NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is the latest draft of the UNRAP.
Introductory language entered: Encorages member nations...
Depleted Uranium subclause A reworded.
***************************************************************************************


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'.

Encourages UN member nations to enact similar arms reduction pacts with their non-UN military allies.

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 armaments 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 commitment 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 misclassification 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 armaments.
Sub-Clause A--Be it resolved that the matter of depleted uranium armaments will not be further addressed until an equally effective and financially viable option be adopted by more than 45% of the UN member nations.

I have yet to see any response to this latest revised draft.

Are the member nations of the UN no longer concerned about BCN weapons?

Our glorious leader is more concerned about the impending royal mother inlaw visit.....much more dangerous..............

Just had a read, seems ok to me.
I have a couple of questions for you though:

1. You don't rule out a retaliatory strike by UN nations with NBC weps; do you deem this a morally viable response?

2. What sort of use do you see for nuclear weps in space exploration? The only one I can think of is for blasting up dangerous asteroids, or in nuclear drives.

I dont particularly like depleted uranium either (as far as I know it is classed as an indiscriminate weapon in the real UN listings, along with land mines, and are therefore banned) but this probably is an issue for another resolution.

Answer these questions and you have my vote.

To the Government of Grand Teton:

1. The issue of retaliatory response is a moral one, and my personal feelings on the matter is that a moral issue should be decided by the governing office of the country who wishes to retaliate.
It is not the place of the UN to decide when and where a government will use BCN weapons to retaliate against an attack. That is the reasoning behind the unified response and special extentions to countries who have suffered such an attack. It is the hope that such an extension will aid foreign leaders to caution against BCN retaliation and assure that no attack against our UN brethren will be tolerated.
To deem such a response as illegal or immoral would raise serious issues and likely cause such a proposition to fail ever reaching quorum.

2. Several countries are now experimenting with nuclear fuel and nuclear weaponry to aid in their space explorations. The government of Whited Fields wanted to address this issue to ensure that countries who are exploring this would not feel the need to vote against this legislation for this reasoning. If you will look at the debates from the previously attempted ENPA, this is an argument made several times during the debates.

3. Whether you or I agree with the use of DU armaments, the issue of them were raised repeatedly in the ENPA debates. Again, for the sake of reaching a middle ground, the government of Whited Fields felt urged to address the issue to ensure that countries would not lose their capabilities.

Each of the issues you have asked about are stemmed from the long and arduous debates against the ENPA, which would have eliminated all nuclear weaponry. Our government is hoping this reduction, and specifically mentioned issues, will allow for better and easier passage in the future.
Furthermore, this act is written to encompass BCN weaponry in its generalities, rather than focusing on nuclear weaponry. Our government feels that you can not single one from the others if you truly wish to secure the environmental future of our planet.

To the Government of Whited Fields

Fair enough, we can understand the need for realism. These reductions will probably make a resolution on the removal of NBC weapons more likely, so every little helps.

To the Government of Grand Teton.

Thank you for your comments and questions. We appreciate any opportunity to define our intentions and explain the reasonings behind any legislation that is being written.

Looks good. Not sure why more people aren't responding to this.

I am not sure either.

I hope that it catches some attention though.

Silence is tantamount to consent, or so they say. It's possible that no one is speaking because no one has anything negative to say. We agree with the framework laid out within the proposal, and offer our support in securing its passage.

As a totalitarian wannabee, most of the stuff the UN passes is bunk. Just as in real life, this UN is a bunch of sob-sisters (that's American for "bleeding hearts", the politically-correct uber-liberals), and my state is constantly being told that "laws have been enacted...blah, blah, blah". Frankly, I'm ready to pull my nasty state out and substitute my politically correct state instead. Unfortunately, unlike real life, states who disagree have no recourse. Might be better to allow more freedom to member states.

I am an avid debater of State rights and have been such since my inclusion into the UN. However, no one can deny the truthfulness of the arguments that far too many WMDs exist. We have enough to destroy ourselves 3 times over. My proposal seeks to lessen that number by one.

It is but a step in the proper direction and ensures that we are a cohesive unit against non-member nations who would seek to destroy us.

If sovereignty is truly a desire for you, then please seek haven within the NSSRC. We need members so that we can enact legislation that will secure our rights.

Did you know that every time someone whines about laws they don't like being enacted by the United Nations, an angel gets its wings? No, really. I've seen it in films.

As has often been discussed, your desire to have thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads does not trump the desire of the rest of the known world to not live in a world threatened by imminent nuclear annihilation. What's more, as a member of the United Nations, you have an obligation as a steward of the future to work towards these goals, as opposed to sitting down and throwing a tantrum every time something doesn't go your way.

Everyone in the UN has seen a resolution they didn't like get passed. Yes, we know that certain resolutions impose on your right to terrorize your own populace and rule them as if they were ants in a farm. Yes, we realize that too many people think that the life of a tree is more valuable than the life of a human. None of this is new.

Now, usually this is where people say, "If you don't like it, leave!" but I'm not one to pursue that course. Instead, I offer this tidbit of advice: if you don't like it, develop a coalition of like-minded states who will vote as a bloc to prevent resolutions like this from coming to fruition, and start putting out your own legislation.

