It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

UN approves nuclear disarmament resolution

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

UN approves nuclear disarmament resolution


www.cbc.ca

The United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution Thursday calling on states with nuclear weapons to rid themselves of their deadly stockpiles.

"The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said.

The draft resolution, which received approval from Russia and China, called for renewed efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, and pro
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
in.reuters.com




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

The resolution includes measures for reducing the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, adopting a treaty to ban all nuclear tests, and the establishment of an international fuel bank to better safeguard nuclear material.


Keyword is reducing!
lol


These states, not named in the resolution, are Pakistan and India, which have not signed the NPT but are known to have atomic arsenals, and Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having nuclear arms but is believed to have a sizable stockpile of warheads.
in.reuters.com...

haha
This should be interesting!
Who will go first?
Pakistan or India?


All five permanent Security Council members -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- have atom bombs.
in.reuters.com...


So that's interesting as well

The council who's members are the world's greatest stockpilers and arms dealers/buyers are pushing the disarmament resolution.

And all it took was a strong orator to just bring it up, and boom, everyone agrees?

Ya... i'm not too sure of that!

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Time to refresh the aresenal.

Ever wonder where the retired weapons go?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Obama presides over the security council in the first time a US president has presided over it and manages to get them to agree on nuclear disarmament.

I think that part of the story needs to be emphasized more.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


That's the thing though isn't it?

Who will be bold enough to take the first step?

Anyway it will probably just be a few cuts in the number of weapons, which will basically change nothing, yet they'll all congratulate each other and pat each other on the back.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
So what happens when countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel refuse to give their weapons? Does anything real happen, or do those 5 countries just keep turning a blind eye to it all?

Is this possibly a new roadblock to Iran? They put this in and since, I guess, Iran is the next country to cross the nuclear finish line, they get the heavy handed smackdown, while the rest of the countries already across the line get to look disapprovingly at them while shining up their fancy nuclear arsenal. All this pictured in my head while Israel goes "neener, neener, neener"



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
This is definitely a move to block Iran, nothing more. The resolution does not address nations that are nuclear, there is no mention of the US or any other country disabling what they already possess, other than some lofty language of "wouldn't it be nice", it only says that countries that want to develop the technology need to be stopped.

edit to add: Has anyone seen the commercials that have been running on CNN (not sure of other channels) from www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com... I find this interesting.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by searching4truth]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 

I wouldn't say it is a move to "block" Iran, but your on the right track. I would agree with any reduction of nukes, but I think this is just another piece of the chess board that Obama is setting up to get Russia on board to apply more pressure on Iran. First the defense missile shield, now a resolution to reduce the nukes, which cost a fortune to maintain BTW.

At first glance it may look like Obama is trying to weaken the country, but maybe... just maybe, he is crazy like a fox. You have to admit that this approach to get Iran to stop pursuing nukes is one that hasn't been tried yet.

Here's another supporting article from CNN.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
One must remember that the quantities we have far exceed the ability to use in any situation, at least in my opinion.

It only took a total of two nukes to end WWII in the Pacific theater. The larger of the two nukes, fat man, was estimated to be a yield of 15 kilotons.

As of 2002 the US was estimated to have 10,640 nuclear weapons in its stockpile, while USSR had approximately 8,660. [source] According to wikipedia (yeah I know I know) it is currently estimated that the US arsenal has been reduced to the order of just over 4,000. The current Russia stockpile is unknown (Well, I couldn't find it at least).

The current yield of a modern day nuke is anywhere from a few kilotons, to the higher range of upwards of 500 kilotons. Comparing 500 kilotons to 15 kilotons as fat man was, and well, you get the picture. A 500 kiloton explosion would destroy small buildings outward at almost 30 miles. Cause the shattering of glass and windows at upwards of 50 miles. (assuming 0.1 psi to shatter glass)

The fact that the U.S. and Russia have decided to do away with "some" of these stockpiles does not in any way hinder our ability for M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). A handful of properly placed 500 kiloton nukes can be just as effective as 10,000 scattered nukes.

I for one agree that this is simply a move to further blockade Iran (and other such countries) from proliferation. After listening to the Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN, can you really blame Russia for accepting this move? Even Russia is getting tired of Ahmadinejad.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by xmaddness]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Time to refresh the aresenal.

Ever wonder where the retired weapons go?


Oh damn, the rabbit hole goes too deep for my brain to handle!!

Good theory there, they obviously wouldn't mention that part, but it makes perfect sense, and when they start aging they are probably alot less stable or reliable, and frankly, frightening. Breaking them down safely somehow and using the material to build new ones would be just clever enough for them to do it. I'd buy that.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
S&F OP!



I am going to avoid any sense of political siding in my post and just focus on implications this has for everyday people!

Can you imagine a world without any nuclear threat? Sure, its a far off reality from where we currently live but it would be amazing to have it someday.

No more rhetoric of nuclear threat and no more people actually continuing their governments fear mongering about attack because the Trump Card would be taken out.

Would be nice...


-Sliadon



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliadon
 


The problem is that this world will never occur. I don't know if you have done research, but it is incredibly simple to build a nuclear weapon. Just because the major world powers disarm and try to prevent proliferation does not mean that there will be no nukes in the world. All you need to do is get your hands on some nuclear materiel and you can build a simple, WWII type yield nuclear device. The world powers cannot and should not be everywhere, and where they are not people can scrape together the resources to build a nuke or two.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by C09JayLT
 


I will not be so ignorant as to debate you on that. It is a little more difficult to make a weapon than you imply, however, point made about the severity of the situation and
"relative" ease to make one.

I know that such a utopian dream is a far way off, I was simply imagining the possibility of such a world.


-Sliadon



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Speaking as an American, I've never worried about the countries discussing disarmament possessing nukes. Even Russia. The promise of mutually assured destruction has been easily the most effective prevention of nukes ever being used in war... UNTIL religious zealots and nuts who believe death is a glory to God as long as you take enough people from the other side out with you entered the picture. So I see any steps towards nonproliferation and disarmament that don't start with and focus mainly on countries like Pakistan, Iran, India, etc to be nothing more than liberal propoaganda and nonsense.

I also would say that the "big boys" pushing for true disarmament is a scary indication of a change in focus as far as issues like war are concerned. The "goal" of war is to win, you win by defeating your enemy. I don't "get" modern war strategy that seemingly places more importance on paper victories and limited casualities. (I realize that in the eyes of quite a few on here that has made me a warmonger, but so what?) I was always more comforted by the knowledge that, if my nation was ever attacked and close to real defeat on American soil, the Earth would glow. There is no religious nonsense behind my saying that. I'm not taking the angle of "the blood of my enemies will please my God." I'm merely acknowledging that I still prescribe to one of the basest attitudes of humanity, that being that if I go out I want to know that as many of my enemies as possible take the dirt nap with me. The US having a strong nuclear arsenal at one time assured that.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Ever wonder where the retired weapons go?


They are either recycled into new weapons or used for fueling the Navy ships or if they are scheduled to be reduced, are turned from Megatons to Megawatts.

What else do you think happens to them?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


I believe he was alluding to a scenario like missing briefcase nukes from the fall of the USSR or maybe governments willfully misrepresenting their nuclear stockpile. Either are possible, but I don't know how probable they are.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliadon
 


I was meaning build in mostly a literal sense. That is really easy. Gun Type Nuclear Device The hard part, and thus why nukes are not found everywhere, is getting enough nuclear materiel (uranium or plutonium).




With regard to the risk of proliferation and use by terrorists, the relatively simple design is a concern, as it does not require as much fine engineering or manufacturing as other methods. With enough highly-enriched uranium (not itself an easy thing to acquire), nations or groups with relatively low levels of technological sophistication could create an inefficient—though still quite powerful—gun-type nuclear weapon.


I would love to see a world without nukes, but with the growth of technology I am afraid that it would be replaced by something else. If we could just get everyone to agree to one rule: you can do whatever you like provided that you do not interfere with another's right to do whatever they like. *sigh* That would be great.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   


Great imitative/goal but surely doomed to fail. The UN is a bunch of resolution passing, free loading wannabes, and non enforcing body that one will ever see. All bark and no bite. Warnings after warnings with no backbone to back up what they pass.


Just leaves me in awe that so many world leaders still feel that the UN has an important role to play in the world.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

Thank you for you're peachy outlook on the future of mankind. Obviously we have no hope of ever become a responsible species and should never restrain ourselves from reducing our capacity to kill ourselves, and like any good college party, we should just drink untill we puke.

Please tell me, that we have a brighter future than that?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Pretty clever stuff. Everybody reduces their stockpiles, soon enough, the poor countries with smaller stockpiles have no nukes at all, and we'll still have hundreds left.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join