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 Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:06PM (3 children)
Posturing and bloviation, that's all.
Might as well have a UN treaty banning jaywalking or Facebook. Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:13PM (1 child)
No kidding, considering 2 of the largest holders of those weapons have veto power...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @01:14AM
1. Russia, 7000 warheads and veto power
2. USA, 6800 warheads and veto power
3. France, 300 warheads and veto power
4. China, 270 warheads and veto power
5. UK, 215 warheads and veto power
6. Pakastan, 130 warheads
7. India, 120 warheads
8. Israel, 80 warheads
9. North Korea, 0 warheads
Note that the ones with veto power are the original ones with nuclear weapons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:16PM
The UN is a money laundromat. They're just throwing out distractions. Goes with the territory.
(Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:54PM (12 children)
Pointless posturing about something they can never do anything about. They don't have any power to back up any such thing with. The UN has 192 (or is it 193?) membership nations and only 122 endorse this treaty. That sounds an awful lot like all the countries that do have nuclear weapons didn't bother -- about nine countries that we know off, plus a fair amount of countries that have the ability or knowledge to get some if they wanted to, plus the once that enjoy nuclear umbrella protection of one of the "haves". The once that do they don't give a fuck about this treaty, they either don't even attend or they don't care because they know that the UN is not going to or would be able to take their nukes away.
Sure we are not seeing a large uptick in new countries that get nukes. But that might be more about them not wanting or needing them then not having the ability to build them. The latest countries that have built them have all been in regard as protection vs a potentially or historically hostile neighbor or as blackmail -- India vs Pakistan, North Korea vs the World and Israel vs the Arabs and Persians, if or when Iran gets their it will be as a power response towards Israel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @06:04PM (10 children)
That's just the thing though. Are any of the countries that signed this even nuclear states? Nuclear weapons are a thing and we're unlikely to ever be rid of them unless something bigger is invented. For better or for worse, as long as nuclear weapons exist, we're probably not going to have another world war of the scale of what we had in the 20th century. It'll either wipe out nearly all the inhabitants of the planet or it will be much more limited in scale, more on a normal size than a world war.
(Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Sunday July 09 2017, @06:13PM (9 children)
In the fourth link of the article (... The 10-page treaty on the prohibition) includes a link to a PDF with the vote result. To save everyone some time here is the result:
United States (no vote), Russia Federation (no vote), United Kingdom (no vote), France (no vote), China (no vote), India (no vote), Pakistan (no vote), Democractic People's Republic of Korea (no vote), Israel (no vote).
So no known (or assumed) nuclear power even bothered to show up, attend and/or vote for this.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday July 09 2017, @06:26PM (8 children)
Other "no vote" (no the same as voting no, in this cause they don't even show up to vote) countries are among others Australia (Five-eye member), Belarus (former part of the Soviet Union), Belgium (NATO, and US nuclear host nation), Canada (Five-eye member, NATO), Denmark (NATO member), Finland (don't want to anger Russia or the US), Germany (NATO member, US nuclear host nation), Iceland (in large totally dependent on the US for military protection), Italy (NATO member and another US nuclear stockpile host) ... the list goes on like this.
Basically members of NATO (or countries that dream of being in NATO), people that want to remain in the good graces of the United States and former Soviet states didn't bother to vote. They know this is basically pointless posturing for the feelgood crowd without any basis in reality.
The Islamic Republic of Iran voted Yes, and so did Iraq. Guess Saddams imaginary yellow cake nukes are no more.
Japan didn't vote yes. One would think they would be first in line since they are the only country to actually be nuked. But once again they probably doesn't want to anger the US.
Singapore was the only nation that abstained and the Netherlands voted NO, one can only assume they either forgot about what was agreed upon on the NATO meeting or they had some balls to stand up and actually vote no.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday July 09 2017, @07:58PM
“These kinds of treaties have an impact that forces countries to change their behaviour.".....
.....until it becomes inconvenient. Then they'll do what is necessary. P
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:56PM (1 child)
> Japan didn't vote yes.
