Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former US Test Site Sues Nuclear Nations For Disarmament Failure

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

8 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Ukraine by EmperorArthur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    1. Re:Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Ukraine by Cenan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?).

      --
      ... whatever ...
    3. Re:Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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.

  2. Funny thing by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Pointless by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the US respects the law and the treaties they sign

    Mod +500 Funny

  4. One Big Problem by cirby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  5. Re:Pointless by Elky+Elk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The battle of New Orleans was after the peace treaty was signed. Britain wasn't trying to reconqueror the colonies, it was trying to stop its Candian provinces from being conquered by an aggressive expansionist empire while at the same time trying to win a world war against a genocidal miltary despot. I think it suceeded quite well.