NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay. I've watched the previous "stop the spread of nuclear weapons" thread die and little came out of it. I didn't want to start this until I'd shown its end as respectful a grieving period as possible.

I really like this idea (regulations on nuclear proliferation) for a proposal. I have some ideas, including clauses:

1) regulating new nation's nuclear programs
2) restricting the sale of nuclear weapons via black market and via international deals
3) empowering member nations to take necessary political and economic actions against nations in violation of the above regulations and restrictions.


I need to figure out what needs to be regulated in nuclear programs, and I need to figure out how much the sale of nuclear arms can be restricted before I get mailbombs. I have several real world situations/articles concerning these situations that I have in mind to help me, I'll see if I can post and use these later.

But right now any feedback as far as how much or what should be regulated or how it should be done is much appreciated.

1) regulating new nation's nuclear programs

I don't think it's right that nations with that have had nuclear weapons for longer get do more with them, especially in a political climate where new nations are being… erm… discovered all the time. I would like to see the same regulations for older and newer countries.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

3) empowering member nations to take necessary political and economic actions against nations in violation of the above regulations and restrictions.

I could pull the entire game mechanics argument out and polish it, but I am sure your not thinking along those lines ... suffice to say, when I actually wake up I'll come in and poke this around for you.

when I actually wake up I'll come in and poke this around for you.

Well that's something to look forward to...

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I don't think it's right that nations with that have had nuclear weapons for longer get do more with them, especially in a political climate where new nations are being… erm… discovered all the time. I would like to see the same regulations for older and newer countries.

Good point. Then perhaps a better reading is:

1) regulating member nation’s nuclear program:
a) It’s speed of development/production
b) It’s proliferation to other countries

Perhaps that’s a better idea. What do you think?

I could pull the entire game mechanics argument out and polish it, but I am sure your not thinking along those lines ... suffice to say, when I actually wake up I'll come in and poke this around for you.
Yeah I was thinking in the terms of a clause like:

EMPOWERS (or perhaps ALLOWS or ENCOURAGES is better) member nations to take economic and political action against nations which violate these regulations (perhaps not quite as harsh/self-preserving)

However it comes out in the end in needs to be less of a changing the game mechanics issue and more of a RP thing--something pushing the UN to police itself, through role play.

Yeah, that was along the lines I was thinking too ... the entire encourage business and such, and yes, more U.N. orientated R.P. could be a very good thing ... :)

While I'm usually a bit iffy about regulating specific weapons via the U.N. I suspect this resolution has merit and a definite future ...

Good point. Then perhaps a better reading is:

1) regulating member nation’s nuclear program:
a) It’s speed of development/production
b) It’s proliferation to other countries

Perhaps that’s a better idea. What do you think?

Sounds better.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Okay, the reformed list of objectives for the resolution and elaborated on some of the points. The new ideas are something like this:

1) regulate member nation’s nuclear program:
a) encourage a slowing of nuclear weapon's research
b) applauds nations which scale back nuclear programs, reduce production and/or form "no-nuking" treaties/agreements with other nations
c) illegalize the spreading of nuclear secrets/materials to radical groups
d) strongly discourage the transaction of nuclear secrets/materials between nations

2) "empower" UN member nations to take political and economic action against which exhibit reckless treatment of nuclear information and/or materials


I'll explain the ideas behind each point and the potential problems that I can see with its implication.

1a. encourage a slowing of nuclear weapon's research

The idea is to instill a dislike towards nuclear escalation. If there is less of a threat of nuclear attack to other nations then there will be less of an incentive to increase spending in your nation’s nuclear program. Of course there is the argument about UN nukes vs. non-UN nukes, but this is why it is only encouraged. It is fully understood that some nations feel too threatened by nations outside the UN (or are unable to work "1b" out with them) to accept this fully. I think this is a keeper. Perhaps it should be expanded to include nuclear weapons production. Perhaps it should only include nuclear weapons production. I mean, researching nukes is something apart from actually building nukes.

1b applauding nations which scale back nuclear programs, reduce production and/or form "no-nuking" treaties/agreements with other nations


This is another acknowledgement of the individuality of nations' international relationships. It is weak. It is meant to be weak. Not all nations are on the same step in the path to the ideal nuclear situations. We cannot act like they are. What we can do is outline the pass with neon stickers and place lots and lots of cheerleaders on the side rooting them on. I like the principles behind this. I think it looks okay now it might need some tweaking.

1c illegalize the spreading of nuclear secrets/materials to radical groups

This I put in to help keep nuclear warfare on a national level, where there is some accountability. I cannot see any reason for any individual group to have nuclear capabilities/weapons. I bet there'll be a few nations saying that they need to have individual groups with nukes. This is why I say "radical groups". I'm not sure if that's the right phrase to use, but that is the point I'm trying to get across.

1d strongly discourage the transaction of nuclear secrets/materials between nations

This is a sort of "do not sell to rogue nations" clause. It is also added to support the 1a. With nations trading secrets/information regarding nuclear weapon technology, the rate of proliferation/production of nukes will only increase. I don't know if this is the best way to do this. What does everyone think?


2 strongly discourage the transaction of nuclear secrets/materials between nations

Yeah this seems a pretty good idea as long as I find the right word. I'm not sure "empowers" has the right connotation. It might be seen as giving nations powers above the standard ones, which would be a game mechanics issue. I'll consider other words. If anyone has a disagreement over this, speak up.

I need to start working on the "why" arguments...any ideas for some reasons to regulate UN nuclear programs?

My humble proposition would be to delegalize nuclear weapons all together. Any takers?

My humble proposition would be to delegalize nuclear weapons all together. Any takers?
If there could be a worldwide simultaneous disarmament of nuclear weapons it would be worth considering. But here we are only affecting UN nations. we cannot control the nations outside of the UN. This would cause a major inequality between the military capabilities of UN naitons and non-UN nations. This is unacceptable. What we need is a first step. And then maybe, just maybe, there will be a lessening of nuclear tensions outside the UN. and the maybe, just maybe, if the ball keeps rolling we can start working together, as a world, towards the de-MADening of the planet.

Well, we need the first step, definitely, and that's what I'm focused on right now. To encourage responsiblity with nuke usage and to keep nukes out of the hands of those that would use them wrongly (such as terrorist groups).

A point well taken. It seems to me that this universe is filled up with thousands of crazed dictators who dream of the chance to destroy civilizations, and kill millions. We cannot ever hope to neutralize all of them. And so it seems that we are condemned to a reality were we must be ever vigilant against the machinations of men who have no regard for human life, who revel in destruction, suffering, and chaos. Perhaps then a proposal to downsize our nuclear arsenals is folly? Perhaps, if such a resolution be passed, it would only make us all more vulnerable to attack?

There are two suggestions that I've made at various points in this debate. The first, mostly a token gesture, is an agreement between all UN nations to dealert their nuclear arsenal. That means instead of keeping the weapons primed for launch constantly, nations would keep their missiles in a stand-by mode. Depending on procedure, moving from dealert to launch takes between thirty minutes and two hours, depending on if the missiles are fueled or not. This lowers the risk of accidental launch immensely, and the adoption of a less-aggressive nuclear policy could be seen as a positive diplomatic gesture.

The second suggestion is a bit more far-fetched: prohibiting the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the delivering of nuclear payloads. Instead of exterminating the population of the world in an hour or so, we'd have an extra eight to ten hours depending on the location of warring nations. Furthermore, unlike missiles, you can call back a bomber if last-minute negotiations brought about some kind of ceasefire. I haven't decided if adding submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) or battlefield-range weapons would be something to include.

Thoughts?

I think Sophista's idea is right on the money.

Furthermore, unlike missiles, you can call back a bomber if last-minute negotiations brought about some kind of ceasefire.

This would make something as extreme as a nuclear strike avoidable in more ways than one, my only qualm would be the bringing back of a very 'cold war' like atmosphere once again in that nations could use 'fear tactics' to cause another nation to agree to a ceasefire under poor conditions, and can lead less armed countries in a position of constant intimidation.

I fear that this proposition would do nothing more than limit a nations reaction time to an extra-UN aggressor. How can one be expected to support such a situation?

my only qualm would be the bringing back of a very 'cold war' like atmosphere once again in that nations could use 'fear tactics' to cause another nation to agree to a ceasefire under poor conditions, and can lead less armed countries in a position of constant intimidation.

This situation, while unpleasant, is not unique to the type of world that would be created by that kind of policy. Nuclear weapons will cause fear no matter how they are delivered, and a nation with a larger arsenal will always be able to intimidate another with said weapons. The only difference is how the intimidation is brought about.

yes nuclear arms themselves are enough of an intimidator, and we are constantly aimed at by numerous warheads, but the era of air raid siren drills and elementary school nuclear attack drills is over thanks to ICBM's and there has been the invention of anti-ballistic missles.

All the same I like the idea you've generated here, it's a new take on and old matter.

My hope is that this proposal is an official endorsement by the UN of safe and responsible nuclear arms practices. This is through encouraging good practices and discouraging/making illegal the most irresponsible ones.

This resolution can definitely mandate UN members to not exchange nuclear materials, information, and industry to radical groups and not to do other obviously irresponsible things with nuclear might. The real problem I see here is knowing where to draw the line with respect to encouraging the responsible nuclear practices.

I agree that the preference towards bomber based weapons as opposed to ICBMs is responsible nuclear arms management. I think that should be encouraged in this proposal. I don't think it'll fly to MAKE nations do it...but maybe some strong incentives could be offered.

My humble proposition would be to delegalize nuclear weapons all together. Any takers?

If nuclear weapons are made criminal, only criminals will have nuclear weapons.

So no, no takers.

Please read something on the MAD doctrine.

There are two suggestions that I've made at various points in this debate. The first, mostly a token gesture, is an agreement between all UN nations to dealert their nuclear arsenal. That means instead of keeping the weapons primed for launch constantly, nations would keep their missiles in a stand-by mode. Depending on procedure, moving from dealert to launch takes between thirty minutes and two hours, depending on if the missiles are fueled or not. This lowers the risk of accidental launch immensely, and the adoption of a less-aggressive nuclear policy could be seen as a positive diplomatic gesture.

The second suggestion is a bit more far-fetched: prohibiting the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the delivering of nuclear payloads. Instead of exterminating the population of the world in an hour or so, we'd have an extra eight to ten hours depending on the location of warring nations. Furthermore, unlike missiles, you can call back a bomber if last-minute negotiations brought about some kind of ceasefire. I haven't decided if adding submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) or battlefield-range weapons would be something to include.

Thoughts?


How about you be simplistic, and call for all UN nations to put - or to have put at UN Expense - an orbital anti-ICBM platform designed to take out ALL ICBM launches? Suddenly, ICBMs - from everyone, UN or non-UN - go extinct. Doesn't that take care of what you are initially proposing?

How about you be simplistic, and call for all UN nations to put - or to have put at UN Expense - an orbital anti-ICBM platform designed to take out ALL ICBM launches? Suddenly, ICBMs - from everyone, UN or non-UN - go extinct. Doesn't that take care of what you are initially proposing?

The United Nations has always opposed the militrization of space, and will continue to do so. The "final frontier" so to speak, is the last place we as a species have yet to screw up; no reason to start now. This would also have the side effect of removing the nuclear deterrent from situations where it's actually useful.

Take India and Pakistan, for example. The Indian army is enourmous, outnumbering the Pakistani forces by nearly eleven to one. For Pakistan, nuclear weapons are the only thing standing between their way of life and invasion by India. If India starts to march its million-member army towards the border, Pakistan can put its finger over the red button and politely say, "Please stop."

okay, making this a really rough draft of what information/input has been gathered together so far the resolving part of the resoltuion goes as follows

ENCOURAGES UN member nations to scale back their respective nuclear arsenals;

APPLAUDS all nations that use nuclear arms responsibly, through complete/or near complete disarmament, no-nuke treaties, dismantling of ICBMs or any other sensible action taking to ease nuclear tensions between nations;

REQUIRES that UN member nations guard their nuclear technology and materials, to protect these from malignant forces in the world;

OUTLAWS the sale of nuclear material and technology by UN members to radical groups, as they represent a threat which has no home, no people, and no one to answer to for their action;

STRONGLY DISCOURAGES UN member nations from assisting the nuclear development of another nation or in the arms build-up which from such would result;

APPROVES political and economic action taken, by UN member nations, against other member nations that clearly violate nuclear regulations;


The trouble part I see is the fourth clause which STRONGLY DISCOURAGES. I don't know if it belongs there or why. I felt apprehensive writing it. What feedback is there? Anything that should be added? I'm working towards the arguments on sctratch any suggestions there would be appreciated as well.

How about throwing your political weight behind UNRAP, the UN Reduced Arms Proposal, which is now available for endorsement in the queue.

I don't think I like that proposal very much. And I don;t have a whole lot of "political weight" to throw around anyway.

This would also have the side effect of removing the nuclear deterrent from situations where it's actually useful.

Take India and Pakistan, for example. The Indian army is enourmous, outnumbering the Pakistani forces by nearly eleven to one. For Pakistan, nuclear weapons are the only thing standing between their way of life and invasion by India. If India starts to march its million-member army towards the border, Pakistan can put its finger over the red button and politely say, "Please stop."


You just explained why this proposition is ridiculous - the MAD doctrine.

Alright, maybe I'm jumping the gun a little with creating draft copies of things.

I want to make sure that this is backed by enough people that it'll go through and I want to make sure that it doesn't have any gaping holes.

Let me go back to some core ideas I have.
I want the proposal:
A. To call upon UN member nations to use nuclear arms responsibly
B. To award/applaud nations which scale back nuclear arms, diminish the magnitude of military nuclear programs, sign treaties regarding nuclear arms, and just generally reduce nuclear tensions around the world.
C. Mandate that UN member nations help keep nuclear arms out of the hands of rogue groups.


Points which are I think are worthy of consideration, which aren't specifically expressed above:

-the preference towards bomber-based nukes--as opposed to ICBMs
-the regulation of trade in nuclear arms (as an extension of idea C), specifically the elimination or drastic slowing of it
-the regulation of nuclear technology (supported by the idea that fewer nations with nukes=lessened nuclear tensions), this seems the only good way to try to keep newer nations from acquiring nuclear capabilities without actually stopping them. Just mandating that they not get help.

Once again the "why" arguments are coming along but very slowly. I don't just want to say "nukes are bad for yo kids" I want something more substantial, accurate. Any feedback is welcome.

[qupte]You just explained why this proposition is ridiculous - the MAD doctrine.[/quote]

Just because MAD exists doesn't mean we're not allowed to work towards a less dangerous world. You just have to do it in a way that allows people to wave their nuclear sabres but in a safer fashion. De-alerting weapons would be akin to keeping your sabre in your scabbard before you wave it around as opposed to running around with it out all the time.

You just explained why this proposition is ridiculous - the MAD doctrine.

Just because MAD exists doesn't mean we're not allowed to work towards a less dangerous world. You just have to do it in a way that allows people to wave their nuclear sabres but in a safer fashion. De-alerting weapons would be akin to keeping your sabre in your scabbard before you wave it around as opposed to running around with it out all the time.


"It's going to take me an hour longer to nuke you then before - but my finger is still on the button!"

Ok, I can buy this version - leaves me the weaponry to keep my population safe in this unsafe world. And reduces wear and tear on said weaponry.

A lot can happen in an hour. Diplomatically, two nations can decide its not a good idea to erase their respective countries from existance. Militarily, a nation equipped with hypersonic aircraft could launch a surgical strike on launch sites. It also lessens the risk for accidental launch, as you have an hour longer to make sure that the pictures of the screen really are inbound ICMBs, and not a flock of seagulls.

There's a difference between total disarmament - which is a bad idea so long as non-UN states retain nukes - and a progressive scaling back of nuclear arsenals.

Nations can get easily caught up in spiralling, economically damaging arms races. In these situations unilateral disarmament's foolish, but multilateral action - like, say, a UN resolution - can ensure that all countries disarm without any one country having to take the risk of doing it first.

We wouldn't support a total ban on nukes, but we would support a partial disarmament among UN members so that, say, instead of collectively having the weaponry to destroy the Earth fifteen thousand times over, we only have the nukes to destroy it a hundred and fifty times over.