Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military

Five of World's Most Powerful Nations Pledge To Avoid Nuclear War (theguardian.com) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the words-matter dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Five of the world's most powerful nations have agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought" in a rare joint pledge to reduce the risk of such a conflict ever starting. The pledge was signed by the US, Russia, China, the UK and France, the five nuclear weapons states recognized by the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) who are also the five permanent members of the UN security council. They are known as the P5 or the N5. Such a common statement on a major issue of global security has become a rarity at a time of increasing friction between Russia, China and the west. With Moscow threatening to invade Ukraine and China signaling its readiness to use military force against Taiwan, the joint statement represents a renewed commitment to prevent any confrontation turning into a nuclear catastrophe.

A senior US state department official said the wording of the statement had been hammered out at P5 meetings over several months, despite the high-tension environment. "At the base level to be able to say that this is how we think about these risks, and this is an acknowledgement that it is something that we want to avoid, particularly during a difficult time, I think is noteworthy," the official said. The release of the statement had been timed to coincide with the five-yearly review conference of the NPT, but that conference has been postponed amid the spread of the Omicron variant of Covid-19, and disagreements on whether the session could be held virtually. "We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought," the statement said, echoing a joint declaration by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at a 1985 summit in Geneva.

The NPT was a bargain between states without nuclear weapons, who pledged not to acquire them, and the five nuclear-armed states, which promised to disarm. The review conference, originally planned for 2020, was expected to be contentious as a result of the stalling of momentum towards disarmament and the moves made by the five weapons states to modernize their arsenals. Four other countries with nuclear weapons, not recognized under NPT: Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea -- have also shown no signs of reducing their stockpiles. Meanwhile, the breakdown of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and the deadlock so far in attempts to salvage it, have raised the risks of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. Monday's joint statement was aimed at improving the atmosphere at the NPT review conference.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Five of World's Most Powerful Nations Pledge To Avoid Nuclear War More

Five of World's Most Powerful Nations Pledge To Avoid Nuclear War

Comments Filter:

  • lol do we believe each other? (Score:3)

    by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @07:56PM (#62139939)

    If any of us believe this pledge, it means war is back on the menu!

    And if only some of us believe it, it means nuclear annihilation.

    In any case, I expect limited war between the US and China whenever China decides to attack Taiwan. I doubt they have the capability of getting more than one nuke past the US missile defenses, and if they tried it they'd be a sheet of glass a few minutes later.

    The biggest risk in my opinion is Russian nihilism. They might launch just because they don't want to be left out!

    • Re:lol do we believe each other? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:06PM (#62139965)

      I doubt they have the capability of getting more than one nuke past the US missile defenses

      I would suspect they would easily get dozens past US defenses quite easily. Yes they would probably be glass a few minutes later but basically both countries would be utterly destroyed in any exchange.

      • but basically both countries would be utterly destroyed in any exchange.

        so move closer to major metropolises?

        • Any supply chain we have i.e. trucks that move on highways to supply grocery stores could be severely damaged if not destroyed. So that would mean no access to food for most people.

          Which kind of makes me feel like this agreement seems more like a permission slip for China to invade Taiwan. Also, they would likely need to bomb US intelligence bases in Australia in order to blind those. Apparently China's leadership is so Xi Jinping centric there's not a lot of countering voices to this idea allowed in whatev

          • umm, it was a dark joke. move closer to targets (aka cities) so you won't have the misfortune of being a survivor of a nuclear war. fyi, it is not china, it is west or mainland Taiwan.
      • If you take missile test results in pretty optimal situations as evidence of real world performance... then yes, missile defence will be a savior.
      • China and Russia would have very similar capabilities to the US and even if you say no, well here is an example. In the Afghan war where your bro biden left military gear and said they would not be operational unless they know the US equipment, within days they were operational and even flew the helicopters they left behind, so they are not as impenetrable as you think. The US severely underestimates their opponents and luckily they are incompetent because if they were they aren't bound by procedures and co
    • "The biggest risk in my opinion is Russian nihilism. They might launch just because they don't want to be left out!"

      Now now now, Russia learned it was a bad idea after the whole Metro 2033 event...
    • It's just a bunch of feel-good talk. None of these Nations have anything to gain by using nukes and nothing to lose by saying that they won't.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        It's a pretty meaningless statement. All sides have recognized for half a century that a nuclear war would have no winners.

        The no first use policy is more meaningful. China and India have signed on to that one. Russia changed its mind in the 90s. Not surprising, since the US has always been adamantly opposed to such a thing.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Even the Russians, for all their nihilism, still value their families. A crappy life is better than no life.

      The main reason why this is an issue in the first place is that the US had weak leadership which has empowered Iran to start building missiles and striking at targets, Russia to start sharpening its knives for a chunk of Ukraine territory, and China wanting to bag Taiwan to end that "civil war", which would be an immense symbolic victory, similar to the Taliban, IS-whatever, and other Arab groups sur

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by matmos ( 8363419 )
        The point is that if any nation significantly is "losing" a war they are going to say f*ck it and hit the "launch all" button, then everybody loses.
    • Unfortunately, you are correct.

      This is not backed by any action.

      USA W76-2 are still on combat patrol and they have no other purpose, but to attack a non-nuclear nation first.