The United States has kept, and may continue to keep, nuclear weapons on Japanese territory, at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa. The draft treaty provides that "each State Party that has any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or in any place under its jurisdiction or control that are owned, possessed or controlled by another State shall ensure the prompt removal of such weapons."
> They know this is basically pointless posturing for the feelgood crowd without any basis in reality.
That depends on who signs it. Iran and South Africa endorsed the draft; if the treaty goes into effect (which requires 50 countries to join) and they join, they'll be committing permanently to allow inspection of their nuclear facilities, to ensure they don't re-start their weapons programs. Ukraine didn't endorse, but the same would apply to it if it joined.
As I said, the nuclear-weapons states wouldn't be allowed to place their nuclear weapons in countries that sign this new treaty. Depending on who signs it, it could expand the existing nuclear-weapon-free zones. That's a real action.
Aside from that, and assuming no nuclear-weapons states join, it does look like posturing. The signatories will be taking the posture that they won't be acquiring nuclear weapons and that the nuclear-weapons states should disarm. The NPT, which five nuclear-weapons states (China, France, United States, Russia and United Kingdom) have signed, already mandates nuclear disarmament, but as the draft of this new treaty says, it's been slow going. A bit of posturing calling for urgency in the process isn't a bad thing.
Stronger measures may be needed, but this is constructive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @09:02PM
Scratch what I wrote about Iran and South Africa. Those provisions in Article 4 don't apply to them, but only to countries which now have nuclear weapons.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2017, @11:46PM (4 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday July 10 2017, @12:01AM (3 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday July 10 2017, @08:54AM (2 children)
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
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
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @09:19PM
> They don't have any power to back up any such thing with.
They wouldn't win a nuclear war, but they do have power. They could restrict travel, financial services and other forms of trade, similarly to what's been done against North Korea. The draft doesn't provide for that, however.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @06:23PM (31 children)
Am I missing something? I must be something. I don't think it would be hyperbole to say the one and only reason there was no WW3 was because of how WW2 was ended - nukes.
The world since then has been in an unprecedented level of peace. I don't think people realize how violent these conflicts were. The world population in 1939 was 2.3 billion. By the end of WW2 in 1942 more than 73 million people would be killed. Put another way, one out of every 32 people in the world was killed in WW2. Put these numbers into context. A war with a similar scale of loss of life today would have more than 233,000,000 deaths. Makes all of our 'war on terror' and the Mideast casualties (on both sides) seem completely irrelevant. The same of the Korean and Vietnam wars.
Why in the world could you possibly want a world where war between major powers becomes a viable option again? That alone I think is an even greater concern than rogue nations getting a handful of nukes. North Korea knows if they launch a single offensive nuke that that will be the end of their country. Their potential (and probability) is completely negligible to the possibility of major war between developed and capable nations. And of course once said war did begin, all promises to not use nukes mean nothing. When a superpower is left to decide between national sovereignty and abiding a treatise? Everybody knows the answer there.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @07:23PM (17 children)
"The world since then has been in an unprecedented level of peace."
-
The above is incorrect. There have been many armed conflicts since WWII and there are still a bunch of armed conflicts happening at this time. You may not have noticed or cared about those conflicts but that doesn't mean there has been an unprecedented level of peace. Your statement is comically inaccurate and shows you don't know much about post-WWII history, or about current events. Read the web pages below and learn about what is happening in the world :
-
https://www.sofmag.com/articles/terrorism/ [sofmag.com]
-
"North Korea knows if they launch a single offensive nuke that that will be the end of their country."
-
North Korea wants nukes not because they will use them in a first strike, despite what they may say in propaganda. Having nukes is the one sure way a country can ensure the US doesn't make war against it for the purposes of US imperialism. If Iraq had nukes Saddam Hussein would still be in power. You had better believe that countries which are not on friendly terms are all painfully aware that having nukes is the only way to be sure the US doesn't butt-fuck them.
-
It would be more accurate to say that the existence of nukes has acted to discourage the occurrence of a large-scale war such as WWII. However there is ( and has been ) plenty of war out there. I know a guy ( a mercenary ) who works for the company formerly known as Blackwater, and he told me he is sure "Africa will keep us employed for the next 30 years at least". The wars these days are what could be called "proxy wars", and the superpowers are involved but not necessarily directly involved, so the appearance that it's someone else's war can be maintained. The situation in Syria is a good example. What we have these days is a number of smaller conflicts instead of a global war. Is this better ? If you asked people whose loved ones died in one of these recent conflicts, I expect they would say it is the same as any other war.
(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.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:02PM (4 children)
I think it's the Economist that has an article on the options for taking down ( or out) N. Korea: there are no good options, basically, except to accept status quo maybe.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 09 2017, @10:24PM (3 children)
I used to like The Economist just as I used to like Salon, Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.
Then I woke up and realized that, while their writers are competent, the message is obvious globalist bullshit. When "respected" outlets such as those cats give Hillary a 90% chance of winning the election, it's time to cancel your subscriptions and head out for a nice walk and some fresh air, or to descend to hell and consume Breitbart and Zerohedge.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday July 10 2017, @12:25AM
Nah, i just read it at the store: i saw their 'headline' of "How to deal with N. Korea" (or whatever it was) because i was interested in what their take on solving the problem was.
It was interesting, but i can't afford the mag or the time to read it fully (usually).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @09:36AM
The Economist's Science and Technology section was decent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @06:58PM
Oh for fuck's sake, you fucking idiot. 90% chance of winning DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL DEFINITELY HAPPEN, you obnoxious piece of shit. Do you know what's between 90% and a 100%, you dumbass asshole? A 10% chance of the OTHER outcome, you illiterate fucktard.
(Score: 1, Troll) by fnj on Sunday July 09 2017, @09:13PM (3 children)
Prime stupid level BULLSHIT. There is NOTHING that could be done to the US that would result in nuclear retaliation. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Ain't gonna happen. Not ever. A nuclear detonation in DC wouldn't do it. Chemical or biological wouldn't do it. The civilized West isn't crazy-ass berserk enough to push the button that says "end everything". Neither is Russia. It takes true animals to do that. North Korea, China, perverted moo slime zealots. They are the ones who are going to start lighting off the firecrackers in onsies and twosies, and it won't end. The end will come in slow motion.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @09:44PM
"There is NOTHING that could be done to the US that would result in nuclear retaliation. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Ain't gonna happen. Not ever. "
Totally agree. What's a harbor or two between friends. Oh wait a minute!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @09:45AM
Technically there's nothing that stops Trump from launching nukes if he decides to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-design/ [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.businessinsider.com/president-nuke-option-requires-no-permission-2017-4/ [businessinsider.com]
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2011/02/an_unsung_hero_of_the_nuclear_age.html [slate.com]
The USSR's Perimeter system was sane in comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war) [wikipedia.org]
https://www.wired.com/2009/09/mf-deadhand/ [wired.com]
It seemed a lot more defensive and less crazy than the US system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 10 2017, @11:14AM
The obvious rebuttal is that even destroying North Korea is not the button that says "end everything". If North Korea were to give such a blatant provocation as nuking the capital of the US then no other nuclear power would stand in the way of North Korea's destruction (much less a more measured response, like say, nuking Pyongyang as well as sufficient additional nuclear attacks to insure the North Korean leadership responsible is completely dead), precisely because they aren't crazy-ass berserk enough to push buttons that end everything and because North Korea would have it coming in this situation. Other powers might after the fact use the destruction as a propaganda lever to increase their own status at the expense of the US (say, if the US counterattack is widely perceived to be overreacting or escalatory) or fight over the spoils of North Korea, directly or by proxy (even radioactive wastelands have value, should that be the end state of the North Korean country).
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2017, @11:55PM (2 children)
The complete absence of war is not what makes the current era extraordinarily peaceful. It's the very low body count of present wars.
Absolutely, this is better. Let us keep in mind that if you asked people whose loved ones died in these conflicts, they would be one to two orders of magnitude less numerous as a fraction of the world's population compared to any other time in history.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 10 2017, @06:17PM (1 child)
The complete absence of war is not what makes the current era extraordinarily peaceful. It's the very low body count of present wars.
The keyword is "unprecedented." Comparing now to the worst war ever is disingenuous. The "Pax Americana" occurred before the first World War.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 11 2017, @12:06AM
The Second World War is not the worst war ever. I'd put the Mongolian conquests at the very top of that list. Then a few of the Chinese wars (Taiping Rebellion and the Three Kingdoms period, for example) and the Thirty Years War in present day Germany and Poland. Then... the Second World War.
But that's not really the point. I agree that today is an unprecedented era of peace - not because it managed the extremely low hurdle of being less bloody than the Second World War. But because it is less bloody than any other era of human history right up to the beginning of humanity. How can that be when there are dozens of wars ongoing at any given time and hundreds of thousands of people dying each year? Well, because there's more than seven billion people on the planet. As absolute numbers the cost of modern wars is quite big. As a relative fraction of all of humanity, it is smaller than it has ever been in the past. That latter point is what we should be remembering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @07:50PM (1 child)
peace? like in USA invading a dozen of countries so they can control their natural resources the last few decades?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:05PM
Yeah, but this goes under the heading of USA!USA!USA!#1!!!, So yeah.
Doesn't. Count.
*sarc flag flying*
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:01PM (6 children)
"The world since then has been in an unprecedented level of peace."
BULLSHIT !!!!!!!
*
You are the worst kind of idiot : the kind who pretends to have authoritative knowledge when you don't know what you're talking about.
*
Here's a list of wars which occurred between 1945 and 1989. The list is long. And it shows how utterly out of touch with reality you are, you clueless idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945–89 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:09PM
Add the AC wars to that list!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Monday July 10 2017, @12:08AM (2 children)
Not all wars are equal. And one of the ways they are very unequal is in how many people die. To ignore that is to ignore what peace actually is. It's not the pure absence of war, it is the many people who don't have to fear dying in war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @02:08AM (1 child)
(Another AC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll [wikipedia.org]
58 million is hard to beat...
So are current weapons less lethal? Better aimed? Is medical assistance better? Should WW2 numbers be split per country as modern wars mostly are located in one country or two (in some cases acting as playfield for a proxy war)? Do we count extermination of own population for the destruction records (Khmer Rouge is not listed as war in the above, but deaths are 740K-3M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Number_of_deaths [wikipedia.org] , same with Great Leap Forward 23M-55M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Famine_deaths [wikipedia.org] )? Is formal war declaration needed or "armed conflict" is enough? Does destruction of infrastructure, universities, monuments count for war importance or only lives lost?
My guess is people is more exposed to news, and some are manipulation, but seeing 20th-21st place become barely 14th century level in some years is not very encouraging about "more peace", no matter how many alive. Also the other AC didn't mention deaths, just wars.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday July 10 2017, @10:52AM
It depends on the situation. But nuclear weapons definitely are more lethal than anything that came before.
Well, was it a war? The Great Leap Forward, for example, wasn't a war since there was no conflict. It turns out that peace can be lethal as well.
Armed conflict is good enough for me. And destruction of infrastructure and such can be well approximated by lives lost. There really isn't a point to distinguishing between the two because how are you going to maintain the infrastructure without the people? When the latter goes, so does the former.
Is the world barely "14th century" just because parts of Syria are? It's an absurd consideration. I'm not barbaric merely because you can find someone else who is.
Second, number of wars is extremely misleading here since that doesn't actually measure anything interesting, aside perhaps from an indication of the number of identifiable factions out there that are waging wars of some form. Deaths measure in the most important way the severity of wars and that has gone down a lot since the first half of the 20th century. As I noted earlier, wars are not all equal. The bald fact that the Second World War by itself has caused more deaths than all of the wars that follow to our present day is demonstration enough that we need a better way to understand war than merely the number of them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday July 10 2017, @09:07AM (1 child)
If you ignore wars with a total death toll of under one million, as they're unlikely to contribute significantly, you end up with a total death toll of around 12 million from wars since the end of the second world war. Even including things like the Rwandan Genocide (not really a war - it was a systematic slaughter of unarmed civilians), you're under 30 million dead, over a 70-year period, or under half a million dead per year. The second world war killed 58 million people over a 7-year period, or around 8 million per year (i.e. around 20 times as many per year as the average since the end of the second world war). If you include the Second Sino-Japanese war in the World War II total (it started a couple of years earlier, but was basically the same war by the end) then that brings the total for WWII up to 80 million.
