NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the proposal draft as it now stands:



RECOGNIZING the magnitude of responsibility acquired with having and maintaining nuclear arms

NOTING WITH DISMAY nations which use nuclear might without thought of recourse or consequence,

NOTING FURTHER the many radical and independent groups which intend to acquire nuclear arms with the intention of performing egregious acts,

AFFIRMING the role of the UN as example to the world;

1. REQUIRES that all UN member nations stand accountable for nuclear arms and materials within their borders;

2. RESOLVES to use nuclear arms responsibly in warfare and consider restraint in the display and use politically, of said arms;

3. CONDEMNS the displacement of one nation's nuclear arms or technology beyond a nation's borders;

4. PROHIBITS the sale, by United Nations member nations, of nuclear arms, materials, or technologies to independent groups;

5. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY the proliferation of nuclear arms, materials, or technology to rogue and developing countries;

6. APPLAUDS the easing of nuclear tension around the world;

7. SUGGESTS and ENDORSES the scaling back of nuclear stockpiles, the signing of treaties against nuclear arm usage, and the preference of bomber based nuclear devices to missile-based nuclear devices;

8. ADVOCATES the implementation of reasonable and metered economic and political penalties by UN member nations on other member nations for violation of the Nuclear Arms and Technology Act;

I was considering the number of nuke style drafts that are now on the forum and maybe I should make this into the more specific NATTA: Nuclear Arms and Technology Trade Act.

If no one gives feedback this will be sent in sometime this week.

I just posted a second draft of a proposal that has similar aims in the forum. It is slightly more general and has a slightly different intent. Go look at it and tell me what you think.

I like your idea, but it doesn't cover radioactive substances such as dirty bombs and depleted uranium munitions and armaments.

Thanks.

I just posted a second draft of a proposal that has similar aims in the forum. It is slightly more general and has a slightly different intent. Go look at it and tell me what you think.

I like your idea, but it doesn't cover radioactive substances such as dirty bombs and depleted uranium munitions and armaments.

Thanks.

I've looked at it and I think I have an idea. How about I put my text here on hold and start drafting up more trade/anitproliferation material? Then you can push for yours with the idea of nulear munitions/substances, etc and not worry about me overlapping with you. I would hate for both of our proposals to fail miserably because, though good ideas they may be, they were too close in focus. I'll get on here tomorrow and start churning out ideas for what regulations the UN could tag on nuclear arms and technology trade. When I say 'trade' I mainly mean the clauses in my draft which deal with displacement of weapons and such, or giving materials to independent groups.

That's what I really want to get at with this.

Good luck with yours, I'll try to lobby for it if I can find time. Thanks

I like your idea, but it doesn't cover radioactive substances such as dirty bombs and depleted uranium munitions and armaments.

That's exactly why I quite like this proposal.

Face facts - you are not going to successfully ban DU. Not for a very very long time.

Here is the proposal draft as it now stands:

I was considering the number of nuke style drafts that are now on the forum and maybe I should make this into the more specific NATTA: Nuclear Arms and Technology Trade Act.

If no one gives feedback this will be sent in sometime this week.

It seems perfect as is. :)

The number of characters you can use in the resolution name is limited. I'd just call it "Nuclear Arms and Technology Trade".

Is this an "Global Disarmament" proposal? And what strength do you plan to make it? I was thinking Significant or Mild, because generally I save the Strong languaged proposals for things that sound like they are ordering our nations to comply or else.

I suspect that my nation would broadly support this proposal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Having followed the DU argument in a few different threads, I find this proposal a better option than Tihland's. My one reservation is that displacement of one nation's nuclear arms or technology beyond a nation's borders would include mobile platforms such as ships or aircraft temporarily stationed in international waters or in an allied nation with the ally's consent. I'd suggest crafting the statement more narrowly to condemn placement of permanent nuclear weapons installations outside the controlling nation's borders.

Well, with the response that's been received and all respect for Tihland aside, I think I'll go ahead with my original plans of submitting it once we fix clause 3.

Ok, good point, Jovianica, what if I were to try the alternative clause 3:

3. CONDEMNS nations' use of permanent nuclear weapons installations beyond the controlling nation's borders,

The original idea behind this clause was to make a clean transition between the "responsibility" stuff and the "anti-proliferation" stuff. I think that it still serves this purpose as revised, but does it resolve your reservations well enough?

Yes, thank you, I think that's entirely suitable. (I'd better think so, since you took my suggested wording exactly. ;)) I can wholeheartedly approve this proposal.

I'll bump this up on the top of the forum until tomorrow, when I'll submit, hopefully.

RECOGNIZING the magnitude of the responsibility of having and maintaining nuclear arms

NOTING WITH DISMAY nations which use nuclear might without thought of recourse or consequence,

NOTING FURTHER the many radical and independent groups which plan to acquire nuclear arms with the intention of performing egregious acts,

AFFIRMING the role of the UN as example to the world;

1. REQUIRES that all UN member nations stand accountable for nuclear arms and materials within their borders;

2. RESOLVES to use nuclear arms responsibly in warfare and consider restraint in the display and use politically, of said arms;

3. CONDEMNS nations' use of permanent nuclear weapons installations beyond the controlling nation's borders,

4. PROHIBITS the sale, by United Nations member nations, of nuclear arms, materials, or technologies to independent groups;

5. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY the proliferation of nuclear arms, materials, or technology to rogue and developing countries;

6. APPLAUDS the easing of nuclear tension around the world;

7. SUGGESTS and ENDORSES the scaling back of nuclear stockpiles, the signing of treaties against nuclear arm usage, and the preference of bomber based nuclear devices to missile-based nuclear devices;

8. ADVOCATES the implementation of reasonable and metered economic and political penalties by UN member nations on other member nations for violation of the Nuclear Arms and Technology Act;

Bravo. I'll be proud to endorse this effort.

As will I. Tiny, tiny piece of pedantry - that last clause should have a full stop rather than a semicolon at the end.

8. ADVOCATES the implementation of reasonable and metered economic and political penalties by UN member nations on other member nations for violation of the Nuclear Arms and Technology Act.[/I][/B]

Ooo...in that case, clause 3 needs to have its final comma replaced with a semicolon too.

You have our support on this one.