NationStates Jolt Archive

If people could support the proposal for 'Controlling the Arms Trade' I would very much appreciate it!

Controling the Arms Trade
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Rivolta

Description: STRESSES that this resolution does not encourage arms trading

CALLS for freedom of information concerning the international movement of weapons between countries as trade so as to remove the threat of ‘paranoid war’

BANS member states of the UN from the trade, and storing, of weapons deemed unsuitable for use as agreed by the member states of the UN (i.e. Landmines)

ASSERTS the importance for regular UN weapons checks and the importance of full and accurate arsenal itineraries being made available to the UN on request

REQUIRES all trading in arms to be made known to the UN

ALLOWS the UN the right to oversee arms trading between countries to enforce restrictions made

REQUESTS that responsible nations do not trade with volatile or hostile countries

REMINDS member states that the resolution can be enforced on the member state regardless of the UN member – or non-member – status of the other trading country.

HONOURS: UN Resolution #16: Elimination of Bio Weapons, UN Resolution #40: Banning of Landmines, UN Resolution #63 Freedom of the Press, UN Resolution #75 The Nuclear Terrorism act, UN Resolution #78 Repeal “Fight the Axis of Evil”

-

Many Thanks

Government of the People's Rupublic of Rivolta

and if you could put a copy on here I would very much appreciate it

Curses! Foiled by the fickleness of the copy-paste gremlins.
Have ammended.
Appreciate away ;)

The principality of Kingsey will suport that proposition.

I'm sorry but if my country can't trade weapons in secret to stop rouge terrorists from discovering movements while they can freely trade weapon across the NS world, then, we certainly aren't going to support a proposal to limit secrecy in weapons trades/movements.

I think landmines are fun for all the family. So does that mean no one can ban them since there is not agreement?

(I know what most of you are going to say - that landmines were banned under a previous resolution. But I was just using it as an example to show that getting the entire NSUN to agree on something is like getting kittens to walk in line)

Description: STRESSES that this resolution does not encourage arms trading


Good for you :}


CALLS for freedom of information concerning the international movement of weapons between countries as trade so as to remove the threat of ‘paranoid war’


But this doesn't mean we have to actually supply the information?


BANS member states of the UN from the trade, and storing, of weapons deemed unsuitable for use as agreed by the member states of the UN (i.e. Landmines)


See my previous post


ASSERTS the importance for regular UN weapons checks and the importance of full and accurate arsenal itineraries being made available to the UN on request


But doesn't require us to allow these checks or require us to supply information?


REQUIRES all trading in arms to be made known to the UN


How specific does this have to be? Can we just say "we sold some arms" or do we have to tell you exactly what we sold?



ALLOWS the UN the right to oversee arms trading between countries to enforce restrictions made


I am not convinced this is right or necessary. Who in the UN would be doing this? And could they use it to their advantage to know what is going on?


REQUESTS that responsible nations do not trade with volatile or hostile countries


But we can still do it, right?


REMINDS member states that the resolution can be enforced on the member state regardless of the UN member – or non-member – status of the other trading country.


And thus put the UN member nations at a huge disadvantage to non-member nations.


HONOURS: UN Resolution #16: Elimination of Bio Weapons, UN Resolution #40: Banning of Landmines, UN Resolution #63 Freedom of the Press, UN Resolution #75 The Nuclear Terrorism act, UN Resolution #78 Repeal “Fight the Axis of Evil”


Freedom of the press? How does that possibly apply?
Ditto to the repeal on the Axis of Evil?

I doubt very much that peace NOT through military power can be achieved while so many militaristic countries exist. Our nation would rather prefer to maintain peace through power while this situation remains.

If people could support the proposal for 'Controlling the Arms Trade' I would very much appreciate it!

Didn't you post this before?

Description: STRESSES that this resolution does not encourage arms trading

Which goes with the UN's policy on human rights issues.

CALLS for freedom of information concerning the international movement of weapons between countries as trade so as to remove the threat of ‘paranoid war’

Paranoia is how nations maintain the balance. Quite a few nations will attack those much weaker if the opportunity presented itself to do a land grab.

Also, sometimes arms being moved are kept classified due to not wanting enemy nations to find out.

BANS member states of the UN from the trade, and storing, of weapons deemed unsuitable for use as agreed by the member states of the UN (i.e. Landmines)

Oh, this shall be fun...

ASSERTS the importance for regular UN weapons checks and the importance of full and accurate arsenal itineraries being made available to the UN on request

Good luck on that. The inspectors can't get to all nations and not all nations keep accurate itineraries.

