NationStates Jolt Archive

Well done, the current UN resolution on baning member states is now officialy rejected by the majority of voters!

Keep talking to the nations in your region and that you know,
we can take it down and 'stop this maddness' :)

Keep up the good work UN member states!

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?

Ohh please. You cannot just go and ban them all....waht about non-UN nations.

BEsides...you cannto force everyone to give them up...mabye put some limitations like a SALT treaty or something...but certainly NOT a total ban.


END THIS STUPID RESOLUTION BEFORE IT DESTROYS US ALL!

It's a sign of the End Times! A ridiculous resolution is actually LOSING in the UN! I never thought I'd see the day! It must mean that Jesus is coming, so look busy!

Yeah, its a really dumb resoultion. All the Nations In the UN would be defensless against the Majority of the nations who are not in the UN.

Nuclear weapons are the only sign of any End Times. They come out whenever Jesus (pronouced hey-soos) gets angry.

I can't believe that you people are against this! You're crazy!

If anything, I wish this were a real UN decision! Banning nuclear weapons is the ideal of a lifetime. Why would you not want to ban nukes?

Ohh please. You cannot just go and ban them all....waht about non-UN nations.

BEsides...you cannto force everyone to give them up...mabye put some limitations like a SALT treaty or something...but certainly NOT a total ban.


END THIS STUPID RESOLUTION BEFORE IT DESTROYS US ALL!

yep. just i think. not only is it unfesable, but it Weakens the UN Extremly. what will they try next? Ban Gravships?

Nuclear weapons maintain the pecarious balance between UN states and the many non-UN states who would like to turn us into radioactive glass. Anything short of a global disarmament would leave one faction at the mercy of the other, nuclear-armed faction.

Nuclear weapons maintain the pecarious balance between UN states and the many non-UN states who would like to turn us into radioactive glass. Anything short of a global disarmament would leave one faction at the mercy of the other, nuclear-armed faction.

This resolution has no roleplay applications - nobody will care if an UN nation uses nukes...but we have to ask ourselves if in RL we would agree to this resolution.

I would.

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?

113,000+ nations in nationstates, 34,000+ nationstates nations in the the UN... that is all of 30% of nationstates, approximately 1/3 of the world.

It is a result of dissillusion that you would think that U.N. ban on nuke weapons has any positive impact on the world. It would merely remove WMD's from 34,000+ of the most peacefull nations in this world, and leave WMD's in the hands of the other 79,000+ nations, most of which are powermongering warlords who couldn't wait to see the U.N.'s military power recieve a hit.

It's good now, it shows at least a slight majority of the U.N. holds some vesitges of sanity.


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

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

We must hunt down these weapons of mass destruction!!! uhhhh I mean...I'm keeping mine :lol:

Seriously all the UN countries give up nukes, one of them simply quits the UN, builds a bomb and holds all the rest hostage...smart....

shoot this one down

I voted against and now the against faction is winning! About time that people have seen this sham of a resolution that it is. We need to continue what we are doing otherwise, we can still lose this war. Continue to press for no votes. the more we get, the better we'll be.

Don't forget, the big guys have yet to weigh in on this. All the regional deligates that hold off forum votes usually vote at the last minute.

First, Raishann refuses to join the U.N. due to resolutions of this nature as well as others the nation disapproves of. Still, it has regional allies in the U.N. upon whom it must rely upon for aid if attacked. Therefore, the President of Raishann sends the following message:

Banning all nukes worldwide is about as effective as trying to repeal the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, another thing Raishann finds unconscionable. It's actually the same principle. The only people who will be armed, in the case of that, will be criminals who can get their weapons through the black market. Law-abiding citizens will be left defenseless. It is the same with nations, and thus Raishann hopes for the defeat of this resolution.

For the record, Raishann is not composed of "powermongering warlords", but rather a democracy. We believe in preparedness and self-defense--but not in launching a vicious first strike. Certainly Raishann is not the only such case out there. I therefore suggest to the leaders of the world that the statements against non-U.N. members should be reconsidered.

I can't believe something like this actually made it. It's these kind of stupid resolutions that made me quit the UN. All the UN nations would fall prey to the non-UN aggression if this passed. And, in the real world, banning nukes would just hand more power to terrorists and those evading the ban.

Although the Republic of New Kingman supports any disarmament efforts, this resolution would leave UN members at the mercy of those who wish to cause harm to us. It would be stupid to completely disarm like this. A gradual arms reduction plan would be much better for everyone.

Raul Gonzalez
Ambassador to the UN

This is very good news indeed. Passing this ban would prevent multiple important researches from legally taking place. The United Socialist States of Dubroviania is completely opposed to this resolution.

Even in real life, this wouldn't work. There are nations that don't care bout the UN that would just love to nuke people without fear of retribution.

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?


The whole thing is, is space nations like mine, USE ALOT of nuclear things. And even though we have much more powerful weapons, nuclear is basically the lowest we go, therefore, we are going to have to use even more powerful weapons OR illegally use nuclear.

I"m in space too and I use alot of nuclear energy not only for power on my planets but in some of my ships! Also, I have a wide range of nukes and this will hurt my security.

We must hunt down these weapons of mass destruction!!! uhhhh I mean...I'm keeping mine :lol:

Seriously all the UN countries give up nukes, one of them simply quits the UN, builds a bomb and holds all the rest hostage...smart....

shoot this one down

Or non-nuclear countries are created to join the UN who share mutual defence pacts with nuclear ones outside the UN.

This resolution is useless as well as dangerous.

I can see the majority point of view. I'm sure that we do need protection. But at what cost?
I know that many nation leaders are crazy, but even they must see that if they use those weapons, the whole world will lose in the end.

I have voted for the Nuclear Ban, even though it could potentially hurt Assor-Hu's economy (We use nuclear power), because I can only follow my feelings, and my feelings are decidedly anti-nuclear.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?topic=151631

We may not be able to ban nuclear weapons world-wide, but we can do it in our own country. 8)

The UN must adopt the nuclear ban... The idea of the UN is to stand up and set a global example. The idea of a nuclear deterent operates on the basis of MAD (mutually assured destruction), this will still be the case if UN nations disarm as other nations cannot nuke all the UN nations (1/3 of the globe) without suffering devisatating consequences themselves. It is time to stop using 19th century ideas to solve 21st century problems!! Vote for the adoption of this resolution!!!

aye id rather die than live in a world with nukes. nukes are unfair war. plus there really is no need for war in the first place. i say ban "the bomb!" and cheers to the hippies (and non hippies) that join the fight to ban nukes everywhere! :D

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?
this resolution would allow me, a non UN nation to kick your *** without you being able to respond

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?
this resolution would allow me, a non UN nation to kick your *** without you being able to respond

I dare you to try it.

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?
this resolution would allow me, a non UN nation to kick your *** without you being able to respond

I dare you to try it.
if the resolution passes, I can use ICBMs and he would never be able to respond.

They could still have any other kind of WMD. However, that only shows the incompetence of the author of the resolution. He obviously had some kind of hippy "no WMD" dream in his head, but he forgot that there are other forms of WMD than nukes.

Now I would agree with this ban wholeheatedly... but I saw one thing there that made me mad...

A ban on Uranium Depleted Rounds.

WHAT THE HELL?! They are not dangerous! Agh!!!!! They are not the *in his best Bush voice* weapons of mass destruction.

How are they dangerous??? They just make things go boom, but not go boom then mushroom cloud. Agh, I'm done with my rant.

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of the Island of Rose
UN Delegate of The New Roman Empire
Member of the International
Member of Victoria

Why not ban nukes? When in heck have we actually used a nuke? We have it but never used it. The only weapon with catastrophic power ever used was the Atomic Bomb. And that was during World War 2. There has never been a single other case where Nuklear Weapons have been used upon an opponent nation

Why not ban nukes?Because then people can nuke you and you won't be able to do anything about it.

Why not ban nukes? When in heck have we actually used a nuke? We have it but never used it. The only weapon with catastrophic power ever used was the Atomic Bomb. And that was during World War 2. There has never been a single other case where Nuklear Weapons have been used upon an opponent nation

Maybe not in the RL, but this is NS. You forget that there are some dedicated RPers who actually (as strange as it sounds) have these resolutions in mind while their RPing. And space-tech nations often use torpedoes, which are in turn typically fusion weapons (the lower grade torps anyway), who would lose their primary armament if this resolution passes.

The Tekanian Republic is NOT giving up her DU municians. We need them for armor piercing and be damned if the U.N. is going to make me replace them with "viable" alternatives that are even more toxic then DU....

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg (http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

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

I've noticed that my vote suddenly changed from being for the resolution that is much talked about and currently being voted on, to being against it. The trick was, that I had not changed my vote myself, but it had been changed without my input... In fact, I fear that someone from a foreign government infiltrated my diplomatic offices and made the changes themselves! As such, I, as First Speaker, have moved to increase security in our diplomatic offices and to eject until the end of the voting on this resolution, all in the diplomatic wing of our government any who are deepemed as suspicious by our national Auditor. The locks have been changed, and the guards replaced.

I do not care about any replies to this post, and I doubt very much that I shall return to this forum for several months. I just thought it was in the best interest of the UN if it became public knowledge that ireggularities in the current vote might be present, and as such, nations should insure that their vote is what it should be. These foreign nationals cannot be allowed to manipulate the will of the world. Minority tyranny is not in our best interests.

-Izixs
First Speaker of the Union of Tinis

Oh no, here we go again, liberals attempting the "dangling-chad" defense when they can't win democratically.....

"It was fixed I tell ya'! It was too hard to poke that rod through that sheet of perforated paper!"

Maybe I should have used that defense when abortion rights proposal was at vote!


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

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

Pyinkado will never give up its nuclear arsenal. We believe that peace is achieved through strength. No nation would dare strike against us or those we support.

Uh, Depleted Uranium is exactly that, depleted. Meaning, you can allow your newborn child to cuddle with a nice DU round while sleeping at night without any fear of toxic repercussions... the stuff isn't radioactive.
Whomever submitted this haenous idea is completly ignorant of the topic.
Supposing nukes are banned and current nukes are dismantled. What then does this remarkable mind suggest 1/3 of the world does with it's now dismantled arsenal? Bury some plutonium perhaps? How about in your backyard. Toss all the uranium in the peverbeal garage? I think not. This is not merely trash that can be easily disposed of. In the best interest of the population that safest location for the nuclear material is right where it is currently kept and vigorously monitored. The stuff is poison and the only facilities currently capable of safely storing all of the said poison just happen to be the power plants and missle silos.
When was the last time they were used someone asks? Well there is your case in point that the fear of Mutual Destruction keeps the nukes safe in their holes and the terrorrists snug in their bunkers where the harm they unleash is kept to a minimum.
The only plausable and reasonable resolution to this affect would be a ban on the further production of nukes, which means the current ones would eventually decay to uslesness and also more noteably safe for disposal into your backyard.
And as someone else whom actually seems to have atleast half a scoop of pulp in their mellon this resolution isn't even a drop in the bucket if not coupled with a ban on the future production of all forms of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This has been a friendly reminder from Captain Obvious.

Well, I wouldn't let your kid snugle with it, it's not that radioactive (doesn't lend anymore rems then what you get anyway from background radiation.) But as a heavymetal it is toxic, and not recommended to directly handle, pretty much the same safty concerns as you'ld have with tungsten or lead.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

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

The reason the nuke ban is losing in the UN is because most nations are DICTATORSHIPS.

You might try looking at the nations voting against the ban. Most are "tyranny" and "political freedoms: outlawed".

If the UN were a body of freedom respecting, peace loving nations, the ban would pass right away.

Actually most of them fall in the catagory of capitalists and centrists... Groups concerned about their national sovereignty and their national defense. Most of them also realize that the proposal is about 50% deceit and 25% blatant ignorance of the issues. They all have the commonality of worrying about the impact of this resolution as far as their national defense is with their neighbours.....



http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

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

Ok, this topic looks like its starting to become a rehash of the other one.

Might want to move your debate and comments to the original forum, since this one will likely be locked once its noticed.

Well, I wouldn't let your kid snugle with it, it's not that radioactive (doesn't lend anymore rems then what you get anyway from background radiation.) But as a heavymetal it is toxic, and not recommended to directly handle, pretty much the same safty concerns as you'ld have with tungsten or lead.



Fair enough, I ammend my cuddling comment by adding that you should first make sure the DU is properly clothed :wink:

Tekania:

Political Freedoms: Below Average

Yes, tell us all about capitalists and centrists :roll:

I already told you about it in the previous thread.... Since the passage of the resolution on abortion that has been what it is... The other effect was a direct impact on my Income Tax, which is now at 7% (Actually, after the resoltion it went to 16%, but i've managged to get it back down again... prior there was 0 income tax...which is what'll be against eventually.... and hopefully I'll be able to get the political freedoms back up) Tekania is inherantly a small little-obtrusive form of government.. We're abit tough on crime.... but generally in terms of freedoms, you can't get much better then absolutely no controls on speech, absolutely no marriage laws, absolutely no gun controls (not that that is much of an impact in a nation that uses conscripted forces). It's just amatter now of the effects wearing down against my people-centric capitalist system philosphy, which will win at the end of it all.....


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

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

Nintu:

I feel that you are being intentionally confrontational and I am asking you nicely to stop now.
I expect that you can discuss your disagreements about resolutions without being confrontational or deliberately hurtful or condescending to other players. If not, then perhaps you should re-read the rules of ettiquette located here (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/faq.html#etiquette).

Let's please try and conduct ourselves in a more diplomatic behavior now.

Kestral Lei
NOT A MOD

We shouldn't get too excited about defeating this resolution. About 12000 of us have voted, and there's 35000ish that we have total. We must rally the other members to defeat this foolish act.

Uh, Depleted Uranium is exactly that, depleted. Meaning, you can allow your newborn child to cuddle with a nice DU round while sleeping at night without any fear of toxic repercussions... the stuff isn't radioactive.
Whomever submitted this haenous idea is completly ignorant of the topic.
Supposing nukes are banned and current nukes are dismantled. What then does this remarkable mind suggest 1/3 of the world does with it's now dismantled arsenal? Bury some plutonium perhaps? How about in your backyard. Toss all the uranium in the peverbeal garage? I think not. This is not merely trash that can be easily disposed of. In the best interest of the population that safest location for the nuclear material is right where it is currently kept and vigorously monitored. The stuff is poison and the only facilities currently capable of safely storing all of the said poison just happen to be the power plants and missle silos.
When was the last time they were used someone asks? Well there is your case in point that the fear of Mutual Destruction keeps the nukes safe in their holes and the terrorrists snug in their bunkers where the harm they unleash is kept to a minimum.
The only plausable and reasonable resolution to this affect would be a ban on the further production of nukes, which means the current ones would eventually decay to uslesness and also more noteably safe for disposal into your backyard.
And as someone else whom actually seems to have atleast half a scoop of pulp in their mellon this resolution isn't even a drop in the bucket if not coupled with a ban on the future production of all forms of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This has been a friendly reminder from Captain Obvious.

Hey captain obvious, you know what happens when a DU round shears through armor and the like, occationally causing it to blow up? It leaves behind dust. Lots of tiny little heavily toxic particals that have MANY ways of getting into your body and screwing it up, and that remain dangerous for a very long time.

Your want your kid sleeping with a DU APFSDS-T round? How about we ground that up into a fine powder and dump it into her food, her water, her bed, the area around your house, her school, etc, cause hey, that's where this stuff usually ends up, only in some Arse end of the world.

Your want your kid sleeping with a DU APFSDS-T round? How about we ground that up into a fine powder and dump it into her food, her water, her bed, the area around your house, her school, etc, cause hey, that's where this stuff usually ends up, only in some Arse end of the world.


The point is, that the toxicity levels are not much more then that of lead or tungsten (both of which are used in ammunitions) so the excess this proposal supplies to it is uncalled for. And while I have anylized some of the studies attempting to link some illnesses such as radiation induced lukemia and cancer... I've noticed a factor eliminated from those biased studies, namely the locations of the research (primarily the middle-east and the balkans) is the fact that much of the easter-block equipment (heavily used in those areas) had materials known to be like causes of the symptons and much more dangerous than DU.. namely alot of asbestos usage in armored vehicles (a good primary carcinogen) and a heavy use of radon coated dials (which is several magnitudes more radioactive then DU). And yes, taken internally DU, like most other heavy metals is toxic... the point is, why is it getting this treatment and not the other heavily used heavymetals typical in municians (like tungsten and lead).


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

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

As I see it, this resolution, like so many promoted by the UN, is well-meaning and steps all over national sovereignty issues. Sure, it would be nice to live in a world without nukes, but it does nothing to non-UN nations, as said earlier. Why not go further? Require all UN nations to disarm entirely. No Nukes, no WMD's no conventional arms. Tht would bring about peace, wouldn't it?

I have yet to vote YES on a UN resolution

By requiring UN nations to disarm you leave your state vulnerable to attacks from those states which are not apart of the UN. I believe the proposed topic is ill advised.

The reason the nuke ban is losing in the UN is because most nations are DICTATORSHIPS.

You might try looking at the nations voting against the ban. Most are "tyranny" and "political freedoms: outlawed".

If the UN were a body of freedom respecting, peace loving nations, the ban would pass right away.Right. So that's why the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights et cetterra et cetterra resolutions have passed? Sound reasoning.

Your want your kid sleeping with a DU APFSDS-T round? How about we ground that up into a fine powder and dump it into her food, her water, her bed, the area around your house, her school, etc, cause hey, that's where this stuff usually ends up, only in some Arse end of the world.


The point is, that the toxicity levels are not much more then that of lead or tungsten (both of which are used in ammunitions) so the excess this proposal supplies to it is uncalled for. And while I have anylized some of the studies attempting to link some illnesses such as radiation induced lukemia and cancer... I've noticed a factor eliminated from those biased studies, namely the locations of the research (primarily the middle-east and the balkans) is the fact that much of the easter-block equipment (heavily used in those areas) had materials known to be like causes of the symptons and much more dangerous than DU.. namely alot of asbestos usage in armored vehicles (a good primary carcinogen) and a heavy use of radon coated dials (which is several magnitudes more radioactive then DU). And yes, taken internally DU, like most other heavy metals is toxic... the point is, why is it getting this treatment and not the other heavily used heavymetals typical in municians (like tungsten and lead).


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

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

Lead does not Shear like DU and does not produce the same sort of dust. That and the fact that lead isn't useable as a AP round greatly reduces the risk. Yes, Lead is still toxic when taken internally, but when was the last time you heard of a soldier or a civilian on ground that was previously a battlefield injesting lead dust and subsiquetly dying from it? I haven't heard of it.. well, ever, because you can't use Lead in the same way you can use DU, and thus, the risks entaled when using Lead are much lower.

As for the scientific mumbojumbo (I'm an arts major after all, lol) http://staff.washington.edu/ccarey/DU-honorable.men.htm

Lead doesn't have the same shear, but tungsten does. And lead induced battlefield poisoning has been prevalent in the past... especially during the time period when pure lead was used for ammunition. Larger health concerns are from Easter-Block nations equipment using radon and asbestos then what is present in DU., and BTW... priliminarily most of the studies of sick soldiers returning from the battlefield and attributed to DU has been from finding quanitities of DU in their urine... PROBLEM... DU would only pose a problem if the DU disolved in the blood stream, if it's being passed (in urine) then it's not the toxicity cause of the illness (probably the illness is due to asbestos and radon exposure from russian build tanks, APC's and other armored vehicles ) My point is, is that all the studies are kinda jumping to conclusions, full of assumptions and errors, and a full independent and unbiased study needs to be performed. As the present studies are heavily contradictory. I mean, it's hard to take a study seriously, when it logs medical problems from people around burnt out easter-block equipment, blaming all the medical concerns on DU, from a vehicle that is packed with asbestos, radon, and radium.
As of yet, I've only seen 1 unbiased study that did take into account the asbestos and radium and other heavily problematic materials used in those battles.


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.")

Yes, Tungsten does, and, if you've noticed, I haven't said anything about it yet, cause I'm not really sure about Tungsten (like I said, getting a Bach in Arts, and a Major in history, lol)

Pure lead, of course, is no longer hugely prevalent in normal ammunition now -a-days of course, so that factor has been filled down a bit.

So, right now, from what I understand of what you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that DU + these other toxic factors are making people sick. You can't, after all, be saying that DU plays no factor in making people sick because we've already established that DU is a heavy metal, and as such, is toxic to the body.

Of course, this still means that if you take away the DU, then you'll have one less health risk added to the cocktail of hazards.

actually, DU is currently considered to be not very toxic at all, and is just as dangerous as other heavy metals. To get anywhere near the amounts that are dangerous into your system, you almost have to be eating the stuff.

OOC: Nato has been looking at DU usage in the Balkans: "To date, the scientific and medical research continues to disprove any link between Depleted Uranium and the reported negative health effects. Furthermore, the present evidence strongly suggests that NATO troops serving in the Balkans are not suffering negative health effects different from those suffered by their colleagues who have not served in the Balkans." source:http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm

Pyinkado will never give up its nuclear arsenal. We believe that peace is achieved through strength. No nation would dare strike against us or those we support.

Maintaining peace through the suggestion of force is not peace at all.
Your arguement was as sound as saying: "They will learn our peaceful ways by force."
I don't trust anyone with that attitude controlling nuclear arms.

Since World War II the fear-based deterrence strategies used by most nations may have prevented another world war. However, they have not prevented the increase of lesser wars and outbreaks of violence in most parts of the world. According to figures produced by the Hamburg University Research Unit on Wars, Armament, and Development (AKUF), over 186 wars have occurred since 1945. In 1994 there were 31 major armed conflicts in 27 locations around the world. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also claims that there were 30 major armed conflicts in 1995. However, that same year the conservatively oriented U.S. National Defense Council Foundation counted a record 71 conflicts occurred world-wide. In 1996, 27 major armed conflicts occurred world-wide. Although most of these conflicts were civil wars or ethnic hostilities, thousands of lives have been lost.

The survival and progress of a nation depend on the effectiveness of its national defense. However, it is clear today that even the world's best military equipment and preparedness have not enabled current strategies of deterrence to totally protect any nation, especially from internal uprisings.

The word deterrence comes from the Latin root meaning "fear." In theory, war is deterred by instilling fear in potential enemies. To this end, militaries have amassed tremendous destructive potential. While it is true that military might incites fear in foes, unfortunately it also does so in friends and even in the nation's own populace. People feel threatened by military deployments, even when these are for humanitarian missions, as was evident in Somalia. Fear generated by such threats encourages increases in military budgets and stockpiling of armaments, further inflaming fear and hatred. Military buildups themselves, therefore, become the seeds of future violence and war. For this reason, no military organization committed to defense solely through destructive power is likely to generate a peaceful atmosphere, even in its own country.

Given this understanding, and the current threat of increasing violence and war, the traditional theory of deterrence is being questioned. A recent subheading to an editorial in International Defense Review reads, "A hard core of terrorists and civil warriors is proving resistant to traditional means of deterrences." The recent wave of terrorism and civil war reflects the shift of conflict and violence to a level where it is difficult to hold any person, group, or nation accountable.

Speaking as a nation that disarmed before even joining the UN.
Any attack made on your country can be traced back to your own actions as a catalyst. Stop terrorising yourselves and disarm.

After the abortion rights issue, many nations such as myself who decided not to leave the UN, decided to go on a campaign to vote down this resolution and create a system whereby bad resolutions like this do not pass.

It took some time, but it appears to be working. Someone mentioned large regional delegates yet to weigh in....

North Pacific....poll shows members against
South Pacific...poll shows members against
East Pacific...poll shows members against

.....so it's not looking that good for those in favor of this resolution. :D

Well done, the current UN resolution on baning member states is now officialy rejected by the majority of voters!

Yay! Now we can continue to make weapons to blow up the world once and for all! Isn't that great!

We stand firmly behind this resolution and hope it will pass after all. We do not indulge in such silliness as "war", in fact, the Groot Gouda language uses the same word for "war" as for "nonsense".

Regards,

PRoGG UN Ambassador

.....so it's not looking that good for those in favor of this resolution. :D

Is that a statement referring to this resolution or is it a comment that has a broader meaning?

If it is the latter then I would say; it's not looking good for all of us.

.....so it's not looking that good for those in favor of this resolution. :D

Is that a statement referring to this resolution or is it a comment that has a broader meaning?

If it is the latter then I would say; it's not looking good for all of us.

It is a statement referring to the resolution! You can tell by the words "IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION"

With this in mind, it doesn't look good for you but to the rest of us that believe in National Security against wackos in Non-UN members, way to go everyone! Just Under 500 more votes against this resolution than FOR IT! Keep up the good work!

Ladies and Gentleman and fellow states of the United Nations,

Very few weapons on earth, have the power to cause as much misery and suffering as atomic arms. In agreeing to disarm, we say to the world that we are civilized people, that the value of human life far outweighs our will to take it. The myth of MADD is too widespread for people to not believe it. We do not need nuclear arms to stay alert for the case of opposition to state that do have them - we can destroy nuclear arms with conventional weapons. The fact is, these arms not only affect the country involved in the contact - they invent all of us. Let's not forget that the atmic bomb's own creators opposed the use of it against people, with the exception, of course, of Edward Teller. I for one oppose atomic weapons. I hope you value humanity enough to oppose them as well.

Ladies and Gentleman and fellow states of the United Nations,

Very few weapons on earth, have the power to cause as much misery and suffering as atomic arms. In agreeing to disarm, we say to the world that we are civilized people, that the value of human life far outweighs our will to take it. The myth of MADD is too widespread for people to not believe it. We do not need nuclear arms to stay alert for the case of opposition to state that do have them - we can destroy nuclear arms with conventional weapons. The fact is, these arms not only affect the country involved in the contact - they invent all of us. Let's not forget that the atmic bomb's own creators opposed the use of it against people, with the exception, of course, of Edward Teller. I for one oppose atomic weapons. I hope you value humanity enough to oppose them as well.

1. MADD is Mothers against Drunk Driving! You mean MAD wich is Mutual Assurd Destruction

2. In real LIfe, MAD deterred the use of nukes during the Cold War and was most noticable in '62 I think it was. That was the Kennedy Administration. During wich, in that year, was the closest to nuclear holocaust that ever developed that we know of!

3. Yes they didn't want it used against people however, they knew that Japan would never surrender. THat was why the bomb was used on August 6th and 9th. After the second one, Japan's EMPEROR Issued the Cease Fire and told the allies that it was over. It was use the bomb in kill tens of thousands, or Invade and kill millions! Besides, more was killed in the firebombings of Japan then in the atomic bombs combined. And yes, that is factual Information!

So you see. It all comes down to numbers. How many people are you willing to sacrific to end a war? Nuclear Weapons are the Weapons of Last Resort and should be used in extreme cases.

Unless a national leader is seriously insane (I know I am) they would never use nuclear weapons as anything except a deterrent. Britain has nuclear-armed subs in undisclosed locations. Are they nuking people? no. Would anyone dare openly attack us (i.e. start a war, and not use terrorist tactics)? Well, maybe, but the nuclear threat would certainly put them off. I mean, look at America- you'd think everyone would attack them, only no-one does, because they have the nukes. However, remove nukes from UN nations, and suddenly all the small, psychotic nations have enough power to discourage the world's largest and most powerful nations from doing anything. Vote against this... it's really, really insane. Plus, if this gets rejected, people might start voting against other, equally crap resolutions.

It is a statement referring to the resolution! You can tell by the words "IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION"

If we are being pedantic: "so it's not looking that good for"- means that the future is precarious. "those in favor of this resolution"- specifies who for.

Therefore this statement only specifies who it "does not look good for" but not specifially 'what' is not looking good for those that are in question.

Obviously you can assume what you meant and I did so, correctly. But I also chose to percieve what was said in a different manner using semantics to emphasise another effect of that stance on the subject matter.

Look, no nation that currently exists, UN member or not, will EVER use nuclear weapons. The entire globe knows that if they launched nukes, the rest of the world would invade and destroy them. Plus, this bill does not say that non-nuclear defensive weapons will be illegal. You can still prevent any nukes launched against you from hitting their target. What this bill DOES do is stop indutrialized nations from building more and owning any of these awful, horrible weapons. It prevents them from spending more on destruction. It prevents small nations from wasting their money on nukes and not feeding their people. This bill will prevent another Hiroshima and will protect future generations from facing a nuclear war that would destroy the planet and obliterate Humanity. Nuclear disarmourment is important and it needs to be a reality. we must remember the long-range consequences of failing to pass this resolution.

Look, no nation that currently exists, UN member or not, will EVER use nuclear weapons. The entire globe knows that if they launched nukes, the rest of the world would invade and destroy them. Plus, this bill does not say that non-nuclear defensive weapons will be illegal. You can still prevent any nukes launched against you from hitting their target. What this bill DOES do is stop indutrialized nations from building more and owning any of these awful, horrible weapons. It prevents them from spending more on destruction. It prevents small nations from wasting their money on nukes and not feeding their people. This bill will prevent another Hiroshima and will protect future generations from facing a nuclear war that would destroy the planet and obliterate Humanity. Nuclear disarmourment is important and it needs to be a reality. we must remember the long-range consequences of failing to pass this resolution.

Your only thinking of the weapons. What about Space Born Nations that use this for propulsion? WHat about nuclear power? this bill will eliminate that. Nations are seeing this and are voting no.

this is just a game! Anyways, when someone declares war on your nation, it's just RP. It's not part of the real game mechanics. I think this is a good resolution.

wee problem with that, if you belong to the UN you should RP the laws (which cannot technically be enacted by the organization on sovereign countries) and if the proposal passes, many countries will have lost their military RPing things and I'll feel free to invade

The Tekanian Republic must concede once again in favor of the oposition. In their blind idealism, the resolution and it's supporters fail to take in the full scope of nuclear weapons.

1. It is very true that nuclear bombs can be used as a form of propulsion, and that some of our "higher" tech brothers in the U.N. do so. By the controled detonation of a nuclear warhead, they can propel their vessels at significantly higher speeds then rocket technology would be capable of. Simply by providing directional control to the explosion. This is also an idea Tekania has been thinking of, for retired ordinance, in our space program.

2. In our industrial research arms, it has considered the use of nukes in mining in the asteroid field. Yes, we in Tekania look to the future, but appearantly our future is different then the present idealist's that propose this admendment.

3. In terms of warfare it is a deterent. And needs to remain so at this point. Tekania has always had allies, and our diplomatic corps have negotiated peace in many different places. Arriving at such a peace would not have been possible, in many cases, had Tekania not had a known nuclear arsenal backing her up. Just the mere fact of us having this arsenal, had lead to peace settlements that would have otherwise cost millions and millions of lives to achieve. While I sympasize with the "in parte disarmorment" idealism of the supporters, having diplomatically dealt with ones they suppose would follow our example, and I know it simply is not true.

4. We find the full realization of the past proported by these people in support of this resolution faulty. They want to prevent "another Hiroshima." But that poses the question, what do you mean by that? Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented a power demonstration of what this weapon can do... But in the death of about 100,000 from those two bombings saved the lives of the countless millions of others, military and civilian, whose lives would have been lost had an invasion been necessary.

5. Nuclear weapons technology provodes other forms of defense outside of the scope of warfare. There had been lots of talk recently about large asteroid and comet collisions as has been known to have happened in the history of this planet. With this technology we would be able to prevent such a scenario.

So the end conclusion is this. Nuclear weapons are a tool. They can be used for many different purposes. They have only been used in a war once. Since then they have acted as a deterence, and have very effectively acted as such. No. This is not a time to give up this technology for the utopian idealism of the minority, which lacks the insite of how valuable this technology is to our present dangerous world, and to the future survival of our species.

Thank you all for your time...
-H.J. Schutz, CDR(ret.) Ambassadore of the Tekanian Republic.


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.")

I woud agree with a Nuclear Arms Reduction, but not a ban, for reasons stated earlier in this thread. Truth be told, the only thing a reduction would do is help prevent the possibility of accidents, but it would be feasible, wouldn't undermine national security, and makes the world a little bit safer.

If anything, I wish this were a real UN decision! Banning nuclear weapons is the ideal of a lifetime. Why would you not want to ban nukes?

I would LOVE to see nuclear weapons go the way of the vacuum tube, but I think the ban is a bad idea. Why? It's unenforceable. If the United States and China dismantled all their nuclear weapons, they would be defenseless against a North Korea, a rogue country or a terrorist cell that had the weapons and would feel they could launch them with impugnity without the weapons as a deterrant.

The only way a United Nations could make a ban like this work is if it had the power of a true worldwide government. Neither this UN nor the real life one has anywhere near that kind of power or influence.

Resolutions like this one are the reason I resigned from the United Nations to begin with.

[DP]

Hello everyone.

I would like to encourage all of you to continue this conversation in the original ENPA thread entitled "Resolution at Vote: Reducing Nuclear Proliferation".

I think this topic has moved away from its original intent and is becoming a duplicate debate. All thoughts on the issue are encouraged to be centralized to one topic.

Even in real life, this wouldn't work. There are nations that don't care bout the UN that would just love to nuke people without fear of retribution.


That's the sad thing, you see. It wouldn't work. Nature of the beast, etc.
IRL I HATE nukes, you see...

But (and we were discussing this within the last 24 hours), even were this
to pass, it's poorly written because it doesn't take into account the idea
that rogue nations may have nukes and attack those nations who are
subject to this law, and then what?

If you were to draft a proposal, better to have it with an international
protection system of some sort. Something which prevents nukes from hitting your nation, etc. And harsher penalties against those who
use them for no good reason.
Something like that - maybe not exactly that, but similar - may be a better resolution to pass.

I like the idea of phasing them out, though. But how to do it?

Quick question:

If we banned all nukes then how would third-world rogue states make their money?

The following is translated from 'Hala' the national language of the Republic of Halish.

:x
To cease the creation of nuclear arms only leaves us open to those nations that do not conform to United Nations Standards!
The nation of Halish Strongly opposes this ban, should their regionally appointed UN Delegate ever wake up we urge he immediately vote against this ban.

On that note I wish to urge all nations residing within the North Pacific to withdraw their endorsements from The Free Land of Magicality.
Speaking as one nation amongst the many, we must demand that the North Pacific have a voice in such proposals.
It is from my observations that the Land of Magicality has remained inactive this past 15 days!
Something must be done.

On behalf of Halish I wish all nations with brighter, sharper, ideals to telegram me on behalf of their nation so I may know whom to cast my endorsement towards when the United Nations accepts my application.


Thank you and may he who is seated above us all bless you,
Saleen Naido
Presidental Monarch of the Republic of Halish

umm...i'm kinda undecided, but i think we should vote for this, yet now after reading this, there are good arguments, like we'll be undefended... so confusing!!!

:tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum:: tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::t antrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum::tantrum:

Ladies and Gentleman and fellow states of the United Nations,

Very few weapons on earth, have the power to cause as much misery and suffering as atomic arms. In agreeing to disarm, we say to the world that we are civilized people, that the value of human life far outweighs our will to take it. The myth of MADD is too widespread for people to not believe it. We do not need nuclear arms to stay alert for the case of opposition to state that do have them - we can destroy nuclear arms with conventional weapons. The fact is, these arms not only affect the country involved in the contact - they invent all of us. Let's not forget that the atmic bomb's own creators opposed the use of it against people, with the exception, of course, of Edward Teller. I for one oppose atomic weapons. I hope you value humanity enough to oppose them as well.

1. MADD is Mothers against Drunk Driving! You mean MAD wich is Mutual Assurd Destruction

2. In real LIfe, MAD deterred the use of nukes during the Cold War and was most noticable in '62 I think it was. That was the Kennedy Administration. During wich, in that year, was the closest to nuclear holocaust that ever developed that we know of!

3. Yes they didn't want it used against people however, they knew that Japan would never surrender. THat was why the bomb was used on August 6th and 9th. After the second one, Japan's EMPEROR Issued the Cease Fire and told the allies that it was over. It was use the bomb in kill tens of thousands, or Invade and kill millions! Besides, more was killed in the firebombings of Japan then in the atomic bombs combined. And yes, that is factual Information!

So you see. It all comes down to numbers. How many people are you willing to sacrific to end a war? Nuclear Weapons are the Weapons of Last Resort and should be used in extreme cases.

Used in extreme cases? They should never be used at all!
The people of Assor-Hu do not support the mass immolation of innocents by the use of nuclear weapons, thank you very much!
It does not matter how many were killed. It does not matter how many would have been killed.
It does not matter what happened in the past.
What matters is what happens now, and what I want to see happening now is for nuclear weapons to be destroyed, nuclear ammunition (no matter how radioactive) destroyed, and nuclear weapons programs destroyed.

Something that I think people are forgetting is that this bans nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. The Space Nations can keep their nuke engines and whatnot, as long as they don't have any warheads pointed at the Earth. Weapons, people, weapons!

Idealism is a good thing. What if Mother Teresa had not been idealistic? What if Martin Luther King Jr. hand not been idealistic? What if Joan of Arc had not been idealistic (or schizophrenic, whichever way you want to see that)?
With all due respect to them, the pessimism of such nations as Tekania and Corneliu is disheartening to me, and dangerous in the long run for them. We here in Assor-Hu would prefer to remove the spectre of nuclear destruction from at least a few UN nations than have it cloud the entire world, no matter the cost to us.

BRING BACK NUKES!

*phew*
Am I releived.

Um, "nuclear engines" are detonation controled nuclear warheads, where the force is directed as in a rocked. The core of the technology is no different the the weapon.


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.")

Um, "nuclear engines" are detonation controled nuclear warheads, where the force is directed as in a rocked. The core of the technology is no different the the weapon.


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.")

Oh, my mistake. Sorry. :oops:

But I still stand by my above message!

Used in extreme cases? They should never be used at all!
The people of Assor-Hu do not support the mass immolation of innocents by the use of nuclear weapons, thank you very much!
It does not matter how many were killed. It does not matter how many would have been killed.
It does not matter what happened in the past.
What matters is what happens now, and what I want to see happening now is for nuclear weapons to be destroyed, nuclear ammunition (no matter how radioactive) destroyed, and nuclear weapons programs destroyed.

Something that I think people are forgetting is that this bans nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. The Space Nations can keep their nuke engines and whatnot, as long as they don't have any warheads pointed at the Earth. Weapons, people, weapons!

Idealism is a good thing. What if Mother Teresa had not been idealistic? What if Martin Luther King Jr. hand not been idealistic? What if Joan of Arc had not been idealistic (or schizophrenic, whichever way you want to see that)?
With all due respect to them, the pessimism of such nations as Tekania and Corneliu is disheartening to me, and dangerous in the long run for them. We here in Assor-Hu would prefer to remove the spectre of nuclear destruction from at least a few UN nations than have it cloud the entire world, no matter the cost to us.

Never said it wasn't a good thing! However, many of us space faring people have nuclear weapons. Some of us have other weapons that are more powerful than nuclear weapons. My nukes are low level and I do have tactical nukes as well as HYDROGEN Bombs! I also have hyperspace capable nukes to be used as a self defense measure only. My nukes are for self defense. Luckily this won't pass so my nation is safe!

as for Idealism, my idea of an ideal world is when all tyranny is ousted by the mighty force of democracy. When that is done, all bombs and guns are tossed away never to be needed again. that is my ideal world. However, that isn't going to happen. So, we need to deter those people that want to nuke people with nukes of our own. That is why I voted against this proposal. I dn't want a nuclear war, but i'm ready if there is one.

The point of is the idea of a unilateral ban on what is termed in the proposal as "all nuclear weapons" (which oddly includes DU which is not a nuclear weapon). Isn't an answer, and really has no excuse, the technology is too usefull to abandon... And I'm not reffering merely to it's warfare applications, nuclear engines, asteroid mining, and planetary defense are other reasons I am against this idea. Let's put it this way. The history of the planet records several extension level planetary impacts by asteroids/comets, without a system in place (nuclear weapons) our defense against such a scenario would be nil. The impact of such a scenario would be equivalent to a global nuclear war. I would find it very silly if mankind were to eliminate the use of all nuclear weapons, only to be wiped out by planetary impact that could have been averted with the very tool that we had banned. My point is, is regardless the scenario, there is no positive outcome of an ex parte disarmorment of all WMD's by 1/3 of the planet that can bearly maintain peace in a hostile world as it is. The result of this, regardless will be an end, either by being attacked by rogue nuclear nations, starvation due to population overgrowth and not have colonization of space options available due to lack of nuclear space propulsion, or destruction by a asteroid colision. This "peace" so called would very likely end in the death of billions.

