Originally Posted by VeniVidiVicous
I agree with the first part, claiming the maneuver was preparation for an attack was a bit of a stretch. You have to keep in mind though that politics is a lot like pro. wrestling, there's a lot of posturing and empty dialog on both sides before anything conclusive actually happens.
The UN has the option of staying out of NK's business doesn't it, Why aren't they sanctioning the US for having a nuclear arsenal?
First, NK is in violation of International law because they signed the NPT originally. If you look at that agreement http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html
under article 10, paragraph 1 'Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
(Italics are mine.
This means, in the accepted form by the UN that you have to withdraw first, then begin your development of those weapons 90 days later. By developing nuclear weapons first
they violated International law. An agreement they signed, then violated assuming impunity.
As one example, the reason the Shrub used basically the same threat against NK as Kennedy did when facing off against the Russians was because giving any technology or materials linked to nuclear weapons is also a violation of that treaty. Since a NEST team (Nuclear Emergency Support Team) can tell you who processed the weapon's grade material right down to the year
it was processed in most cases. They don't even need to enter the country (Such as say a terrorist organization setting off a tacnuke); all they have have to do is fly a plane through the fallout cloud and collect some, and less than 24 hours after that blast, Kim could expect hell on Earth; and having the survivors say 'but we already backed out of the treaty' would cut no ice anywhere in the world
So your premise is that we should just ignore the fact that they are already in violation of the law? By the same token we should ignore every criminal ever caught.
As for the nations that already have such weapons, all but Israel, China Pakistan and India have voluntarily reduced their own arsenals under START.