this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
154 points (98.1% liked)

World News

36789 readers
621 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Nuclear-weapon states should negotiate and conclude a treaty on no-first-use of nuclear weapons against each other or make a political statement in this regard," Sun said.

China and India are currently the only two nuclear powers to formally maintain a no first use policy. Russia and the United States have the world's biggest nuclear arsenals.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The French will never agree.

Their stance has always been, if France is threatened we will use every weapon in our arsenal.

They do not have end the world stocks of nukes like the US or Russia so their attitude is, "Fuck with us and we will end you."

[–] Zellith@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

They do not have end the world stocks

I think you overestimate how many nukes it would take to cause the end of the world. Unless you mean "every piece of land is a radioactive wasteland" end of the world.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Radioactive contamination is basically a non concern. Potential massive climatic effects and logistics collapse on the other hand, are.

[–] Zellith@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, France has enough nukes to cause a nuclear winter several times over. And yes, while radioactivity levels drop rapidly, I meant it in the context of "every single piece of land is nuked and turned into a radioactive wasteland where you wouldnt want to be. Which is a concern because who wants to glow in the dark, right?".

Not sure France has enough nukes to literally hit every square inch of the planet in one go.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If just India and Pakistan were to go to nuclear war with each other, in their small localized region of the world, 27 million people would die from the carnage. The resulting nuclear Autumn would be enough to change agriculture and starve 250 million people worldwide.

Kurzgesagt Video with timestamp: https://youtu.be/LrIRuqr_Ozg?si=Nn6YuO0llyB-B6If&t=380

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Seems like incredibly low totals.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/LrIRuqr_Ozg?si=Nn6YuO0llyB-B6If&t=380

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's says an error about watch lists for me. Try yewtu.be instead

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How so, that is exactly inline with "no first use".

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

How could "we will use every weapon in our arsenal" possibly be interpreted to mean "no first use"?

Nuclear weapons would not just be used to respond to nuclear threats, if that's your assumption.

[–] Balthazar@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm all for countries vowing not to use nuclear weapons first, but what is the point of a treaty? If a country does use nuclear weapons first, I think other countries are going to be less concerned about breaking the treaty and more concerned about WW3 and Armageddon. And given that both the US and Russia have shown scant regard for treaties in recent years with major changes to policy, surely the treaty wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That is obviously fake news the libs and MAGAs told me Chyyyyna bad!

[–] thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Folks, very smart people are saying it. I talk to CEOs, generals, every day they tell me. They tell me China is a problem, they say "we've got a problem with China. We've gotta do something about China." Everybody's saying it. That's what they tell me.

Should have thrown in a "I'm a very stable genius" somewhere.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I fail to see the point of such a treaty. This planet isn't surviving a nuclear war long enough to hold anyone accountable over it anyway.

[–] Overzeetop@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can tell if China is worried about current Russia or a future US under Trump.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is directed to the US, UK, France, and Pakistan.

China and india already have no-first-use policies. Russia inherited one from the USSR, which was dissolved when the west coup'd them and immiserated their people. Russia's lack of a no-first-use policy is directed at the guys who represent an existential threat to them.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Russia makes constant nuclear threats and doesn't have a no first use policy, but it's totally entirely the fault and moral obligation of the us. Totes definitely."

lol

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russia makes far fewer nuclear threats than the US who flies stealth bombers right up to the border of North Korea every year and is developing new ICBMs.

But yes Russia's nuclear policy, including their revocation of no-first-use in the 90s is in response to the US's actions.

The current situation is especially ironic because Yeltsin, the guy who executed the coup and burned parliament, and removed the No-First-Use policy, and Putin, were both picked by the US.

[–] False@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This would be a mixed bag because it could open the door on more conventional wars since it would left the threat of MAD.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 1 year ago

I think this applies more to our typical bullying. Against another nuclear state, this treaty is meaningless.

[–] jackpot@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

this is largely symbolic, it doesnt change anything

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Agreements? Concentions? Those never get broken.

Geneva anyone?

[–] naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

China and India are the only responsible players on the world stage and it shows.

Cojncidentally, they're also the two nuclear-armed countries who have been involved in the fewest conflicts, and who's conflicts have been resolved the most quickly.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, they have been fighting each other without guns.