Everybody Relax: the UN Has Banned Nuclear Weapons

If you want to know how pathetic the UN truly is, look no further than its recent treaty ‘banning’ nuclear weapons.

In reporting this gross waste of time, the Pravda arm of Sky News (a.k.a. skynews.com.au) proudly proclaims that 122, yes, count them, one hundred and twenty two (!), countries have signed up to the treaty… to loud applause and cheers! Sounds like something important was achieved doesn’t it?

Nuclear weapons treaty backed by 122 nations

More than 120 countries have approved the first-ever treaty to ban nuclear weapons at a UN meeting boycotted by all nuclear-armed nations.

To loud applause and cheers, Elayne Whyte Gomez, president of the UN conference that has been negotiating the legally binding treaty, announced the results of the ‘historic’ vote – 122 nations in favour, the Netherlands opposed, and Singapore abstaining.

‘The world has been waiting for this legal norm for 70 years,’ since the use of the first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 at the end of World War II, she said.

The treaty is ‘the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty to be concluded in more than 20 years,’ Whyte Gomez said.

Only four sentences into this garbage and there’s so much to unpack. Let’s get busy.

The first thing that you probably noticed is that the nuclear armed nations saw no need to attend this farce. Indeed:

None of the nine countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons – the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – is supporting the treaty.

In other words: if there’s only you and me around and I have a gun and you don’t, what do you think my reaction would be if:

  • you proposed a ‘law’ banning the use of guns;
  • ‘passed’ it; and
  • proclaimed it as a new ‘legal norm’?

What would your reaction be?

The next question to ask is who’s doing the cheering and applauding? (At 0:10).

Self-cheering, of course, is straight out of the communist handbook. That is, grossly project or flat-out lie about the significance of what you’re doing – and repeat ad-nauseam until it becomes the truth.

If you think you’ve seen this kind of tactic countless times before, you’d be right:

In the case of the UN treaty, think about it like this: if 122 people got together and took a collective crap on a public lawn and then cheered for themselves, what would you make of the cheering – other than a reason to send them all to the loony bin?

You could be forgiven for thinking that this analogy is a bit over the top. But I would disagree with you for the simple reason that releasing one’s bowels is a far healthier and more productive enterprise than whatever it is these 122 UN members think they have achieved with this vote. Regardless, both scenarios have one very important thing in common: self-cheering the outcome adds no further substance.

By now, you must be wondering which specific countries have signed the treaty and which ones told the UN to take a running jump into some radioactive waste (unlike Sky News and the Guardian). This is where things get interesting.

Perhaps most interestingly, even though North Korea and Iran’s nuclear co-operation is one of the world’s worst kept secrets, Iran voted in favour of the treaty while North Korea didn’t. In fact, North Korea didn’t even bother to show up and say no.

That said, to be fair to both Iran and North Korea:

  • all up, they’ve probably shown the level of respect that this treaty deserves; and

US President Barack Obama has now effectively guaranteed that Iran will eventually acquire ­nuclear weapons, in what will be a black day for the hopes of peace and stability for anyone in the world. The Iranian government has out-negotiated Obama completely…

Obama took a strong hand and played it very badly. The Iranians … have emerged with all the main elements of their nuclear program intact. In time, they will acquire nuclear weapons. Obama will go down in history as the president who made this possible…

Even the broad terms of the Lausanne framework as announced contain all manner of key concessions the Americans not so long ago said they would never make. Among these, Iran gets to keep nuclear facilities, such as its underground Fordow plant, which it developed illegally, in secret, in defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Similarly, it gets to keep its heavy water reactor at Arak, although it will convert it to a facility that for the moment cannot produce plutonium. It gets to keep 6000 centr­i­fuges to enrich uranium of which 5000 will remain operational. There is no purpose in having these centrifuges other than to eventually produce material for nuclear weapons. It will also be ­allowed to undertake intensive ­research on building more ­advanced centrifuges that can enrich more uranium more quickly. It will not have to export its enriched uranium but merely convert it into a more benign form in a process that can be reversed. And almost all the notional restrictions on Iran run out in 10 years….

Now Obama has done everything he can to remove all the pressure on Iran. Once the deal is under way, the UN will remove all the nuclear-based sanctions on Iran. The UN Security Council will rescind all its relevant resolutions. Obama says these sanctions will “snap back” automatically if Iran ever breaches the deal. That is a joke. Effective sanctions are extraordinarily difficult to assemble and impose. And Obama has put this all in the hands of the UN, the very byword of procrastination and inaction… The strategic triumph for Iran is enormous. It has to modify no part of its international outlook or behaviour, from sponsoring terrorism to declaring the annihilation of Israel non-negotiable. It gets, for the first time ever, and this is crucial, international legitimacy for its nuclear program, which covers every part of the cycle. It gets sanctions lifted, which should help its economy dramatically. And from very early on, it will start cheating on the deal.

That aside, I guess we can all sleep that little bit safer at night knowing that the likes of Burundi, Djibouti, Kiribati, Holy See, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu have promised not to launch any nukes our way.

It would all be so very laughable if this organisation wasn’t pillaging so much of our hard earned money.

PS: H/T to the Netherlands for being the only country to show up and give this thing the true middle finger it deserves… right to its face.

This entry was posted in International, Shut it down. Fire them all. and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Everybody Relax: the UN Has Banned Nuclear Weapons

  1. .

    Denying Australia nuclear weapons effectively denies us a cheap deterrent to conventional war.

    What this means is that we must have a larger military to not only defend ourselves from conventional forces but also must project a larger conventional force as a credible deterrent.

    We’re a small country with high levels of technology and vast areas to defend.

    We’re not playing to our strengths.

  2. Haidee

    A group of people cheering their use of a public lawn as a lavatory sure is an over-the-top analogy.
    Still, UN types applauding themselves is infuriating.
    Pillaging so much money, yes

  3. Trader Perth

    Aust. doesn’t need nukes, we’re protected under the US’ nuclear umbrella’ which we pay plenty for.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    While they’re at it they should ban adultery too.
    Nothing is impossible for the UN.

  5. Some History

    Remember that ultra-narcissist Kevin Dudd – awkward, unsynchronised arm/hand/head movements and all – ticked all the “right” boxes for the top UN job. Says much about the UN.

  6. RobK

    Completely meaningless self-adulation on the part of the UN signatories. Why do we meddle in this poppy-clock.(rhetorical). Government signing of so many agreements and treaties leaves a minefield of restrictions and unforseen consequences and complications for future generations. Stop all this posturing.

  7. RobK

    TP,
    Do you have a share in someone’s umbrella and not one of your own? What happens when it rains at your place and his. 🙂

  8. Rafe

    If they can stop NZ kids from being smacked then why cant they stop nuclear war.
    PS it would be more helpful right now to ban conventional war.

  9. alexnoaholdmate

    King bans tide from coming in.

    Lefty media enraptured.

  10. Haidee

    Stop all the posturing

  11. RobK

    It is refreshing to see the Netherlands hold their ground, surprised that there weren’t more EU or NATO countries who benefit from a more substantial “umbrella”.

  12. RobK

    The only real way to ban nukes from your own jurisdiction is to have an effective missile shield. Never mind about signing some worthless bit of paper. The government has a responsibility to protect, a bit of ink ain’t going to do it. Where’s our shield?- that would be a stronger sign of non-aggression.

  13. jupes

    While they’re at it they should ban adultery too.
    Nothing is impossible for the UN.

    Beaten to it by the AFL.

  14. jupes

    Well done again marcus.

    Keep exposing these cretins. How much does Australia give these leaches does anyone know?

  15. RobK

    Hat tip to Singapore for abstaining. Why couldn’t we do that.

  16. max

    neutrality is best foreign policy

    militia system of the military

    and to have technology to make ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of carrying a nuclear warhead

  17. They should ban asteroids and solar flares while they’re at it. Think how impressive that would be.

  18. Dr Faustus

    The 122 countries that have signed up are almost all countries with no strategic interest in nuclear weapons – or no reasonable likelihood of ever developing one. Those who don’t fit that category probably wouldn’t give a toss about breaking the treaty if it suited them.

    The list of countries that have not signed up for Pollyanna is much more interesting.

    The nuclear powers, obviously.

    But Australia hasn’t. Nor have most of the EU – including Virtue Signaller in chief, Germany.

    In Asia it is telling that Korea and Japan have not signed up. You would have to believe they are retaining the option of developing their own nuclear response to Kim Jong Haircut.

  19. RobK

    Dr F,
    Thanks for making me check the list. It’s strange to me that you can have categories of Yes, No, Abstain, and them a big swag of none of the above. What sort of outfit is this.

  20. Mother Lode

    and them a big swag of none of the above

    This is to cover members who were distracted looking at their watch at the very moment the vote was taken, tying shoelaces, sending tweets like “I think we will be voting any moment”, or enjoying a good old fashioned postprandial snooze.

  21. Mother Lode

    I always enjoy the sight of so many non-democratic countries taking advantage of the notionally democratic UN to participate in forming its policy.

    If the UN had been set up by Norks, every country other than North Korea would be banned from having nukes and the ambassadors all sent to prison camps until they confessed their crimes, whereupon they would be shot.

  22. jupes

    Anyone remember the halcyon days when Bob Al-Carr was our foreign minister.

    He tried to ban guns and ammo in the UN.

    Now he is trying to ban Israel.

  23. Texas Jack

    How much was pissed away getting to this “major victory “…? How much did Bishop piss away on it?

  24. Rafe

    Well said Jupes at 1.23.

  25. marcus

    Hi everyone – a lot of people ask me where our foreign aid money goes. It’s a bit of a Pandora’s box, but if you go to the link below and scroll down to table 4.1, you can see a further breakdown for last year’s foreign aid budget – which includes $466 million paid to ‘international organisations’… and $1.09 billion for ‘diplomacy’ (which includes ‘international climate change engagement’).

    http://budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs6.pdf

  26. marcus

    I’ll do an extra blog post on this tonight.

  27. Robbo

    So again I ask the question. What are we doing wasting our time and money belonging to this useless organisation. Would Australia be worse off by telling the UN to fuck off?

  28. Dr Fred Lenin

    Thats wonderfull news ,once again the comrades at the global communist untidy nayshuns have struck a blow for world unity under their control ,no need for elections people like rudd giliard turnbull .rhiannonbrown know best ,no argiment there . Soros will ne over the moon along with the other crony capitalists who have spent millions on this mob . The world is going well ,apart from northkorea. Iran ,venezuele ,china isil the saudis quatar etc etc . Rose coloured glasses will be made compulsory ,we can borrow rgw money to pay for them . Make a move Dutton for God and sanitys sake .

  29. duncanm

    PS: H/T to the Netherlands for being the only country to show up and give this thing the true middle finger it deserves… right to its face.

    the Dutch have always been forthright.

  30. the Dutch have always been forthright.

    [Waves to all the cats from Holland.]

  31. Muddy

    The U.N. apparently also looks down on interspecies copulation for public entertainment, and yet we still have Federal Parliament.

  32. Rob MW

    I’ve always wonder how the despotic U.N could make anything ‘legally binding’ given that they have no sovereign land, no police, no army, no democracy, no taxing powers and no fucking brains.

    Just like the terms & conditions to club membership and in the same manner a ‘self-bound’ member can tell this organization to stick their legally bound scenarios up their collective fat asses on their way out the door. Who do these power drunk despotic Neanderthals think they are trying co-opt freedom, liberty, freewill, and in the most part, other people’s property into a decision making collective ?

    Bulldoze the fucking place into the East river and save the world a heap of hurt, and arrest the fucking corrupt NGOs running this shit show.

  33. Haidee

    The Dutch have always been forthright. I like that about them.
    Forthright is good

  34. Paul

    Next the Un- United nations, and their 122 cronies will be voting and demanding that the evil US and the EU dismantle their nukes, and for added punishment they will let fat boy Kim reek his lust full revenge, all to the cheers of the demoRats, the communists in all those failed states, just to say ‘See we we told you capitalism doesn’t work’.

  35. Tim Neilson

    interspecies copulation for public entertainment

    We are one weird, sick species. You’ve got to wonder why, in about 150 years’ time, we’re going to be admitted to the United Federation of Planets.

  36. Haidee

    one weird, sick, bizarro . . species

    that’s good – United Federation of Planets

  37. Tim Neilson

    United Federation of Planets is not my invention. In the “Star Trek” science fictional universe, the United Federation of Planets is formed in 2161AD, with earth as one of the founder members.

  38. Rob MW

    United Federation of Planets is not my invention. In the “Star Trek” science fictional universe, the United Federation of Planets is formed in 2161AD, with earth as one of the founder members.

    Lol. What did Bob Brown say – Welcome Earthians 🙂

    In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the charitable status of environmental groups, Mr Brown warned that “Earthians” are living beyond the means of the planet.

    If we all wear Lycra will that preserve the nut-cracker suite, not that uncle Bob would give a shit ?

  39. Haidee

    Thank you for the explanation.
    Everyone I know loves science fiction; but not me. Am also the only person in the nation, who hasn’t seen “Crocodile Dundee”.
    .

    ‘Welcome Earthians’ .. ha ha

  40. Mundi

    The UN has and always been a side show.

    Since the end of ww2 China UK France Russia USA have had all the power in the UN.

    The UN is just a way to make everyone else feel that their opinion matters.

Comments are closed.