artursk:
The nuclear armed powers tried their best to lead this debate by attempting to shut it down at every turn, but they were unable to do so. Now they will focus on hamstringing any attempts to enforce or expand the treaty attempting to constrain their freedom of military action.
If you and a companion find yourself unarmed and in a dark alley confronting someone in the pursuit of happiness with a gun aimed at you both, then you can debate the merits or demerits of gun control all you want, after you've handed over all your valuables. There is no meaningful global debate on nuclear weapons, as there is no pragmatic way to compell nuclear armed states to surrender or destroy such weapons. If you use military force, you're dead. If you use non-military methods (political, economic, social media campaigning) to effectively pressure such states to disarm, then they will destroy you as a person, organisation or as a state up to and including killing you.
States are simply the largest street gangs we humans have managed to create thus far. They behave like street gangs and if you or your organisation gets in their way, then they will mess you up like street gangs. So if 120+ non-nuclear states want to create a nuclear weapons banning treaty then that is fine; but the moment they try to enforce the terms of that treaty then the military operations to "remove" them will begin.
The pen may be mightier than the sword but it pales in comparison to aircraft carries, attack aircraft, ship or sub-launched cruise missiles, helicopter gunships and thermonuclear weapons.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
