Surrounded by other supporting countries, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, center, speaks to reporters outside the General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Monday, March 27, 2017.... (Associated Press) 
 
 Surrounded by other supporting countries, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, center, speaks to reporters outside the General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Monday, March 27, 2017. Haley and the other representatives were not participating in a meeting about prohibiting nuclear... (Associated Press) 
 
 UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.N. talks aimed at banning nuclear weapons began Monday, but the United States, Russia, China and other nuclear-armed nations are sitting out a discussion they see as impractical. 
 
 Supporters of the potential pact say it's time to push harder toward eliminating atomic weapons than nations have been doing through the nearly 50-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 
 
 With international tensions rising while public awareness of the nuclear threat has waned, "the need for progress on nuclear disarmament has rarely been as urgent as it is today," U.N. Under Secretary-General for disarmament Kim Won-soo said as the talks opened. 
 
 More than 100 countries voted for a U.N. General Assembly resolution last year to start discussions, with nations including Austria, Brazil and Ireland leading the effort. 
 
 But the U.S. and several other nuclear powers say a ban won't work and the world should instead stick with a more gradual approach. 
 
 "As a mom, as a daughter, there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons. But we have to be realistic," U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said as she and colleagues from Britain, France and about 20 other nations, not all of them nuclear states, gathered Monday outside the General Assembly hall to show opposition to the talks starting inside. 
 
 Haley argued that a treaty would end up disarming nations "trying to keep peace and safety," while "bad actors" wouldn't sign on or comply. 
 
 "North Korea would be the one cheering, and all of us and the people we represent would be the ones at risk," she said. 
 
 North Korea carried out two nuclear tests last year and has continued to test ballistic missiles as recently as this month, in violation of U.N. resolutions. The North has said its nuclear efforts are meant as a deterrent against what it sees as U.S. hostility. North Korea's U.N. Mission didn't immediately respond to an inquiry Monday about the disarmament talks. 
 
 Opponents of the ban plan say gradual disarmament has made a difference. The U.S. has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 85 percent under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Haley said; Britain has cut its nuclear forces by over 50 percent since the height of the Cold War, according to Ambassador Matthew Rycroft. 
 
 Still, "our countries continue to rely on nuclear deterrence for security and stability," French Deputy Ambassador Alexis Lamek said. 
 
 Chinese and Russian representatives didn't join the boycotters' news conference, but the two countries had said previously that they wouldn't participate in the talks. 
 
 Japan, which during World War II experienced the only atomic bomb strikes in history, did take part in opening remarks Monday. Saying that North Korea's actions challenge the non-proliferation approach, Japanese representative Nobushige Takamizawa said it was "crucial to have a realistic perspective as to how nuclear disarmament measures can contribute effectively to addressing actual security concerns." 
 
 The negotiations aim to create "a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination." Backers hope a document will be inked by July. 
 
 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. 
 
 "It's very difficult to eliminate a weapon that you haven't prohibited first," said Beatrice Fihn, the executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, an advocacy group. ||||| This article is over 1 year old 
 
 At least 113 countries meet at UN to discuss ban, but US ambassador says the world is too unsafe for the US not to have nuclear weapons 
 
 Negotiations on a treaty to outlaw nuclear weapons have begun in New York, but have been publicly condemned by the United States, which is leading a coalition of more than 40 countries – including Australia – boycotting the talks. 
 
 At least 113 countries are part of the negotiations which have begun at UN headquarters in New York this week, aiming to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”. 
 
 But, Nikki Haley, appointed as the United States’ ambassador to the UN by Donald Trump in January, spoke outside the meeting saying the world was too unsafe for the US not to have nuclear weapons. 
 
 “I’m a mum. I’m a wife. I’m a daughter. I always think of my family first. Our job is to protect our people and our country. To keep them safe. To keep the peace.” 
 
 Protect and Survive: Armageddon advice guide to be republished Read more 
 
 “We would love to have a ban on nuclear weapons but in this day and time we cannot honestly say that we can protect our people by allowing the bad actors to have them and those of us who are good trying to keep the peace and safety not to have them.” 
 
 France and the UK, fellow nuclear weapons states, also spoke against the ban treaty negotiations, saying they would not assist in disarming nuclear states. 
 
 Support for a ban treaty has been growing steadily over years, with frustration at the ineffectiveness of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in reducing nuclear arsenals. More than 123 nations - the majority of nations at the UN - voted in favour of negotiations to outlaw nuclear weapons. 
 
 But a ban treaty has no support from the states that actually have nuclear weapons. The nine known nuclear states – the US, China, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – all oppose a ban treaty. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley: ‘Our job is to protect our people and our country. To keep them safe. To keep the peace.’ Photograph: Richard Drew/AP 
 
 Of the non-nuclear states opposing the ban treaty, Australia has been one of the most outspoken. 
 
 During months of negotiations, Australia has lobbied other countries, pressing the case for what it describes as a “building blocks” approach of engaging with nuclear powers to reduce the global stockpile of 15,000 weapons. 
 
 Australia has consistently maintained that as long as nuclear weapons exist, it must rely on the American nuclear umbrella, the protection of the deterrent effect of the US’s nuclear arsenal, the second largest in the world. 
 
 But political sentiment in Australia appears to support the ban treaty negotiations. 
 
 The Australian Senate passed a motion Monday urging the government to participate in the talks, and polling shows nearly three-quarters of Australians want Australia to be part of negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban treaty. 
 
 The Senate on Monday passed a motion urging the Australian government to “participate constructively” in the ban treaty talks. 
 
 The motion, moved by Labor Senator Lisa Singh, argued Australia had a moral and legal obligation to participate in efforts to ban nuclear weapons, the only weapon of mass destruction not outlawed under international law. 
 
 “There are close to 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, posing a grave threat to all humanity,” Singh’s motion said. 
 
 “Australia as a party to the non-proliferation treaty, is legally required to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament.” 
 
 In response, assistant minister to the prime minister, Senator James McGrath, told the Senate “Australia shares with the international community the goal of a peaceful and secure world free on nuclear weapons”, but that it would not be participating in the UN talks. 
 
 “This approach is consistent with Australia’s clear and long-standing position on the proposed nuclear weapons ban treaty. 
 
 “The proposed ban treaty would not advance nuclear disarmament. It will be ineffective in eliminating, or even reducing, nuclear weapons arsenals. It will not advance security… and it risks undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by creating ambiguity and confusion through parallel obligations and by deepening divisions between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.” 
 
 Stockpiles of nuclear weapons around the world – in data Read more 
 
 An Ipsos poll conducted this month of 1050 Australians asked: “The UN will begin negotiations this month on a new treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. Should the Australian Government support these negotiations?” 
 
 In all, 73% of respondents answered yes, 10.6% no, and 15.5% maybe. 
 
 The outreach coordinator for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Gem Romuld, said existing treaties – such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – had failed to reduce nuclear arsenals, and that Australia should embrace the new plan of action to rid the world of the weapons. 
 
 “The ban negotiations are modelled on comparable bans on chemical and biological weapons and landmines. This is a timely and historic opportunity to make nuclear weapons illegal along with the other weapons of mass destruction”. 
 
 “Boycotting the ban talks flies in the face of Australia’s international obligations and casts doubt on our commitment to the UN. Australia must choose the right side of history and join the ban negotiations without delay”. 
 
 The efficacy of a ban treaty is a matter of fierce debate. 
 
 Without the participation of the states that actually possess nuclear weapons, critics argue it cannot succeed. But proponents say a nuclear weapons ban will create moral suasion – in the vein of the cluster and landmine conventions – for nuclear weapons states to disarm, and establish an international norm prohibiting nuclear weapons’ development, possession and use. 
 
 Finger on the button: should Trump's nuclear weapons access be restricted? Read more 
 
 Non-nuclear states have expressed increasing frustration with the current nuclear regime and the sclerotic movement towards disarmament. 
 
 With nuclear weapons states modernising and in some cases increasing their arsenals, instead of discarding them, more states are becoming disenchanted with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and lending their support for an outright ban. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US ambassador Nikki Haley: "Kim Jong-un is begging for war" 
 
 The US envoy to the UN has urged the Security Council to take the "strongest possible measures" against North Korea after its latest nuclear test. 
 
 "The time has come to exhaust all diplomatic means before it is too late," Nikki Haley told an emergency meeting of the council in New York. 
 
 The US will circulate a draft resolution, for a vote next Monday. 
 
 South Korea is poised to scrap a warhead weight limit on its own missiles after talks with the US. 
 
 President Moon Jae-in reached agreement by phone with his counterpart, Donald Trump. Missiles are currently capped at 500kg (1,100lb). 
 
 The country carried out live-fire exercises on Monday, simulating an attack on the North's nuclear test site. 
 
 Reports suggest the North is preparing new test missile launches. It tested a nuclear bomb underground on Sunday. Estimates of its power range from 50 kilotonnes to 120 kilotonnes. A 50kt device would be about three times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. 
 
 In other developments: 
 
 German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would press for tougher EU sanctions on North Korea, agreeing with Mr Trump by phone on the need for stricter sanctions 
 
 Swiss President Doris Leuthard said her country was prepared to act as a mediator and called for more discreet negotiations, saying "Twitter won't be an adequate instrument" 
 
 Japan is planning, in the event of war, for a mass evacuation of nearly 60,000 Japanese citizens currently living in or visiting South Korea, Nikkei Asian Review reports 
 
 'Begging for war' 
 
 Opening Monday's meeting, UN Under Secretary General Jeffrey Feltman said North Korea's actions were destabilising global security, and he called on Pyongyang to abide by Security Council resolutions. 
 
 "The DPRK [North Korea] is the only country that continues to break the norm against nuclear test explosions," he said. 
 
 Image copyright AFP Image caption The UN Security Council last imposed sanctions in August, targeting North Korean exports 
 
 Ms Haley argued that only the strongest sanctions would enable the problem to be resolved through diplomacy. 
 
 North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had shown through his actions that he was "begging for war", she said. 
 
 "War is never something the United States wants," she continued. "We don't want it now but our country's patience is not unlimited." 
 
 She was speaking after President Trump warned the US might consider stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea. 
 
 "The United States will look at every country that does business with North Korea as a country that is giving aid to their reckless and dangerous nuclear intentions," Ms Haley said. 
 
 The British ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, said direct talks with North Korea were only possible if Pyongyang stopped the escalation. 
 
 "Dialogue will always be our end goal but returning to dialogue without a serious sign of intent from Pyongyang would be a set-up to failure," he said. "North Korea must change course to allow a return to dialogue." 
 
 China's envoy to the UN, Liu Jieyi, reiterated a call for all sides to return to negotiations. "The peninsula issue must be resolved peacefully," he said. "China will never allow chaos and war on the peninsula." 
 
 What happens next? 
 
 By Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent 
 
 China is key but it is a conflicted party. On the one hand it does not want to see a nuclear-armed North Korea and it has made its view clear to Pyongyang on many occasions. 
 
 However, it does not want to see the North Korean regime swept away. This would result in millions of refugees flooding into China and would probably result in a unified Korea very much in the US orbit. This is seen in Beijing as worse than having a difficult nuclear neighbour. 
 
 If China were to take the view that the coincidence of a rapidly advancing North Korean nuclear programme and the uncertainties of the Trump administration's diplomatic capabilities means that there is a very real risk of misunderstanding and catastrophe, then maybe it might bring much greater pressure to bear on Pyongyang. 
 
 North Korea is a very isolated country and China is both its major ally and economic prop. There is a lot more that China can do. North Korea's recent testing has been as much an embarrassment to China as it has angered the US. But the Chinese have a difficult diplomatic calculation to make. 
 
 Full version of analysis 
 
 What other sanctions remain? 
 
 Last month, the Security Council voted unanimously to ban North Korean exports and limit investments in the country. 
 
 Ms Haley did not spell out what additional measures might be taken but diplomats have suggested an oil embargo would have a crippling effect. 
 
 There could also be a ban on the North's national airline, curbs on North Koreans working abroad, and asset freezes and travel bans on officials. 
 
 How big was the latest test? 
 
 It was North Korea's sixth and most powerful nuclear test to date. The US Geological Survey recorded a resulting tremor at 6.3 magnitude. 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Nuclear N Korea: What do we know? 
 
 Kim Jong-un was pictured on camera being shown what state media said was a new type of hydrogen bomb. 
 
 South Korea said it was now presumed that the North had reduced its nuclear warhead in size to below 500kg, and would be able to attach one to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). 
 
 But analysts have said the North's claims about miniaturisation should be treated with considerable caution. 
 
 Earlier on Monday, a South Korean defence ministry official said there were signs of "possibly more ballistic missile launches", including an ICBM. 
 
 How else are the South and its US ally responding? 
 
 Monday's drills simulated the targeting of the Punggye-ri nuclear site in Kilju County, where North Korea carried out its bomb test. Missiles were fired from the ground and rockets from fighter jets. 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption South Korea carries out live-fire drills in response to the nuclear test 
 
 The defence ministry in Seoul said there would be more live-fire drills in the South this month, involving Taurus air-to-surface missiles mounted on F-15 jets. 
 
 The ministry also told parliament the US would seek to deploy a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to seas off the peninsula. 
 
 Four more launchers of the US Thaad (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence) missile defence system -strongly opposed by China and Russia - would also be deployed to join two already at a site in Seongju, south of Seoul. 
 
 North Korea's nuclear tests
– Monday saw the start of UN talks focused on a noble goal: banning nuclear weapons across our planet. It was the result of a 2016 vote that saw more than 100 countries in favor of a UN General Assembly resolution to kick off such talks, which are aimed at ultimately establishing an international treaty that would prohibit the development and possession of such weapons, CNN reports. By extension, using them would also be banned. The AP reports Austria, Brazil, and Ireland were at the forefront of the effort. Wondering where the US is? Boycotting. US Ambassador Nikki Haley was present Monday—but remained outside the General Assembly hall with other boycotting nations in a sign of opposition. One big quote: "As a mom, as a daughter, there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons. But we have to be realistic." Her view is that the nearly 50-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is doing its job, with the US slashing its nuclear arsenal by 85% under it, and that North Korea is too big a loose cannon for this to be a responsible or feasible endeavor. "North Korea would be the one cheering, and all of us and the people we represent would be the ones at risk," she said. By the Guardian's count, 113 countries are participating, but 40 are boycotting, and that list includes the US, China, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, which the paper points out are the nine states known to have nuclear weapons.