On January 1, after the expiration of the 24-hour ceasefire period, the republic resumed the war against Japan

Although Japan's stance is still "stubborn," after both the United States and the European Union pledged not to provide strategic assistance to Japan, everyone believes that Japan will not last long. Large-scale strategic bombing is enough to destroy Japan's will to war, and it is only a matter of time before Japan makes concessions at the negotiating table.

On 17 November, the United States issued a call at the United Nations to expand the scale of the consultation meeting on the "comprehensive elimination of nuclear weapons" on the basis of the five permanent members of the Security Council as the core, with all nuclear-weapon states participating in the negotiations. Subsequently, the Republic, together with Russia, proposed that countries capable of developing nuclear weapons on their own should be included in the Consultative Council, and that the "total elimination of nuclear weapons" should be discussed on a global scale. This proposal was supported by the majority of countries, and France expressed its willingness to provide a meeting venue and all facilities for the convening of a "global negotiation on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons".

Of course, it is particularly crucial that the five permanent members of the Council reach agreement in the first place.

This event immediately attracted the attention of the whole world.

"Total destruction of nuclear weapons" is not a new topic, as early as the 80s of the 20th century, civil society organizations aimed at promoting global denuclearization appeared in the West. At the beginning of the 21st century, US President Jabell also took the initiative to "completely eliminate nuclear weapons" when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Prior to the Fourth Indo-Pakistani War, the "total elimination of nuclear weapons" had been a major topic in international disarmament negotiations. Under the influence of the interests of various countries, the "comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons" has always been a flower in the mirror, and the international struggle is becoming more and more complicated and intense; more and more countries intend to cross the nuclear threshold and join the nuclear club, while the nuclear powers are actively seeking both offensive and defensive strategic strike and strategic defense capabilities, and no country is willing to make substantive concessions on the issue of "nuclear disarmament." Even the US-Russian "Phase III Ballistic Missile Destruction Agreement" has become a dead letter because of the veto of the US Congress and the Russian State Duma.

Is it good to destroy nuclear weapons, or is it a thing?

Standing in different degrees, there are different views.

Before the outbreak of the "Japanese War", several military strategists and politicians believed that nuclear weapons not only had the ability to destroy the human world, but also had the role of maintaining peace. To put it simply, it is a "terrible nuclear peace". Under the principle of "mutual destruction," no nuclear power would dare to rashly use nuclear weapons in war, and would try its best to avoid direct conflict. The most obvious example is the confrontation between China and the United States during the Korean Peninsula War, and if there were no nuclear weapons, China and the United States would certainly fight to the death. History has also shown that nuclear weapons do have the role of deterring large-scale wars at some point. After World War II, if the United States and the Soviet Union had not both had nuclear weapons capable of destroying mankind,1 the Cold War would not have lasted for half a century, and the contradictions between the United States and the Soviet Union would have intensified, and the Third World War would inevitably break out.

From the point of view, nuclear weapons are definitely a nightmare for mankind. Although the nuclear-armed countries have a complete strategic early warning and strategic counterattack mechanism, and the republics have even promised not to be the first to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads kept in the nuclear arsenals of various countries will always be the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of mankind, and the entire human world may be destroyed at any time when the enemy is destroyed. During the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, China's "North American air defense network" had tens of thousands of false alarms, an average of two to three times a day. Even one mistake can be unimaginable. The most effective way to avoid total annihilation is to eliminate nuclear weapons completely!

From the perspective of each country, nuclear weapons are also a matter of love and hate.

During the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The two superpowers spend nearly half of their military spending on nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. According to the data released by the United States after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States spent trillions of dollars on the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons during the war. This is five times the GDP of the United States in 19911. accounted for U.S. defense spending during the Cold War.

Although the Republic has maintained a proper counterattack capability until 2015. There has been no massive expansion of the nuclear arsenal. But by 2027. The Republic spent more than a trillion yuan on land for its nuclear arsenal. This is equivalent to one-third of the gross national product in 2027. As long as nuclear weapons continue to exist. Even if the new ground nuclear weapons are no longer developed. The United States spends $1,200 a year on nuclear weapons. The Republic annually invests in its nuclear arsenal.

Huge investment. but the land is disproportionately rewarded.

Since the birth of nuclear weapons. In addition to being used twice before the end of World War II, Japan used it in this war. No country has ever used nuclear weapons in any war. Other words. Nuclear weapons are just a "big stick" in the hands of the nuclear powers. It's like having a watchdog with a big appetite. But because it was too cruel. It had to be kept in a cage. so as not to "injure" others.

Most of the time. Nuclear weapons don't even have a psychologically comforting effect.

