NationStates Jolt Archive

Once again, I'm submitting this. I believe that it is in sync with the beliefs of a large enough number of regional delegates that it will pass this time. I will be telegramming the delegates I've recorded as supporting it in the past later tonight. And more "at-large" telegramming will occur tonight and otherwise as needed. Here, once again, is the proposal.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant


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, devices, or technologies 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. CALLS UPON UN member nations to maintain adequate security over and records of nuclear arms and technology;

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

I continue to hope this proposal gets accepted and will ask my UN Delegate to vote on this again.

Once again, I'm submitting this. I believe that it is in sync with the beliefs of a large enough number of regional delegates that it will pass this time. I will be telegramming the delegates I've recorded as supporting it in the past later tonight. And more "at-large" telegramming will occur tonight and otherwise as needed. Here, once again, is the proposal.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant


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, devices, or technologies 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. CALLS UPON UN member nations to maintain adequate security over and records of nuclear arms and technology;

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


Again I am forced to question the use of the word terrorist in conjunction with the word prohibit.

I would question the use of the phrase "extra-national" but since it only "discourages strongly" there is still leaway built in.

*desperately shouts: Approve! Approve! Approve!

*chants "Hey-bonnie-shore and a washi-tashi-tosh"

*Oops!

*Opens can on top of head...

Uh, anyway, please approve this proposal I really want it to go through this time because I know it has enough support! I know deep down inside it does!
Please, support a good cause.

Uh, anyway, please approve this proposal I really want it to go through this time because I know it has enough support! I know deep down inside it does!
Please, support a good cause.

Aren't you averaging around 100 endorsements near the deadline in the past few submissions? I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember that your proposal *was* among one of the more popular ones.

That said, if it gets over 100, give us the total. Sometimes Delegates will be more liberal with their endorsements once they see others have started the process.

Unfortunately, we do not have any accurate numbers from the first tme it was introduced I know that it got over 50, but I'm not sure how much further it went.

Last time Chipmunks submitted it, though it got over 100, it got about 114, if I remember correctly. Hopefully we can add to that now.

Sorry, I will vote against this resolution if it makes it to a full vote and I will ask my delegate to do the same. It is "void for vaugness" IMHO. Who gets to decide what is a "known terrorist organization" or a "suspected terrorist organization?" Suspected by who? Known by who? Sorry, I like the intent, but the resolution is too vague. What if I declare Hammas to be a political orgainziation and made up of "freedom fighters?" (I wouldn't, but what if?) Tighten up you language please and I'll give it more consideration.

Last time Chipmunks submitted it, though it got over 100, it got about 114, if I remember correctly. Hopefully we can add to that now.

That is pretty darn close (and better matches with what I remember ... I check out that first page about 5 times a week). :)

A bit of advise: have all of your region members add an endorsement sticker in your signature file. Many of us have them turned off, but I like to read them as short sigs can be a good way of letting others know what your nation is supporting.

I'll be changing mine tonight to reflect my regions most recent proposal -- actually it is a resubmittal, as it had over 70 endorsements with ZERO campaigning in its first try, and I'm confident that if I contact the supporters of that proposal that we can get it into the queue.

Best of luck!

(I'll see what I can do for the signature shortly, I don't have the time as of now, though.)

I know there's a big repeal bananza going on right now, but how about approving The Nuclear Terrorism Act While you're back there taking out the "Fight the Axzis of evil" resolution...please?

It's really cool.

Everyone's doin' it.

Oh and a big, big thanks to those that have already approved it. It is incredibly appreciated.

Sorry, I will vote against this resolution if it makes it to a full vote and I will ask my delegate to do the same. It is "void for vaugness" IMHO. Who gets to decide what is a "known terrorist organization" or a "suspected terrorist organization?" Suspected by who? Known by who? Sorry, I like the intent, but the resolution is too vague. What if I declare Hammas to be a political orgainziation and made up of "freedom fighters?" (I wouldn't, but what if?) Tighten up you language please and I'll give it more consideration.

I have tried asking this twice, and no one seems to be paying attention. I think that people want to write this in to law so they can start abusing it by defining "terrorist" as "anyone who disagrees with them". But maybe that's just me being cynical.

Just so as you are aware, I am not going to support it unless they can clarify the definition of "terrorist organization", whether "known" or "suspected".

I have tried asking this twice, and no one seems to be paying attention. I think that people want to write this in to law so they can start abusing it by defining "terrorist" as "anyone who disagrees with them". But maybe that's just me being cynical.

Just so as you are aware, I am not going to support it unless they can clarify the definition of "terrorist organization", whether "known" or "suspected".

Thank you for your support, this is obviously a "feel good" Knee jerk law that has no real thought behind it or it is, as you contend, a law designed to allow those in power to dictate protectionist policy to the rest of us. My guess is no one will answer our contentions because they don't dare expose their ignorance.

My guess is no one will answer our contentions because they don't dare expose their ignorance.
My guess would be that Powerhungry Chipmunks has proposed variants of this for about two months now, and that everything that he defined in his stronger and more detailed proposals was shouted down.

You can either have a sharply defined proposal with a ton of definitions (and therefore unaddressed loopholes), or you can leave it vague so people can play with it. Both ways have their defenders and detractors, and they'll never find middle ground in this game. Just not possible.

Insulting PH as ignorant only makes *you* look bad. Here, take a look at all the previous versions (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=Powerhungry+Chipmunks) and tell me PH hasn't worked hard on this. I don't like this proposal, never have ... but he's paid his dues.

My guess would be that Powerhungry Chipmunks has proposed variants of this for about two months now, and that everything that he defined in his stronger and more detailed proposals was shouted down.

You can either have a sharply defined proposal with a ton of definitions (and therefore unaddressed loopholes), or you can leave it vague so people can play with it. Both ways have their defenders and detractors, and they'll never find middle ground in this game. Just not possible.

Insulting PH as ignorant only makes *you* look bad. Here, take a look at all the previous versions (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=Powerhungry+Chipmunks) and tell me PH hasn't worked hard on this. I don't like this proposal, never have ... but he's paid his dues.

Personally I am not insulting him - I think it is a well written proposal and I have no problems with it, except the one I have mentioned.

If I have come across as insulting him I apologise most profusely to him and to anyone else I might have offended, as that was really not my intention.

In regards to the issue I have - even if it were to say that each nation has a right to define terrorist organizations, both known and suspected, then I would not have an issue with it. However I do have a real fear (which is not the right word - concern?) that this judgement - as to what is and what isn't a T.O. would be left in the hands of nations which would abuse it. And that would be my reason for not supporting the resolution as it stands.

Here is a previous anti-terrorist resolution that I argued against for similar reasons. By comparison this one is ever so reasonable:Originally Posted by BeniciusWe live in troubled times. Many terrorist states continue to plague peace loving peoples and wreak havoc on millions on a daily basis. It is now time the UN took action and put a swift end to those states which would seek to cause pain and suffering in the most cowardly ways.

It is proposed that: Nations harbouring terrorists be placed at the mercy of any state and that no UN member shall offer protection or enter into conflict on the terrorists side.
UN member governments be given international permission to deal with terrorists and terrorist sympathisers in any way they see fit without repercussion by other nationstates who may also be UN members.
UN member governments actively seek out and eradicate terrorism of all forms.... and a couple of my responses:Who are the terrorists, exactly? Did you ever pause to ask that question?

Definition One: one who uses violence, torture, or physical intimidation to achieve one's ends, esp. one's political ends.

Definition Two: one of an unofficial or loosely organized group of soldiers who stage unconventional or surprise attacks against an enemy.

See the difference? Not much of one, is there? Here's the thing, though - #1 is a definiton of terrorist. #2 can be a definition of the following:

Freedom fighter, devotee, sympathizer, Jacobin, radical, revolutionary, nonconformist, Maquis, agitator, anarchist, ultra, fanatic, True Believer, sectarian, partisan, guerrilla, insurgent, irregular, disciple, Young Turk, extremist

Which is the terrorist? The anti-abortionist who bombs a clinic, or an abortion doctor who performs the procedure? Depends on which side of the aisle you sit on, doesn't it?

Is this a terrorist? This guy sneaks into enemy territory and kills the head of the intelligence agency with a sniper rifle. His name? Bond. James Bond.

Terrorism depends on which side you are on. Terror is a weapon used by the weak against the mighty. It's fine to condemn terror when you're one of the mighty ... but it's another thing when beleagered Freedom Fighters are struggling to bring medical supplies into your plague-ridden country, while the evil empire that is your enemy bombs your cities and kills your countrymen.

You want to fight acts of terror? Fine. Define them as such. Figure out which actual acts offend the international sensibility, and condemn those. As long as you let yourselves be ruled by the word terrorism and ignore the acts of terror, you deserve all the punative laws and abuse that get passed in that name.Originally Posted by Benicius
If you do not know what terrorism is already, then perhaps you need to spend more on your nation's education system.You just don't get it, do you? OK, let's make this super simple. Your proposal passes, exactly as written.
A resident of Benicius throws a water balloon.
Since water balloonings are considered terrorist acts in Frisbeteria, we declare Benicius a Terrorist State.
We n00k you until you're nothing more than a smoking pit.
Nobody from the UN can do a damn thing to stop us, thanks to your Article 2.
We giggle manaically at the thought of such a stupid proposal ever giving us a clear and open mandate to destroy whomever we dislike.[
If you want to read the whole silly thing, it's here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=309784).

I have tried asking this twice, and no one seems to be paying attention. I think that people want to write this in to law so they can start abusing it by defining "terrorist" as "anyone who disagrees with them". But maybe that's just me being cynical.

Just so as you are aware, I am not going to support it unless they can clarify the definition of "terrorist organization", whether "known" or "suspected".

As indirectly stated in the proposal a "terrorist organization" is a malignant, extra national organization. The defining of organizations as terrorist organizations is of course up to individual nations. It can be assumed that any powers not specifically mentioned as otherwise by the proposal are, by default, the nation's. The use of this phrase under the clause headed "Prohibits" in fact creates no loophole for people abusing the definition, as the proposal empowers no nation to do anything against the said terrorist organization. Except not give them nukes. Which is already in my power to do, proposal or not.

Say, hypothetically I don't like what Komokom Co. is doing, so I decide that, in my country, it's a terrorist organization. So, thus, I stop trading in nuclear arms with that country. What is the discrimination here?

None, because it was always in my nation's power to stop trading nuclear arms with Komokom Co. I can already stop trading nukes to anyone, whether I use the "they're terrorists!" argument or not.

OOC: Woot! woot! I'm 200! Time to start collecting social security.

As indirectly stated in the proposal a "terrorist organization" is a malignant, extra national organization. The defining of organizations as terrorist organizations is of course up to individual nations. It can be assumed that any powers not specifically mentioned as otherwise by the proposal are, by default, the nation's. The use of this phrase under the clause headed "Prohibits" in fact creates no loophole for people abusing the definition, as the proposal empowers no nation to do anything against the said terrorist organization. Except not give them nukes. Which is already in my power to do, proposal or not.

Say, hypothetically I don't like what Komokom Co. is doing, so I decide that, in my country, it's a terrorist organization. So, thus, I stop trading in nuclear arms with that country. What is the discrimination here?

None, because it was always in my nation's power to stop trading nuclear arms with Komokom Co. I can already stop trading nukes to anyone, whether I use the "they're terrorists!" argument or not.

OOC: Woot! woot! I'm 200! Time to start collecting social security.


Either I missed the part where this was explained, or it wasn't explained in a way that I understood. Either way I do apologize.

If - as you say - "The defining of organizations as terrorist organizations is of course up to individual nations" then I have no problem with prohibiting the sale to them. My main fear was that - to take your example - if you didn't like what Komokom was doing, you could have it put on a big list of terrorists somewhere and all UN nations would be forbidden from trading with them. Which if I supported their endeavour (and by the way - I have never heard of them, so I don't support them or oppose them in anyway, before we start debating the merits of Komokom!) would be a prolem for me.

But if I retain the right to define terrorist as it relates to my nation then I have no problem with it.

*ALERT! ALERT!*

Only 23 more approvals needed! Please approve this measure! Help me in my fight! Thanks for your support and time! Please Approve!

Alert! only 16 more approvals needed! Thank you delegates so much for your support thus far.

Just 16 more! let's see if we can make it just 15 more! C'mon!

Gimme a P!

Gimme a C!

What's that spell?

Powerhungry Chipmunks!

Please approve this proposal

Once again, I'm submitting this. I believe that it is in sync with the beliefs of a large enough number of regional delegates that it will pass this time. I will be telegramming the delegates I've recorded as supporting it in the past later tonight. And more "at-large" telegramming will occur tonight and otherwise as needed. Here, once again, is the proposal.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant


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, devices, or technologies 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. CALLS UPON UN member nations to maintain adequate security over and records of nuclear arms and technology;

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



I say approve it, but also tighten the regulations on it, making the sale of arms to known or suspected terrorist organizations punishable by death.

I say approve it, but also tighten the regulations on it, making the sale of arms to known or suspected terrorist organizations punishable by death.

I am not sure if Powerhungry Chipmunks is going to take you up on your suggestion, but it is something I could not approve of, and would cause me to rethink all my support for the proposal should it come to a vote.

TilEnca has no death penalty, and there is no crime in the world for which my government would see it introduced.

TilEnca has it right on the money. I've built too much of a base of support for my current proposal and the level of regulatuion it presents, to vary that now. To change that level of regulation now would spell doom to the proposal, wasting all the time I've spent on the current proposal form.

Speaking of which, it only needs 12 more approvals! Please telegram your delegate! Approve this proposal!

only 8 more! let's go proposal! Approve Please!

It is at 137 right now. :)

Jumping up from his typically unruffled seat in the UN general assembly, Sam Palleel unleashed an uninhibited "Woohoo!" He felt like the king of the world. No one could win against him today. The UN seemed, for the first time in a long time, like a friendly place. Years were lifted from his face. He didn't have to worry that many senior members were retiring and more and more eyes were being placed on him to provide some leadership to the younger ranks. He didn't have to worry that the UN delegate corps was being increasingly consolidated in one overbearing lobby intent on shaping the organization to their liking. And he didn't have to worry about the impending debate which was sure to include many "toothless" and "overgeneralized" comments. Now was a time for celebration. He could put his fears away for the night and finally, finally be at peace. For the time being, anyway.

OOC: I would like to show my deep appreciation for everyone that has approved of this proposal and has brought it this far. I am so glad for those that stuck it out after the ignored brainstorming, the misguided drafts, the botched submission timing, the failed telegram campaigns, and finally through the final stretch of the delegate phase, to approval. Thank you so much!

Now we just have to win the general assembly. Luckily though, we have until monday before we really have to worry about that. Until then, PARTY!

Congratulations. You deserve it.

Congratulations - I look forward to this coming to the floor.

I think you've done it. I very much doubt this will be defeated the way things are going. Congratulations in advance.

Remove reform 2

The trade of Nuclear armaments is very important to my nations prosperity.


Without section 2 I can accept this.

Boosting military and police funds you don't abolish terrorism, you BOOST terrorism! And who is the terrorist? A nation with a huge nuclear arsenal doesn't create terror? The problem is not to who the nuclear weapons belong to, the problem is why to be any nuclear weapons at all?

Folks, this thread isn't the discussion of the current proposal. That can be found here: Opening the Debate on Nuclear Terrorism Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=360947)

Please don't gravedig older topics to rant when there is a perfectly good ranting topic already open. Thank you.

MJ Donovan
Self-appointed UN Chief of Protocol.