NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and gentlemen, we've accepted that we're all civilised people, true enough, otherwise we would not be members of such an esteemed group as the UN. However, one of the duties of the UN is to protect both weaker members and non-members. If we begin a program of dismantling our respective nuclear arsenals, we'll soon find ourselves at the mercy of every terrorist group or non-UN nation with even the crudest of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a fate I wish for my citizens, nor those of the other countries in my region.

i urge everyone to vote against the resolution to ban nuclear weapons it is not the duty of the united nations to protect us. its the duty of the individual nation to protect themselves and banning nuclear weapon will leave us vunerable to attacks and weaken our defense leaving us wide open to attacks and no one wants that

Every nation is wide open to acts of terrorism anyway. Nuclear weapons have gone missing. They are surely for sale. Can anyone think who would like to buy? What good are your nukes if one goes off in your harbour without a declaration of war, or even without a business card left? The path to peace is through interdependancy rather than intimidation. :headbang:

We feel it would be reckless to disarm the member states of the UN. Giving rogue nations that do not subscribe to UN policy a superior military position will very possibly lead to the hositle takeover of many, now defenseless, nations.

Were all nations in the UN, we might reconsider. However, this is not the case -- and it must be considered before taking a foolish course of action.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Colony of Bujoldyar would like to point out that the subject of this proposal is only nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have an effect not only on their targets, but on territory for potentially many hundreds of kilometres around. It is therefore not just the nations involved in the conflict but also their neighbours who suffer.

The colonial government considers that to use a nuclear weapon in warfare is unacceptable; and to possess such weapons is not a serious deterrent to enemy nations, since enemies are unlikely to believe that nuclear weapons would be used. Furthermore we consider that military superiority lies not in the possession of nuclear weapons, but in the ability to deploy what weapons one has quickly and accurately.

We therefore call on our fellow member nations to support this proposal: to dismantle their nuclear weapons; to use the warhead material safely in properly designed nuclear power stations; and, where territorial security is considered to be at risk, to develop weapons that do not give rise to "fallout" over large areas.

I love the utter falacy of the proposal author.... Follwing the last point of the resolution, My nation will not respect this resolution, and therefore, the UN must endorse me! :))

In any case, I vote no... As this resolution, being non-International in capability, will have no effect towards its intended results. And merely moves to weaken UN member nations and to strengthen rogue nations.

Greetings,

I can see that some people do not fully grasp that once a nuclear conflict begins, it is of no importance who has or has not got nuclear weapons - they all suffer.

I would also think it rather amusing that a nation would utterly destroy the nation it intends to conquer through the use of nuclear warfare.

So, I voted "yes". And I believe others should do the same.

Regards,

Hakopam

What keeps two nations with nuclear weapons from fighting? MAD. What keeps a larger nation without nuclear weapons invade a smaller one with? The possibility of being wiped out entirely.

Keep in mind that the thought of all nuclear weapons being dangerous to everyone is a common fallacy in thought. And its right it should be lest we continue to try and perfect the current Hydrogen Bombs and Neutron Bombs both which are cleaner than what we normally think. Keep in mind most nuclear tests took place ages ago. Since then nuclear weapons have progressed to the point where life in an area wont be affected for hundreds of years but for only decades with the aid of clean up.

I vote no to this proposal.

Nuclear weapons are a danger for all our nations.
The Republic of Social Republicans will vote for this resolution, to protect humanity. :)
Cordially.

Greetings,

I can see that some people do not fully grasp that once a nuclear conflict begins, it is of no importance who has or has not got nuclear weapons - they all suffer.

I would also think it rather amusing that a nation would utterly destroy the nation it intends to conquer through the use of nuclear warfare.

So, I voted "yes". And I believe others should do the same.

Regards,

Hakopam

And this is towards Social Republican as well...

This resolution accomplishes nothing towards that view, since it is non -enforceable upon more than 75% of all the nationstates... Your idea that it does anything close to stopping the concept of "they all suffer" or "protects humanity" is based on, what I have no other choice but to believe, is rank ignorance, or utter stupidity.

Simple fact is, MAD exists, and it is the only deterrent against the 75% of the world this resolution would not be able to touch... if UN members were to ban these weapons, it would no longer be MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION, merely our own ASSURED DESTRUCTION, no more mutuality in it.

The UN doesn't have the man-power or funds to oversee a complete nuclear disarmament of every UN member. It would require additional work to maintain disarmament as the UN would need regulations and people to watch for and prevent illegal sale and exchange of nuclear weapons in its countries and people to do investigations if a country is suspected of not complying with the resolution. In addition to this, the cost of helping all members disarm who are too economically unsound to do it alone would be phenomenal! The decision to disarm nuclear weapons should be one made on an individual basis for each nation.

And, yes, there is the issue of security. Having nuclear arms does not mean you intend to use them, but they are a large deterrent to terrorists and nations who would otherwise attack because they fear the negative repercussions. Totally disarming nuclear weapons in all UN states would leave them vulnerable to acts of violence on every side. Not just nuclear violence, but all manner of terroristic violence. It's like keeping a gun or a baseball bat or a knife under your bed while you sleep. You don't plan to use it, but if it became necessary as a last resort to protect yourself and your family, you would.

Of course, in an ideal world, disarming nuclear weapons would not be an issue. The world we live in, however, is not ideal. Unless every nation were willing to unanimously submit to living in peace and justice, it would be impossible to maintain it. A body can't force all people to live peaceably without becoming tyrranical in its methods.

Greetings,

Firstly, we do believe that the fact that MAD Magazine exists will not be cause of a nuclear war.

Secondly, we never said this resolution "stops" anything. And we never said it would be totally and utterly enforceable. We do not really care. We believe there should be as few nuclear weapons as possible. If this measure would make the 25% you speak of disarm, that would already be very good.

Secondly, the point made that rogue nations would then proceed, for some reason, to attack UN countries with nuclear weapons is ludicrous, as the interest of an invading country is to get more useful territory, not just a wasteland.

Thirdly, we think someone who is destroyed will not really mind if the nation which destroyed it is destroyed or not, as the destroyed nation does not exist anymore.

Finally, the concept of "if I die, than at least I take them with me" goes against every regard a civilized nation should have for human life - even the life of one's enemy.

Our values seem to be different from those of some of the other posters. If we have to die in a nuclear war, we would prefer to die honourably, without using the same shameful tactics of our attackers. If others do not, we have nothing to do with it.

Regards,

Hakopam

The Armed Republic of Zoagende Moeders has voted a firm no against this resolution. Taking away all nuclear weapons in the United Nations member states will not solve anything. As long as all nuclear weapons are not banished from the earth, the danger of nations or persons using them still remains. Those countries who are not member of the UN have totally no obligations to dismantle their nuclear armaments. A resolution like this is only helpfull when the entire globe is standing behind it. Frankly, we think of this as a utopia.

Also, it is the word 'nuclear' in 'nuclear weapons' that eveyone seems to fear. But there's also a 'nuclear' in 'nuclear power' and 'nuclear plants'. An accident in a nuclear plant, or even an act of terrorism on one, can have the same consequences as a nuclear warhead exploding.
Lastly, this entire operation would weigh heavy on the UN funds and on every participing nations funds. There are other, better ways to spend our money.

Perhaps it is better to vote on a somewhat weaker version of this resolution. One that does not ban every single nuclear weapon within the UN nations borders, but creates a sort of unity within the UN concerning nuclear weapon projects. We feel it is better to work together, play with open hands, and make sure that no nation within the UN would ever gain a too great advantage over the others, by means of numbers of nuclear weapons or by technology. That way, we also stand strong against threats from outside of the UN, and maybe even stronger as one nuclear block.

Sincerely,
The government of Zoagende Moeders

The People's Republic Of Ozia Prime does not support this ban why?

1. if i were an evil nation wanting to rule the world the one big enemy is the un, With out its nukes i as that evil country would have the peffect chance to nuke all the un countrys off the face of the planet with no problems for myself seeing as they cant do anything about it

2. what about asteroid defence? are you saying you want to be killed off by some huge asteroid?

3. is un assureing us that terroistic country arnt gonna attack us with nukes after we open up our territories to it? i think not

4. i know of alot of urainium mining countrys were are those jobs gona go?

With my Reguards,
Primir Shadam Oz The First of The Republic Of Ozia Prime

Modern nuclear weapons have very little fallout. My dukedom is small. our nuclear weapons program is essential to our survival. banning nukes for UN members will create an imbalance of power between us and the rouge states. A resolution bringing in a minimum standard of quality control would be welcomed.

Start canvasing our millitaristic UN brethern for a no vote. go through the list of nations and inform them of the grave danger they're in.

What a naive proposal. We in Maubachia are simply flabbergasted that such a proposal should ever receive enough endorsements to be put to a vote. We would suggest a third category for voting on this issue: HELL NO!

At the moment, by economy is thriving because of the uranium mines found in my country. To remove nuclear weapons would remove the crutch my economy survives on. If this proposal loos like going through, i may have to resign from the UN.

it's madness....as a sovreign nation i have every right to pursue what makes my people secure. :sniper:

By all means divest yourselves of your expensive nuclear weapons. You can certainly trust those regimes who loathe your free-thinking values and who choose to wastefully maintain huge nuclear arsenals...

If the UN forces us to dismantle our nuclear weapons, then all of the nations not in the UN will have a distinct military advantage over us! They will all conspire, and plot, and scheme, and plan and bully us with their superior weaponry!

The proposal would be hideously disruptive to the world balance of power, and likely lead to global thermonuclear war! A vote in favor could lead to the dissolution of the UN altogether, as the SANE nations of the world leave it in favor of protecting themselves from outside nations!

On that note, I invite all non-UN nations to Scaena to purchase as much uranium as they like, and encourage you to develop your own nuclear weapons! Perhaps then this crazy anti-nuke legislation will fail.

--Epicedion
--Holy Dictator of the Republic of Scaena

Caselonia definitely votes 'NO' on this. I feel no reason to further defend or justify my reasoning. But no, Jot the Dot, as a member of the UN you do not have the 'right' to whatever you want in the name of an abstract condition called 'security.' Maintaining a WMD program is one thing, but establishment of (Israel-style) 'security buffer zones' in the territory of other sovereign nations is something you most certainly do not have the right to do. This is not an accusation on our part, just a clarification.

Go ahead and disarm. Just don't mind a few million non-UN nations banding together, forming a massive military alliance, and stockpiling nuclear weapons in quantities so massive they'll have to use Mars as storage space for them. After all, there's no chance at all they wouldn't decide that wiping out every UN nation and gaining the upper hand in every respect afterwards, possibly for enough millenia for it to not matter if the UN begins to make a comeback, is worth the amount of land they would lose, even though they can advance far in spacial technologies and go on to colonize other worlds with unexploited resources.

Secondly, the point made that rogue nations would then proceed, for some reason, to attack UN countries with nuclear weapons is ludicrous, as the interest of an invading country is to get more useful territory, not just a wasteland.

Logical fallacy, purely naive, and obviously not quite getting it.

Not all nations who invade want your nation. In fact, there are a surprising number who invade, kill everyone and destroy everything, then leave. Just because I invade you doesn't mean I want your land. It most likely means I just want you gone.

Using nuclear weapons on a nation you have no intentions of taking over solves two problems. First, it kills everyone, making it unlikely they can retaliate. Secondly, the radiation can make the area uninhabitable, making sure the nation doesn't have much of a chance of rebuilding. The cost of losing some land is worth it if you just took out the most powerful nation in your region with one volley of missiles.

Oh, bloody Hell, not another one of these damn resolutions. Didn't we already determine it was a stupid idea banning nuclear weapons?

I ask that everyone reject this proposal. Although it is the UN's job to keep the peace between countries, it is not their job to tell us whether we can or can not have nuclear weapons. We've worked hard to establish our countries and create alliances and the UN should not steal anything we've created among ourselves. Nuclear disarmament should only go for countries abusing the power of nuclear weapons.

The idea of a nuclear deterrant is still a reasonable one, despite the absence of a specific number of superpowers that control the global economy. Rogue nations will be far less likely to allow terrorist organizations to function in their country if they know that some screwball nation that has a pile of nukes will jump to conclusions and dot the landscape with fallout. This will lead to acts of aggression towards the terrorists from the governments and organizations that should have been providing their funds or protecting their existing ones.

Terrorists can't work without money.
They can't get money if their sponsors are afraid of dying.
Nukes make sponsors die.
We need nukes.

Nuclear weapons are going to be used by nations not in the UN and this means that if we disarm we leave ourselves open to the whim of nations that feel they need some more space so threaten us with the nuclear weapons we don;t have. I urge everyone to vote no on this resolution.

Nuclear weapons are going to be used by nations not in the UN and this means that if we disarm we leave ourselves open to the whim of nations that feel they need some more space so threaten us with the nuclear weapons we don;t have. I urge everyone to vote no on this resolution.

Hear, hear.

If every NS state was in the UN this would be a fine idea. But they aren't, so it isn't.

should this vote somehow manage to pass then i recomend repealing the ban on biological weapons to compensate.kane willing it wont come to that.

Secondly, the point made that rogue nations would then proceed, for some reason, to attack UN countries with nuclear weapons is ludicrous, as the interest of an invading country is to get more useful territory, not just a wasteland.
What about those nations who are attacking others for ideological reasons as opposed to territorial ones?

Or those who are losing a conventional war and decide that their tactical interests would be better served by annihilating their enemy as opposed to losing?

Or those who decide that be wiping out one of their enemies all their others will be forced to capitulate to their demands?

Thirdly, we think someone who is destroyed will not really mind if the nation which destroyed it is destroyed or not, as the destroyed nation does not exist anymore.

Finally, the concept of "if I die, than at least I take them with me" goes against every regard a civilized nation should have for human life - even the life of one's enemy.And is every nation "civilized" in your book? Even those run by terrorists.

Our values seem to be different from those of some of the other posters. If we have to die in a nuclear war, we would prefer to die honourably, without using the same shameful tactics of our attackers. If others do not, we have nothing to do with it.

Fine. But you can't expect us all to sacrifice our nations for your beliefs. This is very clear. The supporters of this motion are prepared to support it, whatever the consequences in terms of nations being wiped out. Vote against.

On the surface, this resolution looks very good. As is often the case, though, there are serious flaws. First, please know that I abhor nuclear weapons. If other nations want to destroy their people, infrastructure and the very land with war, that is their business. When nuclear weapons are deployed, however, the fallout is not only limited to "ground zero" as it is with conventional devices. Nuclear weapons send massive plumes of highly toxic and extremely long-lived poison into the atmosphere we all share, in effect ruining the people, infrastructure and the very land of even those around the world from the war in which these weapons were used. That being said, this resolution is not the way to deal with them. As it stands today, most right-minded leaders only keep a nuclear arsenal as deterrent to those that /would/ use them otherwise. It is in this that "Ban nuclear weapons" is fundamentally flawed. Under this resolution all, and only, UN nations are required to completely dismantle their nuclear weapons programs. This leaves only terrorist nations with the ultimate bargaining tool. If there were either a provision for the UN to maintain a small cache of weapons ONLY for use in retaliation or that UN nations should seek to disarm the entire world of nations, this resolution could have been perfect.

As it stands, "Ban nuclear weapons" is unconscionable. Please join me in voting against this proposal.

MammonLord, President of The Confederacy of Brokers

P.S. We have great discussions in the region I am from, California (http://mammonlord.com/ca). If you enjoy this type of dialogue, please consider visiting.

Hello, everyone!

I am King Bobort, leader of the great royal democratic kingdom of Tihland. I would like to say that my dear nation submitted a much more acceptable proposal about the ban of nuclear weapons long ago (twice). Neither time did that proposal reach quorum. And now this much stronger one that forces the outright ban of nuclear weapons in all circumstances does make quorum. It appears the U.N. got very anti-nuclear weapon in about 2 or 3 months to actually put this proposal into quorum. However, it doesn't appear that the proposal will become a resolution. If I were to resubmit our previous proposal, a proposal that only allows the use of nuclear weapons (and other types) in certain circumstances, do you believe it would reach quorum?

That is quite the question to consider.

Earlier, someone claimed that because the U.N. is against banning nuclear weapons that they should be against banning biological weapons. It's important to note that biological weapons are not the same as nuclear weapons. I must say that if one really is for banning nuclear weapons, they would not be complaining about the majority being for banning biological weapons.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your time.

I can't belive what i am hearing this is bull :mad: We need more nukes not less to protect our nations. Only fcking hippies will vote for this. I am not obeying it if this get's passed.:headbang: People vote for nukes!

The Incorporated States of Amphitryon will NOT allow its strategic defense to be subverted or prostrated to the collective whimsy of idealology. If this resolution passes, it will surely place ALL member nations at risk from armed nations that do not comply.

The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction has worked, and worked well. The weapons will not be used as long as there is no advantage to doing so, and there is where the UN should focus its efforts.

The Nation of Faldawi, in its eternal mission to insure peace and security within its boarders, cannot condone the elimination of nuclear weapons. Not only are small tactical charges most effective while having a minimum of effects, but larger charges are necessary in the even that another horror emerges from the depths of the ocean, or to destroy the plague of the kitten armies. Faldawi, as all nations, needs the power of nuclear arms as a deterrent to the atrocities of nations without fear of nuclear strike. Furthermore, there are many rogue states which Faldawi and the United Nations must stand against to prevent the destruction of our fair state.

In the name of the people of Hildocerasia working in the uranium mining industry and in the nuclear plants, producing electricity or plutonium or refining or recycling uranic products, studdying in nuclear physics, medicine, environmental sciences, aeronautics etc. etc. we can't let such a resolution take place and cutting a big third of our ressources.
We need countries to buy and stock huge amount of nuclear weapons they can't afford to use and are obliged to recycle regularly for most reduced fees (contact our delegate in the UN's building for prices).

the Head of Government
of the Scientific Republic of Hildocerasia
the Eminent Doctor Hildoceras

First off, let me say that I am totally opposed to the use of WMDs, no matter what the reason. Yes, even in retaliation. I would be quite happy to see all WMD's banned. And can I ask a question? How does threatening to nuke someone back solve anything if you have just been laminated to the bedrock? MAD doesn't make any sense. Yet I am inclined to vote against this resolution. I really don't know why. I'll get back to you on this.

As I read this I realise this was quite a pointless post. Oh well

There is no way we can let this vote pass.

Nuclear weapons aren't possesed to conduct war. They are to prevent nuclear attacks by rouge nations. In RL, most non-UN nations can't afford a nuclear program. But this is NS, and almost any country can afford nuclear weapons. It would put the UN at a great disadvantage. Not in offensive capability, but in preventive capability.

So vote no.

Thanks

I'm totally against banning Nuclear Missles. What about the nations who aren't UN members. They will have Nuclear Missles which will cause a great unbalance in Nationstates. We will be at their mercy. That not for me, so VOTE AGAINST IT!!!

Sign,
Marines 911 :sniper:

The DRA fully supports this resolution and congratulates its author on getting the number of endorsements necessary to bring this to a vote. I urge everyone to support this motion to help rid the world of this horrid weapons of mass destruction!

To pass this would be crazy! Although their effects are devestating, they can save lives. That is why the US used them in WW II.

(Statement from President of Wyattland):
Today, sadly, we speak from experience. Wyattland had a national tragedy this morning. Terrorists have struck our nation, but they could strike any nation. These cowards hide in the depths, just waiting for their opportunity to strike. It could be anywhere, at anytime. Therefore, the United States of Wyattland reserves the right and maintains the solemn authority to defend itself if and when necessary, with or without approval from the United Nations when the security of it's citizens is at risk. The United States of Wyattland will limit it's nuclear arsenal, however, it will not eliminate it completely.

to help rid the world of this horrid weapons of mass destruction!No, it will rid the UN of nuclear weapons, not the world. There's a difference.

ITD has voted against this preposterous resolution.

The Republic of Turkmenikurgistan recognises the threat that nuclear weapons may impose. It is however noted that a nuclear superpower is in a much better bargaining position where economic matters are concerned. My tiny nation wishes to join the world economy to enjoy the prosperity and fortunes of the nuclear superpowers. My nation and leader are fully intent on developing all of its weapons to the greatest extent possible to gain a surer footing on the world stage. I will be voting "NO" on behalf of the nation of Turkmenikurgistan.

I agree with much of this proposal in principal. However, it reads like it was written by a THIRD GRADER. PLEASE check your spelling and grammar before you submit a proposal. The number of poorly written proposals is embarrassing.

We support the UN resolution to ban Nuclear Weapons. They are threats to innocent civilians as well as the environment. War should be waged Army vs. Army - not by the push of a button. Being forced to raise, train and equip an Army without the ease and luxury of Nukes will force some lazy loud-mouth nations to get off their butts and fight! :sniper:

If this resolution does pass, Tekania still has ZPE and M/A weapons that make Nukes look like firecrackers... However, in the INTEREST of peace, I still vote NO, for the benefit of the less advanced nations of these United Nations defense and deterence.

If the UN bans nuclear weapons who will posess them? Rouge Nations.
Sadly, we need them in case of emergency, if we didn't have them ivading nations could say "surender or die," and we would be powerless

The Governor of Cop City would like to urge all UN members to vote for this resolution.

We support the UN resolution to ban Nuclear Weapons. They are threats to innocent civilians as well as the environment. War should be waged Army vs. Army - not by the push of a button. Being forced to raise, train and equip an Army without the ease and luxury of Nukes will force some lazy loud-mouth nations to get off their butts and fight! :sniper:

Of course, this assumes the other nation (which most of the time is NON-UN) doesn't have them.... most certainly, while believing in "protecting civilians" you seem to have no problem sitting around and crying like a little brat, while a nation without any form of deterance because of this proposal, has been vaporized by a massive rogue-state, who can still sit around on their lazy butts and press buttons...

I'm sorry, but the supports of this resolution have passed the point of naievity... They have reached a point where the only proper desciptive is moronic.... If this was an ideal world, where every nation was part of the UN, or even a SIGNFICANT MAJORITY.... such an idea would be feasible... in the realm of reality however, I must assume you have become disillusioned by reality and are operating in some fantacy world, where everyone thinks exactly like you.... I'm sorry, if this was an ideal world, we would not need armies, Tekanian SCV's would not need armor, shields, and be packed with high yield weapons... If this was an ideal world, we would not need weapons period, as everyone would be peacefull and happy.... I however must point out...... THIS DAMN WORLD IS NOT IDEAL....

I'm sorry, the people who support this proposal need to wake up, and join all the rest of us in nationstates, and stop living in their little fantasy world where everyone is part of the UN.

If the UN bans nuclear weapons who will posess them? Rouge Nations.
Ah, the dreaded Rouge nations, and their evil counterparts, the Lipstick Pirates! Once again the scourge of the makeup counter threatens the world!

Yeah, we're against this one too. How'd it slip thru again? Laziness?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Leaders of the nations, as well as the UN delegates of each nation: My peacefull offerings of greetings and sugar donuts to all of you. [please grab some, they're great!]

It has come to my attention that there is this Anti-Nuke proposal floating around in the UN, stating that: "All the nations that belong to the UN have to dismantle their nuclear weapons within the maximum time of 5 years from the approval of this resolution. "

Now, for me, really, this is a folly greater than anything I've seen in all the time that I've been ruling my country [which is quite a while, actually].

What Spider Queen Lolth has stated is definitely true: terrorists from other politically unstable nations might come and attack your rather peaceful and modernized nations.

Now, maybe the part of being peaceful nations is the main reason why the UN put up this proposal. Yet I cannot fathom a more crucial time to actually have Nuclear weapons at the moment.

People might be saying, "Well, banning nukes is THE way to show that we are peaceful nations."

I'm here to say this: "You're TOTALLY wrong, my anti-nuke friends."

I may not be a part of the UN for my own reasons, but I would certainly urge those that are within the UN, and even more so, the UN delegates of each region to A) vote against this resolution, and B) create a counter-resolution for this anti-nuke fiasco.

First of all, I think it would be best if the counter-proposal stated something like this:

1) The capping of the amount of nuclear weapons in the posession of each UN member.

2) Strict rules of the use of Nuclear weapons [I would say that it should only be used under certain Circumstances - such as for defensive purposes against a belligerant country, and only using nukes as a last resource if war is inevitable. Diplomacy should be first and foremost when dealing with a tough issue between countries]

3) strict adherence to this proposal is necessary for all UN members - a UN member producing more weapons than what is stated within the proposal should be up for some BIG problems [I would suggest embargoes and things of that sort]

And after that, it should be up to you guys. =)

But indeed, it's for the best if you want to be peaceful nations and still have the power to defend yourselves from other belligerant countries and acts of terror upon your respective countries by ruthless and heartless terrorists.

Thus, I leave this up to you all UN members and delegates.

May the Anti-Nuke resolution be knocked down hard and recieve many votes against it.

Again, my offerings of peace from myself and the people of my nation [which actually has never gone to war with another country... we're relatively safe here, being 1,539th in the world for safest nations at last check].

May you all have a great and prosperous nation that would pride itself in making wise decisions.

to ban nuclear weapons at this time would be devestating to the un and the world. in protest, member nations aginst it, including my self, will most likely resign so we can keep the TERRORISTS :sniper: out of our countries. maby in the future we can all get along and live happly ever after like the people in demolition man. but that isnt how it is today my friends. anyway after all of us left, thoes peace loving countries :fluffle: will be sacked 1 by 1 until all there wealth is in the hands of the terrorists. then with all that power its us next. :mp5: to fend for our selves. it isnt a good thing not at all :headbang:
and i hope it never gets passed

We support the UN resolution to ban Nuclear Weapons. They are threats to innocent civilians as well as the environment. War should be waged Army vs. Army - not by the push of a button. Being forced to raise, train and equip an Army without the ease and luxury of Nukes will force some lazy loud-mouth nations to get off their butts and fight! :sniper:

for one, which would u rather have a happy bambi and thousands dead "army vs army", or a screwed bambi and thousands alive ur choice. also the thing that will get thoes "lazy loud-mouth nations" to get up and fight will be the terrorists who get ahold of nukes from former member nations who left in protest which now left to fend for them selves, so it all turns around my friends, yes nukes pollute the environment and kill bambi, but if u ban them the process only speeds up.

I believe the philosophy of my national motto still stands....

"Qui desiderant pacem preparate bellum."

"[He, They, Those] who desire[s] peace prepare[s] for war."

Peace comes at a price, that price is war, death... in short BLOOD. Disarmorment of any kind or level is not a way of maintaining peace... the idea is falicious at best, and only exists in an ideal world where all people are sane, stable, and, in short, peaceful.... Those who wish to maintain their peace, need to be ready to fight for it if needed. And indeed preparations for such, that is, the use of deterance is a way of this assurance...

There is a flip side to this motto as well.... Those who DO NOT prepare for war, DO NOT want peace..... not really.... Because they have no intention of actual SECURING of peace.... The pipe dreams of those in support of this proposal proove this... None of them are actually seeking out and securing peace.... Their time is spent talking about it with the choir who agress with them... But have no desire whatsoever of actually ATTEMPTING peace... no actual WORK ETHIC at maintaining peace... IOW... they are all talk, and no actual action... Their failure is one of capability vs. intention... Merely because a nation has massive military might, does not mean they are warmongering barbarians... indeed, they may have the capability of war, but the intention is for peace... to maintain peace, to SECURE peace... in a hostile and aggressive world... The same is true of the supporters, while they have the INTENTION of peace, they lack all capability as such, and therefore their "peace" exists at the COST of those of us who activly secure it... You can call them deadbeats for peace... since they are willing to reap the benifits of the peace we provide, but are unwilling, or incapable of doing anything themselves for it.

Nuclear warheads shouldn't be banned. Terrorist may get their hands on them, but lets face the facts, getting the device inside a target nation takes careful planning and near impossible to do.

Missile defence systems do what them name suggests, so I won't bore you with the details.

The nukes are purely there to cause world wide devestation, but launching a nuke with a warhead with a huge kilotonne magnitude could cause a nuclear winter. Nobody wants that, but nobody is stupid enough to start it.

The possiblity of a nation or terrorist group being desprate to use a nuclear device is very slim considering the current circumstances on international affairs.

Fellow United Nations members,

While the USSE is small, it is our position that the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, for offensive and even defensive purposes, is wrong. My nation stands by its own position of outlawing nuclear weapons and urges others to follow suit. The fear and war mongers who would like you to believe that it will be impossible to protect your country from singular rogue nations and terrorist organizations simply because you won't have nuclear capabilities are flat out wrong. Many nations in the world live peaceably without such weapons.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that if the United Nations approves of the proliferation of nuclear arms, it will allow member nations who are, for the lack of a better term, questionable to produce these weapons with ease and sell them off to rogue nations and terrorist organizations without the capibilities.

President of the United Socialist States of Ecglaf

We cannot let this resolution pass. This resolution would limit a nation's military capabilities and deterrence, opening it to exterior threats. The first line of the resolution states, "Considering that it is duty of the UN to defend the rights of the world-wide population". This is clearly contradictory, as the resolution would limit a nation's right to defend itself. Nuclear technology has opened the world to a new age. Benefits such as nuclear power and medicine rely on the technology that was brought about from the development of nuclear weapons. By dismantling nuclear weapons and materials, the world will be taking a step backwards. Furthermore, the resolution goes on to say, "Considering that is duty of the UN to maintain and to promote the peace between the nations". Nuclear weapons are not nearly as great a threat as small arms, which are used extensively. The only real threat presented by nuclear weapons would be the use of tactical nukes on a battlefield, and this has been proven to be a nonfactor due to logistical difficulties. The resolution also says that the UN will fund the dismantlement of the nuclear weapons, but it does not say how. The member nations of the UN will be at expense to disarm themselves, paying for something that they do not all believe in. This resolution, while idealistic (and naive), infringes upon the sovereignty of member nations and puts them at danger. Ergo, I urge every nation concerned about itself and the security of the world, to vote against the resolution "Ban nuclear weapons".

Send money

The Republic of Skredtch in no way intends to allow any nation to attain military superiority due to our lack of nuclear weapons. The nuclear disarmament of Skredtch, should it occur, will be accompanied by a significant increase in military spending, in order to train additional troops, outfit them, construct more and superior military vehicles, and develop massive ordinance conventional weapons with destructive capabilities comparable to those of nuclear weapons, in an attempt to maintain our capacity to retaliate against foreign aggressors. However, although we do not expect this resolution, should it pass, to have any appreciable affect on our military capabilities, the expense of dismantling nuclear weapons and disposing of the nuclear materials used to construct them while simultaneously replacing them with equally powerful conventional weapons would actually result in an overall increase in our military spending, to the overall detriment of our economy.

Greetings,


Secondly, the point made that rogue nations would then proceed, for some reason, to attack UN countries with nuclear weapons is ludicrous, as the interest of an invading country is to get more useful territory, not just a wasteland.

Thirdly, we think someone who is destroyed will not really mind if the nation which destroyed it is destroyed or not, as the destroyed nation does not exist anymore.

Finally, the concept of "if I die, than at least I take them with me" goes against every regard a civilized nation should have for human life - even the life of one's enemy.

Our values seem to be different from those of some of the other posters. If we have to die in a nuclear war, we would prefer to die honourably, without using the same shameful tactics of our attackers. If others do not, we have nothing to do with it.

Regards,

Hakopam


First of all, who says the rogue states are going to attack us. They don't have to. The blackmail power is too great for us to risk it, so by having all the semi-honorable states in the UN loose military parity with our adversaries and potential adversaries is an invitation to dictators to rule the world. They don't have to fire any missles. Just the threat is enough, unless we have something to shoot back with that is comparable, in which case their power is rendered null. The only reason this world isn't ruled by psychotic madmen is because we have the advantage of a nuclear arsenal that puts us on a level of parity. Get it!!!


Your argument of dying with valor by not fighting is just as stupid. You are willing to be slaughtered? Then why are you here? As a ruler you have an obligation to defend you're people, not sit by and watch them be killed. If that means using nuclear weapons, then I'm all for it.

Anyone who votes for this resolution is a coward who is condemning us all to be dominated by dictators, and they should all be ousted from the realm of international politics.

Wake up and look at reality, folks!!

no freakin way am I dumping Nuclear weapons I need them to terrorise...oh...
I meant to create peace in the region.......

Fellow United Nations members,

While the USSE is small, it is our position that the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, for offensive and even defensive purposes, is wrong. My nation stands by its own position of outlawing nuclear weapons and urges others to follow suit. The fear and war mongers who would like you to believe that it will be impossible to protect your country from singular rogue nations and terrorist organizations simply because you won't have nuclear capabilities are flat out wrong. Many nations in the world live peaceably without such weapons.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that if the United Nations approves of the proliferation of nuclear arms, it will allow member nations who are, for the lack of a better term, questionable to produce these weapons with ease and sell them off to rogue nations and terrorist organizations without the capibilities.

President of the United Socialist States of Ecglaf


Singular Rogue Nations and Terrorist groups? SINGULAR ROGUE NATIONS? You are appearantly naive. What about conglomerations of massive rogue states? There are far more ROGUE NATIONS than UN member nations... and many of them are alot bigger than us, and far more aggressive...

If? IF the UN approves of the proliferation? What do you mean IF? This resolution is not debating on whether or not to allow proliferation, this is about disallowing it...

You live in some dream world, my friend.

"FEAR and WAR" mongerors? My friend, we are REALISTS, who actually participate in the happenings of this world.

Ok, assuming that banning nuclear weapons was a good idea, instead of pure idiocy, there are still some fundamental flaws in this resolution that would warrant a "No" vote.

1. 5 years is an unreasonably short time to dismantle a nuclear arsenal, especially for nations that have been stockpiling weapons for a long time.

2. The resolution dictates that the governments use the money designated for nuclear weapons programs to dismantle the weapons. The UN has no business telling us how to spend our money. If we want to dismantle our weapons, we can decide how to pay for it.

3. "The UN reserves the right to verify the happened disarmament and to endorse the nations that will not respect the terms of this resolution. "
That might be one of the most convoluted sentences in history, but if I read it right, it means that the UN would endorse nations who do not disarm. Last I checked, endorsing something was a good thing, but maybe the meaning has changed. Let me check...

Endorse: tr. vb. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate. See Synonyms at approve.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

Nope, still means the same thing. I don't know about you, but I don't want the UN endorsing nations who violate UN resolutions.

Yes, you can be sure if this passes, I will be stockpiling nukes out of my hind end for that UN endorsement :D....

Yes, we are the United Nations.... we shall ban all nuclear weapons in member nations..... but... if they do not comply... we will approve of their doing so.... Hmm, you know what, this sets the precedent to allow the disregard and disobedience of every single UN resolution on the books...

Maybe this IS a good thing =))

Fellow United Nations members,

I'm not one, but I'm a board rep for one who is.

While the USSE is small, it is our position that the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, for offensive and even defensive purposes, is wrong. My nation stands by its own position of outlawing nuclear weapons and urges others to follow suit. The fear and war mongers who would like you to believe that it will be impossible to protect your country from singular rogue nations and terrorist organizations simply because you won't have nuclear capabilities are flat out wrong. Many nations in the world live peaceably without such weapons.

1) Fear and warmongers? Try realists. There is a very big group of people who actively hate the UN and would not hesitate to nuke it into nonexistance with the UN undergoing nuclear disarmament. And, combined they have enough of a military might to win using any other method. About the only thing keeping the UN in existance is stockpiles of nukes among its members. And these are not small or unimportant nations, nor would they hesitate to create an alliance just to enjoy taking down the UN.
2) Several nations would leave the UN in protest, possibly adding their nuclear armaments (many of which are quite sizeable) to the nations against the UN.
3) You have any idea what a full nuclear bombardment can do? Let's just say you wouldn't be around if someone decided to show you.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that if the United Nations approves of the proliferation of nuclear arms, it will allow member nations who are, for the lack of a better term, questionable to produce these weapons with ease and sell them off to rogue nations and terrorist organizations without the capibilities.

Those rogue nations produce and sell them as well. Most of the stores that sell nukes run background checks and will actively refuse to sell to certain types of nations. I've been making it a point to dodge nukes myself because my style of government and economic focus put me on that list.

President of the United Socialist States of Ecglaf

Or, if someone takes me up on showing you what it can do, President of A Really Large Radioactive Crater.

You want an example? Take a look into the thread on this forum of antiUN nations. Let's just say I doubt they would have trouble getting allies. So go ahead and ban nuclear weapons. Suicidal nations don't deserve to live.

[QUOTE=Frisbeeteria]Ah, the dreaded Rouge nations, and their evil counterparts, the Lipstick Pirates! Once again the scourge of the makeup counter threatens the world!

Hahahahahahaha!

Modern nuclear weapons have very little fallout.

Please explain what you mean here and include some references.

Because what are suggesting sounds like MAGIC to my government.

Vote against this please. Nuclear disarmament would only be plausible in a perfect world and this world is far from perfect. Were the members of the UN to dismantle all nuclear warheads we would be at the mercy of rogue nations who clearly are interested in retataining their arsenal. This IS NOT dismantling some, but all. It would cost billions of all currencies within the UN and probably raise a heavy burden of the hard working people via increased taxes. I know I do not want MY Holy Hand Grenades going towards disarmament of that magnitude.

However, one of the duties of the UN is to protect both weaker members and non-members.
The Unified Capitalizt States would prefer not to be “protected” by your so-called “United” Nations.

However, all of the corporations in the nation possessing nuclear weapons are strongly in favor of this resolution, and a puppet regime will be set up to help pass it.

http://terranordalis.thirdgeek.com/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

To vote "yes" on this issue go against a recent UN movement from just over one month ago:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #75

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

Now allow me to quote the 5th statement of the resolution:

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


Votes For: 12,555
Votes Against: 3,346

Implemented: Sat Oct 2 2004


So the overwhelming majority OK's a resolution to INCEREASE MILITARY SPENDING and ENDORSE positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices, and yet less than a month later, decides to BAN them altogether, now spending even more to disarm nations that cannot fund it themselves?

Put in perspective, the application of such a resolution:
1.) Will increase spending in all UN nations for the second time on the same issue
2.) Openly informs terrorising nations that Mutually Assured Destruction is no more, giving them a ridiculous advantage over any UN State.
and
3.) Destabilizes countless regions containing both UN and non-UN states, not to mention the economies of states who's economy lays in the reasearch and develoment sector.


In closing, a vote for this resolution is a vote for destabilization of both economy and region.

While the Holy Empire of Hellinon respects and admires the goals of this resolution, we must concur with other governments who've expressed the idea that it is neither enforcable, nor effective. The UN is neither all powerful, nor all knowing. It therefore could not possibly know who has and does not have nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we cannot comply with a resolution intrudes on our sovereign right to determine our own defence needs. That is a decision that the government of the Hellenes solely reserves for itself. We will vote against this resolution for those reasons and urge other members to do so as well.

The entire region of Gatesville, and indeed myself are appalled by this act of infringement of our rights. I urge all of you to protect your interests and vote NAY to this silly resolution. I especially urge UN delagates, since you hold more power. Thank you.

An appalling cock-up, and one that is now rearing its ugly idealistic head for the second time in my memory. Why can people not understand the salient facts:

1) There are far too many non-UN nations out to get us;

2) The nuclear arsenals of the UN nations are therefore all that keeps them alive, and not under the nucelar dominance of these rogues and imbeciles (and of course, many many Nazis);

3) It's almost impossible to eliminate such weaponry anyway, least of all in such a short time.

((Sorry if this is a double post))

I agree with This bill leaves nations from Non-UN nations that can use these weapons and cause mega-damage. Add protection in one and I'll put YES. Passing this just makes me nervous.

I voted no, yes the people of Wrigleyivy wish that Nukes weren't apart of this world, but other nations outside the UN will have nukes, and we won't. The UN is here to make peace, but the decision to have nukes is up to each country, but the way each nation uses the nukes the UN should have a say.

Interm President of Wrigleyivy.
Jeremy

Voting NO on this proposal is by no means endorsing proliferation, considering that nuclear testing is illegal the UN should concern itself with stopping the spread of nuclear weapons rather than dismantling the ones opperated by the responsible nations of the UN.

A nuclear free world is an idealistic dream, the Democratic Republic of Burnzonia will not willingly decrease its national security and put its civilians in danger, therefore it must vote against the resolution and urges fellow nations and states to do likewise.

Well considering the UN should be protecting the rights of all I see no reason for us to ban any weapons. "War is a continueation of politics by other means" and should be allowed to run its course.

The UN consistently acts to curtail the sovereignty of member nations. This resolution is no better than the usual rhetoric created by weaker member nations who feel they cannot defend themselves against aggressors. Instead of making laws which no one will follow, these nations should instead strengthen their own defenses so they will not be attacked.

Gorfnika, Inc.

The UN is here to make peace, but the decision to have nukes is up to each country, but the way each nation uses the nukes the UN should have a say.

Believe it or not, but I recognize this as a moderate position here. Your government is basically saying that the UN should have a say in the use or limitation of us of weapons of mass destruction. Or at least that it what it looks like, and my government completely agrees with that.

I've done some extensive analysis of nations who approve of this resolution...

They all have certain aspects in common...

1. They have poor or failing currencies
2. The average income of their citizens is low.
3. They have high unemployment rates (between 20 and 26%)
4. They have little to no political freedoms for their people.
5. They have no defensive capability.

I would generally agree with some of my fellow oposition that their pushing of this ban is because they are incapable of defending and maintaining themselves... However, I believe they fail, when they are cutting off much of the deterence of the closest thing they have to military allies in this world.

Its very quite simple.
1) The UN must leat the world by example.
2) The dismantaling of Nuclear Weapons is by no means leaving your country defencless. (What good is a nuke against terrorists who hide amoungst civillians? Or hide within your OWN country.)
3) The only way to prevent those who disregard life from aquiring these weapons is to destroy them and seek to end proliferation througout the world.

I stongly urge you to vote IN FAVOR of this nuclear weapons ban.

Its very quite simple.
1) The UN must leat the world by example.
2) The dismantaling of Nuclear Weapons is by no means leaving your country defencless. (What good is a nuke against terrorists who hide amoungst civillians? Or hide within your OWN country.)
3) The only way to prevent those who disregard life from aquiring these weapons is to destroy them and seek to end proliferation througout the world.

(cough) (cough)
1) The UN must [lead] the world by example.

And this can be done through the responsible use of fission or fusion based nuclear weapons.

2) The [dismantling] of Nuclear Weapons is by no means leaving your country [defensless]. (What good is a nuke against terrorists who hide [amongst] civilians? Or hide within your OWN country.)

Us of the opposition are more concerned with the deterence it provides against the multitude of non-UN nations (aka rogue states), many of which are superpowers, and most are much more aggressive and imperialistic than we of the UN are.

3) The only way to prevent those who disregard life from aquiring these weapons is to destroy them and seek to end proliferation througout the world.

Which the UN is not capable of doing, these United Nations, being of such limited territorial power, and weak in the international scale of things, do not have the ability or power to end proliferation, with or without us it will continue.

I'm sorry, but you present an argument which has no reality or presence in NationStates... within this realm it is a pointless and moronic pipe dream.

Its very quite simple.

Yes. Just not in how you see it.

1) The UN must leat the world by example.

UN no can lead world by example if UN radioactive crater.

2) The dismantaling of Nuclear Weapons is by no means leaving your country defencless. (What good is a nuke against terrorists who hide amoungst civillians? Or hide within your OWN country.)

1) It also doesn't stop the terrorists from setting off a nuke in your country.
2) It's the nations that hate the UN and actively seek to undo it we are worried about. Quite a few of them don't need terrorist cells.
3) It only reduces your defenses against one of the most devastating and, as the real life US has demonstrated with that waste of money they call a missile defense system during testing, nearly-unstoppable type of weapon.

3) The only way to prevent those who disregard life from aquiring these weapons is to destroy them and seek to end proliferation througout the world.

1) Please try to read what we post instead of posting the same uninformed crap we have disproven a dozen times already.
2) The UN doesn't have the power to do that. Most of the nations in NS are not in the UN.
3) This only makes it easier to take out UN nations, since all you have to do is nuke them.
4) It weakens the bargaining power of the UN by eliminating a key defensive option.
5) It may lose the UN several nations who value survival far more than what the UN stands for, which should be all of them.
6) Go find my comment about suicidal nations. That's what the UN becomes if it actively hands a large number of enemies a tactical advantage.
7) The time scale is not feasible. Too many nukes.


I stongly urge you to vote IN FAVOR of this nuclear weapons ban.

I urge the opposite for those who wish to have their membership in the UN not equal them becomming a nuclear testing range.

Why is it everyone infavor of this idiotic idea claims that terrorists wont be detered by nuclear weapons? The point of the matter is not to deter the terrorist. But to deter the nation with a military the size of some small cities. Nuclear weapons are a capable deterent for smaller nations to fend off larger ones. Not every threat comes from terrorists stop being so near sighted in this. Also, where would the UN encounter said funding to help disarm nations uncapable of doing so themselves? From richer UN members? So not only do you mean to disarm hundreds upon hundreds of nations you also plan to tax other countries for it as well? Let me get this straight, I not only have to pay for my own disarmerment but the disarmerment of say another thirty countries? And who is to handle these funds? The amount of money the level of corruption would induce is by no means going to change our minds.

Nations should choose to be pacificist. Not have idealistic beliefs imposed upon them.

I'd like to know what it is about nuclear weapons that deters people that an equally powerful weapon can't do. I've heard of one that when deployed, kills the population of the target while doing very little damage to buildings in the area. All that banning nukes does, in my opinion, force nations to use alternative deterants that have a lower impact on the environment.

I'd like to know what it is about nuclear weapons that deters people that an equally powerful weapon can't do. I've heard of one that when deployed, kills the population of the target while doing very little damage to buildings in the area. All that banning nukes does, in my opinion, force nations to use alternative deterants that have a lower impact on the environment.

That bomb is called a neutron bomb.... but it is still a nuke, it just emits most of its energy as heat and neutron radiation, about would be banned as well by this proposal.

The only thing this proposal won't touch is most FT WMD's, like M/A and ZPE based weapon systems.

If any of you care (hm...fat chance) I've telegrammed the first 50 or so delegates that have voted FOR this resolution. I think if there is a large enough effort to convince delegates to vote AGAINST the resolution it can safely fail. If anyone is interested in conitnuing the telegramming, be polite, gracious, possibly direct them to this thread, and start where I stopped: "EL CID THE HERO". Or, the one right after him. Depending on what time it is when you read this, he might have already changed his vote. Once he does, I'm afraid this won't help (not that anyone's willing to engage in telegramming anyway).

Ohime, a wee bit tired. My bed is singing Norah Jones.

Come away with me...

Good Luck, UN. Don't kill yourself overnight. Please.

i urge everyone to vote against the resolution to ban nuclear weapons it is not the duty of the united nations to protect us. its the duty of the individual nation to protect themselves and banning nuclear weapon will leave us vunerable to attacks and weaken our defense leaving us wide open to attacks and no one wants that

Having the bomb myself, I believe there's a middle ground to all of this.

But alas..I'm voting for it.

because if i don't get a third choice...I got to go with the ban. If anything, to scare the Hard Liners to come up with a middle ground proposal.


Like a "Nuclear Free" anti-terror moderately high Arms build up (First responders, second, marines, conventional) would be a better way at it.

Give and get.

OOC: For those of you wondering why people could *gasp* think differently than you *gasp*, some things to consider.

Some of us playing this game grew up during the Cold War. We in fact can remember what it was like when the Soviet Union and the United States were living on the brink. There might even be a player or two old enough to remember the A-Bomb films they'd show in American class rooms. I wasn't old enough for that, but I do remember the night that PBS ran "The Day After" and people were boycotting the film because it was "too real". (NOTE: Yeah, I'm probably older than most of you, but a few of you will have an idea of what I'm talking about here.)

You might also want to remind yourself that not everybody playing this game is an American. The idea that carrying around a concealed or unconcealed weapon reduces the chance that some other freak is going to charge into a McDonalds and start shooting people really is the sort of thing that really few people in the world *except* Americans seem to think is a good idea.

Now instead of thinking about gun control with respect to individuals, think about global disarmament and nations ... PRESTO.

I'm not suggesting any of you should vote for or against this resolution, but I've seen a few of you that clearly don't understand that *gasp* people are different from you, and in some cases these people that disagree with you, are in real life adults who might not even be Americans.

Without a doubt there are some good arguments pro and con, and then some really poor ones. IMHO more of the poor arguments are coming from the con position this time. NationStates is a great time to roleplay ... so for my parting shot at the American-Centric thoughts I'm seeing, consider this: in the real world there are plenty of nuclear threshold nations that have decided they don't need nukes. Why? They don't see the benefit of having them outweighing the cost of having them. Some nuclear states, like India and Pakistan frankly scare the living SHIT out of many of us that actually follow international politics. I can safely tell you that India and Pakistan have been at war for most of our lives ... about the only people here who can claim they remember a time when these two nations weren't about to go to war are the ones that actually also can remember when Castro was pointing a few nukes at Florida and New Orleans.

That said, have fun debating the resolution ... but a bit of advice, if you stop calling people idiots, you might find they are more interested in talking to you.

Singular Rogue Nations and Terrorist groups? SINGULAR ROGUE NATIONS? You are appearantly naive. What about conglomerations of massive rogue states? There are far more ROGUE NATIONS than UN member nations... and many of them are alot bigger than us, and far more aggressive...

There are certainly many terrorist groups and rogue nations. However, I certainly doubt that any given rogue nation 'conglomeration' outnumbers the members of the UN, or even several of them banded together.

Furthermore, you cannot target a terrorist organization with nuclear weapons. They simply don't exist as a nation or even a large enough collective to warrant the use of such power. Plus they usually exist within, but are seperate from, another country.

If they have nuclear weapons, they'll use them if or if we do not have nuclear weapons. Terrorists are fundimentalists and are usually more than willing to die for their cause. Even if we could bomb a terrorist 'stronghold', it would only further their cause by making them martyrs, even if it is in retaliation.

If? IF the UN approves of the proliferation? What do you mean IF? This resolution is not debating on whether or not to allow proliferation, this is about disallowing it...

If the UN does not pass this resolution, it will mean UN members will continue to be allowed to create nuclear weapons. Ergo the UN approves of it.

You live in some dream world, my friend.

A friend would not speak so condescendingly.

"FEAR and WAR" mongerors? My friend, we are REALISTS, who actually participate in the happenings of this world.

By suggesting that the only way we can preserve our individual nations is to create weapons of mass destruction, and by disallowing it we open ourselves to massive scale attacks and certain doom, I would call you a fear monger. By suggesting that the only way for there to be peace is to prepare for war, an ideal which is over two thousand years old and created as propaganda for an expansionist empire, I would call you a war monger. Obviously not you specifically.

Having the bomb myself, I believe there's a middle ground to all of this.

But alas..I'm voting for it.

because if i don't get a third choice...I got to go with the ban. If anything, to scare the Hard Liners to come up with a middle ground proposal.


Like a "Nuclear Free" anti-terror moderately high Arms build up (First responders, second, marines, conventional) would be a better way at it.

Give and get.

Well, within the principle of "Give and get" I generally will not vote with hardline sides in areas where moderation is quite capable... mostly from the point that moderation becomes near impossible AFTER THE FACT.

I would rather this fail, and someone write a moderate one.

The largest problem with the NSUN as a whole is the lack of moderates... most proposals are written by hardliners unwilling to compromise on a single issue... So in actuallity, you blame the opponents for problems created by the proponents... I'm sorry, but if this UN actually desired peace and mutual cooperation for benefit, most of these proposals would spend alot of time in pre-preparation debate, and not reaching the point of floor vote, and then start lableing opponents as "hard liners"...

The largest problem with the NSUN as a whole is the lack of moderates... most proposals are written by hardliners unwilling to compromise on a single issue... So in actuallity, you blame the opponents for problems created by the proponents... I'm sorry, but if this UN actually desired peace and mutual cooperation for benefit, most of these proposals would spend alot of time in pre-preparation debate, and not reaching the point of floor vote, and then start lableing opponents as "hard liners"...

There are a few moderates here. And we *do* actually bring draft proposals to the floor and edit them.

The problem is more that the extremists on both sides, don't chime in until there is a vote.

I've had a few resolutions sail through the draft proposal phase with very euthasistic support only to be shocked when people started crying about the same resolutions later. I've even been accused of trying to "sneak resolutions" by the UN.

Fortunately I count your nation among those that can be counted on to provide advice.

Yes, I am an ass about staying on the topic. Too many people try to support their arguement by moving away from the topic on here.

OOC: For those of you wondering why people could *gasp* think differently than you *gasp*, some things to consider.

Thus, the reason my nation doesn't actually own a nuclear arsenal and never will. Also, this is not on topic.

Some of us playing this game grew up during the Cold War. We in fact can remember what it was like when the Soviet Union and the United States were living on the brink. There might even be a player or two old enough to remember the A-Bomb films they'd show in American class rooms. I wasn't old enough for that, but I do remember the night that PBS ran "The Day After" and people were boycotting the film because it was "too real". (NOTE: Yeah, I'm probably older than most of you, but a few of you will have an idea of what I'm talking about here.)

Yes, I remember that. We got over it.

You might also want to remind yourself that not everybody playing this game is an American. The idea that carrying around a concealed or unconcealed weapon reduces the chance that some other freak is going to charge into a McDonalds and start shooting people really is the sort of thing that really few people in the world *except* Americans seem to think is a good idea.

Okay, this is where your arguement gets fallacious. We're talking about nations, not individuals. Stop and read what we have said with that in mind. Also, keep in mind that while not all of us are Americans, it's the gung-ho ones that are against the UN and are not afraid to use nukes that are the problem. And not all of them are American either. And this is still not the topic.

Now instead of thinking about gun control with respect to individuals, think about global disarmament and nations ... PRESTO.

Finally beginning to move towards the topic.

At this point, you just proved you weren't doing it with your previous comments. Go back, reread our posts, and think tactically from a nation standpoint. And try to ignore the ones with bad arguements.

I am thinking from the standpoint of a nation and what is tactically sound. This resolution, considering the large amount of enemies the UN has, is basically tactical suicide.

I'm not suggesting any of you should vote for or against this resolution, but I've seen a few of you that clearly don't understand that *gasp* people are different from you, and in some cases these people that disagree with you, are in real life adults who might not even be Americans.

I was wrong. This has little to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is banning nukes, not whether or not the other players are from the US. Stay on topic.

Without a doubt there are some good arguments pro and con, and then some really poor ones. IMHO more of the poor arguments are coming from the con position this time. NationStates is a great time to roleplay ... so for my parting shot at the American-Centric thoughts I'm seeing, consider this: in the real world there are plenty of nuclear threshold nations that have decided they don't need nukes. Why? They don't see the benefit of having them outweighing the cost of having them. Some nuclear states, like India and Pakistan frankly scare the living SHIT out of many of us that actually follow international politics. I can safely tell you that India and Pakistan have been at war for most of our lives ... about the only people here who can claim they remember a time when these two nations weren't about to go to war are the ones that actually also can remember when Castro was pointing a few nukes at Florida and New Orleans.

You've got a good point there. I find most of the pro side are using the same arguements, which are inherently flawed and tactically dangerous. And let us not forget that, unlike real life, this UN has very real enemies who very much want to destroy it, some of whom don't hide that want. In this case, the UN must also look out for tactics as well as the welfare of the populous.

That said, have fun debating the resolution ... but a bit of advice, if you stop calling people idiots, you might find they are more interested in talking to you.

Never called them idiots. I just want them to read the damn topic before posting the same arguement. I mean, even your post was refreshing.

There are certainly many terrorist groups and rogue nations. However, I certainly doubt that any given rogue nation 'conglomeration' outnumbers the members of the UN, or even several of them banded together.


Current world statistics as of present date...

Number of NationStates = 116,412

Number of UN Member Nations = 37,698

Number of Rogue Nations = 78,714

Current base of UN world power = 32.38%

Not sure what "world" your nation is in, but apparantly not this one...


Furthermore, you cannot target a terrorist organization with nuclear weapons. They simply don't exist as a nation or even a large enough collective to warrant the use of such power. Plus they usually exist within, but are seperate from, another country.

If they have nuclear weapons, they'll use them if or if we do not have nuclear weapons. Terrorists are fundimentalists and are usually more than willing to die for their cause. Even if we could bomb a terrorist 'stronghold', it would only further their cause by making them martyrs, even if it is in retaliation.

I could care less about terrorists, there are better ways of dealing with them... Rogue states however are different.


If the UN does not pass this resolution, it will mean UN members will continue to be allowed to create nuclear weapons. Ergo the UN approves of it.

And this is a bad thing?


A friend would not speak so condescendingly.


Sorry if you do not grasp the NationStates world...


By suggesting that the only way we can preserve our individual nations is to create weapons of mass destruction, and by disallowing it we open ourselves to massive scale attacks and certain doom, I would call you a fear monger. By suggesting that the only way for there to be peace is to prepare for war, an ideal which is over two thousand years old and created as propaganda for an expansionist empire, I would call you a war monger. Obviously not you specifically.

The principle is far more true than you let on... and proved time and time again... Mind you, it does not say to actually fight, it merely says PREPARE... The Bulk of UN member nations, and even of the opponents of this ban, are not the ones with their finger on the button ready to deal out world armageddon... however, we do have that button close by, to act as deterence to many nations which do, and who have no UN inbetween them and that button... It's not "fear mongering" its merely a statement of fact based on the international politics and nations within this world.

If this UN were international in scope, with complete pervue of the world, it might be feasible... at the present stage, it just is not. We might all share similar ideals in these United Nations towards peace, but the simple fact of the matter is, we are the minority.... and we must be carefull to keep that in our mind till such a time as it changes.

Worse off, this proposal is likely to lead to a loss of more UN power, with nations of my own and similar mentality forced to leave for the sake of our own peoples safty.

Originally Posted by Ecglaf
If the UN does not pass this resolution, it will mean UN members will continue to be allowed to create nuclear weapons. Ergo the UN approves of it.

No! Illogical reasoning!

Allowance does not begget approval. To make such a statement discredits understanding and neccessity.

A need to commit an act, or understanding that an act must be committed does not mean approval of committing the act. Approval is a value judgment.

Good morning everyone.

Me, President of Al-Anladuz, in representation of my people and my country have to say:


Every free and democratic nation must have the right to defend themselves in the best way posible, nobody must tell a single and free nation how to do it.

Out there are a lot of enemies that do not belong to UN, and they have Nuclear Weapons, so we must have also, if we consider that necessary, of course.

That´s a Nation´s choice.


Thanks.

I think you know my stance on this subject :gundge:

We, The Dominion of Silverrock, wish to bring this back to the basic debate, the disarmament of nuclear weapons by UN members.

While a lofty goal, it runs into some very hard facts. Hard they may be to deal with; but facts they are. Namely, :

1) The willingness of UN members to disarm their nuclear weapons.

2) The right of the UN to interfere with a sovereign nations' decisions in matters of self-defense.

3) The ability to successfully defend against the roughly 75% of nations who are NOT members of the UN and will not be bound by this resolution.

In reply to 1), we do not have nuclear weapons, so to disarm would not be a problem. However, we would be nervous of full and open compliance and the very human urge to hide some nuclear weapons... 'just in case'. This would lead to disruption and arguement between nuclear and non-nuclear states which, inevitably would have some of the nuclear members leaving, thus weakening the UN.

As uncomfortable as that thought is, 2) gives us even more pause. A nations' right to defend itself against unwarrented agression should be the provenance of that nation. Unless the UN forms what would, in effect be, the largest military alliance in Nationstates, so that ANY nation attacking a UN member with nuclear weapons would then be retaliated against by ALL members of the UN, this resolution is too idealistic as it stands. As well: to give the UN (an organization devoted to peace, understanding, and acceptance) leave to become a benign military dictatorship of nations goes against the very principles on which it was founded.

The third and final arguement is perhaps the most depressing and most persuasive. Not every nation of the world, in fact the Majority of them, are not members of the UN and will not be bound by this resolution. Already rogue nations harbour terrorists and build their military at the expense of their citizenry. If they all banded together and invaded us, with only conventional arms, they would outnumber us at roughly 3 to 1. Tactical Nuclear strikes may be the only defense against a vast numerical advantage. And this scenario completely ignores that they would not need a numerical advantage as they would have nuclear weapons. Contrary to some of the other arguements previously posted, not all invaders wish to annex land. They are merely looking to destroy any who don't subscribe to their own political, idealogical, nationalistic, or religious agenda. Genocide is committed for reasons of hate and ignorance, not land.

While Silverrock supports the thoughts and goodwill behind this resolution, and hope for a future where all our concerns are rendered null and void, we find that it is just too idealistic in the here-and-now. To ignore danger or pretend it doesn't exist does not make it go away. We have a saying in our country, "It doesn't matter if your head is in the sand or in the clouds, it leaves your heart exposed."

For these reasons, The Dominion of Silverrock regretfully must vote "No."

Respectfully,

The Dominion of Silverrock

Friends!

As we love peace in Melbin, we must continue to have the option of obtaining military grade weapons to maintain that fragile beauty. Let us ask ourselves if we would throw away our butcher knife from home when our neighbour was famous for coming over and helping themselves to our left-over pizza slices in our fridge without asking. Then ask yourselves how much you enjoy left-over pizza.

For this reason, Melbin cannot support any resolution which weakens Melbin.

Authoritatively,

The Grand Duke of Melbin

While it is commendable to desire the removal of nuclear stockpiles it is impossible to gain compliance of non member nations. As such The Grand Duchy of Felkman must vote against the measure least the member nations be held under the nuclear gun of rogue nations everywhere. We ask that all responsible member nations vote same, or someday we may all face obliteration without the concept of mutually assured destruction to prevent attack.

We are not going to accept this interference with our internal affair.
This is an attempt of the nasty capitalists to pose a threat to the cause of socialism and cannabis worldwide.
We will vote against and we will continue in our atomic researches

By disarming nuclear weapons it isn't as though you're leaving yourself wide open for attack. There are powerful defensive weapons that are not nuclear powered. Nukes are pointless against terrorists, and although rogue nations outnumber the UN, they are unlikely to all attack at once. The UN, whilst not a majority, is the largest single organisation in the World.
And for those who want to leave it up to other nations, just as you would like to have other nations leave it up to you- then the UN ain't for you. The UN is about nations coming together and deciding what is best for these nations as a whole. If you value sovereignity over international politics, then I don't know why you are in the UN at all.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

if this passes what will be next? slashing of military funding? removal of all intercontinetal blaistics? surely this cannot pass. Ackronia has enough trouble with its constant union strikes we dont need hostile nations bullying us with no means of self defense!

I'm having trouble deciding on this. I am totally against nuclear weapons but If we get rid of them that would leave us all open to attack, especially from places outside the UN, which would be allowed nuclear weapons. Plus it would be a very costly price and what if a nation didn't get rid of all of them? That could be very dangerous.
:sniper:

I for one am for this resolution. Think of the eviroment and how much safer it will be. With no nuclear weapons there wouldn't be nuclear waste and there won't be big area's of land that people arn't able to live on because of nuclear testing.
:gundge:

vote against this resolution because:

A) the UN wouldn't be able to afford do all this

B) Some nations need Nuclear weapons because of enemys and disputed territory

C) the nation probably couldn't afford to dismantle their nuclear arsnel

you just have to repeal this...

what would we do without weapons? counries not in the UN could just attack us all!!!

Greetings, fellow United Nations members! I approach you in the name of The Republic of Freethinkii.

We are a peaceloving nation, and as such CAN NOT and WILL NOT be able to comply with the ideal-world views that many of our union's members seem to be promoting.

45% of the member nations have voted for a ban on nuclear weapons. What will happen if this resolution does pass? What will happen when one of our rogue neighbours makes us an offer we can not refuse? What do you choose when you are asked if you want to be wiped out or enslaved?

If this resolution passes, you give us - and many who share our ideology - only a couple of options.

A) We can defect the United Nations. Not without sorrow, but we are constrained by a life and death matter.

B) We can strongly increase our military's funding. We could thus research, develop, and deploy more advanced firepower and defense mechanisms. This is not an easily acceptable option, because it will divert funds from our main spending area, Education. The UN should not dictate our ideology, and should not choose or force the way we spend our money.

You may note that point B is a vicious circle, and most likely the exact opposite of what this resolution is trying to accomplish. If we develop more advanced Defense, our enemies will simply spend more on developing more advanced Destruction. Which would prompt us to develop it as well. But then, it would get banned by the UN. And, we would need to develop Defense instead. ad infinitum.

We cannot allow ourselves to leave in such a dreamland. There is no room for idealism.

Please vote against this resolution. If such noble goals are to succeed, this is not the way.

This resolution reflects one of the fundamental flaws of our current union. As proposed by our most esteemed thinkers, the way to decrease military spending while providing a secure world for our people, is by forging the strongest of military alliances. One which relies on state-of-the-art technology that can take out targets with pinpoint accuracy, instead of continental accuracy.

I thank you for your time.

Signed,
Nicholas Taylor, Foreign Affairs Minister,
The Republic of Freethinkii.

I'd just like to remind some of the nations voting for the resolution that it only affects UN member nations.

The Kingdom of Garunia is against nuclear weappons. But we think there are still too many countries that want to take their neighbourghs land, oil or ressources or to spread their "Way of life" even by war.

We think, nuclear weappons from members of the UNO should not been destroyed BUT put under the control of the UNO.

In response to a recent telegram from "Powerhungry Chipmunks" the USS-N wishes to make a public statement pointing out that as the UN consists of around 1/3 of the world we are the most powerful body, with or without nuclear armements.
The large blast radius makes them far to dangerous to use, even in response to another nuclear attack. We urge you to consider that the proliferation of nuclear armements in rogue nations will continue wether or not the UN controls these weapons.
The posetion of these arms causes nothing other than distabilization and the UN must lead the rest of the world by example by disarming all nuclear weaponry before cataclysm cannot be avoided.

USS-N Diplomatic Advisor

The UN simply cannot pass up this glorious opportunity to show its moral superiority. Support the nuclear weapons ban!

as the UN consists of around 1/3 of the world we are the most powerful body
Um, if the UN consists of 1/3 of the world, that means there's twice as many non-UN members as there are UN members. I don't see how that makes us more powerful if we're outnumbered 2:1, especially if the other side has nukes and we don't.

The UN simply cannot pass up this glorious opportunity to show its moral superiority. Support the nuclear weapons ban!

Your absolutely right. We should bring 'Cease and desist' orders to gun fights. Bahaaa haahaa!!! Your lead bullets won't stand up to my litany of paperwork! Bow down to my unconquerable red tape!!!!

(A bit of an embelishment, but you get my point. ;) )

The UN should lead by exampe, we can only hope that not-UN members follow.

Please vote FOR

If non-UN members wanted to follow, they'd join the UN.

I'm just going to put in my two cents and be done with this issue.

If you force nations to disarm, there will still be nations who are not members of the United Nations who would still have their weapons and they would be a permenant threat to any nation within the United Nations. Sure, some nations wouldn't be a threat, but we need to keep our weapons in order to NOT be at a disadvantage. What keeps THEM from pushing the button is the fact that we have weapons ourselves.

I urge you, therefore, fellow members of the United Nations, to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Thank you,

Autarch of the Federation of Autarchial Provinces

I just want to say that if the UN is supposed to keep the peace, then by getting rid of our nuclear weapons, we are putting ourselves in harms way by making ourselves more vulnerable than non-UN members. VOTE AGAINST or we could all be nuked by one lone country.

And with non-UN members still in possession of nuclear weapons, and with the UN now possessing no means of disarming them, without the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, or preprogrammed nuclear strike-back? Our attempt at 'leading by example', mentioned by our honourable colleague, could result in the total destruction of the UN and everything it stands for!

The so-called 'large blast radius' of nuclear weapons is rarely more than enough to destroy a city, and a small area around it. A small price to pay, the destruction of an area of an enemy nation, especially if the enemy nation has already attacked you with nuclear weapons. Only the threat of MAD is preventing many of the wars currently waging from escalating into nuclear conflict.

We need to maintain our nuclear arsenals! They are the only thing standing between our civilisation and total destruction at the hands of rogue nations! Those who tell us that the rogue nations will not take advantage of this are placing their lives and the lives of all their citizens at the mercy of the goodwill of the rogue nations!

do u people realize if we pass this there will be a war because people don't want this. :mad: stop this now :mp5:

Look. Here's basically the issue at hand.

Regardless of whether we have nuclear weapons or not, terrorist groups or third parties have the power to detonate them.

If we have nuclear weapons, third parties can detonate them in attack.
If we don't have nuclear weapons, third parties can detonate them in attack.

The event of us having or not having nuclear weapons and the event of a third party's useage of them in attack are completely independant and unrelated.

Nuclear weapons should be banned so that they can not be used in attack between different countries.

In fact, the banning of nuclear weapons may even decrease their ability to be aquired by third parties.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS NEED TO BE BANNED FOR THESE REASONS.

Unfortunately, this opens up non-UN states to use Nuclear Weapons, since they are not banned if they are not in the UN. I would vote for UN membership to become compulsory, but I don't have enough endorsments.

THEREFORE, NUCLEAR WEAPONS CANNOT BE BANNED!

Yes, I remember that. We got over it.

Okay, this is where your arguement gets fallacious. We're talking about nations, not individuals. Stop and read what we have said with that in mind. Also, keep in mind that while not all of us are Americans, it's the gung-ho ones that are against the UN and are not afraid to use nukes that are the problem. And not all of them are American either. And this is still not the topic.


Actually we didn't get over the cold war. Why do you think the American public bought into the invasion of Iraq in the first place? Oil for Cheney or perhaps weapons of mass destruction? Furthermore, why are the Bushites gunning for Iran and North Korea? The answer is simple, they really feel that those two countries will soon have their own stockpile of bombs or worse use them as leverage.

I'm aware that not everybody playing the game is an American, but the love of guns and mutually assured destruction (which is the only reason to have your own nukes or weapons of mass destruction) is predominantly an American hang-up.

As for my analogy between people walking around with handgrenades for "security" and nations walking around with nukes for "security", it is a valid point.

FACT: NationStates players are not really a mix of rational individuals coming together to form a nation which interacts on an equal basis with other nations.

Furthermore the arguments that a nation needs a few nukes in order to be safe ignores *your* earlier argument that nations just need allies. You were the one (who correctly pointed out) that the story telling part of this game means that if one nations beats up another nation, that they run the risk of a third party getting involved ... often for the simple reason that they can.

I've been active in the UN since late Jan, and I still say the most interesting UN inspired roleplay was the Joccian Genocide Crisis. Anyway, what was so interesting about that UN inspired roleplay wasn't that the UN members responded to that nation violating UN resolutions, but the non-UN members started roleplaying an actual war ... nations attacked Joccia, and others came to its defense. (Hmmm, I should Wiki this entire story ... huh?)

Anyway, the arguments that nations need nukes really ignores your earlier point that sometimes a nation in this game could focus on its economy and have a good enforcer friend around to handle the messy stuff.

Furthermore, the reality is there are only two ways you can REALLY get nuked in this game. It is if you screw up and a Moderator deletes your nation ... you will get a telegramming claiming you've been nuked (and I've asked them to publically display this message, but I do *not* want to find out the hard way what that is like). The other way is if you choose to not ignore a nuclear attack. I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons are there and useful, especially when a nation that was created just last month decides it is going to claim that its population of 20 million have a single nuke and will take on a nation without nukes of 2 billion.

There are as many reasons to vote for or against this resolution, but I liked your "ally" theory better, because it: (1) encourages roleplay, and (2) actually represents something of a real-world relationship.

Anyway, a person or a nation doesn't need to worry about having to carry around their own "defense", because NationStates like the real world, is dynamic enough that if you feel you are in an unsafe environment (internationally speaking) you can bring along strong allies or you can choose to ignore anything that you feel is unwarranted or over the top.

You've got a good point there. I find most of the pro side are using the same arguements, which are inherently flawed and tactically dangerous. And let us not forget that, unlike real life, this UN has very real enemies who very much want to destroy it, some of whom don't hide that want. In this case, the UN must also look out for tactics as well as the welfare of the populous.

While I agree with the general sentiment here I just want to point out that not all regions and nations currently opposed to the current stance taken by the UN are a threat to those who disagree with us. While it is no secret that Gatesville is against many of the decisions taken by the UN, even if this motion gets passed, we are no military threat to any nations. We are a peaceful defensive region who are interested in getting our point across through political debate. I just thought it was worth pointing out (particuarly for new UN members) that not all 'enemies' of the UN fall into the catagory you outline here.

Mansura must vote against this resolution. Although the nation lauds the global effort via the UN to eliminate nuclear weapons, this resolution provides no specificity for either verification or funding beyond "the UN will do it." Nothing provides what constitutes "dismantlement." Furthermore, there is no timetable regarding the destruction of these weapons. 5 years, 10 years, 100 years? Finally, no mention is made regarding what happens to the enriched plutonium and uranium. This is completely unacceptable.

These answers must be provided before the protections of any nuclear umbrella are dismantled.

Before I post, I must ask people to go back and read the previous pages. I see arguements I dealt with back on page 4 being posted again.

While I agree with the general sentiment here I just want to point out that not all regions and nations currently opposed to the current stance taken by the UN are a threat to those who disagree with us. While it is no secret that Gatesville is against many of the decisions taken by the UN, even if this motion gets passed, we are no military threat to any nations. We are a peaceful defensive region who are interested in getting our point across through political debate. I just thought it was worth pointing out (particuarly for new UN members) that not all 'enemies' of the UN fall into the catagory you outline here.

There is a difference between opposing what a nation or group does and actually being an enemy. It is the enemies of the UN, not those who just oppose what it does, that are the source of worries. You are just someone who dislikes what the UN does instead of actively opposing, or even seeking the destruction of, the group as a whole.

Actually we didn't get over the cold war. Why do you think the American public bought into the invasion of Iraq in the first place? Oil for Cheney or perhaps weapons of mass destruction? Furthermore, why are the Bushites gunning for Iran and North Korea? The answer is simple, they really feel that those two countries will soon have their own stockpile of bombs or worse use them as leverage.

The US went to war because Bush was smart enough to play on their fears after the nation had been openly attacked by a group of terrorists who succeeded in damaging on of the biggest icons of American economics in existance. Bush went to war because he was out to do what his father didn't and prove himself. The other reasons will only cause flames. And, once again, not the topic.

I'm aware that not everybody playing the game is an American, but the love of guns and mutually assured destruction (which is the only reason to have your own nukes or weapons of mass destruction) is predominantly an American hang-up.

As for my analogy between people walking around with handgrenades for "security" and nations walking around with nukes for "security", it is a valid point.

Actually, I would have WMD because that's an easier way to clear out a nation I have determined is best to be eliminated rather than just because I love guns. Then again, I'm not a person who would take over an inhabitted nation and generally must have a good reason to attack, despite my focus on the military. And the description of that as an American attitude doesn't quite match up with the high probability that those who wrote and are backing this resolution, as well as the person you are arguing with, are all Americans. Nuclear disarmament is also something the US focuses heavily on. Andf the analogy is off because, despite the reality of the situation, a government is assumed to require more reason than only a simple person can give.

FACT: NationStates players are not really a mix of rational individuals coming together to form a nation which interacts on an equal basis with other nations.

FACT: You keep getting off the topic, which includes a large portion of the post I am replying to.

Furthermore the arguments that a nation needs a few nukes in order to be safe ignores *your* earlier argument that nations just need allies. You were the one (who correctly pointed out) that the story telling part of this game means that if one nations beats up another nation, that they run the risk of a third party getting involved ... often for the simple reason that they can.

And this is where your arguement falls apart. You see, I'm arguing the UN needs nukes, not individual nations. Also, the arguement you are referencing was on a topic about nations in space and dealing with weapons there, which make nukes pretty much worthless for use in warfare, and this is about the UN as a whole disarming themselves of nuclear weapons when a clear threat to the UN, as a whole, exists. There is a big difference between the UN as a whole and individual nations. Keep that in mind.

Furthermore, the reality is there are only two ways you can REALLY get nuked in this game. It is if you screw up and a Moderator deletes your nation ... you will get a telegramming claiming you've been nuked (and I've asked them to publically display this message, but I do *not* want to find out the hard way what that is like). The other way is if you choose to not ignore a nuclear attack. I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons are there and useful, especially when a nation that was created just last month decides it is going to claim that its population of 20 million have a single nuke and will take on a nation without nukes of 2 billion.

There is a difference betweemn one young nation doing an obvious godmode, no matter the state of the legality of nuclear weapons, and a nation that has been around long enough to develop them deciding to use them in a tactical situation where they do not think they can win otherwise. And ignoring what is a valid weapon that is around today just because the UN banned it is likely to get a nation invited to not join any RPs after that. Just because you don't like the use of chemical weapons or have decided to outlaw them in your nation does not make it okay for you to I.G.N.O.R.E. any nation that does use them in battle. But RP how you wish and enjoy it when nations refuse to RP with you.

There are as many reasons to vote for or against this resolution, but I liked your "ally" theory better, because it: (1) encourages roleplay, and (2) actually represents something of a real-world relationship.

Once again, difference between single nation and a group of nations. When it comes to single nations, you have a valid point. When it comes to an entire group of nations, which is what the UN is, your point no longer applies. The UN stands for United Nations because it is an alliance, albeit one that inspires little loyalty and often infights.

Anyway, a person or a nation doesn't need to worry about having to carry around their own "defense", because NationStates like the real world, is dynamic enough that if you feel you are in an unsafe environment (internationally speaking) you can bring along strong allies or you can choose to ignore anything that you feel is unwarranted or over the top.

Uh, if a nation in reality decides to ignore the US or any other nuclear power deciding to turn them radioactive, they won't live long. So your point is better made to say it is unlike reality in that regard.

Although Hybredia has no active nuclear weapons program, in the event of a threat to our region, sovreignty, nation, or people, Hybredia must retain the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons as a defensive ability. Even though nuclear weapons, as we can safely agree, have effects that last long after the initial, horrible, blast; nuclear weapons are a lifeline for small nations such as Hybredia. Hybredia and similar nations, in not having a nuclear program currently, need to retain the ability to start a weapons program in the event of aggression by a foe which is unable to be defeated by conventional means.

In short, nuclear weapons: horrible, but necessary.

I just find it highly hypocritical, that the UN block nations in support of this ban... All of whom, show a consistent inability or lack of desire to provide for through governmental or citizen militia, the defense and physical security of their own citizenry... And whose peace, is derived from the price of the military nations of the UN in opposition to this ban... wish to dictate the defense policies of all of us.

Not to mention these people cannot, or will not take in the full scope or account of what this means.

And I will not stand for the rank pessimissim of the proponents of this ban. Sure, whether or not we military powers have them or not, non-UN nations still can detonate them... The point is, is that non-UN nations are LESS LIKELY to use them, if we have them as well. And that is the point of DETERENCE...

I will bring up the point that regardless of whether we disarm or not, non-UN nations still will not "follow our example"... If they cannot follow it now, they will not follow it then... If they had the desire of "following UN example" they would have joined the UN.

Nukes, over any other weapon system, provide a blanket of protection and peace, and not from using them, from the fact that they are there, sitting in their silos, undergoing maintenance now and then... Leaving the enemy with one thing in mind.. ."If I fire mine, they'll fire back...." Is your vision so impaired that you cannot see past the box you have drawn yourself into? Enviromentalism? Having nukes does not mean using them... Quotes of numerical military power from UN nations who have little or no militaries?

I'm sorry, I will not side with nations who are not qualified to make decisions in this area...

Hybredia stands in accordance with Tekania on this issue. The burden of protection of a nation is primarily in the hands of that nation. Those countries who vote for this resolution are placing their defence in the hands of larger nations who belong to the U.N. The U.N. is not responsible for baby-sitting nations who are unwilling to defend themselves. An inablity to defend is another matter, but nations with the capacity to defend and who do not should not undermine the strength of other nations for their own defence.

Although Hybredia has no active nuclear weapons program, in the event of a threat to our region, sovreignty, nation, or people, Hybredia must retain the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons as a defensive ability. Even though nuclear weapons, as we can safely agree, have effects that last long after the initial, horrible, blast; nuclear weapons are a lifeline for small nations such as Hybredia. Hybredia and similar nations, in not having a nuclear program currently, need to retain the ability to start a weapons program in the event of aggression by a foe which is unable to be defeated by conventional means.

In short, nuclear weapons: horrible, but necessary.

Why? Does your government issue hand grenades to individuals on the off chance that a crazy who might toss a hand grenade will think twice about it?

And DemonLord, I'm not going off topic ... just because I'm not responding in the way you would like doesn't mean that I'm off topic.

In fact, the analogy of personnel safety in a group of many is no different than national safety in a group of many.

Besides, this ban doesn't touch nations which have stuff thats better anyway... no nukes? Fine, I'll just glass the planet.
Then there is the inherent stupidity of disarmament. It's trusting that the other guy will do the right thing - but since when has that happened? Not often, because people are greedy fools who like inflicting pain to better themselves.
And there are ardently anti-U.N. nations out there that would have little qualm nuking U.N. nations at random. Or such a group could probably be easily organized by U.N. nations incensed by this move.
Finally, they tried this before. Didn't work then. Why? Perhaps it's because people aren't as stupid as you think they are.
Who was that who said that membership in the U.N. should be compulsory? Holy crap, that has to be the worst idea since the Nuclear Weapons Ban! Puppets too then? And how would you enforce it? ROFL...

Indeed, the proponents appearantly believe mankind is inherantly good-natured socialists concerned with the well being of all other people...

They are not, and a perusal of the recorded history of mankind proves that... While that or similar directives are our end goal... Progress and advancement of our people... we cannot risk sacrificing our progress by relying on the "good nature" of nations who still are fiercly territorial, aggressive, and merciless...

I may remind delegates, while in dealing with fellow UN members, you never see the true monstrosity of human nature... However, there are still rogue nations, with decent amount of might, who find bombing other nations into submission, and invading and raping their populace (literally) as a means of amusement.

While those "peace loving" proponents of this ban, may choose to ignore this, and only deal with other peace loving nations, and pretend they are in a peace loving world.... The Republic cannot... we are internationally active, aware, and prepared for the monsters out there... Ignoring them, does not make them go away...

Why? Does your government issue hand grenades to individuals on the off chance that a crazy who might toss a hand grenade will think twice about it?

Does your government issue water pistols to individuals on teh off chance that a crazy who might toss a hand grenade will think twice about it?
As you can see, the indvidual metaphor can again be used here.
The point of both of these metaphors is that in the world, undue proliferation (every country on the planet having nuclear weapons) will lead to the same instance as every person having a hand grenade. But allowing the people with hand grenades to go unchallenged is also a fundametally stupid idea.
The answer becomes apparent. We must stop/limit proliferation, but not ban the weapons altogether.

Why? Does your government issue hand grenades to individuals on the off chance that a crazy who might toss a hand grenade will think twice about it?

Mine hands out assault rifles. But that's mainly because they'll kill them anyway if I don't catch them first.

And DemonLord, I'm not going off topic ... just because I'm not responding in the way you would like doesn't mean that I'm off topic.

Looked offtopic to me. But then, I'm weird like that.

In fact, the analogy of personnel safety in a group of many is no different than national safety in a group of many.

But the analogy doesn't fit a group of nations trying to survive. Individual nations are not my concern with my arguement. The UN as a whole is. There is a difference.

Yes, please vote AGAINST the current UN resolution. It is a blatant disregard to a nations defence/defense and possibly their economy. My nation relies highly on these both and we use the process of Cold Fusion which requires nuclear material, usually old nuclear weapons that we dismantle to test with. Don't hurt your nation by voting for, vote AGAINST Banning nuclear weapons.

I'm sure this argument has been used before, but this topic is too large to read.

If we dismantle our nukes, then the non-UN nations that are anti-UN will start nuking us without any hope of retaliation on our side.

P.S. This is an old nation, just recently resurrected.

If this resolution passes, what, then, will be done about all of the nation-states that will break off from the UN in order to keep their nuclear weapons? The UN's strength will plummet, and the world will possibly see the formation of new rogue nuclear-capable 'peace' agencies bent on keeping the world docile and under control with regard to these agencies' sensibilities!

This is an abhorrent idea, and only blind idealists would support it.

...

But then, perhaps this proposition is being supported by the people who WANT to cripple the UN Members' nuclear arsenals, in preparation for invasion! They'll make it seem like a good idea, and hide their stockpiles, then turn on us all!

You're all insane!

--Epicedion
--Holy Dictator of the Republic of Scaena

We are forced to concur.

While the prospect of disarming all United Nation members of nuclear weapons, to make the world a safer place, may seem good on the outside, in reality, it will more likely set forth the Nuclear Holocaust.

MAD, (mutaully assured distruction), is the only thing that protects modern nations from eliminating eachother. If you were to take away the nuclear arensal from the UN member nations, the non-member nations would have a distinct advantage over the UN nations, and it could possibly set the stage for a nuclear war.

once again i say everyone vote against this resolution 1st reason its up to the individual nations to defend themselves and nuclear weapons is a part of defense as well as offensive and this would cost the un tons of money to disarms every single nation and not all nation will agree and guess who gonna pay to disarm nations us indivividual nations not the un we make up the un with thought us there is no un now does that make any since to pay to disarm our own weapons no and if your nor not apart of the un you dont have to follow the un resolutions so nuclear weapons will still be out there so vote against it :) thanks all

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the so-called “rogue nations” are not some sort of massive united organization. Only a small fraction of them are anti-UN nations that would like to create the UN radioactive crater. And, even if every anti-UN nation acted together to destroy the UN, some pro-UN non-members (such as puppets of UN members) would be able to provide the “mutual” part of MAD. It may be a risk for UN members, but isn't a little risk worth the possibility of world peace? http://terranordalis.thirdgeek.com/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Vote FOR the nuclear weapons ban!

We strongly urge you to vote for FOR this resolution. Surely moral superiority alone is enough to deter aggression.

The best thing about this resolution is the way that it is getting new members inolved involved in the debates. Recently, I have noticed a fall off in the number of new members contributing, and this resolution seems to have pissed a lot of people off. Which is a sure fire way of getting them involved.

Woo! Controversy!

P.S. Sorry for being dumb, but wtf is an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon?

We strongly urge you to vote for FOR this resolution. Surely moral superiority alone is enough to deter aggression.

"Moral superiority" never deters anything... Indeed, those who claim "moral superiority" are more likely to be attacked than those who do not... merely on making pompous claims such as that.

The other problem is provision of alliances. This Republic chooses to maintain much defense through alliance capability... with un and non-un nations and systems... As such, our nation provides much mutual defense within these alliances, and said proposal would weaken our join extra-UN alliances for mutual peace and defense. So the impact extends beyond mere intra-UN applicability.

In the present situation, I must vote no to this proposal, till such a time as the situation alters to make the presented modification realistic.

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the so-called “rogue nations” are not some sort of massive united organization. Only a small fraction of them are anti-UN nations that would like to create the UN radioactive crater. And, even if every anti-UN nation acted together to destroy the UN, some pro-UN non-members (such as puppets of UN members) would be able to provide the “mutual” part of MAD. It may be a risk for UN members, but isn't a little risk worth the possibility of world peace? http://terranordalis.thirdgeek.com/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Vote FOR the nuclear weapons ban!

The secret to getting around that is puppet nations that launch the nukes. Then you launch back from your real nations at those who launch at the puppets. It's not that difficult to do.

<ooc>I am not a UN member, but I thought that as a fairly "anti-UN" state I should mention my view of this resolution. </ooc>

Our empire has many stockpiles of nuclear weapons and multiple delivery systems, and if a nation ever attacks us they will be a smoking crater. We believe that nuclear deterrence is the only sure defense against military attack, and our policy against terrorists or satellite nations (like those the Soviets used in the Cold War) is to hit whoever we think is responsible. If we even have circumstantial evidence that a nation supported an attack on us, we will utterly destroy that nation, even if it means our destruction as well. This is the basis of deterrence. The way it works on suicidal terrorists is that it alienates them from even the most tyrannical of dictatorships, who after all generally don't want to be nuked and have no compunctions about killing terrorists.

The reason we explain this is that deterrance works better the more nations are capable of it. We hope that the many non-evil UN countries are capable of defending themselves in the future.

The best thing about this resolution is the way that it is getting new members inolved involved in the debates. Recently, I have noticed a fall off in the number of new members contributing, and this resolution seems to have pissed a lot of people off. Which is a sure fire way of getting them involved.

Woo! Controversy!

P.S. Sorry for being dumb, but wtf is an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon?

You are right, there are many new nations contributing. The question is: how many of them will remain active in the UN?

An I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon is a term that I believe came about in response to godmoding. Basically, it is a way of saying that when somebody goes over the top, and a good example is a nation formed yesterday claiming to have magical teleporting nukes and the capability of taking on a nation many months old with a population in the billions, that you are just going to ignore them and treat them like they don't exist.

It goes along the same lines of "Don't Feed the Trolls".

I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons I believe were first referenced in the Rights and Duties resolution. Frisbeeteria is still around, but probably can explain why he did that.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Forum_Terms

I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons I believe were first referenced in the Rights and Duties resolution. Frisbeeteria is still around, but probably can explain why he did that.
This IGNORE cannon thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=294969) was already archived when I mentioned the concept in a resolution. They've been around for a looooong time.

To the Members of the UN:

Dear Sirs,

It has come to my attention that the latest proposal is regarding the abolishment and dismantling of all nuclear devices used in the proliferation of conquest. The Nation of Maxbleuwan strongly urges that the members vote against this proposal. The production of these kinds of weapons is a large part of the world's economy. The banning of the constuction of these weapons would mean massive job losses throughout the world. I trust you will make the right decision.

Signed,
The Republic Of Maxbleuwan

I would vote for UN membership to become compulsory, but I don't have enough endorsments.


Not to sound defeatist, but even if you did vote for a UN resolution to make UN membership compulsary, it would only affect those already in the UN. Non UN members are not bound by UN resolutions, so you can not use the power of the UN to make them join.

Just thought I would mention that :}

Well I've been around enough now to have gone full circle on the issues.

It seems so short a time ago, when I joined NS.. the first UN issue that I had to deal with was the ENPA. Well now its back in a new package.

I still believe in all the arguments made then. So, I voted against.
And if necessary, I am fully willing to send TGs to other UN nations to vote against it... just as I did last time.

Maybe after this fails, I can finally push through the UNRAP.

Crydonia has voted against this proposal.

We are a nuclear free nation, and do not plan on obtaining any of these wepons at this time. However, if the need arises, and we feel these type of wepons are needed as a last resort to protect our people from the threat of attack or invasion, then we would like the option open to build or buy them.

We also believe that disarming only UN nations of nuclear wepons, will not help make the world any safer, or reduce the overall world numbers of these wepons to any great degree.

MAD is so easy to bypass. You buy a nuke, put it in a ship, park ship in harbour of enemy and detonate. Never knows what hit him. This is the next generation of warfare. Terror tactics 101. So much for the MAD argument. :p

MAD is so easy to bypass. You buy a nuke, put it in a ship, park ship in harbour of enemy and detonate. Never knows what hit him. This is the next generation of warfare. Terror tactics 101. So much for the MAD argument. :p

But if you know the nation that put the nuke on the ship, and you have enough nukes to blow the living crap out of said nation, maybe there would not be one on the ship.

Also you are talking about a trojan horse, which is not exactly the next generation in warfare. It has been around for a fair while :}

If the UN disarms, the rest of the world is certain to follow. Your commitment to your beliefs will lead the way.

But if you know the nation that put the nuke on the ship, and you have enough nukes to blow the living crap out of said nation, maybe there would not be one on the ship.

Also you are talking about a trojan horse, which is not exactly the next generation in warfare. It has been around for a fair while :}

1 "if you know...".....exactly!
2 a trojan horse is different. Look it up.

You can have my nukelar weapons when you pry my cold, dead hands off'n the button!

Last I looked, there were 116,000+ nations in the world, but only 34,000+ in the UN. Kinda leaves UN members vulnerable don't it?

As Leader of the great republic of bototia, i cannot allow a resolution as such to pass. it is ridiculous that this is even a "debate", as it is unethical to use produce or posess nuclear material for the purpose of war. if a nation needs our protection, or needs safety, we can protect, but as the U.N. is so large, there really is no need to have them, as we can take out the enemy in a timely matter.

Originally Posted by Scortch
If the UN disarms, the rest of the world is certain to follow. Your commitment to your beliefs will lead the way.

I doubt that if the U.N. disarms, all of the terrorists and dictators are going to say, "You know what, we should follow the U.N.'s example and disarm."

The secret to getting around that is puppet nations that launch the nukes. Then you launch back from your real nations at those who launch at the puppets. It's not that difficult to do.
The great thing about freeform RP is that even if someone nukes the UN, no one has to accept that it happened. And I don’t think many people would shout “godmodder” at the victim(s).

As Leader of the great republic of bototia, i cannot allow a resolution as such to pass. it is ridiculous that this is even a "debate", as it is unethical to use produce or posess nuclear material for the purpose of war. if a nation needs our protection, or needs safety, we can protect, but as the U.N. is so large, there really is no need to have them, as we can take out the enemy in a timely matter.
You’re against nuclear weapons, but you’re against the ban? http://www.simcitycentral.net/forums/images/smiles/icon_googly.gif

Hmm... if we ban nuclear weapons, you know how much money the military and other people would loose? And how much anger this could cause, and where on earth would the remains of the weapons go afterwards? Yeah, I voted 'no' for those reasons.

:p

If the UN disarms, the rest of the world is certain to follow. Your commitment to your beliefs will lead the way.
This isn't true. In fact, if the UN disarms it is less likely that other natiosn will disarm. What motivation do they have to disarm? They've just been granted billions of square miles of free land for target practice, and thousands of peoples to take over.

MAD works now, like it or not, it works. It's just impossible to get out of it. If you disarm you must make sure that the other MAD participant disarms at an equal rate. This UN proposal is not the place to address such nation-nation agreements/happenings.

Vote AGAINST this proposal.

As a peaceful, devout people, the Holy Republic of Il Papa would strongly support a world-wide disarmament of nuclear weapons. We do, however, take into account that unless the whole of the United Nations is resolved to respond to those who possess these weapons and live outside of our laws, such a resolution is too weak to accomplish anything of significance. Therefore, we urge you, in the name of our Father, not to let this issue fall to the wayside. Though this resolution may not be the best path on which to proceed, let us come together and work towards the larger goal of complete, world-wide nuclear disarmament.

Iustus autem ex fide vivet.

As a peaceful, devout people, the Holy Republic of Il Papa would strongly support a world-wide disarmament of nuclear weapons. We do, however, take into account that unless the whole of the United Nations is resolved to respond to those who possess these weapons and live outside of our laws, such a resolution is too weak to accomplish anything of significance. Therefore, we urge you, in the name of our Father, not to let this issue fall to the wayside. Though this resolution may not be the best path on which to proceed, let us come together and work towards the larger goal of complete, world-wide nuclear disarmament.

Iustus autem ex fide vivet.

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, going to happen.

And I am not related to you, so we do not share a father.

Even if MAD was gotten around (i know earlyer there was an arguement about subverting it) What would stop those same people who might "park a boat in the harbor with a nuke in it" from doing it when the country DOSEN'T have nuclear weapons. In any senario you might sudgest that would get past MAD would also get past only one side having MAD, and a whole lot of other senario's as well. I personaly hate the idea of nuclear weapons going off anywhere, but theres no possible or logical way to force everyone else to disarm at the same time and thats the only way that this resolution would be effective.

The great thing about freeform RP is that even if someone nukes the UN, no one has to accept that it happened. And I don’t think many people would shout “godmodder” at the victim(s).

You know, I dealt with this already. Go back up and read my posts. All of them. From the beginning of the thread. I'd make it easier by pointing out which one, but right now I'm incredibly lazy.

If the UN disarms, the rest of the world is certain to follow. Your commitment to your beliefs will lead the way.

ROTFLMGDAOPIMP!

You're not serious, are you? The rest of the world stopped using suicide bombers long ago. There are still suicide bombers. Arguement kerblatzed.

And why give up a perfectly effective weapon just because a bunch of nincompoops decides they want to do so?

And I am not related to you, so we do not share a father.

We all share one father in the Lord Almighty.

My nuclear weapons are one of the main things keeping me safe from a major offensive by my enemies.

In any movie where the good guy and the bad guy are aiming weapons at each other and the bad guy say "put down your weapon" and the good guy puts down his weapon .... THE GOOD GUY GETS SHOT.

This proposal will not only make us put down our weapon, but empty the clip and strip it for parts. Not while I run this country. If I receive a telegram stating that laws have been passed to abide by this rediculous proposal, I will laugh and laugh and laugh and IGNORE THOSE LAWS.

My nuclear energy and nuclear weapons program will go ahead regardless of any and all proposals passed by the UN delegations.

The People of Domnonia, domestically, have decided to refrain from weaponisation or deployment of nuclear weapons and from the testing or deployment of missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and have entered into firm commitments not to weaponise or deploy nuclear weapons or missiles with our neighbours.

We have also decided to refrain from any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

We continue to confirm our policies not to export equipment, materials and technology that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction or missiles capable of delivering them, and undertake appropriate commitments in that regard.

And yet, we remain to feel safe.

VOTE YES ON BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!

World doesn't need more guns, world needs better social politics and more diplomacy.
War only causes other wars.
I can't believe you don't see the point, in the last 50 years all international problems, including terrorirism, has been tried to resolve with war and what we have now? MORE WAR and MORE TERRORISM!
How can you all be so stupid?
Anyway, if you want to use war, use normal weapons, nuclear weapons harms enemies and everyone in th world, those who use them too obviously...
It's not a matter of political orientation, it's a matter of health and world security from a larger point of view...
think about it please

Greeting,

As UN representative of the Armed Republic of sMiLe nOwZ I formally declare my nation's vote as against banning nuclear weapons. There is no reason which I need to give, nor is there any reason to give. We are an armed nation and an armed nation will not disarm at any time. This proposal may have been considered my our Prince - tHe sMiLe had the disposal of the weapons been funded fully by the UN. Also I believe that in order to maintain world peace we must all be ready to launch a nuclear weapons at any rogue nation who wishes to invade or plan acts of infamy in any nation of the UN.

Thankyou
Lord fUnNy fAcE of the Armed Republic of sMiLe nOwZ

The UN is useless in protection of nations. Nuclear weapons should not be banned, but their use restircited to dire emergencies only.

Vote for ban is a vote for world war.

The citizens of the newly independent and autonomous The Most Serene Republic of Blazaria, as a peaceful and enlightened people, are naturally opposed to the development, testing, and deployment of nuclear weapons, and we pledge never to attempt to construct, devise, or obtain any for ourselves. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the common fear that states outside the UN, or indeed forces beholden to no state at all, could empower themselves to destroy civilized societies should they come into possession of nuclear arms.

Has any serious attempt to address this concern been made? Has any suggestion been profferred? Until and unless this matter is resolved, The Most Serene Republic of Blazaria, despite its earnest desire to cultivate peace among all states and peoples, can not support the resolution.

You're not serious, are you?

We are quite serious about UN disarmament. Your cynical mistrust saddens us. ;)

2 a trojan horse is different. Look it up.

I know what the trojan horse was. It was not an exact analogy :}

While the nation of Phenylketonurica does not support nuclear arms, it is not possible to support the resolution in its current state.

There has been no provision for what will be done to contain the radioactive material in a safe manner or in a determined location. Given this, despite nuclear disarmament, there is no system of cataloguing materials, thus the risk of radioactive material being traded on the black market exists.

The Nation of Phenylketonurica will not support any resolutions that do not alter the current situation in member states.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Phenylketonurica
The New Commonwealth

We need more nukes not less more more !!!!!!:mp5: :sniper:

I believe we have reached a brick wall. if the whole of the united nations is not for this drastic change then I can not see how any resolution for the ensurance of peace would be accepted. I have heard complaints of fear toward terriorist leaders and groups. if this is our main reason for not disarming then I pose to you another resolution. If these are groups that are creating such a threat then perhaps we should look more into the dismemberment of said organizations before we attempt to disarm. [FONT=Century Gothic]

So you're proposing we destroy everyone who could be considered a threat to the UN?

what i am proposing is to destroy these organizeations that are creating terror and murdering the people of this world. ladies and gentilmen if there must be fear amoung us let it be fear with a purpose. The Holy Empire of Sairagg can not tolerate actions taken by these organiseations, we need to think of our people above all else.

"Having a gun is an invitation for someone to shoot you"

If your nation presents no nuclear threat, people are less likely to be interested in attempting to control a nation that isn't rivalling their military power. Why did Iraq get invaded? Because there was fear that they had weapons of mass destruction (well, that's the official reason). Why doesn't anyone attack Luxembourg and invade them? Because no-one is interested in a defenceless nation.

No offence is the best defence.

I believe we have reached a brick wall. if the whole of the united nations is not for this drastic change then I can not see how any resolution for the ensurance of peace would be accepted. I have heard complaints of fear toward terriorist leaders and groups. if this is our main reason for not disarming then I pose to you another resolution. If these are groups that are creating such a threat then perhaps we should look more into the dismemberment of said organizations before we attempt to disarm. [FONT=Century Gothic]

That would be illegal, suicidal, and incredibly unlikely to allow the UN to survive. Plus, not all of the threats to the UN come from the outside. Besides, some nations only have to move into a high orbit and they'll be able to shoot down anything you launch at them while treating your nation to a few doses of orbital bombardment. Now, how do you propose to dismember these groups without getting yourself in a major firefight and probably losing a lot of muscle in the process?

"Having a gun is an invitation for someone to shoot you"

If your nation presents no nuclear threat, people are less likely to be interested in attempting to control a nation that isn't rivalling their military power. Why did Iraq get invaded? Because there was fear that they had weapons of mass destruction (well, that's the official reason). Why doesn't anyone attack Luxembourg and invade them? Because no-one is interested in a defenceless nation.

No offence is the best defence.

I may want the land the nation is sitting on. Or not like some internal policy they have. Or just be in a bad mood and feel like beating someone up. Or want their resources. Military power isn't the only reason to be interested in a country.

"Having a gun is an invitation for someone to shoot you"

If your nation presents no nuclear threat, people are less likely to be interested in attempting to control a nation that isn't rivalling their military power. Why did Iraq get invaded? Because there was fear that they had weapons of mass destruction (well, that's the official reason). Why doesn't anyone attack Luxembourg and invade them? Because no-one is interested in a defenceless nation.

No offence is the best defence.That's exactly why Iraq never invaded Kuwait, right?

I'm just making a point. A lot of you think that having no weapons means everyone will pile in on you, not necessarily true, and a few of you seem to want to attack anyway which in that case you shouldn't be a member of the UNITED nations.

Perhaps a disarmament and more fixed defences that could not move from home territory would please those of you suffering from paranoia

I'm just making a point. A lot of you think that having no weapons means everyone will pile in on you, not necessarily true, and a few of you seem to want to attack anyway which in that case you shouldn't be a member of the UNITED nations.

Perhaps a disarmament and more fixed defences that could not move from home territory would please those of you suffering from paranoia

I have YET to see a single UN member nation in this thread talk about attacking anyone... retaliating AGAINST attacks yes, but not aggressively attacking... You are misinterpreting caution with aggression... The point is, is that aggressive nations are LESS LIKELY to, not neccessary will or won't... it is a matter of probability, and MAD is a major factor in that probability assessment... While some nations wish to take such chances, and increase their likelyhood of being attacked, other of us are unwilling, and outright refuse to take such chances based on the foolishness of others.

Im against the ban. There are countries with populations 10 times bigger than mine. I cant go against them in traditional war. Nukes are the only way to defend myself from foreigners.

Concerning the resolution itself:

"Considering that is duty of the UN to establish the minimums criteria of respect of the Heart ecosystem"

I have absolutly no idea what that means. My entire region has absolutly no idea what that means. Someone please enlighten me.

I'm just making a point. A lot of you think that having no weapons means everyone will pile in on you, not necessarily true, and a few of you seem to want to attack anyway which in that case you shouldn't be a member of the UNITED nations.

Perhaps a disarmament and more fixed defences that could not move from home territory would please those of you suffering from paranoia

Fixed defenses don't do a damn thing against ICBMs without Future Tech. Want a real life example? The US Missile Defense System. During the last test they launched two dummy ICBMs and tried to shoot them down with hundreds and hundreds of missiles. They shot down one before they ran out of missiles. If that is an accurate rate of shooting down nukes, then that means all a nation has to do is launch two nukes at every city. Not exactly that difficult. And even with Future Tech, you need a lot of room for when you start shooting in order to make sure you both hit it and are not caught up in the explosion yourself, and by a lot of room I mean high orbit at the least.

There are quite a few UN nations who have either resources or technology I want. I'm not willing to invade them to get it, but who is to say I represent all tin-pot dictators? I know I don't. You get a tin-pot with a large enough military, none of my scruples about taking over inhabited land, and a nation who has something they want and no defenses together and you tell me who is left standing when the dust settles.

Now, take that same dictator, arm them with nukes, make the nation a competitor they just want rid of, and make that competitor modern tech without nukes. That's just one scenario that is a worry.

Nuclear Weapons can be used for defense and such for countries with small armies and such a small defense budget nuclear weapons are the only way for retailiation just in case a war breaks out. I therefore voted no and against the ban. It should be up to the countries on nuclear weapons not the UN.

I may want the land the nation is sitting on. Or not like some internal policy they have. Or just be in a bad mood and feel like beating someone up. Or want their resources. Military power isn't the only reason to be interested in a country.

This sounds like that this guy is willing to attack others, but he is most likely speculating from a non UN member view right?

And if people have populations 10 times bigger than yours, and you nuke them? Guess what? You've caused 10 times as many deaths, oh yes, I forgot, this is all about OURSELVES, it doesn't matter about THEIR death and THEIR suffering, it doesn't matter that the nuke will most probably hit many civilians including those against war in the first place. And we'll just ignore the fact that nuclear bombs leave massive environmental damage as well.

"Considering that is duty of the UN to establish the minimums criteria of respect of the Heart ecosystem"

I have absolutly no idea what that means. My entire region has absolutly no idea what that means. Someone please enlighten me.I don't know what the author meant, but I know how my nation interpreted it:"I can't write a coherent proposal. Vote against me!"And that's exactly what we did.

I guess it is talking about respecting the environment perhaps, but just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's wrong.

This sounds like that this guy is willing to attack others, but he is most likely speculating from a non UN member view right?

Actually, I'm not a UN member. However, I have been asked by someone who is a UN member and believes I can represent their views to come on here and argue on their behalf. They, meanwhile, are not being sociable. And it is what happens to them, due to a treaty I signed, that I am worried about.

And yes, I was arguing from a viewpoint other than my own. Well, except for one, but even that requires them to do something extreme...

And if people have populations 10 times bigger than yours, and you nuke them? Guess what? You've caused 10 times as many deaths, oh yes, I forgot, this is all about OURSELVES, it doesn't matter about THEIR death and THEIR suffering, it doesn't matter that the nuke will most probably hit many civilians including those against war in the first place. And we'll just ignore the fact that nuclear bombs leave massive environmental damage as well.

That's actually about right. It is mostly about yourself, and any allies you make. That is how it should be and pretty much the truth of life.

The Kingdom of Gumpton can not support a resolution that would weaken its governements position when dealing with non UN States. Our government must deal from a position of strength. If our kingdom has to abolish its nuclear program who is to stop a rogue nation from holding us hostage.

For my people and for their beloved Gumpton I must vote no

I urge all UN nations to vote against this resolution.

I guess it is talking about respecting the environment perhaps, but just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's wrong.
This is a UN Resolution that affects all UN members. If it's not completely clear and comprehensible to any and all members, then it doesn't deserve to be made part of our laws.

I haven't seen the author in any of these discussions. That in itself makes me suspicious of the proposal. If there were any desire to clear this up or explain what things meant, you'd think he'd be visible in defense of his own proposal.

I think I might have found the reason for the "Heart ecosystem" thing. Upon checking Noazia's region (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/23520/page=display_region/region=delmark_9), I have come to the conclusion that English is not Noazia's primary language.

This sounds like that this guy is willing to attack others, but he is most likely speculating from a non UN member view right?

And if people have populations 10 times bigger than yours, and you nuke them? Guess what? You've caused 10 times as many deaths, oh yes, I forgot, this is all about OURSELVES, it doesn't matter about THEIR death and THEIR suffering, it doesn't matter that the nuke will most probably hit many civilians including those against war in the first place. And we'll just ignore the fact that nuclear bombs leave massive environmental damage as well.

Of course this is about ourselves.... and I have no right or responsibility to MY people as THEIR government to concern myself about the civilian population who allows their government to try to wipe me and my people or others and their people from the map.

As a government our primary duty must always be to our own people... If you consider other nations above the duty to your own people, you are irresponsible, and no longer possess the right to exist.

If they perform first srike, the more I can take out of them in retaliation, the less likely it is for more of my population to suffer... Simple fact is, unless you possess ubertech over the attacking nation (like defense shields and point-defense orbital platforms) you have no chance of taking out more than 1% of the enemy's launched missiles...

I will not side with the foolishness and suicidal thinking of your view.

I haven't seen the author in any of these discussions. That in itself makes me suspicious of the proposal. If there were any desire to clear this up or explain what things meant, you'd think he'd be visible in defense of his own proposal.

It doesn't surprise me. This forum is historically puts authors on the defensive. When it is a proposal, nations will post very non-constructive comments like, "I'm voting against this, I have my reasons." or as we've seen many newer members do here, label something as idiot or moronic.

It happens all the time.

I feel that those of us that have been here for a while have the ability to set the tone. In the case of a proposal, that means to be less of a jerk and just give a bit of constructive advice. In the case of a resolution ... we can still argue against it, but in addition to avoiding calling things idiot or moronic (which most long-timers do avoid -- this is great), we probably should IMHO put a breaker on the others that do.

Bear in mind that this resolution did get over 135 endorsements. That means there are enough UN Delegates out there that either liked this idea or at least wanted to encourage a UN debate / vote. That suggests that even if the author isn't here, that the debate should be taken seriously. Somebody was interested in that.

I'm not saying that this is a great resolution ... in fact, I think the idea that nukes are or are not an effective deterent (an opinion in either case), actually is a good reason to vote against or for the resolution. But the absence of a resolution author really doesn't concern me.



Onto the resolution ... I do want to make it clear that my own position specifically is based on the weapons of mass destruction principal. Global Disarmament is slightly different from say a Gun Control proposal, because when the possession or ownership of weapons are controled at the point of individuals, it is possible to still legally use or have them on hand for the government, in order to protect those that follow the law from those that break the law. A Global Disarmament resolution might be set up to do the same, but my government's opinion is that weapons of mass destruction, only offer one means of possible protection and that other means that are far less costly in human (or dancing penguin) lives. For example, if a nation wanted to destroy your nation using a nuke, there are alternative threats (magic, future tech, dragons, even conventional carpet bombing or James Bond styled super villians) that still could be used to provide enough disincentive. These counter threats need not even come from your nation, but could in fact come from a non-UN ally.

That said, my government acknolwedges the arguments of many with respect to the need of a government to protect its citizens, and frankly my government agrees with this basic responsibility of government. However, in the case of a dangerous weapon of mass destruction, my government supports alternative means of protection.

I just have to say one thing. If that resolution passes I am resigning out of the UN. If all the nations in the UN disarm there Nucklear Weapons we will be in the mercy of non-UN members. Please don't make a stupid choice.

Pace 2 Freedom Society (http://www.geocities.com/pace2freedom)

I cannot believe this resolution has been tabled. If this resoloution is passed we will ignore it. When sanctioned by the Ruling council I will resign my post and plough even more resources into our weapons programme.

I urge my fellow sane delegates to reject this resolution. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

As a government our primary duty must always be to our own people... If you consider other nations above the duty to your own people, you are irresponsible, and no longer possess the right to exist.



I will not side with the foolishness and suicidal thinking of your view.


Your own people and others are still people, sure prioritise yourselves to a certain extent, but to say your life is more important than 10 other people? It's called empathy, and perhaps one nation should take a dive in a step to peace, if we begin to regress in weaponry, war cannot be conducted on the large scale it is today. And no-one has argued against the point that nuclear weaponry can leave areas uninhabitable by any species for a long time, or is this yet another issue which is over ruled by the needs of our own nation?

As a peace loving country the kingdom of Garunia is very sad to think that history shows one thing very clear. If you want to be sure of not being attacked by the empire you need weappons of mass distruction and the ability to reach the empire with them.

The empire is isolated from the biggest part of the world by two oceans. They are able to attack nearly every nation they want. Since the fall of the red empire and the election of crusaders as rulers theysay, they are the rulers of the world.

They lie to their own people and use their fears to stay in power and earn a lot of money.
Garunia has important oil ressources and wants to live in peace. If we want to rest in peace we urgently need our missiles, our nukes and our biological weappons to show the empire that it can´t attack us without the risk of being attacked by us.

The one´s talking about rough nations are for a big part of the world a rough nation themself - and we fear the next rulers of the empire will be even more war-willing than the acual crusaders.

Your own people and others are still people, sure prioritise yourselves to a certain extent, but to say your life is more important than 10 other people?

Nobility may be great, but all it really amounts to is either trying to save someone you care about or being able to say you stuck to your guns. In the end, it's just as self-centered as anything else humanity does. The difference is that I don't hide from myself that it is.

Would I be willing to wipe out a nation ten times the size of my own to survive? In a heartbeat. While I may not be in danger of that right now, I may be in the future. I will do what I have to in order to make sure my nation continues to survive, even if it means dropping nukes into civilian areas. When it comes to survival, the only standard is who is still alive. Every nation worth the name personifies this in some form or another.

It's called empathy, and perhaps one nation should take a dive in a step to peace, if we begin to regress in weaponry, war cannot be conducted on the large scale it is today.

And small nations will fall to the bigger ones with greater ease. But your whole thing is a selfish concern for survival in that it manifests itself in you wanting peace so the threat of your nation being wiped out does not exist. How is that any less selfish than me wanting to be able to build nukes to discourage others from trying to nuke me if I chose to? The answer is that yours is more selfish, as you are trying to force yours on everyone and limit their options of survival while with the UN while my own still allows them to pursue what options they wish.

And if you think the UN banning something causes it to be unused, you are wrong. There are plenty of UN nations who use chemical and biological weapons and several stores catering to the selling of WMD. They are still used with the same frequency as they would be otherwise.

And no-one has argued against the point that nuclear weaponry can leave areas uninhabitable by any species for a long time, or is this yet another issue which is over ruled by the needs of our own nation?

This is another issue where the needs of my country come first. The environment may be nice, but I can't enjoy it if I'm not around to do so.

Bear in mind that this resolution did get over 135 endorsements. That means there are enough UN Delegates out there that either liked this idea or at least wanted to encourage a UN debate / vote. That suggests that even if the author isn't here, that the debate should be taken seriously. Somebody was interested in that.

When I perused through the proposals the last day this one was up for approval, it was surrounded by the Basic Human Rights proposals. My guess is that the author of that proposal waged a successful telegramming campaign and the proximity of this ban may have triggered many of the endorsements. I've noticed this halo of high approvals around well-telegrammed proposals before. I think that played a major role here.

I agree about the author. The forum is, generally-speaking, not a friendly place for proposal or resolution authors. Part of this is assuredly because most that follow the "debate this in the UN forum" link are debating it because they think they see some flaw or stupidity in the text or author that no one else can see. Or perhaps just to pick a fight. If someone agrees with a proposal, I've found it unlikely that they'll voice their agreement unless asked. Possibly related to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" maxim. This doesn't explain the harassment here for draft proposals or brainstorming threads. I am left to assume that UN people have an unusual concentration of anger-management problems. Myself guilty of this in the past.

what i am proposing is to destroy these organizeations that are creating terror and murdering the people of this world. ladies and gentilmen if there must be fear amoung us let it be fear with a purpose. The Holy Empire of Sairagg can not tolerate actions taken by these organiseations, we need to think of our people above all else.

And that you think that a) you can destroy all the organizations that create terror and b) you can find all the organizations that create terror?

This depends on your definition of "terror." By launching an extremely dangerous weapon (such as a nuclear warhead) at another nation, are you or are you not creating "terror?" As previously mentioned, this resolution would only remove nuclear weapons. There are countless other ways to attack an enemy, and I for one think that no civilised nation would ever want to stage a nuclear assault. Nuclear weapons don't discriminate, they kill everyone -- thousand upon thousands of innocent people who never wronged the attacking country. Wait a second... Isn't that what terrorists do?

Triprism is supports this resolution.
Terry Balckert, Triprism UN Delegate

Members of the honorable UN i must implore you to think of the reasons why we must or must not disarm. Reasons why we should: to ensure peace within UN nations, to stop the threat of nucular weapons. reasons why we should not: fear of outside invaison, no place to put the waste created by the dismantlement of these weapons, and fear that even if we do disarm there will still be organizations that will produce and sell these weapons. ladies and gentilmen what i have been proposing to do is find and dismantal terrioist groups i realize that this is not an easy task but i implore that you think about the safety of all people and not just of UN countries. Sairagg will not dissarm until the safety of it's people is assured.

When I perused through the proposals the last day this one was up for approval, it was surrounded by the Basic Human Rights proposals. My guess is that the author of that proposal waged a successful telegramming campaign and the proximity of this ban may have triggered many of the endorsements. I've noticed this halo of high approvals around well-telegrammed proposals before. I think that played a major role here.

*nod* I think you are right, as I noticed that the proposals near this one, also had high numbers of endorsements.


I agree about the author. The forum is, generally-speaking, not a friendly place for proposal or resolution authors.

I really wish this wasn't the case.

Does your government issue water pistols to individuals on teh off chance that a crazy who might toss a hand grenade will think twice about it?

:)

I'll concede that point. You are right. We do in fact arm our police with weapons.


The answer becomes apparent. We must stop/limit proliferation, but not ban the weapons altogether.

My government finds this position agreeable.

However, we still have voted in favour of this proposal, because we would like to send a message to the world that weapons of mass destruction, not weapons, but weapons of mass destruction, should be regulated. This proposal, though not perfect, at least highlights some form of regulation.

I would vote for this resolution if it weren't so damn poorly written. Endorse the nations that don't respect it? Somebody write a new proposal banning nuclear weapons that doesn't contradict its own language, and I'll vote for it.

Allowing for this proposal to pass would give the so called "rogue nations" a massive military upper hand over us all. It is the duty of each country to protect themselves in whatever way they see fit.

Rogue nations? Upper hand? :haha:

What the nukes are designed to do is MAD, with the emphasis on mutual.

Nuclear weapons primary use is deterrence and NO "rogue" nation can commit any action, besides pressing the big red button with *multiple* nuclear missiles, that could warrant a nuclear retaliation.

I urge you to vote against the ban because nuclear weapons have a great stabilizing effect on the world: No big player can enter a war against other big player.

In my view that countries governments should decide that they should have nuclear weapons not the UN. Since many countries favor nuclear weapons. I wouldn't need to worry about this resolution. Besides having nuclear weapons would decrease military spending instead of spending on tanks and planes by the numerous numbers. As a country we focus money matters on social issues, moral issues, education, and welfare Instead of the defense budget.

Since the development of nuclear arms all wars fought have been relatively minor. What greater proof does one need? Nuclear missiles do not encourage war, but instead discourage it through MAD (mutually assured destruction).

I implore you, vote against this resolution.

I live in a peaceful region with no need for nuclear weapons. Most of our nations focus government spending mainly on social welfare, education, public transport, and law & order. My nation's economy is only fair, and spending money on WMD manufacturing would only waste money due to the lack of any international warfare. Please vote in favor this resolution, people.

Every nation has a right to defend itself. No nation should ever need to cede that right to any other nation, or any international body. The world's nuclear deterrents must not be tampered with.

I would vote for this resolution if it weren't so damn poorly written. Endorse the nations that don't respect it? Somebody write a new proposal banning nuclear weapons that doesn't contradict its own language, and I'll vote for it.

Amen.

Your own people and others are still people, sure prioritise yourselves to a certain extent, but to say your life is more important than 10 other people? It's called empathy, and perhaps one nation should take a dive in a step to peace, if we begin to regress in weaponry, war cannot be conducted on the large scale it is today. And no-one has argued against the point that nuclear weaponry can leave areas uninhabitable by any species for a long time, or is this yet another issue which is over ruled by the needs of our own nation?

I have no problem saying it... the life of the people who have come together to form the Constitutional Republic of Tekania are worth more than the lives of the rest of the people on the planet combined... If this is not the way you look upon your people, you are a traitor.

I live in a peaceful region with no need for nuclear weapons. Most of our nations focus government spending mainly on social welfare, education, public transport, and law & order. My nation's economy is only fair, and spending money on WMD manufacturing would only waste money due to the lack of any international warfare. Please vote in favor this resolution, people.

*Evil empire tells Pensamiento to hand over it's treasury or face nuclear destruction*

*Takes the money and glasses them anyway*

And that sort of scenario is why MAD is necessary, and nuclear weapons are necessary. If you can't hit back, you'll be hit.

Your own people and others are still people, sure prioritise yourselves to a certain extent, but to say your life is more important than 10 other people? It's called empathy, and perhaps one nation should take a dive in a step to peace, if we begin to regress in weaponry, war cannot be conducted on the large scale it is today. And no-one has argued against the point that nuclear weaponry can leave areas uninhabitable by any species for a long time, or is this yet another issue which is over ruled by the needs of our own nation?

I have no problem saying it... the life of the people who have come together to form the Constitutional Republic of Tekania are worth more than the lives of the rest of the people on the planet combined... If this is not the way you look upon your people, you are a traitor.

To save a Vastivan life, I would slaughter the entire planet.
If you wish to save your land, keep your war out of ours.

And as we have nuclear weapons, in great quantity, we have the muscle to back up our threat.

You, Toast, on the other hand have nothing but the hope an attacker will treat you fairly.

In other words, you're delusional - War is not fought "nicely". And any UN decision affects only those nations in the UN. In other words, Toast, you are arguing for our decimation at the hands of warmongers who do not belong to this organization.

0121 November 8th, 2004:

Votes For: 4,934
Votes Against: 6,674


Looks like this will fail... again.

This proposal would "allow" only fanatics to have Nukes, in view of the incompetense and corruptness or the UN. :sniper:

A diplomatic envoy, clad in the national colours of Diraballuh, steps in. He unrolls a parchemt and begins reading:

"The Sultan of Diraballuh has decided against banning nuclear weapons.
The so-called 'Rogue Nations' are not to be feared, but the nuclear bomb plays a pivotal role in the worship of Diraballuh's Hero-God, Zerle.
What you infidels use them for is not our concern, but we shall not be at the mercy of other nations."

Dropping the parchment on the nearest table, the diplomat leaves again.

i havn't read everyones thing because that would take to long but from what i did read was that most people are just trying to say. THIS RESOLUTION SUCKS. I have voted against and i think most of my region has too.

I must say, we of the United Socialist States of Sandinistata are most surprised at the lack of support for this most worthy resolution. We have given our fullest support to this proposal and our army (small though it is) are in the process of dismantling those few missiles we still possess, although that's largely because we suspect they wouldn't fire even if we wanted them to.

It seems to our government that the basis of the opposition to this centres around three points:

1: National Defence, and the benefits of MAD.
2: National Sovereignty, and independence from UN control.
3: Cynicism as to the efficacy of the disarmament process and the belief that Rogue States will exploit this opportunity to gain possession of WMD.

The first two points are opinions, and it is not for the government of a minor state to try to change the mind of anyone outside its' borders. But the third point is less certain in its' foundations. The UN is a collective organisation, and is as strong and effective as we make it. While there will be problems with corruption and bureaucracy, with enough support from its' members the UN can be a strong guiding force for the world. Rogue States do not exist in a vacuum - diplomatic pressure, if strong enough, always gets through in the end. The most effective international processes are gradual ones.

On behalf of the citizens of Sandinistata, have a nice day!

Sorry for our poor english, but we have one question :

For all nations how believe in MAD principle, must I understand that in case of nuclear attack, they will use their nuclear arsenal while knowing that by doing this, it will destroy any life on Nationstates Earth ?

Commonwealth of Moonriders,
Foreign Coordinator.

To the representative of the nation of Moonriders, I make this statement

Where a nation begins nuclear assault on the nation of Spider Queen Lolth, I would feel it necessary to unleash the full might of our nuclear stockpile on the aggressors. If nuclear strike-back was not an option, the nation that had utterly eradicated my citizens and nation would be unharmed, and may continue to destroy other nations. However, a retaliatory nuclear attack would also destroy the aggressor nation. It may cause some environmental damage, it may even in an incredibly slight chance cause nuclear winter. However, firstly the chances of nuclear winter are almost non-existant in a small-scale nuclear struggle. Secondly, nuclear explosives can be used for many other purposes other than just blowing up the bad guys. Nuclear explosives can be used to avert rogue Near Earth Objects, as has already been mentioned in this debate. Small-scale nuclear explosives can be used in blasting for mining or construction purposes. They have more than just mass-destruction uses, but the mass-destruction part IS the most important part. MAD is the only way to prevent mass-destruction from happening to any of us.

Dear Spider Queen Lolth,

Thank you for your answers, but :

1) In case of a full nuclear war, nuclear winter is a certitude, not a chance. As I understand, your philosophy is "better no life on Earth as a living ennemy".

2) In case of limited nuclear war, your retaliation on your ennemy, wich is my neighbor, will inevitably cause damage to my country. Why must I not consider this as an agression against my country ?

3) Nuclear weapons are a very bad response to rogue Near Earth Objects, they will fragment the object, not destroy it, and the destruction potential will be same.
Far better solutions exists, and this solutions would be by far more usable if mixed with an UN anti-missiles umbrella.

Commonwealth of Moonriders,
Foreign Coordinator.

We remain absolutely convinced that if you vote FOR the resolution you will usher in a new era of peace and harmony throughout the world.

I can't believe that this resolution even came to pass. The proposal to get rid of all nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous, for two reasons.
1. All non-members of the UN will immediately have a distinct advantage and power over UN members. This contravenes the point of the UN.
2. All terrorrist organisations will have no worries about firing nuclear weapons on UN countries, because no resistance will occur.

I have to say, that if this resolution is passed, our nation will be leaving the UN.

A better idea would be to have a UN source of nuclear weapons, instead of individual nations. It would be less costly to maintain and serve to protect all member nations.

My Honourable Colleagues,

It must be clear to every thinking person that nuclear disarmament is good thing, but for those that are hard of thinking, let me enlighten you:

1) Having no nuclear weapons means none of them can 'wander off'. I'm sure you agree that it is much harder to develop nuclear weapons than it is to 'borrow' them from someone else.

2) Having no nuclear weapons means none of them can 'accidently explode'. It seems to me that even an accidental dentonation could lead to a full scale retaliation, which leads me nicely to...

3) MAD - Some of us seem to have forgotten that the only thing this assures us of is destruction! While it is supposed to be a deterrent, it does assume that everyone with nuclear capability will act reponsibly. It also assumes that everyone can keep their nuclear materials secure (point 1), and safe (point 2), which, I should imagine, takes an awful lot of money and man-power.

4) The destructive power of nuclear weapons is often expressed as the amount of conventional munitions that would produce the same effect, with this in mind, does it not make sense to just have that many conventional weapons? Although it may seem a tall order to deliver millions of tonnes of conventional weapons, consider the fact that MAD (point 3) is supposed to prevent anyone from using nuclear weapons, so you wouldn't be able to deploy these mega-killers anyway (if MAD does in fact work).

5) Near Earth Objects - It has been pointed out before that the use of nuclear weapons against NEOs would probably not solve the problem. I would also like to point out the fact that not all rockets make it to space. How would you deal with a nuclear rocket exploding over your country? Or worse, falling back to earth and then exploding?

I hope these simple points make it clear that possession of nuclear weapons holds no benefit for mankind, only the potential for catastrophic consequences.

Yours,
Representative for the Kingom of Blern

P.S. In response to DaJonesians, the resistance that terrorists can expect from the UN does not need to be in the form of nuclear weapons. Given the size of the UN and the individual defense programmes, I am certain that MAD can be implemented with conventional weapons. Also, you must consider the physical organisation of modern terrorist cells. Do you honestly believe they will all stand in one place while you nuke the hell out of them? What about civilian casualties?

Dear DaJonesians Delegate,

I understand your point of view, but you didn't answer my questions.

Will you, in case of a nuclear attack, voluntarily, destroy of all life of Earth ?
And in that case, why must I consider you not as an ennemy against my nation ?
In case of terrorists groups, how are dissiminated in large civil groups, such as cities, wich move on international level, do you think a nuclear responses appropriate ?
Do you really think this would obliterate terrorist nuclear risk ?

In fact, a better answer will be an UN anti-missiles space umbrella, for all UN members. This solution will also boost space-related technologies too, wich will help against NEO, and will not harm innocent people, today or tomorrow.

Commonwealth of Moonriders,
Foreign Coordinator.

Thank the Lord. Moonriders, Scortch and Blern, we of the United Socialist States of Sandinistata salute you, Blern in particular. Not only do you register support for a most worthy cause, but you do so in an articulate and well-structured manner, language barrier permitting.

MAD is an interesting phenomenon - it works, but only as long as reasonable men are in charge of a country. And here is where the problems come in.

MAD would only be used in the event of a conflict between nations - otherwise, why have nukes to defend against an attack that isn't coming? But with nukes around, conventional forces are not a practical option - why bother, when they'll be wiped out the same as everyone else when the bombs start flying? And so MAD becomes the only line of defence, and the war drags on. And when a war drags on for too long, people get paranoid. Sooner or later, extremists will end up in positions of power, or some ally will do the wrong thing, and then MAD just becomes D.

To summarise: Mutually Assured Destruction may work, but there is a distinct chance that it might stop working. And if it does, it really lives up to its' name.

We have heard rumours of a multinational group that for some reason bears a grudge against MAD fundamentalists. This group owns no physical territory, but lots of money. It sees MAD fundamentalists as the greatest threat to NS peace and wishes them crippled. They would rather not face any consequences. How do you think they would go about it? How do you retaliate?
Do you think countries in real life feel safe from terror attacks if they have nukes? When was the last terror attack on, say, Norway?

The people who voted against the ban of nuclear weapons should take a brief look at mankind's history to see what the use of nuclear weapons have caused. WHO used them and WHY. Terrorists have nuclear arsenal only in Hollywood. EVEN the all terrible "nighmare" Sadam had NO mass-destruction arsenal. AND SINCE WHEN IS BAD TO ABOLISH OBJECTS THAT CAUSE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION??????????????????

AND SINCE WHEN IS BAD TO ABOLISH OBJECTS THAT CAUSE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION??????????????????
Wow. Your ALL-CAPS appeal and all the extra question marks have convinced me that my vote is wrong. Great argument there, pal.

We voted for the resolution as we support the Mayors for Peace IRL.
http://www.inesap.org/bulletin22/bul22art26.htm
http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/heiwa/2020vision-e.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/mayors/english/index.html

It must be clear to every thinking person that nuclear disarmament is good thing, but for those that are hard of thinking, let me enlighten you:

Nuclear non-existence is a good thing. Disarmament, maybe not. If there weren't any nukes anywhere and no one at any time in the future would be able to acquire them, then we would have achieved a utopian nuclear existence. Disarmament, however, is not the non-existence of nuclear weapons. It is the destruction of them over time: a rate. It is a process, not an end result. I don't think there are many that disagree with the desirability of the product. It's the means of obtaining it we have problems with.


1) Having no nuclear weapons means none of them can 'wander off'. I'm sure you agree that it is much harder to develop nuclear weapons than it is to 'borrow' them from someone else.

This resolution is not the best attempt at attempting to stifle proliferation or to maintain secure locations of nuclear arsenals (and, frankly, neither is the Nuclear Terrorism Act). It's reasoning for disarmament is not that the nuclear weapons are susceptible to "wandering off", but that they are dangerous and harmful. This isn't a significant factor in this proposal's text. This point you bring up, about "non-proliferation" (if thievery is considered proliferation) is, rather, a side-effect of disarmament, not the main argument for disarmament itself. Notably, there's another side-effect to one-sided disarmament: Nuclear winter.


2) Having no nuclear weapons means none of them can 'accidently explode'. It seems to me that even an accidental dentonation could lead to a full scale retaliation, which leads me nicely to...

Again, this proposal is not arguing that nukes stand a danger of mishap or travesty while being stored. It is arguing that in the interest of world-wide human rights, environmental protection, and international peace, nuclear weapons be abandoned.

3) MAD - Some of us seem to have forgotten that the only thing this assures us of is destruction!

And lowering my weapons while countless others still aim their warheads at my cities and countryside isn't assuring destruction?

While it is supposed to be a deterrent, it does assume that everyone with nuclear capability will act reponsibly.

Actually, this proposal assumes that leaders with nuclear capabilities will lead responsibly much more than MAD ever did. In a one-on-one disarmament agreement there is a certain level of trust that's necessary to go through with it. Trusting that your Soviet cohorts in disarmament aren't hiding thousands of ICBMs in a remote Ural cave is an awfully big step. But this proposal goes beyond requiring even that level of trust. It requires us to trust that world nations, with no reason or motivation, will A) refuse to take advantage of our technological deficiencies, and B) will disarm along side us! Why would they do that? The proposal doesn't even directly ask the world to disarm.

5) Near Earth Objects - It has been pointed out before that the use of nuclear weapons against NEOs would probably not solve the problem. I would also like to point out the fact that not all rockets make it to space. How would you deal with a nuclear rocket exploding over your country? Or worse, falling back to earth and then exploding?

This is not a reason or argument expressed for disarmament. And just because Un nations have nuclear weapons doesn't mean that they have to use them against NEOs. If you think it's a good policy not to use them against NEOs, that's great. However, this policy does not require nuclear disarmament. Neither do your points 1 and 2. just because we need to keep nukes safe, doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

I hope these simple points make it clear that possession of nuclear weapons holds no benefit for mankind, only the potential for catastrophic consequences.

True, nuclear weapons have great potential for creating catastrophic events. MAD can be likened to a tightrope walker holding a barbell, 20 lbs weights on either end of the barbell. These weights to both sides of him might cause him to fall from fatigue. They only add to his already impossible assignment. Disarmament though, is like taking one side of weights off of the barbell. If you did that, he is certain to fall.

I'd rather take my chances with the slighter possibilities of catastrophe in a MAD world, than guarantee that catastrophe with gratuitous disarmament.

I vote AGAINST.

You are right, there are many new nations contributing. The question is: how many of them will remain active in the UN?



Fair point, but even if only a few remain active, then that's better than nothing. Having said that, I accept your later point that they don't (on average) appear to be debating, but just denouncing.

I would just like to clear this up once and for all. ICBMs are not really any good against NEOs. To blast a NEO apart, you need to hit them with relativistic slugs, or detonate a nuke inside. Hitting from the outside will just scorch the surface. Firecracker in your palm, or in your clenced fist.

The DRA fully supports this resolution and congratulates its author on getting the number of endorsements necessary to bring this to a vote. I urge everyone to support this motion to help rid the world of this horrid weapons of mass destruction!

Ladies and gentleman, this is the liberal mind at work.
"Horrid weapons of mass destruction."

First of all, these weapons are NOT EVIL!
When was the last time you ever saw a nuclear weapon
just launch itself at a nation without someone giving the "GO"
code? Second, what better way to demorlize a terrorist
or evil nation when they see a big mushroom cloud or clouds
going up all over their heads?
If we hadn't used nukes to end WWII we would have lost
hundreds of THOUSANDS of American soldiers alone.
The Japanese would have almost had ten times more the
casualties because they didn't believe in surrender.
Look at Iwo Jima. 20,000 japanese troops killed, almost
100% of the defending force wiped out by the US marines.
Most did not want to surrender.
the nukes would have finished the job much faster.
And sure enough, they did end WWII.
Plus nobody seems to complain about the Tokyo Firebombing
Raids where over 200,000 people were killed by "conventional"
munitions. But what they are saying is,"Ohhh, nuclear weapons bad!"
Boo hoo, suck it up. If the US didn't have nukes during the 50s
and only Russia did, we would be walking around with Hammer and Sickle
flags and seeing T-80s crusing around our streets, and the Kremlin
would be our White House.
People, VOTE NO ON THIS RESOLUTION!!!!!!

Yours truly,
General Crazy Ivan

If the US didn't have nukes during the 50s
and only Russia did, we would be walking around with Hammer and Sickle
flags and seeing T-80s crusing around our streets, and the Kremlin
would be our White House.

Or, to diversify, KGB operatives in 10 Downing street, the vangaurd inhabiting the Reichstag, bread lines backed up all the way to the Adriatic. It is an initial nation to nation instability with one-sided disarmament, but it most definitely has serious global ramifications, as well.

Dear UN members,
I think that most of us believe that it is not in the best intrests of our most glorious nations to disarm ourselves at this point. so perhaps we should bring more pressing matters to the floor. I humbly request that the most honorable UN change the subject.

The holy emperor of Sairagg.

And by the way........
What is it with liberals who say that guns and
military stuff is evil? Geeze, every single
one says that guns kill people.
Well, like I have said before, when did you ever see a gun
jump off a table, run up to a person,
shoot him in the face, and then run away looking for
another person to kill?
Same thing with nuclear weapons. They are not "evil".
They don't think. They don't feel.
They don't live. They are just pieces
of machinery that are capable of killing and destroying.
If everything that can kill people was considered
evil, then that would mean rocks are evil horrid weapons,
sticks are evil cause they can be used to kill people.
string can be used to strangle people.
Hell, forks and knives can be used to kill people.
Are they evil? NO. Come on people, grow up.
Everything we have can be used to kill people.
Should we ban everything that can "kill" or "hurt" people?
It is absurd.

General Crazy Ivan

Thank you Powerhungry Chipmunks!
Someone understands out there!

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda is basing its voting on the following:
- Nuclear weapons offer no protection at all
Nuclear weapons are for scaring people. They do not offer protection, they are only suitable to attack. Their damage is of such nature, that they offer only disadvantages to nations who want to conquer land.

- Nuclear weapons are a danger for your own people
Think of the consequences when they get stolen or controlled by terrorists.

There is no reason why the UN should have nuclear weapons "because non-UN nations have them". Any nation willing to launch nuclear weapons will not be backed off by the enemy possessing nuclear weapons.

A nuclear weapons race results in peace by fear, which is the most fragile state you can be in, and do not want to be in.

It is therefor that the glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda strongly advices all nations to vote FOR this resolution.

In response to Powerhungry Chipmunks,

I repay the heavy quoting compliment with:

Originally posted by Powerhungry Chipmunks
Disarmament, however, is not the non-existence of nuclear weapons. It is the destruction of them over time: a rate. It is a process, not an end result. I don't think there are many that disagree with the desirability of the product. It's the means of obtaining it we have problems with.
What problems do you have with the process of disarmament? This point is still unclear to me.

Originally posted by Powerhungry Chipmunks
This point you bring up, about "non-proliferation" (if thievery is considered proliferation) is, rather, a side-effect of disarmament, not the main argument for disarmament itself.
Indeed you are wholly correct, the resolution was not proposed for the reasons I stated, I didn't claim it was. However, it can be said that the side-effects I mentioned are totally desirable.

Originally posted by Powerhungry Chipmunks
Notably, there's another side-effect to one-sided disarmament: Nuclear winter.
I don't believe this is a side effect of any kind of disarmament but rather a direct effect of a large scale nuclear attack, surely you can see the difference between the two?

The real power of nuclear weapons comes from the will to use them, as was the case with America against Japan. Unfortunately, this only works against countries without nuclear capability. Given that, as you say, disarmament is a process, the beginning of this process is of no concern, we will still have nuclear capability. Also, the end of this process is of little concern, we are not a singular country but rather a union and as such, able to bring together resources that no single rogue state could hope to muster. The only real problem is the actual mechanics of disarmament, which needs to be faced anyway as stockpiles age and become more and more unsafe.

I would also like to address the points raised by General Crazy Ivan:
Originally posted by Bluzblekistan
If everything that can kill people was considered
evil, then that would mean rocks are evil horrid weapons,
sticks are evil cause they can be used to kill people.
string can be used to strangle people.
Hell, forks and knives can be used to kill people.
Are they evil? NO.
I couldn't agree more. Forks, knives, guns and even nuclear weapons are not evil, it is the intent of the person that uses them that matters. However, the point is not that these things are evil, it is the ease with which dubious acts can be perpetrated with these tools. You'll find a lower rate of shootings in countries that have a restriction on the availablility of firearms but this does not make the people better, it just means murderers must be more determined to succeed.

The fact is, the world has changed. What might have been a reasonable policy when the only two major world powers had nuclear capability is no longer relevant.

I thank the honourable Groot Gouda for being wise and succinct in a way I could never be ;)

Respectfully,
Representative for the Kingom of Blern

What problems do you have with the process of disarmament? This point is still unclear to me.


The problem with the process of disarmament proposed in this proposal is that it is one-sided. As, as such, presents a severely dangerous position for UN members.



Indeed you are wholly correct, the resolution was not proposed for the reasons I stated, I didn't claim it was. However, it can be said that the side-effects I mentioned are totally desirable.

I agree that these ideas of keeping nuclear weapons safe is desirable. In fact, I included it in a resolution once. However, I think that posting these desirables as reasons for voting "for" this resolution is like saying "you should buy this used car because it'll give you the chance to hit on gas station clerks" Certainly it could be argued that this is desirable, and certainly this is true (that you'd have the opportunity), but it, just as I feel about your points, fails to be a compelling reason to buy my used car.


I don't believe this is a side effect of any kind of disarmament but rather a direct effect of a large scale nuclear attack, surely you can see the difference between the two?

That's my point. I am suggesting there's a cause and effect relationship between these two events. If the UN disarms without the rest of the world disarming alongside, it would be a world just itching for non-UN nations to take advantage of UN nations (with their superior military technology), and for them to launch these large scale nuclear attacks. And there are nations out there which will do so, just for the sake of doing so.

The real power of nuclear weapons comes from the will to use them, as was the case with America against Japan.

True, and with nuclear weapons being wielded by both nations in a two nation international affair, there is less of a will to use these nuclear weapons because of MAD. There is no such deterrent for nations (rogue or otherwise) with this style of disarmament.

FAO Foreign Delegates.

So here we are again. In your infinite wisdom you have given the academics and presentational officers of his most Imperious Kaiser the opportunity to prove that you are all very unintelligent at best.

Allow me to make constructive comment on the proposed policy.

Nuclear Weapons save lives. FACT. The reasons for this is manifold.

In a democracy the Government is held accountable to the people. If the people understand through good reporting and a free press that they are under great threat by other countries having Nuclear weapons, then they will through a parliamentary process insure that their Governments do not follow aggressive policies that arouse the ire of foreign Governments. AND THUS SAVE LIVES. Even if it is a totalitarian state, who cares not at all for its people, it does care for its infrastructure, its prominent displays of power and their very survival.

From the point of view of a defending small country, where no nuclear weapons are involved a large country wishes to change something in a smaller country and can simply do it. However if that country has nuclear weapons then a larger country has to ask itself, what objective is possibly worth the even potential destruction of their capital city or an army division. None. Of course this is not infallible and it is surly counter- factual to say, but surly there are times in history when actual war has been averted because of the presence of the ultimate weapon.

For more information on the Ultimate weapon please contact Dave War on 0800-NUKES-R-GOOD. Or WWW.Ilovenukes.co.uk.

Same thing with nuclear weapons. They are not "evil".
They don't think. They don't feel.
They don't live. They are just pieces
of machinery that are capable of killing and destroying.


But that is all they are capable of. Guns can be used for killing animals for food and (in some perspective) self defense.

The sole purpose of nuclear weapons are to kill people. And to kill them in the most horrific way imaginable. The only other purpose I can see for them is to scare people in to not attacking you because you posses them, which again is not exactly noble.

Plus there have been incidents in the past of weapons either breaking down, going astray or failing so badly they blow up in their silos. I am not assigning malice or intent to the missiles, but while they are around they can be a danger to pretty much everyone - even those who know how to use them.

I do however oppose the proposal, on the basis that it would leave most of the UN member nations open to attack by non-UN member nations. It is undeniably the lesser of two evils to keep them.