REQUIRES all trading in arms to be made known to the UN

Can't do that when not even my nation's government knows exactly how much arms trading is going on that involves the nation. It's a side-effect of the economic system.

ALLOWS the UN the right to oversee arms trading between countries to enforce restrictions made

Won't work. The UN cannot regulate nonmember nations. Plus, the UN has to be told about the deal and, frankly, I rarely have time to send a ship several hundred lightyears to some tiny planet just to tell a group of people who mostly lack space travel that I'm selling weapons to somebody.

REQUESTS that responsible nations do not trade with volatile or hostile countries

Like several hundred members of the UN?

REMINDS member states that the resolution can be enforced on the member state regardless of the UN member – or non-member – status of the other trading country.

So the other nation goes elsewhere and the arms trade continues.

HONOURS: UN Resolution #16: Elimination of Bio Weapons, UN Resolution #40: Banning of Landmines, UN Resolution #63 Freedom of the Press, UN Resolution #75 The Nuclear Terrorism act, UN Resolution #78 Repeal “Fight the Axis of Evil”

What is up with the constant citing of resolutions anymore?

As I mentioned in the previous thread for this resolution, arms trading is an evil of the world that we have to resign ourselves to. In some ways, it is not to be discouraged - a parity amongst countries is unlikely to lead to war or jealousy as distinct differences in military technology do. If passed, it strikes me that this resolution would allow the members of the UN to have some oversight into the military levels of individual nations, as well as protect the world from the danger that comes with shadier trading.

In answer to others: TilEnca - surely from freedom of information we can infer that all nations must supply it, or at least allow proper transparency should others search for it. The resolution should probably be redrafted to include 'complete detail' on arms trading. Overseen restrictions is probably referencing restrictions detailed in previous resolutions, already in effect in trading countries - this resolution does not try to ban any further weapons, merely completely halt the trade in those weapons the UN has already banned. As for the disadvantage... then don't be in the UN anymore.

TuesdayHeights - surely we should be setting a precedent, not stooping to a lower level? If terrorists have access to UN documentation on highly secure arms information, should we not worry that the UN is not at all secure?

DemonLordEnigma - Those nations willing to attack weaker nations purely based on the fact that they can, surely, should not have access to UN documentation, or be a member thereof. I assume, of course, that this information will remain classified within the UN itself.

Again, with the introduction of the resolution, I assume that through the resolution member nations are obliged to allow in UN inspectors and to complete full itineraries. Ditto the internal intelligence matter - member nations would be required by the resolution to find a way to regulate movement of arms and their creation.

Curses! Foiled by the fickleness of the copy-paste gremlins.
Have ammended.
Appreciate away ;)


*snicker* My government appreciates gremlins ...

Have you considered looking at the International Security resolution #57: Reduce Black Market Arms Sales?

It may be worth looking at as well. I'll certainly be forwarding your link to the UNICAT.

DemonLordEnigma - Those nations willing to attack weaker nations purely based on the fact that they can, surely, should not have access to UN documentation, or be a member thereof. I assume, of course, that this information will remain classified within the UN itself.

Actually, quite a few of them are UN members. Despite what lofty goals the UN holds itself to, the fact of the matter is that many of its members are guilty of attrocities. My own empire, for example, has committed multiple acts of genocide in the past (pre-Eon Convention, with one exception), and that's ignoring the loophole that allows me to produce biological weapons while managing to be able to say I am complying with the resolution.

Part of the problem is how the UN is structured. It cannot handle some of the methods the member nations come up with for getting around the resolutions. Another part is simply the fact nations are corrupt and look out for themselves. Kinda like reality.

Actually, quite a few of them are UN members. Despite what lofty goals the UN holds itself to, the fact of the matter is that many of its members are guilty of attrocities. My own empire, for example, has committed multiple acts of genocide in the past (pre-Eon Convention, with one exception), and that's ignoring the loophole that allows me to produce biological weapons while managing to be able to say I am complying with the resolution.

Part of the problem is how the UN is structured. It cannot handle some of the methods the member nations come up with for getting around the resolutions. Another part is simply the fact nations are corrupt and look out for themselves. Kinda like reality.

Dang reality. And surely the UN should hold itself to reasonable enough standards to reject those who break its resolutions - which, I believe, is technically possible under the game anyway. Undoubtedly, drafts are there for further re-drafting, and that's why there exits such a thorough drafting process in reality.

