NationStates Jolt Archive

OCC: Sorry if there is already a thread about this, but I didn't see one.

IC: Fellow members of the UN, greetings. As duly elected (read: fought his way to the position) Representative of the Greenskinz, I feel that it is my duty to bring to attention a proposal that is currently "In Queque" and will most likely be at vote within a matter of days.

This proposal I am speaking of is the "End Nuclear Proliferation Act". I present you with the proposal-soon-to-be-resolution:

End Nuclear Proliferation Act
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

Description: "The doctrine of mutually assured destruction perpetually sets our entire planet on the brink of a worldwide nuclear apocalypse"

- Maxwell Freeborn Pierce,
Anarchy's Regional UN Delegate

We, the assembled Nations of the UN body must do our part to preserve the Earth for future generations. Weapons that utilize deadly and harmful radiation poison the land for many centuries after the conflicts in which; and the very nations by which they had been deployed will have long passed out of human memory.

Be it therefore resolved that all UN member nations immediately cease all production of nuclear weapons including but not limited to: Fission bombs, fusion bombs, neutron bombs, 'dirty bombs' and depleted uranium ammunition.

Be it further resolved that all UN member nations dismantle and safely dispose of all such weapons in their arsenals no later than a decade after the passing of this resolution.

Be it further resolved that a UN ENPA (End Nuclear Proliferation Act) Enforcement Agency be set up to oversee the implementation of this resolution.


We the Greenskinz find this proposal to be a indirect threat to the safety of all UN members. It is known that there are about 37,000 UN members, and somewhere around 110,000 non-UN nations. Many of these nations are militaristic savages (so are we for that matter, but whos splitting hairs) who do not hesitate to use massive nuclear force in any and all situations. By forcing UN members to dismantle our nuclear stockpiles, we risk leaving ourselves open to threat and coercian by nuclear-armed powers.

I urge all freedom-loving UN states to vote against this resolution, if and when that time comes. We must keep our nukes, our dirty and suitcase bombs, our depleted-uranium shells, inshort everything this proposal bans, or else we risk being trampled by the boot of the non-UN nations. Thank you.

-Tweek Yeggar (translated by the Ministry of Carrying on Coherent Conversations with Other Powers)

Uh, some people, like me really, really hate the UN. The more, um extreme and violence realted would cheerfully use Nukes to charbroil a large number of UN nations if they felt they could get away with it.

Even though my clone-nation is trying to spear-head the initative against this Act, I support it. Mainly because the one person I most likely will get into a regional Civil War with is in the UN, and the banning of nucleics would substantially shift the balance in my favor.

Seeing as how The Republic of Tekania's major industry is arms manufacturing, not merely small arms, but also included being depleted uraniun based armor and municions, strategic nuclear armorments, and tactical nuclear ordinance.. We would have to be staunchly against that, in the fact that it bears direct and extremely harmfull impact on our economy and defense. In addition, this would create an armorment imbalance between the U.N. and non-U.N. nations.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

This preposal should not be there, it directly conflicts with the very first UN preposal passed!

Some might call me an idealist, or a hippie, or a deranged commie pinko greenie red (it's happened before), but I can see no sane reason for nuclear weapons to exist. Because of this, I support this proposal, but may vote against it depending upon my region's view.

Idealist, hippie, or foolish would be the most likely canididate, "pinko-commie" 's would not support it most certainly.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

From the other one (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150638)

With something like this either all nations participate or it won't work. NS is a diverse place there are a lot of countries that would attack for 'unfair' reasons, We would like to keep our defences against them. Just in case.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

This resoulution MUST be stopped. It will stop every country from maufaturing a means of defence. As I say, this resoulution MUST be stopped!

To the nations considering ending Nuclear Proliferation.

I would like to reinterate a couple reasons why such an act would be devestating to our survival and the survival of my nation.

1. To end nuclear proliferation would result in a poor balance of military power against the United Nations. As previously stated, there are more than three times the number of non-UN nations. This would be three times our number possibly willing to sacrifice their environmental health for the destruction of the UN and its participating nations. In order to serve ourselves as a whole and as individual countries, we must be prepared to defend ourselves.

2. Many nations within our group are economically centered on the use of radioactive materials. This range is spread from weapons manufacturing, to nations like my own who simply produce or mine the necessary nuclear material. To end proliferation would place these countries in economic jeopardy. As members of the UN, our goal is to balance the needs of every nation with our decisions. What good is a clean environment if you can not afford to feed, clothe, or house your citizens?

We are the leaders of our nations and it is our job to keep our citizens safe from threats within and outside our country. I feel that the average citizen, while concerned for the environment, feels safer and more content that their government does have the ability to stop invasion and keep the economy balanced. Should we decide to rid ourselves of this necessary evil, then we risk upheavals within our own countries.

Security is a perception. Peace is always precarious. A nuclear weapon could easily shatter both. Do not let us forget that we are but one strong voice for our millions.

I support the resolution. Besides, it says nothing against anti-missile defense systems, does it? Or Anti-air defenses? If you don't spend your money on bombs, you can afford to stop the enemy from using those bombs on you. Besides, bombs and ballistic missiles are NOT a defensive mechanism. They are a counter-offensive mechanism (in other words, insurance the enemy will not attack you and/or a way to retaliate in the event of an offensive strike).

Prime Minister Pulido
New Philadelphia
Constitutional Monarchy of Free Pennsylvania

Well at least it doesn't cover depleted-uranium armor.

I have still voted against it.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

As much as this resolution is a great idea, the only problem i have is as follows.

What if we would disarm our nuclear weapons? What about those nations who aren't in the UN and have nuclear capability? They would have a very big advantage to which we'd have no deterrant.

On this we have to vote NO for our self protection.

As much as this resolution is a great idea, the only problem i have is as follows.

What if we would disarm our nuclear weapons? What about those nations who aren't in the UN and have nuclear capability? They would have a very big advantage to which we'd have no deterrant.

On this we have to vote NO for our self protection.

Personally, I dont think this is a good idea. For one thing, how is this a matter of the UN? Also, for nations like mine, we depend on a high defence level, especially nations in my region. We strive for military power. Also, exactly what would we do if we ever got into a war the needed the use of nukes? I personally dont think that this should be passed, on the intrest of national security.

We reject that resolution. It would make all UN members vulnerable to blackmail by non-UN members. They could attack us with their nukes.
We need a nuclear deterrent just in case. Historic experience has proven that the existence of such a deterrent can actually prevent war, as the cold war proves.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

Besides, it says nothing against anti-missile defense systems, does it?

In the most optimistic scenario, after massive investment, the best protection those will offer is 75% of ICBMs.

The thing about nuclear ICBMs is that a 25% success rate is more than enough.

this resolution is outrages!!!! Sure UN members won't be a threat... TO EACH OTHER! But what about the non UN members who are a threat to world peace. If the UN passes this resolution these roque nations will set the agenda, and we can do NOTHING!!!!! I know it sounds odd, but when you come to think about it, we can only keep world peace and stability, if:

A: All nations, I including NON UN members, get rid of their nuclear weapons (NOT VERY LIKELY, IS IT!!!)

B: If UN members, and other fellow nations still possess nuclear weapons in order to keep the other, roque nations chess mate!!!!!!

How 'bout this? In the days and ages of field armies and prop-planes nukes made sense. But now we must instead of polluting the world with unrecoverable radiation and spending millions on the weapons and cleanup. Why not invest in spec-op guerillas? The SS, Viet-Cong, American Patriots, Feyadeen, and the PLO are all fine examples of these armies. Small, deadly, and efficent. Why shoot something that will just eventualy blow back on you? Just give a man a sniper and a million dollars ,and go blow your enemies heads off! :twisted:

Without nuclear Arms my COuntry's Uranium mining industry will go to the dumps and ruin my economy.

VOTE AGAINST SAVE THE FATHER KNOWS BEST STATE OF THe ANGLOSAXTON PEOPLES

I understand the threat of nuclear war in growing everyday so I voted against this resolution, please do the same, we need a defense!

Both sides make very good arguements but I am going to do what is best for my nation.

1] What about nations who arnt in the UN they can just lunch a nuke anytime :- /
2] Wow come to think my Economy would go way do because of Uranium Mining is one of the best industries plus it has been down latly due to the 40 hour act
3] How do you stop someone from attacking you... if they just launch missles at some of your major cities do you just go to your anti-missle defense plan and hope they dont launch more at your nation... no its the fear that stop people from attacking your nations.

Postion: AGAINST, advise's others to do that same

I will immediately quit the UN if this resolution looks like it's going to pass.

I think I'll have to retire from the UN and nuke the building if this one passes.
And let me know when the actual UN has this kind of power in the world - anyone think the USA/China ...ect would disarm or even stop production of any weapon based 'entirely' on the UN passing a new law?? - and specific weapons are now banned -lmao!!!

As a matter of fact - my country has began testing in underground facilities - where any signs of military activities are totally hidden - from land, air, sea, space and all airborne toxins ect are completely undetectable.

This is the first testing of its kind in my country- and it is in direct response to the current UN initiative. And testing will be increased three fold if the un bill passes.

And if/when I recieve a message from the
Compliance Ministry, stating:
Laws have been enacted to bring the Confederacy of Altered Realityville into compliance with the United Nations "End Nuclear Proliferation Act" resolution.

This is will be totally false- allthough the Compliance Ministry inspectors will believe it to be so.

I would like to know exactly which weapons are banned, since I make regular use of anti-matter weaponry, especially in outer space.

I believe that if UN nations get rid of their nuclear weapons, then people that are not in the UN will have nuclear weapons. Nuclear Weapons are not going to destory the world. First off anyone in their right mind would not launch one, simply because they would end up being killed also. I honestly do not see why we need to disban nuclear weapons. Also this resolution could limit space travel, because even in the Real World NASA is testing nuclear weapons as a way to fuel to a space ship. The space ship would drop a bomb in space and the bomb would go off, thus pushing the space ship to incriditable speeds. I feel really strongly on this issue, because I am studying to get my undergraduate degree in Nuclear Enginneering. Thank you all for your time.

There is no such thing as peace without war. My country needs nukes to keep its freedom. How can i prevent other nations who are not part of the UN to not use nukes on me once the UN has forced me to eliminate my nukes. The barbaric nations of the world do not give a f**k about the UN and they will not disarm just because the UN is telling a minute portion of the world to stop producing nukes. This resolution must not pass for the safety of all UN nations.

-The President of the Borderlands of Ivana Tapit

-I will also continue to conduct my underground testing facilitys despite the UN's liberal, tree-hugging, hippie resolution. All they are trying to do is control the world, but they don't realize that 75% of UN nations see the UN as a joke.

All things Nuclear are good for making power- and nuclear bombs are useful for threatening small militeristic regimes with total destruction.
Taking away our firepower would result in world Anarchy.

Damn, every time 1 person votes against it, another 2 people vote for it. :x

That's 'cause n00bs join the U.N. to "gain power" then don't read the U.N. forums

Question:
How is this a matter of the UN? If a nation wants to stop building nukes, then let them, but the whole UN shouldn't be dragged into this. If this does get passed, then there should be a way for all UN nations to decide for THEMSELVES if they want it or not.

(Also, just wondering, how'd this proposal get so many votes, if so many of us are against it?)

this can not continue. the abortion thing went to far. now they want to take away our ability to defend ourselves.

I believe the slippery slope theory applies here.

who knows what the UN will do next. I am only in the UN so I can defend my region from region crashers.

does this also ban DU armor?
Me and my puppet UN nation use Depleted Uranium in my magitek armor.

If this proposal is passed then all nations and regions in the UN will be screwed because those not in the UN will be able to use Nukes and those in will not. If you want to lose every war you are in then go ahead and pass the proposal. Otherwise think of the consequences.
Get out there and vote this proposal down.

Question:


(Also, just wondering, how'd this proposal get so many votes, if so many of us are against it?)

I'm wondering the same, delegates are against probably and their votes count for more if lots of endorsements.

This must not pass we need a nuclear deterrent to keep other nations from attacking us. More wars and invasions will be started if this passes because non U.N. nations will have the advantage.

Why dont everyone stop bitchin about the nukes. They only work if they are small scale and if used against field armies. Modern era nukes would destroy the planet if used so whats the point in useing them. TERRORISM is the wave of the future. Small armies of guerillas armed with submachine guns are more effective. Worked for the Viet-Cong and is currently working for the Feyadeen in Iraq. So come on ban the useless nukes and train small elite guerilla warriors.

I support the resolution. Besides, it says nothing against anti-missile defense systems, does it? Or Anti-air defenses? If you don't spend your money on bombs, you can afford to stop the enemy from using those bombs on you. Besides, bombs and ballistic missiles are NOT a defensive mechanism. They are a counter-offensive mechanism (in other words, insurance the enemy will not attack you and/or a way to retaliate in the event of an offensive strike).

Prime Minister Pulido
New Philadelphia
Constitutional Monarchy of Free Pennsylvania

Have you even heard of the term "suitcase nuke?" SDI's can do nothing against them. And on top of that, missile defenses aren't 100% accurate.

I bet you all the dictatoriship non-UN members are having a party since this resolution has simply been considered!

Modern era nukes would destroy the planet if used so whats the point in useing them. TERRORISM is the wave of the future. Small armies of guerillas armed with submachine guns are more effective. Worked for the Viet-Cong and is currently working for the Feyadeen in Iraq. So come on ban the useless nukes and train small elite guerilla warriors.

Sure about that? I thought modern era nukes were cleaner. It would take way more than one nuke to end the world. Seeing as how dozens of them are (or were) probably tested each year, I don't think we have much a threat of the world ending.

Vote against this bill because nuclear weapons do more to help because nations do not want to attack another nation with such weapons so if every nation had nuclear arms it would be a war precaution

If all UN Nations ban Nuclear Weapons then only non-UN nations will have them. Do you really find that acceptable? Sure, the mutual destruction of all Nuclear weapons within UN nations might make you safe from those UN nations, but the non-UN nations will still have a gun to our heads.

Some of you folks out there proposing this crazy crap really need to stop and think through ALL the ramifications of a new law before you type it in.

If this proposal passes, the Militant Mercanile Alliance of Greenspoint will be faced with two options: Violating the ban or immediately dispatching covert operations teams into those non-UN nations with nukes that are a threat to us and destroying their aresenals before they can be launched.

Unilaterally destroying each UN member's nuclear arsenal is not going to decrease the chance of war, it's going to increase it.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
The Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint

As most people have said: NO!

No ABM defense is full-proof, if only one missile getts through, thats enough. And why do I say this? Because without nukes UN nations will only have ABM to hope as a defense against non-UN countries with nukes. So, NO! Do you want the UN to cease to exist? BEcause we are numerically overwhelmed and now, we will be even weaker as we will have no nukes and so on. So, again: NO!

