NationStates Jolt Archive

The world is getting more dangerous every day. Each day countries develop more and more dangerous weapons. They do this to make other countries afraid and keep them from attacking them.
But at this moment more and more countries have these weapons and chances are getting bigger and bigger one of us might be target or have been targeted by these weapons of mass destuction.
To make an end of the development of these weapons of terror. Therefore we, the Empire of Upperlands, ask for the global ban on tests of Nucleair weapons. Also the exportation of knowledge to a country which might be developing nuclear weapons should be forbidden. Development of peaceful nuclear programs should be public to ALL countries and sharing information on this subject is allowed.
If a county has been found guilty of developing nuclear weapons they should be punished with a resolution. This could include a trade embargo, anti terrorist war or large payment to the UN of up to 20% of the GDP up to a term set by the UN or until the UN wants to cancel this.

Nuclear weapons make the world SAFER. Notice how there has never been a war with more than 10 million deaths since nukes have been invented, whereas WWII claimed the lives of over 50 million.

But note this was in two attacks (or three not totally sure maybe some one I forgot but I had this strange feeling Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ???) not 5 years of war. How terrible it was.

It was two attacks. Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to 250,000 total deaths (that's relatively conservative, the real number is probably closer to 300,000). That's about 0.5% of the total number of deaths in WWII.

Without nukes, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Korean War or some other proxy conflict could've went global, leading to a war between the USA and USSR that would easily claim 100-150 million lives.

This has been proposed before. It's not going to pass.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Well, it was indeed just Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many other nuclear devices have been set off, but not as part of an attack.

The Global Market has a point about these weapons making the world safer. In "We Now Know" (an excellent book), John Lewis Gaddis notes that nukes "exchanged destructiveness for duration" in the Cold War. He explains by writing that, yes, the world remained peaceful, but with the side-effect of having everyone fixate on nuclear arms as the sole measure of power. This was great for the leaders of the Soviet Union, because nuclear capability was the only area in which the Soviets could hope to equal the US. It wasn't so great for the world in general (in particular people in the Eastern Bloc), because this perpetuated the Soviet system.

So nukes aren't all evil, but, even if we ignore their potential destructive capability, they aren't all that great either.

How are we supposed to follow the Gallagher Doctrine of "No army, lots of nukes" to defend ourselves?

Unfortunately, it does not take a lot of effort to convert a 'peaceful' nuclear energy program to one that produces plutonium to make nuclear weapons. Giving all nations access to information regarding the development of a nuclear program is idiotic.

Also, the entire business of imposing an embargo or going to war with a nation that developes nuclear weapons is equally nonsensical. Are we really going to go fight with a nation that has a declared stockpile of nuclear weapons (no nation is going to announce its nuclear capacity until it has sone weapons already)? No. If a nation really wants to develop nuclear weapons, a miserable embargo is not going to convince it to change its mind. An embargo might also have the harmful effect to turning the state into an exporter and proliferator of said technology in order to raise money (ie. North Korea).

I do however agree that the proliferation of nuclear weapons must be curbed or controlled in some manner (just not in the manner or way being suggested). No, nukes do not make the world a safer place. The reason we haven't had a nuclear exchange since WWII is because of the geopolitics of the cold war (and the resulting threat of M.A.D) and the fact that only a few nations possess nuclear weapons. M.A.D is however not a universal condition. It is only applicable when BOTH sides have sufficient stockpiles. It is quite possible for a nation with nukes to use it on a hapless one that doesn't.

How are we supposed to follow the Gallagher Doctrine of "No army, lots of nukes" to defend ourselves?

Why not? At least this way your military will be defensive.

I think there have been more casualties after WWII but that's more because of the regimes in those times (Red Kmehr, Stalin, China) not wars. But all this is quite interesting. Also small groups could get more easy access to these weapons now. And small countries would be more likely to attack. Their heads too high in the clouds (in this case in this game)

I think there have been more casualties after WWII but that's more because of the regimes in those times (Red Kmehr, Stalin, China) not wars. But all this is quite interesting. Also small groups could get more easy access to these weapons now. And small countries would be more likely to attack. Their heads too high in the clouds (in this case in this game)

Yeah governmnets have killed 200 million people in the 20th century.

Even if a smaller group gets a nuke, it won't be able to do nearly that much damage.

Nuclear weapons make the world SAFER. Notice how there has never been a war with more than 10 million deaths since nukes have been invented, whereas WWII claimed the lives of over 50 million.

The USSE Government agrees with the statement.

Without nukes, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Korean War or some other proxy conflict could've went global, leading to a war between the USA and USSR that would easily claim 100-150 million lives.

Remember in the Cold War, both sides could have destroyed the world many times over. This must not be possible ever again.

Yes, nuclear weapons are important and they have the potential of preventing war, they also could lead to the destruction of the Human race. Fallout is horrible for the environment and could easily damage innocent countries. There is also the issue of M.A.D.

Now, how to find a balance? It is the position of the USSE government that countries be limited to an aresenal of 500-1000 nuclear warheads.

Doomsday device research must be prohibited.

One opinion from our citizens is that nuclear weapons add to our culture.

"If it wasn't for Hiroshima, where would Mad Max and Dr. Strangelove be?"-Comrade Peter of the Naka-Loma State Farm

Although not the position of our government, Comrade Peter does make a good point.

UN Ambassador Ethan Dier
Representative Of The United Socialist States Of Ernestgrad

I would only support this if it covered the entire NS world (which it can't) and only for RP purposes (nukes have contributed almost nothing RP wise to the game).