Note: these numbers are using the geometric means of the estimated death tolls. Even if you take the most pessimistic estimates for wars after the second world war, fewer people have died in armed conflicts in the last 70 years than died in the 7 preceding that.
The second world war was an outlier, but not as much of one as you might think. In the 19th century, around 90 million people died in wars: around twice as many per year as after the second world war. If you factor in how much easier killing people has become since the invention of the repeating rifle, having the death toll drop in half is nothing short of incredible.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday July 10 2017, @11:27AM
And that the population of Earth is at least a factor of five larger now than it was in the 19th century. The corresponding average rate of deaths from war to match the 19th century rates would be at least five million deaths per year.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fnj on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:58PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @09:47PM (1 child)
It's an option right now. With lots of nuclear weapons at the ready, it's an insane option, but it exists. The Nova episode "False Alarms in the Nuclear Age" names four times between 1979 and 1995 when Russia or America came close to launching their nuclear missiles due to false alerts. There's also the possibility that someone with bad judgment could gain control over nuclear weapons, and decide to use them.
A nuclear war could be even more severe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @09:51PM
text page about "False Alarms in the Nuclear Age" [pbs.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @02:09AM
> I must be something.
Yes, I you are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday July 09 2017, @07:36PM (2 children)
Anybody with nukes wants to keep them, so they can continue to bully countries without nukes.
If the Iraq War taught the smaller countries anything at all, it's that if you don't have nukes or poison gas or biological agents, the big boys will claim you do and attack you whenever it suits their purposes. Whereas if you do have nukes like Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and India all have, even in violation of treaties, they'll leave you alone.
Despite all the rhetoric, I don't think Kim Jong Un has any intention of first-strike attacks on Seoul, Japan, or anywhere else. I do think he has every intention of demonstrating his capability to attack them precisely so that the US doesn't go after him. Heck, he's even been building civilian infrastructure [nytimes.com], which he wouldn't bother with if he was anything like he's usually portrayed.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 09 2017, @07:58PM
Kimberly Ching-chong uno is just fucking stupid. Let him rattle sabers, America not only needs a war but needs one they can win. Of course, I have no problem with nuking the Arab goatfuckers, but the international community tends to frown upon things like that.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2017, @11:16PM
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:
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6049569/would-it-be-so-bad-if-iran-gets-the-bomb [vox.com]
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.
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.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Sunday July 09 2017, @11:33PM (1 child)
If nuclear weapons are outlawed (an absurd proposal), only outlaws will have nuclear weapons. Without fear of adequate response, the outlaws would have a free hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @04:13PM
This isn't a proposal to outlaw nuclear weapons. Whoever signs it will be promising not to acquire them, and politely asking others to get rid of theirs.
Are you proposing that the countries with nuclear weapons ought to keep them permanently, threatening the rest of us with mass destruction? That, to you, is stability? To me it's a temptation for more countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
Chemical and biological weapons are largely outlawed. The destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles isn't proceeding as quickly as it should, but it's happening. Nuclear weapons should be outlawed too. Five of the nuclear powers have promised to destroy their stockpiles, but all five are dragging their feet. We need to do something, and this treaty is something. It may not be enough.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 10 2017, @02:41PM (1 child)
What is the point of this? "Oh we'll voluntarily follow all your rules, but you can't LEGALLY bind us with your treaties, man..." Considering how the U.S. is supposedly the "world leader" the government sure doesn't like signing treaties that hold them to any accountability.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 10 2017, @02:44PM
Hmmm...apparently other non-signatories include Russia and China, so maybe the logic is "if they start using them so will we."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2017, @08:00PM
Can't the security council just veto this?