NationStates Jolt Archive

Following is the THIRD DRAFT of the this resolution. All comments made after the posting of this draft appear after the post I state "The following posts were made after the third draft was posted." They should start around the 2nd page. All other posts refer to the SECOND DRAFT, and I don't want to clutter the U.N. forum with more.

Category: Global Disarmaments--Significant
Resolution Name: Ban on Radioactive Military Stuff
Description:
It is known that radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor pose a serious health risk to humans from all over the world, and that they have an environmental impact. The U.N. realizes this and wishes that such weapons and armor were never used. However, some nations do not acknowledge the impact of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor, and they use them freely instead. Realizing this, the Nation States United Nations hereby adopts the following policy concerning radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor.

Radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor shall be defined as any weapon or armor that can cause negative long-term consequences on humans and/or the environment by releasing alpha, beta, gamma, and/or neutron particles used on the battlefield.

Examples of such objects include atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, dirty bombs, and depleted uranium military stuff.

1) Ban within the U.N.
a) Member nations of the U.N. cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against other member nations of the U.N.
b) Member nations of the U.N. cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against non-member nations if these non-member nations do not use, hold, or manufacture radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor.
c) U.N. members cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or on their first strike unless the opponent nation has used radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against that U.N. member.

2) The sale of radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor is prohibited to all non-member nations of the U.N.

3) A committee shall be developed to research more effective means of winning battles without the use of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor. It shall be composed of scientists from member nations that decide to participate in this committee.
a) Any weapons or armor developed as a result of information from this committee, including the information itself, are prohibited from being sold to all non-members of the U.N.

4) All humans involved in the manufacturing of radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor are to be informed of the health hazards that they are involved with. They are also to be provided with the necessary protection from the manufacturing dangers imposed by radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor at all times.

5) All military personnel that use the radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor are to be informed of the hazards of the material they are using and are to be informed of methods to protect themselves. U.N. nations are required to provide protective gear to their military personnel, but their military personnel may decline the use of the gear. All civilians (friendly or enemy) near a battle are to be informed of the hazards of the environment around them after a U.N. member nation has a victory in the vicinity.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt the preceding policy.

cursory first glance, I can live with this one.

the concept is generally fine, but the reasoning is faulty.

How many times must it be said that the primary danger from DU is it's toxicity and not it's radioactive properties? :headbang:

How about a change in phrasing from "radioactive/nuclear" to "radioactive and/or toxic"?

This would also change the title to "Improved Controls on Radioactive and/or Toxic Materials"

Of course, that would mean another rewrite, as the focus would go from banning to insuring such materials were used/contained safely.

Better, but still missing a lot.

I've already been working on a suitable proposal of my own at the prompting of a few nations.

How many times must it be said that the primary danger from DU is it's toxicity and not it's radioactive properties?
In the proposal as it is written, the "primary danger" of anything is not mentioned.

However, it does seem that you want toxic bullets to be banned/controlled as well. But then what are we going to use in our wars? (Not that I go warring with other nations...) What alternative isn't "toxic"? Just wondering.

And I would also like to add a clause that requires nations to inform their soldiers about the hazards of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor should they use them. Nations are also to inform their opponent after a war about the use of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor during the war. Maybe they should inform surrounding civilians instead?

How about a clause that recommends or requires a complete clean up of these weapons/armor after the war? What do you think?

Nuclear weapon banning [...], life is too short, and this proposal will never float. I have that satisfaction. :)
Komokom, you are right about one thing. Life is too short, and we don't need to be attempting to shorten it with radioactive fallout and the like. You know, you are always being rude and mean in your comments. I am very much not liking that. Do not post in here if you will not be constructive in your criticisms.

Hello everyone! I have developed a second draft from the previous Ban on Depleted Uranium proposal. I believe you will all find it much more acceptable. But, as usual, I would like to hear your comments, complaints, and suggestions. And please be kind in your arguments. Also, realize that this is still a draft. It will no doubt undergo changes as you nitpick at it. (You're so good at it. ;))

Category: Human Rights
Resolution Name: Ban of Radioactive/Nuclear Weapons And Armor Against

Here is a list of all the NS UN resolution categories, taken from Tuesday Heights draft UN pages:

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/nationstates/the_united_nations/ResCategories.pdf

I think this proposal sounds more like a Global Disarmament issue.

