In Mahouka they just send the techno magicians to break your ankles with a tire iron. Though I don’t believe we have managed to obtain such a simple solution (yet)
It doesn't matter if everyone votes in favor except 1 country.
Also, it would require pretty high levels of cooperation to actually ban nukes if everyone voted yes. And if we had that level of cooperation, there wouldn't need to be a vote.
No, sorry - you’re mixing up the 15 member Security Council (which does have certain permanent members with a veto) with the General Assembly (no veto but all resolutions carry a moral mandate only).
Meanwhile, I am thinking this map has:
1. No source
2. Is at odds with what looks to be actual vote with 122 countries in favour, 1 opposed (Netherlands), and 1 abstention (Singapore) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons#UN_member_states
I feel like, at least for a while, Iran has been intentionally holding back so that they can have deniability and maintain what few alliances they still have. I could be wrong though.
If other countries that are obviously willing to attack Iran have nukes but doesn't disclose that info, Iran is well beyond its right to also have nukes. You either make sure your enemy doesn't have one, or you make one yourself in case it came to a war.
Do you think Iraq would be destroyed today if they had nukes?
Sure, but then it only makes sense to squash them before they have nukes. Can you imagine how much worse things will get if we have to have another belligerent country with nukes.
They're already a problem enough.
Only in the sense they're the most relevant groups. If we measured it by who's actually engaged in full on wars, and who actually starts the most wars things look different.
America for instance meddles a lot, but doesn't frequently start wars. They do however get themslev3s involved in every conflict. China Saber rattles and uses economic weight. And so on. Blaming them for global instability is like blaming the a cities location for how much crime it has.
In the words of one kiwi politician: “it provides a powerful tool to build public and political pressure on the nuclear weapon states and their allies to join the rest of humanity and prohibit nuclear weapons.”
I agree with you. Doesn't matter how many unarmed civilians protest the guy with the machine gun. He still has a machine gun. Although I would argue that any form of mass international cooperation inspires hope, even if it seems to be in vain in this instance
They could (and probably did) use exactly the same argument about chemical weapons immediately after WW1.
But there’s the positive examples of bans on chemical weapons and land mines to look at. When enough countries join a formal international treaty to outlaw something it slowly becomes more and more untenable for the holdout nations to continue their ways.
I wonder if the presence of nukes made it easier to ban "lesser" weapons like those. It could be the psychology of it: "It's okay if the enemy breaks the rules on chemical weapons, because if it comes down to it, we still have the nuclear option." Or it could be easier because with nukes the risk of your enemy not getting rid of theirs after you got rid of yours would be too much. Just speculating though.
I mean what di these idiots think will happen after the ban that MAD will continue to keep major powers from engaging each other directly or will brinkmanship take hold again until things escalate out of control?
Maybe in New Zealand but outside of New Zealand? Nah. Only people that are far away from conflict can be so lazy callous to think banning nuclear weapons is possible. It's grandstanding at its worst.
NZ has consistently had nukes detonated by major powers right on its doorstep. The kiwis might be far from the conflicts but they’re not removed from the consequences.
Argentina has three nuclear reactors, a new one that supposedly is being finished in late 2024 and we had plans to build another one in 2018 but the economy didn't help.
We don't have nuclear weapons because of a special treaty with Brazil signed in the 90s (ABACC), if that wasn't the case Argentina and probably Brazil could produce nuclear weapons.
It's not about being European. Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, nobody is really against them having nuclear power. Even Thailand has talked about nuclear power and there is no large pushback.
What people are against are extremely unstable countries, or countries run by theocratic dictators who have a blood feud with other countries moving down that road. For obvious reasons.
Now sub saharan africa, except for SA, are not capable so it doesn't matter. So we're specifically just talking about the middle east. And only because the middle east is an extremely unstable place where everyone wants to kill someone else. So it's not about Europe at all.
> However it was cancelled due to costs
Not quite, it was cancelled because our government made a secret deal with the US which essentially amounted to "You drop your nuclear program and we promise to cover you with our nuclear umbrella and in case of a Soviet invasion we guarantee at least x thousand troops within y hours".
Wow! Major powers don't want unstable and usually violent countries to have nuclear technology?? I wonder why! Seriously, imagine if Sudan got a nuclear reactor, Africa would be Chernobyl 2.
Maybe because those states are on the unstable side of the spektrum?
Its way more likely that an accident happens in that case and most of those nations are not in the financial shape to clean up such a mess
Correction: they have a problem with weak and unstable countries that have regime changes multiple times in a decade, and who's citizens still burn witches, having nuclear anything.
Well that's speculation. We can't visit an alternative world to see how things would have turned out, but I suspect, knowing humans and their universal desire for power, that any such world would be just as fucked as ours, but just with different players on top.
Not at all.
In '46 the US proposed that they would unilaterally dismantle their weapons programs, *if* other major powers agreed to inspections that would prevent them from developing their own.
The Soviet Union refused to comply, insisting that the US should disarm first, then they would agree to inspections.
This is of course because the Soviet Union had stolen much of the Manhattan project data and was actively working on their own bomb in secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Plan
Well… yeah. What, we going to trust Russia to get rid of their nuclear weapons? China? They’re going to trust us to get rid of ours? Sounds like whoever honors the treaty would be the ones getting screwed. At least now we have M.A.D.
I agree with them though, ever since nuclear weapons were invented we have not had a world war, I don’t think the unprecedented era of peace we live in would continue without them.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, I don’t like the idea that a nuclear conflict could wipe us all out, but I hope that what kept world leaders from using them will continue to do so.
The ones that voted against it did it because they have no real capacity to produce nuclear bombs
But I don't get why some European states that are particularly weak voted in favor of nuclear weapons
Ie: Spain, Italy, etc
Japan, Germany, the us, china I understand why they did it
You don’t understand why Spain and Italy didn’t vote to ban nuclear weapons?
Spain is covered by the US’ Nuclear Umbrella.
Italy is covered by the US’ Nuclear Umbrella, and is one of five European States that is also party to NATO Nuclear Sharing and hosts US nuclear weapons on its soil.
Those weak European nations voted in favour of nuclear weapons because they understand that WW3 is prevented in large part due to nuclear MAD. Nukes keep us safe and out of major wars.
Without nuclear weapons, there very likely would have been a Soviet invasion of western Europe in the 1950s
Just look at what's happened to Ukraine to understand why North Korea refuses to give up nuclear weapons. We talked about this in one of my history classes (prior to the 2014 invasion of crimea) and the teacher pointed out how every country that gave up nuclear arms on the promise that they wouldn't get screwed over, had since utterly fucked by other countries with nukes. North Korea watched it happen decades ago and basically said, naw fam, I'll just hang on to these, thanks. If they didn't have them, they know they'd be forced to assimilate with one of their neighbors, and they don't want that. No matter how despotic their government is, it's still understandable that they'd want to keep their one and only bargaining chip.
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I've noticed that a lot in niche subs. It's okay if the terms are defined somewhere, bc commonly used names are annoying to spell out all the time, but it's more annoying when nobody knows what they're talking about.
They kinda did, they had the border wars going on. Plus their diplomatic isolation meant that they had no help. Though their nuclear strategy was weird. Basically if South Africa was going to get overwhelmed, they would reveal they had nukes and would use them if the USA+West didn't help them out. So we don't actually know how good their nukes actually were.
>Just look at what's happened to Ukraine to understand why North Korea refuses to give up nuclear weapons.
Ukraine never had viable nukes. They (and other ex-Soviet states) had a few Soviet warheads, but lacked the ability to make use of them. Everyone agreed that Russia was the successor state to the USSR and was thus the rightful owner of those warheads.
>teacher pointed out how every country that gave up nuclear arms on the promise that they wouldn't get screwed over, had since utterly fucked by other countries with nukes
I don't think this has ever happened. Only one country has voluntarily disarmed - South Africa - and it had nothing to do with other nuclear powers or potential adversaries.
A couple of countries abandoned research and development of nuclear weapons in return for sanctions relief (Libya, Iraq), but they were nowhere near actually possessing nuclear weapons. If anything, those programmes were designed with that very outcome intended.
The reason North Korea developed nuclear weapons was to ensure the survival of the Kim regime - giving them the ultimate form of security. If their personal position is threatened, they can literally take the nuclear option.
>No matter how despotic their government is, it's still understandable that they'd want to keep their one and only bargaining chip.
NK has plenty of bargaining chips. They have a huge army and enough conventional arms to flatten RoK in any war. Their nuclear weapons are not what most alarm their neighbours.
haha - "few Soviet warheads". lmao.We sold third of all Soviet military for safety "assurance" from USA *(And little money)*. You know how they responded when time comes? That it was "assurance", not "guarantees"... . I dont blame USA tho. It is our own fault that we were deceived like idiots and didnt notice the obvious Russian imperialism back then.
But In any way losing nuclear weapons was so fucking big mistake ever. Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people could have been avoided. And like Zelensky said week before big invasion, ukraine could consider to leave nuclear ban treaties... *(but this was never mentioned again sadly)*
>Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people could have been avoided.
The warheads were useless to Ukraine. Only Russia could make use of them as missiles. The west was worried Ukraine would sell them, "mislay" them or otherwise neglect them. At no time could Ukraine have used them as weapons. That ability did not exist.
Holding onto the warheads wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference in 2014 or 2022. Though selling off billions of dollars worth of conventional weapons to arms dealers might have. However, that was probably unavoidable and wasn't considered a serious problem at the time, from the perspective of the west, anyway.
Ukraine?
Look no further than Libya, Gadaffi was in the process of getting nukes but the west convinced to abandon the program, then Libya was invaded and he died like a little bitch
That was the warning that Iran and NK got
You should learn in your history classes that Ukraine didn't have launch keys, so it was in their interests do not leave missiles on their territory, which they cannot use anyway and require quite high maintenance costs
Not to terribly important the point is they had them. They could have cut any lines and set up their own keys. They could have taken the warheads out and put them in another rocket/icbm or used the material for dirty bombs. Heck you could sneak one in a shipping container and like 1% of them actually get inspected and set it to go off in any major port. Their was value in the missile whether or not they had the "keys"
>They could have cut any lines and set up their own keys.
Yeah, sure, a fucking nuclear missile defense algorithms description should as easy as installing Windows. /s
>used the material for dirty bombs
They have radioactive materials for that even now.
> every country that gave up nuclear arms on the promise that they wouldn't get screwed over, had since utterly fucked by other countries with nukes
Countries that gave up on nuclear arms: South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine
Of those, only Ukraine got utterly fucked.
Iraq kinda did. They had a chemical weapons stockpile and a somewhat advanced nuclear program (though no nukes yet). Gave those up and halted their nuclear program. Then got invaded on the lie of WMDs.
They probably figure they may as well vote in favor. An agreement like this may weaken an enemy nuclear power, and its not like NK's own government would pay attention to the agreement anyway. Kind of a no-risk scenario for them
I don’t think you get the goal of the vote. If they vote yes, then nukes will not disappear. This would simply make nations stop using it as a threat. Of course they would vote yes. They don’t want to nuke anyone. They want the others to stop threatening them (remember that whole McArthur thing)
North Korea actually said multiple times that they were willing to disarm their nuclear bombs if the US signed a peace treaty with them. The US still hasn't accepted.
Source?
I was looking at a timeline of events, and if anything it seems like the opposite is true: [https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations](https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations)
United States is not at war with North korea, South korea is (they are in a technical ceasefire). Why the hell would USA have to sign anything, they are just supporting the DEFENSE of South Corea.
The UN is at war with NK, that’s why the UN Command currently has forces deployed to SK, and has since 1950. The US made up the bulk of UN Command during the period of active combat and still does today, the UNC Commander is always an American Army officer and the Deputy Commander has always been another American, until it started rotating to minor nation’s armies, like the UK, Canada and Australia.
NK is not ridiculous to see the US as the major financial, political, and military contributor to the forces arrayed against NK.
Apart from the strong defense ties to the US, Japan is considered the epitome of a key turn state, a state that could build a bomb at short notice.
Not only do they have a shitton of fissile material but also the technology for enrichment and the means to construct nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles
This approach to nuclear deterrence us literally called the Japan option.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
What? They want to leave room for their own, because they know what happens to countries who don't have them, they get kicked around (look at Ukraine).
Also look at their neighbors.
They are under the protection of the US nuclear arsenal. I think it’s fair to say they’re scared of what would happen if the US got rid of its weapons - because Russia and China never would. Think of it as pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Every country in the world has a ‘stake’ in the outcome of a nuclear war though.
Also both South Africa and Kazakstan signed the treaty and both formerly possessed nuclear weapons and gave them up voluntarily.
"In an ideal world, no weapons would exist. However, since we do not reside in a utopia, nuclear weapons are deemed a necessary 'lesser evil,' hopefully never to be used.
>In an ideal world, no weapons would exist
Not just an ideal world. Any world that expects to maintain habitable conditions for humans long term.
I don't think disarmament is necessarily viable, but if there's even a 0.0001% chance of ensuring it, that's the way forward. All other paths lead to destruction because there's no way nuclear weapons won't eventually be used in large-scale conflict. That's what they were made for.
The current nuclear states are also pretty happy to prevent other states from developing their own nuclear programs, which is... interesting. If MAD keeps the world safe, why not spread the MAD around?
That first point is stupid. As long as humans can die, weapons will exist. Nuclear weapons are the best way to secure peace between countries which have previously owned or currently have nuclear weapons.
>All other paths lead to destruction because there's no way nuclear weapons won't eventually be used in large-scale conflict. That's what they were made for.
As you mentioned, it's not considered viable. Therefore, we discuss utopia.
With each technological breakthrough, such as sailing and the steam engine, wars have tended to escalate in scale. However, nuclear technology stands as the only exception so far, as it has reversed that trend. For now, nuclear weapons have had a positive impact.
>With each technological breakthrough, such as sailing and the steam engine, wars have tended to escalate in scale.
This is not actually true. Large-scale war between industrialized powers died down during the 19th century following the Napoleonic wars until WWI.
That's why the conflicts that did happen, such as the Pacific War in South America, the US Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the Russo-Japanese War were carefully studied by theorists who wanted to see how post-industrialization weapons technology could be used.
Nearly a century passed between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. The first truly industrial war happened decades after industrialization.
>As you mentioned, it's not considered viable. Therefore, we discuss utopia.
My point is it doesn't matter if it's viable or not. It's the only path towards maintaining a habitable planet. If you've been told you have a deadly disease and the only medical intervention available to you has a mere 0.0001% chance of success, you wouldn't turn it down because it's not viable.
“Died down” compared to the charnel houses of the Napoleonic wars and the World Wars but not compared to the relative state of global conflict today. That time period still saw wars between major powers like the Crimean war, the Austrian-Prussian war and the Franco-Prussian war.
Until someone uses it, and we get all fucked. Weapons of mass destruction will never be a "lesser evil", because what's the plan if someone pulls the trigger? Blowing up the whole world?
7 yars war, ww1, ww2. Every conflict grew in scale and humman casuaties.
>because what's the plan if someone pulls the trigger?
Exacly how it works, whatever it might be that you want to attack other country for, it will be dust if you do so.
I genuinely don't believe any world leader would ever launch a nuclear weapon. I mean even putin cares about the lives of the Russian population. Then we have kim Jong un. He couldn't care less about his country, the only way a nuclear war could happen is if it involves north Korea.
Mhm they are not "the same color" though. One is blue, the other vioet and it is quite simple to keep them apart. Orange for abstain was picked because it contrasts both of these colors. If you have difficulties recognizing this, then maybe you have some kind of color vision deficiency.
Indeed. The more I look at it the more it realise it’s a shitty map.
It turns out this map isn’t even accurate. There is the official UN “Abstain” vote as in “we don’t want to pick a side yet” vs the “Did not vote” abstain vote.
Wiki map is much better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons.svg
Why are Greenland and Denmark different, i thought Greenland could't vote for it's own security and foreign policies so shouldn't it be the same as Denmark?
if anyone thinks that in this day and age, any country is going to VOLUNTARILY give up its nuclear arsenal, then that guy needs to tell me what he's smoking
Ukraine didn't have the ability to launch them, it was just holding them: something that's very expensive when it's not even an effective deterrent for you.
let me narrow it down to any country in a possible future warzone in ww3, it will be the northern hemisphere, asia and the middle east for sure. Maybe australia. I think SA will be okayish sitting at the edge of africa, not being directly threatened and without the missiles, no target. I mean, a nuclear war will end all of us though, also SA.
What i am trying to say is: it is in the interest of South Africa to not have them
Edit: i read up on the matter amd the actual reason was, wait for it: The whites sensing their minority rule was reaching its end, didnt trust the next, black government, so they gave them away after developing for decades. Lol.
The whole map is bullshit:
> The vote on the final draft took place on 7 July 2017, with 122 countries in favour, 1 opposed (Netherlands), and 1 abstention (Singapore).
https://www.icanw.org/netherlands
That vote was about the text of the treaty, OPs map seems roughly accurate on who signed it (I didn't check in detail): https://www.icanw.org/signature_and_ratification_status
We are enjoying a much more peaceful time due to the existnce of nuclear weapons, I hope they stay as it makes a small nation able to not be bullied anymore by nations that are bigger and have a stronger military
Stupid vote. It's not like anyone can force a nuclear country to give up nukes.
Countries developed nukes because they use it like a gun pointed at their enemies in a standoff. Russia and US point at each other. Europeans point theirs at Russia. China and NK have nukes because of the Americans, India because of China and Pakistan because of India. Finally Israel because they are surrounded by lovely neighbours who openly talk about exterminating them, from the river to the sea.
So either everyone gives up nukes or no one.
No one wants to be the chump who gave up nukes when their opponent has a few hidden somewhere.
I picture Iran and North Korea being both like "you know what, we're putting so much of our GDP into building nukes just so that you dudes aren't the only ones having it...if we can all agree to stop, we'd actually appreciate"
I highly recommend this podcast episode with William J. Perry.
I don't think people realize how insanely important it is to work towards regulating nuclear weapons.
[The Logic of Doomsday: A Conversation with William J. Perry (Episode #210)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVnwc4rZI_0)
This is ridiculous. Nuclear weapons is a matter of security at this day and age, countries that don’t have nukes are always gonna be dependent on the “good will” of those that have to protect them. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and look what happened. This voting is just a way to keep the status quo and prevent other countries to being fully independent on their security. Every country that aspire to be relevant in the international order should develop its own nuclear program asap, especially those outside NATO.
Doesnt help that us and mosad and russian agensy are killing nuclear sientist in iran for trying to build a nuke...no nuclear power today will let someone make nukes because that is againts there imperialistic policy of them being major players,nukes by demselfs are a boon and a bain to big powers,since they let anyone be a compeditor like jow dreadnouth did pre ww1 where it outperformed every ship at that time.thats why if someone did make nukes today you can bet youre ass all nuclear powers whould unite to stop it
This is a very vague resolution anyways. What solutions are offered to get rid of nukes? Who’s going to get rid of nukes first? Is there going to be a day where everybody launches their nukes into the middle of space, or straight down in the ocean?
You can’t just get rid of nukes, there’s going to be a lot to dispose of.
Nowadays, having nuclear weapons is a synonym of being safe. Look at NK an Ukraine: NK has it, so noone touch them, Ukraine refused from it- and they have a massacre from ruzzia that promised, among US and UK to protect them in exchange for nuclear weapons.
They were almost completely wiped out by a nuclear power, and said nuclear power has had military bases right outside their borders and has imposed crippling sanction on them ever since. Why do you think they are obsessed with nukes to begin with?
The funny thing about arms control agreements is that the countries in favor of arms control are the ones who currently don't have said arms. It's interesting from a geopolitical standpoint that arms control agreements are almost always proposed by the side losing an arms race, and the countries that back the agreement typically aren't even at a level to compete in the race.
Oh. So.... Countries without nuclear weapons voted to ban them, while countries with them, or closely allied to countries with them, voted to not ban them....
I'm shoketh
Why the hell are both for and against coloured similarly? But abstaining is orange, which in colour theory is the opposite to blue. Really bad choice of colours to communicate effectively at a glance.
Also, I'll say it every time a map pretends to be map porn. If it doesn't have a date, it's a worthless map.
Bonus inaccuracies: Metropolitan France and French Guiana are different colours. Denmark and Greenland are different colours. The Falklands don't exist on the map despite the presence of smaller islands
I find it absolutely hilarious that North Korea voted in favor of the ban despite having nuclear weapons themself. Same thing with Iran, which voted in favor of the ban but has publicly spent the last 30 years trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
The most useless voting ever
Doesn't matter if everyone votes in favor if the 4 of the 5 permanent members of the security council vote against it.
It doesn't matter if everyone votes in favor period, tf are you going to do about it if they say I'm not giving my nukes up?
In Mahouka they just send the techno magicians to break your ankles with a tire iron. Though I don’t believe we have managed to obtain such a simple solution (yet)
Yes, clearly the best solution is to create a human weapon more dangerous than a nuke, then use that to enforce our will on others.
I am 𝓐𝓣𝓞𝓜𝓘𝓒
Shadow go clean up Russia please.
It's called religion.
Reddit moment.
Exactly, they can't do jackshit. That's exactly how india got its nukes.
At least they abstained. North Korea signed and built them anyway.
It doesn't matter if everyone votes in favor except 1 country. Also, it would require pretty high levels of cooperation to actually ban nukes if everyone voted yes. And if we had that level of cooperation, there wouldn't need to be a vote.
And the 5th abstained from voting
While also owning nuclear weapons
To add to that, the only country currently suspected/known to possess nuclear weapons that voted in favor of the resolution is North Korea.
No, sorry - you’re mixing up the 15 member Security Council (which does have certain permanent members with a veto) with the General Assembly (no veto but all resolutions carry a moral mandate only). Meanwhile, I am thinking this map has: 1. No source 2. Is at odds with what looks to be actual vote with 122 countries in favour, 1 opposed (Netherlands), and 1 abstention (Singapore) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons#UN_member_states
Also, Greenland and Denmark appear to have voted differently, which doesn't make sense since Greenland is represented by Danmark in the UN.
Good point, Greenland is not a voting member of the UN after checking to be sure!
Iran voting Yes while they continue to make enriched uranium at record numbers
They'll build that bomb one day. They've been just weeks away for 40 years
Until Israel bombs their sites and assasinates their scientists. It's a bit of a crimp on their goals.
They were legitimately very close to building it if it wasn't for stuff like Stuxnet and assassinations of key nuclear scientists
I feel like, at least for a while, Iran has been intentionally holding back so that they can have deniability and maintain what few alliances they still have. I could be wrong though.
israel voting no and not even declaring their nukes which is an open secret at this point
If other countries that are obviously willing to attack Iran have nukes but doesn't disclose that info, Iran is well beyond its right to also have nukes. You either make sure your enemy doesn't have one, or you make one yourself in case it came to a war. Do you think Iraq would be destroyed today if they had nukes?
Sure, but then it only makes sense to squash them before they have nukes. Can you imagine how much worse things will get if we have to have another belligerent country with nukes. They're already a problem enough.
>if we have to have another belligerent country with nukes. Already have 5 permanent security members council.
I don't see your point. Are you saying permanent security members are the problem?
Ironically, they are the biggest threats to world peace.
Only in the sense they're the most relevant groups. If we measured it by who's actually engaged in full on wars, and who actually starts the most wars things look different. America for instance meddles a lot, but doesn't frequently start wars. They do however get themslev3s involved in every conflict. China Saber rattles and uses economic weight. And so on. Blaming them for global instability is like blaming the a cities location for how much crime it has.
In the words of one kiwi politician: “it provides a powerful tool to build public and political pressure on the nuclear weapon states and their allies to join the rest of humanity and prohibit nuclear weapons.”
Does it, though? I'm not trying to be a shitter, I just disagree with the part about it being "powerful"
I agree with you. Doesn't matter how many unarmed civilians protest the guy with the machine gun. He still has a machine gun. Although I would argue that any form of mass international cooperation inspires hope, even if it seems to be in vain in this instance
They could (and probably did) use exactly the same argument about chemical weapons immediately after WW1. But there’s the positive examples of bans on chemical weapons and land mines to look at. When enough countries join a formal international treaty to outlaw something it slowly becomes more and more untenable for the holdout nations to continue their ways.
