NationStates Jolt Archive

I have completed the second draft of the UNRAP proposition and would greatly appreciate all opinions on this proposition.

**********************************************************

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,

Designates that this proposal will only apply to weapons of biological, chemical, or nuclear natures hereafter known as BCNs.

Requests that all member nations of the UN agree to the following reduced arms proposal, hereafter to be known as the United Nations Reduced Arms Proposition or 'UNRAP'.

First Strike Clause-- All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy that no BCN weapons will be used to initiate a "first strike" attack against UN member nations or non-member nations. All 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 and to use BCN weapons against other countries who initiate an attack with BCN weapons.

Fail Deadly and Massive Retaliation Clauses-- Any attack by BCN weapons against any member of the UN will be considered a declaration of war upon all members, to be met with immediate retaliation. Any member nation of the UN will be eligible for immediate assistance in military and/or financial terms.
Sub-Clause A-- This offer of support shall not be extended to UN member nations who initiate BCN attacks against other UN member nations or against non-UN nations as this is in direct violation of the "First Strike" clause.
Sub-Clause B-- In the interest of protecting the global environment and neighboring nations from the after effects of a massive BCN retaliatory attack, the UN strongly encourages 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.

Arms Reduction Clause-- 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.
Sub-Clause A-- In the interest of global environmental concerns, this reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable due to age.
Sub-Clause B-- 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.

International Oversight Council Clause-- All member nations will present an accounting as to the quantity and security of BCN weapons every two years, in order to increase transparency and reduce tensions among neighboring nations.
Sub-Clause A-- 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.
Sub-Clause B-- 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.

Space Exploration Clause-- In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.
Sub-Clause A-- To prevent the mis-classification of these weapons, no advanced country may keep more than twice the necessary number 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.

Depleted Uranium Clause- Be it resolved that the above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armorments.
Sub-Clause A-- Should, in the future, an equally effective and financially viable option be adopted by more than 45% of the UN member nations, be it resolved that depleted uranium ammunition and armorments shall then be included in the terms of this resolution.

Besides a couple of mispellings (armorments-->armaments) I think it is not bad.
*I like the first strike clause.
*Sub-clause B of the second clause is a bit weird in that any attack by any weapons will be devastating on the environment. I is just weird to see the phrase "...as minimally destructive as necessary..." That is very subjective. Who decides how much is enough?
*I like the International Oversight Council Clause.
*I'm not fussy about the Space exploration clasue. Nuclear weapons allowed in space but not on land? At least if they were on land, targeted nations would have more time to prepare and respond than if they were launched from space.
*The Depleted Uranium Clause is okay.

The Space technologies clause is intended for countries who use nucluar technology to travel to or in space. That was a concern of some nations and a reason for some oppositional votes to ENPA.

Sub-clause B to the Fail Deadly and Massive Retaliation clause is wholly intended to URGE, but not DEMAND that countries use minimally destructive retaliation. There is a difference in the size of the weapon, the spread and reach of the weapon, and the number of weapons. Since UN countries know that an attack on them will bring allied force, we hope that all retaliating countries do not unleash their strongest and most deadly force.

I'm all for using Nuclear technology in space....except for weapons.
By all means use Nuclear power, but weapons.
I see what you're saying about Sub-clause B to the Fail Deadly and Massive Retaliation, it just sounds strange. Maybe it's just me. :D

Not withstanding my previous concerns regarding the massive retaliation section noted on the links below, I have a concern over the Depleted Uranium clause.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3287933&highlight=#3287933

Who will measure development of new technology in this field and decide when 45% of members have adopted a new technology? Secondly, who is going to pay for this organisation? The logistics of running a program like this seems hugely expensive to me with little benefit to members. Perhaps it may be better to simply say they are excluded for now, but the General Assembly reserves the right to legislate in this area at a later date taking in to account technological advances etc….

This way the issue stays nice and open and no can shout repeal, repeal if later legislation is discussed.