Dang reality. And surely the UN should hold itself to reasonable enough standards to reject those who break its resolutions - which, I believe, is technically possible under the game anyway. Undoubtedly, drafts are there for further re-drafting, and that's why there exits such a thorough drafting process in reality.

Well, you need evidence and to convince a mod...

OK, I'm not hearing a great amount of support for this from some of our more millitant members, so let's address some issues:

1st - Don't keep accurate itineraries? We're talking about a country's weapons arsenal not the penny sweet counter at a corner shop! Perhaps if you haven't got a post-it note somewhere with how many A-Bombs you have stashed out the back, now would be a good time to start?

2nd - The proposal does not support the arms trade. However, it DOES NOT call to ABOLISH it, nor for you to have to decomission the weapons you allready have (unless they're banned by the UN - and dont make me wheel out the crippled children who have some strong views on the play-time-fun of landmines), however there should be tighter controls.

3rd - Countries guilty of mulitple genocides generally dont hold much weight in arguments AGAINST the tighter control of weapons.

4th - yey for gremlins! And that link would be lovely, obviously one that skipped my eagle eye when I was trawling through resolutions (nothing makes the long winter nights fly by like UN paperwork).

5th - You're right, we cant stop nations outside the UN trading amongst themselves - but we can stop member nations trading with them.

6th - As for inter-UN members conflict, it's like two right handed tennis players both playing left handed, each has the disadvantage of a weakness, but the advantage of his opponant having the same weakness.

7th - I would hope a little more detail would be needed than 'sold some arms' - and look at it this way, it'll be practice for keeping those itineraries!

There are more points you've made, but I want to close this post. I'll leave you with this, as governments you serve people. These people have a right to know what is happening in the world, to live safely and peacefully. The cold war syndrome of 'what does he have?' can only serve for bad.

The proposal does not legislate the arms you hold at the moment. So long as they haven't been banned by previous resolutions they're yours to play with. Have fun with those. To those UN members who believe in freedom through threat and safety in secrecy and stockpiling - is this really what the United Nations stands for?

OK, I'm not hearing a great amount of support for this from some of our more millitant members, so let's address some issues:

Should be fun.

1st - Don't keep accurate itineraries? We're talking about a country's weapons arsenal not the penny sweet counter at a corner shop! Perhaps if you haven't got a post-it note somewhere with how many A-Bombs you have stashed out the back, now would be a good time to start?

The things you are not considering:

1) Accurate itineraries are useful for spies so they know exactly what weapons you have. Not keeping accurate itineraries makes that impossible.

2) Trying to keep track of weapons amounts is only useful when you have a settled population. When a good portion of your population is mobile, you loose track of people and what they have from time to time.

3) Some people only have one government-issued weapon, some have multiple.

4) The military is in a constant state of flux. I have enough weapons to keep them armed, but the amount of arms I keeped stockpiled fluctuates weekly as military members are lost in combat, lost due to exploration, or the military swinks and swells.

All of those combined together make it at best a guess as to how many guns and bombs I actually have at any one time. I have a military that keeps busy, which in turn helps the economy.

2nd - The proposal does not support the arms trade. However, it DOES NOT call to ABOLISH it, nor for you to have to decomission the weapons you allready have (unless they're banned by the UN - and dont make me wheel out the crippled children who have some strong views on the play-time-fun of landmines), however there should be tighter controls.

It does, however, severely hurt it.

3rd - Countries guilty of mulitple genocides generally dont hold much weight in arguments AGAINST the tighter control of weapons.

If I had sold the antimatter weapons instead of hanging on to them, I wouldn't have had to commit the first to stop a group of political terrorists from getting ahold of them. The second was a case of the dictator being indisposed, the person temporarily in his place being temporarily out of touch with the fleets involved, and the fleets in question taking it upon themselves to avenge the person put temporarily in charge because they thought she had been killed in a missile attack. The third was a demonstration of why it is bad to ban space weapons that had unintended side-effects, though them having more weapons could have stopped it.

5th - You're right, we cant stop nations outside the UN trading amongst themselves - but we can stop member nations trading with them.

Which hurts the UN nations by removing a majority of the nations in NS and limiting their markets.

6th - As for inter-UN members conflict, it's like two right handed tennis players both playing left handed, each has the disadvantage of a weakness, but the advantage of his opponant having the same weakness.

Which really doesn't help when one player has a racket the size of a water melon and the other one is using one they got from a Barbie doll.

7th - I would hope a little more detail would be needed than 'sold some arms' - and look at it this way, it'll be practice for keeping those itineraries!

