posted
She has a point though...although now I suppose one can legally go after people who've nuked something for nuking it and having the weapon in the first place. Aside from that, it seems a useless law.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if you bought it before the treaty went into effect, then you're still okay. What's the date on your receipt?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
um yeah... and what are the possible legal reasons to have nukes? I mean, isn't the whole point to kill people?
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: She has a point though...although now I suppose one can legally go after people who've nuked something for nuking it and having the weapon in the first place. Aside from that, it seems a useless law.
This is the UN after all...your statement should say that this gives the UN the power to write a letter condemning the nuclear attack as illegal once it has happened.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Dragon, having a personal nuke is certainly a status symbol. Why else would India and Pakistan have so squandered their resources on nuclear armament when the effort could have been much more productively applied elsewhere. Or for that matter why would the US and the USSR have acquired vastly more nukes than any reasonable reckoning of targets? Admittedly not very utilitarian without considering the killing power. But what the heck, some people are impressed by Lamborghinis, mansions, gold and other similarly fanciful items. Being the first on the block with a personal nuke would gain one some small measure of respect from such folk.
The NRA must surely approve of the UN's egalitarian approach to possession of nuclear arms. Non-terrorists may have their nukes even if their intent is to kill and injure. And terrorists may possess them as long as there is no provable intent to kill or injure. Consider how difficult the state of mind provisions are to apply to eg Enron... ...then think upon the BinLaden tapes discussing the WorldTradeCenter attack. If memory serves, there was no discussion of people being killed or injured, just the fall of the Towers. Since the UN apparently believes that even a high probability of collateral damage should not be counted toward intent, one could safely nuke ones*own cup of coffee -- collaterally vaporizing a city -- without crossing the "intent to cause death or injury" line.
* Intentionally nuking somebody else's coffee would cause the personal injury of temporary caffeine deprivation as well as the financial injury of having to purchase another cup.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
