NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal someone came up with:

Description: GUIDED by the mission of the United Nations to promote peace and stability,

EMPHASIZING the obligation of all member states to comply with both the letter and spirit of all United Nations principles, policies and resolutions for the purpose of creating a peaceful world,

CONCERNED about the great number of states that are in possession of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,

BELIEVING that chemical and biological warfare cannot be reconciled with international humanitarian law,

ALARMED by the existence of nuclear warfare amongst various states that are members and non-members of the United Nations,

AWARE of the need for policy and action to address the threat that nuclear proliferation amongst non-member states poses to member states,

TAKING NOTE of all preceding United Nations resolutions, including “Rights and Duties of UN States,” “Reduce Black Market Arms Sales,” and “The Nuclear Terrorism Act,”

1. PROCLAIMS its long-term policy against the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons;

2. DECLARES that it is illegal for any state to:
a. Possess chemical or biological weapons;
b. Seek to develop or acquire chemical or biological weapons;
c. Sanction, permit or otherwise encourage any kind of chemical and biological weapons proliferation;

3. DECLARES that it is illegal for any state with a population below 500 million people, as measured by United Nations population statistics, to:
a. Possess nuclear weapons;
b. Have any kind of nuclear weapons program;
c. Sanction, permit or otherwise encourage any kind of nuclear weapons proliferation;

4. DECLARES that it is illegal for any state with a population equal to or in excess of 500 million people, as measured by United Nations population statistics, to:
a. Possess more than one nuclear explosive per 100 million people of the respective state, as measured by United Nations population statistics, at any given time;
b. Possess or develop a nuclear weapon whose explosive yield exceeds the equivalent of one megaton of TNT;
c. Deploy nuclear weapons in a manner that directly targets civilians or has a disproportionate impact upon civilians;
d. Deploy nuclear weapons when circumstances do not clearly necessitate such action;
e. Sanction, permit or otherwise encourage any kind of nuclear weapons proliferation in nations whose population is below 500 million;
f. Sanction, permit or otherwise encourage any kind of nuclear weapons proliferation amongst non-state individuals or groups;
g. Engage in the sale or international shipment of nuclear weapons or materials for the construction thereof;

5. CALLS UPON all member states to:
a. Monitor the peaceful use of materials capable of being used in the production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons;
b. Report all information relative to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and relevant materials to the United Nations;
c. Take all reasonable means to encourage compliance with the principles of this resolution by non-member states;

6. AUTHORIZES the overwhelming deployment of Ignore Cannon strikes against any United Nations member state that attempts to act in violation of this resolution;

7. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that the long-term anti-proliferation policy can eventually outlaw nuclear warfare and remove all nuclear weaponry from existence.

Now, because I feel like having a bit of fun with it, my reply:

Flavor Text above numbered sections: Biological weapons are already illegal in the UN. Doesn't stop outside nations from using them. Also, this is illegal due to the fact that UN resolutions can only affect member nations.

1. Which doesn't stop antimatter, plasma, graviton, temporal, chronoton, or energy weapons being proliferated, most of which are far more dangerous than nukes. Of course, that's only a handful of the items.

2. Once again, biological weapons are already illegal in the UN.

3. Yay! I get to hit nations with 498 million people with overwhelming military force and they can't do a thing to stop me! Yay! Expect a lot of small nations to be bullied if this passes a vote.

4. The nonmember nations will enjoy the fact they have more nukes, as they cannot be affected by this. I want to see how you're going to prevent nonmember nations using this to their advantage.

5. Once again, UN RESOLUTIONS CANNOT AFFECT NONMEMBER NATIONS. Considering that nonmember nations outnumber the UN nations and those nonmembers happen to have superior military forces to back them, attempting to enforce this on them will only result in a lot of UN nations being involved in long, bloody wars they'll eventually lose. Plus, this also treads on those of us who play nations in space, and quite a few of us won't hesitate to use weapons more powerful than anything you have access to in response. Top it all off, you won't have the nuclear supply necessary to even have a chance of attempting to fight back. Expect the UN to lose a lot of members to this.

6. Unnecessary and limits roleplaying possibilities. Plus, it's not the UN nations you need to be worried about.

7. Removing nuclear weapons is, ironically, something that would require this to be repealed if it passed. And considering the results of what is likely to happen, I don't expect the UN will bother banning nukes after the slaughter is done.

Anything telling us what our 'mission' is isn't worth the time of day.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

The People's Republic of Communist Collectives voice our STRONG opposition to this proposal, which would damage our capacity to defend ourselves from the fascist, capitalist and evil nations of the world which would seek to depose our supreme autocracy of justice and equality for our people.

Response to DemonLordEnigma's Post:

1. True. Please do make suggestion on UN policy on these matters. I can only try to solve so many problems.

2. Why should a disarmament resolution not reaffirm existing policy on the matter? [OOC: I refer you to the real UN, which constantly reaffirms previous resolutions.]

3. Small nations are already incapable of possessing nuclear weapons due to practical limitations. [OOC: God-moding guidelines indicate that small nations are presumed incapable of developing their own nukes.] Thus, if a small nation possesses nuclear weapon, it means that they participated in the international sale thereof, which poses a great threat to international security and increases the risk of nuclear terrorism.

4. True, non-members are not bound by this resolution. Hence the diplomatic efforts that are mentioned in clause 5 and misunderstood by you. Note that the difference between a decent stockpile of nukes and an overwhelming stockpile is not a matter of deterrence, but rather how many civilians can be brutally slaughtered. Thus, the efforts of armed members at present and their allies (including non-members of conscience) should be sufficient.

5. This resolution does not seek to place any obligations or call for warfare with non-members who engage in nuclear proliferation. Note that non-members are not forced or subject to demands, but rather encouraged. Furthermore, such encouragement deals with general principles, not the specific mandates mentioned earlier in the resolution. Since such action is only encouragement and must be reasonable, it would be absurd to try to bring about desirable results through war. Thus, nations have discretion as to diplomatic means to encourage nations to disarm. This can consist of such actions as offering special trade concessions to disarming non-members, seeking alliances with those that limit their stockpiles or simply issuing press releases to praise nuclear disarmament and criticize those who increase their stockpiles.

6. Unnecessary? I’m not sure, but I see no reason not to clarify that Ignore Cannon responses are appropriate to deal with any member who tries to claim to launch a 20 megaton bomb.

7. Untrue. Where does this resolution explicitly give a nation a right to possess nukes? It doesn’t. It merely outlaws specific actions while leaving others untouched. This does not prevent the UN from later outlawing the actions that were not explicitly forbidden. Here’s how you can do it:

THE UNITED NATIONS,

SEEKING to create a nuclear-free world,

RECALLING that the “PLS Disarmament Plan” prohibited many egregious actions with regard to nuclear proliferation without addressing others,

NOTING that it is illegal for member states to deploy nuclear weapons when not necessary to do so,

CONSIDERING the modern and historical record of nuclear deployment,

1. REAFFIRMS the obligations placed upon all UN member states;

2. FINDS that there are no longer any circumstances in which deployment may be necessary;

3. DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that it is henceforth illegal for any state to:
a. Possess nuclear weapons;
b. Have any kind of nuclear weapons program;
c. Sanction, permit or otherwise encourage any kind of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Response to DemonLordEnigma's Post:

1. True. Please do make suggestion on UN policy on these matters. I can only try to solve so many problems.

Official UN policy is to let them be. Unofficially, it's because most nations don't take such resolutions seriously and the few who do would be screwed over enough to be weakened beyond repair. Those nations would turn against the UN, and it would be bloody.

The best policy is not to regulate. It saves nations in the long run. In the short run, people are going to die no matter what path you take.

2. Why should a disarmament resolution not reaffirm existing policy on the matter? [OOC: I refer you to the real UN, which constantly reaffirms previous resolutions.]

You're one of those. Okay, a little secret: This is not the real UN. This is as far from it as you can get and still have some semblence of humanity involved. The NSUN is more equivolent to the early US, only with actual democracy, than to the real UN.

Reaffirming is redundancy, something that is often complained about by even the mods. You can point to it to back you up, but that's as far as most of us prefer.

3. Small nations are already incapable of possessing nuclear weapons due to practical limitations. [OOC: God-moding guidelines indicate that small nations are presumed incapable of developing their own nukes.] Thus, if a small nation possesses nuclear weapon, it means that they participated in the international sale thereof, which poses a great threat to international security and increases the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Actually, the limit on small nations is below 200 million for building your own nukes, 100 million for purchasing them in most cases. I've had access to nuclear weapons since my nation had 175 million people, just chose not to build any for a long time.

Oh, and that great threat to international security has existed since before anyone here has been around. The sale and proliferation of nuclear arms has gone on for far longer than I care to say. And even if you limit small nations in the UN, it doesn't stop small nations outside the UN from getting nuclear weapons and using them. Reducing the protection ability of small nations inside the UN merely eliminates the only defense they have against the large, 1 billion plus nations that sometimes want a land grab.

4. True, non-members are not bound by this resolution. Hence the diplomatic efforts that are mentioned in clause 5 and misunderstood by you. Note that the difference between a decent stockpile of nukes and an overwhelming stockpile is not a matter of deterrence, but rather how many civilians can be brutally slaughtered. Thus, the efforts of armed members at present and their allies (including non-members of conscience) should be sufficient.

