Risk of nuclear war now highest since WW2, U.N. arms research chief says

[webfact]

Risk of nuclear war now highest since WW2, U.N. arms research chief says

By Tom Miles

 

FILE PHOTO: Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) Hwasong-14 is pictured during its second test-fire in this undated picture provided by KCNA in Pyongyang on July 29, 2017. KCNA via Reuters

 

GENEVA (Reuters) - The risk of nuclear weapons being used is at its highest since World War Two, a senior U.N. security expert said on Tuesday, calling it an "urgent" issue that the world should take more seriously.

 

Renata Dwan, director of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), said all states with nuclear weapons have nuclear modernisation programmes underway and the arms control landscape is changing, partly due to strategic competition between China and the United States.

 

Traditional arms control arrangements are also being eroded by the emergence of new types of war, with increasing prevalence of armed groups and private sector forces and new technologies that blurred the line between offence and defence, she told reporters in Geneva.

 

With disarmament talks stalemated for the past two decades, 122 countries have signed a treaty to ban nuclear weapons, partly out of frustration and partly out of a recognition of the risks, she said.

 

"I think that it’s genuinely a call to recognise – and this has been somewhat missing in the media coverage of the issues – that the risks of nuclear war are particularly high now, and the risks of the use of nuclear weapons, for some of the factors I pointed out, are higher now than at any time since World War Two.”

 

The nuclear ban treaty, officially called the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, was backed by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

 

The treaty has so far gathered 23 of the 50 ratifications that it needs to come into force, including South Africa, Austria, Thailand, Vietnam and Mexico. It is strongly opposed by the United States, Russia, and other states with nuclear arms.

 

Cuba also ratified the treaty in 2018, 56 years after the Cuban missile crisis, a 13-day Cold War face-off between Moscow and Washington that marked the closest the world had ever come to nuclear war.

 

Dwan said the world should not ignore the danger of nuclear weapons.

 

“How we think about that, and how we act on that risk and the management of that risk, seems to me a pretty significant and urgent question that isn’t reflected fully in the (U.N.) Security Council,” she said.

 

(Reporting by Tom Miles; Editing by Frances Kerry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

I’m sadly not surprised it will ease somewhat when we get competent leadership here

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

partly due to strategic competition between China and the United States

 

Well, okay, fair enough. 

 

Personally, I'd be more concerned about India, with its ruling party having its Hindu nationalistic elements, and Pakistan, which needs no explanation.  The two countries have fought three wars against each other just since WWII.  And, then there is the rising tension in the Kashmir area, a problem to various degrees for decades.

 

And, it's not just the nuclear havoc they could incur on each other, but there's also the prospect of a nuclear winter.  That would render the current climate change concern (or whatever it's called now) as a non-issue.

[helpisgood]

18 minutes ago, Tug said:

I’m sadly not surprised it will ease somewhat when we get competent leadership here

 

I share your concern. 

 

Let's hope that the US military has some kind of fail-safe plan in case Donald rants on Twitter about ordering a nuclear launch.

[30la]

But who cares, this world is now destined to die! Do any hotheads decide what should happen now? And so be it!

[howbri]

Why believe ANYTHING the UN says! They are the most anti-American, anti-freedom, socialist/communist organization on the planet. NO credibility. They've pushed socialist globalism and the fake climate-agenda for decades.

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

partly due to strategic competition between China and the United States.

And Russia; and between Pakistan and India; and between Israel and Iran?

Not to mention POTUS Trump's US withdrawal from INF nuclear treaty and cancellation of the Iranian nuclear deal.

[Krataiboy]

The nuclear ban treaty . . .   is strongly opposed by the United States, Russia, and other states with nuclear arms.

 

This Mexican stand-off at Last Chance Saloon could see us all blown to hell. Better call Greta - quick.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, helpisgood said:

 

I share your concern. 

 

Let's hope that the US military has some kind of fail-safe plan in case Donald rants on Twitter about ordering a nuclear launch.

Another post claiming that Trump can launch a nuclear strike just because.

Sad, really, that anyone would think that is possible.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter because we'll all be dead of climate change soon, according to those that claim we'll all die if we don't pay more taxes to spend on more international conferences that tell us that we are all going to die of climate change ( sarcasm alert for the humour devoid ):-)

[WeekendRaider]

something we have been living with for 100 years.  yawn.  now let's talk about how "normal", or not so normal, the baby El Nino of 2019 has been.  

for those of us who have spent time to really learn about this, that it is way more than just a simple physics thing because it involves people.

 

thermonuclear war pales in risk, as well as the outcome.

 

hurry up with that better border wall. 

[klauskunkel]

With world climate changing to ever higher temperatures, a nuclear winter could be what's needed! 

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, helpisgood said:

 

Well, okay, fair enough. 

 

Personally, I'd be more concerned about India, with its ruling party having its Hindu nationalistic elements, and Pakistan, which needs no explanation.  The two countries have fought three wars against each other just since WWII.  And, then there is the rising tension in the Kashmir area, a problem to various degrees for decades.

 

And, it's not just the nuclear havoc they could incur on each other, but there's also the prospect of a nuclear winter.  That would render the current climate change concern (or whatever it's called now) as a non-issue.

 

Pakistan and India are both nuclear armed and have been building strong armies, navies and air forces.

 

Great to see Britain's massive foreign aid to each country being used so wisely for the good of their peoples!

 

Meanwhile if commie Corbyn gets to be PM he'll scrap the UK's nuclear arms, reduce it's armed forces to almost nothing (probably thinks a worker's militia is a good idea) and keep giving huge amounts to India and Pakistan to try and buy the ethnic vote.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Pakistan and India are both nuclear armed and have been building strong armies, navies and air forces.

 

Great to see Britain's massive foreign aid to each country being used so wisely for the good of their peoples!

 

Meanwhile if commie Corbyn gets to be PM he'll scrap the UK's nuclear arms, reduce it's armed forces to almost nothing (probably thinks a worker's militia is a good idea) and keep giving huge amounts to India and Pakistan to try and buy the ethnic vote.

 

 

Great to see Britain's massive foreign aid to each country

Oh, say it isn't so! They kicked Britain out, so why is Britain giving them anything?

[Kasane]

8 hours ago, helpisgood said:

 

Well, okay, fair enough. 

 

Personally, I'd be more concerned about India, with its ruling party having its Hindu nationalistic elements, and Pakistan, which needs no explanation.  The two countries have fought three wars against each other just since WWII.  And, then there is the rising tension in the Kashmir area, a problem to various degrees for decades.

 

And, it's not just the nuclear havoc they could incur on each other, but there's also the prospect of a nuclear winter.  That would render the current climate change concern (or whatever it's called now) as a non-issue.

"Hindu nationalistic elements". Just a troll. Like American KKK. Italian mafiaso. 

But yeah, when  there are nuclear weapons the danger of nuclear winter is when, not if.

[micmichd]

6 hours ago, howbri said:

Why believe ANYTHING the UN says! They are the most anti-American, anti-freedom, socialist/communist organization on the planet. NO credibility. They've pushed socialist globalism and the fake climate-agenda for decades.

They are very well informed. They count, and they use numbers - regardless of political paradigms .

[Uptooyoo]

Over 90 percent of organisms that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. How arrogant it is to think that the fate of humans will be any different. Our species occupy a sliver of time in earth's existence.  Eventually, humanity will be erased without any trace it had ever existed. The remnants of what survive mass-extinction event, self inflicted or by external forces, will go on evolving, developing, rising and falling, for another five billion years before the sun burns out. We lose sight of the fact that the earth is just a speck of dust suspended in a beam of light orbiting a star that is no different than the trillions upon trillions of other stars.

[IAMHERE]

Nuclear winter will be an opportunity for mother nature to separate out the fittest for survival. Not so sure it'll be a bad thing. 

[sammieuk1]

I see nuclear driving here as my biggest threat ????

[choff56]

3 hours ago, Uptooyoo said:

Over 90 percent of organisms that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. How arrogant it is to think that the fate of humans will be any different. Our species occupy a sliver of time in earth's existence.  Eventually, humanity will be erased without any trace it had ever existed. The remnants of what survive mass-extinction event, self inflicted or by external forces, will go on evolving, developing, rising and falling, for another five billion years before the sun burns out. We lose sight of the fact that the earth is just a speck of dust suspended in a beam of light orbiting a star that is no different than the trillions upon trillions of other stars.

"Eventually, humanity will be erased without any trace it had ever existed". I understand your frustration, but the cement in the Hoover Dam is sill drying.

[Yellowtail]

If it the worst since WW2, why is it not the worst ever? Were there nuclear weapons prior to WW2?

 

I think it safe to assume the 122 countries that signed the agreement either do not have nuclear weapons or signed it but have no intention of signing.

 

Why did ICAN win the Nobel Prize, if the threat is worse than ever?

 

I bet everyone at UNIDIR still has a cushy job regardless of (apparently) ineffective they are.

[the guest]

Give a child a dynamite stick, then follows consequences !

[Uptooyoo]

1 hour ago, choff56 said:

"Eventually, humanity will be erased without any trace it had ever existed". I understand your frustration, but the cement in the Hoover Dam is sill drying.

No frustration...just stating facts. That's why I said "eventually." Because of plate tectonics, the earths crust is constantly being renewed. The Hoover dam will likely enter an area of subduction and be thrust deep into the earth's mantle where it will become molten and dispersed within, along with all of the earth's surface given enough time. (Hawaii's fate for certain.)  In the end, the sun will swell into a red-giant, the oceans will boil off. The atmosphere will be lost to space. All organic matter will be incinerated into charcoal. The sun will implode into itself, becoming a black dwarf. Lights out. No record of anything ever having existed on the third rock.

[Yellowtail]

23 minutes ago, Uptooyoo said:

No frustration...just stating facts. That's why I said "eventually." Because of plate tectonics, the earths crust is constantly being renewed. The Hoover dam will likely enter an area of subduction and be thrust deep into the earth's mantle where it will become molten and dispersed within, along with all of the earth's surface given enough time. (Hawaii's fate for certain.)  In the end, the sun will swell into a red-giant, the oceans will boil off. The atmosphere will be lost to space. All organic matter will be incinerated into charcoal. The sun will implode into itself, becoming a black dwarf. Lights out. No record of anything ever having existed on the third rock.

3

 

I thought charcoal was organic matter, no?

[Uptooyoo]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I thought charcoal was organic matter, no?

Yes, just another form. You are organic matter, are you charcoal?

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Uptooyoo said:

Yes, just another form. You are organic matter, are you charcoal?

What form is it?  

[Uptooyoo]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

What form is it?  

Charcoal is formed when organic matter is heated (water removed) in the absence oxygen.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Uptooyoo said:

Charcoal is formed when organic matter is heated (water removed) in the absence oxygen.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question does it? 

[Uptooyoo]

Do you want the chemical formula? There are plenty of online references to answer any questions you have. I've answered enough...I think you are begining to bore the forum.

[SteveK]

14 minutes ago, Uptooyoo said:

Do you want the chemical formula? There are plenty of online references to answer any questions you have. I've answered enough...I think you are begining to bore the forum.

I think you're the one boring people.

[gunderhill]

bring it  on and  do  the  world  a  favour.