• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons

DA60

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced Monday that the United States and almost 40 other nations would not participate in the first-ever talks on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Flanked by ambassadors from about 20 nations, including nuclear powers United Kingdom and France, Haley couched the decision not to attend the talks, which began Monday, in personal terms.
As a mom and daughter, "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons," the former South Carolina governor said. "But we have to be realistic."'

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics.com


Thoughts?
 
Most times, government is wrong...especially the U.S. government.

But this time, they are right.

It would be staggeringly naive to ban all nuclear weapons.

If they did, a country that developed/get hold of/held on to a few could hold their neighbors virtually for ransom.

I see no reason why a MASSIVE reduction could not be done though.

Unfortunately, a world without nukes is not possible in anyone's lifetime who is reading this, imo.
 
Wait, there are still actual adults who are trying to ban nuclear weapons?
 
DA60 said:
'US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced Monday that the United States and almost 40 other nations would not participate in the first-ever talks on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Flanked by ambassadors from about 20 nations, including nuclear powers United Kingdom and France, Haley couched the decision not to attend the talks, which began Monday, in personal terms.
As a mom and daughter, "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons," the former South Carolina governor said. "But we have to be realistic."'

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics.com


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't think that these are the first talks to ban nuclear weapons, but they might be the first in which anyone thought that the nuclear powers would or should give up their weapons and thereby again open the way to major war. Without the overkill nuclear armament of Russia and the US we would have no doubt have had major war between the 50s to 70s of the last century.

It is true that the situation in the World is changing and with reduced differences in relative wealth the probability of a nuclear war will ceteris paribus as more countries acquire nuclear (and near nuclear) capabilities grow to the point that it will be close to certain in this century. So yes, it seems a lovely idea.

It is only, when one thinks about how to prevent major war, that one realizes how negligently naiv demanding a nuclear ban is, unless the political/security structures are in place beforehand to prevent war.
 
DA60 said:
Most times, government is wrong...especially the U.S. government.

But this time, they are right.

It would be staggeringly naive to ban all nuclear weapons.

If they did, a country that developed/get hold of/held on to a few could hold their neighbors virtually for ransom.

I see no reason why a MASSIVE reduction could not be done though.

Unfortunately, a world without nukes is not possible in anyone's lifetime who is reading this, imo.
Click to expand...

No nation would give up their nukes. The one country that did- Ukraine- is surely regretting it now.
 
DA60 said:
'US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced Monday that the United States and almost 40 other nations would not participate in the first-ever talks on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Flanked by ambassadors from about 20 nations, including nuclear powers United Kingdom and France, Haley couched the decision not to attend the talks, which began Monday, in personal terms.
As a mom and daughter, "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons," the former South Carolina governor said. "But we have to be realistic."'

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics.com


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Nukes keep the peace, and it's absurd to think the UN can "Ban" them.
 
DA60 said:
Most times, government is wrong...especially the U.S. government.

But this time, they are right.

It would be staggeringly naive to ban all nuclear weapons.

If they did, a country that developed/get hold of/held on to a few could hold their neighbors virtually for ransom.

I see no reason why a MASSIVE reduction could not be done though.

Unfortunately, a world without nukes is not possible in anyone's lifetime who is reading this, imo.
Click to expand...

Why a reduction? Whats the difference between having 1000 and 10,000 nukes?
 
DA60 said:
'US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced Monday that the United States and almost 40 other nations would not participate in the first-ever talks on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Flanked by ambassadors from about 20 nations, including nuclear powers United Kingdom and France, Haley couched the decision not to attend the talks, which began Monday, in personal terms.
As a mom and daughter, "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons," the former South Carolina governor said. "But we have to be realistic."'

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics.com


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I mean, it would be fantastic to ban nuclear weapons. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have them. It seems rather stupid to have enough weapons to make the earth uninhabitable by mankind. But we're not in the ideal world. Too many crazies that cannot be trusted, this is Pandora's Box, and it's been opened. It's going to take immense growth of the human species to get to a point where we can get rid of them in whole. Until that point, we cannot get rid of them.

Now can we have limitation agreements? Likely, given that we've already enough. But a ban is not going to work, there's no way to impose it, and not enough faith that other countries will similarly disarm.
 
DA60 said:
'US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced Monday that the United States and almost 40 other nations would not participate in the first-ever talks on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Flanked by ambassadors from about 20 nations, including nuclear powers United Kingdom and France, Haley couched the decision not to attend the talks, which began Monday, in personal terms.
As a mom and daughter, "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons," the former South Carolina governor said. "But we have to be realistic."'

