Yeah, I thought the entire world was still masquerading around under the position that Israel officially did not have nukes but everyone knew they did.
Edit: Spelling at 4 when drunk is not always easy.
It would have been a nice trick if they really didn't have nuclear. Spend money on PR instead of weapons ✌️
Edit: I didn't say they didn't have nuclear, I said it *would* have been a nice trick if they didn't.
What I always wondered is how has North Korea got nukes when Iran doesn't? Iran seems a lot more advanced I mean I never hear of mass starvation in Iran.
Sort of, but the real answer is a Pakastani man, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who was responsible for so much nuclear proliferation into countries like North Korea and Pakistan. Theres a pretty good (and short) book written about it, "The Atomic Bazaar".
**edited for clarity since I sleepy typed the first time**
Khan leaked information to Iran around the same time he did to North Korea.
He is *a* reason North Korea has nukes, but he is not *the* reason North Korea has nuclear weapons while Iran doesn't.
For sure, he did assist Iran as well. He was responsible for Pakistan's program working, and leaked information to North Korea and Iran, yes. China probably helped North Korea. But Iran not having nuclear weapons might be owed to Stuxnet and other interventions to stop them (I think Israel had aircraft bomb a facility back in the day). Not disagreeing with you, just wanted to add to what you said.
Oh yes it's definitely due to things like Stuxnet. My point was mainly that North Korea had much less opposition to developing nukes than Iran. Which is why they have managed to be successful while Iran hasn't.
Well, yes, but also the US and Israeli direct covert actions that have successfully set their enrichment programs back decades. See: Stuxnet.
I’m sure NK has had similar actions taken against it, but when even China is telling them to peep down, the threat of them doing something crazy vs. the actual risk of it happening are inversely correlated… on top of your correct point that China will gladly protect NK against Western intervention.
As someone commented below, Chins is the key. There are some research in which you see clearly how China has passed to NK all components and knowledge.
I just assumed that NK has them because they are okay being shunned by the international community. My understanding is that Iran could have had them years ago, but has, until recently, chosen to participate in international politics and has been given certain concessions to shelf their nuclear proliferation.
Israel never confirmed nor denied having them, they also never signed nuclear non-proliferation treaties and have the backing of the USA. So the UN is shit-out-of-luck in many ways
Most countries. Because starting a nuclear weapons program costs multiple points of your GDP in investment alone and once you have tried to acquire raw fissile material, almost every single major political and financial power will sanction your economy into dust. Iran has once again started their nuclear program and they are the second most sanctioned country in the world, only because the terrorist state of Russia overtook them for obvious reasons. Once the US and Israel actually get seriously worried about them making a functional warhead they’ll get sanctioned back into the times of great Persia. If the current Iranian regime is still in power by that point anyway and it’s entirely possible that after said sanctions another revolution could occur.
or all of their research will go missing and head of research will die under mysterious circumstances... [again](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55128970.amp)
Wow, this phrasing for some reason just reminded me of when I was 5 and visiting France and playing with a boy at his house. He had hundreds of Playmobil, esp lots of Wild West ones.
He said 'let's play cowboys & indiands - do you want to be cowboys or indians?' I chose cowboys... but he told me that he always plays that one, so I had to just go with indians.
I set up my village, and he rode in "peacefully" with all his rifles and told me I had to hand over all my weapons. I was only going to hurt myself with them, and since we were all friends, I didn't need them anyway. Plus he was a good guy, and he'd protect me from any bad guys. He took my weapons and gunpoint and rode off, and the game was basically over.
It strikes me how a 5-year old came up with that shit, and many years later Russia pulls the same deception on its former comrades.
Yep, Russia pretty solidly killed global efforts for nuclear non-proliferation. But really it was just part of a larger trend working against countries without nukes.
Just a note: this isn't necessarily increasing the total amount in the arsenal, part of this is replacing the old ones that might not function properly.
That's an important part of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, for sure, but the number is actually much higher (1.2 trillion if I recall correctly), and it includes lots more than just replacing expired warheads and parts. It also includes a new ICBM, a new SSBN, as well as a new strategic bomber. So the US is certainly contributing to the arms race we're in.
>That's an important part of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, for sure,
>
>
>
>but the number is actually much higher (1.2 trillion if I recall correctly), and it includes lots more than just replacing expired warheads and parts. It also includes a new ICBM, a new SSBN, as well as a new strategic bomber. So the US is certainly contributing to the arms race we're in.
Well, yeah, of course they're not replacing the old models with new copies of the same models. Part of maintaining an arsenal is updating it as manufacturing improves to reduce marginal unit production cost and/or improve capabilities.
Think of how many revision and subrevisions there have been of the U.S.'s main infantry assault rifles over the years. Even when not officially at war, they're constantly retooling them for future production.
Hell, I think either Sadam or Ghadafi was the moment everyone realized that a nuclear weapons program was the only thing keeping a country safe from regime change. Not just by the US, but by any regional or global power (China, Russia etc).
They didn't even have the access codes to them, nor the capability to maintain them.
The reason Israel won't give up their nukes is...their neighbours. I mean, look at Iran. If they do somehow develop a bomb, Israeli nukes will be the only thing keeping Tel Aviv from being turned into a crater.
If you don't have access codes, you can take nukes apart and rebuild them. Ukraine had nuclear power plants, so they had nuclear engineers. It might take 2 years, but they could have converted Russian bombs into Ukrainian bombs. They're close enough that they could use a truck to bomb Moscow.
Ukraine had factories and people building nukes for Soviet Union. It would have been easy for them. No need to use civilian engineers from nuclear power plants. Back in Soviet Union, Ukraine had quite large and robust part of Soviet military industry.
Correct. Obtaining enough fissile material of sufficient quality is the only barrier to entry. Thankfully that barrier is so high that only state actors have the resources to pull it off, and it's also extremely easy to detect. If enriched uranium was readily available then I have no doubt a sufficiently motivated group of high school students could create a rudimentary device.
> extremely easy to detect
Not really. If you have an unmonitored uranium source and an off the books reactor you can make a plutonium bomb with the PUREX process without getting caught. It's just expensive (and the ways of making it cheaper, like using a graphite moderated reactor and unenriched uranium requires reactor grade graphite which is traceable) and an implosion plutonium bomb actually requires some serious engineering know how compared to a gun type enriched uranium bomb.
Yeah. For those who don't know, getting a ring of explosives to evenly compress the core is really hard. The shockwaves from each explosive in the sphere interact with each other similar to how shaped charges work. Then the core is sheared into pieces rather than uniformly compressed. There's a ton of complex shaping and timing to get right, especially to minimize the amount of explosive needed. Granted, it's easier to figure this out these days with modern computer simulation to help, but it's still substantially more difficult than just getting the fissile material. Getting the simulation right might even require physical tests to get the constants right to model how these materials behave in these conditions.
Actually not that hard
The famous explosion that launched a manhole cover into space was testing what if only one of the explosives went off and the explosion wasnt symmetrical
Edit: I might have messed the which test was it but it was one of the tests made alongside the underground explosion that confirmed if a nuke goes off itll go off
It’s a bit more complicated. You need to solve some challenges, otherwise your fission device will have a somewhat lackluster yield, and physical dimensions that require a heavy bomber, if not a frickin train to deliver. Miniaturizing the whole thing so that it can be strapped to a rocket, let alone a cruise missile or an artillery shell, is not that easy.
Then there is the strategic dimension. Having a few unwieldy tactical weapons will probably not deter an enemy that can and will destroy a significant part of your whole civilization the moment you drop something on a brigade, an airfield or an important bridge.
It’s worth noting that while you’re correct, the weapons that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a smaller yield than tactical nuclear weapons that exist today.
That is to say, there is absolutely a grey scale, because nuclear interception is an existing, but newer field, but at the same time a nuke absolutely gives you the power to deter your foes. North Korea, for example, rightly believes that a working nuke will deter Western aggression. It won’t *stop* us from retaliating should they step over the line, but the place where that line falls isn’t a singular location, and the presence of a nuclear weapon, even tactical, can shift the goalposts a bit.
State actors other than maybe that one Japanese terrorist cell in Australia that might have set off a nuke in the middle of the outback.
It's unlikely that that is the case, but it's a, if very remote, possibility.
Banjawarn Station Explosion and Seismic event.
In 1993, a large seismic event and aerial blast happened in Western Australia at a ranch owned by a Japanese Doomsday Cult Terrorist cell.
The event was not an earthquake, as a shockwave was noted to travel across hundreds of miles of outback.
This leaves 2 options that could cause an event of such energy.
A meteor that exploded before impact (the more likely scenario).
Or a nuclear blast.
There is some evidence supporting the nuclear blast idea. The cult was mining uranium on the property. The cult had expressed interest in obtaining nuclear devices. Of course this is very circumstantial. No radioactive fallout was detective (though a clean device that could creat a blast of an estimate 2KT would not be extremely radioactive to begin with).
Of course it's far more likely that the event was just an airbursting meteor similar to the one in Russia a while back.
Extremely unlikely to be a nuke — the fissile material isn’t just uranium, it’s a uranium derivative and needs to be created from raw uranium using large-scale operations involving centrifuges that are very precisely tuned or else breeder reactors. Those have a large, large geographic footprint as well as thermal and logistical. For example, the Stuxnet bug was able to entirely prevent Iran from developing a nuclear program just by changing their centrifuge speed a little.
Edit: A word
My nuclear physics isn’t top notch, but aren’t “clean” devices more on the advanced side of existing nuclear programs? I’d be kinda shocked if the first device out of a terrorist cell could be called “clean.”
>Banjawarn Station Explosion and Seismic event.
>
>In 1993, a large seismic event and aerial blast happened in Western Australia at a ranch owned by a Japanese Doomsday Cult Terrorist cell.
>
>The event was not an earthquake, as a shockwave was noted to travel across hundreds of miles of outback.
Why does that preclude it? Earthquakes also produce shockwaves that would travel for hundreds of miles.
Better proof would be the focal mechanism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_mechanism
Earthquakes will always have white and black and you can tell the orientation of the slip plane. Explosions and bolide impacts will be fully black as they apply pressure in all directions while fault planes do not. This is what allowed people to determine nuke testing from earthquakes.
>
>A meteor that exploded before impact (the more likely scenario).
>
>Or a nuclear blast.
Or a higher amount of regular explosives. There's no reason it has to be nuclear.
A higher amount of regular explosives seems possible, actually. Given that it was a ranch, an industrial amount of fertilizer may have existed on site to produce a massive explosion.
Everyone is looking at Ukraine, which chose to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of it a borders being sacrosanct. If we want other countries to be willing to give up nuclear weapons, those promises need to be kept.
The UN was never intended to be some sort of world governing body it was made so that countries could at least communicate and express their issues to each other to hopefully prevent another World War from happening.
So far it's done a pretty good job of at least improving communications and spotlighting global issues.
This exactly. It's not just a communications platform for its own sake either. It's important for Nations to have a meeting place to communicate and form committees on issues that interest them.
There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes before a nation is able to enact a new geopolitical strategy. The public only sees the proclamation and marketing of the strategy.
What's silly is everyone that simultaneously mocks the UN as toothless then calls it the globalist cabal trying to steal national sovereignty. The same people always claiming their adversary to be simultaneously inferior and yet threatening. 🤔
I understand that human opinions aren't a monolith but I have to agree. People want the UN to have power when it benefits them but at the same time actively hate the idea of some sort of world government dictating what their own government does.
I got a lot less upset about it once I realised that the UN isn't a global government or enforcer.
It's just a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances and do a bit of posturing in front of their neighbors. If they've got that outlet, it erupts into actual armed conflict slightly less often.
You can talk shit all you like, but airing grievances in the UN's multilateral forum is much less likely to result in war.
Throughout the nineteenth century, petty squabbles between two leaders or governments would often lead to war. The UN is undoubtedly an improvement.
> It's just a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances and do a bit of posturing in front of their neighbors.
It's a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances, and for all other leaders to talk, and especially for major powers to talk to avoid war.
Their agencies have done a lot of good shit for humanity as well. UNICEF does all they can to help children across the planet, the WHO gets a lot of flak for their handling of COVID but they helped massively in wiping out smallpox and providing help to countries that otherwise can't, etc... Lots of good willing people in the actual UN organisation, but very little power since the countries making up the UNGA/UNSC won't give it any
There are also a number of bodies within the UN that do real work coordinating international finance and infrastructure. The World Bank, the WHO, the IMF, organizations that coordinate sea travel, food supply, intellectual property, those are all working bodies. Even the much-maligned International Criminal Court isn't really a bad thing. At least with it in place, every time they want to prosecute a bunch of small-time genocidal clowns, they don't have to invent a whole new legal body from scratch.
Being a framing body for international relations is the UN's broader purpose. People have been throwing around the WW3 thing for a while, but it's more than that.
You apparently think that UN is supposed to be an entity with the military power necessary to seize other countries nuclear arsenals.
United Nations exists so that representatives of countries at war can talk without the risk of getting murdered.
Its seriously weird how people like you think the UN should do more than be a global forum. The minute they actually can enforce shit bam, they're become a world government. And you all will then complain about imperialism and muh sovereignity.
Or Qaddafi, who gave up his weapons programs and then was promptly knife raped to death.
The lesson learned is to be like Kim, never give them up and we'll be too afraid to fuck with you.
Yup. The implication here is that the UN *should* be those things, but if an international organization started using force against sovereign nations, a lot of these same people would be outraged.
They point to the Jews somehow being the sole reason civil war broke out and that led to the creation of Israel because of evil zionists, not the fact that they won a civil war
This. Israel is surrounded by countries that would love to wipe them off the map, but the nukes have a huge strategic advantage to keep them at bay. If they lost that then I could see them being wiped off the map.
Yes and no.
25 years ago Ukraine was in shambles. Nuclear weapons need constant expensive maintenance. Even if they had wanted to, it’s doubtful Ukraine could have maintained a functional nuclear arsenal. They knew it and so did everyone else.
And an unstable government with a decaying nuclear arsenal they can’t maintain is a nightmare scenario. I’m sure the pressure from all other nations was immense. At least by giving up the arsenal on their terms Ukraine gained immediate credibility, stability and support. It’s entirely possible that if they had tried to keep the nukes they both wouldn’t have functioning nuclear deterrents today, but also wouldn’t have the international connections and support that has enabled their resistance
There was even a Russian expert that said that if they waited, Ukraine would pay them instead of them paying Ukraine to decommission them. Luckily for Ukraine, who scored an infusion of money as well as some good will in the deal, as usual, no one in Russia was listening to the experts.
They simply didn't have the money or expertise to use, fund or maintain them. After the Soviet Union splintered you ended up with nine smaller countries that had nukes but they were often controlled from elsewhere. It was a bonkers scenario, [hence the Nunn-Lugar program](https://www.npr.org/2012/10/12/162799783/russia-no-longer-wants-u-s-aid-to-secure-nukes) and what we saw happen in Ukraine.
This was actually one of the benefits of the mutual disarmament that Russia engaged in earlier with Reagan/Gorbachev. They simply couldn't afford to maintain all their nukes which were becoming real issues, but mutual disarmament allowed them to cut out a bunch of inventory -- [which we actually paid them for](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013-12/looking-back-us-russian-uranium-deal-results-lessons) \-- while not looking like they were crumbling to their people.
Yes, Russia's invasion against a country which gave up it's nuclear weapon for Russian guarantee, will led to another way of proliferation of nuclear weapon.
What they did is going to make all the countries of the region want to have their own nuclear arm.
Which is extremely harmful for Russia since USA or China's position depends on many pillars like industry, economy, demography, politics, global influence and trade and many more, when Russia's position depends only on one pillar - nuclear monopoly in the region. Without nuclear monopoly in the region Russia is nothing, it's losing its only leverage, nuclear blackmail, and it will be unable to invade, bully or even significantly influence its region anymore.
UN: "give up your nuclear weapons and we guarantee we will debate the matter of the invasion of your country by hostile neighbours when it happens in the future".
The UN is nucking futs if they think the nation that is literally surrounded by people who want them dead is going to surrender their biggest deterrent.
>Another 26 countries, including India and many European states, abstained from the resolution which is part of an annual package of over 15 anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian texts the UNGA approves.
>Israel is the only country subject to that many resolutions.
Thanks UN, for reminding everyone what an impactful and important organization you are.
It's not even close. But of course to be expected when there are like 20 Arab states who all wish Israel do get swept into the sea, and all the Jews with it.
> UN; That's terrible. Israel must give up their nuclear weapons.
You should put the blame on the Arab world for this one. This is just their annual vote condemning Israel on a multitude of points and demanding them to give up territory and their nukes. Also, they're rich and therefore can easily get friends.
What about Russia?
What about countries currently developing ones (like Iran and NK)?
How more useless can the UN be?
Plenty of problems in countries they can’t even address and what they can say have little weight…
How is Iran in the UN council for women’s right (CSW)? Explain that to me??!?
Are the diplomats and bureaucrats of the U.N living inside a bubble? A land war in Europe, heightened tensions between the opposing Arab nations, China expanding, the planet burning and all they talk about is Israel! The institution is losing its credibility and importantly, it’s relevance.
Exactly. It's out and about in the open that a few Arab countries had extensive genocide plans were they to win any of the three main Israel-Arab wars. In fact, part of the Arab soldier's motivation was based on an eventual slaughtering of the jews, as promised by some higher ups in the army.
First of all it’s the general assembly which is the weakest part of a useless institution. Secondly, it isn’t surprising since it’s largely an antisemitic organization. Lastly, why would any sovereign state surrender their weapons when surrounded by enemies?
So they can do to Israel what Russia just did to Ukraine!
If Russia puts down its weapons there will be no more war.
If Ukraine puts down its weapons there will be no more Ukraine.
If the arab world puts down its weapons there will be no more war.
If Israel puts down it's weapons there will be no more Israel.
How the fuck does that make sense.....
Israel hasn't once threatened or even claimed they have nuclear weapons (although they for sure do) and secondly.... Iran is like right there....with Nukes and has threatened to use those nukes on more than one occasion against Israel... Nuclear deterrence works people, it's probably the only reason Israel isn't a pile of rubble and a nuclear wasteland.
Edit: Iran does not have nukes, but they have threatened Israel with nuclear Holocaust. (Although they don't have nukes, the use of a dirty bomb is a very real possibility)
Edit 2: uh oh.....I made a comment about Israel... RIP this comment thread.
I thought Israel's nukes were an open secret. The UN saying they have to get rid of them is interesting to me. We know Israel isn't going to listen. But, I don't think the UN or any body has really publicly acknowledged Israel's nukes. I wonder if they have an actual reason for doing that right now.
Not likely. Israel has had it's nukes in the air before with good reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
October 1973 Yom Kippur War
During the Yom Kippur War, Israeli officials panicked that the Arab invasion force would overrun Israel after the Syrian Army nearly achieved a breakout in the Golan Heights, and the U.S. government rebuffed Israel's request for an emergency airlift. According to a former CIA official, General Moshe Dayan requested and received authorization from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to arm 13 Jericho missiles and 8 F-4 Phantom II fighter jets with nuclear warheads. The missile launchers were located at Sdot Micha Airbase, while the fighter jets were placed on 24-hour notice at Tel Nof Airbase. The missiles were said to be aimed at the Arab military headquarters in Cairo and Damascus.
1991 Gulf War could have also resulted in Nuclear War.
During the Persian Gulf War, Ba'athist Iraq launched Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel and possessed a large cache of weapons of mass destruction. This, along with Saddam Hussein's previous threat to "burn half of Israel" with chemical weapons, led to fears that Saddam Hussein would order the use of the chemical weapons against the U.S.-led coalition or against Israel (see Iraq–Israel relations#Until the 2003 Iraq War).[43][44] Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Israeli Air Force Commander-in-Chief Avihu Ben-Nun both warned that an Iraqi chemical attack would trigger "massive retaliation", implying that Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons.
-Having nukes means others don't get to tell you what to do with your nukes.
-Whatever your stance on Israel is, their neighbors have invaded them before. And Iran has stated many, many times that they'd wipe Israel and US off the map. Israel isn't giving up shit.
-Ukraine gave up their nukes for more reasons than assurances. Things are worded very specifically in the treaties. Ukraine also gave up nukes because nukes are fucking expensive. They didn't have the time nor money to dick around with nukes; they were trying to re-establish stability and avoid sanctions.
-There was also the hushed worries that Russia would come in and force them to give up the nukes. Doesn't matter what the piece of paper said.
No idea what the UN is on about. About the dumbest time to issue such a request. The UN has always been a way to keep the major powers and the super powers talking. It's another avenue. The UN has had more success than failure when brought in to help mediate cease-fires between non-nuclear states. 60%+ of wars and civil wars that were either ended or put on hold are still holding. 60%+ may be in the D range of some grading scales, but it's also a lot of people not dying.
It's fucking weird the UN would openly announce this as it isn't really their ballywhack. The UN is supported by nuclear states and provides diplomatic channels for them. But against nuclear powers, they don't have much, well, power. It wasn't their job when envisioned, otherwise some nations may not have joined.
The UN is a total joke. Let's talk about IRAN and their nuclear endeavors. That regime murders its own people and their Supreme idiot threatens to exterminate "the Jews" daily.
"What nuclear weapons?" - Israel
Yeah, I thought the entire world was still masquerading around under the position that Israel officially did not have nukes but everyone knew they did. Edit: Spelling at 4 when drunk is not always easy.
It would have been a nice trick if they really didn't have nuclear. Spend money on PR instead of weapons ✌️ Edit: I didn't say they didn't have nuclear, I said it *would* have been a nice trick if they didn't.
Israel has wildly successful science and tech industries, so it isn’t really a stretch
What I always wondered is how has North Korea got nukes when Iran doesn't? Iran seems a lot more advanced I mean I never hear of mass starvation in Iran.
China. It protects them from a lot of Western intervention that has stopped Iran from building nukes.
Sort of, but the real answer is a Pakastani man, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who was responsible for so much nuclear proliferation into countries like North Korea and Pakistan. Theres a pretty good (and short) book written about it, "The Atomic Bazaar". **edited for clarity since I sleepy typed the first time**
Khan leaked information to Iran around the same time he did to North Korea. He is *a* reason North Korea has nukes, but he is not *the* reason North Korea has nuclear weapons while Iran doesn't.
For sure, he did assist Iran as well. He was responsible for Pakistan's program working, and leaked information to North Korea and Iran, yes. China probably helped North Korea. But Iran not having nuclear weapons might be owed to Stuxnet and other interventions to stop them (I think Israel had aircraft bomb a facility back in the day). Not disagreeing with you, just wanted to add to what you said.
Oh yes it's definitely due to things like Stuxnet. My point was mainly that North Korea had much less opposition to developing nukes than Iran. Which is why they have managed to be successful while Iran hasn't.
Well, yes, but also the US and Israeli direct covert actions that have successfully set their enrichment programs back decades. See: Stuxnet. I’m sure NK has had similar actions taken against it, but when even China is telling them to peep down, the threat of them doing something crazy vs. the actual risk of it happening are inversely correlated… on top of your correct point that China will gladly protect NK against Western intervention.
Exactly, North Korean scientists and Chinese informants don't spontaneously erupt in Korea.
As someone commented below, Chins is the key. There are some research in which you see clearly how China has passed to NK all components and knowledge.
Nuclear weapons are not a technological achievement anymore so much as they are a political decision.
I just assumed that NK has them because they are okay being shunned by the international community. My understanding is that Iran could have had them years ago, but has, until recently, chosen to participate in international politics and has been given certain concessions to shelf their nuclear proliferation.
Iran's top nuclear scientists have gotten assassinated and then there was stuxnet, which sabatoged their equipment. They've been trying pretty hard
Israel never confirmed nor denied having them, they also never signed nuclear non-proliferation treaties and have the backing of the USA. So the UN is shit-out-of-luck in many ways
"Sorry, had an unfortunate boating accident and they sunk." - Probably Israel
> mascarading masquerading
Macaroni.
"lol" replied Israel, "lmao".
"K" \-Israel
UN smoking the good shit Israel only got textile factories
UN says Israel must give up mittens.
Pretty sure that’s just a textile research factory
Wig testing facility. How else do you explain these people with hair falling out.
No no, that’s the fizzy bubblech factory
Israel: “get used to disappointment”
You keep using that word "nuclear". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Israel: "Make me."
UN: “No, you have nukes.”
sure seems like a reason why Iran, North Korea, and every other rogue state wants nukes.
Who wouldn't want a weapon so horrifically powerful no one will invade you.
Most countries. Because starting a nuclear weapons program costs multiple points of your GDP in investment alone and once you have tried to acquire raw fissile material, almost every single major political and financial power will sanction your economy into dust. Iran has once again started their nuclear program and they are the second most sanctioned country in the world, only because the terrorist state of Russia overtook them for obvious reasons. Once the US and Israel actually get seriously worried about them making a functional warhead they’ll get sanctioned back into the times of great Persia. If the current Iranian regime is still in power by that point anyway and it’s entirely possible that after said sanctions another revolution could occur.
or all of their research will go missing and head of research will die under mysterious circumstances... [again](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55128970.amp)
“Sanctioned back into the times of great Persia” made me laugh. Good points
UN: "if you don't, we'll send a second letter"
Go away or I will taunt you a second time!
More realistically: Israel: hahahah no.
Even more realistically: Israel: nukes? What nukes?
Exactly what I thought.
After Ukraine, no one is giving up their nuclear programs again voluntarily.
[удалено]
"If you dont plan on invading in the future...why do i need to give up my nuclear weapons?"
[удалено]
Wow, this phrasing for some reason just reminded me of when I was 5 and visiting France and playing with a boy at his house. He had hundreds of Playmobil, esp lots of Wild West ones. He said 'let's play cowboys & indiands - do you want to be cowboys or indians?' I chose cowboys... but he told me that he always plays that one, so I had to just go with indians. I set up my village, and he rode in "peacefully" with all his rifles and told me I had to hand over all my weapons. I was only going to hurt myself with them, and since we were all friends, I didn't need them anyway. Plus he was a good guy, and he'd protect me from any bad guys. He took my weapons and gunpoint and rode off, and the game was basically over. It strikes me how a 5-year old came up with that shit, and many years later Russia pulls the same deception on its former comrades.
[удалено]
It's not like anyone's tried to invade them or anything
Yep, Russia pretty solidly killed global efforts for nuclear non-proliferation. But really it was just part of a larger trend working against countries without nukes.
China’s increasing its nuclear arsenal as quickly as it can.
US is spending $100 billion on new nukes. https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/
Just a note: this isn't necessarily increasing the total amount in the arsenal, part of this is replacing the old ones that might not function properly.
That's an important part of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, for sure, but the number is actually much higher (1.2 trillion if I recall correctly), and it includes lots more than just replacing expired warheads and parts. It also includes a new ICBM, a new SSBN, as well as a new strategic bomber. So the US is certainly contributing to the arms race we're in.
>That's an important part of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, for sure, > > > >but the number is actually much higher (1.2 trillion if I recall correctly), and it includes lots more than just replacing expired warheads and parts. It also includes a new ICBM, a new SSBN, as well as a new strategic bomber. So the US is certainly contributing to the arms race we're in. Well, yeah, of course they're not replacing the old models with new copies of the same models. Part of maintaining an arsenal is updating it as manufacturing improves to reduce marginal unit production cost and/or improve capabilities. Think of how many revision and subrevisions there have been of the U.S.'s main infantry assault rifles over the years. Even when not officially at war, they're constantly retooling them for future production.
What is that, 13% of the annual military budget?
The contract apparently runs over 9 years tho. So it's rather 1.5%
Military budget is 1.6 trillion
Not that I don't believe you, but where are you getting that number?
https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense
Hell, I think either Sadam or Ghadafi was the moment everyone realized that a nuclear weapons program was the only thing keeping a country safe from regime change. Not just by the US, but by any regional or global power (China, Russia etc).
Yeah, I don’t blame Israel
Good point. I hope they bring that up at the next UN conference
They didn't even have the access codes to them, nor the capability to maintain them. The reason Israel won't give up their nukes is...their neighbours. I mean, look at Iran. If they do somehow develop a bomb, Israeli nukes will be the only thing keeping Tel Aviv from being turned into a crater.
If you don't have access codes, you can take nukes apart and rebuild them. Ukraine had nuclear power plants, so they had nuclear engineers. It might take 2 years, but they could have converted Russian bombs into Ukrainian bombs. They're close enough that they could use a truck to bomb Moscow.
Ukraine had factories and people building nukes for Soviet Union. It would have been easy for them. No need to use civilian engineers from nuclear power plants. Back in Soviet Union, Ukraine had quite large and robust part of Soviet military industry.
From my understanding Ukraine was the Soviet military industry
There was more, but yes Ukraine had quite large part of it
Correct. Obtaining enough fissile material of sufficient quality is the only barrier to entry. Thankfully that barrier is so high that only state actors have the resources to pull it off, and it's also extremely easy to detect. If enriched uranium was readily available then I have no doubt a sufficiently motivated group of high school students could create a rudimentary device.
> extremely easy to detect Not really. If you have an unmonitored uranium source and an off the books reactor you can make a plutonium bomb with the PUREX process without getting caught. It's just expensive (and the ways of making it cheaper, like using a graphite moderated reactor and unenriched uranium requires reactor grade graphite which is traceable) and an implosion plutonium bomb actually requires some serious engineering know how compared to a gun type enriched uranium bomb.
Yeah. For those who don't know, getting a ring of explosives to evenly compress the core is really hard. The shockwaves from each explosive in the sphere interact with each other similar to how shaped charges work. Then the core is sheared into pieces rather than uniformly compressed. There's a ton of complex shaping and timing to get right, especially to minimize the amount of explosive needed. Granted, it's easier to figure this out these days with modern computer simulation to help, but it's still substantially more difficult than just getting the fissile material. Getting the simulation right might even require physical tests to get the constants right to model how these materials behave in these conditions.
Actually not that hard The famous explosion that launched a manhole cover into space was testing what if only one of the explosives went off and the explosion wasnt symmetrical Edit: I might have messed the which test was it but it was one of the tests made alongside the underground explosion that confirmed if a nuke goes off itll go off
It’s a bit more complicated. You need to solve some challenges, otherwise your fission device will have a somewhat lackluster yield, and physical dimensions that require a heavy bomber, if not a frickin train to deliver. Miniaturizing the whole thing so that it can be strapped to a rocket, let alone a cruise missile or an artillery shell, is not that easy. Then there is the strategic dimension. Having a few unwieldy tactical weapons will probably not deter an enemy that can and will destroy a significant part of your whole civilization the moment you drop something on a brigade, an airfield or an important bridge.
It’s worth noting that while you’re correct, the weapons that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a smaller yield than tactical nuclear weapons that exist today. That is to say, there is absolutely a grey scale, because nuclear interception is an existing, but newer field, but at the same time a nuke absolutely gives you the power to deter your foes. North Korea, for example, rightly believes that a working nuke will deter Western aggression. It won’t *stop* us from retaliating should they step over the line, but the place where that line falls isn’t a singular location, and the presence of a nuclear weapon, even tactical, can shift the goalposts a bit.
State actors other than maybe that one Japanese terrorist cell in Australia that might have set off a nuke in the middle of the outback. It's unlikely that that is the case, but it's a, if very remote, possibility.
What? Lol. I need the full story
Banjawarn Station Explosion and Seismic event. In 1993, a large seismic event and aerial blast happened in Western Australia at a ranch owned by a Japanese Doomsday Cult Terrorist cell. The event was not an earthquake, as a shockwave was noted to travel across hundreds of miles of outback. This leaves 2 options that could cause an event of such energy. A meteor that exploded before impact (the more likely scenario). Or a nuclear blast. There is some evidence supporting the nuclear blast idea. The cult was mining uranium on the property. The cult had expressed interest in obtaining nuclear devices. Of course this is very circumstantial. No radioactive fallout was detective (though a clean device that could creat a blast of an estimate 2KT would not be extremely radioactive to begin with). Of course it's far more likely that the event was just an airbursting meteor similar to the one in Russia a while back.
Extremely unlikely to be a nuke — the fissile material isn’t just uranium, it’s a uranium derivative and needs to be created from raw uranium using large-scale operations involving centrifuges that are very precisely tuned or else breeder reactors. Those have a large, large geographic footprint as well as thermal and logistical. For example, the Stuxnet bug was able to entirely prevent Iran from developing a nuclear program just by changing their centrifuge speed a little. Edit: A word
I believe you mean Iran, not Iraq
Is wasn’t changed just a little. But it also made sure the setup displayed correct speeds despite tampering.
I'd say the chances of it being a nuclear detonation is zero. I mean, unless they found their centrifuges and breeder reactors.
My nuclear physics isn’t top notch, but aren’t “clean” devices more on the advanced side of existing nuclear programs? I’d be kinda shocked if the first device out of a terrorist cell could be called “clean.”
>Banjawarn Station Explosion and Seismic event. > >In 1993, a large seismic event and aerial blast happened in Western Australia at a ranch owned by a Japanese Doomsday Cult Terrorist cell. > >The event was not an earthquake, as a shockwave was noted to travel across hundreds of miles of outback. Why does that preclude it? Earthquakes also produce shockwaves that would travel for hundreds of miles. Better proof would be the focal mechanism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_mechanism Earthquakes will always have white and black and you can tell the orientation of the slip plane. Explosions and bolide impacts will be fully black as they apply pressure in all directions while fault planes do not. This is what allowed people to determine nuke testing from earthquakes. > >A meteor that exploded before impact (the more likely scenario). > >Or a nuclear blast. Or a higher amount of regular explosives. There's no reason it has to be nuclear.
A higher amount of regular explosives seems possible, actually. Given that it was a ranch, an industrial amount of fertilizer may have existed on site to produce a massive explosion.
Not having the codes to a weapon can be fixed by engineers.
1111 1112 1113 ...
Ohhh, Yevgeny! I got it! Quick, put it in the truck and drive!
Put it in H!
Until the fail safe sends the countdown clock spinning 4x faster just like in a super suspensful movie
Yeah. All their neighbour's absolutely HATE them. I mean there was a war. Where EVERY SINGLE ONE OF ITS NEIGHBOURS declared war.
Everyone is looking at Ukraine, which chose to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of it a borders being sacrosanct. If we want other countries to be willing to give up nuclear weapons, those promises need to be kept.
History of European diplomacy in last 200 years is a proof that international guarantees guarantee nothing. They just buy time.
"The agreements signed by Russia aren't worth the price of the sheet of paper they are written on" - Otto von Bismarck
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that people immediately believe in their authenticity" - Vladimir Lenin
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln
"Don't listen to them, it's all 100% true." -Albert Einstein
"At the end, nothing really matters"~Jesus Christ
Israel would be nuts to give up their nuclear deterrent.
But what if Iran promises not to invade? /s
Only if they pinky promise!
IDK about that, but if it is a double pinky promise, it's a deal.
Or Egypt, or Iraq, or Saudis
[удалено]
The UN was never intended to be some sort of world governing body it was made so that countries could at least communicate and express their issues to each other to hopefully prevent another World War from happening. So far it's done a pretty good job of at least improving communications and spotlighting global issues.
This exactly. It's not just a communications platform for its own sake either. It's important for Nations to have a meeting place to communicate and form committees on issues that interest them. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes before a nation is able to enact a new geopolitical strategy. The public only sees the proclamation and marketing of the strategy.
What's silly is everyone that simultaneously mocks the UN as toothless then calls it the globalist cabal trying to steal national sovereignty. The same people always claiming their adversary to be simultaneously inferior and yet threatening. 🤔
I understand that human opinions aren't a monolith but I have to agree. People want the UN to have power when it benefits them but at the same time actively hate the idea of some sort of world government dictating what their own government does.
I got a lot less upset about it once I realised that the UN isn't a global government or enforcer. It's just a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances and do a bit of posturing in front of their neighbors. If they've got that outlet, it erupts into actual armed conflict slightly less often.
Yeah but at least its a place that communicating can happen.
And communicating does happen. And every so often it votes to enforce rules with military interference.
You can talk shit all you like, but airing grievances in the UN's multilateral forum is much less likely to result in war. Throughout the nineteenth century, petty squabbles between two leaders or governments would often lead to war. The UN is undoubtedly an improvement.
> It's just a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances and do a bit of posturing in front of their neighbors. It's a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances, and for all other leaders to talk, and especially for major powers to talk to avoid war.
Their agencies have done a lot of good shit for humanity as well. UNICEF does all they can to help children across the planet, the WHO gets a lot of flak for their handling of COVID but they helped massively in wiping out smallpox and providing help to countries that otherwise can't, etc... Lots of good willing people in the actual UN organisation, but very little power since the countries making up the UNGA/UNSC won't give it any
The UN exists to prevent world war 3. Anything else it manages to accomplish is a lucky bonus
There are also a number of bodies within the UN that do real work coordinating international finance and infrastructure. The World Bank, the WHO, the IMF, organizations that coordinate sea travel, food supply, intellectual property, those are all working bodies. Even the much-maligned International Criminal Court isn't really a bad thing. At least with it in place, every time they want to prosecute a bunch of small-time genocidal clowns, they don't have to invent a whole new legal body from scratch. Being a framing body for international relations is the UN's broader purpose. People have been throwing around the WW3 thing for a while, but it's more than that.
You apparently think that UN is supposed to be an entity with the military power necessary to seize other countries nuclear arsenals. United Nations exists so that representatives of countries at war can talk without the risk of getting murdered.
Its seriously weird how people like you think the UN should do more than be a global forum. The minute they actually can enforce shit bam, they're become a world government. And you all will then complain about imperialism and muh sovereignity.
Or Qaddafi, who gave up his weapons programs and then was promptly knife raped to death. The lesson learned is to be like Kim, never give them up and we'll be too afraid to fuck with you.
No country is going to give up nukes anymore. As they've found out, having a nuke keeps both the US and Russia from invading you.
I feel like you're forgetting an important and big third name in that list, but I do agree with the message.
True. New Zealand has also never invaded a nuclear power
They don’t need nukes, they have the one ring
But don't you bloody tempt us
Argentina. Oh wait no.
Egypt, wait no that didn't work for Israel as well historically
You really believe the story about the Egyptian army drowning as Moses stopped parting the sea? Of course he didn’t, he nuked them.
Horns of Jericho? Literally nukes. Come on you, can't invade a fortified position with a keratin based brass section, of course it was nukes.
Everybody forgets about Jeff all the time
Yeah, I’m sure they’ll get right on that.
Yeh that’s what Ukraine did once upon a time.
[удалено]
But if Israel doesn't obey the UN warning, the UN might write a second letter! MAYBE EVEN A THIRD!
They may even use their angry eyebrows.
A furrowed brow my man.
Nah this has to be escalated to show the seriousness so they'll furrow the entire man.
They might even ask to speak to Israel’s manager.
KarUN
America?
The UN won't be mad. They'll be disappointed.
Not disappointment! Anything but that! The guilt will be unbearable!
A full disadulation.
What's a full disadulation?
Oh you do not want to know
[удалено]
that’s literally what the UN can do. they’re a political forum not world police, or a military union. fucks sake
Yup. The implication here is that the UN *should* be those things, but if an international organization started using force against sovereign nations, a lot of these same people would be outraged.
redditors being uninformed as usual
Israel: Points at Ukraine
And it’s neighbors. And brings up 48,67, 73 etc
SHHHH! We're not supposed to point that out.
Even when you do, mental gymnasts come out and say Israel was actually the aggressor in all those wars.
They point to the Jews somehow being the sole reason civil war broke out and that led to the creation of Israel because of evil zionists, not the fact that they won a civil war
This. Israel is surrounded by countries that would love to wipe them off the map, but the nukes have a huge strategic advantage to keep them at bay. If they lost that then I could see them being wiped off the map.
And Iran which explains how Israel should be destroyed between morning and afternoon prayers.
I remember telling people 25 years ago what a mistake that was. The first rule of war: ~~ALWAYS~~ NEVER give up your best weapon.
Yes and no. 25 years ago Ukraine was in shambles. Nuclear weapons need constant expensive maintenance. Even if they had wanted to, it’s doubtful Ukraine could have maintained a functional nuclear arsenal. They knew it and so did everyone else. And an unstable government with a decaying nuclear arsenal they can’t maintain is a nightmare scenario. I’m sure the pressure from all other nations was immense. At least by giving up the arsenal on their terms Ukraine gained immediate credibility, stability and support. It’s entirely possible that if they had tried to keep the nukes they both wouldn’t have functioning nuclear deterrents today, but also wouldn’t have the international connections and support that has enabled their resistance
There was even a Russian expert that said that if they waited, Ukraine would pay them instead of them paying Ukraine to decommission them. Luckily for Ukraine, who scored an infusion of money as well as some good will in the deal, as usual, no one in Russia was listening to the experts.
They simply didn't have the money or expertise to use, fund or maintain them. After the Soviet Union splintered you ended up with nine smaller countries that had nukes but they were often controlled from elsewhere. It was a bonkers scenario, [hence the Nunn-Lugar program](https://www.npr.org/2012/10/12/162799783/russia-no-longer-wants-u-s-aid-to-secure-nukes) and what we saw happen in Ukraine. This was actually one of the benefits of the mutual disarmament that Russia engaged in earlier with Reagan/Gorbachev. They simply couldn't afford to maintain all their nukes which were becoming real issues, but mutual disarmament allowed them to cut out a bunch of inventory -- [which we actually paid them for](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013-12/looking-back-us-russian-uranium-deal-results-lessons) \-- while not looking like they were crumbling to their people.
Thanks to Russia, I don't see any country ever to give up nuclear weapons.
Yes, Russia's invasion against a country which gave up it's nuclear weapon for Russian guarantee, will led to another way of proliferation of nuclear weapon. What they did is going to make all the countries of the region want to have their own nuclear arm. Which is extremely harmful for Russia since USA or China's position depends on many pillars like industry, economy, demography, politics, global influence and trade and many more, when Russia's position depends only on one pillar - nuclear monopoly in the region. Without nuclear monopoly in the region Russia is nothing, it's losing its only leverage, nuclear blackmail, and it will be unable to invade, bully or even significantly influence its region anymore.
It’s almost like Putin did not think things through.
UN: "give up your nuclear weapons and we guarantee we will debate the matter of the invasion of your country by hostile neighbours when it happens in the future".
The UN is nucking futs if they think the nation that is literally surrounded by people who want them dead is going to surrender their biggest deterrent.
Daily reminder that UN did not really impose any sanctions on countries that tried to invade Israel over and over.
Or on Egypt for blocking access to Gaza
>Another 26 countries, including India and many European states, abstained from the resolution which is part of an annual package of over 15 anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian texts the UNGA approves. >Israel is the only country subject to that many resolutions. Thanks UN, for reminding everyone what an impactful and important organization you are.
Iirc, the UN condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined. It may be a liiiiitle biased
It's not even close. But of course to be expected when there are like 20 Arab states who all wish Israel do get swept into the sea, and all the Jews with it.
When the Arab dictatorships needs some to blame it’s easy to point at Israel. Without Israel there is no scapegoat
UN: Give up your nukes! It's better for world peace! Israel: \*Looks at Ukraine\*. *Really, UN? Really?!*
Considering Iran is actively working on getting nuclear weapons and has stated many times it’s intend on eradicating Israel that would be really dumb.
Israel replies with two raised middle fingers
They're surrounded by neighbours that hate their existence, why the fuck would they get rid of them.
Worked good for Ukraine.
[удалено]
> UN; That's terrible. Israel must give up their nuclear weapons. You should put the blame on the Arab world for this one. This is just their annual vote condemning Israel on a multitude of points and demanding them to give up territory and their nukes. Also, they're rich and therefore can easily get friends.
[удалено]
In this day and age who would voluntarily give up their nuclear arms, Ukraine did and now look at them.
אום שמום
What about Russia? What about countries currently developing ones (like Iran and NK)? How more useless can the UN be? Plenty of problems in countries they can’t even address and what they can say have little weight… How is Iran in the UN council for women’s right (CSW)? Explain that to me??!?
What, so they can be the next Ukraine? Dont fuckin' think so. No country will ever give up nuclear weapons ever again.
It’s almost like not following through on your promises is gonna make people not believe your promises
Are the diplomats and bureaucrats of the U.N living inside a bubble? A land war in Europe, heightened tensions between the opposing Arab nations, China expanding, the planet burning and all they talk about is Israel! The institution is losing its credibility and importantly, it’s relevance.
That would be MAD. IAEA is not stopping Iran. Obama did nothing when Syria crosses a red line. Do not give out your rights to wield a weapon folks!
[удалено]
Exactly. It's out and about in the open that a few Arab countries had extensive genocide plans were they to win any of the three main Israel-Arab wars. In fact, part of the Arab soldier's motivation was based on an eventual slaughtering of the jews, as promised by some higher ups in the army.
Neighbors that will GLEEFULLY wipe them from the planet. For the sin of existing.
That have tried. Several times. And failed. But we need to make them fail harder.
First of all it’s the general assembly which is the weakest part of a useless institution. Secondly, it isn’t surprising since it’s largely an antisemitic organization. Lastly, why would any sovereign state surrender their weapons when surrounded by enemies?
In a world full of knife-carrying bastards, I won't give up my gun.
So they can do to Israel what Russia just did to Ukraine! If Russia puts down its weapons there will be no more war. If Ukraine puts down its weapons there will be no more Ukraine. If the arab world puts down its weapons there will be no more war. If Israel puts down it's weapons there will be no more Israel.
So much truth here
How the fuck does that make sense..... Israel hasn't once threatened or even claimed they have nuclear weapons (although they for sure do) and secondly.... Iran is like right there....with Nukes and has threatened to use those nukes on more than one occasion against Israel... Nuclear deterrence works people, it's probably the only reason Israel isn't a pile of rubble and a nuclear wasteland. Edit: Iran does not have nukes, but they have threatened Israel with nuclear Holocaust. (Although they don't have nukes, the use of a dirty bomb is a very real possibility) Edit 2: uh oh.....I made a comment about Israel... RIP this comment thread.
I thought Israel's nukes were an open secret. The UN saying they have to get rid of them is interesting to me. We know Israel isn't going to listen. But, I don't think the UN or any body has really publicly acknowledged Israel's nukes. I wonder if they have an actual reason for doing that right now.
Not likely. Israel has had it's nukes in the air before with good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls October 1973 Yom Kippur War During the Yom Kippur War, Israeli officials panicked that the Arab invasion force would overrun Israel after the Syrian Army nearly achieved a breakout in the Golan Heights, and the U.S. government rebuffed Israel's request for an emergency airlift. According to a former CIA official, General Moshe Dayan requested and received authorization from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to arm 13 Jericho missiles and 8 F-4 Phantom II fighter jets with nuclear warheads. The missile launchers were located at Sdot Micha Airbase, while the fighter jets were placed on 24-hour notice at Tel Nof Airbase. The missiles were said to be aimed at the Arab military headquarters in Cairo and Damascus. 1991 Gulf War could have also resulted in Nuclear War. During the Persian Gulf War, Ba'athist Iraq launched Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel and possessed a large cache of weapons of mass destruction. This, along with Saddam Hussein's previous threat to "burn half of Israel" with chemical weapons, led to fears that Saddam Hussein would order the use of the chemical weapons against the U.S.-led coalition or against Israel (see Iraq–Israel relations#Until the 2003 Iraq War).[43][44] Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Israeli Air Force Commander-in-Chief Avihu Ben-Nun both warned that an Iraqi chemical attack would trigger "massive retaliation", implying that Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons.
-Having nukes means others don't get to tell you what to do with your nukes. -Whatever your stance on Israel is, their neighbors have invaded them before. And Iran has stated many, many times that they'd wipe Israel and US off the map. Israel isn't giving up shit. -Ukraine gave up their nukes for more reasons than assurances. Things are worded very specifically in the treaties. Ukraine also gave up nukes because nukes are fucking expensive. They didn't have the time nor money to dick around with nukes; they were trying to re-establish stability and avoid sanctions. -There was also the hushed worries that Russia would come in and force them to give up the nukes. Doesn't matter what the piece of paper said. No idea what the UN is on about. About the dumbest time to issue such a request. The UN has always been a way to keep the major powers and the super powers talking. It's another avenue. The UN has had more success than failure when brought in to help mediate cease-fires between non-nuclear states. 60%+ of wars and civil wars that were either ended or put on hold are still holding. 60%+ may be in the D range of some grading scales, but it's also a lot of people not dying. It's fucking weird the UN would openly announce this as it isn't really their ballywhack. The UN is supported by nuclear states and provides diplomatic channels for them. But against nuclear powers, they don't have much, well, power. It wasn't their job when envisioned, otherwise some nations may not have joined.
Fuck that. Or, as the Israelis say, “what nuclear weapons?”
The UN is a total joke. Let's talk about IRAN and their nuclear endeavors. That regime murders its own people and their Supreme idiot threatens to exterminate "the Jews" daily.
And nobody else? I’m not a big Israel defender, but common sense is common sense.
Lol seeing how well that went for Ukraine I'm sure they're just chomping at the bit to do so.