Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

This doesn't really fit in any of the regional politics thread, but I found it interesting. A UN conference just finished on the seventh, where most of the world apart from all nuclear powers and NATO countries (The Netherlands was the one NATO country to participate but voted no to the final draft) voted a treaty to ban all nuclear weapons, including the creation of a body to check it. The treaty can now be sent for signature and ratification.

Interestingly, Iran voted yes.

[Antioch]

It is an extremely naive and bad idea.

What is going to stop one country from manufacturing nukes anyway and holding the world hostage?

[Draignean]

It is an extremely naive and bad idea.

What is going to stop one country from manufacturing nukes anyway and holding the world hostage?

The Avengers, clearly.

[Sheb]

It is an extremely naive and bad idea.

What is going to stop one country from manufacturing nukes anyway and holding the world hostage?

Well, they're supposed to set up a body of inspectors to check for that.

[smjjames]

Iran joined in? Interesting.

It is an extremely naive and bad idea.

What is going to stop one country from manufacturing nukes anyway and holding the world hostage?

That's the position of the nuclear powers and NATO I believe, that you have to somehow make sure that nobody decides to make nukes anyway and have it be enforceable with razor AND needle sharp teeth.

It's also kind of the problem with the last stage of nuclear disarmament, you have to really, REALLY, trust the other side to dismantle the very last nukes because, well, you don't want to end up removing yours and have the other side cheat or change their mind at the last second.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for nuclear disarmament, there's just logistical and enforcement problems that have to be solved first.

It may seem naive and the nuclear powers definetly have a point, especially regarding NK, but the idea itself is a good one, and gotta start somewhere. They haven't gotten to figuring out how to enforce it yet and that's the next step. The hard part is making sure the enforcement actually has teeth.

Anyways, I wonder what NK actually would think of that? They'd proabably have the US make some concessions first. Then again, it'd completely disrupt their sole means of regieme survival.

[Sheb]

NK didn't participate, same as the other nuclear powers.

I guess one possibility would be to turn the last nukes to a neutral body, that could give them back should someone cheat.

[Sheb]

Well, for that we'd have to pick someone outside of the UN. Our options are the Holy See and Palestine. The latter doesn't really make for a neutral party, so... We'd give all the world's nukes to the Pope.

Why outside the UN? (Also, interestingly, Palestine voted Y for the treaty. I didn't know they were allowed in the room).

[smjjames]

NK didn't participate, same as the other nuclear powers.

I guess one possibility would be to turn the last nukes to a neutral body, that could give them back should someone cheat.

NK doesn't have representation in the UN, so of course they didn't vote yes.

And who would that neutral body be that EVERYBODY could agree on? Switzerland? They claim to be neutral, but they aren't THAT neutral. Iceland? Canada? Dr. Doom? (lol)

Well, for that we'd have to pick someone outside of the UN. Our options are the Holy See and Palestine. The latter doesn't really make for a neutral party, so... We'd give all the world's nukes to the Pope.

I don't think The Vatican is big enough to house even one nuke, and where would you put it? I could see it being a problem with other religions too. Besides, they aren't 'outside' the UN, they have representation within the UN.

[Draignean]

NK didn't participate, same as the other nuclear powers.

I guess one possibility would be to turn the last nukes to a neutral body, that could give them back should someone cheat.

Ah, but who will neutral the neutrals?

More seriously, I'm with smjjames. I'd love to see a world without nuclear weapons, I also think that every nuclear nations might 'forget' to hand over the last four or five of their nukes. Just in case.  I'm not really sure how enforcement of that would even work...

Inspector: "We've discovered you've failed to comply to the disarmament policies. You WILL turn over your remaining weapons or be forced to comply."
Crazy Nuclear Nation: "Yeah, and how are ya' going to manage that one?"
Inspector: "We will not hesitate to bring the necessary force to bear. We have the latest in infantry, tanks, strike bombers, aircraft carri-"
Crazy Nuclear Nation: "I have nukes."
Inspector: "... Right. Uh. Shit.  I don't suppose you'd be kind enough to give us a gentleman's agreement not to use those?"

Well, for that we'd have to pick someone outside of the UN. Our options are the Holy See and Palestine. The latter doesn't really make for a neutral party, so... We'd give all the world's nukes to the Pope.

As long as it isn't zombie Ghandi, we'll be fine.

[Madman198237]

So, someone clarify this for me.

Every power who doesn't have nukes and that isn't in NATO voted to disarm the nuclear powers? Even though the nuclear powers weren't part of this?

[smjjames]

So, someone clarify this for me.

Every power who doesn't have nukes and that isn't in NATO voted to disarm the nuclear powers? Even though the nuclear powers weren't part of this?

That about sums it up. It's also others who are neighbors of nuclear powers or some allies of nuclear powers who didn't vote yes. I notice Japan and South Korea didn't vote yes, most likely because of the NK issue. Most of Europe didn't vote either.

[MrRoboto75]

Just have superman toss the nukes into the sun

[Antioch]

It is an extremely naive and bad idea.

What is going to stop one country from manufacturing nukes anyway and holding the world hostage?

Well, they're supposed to set up a body of inspectors to check for that.

It takes less than a year for a country with a nuclear infrastructure to build a nuclear bomb.

The idea that you can detect that in time using inspectors is just as naive as the rest of the idea.

[TempAcc]

A world without nuclear weapons would be A++ to me as well, but thats an utopia. No way in hell that will ever happen before something far more powerful makes them completely obsolete.

Also this is prob the most limp wristed conference since ever. They might as well just make an online petition and get the same effect.

Also, there's no body of inspectors in the whole world that is able to truly monitor a state doing secret nuclear weapon production. Its just not something anyone in the world can fully track and control.

[Sheb]

NK didn't participate, same as the other nuclear powers.

I guess one possibility would be to turn the last nukes to a neutral body, that could give them back should someone cheat.

NK doesn't have representation in the UN, so of course they didn't vote yes.

And who would that neutral body be that EVERYBODY could agree on? Switzerland? They claim to be neutral, but they aren't THAT neutral. Iceland? Canada? Dr. Doom? (lol)

Well, for that we'd have to pick someone outside of the UN. Our options are the Holy See and Palestine. The latter doesn't really make for a neutral party, so... We'd give all the world's nukes to the Pope.

I don't think The Vatican is big enough to house even one nuke, and where would you put it? I could see it being a problem with other religions too. Besides, they aren't 'outside' the UN, they have representation within the UN.

What ? Of course they have representation. They just didn't attend that conference, same as US, NATO countries, Russia etc etc.