Logic Meltdown: Turnbull Government Won’t Participate In Negotiations To Ban Nuclear

https://newmatilda.com/2017/02/17/c...ipate-in-negotiations-to-ban-nuclear-weapons/

“When the constituency feels that their representatives in government are doing something about nuclear weapons, it grows complacent. Former President Barack Obama spoke so beautifully about ending the nuclear threat that he won a Nobel Peace Prize. At the same, he committed US$1 trillion over the next 3 decades to maintaining and modernising the US nuclear arsenal.

Australia won’t yet support a ban on nuclear weapons because it’s not willing to challenge the outdated concept of extended nuclear deterrence. In the DFAT rabbit hole, while ever nuclear weapons exist, we need them to protect us from nuclear weapons. But there is change in the air; Labor and the Greens firmly support a ban. The circuit breaker has arrived.

When nations gather at the UN on March 27 to begin negotiating the ban treaty, Australia’s seat will be empty. This boycott casts serious doubt on our commitment to the disarmament obligations contained in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to the United Nations in general.”

What do we think? What should we do and how do we go about it?

 

A ban will never work. If the USA and Russia agree to banning nuclear weapons it will only because they have something better. If the U.S. Or Russia alone had nuclear weaponry then I would be very worried. In america's instance Trump would have already ordered the bombing of mexico and China. Remember he only likes the ones that buy his properties!

 

Yes but no. Yein, as the Germans say. We haven't managed "all men are created equal" either, but that doesn't mean we should give up on it. Disarmament is hard, a ban on nuclear weapons is hard, but should we really put it in the too-hard basket and not even try? Just saying.

 

I can't wait for Australia and New Zealand to totally ban nuclear weapons so I can get a good night's sleep again. It's been keeping me up late for weeks.

 

Go to sleep, we don't have nuclear weapons

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/nuclear-free-zone

http://www.defence.gov.au/foi/docs/disclosures/421_1213_Documents.pdf

 

Have a good rest. Be assured that Australia will do as its told by the US and New Zealand will go on its independent way and won't bother anyone because they're nice like that.

 

Maybe you could help me understand. Who is going to police the so called super powers? So everyone says they're going to stop proliferation and disarm nuclear weaponry? What will be the consequences for countries that disregard despite agreeing? Countries need defenses and to be frank I think the world is becoming sick of the U.S. standing over everyone else expecting others to kowtow to their every demand. The U.S. spends not far off a trillion smackaroos on nuclear proliferation each year but yet complain about debt and deficit. Their people are out of jobs and can't get basic health cover etc etc. This is all about the elite and not the American population as a whole. Too many questions in my mind.

 

Keep our heads down and hope everything sails overhead while Trump and Kim Jong-un have nuclear red buttons

 

And pray hard for all the people of Alice Springs and those living near all the other US bases if you aren't an atheist.

 

Ah, TV! I’m not going to shed any light on anything because we’re pretty much on the same page!

Would that we could build a time machine, go back to the days of the formation of the United Nations and see to it that Doc Evatt and the overwhelming majority of the world got their way and the Security Council was never formed and there was no such thing as veto power.

Have you noticed the only countries that are held to the nonproliferation treaty are those with poorish economies, militaries and F.A power? Brown people tend to live there, and ironically they tend to be the same countries that have genuinely problematic borders. Odd, isn’t it? Those who need to defend themselves aren’t really permitted to do so.

They’re the same countries who are prosecuted under international law, too. The super powers and rich countries ignore the rulings and breach international law as it suits them. If the Security Council had never been permitted to form, we wouldn’t have this situation. It’s crazy that the flaws that left the League of Nations useless in preventing WW1 were basically replicated in the UN, but there you go.

Still, a couple of good things came out of the UN: the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights and lame duck President Obama’s refusal to veto the UN vote on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory late last year after more than half a century of US obstruction. And yes, the Declaration of Human Rights is more honoured in the breach than the observance and there’s no peace in Palestine, but at least we aspire to it.

I see a worldwide demand that nuclear weapons be banned in a similar vein, something for us to aspire to. I also think worldwide condemnation of their very existence would make it just that little bit harder for the superpowers to justify it, especially the US with its constant prating about bringing “peace”, “freedom” and “democracy”. You’re probably aware that when the world was asked it voted the US the number one threat to world peace.

http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

On the issue of nations needing to defend themselves- the relatively few who are actually threatened and the fewer still who are actually permitted to – conventional weaponry has come a terrifyingly long way since WW2. If you could use the time machine to bring the WW2 military commanders back to have a look at what we call conventional weaponry now, you’d blow their minds. It would be beyond science fiction to them. If you can’t repel invaders on your borders with what we have now, you’re simply not trying, providing you’re not being undermined by some super stupid power arming your invaders with pretty much the same gear, and providing you were permitted to acquire the state of the art conventional weaponry in the first place, which often isn’t the case: you’re stuck with filth like barrel bombs instead.

Conventional weaponry’s still hideously expensive but compared to nukes it’s cheap as chips and it can’t actually destroy the world and everything on it in one go. Personally I’d like to see disarmament full stop, but I won’t and my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren won’t either.

I guess the question we have to ask is just how far and how long are we willing to accept the bravery of being out of range? How long can we continue calling the idea of nuking a country half a world away that isn’t threatening our borders “self-defence”?

Yes, signing on to ban nuclear weapons is largely symbolic. It’s an aspiration and a leap of faith, but I think it’s a leap we need to take and I commend Labor and the Greens for taking it.

 

In light of what you have stated you'd have to nearly say that non proliferation efforts aren't in vein. I just can't get completely beyond the fact that while ever there is advanced technology then it should available for all nation states to defend themselves. No one fights fair in war, it all comes down to who has the best. I sort of think that it is a plan from someone or some body of people who are looking for ultimate control by pressuring disarmament of everyone else so that they can run rough shod. The only way it could be achieved is through a "one world government"! That's scary thought for some people! You know, world peace type stuff!

 

We have the same moral compass, just different road maps to get there.
The UN was envisioned as world government by majority rules direct democracy at state level. You don't get any points for guessing who destroyed that possibility, or how or why.

 

I probably won't get any points because I don't know but would hazard a guess and say to the US of A. I'm keen to know the how and why.

 

The tech is out there now, and its not only the big guys who reel at mutually assured destruction, its the little terrorist (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags as well because even they have to consider the impact their actions might have if they went WMD against on of the big guys. Of course the real crazies wouldn't care, but hopefully they remain bottom feeders and don't get near enough to the crackers to burn their hands. A ban is a waste of time unless it can be enforced. Time is precious and wasting on needless diplomat circle jerks is best left to ppl like KRudd who really only exist to listen to the sound of their own voice.