The current world is not peaceful. A war between Russia and Ukraine that is about to last for four months has made some people's already restless hearts restless again. As the war continues to deepen, Kazakhstan Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Treuberdi is increasingly worried that nuclear weapons will be used. Therefore, he recently called on all countries to formulate plans to destroy nuclear weapons, and A deadline for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons was also given. Coincidentally, the first meeting of the parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was also held recently.
But what we need to know is that this meeting of the parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is not enforceable in the eyes of the outside world. why? None of the five permanent members of the United Nations were present, and Japan, the only country that has been attacked by nuclear weapons and called on all countries to abandon nuclear weapons, also uncharacteristically announced that it would neither participate in the meeting nor attend as an observer. Everyone must be muttering in their hearts, what on earth is going on?
To clarify this matter, we have to start with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty came into effect last year, and there are 51 contracting parties in total. It is worth noting that the contracting parties cover five continents, such as Kazakhstan, Ireland, Vietnam and other countries. Then, everyone will think again, what are these 51 contracting states going to do when they come together? According to the content of the treaty, there are two main provisions in
. One is to prohibit the possession, research and development, storage, transfer, experimentation or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and the other is to require all nuclear-armed countries to destroy all nuclear weapons they hold. nuclear weapon. Therefore, based on this, we can guess that the content discussed in this meeting of the Parties is probably similar to the content in this treaty.
As for why the five permanent members of the Security Council and Japan did not participate, the main reason is that the conditions for getting rid of nuclear weapons are not mature yet. Of course, Japan's actions entirely depend on the United States and can be ignored. Back to the topic, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying has publicly said: China understands the demands and wishes of non-nuclear countries to promote nuclear disarmament, but nuclear disarmament must be fully negotiated with all parties and promoted step by step. But now these state parties are only focused on abolishing nuclear weapons and have not thought about the consequences.
To be honest, these state parties do have their own considerations in calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons so urgently. Think about it, these state parties cannot possess nuclear weapons. First, their economic conditions do not allow it, and second, they do not have the technology. If the nuclear-armed countries abolish nuclear weapons, at least they will not be as passive as they are now. But what we want to say is that when promoting nuclear disarmament, we cannot break away from the reality of international security.
First of all, the significance of the existence of nuclear weapons is not simply to demonstrate a country's strength, but to serve as a deterrent and balance worldwide. You may wish to think about it. Since the birth of nuclear weapons, apart from Japan, which has been hit by nuclear weapons, other places have not experienced such experiences. Even after the birth of nuclear weapons, there has been basically no world war on a global scale, and nuclear weapons play a role in it. Because the United States and Russia maintain strong nuclear deterrence against each other, both sides dare not take any actions at will, so they avoid a comprehensive The outbreak of war. Speaking of which, let’s take a look at the war between Russia and Ukraine. Does the United States want to help Ukraine ? I definitely want to, but in the face of Russia's powerful nuclear deterrence, the United States can only support weapons from behind and act as a behind-the-scenes strategist.
Then the problem arises. At present, nuclear deterrence can maintain relative stability and balance between countries and between regions. If nuclear abolition-related matters are promoted, the world can still find alternative deterrents to nuclear weapons. something? It is difficult, and even if there is such a thing, it will be made by a big country with economic strength and technical means, not the current contracting countries. Is it possible that such an appeal will be made again?
Secondly, there are very few provisions in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It just blindly emphasizes the abolition of nuclear weapons. But for matters related to the abolition of nuclear weapons, for example, how to implement it? Who will implement it first? Who will oversee implementation? What should be the punishment if someone fails to implement it? There are no clear regulations on issues such as this. Therefore, although the starting point of the parties is good, it is in vain. After all, such a "one size fits all" goal of destroying nuclear weapons is achieved, but without sufficient consultation and discussion, the operability itself Not strong.
To be specific, there are no regulations on anything. How can it be done now just to earn money while being naked? You can think of it this way. Take the question of who will denuclearize first. The United States will say that Russia will denuclearize first, and China will denuclearize first. Russia will say that the United States will denuclearize first, because the United States has as many as 3,750 nuclear warheads and nuclear warheads. No. 1 in the world, but will the United States accept it? Can the core-cutting process continue? Furthermore, because of the existence of nuclear weapons, major powers rarely end up dealing with conflicts. As a result, competition among major powers has shifted from the military field and confrontation to the economic, technological and political fields. If there were no nuclear weapons, would the competition between major powers return to confrontation in the military field? Will the cost of subsequent conflicts or wars be much greater than what is being paid now?
From this point of view, these 51 signatories really do not need to be so hasty. Although the five permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear-armed countries and although they oppose the nuclear ban treaty, the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia are all promoting nuclear disarmament. Therefore, I believe that if we proceed step by step and maintain active communication with all parties in the world, a world without nuclear weapons will eventually arrive.
