Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Former US Test Site Sues Nuclear Nations For Disarmament Failure

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the keep-your-bombs-to-yourself dept.

The Military 165

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ukraine (5, Insightful)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 7 months ago | (#46838519)

Yeah, Ukraine agreed to disarmament and look what happened. I'm willing to bet that if that country exists in two years we'll see them performing at least one nuclear test.

They should have tried this after Fukushima, now it looks like any country that does disarm is just asking to be conquered.

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838565)

"now it looks like any country that does disarm is just asking to be conquered." Nobody is conquered except those fighting to educate you.

Re:Ukraine (5, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#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.

Re:Ukraine (5, Informative)

Cenan (1892902) | about 7 months ago | (#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.

Re:Ukraine (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46838749)

I doubt that either Ukraine or Russia foresees Ukraine buying back nuclear weapons from Russia to point back at Russia.

Ukraine inherited significant portions of the Soviet ICMB design and manufacturing infrastructure. They almost certainly have the needed expertise to build nuclear weapons as well. Ukraine has a significant nuclear power infrastructure.

After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia didn't send bombers to probe NATO and US defenses until the last few years. When and how that is done can also be a signal.

 

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838985)

Tell us Oh Wise One, what does it mean when the US does the same thing to Chinese airspace?
Because we know Putin is doing it out of fear and weakness.

Re:Ukraine (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46839811)

What you "know" is wrong. Putin is doing it because he is trying to rebuild the power and prestige of Russia by assuming the legacy of the Soviet Union as a great power. There are many current and future negative consequences to that.

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839973)

Yea that part was just parroting some talking points I had heard to be silly but the real question still stands. What make what the US does any different?

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840117)

The difference is when the US does it it's right and good. When Russia does it it's evil empire building. How on earth do you fools fall for this? I never thought I'd see the day when cold fjord represented the whole of slashdot. I've been a dedicated AC for 2 decades. If you all agree with cold fjord, I'm leaving.

Re:Ukraine (3, Interesting)

Evtim (1022085) | about 7 months ago | (#46839005)

And NATO does exactly the same. Both sides test the awareness of the others all the time. Such "accidents" happen tens of times per year...of course the public is ignorant and unwilling to educate themselves so it is easy to manipulate in this manner....

The wackos are preparing for WWIII. It scares the hell out of me and don't you think for a second that there is a good guy in this mess. They are all guilty as sin – the Russians and the West.
Do you know what actually happened? On a psychological/diplomatic/social level. The winners from the cold war turned out to be ungracious winners. Military doctrine states that after you win if you do not use your victory properly, if you overdo on punishing, pillaging and humiliating the losers, sooner or later they will rise aging and kick you. Germany after WWI anyone? Russia after the Cold war? First, the “sound financial advices” from the west almost destroyed Russia [don’t tell me you don’t know that IMF are the modern day slave-traders], the mafia gained the power, the military bases started cropping, the promise that NATO will not expand east was broken. What did you expect would happen after such humiliation and desperation? Naturally, a strong leader emerges [reinforced by historical tradition] that turns all the tables against the west and start solidifying the nation around anything, anything at all that is different from the western ideology.
Very simple, but very notable example, just for illustration – the prevailing opinion in the east these days is that west is a bloated plutocracy populated chiefly with drug-users, pedos and gays [notice the lumping those people together in one group of “evils” – already the propaganda is apparent]. And the fact the west has all those evils is due to the very socio-economic system they live in so we should never, ever adapt it or even respect it – it only breeds “monsters”. And so on and so forth it goes.naturally similar stereotypes are propagandized in the west as well. So that when the bastards on the top make the wars they so much desire the people will support them since we are fighting sub-humans anyway
Thus, in my opinion, anyone who expresses preference to either side in this conflict is supporting the devils themselves and acts against his/her own interest and the interest of the species.

And BTW, admins, Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands.

Re:Ukraine (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 7 months ago | (#46839075)

And BTW, admins, Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands.

True. The Hague is the seat of government though, and the location of the ICJ.

Re:Ukraine (2, Insightful)

Cenan (1892902) | about 7 months ago | (#46839097)

I'm not taking sides, because I don't believe either side has a cause worthy of siding with. Whenever a leader of a nation decides that rolling out the guns is the correct cause of action, they automatically lose whatever credibility their stated cause might have had. Leaders acting like school children, but employing the resources of a nation, are pathetic. Resources, mind you, that were created by the people. Leaders, also created by the people, set in place to manage said resources, and they're now playing war? Fucking pathetic, fucking disgusting.

