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

And here’s the video clip

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Nobody seems to be listening to the UN anymore…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.