NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure of the category on this, I'm waiting for Fris to reply.

It's an updated version of an earlier proposal:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359476

The Nuclear Regulation Act
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
BELIEVING that nuclear conflict is highly destructive of innocent life and is to be avoided at all costs,
FIRMLY COMMITTED to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations,
NOTING a desire for national sovereignty,

RESOLVES:
1. That an International Nuclear Authority (INA) be created. It shall be funded by UN nations and charities.
2. That all UN nations declare the numbers, details and locations of their nuclear weapons, nuclear power stations, uranium mines, nuclear fuel storage facilities to the INA within six months of this resolution passing. This will be kept in a secure UN database.
3. That UN nations wishing to conduct nuclear weapons or missile tests must notify the INA, their citizens, any nations that border them or are likely to have radioactivity fall on their territory or a missile above their territory
4. That 'suitcase nukes' shall be banned and that no nation shall possess, use or manufacture such weapons. Any existing weapons must be destroyed within 6 months.
5. That the INA shall regulate the sale of radioactive materials.
6. That all nations shall institute 'fail-safe' mechanisms for the recall of ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers and try to ensure that nuclear weapons can only be launched on the authority of a recognised national leader or designated deputy.
7. That all a nation's strategic and tactical nuclear weapons shall be based on their territory (or in that of a nation that formally and publically agrees to their basing there) or on ships, submarines or aircraft under their flags. Nuclear weapon bases cannot be built in or under international waters. They do not count as 'underwater installations' under the Law of the Sea.
8. That all nations shall work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
9. That nuclear weapons possessing nations that are hostile to each other establish a 'hotline' between them for rapid communication in a crisis.

I'd put it in Category:Incomplete.


I'm not a mod. Why would you wait for my input?

You're well known in the UN.

Can I have a mod's call on this?

And some discussion of this proposal while we're at it?

From Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5224569&postcount=1), the definitive source on how to code proposals:International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Global Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

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.
Reads like International Security to me. It's an increase to oversight over nuclear weapons, which would require more money.

I could make a case for Political Stability too, but I think International Security is a better fit.

8. That only internationally controlled nuclear weapons can be based in Earth orbit.
Here you're making the same mistake you made in Law of the Sea - you're trying to establish a rule for all nations in a body that rules only over its own members.

Not only that, but this once again brings up the familiar argument of "OMG this puts us at the mercy of non-UN nations WTF!!1one!" Not that it isn't justified, of course.

It's a fairly reasonable proposal, with some overlap to already passed resolutions and some overlap to already rejected proposals.


It's doomed to failure, of course. All efforts to regulate nukes this tightly will fail. It's the nature of the game.

The Nuclear Regulation Act

RESOLVES:
2. That all UN nations declare the numbers, details and locations of their nuclear weapons, nuclear power stations, uranium mines, nuclear fuel storage facilities to the INA within six months of this resolution passing. This will be kept in a secure UN database.

This is not a popular idea. To maintain viability in a MAD international dispute you need to have large nuclear weapon caches, yes, but it's more improtant to have the appearance of large nuclear caches. Something which cannot be maintained if all information about your nuclear arms is stated unequivically. Soem might also argue it as a matter violating privacy of nations, like searching houses without warrants. Even if you added a provision in which the INA swore on it's mother-committee it would never, ever release private information, some nations would still not agree. Nuclear weapons locations are more protected than good china.


4. That 'suitcase nukes' shall be banned and that no nation shall possess, use or manufacture such weapons. Any existing weapons must be destroyed within 6 months.
If you're going to use a pair of quotation mark you might want to define what exactly a 'suitcase nuke' is, mainly to help with enforcement. You migh also want to think about into defining 'fail-safe' mechanism more, too.


7. That all a nation's strategic and tactical nuclear weapons shall be based on their territory (or in that of a nation that formally and publically agrees to their basing there) or on ships, submarines or aircraft under their flags. Nuclear weapon bases cannot be built in or under international waters. They do not count as 'underwater installations' under the Law of the Sea.
Hm, I have a feeling this may not be popular as well. UN nations don't want to feel disadvantaged to non-UN nations. With the possibility of the only remote nuclear facilities in the world being from non-UN folk, some members might get antsy. Now, there's always the possibiliy of using a puppet nation...but I'm not certain people will think of that when deciding whether or not to approve of this.


9. That nuclear weapons possessing nations that are hostile to each other establish a 'hotline' between them for rapid communication in a crisis.
I like this'n. Hotlines are fun.

I've decided to submit this when I get two endorsements. See how it goes.