Banning nuclear weapons going well!

[catatomic]

Sorry; the website solicits money so I decided not to post it.

The July 7th nuclear weapons ban vote looks like it will have a great number of participators. This was very important to world safety. People who are go-betweens with voters are sure that it will go very well.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Sorry; the website solicits money so I decided not to post it.

The July 7th nuclear weapons ban vote looks like it will have a great number of participators. This was very important to world safety. People who are go-betweens with voters are sure that it will go very well.

/---- Is that where all the good countries give up their nukes leaving only the rogue nations who sponsor terror with them?

 

[BlackFlag]

Trump said he wants more countries to have nukes. This vote won't accomplish anything.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Sorry; the website solicits money so I decided not to post it.

The July 7th nuclear weapons ban vote looks like it will have a great number of participators. This was very important to world safety. People who are go-betweens with voters are sure that it will go very well.

That is not going to happen since Nations have not followed any agreement and the war will do nothing but thin the herd, that is if Mother Nature does not beat mankind to the punch....got it.

 

[catatomic]

There are a great many impediments in the way but this is a definite step in the right direction.

 

[whitehall]

It must be comforting to be an anti-nuke leftie. You don't have to worry about rogue nations like Pakistan and N.K. because the July 7th vote "will have a great number of parcipitators".

 

[catatomic]

I know there are many impediments, including a terrorist group getting a nuclear weapon and even a country rebuilding nukes after they're all gone, but if we greatly reduce them now it will be very positive for the future.

When I said "great number of participators" I meant they have the votes of almost everyone to do a great deal towards banning nuclear weapons.

 

[catatomic]

As for being a leftie, any ideology is dangerous. It is best to look at each issue on its own.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nukes aren't going away. You can't unring the bell.

 

[catatomic]

We'll see!

We'll see what we can do.

 

[catatomic]

In response to your responses, as the number of bombs gets low there is always a surge of a risk to use the last ones, but getting rid of them helps. Hence a rogue nation or a nation that just remakes them after disposing of them is just a necessary evil to deal with. They're not a good tactical weapon for these groups anyway because once you bomb someone you have to wait like ten years to invade their country.

As for Donald Trump I don't know how the US will vote, but there is some hope:

"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes," Trump posted to Twitter on December 22, 2016

And for the dude who said treaties do nothing:

Nuclear disarmament - Wikipedia

Thank you.

 

[catatomic]

July 7th came and went and here's what happened:

The United Nations prohibits nuclear weapons | ICAN

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We'll see!

We'll see what we can do.

No. We will laugh gleefully as you fail.

 

[catatomic]

It is already a fantastic success!

 

[catatomic]

But there are still countries to go! You can watch how they go and laugh at me then.

 

[Mushroom]

Yet another worthless announcement from the UN.

And then people wonder why they are more and more becoming a footnote to a bad joke. Ultimately, this means absolutely nothing. We have had bans in place for chemical weapons for decades, how well did that work? And the prohibition of child soldiers, we see how well that is working. And the prohibition of targeting civilians, how about that? Operating military forces out of schools-hospitals-places of worship?

The UN can not even bother itself to deal with things like genocide in Darfur and the crimes and atrocities of ISIS, but we are supposed to listen to them now?

Started with high hopes, but now it is little more than a League of Nations II.

 

[catatomic]

Don't listen to the U.N. Listen to the almost unanimous expression of support from countries for this cause, and to massive number of people they must represent.

 

[Silent Warrior]

It will work has well as gun control does in Chicago. The problem with bans of anything is there are actually people as naive as catatomic that think they will work.

 

[catatomic]

Just look at all the nuclear disarmament treaties that have worked in Wikipedia under nuclear disarmament:

Key treaties

• Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) 1963: Prohibited all testing of nuclear weapons except underground.
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—signed 1968, came into force 1970: An international treaty (currently with 189 member states) to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty has three main pillars: nonproliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
• Interim Agreement on Offensive Arms (SALT I) 1972: The Soviet Union and the United States agreed to a freeze in the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) that they would deploy.
• Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) 1972: The United States and Soviet Union could deploy ABM interceptors at two sites, each with up to 100 ground-based launchers for ABM interceptor missiles. In a 1974 Protocol, the US and Soviet Union agreed to only deploy an ABM system to one site.
• Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) 1979: Replacing SALT I, SALT II limited both the Soviet Union and the United States to an equal number of ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers. Also placed limits on Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS).
• Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) 1987: Created a global ban on short- and long-range nuclear weapons systems, as well as an intrusive verification regime.
• Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I)—signed 1991, ratified 1994: Limited long-range nuclear forces in the United States and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union to 6,000 attributed warheads on 1,600 ballistic missiles and bombers.
• Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II)—signed 1993, never put into force: START II was a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia which attempted to commit each side to deploy no more than 3,000 to 3,500 warheads by December 2007 and also included a prohibition against deploying multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
• Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty)—signed 2002, into force 2003: A very loose treaty that is often criticized by arms control advocates for its ambiguity and lack of depth, Russia and the United States agreed to reduce their "strategic nuclear warheads" (a term that remained undefined in the treaty) to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. Was superseded by New Start Treaty in 2010.
• Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)—signed 1996, not yet in force: The CTBT is an international treaty (currently with 181 state signatures and 148 state ratifications) that bans all nuclear explosions in all environments. While the treaty is not in force, Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990 and the United States has not since 1992.[50]
• New START Treaty—signed 2010, into force in 2011: replaces SORT treaty, reduces deployed nuclear warheads by about half, will remain into force until at least 2021

Only one country has been known to ever dismantle their nuclear arsenal completely—the apartheid government of South Africa apparently developed half a dozen crude fission weapons during the 1980s, but they were dismantled in the early 1990s.

 

[catatomic]

We'll see!

We'll see what we can do.

No. We will laugh gleefully as you fail.

You won't have long to laugh if5r I fail.