NationStates Jolt Archive

The Nuclear Terrorism Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizations) 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.




This resolution has almost no teeth. It suggests a lot without actually forcing anybody to do anything, except for section 1. My qualms are the fact that it defines terrorist very broadly, and that, given it will do very little, is listed as significant.

The People's Republic strongly believes in the right of every ethnic group to self-determination. Many of the countries in the august body likly got their start by kicking out colonial overlords to create new and independent countries. To that end, we support the rights of organizations seeking self-determination to acheive their goals by any means neccessary, and supporting arming those groups with whatever means they need to achieve victory in their struggles. Therefore, we strongly oppose this U.N. proposal and call on other like-minded countries to do the same!

This resolution is very vague in the definition of a terrorist organization and it also allows for an organization that is merely "suspected" to be treated just as if it were guilty of being a terrorist organization. Additionally, how is this categorization maintained? Is there a list somewhere of "terrorist organizations" that can be referenced to see if it is okay to conduct business with said organization?

The same could be said for the definition of "irresponsible nations".


I cannot vote for this resolution in its current form. I laud its intentions, but disagree with how it has been written.

I would propose that a body be formed by the UN which would define these terms and would maintain a list of nations that fit those those definitions. The UN can, at that point, enforce such a resolution.

I really don't like it. No definition of terrorist = not my vote.

But given that I've just left the UN, nothing's got my vote at the moment.

I have mixed opinions about this resolution.

On the one hand it is vague in a number of key areas.

On the other hand, it is a lot better written than the measure we just defeated.

Moreover it falls within the UN Fallacy trap, the UN, although large is not the entire NS universe. Prohibiting Member UN nations from selling or transferring technology will not prvent such technology from being transferred. It's a nice statement of principle, and it doesn't really per se endanger the security of any individual NS UN member, but if this resolution has no teeth, it's only because in the end, resolutions of this nature can only be symbolic because the UN cannot legislate for all of NS.

Tzorsland, now speaking only for itself, will withhold it's vote at this time.

Tzorsland abstains, courteously.

The nation of Whatisthisia objects to this being put to vote in the first place.

A UN resolution that says that nuclear arms are dangerous and you should not sell them and nothing more is pointless at best!

We recommend this resolution be withdrawn, revised and resubmitted when it will actually have a meaning, point and purpose other than creating headlines to glorify some politician seeking reelection and causing bureaucratic muck for the rest of us!

Such is the opinion of Whatisthisia

The nation of Syndra does not sanction this resolution.

This is nothing more than an anti-war side proposal using fear of 'terrorists' to disarm UN nations while allowing other countries, larger or smaller, to still harbor these weapons. This is dangerous to countries both in and out of the UN.

There are also no details and stuff other people have said.

Had this proposal more “teeth” there'd be the same number of complaints (possibly by the same nations) that it was too demanding and that it trampled upon national sovereignty. In the drafting process there was much care being put into this resolution's wording so as not to overstep, or appear to overstep, to those that rely on nuclear arms trade for economic reasons. It is not only arrogant but wrong to believe that there aren't exceptions to rules. This is why the resolution carries with it some flexible modifiers and some fairly "plain spoken" (or as you say "vague") terms.


We recommend this resolution be withdrawn, revised and resubmitted when it will actually have a meaning, point and purpose other than creating headlines to glorify some politician seeking reelection and causing bureaucratic muck for the rest of us!

This resolution does have meaning. It sets precedents and states the goals and mindset of the UN clearly. The UN is not wholly decided on whether to disarm or regulate nuclear weapons (which seems to be the end to which you are suggesting), or to exploit the nuclear arms market for all it's worth. The UN body has a lot of trouble agreeing on this. And there are lots of good reasons for it. If we did totally disarm, what about the non-UN nations? They'd still have nuclear weapons. Or conversely, if we don't at least make some effort towards regulation of nuclear weapons, what are we doing to help the MAD situation? How are we keeping international relations secure for future generations?

For a super-charged subject like nuclear weapons, where people will likely nuke you just for suggesting disarmament, or for disagreeing with it, I think this is as good as it's going to get. For right now, anyway.

I felt it important in the drafting process that Nations be allowed as much say in this area, as they have so greatly differing yet equally viable opinions. If this resolutions fails on the floor I invite your nation to take an active role in the re-drawing of it so that it'll "actually mean something" and so that it'll pass at the same time (two statements which are at times mutually exclusive).

I really don't like it. No definition of terrorist = not my vote.

I appreciate Enn's participation in the UN even though it has no direct bearing on Enn as a nation, in a legislative sense.

It was designed to not define "terrorists" It defines a "terrorist organization" loosely and I suppose that that, in a circular manner, could define a "terrorist".

The reason it doesn't go into lengthy terms as far as who is and isn't a terrorist, is because, since the control of many factors of this resolution are in the hands of the individual nation , it made sense to cut to the chase, deliver the bottom line and let nations be honest with themselves. It is up to the nations themselves to determine who or what this resolution precludes as a source of terrorism. I found no need in the drafting of this resolution to get caught up in the legal matters of definition as they are ultimately decided by the UN member nations themselves anyway.

The nation of Syndra does not sanction this resolution.

This is nothing more than an anti-war side proposal using fear of 'terrorists' to disarm UN nations while allowing other countries, larger or smaller, to still harbor these weapons. This is dangerous to countries both in and out of the UN.

That would be a perfectly valid point, if the resolution actually encouraged disarmament. In fact there is no provision anywhere in the resolution stating that UN member nations disarm. The original "Nuclear Regulation Act" suggested things such as this, but that was several drafts (and long periods lacking endorsement) ago and those features are no longer present in this resolution.

Perhaps a more careful reading is in order.


There are also no details and stuff other people have said.

There are details, the complaints are that they just aren't as much as some nations want. I, erring on the side of "writing a resolution that a delegate might want to approve", decided to streamline it as much as possible. This resulted in the "un-detailed" state it has now. It may not be and end all resolution, but it is a start.

Perhaps a more careful reading is in order.[QUOTE]

That is true. My bad. I have re-read, and the line I dislike immensely is:

[QUOTE]RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizations) acquiring nuclear weapons and technologies.

I suppose this is the line that makes it seem like a scare-tactic resolution..
but it is a good start for nuclear weapons.

Syndra will change its vote.

This resolution is very vague in the definition of a terrorist organization and it also allows for an organization that is merely "suspected" to be treated just as if it were guilty of being a terrorist organization. Additionally, how is this categorization maintained? Is there a list somewhere of "terrorist organizations" that can be referenced to see if it is okay to conduct business with said organization?

The same could be said for the definition of "irresponsible nations".

The designation as either a terrorist organization or a irresponsible nation is to be done by the individual nation. If this weren't the case, the ideals behind this would become quickly enveloped by UN bureaucracy and it would be create an unfair lack of representation for the individual nations. This resolution is not here to punish nations, but mainly a standard for nations to enforce upon themselves.

We've tried to address this subject by other means (regulations, disarmament, etc.) and each time the opinions in the UN are too varying to come to a consensus as to which regulations are or are not worthwhile and how disarmament should be carried out. We in the UN just don't agree on this issue, even though it is of great international consequence. Thus this resolution is here to provide the guidelines and mindsets of the UN and it reserves key powers for the individual nations.

PC -

With that interpretation, I'd withdraw my opposition to the resolution. However, I agree that it is unenforcable and should be considered insignificant. It's just a statement to feel good about ourselves.

With that interpretation, I'd withdraw my opposition to the resolution. However, I agree that it is unenforcable and should be considered insignificant. It's just a statement to feel good about ourselves.

I disagree. This resolution is a powerful statement. Though non-binding on non-UN members, many nations that aren't a part of the UN will frequently follow UN resolutions. Furthermore, large "market based" nations like my own do have tremendous sway in other nations, and that sway tends to favour non-UN members that adopt favorable positions.

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity agrees with the Powerhungry Chipmunks. Too detailed of a resolution is often just as dangerous as a less detailed one. My government finds this resolution an excellent balance between the two ideals, and has cast its vote in favour.

This proposal is very doubtful :

1) it evokes "suspected terrorist organizations" without defining how to recognize them. Suspected by whom? What are the criterions for a terrorist organization?

2) The concept of "irresponsible nations" should never be used by the UN assembly. It hurts the principles of this assembly! How can we say that a nation admitted in the UN is responsible or not? What is "responsible" ? Any nation which maintains armied forces and stands to use them against human beings should be said "irresponsible", ...

3) The most dangerous in this proposal is in the last paragraph :
"[the UN) identifies with and endorses positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices everywhere"
Hum... Is it a joke ????
POSITIVE AND RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES ???? with nuclear weapons???
How can nuclear weapons be used positively??? The only aim of these weapons is to kill more and more people to frighten the enemy. Can you give an example of these positive practices, please?
The UN's aim is to work for peace all over the world. For that aim, this assembly must admit resolutions restricting or banning the use of nuclear weapons. If this resolution were admitted, the UN would accept that nuclear weapons are inevitable and useful. Besides, most nations could decide to obtain nuclear weapons as long as they are not said "irresponsibles". Nobody could prohibit their researches except if they are defined "irres^ponsibles"(by whom? according to which criterions?)

The UN can't admit this resolution for the security of all the human beings and the planet we share.

VOTE AGAINST IN LARGE NUMBERS !!!

I like it. It addresses a serious issue in a positive way, and it leaves giant loopholes for those who wish to cling to national sovereignty. I'm for it.

Let me start off by giving you this scenerio:

Nation Alpha gives nukes to their neighbor Nation Beta because of uprisings. Then Nation Beta uses the weapons to take out the 'terrorists'. UN member Nation Gamma gives nukes to the uprising because they see these revolutionaries as being 'freedom fighters' and believe Nation Beta committes acts of autrocities on their own people which is the reason the people rebelled in the first place. So by Nation Gamma's definition, Nation Beta is an 'irresponsible country' along with their ally Nation Alpha.

The problem is Alpha, Beta and Gamma are UN nations. So who do we believe? Who defines what? Who is the 'responsible' nation. Better yet who is willing to militarily enforce this proposal? Do we risk a global nuclear war?

The Holy Empire of Vexland suggests the proposal's wording be tightened and redefined.

Let's not forget what happened in Afganistan. The United States of America called them freedom fighters once.

The Holy Empire of Vexland will vote no to the current proposal.

Hans Wolfberg,
Vexland Ambassador & Trelleborg Delegate to the UN.

1. Deterrant
2. Deterrant
3. Deterrant

1. Deterrant
2. Deterrant
3. Deterrant

Hmmm...that third one isn't really very responsible. ;)

Spoonskia opposes this Act due to numerous reasons:

1. The possible abuses of power are numerous. All you have to do is recognize a group as a 'Terrorist' or not and now I can't trade uranium with them. Gee, thanks UN, that really protects my people.

2. Face it, we're awful at keeping these weapons out of the wrong hands. We should be outlawing democracy because of our inability to predict the whims of the populace. For sweet badger badger badger's sake, they can elect ANYONE.

3. No 'Terrorist' group has used nuclear weaponry therefore there is no precedent.

4. Nuclear armament programs are extremely cost prohibitive. This is not taking a bunch of bottlerockets and strapping them together. Most Terrorist organizations would have to be backed by a government to be able to establish a production program (let's not even get into the research end).

I'd say Vexland does have a valid objection, which echoes the concerns of the definition of "irresponsible nations" or "terrorists," but I'm still in favor of this proposal, if only as a Mission Statement for non-proliferation. It does not call for the reduction or elimination of nuclear weapons, which is better handled by treaties.

Mark me down for Approve.

Don't really like it.Too vague, and "responsible practices" is pretty open to interpretation.

The vagueness would matter if this actually prohobited anything, but it doesn't - it just recommends.

The Incorporated States of Amphitryon stongly urges members to vote NO on this infringment of their sovreignty.

It is beyond the scope of the UN charter to prohibit or in anyway control the ability of a nation to defend itself. This propsal is vauge and leaves too much to the imagination.

As a nation who is developing modern weaponry to face the challenges of the next century, we wholeheartedly reject this proposal, and urge other members to do the same.

Too vague! Doesn't say what an irresponsible nation is. That could be considered anyones nation.

The Kingdom urges the member states to weigh the options before voting for this resolution. Despite the fact that it has many loopholes, its intentions are good. The Kingdom would Abstain for this resolution as it is not detailed enough concerning this serious matter of Nuclear Weaponry.

We suggest two options, We vote "NO" for this resolution or we vote "YES" and use this resolution as a building block for a stricter, tighter resolution that doesn't have that many loopholes.

Again The Kingdom urges all members to weigh the long-term effects of this resolution before voting.


Cassandra Woo
Ambassador For The Kingdom

Sirloinia supports proposal, although with some reservations. We see clear arguments for. It prevents terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. It also ensures that nuclear arms are stored responsibly, and used in a positive manner.

Meanwhile there are issues: What is a positive manner? Factions in my nation's Parliament wish us to develop nuclear weaponry for the purposes of a first strike against various nations. The stated position of our Government is that we need a strong nuclear deterrent. Both are arguably positive uses of our potential weapons.

Again, what is responsible storage? Does it mean strict military control?

What is an extra-national organisation? What about the nationalized industries of a nation?

Finally, why the emphasis on nuclear weaponry alone? What of biological or nanotech weaponry?

These problems are not in themselves sufficient to reject the resolution, as any resolution on nuclear arms is better than none. Furthermore, if we wish to declare certain organisations "terrorist", then we can acheive this through a second resolution.

It is beyond the scope of the UN charter to prohibit or in anyway control the ability of a nation to defend itself.

What UN charter? THIS UN does not have a charter, and can legislate on anything its members choose short of proposals which actually break game rules.

And if you think this is intrusive on national sovereignty, I suggest you take a look at the previously passed resolutions.

The wording is too vague. Clarify exactly what constitutes "responsible " nuclear weapons practices.

The official Landeran position is that this resolution constitutes a minor infringement on the right of nations to ensure their own national security, and is thereby rejected.
We would perhaps be willing reconcider our stance if the languageof the resolution were clarified.

While the proposal is well intended, it leaves much undefined and vague. We must counsel the UN to vote AGAINST this proposal for many reasons:

Primarily, we take issue with poorly worded attempts at resolutions that take up valuable UN time from more specific and actionable issues.

and as others have stated, we urge votes AGAINST this proposal for other reasons:

Spoonskia opposes this Act due to numerous reasons:

1. The possible abuses of power are numerous. All you have to do is recognize a group as a 'Terrorist' or not and now I can't trade uranium with them. Gee, thanks UN, that really protects my people.

2. Face it, we're awful at keeping these weapons out of the wrong hands. We should be outlawing democracy because of our inability to predict the whims of the populace. For sweet badger badger badger's sake, they can elect ANYONE.

3. No 'Terrorist' group has used nuclear weaponry therefore there is no precedent.

4. Nuclear armament programs are extremely cost prohibitive. This is not taking a bunch of bottlerockets and strapping them together. Most Terrorist organizations would have to be backed by a government to be able to establish a production program (let's not even get into the research end).

3. No 'Terrorist' group has used nuclear weaponry therefore there is no precedent.

Well, given that this is the NS world, I would have to disagree. How many times have I seen threads in which terrorists bomb one nation or another? Lets not forget that this is a resolution that impacts the GAME, not RL. With that said, I still don't know how I will vote. On the one hand, it is a good message, but on the other hand, the very slim definition of terrorist opens the resolution up to abuse.

The Incorporated States of Amphitryon stongly urges members to vote NO on this infringment of their sovreignty.

It is beyond the scope of the UN charter to prohibit or in anyway control the ability of a nation to defend itself. This propsal is vauge and leaves too much to the imagination.

As a nation who is developing modern weaponry to face the challenges of the next century, we wholeheartedly reject this proposal, and urge other members to do the same.

What? If anything this is a victory for national sovereignty! Through this resolution the UN is forced to let individual nations decide much of their own nuclear policies. While confirming the UN members' goals as towards improvement, not regression.

And the "vagueness" was written in on purpose. Since the individual nations are the ones deciding whether or not to follow the "strong cautioning of the UN" or whether to listen to the UN "call upon" them to shape up, it's their choice about how exactly to implement things. In this matter where there are so many different opinions about what good nuclear powers do ("but it isn't fair to stop proliferation! but I need to trade my nuclear weapons! but I don't want to scale back my nuclear arsenal") It makes more sense to identify the whole UN under a common goal, allowing nations to find their own ways to come to that goal, then for the UN to try to micromanage this for them. I believe this sort of "vague" resolution to be the only kind that will stand up to the UN demand for national sovereignty and the only kind that has a chance unifying such a diverse group on any 'nuclear power' issue.

Politics, in many parts of the world, is spelled "c-o-r-r-u-p-t", and that isn't because we're illiterate. Even if this proposal said that we should all put down our guns and frolic in the fields of daisies there'd still nations finding ways to either A) get around it, or B) perform the resolution only to the minimum requirements. This is the case with many resolutions. Not all UN members agree entirely on issues that are so basic in the UN's past resolution library as "gay rights". So I've decided not to waste my time giving politicians whose make a living at getting around resolutions even more work. This UN resolution would be carried out more on a national level than an international level. But that doesn’t mean that it’s, by any stretch of the imagination a national issue.

This is positive legislation. It establishes a start point, declares a direction we need to be heading in and lets nations take it at their own paces. I understand the need for logical questions about this proposal and what exactly its application is. But I believe that once it is understood that, unless otherwise stated, powers to decide nuclear policy ultimately is held by the member nation, that this resolution is clear enough in intent and execution to be an effective international security measure.

Encouraging the good produces positive net change just like stopping the bad.

Please vote FOR this resolution: The first step in the right direction.

Hmm. Too vague, I think. While I agree that the definition of a terrorist depends on context, I think that this resolution does not say who defines a terrorist, it should probably be the UN that decides this. That is my big problem, and I'm going to have to abstain on this one

Well, given that this is the NS world, I would have to disagree. How many times have I seen threads in which terrorists bomb one nation or another? Lets not forget that this is a resolution that impacts the GAME, not RL. With that said, I still don't know how I will vote. On the one hand, it is a good message, but on the other hand, the very slim definition of terrorist opens the resolution up to abuse.
I refer you to a previous discussion on this topic between TilEnca and Powerhungry Chipmunks:
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.emphasis added

how is increasing a fear-factor, ie military budgets, going to help anything? it will increase fear and it will cause a higher risk of warfare...which is bad

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

FOOLISHNESS.
One man's terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. If my country does not believe in your fight, we will not supply you armaments, if we do .....



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

MORE FOOLISHNESS.
The UN has NO RIGHT to say who I can deal with. Burn infidels will decide who we sell our technology, nuclear or otherwise, to.



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

STILL MORE FOOLISHNESS.
Your "irresponsible nation" could very well be my "brother in arms". Can you honestly believe that 34,902 member nations can agree that one certain nation is acting irresponsibly.



4. CALLS UPON UN member nations to maintain adequate security over and records of nuclear arms and technology;

DOWN RIGHT RIDICULOUS.
I know who I deal with, and what I am dealing with. My technology is kept under strict security and I keep track of my business closely.
"Gee. I could have SWORN that this was the closet we kept the Uranium in" ... YEESH.



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

You are KIDDING. . . . . RIGHT?



NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO


By the way, we are against the proposal.

After giving this some consideration, Tzorsland votes AYE

I understand there is some debate about whether a particular group is a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter." Now don't get me wrong, I like "freedom fighters" as much as the next person, but even then I would not want to give them nuclear weapons. Trying to win freedom with nuclear weapons is like using a tornado to vaccum the rug, it's a bit of overkill, don't you think?

A similar RL proposal that generally sought international consensus condemning terrorism ran into the same issues involving specific definitions of "terrorism". In fact, an academic study into the issue found over 131 different definitions for the word "terrorism" alone.

Although the intentions of this resolution are quite admirable, and the rationale for maintaining vague definitions are intuitively reasonable, it is the humble opinion of this Ambassador that the apprehensions of not only myself, but several other delegates who have voiced similar concerns, would best be allayed by pursuing a more specific definition of "terrorism".

Among definitions proposed in defining specific "terrorists" and "terrorist acts" within the Thanatasian Presidium, it has served our dutiful Commissars well to emphasize the somewhat consistent fact of innocent victims as a result of terrorism. In essence, it is my opinion that a consensus can quite easily be reached if "terrorism" is defined along such lines as to specify those groups that "...intentionally and willfully target noncombatants, civilians, or individuals otherwise not directly connected to a particular conflict, for the express purpose of causing fear."

This would draw an important distinction between such terrorist groups who intentionally seek to cause fear amongst a targeted population; and the exceptional instance of so-called 'insurrectionary movements', who may, in the commission of their activities, may seek to damage infrastructure or cause casualties for the express purpose of pursuing a purely military objective.

In addition to this, I would have to agree with the Powerhungry Chipmunks delegation insofar as the existence of "positive" uses of nuclear weapons. For instance, nuclear weapons have been successfully employed for agricultural and geological excavation purposes, and research has been extended into other potential avenues.

I am hoping that you will reconsider amending a specific definition of terrorism to your resolution, and that the delegation can reach some consensus and ultimately approve this resolution.

Sincerely,

Comrade Ambassador Myong Sun Kim

Ambassador to the United Nations on behalf of the People's Republic of Thanatasia.

The Commonwealth of Sakharov Island votes yes on this resolution. We commend Powerhungry Chipmunks for their efforts and hope that this will be the first of many steps towards a post-nuclear-weapon NS world.

For those nations that have reservations about Article 5, we would like to remind them that, whether nations have nuclear arms or not, there are always responsible and irresponsible decisions. Whether or not to use nuclear arms in conflict. Whether or not to increase or decrease nuclear stockpiles. Whether or not to develop deadlier, smaller, or cheaper, nuclear weapons, or even to develop them at all. We believe that many of our fellow members would have a general agreement on what the "responsible" choice would be with each of these circumstances, but we also believe that each nation must come to make those choices on their own, in their own time. By placing article 5 in the resolution, other member nations are free to encourage - but not dictate - such choices. To lead by example and not by force.

There are no safe nuclear arms practices. This resolution is ludicrous. Nuclear weapons are the only devices on the planet thus far that can bring about the apocalypse, they must be outlawed in any shape or form.

What was one of the main causes of WW1? Militarism. Everybody thought that everybody else was an enemy, and built up weapons to defend themselves, resulting in a massive, bloody, conflict. The exact same thing is happening here with the buildup of nuclear arms.

Einstein once said that "The Third World War would be fought with nuclear weapons. The fourth would be fought with sticks and stones," Implying that we would bomb ourselves into the stone-age with the advent of his horrible creation.

There cannot be war if nobody has anything to fight with.

P.S. Can anyone say "Patriot Act"?

I can't believe this thing is on its way to being passed...

The democratically elected parliament of Adrenia has examined the proposal and has decided to vote against this resolution.

Though Adrenia is against both thr use of nuclear power as source of electricity generation and also as a abhorrent weapaon we cannot vote for this resolution due to :

Vague definations of what consitutes a "terrorist organisation" (1)

The almost contradictory postion of using nuclear weapons technology within a "postive and responsible" framework(5), One feels that this resolution believes such a thing is possible. Adrenia does not hold this stance.

Adrenia would however welcome any resolution which set targets to reduce nuclear weaponry to bare minimums and also works to replace nuclear power plants with renewable engery sources. We would also like to see added security especially in nations with unrealiable security guarding nuclear sites.

Thus points (2),(3) and (5) do get our approval however points (1) and (5) present enough concern as to warrant a vote against

If this resolution passes, what exactly are we forced to do? According to the wording all that will happen is that we'll be strongly suggested to do as we're told. But since it seems to be a control over neuclear weapons, it's not like they can threaten us into the suggestion.

This resolution is too vague, as mentioned many times before in this forum. A terrorist to one country may not be a terrorist to another country. Technically speaking anyone who causes fear to others could be a terrorist.

This resolution needs to be clearly re-written and expanded on. For something that seems to be a hot topic, there's far too little written in this resolution dealing with it. Let's give a little example here... let's say that my country is suddenly in a fight with another country in my region. There's no outline for what is considered 'terrorist' in this resolution.. I can 'cry wolf' if you would, against this other country and have them cut off from any nuclear-totting UN buddies because this resolution would keep them from aiding their friend on the basis that their friend has been labeled as a possible terrorist.

Let me remind everyone of what happened in America during the 1950's. A man named McCarthy prosecuted many many people who were supposidedly communist and many of these people lost jobs and respectablility when they were completely innocent. I would hate for the same thing to happen with a terrorismn scare because of this resolution. If we can call anyone a terrorist, what's to stop us from using it against the countries we dont' like?

I call for a re-write.

Kytro denounces the resolution as empty and pointless, and as such will vote against it.

Kytro reminds member nations that simply because it has the words 'nuclear' and 'terrorist' in it does not make it a good resolution.

P.S. Can anyone say "Patriot Act"?

I can't believe this thing is on its way to being passed...

That's because you aren't reading it! If you'd read it you wouldn't think it's trampling over your national sovereignty, it never mentions anything about that.

And to those who believe that this resolution is vague and pointless, I remind you of the impasse which the current UN member conglomerate has with nuclear policy. There are states that wish for NO regulations on nuclear arm placement, production, and/or trade. There are other states that would have the world be only home to little pink bunnies that hop and frolic in the fields full of daisies. Neither of these worlds lives in reality. Outright irresponsibility only leads to chaos and anarchy, which are not exactly the aims of an international group. And living in a flowery, utopian world trends to harbor imaginary friends, racy trips to the petting zoo, and, eventually, strait-jackets. Yet these two worlds of thought still exist in the UN and their kinds are equally welcome to participate politically with this international legislative body.

