Total disarmament is affirmed in the Nonproliferation Treaty and the recognition of its inevitability cited as the foundation for any smaller obligation derived from it. In short, when national parliaments are ratifying the so-called Additional Protocol, the appendix which defines the bureaucratic interaction procedures with the United Nations apparatus, they do so in a speculation that this is suitable to accelerate the implementation of the Disarmament Clause upon the atomic states and their correlating veto privileges. There is no document asserting causality between the two, and the current correlation was only created after the 1967 incident. The atomic veto is subject to the Disarmament Clause, and not the other way around.
It is this point that has been targeted by the invasion of Iraq: The entire appearance of that particular fraud was shaped by the fact that it hid behind the Disarmament Clause. This is why the attempts of hands-off rejection with the information that Iraq was not armed like that could not reach the full depth of the argument – the lack of imminent material threat does not invalidate the Disarmament Clause. Likewise the fact that the atomic states in the so-called Security Council do not explicitly threaten to nuke each other every day does not make it any less necessary to dismantle their atomic capabilities. But what is at least as obvious as the lack of the India scenario is the dramatic failure of the apparatus of the United Nations and all its branches. The case study of Iraq in the years before the invasion actually proves very reliably that the implementation of total disarmament beginning at the technologies of extinction is the initial ignition which serves as precondition for the success of anything else from human rights to food programs. And vice versa, fraudulent handling of the political centerpiece of the system will widely resonate in fraudulent application of just about everything that derives from it.
The natural supremacy of the Disarmament Clause over the atomic veto does contain a recursion that must be mentioned: When one of the veto states challenges the international system over the Disarmament Clause, since that implies this state is itself in contradiction to it, the supremacy of the Disarmament Clause over the dispute of the two sides concerning its specific implementation prescribes that their respective violations of it be treated equally. One state might come to invoke the Disarmament Clause against another, but as that brings it into the same contradictory position it has to bear the same consequences. If anyone today waged a war for the declared goal to impose the Disarmament Clause on the most awful of the veto states and/or all of them resp. their most duplicitous accomplices, it would be no less justified than the failed North American response to the United Nations failure, even more so if successful.
In the end, the Security Council is meant to become obsolete by the implementation of the Disarmament Clause, rather than have the correlation removed or be expanded. It should be emphasised that the North Americans have trashed their own grasp for justification from the Disarmament Clause by sacrificing the key ally who had backed their claim with material affirmation. When Libya in 2003 surrendered its atomic proliferation assets to them, Gaddafi – however crippled his understanding of the issue may have been – became the decisive witness for the question as to whether they were in harmony with the Disarmament Clause. Once all appearance of it had been squandered, they sacrificed not only Libya but with it their entire own credibility as well – a predictable effect of removing historical witnesses.
It is very likely that this was the cause of the attack against Libya – not only material greed or delusional ideology but a deliberate attempt to cover up the failure of a nonproliferation campaign that if successful would have justified itself. And as it is known today, that case was the gateway into a series of colonialist wars against Africa, although it went itself beyond the narrow ideological motivations of what followed, offering still a material gain and a political asset. From the African perspective which is discriminated against in the Security Council and the colonialist continuity its regional compilation represents, it is this ongoing revival of colonialism which cannot be forgiven, while the military conflict over different ways to the Disarmament Clause can be looked upon from a distance as Africa is already fully living up to it with not even atomic sharing agreements spoiling its record.
The reality of the non-linear threshold can be easily seen in the irrational threats of the international institutions to open the Fukushima floodgates for political blackmail. In this case explosions have already taken place without any state taking responsibility, and the consequences are shattering the political system as a result of which it is of no value to contain the incident. Quite the contrary, the announcements made in the following weeks signified deliberate ignorance of the imminent threat and hinted at possible veto against the obvious consequence: If the "peaceful atom" is just as lethal as the warring one, the Disarmament Clause can make no distinction between the two, and the one made in the Nonproliferation Treaty quickly erodes with the escalation of the reactor construction race.
Taking the Disarmament Clause as its supreme source of legitimacy, the Nonproliferation Treaty is subject to its historical necessity and any erosion of false distinctions in the former does immediately affect the latter as well. Obviously this is the key document of the international system, because anything the United Nations could provide anywhere in the case it is contaminated is at least as bad as nothing if not even worse. This does also include merely abstract amounts of money – once payments are assigned out of specific intentions and not just equally distributed they are transporting contamination as well, because they are creating a purposeful dependency meant to repress the perception of historical necessity and thereby enable material contamination.
Disarmament is a powerful issue: By leaning towards it after the 1967 failure, the apparatus of capitalist globalisation is attempting to recognise this, but in trying to use it for its own purposes it is harming itself. With some hope, the neo-colonialist failure which is now becoming obvious is the beginning of the end of this fraudulent system. One can only wonder whether they haven´t perceived the "No!" that arose along its course like a tsunami of wisdom, but apparently the entire apparatus is so deeply stuck in its comfortable illusion every problem in the world could be solved with corruption and cronyism that anything less than the last straw that breaks its back does not matter to it. Just like it is realistic to predict that this apparatus will rather continue to lament about the proverbial sour grapes depicting people´s allegedly too high expectations of human dignity as something it has to respect in them rather than claim it would have brought to them, it is reasonable to state that to escape destructions of a much worse scale, such a system must be entirely eradicated and its occurrence remembered as a historical warning what to avoid.
It can be argued that the decisive crossing was already passed a couple of years ago when it decided to assign its leading position according to its material interests rather than follow the advice to openly confront the contradiction by choosing to give the role to a candidate which had already abandoned a veto privilege. That might have stirred up some initial confusion but in the long term contributed to a much more realistic understanding of its own function and therefore possibly entirely avoided its current meltdown. Now it must be described as a sign of demise that the apparatus is being led by a representative of a state from a country split over the issue of precisely that treaty. If the current series of wars are one big prevention failure of the international system, then the seminal mistake causing the catastrophe was this assignment. Once that had happened, it was determined that it would never become useful to stop the rampage of the imperialist nations in the name of the international system´s failure, but only its useful idiot allowing its own failure to be another destructive instrument of its aggressions. So even as it is futile to warn against this happening in the first place, the diplomatic meltdown has at least one good side to be pointed out: The veto is itself proliferating to any state which has bowed to the Disarmament Clause by accepting the treaty, all of which therefore can veto the entire system of fraud and defiance by formally quitting it, and the first and most aware has already done so.