Slashdot Mirror
Former US Test Site Sues Nuclear Nations For Disarmament Failure
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."
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
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.
Bye bye boys!
Have fun storming the castle.
(think it'll work?)
(it would take a miracle...)
Bye Byyyye
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
'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?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
By the way, The Hague is not the capital of the Netherlands, although it is where the pairlement is seated.
Save that Goliath has an M1 Abrams loaded with canister rounds and David... still has a sling.
"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.
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...
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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!
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Am I the only one that saw this? The capital of the Netherlands is Amterdam...
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.
but this isn't quite how it works.
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.
the US respects the law and the treaties they sign
Mod +500 Funny
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 from jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This is because they were upset of having been found guilty by that court of violating 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, no less.
So no -- the US does not always respect the treaties they sign. See also: Geneva Convention.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Actually it happened once. You people just prefer to forget it.
I will give you a hint. Washington DC was invaded and the Capitol building was burnt down.
US respects the law and the treaties they sign
Bush Jr. pissed on the ABM Treaty.
... 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?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
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.
"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.
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...
Funny you should mention that in an article about the Marshall Islands :( It's the only US territory where slavery is not just a freak occurrence perpetrated by a kidnapper but instead a more frequent event.
"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.
"to this day, you will find many Americans who think they never lost a war before Vietnam,"
Americans are not knowledgeable about their history, but most do know they lost the war between the States. 1861-65. Of course if you are fighting yourselves it is impossible to win.
"we actually achieved our objectives in the War of 1812,"
I thought the objectives of the British were to reconquer the colonies. They didn't achieve that.
"the major victories weren't pointlessly fought after the war was already over but news hadn't reached us yet."
Neither side in the Battle of New Orleans knew that, so it was still a fair battle, and Jackson won.
You're confusing courts here. The Hague Invasion Act is directed against the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was only established in the late 1990s to try individuals charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and/or war crimes. The ICJ has been in existence since 1946 (and has a predecessor, the PCIJ or Permanent Court of International Justice set up under the League of Nations) and only tries inter-state cases, like the one you mentioned by Nicaragua in the 1980s.
George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty pursuant to the terms in the ABM Treaty allowing withdrawal - i.e. gave 6 months notice. That's all the treaty required.
You're confusing courts here. The Hague Invasion Act is directed against the International Criminal Court (ICC)
You are absolutely correct, thanks for pointing that out!
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
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.
Depends on how you define "win". You sound suspiciously Canadian to me.
Yes, basically the War of 1812 was a failed attempt by the US to do a land grab on Canada and annex it by force, but there were some legitimate gripes by the US, notably the British practice of kidnapping American citizens and forcing them to serve in the British Navy, but that was not the only legitimate complaint on which to base the war. I cannot personally say how much or little "Canadian" forces played in the war. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a bunch of Canucks who burned down Washington DC or got their rears handed to them at New Orleans (yes, after the war officially ended). I also am of the opinion that Canadians have very greatly exaggerated the role their militias played and while it isn't fair to say they did nothing, it's also not accurate at all to act, like you do, that they did almost all of the heavy lifting of the war in the US itself and the British were little more than interested spectators as you seem to imply.
I think just about anybody would happy to "lose" a war with this outcome. Canada "won" in so far as they did successfully repel US attempts to annex them by force. The US lost no territory, as you admit, US points were made about impressment, which stopped, A lasting peace treaty followed and set the stage for US-UK friendship which exists to this day. US naval commanders won some impressive victories and the US Navy emerged from the war with a new found respect within the US and the Navy began to get a bigger share of the US military budget as it became obvious that the young nation needed a strong navy for national defense. You act like the US won no victories at all or almost none before the war ended, which is not true at all. Yes, British/Canadian forces did a lot of winning in the war, maybe most of it, but there were some huge US victories at various times. Most historians consider this a stalemate, but your take on this is really simplistic and hard to justify.
This is a frivilous lawsuit, and an embarrassment to the global community.
Unless they want to sue Bill Clinton, because it was under his administration that the dismantling of the stockpile leveled off.
Even under W, who at the very least saw that traditional nuclear weapons (as opposed to tactical warheads) were not worth the hazard, we reduced the stockpile by half.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
South Africa actually tested a nuclear device once and then gave up on further development.
*Some* people think the Vela Incident was a nuclear test, and the island is between South Africa and Antarctica, but Wikipedia hardly makes it sound definite. Other than that, there was one "cold test" (no nuclear material involved) that France et. al strongarmed them into cancelling.
The Vela Incident — sometimes referred to as the South Atlantic Flash — was an unidentified "double flash" of light detected by an American Vela Hotel satellite on September 22, 1979, near the Prince Edward Islands off Antarctica, which many believe was of nuclear origin. The most widespread theory among those who believe the flash was of nuclear origin is that it resulted from a joint South African and Israeli nuclear test.[1][2][3] The topic remains highly disputed today.
While a "double flash" signal is characteristic of a nuclear weapons test, the signal could also have been a spurious electronic signal generated by an aging detector in an old satellite, or a meteoroid hitting the Vela satellite. No corroboration of an explosion, such as the presence of nuclear byproducts in the air, was ever publicly acknowledged, even though there were numerous passes in the area by U.S. Air Force planes specifically designed to detect airborne radioactive dust. Other examiners of the data, including the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and defense contractors, have come to the conclusion that the flash was not a result of a nuclear detonation.[4][5][6] Much information about the event remains classified.
South Africa did actually have 6 nukes, and 1 more under construction. They dismantled them in 1989.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Yeah, one NATO country invading a NATO country, that would work out well...
Technically, Article 5 would then require the US to help defend the Netherlands against itself :-)
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
However... the US respects the law and the treaties they sign.
Probably the reason why the U.S. refuses to sign most of the treaties that they hold the rest of the world to.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
most do know they lost the war between the States. 1861-65.
37% is not "most." (population of the U.S. by region)
Unless you mean that since we were both sides, there was much higher losses than if we had been fighting someone else, then yeah.
I thought the objectives of the British were to reconquer the colonies. They didn't achieve that.
The U.S. declared the war. I'd say the objective of the other side was "don't lose." Anything above that was an added bonus.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Technically that 37% includes Deleware, Maryland, and West Virginia, too, which were actually Union states. Somewhat humorously, even D.C. is included in the South.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I also am of the opinion that Canadians have very greatly exaggerated the role their militias played and while it isn't fair to say they did nothing, it's also not accurate at all to act, like you do, that they did almost all of the heavy lifting of the war in the US itself and the British were little more than interested spectators as you seem to imply.
The minutemen in the Revolutionary War are rather exaggerated too, apparently. Which is really saying something because the Continental Army got its ass kicked for a long time as well.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
The Marshal Islanders should be bringing charges against Hormel for genocide.
not sure if joking or not...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Your summary of the war of 1812 is good. I am a Canadian, and the only thing I would add is to clarify the whole British vs. Canadian issue.
In 1812, the only people in Canada (then British North America) who would think of themselves as Canadian were the French colonists of Lower Canada (now Quebec). The French Canadians were basically the remnants of New France, and the first people to use the name 'Canada' on a map.
The rest of the country (which like the US of the time had not yet expanded west) was split into separate British colonies such as Upper Canada (Ontario), Lower Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, which would later become Canadian provinces. The people in these colonies would have considered themselves British subjects, and possibly members of these colonies.
At this time there wasn't a strong Canadian identity, and in fact this war helped to define Canada. Its similar to how before 1776 'American' meant Native American, and the people who lived in New England probably considered themselves British.
The map is not the territory.