NationStates Jolt Archive

To ALL member nations of the UN:

Dear Sirs and Madam, I bring to you today the second draft of what my co-author, The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria, hopes to be a sensible and accepted solution to the ENPA.

As we have split on the passing of the ENPA, mostly due to the extremes which it calls for, we are hoping that a moderate answer can be found to satisfy both the environmentalists and those who wish to keep their weapons.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kestral_lei/images/pent1bar.gif

Whereas the United Nations realizes the need to reduce the threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological threat, and

Whereas the United Nations wishes to ensure the safety of societies around the globe,

We, the nations of Whited Fields and Crushinatoria, do hereby propose the following terms for the United Nations Reduced Arms Propositions hereafter referred to as 'UNRAP'.

1) First strike - All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy of no nuclear, chemical, and biological "first strike" against member and non-member nations of the UN. The UN members will retain the right to launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type not listed above against both member and non-member countries.

2) Retaliation - Any attack by nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons on any member of the UN will be considered a declaration of war upon all members, to be met with retaliation. Any member nation of the UN will be eligible for immediate assistance in military and/or finance.
2a) The above offer of support does not include attacks initiated by UN member nations against other UN member nations or against non-UN member nations.
2b) In the interest of protecting the global environment and neighboring nations from the after effects of a massive nuclear, chemical, or biological retaliatory attack, it is strongly encouraged that retaliatory attacks be made with armorments and ammunition that are as minimally destructive as necessary to the protection and/or military success of the attacked member nation.

3) Arms Reduction - Whereas the committment to massive retaliation effectively increases the nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities of each member nation many times over, be it resolved that member nations shall commit to making 30% reduction of their individual stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons within 10 years.
3a) In the interest of global environmental concerns, this reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable due to age.
3b) All UN nations will submit annual reports of stockpiles which have been reduced from usage due to instability, and show the course of action taken to ensure proper disposal of these weapons.

4) International Oversight - All member nations will present updates to the U.N. every two years an accounting as to the quantity and security of all non-conventional and viable weapons, to include all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons within their arsenals in order to increase transparency and reduce tensions among neighboring nations.
4a) Any nation with suspected security concern who receives more than 3 verifiable accusations of poor handling must consent to an inspection of their security protocols, and will have continued investigation of these protocols for a period of 2 years.
4b) The UN will form a council to oversee these reports and security investigations. All interested member nations can apply for positions in this council, and the seated members will be rotated at regular intervals to ensure that bribery and complacency will not become an issue.

5) Space Exploration- In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.
5a) To prevent the misclassification of these weapons, no advanced country may keep more than twice the necessary numbers of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The number of necessary nuclear weapons will be accessed once every 2 years and included in the report submitted to the UN regarding stockpiles.

6) Depleted Uranium Clauses- Be it resolved that the above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armorments.
6a) Should, in the future, an equally effective and financially viable option be adopted by more than 40% of the UN member nations, be it resolved that depleted uranium ammunition and armorments shall then be included in the terms of this resolution.

This is certainly a far more equitable resolution. And I believe I could honestly declare my support.

-H.J. Schutz, CDR(ret.) Republic of Tekania UN Ambassadore


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

Thank you for your support.

I would ask that anyone who does not like any or part of the proposition to please explain your grievances to them.

The only way we can make this better is to know and understand why it is not acceptable.

To ALL member nations of the UN:

Dear Sirs and Madam, I bring to you today the second draft of what my co-author, The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria, hopes to be a sensible and accepted solution to the ENPA.

As we have split on the passing of the ENPA, mostly due to the extremes which it calls for, we are hoping that a moderate answer can be found to satisfy both the environmentalists and those who wish to keep their weapons.

There is no split, you rascal. ENPA is being gored to death.

Whereas the United Nations realizes the need to reduce the threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological threat, and

Whereas the United Nations wishes to ensure the safety of societies around the globe,

Grumbles, "but not their fetuses,"

We, the nations of Whited Fields and Crushinatoria, do hereby propose the following terms for the United Nations Reduced Arms Propositions hereafter referred to as 'UNRAP'.

Hah. Clever.

1) First strike - All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy of no nuclear, chemical, and biological "first strike" against member and non-member nations of the UN. The UN members will retain the right to launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type not listed above against both member and non-member countries.

2) Retaliation - Any attack by nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons on any member of the UN will be considered a declaration of war upon all members, to be met with retaliation. Any member nation of the UN will be eligible for immediate assistance in military and/or finance.
2a) The above offer of support does not include attacks initiated by UN member nations against other UN member nations or against non-UN member nations.
2b) In the interest of protecting the global environment and neighboring nations from the after effects of a massive nuclear, chemical, or biological retaliatory attack, it is strongly encouraged that retaliatory attacks be made with armorments and ammunition that are as minimally destructive as necessary to the protection and/or military success of the attacked member nation.

Will there be a resolution for this too? What happens if it doesn't pass quorum, or is voted down in the main body? Or all the UN nations are glassed while they're debating it? Don't make me laugh... too late.

