NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal has been submitted, after very little ado. Here's the text, with the suggested mechanical changes.


Nuclear Arms and Technology

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description:
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.


Please support this proposal. Voting ends Tuesday.

Bump

Set

Spike!


(Women's Beach Volleyball: my new favorite Olympic sport :fluffle: )

Dig!

What sort of response did you want? It's short, to the point, accomplishes it's goal, doesn't step on too many toes...

I'm more trying just to keep it toward the top to remind those taht haven't supported it, but may want to.

un otro bumpo

Bah, this is it. We're out. Many nations have warned us over the years that the UN is an idealist organization with no basis in real life, but we've clung to it in hopes that they are wrong. Attempted proposals such as this only prove them right. Have you no idea about the political situations around the world? MAD is one of the few policies preventing all out nuclear war.

Attempted proposals such as this only prove them right.
Attempted proposals like this actually prove your side, Industrial Experiment. The collective wisdom of the UN has prevented passage of all such proposals in the past. If you leave now, the other side gains a vote. Stay, and you can help prevent it from ever passing.

The following is a sample of topics on Global Disarmament and Nuclear Reduction over the past couple of years that have failed to make it to Quorum. I gathered this list to demonstrate to Powerhungry Chipmunks that i's not simple apathy that's preventing the success of this proposal. Many of us are tired of posting the same old arguments over and over again. So here, in one place, are the same old arguments for your amusement and entertainment.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=281190
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282912
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282164
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=291260
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=291304
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=291646
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=274406
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=292903
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=302010
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=304101
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=304299
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=308106
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=309753
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=310471
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=312425
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=312452

This list is far from complete. It doesn't include anything from the past six months or anything that couldn't be identified by it's topic title. Still, it'sa plenty

I've read these threads and I feel there are several common themes:

1. The submitting nations almost unanimously failed to produce a well worded proposal

2. The submitting nations were (save one or two) interested wholly in complete disarmament

3. The submitting nations were (again, in most cases) attacked violently by nations that either no longer exist (thankfully) or by nations which rarely frequent the UN any more


With this in mind I would like to point out that my proposal in no way forces or even suggests that there should be a "disarmament of UN members". It is entirely understood the compromising position this would place the UN in. My proposal, also, attemptes only to condemn the worst offences in nuclear arms and technology management as well as encourage the most visible of positive practices.

When I wrote the proposal I had a few things in mind:

- try to keep nukes iout of the hands of terrorists

- encourage responsiblity with nukes on a national level

- discourage those nuclear policies which are most egregious to the world

Essentially this proposal is simply designed to set precedents and to put the UN in a "life-friendly" state of mind.

I personally oppose disarmament. This debate is much to multifaceted and nuanced to use such a "bumper sticker" answer to problems. I feel that my proposal addresses many of the subtleties of the issue and directs them positively. This proposal is of a compromised sort, in that it displays a compassion for both sides of the argument and acknowledges the validity of manifold points.

I do not see this proposal as something which can be compared to these primitive and, frankly, banal-in-concept attempts previous (save Sophista's, which is quite well thought out; it's the last thread).

Once again, facing further reiteration of stances, I encourage delegates to approve of this proposal.

I agree. Good God i agree.

Admiral Stuart Kidd,
Colonial Governer High Comissioner of The British Colony of Skidetenland.

You know what's killing you? The name. Nuclear Arms and Technology just doesn't get the juices flowing.

Try submitting it with something catchier, like Prevent Nuclear Terrorism or Responsibilities for Nuclear Powers. At first, second and third glance, it reads as just another disarmament program. Only when you delve into the language does the true intent appear.

Why not work with Sophista's ideas and allies to refine this one a bit? It could stand some punching up. While this would be a decent RL proposal, it's dry as a dead stick to read. You have to capture the (extemely short) attention of the reader.

We still don't support anything that restricts UN nations while (necessarily) allowing nuclear non-UN states to proliferate. That's the key sticking point for all these proposals. The biggest, most militant powers have but to resign to be effectively immune. Until you can resolve that conundrum, you're not going to pass this.