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics.com


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

United States + 20 are correct. UN bans, proclamations, treaties, sanctions, finger waving's, have not worked in the past, why would they work now?

Didn't a recent President issue on his own without proper procedure a treaty with a rogue country? Gave them money and everything. How's that one working out?
 
jonny5 said:
Why a reduction? Whats the difference between having 1000 and 10,000 nukes?
Click to expand...

Why not?

If I need to explain why 1,000 nukes is better than 10,000...you wouldn't understand the reasoning.
 
A world without nukes is like a world without guns, pie in the sky thinking.

It'd be nice, but nah; Disarm? You first.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
A world without nukes is like a world without guns, pie in the sky thinking.

It'd be nice, but nah; Disarm? You first.
Click to expand...

I disagree, a world without guns isn't a nice thought. Guns are often, at least in the USA, used for sporting and leisure. Shooting ranges are fun, hunting (when you know what you're doing) is fun, and so on. Their primary function is for self-defense, but their other users make them inherently valuable for reasons other than popping some robber.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Why not?

If I need to explain why 1,000 nukes is better than 10,000...you wouldn't understand the reasoning.
Click to expand...

If you need to dodge the question, then you probably dont have an answer.
 
DA60 said:
Most times, government is wrong...especially the U.S. government.

But this time, they are right.

It would be staggeringly naive to ban all nuclear weapons.

If they did, a country that developed/get hold of/held on to a few could hold their neighbors virtually for ransom.

I see no reason why a MASSIVE reduction could not be done though.

Unfortunately, a world without nukes is not possible in anyone's lifetime who is reading this, imo.
Click to expand...

Looks like we actually agree on something for once and you summarized basically all my thoughts on it. I mean, I wish we didn't have nukes and war and crime and hatred but since we live in the real world we have to deal in realities.
 
PoS said:
No nation would give up their nukes. The one country that did- Ukraine- is surely regretting it now.
Click to expand...

Why?.
 
jonny5 said:
Why a reduction? Whats the difference between having 1000 and 10,000 nukes?
Click to expand...

I'd say there are a few logical reasons for a reduction. You note yourself that there is no tactical difference between 1,000 vs 10,000. So we have things like nuclear waste to look at, as things degrade and have to be replaced. We have the $$ it costs to maintain and operate. Then we have the biggest issue and that is accountability. The more you have of something the higher likelihood of there being a security failure and something being compromised.
 
DA60 said:
Why not?

If I need to explain why 1,000 nukes is better than 10,000...you wouldn't understand the reasoning.
Click to expand...

post #17 hit near the mark?
 
Fishking said:
I'd say there are a few logical reasons for a reduction. You note yourself that there is no tactical difference between 1,000 vs 10,000. So we have things like nuclear waste to look at, as things degrade and have to be replaced. We have the $$ it costs to maintain and operate. Then we have the biggest issue and that is accountability. The more you have of something the higher likelihood of there being a security failure and something being compromised.
Click to expand...

Good answer, to save money. Im guessing the ops reasoning was something more like 'who needs more than 5 bullets?'
 
jonny5 said:
Why a reduction? Whats the difference between having 1000 and 10,000 nukes?
Click to expand...

9000 nukes worth of security, maintenance costs, and risk of theft/attack.
 
jonny5 said:
Good answer, to save money. Im guessing the ops reasoning was something more like 'who needs more than 5 bullets?'
Click to expand...

No, it's more like "who needs more than 500 trillion bullets" when you correct for actual destructive power.
 
Deuce said:
9000 nukes worth of security, maintenance costs, and risk of theft/attack.
Click to expand...

Someone clearly doesn't understand economies of scale if they think the costs on the last thousand are the same as the costs on the first.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Someone clearly doesn't understand economies of scale if they think the costs on the last thousand are the same as the costs on the first.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who apparently thinks 9000 nukes are free.
 
Fishking said:
Why?.
Click to expand...

In Ukraine's case, Russia has taken a sizable chunk of their territory. If they hadnt given up their nukes it would be a whole different story.
 
DA60 said:
'US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced Monday that the United States and almost 40 other nations would not participate in the first-ever talks on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Flanked by ambassadors from about 20 nations, including nuclear powers United Kingdom and France, Haley couched the decision not to attend the talks, which began Monday, in personal terms.
As a mom and daughter, "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons," the former South Carolina governor said. "But we have to be realistic."'

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics.com


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Unilateral disarmament will stop bad actors about as well as gun-free zones stop criminals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom