NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support my newly proposed resouloution to ban all WMD.

Thanks
Scott (Chair of North Kirogl rep commity)

No Banning WMD trading will harm ours and other nations.
Should you insist in attempting to ban this trade we shall have to take retalatry action against you. :evil:

What does WMD mean?

:roll: yea yea yea we hurd it all before, when we broke for you......

If you choose to invade fine but.....

1) this should be in the International incedents borde
and
2) We are a LOT stronger then we where duering the civil war...

What does WMD mean?
Weapons of Mass Destruction. in this context
Nuclear
Mushroom cloude type bomes
Bilogical
Gem warfare
Chemical
Posion gas, Agent Orange, My Socks
Radilogical
"Dirty" Bomes, Normal explosives with Nuclear materal around so that when it explodes the radioactive dust goes everywhere.

Deviecs (Not just bomes but bullites, grenades e.t.c e.t.c)

Thank you, I did not know the abbreviation.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono must once again stand up against foolish resolutions designed to rob smaller countries of neccessary means of defense against thier larger and imperialistic neghibours. Once again we call on all UN members to oppose this outlandish idea propegated by a country no doubt seeking to weaken the rest of us for their own nefarious purposes.

This comes up every week, and every week it's struck down for the same reason: MAD.

If the UN bans high-powered weapons, only non-UN nations will have them. And then the balance of power goes right out the window.

:evil: What's is wrong with you people we bann wmd and terroist get a hold of one! And the world is held hostage!
My nation relies heavily on The army navy and airforce and without the WMD it is useless, Should you continue your crusade against it we shall take action against YOU :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I don't think they should be banned; for the last 1/2 century they've worked as a peaceful deterrent to a 3rd WW

BUT

Our world's current stockpiles can destroy humanity many times over. We should proportionately reduce the world's stockpiles so that we cannot destroy ourselves in some final, ultimate war.

yeh i totally agree. no more WMD. we don't need them! what kinda monster would kill millions of people? having WMD won't help us against terrorists either 'cos we can't exactly blow up whole countries to kill a few baddies.

stupid invasion threats won't help anyone. the UN is a democratic body - we're entitled to our opinions. if u don't like them, leave! WMD may be a deterrent for now but what if it fails to deter? if WMD are used no-one wins. we all get killed - mums, dads, kids, babies, dogs, cats, fish, birds, rabbits, dolphins

C'mon, everybody - can't we all just get along? We gotta make love - not war!

Besides, making love takes a lot less time than making a war does (and if it doesn't please contact your doctor as soon as possible.)

You people are IGNORANT.

The UN can ban nukes all it wants, but THE NON-UN NATIONS WILL STILL HAVE THEM!

yeh i totally agree. no more WMD. we don't need them!

There is only one deterrent which is inherently effective against attacks using weapons of mass destruction: fear of reprisal in kind. The only concrete way to stop someone from hitting you is to convince them that you'll be able to hit them just as hard as or harder than they can hit you. Morals are all well and good, but it simply doesn't bode well to let other nations hold that sort of power over other nations without any check. Any resolution to disarm would, as is always mentioned when these sorts of proposals come up, only apply to those nations which are members of the UN, and those nations would then be drastically weakened and open to a first-strike possibility.

Admittedly, Mutually Assured Destruction Theory doesn't work quite so well against terrorist and other non-governmental threats, but it was never really supposed to, so that argument doesn't fly with me. Fanatical groups won't care whether or not we have WMDs -- that does not mean that we should discard them, because they are not the threat WMDs are meant to counter.

I dont think that WMD are a bad thing. Looking back, super doomsday bombs are probably what saved us from the cold war. Like someone-who-i-forgot-the-name once said: one day, humanity and all its technology will be confronted to a weapon so powerfull, so horribly terrifying in its potential of destruction, that they will fear to use it and agive up wars forever".

Ok, there is always the possibility of a suicidal weirdo, but generally, WMD are not built alone, and governement usually have enouf people with common sence to not use them.

What i am against is prohibiting WMD for some countries while building our own stock, so we might use it for intimidation. Come on, everyone noticed how the U.S.A bully around small countries that have not reached nuclear power yet but had a "suddent burst of respect" for those who managed to build / steal nuclear weapons. How do you expect to convince small totalitarist nations to give up their armement programs that way? Start respecting them, even if they are not military powerfull yet. You dont attract flies with vinegar, they say?

the nations that disobey and keep WMD will have the advantage over all us.

you could write some sort of clause into the proposal like, if any nation in the UN is attacked by WMD, UN member nations will either declare war or place crippling economic sanctions on the offending nation. obv thats not so practical but that would be a deterrent in itself

The People's Republic praises those UN members who also agree on the values of independence and self-defense for opposing this foolish resolution!

The People's Republic of Miko Mono praises those fellow UN members who also believe in the values of independence and self-defense for opposing this foolish resolution!

UN member nations will either declare war
So he goes and nukes everyone before they get a chance to mobilize?

or place crippling economic sanctions on the offending nation.

Do you really think someone who nukes other people for no reason will care?

you could write some sort of clause into the proposal like, if any nation in the UN is attacked by WMD, UN member nations will either declare war or place crippling economic sanctions on the offending nation. obv thats not so practical but that would be a deterrent in itself

Economic sanctions are not an effective or acceptable response to nuclear attack. Military response may well be impossible after a nuclear first strike has occured. Ergo, ability to reciprocate is the best deterrent available.

Duh, we use our nukes to threaten non-UN nations to get rid of their WMDs, and then once that's done, we get rid of ours, and we do it in the best way possible, using 'em on those newly defenseless nations.

Seriously though, prescence of WMDs doesn't matter. As komokom would put it, we've got I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons, and those are a Hell of a lot better than any nuke.

Of course the world's stockpiles are capable of destroying the world many times over. This is because the world is held in check with Mutually Assured Destruction. So long as people expect to be destroyed if they push too far - nobody does.

Let's imagine the simple condition where there are only two countries in the entire world. In order to convince country A that they should not first strike country B, country B has to have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all of the provinces of country A. In order to convince country B to not first strike country A, country A naturally needs to have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all of the provinces of country B.

The total amount of nuclear weapons in the world, thus, is equal to the amount needed to destroy country A plus the amount needed to destroy country B - as for this example there are only 2 countries in the world, that's the entire planet.

But let's make things more complicated - let's imagine that there was a third country, imaginatively named "country C". It needs to have enough nukes to threaten the obliteration of both country A and country B at the same time. Furthermore, both country A and country B need to have enough nukes to destroy their opposite number and country C simultaneously.

How many nuclear weapons are there? Well, Country A has enough weapons to destroy Country B and Country C; Country B has enough nuclear weapons to destroy Country A and Country C; and lastly Country C has enough nuclear weapons to wipe out Country A and Country B.

The world is equal in size to Country A + Country B + Country C, and the number of total nuclear weapons is enough to destroy all that twice.

This is only natural. Now, imagine the actual case in which there are hundreds, thousands, or millions of nations - each needing to defend themselves from potential nuclear aggressors. One would naturally expect that the number of times the world could be destroyed would be equal to the number of nations in it minus one - so presumably the number of times we could blow up the world is going to be in the hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times.

As it happens, some nations choose to gamble on the fact that other nations have nuclear weapons to skate by with a nuclear arsenal insufficient to wipe out all potential enemies. The concept here is that as soon as nukes start flying, other nations will launch their nuclear weapons as well. This way, a nation can afford to only be able to destroy one to three enemies themselves, counting on the resultant nuclear war to take out any remaining enemies. The fact that the human race can collectively only destroy the entire world a couple of times over indicates that many nations are being extremely sluggish about their defense and forcing the rest of us to stick up for them.

All I'm saying is that responsible nations who front the cost of the nuclear defense of the planet should be given tribute by these slothful nations in order to offset these costs. They are benefitting from our nuclear stockpile without actually spending their money. Meanwhile, we have the power to destroy their entire nation, and they are naturally powerless to stop us. Every year that we don't incinerate their homes we should be given payment both for the service we are providing and for the expectation that this happy state of affairs should continue for another year.

Don't make me come over there.

So, you're saying that my peaceful nation should pay every nation in the world to not be blown up? What the Hell have I ever done to you (excluding the upcoming insults)? What kind of a dumbass are you? If you couldn't get away with simply ignoring it, I'd politely ask my friends to induce a nuclear winter within your nation. Seriously, why would anyone pay for that? You know what that's called? Extortion! You are a total moron, you're very lucky that Vivelon is pushing for peace within it's borders, otherwise I might just push the big red button. God! You're a moron.

So, you're saying that my peaceful nation should pay every nation in the world to not be blown up?

Of course not. Many other useless nations like your own are incapable of blowing you up, and you shouldn't have to pay them to not do something which they couldn't do anyway.

This is still economically feasible for your nation - we are saying that in total you should be spending approximately 20% of what you would be spending to maintain a nuclear deterent for the use of the nuclear umbrella of other nations. This money, in turn, would be fairly divided amongst the nations which are protecting you.

You know what that's called? Extortion!

So?

We have nuclear weapons.

You benefit from the fact that we have nuclear weapons.

We are providing you with a service, and if we are not paid, then it is only logical for us to stop providing you with that service.

If you couldn't get away with simply ignoring it, I'd politely ask my friends to induce a nuclear winter within your nation.

Your friends would not invoke a nuclear winter in our nation no matter how politely you asked. Why? Because unlike you, we actually have nuclear weapons - and would promptly respond.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nations get cranky and start spoiling for a fight - and then they think better of it and go eat Cheerios instead of killing us all - because there are nations like Hooglastahn ready to obliterate them if they act otherwise!

The peaceful people of the nation of Vivelon can sleep safe and sound, because they are benfitting from the expenditure of other peoples' money! Right now your own neighbors are protecting you from nuclear devastation and you aren't paying them a bottle cap. You know what that makes you?

Thieves!

You are stealing the protective function of other nations' nuclear weapons and then getting defensive as soon as you are asked to pay a small fraction of the value of the service you are pilfering. You are like a man who, upon the discovery that he is in fact stealing cable, angrily shouts at the cable man offering him a discount and threatens him with a tire iron.

Well, the cable company really does have the final word here, they could choose to try to get all their back payments that you owe for having stolen cable for so long - but hey, they are being nice. And what do you do? You threaten them with a nuclear holocaust you can't even deliver. Where's the logic in that? It's like saying to the cable guy on the phone "More like, I'll cut off your Cable!"

It might be fun to say - but it doesn't mean a thing. The nuclear powers have the final word:

Pay up, or be destroyed.

Don't make me come over there.

Hoogie, you're forgetting the great and glorious IGNORE cannons. We are consequently not compelled to pay you anything. Good effort though.

OOC: I've got a great idea, how about we just pretend to be in character, for at least a little bit.

While many people are opposed to it, the fact remains that in the real world the nuclear powers really do get tribute from the non-nuclear powers. This comes in several major forms:

1. Unfavorable trade agreements. This is the kind of tribute France gets from Tahiti. France has Nukes, and Tahiti simply "trades" raw materials to France at below market rate.

2. Direct renting of military protection. This is the kind of tribute that the United States gets from Japan. The United States has nuclear weapons, and Japan dpoes not. So the United States parks military forces on Japanese soil which the Japanese subsidize whether they like it or not.

3. Outright theft. This is the kind of tribute the United States gets from Iraq. The United States has nuclear weapons, and announces that Iraq owes the United States "war reparations" that the Iraqi people and government never actually agreed to. Then the United States takes oil out of the ground and "allows" the Iraqi people to pay off their "debt" by "giving" the oil to US for free.

This sort of military extortion is a major international issue, so having people say "I'll just pretend it's not a problem, so it's not" is really a slap in the face of any possible role playing aspect to the nation state set-up.

Now, Hooglastahn is a "have" nation when it comes to military force, and so is unsurprisingly in favor of military nations performing acts of extortion on non military nations. While your nation may well be a have-not nation which is very much opposed to this sort of thing, at least try to not be a total smack-tard and break the fourth wall over it.
/OOC

Fine, but there are two problems with this:

1) How exactly do you plan to enforce your attempts to extort? I can and will ignore you unless I wish to roleplay.

2) This world has IGNORE cannons. They are a part of the game as nations may choose not to participate in roleplaying war. I play the game for the political aspects and, frankly, don't take it particularly seriously. It helps to debate and learn about other viewpoints and helps take my mind off a really crappy desk job.

In short, Ecopoeia is entirely justified in deploying IGNORE cannons if it so wishes because this, ironically, is not the real world.

The examples you make are good ones and the scenarios you envisage are valid because not everyone is going to deploy those IGNORE cannons if they want to roleplay such scenarios.

I'd have more time for you (particularly as your nation has a colourful character) if you hadn't used the baffling term 'smack-tard'. It betrays your immaturity.

DP, if you'll excuse me breaking the fourth wall again...

The CRO would like to ask this question:

Would a Massive Ordiance Air Burst (MOAB) be classified as a WMD? Because if it is, the CRO will be against any legislation on this issue whatsoever.