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,

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.


And to head off the obvious questions, here's a little FAQ about my proposal.
1. Q: Isn't this illegal?
A: This proposal was ruled legal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9021940#post9021940) by three mods. (Hack, sirocco, and Frisbeeteria)

2. Q: What does this proposal do?
A: Simply put it allows UN members to possess nuclear weapons.

3. Q: Wait, can't we do this already?
A: Yes, but twice resolutions that would ban nuclear weapons have reached quorum and were defeated on the floor. (End Nuclear Proliferation Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/End_Nuclear_Proliferation_Act_%28failed%29), Ban Nuclear Weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_nuclear_weapons_%28failed%29))

4. Q: Is this resolution necessary?
A: Is any resolution really necessary?

5. Q: Does this passing mean that my nation has to have nukes?
A: No, it simply allows nations to possess them if they want to. This resolution also has the effect of prohibiting the UN from forcing it's members to possess them.

Approved. Even though its been ruled legal, I really wish we didn't have to do this. However, with the Bio weapons ban in place and the imminent passage of the Chem weapons ban I suppose its just a matter of time before a Nuclear ban is enacted as well. I could RP the removal of all Yeldas NBC stockpiles to my puppets or use the "those are not chemical,biological or nuclear weapons, they are pesticides,medical supplies and air deployable fusion research labs" argument. But I would really rather possess them openly on my own territory.

Flib,

Please let us know if we are interpreting this correctly - if passed, your resolution would add a sort of extra layer of protection for UN members with nuclear weapons, since in order to get through a resolution to ban nukes, your resolution would first need to be repealed. Is this correct?

If so, we are a bit torn on this. Saint Uriel is a peace loving nation and we have never been involved in an armed conflict. Our nuclear power plants are only for power (honest, you can send inspectors). Most of us detest violence - you would be very hard pressed to find a "war hawk" in our parliament. Still, we believe very strongly in the rights of nations to defend themselves. Are nuclear weapons necessary for the defense of one's nation? Unfortunately, depending on the individual conflict, maybe so. Particularly when facing a stronger opponent, with more advanced tech.

We will debate this further internally, but I believe that at this point, we can offer our tentative support to this proposal.

- Augustus Cassopa, Prefect of Foreign Affairs, Saint Uriel

Consider this approved. :) I must agree with the Delegate from Yelda. Unfortunately, we must reaffirm our rights to defend ourselves.

Flib,

Please let us know if we are interpreting this correctly - if passed, your resolution would add a sort of extra layer of protection for UN members with nuclear weapons, since in order to get through a resolution to ban nukes, your resolution would first need to be repealed. Is this correct?
Yes, your interpertation is correct.

I sympathize with the intent of this proposal; the endless submissions for the banning of nuclear weapons are tiresome, and I would oppose any resolution to ban nuclear weapons from UN member nations on the grounds that it would constitute unilateral unreasonable disarmament in any conflicts against nations that are not members of the UN.

However, my personal opinions on the legality of this proposal concur with those of the representative from DemonLordEnigma at Forum 9022967 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9022967&postcount=9). However, the ruling from the Secretary-General at Forum 9024233 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9024233&postcount=16) legitimizes proposals that in effect ban future proposals by reserving rights to the member nations of the United Nations, and therefore I will not make a point of order. However, I will oppose any and all proposals that accomplish this aim, even if I agree with their intent.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Voted FOR again.

Approvals: 32 (Flibbleites, Yelda, Todays Romans, The Three-Toed Sloth, United Island Empires, Darkumbria, NewTexas, Ecopoeia, Vastiva, Sparren, Iznogoud, Charleno, Ravening Orcish Hordes, Geneville, Shnuf, Krioval, Melmond, Thermonuclear War, Jiangland, Islamic Vatican City, Over zealous Penguins, Dorkium, Palas Tallonis, Vlagmar, Novaya Zemlaya, Hendo001, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Diamond Realms, Darth Mall, Shrimpy, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Behinds)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 116 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jun 16 2005

Well, doesn't look like I'll make it this time, but I'm not giving up.

Never give up!

So sayeth the one who kept submitting Habeas Corpus until it finally reached quorum on the 15th try.

However, the ruling from the Secretary-General at Forum 9024233 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9024233&postcount=16)

We have a Secretary-General? *looks at post* oh, its just Hack :D

My opinion on this resolution is not very bright, i hate to say. I don't think this resolution would pass because you are allowing nukes in the UN. Many nations don't read these forums, and when they read the resolution, they will think "We can't do this, we will be creating evil nations in the world who will have the ability to blow me up. That's bad." Looking at the resolutions passed, i believe that is going to be the outcome of this resolution.

Many nations don't read these forums, and when they read the resolution, they will think "We can't do this, we will be creating evil nations in the world who will have the ability to blow me up. That's bad." Looking at the resolutions passed, i believe that is going to be the outcome of this resolution.

Actually, in my experience, Nationstates users like allowing themselves nuclear weapons, which is what I think they'll see this proposal as doing. There were two past 'ban nukes' proposals that came to vote and failed. The large argument against them was that if the UN were nuke-free, it would be unable to defend itself from non-UN nations which still have nuclear weapons. I think the default question nations ask themselves about a resolution is "what does this do to my nation?" rather than "What does this allow for other nations?" that we tend to work out resolution effects from ourselves outward. I think UN nations will do just that, see the increase of national security (by defining their right to have nuclear weapons) and overlook or discard any endorsement of irresponsible states having nuclear weapons this proposal might have with it (which I'm not sure it does).

I don't actually see the point of protecting or banning the use of nuclear weapons, considering that this is NS - not the real world - where we can create weapons of even greater destruction.

That being said, I am indifferent to this proposal. Should it come to vote, I will argue "For" in my region, just to stop seeing the endless "Ban Nukes" proposals coming through here for the lovely trade of "Repeal Nuclear Armaments".

:cool:

Approvals: 32 (Flibbleites, Yelda, Todays Romans, The Three-Toed Sloth, United Island Empires, Darkumbria, NewTexas, Ecopoeia, Vastiva, Sparren, Iznogoud, Charleno, Ravening Orcish Hordes, Geneville, Shnuf, Krioval, Melmond, Thermonuclear War, Jiangland, Islamic Vatican City, Over zealous Penguins, Dorkium, Palas Tallonis, Vlagmar, Novaya Zemlaya, Hendo001, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Diamond Realms, Darth Mall, Shrimpy, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Behinds)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 116 more approvals)

Approvals: 78 (Flibbleites, Yelda, Todays Romans, The Three-Toed Sloth, United Island Empires, Darkumbria, NewTexas, Ecopoeia, Vastiva, Sparren, Iznogoud, Charleno, Ravening Orcish Hordes, Geneville, Shnuf, Krioval, Melmond, Thermonuclear War, Jiangland, Islamic Vatican City, Over zealous Penguins, Dorkium, Palas Tallonis, Vlagmar, Novaya Zemlaya, Hendo001, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Diamond Realms, Darth Mall, Shrimpy, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Behinds, Libertarian Gun Owners, Ogglopolis, Muhlenburg, JujenDanq, Honshuwa, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Dicomte, Juggle, Mietlica, The Iroqouis, The Board of Trade, CiQuat, Crotchless Dwarves, Nerrethans, Czardas, Joshuaous Ramoses, Jezabell, Siaka, Zhukhistan, Sonic The Hedgehogs, Ellyonia, The Grand Mystic, Spliff Smoking Monkeys, DSM-IV, The Great Guid, Rototan, Ushani, Etnpm, Koranland, Renaissancistic People, NeoAsiaEuropa, Dukakis-Bentsen, Pikostan, Utter Brocklebanks, Ness Snorlaxia, The Fro Royal Family, Campus Magnus, Woldenstein, Keruvalia, Ibenaz, HCTV, Luna Amore, AIM FOR THE X, Raderia, Dreedan, TehIlya)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 71 more approvals)

Wow! what a difference a day makes.:)

How do you propse, this so called "Ban" be enforced?

I say, you can't ban them - how else am i supposed to tak...

err....yes...ban them....*rubs hands together*

How do you propse, this so called "Ban" be enforced?

I say, you can't ban them - how else am i supposed to tak...

err....yes...ban them....*rubs hands together*
What ban? my proposal protects a nation's right to possess nuclear weapons if they want to.

Approvals: 78 (Flibbleites, Yelda, Todays Romans, The Three-Toed Sloth, United Island Empires, Darkumbria, NewTexas, Ecopoeia, Vastiva, Sparren, Iznogoud, Charleno, Ravening Orcish Hordes, Geneville, Shnuf, Krioval, Melmond, Thermonuclear War, Jiangland, Islamic Vatican City, Over zealous Penguins, Dorkium, Palas Tallonis, Vlagmar, Novaya Zemlaya, Hendo001, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Diamond Realms, Darth Mall, Shrimpy, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Behinds, Libertarian Gun Owners, Ogglopolis, Muhlenburg, JujenDanq, Honshuwa, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Dicomte, Juggle, Mietlica, The Iroqouis, The Board of Trade, CiQuat, Crotchless Dwarves, Nerrethans, Czardas, Joshuaous Ramoses, Jezabell, Siaka, Zhukhistan, Sonic The Hedgehogs, Ellyonia, The Grand Mystic, Spliff Smoking Monkeys, DSM-IV, The Great Guid, Rototan, Ushani, Etnpm, Koranland, Renaissancistic People, NeoAsiaEuropa, Dukakis-Bentsen, Pikostan, Utter Brocklebanks, Ness Snorlaxia, The Fro Royal Family, Campus Magnus, Woldenstein, Keruvalia, Ibenaz, HCTV, Luna Amore, AIM FOR THE X, Raderia, Dreedan, TehIlya)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 71 more approvals)

Wow! what a difference a day makes.:)


Wow, if you go through a few times, you'll get this in ... of course, it will be interesting to see how nations vote on this issue, but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens. :) (And having to find a good argument against MAD.)

Wow, if you go through a few times, you'll get this in ...
Especially since the current number is now 84 approvals.

The proposal has been resubmitted.

Approved again. This will reach quorum eventually. How many did it get last time?

The Confederacy of Sharp Steeled Knights approves.

Approved again. This will reach quorum eventually. How many did it get last time?
The last number i saw was 84, and when I saw that it was living on borrowed time as, in my time zone at least, it was past the expiration date.

I say yes. Good luck.

Approved again.

I apologize for misreading.

I apologize for misreading.
No problem, we all misread proposals from time to time.:)

Anyway an update as to how it's doing
Status: Lacking Support (requires 115 more approvals)

The proposal has been resubmitted again.

Approved again.

I can't confirm (as I have yet to be up this late), but I believe that you can get a proposal in queue for at most 84 hrs:

The new "date of expiration" changes at Midnight GMT (confirmed)

The ending of date of expiration either ends when no places on Earth are in that date (so 11 hrs during the summer) or 12 hrs if Max Barry wanted to simplify it. (but either way - that's 5 or 6 am my time - I'm not getting up that early - are you?)

Yes, this is a technology that separates the developed world from the undeveloped. Because of this weapon, we can concentrate on all of the wonderful things that improve our lives, instead of fighting off the undeveloped and often hostile rogues.

They are capable and prepared to fight old style wars, forcing us to sacrifice millions of soldiers to defend ourselves, but these weapons mean, they can not do so. They can simply be obliterated without ever seeing our faces and that knowledge keeps them from taking out their envy on our men, women and children.

Current status:
Approvals: 62 (Flibbleites, Darth Mall, Brobdingnia, CTerryland, Luna Amore, Yelda, Shester, DSM-IV, Fundamental Forces, Iustinia, The Three-Toed Sloth, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Over zealous Penguins, Wolfish, Xaidan, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Starps, NeoAsiaEuropa, Ecopoeia, NewTexas, The Trench, Vastiva, Krankor, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Krioval, Banjarmasin, Jiangland, Senseless Aggression, Spoon Bitch, The Imperial Raven, Jugaria, Iznogoud, Ravening Orcish Hordes, Spaz Land, Othelma, Etnpm, Capitalist White Men, Palzac, Symria, Brainy100111, Diamond Realms, Ghaard Allamia, Fallowat, Utter Brocklebanks, Finbergia, OBSA, Dorkium, Whip-a-topia, Tannu Tuval, Vrone, Shatford Valley, Blue Floyd, Wojcikiville, Borograd, English Humour, Upper Gornal, Tactical PIE, Prox9, The 45 Cal, Battle Island, Penton Rise, Bretonnian Europa)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 85 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Jun 24 2005

Approvals: 81 (Flibbleites, Darth Mall, Brobdingnia, CTerryland, Luna Amore, Yelda, Shester, DSM-IV, Fundamental Forces, Iustinia, The Three-Toed Sloth, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Over zealous Penguins, Wolfish, Xaidan, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Starps, NeoAsiaEuropa, Ecopoeia, NewTexas, The Trench, Vastiva, Krankor, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Krioval, Banjarmasin, Jiangland, Senseless Aggression, Spoon Bitch, The Imperial Raven, Jugaria, Iznogoud, Ravening Orcish Hordes, Spaz Land, Othelma, Etnpm, Capitalist White Men, Palzac, Symria, Brainy100111, Diamond Realms, Ghaard Allamia, Fallowat, Utter Brocklebanks, Finbergia, OBSA, Dorkium, Whip-a-topia, Tannu Tuval, Vrone, Shatford Valley, Blue Floyd, Wojcikiville, Borograd, English Humour, Upper Gornal, Tactical PIE, Prox9, The 45 Cal, Battle Island, Penton Rise, Bretonnian Europa, Behinds, SOC Intelligence, Darkumbria, Palas Tallonis, Jimbobwei, Shocksvick, Naval Revolutionaries, Zancabar, Pturbu, White power world wide, Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis, Zhukhistan, Demoskratos, Klashonite, KualaLumpar, Foofangia, Novaya Zemlaya, Luruar, Nevscrow)


When it falls off queue, I'd suggest immediately resubmitting - this is going to be one of those active periods, and it just might manage to pick up enough extras in the fallout over falling off bioweapons.

Absolutely.

I strongly Oppose this Working Paper

I strongly Oppose this Working Paper

Ok... and?

I strongly Oppose this Working Paper
Would you care to explain why?

When it falls off queue, I'd suggest immediately resubmitting - this is going to be one of those active periods, and it just might manage to pick up enough extras in the fallout over falling off bioweapons.I already planned on doing that.

I already planned on doing that.
And I have done it, it's currently on page 14.

Approvals: 81 (Flibbleites, Yelda, Vastiva, Symria, Grays Harbor, Jiangland, NeoAsiaEuropa, NewTexas, Nevscrow, Wojcikiville, The Fro Royal Family, Disenchanted Students, SOC Intelligence, Poohoobootoo, Darth Mall, Zouloukistan, Iznogoud, Volumeamplify, The Three-Toed Sloth, Islamic Vatican City, Luruar, Melmond, Upper Gornal, Battle Island, Starps, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Pturbu, Senseless Aggression, Foofangia, Spaz Land, Garnilorn, DSM-IV, Wolfish, Darkumbria, The Great Bud, The Inner Universe, Asmodria, The Iroqouis, The Hunter Isles, Sinsvyka, Hogs Head, Barfieldslande, Tunafish Sandwich, President Wesley Jones, The Great UP, Coquetvia, Svedelandia, Goldenloser, Sel Appa, Roathin, Fatheaded Edward, Haradin, Crotchless Dwarves, Wegason, Calabraxia, Tarphos, Lofeca, Blue Scorpions, Rlyeh, Krankor, Palzac, The Yi Ta, Cav, Italia Major, Czardas, Etnpm, Aquatnis, Borograd, The ThunderDragon, Imperialistic Kadstan, England and Denmark, Hakenium, Namreg, Tananza, Weed Central, Ballyboughal, Quetzcotl, Ushani, Flaming Empire, Iustinia, Ness Snorlaxia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 66 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Jun 28 2005

Approved.

After so many debates, why not let nations choose for themselves? It is obvious that a resolution to make everyone content can not be made. This leaves it open for the nation to tailor it to their own specific needs.

However, that does carry the risk of letting every member nation have a Nuclear Arsenal, yet, in counter-point, you also have one.

But, that just leads to a Nuclear Holocaust....

Still, I approve this notion.

Still, I approve this notion.
And I thank you for your support.

Current status

Status: Lacking Support (requires 24 more approvals)

With about 4 hours left, boy this is going to be close.

Thanks for your telegram Flib. You have my approval :)

Thank you for your support.

Status: Lacking Support (requires 8 more approvals)

Approvals: 144 (Flibbleites, Yelda, Vastiva, Symria, Grays Harbor, Jiangland, NeoAsiaEuropa, NewTexas, Nevscrow, Wojcikiville, The Fro Royal Family, Disenchanted Students, SOC Intelligence, Poohoobootoo, Darth Mall, Zouloukistan, Iznogoud, Volumeamplify, The Three-Toed Sloth, Islamic Vatican City, Luruar, Melmond, Upper Gornal, Battle Island, Starps, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Pturbu, Senseless Aggression, Spaz Land, Garnilorn, DSM-IV, Wolfish, Darkumbria, The Great Bud, The Inner Universe, Asmodria, The Iroqouis, The Hunter Isles, Sinsvyka, Hogs Head, Barfieldslande, Tunafish Sandwich, President Wesley Jones, The Great UP, Coquetvia, Svedelandia, Goldenloser, Sel Appa, Haradin, Crotchless Dwarves, Wegason, Calabraxia, Tarphos, Lofeca, Blue Scorpions, Rlyeh, Krankor, Palzac, The Yi Ta, Cav, Italia Major, Czardas, Etnpm, Aquatnis, Borograd, The ThunderDragon, Imperialistic Kadstan, England and Denmark, Hakenium, Namreg, Tananza, Weed Central, Ballyboughal, Quetzcotl, Ushani, Flaming Empire, Iustinia, Ness Snorlaxia, Kyldrana, Conservative Haters, Microdell, The Raven Islands, South Land, Datigua, The doomed world, Trans-Union States, Southwest Asia, The Greek Asteroids, Nerdy Uber Geeks, Roarktopia, The Anti Chavs, Beerhood, New Matrex, Aligned Planets, Der Mannia, Manea, Tinis, Zhukhistan, Joseph Seal, Alexander Thomas Smith, Hendo001, Dakaathi, Meshuggeners, Takistania, Constopia, Bogdog, Foxstenikopolis, Ibenaz, Raderia, Fenure, Ophainia, Lucky Sevens, The Talisman, Lior Liechtenstein, Male Love, Beezalbub, Whitekong, Blue Floyd, Shester, North Central America, Finbergia, The Grand Mystic, Robert E Lee II, Suuropolis, The Necromangers, SovietRepublicofRussia, Mangodick, United Swines, Amir Shah, Boone Grove, FC Dallas, Alberta and NWT, Kaushland, The Proteus Guard, Abok, Strobania, Albertopolis, Liongate, Teh DeaDiTeS, MoralMajority, Banjarmasin, Sanidesco, Bretonnian Europa, Naaaaaaaaaavanites)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 3 more approvals

:D

Still needs three!
[edit] And now it's down to two! Come one, just two more delegates to check the proposal list!

Approvals: 147 (Flibbleites, Yelda, Vastiva, Symria, Grays Harbor, Jiangland, NeoAsiaEuropa, NewTexas, Nevscrow, Wojcikiville, The Fro Royal Family, Disenchanted Students, SOC Intelligence, Poohoobootoo, Darth Mall, Zouloukistan, Iznogoud, Volumeamplify, The Three-Toed Sloth, Islamic Vatican City, Luruar, Melmond, Upper Gornal, Battle Island, Starps, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Pturbu, Senseless Aggression, Spaz Land, Garnilorn, DSM-IV, Wolfish, Darkumbria, The Great Bud, The Inner Universe, Asmodria, The Iroqouis, The Hunter Isles, Sinsvyka, Hogs Head, Barfieldslande, Tunafish Sandwich, President Wesley Jones, The Great UP, Coquetvia, Svedelandia, Goldenloser, Sel Appa, Haradin, Crotchless Dwarves, Wegason, Calabraxia, Tarphos, Lofeca, Blue Scorpions, Rlyeh, Krankor, Palzac, The Yi Ta, Cav, Italia Major, Czardas, Etnpm, Aquatnis, Borograd, The ThunderDragon, Imperialistic Kadstan, England and Denmark, Hakenium, Namreg, Tananza, Weed Central, Ballyboughal, Quetzcotl, Ushani, Flaming Empire, Iustinia, Ness Snorlaxia, Kyldrana, Conservative Haters, Microdell, The Raven Islands, South Land, Datigua, The doomed world, Trans-Union States, Southwest Asia, The Greek Asteroids, Nerdy Uber Geeks, Roarktopia, The Anti Chavs, Beerhood, New Matrex, Aligned Planets, Der Mannia, Manea, Tinis, Zhukhistan, Joseph Seal, Alexander Thomas Smith, Hendo001, Dakaathi, Meshuggeners, Takistania, Constopia, Bogdog, Foxstenikopolis, Ibenaz, Raderia, Fenure, Ophainia, Lucky Sevens, The Talisman, Lior Liechtenstein, Male Love, Beezalbub, Whitekong, Blue Floyd, Shester, North Central America, Finbergia, The Grand Mystic, Robert E Lee II, Suuropolis, The Necromangers, SovietRepublicofRussia, Mangodick, United Swines, Amir Shah, Boone Grove, FC Dallas, Alberta and NWT, Kaushland, The Proteus Guard, Abok, Strobania, Albertopolis, Liongate, Teh DeaDiTeS, MoralMajority, Banjarmasin, Sanidesco, Bretonnian Europa, Naaaaaaaaaavanites, Clintoned, Rotovia-, FairyTInkArisen)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Woo-Hoo!!!!!!!!!!http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/Smilies/beerchug.gif

Thank you to every one who approved it.

YAY!

And now, as it is 1:45 am my time, I'm going to bed.

Yosh! It's reached quorum! You're welcome, Flib!

We, members of UN, cannot let this resolution pass. We stand for global peace. This can only be reached practically if the whole world disarm. If nobody sets an example for disarming, no one will disarm. Yes, the downside is that many UN-hostile nations will seize the opportunity to attack UN nations, but that is a cost we all must take. Through diplomacy, not by arms, shall this world have peace!

/The President of the People's Republic of Ahrensland

We, members of UN, cannot let this resolution pass. We stand for global peace. This can only be reached practically if the whole world disarm. If nobody sets an example for disarming, no one will disarm. Yes, the downside is that many UN-hostile nations will seize the opportunity to attack UN nations, but that is a cost we all must take. Through diplomacy, not by arms, shall this world have peace!

/The President of the People's Republic of Ahrensland
I nuked you, your dead, the world is a better place.

Correct me if my reading of this proposal is wrong, but it doesn't seem to actually change anything, and so is completely pointless.

My sincere congratulations to Bob Flibble and associates and apologies for putting him through the wringer by removing our endorsement. Had FairyTInkArisen not placed their endorsement just before the deadline, I may have been very unpopular round these parts!

I have my concerns over the content of the resolution, but my vote will be cast according to the wishes of my region.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The United Nations exists to safeguard the peace of the world, how can peace be safeguarded if we have more nuclear weapons, which have already caused enough strife and misery in the world.

Nuclear weapons, just as Biological and Chemical Weapons, are a scourge to world peace and their proliferation will not help the world situation one iota. The argument that, all of the United Nations should possess nuclear weapons simply because we cannot force the non-member states to not possess nuclear weapons is extremely simplistic and falls short of any understanding of international diplomacy. The argument that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will safeguard our futures is, to put it simply, farcical.

Yes, the Royal Government of the Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich fully understands that all resolutions that emanate from this most respected body only apply to members of the United Nations, but as a organisation that strives for international co-operation we should be setting an example to the non-member states, we should be able to stand united and tell them with our collective voice that nuclear weapons do not solve anything, that nuclear weapons are a greater threat than protection. Too much state money is wasted on weapons when it can be diverted to social welfare, to health, to education, to crime fighting, to funding the arts and sciences. Why, the Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich asks, do we need to spend billions on nuclear and other weapons systems that will cause more strife than peace?

Let us set an example to the non-member states, the United Nations and the member-states are against nuclear weapons; so much so that we will ban them, let us set an example and take the higher moral ground.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich urges all nations of the United Nations to vote against this resolution, to safeguard our future and to ensure that a nuclear war is averted, because the only way it will be averted is if these heinous weapons are destroyed.

Ambassador Dr. Benita Countess Waldner-Plaffy
HM Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince Kinsky-Sanjath

I am totally against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I find this resolution to be based on fiction in bad taste and mildly offensive. Should there be any conflict between nations or regions a diplomatic solution should always be the first and only option.

Congratulations on reaching quorum, Flib. Now the serious debates start.

I feel that if the UN Nations show a steadfast and true path towards no nuclear weapons than the rest of the world might choose to follow in the path of this organization and the nations to which it represents.

we should advance our technology, embrace the nuke, what further things could we come up with with further research, not only to protect our own soverigne borders, but also, if there ever was one, an alien invasion, we could band together as one, put asside our differences.

and because we have embraced this armourment, we can fight off any forign aliens.

also, there are cirtain rogue nations that make/buy these nukes, how will we defend ourselves from them?

