NationStates Jolt Archive

Since it would appear that the majority of people who simply lay out a proposal and ask for votes end up mocked and rejected, I think it would be infinitely more productive if member nations initiated a debate on an idea, then used the final product of said debates to write a finalized version of the proposal.

That said, the nation of Sophista would like to invite all member nations of the United Nations to attend a summit on the topic of international disarmament. Our own security experts have a series of ideas that we can start with, but all nations are welcome to bring their own thoughts to the table.

Interested nations should telegram our foreign office immediately. Please include the size of your delegation to the summit, as well as any proposals that you might want to discuss at the gathering.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

((in case anyone is confused, this thread is to become the "summit" for disarmament. you don't need to send me a telegram, just role play the arrival of your delegation and we'll start nailing down something we can actually vote for. note: this summit would be for nations interested in disarmament only. please keep the "disarm is bad for x" out of this thread))

Since it would appear that the majority of people who simply lay out a proposal and ask for votes end up mocked and rejected, I think it would be infinitely more productive if member nations initiated a debate on an idea, then used the final product of said debates to write a finalized version of the proposal.

Interested nations should telegram our foreign office immediately. Please include the size of your delegation to the summit, as well as any proposals that you might want to discuss at the gathering.


Another way to build a better proposal would be to start in a regional forum (like the North Pacific's) or two. Get input from regulars there, then take the proposal from the regional level to the UN after you've had a few additional interested parties.

This isn't to say that your idea for a Summit is not good. I think it is!

I so wish we could change the "rules" (OOC: game mechanics) of the UN, such that we could propose and vote on amendments in real-time. But the more I think about how you could have a real-time parliamentary system, the more my head spins.

While we as a nation don't doubt the potential of our region's members to bring forth ideas that are worthy of consideration, we do doubt the tenacity of said members to actually do something about it. Also, it is most likely that the nations who would be the most helpful are also regulars within these halls. Casting the net a little wider shouldn't hurt too much, and it just might give the serious diplomats something to do in the mean time.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I think it would be infinitely more productive if member nations initiated a debate on an idea, then used the final product of said debates to write a finalized version of the proposal.

We of the Democratic States of Hirota fully agree with this suggestion - indeed we are suprised it is not common practice amongst member states already. We fully endorse this idea.

Moreover, we are preparing to send a delegation to your summit to contribute positively to this endeavour.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Enodia, too, expresses an interest in this summit and will send a delegation if permitted.

The nation of Sophista wishes to extend a warm welcome to the delegation from Hirota, and issues its assurance that any delegation from Enodia will be well received. Special reservations for summit delegations have been made at the finest hotel in our capitol and we eagerly await your respective arrivals.

On a different note, our Minister of Defence has brought forth some food for thought on the issue of disarmament. His statement will follow the main body of this message.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs
enclosure


- - - - -
To all nations in attendance, thank you. The nation of Sophista wishes to extend a deep thanks for your time and efforts, and hopes that you enter this summit as optimistically as we do. If all goes according to plan, it is that same optimism that will lead to one of the few effective resolutions on disarmament in United Nations history.

While all nations in attendance are welcome to submit their own thoughts on the issue at hand, Sophista will be advocating a series of positions involving primarily nuclear weapons. We are more than aware that several nations are utilizing non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction, but to tackle the full scope of such weapons is a task not easily managed. We feel it is best to act with surgical grace in targeting specific weapons platforms to ensure our resolutions don't slip into vague territory.

Furthermore, the Sophistan delegation seeks to avoid any kind of proposal that bans a weapon type outright. As is historically proven, no nation that has acquired a stockpile of nuclear weapons is eager to give them up, and we respect a nation's right to, if necessary, resort to the force of the atom to defend itself. With that in mind, our proposals will be directed towards reducing the ability of a nation to strike, as well as reducing the frequency of the use of nuclear weapons. To that end, we suggest legislation on delivery vehicles of such weapons, or a codified list of scenarios where the use of nuclear weapons is deemed reasonable.

With those two ideals in mind, the nation of Sophista would like to bring forth the idea of eliminating intercontinental ballistic missiles (herein referred to as ICBMs). Such a proposal would not infringe upon a nation's ability to produce and arm theatre-range ballistic missile vehicles, nor would it prevent them from delivering long-range strikes via high-altitude bombers. Regardless of payload, we believe that ICBMs pose a set of unique risks that don't come from other delivery vehicles.

