“U.N. talks aimed at banning nuclear weapons, but the big powers — US, Russia, China and other nuclear-armed nations are sitting out a discussion they see as impractical.”
U.S. Ambassador argued that a treaty would end up disarming nations “trying to keep peace and safety,” while “bad actors” wouldn’t sign on or comply. For example, North Korea might been seen as “the bad actor”.
Again, international politics is Realism. You get the power and you can make the rule.
http://time.com/4714710/united-nations-nuclear-waeapons-ban-boycott/
“Any treaty would bind only nations that ratified it. But despite the opposition from key nuclear players, supporters of the proposed ban feel it could help create a new international norm of rejecting atomic arms.”
This is as we discussed in class on who determines the international norms. They have the NPT as a means to nuclear disarmament but why would they reject a ban on nuclear weapons? The NPT was only meant to prevent new countries for developing nuclear weapons and keep weapons in the hands of a select few. A ban would mean noone should have nuclear weapons and no more leverage for those nations that already has it.