NationStates Jolt Archive

"A atomic war could only bring devastation. I trust you all know this.
I propose the banning of all atomic weapons. We will reserve only a few ,that can be fired against the nation that will brake the new law. This small group will be able to be fired only by A HALF PLUS ONE of the UN delegates.
The area within the silos will be kept are going to be on international space (i will give up a part of my own land for this) and will be guarded by 2 represantitives of each delegate."
vote, for the children...

This has been tried and defeated, so I don't realy see the point in submitting this.(ignoring the fact that its poorly written and lacks any sort of structure and logic.)

"A atomic war could only bring devastation. I trust you all know this.
I propose the banning of all atomic weapons. We will reserve only a few ,that can be fired against the nation that will brake the new law. This small group will be able to be fired only by A HALF PLUS ONE of the UN delegates.
The area within the silos will be kept are going to be on international space (i will give up a part of my own land for this) and will be guarded by 2 represantitives of each delegate."
vote, for the children...

Yes... Nuclear war is so dangerous; that to prevent it, you nuke someone...

That is what we do now already on a grander scale....

Thats what i'm trying to stop: "the same thing on a grander scale"

Thats what i'm trying to stop: "the same thing on a grander scale"

The biggest reason for dissent from the previous "Nuclear Weapons ban" (which came to vote and was defeated last year) is that the UN can only effect it's own members. If the UN were to ban nuclear weapons within its member nations, there would still be almost 100,000 nations out there unaffected by that ban putting UN nations at a severe tactical (and technical) disadvantage. It just doesn't make logical sense to unilaterally disarm. If disarmament is to take place, it needs to be universal around the world. That's something the UN just can't do.

There are over 2400 Regional Delegates. We're going to have to hold a vote of nearly 5000 people (2 per Delegate) to determine whether a nuclear weapon can be used? That's beyond useless - we'd be better off scrapping the nukes to begin with. Of course, I'm opposed to that as well, considering the prevalence of unconventional weaponry possessed by non-UN states as well as the dangerous precedent it sets for Krioval, a technologically advanced UN member who might be forced to disarm high-order weapons (Hammer of Raijin) later. I can't in good conscience support this, even after thinking of the children.

Thats what i'm trying to stop: "the same thing on a grander scale"

Actually you're not.... See, when we all have it, it's a deterent....

When you're actually nuking someone it's an attack...

So no, that's not what you're trying to prevent...

See, in the deterent aspect, my arsenal exists to make the other side question using their arsenal on me, since doing so ammounts to what is known as mutually assured destruction. See, I don't nuke them for possessing the weapons, I merely have them to make the other side think twice... Under your system, mere posession is enough to launch an all out attack....

This is not to deal with the fact as expressed earlier, that this would only unilaterally bar weapons amongst UN member-states, and would have no effect what-so-ever upon non-UN members...

Your resolution is appalling. Your grammar is scarier.

"A atomic war could only bring devastation. I trust you all know this.

Yes... That's kind of the point. It's "an atomic war", and in a piece of legislation addressing those affected is bad.

"I propose the banning of all atomic weapons. We will reserve only a few ,that can be fired against the nation that will brake the new law. This small group will be able to be fired only by A HALF PLUS ONE of the UN delegates. "

First of all, doesn't really stop devestation, just encourages more high tech weaponry. Second of all, doesn't even stop atomic warfare - in fact, encourages it by creating a collective stock. Oh, sure, I'll bet you MEANT that these missiles can only be fired with majority consent, but that's not what it says. Break, not brake, one half or 50 percent, no space before a comma, "will be able to be" is awkward.

The area within the silos will be kept are going to be on international space (i will give up a part of my own land for this) and will be guarded by 2 represantitives of each delegate."
vote, for the children...
Firstly, your land is not international space, and nobody wants to give you nuclear weapons even if you declare it so. 2 representatives is a ridiculous number considering the number of delegates. Also, divvying up the guard duty is kind of stupid as well. I'ts spelled representatives, not represantitives, I is capitalized and putting yourself into legislation is just as dumb, use words for numbers when smaller than ten, "will be kept are going to be" makes no sense, and "vote, for the children," while assumedly not a part of the resolution, still makes no logical sense and should be capitalized.

*pounds a stake through the heart of this proposal*

Die damnit! Why won't you die!

*ahem* Realisticly, we suggest the proposer realize the UN makes up less then one-third of the total nations of the world, of which most of the membership is completely disinterested in anything involving them doing something for the UN.

In other words "So, you're asking us to be wiped out, right?"

