Nuclear Alert
NoK
Posts: 824
I dont even understand why you would abstain if you don't have any AND 27,000 remaining nuclear weapons.. FUCK.
Australia abstains from nuclear vote
Friday Nov 2 18:27 AEDT
Australia has resisted backing a United Nations vote aimed at reducing the high alert status of thousands of nuclear weapons around the world.
The resolution - sponsored by New Zealand, Chile, Nigeria, Sweden and Switzerland - was given overwhelming support at the UN General Assembly's disarmament committee, passing by 124 votes to three.
But Australia joined 34 other countries in abstaining from the vote.
The United States, the United Kingdom and France were the only countries who voted against the move.
New Zealand's Disarmament and Arms Control Minister Phil Goff said he hoped to be able to persuade Australia to eventually back the measure, which he first floated about three months ago.
"Every country has to make its own decision ... I believe we can go forward and gain ... even bigger support," Goff said.
A significant number of the worlds 27,000 remaining nuclear weapons are on high alert, which means they could be launched within minutes.
The New Zealand resolution asks those countries with nuclear weapons to recognise the risks posed and catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war, Goff said.
He said the move was designed to pressure nuclear powers to take their weapons off high alert, meaning it would take days for them to launch a military strike.
It would also reduce the chances of a nuclear strike sparked by accident or technical malfunction, he said.
"I am an eternal optimist. I believe that over time people will see the need to eliminate nuclear weapons," he said.
New Zealand has been a strong advocate of international arms controls and has its nuclear free policy enshrined in law.
The law bans all nuclear armed or powered ships from entering the country's waters.
The vote now goes to the 192-nation General Assembly for a final vote.
Assembly resolutions are not binding.
Australia abstains from nuclear vote
Friday Nov 2 18:27 AEDT
Australia has resisted backing a United Nations vote aimed at reducing the high alert status of thousands of nuclear weapons around the world.
The resolution - sponsored by New Zealand, Chile, Nigeria, Sweden and Switzerland - was given overwhelming support at the UN General Assembly's disarmament committee, passing by 124 votes to three.
But Australia joined 34 other countries in abstaining from the vote.
The United States, the United Kingdom and France were the only countries who voted against the move.
New Zealand's Disarmament and Arms Control Minister Phil Goff said he hoped to be able to persuade Australia to eventually back the measure, which he first floated about three months ago.
"Every country has to make its own decision ... I believe we can go forward and gain ... even bigger support," Goff said.
A significant number of the worlds 27,000 remaining nuclear weapons are on high alert, which means they could be launched within minutes.
The New Zealand resolution asks those countries with nuclear weapons to recognise the risks posed and catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war, Goff said.
He said the move was designed to pressure nuclear powers to take their weapons off high alert, meaning it would take days for them to launch a military strike.
It would also reduce the chances of a nuclear strike sparked by accident or technical malfunction, he said.
"I am an eternal optimist. I believe that over time people will see the need to eliminate nuclear weapons," he said.
New Zealand has been a strong advocate of international arms controls and has its nuclear free policy enshrined in law.
The law bans all nuclear armed or powered ships from entering the country's waters.
The vote now goes to the 192-nation General Assembly for a final vote.
Assembly resolutions are not binding.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what are we doing as a species?
cant see the forrest for the tree's
at least 124 countries voted for it.. its a good start
you see this is why i believe a labour government in Australia would be slightly better than the Howard government this time.. we wouldn't be kissing American ass this much..
canada is still working on microwaves
one of the labor parties official policies under Foregin affairs, trade and aid is 'Strengthening The Australia-US Alliance.'
and, it's labor party ffs. not labour. they even spell it the american way.
i am not a supporter per say but i see them as the lesser of the evils..
i think the whole idea of labor's "strengthening the Australia-US Alliance" is a specific way to draw boundaries on our relationship with the US.. the relationship will change from the "US ass-kissing" to "Australia-US alliance" where we actually have a say in some things
the things i find will change are
1) pulling out troops from Iraq which I see as major US ass kissing (i think this is enough but there are more)
2) our relationship with China will change under labor, maybe this extract will explain it a bit
"Rudd is expected to take a direct interest in Australia’s foreign policy towards China should he be elected. As a Mandarin speaker with diplomatic and private career experience in China, Rudd would be well informed on China policy but will be conscious of not wishing to be perceived as too close to the Chinese by Australian voters or the United States. According to some observers, Rudd will likely seek strong ties with both the United States and China."
and under the Howard government..
"Australia’s Defence Update 2007 appears to have changed Australia’s policy emphasis on China’s military buildup by identifying it as potentially leading to “misunderstanding and instability” in the region. Some observers of Australian foreign policy have speculated that Australia will increasingly have a difficult time continuing to develop a robust trade relationship with China while at the same time continuing its close strategic and defense relationship with the United States."
3) what is done regarding climate change will change.. we've been hand in hand with the US when it comes to climate change and i think Labor will act a bit more freely.. especially since they will be pressured by their alliance with the Greens
just how mr rudd will seek strong ties with the us and china, without being perceived as too close to the Chinese by Australian voters or the United States remains to be seen. he hasn't said how he will do that. talk is cheap.
now this is a good thing
i'm on the same page with you as thinking perhaps they are the lesser of two evils, but i'm not that naive that i don't think that whatever decisions are made will still be heavily influenced on what big brother thinks.
ill be happy with a withdrawal plan.. Howard refuses to even give that.. i think there will be a withdrawal of troops but it wont be immediate.. plus labor would know that if they fail to withdraw troops as promised they will definitely lose the election in 2010.. liberals will jump all over it and hello new primmie
Rudd hasn't promised anything regarding stronger ties with China.. he hasn't even mentioned it.. but you asked me what I thought would change and i mentioned China and I gave some of the reasons why i think this will change under Labor..
you can never trust a politician.. that is normal.. but the way i see it if labor is elected they will need to prove to the people that they are worthy of staying in power come the 2010 election.. so i feel they will have to act on a lot of their promises while Howard is slightly full of himself at this stage.. and winning this one coming from behind will make things even worse
at the end of the day i am temporarily in Paris and I dont think i can be bothered going to the embassy and mailing my vote
your keeper is the crown. the queen pulls the strings and your government dances like puppets.
(edit: don't forget i love ya cate. please be gentle with your reply. i bruise easily :eek: )
enjoy paris
Do you think it has something to do with the fact that we mine and sell uranium, that we've recently signed off on selling uranium to the Russians AND we are sitting on one of the biggest untapped uranium sources in the world?
I mean I don't know but signing off might be seen as a conflict of interest to our customers. No that the uranium we are selling is supposed to be used in weapons, but seriously, does anybody REALLY believe that?
Neither party has come up with a policy that looks good as far as I can see. I'd agree that perhaps Labor seems the lesser of two evils but maybe that's only cause they haven't had a chance to screw us in a while.
I'm not surprised we didn't sign. It's a bit like saying sorry. Just seems to be the way of it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I see where you are coming from but I think they are relatively separate issues.
All this is trying to do is decrease the alertness of already made nuclear weapons. Changing them from being launched in a matter of minutes to a matter of a day.. perhaps to give people a chance to chill out and have a cold beer first..
I mean if we are ready to accuse Iran of trying to create a nuclear weapon it would be good policy on our behalf to take initiative on this.
We can say "hey we're sitting on one of the biggest untapped uranium reserves and we have a chance to profit from this but we don't wanna see people get blown to bits.."
if i was a politician i'd use that in my campaign.. u bring both sides to support u.. but im not a politician
thanks for that.. ill email them and see what the deal is..
have a good time in the US! which state are you in?