CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) Sent Me An Email...

No.

"So far, the main nuclear powers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France, have not signed the accord."

It's a 'catch 22' situation because if you sign and another nuclear country attacks you, you'll be forced to defend your country, how? Send an equally or more powerfully destructive weapon, therefore it would MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). So, it is a paradox, it's illogical.

The world is illogical, China and Saudi are on the UN Human Rights Council despite being the worst abusers of human rights in the world.

Problem here is that Saudi doesn't possess nuclear weapons, since it generates most of its GDP from its oil exports, so it has no need for them. The US is currently provoking the Chinese in the South China sea by invading it's territory. Why?

I can confidently say that a nuclear weapon used against country for whatever reason would injure and kill innocent people who live within the country and within the vicinity of the blast radius. It would defeat the objective.

As the title reads, I am subscribed to CND and they are campaigning for an arms ban, which is fantastic and it reads,

"On January 22nd, a new United Nations treaty will enter into force, one which will make nuclear weapons illegal in the countries that sign it. This month's magazine has an article on this historic moment, as well as a piece on why Youth and Student CND is getting involved in the campaign for a Wellbeing for Future Generations Act.

Read Campaign magazine (link)
Download Campaign magazine (link)

In peace,
Sara Medi Jones
Campaign editor"

Heres my question, will Britain and the US, countries, who have these weapons actually sign the UN treaty. Since the UK is replacing its Trident nuclear missile system, at £205 Bn it is unlikely to be signing it, therefore which countries is the treaty intended for?

I can confidently say that a nuclear weapon used against country for whatever reason would injure and kill innocent people who live within the country and within the vicinity of the blast radius. It would defeat the objective.

Problem here is that Saudi doesn't possess nuclear weapons, since it generates most of its GDP from its oil exports, so it has no need for them. The US is currently provoking the Chinese in the South China sea by invading it's territory. Why?

The objective is for the other country to know that, so that they don't attack in the first place.

Its intended as a bit of moral posturing for the non-nuclear states, nothing more. Despite the nuclear armed ones being legally obliged to 'seek to get rid of their nuclear weapons' that is quite simply a pipe dream.

The objective is for the other country to know that, so that they don't attack in the first place.

The UN have a habit of compiling documents that will be used as a door mat or sold in the 'fiction' section of bookstores.

The objective is control not destruction. If one wants to improve human rights you change the government using democracy. Nukes are not a deterrent. The only reason Japan did not retaliate in WW2 with a nuclear weapon is because it simply did not possess any.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan may have shared cultural and religious values, however Pakistan is not a 'proxy' weapons storage base of Saudi Arabia, it is an autonomous, independent and sovereign country- free to make it's own decisions. If Pakistan has nuclear weapons it is because neighbouring India has them. Saudi doesn't need these weapons because it does not need to subjugate another country to exploit it's mineral resources, hence it's reliance oil reserves.

My response was to a question regarding human rights and that the use of such a weapon does not justify it's use, nor would it act act as a deterrent if both opposing countries had them as I have stated in another post that there would be mutually assured destruction. If I am correct these weapons are stored underground, therefore if there was retaliation it is the civilians who are likely to suffer the most.

How? The objective is to kill thus this weapon meets said objective perfectly?

The objective of the physical weapon itself is to destroy. What you are suggesting is genocidal and this would be in conflict with the Geneva Conventions.