NationStates Jolt Archive

Title: Nuclear Armaments

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

REALIZING that UN members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGEING the fact that UN resolutions only affect UN members,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards UN members,

REALIZING that the UN members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

RESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

Any thoughts?

Useless waste of space. We can do this anyway.

Useless waste of space. We can do this anyway.
I knew someone would say that but I'm sick and tired of seeing proposals to ban nukes, which is why i wrote this.

Don't pull a PC. Writing a resolution that only bans the UN from taking action is illegal. I'll fight this one as hard as I did the last one to pass. You may be tired of dealing with those, but there really isn't much we can do about it.

Don't pull a PC. Writing a resolution that only bans the UN from taking action is illegal. I'll fight this one as hard as I did the last one to pass. You may be tired of dealing with those, but there really isn't much we can do about it.
Actulally the only thing the resolution would prohibit the UN from doing is banning their members from owning them. The UN could still prohibit the members from using them, limit how many they could possess at any time, and other things dealing with them.

Flib, that's still illegal.

What if we have it where each member nation decides on the puruit of nuclear armaments?

If a UN member nations decides to pursue nuclear weapons as it stand snow is it permitted?

Flib, that's still illegal.
If this is illegal then why wasn't PC's resolution deemed to be illegal?

What if we have it where each member nation decides on the puruit of nuclear armaments?That's what this resolution is written to do, keep the UN from saying that nations can't have nukes, and keep the UN from saying that nations have to have them.

If a UN member nations decides to pursue nuclear weapons as it stand snow is it permitted?As it stands currently, yes, nations can have nukes if they so desire.

Whether or not you write a resolution to allow the use of Nukes, people will still write proposals to ban them, or worse, repeal your resolution.

Wasted space really. We should just ignore whatever Nuke proposals come up.

I don't even understand the obsession with the Nukes. This is NS! I'm sure we can come up with more destructive and hideous weapons.

If this is illegal then why wasn't PC's resolution deemed to be illegal?

That's what this resolution is written to do, keep the UN from saying that nations can't have nukes, and keep the UN from saying that nations have to have them.

As it stands currently, yes, nations can have nukes if they so desire.

I like this proposal, keeps my nuclear arsenal nice and safe from the prying hands of other UN states, and keeps my Uranium mining industry running nice and healthily :)

But what's illegal about it? We have resolutions in place to prevent direct taxation, so there is a history of the UN passing resolutions to restrict it's own powers.

And whilst other nations might feel otherwise, if they want to limit/ban/regulate nukes, then they will have to repeal/tiptoe around this one.

If this is illegal then why wasn't PC's resolution deemed to be illegal?

You're talking to someone who refuses to accept any interpretations of PC's resolution as being the ones the UN uses. To find out my theory as to why, ask me in the location where only the Guards of Old may view the wisdom.

But what's illegal about it? We have resolutions in place to prevent direct taxation, so there is a history of the UN passing resolutions to restrict it's own powers.

It's illegal under the current rules. Please see my guide thread to see why I am holding this flamethrower.

~Sets Hirota on fire and moves on~

It's illegal under the current rules. Please see my guide thread to see why I am holding this flamethrower.

~Sets Hirota on fire and moves on~Is it illegal? How does it differ from resolutions that, say, protect gay marriage or abortion rights? Those resolutions also constrain the UN in some way; after all, anyone who offers a resolution banning gay marriage, under the current rules, is going to be shot down because under the current rules you have to repeal the existing guarantees first and then move the alternate mandate in its place.

So how is this illegal, when viewed in that light? It doesn't prevent the UN from banning nukes: it just requires that the UN pass two separate resolutions to do it...

Put away the flamethrower, I just want to know why you interprete it as illegal.

Most of those resolutions predate the rules that make it illegal, and a few since then slipped through on the radar. The following quote explains:

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

OK, but because we can't amend resolutions - only repeal them - doesn't your interpretation of this clause make every resolution illegal?

If I declare gay marriage legal in every Member's territory, then I have not only prevented any individual Member from banning gay marriage, but I've also prevented the NSUN itself from doing so - because there's no amendment mechanism, and it is explicitly forbidden to overlap resolutions in such a way as to have the later one supercede the first.

To ban gay marriage, the NSUN must repeal the existing ordinance and then pass a new one in its place. So by the simplest possible interpretation of what we do here, anything we offer the Membership is illegal. We can just adjourn and hit the bar...

My interpretation is that passing a resolution that effectively blocks a countervailing resolution from being passed isn't illegal - it's shrewd politics. Because we really haven't constrained future action on the part of the UN: even the "no direct taxes" rule could simply be repealed if we wanted to start levying taxes.

I'll agree that a resolution that attempts to prevent its own repeal would be illegal - but in my mind its a trivial sort of "illegal", because such a resolution can always be repealed, even if its text insists otherwise. That's intrinsic in the very nature of deliberative government: we can always change our minds.

So again I ask: is it really illegal? About the only argument I can see that would serve to support that notion would be the argument that says, in essence, that this resolution has no other concievable purpose than to make it harder to pass a nuclear arms ban.

OTOH, if the author proposed that we require all nations to develop and own such arms, I don't see as how it could possibly be declared illegal. And that subtlety makes me wonder if this one is really illegal as well...

Allemande, the rules are what they are. As it stands, a proposal with only the effect of blocking other proposals that go the opposite way and which does nothing else are, under the rules, illegal. It's pretty damned simple, and in this case I do not see an alternate path as possible that does not include a rewording of the rules in the process.

OK, so now you've basically come out and said it: the fact that the proposal serves no other purpose but obstruction makes it illegal.

If the author can come up with some other purpose - IOW, if his proposal actually does something on its own, and then has the added merit of blocking a countervailing proposal - then he can legally submit it.

So if he rewrites it as a proposal to, say, require all NSUN members to beef up their military establishments and, as an aside, says that we should be able to deploy any weapons we please save for chemical and/or biological ones, but explicitly includes nukes, then it would do what he wants and be legal, too.

Just kicking this around in order to fully understand the limits of the rules...

Pretty much, yes. He can word the section to protect nukes in a fashion similar to the following:

In order to allow nations to fully defend themselves from aggressors of superior military power, all nations are allowed to develop nuclear weapons to a degree they feel is necessary.

A better wording would be advised, of course. But, if that's the gist in addition to a resolution to increase military power, then pretty much it's legal.

So, basically, what this proposal is saying is that we are allowed to have nuclear weapons. Cool, but....Can't we do that already? I see no point in the proposal, other than more paperwork.

Well, all of my arguements about illegality have now gone out the window. It was ruled legal by three mods.

w00t! Has my vote!

Irregardless of the legality of it, which I never questioned. I still see no point to it.

It, appears to me, to be granting all UN countries the right to have nuclear weapons. Is this really necessary? I ahve a nation, don't I have the right to create nuclear weapons, or has something changed in the universe that states that non UN countries can not make nukes?

The proposal is pointless. That stated, I'll vote for it, if only to make it harder to ban the weapons later.

It, appears to me, to be granting all UN countries the right to have nuclear weapons. Is this really necessary? I ahve a nation, don't I have the right to create nuclear weapons, or has something changed in the universe that states that non UN countries can not make nukes?

There is often a proposal in the queue that seeks to ban nukes being owned by UN members. You never know, one of them might slip through the net.

There is often a proposal in the queue that seeks to ban nukes being owned by UN members. You never know, one of them might slip through the net.
Greetings.

Do you mean the proposals, the nukes, or the NSUN members? Sometimes, we see things which echo other things; in this case, we read the second sentence first and thought it was about dolphins.

Greetings.

Do you mean the proposals, the nukes, or the NSUN members? Sometimes, we see things which echo other things; in this case, we read the second sentence first and thought it was about dolphins.

I was actually thinking about the dolphin proposal, and that inspired my metaphour.

I was talking exculsively about proposals.

Well, all of my arguements about illegality have now gone out the window. It was ruled legal by three mods.

Hmmm....i thought that flamethrower of yours looked more like a cigarette lighter. ;)

Well, all of my arguements about illegality have now gone out the window. It was ruled legal by three mods.

What the hell? So we're now allowed to write proposals banning the UN from doing things?

What the hell? So we're now allowed to write proposals banning the UN from doing things?

*bangs head on desk*

Flib's proposal has *never* done anything that other proposals and resolutions haven't done before. DLE's arguments were quickly dismissed in the moderation thread because they were __wrong__.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424069

All UN resolutions prevent nations and/or the UN from doing something. If we make prostitution legal, then by default, we (the UN) is prohibited from making prostitution illegal -- that is, until the original resolution is repealed. If we outlaw landmines, then we (the UN) is prohibited from making landmines legal -- until the original resolution is repealed.

Flib's proposed resolution (which my RPed nation will be opposed to) is fine. Hirota even provided the real reason for it -- now the proponents just need to explain that IC in the resolution. The proposed resolution basically is doing the exact same thing Groot's resolution that legalized prostitution (after it was legalized and later repealed) does: it gives nations the right to decide for themselves.

Nothing shocking about that!



On another note, there are a number of you that I honestly think should spend more time doing two things:

1) Lurking in the moderation forum. You'll get a feel for which players are offering good advice (i.e. advice that is consistent with the moderators) and whom tend to offer wrong advice. When it doubt, always trust the moderators.

2) Spend a bit of time on mIRC if you can. Sometimes you'll find moderators openly explaining what is wrong with something _or_ when something is OK legally, but still confusing. The moderators play this game because they like it just like we do. Though some of what they do is by necessity done behind closed doors, decisions about UN proposals is one of the most transparent processes in NationStates.

This decision is not a surprise, not by a long shot. :)

For mIRC, I'll make a point of finding the old UN IRC thread and posting when I'll be there. IRC is fun when people you like talking to are there. If enough of us get on at the same time, it should be fine.

Yup. As stated in the Moderation thread, this is legal. Pointless, perhaps, but not against the rules.

The reason it seems to be preventing is because it's... well... backwards. Usually Proposals mandate something ("You will ban nukes." "You will legalize gay marriage."), this one simply states that you will be allowed to do something you have always been allowed to do.

Suppose I could call it illegal on the grounds that it's not worth the UN's time, but that's pushing things.

Yup. As stated in the Moderation thread, this is legal. Pointless, perhaps, but not against the rules.

The reason it seems to be preventing is because it's... well... backwards. Usually Proposals mandate something ("You will ban nukes." "You will legalize gay marriage."), this one simply states that you will be allowed to do something you have always been allowed to do.

Suppose I could call it illegal on the grounds that it's not worth the UN's time, but that's pushing things.

I appreciate your explaining things a bit more, and allowing us to get back into the process of discussing the draft, but I also want to offer my opinion on the larger subject of the "point" behind this resolution. This is an issue you, Fris, and sirocco all questioned, and I think deserves some defending.

Example of another "backwards" resolution: Rights and Duties of UN States.

There are countless of other examples of weak languaged / sovereign rights resolutions, such as a few of the resolutions I've written.

The idea that the UN should be binary: you will do this, you will do that, is a philosophy taken by "International Federalists". Flib's idea was based on a "Sovereign Rights" approach to international cooperation. Both POVs are valid.

That said, the *point* behind this proposal is clear ... we've not been able to adopt a ban on nuclear weapons, even though 2 resolutions on this subject have failed. Despite the failure of these two resolutions:

Ban Nuclear Weapons and End Nuclear Proliferation Act, the votes on the debates were close (both had about 44% of the votes).

Flib and the other proponents are just taking things in a more centralist position and using the UN to make it more difficult for anti-nuke nations (like mine) to get another Global Disarmament resolution to the floor.

While I don't support their idea, I do think that in addition to being legal, that using a "Sovereign Rights" approach to hit the middle ground is actually very respectiful of the UN and all of its members. I certainly see the point of what they are doing.

That said, I think the proposal should be revised. I think the failure of the other two resolutions should be mentioned in the preamble as support for the idea that UN members want self-rule on this issue. I think the activating clauses should be numbered, and that the word "RESERVES" should be changed, as I still think it causes some confusion.

All this said, my government will fight against this resolution ... but I will also fight *for* what I believe is a sincere attempt at compromise (though slightly tilted for a position the people of Mikitivity can not agree to). :)

So when exactly does this rule apply:

Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

So when exactly does this rule apply:

There is nothing in Flib's proposal that remotely suggests it is repeal proof.

Did you read the Moderation thread??? I ask this, because the point you keep trying to make was immediately explained there.

I think what is meant by
Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.
is that you can't pass a proposal that says "You can't pass anymore more Human Rights bills" or "Social Justice resolutions will be illegalised" or "You can't repeal this"

After taking Mikitivity's suggestions into account here's the revised version. (changes are in bold)

Title: Nuclear Armaments

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

REALIZING that UN members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGEING the fact that UN resolutions only affect UN members,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards UN members,

REALIZING that the UN members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

NOTICING that the UN has twice defeated resolutions attempting to ban UN members from possessing nuclear weapons,

1. DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

Greetings.

We have just two points to make.

1. Why limit this to nuclear weapons alone? We are certain that states outside the NSUN would deploy weaponry beyond the merely nuclear level.

2. We would say that this resolution would then establish the right to stockpile weapons for defensive purposes - which we are of course happy to uphold.

Greetings.

We have just two points to make.

1. Why limit this to nuclear weapons alone? We are certain that states outside the NSUN would deploy weaponry beyond the merely nuclear level.

2. We would say that this resolution would then establish the right to stockpile weapons for defensive purposes - which we are of course happy to uphold.

Excluding biological and (possibly) chemical weapons, of course. ;)

Greetings.

We of Roathin stockpile none of these 'heinous weapons'. We use lead-lined vessels stamped with the seal of the great lord Suleiman, binding semi-sentient elementals within. We thereby do not abuse sentient life or resort to nuclear, biological or chemical means of mass destruction.

A natural philosopher once communicated to us that destruction of certain kinds could be measured in terms of the equivalent in tonnes of certain nitrogenated compounds. We find it hard to believe in such equivalents, as we prefer direct application of the basic elements of nature. '100% natural', as the philosopher taught us.

I am for it in all but one area. Yes non member nations are hostial twords member nations. but not all U.N nations are peaceful, just becuse you give a country a defensive arm dosen't mean they won't use it offensivly. but in spite of this if it ever dose become an issue in spite of its problems ill vote for it.

The proposal has been submitted.

The proposal is supported. :D We're #1! We're #1!

Approved, strongly.