Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Earth The Courts United States

Former US Test Site Sues Nuclear Nations For Disarmament Failure 165

Posted by samzenpus
from the keep-your-bombs-to-yourself dept.
mdsolar (1045926) writes "The tiny Pacific republic of the Marshall Islands, scene of massive U.S. nuclear tests in the 1950s, sued the United States and eight other nuclear-armed countries on Thursday, accusing them of failing in their obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament. The Pacific country accused all nine nuclear-armed states of 'flagrant violation of international law' for failing to pursue the negotiations required by the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It filed one suit specifically directed against the United States, in the Federal District Court in San Francisco, while others against all nine countries were lodged at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, capital of the Netherlands, a statement from an anti-nuclear group backing the suits said. The action was supported by South African Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former US Test Site Sues Nuclear Nations For Disarmament Failure

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)

    by cold fjord (826450) on Friday April 25, 2014 @12:01AM (#46838599)

    If Ukraine does go nuclear again they will only be following Putin's advice.

    Is Ukraine about to go nuclear again? [cnn.com]

    Ironically, the notion of reacquiring nuclear weapons as a security guarantee is a position publicly advocated by Putin himself: "If you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. ... This is logical: If you have the bomb, no one will touch

    Putin: Both causing and suggesting the solution to Ukraine's security problems. Thanks Vladimir Vladimirovich!

    And look! He's turning up the heat because in brinkmanship too much is never enough.

    Russia Threatens Invasion Unless Ukraine Stops Stopping Separatists [reason.com]

    Dutch scramble jets after Russian bombers approach [myfoxdc.com]

    The Dutch defense department says several NATO member countries scrambled jets Wednesday afternoon after a pair of Russian bomber planes approached their airspace over the North Sea.

    The Dutch ministry identified the planes as two Russian TU-95 Bears, and said it had launched two F-16s from Volkel air force base to intercept them. The Russian jets were escorted by aircraft from the Netherlands, Britain and Denmark until they departed.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25, 2014 @12:11AM (#46838631)

    By the way, The Hague is not the capital of the Netherlands, although it is where the pairlement is seated.

  • Re:Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cenan (1892902) on Friday April 25, 2014 @12:35AM (#46838699)

    Is Ukraine about to go nuclear again?

    Putin wanted Ukraine to build a nuclear arsenal, because he knew that they would have to buy back the ones they gifted Russian in order to do so. Ukraine does not have a nuclear weapons program and would be starting from scratch. So no, Ukraine is not about to "go nuclear".

    Russia Threatens Invasion Unless Ukraine Stops Stopping Separatists

    In other words: Military power threatens invasion based on made up issue. Gee, where have we heard that before? It sounds like something we've witnessed recently. Oh shocker! I turns out that is pretty much always the case when someone invades someone else. Putin lost the diplomacy battle and now he's doing what he does best, and what he really wanted to do all along.

    Dutch scramble jets after Russian bombers approach

    Russia sends bombers out all the time, allegedly to test "the enemy". The NATO air police missions in the Baltic regularly have to scramble against Russian aircraft. Of course, that doesn't make for much of a story, so I can see why a journalist would forget to ask how often something like that happens.

  • by freakingme (1244996) on Friday April 25, 2014 @01:05AM (#46838781)

    According to the Dutch constitution Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, although the parliament and the Dutch government have been situated in The Hague since 1588, along with the Supreme Court and the Council of State.[1][2]

    Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:Pointless (Score:5, Informative)

    by erikkemperman (252014) on Friday April 25, 2014 @03:17AM (#46839069)

    However... the US respects the law and the treaties they sign.

    If there is a legal dispute and they want to take the US to court, then let them take the US to court.

    Actually, I suspect the reason they filed a separate suit for the US is probably that the States unilaterally withdrew [wikipedia.org] from jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This is because they were upset of having been found guilty by that court of violating [wikipedia.org] many international laws in a case brought to the ICJ by Nicaragua.

    And, more recently, the US even threatened with military action against The Netherlands if the ICJ were ever to consider cases against US military personnel. This became affectionately known as the The Hague Invasion Act [wikipedia.org], no less.

    So no -- the US does not always respect the treaties they sign. See also: Geneva Convention.

  • Re:Funny thing (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gavagai80 (1275204) on Friday April 25, 2014 @04:22AM (#46839249) Homepage
    When it comes to trade, the WTO has leverage and has successful punished the USA for violations. Nobody has any leverage to enforce the NPT.
  • Re:Pointless (Score:5, Informative)

    by osu-neko (2604) on Friday April 25, 2014 @05:48AM (#46839473)

    If someone burned down Congress today, half the country would be cheering...

    But yes. It's quite amusing what they teach American kids about the War of 1812.

    When they started negotiating the treaty to end the war, the British, having won it (Canadian troops did much of the winning, but they were still part of the Empire back then), started by demanding territorial concessions, as is the usual case when winning a war. The Americans asserted that the British couldn't hold the territory they'd taken and refused to give it up, and the British were tired of fighting several wars at once (they were busy fighting Napoleon for most of the war and didn't devote much effort to the minor sideshow that was the war with the USA) so they gave in and agreed to simply return to status quo ante bellum, i.e. the state of affairs before the war began. Some would try to spin that as a "draw", but the British were fine with the state of affairs before the war, it was the US that declared the war in the first place, claiming that the state of affairs prior to the war were intolerable. Although no territory was lost, it was, in fact, a unequivocal defeat for the US. However, several of the reasons the US declared war to begin with were over measures the British were using to fight Napoleon. With Napoleon defeated, those measures came to an end (not because the British gave in, they continued to assert they had the right to do as they did -- they just had no more need to continue doing them). That plus some battlefield victories that occurred after the war was over but before news reached America of the signing of the peace treaty enabled the politicians in Washington to spin the defeat into an illusion of victory, and to this day, you will find many Americans who think they never lost a war before Vietnam, that we actually achieved our objectives in the War of 1812, and that the major victories weren't pointlessly fought after the war was already over but news hadn't reached us yet. Some of this comes from a slanted and incomplete way the story is taught in American classrooms, and some from flat-out misinformation. But in any case, don't be surprised if most Americans are completely incredulous when you try to remind us of the fact that we actually fought a war with the Canadians once... and they kicked our asses.

  • ANZAC day (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25, 2014 @08:31AM (#46840279)

    "New Zealand relies on the kindness of others for its defense."

    NZ has fought in other peoples wars for a long time (like 99 years exactly April 25th is the 99th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings)
    My grandfather fought in the 1st World War middle east (NZ mounted rifles)

    Other wars we fought include WWII, Korea and Vietnam
    in the 1st gulf war we sent mostly medical personel and transport planes.
    Our SAS was invloved in the early stages of the Afghanistan conflict just after 9/11
    And we helped the Aussies in East Timor (of course you probably never heard of that conflict)
    Its true that we didn't join in the 2003 Bush war in Iraq, but not many others did either.

    The fact that we were kicked out of ANZUS because we wouldn't allow nuclear powered and armed ships and boats in our harbours is not our fault - there are many otther places in the world that don't let nukes in.)

    But mostly NZ relies on the distance across the Pacific.
    Only one country has attacked us in the last 4 decades, and that was France.

The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.

Working...