NationStates Jolt Archive

As was reccomended during the Disarmament conference, I am here opening a debate concerning Orbital Weapons Platforms, specifically those designed to deliver a nuclear device to the surface of the Earth, or towards any orbital habitat. It is the opinion of Rabenswald that these weapon platforms, due to their global range, create more of a threat than their value as a deterrent warrants. I would like to hear the opinions of other members of the UN as to how to approach this threat, and what steps we should take to remove it.

While I recognize the danger of other non-nuclear weapon systems (such as biological and chemical weapons) which could be released from an orbital platform, this particular panel is focused on sending a reccomendation on orbital nuclear weapons to the Conference on Disarmament. I would appreciate it if the delegates would refrain from expanding the issue at this time. My hope is that once we have a solid reccomendation written on the topic at hand, we will be able to tackle similar topics with ease and alacrity.

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

I hold that this weapons deilvery system would be allowable to certian countries, assuming that they are good, like the united states or certian western countries. This system is slightly redundant as most of these country currenly have the ability to strike any point in the globe (via sub, land or air based missles), so the argument against esclation is really moot. It is simply the natural evolution in nuclear defensive as it would also decrease the impitus for first strike in a nuclear exchange, causing a further reason for the MAD (mutual assured distruction) paradigm to hold fast.

Rather than trying to counter nuclear proliferation, we should be upping the stakes of MAD, making it more mutualy assured.. I propose we have mandatory minimums on nuke sizes so that the smallest legal nuclear device would crack the planet in half.

I hold that this weapons deilvery system would be allowable to certian countries, assuming that they are good, like the united states or certian western countries. This system is slightly redundant as most of these country currenly have the ability to strike any point in the globe (via sub, land or air based missles), so the argument against esclation is really moot. It is simply the natural evolution in nuclear defensive as it would also decrease the impitus for first strike in a nuclear exchange, causing a further reason for the MAD (mutual assured distruction) paradigm to hold fast.

By what criteria do you consider a nation to be "good"? And the fact that many nations already possess the potential to strike at any point in the world is the reason we are having a disarmament summit in the first place.

Rather than trying to counter nuclear proliferation, we should be upping the stakes of MAD, making it more mutualy assured.. I propose we have mandatory minimums on nuke sizes so that the smallest legal nuclear device would crack the planet in half.

I couldn't disagree more. The creation of a planet-destroying weapon is tantamount to signing the death warrant for our planet. Accidents happen, and there are lunatics who would gladly destroy the entire world to acheive their ends.

On both accounts, the nation of Sophista agrees with the delegate from Rabenswald. We support the elimination of orbital weapons platforms, and believe that the plan outlined by Rabenswald in the general disarmament committee is a good one.

We find the suggestion offered by AggielandTX to be repulsive and ethnocentric. To imply that only so-called "western" nations are good and deserving of orbital weapons is not only offensive (Sophista lies in the East Pacific and is neither evil nor irresponsible with its weapons), but against the spirit of the United Nations. Orbital weapons platforms are equally threatening no matter who has the button, and to entrust them to only a special group of nations is to open the door for tyranny via nuclear threats.

The same can be said for the rhetoric offered by MitsubishiSonyLockheed. Centering any nuclear doctrine around the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction does nothing but force us to live in global climate of fear, where every decision is made with the veiled threat of nuclear apocalypse. To implement your plan would be a disaster, and put the entire world in danger should two minor rogue nations decide to see "whose is bigger." Not to mention it violates national soveriegnty.

To that end, we still stand strongly beside the nation of Rabenswald and would encourage all other nations who believe in a world without the constant threat of nuclear annihiliation to support them as well.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Holy Empire, having newly replaced the old republican order wishes to announce that it will never, under any circumstances, agree to the dismantling of our Orbital Defence Platform.

The Imperial Assembly, still voted for by the people I must add, have recently passed to me leglislation increasing our defence budget in order to protect our great Empire and indeed to protect our neighbours within our region.

Our Orbital Defence Platform is a vital part of the Empire's desire to bring peace to the world. It will ensure that the Holy Empire of Beaumontia can prosper in the knowledge that even in space, all are safe. It also serves as a communications station, co-ordinating events on the ground. The status of our Space Defence programme is not negotiable.

His Imperial Majesty and High Cleric of the Holy Church,

Emperor Jaius I

The nation of Sophista sees Beaumontia's selfish desires for power as not only unwarranted in a logical context, but also directly harmful to the stability and security of the globe. Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations, we cannot allow nations to send up sattelites armed with the ultimate in destructive weaponry simply because they'd like a new toy to play with.

This refutation is completely devoid of any true argumentative clash. Instead of offering reasons why the UN should let an individual nation keep the potential to end millions of lives above our heads at all times, the delegate simply says that he has a right to do so, and we should all deal with it. On the contrary, my fellow members, we don't have to "just deal with it." We have the power to make the world a safer place, where entire cities can't simply dissappear via sattelite.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs