Reply to Thames Valley Police ‘Reporting a Crime’ response

Dear Kevin,

Thanks for the long awaited letter. Of course I am saddened by your
reply but not surprised. I was hoping that you would investigate it all
much more thoroughly as we were not presenting a full prosecution case
at this stage!! I think you did not take into consideration that we were
talking about the UK’s nuclear arsenal of 100 kt nuclear warheads
combined with their defence policy of use in certain circumstances. The
ICJ case was talking about nuclear weapons in general and had to also
take into account possible tiny nuclear weapons …… the quote from
the President of the ICJ case - Judge Bedjaoiu - was of relevance here
and I would like to quote it again …… you can find it on page 90 to
page 91 of ‘Trident and International Law - Scotland’s Oblilgations’ -
edited by myself and Rebecca Johnson ISBN no is 1-906817-24-3.

“As a post-script to my Geneva speech above, and for the use of all
those in Scotland wishing to ensure full compliance with international
humanitarian law, I would like to stress that the International Court of
Justice in its Advisory Opinion of July 8, 1996, did not have at its
disposal adequate elements of fact to permit concluding with certainty
whether a specific nuclear weapon system would be contrary to the
principles and rules of the law applicable in armed conflict. The Court
was asked to rule on a general question of use and threat of use of
nuclear weapons. If the Court had been asked to rule on the legality of
a specific nuclear weapons system or doctrine the conclusion we arrived
at might well have been much clearer.

I have been asked to give a personal opinion on the legality of a
nuclear weapons system that deploys over 100 nuclear warheads with an
approximate yield of 100 kt per warhead. Bearing in mind that warheads
of this size constitute around eight times the explosive power of the
bomb that flattened Hiroshima in 1945 and killed over 100,000 civilians,
it follows that the use of even a single such warhead in any
circumstance, whether a first or second use and whether intended to be
targeted against civilian populations or military objectives, would
inevitably violate the prohibitions on the infliction of unnecessary
suffering and indiscriminate harm as well as the rule of proportionality
including with respect to the environment. In my opinion, such a system
deployed and ready for action would be unlawful. In accordance with
evidence heard by the Court, it is clear that an explosion caused by the
detonation of just one 100 kt warhead would release powerful and
prolonged ionising radiation, which could not be contained in space or
time, and which would harmfully affect civilians as well as combatants,
neutral as well as belligerent states states, and future generations as
well as people targeted in the present time. In view of these
extraordinarily powerful characteristics and effects, any use of such a
warhead would contravene international and humanitarian laws and
precepts. In other words, even in an extreme circumstance of
self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake,
the use of a 100 kt nuclear warhead – regardless of whether it was
targeted to land accurately on or above a military target — would
always fail the tests of controllability, discrimination, civilian
immunity, and neutral rights and would thus be unlawful.

In my opinion, any state that aids and abets another country, in the
deployment and maintenance of nuclear warheads of 100 kt or comparable
explosive power would also be acting unlawfully.

The modernisation, updating or renewal of such a nuclear weapon system
would also be a material breach of NPT obligations, particularly the
unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to “accomplish the
total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear
disarmament” and the fundamental Article 6 obligation to negotiate in
good faith on cessation of the arms race and on nuclear disarmament,
with the understanding that these negotiations must be pursued in good
faith and brought to conclusion in a timely manner.”

I will of course send your letter to the 60 people who attended the
Reading Police Station on 8th February and it will go up on our website.

Love and peace, Angie.