NationStates Jolt Archive

Our region Equilism has proposed that nuclear weapons will be forbidden to use for UN countries, except in the situation that a country is attacked by this weapons. In all other cases it should be forbidden.

Proposal:
We propose that the use of any nuclear weapons will be forbidden to the countries of the United Nations, as we know many countries posses this extremely dangerous weapons.
Nor STRATEGIC nuclear weapons (Bombs, Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, Intercontinental ballistic missiles, Air-launched cruise missiles) nor NON-STRATEGIC nuclear weapons shall be used upon countries of the U.N. and countries outside the U.N. This weapons can ONLY be used as defence against attacks with nuclear weapons, except this unique situation it is forbidden to use this weapons.

The reason for this is that these weapons destruct environment, economy, human life, infrastructure and everything else that people have build and nature has created.

It would be reasonable and wise to let this proposal pass, if you care about your country and foreign countries. Eventually the most important thing is that human life will be continued.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is our proposal. If you'd like to approve it, do a search for Nuclear.

Thank you.

UN ambassador for the region Equilism

And this is exactly why I'm not in the UN.

And this is exactly why I'm not in the UN.

No problem, that's your choice.

NUCLEAR that's right NU-CLE-AR that solves problems and that's why the UN will never be effective by the time u do something I nuked u twohundred times 8)

NUCLEAR that's right NU-CLE-AR that solves problems and that's why the UN will never be effective by the time u do something I nuked u twohundred times 8)

As the proposal already said, it is allowed to use Nuclear weapons in defence to Nuclear attacks.

If you outlaw Nuclear weapons, how are you going to actually enfroce the ban?

OOC: e.g. the current Iraq 'thing'. How can you know whether a country owns them or not?

If you outlaw Nuclear weapons, how are you going to actually enfroce the ban?

OOC: e.g. the current Iraq 'thing'. How can you know whether a country owns them or not?

With inspectors. But of course a country can hide them and it's not always possible to check this, but would the UN discover this they should be banned by the UN. The point you mention actually counts for every law, how will you keep doctors to doing ethanasia right, how will you enforce companies to pay more to their employees etc. Lot's of rules could be got around. But rules are needed, and without rules the world would be a chaos, don't forget that.

The countries that actually care about human life won't use nukes except in self-defense anyway. The countries that don't won't give a shit.

The countries that actually care about human life won't use nukes except in self-defense anyway. The countries that don't won't give a shit.

To forbid nuclear weapons is a fallacy. If you make them illegal, only illegal states (i.e. states outside our jurisdiction) will use them, making them all the more deadly. What should be done is a REGULATION of nuclear weapons, to make sure that we do not possess stockpiles of these deadly devices.

Since apperantly Equility wasn't able to take a clue the first time, let me restate What a wonderful idea. Xha'dam has always wanted to be at the mercy of the non-UN nations

If they UN bans WMD's it would just make non UN nations like me and my area all the more dangerous. This is why I'm not a member of UN.

If they UN bans WMD's it would just make non UN nations like me and my area all the more dangerous. This is why I'm not a member of UN.

I do not support this proposal as it was clearly not thought out, but yet another porposal issued by another nation that merely wants it's name in lights for the 15 seconds it can grab...

I do not support this proposal as it was clearly not thought out, but yet another porposal issued by another nation that merely wants it's name in lights for the 15 seconds it can grab...

Thank you for your opinion but I won't agree on that. We think it's impossible to ban nuclear weapons, we would gladly support this though. Banning this weapons in the UN is possible, but then non-UN countries could attack us and we could not strike back with the same power.
Banning this weapons in the world world is impossible, through the UN at least. As the jurisdiction of the UN only reaches the countries which are in the UN. So we came to the conclusion that this is the best solution for now at least, UN countries now never could launch Nuclear attacks besides when they are attacked with this weapons. We though believe that if it would be possible all nuclear weapons should be banned in the world, unfortunately this is impossible.

To forbid nuclear weapons is a fallacy. If you make them illegal, only illegal states (i.e. states outside our jurisdiction) will use them, making them all the more deadly. What should be done is a REGULATION of nuclear weapons, to make sure that we do not possess stockpiles of these deadly devices.

Yes but you can't force non-UN countries to not possess them.

It is no impossible to ban weapons, it just takes bigger balls than the fame-monkeys have...

It is no impossible to ban weapons, it just takes bigger balls than the fame-monkeys have...

Pff, tell me please how to ban all the weapons in the world. It looks to me you are very naive.

The most effective use of a nuclear attack is as a sudden, pre-emptive 'knockout' blow. this is esspecially effecrtive against rouge or illegal states, which generally have a weak social fabric. If a UN nation was to wait until actually being attacked, it would only be maximising the destructive potential of nuclear war on both itself and its enemy. How can equility justify legislation that would lead to such a state of affairs?

The most effective use of a nuclear attack is as a sudden, pre-emptive 'knockout' blow. this is esspecially effecrtive against rouge or illegal states, which generally have a weak social fabric. If a UN nation was to wait until actually being attacked, it would only be maximising the destructive potential of nuclear war on both itself and its enemy. How can equility justify legislation that would lead to such a state of affairs?

I can't see your logic, why should we even use nuclear weapons to attack others? Why should we anyhow attack others? We should never use this weapons.

Seems to me you are the naive one here, as you clearly refused to believe the overwelming opposition to your bunk the first time you attempted to propose it...

Seems to me you are the naive one here, as you clearly refused to believe the overwelming opposition to your bunk the first time you attempted to propose it...

You're wrong, I looked at the poll statistics, and they said the majority would say yes. As simple as that.

And this is exactly why I'm not in the UN.

I hear ya! I left because of this and the fact that for every decent resolution, there is like a dozen ignorant ones that are passed.

You're wrong, I looked at the poll statistics, and they said the majority would say yes. As simple as that.
Equility, you gave the same response to me. It's not satisfactory.

Despite that fact that UN forum readers continue to give you suggestions and advice on how this isn't acceptable and why, you continue to rely on a tiny statistical sample in a single, silly poll to make your point. A total of 72 people responded to this poll, but the results are so close as to make the poll meaningless"Would you vote for a resolution that will forbid the use of nuclear weapons, except when someone attacks you with this weapons?
Yes 48% [ 35 ]
No 44% [ 32 ]
Maybe 5% [ 4 ]
No idea 1% [ 1 ] I have no doubt that if anyone were foolish enough to Approve this bill in its current form, you would have an awful lot of sheep looking at it and saying to themselves, "Ohhh, nuclear weapons ARE bad. I'm clicking FORBID". Those among us who take the time to think about issues would vote against this ban.

We're taking time out of our lives to try to explain to you why we object to your proposal, and you just point to those numbers and say, "See? Told ya so." Why don't you take a few minutes to review BOTH topics, READ the responses, and then come back here with a reasoned response instead of what you keep posting.

You're wrong, I looked at the poll statistics, and they said the majority would say yes. As simple as that.
Equility, you gave the same response to me. It's not satisfactory.

Despite that fact that UN forum readers continue to give you suggestions and advice on how this isn't acceptable and why, you continue to rely on a tiny statistical sample in a single, silly poll to make your point. A total of 72 people responded to this poll, but the results are so close as to make the poll meaningless"Would you vote for a resolution that will forbid the use of nuclear weapons, except when someone attacks you with this weapons?
Yes 48% [ 35 ]
No 44% [ 32 ]
Maybe 5% [ 4 ]
No idea 1% [ 1 ] I have no doubt that if anyone were foolish enough to Approve this bill in its current form, you would have an awful lot of sheep looking at it and saying to themselves, "Ohhh, nuclear weapons ARE bad. I'm clicking FORBID". Those among us who take the time to think about issues would vote against this ban.

We're taking time out of our lives to try to explain to you why we object to your proposal, and you just point to those numbers and say, "See? Told ya so." Why don't you take a few minutes to review BOTH topics, READ the responses, and then come back here with a reasoned response instead of what you keep posting.

I've read the responses in both topics and it's not only about that numbers. I proposed something of what I personally think is right, when I explain to people why I think this is right you people start coming up with naive arguments like forbid nuclear weapons in the whole world or it is stupid to do this because we will be attacked by this weapons.

< throws hands up in utter frustration and moves on, hoping to locate someone who has an open mind >

< throws hands up in utter frustration and moves on, hoping to locate someone who has an open mind >

So that's how you solve problems. Nice solution.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint reserves the right to develop, manufacture and deploy nuclear armed forces. Additionally, we reserve the right to use ANY weapon in our arsenal in any conflict as our military commanders deem appropriate.

You can have our nuclear weapons when you pry them out of our cold, dead fingers.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint reserves the right to develop, manufacture and deploy nuclear armed forces. Additionally, we reserve the right to use ANY weapon in our arsenal in any conflict as our military commanders deem appropriate.

You can have our nuclear weapons when you pry them out of our cold, dead fingers.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

You can develop and manufacture them. But never use them against others without being attacked with the same weapons. Launching such attack is very wrong.