Lastly to address my previous concerns I would appreciate if the honourable member from Whited Fields would consider adding the following line.

“ENCOURAGES member nations to seek agreements with non-members allies with a view to joint disarmament of BCN’s in line with this resolution.” Perhaps this could be added to a section called bilateral agreements or something in that vain. Personally I would like to see the word ‘charges’ rather than ‘encourages’, but that may be a little too much to ask for at this stage. I feel by adding this line at least we are involving non-members and thus we at least have some form of global disarmament program rather than a UN one alone.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

OOC: ”Can I also ask if you intend to role play the work of the council or are we just going to assume its all happening?”

yeah, I'd recommend running it through a spellcheck before final submission, but otherwise, good work, big improvement on the ENPA

My dear collegues.

I am happy to see the discussion of this issue. I apologize for the spelling errors. I will be speaking to my staff regarding these issues before the final draft is ever submitted to proposal.

I do feel comfortable in changing the wording of sub-clause A to the Deplered Uranium Clause. My only concern with stating that we reserve the right to future legislation is that someone will propose a bill to make them illegal or require reduction before technology advances. By setting a hardline approach to this, we effectively leave the door open for their use for several years. As the clause states "45% of UN nations" advance in their technolgies to use an effective (provable by science) and cost effective (can spend too much more than DU) option, then we DU will come before proposal.

Perhaps then, the DU clause could state that should more than 45% of UN nations... ONLY then will future legislation be attempted to include DU into the arms reduction.

Yes, I say we should encourage and I am happy to introduce this change to the proposition in the next draft. Thank you government of Telidia.

All very interesting thoughts to ponder on ladies and gentlemen. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Perhaps then, the DU clause could state that should more than 45% of UN nations... ONLY then will future legislation be attempted to include DU into the arms reduction.

Yes, I say we should encourage and I am happy to introduce this change to the proposition in the next draft. Thank you government of Telidia.

I believe that would be an acceptable compromise and I am pleased the additional paragraph as per my suggestion will be added to the next draft.

I look forward to its review in due course.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Thank you, government of Telidia.

I look forward to more comments on this issue.

Please read and respond to this issue, so that changes can be made to the proposition before I attempt to submit it for proposal.

While I certainly appreciate the massive threat that BCN's pose...does "national soveriegnty" mean anything to you? Perhaps not. It hasn't seemed to mean much in my experience with the U.N. Good luck with the proposal.

Adieu.

Minister of U.N. Related Discussions for The Tire-Burning Torque Empire of Hotrodia (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hotrodia)

Sam I Am

To the government of HotRodia.

I think you will find my views of National Sovereignty quite apparent in my numerous posts and actions to defeat the ENPA, FGM, and now Freedom of Press proposals that have been in quorum. My nation received acceptance to the UN just after the ENPA went into vote. I am an avid National Sovereigntist, and as such have created a region to bolster national sovereignty while participating in world politics.

Additionally, I did see concern with BCNs and since it is a matter of GLOBAL safety that I felt the neccessity to propose UNRAP. It is also this concern that has lead me to listen to and respond to the concerns of fellow UN nations, particularly those who helped defeat the ENPA.

We are not calling for a complete end to BCN weapons, simply a reasonable reduction in arms, and committees to ensure that ALL UN member nations are securing and storing these arms properly.

So before you make assumptions about my concerns for National Sovereignty, perhaps you should take the time to see what my political stances have been based on my actions since joining the UN.

Kestral Lei
President
The Democratic Republic of Whited Fields

after, admittedly, a somewhat cursory view of the proposal, I mostly agree. I found a few issues, however.

I would add a statement, "impelling UN Member nations to act in unison, in order to repulse nations who attack with BCN weapons and cause casualties of genocidal proportions."

I would suggest some sort of incentive based system to encourage nations to join together to stop or at least discourge the use of "BCN" weaponry.

... but the common coding is NBC and not BCN... :wink:

To the government of HotRodia.

