NationStates Jolt Archive

The following proposal, currently located on page 21 has been resubmitted for approval following a lengthy time off the table.

+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+

Description: Co-Authorship: The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

Whereas the United Nations realizes the need to reduce the threat of nuclear, and chemical weapons, and
Whereas the United Nations wishes to ensure the safety of societies around the globe,
We, the member nations of the Nation States United Nations do hereby:

DESIGNATES that this proposal applies only to weapons of nuclear, or chemical natures hereafter known as NC.
DEFINES initiates as meaning 'first strike'.
ENCOURAGES all UN member nations to enact similar arms reduction pacts with their non-UN military allies.
RECOGNIZE the previously passed resolution 'Elimination of Bio-Weapons'.
ADOPT the following terms of reduced arms:

First Strike Clause: All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy that no NC will be used to initiate an attack against any other Nation State nation. All UN members will retain the right to: launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type, and use NC weapons as retaliation against any NC attack.

'Declaration of War' Clause: Any initiated NC attack against any UN member will be considered a Declaration of War upon the whole UN and met with immediate retaliation.
SC A: Attacked member nations will be eligible for immediate aid of all forms.
SC B: Support shall not extend to UN member nations who initiate NC attacks against other nations.
SC C: Retaliatory attacks should be as minimally destructive as necessary to the defense and/or military success of the attacked member nation.

Arms Reduction Clause: Member nations commit to a 30% reduction of their individual stockpiles of nuclear, and chemical weapons within 10 years.
SC A:This reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable.

International Oversight Council (IOC) Clause: All member nations will present an accounting as to the quantity and security of NC weapons biennially.
SC A: The UN will form the IOC to oversee these reports and security investigations. Any member nations in good standing may apply for positions in this council. The IOC will seat new members once every five years.
SC B: Nations with suspected security concern, receiving 3+ verifiable accusations of mishandling, will consent to security protocol inspections for a period of 2 years.
SC C: Member nations will submit biennial reports of reduction, showing actions taken to properly dispose of weaponry, and account for arms reduced due to aging and/or instability.

Space Exploration Clause: In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.
SC A: No country may keep more than twice the necessary number of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The necessary number will be accessed biennially and included in the stockpile reports submitted to the IOC.

Depleted Uranium Clause: The above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armaments.
SC A: Be it resolved that the matter of depleted uranium armaments will not be further addressed until an equally effective and financially viable option has been adopted individually by more than 45% of the UN member nations.

+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+

For previous discussions regarding this proposal, please visit this topic (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350036).

Well, only a couple of hours on the board and already this proposal has garnered 3 approvals beside my own.

Thank you for the support and please feel free to make comments regarding this proposition.

The following proposal, currently located on page 21 has been resubmitted for approval following a lengthy time off the table.

Hmm. Should be interesting.

+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+

Description: Co-Authorship: The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

Whereas the United Nations realizes the need to reduce the threat of nuclear, and chemical weapons, and
Whereas the United Nations wishes to ensure the safety of societies around the globe,

This is an assumption, and assumptions are dangerous. But a pretty good opening, so keep.

We, the member nations of the Nation States United Nations do hereby:

DESIGNATES that this proposal applies only to weapons of nuclear, or chemical natures hereafter known as NC.

Okay. This leaves out antimatter, energy, siingularity, temporal, and other such weapons that are often far more destructive than nuclear weapons. And antimatter weapons are not that hard for an MT nation to produce if they think about it logically.

DEFINES initiates as meaning 'first strike'.

Why are they striking first with those weapons? Some nations strike with those weapons to survive invaders.

[qupte]ENCOURAGES all UN member nations to enact similar arms reduction pacts with their non-UN military allies.[/quote]

I cannot submit to this because of a treaty I signed, which says I must be the military protection of one nation and use what I can to defend it. That includes WMD. Besides, most non UN nations probably won't agree with it and just use the weapons in reply.

RECOGNIZE the previously passed resolution 'Elimination of Bio-Weapons'.

I won't get on this arguement. Very long and I feel very foolish now.

ADOPT the following terms of reduced arms:

First Strike Clause: All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy that no NC will be used to initiate an attack against any other Nation State nation. All UN members will retain the right to: launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type, and use NC weapons as retaliation against any NC attack.

And this makes it clearer. And does nothing to really change anything anyway. I find only the smallest minority use first strikes, and they are rare.

'Declaration of War' Clause: Any initiated NC attack against any UN member will be considered a Declaration of War upon the whole UN and met with immediate retaliation.

This is illegal, as it effectively creates a UN army. Plus, it does not address the question of if the other nation is also a UN member and would create issues of a nation legally forced to attack itself.

SC A: Attacked member nations will be eligible for immediate aid of all forms.

Doesn't help if they are a glass crater or already wiped out. The right aiming of weaponry can wipe out even a large nation in one salvo. But, this is overall a good clause.

SC B: Support shall not extend to UN member nations who initiate NC attacks against other nations.

The wording of this one is bad. It makes it sound like if a UN member with 15 billion people was invading a nonUN member with 200 million and the nonUN member resorts to nuclear or chemical weapons just to survive, no UN nation is allowed to help that smaller nation. The amount of abuse I could put this through with just my limited imagination alone would gain the UN a very dark name.

SC C: Retaliatory attacks should be as minimally destructive as necessary to the defense and/or military success of the attacked member nation.

So a nonUN member can't nuke to save themselves, but a UN member can? Also, in retaliation to what?

Arms Reduction Clause: Member nations commit to a 30% reduction of their individual stockpiles of nuclear, and chemical weapons within 10 years.
SC A:This reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable.

A little secret: This allows them to keep nuclear weapons at any level they please. Why? Nuclear weapons are inherently unstable. That is a requirement of the material in order for it to work.