More peope need to vote no on this resolution.

For this I recommend that everyone contact members both within and outside their region who are part of the UN explaining the need for their 'No' vote.

It is a risky procedure, since getting more nations involved could result in more Yes votes; however, I feel this is the only way we have to tip the scales in our direction.

As with real world politics, we must secure others to our cause.

Additionally, find non-UN countries who make considerable money manufacturing these weapons and make others aware of their statistics. I think it would be helpful if more people realized just how many countries are out there who can harm them if they had no means of defense.

As of 5 minutes ago, there are 114,427 nations in the world. 35,075 of these are UN members. That leaves 79,353 non-UN states, and more than 99.99% of those either currently posses nuclear weapons, or can aquire them easily, whether it be a suitcase bomb or a 50 megaton warhead fired from a lunar silo.

It is a known fact that, in the past, blocs of these nations have attempted to destroy the UN. These blocs were only stopped by the combined threat of all 35,000 UN members, who armed with nuclear weapons were able to counter the Anti-UN blocs.

Now remove nuclear weapons from the equation. You still have 35,000 UN member states with conventional armies. But now you have nearly 80 thousand nuclear-armed states that are emboldened by the sudden shift of firepower in their favor. Instead of having a few dozen member blocs, I believe the vast majority of non-UN states will seize upon the oppurtunity to destroy the UN in one fell, nuclear swoop.

If this passes there may no other choice but to resign from the UN and join those who can defend themselves.

First abortion now this?!!

I've about had it with this organization. It looks like this is going to pass but I do have to wonder how many of these are puppet nations of already voted members. If that turns out to be the case then this resolution should be considered null and void.

Since it looks like its going to pass, I will withdraw from the UN and continue to produce these weapons. Not just nuclear bombs but chemical and Biological weapons too.

Yes, modern era nukes are alot cleaner then their older counterparts. For one, unlike most of the thinking of nukes (which is very little, I seriously believe no one who has voted for, and probably a majority who have voted against this proposal even know how nuclear weapons function, could, let's say, anyone who has voted for this proposal tell me what was the primary funcational differences between 'fat man' dropped on Hiroshima and 'little boy' dropped on Nagasaki?) Indeed, could anyone tell me the differences in operation fuels used in those older bombs with the ones used presently? Do you even realize that modern nuclear ordinance has about 1/10 the fallout at 20 times or more the explosive power? Do you realize that some of our enemies have arsenals of fission-fusion-fission warheads in excess of 60MT (You could take out 3/4 of texas with one missle)?

And while terrorism has been on the increase (here and in RL) The cold war has not stopped (in NS). It is correct, Missile Defense systems are only 75% effective, on a good day with lots of luck. However worse case scenario nuclear attack doesn't even involve dropping bombs or firing missles at cities, but iead detonating them in the ionosphere first (which would take out all the electronic systems of the nations, including, communications, missle defense, etc.) and then attacking in-force, or performing tactical nuclear strikes. Which reminds me of another thing, could any of you who have voted agaisnt this define the difference between strategic and tactical armorments, their different functions and purposes? I have always been of the opinion that politicians should not deside the course of strategy, politicians lack, for the most part, the idea of understanding what is actually needed in actual course of combat.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

*The Greenskin delegation is left scatching their heads, wondering whether Tekania is for or against the ENPA.*

Well, heres the difference between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons as I see it. A strategic weapon is The Big One, that bomb that blows New York clear to the moon. It has a wide area of destruction, and its only purpose is to destroy in great quantity. You'd use them if you didn't intend to annex the land.

Tactical weapons tend to have a much lower yield, and are more area-denial weapons than doomsday devices. You'd fire them at a tank or infantry division going through a pass, knowing that you would not only destroy a good deal of the enemy, but block that path of advance for a good time.

Very good Green. ,


Also range differences, typically strategic has global range (ICBM's) whereas tactical is generally less then 1000nm (Cruise missile). As for my position, it is quite clear and stated fairly close to the beginning of the thread, Tekania, is against it for reasons of both national security and economics (we export quite alot of deplete-uranium armorments, and we do rely heavily on our nuclear arsenal as a deterent.)

And this resolution would merely increase the chances of EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) type nuke attacks on our nation by more aggressive states. They would pretty much be able to effectively knock out a U.N. nation, with no fallout mind you... and then take it over while it's scattered in confusion for lack of all of our modern advanced weapons and missile defense systems. Just think of it, some rogue nation sets off a couple high-yield nukes way up in the ionosphere above your nation, the EM burst fries every piece of electronics in your nation, TV's, radio's, fax machines, telephone systems, computers, guidance electronics in missile defense systems, weapons control systems, all the electronics systems in your automobiles and commuter trains.... I dread to think of the outcome.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Greenskinz has little in the way of electronics, the sole Microwave oven being in the Palace of Da Big Boss himself. And our nuclear weapon delivery system consists of a grunt, hiding in a hole with a nuclear warhead, and a hammer. But that does not matter, I am vehemently opposed to this act less because of our security, but for the security of the UN as a whole.

Also, think of the economy. Nucular powerplants supply lots of power for our nations, and bring the cost of eletricity way down. If we get rid of them, then prices on electricity will skyrocket. That itself will also lead into losing military power as well. With the money now being spent on trying to keep the electricity on, the less money their will be for the military, and police forces. Rolling blackouts will become common in all UN nations, and the threat of a high scale crime or terrorist attack is very real.

We must vote against this resolution to maintain the security of the United Nations. Because if we do not the non members countries will hold the military advantage.

And what kept America and the Soviet Union from destroying the world with nuclear arms during the cold war, it was nuclear arms by Mutually Assured Destruction was this possible so therefore we cannot give up the nuclear strike ability.

If this resolution is passed I along with many other countries will leave the United Nations so vote against the resolution.

Stupid, stupid, stupid proposal.

Nuclear weapons are often the only means of destroying military tactical assets. Remember the difficulty the United States had bombing out Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan that were deep underground? Nuclear warheads are probably the only way you could efficiently send a shockwave deep enough to take out bunkers like those. Without them, you have to carpet-bomb the area to hope you send a shockwave through a hidden tunnel closer to the surface, and run a much higher risk of collateral damage against civilians near the surface.

This, aside from the obvious problems with no deterrent against the rest of the world's nuclear arsenals (and no, even the best Star Wars system is not a perfect shield).

No, a single nuke going off is not going to consume the world in a giant fireball. Nor is it going to bathe the world in deadly radioactivity -- in fact, modern nukes are designed to burn up most of their nuclear fuel on detonation for maximum efficiency in creating the explosive fireball, with comparatively little long-lived fallout. Fallout doesn't even last over a century, much less thousands of years (Hiroshima is completely inhabitable today), and it's not terribly worse than other forms of radioactive agents in the air because of pollution or just naturally occuring in the soil (where do you think we mine nuclear fuel *from*?). A "dirty bomb" would be an utter waste of time, a completely stupid tactic to use on people. Give people a somewhat higher chance of dying of cancer in their old age if they *consciously choose to live in the area where they saw you blow up the dirty bomb*? Ooh, scary. Much worse than VX gas.

That and the DU ban are what get me worst, since neither of them have anything to do with actual nuclear weapons. DU is simply a better form of material to make ballistic weapons and armor out of. Ban it, and you have enemies whose bullets kill you while yours don't kill them. How stupid is that? If you choose to believe wildly overblown reports of DU poisoning soil for billions of yours, your funeral, but it's nonsense. People don't realize that uranium's very long half-life means that uranium is *very mildly radioactive*. (The longer the half-life, the less severe the radiation is. Very simple math.) DU is no different from ordinary uranium found in various soils, the kind you used to find in glazed pottery, white paint and digital watches before they realized you could extract nuclear fuels from it. Just because it's radioactive does not make it in any way a nuclear weapon, or in any way more poisonous than good old fashioned lead.

Yeah, DU is chemically toxic just like lead is -- if you want to be a greenie and avoid poisoning some small percentage of the plants and wildlife that live near battlefields, ask them to replace both DU *and* lead bullets with tungsten carbide, and then watch as every UN nation's military budget expands wildly and leaves them ever more helpless against hostile armies. If you don't want to do that, then leave it alone and for the love of Pete don't lump in DU with nuclear weapons as though the grouping makes sense.

Stupid, stupid, stupid proposal.

Nuclear weapons are often the only means of destroying military tactical assets. Remember the difficulty the United States had bombing out Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan that were deep underground? Nuclear warheads are probably the only way you could efficiently send a shockwave deep enough to take out bunkers like those. Without them, you have to carpet-bomb the area to hope you send a shockwave through a hidden tunnel closer to the surface, and run a much higher risk of collateral damage against civilians near the surface.

This, aside from the obvious problems with no deterrent against the rest of the world's nuclear arsenals (and no, even the best Star Wars system is not a perfect shield).

No, a single nuke going off is not going to consume the world in a giant fireball. Nor is it going to bathe the world in deadly radioactivity -- in fact, modern nukes are designed to burn up most of their nuclear fuel on detonation for maximum efficiency in creating the explosive fireball, with comparatively little long-lived fallout. Fallout doesn't even last over a century, much less thousands of years (Hiroshima is completely inhabitable today), and it's not terribly worse than other forms of radioactive agents in the air because of pollution or just naturally occuring in the soil (where do you think we mine nuclear fuel *from*?). A "dirty bomb" would be an utter waste of time, a completely stupid tactic to use on people. Give people a somewhat higher chance of dying of cancer in their old age if they *consciously choose to live in the area where they saw you blow up the dirty bomb*? Ooh, scary. Much worse than VX gas.

That and the DU ban are what get me worst, since neither of them have anything to do with actual nuclear weapons. DU is simply a better form of material to make ballistic weapons and armor out of. Ban it, and you have enemies whose bullets kill you while yours don't kill them. How stupid is that? If you choose to believe wildly overblown reports of DU poisoning soil for billions of yours, your funeral, but it's nonsense. People don't realize that uranium's very long half-life means that uranium is *very mildly radioactive*. (The longer the half-life, the less severe the radiation is. Very simple math.) DU is no different from ordinary uranium found in various soils, the kind you used to find in glazed pottery, white paint and digital watches before they realized you could extract nuclear fuels from it. Just because it's radioactive does not make it in any way a nuclear weapon, or in any way more poisonous than good old fashioned lead.

Yeah, DU is chemically toxic just like lead is -- if you want to be a greenie and avoid poisoning some small percentage of the plants and wildlife that live near battlefields, ask them to replace both DU *and* lead bullets with tungsten carbide, and then watch as every UN nation's military budget expands wildly and leaves them ever more helpless against hostile armies. If you don't want to do that, then leave it alone and for the love of Pete don't lump in DU with nuclear weapons as though the grouping makes sense.

Not only is it completely unsafe due to the fact that other nations will be making them even if UN nations do not, but what if threats from outside of Earth come in and we have nothing to defend ourselves with. Obviously more people need to watch the ALIEN series. :D

A Proclamation:

Although we are aware that our points have already been made, we feel they must be made again.

1) Non-UN nations will still be able to make and develop nuclear arsenals and there is nothing we in the UN can do about it.

2) Depleted Uranium poses no health risk greater than background radiation, and it's chemical toxicity problems are similar to lead and can be easily avoided. Remeber, depleted uranium is widely used in the private sector, as well, as counterweight in aircraft and ships, and as radiation shielding in medical equipment and in the transport of nuclear waste. If you have concerns about DU, please read the WHO's assesment of it's dangers.

Therefore, be it known that if this resolution passes the United Nations, the Holy Empire of Pallia will be forced to withdraw its support for that illustrious body along with our many colleagues. We do this not as an act of disgust or protest, but rather as a measure to protect our soverignty and our ability to wage just and holy wars.

The Great High Oracle of Athena, Ruler of The Holy Empire of Pallia.

We support this new resolution. The reason being that we are a non-UN nuclear capable nation and this would shift the balance of power further in our favour.

Bloody idiotic proposal, clearly the product of an over-idealistic mind. You want to give the nuclear monopoly to the non-UN nations? The ones who have attempted previously major attacks on the UN, attacks only stopped by the threat of massive nuclear retaliation? Ye Gods, what is wrong with people these days? Nuclear weapons are a vital weapon so long as ANYONE has them. The old policy of deterrance worked, people, else Washington and Moscow would be big black craters right now. Idiotc proposal.

(Sorry, I know it's not too clear, but this is plain stupid!)

This seems like a good idea, but it doesn't specify conditions for how a region is to safely dispose of nuclear materials. If there are no guidelines in place and enforcement mechanism in place, there is no way that this resolution can possibly acheive its intended outcome. Granted again, this is probably nitpicking in terms of NSUN, but the result of htis could lead to catastrophic unintended consequences. For example, what if a UN nation w/ nuclear weapons is currently undergoing an economic crisis and cuts too many corners on safely and securely disposing of weapons grade materials.

The result of this could be weapons falling into the wrong hands. Or conversely, perhaps it could be stored in a tectonically active area, that causes a breach in the containment causing a massive radiation leak or worse, a reaction in a delicate section of the planet's crust. The consequences could potentially be global in devestation.

Unfortunately, the only way I can see to get rid of weapons grade material in a productive fashion is to find a way to *safely* put it to use (ie. such that eventually none of it is left to be put to destructive ends). A co-measure sponsoring additional research into safe, secure, and sustainable means of using nuclear fuel may help to foster said end.

As for other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological warfare. I don't feel that they should be lumped together, because the means of enforcement, securing, and destroying deadly agents are going to be far different. To minimize confusion, biological and chemical agents of mass destruction should be dealt with in a separate, but similar resolution.

This seems like a good idea, but it doesn't specify conditions for how a region is to safely dispose of nuclear materials. If there are no guidelines in place and enforcement mechanism in place, there is no way that this resolution can possibly acheive its intended outcome. Granted again, this is probably nitpicking in terms of NSUN, but the result of htis could lead to catastrophic unintended consequences. For example, what if a UN nation w/ nuclear weapons is currently undergoing an economic crisis and cuts too many corners on safely and securely disposing of weapons grade materials.

The result of this could be weapons falling into the wrong hands. Or conversely, perhaps it could be stored in a tectonically active area, that causes a breach in the containment causing a massive radiation leak or worse, a reaction in a delicate section of the planet's crust. The consequences could potentially be global in devestation.

Unfortunately, the only way I can see to get rid of weapons grade material in a productive fashion is to find a way to *safely* put it to use (ie. such that eventually none of it is left to be put to destructive ends). A co-measure sponsoring additional research into safe, secure, and sustainable means of using nuclear fuel may help to foster said end.

As for other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological warfare. I don't feel that they should be lumped together, because the means of enforcement, securing, and destroying deadly agents are going to be far different. To minimize confusion, biological and chemical agents of mass destruction should be dealt with in a separate, but similar resolution.