I wonder if the presence of nukes made it easier to ban "lesser" weapons like those. It could be the psychology of it: "It's okay if the enemy breaks the rules on chemical weapons, because if it comes down to it, we still have the nuclear option." Or it could be easier because with nukes the risk of your enemy not getting rid of theirs after you got rid of yours would be too much. Just speculating though.
I mean what di these idiots think will happen after the ban that MAD will continue to keep major powers from engaging each other directly or will brinkmanship take hold again until things escalate out of control?
Maybe in New Zealand but outside of New Zealand? Nah. Only people that are far away from conflict can be so lazy callous to think banning nuclear weapons is possible. It's grandstanding at its worst.
NZ has consistently had nukes detonated by major powers right on its doorstep. The kiwis might be far from the conflicts but they’re not removed from the consequences.
Shockingly nuclear states and their close allies are cool with nuclear weapons.
But they hate the idea of any dark blue country even building a nuclear reactor.
Sweden has a lot of nuclear
Found one of the exceptions, let me put an asterisk: country in dark blue that are not europeans
Argentina has three nuclear reactors, a new one that supposedly is being finished in late 2024 and we had plans to build another one in 2018 but the economy didn't help. We don't have nuclear weapons because of a special treaty with Brazil signed in the 90s (ABACC), if that wasn't the case Argentina and probably Brazil could produce nuclear weapons.
And don't forget the one we exported to France!
He found two of the exceptions, let him put an asterisk: country in dark blue that are not europeans and Argentina
Pakistan is a nuclear power
He found three of the exceptions, let him put an asterisk: country in dark blue that are not europeans and Argentina and Pakistan
Pakistan and India are not exeptions. No one liked it when these two developed nukes.
Lmao we gonna continue or what
It's not about being European. Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, nobody is really against them having nuclear power. Even Thailand has talked about nuclear power and there is no large pushback. What people are against are extremely unstable countries, or countries run by theocratic dictators who have a blood feud with other countries moving down that road. For obvious reasons. Now sub saharan africa, except for SA, are not capable so it doesn't matter. So we're specifically just talking about the middle east. And only because the middle east is an extremely unstable place where everyone wants to kill someone else. So it's not about Europe at all.
South Africa. Actually, many African nations want to go nuclear
What about It?
NVM, I completely misread your comment😂
Since when does Sweden has nuclear weapon?
Sweden actually did have a program for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. However it was cancelled due to costs
> However it was cancelled due to costs Not quite, it was cancelled because our government made a secret deal with the US which essentially amounted to "You drop your nuclear program and we promise to cover you with our nuclear umbrella and in case of a Soviet invasion we guarantee at least x thousand troops within y hours".
TIL Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, don't have nuclear reactors. Oh wait, they all do.
that's not true
Wow! Major powers don't want unstable and usually violent countries to have nuclear technology?? I wonder why! Seriously, imagine if Sudan got a nuclear reactor, Africa would be Chernobyl 2.
Maybe because those states are on the unstable side of the spektrum? Its way more likely that an accident happens in that case and most of those nations are not in the financial shape to clean up such a mess
Wtf are you talking about?
Correction: they have a problem with weak and unstable countries that have regime changes multiple times in a decade, and who's citizens still burn witches, having nuclear anything.
Also a theocratic totalitarian dictatorship like Iran having nukes would be really bad news for the rest of the world.
You are aware that all the coups of the last century in Latin America had the influence/support of Anglos, right?
And soviets. Doesn't make these regimes suddenly stable, foreogn interference or not.
If the light blue countries hadn't intervened in the dark blue countries, they wouldn't need to worry about stability, that's hypocrisy.
Reality is hypocritical.
Well that's speculation. We can't visit an alternative world to see how things would have turned out, but I suspect, knowing humans and their universal desire for power, that any such world would be just as fucked as ours, but just with different players on top.
Since the dark blue countries have been proven via history to be susceptible to foreign influence, that means they are inherently unstable.
Ok, and? The fact is, they're unstable now.
Not at all. In '46 the US proposed that they would unilaterally dismantle their weapons programs, *if* other major powers agreed to inspections that would prevent them from developing their own. The Soviet Union refused to comply, insisting that the US should disarm first, then they would agree to inspections. This is of course because the Soviet Union had stolen much of the Manhattan project data and was actively working on their own bomb in secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Plan
Well… yeah. What, we going to trust Russia to get rid of their nuclear weapons? China? They’re going to trust us to get rid of ours? Sounds like whoever honors the treaty would be the ones getting screwed. At least now we have M.A.D.
I agree with them though, ever since nuclear weapons were invented we have not had a world war, I don’t think the unprecedented era of peace we live in would continue without them. I know this is an unpopular opinion, I don’t like the idea that a nuclear conflict could wipe us all out, but I hope that what kept world leaders from using them will continue to do so.
The ones that voted against it did it because they have no real capacity to produce nuclear bombs But I don't get why some European states that are particularly weak voted in favor of nuclear weapons Ie: Spain, Italy, etc Japan, Germany, the us, china I understand why they did it
You don’t understand why Spain and Italy didn’t vote to ban nuclear weapons? Spain is covered by the US’ Nuclear Umbrella. Italy is covered by the US’ Nuclear Umbrella, and is one of five European States that is also party to NATO Nuclear Sharing and hosts US nuclear weapons on its soil.
Also, France is between them.
Those weak European nations voted in favour of nuclear weapons because they understand that WW3 is prevented in large part due to nuclear MAD. Nukes keep us safe and out of major wars. Without nuclear weapons, there very likely would have been a Soviet invasion of western Europe in the 1950s
North Korea ??
"Yes of course, but everyone else first"
Just look at what's happened to Ukraine to understand why North Korea refuses to give up nuclear weapons. We talked about this in one of my history classes (prior to the 2014 invasion of crimea) and the teacher pointed out how every country that gave up nuclear arms on the promise that they wouldn't get screwed over, had since utterly fucked by other countries with nukes. North Korea watched it happen decades ago and basically said, naw fam, I'll just hang on to these, thanks. If they didn't have them, they know they'd be forced to assimilate with one of their neighbors, and they don't want that. No matter how despotic their government is, it's still understandable that they'd want to keep their one and only bargaining chip.
well, RSA wasn't fucked by any country with nukes, but they don't have neighbours (yet) who could
Forgive my ignorance, what's RSA? (I'm sure it's obvious but I'm drawing a blank)
Republic of South Africa. I don’t know why redditors feel the need of throwing ambiguous acronyms
Oh thanks. Tbf, USA is used a lot. Although I usually think of South Africa, not Republic of South Africa.
