Jump to content
BANGKOK 17 June 2019 00:02
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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

By Tom Miles

 

2019-05-21T202048Z_1_LYNXNPEF4K1WZ_RTROPTP_4_NORTHKOREA-MISSILES.JPG

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)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-22
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

Edited by helpisgood
better verb
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Krataiboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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. 

Edited by WeekendRaider
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

 

 

Edited by Baerboxer
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...