NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe we should make a proposal that will forbid the use of nuclear weapons at any cost, except when a country is attacked with nuclear weapons by a country outside the UN (or by an evil UN country)? But besides that nobody must use nuclear weapons in the UN. Since there is no resolution like this and we all know that nuclear weapons destroy alot, not only people and buildings, but also economy and environment.
So should we forbid the use of nuclear weapons?

President of Equility

I don't think that many nations actually use their nukes, because they know that most of their opponents have those weapons as well. It's called the MAD philosophy. (Mutually Assured Destruction) Who would want to be the cause of the destruction of their own territory and people?

I don't think that many nations actually use their nukes, because they know that most of their opponents have those weapons as well. It's called the MAD philosophy. (Mutually Assured Destruction) Who would want to be the cause of the destruction of their own territory and people?

Yes, but hey, you never know what psychotic dicators get in their minds.

I don't think that many nations actually use their nukes, because they know that most of their opponents have those weapons as well. It's called the MAD philosophy. (Mutually Assured Destruction) Who would want to be the cause of the destruction of their own territory and people?

Yes, but hey, you never know what psychotic dicators get in their minds.

I agree we should ban the use of weapons. But most perople bearly use them anyway

I agree we should ban the use of weapons. But most perople bearly use them anyway

Yes but what happens WHEN they ARE used? This thought is unbarrable.

It looks like at least 65% would support or would considere supporting such a resolution. I still will look at the results the coming days. I will write a proposal and propose it soon.

It looks like at least 65% would support or would considere supporting such a resolution. I still will look at the results the coming days. I will write a proposal and propose it soon.

Alright, as nobody is voting anymore or nobody is responding to this message I think I know enough. Tomorrow I will post a proposal to forbid nuclear weapons and I will post a new thread when that is done. People please think about it already. Now off to sleep.

UN Ambassador Equilism
The Allied States of Equility

Excellent idea because Xha'dam has always wanted to be at the mercy of the non-UN nations.

"Where's the Kaboom? There's supposed to be an Earth shattering Kaboom"

Alright, as nobody is voting anymore or nobody is responding to this message I think I know enough.
Equility, nobody responded because nobody thought it was a good idea.

In spite of the fact that you and only you are responsible for 6 of the first 7 posts in this topic, you're still going to post your proposal? Dude, haven't you ever heard of a lost cause?

Let's see how reality has used nuclear weapons to save lives

Hiroshima Bombing - yes...a brutal end to a brutal war...however, this bomb allowed the Japanese to surrender and end the bloodshed in Japan...at the death of many innocent civilians...

Cold War - they had em, we had em...we feared a nuclear war...so neither of us aged war on each other...which made sure that more blood wasn't needlessly shed

Alright, as nobody is voting anymore or nobody is responding to this message I think I know enough.
Equility, nobody responded because nobody thought it was a good idea.

In spite of the fact that you and only you are responsible for 6 of the first 7 posts in this topic, you're still going to post your proposal? Dude, haven't you ever heard of a lost cause?

You'd be right if the majority said "No" in the poll, but unfortunatly for you that isn't the case. The majority (65%) would support or would considere supporting this proposal.

I would vote for a proposal to remove all nuclear/chemical/biological weapons (henceforth known as "NCB Weapons") from the nations that presently have them, and forbid any further research of, development of, and construction of NCB Weapons by all nations of the world, UN or not, to be enforced by all members of the UN.

Yes, it has a dark side, but eventually I will be able to look at my kids and smile. Knowing that they will never have to know that type of destruction.

I wonder what would have happened if the US had been forced ban its nuclear weapon? Hiroshiama was bad, but who would have preffered a carpet bombing of japan, millions dead in a land invasion, and a second world war that lasted until 1947? Nuclear weapons are a powerful detterent, but also an extremely efficient strategic consideration. People tend to forget that relatively few people die in newk attacks compared to conventional bombing; its the pshychological value that misleads opinion. Banning nuclear weapons makes no more sense than banning conventional bombs and no nation should submit to being made this impotent.