First and most obviously, once an ICBM is launched, there's no going back. Where you can radio a bomber and tell it to abort its mission or issue a cease fire order to nuclear artillery, no technology exists to tell an ICBM to turn around and park. This eliminates the ability of nations to make eleventh-hour diplomatic decisions that avert nuclear crisis.

Imagine two nations involved in a quickly escalating conflict. The first nation threatens the other with a nuclear attack, the second scoffs and arms its own weapons. The first nation sees this as the last straw and pushes the button, thus initiating nuclear war. All hope is lost for the second nation, and indeed the first if a retaliatory strike is launched. Were a bomber required, however, this could be avoided. Our second nation might seriously reconsider an armistice with nuclear-armed bombers streaking across its skies, only this time they have a chance to save themselves.

The second point we'll raise is that ICBMs encourage reckless nuclear war. Intercontinental is a long, long way, putting incredible amounts of distance between the attacker and the attacked. That said, the nation who launches will likely never see any kind of repercussions from its actions, save a retaliatory strike. With the effects so far removed from home, a nation will likely see no problem in pushing the button.

Imagine the same scenario, however, if the nation were right next door. Now a stiff change in the wind can bring the same nuclear poisons launched at an enemy to your own doorstep. Even worse, the surviving land army would most likely be galvanized by the atrocity, and retaliate with a scorched-earth campaign against your citizens.

If a nation is limited to theatre-range missiles only, the consequences of reckless nuclear war increase dramatically. Now the effects of a nuclear exchange are no further than the nearest border, meaning any attacker will have to do some heavy thinking before launch. Do you really want to deal with the effects of a nuclear wasteland for a neighbor? And do you want to risk his surviving forces showing no mercy to your women and children? Clearly, discretion becomes your greatest ally.

Lastly, we feel that taking this route for disarmament avoids many of the classic pitfalls for current disarmament policy. The most common objections to such a proposal involve the sovereignty of a nation. Tell a nation you're going to take away their precious nuclear arsenal and they'll tell you where you can shove your resolution. Our proposal allows a nation to keep all the weapons they want, so long as the delivery vehicle changes. Many nations will also argue that they have a right to use whatever weapon they chose, but we would contend otherwise. Very few nations use nuclear weapons to resolve domestic disputes. These weapons are designed to end international conflicts, and by that virtue they fall in that all-too-convenient realm of international policy.

This is by no means a complete listing of our arguments for the idea proposed, but in the interest of preserving your eyesight we will keep our arguments to those presented. We welcome any commentary, and encourage other nations to share in the discourse by sending delegations.

Regards,
Jerome P. Malor
Minister of Defence

Bahgum feels that waiting for nations to mock your proposal is too passive. We prefer to write proposals that mock the system in the first place! ...and so the delegation from Bahgum begins.
Now, this disarmanent thingymabob, will we need to make a public statement on our hidden battalions of evil mothers in law? We aim to unleash them in advance of any conflict so that they will interefere so badly in a rival nations affairs that they forget about or become incapable of war. As such we need no other weapons.
Perhaps we ought to write a proposal to share our peace giving ideas (and help other nations actually find a constructive use for the mother in law)??
We sincerely hope that our delegation has been of help, and that you enjoy the ale and cake we have brought to satisfy the appetites of our honoured colleagues.

We would be very grateful if the nation of Sophista will welcome a delegation from our fair isle. This is an outstanding demonstration of diplomacy and we have great hopes for the summit.

In addition, we are very interested in the peacekeeping potential of Bahgum's mothers-in-law. Were these merciless creatures deployed effectively, they may prove to be an unexpected talisman for peace.

In the spirit of the pursuit of untarnished joy, we have brought fifty bottles of our famous Old Ochayeopoeian 16 year old single malt.

Best Wishes
Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations
The Comunity of Ecopoeia

The Democratic States of Hirota are in posession of short ranged nuclear devices, our plentiful supplies of uranium have made it relatively easy for our nation to develop weapons grade material. We have made no efforts to develop ICBM's thus far, but enjoy a large (for the size of our nation) stockpile of comparatively short ranged nuclear devices.

We share Sophista's concerns regarding nations who do enjoy ICBM weaponry, and how they may feel they can strike with relative impunity.

