text: their environment if attacked. As a matter of fact, following that criterion, many installations would be protected simply because in one way or the other they would be labelled nuclear. If such an approach were to be followed it might create a precedent leading to demands for protection in other areas, unrelated to our subject, where equally there is no risk of mass destruction. The consequences of such an approach would be difficult to foresee. Second, it is obvious that an international legal instrument basing itself exclusively on the mass destruction criterion would by the same token not distinguish between military and civilian nuclear facilities. Provided that those facilities would fall within the limits set by the mass destruction criterion, both categories of facilities would be equally protected. If one wishes to prevent mass destruction, this seems in itself fully justified, as attacks on military nuclear facilities pose dangers no different from attacks on civilian ones. Yet we understand that some delegations have doubts on the realism of protecting military facilities as, in the minds of military planners or commanders, these facilities could be in their view "interesting" targets. Protection would then be illusionary in times of war. A second observation deserving thought concerns the reservations some countries may have to allow inspection of their military facilities that should be covered under a protection agreement. Would this mean that in practice few military installations will be registered under a future agreement and that therefore these facilities would remain unprotected? CD/PV.321 18 (Mr. Van Schalk, Netherlands ) Let me take up these questions one by one and then draw some conclusions. In considering whether legal protection of military nuclear facilities from attacks is a realistic option at all the crucial question to ask, so it seems, 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a legal framework for protecting military nuclear facilities from attacks, which is related to international relations, security, and diplomacy. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting that it is a speech or document from a diplomatic or international organization. The discussion of international legal instruments, criteria for protection, and the potential consequences of a protection agreement also support this analysis.