Hiroshima marks a-bomb anniversary, calls nuclear deterrence "folly"
Hiroshima marks a-bomb anniversary, calls nuclear deterrence "folly"
Japan on Sunday marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Hiroshima, where its mayor urged the abolition of nuclear weapons and called the Group of Seven leaders' notion of nuclear deterrence a "folly".
TOKYO, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Japan on Sunday marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Hiroshima, where its mayor urged the abolition of nuclear weapons and called the Group of Seven leaders' notion of nuclear deterrence a "folly".
You're viewing a single thread.
The only way we will ever remove nuclear weapons will be when we remove the threat from invasive and terrorist actions of other countries. We need an international force that is set up just to protect the status quo of borders around the world. With that we also need an answer to terrorism from foreign states. As soon as you make it impossible for an invasion to take place then you can guarantee that some states will head straight to terrorist acts for intimidation. Until all countries sign up to this, we must keep the deterrent.
Imagine how could be saved if we removed the need to spend on defence. Currently we spend $2.2t across the world on killing each other. It is a shocking waste.
Sure... as if there will be anyone who escalates with nuclear weapons against teerorists ever.
How have nuclear weapons helped us against invasive and terrorist actions?
Has it somehow stopped conflicts between major powers (NATO, Russia, China)? No more than would be expected from countries that don't really order each other and aren't pursuing aggressive territorial expansion that threaten each other.
Has it ended all wars? Obviously not, given that Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine all happened.
Has a nuclear deterrent made nations more peaceful? No, but globalization has.
A nuclear deterrent exists solely to discourage other nuclear-bearing countries from trying to cripple you. The only steady-state for this is that everyone who is under threat by a nuclear-bearing country will eventually develop nuclear weapons.
In recent history: the Americans because of the Nazis, the Soviets because of the Americans, the British because of the Soviets, the French because of the Soviets (and, to some degree, the British), the Chinese because of the Americans AND the Soviets (they really got unlucky here), the Israelis because of literally everyone (extra unlucky), the Indians because of the Chinese, the Pakistanis is because of the Indians, and the North Koreans because of the Americans. And of course, today Iran is trying to build up a nuclear arsenal to combat Israel's nuclear arsenal.
All your policy will do is incentivize everyone to develop nuclear weapons.
I really do not understand your comments? I am in favour of removing nuclear weapons. I also understand why we cannot without a unilateral understanding among all nations.
What is very obvious is that if we do not move in that direction, then some clown will learn how to make them, and then we will have a nuclear war.
Why does the removal of nuclear weapons predicate itself on countries agreeing on borders? As it stands, countries develop nuclear weapons solely because they're afraid that nuclear weapons will be used against them (or, you're North Korea and the West has already expended their entire sanctions repertoire to go after human rights violations and now has no recourse against nuclear weapons development).
Countries may fight over borders, but the involvement of nuclear weapons turns what should be a localized dispute into a global one with world-ending consequences.
Or you know they could just stop trying to grab more land. At the end of the day that is the solution we all want.
Protecting the territorial sovereignty of countries internationally would have prevented Iraq and Afghanistan. It would stop Israeli efforts in the West Bank. It would block the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. It would block the skirmishes between India and China as well as India and Pakistan. It would have blocked NATO intervention into the Yugoslav crisises until international consensus could be reached. Borders are constantly in a state of flux and the international community almost never reaches full consensus.
Borders are not immutable objects, particularly for ethnically-unified countries. For Yugoslavia, the borders were carved into ethnic groups. For Ukraine, the borders are being carved into Russian and Ukrainian areas. For Israel, the borders are constantly being expanded for one particular ethnic group. As long as there are ethnic boundaries, there will be conflict between them. That's what makes us human. We are not a single entity; we have hundreds of distinct and unique cultures and languages and foods.
NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian conflict was humanitarian only. They were criticised for not participating to stop massacres that they witnessed.
Civil wars would be a difficult one. They would probably have to enforce the right to self determination, but even then cases like Israel complicates even this.