Personally we find the concept of using nuclear weaponry against humans immoral, and would only deploy in situations where human lives could not be endangered (an entire branch of our weapons development is developing nuclear devices which only produce the electro-magnetic shock).

At any rate, we have reviewed the proposal from Minister Malor, and find ourselves in agreement with the principles outlined. However, we do have some issues with the proposal.

Many nations within the UN will be reluctant to decommision their ICBM's while non-UN nations (and generally they are the ones more likely to own and use them). Without having the influence to control non-UN states, it will be difficult for the UN to influence members to comply to a total decommission.

The only method we could see UN members complying is if the UN, as a group was a to support a mutual defence pact whereby non-UN members would suffer retaliatory strikes from all UN states in range...

The nation of Rabenswald agrees with the decommisioning of ICBM's; in the spirit of this proposal, I would also reccomend placing limitations on orbiting weapons of a nuclear nature, as they allow for intercontinental range, with almost as much ease of deployment. I would propose amending this resolution to include a moratorium on the launching of future orbital nuclear weapons, as well as a plan for decommisioning those which are already in place.

General Rudolf von Gluck (ret.)
Rabenswald Ministry of Defense

Greetings to all delegates. The free peoples of East Hackney are most enthusiastic about the prospect of a disarmament summit and have mandated myself to represent their views, along with Comrade Guevara (Delegate for Rum and Other Revolutionary Beverages), whose commitment to scrapping arms is matched only by his passion for getting legless.

We wholeheartedly support Sophista's suggestions for limiting nuclear capability and believe that they form an excellent basis for similar rules on the subject of chemical and biological weapons.

Furthermore, we welcome the presence of the esteemed Bahgum and suggest that it despatches its battalions of mothers-in-law to East Hackney, where there are any number of scruffy-bearded revolutionaries in ragged combat trousers who are sorely in need of the kind of relentless nagging...ah, sorry, "detailed critique of manners, appearance and personal hygiene" that only a mother-in-law can provide.

And, just so this whole thing doesn't get too cuddly, we've brought along a 100-litre barrel of People's Revolutionary Rum and hereby declare that we will match the Ecopoeian delegation drink for drink. Cheers!

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

In addition, we are very interested in the peacekeeping potential of Bahgum's mothers-in-law. Were these merciless creatures deployed effectively, they may prove to be an unexpected talisman for peace.

In the spirit of the pursuit of untarnished joy, we have brought fifty bottles of our famous Old Ochayeopoeian 16 year old single malt.

Best Wishes
Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations
The Comunity of Ecopoeia

Actually, we would advise against subjecting any human being to mothers-in-laws! Surely this goes against the basic principles of human rights (not the mothers-in-laws of course, as it is debatable if they are human).

But sending Malts to hostile parties may be a way to achieve peace. If we also send the now legal hookers, perhaps in 9-months time we could also increase the birth rate to bring the population levels back to pre-hostility levels!

And should your Malts not be enough, I'd like to encourage everybody to try some of our Spice Melange! You'll find it makes not only a nice seasoning, but that the long-term effect on your eye sight can make you very popular in alternative circles.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint cringes whenever we see something titled 'Disarmament.' We are here to hear reasoned and coherent arguments on the topic, but we are a bit taken aback by the assumption that a U.N. Proposal must, by rule, come out of this summit.

We frankly do not see disarmament, concerning ANY weapon system or delivery platform, to be a welcome or wanted topic of discussion until and unless EVERY nation in the world joins the movement and agrees to voluntarily do so.

Unilateral mandated disarmament of solely U.N. Member states is not wise, and indeed, foolhardy.

Lt. Gen. Warren Rogers
Asst. Manager ico Defense

Let's be fair, Greenspoint. This is merely a summit for the moment. Let us discuss this issue and come to a mutual understanding concerning what we want to see. If a proposal comes out of it, you have the right then to shoot it down in flames if you so wish.

We believe there are forms of disarmament that are feasible and should be investigated. You probably disagree, as is your right. Meanwhile, let us discuss the issue fully.

It is our belief that more summits like this on a variety of issues would be a great boon to the UN.

Best wishes

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

Unilateral mandated disarmament of solely U.N. Member states is not wise, and indeed, foolhardy.


I agree, that would be foolhardy. However, what has so far been discussed is a strictly limited disarmament, affecting only those weapons which we deem too dangerous to be used, even in the defense of our nations and our lives. There are many kinds of weapons in the world, and many ways to defend oneself from them; we do not intend to strip our defenses, merely to be more selective in the weapons we stockpile. It is my personal hope that with the help of this summit, we will be able to produce a proposal which is well and carefully thought out, which will allow us to make the world a safer place without sacrificing our national defense.

Gen. Rudolf von Gluck (ret.)
Rabenswald Ministry of Defense

Let's be fair, Greenspoint. This is merely a summit for the moment. Let us discuss this issue and come to a mutual understanding concerning what we want to see.

Indeed, Mr. Chalmers, we are here to discuss, observe and listen. We said so in our first paragraph above. However, we've noted that Sophista's opening statement contains verbage which supposes an ultimate outcome of a U.N. Proposal. While we agree that certain weapons can and probably should be eliminated, we don't feel comfortable joining in a summit which has an outcome that's already been pre-determined, even if that outcome is not yet defined.

To begin this summit with the assumption that a U.N. Proposal WILL come out of it is, to us, sophomoric and irresponsible.

Lt. Gen. Warren Rogers
Asst. Manager ico Defense

Apologies, Lt. Gen. Rogers. I understand and sympathise with your concern more fully now.

Regards,
Frank Chalmers

The delegate of Germany and France express concerns about its profitable ballistic weapons trade. While the government of Germany and France has not actively encouraged this enterprize, it does not want the sudden collapse of a major industry, and the vast amounts of unemployment that would result.

The regulation of ICBMs carrying a nuclear payload should not collapse your industry; in fact, it will probably increase the demand for the smaller missiles designed for launches within a specific theater, or from mobile launch platforms such as satelites and submarines.

The Enodian Defence Minister endorses the regulation of ICBMs in the strongest possible manner. Being a peaceful country herself, Enodia has never seen the need for military uses of atomic power (and indeed tends to avoid civil uses as well) and believes that any multi-national statement to that effect is an important and symbolic step in the right direction.
The delegates to the Summit are most pleased at Sophista's welcoming words. They have expressed the hope that all nations will be able to extend their friendly words into friendly deeds, both diplomatically and militarily.

Gerda Fuad-Reinecke
Junior Secretary for Defence
PER
Graf Erich von Entzenberg-Holsteinwitz
Minister of Defence, Enodia

The Delegation from the Most Serene Republic of Lancamore is amazed to have finally found a pocket of sanity in the United Nations (which sometimes strangely resembles a sideshow to a three ring circus :roll: ). We agree wholeheartedly with the statements of others in the hope that the "summit" meathod will become more common in the future, as it seems to be so effective.

While some resolutions seem to be on a national level and perhaps not quite appropreate for the UN to be regulating, arms control is a truly international issue. This is something that requires global supervision and cooperation. Therefore we agree that it is most certianly in the interest of the UN and it's member nations to pursue proposals of such nature.

Lancamore, as a small nation, possesses no nuclear arms, and stands to gain much in terms of security from the passing of a nuclear arms control resolution. It is important to include the mutual-defense element mentioned earlier, for the following reason.

It would be not enough to simply get rid of all of the nuclear weapons of the earth. Nor would destroying all plans and knowledge of their design eliminate the problem. Science and technology have proved themselves to be unstoppable, and someone would be sure to redisover the secrets of the atom and unleash it (or threaten to unleash it) against a fellow nation. With all the nuclear arms gone, they would be immune from retaliation in kind. The UN-centered mutual defense alliance would solve the problem. Retaliation would be insured. In addition, no country would need to keep their own weapons as deterrants, because other UN nations would be obliged to return fire for them! As long as there are some countries holding nuclear arms as deterrants (and those countries remain true to the UN) , the system should remain stable.

In conclusion, the Most Serene Republic of Lancamore expresses support for this conceptual proposal and excitement at the way it is being constructed.

Sincerely,
Admiral Harvey Burnside, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Department of Defense

and

Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore

On behalf of the nation of Sophista, I extend a warm welcome to all newly arriving delegations, with a special thanks to the delegations from Ecopoeia and East Hackney. Your substantial gifts of fine liquor will most certainly be appreciated by the delegates in attendance. Before I relinquish the floor to my esteemed colleague Minister Malor, I would like to address some concerns raised by the honorable delegate from Greenspoint.

To begin this summit with the assumption that a U.N. Proposal WILL come out of it is, to us, sophomoric and irresponsible.

The nation of Sophista sees no fault in being an action-oriented body. In fact, we would contend that moving into such a summit without a goal in mind would be a waste of everyone's time. We believe this summit should be centered on creating a safer world, not talking about weapons over tea. If beginning a discussion with the intent of reaching a finalized decision is sophomoric, then someone might want to warn every debater to ever engage in a discussion, or every corporate board member who is at risk at attending a meeting. We ask that the delegate from Greenspoint clarify his objection to goal-oriented discourse.

With that in mind, I'd like to turn the floor over once again to Sophista's Minister of Defence, Mr. Jerome Malor.


----
I, also, would like to thank the newest arrivals to our pool of delegates. The marketplace of ideas grows richer with every new voice added, and we appreciate your commitment to peace. As the discussion grows, we'd like to respond to some of the statements made by the other delegates.

First, to the remarks raised by the delegates from Hirota and Greenspoint.
Many nations within the UN will be reluctant to decommission their ICBM's while non-UN nations (and generally they are the ones more likely to own and use them). Without having the influence to control non-UN states, it will be difficult for the UN to influence members to comply with a total decommission.

Unilateral mandated disarmament of solely U.N. Member states is not wise, and indeed, foolhardy.

Like you, Sophista shares a concern for the member countries of the United Nations. We would loathe seeing our brothers rendered helpless in the face of such terrible weapons, and that is specifically why we chose to limit delivery and not possession of such weapons.

As previously stated, a nation can still retaliate with a high-altitude bomber or theatre-range weapons. In fact, a bomber with the right stealth and heat-cloaking technologies would actually be a preferred delivery system. Furthermore, and we believe the delegate from Rabenswald makes this point quite nicely, we are not limiting in any way a nation's right to defend against these weapons. Should you wish to develop an elaborate missile defense program, you are free to do so. We are here to stifle aggression, not self-defense.

Secondly, to address the concerns of the delegate from Rabenswald.
I would also recommend placing limitations on orbiting weapons of a nuclear nature, as they allow for intercontinental range, with almost as much ease of deployment. I would propose amending this resolution to include a moratorium on the launching of future orbital nuclear weapons, as well as a plan for decommissioning those which are already in place.

We agree that orbital weapons platforms pose a substantial risk to international security and would encourage an amendment or separate proposal to deal with these measures. However, we feel that to leap to such a step at this time would complicate our current dialogue and lead to a muddled debate. Perhaps the delegate from Rabenswald would like to open a sub-committee to deal with this issue?

((Getting too many debates going in one thread can only lead to bad things. Let’s create another thread, something like "UN Summit on Disarmament - Orbital Weapons" so those interested in that debate can participate without searching through our greetings, generalities, and ICBM talk.))

Next, to the comment brought forth by East Hackney.
We wholeheartedly support Sophista's suggestions for limiting nuclear capability and believe that they form an excellent basis for similar rules on the subject of chemical and biological weapons.

The nation of Sophista wishes a hearty thanks for your support, and agrees that extending the scope of this summit to those forms of weapons is a most-excellent idea. Should the other delegates raise no objection, we would happily amend the idea we've laid out to account for chemical and biological warheads as well as nuclear-armed missiles.

Finally, to the economic concerns of Germany and France.
The delegate of Germany and France express concerns about its profitable ballistic weapons trade. While the government of Germany and France has not actively encouraged this enterprize, it does not want the sudden collapse of a major industry, and the vast amounts of unemployment that would result.

Again, we find ourselves agreeing with Rabenswald's response. While the industry might suffer a temporary setback in the loss of ICBM orders, we imagine you'll find that industry suddenly booming as countries come knocking on your door to replace their arsenals. Not only will you gain the patronage of nations with pre-existing nuclear arsenals, but their orders will likely be much larger as it would take several theatre-range missiles to make up for the lost yield of an ICBM.

Hopefully this addresses your concerns and that of all other nations. Thank you again for your time, and may the summit continue on such a marvelous course.

Regards,
Jerome P. Malor
Minister of Defence

The Delegation from the Most Serene Republic of Lancamore is amazed to have finally found a pocket of sanity in the United Nations (which sometimes strangely resembles a sideshow to a three ring circus :roll: ).

Did someone say "circus"? *dons green party hat with pink tassles*
Sorry. I'll get my coat.

Due to an unavoidable delay in flight (OOC: As George Carlin would say, "BROKEN PLANE"), the Enodian Delegation to the Sophista Summit arrived later than intended. Speaking to the Enodian Media later, Defence Minister von Entzenberg-Holsteinwitz made the following admission:

"'Sist nicht noetich, vor in der Treffung zu setzen. Wir sind nur 'nen Beispiel und habn 'berhaupt kein'n atomische Waffen oder was anders noch. Wir freu'n uns, in der Ecke zu setzen und nur sprech'n wenn die militarschen Laende uns hoern wollten."

Translated for international news, the Minister stated:

"It is not important for us to be at the forefront of this meeting. We are here only as an example [of a nation without the capabilities debated] and have no atomic weapons or whatever else. We are perfectly happy to sit in the corner quietly and only speak when the militarised states want us to."

(OOC: Apologies for the foreign language translation, but this is the first official government statement in my RP history to be in Enodisch, so everyone should feel privileged)

The nation of Sophista sees no fault in being an action-oriented body. In fact, we would contend that moving into such a summit without a goal in mind would be a waste of everyone's time. We believe this summit should be centered on creating a safer world, not talking about weapons over tea. If beginning a discussion with the intent of reaching a finalized decision is sophomoric, then someone might want to warn every debater to ever engage in a discussion, or every corporate board member who is at risk at attending a meeting. We ask that the delegate from Greenspoint clarify his objection to goal-oriented discourse.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint has no objection to "goal-oriented discourse" and we humbly now admit our earlier comments were made based upon a pre-conceived idea of the purpose of a summit, and while we noted Sophista's comment regarding the intent of this conference to generate a viable U.N. proposal, we did not fully grasp how this conflicted with our previously mentioned pre-conception. In short, I heard Sophista say we were here to generate the proposal, but it went in one ear and out the other.

Our earlier objection on the basis of having a pre-determined outcome in mind for the summit is withdrawn. As a nation not yet in possession of nuclear weapons, we would greatly like to see the efficacy of such weapons, at least those in the hands of certain other nations, reduced or removed.

Lt. General Warran Rogers
Asst. Manager ico Defense

We greatly appreciate the clarifications offered by the delegation from Greenspoint, and apologize if he mistook our remarks as aggressive. We have enjoyed the Greenspointain delegation's contributions, and look forward to more from them in the future.

Also, we offer our thanks and welcome the delegation from Enodia. Whether or not a nation belongs to the "nuclear club" is not important - it is their commitment to peace and cooperation that is most valuable.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

We would like to advise East Hackney to lock their husbands and small children indoors for the weekend as we have dispatched a small squad of mothers in law as per request. We have kept the numbers low and have arranged for a special triple showing of their favourite soap opera on Bahgum TV to be played on Sunday, this should ensure a safe extraction.

We agree with our esteemed colleagues from Mikitivity that the wholesale use of battalions of crack mothers in law may in some way be excessively cruel, but feel it is better than the use of nuclear weapons. It also leaves the affected populace standing with fresh memories of the futile nature of attempting to wage war on a nation such as Bahgum.

Bahgum is somewhat chuffed to be included in a debate amongst a 'pocket of sanity', though our ministers our perplexed as to what this means.....by the way..did someone say circus?

I would also recommend placing limitations on orbiting weapons of a nuclear nature, as they allow for intercontinental range, with almost as much ease of deployment. I would propose amending this resolution to include a moratorium on the launching of future orbital nuclear weapons, as well as a plan for decommissioning those which are already in place.

We agree that orbital weapons platforms pose a substantial risk to international security and would encourage an amendment or separate proposal to deal with these measures. However, we feel that to leap to such a step at this time would complicate our current dialogue and lead to a muddled debate. Perhaps the delegate from Rabenswald would like to open a sub-committee to deal with this issue?


Following your suggestion, I have created a sub-panel for the discussion of orbital weapon platforms. I hope that with the input of the good delegates, this panel will be able to reccomend an amendment to whatever resolution is drafted here concerning the regulation of orbital weapons.