Diplomacy doesn't work well when the other side doesn't give a damn about it and just wants your land. It also tends to suck badly when said other side decides to use their military superiority to bully you. If you wish, I can demonstrate.

You have to know how nuclear stockpiles work as a deterrant. It's the MAD Principle: Mutually-Assured Destruction of both sides. And if you think a nuclear weapon cannot be used on the military, you have not seen enough to understand them.

5. This resolution does not seek to place any obligations or call for warfare with non-members who engage in nuclear proliferation. Note that non-members are not forced or subject to demands, but rather encouraged. Furthermore, such encouragement deals with general principles, not the specific mandates mentioned earlier in the resolution. Since such action is only encouragement and must be reasonable, it would be absurd to try to bring about desirable results through war. Thus, nations have discretion as to diplomatic means to encourage nations to disarm. This can consist of such actions as offering special trade concessions to disarming non-members, seeking alliances with those that limit their stockpiles or simply issuing press releases to praise nuclear disarmament and criticize those who increase their stockpiles.

How naive. I enjoy reading such and laughing.

You don't get it, do you? Many NS nations will outright attack if you even attempt to force them to obey a UN resolution. Those nations do not wish to have the UN ruling them in any form. And if this passes, you can expect several UN nations to be attacked right off the bat.

To think war is not a reasonable method is to not be in touch with the reality of NS. War is often going to be the only way you're going to get access to the information of how many weapons they even have. And if you try to disarm them, including my nation, you will get attacked, probably with the same weapons you're trying to take away. Hell, I won't hesitate to reduce your nation to molten rock, so I can bet that others are just as willing as well. That's something to think about as you look at this.

6. Unnecessary? I’m not sure, but I see no reason not to clarify that Ignore Cannon responses are appropriate to deal with any member who tries to claim to launch a 20 megaton bomb.

It's unnecessary because UN nations have no option of disobeying.

Also, a 20 megaton bomb is well within the range of possibility. Hell, the Soviet Union could have built nukes in the hundreds of megatons. And if you think that is bad, keep in mind some of my cannons reach 200-300 gigatons and a few reach higher than that. Then again, those cannons are usually mounted on space ships.

7. Untrue. Where does this resolution explicitly give a nation a right to possess nukes? It doesn’t. It merely outlaws specific actions while leaving others untouched. This does not prevent the UN from later outlawing the actions that were not explicitly forbidden.

It says it here:

4. DECLARES that it is illegal for any state with a population equal to or in excess of 500 million people, as measured by United Nations population statistics, to:
a. Possess more than one nuclear explosive per 100 million people of the respective state, as measured by United Nations population statistics, at any given time;

You have limited nukes to one per 100 million. This, of course, allows some nations to have 300 or more nukes. Anything that outright bans nukes contradicts this statement.

Here’s how you can do it:

THE UNITED NATIONS,

SEEKING to create a nuclear-free world,

RECALLING that the “PLS Disarmament Plan” prohibited many egregious actions with regard to nuclear proliferation without addressing others,

NOTING that it is illegal for member states to deploy nuclear weapons when not necessary to do so,

CONSIDERING the modern and historical record of nuclear deployment,

1. REAFFIRMS the obligations placed upon all UN member states;

2. FINDS that there are no longer any circumstances in which deployment may be necessary;

3. DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that it is henceforth illegal for any state to:
a. Possess nuclear weapons;
b. Have any kind of nuclear weapons program;
c. Sanction, permit or otherwise encourage any kind of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Contradicts the portion I quoted from your current proposal.

"international humanitarian law"?????

There is no such thing!

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will never support a nuclear disarmament proposal due to the simple fact the there are many more nations that are not members of the UN than those who are.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will never support a nuclear disarmament proposal due to the simple fact the there are many more nations that are not members of the UN than those who are.
And that's why it doesn't make sense to support this.

OOC: The reason Global Disarmament is often brought up in the real UN is that every RL nation that is developed enough to have nuclear weapons is in the UN. I can't think of one that isn't.

Hmmm... "Peace Loving States"...

Maybe they are speaking of the "Peace of the Dead"?

All we can say is "We already have FAR in excess of 'one nuclear weapon per 100 million population', we started with nuclear technology, and if you don't like our nukes, we'll be happy to shower your nation with them".

To summarize this proposal:

"Useless, potentially fatal, yet entertaining".

To summarize this proposal:

"Useless, potentially fatal, yet entertaining".
I think you're even politely embellishing the entertaining part; I've only been on NationStates for a couple months and already have seen too many Nuclear Disarmament proposals to count.