Well, Tekania is still against it, even with recent events. We do not believe there should be a power imballance between the UN and non-UN nations. Even though we are going to be shifting our armorments to M/A weapondry of comparible explosive yield. Though I can see the U.N.'s liberalistic power bases next response....


United Nations ban on all matter.

Seeing as matter-antimatter weapondry development is on the rise.

Recognizing that these weapons are destructive as the nuclear armorments.

Knowing that these weapons can be made of all manner or matter, and its constituent particles.

We the members of the United Nations hereby resolve to ban all matter and antimatter from the universe. No member nation shall be allowed to use or possess any form of matter. We shall find and fund with our civilian populations stolen money from high-income tax rates of all our liberal nations the UNIVERSAL DISSILLUSION FORCE, to tear down and remove all matter in the universe.


Of course, IMO, the only dissilusionment going on here, is occuring inside the pea-brains of the U.N. powerbase....

Or, hehe.... Amongst the free-market economies in the U.N.

ADVERTISEMENT:

Hello, I'm John H. Rickover, CEO and founder of Global Defense and Securities, Incorporated.

Are you worried about the pending U.N. resolutions that impact the safty and security of your nation?
I know I am.

Well we at GDS, Inc., have the solution for you!

We will buy all of your nuclear armorments and facilities at cost, and for a reasonable yearly fee, run and provide your nation with the strategic security that it needs in this increasingly hostile world.

We will also provide you with package options, to even increase the amount of nuclear stockpile security that you need.

So, if your national security is of interest, and you are worried about the immpending doom of U.N. Legislation call us today at 1-800-NUKEYOU.

*GDI, Inc, is private multi-national corporation, and not affiliated with any government. Pricing subject to negotiation.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I say we all declare war on the nation that made the proposal...

How about it?
Quick, all send telegrams!

Thats a good idea.

Seriously people, are we really about to give up the most powerful weapons of defense we have, sure all the UN nations will get rid of them if this passes, but what about all the non-UN nations. are we going to dismantle our greatest weapons against these other nations?

We can adapt. Think of a new weapon. Maybe.

Or we should all just quickly nuke all the non-un nations befor ethe resolution passes. Come on, you knew it was going to happen.

We can adapt. Think of a new weapon. Maybe.

Or we should all just quickly nuke all the non-un nations befor ethe resolution passes. Come on, you knew it was going to happen.

Yeah, free market adaptation for nuclear weapons :lol:


Hello, I'm John H. Rickover, CEO and founder of Global Defense and Securities, Incorporated.

Are you worried about the pending U.N. resolutions that impact the safty and security of your nation?
I know I am.

Well we at GDS, Inc., have the solution for you!

We will buy all of your nuclear armorments and facilities at cost, and for a reasonable yearly fee, run and provide your nation with the strategic security that it needs in this increasingly hostile world.

We will also provide you with package options, to even increase the amount of nuclear stockpile security that you need.

So, if your national security is of interest, and you are worried about the immpending doom of U.N. Legislation call us today at 1-800-NUKEYOU.

*GDI, Inc, is private multi-national corporation, and not affiliated with any government. Pricing subject to negotiation.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

To the members of the UN opposing the end of nuclear proliferation.

Again, I urge you all to seek out delegates and members who have not voted and explain to them the reason behind your stance. Continuing to debate this issue here will do no further good, as the ones who need to know it obviously havent been looking at the reasonable causes for concern that has been raised. Those who have yet to vote and have read the forums can clearly see our objections. We have covered the issue as thoroughly as we can.

Its time to go door-to-door on this.


Kestral Lei
Leader
The Democratic Republic of Whited Fields
"Guardians Protect Us!"

As stated several times, without nukes in the UN only non member nations would then have them.

This was a very poorly written resolution that made it this far because there are enough members foolish enough to vote to approve something a vauge as this.

How about structuring a resolution that limits the future developments for weapons of mass destruction. One that works on a resonable way to dis-arm or one that encourages countries to dis-arm.

Completely banning nukes will only add serious security concerns for all the nations.

VOTE DOWN THIS RESOLUTION

As stated several times, without nukes in the UN only non member nations would then have them.

This was a very poorly written resolution that made it this far because there are enough members foolish enough to vote to approve something a vauge as this.

How about structuring a resolution that limits the future developments for weapons of mass destruction. One that works on a resonable way to dis-arm or one that encourages countries to dis-arm.

Completely banning nukes will only add serious security concerns for all the nations.

VOTE DOWN THIS RESOLUTION

As stated several times, without nukes in the UN only non member nations would then have them.

This was a very poorly written resolution that made it this far because there are enough members foolish enough to vote to approve something a vauge as this.

How about structuring a resolution that limits the future developments for weapons of mass destruction. One that works on a resonable way to dis-arm or one that encourages countries to dis-arm.

Completely banning nukes will only add serious security concerns for all the nations.

VOTE DOWN THIS RESOLUTION

As stated several times, without nukes in the UN only non member nations would then have them.

This was a very poorly written resolution that made it this far because there are enough members foolish enough to vote to approve something a vauge as this.

How about structuring a resolution that limits the future developments for weapons of mass destruction. One that works on a resonable way to dis-arm or one that encourages countries to dis-arm.

Completely banning nukes will only add serious security concerns for all the nations.

VOTE DOWN THIS RESOLUTION

As stated several times, without nukes in the UN only non member nations would then have them.

This was a very poorly written resolution that made it this far because there are enough members foolish enough to vote to approve something a vauge as this.

How about structuring a resolution that limits the future developments for weapons of mass destruction. One that works on a resonable way to dis-arm or one that encourages countries to dis-arm.

Completely banning nukes will only add serious security concerns for all the nations.

VOTE DOWN THIS RESOLUTION

I would enquire as to what defences the U.N. would advocate instead of nuclear arms against hostile nations outside the U.N.'s control.

Rvolt, would be OK; we have ocelots, and a big, big laser, but what about the poor states who labour under the yoke of capitalism? These poor people wouldn't have enough time to tender contracts and get their own mega laser defence thingamy built in time to repel attacks from non U.N. states with Nukes. It's almost as if the people behind this proposal had never played "Worms".

The only sensible option is to vote against.

I bet you all the dictatoriship non-UN members are having a party since this resolution has simply been considered!

Yes, yes we are; on a completely unrelated note, if you're looking for a way to dispose of your nuclear arsenal, the Protectorate of Solysp would be willing to take them off your hands. :D

I would enquire as to what defences the U.N. would advocate instead of nuclear arms against hostile nations outside the U.N.'s control.

Rvolt, would be OK; we have ocelots, and a big, big laser, but what about the poor states who labour under the yoke of capitalism? These poor people wouldn't have enough time to tender contracts and get their own mega laser defence thingamy built in time to repel attacks from non U.N. states with Nukes. It's almost as if the people behind this proposal had never played "Worms".

The only sensible option is to vote against.

Pfft, no respect for the power of capitalism, eh? Easy, we privatise nuclear defense and armorments. That way, we (the gov't) do not own any nuclear armorments to be covered under that resolution. Instead a private corporation selling the service of defense owns it. That way practically we still have nuclear armorments, but technically we don't.

Capitalism! I love it! Go! Free-Market!


Hello, I'm John H. Rickover, CEO and founder of Global Defense and Securities, Incorporated.

Are you worried about the pending U.N. resolutions that impact the safty and security of your nation?
I know I am.

Well we at GDS, Inc., have the solution for you!

We will buy all of your nuclear armorments and facilities at cost, and for a reasonable yearly fee, run and provide your nation with the strategic security that it needs in this increasingly hostile world.

We will also provide you with package options, to even increase the amount of nuclear stockpile security that you need.

So, if your national security is of interest, and you are worried about the immpending doom of U.N. Legislation call us today at 1-800-NUKEYOU.

*GDI, Inc, is private multi-national corporation, and not affiliated with any government. Pricing subject to negotiation.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Ah, but State-organised societies can do it too. In this case, we're handing out our nuclear arsenal to the people as a whole; the fact they choose to house them where they always were and continue to maintain and repair them with Government rescources we've allocated to misclellaneous other area (the files for which are temporarily unavailable) is of no consequence.

So, if your national security is of interest, and you are worried about the immpending doom of U.N. Legislation call us today at 1-800-NUKEYOU.

Breaking all rules of proper etiquette, Justin Timme receives stares of disbelief as he reaches into his pocket and pulls out his satellite-phone, and dials an 800 number.

Expert code breakers and people with no lives that can identify a dialed number simply by the sound each number on the phone makes have concluded that the number Timme dialed was 1-800-NUKEYOU.

My country is a dictatorship and I am it's dictator and I actually think it's sad that this resolution has been considered and if it goes through I am leaving the UN and joining a large anti UN region not because I dislike the UN I actually agree with what they are doing but I will take these steps to protect my country from non-UN nations that want to eliminate the UN. In banning nukes completely the UN is effectively destroyed unless some sort of 100% anti nuke protection program is created there is no way this will work. If my country had the man power and the resources it is possible to build ina partnership with high tech armour companies to create a single massive region and build a strong almost undestroyable geodesant dome over the entire region and allow the non-UN nations to battle each other while we have an island of peace and prosperity but untill that day the UN needs to keep it's weapons of mass destruction in order to save itself. If there is support on this discussion for the following idea I will propose it. Perhaps what the UN needs is a non-aggresion pack betweeen all member nations because as stated above there are more than three times the number of non-UN nations then there are UN nations so in order to defend ourselves against the growing number of anti UN nations we would have to stop fighting ourselves and perhaps share weapons armies and resources and only attack other nations with the consent of other member nations. If this becomes law (The current theoretical proposal not the nuclear proliferation act) not all member nations would have to go to war if 1 or 2 declare war on a non-mamber nation.

We have to contact the delegates who have voted for this madness and let them know U.N. nations will be defenseless against a nuclear attack from non U.N. members. If this passes their will be no nuclear deterrent.

the major thing that this resolution troubles me is not only does it call for only un members to be bound by this law but,it does not even give us a way to monitor the destruction of the weapons. enemies of the un have a free hand to toss icbm's around at will this seems to be ok as long as un members don't not have them or give the technology to anyone else. MAD (mutual assured destruction) is at this time and place is the only viable alternative. there has not even been a discussion of a NO first strike clause just taking the weapons out and diposeing of them. if this resolution is adopted i believe i will have to withdraw from the UN and become one of these rogue nations just on the principle of protecting my own people and country!.

thank you gentleman and ladies!

This is kind of like the problem you see in classrooms with one kid ruining it for everyone. If one nation, just one nation, in the UN manages to hide their nuclear stash, or even keep producing them, unless there is someone to check them, they pretty much rule the world...unless you have invented some magic fool proof system at stopping EVERY nuclear missle.

This isn't realistic guys, and if those of the UN are forced to do it, then we will always be at risk to those who do have the weapons. I don't like it either, but it's a fact of life. Detante worked for the US and USSR, it can work now and here.

Why is it the poll says that many nations belive this is not a good idea while in the UN resolution it says many people support this idea.
The keyman nation will have no part of this idiocy, are we expectred to just lie down while non UN countries use our uranium to create their own weapons while we fight with bullets?
The are many more non UN countries then there are UN, if you are stupid and want to make your land barren thru a war in which you had no strength due to this proposal then do agree, But if this resolution is passed then we all can expect many problems in the time to come.

The nation of Azrenoth is currently building weapons in space on the moon, and has not invested in uranium deposits in our region, so therefore would not be greatly effected by this resolution.

However, we vote against the proposal for the sake of our brothers in the UN. Plus, we can't shoot down all the nukes from space.

This proposal must not go through ! If it does all of us members of the mighty UN will be drowned out by nuclear weapons from non or anti-UN nations :twisted: :!:

The Emirate of Ilcaris has voted in favour of the resolution with out much debate needed. We firmly belive that nuclear weapons are scientific disaster, an abhorrant weapon that should be abolished from the face of the world.

In addition, the Emirate does not possess such weapons, and feel no reason for why others should.

To those who state that the U.N/non U.N balance is a bleak sight, Ilcaris agrees, though wishes to make it clear that we have to start somewhere. One cannot expect that all nuclear weapons will vanish magically, so that the balance will as it is right now. (A balance based on nations constantly hoarding more and more nuclear weapons to keep the level of deterrment high).

Perhaps non U.N nations will follow. Perhaps they will not. We very much doubt that any nation would attempt to nuke the entire U.N, and if they did, we are quite certain that the United Nations as a body would quickly pass a resolution of retaliation, disarmament, and international occupation.

The Emirate of Ilcaris has voted in favour of the resolution with out much debate needed. We firmly belive that nuclear weapons are scientific disaster, an abhorrant weapon that should be abolished from the face of the world.

In addition, the Emirate does not possess such weapons, and feel no reason for why others should.

To those who state that the U.N/non U.N balance is a bleak sight, Ilcaris agrees, though wishes to make it clear that we have to start somewhere. One cannot expect that all nuclear weapons will vanish magically, so that the balance will as it is right now. (A balance based on nations constantly hoarding more and more nuclear weapons to keep the level of deterrment high).

Perhaps non U.N nations will follow. Perhaps they will not. We very much doubt that any nation would attempt to nuke the entire U.N, and if they did, we are quite certain that the United Nations as a body would quickly pass a resolution of retaliation, disarmament, and international occupation.

This, my friends, is the reason why the UN is going bonkers.

The Council of Enn is currently in support of this resolution, but has yet to vote, because it wishes to determine the regional view of this resolution.

That said, there are a few things that must be stated.

1) You do have to remember that this is a game, and as such there is one type of weapon that will be 100% accurate in destroying nuclear weapons, as well as making sure that no radioactive material reaches your territory. The Council, of course, speaks of the I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon.

2) Some of you have said that "every non-UN nation has nuclear weapons" (or something along those lines). Where did you come by this information? The Council's network of spies puppets has not turned up any nuclear nations that would seriously consider attacking the combined might of the UN.

3) Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons. They are not, and cannot, be used to defend a nation. They are counter-offensive weapons - they threaten anyone who attacks the nation with complete and utter annihilation.

4) Some of you have also said that this is not something for consideration by the UN. Quite frankly, this argument has me astounded. What could possibly be the UN's consideration, if not the preservation of life on this planet? And that is something that radioactive and radiological weapons can harm.

5) To those who say "this will destroy our economies" - radioactive materials can be used for things other than weapons. They can be used for power and for medical purposes. You'll find a willing buyer.

This is Greenskinz's non UN nation, but pretend its the Greenskinz posting


2) Some of you have said that "every non-UN nation has nuclear weapons" (or something along those lines). Where did you come by this information? The Council's network of spies puppets has not turned up any nuclear nations that would seriously consider attacking the combined might of the UN.


There are countless examples of armed blocs being formed against the UN. These have been repeatedly defeated by the combined might of the UN, primarily the threat of 36,000 odd nations nuking the Armed Bloc.


3) Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons. They are not, and cannot, be used to defend a nation. They are counter-offensive weapons - they threaten anyone who attacks the nation with complete and utter annihilation.


Ah, but nuclear weapons ARE a defensive weapon, thanks to the Mutually Assured Destruction policy followed by many nations. For example:

Nation A and Nation B are having a cold war. Both are nuclear powers, and Nation A is non-UN. Since both nations know a nuclear strike upon the other will bring a full retalitory strike, they do not use their nuclear arms.

Now, throw the ENPA into the equation. Nation B suddenly finds itself without a counter to Nation A's nuclear threat. Nation A can now use its nuclear stockpile to either blackmail Nation B, or blow them to peices.


4) Some of you have also said that this is not something for consideration by the UN. Quite frankly, this argument has me astounded. What could possibly be the UN's consideration, if not the preservation of life on this planet? And that is something that radioactive and radiological weapons can harm.

Many nations are of the opinion that it is not the UNs role to dictate military policy (which is what the ENPA does).


5) To those who say "this will destroy our economies" - radioactive materials can be used for things other than weapons. They can be used for power and for medical purposes. You'll find a willing buyer.

A nuclear missile uses considerably more uranium than an X-ray machine. Uranium-producing nations will find themselves with a substanial surplus, and will be forced to sell it to the non-UN nations, further tipping the Nuclear Balance in their favor.

There is a fine line between between bravery and stupidity. In their blind idealism, the writers and supporters of the ENPA have found and crossed that line.

Yes, this proposal removes MAD from the equation, the only problem is, to the detriment of UN members... the destructions is no longer mutual it's merely ASSURED DESTRUCTION... The U.N. in the passage of the ENPA is assured it's own destruction.

As for UN action against rogue parties attacking any given U.N. member nation... Tekania has come to rely heavily upon external from the U.N. military alliances to assure protection. The reason, it has become appearant that the U.N. is incapable of action unless it is acting upon a "controversial social subject." Tekania has known that it must rely upon it's own and it's independent allied military might to insure peace, and that the U.N. is currently too incompetent to be able to provide safty and security in the world. There are over 100,000 non-UN nations, many of them are aggressive and power-hungry. There are only alittle more then 30,000 UN member nations. The only thing holding some of the aggreesive UN-oposed aggressors back, is the knowledge that many of the more militarily powerful U.N. Nations have been the protecting blanket of the UN based on the power of the MAD mentality.

What this proposal seek to do is not remove the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... It's merely removing the mutrual part from the equation on the side of it's own UN members. I can call this proposal nothing less then suicidal

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

NO!!, I will nuke who I want, if I want, the way i figure it, if theyre gone before they can fire, im safe. And hey what about SDI.

My country does not produce nuclear weapons... well, we do... but they tend to miss their targets a lot :cry:

Nonetheless, if this resolution passes, I'll simply outsource my country's nuclear program to the private sector and friendly non-UN nations.

The resolution requires UN Nations to stop producing nuclear weapons and to dismantle their current arsenals. However, the resolution also calls for the creation of the UN ENPA (End Nuclear Proliferation Act) Enforcement Agency.

The only way UNENPA could enforce the dismantling of nuclear weapons is to have nuclear weapons itself... 8)

The resolution only prevents UN members from producing nuclear weapons. Just think about it... a gigantic world superpower in complete control of a sizable portion of the world's nuclear arsenal... :twisted:

The other option is for UNENPA to create nuclear weapons and then sell them to other UN members... yet another loophole!

I'm voting against this resolution, but only because it is annoying. This resolution has so many loopholes, it's virtually meaningless.

I was considering writing a proposal that says we get rid of all of our weapons and then each send a telegram to 3 non-UN members and request that they destroy us, but this resolution seems to cover that.

I have two reasons to opppose this.

1) RP-wise, I need my strategic deterrent nice and safe in carefully placed silos. I'm not going to use them in any conflict unless my nation only consists of one general in the nuclear command bunker with enemies knocking on the door.

Its not a bargaining chip, not a Sword of Damocles, it's a big white picket fence with a sign saying 'I have what you have, let's not do this'.

2) You can't un-invent nuclear weapons. Why did the USSR not invade Western Europe? Escalation. Why did NATO and the Warsaw pact fight ars by proxy (Korea and Veitnam) rather than each other directly? Escalation.

Mutually Assured Destruction works for sensible nations who are responsilbe, if not to their people, but to themselves. When you have a government/group who feels that a higher power will reward them for nuking the world, then you're in trouble.

When you have nuts with nuclear armorments who think some higher power will award them for turning other nations into glass parkinglots... you use a whole range of tactical smart weapons, like TLAM's (600+nm range +/- 3ft accuracy, let's face it, the only way to make it more advanced is to design it to knock on the front door before it goes through it ) and GBU's to surgically "remove" their nuclear capability before they get enough to be dangerous.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

When you have nuts with nuclear armorments who think some higher power will award them for turning other nations into glass parkinglots... you use a whole range of tactical smart weapons, like TLAM's (600+nm range +/- 3ft accuracy, let's face it, the only way to make it more advanced is to design it to knock on the front door before it goes through it ) and GBU's to surgically "remove" their nuclear capability before they get enough to be dangerous.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

You can't just Tomahawk people til they think like Americans.

Hey, all i'm saying is, war is an extension of diplomancy..... by other means....

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Hell no, do you know how expensive nuclear weapons cost to buy?

I am NOT getting rid of them.


Because, it'd have a really really really bad effect on those nations with Unanium Mining and their main, or sole, industry.

The reason why the poll on here says many don't want it, and yet the resolution is being passed, is because those who care enough to think about the resolution (and inevitably fall against it) are the ones who care enough to actually visit the board.
All the people who simply glance at it and click "for" and then leave have not fully considered the implications. But do not care enough to visit the boards and have their views corrected.

Regards,

TNE

If this resolution passes, the UN will be destroyed in more than 1 way. People will leave the UN because they've finally had enough, and the people left will all be systematically destroyed by hostile non-UN members.

Edit: Also, someone the idea of sending telegram to the delegates who voted for the resolution. Has this been done yet?

Uh, some people, like me really, really hate the UN. The more, um extreme and violence realted would cheerfully use Nukes to charbroil a large number of UN nations if they felt they could get away with it.

agreed...if you want to stop some manufacturing or setting a limit per year for weapons manufacturing, then that would be MORE ideal...but to make ALL UN countries stop and then dismantle their already existing nukes would be dangerous...those countries would not have anything to defend themselves with against rogue countries...i voted against this resolution, i will not let me country or region be caught with their pants down on this...

If this resolution passes, the UN will be destroyed in more than 1 way. People will leave the UN because they've finally had enough, and the people left will all be systematically destroyed by hostile non-UN members.

Edit: Also, someone the idea of sending telegram to the delegates who voted for the resolution. Has this been done yet?

I have done so for a few of them but i don't have time to telegram more than a select few.

"Orioni [41]"

The above doesn't seem to be changing but has masses of votes.


Good luck to anyone else hoping to persuade the "For" voters to see the logical result of this resolution.

Regards,

TNE

TO: MEMEBERS OF THE U.N.
FROM: THE ALLIED STATES OF THE IRISH ISLE

If the U.N. nations don't have Nuclear Weapons, that isnt going to stop the other 500,000+ from creating them. If we (UN Nations) can not defend ourselves by means of nuclear weapons we are setting the stage for wars we can not feesible win. This proposed UN resolution reminds me of the Kellog-Briand act. Established after ww1 it was a doctirine signed amongst nations to disarm in the name of peace. Well, guess what, some of those nations did, others didn't, and due to the disarming of sum and the stockpiling of others F.E. Germany, WWII happened. This propasal is outrages and if passed will tilt the scale of world stability and power away from the UN and into the hands of those rogue nations out there, and i dont think that that is what we want!

The Irish Isle U.N. Memeber,
Ryan H. Smith

Furthermore......

"Fight the Axis of Evil
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security Strength: Strong Proposed by: Maxtopia

Description: As the world becomes a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace. This means, of course, building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security.

Votes For: 2

Votes Against: 1

Implemented: Tue Nov 12 2002 "



The current UN resolution is in direct violation of what Max Barry himself wrote. He says lots of new weapons, nukes are new, therefore it includes them too.

We are not worthy to go against the words of Max. Besides, no proposal should go against a prior resolution, this piece of crud we see before us should never have got past the proposal stage without being deleted by moderators. And for good reason, it is dangerous.

Regards,

TNE
(and General Mike)

"No proposal should go against a prior resolution"

In the real United Nations, this happens all the time. I disagree with the proposal but hey! It's all a simulator!

While the use of nuclear weapons is abhorrent and totally against the aims of the U.N. (i.e. world peace), the Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria (GDoC) cannot support this resolution since so many non-U.N. countries would not have to abide by the terms of the resolution. This would make the world a MORE dangerous place, not less.

That said, I believe that a compromise solution exists if an elightened nation were willing to propose it.

Instead of banning all U.N. member countries from producing or possessing nuclear weapons, why not put the command of all U.N. member-country nukes under the command of the U.N. Security Council? (OC: sorry I'm a UN n00b, so flame away if no such body exists) IMHO, this would help immensely to decrease nuclear tensions among U.N. members (which I believe was the original intent of the current resolution) while preserving our ability to retaliate against non-U.N. nuclear-armed countries who threaten us? I'm no weapons expert (the GDoC specialized in Beef-Based Agriculture, after all) but I think it would be a rather simple procedure to centralize command and control of the nukes in some secure location (preferably several thousand feet underground encased in a couple million tons of lead and concrete).

The environmentally stunning Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria would be happy to host an international conference on the issue for any nation willing to discuss the issue further with the aim of producing a compromise proposal.

Comments? Questions? Flames?

Respectfully,

JammingEcono
ArchDuke, Grand Poo-Bah, and Secretary of State - The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

"No proposal should go against a prior resolution"

In the real United Nations, this happens all the time. I disagree with the proposal but hey! It's all a simulator!

This isn't the real UN and so has different rules.

As a non-member of the UN, my say has very little weight, however I feel, considering the gravity of the resolution.
As I am sure it has already been mentioned, since this resolution only affected member nations, it has the effect only of disarming the UN, leaving far less cooperative, and thus potentially more dangerous, nations still armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. The threat this poses to national security is /insane/, since such nations can now wage nuclear war on the UN without fear of retaliation in kind.
Moreover, the task of dismantling the weapons will severely tax the economies of nations who, whilst nuclear weapons were still allowed, spent much government money and may have put their economy in dangerous straights, conforming to the first UN resolution by producing expensive nuclear weapons.
So, no, this resolution is a downright bad idea.
-Primus Illuminatus Alexander Pseudo

We need to try to convince the Delegates who voted "For".

Also, post on your Civil HQ's to remind everyone in your Region to vote "Against" the Resolution.

Regards,

TNE

We need to try to convince the Delegates who voted "For".

Also, post on your Civil HQ's to remind everyone in your Region to vote "Against" the Resolution.

Indeed. We must keep our ability to defend ourselves against rogue nations with WMDs. We must make those who voted for this insane resolution to vote NO!

-Emperor Crossman
Ruler of the United Imperium of Crossman
Sovereign of Crossman Prime

"We will begin disarming as soon as everybody else has."
~General de Kaste

"Another naive and ridicilous proposal. Impossible to implement. I'd like to see that committee do anything to stop rogue membernations from arming and the non-members will simply retain their weapons."
~Prime Minister nos Círdan

I agree that urgent action is needed to defeat this resolution. As of 17:10 GMT, the "No" votes are losing by over 1,000 votes. I implore all like-minded nations to begin a telegram campaign to ask nations who have voted for the resolution to either change their position or withdraw their vote.

Remember, brevity is the soul of wit. Respectful telegrams have a better chance of generating action than hysterical tirades. Here are some talking points to consider:

1) Unilateral nuclear disarmament of U.N. member countries will leave us all vulnerable to nuclear attack from non-U.N. countries.

2) The current proposal does not specify who will cover the cost implementing the resolution. One should assume that any costs for disarmament will be born by the member countries themselves (a costly proposition indeed!).

3) Nations whose economies depend on Arms Production/Sales will be negatively affected should this resolution pass.

4) This resolution is so controversial that its passage could lead many U.N. member nations to leave the organization, thereby weakening the institution as a whole.

5) The United Nations is committed to sensible arms reduction policies that promote world peace. The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria has proposed and international conference at which such issues will be discussed with the aim of developing a sensible arms control resolution. All interested countries are encouraged to attend.

Hard-working GDoC summer interns will take responsibility for sending telegrams to the first 10 nations currently on the "yes" list. I urge all concerned nations to follow the lead of GDoC and telegram 10 "yes" votees urging them to change/withdraw their votes before Thursday, June 10. To reduce duplicate telegrams, please post here the nations to which you will send telegrams. The list is far too extensive for any one country to telegram them all, so let's all pitch in and get this resolution defeated!

Nations to be telegrammed by GDoc:

Riomhairi [2], Concerted Socialists [8], Cathsar [5], Intio [6], Clickita [2], Candor Animi [3], The Solar Region [7], Whiffindom [6], Jhiland [2], Ruparelia

Respectfully,

JamminEcono
Archduke, Grand-Muckety-Muck, and Secretary of State - Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

Look at the vote of those UN members who bother to debate it in the forum, it speaks for itself.

This is a rediculouse resolution.

I think some sort of second chamber on voting or ammending legislation should be set up, possibly under strick moderation in the forums, so that the views of those who take time over an issue opposed to those who automaticly vote are well balanced.

The equivilant of a House of Lords, can delay a resoution and ammend it, but not block it for any longer than a certain period.
A 2nd vote in the forum, of it contradicts a UN resolution that has less than 2/3 support, it is sent back for ammendmants.

Look at the vote of those UN members who bother to debate it in the forum, it speaks for itself.

This is a rediculouse resolution.

I think some sort of second chamber on voting or ammending legislation should be set up, possibly under strick moderation in the forums, so that the views of those who take time over an issue opposed to those who automaticly vote are well balanced.

The equivilant of a House of Lords, can delay a resoution and ammend it, but not block it for any longer than a certain period.
A 2nd vote in the forum, of it contradicts a UN resolution that has less than 2/3 support, it is sent back for ammendmants.

What all of us should do is come up with a draft of a telegram that we can send to people. Something like this:

Dear delegate/[nation's name],

You have recently voted 'For' on the current UN resolution. I, and many others, think this is a bad idea for several reasons. For this resolution to work properly, it would require every nation on NationStates to be a member of the UN. Sadly, this is not the case, and UN members are outnumbered by roughly 3:1 by non-UN members. These non-UN members can be very dangerous, and many of them won't hesitate to immediately attack the UN in its weakened state if this resolution passes. Without any way of protecting ourselves, the UN will be mercilessly destroyed. This resolution will also weaken the economies of several UN members who rely on Uranium Mining as their main industry.

Please, I request that you change your vote or withdraw it. Although nuclear disarmament is a good idea, this resolution is not the way to do it and will cause more problems than it solves.

Thank you for your time.

- [Your name]

There's something more that I want to add to that, but I can't remember what it is. :(

I have some major problems with the resolution, as is.

First, I want my depleated uranium shells in my tanks. That's why the RL US has so few tank casualties. One shot, and you're safe.

Second, the point of this resolution is to get rid of Mutually Assured Distruction (a term coined during the RL cold war between the US and USSR), or MAD. MAD could be the only thing that keeps the entire world in check. Had the RL superpowers not had the threat of MAD, then we would no longer have nations such as the RL US, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, China, the Koreas, Canada, and you bet your butt that the majority of the fighting would have been over the oil in the Mid-East.

In short, the elimination of MAD could (possibly) mean the end of most major advanced countries, and of any country with alot of natural resources. This might be a stretch, but probably not. It's scary to think what would have happened had the RL superpowers NOT had thier nuclear arms and MAD.

From the Original Guide to Proposal Writing (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
2. Game Mechanics Proposal
We've been down this street previously. Thankfully, they're becoming slightly less prevalent at the moment. It is important to notice, however, that proposals to repeal other resolutions are Game Mechanics Changes. This is because you are effectively asking for the statistics of your nation to be re-set to what they were before the proposal was passed - given that statistics are a part of the Game Mechanics, that's what you want changed. Also, proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

7. Repeals and Amendments
This is mentioned in the Game Mechanics section, but since people keep doing it I'm making it more emphasised - you may NOT submit proposals that seek to repeal or amend earlier resolutions.



It has been argued back and forth whether this resolution is sane. It has also been argued whether this resolution is acceptable, since it goes against the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution passed November 12, 2002. I submit to you, based on the rule listed above that the proposed resolution IS in direct violation of the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution, and effectively is a resolution to change game mechanics by modifying the given abilities of the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution.

We will not win this battle here in the forum, for as you can see, we have already won it. We must now fight to win the war against those who would leave us defenseless. It is time for some old-fashioned politicking, where we shake every hand and kiss every baby. Go no and contact as many delegates as you can; imploring with them that they change their vote. Go and post your opinions in every region available so that you are heard.

The future of many nations is at stake.

Having newly joined the Unitied Nations we, the Holy Empire of Ralrearin, are most distressed by this resolution that those without foresight are trying to push forward. Our intent in joining the Unitied Nations was to further our bonds with the global community, however, it seems the global community is more interested in leaving themselves defenseless against those who wish to spread evil in this world. As such, should this resolution pass, the Holy Empire of Ralrearin will have no choice but to abandon the UN in order to preserve our National Securty.

Furthermore, it is quite disturbing for us to realize that the UN has such control over a distinct society such as ours. Imposing laws that limit our social and economic growth is nothing short of inept behaviour and poor Government.

~Ministery of Foreign Affairs, Holy Empire of Ralrearin.

I have contacted all regions on pages 1-15 of the regions list with that have more than 50 countries in their list. After checking to see if the delegates for those regions have voted, I sent them the following telegram. Feel free to use this telegram when sending to other delegates.


I am writing to you to implore you to vote against the resolution now before the UN entitled "End Nuclear Proliferation".

I would like to reinterate some of the valid arguments made against the resolution as found in the UN forum topic: Resolution at Vote: Ending Nuclear Proliferation.

1) Unilateral nuclear disarmament of U.N. member countries will leave us all vulnerable to nuclear attack from non-U.N. countries.

2) The current proposal does not specify who will cover the cost implementing the resolution. One should assume that any costs for disarmament will be born by the member countries themselves (a costly proposition indeed!).

3) Nations whose economies depend on Arms Production/Sales will be negatively affected should this resolution pass.

4) This resolution is so controversial that its passage could lead many U.N. member nations to leave the organization, thereby weakening the institution as a whole.

5) The United Nations is committed to sensible arms reduction policies that promote world peace. The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria has proposed and international conference at which such issues will be discussed with the aim of developing a sensible arms control resolution. All interested countries are encouraged to attend.

We are the leaders of our nations and it is our job to keep our citizens safe from threats within and outside our country. I feel that the average citizen, while concerned for the environment, feels safer and more content that their government does have the ability to stop invasion and keep the economy balanced. Should we decide to rid ourselves of this necessary evil, then we risk upheavals within our own countries.

Security is a perception. Peace is always precarious. A nuclear weapon could easily shatter both. Do not let us forget that we are but one strong voice for our millions.

I'll send telegrams to the delegates who are in favour of the resolution, if necessary.

I can see no sane reason for nuclear weapons to exist.

If they didn't exist you'd be speaking Russian.

Nuclear weapons have saved countless lives, look at the US bombing at the end of WW2 against Japan, yes, people dies, want to hazard a guess what the death toll would have been if there was a beach landing? Think of Normandy all over again...

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

The Secretary of State of the Grand Duch of Crushinatoria (GDoC) offers its thanks and professional admiration to the hard-working diplomatic corps of Whited Fields for its actions in suport of the opposition to the End Nuclear Proliferation Act.

Huzzah, I say to you good sir. Huzzah!

My government has been lobbying our UN delegate to throw her votes behind our cause. I enourage all like-minded governments to do the same! With your help, we can vote down this wrong-headed resolution!

Collegially Yours,

JammingEcono
Archduke and Secretary of State
The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

The UN can have my nukes when they pry them from my cold, dead, radiation-withered hands.

1) Unilateral nuclear disarmament of U.N. member countries will leave us all vulnerable to nuclear attack from non-U.N. countries.

Surely evidence shows that militaristic nations that are actively engaged in increasing their arms supply are more vulnerable to nuclear attack than pacifist nations engaged in disarmament?

Indeed it would seem that most wars have been launched on nations that are growing rather than shrinking their nuclear stockpile?

The threat this poses to national security is /insane/, since such nations can now wage nuclear war on the UN without fear of retaliation in kind.
Moreover, the task of dismantling the weapons will severely tax the economies of nations who, whilst nuclear weapons were still allowed, spent much government money and may have put their economy in dangerous straights, conforming to the first UN resolution by producing expensive nuclear weapons.
So, no, this resolution is a downright bad idea.
-Primus Illuminatus Alexander Pseudo

My nation wouldn't go so far as to say that the resolution is a bad idea. Perhaps complete elimination (which is only a part of the resolution) may be so, but the idea is worthy of consideration and debate.

Reducing arms can be good.

[OOC: I just got back from a vacation in Germany, including Liepzig, which was a major city in the former GDR - East Germany. While there I visited the Swazi Museum, which I was surprised was outfitted in what most western nations would consider 1950s gadets, but that the spy stuff was from the late 1980s! East Germany collasped not because it under armed or that its people weren't resourceful. The East Germans were and remain very technically people (super nice too). But a military economy will come at the expense of not only civil liberties, but quality of life as well. There are in fact real world examples were disarmament *may have* actually helped to stablize a country. I certainly think that Eastern Europe is much better off now than it was before, and having talked to Eastern Europeans, I'm under the impression that they would agree ... in fact, a few have told me so.]

10kMichael

The resolution is about *reduction* of nukes, not completely eliminating them, no?


What follows is a direct cut-and-paste from the ENPA, the resolution currently at vote.


Be it therefore resolved that all UN member nations immediately cease all production of nuclear weapons including but not limited to: Fission bombs, fusion bombs, neutron bombs, 'dirty bombs' and depleted uranium ammunition.

Be it further resolved that all UN member nations dismantle and safely dispose of all such weapons in their arsenals no later than a decade after the passing of this resolution.

Be it further resolved that a UN ENPA (End Nuclear Proliferation Act) Enforcement Agency be set up to oversee the implementation of this resolution.


It is quite clearly stated in the article that ALL nuclear weapons, including DU munitions, are to be "dismantle[d] and safely dispose[d] of".


Surely evidence shows that militaristic nations that are actively engaged in increasing their arms supply are more vulnerable to nuclear attack than pacifist nations engaged in disarmament?


As the recent Rotovia-Esmn incident shows, devout pacificist nations are at even MORE risk than their armed counterparts to the threat of Imperialism. If Esmn had had a single nuclear weapon in its arsenal, and the means to deliver it to a significant target within Rotovia, I believe the invasion of that poor country would never of happened.

As the recent Rotovia-Esmn incident shows, devout pacificist nations are at even MORE risk than their armed counterparts to the threat of Imperialism. If Esmn had had a single nuclear weapon in its arsenal, and the means to deliver it to a significant target within Rotovia, I believe the invasion of that poor country would never of happened.

Fair point. Dutch Berhampore is an unarmed pacifist nation that faces the same type of threat that Esam was subject to. However, it remains our contention that our pacifist anti-nuclear stance has reduced the likelihood of invasion rather than increased it. We would admittedly be in a weak position were that gamble not to pay off, but as our nation was formed from two former military colonies, people have embraced the opportunity resolve issues through diplomacy rather than force. On balance our senate believes pacifism offers more security than militarism.

Hello,

while Nuclear Proliferation is a problem, this resolution is poorly written and does not address it in any constructive way.

first off, Depleted Uranium weapons are not Nuclear Weapons; please refer to http://fas.org/nuke/ and http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Nuclear_weapon

secondly, this resolution should not be passed because it is poorly written.

"Nuclear Proliferation" is about the spread of weapons, not the total elimination of said weapons.

if it was truly a resolution against nuclear proliferation, it would be focused to stopping that thread.

if it is passed, Machinen will resign from the UN, and possibly join in war against this proposal's sponsor.

-

While the ideal of ending the development and proliferation of nuclear ordinance is quite admirable, Gauthier objects to this proposal based on the inclusion of depleted uranium munitions among the items to be banned.

As may have been stated in previous missives, depleted uranium munitions are non-nuclear in nature, its capabilities based on the density of the depleted element for increased armor-piercing capacities. The term "depleted" also implies that the radioactive energy of the element has been almost completely drained off, presumably from use as reactor fuel.

Therefore until DPU is exempted from this ban, Gauthier will vote against it.

No kidding, it's clear that the author, and the affirmers of the resolution lack the understanding of DU based ammunition.

So, as futile as it is.. WHAT is depleted uranium?


A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.


So why the medical problems?

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.


So why is it they want to bad DU ammunition? Why not also lead (also used in ammunition)? Could it be we are dealing with the uneducated who wrote a proposal based on assumptions and heresay, and did no homework before authoring?

Then there are questions as to reports in Iraq and the Balkans about medical problems with exposure to DU. Actually, the studies are flawed... Since they didn't actually take into the account the MANY other hazards in the battlefields of those zones...

Depleted uranium penetrators are only one of many possible hazards on the battlefield. Civilians and soldiers are strongly discouraged from recovering souvenirs from the battlefield or climbing on or around damaged equipment. For example, some Eastern Bloc equipment also contains other more highly radioactive sources such as radium dials as well as asbestos. There is also a possible problem with unexploded munitions.


Are there any immediate health effects from unfired DU ammunition?


Unfired depleted uranium munitions are encased in thin metal jackets that seal in alpha and beta particles, and allow only extremely slight gamma emissions which fall well below regulatory health and safety limits. Similarly, depleted uranium panels used in tank armor pose no health risk because the depleted uranium is sealed inside several inches of regular steel armor. Alpha radiation, which is the major concern for internalized depleted uranium, is not an external concern because alpha radiation does not penetrate the outer layers of skin. The second source of radiation is from the depleted uranium rounds stored on board the tank. While soldiers are exposed to an increased level of radiation from the stored munitions, the cumulative exposure levels for tank crewmembers are within applicable guidelines. Since depleted uranium munitions are only used in combat, only forward-deployed vehicles are routinely uploaded with depleted uranium munitions.


Some of the controversy is due to the reports of leukemia within months of the balkans war. Was this due to DU municions?

Leukemias following high doses of radiation peak in frequency five to seven years after exposure. Media accounts of leukemia cases and deaths within months of return from the Balkans are not consistent with current scientific understanding of the time course of radiation-induced leukemia.


And these people propose replacements for DU based municions? But do they know the studies done on potential replacements? I say they do not.

While some candidate replacement alloys may not be radioactive, they are not less toxic to humans.


It is therefore the assessment of the Republic, that the concerns raised about DU municions in the proposal are invalid and blatant lies (whether of ignorance or not is no concern). And also concluded that the aurthor and supporters have failed in their duties to study and understand the technicalities to the issue at hand. It is also concluded that being the resolution is a work of deceit, therefore the voting and implementation are of deceit. Since the resolution must stand or fall all as a single unit. The resolution is considered invalid, inapplicable and shall not be followed. It is further recommended that the supporters and author(s) of this work do their homework on technically oriented resolutions before submission, and if not, Tekania will seek trade sanctions against said nations for failing to meet up to their duty and responsibility to the other members of the UN and indeed all nations of the world. Sic semper tyrannis.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I am acting as though this is the real thing
(maybe I am too into this game)
It is not idealistic at all
It is fact
These weapons are a hazard to society
Do I need to recal the happenings of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
Do i want to recal what happened during Chernobyl?
Three Mile Isle?
Cuban Missile Crisis?
North Korea?

No matter what, money cannot buy the lives that will be lost with this weapon
No matter what, there are alternatives
A total disarmament of Nuclear weapons is a good idea
I support this legislation 100%
All who do not favor it, should endure the hell ppl existed during the events above, or be in a nuclear explosion itself

this has to be one of the top three stupidest proposals I have seen,
all you will be doing by passing this is giving non uN nations free reign to send you messages like.

OMGOMG I N00K JOO AND JOO CANNAWT N00K MEI BAK KAUSE JOO DONT GOTSX NO N00KS OMGOMG OMG !!!!111111SHIFT ONE


the Un is too filled with silly little "Feel Good" proposals as of late and no real serious stuff, next thing you know they will set one of those ZPG style laws into affect, lol.

people really need to start thinking seriously abotu what they submit or support, I know I will make politicla decisions based on how proposals I like get supported, but even I woudl say sorry but this one is just too silly.

you cannot seriously think a real proposal like this would pass, now if it wsa for Limiting production and cutting back on current stockpiles, then maby it woudl be ok, but, as it sits, it are the silly .

Infinite Loop cannot morally support somehtin like this, and as of this message the EP regional polling has us voting against it .

Do not take me wrong. I feel that nuclear weapons are VERY hazardous, not only to our species, but to all life on this planet.
But, I´m not entirely persuaded by the proposition. It lacks a sense of action. I´m not saying this in the sense of "de-nuclearize" the UN members, but (and thinking a bit in the real life), what about outside nations? Will the UN grant them a green card for them to wave internacional nuclear terrorism? And what about the independant actions of terrorists? :?

What I want to say with this post is: It is not enough to abolish nuclear weapons in all countries within the borders of the UN. The law must enforce the Complete disarmamet of Nuclear Weapons in ALL COUNTRIES. :roll:

What good is Liberty without Security?

Federation of Mocidade Independente!

I can see nations getting rid of their Nukes by Detonaitng them in enemy territories,
Heck if theis passes I say we get rid of ours by detonating them in the countries who submitted and supported the proposal.

I can see nations getting rid of their Nukes by Detonaitng them in enemy territories,
Heck if theis passes I say we get rid of ours by detonating them in the countries who submitted and supported the proposal.

I (the Greenskinz, not Skeelzania) think this would be a rather fitting way to dispose of our nuclear arms.

my war statagey is screwed up if i have ti=o dismantale my stockpile of nukes

my war statagey is screwed up if i have ti=o dismantale my stockpile of nukes

That, ironically, might be one of the few good things to come out of this.

Maybe we should urge all warmongering newbies to join the UN if this passes.

EDIT: Only down by 4 hundred and three days to go! Come on Crusaders of Common Sense, we CAN vote this proposal down!

my war statagey is screwed up if i have ti=o dismantale my stockpile of nukes

That, ironically, might be one of the few good things to come out of this.

Maybe we should urge all warmongering newbies to join the UN if this passes.

EDIT: Only down by 4 hundred and three days to go! Come on Crusaders of Common Sense, we CAN vote this proposal down!

Ill have you now I wagered 429 against it, and I asked FS to do the same.

I urge you all to vote against this resolution. The U.N. will try to take more and more freedoms away every day.

I urge you all to vote against this resolution. The U.N. will try to take more and more freedoms away every day.

While we recognise the danger of WMD and have banned them from our arsenal we must vote against this issue.
It will cause some members to leave UN.
It will not stop non-UN states from using them.
It would be better with a resolution that limited each nations arsenal and aimed to stop non-members to have them.

The government of Telidia supports proposals that aim to secure peace throughout the world. However, this resolution we feel will do quite the opposite and as previously mentioned by members here, will leave UN members completely exposed to the tyranny of rogue states whose wishes to build larger and larger nuclear arsenals.

We feel that a proposal seeking global disbarment where, as a starting point UN members seek to negotiate with their non UN allies with a view to disarm, would have been a far better use of this body’s time.

As is stands Telidia is firmly against this proposal and have requested our delegate and other nations to follow suit. This issue is simply far too complicated and this ill thought resolution is simply incapable of dealing with them.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

This resoulution MUST be stopped. It will stop every country from maufaturing a means of defence. As I say, this resoulution MUST be stopped!

It appears that I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons succesfully deter any attack, so nuclear weapons aren't necessary.

In full support of this proposal we greet you,

The PRoGG UN Ambassador.

Our citizens are concerned about the dismantling/disposal requirement. We fear that trying to comply with this under the suggested deadline would put us at greater risk of environmental damage and terrorist attack than just leaving the weapons where they are, carefully guarded and maintained.

It appears that I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons succesfully deter any attack, so nuclear weapons aren't necessary.

In full support of this proposal we greet you,


While that point is true, my nation is opposed to resolutions that create new committees, but that fail to provide anything other than the most vague mission of these new UN committees. We find the practice of just making a new committee of the week, which this resolution does, to be irresponsible.

A committee is useless if it has no membership, no mission statement, no funding by which to carry out its work, and no clear tasks (save short of "making the world save for everybody).

Here I'm talking about the last clause.

If the author was prepared to *continue* his / her work and define what this committee would be in a future resolution, my nation would change its vote against to a vote in favour. But sadly based on this last clause my nation finds itself in agreement with the statements from other nations that this resolution really isn't anything more than idealism put to text.

10kMichael

My Government has begun to hide our nuclear weapons! Our weapons will not be taken from us! That would violate our right to self defend our homelands. We will withdraw from the UN if this thing passes!

Micheal Reagan
Ambassador to the UN

Each UN member nation is still a sovereign nation. For that reason, we believe arms control and regulation should not be a UN mandate, but a voluntary process by each member nation. If nations volunteer to disarm, they will be more likely to do so fully and without any secrets. The parliaments of each nation, not the UN should dictate military policy for each member nation. VOTE AGAINST THE CURRENT RESOLUTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MEMBER NATION SOVERIEGNTY!!!

Unless this will lead to global disarmanent (and it won't), my vote is no. Nuclear disarmanent is pointless if only some countries do it - the threat posed to everyone by nukes will remain.

"If WE can't have Aelov NOBODY CAN!" Alri Al Shekekri Aelovian Defense Advisor screams into the mike at the crowd below.

In Aelov we have built a nuke in evry single major city in our country. If we were to be overrun we would detonate each and every one with the master device, thus rendering Aelovian land inhospitable for about 1,000 years.

Now with the advent of this new resolution Aelovian defense is in SERIOS jepordy. Without the nukes Aelov will have no backup plan in case the country is invaded. This is why I do not support the resolution. Also we can not stalemate other countries with nukes =(

We should finally stop having the UN telling us what to do with every policy. If we keep this up every nation will look the same. Vote against it and come join statutory retirement!

This resolution must be stopped. The only way to achieve peace is through strength.

We're catching up! 5536 for, 5381 against last I checked, or something like :) Looks like we might be alright after all.

::ahem::

Ah, yes. Microphone. Thanks. Very useful, really.

North Epsilon Islands would also like to pass our ideals and vote here: vote AGAINST this proposal, please. Perhaps the weapons should be limited, but not outlawed. Especially since non-UN nations can still produce these weapons, putting us in serious danger against more violent nations. Not only this, but depleted uranium bullets, shells and armors are essentially harmless. 'Depleted' shows that there is little to no radioactivity left in the substance, essentially rendering it no more harmful then other metallic munitions.

Please, vote against this resolution.

This is suicide. If we allow this to be passed, non UN member nations will still have these weapons of mass destruction. Sure anti-missle defense systems are good, but sometimes they just don't cut it! These weapons are our only defense against aggression. It would be alright to limit nuclear power among member nations, but we would have to produce nuclear missles that the UN can use. Besides anti-missle defense systems won't stop stealth bombers from flying bombs in and droping them. If they did that satelites in space and computers on earth couldn't do anything to stop them. As a great man once said the best defense is a good offense.

I think this argument is a lot like the argument about gun ownership. "If the criminals are the only ones who hav eguns they have all the power". There are many very valid points against this resolution I see: the military disadvantage to the UN, the economic penalty incurred on many nations, as well as the argument that this would only endorse guerrila-style fighting between countries. I think, from what I've seen of the outcry against this resolution, that it would be an incredible shame and a despicable failure of the UN if this resolution passes. My region is fully against this resolution.

I have begun telegraming all the For voters! Hopefully this works! If it doesn't, I will have no other choice but to resign!

I really don't want too but that is the last option at the moment! Please, telegram as many as you can! we're down to a couple of days left! Lets defeat this thing!

The people of Cabinia have very little respect for any measure that outlaws depleted uranium shells in order to avoid nuclear holocaust.

Tha said, Cabinia is not terribly concerned about this measure and its effects on the Cabinian economy. Uranium mining is our largest industry, and it does look like a quarter of the world market will be closed to us on a limited basis (we can still sell uranium to them for non-weapons purposes), but we feel that the increased demand by rogue nations eager to nuke UN member states will more than make up the difference.

United Soviet States of Rubberduckistan had to use tactical nuclear weapons, stopping the overrun of the Motherland by superior enemy numbers. USSR stands firmly against this resolution.

I would also like to remind future-tech nations that this proposal is a dire threat to them as well. The most common type of warhead is the fusion warhead, which is effectively a thermonuclear bomb and banned by the ENPA. If this proposal passes, you will not only be forced to dismantle nuclear missiles, but also nuclear torpedos.

Our citizens are concerned about the dismantling/disposal requirement. We fear that trying to comply with this under the suggested deadline would put us at greater risk of environmental damage and terrorist attack than just leaving the weapons where they are, carefully guarded and maintained.

The UN will simply have to provide support to your country in terms of weapons experts to help you dismantle all the weapons. If a decade is unrealistic for your country, then they will have to.

To all concerned members of the South Pacific region:

Our regional delegate, LadyRebels, has not yet voted on the ENPA. At last count, over 6,800 nations were members of this region. Thanks to her many endorsements, LadyRebels is one of the most powerful delegates to the UN with almost 400 votes under her control. The government of the Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria (GDoC) urges all nations in South Pacific who are in opposition to the ENPA to telegram LadyRebels immediately to request her "no" vote on the ENPA.

Here is the link to her nation: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=display_nation/nation=ladyrebels

Collegially Yours,

Joey Santiago
Secretary of State
The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

The destruction of UN states' nuclear weapons can safely happen only after the threat from non-UN members is removed, as our weapons do provide a promise of powerful retaliation and thus a deterrent to nuclear war. When adequate antimissile defensive measures are in place, we won't need nukes anymore, but until they are, they are an unfortunate requirement, just like police forces and jails. If this resolution were to affect all nations, I would not hesitate to support it, but as that is not the case, we cannot remove our ability to defend ourselves. Our lofty ideals won't count for much if we're glowing in the dark at the bottom of a giant nuclear crater.

Further, the more hawkish United Nations members who disagree strongly enough with this proposal to resign their membership will still hang onto their weapons, while only the peaceful nations will lose their nukes - nations that are unlikely to have used them anyway. All in all, while well-intentioned, this resolution is simply a bad idea in its current form.

The people of Northern Bongolia call for the defeat of this proposal, and for a new resolution investing in effective antinuclear technology that can ONLY be used for defensive purposes. Once such defensive technology is in place, we can try this again.

The destruction of UN states' nuclear weapons can safely happen only after the threat from non-UN members is removed, as our weapons do provide a promise of powerful retaliation and thus a deterrent to nuclear war. When adequate antimissile defensive measures are in place, we won't need nukes anymore, but until they are, they are an unfortunate requirement, just like police forces and jails. If this resolution were to affect all nations, I would not hesitate to support it, but as that is not the case, we cannot remove our ability to defend ourselves. Our lofty ideals won't count for much if we're glowing in the dark at the bottom of a giant nuclear crater.

Further, the more hawkish United Nations members who disagree strongly enough with this proposal to resign their membership will still hang onto their weapons, while only the peaceful nations will lose their nukes - nations that are unlikely to have used them anyway. All in all, while well-intentioned, this resolution is simply a bad idea in its current form.

The people of Northern Bongolia call for the defeat of this proposal, and for a new resolution investing in effective antinuclear technology that can ONLY be used for defensive purposes. Once such defensive technology is in place, we can try this again.

The position of the government of the Federation of Nachoburrito is to utterly reject this proposal.

Nuclear weapons have been a form of defense amongst the great superpowers for decades. For the UN to cast away this defense would be foolish at best.

Our government is willing to concede the environmental dangers present with the manufacture and storage of said devices. A small price to pay to maintain the stability of our national defense from other nations that wouldn't think twice about using their own WMD's.

During the Cold War it was a simple case of "Us vs. Them." Now, it's a case of "Us vs. Them, Their Friends, Their Arms Supplier, and rogue terrorist supporters."

Scrapping our nuclear deterrent gives our enemies more opportunity to utilize their own WMD's without fear of recourse. Remember, space based defensive measures are great for ICBM's but have little effect on WMD's that arrive by suitcase or in the back of someone's delivery van.

Please vote against this resolution.

It was with great excitement that GDoC Foreign Affair Minister Joey Santiago read the latest report from the U.N. indicating that the opposition to the ENPA has gained a narrow lead in the voting. Please attribute the following statement to Joey Santiago, Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria:

My fellow U.N. member nations! The tide is turning in our fight to preserve our right to self-defense! However, we must not rest! There is still much time in which defeat may yet be snatched from the jaws of victory. My government urges all of our coalition partners to continue to telegram their regional delegates to urge them to vote "No" on the ENPA. Continue to telegram the other members of your regions asking them to vote "No" on the ENPA. If your government has not yet voted, be sure to make your voice heard in this debate. We must not relent!

PROTECT OUR SECURITY! VOTE "NO" ON THE ENPA!

It's resolutions like this that keep me out of the UN. These resolutions violate a Nation's sovereignty.

If I were a member of the UN who RPed I would leave the UN. As a person who RPs, I could threaten any nation with a single nuke and get what I want.

If you don't want the UN to die, vote no please

To The Secretary of State of the Grand Duch of Crushinatoria (GDoC):

Thank you for your approval of my actions. I am quite honored to have your applause for my work, feeling that you too are a pioneer in the defeat of this resolution. However; I am a woman, not a man.

To ALL opposing ENPA members of the UN:

Our battle is not yet won. Although we maintain a slight lead, we can not let this lure ourselves into a false sense of security. Lobbying must remain at an all time high to every possible 'for' voter until the polls close on this issue.

I urge you all to continue your work in contacting other UN nations.

Here below is the telegram that I have been sending other nations. Please feel free to use this in your pursuits.


I am writing to you to implore you to vote against the resolution now before the UN entitled "End Nuclear Proliferation".

I would like to reinterate some of the valid arguments made against the resolution as found in the UN forum topic: Resolution at Vote: Ending Nuclear Proliferation.

1) Unilateral nuclear disarmament of U.N. member countries will leave us all vulnerable to nuclear attack from non-U.N. countries.

2) The current proposal does not specify who will cover the cost implementing the resolution. One should assume that any costs for disarmament will be born by the member countries themselves (a costly proposition indeed!).

3) Nations whose economies depend on Arms Production/Sales will be negatively affected should this resolution pass.

4) This resolution is so controversial that its passage could lead many U.N. member nations to leave the organization, thereby weakening the institution as a whole.

5) The United Nations is committed to sensible arms reduction policies that promote world peace. The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria has proposed and international conference at which such issues will be discussed with the aim of developing a sensible arms control resolution. All interested countries are encouraged to attend.

We are the leaders of our nations and it is our job to keep our citizens safe from threats within and outside our country. I feel that the average citizen, while concerned for the environment, feels safer and more content that their government does have the ability to stop invasion and keep the economy balanced. Should we decide to rid ourselves of this necessary evil, then we risk upheavals within our own countries.

Security is a perception. Peace is always precarious. A nuclear weapon could easily shatter both. Do not let us forget that we are but one strong voice for our millions.

I have, and will remain, a dedicated opponent of this resolution. All those who are opposed should contact as many voters as possible to convince them of the necessity for opposition. Continued debate here seems useless here. Most speakers show their contempt for this resolution, and the proponents can not see our justifiable arguements because they are continually getting lost in the number of oppositional posts.

If you oppose the ENPA, I urge you to send telegrams to all UN nations you can. This will be the only way to ensure our voice is heard.

Kestral Lei
Founder and President
Whited Fields

To The Secretary of State of the Grand Duch of Crushinatoria (GDoC):

Thank you for your approval of my actions. I am quite honored to have your applause for my work, feeling that you too are a pioneer in the defeat of this resolution. However; I am a woman, not a man.

To ALL opposing ENPA members of the UN:

Our battle is not yet won. Although we maintain a slight lead, we can not let this lure ourselves into a false sense of security. Lobbying must remain at an all time high to every possible 'for' voter until the polls close on this issue.

I urge you all to continue your work in contacting other UN nations.

Here below is the telegram that I have been sending other nations. Please feel free to use this in your pursuits.


I am writing to you to implore you to vote against the resolution now before the UN entitled "End Nuclear Proliferation".

I would like to reinterate some of the valid arguments made against the resolution as found in the UN forum topic: Resolution at Vote: Ending Nuclear Proliferation.

1) Unilateral nuclear disarmament of U.N. member countries will leave us all vulnerable to nuclear attack from non-U.N. countries.

2) The current proposal does not specify who will cover the cost implementing the resolution. One should assume that any costs for disarmament will be born by the member countries themselves (a costly proposition indeed!).

3) Nations whose economies depend on Arms Production/Sales will be negatively affected should this resolution pass.

4) This resolution is so controversial that its passage could lead many U.N. member nations to leave the organization, thereby weakening the institution as a whole.

5) The United Nations is committed to sensible arms reduction policies that promote world peace. The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria has proposed and international conference at which such issues will be discussed with the aim of developing a sensible arms control resolution. All interested countries are encouraged to attend.

We are the leaders of our nations and it is our job to keep our citizens safe from threats within and outside our country. I feel that the average citizen, while concerned for the environment, feels safer and more content that their government does have the ability to stop invasion and keep the economy balanced. Should we decide to rid ourselves of this necessary evil, then we risk upheavals within our own countries.

Security is a perception. Peace is always precarious. A nuclear weapon could easily shatter both. Do not let us forget that we are but one strong voice for our millions.

I have, and will remain, a dedicated opponent of this resolution. All those who are opposed should contact as many voters as possible to convince them of the necessity for opposition. Continued debate here seems useless here. Most speakers show their contempt for this resolution, and the proponents can not see our justifiable arguements because they are continually getting lost in the number of oppositional posts.

If you oppose the ENPA, I urge you to send telegrams to all UN nations you can. This will be the only way to ensure our voice is heard.

Kestral Lei
Founder and President
Whited Fields

IT is a great joy to see that the ENPA is losing!!! Let us all pray, if you do, that it holds up!

End the madness! End nuclear proliferation!

Vote in favor of this resolution unless you want to continue to hope that your crazy neighbor doesn't blow you up.

End the madness! End nuclear proliferation!

Vote in favor of this resolution unless you want to continue to hope that your crazy neighbor doesn't blow you up.

Unless said crazy neighbour isn't in the UN, in which case you'll be screwed. As has been said already, oh, dozens of times.

End the madness! End nuclear proliferation!

Vote in favor of this resolution unless you want to continue to hope that your crazy neighbor doesn't blow you up.

What if your neighbor(s) are non-UN members, who have no intention of stopping production, reducing stockpiles, or otherwise ceasing and desisting the usage of their nuclear armorments?

How then, without "Mutually Assured Destruction", can you ensure that your country will not be blackmailed or otherwise politically or physically destroyed by one of those non-UN nations?

It's resolutions like this that keep me out of the UN. These resolutions violate a Nation's sovereignty.

If I were a member of the UN who RPed I would leave the UN. As a person who RPs, I could threaten any nation with a single nuke and get what I want.

If you don't want the UN to die, vote no please

Not entirely true. Some people who RP have defense networks capable of thwarting many weapons of mass destruction and can easily respond in two ways: (1) appealing for other nations to DESTROY the aggressor regime (which isn't hard to do ... I've seen RPing nations go to war when another nation has committeed obvious crimes against humanity), and (2) using conventional forces to remove the aggressor regime.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of this resolution, but the idea that you can threaten other nations is ignorant. It does *not* always work.

[OOC: Do you really think that if terrorists attack the US in Oct. 2004, that the American response isn't going to be to re-elect Bush and do nothing short of turning the Middle East into a sheet of glass? While Spain caved into terrorism, the American mind set *and* military capabilities are such that poking an already aggressive hive is a sure way not just get a bloody nose, but risk loosing an arm or leg in the process.]

10kMichael

That and the DU ban are what get me worst, since neither of them have anything to do with actual nuclear weapons. DU is simply a better form of material to make ballistic weapons and armor out of. Ban it, and you have enemies whose bullets kill you while yours don't kill them. How stupid is that? If you choose to believe wildly overblown reports of DU poisoning soil for billions of yours, your funeral, but it's nonsense. People don't realize that uranium's very long half-life means that uranium is *very mildly radioactive*. (The longer the half-life, the less severe the radiation is. Very simple math.) DU is no different from ordinary uranium found in various soils, the kind you used to find in glazed pottery, white paint and digital watches before they realized you could extract nuclear fuels from it. Just because it's radioactive does not make it in any way a nuclear weapon, or in any way more poisonous than good old fashioned lead.

Yeah, DU is chemically toxic just like lead is -- if you want to be a greenie and avoid poisoning some small percentage of the plants and wildlife that live near battlefields, ask them to replace both DU *and* lead bullets with tungsten carbide, and then watch as every UN nation's military budget expands wildly and leaves them ever more helpless against hostile armies. If you don't want to do that, then leave it alone and for the love of Pete don't lump in DU with nuclear weapons as though the grouping makes sense.

Actually, DU is even less radioactive than mined natural Uranium, as naturally occuring Uranium is approximately 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235, whereas depleted Uranium is approximately 99.8% U-238 and 0.2% U-235. That's a big difference when you're talking about relative radiation; Naturally occuring Uranium is more than three times as radioactive as DU.

This seems like a good idea, but it doesn't specify conditions for how a region is to safely dispose of nuclear materials. If there are no guidelines in place and enforcement mechanism in place, there is no way that this resolution can possibly acheive its intended outcome. Granted again, this is probably nitpicking in terms of NSUN, but the result of htis could lead to catastrophic unintended consequences. For example, what if a UN nation w/ nuclear weapons is currently undergoing an economic crisis and cuts too many corners on safely and securely disposing of weapons grade materials.

The result of this could be weapons falling into the wrong hands. Or conversely, perhaps it could be stored in a tectonically active area, that causes a breach in the containment causing a massive radiation leak or worse, a reaction in a delicate section of the planet's crust. The consequences could potentially be global in devestation.

Unfortunately, the only way I can see to get rid of weapons grade material in a productive fashion is to find a way to *safely* put it to use (ie. such that eventually none of it is left to be put to destructive ends). A co-measure sponsoring additional research into safe, secure, and sustainable means of using nuclear fuel may help to foster said end.

As for other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological warfare. I don't feel that they should be lumped together, because the means of enforcement, securing, and destroying deadly agents are going to be far different. To minimize confusion, biological and chemical agents of mass destruction should be dealt with in a separate, but similar resolution.

A relatively simple (if not precisely easy) solution to this is reverse-refinement.

Uranium has two main isotopes that both occur naturally in the ore. U-235 is fissile material, where U-238 is not.

Mined Uranium has a ratio of approximately 99.3% U-238 to 0.7% U-235.

In order for Uranium to be suitable for fuel in nuclear reactors, it has to be refined, with the ratios being brought to approximately 96.5% U-238 to 3.5% U-235. This ratio is good for fuel, but mostly impossible to use as an effective weapon. This is refered to as LEU or Low-Enriched Uranium.

In order to make weapons grade Uranium, you need to FURTHER refine it to a ratio of at least 90% U-235 to 10% U-238.

Suppose you had 1,000 MTU (Metric Tonnes Uranium) of raw, unrefined Uranium, and you wanted to make weapons grade material. You're effectively starting with 993 tonnes of U-238 and only 7 tonnes of U-235.

Of course, the 7 tonnes is mixed up almost inseparably with the 993 tonnes, which brings in the complicated and expensive process of refining the Uranium. (Basically a centrifuge separates the material by relative mass).

If you do the math, the MOST fissile material you could get at a 90/10 ratio, from 1,000 tonnes of raw Uranium is 7.7 tonnes of HEU, or Highly-Enriched Uranium.

The rest is going to be DU, or depleted Uranium, which has a ratio of 99.8% U-238 to 0.2% U-235 or less. For simplicity's sake, I've assumed that it's possible to completely remove U-235 from the U-238 and get 100% pure isotope 238. This isn't actually possible, I just didn't feel like thinking about the computations.

To make a long story short, the best way to dispose of weapons grade material is to reverse-refine it, by mixing HEU with enough DU to bring the ratio back down to LEU levels (96.5% U-238 to 3.5% U-235) and then using the newly created LEU as nuclear fuel.

I believe Charleton Heston said it best: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

And I paraphrase: "You can have my nukes when you pry them from my cold, dead, irradiated fingers."

I honestly don't see what the problem with this proposal is. You say you wont be able to defend yourselves against nuclear attacks, but in reality, if someone launches a nuke at you, there is a very high probibility another non-UN nation will be in a region close enough to yours to consider this an act of hostility on their own nation. The end result will still be the complete destruction of the entire world. We as UN members do not need to add to this, we should be setting an example for the rest of the world.
As far as the issue of needing other counter measures is concerned, we have ten years to develop such measures before we will be fully disarmed.

Bah, its idealist fools like you, POWERFAT, that got us into this mess in the first place. The non-UNers have never followed our lead, and don't intend to. They stay out of the UN specifically because they don't want to get half-baked proposals forced on them.

Also, this proposal is an especially big threat for future tech nations, as I have stated earlier (and I believe someone else mentioned). We use nuclear and thermonuclear weapons as a matter of course, since their enviromental impact is limited in space and simple chemical explosives don't have enough umph. And since many of us occupy our own planets, the whole "neighbors will be close enough for them to consider it an attack too" scenario falls flat as well.

Thank god those against this proposal are winning now...I guess once people figured out what it meant to pass it they decided to vote against...good choice and keep those votes rollin in against this proposal

"Bah, its idealist fools like you, POWERFAT, that got us into this mess in the first place" Actually i believe its the trigger happy freaks like yourself that are the cause of the problem, too blinded by the size of your own ego's, you care of nothing but what new shiny toy of mass destruction you can pump out of your factories next. Also, since you have managed to occupy your own planet, you would think you would be capable of intercepting a nuke before it arrives, you would have to a be a complete fool to not have taken some sort of counter measure other then having the same shiny nuke to launch back at them. "Oooooo looky ive mastered space travel, but look, a shiny nuke, how pretty. Lets just wait till it comes and blows us all up..."

"I believe Charleton Heston said it best: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

And I paraphrase: "You can have my nukes when you pry them from my cold, dead, irradiated fingers.""

Why is it that people who own guns in their homes are more likely to be murdered then someone who does not posses a gun? It is a somewhat simple answer, the 'outlaw' has allready made up his mind that he is willing to kill, while the average home owner does not want to murder someone. So if they meet in a dark hallway, who do you think is going to fire first?

Tueber has no nuclear arsenal... We have something much more powerful: We are a beacon of freedom so alluring that even the stingiest Dictatorships become porous to our light.

That being said, this is a terrible... let me repeat TERRIBLE resolution. Contrary to the intent of this resolution, a reduction in stockpiles will do nothing to further world peace or even diminish current tensions because it does not involve the underlying causes of world instability (rivalries, resources, too many things to count) in the slightest bit. With or without nukes countries will still wage bloody, horrible wars.

What this resolution does accomplish, however, is make U.N. member states all the more tasty targets for aggression by nonmember states who still get to keep their weapons. By doing this it also solidifies the necessity to have an egregious amount of international cooperation between U.N. nations to provide for a common defense now that none of them are able to compete in the plane of unconventional warfare, virtually handing over the security of all member nations to the U.N. system.

Those of you voting for this resolution are essential voting for the forfeiture of your nation's security... which one could argue is the forfeiture of you nation itself, the complete destruction of any mask of sovereignty that has not been stolen from you already by the U.N. Doesn't that bother any of you the slightest bit?

It is right that we must vote no to this resolution, as it is poorly thought out and very ill informed. As many have said, disarmament is too great a risk. Instead we should seek other methods of arms control. One method advocated by some is that of virtual detterence, where states possess a nuclear capability that is not weaponised, i.e. the forces are not deployed and ready to launch, thus preventing the destabilising risk of a first strike. However, it is not the speed of retaliation against an atack but the certainty. Secure command and control and distributed stockpiles mean that any atttack will be answered at some point. Compliance with this can be monitored and this transparent process by a neutral UN body would help prevent security dilemmas and other issues caused by perceived offensive forces and help ensure that nuclear forces are kept for defence only. If we are going to be assured of preventing nuclear war we have to do it properly and with the right resolution, perhaps similar to the thoughts above, perhaps not, rather than the one currently at vote.

the DSH have chosen to vote against this proposal as it would damage production of our primary export, that of Uranium and harm our economy.

It's been a while since I actively posted on here, but I remember having a similar discussion with a member state when they had submitted their proposal much along the same lines.

I used much the same arguments as have been listed here and it never got anywhere near quorum.

We are now over 400 votes up! Way to go everyone! Less than 24 hours to go before we can declare Victory! Let us all ban together and defeat more of such said resolutions that infringe on our national soveriegnty.

Let us all ban together and defeat more of such said resolutions that infringe on our national soveriegnty.

If all you are concerned about is your "national soveriegnty" then why are you part of the UN?

Surely if you are part of the Un then you are accepting the democratic system that it entails.
Any resolution that passes and goes against your countries stance on a subject would then go against your nations soveriegnty wouldn't it?

Now the abortions act was totally an internal matter. A decision that if made by a nation did not effect any other nation.
The retention of nuclear weapons is every bit to do with other countries and therefore an international matter to be resolved.

There is no type of resolution that doesn't in some way infringe on your countries political process. Mainly because those processes are devised from the inside out and aren't actually attainable when others enter into the scenario.
So from where your coming from we should all be part of the UN but vote against any resolution so that in the end we are doing what we want anyway without making any resolutions at all.

I may aswell resign now as I am going to if this resolution doesn't pass.
That may seem as a bit of a defetist attitude but the sole reason Ekpyrotic Universe joined the Un was to be amonst other peaceful countries. It has now become evident that those in the UN are morally no different than those that are not. Ergo, it serves no advantage to be in the UN as opposed to not being in it.

Let us all ban together and defeat more of such said resolutions that infringe on our national soveriegnty.

If all you are concerned about is your "national soveriegnty" then why are you part of the UN?

Surely if you are part of the Un then you are accepting the democratic system that it entails.
Any resolution that passes and goes against your countries stance on a subject would then go against your nations soveriegnty wouldn't it?

Now the abortions act was totally an internal matter. A decision that if made by a nation did not effect any other nation.
The retention of nuclear weapons is every bit to do with other countries and therefore an international matter to be resolved.

There is no type of resolution that doesn't in some way infringe on your countries political process. Mainly because those processes are devised from the inside out and aren't actually attainable when others enter into the scenario.
So from where your coming from we should all be part of the UN but vote against any resolution so that in the end we are doing what we want anyway without making any resolutions at all.

I may aswell resign now as I am going to if this resolution doesn't pass.
That may seem as a bit of a defetist attitude but the sole reason Ekpyrotic Universe joined the Un was to be amonst other peaceful countries. It has now become evident that those in the UN are morally no different than those that are not. Ergo, it serves no advantage to be in the UN as opposed to not being in it.

I'm in the UN only because I believe in it! I believe in this one more than the real UN!

I know full well about that but when my National Security is threatened by resolutions like this, well..... why go on?

I know you want to to part of peaceful organization but come on! Do you want to be at the mercy of some nuclear Non-UN member that will nuke you the first chance he gets? Not Me! No Way. This Resolution shouldn't have gotten this far. Now that it has it is being defeated. National Security is secured. If you resign then that is your choice, I wish you luck, but I'm not giving up my nuclear weapons since it is a deterrent against the other nations. If they use them on me, I'll use them on them. Besides, I'm a space faring nation. I use them in every space vehicle that is of Patrol class or customs ships as well as shuttles. This would hurt my nation greatly. Be Safe my friend.

I am already at the mercy of these none-UN members with nuclear arms as we have no nuclear weapons ourselves. We have acknowledged the fact that in our hour of need we would resort to other methods of defense. Should Ekpyortic Universe ever be hit with a nuclear attack then we shall not forget our morals against attacking an entire nation for the actions of their leaders.

So if those in the UN don't have WOMD it means less countries with them and a community where we know that every nation has the courage of their convictions for peace.

This preposal should not be there, it directly conflicts with the very first UN preposal passed!Not really, and in all honesty, lots of "conflicting" resolutions have been passed. Btw, Leetonia refuses to acknowledge afore mentioned Resolution, or any that was voted on by less than 10 people and still passed by a majority of one.

Anyway though, on the subject at hand, who needs nukes when you have cybernetically enhanced ninjas?

You ban dirty bombs and other weapons of the sort, God-fearing countries such as the US and England would follow. Would Iraq Disarm? (under Saddam's rule) Would Hitler under nazi germany?

DRUG DEALERS HAVE DRUGS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ILLEGAL, THUS THE AXSIS OF EVIL WILL MAINTAIN THEIR WEAPONS AND THIS WILL DISARM THE INNOSENT.

Honourable members

I thought a quick update on the current situation is in order and at the time of writing this message the votes were as follows:

FOR: 6553
AGAINST: 7209

All though our lobbying against this resolution is making progress and we have seen a steady growth in the margin, I must stress that we must not become complacent. The margin is still not sufficient to ensure a victory against this resolution.

I also wish to thank all participating states for their excellent work and continued effort. I believe for once we have actually showed that the UN is not simply made up of mindless automatons and when presented with an issue such as this the voice of reason and intellect can triumph over mediocrity.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

I am already at the mercy of these none-UN members with nuclear arms as we have no nuclear weapons ourselves. We have acknowledged the fact that in our hour of need we would resort to other methods of defense. Should Ekpyortic Universe ever be hit with a nuclear attack then we shall not forget our morals against attacking an entire nation for the actions of their leaders.

So if those in the UN don't have WOMD it means less countries with them and a community where we know that every nation has the courage of their convictions for peace.

You may not have nuclear weapons, but I can assure you that other U.N. members in your region do possess a means of assuring mutual destruction, should an aggressor threaten the use of nuclear weapons upon your region.

So you see, even though you may not have nuclear weapons, you are still one of those who are protected under the umbrella of their power. Ban nuclear weapons, and you will be just as unprotected as the few who elect to remain in the U.N. You will be at the mercy of those who are just waiting for the chance to strike without repercussion. I for one, will be departing expeditiously if this Resolution passes.

May I remind the UN members who voted for this resolution, that this resolution only affects UN Members. All Nations that are not UN Members are not bound by this. This resolution effectively removes the most potient safeguards that deters non UN Members from attacking UN Nations. IF this passes, and IF UN Members are FORCED to disarm, than what is stopping an AXIS of EVIL from rolling over the UN and taking over? I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon's notwithstanding (do they count as WMD?) Nations do have the right to defend themselves.

Let us all ban together and defeat more of such said resolutions that infringe on our national soveriegnty.

If all you are concerned about is your "national soveriegnty" then why are you part of the UN?

Surely if you are part of the Un then you are accepting the democratic system that it entails.
Any resolution that passes and goes against your countries stance on a subject would then go against your nations soveriegnty wouldn't it?

Now the abortions act was totally an internal matter. A decision that if made by a nation did not effect any other nation.
The retention of nuclear weapons is every bit to do with other countries and therefore an international matter to be resolved.

There is no type of resolution that doesn't in some way infringe on your countries political process. Mainly because those processes are devised from the inside out and aren't actually attainable when others enter into the scenario.
So from where your coming from we should all be part of the UN but vote against any resolution so that in the end we are doing what we want anyway without making any resolutions at all.

I may aswell resign now as I am going to if this resolution doesn't pass.
That may seem as a bit of a defetist attitude but the sole reason Ekpyrotic Universe joined the Un was to be amonst other peaceful countries. It has now become evident that those in the UN are morally no different than those that are not. Ergo, it serves no advantage to be in the UN as opposed to not being in it.

Opposition isn't just in the realm of defense on this issue. It's also of practicle concerns (of which I raised earlier). World peace is a good motive, and the Republic of Tekania seeks that end, but as our motto covers, Qui desiderant pacem preparate bellum. World peace does not come from ex parte disarmorment. Peace has a price, the writer and proposers of this resolution are not willing to pay that price. Many of us must protect our national security on this issue, because many of us are the authors and workers in peace. Peace is not attained by resolution of the minority, peace is attained by hard work. Peace is sometimes attained only though war. Some supporters of this resolution intend it to ensure that "diplomacy is used instead of war", well diplomacy sometimes fails, and war is the extension of diplomacy, by other means. There have been many times through history where there was no "diplomatic" options. Would you have honestly sent several million people to their most certain deaths, if it could have been prevented by the death a 100,000? The point is, is that decisions like that must be made at times in the interest of peace. The very foundational logic of this resolution is faulty.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)
http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania
"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Thank you for your approval of my actions. I am quite honored to have your applause for my work, feeling that you too are a pioneer in the defeat of this resolution. However; I am a woman, not a man.
To the most honorable Kestral Lei, Founder and President of Whited Fields,

Please accept this personal note as a means of expressing my deep regret for the error of my government with regards to addressing you as a man. Rest assured that the press lackey who drafted our original note of thanks to you has been reassigned to a position more suitable to his abilities in the frigid northern wastes of Crushinatoria.

We very much appreciate your efforts on behalf of the opposition to the ENPA and we hope that our oversight in this matter will not sour relations between our two great nations.

Apologetically yours,

Joey Santiago
Secretary of State
The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

To Mr Santiago, Secretary of State, Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria:

Thank you for the apology. I was quite certan it was a simle logistics error that caused the mistake. There has been no harm done.


To all Opposing UN Members of the ENPA:

I am beginning to feel the need to have Sovreignty nations pull together and form our own region. I believe this would give us significant political power and allow us to write proposals dealing with sovreign rights.

I am much pleased to see the current voters number in opposition to the ENPA. Please remember the necessity of continuing our lobbying campaign until voting ends on this resolution.

I have said repeatedly that this issue would be dangerous to UN member nations. What I wonder from the leaders now is can we amend this resolution to include a reduction in arms and throw out the use of DU from the proposal? Would this resolution still be passable if it were better constructed? I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please feel free to send telegrams and my people will forward them to me.

Kestral Lei
Founder and President
The Democratic Republic ofWhited Fields

The final comment I would add is that the central argument against this resolution is that it will not effect non-UN nations and that this proposal would need to be universal for it to work rather than just multilateral.

It is my contention that countries actively building their stockpile of weapons are, on average, far more likely to be attacked than countries that are demilitarising. Having nuclear weapons is not a defence against attack; it is simply a punishment for the attacker if you are attacked.

To draw an analogy if an international treaty needed to be universal to stop non-participants from exploiting it, then nobody would enter bilateral or multilateral trade agreements in case non-bound economies chose to exploit the situation. However, that is not the case. Nations recognise that the so called 'benefits' of free trade accumulate even where a nation decides to reduce its barriers and free up its economy unilaterally, without any support from other nations.

I honestly don't see what the problem with this proposal is. You say you wont be able to defend yourselves against nuclear attacks, but in reality, if someone launches a nuke at you, there is a very high probibility another non-UN nation will be in a region close enough to yours to consider this an act of hostility on their own nation. The end result will still be the complete destruction of the entire world. We as UN members do not need to add to this, we should be setting an example for the rest of the world.
As far as the issue of needing other counter measures is concerned, we have ten years to develop such measures before we will be fully disarmed.

That is quite a chance to take - and what kind of governments would we be if we relied completely on other nations to defend us?

Tueber has no nuclear arsenal... We have something much more powerful: We are a beacon of freedom so alluring that even the stingiest Dictatorships become porous to our light.

That being said, this is a terrible... let me repeat TERRIBLE resolution. Contrary to the intent of this resolution, a reduction in stockpiles will do nothing to further world peace or even diminish current tensions because it does not involve the underlying causes of world instability (rivalries, resources, too many things to count) in the slightest bit. With or without nukes countries will still wage bloody, horrible wars.

What this resolution does accomplish, however, is make U.N. member states all the more tasty targets for aggression by nonmember states who still get to keep their weapons. By doing this it also solidifies the necessity to have an egregious amount of international cooperation between U.N. nations to provide for a common defense now that none of them are able to compete in the plane of unconventional warfare, virtually handing over the security of all member nations to the U.N. system.

Those of you voting for this resolution are essential voting for the forfeiture of your nation's security... which one could argue is the forfeiture of you nation itself, the complete destruction of any mask of sovereignty that has not been stolen from you already by the U.N. Doesn't that bother any of you the slightest bit?

Damn right, and bloody well said.

I am already at the mercy of these none-UN members with nuclear arms as we have no nuclear weapons ourselves. We have acknowledged the fact that in our hour of need we would resort to other methods of defense. Should Ekpyortic Universe ever be hit with a nuclear attack then we shall not forget our morals against attacking an entire nation for the actions of their leaders.

So if those in the UN don't have WOMD it means less countries with them and a community where we know that every nation has the courage of their convictions for peace.

But it also means a world community where world leaders with nasty intentions have less to discourage them from nuking their idealistic neighbours. At the very least, let's wait until we have effective defensive systems in place before we go tossing away our biggest deterrents to war.

We here at Endoflame fully support the resolution. Pay no mind to the fact that as we are not a member of the UN it would not apply to us and we could nuke you to our hearts content. (It would be rather nice to remove a few of you snotty UNers from the map.)

Actually I believe it's the trigger happy freaks like yourself that are the cause of the problem, too blinded by the size of your own egos, you care of nothing but what new shiny toy of mass destruction you can pump out of your factories next. Also, since you have managed to occupy your own planet, you would think you would be capable of intercepting a nuke before it arrives, you would have to a be a complete fool to not have taken some sort of counter measure other then having the same shiny nuke to launch back at them. "Oooooo looky I've mastered space travel, but look, a shiny nuke, how pretty. Lets just wait till it comes and blows us all up..."

Actually, most space tech nations hurl nuclear weapons around in fleet combat situations, not just planetary bombardments. It generally takes megaton range warheads to beat down shields, although gigaton range weapons are common.

Actually I believe it's the trigger happy freaks like yourself that are the cause of the problem, too blinded by the size of your own egos, you care of nothing but what new shiny toy of mass destruction you can pump out of your factories next. Also, since you have managed to occupy your own planet, you would think you would be capable of intercepting a nuke before it arrives, you would have to a be a complete fool to not have taken some sort of counter measure other then having the same shiny nuke to launch back at them. "Oooooo looky I've mastered space travel, but look, a shiny nuke, how pretty. Lets just wait till it comes and blows us all up..."

Actually, most space tech nations hurl nuclear weapons around in fleet combat situations, not just planetary bombardments. It generally takes megaton range warheads to beat down shields, although gigaton range weapons are common.

My point exactly--what about those of us who use nuclear bombs in our cannon shells? Besides, nukes aren't the only thing you can use to blow up planets--there are superlasers and (my personal favorite) plasma bombardments to "glass" over planets ala Halo's Covenant. So for high--tech folks, you'd essentially be banning bullets. Lets not even discuss hyper--tech folks and the use of singularities as weapons...

--The Sci-Fi Ascendant Rittian Empire of Arizona Nova!

And this is one reason I'm not in the UN. Really, if you don't like it, just don't join the UN. Let them vote out nuclear weapons. If you're not in the UN they can't enforce it on you, and if they try to, then you can nuke them :)

But seriously, just leave.

W00t w00t! The proposal is doomed! DOOMED I tell you! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I joined the UN just to vote against this one.

By the way, here are some stats of "Free Outer Eugenia", the nation which submitted this resolution:

UN Category: Civil Rights Lovefest
Political Freedoms: Widely Abused

'Nuff said.

My county may not have been around for even a day but If I see one more tree hugger I go nuts. :x

We need to try to convince the Delegates who voted "For".

Also, post on your Civil HQ's to remind everyone in your Region to vote "Against" the Resolution.

Regards,

TNE

In the hours following that post a sent a telegrammed debate basically quashing all counter-argument to all the Delegate "For" voters with more than nine registered endorsements. Took a while because i thought it'd work better if they were all personalised to the individual nation.

Seems to have contributed though.

Regards,

TNE

Ecopoeia is a pacifist nation with no military capacity. Despite this, we vote 'no'. Only an agreement that is binding for UN and non-UN nations would ever be acceptable to us.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

As we have stated above, the people of Dakares remain firmly convinced that the intention of this resolution is noble, but the implementation was poor. We will rejoice the quashing of this resolution and would invite debate among all nations on a more structured and robust approach to nuclear arms control or disarmament to ensure the safety and security of all of our peoples.

Well this is it. The last day of voting and we are now totally in control!

I say when this is all done, we celebrate with a party!

Here's the vote so far:

Votes For: 7459

Votes Against: 8921

Good Job everyone