Agreements? Concentions? Those never get broken.
Geneva anyone?
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
153 points (98.1% liked)
World News
32318 readers
918 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
this is largely symbolic, it doesnt change anything
I fail to see the point of such a treaty. This planet isn't surviving a nuclear war long enough to hold anyone accountable over it anyway.
China and India are the only responsible players on the world stage and it shows.
Cojncidentally, they're also the two nuclear-armed countries who have been involved in the fewest conflicts, and who's conflicts have been resolved the most quickly.
Also, they have been fighting each other without guns.
This would be a mixed bag because it could open the door on more conventional wars since it would left the threat of MAD.
I think this applies more to our typical bullying. Against another nuclear state, this treaty is meaningless.
The French will never agree.
Their stance has always been, if France is threatened we will use every weapon in our arsenal.
They do not have end the world stocks of nukes like the US or Russia so their attitude is, "Fuck with us and we will end you."
How so, that is exactly inline with "no first use".
How could "we will use every weapon in our arsenal" possibly be interpreted to mean "no first use"?
Nuclear weapons would not just be used to respond to nuclear threats, if that's your assumption.
They do not have end the world stocks
I think you overestimate how many nukes it would take to cause the end of the world. Unless you mean "every piece of land is a radioactive wasteland" end of the world.
If just India and Pakistan were to go to nuclear war with each other, in their small localized region of the world, 27 million people would die from the carnage. The resulting nuclear Autumn would be enough to change agriculture and starve 250 million people worldwide.
Kurzgesagt Video with timestamp: https://youtu.be/LrIRuqr_Ozg?si=Nn6YuO0llyB-B6If&t=380
Seems like incredibly low totals.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/LrIRuqr_Ozg?si=Nn6YuO0llyB-B6If&t=380
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It's says an error about watch lists for me. Try yewtu.be instead
Radioactive contamination is basically a non concern. Potential massive climatic effects and logistics collapse on the other hand, are.
Yes, France has enough nukes to cause a nuclear winter several times over. And yes, while radioactivity levels drop rapidly, I meant it in the context of "every single piece of land is nuked and turned into a radioactive wasteland where you wouldnt want to be. Which is a concern because who wants to glow in the dark, right?".
Not sure France has enough nukes to literally hit every square inch of the planet in one go.
I can tell if China is worried about current Russia or a future US under Trump.
This is directed to the US, UK, France, and Pakistan.
China and india already have no-first-use policies. Russia inherited one from the USSR, which was dissolved when the west coup'd them and immiserated their people. Russia's lack of a no-first-use policy is directed at the guys who represent an existential threat to them.
"Russia makes constant nuclear threats and doesn't have a no first use policy, but it's totally entirely the fault and moral obligation of the us. Totes definitely."
lol
Russia makes far fewer nuclear threats than the US who flies stealth bombers right up to the border of North Korea every year and is developing new ICBMs.
But yes Russia's nuclear policy, including their revocation of no-first-use in the 90s is in response to the US's actions.
The current situation is especially ironic because Yeltsin, the guy who executed the coup and burned parliament, and removed the No-First-Use policy, and Putin, were both picked by the US.
I'm all for countries vowing not to use nuclear weapons first, but what is the point of a treaty? If a country does use nuclear weapons first, I think other countries are going to be less concerned about breaking the treaty and more concerned about WW3 and Armageddon. And given that both the US and Russia have shown scant regard for treaties in recent years with major changes to policy, surely the treaty wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
It takes a lot of people to launch a nuke. While missile operators are trained to act quickly, they are also drilled hard on adherence to policy. A 94% on the test for that policy is a failing grade.
And while I think you're very right to not trust the US or Russia to adhere to treaties, if said treaty requires that training policies and doctrine reflect the no first strike stance, that would mean a whole lot of people would have to be willing to violate that treaty in order to launch first. Heck, there's been incidents during the Cold War where a single person's hesitancy to follow approved launch policy has averted total nuclear war.
I think a treaty and accompanying training and doctrine could create sufficient barriers to make a nuclear first strike far less likely, though, of course, not impossible. But that alone seems like a worthwhile thing to pursue.