U.S., Britain, France, others skip nuclear weapons ban treaty talks

[webfact]

U.S., Britain, France, others skip nuclear weapons ban treaty talks

By Michelle Nichols

REUTERS

 

British Ambassador to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft speaks while U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley (R) and French Deputy Ambassador to the U.N. Alexis Lamek listen outside the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York, U.S., March 27, 2017. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States, Britain and France are among almost 40 countries that will not join talks on a nuclear weapons ban treaty starting at the United Nations on Monday, said U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley.

 

Haley told reporters the countries skipping the negotiations are instead committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force in 1970 and is aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

 

"There is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons. But we have to be realistic. Is there anyone that believes that North Korea would agree to a ban on nuclear weapons?" Haley told reporters.

 

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in December - 113 in favour to 35 against, with 13 abstentions - that decided to "negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination" and encouraged all member states to participate.

 

"You are going to see almost 40 countries that are not in the General Assembly today," Haley said. "In this day and time we can't honestly that say we can protect our people by allowing the bad actors to have them and those of us that are good, trying to keep peace and safety, not to have them."

 

The Trump administration is reviewing whether it will reaffirm the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, a White House aide said last week, referring to an aim embraced by previous Republican and Democratic presidents and required by a key arms control treaty.

 

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft said: "The UK is not attending the negotiations on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons because we do not believe that those negotiations will lead to effective progress on global nuclear disarmament."

 

Deputy French U.N, Ambassador Alexis Lamek said the security conditions were not right for a nuclear weapons ban treaty.

"In the current perilous context, considering in particular the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, our countries continue to rely on nuclear deterrence for security and stability," Lamek said.

 

Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said in a statement: "It is disappointing to see some countries with strong humanitarian records standing with a government which threatens a new arms race."

 

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Bernard Orr)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-28

[juice777]

The fact that some countries won't even join the talks disgusts me

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, juice777 said:

The fact that some countries won't even join the talks disgusts me

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

Agreed.  But the non-proliferation treaty isn't even effective now.  If that was holding, then it'd be possible to move forward.  But it's not.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/10/05/russia-suspends-nuclear-agreement/

 

Quote

 

Russia Suspends Another Nuclear and Energy Agreement With the U.S.

Russia said on Wednesday it was suspending its nuclear and energy research agreement with the United States as a countermeasure against Washington for imposing sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.

 

The government also said it was terminating for the same reasons an agreement between its nuclear corporation Rosatom and the U.S. Department of Energy on feasibility studies into conversion of Russian research reactors to low enriched uranium.

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

The US, Britain and other nuke powers are acting like conniving defense lawyers - in order to maintain and add-to their nuke arsenals.   Their trickery is plain as day.

 

The world needs a complete ban on Nukes, like it has a ban on land mines and mustard gas.  Of course we all know a ban doesn't = a complete dearth of those weapons, but it sets the ground rules. 

 

Once the rules are in place, then it's a matter of enforcing them.  

[darksidedog]

So you adopt a resolution to prohibit nuclear weapons, but then won't attend a meeting to discuss how to do it. Smacks of hypocrisy, though somehow I am not surprised.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, darksidedog said:

So you adopt a resolution to prohibit nuclear weapons, but then won't attend a meeting to discuss how to do it. Smacks of hypocrisy, though somehow I am not surprised.

I don't think any of these big countries have adopted a resolution like this.  They have adopted the NPT.  Which is being broken by a number of countries.  India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories.  North Korea withdrew years ago.  Russia is now said they won't abide by the NPT any more.  Iran is probably violating the treaty as is Syria.

 

So if this one can't be adhered to, how can you go the next step?

[boomerangutang]

              It's like going to biker festival and trying to get all the participants to sign a pledge saying, "I will not kill people."

 

            It would be difficult, at best, because bikers spend all their lives building self-images of being tough guys and using weapons (knives, guns, fists) to shellac that image.

 

            The US, Britain and others are of the same biker mentality in regard to banning nukes - except those countries are more articulate than bikers and, like Kellyanne Conway, are able to dance around issues using sophisticated sentence structures.  

 

           At least N.Korea is being honest about nukes.  They want more of them, and relish an excuse to use them.  

