Northern Bongolia
11-06-2004, 17:29
The resolution to ban nuclear weapons in UN-member countries has been defeated, and huzzahs have been had in many different nations for many different reasons. So what do we do now?
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 opportunistic, nuclear non-members. Such a resolution might have a built-in timeframe for reducing UN-members' offensive weapons by a specified amount after the introduction of their defensive networks.
We ourselves are uncertain on this issue, though we tend 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, 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.
What do you think?
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 opportunistic, nuclear non-members. Such a resolution might have a built-in timeframe for reducing UN-members' offensive weapons by a specified amount after the introduction of their defensive networks.
We ourselves are uncertain on this issue, though we tend 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, 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.
What do you think?