That being said, my original comment was to provide some counter weights to cold fjord's one-sided propaganda spewing garbage. It's a kind of a tradition, he spews right wing nut-job garbage, /. reacts (well, it seems to be less and less, maybe he's being ignored by most by now?).

Re:Ukraine (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840219)

Really? Anytime? If you really believe a nation can exist without guns, you are too weak to survive. The only reason you live is because the people who are strong enough to survive subsidize your existence.

Re:Ukraine (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46838621)

Yeah, Ukraine agreed to disarmament and look what happened. I'm willing to bet that if that country exists in two years we'll see them performing at least one nuclear test.

Perhaps... but the weapons they had access to that they gave up were strategic weapons developed in Russia.

The Ukraine gov't themselves wouldn't have been able to build these. They would be starting from scratch, essentially, with no fissile materials.

It wouldn't be hard for other countries to slow down any progress towards Ukraine getting the basic enriched uranium/plutonium materials to develop anything.

They would need a deal with Iran, or something like that.

Re:Ukraine (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46838647)

It looks to me like you've got that completely wrong, not the least of which is the strategic weapons Ukraine had were developed by the Soviet Union of which both Russia and Ukraine were a part. As to the rest ...

Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more. Access to enriched nuclear materials isn't likely to be much of a problem.

Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power [bbc.co.uk]

Missile [nti.org]

Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.

Re:Ukraine (1)

coastwalker (307620) | about 7 months ago | (#46839183)

Exactly, the weapon design bureau currently known as Pivdenne, one of the largest industrial enterprises in Ukraine, with 13,000 workers is located in Dnipropetrovsk in the East. Presumably this is what Russia wants to get hold of with its occupation of town halls by special forces. Given that Russian propaganda though blatant and obvious is being lapped up by the people of the world there is nothing anyone can or will do about this. The Syrian regime uses exactly the same methods and everyone sided with Putin over Syria.

The sooner the Americans get a conference together to organize handing over Eastern Ukraine to the Russians the better. The less said about the EU initiative that started this war the better.

Re:Ukraine (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46839257)

Syria's case is totally different. Syria is not invading its neighbors. It is getting invaded.

Re:Ukraine (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46839773)

Exactly, the weapon design bureau currently known as Pivdenne, one of the largest industrial enterprises in Ukraine, with 13,000 workers is located in Dnipropetrovsk in the East...... The sooner the Americans get a conference together to organize handing over Eastern Ukraine to the Russians the better.

That is obviously backwards. It would seem that if Russia is becoming an imperialist aggressor to steal resources to make itself more powerful, some say to rebuild the Soviet Union, that the last thing the world should do is enable that. Othewise, where does it end? Until Putin says, "‘This Is the Last Territorial Demand I Have to Make in Europe’ [nationalreview.com] "?

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840043)

Yes we should leave America to draw all the boarders in the world for us, what could possibly go wrong? *cough* China *cough* Taiwan *cough* Japan

Re:Ukraine (0)

delt0r (999393) | about 7 months ago | (#46840169)

Nuclear power stations along don't give you access to enriched nuclear materials. Not by a long shot.

Re:Ukraine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838637)

I agree. Iran should be allowed to have nukes, with no sanctions, and so should North Korea.

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838659)

And Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Burma, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, ....

Re:Ukraine (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 7 months ago | (#46838835)

Several of those countries probably don't even want them. Germany is even getting rid of nuclear reactors for power generation.

Re:Ukraine (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46839261)

I would put Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Japan in that list. South Korea had several programs which indicate they want to have the capability. The problem is their missile program is not advanced enough. Brazil started working on it decades ago when it was still a military dictatorship. South Africa actually tested a nuclear device once and then gave up on further development. Japan everyone knows they could do it. They even separate their own plutonium. But for historical reasons they have refrained on it.

Germany is one of those NATO countries that hosts US nuclear warheads on its soil so they do not need to do that.

Re:Ukraine (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 7 months ago | (#46839293)

Japan also has a pacifist constitution. They maintain zero offensive capabilities, bar offensive capabilities that could be repurposed. There's not much defensive about a nuclear weapon (aside from MAD arguments).