 

[hawker9000]

2 hours ago, juice777 said:

The fact that some countries won't even join the talks disgusts me

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Oh, you mean well-known nuclear scofflaws like Iran and N. Korea   Yes, disgusting.

========

This is just another opp'ty for the UN to castigate its favorite whipping boys, the US & western powers.  You know, the ones that pay the dues so all those wannabe diplomats and hangers-on in search of real jobs can collect paychecks.

[boomerangutang]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I don't think any of these big countries have adopted a resolution like this.  They have adopted the NPT.  Which is being broken by a number of countries.  India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories.  North Korea withdrew years ago.  Russia is now said they won't abide by the NPT any more.  Iran is probably violating the treaty as is Syria.

So if this one can't be adhered to, how can you go the next step?

                We probably agree on nearly everything in this topic.  However, I think there needs to be a blanket statement by all countries, particularly those that have or are trying to get nukes.  Maybe it's naive to have them sign a treaty to ban nukes (for the reasons you mentioned) but it's a big step.

 

              It's like signing a treaty saying "We will imprison men who beat or rape their wives."   Sure, just making that statement doesn't stop wife-beating/raping, but it's a big first step.  

 

                After signing the nuke ban treaty, then interested parties can commence the long slog in trying to implement it.  Mustard gas was banned, and the ban stuck rather well - for 97 years and counting.  

 

                 When a few people first proposed eradicating smallpox worldwide, there were scores of people who said that was impossible.  It's been achieved, and the world is close to eliminating polio also.

 

               Big goals are not easy to achieve.  But nothing's going to happen if the first steps aren't taken.

I'm profoundly disappointed with the US, Britain, France, Russia and other 'leaders' who dropped the ball on the nuke ban.  It shows their weak-mindedness, among other low qualities.

[Grouse]

This is absolutely none trivial!

 

I think non proliferation is the best route. I think it unrealistic to expect nation states to ever give up weapons they already have.

 

I support the UK stance on this. One boat guaranteed on station with a maximum 64 warheads is the realistic minimum as long as these boats can remain hidden

 

The USA and Russia will maintain MAD but could modernise and reduce the number of warheads and delivery platforms.

 

N Korea needs to be dealt with harshly. A military strike (even nuclear) would be appropriate and act as a warning to Iran.

 

Israel destabilises the Mid East because of its nuclear weapons. No idea how to deal with them

 

So, getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely is unrealistic. Stopping proliferation can and should be done.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Grouse

[dick dasterdly]

It boils down to 'we have weapons and have no intention of getting rid of them.  Instead we'll concentrate on the Non-Proliferation treaty, to which North Korea and the like will adhere'. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

I support the UK stance on this. One boat guaranteed on station with a maximum 64 warheads is the realistic minimum as long as these boats can remain hidden

Would that be max 64 warheads for each county? If so, it would be a great start and would greatly reduce the risk of global destruction due nuclear winter.

 

Well, in case of nuclear war with that limited amount of warheads, maybe 50-90% of the global population would die, but the human race would still survive to restart a better world. 

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Would that be max 64 warheads for each county? If so, it would be a great start and would greatly reduce the risk of global destruction due nuclear winter.

 

Well, in case of nuclear war with that limited amount of warheads, maybe 50-90% of the global population would die, but the human race would still survive to restart a better world. 

4 boats are the minimum required

 

64 warheads each

 

Enough for 64 major cities.

 

Big difference with USA Russia MAD

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

4 boats are the minimum required

 

64 warheads each

 

Enough for 64 major cities.

 

Big difference with USA Russia MAD

It's a big difference, but it's still MAD for the globe.

 

Few hundreds nuclear detonations in cities can trigger nuclear winter. There would still be 2000+ warheads globally. Once the nukes start exploding, there will be global panic and it's likely other countries will join the fireworks.

However it's a start and should be supported.  

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, oilinki said:

It's a big difference, but it's still MAD for the globe.

 

Few hundreds nuclear detonations in cities can trigger nuclear winter. There would still be 2000+ warheads globally. Once the nukes start exploding, there will be global panic and it's likely other countries will join the fireworks.

However it's a start and should be supported.  

