NationStates Jolt Archive

Restriction of Nuclear Weapons

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aiur-

Description: Nuclear Weapons in the past have been a cause of great agony, destruction, and environmental disasters. The United Nations should stand firmly that these weapons of mass destruction should be restricted amongst its nations.

These are the following restrictions that will be issued for the nations of the world:

1. Atmospheric and above ground Nuclear testing is forbidden, under ground testing is only permitted.
2. Nation’s stockpiles will be at a maximum of 1,000 warheads, nations with more than this amount are required to reduce their stockpile to 1,000 warheads.
3. The trading of Nuclear weapons is forbidden, especially to rogue nations outside of the UN.
4. Nations may only help other Nations achieve nuclear fission for peaceful purposes such as energy.
5. Only tactical nuclear weapons are permitted in warfare.
6. Nuclear Weapons are only permitted in warfare as a last resort weapon against an aggressor, this only implies if the nation using the weapons has done nothing to provoke the aggressing nation. Nations may also respond with nuclear weapons if they are being attacked by Nuclear Weapons from an aggressor, the aggressor must be unprovoked for this to come into effect.
7. Nuclear Warheads are not permitted to be equipped to Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The range of missiles equipped with nuclear warheads may only have a range of 100 miles or 160.93 kilometers.

The violation of these restrictions will result in shaming in the media, and economic/military sanctions against the violating party.

With the implementation of this Resolution, the world should be a more peaceful place in the future for the Earth’s current citizens and their descendants to enjoy.

This is a perfectly good proposal, I didn't screw up this time. :) Discuss please.

Restriction of Nuclear Weapons

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aiur-

Description: Nuclear Weapons in the past have been a cause of great agony, destruction, and environmental disasters. The United Nations should stand firmly that these weapons of mass destruction should be restricted amongst its nations.

This would be nice if it wasn't for the fact the nations that really like the nukes are also the ones in control of the majority of the votes. Your problem is your issue is valid, but the people you have to try to get behind it will oppose it simply because they like having their massive stockpiles or one of over a hundred excuses they can come up with.

These are the following restrictions that will be issued for the nations of the world:

1. Atmospheric and above ground Nuclear testing is forbidden, under ground testing is only permitted.

How far underground? I could test a weapon near the Earth's core that would cause irreversible damage to the planet.

2. Nation’s stockpiles will be at a maximum of 1,000 warheads, nations with more than this amount are required to reduce their stockpile to 1,000 warheads.

While a good idea, it won't pass because of nations liking their stockpiles. Besides, most of those of us who might support it have weapons that make nukes look pitiful anyway.

3. The trading of Nuclear weapons is forbidden, especially to rogue nations outside of the UN.

Most of the nations who actually sell nukes are rogue nations, which also happen to make up the majority of the nations in NS. This won't change anything.

4. Nations may only help other Nations achieve nuclear fission for peaceful purposes such as energy.

Which does not stop weapons from being stolen...

5. Only tactical nuclear weapons are permitted in warfare.

See #2.

6. Nuclear Weapons are only permitted in warfare as a last resort weapon against an aggressor, this only implies if the nation using the weapons has done nothing to provoke the aggressing nation. Nations may also respond with nuclear weapons if they are being attacked by Nuclear Weapons from an aggressor, the aggressor must be unprovoked for this to come into effect.

See #2.

7. Nuclear Warheads are not permitted to be equipped to Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The range of missiles equipped with nuclear warheads may only have a range of 100 miles or 160.93 kilometers.

Which weakens UN nations by having rogue nations simply use ICBMs loaded with nuclear warheads and laughing at the UN's pitiful attempts to reply. At least, among Earth nations.

The violation of these restrictions will result in shaming in the media, and economic/military sanctions against the violating party.

With the implementation of this Resolution, the world should be a more peaceful place in the future for the Earth’s current citizens and their descendants to enjoy.

Once again, besides #7, the only problem you have is the majority of the votes are held by people who prefer unrestricted nuclear weapons. It is a good idea, but you may have to wait for a climate change before you can get it passed.

This would be nice if it wasn't for the fact the nations that really like the nukes are also the ones in control of the majority of the votes. Your problem is your issue is valid, but the people you have to try to get behind it will oppose it simply because they like having their massive stockpiles or one of over a hundred excuses they can come up with.



How far underground? I could test a weapon near the Earth's core that would cause irreversible damage to the planet.



While a good idea, it won't pass because of nations liking their stockpiles. Besides, most of those of us who might support it have weapons that make nukes look pitiful anyway.



Most of the nations who actually sell nukes are rogue nations, which also happen to make up the majority of the nations in NS. This won't change anything.



Which does not stop weapons from being stolen...



See #2.



See #2.



Which weakens UN nations by having rogue nations simply use ICBMs loaded with nuclear warheads and laughing at the UN's pitiful attempts to reply. At least, among Earth nations.



Once again, besides #7, the only problem you have is the majority of the votes are held by people who prefer unrestricted nuclear weapons. It is a good idea, but you may have to wait for a climate change before you can get it passed.

1. True, the nations with stockpiles will vote against, but if there is a majority vote for it, they are shit outa luck.

2. No one would be stupid enough to drill too deep, plus it is impossible to get to the core, even if the mantle was breached they would melt (and cause a nice volcano where they drilled). So this issue still stands.

3. See #1

4. Violatiors will be punished...

7. It doesn't state that nations can't have ICBMs, the nukes can't be equipped to ICBMs. Plus a nation with the proper technology could just shoot down the missile via Patriot Missile or an Anti-Missile Satellite.


The Issue Stands.

The Issue Stands.
Failed - Ban nuclear weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_nuclear_weapons_(failed)) - Nov 9 2004 - Forum topic on Ban Nuclear Weapons (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=371293)

Failed - End Nuclear Proliferation Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/End_Nuclear_Proliferation_Act_(failed)) - Jun 10 2004 - Forum topic on End Nuclear Proliferation Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=332854)

The Issue Stands on fairly thin ice. Remember what George Santayana said about history. We've done this for real twice, and it's been tried multiple dozens of times. It's highly unlikely to reach quorum, and equally unlikely to pass.

Sorry.

1. True, the nations with stockpiles will vote against, but if there is a majority vote for it, they are shit outa luck.

Sadly, they are the majority. That's the problem.

2. No one would be stupid enough to drill too deep, plus it is impossible to get to the core, even if the mantle was breached they would melt (and cause a nice volcano where they drilled). So this issue still stands.

I have the technological capacity to build a cutting laser with enough power to drill that deep and have a big enough hole for a warhead to be dropped down. Nor am I the only one.

It doesn't take much to shield something against extreme Earth heats. All you need is the warhead to rapidly fall to near the center before detonating, and if you time things right and have enough thrust it will do so long before it heats up enough to melt.

4. Violatiors will be punished...

Include a clause covering all possibilities.

7. It doesn't state that nations can't have ICBMs, the nukes can't be equipped to ICBMs. Plus a nation with the proper technology could just shoot down the missile via Patriot Missile or an Anti-Missile Satellite.

Uh, UN resolutions only apply to UN nations...

Also, as the US has so helpfully demonstrated, Patriot Missiles are nearly worthless against ICBMs. All tests involving more than one ICBM invariably result in at least one managing to penetrate into undefended land. That's a big ouch. Top it all off, satellites are actually best used against nonmoving targets, not against ones moving with enough thrust to leave Earth's atmosphere (ICBMs were the foundation for the modern space program by being the first devices of any type with enough thrust to leave the atmosphere from a ground launch, which is what made then and still makes them so dangerous. Modern space rockets are little more than modifications on the IICBM design.).

The Issue Stands.

Aye, it does. Your problem is not the issue, but the people voting on it.

I have the technological capacity to build a cutting laser with enough power to drill that deep and have a big enough hole for a warhead to be dropped down. Nor am I the only one.Oddly enough, it's easier than you might think. All anyone really needs is a whole mess of iron (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030517/fob2.asp):

The energy required to blast the initial crack, which Stevenson estimates should also be at least 300 m long and about 10 centimeters wide, is equivalent to the explosive power of several million tons of TNT or a single modest hydrogen bomb. The molten iron needed to fill such a fissure—about 10,000 cubic meters—is the volume produced by all the world's foundries in an hour.

The iron would bore its way down by itself, and reseal behind it, removing the nasty volcano stuff. Pretty neat, huh?

It would be pretty neat if it wasn't for the fact temperatures necessary to melt iron were not reached a quarter of the way to the core.

It would be pretty neat if it wasn't for the fact temperatures necessary to melt iron were not reached a quarter of the way to the core.
I believe the theory is that you pour in the molten iron, and the pressure becomes high enough to keep the iron molten before it has time to cool.

