NationStates Jolt Archive

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.


I have to disagree. The fear of destruction - complete and total anihiliation - is a pretty strong motivator. But the moment you take it away - the moment you know you could wipe out your enemy with no, or almost no, threat to yourself, then I believe it's quite possible a lot of countries would do it.

The only threat actually worth responding by using nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons themselves. Therefore by dismantling them, we are sparing thousands of innocent lives, as well as protecting the environment and maintaining peace. Furthermore, not all nations can afford nuclear weapons, their existence is therefore discrimination towards the poorer states.
The argument that nuclear weapons help fight terrorism is absurd, as nations cannot threaten the entire population of a country in response to horrible acts of a small group of terrorists. This would be neither fair, neither constructive. It will help neither fighting nor preventing terrorism, and mainly promotes violence and the spread of fear.

On the other hand, passing this resolution will discriminate nations who are part of the UN, as non-UN members will still possess nuclear weapons.
I therefore urge you all to vote for this resolution on the condition that all of the world's nations be in the UN, as it is the case in the 'real' world.

Even if we could get all the non-UN members in the world to join the UN (which we can't), I doubt many of them would approve of nuclear disarmament anyway.

To everyone who is so highly prioritising their own people above others:

To view other nations as equal is not being a traitor, it's called not being racist, it's recognising that every life you take in that nation is still a life and their race should not matter, this is the UNITED NATIONS, we're MEANT to be taking other nations welfare into consideration.

Also the theory that nuclear weaponry offers protection is absurd on the basis that if someone wants to declare war on you and is prepared to use nuclear warfare, then they can flatten your nation in mere minutes without you knowing, and the higher your population is the greater you will fall. You are much more likely to be attacked because of your nuclear capability rather than because you have no nuclear weaponry and are seen less as a threat.

I think the people against dismantling weapons are using arguments that I would expect to hear from countries focused on brandishing their weapons. Many countries we know today have no nuclear capability, and we have not yet seen them demolished by nuclear weapons themselves.

Ban nuclear weapons? Shall we ban tanks and landmines, too? All three of those were built with the express purpose of waging war (especially the tank).

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George S. Patton.

"It is good that war be so terrible, lest we become fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee.

With so many of the nations moving towards space, nuclear weapons become nothing more than large bombs. A hull breach caused by either conventional or nuclear weapons still results in explosive decompression (a very unpretty sight).

The only threat actually worth responding by using nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons themselves. Therefore by dismantling them, we are sparing thousands of innocent lives, as well as protecting the environment and maintaining peace.


Or opening half of the world up to anihilation by the other half.

Furthermore, not all nations can afford nuclear weapons, their existence is therefore discrimination towards the poorer states.


Sorry, but that is plainly not fair. Not all nations can afford TVs, or they can't afford two cars per family. Does this mean TVs should be banned? Or a family should only have one car?


The argument that nuclear weapons help fight terrorism is absurd, as nations cannot threaten the entire population of a country in response to horrible acts of a small group of terrorists. This would be neither fair, neither constructive. It will help neither fighting nor preventing terrorism, and mainly promotes violence and the spread of fear.


That depends - if you can show the government of the nation is actually behind the terrorists, then the government and it's people could arguably be said to be targets of war.


On the other hand, passing this resolution will discriminate nations who are part of the UN, as non-UN members will still possess nuclear weapons.
I therefore urge you all to vote for this resolution on the condition that all of the world's nations be in the UN, as it is the case in the 'real' world.

I am pretty sure that is never going to happen. And even if it did the moment you try to take someones nukes away they will quit the UN so that they can use them on the rest of the people left behind.

To view other nations as equal is not being a traitor, it's called not being racist, it's recognising that every life you take in that nation is still a life and their race should not matter, this is the UNITED NATIONS, we're MEANT to be taking other nations welfare into consideration.


I am. But the people of my country did not elect me to worry about the health and wellbeing of people in other nations - they elected me to protect them and worry about their health and wellbeing.

I am not saying my nation is any better than any other. Nor is it any worse. But it's MY nation and MY people, and I have to protect them the best way I can.


Also the theory that nuclear weaponry offers protection is absurd on the basis that if someone wants to declare war on you and is prepared to use nuclear warfare, then they can flatten your nation in mere minutes without you knowing, and the higher your population is the greater you will fall. You are much more likely to be attacked because of your nuclear capability rather than because you have no nuclear weaponry and are seen less as a threat.


And the moment someone declares war on me, I can declare war on them (my motto notwithstanding - this is a hypothetical me obviously!) and flatten their nation in an equal amount of time. Nuclear weapons are not used for defence - they can't be - but they are used as a deterrent.


I think the people against dismantling weapons are using arguments that I would expect to hear from countries focused on brandishing their weapons. Many countries we know today have no nuclear capability, and we have not yet seen them demolished by nuclear weapons themselves.

Not once have I ever brandished my wepaons. And I never plan to - "death before war" is not an idle statement in TilEnca - it is the basis of everything we believe.
But if were to hand over the only weapons that would stop someone nuking my nation in to Encana and back, then I would be betraying the trust of those who elected me, and I would be risking their lives for a moral principle, which is not what the head of government should be doing.

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.

That is pretty much the heart of why so many nations are voting in favour of this proposal.

The proposal isn't designed to completely strip bare national defense programs. In fact, an issue that frequently comes before my government is the decision on to increase funding on certain aspects of the military. Some crazy soldier even asks my government to build a navy ... imagine that! A Navy for a landlocked mountain country!

Anyway, I think it is safe to say that there are a few issues on which the NS UN community is still divided on, and Mutually Assured Destruction is one of them.

OOC: I do find this debate interesting. Why? In light of recent events, I can safely say that politically I lean to the left of the average American voter. *sigh* But the part that is interesting is I'm a huge industrial music fan. The genre of music tends to be extremely sacrastic and while harsh, it is very mistrustful of large intrusive Orwellian or Fascist styled governments --- which of course is very interesting, since anybody who has been to an industrial show will probably point out that the genre is littered in Orwellian and Fascist imagery ... that and your normal healthy amount of skulls and guns. Anyway, it is very hard to seriously believe that policies based on intimidation and threats will really result in long-term good, when you see all these images crammed together.

Anyway, there are costs to developing nukes. In the real world, the UN has actually set up Nuclear Non-Proliferation Zones, with the support of the nations in those regions. The reason is simple: these smaller developing governments (which NationStates probably has few of ... many players like to be either the big bad Corporate meanie or the small nice liberal playground) can't really afford to spend money on these programs.

Though it is discouraged, it would be useful to see some actual real-world support for MAD policies.

The Federation of American Scientists actually has some interesting articles on the subject:

http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/weapons.htm

In particular check out this figure:
http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/figure1.htm

The FAS is reporting a cumulative cost of $5 TRILLION! I'm not sure if that is in real dollars or adjusted, which would make a significant difference. I just don't know if that is bad or good.

The question the FAS likes to pose, isn't to directly confront MAD, but is, "How much is this really costing our nation?" It is a fair question ... and something that has been raised already here as a justification for Global Disarmament.

One of the more interesting (and relevant) things from the FAS links (found on a different site):


The allocation of resources to nuclear weapons has often had no discernible relationship to the levels of threat these weapons were supposed to counter and the costs of deterrence have been considerably and unnecessarily increased. It is important for the economic strength of the United States that these types of excessive spending be avoided in the future.


While I understand that the current resolution is not a stragetic limitation accord, but instead an outright ban ... I do think that there are sound economic reasons to support Global Disarmament. Well, at least there are in the real world. Perhaps the floating gas balls of Jupiter might disagree, but I also understand that they find cigarette butts to be lethal and much more deadly and radioactive clouds. ;)

Anyway, some OOC stuff to ponder.]

I am not saying my nation is any better than any other. Nor is it any worse. But it's MY nation and MY people, and I have to protect them the best way I can.
That doesn't mean you simply ignore all other pleas for help, this attitude is exactly the reasons why Europe and America spend billions on war and tiny amounts on serious matters in Africa. Shouldn't the UN try to prevent this?

But if were to hand over the only weapons that would stop someone nuking my nation in to Encana and back, then I would be betraying the trust of those who elected me, and I would be risking their lives for a moral principle, which is not what the head of government should be doing. There is no sufficient evidence that your nuclear capability is the reason no-one has attacked you

And the moment someone declares war on me, I can declare war on them (my motto notwithstanding - this is a hypothetical me obviously!) and flatten their nation in an equal amount of time.
If a country wants you flattened, they won't issue you with a 24 hour warning saying, "We are about to nuke you country flat, so if you want to do us any damage, I suggest you start right about now." They will simply attack and you will be gone which makes your point in the above quote redundant as this shows that nuclear weapons provide no protection, if anything, the nuclear warhead may activate during the raids leaving you in far worse position.

Finally, nuclear warheads are dreadfull things, no they are not evil, they are not sentient beings, but then this isn't meant to be a debate on how pedantic we can be. If a nuclear weapon is activated, millions will die, mass destruction to the environment will be caused, and most likely retaliation will follow.

Sorry, but that is plainly not fair. Not all nations can afford TVs, or they can't afford two cars per family. Does this mean TVs should be banned? Or a family should only have one car?
No, but TVs and cars aren't a threat to the population of the poor nations.



That depends - if you can show the government of the nation is actually behind the terrorists, then the government and it's people could arguably be said to be targets of war.
Yeah, true, but even still I don't think the whole of the population was behind those terrorist acts, maybe just the government. In any case, there will always be innocent victims, but that is also true for other weapons.



I am pretty sure that is never going to happen. And even if it did the moment you try to take someones nukes away they will quit the UN so that they can use them on the rest of the people left behind.

Hehe you're right... But I meant that if everyone had to join, and wasn't allowed to just quit whenever they wanted... Otherwise it would be the open road to mayhem...

That doesn't mean you simply ignore all other pleas for help, this attitude is exactly the reasons why Europe and America spend billions on war and tiny amounts on serious matters in Africa. Shouldn't the UN try to prevent this?


I am sorry, but you have lost me completely. What does ignoring pleas for help have to do with my defence bugdet?


There is no sufficient evidence that your nuclear capability is the reason no-one has attacked you


And there is no sufficient evidence that it is not my nuclear capability that has prevented me from being massacred. I admit it could be my charming smile, but at the same time it might actually be the threat of retalliation that keeps those would would nuke me at bay. Either way I would rather not take any chances.


If a country wants you flattened, they won't issue you with a 24 hour warning saying, "We are about to nuke you country flat, so if you want to do us any damage, I suggest you start right about now." They will simply attack and you will be gone which makes your point in the above quote redundant as this shows that nuclear weapons provide no protection, if anything, the nuclear warhead may activate during the raids leaving you in far worse position.


I know they provide no protection from attack, but they provide a detterent. I would not expect someone to warn me before the blow my nation away, but in the time between detecting the incoming missiles, and the time the missiles hit, there is a gap that would allow me to fire off everything I have at the people who chose to attack me. So they would be as equally dead as I am.

I realise that is small comfort, but that is not the point of the detterent. If someone knows that the moment they attack me, their nation would be nothing but a smoking hole in the ground, that might stop them from attacking me. At least with nuclear missiles. And more conventional methods I can deal with.


Finally, nuclear warheads are dreadfull things, no they are not evil, they are not sentient beings, but then this isn't meant to be a debate on how pedantic we can be. If a nuclear weapon is activated, millions will die, mass destruction to the environment will be caused, and most likely retaliation will follow.

It's the retaliation part which is the basis of my arguement. If I can't retaliate against those who would kill me, there is nothing to stop them from killing me.

No, but TVs and cars aren't a threat to the population of the poor nations.


What about tanks, cruise missiles and so on? A lot of nations can't afford conventional methods of defence, but surely you can not be suggesting that no nation should be allowed to defend itself just because another country can't afford to?



Yeah, true, but even still I don't think the whole of the population was behind those terrorist acts, maybe just the government. In any case, there will always be innocent victims, but that is also true for other weapons.


I would never do such a thing - blaming the people for the acts of the government is not the right way to go. I was just suggesting why a government might be attacked in reprisal for a terrorist attack.


Hehe you're right... But I meant that if everyone had to join, and wasn't allowed to just quit whenever they wanted... Otherwise it would be the open road to mayhem...

Oh yeah - that would be vast acres of fun. And think of the debates and discussions we could get in to if all NS members were part of the UN!!

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.

... cut for brevity

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 will deal with these comments in reverse order.

I find your analogy disturbingly misleading. I would prefer to think of it like selling your car. Not only would you get the benefit of more exercise but also go a very small way into reducing congestion and pollution, thus making the lives of others better.

Your initial point about the disarmament being one-sided also holds little water. Although I treated it as a side point (unlike the points about the safety of the populous, which you claim as side issues) I thought it was obvious that members of the UN have little to fear from a nuclear attack because the sheer numbers of conventional weapons allows us to Assure Destruction without nuclear capabilities. We thus get the dubious benefit of MAD without the unpleasant 'side-effects' of spending an inordinate amount of money developing nuclear weapons, making sure they are safe and secure and eventually taking great pains to dispose of old and/or faulty weapons, or suffering a catastrophic disaster.

I reiterate that disposal is something that must be done with disarmament but it need only be done the once rather than continuously, as the case would be otherwise.

If you know of an aggressive nation/power with nuclear capabilities that rivals the size and sophistication of the UN, I will admit my mistake.

Respectfully,
Representative of the Kingdom of Blern

What about tanks, cruise missiles and so on? A lot of nations can't afford conventional methods of defence, but surely you can not be suggesting that no nation should be allowed to defend itself just because another country can't afford to?

Ah, caught me out there, you're right. I think this thread has convinced me to vote against (I hadn't voted yet, I wasn't totally convinced by my own arguments).


Oh yeah - that would be vast acres of fun. And think of the debates and discussions we could get in to if all NS members were part of the UN!!
Hey, I never said it would be fun! Not all members would have to participate, but all members would have to obey. That way there would be no discrimination between nations who have joined the UN, who will have to obey the resolutions, and those who just do whatever they like. But hey, it's just ideas, no need to be so ... mean about it... (please don't flame this, I'm saying this as a joke).
Heehee, you should be a politician, you're so.... evil/convincing/passionate...

this is the worst UN resolution since the labor unions...a total violation of all sovereignty, and it will weaken every UN nation who uses nukes as a deterent.

and what if we're invaded by extraterrestrial life forms? what then?

if it passes, Machinen will withdraw from the UN, and will then probably nuke the proposer once every UN nation has dismantled their nukes.

-

The People's Republic of Noazia has an incredibly optimistic view on the world. Unfortunately I also think they are as naive as a jackass!

This is the worst resolution I've yet seen. Do you really want the dangerous, non-UN rogue nations to be the only ones with Nuclear weapons??!?!?!?

Come on!! Think about it. Sure in theory it would be great if ALL nations would completely disarm, have tea, and frolic through the meadows together, but it just isn't going to happen sorry.

I, for one, would like to keep my defensive armaments.

Thank you!

The People's Republic of Noazia has an incredibly optimistic view on the world. Unfortunately I also think they are as naive as a jackass!

This is the worst resolution I've yet seen. Do you really want the dangerous, non-UN rogue nations to be the only ones with Nuclear weapons??!?!?!?

Come on!! Think about it. Sure in theory it would be great if ALL nations would completely disarm, have tea, and frolic through the meadows together, but it just isn't going to happen sorry.

I, for one, would like to keep my defensive armaments.

Thank you!

Exactly!

And my motto has the word "nukes" in it too!

Think of all the benefits you could bestow on your people if you didn't maintain inventories of horrible, expensive weapons that have no purpose except to destroy the planet. All will follow your example when they see the obvious economic advantages.

Ah, caught me out there, you're right. I think this thread has convinced me to vote against (I hadn't voted yet, I wasn't totally convinced by my own arguments).


Wow! I changed someone's mind!! Go me :}


Hey, I never said it would be fun! Not all members would have to participate, but all members would have to obey. That way there would be no discrimination between nations who have joined the UN, who will have to obey the resolutions, and those who just do whatever they like. But hey, it's just ideas, no need to be so ... mean about it... (please don't flame this, I'm saying this as a joke).
Heehee, you should be a politician, you're so.... evil/convincing/passionate...

I was being serious. I like the debates and discussions that go on here, and with what - 900,000 nations or something like that - can you imagine what fun we could have?

And I hope you meant the politician thing as out of character, cause I will have you know that I, Toriella Thiten the Third, am actually quite a distinguished politician. (And some people do call me evil, but only as a gesture of endearment!)

How can over 7000 of us feel the need to live in the shadow of fear? People speak of a need for nuclear capability to ward off terrorists, but there has never and will never be a situation which will call for the total, long lasting destruction of a nuclear weapon.

They have no benifit. We can and will defend ourselves from those who oppose the UN and threaten peace, with our armies and weaponary that are required. It is time our nations accepted the truth about mass destruction, it's posistion in todays world and gracefully bowed out of this era. Technology has moved forward, and would do at a greater extent with the kind of funding we pump into our nuclear weapons, they are not the way forward for our generation and the next, to keep up this pretence of security behind fear is to wait expectantly for the next war. If we keep living like this, that is what will happen, time and again.

Disarm. everybody, not just for the sake of global secruity, or for a sustainable environment for the future, but to show common sense is not dead. Vote for this resolution.

this is the worst UN resolution since the labor unions...a total violation of all sovereignty, and it will weaken every UN nation who uses nukes as a deterent.

and what if we're invaded by extraterrestrial life forms? what then?

if it passes, Machinen will withdraw from the UN, and will then probably nuke the proposer once every UN nation has dismantled their nukes.

-

Ok - I understand that this resolution is causing some heated debates, but maybe you could be a touch more polite as to the way you express your distate about it. I am sure the person who proposed it worked long and hard in doing so, and deserves the respect of all of us for putting in the work, and the respect you would expect as a leader of your government and a member of the UN.

And if we are invaded by aliens, attacking them with nuclear weapons is not going to actually help at all. If they can fly through the harsh and inhospitable environment of space then I am not convinced they will be wiped out by a simple nuclear weapon. And on top of that shooting nuclear weapons at Aliens is not exactly something I would consider a good idea. But that might just be me!

Think of all the benefits you could bestow on your people if you didn't maintain inventories of horrible, expensive weapons that have no purpose except to destroy the planet. All will follow your example when they see the obvious economic advantages.

Or they will see a helpless nation that can not retaliate when attacked with nuclear weapons. And maybe they will find a whole new way of bolstering the economy through blackmail or by attacking the other nation and taking over.

Why isn't there some addendum that states individual members of the UN would disarm, but the UN would retain Nuclear arms for defensive purposes only? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Why isn't there some addendum that states individual members of the UN would disarm, but the UN would retain Nuclear arms for defensive purposes only? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

I hope that when the next nuclear weapons ban is submitted that its authors consider this a good alternative.

We think this is the only way. The UNO must get the control over all nukes from their members and try to convince the other states to begin dismanteling.

This weappons could be used against members or no-members that attack an aother country.

I think it is not a good idea, if states like France give their nukes away and states like the USA and Israel posses WMD.

Who knows - perhaps Bush IV. or Sharon III. tell the americans that Europeans are sons of the antichrist and have to be distroyed. 51% of the voters would believe this...

We feel better, if we know that we are able to defend us - even against "friends".

The dismantaling of nuclear weapons would leave many nations unprotected. Many nations use nuclear weapons because they are the only way they can protect them selves. Our nation does not agree with this resolution.

I think it is not a good idea, if states like France give their nukes away and states like the USA and Israel posses WMD.

Who knows - perhaps Bush IV. or Sharon III. tell the americans that Europeans are sons of the antichrist and have to be distroyed. 51% of the voters would believe this...

We feel better, if we know that we are able to defend us - even against "friends".

Ignoring the general-forumesque conjuration of the election, your argument makes some sense.

Why isn't there some addendum that states individual members of the UN would disarm, but the UN would retain Nuclear arms for defensive purposes only? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Because the possiblity exists that two UN states might be fighting each other, and the UN would have to make a choice between the two when it comes to using the missiles?

Unless there is something I am missing?

First off, I would like to say that we can't control anything outside the UN and this is a fact. So all we can do is be ready and have plains for those who use nuclear force. I feel that there are more effect ways with dealing with the problem than to use nuclear weapons and do a planet a favor by not nuking it. To use them as to derterents well to me is like using fire to put out fire, just making things worse and history has taught us that all they do is create a stalemate and fear till a nation gives up or falls apart. This is why it is not a good solutions and in the end nuclear weapons help no one. Yeah they kill a lot of people but worse case scenro is that a nuke is fired and then a nuke is fired in responce and guess what people have just made a place unhabitable. We should work for something a little safe for people and find a better defense to protect us from space and from nations that would do us harm.

Thank you for your time,

InfinityX

:sniper: Our nation thinks nuclear weapons are power and we have no intention of getting rid of them.

The Mawr Penaig of Barcud Coch feels that nuclear weapons are just another way for large countries to take advantage of those who lack the resources that they do. Banning nuclear weapons may have a slightly adverse effect on those nations that rely on Uranium for their economy, but it will still be needed for nuclear power plants.

Barcud Coch is a nation that does not believe that nuclear weapons are needed to make a point.

Or they will see a helpless nation that can not retaliate when attacked with nuclear weapons. And maybe they will find a whole new way of bolstering the economy through blackmail or by attacking the other nation and taking over.

If the resolution is passed, you wouldn't need to worry about other countries attacking you with WMD in the first place, which means you wouldn't have to retaliate? What good is it anyway if you attack their country? That only leads to other countries maybe getting involved, and eventually, it'll be yet another world war, even bigger and more deadly than the last.

Why isn't there some addendum that states individual members of the UN would disarm, but the UN would retain Nuclear arms for defensive purposes only? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Entirely agree. Now please whip up a proposal draft!

Unless banned outright, nuclear arms seek to propagate themselves in nations that believe deterance is the only option for security. Considering that there is such an international stigma on nuclear arms, and that any implementation of this horrible weapon would be immediately responded to by all member nations that agree to this legislation, I see no need for security based on the archaic principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.
By continuing the storage and maintenance of nuclear arms, we are creating a subset of individuals who will fight to keep sed weapons in action - not out of reason, but out of their own personal interest. These individuals, technicians, scientists, military personell, are easily blinded by technological ferver. Just because something is capable of being produced, doesn't mean that it necessarily should be.
The argument often used by proponents of nuclear weaponry, that if weapons are banned, then sed weapons will be used maliciously, only applies to situations of extreme tension between nations where nuclear conflict is a palpable potentiallity. Given that all nations have witnessed, either first or second hand, the brute and uncomprimising force of nuclear attack, it is hard to imagine that any nation would resort to such an option. Any statement that argues with the aforementioned point, by attempting to proove that certain nations are more likely to unleash a nuclear strike due to the character of sed nations, is fueled by either xenophobic, militaristic, nationalist, ethnocentric, offensively theologic, or outright racist ideology and should therefore be disregarded.

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.

OOC: I do find it interesting that the real U.N. are more hard nose regarding Nuclear disarmament than the virtual U.N.

I also find it interesting that those who would bash the real U.N. regarding it's weakness in Nuclear disarmament, are the same people trying to shoot down this Proposal, which is to strengthen the virtual U.N.'s ability to disarm.

is that iRonic or is that eRonical?




6 points down and a day left.

Only if 3 points waver and change their minds.

If the resolution is passed, you wouldn't need to worry about other countries attacking you with WMD in the first place, which means you wouldn't have to retaliate? What good is it anyway if you attack their country? That only leads to other countries maybe getting involved, and eventually, it'll be yet another world war, even bigger and more deadly than the last.

Not to bring up the topic again, but the non-UN member states are what I worry about. I am pretty confident that none of the UN states are going to attack me, even if I throw all my nukes in the bin. But the non-UN member states - they scare me a little. And I would like some protection against them.

OOC: I do find it interesting that the real U.N. are more hard nose regarding Nuclear disarmament than the virtual U.N.


(OOC) Not to make this sound like this is a game, but the UN is more hard-nosed because it has to deal with the real consequences of nuclear bombs going up all over the place. Here in the wonderful world of NS the only reality we have to deal with is being told bombs are going up.

Even outside the game - in the real world - I believe that everyone having bombs is better than one single nation having them - but I am also a strong proponent of global disarmament cause no one having the bomb is safer.

However within the game I would much rather have the defence of them than leave myself open to an attack, even if the attack is only virtual.
(/OOC)

Not all nations share the UN's values. Perhaps the non-UN nations maintan nuclear arsenals merely to deter the UN from imposing its agenda on them. Those nations would have no more need for such weapons if the UN no longer possessed them.

My nation is worried about the part of the proposal which states that the maximum time for disarment would be 5 years. We beleive that this is not enough time considering that some nations have quite large nuclear stockpiles. We are worried that if nations are rushed into disarment the proper precautions may not be taken. We would like to see this part of the resolution changed to 15-20 years so that the whole matter can be done carefully at a controlled pace. It is important not to rush in a matter such as this.

The problem with banning nuclear weapons is that is if all of the members of the UN ban WMD, we will be open to attack. Unless i read the Resolution wrong i beleive that if we wanted to be truley safe we would have to dissarm all of the countries.

I voted against it simply because the UN General Assembly is NOT ALLOWED TO BAN things or DEMAND aything.

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.)
...
<snipped for space>

Mikitivity, I appreciated this. Although I am an American, I share your complaint that some people are letting their over-narrow perspective blind them to the other folks here.

As it happens, I do remember the A-bomb films you mention. I also remember being made to practise "duck and cover" in my grammar school, and the bomb drill every other month in addition to the state-mandated fire drills. Our janitors clocked themselves stacking heavy tables on an angle against the long basement wall opposite the basement windows, while others fastened the heavy shutters across those windows. We all had to squeeze behind the tables as fast as we could -- and no, there wasn't enough safe space for us all. This was supposed to be temporary while our city raised money for bomb shelters in all the schools. A number of those bomb drills ended with several children, who suddenly realized the implication of not being in the coveted lean-to of tables, wetting themselves or worse, while many of the rest of us were quietly nauseous and terrified. And of course, some of us simply had no idea why we were crouching in the basement from "The Enemy". Also, let's not forget the regular Civil Defence drills on the radio and TV, and sometimes even in the stores and theaters. If we weren't oblivious to the world, we just couldn't get away from the feeling that we might not become grandparents -- or even parents.