If all my enemies have is that I sold some arms, that still doesn't give them the advantage of how many I sold and to whom. The less they know, the greater an advantage I have if an actual battle erupts.

There are more points you've made, but I want to close this post. I'll leave you with this, as governments you serve people. These people have a right to know what is happening in the world, to live safely and peacefully. The cold war syndrome of 'what does he have?' can only serve for bad.

It keeps my nation alive, my enemies from attacking, and is generally useful in making sure I have military advantages. The more my enemy thinks I'm weak and less accurate information he has, the greater a surprise he gets if he tries to invade.

The proposal does not legislate the arms you hold at the moment. So long as they haven't been banned by previous resolutions they're yours to play with. Have fun with those. To those UN members who believe in freedom through threat and safety in secrecy and stockpiling - is this really what the United Nations stands for?

It doing what you have to in order to survive. The UN means nothing if it weakens you enough that you get invaded and conquered. Part of what you have to deal with is the UN has enemies, very tangible enemies, who wish to destroy it. And you have nations in the UN who have enemies outside the UN that would use any military weakness to their advantage.

If the nonmember nations were willing to not use every advantage they can, than maybe it would be nice to focus on other things. But the fact is that we have a lot of ruthless nations in this game, both members and nonmembers of the UN. As long as that remains true, military superiority will be a priority of many nations in NS.

OK, I'm not hearing a great amount of support for this from some of our more millitant members, so let's address some issues:

4th - yey for gremlins! And that link would be lovely, obviously one that skipped my eagle eye when I was trawling through resolutions (nothing makes the long winter nights fly by like UN paperwork).


Galdago's resolution is one of the best ones the game has seen. Unlike many players Galdago tried to promote the idea of a more realistic roleplay when he created the following:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/unciat/

Check it out! You have to admire the guy for what he put together.

Galdago and I have joined forces to create: the United Nations Organizations.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations

On that off-site forum we have an active United Nations Space Consortium, which is always interested in having new players join in.

Tuesday Heights and I are again working together on a United Nations Association ... think of it as a NGO focused on promoting the awareness of the UN. There is a new FAQ series that I'm creating.

There is also an inactive UNCIAT and most inactive IRCO.

The real purpose of the UNO sub-forums is to act as a link between the UN and roleplaying. The UNO also exists to promote awareness.

While the site is mostly inactive, I'd love to have your nation at least check the UNO out. :)

The Mispelled Nation will not support this resolution as it infringes on free trade. We will accept an amended resolution that allows for the free trade of arms.

The Mispelled Nation will not support this resolution as it infringes on free trade. We will accept an amended resolution that allows for the free trade of arms.

This proposal doesn't harm free trade in the traditional sense - it doesn't place any kind of tariff on trading arms. It does, however, limit the kind of countries you can trade with - but as responsible nations, shouldn't it do that anyway?

Dang reality. And surely the UN should hold itself to reasonable enough standards to reject those who break its resolutions - which, I believe, is technically possible under the game anyway. Undoubtedly, drafts are there for further re-drafting, and that's why there exits such a thorough drafting process in reality.

I believe...and this is only a belief... what the delegate from DemonLordEnigma meant was those who find a way to obey the letter of the resolution, but not the spirit. For example, as a UN member, those arrested by the Overwatch or the Internal Security Agency in Necros-Vacuia have the right to a fair trial by jury, as per the Universal Bill of Rights. That being said, sentencing can, in serious cases (i.e. treason, terrorism, murder, rape), be tended before the actual trial, as per the Constitution of the Dominion of Necros-Vacuia.

1st - Don't keep accurate itineraries? We're talking about a country's weapons arsenal not the penny sweet counter at a corner shop! Perhaps if you haven't got a post-it note somewhere with how many A-Bombs you have stashed out the back, now would be a good time to start?

Even if a nation keeps accurate, updated itineraries of their weaponry, why in the name of the Predecessors should we give that information out as if it were a penny sweet itself?! We'd like to keep our itineraries in the hands of the Commissariats of Defense and National Security, where they belong, thank you very much.

There are more points you've made, but I want to close this post. I'll leave you with this, as governments you serve people. These people have a right to know what is happening in the world, to live safely and peacefully.

No, they don't. As a matter of fact, the citizenry of Necros-Vacuia exist to serve the State. If the State believes that these people don't need to know certain things, or that these people need to be conscripted, or that perhaps certain groups of them need to be put on certain trains and never be heard from again, then the people must comply.

--Ellion Kev, Ambassador to the UN, Dominion of Necros-Vacuia