NationStates Jolt Archive

here's a revamped proposal that failed to gain enough votes a few days ago, on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. tell me what you think, and whether or not you would vote for it.

Enjoy!

The Minister for Foregn affairs, Maousland

*****

The Kingdom of Maousland proposes that:

NBRC (Nuclear Biological Chemical Radiological) weapons are banned from the modern theatre of warfare.

Such weapons are no longer needed to provide a stabilising influence upon global politics based upon the slightly morbid policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), in that no two (Or allied groups thereof) countries will go to war because to do so would result in the destruction of both nations and a fair percentage of the human race through the undesirable after-effects of said weapons. Needless to say, this is a bad thing, which is why it never happened. Touch wood.

With the thawing of previously cold relationships between superpowers such stockpiles of weapons are now surplus to requirements, and as such are (in many cases) being sold on to Terrorist groups or dissatisfied Rouge Nations, who would not hesitate to turn these weapons against their previous owners.

We also propose that an international watchdog be formed tasked with the tracking and destruction of said weapons, calling in UN troops should the risk be deemed great enough to civilisation (for example, when a rouge nation manages to acquire said weapons, a firm “Please” might be deemed insufficient). Such use of force should only be used in the direst of circumstances.

Finally, we propose that the decommissioned weapons be recycled in an appropriate manner so that the environment will be harmed in as small a manner as possible. Some materials will have to be buried deep underground for all eternity (nuclear and radiological), but other weapons should be able to be recycled to the level that they cause no long lasting environmental effect.

In Summary, the Kingdom of Maousland proposes that:

a) All weapons of Nuclear, Biological, Radiological and Chemical nature are herby deactivated and dismantled.

b) The deactivation and dismantling of all delivery platforms for said weapons (SSBN’s, ICBM’s, Intercontinental Bombers etc).

c) Initiatives to prevent the circulation of such illicit weapons to third party groups (International terrorists, Rouge Nations, Vexed Chemistry Teachers etc).

d) The establishment of an international watchdog to monitor and if needs be remove (through force if deemed necessary) the threat established in point c) (United Nations Watchdog of Nuclear Biological Chemical and Radiological Weapons, or UNWNBRCW). Yes, we appreciate how difficult it is to pronounce too, but you come up with something better.

e) The recycling of said weapons and delivery platforms into harmless waste and reusable scrap metal

NBRC (Nuclear Biological Chemical Radiological) weapons are banned from the modern theatre of warfare. Incidentally, they are an important part in the strategy of quite a few nations. Including ours.

With the thawing of previously cold relationships between superpowers Errr... Please, point me to where this is happening. As far as I know, massive conflicts between massive nations seem to be quite normal, and are happening... Regularily.

We also propose that an international watchdog be formed tasked with the tracking and destruction of said weapons, calling in UN troops should the risk be deemed great enough to civilisation (for example, when a rouge nation manages to acquire said weapons, a firm “Please” might be deemed insufficient). Such use of force should only be used in the direst of circumstances. The UN lacks the right to do this. Though its resolutions become 'law' in its members, it lacks 1. the right to interfere in the internal affairs (And in external affairs in general) of nations not being in the UN. Which, globally, are the majority.

Besides, I do not know many UN members who are capable or willing to fight such conflicts. Especially since said 'rogue' nations are usually backed by quite capable alliance networks...

a) All weapons of Nuclear, Biological, Radiological and Chemical nature are herby deactivated and dismantled.

b) The deactivation and dismantling of all delivery platforms for said weapons (SSBN’s, ICBM’s, Intercontinental Bombers etc).

c) Initiatives to prevent the circulation of such illicit weapons to third party groups (International terrorists, Rouge Nations, Vexed Chemistry Teachers etc).


Though d) is impossible under the UN charter, and e) quite uninteresting for us, we certainly support a- c. Since it would only affect UN members, and thusly reduce their military capabilities in ways sufficient to increase the already clear industrial and military superiority of us non- members.

~ Himino Aichi, observer to the NSUN, DA

I have reservations on any proposal that would seek to completely end all forms of NBCR weaponry.

The defeat of the ENPA shows more than ample resistance to anything that would end all forms of WMD, so long as there are non-member nations who possess them.

That is why I drafted the UNRAP, which would seek to reduce, but not eliminate weapons of this nature.

It has been the experience of our diplomats that too many nations are afraid of losing their precious nuclear arsenals to even consider something like this. As sad as it might be, we live in a world where the threat of nuclear apocalypse is quite real, and the great majority of UN member states have it engrained in their heads that the second they turn off their nukes, a maelstrom of nuclear fire will cleanse their nation of all life.