For those or you who are too young to remember this stuff, don't ask why we rehearsed such futile nonsense. It was a more trusting time; we imagined that it was only other governments that disseminated propaganda to control its citizens. The official government li(n)e was that we had every chance of surviving a nuclear war and these "simple precautions" would increase that likelihood. For a long time no one told us about the way our nearest mushroom cloud (about 7 miles away) would produce a heat-blast and a series of fire-storms that would incinerate us, our basement lean-to, the basement, the school, and the whole community. Only gradually did the propaganda fall under a deluge of information about the realities of nuclear weapons.

Moving forward to the Cuban Missile Crisis, my family listened to radio every free moment in case negotiations failed. On the most crucial day, we all stayed home; my parents decided that if we were going to die, we were going to die together. We found out later that most of my neighbours did the same.

Did what is encompassed in the world outlined in those 2 examples make us safe? Were the Soviets less likely to bomb us because of that fear? Were we less likely to bomb them because of it? We'd have to ask the politicians of the time -- the ones who were promised safety in the event of a nuclear war, deep in their bomb-proof bunkers.

Now, the things I've described were all in RL, where the terror caused to individuals and families might mean something to someone. So I'm tempted to address this issue by discussing the pros and cons of nuclear weapons as I would do in RL -- the firestorms, the fallout, the weeks and months of sickness and slow death, the innocent deaths, the inescapability of causing so much collateral damage and even "friendly fire" with a weapon that acts as nuclear weapons act. And there is the question I can never escape: who really wins a war if nation A is bombed into the stone age by nation B, only for nation B (and half the rest of the world) to enter a few decades of diseases and deformities caused by irradiation? Why is a pyrrhic victory better than any other kind of near-extinction? If we insist on looking at this resolution as a RP issue, these points still must be faced.

But NS is not like RL. In NS, individuals are ignored as a rule, and the only danger to your nation is if it violates so many major rules that you tick off the Mods and they delete you. Below that in rank is annoying a delegate or founder and being banned, or maybe annoying your region or a forum so that you get flamed. "Nations" are safe; even when my region was invaded, my nation was not.

So the danger is to regions, not nations. So let me ask everyone in favour of keeping nukes, when is the last time you ever saw or heard of a region being invaded by nations using nukes? How about seeing or hearing of a region-invasion being turned aside by nuclear weapons? Me neither.

I've seen quite a few invasions now; nations swarming in in a carefully timed migration, and voting for one of their number to take over. I've also seen them repelled by voting, either by numbers of defenders, or by native nations that joined the UN and supported the native delegate, but never have I seen an invasion repelled with nukes. I've read a fair bit of brag and empty words about nukes, but that doesn't count.

So, if we can't use nuclear weapons for anything except bragging rights, why keep them? Fundamentalist terrorists and rogue nations might also get some, and then they'd have bragging rights too. So? In the end, the only way anyone will invade my nation is if I tell them how, and the only way they'll invade my region is if they trick the delegate and the founder, and even if they succeed it will be short-lived.

Nuclear weapons serve no useful purpose in NS, and they should be banned.
Please vote in support of this proposal to ban nuclear weapons. Thank you.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

You're inherently forgetting one thing people do on here: Roleplaying. A lot of us do it. You'rer arguement is not taking into account that we are supposed to be roleplaying as though real nations in some areas, and many of us do. I've heard of a couple of nations banned for roleplaying themselves breaking UN rules when they were UN members.

So, when you add that crucial element, your entire arguement becomes baseless and falls apart. Consider it next time.

I voted against it simply because the UN General Assembly is NOT ALLOWED TO BAN things or DEMAND aything.
You're new, so I'll cut you some slack ... but not much. Go read the UN FAQ. You'll find that the UN can do damn near anything they want, as long as it gets voted in by the membership. Don't confuse the NSUN with the RLUN. They ain't the same.

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

Silly "argument". You want to trot out the "...people kill people" cannard? OK, let's look at it.

The problem is, people aren't some standard issue of mind and body, they come in varieties. In addition to the nice ones, some of them are homicidal maniacs, or violent, or hateful, or spiteful, or greedy, or nasty, or sadistic. If I have to share a room with someone who lacks impulse control and suffers from a bad temper and an inflated sense of his own importance, I'd prefer it if the most dangerous thing he could lay his hands on is a plastic chair rather than an AK-47. And if I have to share a world with a nation led by someone like that, I'd rather that the best he could get to equip his military is the usual "let's play soldiers in the desert" stuff, rather than a nuclear arsenal sufficient to remove Greenland from the map.

"People kill people"? You bet, but that doesn't mean we should make them more efficient and equip them to excel at it.

You're inherently forgetting one thing people do on here: Roleplaying. A lot of us do it. You'rer arguement is not taking into account that we are supposed to be roleplaying as though real nations in some areas, and many of us do. I've heard of a couple of nations banned for roleplaying themselves breaking UN rules when they were UN members.


First, I thought Pure Thought's post was amazing, but then I'm always fascinated by the 1930s through 1960s. The literature through this period is pretty telling.

Second, I think he / she did a good job intermixing real-life observations with fantasy ones.

Consider for a minute that perhaps in Pure Thought, the people there are afraid not of their own weapons, but an attack by another nation. They may or may not have them, but there is enough of an accounting there that perhaps the ambassador feels that the story of a child growing up and being taught to duck and cover (in the early days of their understanding of nuclear weapons) should remind us that while we have an nation to provide security to our citizens, that we have an obligation to find a way to provide a threat free environment (or at least as much of one as possible).

While nations will disagree or agree, I for one think Pure Thought's "story" does an excellent job at explaining why some of our societies feel mutual assured destruction doctrines are unwise. It has been said that we are wrong ... this story at least offers insight into our position.

I'm willing to accept that nations still feel MAD is a good policy, but I'd hope that they can try to walk in my shoes as well, and understand why the people of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity disagree with that.

You're inherently forgetting one thing people do on here: Roleplaying. A lot of us do it. You'rer arguement is not taking into account that we are supposed to be roleplaying as though real nations in some areas, and many of us do. I've heard of a couple of nations banned for roleplaying themselves breaking UN rules when they were UN members.

So, when you add that crucial element, your entire arguement becomes baseless and falls apart. Consider it next time.

I "inherently" forgot nothing. I counted on it. But you can't have it both ways. If you say we're role-playing, then you have to accept that we can choose to role-play sufficient and effective replacements for threatening nuclear war. We can even role-play that they work. If we do that, all the empty threats to use nuclear weapons are just that: empty. Last I heard, the UN hasn't passed any resolutions telling us how we may or may not use our imaginations. If/When they do, they will go from being a RP UN, and become a self-regarding, pompous hall-monitor fit only to be mocked and ignored. "Consider it next time."

and become a self-regarding, pompous hall-monitor fit only to be mocked and ignored.
... become? We're there, dude!

Someone once said to me: 'Guns don't kill people, the bullet does'.

I said: 'Thats wrong. Your decision is what kills the person, the gun is the final choice and the bullet is fate'.
:sniper:


Think about that on a global scale.

I "inherently" forgot nothing. I counted on it. But you can't have it both ways. If you say we're role-playing, then you have to accept that we can choose to role-play sufficient and effective replacements for threatening nuclear war. We can even role-play that they work. If we do that, all the empty threats to use nuclear weapons are just that: empty. Last I heard, the UN hasn't passed any resolutions telling us how we may or may not use our imaginations. If/When they do, they will go from being a RP UN, and become a self-regarding, pompous hall-monitor fit only to be mocked and ignored. "Consider it next time."

There are sufficient replacements for nuclear weapons. They are even more destructive and usually used on a planet from orbit. I've used that technique a few times myself. It costs less and the country ends up a glass crater anyway. Be careful what you wish for.

There was no hint of roleplaying I found in your post. In fact, a lot of the elements I found were purely OOC. Even now, looking at it, the only amounts of RP consideration are immediately overshadowed by OOC comments that follow them. I'l even quote a few examples to you:

But NS is not like RL. In NS, individuals are ignored as a rule, and the only danger to your nation is if it violates so many major rules that you tick off the Mods and they delete you. Below that in rank is annoying a delegate or founder and being banned, or maybe annoying your region or a forum so that you get flamed. "Nations" are safe; even when my region was invaded, my nation was not.

That's not considering roleplaying anymore than to mentioned the possibility of ignoring someone, and most of it deals with OOC mechanics.

So the danger is to regions, not nations. So let me ask everyone in favour of keeping nukes, when is the last time you ever saw or heard of a region being invaded by nations using nukes? How about seeing or hearing of a region-invasion being turned aside by nuclear weapons? Me neither.