"Dirty Bombs" are a pointless endeavor, they are only used by rogue nations and terrorist, of which have no respect for the U.N., and have never presented a threat to many others, as they usually end up killing the deliverer long before he can place the package.

The conclusion is is that peace is attainable, but not by the ex parte disarmorment of nuclear capability by a minority segment of NationStates. The goal should be bringing people in the U.N., but on the flip side the majority of support for the ENPA is also the same support base as has passed more recent controversial and divisive resolutions causing more exodus' from the U.N. The end result of peace should be getting all nations into the U.N. working together as a whole. The entire set of logic is a fault. It's not a matter of peace, that's a lie and you know it. It's a matter of control, oppression, and special interest. Lucky this resolution is slowly failing, which shows that, at least, a small margin of majority has common sense enough to see a really bad idea when it's in front of them.


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.")

They should be banned. Vote FOR the current resolution!

They should be banned. Vote FOR the current resolution!

give us a very good reason, besides the ones that have been hashed over, on why we should ban them!

All the evidence points TOO keeping them.

The following is translated from 'Hala', the national language of the Republic of Halish.

:x
It is true, there are no winners in a nuclear war.
And perhaps to some it should seem petty to want for nuclear ams only so as to strike back and destroy a nation for having already destroyed one's own.
But by the grace and glory of our God who sits above blessing us all, prices must be paid for actions taken!

For the larger part, the very existance of Nuclear warheads has evolved to prevention.
There are unfortunately many nations who do not agree with this ideal and it is they whom force our hands to ravaging our once pure lands in the quest for uranium so that we may create these infernal devices.
Our own national animal - the black maned lion- a holy beast, has dwindled slightly in number; much to our shame.

So I say to all nations as our mothers has said to us, 'seek not to remove the drainage pail till the leak has been plugged'.
In layman's terms, we must expand our military research so as to find an alternate form of defending against such attacks from nations who do not abide by the regulations set by the very honorable members of the U.N.!

We must form a program that renders these attacks virtually inert!
WE MUST PLUG THE LEAK MY FELLOW NATIONS!

Thank you and may he who is seated above bless us all with the wisdom to survive this endeavor.

Saleen Naido
Presidential Monarch to the Republic of Halish

If peace cannot be attained by laying down weapons, how can it be attained, Tekania? Where will it end?
Unless the nations of the UN provide an example, how will the other nations of the world ever feel safe enough to let go of their arsenals? They can't be expected to give up their weapons if we still have ours. They're thinking just like you: they have weapons, and if we give ours up, they'll take advantage.
Maybe that's not the way it is. Maybe if we give up our weapons, they'll give up theirs, seeing that, no, we're not going to destroy them.

If peace cannot be attained by laying down weapons, how can it be attained, Tekania? Where will it end?
Unless the nations of the UN provide an example, how will the other nations of the world ever feel safe enough to let go of their arsenals? They can't be expected to give up their weapons if we still have ours. They're thinking just like you: they have weapons, and if we give ours up, they'll take advantage.
Maybe that's not the way it is. Maybe if we give up our weapons, they'll give up theirs, seeing that, no, we're not going to destroy them.

Oops, double post.

If peace cannot be attained by laying down weapons, how can it be attained, Tekania? Where will it end?
Unless the nations of the UN provide an example, how will the other nations of the world ever feel safe enough to let go of their arsenals? They can't be expected to give up their weapons if we still have ours. They're thinking just like you: they have weapons, and if we give ours up, they'll take advantage.
Maybe that's not the way it is. Maybe if we give up our weapons, they'll give up theirs, seeing that, no, we're not going to destroy them.

Could you negiotate with Hitler? Could you negiotate with Tojo? Could you negiotate with Hussein? The answers are No, No, and No again.

Assor-Hu, sometimes the only way to peace is with force of arms. There are people that just won't negiotate. Many people only recognize strength. If this did pass, we would be showing weakness to these individuals. Sometimes, a strong defense is a strong offense. Show the world your ready to combat them, and normally they will step down. If this passed, all of our enemies would be able to bomb us with nukes at will and we wouldn't be able to respond in kind. That means, they'll win. We don't want that.

Everyone wants peace Assor-Hu, me included. I despise war but I know when its time for the white flag to be dropped and the colors to be raised. Diplomacy is fine to those that want to negiotate, but sometimes, you have to go to war. That is the story of life Assor-Hu. We may not like it but that is the truth.

Forgive me, but I cannot accept that.
I cannot think that lowly of anyone. Everyone has some good.

You can show the world that you're ready to fight even if you don't have nukes. Why are nukes necessary?
Is it for some reason not as serious a threat if you don't threaten nuclear destruction? Is dying from bullets or swords or whatever somehow less deadly than dying from a nuclear explosion?
I don't claim that we could've negotiated with Hitler, Emperor Tojo, or Saddam Hussein. But that is not the issue here.

Mmm.. Big Bu-nny think that maybe its too big a gamble to take.
Yes, yes, too big a gamble to lay down arms in hopes that yum-my people would do the same. Maybe they would blast you instead.



Big Bunny

Forgive me, but I cannot accept that.
I cannot think that lowly of anyone. Everyone has some good.

You can show the world that you're ready to fight even if you don't have nukes. Why are nukes necessary?
Is it for some reason not as serious a threat if you don't threaten nuclear destruction? Is dying from bullets or swords or whatever somehow less deadly than dying from a nuclear explosion?
I don't claim that we could've negotiated with Hitler, Emperor Tojo, or Saddam Hussein. But that is not the issue here.

Actually Assor, it is. We warned the Japanese government what was going to happen if they didn't surrender. They refused, and Hiroshima was blown off the map. We told them again and again they refused so Nagasaki was blown off the map. The reasons for the two bombs was one of numbers. Millions dead compared to over a hundred thousand.

The American Leadership knew that if we invaded, we probably would've had to wipe them out. As such, the bomb shortened the war with the least number of casualties. Besides, more died in our conventional attacks on their homeland than nukes ever did. Hitler believed in world domination and set out to achieve that goal. He was defeated by a coalition of forces. Hussein was like Hitler. He invaded Kuwait and a coalition of forces threw him out. The Persian Gulf war in 1991 if you don't remember. That war was over oil. In this one, he was told to step down and he didn't. Another coalition was formed and he was expelled from power.

Now we're down to rogue states like North Korea who does have nuclear weapons. Our nukes are defending South Korea and Japan. Also defending Taiwan from China, another nuclear nation. Nuclear Weapons have detered many people. Stopped Hussein from using WMD against coalition forces in '91 and '03! Ended WWII with the LEAST number of CIVILIAN casualties. Before you say get rid of them all, think of what the good they have done. Without nuclear bombs, we would have no nuclear power plants. That was an innovation of energy that has helped many nations that need a huge power supply.

If peace cannot be attained by laying down weapons, how can it be attained, Tekania? Where will it end?
Unless the nations of the UN provide an example, how will the other nations of the world ever feel safe enough to let go of their arsenals? They can't be expected to give up their weapons if we still have ours. They're thinking just like you: they have weapons, and if we give ours up, they'll take advantage.
Maybe that's not the way it is. Maybe if we give up our weapons, they'll give up theirs, seeing that, no, we're not going to destroy them.

You are missing the point here. The U.N.'s "shining example" as of yet has been the enforcement of the religious world-view of "Secular-Humanism" and "Naturalism". This is merely a seeking of expanding the cultural gulf, not only among member nations, but among non-UN nations as well. The point is, you're laying down your arms towards an opposition that considers you morally and ethically wrong as it is. The position the U.N. takes is contrary to the goal of attaining peace on the planet, because, rather then lay down cultural differences, which could be gulfed later on, they choose to do so in their presently weak state. We, as a body, first need to seek to bridge the cultural gaps between our own members, and the other non-UN nations, before we undertake plans like this (even if we were unified, I would still be against this proposal for other reasons already mentioned in previous posts). The U.N. needs to make peace with itself (and I don't mean in disarmorment) before it seeks any idea of ex parte shows like this. How can the U.N. even hope for peace when just about every act it undertakes is soully based on the progression of one religous world-view against another? I'll end on this note. This proposal is very optimistic... unfortuneately I'm a realist. I'm not concerned with what the majority would like to see happen, I'm only concerned about what is really going to happen. And why I oppose this resolution under any circumstances. If we could do uni-lateral reduction, I'd think about it, but an ex-parte ban is neither effective, nor wise.


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.")

we could still lose it and let the ban pass we neeed everyone to vote it down now....iti is important that we kick this thing to the curb like every other nuke ban

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?

You have a valid point, but there are a few things that you need to take into account. For a nation like Checkerslovakia, 2 of my 3 main industries will be effected by this, (uranium mining and arms manufacturing) And I'm not the only one who has this problem. IT WILL KILL OUR ECONOMIES!

This proposition is good, but we need to draft up a different copy of it, giving member nations more freedoms. We are all free in the UN, free to make peace, or blow shit up, you need to realize that if you do the wrong thing, you will get your ass handed to you, but its still your decision

Here is the update all! It looks like this is going to get voted down. Lets keep up the pressure to make sure it is voted down.

Votes For: 6723

Votes Against: 7510

Well, as we all can see, the opposing nations (particularly Tekania) are much better prepared for this debate than the supporting nations.
I applaud your excellent (and extremely succesful) efforts to defend your point of view, but as a matter of simple preference, I am not a realist. Rather, I am a dreamer and an idealist. So, in the spirit of hope, I am going to remain a supporter of the ex parte nuclear ban.

Banning nuclear weapons would not cripple the united nations, nobody said anything about banning defenses against nuclear weapons. Anybody up for some anti missile reasearch, SAM batteries, maybe even STAR WARS. :wink:

Banning nuclear weapons would not cripple the united nations, nobody said anything about banning defenses against nuclear weapons. Anybody up for some anti missile reasearch, SAM batteries, maybe even STAR WARS. :wink:

Even Nuclear Missle defenses are not 100% effective in stopping a nuclear weapon. Besides, there is NO DEFENSE against a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb, or a smuggled nuclear explosive.

Well, as we all can see, the opposing nations (particularly Tekania) are much better prepared for this debate than the supporting nations.
I applaud your excellent (and extremely succesful) efforts to defend your point of view, but as a matter of simple preference, I am not a realist. Rather, I am a dreamer and an idealist. So, in the spirit of hope, I am going to remain a supporter of the ex parte nuclear ban.

Assor, not better prepared, just have better logic. You can't beat logic.

You're right, there isn't a defense against suitcase bombs and dirty bombs, not even having nukes of your own can defend you from those so what's the point of having your own nukes if they don't protect you from being wiped out.

Who is going to get you with a suitcase nuk when they know that in return you would nuke (ICBM) them to hell?

Come on, you idiots. LOGIC. It helps. Fight fire with fire, 'cause there is no alternative.

Hey, Kholint!
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me (and my supporting compatriots) an idiot! Just because we support this ban doesn't mean our opinions don't matter.

On dirty bombs:
The potential of dirty bombs to kill and destroy has been extremely overblown by the media. A dirty bomb, such as they are, could not have anywhere near the kind of range that would be needed to "wipe out a city population" as Newsweek so eloquently put it. The radiation leaking from the bomb would probably kill the person carrying it before they even reached their target.

On suitcase nukes:
What? What is a "suitcase nuke"? I was under the impression that nukes were actual things, not James Bond-villain style weapons!
Provide me some evidence that there really are "suitcase nukes".

yeah if we make this resolution then the terrorists will be able to atk us with nukes cuz they wont listen to us! so we need defences!

Ohh please. You cannot just go and ban them all....waht about non-UN nations.

BEsides...you cannto force everyone to give them up...mabye put some limitations like a SALT treaty or something...but certainly NOT a total ban.


END THIS STUPID RESOLUTION BEFORE IT DESTROYS US ALL!

Perhaps you've forgotten that nuclear weapons are the things that destroy. Logic? Yes logic, but the kind of logic used by a nation caught in a paranoid craze over weapons that alienate EVERYONE. Maybe the reason people feel the need to comit acts of violence is they are caught in the world where nobody trusts each other, hhmmm? Maybe you don't quite realize that if the sole reason for the weapons is to protect from an outside attack, with the same types of weapons that would be banned, what good are they? Do you really want the kind of peace that leaves the world hanging at the brink every second of every day? Sounds pretty ridiculous.

We agree wholeheartedly.

Assor-Hu is casting aside logic in the hope that someday, the world will get better instead of the progressive deterioration that it is currently undergoing.

Do you really want the kind of peace that leaves the world hanging at the brink every second of every day? Sounds pretty ridiculous.
In this case, the alternative is the world being ruled by non-UN maniacs with nukes.

Actually the potential of a "suitcase nuke" is very likely, though I do not know of any actualy usage of them. A modern tritium based fission-fusion (aka hydrogen bomb) weighs about 35-50 lbs, and is about 2 ft. long and about 1 to 1 1/2 ft. wide.. with a yield of about 20kt (approx. 20 times the bomb dropped on Hiroshima)... so the possibility is likely, but don't know if anyone has actually built one. These weapons however are fairly safe, the worse risk is casing damage (however they are generally designed to withstand the impact of a locomotive) which would yield to radiation leakage. As far as accidental detonation, you'ld have a better chance of winning the lottery... they rely on a tritium (third isotope of Hydrogen) core surrounded by a shell of Plutonium-239, in tern incased in a sphere that with a series of HE (High-Explosive) caps surounding the nuclear matterial. At detonation the circuit sends an electric pulse to all blasting caps simultaneously.. this in turn leads to an implosion of the Plutonium-239 shell into a fissionable mass.... at which point a nuclear fission reaction is initiated, further compressing the tritium core, which then results in the tritium undergoing a spontaneous fusion reaction (hense the name fission-fusion..... it's a chain, normal explosives set off the fission process, which in turn acts as the primer for a fusion reaction). For the bomb to actually successfully detonate, all the caps MUST go off at once. if the timing if of on just one, or one does not explode, all it will do is crack the casing. The very first nuke "Fat Man" was the only western bomb ever made that had the potential of accidental detonation.... it was what is called a core and slug type... There is a cored out shere of U-235, with an additional slug located up a pipe away from it.... at detonation the slug is shot into the bore of the sphere, creating a fissionable mass.... As you can see, being more mechanical in nature.... the potential of the slug accidently setting off can create a hazard (note: One engineer rode with the Enola Gay to actually physically arm the bomb before it was dropped to remove this risk.) Whereas the chance of an accidental implosion is, pretty much impossible. The one dropped on Nagasaki was an implosion type. (You know, Harry Truman would be a tough poker player.... He has three bombs, Trinity is test fired in New Mexico..... Fat Man dropped on Hiroshima and Little Boy dropped on Nagasaki.... Then he threatens to continue bombing untill the Japanese surrender.... mind you, there were no more, and it would take another 2-3 years to produce enough fissionable material to make another.... but they didn't know that, did they? History's most sucessful poker bluff....)


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.")

Ohh please. You cannot just go and ban them all....waht about non-UN nations.

BEsides...you cannto force everyone to give them up...mabye put some limitations like a SALT treaty or something...but certainly NOT a total ban.


END THIS STUPID RESOLUTION BEFORE IT DESTROYS US ALL!

I'll resign from the UN and be the military power with my own nukes!!!

OOC:

I am not a member of the UN and I have no say in what they pass. My nation does not possess nuclear weapons. I do not plan on using Nukes, although I will use fusion reactors on my ships.

After reading through this post, I noticed a story on Yahoo.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040609/ap_on_sc/dirty_bomb_dud_2

This address the idea of uranium being a dangerous material and the use of dirty bombs.

Just providing info for those who need it

(The following is translated from 'Hala' The national language of the Republic of Halish.)

