15 Aug To Nuke or not to Nuke
PM of Japan, Fumio Kishida, gave a lot of attention to Russia during his speech on 6th and 9th of august ( at Hiroshima and Nagasaki memorials), where he never mentioned their dearest friend USA, who linked directly to this event. How so?
Short memory or forced to forget? Historical facts are twisted upside down: 1) who won? 2) who fight on the allied and axes side? 3) Who dropped the first atomic bomb (“little boy” to Hiroshima 6.08.1945 and “fat man” to Nagasaki 9.08.1945)?…
Answered all correct?? Then you are one of a kind…minority out of minority
“Nuclear arsenal needs to disappear entirely!”. Huh, that’s smth like saying for generations to be more educated we should all stop using social media.
Ahhh, the nuke-nuke subject is a fav pick on the UN table…but don’t rash to belt this guys to the saints or bet all your chips on their role in human rights. They [UN] are still far from that “live-in-peace” point. And would they ever? If so, I think they would just lose their golden-ticket jobs all of a sudden, — pinch of jealousy here — and retire to a vigneron’s attire, trim their garden, switch to a…peaceful, blameless, but not so rousing life that they have now, nerve racking positions serving as agents of world’s hope or world’s saver, or world’s advocators, or name it they way you want.
“NO to Nukes! YEAAAaaa!” Ok ok, if so, who would be first??? This is all like the kabuki theatre* …figures in suit saying something that suppose to be meaningful but in the end it is just the linguistic training,… a speech language pathology — the more words you say more brownie points you would get … HOW SWEeeet!
*Kabuki theatre — a classical form of Japanese theatre, blending dramatic performance with traditional dance. Glamorous decorated costumes and bright make-up. Nowadays, the term is often used in politics to describe the political posturing, performance to deceive, pretentious acting to hide the mess behind — showmanship over the content.
UN conference as a binding instrument to prohibit whatever seems bad for humanity and the world itself. I am sure, the ambassadors from all over the world doing their best to prevent, cancel, control, block, drop..er drop dismiss, whatever is there on their list, treatises, agreements with countries, use of weapons,…
But how effective is it and who in the end is responsible for consequences of round table decisions…
...who would be the one to shot?...
Pointing guns at each other and waiting on who would be the one to drop it, first..and, more likely, the last. Not being sarcastic but remind me what have happened with the ban of biological weapons, that were suppose to be zip-du-dah taken away and destroyed to never be used ever EVER again. “Outlawing biological warfare? What? Ok, it was yesterday, today is another day…” um, thats how it goes?
Seems like it. Often blaming the former figures who signed that deal, treaty, protocol… easy to say “he was out of his mind… it was back then, it’s different now, move on”.
The Geneva protocol (1925) and The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) on 1975 year did all official: all stamps inked, hands shook, heads bowed, “cheers”spelled, alcohol spilled…
And what?! Nothing… bio weapons are still in use, indeed, none-official use, but those bio “defence products” are in play — detected in different military conflicts since the end of the WWII — brought to the scene for an extra ‘help’ whenever the normal defence ammunition shrinks… er yeah, thats kind of a narrative to excuse after crossing the BWC matters.
Perhaps, the conditions that are spelled in the BWC articles in brackets that called “provisions” have conjunction “or”, and that could serve as an emergency exit from the ban rules. Ex: “ or divert them to peaceful purposes.”(Article II)
“Berry patch” (the term in poker used to define an easy game) — find a flaw, a gap in law as a plan B just in case of…. Well, not giving the hints for those who would wish to avoid responsibilities, just giving a clue how some might look at the official protocols subjectively and how it is important to delegate on precise use and conditions.
The same goes with the Nuclear weapon use. The weapon that MUST SCARE all, and thought to serve as a HOLDING FACTOR. And so far this factor is now carried out with a mutely added prefix of “sub” as a 2nd matter or 3rd, or 4th…bolding the other factor instead, which is “unfairly strengthen unfriendly countries and their dictatorial regime” and so you would guess who have thought of this factor … the ones that were always doing businesses without other’s consent — no “yes” was needed. To my thought, it’s like a man who used to abuse women and suddenly found himself surrounded by strong and fully armed ladies. And thats how the word “negotiate” at once became the heading in official docs of black suitcases…in 21st century.
The consent? Ugh that extra time spending — as many in sharped suit are thinking — talking with low key so-called authorities that have bits to none of cultural values. That’s in general the line of skepticism when western elite, in particularly( with colonists background), meets the newly industrialised countries. Speaking of which, North Korea , with all respect, could be easily ignored by the West if not their nuclear button under the thumb.
With more and more back-and-forth turns, with bigger tech tools and thicker pockets the snowball of disputes along with economic domino — falling domino — is inevitable. Classic non-stop tit-for-tat motto …
Who has it? 9 states, but in the picture only 7 of them…trying to prohibit the use of Nuclear weapons. How far it would go? Who is really up to throw their Nuke button off to the bin,…
Game changer & who has is it
The popular outcomes that await almost every country than neighbours the more developed, densely populated, religiously different is the suppression, exploitation, depletion of resources, and more on how to profit from bordering existence…
You either have reliable alliances, have talented diplomacy tactics ( to trade, have non-refuse offer) or have nukes that would make others think twice when sanction or threatening you (your land). Only then your country would have a chance to find the consensus with mates (neighbouring countries). Sounds sharp and clear, is it not? But not so easy to control and usually quite controversial when your ally is also a partner of your enemy.
Who wants to own the nuclear weapon? Who wants to be the next nuclear power state? Why not so many in the line?
If you think that it’s all about the scientific or financial capabilities, you are far from the international relationships subject. Any diplomacy and the warfare, pulls many other strings, economic and business related, de facto.
At this point you might think: so what are exact downfalls of not having nuclear weapon if it gives so much respect and power over others. Well, the downfalls of this race for the bomb is…the security guarantees. By getting the bomb you would be non-stop closely watched by others, and constantly in charge for protecting your allies, what pulls enormous financial spendings on protecting the boarders. It’s possible if your state is highly military equipped despite the nuke button, that likely and hopefully, would never be used.
So far there are 9 states to possess nuclear power and when their nuke program was started:
USA (since 1939), Russia (since 1943), France (since 1954), China (since 1964), the United Kingdom (since 1952), Pakistan (since 1972), India (since 1974), Israel (since 1967), and North Korea (since 1970).
And not sure if to believe in it or not but accordingly in total, the nuclear stockpile is close to 13,000 weapons (12,121 nuclear warheads).
Center for… where i got this pic
P.S
No matter how big is the country how many warheads it holds the disastrous consequences would touch us all if to press the “nuke” button.
No Comments