Swans

"Yet many were deeply disturbed by her [Hannah Arendt's] depiction of an Eichmann who was not an ideological anti-Semite nor even criminally motivated--he wanted to rise in rank not by murdering anyone but by 'conscientiously' doing his job. 'Intent to do wrong' was not, in Arendt's opinion, proved against him. He was not 'morally insane' for in his own 'muddled' way he distinguished between right and wrong, and the results of psychological tests showed that he was not a 'monster' but frighteningly normal."
-- From Evil: The Crime against Humanity, by Jerome Kohn, Director, Hannah Arendt Center, New School University

We, the peoples of South Asia, are dismayed and alarmed at the Indian and Pakistan nuclear tests of May 1998. The decision of the two traditional rivals, India and Pakistan, to build and deploy nuclear weapons has put at risk the survival of not only the peoples of India and Pakistan, but also the peoples of all the countries of South Asia.

We believe that nuclearisation of the subcontinent is a betrayal of the sacred trust of the peoples reposed in their governments. There can be no justification either for the initial nuclear tests by India or the retaliatory tests by Pakistan. No amount of provocation or perceived threat legitimizes the development, testing, proliferation or use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are immoral weapons of mass destruction. It is a crime against humanity even to consider the use of nuclear weapons as an option.

What are the warhead characteristics and advanced concepts we will need in the post-NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) environment?

(a) Establish methodology for making choices

(b) Strategy for selecting first "small builds"

(c) Requirements for low-yield weapons, EPWs, enhanced radiation weapons, agent defeat weapons

(d) Effects modeling capabilities to effectively plan for these weapons

(e) What forms of testing will these new designs require?

(f) What obvious weaknesses exist in our ability to attack targets and assess target damage for present and future targets and weapon systems?

[...] the use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout.

The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies[...]. In addition to our conventional and nuclear response and defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture against WMD threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, surveillance, and interdiction, and domestic law enforcement capabilities[...]. (p 2. col. 1)

We know that true security is never to be found in arms of any sort, and certainly not in these most terrible weapons ever devised by human beings. Nuclear weapons are sinful, and their production, possession and deployment, and the very threat of their use in an extreme case constitute crimes against God and humanity. (WCC Leaflet)

The existence of nuclear weapons presents a clear and present danger to life on Earth. Nuclear arms cannot bolster the security of any nation because they represent a threat to the security of the human race. These incredibly destructive weapons are an affront to our common humanity, and the tens of billions of dollars that are dedicated to their development and maintenance should be used instead to alleviate human need and suffering. (WCC Leaflet)

[...] the threat or use 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 of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. (ICJ Advisory Opinion, par. 105, subsection 2 E).

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

1) fail to discriminate between military and civilian personnel (Principle of Discrimination);

2) cause harm disproportionate to their preceding provocation's and/or to legitimate objectives (Principles of Proportionality and Necessity);

3) cause unnecessary or superfluous suffering (Principle of Humanity);

4) affect neutral States (Principal of Neutrality);

5) cause widespread, long-lasting and severe damage to the environment (Principle of Environmental Security);

6) use asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or substances (Principal of Toxicity). (WCP)