NationStates Jolt Archive

In the world today, it is necessary to preserve peace in order to allow countries to prosper. An international war is always imminent. Someday, a war costing thousands or millions of lives will happen if we do not take action.

The proposal calls for the reduction of all UN member countrie's military budget by 10 percent and also the deactivation of at least 100 nuclear weapons by all UN nuclear powers. Let us take action and save lives today!

What about the rogue nations that are not in the UN? They have militaries as well. They will invade at ANY sign of weakness.

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=peaceful%20world

Peaceful World 2003

Category: Global Disarmament; A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Boa Vista


Description: As the world is nearing the end of another year, one does not need to be reminded of the horrors of war. If war is to break out on a global scale, thousands of people will lose their lives and the cause of death will be simply living in an attacked country. It is, therefore, no longer viable to maintain status quo.

The lowering of international military spending by 10% and also the disarmament of at least 100 nuclear missile for all nuclear powers is necessary to protect peace and prosperity.


Approvals: 1 (Wind_waves_Water)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 133 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Dec 21 2003

Why is the spending decrease proportional when the nuclear disarming is not? Just curious.

Also, in the real world, there's only maybe two nations with 100 nuclear missiles to disarm -- are you sure you didn't mean nuclear warheads? One ICBM usually carries multiple nukes.

Peace in the world? look this is a world there has to be violence... not to mention my nation. Violence was used to conquer this country (US) and any other country... prolly your own nation.... so why don't you tree-huggin hippies get a life and look at the world... every country nations state was fought over to conquer... so jump in space... no one need's those damn hippies anyways

Peace in the world? look this is a world there has to be violence... not to mention my nation. Violence was used to conquer this country (US) and any other country... prolly your own nation.... so why don't you tree-huggin hippies get a life and look at the world... every country nations state was fought over to conquer... so jump in space... no one need's those damn hippies anyways

In the world today, it is necessary to preserve peace in order to allow countries to prosper. An international war is always imminent. Someday, a war costing thousands or millions of lives will happen if we do not take action.

The proposal calls for the reduction of all UN member countrie's military budget by 10 percent and also the deactivation of at least 100 nuclear weapons by all UN nuclear powers. Let us take action and save lives today!

Isn't it more likely that the reduction in nuclear arms by certain countries, especially when it is not proportional is likely to increase the chance of war. When certain countries have nuclear weapons it can make war less likely acting as a deterent to those, such as terrorists, who would happily attack. This idea would also weaken many nations who require defence to fend off the more aggressive nations who would probably ignore this proposal anyway. So it is likely to only affect the countries who are fair and just anyway as the more militarily aggressive may not follow the idea anyway.

We are nonmilitaristic and have no nuclear weapons.

It would seem to be an easy thing for us to comply with this resolution, but instead it will be wrenchingly painful.

Our military "vehicles" consist entirely of cloned prehistoric animals. We are very fond of them, and reducing them by 10% would be traumatic for us.

The nation of Collaboration need not worry. The reduction of military spending by 10% does not necessary mean the reduction of the size of the military by 10%. The lowering of spending by 10% is a diplomatic move that shows the UN member nations are committed to a future of peace and a world with less war.

Lowering military spendings by 10% will lessen the sense of hostility between nations and lower tensions. As for the fear of this as a sign of weakness, The Commonwealth Government will be submitting another proposal today encouraging the development of regional defense alliances. This will mitigate the fears.

As for nuclear missiles, nations can choose to deactivate them and send them to reserves, ready to be reactivated. The reduction of nuclear weapons is, in some ways, to lessen the amount of them available for launch.

bump

maybe...

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=peaceful%20world

Peaceful World 2003

Category: Global Disarmament; A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Boa Vista


Description: As the world is nearing the end of another year, one does not need to be reminded of the horrors of war. If war is to break out on a global scale, thousands of people will lose their lives and the cause of death will be simply living in an attacked country. It is, therefore, no longer viable to maintain status quo.

The lowering of international military spending by 10% and also the disarmament of at least 100 nuclear missile for all nuclear powers is necessary to protect peace and prosperity.


Approvals: 1 (Wind_waves_Water)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 133 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Dec 21 2003

Why is the spending decrease proportional when the nuclear disarming is not? Just curious.

Also, in the real world, there's only maybe two nations with 100 nuclear missiles to disarm -- are you sure you didn't mean nuclear warheads? One ICBM usually carries multiple nukes.

We have to stress the word at least. Nations can decide for themselves, but 100 is the minimum. Also, in the real world, nuclear weapons with more than 1 warheads are prohibited, at least between the US and Russia, so each missiles will have only 1 warhead. However, missiles can mean either the entire missile or just the warhead.

...in the real world, nuclear weapons with more than 1 warheads are prohibited, at least between the US and Russia, so each missiles will have only 1 warhead.

There is no such prohibition in NationStates. Might make a good proposal, though.

To put my question in a clearer (if rather arbitrary) light -- take two nations. Nation A has 1000 nukes and a military budget of $50 billion. Nation B has 101 nukes and a military budget of $10 billion. Under this proposal, Nation A will disarm 100 nukes, leaving them with 900 nukes, and cut spending by $5 billion, leaving them with a budget of $45 billion; Nation B will cut spending by $1 billion, leaving them with a military budget of $9 billion, and they will drop the required 100 nukes to have a grand total of 1 nuke. So, while you were intending for the nuclear disarming to be equal, you've greatly upset the nuclear balance of power between Nation A and Nation B.

I will introduce a component proposal allowing nations that will have to reduce their arsenal by 33% or more to be exempt from the requirement.

Also, like I said earlier, reducing budget does not mean the military is shrinking. You can cut military spending and still maintain the same military size, more or less.

It is the Empire's position that if this was to go into effect, the UN would be showing more weaknesses than stregnths. If the UN where to get rid of 10 million dollars and 100 neculear weapons, the UN would be able to easily fall after a single shot. You can't possibly think that the rouge countries out there don't have weapons of mass destruction and that if they had the chance that they wouldn't take it! This propostion cannot be allowed to pass!

I would love to live in a peaceful world. Unfortunately, this cannot happen until the threat of terrorism is destroyed.

you idiots need to come back to reality we have groups like the Black Legion who want to conquor the world, there are ruthless nations out their that are not U.N members that would like to conquer us and take over and you fools want us to disarm and make us unable to defend ourselves?