Gen. Rudolf von Gluck (ret)
Rabenswald Ministry of Defense

The delegation of the Commonwealth and Controlled Territories (CCT) of San Texario will be arriving soon.

(2 hours later)

Arriving in a large limo, is the delegation from the territories. Representing, is the President, and chief of the CCT Tex III for the Commonwealth, Albert Johnson for the Disputed Territories of Fishing Boats, Tex Grant, current delegate to the UN of the CCT and CEO of Texco. Industries (large private corporation, based in the southeast of San Texario), and Thomas Oates the Governing Dictator of Articolia. Accompanying them are 10 guards, each armed with AR-34's and Falcon 2's (both from Perfect Dark).

We apoligize for the armed security, but due to recent inner-CCT happenings, a step-up of executive security is required.


----------
Tex III adresses the summit:
It is clear that the stockpiles of Nuclear Weapons are posing a threat. By reducing these stockpiles, we are making the world a safer place. Where in the world today, there are terrorists and rogues that are coming into possesion of these weapons, by reducing our stockpiles are the threats of theft reducing.

Also, whereas ICBMs post a threat to humanity, without cancellation technologies, we should not only reduce our arsenals of them, but also work together to develop new technologies to be able to abort them. Furthermore, though we do use them ourselves, it is a good thing to also reduce orbital weapons. The growing abundancy of these are making it easier for a nation or nations to launch missiles at their enemies. Without these, we will improve the security of our worlds.

Let it be further noted that all the nuclear weapons are always threats, and by disarming, we should also create a large scale stockpile of those that we wish to keep available, but not in our immediate arsenal. So, to my proposition:

I am proposing that we create a large area to put a large Nuclear Weapons base, as a last resort area, where a stockpile of weapons will be kept, and will only be accessable by those who are in need, and only after extensive security measures.
By fully disarming, we are only foolishly putting ourselves in danger. So, I am proposing as well that partial disarmement is all we do, for the safety of our nations.

The delegation from Rabenswald will see that we have offered our support in their newly-formed subcommittee as well. Thank you for taking a bit of initiative. Also, we would like to extend a courteous welcome to the delegation from San Texario.

We are delighted to find another nation that believes in decreasing the scourge of nuclear weaponry from our planet. However, we find your proposed solution to the nuclear threat to be a bit out of touch with reality, and will oppose such legislation on several key points.

First and foremost, stockpiling the world's nuclear arsenal in one location is akin to inviting every terrorist and rogue nation to peruse the worlds only all-nuclear shopping center. The security measures necessary to safeguard that many nuclear weapons would be extraordinarily expensive and ineffecient.

Furthermore, assuming that they were secure, forcing a nation to travel to this base and retrieve their weapons in order to use them compromises a nation's ability to defend itself. With such large response times, a nation might be already under seige by the time their weapons were deployable.

What's more, placing the world's nuclear arsenal in a solitary location would be akin to total disarmament, which you yourself say is "foolishly putting ourselves in danger." Sophista is not interested in stripping her UN brothers and sisters of their nuclear arsenals.

We encourage the delegation from San Texario to follow in the paths already laid out, and to save such drastic measures for later. Also, we would like to encourage other nations to attend the summit and add their voices to the discussion. Perhaps there are a few nations with the kind of nuclear programs that would be affected by our proposals who would like to comment?

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

We are in agreement with Sophista that San Texario's proposal for a weapons stockpile is unworkable. However, we are gladdened that they have joined this historic summit and hope they will make further contributions.

Ecopoeia has very little in the way of any form of armaments, never mind a nuclear capability. We have concentrated our resources (we hope successfully) on improving the quality of life for our people, conserving our beautiful environment and tentatively reaching for the stars. Given our defensive weakness, we are grateful for the shelter that stronger nations provide us. We are realistic enough to realise that full disarmament is a pipe dream. Consequently, we find Sophista's extensive contributions heartening.

Perhaps naively, we feel that we are able to make a small contribution: is the development of non-lethal weaponry that can be discharged on a large scale a valid alternative to more destructive weaponry? Can ground wars be brought to an end not by violence but by (as an admittedly weak example), the release of chemicals that render the opposing army incapacitated/unconscious? Forgive our naivety, we are a fortunate people in that war has never plagued our island. Civil strife and unrest are the most our nation has had to contend with. Let that remain so.

Best wishes
Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

go ahead UN members and disarm :twisted:

meanwhile Marcelonia might still be small but we shall be armed to the teeth :twisted:

We would like to send a three-person embassy, one of each gender.

We prefer the simplest accomodations, please, and vegetarian meals.

We bring with us some heretofore successful ideas for nonaggressive defense.

Are we talking disarmament by force?

If not, the non-UN nations want us to disarm. Then they can use the opportunity to invade. Is that what you want?

The German and French delegates wish to add that although Germany and France is a primarily peaceful nation, it sometimes finds itself with no recourse but to use force, as was the case after we recieved this theatening telegram sent without provocation.
(Seriously, I had never heard of this nation, before a diplomat handed me this message through a third party.)
Only if I could declare war on you.
Clearly, there are times when ICBMs come in handy.

Are we talking disarmament by force?

If not, the non-UN nations want us to disarm. Then they can use the opportunity to invade. Is that what you want?

If you will read the previous statements made concerning the nature of this conference, you may note that we are discussing a strictly limited form of disarmament, affecting only ICBM bearing a nuclear payload. Hardly something which will leave us defenseless.

go ahead UN members and disarm :twisted:

meanwhile Marcelonia might still be small but we shall be armed to the teeth :twisted:
As I siad earlier, you really would get along with this guy. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=the_nice_doctor)

The accommodations requested by the representative from Collaboration have been arranged. The necessary paperwork has been forwarded to you foreign office, as well as a comprehensive list of Santa Andrea's vegetarian and vegan restaurants. The hotel will also provide a vegeterian option. We eagerly await the arrival of your delegation.

Again, having completed diplomatic business, I will offer the floor to Minister Malor so he can address some of the defence-specific issues raised since our last trip to the podium.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs


----
It seems that several speakers from countries in attendance are confused as to the nature of this summit. From veiled threats of aggression to cynical denouncements of purpose, many nations see our goal as the complete disarmament of all UN member states. This couldn't be further from the truth, and we encourage those nations who bear such fears to read the statements issued in the earlier portion of this summit. It has been agreed upon by all delegates currently in attendance that complete disarmament would be a disaster, and to that end we will pursue no solution that leaves the UN helpless militarily. In fact, recent suggestions from the Ecopoeian delegate would lead for more weapons development, just in a different direction. I fail to see how researching more weapons while eliminating only nuclear-armed ICBMs will leave the United Nations as defenseless to non-UN aggression.

Hopefully our statement, coupled with a little bit of reading, will allay the fears of nations concerned with threats from outside (or inside, for that matter) the United Nations. Remember, Sophista has a personal stake in this as well, and doesn't wish to be invaded any more than you do.

Sincerely yours,
Jerome P. Malor
Minister of Defence

We find the lack of concern for this topic frightening. So many nations have chosen to pass up the opportunity to discuss and argue for a resolution to benefit mankind, while the UN forums are littered with representative's complaining about the shortcomings of the UN.

Again, the nation of Sophista extends an invitation to the nations of the world to join the discourse already in progress. Stability and safety are among the primary goals of the United Nations, and this summit is one of the first to address the issue.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Complaining is the lazy person's way of participating. It requires no thought, no initiative, only a gromace and a grab bag of insults.

Thank you for your accomodations; we find them most wholesome, and look forward to the discusisions.

Aha - my first bump.

Aha - my first bump.

:shock: *hands Eco some calamime lotion*

*Grins lasciviously*

Would you mind rubbing it in for me?

Ahem, anyway - thought this discussion was worthy of revival as it seems to have slipped down the pecking order somewhat.

We note from Sophista's recent posting that we have been credited with advocating further weapons research and development. We hasten to add that our intentions are very much to reduce the capacity of our weaponry to kill/maim, etc.

It is deeply unfortunate that only around one quarter of the world's nations are UN members. A greater proportion would enable us to be more bold with our strategies for decommissioning arms.

It occurs to us that some form of restriction/taxation on arms dealing would be helpful. There was recently a proposal to this effect that failed to reach quorum (Stetson Kennedy?). How receptive would delegates be to such a measure? Of course, we would have to be careful to ensure that due allowance is made for non-UN nations and weapons traders.

Kind regards
Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

Any comments on arms trade restrictions/regulation? I don't really want to see this thread die...