Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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: 2) by looorg on Monday July 10 2017, @12:01AM (3 children)

    by looorg (578) on Monday July 10 2017, @12:01AM (#536974)

    Let us keep in mind that Japan may already be a nuclear power. Even if they aren't, acquiring nukes would give them a credible counterweight to future Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Russian) influence and military power - particularly since the US is likely to weaken significantly over the next half century.

    That would be a possible scenario. Just as India and Pakistan got theirs to counter each other, India possibly also got theirs to counter China. Japan could get them to counter a potential threat from China, Russia or North Korea. Most countries in the world could get nukes at the moment, if a dirt poor country like NK can have them then anybody can. There are other reasons besides money and knowledge prevent them from doing so.

    In the case of NK I would say it seems more like they have blackmail nukes. Yes they are afraid of the US. But they also like to have them big foreign aid packages coming with food and other such things. Dropping a test missile or two into the pacific is a small price to pay to keep your blackmail scheme going.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday July 10 2017, @08:54AM (2 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Monday July 10 2017, @08:54AM (#537056) Journal

    if a dirt poor country like NK can have them then anybody can

    It's a mistake to think of NK in those terms. They are very poor per-capita, but their wealth is tightly concentrated and their military is well funded. They have a fairly large submarine fleet, for example, which is not really something that you'd expect a 'dirt poor country' to be able to afford.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by khallow on Monday July 10 2017, @11:02AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 10 2017, @11:02AM (#537077) Journal

      It's a mistake to think of NK in those terms. They are very poor per-capita, but their wealth is tightly concentrated and their military is well funded. They have a fairly large submarine fleet, for example, which is not really something that you'd expect a 'dirt poor country' to be able to afford.

      To the contrary, North Korea is the very demonstration of the extremes of what a dirt poor country can afford. As you note, the wealth, such as it is, is tightly concentrated in the very things you note that they have afforded. If they weren't dirt poor, they'd have some sort of achievements outside of where they've decided to concentrate their existing wealth.

    • (Score: 2) by looorg on Monday July 10 2017, @11:47AM

      by looorg (578) on Monday July 10 2017, @11:47AM (#537084)

      It's a mistake to think of NK in those terms. They are very poor per-capita, but their wealth is tightly concentrated and their military is well funded. They have a fairly large submarine fleet, for example, which is not really something that you'd expect a 'dirt poor country' to be able to afford.

      I don't believe it's a mistake to view NK as "dirt poor". They are a poor, and backwards, nation by any international standard, which is usually a matter of some form of per-capita indicator(s). As you note there is wealth and money available but as with almost any dictatorship the wealth is concentrated around the leader, his inner circle and the military that support them. They might be able to feed their nation and provide for the people if they wanted to, it's hard to say. They clearly chose another path.