on this resolution because we are not in agreement with the following paragraphs in particular: paragraphs 10 and 19 - we believe that conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence, that nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the UK and its allies incalculable and unacceptable and consequently that they remain essential to preserving peace; paragraph 15 - we do not agree that the EU has a role in coordinating intelligence; paragraph 17 - we believe that the presence of United States conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remain vital to the security of the continent and consequently it would be wrong to call on "the USA to clarify the situation of the quantity and strategic objectives of its tactical nuclear arsenals stationed on European bases"; paragraph 18 - Israel has not declared that it possesses nuclear weapons and therefore it is in appropriate to include Israel in this context; paragraph 31 - the United States has not declared that it would "not engage in preventive military action against Iran", and it would be wrong to rule out any option at this stage."@sl¹⁹ ". Även om vi stöder ett kraftfullt fördrag om förhindrande av spridning av kärnvapen och åtgärder som minskar kärnvapenprogrammen i Nordkorea och Iran, har vi lagt ned vår röst när det gäller denna resolution eftersom vi inte är ense i synnerhet om följande punkter: punkterna 10 och 19 – vi anser att endast konventionella styrkor inte kan garantera ett trovärdigt avskräckande, att kärnvapen på ett unikt sätt bidrar till att göra riskerna för anfall mot Förenade kungariket och dess allierade oförutsebara och oacceptabla och följaktligen att de förblir väsentliga för att bevara freden punkt 15 – vi håller inte med om att EU:s roll skall vara att samordna underrättelsetjänsten punkt 17 – vi anser att närvaron av Förenta staternas konventionella styrkor och kärnvapen i Europa förblir absolut nödvändig för kontinentens säkerhet och att det därmed skulle vara fel att uppmana ”Förenta staterna förtydliga situationen avseende mängd och strategiska syften för sin taktiska kärnvapenarsenal som är stationerad på europeiska baser” punkt 18 – Israel har inte tillkännagett att de har kärnvapen och därför är det olämpligt att inkludera Israel i detta sammanhang punkt 31 – Förenta staterna har inte förklarat att de inte skulle ”anfalla i förebyggande militära aktioner mot Iran”, och det skulle vara fel att utesluta något alternativ i detta skede."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Van Orden (PPE-DE ),"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "in writing"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "intelligence"¹²