The Historic UN Vote On Banning Nuclear Weapons

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.

Eight nations with nuclear arms (the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, and Israel) opposed or abstained from the resolution, while North Korea voted yes. However, with a vote of 123 for, 38 against and 16 abstaining, the First Assembly decided “to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”

Huffington post

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.

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was more than 38 million: there were over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. The total number of deaths includes about 11 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians.

WW2 Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.

The two world wars which were twenty years apart and with the escalation of casualty rates probably due to advancements of weaponry and technology it seems possible, without the implementation of the concept of mutually assured destruction and the invention of the nuclear bomb the cycle of the world going to war would have continued.

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?

This popped into my head...

So all the nations with a workable nukes said no...

Lulz.


Good luck with that UN.

originally posted by: KungfuStu
the First Assembly decided “to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”

The catch is that the UN has no power to make anything legally binding unless the countries in question sign up to the treaty.
If they don't sign, they are not bound.
Gesture politics.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Yea, and a few having veto power.

While I would love a world without nukes, even if passed, do we trust no one would hold onto a few secret ones.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yup... but they have to do something to keep the money and influence flowing in...

Otherwise folks might start going why do we need them..

Well there is that, The UN has no real power to implement a ban if the nations with nukes tell them to go jump.

The nuclear balance of terror which precludes any real victory...

Why all the rhetoric towards Russia, do you think?

Putin has been turned from a sympathiser in the fight against Terrorism, to an opposer of it, and interfering within a civil war. I remember his cosy visits to Downing Street, in addition to Assad visiting Blair.

This is a Bilderberg plan, set in place 10 years ago, no way of proving it of course because it's super secretive. But, if they're not willing to share, we are at liberty to assume.

Just another example of the Have Nots telling the Haves what to do with their stuff. It's easy to say "No" if you don't have anything to begin with.

a reply to: schuyler

Or maybe they are afraid of really having nothing should Russia and the US live up to the current rhetoric.

I do find funny that North Korea voted yes, I thought that they were supposed to be the bad guys?

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: KungfuStu
the First Assembly decided “to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”

The catch is that the UN has no power to make anything legally binding unless the countries in question sign up to the treaty.
If they don't sign, they are not bound.
Gesture politics.

Right, its more of a opt in policy.

They could however set up a...something. I dont know, trade deal among nuclear free countries and the only way to join in this exclusive club that offers some measurable positive thing (..who knows...maybe extended visas for citizens or free 6 inch at subways..something) is to become nuclear free.

I think we would be okay as a nuke free world. now more than ever it will be important as upstart crazy states will soon have capabilities of building and/or buying nukes with little concern about MAD.

nuclear weapons have likely prevented another World War.

Industrialized war of that magnitude will likely not happen again.

I believe that only thing that has prevented a third world war is nuclear weapons.
remove nuclear weapons and every country will feel that there is a lot less risk in invading a neighbor.
if history is an example then the only way to end a world war (without nukes) is too bleed the enemy dry by invading,plundering and occupying their country.
the U.S. is in an enviable position geographically speaking, they have 2 massive moats (oceans) to defend them as well as friendly nations on the other 2 sides.It would be almost impossible to invade,plunder and occupy the U.S.
almost every other country (except for great britian) have unfriendly countries within striking range that can be used as staging areas to launch an attack to invade,plunder and occupy them.

without nukes there would be little risk to the U.S. in starting a potential World war or invading enemy countries.

a reply to: Tardacus

I don't know about that, the USA has been top dog for some time, and as the top dog complacency becomes a weakness . If south america formed a coalition backed by a foreign nation with the intention to invade. Who knows evan with their technology superiority it may not be a certainty.

originally posted by: KungfuStu
I do find funny that North Korea voted yes, I thought that they were supposed to be the bad guys?

Simply politics, as they know a ban will not happen.

a reply to: KungfuStu

I think this is foreshadowing that there's going to be a nuclear war. UN is just padding the blow back by playing up to the public's expectations. Like their agenda 2030 and the complete end of world poverty. Yeah, not likely. Sounds great in theory though. But in 13 years? Not realistic in a long shot

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I don't think there will be a nuclear war as it doesn't benefit anybody, I think the threat of nuclear war is what has kept us from a all in ww3 and has done so for a very long time.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: schuyler

Or maybe they are afraid of really having nothing should Russia and the US live up to the current rhetoric.

The point is that they are in no position to tell the only countries which have them that they cannot. And that N. Korea voted with this is just laughable. Isn't this the guy who continually boasts how his missiles can reach the US? You can't take the UN seriously. The fact is, MAD has worked for 3/4 century. It's the little guys like N. Korea that you have to worry about, not the big ones.