NationStates Jolt Archive

Defense of Arms Resolution
Text:

Category: International Security.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that all nations have a right to defend themselves,

Deeply disturbed by the possibility of the disarmament of United Nation's members,

Convinced that all nations have a full right to defense,

Declares accordingly that the United Nations nor any other governing body may enact laws to which thwart those ends, including, but not limited to the development of Nuclear Weapons, and Missle Defense Shields.

Proposal #58.

Please comment and/or approve.

Thank You.

The Republic Of Benjamini

Um, if you don't want the resolution to pass, how bout voting against it?

I have, but I don't see any reason for not explictly stating the right for a nation to defend itself.

The problem with so many of the U.N resolutions is that every single one either passes or fails depending on how left-wing people would want it. This is because liberal people (generally) have good intentions and seek equality, peace, and a balance with the environment. I'm not saying that these are bad goals, but they can be rather impractical. I am sure conservatives would want the same things to happen assuming there were no negative consequences involved. What people seem to do in the NationStates U.N. is read the title and vote on how they feel about the title. Everyone wants these good things to happen, so they vote for the proposals. They do not read the entire thing and vote based on possible consequences that passage of the proposal could have. May the fuzzy bunny consume those who don't consider U.N. proposals thoughroughly.
(\ _ /)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

actually, I'm probably most closely associated with liberalism.

But the first duty of government if the protection of its citizens.

Who do these UN people think they are? We need weapons such as those to defend ourselves.

I would vote against this resolution as much as I will
against the one that's on trial now.

If people like making bombs and invest in weapons, why
not invest in research for less-polluting ways to destroy each other's capitals and citizens?

The problem with these weapons we have now is that
one attack could not only infect a whole country, but also
it's neighbouring countries.

In the 30's and 40's a lot of weaponry was invented, enhanced
and produced. Gass-attacks were already being used but
these do not have a longterm effect on the environment (except
where the product was bottled maybe).
Never the less, when WW-II was finished it took 10 years to restore most
of Europe. the whole continent smelled like burned flesh/wood/... and
cities were flattened to the ground BUT that did not stop
the people from inhaling 'fresh' air.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, are still suffering 60 years later because of 2 nukes, not even big ones like we have now.
If nukes would have been used in WW-II , even on a small scale such
as the neutralisation of Berlin HQ, Europe would suffer the same concequences and I (and many others) would probably not be born.
Well maybe we would, with two heads or one arm where the legg should be.
and low-radioactive material is BULLSHIT! I don't need to check the
official figures for the medical treatment of ex-soldiers who used it.
They come on TV to tell you instead.

I just don't know if a resolution would help encourage the other nations
to start researching and building DOWN the radio-active timebombs.

actually, I'm probably most closely associated with liberalism.

But the first duty of government if the protection of its citizens.

Which is why I will be voting for the resolution. Less countries have these weapons then less threat their is against my country as we have chosen already not to harbour weapons of mass destruction.

WE NEED NUKES! I hate to say but its true. Even if you ban nuclear weapons you cannot guarantee that some psychotic or evil government will not obtain and or use the weapons against you. I say keep the nukes and deploy a "star wars " like program. It will at least give your nation a fighting chance for survival because of automatic retalitory strikes and the like. Sure it is sad we have to be so paranoid but look at history, there is a reason not to trust the goodwill of EVERYBODY. Most but not all; way too optimistic there.

Less countries have these weapons then less threat their is against my country as we have chosen already not to harbour weapons of mass destruction.

Less UN nations will have these weapons (or more precisely, once ten years are up, none) yet roughly the same number of non-UN members will have them, and while it is a gross generalisation to suggest that UN nations are peace-loving and non-UN members are warlike, you'll find plenty of warlike non-UN members who, after the completion of this resolution, are willing and able to attack UN members with radiological weapons, the latter now being without the MAD defence (i.e. the threat of retaliation, that might discourage all but the most suicidally insane oponents from using nukes).

