Treaty banning nuclear weapons approved at UN

&gt; All of the countries that bear nuclear arms and many others that either come under their protection or host weapons on their soil boycotted the negotiations.<p>Completely meaningless posturing to pass this treaty. Par for the course at the UN.

Next up: mice vote to bell cat.

Nukes make large scale warfare between superpowers much less likely.<p>Nukes can also diescalate any situation between superpowers before it blows into a full out war.<p>I&#x27;m not entirely sure that complete disarmament would actually benefit the world as a whole.<p>Also at thisn point disarmament is pointless you can&#x27;t disarm physics and knowledge any nuclear capable country would be able to rebuild a tactically significant arsenal within a span of 2 years or even at a much shorter period if they poses either large stockpiles of nuclear fuel or have sufficiently large production capabilities.<p>This is nothing more than posturing.

Seems like a good occasion to go back and read Eisenhower&#x27;s farewell address - probably one of the 100 best speeches in the history of the English language IMO.<p>&gt; Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

I think the only hope is missile defense systems which could yield these missiles useless. Only then would they provide no value as a deterrent.

Isn&#x27;t having nuclear weapons around actually a deterrent to war because of mutually assured destruction?

Surprising display of sanity and logic.

Nuclear disarmament by the established nuclear powers is a horrible idea. This is how we return to the era of great power wars that came to a close with World War 2. Do you really want to see warfare between America, China, and Russia? Or how about a return to European wars?<p>People seem to magically think that the era of great power wars has ended because of economic interdependence or good will between nations. Europeans thought the same thing at the turn of the 20th century and again during the 1920s. What keeps the peace is knowing that even in defeat your enemy can make you pay a price you are not willing to pay.

LOL

about as effective as the banning of chemical weapons. not that is not a great idea but the NPT is better acted on. a treaty such as this ban requires rational actors and we have one fully irrational country (NK) and a few other suspect ones that might even employ proxies to use the weapons.<p>the real question about such a treaty is, say you could get China, Russia, and the US, to agree. How do you disarm nations that won&#x27;t. You could try trade sanctions but that is likely to cause the irrational to use their weapons.<p>I do like the idea of signatory nations not allowing such weapons on their territory but giving the current theory on their usage what does that gain?

I saw this same headline on Reddit World News and it made me pretty angry. The headline was something along the lines of &quot;World votes to abolish nuclear weapons, 9 nuclear powers including US vote no&quot;.<p>Why &quot;including the US&quot; ? This is just clearly pushing an agenda. Why not &quot;including France&quot; ? What does this little snippet add to the journalism other than to press a little bit on anti-Europe&#x2F;anti-Us sentiment?<p>Really annoying.