True or not, this is their perception, and perception is nine-tenths of reality. I would encourage you to follow the course suggested by the delegate from Whited Fields, and pursue reduction of arms instead of the elimination of entire arsenals.

To be honest, it sounds like a good idea, and it really is, with one unfortuate problem: Not everyone will willing give up weapons, therefore force would have to be used, therefore they would use said chemical weapons. If the world was full of honest people, then it would work. I'll still vote in favor of it, but well, you might lose votes because of other reasons.

Naturally, war will always be a bad thing. And "Mutually Assured Destruction" is nothing to encourage. However, sadly, war will not cease anytime soon. And it just so happens that these weapons of mass destruction are of greater lethality and potency, and banning them simply because they are extremely harmful is illogical, only because a strong army, or air force, could also be just as destructive. During World War 1, a group of fighter planes or newly developed tanks could be thought of as bringing "Mutually Assured Destruction". Restricting weapons of mass destruction will not make a war less of a war, it will simply justify another type of war. Eventually technology will bring us to a point where our weapons will be much more powerful than the ones we call "Weapons of Mass Destruction" today.

However, I do agree that while chemical and biological weapons are a tool of war and shouldn't be restricted merely on their potency, nuclear and radiological weapons should be banned. This is because of the indirect and permanent, or at least long-lasting, affects they have. Although effective, the radiation caused by such weapons can linger for many, many more years to come, even after the conflict is over. It corrodes the water supply, and affects man and the environment. Illness, mutation, and death can occur for people, flora, and fauna alike. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still haunted by the effects of the atom bomb in World War 2. Innocents, generations after the war, should not suffer because we wanted to defeat their forfathers years ago.

To continue your argument that war will not be less war for lack thereof, let us remember that while we may ensure our own compliancy, we can not ensure that of non-member nations.

As previously stated, perception is reality for many, and many feel that power-hungry countries could hold us at ransom with their WMD should there not be any to protect ourselves.

This was proven by the end of WW2, when Japan surrendered because they did not have nuclear weapons to match the onslaught given them by the allied nations.

Though, it is a fair and just argument that we should reduce our WMD numbers, and such a proposition does currently stand written and ready to be proposed. I do not have the power to submit the proposition at this time, but I am willing to share the co-authorship with another who could sponsor it for the betterment of all the NS UN.

As previously stated, perception is reality for many, and many feel that power-hungry countries could hold us at ransom with their WMD should there not be any to protect ourselves.

Nuclear disarmament does not preclude the development of missile defense technology. If a nation is truly interested in protecting itself from an atomic holocaust, deterrence is no match for a shield.

Look at it through the lens of the middle ages. If your enemy had 10,000 archers prepared to lay seige to your castle, would your first thought be to train your own bowmen, or to invest in a sturdier cieling?

The big problem, which it shares with the Nuclear Disarmanent resolution is that this resolution only affects UN member nations, leaving us vulnerable to outside aggression. This is not good.

"Such weapons are no longer needed to provide a stabilising influence upon global politics"

In fact, they are. Many (RL) countries have or tried to develop these weapons to hold more powerful countries (by which I mean the United States) at bay. Look at North Korea for an example of how this has worked. This has worked for several larger countries too, most notably China.

In fact many people, myself included are of the opinion that Iraq was invaded was because it was the only "bad guy" which didn't actually have WMDs to defend itself with.

For good or bad, thermonuclear, chemical and biological weapons are an integral part of national security, and this will not work in NS where most nations are not UN members. There's also nothing to stop UN members removing their weapons to their puppets, who can't join the UN in the first place.

Give me Weapons of Mass Deduction or give me Death!

Oops wait...

Give me Weapons of Mass Defunction or give me Death!

No wait wait...

Give me Weapons of Mass Destitute of give me Death!

No!

Gimme Nukes or Gimme Death!

There ya go, just wanted to amuse you.

Sorry, this will never work. The UN has been around for along as nukes have. Dont you think we would have solved it by now. This resolution is redundant of every other resolution made about disarming nukes, and everyother resolution has flaws, and allways will have flaws. In a perfect world, yes, it would work, but this aint a perfect world. So sorry, it just wont fly.