You know what's killing you? The name. Nuclear Arms and Technology just doesn't get the juices flowing.

I Agree. The name was put in as an afterthought, really. I understand that it's stale and gives some wrong impressions.


Try submitting it with something catchier, like Prevent Nuclear Terrorism or Responsibilities for Nuclear Powers. At first, second and third glance, it reads as just another disarmament program. Only when you delve into the language does the true intent appear.

If it fails this time around (which is the vibe I'm getting, though I'm not giving up the ship til it's sunk), I will definitely consider these. I like the first one. Maybe this title change could be used in tandem with a change in direction since anything regulating nukes appears to be written off as a call for total disarmament.


Why not work with Sophista's ideas and allies to refine this one a bit? It could stand some punching up. While this would be a decent RL proposal, it's dry as a dead stick to read. You have to capture the (extemely short) attention of the reader.
I know. Personally I don't like reading it. But when I was in the brainstorming phase I was heavily influenced to make it more...boring. I got the feeling that people weren't interested in a person friendly argument; they were more interested in me being all "lawyer-ish". I should've stuck to my original principle of accessibility in proposal writing (not that I've ever gotten a proposal to work).


We still don't support anything that restricts UN nations while (necessarily) allowing nuclear non-UN states to proliferate. That's the key sticking point for all these proposals. The biggest, most militant powers have but to resign to be effectively immune. Until you can resolve that conundrum, you're not going to pass this.
Okay, understood. I will consider where I want to take this if it fails. Maybe I can transform more into a anti-terrorism bill. That might pass this be-crazed UN.

Maybe I can transform more into a anti-terrorism bill.
don't mean to blow it out of the water for ya, but i'm sure that most UN nations are already opposed to terrorism, so it may become a redundant bill. but that's just my opinion.

back on the original tangent, i am in support of banning the sale of nuclear arms to violent nations and fations. but, on the ther hand, research and development in the nuclear field must continue. not just with nukes, but with other applications of nuclear technology, such as spaceflight and energy generation, esp. in the area of safer disposal (and perhaps reuse or recycling) of nuclear wastes created by fission plants.

i hope this can evolve into a mature, reasonable, and logical proposal about nuclear arms.

don't mean to blow it out of the water for ya, but i'm sure that most UN nations are already opposed to terrorism, so it may become a redundant bill. but that's just my opinion.

Which is exactly why I feel it a viable possibility for a new draft, because it IS a pretty common viewpoint. And I'm sure it would be considered a fairly international issue.

I'll consider how it should be changed if it fails. It is somewhat depressing to me that only now people are taking a more active role in tweaking the proposal--makes drafting pretty redundant.

You said earlier that you were concerned about non-proliferation. Maybe that should be more of a focus - start with the nonproliferation to prevent rogue states and terrorists going nuclear, then add the appeal for responsible behavior from nuclear powers afterward. Because at least in part, accountability is an issue of keeping one's nuclear materiel secure (from, for example, attempted theft), and extraterritorial weapons installations present a higher security risk as well.

I'll consider how it should be changed if it fails. It is somewhat depressing to me that only now people are taking a more active role in tweaking the proposal--makes drafting pretty redundant.I still like it how it is, but I have the patience to read the thing through and see that it does not advocate unilateral total disarmament....

While I would support such a bill, I have some problems with it. Mainly, it's too vague. "Nations should use their nuclear weapons responsibly"? That's far too vague. "Stand accountable"? Too vague. I'd much rather see a bill that specifically limited or completely removed nuclear weapons, in a concrete way, although it's obvious that such a bill would be difficult to pass (seeing as how some people just gotta have their nukes).

The proposal has been defeated, more by clipping error than not. But it wasn't exactly prejected to pass with flying colors before.

I will consider all suggestions people have made, all that they wish to contribute now, and come up with what the plan is.

The possibilities as I see currently existing are thus:

1. I continue the proposal with little or no change, just simply pounding it up the middle hoping that the noteriety gained by submitting 7,000 times without passing gets enough delegates interested. Maybe some changes in advertising

2. I reword the current proposal to make it more accessible and real. Reengineer the advertising campaign entirely. Point the proposal towards Nuclear Responsibility.

3. I scrap most of the propsal, only salvaging the ideas behind anti-terrorism. Which makes new advertising neccessary, as well as friednlier reading. It becomes Counter-Nuclear Terrorism Bill (or somesuch).

When I wrote the proposal I had a few things in mind:

- try to keep nukes iout of the hands of terrorists

- encourage responsiblity with nukes on a national level

- discourage those nuclear policies which are most egregious to the world

Essentially this proposal is simply designed to set precedents and to put the UN in a "life-friendly" state of mind.

From the Office of the Dir. of Armies of New californiajai..............

The situation is that first; Most U.N. nations are responsible with Nuclear Arms. It is in fact the Terrorists who are not. Those Terrorists are generally not members of the U.N. therefore this proposal is of no use and would not effect them at all. Second; Taking our only means of protection is not a good idea!

From the Office of the Dir. of Armies of New californiajai..............

The situation is that first; Most U.N. nations are responsible with Nuclear Arms. It is in fact the Terrorists who are not. Those Terrorists are generally not members of the U.N. therefore this proposal is of no use and would not effect them at all.
And most people are not drunk drivers. The codification into law of a particular argument does not mean that it applies to the majority. If the majority feel this way (and not tat it's too national-issue-ish) it's all the more reason for this proposal (or this type of proposal) to work.



Second; Taking our only means of protection is not a good idea!

Um...you need to read the proposal.

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; [/B]

From the Office of the Dir. of Armies, Admiral S. Schnelle..............

As you can see, i have read and am now pointing out the fact that yes you are stipulating (by choice or not) that we lose a portion of our defense's. The limited number of Nuclear war-heads that New Californiajai have is barely enough to defend our selves if needed (and yes it is often needed), Allthough we have not yet been involved in any wars. Still, I applaud your efforts. Also we must look at the fact that even if we could control who sells what nuclear arms to what nation, we force these terrorists or even well developed nations to consider other forms of WMD(weapons of mass destruction). You should include in your proposal such possabilities. You limit your Goal (i believe which is to limit the number of deaths caused from these weapons), expand the proposal to include all forms of WMD, including Bio-weapons, Chemical weapons, and the likes. First ask yourself "What kind of a goal do i want to reach", then consider all the ways to reach your goal, including asking others for input, even if you dont like it.

Admiral S. Schnelle

Approved by U.N. Rep. Mr. Chen Zhang, New Californiajai

From the Office of the U.N. Rep. Chen Zhang, New Californiajai...........

Of courrse, i am inclinded to agree with the Admiral on this one. If you take away one form of destruction, Terrorists and well developed nations will strive to find another more powerful type of weapon to use. Besides, as we have seen from history, allowing more well developed (And Responsible) country's the use of said Nuclear Weapons it is deemed as a deterent of sorts. The Example would be from 1945 or so involving the attack on pearl Harbor and the not so far off retaliation with the Atom Bomb, as you know, after the Japanese saw the awsome power the Atom Bomb welded instaed of continuing the war, they surrendered. Of course, this could or could not be applicable today, With so many nations and Terrorists weilding such fire power most willing to go to the grave for thier cause, it is difficult to say. I would ask of you, what is your goal, just to get rid of Nuclear weapons or to rid the world of WMD that can kill so many people and effect the enviroment. I will be willing to re-evaluate your proposal after you can explain more indepth, YOUR GOAL.

U.N. Rep. Mr. Chen Zhang
New Californiajai

From the Office of the Dir. of Armies, Admiral S. Schnelle..............

As you can see, i have read and am now pointing out the fact that yes you are stipulating (by choice or not) that we lose a portion of our defense's.
Typically assertion is not an effective debate tool. I do not see in what way I am stipulating that you "lose a portion of [your defenses]."



Also we must look at the fact that even if we could control who sells what nuclear arms to what nation, we force these terrorists or even well developed nations to consider other forms of WMD(weapons of mass destruction).

This proposal is only interested in nuclear terror as it is the most reticent and provides the greatest potantial for destruction (IMHO).

I do not force terrorists to turn to other forms of destructive devices by trying to keep them from nuclear devices. I am simply attempting to keep the most dangerous devices away from them


then consider...asking others for input, even if you dont like it.


Done, and done. I've asked for input, and I haven't liked it.

Only a seldom few really seem to care, anyway. Unless, of course, it has RL links and smileys in it...

allowing more well developed (And Responsible) country's the use of said Nuclear Weapons it is deemed as a deterent of sorts.

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


I would ask of you, what is your goal, just to get rid of Nuclear weapons or to rid the world of WMD that can kill so many people and effect the enviroment.

I believe that "MY GOAL" is fairly self-evident through the proposal text: to regulate nuclear arms. By "Regulate" I don't mean "Get rid of", I mean cut out the bad and set precedents for the good.

I judge nuclear regulation legislation and "WMD regulation legislation" as seperation imperative. If they are put together they will not only never pass, but they'll be large and unwieldy (even more so than this previous stale proposal). If you wish to spearhead a motion regulating chemical weapons (as biological agents have already been "banished" from the UN), more power to you, admiral.

[QUOTE=Powerhungry Chipmunks] I do not see in what way I am stipulating that you "lose a portion of [your defenses]."

I do not force terrorists to turn to other forms of destructive devices by trying to keep them from nuclear devices. I am simply attempting to keep the most dangerous devices away from them[QUOTE]

From the Office of the Rep. to U.N. Mr. Chen Zhang................

Dear Powerhungry Chipmunks,

First i will again show you that your proposal does want a decline in our defense (should this pass). I quote"7.SUGGESTS and ENDORSES the scaling back of nuclear stockpiles" Which if you read that again means that some of my nuclear stockpiles will be scaled back, nuclear stockpiles being my nations defense and scaling back meaning removal(of some). Again i quote" The sighning of treaties against nuclear arm usage" here we have treaties against the usage, meaning my nation cannot, and nuclear arm usage, meaning my nations defense. I trully hope i have shown you what we mean by our nation will lose some of its defense.
Second, you want to keep nuclear arms away from terrorists because they are the most dangerous. I agree, yet there is more out there than that, that if implemented correctly could be far more dangerous. (OOC-The ban on Biological weapons does not effect any nation who has arrived in the UN after the proposal passed, such as my nation who indeed does have biological weapons stored"securely" allthough not much). If your goa; is simply to regulate nuclear arms then i am sorry the Republic of New Californiajai cannot endorse such a proposal, however we will aid in detering the sales of said nuclear arms to any terrorist nation (whomever my nations leaders deem as terrorists).

Thank you for your time,
Mr. Chen Zhang

(OOC-The ban on Biological weapons does not effect any nation who has arrived in the UN after the proposal passed, such as my nation who indeed does have biological weapons stored"securely" allthough not much).

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Your nation's stats did not get affected when the Compliance Ministry made its sweep immediately following passage ... but the instant you clicked the "Join the UN" button, you instantly agreed to follow all previously passed resolutions. You do NOT have the right to keep forbidden biological weapons. Get rid of them safely, please, or risk a blockade and economic embargo (at minimum) from Frisbeeteria and like-minded nations.

First i will again show you that your proposal does want a decline in our defense (should this pass).

*ignoring the fact that there wasn't a primary "showing"

I quote"7.SUGGESTS and ENDORSES the scaling back of nuclear stockpiles" Which if you read that again means that some of my nuclear stockpiles will be scaled back, nuclear stockpiles being my nations defense and scaling back meaning removal(of some).

First off, I don't have to read it again. I wrote it. look carefully at that verb. I do not say "requires" or "mandates" the scaling back of nuclear stockpiles. I am simply suggesting it as a way to ease nuclear tensions around the world. However it is recognized that in certain nations (such as your own) this is not as feasible as in others. Thus some discretion is given to the individual nations.


Again i quote" The sighning of treaties against nuclear arm usage" here we have treaties against the usage, meaning my nation cannot, and nuclear arm usage, meaning my nations defense. I trully hope i have shown you what we mean by our nation will lose some of its defense.

Yes, this proposal said that it would be a good idea to sign treaties against nuclear arms usage. Did it say how many or with whom you should sign these treaties? No. Again, every case is different and every situation needs individual assessment. That is why the practice of signing treaties is endorsed rather than forced.


...i am sorry the Republic of New Californiajai cannot endorse such a proposal, however we will aid in detering the sales of said nuclear arms to any terrorist nation (whomever my nations leaders deem as terrorists).

Great, then you'll be interested in supporting in my other proposal idea, the "The Nuclear Terrorism Act" which is specifically about keeping nukes away from terrorists.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Your nation's stats did not get affected when the Compliance Ministry made its sweep immediately following passage ... but the instant you clicked the "Join the UN" button, you instantly agreed to follow all previously passed resolutions. You do NOT have the right to keep forbidden biological weapons. Get rid of them safely, please, or risk a blockade and economic embargo (at minimum) from Frisbeeteria and like-minded nations.


OOC: This is a common mistake that many newbies make. A word to those of you that are tempted to continue to deny this ...

From the Game FAQ:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

If I'm remembering correctly, there have been a few moderator rulings on this. The reason they don't change game stats to reflect this is really a game coding issue.

If you want to insist this isn't the case, fine ... do so at your own risk, but be aware that many of the players you might want to interact with consider ignoring the FAQ very bad form and tend to ignore your posts.

But roleplaying an actual violation with the intent to stir things up, is of course encouraged. :) We still might ignore you, but we'll do it with much more respect when we understand you are in fact playing by the game rules as established by the FAQ.

Which is what Frisbeeteria said: your "game stats" don't change, but you do enter into the same "compliance agreement" the UN members who were here when it was passed did.

I'm amused that it takes two different posters a total of 6 paragraphs to explain a single, clearly-written sentence of mine.

OOC: This is a common mistake that many newbies make. A word to those of you that are tempted to continue to deny this ...

From the Game FAQ:



If I'm remembering correctly, there have been a few moderator rulings on this. The reason they don't change game stats to reflect this is really a game coding issue.

If you want to insist this isn't the case, fine ... do so at your own risk, but be aware that many of the players you might want to interact with consider ignoring the FAQ very bad form and tend to ignore your posts.

But roleplaying an actual violation with the intent to stir things up, is of course encouraged. :) We still might ignore you, but we'll do it with much more respect when we understand you are in fact playing by the game rules as established by the FAQ.

OOC: Thank you for seing it as it is, sometimes it is so hard to stir things up without everyone pointing fingers or whining. If i am ignored by the overrighteous then tough luck for them, im pretty good with this RP thing.

I'm amused that it takes two different posters a total of 6 paragraphs to explain a single, clearly-written sentence of mine.

OOC:----WEEEELLLLL, EXCUUUUUUSSSSSEEEE them! Not everyone can be as perfect as you, Verbal articulation is differnt for some, and Mikitivity had a little more to say than you, i do beleive.

OOC: Is there a place that a guy can read every single proposal that has passed, i mean it will make things easier. If there is then Link me please, and if there is no way of finding out about all th past proposals that have been made into law then.......I guess im not breaking the law.........your word against mine kinda thing. thank you fo your patience.

OOC: Is there a place that a guy can read every single proposal that has passed...
The link is on the main UN page. Click UN Resolutions throughout History (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=UN_past_resolutions) for a complete list.
Not everyone can be as perfect as you
Just because somebody doesn't use smileys to indicate emotional states doesn't make every comment sarcastic or a put-down. I *was* amused ...