[anarchist23]

The country's who have nuclear weapons are not part of the treaty but it's a start in the right direction.
Is there any point having it?


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/worl ... reaty.html

For the first time in the seven-decade effort to avert a nuclear war, a global treaty has been negotiated that proponents say would, if successful, lead to the destruction of all nuclear weapons and forever prohibit their use.

Negotiators representing two-thirds of the 192-member United Nations finalized the 10-page treaty this week after months of talks.

The document, called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, was formally adopted on Friday at United Nations headquarters in New York during the final session of the negotiation conference.

It will be open for signature by any member state starting on Sept. 20 during the annual General Assembly and will enter into legal force 90 days after it has been ratified by 50 countries.

“The world has been waiting for this legal norm for 70 years,” said Elayne G. Whyte Gómez, Costa Rica’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva and chairwoman of the conference, which was broadcast live on the United Nations website.
Cheers and applause erupted among the delegates after the vote was tallied: 122 in favor and one against — the Netherlands, the only NATO member that participated in the conference. Singapore abstained.

The participants did not include any of the world’s nine nuclear-armed countries, which conspicuously boycotted the negotiations.

Some critics of the treaty, including the United States and its close Western allies, publicly rejected the entire effort, calling it misguided and reckless, particularly when North Korea is threatening a nuclear-tipped missile strike on American soil.

“We have to be realistic,” Nikki R. Haley, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said when the talks began in March. “Is there anyone who thinks that North Korea would ban nuclear weapons?”

In a joint statement released after the treaty was adopted, the United States, Britain and France said, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.”

The statement said that “a purported ban on nuclear weapons that does not address the security concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary cannot result in the elimination of a single nuclear weapon and will not enhance any country’s security, nor international peace and security.”

Disarmament groups and other proponents of the treaty said they had never expected that any nuclear-armed country would sign it — at least not at first. Rather, supporters hope, the treaty’s widespread acceptance elsewhere will eventually increase the public pressure and stigma of harboring and threatening to use such weapons of unspeakable destruction, and make holdouts reconsider their positions.

“This treaty is a strong categorical prohibition of nuclear weapons and is really rooted in humanitarian law,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a Geneva-based coalition of groups that advocated the treaty.

“It provides a path for nuclear-armed states to join,” Ms. Fihn said in an interview on Thursday. “We don’t expect them to sign the treaty right now, but it’s a good starting point for changing perceptions.”

She and other supporters of the treaty contend that the coercive power of such an agreement can exert enormous influence on public and government opinion.

Treaties that banned biological and chemical arms, land mines and cluster bombs have shown how weapons once regarded as acceptable are now widely, if not universally, reviled. That is the kind of outcome sought by proponents of the nuclear ban pact.

“While the treaty itself will not immediately eliminate any nuclear weapons, the treaty can, over time, further delegitimize nuclear weapons and strengthen the legal and political norm against their use,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based group that supports the treaty.

Nuclear weapons have defied attempts to contain their spread since the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, ending World War II.

The destruction wrought by those weapons helped give rise to the nuclear arms race and the doctrine of deterrence, which holds that the only way to prevent an attack is to assure the destruction of the attacker. Proponents of deterrence argue that it has helped avert a calamitous global war for more than 70 years.

Besides the United States and Russia, which are believed to have the largest nuclear arsenals, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all have nuclear bombs.

Ms. Fihn said the standoff between North Korea and the United States over the North’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles illustrated what she called the fallacy that the deterrence theory can keep the peace.

“The theory only works if you are ready to use nuclear weapons, otherwise the other side will call your bluff,” she said. Deterrence, she added, is also “based on a perception that leaders are rational and sane.”

Under the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, signed by nearly all nations, parties are required to “pursue negotiations in good faith” aimed at advancing nuclear disarmament.

The new agreement is partly rooted in the disappointment among non-nuclear-armed nations that the Nonproliferation Treaty’s disarmament aspirations have not worked.

Mr. Kimball called the new treaty “an expression of the deep concern about the enormous risks posed by nuclear weapons and the growing frustration with the failure of the nuclear-armed states to fulfill their nuclear disarmament commitments.”

The new accord will outlaw nuclear weapons use, threat of use, testing, development, production, possession, transfer and stationing in a different country. For nuclear-armed nations that choose to join, the treaty outlines a process for destroying stockpiles and enforcing the countries’ promise to remain free of nuclear weapons.

The basic premise, the treaty’s opening passage states, is a recognition of “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons,” and an agreement that their complete elimination “remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.”

.

[anarchist23]

[Ter]

Like anyone else, I would like to live on a planet where there are no nuclear weapons.
At present, at least nine countries have them and most of those nine will not relinquish them. It buys them security, respect and power.
One country, Israel, is threatened with annihilation by most of its neighbours and by one other nuclear-armed country Pakistan.
And I hate to say it but the UN has lost its reputation and the respect of many because it has been used as a cheap shot political instrument through block-voting. Therefore stuff coming out of the UN has very little value.

[Drlee]

And this is what (mostly) US money goes to pay for? What a monumental waste of time.

Please note Ter that the US has been threatened with nuclear weapons within the past week.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Ter has already summed it up how the bigger countries aren't going to abandon their nuclear weapons, treaty or no treaty. The reality on the ground is that possessing nuclear weapons has created a balance of power. Getting rid of nuclear weapons won't make the world a safer place, and will not resolve the inherent causes of regional and global conflict. A person has to basically be entirely ignorant of global politics to think this either means anything or will actually do anything other than sound pretty on paper and give a bunch of officials cause for a nice photo opportunity. This treaty makes the UN look like an even bigger joke than it already is, and it's the same body that allowed the Saudis to hold the temporary chair seat of the Human Rights Commission, itself a joke, but an even bigger one.

[One Degree]

If an unrealistic idea is proposed often enough, sometimes it becomes reality. Kudos to them for trying.

[MememyselfandIJK]

how do you prevent a terrorist organization from making them? Their design is common knowledge

[MB.]

US and Russia have thousands more weapons than anyone else. They can certainly agree (and have in the past) to reduce their stockpiles which is completely in their interest since the weapons are basically useless and hugely expensive.

The real problem is that the nuclear lobby in both countries advocates that having lots of nukes is a sign of "strength" which then sets a precedent for other nations to develop their nuclear weapons.


The US and Russia should fully embrace the denuclearization agenda because it also saves them money and makes them safer. Too bad their countries are run by dangerous
psychopaths.

[Drlee]

The US and Russia should fully embrace the denuclearization agenda because it also saves them money and makes them safer. Too bad their countries are run by dangerous
psychopaths.

I don't disagree that they "should". They can't simply because the stakes are too high.

I would also assert that even if everyone in the world did away with nukes, rogues would still want them. Even more.

[MB.]

I don't see any contradiction to agreement that total denuclearization be the stated objective while US and Russia negotiate stockpile reductions. They don't need 3,000 warheads each. Total disarmament might be a long way down the line, and obviously contingent on what the other, much smaller, nuclear powers want to do. But the US and Russia have every reason to cooperate on arms reductions and have historically and can again. This would show leadership to the other powers.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Going to inject here that if you can destroy the world with 50 war heads, there's no need to have 3000.

Or you could just set up no less than...60 mass extinction events (we have had 5 so far)

[AFAIK]

They need redundancy because many warheads will be shot down, submarines may be in port and vulnerable to pre-emptive attack, silos will be hit before a countet-attack can be mobilised, etc. 3000 is overkill, though.

[One Degree]

The elimination of nuclear weapons would increase war, but a nuclear deterrent only works on leaders who value individual life. Our choice is more wars or nuclear war.

[mikema63]

Their design is common knowledge

Parts of the design and construction process are still secret and require the sorts of heavy duty equipment terrorists can't set up. In broad strokes nuclear weapons are understood but in practice they are actually quite difficult to actually produce.

[Drlee]

Going to inject here that if you can destroy the world with 50 war heads, there's no need to have 3000.

I don't think so. I doubt it could be done with 1000 of the kind the US and Russia have deployed. You could fuck up 50 cities but not endanger the planet.

[MememyselfandIJK]

You could fuck up 50 cities but not endanger the planet.

You don't need to blow up the entire planet

Also, The treaty is dead

[One Degree]

You don't need to blow up the entire planet

Also, The treaty is dead

Equality and free trade for all, but don't forget who is in charge.