I'd suggest:
1) Dismiss this resolution
2) Create a resolution that pools anti-nuke technology development until it enables nations to be 100% sure of non-susceptibility (with a side-clause that immediately brings into force non-use of nukes by any nation that protects themselves)
3) Then, and only then, rid the UN world of the nukes that are no longer needed as deterrents as per the current, and woefully premeture, resolution.
4) Offer the technology to non-UN countries through some central anti-nuclear defence agency (an 'umbrella' agency, you might say) upon simultaneous acceptance of (and verified complience with) a 'de-proliferation' policy that holds them to remaining 'nukeless'.

There are a couple of minor loopholes in that plan, but that's good for a discussion starter, at least.

So, what do you think about the name "United Nations Missile Barrier and Radiological Energy Liability Lowering Agency", or "UNMBRELLA"?

actually, I'm probably most closely associated with liberalism.

But the first duty of government if the protection of its citizens.

Which is why I will be voting for the resolution. Less countries have these weapons then less threat their is against my country as we have chosen already not to harbour weapons of mass destruction.

United Nations, nor any individual nation has no right to choose what form of defense is needed to defend my nation. If you want to open yourself up to attack, by making your nation a mark, so be it. I feel sorry for their people to have such a foolish and naive leader to think the world will work his way.

If there is no threat of a retaliation, or at least a significant one, then what is keeping a nation with aspirations of world domination from attacking your nation?

The Republic of Benjamini

Less UN nations will have these weapons (or more precisely, once ten years are up, none) yet roughly the same number of non-UN members will have them, and while it is a gross generalisation to suggest that UN nations are peace-loving and non-UN members are warlike, you'll find plenty of warlike non-UN members who, after the completion of this resolution, are willing and able to attack UN members with radiological weapons, the latter now being without the MAD defence (i.e. the threat of retaliation, that might discourage all but the most suicidally insane oponents from using nukes).

I'd suggest:
1) Dismiss this resolution
2) Create a resolution that pools anti-nuke technology development until it enables nations to be 100% sure of non-susceptibility (with a side-clause that immediately brings into force non-use of nukes by any nation that protects themselves)
3) Then, and only then, rid the UN world of the nukes that are no longer needed as deterrents as per the current, and woefully premeture, resolution.
4) Offer the technology to non-UN countries through some central anti-nuclear defence agency (an 'umbrella' agency, you might say) upon simultaneous acceptance of (and verified complience with) a 'de-proliferation' policy that holds them to remaining 'nukeless'.


E B Guvegrra is absolutely right. The destruction of UN states' nuclear weapons can safely happen only after the threat from non-UN members is removed, as they 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 would 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 join with E B Guvegrra in calling for the defeat of this proposal, and for a new resolution investing in effective antinuclear technology that can ONLY be used for defensive purposes.

And we like the UNMBRELLA acronym too. ;)

Less UN nations will have these weapons (or more precisely, once ten years are up, none) yet roughly the same number of non-UN members will have them, and while it is a gross generalisation to suggest that UN nations are peace-loving and non-UN members are warlike, you'll find plenty of warlike non-UN members who, after the completion of this resolution, are willing and able to attack UN members with radiological weapons, the latter now being without the MAD defence (i.e. the threat of retaliation, that might discourage all but the most suicidally insane oponents from using nukes).

I'd suggest:
1) Dismiss this resolution
2) Create a resolution that pools anti-nuke technology development until it enables nations to be 100% sure of non-susceptibility (with a side-clause that immediately brings into force non-use of nukes by any nation that protects themselves)
3) Then, and only then, rid the UN world of the nukes that are no longer needed as deterrents as per the current, and woefully premeture, resolution.
4) Offer the technology to non-UN countries through some central anti-nuclear defence agency (an 'umbrella' agency, you might say) upon simultaneous acceptance of (and verified complience with) a 'de-proliferation' policy that holds them to remaining 'nukeless'.


E B Guvegrra is absolutely right. The destruction of UN states' nuclear weapons can safely happen only after the threat from non-UN members is removed, as they 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 would 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 join with E B Guvegrra in calling for the defeat of this proposal, and for a new resolution investing in effective antinuclear technology that can ONLY be used for defensive purposes.

And we like the UNMBRELLA acronym too. ;)

Quite a practical way of looking at things.
As for UMBRELLA (uNbrella?), flashes from the movie "Resident Evil" are
positioning themselves in my mind's eye...*shudder*

Less countries have these weapons then less threat their is against my country as we have chosen already not to harbour weapons of mass destruction.

Less UN nations will have these weapons (or more precisely, once ten years are up, none) yet roughly the same number of non-UN members will have them, and while it is a gross generalisation to suggest that UN nations are peace-loving and non-UN members are warlike, you'll find plenty of warlike non-UN members who, after the completion of this resolution, are willing and able to attack UN members with radiological weapons, the latter now being without the MAD defence (i.e. the threat of retaliation, that might discourage all but the most suicidally insane oponents from using nukes).

I'd suggest:
1) Dismiss this resolution
2) Create a resolution that pools anti-nuke technology development until it enables nations to be 100% sure of non-susceptibility (with a side-clause that immediately brings into force non-use of nukes by any nation that protects themselves)
3) Then, and only then, rid the UN world of the nukes that are no longer needed as deterrents as per the current, and woefully premeture, resolution.
4) Offer the technology to non-UN countries through some central anti-nuclear defence agency (an 'umbrella' agency, you might say) upon simultaneous acceptance of (and verified complience with) a 'de-proliferation' policy that holds them to remaining 'nukeless'.

There are a couple of minor loopholes in that plan, but that's good for a discussion starter, at least.

So, what do you think about the name "United Nations Missile Barrier and Radiological Energy Liability Lowering Agency", or "UNMBRELLA"?

How quickly do you think you could swing things to bring your planned resolution in to being? i.e. realistic time period etc?
i.e. will it be the next UN resolution on the table, should the current one be rejected?

*Bump*

:evil: SS Nazi Europe is currently on a campaign to abolish nukes in all UN countries. The reason: It would strengthen the NAZI cause by disarming all nukes. Vote against this resolution otherwise the NAZI's might take over.

This proposal cannot pass. My Nation's economy is greatly dependent on Uranium Mining. The removal of Nuclear Arms would greatly hurt the economy of my nation.

How quickly do you think you could swing things to bring your planned resolution in to being? i.e. realistic time period etc?
i.e. will it be the next UN resolution on the table, should the current one be rejected?

I briefly considered writing a counter-proposal, but decided my efforts were best devoted to campaigning against the current resolution (so that don't find ourselves up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle), then I can think about a crash course in resolution authorship, working through the forum review system etc. (Or else work with someone who is already experieinced in such matters and sympathetic to my world-view.)

As for time-scale, it could find itself next in line for proposal (if done expediently), though the specific workings of it will dictate the time taken until the currently premature disarmament could take effect (as either integrated or follow-up proposal).

I'm going to go and have another look at the writing guides, now. I think I've managed to express my opinions on this subject, which are firmly centred upon the issue of maintaining an adequate defensive posture and not through the wish to prop up a dangerous arms race.

Defense of Arms Resolution
Text:

Category: International Security.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that all nations have a right to defend themselves,

Deeply disturbed by the possibility of the disarmament of United Nation's members,

Convinced that all nations have a full right to defense,

Declares accordingly that the United Nations nor any other governing body may enact laws to which thwart those ends, including, but not limited to the development of Nuclear Weapons, and Missle Defense Shields.

Proposal #58.

Please comment and/or approve.

Thank You.

The Republic Of Benjamini

It's OK, but is several points. First of all I think it should have incorporated something about urging member states to use WMD's as a last option, and also something about urging member states to seek peaceful solutions. That might get more support then. In it's present state, the proposal is flawed.

Limiting the power of the UN goes against Game Mechanics.