NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal
CALLS for the immediate disarming of nuclear weapons within five years of the apporval in all member states of the United Nations.

DEFINES a nuclear weapon as: Any weapon that employs a nuclear reaction for its explosive power. Nuclear weapons include ballistic missiles, bombs artillery rounds, and mines

RECOGNIZES that nuclear weapons are a substantial threat to global security. Nuclear weapons can terminate thousands of lives, and pose a major risk to international security.

PLANS to reduce the immense threats that are facing the global community today. The disarming of nuclear weapons will reduce the hostile tension between nations and the threat of disaster.

Article I
Section 1: All member nations of the United Nations are required to disarm and dismantle all nuclear weapons.
Section 2: All memeber nations must complete the actions specified in section 1 within five years of the passage of this resolution
Article II
Section 1: At the completion of disarmament, nations must submit a detailed report of the process to the United Nations
Section 2: The United Nations, upon recieving this report, will send inspectors to the nations to verify that all nuclear weapons have been disarmed.
Article III
Section 1: All current nuclear weapons programs are included under this act
Section 2: Any nuclear weapons program currently operating must be cancelled immediately.
Article IV
Section 1: Any nations in violation of this act is subject to United Nations investigations
Section 2: A coalition of nations will sanction all nations that are found in violation of this resolution after investigations.

I firmly believe that many nations have nuclear weapons, and the challenges that we will face with these weapons will be too great in a few years. Now is the time for this resolution, in order to head off problems. I have seen several of these proposals before, but I have yet to see a coherent plan. I believe that the plan I have suggested solves the problem. I am open to suggestions for possible rewording, and am open to people's opinions. Please post your view on this resolution.

Eliminating nukes will not lower tensions.
Banning the Nuke will increase the need for ground force military. Therfor instead of Quick and Efficient Missles you have your own people on the field dieing anyways.
It will cause wars to be prolonged, drafts will take place, economies will suffer.
I however still understand that nukes can themselves eliminate nations all together.
This can be restricted however.
A start would be to set restrictions on what you can attack with your nukes. By making it illegal to attack any civilian based targets it would prevent civilian casuelties, and therfor reduce the massive destruction nukes are known to cause.
Further, I recognize that a Nation may move his/her military forces within a civilian area to avoid the nuclear threat. I am open to suggestions on how to prevent this from happening. Possibly make it illegal?

This of course is just one idea, but banning Nuclear Weapons will not achieve what you hope to achieve.

Even if this proposal becomes a resolution many nations will still have nuclear weapons. Non-UN Nations. How exactly are we to protect ourselves from them.

Unless DLE is willing to share his weapons. I believe some are more powerful then nuclear ones...

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Yes, i forgot to mention that. Technology has advanced beyond Nuclear weaponry. Many nations will not be affected very much by a ban on Nukes because they possess weapons far more powerful than Nukes.
However, even banning those, my arguement above will still stand.
Now that im thinking about it, Bioweapons and Chemical weapons be made into similar weapons of mass destruction, possibly just as deadly.

I do believe that nuclear weapons will lower tensions. What is easier, pressing a button to launch a missile, or launching a ground war. I also am against biological and chemical weapons, and those should be outlawed as well.

I also appriciate kamuras's argument on banning nuclear attacks on civilians. Mabye if this one fails, I may re-write it wish such suggestions.

Also, in the re-write i would include biological and chemical weapons.

Basically, I view it this way. By disarming all UN states, we are setting an example for the rest of the world. We should hope that they will follow suit and disarm as well.

Thank you for your suggestions everyone, please keep submitting them

Basically, I view it this way. By disarming all UN states, we are setting an example for the rest of the world. We should hope that they will follow suit and disarm as well.

Or, infinitely more likely, they'll nuke us into oblivion. This is a stupid proposal. Yes, stupid!

What about a ban on weapons capable of destroying a planet or more? While it's mildly discomforting to know a nearby nation may be able to wipe out a number of major cities, I would feel much more tense if anyone suddenly had access to a button capable of wiping out the planet or even universe.

'stop the onslauaght, ban the bomb!' shouts an angry hippy.

banning nukes would be a good thing, i believe.

if we ban nukes we will be taking a small step to world peace.
however as people have said a ground assault has more overall affect than one nuke. But a nuke was cause immeadite chaos and affect evry nation around for a million miles. NUkes are very powerful. if we ban nukes we can then go on to ban mre advanced weaponry!

'why must the inicent die?,' shouts a hippy before he's soaked by a water cannon.

P.S sorry about the bad spelling

What about a ban on weapons capable of destroying a planet or more? While it's mildly discomforting to know a nearby nation may be able to wipe out a number of major cities, I would feel much more tense if anyone suddenly had access to a button capable of wiping out the planet or even universe.

And how would we be able to protect ourselves from other planets that threaten to destroy our planet?

People, please, the UN has no control over non-UN nations or planets. If you ban any weapon, the others will still have them and use them against us. Get a grip!

Krioval, having fended off threats of war by referencing our nuclear stockpile, is unwilling to sell her security to make other nations feel better about world affairs. This ban will do little to nothing for world peace, and will cripple many countries' national security and economy. I vote no.

Even if this proposal becomes a resolution many nations will still have nuclear weapons. Non-UN Nations. How exactly are we to protect ourselves from them.

Unless DLE is willing to share his weapons. I believe some are more powerful then nuclear ones...

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States
Hmmm. Time to make a CIA factbook entry - I was going to tell you to c.f. my homepage, but the only reflection there is the name of my currency.
DLE sold me some nukes for a few sides of beef.

OK, more than "a few", but...
arranging delivery is the tricky part.

I firmly believe that many nations have nuclear weapons, and the challenges that we will face with these weapons will be too great in a few years. Now is the time for this resolution, in order to head off problems. I have seen several of these proposals before, but I have yet to see a coherent plan. I believe that the plan I have suggested solves the problem. I am open to suggestions for possible rewording, and am open to people's opinions. Please post your view on this resolution.

Bluntly?

Just as blind and stupid as every other "no nukes" resolution. You do not seem to comprehend that the UN has no power outside of UN nations.

Therefore, should this pass, we'll be contacting non-UN allies to blow you into mushroom dust.

I would support restrictions on nuclear use in the UN, but out right banning of them can cause major problems ~ considering that non-UN members who DO have nukes.

A restrictive guidline, perhaps, that would control the whys and how many nukes could be used, and what would happen afterward, etc. I could see the use in that kind of resolution.

(your idea had good intentions, but it really can't work unfortunatly)

I notice there's no allowance for future-tech nations in that proposal. Which meant that if:

1. I was in the UN.
2. This passed.

Then that would mean that every single capital warship missile in the Imperial Navy would be illegal.

You should ban nukes Nuclear weapons cause more harm then they save the best way to ressolve is to use military force.

You should ban nukes Nuclear weapons cause more harm then they save the best way to ressolve is to use military force.

Military force is best to resolve what, exactly? Wars without nuclear weapons? Wars in general?

Let's look at the facts here.
There are 125,254 nations in NS.
Of those, 37,709 are members of the UN.
That means that 30% of all nations in NS are UN members
Which means that if this resolution passes only 30% of the nations will be affected and would be left extremly vunerable to the still perfectly legal nukes owned by the nonmember nations.

Based on this The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will never support a ban on nuclear weapons. (unless we can get a weapon more powerful than a nuke from DLE :D)

I think the hard-liners will have to swallow the bittersweet pill of compromise for there to be just about any nuclear regulation in the UN.

These are always fun...

I think the source for proposals such as these is confusion between the real world and NS. My nation doesn't have nukes, never has. Don't much need them either. The arguments on both sides are flawed.

But it's still amusing.

Basically, I view it this way. By disarming all UN states, we are setting an example for the rest of the world. We should hope that they will follow suit and disarm as well.

Thank you for your suggestions everyone, please keep submitting them

How about this: Realize they won't follow our example, they'll just use nukes on us with impunity?

In short, this proposal is suicide. You may commit it on yourself and your nation, but we will not.

How did the Bio-Weapons resolution pass?

I am somewhat opposed to this, on the grounds of being defenceless. But given that we haven't been to war in an eternity, that we tend to make friends with people rather than fight them, and that we have other, more interesting ways, of defending ourselves, I don't see it affecting us much either way.

Let's look at the facts here.
There are 125,254 nations in NS.
Of those, 37,709 are members of the UN.
That means that 30% of all nations in NS are UN members
Which means that if this resolution passes only 30% of the nations will be affected and would be left extremly vunerable to the still perfectly legal nukes owned by the nonmember nations.

Based on this The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will never support a ban on nuclear weapons. (unless we can get a weapon more powerful than a nuke from DLE :D)

I concur with the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites. In addition, Uranium mining is a large party of the Stercustaurus economy, which is still developing. As leader of the Rogue Nation of Stercustaurus I refuse to back this proposal. If my nation gives up its defensive capabilities, who's to say another nation will not take advantage of my nation's weakness?