Once again, not roleplaying. Not in the least. This is talking about region invasions, which is pulled almost completely without a roleplaying aspect really involved and then briefly mentions something about nukes being involved. When you look at how region invasions are done, the nuke comments are both non sequitor and are relating something that is actually impossible when taken in context.

I've seen quite a few invasions now; nations swarming in in a carefully timed migration, and voting for one of their number to take over. I've also seen them repelled by voting, either by numbers of defenders, or by native nations that joined the UN and supported the native delegate, but never have I seen an invasion repelled with nukes. I've read a fair bit of brag and empty words about nukes, but that doesn't count.

In this, you pretty much sum up how it is done and repelled. Considering no roleplaying is really involved, the part about nukes is unrelated. Nukes are not used in that method because you can't use them OOCly to do that. It's a case of something that doesn't involve roleplay being brought up in support of a proposal that affects roleplay.

So, if we can't use nuclear weapons for anything except bragging rights, why keep them? Fundamentalist terrorists and rogue nations might also get some, and then they'd have bragging rights too. So? In the end, the only way anyone will invade my nation is if I tell them how, and the only way they'll invade my region is if they trick the delegate and the founder, and even if they succeed it will be short-lived.

And this is not even related to the concerns brought up earlier, like the rest of what I quoted. This has nothing to do with roleplaying at all, but to do with a bunch of people using their "nations" to invade a "region" just because they feel like taking it over and don't want to actually RP anything.

Nuclear weapons serve no useful purpose in NS, and they should be banned.

Neither do militaries, technology levels, expanding into other territories, basically any form of weaponry, etc. Under that logic, we should ban just about everything because, as you said, "it serves no useful purpose." At least, outside of roleplaying it doesn't.

You want roleplaying? Drop by the II or NS forums and read threads there. People set up stores, make military alliances, focus on developing technology, have wars, etc. And all of it "serves no useful purpose in NS," yet people do it anyway. Why? They're doing something called "roleplaying." They're actually playing the roles of their nations as though they are real. That includes getting attacked by terrorists, having civil wars, etc. And all of it you have effectively dismissed as unimportant.

Yes, you have effectively not considered roleplaying in your post. I have yet to see any evidence you have, but I have seen plenty that you have not. The story was a nice start, but what followed it effectively ruined it.

First, I thought Pure Thought's post was amazing, but then I'm always fascinated by the 1930s through 1960s. The literature through this period is pretty telling.

The story was. It started out being a very good post. I was hoping for better.

Second, I think he / she did a good job intermixing real-life observations with fantasy ones.

At first, maybe. But then he got into stuff that doesn't involve roleplaying and effectively ignored it. Go back and read my reply to him above to see the major portions that ignored it and how he destroyed his own arguement. I have yet to see any evidence he actually considered roleplaying when making the part of the arguement that counted.

Consider for a minute that perhaps in Pure Thought, the people there are afraid not of their own weapons, but an attack by another nation. They may or may not have them, but there is enough of an accounting there that perhaps the ambassador feels that the story of a child growing up and being taught to duck and cover (in the early days of their understanding of nuclear weapons) should remind us that while we have an nation to provide security to our citizens, that we have an obligation to find a way to provide a threat free environment (or at least as much of one as possible).

I would like to see that, but it is not realistically possible. Why? There is always one nation willing to conquer the others or cause trouble. And always nations willing to bicker and fight. As long as such exists, it won't happen. And many of them are willing to use nukes or even stronger weapons in theiir wars.

While nations will disagree or agree, I for one think Pure Thought's "story" does an excellent job at explaining why some of our societies feel mutual assured destruction doctrines are unwise. It has been said that we are wrong ... this story at least offers insight into our position.

Yes. The story, itself, is an effective arguement. But what comes after it is what undermines and eventually destroys that arguement. If he had stuck to just the story, he would have had an arguement I couldn't counter. And I would have admitted it.

I'm willing to accept that nations still feel MAD is a good policy, but I'd hope that they can try to walk in my shoes as well, and understand why the people of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity disagree with that.

The only reason I see MAD as effective is because of these nations willing to use WMD without care about the nations they are targetting. Hell, I'm one of them, part of why I prefer to have none (although I did recently buy some strange nuclear beads for the novelty of it). But, keep in mind that there are nations who won't even have my scruples about it.

An hour to go.

Over 2000 votes down.

It's dead.

Excellent.

As much as i hate nukes, I voted no on this resolution for one simple reason.

This resolution only affects UN members. Plenty of nations are not in the UN. They can still have nukes. Therefore, to balance them, UN member nations need nukes. We don't want to leave our members defenseless against a nuclear attack. It's not the UN's place to handcuff its members.

As much as i hate nukes, I voted no on this resolution for one simple reason.

This resolution only affects UN members. Plenty of nations are not in the UN. They can still have nukes. Therefore, to balance them, UN member nations need nukes. We don't want to leave our members defenseless against a nuclear attack. It's not the UN's place to handcuff its members.

Bingo

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"...


You're absolutely right. Both sides are hard liners.


My logic is, get the Pro-military side to come up with a "if you had to get rid of Nuclear weapons...what would you like in return?"

Then lets see if the pro-peace side are willing to do that in return for a Nuclear free world.



But either way...9 point margin should give both sides a bit of pause.

because as you said "moderation becomes near impossible AFTER THE FACT."

And there will be a "AFTER THE FACT"

Hey Pro-Military, good business practice means that YOUR lawyers write the contracts.

Come up with a pro-military wish list for a nuclear free U.N. (that wont break the economies of any Nations...work out a percentage clause that takes in account of countries...smaller than a 100 million or something like that...just brain storming)...

And see if the Tree hungin, butterfly catching, smelly hippies agree.


Cause someone will word a proposal that will break this impasse...might as well be you.

As much as i hate nukes, I voted no on this resolution for one simple reason.

This resolution only affects UN members. Plenty of nations are not in the UN. They can still have nukes. Therefore, to balance them, UN member nations need nukes. We don't want to leave our members defenseless against a nuclear attack. It's not the UN's place to handcuff its members.

Well...Nuclear bombs are only good if you use them..and if you use them, even just a few...

Almost everyone dies.

So if people that have them, are going to use them, then you having nuclear bombs are not going to do very much except through a few more trillion tons of earth in space.



But you're right. There is no Defensive edge to this proposal that needs to be there (SDI-Space Defense, with a progressive Nation burden would be very OK with me...just brainstorming again)...

And that's to be expected because it was written by the side that wants to get rid of/change/repeal/alter it...

Bad for moderation.


But again, the Myth that the nuclear bomb Win wars or prevents wars is fairly debunked in this brave new world...

or should I say de-Iraq'd?

Well...Nuclear bombs are only good if you use them..and if you use them, even just a few...

Almost everyone dies.

So if people that have them, are going to use them, then you having nuclear bombs are not going to do very much except through a few more trillion tons of earth in space.



But you're right. There is no Defensive edge to this proposal that needs to be there (SDI-Space Defense, with a progressive Nation burden would be very OK with me...just brainstorming again)...

And that's to be expected because it was written by the side that wants to get rid of/change/repeal/alter it...

Bad for moderation.


But again, the Myth that the nuclear bomb Win wars or prevents wars is fairly debunked in this brave new world...

or should I say de-Iraq'd?

Hate to mention this (well, no, not) but I've staved off a few wars with "If you show up, I'm glassing your nation. No compromise, just death."

As a deterrent, it works.

As much as i hate nukes, I voted no on this resolution for one simple reason.

This resolution only affects UN members. Plenty of nations are not in the UN. They can still have nukes. Therefore, to balance them, UN member nations need nukes. We don't want to leave our members defenseless against a nuclear attack. It's not the UN's place to handcuff its members.

Deterrence is not defense !
Nuclear weapons don't give any defense against nuclear weapons.
If you want a defense, you must look for an "SDI" project.

Deterrence is not defense !
Nuclear weapons don't give any defense against nuclear weapons.
If you want a defense, you must look for an "SDI" project.

If I detonate a nuclear weapon in front of incoming nuclear weapons, and the EMP pulse kills the incoming nuclear weapons...

... it's primative, but it is defensive.

[quote]Deterrence is not defense ![quote]


So, if the fear of retaliatory force detters one nation from invading another; maintaining that fear is not considered a defence on the part of the nation not being invaded because that fear is a detterant.

Sorry, but the use of detterants sound like a defence to this NS.
The method employed may not be the same, but the outcome is no different. Either weapons are launched and destroyed before hitting your homeland, or none are fired at all out of fear. In either event, both are defending your NS from enemy weapons.

Deterrence is not defense !

By example, you can be a powerful nuclear armed nation, and still be attacked by terrorists ...

EMP blast can be obtain without nuclear weapon, ICBM are not SAM, and SAM are not detterent.

Tactical use of nuclear weapon is an open door for nuclear escalation, and once the detterent part is over, what do you make ?
You play Armagueddon ?

Nuclear weapon as defensive weapon are as useful as 20 pounds of dynamite around your chest against robbery.

PS : And sorry for my poor english.

Ladies and Gentlemen, nuclear weapons do not deter terrorists or enemy states I therefore urge all members to vote for this proposition so that we can work towards a safer environment for all.

By example, you can be a powerful nuclear armed nation, and still be attacked by terrorists ...

EMP blast can be obtain without nuclear weapon, ICBM are not SAM, and SAM are not detterent.

Tactical use of nuclear weapon is an open door for nuclear escalation, and once the detterent part is over, what do you make ?
You play Armagueddon ?

Nuclear weapon as defensive weapon are as useful as 20 pounds of dynamite around your chest against robbery.

PS : And sorry for my poor english.

Ok, I have my strap on bomb.
Someone pulls me in an alley and pulls a gun.
I hold out the dead mans switch and say "Try it. We both die."

Do you think they try for the switch, or go away?

Ladies and Gentlemen, nuclear weapons do not deter terrorists or enemy states I therefore urge all members to vote for this proposition so that we can work towards a safer environment for all.

Terrorists, they do not.

Enemy states - they sure as hell do, I've done it.

Ok, I have my strap on bomb.
Someone pulls me in an alley and pulls a gun.
I hold out the dead mans switch and say "Try it. We both die."

Do you think they try for the switch, or go away?

More exactly :

You're in an alley with your wife, your two childrens, and perhaps some friends of you ...
In a alley, someone with a gun.
You hold out the dead mans switch and say "Try it. We all die."

Really ???

Vastiva's point still holds.

And, no, it will never be amazing that the outcome can be changed by creating a new fact pattern. By doing so you have not disproven your opponent if they were seeking to show that a situation justifying an act can exist.

So, um, Moonriders - do you usually go running into alleys dragging your wife and kids behind you? The question now is, what were you doing in that small back alley with your wife, children and family friends? Not the best of examples

Vastiva's point still holds.

And, no, it will never be amazing that the outcome can be changed by creating a new fact pattern. By doing so you have not disproven your opponent if they were seeking to show that a situation justifying an act can exist.

The fact pattern was false.
The choosen fact pattern is dark alley, one against one. To be true, he had to choose a public area full of people.

But in the limited case, the problem is "do your system work 100% of time" ?

Nuclear weapon is not a one against one case. It's you against the rest of the World, being agressor or defender.

If I'm a neutral country with nuclear weapons in the vicinity of the nuclear agressor, the best thing I can do is to launch my own weapons against the same target to hope I can minimize the effects of the retaliation. Because all nuclear weapons how explodes in the aggressor country will have pretty bad effects on my own country.

Well, you WOULD have to be rather silly to launch a nuclear strike on the nation right next door to you, and they'd have to be suicidal to launch one at you, you'd be better off with full-scale military invasion. And a nuclear conflict is not necessarily one nation against the world whether they started the war or not. Nuclear conflict can be between just two nations.
If the strike-back systems don't work 100% of the time, say they only work 50% of the time. Then that means that if someone nukes me, there's a 50% chance of my preprogrammed nuclear retaliation happening, and a 50% of it not. But as with all military software, all precautions should be taken to ensure that it works 100% of the time

Sorry for my poor english, but I tried to explain :

I'm a neutral nation, and country A is in my vicinity.

Country A launch a nuclear attach on country B on the other side of the ocean.

If I want to protect my nation, I will have to launch an nuclear attack on country A to minimize the effect of retaliation from country B on country A, because the effects of a nuclear attack on A will cause damages to my country.

it is all well and good for those who awont get invaded every ten minutes if they dont have nuclear weapons but for the little guy it is essensial

luckily it isnt going to pass

We would like to point out that all efficient anti-ICBM defense systems (able to shoot down anything other than extremely old and outdated liquid-propellant missiles) use nuclear warheads themselves. Thus, passing this resolution would not only remove the retaliation capability of UN members, but would also render their defense systems useless against any nuclear attack by a non-UN state.

Unless banned outright, nuclear arms seek to propagate themselves in nations that believe deterance is the only option for security. Considering that there is such an international stigma on nuclear arms, and that any implementation of this horrible weapon would be immediately responded to by all member nations that agree to this legislation, I see no need for security based on the archaic principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.
By continuing the storage and maintenance of nuclear arms, we are creating a subset of individuals who will fight to keep sed weapons in action - not out of reason, but out of their own personal interest. These individuals, technicians, scientists, military personell, are easily blinded by technological ferver. Just because something is capable of being produced, doesn't mean that it necessarily should be.
The argument often used by proponents of nuclear weaponry, that if weapons are banned, then sed weapons will be used maliciously, only applies to situations of extreme tension between nations where nuclear conflict is a palpable potentiallity. Given that all nations have witnessed, either first or second hand, the brute and uncomprimising force of nuclear attack, it is hard to imagine that any nation would resort to such an option. Any statement that argues with the aforementioned point, by attempting to proove that certain nations are more likely to unleash a nuclear strike due to the character of sed nations, is fueled by either xenophobic, militaristic, nationalist, ethnocentric, offensively theologic, or outright racist ideology and should therefore be disregarded.

Pfft, I would point out, sir, that you appearantly have no experience with the international happenings around nationstates... So your entire culminating final point is a product of your own ignorance... "it is hard to imagine" indeed... It is also hard to imagine that a nation would act invasively merely for sport to rape the population of another nation... However, such things DO happen...

First, I thought Pure Thought's post was amazing, but then I'm always fascinated by the 1930s through 1960s. The literature through this period is pretty telling.

Second, I think he / she did a good job intermixing real-life observations with fantasy ones.

Consider for a minute that perhaps in Pure Thought, the people there are afraid not of their own weapons, but an attack by another nation. They may or may not have them, but there is enough of an accounting there that perhaps the ambassador feels that the story of a child growing up and being taught to duck and cover (in the early days of their understanding of nuclear weapons) should remind us that while we have an nation to provide security to our citizens, that we have an obligation to find a way to provide a threat free environment (or at least as much of one as possible).

While nations will disagree or agree, I for one think Pure Thought's "story" does an excellent job at explaining why some of our societies feel mutual assured destruction doctrines are unwise. It has been said that we are wrong ... this story at least offers insight into our position.

I'm willing to accept that nations still feel MAD is a good policy, but I'd hope that they can try to walk in my shoes as well, and understand why the people of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity disagree with that.

Mik, I mostly agree with you... But the reason I am unable to take that final step is in relation to direct legal power and jurisdiction of the UN... effectively, the UN has no power over MAD, except to decide whether or not it begins with a "M"... The other general problem with most of the supporters of this ban is another reason... The majority continue to think that this ban would be international, and that the NSUN is capable of enacting an international ban... Not understanding that (OOC:Unlike the RL UN, which is fully international in scope, and therefore, while not having as much direct authority, possess the jurisdictional oversight of the entire world) thus NSUN lacks full jurisdictional authority over the entirety of international affairs in this world. And that a "ban on nuclear weapons" only effects the UN member body minority, and not the entirety of NationStates.

As such, only has the power to decide whether or not it is Mutually Assured Destruction, or Assured Destruction...

This is a sad day for the UN

This is a sad day for the UN

But an historic one nevertheless. A resolution that actually doesn't pass??

Cave Canem

Relegovia proudly states in a public announcement that it is proud of the UN for voting on this issue and wishes that all UN members vote to ban nuclear weapons.

While Relegovia is not a UN member, and while Relegovia possesses it's own arsenal, Relegovia would be glad to see all UN nations lose thier own nuclear weapons, as only responsible countries like Relegovia should retain all weapons of mass destruction.

But an historic one nevertheless. A resolution that actually doesn't pass??
from NSwiki's UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline):

Failed - Self-Support Mar 25 2003
Failed - TO PROTECT Mar 30 2003
Failed - Curb Illicit Arms Transfers Jun 10 2003
Failed - The Cato Acts Sep 25 2003
Failed - The Bill of No Rights Sep 30 2003
Failed - The GenetiCorp Convention Oct 11 2003
Failed - HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE ?? Dec 2003
Failed - Internet Advertising Pop-ups Jan 10 2004
Failed - Space Defense Initiative Apr 20 2004
Failed - End Nuclear Proliferation Act Jun 10 2004
Failed - Ban of Death Penalty Jun 27 2004

There may be others - some of the early stuff is hard to find.

Because the possiblity exists that two UN states might be fighting each other, and the UN would have to make a choice between the two when it comes to using the missiles?

Unless there is something I am missing?

Since they're both UN states, neither posesses nuclear weapons. Why would the UN need to choose and use nukes? My original assertion was that the UN should retain them for defensive purposes. If a nuclear arms posessing non-UN nation were to threaten a UN state, then the UN would back them with nuclear capabilities.

Pfft, I would point out, sir, that you appearantly have no experience with the international happenings around nationstates... So your entire culminating final point is a product of your own ignorance... "it is hard to imagine" indeed... It is also hard to imagine that a nation would act invasively merely for sport to rape the population of another nation... However, such things DO happen...

