NationStates Jolt Archive

All arguments made I think this is the only form anything nuclear will pass through the UN without any major sticking points. Here goes.

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and technologies,

NOTING the power of nations to secure nuclear power,

AFFIRMING the UN's role as example ot the world,

1. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or devices to known or suspected terrorist organizations;

2. DISCOURAGES VEHEMENTLY the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or technology to any extra-national group;

3. OPPOSES the proliferation of arms or technologies to newly developing nations;

4. IDENTIFIES with positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices.


Any fedback is welcomed.

When it is finally submitted, please forward this on to your region delegate.

I'm guessing you'll code this

Global Disarmament, Strength: Mild ?

I think it's a security measure....

I like this proposal with the exception of :
3. OPPOSES the proliferation of arms or technologies to newly developing nations

I am a newly developing nation of sorts. All members of the UN at sometime or another were developing nations. Why wouldn't we allow a peaceful developing nation that abides by:
4. IDENTIFIES with positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices.
..to secure their own responsible nuclear weapons practices as a deterent against nations or states that would use nuclear weapons irresponsibly against developing countries?

I would vote approval for this resolution as long as part3 were removed. I think it's a good proposal as long as we give developing nations the same chance we have been allowed.

What if I were to change the wording?

instead of OPPOSES we could put a little less of an intrusive verb in there.

CAUTIONS (strongly)

DISCOURAGES

DISAGREES

Anything like that. The theory behind it has to with the "the fewer nuke-toting nations out there the more at ease the nuclearly tense world" idea. Why should developed nations, helping developing nations, which often do not have the past and resources to maintain nuclear arms and war technologies responsibly. Either way, the clause will change (was requested), even if it's just a softening of the wording.

All arguments made I think this is the only form anything nuclear will pass through the UN without any major sticking points. Here goes.NEVER ! ;)

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and technologies,*The Rep of Komokom growls and mumbles about how subjective " terrorist " is and how maybe a fairly accurate definition is required ...NOTING the power of nations to secure nuclear power,Eh ? So, noting they can develop or purchase ? Yes ?AFFIRMING the UN's role as example ot the world,Well, yeah, I suppose, though maybe more like " Affirming the N.S.U.N's role in the world for promoting peace and global security ... " ...1. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or devices to known or suspected terrorist organizations;Know or suspected by who ?2. DISCOURAGES VEHEMENTLY the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or technology to any extra-national group;Hmmm, okay ... though considering the context of " nuclear arms or technology " that means just about anything in any use which meits more then back-groundlevels of rads ...3. OPPOSES the proliferation of arms or technologies to newly developing nations;This seems unfair. What gives me a greater right to have nuclear weapons then my colony nation of TrES-1 ?4. IDENTIFIES with positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices.This seems a little un-clear to me ... practices as in detonation ? Storage practices ? Construction practices ? Transport practices ? Sorry, but I have very little idea what the intent of this clause is I am afraid.

Hope that helps you in your development practices, ;)

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizatons) acquiring nuclear weapons and technologies,

NOTING the responsibility of nations to monitor and manage their nuclear weapons and technologies,

AFFIRMING the UN's role as example to the world,

1. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or devices to known or suspected terrorist organizations;

2. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or technology to any extra-national organization;

3. CAUTIONS AGAINST the proliferation of arms or technologies to irresponsible nations;

4. IDENTIFIES WITH and ENDORSES positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices everywhere.


There. Certain parts have been changed to clarify. Clause 4 is still "unclear in intention". I have neither the time nor the will right now to change that.

I'm not particularly sure that "responsible nuclear practices" needs to be defined. There's a general agreement in the international community of certain things that constitute irresponsible use, e.g. atomospheric testing, proliferating for profit, and so on. Still, the possible scenarios for unscrupulous action are limitless, and attempting to reign it in with any kind of bullet point list or legalise imperative would prove difficult.

This is a case where the United Nations could give a bit of authority back to individual nations. This would allow nations to develop nuclear policy that takes into account regional and national politics, without sacrificing the greater good of the world. Sophista, for example, imposes a strict export ban on any technology that has exclusive nuclear purposes. We refuse to sell centrifuges for uranium enrichment, designs for nuclear weapons, or similar products. However, not every nation is in a sitution as fortunate as our own.

Just something to keep in mind.

Good point, Sophista. It seemed a sticking point (among many) for Komokom so (as much cop-out as not) I decided I didn't have the time to do it.

Besides that I want a more people friendly wording this time. Last nuclear proposal I tried was booed as too wordy or, what was the phrase for "reading like a dried stick" ? (misquote?) Anyway, I like the last clause the way it is. I feel if I make it any more bulky in that region that it'll not only get catcalls, but it'll be unpassable (and that's IF it's passable now).

If someone wants to go through and list some responsible nuclear practices, I say more power to them. Let it be in their proposal, not mine. And as you stated, it'd be a nearly fruitless exercise regardless of whether it passed or not. At least, fruitless compared to the difficulty involved.

I do not know what category to file this under. I've always been led to beleive this type of thing should go under global disarmament, but I kind of feel that it greatly affects internation security. But I'm not sure it's a proposal to "raise military budgets worldwide". Any suggestions would be welcomed.

And I'm still welcoming suggestions to the proposal text. I've only been over it with my roughest comb, so there are probably some errors in theory and practice.

One day (if it had been possible in-game to use them) my nation will have nukes, weapons, business and fun stuff (that belong to good games). If this happens (as it would every now and again in the real world) this kind of wussy U.N. would have to wage a war to take it away from most of their member states.

Think of the widespread destruction. The vacant nations after their territories have been reduced to a slimy mudge in which only coackroaches and flies live and who knows what would really survive. The strategical bombers flying in and out of countries day and night as major regions fall to the curse of apocalyptic warring.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
And that would be SO cool!

It'd be very, very quiet. I might have to go Helieginstadt if that happened.

-signed Ludwig: Brain owner

It'd be very, very quiet. I might have to go Helieginstadt if that happened.

-signed Ludwig: Brain owner

Helieginstadt? What kind of place is that?
And I'm also saying it would only be fun for like three weeks. Most nations would be dead by then and then it would grow quiet and we would know how a recently post-nuclear Earth would be like. But it would be fun to sling those all-destroying nukes at the n00bs and people you don't like. Maybe one might develop some kind of STARWARS system to take them down. Oh... orbital weapons... hmmm.

I'm thinking of adding another clause to make this a little more concise it's be something like

CALLS UPON UN member nations to keep accurate records of and maintain the security of their respective nuclear arms and technologies;

This is also a bump-like post too

with a little work, i think i could like this.