Bombspotting against "illegal" nuclear weapons

  

While North Korea and Iran are preparing nuclear weapons to be deployed against the West, pacifists were demonstrating in Belgium last weekend against the nuclear weapons of the West. The "bomb spotters" held demonstrations in ten locations. One of them was Kleine Brogel, where US nuclear weapons are stored at an air base. Some of the activists succeeded in illegally trespassing the restricted areas. According to the activists, the nuclear strategy of NATO is "illegal" and everyone that contributes to it is an accomplice to "the preparation of war crimes".


The activists are refering to a 1996 decision of the International Court of Justice, which - according to the activists - declared "all nuclear weapons that exist today" to be illegal. The Belgian media are echoing this assertion without any critical comments or further examination. Former prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene supports the platform and wants all nuclear weapons to be banned from Belgium. He is urging all Belgians to participate in the blocking of Kleine Brogel Air Force Base on 9 August.

Let us examine whether the International Court of Justice really declared that "all nuclear weapons that exist today are illegal". The decision, which is in fact an "advisory opinion", can be found here, with the main text here. The Court says that the principles and rules of humanitarian law are to be applied upon the threat and use of nuclear weapons. Hence, civilian populations and countries that are neutral in a conflict, should be spared from the effects of such weapons. From this, the pacifist movement concludes that all nuclear weapons are illegal, because nuclear fallout does not stop at borders. But the Court also says in its conclusion:

in view of the present state of international law viewed as a whole, [...] the Court is led to observe that it cannot reach a definitive conclusion as to the legality or illegality of the use of nuclear weapons by a State in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which its very survival would be at stake.

In other words, the Court doesn't say anything about the mere possession or storage of nuclear weapons. It even refuses to prohibit the threat or use of nuclear weapons in circumstances of self-defence.

So, nuclear weapons are not illegal in themselves. It all depends on the way they are used. And I suspect that the "illegal" slogan is just a trick to justify the illegal tresspassing of restricted areas by the activists.

If you're completely against nuclear weapons, you should bear all the consequences. What-if analyzing is always difficult, but I do not exclude that without the threat of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, a conventional World War III would have started in Europe over the Berlin issue. If not, there would still be a Cold War going on, and we would still have compulsary military service (draft) in Europe. The Cold War ended only because the arms race exhausted the Soviet Union economically and financially, to the point of total collapse.