I strongly disgaree with that. The reason that the ban hasnt worked was because the bulk of the UN's existance was during the Cold War. You can't ban weapons during a war. Towards the end of the war, however, the SALT agreement between the USA and USSR did limit nuclear weapons. Perhaps we need not to disarm countries, lest they befall to a nation outside the UN or one illegally maufacturing WMD, but to continue to limit them so that, in the unfortunate event that there is a need for WMD, countries will be able to defend themselves, but the war will not be as destructive. New limits will have to be introduced until all of the nations have so few WMD that they will
hardly be considered dangerous to another country.

I should also mention that I still believe that Chemical and Biological Weapons should be limited, yet Nuclear and Radiological Weapons must be banned because of the mass environmental damage they cause, as well as the high radiation that makes land inhabitable and unsafe for many, many years to come.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

I strongly disgaree with that. The reason that the ban hasnt worked was because the bulk of the UN's existance was during the Cold War. You can't ban weapons during a war. Towards the end of the war, however, the SALT agreement between the USA and USSR did limit nuclear weapons. Perhaps we need not to disarm countries, lest they befall to a nation outside the UN or one illegally maufacturing WMD, but to continue to limit them so that, in the unfortunate event that there is a need for WMD, countries will be able to defend themselves, but the war will not be as destructive. New limits will have to be introduced until all of the nations have so few WMD that they will
hardly be considered dangerous to another country.

I should also mention that I still believe that Chemical and Biological Weapons should be limited, yet Nuclear and Radiological Weapons must be banned because of the mass environmental damage they cause, as well as the high radiation that makes land inhabitable and unsafe for many, many years to come.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya


Even if you limit them, they are still around. If a country has 10 or 10,000, it can still kill many.

And why shouldnt we ban Chemical and Biological. They can do just as much permanate damage as nuclear. If you want to get rid of WMDs, count them in too. But, I still stand by my statement of it wont work. You would litteraly have to take out every dictator and crazed leader with some money and a few followers to stop it. And they will never all be gone. The world wont ever be perfect, just live with it.

First of all, chemical and biological weapons do damage the environment and poison the water supply for several years, but could easily be cleaned up. Radiation lasts literally for hundreds of years and the radiation cannot be repaired obviously. Everything has to be measured in... well.... measures.

And there IS a difference between 10 and 10,000 nuclear weapons. If there are less, obviously, less people will die, but also it will make countries more reluctant to use their precious few weapons. Also, there is a point where the number of WMD turns from self-defense to intentions of first strike. You won't need 10,000 simply to intimidate your enemies.

And once again, it appears you haven't really read what i wrote. These things CAN be limited or banned, it just HASN'T YET. Ever since the Cold War, we have been making strides for such a goal. The world isn't a perfect place but we are not so helpless to try to make it as perfect as possible. And we should definitely try to make the world as perfect as possible instead of doubting everything and taking no action, simply excusing yourself by claiming "The world isn't perfect". The only way any world improvements have ever come is because someone said "We can make the world better", not doubting everything.

There are limits on aquisition of NBC weapons in the real world, many brought about by the United Nations or coordination with the organization. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, for example, forbids states from passing on nuclear technology that might be used for weapons, while both SALT treaties seek to reduce the stockpiles of the current largest nuclear powers. Clauses exist in the Geneva and Hague Conventions that limit the use of chemical and biological weapons.

The mindset of the globe is that certain weapons are too terrifying to unleash, and while certain global players are unwilling to give up their nuclear arsenals, many others have purposefully avoided pursuing atomic weapons. Germany, South Africa, and Japan, all nuclear-capable nations, have chosen not to develop a weapons program because they realize the kind of problems that the existance of such weapons brings to the world. Similarly, the majority of modern, industrialized nations have actively refused to develop biological or chemical weaponry.

Furthermore, the hipocrisy of certian states who bemoan the perils of using NBC weapons but refuse to give up their arsenals doesn't change the fact that those weapons are an immense hazard to the entire world. If a person who is outspoken about domestic abuse is suddenly discovered beating his partner, does that mean that beating your partner is okay? No. It just means that the hypocrite is a tool.

We have a responsibility as stewards of the Earth and nations committed to a better world to rise above such claims and pettiness. We have to accept that the road to a safer world is rough and risks will have to be taken. Again, I further implore nations to realize that not having a standing NBC arsenal doesn't mean you're automatically a vapor cloud. The Sophistan government has poured billions of menks into developing anti-ballistic missile technology, and are currently approaching a 92% effectiveness rate.

What's more, it should be noted that we have no chemical or biological arsenals. We posses a modest cache of 46 nuclear weapons, all of which are kept on de-alert status. If the complaints of other nations were true, our island chain should be a victim of never-ending mushroom clouds, and yet here we are, still chugging along quite nicely. Perhaps it is time to move past irrational fear, yes?

Furthermore, the hipocrisy of certian states who bemoan the perils of using NBC weapons but refuse to give up their arsenals doesn't change the fact that those weapons are an immense hazard to the entire world.

Though my nation is *not* yet offered its position here, I'd like to say that Confederated City States of Mikitivity stand in complete agreement with Sophista's position, and feel that the above quote warrants international attention in this area.

As others have said, this proposal sounds good in RL but here in NS- where there are thousands of nations with nuclear and biological weapons who are not in the U.N.- this proposal would only weaken the U.N. and not help at all. We do strive to better the world, but we have to make sure that we're still around to help.

For the time being, I shall assume the representative from RomeW has declined to listen to any of the arguments being made. The UN will not be weakened by reducing global arms stockpiles, partially because the UN is not a body designed to wage war, but mostly because having a nuclear arsenal is not a prerequisite for greatness or military strength.

I take it back then.

As sad as it might be, we live in a world where the threat of nuclear apocalypse is quite real, and the great majority of UN member states have it engrained in their heads that the second they turn off their nukes, a maelstrom of nuclear fire will cleanse their nation of all life.

True or not, this is their perception, and perception is nine-tenths of reality. I would encourage you to follow the course suggested by the delegate from Whited Fields, and pursue reduction of arms instead of the elimination of entire arsenals.

We find it odd to believe that this is just perception when Der Angst, a major non-UN nuclear power, has come on here and basically said that they encourage UN nuclear disarmament because it would make their invasions easier. Last time this was seriously proposed, some of the more militarist nuclear nations in the UN threatened to leave the UN if it passed and then nuke key UN members just to prove their point.

RomeW is right in sentiment if not precisely in the words they used: while this wouldn't weaken the UN itself per se, it would make a great number of nations much more vulnerable.

Generally speaking, we agree with Sophista's view that total WMD elimination is a very bad move. Elimination of all biological and chemical weapons we would support, however; given modern technology they are not really weapons of mass destruction at all, and for this very reason are much more likely to be employed.
Most of our allies have no nuclear weapons, and we're glad about that - but a handful do, and until the unlikely-in-forseeable-future event of a completely peaceful world we'll feel safer when they're about. Subduing a nation that has no nuclear allies with a couple of carefully placed nuclear strikes is, history has shown, a relatively cheap and easy way to avoid long, costly wars; to unscrupulous nations, this may prove too tempting an option to ignore.

Nusku Capleton
Special Liason to the UN, Rehochipe

The People's Republic of Miko Mono FIERCELY OPPOSES this proposal. We will defend to the death our national soverignity, which includes the right to possess whatever weapons we feel are neccessary to ensure our defense. Proposals such as these are merely a Trojan Horse, by which imperialist nations seek to weaken those countries that wish to live in peace in order to conquer and subjegate them.

Not only does the Miko Mono Politburo call on every U.N. member to oppose this proposal, we announce a readiness to begin discussions with those countries seeking advances in uranium and plutonium production in a spirit of brotherhood and self-defense.

For nations understanding the necessity of globally acting law but whom also wish to protect their national sovereignty, I submit to you the NSSRC, as found in my signature to be an appropriate region to reside within. In order to submit the UNRAP proposal, which is written and ready for submittal, I need endorsements or another like-minded nation who carries enough endorsements to submit the proposition to quorum.

Tyrants can usurp power in some countries and their motives might be extremely imperialistic. They might use their nukes on countries, so we need to defend ourselves.

We need WMD as protection against the lunatic despots among us. It's like a 'scaring off' device, making imperialistic countries think twice before invading a nuclear power.

I think you understand my argument

Best regards,

Sebastian Pepperell
President of the Holy Republic of Seriphyn

Ah, but I am not saying we should ban certain WMD, i think that Chemical and Biological weapons should be LIMITED. this is because if a war were to break out between 2 UN members, there would be less nuclear weapons firing, out of reluctance to use their precious few WMDs, or that they exhausted their stockpile, but ultimately less people will be killed. If a non-UN member launched a nuclear attack, surely the UN would rally with a fellow member against such an act that goes against the policy of the UN. We are not completely defenseless.

And chemical and biological weapons can be very effective, maybe not as effective as nuclear, but certainly less harmful for the environment, and for the future inhabitable radiation and disease caused by this.