UN conference adopts treaty banning nuclear weapons


In a  little reported action of the U.N. last week, the world once again looked into that dark place which makes possible the total annihilation of human life on this beautiful orb known as Mother Earth. Mustang gives us his thoughts with his guest post today.

7 July 2017 – Countries meeting at a United Nations conference in New York adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Controlling Nuclear Arms

Well, the good news is that several countries have participated in a UN conference designed to prohibit nuclear weapons.  According to Global Security, this was the first ever multilateral, legally-binding instrument for nuclear disarmament over the past 20 years.

The treaty passed by a vote of 122 for, one against (Netherlands), and one abstention (Singapore).  Prohibited will be the undertaking to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess, or stockpile nuclear weapons or explosives.

Right.

I am not a fan of nuclear war.  Neither do I think the US was justified in dropping two atom bombs on Japan in 1945.  In late July 1945, the Japanese were ready to throw in the towel.  What led us down this unhappy road was no more than a thirst for revenge against the Japanese (never mind that FDR wanted a war with Japan as much as Elvis wanted his first guitar) —and our own hubris.  At the same time, how well is our prohibitions of firearms working?  Will it be any easier to manage caches of internationally placed atomic weapons, or those as may be stored in such Middle Eastern cesspools?

This move is typical of leftists who think that all we need to do to save the world from idiots such as Fat boy Kim, is to pass a law that cannot and will not be enforced.  I will even suggest that doing silly things such as this simply makes our world an even more dangerous place.  We will be sticking our heads in the sand, pretending that Pakistan, India, Iran, and Saudi Arabia really do not already have atomic weapons.  And, we’ll all be happier in our practiced ignorance.

No, sorry … I don’t buy it.  The only effective way of managing North Korea is to drop twenty or thirty MOABs at strategic locations throughout that godforsaken landscape, ten of which we should place at the epicenter Kim’s bedroom.

The icing on this cake is Costa Rica Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez, who told us, “We feel emotional because we are responding to the hopes and dreams of the present and future generations.  We are one step closer to a total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Right … feeling emotional.

I came across this interesting quote the other day.  It concerns society during the Roman Empire.  “There was nothing inherently wrong with Roman society so long as the citizen’s basic needs were met.  The Roman was content to be ruled by his betters.  For him, that was the natural state of affairs.  All he asked was not to be abused by those in power.”

If this doesn’t describe modern socialist society, then I don’t know what does … and to make matters worse, we now have the United Nations organization dictating to us the way our world will be … how, or if, we may defend ourselves against nitwits (who also happen to be leftists).  It is an aspect of representative democracy that makes me cringe.  I did not elect Gomez to represent my interests in the United Nations … and once more, I will ask: how is that gun control thing working out in Chicago?

Advertisements

23 Responses to “UN conference adopts treaty banning nuclear weapons”

  1. the unit Says:

    Unjustified?
    Here’s a hand me down. A blogging friend told me that a friend told him “The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.” 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Point taken Unit.

      Like

  2. Cheryl Says:

    Bunker…stopping by because I was checking up on you, but also reading more dire news from Venezuela and wondering about our old pal, Jim Gordy. I can’t believe by now that he is still doing o.k. in that environment. Doesn’t seem possible. Wondering if you have heard anything? Hi to you!!!! And glad to see you are still on top of it, here! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Nice to hear from you Cheryl. I heard last time around Christmas. He said he was all right. He said he was moved to the Western part of the Country and that part was ok. Earlier he had said the U.S. Dollars from him pension and doing pretty good. It was very short and I know his wife was very worried about what he said so didn’t get much info…

      Liked by 1 person

      • Steve Dennis Says:

        I am very worried about Jim as well, I hope and pray that he is still okay but it worries me we have not heard anything from him in so long.

        Like

      • bunkerville Says:

        I will write again and see if I get a response.

        Like

  3. The Old Man Says:

    I disagree WRT your nuclear bombing statement, but for a very personal reason. My father was a cox’n on an LCI attached to an LST in the Pacific. He didn’t die when his first boat was destroyed, but the forecast casualties for “Operation Olympic” were over a million US and more Japanese.
    Yes, the Empire Islands could have been starved out but there was a large swell among the populace to finish it and get home RFN. Pretty sure that it would not have been a great idea to spend half of 1946 starving out the Japanese islands and then occupying them. The nuclear blasts focused the political will in a way that being economically defeated probably wouldn’t.

    And I probably wouldn’t have been born….

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      I hear you … and history is always looked at in a rear-view mirror. As it turns out, we ended up occupying Japan anyway and still maintain bases there. It is also true that the Japanese people were already starving to death in July 1945. In the aftermath of the war, tens of thousands of Japanese died from starvation … as was no doubt true of the European populations. In this context, perhaps radiation was a kinder avenue into the next life. Thank you for your comment.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mustang Says:

      One footnote: we sent occupying troops into Hiroshima. Many (I understand hundreds) of those troops died from exposure to radiation. When these cancers first appeared, the US government did all they could do to deny any connection whatsoever … and our government denied to these men and their families any assistance whatsoever until they could not longer negate the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. the unit Says:

    I have a funny way of reading the meaning of signs. For instance in many places in our county there are signs posted that say “$100 fine for littering.” Understood. But then along a particular roadway a sign says “Fine for littering.” Does the second example mean that it’s a fine place to litter?”
    I guess my funny way carries over to reading the meaning of blogs and blog comments too. For instance if we wern’t justified in dropping two atom bombs on Japan, maybe one was? And in 1945, so maybe some other year it would’ve been ok?
    🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and waited for the Japanese to capitulate; they didn’t, so we dropped a bomb on Nagasaki. My understanding is that ground zero in Nagasaki was an orphanage. All this said, a UN rule about nuclear disarmament will have no effect whatsoever. We do live in interesting times.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    So, why was the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unjustified?
    Because they were “civilian” targets, or because they were nuked?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Good question, Ed. With deference to Bunkerville, whose blog this is, I will attempt to keep my answer concise —an answer that comes from years of historical research (and, of course, noting that I am one of those dinosaurs you keep hearing about). I should also add to this that I lived in Japan for nine years; four of those years just outside Hiroshima. I knew people who were civilians at this stage in the war who suffered mightily the effects of atomic warfare. They and their offspring continue to suffer even today. Hundreds of children born today will, in time, die from the effects of cancer. We did not know this at the time, however …

      Suffice to say that when Truman became president, he had only been FDR’s vice president for around 160 days. He was not privy to any of the atomic R&D that began in 1942, and he was urged to consider the atomic solution as a quick end to the war following Germany’s capitulation in May 1945. In his ignorance, Truman wasn’t alone; none of the Pacific Commanders-in-Chief were aware of this “final option.”

      The fact is that in July 1945, Japan was defeated. What remained of Japan’s resolve resided within a small cadre of fanatic Japanese militarists who even considered assassinating Hirohito to avoid the acknowledgement of their resounding defeat.

      Japan is an island; we controlled every access to the Japanese islands. The atomic bomb was only one possibility; another solution was to completely isolate Japan from resupply (and what nation was left in Asia who could have effected such relief —or even wanted to?). What could have been done, beyond landing a million of our troops in Japan in September 1945, to convince these hotheads that they were truly defeated? Well, for starters, we might have laid siege to the Japanese islands and starved them into submission.

      With respect to Japan’s sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, which resulted in the deaths of 2,500 American service men, we also need to understand that FDR wanted a war with Japan, and wanted them to do what they have always done since 1898 —launch a preemptive attack. A Japanese attack on American territory would justify our entry into World War II.

      Truman, and his Democratic sycophants, wanted revenge on Japan for Pearl Harbor. Given other relevant facts surrounding the end of World War II, dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was an inconsistent response. It was vengeance, pure and simple. It was beneath the dignity of the American people. Finally, at that time, what did the American people know beyond what the Truman administration told them? One final point: Douglas MacArthur (an important player at the time) did not think that dropping two atomic weapons was needed. I happen to agree.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        I heard many arguments both ways from my parents and Grandparents as they had lived through the depression and war. True or false they believed that there was going to be no way to clear out the Islands necessary to defeat and control Japan. Everyone was sick of all of the casualties including rationing which was severe. I disagree that we were itching for a war with Japan. We may have been wanting an excuse, but Japan gave it to us in spades by attacking Pearl. Had they not, the issue would have remained moot at least for the time being,

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ed Bonderenka Says:

        I worked with a former U-Boat captain who had been stationed in Tokyo and who had married a Japanese woman.
        They both agreed that the bombing was the only reasonable decision.
        Their testimony has swayed me ever since.
        But thank you for your well-reasoned response, Mustang.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. petermac3 Says:

    Is this the same Gomez who was married to Morticia Adams? This is almost as silly as the UN banning nuclear weapons. As for gun control, the homies had a field day iin Newark this past weekend as the bullets flew. But as all good liberals know repealing the 2nd amendment will stop the drug traffickers from bringing in illegal weapons and shooting up the Great Society neighborhoods just as the war on drugs prevented MS 13 and other gangs and cartels from squatting on private property in the contiguous US to controlling the drug trade in our cities large and small along with laying claim to middle schools and high schools drug sales. In south Jersey one regional high school is known to the locals as Heroin High. Can medicinal coke and H be far behind marijuana in order to bring in those sorely needed tax dollars?

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Just be glad we have Trump. Otherwise we would be more than happy to de-fang ourselves and give up ours without anything in return that would pass scrutiny.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Trump appears to be the right man, at the right time.

      Like

      • the unit Says:

        Getting downright Kafkaesque like though. The Trial: A man is put on trial for a crime that is never revealed.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Simply Linda Says:

    I respectfully disagree about Japan/WWII. I agree about North Korea. I think the UN ought to get kicked out of the US (or go to CA), I simply do not think they are effective anymore. Trying to dictate to us, not going to work…btw, I think Nikie Haley is doing a good job, so far. Time to make America First. Period. At all costs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Yep… waste of money…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mustang Says:

      The UN is a complete waste of resources.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Simply Linda Says:

        Yep, agree

        Liked by 2 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: