Charles Moxley Jr has spent over 35 years as a litigator in New York, in large and complex commercial, securities, insurance and other cases throughout the United States. He is perhaps the last person one might imagine could bring about the end of a continually proliferating international presence of nuclear weapons. Yet personages as eminent as the late Robert S. McNamara, and Cyrus Vance, as well as nuclear security expert physicist Kosta Tsipis think he might have hit a promising line of attack to quell an ever growing international arsenal of nuclear weapons threatening just just world peace but civilization itself. Moxley analyzes the question in light of the July 1996 opinion issued by the International Court of Justice, as well as the law as articulated by the United States itself. Using generally recognized facts as to the characteristics and effects of nuclear weapons Moxley Jr concludes that the use of nuclear weapons is "per se" unlawful.To back up his arguments Moxley Jr wrote a comprehensive treatise, in excess of 800 pages, to examine both the International Court of Justice’s perspective, and also the legal claims made by the United States, in light of the known characteristics of nuclear weapons. His book, which took 10 years to produce in its first edition, was reviewed by major figures in the field, has recently been updated, and released as a two-volume set. It was the new release of these books that prompted our conversation.In our discussion we unpacked and clarified the various legal issues, as well as the rather strange and one might say absurd position of the United States regarding the effectiveness of their own nuclear weapons arsenal. The result is what can be a clear primer that can add a new perspective regarding the sanity of a world where over 10,000 nuclear weapons exist, with over 2000 such weapons kept on hair trigger alert, and perhaps encourage your own activism in this regard. At the very least it will reveal the remarkable circumstances surrounding the 1996 International Court of Appeals proceedings, and a legal case few outside of experts have ever heard about. I enjoyed the discussion and learned a great deal, and I hope the same will be true of you. As always, an ad-free video version of this podcast is also available to paid Critical Mass subscribers. Your subscriptions support the non-profit Origins Project Foundation, which produces the podcast. The audio version is available free on the Critical Mass site and on all podcast sites, and the video version will also be available on the Origins Project YouTube. Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related