national

U.N. chief urges nuclear powers to abide by no first-use pledge

26 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


26 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

No first use is great for those countries with powerful conventional forces. When weaker nations face a stronger one, their nuclear weapons are the leveler. That's why Russia will never agree faced with NATO and North Korea will never agree faced with the US. The whole idea is a non starter. The threat of nuclear weapons is the reason countries get them in the first place.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Why doesn't Mr UN Secretary-General sit down with Vladimir Putin and tell him that. Last I checked the news Putin is the only one who has hinted at the use of Nuclear weapons. This despite his country Russia not being attacked or invaded.

Guterres is both useless and a coward. Telling all nations with Nuclear weapons not to use them when only one is actuaslly threatening to do so.

9 ( +17 / -8 )

Can’t we have a concealed carry nuclear policy? Why can’t everyone have one?

The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is to have a good guy with a nuke. So if everyone has nukes only criminals will have nukes, or something along those lines.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Ossan, while I on the whole agree with what you say, Guterres is in Japan at an event that will get world wide coverage, any reiteration of the idea of not using nuclear weapons is hardly to be criticised. It highlights the barbarity, utter savagery and wholly uncaring self absorption of the one sick puppy who has threatened the use of them in an ongoing invasion of a peaceful and non threatening neighbour.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

english aspyrend, I am neither criticizing Guterres' visit to Hiroshima nor his message. I am criticizing his failure to point out Russia by name as a country which clearly does not abide by his, and the world's beliefs. The Hiroshima Ceremony would be an ideal platform make this clear.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Oh UN. no first-use pledge is what you beg for

3 ( +4 / -1 )

While there are nine countries with atomic bombs all the urging does not guarantee the future. Japan borders three countries with atomic bombs each more than 100 times greater than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

No first use against countries with weaker conventional forces only. Against stronger countries no such commitments should be made.

Also any non-nuclear country threatened by a stronger nuclear country should immediately be provided nuclear weapons of their own to maintain peace.

That is the road to peace. Not some fairy tale fantasy of a world free of nuclear weapons.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Again a discussion that makes no sense. After 77 years the world is still lead and governed by those idiots who are not able at all to abolish and extinguish all nuclear arms although they have seen what happens if they are used. In contrary, they still newly produce or modernize the arsenal and quite a bunch of new leading idiots is already standing in line for getting a grip on atomic armament for their countries too. Nothing will change here, if now or in the future the same idiots negotiate, pledge or sign anything. It’s therefore of now use to discuss anything or expect something significant into a better direction with those zero IQ people in power everywhere. No way, stupidity rules the planet and it relies on nuclear arms. That’s the status quo and no change in sight.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Why doesn't Mr UN Secretary-General sit down with Vladimir Putin and tell him that. Last I checked the news Putin is the only one who has hinted at the use of Nuclear weapons. This despite his country Russia not being attacked or invaded.

Guterres is both useless and a coward. Telling all nations with Nuclear weapons not to use them when only one is actuaslly threatening to do so.

I believe it’s a better idea to treat all of those involved equally and address all nuclear powers with respect.

“Discriminating” a madman with nuclear weapons wouldn’t be wise; in fact, it would only make things worse.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Also any non-nuclear country threatened by a stronger nuclear country should immediately be provided nuclear weapons of their own to maintain peace.

That is the road to peace. Not some fairy tale fantasy of a world free of nuclear weapons.

Yeah. That won’t work.

Think about it a little bit, then if you still feel the same way come back, type it again and next time I’ll break it down for you and possibly use harsh language.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Nobody seems to be listening to the UN anymore…

7 ( +7 / -0 )

They have nukes,stored 150 miles NE of me in Texas,they are too be loaded on our strategy bombers,them nukes are something that do not make me safe as a American

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

U.N. chief urges nuclear powers to abide by no first-use pledge

Which nations? Afaik, only Russia has made that pledge. China and the US have not, and I can not recall something like that from the minor ones like India, Pakistan, France, and UK. Israel does not even acknowledge it has them.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

There are secret American nukes on an airbase in the Netherlands.

One of the worst kept Dutch military secrets, that US nuclear weapons are being stored at the Dutch airbase in Volkel, has been confirmed in a draft report to the Nato parliament.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/07/nato-document-confirms-us-nuclear-bombs-are-in-the-netherlands/

5 ( +7 / -2 )

EvilBuddha

Also any non-nuclear country threatened by a stronger nuclear country should immediately be provided nuclear weapons of their own to maintain peace.

Sadly, there is something to be said for that. I remember that both Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi gave up their nuclear projects, and look what they as a thank you from our self-declared world policeman.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

In days past, leaders of the strongest nations always believed their forces would win conflicts, meaning they would survive. No matter how many others died, they and their families would live. Many were often wrong. Now with nuclear weapons that situation has altered and no matter how strong your armies are, if your opponent has nuclear weapons and can deliver them to your country, your imagined guarantee of safety is gone. When leaders feel threatened and have no options to survive they will have nothing left to lose and would launch nuclear weapons.

The threat of being nuked stops other nations, even those with nukes themselves, from going as far as to back such leaders into the "corner of no escape". Threaten to end a nuclear armed nation, even with just conventional weapons, and they will eventually launch nukes in their last ditch defense.

No matter who you are, if you have nukes, you will never be invaded by anyone. Russia knows this only to well. NK depends on this. The only danger for leaders is assassination from within.

Battles will still be fought, lost or won, on the lands of third nations, by nuclear powers. Direct attacks on nuclear armed nations may still happen without invasion or threat of takeover. These should not initiate a nuclear reply.

Wars are a danger as always, people will die as they always do in war. Nuclear weapons would only be used by the desperate as a last resort. Using them before then simply ends other options and means game over for literally everyone.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Also any non-nuclear country threatened by a stronger nuclear country should immediately be provided nuclear weapons of their own to maintain peace

Haven’t read a dumber comment for a long time.

That is the road to peace

It’s the road to Armageddon.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Redstorm,I think the citizens of the Netherlands, should demand their removal,if that their policy to not pissed nukes on their soil

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear program or any WDMs.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Which nations? Afaik, only Russia has made that pledge. 

This is not true. The USSR did adopt a no first use policy, but after its dissolution Russia dropped it, and under Putin adopted a doctrine that allows it to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional forces.

Which is why we are having this discussion in the first place in case you hadn’t noticed.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Saddam did have a nuclear plan ,he bought nuclear grade Vaccum pump oil from the US

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Saddam Hussein had no nuclear materials.

Iraq had three nuclear reactors in Tuwaitha, its main nuclear research site, south of Baghdad. One was destroyed by an Israeli air raid, in 1981, and the two others by U.S. airplanes in the 1991 Gulf war which followed Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wallace ,he had the centrifuges,but he never produce bomb grade material,the US knowed what weapon Saddam had,the US sold them too him,all those chemicals agents Google Bush NSD 26

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Do you have any smarter ideas to make it impossible for stronger nuclear armed nations from invading weaker non nuclear nations

Compared to the idea of making nuclear weapons more widely available across the globe, almost any idea is a smarter idea.

Sorry Armageddon is a Christian idea and I am not a Christian

Sorry, neither am I.

Nuclear weapons are instruments of peace

Words fail me.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

And here’s the video clip

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RJIjklgQsmo

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites