Home | About | Donate

US a No-Show as Historic Nuclear Weapons Ban Treated Adopted


#21

What in Heaven’s name is wrong with the Netherlands? I can’t believe Rutte would vote against this treaty.


#22

"that were not attended by any of the nine nuclear-armed states, which include the U.S., Russia, and North Korea."

In other words, a “treaty” that doesn’t mean anything. Not one of the states that actually has nuclear weapons signed.


#23

And yet again we have to continue relying on the increasingly unreliable fear of MAD to protect us from nuclear conflagration.


#24

I think it’s the UN Charter that says states cannot even threaten other states. We already know the US and Israel don’t live up to this, so I’m not surprised our country is a no-show on this Treaty. If only Bernie was elected. He was way too vague on foreign policy, but at least he would have surrounded himself with more sane people


#25

Andrea Germanos,

How about telling us what is in the treaty; and what those signing on intend to do about those that are not willing to sign on to or abide by the treaty? These are the essential points that we need to know about.

Thanks,

Rob Wheeler
UN Representative, Commons Cluster


#26

Just follow the money and it will become quite clear.
;-})


#28

We can’t unmake nuclear weapons but it would be nice if we could curtail their development. We already have more then enough weapons to ensure the destruction of enemies, along with the rest of the world. Why spend billions of more dollars in upgrading what we are not going to use.


#30

Actually it’s pretty simple. The US is a signatory of the NPT and his been reducing its nuclear arsenal, as has Russia. There are no UN sanctions against US so there’s there’ nothing the US in in defiance of.

North Korea, on the other hand, has withdrawn from the NPT and is actively pursuing the buildup of a nuclear arsenal. There are several UN resolutions against NK that it is ignoring. Ther are several other states that are not signatories of the NPT, like Israel, Pakistan or India but those are civilized countries not ruled by crackpot dictators that execute their rivals with antiaircraft guns and threaten to anihilate their neighbors.

I hope helps with your confusion.


#31

And Nutenyahoo isn’t a crackpot?? A viscous one to boot.


#32

I do not think a Treaty can be vetoed. The US and other nuclear armed nations will simply not sign it. The permanent members of the security council can veto resolutions but i think that does not work for treaties.

Also, i don’t think there was a resolution sanctioning Israel for genocide.

Anyway, calling the US the Fourth Reich (i assume in comparison to the Third Reich) just shows the quality of history taught in US public schools. No wonder you guys are like 36 out of 39 in the OECD.


#33

Nope. He’s not.


#34

…and greed. :rofl: is there a superlative degree for nouns? like what’s more egregious than “greed”?


#35

ron r and i agree… nutenyahoo may not fit your definition of crackpot, but he’s certainly a vile, manipulative, murderous, lying, vindictive thug. i was going to say snake but that would insult those reptiles.


#36

lamonte7, Donny Trump desores to upgrade and increase the US nuclear arsenal. As for “crackpot dictators”, don’t push the “discrepancy” too hard, it may become an analogy. As for the non-signatories of the NPT, you leave me with the fore said “crackpot dictators”. Thus, it is to this which your comment appears to come. When considerate of Donald Trump, I do not believe one should push this criterion too hard for its threat of turnabout in fair play.


#37

I think it does something It makes the nine non signers look even worse than they already do. It is a beginning.


#38

I appreciate the way you have rearranged Bibi’s name to reflect who/what he really is…too funny!


#39

GobelChig,

The treaty to ban nuclear weapons was just adopted by 122 nations a day or so ago. However, they do not formally sign [i.e., ratify] the ban until September this year, and it doesn’t go into effect until 90 days after the signing.

There are no UN sanctions currently in effect as a result of this treaty. Even when the treaty banning nuclear weapons goes into effect, there are no mechanisms in the treaty that specifically sanction the countries that refuse to get rid of their arsenals. Any country that chooses to join in now (or later) is given ways to comply and time to comply. Any country that continues to defy the treaty after it goes into effect is considered an “outlaw state”, but still, there are no sanctions imposed specifically by the ban. Perhaps at some point after the treaty goes into effect in Dec. (90 days after the Sept. signing), the UN will take up the matter of punishing the rogue nations that refuse to abide by the treaty. That’s unlikely, given that 8 of the 9 nations that actually have nukes are the ones who hold primary power at the UN and they aren’t going to impose sanctions on themselves. These 9 nuclear-armed nations not only refused to sign the treaty, they refused to attend the negotiations.

So, no, the US is not currently sanctioned by the UN for having nukes, and it is not certain that having nukes will necessarily bring UN sanctions even after the treaty goes into effect.


#40

Has any nuclear armed country ever been attacked? Has any nuclear armed country ever attacked another with nuclear weapons since the end of WWII?


#41

I just don’t see how the United States, sitting on the largest nuclear arsenal in history, can fail to even participate in drafting a non-proliferation agreement. How can we legally and morally demand that other nations limit research and development of nuclear weapons when we are not willing to give up even one of our warheads? We are trying to play God, and the play is a big, fat flop.


#42

And they obviously don’t care. A treaty banning weapons that none of the signers possess is meaningless.