Forbidding the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction is a bad idea. This weapons are basically a defense. If an enemy nation knows that you have weapons of mass destruction at your disposal he/she will be less likely to attack you or your region. I just say that everyone should stop trying to ban weapons of mass destruction.

Catholic Europe supports any proposal which seeks to ban nucelar weapons.

I would vote for a proposal to remove all nuclear/chemical/biological weapons (henceforth known as "NCB Weapons") from the nations that presently have them, and forbid any further research of, development of, and construction of NCB Weapons by all nations of the world, UN or not, to be enforced by all members of the UN.

Yes, it has a dark side, but eventually I will be able to look at my kids and smile. Knowing that they will never have to know that type of destruction.
I respectfully decline to join you and anybody else who thinks banning Nuclear weapons via a UN resolution will make them or their children safer.

As a number of nations have pointed out, myself included, non-UN nations will still have nukes. They will be more likely to use them on you because you don't. How you get the idea that you will be safer without nukes is beyond me.

I hope that no one bannes them from use. If the UN does for any reason a lot of people might retaliate on them. If any UN nation decides to invade my lands to remove my WMD's they will be met with hostile force.

I respectfully decline to join you and anybody else who thinks banning Nuclear weapons via a UN resolution will make them or their children safer.

As a number of nations have pointed out, myself included, non-UN nations will still have nukes. They will be more likely to use them on you because you don't. How you get the idea that you will be safer without nukes is beyond me.

Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. If you still don't understand - read it until you do.

Oh, I understand perfectly, it is just that it is not doable. We cannot enforse a UN resolution on non-UN countries. Any attempt to enforce this would simply result in the nations trying to enforse it, who no longer have nukes, attempting to go to war with nations who do have nukes. Do I have to tell you how that would turn out?

I don't think you understand how disarming works. Just think about it "globally" and upon the issues of enforcement, and you'll catch on...

I understand "globally" however many nations, myself included, would ignore any UN command to remove all our nukes. The UN would recieve a simple "bite me" and Xha'dam would continue to build and evelope nuclear weapons.

Impose sanctions and I will forge trade agreements with other nations unwilling to give up their nukes. Declare war and I will use nukes to defend myself and without nukes on your end, you wouldn't stand a chance.

Beyond those two options you have no leverage over any country. That is why your idea won't work. There is no way to enforce it.

And if I'm wrong, enlighten me. How would go about disarming the nations that want to keep their nukes?

Your proposal would be rather futile.... simple fact of the matter is that nuclear arms are a very large deterrant that, if banned, would then be subject to disarmament. Once UN nations are disarmed, what's to stop a non-UN country from firing one off? There's no MAD, no threat of equal retaliation, and no way in hell that the UN would ever support your proposal. Yes, in any hands they are devistating weapons, but consider this...

Conventional bombs lack both the striking power and psycological impact that seeing a big mushroom cloud does.

Conventional attacks, to be equally successful, would require a quantity of bombs so great that the cost would be far greater than sending a single, well-placed thermonuclear device. This end result spelled out in dollars would make your country's inflation so high it'll make the Russian ruble look as valuable as gold.

Simply because of their existance and the threat of their use exists there may be countless wars that have never been fought.

Because the weapon was developed, we have harnessed the power to generate electricity and power great sea vessels, largly reducing polution and use of fossil fuels. Yes, when mishandled a meltdown may occur, but with training and constant mantinence you can easily prevent most disasters.

I think the words you are not keying in on are 'by force'.

I would disarm you by force. The entire UN would send every member nation to disarm you and if you resisted... Well, we know what would happen. In the end, you would be disarmed. Once all the non-member nations were stripped, the member nations would then formalize some agreement between themselves.

That is historically accurate, however it is also brief.