...The Slathon-style meeting took place for several days. Wang Yuanqing was also a little exhausted.

Everyone understands the great truth, but no one is willing to give in to details.

The comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons is not as simple as one sentence. It involves detailed issues such as supervision, verification, spot check, technical blockade, etc. In terms of supervision, how to ensure that the destroyed nuclear warhead cannot be assembled again and that the nuclear raw materials cannot be utilized is a very critical issue. According to the general view, the destruction work must be carried out under supervision. But who will supervise and in what way? After several days of talk, it was finally decided that all countries involved in the negotiations will send technical personnel to form the "Comprehensive Nuclear Disarmament and Destruction Supervision Committee." Fully supervise the destruction of nuclear weapons. Compared with supervision, verification is more troublesome.

After all, nuclear weapons are the most important weapons in any country, and verification is equivalent to revealing all secrets. From the perspective of the Republic, we definitely do not believe that the United States will destroy all nuclear weapons, otherwise the same is true. It can be said that every country is doubting whether other countries will effectively fulfill their commitment to fully destroy nuclear weapons. This leads to random inspections, that is, after a certain country signs a treaty to fully destroy nuclear weapons, other countries have the right to conduct random inspections at any time. In the end, it is the issue of technical blockade. For countries with some strength, manufacturing nuclear warheads is not a problem. If ensuring that nuclear weapons are no longer manufactured, it is more important to ensure that they no longer manufacture nuclear weapons than to fully destroy nuclear weapons. Technical blockade is necessary, but the problem cannot be completely solved. Speaking of this, a new question is whether to control the raw materials for the production and manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and who should control it.

If the heads of state and government really want to solve these problems, it will probably be ineffective for several years.

In the past few days, Wang Yuanqing talked with Brandino several times. Although Brandino defeated Republican competitors in previous general elections and was re-elected, in Wang Yuanqing's view, the biggest question is whether Brandon will sign a treaty to completely destroy nuclear weapons, but whether the US Congress will ratify the treaty. According to US laws, if the treaty is rejected by Congress, the president's signature will have no legal effect.

During the talks, Wang Yuanqing mentioned this and also implied that the US President said that if the treaty is rejected by the US Congress, even if the plenary congress of the Republic ratifies the treaty, the Republic will tear up the treaty and will never reduce nuclear weapons without the participation of the United States.

Brandino expressed enough sincerity about Wang Yuanqing's concerns.

According to him, the Democrats won the general election and controlled more than half of the seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. Nearly one-third of the members expressed support for the destruction of nuclear weapons and the treaty would not be obstructed in Congress.

Unlike Wang Yuanqing, Branmanuo is more concerned about how to implement the treaty.

From this point of view, the Republic and the United States have the closest position on the issue of destroying nuclear weapons. After all, the Republic and the United States have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and the most perfect strategic defense system in the world. Destruction of nuclear weapons has almost no impact on the strategic security of the two countries. Because the Republic and the United States have the most powerful conventional military force in the world, the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons is beneficial to both countries.

Since Brandino promised to allow the treaty to be ratified in Congress, Wang Yuanqing also shifted the focus to implementation.

According to the agreement reached privately by the two parties, after the Treaty on Comprehensive Destruction of Nuclear Weapons comes into effect, three international organizations composed of signatories should be established, one is the Destruction Work Supervision Committee, the second is the verification and random inspection team, and the third is the International Management Organization for Nuclear Technology and Nuclear Raw Materials. On the basis of these three international organizations, three key points must be clarified. First, the supervision and destruction work must be recognized and recognized by all countries, the second is the verification and random inspection must be carried out in an open and transparent manner, and third is the international organizations that manage nuclear technology and nuclear raw materials will not be disturbed and affected by any country.

Of course, when it comes to details, the two still have differences in their views.

For example, whether the supervision and destruction work has legal effect after it is recognized. That is to say, if the Supervision Committee believes that a country has not fulfilled its commitment to destroy nuclear weapons, in what way should it urge it to destroy nuclear weapons, and whether it should achieve its goal through international sanctions or other means? Wang Yuanqing's view is very tough. Not only should sanctions be imposed, but also tough measures should be adopted when necessary. Brandino believes that the goal should be achieved through sanctions, and not tough measures should be adopted, and force should not be used against force. In response to Brandino's view, Wang Yuanqing only raised one question, that is, how much effect can sanctions be achieved? In response to this question, Brandino also raised one question, that is, can tough measures be achieved by destruction of nuclear weapons?

Of course, there are many related issues, such as whether verification and random inspection need to be reported in advance, who will provide funds to international organizations that manage nuclear technology and nuclear raw materials, etc.

It can be said that any issue will determine the ultimate fate of this international treaty that is enough to change the history of mankind.

Relatively speaking, Wang Yuanqing and Brandino only had differences in the means of realization, and had completely consistent attitudes on essential issues. Both believed that comprehensive nuclear disarmament should be actively promoted. After the decision to leave the differences to the negotiators to resolve, the two reached a last consensus, that is, the strategic defense systems of the two countries cannot be expanded without restrictions and must be controlled to avoid falling into a new round of international arms race. As for the extent of the limit and how to measure the level of the strategic defense system, the negotiators of the two countries need to conduct specific consultations.

Compared with the Republic and the United States, the attitudes of the other three nuclear powers are more complicated.

The situation in Britain was a little better. As early as the beginning of the century, the British government began to reduce nuclear weapons. Although it was mainly to reduce military spending, it was difficult to stock markets. However, in essence, Britain took the obvious positive attitude towards reducing nuclear weapons, because Britain has the security guarantees provided by the United States, and having nuclear weapons is only a symbol of maintaining the status of Britain's great power. When Britain is no longer a big power, there is no big difference between having nuclear weapons or not.

France's attitude is extremely contradictory, because France's political and diplomatic status in the international community is mainly based on the nuclear power.

Even within the EU, in addition to its advantage in land area, France's population and total economic volume are not as good as Germany. Without nuclear weapons, it will be difficult for France to ensure the status of the EU leader. The problem is that if France resists the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons, it will stand on the opposite side of the EU, and even Germany and Italy will split their paths with France. For France, it will either give up its status as the EU leader or be morally criticized. For France's active promotion of European political integration, both choices are very painful. Ross has the largest land in the world, but only a thug with a population of 100 million.

Moreover, conventional military power is far inferior to that of the Republic and the United States, and even in some cutting-edge fields, even the EU is not as good as that of the EU. For Russia, nuclear weapons are the magic weapon to protect themselves. Giving up nuclear weapons is equivalent to giving up the national strategic security foundation. The problem is that Russia has no choice. With Russia's national strength, it can support a nuclear arsenal of less than 2,000 at most, while the interception capabilities of the strategic defense systems of the Republic and the United States are above this scale. The significance of nuclear weapons to Russia's national security is no longer obvious. In dealing with other neighboring countries, nuclear weapons are useless at all, and they don't even have a threat.

With the Republic joining forces with the United States, even nuclear powers like Russia are forced to go to the forefront, and other countries that have nuclear weapons or try to possess nuclear weapons have no choice. Of course, this does not mean that these countries will surrender.

During the negotiations, Israel clearly stated that if the security of the country and nation is not guaranteed, Israel will never destroy nuclear weapons. Influenced by Israel, the Iranian government also made a clear statement that if Israel refuses to destroy nuclear weapons, Iran will still actively develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's threat can be regarded as a warning. As early as the year of Likou, the United States destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons development foundation in the Iran war, otherwise it would not withdraw its troops from Iran with peace of mind. According to the international community's estimates, even if Iran concentrates its national strength, it is impossible for the four nuclear warheads with practical combat capabilities before.

The key is Israel's security issues.

Although Israel only has about one nuclear warhead, and only one can carry it with missiles, the rest are tactical nuclear warheads that can only be thrown by aircraft, under the premise of fully destructuring nuclear weapons, if Israel refuses to destroy nuclear weapons, it will undoubtedly sentence the death penalty for nuclear disarmament.

How can Israel be safe?

According to Brandino's proposal, all countries involved in comprehensive nuclear disarmament, including the United States, the Republic, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, that are involved in comprehensive nuclear disarmament must make commitments to provide Israel with strategic security guarantees, prohibit the export of weapons and equipment to neighboring Israeli countries, and provide military assistance when Israel is invaded or threatened. In response to Brandino's proposal, Wang Yuanqing proposed that the Republic can provide strategic security guarantees for Israel, and even send troops to help when Israel is invaded, but Israel must sign a peace agreement with neighboring countries, recognize Palestine's status as an independent state, and return the occupied territory, including the Golan Heights, to neighboring countries.

Security negotiations on Israel have almost become the life of international nuclear disarmament

Although the Republic and the United States have great differences on this issue, in order not to have too much impact on disarmament, Brandino and Wang Yuanqing both agreed to list the Israeli issue separately and resolve it through special negotiations. In addition to Iran, Syria and Egypt, which participated in the negotiations, will also include Arab countries in surrounding areas such as Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Libya.

In addition to the Israel issue, there are also issues between Brazil and Argentina.

Relatively speaking, this problem is much easier to solve. Although Brazil and Argentina accused each other of developing nuclear weapons, after the Republic and the United States came forward, Brazil and Argentina quickly reached an understanding, and both expressed their willingness to abandon the nuclear weapons development plan within the framework of international nuclear disarmament and demolish all facilities that can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Similar questions emerge one after another, and each question requires a lot of energy.

Speaking of the thug, Yuekou Day, one of the biggest problems surfaced.

Several "nuclear-free countries" participating in the negotiations made a request at the conference that in addition to providing security assurances for all countries that signed a treaty on comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons, the five nuclear powers must provide compensation to the nuclear-free countries to compensate for the losses of nuclear-free countries after signing the treaty.

There is no doubt that this requirement is directly targeted at the three countries with the most nuclear weapons.

According to this requirement, the compensation amount is determined by the number of nuclear weapons maintained by the five nuclear powers. The demand put forward by many countries is to compensate the thugs, such as billion US dollars, and the UK will provide US dollars to compensate many nuclear-free countries.

