3 ms·

> has lots of worrying consequences for normal people that are in normal cities. Which is precisely why even the mere ownership of nuclear weapons was ruled b

by ta20240528 2y ago

> has lots of worrying consequences for normal people that are in normal cities. Which is precisely why even the mere ownership of nuclear weapons was ruled by the ICJ to be illegal: a violation of inter alia the Hague [1907], UN Charter and Geneva Conventions. Specifically the Geneva Convention Protocol I (1977) states that ‘the civilian population shall not be the object of attack’. The 1977 Geneva Protocol was ratified by the USA, so its not even that mystical international law thing - its domestic law. The nuclear powers have spent the next 25 years trying to lobby and bully their way out of this inconvenient bit of international law. Expect to see some in the comments. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/95 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/95 https://cnduk.org/resources/tridents-compatibility-international-law/ https://cnduk.org/resources/tridents-compatibility-internati...

ptsneves 2y ago
The US does not belong to the ICJ, so that judgement would only be valid if the US Supreme court would say so. I dislike a lot nuclear weapons but they are an escalation deterrent like the humanity never had[1]. I hope they continue to be a deterrent but never ever launched in war. [1] If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else. If Ukraine tried to keep the nuclear weapons they would have been invaded within half an hour of that becoming apparent in or around 1994. They had no meaningful operational control over them, thus it would not have acted as a deterrent against that invasion. Yes, nukes are really potent deterrent. Ukraine's case is not the right one to show this. If you are looking for an example where nuclear deterrent works Russia's case is much better. They are badly bogged down in Ukraine. The reason why nobody dares to escalate and turn Moscow to rubble is because they have the nukes as a credible deterrent. All the tiptoeing around the range of missiles given to Ukraine and the constraints they have on not targeting Russia directly with them is due to that.
  - roywiggins 2y ago
    And even if they'd held onto them, keeping them operational for three decades without a nuclear weapons program of their own would have been impossible. They would have had to spend a huge amount of money they didn't have to build the infrastructure to do it.
- beeboobaa3 2y ago
  > I hope they continue to be a deterrent but never ever launched in war. This is just naive. They'll become more and more common, and their usage is inevitable. In fact, the US has already used them in war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
- darby_nine 2y ago
  > they are an escalation deterrent Only until someone escalates! Or a sufficient number of sensors misfire concurrently, as I suppose that isn't quite what we refer to as escalation.
- ta20240528 2y ago
  The USA does belong to the ICJ and has since its inception (the USA not a member of the ICC - different court). Its just that after the invasion of Nicaragua in 1984 it decided to abide by the court "on a case to case basis". Russia also decided to ignore the ICJ in 2022. FWIW I agree that everyone should have nukes, there would be a lot fewer military adventures. But that's not the _current_ USA/UK/FR domestic* and international law. * ratified treaties become domestic law.
  - ngcc_hk 2y ago
    Are you sure you meant everyone? Countries fall into disarray all the time. And there are totalitarian countries … It has some use and does prevent someone trying. But there is a downside to it that is too much. But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine …
    - ta20240528 2y ago
      > But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine … Yip, what about Guyana fending off Venzuela? Why can't they play? At some point its immoral to say "this level of security is only for us".
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Wouldn’t that only apply to strategic nukes, not tactical nukes? City busters, rather than low yield weapons intended for military targets.

ptsneves 2y ago

The US does not belong to the ICJ, so that judgement would only be valid if the US Supreme court would say so. I dislike a lot nuclear weapons but they are an escalation deterrent like the humanity never had[1]. I hope they continue to be a deterrent but never ever launched in war. [1] If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else.

krisoft 2y ago
> If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else. If Ukraine tried to keep the nuclear weapons they would have been invaded within half an hour of that becoming apparent in or around 1994. They had no meaningful operational control over them, thus it would not have acted as a deterrent against that invasion. Yes, nukes are really potent deterrent. Ukraine's case is not the right one to show this. If you are looking for an example where nuclear deterrent works Russia's case is much better. They are badly bogged down in Ukraine. The reason why nobody dares to escalate and turn Moscow to rubble is because they have the nukes as a credible deterrent. All the tiptoeing around the range of missiles given to Ukraine and the constraints they have on not targeting Russia directly with them is due to that.
- roywiggins 2y ago
  And even if they'd held onto them, keeping them operational for three decades without a nuclear weapons program of their own would have been impossible. They would have had to spend a huge amount of money they didn't have to build the infrastructure to do it.
beeboobaa3 2y ago
> I hope they continue to be a deterrent but never ever launched in war. This is just naive. They'll become more and more common, and their usage is inevitable. In fact, the US has already used them in war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
darby_nine 2y ago
> they are an escalation deterrent Only until someone escalates! Or a sufficient number of sensors misfire concurrently, as I suppose that isn't quite what we refer to as escalation.
ta20240528 2y ago
The USA does belong to the ICJ and has since its inception (the USA not a member of the ICC - different court). Its just that after the invasion of Nicaragua in 1984 it decided to abide by the court "on a case to case basis". Russia also decided to ignore the ICJ in 2022. FWIW I agree that everyone should have nukes, there would be a lot fewer military adventures. But that's not the _current_ USA/UK/FR domestic* and international law. * ratified treaties become domestic law.
- ngcc_hk 2y ago
  Are you sure you meant everyone? Countries fall into disarray all the time. And there are totalitarian countries … It has some use and does prevent someone trying. But there is a downside to it that is too much. But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine …
  - ta20240528 2y ago
    > But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine … Yip, what about Guyana fending off Venzuela? Why can't they play? At some point its immoral to say "this level of security is only for us".

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

Wouldn’t that only apply to strategic nukes, not tactical nukes? City busters, rather than low yield weapons intended for military targets.