      Russia has added 2 ICBM submarines, a hunter ones and a diesel one in the last 3 month. The latter carry hypersonic missiles. They are also extensively testing all of that. In addition to that nearly all of its sub complement is presently on combat patrol. Practically none are in dock. On top of that 90% of its ICBM fleet is in a st

  • ... if only to avoid being subjected to an unwelcome "regime change" by one of those five hypocrites.

    • If a change of opinion comes as a result of a regime change, I don't think it counts as hypocrisy (although still bad in this case).

  • All it takes is one of the countries involved to have a big advantage if he uses nuclear weapons and he will use nuclear weapons. Of course, the world will end later with retaliations, but whoever really rules the world doesn't care a bit about what happens to others.

  • by the US, UK, France, China or Russia, but by Israel, Pakistan or India?
    I feel really much more comfortable and secure now. You too?

    • Final or next?

      If there's a war between India and Pakistan, it will probably remain regional. Kind of terrifying that while not a failed state, Pakistan is not the most stable of places.

      Also, if you have Israel, why not Japan? Officially neither have nuclear weapons, so neither of them are going to sign a pledge promising they won't use them. Unlike Israel, Japan has truly global ICBM capability. They've demonstrated the world's most well developed solid fuel launcher repeatedly (it can deliver satellites to

  • Reminds me of (Score:4, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:49PM (#62140097)

    the German Non-Aggression Pact. Presumably this would work out the same way.

  • North Korea, Pakistan and potentially Iran. Not a peep about those three rogue states.

  • Hopeless without the most powerful one (Score:3)

    by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @09:15PM (#62140167)
    This is absolutely worthless without the cooperation of Liechtenstein. I have always said, and you may quote me on TV, that without a world agreement on German Swiss cheese we are headed for global thermonuclear world-ending war.

  • What about India and Pakistan? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @09:23PM (#62140197)
    Can we get them to sign the pledge too? Because the most likely hotspot for nuclear war is between those two countries, and both have nuclear weapons.

  • With Moscow threatening to invade Ukraine and China signaling its readiness to use military force against Taiwan

    And with NATO continued expanding toward Russia [rferl.org] and the US attempts to block China's ocean access [wikipedia.org].

    (Why are western bias sneaking in on every international news?)

    -- DISCLAIMER: I don't work for Hill & Knowlton [wikipedia.org].

    • (Why are western bias sneaking in on every international news?)

      Not sure why you call that a western bias. If you lived in Ukraine or Taiwan the threat of military invasion would affect your life, no? Does it show a "western bias" even to talk about this stuff? Are you claiming that Russia and China aren't gearing up for invasions?

      • Except there is not a threat of an invasion. I understand you have your head up your ass but Russia and China are not threatening to invade anyone.

        Now the United States on the other hand has invaded several countries. So perhaps the Guardian is doing some projecting.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      The Slashdot editors and most of the readership are American, and the US has been spending the last five years riling up the populace for a good old great power dust up.

  • Hell,, even treaties and signed agreements don't mean what they used to. When a different person with a different agenda assumes power, all bets based on what may have happened previously are off the table.
    • Especially in the USA where each new president signs a bunch of international agreements to great fanfare, but our constitution explicitly says they are non binding unless ratified by the Senate, so the next one feels free to ditch them - again, frequently to great fanfare from their own political party.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        I wasn't going to name any names... but that's, exactly what I was thinking of when I made the above comment.

  • the whole point of a deterrent is your willingness to use it. The US never pledged not to use nukes during the cold war with the Soviets. Ivan needed to be scared.

  • This means nothing (Score:5, Informative)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday January 03, 2022 @11:28PM (#62140431) Journal
    China has threatened each of their neighbors just last year with using nukes against them. This will be done if they help America to help taiwan fight China's near future attack.

    Here is the threat against Japan [business-standard.com]
    Australia 1 [dailymail.co.uk]
    [7news.com.au]
    China's new missiles that are obviously nuclear [ft.com]
    More issues. [voanews.com]

  • Why do we have NATO? It is a big waste of time, energy, money, and lives in order to fight an unknown enemy, when the real enemies are within each country.

  • I see references to lots of articles, and they all refer to 1968, but none says when this new 'pledge' (not treaty,) was actually 'signed.' It was reported on December 30 in some rags, without a date that it actually happened. It's reported again today by some others, as if it maybe just happened, but still doesn't have a date and time. Where and when did this go down?
    • The article says the wording was hammered out over a number of weeks, but never says when everyone agreed. I would think that probably means this post on the govie website is a bit aspirational at this point in time.

  • We already knew this. The wording has changed but the meaning is the same - "the only winning move is not to play".

  • Well this was conveniently done just before Russia invades Ukraine and China invades Taiwan and/or Hong Kong. Now China and Russia can perform their invasions with the peace of mind of knowing that any retaliation by these major NATO nations won't escalate to the nuclear level.

  • There is no way the US can stop a Russian offensive into the Ukraine and then into Poland while simultaneously stopping a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without nukes.

    Faux President Biden (Xiden) just surrendered and started the next World War.

  • I read this article while I was watching Stanley Kubric's classic Dr. Strangelove.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close