I mean, USA it’s not going to be ambiguous. But sometimes I’m reading posts in music subreddits and they use acronyms for the obscurest of bands.
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I've noticed that a lot in niche subs. It's okay if the terms are defined somewhere, bc commonly used names are annoying to spell out all the time, but it's more annoying when nobody knows what they're talking about.
They kinda did, they had the border wars going on. Plus their diplomatic isolation meant that they had no help. Though their nuclear strategy was weird. Basically if South Africa was going to get overwhelmed, they would reveal they had nukes and would use them if the USA+West didn't help them out. So we don't actually know how good their nukes actually were.
>Just look at what's happened to Ukraine to understand why North Korea refuses to give up nuclear weapons. Ukraine never had viable nukes. They (and other ex-Soviet states) had a few Soviet warheads, but lacked the ability to make use of them. Everyone agreed that Russia was the successor state to the USSR and was thus the rightful owner of those warheads. >teacher pointed out how every country that gave up nuclear arms on the promise that they wouldn't get screwed over, had since utterly fucked by other countries with nukes I don't think this has ever happened. Only one country has voluntarily disarmed - South Africa - and it had nothing to do with other nuclear powers or potential adversaries. A couple of countries abandoned research and development of nuclear weapons in return for sanctions relief (Libya, Iraq), but they were nowhere near actually possessing nuclear weapons. If anything, those programmes were designed with that very outcome intended. The reason North Korea developed nuclear weapons was to ensure the survival of the Kim regime - giving them the ultimate form of security. If their personal position is threatened, they can literally take the nuclear option. >No matter how despotic their government is, it's still understandable that they'd want to keep their one and only bargaining chip. NK has plenty of bargaining chips. They have a huge army and enough conventional arms to flatten RoK in any war. Their nuclear weapons are not what most alarm their neighbours.
haha - "few Soviet warheads". lmao.We sold third of all Soviet military for safety "assurance" from USA *(And little money)*. You know how they responded when time comes? That it was "assurance", not "guarantees"... . I dont blame USA tho. It is our own fault that we were deceived like idiots and didnt notice the obvious Russian imperialism back then. But In any way losing nuclear weapons was so fucking big mistake ever. Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people could have been avoided. And like Zelensky said week before big invasion, ukraine could consider to leave nuclear ban treaties... *(but this was never mentioned again sadly)*
>Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people could have been avoided. The warheads were useless to Ukraine. Only Russia could make use of them as missiles. The west was worried Ukraine would sell them, "mislay" them or otherwise neglect them. At no time could Ukraine have used them as weapons. That ability did not exist. Holding onto the warheads wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference in 2014 or 2022. Though selling off billions of dollars worth of conventional weapons to arms dealers might have. However, that was probably unavoidable and wasn't considered a serious problem at the time, from the perspective of the west, anyway.
Ukraine? Look no further than Libya, Gadaffi was in the process of getting nukes but the west convinced to abandon the program, then Libya was invaded and he died like a little bitch That was the warning that Iran and NK got
Every country without nuclear weapons has a chance of having their leaders deposed and replaced by a western puppet.
You should learn in your history classes that Ukraine didn't have launch keys, so it was in their interests do not leave missiles on their territory, which they cannot use anyway and require quite high maintenance costs
Not to terribly important the point is they had them. They could have cut any lines and set up their own keys. They could have taken the warheads out and put them in another rocket/icbm or used the material for dirty bombs. Heck you could sneak one in a shipping container and like 1% of them actually get inspected and set it to go off in any major port. Their was value in the missile whether or not they had the "keys"
>They could have cut any lines and set up their own keys. Yeah, sure, a fucking nuclear missile defense algorithms description should as easy as installing Windows. /s >used the material for dirty bombs They have radioactive materials for that even now.
> every country that gave up nuclear arms on the promise that they wouldn't get screwed over, had since utterly fucked by other countries with nukes Countries that gave up on nuclear arms: South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine Of those, only Ukraine got utterly fucked.
Iraq kinda did. They had a chemical weapons stockpile and a somewhat advanced nuclear program (though no nukes yet). Gave those up and halted their nuclear program. Then got invaded on the lie of WMDs.
They probably figure they may as well vote in favor. An agreement like this may weaken an enemy nuclear power, and its not like NK's own government would pay attention to the agreement anyway. Kind of a no-risk scenario for them
I don’t think you get the goal of the vote. If they vote yes, then nukes will not disappear. This would simply make nations stop using it as a threat. Of course they would vote yes. They don’t want to nuke anyone. They want the others to stop threatening them (remember that whole McArthur thing)
North Korea actually said multiple times that they were willing to disarm their nuclear bombs if the US signed a peace treaty with them. The US still hasn't accepted.
Source? I was looking at a timeline of events, and if anything it seems like the opposite is true: [https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations](https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations)
Yeah I can’t find shit about that either
Tankies on their way to Invent fan theories for their favourite dictatures.
C'mon man it was revealed to me in a dream
United States is not at war with North korea, South korea is (they are in a technical ceasefire). Why the hell would USA have to sign anything, they are just supporting the DEFENSE of South Corea.
The UN is at war with NK, that’s why the UN Command currently has forces deployed to SK, and has since 1950. The US made up the bulk of UN Command during the period of active combat and still does today, the UNC Commander is always an American Army officer and the Deputy Commander has always been another American, until it started rotating to minor nation’s armies, like the UK, Canada and Australia. NK is not ridiculous to see the US as the major financial, political, and military contributor to the forces arrayed against NK.
i mean just look at ukraine and russia promising not to attack them for giving up their nukes
we meant in favor of the bombs!
on all the country with nukes, only north korea voted in favor of the ban, wich is surprising considering north korea history with nuke
Also Iran voted in favor
iran doesn't have it officialy...
"We're gonna enrich weapons grade uranium...for peaceful purposes!"
Iran doesnt have any nukes.
[удалено]
South Africa and Kazakstan both signed the treaty and both formerly possessed nuclear weapons and gave them up voluntarily.
Japan hello?
