NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=8866005/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1

That's the link, what it says is:

Description: Nuclear weapons need to be banned in all nations, because:

1: Everyone that is launched is an enviromental disaster.

2: If one country launches one, every other country is gonna decide it's war so they might as well launch their's.

3: The above would result in the extinction of most of Earth's species, and possibly even man kind could be eradicated.


Nuclear devices should be restrained to clean fusion power plants.
Yes, this is really a global disarmament/eniviromental/ international security thing, but I had to pick just one.


Post your views on the subject,.

I c

I agree with you Ban the Bomb

You could help by voting for it or whatever.

Although we support the principles behind this proposal, we must oppose it for pragmatic reasons. If this were to pass, it would only weaken the UN by leaving UN member states nearly powerless against the attacks of other nations.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

We've said it before, we'll say it again

Xha'dam thinks this is a great idea because we always wanted to be at the mercy of non-UN nations. [/sarcasm]

Every third new nation with two endorsements posts this as their first proposal, and it dies every time. Why are we bothering with debate?

Hey, New Nations! Check it out!
Banning Nukes doesn't work

Now would you please quit proposing it?

Yeah i agree let's ban all nukes in the UN. And leave us completly defenceless.

USL (and all new, really stupid people):

Listen.

This is the ninety-seventh time we've gone through this.

Banning nuclear weapons is a retarded idea.

The Empire of Bloodmoon-Hyperion values our national defense above all else. Therefore, we will withdrawl from the UN if this measure is nearing passage, though it won't. And even if our delegate had 17 to many Martinis for lunch and fails to process our withdrawl paperwork (after which he will be summarily executed), we still reserve the right to drop the moon on any enemy nations, and show all of you what a true environmental disaster is.

With Love and Puppy Dog Breath,

-Emperor Hyperion of The Bloodmoon-Hyperion Empire

Its a good idea but older nations should be allowed to keep just 1 or 2 for tests.

No.

Banning nukes doesnt work. It's like telling the mugger "i'll put down my mace and then you drop your knife, ok?"


The Illarian Ambassador apologizes for the gruffness of this response.

and how about te terroristst?
how do we contoll them?
and Buch and Co. are much to triggerhappy to ban them.

this is a UTOPIA

There ARE ways to fight your enemies and protect your country without basicly saying "screw you, enviroment, we're gonna destroy you".

The Chairman of the People's Republic of Rasputa supports this proposal, but he's also realistic about the chances of it being passed.

Maybe just a suggestion? "The UN declares that proliferation of nuclear weapons is mildly discouraged"? It can't just be a free-for-all...

Not when your enemies decide to nuke you there aren't.

1: Nukes can be shot down, or deactivated mid-flight by special ground based equipment, so if the goverment is ready, a nuclear strike isn't a problem.

2: Other types of bombs, usually 'smart bombs' are far more useful against most enemies, even more so when you want to take out the military and keep civilan casualties to a minimum.

I'm here for questions, comments, etc, etc.

Updated link.


http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=8866005/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1

1: Nukes can be shot down, or deactivated mid-flight by special ground based equipment, so if the goverment is ready, a nuclear strike isn't a problem.

2: Other types of bombs, usually 'smart bombs' are far more useful against most enemies, even more so when you want to take out the military and keep civilan casualties to a minimum.

I'm here for questions, comments, etc, etc.

Not all nations have ABM systems capable of stopping a large volley of nukes. If one of these nations could not retaliate with a volley of their own nuclear ICBMs they would be bait.

Not to mention it enables us to carry some authority agains smaller terrorist nations who otherwise would ignore us because they would assume we are unwilling to risk the lives of our soldiers over whatever they are doing wrong.

Again, smart bombs, graphite bombs, standard explosives, all work quite well, without the destruction of the enviroment and the loss of millions of innocent civilians who end up dead for living in the wrong place when someone decided to dislike that country.

The endlessly mutating and green glowing nation of Berkylvania sympathizes with the good intent behind this resolution while at the same time acknowledging the impracticality behind it's passage and implementation, namely non-UN-aligned nations.

Therefore, the only sensible solution is to amend this proposal to include the following provision:

1) Acting in concert, all current aligned nations of the UN will lauch preemptive nuclear strikes on all non-UN-aligned nations, thereby removing them as a potential threat in a denuclearized world.

Then and only then can we safely ban the bomb.

Of course, was the initial barrage is over, should a nation leave the UN, they'll be free to develop a nuclear arsenal again and the UN would be powerless to stop them. However, this is beyond the scope of our concern as we fully expect to be living in underground warrens by that time, gently mutating into morlocks.

Now, if you'll excuse us, we've got a lot of DNA to miscode.

Any SERIOUS comments?
Where's that other dude, I like him.
<_<

The perpetually misunderstood but eternally explaining nation of Berkylvania is quite serious.

As many of our esteemed contemporaries have pointed out, banning nuclear weapons is a nice idea, in theory, but in practice is impossible as there are a number of nations outside the UN with nuclear capability and no compunctions about using them. To remove our weapons at this stage would be tatamount to inviting invasion and/or annihilation.

The only way to successfully implement a plan of disarmament is on a unilateral field and the only way to ensure such a field is to wipe clean all outside weapons sources and prevent their eventual rebuilding. One way to do this is nuclear cauterization.

No reason to get snippy at us because you put forth a bad proposal that has already been discussed here many times. If you want a serious response, perhaps you should consider making a serious proposal?

The perpetually misunderstood but eternally explaining nation of Berkylvania is quite serious.

As many of our esteemed contemporaries have pointed out, banning nuclear weapons is a nice idea, in theory, but in practice is impossible as there are a number of nations outside the UN with nuclear capability and no compunctions about using them. To remove our weapons at this stage would be tatamount to inviting invasion and/or annihilation.

The only way to successfully implement a plan of disarmament is on a unilateral field and the only way to ensure such a field is to wipe clean all outside weapons sources and prevent their eventual rebuilding. One way to do this is nuclear cauterization.

No reason to get snippy at us because you put forth a bad proposal that has already been discussed here many times. If you want a serious response, perhaps you should consider making a serious proposal?