After the 1,24-hour ceasefire period, the Republic resumed war against Japan

Although Japan's attitude is still "dead", after both the United States and the European Union made a promise not to provide strategic assistance to Japan, everyone believed that Japan would not last long... Large-scale strategic bombing is enough to destroy Japan's will to war, and it is only a matter of time for Japan to make concessions at the negotiating table.

On November 17, the United States issued a call at the United Nations to expand the scale of the "Comprehensive Destruction of Nuclear Weapons" consultation meeting on the basis of the five permanent members of the Security Council as the core, and all nuclear countries participated in the negotiations. The Republic and Russia later proposed that countries with the ability to develop nuclear weapons should be included in the consultation meeting and discussed "Comprehensive Destruction of Nuclear Weapons" globally. This proposal was supported by most countries, and France expressed its willingness to provide meeting venues and all convenient conditions for the convening of "Global Comprehensive Destruction of Nuclear Weapons".

Of course, it is particularly critical to reach a consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council in the first place.

This incident immediately attracted the attention of the whole world.

"Comprehensively destroying nuclear weapons" is not a new topic. As early as the 1980s, non-governmental organizations in the West aim to promote global denuclearization appeared in the West. At the beginning of the 21st century, US President Japeer took the initiative to propose "Comprehensively destroying nuclear weapons" when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. Before the Fourth India-Pakistan War, "Comprehensively destroying nuclear weapons" has always been the main topic in international disarmament negotiations. Influenced by the interests of various countries, "Comprehensively destroying nuclear weapons" has always been a flower in the mirror. As the international struggle in the water is becoming increasingly complex and fierce, more and more countries intend to cross the nuclear threshold and join the nuclear club. Nuclear powers actively seek strategic strikes and strategic defense capabilities with both offense and defense. No country is willing to make substantial concessions on the issue of "nuclear disarmament". Even the "third-stage ballistic missile destruction agreement" between the United States and the Russian State Duma became a piece of paper because of the veto of the US Congress and the Russian State Duma.

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

Standing at different degrees, there are different opinions.

Before the outbreak of the "Japanese War", several military strategists and politicians believed that nuclear weapons not only have the ability to destroy the human world, but also have the effect of maintaining peace. Simply put, it is "terrifying nuclear peace". Under the principle of "mutual destruction", no nuclear power dares to use nuclear weapons rashly in war, and will try to avoid direct conflicts. The most obvious example is the confrontation between China and the United States during the Peninsula War. If there are no nuclear weapons, China and the United States will definitely fight and fight to the death. History has also proved that nuclear weapons do have the effect of curbing large-scale wars at some point. The consequences of World War II are not that the United States and the Soviet Union have nuclear weapons that are enough to destroy humanity. The Cold War will not last for half a century, and the United States and the Soviet Union will intensify the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, and World War III will inevitably break out.

From the perspective, nuclear weapons are definitely a nightmare for mankind. Although nuclear countries have complete strategic early warning and strategic counterattack mechanisms, the Republic even promises not to use nuclear weapons first under any circumstances, the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads preserved in the nuclear arsenals of various countries are always the Damocles sword hanging above human heads, and it is possible to destroy the entire human world at any time when destroying the enemy. During the Cold War of the United States and the Soviet Union, tens of thousands of false alarms occurred in the country's "North American Air Defense Network", which occurred on average two to three times a day. Even if there is only one mistake, the most effective way is to completely destroy nuclear weapons!

From the perspective of various countries, nuclear weapons are also full of love and hate.

During the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the costs of two super-large military forces were on nuclear weapons and delivery tools. According to the data released by the United States after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States used the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons to be as high as trillions of dollars. It is equivalent to five times the GDP of the United States in 19911. It accounts for the United States' defense expenditure during the Cold War.

Although the Republic has maintained its appropriate counterattack capability until 2015 and has not expanded its nuclear arsenal on a large scale, by 2027, the Republic's expenses for nuclear arsenals exceed one trillion yuan, equivalent to one-third of the GDP in 2027. As long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, even if new nuclear weapons are no longer developed, the United States will spend 1,200 yuan on nuclear weapons every year. The Republic has to invest in nuclear arsenals every year.

Huge investment brings land but disproportionately rewards.

Since the birth of nuclear weapons, except for the use of them twice before the end of World War II and Japan used them in this war, no country has used them in any war. In other words, nuclear weapons are just "sticks" that cannot be waving in the hands of a nuclear power. This is like raising a watchdog with a big appetite. However, because it is too cruel, it has to be locked in a cage to avoid "inadvertently hurting" others.

Most of the time, nuclear weapons do not even have psychological comfort.

Under the principle of "you have me and I have it, you have more, I have more", "nuclear destruction" 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 way, it triggered a Cold War between China and the United States.

During the "Cuban Missile Crisis" facing the 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 brought Americans not 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 jets carrying nuclear warheads were blocked from the country's borders by the Republic's "national strategic defense system", which caused a devastating disaster to Japan, almost all countries realized that nuclear weapons not only did not play a role in self-defense, but were also an ideal tool for "self-destruction".

At this time, the United States proposed "full destruction of nuclear weapons" and was of extraordinary significance.

According to comments from Western news media, the day of "world denuclearization" will come early when all the other four nuclear powers express their support.

Without any questions, the question is that simple.

"Comprehensively destroying nuclear weapons" is a human cake, but in the eyes of small countries, it is a poisonous cake.

The reason is true. After all countries destroy nuclear weapons, who will ensure the security of small countries?

From the standpoint of small countries, rather than India, although the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons can eliminate the threat of large-scale destruction strikes, it will significantly deteriorate India's security environment. With nuclear weapons, India still has the capital to fight to the death with world powers such as China. Even if it cannot completely eliminate the enemy like a nuclear power, it can cause unbearable losses to the enemy, thus forcing the enemy to give up its intent to aggression. No

As a result, nuclear weapons, because of the huge gap in conventional weapons, especially precision strikes, the military strength comparison between India and the Republic has not only not narrowed, but has expanded sharply. Without a nuclear threat from India, will the Republic patiently negotiate with India to resolve the issue of southern Tibet with India? If nuclear weapons had been destroyed long ago, I am afraid that during the Fourth India-Pakistan War, the Republic's ground troops would have crossed the Himalayas and captured the southern Tibet region.

There are such concerns, and Israel also has such concerns.

Although Israel has never officially recognized its nuclear weapons, everyone knows that Israel is a nuclear country, and its nuclear warheads are enough to destroy the entire Arab world. Even with the strong assistance of the United States, Israel has the strongest army in the Middle East, which is enough to defeat any neighboring country, or even all neighboring countries in conventional wars. However, after all, Israel is just a small country with a population of millions. The foundation of any neighboring Arab country is stronger than that of Israel. Without nuclear weapons, it will not take long before Israel will be defeated at the foot of the surging Arab army like the "King of Jerusalem" back then, and millions of Jews will be exiled again.

Even for nuclear powers, it is not time to "full nuclear weapons disposal".

Russia's conventional military strength is far less than that of other major powers. It can maintain its status as a major power and relies entirely on a powerful nuclear arsenal.

If France wants to maintain its position in the EU and suppress Germany and Italy, it must rely on the nuclear weapons in its hands. Even the UK is not very enthusiastic about "complete destruction of nuclear weapons". If there is no strong nuclear arsenal, why should Britain safeguard its interests in the South Atlantic and deal with the increasingly powerful Argentina?

From another perspective, the United States and the Republic, which are showing positive enthusiasm, also have their own abacus.

Although the United States and the Republic have very strong conventional military strength and can defeat any country except the other party without using nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons have made an indelible "contribution" to maintaining the strategic balance between the two countries. Imagine, if there are no nuclear weapons, will the United States and the Republic "give" each other?

While Western news media were calling out for the "full destruction of nuclear weapons", the news media in other countries were very rational. To put it in Al Jazeera's comments: When the United Nations' ability to maintain world peace and stability is getting weaker and there is no more effective international security mechanism, the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons will only remain in the negotiation and consultation stages, unless the existing strategic balance is broken by some force, nuclear weapons will completely lose their strategic deterrence capabilities. The comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons can truly be valued by various countries and become the only way to eliminate the threat of human destruction.

Without any doubt, Al Jazeera's comments were very pertinent.

The "Japanese War" has proved that the effectiveness of nuclear weapons is limited, but it is not enough to make all countries determined to destroy nuclear weapons, and it is not enough to make nuclear powers voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons. Only after the United States or the Republic proves that it has the ability to intercept all nuclear warheads fired at its own country will other countries make major concessions in the "full denuclearization of the nuclear weapons", making "world denuclearization" just around the corner.

Everything has a process and requires plenty of time.

Driven by the United States and the Republic, the "full destruction of nuclear weapons" has finally changed from civilian behavior to national government behavior.

From this point of view, this has to be said to be a major advancement in human civilization! (To be continued,)
Chapter completed!