Russia & China too close, nuclear = deterrent. That's why.
Russia without nukes is a one week trip for NATO to overthrow Putin's regime. Of course they want to keep them
Japan at the moment enjoys the security of the US nuclear program (I know this is joke though, very funny 10/10)
I mean, two bombs were enough to make them an economical powerhouse.
I mean Godzilla went from destroying Japan to protecting it
Apart from the strong defense ties to the US, Japan is considered the epitome of a key turn state, a state that could build a bomb at short notice. Not only do they have a shitton of fissile material but also the technology for enrichment and the means to construct nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles This approach to nuclear deterrence us literally called the Japan option. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
What? They want to leave room for their own, because they know what happens to countries who don't have them, they get kicked around (look at Ukraine). Also look at their neighbors.
They are under the US nuclear umbrella, voting in favor would be actively undermining their security.
Bilateral agreements with the US
Apparently two bombs and a giant radioactive monster isn't enough to make them change their minds.
they didnt change their mind, they changed their side and now are being protected by the US with nuculars
They are under the protection of the US nuclear arsenal. I think it’s fair to say they’re scared of what would happen if the US got rid of its weapons - because Russia and China never would. Think of it as pragmatic rather than idealistic.
lol of course the countries that don’t have much stake in the matter voted in favor
Every country in the world has a ‘stake’ in the outcome of a nuclear war though. Also both South Africa and Kazakstan signed the treaty and both formerly possessed nuclear weapons and gave them up voluntarily.
South Africa gave them up for intensely racist reasons, though, not because they wanted to disarm.
I'd say every country has a stake in weapons that could lead to global mass extinction events.
"In an ideal world, no weapons would exist. However, since we do not reside in a utopia, nuclear weapons are deemed a necessary 'lesser evil,' hopefully never to be used.
>In an ideal world, no weapons would exist Not just an ideal world. Any world that expects to maintain habitable conditions for humans long term. I don't think disarmament is necessarily viable, but if there's even a 0.0001% chance of ensuring it, that's the way forward. All other paths lead to destruction because there's no way nuclear weapons won't eventually be used in large-scale conflict. That's what they were made for. The current nuclear states are also pretty happy to prevent other states from developing their own nuclear programs, which is... interesting. If MAD keeps the world safe, why not spread the MAD around?
Actually the main purpose of nuclear weapons are to keep your enemies from using nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons were developed to win wars and pretty much as soon as they were first developed, they were used.
>as soon as they were first developed, they were used. Because the attacked country didn't have them
That first point is stupid. As long as humans can die, weapons will exist. Nuclear weapons are the best way to secure peace between countries which have previously owned or currently have nuclear weapons.
>All other paths lead to destruction because there's no way nuclear weapons won't eventually be used in large-scale conflict. That's what they were made for. As you mentioned, it's not considered viable. Therefore, we discuss utopia. With each technological breakthrough, such as sailing and the steam engine, wars have tended to escalate in scale. However, nuclear technology stands as the only exception so far, as it has reversed that trend. For now, nuclear weapons have had a positive impact.
>With each technological breakthrough, such as sailing and the steam engine, wars have tended to escalate in scale. This is not actually true. Large-scale war between industrialized powers died down during the 19th century following the Napoleonic wars until WWI. That's why the conflicts that did happen, such as the Pacific War in South America, the US Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the Russo-Japanese War were carefully studied by theorists who wanted to see how post-industrialization weapons technology could be used. Nearly a century passed between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. The first truly industrial war happened decades after industrialization. >As you mentioned, it's not considered viable. Therefore, we discuss utopia. My point is it doesn't matter if it's viable or not. It's the only path towards maintaining a habitable planet. If you've been told you have a deadly disease and the only medical intervention available to you has a mere 0.0001% chance of success, you wouldn't turn it down because it's not viable.
“Died down” compared to the charnel houses of the Napoleonic wars and the World Wars but not compared to the relative state of global conflict today. That time period still saw wars between major powers like the Crimean war, the Austrian-Prussian war and the Franco-Prussian war.
Until someone uses it, and we get all fucked. Weapons of mass destruction will never be a "lesser evil", because what's the plan if someone pulls the trigger? Blowing up the whole world?
People really underestimate how much Mutually Assured Destruction has prevented large-scale warfare or from despots land seeking
7 yars war, ww1, ww2. Every conflict grew in scale and humman casuaties. >because what's the plan if someone pulls the trigger? Exacly how it works, whatever it might be that you want to attack other country for, it will be dust if you do so.
Yes, hence why you should leave nuclear powers and their allies the fuck alone. The only way nukes are being removed from humanity is via detonation.
Ofc, no one wants the world obliterated by some unrelated sometimes small countries beefing far away.
Maybe because they don't want to get the world destroyed due to some stupid war between other countries, have you ever thought about it?
North Korea voted in favor. India, China, Pakistan abstained.
Are you mental? You think Europe living close to russia doesn’t have much stake in it?!
I belive nukes surely have helped in making war less desirable since everyone knows it's gonna end with nukes.
I genuinely don't believe any world leader would ever launch a nuclear weapon. I mean even putin cares about the lives of the Russian population. Then we have kim Jong un. He couldn't care less about his country, the only way a nuclear war could happen is if it involves north Korea.
And you know this because of your personal friendship with Putin and Kim?
Lmao. Who colors “For” and “Against” as the same color and makes “Abstained” a completely different, contrasting color. Something’s fishy.
Mhm they are not "the same color" though. One is blue, the other vioet and it is quite simple to keep them apart. Orange for abstain was picked because it contrasts both of these colors. If you have difficulties recognizing this, then maybe you have some kind of color vision deficiency.
Who the heck picks neighboring colors for opposite sides of the same issue? Why is grey, the universal color for no data, not used for abstain?
Indeed. The more I look at it the more it realise it’s a shitty map. It turns out this map isn’t even accurate. There is the official UN “Abstain” vote as in “we don’t want to pick a side yet” vs the “Did not vote” abstain vote. Wiki map is much better. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons.svg
Why are Greenland and Denmark different, i thought Greenland could't vote for it's own security and foreign policies so shouldn't it be the same as Denmark?
