NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyday in the world there is a war occuring and includes nuclear warfare. It comes to a sense that armies are no more use and conventional warfare is being replaced by unconventional warefare. Millions of people die due to the blasts and radiation. Land is destroyed and laid in ruins for many years thus therefore many years. This is an opportunity to reduce nuclear warheads to 1/4 of their original stockpile. Meaning if a country has 10000 nukes they would be reduced to 2500. Meaning they would use it for defense purposes only. There is a proposal already made.

UN delegate of Calpurnia

We need your opinion on this.

UN delegate of Calpurnia

Everyday in the world there is a war occuring and includes nuclear warfare. It comes to a sense that armies are no more use and conventional warfare is being replaced by unconventional warefare. Millions of people die due to the blasts and radiation. Land is destroyed and laid in ruins for many years thus therefore many years. This is an opportunity to reduce nuclear warheads to 1/4 of their original stockpile. Meaning if a country has 10000 nukes they would be reduced to 2500. Meaning they would use it for defense purposes only. There is a proposal already made.

UN delegate of Calpurnia

FAR more people have died in COnventional and Nuclear war. The strength in having nukes is not using them. If anything they are the modern world's best hope for peace.

I would have to make an arguement against the Global Market. There are many leaders who abuse the use of nuclear weapons that it leads to genocide and murder. We want to limit one's use and use it if necessary a defense.

I would have to make an arguement against the Global Market. There are many leaders who abuse the use of nuclear weapons that it leads to genocide and murder. We want to limit one's use and use it if necessary a defense.

Can you name those leaders? The worst genocide in teh last ten years [Rwanda] was performed mostly with farm implements.

anyway there are many leaders out there in the NS world abusing countries with threats and launching them for no reason it is a chance to stop this outrage.

Also remember we are NOT eliminating nuclear warheads we are just reducing the stockpile!

-UN delegate of Calpurnia

Also remember we are NOT eliminating nuclear warheads we are just reducing the stockpile!

-UN delegate of Calpurnia

That makes no difference. 2500 ICBMs with high-grade nuclear warheads could cause MAD just like 10,000 ICBMs could.

But remember who would launch all of them. I hope you would not. Imagine the world and if we had less nuclear warheads this could slash military spending on security on these nuclear warheads to preventt those terrorists from obtaining it. Also less fear could be done.

UN delegate of Calpurnia

You are a good opponent Global Market.

But remember who would launch all of them. I hope you would not. Imagine the world and if we had less nuclear warheads this could slash military spending on security on these nuclear warheads to preventt those terrorists from obtaining it. Also less fear could be done.

UN delegate of Calpurnia

You are a good opponent Global Market.

Nuclear weapons deter conventional arms. They helped prevent WWIII.

i believe that you can not take away the rights of a country to have a certain amount of any kind of weapon unless the country is threatening to use them unlawfully, if you took away 3/4 of the nuclear warheads in each country that means that alot of countrys would still have alot more than another and has room to use them as an offense than more as a defensive tactic. I dont support this but if it does happen i say you set everyone at the same number of nuclear bombs so then no country would have any room to attack another country that has less weapons than they do.

I suppose you are spending all that money for those nuclear arms. That money should go to education and other needs not for nukes.

Minister of Treasury
Collin Parks

We need your opinions for this.

Nuclear weapons as terrible as they maybe have left the world without a world war as long as they have existed. Furthermore, without nuclear weapons UN nations will be at the mercy non-member nations. Do no endorse this proposal and if it somehow becomes a resolution vote NO.

REmember You have some nuclear warheads for defense even if this proposal is passed. This proposal will help your country from budget deficits and the radicals off your back. I bet the strongest nation is spending millions of dollars or euros or what ever you prefer to maintain, and safeguard the nuclear warheads. Money could be used elsewhere. Think of the next generation. No next generation no country. No schools no future.

PM of Calpurnia

Everyday in the world there is a war occuring and includes nuclear warfare. It comes to a sense that armies are no more use and conventional warfare is being replaced by unconventional warefare. Millions of people die due to the blasts and radiation. Land is destroyed and laid in ruins for many years thus therefore many years. This is an opportunity to reduce nuclear warheads to 1/4 of their original stockpile. Meaning if a country has 10000 nukes they would be reduced to 2500. Meaning they would use it for defense purposes only. There is a proposal already made.

UN delegate of Calpurnia

So, you propose a unilateral disarmament of 3/4 of each nation's stockpile of nuclear arms. Well, then, what happens if your proposal becomes a resolution and passes? Nothing is stopping a nation from selling it's weapons to a non-UN ally, building up it's conventional military force, and posing the same threat to international peace that you yourself are trying to eliminate.

Also, in all my years of studying history, I have never heard of a nuclear weapon being used for "defense purposes only." The bombings in Japan were offensive attacks, and subsequent nuclear detonations were for test purposes only. And even if a nation only had 2500 nuclear warheads, that nation would still pose a significant threat, given that the (relatively primitive) bombs dropped during WWII killed roughly 500,000 people instantly. I'm not sure you fully appreciate the destructive power of nuclear devices.

There are several loopholes in your proposal that will be noticed by many, exploited by several, and critiziced in great multitudes.

I think no one should have nukes but my own wonderful island nation, Maipupu. Clearly I am least apt to start a war of agression with my huge 6 million in population, right? We're too busy drinking Coronas and playing the bongos to be shootin' off any of those rockets, mon.

-Malamas Kakawela