3) Arms Reduction - Whereas the committment to massive retaliation effectively increases the nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities of each member nation many times over, be it resolved that member nations shall commit to making 30% reduction of their individual stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons within 10 years.
3a) In the interest of global environmental concerns, this reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable due to age.
3b) All UN nations will submit annual reports of stockpiles which have been reduced from usage due to instability, and show the course of action taken to ensure proper disposal of these weapons.

I'm sure their inspectors will turn in impeccable reports that will not later turn into a PR debacle across the world too...

4) International Oversight - All member nations will present updates to the U.N. every two years an accounting as to the quantity and security of all non-conventional and viable weapons, to include all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons within their arsenals in order to increase transparency and reduce tensions among neighboring nations.
4a) Any nation with suspected security concern who receives more than 3 verifiable accusations of poor handling must consent to an inspection of their security protocols, and will have continued investigation of these protocols for a period of 2 years.
4b) The UN will form a council to oversee these reports and security investigations. All interested member nations can apply for positions in this council, and the seated members will be rotated at regular intervals to ensure that bribery and complacency will not become an issue.

I can see it now: X-nation Information Minister: "There are no WMDs in X-nation City! They are stupid and condemned!" And of course, if any nation fails their inspection, then the UN will... invoke sanctions! OMG NO NOT SANCTIONS And of course the council will be morally incorruptable, and not be composed of third-world terrorist run nations.

5) Space Exploration- In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.
5a) To prevent the misclassification of these weapons, no advanced country may keep more than twice the necessary numbers of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The number of necessary nuclear weapons will be accessed once every 2 years and included in the report submitted to the UN regarding stockpiles.

Keep your hands off my space weapons, boy/girl, or I'll glass your sorry planet so darn fast you won't be able to place sanctions. Besides, you can take my nukes... I'll just use plasma weaponry and superlasers to get the job done. :twisted:

6) Depleted Uranium Clauses- Be it resolved that the above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armorments.
6a) Should, in the future, an equally effective and financially viable option be adopted by more than 40% of the UN member nations, be it resolved that depleted uranium ammunition and armorments shall then be included in the terms of this resolution.

Uh, yeah... whatever.

Thank you for your comments.

I stand by my original statement that he ENPA had the UN split into 2 definitve camps. And as it stands now, the vote is only slightly leaning towards one side.

As to clause 2: No, I do not feel that a UN resolution can or should definitively say what would be an appropriate response to an attack. I can say that is why this proposition includes assistance to the attacked UN member nation, provided they did not initiate the attacks. And seeing that MOST of the comments regarding the opposition to the first Resolution was that nuclear weapons are only there as counter-measures, Im certain that MOST countries will know wisely how much retaliation is necessary.

As to clause 3: It is true that a nation can lie in such submissions. However, I feel that member nations of the UN must give a certain amount of respect and trust to the fellow member nations. If we can not trust each other, then how can we function?

As to clause 4: That is why applications must be submitted and council members be rotated regularly, in an attempt to curb such problems as suggested by your sarcasm. We do feel that sanctions will not be necessary unless the nation has continual problems with security protocols and investigations. The addition of sanctions to the clause would need to be drafted and supported by a number of respondents before it can be added.

As to clause 5: We do understand the need for the use of nuclear weapons within the space program. This clause gives them that. However, since we are allowing it, it would be far too easy for nations to lie and say their weapons are for space technology. That is why there is a more than adequate limit set to them, and frequent re-assessments done to meet the needs of technically advancing societies.

In short, I understand your grievances with the proposition as it stands, and I am willing to take critiques as to how to make it better. The purpose of this proposition is to create a resolution that can pass all necessary portions of the process. However, it can not be improved unless rejecting nations tell us what is wrong with it, AND HOW TO FIX IT.

So feel free to suggest new things that could be added to it to make it more acceptable.

I stand by my original statement that he ENPA had the UN split into 2 definitve camps. And as it stands now, the vote is only slightly leaning towards one side.

Ok, I'll let you have that. Though 1000 vote margin and growing doesn't seem to me to be a split for long.

As to clause 2: No, I do not feel that a UN resolution can or should definitively say what would be an appropriate response to an attack. I can say that is why this proposition includes assistance to the attacked UN member nation, provided they did not initiate the attacks. And seeing that MOST of the comments regarding the opposition to the first Resolution was that nuclear weapons are only there as counter-measures, Im certain that MOST countries will know wisely how much retaliation is necessary.

Still, you have the problem of #1: Spreading the word about X-nation being attacked, and #2: Getting everyone to help out. Maybe you could muster a few UN nations, but then the attacker Y-nation would get a bunch of his friends and UN dissidents together... we'd have MAD before you could say "alka-seltzer."

As to clause 3: It is true that a nation can lie in such submissions. However, I feel that member nations of the UN must give a certain amount of respect and trust to the fellow member nations. If we can not trust each other, then how can we function?

Point taken. But one rogue nation can still do a lot of damage on its own, and its not like there are no terrorist nations out in NS.

As to clause 4: That is why applications must be submitted and council members be rotated regularly, in an attempt to curb such problems as suggested by your sarcasm.

Yet, people are evil, or at the very least self-serving, fundamentally. At some point, the system will break down, methinks.

