06 Aug To Nuke or not to Nuke
NUKE Nuke, Zook Zook
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…
“Nuclear arsenal needs to disappear entirely!”. SAYS WHO? ALL DO, but keep it as words. It’s like the same when some says, ‘we all need to stop using social media for our good’, does someone followed this, as a nation entirely? North Korea, hmm maybe, but they do have their own alternative.
Nuke-nuke subject is a fav pick on the UN table, where “live-in-peace” is like ‘sees no dabs, fads, rubs,..’ um basically pinkish glasses for all flashing. Happy-ever-after is now seems to be only in one of those sci-fi fantasy movies. Otherwise, UN guys might just lose their golden-ticket jobs all of a sudden, and retire to a vigneron’s attire, trim their garden, switch to a…peaceful, blameless, but not so rousing life.
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?...
“NO to Nukes! YEAAAaaa!” Ok ok, if so, who would be first???
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 what happened with that ban on bio weapons? Suppose to be zip-du-dah taken away and destroyed, and never ever EVER be used again. ‘Outlawing biological warfare?What’s that?…’, and smooth moon walk.
Blaming the former figures who signed that deal, treaty, protocol… ‘He was out of his mind… it was back then, it’s different now, move on’.
So The Geneva protocol (1925) The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) on 1975 year didn’t happened then?: stamps inked, hands shook, heads bowed, “cheers”spelled, alcohol spilled…
Happened or not, 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 as an extra ‘help’, like ‘it was needed , hey!’. Pretty much an excuse after crossing the BWC matters.
Perhaps, the conditions that are spelled in the BWC articles — in brackets “provisions” — have conjunction “or”, and that could serve as a ‘way in’ to black marker the rules. Like what I saw in one ex: “ or divert them to peaceful purposes.”(Article II) …um, okeyyy, “peaceful purposes”?Wham pam pam.
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
Find a flaw, a gap in law...
Serve as a HOLDING FACTOR at first — preventing disasters, yeah ironic –, nuclear warfare is now like a green card to a VIP lounge; bouncing torso, looking borzo. Just simply strengthen your position in geo politics, high-up sits at any round table; dumping threats, hold cards straight.
North Korea, for instance, with all respect, could be easily ignored by the West, if not their nuke button under the thumb.
WhoS in the Line?
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 this or not, but accordingly in total, the nuclear stockpile is close to 13,000 weapons (12,121 nuclear warheads).
Who wants to be the next nuclear power state? Why not so many in the line?
At this point you might think: so what are exact downfalls of not having nuclear weapon if it gives so much respect and power . Well, the main downfalls of this ‘bomb race’ is …security risk. Yeah yeah , how funny this wouldn’t sound like. By making and getting this bomb on set, you would be non-stop watched by others, and constantly in charge, or at least assumed so, for protecting your allies. All this pulls enormous financial spendings. It’s possible if your state is highly military equipped despite the nuke button.
Center for… where i got this pic
P.S
No matter how big or how many warheads it holds, disastrous consequences would touch all, if to press the “nuke” button.
No Comments