It amuses me that we (the UK) have actually detonated about the same number of nuclear weapons as China.

Re:Ukraine (2)

cavreader (1903280) | about 7 months ago | (#46840163)

Japan has already made changes to their pacifist constitution in order to provide their military with the legal means to expand it's military doctrine. They still rely 100% on the US protection but they are starting to hedge their bets and the US has no problems with Japan ramping up it's military capabilities.

Re:Ukraine (2)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 7 months ago | (#46840257)

Odd that. US has no problems with anyone they can call an ally beefing up their military. They complain when we talk about reducing ours (not that I mind - I work for a company that counts the MOD as one of its major clients).

Re:Ukraine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838649)

Well New Zealand has been Nuclear Free for decades.

Because of their democratically based choice to be Nuclear Free :
a) When the US Government knew the French were going to commit an act of terrorism in New Zealand against Greenpeace (Rainbow warrior) they would say nothing.
b) The USA also placed trade sanctions while at the same time gave China "Favoured Nation Status".

The US is no better than Russia / China , the USA has invaded other sovereign nations for spurious reasons , their morals are up for sale.

The US does NOT respect democracy unless it goes their way, Free Trade is only given when the USA can force its copyright/patent laws onto the other country.
The USA Criticises other countries democratic processes when their own is corrupt , they use the courts to deny people (particularly Black people) the right to vote

Will the US ever nuke another nation, yes I believe they will because they believe they have the right to bully other nations.

Re:Ukraine (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838713)

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

You are utterly confused about who the real bullies in the world are. Why don't you look and see how China is threatening its neighbors and wants to take their territory? Why don't you look and see how Russia threatens its neighbors and takes territory? Both Russia and China threaten the use of nuclear weapons against their neighbors.

Your claim about the US denying black people the right to vote is a load of crap. If you think that the US attacking Afghanistan for harboring al Qaida while it launched attacks on the US was illegitimate you are suffering from extreme moral confusion. If you think the US, UK, and the many other allies that drove Saddam's army from Kuwait in 1991 was spurious your are suffering from extreme moral confusion. If you think that holding Saddam to account was spurious you are badly confused.

Re:Ukraine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838843)

Thank God the USA found all those Weapons of Mass Destruction eh.

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839055)

You're thinking of Gulf War II: This Time It's Personal, not the original and much better Gulf War I: Get Outta Our Oilfields. The first one was a 90's sensation staring George Bush Sr. and quite limited in it's operations. The sequel was an expensive flop staring George W. Bush, who frankly played a pale imitation of his father.

Re:Ukraine (2)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 7 months ago | (#46839341)

That wasn't the justification for the 1991 invasion, which was spurred by the Iraqi invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait; I hope you knew that. The more recent war was misguided in the absolute best case, and criminal at worst.

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839021)

If you think that the US attacking Afghanistan for harboring al Qaida while it launched attacks on the US was illegitimate you are suffering from extreme moral confusion.

All right, so I can safely assume you would agree that Cuba could legitimately invade Florida for harboring [wikipedia.org] terrorists [wikipedia.org] ?

If you think the US, UK, and the many other allies that drove Saddam's army from Kuwait in 1991 was spurious your are suffering from extreme moral confusion. If you think that holding Saddam to account was spurious you are badly confused.

All of the reasons put forth by the US/UK have turned out to be lies. I think Saddam was a monster but the invasion was NOT legit. And let's not forget that he was the West's buddy when he used chemical weapons against Iran (who, incidentally, did not retaliate in kind, because of a fatwa against such weapons. Same reason, by the way, they're very unlikely to use nuclear weapons).

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839083)

Both Russia and China threaten the use of nuclear weapons against their neighbors.

Do you have a source for that, coldfjord?

Re:Ukraine (1)

Sique (173459) | about 7 months ago | (#46839247)

Luckily, some of the largest neighbours of China and Russland have their own nuclear weapons program: India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Re:Ukraine (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46839267)

The Afghanistan War was justified. Iraq War II was not.

Re:Ukraine (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 7 months ago | (#46838977)

Will the US ever nuke another nation, yes I believe they will because they believe they have the right to bully other nations.

to be precise, the US is the only nation that has ever nuked another nation. God willing never again.

Re:Ukraine (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46838989)

Will the US ever nuke another nation, yes I believe they will because they believe they have the right to bully other nations.

to be precise, the US is the only nation that has ever nuked another nation. God willing never again.

