Valor Knights
07-06-2004, 02:20
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 without thinking about repercussions. We cannot turn back the past so whether or not you "beleive" nukes should exist, remember that they already do. More importantly, not all nation states are UN members, so how could such a law be enforced outside the UN?
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
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 without thinking about repercussions. We cannot turn back the past so whether or not you "beleive" nukes should exist, remember that they already do. More importantly, not all nation states are UN members, so how could such a law be enforced outside the UN?
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