NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings from Grigia.
Please consider this proposal.
Ban on armies
A resolution to improve world peace

The existence of armies, navies and air forces, equiped with mass destruction weapons or not, is one of the main causes of the current unstable and insecure situation of the world. Innocent inhabitants and soldiers of almoost every country in the world could be killed by a sudden war attack. This situation that put on risk millions of innocent lives should finish. In order to achieve that result, the Discerning Coalition of AV proposes a compulsory program of disarment. The program consist in:
1)A first period of transition of a year in which every country should give to the UN its heavy weaponry, including aerial and naval equipment. As a result of these proposal, the countries could only use light weaponry to ensure internal security and fight crime.
2)A second period of transition of five years. The offices of the UN and its dependant organizations would be in charge for the deactivation of the 80% of the world heavy weaponry (including all the nuclear weapons) in that period of time. Every government should give to the UN facilities and funds to keep heavy weaponry safe till its definitive deactivation. Nation States UN could use these heavy weaponry against the rebel countries that fail to give their heavy weaponry on time. Additional measures like commercial embargos against a rebel country could also be used. UN cannot use the weaponry to force a change of regime in any country of the world.
3)The 20 % of the remaining weaponry will be used for the UN to prevent eventual attempts of rearm in the countries.
4)The members of the armies every country would be retrained as policemen and policewomen to improve internal standards security. They only be allow to carry light weaponry.
5) Some of the best soldiers could be assigned to a new international force of UN that would be in charge of keeping the countries disarmed. This force will inspection the countries suspicious of manufacturing heavy weaponries. If a factory of such material is found, the force will proceed to deactivate it. If it is not allow to do that, the UN could approve a limited use of the remaining weaponry against the forces of the rebel country till the desired result of disarment is achieved. The UN should impose for a month a commercial embargo against the rogue country before the use of violence.
6)After the deactivation of weaponry, will be remaining material. That material that does not suppose risk for the human being (bassicly metals) would be donated to poor countries with good projects of construction. The dangerous substances would be destroyed without risk to the population in safe places provided for the responsible countries.

[quote="Grigia"]
. Nation States UN could use these heavy weaponry against the rebel countries that fail to give their heavy weaponry on time.
3)The 20 % of the remaining weaponry will be used for the UN to prevent eventual attempts of rearm in the countries.

5) Some of the best soldiers could be assigned to a new international force of UN that would be in charge of keeping the countries disarmed. This force will inspection the countries suspicious of manufacturing heavy weaponries. If a factory of such material is found, the force will proceed to deactivate it. If it is not allow to do that, the UN could approve a limited use of the remaining weaponry against the forces of the rebel country till the desired result of disarment is achieved.
quote]

All these points contradict your proposal to ban all armies. If you want to ban all armies, than do it entirely. Besides, i like my military, and would never give up my citizens protection.

I don´t think that the approved international force of UN would be an army in the sense of current national armies. I could do what you propose but it wouldn´t be realistic. It will be like an stop in the race of arming only to start it again a couple of days later.
If you like to protect your citizens, please improve your internal security. That´s also an intention of the proposal. Regards, Monitor.

Well that certainly would be a good idea. I see a huge problem though. Whenever a law is made people do end up breaking it. And if the good people don't have armies then the bad nations would illegally keep them. Then they might be able to over power another nation before that nation gets its armies back together.

Regardless of this I will approve this proposal once I gain delegational power in The Beach.

It’s the exsistence of armies that prevents conflict. Human nature is to take. By giving up our weapons/armies. We open ourselves to invasions by non UN nations. I will not wait while my people are being killed for the UN to react and “Come to my rescue.” The threat of retaliatory strike or MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what holds a lot of hostile non-Un nations at bay.

Second concern is the giving of the UN that kind of power. Looking at how close the “Freedom of choice” resolution passed. This will be viewed as an attempt of the UN to subjugate the member nations.

Third. What happens when the nation leaves the UN. Do they get their weapons back… no cuz they’ve been destroyed. That nation is now screwed. Forced to stay in the UN for protection because they cannot defend themselves. What about the soldiers they “donated” to this UN Force.

Fourth, the “Inspection and Disarmament” force sounds too much like an invasion force. I know it’s not meant to be such but the rights and responsibilities they have is too silimilar not to mention.

And last. The right to defend yourself is not a right many nations will give up. This resolution treats all member nations like defeated nations. It’s a slap on several nation’s honor, it insults the leaders in their ability to keep peace and it places their safety in the hands of a third party.

I am sorry but I cannot and WILL NOT support this proposal.

I am sorry but I cannot ever support this resolution. I will not subordinate my country's security to the UN. The UN on many issues does not represent the views of my country and I will never trust it with such a huge responsibility as you are willing to give it. The only reason that I am a member of this "esteemed" body of nations is to bring about as much change as I can.

Second, this proposal will not lead to greater peace as you imagine. There will be nations that are members of the UN that will not comply and then you will have all of those nations that are not members to deal with as well.

Third, your desire for peace, though noble, is not attainable. There will always be dictatorships and evil men in this world. Humans by nature are not peaceful. Think back to when you were a child, what is the first thing you wanted to do when someone told you no? I'm willing to bet that it was to directly contradict the command to not do that one thing. Laws by nature will create lawbreakers, for that reason alone there will never be a lasting peace on this earth both in the real world and in the nationstates world until it is that time for Christ to set up His kingdom on earth.

Unashamed Christians

Oh, please, accept this proposal. It would give me and all other non-UN nations an oppertunity to overthrow your nations within the blink of an eye. :evil:

Oh, please, accept this proposal. It would give me and all other non-UN nations an oppertunity to overthrow your nations within the blink of an eye. :evil:
Not so fast. The proposal doesn't define heavy weaponry. We have decided to call every arm with a yield of less than 50 terratons, (a ridiculously* high and probably technologically impossible yield) light weaponry.

Oh, please, accept this proposal. It would give me and all other non-UN nations an oppertunity to overthrow your nations within the blink of an eye. :evil:
Not so fast. The proposal doesn't define heavy weaponry. We have decided to call every arm with a yield of less than 50 terratons, (a ridiculously* high and probably technologically impossible yield) light weaponry.

Respectfully, i think you misunderstood the proposal. If you read it again, you will notice that "every country" in the world is affected by the regulation. That means UN members or not. So all the countries in the world would give their weaponry to the UN, even if they are not members. If they don´t do so, you know: commercial embargos and possible attacks using weaponry of the other countries.
Ichi ni, you say that only the existence of national armies prevent conflicts. I don´t know why something to be effective have to be national. I´m sure that an international UN force with the monopoly of the use of remaining weaponry in the world would prevent conflicts as well.
Unashamed Christians, you say that never will subordinate your security to the UN. OK, but this is the possibility of changing UN you were looking for. Why? If the UN is not transparent and doesn´t behave as a genuine multilateral force, would suffer a lot of resings between its members. That would be for sure the end of the UN.

Whoop, thought of some loop holes.
you mentioned tightening up internal security for protection? ... ok... if this resolution passes. I'll officially disband my armies... then reform them into the Ichi Self Defense Force.

This force is now by definition purly internal. thus the Mutual Defense resolution: the one where if another UN Nation is attacked by a Non UN Nation, is now useless... afterall no UN Nation will have an army to send over... my Self Defense Force is NOT an army thus cannot travel outside my region. The Mutual Defense Resolution by default is now invalid. All smaller UN Nations are now on their own. Falling prey to larger non UN Members who do not follow this proposal. They can now build excessivly LARGE armies to sweep other nations who now Don't have armies... unless they did what I just did. Using better weapons... even WMD can be used against us.

With no clear defenition on "Heavy Weapons" we will default to the weight of the weapon. thus any weapon that cannot move under it's own power will be defined as HEAVY weapons. Thus international missles are now considered medium weapons as they are propelled by rockets. We will gladly give up our heavy aircraft (aircraft that needs JATO Jet Assisted Take Off) Our nation/region is now protected by the SELF DEFENSE FORCE armed with MISSLE CARRIERS and LIGHT FIGHTER AIRCRAFT and smaller boats like PT and Crusiers.

Oh wait. you mentioned all aircraft and naval vessels... ok. they're gone. after all, if need be, I can commendeer civilian aircraft and boats for suicide attacts or outfit them with "light and Medium" Weapons... heck. even by the best definition, Airline fuel is not considered a "Weapon" thus a plain loaded with fuel is not a weapon.

That is an illustration on how impossible it is to enforce this proposal.

Respectfully, i think you misunderstood the proposal. If you read it again, you will notice that "every country" in the world is affected by the regulation. That means UN members or not. So all the countries in the world would give their weaponry to the UN, even if they are not members. If they don´t do so, you know: commercial embargos and possible attacks using weaponry of the other countries.
Ichi ni, you say that only the existence of national armies prevent conflicts. I don´t know why something to be effective have to be national. I´m sure that an international UN force with the monopoly of the use of remaining weaponry in the world would prevent conflicts as well.
Unashamed Christians, you say that never will subordinate your security to the UN. OK, but this is the possibility of changing UN you were looking for. Why? If the UN is not transparent and doesn´t behave as a genuine multilateral force, would suffer a lot of resings between its members. That would be for sure the end of the UN. Regards, Monitor.

We only have defensive forces and are hardly militaristic, yet have qualms about this proposal.

Non-UN nations would eagerly attack us if we were to disarm, would they not?

If we turn to the UN for protection, or even for a "pre-emptive strike" against non-members to force them to disarm, we are putting ourselves at the mercy of a global army which may decide for reasons of its own to disregard our soveriegnty. We could not stop them, of course.

Grigia, I WILL NOT have an armed force not under my control in my borders. THAT IS AN OCCUPATIONAL FORCE. Also a force large enough to protect all UN Members? the logistics itself is a nightmare. who's paying for them... who's feeding them? Me? I'm supporting someone else's army? not bloody likely.

Also, how are you going to get NON UN MEMBERS to comply. Invade them? force them by gun point? Sure, that's one way to insure peace... conqure everyone and make them your slaves!

They are not UN Members, They don't have to obey UN resolutions... That's like saying your nation has to obey my laws... it's just not gonna work.

I know that is not your intent, but look at it from a NON UN Member's point of view.

With no clear defenition on "Heavy Weapons" we will default to the weight of the weapon. thus any weapon that cannot move under it's own power will be defined as HEAVY weapons. Thus international missles are now considered medium weapons as they are propelled by rockets. We will gladly give up our heavy aircraft (aircraft that needs JATO Jet Assisted Take Off) Our nation/region is now protected by the SELF DEFENSE FORCE armed with MISSLE CARRIERS and LIGHT FIGHTER AIRCRAFT and smaller boats like PT and Crusiers.



Ichi Ni, heavy weaponry is for attack another country and light weaponry is for internal security. It´s so clear. You only have to look to the police, to the cost guards, or to the border guards and look which weapons they have. These weapons are really light in comparison with the weaponry of the armies, navies and air forces. For exaple you can´t compare a vessel of a coast guard with a warship. If you don´t see the difference, don´t support the proposal. It´s not for you. Monitor

Respectfully, i think you misunderstood the proposal. If you read it again, you will notice that "every country" in the world is affected by the regulation. That means UN members or not. So all the countries in the world would give their weaponry to the UN, even if they are not members.

The UN has no jurisdiction whatsoever over non-UN members. Moreover, we suspect that any attempt to impose jurisdiction over non-UN members - particularly on so sensitive a subject as disarmament - would lead to global war between UN members and non-members. This is probably not a good idea.

Grigia, I WILL NOT have an armed force not under my control in my borders. THAT IS AN OCCUPATIONAL FORCE. Also a force large enough to protect all UN Members? the logistics itself is a nightmare. who's paying for them... who's feeding them? Me? I'm supporting someone else's army? not bloody likely.

Also, how are you going to get NON UN MEMBERS to comply. Invade them? force them by gun point? Sure, that's one way to insure peace... conqure everyone and make them your slaves!

They are not UN Members, They don't have to obey UN resolutions... That's like saying your nation has to obey my laws... it's just not gonna work.

I know that is not your intent, but look at it from a NON UN Member's point of view.

And yes while a Battleship is different from a Coast Guard Cutter. by your definition of Heavy Weapons. I can reclassify my battleships and all other NAVEL vessels to Coatal Defense boats. there conditions met.

Keep in mind it was a rubber dingy with TNT that blew a hole in the navel ship at YEMEN.

Also this tread is only for supporters of the proposal? I think I only counted 1 person so far... not including yourself.

We offer this so that you can make the changes to appease the nay-sayers, or to see what went wrong. If you don't like it, complain to Tactical Grace who complained why no one spoke up during the proposal phase of her resolution! either that or drop the proposal. Your call.

I am not a UN member, but when a regulation comes up in which an overly rightous zealot tries to impose on my soverign rights I feel I need to respond. I present you with the following scenario:

Let us assume for a moment that this resolution does pass (like so many poorly-thoughtout ones do).

All UN members automatically comply, thus significantly reducing the military might of the collective UN assembly. The UN "Peace-through-Power" task force described in Article 5 is created.

Lets then assume, that Max Berry for some reason allows the UN to attmept to force non-UN members to comply.

All non-UN nations that are militaristic (basically everyone) unite against UN forces. The UN is severly outnumbered and is subsequently crushed.

You now have a UN that has no armies (only very large police forces) and a large group of nations who are probably still cross at the attempted UN oppression. These nations are also very well armed (considering the UN's state) and posses large numbers of WMDs. If they so desired they could push for the total destruction of the UN.

Granted, none of this will actually happen since the UN is not allowed by game rules to force its resolutions on anyone whos not part of the UN.

We only have defensive forces and are hardly militaristic, yet have qualms about this proposal.

Non-UN nations would eagerly attack us if we were to disarm, would they not?

If we turn to the UN for protection, or even for a "pre-emptive strike" against non-members to force them to disarm, we are putting ourselves at the mercy of a global army which may decide for reasons of its own to disregard our soveriegnty. We could not stop them, of course.

If non UN members are not williing to disarm, they will suffer a commercial embargo as the first measure. Only if that fails, they will have to deal with a new international force. I repeat, if the UN cannot ensure the transparency of these force will suffer a drop in its membership. Because of that, you can be sure that the new international force will properly ensure that no country in the world would manufacture heavy weaponry.
Ichi ni, I appreciate your opinions and of course the proposal is not only for supporters. But it´s obvious that your reclassification would not pass a simple inspection. You mention a terrorist attack in Yemen. Tell me, honestly... How could the armies prevent a terrorist attack? That´s of course an issue for internal security. You have mention also logistics problems. To avoid those problems the proposal states that the weaponry should be in charge of regional and national Un´s offices.
Skeelzania, you say that the UN is not allowed by game rules to force its resolutions on anyone whos not part of the the UN. The war is bassicly to force others to obey your law. And there is war everyday without the UN intervention. Besides, we have a previous step that you seem to forget: commercial embargos. That´s an interesting way to promoting disarment without forcing everyone to obey your law. Regards, Monitor.

We only have defensive forces and are hardly militaristic, yet have qualms about this proposal.

Non-UN nations would eagerly attack us if we were to disarm, would they not?

If we turn to the UN for protection, or even for a "pre-emptive strike" against non-members to force them to disarm, we are putting ourselves at the mercy of a global army which may decide for reasons of its own to disregard our soveriegnty. We could not stop them, of course.

If non UN members are not williing to disarm, they will suffer a commercial embargo as the first measure. Only if that fails, they will have to deal with a new international force. I repeat, if the UN cannot ensure the transparency of these force will suffer a drop in its membership. Because of that, you can be sure that the new international force will properly ensure that no country in the world would manufacture heavy weaponry.
Ichi ni, I appreciate your opinions and of course the proposal is not only for supporters. But it´s obvious that your reclassification would not pass a simple inspection. You mention a terrorist attack in Yemen. Tell me, honestly... How could the armies prevent a terrorist attack? That´s of course an issue for internal security. You have mention also logistics problems. To avoid those problems the proposal states that the weaponry should be in charge of regional and national Un´s offices.
Skeelzania, you say that the UN is not allowed by game rules to force its resolutions on anyone whos not part of the the UN. The war is bassicly to force others to obey your law. And there is war everyday without the UN intervention. Besides, we have a previous step that you seem to forget: commercial embargos. That´s an interesting way to promoting disarment without forcing everyone to obey your law. Regards, Monitor.

From the Nation States Homepage, UN section, I quote...


"As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up."


End quote. End discussion. You have no right whatsoever to tell me or any other Non-UN member state what to do with our military, our citizens or anything. If you attempt to force your will on us, do not doubt for a second we will unite and crush your organization.

After further reading all the posts this has received, Ichi Ni hit it on the head with how he would dismantle and create a defensive protecting force. Every nation in the UN would do this that resents this proposal. And as just about everyone states, UN has no jurisdiction over non UN members, weather you want to impose a blockade or not. Even so, who would perform this blockade? This proposal makes no sense and no one will vote it in. Even if it did for some reason make it in, I would resign from the UN and form an alliance to take down the UN nations that did support it and the first nation we would crash would be yours.

Now, now... let's not degrade to threats. After all the proposal's heart is in it's right place. the methods are the faulty thing.

Grigia, commercial embargo won't work. that is no deterrent to stop war or to disband armies.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of making it all encompassing (all nations un member or not) make it a standard punnishment for invading any UN or UN affliliated Nation. If a small non UN nation "Small Potato" is invaded by "MR INVADER" SP requests the un's help. we come in and smash "MR INVADER" (if the un does come to the aide of Small Potato) Then this would be one of the perfect punnishments for "MR INVADER" after all the people this would apply to are the war mongers who will use their armies to start something.

How's that. would this be acceptable?

Sorry DP :P

Sorry Skeelzania. I will continue with the discussion. I really don´t mind your bolds and italics. In your opinion, if a group of countries decide to attack a country because they feel like, it´s a legal thing. If a group of countries decide to present a proposal to regulate cleary how to make it to avoid arbitrariness, it´s illegal. I think you are wrong. We are making it clear that only the countries that manufacture heavy weaponry would be attack and only to destroy the factories involved. Besides, it´s up to a group of countries (in this case the UN members) how to make war and how to make a commercial embargo. If you are out, this is not for you.
Bracia, the weapons will be distributed under the jurisdiction of the different offices of the UN spreaded in all the world. So it would be possible to react quickly to fight against rebels. Only after the first year of transition the 80% of the weaponry including nuclear weaponry would be destroyed. Ichi Ni, it´s really interesting what you have suggested. But the problem is that we are going to have an excess of weaponry and still nuclear weaponry. So MR Invader would be able to destroy half world till we react. Probably that nation accepts to disarm if sees that potential enemies are also willing to do so. That´s the spirit of our proposal. Monitor.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of making it all encompassing (all nations un member or not) make it a standard punnishment for invading any UN or UN affliliated Nation. If a small non UN nation "Small Potato" is invaded by "MR INVADER" SP requests the un's help. we come in and smash "MR INVADER" (if the un does come to the aide of Small Potato) Then this would be one of the perfect punnishments for "MR INVADER" after all the people this would apply to are the war mongers who will use their armies to start something.

I object. This method can be so easily manipulated to the UNs advantage its not even funny. Say SP intentionally goads MR INVADER into coming in and laying the smackdown on his n00bish head. SP then screams for "help" and MR INVADER, who was only trying to defend his honor, is attacked by the combined might of the UN.

I would also like to remind everyone that if MR INVADER really was just being an ass to SP, every nation comes with your standard IGNORE Cannon.

Holy multipost Batman!

Here is a suggestion. Instead of making it all encompassing (all nations un member or not) make it a standard punnishment for invading any UN or UN affliliated Nation. If a small non UN nation "Small Potato" is invaded by "MR INVADER" SP requests the un's help. we come in and smash "MR INVADER" (if the un does come to the aide of Small Potato) Then this would be one of the perfect punnishments for "MR INVADER" after all the people this would apply to are the war mongers who will use their armies to start something.

I object. This method can be so easily manipulated to the UNs advantage its not even funny. Say SP intentionally goads MR INVADER into coming in and laying the smackdown on his n00bish head. SP then screams for "help" and MR INVADER, who was only trying to defend his honor, is attacked by the combined might of the UN.

I would also like to remind everyone that if MR INVADER really was just being an ass to SP, every nation comes with your standard IGNORE Cannon.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of making it all encompassing (all nations un member or not) make it a standard punnishment for invading any UN or UN affliliated Nation. If a small non UN nation "Small Potato" is invaded by "MR INVADER" SP requests the un's help. we come in and smash "MR INVADER" (if the un does come to the aide of Small Potato) Then this would be one of the perfect punnishments for "MR INVADER" after all the people this would apply to are the war mongers who will use their armies to start something.

I object. This method can be so easily manipulated to the UNs advantage its not even funny. Say SP intentionally goads MR INVADER into coming in and laying the smackdown on his n00bish head. SP then screams for "help" and MR INVADER, who was only trying to defend his honor, is attacked by the combined might of the UN.

I would also like to remind everyone that if MR INVADER really was just being an ass to SP, every nation comes with your standard IGNORE Cannon.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of making it all encompassing (all nations un member or not) make it a standard punnishment for invading any UN or UN affliliated Nation. If a small non UN nation "Small Potato" is invaded by "MR INVADER" SP requests the un's help. we come in and smash "MR INVADER" (if the un does come to the aide of Small Potato) Then this would be one of the perfect punnishments for "MR INVADER" after all the people this would apply to are the war mongers who will use their armies to start something.

I object. This method can be so easily manipulated to the UNs advantage its not even funny. Say SP intentionally goads MR INVADER into coming in and laying the smackdown on his n00bish head. SP then screams for "help" and MR INVADER, who was only trying to defend his honor, is attacked by the combined might of the UN.

I would also like to remind everyone that if MR INVADER really was just being an ass to SP, every nation comes with your standard IGNORE Cannon.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of making it all encompassing (all nations un member or not) make it a standard punnishment for invading any UN or UN affliliated Nation. If a small non UN nation "Small Potato" is invaded by "MR INVADER" SP requests the un's help. we come in and smash "MR INVADER" (if the un does come to the aide of Small Potato) Then this would be one of the perfect punnishments for "MR INVADER" after all the people this would apply to are the war mongers who will use their armies to start something.

I object. This method can be so easily manipulated to the UNs advantage its not even funny. Say SP intentionally goads MR INVADER into coming in and laying the smackdown on his n00bish head. SP then screams for "help" and MR INVADER, who was only trying to defend his honor, is attacked by the combined might of the UN.

I would also like to remind everyone that if MR INVADER really was just being an ass to SP, every nation comes with your standard IGNORE Cannon.

This is a lovely proposal, but - aside from my belief that it won't work - do remember that UN Proposals apply only to the UN. This will cause all NS roleplayers to resign from the UN, but further, it will effectively leave all the UN nations unarmed and weak while every other nation in the world is still armed to the teeth.

Guess what? You UNdies can't touch me with your commercial embargos. Why? Because we've got a self sufficient nation. We have no reliance on foreign oil (We've got hydrogen, solar, even some in orbit that microwave the energy down.), nothing on foreign food, or manufacturing. In fact, the only things we do export are weapons, which you can't get much income from anyway.

And you know what? If we do need something, we'll wait for your blue-helmet 'military', and annihilate them. We've got possibly the best Navy in the world, and among the best Air force and army. The only way your pathetic resolution will effect me is by making me more powerful.

I advise all UN nations, for the sake of security, to oppose this.

Guess what? You UNdies can't touch me with your commercial embargos. Why? Because we've got a self sufficient nation. We have no reliance on foreign oil (We've got hydrogen, solar, even some in orbit that microwave the energy down.), nothing on foreign food, or manufacturing. In fact, the only things we do export are weapons, which you can't get much income from anyway.

And you know what? If we do need something, we'll wait for your blue-helmet 'military', and annihilate them. We've got possibly the best Navy in the world, and among the best Air force and army. The only way your pathetic resolution will effect me is by making me more powerful.

I advise all UN nations, for the sake of security, to oppose this.

Thank you for making easier our work. It´s really possitive for us to get potential rebel countries identified by themselves. If you don´t revise your position we´ll try with a commercial embargo for a month, and then without hesitation UN would proceed against you with all the weaponry of its members.
Chinese army, if this proposal is approved UN would use the weaponry of all its members to beat one by one the rebel countries. That´s only to be sure that we can begin without risk the second stage: the destruction of the 80% of the world weaponry including all of the nuclear type. Regards, Monitor.

You're right.

All bullets, grenades, bombs, missiles, torpedo, and rockets will be delivered to you.

You can come and pick up the landmines and claymores yourself.

Grigia, this is really quite simple. You have no control over non-UN nations. None, nada, zero. You cannot bring non-UN nations into compliance with it, not even with commercial embargoes. If anything, that would cripple your own economies, we can still trade with other non-UN nations. Also, if hell froze over and somehow this proposal became a resolution and passed, then there would immediately be internal revolts all over the UN as nations left it.

Also, what about future tech nations like myself? I'd love to see you try and confiscate my dreadnoughts.

The Republic of Ithuania has reached a conclusion:

Grigia is run by a complete and utter moron.

That is all.

Grigia, this is really quite simple. You have no control over non-UN nations. None, nada, zero. You cannot bring non-UN nations into compliance with it, not even with commercial embargoes. If anything, that would cripple your own economies, we can still trade with other non-UN nations. Also, if hell froze over and somehow this proposal became a resolution and passed, then there would immediately be internal revolts all over the UN as nations left it.

Also, what about future tech nations like myself? I'd love to see you try and confiscate my dreadnoughts.

The proposal is not to control non-UN Nations. Is for defining a proper way to administrate weaponry and war between the UN members in order to achieve the world peace. Eventually the UN´s weaponry would control rebel countries, including non UN members, not the proposal. So i don´t see any problem for the UN if it´s passed. Regards, Monitor.

The Republic of Ithuania has reached a conclusion:

Grigia is run by a complete and utter moron.

That is all.

The Republic of Ithuania has reached a conclusion:

Grigia is run by a complete and utter moron.

That is all.

Ithuania? Thought you were G Bugles :?

The Republic of Ithuania has reached a conclusion:

Grigia is run by a complete and utter moron.

That is all.

Ithuania, G Bugles or whatever

Nobody with brains will face a coordinated international force with weapons of hundreds of countries and present in every part in the world but with one head. That will make the proposal work and will ensure peace. But, because your "incredible intelligence", i guess you might be "the" special case. Monitor.

Nobody with brains will face a coordinated international force with weapons of hundreds of countries and present in every part in the world but with one head. That will make the proposal work and will ensure peace. But, because your "incredible intelligence", i guess you might be "the" special case. Monitor.


What exactly makes you so sure that even a small faction within the UN, much less the whole organization, will support you? I think the best response youve gotten so far is "luke-warm" with everyone else being outright hostile. You can't ignore the fact that many UN members enjoy having substantial armies, and will not hand them over to someone without a fight.

Also, Vernii brings up a good point. How are you going to force future nations to surrender our military, when some people posses ships that have more firepower than your average modern army. And what about nations that are located off planet (such as mine)? Will you come the 40,000 light years on sublights to try and force me to disarm?

I am curious as to why you see fit to infringe on the sovereign rights of nations who refuse to join the UN because it doesn't want to be affected by decisions that it doesn't believe in. Why would I ever want to listen to a UN proposition, when I am unaffected by its corrupt politics?

You threatened to affect our economies with embargos and the like, correct? Wonderful. The UN, once simply annoying, now turns into a thousand-headed monster willing to devour any and all land it wants. What if the UN decides it wants my land? Hey, I've got a dinky little police force! I wonder if it'll stand up to the armies of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of nations, combined into one massive rush?

You still haven't addressed the issue of how you would force future tech nations into compliance with this insane proposal. And while I may be wrong, I think its usually considered that if a modern tech nation declares war on future tech, it gets what it deserves. Let's say, hypothetically, that this becomes a resolution and passes. You would have already identified me as a "rebel nation", and so you act to bring me into compliance with the resolution. How are you going to do that? I think any "war" is going to end pretty swiftly, probably with an orbital bombardment or asteroid drop onto Earth. Oh sure, there are a lot of UN space nations, but they won't be much happier about giving up their warships than a non-UN would be.

From: Norris, Leader of The People's Republic of Norris Land.

I admit that the ban of armies would be helpful for world peace, not to mention that it would also save countries money. But what would an armyless nation do in the event of an invasion from an enemy, perhaps terrorist nation?
Also, with no armies, I can't imagine what measures a nation will take against another with whom they are having a dispute. Instead of banning armies entirely, why not make an alternative? I am not a member of the United Nations, and I don't intend on becoming one, this is just my opinion, and I am trying to help, not hurt. If you need to contact me, just wire a telegram to Norris Land, thanks.

Signed:
Norris, Leader of The People's Republic of Norris Land.

Grigia wrote in explanation of this proposal:

"If non UN members are not williing to disarm, they will suffer a commercial embargo as the first measure. Only if that fails, they will have to deal with a new international force. I repeat, if the UN cannot ensure the transparency of these force will suffer a drop in its membership. Because of that, you can be sure that the new international force will properly ensure that no country in the world would manufacture heavy weaponry."

The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest rejects this proposal. In our Republic, full citizenship is earned by fulfillment of compulsory service, to end compulsory service would cheapen citizenship; yet it would be a horrendous abuse of power if the state required citizens to serve in a foriegn army!

This resolution is also contrary to the Rights and Duties of UN members resolution. Article 4 of that resolution specifically affirms the rights of UN members to the means of self-defense. We feel this fundamental freedom from fear cannot be removed without changing the nature of the UN itself.

The Armed Republic also refuses to lend any arms, soldiers, funds, or materiel, to a world war against states that demand the right to the means of national defense.

In light of this and other resolutions, the Armed Republic will offer a resolution to ensure the guarantee of national defense in accordance with UN resolutions.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

We also object to this proposal. This would leave the UN powerless against the non-UN members.

The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest rejects this proposal. In our Republic, full citizenship is earned by fulfillment of compulsory service, to end compulsory service would cheapen citizenship; yet it would be a horrendous abuse of power if the state required citizens to serve in a foriegn army!


While my nation also enjoyes a compulsory military or civil service (young men and women have a choice, but must serve in some capacity), my nation has found that sending its soldiers to join in regional defense organisations is benefial. Being land locked, my nation would have no way of supporting a navy, and yet Confederation troops (especially military support personnel) are at the disposal of the North Pacific Armies.

While I understand you are not advocating against regional military alliances, I just wanted to underscore that there is a benefit to detaching troops to the command of trusted international or regional leadership. It is a win-win situation for my nation. Our borders are secured by stronger neighbors. We've been able to buy defensive systems developed by our neighbors, and our troops are trained in the most modern fighting techniques. All of which is something my small nation would not be able to do on its own.

10kMichael

Ok, that suggestion about Mr Invader and Small Potato was not well thought out. the suggestion however is to use this removal of armies as a punishment. not an all encompasing proposal. not my finest hour... ok.

that being said.

Mikitivity wrote - "While I understand you are not advocating against regional military alliances, I just wanted to underscore that there is a benefit to detaching troops to the command of trusted international or regional leadership. It is a win-win situation for my nation. Our borders are secured by stronger neighbors. We've been able to buy defensive systems developed by our neighbors, and our troops are trained in the most modern fighting techniques. All of which is something my small nation would not be able to do on its own. "

What you might not understand Mikitivity, YOU WON'T have an Army. all but 20% of your troops will be desolved and that 20% will join a UN Army whose loyalty will be forced to be to the UN! You won't have troops for you won't have an army. just a "police force" You may not have a Navy but you also won't have an Air Force nor will you have international weapon capability. A small UN force will be in your nation under the control of the UN. Their primary goal is to inspect and make sure you are NOT creating WMD or "Heavy" weapons. their secondary goal is to obey the UN. If a conflict breaks out somewhere else and the troops at your nation needs to go, they will go and leave you with your "Police Force" as your primary defense. Should you then be invaded. The UN must then decide if your needs are enough to pull troops from whatever conflict they are at to come to your aid. You will find that your current situation is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than if this becomes a resolution and passes.

Grigia
Do you participate in Miniture War-gaming?

Some how I don't think so. Try it, work the numbers.

Here are the numbers.
lets say the world contains 200 nations.
half of that are UN Members. 100 (after all alot of people have more than one nation but only one of their nations can be in the UN.)
to make it simple, each army for every nation is 100 persons
20% of each UN Nation is 20
20 x 100 = 2000
the UN ARMY is 2000 Persons strong

Now to favor your proposal, half of the NON UN army goes for this idea.
20% of 100 = 20
20 x 50 = 1000 person strong

the UN Army is now 3000 strong.
The rest of the NON UN join forces against the un
Number of nations against the un = 50
They WILL join forces against the UN
their army per nation = 100
100 x 50 = 5000

Now you are saying that their army of 5000 will be intimidated and beaten by the UNArmy of 3000?

During peace time. 3000 troops spread out over 150 countries will be 20 troops per nation.

that's 3000 troops SPREAD OUT over 150 nations. So if the 50 non compliant nations bid their time, their UN Neighbors will only have 20 troops to protect them.

they can send in 100 troops to combat 20. (that is if propoganda does not raise their numbers over the 100 mark... I'm being nice to you on that one.)

In the first wave, they will have 50 nations under their command (Actually more, they could send in 50 troops per nation and take 2 nations at once. 2.5 to 1 odds, again I'm being nice.) so when the UN get's word, it will be actually 4000 (assuming casulaties) vs 2000 2 to 1 odds against the UN. and their number goes up when they conscript the nation's civilians to fight for them!

WHY YOU'RE RIGHT... IT WILL BE A SLAUGHTER! I would apologize about the lacking in brains comment you made.

When troops die or retire, how are they replaced. after all there will be no ARMIES being trained... only an "Internal Police Force." When the Weapons are used up or old how are they going to be replaced... No Factories will be making replacements! When the technology of the weapons become obsolete, who will upgrade them? NO ONE BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO WEAPON RESEARCH! the power will be in the rouge nations and the UN will become a Dinosaur waiting to be killed.

Trade embargos... HA! Propoganda will paint the UN as tyrants and more nations will side with them their people will see the UN as the enemies and their recuitment rates will more than double... Other nations may rally to their side, especially after they see the "force" that will protect them from the Rouge Nations.

If I were you, I'd admit defeat and either give up on this idea, or seriously re-think it.

Oh and one more thing. with only one head, the rouge nations can then attack the nations at their boarders... the one head will be swampped because the UN will be fighting a war on multiple borders while the rogue nations will be fighting one battle on one border. Napoleon and Hitler learned that lesson first hand.

think it's easy. try playing Warcraft or StarCraft with you vs 3 other players who's only goal is to kill you. weather or not they work together does not matter. you will be overwhelmed and squashed like a little bug.

Firstly, the Holy Empire of Gethamane doesn't have a standing army, per se. As our entire "military" force is dedicated to Internal Security already, so how would this affect us?
And how is "80% of the world heavy weaponry" defined? By mass? By raw lethality?
Finally, we're not convinced that trade embargos on nations that don't trade with UN nations would work. Frankly, many of the nations we would have to worry about, if we disarmed, wouldn't conduct trade with a UN nation if their lives depended on it.
Besides, many coastal nations in the UN already have embargos against non-UN compliant shipping vessels after the Ballast Water proposal.
Certainly, we could strongarm some UN-sympathetic nations into disarming... but would we need to? The nations that are likely to attack during these "transitional periods" don't trade with us anyway.

The mind boggles. We have no standing army (and do not intend to have one) but even we can see that this proposal is madness.

G Bugles - do you realise that some of us have been Waiting for Ithuania for a very long time now? I believe you were going to refute the social contract or something...

desperately fighting the urge to giggle manically

This is a noble yet misguided and naive proposal that assumes altruism and goodwill in all nations and follows the idealist argument that humans are basically good. Humans are not basically good, but neither are they basically bad, as many realists would have it. However, the fact remains that there will always be those who will act in their own (national) interest and will abuse the process. Global disarmament has been discussed in the field of international relations for a long time, and though many idealists etc argue the cause, you cannot escape the realist argument that 'Hitlers rule the system'. A number of arguments have already been put forward already within this thread, but some points I would make are these:

1) The cost and time undertaken to dismantle and monitor compliance would be huge and almost impossible. Those that feign compliance could hide their forces or disguise them as policing etc - 1930s Germany and modern day North Korea are only two examples of how easy it is to avoid compliance with arms control or disarmament regimes.
2) Disarmed states will be at the mercy of hostile nations, while a UN force would likely be vulnerable to over-bureaucracy, consistent cost cutting and staffing problems and significant problems with deployment and force projection. Are states willing to risk their security on the competence and effectiveness of such a mongrel force led by a bureaucracy composed of thousands of states? Are states willing to trade their own national space for time should an enemy attack on several fronts, swamping the UN protection force and leading to hard decisions about where to defend and where to lose?
3) The concert of Europe is one example of how even the most stable 'security community' eventually fails. Although this is being pessimistic, are nations willing to rest their future security on trusting that the UN members will cooperate for the rest of time? Have we reached the 'end of history' that will allow this noble future? I would suggest not.
Edited for spelling after initial posting

well said Dakares!

What you might not understand Mikitivity, YOU WON'T have an Army.

You will find that your current situation is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than if this becomes a resolution and passes.

The apologies should be mine ... I wasn't addressing the proposed resolution, but the subject of regional security arrangements instead.

But I do understand. I never said I've vote in favour of this proposal. Your comments and those of others are reflect my nation's opinion as well. You can count on my nation siding with yours should this proposal become a resolution in its current form. :)

10kMichael

oh, I guess I also mis-understood what you were trying to say. Sorry for any hurt feelings. :?

oh, I guess I also mis-understood what you were trying to say. Sorry for any hurt feelings. :?

There are none! In fact, your point was very much worth repeating and obviously my post was unclear. :)

It was a win-win situtation for both of our statements, without a doubt. Besides, I'm not going to go off in a huff ... at least not when there are real dragons for me and my white horse to smite! ;)

[OOC: Though this and other comments on the board does make me think of Converter's "Witch Hunter" track. To quote the song: "The reality is ... there are witches in our society." Strugis rocks!

I kinda like the idea that being called a dragon hunter -- a different thread. Though I'd point out that one of the first written references to a rider on a white horse was not as a knight in shining armor, but rather comes from the book Revelation. It is Death himself who is associated with the pale horse. It'd be interesting to see who our local Famine, Pestilence, and War personalities are around here.] ;)