NationStates Jolt Archive

ooc- due to technical difficulties I am not a UN member. Someone else feel free to post it.

IC:
This resolution will ban all nuclear weapons. It is effective immediately. To deal with the issue of a unilateral ban (non UN nations will keep their weapons since they aren't bound by UN resolutions), I propose 100 men be sent from each country in the UN (mandatorily) to form a peace keeping force. These armies will only be used in battles between a UN member nation and a non-UN member nation where the non-member nation uses Nuclear arms. The soldiers each country sends to the UN no longer belong to them. I suggest approaching arespected RPer with the job of leading these forces in battle.

This proposal would be illegal and have next to zero chance of passage if it were made legal. Plus, I have to call into question the motives of a non-UN state wanting the UN to disarm. Krioval says "no", "no", "no", and "no", in that order.

I applied to the UN twice, and my computer didn't accept the e-mail. and if I were a warmonger, would I propose a peace keeping force that will be HUGE due to the number of member nations?

So you want us to give up our solders to the UN so they could die in a war with people who have arms? You have to be kidding. Disarm the UN and the non-UN nations will have more power to do as they please in the world. From harassment to a downright invasion. For the safety of my own nation, and the free world for that matter, I'm saying NO, assuming something like that even passes.

those soldiers are DETTERENT--the point is that they WON'T end up using Nukes because they know they will be destroyed.

Illegal version of "the proposal that would not die"

Gets out flamethrower.....

why is this 'illegal'?

why is this 'illegal'?

The UN may not maintain an army.

Because war in this game is consenual roleplay, and "the UN" is not a "player". Some mod would have to play "The UN Army", and we have neither time nor interest in dealing with the horrors that would start.

That's why it's illegal. That and the fact that EVERY variant of UN rules has stated "No UN Army" explicitly.

Fine, don't call it the UN Army, call it the "Army from Nations in the UN under the Control of 'X' Nation". The point is, it is a good idea, and there are ways around the technicalities.

Fine, don't call it the UN Army, call it the "Army from Nations in the UN under the Control of 'X' Nation". The point is, it is a good idea, and there are ways around the technicalities.Originally posted in Before you make a proposal... [READ THIS BEFORE SUBMITTING OR GET EJECTED FROM UN] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5224569&postcount=1)
International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Global Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Do not use these categories to establish a UN military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.
Go for it if you want to be ejected. Fine idea, despite the fact that you've been repeatedly told that it's illegal. Create a proposal to create a standing army for UN defense under whatever name you choose, and I can just about guarantee your ejection from the UN.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

there are ways around the technicalities

Famous last words.

Wow. A proposal to end nuclear arms while at the same time gathering together some form of military force. This is what I would call "The Usual Yadda-Yadda".

those soldiers are DETTERENT--the point is that they WON'T end up using Nukes because they know they will be destroyed.
besides the illegal calls etc, one thing has to be stated about this: our soldiers cant exactly fight when they are dead from having a nuclear missile fall on them....

:D he brings his 5000 soldiers... I resign from the UN, mow them over with my 50,000 tanks and artillery and (insert lots of stuff here), then rejoin the UN with some additional territory added.

Works for us. When do we start?

those soldiers are DETTERENT--the point is that they WON'T end up using Nukes because they know they will be destroyed.

IN the same way that Nukes operate as a Detterent?

It's far cheaper to preserve our nuclear arsenal located in high orbit rather than pay the wages of a few more soldiers/cannon fodder.

:D he brings his 5000 soldiers... I resign from the UN, mow them over with my 50,000 tanks and artillery and (insert lots of stuff here), then rejoin the UN with some additional territory added.

Works for us. When do we start?
lol.... never thought of it from that angle....