Your timescale is too short. Some nations have massive stockpiles that even a 10% reduction will take at least 20 years to complete. Plus, this lacks a case of how to dispose of the weapons, so a UN nation could decide to dispose of them by dumping them on a neighbor or giving them away as gifts to volatile nations.

International Oversight Council (IOC) Clause: All member nations will present an accounting as to the quantity and security of NC weapons biennially.

And who is in charge of this? It can't be a large nation, as they are likely to have nukes and lie. Also, this does not prevent nations from lying and gives them and added expense.

SC A: The UN will form the IOC to oversee these reports and security investigations. Any member nations in good standing may apply for positions in this council. The IOC will seat new members once every five years.
SC B: Nations with suspected security concern, receiving 3+ verifiable accusations of mishandling, will consent to security protocol inspections for a period of 2 years.
SC C: Member nations will submit biennial reports of reduction, showing actions taken to properly dispose of weaponry, and account for arms reduced due to aging and/or instability.

See my earlier objections.

Space Exploration Clause: In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.

Excuse me if I am laughing after this passes as pretty much all of the nations declare their nuclear supplies to be "space technologies" and "in use". Too much of a chance for abuse in this one. It need stringent definitions of "space technologies" and "in use" to be effective.

SC A: No country may keep more than twice the necessary number of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The necessary number will be accessed biennially and included in the stockpile reports submitted to the IOC.

So, in other words, you'll be telling nations how many nukes they are allowed to keep? You're ignoring the fact that all a FT nation has to do to keep this from being enforced is hide their nukes off of Earth. Most UN nations lack the technological capacity to investigate and space is a very, very, very big place with a lot of room for making things disappear. I know.

Depleted Uranium Clause: The above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armaments.

They're still nuclear weapons. Just not the time that goes big boom.

SC A: Be it resolved that the matter of depleted uranium armaments will not be further addressed until an equally effective and financially viable option has been adopted individually by more than 45% of the UN member nations.

The only viable replacements lead to weapons that make hydrogen bombs look small. I've mentioned several types above.

This is a nice proposal, but it needs a lot of work to remove the parts easily abused and cover more topics.

Thank you for your long and informative discussion on the topic.

Firstly, I would like to point out that this proposition has already been rewritten 5-7 times (I've lost count) to ensure that it is very specific in its nature.

1. The definition of inclusion will not be extended to cover any items other than nuclear and chemical weapons. If someone wishes to cover any weaponry beyond them, then that nation or delegate may feel free to write, support, and walk such legislation through the process. I will not write a proposal that deals with weaponry made from 'anti-matter' material. I am not learned enough in it to make a reasonable and informed resolution.

2. The encouragement to make similar reduced arms pacts with non-UN military alliances is only an encouragement. It does not make any real requirements on any nation to make a binding agreement with their military allies. Its like a suggestion. Some avid RP'ers will, some wont. But following the disasterous ENPA (which I was around to witness and fight against) all the following points were made as to why we should and why we should not get rid of nuclear weapons on the whole. I decided to look at those arguments and make a proposal that would be a good compromise.

3. Why do so many people have trouble with the term 'first strike'? No, seriously. I want to know. I would figure initiate and first strike would both be reasonable terms that any person understood. At least, I would hope someone would understand these terms. Its not like I am redefining any word.
first strike: NOUN: A preemptive attack against an enemy, especially one using nuclear weapons against an enemy armed with nuclear weapons.

Simple enough? No? Ok, lets look at preemptive.
preemptive: a-Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.
b-Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence

Does that clear up the confusion? I sure as hell hope so. I hate to keep going around in circles because someone doesnt understand that THAT WHOLE CLAUSE deals ONLY with countries who make a NC attack against any other nation, including any other UN nation as a means of first strike. NC attacks used in RETALIATION are not the same as PREEMPTIVE NC attacks.

Please for the LOVE OF GOD tell me people understand the terms preemptive, first strike and initiate now.

4. The inclusion of the line recognizes the previously passed "elimination of bio-weapons" was because this proposal originally included bio weapons in its agreement. I knew there was a proposal already passed regarding this issue, but I DIDNT want to deal with the endless questions about WHY I didnt include bio weapons in the proposal. I figured it was just as easy to name them BNCs. But an entire handful of people complained enough that I was proposing something that was already resolved, and this was pre-repeal days. So I was confident that having such a line in the proposal would eliminate the argument. I would much rather repeal bio-weapons resolution as it stands and include them in this proposal. Reduction, not elimination, is a better approach for compromise. Too many countries say "you will get my nukes when you can pry them from my cold, dead fingers".

5. I dont get your inference here.
So a nonUN member can't nuke to save themselves, but a UN member can? Also, in retaliation to what?

Simply put, this proposal does not seek to define or otherwise impose on non-UN members. If a non-UN member wants to nuke the hell out of others, then so be it. The UN has no control over them. That is one reason why we encourage UN members to make military alliances and pacts with non-UN members though.

Additionally, the Declaration of War clause is specifically designed to ensure the safety of ALL UN member nations. It does not call for a UN army. The forms of aid ARE open to the giving countries, there is no definition of how much assistance any nation must give, ect, ect.
The line itself simply says that if any nation INITIATES (goes back to clause one and the definitions above) an NC attack against a UN member nation, then all the UN nations are bound to help that country in any way that they can offer assistance. I figured with what... 35000+ members that if ONE nation was being attacked by another nation (UN or otherwise) that SOMEONE could afford to assist that country. Several someones could afford to assist that country, Im certain.

As for SC B of the Declaration of War: If a UN member nation INVADES another nation (UN member or not) then an NC attack is NO LONGER CONSIDERED PREEMPTIVE. At the point of invasion, then it is considered retaliatory. This hold true through to UN member nations and their non-UN member military allies.

6. IOC will not be run by or controlled by any member nation. Its a collective committee consisting of several member nations.

7. This game does not require RP in order to survive. Therefore the hardline approach that resolutions carry do NOT consider the real-life applications that would be faced in an RP. IF you are in an RP game and this resolution has passed and THEN you find a country who is RP'ing that he/she is not following it... well then you or any other RP'ing nation can RP embargoes and lots of other nice things to deal with the matter. Here: if its passed, then it will happen.

8. Space technologies: What can I say? People were adamant that they werent going to give up their nukes because they use them as such. Others cited that without such a clause, people would take advantage of the loophole and reclassify their nukes as space technology. Nice little compromise here.
I can tell you that ANY UN member who is exploring space will have a reasonable idea of how many launches they plan in a 2 year period and can plan accordingly to ensure that they have enough "space technology" weaponry.

9. DUs: This was a very VERY loud argument from several opposers of the ENPA. I figured that I would make it easy on myself and simply say that DU is NOT included in this proposal and that the UN will not make it an issue again until the proper time in the future. The timeline is based solely on how long it takes 45% of member nations to change to another form of armorment as weaponry expands, and progresses. That could be 2 months or 25 years for all I care.

Now that Ive covered as much as I feel I can at this point in the early morning, I offer this suggestion. Search UNRAP in the forums and look at the previous discussions regarding this resolution. Additionally, check for the topic "Ending Nuclear Proliferation". At least I think that is what it was called. Familiarize yourself with the arguments as I did, and if you still have concerns, I will be more than happy to address them.

The government of Telidia welcome the re-presentation of this proposal by the honourable member from Whited Fields. I am sure they will remember from our previous discussions that we had concerns regarding turning the UN, a body devoted to peace, into a military alliance. However, in light of recent events we do feel the UN needs to consider passing some form of nuclear disarmament proposal. The issue of nuclear disarmament will always be a favourite amongst members of this body and it is our fear that if we do not consider passing a resolution along these lines in the future, we might be faced with something much harder to swallow.

In my time as Ambassador here this body has voted down two complete disarmament resolutions. This first almost passed had it not been for the tireless campaigning of a few respected members; the second to my knowledge thankfully was defeated without such intervention though the vote remained fairly close.

Furthermore this proposal also address one of our key concerns regarding ‘global disarmament’ proposals in that it requests UN members to seek disarmament amongst their non member allies. I can’t recall if this came from our discussions, though I hope it did.

In closing the government of Telidia therefore support this proposal and will request support from our delegate. We will also consider raising awareness for this proposal amongst our international and regional colleagues in the hopes that this may help the proposal to quorum.

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

Thank you for your long and informative discussion on the topic.

Just bringing up things I think need addressed or clarified. Or simply discussed now and gotten out of the way while it's still on the first page so those incapable of reading past the first page will see it already addressed.

Firstly, I would like to point out that this proposition has already been rewritten 5-7 times (I've lost count) to ensure that it is very specific in its nature.

It can always been more specific. There are a few vague areas, but those are mostly okay.

1. The definition of inclusion will not be extended to cover any items other than nuclear and chemical weapons. If someone wishes to cover any weaponry beyond them, then that nation or delegate may feel free to write, support, and walk such legislation through the process. I will not write a proposal that deals with weaponry made from 'anti-matter' material. I am not learned enough in it to make a reasonable and informed resolution.

Antimatter explosions typically are 100-1000 times, iirc, more powerful than thermonuclear explosions. The only reason I pointed them out is because the title makes it sound like you are trying to limit all arms when you are trying to limit only two types. Plus, someone is likely to bring it up later if it isn't touched now.

2. The encouragement to make similar reduced arms pacts with non-UN military alliances is only an encouragement. It does not make any real requirements on any nation to make a binding agreement with their military allies. Its like a suggestion. Some avid RP'ers will, some wont. But following the disasterous ENPA (which I was around to witness and fight against) all the following points were made as to why we should and why we should not get rid of nuclear weapons on the whole. I decided to look at those arguments and make a proposal that would be a good compromise.

It mostly is. There are a few areas I want altered because of abuse possibilities, but otherwise it is fine.

3. Why do so many people have trouble with the term 'first strike'? No, seriously. I want to know. I would figure initiate and first strike would both be reasonable terms that any person understood. At least, I would hope someone would understand these terms. Its not like I am redefining any word.
first strike: NOUN: A preemptive attack against an enemy, especially one using nuclear weapons against an enemy armed with nuclear weapons.

Simple enough? No? Ok, lets look at preemptive.
preemptive: a-Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.
b-Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence

Does that clear up the confusion? I sure as hell hope so. I hate to keep going around in circles because someone doesnt understand that THAT WHOLE CLAUSE deals ONLY with countries who make a NC attack against any other nation, including any other UN nation as a means of first strike. NC attacks used in RETALIATION are not the same as PREEMPTIVE NC attacks.

Please for the LOVE OF GOD tell me people understand the terms preemptive, first strike and initiate now.

It is the second portion of the definition of "preemptive" that causes the problems. You can launch a preemptive nuclear strike at someone invading your country with vastly surperior forces to prevent or deter them from achieving victory. I only brought it up in case someone may take your meaning incorrectly.

4. The inclusion of the line recognizes the previously passed "elimination of bio-weapons" was because this proposal originally included bio weapons in its agreement. I knew there was a proposal already passed regarding this issue, but I DIDNT want to deal with the endless questions about WHY I didnt include bio weapons in the proposal. I figured it was just as easy to name them BNCs. But an entire handful of people complained enough that I was proposing something that was already resolved, and this was pre-repeal days. So I was confident that having such a line in the proposal would eliminate the argument. I would much rather repeal bio-weapons resolution as it stands and include them in this proposal. Reduction, not elimination, is a better approach for compromise. Too many countries say "you will get my nukes when you can pry them from my cold, dead fingers".

Actually, I have a problem with the bio-weapons one as well. I supported it at the time, only to see four UN nations wiped out by effective use of bioweapons the next day. Not only that, but they are quite prolific as is right now anyway. All it did was remove them from UN hands and give other nations an advantage.

5. I dont get your inference here.

The way it is written up, a nonUN nation that nukes a UN nation for any reason will have the entire UN against them, while a UN nation that nukes a nonUN nation won't. It is, in effect, creating a situation where the UN is saying that, if you nuke any of us for any reason, we will destroy you. It creates a situation of abuse for large UN members to take advantage of.

Simply put, this proposal does not seek to define or otherwise impose on non-UN members. If a non-UN member wants to nuke the hell out of others, then so be it. The UN has no control over them. That is one reason why we encourage UN members to make military alliances and pacts with non-UN members though.

As written, it does. It forces a nonUN nation to not use nuclear or chemical weapons in reply to anything, even an invasion of themselves by a nation 1000 times or more of their size, if the weapons are used on a UN nation. If this passes, don't be surprised if quite a few small nations are wiped out and the UN forced to go along with it. I'm not trying to be alarmist, just point out an area of abuse.

Additionally, the Declaration of War clause is specifically designed to ensure the safety of ALL UN member nations. It does not call for a UN army. The forms of aid ARE open to the giving countries, there is no definition of how much assistance any nation must give, ect, ect.

It creates a situation where UN members are forced to combine their forces and fight, thus creating an army of variable size. Considering it involves force being exercised militarily, I say it counts under the rule of not using resolutions to create a UN military.

The line itself simply says that if any nation INITIATES (goes back to clause one and the definitions above) an NC attack against a UN member nation, then all the UN nations are bound to help that country in any way that they can offer assistance. I figured with what... 35000+ members that if ONE nation was being attacked by another nation (UN or otherwise) that SOMEONE could afford to assist that country. Several someones could afford to assist that country, Im certain.

Go back to what I said about how it is worded. It is worded so it doesn't matter why the nonUN nations do it.

As for SC B of the Declaration of War: If a UN member nation INVADES another nation (UN member or not) then an NC attack is NO LONGER CONSIDERED PREEMPTIVE. At the point of invasion, then it is considered retaliatory. This hold true through to UN member nations and their non-UN member military allies.

It is still considered preemptive if they are nuking to deter or prevent their imminent destruction. That is using the definition of preemptive.

6. IOC will not be run by or controlled by any member nation. Its a collective committee consisting of several member nations.

Which still ignores the abuse scenarios and my point.

7. This game does not require RP in order to survive. Therefore the hardline approach that resolutions carry do NOT consider the real-life applications that would be faced in an RP. IF you are in an RP game and this resolution has passed and THEN you find a country who is RP'ing that he/she is not following it... well then you or any other RP'ing nation can RP embargoes and lots of other nice things to deal with the matter. Here: if its passed, then it will happen.

Great, another one. I swear, they get annoying.

The effects of this are worthless outside of RP. In fact, just about everything in it is RP. By including RP in your resolution and then arguing that, you are commiting hypocrisy. If you want this to not be argued from an RP standpoint, remove the RP material from it. Otherwise, you comment there is worthless.

I hate to have to be hardnosed about it, but face the reality of what you wrote or don't write it.

8. Space technologies: What can I say? People were adamant that they werent going to give up their nukes because they use them as such. Others cited that without such a clause, people would take advantage of the loophole and reclassify their nukes as space technology. Nice little compromise here.
I can tell you that ANY UN member who is exploring space will have a reasonable idea of how many launches they plan in a 2 year period and can plan accordingly to ensure that they have enough "space technology" weaponry.

I see the problem there. You may have to simply say that weapons are weapons, no matter who has them or what they classify them as.

9. DUs: This was a very VERY loud argument from several opposers of the ENPA. I figured that I would make it easy on myself and simply say that DU is NOT included in this proposal and that the UN will not make it an issue again until the proper time in the future. The timeline is based solely on how long it takes 45% of member nations to change to another form of armorment as weaponry expands, and progresses. That could be 2 months or 25 years for all I care.

Actually, I was pointing out the problems of searching for an alternative to DU at this time. Not meant as an arguement, and the timeline comment is still a valid point.

Now that Ive covered as much as I feel I can at this point in the early morning, I offer this suggestion. Search UNRAP in the forums and look at the previous discussions regarding this resolution. Additionally, check for the topic "Ending Nuclear Proliferation". At least I think that is what it was called. Familiarize yourself with the arguments as I did, and if you still have concerns, I will be more than happy to address them.

I have posted my concerns with this one, not those. In this topic I am concerned with the proposal being discussed, not the past ones. Those others are other topics best left on other threads unless they in some way become pertinent, and so far they are not with my concerns.

3. Why do so many people have trouble with the term 'first strike'? No, seriously. I want to know.


Probably because most "first strikes" are, as you so carefully show through your definitions, used to defend against perceived threats, often by weaker nations.

A really, really simple example. Let's say Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt teamed up in 1987 and began playing "wargames" in the mediterranean sea, a few dozen miles from Israel. Hundreds of thousands of troops. Then, their various leaders began sending memos to Israel demanding they leave Jerusalem, or "there will be consequences."

Israel's response, I guarantee you, would eventually involve Cairo, Riyadh, and Baghdad getting nice pretty mushroom clouds added to their skylines. It would be a "first strike", both by your definition and by any other reasonable definition; nobody had attacked Israel militarily yet, and certainly not with nuclear or chemical weapons.

Yet this is precisely the objection I, and many others, have. The main purpose for nuclear weapons in most countries is Deterrence. The discouragement of other nations attacking them, particularly larger nations clearly capable of a conventional victory. North Korea and Iran are two great examples; so is Pakistan. All want nukes (and probably have them) to protect them from a larger, more militarily dangerous neighbor (Well, not anymore in Iran's case, but close enough).

So you would be endorsing the utter destruction of any smaller nation who could not win a conventional war by depriving them of their ability to defend themselves. You would be starting wars, because nuclear weapons, above and beyond anything else, deter war. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons deters nations from attacking when they know they could be nuked; they find diplomatic solutions instead. Look up "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD theory) if you're unfamiliar with this.

If the purpose of this resolution is to encourage nations not to fight nuclear wars between each other, then state that. "First Strike" in fact makes your resolution more dangerous, not less. (And after all, most nations endeavour to have "second strike" capability, not first. That's what I'd address. Stable governments led by popular vote and/or sane leaders are better off and safer for everyone involved if they have nuclear weapons, everyone knows it, and they know they can use them. Just imagine what a non-nuclear Israel would have done by now; I'd not be surprised to see them having walked into Cairo decades ago, to assure their continued survival. Having a few nukes means that Israel can go to sleep safely, knowing that any significant Arab attack would be easily deterred by the threat of a nuclear retaliation.

To the nation of Telidia:
I can say with certainty that the previous conversations regarding non-UN member pacts are precisely the reason why it has been included in the resolution. I can also say with certainty that the recent attempt for complete disarmament is why I have decided to take a stab once again in passing this compromised proposal. It includes many points that were often discussed in previous attempts for complete disarmaments to ensure that we do have something on the table that will hopefully please enough nations to pass and put the idea of complete disarmament aside for a lengthy period of time. My first resolution at vote in the UN was the ENPA, which I doggedly worked to help defeat. I was one of those members telegraphing countries I didnt know just to bolster the numbers.

By the way, I still have the list of for and against voters to that resolution. If you would like to help, I can send that list to you and allow you to TG as many as you can so that the word can be gotten out on the compromised legislation.


To the nation of DemonLordEnigma and BunBunia:

The inclusion of RP into this proposal was at the request for such additions by RP'ing members of the NS UN. When I attempted to send this resolution through drafts, RP'ing members would not back the proposal on the argument that "we cant be sure that members are complying". Well, with the IOC clause, someone can feel free to take the IOC and run with it. Yes, it does offer some ability for abuse in RP. My personal preference was to not have it in RP in any manner. But I wanted to make some other members happy and this was the best compromise I could come up with. If you have better guidelines for it, then please feel free to submit them. As a non-RP'ing member of the NS UN, I have no need for or want to explore how you play your games. I was simply hoping that by adding the clause, someone who does like to RP could make a game out of it and therefore secure RP'ing member votes.

Perhaps I am considered naive, but again I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT anti-matter arms. In my own little world, such things dont exist. Therefore I urge you or any other member to take a stab at creating a proposal to limit, reduce or eliminate anti-matter arms if you feel so froggy to do so. Trust me, it wont hurt my feelings any and as long as someone doesnt try to completely eliminate them, I would likely support it.

As to the "first strike" clause: I think its abhorent to nuke ANY nation with nuclear arms as a form of deterent to a conventional arms attack. Furthermore, I think that it is abhorent that we would even threaten such things, or allow such threats to exist within our organization. NC weapons are a last resort item, and should be held as just that. As an international body, we should not condone anyone using NC weapons (by threat or actual use) as a form of conventional arms deterent. Once that first shot is fired, then a UN member can feel free to press the button that launches their nukes. At that point... at that VERY moment... its not longer preemptive. That is how I see it.

Notice how it says in Declaration of War that any initiated NC attack against a UN member nation...? Now, that means that any nation who preemptively (not retaliatorily) attacks a UN member nation that it is the same as declaring war on any of us. Look at these scenarios. Maybe then you can tell me what I am missing, because I honestly think I covered the bases pretty well. Granted, there is always better, but so far you have only deconstructed the resolution... not offered any actual constructive ideas for making it better.

Country A, small and 'weak' is attacked by a UN member nation of any size. Perhaps the UN member is one of those insane freaks who do such things just because they like to cause misery... they do exist. Country A retaliates against said attack by launching its nukes. Country A did not initiate an NC (because it was not first strike and it wasnt preemptive to a perceived threat) but rather retaliated against a strike. Therefore, the war carries on between Country A, the UN country of any size, and any allies they wish to call in. Once that FIRST SHOT... first invasion, first punch, first.. whatever is made, it is no longer an initiated attack; its a retaliatory one.

Country A is a non-UN member of any size who decides that they want to invade or attack Country B, a UN member by use of nuclear or chemical weapons. Perhaps because country B has reduced their stockpiles and therefore seems vulnerable. Country A has then initiated a NC attack, and as such has essentially declared war against all UN members. This says that we will not tolerate any non-UN member striking a UN member with NC weapons.

When the discussion of reduction came up before, one of the arguments against completely ending nuclear weapons, and one of the arguments even in reducing their nuclear weapons was that they were already a small country and reducing them would leave them vulnerable. Yet another compromise.

I will not say this resolution is the best to ever be written on the subject. And now that there is the ability to repeal resolutions it stands to reason all the more that this fair (and much researched and rewritten) resolution can and should be implemented until such time that someone feels they can better cover the loopholes. Or... rather than deconstructing this resolution... you would like to submit some actual propositions and revisions to the clauses that will keep in the spirit of the compromise and the long trip this proposal has already taken.

I want to see something passed as soon as possible to ensure that we are not left open to complete disarmament by some new UN member foolhardy enough to think that all nukes are bad. With this resolution on the books, those who are against total disarmament will be better able to sway wavering members by saying that we have already taken steps to reduce arms and here is the proof.

To the nation of DemonLordEnigma and BunBunia:

The inclusion of RP into this proposal was at the request for such additions by RP'ing members of the NS UN. When I attempted to send this resolution through drafts, RP'ing members would not back the proposal on the argument that "we cant be sure that members are complying". Well, with the IOC clause, someone can feel free to take the IOC and run with it. Yes, it does offer some ability for abuse in RP. My personal preference was to not have it in RP in any manner. But I wanted to make some other members happy and this was the best compromise I could come up with. If you have better guidelines for it, then please feel free to submit them. As a non-RP'ing member of the NS UN, I have no need for or want to explore how you play your games. I was simply hoping that by adding the clause, someone who does like to RP could make a game out of it and therefore secure RP'ing member votes.

So your original draft did not mention anything about war, preemptive strikes, stockpiles, etc. and basically amounted to "Nukes and Chemical weapons are bad, so ban them?" If not, then it included RP elements.

Perhaps I am considered naive, but again I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT anti-matter arms. In my own little world, such things dont exist. Therefore I urge you or any other member to take a stab at creating a proposal to limit, reduce or eliminate anti-matter arms if you feel so froggy to do so. Trust me, it wont hurt my feelings any and as long as someone doesnt try to completely eliminate them, I would likely support it.

I would, but I am not a UN member, just representing the views of someone else because they claim to not have enough time to argue online. I pretty much just argue my views. I'll see if I can get them to submit a proposal.

Here, although it is on engines, the physics isn't all that different from how a weapon will work:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter2.htm

The only real differences is, once the magnetic separation field is down, the matter and antimatter will all collide at once and, instead of a nozzle to release it, will release the energy in a typical spread pattern. This stuff makes nukes look like a thing of the past.

Note that there is a reactor in Switzerland currently producing antimatter, one quark at a time. If we can do it now, an NS nation should be able to produce antimatter weapons by 2040 if they focused on it.

As to the "first strike" clause: I think its abhorent to nuke ANY nation with nuclear arms as a form of deterent to a conventional arms attack. Furthermore, I think that it is abhorent that we would even threaten such things, or allow such threats to exist within our organization. NC weapons are a last resort item, and should be held as just that. As an international body, we should not condone anyone using NC weapons (by threat or actual use) as a form of conventional arms deterent. Once that first shot is fired, then a UN member can feel free to press the button that launches their nukes. At that point... at that VERY moment... its not longer preemptive. That is how I see it.

So, in other words, a small nation being invaded by a bigger one is just fragged. Because, under the definition of preemptive, they are launching a preemptive strike if they are the first nation launching.

Notice how it says in Declaration of War that any initiated NC attack against a UN member nation...? Now, that means that any nation who preemptively (not retaliatorily) attacks a UN member nation that it is the same as declaring war on any of us. Look at these scenarios. Maybe then you can tell me what I am missing, because I honestly think I covered the bases pretty well. Granted, there is always better, but so far you have only deconstructed the resolution... not offered any actual constructive ideas for making it better.

A retalitory nuclear attack is one that comes in response to a nuclear attack. The resulting devastation is why MAD works so well. And, this still creates, in my view, a UN military of sorts, and is thus illegal.

Country A, small and 'weak' is attacked by a UN member nation of any size. Perhaps the UN member is one of those insane freaks who do such things just because they like to cause misery... they do exist. Country A retaliates against said attack by launching its nukes. Country A did not initiate an NC (because it was not first strike and it wasnt preemptive to a perceived threat) but rather retaliated against a strike. Therefore, the war carries on between Country A, the UN country of any size, and any allies they wish to call in. Once that FIRST SHOT... first invasion, first punch, first.. whatever is made, it is no longer an initiated attack; its a retaliatory one.

Whether or not it is retalitory under that case doesn't matter, as it is still preemptive, which is covered under the preemptive attack clause. Why? They are trying to deter or prevent their imminent destruction. Unless you don't count being conquered or destroyed as "usually unpleasant situation or occurrence."

Country A is a non-UN member of any size who decides that they want to invade or attack Country B, a UN member by use of nuclear or chemical weapons. Perhaps because country B has reduced their stockpiles and therefore seems vulnerable. Country A has then initiated a NC attack, and as such has essentially declared war against all UN members. This says that we will not tolerate any non-UN member striking a UN member with NC weapons.

Once again, creating a military. This also does not address the arguements presented.

When the discussion of reduction came up before, one of the arguments against completely ending nuclear weapons, and one of the arguments even in reducing their nuclear weapons was that they were already a small country and reducing them would leave them vulnerable. Yet another compromise.

Unneccessary addition that does not address the objections raised.

I will not say this resolution is the best to ever be written on the subject. And now that there is the ability to repeal resolutions it stands to reason all the more that this fair (and much researched and rewritten) resolution can and should be implemented until such time that someone feels they can better cover the loopholes. Or... rather than deconstructing this resolution... you would like to submit some actual propositions and revisions to the clauses that will keep in the spirit of the compromise and the long trip this proposal has already taken.

I have given my advice, and you have ignored it. If you wish, I can make a separate post to cover it.

I want to see something passed as soon as possible to ensure that we are not left open to complete disarmament by some new UN member foolhardy enough to think that all nukes are bad. With this resolution on the books, those who are against total disarmament will be better able to sway wavering members by saying that we have already taken steps to reduce arms and here is the proof.

You're assuming it will pass. Some of the nations with the biggest nuclear armaments and most to lose by even a reduction are in the UN. Plus, there are questions over whether this is even a legal proposal anyway.

I'll post another one after this with my advice, in a more clarified form.

My advice. I also added a bit onto it.

DEFINES initiates as meaning 'first strike'.

Provide a more in-depth definition of "first strike" that provides exceptions for when a nation is not under nuclear attack or something similar to it. Otherwise, this creates a potential for abuse in later sections.

ENCOURAGES all UN member nations to enact similar arms reduction pacts with their non-UN military allies.

Remove this portion. Unneccessary and may not go over well.

'Declaration of War' Clause: Any initiated NC attack against any UN member will be considered a Declaration of War upon the whole UN and met with immediate retaliation.
SC A: Attacked member nations will be eligible for immediate aid of all forms.
SC B: Support shall not extend to UN member nations who initiate NC attacks against other nations.
SC C: Retaliatory attacks should be as minimally destructive as necessary to the defense and/or military success of the attacked member nation.

Illegal. Remove this section. Keep SC A and C and incorporate them into a new clause, but remove B. Innitiation of nuclear or chemical attacks is a valid response to being invaded by a much more powerful nation and the only defense some nations have to survive. It would be effectively forcing small nations to not use those weapons in war unless their enemy launches them first.

Edit: Look at the following

Do not use these categories to establish a UN military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

This creates scenarios where the UN has standing military forces.

Arms Reduction Clause: Member nations commit to a 30% reduction of their individual stockpiles of nuclear, and chemical weapons within 10 years.
SC A:This reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable.

Add in a clause of the UN helping nations that have stockpiles too large to dispose of in that time period.

International Oversight Council (IOC) Clause: All member nations will present an accounting as to the quantity and security of NC weapons biennially.
SC A: The UN will form the IOC to oversee these reports and security investigations. Any member nations in good standing may apply for positions in this council. The IOC will seat new members once every five years.
SC B: Nations with suspected security concern, receiving 3+ verifiable accusations of mishandling, will consent to security protocol inspections for a period of 2 years.
SC C: Member nations will submit biennial reports of reduction, showing actions taken to properly dispose of weaponry, and account for arms reduced due to aging and/or instability.

You need a commitee to review this commitee to prevent abuse. Or, to simply eliminate this clause.

Space Exploration Clause: In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.
SC A: No country may keep more than twice the necessary number of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The necessary number will be accessed biennially and included in the stockpile reports submitted to the IOC.

I would remove this. If you don't, any nation can declare nukes to be space technologies. Plus, it gives FT nations just another advantage to the massive number they already have.

Depleted Uranium Clause: The above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armaments.
SC A: Be it resolved that the matter of depleted uranium armaments will not be further addressed until an equally effective and financially viable option has been adopted individually by more than 45% of the UN member nations.

Remove SC A. It is unneccesary and actually limits the possibility someone may come up with a viable alternative and legislation to have it used. Ignoring, of course, the likelihood of it actually happening.

I think I see where my idea and others are coming to a clash now. So, perhaps there is a better wording to it.

In the 2 scenarios mentioned, the first one would not have fostered UN assistance to the UN member, because as I saw it, the nukes were being launched as a retaliation against an actual conventional arms attack.

To me, 'first attack' is preemptive if there has not been any actual offensive attack by another nation. Not just with a nuclear or chemical weapon, but any attack. About the only real expectation on that is that the attack they were retaliating against should be reasonably considered an attack by other nations.

Back to scenario one: The UN member nation has its troops on manuevers and one accidentally crosses the border and injures a/some citizen(s) or military personnel (Jeep crashes into a building, plane crashes, tank runs over ONE house, ect, ect...). The argument of accidental is always questionable, but it was one tank or one plane... not an entire brigade. Just a handful of soldiers. I dont think it is reasonable to assume that 6 soldiers harming a handful of citizens (whether by accident or not) would warrant country A to immediately launch its nukes at the UN member nation.

Now it is reasonable for Country A to perceive a handful of soldiers IS an attack if they go in and start killing everyone in sight, or otherwise act extremely hostile. At which point, it would be reasonable for country A to tell the UN member nation that if their troops are not pulled out immediately, then their presence will be considered an act of war and they will launch their nukes.

As such.. to me.. the use of nukes by country A would not warrant the intrusion of the UN upon country A.

Now I think I understand why people have been having trouble with the term first strike and I will immediately see to correcting this.

As to DoW... Since it does NOT define how nations help, declares that member nations MUST give assistance, or keeps an actual standing military, it is not illegal as far as I can see. Of course, I will be happy to have a staff member give it the once over to ensure such things. If it is deemed illegal by them, then I will be glad to make revisions to this section once again. I do believe that this resolution in its current form has been reviewed once by a staff member, but if it makes you happy I will do it again.

The "ENCOURAGES" line will not be removed. As spoken by Telidia, and many UN member nations... it was wanted and it is staying.

As to the IOC: Im sorry, but I fail to see the point of having a committee that is overseen by another committee when the IOC is supposed to be an oversight committee to ensure that RP'ers can play out whether other nations are following the resolution. Its already a beauracratic nightmare as it is. Why would I want to add to that headache. As to removing it.. well if a strong outcry from RP'ers all say they dont want one, I will be happy to remove it. But as I said originally, it was there specifically to give them something to do.

Space Technologies is there as a compromise to make advanced nations who pretend to jet off into space with their nukes happy. Like with the IOC, if I get a huge outcry from RP'ers telling me they dont want it or need it to approve the resolution, I will be happy to remove it.

The DU clause: I was hoping by including SC A that I would be able to secure the use of DU for all member nations for an indeterminate amount of time. The fact is that previous complete disarmaments, and most especially the ENPA that was harshly fought over, included DU in the terms and this outraged the member nations. It is arguably the closest thing to illegal in the resolution as it may make it difficult for the UN to pass a resolution dealing with the issue (it almost says that the UN CANT pass a resolution regarding DU). But as we (UN members) all know, there has been very little to keep nations from passing resolutions that are bordering illegal due to a previously passed resolution. Again, this is one of those "makes the argument stronger by having something on the books" kind of things.

Lastly, since the proposal IN NO WAY limits how one nation disposes of the nukes, then I see no reason why an advanced nation with too many nukes cant dispose of them by selling them off to non-UN member nations.
I also dont see how we can fund such assistance without somehow taxing the UN member nations, which I believe adding to this proposal would make it harder to pass. Therefore I see no way feasible way to add such a promise of assistance, and I see no reason to add yet another purely RP item to the proposal.

I think I see where my idea and others are coming to a clash now. So, perhaps there is a better wording to it.

I'm just looking for something that would be most advantageous to the UN as a whole.

In the 2 scenarios mentioned, the first one would not have fostered UN assistance to the UN member, because as I saw it, the nukes were being launched as a retaliation against an actual conventional arms attack.

To me, 'first attack' is preemptive if there has not been any actual offensive attack by another nation. Not just with a nuclear or chemical weapon, but any attack. About the only real expectation on that is that the attack they were retaliating against should be reasonably considered an attack by other nations.

Back to scenario one: The UN member nation has its troops on manuevers and one accidentally crosses the border and injures a/some citizen(s) or military personnel (Jeep crashes into a building, plane crashes, tank runs over ONE house, ect, ect...). The argument of accidental is always questionable, but it was one tank or one plane... not an entire brigade. Just a handful of soldiers. I dont think it is reasonable to assume that 6 soldiers harming a handful of citizens (whether by accident or not) would warrant country A to immediately launch its nukes at the UN member nation.

Now it is reasonable for Country A to perceive a handful of soldiers IS an attack if they go in and start killing everyone in sight, or otherwise act extremely hostile. At which point, it would be reasonable for country A to tell the UN member nation that if their troops are not pulled out immediately, then their presence will be considered an act of war and they will launch their nukes.

As such.. to me.. the use of nukes by country A would not warrant the intrusion of the UN upon country A.

Now I think I understand why people have been having trouble with the term first strike and I will immediately see to correcting this.

Thank you.

As to DoW... Since it does NOT define how nations help, declares that member nations MUST give assistance, or keeps an actual standing military, it is not illegal as far as I can see. Of course, I will be happy to have a staff member give it the once over to ensure such things. If it is deemed illegal by them, then I will be glad to make revisions to this section once again. I do believe that this resolution in its current form has been reviewed once by a staff member, but if it makes you happy I will do it again.

In that case, I will shut up about it. I had thought I saw something illegal, but if it has been approved then it is obviously legal. Complaint withdrawn.

The "ENCOURAGES" line will not be removed. As spoken by Telidia, and many UN member nations... it was wanted and it is staying.

My only reason for suggesting it is removed is it isn't necessary. Many UN nations will try that anyway. It really has no power and won't really cause any change. But if they want it, then leave it.

As to the IOC: Im sorry, but I fail to see the point of having a committee that is overseen by another committee when the IOC is supposed to be an oversight committee to ensure that RP'ers can play out whether other nations are following the resolution. Its already a beauracratic nightmare as it is. Why would I want to add to that headache. As to removing it.. well if a strong outcry from RP'ers all say they dont want one, I will be happy to remove it. But as I said originally, it was there specifically to give them something to do.

The problem is a nation in IOC may try to abuse their position. They can abuse it to cause a nation they want invaded to have no defense against superior numbers, then take that nation out. The regulations required just for that small of a committee to keep them in line will take at least six proposals worth of typing, assuming each one is twice the length of this proposal. Just having the committee is a beauracratic nightmare.

Space Technologies is there as a compromise to make advanced nations who pretend to jet off into space with their nukes happy. Like with the IOC, if I get a huge outcry from RP'ers telling me they dont want it or need it to approve the resolution, I will be happy to remove it.

I don't see why the FT nations have to be treated differently in this case. If they don't like loosing their nukes, they can suck it up or leave the UN. Most of them have weapons that make thermonuclear bombs look like rubber bands anyway.

The DU clause: I was hoping by including SC A that I would be able to secure the use of DU for all member nations for an indeterminate amount of time. The fact is that previous complete disarmaments, and most especially the ENPA that was harshly fought over, included DU in the terms and this outraged the member nations. It is arguably the closest thing to illegal in the resolution as it may make it difficult for the UN to pass a resolution dealing with the issue (it almost says that the UN CANT pass a resolution regarding DU). But as we (UN members) all know, there has been very little to keep nations from passing resolutions that are bordering illegal due to a previously passed resolution. Again, this is one of those "makes the argument stronger by having something on the books" kind of things.

That's why I was saying to drop the SCA portion. It will let them know it was considered and that it is open to future regulation. You could replace it by a line of text stating that dealing with DU requires a separate proposal. Most people don't read past the title anyway.

Lastly, since the proposal IN NO WAY limits how one nation disposes of the nukes, then I see no reason why an advanced nation with too many nukes cant dispose of them by selling them off to non-UN member nations.
I also dont see how we can fund such assistance without somehow taxing the UN member nations, which I believe adding to this proposal would make it harder to pass. Therefore I see no way feasible way to add such a promise of assistance, and I see no reason to add yet another purely RP item to the proposal.

This right here poses a very powerful danger. You don't want a nation as militaristic as my own, only without the scruples I have, to get ahold of a large nuclear armament. Hell, you don't me to get ahold of a large nuclear armament and I agree with you on that. But, as it does not include anything on this and most nations disarming will use that logic, I do not see it as a viable-enough danger to be worth considering an addition to this.

If you change the definition of "first strike" alone, you'll have my support, but with reservations.

*shameless bump*