手机看片久久国产永久免费,国产超碰人人爽人人做人人添,野花社区影视在线WWW官网,女高中生第一次破—国产av,白丝极品老师娇喘呻吟视频,久久久精品中文字幕麻豆发布,中文字幕久热精品视频在线,久久综合精品国产一区二区三区无

According to the report of the Russian Satellite News Agency quoted by the Global Times, Russia, Britain, the United States and France signed a joint statement opposing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and will not sign it.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted at the United Nations on July 7, 2017 by 122 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention. The United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Australia, Pakistan, India, Türkiye, Israel, North Korea and other countries did not participate in the vote. The Netherlands voted against it and Singapore abstained.

So, we can't help asking why the five permanent members of the Security Council are so unanimous on the issue of banning nuclear weapons this time? Why did other countries give up voting except the five permanent members?

When the five permanent members oppose the prohibition of nuclear weapons together, we tend to laugh knowingly, saying that the five major powers are "playing hooligans" again. In fact, in Zhanhao's view, things may not be as simple as "playing hooligans", which actually contains a deep internal reality logic, not only the interests of the big countries themselves. In the opinion of Zhanhao (WeChat official account: Zhanhao), the five permanent members signed a joint statement against the nuclear weapons ban treaty for four reasons:

1、 Nuclear weapons objectively prevented the recurrence of world war.

The fundamental reason for the outbreak of World War I and World War II was that the colonies were almost developed, and the western powers were not evenly divided among themselves. The emerging powers had to challenge the remaining powers to seek to break through their own development bottlenecks, so two World Wars broke out. The two world wars have brought the same harm and loss to the people of the world.

Although nuclear weapons are much more powerful than ordinary weapons, their emergence objectively prevented the recurrence of world war. Because everyone in the big countries knows that our game and contest can only be suppressed at a certain level and cannot be further upgraded. Otherwise, once we go too far, we will use nuclear weapons as a result of fighting each other.

Therefore, today's nuclear balance of terror among the world's major powers has actually curbed the occurrence of the Great War, otherwise the Third World War would have broken out.

2、 At present, the world does not have a general environment for banning nuclear weapons. Once nuclear weapons are banned, it will only bring greater chaos and even disaster to mankind.

Why do those small countries want to ban nuclear weapons? Two reasons:

First, because nuclear testing has been banned in the world today, and it is no longer allowed for backward countries to develop nuclear weapons. This is international law, so small countries have basically no opportunity to develop nuclear weapons. Moreover, the cost and threshold of developing nuclear weapons are very high, and the average country cannot afford it.

Second, nuclear weapons have given many privileges to nuclear countries, which makes most countries unhappy.

However, small countries generally only consider issues from their own interests, while big countries consider issues from different perspectives. At present, the world is at the stage of major restructuring of the political and economic order, and the world is in a mess. In this case, if there is no nuclear weapons of major powers to deter each other and some small countries, the world would be in a mess.

Therefore, in terms of the overall environment, there is no external condition for banning nuclear weapons at this stage. What's more, the cost of destroying nuclear weapons is very high. Who will bear the cost of destroying their own martial arts at the same time?

3、 Isn't it empty talk to talk about denuclearization with non-nuclear countries? The reduction of nuclear weapons must be discussed by the nuclear countries, and it is possible for the major countries to achieve compromise.

From a political logic point of view, it is impossible for nuclear-weapon states to talk with each other about their functions, because the negotiations must be reciprocal. Non-nuclear states come up with destruction first. How can we talk about this negotiation? Therefore, non-nuclear-weapon States are not qualified to participate in the negotiations on the destruction of nuclear weapons in essence. The negotiations on the destruction of nuclear weapons can only be effective and possible only if the nuclear-weapon States talk together. The participation of non-nuclear-weapon States can only add to chaos.

At present, the political and economic order in the world is at the stage of major restructuring. In fact, it is impossible for nuclear-weapon states to talk about reducing nuclear weapons at the same level. The big countries can only talk about reducing nuclear weapons with the big countries, and the small nuclear-weapon states are not qualified to talk about it. Just like now, the United States wants to include China in the China Missile Treaty, which is actually because China's short - and medium-range missile strength has been there in recent years, and other countries are not qualified to talk about it. Therefore, nuclear-weapon states will never talk with non-nuclear-weapon states about reducing nuclear weapons, and non-nuclear-weapon states have no qualification to participate.

4、 How can a nuclear power be arranged for political process by a small country?

The status of a nuclear power as a major power is objectively established by its strength, especially its status as a major power. In fact, it was created by a big war, not by boasting. Small countries in the world have no such historical experience at all, and their national capacity is completely different from that of big countries. In this case, how can the nuclear power be arranged for the political process by the small country?

Therefore, all so-called nuclear agreements that are not approved by the nuclear powers will have no legal effect or even slightest binding force. Therefore, the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty set up by so many countries in the United Nations will not have any effect for a long time to come. You non-nuclear-weapon countries should abide by it after signing it. How can nuclear-weapon countries let non-nuclear-weapon countries arrange it? The attitude of the five permanent members of the United Nations is actually telling the world that non-nuclear countries should not waste their efforts. These things can only be negotiated by the nuclear countries. Non-nuclear countries should do more meaningful things.

Then, another question is why other countries besides the five permanent members of the Standing Committee did not participate in the voting? In the view of Zhanhao (WeChat official account: Zhanhao), those countries that have not participated in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons are no more than three categories: one is a nuclear power, one is a de facto nuclear power, and the other is a country that wants to support nuclear power. This is probably the case.

A nuclear-weapon-free world is certainly the direction that human society will pursue in the future, but that must be coordinated with the integration and progress of the corresponding politics, economy, system and culture, otherwise the so-called nuclear-free world will never be realized, or if we really push forward the nuclear-free world, the result will inevitably be greater chaos rather than gospel to the world.

A big country is a big country. How can a big country have the same standpoint and perspective as a small country? Holding nuclear power means holding nuclear power. How can a nuclear power have the same perspective and position as a non-nuclear power? A nuclear power is a nuclear power. How can a nuclear power have the same standpoint and perspective as a non-nuclear country or a small nuclear country?

The world is big and small, but it is big after all!