If this resolution were any more tilting towards one side or the other, it would certainly teeter off the legislate-able balance. It would not represent an accurate representation of the UN membership (which is divided) and would alienate and possibly drive away many of the UN members. And what is the suggestion you make? That we in the UN do nothing? That we delegate this responsibility of passing sensible and plain-spoken thought to the dank sub committees of eternal banishment? Certainly there is a moderate approach to this. Certainly this resolution cannot be logically construed as anything but a step forward, a closing of the fissure which divides us, a meeting, and a path to compromise.

True, the resolution favors letting the individual nation decide things concerning nuclear trade, proliferation and practices in general. But is that not what you desire? You desire for the UN to become inflated even further beyond its already liquid-swollen pustule of a governmental body?

Remember that to come together as a UN membership we must find common ground; to find common ground we must both give up a little. This is not a national issue, but the application of it deserves, at the risk of tyranny, to be national, allowing each nation give up as much or as little as it deems fit to reach this compromise in nuclear policy.

What does the UN think the next nuclear policy proposal will be? certainly it'll be something which steps onto much, much more of the nation's ground in this. This resolution, while primarily serving as a mission statement for the UN in nuclear policy, is also a deadbolt for the national sovereignty in that subject. It keeps the door open for nations to decide their own nuclear policies, and locks bureaucracy out.

Vote FOR this resolution. Vote FOR National Sovereignty. Vote FOR.

I'm voting for it! I don't need some bloated supergonvernment telling me what a terrorist is!

Vote FOR!

(plus that way the Golden Horn can finally go back to normal....)

Vexland believes this proposal has all the good intentions. But...

The reason we are voting against it is because it is no more than propaganda. It is something to make us all feel warm and good on the inside by luring ourselves into a false sense of security. This proposal has no substance and can not be enforced with it's broad terms.

Vexland is for restrictions on nuclear weapons & technology trade. We recognize that there are organizations in the world that would use these to further there own cause, whatever that maybe, disregarding the world at large. We need tighter control not less.

Good intentions, however misplaced.

Hans Wolfberg,
Vexland Ambassador & Trelleborg UN Delegate

Spoonskia opposes this Act due to numerous reasons:

1. The possible abuses of power are numerous. All you have to do is recognize a group as a 'Terrorist' or not and now I can't trade uranium with them. Gee, thanks UN, that really protects my people.

2. Face it, we're awful at keeping these weapons out of the wrong hands. We should be outlawing democracy because of our inability to predict the whims of the populace. For sweet badger badger badger's sake, they can elect ANYONE.

3. No 'Terrorist' group has used nuclear weaponry therefore there is no precedent.

4. Nuclear armament programs are extremely cost prohibitive. This is not taking a bunch of bottlerockets and strapping them together. Most Terrorist organizations would have to be backed by a government to be able to establish a production program (let's not even get into the research end).


I think you have missed a lot of the debate. The definition of terrorist and irresponsible are in the purview of the nation itself. The UN is not defining it nor is it asking to define it. So (1) is really not an issue. I really don't get what (2) is about. With (3) just because there is no precedent doesn't mean there won't be, and why not try to prevent it before it happens? And the whole point of this is to prevent (4) from happening - this asks governments not to supply terrorist (or what they call terrorist) groups.

After much consideration, Neo Portugal has decided to vote yes on this present resolution. This is what I like to see from the UN. It gives us a goal, but does not at all infringe on national sovereignty, because it doesn't tell us how to get to this goal. This resolution provides direction, if not laws.

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

FOOLISHNESS.
One man's terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. If my country does not believe in your fight, we will not supply you armaments, if we do .....



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

MORE FOOLISHNESS.
The UN has NO RIGHT to say who I can deal with. Burn infidels will decide who we sell our technology, nuclear or otherwise, to.



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

STILL MORE FOOLISHNESS.
Your "irresponsible nation" could very well be my "brother in arms". Can you honestly believe that 34,902 member nations can agree that one certain nation is acting irresponsibly.



4. CALLS UPON UN member nations to maintain adequate security over and records of nuclear arms and technology;

DOWN RIGHT RIDICULOUS.
I know who I deal with, and what I am dealing with. My technology is kept under strict security and I keep track of my business closely.
"Gee. I could have SWORN that this was the closet we kept the Uranium in" ... YEESH.



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

You are KIDDING. . . . . RIGHT?



NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO


By the way, we are against the proposal.


1) You get to define who is a terrorist is a freedom fighter, so you can supply whomever you chose.

2) You don't think that members of the UN have the right to condem things? They are not telling you to stop, just to consider it.

3) Again it is within the rights of the nation to define irresponsible.

4) Just because you (and I) manage nuclear devices properly, doesn't mean anyone else does. This is not a proposla to accuse you personally of being reckless - it is a suggestion for the rest of the UN nations.

5) What? What is your problem with this?

I put forward a lot of the same arguements against this proposal, and the answers above were what I was given, and I am happy to (and indeed have) support it. Pleaes reconsider.

Spoonskia opposes this Act due to numerous reasons:

1. The...
...
...Most Terrorist organizations would have to be backed by a government to be able to establish a production program (let's not even get into the research end).

Your problem is not so much with the resolution as it is with Powerhungry Chipmunks, who you have a beef with after he spoke out against the goons.

You are bringing up points are indicitave of you not haviong read the proposal past the author's name. Then you made your decision based strictly upon who it was.

But it's okay, because we know deep down that you want to vote for this. Just consider your precvious statement


widest definition allows for widest interpretation. allows for us disparate people to comply. ... How we execute this law is OUR business. Unless stupid death penalty proposal get approved and enacted.

I Couldn't've said it better myself.

1) You get to define who is a terrorist is a freedom fighter, so you can supply whomever you chose.

2) You don't think that members of the UN have the right to condem things? They are not telling you to stop, just to consider it.

3) Again it is within the rights of the nation to define irresponsible.

4) Just because you (and I) manage nuclear devices properly, doesn't mean anyone else does. This is not a proposla to accuse you personally of being reckless - it is a suggestion for the rest of the UN nations.

5) What? What is your problem with this?

I put forward a lot of the same arguements against this proposal, and the answers above were what I was given, and I am happy to (and indeed have) support it. Pleaes reconsider.

1)
If individual countries define who a terrorist is, would YOU sell nuclear weapons to someone YOU considered a terrorist. NO. People you consider a terrorist do not think that THEY are terrorists. They are "freedom fighters", "seperatists", "guerilla fighters", terrorists never consider themselves terrorists. So to PROHIBIT selling nuclear weapons to terrorists is like PROHIBITING people from hitting themselves in the head with a large brick.

2)
If all the UN will do is disgourage strongly, what is the point. Bad words and a shaken finger are no deterent to anything. Creating a resolution to say bad words and shake fingers is a waste of paper.

3)
1) & 2) cover that quite well.

4)
OK, we have a resolution that says you should keep traks of where your nuclear weapons and materials are, and who you sell them to. More wasted paper. Do you think a resolution to suggest safe storage and sale of nuclear weapons and technology is going to make Joe Yokel think "WOW, you mean that closet isn't a good idea?"

5)
My problem is the phrase "positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices". The main uses for nuclear weapons are and will always be making habitated and habitable areas, radioactive graveyards or the threat of makeing them radioactive graveyards. Neither optyion is really positive or responsible.

This resolution sucks. It calls for increase in security and military expenditure (which I am opposed to in principle) yet it doesnt even offer any detail about how much extra is to be spent or on what. Vote no.how is increasing a fear-factor, ie military budgets, going to help anything? it will increase fear and it will cause a higher risk of warfare...which is bad

too true.

This resolution sucks. It calls for increase in security and military expenditure (which I am opposed to in principle) yet it doesnt even offer any detail about how much extra is to be spent or on what.
The increase in military spending would be for the increased security surroundng nuclear facilities and for the increased operations against nuclear terrorists. But the ammount of the increase is wholly up to the state.

1)
If individual countries define who a terrorist is, would YOU sell nuclear weapons to someone YOU considered a terrorist. NO. People you consider a terrorist do not think that THEY are terrorists. They are "freedom fighters", "seperatists", "guerilla fighters", terrorists never consider themselves terrorists. So to PROHIBIT selling nuclear weapons to terrorists is like PROHIBITING people from hitting themselves in the head with a large brick.
Not so. There are nations that will sell their grandmother for a hamburger, not all nations hold the same ethical code when regulating the sale of nuclear weapons. While this resolutios makes it so that the majority of ethical decisions about nuclear sales (such as to sell, or not to sell to a developing nation, which may use weapons irresopnsibly), this is set as the minimum integrity a UN state is required to have.
2)
If all the UN will do is disgourage strongly, what is the point. Bad words and a shaken finger are no deterent to anything. Creating a resolution to say bad words and shake fingers is a waste of paper.
Not so, the UN is a lucrative body and states wishing some piece of the pork-barrel will need to abide by the ideals of the UN as stated in this resolution, pending its passage.


4)
OK, we have a resolution that says you should keep traks of where your nuclear weapons and materials are, and who you sell them to. More wasted paper. Do you think a resolution to suggest safe storage and sale of nuclear weapons and technology is going to make Joe Yokel think "WOW, you mean that closet isn't a good idea?"

Just consider the real world example of Russia. With the fall of communism and the collapse/near-collapse of their economy guards who were feeding their families on thir pay were without it, uncovered by any sort of social blanket, left to die. BUT they did happen to have a nice little warhead they were guarding which some groups would be incredibly interesed in getting their hands on. The increase in security is designed to keep nuclear weapons from "accidentally" falling into terrorists hands, as the first clause is to ombat against intentional sales.


5)
My problem is the phrase "positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices". The main uses for nuclear weapons are and will always be making habitated and habitable areas, radioactive graveyards or the threat of makeing them radioactive graveyards. Neither optyion is really positive or responsible.
True, the use of nuclear weapons is a horrid thing for any state to experience. But I don't think that falls under the tag "positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices". These practices would include things like signing nuclear treaties, making ICBM-bomber switchovers, sponsoring sub-registrations, and many other good ideas about how to lessen the threat of a nuclear disaster, a list which would simply be too encumbering to be placed in the proposal itself.

Although my nation no longer holds almost no nuclear power, except for two power plants, one being under construction, I must vote against this resolution due to the lack of terrorist definition. Since the creation and costs of a nuclear bomb are gigantic, the chance that any terrorist organization could grab hold of a nuclear weapon outside of a dirty bomb is highly unlikely to happen. My nation has set up radiation stations every two square miles to detect and alarm us if levels are higher than the normal amounts of radiation in any given area.

After much consideration, Neo Portugal has decided to vote yes on this present resolution. This is what I like to see from the UN. It gives us a goal, but does not at all infringe on national sovereignty, because it doesn't tell us how to get to this goal. This resolution provides direction, if not laws.

Rarely will my nation chime in to say, "Exactly!", but in this case Neo Portugal has essentially best described my government's exact position and we felt that the above needed to be reiterated!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361190

Oops I new here :)

black

I think that we should improve worldwide security.

black

I think that we should improve worldwide security.

care to give us a few more details?

WERE it not an automatic vote against.

SEEING as it overuses capitalization.

ASIDE from the annoying tendancy to use empty words to begin statements in the proposal.

MY NATION, being a UN member, suspects the author of harboring terrorists and coming covert terrorist acts. If this passes, they would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, suggesting that they are not in a position to propose nuclear arms regulations.

WERE it not an automatic vote against.

SEEING as it overuses capitalization.

ASIDE from the annoying tendancy to use empty words to begin statements in the proposal.

MY NATION, being a UN member, suspects the author of harboring terrorists and coming covert terrorist acts. If this passes, they would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, suggesting that they are not in a position to propose nuclear arms regulations.

OOC: You obviously know nothing about real UN resolutions. Next time, before flaming something you obviously don't understand, try visiting the UN's resolution archive (http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm) to see a few examples on formatting. While this is just a game, this *part* of the game is a simulation of the UN, not a dungeons and dragons thingie.

Or if that is "too difficult", you could ... *gasp* ... read the stickies, which also suggest NS players adopt the same format.

Anyway, you'll notice the real UN resolutions uses italics. Guess what? Font formats such as bold face and italics aren't supported in the resolution submission form, so players use capitalization instead.

My point, is that just because you are ignorant about the standard procedures of this game's resolution formats, doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason for the *format* of the resolution. Now if you actually want to debate / discuss the resolution, I'm sure somebody will be willing to give you a second chance.

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

Which organization or state will compile the blacklist? This should also be included, otherwise it is not fulfillable.

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

This point states that not even nuclear reactors can be privatized, because they use nuclear technologies. This has the effect of nationalization of all nuclear technologies. I think that this is what the author did not have on mind.

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

Again the blacklist problem. Tough I think that only the advanced weapons should be embargoed.

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.

These technologies were born more than half a century ago. These are not such a technological secrets that could be safeguarded by those means. I do not agree with this part. Real effect will only be possible by controlling fission material. That is the only way. We need a more extensive resolution. In this form it is not acceptable.

Reactioneers Nuclear Council

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

however, who decides who is irresponsible? i think this would lead to an elitist definition on which unpopular nations would be forced to submit. The definition of responsible can vary from nation to nation.

OOC: You obviously know nothing about real UN resolutions. Next time, before flaming something you obviously don't understand, try visiting the UN's resolution archive (http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm) to see a few examples on formatting. While this is just a game, this *part* of the game is a simulation of the UN, not a dungeons and dragons thingie.

OOC: Mikitivity, how can you say such a thing? How can you insult ... er ... what exactly is a "dungeons and dragons thingie?" I know Dungeons and Dragons, and I personally think it is a fine game (although I can't for the life of me recall any law or resolution passing game mechanic in that game) but for the life of me I can't think what a "dungeons and dragons thingie" could be. This is not a "simulation of the UN" by any means. The UN has a secretary general, a security council, the means to propose resolutions against or affecting specific nations, and a number of things that the NSUN cannot do by design. The NSUN is simply a means of providing a global mechanism for the swift promotion of issues that are then applied equally to all members of the NSUN. It is a variation of the issue system, with the added irony that it makes NS leaders, who normally have the final word over their own people over what should be done, and makes them "the people" where the majority of NSUN members become the final say in what happens to their nation.

OOC (part 2): On second thought, you might have sparked a good idea there. If we include my tendency for mispelling, I might just propose a Donjons and Dragoons resolution. Yes I think every nation should have a heavily armed mounted troop unit housed within a massive inner tower in a medieval castle. And I would be highly opposed to give any of them nuclear weapons!

IC: If Goontopia is against this resolution then Tzorsland is in favor of it!

That's because you aren't reading it! If you'd read it you wouldn't think it's...


Oh yes, THAT'S what I should have thought. God forbid I could ever have my own opinion about it. I called it the Patriot Act because it is just as vague about terrorism, and just as bloody dangerous. We might as well submit a proposal to kill all humans. Scare-tactics like nuclear arms buildup and ant-terrorism crusades (for lack of a better word) are just going to lead us into a state of fear-induced paranoia, and, thusly, war.

Yes, I know it only STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nuclear practices, but why in the hell do we need a bill to pleasantly suggest to us things?

My point is, nuclear weapons should be outlawed. Period. No security over them, no building them, no selling them, they should all be destroyed. (BY LAW, and not just a powerful suggestive remark.)

Nuclear Weapons = Bad. You war-mongering idiots are the kind of people that vote derelicits like Bush into power.

Oh yes, THAT'S what I should have thought. God forbid I could ever have my own opinion about it. I called it the Patriot Act because it is just as vague about terrorism, and just as bloody dangerous. We might as well submit a proposal to kill all humans. Scare-tactics like nuclear arms buildup and ant-terrorism crusades (for lack of a better word) are just going to lead us into a state of fear-induced paranoia, and, thusly, war.

Yes, I know it only STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nuclear practices, but why in the hell do we need a bill to pleasantly suggest to us things?

My point is, nuclear weapons should be outlawed. Period. No security over them, no building them, no selling them, they should all be destroyed. (BY LAW, and not just a powerful suggestive remark.)

Nuclear Weapons = Bad. You war-mongering idiots are the kind of people that vote derelicits like Bush into power.
Okay this is what we call a splice. There are comma splices and there are idea splices and several other types off splices (most coming from Mexacian beans). This would be an idea splice. You have your first idea: "Patriot act is vague about terrorism and this causes it to be dangerous" What exactly makes it so dangerous? This is a very important question you should ask yourself, because if you don't know that then you can't link that reason for danger to whatever reason you're finding in this resolution.

That reason you indirectly put forward for the danger in the Patriot act (voted on by the US congress, which last time I checked wasn't "the Bush Administration") is because of the possibility of people in power abusing the vagueness of it. this is a fine argument, but one I'm not going to get into.

And here comes the splice. You take that and try to match up the parts with the resolution. Okay, "Vagueness", check. "International Security issue", check. "Leniency towards nuclear weapons", check. "opportunity for people in power to abuse proposal", uh... You see since the powers of decision primarily lie with the individual nation, the only abuse that would be going on is a nation abusing itself.

"I don't like you Mynation"

"I don't like you either, Mynation"

"I'm going to punish you by declaring your number 1 nuclear trade partner a terrorist organization"

"oh yeah?"

"yeah! so now you can't trade with them anymore"

"well screw you"

*Mynation flicks Mynation off*

See? There isn't much sense in a natrion "abusing" the vagueness of the words.

Oh, and Powerhungry Chipmunks has never mobilized her troops for anything other than training expeditions. Pretty good for a "war-mongering idiot".

OOC: Mikitivity, how can you say such a thing? How can you insult ... er ... what exactly is a "dungeons and dragons thingie?" I know Dungeons and Dragons, and I personally think it is a fine game (although I can't for the life of me recall any law or resolution passing game mechanic in that game) but for the life of me I can't think what a "dungeons and dragons thingie" could be. This is not a "simulation of the UN" by any means. The UN has a secretary general, a security council, the means to propose resolutions against or affecting specific nations, and a number of things that the NSUN cannot do by design. The NSUN is simply a means of providing a global mechanism for the swift promotion of issues that are then applied equally to all members of the NSUN. It is a variation of the issue system, with the added irony that it makes NS leaders, who normally have the final word over their own people over what should be done, and makes them "the people" where the majority of NSUN members become the final say in what happens to their nation.

A dungeons and dragons thingie would be the type of resolution where you say,

"Drugs are bad, and dangerous. They are everywhere, so our nations will create a law called "Smoking Pot will Get you Fired" and then begin random sampling of all workers for pot. Anyone caught will be thrown in jail for 10 years and fined $150,000."

Sadly there are examples of proposals just like that every day. They still propose an action, but they do so in a prose style, consistent with a "Dungeon" description, i.e. there is no legal framework or organization.

And of course this *part* of NationStates is a simulation of *a* UN. We don't have the exact same structure of the real UN, but there is enough similarities there that Max called it the United Nations and even stole its flag (I'm sure you've noticed that).

The moderators have implied that like the real UN we can create committees and "magically" these committees will be staffed by citizens from around the world and that the day to day maintance of the NSUN will be taken care of by an "un" paid staff -- i.e. them. They are directly analogous to the real life UN Secretariat.

That said, there is a very good reason that the UN *and* Max's game encourage use of a "Resolution Format" Style. While the real UN will *not* release a resolution that is not in format (for administrative reasons), this game is made up of children and adults, including many whom have unequal commands of English and international politics. It is unreasonable to expect a newbie to start using the style Sophista has suggested, but a nation that has been playing since 2003?

Come on, the troll has seen dozens of resolutions in this format but never complained then. Bottom line, he / she didn't like the *topic* of this resolution and was FLAMING the Powerhungry Chipmunks based on the appearance instead of the content of his / her resolution, when in reality, PC has a damn good reason to use that format.

It is logical. It is broken into two parts: first, a preamble where the justification is provided, fact / opinion by fact / opinion (each line basically), and second a numbered activating section.

I've not posted my comments here, but on the IDU forum I've already done a more comprehensive analysis on the clauses that I actually think have merit. It was easy for me to communicate this, because the format PC used was actually very well written.

It pisses me off to see experienced players flaming anybody for the wrong reason ... that being format.

1)
If individual countries define who a terrorist is, would YOU sell nuclear weapons to someone YOU considered a terrorist. NO. People you consider a terrorist do not think that THEY are terrorists. They are "freedom fighters", "seperatists", "guerilla fighters", terrorists never consider themselves terrorists. So to PROHIBIT selling nuclear weapons to terrorists is like PROHIBITING people from hitting themselves in the head with a large brick.

2)
If all the UN will do is disgourage strongly, what is the point. Bad words and a shaken finger are no deterent to anything. Creating a resolution to say bad words and shake fingers is a waste of paper.

3)
1) & 2) cover that quite well.

4)
OK, we have a resolution that says you should keep traks of where your nuclear weapons and materials are, and who you sell them to. More wasted paper. Do you think a resolution to suggest safe storage and sale of nuclear weapons and technology is going to make Joe Yokel think "WOW, you mean that closet isn't a good idea?"

5)
My problem is the phrase "positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices". The main uses for nuclear weapons are and will always be making habitated and habitable areas, radioactive graveyards or the threat of makeing them radioactive graveyards. Neither optyion is really positive or responsible.


Ok - I think you totally misunderstood me.

1) I am the President of TilEnca. I think that there is a group in my nation, or in the next nation over, that are terrorist. They don't - they think they are fighting for the betterment of their nation. But it is not them that defines it - it is I. So you are forbidden to sell stuff that YOU (or YOUR NATION) has defined as terrorists.

2) Because it sets an example. That is the best the UN can hope to do, because if someone doesn't like the rules they resign and are no longer covered by it. But by trying to set an example then maybe - hopefully - we can encourage the rest of the world to go along and not blow the living crap out of each other with suitcase bombs, just because the government stopped you smoking pot on the tube.

3) Eh.

4) (Totally OOC - we have various disks that control the security of our network, and half the time we don't know where they are. The backup tapes are not monitored properly and the system boot disks got lost three weeks ago and we can't find them. May the goddess help us if we ever actually have something important to monitor). (Back in Character) Again - it is setting an example. And yeah - there are some national leaders I have met who don't know the first thing about where to store their bombs, and encouraging them not to stick them under their bed is a good idea.

5) I admit I am a bit vague about this. Maybe it means you don't play catch with them outside when you are bored (I have seen people do this with grendades btw, so it's not unheard of). But again - IT SETS AN EXAMPLE and what is so wrong with that?

There are no safe nuclear arms practices. This resolution is ludicrous. Nuclear weapons are the only devices on the planet thus far that can bring about the apocalypse, they must be outlawed in any shape or form.

What was one of the main causes of WW1? Militarism. Everybody thought that everybody else was an enemy, and built up weapons to defend themselves, resulting in a massive, bloody, conflict. The exact same thing is happening here with the buildup of nuclear arms.

Einstein once said that "The Third World War would be fought with nuclear weapons. The fourth would be fought with sticks and stones," Implying that we would bomb ourselves into the stone-age with the advent of his horrible creation.

There cannot be war if nobody has anything to fight with.

So you are going to cut off everybody's hands? Remove all the rocks and stones from the ground?

People will always find things to fight with, and if you take away something it will encourage them to build bigger and better weapons.

Plus if you just ignore the fact everyone has nuclear weapons, that won't make them vanish. And if you make them illegal it won't make them go away - it will just make sure they are not monitored and regulated, and while it might stop a war, it will lead to accidents, mishaps and people blowing themselves up in the silo.

(slightly edited quote - just to add numbers, so that I can refer to your points easier. None of the text has been changed, nor has your arguement(s))


1) Which organization or state will compile the blacklist? This should also be included, otherwise it is not fulfillable.

2) This point states that not even nuclear reactors can be privatized, because they use nuclear technologies. This has the effect of nationalization of all nuclear technologies. I think that this is what the author did not have on mind.

3) Again the blacklist problem. Tough I think that only the advanced weapons should be embargoed.

4) These technologies were born more than half a century ago. These are not such a technological secrets that could be safeguarded by those means. I do not agree with this part. Real effect will only be possible by controlling fission material. That is the only way. We need a more extensive resolution. In this form it is not acceptable.

Reactioneers Nuclear Council

1) My whole objection to this in it's early stages was that I believed there would be a blacklist. My country went through a HUGE revolution to get where it is, and the revolutionaries were all called terrorists by the former government. But now not a person in the nation believes they were, because it was quite clear that they were right to rebel against a corrupt and evil government. And so I am not willing to let anyone other than my people define who is a terrorist in relation to my country, and my military.

2) Actually - yeah. I hadn't read it as that, as I was only considering weapons in the "nuclear device" category. But since it only discourages it strongly, it is not legally binding that you can't have private power plants.

3) See Point 1

4) You don't think that storing ICBMs (or whatever your version of it is) in a responsible manner is a good thing? So that no one can steal the warhead, put it down in your town square and blow it up? I would have thought most nations would be willing to get behind this.

Oh yes, THAT'S what I should have thought. God forbid I could ever have my own opinion about it. I called it the Patriot Act because it is just as vague about terrorism, and just as bloody dangerous. We might as well submit a proposal to kill all humans. Scare-tactics like nuclear arms buildup and ant-terrorism crusades (for lack of a better word) are just going to lead us into a state of fear-induced paranoia, and, thusly, war.

Yes, I know it only STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nuclear practices, but why in the hell do we need a bill to pleasantly suggest to us things?

My point is, nuclear weapons should be outlawed. Period. No security over them, no building them, no selling them, they should all be destroyed. (BY LAW, and not just a powerful suggestive remark.)

Nuclear Weapons = Bad. You war-mongering idiots are the kind of people that vote derelicits like Bush into power.

It about nuclear weapons, and mentions terrorists ONCE in the whole of the proposal. How is this about terorism? (Ok - it's a little about terrorism, but not a lot). It is not suggestion that you can lock terrorists up for no reason other than you don't like them. It is not suggesting that the right to privacy is to be suspended. It is not suggesting that we send all the people of a different religion to the head of government to a prison, then hold show trials before they are executed for being mean people.

It is suggesting that nations take better care of the MASSIVe power they wield with the most simple of nuclear bombs. Which, personally, I think is a good message to send to people.

And yeah - I am not a big fan of nuclear weapons. But they are not going to go away, and we should at least treat them with the respect they require since they are capable of wiping out most of the world.

A dungeons and dragons thingie would be the type of resolution where you say,

"Drugs are bad, and dangerous. They are everywhere, so our nations will create a law called "Smoking Pot will Get you Fired" and then begin random sampling of all workers for pot. Anyone caught will be thrown in jail for 10 years and fined $150,000."


Thanks for explainging that, cause I really was curious about what you meant by it :} (Plus "It's a D&D Thingie" might now become my new national motto, cause it sounds so funny!)

A dungeons and dragons thingie would be the type of resolution where you say,

"Drugs are bad, and dangerous. They are everywhere, so our nations will create a law called "Smoking Pot will Get you Fired" and then begin random sampling of all workers for pot. Anyone caught will be thrown in jail for 10 years and fined $150,000."

OK, I see where you are comming from now. I still can't for the life of me figure out the etymology for the term, but I agree that such resolution formats are horrid.

And of course this *part* of NationStates is a simulation of *a* UN. We don't have the exact same structure of the real UN, but there is enough similarities there that Max called it the United Nations and even stole its flag (I'm sure you've noticed that).

I'm probably picking nits here, because I would probably say that this is more of a role play of a UN than a simulation. The NSUN does have some things in common with the UN, but it also has it's own unique features as well. (Aside I thought they were unpaid staff, not "UN" paid staff.)

That said, there is a very good reason that the UN *and* Max's game encourage use of a "Resolution Format" Style. While the real UN will *not* release a resolution that is not in format (for administrative reasons), this game is made up of children and adults, including many whom have unequal commands of English and international politics. It is unreasonable to expect a newbie to start using the style Sophista has suggested, but a nation that has been playing since 2003?

Well I think it is better to say that the players and moderators encourage a "Resolution Format" style, not per se Max's game. (Perhaps the almost mythical NS2 might have a better form for the entry of resolutions to encourage such formats. I know I personally prefer the "Resolution Format" style within NS, although I also like "Whereas" resolutions when I'm making formal resolutions for real life groups I belong to.

It pisses me off to see experienced players flaming anybody for the wrong reason ... that being format.

Agreed!

OK, I see where you are comming from now. I still can't for the life of me figure out the etymology for the term, but I agree that such resolution formats are horrid.


I've played the game. Each time you walk in a room, you are hit with a one to three paragraph of prose describing the room. There is no logic or order to the text description, and it isn't until you role-play walking through and entering the room that the moderator really hits you with whatever is really in the room.

But bottom line, a resolution should be more organized than a simply prose statement.


I'm probably picking nits here, because I would probably say that this is more of a role play of a UN than a simulation. The NSUN does have some things in common with the UN, but it also has it's own unique features as well. (Aside I thought they were unpaid staff, not "UN" paid staff.)


It is both. The NSUN is around so that we can play the role of our nations in attempting to sway other nations into policies that our governments favour.

But even if you aren't simulating the UN, any time you have a "formal" group that works together, the process used to government the meeting is very frequently a form of parliamentry proceedure, and the method of keeping minutes and drafting *text* documents is very often "resolutions".

If this were *only* a roleplay forum, there wouldn't be an endorsement / vote / resolution archive. There are basic parliamentry tools in place. (I'm not saying they are exactly modeled after the real UN, but they are certainly IMHO close enough to encourage people from not only godmoding ... i.e. I'm putting a nuclear silo off-shore every nation in the world now *insert Dr. Evil laughter*, but to also encourage players to write treaties and agreements.)


Well I think it is better to say that the players and moderators encourage a "Resolution Format" style, not per se Max's game. (Perhaps the almost mythical NS2 might have a better form for the entry of resolutions to encourage such formats. I know I personally prefer the "Resolution Format" style within NS, although I also like "Whereas" resolutions when I'm making formal resolutions for real life groups I belong to.


I completely agree. :)

I'm convinced NS2 is a long ways off, but I'm eagerly looking forward to it. When it comes around, I'm planning on spending most of my time there and little of it here (if any).

"Whereas" resolutions have their usefulness, especially when the organization isn't comprised of a bunch of sovereign entities and can *only* make statements or change internal actions.

Part of the reason the League of Nations (and later UN) changed the format is there really are *2* types of historical resolutions:

Administrative
Statements

That link I included above has mostly administrative resolutions. Agreements to formalize a budget or to formally acknowledge that a subcomittee report have been distributed to all members tend to use "Administrative" words. The UN can even order its own committees to do things by using words such as "DIRECTS".

The statements are frequently human rights statements or condemnations of actions. The US and Israel still get a ton of these resolutions thrown at them. The US specifically was nailed for years for its embargo on Cuba. Israel gets it But the reality is that the UN can't force the US to stop this, so instead of DIRECTS, other words such as URGES and CONDEMNS are used.

(I'm sure you know this, but I'm posting this for the benefit of those that don't.) :)

...This would be an idea splice. You have your first idea: "Patriot act is vague about terrorism and this causes it to be dangerous" What exactly makes it so dangerous?....



Well, first of all, I didn't say that. I said, "I called it the Patriot Act because it is just as vague about terrorism, and just as dangerous" meaning, that 1) It's definition of terrorism is vague, meaning anybody can just say "Oh, you're a terrorist!" *Nuclear war*, and 2) It is as dangerous as the Patriot Act, perhaps not in the same privacy-stealing way, but dangerous nontheless. This is what we English speaking folk like to call a metaphor. In this case, Nuclear Terrorism Act is a metaphor for Patriot Act? Comprende?


Yes, everybody has nuclear friggin weapons. So we shut down all the nuclear weapons-producing facilities, and make it highly illegal to make/use/sell/etc. nuclear weapons. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make a nuclear bomb, even if you KNOW how (and I'm sure everybody does.) About a percent (maybe less, I'm not a geologist) of the world's [already small] supply of Uranium is the isotope Uranium-235. Taking the 'impurities' of the Uranium so that you are just left with about fifty pounds of Uranium-235 is no easy task, especially without the needed tools, which SHOULD be illegal.

Maybe outlawing nuclear weapons might not stop war, but as long as we aren't capable of bringing forth the apocalypse, I fell pretty safe. No nuclear fallout with my wheaties this morning, thanks.

And taking away nukes makes us want to build bigger weapons? WTF? What's next, the H-Bomb? Now you would have to be completely insane to do that. Strap 20 nukes together, add some hydrogen, detonate, and there you have it, 100 Gigatons of apocalypse in a can. (Yes, that's how you make an H-Bomb, and you can't really get a bigger bomb than THAT.)

TilEnca,how many people are going to die from sticks, stones, and the occasional fist? More importantly, how many people are going to get radiation poisoning from sticks and stones? I say take the damn nukes away. No security over them, just gone. What is the point of this bill anyways? Are people just leaving these things lying around on the front lawn or something? And making them illegal means we'll stop monitoring them? How about monitoring to see if anybody's breaking the law, like ya know, ENFORCING it. Heck, we could have some sort of Nuclear Comitee to make sure nobody's got nukes, shucks, they'd have a hell of a time, monitorin nukes, makin sure nobody's got devices capapble of wiping us off the planet.

We cant just vote on this Proposal...

Some PRIORITY errors:

- No definiton about "Terrorism Organizations"
- This Proposal could be used to "charge" some Nations on the "Terrorism Act"
- What NATIONS will rule the "Concilium" of this rule, law?


The Ditactorship of PAXYS votes AGAINST this proposal!

*groans*

Well, first of all, I didn't say that. I said, "I called it the Patriot Act because it is just as vague about terrorism, and just as dangerous" meaning, that 1) It's definition of terrorism is vague, meaning anybody can just say "Oh, you're a terrorist!" *Nuclear war*, and 2) It is as dangerous as the Patriot Act, perhaps not in the same privacy-stealing way, but dangerous nontheless. This is what we English speaking folk like to call a metaphor. In this case, Nuclear Terrorism Act is a metaphor for Patriot Act? Comprende?

I never said you said that. I was simply voicing what I thought the argument behind not liking the Patriot Act was. This is what we in the english-speaking world call a "I'm-not-going-to-pick-at-your-words-because-I'm-not-grasping-your-grapefruit-based-logic" argument. It was an attempt to get you off of your politically charged rhetoric (such as "Patriot Act=Evil"), and get you to discuss why exactly you think it's a "metaphor" (never heard that word before) for the Nuclear Terrorism Act. And I think that you just aren't attempting to extend understanding to what I was saying because you parroted back the same argument without any consideration of my example...


Maybe outlawing nuclear weapons might not stop war, but as long as we aren't capable of bringing forth the apocalypse, I fell pretty safe. No nuclear fallout with my wheaties this morning, thanks.
First off, the UN cannot control the nations that are not members, so the idea that the UN would try to "outlaw" nuclear weapons is unlrealistic. The UN member nations would fall almost overnight to every rogue, nuke-toting power player out there.

And taking away nukes makes us want to build bigger weapons? WTF? What's next, the H-Bomb? Now you would have to be completely insane to do that. Strap 20 nukes together, add some hydrogen, detonate, and there you have it, 100 Gigatons of apocalypse in a can. (Yes, that's how you make an H-Bomb, and you can't really get a bigger bomb than THAT.)Um, Not like I wrote it or anything but I don't remember reading any provision in there which advocated "taking away nukes" (which is a metaphor for "it's gonna fail in the UN")

I say take the damn nukes away. No security over them, just gone. What is the point of this bill anyways? Are people just leaving these things lying around on the front lawn or something? And making them illegal means we'll stop monitoring them? How about monitoring to see if anybody's breaking the law, like ya know, ENFORCING it. Heck, we could have some sort of Nuclear Comitee to make sure nobody's got nukes, shucks, they'd have a hell of a time, monitorin nukes, makin sure nobody's got devices capapble of wiping us off the planet.
Then get you own ******* proposal! If you feel so strongly about this then why don't you propose it?

Yes you did say that I said that! If you put something in quotes, it means that somebody said it! And I don't see anybody else here.

Ugh...and so begins the mudslinging.

Oh, and chipmunk guy, the last 2 parts that you quoted were directed towards the other members who were debating as well (I think TilEnca, or somthing-or-other). Sorry if there was any confusion.

/Mudsling...mudsling...Uhh your country lost the vietnam war, and you never won three purple hearts, and uhh uuhh you're a commy.

/end mudslinging.

Oh, and wasn't the point of the UN to bring things like peace...and stuff...to the world?

How about let's not condone the use of nuclear weapons. Maybe we'll set an example, maybe we won't. At least we won't die war-mongering idiots.


Paxys, thank you for exercising some sort of logic.

PS. The Patriot Act IS evil. Go ahead and read it, it's like a murder mystery novel, except there's no mystery.

Yes you did say that I said that! If you put something in quotes, it means that somebody said it! And I don't see anybody else here.

Not always. It wasn't intended that way in this case. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding.



Oh, and chipmunk guy, the last 2 parts that you quoted were directed towards the other members who were debating as well (I think TilEnca, or somthing-or-other). Sorry if there was any confusion.

Either way the sentiments expressed in them were still a needing to be responded to, and typically it's "first-come-first-served" around here.

Oh, oops I just put quotes around the phrase "first-come-first-served" Must've meant that it was something you said...oops.


/Mudsling...mudsling...Uhh your country lost the vietnam war, and you never won three purple hearts, and uhh uuhh you're a commy.

Incongruities noted:
USA = BAD FOR LOSING TO COMMUNIST NATION
PC = NOT A 3-PURPLE HEART WINNER IN THAT WAR
PC =(?) COMMUNIST FOR NOT GETTING 3 PURPLE HEARTS IN WAR AGAINST COMMUNIST NATION...

:confused:

About your RL political agenda. I'm, curious why you, whose residence is in a foreigh country is so flamboyantly opinionated in "my country['s]" (that time it was a quotation) election. I don't know which country you live in but I'm cure that I do not hold as violent opinions about your country's politics as you do mine. Don't get me wrong I do care about international politics (such as the recent developments with the Spain's President) But I at least treat the citizens of that country with enough respect as to not inject my opinions into my dealings on the subject, seeing as the politicians are not representing me, but them.

Oh, and wasn't the point of the UN to bring things like peace...and stuff...to the world?

How about let's not condone the use of nuclear weapons. Maybe we'll set an example, maybe we won't. At least we won't die war-mongering idiots.


Like I said before, if you'd like to support a proposal to disarm you're more than welcome, heck I'll even contact my delegate to approve it. I'd rather have this mission statement now with the door left open for further developments than be too picky and get nothing at all.

There's a reason why there isn't a resolution that bans nukes: There is no support for it! Okay there is some, but this tends to be small pockets of not-as-influential nations (if you're one of these nations, I'm not talking about you).


PS. The Patriot Act IS evil. Go ahead and read it, it's like a murder mystery novel, except there's no mystery.
Hmm.... Over-generalizing a bit, aren't we? The entire thing's evil? From cover to cover? Every word? Every last ink splotch? Coffee stain? Dust mite?

No wonder they say it never freezes over in Washington, with so many Evil devils around it might as well be...

...right here.

And taking away nukes makes us want to build bigger weapons? WTF? What's next, the H-Bomb? Now you would have to be completely insane to do that. Strap 20 nukes together, add some hydrogen, detonate, and there you have it, 100 Gigatons of apocalypse in a can. (Yes, that's how you make an H-Bomb, and you can't really get a bigger bomb than THAT.)

TilEnca,how many people are going to die from sticks, stones, and the occasional fist? More importantly, how many people are going to get radiation poisoning from sticks and stones? I say take the damn nukes away. No security over them, just gone. What is the point of this bill anyways? Are people just leaving these things lying around on the front lawn or something? And making them illegal means we'll stop monitoring them? How about monitoring to see if anybody's breaking the law, like ya know, ENFORCING it. Heck, we could have some sort of Nuclear Comitee to make sure nobody's got nukes, shucks, they'd have a hell of a time, monitorin nukes, makin sure nobody's got devices capapble of wiping us off the planet.

You think you can't build a bomb bigger than the H-bomb? You really believe that? You really believe that in the next fifty years someone won't invent something that will make the H-Bomb look like a slingshot? The whole history of technology and achievement is going on up on your neighbours.

Secondly - you hit someone hard enough with a stone and they will die. You put your hands round someone's neck it is pretty easy to kill them. You make a spear and you can kill them from a fair distance, and that is just a stick with a point.

This proposal does not mean we will all be killing each other. It means that those who have no nation - those who don't have a vested interest in keeping their people safe because they HAVE no people - are less likely to get weapons of mass destruction. Which I think is a good thing.

We cant just vote on this Proposal...

Some PRIORITY errors:

- No definiton about "Terrorism Organizations"
- This Proposal could be used to "charge" some Nations on the "Terrorism Act"
- What NATIONS will rule the "Concilium" of this rule, law?


The Ditactorship of PAXYS votes AGAINST this proposal!

And if there was a definition of "Terroristm Organizations" that included you or your allies, would you be willing to support it then?

Of course this proposal could be used to charge people. And it's the "Nuclear Terrorism Act" not "Terrorism Act".

As a (hopefully) helpful suggestion, can I direction your attention to this thread

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359497

This was where the original proposal was discussed, and might provide an insite in to why the proposal is written the way it is. (You will notice that I did a lot of arguing against the use of the words "terrorist" and "irresponsible", but was talked round in to support of the proposal after it was explained)

It's mudslinging, it doesn't have to make any sense.


You know...I had my nukes all locked up safely, I didn't sell them to any terrorists, but I bombed the crap out of a terrorist nation, and now 200 million people are dead. But I didn't break any laws, so it's okay, right?

BTW, I'm so violently opposed to your countrie's political agenda because thus far, America is the only country capable of dominating the world. As far as I'm concerned, America is the world's biggest enemy, not some extremist groups in foreign countries.

But hey, that's just me.

Excuse me while I go nuke my entire country. You see, it's psychotic nutjobs like me that are the reason nuclear weapons should be outlawed, no matter how damn secure they are.


And TilEnca, yes, I do think the H-Bomb is about as big as we, or anybody else in the universe, for that matter, will ever get. Fusion reactions are about as far as we'll ever go, and if we find something more powerful, I'll dance naked across the city streets...And then probably run in fear of my life. It's the sheer magnitude of the nuclear weapons threat that scares me.

BTW, I'm so violently opposed to your countrie's political agenda because thus far, America is the only country capable of dominating the world. As far as I'm concerned, America is the world's biggest enemy, not some extremist groups in foreign countries.

But hey, that's just me.
[OOC] Speaking for 'just me', I can assure you that my responses to a similar topic in General would be entirely different than my responses as Frisbeeteria. You appear to be confusing the difference between In-Character discussions with Out-Of-Character discussions.

This is the NS UN. America is not the only superpower in NS, if America even exists in-game. Please realize that this discussion only concerns itself with game realities, not US/UK/whatever geopolitical discussions. Everything here is exaggerated, including the UN and our responses. My suggestion to Exeqor would be to calm down a bit, or take your RL political discussions to General, where you're sure to be even more infuriated by the responses.

I do think the H-Bomb is about as big as we, or anybody else in the universe, for that matter, will ever get. Fusion reactions are about as far as we'll ever go, and if we find something more powerful, I'll dance naked across the city streets...And then probably run in fear of my life. It's the sheer magnitude of the nuclear weapons threat that scares me.

This brings up an interesting question. If I understand it correctly, combustion reactions release energy by the breaking down of intermolecular bonds (a hydrocarbon being broken down into water and CO2). And then nuclear detonation (I believe) involved the breaking down of inter-atomic bonds (an atom being "torn" apart, thus producing the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma particles). Smaller/closer bonds being broken, larger amount energy released. So it would seem to follow that, if physicists ever find a way to harness or even understand the inter-subatomic particles (quarks? neutrinos? Is Dr. Hocking in the house?), that the energy that could be released in this way would be even greater. Just a possibility...

Anyway back to the debate:

All we have to say at this point is, officially stated: Blah, Blah, Blah.

The day we smash a sub-sub atomic particle, is the day we end the universe, as, this very type of thing, was what started it.

The only reason I believe we will ever create fusion is because it is possible in stars. Like I said, cracking those kinds of particles is the very stuff of gods, not even possible in stars; the reason I believe we will never accomplish that feat. But hey, if we can make chips that cause diarhea, we can smash a lepton in two.

Anyways, yes, blah blah. And in rebuttal, blah. Maybe I'll propose the ban of nuclear weapons when I finds me some delgate status. Until then, I'll continue ranting.

My nation and the nations of my region are against it.

The amendment in general is a good idea but most of the definations are too vague and has too many variables. For instance one of the example use in our debate.

What exactly is an 'irresponsible nation'?

Responsible nation: "You need ANOTHER set of nuclear warheads?! What happened to the last one we sold you?"

Irresponsible nation: "Funny story, apparently they don't it when you accidentally drop them three stories. Did I mention we have a new capital city?" )

I urge other nations to vote AGAINST it.

But hey, if we can make chips that cause diarhea, we can smash a lepton in two.

In the words of my regional brotherhood's official language:

Tru dat yo'!

Isn't it funny how almost all political debate eventually leads to:

"You're an idiot" "No YOU'RE an idiot" type of rhetoric. I look back now and laugh. Still, ban WMDs. They're like the One Ring. No good can come of them, even in the "right" hands, no matter safe they are, they must be cast into a venerable Mount Doom.

No definition of "Terrorist organizations" plus I don't think "strongly discourging" is a "strong" statement, if this passes I will be sorely disappointed. I think it needs a rewrite to tighten it up.

They're like the One Ring. No good can come of them, even in the "right" hands, no matter safe they are, they must be cast into a venerable Mount Doom.

Bah, imagine how many lives the brave men and women of Mikitivity could save if we given stewardish of the One Ring. Besides, Mt. Delenn is much more impressive. So should any nation want to destroy is, our scientists (and wizards) are confident that if you hand it to us, that we'll be able to toss it in Mt. Delenn for you.

For the record, the Mikitivity Ministry of Intelligence Special Investigations Section (MMI-6) is also looking for the Lost Ark of the Covenant for "historical" purposes as well.

While this resolution has several problems with it (most of which have been cited and debated already, leaving me with no need to go into them in great detail), the Armed Republic of Zigara recognizes that this resolution, while imperfect, is a significant step in the right direction.

The creation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, while not necessarily the most reassuring of things for a country to do to it's neighbors, is a fact of life in this day and age and also serve as a way for smaller countries to be absorbed by larger ones. While this is a rather sad state of affiars that a country such as mine feels that it needs such horrible weapons to defend themselves, it is the current status quo and as such needs to bre recognized by this agust body.

Furthermore, creation or posession of weapons of mass destruction must impart upon the holder a moral and legal obligation to see to their disposition in perpetuity. This resolution, while imperfect, begins to adress this.

While Zigara is a new nation, and one whose words hold little more than cursory weight with the members of this organization, I still hereby declare Zigara's full and complete support for this proposal and our offer to at the least assist in the creation of a more complete proposal to adress the issues the current resolution raises.

Thank you for your attention.

This resolution is another example of poor drafting.

It can mean anything or nothing.

So many resolutions are full of decent intentions but cursed with bad execution.

There is no way our region can support such a vague and overreaching resolution.

Gesing
Renegade Islands Alliance

This resolution is another example of poor drafting.

I partially agree.

I believe that the participation in the drafting process could (and should) be much better. And if it were I'm certain that the proposals issued would be muc more well thought out. I'm guilty of this. i have lots of excuses. "I can't respond to that I have no expertise inthat area" or "I don't have enough time to go into it". Either way it's almost a form of me neglet my duty as a UN member to take part in the governmental process.

But, this lack in drafting more convicts the nations which hardly ever visit the forum (save to denounce a proposal on the floor), than it does those of us who do frquent the forum from time to time.

I encourage you to help fix this problem and become involved in the drafting of proposals. Maybe, then through we can come up with some better proposals.

In fact here are some that are out in discusssion right now. While some of there aren't officially in the draft/discussion phase, considering the likelihood of a resubmission being needed, drafting in the future is possible.

Draft: Good Samaritan Laws (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359213&page=1&pp=15)

Democratic Elections (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=360665)

banning incest (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361517)

Megatons ro Megawatts (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=360290)

I've played the game. Each time you walk in a room, you are hit with a one to three paragraph of prose describing the room. There is no logic or order to the text description, and it isn't until you role-play walking through and entering the room that the moderator really hits you with whatever is really in the room.

OK. Chalk that up to either bad modules or a bad DM. I've seen scores of articles on the proper method of description in roleplaying, and they always stress that you should always describe a room with the the most obvious and important details first.

Smaller/closer bonds being broken, larger amount energy released. So it would seem to follow that, if physicists ever find a way to harness or even understand the inter-subatomic particles (quarks? neutrinos? Is Dr. Hocking in the house?), that the energy that could be released in this way would be even greater.

On the atomic scale breaking apart atoms only yields energy for really massive atoms. Eventually breaking apart atoms requires energy. It takes energy to split helium into hydrogen, and that's why fusion of hydrogen to helium produces energy.

When you get to quarks it gets really extreeme. The amount of energy it takes to seperate two quarks is the amount of energy it takes to create two quarks. The result is if you could split up two quarks you would wind up with two pairs of two quarks. Quarks it seem really like to be with each other. :fluffle: It's a bonding that should be a model for us all.

Hahahaha...And tonight on Dr. Phil we have Mr and Mrs. Quark: the couple that just can't stop.

And TilEnca, yes, I do think the H-Bomb is about as big as we, or anybody else in the universe, for that matter, will ever get. Fusion reactions are about as far as we'll ever go, and if we find something more powerful, I'll dance naked across the city streets...And then probably run in fear of my life. It's the sheer magnitude of the nuclear weapons threat that scares me.

But here's the thing - way back in the distant past crossbows were banned in TilEnca because of the sheer enormity of the weapon - you could kill someone from the other side of the street and you didn't have to have a lot of strength to use it.

But then someone invented a catapult and crossbows didn't seem so bad any more, and catapults were now the "new big weapon" that everyone wanted banned and regulated.

And if you compare catapults to ICBMs then you have to wonder why catapults were ever banned in the first place.

So I am not willing to say we have developed the biggest and most powerful weapon ever, simply because current science can not concieve of anything more powerful. Time change and we change with them. And so do our weapons.

No definition of "Terrorist organizations" plus I don't think "strongly discourging" is a "strong" statement, if this passes I will be sorely disappointed. I think it needs a rewrite to tighten it up.

And oddly enough, I originally opposed to this because I thought it was far too tight and needed loosening up.

Go figure :}

OK. Chalk that up to either bad modules or a bad DM. I've seen scores of articles on the proper method of description in roleplaying, and they always stress that you should always describe a room with the the most obvious and important details first.

:)

Ahh.... but in a legal framework you need to first define the problem, justify it, describe a basic course of action, and then provide greater detail and plans for changes.

Take the real UN Charter as an example, amendments are extremely important, but they aren't discussed til Chapter XVIII, the second to last part of the charter. The signatures themselves are the last part!

The way I've always taught others to read resolutions is to start with the activating clauses, and *then* go back and see if there is even a real justification ... after doing these two things, then comment, but first address the justification and then the "re"-solution. Think of it as being a sort of switch-back approach.

I think we are starting to hi-jack the Chipmunk's resolution here. So in summary, I'd like to reiterate that my experience with these sorts of documents confirms that this is a well written resolution, and my opinion is that anybody focusing on attacking the resolution based on its format / style really has no moral justification for doing so. In other words, they are being petty, and my government both frowns upon this and has a very long memory.

Still, ban WMDs. They're like the One Ring. No good can come of them, even in the "right" hands, no matter safe they are, they must be cast into a venerable Mount Doom.

Ok - I have been thinking about this, and I find fault in your metaphor, and so your whole premise.

The One Ring was created by one person to enslave all the free peoples of the world. Which is a deplorable motive of course, but it was one ring in the hands of one person.

Nuclear weapons were created by one man, but can now be created by most nations. And while they do provide a means for one nation to destroy another, the two nations know that they both hold the power to wipe out the other, and so know that they can't use them without themselves being destroyed.

Basically we now all hold "the one ring" and so none of us can actually use the ring for evil because we would suffer equal retribution. But we can now use it for good to control the others in the world who also hold one.

Of course! It all makes sense now! The metaphor was wrong in areas, and now I realize we should all have weapons of mass destruction. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

As you can tell, this resolution is decreasingly authoritative as you get further along. Therefore, the United Federation of Meriadoc opposes and has already voted against this resolution.

Of course! It all makes sense now! The metaphor was wrong in areas, and now I realize we should all have weapons of mass destruction. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Sarcasm acomplished is no big deal.

And you did notice the part where I said that everyone having big bad weapons acts as a general deterrent? Except where the person who has the weapons has no one else to think about but themselves?

As you can tell, this resolution is decreasingly authoritative as you get further along. Therefore, the United Federation of Meriadoc opposes and has already voted against this resolution.

And if it blanketly stated to whom you could and coult not sell weapons, would you be happy then?

My Biggest problem with this resolution is that the only part of it that is not "Fluff and Stuff" (AKA Point one) is that it would require one or more sanctions. Have anyone thought of the negative implications that would cause? . . . WMD Proliferation . . . Third world War . . . Economy Collapse . . . just to name a few.

Plus how are we shure that this is not just Securitization? Basicly, Scare tactics?

Just food for thought!

too vague, no teeth

too vague, no teeth
That's because it got into a fight in the bar with Mikitivity's beir accord.

Maybe I shouldn't post when I'm tired...

We are completely against this UN proposal, because of its fifth point: "5. IDENTIFIES WITH and ENDORSES positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices everywhere".

We consider that the only positive and responsible use of nuclear weapons is its destruction.

My Biggest problem with this resolution is that the only part of it that is not "Fluff and Stuff" (AKA Point one) is that it would require one or more sanctions. Have anyone thought of the negative implications that would cause? . . . WMD Proliferation . . . Third world War . . . Economy Collapse . . . just to name a few.

Plus how are we shure that this is not just Securitization? Basicly, Scare tactics?

Just food for thought!

Aside from Point 1 the rest is meant to set an example. To encourage the UN members to think about their nuclear arsenal and to use it properly, rather than just selling to the highest bidder all the time.

And how can five positive points (maybe w/t exception of point 2 as someone previously pointed out) cause World War Three?

We are completely against this UN proposal, because of its fifth point: "5. IDENTIFIES WITH and ENDORSES positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices everywhere".

We consider that the only positive and responsible use of nuclear weapons is its destruction.

You are completely against a proposal that will save lives, prevent accidents and generally make the world a safer place because you think the final point is a problem? The one that is least regulatory, the one that doesn't tell you what to do, only suggests that maybe you shouldn't store your WMDs in the back of the hall cupboard, and if you do maybe you should put a child proof lock on it cause you know how pesky these kids can be, the one that is a summation of the proposal in one single statement?

Why?

sorry to be a bother folks but could you tell me how to vote on resolutions from the U.N? I only became a member today. Thankyou for your help.

Also, Scraggopolis is for this proposal. As you stated TilEnca, anything that makes the world a safer place is a positive move and would promote unity between nations who have, in the past, struggled with their own military differences. The proposal should be accepted by all nations who want to protect civilians, and therefore, their national interests.

sorry to be a bother folks but could you tell me how to vote on resolutions from the U.N? I only became a member today. Thankyou for your help.
You click on the United Nations tab on the side bar (in game, it's harder to get to from the forums) and that'll bring up a page the resolution at vote. The vote FOR and vote AGAINST buttons are in green right after the proposal There are also links to current proposals and past resolutions. Good luck!

Oh, here's a link to the UN page. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/48619/page=un)

The motion is degenerative, hypocritical, illogical and destructive. It is immature, angry, and hazy. Its basic analysis is shallow and dangerous, what it propogates more dangerous still. It is out of tune with the non-negotiable values of democracy and the U.N. This will be a significant backward step for the world if passed, and will arrogate those already powerful and expolitative further. Everyone with any sort of sense or long term thinking brain, or historical knowledge must deny this motion. I urge everyone, for the sake of everyone, to prevent this motion.

PC:

I appreciate that you did what you felt was necessary to make this resolution palatable to the majority of nations who cherish their nuclear autonomy. Personally I agree that half a loaf is better than none in this area.

However, it is the sense of my constituents in the Region of Amber that the resolution does not go far enough, and that having half a loaf will discourage the UN from attempting to pass a more complete and enforceable resolution in the future. The individual nations present and voting rejected the measure.

My duty as a delegate is clear to reject, but my conscience leans to lukewarm approval. I must therefore abstain.

However, the vote appears to be running in the resolution's favor by about 4.5:1. I give you joy of your success.

The motion is degenerative, hypocritical, illogical and destructive. It is immature, angry, and hazy. Its basic analysis is shallow and dangerous, what it propogates more dangerous still. It is out of tune with the non-negotiable values of democracy and the U.N. This will be a significant backward step for the world if passed, and will arrogate those already powerful and expolitative further. Everyone with any sort of sense or long term thinking brain, or historical knowledge must deny this motion. I urge everyone, for the sake of everyone, to prevent this motion.

How? Why? I am all for reasoned arguement and debate, but you are just stating what it is doing (or not doing) without providing any evidence.

It encourages people to behave in a good way, and if (for example) I find that someone who lives out in one of my counties is selling nuclear secrets to someone my government believes is a terrorist group, I can punish them and stop them from doing it. So keeping the nukes out of the hands of someone I believe is evil.

I know - I could do this anyway. But you would be surprised how many UN countries don't feel that this is a good idea. That don't stop their citizens from behaving rashly, even with weapons such as these.

And they also encourage good practice, rather than just saying "eh - you got bombs? Well you look after them how you like. Keep 'em in a shoebox under your bed for all we care".

I support this propsoal, and would encourage you to do the same.

You're still allowing the production and distriution of nuclear weapons.

And as they say..."If you're not part of the solution...You're part of the problem:

The motion is degenerative, hypocritical, illogical and destructive. It is immature, angry, and hazy. Its basic analysis is shallow and dangerous, what it propogates more dangerous still. It is out of tune with the non-negotiable values of democracy and the U.N. This will be a significant backward step for the world if passed, and will arrogate those already powerful and expolitative further. Everyone with any sort of sense or long term thinking brain, or historical knowledge must deny this motion. I urge everyone, for the sake of everyone, to prevent this motion.

*runs into a corner to cry

And if it blanketly stated to whom you could and coult not sell weapons, would you be happy then?
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but just look at how the authoritativeness declines with every section.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizations) 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.




This resolution has almost no teeth. It suggests a lot without actually forcing anybody to do anything, except for section 1. My qualms are the fact that it defines terrorist very broadly, and that, given it will do very little, is listed as significant.
"Discourages strongly." "Cautions against." Not very authoritative if you ask me. It would be much more so if it said "forbids" or "prohibits." I agree totally with what Neo Portugal said at the end of the second quoted post.

I hate to see a powerhungry chipmunk cry. :(

Honestly, why are so many people upset with the responsible use of nuclear weapons? I mean I hate to bring up the imaginary land of the "real world" but did you know some people have seriously suggested using nuclear weapons to blow up hurrincanes? The "real world" land of Florida got hit with four of them just recently. What about taking out rogue asteriods that want to destroy whole nationstates? What about taking out a shield wall or two?

Actually I'm kind of surprised that no one has noticed one major potential problem with this resolution. The resolution prohibits UN members from selling to terrorists. It does not prohibit UN members selling to non members although it discourages it if they are irresponsible. Yet a UN member could sell to a non UN member who might sell or transfer that weapon to a terrorist without the UN member's knowledge.

Still, one has to live with the knowledge that anyone can be more clever than the best written NSUN resolution, because you would need a resolution that is larger than the maximum allowed resolution to take care of all the clever people. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Support the good, don't help the bad because the good isn't perfect. Vote AYE

What about taking out rogue asteriods that want to destroy whole nationstates? What about taking out a shield wall or two?


We've already voted and discussed taking out rogue asteroids:
Space Defense Initiative, defeated 2004.04.15 by a vote of 6,780 to 9,988.


The Holtzman Effect is something of a concern but limited to use of shield walls and lasers, not nukes.

i just disagree with point one.
1. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms, devices, or technologies to known or suspected terrorist organizations;
This could (and probably will) hurt the mining sector of many nations, i suggest we review or remove this point, i am for security, but not at all cost.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, but just look at how the authoritativeness declines with every section.

"Discourages strongly." "Cautions against." Not very authoritative if you ask me. It would be much more so if it said "forbids" or "prohibits." I agree totally with what Neo Portugal said at the end of the second quoted post.

That was my point. If this was a proposal that said you can not sell weapons to these people, and listed two dozen nations who were on the banned list, would you be happy with it? Or would you be arguing, much like I am, that that decision should be in the hands of my nation, not the hands of the UN?

And the idea that the UN can enforce the concept of "good practice"? We should all attempt to have the best practices in nuclear security that we can, but we will ALL have different ideas as to what amounts to "good practice".

THis sets an example and asks that we all follow it to prevent nuclear weapons going astray, or being set off on National EON Day as fireworks (which I admit no one has ever done, but trust me, it would be a bad thing). But since it is only setting an example it can not start handing down the Word Of THRAIS to all the UN members, because every single one of them would have a different interpretation and the whole proposal would collapse.

Actually I'm kind of surprised that no one has noticed one major potential problem with this resolution. The resolution prohibits UN members from selling to terrorists. It does not prohibit UN members selling to non members although it discourages it if they are irresponsible. Yet a UN member could sell to a non UN member who might sell or transfer that weapon to a terrorist without the UN member's knowledge.


But that is the same with all things. My fiance could sell medicine to his patients, and the patient could sell it to someone else who uses it to poison a school bus full of nuns.

Once it is out of your hands, you really have very little power over what happens, and so you really don't have a moral responsibility to monitor it. (Okay, maybe a little bit of one)

This could (and probably will) hurt the mining sector of many nations


Why?

Your problem is not so much with the resolution as it is with Powerhungry Chipmunks, who you have a beef with after he spoke out against the goons.

You are bringing up points are indicitave of you not haviong read the proposal past the author's name. Then you made your decision based strictly upon who it was.

yes. I am childish enough to hold a grudge against some nation named Powerhungry Chimunks because he doesn't like the people I hang out with. yup. totally. I quoted you twice because I believe so strongly in what you have to say.

bottom line, I refuse to support such a vaguely defined resolution. Especially one that might expose MY nation to war.

War you say? good gosh!

Crime in my nation revolves purely around the mining and trade of Uranium. It employs people that I oftentimes have to execute for being a threat to my administration. Since uranium mines are a fairly hard thing to miss, I have no trouble keeping an eye on things. If I have to bust things up, it scatters all my nation's internal threats and POOF there goes the budget because we have to spend more tracking them down. If I don't some other nation will make a big deal about it and enforce whatever consequence they deem fit.

yes. I am childish enough to hold a grudge against some nation named Powerhungry Chimunks because he doesn't like the people I hang out with. yup. totally. I quoted you twice because I believe so strongly in what you have to say.

bottom line, I refuse to support such a vaguely defined resolution. Especially one that might expose MY nation to war.

War you say? good gosh!

Crime in my nation revolves purely around the mining and trade of Uranium. It employs people that I oftentimes have to execute for being a threat to my administration. Since uranium mines are a fairly hard thing to miss, I have no trouble keeping an eye on things. If I have to bust things up, it scatters all my nation's internal threats and POOF there goes the budget because we have to spend more tracking them down. If I don't some other nation will make a big deal about it and enforce whatever consequence they deem fit.


Ok. Forgive me if I am wrong, but Uranium is a mineral. It is not, in itself, a nuclear technology. So why would it be covered by this?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but Uranium is a mineral.
You are then requesting the forgiveness of geologists. They say there is a difference between minerals and elements, the latter of which uranium is. "Minerals," according to geologists, are to chemists compounds.

You are then requesting the forgiveness of geologists. They say there is a difference between minerals and elements, the latter of which uranium is. "Minerals," according to geologists, are to chemists compounds.

Bugger. I meant element. I really did. I can even see the periodic table in my head. Must just have been a brain futz that made me write mineral.

Sorry :}

either way, uranium could be used to make nuclear weapons. Exposing my nation to whatever another nation would use the wording of the document for.

Since this resolution will be passed whether I like it or not, My first act will be to declare the UN a terrorist organization and I going to nuke every nuclear capable UN member in order to Strongly Discourage them.

either way, uranium could be used to make nuclear weapons. Exposing my nation to whatever another nation would use the wording of the document for.

Since this resolution will be passed whether I like it or not, My first act will be to declare the UN a terrorist organization and I going to nuke every nuclear capable UN member in order to Strongly Discourage them.

Uranium can be used for other things than nuclear weapons. It can be used for other things that do not relate to nuclear activities. So you can still go on mining it and selling it.

Actually I believe the distinction that would facilitate the most in this discussion would be between raw uranium (which is found naturally) and highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium (which has little use beyond getting stuff blowed up).


Since this resolution will be passed whether I like it or not, My first act will be to declare the UN a terrorist organization and I going to nuke every nuclear capable UN member in order to Strongly Discourage them.
Hm, first I'm not sure with your current 23 million population your nation is quite...how do I say it..."nuclear capable"?

And second, if you are nuke-tastic, you're in the UN and you have nuclear capabilities, so you'll be nuking yourself...

And how can five positive points (maybe w/t exception of point 2 as someone previously pointed out) cause World War Three?

Imposing Sanctions upon other nations would/might cause them to be angry with the UN (not good). Because we cannot just say "It will be!" and poof it is, we must assume that we would threat the other countrys into complying with us. If they agree with us, then we're fine. If they do not, it would upset them that we are forcing our opinion upon them . . . this might lead to them starting a 3rd nuke war (again not good).

Lastly, if You say this only affects the UN members then this really does have no teeth and should not have even been proposed to the Council for voting.

Hope your hungry for some thought!

Lastly, if You say this only affects the UN members then this really does have no teeth and should not have even been proposed to the Council for voting.
No UN resolution can ever affect non-UN nations. If you make a proposal that attempts to affect everyone, it will be discarded and your UN membership may be revoked.

Does that make the UN toothless in a world where only a third are members? Probably. But them's the rules, and we're stuck with 'em.

OOC: You obviously know nothing about real UN resolutions. Next time, before flaming something you obviously don't understand, try visiting the UN's resolution archive (http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm) to see a few examples on formatting. While this is just a game, this *part* of the game is a simulation of the UN, not a dungeons and dragons thingie.

Or if that is "too difficult", you could ... *gasp* ... read the stickies, which also suggest NS players adopt the same format.

Anyway, you'll notice the real UN resolutions uses italics. Guess what? Font formats such as bold face and italics aren't supported in the resolution submission form, so players use capitalization instead.

My point, is that just because you are ignorant about the standard procedures of this game's resolution formats, doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason for the *format* of the resolution. Now if you actually want to debate / discuss the resolution, I'm sure somebody will be willing to give you a second chance.

Fine, I'll remove the "formatting" from my ACTUAL DISCUSSION so you'll pay attention and respond to it, since you are obviously yourself guilty of not reading what is written. (Also, substituting SOMETHING THAT IS TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTED AS SHOUTING ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET is probably not a good substitute for italics. Why not enclose them in nifty *asterisks*?)

My nation, being a UN member, suspects the author of harboring terrorists and coming covert terrorist acts. If this passes, they would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, suggesting that they are not in a position to propose nuclear arms regulations.

Imposing Sanctions upon other nations would/might cause them to be angry with the UN (not good). Because we cannot just say "It will be!" and poof it is, we must assume that we would threat the other countrys into complying with us. If they agree with us, then we're fine. If they do not, it would upset them that we are forcing our opinion upon them . . . this might lead to them starting a 3rd nuke war (again not good).

Lastly, if You say this only affects the UN members then this really does have no teeth and should not have even been proposed to the Council for voting.

Hope your hungry for some thought!

Aside from Frisbeeteria's comment, all the proposals in the UN require good faith on the part of it's members. Otherwise none of these proposals would actually work at all.

I am willing to trust that the members of the UN will comply with this, and those that don't will make it known (and they will be punished for it).

Also if people are going to fight, they are going to fight. They will use this proposal, religion, the size of their tallest building..... the list is endless. Because you think this will lead to war is not (in my view at least) a suitable reason to vote against it.

how dare you try and ban the sale of my nuclear arms to "freedom fighters" you know they are trying to get a upper hand on this dangerous planet just like i am by suplmenting my income by sell these Peacemakers. i demand that you veto this bill at once!

there is no such thing as "positive and responsible nuclear WEAPONS policy" because there is no such thing as positive and responsible belligerance.

genie's don't get put back in bottles that easily anyway.

i would also point out the minor little detail that one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'

we are certainly not in favor of anyone making big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people, whether they do it with nuclear arsinals or airplaines with full fuel tanks or simply lobbing shells full of conventional high explosives. (and whether they are a self styled nongovernmental malitia that want to become a government or just blow up stuff or an existing government 'responsible' or otherwise.)

but realisticly the more of anything there is in circulation the greater the likelyhood of anyone and everyone getting their hands on it no matter how many international aggreements or anything else are implimented to try and prevent their doing so.

the loophole for existing governments created by provision (five i think it is) really makes the whole resolution a hallow and meaningless ritualistic gesture and an absurd farce.

=^^=
.../\...

i would also point out the minor little detail that one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'


Argh, matey!

This argument's problematic, because last time I checked "freedom fighters" were still independent groups. And if you're a freedom firghter, you typically want to overthrow a regime in an area you care about.

Not exactly the most practical place to use nuclear weapons...

And, yes, there are such things as positive and responsible nuclear arms practices. We can't change whether there are nuclear weapons in the world or not (or, as you you say, "put the genie back in the bottle"). But things we do which produce a positive net effect (lessen the stockpiles of nuclear weapons, lessening the likelihood of a large-scale nuclear disaster, secure nuclear weapons), would be positive practices. If you want to live in the ideal world and say that anything dealing with nuclear weapons is a negative thing, you aren't going to get very far designing policy. We need to make the world better, not resign ourselves to denouncing everything as another lesser or greater evil to choose between.

My nation, being a UN member, suspects the author of harboring terrorists and coming covert terrorist acts. If this passes, they would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, suggesting that they are not in a position to propose nuclear arms regulations.
Sorry, the terrorist organizations covered here are only the "extra-national" ones, and it isn't for you to decide whether they have nuclear weapons except in which ones you trade/sell to them.

Fine, I'll remove the "formatting" from my ACTUAL DISCUSSION so you'll pay attention and respond to it, since you are obviously yourself guilty of not reading what is written. (Also, substituting SOMETHING THAT IS TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTED AS SHOUTING ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET is probably not a good substitute for italics. Why not enclose them in nifty *asterisks*?)

It's pretty redundant to attack the conventions of some place. If people in one country think that the "thumbs up" sign is vulgar, it probably isn't a good idea to attack this country for thinking so. Likewise the conventions for proposal writing in this game have been worked over by many people, many times. It's the gross product of many peoples' work, not just Mikitivity's.

And arguing that it's a bad idea because it's "SHOUTING" everywhere else on the net, is pretty weak. This is like Americans telling the world that they have to call their "football", "soccer". Or the world telling the US they must refer to their "football" as "american football". Not going to work on either count. Every place is allowed to have unique references to things and unique culture(s).

how dare you try and ban the sale of my nuclear arms to "freedom fighters" you know they are trying to get a upper hand on this dangerous planet just like i am by suplmenting my income by sell these Peacemakers. i demand that you veto this bill at once!
Peacemakers? in the hands of freedom fighters who have no population to answer to? No group to be accountable to? You want arguably the most powerful military device in the hands of those who have no concrete rules?

And besides, how does that work anyway?

FREEDOM FIGHTER: I want to liberate Isreal

GOVERNMENT: No

FREEDOM FIGHTER: Okay here's a nuke

GOVERNMENT + THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND: We've just been blowed up.

FREEDOM FIGHTER: Now, I want to liberate Israel

....

FREEDOM FIGHTER: Hello?

...

FREEDOM FIGHTER: Is there anyone left?

...

FREEDOM FIGHTER: Yay! I liberated Israel!

It's unrealistic to think that any organization that would consider detonating a nclear device would be "freedom fighters". The idea behind a nuclear device is wholesale slaughter, and the enactment of great fear. This is an awfully terrorist-like thing to do...

The nomadic poeples of LinkinParker strongly agrees and supports this fully.
nuclear weapons are bad

The views of the Republic of Kniq are that while the intent of the proposal appears to be sound, the definitions of terrorist and suspicious nation are vague. We feel that any country could be branded as terrorist and victimized as a result. We feel that we cannot support this resolution.

The people of Tinktopia simply say this:

Diplomacy not destroy

Fine, I'll remove the "formatting" from my ACTUAL DISCUSSION so you'll pay attention and respond to it, since you are obviously yourself guilty of not reading what is written. (Also, substituting SOMETHING THAT IS TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTED AS SHOUTING ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET is probably not a good substitute for italics. Why not enclose them in nifty *asterisks*?)

My nation, being a UN member, suspects the author of harboring terrorists and coming covert terrorist acts. If this passes, they would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, suggesting that they are not in a position to propose nuclear arms regulations.

OOC: You still don't get the point. The caps used in the first words have been used by many organizations for their resolution format, long before italics was made available via computers. The other standard convention was to underline the first word.

I'll bother to read the rest of your godmoding reply after you've gone to the actual UN and look at how they have formatted their resolutions since 1945 and can then demostrate you've done so.

It really is a sad tactic to include any formatting critisms with any other attacks on an idea. It is even worse to include a complaint about formatting when it happens to be dead wrong. All you've managed to convince me of is that you are petty and have no clue about the real UN. I really see absolutely no reason why any of the rest of us should actually respond in character to anything you say.

The believes that a terroist is a terroist not a freedom fighter. Has a world we must do everything in our power to make sure wmds do not fall into their hands. The nation Newarkbeth believes this is a step in the right direction and votes yes to the resolution.

The believes that a terroist is a terroist not a freedom fighter.Despite the missing subject in the above sentence, we've puzzled out the intent of the statement.

Whether you believe a fighter is a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends entirely upon which side of the war you are on.

The leaders of the tiny nation of NewarkBeth should take a moment to imagine that they are the ones being attacked by a large, powerful enemy, and the only advantageous method of attacking this oppressor is via small, secretive groups. It matters not the NewarkBeth considers their fight to be just and their cause to be true. From the perspective of the larger power, these sneak attacks will be considered terrorist by the opponent, and probably the world at large.

Despite the missing subject in the above sentence, we've puzzled out the intent of the statement.

Whether you believe a fighter is a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends entirely upon which side of the war you are on.

The leaders of the tiny nation of NewarkBeth should take a moment to imagine that they are the ones being attacked by a large, powerful enemy, and the only advantageous method of attacking this oppressor is via small, secretive groups. It matters not the NewarkBeth considers their fight to be just and their cause to be true. From the perspective of the larger power, these sneak attacks will be considered terrorist by the opponent, and probably the world at large.

We are talking about terrorist who attack to harm innocent people. Also if a larger nation were to attack my nation it would be war thus my nation would have the right to defend oursevles. The resolution has passed and the nation of Newarkbeth is pleased that it did.

The views of the Republic of Kniq are that while the intent of the proposal appears to be sound, the definitions of terrorist and suspicious nation are vague. We feel that any country could be branded as terrorist and victimized as a result. We feel that we cannot support this resolution.

The definitions of terrorist and suspicious are left in the hands of the nation who is defining them. They will not be a UN defined thing.

We are talking about terrorist who attack to harm innocent people. Also if a larger nation were to attack my nation it would be war thus my nation would have the right to defend oursevles. The resolution has passed and the nation of Newarkbeth is pleased that it did.

I fully support this proposal, but the idea that there are such things as "innocent people" is a myth. If the people of a nation are supporting the government of that nation, and that nation is engaged in the brutal supression of my nation, then I, personally, believe we are justifiied in using any action against the said government, and the people who support it. But I suspect that the said nation - the one who is opressing me - would class anyone who is not enlisted in my military forces as terrorists.

Post of record:

The resolution The Nuclear Terrorism Act was passed 12,555 votes to 3,346, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Post of record:

The resolution The Nuclear Terrorism Act was passed 12,555 votes to 3,346, and implemented in all UN member nations.

This is what I get for coming here before going to the UN page at nationstates :}

Excellent. Time to ramp of production of nukes, especially easily portable ones, to take advantage of the sudden drop in competitors.