Pfft, I would like to point out, sir, that, besides being tactless, your post is repetitive, parroting away the same "everyone else is ignorant" line which is so common in your posts as of late. You don't have to pick on nations. You really don't. It's unlikely that this nation will take an active role in the forum debate anyway. No "beatdown" is necessary.

from NSwiki's UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline):

Failed - End Nuclear Proliferation Act Jun 10 2004

There may be others - some of the early stuff is hard to find.

There is a more recent one as well:

UNA Resolution Summary Table (http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/Ressummary.pdf)

The End Nuclear Proliferation Act is an important reference here.

Guys, you are forgetting one important thing: What will nations replace the nukes with? Nuclear weapons are far from the most destructive weapons humanity has thought up (my vote goes for the cannon that fires black holes, but the warhead that causes a miniature big bang and the missile that cuases a star to go into a supernova are close seconds).

Before you ban nukes, try to think how nations will replace the nukes and how destructive the result will be. At this time in the real world, we have the technology to produce antimatter at a rate of one quark at a time. They don't live long. But advance that twenty or thirty years and it may be producing antimatter in enough quantities to build a bomb. If you think a hydrogen bomb is bad, keep in mind a matter-antimatter reaction has, iirc, 100-1000 times the destructive force and radius. It takes longer to develop and much stronger economies, so the bigger nations automatically have a huge advantage over the smaller nations.

Before you ban one WMD, try to make sure people won't replace it with something bigger.

Hi everyone, I'd just like to introduce myself, I'm Pete McTashinall, head of the UN mission of the Constitutional Monarchy of Stripe-lovers. Sorry, I'm late, know I missed most of the debate but, well, I'm new on the job and my secretary's lousy and the private jet wouldn't start and... oh, right. Apologies madam speaker.
*frantic shuffling of notes*
OK, we the people of the Constitutional Monarchy of Stripe-lovers must regretfully vote no to this proposal. Whilst being firm believers, as a small peace-loving nation, in both the curbing of the threat of nuclear weapons and international government we do not feel this resolution is the best way to acheive its stated aims. We feel that a total ban on nuclear weapons, even if successful, would serve only to hold UN nations hostage to non-UN members.
...
Oh, that's already been said about 50 times? Erm, OK, well, so, still we feel that whilst nuclear weapons continue to exist outside the UN there is a danger that if not eliminated by posession of weapons within the UN structure is at least mitigated. In times of peace complete disarmament may be plausable, however since our intelligence agency was formed a couple of weeks ago we have been horrified at the current state of instability (dare we mention the Gaza Strip, Sinear, Liberia-Schilgovia or Glemte Hage?).

Given this we feel that the best solution would be for a UN controlled stockpile with strict provisions for usage (only in case of nuclear attack or of highly-unlikely, unforseen, massively dangerous threats such as asteroids, extra-terrestrials or a comeback by Abba, for example). We also accept, however, that the reality is that such a resolution would be even less likely than this one to pass. As such we offer the following measures for discussion as a possible alternative:

1) Strict limits on the number of warheads that can be posessed by nations (precise limits to be determined)
2) Any nation with a history of agressive activity or fragrant violations of UN resolutions would be forbidden from possessing nuclear weapons
3) All states would agree to strict non-proliferation of nuclear technology which can be easily adapted to weapons production to other UN nation and any and all nuclear-related proliferation to non-UN nations or non-govenmental groups. Any breaches would result in being forbidden to posess nuclear weapons (this is essentially an extension of "The Nuclear Terrorism Act")
4) The strictest possible sanctions for any use of nuclear weapons in a non-defensive manner (not sure exactly what "strictest possible" would entail, my dog ate my copy of "International Law for Dummies")

I humbly thank the Assembly for allowing our people to voice their view. I hope our small size and recent arrival in this august body will not hinder their fair hearing.


Oh, and does anyone know where the toilet is?

I'm voting no on this resolution. My nation's long-term defense plan is to build a few nukes and hope that serves as a deterrent- we simply cannot and do not desire to build up a large conventional army. Nukes are the cheap and safe way for us to protect ourselves.

Pfft, I would like to point out, sir, that, besides being tactless, your post is repetitive, parroting away the same "everyone else is ignorant" line which is so common in your posts as of late. You don't have to pick on nations. You really don't. It's unlikely that this nation will take an active role in the forum debate anyway. No "beatdown" is necessary.

Claiming someone is "ignorant" is not a beatdown... The assumption that "being ignorant" of a situation is an insult is something I do not buy into like most of the p.c. community... Ignorant merely means lacking knowledge, not stupid... As such, it is a valid and true claim, as their language certainly indicates.

As such, this resolution is incapable of performing the following tasks:
1. Banning the use of nuclear weapons from the International Community...
- Since this "community" includes UN and non-UN states... And this ban does not effect non-UN states.
2. Bring peace to the world.
- Once against above, this proposal has no effect on enemy states outside the UN, as such, in no way does it impact any form of peace.
3. Protect the enviroment...
- Once again, this ban does not and cannot remove nukes from the planet, thus, the proposal will still leave nukes in the hands of people who can use them and therefore impact the enviroment.
4. Provide for the safty of citizens.
- The ban still leaves non-UN states with these weapons, and anytime one becomes an aggressor, it still has no impact on your own citizens safty.

90% of the "supporters" state one or more of the above in their support... As such, they are ignorant of the balance of power, the scope the NSUN covers in international affairs, and how much power the NSUN has over the planet.

It's not my opinion, its a statement of fact, and it's not a "smackdown" it is a verbal smack in the face... I could care less if this was rightist or lefitst proposals... If either one acts like an ignorant fool, they are going to get labled as such... As such, I would hope they take this constructively to open their eyes to the political realities they are facing, rather than close them to buy into some party-line.

I'll refrain from considering them stupid, till they have matured and still will refuse to understand the international whole of NationStates...

Hi, Ladies and Gentelmen!

A lot of people among you said that it will be dangerous to have no more nuclear weapon. What UN must make is not to cancel this decrete, but to developpe systems to destroy nuclear weapon just after they are shut, without danger for global environment, or perhaps only for the state which shut it! So nuclear weapons become a danger for only the state which has them!!

from NSwiki's UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline):

Failed - Self-Support Mar 25 2003
Failed - TO PROTECT Mar 30 2003
Failed - Curb Illicit Arms Transfers Jun 10 2003
Failed - The Cato Acts Sep 25 2003
Failed - The Bill of No Rights Sep 30 2003
Failed - The GenetiCorp Convention Oct 11 2003
Failed - HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE ?? Dec 2003
Failed - Internet Advertising Pop-ups Jan 10 2004
Failed - Space Defense Initiative Apr 20 2004
Failed - End Nuclear Proliferation Act Jun 10 2004
Failed - Ban of Death Penalty Jun 27 2004

There may be others - some of the early stuff is hard to find.

OK - I was being vaguely flippant, but thanks for the detail Frisbeeteria!

:)

Claiming someone is "ignorant" is not a beatdown... The assumption that "being ignorant" of a situation is an insult is something I do not buy into like most of the p.c. community... Ignorant merely means lacking knowledge, not stupid... As such, it is a valid and true claim, as their language certainly indicates.

This is being pedantic, although their lack of knowlege may be true, there is no reason to rub it in, that's like stating the fact that someone is disabled very loudly.


As such, this resolution is incapable of performing the following tasks:
1. Banning the use of nuclear weapons from the International Community...
- Since this "community" includes UN and non-UN states... And this ban does not effect non-UN states.
2. Bring peace to the world.
- Once against above, this proposal has no effect on enemy states outside the UN, as such, in no way does it impact any form of peace.
3. Protect the enviroment...
- Once again, this ban does not and cannot remove nukes from the planet, thus, the proposal will still leave nukes in the hands of people who can use them and therefore impact the enviroment.
4. Provide for the safty of citizens.
- The ban still leaves non-UN states with these weapons, and anytime one becomes an aggressor, it still has no impact on your own citizens safty.

90% of the "supporters" state one or more of the above in their support... As such, they are ignorant of the balance of power, the scope the NSUN covers in international affairs, and how much power the NSUN has over the planet.
It's not my opinion, its a statement of fact...



It's not a statement of fact, all those statements are speculations, and therefore cannot be factual, they are opinions, your opinion, which means it may be biased


I'll refrain from considering them stupid, till they have matured and still will refuse to understand the international whole of NationStates...

This line is just patronising anyone who doesn't agree with you, which is just as bad as "considering them stupid." In fact, you contradict yourself because you have already considered them stupid to state that you will refrain from it and that you have presumed that they have not matured.



I'm afraid I have to agree with Powerhungry Chipmunks.

