US warns Australia against joining treaty banning nuclear weapons

The US has warned Australia against joining a landmark treaty banning nuclear weapons, saying the agreement could hamper defence arrangements between the US and its allies. But New Zealand said it was “pleased to observe a positive shift” in Australia’s position in a United Nations vote and “would, of course, welcome any new ratifications as an important step to achieving a nuclear weapon-free world”.

The comments follow the Albanese government shifting Australia’s voting position on the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons to “abstain” after five years of blanket opposition by the Coalition government.

The relatively new treaty imposes a blanket ban on developing, testing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons – or helping other countries to carry out such activities. But so far it has been shunned by all of the nuclear weapons states and many of their allies.

Article:
www.theguardian.com...

UN Treaty

This is arguably the most important issue facing this and future generations. And it appears Australia is paying attention, in a positive move in the right direction. Abstaining is better than voting no.

There IS a nuclear disarmament movement at a world wide scale, and it is just a pity that all the countries that have nukes want nothing to do with it. That's because absolute power concedes nothing without a gun to its head. And not even with a nuke to its head.

The war in Ukraine has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict at any moment. And despite the repeated warnings from organizations all over the world, here we are, once again at the precipice.

People are going to have to take a stand. People are going to have to start demanding a public stance on nuclear weapons from candidates for government. And voting for those standing for disarmament. It is the smart thing to do. It is a VITAL thing to do. So that we don't find ourselves at this precipice ever again. And that's only if we survive this one. Because we might not.

I for one am SICK of living under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation ever since I was a kid. And worse, not being able to really do anything about it. But it needs to be a central, focused, MAIN ISSUE. Not an issue brought up here and there, once in a while, in favor of climate change and green energy. Because NONE of that is going to matter if we are all dead.

So I ask, how many candidates were voted into office in these midterms with this in mind? How many have publicly stated stances on nuclear weapons on their webpages? Does anyone even care? Well, I'll bet they care after they hear that the US was just attacked, DC is glass, LA is glass, and then hear the air alarms go off in their town, cause they are next. Oh yeah, nice going. That's a great time to care. After you're dead.

It is the issue that ebbs and flows, comes up once in a while, fades away, gets forgotten for more important things like spending billions of dollars overseas in foreign wars. Yeah nice. Well at the very least, if we are going to do foreign wars, how about we do them without the threat of getting annihilated over them? Yeah right... I know... WAY too much to ask.

Had we spent all this time on ATS keeping this issue front and center, instead arguing over politics, could we have raised much more awareness of this issue? I betcha we could have. And I'll be the first to take the blame. It's as much my fault as one of the more active contributors here. I could have focused more on this issue over the years. I could have, but I didn't. I have failed you. And for that I am truly sorry. But that doesn't mean I can't change.

So from here forward: nuclear disarmament. Yeah, it's a thing. Until it isn't cause we're dead. Do it. Live it. Contribute on it. Seek it. Promote it. Cover it. For the benefit of all mankind. And good on you Australia. It's a start.

If your enemy has nukes, you have to have nukes. Going basic to understand why we have doors locked at closing time for our businesses.

originally posted by: musicismagic
If your enemy has nukes, you have to have nukes. Going basic to understand why we have doors locked at closing time for our businesses.

Yeah, I understand that concept. But that is the concept that is eventually going to get us all killed. It must change. Talks need to start. Somehow, some way. The treaty is already there as a basis to start those talks.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I welcome this development regarding a nuclear-free world - so much
and it is the right time to restart all and every efforts for nuclear disarmament, now.

It is a shame that short-time thinking of the nuclear weapon states and their allies exists at all.
I hope Australia and all the other countries will get it right forward disarmament and especially
in the heads of everyone of us.

Any effort in banning these annihilating weapons is
for the lives of us all and the coming generations,
for the lives of the animals and the plants and the whole tiny little planet.

