I wonder when the UN will stand up and impose trade bans on the US for such deeds.
That's setting the bar low.
Strictly speaking, the US has veto power in the UN Security Council, which usually has primary responsibility for binding actions on matters of international peace and security, including, inter alia, taking binding action in response to threats to the same such as by grave breaches of international law by a nation-state.
However, its worth noting that -- at US urging in the context of the Korean War -- the UN established a mechanism (under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution [0]) by which the General Assembly can step in when the Security Council is unable to act because of deadlock among the veto powers.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly...
Secretary is essentially another word for Minister, and NATO's Secretary-General is its supreme commander in wartime. The UN's leader is called the Secretary General because he is in essence its Prime Minister, not because you get confused between a Secretary and his/her secretaries...
Unless you think General Secretary Joseph Stalin was a powerless functionary, of course.
>The UN's leader is called the Secretary General because he is in essence its Prime Minister
Both are wrong and wildly imaginative.
>General Secretary Joseph Stalin
Yes, but there's also a historic reason behind that title. The leader (like Chairman Mao) of the Soviet Union was supposed to be a sort of secretary for the workers. "Soviet" actually means "council"; the "chairman" and "secretary" names are communist propagandaspeak to give the impression that the workers are the ones in charge.