As to clause 5: We do understand the need for the use of nuclear weapons within the space program. This clause gives them that. However, since we are allowing it, it would be far too easy for nations to lie and say their weapons are for space technology. That is why there is a more than adequate limit set to them, and frequent re-assessments done to meet the needs of technically advancing societies.

I still don't like the ideas of quotas, and much less the cost of enforcing them, and enforcing the rest of this resolution.

In short, I understand your grievances with the proposition as it stands, and I am willing to take critiques as to how to make it better. However, it can not be improved unless rejecting nations tell us what is wrong with it, AND HOW TO FIX IT.

Point taken. Thank you for your patience with my irritating sarcasm. I guess my grievances may lie more generally in begrudging the UN for past actions that I've seen as ridiculous and tyrannical. This resolution, I will say, is much more palatable than ENPA, or half the tripe this organization pushes. And we get back to my main point as well: My nation will not be affected by this resolution, especially since I'm Sci-Fi and non-UN. Perhaps this means I should just keep my nose out of it, or perhaps not.

I think that the proposal is a good one. Damn I hate them chemical weapons.

Trust me.

I am well aware of the grievances that people have had towards the UN. Even though my first experience with them has been on this ENPA issue, I have noticed a number of resolutions intended to take away sovreign rights. I have lobbied long and hard to other nations about changing their vote on the issue.

Additionally, the +1000 votes were considered reachable by our lobbyists and I still consider them obtainable by the approving delegates. Therefore, until the resolution is soundly defeated (aka: the voting is over) I will consider the lean to be ever increasing but still a threat.

There is not a problem with spreading the word. Even if the attacked nation is not as technically advanced, there are countries around the globe who are watching every move a nation makes with its nuclear weapons. The MAD design is that as long as allying nations make appropriate counter-attacks, most non-UN nations will not feel the need to get involved.

In its basic ideals, I liked the ENPA. I did however feel that it was extremely too ideal, and did not take into account the safety of the UN member nations from non-UN nation attacks.

Actually the ENPA resolution has reached what I call the "nominal saturation point".... ie the voting block is reached the max as the normal people who vote level... any more votes are from people who don't normally vote at all....


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.")

"1) First strike - All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy of no nuclear, chemical, and biological "first strike" against member and non-member nations of the UN. The UN members will retain the right to launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type not listed above against both member and non-member countries."

Problem: some nations have nukes as a deterrent to a far bigger conventional military power. If the other side can be sure that they are not using them it might attack, occupy and concer the land which is under UN rules not able to defend itself with its most powerful weapon: the nukes.
The concept of equality of fear (during the cold war in the Real world) only worked because no side could be sure that in the case of war the other side would use nukes first. For example: The Soviet Union suggested in the 80s such a thing because (and that is the truth) they had more conventional forces in Europe. The security of Western Europe would have been at stake if the US had not rejected this suggestion.
We therefore can not agree to this proposal.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

To ALL member nations of the UN:

Dear Sirs and Madam, I bring to you today the second draft of what my co-author, The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria, hopes to be a sensible and accepted solution to the ENPA.

Apart from some current minor reservations (not enough to swing things), the possibility of good alternate arguments popping up in the near future and the lack of any "develop the 100% nuke defence system" which I'd like to see (though accept is probably pipe-dream, at least IRL) I could probably go for this.

(The simplification of real-world into game mechanics should deal with the 'inspection' issues, unless some NS technician plays smart-alec...)

The Grand Duchy of Preambulation would like to convey it's support of the proposal.

it's a good proposal - I would like to see something included about recognising the rights of member states to employ a "fail deadly" defence against first strikes:

"Fail Deadly is a concept in military strategy which encourages deterrence by guaranteeing an immediate, automatic and overwhelming response to an attack. Under Fail Deadly nuclear deterrence, policies and procedures controlling the retaliatory strike will authorize launch even if the existing command and control structure has already been neutralized.
Fail Deadly is also associated with Massive Retaliation, a deterrence strategy which ensures that the counter-strike will be conducted by a higher factor. Basically, if the Soviets launched one missile at the United States, they would get 10 in return. If they launched 10, they would get 100 in return, and so on.

A more prosaic example of a Fail Deadly instrument is a dead man's switch which must be constantly held to prevent the triggering of an explosive. The term Fail Deadly was coined as a contrast to fail safe."

*Lydia stands up and waits for the members to quiet down...*
Honourable Members

Whilst the Telidian government appreciates and understands why the honourable member from White Fields has brought this proposal before us, I have some concerns regarding the content, specifically with regard to retaliation.

I have always felt the UN should be a body aiming to enhance the lives and security of citizens throughout world through peace. To that end I am concerned article 2 stands us on the brink of turning the UN into a military alliance. Member states are free to seek alliances with whomever they please, members or non-members. I also feel this proposal can almost be perceived as a threat to non-members and could stir up feelings of rivalry between this body and our non-member neighbours.

Telidia is firmly in favour of proposals aiming to reduce weapons of mass destruction, which so plague the world. This is however a global problem and I feel should be handled on a global level. It would be far better to involve our non-member cousins in discussions on this issue and I believe a resolution affirming our commitment to disarmament and then charging UN nations to press their non-UN members to disarm in tandem with their UN partners, would be of larger global benefit. Many UN members already have alliances and treaties with non-member states. Let us use these diplomatic ties to full effect and to the benefit of the world at large.

