Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:03PM   Printer-friendly

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @11:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @11:16PM (#536965)

    The nuclear lesson was mentioned just after the Gulf War. The 1991, Kuwait invasion, one. There is a quote by an Indian general about avoiding wars:

    After the first Gulf War, Indian general Krishnaswamy Sundarji was asked by a New York Times reporter, "What is the principal strategic lesson of this war?" and he said, "If you don't want to be invaded by the United States, get nuclear weapons."

      https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6049569/would-it-be-so-bad-if-iran-gets-the-bomb [vox.com]

    General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, the Indian Army's former chief of staff, drew the implications of the war as being: 'never fight the Americans without nuclear weapons.'

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2014.901733 [tandfonline.com] (paid article, quote above via Google snippet)

    India had been in the nuclear game since 70s at least, but that 1991 war reaffirmed them.

    Brajesh Mishra, expressed the underlying belief that great international respect is given to non-Western nations only if they possess nuclear capabilities, comparing India to China (with its acknowledged nuclear stockpiles and permanent seat of the United Nations Security Council) by stating, India should be granted as much respect and deference by the United States and others as is China today.

    https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/93646/2008-10_CNAS_WorkingPaper_NIC_India_PatelCampbell_Oct2008.pdf [files.ethz.ch]

    Iraq war just confirmed the fears. And probably so did Libya and many others. When you stop being big-power's "friend", you better have a nasty CYA tool.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1