"The U.S. must stand international trial for developing nuclear weapons."

[heartsurgeon]

"The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration recently instructed the Los Alamos Institute and two other institutes to resume the research into smaller nukes in the wake of the Bush administration's lift of the decade-long ban on the research into smaller nukes.... More than a decade has passed since the Cold War came to an end and the U.S. military rival demised. Moreover, the world greeted the new century. But the U.S. has frantically stepped up arms buildup and is now working hard to modernize and conventionalize nuclear weapons. This lays bare the true colors of the U.S. as the world's biggest nuclear criminal.
The U.S. reckless policy for arms buildup is sparking off the second arms race worldwide.
The U.S. is working hard to carry out its "strategy to mount a preemptive nuclear attack" after designating several countries as targets of nuclear attacks. This compelled big powers and several other countries to bolster nuclear means to cope with it.
The world is now on the verge of being embroiled in the second global arms race...
It is none other than the U.S. which is chiefly to blame for the new world arms race and it is again the U.S. which has brought misfortune and pain to other nations, threatening to use nuclear weapons.
The U.S. must stand international trial for developing nuclear weapons.
The world community should never overlook the U.S. moves to launch a nuclear war going against humankind's unanimous desire and wish to live in a new stable and peaceful world free from the danger of a nuclear war and arms race."

just curious how many people agree with this assessment, and why.

 

[SuperTool]

I don't think we should use nukes for bunker busting. We can't on one hand say that nukes are WMD's, and on the other hand use them like conventional weapons. Not with a straight face at least.

 

[Dragnov]

Eh, what are we standing on trial for?

Building nuclear weapons? Since when was that illegal? The long expired treaties form the Cold War, which was opted out of?

While I certainly don't agree w/ the arms buildup I don't see where the question of legality comes from...

 

[rufruf44]

I never liked the 2 faced shown here, "you can't build/research nuke else we'll gonna bombard you with blockade and embargo, but heck we can do whatever we want with nukes....." :disgust:

 

[Jmman]

The US never stopped developing and refining nuclear weapons. We simply went from live testing to computer simulations. The simulations are probably a better tool anyway.....

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Jmman
The US never stopped developing and refining nuclear weapons. We simply went from live testing to computer simulations. The simulations are probably a better tool anyway.....

I want one of those Cray systems.

 

[Czar]

its just the hypocrisy of do as I say not as I do that realy realy goes badly into people, have to ask yourself why that is

 

[Moonbeam]

Humanity is seriously ill with a disease that creates what it fears. By our prusuit of nuclear weapons to protect us we will destroy ourselves. We would rather die that know our sickness. Only by understanding our illness can we save ourselves from extinction.

 

[Sleepyjoe]

Here a thought. The United States has the most powerful army in the world. In 2003, it had allocated 2.144 trillions dollars to its military budget. Thats more than all the other countries budgets combined. When I see articles in Popular Science describing how the DoD is doing research on space based weapons to intercept Balistic missiles I can't stop to think: how many countries have 3 stage balistic missiles that can reach the U.S. ? oops, I am sorry, Saddam has some...

The U.S. has probably enough balistic missiles to destroy every major city in the world. As for tactical nukes, well, I guess that it could be convenient to blow up bunkers without risking one life (one U.S. soldier life that is). But the thing that really disturbs me it that if you use one of those mini nukes to destroy the bunker, you eliminate any evidence as to what was really in thoses bunkers. Then, you don't even have to use the argument "we cannot comment on that because of national security concerns", you can just say, we are sorry the target does not exist anymore.

Anyways, I am a bit off subject now but to get back to it, with the current size of the U.S. Military, are more destructive tactical weapons really neccessary? I mean, the U.S. can blow the crap out of the rest of the world if it wants too. Are you under attack by any of the major nations? Because all this high tech weapons research seems to be more to satisfy a paranoid condition than to protect the American people.

 

[sandorski]

Leave it to Bush to come up with creative ways to waste money. As for Legal action, I dunno, I think there are a lack of laws to cover this. OTOH, the Court of Public(Global) Opinion can result in some effective action.