I’ve sent a letter to our PM asking him to sign and arrange for ratification of the United Nations “Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW)” This treaty has been available for signing since 20 Sep 2017. If I understand correctly, this UN treaty requires ratification by 50 counties in order to be active, and it has already been ratified by 38 countries.

Further details of the treaty on https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

In summary, the text is:

Article 1 Prohibitions.
Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
…
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

You’re welcome.

I’m sure that the PM’s thoughts and prayers will be with you.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve sent a letter to our PM asking him to sign and arrange for ratification of the United Nations “Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW)” This treaty has been available for signing since 20 Sep 2017. If I understand correctly, this UN treaty requires ratification by 50 counties in order to be active, and it has already been ratified by 38 countries.

Further details of the treaty on https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

In summary, the text is:

Article 1 Prohibitions.
Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
…
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

You’re welcome.

Sorry moll. I want Australia to have nothing to do with the UN.

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve sent a letter to our PM asking him to sign and arrange for ratification of the United Nations “Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW)” This treaty has been available for signing since 20 Sep 2017. If I understand correctly, this UN treaty requires ratification by 50 counties in order to be active, and it has already been ratified by 38 countries.

Further details of the treaty on https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

In summary, the text is:

Article 1 Prohibitions.
Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
…
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

You’re welcome.

Sorry moll. I want Australia to have nothing to do with the UN.

Bad news, tamb, we’ve been in it up to our necks since it began, with Herbert ‘Doc’ Evatt being a strong advocate of a voice in the UN for smaller nations, getting changes made to the Dumbarton Oaks agreement of 1944.

Do you have a list of countries that have signed?

Is NZ one of them?

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve sent a letter to our PM asking him to sign and arrange for ratification of the United Nations “Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW)” This treaty has been available for signing since 20 Sep 2017. If I understand correctly, this UN treaty requires ratification by 50 counties in order to be active, and it has already been ratified by 38 countries.

Further details of the treaty on https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

In summary, the text is:

Article 1 Prohibitions.
Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
…
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

You’re welcome.

Sorry moll. I want Australia to have nothing to do with the UN.

That’s a strange thing to want.

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve sent a letter to our PM asking him to sign and arrange for ratification of the United Nations “Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW)” This treaty has been available for signing since 20 Sep 2017. If I understand correctly, this UN treaty requires ratification by 50 counties in order to be active, and it has already been ratified by 38 countries.

Further details of the treaty on https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

In summary, the text is:

Article 1 Prohibitions.
Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
…
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

You’re welcome.

Sorry moll. I want Australia to have nothing to do with the UN.

Bad news, tamb, we’ve been in it up to our necks since it began, with Herbert ‘Doc’ Evatt being a strong advocate of a voice in the UN for smaller nations, getting changes made to the Dumbarton Oaks agreement of 1944.

We should leave ASAP.

Tamb said:

We should leave ASAP.

But, we’ve almost got enough points for Platinum Membership and a key to the executive loo…

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

Sorry moll. I want Australia to have nothing to do with the UN.

Bad news, tamb, we’ve been in it up to our necks since it began, with Herbert ‘Doc’ Evatt being a strong advocate of a voice in the UN for smaller nations, getting changes made to the Dumbarton Oaks agreement of 1944.

We should leave ASAP.

You are right of course.

Life was so much better before the UN, when we had proper World Wars.

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

We should leave ASAP.

But, we’ve almost got enough points for Platinum Membership and a key to the executive loo…

The executive loo will be the non-pedestal type.

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

We should leave ASAP.

But, we’ve almost got enough points for Platinum Membership and a key to the executive loo…

The executive loo will be the non-pedestal type.

One of those fun ones, where you can practice high-altitude bombing?

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

But, we’ve almost got enough points for Platinum Membership and a key to the executive loo…

The executive loo will be the non-pedestal type.

One of those fun ones, where you can practice high-altitude bombing?

OK please list all the reasons that the UN has been bad for us. Please show workings and not just some airy fairy unsupported comment.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Bad news, tamb, we’ve been in it up to our necks since it began, with Herbert ‘Doc’ Evatt being a strong advocate of a voice in the UN for smaller nations, getting changes made to the Dumbarton Oaks agreement of 1944.

We should leave ASAP.

You are right of course.

Life was so much better before the UN, when we had proper World Wars.

The UN was A great idea but it has evolved into a toothless tiger.
Rwanda & Srebenica come to mind.

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

But, we’ve almost got enough points for Platinum Membership and a key to the executive loo…

The executive loo will be the non-pedestal type.

One of those fun ones, where you can practice high-altitude bombing?

Never use on on a moving train. London to a brick you’ll get your own back.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

We should leave ASAP.

You are right of course.

Life was so much better before the UN, when we had proper World Wars.

The UN was A great idea but it has evolved into a toothless tiger.
Rwanda & Srebenica come to mind.

And Australia leaving will make it better somehow?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Bad news, tamb, we’ve been in it up to our necks since it began, with Herbert ‘Doc’ Evatt being a strong advocate of a voice in the UN for smaller nations, getting changes made to the Dumbarton Oaks agreement of 1944.

We should leave ASAP.

You are right of course.

Life was so much better before the UN, when we had proper World Wars.

chuckle

don’t mind me, serious subject, but that read so comic of silly

coffee happening, hit the half way mark, a critical moment, am I a half full guy, or a half empty

no dilemma, i’ll put the kettle on the flame again and be a make another one guy

serial coffees until the question is answered

List of signatories at the link:
http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/tpnw

NZ is indeed amongst them.

Most “Western” countries are absent, with the exception of:
Austria
Ireland

The Rev Dodgson said:

List of signatories at the link:
http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/tpnw

NZ is indeed amongst them.

Most “Western” countries are absent, with the exception of:
Austria
Ireland

Most Eastern Bloc countries are absent, too, with the sole exception of Kazakhstan.

I see the benefit being several-fold.

Firstly for countries adjacent to nuclear weapon neighbours that are not yet part of nuclear-weapon-free-zone. In particular Bangladesh which has two nuclear weapon neighbours. Georgia also has two nuclear weapon neighbours, because the USA has weapons in adjacent Turkey. Former Soviet countries and European counties would benefit.

Next, the world would benefit from certainty about industrial powerhouses with nuclear reactors if they signed in. In particular we don’t want Japan, South Korea, Germany or Canada to develop their own nuclear weapons or be sites for US nuclear weapons.

Then slowly oust US weapons from Europe, Belgium doesn’t need nuclear weapons, Turkey, Greece, etc. Get Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan into a nuclear-free zone and I’d breathe easier.

That only leaves a few flashpoints for a nuclear WW III that don’t violate the treaty, in particular China-Taiwan but also the Balkans and Israel. I note with pleasure that Palestine has already signed. Most of SE Asia, including Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia, is already a nuclear-weapon-free-zone. Ditto volatile Egypt.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

List of signatories at the link:
http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/tpnw

NZ is indeed amongst them.

Most “Western” countries are absent, with the exception of:
Austria
Ireland

Most Eastern Bloc countries are absent, too, with the sole exception of Kazakhstan.

I see the benefit being several-fold.

Firstly for countries adjacent to nuclear weapon neighbours that are not yet part of nuclear-weapon-free-zone. In particular Bangladesh which has two nuclear weapon neighbours. Georgia also has two nuclear weapon neighbours, because the USA has weapons in adjacent Turkey. Former Soviet countries and European counties would benefit.

Next, the world would benefit from certainty about industrial powerhouses with nuclear reactors if they signed in. In particular we don’t want Japan, South Korea, Germany or Canada to develop their own nuclear weapons or be sites for US nuclear weapons.

Then slowly oust US weapons from Europe, Belgium doesn’t need nuclear weapons, Turkey, Greece, etc. Get Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan into a nuclear-free zone and I’d breathe easier.

That only leaves a few flashpoints for a nuclear WW III that don’t violate the treaty, in particular China-Taiwan but also the Balkans and Israel. I note with pleasure that Palestine has already signed. Most of SE Asia, including Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia, is already a nuclear-weapon-free-zone. Ditto volatile Egypt.

You could be assuming that someone doesn’t actually deliberately want to start a nuclear war.
For example some minor player could get hold a weapon and set it off in a city hoping to start a full scale war.

Cymek said:

You could be assuming that someone doesn’t actually deliberately want to start a nuclear war.
For example some minor player could get hold a weapon and set it off in a city hoping to start a full scale war.

I think that scenario is sufficiently well known that nobody would be fooled.

On the other hand, though, the USA’s nuclear policy statement of 2018 says that the USA is going to build up its number of small nuclear weapons. Small nuclear weapons for actual battlefield use in minor conflicts. Now that could start a full scale nuclear war. The standard large W80 warhead from the USA has a dialable yield from 5 to 150 kT.

New low-yield US warheads are now rolling off the production line, are called W76-2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-weapons-first-low-yield-warheads-roll-off-the-production-line The W76-2 has a yield of – unknown.

• Most Eastern Bloc countries are absent, too, with the sole exception of Kazakhstan.

That is strange given that they are one of the worlds largest producers of uranium…

Australia will never be able to build a nuclear bomb, anyone capable is growing older, dead or leaving the country for better opportunities.

Government money is slowly being eaten away by various interest groups and “communities” looking for a bigger slice of the government hand outs pie.

The only way Australia will get the bomb is if they buy it from the tanks, as time goes by and the demography changes Australia will fall into the hemisphere of China. By 2100 Australia will democratically vote to become a province of China and might well be relegated to a nuclear dump and testing site for Chinese nukes.

wookiemeister said:

Australia will never be able to build a nuclear bomb, anyone capable is growing older, dead or leaving the country for better opportunities.

Government money is slowly being eaten away by various interest groups and “communities” looking for a bigger slice of the government hand outs pie.

The only way Australia will get the bomb is if they buy it from the tanks, as time goes by and the demography changes Australia will fall into the hemisphere of China. By 2100 Australia will democratically vote to become a province of China and might well be relegated to a nuclear dump and testing site for Chinese nukes.

We could build one within 5 years I reckon, given enough funding and political will. The fundamentals of it are well known and no longer that secret.

A small fission bomb that is, of the WW2 type. Not the big hydrogen bomb type stuff.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Australia will never be able to build a nuclear bomb, anyone capable is growing older, dead or leaving the country for better opportunities.

Government money is slowly being eaten away by various interest groups and “communities” looking for a bigger slice of the government hand outs pie.

The only way Australia will get the bomb is if they buy it from the tanks, as time goes by and the demography changes Australia will fall into the hemisphere of China. By 2100 Australia will democratically vote to become a province of China and might well be relegated to a nuclear dump and testing site for Chinese nukes.

We could build one within 5 years I reckon, given enough funding and political will. The fundamentals of it are well known and no longer that secret.

A small fission bomb that is, of the WW2 type. Not the big hydrogen bomb type stuff.

Totally agree. There is a technical challenge for a small fission bomb, but not an insurmountable one. For a highly enriched uranium bomb, the building of the enrichment centrifuge requires lots of money and excruciatingly precise centrifuges. I’ve heard of two successful international sabotage operations on enrichment centrifuges.

For a plutonium bomb, the building requires a specialist reactor for making the plutonium, or a reprocessing plant capable of operating at very high radiation levels. As well as precise spherical implosion, and a precisely timed neutron source to trigger the explosion. Only a tiny amount of plutonium will suffice, I’ve heard it said that the first British A bomb set off in Australia required only 38 g (or was it 83 g) of plutonium, which was carried to Australia in a suitcase.

Next step up from that is a fusion-boosted fission weapon. Only a small proportion of the energy comes from fusion. Pakistan has fusion-boosted fission weapons but not H bombs.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Australia will never be able to build a nuclear bomb, anyone capable is growing older, dead or leaving the country for better opportunities.

Government money is slowly being eaten away by various interest groups and “communities” looking for a bigger slice of the government hand outs pie.

The only way Australia will get the bomb is if they buy it from the tanks, as time goes by and the demography changes Australia will fall into the hemisphere of China. By 2100 Australia will democratically vote to become a province of China and might well be relegated to a nuclear dump and testing site for Chinese nukes.

We could build one within 5 years I reckon, given enough funding and political will. The fundamentals of it are well known and no longer that secret.

A small fission bomb that is, of the WW2 type. Not the big hydrogen bomb type stuff.

Totally agree. There is a technical challenge for a small fission bomb, but not an insurmountable one. For a highly enriched uranium bomb, the building of the enrichment centrifuge requires lots of money and excruciatingly precise centrifuges. I’ve heard of two successful international sabotage operations on enrichment centrifuges.

For a plutonium bomb, the building requires a specialist reactor for making the plutonium, or a reprocessing plant capable of operating at very high radiation levels. As well as precise spherical implosion, and a precisely timed neutron source to trigger the explosion. Only a tiny amount of plutonium will suffice, I’ve heard it said that the first British A bomb set off in Australia required only 38 g (or was it 83 g) of plutonium, which was carried to Australia in a suitcase.

Next step up from that is a fusion-boosted fission weapon. Only a small proportion of the energy comes from fusion. Pakistan has fusion-boosted fission weapons but not H bombs.

australia couldn’t build subs, its doubtful they could build nuclear bombs.

the other problem is testing – no one wants a nuclear bomb going off over their fence and do gooders will kick up a stink about it.

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

We could build one within 5 years I reckon, given enough funding and political will. The fundamentals of it are well known and no longer that secret.

A small fission bomb that is, of the WW2 type. Not the big hydrogen bomb type stuff.

Totally agree. There is a technical challenge for a small fission bomb, but not an insurmountable one. For a highly enriched uranium bomb, the building of the enrichment centrifuge requires lots of money and excruciatingly precise centrifuges. I’ve heard of two successful international sabotage operations on enrichment centrifuges.

For a plutonium bomb, the building requires a specialist reactor for making the plutonium, or a reprocessing plant capable of operating at very high radiation levels. As well as precise spherical implosion, and a precisely timed neutron source to trigger the explosion. Only a tiny amount of plutonium will suffice, I’ve heard it said that the first British A bomb set off in Australia required only 38 g (or was it 83 g) of plutonium, which was carried to Australia in a suitcase.

Next step up from that is a fusion-boosted fission weapon. Only a small proportion of the energy comes from fusion. Pakistan has fusion-boosted fission weapons but not H bombs.

australia couldn’t build subs, its doubtful they could build nuclear bombs.

the other problem is testing – no one wants a nuclear bomb going off over their fence and do gooders will kick up a stink about it.

another problem would be the demand for a “diverse” and “inclusive” team which would mean zero security and the many and varied multi – ethnic characters that would come out of the woodwork demanding to work on the project would mean transfer of nuclear secrets back to the nest across the world causing more problems.