NationStates Jolt Archive

How about it? Do you think the "Ban Nukes" proposal
is a worthy enough cause for all of us to agree on?

Wuv

You want to ban nukes, bring it up with the people who have nukes. Try me, for starters. <reaches for The Button>

My currency are nukes.
So, how about no?

Let's ban nukes! One day, an honest nation like ours will be poking along, cleaning our pocket protectors, when we are shocked to find ourselves utterly annihilated by a rogue nation that doesn't follow all the rules. :shock:

*nukes you*
My people get 500 nukes per day!

i dont care if we ban nukes or not.

Let us all reflect on the Old-Timey saying:

"A nuke a day keeps the enemy away."

'Nuff said.

nuclear power all the way

Let us all reflect on the Old-Timey saying:

"A nuke a day keeps the enemy away."

'Nuff said.

Agreed - until the UN can put together a force large enough to take the nukes away from non-UN nations, there is no way we can ban these weapons.

"A nuke a day keeps the enemy away."
So . . . if everyone had them . . . there would be world peace? Punctuated by the occasional unfortunate accident, but essentially peace? Cool.

"A nuke a day keeps the enemy away."
So . . . if everyone had them . . . there would be world peace? Punctuated by the occasional unfortunate accident, but essentially peace? Cool.

Countries that have n00ks tend to be much more "respected" (read: feared) than other countries.

"I'd like to invade his nation, but... err... he has n00ks, so maybe that wouldn't be a good idea....."

And then collectors could have a "n00ks of the world" collection! Wow! Just like collecting currency, or dolls, or postcards, or those boingy-head thingies you see in the backs of cars!

Fact: MAD worked.

Fact: MAD worked.

I think you mean "The Threat of MAD worked" :lol:

Ban the nukes I'm working on a fusion bomb.

The Protectorate of Grotia is shocked at this blatant attempt to strip its citizens of one of the main forms of income, its peaceful uranium mining industry!!! HOW DARE YOU!!! We supply uranium to many nations, ensuring world peace through that proven military premise, Mutually Assured Destruction. In this case, our nation does not have to build these weapons, knowing we are under the nuclear umbrella of our Great Allies!!! I assure you, our people and the Almighty Leader shall stop at nothing to ensure this economic attack on us fails. Be warned...our secondary industry, door-to-door insurance sales, is currently upgrading your risk factor, and allowing bonuses of cash or free uranium to all who oppose your attempts at global terror! So there!!!

Down with the evil WuvFolk and their gangster government!

Support the right to defend yourselves with nuclear weapons!

We hereby announce the Protectorate of Grotia breaks off all Diplomatic Relations with the discredited government of WuvFolk. (Notice the deliberate use of the lower case on the work "government."

ICH DIEN!!!

Inn A. Falloutshelter
Minister of Uranium Extraction and Radiation Sickness.
Protectorate of Grotia

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, etc ...

Shameful, real shameful. Just want to voice your opposition
to anything so that people can hail you as their blatant
outspoken leader. Some of the above think they're being
real savvy and classy by opposing something so basic to
world survival.

No problem. Don't ban the nukes.

See ya in scorched & fried land!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, etc ...

Shameful, real shameful. Just want to voice your opposition
to anything so that people can hail you as their blatant
outspoken leader. Some of the above think they're being
real savvy and classy by opposing something so basic to
world survival.

No problem. Don't ban the nukes.

See ya in scorched & fried land!

When you ban nukes, only outlaw nations will have nukes.

Then we REALLY will be in scorched and fried land.

Ok, lets say that we propose banning nukes, it goes ahead and everyone has their nuclear arms taken away. Now, what exactly is to stop every non-UN nation from sending us all to a radioactive hell?

Seriously, we can't take THEIR nukes away, so what is going to stop them?

-Maitias Tomas
-President

You want to ban nukes, bring it up with the people who have nukes. Try me, for starters. <reaches for The Button>I agree with you, United World States. Countries with nukes are a majority in the NS world. Therefore your issue would not pass as a resolution.

Catholic Europe would support all proposals that seek to ban nucleur weapons.

The Democratic Republic of Fette, being a somewhat smaller nation, feels intimidated by the threat of nuclear weapons held by larger (and not necessarily more stable) nations. We would like to see a UN vote on this...

I am not a delegate, so I am not sure of this, but I'm pretty sure a 'ban the nukes' proposal has been up a couple of times and been shot down.

We agree with the proposal entirely. History does not present sufficient evidence to show the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction to be a viable deterrent; after all, the Cold War involved a limited number of nuclear powers, and lasted for what, in historical terms, is a very brief period of time. In the world of Nation States, where we have a large number of nuclear powers, many of which do not posess stable governments, it is hard to predict what will occur in the long run in terms of nuclear incidents. The principle of MAD is nice; but in NationStates, it is very, very likely that an accident (or a pre-planned incident, such as a nuclear sneak attack) will occur sooner or later. And the consequences of that could be truly terrible for all nations in the world. Nuclear deterrence is not at all worth the risks.