I think you will find my views of National Sovereignty quite apparent in my numerous posts and actions to defeat the ENPA, FGM, and now Freedom of Press proposals that have been in quorum. My nation received acceptance to the UN just after the ENPA went into vote. I am an avid National Sovereigntist, and as such have created a region to bolster national sovereignty while participating in world politics.

Additionally, I did see concern with BCNs and since it is a matter of GLOBAL safety that I felt the neccessity to propose UNRAP. It is also this concern that has lead me to listen to and respond to the concerns of fellow UN nations, particularly those who helped defeat the ENPA.

We are not calling for a complete end to BCN weapons, simply a reasonable reduction in arms, and committees to ensure that ALL UN member nations are securing and storing these arms properly.

So before you make assumptions about my concerns for National Sovereignty, perhaps you should take the time to see what my political stances have been based on my actions since joining the UN.

Kestral Lei
President
The Democratic Republic of Whited Fields

I apologize if my remarks came off as rude, but your proposal violates national sovereignty in a way I find unacceptable. I'm glad you are an avid "National Sovereigntist" (is that even really a word?), but I will most certainly be voting against this if it becomes a resolution. Good day, and good luck with the proposal.

Minister of U.N. Related Discussions for The Tire-Burning Torque Empire of Hotrodia (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hotrodia)

Sam I Am

Wow. This is an amazingly written UN proposal and much supported by my nation.

To the Government of The Jovian Worlds:

I am not sure I understand what you are proposing by your response.

Do you feel that UN member nations should get militarily involved in conflicts with countries who use BCNs to commit genocide?

Well if those attacks are against other UN member nations, then we would.
See the "Fail Deadly and Massive Retaliation" clause.

If you feel that UN member nations should get involved in such conflicts that occur within a countries own borders (as in government approved genocide) or against non-member nations, that would be a matter for military alliance which is not a UN issue.

I would like to hear comments as to whether the UN should even make such compelling statements.

I am still waiting for responses to the second draft before penning the next one.

Last chance to give input in this draft before it is pulled and goes to the re-writing committee.

Well seeing as how no one else has respoded, I suppose I shall let this go to the re-write committee and have it tweaked.

The Theocracy of Rajaria has to ask in all seriousness why these weapons are being banned? These weapons are the great equalizer that prevents small nations from being bullied by large ones. Our nation lives in a world where other nations have more soldiers than we even have citizens. And more than a few of them, not all members of the United Nations, have shown great willingness to use force against their neighbors be it for "good" or "bad" reasons.

Only these uncoventional weapons give smaller nations, particularly those with few allies, a fighting chance. Unfortunately the price and technology requirements of nuclear weapons are out of the reach of nations as small as mine. But luckily other weapons aren't. Unless you can guarentee our security and protection against those who might impose their will on us for our often unpopular beliefs... what right do you have to try to disarm us?

That is not to say our capabilities are as advanced or effective as we might like. There are more than a few nations who could crush us at will. But we won't die without a fight.

Second is why is "conventional" warfare all that much better than non-conventional warfare. A small nuclear weapon will do far less damage than the convention bombing capabilities that our larger military neighbors have. You are just as dead dying from the burns of a full-air explosive as you are from the burns of a chemical. Death is death.

The issue is whether only large nations should be allowed to dispense this death or whether small nations should have the right to deter others.

You would be far better off directing your activities towards resolving regional conflicts and defusing war than restricting the ability of small nations to defend themselves. Your approach doesnt discourage war, it encourages it. Unarmed nations are sitting ducks.

... but the common coding is NBC and not BCN... :wink:

CBRN, actually.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear

The ignorant comments of Rajaria makes me seriously wonder if they have bothered to read the proposition I have sent. For if they did, they would surely know that this IN NO WAY bans BCN weapons.

In total, it simply calls for a reduction in arms and would never seek to rid any UN member nation of all BCN weapons. That would be the choice of the local government.