7 ms·

Anti-nuclear weapons group ICAN wins Nobel Peace Prize

56 points by kartikkumar 9y ago

nradov 9y ago
At least they probably deserve it more than Yasser Arafat.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Or Obama :)
- vesinisa 9y ago
  ... or Barack Obama. Or Aung San Suu Kyi, though she was awarded before she became complicit in an ongoing genocide.
jbob2000 9y ago
> But none of the nine known nuclear powers in the world - including the UK and the US - endorsed it. Proving that this group is completely ineffective and their peace prize is a joke. Just a bunch of bureaucrats who sit around saying "oh yes, nuclear weapons bad, pass the caviar please".
- Tepix 9y ago
  Things must be said, even when there are no immediate consequences. It's the same with the torture performed by the US during the Bush administration: The torturers got away with it (for now), should we not even shame them?
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  The nuclear weapons states have failed to act. The international community is using shame (which has worked in the past for other treaties) and reaffirming their commitments to non-proliferation. Would you rather they do nothing?
  - jbob2000 9y ago
    The countries in question have plenty of shame already, this is a speck of dust on their mountains of shame. Nuclear weapons are different. Everybody has to deactivate them at the exact same time, otherwise you end up with power imbalances, which end with more proliferation. This group is like a shrieking woman in a room with 6 other people all pointing guns at each other - completely ineffective, just adding more noise to an already tense situation.
    - SapphireSun 9y ago
      There are pathways to risk reduction and disarmament if we have the political will to take them. For instance, in the United States, we could push congress to pass S.200 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons" https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/200 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/200 We can also push towards minimal deterrence first and then organize a multilateral disarmament.
- nobodyorother 9y ago
  It's unlikely the US military was the part of the government that endorsed it. The US government is so big, so bureaucratic, that it's less a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, and more like the right 300 hands are working in direct opposition to the other 400 left ones.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    The U.S. representative was hanging out in the hall with a few of our supporters denouncing the working group while the treaty was being discussed. We know exactly what we're doing and it would be comical if it weren't so deadly serious.
Tepix 9y ago
With three or more or less aggressive leaders in control of nuclear weapons, getting rid of them seems unlikely, yet more important than ever.
JoeDaDude 9y ago
Serious , but somewhat rhetorical question. I don't expect an answer, certainly not a simple answer. Why just nuclear weapons? Shouldn't the scope be wider, say all weapons of mass destruction? But even then, conventional weapons become weapons of mass destruction when used in massive quantities (e.g.: massive aerial bombing during WWII). So in a world without nuclear weapons, wouldn't state actors just go back to doing things nuclear weapons do but with conventional weapons?
- diggan 9y ago
  My uneducated guess would be because of the long-term effects of nuclear weapons compared to traditional weapons.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have the distinct ability to have lasting effects on the area/population they are used on. "Conventional" weapons have their immediate effect (death, destruction) and then that's it. The fact that some of us are able to at least try to limit their use is great considering humanity's track record... Of course this is all generally speaking, as each class of weapons have effects that last shorter or longer than others within even the same class. e.g. nuclear air-burst has less fallout than a ground-burst. Some chemical weapons break down fairly quickly and become inert, while others linger, etc. Then you have to consider cluster munitions and land mines, which while apparently conventional, are quite indiscriminate and also can linger for decades. These devices have also been more successfully restricted than other conventional weapons.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Continuing that line of thinking, mine fields are also prohibited.
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      However, the US continues to use cluster-style munitions in it's conflicts, which end up creating a veritable mine field of un-exploded ordinance. To clarify, it appears we will stop using such ordinance which leaves >1% un-exploded as of next year. [0] Considering such devices have hundreds of individual munitions, that is still not something I would consider "safe". [0]http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%20Cluster%20Munitions.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%...
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Nothing has done more to stop large powerful nations from getting in serious shooting wars than the background threat of nuclear retaliation.
- megaman22 9y ago
  Without nuclear weapons, I think there's a better than even chance the Red Army storms through the Fulda Gap at some point 1945-1960. If for no other reason than that all of the resources devoted to atomic weapons, and the requisite delivery platforms for them (submarines, ballistic missiles, intercontinental bombers, etc) would have been diverted elsewhere.
Firebrand 9y ago
Hope triumphs over expectations. Reminds me of the award going to Obama.
- boyce 9y ago
  If they follow the example of previous laureates Obama or Aung San Suu Kyi they'll be enriching their own uranium within the year
SapphireSun 9y ago
For people wanting really great analysis of nuclear issues, check out Jeff Lewis's Arms Control Wonk podcast. There's three episodes analyzing the Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons treaty amongst many other fascinating topics like missile defense. http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/ http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/
bronzeage 9y ago
This is disgusting. How do they deserve any reward when north Korea has atomic weapons, when Iran nearly had atomic weapons, and probably will have it after 10 years when the agreement is over. Nobel prizes for peace have become "what is the biggest historical ironical joke we can make this year". Obama getting that prize for worse than nothing, then this.
- matt4077 9y ago
  I think you've misunderstood something...
- typon 9y ago
  Actually, it seems incredibly appropriate to award this organization the award to emphasize that we need anti-nuclear organizations to be supported and funded now more than ever. If all this prize accomplish is provide publicity for them then it's doing something positive given how grave the threat of nuclear war is.
- gressquel 9y ago
  When it comes to Obama, you can say that it was a prize that was given to encourage the president of the most influential country in the world to do the right things. It was given early in his presidential term and may have influenced his decisions later on small and big things. Obama didnt create war, he infact de-escalated one potential and many other smaller matters where the US was already engaged. Personally I think it was fine.
  - zeveb 9y ago
    > When it comes to Obama, you can say that it was a prize that was given to encourage the president of the most influential country in the world to do the right things. One could, but the real reason that Mr. Obama received it was that he was not Mr. Bush. One may approve or disapprove of that fact, but it remains a fact regardless.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Can you point to specific failures on the part of ICAN? They’re not the world police. They can only work within the mandate and resourcing available. In other words, do you think the situation would be better without ICAN? The Iran agreement is not perfect, but surely it’s better than no reins. Don’t forget about the countries that have voluntarily ended their nuclear programs or stopped expanding them. Successes in this field are by nature much less visible than the failures.
njarboe 9y ago
The ~7,000 warheads that the US and Russia still have are a clear and present danger to humanity, but I would hesitate to get rid of all of them and have world scale conventional war return. Maybe a few dozen very well protected and spread-out nuclear warheads and delivery systems per country would be the ideal situation.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I'm torn. The post-WWII era has been amazingly peaceful, but at what risk? If nuclear weapons mean we avoid large-scale total war in exchange for, say, a one-in-a-million chance per year of annihilation, that might be worthwhile. If they mean we avoid large-scale total war in exchange for a 1% chance per year of annihilation, that's so very much not worthwhile. What are the actual chances? It's impossible to tell. I suspect it's closer to 1% than one-in-a-million but that's really just a guess.
  - robert_foss 9y ago
    At times, like during the Cuban missile crisis, we were definitely closer to annihilation than 1%. This was of course largely avoidable if president Kennedy had chosen to stand down as his Russian counterpart was offering[1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-missile-crisis-russian-roulette https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-...
interfixus 9y ago
This is just plain silly. They might as well award the thing to my old friend Paul, who styles himself a peace poet, and writes shit poor poems about how we should all just, you know, not make war on each other anymore. At least he really needs the money. Nukes don't go away because profiled do-gooders whine about them. The litterature prize, btw, really, really, really needs to go to Randall Munroe one of these years. Yes, I'm dead serious.
ksherlock 9y ago
Interesting... just the other day, there was a discussion concerning the physics prize being giving to three people (which is already bending the rules) when there are often dozens or hundreds of people involved. The will is quite specific about "person" for all of them. https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html
robert_foss 9y ago
Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN, called Trump a moron the other day. https://twitter.com/BeaFihn/status/915598750969712640 https://twitter.com/BeaFihn/status/915598750969712640
- ConceptJunkie 9y ago
  Based on the Nobel Peace Prize's track record, that alone would have clinched it. Honoring an anti-nuclear group at least seems to be in the proper spirit, compared to some of the more ridiculous awards in recent decades.
batushka 9y ago
Nobel committee cranks good jokes from time to time! Obama, EU, ICAN... what would you bet for next nonsense?
rumcajz 9y ago
It always surpises me how little people fear nuclear weapons. Given that it takes to launch only one of them to trigger the cascade and that there are some 15,000 of them around the world the scenario seems pretty believable. What's worse, virtually every doomsday scenario ends with nukes burning everyone alive. Scared of global warning? Here we go: Icebergs melt, the sea level rises. Bangladesh is under water. 100M refugees flood India, Pakistan and China. Recall the political turmoil caused by couple of million refugees in Europe. How would it go if it happens at much larger scale in the area with three nuclear powers? Boom! You are fried meat. Is economic inequality your nightmare? Are you afraid it can lead to similar outcomes as in 1914? Well, add nuclear weapons to the mix. Inequality causes political instability, political instabiliy ends up with nuclear weapons in the hands of weird people. Kaboom! There goes breathable atmosphere. Nanotechnology eating the world? Antibiotic-resistant supergerms? Out-of-control artificial intelligence? Whatever your nightmare scenario is it always ends the same way. Catastrophe leads to chaos. Chaos leads to loss of control of nukes. One is lauched. All other follow automatically. Adieu, cruel world. Now, this is a genuine question: How come that people, even intelligent people, like those on HN, are not scared shitless?
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  Corporate media.
- Tepix 9y ago
  I'm not convinced that nowadays the launch of a nuke by a rogue party will lead to a chain reaction.
  - rumcajz 9y ago
    Why so? AFAIK the campaigns to move nuclear weapons away from the hair trigger mode were unsuccessful so far.

56 points by kartikkumar 9y ago

nradov 9y ago

At least they probably deserve it more than Yasser Arafat.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Or Obama :)
vesinisa 9y ago
... or Barack Obama. Or Aung San Suu Kyi, though she was awarded before she became complicit in an ongoing genocide.

jbob2000 9y ago

> But none of the nine known nuclear powers in the world - including the UK and the US - endorsed it. Proving that this group is completely ineffective and their peace prize is a joke. Just a bunch of bureaucrats who sit around saying "oh yes, nuclear weapons bad, pass the caviar please".

Tepix 9y ago
Things must be said, even when there are no immediate consequences. It's the same with the torture performed by the US during the Bush administration: The torturers got away with it (for now), should we not even shame them?
SapphireSun 9y ago
The nuclear weapons states have failed to act. The international community is using shame (which has worked in the past for other treaties) and reaffirming their commitments to non-proliferation. Would you rather they do nothing?
- jbob2000 9y ago
  The countries in question have plenty of shame already, this is a speck of dust on their mountains of shame. Nuclear weapons are different. Everybody has to deactivate them at the exact same time, otherwise you end up with power imbalances, which end with more proliferation. This group is like a shrieking woman in a room with 6 other people all pointing guns at each other - completely ineffective, just adding more noise to an already tense situation.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    There are pathways to risk reduction and disarmament if we have the political will to take them. For instance, in the United States, we could push congress to pass S.200 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons" https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/200 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/200 We can also push towards minimal deterrence first and then organize a multilateral disarmament.
nobodyorother 9y ago
It's unlikely the US military was the part of the government that endorsed it. The US government is so big, so bureaucratic, that it's less a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, and more like the right 300 hands are working in direct opposition to the other 400 left ones.
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  The U.S. representative was hanging out in the hall with a few of our supporters denouncing the working group while the treaty was being discussed. We know exactly what we're doing and it would be comical if it weren't so deadly serious.

Tepix 9y ago

With three or more or less aggressive leaders in control of nuclear weapons, getting rid of them seems unlikely, yet more important than ever.

JoeDaDude 9y ago

Serious , but somewhat rhetorical question. I don't expect an answer, certainly not a simple answer. Why just nuclear weapons? Shouldn't the scope be wider, say all weapons of mass destruction? But even then, conventional weapons become weapons of mass destruction when used in massive quantities (e.g.: massive aerial bombing during WWII). So in a world without nuclear weapons, wouldn't state actors just go back to doing things nuclear weapons do but with conventional weapons?

diggan 9y ago
My uneducated guess would be because of the long-term effects of nuclear weapons compared to traditional weapons.
24gttghh 9y ago
Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have the distinct ability to have lasting effects on the area/population they are used on. "Conventional" weapons have their immediate effect (death, destruction) and then that's it. The fact that some of us are able to at least try to limit their use is great considering humanity's track record... Of course this is all generally speaking, as each class of weapons have effects that last shorter or longer than others within even the same class. e.g. nuclear air-burst has less fallout than a ground-burst. Some chemical weapons break down fairly quickly and become inert, while others linger, etc. Then you have to consider cluster munitions and land mines, which while apparently conventional, are quite indiscriminate and also can linger for decades. These devices have also been more successfully restricted than other conventional weapons.
- Retric 9y ago
  Continuing that line of thinking, mine fields are also prohibited.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    However, the US continues to use cluster-style munitions in it's conflicts, which end up creating a veritable mine field of un-exploded ordinance. To clarify, it appears we will stop using such ordinance which leaves >1% un-exploded as of next year. [0] Considering such devices have hundreds of individual munitions, that is still not something I would consider "safe". [0]http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%20Cluster%20Munitions.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%...

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Nothing has done more to stop large powerful nations from getting in serious shooting wars than the background threat of nuclear retaliation.

megaman22 9y ago
Without nuclear weapons, I think there's a better than even chance the Red Army storms through the Fulda Gap at some point 1945-1960. If for no other reason than that all of the resources devoted to atomic weapons, and the requisite delivery platforms for them (submarines, ballistic missiles, intercontinental bombers, etc) would have been diverted elsewhere.

Firebrand 9y ago

Hope triumphs over expectations. Reminds me of the award going to Obama.

boyce 9y ago
If they follow the example of previous laureates Obama or Aung San Suu Kyi they'll be enriching their own uranium within the year

SapphireSun 9y ago

For people wanting really great analysis of nuclear issues, check out Jeff Lewis's Arms Control Wonk podcast. There's three episodes analyzing the Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons treaty amongst many other fascinating topics like missile defense. http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/ http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/

bronzeage 9y ago

This is disgusting. How do they deserve any reward when north Korea has atomic weapons, when Iran nearly had atomic weapons, and probably will have it after 10 years when the agreement is over. Nobel prizes for peace have become "what is the biggest historical ironical joke we can make this year". Obama getting that prize for worse than nothing, then this.

matt4077 9y ago
I think you've misunderstood something...
typon 9y ago
Actually, it seems incredibly appropriate to award this organization the award to emphasize that we need anti-nuclear organizations to be supported and funded now more than ever. If all this prize accomplish is provide publicity for them then it's doing something positive given how grave the threat of nuclear war is.
gressquel 9y ago
When it comes to Obama, you can say that it was a prize that was given to encourage the president of the most influential country in the world to do the right things. It was given early in his presidential term and may have influenced his decisions later on small and big things. Obama didnt create war, he infact de-escalated one potential and many other smaller matters where the US was already engaged. Personally I think it was fine.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > When it comes to Obama, you can say that it was a prize that was given to encourage the president of the most influential country in the world to do the right things. One could, but the real reason that Mr. Obama received it was that he was not Mr. Bush. One may approve or disapprove of that fact, but it remains a fact regardless.
pavlov 9y ago
Can you point to specific failures on the part of ICAN? They’re not the world police. They can only work within the mandate and resourcing available. In other words, do you think the situation would be better without ICAN? The Iran agreement is not perfect, but surely it’s better than no reins. Don’t forget about the countries that have voluntarily ended their nuclear programs or stopped expanding them. Successes in this field are by nature much less visible than the failures.

njarboe 9y ago

The ~7,000 warheads that the US and Russia still have are a clear and present danger to humanity, but I would hesitate to get rid of all of them and have world scale conventional war return. Maybe a few dozen very well protected and spread-out nuclear warheads and delivery systems per country would be the ideal situation.

mikeash 9y ago
I'm torn. The post-WWII era has been amazingly peaceful, but at what risk? If nuclear weapons mean we avoid large-scale total war in exchange for, say, a one-in-a-million chance per year of annihilation, that might be worthwhile. If they mean we avoid large-scale total war in exchange for a 1% chance per year of annihilation, that's so very much not worthwhile. What are the actual chances? It's impossible to tell. I suspect it's closer to 1% than one-in-a-million but that's really just a guess.
- robert_foss 9y ago
  At times, like during the Cuban missile crisis, we were definitely closer to annihilation than 1%. This was of course largely avoidable if president Kennedy had chosen to stand down as his Russian counterpart was offering[1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-missile-crisis-russian-roulette https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-...

interfixus 9y ago

This is just plain silly. They might as well award the thing to my old friend Paul, who styles himself a peace poet, and writes shit poor poems about how we should all just, you know, not make war on each other anymore. At least he really needs the money. Nukes don't go away because profiled do-gooders whine about them. The litterature prize, btw, really, really, really needs to go to Randall Munroe one of these years. Yes, I'm dead serious.

ksherlock 9y ago

Interesting... just the other day, there was a discussion concerning the physics prize being giving to three people (which is already bending the rules) when there are often dozens or hundreds of people involved. The will is quite specific about "person" for all of them. https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html

robert_foss 9y ago

Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN, called Trump a moron the other day. https://twitter.com/BeaFihn/status/915598750969712640 https://twitter.com/BeaFihn/status/915598750969712640

ConceptJunkie 9y ago
Based on the Nobel Peace Prize's track record, that alone would have clinched it. Honoring an anti-nuclear group at least seems to be in the proper spirit, compared to some of the more ridiculous awards in recent decades.

batushka 9y ago

Nobel committee cranks good jokes from time to time! Obama, EU, ICAN... what would you bet for next nonsense?

rumcajz 9y ago

It always surpises me how little people fear nuclear weapons. Given that it takes to launch only one of them to trigger the cascade and that there are some 15,000 of them around the world the scenario seems pretty believable. What's worse, virtually every doomsday scenario ends with nukes burning everyone alive. Scared of global warning? Here we go: Icebergs melt, the sea level rises. Bangladesh is under water. 100M refugees flood India, Pakistan and China. Recall the political turmoil caused by couple of million refugees in Europe. How would it go if it happens at much larger scale in the area with three nuclear powers? Boom! You are fried meat. Is economic inequality your nightmare? Are you afraid it can lead to similar outcomes as in 1914? Well, add nuclear weapons to the mix. Inequality causes political instability, political instabiliy ends up with nuclear weapons in the hands of weird people. Kaboom! There goes breathable atmosphere. Nanotechnology eating the world? Antibiotic-resistant supergerms? Out-of-control artificial intelligence? Whatever your nightmare scenario is it always ends the same way. Catastrophe leads to chaos. Chaos leads to loss of control of nukes. One is lauched. All other follow automatically. Adieu, cruel world. Now, this is a genuine question: How come that people, even intelligent people, like those on HN, are not scared shitless?

SapphireSun 9y ago
Corporate media.
Tepix 9y ago
I'm not convinced that nowadays the launch of a nuke by a rogue party will lead to a chain reaction.
- rumcajz 9y ago
  Why so? AFAIK the campaigns to move nuclear weapons away from the hair trigger mode were unsuccessful so far.