4 ms·
>The mere threat is sufficient. And of course completely illegal under the 1977 Gevena Convention.
by pinkfoot 7y ago
>The mere threat is sufficient.
And of course completely illegal under the 1977 Gevena Convention.
- simongr3dal 7y agoAs far as I can read the 1977 Protocol which among other things forbids the use of nuclear weapons is not rattified by the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Contents
- pinkfoot 7y agoIf you don't like that one, here are some more: Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868 Hague Convention, 1907 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 Geneva Conventions, 1949 The Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, See https://cnduk.org/legality-of-nuclear-weapons/ https://cnduk.org/legality-of-nuclear-weapons/ An of course, UN Security Council resolution 255 (1968) including the 1977 clarification is still supported by USA, UK, Russia which 'positive assurance' against the use of weapons against NNWS. (Which as an aside makes Trump's recent tweet to end Iran illegal under US law and probably a war crime). But of course, its precisely the posession of these weapons that makes all these niceties irrelevant. Law of the jungle.
- ekianjo 7y agoThese days most countries go in conflict without declaring war on another so you can diligently ignore the Geneva convention.
- jimbob45 7y agoThe threat is implicit, never stated.