We, the colony of Berenice, cannot accept a resolution in which the United Nations promote the armamentistic development. The development of nuclear weapons entails death solely. It is not ethical to invoke the subject of the necessary defense like voucher of the situation, since the nuclear weapons are of clearly offensive character. We will not support a proposal that can cause the destruction of the planet and the loss of human lives.

(excuse for my English, is not my native language)

We, the elected representatives of the free, peace loving people of Outer Munronia, cannot in good conscience lend our support to a resolution such as this.

We recognize that the world is often a dangerous, hostile place, and that the disagreements and conflicts nations find themselves involved in cannot in all cases be brought to diplomatic solutions (although surely diplomatic solutions should be the first and best option for resolution of our conflicts), the sort of total destructiveness that nuclear weapons allow for is morally reprehensible, and the use of such weapons would be inexcusable regardless of circumstance. We would go so far as to say that the wide spread use of these weapons would be akin to genocide.

Although the argument has been made that many nations keep such arsenals only for deterrent purposes, we would suggest that any deterrent value these horrifying weapons carry stems from an implied willingness to use them on behalf of the countries that hold them. After all, if a country is unwilling to launch nuclear weapons, and this is understood, then it doesn't matter if such weapons exist or not. Support for a resolution allowing the widespread ownership of these weapons would therefore tacitly support their widespread use, an outcome that we believe none of the member nations of the United Nations would wish.

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly, it is for this reason that Outer Munronian delegation would urge you to vote against the Nuclear Armaments resolution. Because in the end, it's the safety of the world at stake.

also, there are cirtain rogue nations that make/buy these nukes, how will we defend ourselves from them?
To the State of Joestralia, nuclear weapons are not a weapons of defence, that is something that people need to be aware of!

Nuclear weapons are not a defensive weapon, they are purely a weapon of attack

Ambassador Waldner-Plaffy

Mayakovskia']Correct me if my reading of this proposal is wrong, but it doesn't seem to actually change anything, and so is completely pointless.This isn't the first time the UN simply stated that something was a good thing and that all nations should be allowed to do it. National System of Tax (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=104), for example, didn't force any nation to do anything they didn't want to. Nations are still free to ban nuclear weapons on their own.

Noting the trend of the UN towards global disarment,

Considering the previous bans on both biological and chemical weapons,

Debating the political ramifications of the Middle East offically condoning the use of Nuclear Weapons,

Observing the close voting thus far,

Acknowledging the soviern right of nations to rule themselves, but also their right to be free of tyranny from military dictatorships,

It is with great regret that Nag Ehgoeg votes FOR the Resolution "Nuclear Armaments".

It is with further regret that we see the Strength of this Resolution has been deemed "mild", even though it is merely reaffirming ourr current rights.

However due to the lack of a standing army the Concil of Nag Ehgoeg has deemed nuclear defence's (including but not limited to bombs, IBCM warheads and micro nuclear devices) a vital instrument by which to protect our liberty.

May [Your Deity] have mercy upon [Your Soul/Spirit/Karma/Other (specify)____]*

*Delete as appropriate.

To the State of Joestralia, nuclear weapons are not a weapons of defence, that is something that people need to be aware of!

Nuclear weapons are not a defensive weapon, they are purely a weapon of attack

Ambassador Waldner-Plaffy

...i would go so far as to say that this is true of more than just the attitude of the State of Joestralia. Nuclear weapons are only really usable offensively.

Noting the trend of the UN towards global disarment,

Considering the previous bans on both biological and chemical weapons,

Debating the political ramifications of the Middle East offically condoning the use of Nuclear Weapons,

Observing the close voting thus far,

Acknowledging the soviern right of nations to rule themselves, but also their right to be free of tyranny from military dictatorships,

It is with great regret that Nag Ehgoeg votes FOR the Resolution "Nuclear Armaments".

It is with further regret that we see the Strength of this Resolution has been deemed "mild", even though it is merely reaffirming ourr current rights.

However due to the lack of a standing army the Concil of Nag Ehgoeg has deemed nuclear defence's (including but not limited to bombs, IBCM warheads and micro nuclear devices) a vital instrument by which to protect our liberty.


To the Council and State of Nag Ehgoeg, The Consitutional Monarchy of Wienreich understands the dilemma that your respected nation face, however we must once again reiterate that nuclear weapons are not and cannot be seen as an defensive weapon.

To all members of the United Nations:
The United Nations must strive towards diplomatic solutions for all crises that are brought toward our esteemed organisation, thus, the Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich finds it extremely disturbing that a resolution should exist on the statues of the United Nation that, essentially endorses the production and evential use of nuclear weapons. This path, which this resolution endorses, is one that if of great concern to Wienreich, and will essentially make the United Nations a quasi-military alliance, which is not the direction we should be going in in the United Nations.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich urges all members to vote against this resolution, to ensure that nuclear weapons remain banned, and to strive for peace and co-operation in the world

Ambassador Countess Waldner-Plaffy
&
Foreign Minister Prince Kinsky-Sanjath

On Schattenreich's first day as a UN member, we face this situation with great doubts about it's intentions.

The Holy Empire of Schattenreich agrees with the ideals of the people of Wienreich. Diplomacy should be the tool to deal with internaional affairs, and violence should be avoided.

Nuclear weapons are not toys that a kid uses to impress another, they carry the potential of the destruction of the entire world. And any benefit of war is pointless if the world is destroyed in the process.

By now, our position remains against, we haven't seen a convincing argument yet.

eh...how do i put it???

while the free land of sin-ga-pore does disagree with the use of weapons of any sort whatsoever and urges all to use diplomacy in their dealings with others, we vote yes as much as u and i want less weapons, diplomacy is NOT deterrence and cannot be as such either be treated or trusted to be a subsitute for it...and with past histories like WW2 still fresh in our minds...we just cannot delude ourselves to the unforseen dangers that lie ahead....so.. :D

[snip]The Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich urges all members to vote against this resolution, to ensure that nuclear weapons remain banned, and to strive for peace and co-operation in the world

Ambassador Countess Waldner-Plaffy
&
Foreign Minister Prince Kinsky-Sanjath

Nuclear weapons are not currently banned. This proposed resolution would simply cement the right to maintain the nuclear option.

You also noted that diplomatic solutions should always be the primary concern of a UN nation - while that's true, it is certainly easier to negotiate with a nation armed with nuclear weapons when you can assure them of their own destruction should they push the button.

This is complete rediculousness. Do you all honestly believe that every non-UN nation is all of a sudden going to become hostile and nuke us? Seriously people; hold onto your ideals. If need did occur to defend than alliances would be made. Not that I feel such an issue should worry anyone. This proposal is completely illogical.

...
You also noted that diplomatic solutions should always be the primary concern of a UN nation - while that's true, it is certainly easier to negotiate with a nation armed with nuclear weapons when you can assure them of their own destruction should they push the button.

We agree with the comments made by Boxemia regarding the comments from Wolfish.

The second comment made by Wolfish, is, as is this resolution, the most simplistic approach to international diplomacy, yes military force shoudl be the last way of dealing with a diplomatic conflict, however it should be a resort that we should not have to turn to. The arguement that "if we have them it will cement our position" is one that has been disproven on many occasions. To use the example of the Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina still happened, eventhough the UK had nuclear weapons, and even had them stationed in the Falklands region during the conflict. Possessing nuclear weapons does not prevent international conflicts.

Furthermore, in many cases international incidents and crises occurr between governments and not specifically the people in that country, and nuclear weapons do not determine between the government and the people of a nation. Thus, nuclear weapons will affect more the people who may be completely innocent or not involved in a international conflict.
Waldner-Plaffy

Great resolution. We absolutely must not let these doves disarm us to the point where we cannot defend ourselves. You have to acknowledge that non member nations can arm themselves and we have to act in kind. There is a big gap between denouncing the purpose of the weapons and denying the need for them.

Being aware of the nuclear capability of most of the highly developed nations, and also aware of the NS war provisions, we, the People of Clamstead note that the resolution currently at vote and discussed in this thread just makes the affirmation of the individual rights of the UN member nations, so, according to our diplomatic status as a recent member of the UN, and aware of the current international relations expresed through this and several other threads on this forum, we cannot do more than vote according to our internal policies, even when we recognize the implications of the result of this resolution whenever it gets enacted.

So, considering diplomacy as an effective international relationship tool, and considering that the resolution at vote does not affect the member states beyond the realm of NS, we are voting against this resolution and would embrace a non yet enacted ban proposition against nuclear weapons.

Mr. Auduborn Clamgood.
International Relations Ministry
Republic of Clamstead.