I am sure that through global co-operation this body can achieve its goal, but it must be done on a global perspective. I agree in principal with this proposal, but I feel it would be better served to have these measures only once we have a system of bilateral agreement between the UN and Non-UN members.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

I have always felt the UN should be a body aiming to enhance the lives and security of citizens throughout world through peace. To that end I am concerned article 2 stands us on the brink of turning the UN into a military alliance. Member states are free to seek alliances with whomever they please, members or non-members. I also feel this proposal can almost be perceived as a threat to non-members and could stir up feelings of rivalry between this body and our non-member neighbours.

Snipped horribly. Sorry.

MAD isn't primarily about winning a nuclear conflict that you want to start, it's about the other side not winning one that they want to start. Ergo they don't start it (which should be good enough for all but the most suicidal nations, which aren't likely to be phased by the presence or absence of controls anyway).

For this to work you need to commited to going through with the nuclear response in the event of the first nuclear strike from the other side, but don't have to like it. If you really don't want to do anything, you better at least look like you will or the other side will exploit that weakness and your defense (basically a psychological barrier rather than any physical armour) will have evaporated, and it may not be long before a proportion of your population does as well if the enemy has no such qualms.

At the same time, you don't want an itchy trigger-finger. It's a fine balance.

I'm basically anti-nuke but pro-parity. I welcome the reduction of nuclear weapons, and will abide all resolution conditions accordingly, but fear what happens if all reasonable countries do this and several reasonable countries (or even just one) maintains their arsenal. With the UN developing a co-operative method of providing that deterrent (i.e. the whole of the UN's nuclear member nations providing response-capability on behalf of non-nuclear members) UN nations can be safely reduce their stockpiles (and even remove themselves from the nuclear race) without compromising on this issue. We must be resolved (or at least appear to be resolved, to a sufficient degree of assurance) to fulfill this.

Personally, I commit myself both to progressive and measured disarmament (as dictated by the resolution suggestion above, should it pass) and to be on hand to assist (within the terms of the resolution) in the event that the line in the sand is crossed by agressors, internal or external. I see no compromise or contradiction in this combined world-view, nor any sign that it indicates a willingness to undertake a first-strike policy or any other action that should worry a neutral and peacable third party. (It doesn't even prevent an agressive nation from being conventionally aggressive, but it should make them think twice about initiating a conflict, which is reasonable compromise, I suppose.)

I can see the merit in this proposal. If it gets the needed recommendations for it to be brought before the general assembly, we will probably vote FOR IT!

I note the comments from the Honourable member of E B Guvegrra and wish to state that I fully understand his point and the processes under which MAD function; a more perfectly named acronym is hard to find.

However, my point was that it is necessary for the UN to remain an organisation of peace rather than war. I feel it would be unethical of us to talk of peace and security in one hand whilst at same time forming a quasi alliance for aggression how ever lofty the goal or logic.

My argument was not the logistics MAD or the complete eradication since that will be a very unlikely event, but rather to see a global reduction in weapons of mass destruction. Granted, this proposal creates conditions under which disarmament can take place, but still only allows for a third of the world to start disarmament, whilst the other two thirds have no such obligation.

It is my strong belief that weapons of mass destruction is a global issue which threaten every citizen of the world, regardless of their UN status. It is for this reason the UN must adopt a policy of bilateral co-operation in order to reduce the large amount of stockpiles that exist in the world. This can be achieved without the loss of MAD, all it requires is for nations to co-operate. This co-operation already exists between members and non-members in the form of military alliances and I fail to see how a well thought out, coherent effort should not produce results.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

I have to say I am amazed no-one has picked up on this point:

"2a) The above offer of support does not include attacks initiated by UN member nations against other UN member nations..."

Leaving yourselves a little open to infighting there aren't you? Surely if you're going to offer support it should be against all aggressors...

I know I'd be tempted to join and rain fire on you all if that passed.

As to clause 2: No, I do not feel that a UN resolution can or should definitively say what would be an appropriate response to an attack. I can say that is why this proposition includes assistance to the attacked UN member nation, provided they did not initiate the attacks. And seeing that MOST of the comments regarding the opposition to the first Resolution was that nuclear weapons are only there as counter-measures, Im certain that MOST countries will know wisely how much retaliation is necessary.


With all do respect, I don't want assurances of aid or responses. I want security in my own bed. If I am asked to give up my defenses by the UN then the UN must take over the responsibility of defending my nation to the degree that those weapons defended my nation. Military retaliation and aid are only a helping hand once I've already been knocked down. They are actions taken only after failing to defend. I carry my "big stick" not to hit my attacker but to keep my attacker from hitting me. I cannot tell my people "Sleep well, for if we are slaughtered in the night, the UN will avenge us."

Any call from the masses for individuals to relinquish any amount of their personal protections is a call for the masses to provide better protection to each individual. Without an acknowledgement of this, no such arms resolution will be endorsed by me.

I have to say I am amazed no-one has picked up on this point:

"2a) The above offer of support does not include attacks initiated by UN member nations against other UN member nations..."

Leaving yourselves a little open to infighting there aren't you? Surely if you're going to offer support it should be against all aggressors...

I know I'd be tempted to join and rain fire on you all if that passed.

Please be careful to note that the offer of support does not include attacks INITIATED by UN member nations against other UN member nations.

Simply put, if you as a member nation, decide to initiate a nuclear, chemical or biological attack against another member nation, then you will not be eligible for military or financial support.

This is because if you decide to initiate such an attack against a member nation, you are in violation of the first strike clause which says you will not STRIKE FIRST against another nation.

Additionally, clause 2 offers assurance of "fail deadly" and "massive retaliation" contigency, so that if your nation is attacked by another nation (be it a member of the UN or otherwise) with weapons of a biological, chemical or nuclear nature, your country will be defended by UN member nations. This is separate from a military alliance. All terms and conditions listed only apply to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attacks.

As to the concerns of the government of Telidia, the United Nations can no impose, require, expect or even count on a peace treaty that can be upheld in any manner. Therefore, we can only make steps within our own nations, and as a group, thereby hoping that non-UN countries will follow. But rather than reducing our arms to nothing, as the ENPA would have us do, we are simply stating we will cut back on our defenses and that we will offer a unified front to any agressors who attacks one of our member nations.

As to the concerns of the government of Chris-sanity, the UN's goals as a unified power is our security. This proposal sets forth guarantees that any biological, chemical or nuclear attack against a member nation will bring the wrath of the UN against the agressor. But a reduction of a mere 30% that must take place over a 10 year period is not a significant loss to your numbers. It is a sane and reasonable response, and the other clauses ensure that what weapons you keep will be maintained and secured. Since countries around the world are conducting research into fuel alternatives, I am quite sure that other discoveries shall be made. With them, I hope, will come alternatives to weapons of a nuclear, biological, or nuclear nature so that we may put this ugly day in history behind us. Who knows that inventions may be secured in that time that would provide us with a 100% guarantee against such attacks?

I stand by my resolve that a proposition of this nature is necessary to the health of the world in general, and to the worldwide resolve to ensure MAD does not occur.

I have to say I am amazed no-one has picked up on this point:

"2a) The above offer of support does not include attacks initiated by UN member nations against other UN member nations..."

Leaving yourselves a little open to infighting there aren't you? Surely if you're going to offer support it should be against all aggressors...

I know I'd be tempted to join and rain fire on you all if that passed.

Please be careful to note that the offer of support does not include attacks INITIATED by UN member nations against other UN member nations.

Simply put, if you as a member nation, decide to initiate a nuclear, chemical or biological attack against another member nation, then you will not be eligible for military or financial support.

This is because if you decide to initiate such an attack against a member nation, you are in violation of the first strike clause which says you will not STRIKE FIRST against another nation.

Additionally, clause 2 offers assurance of "fail deadly" and "massive retaliation" contigency, so that if your nation is attacked by another nation (be it a member of the UN or otherwise) with weapons of a biological, chemical or nuclear nature, your country will be defended by UN member nations. This is separate from a military alliance. All terms and conditions listed only apply to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attacks.

As to the concerns of the government of Telidia, the United Nations can no impose, require, expect or even count on a peace treaty that can be upheld in any manner. Therefore, we can only make steps within our own nations, and as a group, thereby hoping that non-UN countries will follow. But rather than reducing our arms to nothing, as the ENPA would have us do, we are simply stating we will cut back on our defenses and that we will offer a unified front to any agressors who attacks one of our member nations.

As to the concerns of the government of Chris-sanity, the UN's goals as a unified power is our security. This proposal sets forth guarantees that any biological, chemical or nuclear attack against a member nation will bring the wrath of the UN against the agressor. But a reduction of a mere 30% that must take place over a 10 year period is not a significant loss to your numbers. It is a sane and reasonable response, and the other clauses ensure that what weapons you keep will be maintained and secured. Since countries around the world are conducting research into fuel alternatives, I am quite sure that other discoveries shall be made. With them, I hope, will come alternatives to weapons of a nuclear, biological, or nuclear nature so that we may put this ugly day in history behind us. Who knows that inventions may be secured in that time that would provide us with a 100% guarantee against such attacks?

I stand by my resolve that a proposition of this nature is necessary to the health of the world in general, and to the worldwide resolve to ensure MAD does not occur.

The Department of State of the Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria (GDoC) today released a guide to the UNRAP entitled "So You Don't Want to Glow: A Condensed Guide to the UNRAP". Excerpts from the guide follow:

Overview
The authors of this proposal consider nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (hereafter referred to as NCBs) to be arms of such horrendous capabilities that they should be considered "special" armaments, policies towards which should be crafted apart from traditional arms control treaties. Furthermore, the authors believe that international agreements to control and reduce global stockpiles of these armaments serve to reduce tensions and promote the peace among all UN member nations.

The authors also believe that the greatest threat to UN member countries comes from NCB-armed rogue countries who are not UN members, very many of whom have explicitly stated that their national goals include the weakening and eventual destruction of the U.N. The retaliation clause in the proposal was drafted to ensure an effective defense against this threat. This clause, when coupled with the prohibition against "first strike" provide a very strong deterrent against attack by rogue nations. In effect it multiplies the NCB arsenals of member countries exponentially since a NCB attack upon one UN member would be considered an attack on all to be responded to in force. While member nations would pledge to reduce their NCB stockpiles by 30% over the next decade, our effective deterrent capabilities become considerably larger.

The concern expressed earlier about the U.N. evolving from a peaceful organization to a military alliance is very well expressed. However, we feel that in the current state of affairs, this evolution is necessary. If only 10% of the approximately 70,000 non-UN member countries possess NCBs, that would leave 7,000 NCB-armed nations who are under no UN jurisdiction and are therefore free to threaten the UN at their will. It is our contention that this extraordinarily dangerous situation necessitates a reevaluation of the role of the U.N. with the aim of increasing the defensive capabilities of the organization as a whole.

The international oversight clause was included to promote transparency among UN member nations. If we cannot trust each other in this respect, how can we expect to present a unified front against threats from rogue nations bent on our division and destruction?

Finally, the clauses dealing with space exploration and DU munitions were included to address the concerns previously expressed by a number of nations on the ENPA thread.

While the UNRAP was authored by the GDoC and Whited Fields, it should not be considered a final document by any means. We encourage nations with concerns about the UNRAP to submit their desired revisions and/or additions either via this thread or via telegram to either the GDoC or Whited Fields. Such changes will be reviewed for possible inclusion in a revised draft of the UNRAP proposal.

There are a few things I would still like to see explained. One is: does this treaty explicitly affect anything more than numbers and national statistics, or does it have "RP Overlap," and actually affect those nations who maintain nuclear stockpiles? I would think it strange if now the UN finally decides to step into the RP field as something more than what it has been, and I don't know how well received this would be among RPers. I've always seen the UN and RP as seperate and distinct entities, I guess; you could role-play in both but the two rarely ever crossed paths. Be that as it may, the other guarantee you promise of military assistance by other UN nations, is still to me very tenuous. Lets say there was a NCB attack on X-UN Nation. Someone sounded the alarm, but who would answer? What happens if my UN puppet decides not to answer the summons? I know that there is an element of trust in this whole agreement, but trust is useless when action is needed most, especially when Armageddon is looming at your doorstep. Finally, I still don't understand the very need for such a resolution other than to make work and look busy; NCBs, I thought, were sort of frowned upon by the RP community because of constant abuse by n00bs ("|_0|_ 1 n00|< j00"). And if this resolution does not affect RP, then it really serves no purpose than to lower the defense spending statistic of our nations. If it changes game mechanics somehow to essentially legitimize its existence, well, that won't sit well at all, methinks. If my arguments are founded on misconceptions, however, please do let me know--being enlightened, especially in this, is of critical importance, now that I'm done throwing around sarcasm and hubris.

There are a few things I would still like to see explained. One is: does this treaty explicitly affect anything more than numbers and national statistics, or does it have "RP Overlap," and actually affect those nations who maintain nuclear stockpiles? I would think it strange if now the UN finally decides to step into the RP field as something more than what it has been, and I don't know how well received this would be among RPers. I've always seen the UN and RP as seperate and distinct entities, I guess; you could role-play in both but the two rarely ever crossed paths. Be that as it may, the other guarantee you promise of military assistance by other UN nations, is still to me very tenuous. Lets say there was a NCB attack on X-UN Nation. Someone sounded the alarm, but who would answer? What happens if my UN puppet decides not to answer the summons? I know that there is an element of trust in this whole agreement, but trust is useless when action is needed most, especially when Armageddon is looming at your doorstep. Finally, I still don't understand the very need for such a resolution other than to make work and look busy; NCBs, I thought, were sort of frowned upon by the RP community because of constant abuse by n00bs ("|_0|_ 1 n00|< j00"). And if this resolution does not affect RP, then it really serves no purpose than to lower the defense spending statistic of our nations. If it changes game mechanics somehow to essentially legitimize its existence, well, that won't sit well at all, methinks. If my arguments are founded on misconceptions, however, please do let me know--being enlightened, especially in this, is of critical importance, now that I'm done throwing around sarcasm and hubris.

As I recall, many nations who felt that the ENPA resolution was unpassable was due to the conflict it would have on their RP roles. For this reason, I do believe that countries who are RP'ing should abide by the laws and rules that have been set forth.
However, at this time there is no direct connection to the resolutions we pass here. If, in the future, this game expands to allow war and other simulations between countries, the UN resolutions passed will have an effect on a country entering said simulations.

Any resolution which lowers the amount of weapons of mass destruction is good in my book. Besides, it will only heighten the power of Leetonia as we perfer precise, tactical strikes by highly trained, cybernetically-enhanced ninjas to bombing people, that way me make sure just to kill the people we don't like, no extra casualties ^_^. And if that doesn't work, we sick the cabbit-ships on ya. (OOC: I love being an anime nation, I can do whatever I want as long as its been done in an anime, next time someone ticks me off, I'm dragonslaving them!!!)

EDIT: Btw, despite toting a nigh-invincible military, Leetonia is a peaceful nation, basically, if you leave us alone, we'll be happy to continue peaceful relations, but if you declare war on us, every person of power in your government will have drowned in there own blood by the time you can fire a shot (Ninjas are fun like that)

it's a good proposal - I would like to see something included about recognising the rights of member states to employ a "fail deadly" defence against first strikes:


Without a doubt it shows a willingness of the original authors to pay attention to the debates and to respond to what they felt were the major points raised. And that is a very good thing.

My own nation is wholely committeed to the first clause, but is still deliberating the other clauses.

10kMichael

I must agree with Morka on this - the wording of the proposal seems to indicate that if you are attacked by a member of the UN then you don't get help

I have to say I am amazed no-one has picked up on this point:

"2a) The above offer of support does not include attacks initiated by UN member nations against other UN member nations..."

Leaving yourselves a little open to infighting there aren't you? Surely if you're going to offer support it should be against all aggressors...

A better wording would be "2a) The above offer of support does not extend to UN members if they initiate an attack of this nature as they are in violation of the above clause, however, any member* being attacked by another UN nation in this fashion shall be permitted the above assitance", or something to that effect

If that is cleared up, i will gladly support this resolution

* this offer could possibly be extended to non-member nations if they are attacked by a member who initiates nuclear war as opposed to a conventional war

There is another thing to consider that i may have missed in the proposal - what happens if a conventional war goes nuclear? do any UN members get support in this event? if so, does it matter A. who initiated the war B. who launched the first nuclear attack?

many thanks

pnlrogue1

((OOC:Im sorry.

Perhaps it is my college english, or the fact that my goal is to become a journalist, or the fact that I have spent many hours pouring over legal texts so that I could understand and emulate them; whatever it is, I assumed that the wording "2a) The above offer of support does not include attacks initiated by UN member nations against other UN member nations..." would be apparant since it says will not include attacks initiated by UN member nations. I sorta figured people would understand what attacks initiated would mean.))

IC:

To the nation of Pnlrogue

Thank you for your wise suggestion for a possible rephrasement of the clause in question. My staff is currently taking the discussed issue under advisement, and shall include the re-written section when the next draft of this proposition is submitted.

I do however wonder, do you think the UN should offer support of a military or financial nature to a non-member nation should a UN nation attack them?

I would like to get everyone opinion on this.

While vague in its standings, yes the issue of conventional gone NBC is a matter to wonder about. I feel, in the best interest of the proposal that no member nation should be given such support if they initiate a war using weapons of NBC nature. However, I do feel that should these weapons be brought into a war, then all member nations excluding the one nation who initiated the NBC attacks, should be able to benefit from the assistance.

The UN does not want to support war, but the purpose of this proposition is to provide all our nations with a unified front against aggressors who would attack any of us with NBC weapons.

I would ask that anyone who does not like any or part of the proposition to please explain your grievances to them.

The only way we can make this better is to know and understand why it is not acceptable.

We would like to applaud Whited Fields and Crushinatoria for their spirit of dialogue and for a well thought-out proposal. Still, while we agree with the spirit of this resolution, we're not sure it's the best one for the job.

As mentioned in a post elsewhere, Northern Bongolia opposed the ENPA because it would not affect non-UN members, and would therefore make us vulnerable to the rest of the world. Still, we recognize that current weapons levels pose a huge threat to world security, and we wonder how our fellow members would feel about the construction of a purely defensive weapons network - one that could protect UN members from incoming threats while operating exclusively within our borders - with the explicit aim of paving the way to the eventual safe elimination of our nukes without fear of attacks from non-members.

Northern Bongolia tends to lean towards anything that will safely reduce offensive weapons stores. While it could be argued that such networks might contribute to an escalating arms race, we believe a shift from offensive to defensive weapons might actually make the world a safer place for everyone, as it would allow us to get rid of ridiculously overpowerful weapons while still ensuring our defence. For the first time, we'd be relying on a kind of deterrence that's centred on building defensive strength, not inspiring fears about mutual assured destruction.

Further, we believe that many peaceloving nations are unlikely to support any significant arms depletion before they have adequate national defensive measures in place. While the promise of a UN-wide military coalition to provide such measures is certainly worth considering, it may not go as planned, as war may well cause the UN to break into factions supporting this side or the other - the last thing we want. Also, many nations are reluctant to rely upon their neighbours for defence. Why not focus instead on ways to stop attacks from fellow members and non-members alike? If we can do that, then our offensive weapons - nuclear and otherwise - will become obsolete, and will be scrapped voluntarily, without UN-imposed regulations that will only drive out the more hawkish members who are more likely to use nukes anyway.

i stilll dont like it and Won't vote for it, we have rights to make as much weapons as we like, just get over it already.

"1) First strike - All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy of no nuclear, chemical, and biological "first strike" against member and non-member nations of the UN. The UN members will retain the right to launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type not listed above against both member and non-member countries."

Problem: some nations have nukes as a deterrent to a far bigger conventional military power. If the other side can be sure that they are not using them it might attack, occupy and concer the land which is under UN rules not able to defend itself with its most powerful weapon: the nukes.

We therefore can not agree to this proposal.


Good point, and one that would be addressed if our military focus were shifted from offensive weapons (ICBMs, overseas bases and fleets, etc.) to defensive weapons (antimissile networks, AAA installations, missile guidance jammers, etc.) These new systems would be effective against conventional and non-conventional attacks alike, and we'd all be safer for them. As an added bonus, they don't target enemy nations' civilians.

*bump*

Ladies and Gentlemen,

While this is still a hot issue for some, I would like to continue getting feedback on how we can change this proposition.

Therefore I urge everyone who does not agree with the proposal to please speak up.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

While this is still a hot issue for some, I would like to continue getting feedback on how we can change this proposition.

Therefore I urge everyone who does not agree with the proposal to please speak up.

Well, I sort of just did...

War is Peace.

Prepare for It.

Fellow esteemed delegates, members of United Nations.
United Socialist States of Rubberduckistan formally annouces its disarmanent of Biological- and Chemical Weapons. Stockpiles that we have, are to be destroyed in next 5 years. Development of said weapons is continued only for reasons of developing defense and countermeasures against possible use against us. (Vaccines etc.)
Nuclear Weapons are reserved for defense of the Motherland, in case of massive invasion, and will only be used as tactical weapon.
Rubberduckistan offers its help to any friendly nation, that wishes to use USSR´s know-how in Civil Defense, since we aim to build 100% nuclear shelter coverage for population. Our current status is about 25%, rest have only fallout shelters. During the time of peace, these shelters can also serve as public service places, like libraries, sportsplaces, swimming halls etc.

Premiere Rubberduck

(ooc: Where I live, that last statement is true. We use our shelters for that during the peace.)

Im sorry Northern Bongolia.

I did not see any actual problems or objections in your posts. Then again, I may have been reading them when I was exhausted, after many hours making decisions and weighing opinions of my people over several issues.

I see now your feelings regarding this resolution.

Unfortunately, one of the overwhelming arguments in the recently defeated ENPA was that defensive weapons are not a 100% effective weapon against nuclear attacks. I would wager these same apprehensions stand for chemical and biological weaponry as well. Therefore, I doubt many nations would be willing to become a defensively orchestrated country that relies solely on these systems.

Members of the UN would still be able and encouraged to make alliances with whomever they like. The sole purpose of offering the second clause was to ensure nations that should they become attacked, they can rely on fellow UN nations to support them financially and with military assistance. This of course would always depend on if they wanted such assistance, and is not required to be taken.

However, if a country sustains such an attack and no reasonable efforts to reach anyone within the countries comman heirarchy can be done, then the UN will provide the military support immediately, as well as financial and rescue/relief efforts.

That was my intentions when drafting clause two. As well as the intention to withhold such assistance from nations who violate the first strike clause, since we do not want to condone war of this nature. We simply felt that nations would feel better about reducing arms, if we agreed to become a world-wide defensive network against aggressive nations.

*bump*

Ladies and Gentlemen,

While this is still a hot issue for some, I would like to continue getting feedback on how we can change this proposition.

Therefore I urge everyone who does not agree with the proposal to please speak up.

I had, and I did not see a reply to my suggestion.

Additionally, clause 2 offers assurance of "fail deadly" and "massive retaliation" contigency, so that if your nation is attacked by another nation (be it a member of the UN or otherwise) with weapons of a biological, chemical or nuclear nature, your country will be defended by UN member nations. This is separate from a military alliance. All terms and conditions listed only apply to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attacks.

To the nation of Hirota,

My response to your concerns were available on page one of the debate transcripts. I have included the pertinent information here.

Additionally, clause 2 offers assurance of "fail deadly" and "massive retaliation" contigency, so that if your nation is attacked by another nation (be it a member of the UN or otherwise) with weapons of a biological, chemical or nuclear nature, your country will be defended by UN member nations. This is separate from a military alliance. All terms and conditions listed only apply to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attacks.

To the Nation of Hirota:

I had indeed responded to your post, though I believe it may have been hidden due to the large number of following posts. I have highlighted the above section from debate transcripts and provide them for you now.

Additionally, clause 2 offers assurance of "fail deadly" and "massive retaliation" contigency, so that if your nation is attacked by another nation (be it a member of the UN or otherwise) with weapons of a biological, chemical or nuclear nature, your country will be defended by UN member nations. This is separate from a military alliance. All terms and conditions listed only apply to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attacks.

To the Nation of Hirota:

I had indeed responded to your post, though I believe it may have been hidden due to the large number of following posts. I have highlighted the above section from debate transcripts and provide them for you now.

Ahh, my mistake....

In that case I'm happy with the proposal, I'll be supporting it in this forum and will be urging my delegate to endorse.

Members and Delegates.

I am still waiting to receive feedback on this issue before penning a second draft.

Please take the time to list which clauses you do not agree with, if only SOME of them are to your disliking. If you do not agree with the proposal in any manner, please post your opinion as well. I am much interested in submitting a final proposal that is well-written and accepted by the UN member nations.

Seeing as how no one feels compelled to make any further objections, I am now in process of penning a second draft to this proposition. It will be posted again soon.

Locked at the request of the author.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator