Obama Hails Historic Disarmament : Farce or Fiction?

“The world took its first concerted step towards getting rid of nuclear weapons today when the UN security council voted unanimously for a resolution on disarmament and non-proliferation.

The summit in New York represented the first time the security council had met to focus on the elimination of nuclear weapons. Barack Obama, who at the same time became the first US president to chair a council session, described the resolution as "historic", saying it "enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons".

Now whilst some might be viewing this event positively, I’m not too sure.

It seems that even though there is an almost global agreement on non-proliferation, there are still some sectors that do not, by intent or action, abide by this on the basis that the possession of nuclear weapons by some states puts them at a disadvantage.

So, I’m wondering, if this move by the UK, the USA, amongst others is another effort at maintaining its military dominance of the planet. The logic might go like this,



“If I can have nukes, you might argue that you could too on the principle of the equality of all nations. But if I’m decreasing my stock of nukes, how are you going to argue for your increase?”


The principle here is increase vs. decrease as opposed to the previous haves vs. have-nots. It doesn’t matter if I’m decreasing my stock of 2000 nukes to 1980, as it is still a 1% decrease that keeps alive 100% of the hope that it can possibly go down to 1960 in a millennia or two. But if you’re going to argue for a 1% increase of your currently non-existent stock of nukes, that compromises 100% of hope as it displaces the decremental with the incremental.

From hereon, anyone wanting to increase their stock from 0 to 0.1% is going to come across as a greater pariah than before given the new ‘historic’ decremental milieu. And the powerful states will be able to cast such efforts in the same category as ‘terroristic’. Just as ‘terrorism’ is cast as violence inflicted on the unarmed, this would be ‘arming’ in the face of ‘disarming’. The potential of such a perception in the subconscious mind of the global masses garnering support for the dominance of existing nuke-armed nations and moves against any nation with 0-to-1 nuke ambitions cannot be understated.

So, the question I am left with is, if this is truly an advance in disarmament, or a refinement of the scheme to maintain and perpetuate existing dominance. Given that history has generally been a process by which the iniquities of the past are refined for future application, I cannot but pause to wonder.



according2,


ed