5. This resolution does not seek to place any obligations or call for warfare with non-members who engage in nuclear proliferation. Note that non-members are not forced or subject to demands, but rather encouraged. Furthermore, such encouragement deals with general principles, not the specific mandates mentioned earlier in the resolution. Since such action is only encouragement and must be reasonable, it would be absurd to try to bring about desirable results through war. Thus, nations have discretion as to diplomatic means to encourage nations to disarm. This can consist of such actions as offering special trade concessions to disarming non-members, seeking alliances with those that limit their stockpiles or simply issuing press releases to praise nuclear disarmament and criticize those who increase their stockpiles.

Yeah, but how far will that go?

-Words mean nothing- you can criticize all you want but Rogue Nations (RNs) will see that nothing changes and won't be compelled to do anything
-You could impose economic sanctions on the RN, but a lot of RNs are united in alliances, so they'll be able to get economic reimbursment if needed
-You can't declare war, because the RN has the obvious advantage
-You could create an "Anti-Nuke League" but that just leads to the creation of factions and once you create factions you create war

In short, you have no way to police this, making it useless on a global scale.

Sovereign UN Territory

Catherine laughed, hard, as she saw this amusing UN proposal.

Shaking her head, and determining that she would have half a dozen of her minions shot, in order to accomodate her temper, she muttered a little, her thick, black pen crossing out line after line.

"Stupid... Stupid... DEAR GOD HOW STUPID IS THAT? Stupid... Against the rules... stupid... Oh, aaaaaaaand stupid. Not to mention ignoring effective capacities of member- and non- membernations, extending UN jurisdiction beyond its limits... Well, ok, actually I like this particular parts, but I will never manage to get the general assembly to agree... And this proposal would weaken my position. How stupid is THAT? Gotta call the gnomes, taking care of this ludicrous idea..."

She sighed as she tossed the piece of paper into a nearby wastebasket, where it bursted into flames, thanks to some very odd chemicals used on the basket's surface, the dramatic effect being, as usually, impressive.

"So, next one on the agenda... Oh, no, dear god, NOOOOOOOOO!"

The scream could be heard from three floors away.

Perhaps, just perhaps, her masterplan hadn't been such a good idea.

OOC: The reason Global Disarmament is often brought up in the real UN is that every RL nation that is developed enough to have nuclear weapons is in the UN. I can't think of one that isn't.
I was about to point this out but you beat me to it. Also, the issue that the number of nations NOT in the RL UN is small enough that if one of them got a bit uppity, they could easily be squashed. Not true in NS. In fact - quite the opposite.

Ummm why not ban nukes as well and destroy all uranium isotopes able to undergo nuclear fission?

Ummm why not ban nukes as well and destroy all uranium isotopes able to undergo nuclear fission?
Maybe you've forgotten about other uses for those isotopes?
On top of that, how would one go about destroying them?
And surely you can't go destroying elements in other nations, so you still have the problem that you have no big guns and the enemy does.

Ummm why not ban nukes as well and destroy all uranium isotopes able to undergo nuclear fission?
Because it leaves you at the mercy of non-UN member nations. Why would I want to support something that would do that?

How would that put you at thier mercy?

A) International outcry at the use of nukes

B) Bomb Them back without Nukes

C) Forge UN alliance to bomb (with conventional weapons) any nation that uses Nukes.

D) UN trade embargo with any nation using Nukes. (not sure if that is legal tho. It would be affecting them, but it would be the lack of something the UN is providing.

What kind of country woudl be willing to go bankrupt, get bombed to bits, and become ostracized for using a single nuke?

One that is fighting another nation and happens to hit a major population center with that nuclear warhead.

From the General Secretary of the Russkyan Politburo, the official response.
*Surprised silence. Contemplation of running the Hell away from the UN should this somehow pass.*

Nonmember nations would brutally slaughter us should you remove this much of our ability to strike back.

"Useless, potentially fatal, yet entertaining".

Upon being notified of Vastiva's response, the Politburo had a good laugh. We also cordially invite you over for a night of civilized political discussion and tea. (Read as: Hard drinking of Pertsovka and the well-educated Russkyan whores.)

*blink*

We accept.

In four simple words: No way in hell!

How would that put you at thier mercy?

A) International outcry at the use of nukes

More like "international indifference and/or laughter".



B) Bomb Them back without Nukes

Yeah, that'll work. I knock down a building, they glass my nation. Oooooh they're scared.

NOT!


C) Forge UN alliance to bomb (with conventional weapons) any nation that uses Nukes.

You ARE aware the UN is less then a third of all nations? And getting the UN to agree to a resolution is like herding cats.



D) UN trade embargo with any nation using Nukes. (not sure if that is legal tho. It would be affecting them, but it would be the lack of something the UN is providing.

Again, they won't care.



What kind of country woudl be willing to go bankrupt, get bombed to bits, and become ostracized for using a single nuke?

You grossly overestimate the effectiveness of your action.

More likely, the other country will (a) continue as before (b) have to rebuild a few buildings (c) get great kudos for having blown up a UN nation