It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Historic UN Vote On Banning Nuclear Weapons

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:07 PM
I don't know, It would seem whilst North Korea has nukes there the most likely candidate to get nuked and nobody would really care about. Also judging by what propaganda I have heard from the MSM their the most likely to sign up for a no nuke treaty but keep a few in the basement for use later.

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:52 PM
a reply to: KungfuStu

Wont happen in any effective way. All it takes is one rogue nation who hates the rest of the world to abstain from the resolution-ban....and BOOM...

And I dont think it will ever be a worldwide respected and adhered to abolishment.

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:09 PM
Why are we still in the United Nations?
I say throw them out of the building and turn it into a homeless shelter.
Nothing but a waste of money from day one.

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 10:53 PM

originally posted by: KungfuStu
History was made at the United Nations today. For the first time in its 71 years, the global body voted to begin negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.


Whilst I would love to live in a world which has reach a level of peace and stability that weapons of mass destruction were relics of the past that could be disposed of. But prior to the invention of the nuclear bomb the world witnessed two world wars which caused the deaths of millions of people. Since their invention the world has had 70 odd years of relative peace. Sure wars rage constantly with proxy war after proxy war but we have not seen a all in slugfest between super powers.


Personally I like the idea of banning nuclear weapons but I don't think as a species we are not there yet. The removal of MAD and considering our history it is possible that super powers would be more willing to enter into a war on a global scale. With weapon technology where it is, the death and destruction of a war of this scale is almost unimaginable.

In short don't ban the bomb as it is possibly the only thing keeping us from murdering each other.

What do you think?

You cannot put the Genii back in the bottle as you say....

However, I do disagree with your reasoning that "nuclear weapons" have and do save lives. Such was the reasoning the US goverment has used to justify using Little Boy and Fat Man on the 'ready to surrender' Japanese.

While I don't doubt your statistics regarding deaths due to 'conventional war', I would ask you consider these two points in your talley of 'collaterial damage':

!) Conventional War no longer exists and more importantly
2) The number of people, military and civilian, killed directly or indirectly, by the mining, refining, production, transportation, pollution and crime attributable to the Nuclear industry.

The technology and know-how will always be there if there is ever a 'universal need'.

Big industry, really of any kind, is not conducive to continued life on this planet.

Thank you for the topic.

posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 12:06 PM
There's no such vote and no such ban. Until now, there's just IAEA which is an imperialist tools that attempts to enforce nuclear weapon bans from countries in which NATO does not want nukes. Since NATO is the EU, then 3rd world countries joining the nuclear weapon race is the logical conclusion.
edit on 11-4-2017 by Flanker86 because: c

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in