Remember, you can only whine about something so long before it becomes your responsibility to help fix it.

Can I approve this yet? I can't find it anywhere in the proposals section.

Sophistas right though, there have been 94 (at the time of writing) views of this and no-one has complained yet. Normally we get some right wing military nut moaning about infringment of his nations liberties whenever we propose anything.

Hello-o, gun nuts, where are you?

Unfortunately as this time, I do not hold the neccessary endorsements to submit this proposition to proposals and therefore it is not available for endorsement by other nations.

However, knowing the neccessity of well-written proposals within the structure of the UN, I would fully be willing to co-authorship this proposition with another country who stands capable of submitting it to quorum as a proposal. Is there a country willing to share this legislation with me and be willing to submit it as it stands now?

I am actually the delegate for my region of Revelation Space, and I would be happy to submit this proposal if I can. I have two endorsments, and I think that might be enough. I'll have to get back to you on this one.

Yep, just checked the regs and I can propose this. Give me the go ahead and I'll copy it. What category etc. do you want this under?

Due to the sticky nature of game mechanics, I want to have this proposal checked by the administration in before submitting this to the quorum.

I would not want to cause your nation to receive a warning for submitting an inappropriate proposal.

I am still waiting for a reply from some member of administration as to whether this will be allowed.

Please be patient.

I have yet to receive a reply to my telegram, asking if I may allow another nation to sponsor this proposition before the UN quorums.

I hope to receive an answer soon.

Lazy mods. ha ha

Due to the joyous arrival of the heiress to the Prime Ministership of the Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria (GDoC), and the government's summer recess, we have neglected our duties as an original co-sponsor of the UNRAP. We humbly apologize for this oversight. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the esteemed representative from the great nation of Whited Fields for her leadership in continuing the push to bring the UNRAP to a vote.

The aforementioned 3rd draft of the UNRAP is a well planned proposal and maintains the high ideals of the motion's drafters while allowing for the politically necessary compromises needed to engender the widest possible support for this legislation. The GDoC continues in its wholehearted support of the UNRAP and looks forward to assisting in any way possible with bringing this legislation to a vote.

King Regards,

JammingEcono
Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

I would like to thank the government of Crushinatoria for its continued approval of UNRAP and assure them that their notification of foreign travel was received.

Additionally, I would like to invite people who agree with me and my politics to please come to the NSSRC and allow us to build a strong political front.

Having now found myself with the necessary endorsements, I am submitting this proposition to the prososal queue.

Please endorse this proposal found currently on page 14, entitled UN Reduced Arms Proposal.

Without changing the mission or goals of the proposal, certain words needed to be combined and re-written to allow for submittal. (The proposition as written exceeded character count by 953).

Here is the proposal as it appears now. Please review it against the original to be assured that no changes have been made to numbers and spirit of the document.

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 member nations of the Nation States United Nations do hereby:
Designate that this proposal will only apply to weapons of biological, nuclear, or chemical natures hereafter known as BNCs.
Encourage UN member nations to enact similar arms reduction pacts with their non-UN military allies.
Accept the following terms of reduced arms:
First Strike Clause: All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy that no BNC weapons will be used to initiate a "first strike" attack against any other Nation State nation. All UN members will retain the right to: launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type not listed above against any nation, and use BNC weapons against other nations who initiate an attack with BNC weapons.
‘Fail Deadly’ and ‘Massive Retaliation’ Clauses: Any attack by BNC weapons against any member of the UN will be considered a declaration of war upon all members, to be met with immediate retaliation and 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 BNC attacks against other nations as this is in direct violation of the "First Strike" clause.
Sub-Clause B: The UN strongly encourages that retaliatory attacks be made with armaments and ammunition that are as minimally destructive as necessary to the protection and/or military success of the attacked member nation.
Arms Reduction Clause: 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: This reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable due to age.
International Oversight Council (IOC) Clause: All member nations will present an accounting as to the quantity and security of BNC weapons biennially.
Sub-Clause A: Nations with suspected security concern, receiving +3 verifiable accusations of mishandling will consent to security protocol inspections for a period of 2 years.
Sub-Clause B: The UN will form the IOC to oversee these reports and security investigations. Any member nations may apply for positions in this council, and seated members will rotate regularly to prevent bias and complacency.
Sub-Clause C: Member nations will submit biennial reports of reduction, showing actions taken to properly dispose of weaponry, and account for arms reduced due to aging and/or instability.
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 misclassification of these weapons, no country may keep more than twice the necessary number of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The necessary number will be accessed biennially and included in the stockpile reports submitted to the IOC.
Depleted Uranium Clause: Be it resolved that the above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armaments.
Sub-Clause A: Be it resolved that the matter of depleted uranium armaments will not be further addressed until an equally effective and financially viable option be adopted by more than 45% of the UN member nations.

My government would like to again express its enthusiastic support for this proposal and applaud our esteemed colleague from the great nation of Whited Fields for her leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with the regional delegates to gain the approvals needed to bring this proposal to a vote before the full UN.