Probably, but those optics are almost as bad as mildly irradiating the port of Dunedin (yeah, that happened) and then shipping it on to California and Georgia for internment.

For a long while, waste management at McMurdo was “tow it out onto the sea ice, and wait for summer”. The sound is littered with who only knows what.

Antarctic Treaty forbids the disposal of nuclear waste there.

What actually backs up the treaty? What happens if it is broken?

You still might want the other side to hold onto parts of the same treaty...

In this case the result might have been the Russians deploying nuclear energy or even weapons there.

Some parts of the world luckily still seem to run on this obscure ancient thing called morality, trump didn't have time to mess up this part of the world

Oh really? Please name those places, and the relevant agreements/treaties they uphold for purely moral reasons.

What part of the world is that?

Sometimes treaties are made and nobody needs to be threatened for people to keep them. That's what it means to be in society. If you cannot have treaties without the threat of outside violence you are in a primary school playground.

Try not paying your taxes, or paying fines, resisting bailiffs, and yet refusing to go to court/jail and see how things work outside the "primary school playground". You'll see it is all based on the threat of physical force, even if you can't see so. If violence is the last resort, is is by that measure the "foundation" of society, if not the basis.

That said, the international community is not "society". You can have all the treaties you want, the threat of violence comes when nations care to break them.