International Treaty banning Nuclear Weapons comes into effect today

[Scarlett.]

An international treaty banning all nuclear weapons that has been signed by 51 countries and that campaigners hope will help raise the profile of global deterrence efforts comes into force on Friday.

Although in some respects the step is largely symbolic because the world’s nuclear powers have not signed up, the treaty will be legally binding on the smaller nations that have endorsed it, and it is backed by the UN leadership.

The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW) outlaws the creation, ownership and deployment of nuclear weapons by signatory states and places obligations on them to assist other victims of nuclear weapons use and testing.

Britain’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has released polling saying that 59% of the UK public support the country signing up to the TPNW and that 77% support a “total ban on all nuclear weapons globally”.

Kate Hudson, CND’s general secretary, called on the UK government “to cease its intransigence and engage constructively with the new treaty”, arguing that the polling showed this position would command popular support.

But there is no prospect of the world’s leading nuclear powers endorsing it. Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of Nato, said in November the treaty disregarded the realities of global security.

“Giving up our deterrent without any guarantees that others will do the same is a dangerous option,” he said. “A world where Russia, China, North Korea and others have nuclear weapons, but Nato does not, is not a safer world.”

Recent years have seen a gradual erosion of global nuclear controls, with the 1987 intermediate nuclear forces (INF) treaty, which kept nuclear missiles off European soil, allowed to expire in 2019 amid mutual recriminations from Russia and the US.

The new strategic arms reduction treaty between the US and Russia, which limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers, is due to expire on 5 February – although Nato is calling on both sides to extend it following this week’s inauguration of Joe Biden as American president.

The TPNW emerged following the creation of a UN working group in 2016. It was supported by 123 countries, with 38 voting against. The US, UK, France and Russia were all opposed, as was Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. China, India and Pakistan abstained.

Countries that have ratified the agreement include Nigeria, Malaysia, Ireland, Malta, Thailand, Mexico, South Africa, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Vietnam and the Vatican City – although last autumn the US made a last-ditch lobbying attempt to try to convince countries to rescind their signatures.

That effort failed, and in October Honduras became the 50th country to sign the document, which meant that it would gain legal force after a 90-day period.

Rebecca Johnson, a veteran disarmament campaigner and a leading figure behind the development of the treaty, said: “This is an example of UN multilateralism in action. Britain needs to be at the table, taking the next steps towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons.”

The Foreign Office said the UK was “committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons”. A spokesperson added: “We firmly believe the best way to achieve this is through gradual multilateral disarmament.”

The Guardian

[Oliver_W]

Although in some respects the step is largely symbolic because the world’s nuclear powers have not signed up, the treaty will be legally binding on the smaller nations that have endorsed it, and it is backed by the UN leadership.

"Rules for thee..."

[arista]

Yes a Treaty.

But a Nuke in a Van
is still possible in a World City.

No Warning
No Trace.

[UserSince2005]

Living in Zone 1 of London it is actually a worry, I would definitely be in the death zone.

Visiting Hiroshima last year was a somber experience, the Japanese do understand it was for the good of the world, but the museum at the far end of the peace park was very horrific.

[Toy Soldier]

I read the whole thing and in my head all I can see is a bunch of people in suits trying desperately to stuff a load of screaming, thrashing cats back into a burlap sack.

I wish nuclear weapons weren't a thing. I wish they had never been discovered, or simply were a scientific impossibility. But they were discovered, they do exist, in multiple nations, and that can never be undone... It's so hopelessly naive to think that countries like China and Russia wouldnt simply "play along" with disarming and then say "lol we didn't really!" when the thread of M.A.D is nullified. But then, let's face it, the US would likely do the same so it would all be a complete charade.

The Nuclear Threat will end (assuming not in war... Haha...) when anti-Nuclear/anti-ICBM technology neutralises the threat and makes them more difficult to deploy than is worth it. The sort of global cooperation that would be needed to disarm just doesn't exist, and if it did exist, you wouldn't need to disarm, because there would be no threat of war anyway.

[Scarlett.]

The interesting thing is, the existence of mutually assured destruction has lead to a more peaceful world overall, it's been 80ish years since we had a large scale war, the fear is, if disarmament happens, would we see a return of wars like those?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Scarlett.

The interesting thing is, the existence of mutually assured destruction has lead to a more peaceful world overall, it's been 80ish years since we had a large scale war, the fear is, if disarmament happens, would we see a return of wars like those?

I don't know about full-scale military mobilisations but I think there would definitely be more escalations/skirmishes in the Pacific. From what I've read, full-scale military invasions between the larger militaries are theoretically impossible at this point, the armies are so large that you could only maintain a supply chain for a couple of months and barely get a foothold before you would have to withdraw... you couldn't keep the forces stocked and fed.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know about full-scale military mobilisations but I think there would definitely be more escalations/skirmishes in the Pacific. From what I've read, full-scale military invasions between the larger militaries are theoretically impossible at this point, the armies are so large that you could only maintain a supply chain for a couple of months and barely get a foothold before you would have to withdraw... you couldn't keep the forces stocked and fed.

Hmm, I guess the amount of peace time has allowed for militaries to grow immensely strong by this point.

[bitontheslide]

nukes will be around until something more devastating comes along to replace them

[Vicky.]

I wish I had faith in stuff like this. But its so easy to just..well continue with your nuke program or whatever but under the radar. **** knows what level some countries are actually at with this stuff? Might be more to it than that, but it scares the **** out of me and I don't think we should have ever gone down this road tbh, though that can't really be changed now .

[Novo]

Originally Posted by UserSince2005

Living in Zone 1 of London it is actually a worry, I would definitely be in the death zone.

Visiting Hiroshima last year was a somber experience, the Japanese do understand it was for the good of the world, but the museum at the far end of the peace park was very horrific.

the vast majority of Japanese think it was unjustified

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Novo

the vast majority of Japanese think it was unjustified

From what I understand, a lot of what Japan did in WWII is either denied or hidden from the public's view, IIRC they still haven't ever issued any kind of apology to China for the horrific war crimes commited there.

[Novo]

Originally Posted by Scarlett.

From what I understand, a lot of what Japan did in WWII is either denied or hidden from the public's view, IIRC they still haven't ever issued any kind of apology to China for the horrific war crimes commited there.

could say the same about America with things like The Rheinwiesenlager or Britain with Dresden

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Novo

could say the same about America with things like Rheinwiesenlager

Very true, also the Tulsa 'Black Wall Street' massacre, which happened just under 100 years ago

[Novo]

Originally Posted by Scarlett.

Very true, also the Tulsa 'Black Wall Street' massacre, which happened just under 100 years ago

i think when something has large scale as that happens in your own country with the horrific effects for years after the WWII its very hard not to hold some kind of grudge

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Novo

i think when something has large scale as that happens in your own country with the horrific effects for years after the WWII its very hard not to hold some kind of grudge

Indeed, while the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were vital to ending the horrific conflict, they levelled two cities completely, and survivors suffered from radiation fallout. Honestly, it's surprising the Japan-America relationship is so strong today considering exactly what America did.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Scarlett.

Indeed, while the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were vital to ending the horrific conflict, they levelled two cities completely, and survivors suffered from radiation fallout. Honestly, it's surprising the Japan-America relationship is so strong today considering exactly what America did.

I don't think they actually were vital. I think demonstrating the a-bomb on an unpopulated area, or a military target - saying "we have these - we will use them" would most likely have been enough. I understand, to an extent, that they didn't want to take any chances and wanted the element of surprise and to PROVE that they would use them, but I think there's plenty of room for doubt over the necessity of using them on civilian targets. I don't think it entirely checks out, morally.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Scarlett.

Indeed, while the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were vital to ending the horrific conflict, they levelled two cities completely, and survivors suffered from radiation fallout. Honestly, it's surprising the Japan-America relationship is so strong today considering exactly what America did.

When people sympathise with Japan over this, it shows that you need more information. Find out about how they treated prisoners of war, how they murdered women and children with bayonets and shovels... They were monsters turned victims.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think they actually were vital. I think demonstrating the a-bomb on an unpopulated area, or a military target - saying "we have these - we will use them" would most likely have been enough. I understand, to an extent, that they didn't want to take any chances and wanted the element of surprise and to PROVE that they would use them, but I think there's plenty of room for doubt over the necessity of using them on civilian targets. I don't think it entirely checks out, morally.

Japan were going full steam ahead and showed no signs of stopping, even after Hiroshima, they were intent that they would not surrender. I don't think the bombs were morally right though, I just can understand why they were dropped.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Livia

When people sympathise with Japan over this, it shows that you need more information. Find out about how they treated prisoners of war, how they murdered women and children with bayonets and shovels... They were monsters turned victims.

I wasn't sympathising with the soldiers who commited those atrocities, but the people who lived in those cities in Japan, who had nothing to do with Nanking.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Scarlett.

I wasn't sympathising with the soldiers who commited those atrocities, but the people who lived in those cities in Japan, who had nothing to do with Nanking.

Like British people bombed by the Germans. Like German people bombed by the Brits. Japan chose to go to war and they celebrated their own brutality. The H bombs ended the war, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved as a consequence.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

When people sympathise with Japan over this, it shows that you need more information. Find out about how they treated prisoners of war, how they murdered women and children with bayonets and shovels... They were monsters turned victims.

The actions of those in power and the military are not the actions of the civilians though, especially as Japan wasn't even a democracy pre-WW2. The people in those cities had literally no say at all in the actions of the country... which is why I said they should have used the bombs on military targets to demonstrate the firepower they had under their belt.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Like British people bombed by the Germans. Like German people bombed by the Brits. Japan chose to go to war and they celebrated their own brutality. The H bombs ended the war, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved as a consequence.

Indeed, but it's not black and white and I will never celebrate the loss of life, no matter who they are, civilians are barely involved in the acts of war, yet are the ones who face the consequences of the crimes that their militaries commit. The bombs were necessary, but, they were also horrific, as was the fallout effect from the radiation.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Like British people bombed by the Germans. Like German people bombed by the Brits. Japan chose to go to war and they celebrated their own brutality. The H bombs ended the war, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved as a consequence.

I also wouldn't say that it's any worse than the non-nuclear bombing raids in Europe on cities, morally speaking, but there's a reason we don't deliberately target civilians any more, and it would be considered a war crime. It fit the historical context of how WW2 was fought, yes, but that has no bearing on the morals of it... German bombing raids on British cities and vice versa were also immoral, which is why it's now not a part of expected military conduct. If British troops went into one of the various Middle Eastern warzones in the last 30 years and just started lobbing explosives into civilian houses, there would be international outrage, and rightly so. Collateral damage unfortunately still happens, but it's in areas surrounding verified tactical targets, factories, etc.

Modern militaries haven't DELIBERATELY targetted civilian populations since WW2 and that's for good reason.

[Vicky.]

I completely get where Livia is coming from, however, blaming the general population for the actions of those who have power..is not a good road to take IMO. Yes, atrocities were committed, but the general public, were not responsible for that. Punish those who were actually responsible if you must. Though even that has its issues, as the soldiers and such are not 'fully' responsible for the things they do, they HAVE to do it in some cases :/

I also sympathise (and maybe even agree) with the 'kill 100k now, save 200m longer term' (numbers are off but generally speaking) train of thought, though morally, its a bit of a sticky situation really.