Thus, we feel that a policy should exist for nuclear disarmament. Non-UN members can be persuaded to disarm through economic initiatives or threats of sanctions and embargoes; eventually, non-UN members with nuclear weapons will be in the minority. And once they *are* in a minority, *then* they will be kept in check by fear of retaliation. For once the majority of the world's nations agree to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, those nations that use nuclear weapons at any point of time would face the wrath of the majority of the nations of our world -- and no nuclear arsenal will save their independence *then.*

So much do we favor this policy that we would like to announce that our Colony of the Planetian Empire recently began a program to eliminate all of our atomic bomb arsenals. We will continue to harness the atom to generate electricity, and for propulsion, as in our nuclear warships, submarines, and rockets; but in terms of weapons of mass destruction, our Colony will soon be a nuclear-free zone.

Office of the Governor

I agree all UN members should get rid of the Nuclear stock piles. Ignore my nuclear stock pile I'll get rid of it in a bit just a little after you do. :lol:

Economic sanction my rear get rid of the nuclear stockpiles and see how long your economic sanctions work. :evil:

And because of this terrible thing, I declare war on you.

down with nukes, they ruin the world and kill millions and no war either

We want them. We just increased our military budget. The People's Republic Of United Morgan is willing to purchase these weapons from any nation willing to sell them along with a nonaggression treaty.

It is true that simply banning nuclear weaponry will not produce results.

Therefore a better resolution, although perhaps more distasteful, would be:

a) That all weapons operating on the nuclear principle; that is weapons that irradiate land, air or sea be banned.

b) That any existing nations with nuclear weaponry must dismantle their entire stockpile and abandon proliferation policies.

c) That a force funded by UN Member States be set up to enforce this ban, with diplomatic, economic and military means available.

d) That, funded by and made available to all Member States, a missile interception system with rapid deployment and near 100% effectiveness be developed to defend all such Member States.

The age of the "Scorched Earth Policy" should long be behind us.

In house rules the UN cannot enforce its rules on none UN members.
Besides without your Nukes you won't have the might to even have a chance to force anyone to your will.

Oh and while your at it you can put that Sci fi magazine down. 100% missile defense system. :lol:

I've put this to some thought there is a good reason why the rest of the world doesn't want the US to have a nuclear missile defense system. When you knock one down they have to fall somewhere.
But since I'm a US citizen thats your problem. :evil:

Banning nukes is not a good proposal. I think prohibition of nukes will cause major international unstability and even new World War!

The world contains 72,282 nations and the United Nations has 25,959 member nations and 1985 Regional Delegates. So around 1/4 of the nations belong to the UN and a huge portion of those non member states are or want to be nuke powers so you figure it out. NS world needs MAD more than the real world did.

I only said NEAR 100% when voicing our proposals. Of course a system that is fully 100% effective is nigh on an impossibility, due to human and machine error.

Of course, one way of interpreting the idea of forcefully disarming nations is as pre-emptive self-defense.

And we are all in favour of nations having the freedom to lay waste to each other. What we object to is them doing so with weapons whose effects far outlast those of the warring nations.

Fine you remove your nukes first. :twisted:

We never had them, but as we practise what we preach, we have a very effective missile defense system, coupled with a few others.

Admittedly not 100% effective for the reasons stated already, but when you multiply the use by a factor of at least 1000, minor niggles like that soon drop away.

It is true that simply banning nuclear weaponry will not produce results.

Therefore a better resolution, although perhaps more distasteful, would be:

a) That all weapons operating on the nuclear principle; that is weapons that irradiate land, air or sea be banned.

b) That any existing nations with nuclear weaponry must dismantle their entire stockpile and abandon proliferation policies.

c) That a force funded by UN Member States be set up to enforce this ban, with diplomatic, economic and military means available.

d) That, funded by and made available to all Member States, a missile interception system with rapid deployment and near 100% effectiveness be developed to defend all such Member States.

The age of the "Scorched Earth Policy" should long be behind us.
Indeed. Any government that thinks it has any right to drop weapons capable of such devastation as if they were toys to be joked about should have no business overseeing innocent lives in their nation. It disgusts me how people discuss the matter so lightly- these weapons could unleash a devastation no leader caught in the deepest abyss of madness would find amusing. My nation has no nuclear weapons- I know many nations with no ill intent do have them though, for purposes of defense. On their behalf I think before we get rid of the nukes we need to get rid of the heartless leaders that would use them so casually. Or at least change their thinking.

allbe the chance slim, It is a chance none the less.

Nukes offer us one small chance of preventing one of the most horrible natural disasters. There are these little rocks in space the size of small planets to cities. Given enough warning we could deploy nukes on said rocks and give them te smallest push to deflect them years in advance.

If you worry about the environement and complain about species which disappear to extinction then a big honking rock whacking earth probably could be harmfull to the spotted owl and the shovel nosed mole.

While there are other options available in such an event, it is a good idea for all options to be kept open.

Therefore, a minor amendment:

e-a) The UN may retain, for extraterrestrial uses only, a small stockade of nuclear weapons. The deployment of these weapons would only be on the universal agreement of the UN, presuming that all Member Nations would want to try and save our planet from obliteration. Care must also be taken to research and limit the harmful effects of such a deployment.

e-b) Furthermore, these weapons would only be available as a last resort, so far as they remain effective. While it is incredibly foolish to use such potentially devastating weapons as a first choice, it is also foolish to only resort to nuclear weapons when the situation is so dire as to render them useless or cataclysmic.