NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is the right way for the UN, we should disarm, all of us to create a better world and to give the right example. To find this proposal look at the first page of the proposal list.

Beautiful in theory, yes, but absolute rot in practice. Especially when UN membership is voluntary. The UN will crumble with disarmament of its members, because they will all be immediately attacked by non-members.

Beautiful in theory, yes, but absolute rot in practice. Especially when UN membership is voluntary. The UN will crumble with disarmament of its members, because they will all be immediately attacked by non-members.

Yes but somone has to give the good example (and attacking isn't possible in this game :)

Beautiful in theory, yes, but absolute rot in practice. Especially when UN membership is voluntary. The UN will crumble with disarmament of its members, because they will all be immediately attacked by non-members.

Yes but someone has to give the right example (and besides attacking isn't possible in this game).

If attacking isn't possible, then whats the point of disarmanet?

They can't be fired anyway.

He's right. But for one second let's pretend this is all real. If everbody in the UN disarms, then we'll have no power over other countrys who might attack us with nuclear weapons of less caliber. If the UN disarms, we cannot protect ourselves.

If we could collectively devise some foolproof defense against nuclear attack, then we could disarm.

Otherwise, it's the same old story; gotta consider those narsty non-members.

If we could collectively devise some foolproof defenser against nuclear attack, then we could disarm.

Otherwise, it's the same old story; gotta consider those narsty non-members.

I refuse to disarm, I will not leave my people defenceless against the heathen outsiders.

We should be allowed the peace of mind to know that we are fully capable of defending ourselves.

In priciple, this is a good idea. However, in practise it is terrible. It gives all UN member nations a distict disadvange in the defense of their countires, and could break nuclear-imposed peace. Until anti-nuclear defense systems could be set up everwhere (which is probably never), the best defense against nuclear weapons is the threat of retaliation. It sounds circulatory, and it is, but we cannot deny every UN member the right to defend their country.

The Confederacy of Caligatio fully disapproves of a resolution forcing it to disarm, allowing it to be open, in theory, to attacks from non-U.N. groups.

If you do not have the power of war, you are subject to those who do...a fundamental belief which the people of Caliatio and its government adhere strictly to.

Caligatio supports peace throughout the world, but realizes the necessity for nuclear weapons for the use of offense and defense against threatening nations.

The Confederacy of Caligatio will neither increase nor decrease its defense and military spending, as the current conditions are acceptable.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint will give up its nuclear arms when you can pry them from our cold dead fingers.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint will give up its nuclear arms when you can pry them from our cold dead melted fingers.
8)

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint will give up its nuclear arms when you can pry them from our cold dead melted fingers.
8)

Point taken, our stance remains the same. 8)

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Dude...

How many times do we have to go through this?

It's very simple.

1) If the UN passes a resolution against possession of nuclear weapons, then UN nations will cease to possess nuclear weapons.
2) If the UN passes a resolution against possession of nuclear weapons, then non-UN nations will not necessarily cease to possess nuclear weapons.
3) The possession of nuclear weapons by one country is a great deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by another.

Draw your own conclusions...

While I agree that if the UN states disarmed completely it would leave them open to attack from Non-UN states, and generally would greatly decrease the perceived security of UN states (due to the above condition).

What I would like to point out is that unless I am reading the proposal incorrectly, and if I am, then I would like to know your support on the idea I espouse:
Isn't the proposal calling for the disarmament of Nuclear missiles with intercontinental capability?

This would leave UN nations still with extensive nuclear capabilities. Although to hit those mean far away nations we'd need bombers, submarines, etc. etc. something I"m sure that most nations hell bent on their own security/aggression have.

What said proposal does is take a huge step towards the eventual disarmament of all nations, and the overall safety of the world (by decreasing number of overall nukes) while leaving every UN nation PERFECTLY capable of defending itself from "rogue" non-un states.

