NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello fellow un members. I am writing to propose a ban on trade of weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, uranium. After seeing the free trade of these weapons to "unqualified" nations in the international incidents. These WMD are and will be a serious threat to any nation. I propose we expell any un members selling or buying. Influence nearby countries/regions to impose trade embargo or take military action. The WMD is a serious problem, I urge my fellow nations to address this problem. We must track of WMD trade through the internation incidents under the underground sales and evidence of of possession through news, military advisors’ reports, and use of the weapons.

A UN resolution has already passed that eliminated all biological weapons of UN member-states. Besides that point, your proposal will not pass. Elimination of nuclear weapons would leave UN member-states at the mercy of non-UN member-states with nuclear weapons.

No exactly at the mercy. This policy is one that would use a first strike military action against the country in possession. We would pressure that country by influencing the neighboring regions/countries to flex their miltary might against the country in possession. Trade embargoes will also be issued. The biological proposal extends only to bio/chem weapon, not nuclear or radioactive. This is a world where there is no need for WMD. We can not stand by and watch one small country bring a nuclaer holocaust against another, it is our mission to prevent the deaths of millions of peoples.

Anyone who uses force against me like this will be attacked with nuclear weapons. Deuschte Wermachte, you have been warned. Your actions are noble but ill planned. Many nations will never comply.

A letter arrives from the Kingdom of Sigmarinen

To the United Nations

As you are probably aware the easy access to nuclear weapons has lead to a catastrophy. The State of Unralia lost over 5.000.000 men due to the fact that terrorists had nuclear weapons. We need to restrict the existence of nuclear weapons to a few, only in the hands of the United Nations. OR bann the nuclear weapons totally.

You have no diplomatic power. Do not threaten my arsenal. We have these weapons for SELF DEFENSE. Your position is threatening to our national security.

This policy is one that would use a first strike military action against the country in possession. We would pressure that country by influencing the neighboring regions/countries to flex their miltary might against the country in possession.


Considering the rather disastrous ramifications of this concept in the Real™ world, I am amazed that you would consider it here.

My nation is not large enough to have a nuclear program...yet. But rest assured we do plan on establishing one. If only to defend ourselves against those who think a pre-emptive strike is a good idea.

I'm with New Kingman. Don't come after my arsenal. I'm all about not using biological weapons. But I will NOT reduce myself to using tree trunks and rope. It may have worked for the Ewoks on Endor, but I'll not be taking chances.

You have no diplomatic power. Do not threaten my arsenal. We have these weapons for SELF DEFENSE. Your position is threatening to our national security.
We threaten yours and many other nations' security in the defence of the world, those nations who seek war in place of diplomatic and peacful solutions are foolhardy and become threats to their neighboring nations.

Your threat of my national security will not come out good for you. Do not make me defend my nation. You do not want to see that.

Although Outer Uiguria alleviates the imperative benefit of disarmament, we understand the problems that countries with nuclear capabilities for self defense have concerning this matter.

Maybe there is a possibility of forming a resolution banning usage of nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons (that pose no threat of aggression nor retaliation)?

Ok lets redraft this. Only UN members may have nuclear weapons. There must be strict control over these weapons. The country must have an unanamous vote from their region to use these weapons. You must under ANY circumstances try to discriminate between civilian and military targets, minimize as much as you can the civilian casualty. As UN members that possess these weapons, we must deter any non members from possessing these weapons or influence them into the UN. If we have strict control, we may not have to use these weapons and instead resort to more peaceful alternatives.

SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Ok lets redraft this. Only UN members may have nuclear weapons. There must be strict control over these weapons. The country must have an unanamous vote from their region to use these weapons. You must under ANY circumstances try to discriminate between civilian and military targets, minimize as much as you can the civilian casualty. As UN members that possess these weapons, we must deter any non members from possessing these weapons or influence them into the UN. If we have strict control, we may not have to use these weapons and instead resort to more peaceful alternatives.

Well, this is better. I'm not saying it's good, or practicable, but it's better.

I don't see a way to force non-member nations to either lose their nuclear programs or join the UN. At least, not without causing major international incidents.

I'll grant you that doing nothing isn't a fantastic solution either. For my part, though, I would rather do nothing and allow a risk to stay where it is than take an action that could provoke those risks into reality. There are nations who choose not to be in the UN for reasons which, while not in line with our own ideologies, work for them. Some of these nations have nuclear programs. If we try to force them into our group, or forcibly take their weapons, we may end up forcing them to USE those weapons against us.

I would humbly suggest that it's better not to provoke them. My nation is small at present. A couple well-placed nukes could annihilate us. :cry:

I think that there is no clear solution. Whoever has them will use them.

Maybe, make them inactive. Keep them in storage until the need arises, for any nation with active nukes can launch whenever neccessary, and if they are invading, they can send one quickly. So instead, inactive nukes, you pretty much get time on your side against that opposition. A short time, but still time. That is what matters.

Wow...the frequency of these kind of resolutions is rising. Used to be every three days or so, now it's at least one a day.

Deutsche: This topic has been beaten time and time again...a UN resolution against WMD puts the entire UN at the mercy of non-member states, as has been pointed out in hundreds of threads on this same topic.

Has anyone else got the issue "Easter Egg" about a level that would end the world?

Easter Egg! - Should we pull the Lever?

The Issue
During the middle of the night, someone has mysteriously put a lever in the middle of the city park. On it, it says, "Pull the Lever, and See the World End."

The Debate
"I've always wanted to see the apocalypse." says a elderly man on a park bench. "All that fire and brimstone. To see God's wrath. Something I can tell my grandchildren about later on. I say we should."
[Accept]


"Not on your life!" says says his wife sitting next to him. "If you pull that lever, we'll have no grandchildren, no life, only heaven and hell. Don't you dare pull that lever."
[Accept]


"Now, don't think if it as a do/don't option," says a hot dog vendor. "What if we give tours so that people can see the lever? Not to touch it of course, but to see that humanity can be ruined by such a contraption. We can make a profit."
[Accept]

Pull it! Pull it!

What if it does actually end the world?

(I did pull it but...)

we will nuke any country that comes after us in such a fashon.
does any one understand the extreme danger in giving up ones deterent, and hoping for the best.
this reminds me of british before ww2 "hitler is someone we can do buisness with"
are you a nevile chaimberlin want to be ?
there are better british leaders to look up to such as churchil

In view of the activities of a faction within the United Nations which wishes to disarm the remainder of the world and leave us at the mercy of that notoriously irresponsible and erratic organization, the Director of Defense of the Federation has submitted a plan for the production of 140 long-range ballistic missiles over the next two years, to be armed with thermonuclear warheads. Our current small arsenal of short-range missiles and bombs is considered an adequate deterrent against the territorial ambitions of our neighbors, but not against the whole United Nations. Anticipating swift approval by the Assembly, uranium processing concerns have already hired 8,000 new workers, and manufacturors have begun construction of the missiles without even waiting for a contract.
The Assembly is also expected to lift the current ban on research and production of biological weapons.

Director, Department of Foreign Affairs,
Federation of Rational Self Interest

Thomas J. Mill