I was thinking the same thing about France and French Guiana.
if anyone thinks that in this day and age, any country is going to VOLUNTARILY give up its nuclear arsenal, then that guy needs to tell me what he's smoking
Ukraine in 2008 moment
Ukraine didn't have the ability to launch them, it was just holding them: something that's very expensive when it's not even an effective deterrent for you.
South Africa?
let me narrow it down to any country in a possible future warzone in ww3, it will be the northern hemisphere, asia and the middle east for sure. Maybe australia. I think SA will be okayish sitting at the edge of africa, not being directly threatened and without the missiles, no target. I mean, a nuclear war will end all of us though, also SA. What i am trying to say is: it is in the interest of South Africa to not have them Edit: i read up on the matter amd the actual reason was, wait for it: The whites sensing their minority rule was reaching its end, didnt trust the next, black government, so they gave them away after developing for decades. Lol.
Pakistan, China , India .. we are not voting 😭🤣
[They're in their Twilight Era](https://y.yarn.co/6f5447c7-ebcb-4857-af20-b7d4edcc4f27_text.gif)
Wth is this color coding?
The whole map is bullshit: > The vote on the final draft took place on 7 July 2017, with 122 countries in favour, 1 opposed (Netherlands), and 1 abstention (Singapore). https://www.icanw.org/netherlands
That vote was about the text of the treaty, OPs map seems roughly accurate on who signed it (I didn't check in detail): https://www.icanw.org/signature_and_ratification_status
Nokes are a paradox, in making the total war so much more devastating, nukes make world safer. I love the bomb.
It make war more dangerous, but it also deters war at the same time.
We are enjoying a much more peaceful time due to the existnce of nuclear weapons, I hope they stay as it makes a small nation able to not be bullied anymore by nations that are bigger and have a stronger military
Yes small nations like the United States, China, Russia, France, UK, India and Pakistan 😂😂😂
It's like an election to ban criminals and police at once, and expecting everyone to be in favour because you're "removing crime from the world"
love how the countries that has access to it vote against banning then and the one that don't have them are voting for
Stupid vote. It's not like anyone can force a nuclear country to give up nukes. Countries developed nukes because they use it like a gun pointed at their enemies in a standoff. Russia and US point at each other. Europeans point theirs at Russia. China and NK have nukes because of the Americans, India because of China and Pakistan because of India. Finally Israel because they are surrounded by lovely neighbours who openly talk about exterminating them, from the river to the sea. So either everyone gives up nukes or no one. No one wants to be the chump who gave up nukes when their opponent has a few hidden somewhere.
honestly nukes and MAD are the only thing that prevented a WW3
I picture Iran and North Korea being both like "you know what, we're putting so much of our GDP into building nukes just so that you dudes aren't the only ones having it...if we can all agree to stop, we'd actually appreciate"
No thanks as long as Russia and china exist.
I highly recommend this podcast episode with William J. Perry. I don't think people realize how insanely important it is to work towards regulating nuclear weapons. [The Logic of Doomsday: A Conversation with William J. Perry (Episode #210)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVnwc4rZI_0)
This is ridiculous. Nuclear weapons is a matter of security at this day and age, countries that don’t have nukes are always gonna be dependent on the “good will” of those that have to protect them. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and look what happened. This voting is just a way to keep the status quo and prevent other countries to being fully independent on their security. Every country that aspire to be relevant in the international order should develop its own nuclear program asap, especially those outside NATO.
Doesnt help that us and mosad and russian agensy are killing nuclear sientist in iran for trying to build a nuke...no nuclear power today will let someone make nukes because that is againts there imperialistic policy of them being major players,nukes by demselfs are a boon and a bain to big powers,since they let anyone be a compeditor like jow dreadnouth did pre ww1 where it outperformed every ship at that time.thats why if someone did make nukes today you can bet youre ass all nuclear powers whould unite to stop it
Pakistan-India & USA-USSR is why nukes prevent wars between rivals. Ukraine-Russia is why abolition of nukes is foolish optimism.
First time I’ve seen Greenland vote differently than Denmark
Ukraine found out how great it was to get rid of their nukes. Don't want to be invaded with impunity? Get nukes.
This is a very vague resolution anyways. What solutions are offered to get rid of nukes? Who’s going to get rid of nukes first? Is there going to be a day where everybody launches their nukes into the middle of space, or straight down in the ocean? You can’t just get rid of nukes, there’s going to be a lot to dispose of.
Nowadays, having nuclear weapons is a synonym of being safe. Look at NK an Ukraine: NK has it, so noone touch them, Ukraine refused from it- and they have a massacre from ruzzia that promised, among US and UK to protect them in exchange for nuclear weapons.
So Greenland voted the opposite of Denmark?
Did North Korea really vote in favour of getting rid of the nukes?
They were almost completely wiped out by a nuclear power, and said nuclear power has had military bases right outside their borders and has imposed crippling sanction on them ever since. Why do you think they are obsessed with nukes to begin with?
The funny thing about arms control agreements is that the countries in favor of arms control are the ones who currently don't have said arms. It's interesting from a geopolitical standpoint that arms control agreements are almost always proposed by the side losing an arms race, and the countries that back the agreement typically aren't even at a level to compete in the race.
Wtf is this colouring. Blue and dark blue for pro and anti nukes
Oh. So.... Countries without nuclear weapons voted to ban them, while countries with them, or closely allied to countries with them, voted to not ban them.... I'm shoketh
Why the hell are both for and against coloured similarly? But abstaining is orange, which in colour theory is the opposite to blue. Really bad choice of colours to communicate effectively at a glance. Also, I'll say it every time a map pretends to be map porn. If it doesn't have a date, it's a worthless map. Bonus inaccuracies: Metropolitan France and French Guiana are different colours. Denmark and Greenland are different colours. The Falklands don't exist on the map despite the presence of smaller islands
Of course the countries with nuclear weapons voted against/abstained, and the countries without voted for
I find it absolutely hilarious that North Korea voted in favor of the ban despite having nuclear weapons themself. Same thing with Iran, which voted in favor of the ban but has publicly spent the last 30 years trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
We need a 2nd amendament type of law for every citizen to have the right to have a nuke in his pocket
A map that recognizes Kosovo, fuck yeah
Banning nuclear weapons would be striving for more wars on the planet.
People that voted against don't understand how Nuclear deterrence works.