I'm way more worried about unstable Pakistan's nukes.
Lol, as if they're just going to give it up. I'm Pakistani and I think it seems really hypocritical to not ask everyone to give the nukes up if we ask a country that is surrounded by nations that want to destroy it. If the job of the UN is to try and come up with an unbiased and effective resolution to the topic then this is not the way to go.
Israel having nukes is basically the worst kept geopolitical secret
Sure... because it worked so great for Ukraine, right?
On the basis of "hey it gives us a chance to publically condemn Israel for something again". Well established modern practice.
On what basis? Israel never signed the non proliferation treaty.
Has Israel confirmed its nuclear capability? I was under the impression they were still maintaining their policy of deliberate ambiguity.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, look what happened.
No one will ever make that mistake again.
You guys realize the General Assembly's resolutions are just a way to express and document the opinion of the international community on various matters? They themselves know very well that it's not more than that.
It is factually the highest representative political body in the world. The fact that it has no executive powers doesn't mean anything. They are perfectly aware that it has no immediate effect. It's just an expression of the international will, that's all! and that's all it was EVER meant to be!,, from the very beginning.
You guys are making the UN Gen Assembly into something it isn't and then making fun of that imaginary view. I'm sorry, but it in fact shows that you guys don't even know what you're talking about.
Edit: I can't emphasize this enough. The UN is the only forum where the international political community's official views can be documented and thus expressed. In that sense it is very much relevant and always has been. The fact that it couldn't prevent the Iraq war or whatever doesn't change much because it was never really given that kind of authority. Throughout history we didn't have a collective body like it (regardless of flaws) until about a century ago and that means quite a lot.
Pretty sure that if they tried, India will do one of two things.Turn them into a parking lot. Not do anything and rely on other countries sanctioning the shit out of them in order to not look like they support that move, thereby crushing Pakistan economically.
As an Indian who is still not opposed to the idea that our people can see peace together at some point in the future, neither of these outcomes is something I would want to see happening to our neighbours.
Actually the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does say that everyone has to give them up.
Except for the five countries that had them when this was drafted, the US being one of them.
Fu India. We kill you!
Their site appears to be a few days out of date, but the United Nations General Assembly has voted on eight resolutions so far this year. Six concern Israel. It's a fact that the United Nations shamefully focuses a disproportionate amount of it's time on Israel.
When the Soviet Union dissolved everything that was left within the newly created countries became their property.
You even acknowledge it in your third sentence. If it wasn't theirs how could they sell it?
What do you think would have happened to their aging nuclear stockpile?
They would have either A) Sold them back to Russia like they did with their Tu-160's or B) Received a bunch Western money to dismantle them. But in either case they could have kept a few. And I bet now they are wishing they had.
Thats how I always play CIV 5, rush nukes, stockpile then enact non proliferation with my UN control, unbeatable strat.
Maybe they should ask North Korea while they're at it.
I think israel having nukes is the main reason it still exists.
Especially after Ukraine and the Crimea this year. The message will be heard loud and clear internationally: don't EVER give up your Nukes, no matter what anyone promises or offers in return.
General Assembly resolutions don't mean shit. They are non binding and don't have any consequences.
The only U.N. body where resolutions may have some real impact is the Security Council.
States who want to make a point about something but who can't get it through the SC usually take the GA route, but that is just for the U.N. version of karma.
TL;DR: GA resolutions don't matter. Nothing to see here.
Actually the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does say that everyone has to give them up. The US signed the treaty, so did Iran.
The UN just wants Israel to make the same commitment to disarm that everyone else has.
Edit: Yes, a treaty affects only those who sign it. Thank you. If you needed that clarified for some reason these redditors have got you covered.
Ukraine signed away all their nukes in exchange for Russia/US/UK recognisign their borders. Good luck convincing any country to ever do it again after Russias stunt.
Yup, but if said policy is still active then this UN resolution is gonna be ignored as the UN knows. That affects how we understand this resolution.
Hahaha the UN is such a joke. They don't even try to appear as an objective body anymore.
Yes im sure 161 countries just want to be haters to Israel. The only country that opposed this are USA, Canada, Israel, Palau and Micronesia. Do you really believe that 161 countries just want to condemn Israel for no reason. From South America to Africa to South Asia to the middle east to Europe to east asia to oceania?
And right behind it Hamas headquarters is under Al-Shifa hospital.
If they didn't have nukes, there would be tens o thousands more dead Arabs because Israel's neighbors would keep attacking.
Those nukes keep the neighbors civil. And of course the Arabs want those nukes gone.
Best Korea does not need to be told anything by the UN. The UN should be asking the Supreme Leader to lead the United Nations in a glorious future.
Thing is - and it was a surprise for me - they barely won Yom Kippur War. More then 3/5 of it's tanks and aircrafts were damaged or destroyed by the end of second week of fighting. Would arabs had had enough political will and command and control to regroup and go for another round it would've been bloody for both sides. And Israel doesn't have men to spare.
Ukraine never had its own nuclear weapons. It had Soviet nukes stationed within its borders.
They sold off their aircraft carrier for $20 million because they couldn't use it. What do you think would have happened to their aging nuclear stockpile?
Yes. That is exactly what would happen. I guarantee you that the Ukrainian state wouldn't have had even Crimea taken from it forcibly if it had nuclear weapons. That isn't even a difficult question. And if you think they couldn't maintain a few (all they'd need) when North Korea has nuclear weapons... then you really just have an ax to grind against Ukraine. No one said that they'd have kept hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons with ICBMs, just that countries do not invade states with nuclear weapon capabilities.
I find it disturbing that the MAD theory states that the only thing stopping a nation from glassing an entire enemy city is that it would negatively affect them and not the because they have some sort of problem killing millions of people.
It would be ignored under any circumstances. It's simply a way to say "shame on you." If Israel was openly advertising their nuclear weapons, they wouldn't just up and disarm now.
Vladimir Putin - setting international diplomacy back for everyone. Thanks.
"Hey guys, nukes are an abomination and we should ban them."
"Good idea, lets get rid of all the nukes! Look, Sarastrasza is getting rid of his!"
"Noooo no no, I just mean we can't build them anymore. I already made some before this so..."
"Please?" - 161 countries
He wasn't implying the GA did nothing- he stated that, so far, eight resolutions have been passed, six of which concern Israel. That's a disproportionate focus, even if resolutions only began being presented in October.
Go fuck yourself: Israeli resolution
*backed by 161 countries around the world and only opposed by Usa/canada/israel/palau/Micronesia
Edit: to those downvoting me point out what I said that was incorrect otherwise you're just admitting you bury your head in the sand from the truth.
Given that Israel has won every conventional engagement and also has the United States behind it, your analysis is rather flawed.
"Arab-backed resolution" - there's your answer right in the article.
Eh, right-wing dictatorship, left-wing dictatorship...different sides of the same ugly coin.
The MAD theory states that both parties would destroy each other. That economic stuff only takes part if MAD doesn't happen.
The NPT is a massive distraction. If Iran leaves the NPT would the world leave it alone? No. The NPT is irrelevant.
Let me guess, are they just a few years away from having a bomb?
Actually, you can, if the regulation is an international agreement that countries can sign on to and sign off of voluntarily. Iran chose to be a member of the NPT. I didn't have to and it is welcome to leave the treaty if it so chooses. It is only bound by its rules as long as it is on board. Israel choose not to join and cannot be held accountable for an agreement that it (and many others) did not sign. India did sign on and then left, which is also its right, so India can also not be held to those rules. If you intend to bind Israel to the NPT, you should do the same with India. This isn't about "fairness". It's about law.
The UN only cares about Israel. Israel is by far the most condemned nation by the UN (despite the fact that many other nations have done far worse things many more times). The largest bloc of nations in the UN also happens to be the Islamic bloc, which has a unanimous irrational hatred of Israel.
You cant give some countries a pass and expect others to bend to regulation
The Arab nations who sponsored this resolution are as far away from Marxism as you can get. Every single Arab nation is ruled by an ultra-right wing tyrant.
Well, Israel, the U.S., Canada, Palau and Micronesia.
It's not for "no reason". There's a very simple reason why Israel has been the target of more UN resolutions than the rest of the world combined, or why the UN human rights council has a dedicated agenda item to criticize the state- the only country in the world given a dedicated agenda item- or why all those 161 countries would prefer to let the Arab/Islamic coalition turn the UN's focus to Israel day in and day out, ensuring the lens doesn't turn to examine any other country.. It's just not a legitimate one.
Yes, a Jewish state is going to get rid of their nuclear weapons.
All the while still surrounded by historically hostile Arab nations.
Yeah right lol.
In return arab countries must give up their antisemitsm (no most of them dont care about palestine, thats the pretext. They hate jews in general)
Alert: Gandhi has launched nukes
Israel probably doesn't need nukes but I fully understand why they have them considering all the hostile factions that are dedicated to their eradication.
"Israel must commit suicide:" United Nations Resolution.
Gotta love the UN General Assembly. The death toll from the Syrian Civil War is now over 200,000; Iran is launching airstrikes on ISIS in Iraq; Egypt is facing a growing insurgency in the Sinai but the Arab members of the General Assembly take time out to pass a non-binding resolution against Israel.
It's so common and every-day as to not even constitute news.
I don't care one way or the other about Israel or Palestine, but I think the UN is pretty foolish to think that a country surrounded by enemies on all sides will give up their nukes.
They're toothless, too.
Nike their own land and people?
Just do it.
A UN General Assembly resolution backed by the Arab/Islamic coalition which has turned an international body into their anti-Israel playground*
Only after both Syria and Iraq's nuclear programs were destroyed by Israel. Having nukes of their own was their first choice, complaining to the UN about it is their second.
But since this resolution is Arab backed, Pakistan does not matter.
Maybe the United States is aware of this option, and that is partially why Israel has the support of the US?
From the Samson Option Wikipedia article:
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador warned President Nixon of "very serious conclusions" if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.
It sounds like those nuclear weapons at least had something to do with getting US support in 1973.
Edit: I've fixed the link so that it actually points to the Wikipedia article now.
I made a resolution to support Israel. It was seconded by my stuffed dog, put to vote by my stuffed panther and only the red panda declined to support it, passing 3-1.
Check out the PEW poll where in every Muslim country, not only the Arab ones and not only in the Middle Eastern ones, over 95% of the population (e.g. Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc) hold negative opinions regarding Jews.
I dare say the UN is the only "objective body" there is.
The UN wouldn't even agree with this statement. It's not an objective body, and was never designed to be.
As to Israeli nukes,
A; they're probably the only people in the world who have a demonstrable need for nuclear weapons to ensure they're existence,
B; they've repeatedly proven they can have them and not use them, as well as store them safely,
and C; legally speaking there isn't anything illegal about Israel having nukes, they're not part of the NPT and when they developed nukes in the late 60s the ban on nuclear weapons had not developed enough to be consider customary international law, so they were not illegal per se. This is unlike other countries such as Iraq and Iran (the latter I will point out is not Arab), who are or were dictatorships with links to terrorism or other international destabilisation efforts, were members of the NPT, and attempted to build their nuclear weapons after the ban had solidified into international law.
Let's be fair here. Israel does not issue death threats readily unlike it's Muslim counterparts, even if there's concrete proof that they possess nuclear weapons, Israel is definitely the last of their worries, I would say, disarm Iran and Pakistan first.
If India does decide to retaliate of their own, then they too will suffer the same economic sanctions,
Why? India has every right to respond with nukes if they themselves are hit with them. If all of Pak's nukes start flying, I think India will simply march into Pak proper and dismantle the govt.
That'll happen, not. Why give u you ace in the hole for a deuce. It's not like the Arabs have been making peace overtures to the Israelites.
In this context people are talking about the Budapest Memorandum, a treaty where Ukraine agreed to denuclearize in exchange for non-aggression promises from the US, UK, and Russia. Putin proceeded to wipe his ass with that treaty, annexed a piece of Ukraine and is currently invading Ukraine's east.
Edit - the point of the nukes being, Putin is doing this because he can. He can physically get away with it because Ukraine alone is weaker than him. He's set diplomacy back a generation to when asshole dictators invaded weaker neighbours, but if Ukraine had their nukes, it would be a clear deterrent. If Ukraine had nukes they would have the option of putting Russia in the stone age regardless of how effective Putin's propaganda is to his own people or what the rest of the world thinks. As it stands now Putin is lying through his teeth to his own people (most don't even have a clue they invaded Ukraine and held an illegal referendum under occupation), and basically ignoring international diplomacy. Regardless of proof and reality, Putin just says nope, Russian troops aren't in Ukraine. That was already proven false in Crimea, yet he just continues the same lie about the east now because it doesn't really matter. The world knows he's lying, and his own people don't know or care. Ukraine is pretty much being bullied and robbed of land and infrastructure while the rest of the world looks on, out of fear of escalation. If Ukraine had the means to defend themselves either Putin would fuck off out of there, or Ukraine would defend itself because they would have the means to do so and not be limited to appealing to Russians with brains or the international community.
What stupid shit is ths? If pakistan launches nukes, there won't be any Pakistan left. What idiot would not retaliate with nukes if you have them. That is the point of MAD. Under no circumstances, nukes will not be unanswered with nukes.
Economy? Dude, you're nuked, atleast a few hundred thousand are dead and you country is already in chaos, the last thing i will be thinking about is GDP growth rate.
I feel like I have to say this often on reddit. There is no Mad theory or policy. The US policy is called assured destruction. Now Russia also has a policy of assured destruction. That leads to Mad. That is not the policy of either country. In addition, no other country has that policy. So the US China nuclear strategy is not Mad.
Well historically speaking countries have often killed millions of people through conventional means, so it isn't a new concept
I like the deterrence that having Nukes is, kinda helpful when every country around you wants to kill you
That worked for Ukraine :/
Which, again, isn't true. It's right here on the link he shared. 25 resolutions have been presented. 6 of them were regarding the Palestinian situation and all of them voted on the same day.
Exactly. "Hey guys, let's locate the one country in the world whose survival pretty much depends on them having nuclear weapons, and ask them to give up their nuclear weapons."
Not Pakistan. Not Belarus. Not North Korea. Nope. Israel is the big threat, guys.
You do realize that the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly has just barely begun, right? It started last September and will run until next year. Resolutions only started being presented in October. It's a bit misleading to say they have only voted on 8 implying that they haven't done anything all year...
Which woulnd't be much of a problem if that was even true. Which it isn't. You know how I know? It's right there in the link you provided.
They might as well pass a resolution demanding each Israeli to commit suicide. Israelis are many things but they are not suicidal.
It's a general assembly resolution. Totally non-binding. Just like this one.
Ukraine in the 90s was a place of chaos not easily imagined by people without a connection to the country.
Russia wasn't exactly all peaches during this time either.
The weapons would either have been sold (like so much else of what was left behind)
Exactly, but they would have been sold to Russia or the US. Even the Ukrainians would not have sold intact nuclear warheads on the black market.
...fallen into total disrepair (like most everything that wasn't sold).
Not if they only kept a dozen or so.
Adopted without a vote means that the proposal had the consensus of the delegations, meaning that it didn't need to come to votes. He only used the expression "voted on" to distort the numbers. 6 out of 8 is better than 6 out of 25.
Yep, every muslim country is composed of maniacal xenophobes who spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week plotting mass genocide of the Jewish people /s
Like Israel cares what the UN says they have to do.
Being destroyed yourself is having a negative effect.
Israel must give up Nuclear Weapons: United Nations Resolution
...but we're cool with Pakistan having nukes. LOL
The difference is one country signed a treaty saying "we won't make nukes ever" with basically no exit clause other than "fuck you guys we're out," and the other didn't.
So if there is such thing as international law at all, which we like to pretend there is, one country is allowed to have nukes and the other isn't.
Has a resolution like this ever been issued to Pakistan?
You know, the country that actively sold nuclear secrets to other countries, one of which was likely able to use the information to develop their own bomb.
Israel has had nukes for a pretty long time and given no indication of being apocalyptically unstable; in fact, the shit their country has been knee-deep in the entire time seems to me a decent stress test of their willingness to avoid using them that no other country on earth (except maybe India) has had to pass. I'm sure after 30 years of a nuclear-armed Iran that hasn't pushed the button, people will be more chill about that too.
You may want to go back and look at all the resolutions that passed "without a vote".
He is right: of the eight that had a vote, six concerned Israel. The others were adopted without a vote.
A more down-to-earth proposal would have been to get them to ratify the non-proliferation treaty and officially announce their number of warheads, like most the grown-ups with nukes have already done.
It would also cut all the speculations short.
It a joke in the same sense that we're all a joke for not being able fully agree on daily things. We live in an inherently broken, dystopian world that is very hard to navigate. International conflicts and disputes are the hardest of those hard to navigate things.
The UN gives us a way to keep some basic semblance of an international voice or community when there would otherwise be none. We never made it something that was supposed to get what it wanted done so it's silly to call it a joke in that sense.
Criticising the UN Security Council and its certain select members who continually veto moves to enforce international/humanitarian law, who were actually given the power to fix things would be much fairer targets of criticism.
Read the article. It is about the UN/the people who backed the thing wanting Israel to sign it, because everyone else in the region did.
I would have thought the /mutual/ part of the acronym would have tipped people off that this isn't a unilateral way of thinking.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1172, adopted unanimously on 6 June 1998, after hearing of nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998, the Council condemned the tests and demanded that both countries refrain from engaging in further tests.
The thing is that nukes are expensive,
Now israel is believed to have 200 warheads, If they actually have 200 warheads is another thing,
I rather have people think that i big expensive stick and have a smaller less expensive one,
The thing is that i rather have 10-20 warheads and have people think i have 200, then have 200 and have to pay for them.
The made up part is the illegality of those nukes. The US also has nukes. Having them is not illegal. Having them contrary to the NPT is illegal. Israel is not a signatory, so its actions are in no way illegal.
I agree with you completely, but I think we're mostly making fun of OP for thinking this is news-worthy.