“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.

  • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

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

        • Zellith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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

  • Balthazar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Last I remember, USA was the only country to have abused nukes against Japan, and later USA and UK sent nuclear ships to nuke India (Russia helped save us from those white devils). USA also supplied banned clusterbombs to NATO proxy Ukraine, which they used against Russia. Russia neither used nukes nor banned weapons.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months 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.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        “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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              I am explaining history and context of Russia’s no-first-use policy and the specific instances that caused them to change it and how the leaders who changed it remain in power. You are dismissing it because I am not starting and ending at “russia bad, does bad things”

              The nuclear power isn’t making worse choices, they’re responding to external and internal circumstances.

              • Umbrias@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                You’re coddling a nuclear power by claiming it’s entirely subject to evil us pressures. They could have implemented a no first use policy any time in the past 20 years just fine, but they haven’t.

                I’m dismissing you because your points are wildly silly and blatantly have an agenda to paint Russia as a victim of external forces. Russia is a big boy country, they can implement a simple policy.

                Don’t worry, the us could too.

                PS, every single country in the world is responding to external and internal pressures.

                • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  They could have implemented a no first use policy any time in the past 20 years just fine, but they haven’t.

                  Do you think the pressures to maintain a nuclear deterrent against a conventional NATO invasion as more countries joined NATO and NATO leveled half a dozen countries over the last 20 years has increased or decreased?

                  Note that much of the former USSR, including Russia has not fully recovered in the last 30 years, and NATO has only expanded while denying Russia’s attempts to join.

                  every single country in the world is responding to external and internal pressures.

                  You have failed to internalize this, hence why you feel like I am dodging or misleading when I discuss such pressures instead of ending my analysis at <insert enemy of america> bad.

  • False@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

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

  • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.