UN: treaty banning nuclear weapons to enter into force

A treaty aimed at destroying all nuclear weapons and forever prohibiting their use has crossed a crucial milestone, signalling its entry into force in 90 days. When Honduras ratified the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) on Saturday, it became the 50th nation to do so - the minimum needed for it to enter into force as international law.

…Outstanding among these is the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. Its Executive Director Beatrice Fihn hailed the coming into force as “a new chapter for nuclear disarmament”. “Decades of activism have achieved what many said was impossible: nuclear weapons are banned,” she said.

…Fihn said the ban on nuclear weapons comes just over 75 years after “the horrific attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the founding of the UN which made nuclear disarmament a cornerstone”. “The 50 countries that ratify this treaty,” she stressed, “are showing true leadership in setting a new international norm that nuclear weapons are not just immoral but illegal.”

2 Likes

Thanks for noting this important milestone. The USA will soon be an outlaw nation because of its refusal to do away with its most dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

2 Likes

It’s meaningless, the US, Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, possibly Iran, Britain, France. None of these nations are going to give up their nukes, that’s why they have them as a “deterrent”, in other words “if you attack my country with overwhelming force then we’ll have no other option to retaliate with even greater force”.

1 Like

You prefer the USA to be defenseless against Russia, North Korea, and China? Have they given up their arms?

Besides it is non-binding on us so aren’t an outlaw nation at all

1 Like

Maybe the United Nations can go to war with the US, China, Russia etc to enforce it They might need some nuclear weapons before they start though.

I do not respect any United Nations law. They do not speak for me and there is going to be trouble if they or their supporters behave as if they do.

Let’s say that only Russia had nuclear weapons and they used them against Britain and the USA. How would this affect Russia (and I guess the Earth globally)? Is it possible to think of even a one-sided nuclear strike without some notion of MAD?

Interested to see how the UN aims to enforce this. Seeing as they’ll only have non nuclear powers on their side and all.

That’s an interesting comment, and to address it we ought to think about why Russia has built its massive nuclear ICBM arsenal. When the Orthodox priests conduct their yearly blessing of Russia’s ICBMs, they announce that, “These weapons are necessary to prevent Russia’s enslavement by the west.” According to Perry, Russia fears a nuclear first strike from the USA and NATO even more than we in the USA fear the same from Russia.

So would the consequence of unilateral nuclear disarmament by the USA be a nuclear attack by Russia? It makes no sense when one realizes that Russia’s reason for building its ICBM fleet was to prevent a nuclear attack by the west. Without that threat, Russia would not feel the need to continue to spend vast sums of money to maintain its ICBMs and nuclear bombs.

Ok…but whose going to enforce that? The nations without nuclear weapons? Lets see how that plays out haha.

We are going to see how the MAD protocol plays out, and the predictions (if one believes Scripture) are very negative (Jeremiah 25:32-33 for instance.) Whatever the consequences of unilateral nuclear disarmament might be, the will for sure be far less that those caused by the unprecedented disaster of a global nuclear war.

It’s very easy to think of feasible means. Some kind of combined economic blockade or sanctions, for example. I’m not saying they will do that, but the idea that the UN would be powerless without nukes is obviously not true.

I don’t actually think nuclear weapons are the best weapon in geopolitics, namely because you can’t really use them. They can only ever be a threat.

The entire spreading of communism must have been a bad dream. The current Russian saber rattling is just America’s fault, not that Russia wants its union back

Then we forget the Chinese build up that is ongoing

The economic threat really only works against smaller states. If the US and/or China said kick rocks the world couldn’t sanction them without hurting themselves substantially.

It seems that the USA does not comply with international law about weapons of mass destruction:

Do our opponents?

“International law” is mostly a myth. Nations are only bound by treaties into which they actually enter. The U.S. has a procedure to enter a treaty which requires Senate confirmation. Failing that, no resolution of any international body has any jurisdiction over this country. The UN can pass whatever it wants to pass, but it does not bind the U.S. unless the U.S. agrees to be bound by it.

1 Like

Seems that such an argument paints the USA as no better than these rogue nations.

Why would we?

1 Like

Self defense is never wrong

You don’t retaliate with a tank to a nuke strike

Retaliation is a practice that is forbidden by our Teacher’s Law.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.