"A atomic war could only bring devastation. I trust you all know this.
I propose the banning of all atomic weapons. We will reserve only a few ,that can be fired against the nation that will brake the new law. This small group will be able to be fired only by A HALF PLUS ONE of the UN delegates.
The area within the silos will be kept are going to be on international space (i will give up a part of my own land for this) and will be guarded by 2 represantitives of each delegate."
vote, for the children...

Upon reading the resolution submitted by LucaStefanLand's delegate, Welsh shook violently, grimacing and displaying his tobacco-stained teeth as he immediately began crumbling and then ripping the copy. He balls up the shreds and hurls it in the delegate's face.

IDIOT!

I'd add the proposer's name to my list of people who don't understand that UN resolutions only affect UN members, but I ran out of paper several months ago.

Hm...



*reminds himself never to recommend the forum to proposal writers...again*

Upon reading the resolution submitted by LucaStefanLand's delegate, Welsh shook violently, grimacing and displaying his tobacco-stained teeth as he immediately began crumbling and then ripping the copy. He balls up the shreds and hurls it in the delegate's face.

IDIOT!
and this is comming from Sidestreamer.... we adimre your nobility in attempting this, but, to put it in simple terms, it aint gunna happen. pitty DLE wasnt here, otherwise he woulda sent you an antimatter bomb already

wow... ummmm I am speechless at the pure idiocy of this proposal.

Hm...



*reminds himself never to recommend the forum to proposal writers...again*
do recomend them, just check what they are submitting first ;)

do recomend them, just check what they are submitting first ;)

Good advice. If you see a proposal author with a POS proposal that needs a lot of work, don't send him to the forum. It just ends badly. :D

If, on the other hand, you see a proposal author with a well-written and considered proposal that may need some fine-tuning and minor amendments to take the more unusual arguments into account, then by all means send him on down. :)

yes, yes. I see that this proposal has crashed and burned...

good way to help the world chaps...

yes, yes. I see that this proposal has crashed and burned...

good way to help the world chaps...

Anytime. :)

Ahem. I would like to suggest that you read the Passed Resolutions, the Rules, and all the Stickies, and then consult with Powerhungry Chipmunks or Mikitivity before proposing more legislation. It will likely save you some grief. :)

Anytime. :)

Ahem. I would like to suggest that you read the Passed Resolutions, the Rules, and all the Stickies, and then consult with Powerhungry Chipmunks or Mikitivity before proposing more legislation. It will likely save you some grief. :)

I have trust me.

I have a dream! Where atomic weapons will be banned! And pace will raign apon our lands! Walk carefully, because you might step on my dreams1

I have trust me.

I have a dream! Where atomic weapons will be banned! And pace will raign apon our lands! Walk carefully, because you might step on my dreams1

I would recommend using a robust text editor with spell checking capability as well before making submissions.

Truthfully, Atomic weapons are of little consequence to me, they are used mostly for mining and other minor uses... I have much more powerful weapons than fission/fusion type atomic firecrackers.... Like Zero-Point/Quantum warheads and Matter-Antimatter warheads...

I have trust me.

I have a dream! Where atomic weapons will be banned! And pace will raign apon our lands! Walk carefully, because you might step on my dreams1

I think there is a place for weapons regulation in the UN, it just has to take into account that UN members have relations with more than just other UN members. So, in other words, it can't hurt our ability to defend ourselves against those that won't be affected by the proposal: non-members.

another suggestion, LucaStefanLand, is to do a little bit of research, to see if this has been tried before, and why it has failed. in this case, it is because every UN member realises that there are nations outside the UN that have nuclear, biological, chemical and other forms of weaponary that dislike the UN, and that if you ban nuclear weapons within the UN, they will launch their arsenal as soon as the last nuke is dismantled

another suggestion, LucaStefanLand, is to do a little bit of research, to see if this has been tried before, and why it has failed. in this case, it is because every UN member realises that there are nations outside the UN that have nuclear, biological, chemical and other forms of weaponary that dislike the UN, and that if you ban nuclear weapons within the UN, they will launch their arsenal as soon as the last nuke is dismantled
And you might want to bear in mind that many nations would "dismantle" their nukes by launching them at the proposing nation.

I have trust me.

I have no reason to trust you on that. If you've done all that I suggested, then you would have had to go against much of the advice Mik and PC would have given you and much of the advice in the stickies as well.

I have a dream! Where atomic weapons will be banned! And pace will raign apon our lands! Walk carefully, because you might step on my dreams1

*raises shoe and looks* So that's what I stepped in this morning.