Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention.
I have a question for my colleague regarding his highly pessimistic arguments about a nuclear-weapons-free world. It is strange to be insulted as being too idealistic and wanting an ideal world. My question is about agreements similar to the one on chemical weapons, which are regulated by several international agreements.
In the case of chemical weapons, my colleague supports preventing their proliferation and use. There are consequences for countries that use them, such as Syria.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, why would it not be possible to sign similar agreements in order to prevent their use? Can he tell me why agreements work in one case but not the other?