NationStates Jolt Archive

Harm minimization in warfare

It is recognised that, despite the best attempts of people to achieve "world peace", the reality remains that this is impossible and won't happen. So, we need to minimize the damage and harm caused in wars.

Therefore, we propose this resolution acts as the following:

1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
All UN nations will be forbidden from purchasing nuclear weapons, and must make commitments to reduce their arsenals by between 5-10% per annum. UN inspectiors will also have unfettered access to any suspected nuclear site in any UN nation to make sure arsenal reduction and no new weapons are being made.

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction (chemical & biological)
All UN nations will be forbidden from purchasing WMDs, and must make commitments to reduce their arsenals by between 5-10% per annum. UN inspectiors will also have unfettered access to any suspected WMD site in any UN nation to make sure arsenal reduction and no new weapons are being made.

If nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are deployed against any nation, the UN will immediately intervene and impose complete economic sanctions on the country. UN forces will also invade the offending country if the leaders are not extradited to the UN for war crimes trials and immediate destruction of their arsenal does not begin.

bump

Well, what if the intent of the WMDs is to destroy the world or something similar?

Fact: MAD worked.

Telling nations to dismantle their nuclear weapons systems is, quite frankly, idiotic. We've had this discussion on here several times in the past few weeks, I'm not going to repeat the same few reasons.

MAD worked because the only national leaders who had access to nuclear weapons also had an interest in their own country's fate and in maintaining the global status quo, and faced similar opponents.
Some petty dictator, faced with overthrow by another petty dictator, might very well resort to the use of nuclear weapons, even if the result would be mutual annihilation of both nations, because said dictator has no national loyalty and would rather see a large section of the world, including his own people, obliterated than let brand X win.
Furthermore, this proposal would leave every UN nation at the mercy of we nuclear-armed non-UN nations, so we find it perfectly congenial, even though it's sloppily written and doesn't even appear to realize that the UN itself doesn't even have any military with which to intervene in recalcitrant nations.

MAD worked because the only national leaders who had access to nuclear weapons also had an interest in their own country's fate and in maintaining the global status quo, and faced similar opponents.
Some petty dictator, faced with overthrow by another petty dictator, might very well resort to the use of nuclear weapons, even if the result would be mutual annihilation of both nations, because said dictator has no national loyalty and would rather see a large section of the world, including his own people, obliterated than let brand X win.

Kin Jong Il for example.

OOC: Kin... lol great typo!

IC: It must be taken care to remeber that all countries in the world are not members of the UN. Therefore, a certain amount of deterrent is required by members to protect themselves from these non-UN members (and frankly, some of them are out to get a few members [not me specifically, just reading the backlogs, that is the impression I get]). Thus it would be slightly unreasonable to ask these nations to compromise their national security.

does this mean the UN also loses all its nuclear weapons, the mods might not like being able to "nuke" those rule breakers...

Also, more importantly, if I have 5 nuclear weapons then do I never need destory them, or can I just "destroy" half of one, perhaps by dropping it over a neighbouring (and liberal scummy rubbishy) state.....

brings in an interesting thought, but basically Killerland is rather keen on the idea of having nuclear weaponary, and using them to remind countries that what we do in our own backdoors is totally legal, no matter what the rest of you think, and if you disagree, well, you get a rather charming mushroom wakeup call one morning

;)

PS: We don't want to limit ourself just to tactical nuclear war either, chemical weaponary and bioligical attacks are all part of a well balanced armed forces, and if we want to use them somewhere other on the latest "pro-union" protests in our country, well, thats our right as an evil nation (Only if our fortune 500 companies agree of course, we wouldn't want to annoy our trading partners)

OOC: Kin... lol great typo!

IC: It must be taken care to remeber that all countries in the world are not members of the UN. Therefore, a certain amount of deterrent is required by members to protect themselves from these non-UN members (and frankly, some of them are out to get a few members [not me specifically, just reading the backlogs, that is the impression I get]). Thus it would be slightly unreasonable to ask these nations to compromise their national security.

Assuming he exists at all...

Harm minimalization may involve initial mass killing to eliminate a long, drawn out war.

OOC: Kin... lol great typo!

IC: It must be taken care to remeber that all countries in the world are not members of the UN. Therefore, a certain amount of deterrent is required by members to protect themselves from these non-UN members (and frankly, some of them are out to get a few members [not me specifically, just reading the backlogs, that is the impression I get]). Thus it would be slightly unreasonable to ask these nations to compromise their national security.

Yes, we'll either need to protect ourselves individually, or through a UN protective force which in itself might become a danger to members.

War itself might be described as the process of doing damage on such a wide scale that one side loses all willingness to resist.

While WMD are a danger to world peace (MAD worked in the past, but today's geopolitics are not the same as they were ten or twenty years ago), asking all UN nations to reduce their arsenal, while non-member nations maintan theirs, is foolish. Furthermore, the creation of a UN army is dangerous and will not be condoned by New Clarkhall.

It's a very well meaning idea but unenforcable and un realistic

It's a very well meaning idea but unenforcable and un realistic

Realistic enough if you consider pre-emptive strikes against everyone