If scientists pour molten iron into a narrow crack at least 300 meters deep, the pressure at the bottom of the fissure would be enough to fracture the rock there, Stephenson says. As the crack grows deeper, the molten iron would flow downward and maintain pressure at the crack tip. The self-propagating crack—which high pressure in deep rocks would seal after the iron passed by—would progress at about 5 m per second and reach Earth's outer core in about a week.

I have no clue if it would actually work (I'm no geophysicist), but if it did, that'd be really neat.

Any missile that would be attempted to be drilled would be melted by magma in the mantle, it wouldn't get anywhere near the core....

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/AskGeoImages/Earth.layers.image.gif

I think I'd know this, i plan on majoring in Geology...

The theory wouldnt work because the magma seeping through wouldn't give time for the iron to harden, it would cause eruptions (possibly violent depending on the levels of silica in the magma), the theory would'nt work.

And my proposal isnt a ban on nukes, its simply a restriction, people can still have their nukes....

That has also been tried. And it has innevitably failed to reach quorum.

What you need is something that deals with various weapons of mass destruction at once and to tack nukes in at the bottom as a footnote. Most people won't read down that far and, if you do it right, you'll get is passed without the majority of the voters even realizing what they are approving.

That has also been tried. And it has innevitably failed to reach quorum.

What you need is something that deals with various weapons of mass destruction at once and to tack nukes in at the bottom as a footnote. Most people won't read down that far and, if you do it right, you'll get is passed without the majority of the voters even realizing what they are approving.

We shall see if it will make quorem or not. But nobody has stated their opinions on the topic, just the fact that it "wont pass". I want opinions!

My opinion is that #7 is your only problem area, and it's only a problem because of the people who you have to convince to vote for this and their concerns of protecting themselves. In the final draft, it can even be reworded a bit.

I would like this to have a chance in quorum to be voted on. It'll be a change from the usual arguements.

What you need is something that deals with various weapons of mass destruction at once and to tack nukes in at the bottom as a footnote.
BAN The Ultra-Nasty Threat of Trans-phasic OMG Sonic PLANET BUSTER CANNONS!!!

* This also includes nukes


Dude. That should work! At least I wanna be around to see it attempted.

BAN The Ultra-Nasty Threat of Trans-phasic OMG Sonic PLANET BUSTER CANNONS!!!

* This also includes nukes


Dude. That should work! At least I wanna be around to see it attempted.

Excuse me. I have an idea to steal and a draft to type up.

Excuse me. I have an idea to steal and a draft to type up.

lol
Delegates please help my issue reach quorem for a UN Vote!

nothing else to say?

Nah. All viable objections I can think of have been covered.

I countered all of them though...

You do not have our support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

I countered all of them though...
As a general rule, Ambassadors don't respond to ideas they aren't interested in. Lack of posts can (and probably should) be interpreted as lack of support.

7 approvals and counting! :) Need more, DOH! :headbang:

5. Only tactical nuclear weapons are permitted in warfare.


Ouch, can't we go back to just guns and infrantry? Because using nukes every time you want to kill someone is so bothersome.

Yea, needs a re-write, and most of the psychos in my region would kill me if I voted for this

Ouch, can't we go back to just guns and infrantry? Because using nukes every time you want to kill someone is so bothersome.

Yea, needs a re-write, and most of the psychos in my region would kill me if I voted for this

You misunderstood what it is saying, if a nation is using nukes, it may only use tactical nukes which are a safer more strategic nuclear weapon than an H-Bomb.

No, I'm pretty sure that I read

5. Only tactical nuclear weapons are permitted in warfare.

Not hard to misundertand that. I was made delegate of my region for a reason

See, if you had written "If a country is using nukes, then only tactical nuclear weapons are permitted in warfare".

No ambiguity on that second one.

I still won't endorse that though, because the dictators in my region like having nukes around. So do the democracies. So do the communist states. See, we all like nukes.

As usual my main issue with this is not the idea, but the way it would be carried out. The entire proposal would leave all UN nations at the mercy of non-UN nations. And since the non-UN nations outnumber us at about three to one (maybe two to one? What ever it is there are WAY more of them than there are of us) I think that it could easily open up the field of play to world war the likes of which you could not imagine.

So I would have to oppose it, cause I kind of like not being dead.

I must agree with TilEnca, only bad, unabiding countries would be in possesion of large stockpiles then, i'd be like giving a criminal a gun and a police officer nothing at all. :mp5: