NationStates Jolt Archive

I plan on righting a proposal on limiting nuke production, testing, mega tonnage, etc. What do you think a good tonnage would be, and a cap on nukes able to be kept in a stockpile. Also don't give me that 0 crap cause it has to be acceptable

why is 0 not acceptable?

Try telegraming the Evil Overlord - he's actual military and very good at that stuff.

0 isn't acceptable because most of the world would reject it. Can someone add some stuff?


G2 Nuclear Weapons Proposal

Obejective
To prevent the spread,testing, and the number of nuclear weapons


Article 1
No nations founded after the date Oct. 1st, 2003 may own/produce/test more than a defensive 10 nuclear weapons.

Article 2
Nations may not sell weapons to nations created in the months of Oct 2003 and the months following it

Article 3
Nations may only be allowed to have only 7,000 Nuclear Weapons, this includes ICBMs and tactical nukes, at the one time.

Article 4
Nuclear weapon tonnage may not exceed 52 Megatones

Artice 5
Nations may not test nuclear weapons outside of its boarders, in international waters etc.

Artice 6
Nations may not plant nuclear arms and their launchers on the moon.


This will get alot more detailed later on

why is 0 not acceptable?

Becuase nukes save my country a fortune in money that would otherwise be spent on conventional weapons to defend us from liberals like you who want to steal our money to fund your own socialist failure experiments.

It does not matter on the weight, It depends on the range and power of each missile/bomb that are already in existance.

There is no need to have an excessive amount of missiles etc. that your nation (or indeed any other nation) would be able to use.

Keep the ones you have (although nukes have never proved to be a deterrant ).

Cancel manufacturing and use the vast amounts of revenue saved to make your country a better place for your people, and all the peoples of the world.

General H.H.Hoppy
Military Advisor to The Directorate
Republic of Aylandfive

why is 0 not acceptable?

Becuase nukes save my country a fortune in money that would otherwise be spent on conventional weapons to defend us from liberals like you who want to steal our money to fund your own socialist failure experiments.

I thought you were the liberal. Anyway why would you need a large conventional army to defend against a nation with no military?

why is 0 not acceptable?

Becuase nukes save my country a fortune in money that would otherwise be spent on conventional weapons to defend us from liberals like you who want to steal our money to fund your own socialist failure experiments.

I thought you were the liberal. Anyway why would you need a large conventional army to defend against a nation with no military?

Comparatively large. One nuke could save me the expense of 10,000 troops.

To the representative of Deaths plaything:

Suggestions for your proposal-

1. Ensure that you use proper spelling and grammar. I know the resolution you typed so far is a rough draft, but I am letting you know that people will jump all over it if you don't proofread.

2. Think of a different topic. Nuclear Arms is a divisive issue. Anything remotely involving nukes has no chance of reaching quorum, let alone passing due to the extreme opinions of delegates. The same goes for abortion, marijuana, and many other argumentative issues.

Chair of the Har Akir Business Bureau
Prime Minister of the Borderlands
UN delegate for the realm of Thirteen Sixty-nines


edit: spelling!...if this were a resolution, I would vote against myself...

Bump Also about 2, I know enough delegates to get atleast 100 Votes.

Bump please help.

Why aren't i allowed to have as many nukes as i want, tell me please, in the name of national security. I mean if non- UN nations have them then why can't i?

Bump

To the representative of Deaths plaything:

Suggestions for your proposal-

1. Ensure that you use proper spelling and grammar. I know the resolution you typed so far is a rough draft, but I am letting you know that people will jump all over it if you don't proofread.

2. Think of a different topic. Nuclear Arms is a divisive issue. Anything remotely involving nukes has no chance of reaching quorum, let alone passing due to the extreme opinions of delegates. The same goes for abortion, marijuana, and many other argumentative issues.

Chair of the Har Akir Business Bureau
Prime Minister of the Borderlands
UN delegate for the realm of Thirteen Sixty-nines

Har Akir is right. Some issues aren't going to reach quorum, probably ever. As for spelling and grammar, it's a must.

Article 1
No nations founded after the date Oct. 1st may own/produce/test more than a defensive 10 nuclear weapons.

Be sure to specify the year. Furthermore, this doesn't specify what happens when one of the 10 nukes are fired...can the nation get another one?

Article 2
Nations may not sell weapons to nations created in the months of Oct. and the months following it

Again...what year?

Article 3
Nations may only be allowed to have only 7,000 Nuclear Weapons, this includes ICBMs and tactical nukes, at the one time.

No problem here.

Article 4
Nuclear weapon tonnage may not exceed 52 Megatones

Megatonnes, not megatones.

Artice 5
Nations may not test nuclear weapons outside of its boarders, in international waters etc.

Article, borders are spelling errors.

Artice 6
Nations may not plant nuclear arms and their launchers on the moon.

I think this is dealt with in Article 5, as the number of space-faring nations will block any reasonable interpretation of this article.

If submitted with the changes recommended above, I will approve your proposal.

Hey, you could limit nukes to just 'tactical' size weapons if you'd like. That's vague enough to be a resolution, yet restricts them to slightly more 'sensible' tonnages.

Gd luck with the proposal.

I still say you should call for total disarmament, compromise is bad as in a way in only calling for partial disarmament you are legitamising the hoarding/use of nuclear weapons and may well encourage non nuclear nations to develop their own. Not to mention the loopholes that would no doubt be found in any resolution calling or partial disarmament.

Then how the hell do I defend myself when someoen, say Cirdistan, makes a nasty proposal like "tax rich countries to fund minimum wage in poor countries that are poor because they are socialist."

I think that october is a little old... Your talking nations that have well over a billion and a half people, and only ten nukes?

Extremely important in my eyes is saying that this proposal applies to all nations, even those not in the UN, with the possibility of armed resonse should a nation refuse to comply. I know that their is no security council, but otherwise non-UN nations would be easily able to bully UN nations with nukes.

General Yalsti, Melforlo Security Forces
cc: Prime Minister Ult-quai,
Melforlo

I meant Oct 1st 2003 I'll edit latter, thanks

I meant Oct 1st 2003 I'll edit latter, thanks

*confused*

So Deaths plaything is your puppet?