It was kind of hiding all the years past - hiding from being aware of the atomic danger.
But now, in the face of the Russian behavior regarding nuclear threats
closing the eyes any longer its not longer possible.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

So its basically a vote for the rest of the world to rely on these nations like the US and Russia and China to be in charge of their defense and breaking points/negotiation points. Sounds very counter productive to everyone involved aside from the top dogs. Oh and I guess Israel because you know they won't admit to having them and aren't under any oversight at all...same as everyone bugs out about with iran...except israel actually has a very long history of attacking into neighboring countries for any perceived threat including irans nuclear program. Well that's a whole nother level of hypocrisy but...I digress. What a silly vote...anyone who entertained this is unfit to represent anyone...

I have wondered how many real wars have been averted simply because an opponent had nukes and might use them.

If we are vaporized in a nuclear blast or killed with a sword/bullet/virus/whatever.... either way we are dead. "Oh but what about mother earth"..... maybe that was the bitches plan all along !! hahahah

not sure the issue AUKUS, op interflex, and the t26 its clea they are all working together and with AUKUS it clear they are not going down the kiwi non nuclear route though the US & UK is keeping the door open for the kiwis to join AUKUS..

Britain’s newest nuclear sub to host Australian crew under AUKUS pact

with FCASW there is the possibility that these subs could fire a nuclear capable hypersonic cruise missile..

so we still don't know the thinking but its not what it seems on the surface given the cooperation already in play..

a reply to: nickyw

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I haven't really had a chance to look into this so its just a knee jerk reaction but I sincerely hope Australia tell the US to go # itself: no country should be able to dictate another countries policy on anything.
Maybe if we address that problem it will immediately eliminate the need for nuclear weapons....but I digress.

As a kid growing up during The Cold War the prospect of nuclear weapons was ever present, or at least so it seemed.
The reality is somewhat different and the M.A.D. scenario ensured that all the nations with nuclear capability acted responsibly and had so many safeguards in place, a nuclear exchange was always unlikely.

Yet I was a childhood supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - a noble cause I thought at the time.
And without a doubt well intentioned.
Unfortunately like many youthful beliefs it was idealistic and impractical.

The harsh reality is we can not uninvent things.
The knowledge and technology to build nuclear weapons will always exist - unless we are ever stupid enough to actually use them. And as such someone will always have them, either openly or not.

What we need is transparency, a commitment to limit their size, numbers and their proliferation.
And more importantly a step change away from the hostile and antagonistic approach to foreign affairs that most nations engage in - vestiges of my idealistic youth showing there.

The threat of nuclear war at present is real due to the number of 'rogue' nations, extremist regimes and megalomaniacal leaders.
And that is the exact reason I would never want the UK to give up its nuclear arsenal....any nuclear attack on us will be met with similar.

Every single country on earth should vote against nukes. Having said that, who cares if other countries approve or not; what are they gonna do about it? Write a strongly worded letter?

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Any ideas on how to disarm the world?

The youth have tried a few times to raise issues like this...

I loathe extremism myself yet I cannot fathom anything that will force every nation to give up their reigns of power. There's much smaller issues they'd happily have us fight over and we do nothing but indulge.

Thing is extremism is at all our doors, Australia is a nuclear capable nation of the highest order... All it takes is a switch of warheads!

I'm refraining from the conspiracy side of things such as all governments are hand in hand on the path to hell or that we might actually need nuclear weapons as that last bullet against an alien invasion. I don't think those things matter to the kids who get royally pissed off at our 'adult' ideas of protection.

To add: Maybe embrace the extremism? If we showed every child on earth what adults do in a brutally honest manner, showed them nukes and the hell that follows... If we gave them the codes after that do you think they'll launch at us all? Send them off into space for a fire works display? Do you think they'll "drop the gun" and cry?

It's their gun, it's their future.

Whilst I'd be happier in a nuke free world, the simple fact is we have them now. No-one is going to give them up. It. Won't. Happen.
This is the cross we as humans at this point in history have to bear.
Really, it's been far more dangerous for the "average individual" at times gone past. Just ask any Caveman. Or slave.
I've grown up under the shadow of nuclear fire and to be honest, it's just not worth worrying about.
Have to go, I've got some dogpoop to clear off my garden.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: musicismagic
If your enemy has nukes, you have to have nukes. Going basic to understand why we have doors locked at closing time for our businesses.

