NationStates Jolt Archive

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

Recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,

Reaffirming the will of all States that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,

Recalling its previous resolutions on this issue, UN Space Consortium, adopted Feb. 29, 2004, and Tracking Near Earth Objects, adopted Jul. 5, 2004,

Recognizing that prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security,

Emphasizing the paramount importance of strict compliance with existing arms limitation and disarmament agreements relevant to outer space, including bilateral agreements, and with the existing legal regime concerning the use of outer space,

Considering that wide participation in the legal regime applicable to outer space could contribute to enhancing its effectiveness,

Emphasizing the mutually complementary nature of bilateral and multilateral efforts in the field of preventing an arms race in outer space, and hoping that concrete results will emerge from those efforts as soon as possible,

1. Reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective;

2. Calls upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation; and

3. Recognizes the growing convergence of views on the elaboration of measures designed to strengthen transparency, confidence and security in the peaceful uses of outer space.

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

Recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,

Reaffirming the will of all States that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,

Recalling its previous resolutions on this issue, UN Space Consortium, adopted Feb. 29, 2004, and Tracking Near Earth Objects, adopted Jul. 5, 2004,

Recognizing that prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security,

Emphasizing the paramount importance of strict compliance with existing arms limitation and disarmament agreements relevant to outer space, including bilateral agreements, and with the existing legal regime concerning the use of outer space,

Considering that wide participation in the legal regime applicable to outer space could contribute to enhancing its effectiveness,

Emphasizing the mutually complementary nature of bilateral and multilateral efforts in the field of preventing an arms race in outer space, and hoping that concrete results will emerge from those efforts as soon as possible,

1. Reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective;

2. Calls upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation; and

3. Recognizes the growing convergence of views on the elaboration of measures designed to strengthen transparency, confidence and security in the peaceful uses of outer space.

I'm considering deleting the blue section in order to make the proposal shorter.

I've also been considering drafting a new clause connecting the monitoring of this resolution to the UN Space Consortium, but wanted to talk to the UNSC Board of Directors first.

There have been several similar proposals submitted in the past few months (the IDU originally submitted this in Sept as well where it once had nearly 100 endorsements!).

In any event, my government views this proposal as a general statement designed to limit an arms race in space, and is of the opinion that first passing this resolution will make it far easier to then build consensus on future specific resolutions.

The thing I dislike about this proposal (and the two earlier resolutions as well) is that they ignore the fact that space is already widely occupied in the multiverse that is NationStates. The moon, of the planets, and many of the asteroids and other celestial bodies are already occupied. Many of these occupiers are regions, and some of those regions have UN Delegates. I think they would dispute the claim that the UN holds territorial domain over them.

In a game that spends a great deal of time indulging in roleplay, I frankly find it arrogant to assume that everyone in the UN is at current real-world technical and exploration levels. Even the issues give each nation the opportunity to develop space flight, and at least one issue (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6711741&postcount=10) explicity acknowledges other existing life in the system. A quick scan of the NationStates and International Incidents forums will show probably 20-30% of all roleplay battles are in space. While surely not all of them are UN members, surely some of them are.

Then of course, there's the fact that Frisbeeteria hates any sort of Global Disarmament proposals anyway.

While I appreciate that this is actually an international issue, and that this proposal expresses sentiments that generally I agree with, I have to, upon reflection, second Fris's concerns.

I frankly find it arrogant to assume that everyone in the UN is at current real-world technical and exploration levels. Even the issues give each nation the opportunity to develop space flight, and at least one issue (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6711741&postcount=10) explicity acknowledges other existing life in the system.

Frankly I don't feel obligated to really respond to comments accusing me of being arrogant, because that is not my intent.

I will point out that a majority of the daily issues *assume* many "real-world" situations (technical and exploration levels included), and if I'm guilty of anything it is in following the "arrogant" designs of the game itself.

If we could only talk about things that aren't roleplayed in some multi-verse aspect, I guess that really leaves about three options:

- Is it OK to be gay
- Prostitution (evil or good)
- Death and Taxes (are they really necessary)

My complaint is that I'm more than a bit insulted that you'd sit here and argue that resolutions need to take into account the 10,000s of possibilities that are currently happening in both open and closed roleplay, when the game itself assumes many real-world situations via the daily issues what wouldn't make a bit of sense in those environments.

If you have anything useful other than to call me arrogant, I'll welcome those comments. If not, I'll make note of your country's objection and simply move on.

I've been spending a lot of time on the NSwiki project, and I've enjoyed reading the rich histories of the various space-based states, species, and conflicts. If you don't want to acknowledge it's existence, that's fine. Ignoring is a legitimate tactic in this game, a point I even brought up in a UN resolution. Given that, I'll take my own advice and Ignore this and the other space based resolutions, and move on.

I've been spending a lot of time on the NSwiki project, and I've enjoyed reading the rich histories of the various space-based states, species, and conflicts. If you don't want to acknowledge it's existence, that's fine. Ignoring is a legitimate tactic in this game, a point I even brought up in a UN resolution. Given that, I'll take my own advice and Ignore this and the other space based resolutions, and move on.

That would actually be appreciated, because frankly I find it disappointing when somebody's only advice is to call somebody else arrogant, which is something I consider far from constructive behavior.

But please in the future do not put words in my mouth. I have no problems with multi-verse roleplayed aspects of the game, but I do feel that at some point there has to be something of a baseline that the majority of players (not including the many puppets some of the more active NS players have) can agree to. Without such a baseline, there really is hardly a point in joining the UN, except for of course using the game engine to rule on "tank rush" styled military campaigns.

Finally I'm going to note that every environmental, free trade, human rights, international security, recreational drug use, gambling, moral decency, social justice, or gun control issue has had seen evidence of a common baseline when it comes time for debate, one that often is geared towards a 21st century human race, living on planet Earth. I think it is unfair to single out one idea, when clearly that same complaint could be easily extended to many other aspects of the game.

I oppose this resolution, but for a very practical reason: Not all of the nations in space are in the UN and there are at least a few that are openly militaristic and expansionist. In fact, I'm one of them, but I prefer to take over areas no one else has found yet.

Of course, it doesn't help that I'm sitting in uncharted space over a thousand lightyears away from the nearest (to me) star called Sol.

In any case, I think all nations interested in space exploration should be required to either have a standing military or be very good friends with a very militaristic nation. Just in case they meet someone in my category who is interested in their country but wants to remove them from it. And, yes, it can be a very real danger.

I oppose this resolution, but for a very practical reason: Not all of the nations in space are in the UN and there are at least a few that are openly militaristic and expansionist. In fact, I'm one of them, but I prefer to take over areas no one else has found yet.

Of course, it doesn't help that I'm sitting in uncharted space over a thousand lightyears away from the nearest (to me) star called Sol.


Actually it is just a proposal at this point, which means that suggestions on changes are welcomed.

Now I was under the impression that UN resolutions don't impact non-UN members, which you pointed out happens to be what many non-Earth based societies are.

Actually, they do affect us in some cases, mainly through making it easier or harder to militarily dominate UN nations. That is why I also oppose banning nukes in the UN. After all, if you're going to be wiping out a nation, they should at least have the chance to develop the same weapons you are using.

Thus, that is also part of why I am suggesting the UN nations be forced to have standing armies or good allies that do so when in space.

Actually, they do affect us in some cases, mainly through making it easier or harder to militarily dominate UN nations. That is why I also oppose banning nukes in the UN. After all, if you're going to be wiping out a nation, they should at least have the chance to develop the same weapons you are using.

Thus, that is also part of why I am suggesting the UN nations be forced to have standing armies or good allies that do so when in space.

Ah, I do see your point.

What if instead of developing a weapon of mass destruction, technology was redeveloped into creating a defense system?

The concern about orbital weapons platforms is that even "deterant" based weapons can be turned against the nations they are supposed to "protect". The same could be said of standing armies and even the best of allies.

The basic idea behind this proposal is essentially the same behind national laws that limit the type and number of weapons you can carry. If everybody wanted to play the role of a "cowboy" and run around armed to the teeth with six-shooters and hand carried rocket launchers just in case they get mugged, not only do global costs associated with these things (albiet it a cartoonish image I'm painting here) but the chances of these weapons being used for the wrong reason increases as well.

I'm not suggesting that conventional resources nor strategic planning be stopped! I too remember the Simpson's Halloween episode where the UN did away with all weapons and the Earth was invaded by aliens wielding sticks with nails through them ... but realistically, the best way to conquer a planet is through the use of mass drivers. If we want to assume there are any number of hostile space faring nations out there whom are hell bent on tossing asteroids towards the earth, while you and I both know that few nations are equipped with a means to prevent this (aside from having a friendly non-UN nation with a fleet that would make a Death Star look like a child's toy), somehow I can safely predict that the game mods aren't about to start deleting nuked or rocked to the stone age nations ...

That said, the resolution was "written" in a way as to really just suggest that arms races in space are a bad idea. I was actually thinking that the last clause (#3) could be rewritten with the conscent of the UNSC to actually just provide an inventory of what is up there.

To be honest, I was surprised to hear that a society from over 1k light years was that interested in the UN. I'm glad to hear this! Just surprised too!

How would you feel about a re-write on clause #3?

Actually, he's interested in the UN because we are allies and he is serving to protect my nation. We're also from the same planet.

I find the rewrite to be perfect. Other than that, the resolution will be enough as-is.

Actually, he's interested in the UN because we are allies and he is serving to protect my nation. We're also from the same planet.

:) A very good reason.

Since this has been brought here and it sounds like a rewrite would improve it, I'll spin my wheels for the next week on clause 3, but I'm completely open to suggestions.

I'll see about contacting the UNSC and getting their feelings too.

Thank you both.

Bredagh has already been cutting military expenses in favor of space exploration. I'm happy to report that we've had much success in that endeavor. :D

The People's Republic shares some Space Resolutions History with Mikitivity, and will continue the spirit of those previous debates. We like this resolution. As has been previously stated, the PRoGG will not support any UN resolution that is meant to start a weapons race in space, even if it is meant as a defense.

However, we do share the concerns that have been brought up, such as the mention of millitaristic expansionist nations in outer space. We feel it would be worthwhile to include in this resolution a clause that allows nations to defend themselves, or other UN nations, in case of a clear act of war against them or UN property. This should not mean that armies are allowed to be stationed in space. In which way nations will deal with this in case of war, within the limits of UN resolutions, should be left at their discretion. Personally, we favor I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

The government of Telidia echo the sentiments from the honourable member of Grout Gouda, but as always welcomes proposals from the Mikitivity delegation. Whilst Telidia and many other nations certainly would prefer the cosmos remain free of the ills that have made our own planet so dangerous, we must unfortunately acquiesce to the fact that it may already be too late.

In recent memory the NSUN defeated a resolution regarding nuclear disarmament because it’s consequence would have meant that all UN nations would disarm and non-members would not. Clearly this left UN nations in a very vulnerable position and whilst the intention was to increase global security, it in fact did the complete opposite.

It seems to me that this proposal could have a similar effect, since nothing is stopping our non-member colleagues from developing ‘space based’ weapons or weapons platforms. Therefore in order for my government to support this proposal, we feel it very important that non-members be included in all aspects when talking about the development or disarmament of weapons 'globally'.

Furthermore the development of weapons in space may actually be necessary if for example a NEO is spotted. Article five of resolution 64 (Tracking near Earth objects) call on member states to research and develop possible contingency plans in case an impact may be likely. Surely orbital weapons platforms must form part of this research since it is much simpler, not to mention cheaper and effective, to launch a weapon at a target when already in orbit.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

It seems to me that this proposal could have a similar effect, since nothing is stopping our non-member colleagues from developing ‘space based’ weapons or weapons platforms. Therefore in order for my government to support this proposal, we feel it very important that non-members be included in all aspects when talking about the development or disarmament of weapons 'globally'.


Unfortunately, the UN has no jurisdiction over non-UN nations. We cannot legislate to make non-UN nations do anything. When a nation enters the UN they are bound to an agreement that they'll follow UN resolutions. Non-UN nations are bound by no such agreement, in no such way. There may be things to keep the UN safe from non-UN aggression, though. I cannot think of any at the moment, but Mikitivity, I'm sure, will be able to address your concerns.

Unfortunately, the UN has no jurisdiction over non-UN nations. We cannot legislate to make non-UN nations do anything. When a nation enters the UN they are bound to an agreement that they'll follow UN resolutions. Non-UN nations are bound by no such agreement, in no such way. There may be things to keep the UN safe from non-UN aggression, though. I cannot think of any at the moment, but Mikitivity, I'm sure, will be able to address your concerns.

Indeed that is true, however when one is seeking a ‘global’ solution or agreement you cannot simply ignore two thirds of the world. Perhaps the best solution would be to include a clause that UN members must seek bilateral agreements with their non-member allies to be compliant with this proposal. There are mechanisms by which governments can bring non-members in to the fold.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Actually, I think my idea has it covered. Have those UN countries weakened by this make allies of powerful non-UN countries. Military might can be handled, without concern, by those not in the UN with the UN nations providing what support they can. It would help a lot of militaristic countries to have some economic superpower with no military of their own providing extra funds for soldiers.

Actually, I think my idea has it covered. Have those UN countries weakened by this make allies of powerful non-UN countries. Military might can be handled, without concern, by those not in the UN with the UN nations providing what support they can. It would help a lot of militaristic countries to have some economic superpower with no military of their own providing extra funds for soldiers.

I doubt the citizens in Telidia would approve of our government taking part in imperialistic and expansionist projects leading to the suffering of untold citizens in other nations.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Furthermore the development of weapons in space may actually be necessary if for example a NEO is spotted. Article five of resolution 64 (Tracking near Earth objects) call on member states to research and develop possible contingency plans in case an impact may be likely. Surely orbital weapons platforms must form part of this research since it is much simpler, not to mention cheaper and effective, to launch a weapon at a target when already in orbit.

The effectiveness of space weapons for NEO is doubtfull. As well as the dangers of having weapons in space - it's a sure terrorist target. There has been discussion about this in the past, and Groot Gouda will hold its position that for NEOs, weapons are not the solution, and will never support a resolution that will allow them. In fact, from the opposition to that, the current NEO Resolution was derived, calling for more research instead of weapons.

As for the global disarmament: the NSUN has no jurisdiction on non-members. Global disarming is therefor an impossibility. The only weapons that should be allowed in space as far as our nation is concerned are I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons. Whatever happens, space should not be a battle ground.

One thing that occurs to me about this is a simple fact: There are a few UN nations who have massive space fleets to help defend themselves. They are still a small number, however. Part of the reason is realism: Just because the U.S. may think weapons shouldn't be in space doesn't mean China won't build a massive weapons platform up there. So, while some of those nations do not enjoy war, they still maintain fleets capable of wiping out small continents because of those who do.

That reason is also part of why my nation is structured as it is. I cannot afford otherwise.

The only weapons that should be allowed in space as far as our nation is concerned are I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons. Whatever happens, space should not be a battle ground.

Neither should anywhere else be a battle ground. Using that as a reason for using I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons in space is illogical, and can be used to equally argue against weapons anywhere. That really limits roleplaying possibilities, causing others to automatically not allow you to roleplay any form of war with them if they choose to think about it and be evil.

All I am doing is pointing out how someone can turn that against you, not to be against you. Not wanting to roleplay war in space is a far different, and far more acceptable and logical, reason than saying it should not be a battlefield.

The DRA is strongly in support of this resolution. While the DRA has a tiny space program designed only to launch satellites into space, it believes that it is paramount to keep space a weaponsless place to conduct research and exploration. Well written resolution!

One thing that occurs to me about this is a simple fact: There are a few UN nations who have massive space fleets to help defend themselves. They are still a small number, however. Part of the reason is realism: Just because the U.S. may think weapons shouldn't be in space doesn't mean China won't build a massive weapons platform up there. So, while some of those nations do not enjoy war, they still maintain fleets capable of wiping out small continents because of those who do.


With that "fictious" example, I think you've actually justified the purpose behind this resolution.

The US (whatever that may be) alone might not be able to prevent China (whatever that may be) from building massive weapons platforms in space, but the US can discourage, via economic incentives / disincentives China from doing so. If the US were to also have the backing of say thousands of other nations like mine or Groot Gouda, that have strong economies, this country "China" might think twice.

Groot Gouda is correct to point out that there is a history of debate related to weapons in space in the NationStates UN. The basic history is covered in parts of the NSWiki discussion of the Tracking Near Earth Objects (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Tracking_Near_Earth_Objects) and UN Space Consortium (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Space_Consortium).

To make a long story short, the UN has actually historically shown it is split on the best way to protect terrestrial nations, but it has consistently ruled in a direction that suggestions that nations wish to at the very least limit the types and use of weapons in near-earth space.

My first suggestion based on reading everybody's useful discussions would be for me to change the proposal from "outer space" to "near-earth space". This is of course consistent with the debates behind the UNSC and Tracking Near Earth Objects resolutions.

Before I continue (and I promise you that I have some other ideas on how to reach a compromise that I think most of us can agree to), how does this suggestion sound?

I'm optimistic actually, because with the exception of one nation calling my government arrogant and a me two from their ally, it is reassuring to see nations discussing this topic. I think we all should continue, because a better solution is likely to come from working to together than what may be submitted in the queue but is not first submitted as a draft.

Actually, your current changes satisfy my challenges. And my example was partly to justify this. I want to see this, with your proposed changes so far, as an actual resolution. I will get my ally in the UN to try to get support drummed up for it in our region. It is sorta ironic that a militaristic expansionist nation (me) is advocating a proposal that calls for the limitation of arms.

Actually, your current changes satisfy my challenges. And my example was partly to justify this. I want to see this, with your proposed changes so far, as an actual resolution. I will get my ally in the UN to try to get support drummed up for it in our region. It is sorta ironic that a militaristic expansionist nation (me) is advocating a proposal that calls for the limitation of arms.

Ironic or not, it will certainly help bring more nations to support this proposal.

It now sounds like my government has *2* action items:

- Change the focus from "outer space" to "near earth space".

- Contact the UNSC and see if a provision for tracking the state of the militarization of near earth space is something the committee can handle.

It will take my staff about one or two evenings to flesh out acceptable language here. Ultimately Groot Gouda is right that this proposal, since it will be "Global Disarmament: Mild" will need to avoid also advocating for international security issues. My government feels that Sydia's "Convention Against Terrorism" is a better International Security document.

OOC: For Halloween I'll be visiting my family, and then working as a precinct working on Tuesday's national elections. I'll not be able to realistically get to this til Thursday, but thanks to the interest you've all shown, you can count on me cleaning this up and providing the UN with a revised proposal based on what I see the common ground. Once we can agree on something, I'll take the proposal to the pro-UN regional forums and try to build a support base. With a few of those regions and UN forum support, I'm optimistic that this proposal can in fact see light as a resolution. Actually you guys have me a bit excited about the next round of language changes ... they'll be more appropriate for NationStates.

I would generally have to concur with my fellow more significantly technologically advanced space-farers on this issue. While I applaud the concept of peaceful exploratory and colonial use of space (which is what our Stellar forces are primarily designed for) the inevitability of an "arms-race" is a bi-product of the generally more aggressive rogue space-farers. While our major purpose is exploration and the seeking out of new alliances, trade routes, and colonial operations... There have been numerous times when Republic SCV (Sector Control Vessels) and/or fleets have had to be called on to defend trade stations, research outposts, and indeed unarmed colonies of ours and other allies, against a more aggressive and imperial foe... I however agree with the alterations to restrict the proposal to near-earth space. As earth is generally too much of a mess, and is generally considered "off-limits" in terms of too much technological interferance...

Not allowing weapons in "near-earth" space would take away many of our worries. Despite being a firmly pacifist nation, allowing or not disallowing weapons in outer space wouldn't be a breaking point if well formulated. We fully trust Mikitivity to come up with a resolution that could do so.

im for it just as long nobody makes a death star machine out there.
but as all of us know some little pussy will build and say im invading u because u have wmds. well the pussy does have the real wmd.


THAT MAKES ME A SAD PANDA!

"Recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,

Reaffirming the will of all States that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, "

First, every planet is a celestial body, thus included in the act. So, this could be construed as a cleverly written complete nuclear disarmermant resolution to all UN Member States. If a NS does not have perfect information wrt the planet on which it resides, it is still exploring and learning about it.

Second, this imposes irrational socialism. NS may not be capable of producing Space Exploration, yet they will be entitled to the fruits of such exploration. Then there is no incentive to develop a space program.

Third, this is NS, not Star Trek. What leads you to believe all of mankind is interested in the exploration of space for peacefull purposes.

Fourth, what about this non human kind we hear so much about. They can let the bombs rain down from the heavens like soddom and gamora because they are not bound to this resolution.

"Recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,

Reaffirming the will of all States that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, "

First, every planet is a celestial body, thus included in the act. So, this could be construed as a cleverly written complete nuclear disarmermant resolution to all UN Member States. If a NS does not have perfect information wrt the planet on which it resides, it is still exploring and learning about it.

Second, this imposes irrational socialism. NS may not be capable of producing Space Exploration, yet they will be entitled to the fruits of such exploration. Then there is no incentive to develop a space program.

Third, this is NS, not Star Trek. What leads you to believe all of mankind is interested in the exploration of space for peacefull purposes.

Fourth, what about this non human kind we hear so much about. They can let the bombs rain down from the heavens like soddom and gamora because they are not bound to this resolution.

hmmm on the last point, good point, we tekanians aren't humans, we're humanoid, yes, but not homo sapiens... We've got blue skin and red eyes, with a nickel-cobalt blood base.... I guess we can develope weapon systems still :D

Clarification: use of the term irrational socialism is not intended to imply a form of rational socialism exists.

I oppose this measure,
I will never let some foreign p*ssy decide if i can have weapons or not
If you want weapons go ahead and build them
but leave me to decide my arsenal
:mp5:
:sniper:
:gundge:

We thank the honourable delegation from Mikitivity for their suggestions and certainly reducing the scope of the proposal certainly helps to alleviate some of our fears. For clarity sake however, we would like to re-iterate certain points to ensure that our thoughts are clearly understood before redrafting occurs.

Certainly we understand completely that the UN has no direct jurisdiction over non-UN members and therefore they do not have to comply with any resolutions passed by this body. That said there are methods by which the UN can effect change in these nations in an indirect way. For example Telidia holds many trade and non-aggression treaties with non-member allies. We can therefore quite legitimately argue that developing weapons in near Earth Space that could target Telidia is therefore a breach of a non-aggression treaty.

I am sure that other member states have such treaties in place and whilst I certainly don’t advocate the UN telling member states how to organize their international agreements, I am sure that in the spirit of this proposal a clause can be agreed upon that could foster such activity.

The argument that ‘I.G.N.O.R.E cannons’ is a simple way of resolving the problem is not one I can subscribe to so easily. By that argument the whole of the UN could quite easily have fired their ‘cannons’ at the first sign of trouble had the resolution for complete nuclear disarmament passed. Clearly we opted no to do so because we understood that would be impractical and therefore I fail to see a difference here. I fully accept that the NSUN must lead by example, but that example must be measured against the security of member states. I am not of the opinion that UN members are somehow separate from the rest of the NS world. We are all part of the same world and when proposals such as this that have ‘global’ consequences come along, it must be viewed from a ‘global’ perspective.

On the issue of NEO impacts and weapons in space I must unfortunately disagree with the honourable member from Groot Gouda. Certainly finding an alternative to placing weapons in space is definitely the best course of action, but if we find a NEO tomorrow, deflecting the object of its orbital path is still a viable course of action. For that we still need to consider the potential for weapons in space.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Peaceful Uses of Near-Earth Space
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

Recognizing the common interest in the exploration and use of near-earth space for peaceful purposes,

Reaffirming the will of all States that the exploration and use of near-earth space, as defined as the region of space near the planet Earth, including its moon, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,

Recalling its previous resolutions on this issue, UN Space Consortium, adopted Feb. 29, 2004, and Tracking Near Earth Objects, adopted Jul. 5, 2004,

Concerned about the risk of continued militarization of the region of space immediately above and around the Earth,

Recognizing that prevention of an arms race in the space near the Earth would promote international peace and security by adverting this risk,

1. Reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in near-earth space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective;

2. Calls upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use the space near the Earth and of the prevention of an arms race in this sensitive region and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation; and

3. Authorizes the United Nations Space Consortium to survey and assess the existing military presence of States in the region of space near the Earth, and to report its findings as necessary.

The above is the new draft. It has been modified based on the major and valid points raised.

First, references to "humans" have been removed.

Second, the scope has been reduced to focus on the region of space near the Earth. The justification here is obvious ... we can only have so many orbital weapons platforms.

Third, the resolution acknowledges (indirectly via the survey) that there may be a military presence in the region near the Earth. The objective is to reduce future build-up here ... not disarm the Earth itself. That is why this is a mild resolution, though I suspect many nations don't consider the strength of proposals. Knees will surely jerk.

I would like to add a clause to specifically restrict / prohibit the construction of orbital weapons platforms. But not doing that, would be happy enough with just a clause restating that the concept of mutually assured destruction is flawed. I know that the neo-nazis will find this offensive. Frankly, neo-nazis find nearly everything about the UN offensive, so it isn't like we are moving yes votes to no votes.

Hm. peaceful use of space != "disarmament"

I'm not saying that's enough to scuttle this proposed proposal, but I'd like to hear your rationale.

Hm. peaceful use of space != "disarmament"

I'm not saying that's enough to scuttle this proposed proposal, but I'd like to hear your rationale.

"Reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in near-earth space"

It's disarmamentish at least, that seems to be the best category. And it's mild, after all.

On the issue of NEO impacts and weapons in space I must unfortunately disagree with the honourable member from Groot Gouda. Certainly finding an alternative to placing weapons in space is definitely the best course of action, but if we find a NEO tomorrow, deflecting the object of its orbital path is still a viable course of action. For that we still need to consider the potential for weapons in space

If we'd find a NEO tomorrow we'd be doomed. *rolls eyes*

But on a more serious note. NEOs and what to do against them has been discussed extensively several months ago. Based on scientifical research the conclusion was reached that space weapons are a dangerous solution that are unlikely to work, and likely to cause more damage than the NEO would. Unfortunately I couldn't find the discussion about the Space Defense Initiative where all this came up, but Mikitivity might still have some details.

Whatever reasons there might be for weapons in space, NEOs aren't one.

"Reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in near-earth space"

It's disarmamentish at least, that seems to be the best category. And it's mild, after all.

Hrr... 'ish' at best. That's more arms inertia than anything. Perhaps tossing in a "RECOMMENDS that nations remove existing orbital weapons" or the like. That would fit a 'mild' strength...

Well, NEO's are an issue, of course, should that present itself, there are plenty of FT nations to call upon that can handle NEO's the size of texas or smaller.... Of course, we would have to dig abit more if it got above that. If it were a small moon, I do know of two which could handle objects the size of small moons... and one of them is even somewhat peaceful...

Well, NEO's are an issue, of course, should that present itself, there are plenty of FT nations to call upon that can handle NEO's the size of texas or smaller.... Of course, we would have to dig abit more if it got above that. If it were a small moon, I do know of two which could handle objects the size of small moons... and one of them is even somewhat peaceful...

Future Tech is a double edged sword. The more we modify any proposal to accomidate their special roleplay needs, the less likely there is any danger or need posed by whatever original justification there is for a resolution.

FT nations may claim they have cured HIV, Cancer, or even have a plan to enforce a working peace in the Mid-East.

That said, even the fantasy nations have the same thing going. We could ask a FT nation to use their Death Star to blow up the NEO. We could ask a pagan nation to teleport a group of super heroes from another nation into outer space to destroy it.

That said ... I'm just going to reaffirm that I'm confident that the appropriate international action is for our nations to simply work together and "plan" for such an event. ;)


MGH, I'll add an activating clause that is more disarmament sounding. I felt that in addition to the clause that Groot pointed to, that the fact that UNSC would be creating documentation of who has what (when possible) also suggests that there already are weapons in near-earth space, but that the UN is now keeping an eye or thousand on the proliferation of near-earth space.

Thanks all. FYI: I posted copies of this draft in two of the Pacific forums and will cast a larger net tonight.

Future Tech is a double edged sword. The more we modify any proposal to accomidate their special roleplay needs, the less likely there is any danger or need posed by whatever original justification there is for a resolution.

FT nations may claim they have cured HIV, Cancer, or even have a plan to enforce a working peace in the Mid-East.

That said, even the fantasy nations have the same thing going. We could ask a FT nation to use their Death Star to blow up the NEO. We could ask a pagan nation to teleport a group of super heroes from another nation into outer space to destroy it.

That said ... I'm just going to reaffirm that I'm confident that the appropriate international action is for our nations to simply work together and "plan" for such an event. ;)


MGH, I'll add an activating clause that is more disarmament sounding. I felt that in addition to the clause that Groot pointed to, that the fact that UNSC would be creating documentation of who has what (when possible) also suggests that there already are weapons in near-earth space, but that the UN is now keeping an eye or thousand on the proliferation of near-earth space.

Thanks all. FYI: I posted copies of this draft in two of the Pacific forums and will cast a larger net tonight.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the limitation to NES is fine.... It allows all you earthers to feel safe, and the Republic to still have fleets of SCV's to chart the unknown depths of inter and intra galactic space, while trying not to be killed by the next nut with a planet killer...

I'm fine with it as is. Propose it and I'll bug my UN rep to support it.

Ironically, I am building orbital platforms. But not of the weapons variety, and nowhere near Earth.

2. Calls upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use the space near the Earth and of the prevention of an arms race in this sensitive region and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation; and


OK, this seems a bit long ... how about if I trim this down to the really important part ...

2. Calls upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use the space near the Earth and of the prevention of an arms race in this sensitive region and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective; and


And then I need to add a new clause along the lines of what the Most Glorious Hack suggested. It won't be a complete disarmament, because that might not fly (in light of the current resolution's vote). But a mild version might work.

The Black New World will not be supporting this proposal.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

What, just becasue you don't feel like it, or ...?

What, just becasue you don't feel like it, or ...?
Oh no I have a reason but I don't feel like bringing it up. My issue has already been addressed in this thread but not well enough for me to support it and there is no way the proposal could be changed so I would support it. It's not you it's us.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I've been spending a lot of time on the NSwiki project, and I've enjoyed reading the rich histories of the various space-based states, species, and conflicts.

Frisbeeteria brings up a very excellent point. It would be very hard to allow the UN to define what is and isn't acceptable uses of space unless the UN is willing to fund trillions, possibly even more, money to nations that are incapable currently of utilizing said outer space in the ways your proposal outlines.

If everyone is at a different level, which needs to be taken in consideration with ALL UN proposals/resolutions, then, what makes it right for the UN to determine how everyone - not dealing with the same view of the situation, in this case, the same technical/evolutionary/spacial levels - is to use said givens if they do not exist in some respects within fellow UN nations.

Personally, I'd vote against this if it came up strictly for that reason alone...

The People of Domnonia support this propasal as is.

It is our belief that the weaponization of near earth space would instigate a dangerous and costly arms race and disrupt peaceful commercial and scientific endeavours in space.

Frisbeeteria brings up a very excellent point. It would be very hard to allow the UN to define what is and isn't acceptable uses of space unless the UN is willing to fund trillions, possibly even more, money to nations that are incapable currently of utilizing said outer space in the ways your proposal outlines.

If everyone is at a different level, which needs to be taken in consideration with ALL UN proposals/resolutions, then, what makes it right for the UN to determine how everyone - not dealing with the same view of the situation, in this case, the same technical/evolutionary/spacial levels - is to use said givens if they do not exist in some respects within fellow UN nations.

Personally, I'd vote against this if it came up strictly for that reason alone...

I disagree. The proposal was rewritten (posted above) and is now limited to near-earth space. It doesn't tell the supposedly thousands of nations what to do in their space, but it does acknowledge that the highly populated region near the Earth is a powder keg waiting to explode and thus the proposal limits space around the Earth.

Your argument of a one-sized fits all UN proposal could be used as a justification against ANY UN resolution. "Your resolution fails to take into account the moth people of planet Ginglefritzer. I find it arrogant and rude."

Now you said you've vote against it strictly for this reason, which I feel is invalid alone, but that sounds as though your government has other reservations.

The point of posting a draft proposal is to get constructive comments ... I'd be curious what other reservations your government might have.

I disagree. The proposal was rewritten (posted above) and is now limited to near-earth space. It doesn't tell the supposedly thousands of nations what to do in their space, but it does acknowledge that the highly populated region near the Earth is a powder keg waiting to explode and thus the proposal limits space around the Earth.

So, what if you changed the proposal?

Sorry, Mik, in my eyes, that’s just not good enough in this case. You can’t just ignore a section of the UN because it may or may not be at a certain level, doing so makes the UN exclusive and being exclusive is worse than any other so-called crime the NS UN body could commit, IMHO.

Your argument of a one-sized fits all UN proposal could be used as a justification against ANY UN resolution. "Your resolution fails to take into account the moth people of planet Ginglefritzer. I find it arrogant and rude."

Insignificant in this case; I referred to technical levels, not overall generalities of the UN. Of course it can apply to any UN resolution that comes up to vote, but in this case, it’s a valid point: You’re imposing limits on nations that have no way of even competing for that space, and as I’ve already pointed out, this is exclusive in nature.

Now you said you've vote against it strictly for this reason, which I feel is invalid alone, but that sounds as though your government has other reservations.

Speaking strictly at my nation’s technical level, we have no space program, because we do not have the time nor the energy to explore at this point. Our region, on the other hand, is coming together and has only barely begun to launch satellites outside the planet… we are very underdeveloped when it comes to space and would like the opportunity to judge for ourselves whether or not we want to explore it further. Your proposal seeks to put jurisdiction on us, in the very beginning of our exploration, and as such won’t be tolerated by the Tuesday Heights government.

The point of posting a draft proposal is to get constructive comments ... I'd be curious what other reservations your government might have.

And, I brought up a valid point, how to deal with the different tech levels and whether or not this proposal is going to deal with funding nations who are not at the proper level to benefit from this resolution… and, yet, you did not respond to that. Instead, you dodged the question by assuming our nation has alterior motives, which is incorrect. I’ve stated my position on behalf of The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights, I’d ask you now to respond to my inquiry.

So, what if you changed the proposal?

Sorry, Mik, in my eyes, that’s just not good enough in this case. You can’t just ignore a section of the UN because it may or may not be at a certain level, doing so makes the UN exclusive and being exclusive is worse than any other so-called crime the NS UN body could commit, IMHO.


This then makes you a hypocrite.

Not all nations had problems with "Freedom of Press", but a resolution promoting freedom of press ignores parts of the UN that this is or is not an issue. It should be easy to see how any human rights or social justice resolution would have the same problem, but in fact all resolutions do.

Resolutions by their nature target very specific things ... and countries that don't have these issues will be impacted in a different manner.

Another good example, Law of the Sea or the other ocean based resolutions. My nation is landlocked, but you didn't see me crying that I was ignored.

To answer your question, I can ignore regions of space, just as easily as a recreational drug use resolution could only restrict things like speed, while not dealing with other drugs.

It is called a "topic".

In any event, if you really feel that resolutions should apply to all nations, I hope you'll then consider reviewing your own resolution and holding it to the same standard.

This then makes you a hypocrite.

You're on very dangerous ground personally attacking me. I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities before you dare call me names again.

Not all nations had problems with "Freedom of Press", but a resolution promoting freedom of press ignores parts of the UN that this is or is not an issue. It should be easy to see how any human rights or social justice resolution would have the same problem, but in fact all resolutions do.

Comparing my resolution to your proposal is ludicrous. My proposal does not deal with technical levels of nations, you've failed to address my point, and if you continue to do so, I will mount my own campaign once your proposal enters the list to keep it from reaching queue.

To answer your question, I can ignore regions of space, just as easily as a recreational drug use resolution could only restrict things like speed, while not dealing with other drugs.

Yes, you can, and that makes you a poor member of the UN who should resign their status. Would you easily ignore a particular aspect of a society, let's say stoning of women in a particular nation, to serve your UN agenda ignoring it so benefitted your proposal?

In any event, if you really feel that resolutions should apply to all nations, I hope you'll then consider reviewing your own resolution and holding it to the same standard.

I wish for Pete's sake you would listen to yourself, Mik. You haven't addressed the issue Fris brought up and the one I followed with at all. This not only shows poor showmanship and understanding of the validity of the NS UN, but it also shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of the potential effect of creating an exclusive UN.

You're on very dangerous ground personally attacking me. I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities before you dare call me names again.


Then explain why it is OK for your resolution to not be considered ignoring certain nations, but mine is?

That is a double standard that you are applying, by holding me accountable to something you do not hold to yourself.


Comparing my resolution to your proposal is ludicrous. My proposal does not deal with technical levels of nations, you've failed to address my point, and if you continue to do so, I will mount my own campaign once your proposal enters the list to keep it from reaching queue.


It is not ludicrous. This has nothing to do with "tech", but everything to do with "scope" of a resolution. What is wrong about limiting weapons, but OK about limiting the timber industry which may not exist everywhere? What is wrong about calling about nations to disarm in a very certain way, but REQUIRING all nations to basically adopt free speech standards?

I also do not take kindly to your threats. You may certainly do what you want, but it does make me sad to see you laying down this threat, and it will be remembered!

I don't think you've read my proposal, but perhaps might be basing your reactions based on Frisbeeteria's statement, because the proposal does specifically address different space capabilities in its current form.

Furthermore, the Most Glorious Hack has already suggested a change to which I've not yet incorporated, but did already said I would in some form.


Yes, you can, and that makes you a poor member of the UN who should resign their status. Would you easily ignore a particular aspect of a society, let's say stoning of women in a particular nation, to serve your UN agenda ignoring it so benefitted your proposal?


WTF??!!

I have no clue what you are on about here. But I'll tell ya what, you can count no future contact from me.



I wish for Pete's sake you would listen to yourself, Mik. You haven't addressed the issue Fris brought up and the one I followed with at all. This not only shows poor showmanship and understanding of the validity of the NS UN, but it also shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of the potential effect of creating an exclusive UN.

You accuse me of a personal attack and then call me ignorant, and a poor UN member? Basically it seems to me that you are quick to accuse me of attacking you, so what .. this makes it "OK" to attack me?

The issue brought up was that there are many nations with weapons in space. It was addressed, and met the approval of a few nations, by two means:

The proposal was changed to focus on near-earth space. Future tech battle fleets are free to do what they like.

The second means was by inventorying and requesting that nations to not place weapons in space. I've not banned them.



To the rest of you, this is a sad day. I've noticed that many nations are no longer really providing helpful comments to UN proposals.

There really are now three basic debates I see used against ideas:

- This violates sovereignty.
- This ignores UN members (which all UN resolutions do).
- This will give non-UN members an advantages.

While I'm sure many of us enjoy those debates, if you apply these arguments, please be aware that the time will come when something you promote will have the exact same arguments used against it. Tuesday, your freedom of the press has many assumptions about even *gasp* tech levels that ignored UN roleplay.

You've complained about space advanced and unadvanced nations ... your resolution urged nations to send members of the press to neighboring countries, far away countries, and even to areas of combat. What sort of burden does this place on nations that might not be on Earth? What sort of burden does this place on Earth based nations having to send members of the press far and away? (See your clause 2)

You claim that I've ignored tech ... your resolution does too. It also assumed a set of ideals, namely that governments actively engage in misinformation.

Anyway, I (and my government) honestly feel that my draft proposal is fair. Orbital weapons platforms pose a risk to navigation and international security. While they point of the platforms is to use the threat of retaliation (sp?) in order to establish a peace, the space near the Earth is finite ... it is a limited resource, and something that all nations should have a right to (yes, I'm making an assumption about sovereignty ... yes, I'm making tech assumptions ... yes, non-UN members will have advantages .... all of these things apply to each and every resolution, and yet my government has rarely complained about these things).

Anyway, I'm tired of seeing nations that passed resolutions that did in fact ignore the rights of UN member nations and even their problems and existence, turning around and playing what I call the "tech card". There is nothing I can do about this, but I am not going to allow anybody to threaten or bully me!

But I'll tell ya what, you can count no future contact from me.

Of course I won't hear from you again, Mikitivity, because you take every attack against a proposal/resolution as a personal offense to yourself.

I didn't want it to come to this, but unfortunately, you refuse to be open-minded about my point.

I am not being hypocritical, Mik, I explained why my proposal has nothing to do with how you view this proposal.

It's reasons like this trite debate that I usually stay away from the UN forums in general, and why I haven't frequented them as much as I once did, because posters like you go to the extreme to further their UN agenda.

We need to discuss this in private as to divide up NUNAA and its right, content, and features. Please, e-mail me what you propose to do. Please check your e-mail as I have sent you a message.

This indeed is a sad day for the UN, because instead of holding an intelligent debate at hand, Mikitivity is demonstrating the lack of cohesion, understanding, and compassion the United Nations seeks to promote. Unfortunately, this cannot be tolerated but is by many nations, no longer by mine.

Of course I won't hear from you again, Mikitivity, because you take every attack against a proposal/resolution as a personal offense to yourself, hence why various off-site forums have either asked you to leave or you have been asked to leave from for problems caused by your UN prowness.


You are purposefully mistating things.

I've not been banned from any off-site forum. I was asked to leave the UN Old Guard invite only forum, by Knootoss, and did.

I think it is horrible for anybody to lay false accusations, so please if you feel that your above statement was truthful, please explain how you see this as being various off-site forums (meaning more than one).

Ok, I have no idea what we are debating, but Mik, you stand in that corner, Tues, you over there, and cool off for a while. Thank you! :p :) ;)

Peaceful Uses of Near-Earth Space
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

Recognizing the common interest in the exploration and use of near-earth space for peaceful purposes,

Aware of the high concentration of nations on the Earth,

Reaffirming the will of all States that the exploration and use of near-earth space, as defined as the region of space near the planet Earth, including its moon, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,

Recalling its previous resolutions on this issue, UN Space Consortium, adopted Feb. 29, 2004, and Tracking Near Earth Objects, adopted Jul. 5, 2004,

Concerned about the special risk posed by the long-term presence of orbital weapons platforms in the region of space immediately above and around the Earth,

Recognizing that limiting orbital weapons platforms in the space near the Earth would promote international peace and security by adverting this risk,

1. Reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in near-earth space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective;

2. Calls upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use the space near the Earth and of the prevention of an arms race in this sensitive region and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective; and

3. Recommends the removal of orbital weapons platforms from near-earth space;

4. Authorizes the United Nations Space Consortium to survey and assess the existing military presence of States in the region of space near the Earth, and to report its findings as necessary.

I've directly added the clause suggested by the Most Glorious Hack, as it ultimately is exactly what we are trying to do with this proposal.

A few nations have stated that it is "arrogant" of me to create a proposal that would impact all of outer-space. Based on those arguments, the proposal was changed twice. First outer space was changed to "near-Earth", and in these latest version, I've added clauses that I hope explain why my government feels the region of near-Earth space is at risk.

For those of you that will continue to argue that it it "arrogant" of me to continue to promote this resolution and call for my nation's resignation from the UN, why is it OK for the UN to adopt resolutions protecting our oceans and waterways from invasive species (Ballast Water) when not all of our nations are coastal? Why is it OK for the UN to adopt resolutions mandating educational reform when not all of our nations have problems in our schools (any number of resolutions)?

I believe that the answer is that UN resolutions always have a topic and focus. In this particular situation, I've been accused of many things (of which my government is upset about), but we still fear that the militarization of space poses a risk not only to international security, but offers many navigational problems as well.

This body has banned landmines and bio-weapons. While there will still be many non UN members who may want to place orbital weapons platforms above a very sensitive location, we feel it is still important to work within and outside of the UN to promote peaceful uses of space. A good example would be communications satellites. Every orbital platform put up by a space faring society now, means it is that much harder for another nation to put up a peaceful statellite later. While it would be difficult to divide up space now, the unique risks of policies such as mutually assured destruction and "Star Wars" like programs, really makes it all the more important to start somewhere.

I'm personally sorry that several nations my government once trusted have personally attacked my character and spread misinformation. But I hope that this body will recognize that my government is open and honest about its goal here. We are not seeking to harm nations, which has been suggested. We are not seeking to penalize non-Earth based nations ... in fact, we happen to like the Space-Ghosts from the Delta Quadrant as well as many other space faring races. But we also love the Earth and wish to protect it and its inhabitants.

The Miko Mono Politburo is saddened to once again see a proposal in the United Nations that would impgune needlessly on national soverginty and weaken the ability of countries to defend themselves by restricting access to outer space and the near-earth orbit.

We can only hope that the vast reaches of space remain peaceful and open to all for scientific research and exploration, and we pledge to all that we will work to ensure that this is the case. Hope, though, cannot be the sole basis for national policy or defense. There may come a time, sadly, when it may be neccessary for countries to place weapons platforms in space to defend themselves, or to destory satellites that may be conducting harmful espionage activities.

We often support and promote efforts in the United Nations to improve the planet on which we all live. The Miko Mono Politburo, however, cannot and WILL NOT support any efforts to weaken soverignity or the ability to defend's oneself. We once again call on all U.N. members to rally around our cry and reject again this type of proposal.

Okay, while I wouldn't vote for this proposal if I was in the UN, I see no rules violations, as written.

Okay, while I wouldn't vote for this proposal if I was in the UN, I see no rules violations, as written.

Your last suggestion was very helpful. Assuming you were in the UN, is there anything that you think could be changed to sway your hypothetical vote? The Black World pointed out that they didn't see anything that could be changed.

The Miko Mono Politburo is saddened to once again see a proposal in the United Nations that would impgune needlessly on national soverginty and weaken the ability of countries to defend themselves by restricting access to outer space and the near-earth orbit.

This is not necessarily a "needless impungement" on the national rights of UN members. The UN is clearly within its mandate to legislate clearly recognizable, legitimate international concerns.

National sovereignty is a fine argument. But it should be saved for moral arguments, not international agreements, such as this, to do protect from misuse of space.

The government of Telidia welcomes the re-drafting on this proposal and whilst we are not ready to recommend a vote in favour of it yet, we believe by addressing our core concern we may be able to.

We realise of course that the honourable member from Mikitivty does have reservations with regard to Mutual Assured Deterrent and have on many occasions argued quite eloquently why in their view it does not work. However, I remain concerned regarding a ‘global disarmament’ proposal that seeks to disarm only member states. Unfortunately I am finding it hard to see this proposal in a different light to the current resolution being voted on. The current resolution avoided looking at the global picture, this proposal does the same.

Right, now how do we resolve this issue and reach a compromise? I believe my government will be able to support this proposal should the honourable delegation from Mikitivity consider adding this clause. (Please feel free to make changes this is just a rough draft idea.)

“RECOMMENDS member states explore methods to involve non-member states in the peaceful uses of near Earth space, whether using existing or engaging in new bilateral agreements for this purpose.”

Since we are not banning orbital weapon’s platforms outright, but simply seeking to draw attention to its dangers. I feel it is possible using something like the suggested clause to bring this awareness in to a wider scope.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia