I didn't expect to see Mark L Hill on here. Glad to see his career wasnt totally destroyed from speaking up for Palestine. Good news is so rare these days.
That being said, you have made me a fan. Just watched several other interviews of his. He is very informed and fair, and good for him for speaking out.
We all agree on peace. We all agree on limiting or removing weapons. So...Now... Who puts down there weapons first? This is where the system breaks down.
In the past the US and the Soviets made progress towards disarmament by reducing their arsenals simultaneously in ways that could be confirmed by satellite. We need a similar approach now; the issue is getting all the nuclear powers to the negotiating table.
I am watching this hoping to hear ICAN talk about how the widespread murder of children and innocent civilians is now a protected activity for nuclear powers. About how if a nuclear power decides to go wage an illegal war or go genocidal the rest of the world has to sit back, calm down and shut up. I am yet to hear anyone talk about this so I'm hanging my hopes on ICAN right now. Let's see what she says.... I was disappointed. Even though a million Iraqis are dead because of the US invasion, not to mention Afghans etc she portrays the US as somehow magically immune from such impulses. "Only Putin would." Such rhetoric from a Peace Prize winner of course plays into the hands of the US who will use it to argue that only a certain nation and it's most trusted allies should have nukes. I don't know if this lady from ICAN is ready to accept such a scenario as fulfilling the goal of disarmament. I know I speak for much of the world when I say that we are not ready to accept nuclear domination. We do not trust America or any nation with nukes. We do accept that the possession of nukes is a license to kill, not to protect lives. We don't worry as much about nuclear holocausts as much as we worry about all the smaller holocausts in the meantime that nuclear weapons enable. Personally I cannot believe I am smarter than anyone at ICAN so I am very disappointed to see this very powerful and very well-founded argument for disarmament overlooked. I now have to wonder if ICAN is lobbying for disarmament or domination.
I interpreted it differently- more like "how will things end when these old men get into a situation where "winning" is out crazying the other guy " Biden? Trump ? Bush ? USA isn't looking so hot
@@subkarl Your perspective is my point exactly. If you live solely in a country with nukes or NATO membership then you only worry about the Dr Strangelove scenario and fantasise that human civilisation will end with you. The rest of the world, some of which would survive (sorry mate) nuclear holocaust, has other more complex concerns. Top of the list is getting pushed around by nuclear powers, invasions, massacres that nobody does anything about because a nuclear power is involved and what kind of world will be left when great powers have played out their wet dream of mutually assured destruction.
More debate should definitely focus on the fact that those wishing to keep nuclear weapons need to be honest with themselves about being part of a system of enablement. Yes, maybe they feel it protects their own country, but are they willing to pay the price of that? Are they willing to watch these atrocities without being able to help? Why should lives in certain countries be more important than others? We should all be able to have nukes or none. It's a disgusting situation.
that missile was not a nuclear warhead... 🤨(accidentally shot towards Pakistan) just because they said that it was by accident don't believe everything you hear.. you should know better... why is that the missile was only shot towards the rival country? why not Afghanistan, Nepal, etc? and please do not undermine 'men' by saying "MOSTLY MEN", there are women in the army as well who are nuclear scientists... i happen to know one... why is the rhetoric only over nuclear arms, why not other missiles and weapons of mass destruction as well. there are old rivalries that has lead to development of nuclear warheads so that the rivals can be held at bay and that they would have to think a million times before reacting to any provocation... technically it makes these countries feel securer and safer... I personally, am against any kind of bloodshed and war. But we all know it is inevitable. Rational and irrationality are two peas in a pod. either side choses and it is our perception that defines how rational their justification was for their actions. coming to Putin, you're information on his reasoning for invasion is incorrect. He feels his country is threatened to have a rival force come closer to its borders and establish bases there. Anyone would want to protect their people by either dialogue and if push comes to shove then I am sorry people have to call for desperate measures, because everyone has the right to defend their sovereignty, which is what Putin is doing. Unless like some countries that blatantly lie to invade them and kill innocents for their benefits... and later on accept that there were no weapons of mass destruction... I agree with the host, the nuclear deterrence/disarmament theory is flawed.
Please, everyone is more concerned than anything else with the behavior of an old man who may not even be able to wake up the next day. You better take care of him
MAD means that the few nuclear powers that do exist expand their spheres of influence until they run out of space, at which point they will come into conflict with one another. As long as authoritarianism and democracy are vying against one another on the international stage, war between great powers is an inevitability. Nuclear weapons delay that war, but they also make it far, far worse when it does eventually break out.
The invasions over the last two + decades from Afghanistan to Ukraine have many lessons to teach or re-teach as we seem to keep forgetting lessons learned not that long ago. But a key take away is that nuclear armed nations do not get invaded, or attacked etc... Just after the Soviet Union dissolved the Ukraine was left a massive nuclear arsenal that was parked in that nation by their former "patrons". These werent like the 10 or so small fission bombs that south africa had and gave up so that a certain majority of their population wouldnt have access to them, no these were modern thermonuclear and boosted fission weapons. and in a baffling act of stupidity when russia asked for their bombs back they said yes, and look at what happened. if anything more nations will be developing nuclear weapons, not less, and disarmament is a fantasy
If NATO, Russia, and China all agreed to do it at that same time slowly one by one together so no one power would over power the other with numbers of warheads during dissarmorment maybe and hopefully
That's the way to do it. Unfortunately it requires a lot of initial trust, as all parties would have to allow foreign inspectors in to monitor military activities they would generally keep classified.
The issue with these horrific weapons is that several countries possess them. There will never be a universal agreement on disarmament, so it would not be wise for western nations to get rid of them. It is feasible to argue that we would have already had ww3 if the major powers did not possess wmd's as a deterrent. We have lived in relative peace for the last 50 years but history shows that can change at the drop of a hat. CMD is a lovely idea but it is simply not realistic.
We are all to blame as one human race for coming to this sad state on our planet, so to point at men as the problem is just one more agenda. We have all hurt each other. If nuclear countries disarmed there would be no nuclear threat, that is all that need be said.
The more nuclear powers exist, the greater the risk of an irrational actor sparking a global annihilation. If every country has nukes, then every regional conflict or terrorist insurgency risks spiraling into a nuclear exchange.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
America too destroyed many countries
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart my point is we don't see the same reactions from the world. Which country sanction America. Shame on you
There is more than one example where nations are rumored to have them and will not confirm it. It is a great idea but just will not work.
Metal Gear Solid V is a classic.
I didn't expect to see Mark L Hill on here. Glad to see his career wasnt totally destroyed from speaking up for Palestine. Good news is so rare these days.
Good news is not rare, but we have decided only to report the bad and this is what has escalated this world into frenzy.
That being said, you have made me a fan. Just watched several other interviews of his. He is very informed and fair, and good for him for speaking out.
We all agree on peace. We all agree on limiting or removing weapons. So...Now... Who puts down there weapons first? This is where the system breaks down.
That's not true. It's been done before in other wars.
In the past the US and the Soviets made progress towards disarmament by reducing their arsenals simultaneously in ways that could be confirmed by satellite. We need a similar approach now; the issue is getting all the nuclear powers to the negotiating table.
I respect everyone who were involved in this Seriously the best piece that i ve ever seen on RUclips 💌 Hate off to well all 💟 love your videos...
No
I am watching this hoping to hear ICAN talk about how the widespread murder of children and innocent civilians is now a protected activity for nuclear powers. About how if a nuclear power decides to go wage an illegal war or go genocidal the rest of the world has to sit back, calm down and shut up. I am yet to hear anyone talk about this so I'm hanging my hopes on ICAN right now. Let's see what she says....
I was disappointed. Even though a million Iraqis are dead because of the US invasion, not to mention Afghans etc she portrays the US as somehow magically immune from such impulses. "Only Putin would." Such rhetoric from a Peace Prize winner of course plays into the hands of the US who will use it to argue that only a certain nation and it's most trusted allies should have nukes. I don't know if this lady from ICAN is ready to accept such a scenario as fulfilling the goal of disarmament. I know I speak for much of the world when I say that we are not ready to accept nuclear domination. We do not trust America or any nation with nukes. We do accept that the possession of nukes is a license to kill, not to protect lives. We don't worry as much about nuclear holocausts as much as we worry about all the smaller holocausts in the meantime that nuclear weapons enable. Personally I cannot believe I am smarter than anyone at ICAN so I am very disappointed to see this very powerful and very well-founded argument for disarmament overlooked. I now have to wonder if ICAN is lobbying for disarmament or domination.
I interpreted it differently- more like "how will things end when these old men get into a situation where "winning" is out crazying the other guy " Biden? Trump ? Bush ? USA isn't looking so hot
@@subkarl Your perspective is my point exactly. If you live solely in a country with nukes or NATO membership then you only worry about the Dr Strangelove scenario and fantasise that human civilisation will end with you. The rest of the world, some of which would survive (sorry mate) nuclear holocaust, has other more complex concerns. Top of the list is getting pushed around by nuclear powers, invasions, massacres that nobody does anything about because a nuclear power is involved and what kind of world will be left when great powers have played out their wet dream of mutually assured destruction.
More debate should definitely focus on the fact that those wishing to keep nuclear weapons need to be honest with themselves about being part of a system of enablement. Yes, maybe they feel it protects their own country, but are they willing to pay the price of that? Are they willing to watch these atrocities without being able to help? Why should lives in certain countries be more important than others? We should all be able to have nukes or none. It's a disgusting situation.
that missile was not a nuclear warhead... 🤨(accidentally shot towards Pakistan)
just because they said that it was by accident don't believe everything you hear.. you should know better... why is that the missile was only shot towards the rival country? why not Afghanistan, Nepal, etc?
and please do not undermine 'men' by saying "MOSTLY MEN", there are women in the army as well who are nuclear scientists... i happen to know one...
why is the rhetoric only over nuclear arms, why not other missiles and weapons of mass destruction as well.
there are old rivalries that has lead to development of nuclear warheads so that the rivals can be held at bay and that they would have to think a million times before reacting to any provocation... technically it makes these countries feel securer and safer...
I personally, am against any kind of bloodshed and war. But we all know it is inevitable. Rational and irrationality are two peas in a pod. either side choses and it is our perception that defines how rational their justification was for their actions.
coming to Putin, you're information on his reasoning for invasion is incorrect. He feels his country is threatened to have a rival force come closer to its borders and establish bases there. Anyone would want to protect their people by either dialogue and if push comes to shove then I am sorry people have to call for desperate measures, because everyone has the right to defend their sovereignty, which is what Putin is doing. Unless like some countries that blatantly lie to invade them and kill innocents for their benefits... and later on accept that there were no weapons of mass destruction...
I agree with the host, the nuclear deterrence/disarmament theory is flawed.
good luck making poutine disarm himself, not a chance
No.
Even if a country has no nuclear weapons, its allies might have nuclear stockpiles.
They must be taken apart forever . All of everyone’s babies depend on it
0 - downvotes ... cool... hope in humanity lingers on
Get rid of all weapons and give people sticks.
Not even that, hand to hand. That’s how fights should be decided.
Please, everyone is more concerned than anything else with the behavior of an old man who may not even be able to wake up the next day.
You better take care of him
Save Our Planet
At the end no nuclear weapons means ww3
MAD means that the few nuclear powers that do exist expand their spheres of influence until they run out of space, at which point they will come into conflict with one another.
As long as authoritarianism and democracy are vying against one another on the international stage, war between great powers is an inevitability. Nuclear weapons delay that war, but they also make it far, far worse when it does eventually break out.
The invasions over the last two + decades from Afghanistan to Ukraine have many lessons to teach or re-teach as we seem to keep forgetting lessons learned not that long ago. But a key take away is that nuclear armed nations do not get invaded, or attacked etc... Just after the Soviet Union dissolved the Ukraine was left a massive nuclear arsenal that was parked in that nation by their former "patrons". These werent like the 10 or so small fission bombs that south africa had and gave up so that a certain majority of their population wouldnt have access to them, no these were modern thermonuclear and boosted fission weapons. and in a baffling act of stupidity when russia asked for their bombs back they said yes, and look at what happened. if anything more nations will be developing nuclear weapons, not less, and disarmament is a fantasy
If NATO, Russia, and China all agreed to do it at that same time slowly one by one together so no one power would over power the other with numbers of warheads during dissarmorment maybe and hopefully
That's the way to do it. Unfortunately it requires a lot of initial trust, as all parties would have to allow foreign inspectors in to monitor military activities they would generally keep classified.
and you think kim jong un will dismantle his?😂
Impossible!
Too late!
Brilliant !!!
The issue with these horrific weapons is that several countries possess them. There will never be a universal agreement on disarmament, so it would not be wise for western nations to get rid of them. It is feasible to argue that we would have already had ww3 if the major powers did not possess wmd's as a deterrent. We have lived in relative peace for the last 50 years but history shows that can change at the drop of a hat. CMD is a lovely idea but it is simply not realistic.
We are all to blame as one human race for coming to this sad state on our planet, so to point at men as the problem is just one more agenda. We have all hurt each other. If nuclear countries disarmed there would be no nuclear threat, that is all that need be said.
very goodnoon and good luck salegum all muslim countries.
हार्दिक नमस्कार छ साथै सम्झना छ।🗻🐷🐂🐃🦄🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐷🐂🐂🐃🐃🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐂🐩🐕🏝🏝🏔🌋🌎🏕🏕🏕🌎🌋🌋🌍🌍🗻
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PMSL
If we cant then let everyone should have one. Why some are allowed and others not.
The more nuclear powers exist, the greater the risk of an irrational actor sparking a global annihilation. If every country has nukes, then every regional conflict or terrorist insurgency risks spiraling into a nuclear exchange.
Will the US do it?
@Moon Pie From where do I start to read your sentence for it to make sense?
Excellent video. We need more of this in the media especially in such a time as Russia's illegally invading Ukraine.
Please mAn stay where you are... This is non of your business no one cares for you or your govt opinion on this problem
Aljewzeera... The voice of Judas.
Save you time: NO.
Marc RIP BNC. Another black media is gone. Anyway good video
Ban
Ican is a joke
Take john the the Baptist out isreal.
Continue dreaming 🤡
pacem dare facultas
Marc needs to learn how to host better
She is not a scientist, but a fanatic feminist.
Glory & victory Russia 🇷🇺
You will never remove a weapon of power only replace it. ( Regardless of if they are men or women in power)
At least three countries have given up nukes. Ukraine, Lybia and South Africa
@@jerrymiller9039 libya never had nuclear weapons
No.