Once the request was put forward, it was firmly opposed by Brandino.

In his words, the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons is a benefit to all mankind. It is not the five nuclear powers that benefit. If compensation is provided on the issue of destruction of nuclear weapons, any country can do it. ": The two guards have a nuclear nuclear issue and the United States will not agree to the compensation request without any compensation.

Unlike Brandino's strong reaction, Wang Yuanqing said that compensation can be provided, but not because of the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons, but on the grounds of promoting the common progress of human society. More importantly, compensation is not cash, but through technology and investment.

The Russian president's reaction was even stronger. According to him, if compensation is to be provided for the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons, the one that should be compensated is Russia, because the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons has the greatest impact on Russia's national strategic security. Russia must establish a stronger conventional military force for this, and it should be compensated.

France and the United Kingdom also expressed opposition to the provision of compensation, because nuclear-free countries are beneficiaries rather than victims.

Negotiations are deadlocked here.

In fact, this issue has to be viewed from two aspects. All countries participating in the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament hope to gain benefits from it, but not to lose. From the perspective of the interests of the entire human race, the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons will certainly bring benefits to all countries, but on specific issues, this is not the case. In the words of those countries that require compensation, the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons is equivalent to lowering the threshold for war and also dismantling the final defensive power of weak countries. The biggest beneficiary is definitely not ordinary countries, but a major country with strong conventional military power. To this end, major countries must bear the main responsibility for the comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons and provide compensation to small countries with damaged interests.

From a realistic perspective, these countries’ demands are not excessive.

Imagine that if there are no nuclear weapons, superpowers like the Republic and the United States no longer need to worry about launching wars. They almost attack whoever they want, and countries without strong conventional military power either choose to form alliances with a certain superpower or wait for beating. More importantly, some international organizations composed of small and medium-sized countries that had a considerable influence in the international community in the past will inevitably lose their influence and will no longer be able to provide protection for small and medium-sized countries. From a certain perspective, it will even lead to the collapse of the United Nations, causing small and medium-sized countries to lose their basic guarantees for making remarks, seeking fair treatment, and safeguarding national interests.

The problem is, the country of Bu wants benefits, but the big country will not willingly cut its losses because of this.

Not to mention that the United States, Russia, Britain and France firmly oppose providing compensation to other countries, even Wang Yuanqing's attitude is reserved. After all, the Republic has no obligation to provide any compensation to other countries other than its allies. From another perspective, if every country involved in comprehensive nuclear disarmament requires compensation, no matter how strong the five nuclear powers are, they cannot afford such a burden-bearing obligation, which will eventually only lead to comprehensive nuclear disarmament becoming a sham. From the perspective of various countries, if you make concessions on the issue of compensation, comprehensive nuclear disarmament will not be approved by the parliaments of various countries.

It can be said that before this, there were struggles between major nuclear powers, and after this, there were struggles between major powers and small powers.

The question is, can compensation solve the most important problem in small countries, that is, security guarantee?

Mu Yong doubted that economic compensation could not solve the security problem at all, and it might even worsen the security environment of small countries.

Thug: Month and Day, the leaders of five nuclear powers held a closed-door consultation.

The focus of the discussion is how to establish an effective international security guarantee system.

Although France and Russia insist that the role of the United Nations in international security should be strengthened, the United States and the Republic both believe that the United Nations does not have the basis to assume international security and cannot guarantee international security. If the United Nations is useful, there would not be so many wars.

Speaking of this, the contradictions between major powers have become very obvious.

Russia and France obviously tend to strengthen global international organizations, while the Republic and the United States pay more attention to regional international organizations with major powers as the core. Simply put, Russia and France do not want to turn international nuclear disarmament into a feast for superpowers to divide their territory, while the Republic and the United States are actively working in this direction.

Although from a long-term perspective, only when Ross and France's proposals can truly ensure international security, from a practical perspective, the ideas of the Republic and the United States are more realistic.

After World War II, the United Nations was founded. Just a few years later, the United States launched the Korean War in the name of the United Nations, treating the United Nations as a tool; during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United Nations not only did not become the cornerstone of maintaining world peace and stability, but instead became the object of use by two superpowers; after the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United Nations still failed to play its due role, either being used by superpowers or being thrown aside; with the outbreak of the Cold War between the United States and the United States, the United Nations' international status became even more dangerous and basically became a decoration.

In Wang Yuanqing's words, if the United Nations is useful, so many wars would not have broken out.

The key reason why the United Nations has lost its influence is that there is no dominant force that a small country wants to use the United Nations to safeguard its interests, but a big country regards the United Nations as a tool. If the United Nations hinders a major country from making profits, it will be ruthlessly left by the great power.

Although the reality is cruel, it has to be admitted that only regional international organizations with a large power as the core can provide real security guarantees for small countries within the organization. Not to mention, the ability of the NATO group to continue to this day has a lot to do with the United States' dominance in the NATO group.

In the case where both the Republic and the United States advocate an international order dominated by regional security, the situation is difficult to reverse.

To this end, Wang Yuanqing made full use of this conference and actively worked for the Republic's global layout.
Chapter completed!