Friday, June 16, 2017

U.N. Treaty To Ban Nuclear Weapons Is Being Drafted

A U.S. Air Force missile maintenance team removes the upper section of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. © Reuters

Voice Of America: UN Closing in on Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons

UNITED NATIONS — The president of the U.N. conference drafting what could be the first treaty to ban nuclear weapons expressed confidence Thursday that with “the necessary political will” more than 130 countries supporting the initiative can reach agreement by the July 7 target.

Elayne Whyte Gomez, Costa Rica’s ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, told the opening of negotiations on a draft treaty circulated May 22 that delegates were representing their countries, but they were also “united together in historic commitment” to finalizing a treaty.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This treaty is not going to get anywhere .... none of the nuclear powers support it.


Steven Krische said...

I think there are several countries that rely on the nuclear detterent who would potentially be targetted if they didn't have it. I'm sure China and Russia would veto this. It has not gone well for countries that have forfeited their nuclear and chemical programs.

Aizino Smith said...

Nuclear Weapons would not have saved Saddam.

The arrangement of the initial sorties would have been different.

Nuclear Weapons did not save Iran. A cowardly president, Obama, did. Iran did not have any weapons during bush and maybe most if not all of Obama's misrule Obama sat on his hands during the Persian Spring. Did he drink pina coladas as protesters were dragged to prison in Tehran?

Lack of nuclear weapons did not doom Libya. They did not have them. They turned over/stopped the progress they had made and Bush left them alone. Obama is the one, who broke that deal.

B.Poster said...

"I think there are several countries tbat rely on the nuclear deterrent who would potentially be targeted if they didn't have it." The most prominent example of this is the United States of America.

Steven Krische said...

The U.S. have a strong convential military, spending about as much as the rest of the world combined. Plus we have an armed population. While nuclear and chemical weapons don't mean a country can't be defeated. It does makes the barrier to initiating conflict higher. Think of what strategy would you use if you were in charge of one of these countries and wanted a semblance of self determinination.

Steven Krische said...

I think Bush and Obama were both running off the same script. The regime change strategy outlined by Gen. Wesley Clark. Hoping Trump breaks this pattern. But would not be surprised if it continues. I think the deals with Iran and Libya were to put things on pause with them or to encourage them not to get involved in active countries in the region.

Aizino Smith said...

There is not much similarity between Libya and Iran

1) In Libya the chemical weapons and nuclear weapons development were stopped.

In Iran they were not.

2) We did not pay Libya. Obama paid Iran. All those secret cargo flights.

3) Libya ceased attacking us. Iran has not.