And I agree with you, your proposal is in fact different that Hirota's. I certainly think there is room for both ideas.

I think this proposal sounds more like a Global Disarmament issue.
Your suggestion will probably be taken then. Which level would you consider it to be?

Any other thoughts or ideas before the next draft? It seems that people are in more support of this one than the other one.

Your suggestion will probably be taken then. Which level would you consider it to be?

Any other thoughts or ideas before the next draft? It seems that people are in more support of this one than the other one.

Perhaps Significant. That is the middle level.

My only other comment is I'm not so convinced about clause 3, the researching ways to win wars without nukes. There is a logic there, but I just wonder if the UN should be involved in warfare?

Well, as long as non-member nations want to war with member nations there's not much more we can do. Besides, the very first resolution of the UN involves "increasing military budgets" and "building lots of new weapons." In a way, my proposal increases the effect of "building lots of new weapons" by asking a committee of volunteering scientists from around the UN to research "new weapons".

Deep down, I would love to outlaw war altogether. But that's not going to happen with the current group of people in the U.N. And it would probably violate the first resolution.

But thanks for the suggestions!

Well, as long as non-member nations want to war with member nations there's not much more we can do. Besides, the very first resolution of the UN involves "increasing military budgets" and "building lots of new weapons." In a way, my proposal increases the effect of "building lots of new weapons" by asking a committee of volunteering scientists from around the UN to research "new weapons".

Deep down, I would love to outlaw war altogether. But that's not going to happen with the current group of people in the U.N. And it would probably violate the first resolution.


You are right. We can't just say, "War go away." The point behind global disarmament resolutions is to make it perhaps more civilized -- (?).

I guess my point is three of your clauses read as if they are global disarmament, but the committee to discussion strageties sounds a bit more like an international security category.

Just keep at it. :)

Do not post in here if you will not be constructive in your criticisms.You'd like me to be " constructive ", yes ? Well, I think it important you know my posting here is not simply to suit your purpose, I am within my right to present my interpretation to other readers, after all, one does not run a election campaign to get a single vote, and only that single voter, to vote for you. Maybe not the best analogy but the best I contribute at this time. You know, you are always being rude and mean in your comments. I am very much not liking that.1) Well, I'm sorry if you take my examination of your proposal personally, but you did ask for comments, positive and critical if you recall, etc, etc, etc, on it, and I do call them as I see them.

2) I am not very much liking your proposal, but I have no problem with you.Komokom, you are right about one thing. Life is too short, and we don't need to be attempting to shorten it with radioactive fallout and the like.Well, I don't plan on glassing you any time soon, as I am sure you would not me. After all, that would mean role-play, which I simply do not have much of an interest in.

Suffice to say for the moment, this proposal is very little different from the last " Ban D.U. " offering you gave us, and in fact, considering some of its internal commentary and your own, seems mildly hypocritical in its intent. Now, if you'd like to to be really constructive for you, I'll go through it clause by clause, and point things out to you, in a calm, reasonable, civilised manner in which I always employ when assisting a budding proposal writer, should they ask it so and refrain from shifting coments on documents towards a personal arena of play.

Now, shall I, my friend ?

Now, shall I, my friend ?
By all means, Komokom, do so.

Critical comments don't have to be negative comments or have a rude connotation to them. All I'm asking is that you be a little nicer in your comments. I am not asking you to support my proposal if you don't feel it to be supportable.

This draft is very much different from the ban DU first draft. I consider it to be a fair compromise for those nations that do not wish to use radioactive stuff and those nations do wish to be able to use radioactive stuff if a non-member nation does use it on them. That's what it's all about--compromise. That's why I have submitted these drafts and intend to continue going through the proper channels before submitting a proposal.

Please point out the "mildly hypocritical" content.

Category: Human RightsWell, I would have figured Global Dis-arm, etc. I also would like to know if you've decided on a " strength " level yet ...Resolution Name: Ban of Radioactive/Nuclear Weapons And Armor Against Member NationsWell, I'm fairly sure tha won't fit when you go to put it in, you'll need an acronym or a shorter title of some sort.Description:
It is known that radioactive/nuclear armaments and munitions pose a serious health risk to humans from all over the world, and that they have an environmental impact.Blindingly obvious I suppose, but nothing too wrong with that.The U.N. realizes this and wishes that such weapons and armor never got into the wrong hands.Cliche argument, but one mans terrorist or rogue state is anothers freedom-fighter or liberator-state ...However, some nations outside the U.N. do not acknowledge the impact of radioactive/nuclear armaments, and they use them freely instead.Well, I'm pretty sure quite a number of U.N. nations do the same. They do R.P. after all.Realizing this, the Nation States United Nations hereby adopts the following policy concerning radioactive/nuclear armaments and munitions.This is where my problems with this entire idea of regulation on this subject begin.Radioactive/Nuclear Based Weapons, also known as munitions,Could be read as providing a set definition of " munitions " rather then " to hence forth in this document be refered to as munitions " etc ...shall be defined as any weapon that explodes due to a fission or fusion reaction or a weapon that can cause negative long-term consequences on humans and the environment by releasing alpha, beta, gamma, and/or neutron particles used on the battlefield.Okay, but I see a contradiction coming up here.Examples of such weapons include atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, and depleted uranium armaments and munitions.And here it is. DU does not explode due to a fission or fusion reaction, and yes, while you go onto say " or a weapon that can cause " yata, yata, this may want to be made a bit more clear. It'll save you should is proposal ever come to vote a couple posts having to explain the same point over, and over, and over again. Come to think of it, the " weapon that can cause " could very easily include smoke alarms ... ;)Radioactive/Nuclear Armor, also known as armaments, shall be defined as any protective gear that releases alpha, beta, gamma, and/or neutron particles on the battlefield.Hmmm, I don't know if armament is the right word here ... armaments always struck me as relating to arms or force of arms rather then armor.1) Member nations of the U.N. cannot use nuclear armaments and/or munitions against other member nations of the U.N. However, U.N. member nations can use nuclear armaments and/or munitions against non-member nations of the U.N. Although, it is highly discouraged.Now for my earlier " mildly hyppocritical " note :

What I don't like here is the entire " If your in the U.N. then do not use this list of stuff on other U.N. guys, no matter what, but hey, if you want to glass geneic non-membber nation " X " then please, go a-head, because we don't care enough about them to actually say you can't, we'll just frown when we read the news-papers the next day. " kind of mentality that is evoked here.

Further-more, I see this as being divionary of U.N. v.s. non-U.N. member nations, at a time when the U.N. should be focused in increasing its member-ship to try to bring more nations into line with inter-national laws similar to this.

The again, I suppose that with Bio-weapons banned, and " N00kz " being close to being regulated in the above fashion as you propose, the chemical manufacturer industry will suddenly hit a sharp rise ... excuse me, I have to go buy some shares ...

Bu now I'm getting off track, back to what I saw as a little hypocritical : " Don't nuke U.N. members, but we won't stop you from scorching the earth of non-U.N. nations " ... Hmmm. Oh, the boon for humanity that is possible here.

2) The sale of nuclear armaments and munitions is prohibited to all non-member nations of the U.N. However, member nations may sell nuclear armaments and munitions to fellow member nations.Ummm, wow, I find this is making things a little scary. Any-body here remember the R.L. 1950 ' s ? ... Seriously, this is a global cold war scenario your evoking here, and your making the U.N. the bad guy by making us throw the first, albeit paper-based ... punch. Its going to be fun might I add to watch Uranium Mining go down hill. 3) A committee shall be developed to research more effective means of winning battles without the use of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor. It shall be composed of diplomats and/or scientists from member nations that decide to send diplomats to the committee.
This Mornings Head-Lines :

" Tihland declares U.N. Ban on Nukes,
Brings Together Science and Diplomats To Discover New and Interesting Ways to Kill People Every-where,
World Rejoices. "

Bu back on topic, I suppose if your not shooting DU into the sun, your saving the world from " nuclear bad-ness " and providing it with a way to work on killing people and things in entirely new and interesting ways. Face it. This is hardly going to help human rights as you seem to intend above, nor disarm.

Then again, I am sure it will be a boon in the field of killing people though, imagine :

" Hey, I have this great idea, lets make a bomb that explodes with tiny little sticky balls, millions of the little buggers, that fly out and stick to peooples skin ! And they stick so good to flesh, you can't get them off, and then, here's the kicker, a few seconds later, THEY IGNITE ! Brilliant, I know ... "

4) All humans involved in the manufacturing of radioactive/nuclear armaments or munitions are to be informed of the health hazards that they are involved with.Well, this is presuming they don't already know whats causing the growths on their third limbs, but yes, I do actually agree with this clause, and in fact, hey, this is actually human rights. They are also to be provided with the necessary protection from the hazards imposed by radioactive/nuclear armaments and/or munitions at all times.Ummm, I'm sure you mean from " the danger of manufacturing " such things, rather then the hazards of such things going off, other-wise your placing every-single uranium miner in the U.N. as well as industrial worker and scientist in a very, very, very, large, deep, protected bunker. For as long as said weapons exist. Suffice to say I agree with this clause in principle, but it needs some cleaning.Therefore, be it resolved, that the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt the preceding policy.Easy tiger, you have to convince all the people who like " n00kz " first, ;)

* Oh, and once again your dragging DU into it. Not an out-rigt ban, but the simply military-tactical-and-strategic folley of these regulations even makes me, a steady-fast pro-U.N. ' er recoil slightly with concern.

* By the by, if a non U.N. member attacked me with conventional high-explosive missiles aimed at my capital cities, would I be able to air-burt a " n00kz " based weapon in my own air-space to destroy the incoming weapons, or would that be seen as using " n00kz " ( I just love that " word " ) on a U.N. member, hmmm ?

I have considered changing it to Significant Global Disarmaments.
How's this for a title?: Ban on Radioactive Military Stuff

I believe I found the reason why I have been taking your arguments so personally. You are making fun of the resolution as it is written and really don't realize what I completely mean by it. I know what I mean, it's just hard to get it out there sometimes. I hope you understand.

Let's change "The U.N. realizes this and wishes that such weapons and armor never got into the wrong hands." to "The U.N. realizes this and wishes such weapons and armor were never used."

In the next sentence, we'll take out "outside the U.N."

I'll adjust your legalese suggestions.
I'll look for another word of "armaments."
Your statement about UN using these weapons on non-members has been taken into account into the next draft to be posted soon.

The U.N. should be focusing on ways to protect humans from consequences of actions they make.

Quite right--chemical weapons have yet to be considered. We'll leave that for someone else to contend with right now.

All a nation has to do to protect its precious Uranium Mining based economy is switch their market to only U.N. nations. It's really not that bad. Other than that, they need to be finding something else to help humanity with.

The question to ask is your hypothetical weapon better to use than a radioactive/nuclear weapon? I think so. Your hypothetical weapon basically kills the soldier immediately and doesn't have long-term environmental consequences, contrary to the use of radioactive/nuclear weapons. I wanted nations to be encouraged to use non-radioactive/nuclear weapons, and so research would be necessary for any improvements. Besides, it's not like advancements aren't happening now. This clause would just encourage advancement a little more.

For clarification, attacking the weapon or defense of any nonmember enemy on your ground is not the same as attacking a member, yourself. This should be added to the third draft.

================================================
================================================
The following posts were made after the third draft was posted.
================================================
================================================

This proposal would violate a nation's right to use all means necessary for self defense from foriegn invasion.

I have considered changing it to Significant Global Disarmaments. Well, provided it fits, I was just pointing it out, " just so your aware ", like. I should know. I had to re-think my own title when I pushed my own proposal into the list.How's this for a title?: Ban on Radioactive Military StuffThat is rubbish, make it " N00kZ R BAAAD ! " ;) + :DI believe I found the reason why I have been taking your arguments so personally. You are making fun of the resolution as it is written and really don't realize what I completely mean by it. I know what I mean, it's just hard to get it out there sometimes. I hope you understand.Exactly. I mock the paper, not the person. And yes, I do. God help people had I been available to defend my own proposal during that time it was on the open vote, ;)Let's change "The U.N. realizes this and wishes that such weapons and armor never got into the wrong hands." to "The U.N. realizes this and wishes such weapons and armor were never used."Or something like that.In the next sentence, we'll take out "outside the U.N."

