NationStates Jolt Archive

How does the world feel about a program whereby reward is given to countries which surrender their arms, or do not grow them?

Example:
1. Any country surrendering a nuclear device, or chemical or biological agent shall recieve $10,000 worth of food aid.
3. Any country found to have no chemical, nuclear or biological weapons shall recieve $100,000 of food aid per annum.
4. All countries without compulsory conscription shall recieve $100,000 food aid per annum.
2. Any country found producing a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon shall be ineligible for 50% of aid for the year following.
5. Any country engaging in military activities against sovereign nations, or activating or testing chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, shall be ineligible for 75% of aid for the following year.

All weapons surrendered to the UN shall be disabled and destroyed if necessary. Anything not destroyed will be sold to the highest bidder for civilian/non-weapon use: this money will be used to fund abovementioned aid.

Amount of aid shall be dependent on available funds, as well as inflation, etc.

Any ideas? Any other way to fund the program?

Also, a country should be able to recieve equal reward for converting it's weapons for civilian use, e.g.: Nuclear warhead -> nuclear power; or anthrax -> anthrax vaccine

It's a nice idea, I just don't think it will work.

For one thing, if a country has a store of nuclear weapons and not enought food, they've probably made their choice to build their military at the expense of the poor, and aren't to likely to change it.

Also, while it is pretty easy to use nuclear plants to make weapons, I'm not sure that you can make nuclear power plants out of bombs.

The Democratic Republic of Golgothastan is free and peace loving, and thus there is much in this suggestion that we would deem as having potential. However, we do not feel the amounts being offered are in any way sufficient, and furthermore agree that this will only lead to wealthy nations with already overly vast armouries dispensing with a few unnecessary weapons, whilst small countries with a need to defend themselves are punished. Those intent on war will gladly watch their people starve.

Quick problem I can see-

Qho gets aid? poor countries.

Who do they get it from? Rich countries.

Where do they get their advanced weapons from? Rich countries.

So who gets hit hard by this? Poor countries, as only they need to recieve aid.

Who does this only effect marginally? Rich countries, as they may lose out on weapons sales. Still, not a great difference.

So you are basically harming poor countries and leaving the rich ones alone.

I wouldn't accept some places are forced into combat with other countries and I agree with the point that if a country has UMD's and has a starving population then they proablly don't care about them.

This leaves out more WMD's then I can shake an antimatter plasma railgun (a.k.a. "What the hell? We fueled up yesterday!") at.

Okay, now that I'm done with the slight mocking, I suggest you just change that to WMD's and leave the types out. For one thing, biological weapons are, despite the fact they are still in use, banned by the UN.

We see no cheese clause on this proposal, and as such will not support.

Cheese was never a weapon.
Those Gruyere explosions were wardrobe malfunctions, not sabotage.

Cheese was never a weapon.
Those Gruyere explosions were wardrobe malfunctions, not sabotage.

You misunderstand us. We would gladly support an effort to feed the poorer nations of the world - particularly with cheese - in return for concessions against their becoming militant. But we will not support a proposal of this sort which seeks to rob us of our money, rather then to open new markets to us.