While I agree that if the UN states disarmed completely it would leave them open to attack from Non-UN states, and generally would greatly decrease the perceived security of UN states (due to the above condition).

What I would like to point out is that unless I am reading the proposal incorrectly, and if I am, then I would like to know your support on the idea I espouse:
Isn't the proposal calling for the disarmament of Nuclear missiles with intercontinental capability?

This would leave UN nations still with extensive nuclear capabilities. Although to hit those mean far away nations we'd need bombers, submarines, etc. etc. something I"m sure that most nations hell bent on their own security/aggression have.

What said proposal does is take a huge step towards the eventual disarmament of all nations, and the overall safety of the world (by decreasing number of overall nukes) while leaving every UN nation PERFECTLY capable of defending itself from "rogue" non-un states.

The problem lies in your last paragraph...you leave open the possibility for a slippery slope...let's say we ban intercontinental ballistic missiles, and rouge nations and nations which are not under the jurisdiction of the United Nations still do not attack. This may lead the world into a sense of false security, in that it may believe that banning intercontinental ballistic missiles has helped lead to a safer world...

In reality, it makes no difference. Nuclear weapons, to be frank, are political chips used in the international game of poker...restrict them, and you restrict another means (as was already mentioned) for U.N. member nations to enforce global security.

And even if we do ban intercontinental ballistic missiles, once more, we have the problem of weakening U.N. member nations. Sure, we won't have intercontinental missiles, but they will. And while we will still have bombers/submarines/etc., it still puts you at a glaring disadvantage.

So in reality, this resolution does little to improve global secruity. Am I in favor of limiting nuclear warheads? Yes. Am I in favor of banning nuclear weapons, in any sense of the word (whether a specific type of weapon or a general typ)...the answer is no, and the Imperial Dynasty of East Caelum has no intention of backing a proposal which does.

Ou Yasen
Son of Heaven, Imperial Shogun, Regian Corner of the World U.N. delegate.

Catholic Europe supports any proposal which seeks to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a very serious and real threat to the safety and survival of this world and everything within it. We must get rid of them.

Catholic Europe supports any proposal which seeks to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a very serious and real threat to the safety and survival of this world and everything within it. We must get rid of them.

What about the threat from aggressive rogue nations and international terrorists? Not only is the threat greater and more immediate, you would seek to strip our defences making us helpless. Nuclear armament should continue, but only in UN approved states, we should seek to limit not abolish the use of WMDs. It may be a nice idea but your wishy-washy peacful little utopia wouldn't last long in the real world.

Catholic Europe supports any proposal which seeks to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a very serious and real threat to the safety and survival of this world and everything within it. We must get rid of them.

What about the threat from aggressive rogue nations and international terrorists? Not only is the threat greater and more immediate, you would seek to strip our defences making us helpless. Nuclear armament should continue, but only in UN approved states, we should seek to limit not abolish the use of WMDs. It may be a nice idea but your wishy-washy peacful little utopia wouldn't last long in the real world.

...We of the Theocracy of Mahou Gakuen find the idea of keeping nuclear weaponry handy in case terrorists arrive a very dumb idea.

First, it's nigh-impossible to verify where these terrorists could have originated from. For all you know, they may well have originated in the very soil they bombed...

In fact, come to think of it, wouldn't the newly implemented nuclear weaponry be a far more attractive target for said terrorists? Rather than having to build their OWN nuclear weaponry, they could simply use one in their own territory...

Again, the argument of nuclear weaponry to protect against terrorism seems pretty faulty, and in fact, one would think that the implementation of additional weapons of mass destruction would simply fuel these terrorist's beliefs that the UN is a great oppressor, and those countries involved must be destroyed...

It will never happen. Why do you even bother with putting up such a proposal that WILL NEVER PASS!!!! 100% world disarmament will NEVER HAPPEN! And I will not give up my weapons becuase of some stupid proposal a peace-loving hippi put in to the UN!