NationStates Jolt Archive

It's clear that a lot of people aren't happy with that proposal. They have some valid arguments, and this is my attempt to compromise. I personally feel it's too vague and poorly worded to do any good, so I've tried to rectify that in my proposal by limiting bans to lethal chemical weapons and clearly stating that it only bans UN nations from attacking each other. UN nations can still use chemical weapons against rogue nations- just not each other.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Fatus Maximus

RECALLING Resolution #16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", and the spirit of preventing the loss of innocent life it was written in,

DESIRING to further ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not used against UN member nations, while

RECOGNIZING the threat non-UN nations pose with their ability to develop of chemical weapons,

HEREBY RESOLVES that no UN member nation may use lethal chemical weapons against the citizens of another UN member nation for any reason,
while allowing them the freedom to retain chemical weapons for the purposes of defense against rogue nations.

It's currently on page 11 of the proposal list. This is my first attempt at a proposal, so go easy on me. :D Constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.

I like the idea of your compromise; however, it seems to me that "defense against rogue nations" could be twisted to "use against nations we don't like." This is a very tricky matter... I like your attempt.

The Federal Republic wholeheartedly endorses this alternative. We are glad at least some among our numbers are in possession of half a gnat's brain.

The way I see it working is having no effect whatsoever on a nation's stockpiles of chemical weapons other than banning them from using them on another UN nation. Under the current law (unless "Ban Chemical Weapons" passes) it's legal to attack anyone with chemical weapons. Since non-UN nations won't be penalized for using them against UN nations, I don't see why UN nations should have one hand tied behind their back. True, it's possible for UN nations to use chemical weapons on nations they don't like, but they can right now anyway. If future proposals want to ban UN nations from using chemical weapons against non-UN nations too, that's all right- my proposal doesn't stop them from doing that.

The Federal Republic wholeheartedly endorses this alternative. We are glad at least some among our numbers are in possession of half a gnat's brain.

Well, 3/4. :D

It's clear that a lot of people aren't happy with that proposal. They have some valid arguments, and this is my attempt to compromise. I personally feel it's too vague and poorly worded to do any good, so I've tried to rectify that in my proposal by limiting bans to lethal chemical weapons and clearly stating that it only bans UN nations from attacking each other. UN nations can still use chemical weapons against rogue nations- just not each other.



It's currently on page 11 of the proposal list. This is my first attempt at a proposal, so go easy on me. :D Constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.


The People of East Columbia highly recommend that you apply this remedial proposal also to other types of WMD

It is certainly better than the current drivel up for vote. We reluctantly agree to support you.

Amendments are illegal

Amendments are illegal
Where's he amending, it seems to me that he's writing this hoping that the resolution up for vote fails.

Having said that, I'm about to say something that I never thought I'd say about a "Global Disarmament" proposal. You have my support.

There is still something about this idea that we dislike but it is a great improvement over the one currently at vote. We would rather our rights to use chemical weapons as defense be protected for defensive use even against UN nations. But we are far less worried about a UN nation attacking us than an outsider nation so we would throw out vote behind this though we would prefer a resolution banning the offensive use of said weapons.

General Arthur Hendrik representing the Dominion of Yrneh

i like your idea we must defend our selfs against such danger but first we mut try to talk than we can eliminad them :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :)

Where's he amending, it seems to me that he's writing this hoping that the resolution up for vote fails.If the vote fails, it's fine. If the vote passes [Currently:3,608 to 1,629; For] this is an illegal ammendment of the Chemical Weapon Ban.

Exactly. It's "An ALTERNATIVE To 'Ban Chemical Weapons'", not an ammendment. I'm hoping this one fails miserably, though as of this morning it was favored by 2000 votes. I'm attempting to set up a TG campaign to the major delegates warning people about the vagueness of the other proposal and how it limits the capabilities of UN nations who are attacked by rogue nations who are allowed to use chemical weapons. Incidentally, I'll be pushing my own proposal. :D An alternative is much more effective then the TG I've already recieved telling me not to vote for it- something along the lines of "D0NT BAN CH3M1CAL W3AP0NS W3 N33D TH3M T0 BL0WS STUFF UP." :D

I would like to know, where is the official discussion topic for the chemical weapons proposal currently being voted on?

Look up (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423855).

The one that says, AT VOTE: Ban Chemical Weapons [OFFICIAL DISCUSSION TOPIC] :D

This is the UNRAP: The United Nations Reduced Arms Proposition. It was drafted and redrafted, taking months of hard work to incoporate many of the arguments I have seen for and against nuclear weaponry.

Description: Co-Authorship: The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

Whereas the United Nations realizes the need to reduce the threat of nuclear, and chemical weapons, and
Whereas the United Nations wishes to ensure the safety of societies around the globe,
We, the member nations of the Nation States United Nations do hereby:

DESIGNATES that this proposal applies only to weapons of nuclear, or chemical natures hereafter known as NC.
DEFINES initiates as meaning 'first strike'.
DESIGNATES that 'first strike' includes any offensive attack made with any weaponry that serves a severe risk to multiple lives.
ENCOURAGES all UN member nations to enact similar arms reduction pacts with their non-UN military allies.
RECOGNIZE the previously passed resolution 'Elimination of Bio-Weapons'.
ADOPT the following terms of reduced arms:

First Strike Clause: All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy that no NC will be used to initiate an attack against any other Nation State nation. All UN members will retain the right to: launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type, and use NC weapons as retaliation against any NC attack.

'Declaration of War' Clause: Any initiated NC attack against any UN member will be considered a Declaration of War upon the whole UN and met with immediate retaliation.
SC A: Attacked member nations will be eligible for immediate aid of all forms.
SC B: Support shall not extend to UN member nations who initiate NC attacks against other nations.
SC C: Retaliatory attacks should be as minimally destructive as necessary to the defense and/or military success of the attacked member nation.

Arms Reduction Clause: Member nations commit to a 30% reduction of their individual stockpiles of nuclear, and chemical weapons within 10 years.
SC A:This reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable.

International Oversight Council (IOC) Clause: All member nations will present an accounting as to the quantity and security of NC weapons biennially.
SC A: The UN will form the IOC to oversee these reports and security investigations. Any member nations in good standing may apply for positions in this council. The IOC will seat new members once every five years.
SC B: Nations with suspected security concern, receiving 3+ verifiable accusations of mishandling, will consent to security protocol inspections for a period of 2 years.
SC C: Member nations will submit biennial reports of reduction, showing actions taken to properly dispose of weaponry, and account for arms reduced due to aging and/or instability.

Space Exploration Clause: In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.
SC A: No country may keep more than twice the necessary number of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The necessary number will be assessed biennially and included in the stockpile reports submitted to the IOC.

Depleted Uranium Clause: The above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armaments.
SC A: Be it resolved that the matter of depleted uranium armaments will not be further addressed until an equally effective and financially viable option has been adopted individually by more than 45% of the UN member nations.

I would be very much interested in sending in this proposal, but I do not have the necessary 2 supporting nations to do it. Furthermore, it needs an extensive TG campaign to alert other delegates to it when its on the proposal list.

Should the current and poorly proposed current resolution fail, I would be more than happy to send support the cause for this one to go to forum.

My telegram campaign against "Ban Chemical Weapons" is going well. I've been contacting most of the delegates with over five votes, and several of them have changed their mind. Unfortunately, we're still behind by two thousand votes. Also, my proposal is now on page six of the list.

Whited Fields- excellent proposal. I will submit it for you if you wish. I want to ensure the current at vote proposal fails before I do so, however.

Fatus Maximus, I applaud your efforts. I also must agree with another member.

I propose that we apply this to all weapons.

This was really a last ditch effort to create a compromise. It's not going to recieve the necessery approvals by Wednesday (still approve it, though :D ), but perhaps if it doesn't make it a second draft would do, one that covers other weapons. I'm hesitant to ban all weapons- if a UN nation inhabited by seven foot tall lizard men invade my country using hand to hand combat, I'm gonna want an AK-47. :D

Telegram campaigns are the only real resource we have in getting bad proposals shot down.

We need more people devoted to telegramming candidates and less arguing about the proposal in the forums.