I'll adjust your legalese suggestions.
I'll look for another word of "armaments."
Your statement about UN using these weapons on non-members has been taken into account into the next draft to be posted soon.Thanks your your attention then, I'm glad you have considered my points.The U.N. should be focusing on ways to protect humans from consequences of actions they make.Well, I do kinda agree in principle to that I suppose.Quite right--chemical weapons have yet to be considered. We'll leave that for someone else to contend with right now.Yes well, until thin * fizzle * what was that .. uh-oh, ( thump ) ... ;)All a nation has to do to protect its precious Uranium Mining based economy is switch their market to only U.N. nations. It's really not that bad. Other than that, they need to be finding something else to help humanity with.* Grumble grumble, grumble, reality of economics, grumble * ... Well, I suppose I could use my national Auto-industry to drop cars on people ... ;)The question to ask is your hypothetical weapon better to use than a radioactive/nuclear weapon? I think so. Your hypothetical weapon basically kills the soldier immediately and doesn't have long-term environmental consequences, contrary to the use of radioactive/nuclear weapons.Well, I suppose you kind of see my point, I ws just also trying to poin t out conventional as wel as future weapons are sill going to do god-awful things to human flesh, but I also see you have cleared up some of my concerns here too.I wanted nations to be encouraged to use non-radioactive/nuclear weapons, and so research would be necessary for any improvements. Besides, it's not like advancements aren't happening now. This clause would just encourage advancement a little more. Don't know about some of the logic there, you could have ritten a proposal for that in itself if you think about it but ( shrug ) I do see your point.For clarification, attacking the weapon or defense of any nonmember enemy on your ground is not the same as attacking a member, yourself. This should be added to the third draft.Okay, just want to point out, iI though I said in my hypothetical situation if a member nation used missiles with conventional high explosives ( or come to think of it chemicals ) , could I use a nuke to blow them down, like the old ABM's every-one got so jumpy about back in the R.L. Cold War ...

Thanks, :)

* Oh, I'm afraid I still won't be supporting because of the DU limitations, and might I ask you research neutron bomb theory, etc, possibly the most " clean " nke possible if done right as I remember ...

Following is the THIRD DRAFT of the this resolution. All comments made after the posting of this draft appear after the post I state "The following posts were made after the third draft was posted." They should start around the 2nd page. All other posts refer to the SECOND DRAFT, and I don't want to clutter the U.N. forum with more.

Category: Global Disarmaments--Significant
Resolution Name: Ban on Radioactive Military Stuff

Stuff?

And it's not DU's radioactivity that makes it dangerous, it's the toxicity of the material. The radioactivity is secondary in consideration.



Description:
It is known that radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor pose a serious health risk to humans from all over the world, and that they have an environmental impact. The U.N. realizes this and wishes that such weapons and armor were never used. However, some nations do not acknowledge the impact of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor, and they use them freely instead. Realizing this, the Nation States United Nations hereby adopts the following policy concerning radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor.

Radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor shall be defined as any weapon or armor that can cause negative long-term consequences on humans and/or the environment by releasing alpha, beta, gamma, and/or neutron particles used on the battlefield.

Examples of such objects include atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, dirty bombs, and depleted uranium military stuff.


Again with "stuff"? How about "depleted uranium materials to be used in a military format"?


1) Ban within the U.N.
a) Member nations of the U.N. cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against other member nations of the U.N.
b) Member nations of the U.N. cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against non-member nations if these non-member nations do not use, hold, or manufacture radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor.
c) U.N. members cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or on their first strike unless the opponent nation has used radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against that U.N. member.

strike out (c). It's redundant. And the use of DU warheads on tanks (etc) is a requirement in a first strike or pre-emptive strike where the enemy has such defenses. (c) reaches too far. (b) limits use to those who have such capability, and it is our stance this goes far enough. Otherwise, our first line troops will have to bounce regular materials off DU protected hardpoints, and we will be unable to effectively reply until loss of life; if allowed to use DU and such first, we limit exposure of soldiers to this hazard.

This would be more in line with your original intent.



2) The sale of radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor is prohibited to all non-member nations of the U.N.

3) A committee shall be developed to research more effective means of winning battles without the use of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor. It shall be composed of scientists from member nations that decide to participate in this committee.
a) Any weapons or armor developed as a result of information from this committee, including the information itself, are prohibited from being sold to all non-members of the U.N.


Uhm, why (a)? We WANT them to use less toxic weapons, no? So why restrict it from them?



4) All humans involved in the manufacturing of radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor are to be informed of the health hazards that they are involved with. They are also to be provided with the necessary protection from the manufacturing dangers imposed by radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor at all times.

5) All military personnel that use the radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor are to be informed of the hazards of the material they are using and are to be informed of methods to protect themselves. U.N. nations are required to provide protective gear to their military personnel, but their military personnel may decline the use of the gear. All civilians (friendly or enemy) near a battle are to be informed of the hazards of the environment around them after a U.N. member nation has a victory in the vicinity.


How about "the UN nation is to attempt to inform all civilians near a battlefield by all means possible of the potential hazards present once hostilities are ceased"?

Kinda difficult to drop leaflets during a shooting war, Tex.



Therefore, be it resolved, that the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt the preceding policy.

Getting closer here.

Following is the THIRD DRAFT of the this resolution. All comments made after the posting of this draft appear after the post I state "The following posts were made after the third draft was posted." They should start around the 2nd page. All other posts refer to the SECOND DRAFT, and I don't want to clutter the U.N. forum with more.

Category: Global Disarmaments--Significant
Resolution Name: Ban on Radioactive Military Stuff

The tactical nuclear weapons my nation is capable of deploying can in no way be defined as 'stuff'. I figure we can ignore this ban.

Description:
It is known that radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor pose a serious health risk to humans from all over the world, and that they have an environmental impact. The U.N. realizes this and wishes that such weapons and armor were never used. However, some nations do not acknowledge the impact of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor, and they use them freely instead. Realizing this, the Nation States United Nations hereby adopts the following policy concerning radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor.

Since depleted uranium is an extremely effective way of armouring a vehicle and for usage in APFSDS-T ammunition it should be available for use untill at least five more alternatives of armour and munition, as effective as or more effective than, are available.

Radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor shall be defined as any weapon or armor that can cause negative long-term consequences on humans and/or the environment by releasing alpha, beta, gamma, and/or neutron particles used on the battlefield.

Examples of such objects include atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, dirty bombs, and depleted uranium military stuff.

Once again, advanced armour using depleted uranium can not be reffered to as 'stuff'. Be more detailed in your definitions.

1) Ban within the U.N.
a) Member nations of the U.N. cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against other member nations of the U.N. [quote]

We will use any weapon wich we find necessary to use in an armed conflict or war. Nuclear weapons are often not an option, due to the creation of a so-called 'dirty battlefield'. However, we will not denie ourselves this option.

[quote]b) Member nations of the U.N. cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against non-member nations if these non-member nations do not use, hold, or manufacture radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor.

As above.

c) U.N. members cannot use radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or on their first strike unless the opponent nation has used radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor against that U.N. member.

As mentioned before, the usage of nuclear weapons is an improbable option, even if the enemy has used them. We prefer Massive Ordnance Air Bursts.

2) The sale of radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor is prohibited to all non-member nations of the U.N.

I agree and would even like to go further: All trade in nuclear weapons is prohibited to all nations in the world. If a nation wants to be tough and use nuclear weapons, let them develop them themselves. The research might yield interesting results for science, and it guarantees that a nation has the nuclear expertice needed to hold nuclear weapons.

3) A committee shall be developed to research more effective means of winning battles without the use of radioactive/nuclear weapons and armor. It shall be composed of scientists from member nations that decide to participate in this committee.
a) Any weapons or armor developed as a result of information from this committee, including the information itself, are prohibited from being sold to all non-members of the U.N.

Completely agreed. The best way to get rid of something is to come up with a better alternative.

4) All humans involved in the manufacturing of radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor are to be informed of the health hazards that they are involved with. They are also to be provided with the necessary protection from the manufacturing dangers imposed by radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor at all times.

Completely agreed. It is already happening here.

5) All military personnel that use the radioactive/nuclear weapons and/or armor are to be informed of the hazards of the material they are using and are to be informed of methods to protect themselves. U.N. nations are required to provide protective gear to their military personnel, but their military personnel may decline the use of the gear. All civilians (friendly or enemy) near a battle are to be informed of the hazards of the environment around them after a U.N. member nation has a victory in the vicinity.

The complete population of my nation is informed about the risks of nuclear attacks and the methods of protection. Our military is schooled in it. We have adequate means of protection.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt the preceding policy.

No. Alter it to an acceptable treaty. As long as something more effective isn't provided we will not accept any ban on these weapons.

Tihland will use another word besides 'stuff'. How does "doo-hickeys" sound? Lol!

Depleted uranium may be more effective at destroying things, but if the enemy isn't using depleted uranium, how much more effective do you need to be?

You have made an interesting suggestion, Hilversum, concerning banning trade of all nuclear weapons. I like it!

Vastiva, hmm, I guess 1c is redundant now that I think about it some more.

Otherwise, our first line troops will have to bounce regular materials off DU protected hardpoints
You are allowed to use DU against enemies that use it.

Good point on 3a. I didn't even think of that. But we do want to be able to win wars against them...

"the UN nation is to attempt to inform all civilians near a battlefield by all means possible of the potential hazards present once hostilities are ceased"
I like it!

Thanks your your attention then, I'm glad you have considered my points.
Komokom, I consider everyone's points. I am quite willing to make compromises or suggestions on certain issues. My problem begins when the other sides aren't willing to make compromises or suggestions.

This proposal would violate a nation's right to use all means necessary for self defense from foriegn invasion.
I think you should re-read it. One doesn't need to use nuclear weapons to defend against sticks and stones.

On a side note, so as not to sound so harsh and mean in the proposal, I will be putting words such as "Please" and "Thank you" into the next draft. (Since it appears that people think my proposal as it is written is impolite.)

The King's Government is in complete support of the Draft Resolution; however, the Prime Minister wonders if the intent of the sponsoring Member State would not be better served by striking numbered Item 4 in the first section of the Draft Resolution. It is the Prime Minister's view that the UN should commit itself as a whole either to a total ban on the use of nuclear/radioactive weapons, or not at all. If the Draft Resolution does pass, it is presumed that the vast majority of nations would by necessity commit to avoidance of the use of nuclear/radioactive weapons as part of a 'first strike' package. Therefore, the Prime Minister would posit that Item 4, first section, is generally redundant and can be done away with. The Constitutional Monarchy can forego the use of DU munitions until a working replacement has been developed, and would urge other Member States to do similarly. The benefits of the proposal over the long-term are far too numerous and weighty to ignore outright.

Tihland will use another word besides 'stuff'. How does "doo-hickeys" sound? Lol!

Depleted uranium may be more effective at destroying things, but if the enemy isn't using depleted uranium, how much more effective do you need to be?

You have made an interesting suggestion, Hilversum, concerning banning trade of all nuclear weapons. I like it!

Vastiva, hmm, I guess 1c is redundant now that I think about it some more.


You are allowed to use DU against enemies that use it.

Wich would mean that I should have two sets of equipment at hand: One for regular opponents, on for DU oppenent. Or, if I indeed use regular armour and tungsten ammo as a standard over DU equipment, I would have to completely refurbish my tanks, their ammo, and several other items in my army. It sounds impractical.

Besides that, development of armour and munition currently is going at such a speed that better alternatives are not far away, as an example I would like to point out the Brittish developped 'Chobham' armour, of wich the composition is classified to civilians like most of you, but wich does not use DU in it's composition. Instead of banning DU, I urge you to take a look at the other proposal concerning DU, and adjust your proposal in such a way that it does not conflict with the matters decided in that proposal.

It's not that impractical. How many members of the U.N. do you get into war with? How many non-members that don't even bother with the stuff do you get into war with?

My proposal in no way conflicts with the other proposal. As a matter of fact, should mine be passed, it will encourage the implementation of the other one (inside joke :D).

Now, as for the development of new and better armor and weapons, my proposal makes sure such research is conducted! Read the third clause again! I'd be quite happy with the production of Chobham armor, but would it not do the world better if it wasn't so classified?

The next draft is almost ready for posting! Thank you for sticking with the discussion for all those that have!

Chobham armour can't be that classified if I know the composition of it...

Then why on earth did you say:
I would like to point out the Brittish developped 'Chobham' armour, of wich the composition is classified to civilians like most of you, but wich does not use DU in it's composition

Hmmmm?
If it's not classified, then I am quite curious as to what it is made of.

Officially, it's classified. I'm in the military, I know stuff. Even stuff I shouldn't know.

What I'm saying is: Something that is classified can be sold to another nation, and ofcourse still remain classified