Under the principle of "you have me, you have more, I have more", "nuclear annihilation" accompanied mankind through the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, and ushered in the Cold War between China and the United States. In the most likely to trigger

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was the face of nuclear war, many American cities even went to the countryside or built basements in their backyards. In the words of the Americans at that time, nuclear weapons did not give Americans a sense of security, but an incomparable fear of destruction!

Before the outbreak of the "Japanese War", nuclear weapons were more or less meaningful.

When Japan's strategic ballistic missiles and fighter planes carrying nuclear warheads were blocked from the country's "national strategic defense system" by the republic, and instead caused a devastating disaster to Japan, almost all countries realized that nuclear weapons not only could not play a role in self-defense, but were also an ideal tool for "self-determination."

At this time, the United States proposed the "complete destruction of nuclear weapons," which is of extraordinary significance.

According to the comments of the Western news media, with the support of the other four nuclear powers, the day of "world denuclearization" will come earlier.

No questions asked, the question is as simple as that.

The "total elimination of nuclear weapons" is a piece of human cake, but in the eyes of small countries, it is a poisonous cake.

The reason is the same: after all countries have eliminated their nuclear weapons, who will guarantee the security of small countries?

From the standpoint of a small country than from the standpoint of India, the total elimination of nuclear weapons, while the threat of a blow of mass destruction would be eliminated, would lead to a sharp deterioration of India's security environment. In the possession of nuclear weapons, India still has the capital to fight to the death with China and other world powers, and even if it cannot completely destroy the enemy like a nuclear power, it can inflict unbearable losses on the enemy and force the enemy to abandon its aggressive intentions. Without nuclear weapons, the military strength of India and the Republic has widened dramatically rather than narrowed, because of the huge gap in conventional weapons, especially precision strikes. Without a nuclear threat from India, will the Republic be patient enough to negotiate with India to resolve the southern Tibetan issue? If nuclear weapons had been destroyed long ago, I am afraid that by the time of the Fourth Indo-Pakistani War, the ground forces of the Republic would have crossed the Himalayas and captured southern Tibet.

There are such concerns, and Israel has such concerns.

Although Israel has never officially acknowledged possession of nuclear weapons, everyone knows that Israel is a nuclear power and that it has nuclear warheads capable of destroying the entire Arab world. Even if with the great assistance of the United States, Israel has the most powerful army in the Middle East, which is enough to defeat any neighboring country, or even all neighboring countries, in a conventional war, but after all, Israel is only a small country with a population of only a few million, and the foundation of any surrounding Arab country is stronger than Israel, and without nuclear weapons, it will not be long before Israel will be defeated at the foot of the surging Arab army, just like the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" in the past, and millions of Jews will go into exile again.

Even for the nuclear powers, the time has not yet come for the "complete elimination of nuclear weapons."

Russia's conventional military forces are far inferior to those of other powers, capable of maintaining the status of a great power, relying solely on a powerful nuclear arsenal.

If France wants to maintain its position in the EU and suppress Germany and Italy, it must rely on nuclear weapons in its hands. Even Britain is not very enthusiastic about the "total elimination of nuclear weapons", and if it does not have a strong nuclear arsenal, why should Britain defend its interests in the South Atlantic against an increasingly powerful Argentina?

On the other hand, the United States and the Republic, which are showing positive enthusiasm, also have their own calculations.

Although the conventional military strength of the United States and the Republic is very strong and capable of defeating any country except the other without the use of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons have played an indelible "contribution" in maintaining the strategic balance between the two countries. Imagine that without nuclear weapons, the United States and the Republic would be "compelling" to each other?

While the Western news media are clamoring for the "complete elimination of nuclear weapons", the news media of other countries are acting very rationally. In the words of Al Jazeera's commentary: In the context of the weakening of the United Nations' ability to maintain world peace and stability and the absence of a more effective international security mechanism, the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons will only remain at the stage of negotiation and consultation, unless the existing strategic balance is broken by some force, and nuclear weapons completely lose their strategic deterrence capability, and the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons can truly attract the attention of all countries and become the only way to eliminate the threat of human annihilation.

Without asking, Al Jazeera's comments were very pertinent.

The "war in Japan" has proved that the effectiveness of nuclear weapons is limited, but it is not enough to make all countries resolve to destroy nuclear weapons, still less to make the nuclear powers voluntarily abandon nuclear weapons. Only after the United States or the Republic proves that it is capable of intercepting all nuclear warheads fired at its own country will other countries make major concessions on the "total elimination of nuclear weapons" and make the "denuclearization of the world" just around the corner.

Everything has a process and it takes plenty of time.

Under the impetus of the United States and the Republic, the "comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons" has finally been transformed from a civilian act into an act of national government.

From this point of view, this has to be said to be a major progress of human civilization! (To be continued, if you want to know what will happen next, please log in to idian, more chapters, support the author, support genuine reading!) )