SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The treaty was endorsed by 122 countries at the United Nations headquarters in New York on Friday after months of talks in the face of strong opposition from nuclear-armed states and their allies. Only the Netherlands, which took part in the discussion, despite having US nuclear weapons on its territory, voted against the treaty.
All of the countries that bear nuclear arms and many others that either come under their protection or host weapons on their soil boycotted the negotiations. The most vocal critic of the discussions, the US, pointed to the escalation of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme as one reason to retain its nuclear capability. The UK did not attend the talks despite government claims to support multilateral disarmament.
[...] The 10-page treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons will be open for signatures from any UN member state on 20 September during the annual general assembly. While countries that possess nuclear weapons are not expected to sign up any time soon, supporters of the treaty believe it marks an important step towards a nuclear-free world by banning the weapons under international law.
[...] Previous UN treaties have been effective even when key nations have failed to sign up to them. The US did not sign up to the landmines treaty, but has completely aligned its landmines policy to comply nonetheless. “These kinds of treaties have an impact that forces countries to change their behaviour. It is not going to happen fast, but it does affect them,” Fihn said. “We have seen on all other weapons that prohibition comes first, and then elimination. This is taking the first step towards elimination.”
Under the new treaty, signatory states must agree not to develop, test, manufacture or possess nuclear weapons, or threaten to use them, or allow any nuclear arms to be stationed on their territory.
[...] Instead of scrapping their nuclear stocks, the UK and other nuclear powers want to strengthen the 1968 nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), a pact that aims to prevent the spread of the weapons outside the original five nuclear powers: the US, Russia, Britain, France and China. It requires countries to hold back from nuclear weapons programmes in exchange for a commitment from the nuclear powers to move towards nuclear disarmament and to provide access to peaceful nuclear energy technology. The new treaty reflects a frustration among non-nuclear states that the NPT has not worked as hoped.
-- submitted from IRC
For perspective, see the 14m25s video on YouTube: "1945-1998" by ISAO HASHIMOTO which depicts the over 2000 atomic bomb blasts that occurred within that period, with each month of time depicted in one second.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 09 2017, @07:54PM (4 children)
The CIA and military first learned this lesson during the Vietnam war, which was lost not through lack of strength but through public perception thanks to the media. So, the mass-media was infiltrated and coerced into being a bunch of good little Hillary-loving bootlickers. Iraq and Afghanistan proved again that bullshit wars for stupid reasons were not only expensive but unpalatable to the public-at-large.
As far as Africa goes, I don't understand why so much of our money will be spent there, it's run by crazy incompetent Jiggaboos. It would be far more cost-effective to withdraw all aid and sit on our haunches twiddling our thumbs while Ooga-Booga Hararmbebe and his enemies fight each other to the death.
Oh, wait, I found the reason [ft.com] why: Rare-Earth metals. That would also explain China's interest in Africa, since they already have us by the balls with their existing monopoly of rare-Earth metals. Also, they are colonizing the African natives and making lots of ugly babies in the process.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:18PM
Your eloquence brings tears to my eyes! Sniff...
Missed you, buddy *voice cracks*
:)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by Lester on Sunday July 09 2017, @09:15PM
Africa is the battle field of USA, France and China. France and USA are arming rebels or dictators, bribering etc . China is trying to make deals, buy rights etc using more subtles ways (well, also bribering). And is succeeding.
In fact, China is also playing in south America. They look like aliens, strange people, but contrary to USA, they don't threaten and make win-win deals, not zero-sum games. China is winning their hearts, in their alíen way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @02:42AM (1 child)
That was one of the major reasons World War 3 started in 2021. Think about all the stuff we enjoy that depends on rare earths. EF is provocative, but otherwise not incorrect.
It's a shame because Africa isn't the only place to get them. They're found all over this planet's surface. However, it's the most convenient and cheapest place to get them, all from a very little desire to try to obtain these minerals and metals more locally. I'm certain none of them were thinking, "I'm willing to completely devastate the entire planet to just save some money and have the lowest prices." Or maybe they are but honestly don't care.
Perhaps they don't realize that they will have no customers to sell to after N-day. Unless
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @02:50PM
But so dispersed that it's uneconomic.
Nevertheless the main problem is that current known deposits in other places are already controlled. Africa is like Far West, if you have the biggest gun or the deepest pocket, it's yours.