Request for comments on the July 8 World Court decision

[Yomar]

I grabbed this from the following site http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/

Request for comments on the July 8 World Court decision

World Court, a UN organization formally called the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its non-binding advisory opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly, on the use of nuclear weapons July 8, 1996. The court advised:

The use or threat of nuclear weapons generally would be contrary to international law, except possibly for self-defense if a state's very survival were at stake.

According to the Japan Times dated July 10, 1996, the judges said, "The threat of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict and, in particular, the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law, and elements of fact as its disposal, the court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake."

Here, we would like to invite your comments on this issue and the related issues such as CTBT negotiations. The following is a list of questions which we would like to ask your answers:

Did you know the World Court decision made on July 8, 1996?

What is your comment on the decision made?

Do you know the CTBT negotiation?

What is your opinion with CTBT?

Do you think that the zero nuclear weapon goal is achievable?

We will report you what we will receive without changes in this section.

We would appreciate your cooperation and support.

Mitsuru Ohba

Producer, A-Bomb WWW Project

I thought it would perhaps prove worthwhile to post it on here.

[Yomar]

Personally I can't really wrap my head around the idea that a country would be justified in using a nuclear weapon when that country's very survival is at stake. Where exactly is that line? This seems hopelessly vague to me.

I also find the very idea laughable. If a nuclear capable country's very survival as an independent state is at stake, then chances are the aggressor, the threatening party, is at the very least similarly armed with nuclear weapons. The thought that the use of nuclear weapons could do anything but worsen in the direst way possible the predicament a country on the brink of military defeat finds itself in is madness.

[Darth Tater]

Yomar,

The final court of arbitration for International Law is in the court of those with the biggest gun.