Agreed

 

So support none-proliferation

 

AND push the USA and Russia to scale back

 

You don't mind nuking North Korea's facilities as an example to the others? 10kT would do...

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Agreed

 

So support none-proliferation

 

AND push the USA and Russia to scale back

 

You don't mind nuking North Korea's facilities as an example to the others? 10kT would do...

I still stand by what I have said before. Once we hear the news of one nuclear explosion against another country, we have 2 years to live.

 

Once the Pandora's box has been opened, there is no way back. Nuclear powers know this.

[juice777]

I've been dead against Nukes my whole life ever since I caught a bit of this on TV as a kid. I watched the whole thing a few years ago and find it more scary then any Horror movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[juice777]

This was Trumps tweet on nukes

"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"

Why would a world leader even say that. Even if they don't china and Russia are more likely to do it now. So it looks like if anything we are more likely to get more nukes Instead of less.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[stevenl]

I agree, non proliferation should be supported, but these talks seem to be past their sell by date. The countries that want to get nuclear will do so anyway, look at Pakistan and North Korea in the (relatively) recent past, and more talks about the same topic we already have a treaty about?

[sanukjim]

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

Would that be max 64 warheads for each county? If so, it would be a great start and would greatly reduce the risk of global destruction due nuclear winter.

 

Well, in case of nuclear war with that limited amount of warheads, maybe 50-90% of the global population would die, but the human race would still survive to restart a better world. 

Then the US would have to remove about 7,000 Nuclear weapons along with 70,000 warheads.and The UK 215 Nuclear weapons with multiple warheads  No Thank You

[Guest]

3 hours ago, juice777 said:

I've been dead against Nukes my whole life ever since I caught a bit of this on TV as a kid. I watched the whole thing a few years ago and find it more scary then any Horror movie.

That movie tells just the start of the horrors, which nuclear war starts. It's tiny portion of the suffering.

 

The real horror starts when people, around the world, start dying of hunger.

 

There is no working infrastructure, no hospitals, no medicine and the food chain collapses as flora can't handle dropped temperatures and lack of sunlight. There is nothing to eat.  

 

Remember Summer without summer or Little Ice-age? This was due one volcano exploded in Indonesia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

 

[juice777]

That movie tells just the start of the horrors, which nuclear war starts. It's tiny portion of the suffering.
 
The real horror starts when people, around the world, start dying of hunger.
 
There is no working infrastructure, no hospitals, no medicine and the food chain collapses as flora can't handle dropped temperatures and lack of sunlight. There is nothing to eat.  
 
Remember Summer without summer or Little Ice-age? This was due one volcano exploded in Indonesia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

 

The movie dose deal with some of that in the last 15 mins I think. It goes right up to 20 years later where UK and probably the rest of the world and been thrown back Into the dark ages, And they are trying to rebuild. It truly looks Bleak and I can't help to think that the ones who die in the blast are the lucky ones.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, sanukjim said:

Then the US would have to remove about 7,000 Nuclear weapons along with 70,000 warheads.and The UK 215 Nuclear weapons with multiple warheads  No Thank You

I may be wrong but I understand that a single UK ballistic missile submarine can handle 16 missiles, each with 4 MIRVs. So we should have at least 256 warheads at any one time. We've been producing these at AWRE Aldermaston since the last war. The UK kit WILL work and the UK WILL use them if necessary. Be in no doubt about that. 

[Thorgal]

I don't think any of these big countries have adopted a resolution like this.  They have adopted the NPT.  Which is being broken by a number of countries.  India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories.  North Korea withdrew years ago.  Russia is now said they won't abide by the NPT any more.  Iran is probably violating the treaty as is Syria.
 
So if this one can't be adhered to, how can you go the next step?

Only countries that never ratified NPT are India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan.

Not clear why a violation is probably, as Iran and Syria never had nuclear warheads.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[boomerangutang]

Here's how it could be done:  

 

               Try and get as many countries as possible to sign on to complete elimination.  Yes, I know that's pollyannaish, but it's an important starting point.    Each country that signs up will therefore be part of a coalition against those who refuse to sign.   Then, each year, the signatories destroy half of their nuke arsenal.  After several years, at an agreed-upon occasion, remaining nukes are destroyed.   Any hold-outs, like N.Korea, will be heavily sanctioned.  Similar for any countries, like Iran, who clandestinely or openly try to build up a nuke arsenal.

 

               The world did it on mustard gas.  It's doing a somewhat good job with land mines, it can do it with nukes - toward a goal of making nukes a pariah, like mustard gas (or killing prisoners of war) has been viewed for decades by nearly all countries.

 

MAD (mutually assured destruction) was an interesting but flawed concept.  MAD could have been instated in the early 20th century when iron bombs ruled: with the same logic:  TNT is so damaging that no country should/will ever use it.  Of course, that seems ludicrous to us now.   But to me, MAD is of no use, because it only takes one nutcase like Trump or Putin or whomever to push the buttons.   Trump has proven he's stupid and crazy depending on the phase of the moon.  I wouldn't trust Trump to control himself any more than the non-stop barking dog at the end of my street.    

 

MAD controls what despots can or cannot do, as much as a man telling his jealousy-crazed wife not to be upset by him having a mistress, because he tells the wife "the mistress is not a good cook."   The human mind is a fickle thing which can change on a dime.  Trump is a prime example of that.

[Dumbastheycome]

The  non proliferation  scenario is  a scam. Back in the days  of well announced reductions in  numbers of  weapons by each of the signatory  countries it was  never made publicly  clear that those were  old low capacity weapons. The reduction  number was insignificant in comparison to the  destructive capacity, range and  accuracy of  retained modern weapons. To this day it  is  sure that  despite officially adhering  to total number the  capacity has incrementally increased. 

The  arguement  made by NATO members of a deterrent justification fails  when faced  by the possibility that a  rogue nation or  individual triggers a  nuclear retaliation. In that  scenario  it is  very likely  we  are  all  f..Ked ! 

[boomerangutang]

17 hours ago, oilinki said:

Would that be max 64 warheads for each county? If so, it would be a great start and would greatly reduce the risk of global destruction due nuclear winter.

Well, in case of nuclear war with that limited amount of warheads, maybe 50-90% of the global population would die, but the human race would still survive to restart a better world. 

                         Perhaps now's a good time to try to develop radiation resistant food crops.  I hear wheat-grass juice is helpful in strengthening the body against radiation.   There are people surviving in HK living in little boxes among millions of other little boxes with toxic chemicals everywhere, so I guess yea, some people will survive armageddon. Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, there were people walking around the death zone the day after.  Of course, today's H-bombs are exponentially more powerful.   There's also downwind considerations.  For example, Japan is downwind from most of China's coastal cities.    

 

                      Saying 64 or however many warheads is ok for certain countries is still sicko.  It's like saying 64 giant firecrackers are ok for a day care center with 100 kids.  Just hope the caregivers aren't too loose with lighting and flicking matches.  Speaking of flicking matches at fireworks, the US now has a mentally deranged man who can launch nukes as easily as he tweets vindictive lies at 6 am.

 

17 hours ago, Grouse said:

Agreed. So support none-proliferation AND push the USA and Russia to scale back. You don't mind nuking North Korea's facilities as an example to the others? 10kT would do...

               Much of N.Korea's leaders calories go into hiding things.  Nuking N.Korea wouldn't accomplish much more than throwing a baseball at a hornet's nest.  In some ways, they relish an excuse to go batshit crazy on the rest of the world.  Nuking N.Korea would be about as effective as carpet bombing the Ho Chi Min Trail  How well did that work?  .....or pouring vinegar in the coffee pot in order to get you to forever stop drinking coffee.   

 

                The countries which voted to completely ban all nuclear weapons are the only sane players at this game.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Only countries that never ratified NPT are India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan.

Not clear why a violation is probably, as Iran and Syria never had nuclear warheads.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

the NPT is not just about warheads.  It's also about preventing proliferation.  Like sharing of technology, non peaceful uses of nuclear technology, etc.

[hawker9000]

Too many agenda-driven wingnuts simplemindedly using this topic as just another excuse to pile on Trump. The problem is obviously NOT his proximity to the button, which is no more or less than any of his predecessors. The problem is the rogue nations whose rationality actually IS in serious question.

 

Keep whining and moaning about NOV 8 instead of addressing the real risk, and you're going to get a REAL lesson in sociopathology.