Yeah, I understand that concept. But that is the concept that is eventually going to get us all killed. It must change. Talks need to start. Somehow, some way. The treaty is already there as a basis to start those talks.

I respect your views on world affairs and enjoy your threads, but I have to disagree here.

If it wasn't for these weapons and this "concept," we'd likely be in the middle of a world war right now, given Russia's aggression in Europe.

i wouldn't call it a "warning", that implies a threat,, its more like we asked them to not sign it because it would make things harder for us, and would likely embolden china and other states, making wars much more likely because suddenly there's no threat of annihilation, war would become worth the risk once again. i can only imagine NATO fighting multiple wars at the same time on the regular or generally having to be more aggressive without nuclear weapons, probably would also become impossible to enforce UN resolutions because sanctions would only cause wars.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: musicismagic
If your enemy has nukes, you have to have nukes. Going basic to understand why we have doors locked at closing time for our businesses.

Yeah, I understand that concept. But that is the concept that is eventually going to get us all killed. It must change. Talks need to start. Somehow, some way. The treaty is already there as a basis to start those talks.

I respect your views on world affairs and enjoy your threads, but I have to disagree here.

If it wasn't for these weapons and this "concept," we'd likely be in the middle of a world war right now, given Russia's aggression in Europe.

Well let's think about that for a minute. If no one had nuclear weapons, would Russia have risked its conventional army against Ukraines, and potentially, much of NATO, to invade Ukraine without nuclear bombs backing him up? I doubt it. And that's the point. Not having them would have been potentially a much further deterrent, and this war may have not even started.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

How many wars occurred in human history prior to nuclear weapons being developed?

The absence of nuclear weapons is hardly evidence for the prevention of war.

And as I stated in my last post; unfortunately we can't uninvent things.
Even if in the highly unlikely scenario that everyone agrees to scrap their nuclear weapons I'd guarantee given the duplicit nature of human beings that somewhere down the line, be it 1 year or 5 years or whatever, someone would say guess what kids, we lied and we didn't dismantle our nuclear weapons, or we kept the plans, and if you don't do as we say we're going to nuke the crap out of you.

That's just the sad reality of things.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

Well let's think about that for a minute. If no one had nuclear weapons, would Russia have risked its conventional army against Ukraines, and potentially, much of NATO, to invade Ukraine without nuclear bombs backing him up? I doubt it. And that's the point. Not having them would have been potentially a much further deterrent, and this war may have not even started.

When the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine had nuclear weapons. They gave them up based on promises of protection from the US and Russia.

Considering that no country with nuclear weapons has been invaded, I bet Ukraine wishes it had kept them. I bet Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if they faced nuclear retaliation.

"Give up your weapons. If you do, you will be safer."

Rightio.

Maybe test that theory on a smaller scale first. Let the politicians give up their armed security first. Then let law enforcement give up their weapons. After a dozen years or so let politicians and law enforcement say they are safer without weapons. Then reconsider the matter.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
They gave them up based on promises
of protection from the US . . .

U.s. has nuclear bombs, it has not deterred
the war in Ukraine what's so ever.

Adults that are realistic, know the concept of
snowballing, escalation, pissing contests,
my dick is bigger than yours . . .
unless they are deluded and childish.

but then americanism is a odd animal
Last I heard,
Afghanistan had 0 nuclear bombs and won,
may be it really is
about honesty rather than global greed and dicks ?
But that would just make too much sense . . .
seems U.s is suffering from
cowboy penis envy < true that




_______________________________

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Having said that, who cares if other countries approve or not; what are they gonna do about it? Write a strongly worded letter?

right, it's not like their gonna be able to take them away from those who have them. and like everybody says sanctions don't work, there's always somebody else that don't give a sh@@ what the UN says that will trade with you.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

The problem with a few countries having nukes is that the few countries will be more powerful than those that don't even though they might be dysfunctional. The USA basically runs the world politically at least in the West. They are doing it on the cheap by telling various governments how it is going to be, or they won't be protected from nasty Russia. When you analyze who is running the USA and by defacto the rest of the Western world. Who really knows who they are, or their motives and intentions?