NationStates Jolt Archive

Complete Nuclear Disarmament


There is simply no place for these weapons in our society anymore. They are weapons of horrific power and destruction, that cannot distingush between military and civilian when detonated. Nuclear weapons create horrific effects when used such as blinding people, melting their skin off, etc. A nuclear weapon does not distingush between enemy combatant and women and children.

These weapons are a grave danger to humanity. All it would take is for a corrupt government to hand these things out to terrorists and you'll have a complete nuclear apocolypse on your hands.

This resolution will order all nations in the UN to gradually dismantle ALL of their nuclear weapons. Inspectors will be sent out to make sure that the criteria is being met.

there are proposals like that every week but i dont think one has become a resoluation yet

Just think of all the millions, and billions of people that would die if these things are unleashed.

there are proposals like that every week but i dont think one has become a resoluation yet


There has :roll:

This seems counterintuitive. Complete disarmament will not apply to UN nations, and would therefore put the UN at the military mercy of potentially less enlightened states. Even were this not the case, disarmament would not prevent a rogue nation or committed terrorist network from achieving nuclear capability as long as uranium-fuelled power plants remain legal.

We can deal with security at nuclear plants in another resolution. But right now when I look around I just see way too many hotspots in the world with people threatining to fling nukes at each other.

It's not just terrorists with nukes that worry me.

The issue of disarmament was covered thouroughly in another discussion, incidentally one that I happened to sponsor. You'd be wise to visit this summit and read my examples of why we shouldn't disarm completely before deciding to run this kind of resolution. People barely want to give up their ICBMs, let alone the warheads in them.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The most peaceful and verdant nation of Bahgum currently has a proposal entitled 'nuclear obsolesence', with an accompanying UN forum thread, in the UN at this very moment. Perhaps your government would like to send a delegation down t'pub to discuss this with our most glorious foreign secretary?

::bump::

Come on guys, we need more approvals!

As already stated, a full-scale disarming of all nuclear devices from the UN isn't enough. There would have to be a regulartory commitee to hunt down, gather, and store all of the weapons-grade plutonium to ensure that rouge nations and non-UN members don't get a definite advantage. Disarming is a nice thought and all, but it only works if everyone complies, which not everyone will. Since the creation of nuclear arms, the definitive winners in war are those with superior nuclear technology. During times of peace, those with more weaponry are usually appeased in order to avoid conflict that would result in the use of the nuclear weapons.

If you intend to impose the disarming of nuclear weapons, then I say it must be taken further; we must actively hunt all plutonium, both weapons-grade and "dirty", and keep a careful watch as to where it goes and what it's used for. Afterall, there are practical, non-war uses for plutonium, such as powerplants and whatnot. And those establishments are fine; however, in order to insure the security of every nation, we must make plutonium a government regulate resource.

Else it is impossible to call for nations to disarm their nuclear weapons.

Big Poppa Pump - as it stands, your proposal is simply not viable. The UN is too small in relation to the rest of the world for its member nations to risk disarming under the terms of your proposal. We do applaud your sentiments but feel that you're taking the wrong path here.

Sophista - is there any chance of reviving your summit on disarmament? There were some good points raised there, it was a shame it died off. We could always claim we'd taken an extended tea break.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker on Home Affairs

The issue of disarmament was covered thouroughly in another discussion,
That discussion group is here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122803). I recommend you revive the discussion and read over what's been posted before resubmitting this one. Sophista and company have put a lot of thought into their discussion, and your proposal as written is unlikely to attract enough approvals to make it into queue.

Anyone interested in reviving the discussion is more than welcome to. I let it fall from the front page of discussions because I don't believe in "bumping" a topic just because interest is low. However, if the issue of disarmament is significant enough to merit a return to the topic, I'd be more than happy to further contribute. As is, our legal experts are in the progress of writing a proposal that accomplishes the goal of our original argument on ICBMs. Anyone with something to add would be more than welcome in the conversation.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I would oppose nuclear dissarmament with every recourse at my disposal, even if it where to go into effect.

Total Nuclear Disarmarment is not only not feasible but it is downright dangerous at the current time. Though I personally belive that these archaic weapons of indescriminatory death need to be desposed of, the total disarmarment would only effect UN nations and thus be highly dangerous to the people of the collective nationstates. So instead of a total Nuclear Disarmarment I propose that we try a Nuclear Weapons scale back, so that in the occasion of a Nuclear threat that we are adaquately prepared with offensive measure of equal magnitude. Not so that each nationstate has it's own arsenal of Nukes but so that the UN has a personal Arsenal at it's fingertips.