NationStates Jolt Archive

Nuclear weapons are a serious threat to our world and its citizens. Currently there are enough nuclear weapons to render the planet uninhabitable several times over. Therefore we, The People's Republic of Urgabah, propose that limits be placed on the number of weapons a nation be allowed to stockpile. We suggest that each nation be allowed to possess one hundred weapons for every one hundred million citizens. If a nation possesses numbers of weapons over these limits, they must be destroyed.

Your support or feedback on our proposal would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
President B. Silenoz, The People's Republic of Urgabah

It'll never pass, people love their nukes.

This idea comes up every three days or so...basically, the problem with it is that, since it will have no effect on any non-UN nation, it essentially leaves the UN members with no adequate deterrent to a nuclear attack by non-UN members.

I agree. Many countries have nuclear weapons, but aren't in the UN. The only way to deter these nations from attacking others with nukes is to have nukes of our own. I suggest that the proposal be defeated, as it will make a political minefield... maybe there's a new idea.

BAN ALL LANDMINES!

maybe i didnt make myself clear enough. this proposal is not completely banning nuclear arms, just limiting them to 100 for every 100,000,000 citizens. most countries have populations near 1 billion people. under this proposal a population of 1 billion would allow you to possess 1000 nuclear weapons. how many nuclear arms do you really need?! are the days of CONVENTIONAL arms gone?

how many nuclear arms do you really need?!

That depends. How many nukes does the non-UN member who gets off to blowing everything in sight to kingdom come think he needs?

Ahem.

Actually, banning nuclear weapons will do, well, crap all.

The technology currently available to the various nations makes it a simple matter to create a new or grow or modify a current micro-organism into what can simply be called a biological weapon.

I mean things like anthrax, which I am sure we all heard about recently are just an old example, recently documents were uncovered that proved RL Britain was planning in the event of a total invasion of their island nation, during WW II to launch all air craft loaded with anthrax bombs and to obliterate RL Germany in stategic areas and so eliminate all command elements, that attack had it happened would have quite literally exterminated all human life in a matter of weeks in that country and surronding areas.

Now days its not nuclear weapons that pose a threat, its the new biological and chemical weapons that threaten nations, as they can eliminate an enemy and its civilian base, while in some cases allowing an almost imediate acquisition of their territory.

Nukes are a simple deterant weapon as an air burst nuke would eliminate all enemy ground forces in a area where they were gathered together or at least put them into enough dissaray to halt or stop any advancement, also governments of the world, mostly, are too sane to initiate any nuclear conflict, knowing it would probably result in the MAD scenario (Mutually Assured Destruction, and irocic acronym to boot). Oh, and don't think a country would not air burst a nuke on their own soil to halt invasion, although there would be collateral damage to them its better then hostile occupation, the permanent kind...

You should be more concerned about limiting the sale or movement of the technology rather then the attack the symptoms approach you propose.

Your with dignity and respect, A Rep of Komokom.