:x
I say to you all now!
Should this issue pass and the U.N. order it's national members to disarm, theres will be such a mass exodus of members from it's good willed organization as never seen before!!
I for one will not leave my nation nor it's peoples in the hands of lunatics and crazies while hoping the so called 'good will' of certain warmongering parties is enough to maintain our safety.
Too many, I say too many nations are already champing at the bit in regards to seeing this ban pass!
What will the well-wishers and dreamers do or so when so many fine nations are reduced to radioactive dust!
What words will ease the sufferings of our mothers and children as they sift the bones of their loved ones from the ashes!
No, I will not be a party to this ban! I will not leave my nation undefended against the insanity that prevails in most regions!

I say now, should this ban be passed, may I be the FIRST to walk away from the U.N. and it's overbearing policy and let us NOT be the last!

Ban nuclear weapons from members of the UN and see how many of us will leave to continue our nuclear arms research!
You cannot stop us, you can only cause us to leave this great organization!!

:tantrum:

Saleen Naido
presidential Monarch of the Republic of Halish

I voted for the nuclear ban initially, but after recieving an intelligent email I realized that non-members would still have their nukes, with this many nations such a measure would be nearly impossible to enforce. If a nation does not want to maintain nuclear weapons, than it can mark its self as a neutral nation, and have a nuetral foreign policy.

The Dominion of Socratokes
-UN Delegate for UTRave Region

Maybe more nations outside the UN would want to join and throw down their weapons if we made it a less, "we reserve the ability to nuke anybody who threatens us remotely," sort of environment. And I might not seem totally rational, but at least I can spell LOSING, unlike the "esteemed" initiator of this string. LITERACY PEOPLE.

NO! This is a good resolution. Banning nuclear weapons will help stabilize the international community. Besides, what good do nukes do that isn't obscenely outweighed by the cons anyway?

I could make this long-winded and drawn out, but instead offer this succinct thought - "If nukes are outlawed, then only outlaws will have nukes." Do you suspect that North Korea, Pakistan, and other semi-outlaw nations would not use their nuclear weapons if nations like the US weren't ready to counterbalance them with a massive capability to strike back?

"Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt."

When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults.


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.")

As someone who has had several years of formal physics training, I believe I will add these $.02182418243523 to the conversation.

First off, nuclear weapons of ''suit case'' size or smaller do exist in the world today, as Tekania had pointed out. In fact, a majority of nuclear weapons are small enough to fit insite a van easily.

Second, ''dirty bombs'' are a much smaller threat. As someone who has and probably will again, work in an area with radioactive materials, I understand the dangers of radiation, exposure to radiation, and the dangers of radioactive dust. However, the amount of radioactive material needed to ''wipe out'' a major city, is indeed great. In fact, you'll have an easier time with the suit case nuke than a dirty bomb, and a suit case nuke is more difficult to get away from once its gone off. One can walk away from a dirty bomb's contamination area and get cleaned off before to much damage has been done to you by the radioactivity. Unless of course, the material being used is in the range of thousands of rems per hour, in which case the terrorists using it would not only have to transport their bomb, but also several tons of lead to keep them selves from being killed while transporting it.

As for nations using either suit case nukes or dirty bombs against one's own nation, it is widely accepeted that both actions are acts of terrorism at best, war at worst (really, not much room for manuvering). And having a large nuclear arsenal will not be effective against these attacks, primarily because one has to figure out who did it. If an entire city is vaporized, it is unlikely there will be much physical evidence left of the perpetrators. As for a dirty bomb, its easy enough to catch them on the way in. In fact, its more difficult to find a 4 year old kid carrying a nerve gas agent into a subway than to find the giant flat bed needed to make an effective dirty bomb that does more than harrass the local populace. Thus both suit case nukes and dirty bombs do not have any relevance to the discussion at hand. The proposed resolution is about things that are shot up into the sky (or flown) and are quite visible as to where and how they are getting to their targets thanks to modern technology.

Oh, and depleated Uranium is in fact still radioactive, but not as much as pure Uranium. Because depleated Uranium does contain Uranium, as well as many of its radioactive daughter products. Eventually, all of it decays to lead. And yes, it is dangerous due to its chemical properties as well from both the Uranium, the lead, and all the metals in between. But that's too things that make it dangerous.

And for why I'm voting the way I am on the resolution, I am voting for it because there are simpler, safer, and more rational ways to defend one's nation, prevent global total war, and to protect one's own nation from nuclear weapons. The Union of Tinis for example, is well on its way to developing an effective missile (and air) deterance system. As for keeping the peace, The Union of Tinis is well known for its good will to other nations, and various nations have return that good will. And if asked, Tinis will answer the call of a friendly nation, alliance or none, who is threatened by outside forces. And though Tinis does currently have nuclear weapons, our stock piles are being reduced as our new systems come on line. In the end we will have no need for the overly destructive weapons that leave behind no viable resorces because we will have more effective and efficent ways to conduct war.

Of course though, once our defense system is complete, Tinis will be willing to sell it to nations in the UN who my government deams non-threatening. And a reduced price for friendly nations.

Oh, and if any one cares, I have not had a repeat of my password being cracked, but I'm no longer a UN delegate anyway due to a struggle with DEN.

Good night!

-Izixs
First Speaker of the Union of Tinis

Well, by increased funding we're hoping to have our MADD (Matter/Antimatter Deterent and Defense) program into the full production area within months..... So we may be able to give full pace in the matter of MAD philosophy continuing without the traditional nukes. MAD has been 100% effective, at best, ABM defense systems in the best scenarios only provide 75% effectiveness.


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.")

Yes, ban nukes now... heavens know that not being in the UN, I don't care a whit if they do ban them, and using plasma to glass entire planets over is much more efficient and nicer looking, wouldn't you say? :twisted: :P

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

People, today is the last day of voting. As of now, I think we can safely say that the campaign to denounce this resolution and defeat it is safely at hand. The vote is over a thousand more against than for this idiotic proposal.

Here is the voting as of now:

Votes For: 7462

Votes Against: 8929


Again, keep up the good work.

You people must be crazy!!!! Not only would any attempt at nuclear dissarmament be a complete failure but any countries that did dissarm would be helpless to defend themselfes!!!!!!! I wouldn't support this in real life. Regulating WMD is one thing but trying to ban them is just idiotic!

Nuclear war destroys the world for everyone. This includes the aggressor and the defender. There are pleanty of less-permanent means of destroying a nation through warfare. Starwars style missil defense and increased border defense can make the nuclear threat little more than an echo from the past. Yes, a rogue state may still be able to produce a nuke or 2 but not enough to prevent the rest of the world from destroying said nation. Ban the nukes and deal harshly with the violators of said ban in or outside the UN and we'll all be safer. Stockpiles of nukes capable of complete world destruction are a threat no matter who owns them and how wonderful they appear to be and it would be foolish to believe otherwise. I urge you to reconsider and support this ban for the sake of everyone. Inverted Reality produces no such weapons regardless of this resolution and will continue as such for your safety as well as our own.

Nuclear war destroys the world for everyone. This includes the aggressor and the defender. There are pleanty of less-permanent means of destroying a nation through warfare. Starwars style missil defense and increased border defense can make the nuclear threat little more than an echo from the past. Yes, a rogue state may still be able to produce a nuke or 2 but not enough to prevent the rest of the world from destroying said nation. Ban the nukes and deal harshly with the violators of said ban in or outside the UN and we'll all be safer. Stockpiles of nukes capable of complete world destruction are a threat no matter who owns them and how wonderful they appear to be and it would be foolish to believe otherwise. I urge you to reconsider and support this ban for the sake of everyone. Inverted Reality produces no such weapons regardless of this resolution and will continue as such for your safety as well as our own.


The Tekanian Republic is most definite and we have defended as such, against this resolution.

Our arsenal is shifting over to non-nuclear technology thanks to the MADD(Matter/Antimatter Defense and Deterent) program, so nuke weapons are not a direct issue for us, but we recognize them as an issue with many of our UN allies. We would be able to provide MAD deterent without nukes at even more devestation levels.

However this resolution would have direct impact on unintended programs in our nation. We are experimenting with using old war-heads as nuclear engines in exploratory spacecraft. Also we will be doing research with them for use as mining explosives on asteroids. And we believe they still have valuable use along with the M/A weapons for global defense in the event of potential asteroid colision. WMD's can serve usefull functions outside of combat.


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.")