2.Q. Does the Draft Treaty prohibit consultations and planning on Nuclear Defense among NATO Members?
A. It does not deal with allied consultation and planning on nuclear defense so long as no transfer of Nuclear Weapons or control over them results.
3.Q. Does the Draft Treaty prohibit arrangements for the deployment of nuclear weapons owned or controlled by the United States within the territory of Non-Nuclear NATO members?
A. It does not deal with arrangements for deployment of nuclear weapons within allied territory as these do not involve any transfer on nuclear weapons or control over them, unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which time the Treaty would no longer be controlling.
4.Q. Would the Draft prohibit the unification of Europe if a nuclear-weapon State was one of the Constituent States?
A. It does not deal with the problem of European Unity, and would not bar succession by a new federated European State to the nuclear status of one of its former components. A new federated European state would have to control all of its external security functions including defense and all foreign policy matters relating to external security, but would not have to been so centralized as to assume all governmental functions. While not dealing with succession by such a federate state, the Treaty would bar transfer of nuclear weapons (including ownership) or control over them to any recipient, including a multilateral entity.
The intentions of the makers of the treaty are definitely of interest to the Court in pursuing its investigation of this matter concerning the legality Obama's Resolution 2231 permitting egregious violation of Article I of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. And Obama's Iran nuclear deal is most explicit in it's declaration of intent that the Security Council will allow, induce, encourage, assist Iran in procuring ballistic weapons associated assets designed to intentionally "contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems:"