THE U S CONGRESS has now passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. The most frequently cited reason was the possibility that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein may soon acquire a nuclear weapon. Since we ourselves own thousands of nuclear weapons, it seems odd to cite the future existence of a single nuclear weapon in another country as the basis for attacking that country.

Our senators and representatives have described Saddam 's nuclear weapon (which does not yet exist) as ''terrible,'' ''monstrous,'' ''hideous.''

This vocabulary of moral indignation seems appropriate, but it is not one we often apply to our own nuclear weapons. Many other countries do, of course, describe America's nuclear arsenal in the vocabulary of moral alarm.

In 1995, 78 countries from the UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to provide a judgment about the illegality and inhumanity of nuclear weapons. Did the United States urge the International Court of Justice to declare such weapons illegal or morally impermissible?

On the contrary. The United States filed a formal statement, coauthored by the Department of State and the Department of Defense, defending the legality of nuclear weapons. It argued that owning nuclear weapons was not illegal. It argued that threatening to use nuclear weapons was not illegal. It argued that using those nuclear weapons - even using them first - was not illegal.

Many countries addressing the International Court expressed their conviction that international covenants, treaties, and protocols are violated by the possession, threatened use, or use of nuclear weapons. Sweden, Iran, and Egypt each noted that weapons that inflict disproportionate suffering are prohibited by the 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg and the Geneva Protocols of 1925, 1949, and 1977.

The Republic of the Marshall Islands - reminding the court that atolls such as Bikini are still contaminated by the 66 atomic bombs the United States tested there - argued that nuclear weapons also violate the 1907 Hague Conventions prohibiting weapons whose effects trespass across the borders of neutral countries. India focused on the many ways in which nuclear weapons fail to follow ''rules of proportionality'' in international warfare and argued that nuclear weapons violate the United Nations Charter itself, whose fundamental purpose is to restrict force. Japan - describing itself as ''the only country to have suffered nuclear attack'' - argued that nuclear weapons contradict the philosophic foundations underlying international law.

The United States argued the opposite. It enumerated and rejected as inapplicable to nuclear weapons each and every international protocol, treaty, declaration, and human rights instrument intended to diminish suffering, as well as covenants intended to protect the earth, such as the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, and the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment.

What about the UN Charter restricting force? The United States acknowledged that the UN General Assembly has passed many resolutions declaring nuclear weapons ''contrary to the UN Charter.'' But it then dismissed these resolutions, telling the court that ''the General Assembly does not have the authority to `legislate' or create legally binding obligations on its members.''

Finally, what about the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide? In its written statement to the court, the United States argued that ''the deliberate killing of large numbers of people'' counts as genocide only if the aggressor sets out to destroy ''in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.''

US nuclear weapons exist; Iraqi nuclear weapons don't. US nuclear weapons number in the thousands; Iraq's count is zero. US weapons are (in the official view of the country) compatible with all international laws; Iraq's not yet acquired weapon is monstrous.

During the past year, President Bush has repeatedly announced his readiness to carry out a ''preemptive'' or ''preventive'' strike but has not specified the means. Should we feel certain that he would never use a nuclear weapon? During his June 1 speech at West Point, he appeared to set his announcement of a ''preemptive strike'' in a nuclear context by invoking the country's former nuclear strategy of ''massive retaliation'' and rejecting it as too little too late.

If we believe nuclear weapons are hideous, we should urge the president and Congress to state explicitly their pledge that they will not use such weapons. In the long run, we need to work to eliminate these weapons rather than holding an implausible and increasingly dangerous double standard.

Elaine Scarry is author of ''The Body in Pain.''

© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company

###