Yeah we have much more powerful weapons now.

Re:Ukraine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839099)

So basically, until my country (Finland) develops her own nukes, she's just asking to be conquered. Sure we signed some piece of paper, but since nobody else cares, why should we?

Re:Ukraine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839193)

Finland *has* been conquered. There's a reason why "Finlandization" is a word.

Re:Ukraine (0)

Sique (173459) | about 7 months ago | (#46839253)

About every country in the world has been conquered at least once in their history. (In the U.S. and Canada, the occupation has not ended yet, the mainly white, protestant conquerors are still there). Your point being?

Re:Ukraine (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 7 months ago | (#46839553)

About every country in the world has been conquered at least once in their history. (In the U.S. and Canada, the occupation has not ended yet, the mainly white, protestant conquerors are still there).

I'm curious, which countries were invaded by the "mainly white, protestant conquerors"? Certainly not the US, which didn't even exist till centuries after the "white protestant conquerors" arrived. Or Canada, likewise.

Re:Ukraine (2)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 7 months ago | (#46839597)

I think they are referring to the Native American inhabitants, even though none of them had a coast-to-coast civilization, and never called themselves the US.

Can I sue the marshall islands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838555)

because one of their residents was mean to me once? What is with everyone suing everyone. Real men do not sue. They get even. John Wayne never once sued anyone, he just handled his business. I would have no problem if the Marshals decided to conduct a nuclear test or 10 on the CONUS. That would be just deserts; but suing really. Why not just sue God because he gave you bad weather, and your people starved, or better yet just sue your parents beacuse they won't pay for your college and give you a free car.

Fuck we need to stop suing. It would be one thing if the court system represented a wise and honorable impartial system that could deal out justice in a fair manner. But we all not that it isn't. It is just a group of bullies who use words and laws to get their way rather that using fists like real men do.

Re:Can I sue the marshall islands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839937)

Dude, if you like "real men" that's your business, but I don't think your John Wayne fisting fetish really belongs in this discussion!

MAD works..sorta (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838569)

mutually assured destruction somewhat works in preventing nuclear weapon use during warfare.
and disarmament will only work if all country's that have nuclear weapons will disarm at exact the same time.

I don't see North Korea disarm any time soon.

Re:MAD works..sorta (1)

Beck_Neard (3612467) | about 7 months ago | (#46838757)

MAD works.. for the countries that have nukes. If you don't have a nuke, or aren't kissing the ass of a country that does, it's not mutually assured destruction, it's assured destruction.

Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838579)

... filed one suit specifically directed against the United States ...

No other country has made the USA accountable for its past misdeeds. How could this sycophantic country even try? It gets more laughable: The Islands depend on US aid so this is biting the hand that feeds them.

Re:Pointless (5, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46838627)

The Islands depend on US aid so this is biting the hand that feeds them.

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.

As for whether the US government will abide by any ruling of the court... probably not, due to lack of jurisdiction.

Re:Pointless (1)

afidel (530433) | about 7 months ago | (#46838853)

You can't sue the US government in court in the US without their consent, and I hardly think the DoD is going to tell the attorney general that they wish to waive sovereign immunity over the fate of our nuclear arsenal.

Re:Pointless (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46838995)

the US respects the law and the treaties they sign

Mod +500 Funny

Re:Pointless (5, Informative)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 7 months ago | (#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:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839747)

Yeah, one NATO country invading a NATO country, that would work out well...

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839839)

that's because we've seen what happened to the european countries when they gave up soveirgnty to the EU.

Re:Pointless (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46839283)

US respects the law and the treaties they sign

Bush Jr. pissed on the ABM Treaty.

Re:Pointless (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46839271)

Actually it happened once. You people just prefer to forget it.

Re:Pointless (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46839273)

I will give you a hint. Washington DC was invaded and the Capitol building was burnt down.

Re:Pointless (5, Informative)

osu-neko (2604) | about 7 months ago | (#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.

Good luck with that (3, Funny)

Tailhook (98486) | about 7 months ago | (#46838587)

Bye bye boys!
Have fun storming the castle.
(think it'll work?)
(it would take a miracle...)
Bye Byyyye

Good for them! (5, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46838589)

'The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation said the five original nuclear weapons states - The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - were all parties to the NPT, while the others - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea - were "bound by these nuclear disarmament provisions under customary international law."'

It's an excellent point though not a new one. One that is often studiously ignored by the media, so it's good to see it getting a little press. The terms of the NPT are pretty clear, and while they are unfortunately not operational and thus subject to all the normal lawyer tricks... the fact is every signatory has been pretty blatantly violating it almost from the moment of signing. No one has been negotiating in good faith towards eliminating nukes even after being maneuvered into solemnly agreeing on the record to do so.

The mainstream media outlets are always happy to press this case on North Korea. They have ratchetted back and forth a bit over Russia and China, but always at least hostile. Yet how often do they say anything about the other members of this 'club?'

And just how do these nuclear signatories of the NPT expect to have credibility in pushing non-signatory states to accept being bound to it by custom despite having deliberately declined to sign, when they themselves flaunt its obligations?

Re:Good for them! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838911)

Russia has at least reduced some of its stockpile with the nukes for megawatts program

Re:Good for them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839215)

You don't know what you are talking about.

Obama won the Nobel peace prize in this field so America is beyond all reproach for ever and ever.

In similar news, the US has EVERY RIGHT to DEMAND that Russia not invade the Ukraine under false pretences

Re:Good for them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839229)

Why would they negotiate away the only significant factor that has keep a relative world wide peace for the last ~60 years? This is something that is studiously ignored by most tree hugging vegans as if it were an issue that does not exist.

I suspect that the next thing you will say is that there is some sort of minimum acceptable level of stockpiles that you and apparently only you have figured out.

Re:Good for them! (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 7 months ago | (#46839243)

Only significant factor? The European Union is a pretty significant factor in preventing something like WWI or WWII, and much of the rest of the world hasn't been at peace.

Re:Good for them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839323)

Yeah, good point. Give nukes to all countries and we will have a forever lasting world peace.

Re:Good for them! (1)

gronofer (838299) | about 7 months ago | (#46839427)

Nevertheless, they signed a treaty in which they promised to conduct such negotiations.If they no longer support the non-proliferation treaty, why don't they officially withdraw from it?

Re:Good for them! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46839731)

I'm not reading your comment because you monospaced it. It's harder to read. That was totally stale, bro.

The Hague is not the capital of the Netherlands (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838631)

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

Very very David and Goliath... (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#46838661)

Save that Goliath has an M1 Abrams loaded with canister rounds and David... still has a sling.

Re:Very very David and Goliath... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838763)

David won.

Re:Very very David and Goliath... (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#46838889)

Heh. Yes, I know. Wouldn't have had with a proper helmet. Or a little less luck.

Superman will protect us! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838681)

Obviously their lawyers are White Martians preparing us for the invasion.

Never too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838705)

It's never too late to resume the tests on those islands. :-)

Re:Never too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838927)

Yep that covers US attitudes.

We come in peace, shoot to kill.

The US needs to remember they are only 4% of the worlds population and needs the rest of the world.

Amsterdam? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838737)

"the International Court of Justice in The Hague, capital of the Netherlands,"
The Hague is where the international court is located, but it's not the capital, that's Amsterdam.

The Hague, Capital of the Netherlands (3, Informative)

freakingme (1244996) | about 7 months ago | (#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:The Hague, Capital of the Netherlands (3, Funny)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 7 months ago | (#46839113)

Yeah, yeah... tl;dr. Not interesting if you're living in New York, capital of the USA.

Re:The Hague, Capital of the Netherlands (1)

_Spirit (23983) | about 7 months ago | (#46839209)

Well played :)

I hope they win.... (1)

beheaderaswp (549877) | about 7 months ago | (#46838857)

Boy I hope this turns into a winnable case.

That treaty has never been enforced. This lawsuit won't change that- but it might inform the generation coming into power that there is a need to disarming.

Go Marshall Islands!

Re:I hope they win.... (0)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46839471)

Yes, because not having nuclear weapons obviously prevents armed conflict. Just ask Iraq or Ukraine.... oh , wait....

Hague, Capital? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838873)

Am I the only one that saw this? The capital of the Netherlands is Amterdam...

Re:Hague, Capital? (1, Interesting)

rastos1 (601318) | about 7 months ago | (#46838909)

Am I the only one that saw this? The capital of the Netherlands is Amterdam...

No, you are not alone. Interestingly the sentence came from the article itself - written by Reuters. I though Reuters was one of the places where you could find real journalists. So ... you could say that /. reached the quality of Reuters which is undoubtedly a great achievement.

Common mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839343)

Capital is Amsterdam. The government, however, is located in The Hague.

Funny thing (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46838879)

When it comes to things like free trade, our fearless leaders squawk about how their hands are tied because treaties. But here we have a treaty that they have managed to start ignoring completely before the ink even dried, and then for more than 40 years.

Re:Funny thing (3, Informative)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 7 months ago | (#46839249)

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.

I've heard of "suing for peace"... (4, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | about 7 months ago | (#46838907)

but this isn't quite how it works.

Coincidence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838935)

I was just reading Carl Sagan's Cosmos this evening. He mentions the Marshall Islands nuclear test near the end of the book:

The Hiroshima explosion, unlike the subsequent Nagasaki
explosion, was an air burst high above the surface, so the fallout
was insignificant. But on March 1, 1954, a thermonuclear weapons
test at Bikini in the Marshall Islands detonated at higher yield
than expected. A great radioactive cloud was deposited on the
tiny atoll of Rongalap, 150 kilometers away, where the inhabitants
likened the explosion to the Sun rising in the West. A few
hours later, radioactive ash fell on Rongalap like snow. The
average dose received was only about 175 rads, a little less than
half the dose needed to kill an average person. Being far from the
explosion, not many people died. Of course, the radioactive
strontium they ate was concentrated in their bones, and the
radioactive iodine was concentrated in their thyroids. Two-
thirds of the children and one-third of the adults later developed
thyroid abnormalities, growth retardation or malignant tumors.
In compensation, the Marshall Islanders received expert medical
care.

Re:Coincidence (2)

rudolfel (700883) | about 7 months ago | (#46839065)

God bless Amerika !

The Hague != capital of the Netherlands (0)

Captain_Chaos (103843) | about 7 months ago | (#46839093)

The capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam, not The Hague. The Hague is the seat of government though, and the location of most of the international institutions like the International Court of Justice.

Re:The Hague != capital of the Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839211)

So its the functional capital rather than the capital in name only?

Call me stupid but I like to organise things in functional terms...

Tough Noogies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839315)

Our Words Are Backed By The Power Of Nuclear Weapons!

Any chance... (1)

Archtech (159117) | about 7 months ago | (#46839437)

... of anyone discussing the topic? In case everyone has forgotten, that is the attempt by the Marshall Islands to sue the nuclear powers for ignoring their obligations to disarm. Also to sue the USA for exploding nuclear and thermonuclear weapons on its (tiny) territory?

Standing? (1)

towermac (752159) | about 7 months ago | (#46839489)

How do they have standing to sue us? Are they even a real country? I believe we owned that test island at the time.

And that particular explosion saved us all from a hundred years of a world wide communist dictatorship.

You're welcome.

Re:Standing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839955)

That's a good question. This country is in Free Association with the United States. We provide their defense, and all the money to run their government. The post office provides mail services for them, various government agencies also provide grants. The US in practice treats it more as a territory than a sovereign nation.

One Big Problem (5, Insightful)

cirby (2599) | about 7 months ago | (#46839561)

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Note that this part of the Treaty does NOT say that they have to continually pursue negotiations until the end of time. All they had to do was pursue negotiations ONCE in order to fulfill the Treaty.

There were regular nuclear disarmament negotiations during the 1970s and 1980s - right up until the point where one of the participants in the NNPT effectively disbanded.

Counter claims (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 7 months ago | (#46839685)

For the US and Russia, they will point to arms reductions treaties over the years. China will say our arsenal is smaller than theirs. UK and France may opt for the same. India, Pakistan and North Korea will say they are not bound by the treaty and Israel will say "What weapons?" This is the latest effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

supported by Desmond Tutu? (0)

Krigl (1025293) | about 7 months ago | (#46839897)

Well I'll be damned, I lived with the notion that he's already dead. Guess no-one just gives a fuck about him, once apartheid and Soviet bloc kicked the bucket. Hopefully, he'll crawl back under whatever stone he's been hiding since then.

Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840135)

The peaceful uses of nuclear material have us well on the way to an extinction level event. I guess that threat was not anticipated or suppressed by commercial interests. At least the military tends to be realistic or even paranoid in it's assessment of risks and outcomes. Read up on cesium 137, Fukushima, and what isn't being reported in the media if you want a real eye opener.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?