Japan on Sunday marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Hiroshima, where its mayor urged the abolition of nuclear weapons and called the Group of Seven leaders' notion of nuclear deterrence a "folly".

TOKYO, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Japan on Sunday marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Hiroshima, where its mayor urged the abolition of nuclear weapons and called the Group of Seven leaders’ notion of nuclear deterrence a “folly”.

  • SyldonEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    I really do not understand your comments? I am in favour of removing nuclear weapons. I also understand why we cannot without a unilateral understanding among all nations.

    What is very obvious is that if we do not move in that direction, then some clown will learn how to make them, and then we will have a nuclear war.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      1·
      11 months ago

      Why does the removal of nuclear weapons predicate itself on countries agreeing on borders? As it stands, countries develop nuclear weapons solely because they’re afraid that nuclear weapons will be used against them (or, you’re North Korea and the West has already expended their entire sanctions repertoire to go after human rights violations and now has no recourse against nuclear weapons development).

      Countries may fight over borders, but the involvement of nuclear weapons turns what should be a localized dispute into a global one with world-ending consequences.

      • SyldonEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Or you know they could just stop trying to grab more land. At the end of the day that is the solution we all want.

        • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
          1·
          11 months ago

          Protecting the territorial sovereignty of countries internationally would have prevented Iraq and Afghanistan. It would stop Israeli efforts in the West Bank. It would block the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. It would block the skirmishes between India and China as well as India and Pakistan. It would have blocked NATO intervention into the Yugoslav crisises until international consensus could be reached. Borders are constantly in a state of flux and the international community almost never reaches full consensus.

          Borders are not immutable objects, particularly for ethnically-unified countries. For Yugoslavia, the borders were carved into ethnic groups. For Ukraine, the borders are being carved into Russian and Ukrainian areas. For Israel, the borders are constantly being expanded for one particular ethnic group. As long as there are ethnic boundaries, there will be conflict between them. That’s what makes us human. We are not a single entity; we have hundreds of distinct and unique cultures and languages and foods.

          • SyldonEnglish
            2·
            11 months ago

            NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian conflict was humanitarian only. They were criticised for not participating to stop massacres that they witnessed.

            Civil wars would be a difficult one. They would probably have to enforce the right to self determination, but even then cases like Israel complicates even this.