Perhaps banning nuclear warheads would cause the UN nations to be held "hostage" as it were but surly non-UN nations are more likely to create their own nukes because the UN has them. Let me explain.
A nuclear warhead is seen as a status symbol in many ways. Like guns are to petty thugs and criminals, so to are nuclear warheads are to nations, similarly with the car. Many countries on the verge of the economic break-through needed to become industrialsed will be using cars because the West have cars, despite the fact that they are unsafe and dirt machines. Now the Nuclear Bomb and the mushroom cloud are likewise status symbols. Symbols of economic and military power. These symbols are what ecomonicallly weak countries desire, so they can show that they are "equal", if you will, to the major economic powers.
If we as civilised nations get rid of these symbols of gross decadence and power then we are narrowing the gap between the rich nations and the poor nations. This gap needs narrowing, if it were not to narrow than it will widen to such an extent that the poorer nations will use a nuclear weapon to try to narrow the gap themselves.

I know this post is a bit late but it seemed like a good oppurtunity to start using the forums here. Hi all and I hope no one takes offense by this post most of it is my opinion rather than fact.

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, the holy purple cow of the Nomadic People of Jessiecow approve this message:

Amen to that! We as a UN must think about other's especially our neighbor's concerns about this ban. Terrorism is one thing, the un-watned after effects of splitting atoms is another. Your UN neighbor may not agree with you on this issue but, :gundge: afterwards you will both agree that fallout doesn't restrict itself to your territorial boundaries. :eek:
THANK YOU.
"Cows travel so ,therefore we are Nomadic"

A nuclear missile is an offensive weapon, not defensive. How do intend to defend your population with nuclear weapons? Blasting away invaders? Irradiating rebels?

Nations who want to force their domination over others will surely vote against such a propositions.

This is being pedantic, although their lack of knowlege may be true, there is no reason to rub it in, that's like stating the fact that someone is disabled very loudly.

It's not a statement of fact, all those statements are speculations, and therefore cannot be factual, they are opinions, your opinion, which means it may be biased

This line is just patronising anyone who doesn't agree with you, which is just as bad as "considering them stupid." In fact, you contradict yourself because you have already considered them stupid to state that you will refrain from it and that you have presumed that they have not matured.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Powerhungry Chipmunks.

I love how leftists and rightists always change "facts" into "opinions" when it absolute truth fails to line up with their religiously political ideologies.

No, they are not "opinions", they are statements of FACTS... Absolute facts, based on true reality, rather than how you think things are go on in this world.

The NSUN has no direct power over the whole of the international community... That is not an opinion, that is a fact, in that decisions by the NSUN only effect its own membership. A large chunk of the proponents keep stating their opinions from the standpoint that the NSUN can ban the use of these things from all nations... That is a falicious statement based on a lack of knowledge of the scope of power of the NSUN, or a refusal to recognize the truth of NS politics as a whole. (OOC: They think the NSUN is a more powerfull version of the REAL UN...) I preffer, for their benefit, to have, of the two options available, the opinion that they are ignorant, rather than incompitent... Given the data, those are the only two options available that fit the facts...

Being ignorant, is not being disabled... Ignorance is not a synonym of stupidity or retardation... Please learn the language, and what words mean, rather than speak from your hind-end. Being ignorant means LACKING KNOWLEDGE, not incapable of such...

Let's go over them again....

1. Banning the use of nuclear weapons from the International Community...
- Since this "community" includes UN and non-UN states... And this ban does not effect non-UN states.

If this is not the case, how does banning the use of Nuclear Weapoins from NSUN member nations, stop non-NSUN nations using them?

2. Bring peace to the world.
- Once against above, this proposal has no effect on enemy states outside the UN, as such, in no way does it impact any form of peace.

How does a partial ban of these weapons, amongst more peaceful nations of the NSUN, in anyway effect "peace" when it bans them only from the peacemakers, and not the war strewn rogues?

3. Protect the enviroment...
- Once again, this ban does not and cannot remove nukes from the planet, thus, the proposal will still leave nukes in the hands of people who can use them and therefore impact the enviroment.

How does a partial ban in the international community of these weapons, "protect the enviroment" when, even with the ban, the weapons are still there, still have the same capability of destruction, and will still hurt the enviroment if used by nations still not covered in the ban.

4. Provide for the safty of citizens.
- The ban still leaves non-UN states with these weapons, and anytime one becomes an aggressor, it still has no impact on your own citizens safty.

How does banning these weapons from nations protecting their citizens, while they still exist in nations who have no desire as such, and of which this resolution has no possibility of authoritative enforcement upon, amongst non-UN nations, who lay outside of the jurisdictional enforcement as such, in anyway provide "security" to those citizens, who are still in as much danger afterwards as before.

IOW, this resolution does not impact one single point that the proponents of such show forth in their support of said proposal, and therefore all points in support of the ban, with the few exceptions of nations who proport support of such based on hope, are based on ignorance of the lack scope and power of this resolution to accomplish its purposed tasks.

Now, mind you, I have already stated before, that HAD this NSUN the power and authority of complete international jurisdiction, I would be in support as such, for its accomplishment.... It does not (a fact), and therefore I do not.

For those who base their support on hope, I have little to say, Mik is one... He has hope of what it can accomplish... But he clearly indicated he understands and known the hazards as such of his support... But it is his hope that carries him on. Hope is a good thing, we all have hopes... I hope for much everyday, esecially amongst the many things we cannot control... He votes for on the basis of the hope of what it can accomplish... Which is good... I on the other hand will not take that chance... and therefore vote no.

What I have NO sympathy for, is proported support based upon what are nothing more than absolutely falicious statements... Which I hope (there it is again) is based on ignorance of the facts, rather than incapability of understanding the facts.

Absolute FACTS:
1. The NationStates United Nations does not have jurisdiction or power over the entire NationStates world.
2. The NationStates United Nations cannot enforce resolutions over the entire NationStates world.
3. The NationStates United NAtions is not the entire NationStates World...

Therefore interpretations of the influence and power of said passed and the abilities and scope of proposals presented, must have arguments that exist in the pervue of the above three facts, otherwise they are based on ignorance of the above facts, and are therefore falicious.

Go ahead and Ban Nuclean Weapons. We have developed weapons of far greater destruction on our orbiting platform!

ph33r us or pay the price of total annihilation! No one can deny our supreme destiny anymore! The UN is at our mercy!

No serious nation would ever use a nuclear weapon in an attack for the exact reason that they would fear an equally brutal attack. Even if we are the only ones without nuclear weapons, that still means there are fewer in existence. The fewer nuclear weapons in existence, the safer our planet becomes. In the event of nuclear holocaust, all these semantics will fade and the most important issue will become the survival of the species, (or any species) itself.
By banning Nuclear weapons and eventually all weapons of mass destruction we are making this world a safer place for everyone. Also we must set a good example for the rogue and non-aligned states to follow... If the U.N won't do this first, who will? For the sake of us all please endorse this motion.

Her Royal Majesty,
Queen Prachya

Hate to mention this (well, no, not) but I've staved off a few wars with "If you show up, I'm glassing your nation. No compromise, just death."

As a deterrent, it works.

No one can win in a Nuclear holocaust.


So let's hope the other forces think "I'd rather live than stop you"

Cause if they don't....

As such, this resolution is incapable of performing the following tasks:
1. Banning the use of nuclear weapons from the International Community...
- Since this "community" includes UN and non-UN states... And this ban does not effect non-UN states.
This is true, but you do not know that outside nations will follow the standard that the UN sets. It is possible, therefore, this is not fact.

2. Bring peace to the world.
- Once against above, this proposal has no effect on enemy states outside the UN, as such, in no way does it impact any form of peace.

This is strictly a speculation. It certainly would reduce nuclear warfare within UN nations at least.
3. Protect the enviroment...
- Once again, this ban does not and cannot remove nukes from the planet, thus, the proposal will still leave nukes in the hands of people who can use them and therefore impact the enviroment.

The reduction in nuclear weapons would be expected to coincide with reduction is use, so protecting the environment is still a valid argument. The ban is also capable of removing nuclear weapons from the planet, but this circumstance is very unlikely. This is not a fact.

4. Provide for the safty of citizens.
- The ban still leaves non-UN states with these weapons, and anytime one becomes an aggressor, it still has no impact on your own citizens safty.

This doesn't make a lot of sense, but I'll presume that you mean citizens safety is not impacted by the ban. I disagree, again I feel the reduction in nuclear weapons will mean a lower chance of citizens being attacked by other nations. If I can argue against it, then I cannot see how this is a fact.

I love how leftists and rightists always change "facts" into "opinions" when it absolute truth fails to line up with their religiously political ideologies.

I do not confuse religion and politics. I despise the mixing of the two, this is why George Bush decided to ban gay marriage even though marriage is a legal contract and isn't necessarily religious. I love the way you state things as fact in an attempt to deter people from proving you wrong.

The resolution lost anyway, so nuclear weapons will still be legal.

The resolution "Ban nuclear weapons" was defeated 9,706 votes to 7,401.