NationStates Jolt Archive

Banning military ventures in Antarctica?

22-01-2005, 20:52
Military Ventures in Antartica
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Galactic Proportions

Description: Definition: To hereby ban and prohibit expressly the establishment of any and all military ventures (especially missle silos) in Antartica and to declare said region neutral and unavailable to all militaries.

AWARE: That it is possible and likely previously considered that Antartica would be a great asset to a country's military if missle silos and military bases were set up there.

OBSERVING: That there are no resolutions dealing with the international security issue of military bases in Antartica.

RECONIZING: That if military bases were set up in Antartica region, ballistic missles and other military strikes could be carried out secretly and without any warning on the other nations of the world, including this UN body.

NOTING: That if this resolution was passed to expressly ban and prohibit all military ventures in Antartica and to declare Antartica region neutral, that international security and intelligence would not be endangered by secret military strikes.

NOTING FURTHER: That if this resolution was passed, countries of the world could focus security issues on other, more vital points, both personally and nationwide.

RECOMENDS: That Antartica be declared entirely off-limits to any and all military ventures of any and all countries of the world.

FURTHER RECOMENDS: That this resolution be used as a basis to declare other parts of the world neutral and off-limits to the militaries, allowing security to be more focused on vital issues.

CALLS UPON: All nations of the UN to support this resolution and help in eliminating one more problem of international security, which will allow environmental research of Antartica to continnue un-interupted.

Okay, anyone besides me know how bad this is? The problems:

1) There are UN countries in Antarctica in NS. This disarms them and leaves them open to nonmember nations.

2) As this only affects the UN, nonmember nations are fully capable of taking advantage of the UN being unable to use Antarctica. This makes it easier for military strikes against many UN nations.

3) In trying to close a security hole, it only makes the whole bigger. See above as to why.

4) The resolution cannot be enforced, as UN resolutions only apply to member nations.
22-01-2005, 21:00
Yes, this proposed resolution makes a major blunder in that it fails to recognise that UN resolutions are only biding on UN member states. The consequence of it would be that UN member states not be able to defend the region against the rogue nations outside the UN. :sniper:
22-01-2005, 21:58
Why do noobs always have to use the sniper smiley? :rolleyes:
The Black New World
22-01-2005, 22:11
*looks innocent*

Couldn't resist, mate.

Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
23-01-2005, 00:43
This proposal creates a security nightmare for UN members in that region. It also threatens national sovereignty relating to security and defense issues. DLE is right about this. If you are worried about missiles in that area, then back to the drawing board for something more precise. Though, I'm not sure such a measure would pass.

President ethAnTkE, Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE
23-01-2005, 01:47
The poster of the proposal has no idea of the sheer number of missiles and other material which is already in the region.

It's called "lacking current intelligence".

23-01-2005, 03:24
OOC: Since NationStates is a fictional world (worlds, actually - can't forget the DLE ;) ), the Antarctic region can be populated by nations, and I would find it unfair to disarm them. Even if this "proposal" were to pass, all that I can see happening is the nations currently in the Antarctic region would leave that region or leave the UN.

:headbang: A pointless resolution - this is not the real world!