P.S. Well, after the formal posting by my virtual delegate to UN, I must say that while we are inmersing ourselves on international diplomacy, we must be aware that our debates and diatribes don't affect the real worla and that any resolution we take into action just affects the NS world. Thus said, is good to see that diplomacy prevails on most of the postings of this forum and that the forum diseases common on many other places are minimal here... Good work.

I would aprove under one condition: That any UN member may keep any nucular wepons they already have. However I would be against the allowence of creating NEW nuclar wepons under this bill.

Nuclear weapons are not a defensive weapon, they are purely a weapon of attack

Hardly. In a world where other, non-UN nations have nuclear weapons, not having your own nuclear weapons is defenselessness. The threat of nuclear offense is what defends you. If you have no nuclear weapons, you're ripe for the picking.

We could look at it like a math equation.

0 Nukes = .01 defense units

1 Nuke = 1.0 defense units

Egro

1 Nuke = .99 defense units


If the ability to defend your nation increases when you can wield the threat of nuclear weapons it can only lead us to believe that nuclear weapons have a defensive function. Even if that's through their offensive function.

Time for the old saying, 'Offence is the best defense; with the possible exceptions of trench or nuclear warfare.' ;)
As this resolution doesn't stop us from encouraging nuclear non-proliferation, I don't have a problem with it.

I do not view this as a question on the merits of the possession of nuclear weapons. Rather, this is more significant as a question of the powers of the United Nations. If you wish to see a United Nations that has the authority to pass resolutions dealing with matters of import, vote against this resolution. If you wish to see a United Nations with no real powers and only the most picayune of resolutions passed, vote in favor.

I cast my vote in opposition. Note that I will cast my vote in opposition to any resolution banning the possession of nuclear weapons by UN member nations.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

The Government of the Principality of Ausserland is currently deliberating on its response to this proposed resolution. We believe that any ban on nuclear weapons which affects only one fourth of the world's nations is absurdly perilous. And, with due respect to the humanitarian impulses of some of our brethren nations, we believe that the notion that "setting a good example" will somehow cause the spread of nuclear disarmament flies in the face of both an understanding of human nature and the lessons of history. We are unalterably opposed to any UN attempt to ban nuclear weapons within its membership.

That being said, we hesitate to vote affirmatively on this proposal. As we understand it, this resolution would not eliminate future attempts to inflict such a ban. It would simply move the issue from the ban itself to repeal of this resolution, followed by the substantive resolution. If we are correct in this, we see no practical merit to the proposal, since it changes nothing in the status quo.

We also have some hesitation about voting in favor of a resolution which might be -- however erroneously -- interpreted as an endorsement of nuclear proliferation by the UN.

We would appreciate being enlightened on these issues by those who might be more knowledgeable than we.

OFFICIAL:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ausserland

That being said, we hesitate to vote affirmatively on this proposal. As we understand it, this resolution would not eliminate future attempts to inflict such a ban. It would simply move the issue from the ban itself to repeal of this resolution, followed by the substantive resolution. If we are correct in this, we see no practical merit to the proposal, since it changes nothing in the status quo.While you are correct this proposed resolution would make it harder for and ban on the possession of nuclear weapons to be passed because this resolution would have to be repealed first.

We also have some hesitation about voting in favor of a resolution which might be -- however erroneously -- interpreted as an endorsement of nuclear proliferation by the UN.I don't see this as being any more an endorsement of nuclear proliferation than the two nuclear weapons bans that were voted down by the UN.

We would appreciate being enlightened on these issues by those who might be more knowledgeable than we.I hope that I was helpful.

Fellow U.N. nations,

The Holy Empire of Righteous Conquest wishes to make known it's disapproval of this proposition. A deterrant agent, such as the presence of nulcear weapons, cannot not be considered a "defensive weapon" any more than can the presence of biological or chemical warfare agents can. Let it be made clear: Nuclear armaments are weapons of offence, of terror, and of destruction. It disturbs us, as agents of God, that the world's chief governing body, one that is usually a testament to peace, goodwill, and moral fiber, would even consider combatting the issue of potential agression with aggression in return.

True victory is victory over such aggression. By allowing this resolution to pass, we will not only add fuel to the already blazing inferno, but we will burn our fire halls as well. QUENCH THE FLAMES NOW! Let us resolve to work toward a solution, not a stalemate.

I plead to you: Please think carefully not only about the consequences of allowing nuclear weapons to be posessed, but also the consequences of not condemning their creation. This is a resolution that, if passed, we will seriously regret. Please reconsider.

"Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant" - (Where they make a wasteland, they call it peace)


Pontifex Maximus
The Holy Empire of Righteous Conquest

Most people are failing to realize that this resolution does not encourage development of nuclear weapons or the use thereof. It merely safeguards the right of every nation to decide whether or not to posess them. Its trying to protect our national sovereignty, something the UN has a terrible history of violating. The resolution also does not in any way discourage the use of diplomacy as the first and foremost method of resolving conflicts. As to the comment that this resolution is a tacit support of widespread use of nuclear weapons, I disagree. It is impossible for one government to know for certain if another possesor of nuclear weapons will actually use them untill after the fact, and by then it's too late. That is why nuclear weapons act as a deterrent- no one wants to take the risk. Frankly, I can't see why the left wing argues so ardently against this resolution. Even if it fails Unified Conservatives will continue to retain its nuclear arsenal, and legally so in the eyes of the UN. As pointed out in the resolution, both attempts to ban nuclear weapons have failed. Excellent resolution, Flibbleites. One of the few I have voted for in a long time...

Votes For: 1,334

Votes Against: 928:D

Rather, this is more significant as a question of the powers of the United Nations. If you wish to see a United Nations that has the authority to pass resolutions dealing with matters of import, vote against this resolution. If you wish to see a United Nations with no real powers and only the most picayune of resolutions passed, vote in favor.


IC: Samuel Palleel, retired from Powerhungry Chipmunks's UN representative-ship years ago, but havind returned to his nations delegation for this momentous occasion stands and addresses the UN body:

"Yes, UN members, this resolution is about how much power the UN should have.

"Should the UN have power to enact blindly and unknowingly resolutions which are at the grave expense of member nations? Should the UN have the power to put arbitrary enforcements in arenas in which it is too cumbersome and lugubrious to enforce and meaningfully act? Should the member nations not have rights but be at the mercy of a proposal author who is so far removed from mine, yours, his nations that he or she knows not even the nations' name? Should the UN have the power to be imprudent? Should it have the power to enact idealism instead of realism?

"No, members, the UN should not. The UN is here to serve the member nations, nations are not here to serve the UN. We should not allow the UN to legislate binding, unnecessary legislation in areas and our individual situation which it knows nothing about. The UN should protect the citizens of its member nations. But it should not seek to supplant the individual nations' ability to do so. The UN should be clearly resigned to management over international issues, rather than micro-management of national ones.

"In short, UN resolutions need to be pragmatic, not absolute. Because we have a pragmatic existence. The UN should encourage its authors and members to be tolerant of member nations that are different from them, not deriding of them. This resolution and other ‘sovereigntist resolutions’ which ‘anti-sovereingists’ would ridicule encourage that.

"There must be realistic, prudence-based limits to UN legislation. Here, for instance, the UN should not have the ability to blindly force a member nation into a non-nuclear world. Resolutions doing so have been attempted twice, and both time UN members have proclaimed their unwillingness to be overrun by their nuclear enemies. And don't be fooled, members by those who would trick you. The UN has limited its opower before: with every resolution. This limitation on UN resolutions is no different than the limit placed upon the UN by a resolution which bans single hulled tankers: that the UN should not have the ability to pass a resolution allowing single-hulled tankers.

“I refuse to wake up one day to see a mushroom cloud out of my window, so I will support any attempt to keep un-researched proposal authors from making that a reality. My country will, if I’m permitted to say so, vote For this resolution. We will vote For and prudent and pragmatic UN. We will vote For the rights of the people to govern themselves.

“Thank you for your time”

OOC: I sincerely don’t think there are any proposals in the future--that we’re precluding here--that are important. There can still be well-worded and practical proposals about nuclear regulations drafted and submitted, and it’s already been made clear that the UN members are unwilling to give up their nuclear security.

Fellow U.N. nations,

The Holy Empire of Righteous Conquest wishes to make known it's disapproval of this proposition. A deterrant agent, such as the presence of nulcear weapons, cannot not be considered a "defensive weapon" any more than can the presence of biological or chemical warfare agents can. Let it be made clear: Nuclear armaments are weapons of offence, of terror, and of destruction. It disturbs us, as agents of God, that the world's chief governing body, one that is usually a testament to peace, goodwill, and moral fiber, would even consider combatting the issue of potential agression with aggression in return.

This body has tried to combat aggression with passive actions. The only reward we have gotten is the dead bodies, lost lands, and hostile reponses of former members. We have lost members both to abandonment and to attack. We can no longer afford to let such outdated ideals as your own rule our group. Otherwise, the next time we meet it may be to determine what few UN members have not turned on the rest.

Nuclear weapons are defensive in the way any weapon truly can be: They can prevent attack by making the attacker pause and consider whether or not they want to risk it.

True victory is victory over such aggression. By allowing this resolution to pass, we will not only add fuel to the already blazing inferno, but we will burn our fire halls as well. QUENCH THE FLAMES NOW! Let us resolve to work toward a solution, not a stalemate.

The only solution those who hate the UN are willing to accept is the UN's complete extermination, down to every last man, woman, and child. For many of us, the only "compromise" we can see them accepting is if we help them. With a stalemate, we can at least say the UN is still here in the aftermath. It's your choice whether you want us to have nukes while on your side or nukes while we are helping others slaughter your people.

I plead to you: Please think carefully not only about the consequences of allowing nuclear weapons to be posessed, but also the consequences of not condemning their creation. This is a resolution that, if passed, we will seriously regret. Please reconsider.

Regret? The only regrets we have are the weapons we cannot use to defend ourselves with because of similar attitudes. We cannot afford to disarm further without those of you that are planetbound turning to those of us who are not, and those of us who are not having no reason to keep you around.

"Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant" - (Where they make a wasteland, they call it peace)

The one thing we have learned from human history is that a nuclear wasteland is the only place where peace is permanent. We're just striving for an extended temporary and the ability to at least attempt to keep it.

I voted for this because I am looking into buying some nuclear warheads.
They're for decoration only, I assure you.

Well I voted against. The fact is, the reason we would posses Nuclear Weapons, is b/c we are in an arms race, with other nations. We wouldn't have to get into silly races if, we would disarm all Nuclear Weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm shocked and appaled that people would vote for such a resolution.

We agree with the comments made by Boxemia regarding the comments from Wolfish.

The second comment made by Wolfish, is, as is this resolution, the most simplistic approach to international diplomacy, yes military force shoudl be the last way of dealing with a diplomatic conflict, however it should be a resort that we should not have to turn to. The arguement that "if we have them it will cement our position" is one that has been disproven on many occasions. To use the example of the Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina still happened, eventhough the UK had nuclear weapons, and even had them stationed in the Falklands region during the conflict. Possessing nuclear weapons does not prevent international conflicts.

Furthermore, in many cases international incidents and crises occurr between governments and not specifically the people in that country, and nuclear weapons do not determine between the government and the people of a nation. Thus, nuclear weapons will affect more the people who may be completely innocent or not involved in a international conflict.
Waldner-Plaffy

Keep in mind this is an in-character forum - therefore real-world examples are not as applicable as NS examples. I'd encourage you to visit International Incidents where nuclear war, while not common, has happened on many occassions.

To limit a NS-UN nation's ability to level the playing field, you will sentence millions to death.

If I have to face a non-UN nation across a hostile diplomatic crisis - I want to know that my weapons are just as deadly as his...and he needs to know this as well - or I'll always be negotiating from a position of weakness.

Well I voted against. The fact is, the reason we would posses Nuclear Weapons, is b/c we are in an arms race, with other nations. We wouldn't have to get into silly races if, we would disarm all Nuclear Weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm shocked and appaled that people would vote for such a resolution.
No, you'd still be in the arms races, you'd just automatically lose when the starting gun were shot.

A UN disarmament resolution only affects UN members. If the UN were to disarm, there's still be nearly 100,000 nations out there possibly having nukes. I bet about 99,999 of them would be more than happy to nuke a defenseless, nuke-free UN nation.

Well I voted against. The fact is, the reason we would posses Nuclear Weapons, is b/c we are in an arms race, with other nations. We wouldn't have to get into silly races if, we would disarm all Nuclear Weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm shocked and appaled that people would vote for such a resolution.
We would ask the the represnetative from Kanami to remember that this resolution does not require any nation to possess nuclear weapons, it simply protects their right to possess them.

I hear the United Nations described as an arbitrary body, one that can arbitrarily act at any time to take one's nuclear weapons away. However, we wish to remind the members of the United Nations of just who makes its policies. Proposal authors can pontificate all they want about removing the nuclear weapons of member nations. However, those proposals are fated to die a quiet death in the proposal queue unless they gather sufficient support to pass. As two previous attempts have shown, there is nowhere near enough support in this body to outlaw nuclear weapons.

It is my position that the members of the United Nations should have the power to decide what actions this body should take. Instead, this resolution and others like it wish to remove the power of decision from the members of the United Nations - a power of decision which can never be truly taken away. Make no mistake, this resolution will not bar the United Nations from preventing nuclear weapons, if the majority wishes it to do so. Instead, it will merely require that a resolution preventing nuclear weapons must pass two votes instead of one.

In either case, the members of the United Nations will have the final say on what actions this body should take. I trust the members of the United Nations to do the right thing and oppose a ban on nuclear weapons. Therefore, I am opposed to this resolution, which does not trust the members of the United Nations to do the right thing and asserts that the right way of dealing with this issue is to simply bar it from consideration. I believe that a gag rule is not the proper way of dealing with any issue. Therefore, I urge a vote against this resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

[ooc: I concur that this is unlikely to preclude any major proposals. However, I'm fighting this on general principle and on the grounds that it's a bad precedent. It also seems a bit unnecessary given that these anti-nuke resolutions are very unlikely to pass.]

Well I voted against. The fact is, the reason we would posses Nuclear Weapons, is b/c we are in an arms race, with other nations.

Or, because you are about to be invaded by a nation with over 4 billion people or a nation with fleets in space. Guess which one we are.

We wouldn't have to get into silly races if, we would disarm all Nuclear Weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction.

You're absolutely right. The dead have no use for weapons.

I'm shocked and appaled that people would vote for such a resolution.

You really need to go back and look at how the UN deals with nuclear weapons. This is the third time we've broached the subject, and the only time it was to protect them.

Of course, outlawing nukes doesn't really effect us. We can easily launch 2.5 gigatons per missile at you anyway.

Great idea! My Nation is suffering...well kinda because there is to much crime! i hope this helps

Wooday :sniper:

[QUOTE=DemonLordEnigma]Or, because you are about to be invaded by a nation with over 4 billion people or a nation with fleets in space. Guess which one we are.

Well, in the word of Whinston Churchill: "We'll fight you on the beaches, we'll fight you on the cliffs, we'll fight you in the air."


You're absolutely right. The dead have no use for weapons.



You really need to go back and look at how the UN deals with nuclear weapons. This is the third time we've broached the subject, and the only time it was to protect them.

That doesn't prove anything to me, other than your all a couple of trigger happy nuts, and there is no point to you all joining the U.N.

[ooc: I concur that this is unlikely to preclude any major proposals. However, I'm fighting this on general principle and on the grounds that it's a bad precedent. It also seems a bit unnecessary given that these anti-nuke resolutions are very unlikely to pass.]

OOC: I shant write a Sam Palleel response to Lord Evif's statement (I'm tired and he's an old man). But, if it's any consolation, I can tell you that the NSO (which is supportive of this proposal) is also grappling with the ideology that the UN should not legislate on anything. There are some in the NSO who want to repeal everything or stop the UN from securing even the basic human rights. I personally want the UN just to be more flexible (or, more succinctly, to allow member nations more flexibility).

I personally have several non-repeal proposals I'm interested in drafting and passing in the UN (one about a certain type of humanitarian spending, and one about literary and linguistic preservation), and I would hate to see these areas, and other areas the UN can and should (arguably) effectively legislate, be precluded. I just want more sensible and realistic proposals and proposal debate in the UN. I mean, I want there to be proposals that aren't so arrogantly ideological (you know, those that essentially say "I know the best way for every nation to regulate and legislate $issue and you all have to do it that way").

Well, in the word of Whinston Churchill: "We'll fight you on the beaches, we'll fight you on the cliffs, we'll fight you in the air."

And I'll simply nuke all three rather than face your military and save manpower for subdoing your people afterwards.

That doesn't prove anything to me, other than your all a couple of trigger happy nuts, and there is no point to you all joining the U.N.

Actually, we're one of the peaceful nations in NS. We just have so many weapons because we don't like our peace being disturbed, and nothing gets across our displeasure better than a 1.25 gigaton implosion bomb that does 2.5 gigatons of damage.

Approved. Even though its been ruled legal, I really wish we didn't have to do this. However, with the Bio weapons ban in place and the imminent passage of the Chem weapons ban I suppose its just a matter of time before a Nuclear ban is enacted as well. I could RP the removal of all Yeldas NBC stockpiles to my puppets or use the "those are not chemical,biological or nuclear weapons, they are pesticides,medical supplies and air deployable fusion research labs" argument. But I would really rather possess them openly on my own territory.


We DON'T have to do this. Allowing nuclear arsenal would create tensions between countries. And who died and declared we cannot control what other countries are allowed to do? WE ARE THE UN! If one country becomes hostile with another and threatens it with nuclear weapons, we can defend the country. The hostile country can't attack every UN country otherwise the world will be destroyed by the massive devistation of nuclear weapons. With just 20 nukes dropped, the world would start to decay. Weather patterns would quickly change due to the immense heat released by the explosions and the dust would travel and poison the world. I hardly doubt that any nation wants to rule a dead planet and have a nation filled with nuclear waste.

Besides, there are plenty of other types of weapons that are just as powerful, if not more powerful, than a nuke if used wisely.

If you wan peace, then prepare for war.

~Virgil

I agree that the security of each member nation is very important, but purpose a friendly amendment to limit the amount of nuclear arms owned by any member nation of the UN to not exceed the amount of nuclear weapons needed for Mutually assured destruction against any enemy nation holding nuclear arms.

I agree that the security of each member nation is very important, but purpose a friendly amendment to limit the amount of nuclear arms owned by any member nation of the UN to not exceed the amount of nuclear weapons needed for Mutually assured destruction against any enemy nation holding nuclear arms.

1. Amendments are illegal.

2. If this fails, it'll likely never go up for vote again. Most that fail don't.

3. The amount of weapons necessary to counter any nation is currently at 2.3 million, and that's if you want to counter just the largest. This is ignoring coalitions and alliances, which can theoretically have as much as 4.5 billion nukes total, depending on how many members they have and how big each member is. So, really, the safe number will always fluctuate.

Now, for my position: I have voted against this resolution, in spite of my opinion that the UN should not ban weapons.

The reasons why are for the same reasons as the National Systems of Tax, which is my favorite bitchfest as of late. I view the UN protecting the right of nations to do something through legislation as a waste of the UN's time and efforts, as the legislation is not necessary for those activities to happen. Instead, I feel more effort should be put into attempts to block proposals that ban weapons from reaching quorum or passing.

"Should the UN have power to enact blindly and unknowingly resolutions which are at the grave expense of member nations? Should the UN have the power to put arbitrary enforcements in arenas in which it is too cumbersome and lugubrious to enforce and meaningfully act? Should the member nations not have rights but be at the mercy of a proposal author who is so far removed from mine, yours, his nations that he or she knows not even the nations' name? Should the UN have the power to be imprudent? Should it have the power to enact idealism instead of realism?

"No, members, the UN should not. The UN is here to serve the member nations, nations are not here to serve the UN. We should not allow the UN to legislate binding, unnecessary legislation in areas and our individual situation which it knows nothing about. The UN should protect the citizens of its member nations. But it should not seek to supplant the individual nations' ability to do so. The UN should be clearly resigned to management over international issues, rather than micro-management of national ones.

Bravo, Powerhungry Chipmunks. That is probably the most eloquent way to put it. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. Thank-you for your post.

OOC: I shant write a Sam Palleel response to Lord Evif's statement (I'm tired and he's an old man). But, if it's any consolation, I can tell you that the NSO (which is supportive of this proposal) is also grappling with the ideology that the UN should not legislate on anything. There are some in the NSO who want to repeal everything or stop the UN from securing even the basic human rights. I personally want the UN just to be more flexible (or, more succinctly, to allow member nations more flexibility).

I personally have several non-repeal proposals I'm interested in drafting and passing in the UN (one about a certain type of humanitarian spending, and one about literary and linguistic preservation), and I would hate to see these areas, and other areas the UN can and should (arguably) effectively legislate, be precluded. I just want more sensible and realistic proposals and proposal debate in the UN. I mean, I want there to be proposals that aren't so arrogantly ideological (you know, those that essentially say "I know the best way for every nation to regulate and legislate $issue and you all have to do it that way").

This will be an OOC post.

I'm rather sympathetic to your aims here; it's really more of a difference in methodology. I think that the UN has covered most of the big, sweeping universal rights issues, and I've come a pretty long way from the Cato Act-supporting "We Always Know Best" character from two years ago. It's really a question of how we want certain types of proposals to be rejected.

It is interesting watching this discussion, though, and should be fun to watch this ensue. At least this is making the UN a bit more entertaining, which hasn't happened (at least for me) in a while, and I'm thankful for that.

I do believe in the right of every nation to possess which ever types of national defense weaponry it needs, however, that being said, with the recent ineffectiveness of the BioWeapons ban, which is now repealed, and the new Nuclear Armaments proposal, the United States of Meteorologica, in the interests of self defense, will begin increasing its military, and weapons production.

We, as a soverign nation, will begin building non-nuclear weapons first and foremost, and secondly to increase the number of members of all branches of our armed forces.

We are not preparing, nor do we have intentions on war. We are insuring our national defense in a time when it seems the world is coming closer to war.

We DON'T have to do this. Allowing nuclear arsenal would create tensions between countries. And who died and declared we cannot control what other countries are allowed to do? WE ARE THE UN! If one country becomes hostile with another and threatens it with nuclear weapons, we can defend the country. The hostile country can't attack every UN country otherwise the world will be destroyed by the massive devistation of nuclear weapons. With just 20 nukes dropped, the world would start to decay. Weather patterns would quickly change due to the immense heat released by the explosions and the dust would travel and poison the world. I hardly doubt that any nation wants to rule a dead planet and have a nation filled with nuclear waste.

Besides, there are plenty of other types of weapons that are just as powerful, if not more powerful, than a nuke if used wisely.

If you wan peace, then prepare for war.

~Virgil

Um, unless you are blind, there is already tension between the countries. There always has been and always will be. And we can't control the countries that aren't in the UN. They could just as well use THEIR nukes to destroy us, as we could to them. At least if we have our own nukes, there is more of a threat to them in attacking us. No country wants to have a destroyed planet, and if they attack us, that is what we are garanteeing them.
This is not something that any of us really WANT to have in our countries. But if the rest of the world possess them, we are forced to protect ourselves. And there aren't any other powerful weapons. If you will read many of the laws that have been enacted have stopped us from producing any powerful weapons. Nukes are the only things we have left.
Yes, passing this is a double edged sword, but we are left with little choices. This is what it must come to for protecting our countries.

No, Nukes can destroy everything. There are other ways of defeating people.
A double Edge sword? No, It's a one Edge sword, that comes back and kill it's owner after killing the attacker or the innocent who are living next to the attacker.

WE ARE THE UN! If one country becomes hostile with another and threatens it with nuclear weapons, we can defend the country.
So, if we come under attack, Gabrones and/or the UN will rush to our assistance? I'm sorry, but in the end it is the responsibility of the Yeldan armed forces to defend Yelda.

Diplomacy above all else. Nuclear Weapons should be BANNED. And not condoned and protected under these laws. I will seriously consider resigning from the UN if this resolution passes.

Diplomacy above all else. Nuclear Weapons should be BANNED. And not condoned and protected under these laws. I will seriously consider resigning from the UN if this resolution passes.
Oh look, someone finally used this arguement that, by the way, never works. You apparently fail to realize that if the UN, God forbid, ever were to pass a ban on nuclear weapons, the non members would be unaffected and therefore still be able to use them.

The United States of Allemande does not possess nuclear weapons, and has declared that it will not add such weapons to its arsenal unless it finds itself in a position where it has no choice but to do so in order to preserve its existence.

That said, we support this resolution for three reasons.

First, we are alarmed at the direction in which these United Nations appear to be going. Yes, efforts to ban nuclear weapons have come before the General Assembly and failed on two previous occasions. This is, however, no guarantee that there will never be such a ban.

We believe that it is important to slow down the momentum toward unilateral disarmament that has seized this body. We have a large navy and a decent army, but we have these things only because we need them. If we didn't need them we would disarm on our own, but the fact that we have not says a great deal about the dangers of our present world.

Second, while we do not have nuclear weapons, we could have them, and faster than most nations could imagine. In order to be able to meet future threats, while we do not want nuclear weapons and do not foresee acquiring them, we think it prudent to keep our options open.

Finally, while the United States of Allemande do not possess nuclear weapons, we do possess non-military nuclear explosives. These were developed for a number of reasons - some pertaining to our program of undersea colonisation, some pertaining to our efforts to explore space - and we do not wish to give them up. We are less than confident that a nuclear weapons ban would leave an exception for the peaceful of fission or fusion explosives, and so consequently we wish to protect our future use of these devices.

We thank the Members for giving us the chance to speak on this issue.

OOC: Before you ask why... Digging big holes in the ground really fast without having to haul lots of conventional explosives into hard-to-reach places,
Turning big space rocks into little space rocks,
Some other purposes that we'd like to keep under our hats for now (future RP).

Oh look, someone finally used this arguement that, by the way, never works. You apparently fail to realize that if the UN, God forbid, ever were to pass a ban on nuclear weapons, the non members would be unaffected and therefore still be able to use them.
I Haven't failed to realize anything.
Simply tell me why should we look upon the non UN members as enemies or threats?

I Haven't failed to realize anything.
Simply tell me why should we look upon the non UN members as enemies or threats?Have you looked at what Parthia is doing to Malgeria (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399606)?

We once believed that these United Nations could prevent aggression through common action. We were hopelessly naive.

It is the responsibility of each nation to defend itself through its own resources. In that kind of world, why would you want to walk around disarmed?

Have you looked at what Parthia is doing to Malgeria?
I'll look into the link...
In the meantime...
Exactly how does one nationstate attack another with nukes if war isn't contemplated in the game?

I'll look into the link...
In the meantime...
Exactly how does one nationstate attack another if war isn't contemplated in the game?Roleplay.

And exactly how do count up the number of nukes a nation has?
And what? the greater number of nukes wins?

And exactly how do count up the number of nukes a nation has?
And what? the greater number of nukes wins?If they both have nukes, neither is likely to push it to an exchange.

But if only one has nukes...

OOC: Before you ask why... Digging big holes in the ground really fast without having to haul lots of conventional explosives into hard-to-reach places,
Turning big space rocks into little space rocks,
Some other purposes that we'd like to keep under our hats for now (future RP).
Yes, they are very useful for that. In fact, an FT nation would have many peaceful uses for these devices. Good point.

If they both have nukes, neither is likely to push it to an exchange.

But if only one has nukes...
The probablity for there being conflicts between nations without nukes and nations with nukes will substancially increase if this resolution passes. This resolution encourages proliferation within the UN and will certainly have a ripple effect outside of the UN.

A diplomatic solution should've been on the table for the Malgeria - Parthia Conflict from the very begning. After having read enough... I blame the reluctance of Malgeria for refusing to search for a diplomatic solution within the UN during the earlier stages of the conflict. Now their desire is to wage a holy war and recruit nations from other regions. Bottom line... If you look hard enough for trouble... eventually you will get into trouble.

The UN should be sending out a message of asylum and safety... and not that we support nuclear weapons and are really deep down, just a bunch of trigger happy cretins.

I Vote AGAINST this resolution.

When will people realize that NOBODY can win a Nuclear war REGARDLESS who has them.


If fear is what you want to install to all of your Aggressors, I say send Tom Cruise to talk them to death.


The "nuclear option" is a myth. It solves nothing expect to end life on this planet as we know it.


pass this resolution and the Cockroaches will thank you.

The UN should be sending out a message of asylum and safety... and not that we support nuclear weapons and are really deep down, just a bunch of trigger happy cretins.
Yelda Decides:
When UN Weapons Inspectors Attack!
The Issue

After several reports of pet UN Weapons Inspectors violently attacking, injuring, and even killing citizens, there has been growing pressure from public safety activists for the government to take action.
The Debate

1. "These creatures are a danger to the public and must be destroyed!" says Anne-Marie Frederickson, representative of the Public Institution for Social Safety, Equality, and Direction. "I was attacked by one just on the way here and I nearly lost my life! They're a public menace. We must shoot and burn them!"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.

If they both have nukes, neither is likely to push it to an exchange.

But if only one has nukes...


Then what? Only ONE nation is to blame for the end of the world?

Believe me, Nuclear weapons do NOT stop insane leaders...


That's like saying that every Nation with Nuclear arms NEVER have been in a war...

In fact, it's quite the opposite.

When will people realize that NOBODY can win a Nuclear war REGARDLESS who has them.


If fear is what you want to install to all of your Aggressors, I say send Tom Cruise to talk them to death.


The "nuclear option" is a myth. It solves nothing expect to end life on this planet as we know it.


pass this resolution and the Cockroaches will thank you.
Very well put. I thank you for supporting this noble cause. However in an off-topic and in defense of Tom Cruise :D . He is a wonderfull actor (Watch Born on the 4th of July in case there are any doubts.)
I don't blame or censor him for expressing his new found happiness.
I also believe that he is a great person, and that if you pay attention to the tabloids, then the tabloids have allready won. :p

Nevermind... carry on the debate.

Then what? Only ONE nation is to blame for the end of the world?

Believe me, Nuclear weapons do NOT stop insane leaders...


That's like saying that every Nation with Nuclear arms NEVER have been in a war...

In fact, it's quite the opposite.
I believe what Allemande is saying is that if both sodes of a conflict have nukes then neither will be likely to use them because the leaders of the nations know that if they do, the other is likely to retaliate in kind. But in situations where only one side was nuclear weapons at their disposal then the threat of retaliation is gone and they could therefore use nuclear weapons with impunity.

Yelda Decides:
When UN Weapons Inspectors Attack!
The Issue

After several reports of pet UN Weapons Inspectors violently attacking, injuring, and even killing citizens, there has been growing pressure from public safety activists for the government to take action.
The Debate

1. "These creatures are a danger to the public and must be destroyed!" says Anne-Marie Frederickson, representative of the Public Institution for Social Safety, Equality, and Direction. "I was attacked by one just on the way here and I nearly lost my life! They're a public menace. We must shoot and burn them!"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
ROTFLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Better UN Weapons Inspectors then one that i've recently seen using the Poruguese equivalent of 'niggers'. :mad: He should be at least reprimended for such a blatant and sick display of pure racism and hatred.

No, Nukes can destroy everything.

Actually, as weapons of mass destruction, nukes are really quite minor. Biological weapons can, if engineered wrong, destroy entire continents, while a chemical weapon of a more reactive design released in enough quantity can float around as a gas cloud for years, causing trillions of dollars of damage to each nation before it is finally neutralized.

Then, you get into the big guns. Plasma cannons of sufficient burn entire nations down to ashes in a matter of nanoseconds, irreversibly damaging the ecosystem in the process due to reducing the ground to molten rock, which itself cools into a solid crust that takes decades before life begins to form again. And don't get me started on the clouds of superheated gas that hang around for years, sometimes damaging neighboring nations if blown towards them.

Then we get into other futuristic weapons, some of which can destroy planets or solar systems.

There are other ways of defeating people.

Yes, there are. And many of them make nukes look humane and clean in comparison.

A double Edge sword? No, It's a one Edge sword, that comes back and kill it's owner after killing the attacker or the innocent who are living next to the attacker.

That's the meaning of the phrase "double-edged sword."

Hey guys, way to impede a better future for the world, or mayhaps you had forgotten the essential point of the UN? Isn't the basis of this beloved organization to strive towards an idealistic future without war, poverty, and cruelty? I hate to adopt an ignorant viewpoint, but without ideals to work toward we wouldn't have any motivation to go in a certain direction. I hope everyone voting for this resolution realizes what's going on in this very point in time. We're without laws emphasizing the evil of biological weapons, as according to the (although ineffective) recently repealed resolution and at the same time making sure everyone can have nuclear weapons as long as we feel a sway towards it. I only see roadblocks to a greater good.

Hey guys, way to impede a better future for the world, or mayhaps you had forgotten the essential point of the UN?

We haven't forgotten it. We just know it better.

Isn't the basis of this beloved organization to strive towards an idealistic future without war, poverty, and cruelty?

Unfortunately, the closest thing to a goal the UN has is stated in the FAQ. And that goal is to basically do what the members decide. And right now, the members enjoy having their nations intact.

I hate to adopt an ignorant viewpoint, but without ideals to work toward we wouldn't have any motivation to go in a certain direction.

Examine UN resolutions. Also, check out the UN history on NSWiki. You'll find we have our own motivation.

I hope everyone voting for this resolution realizes what's going on in this very point in time.

Yes. The members are moving towards attempting to maintain the one last line of semi-effective defense they have that doesn't require creativity to work around a UN law. Though, bioweapons currently form a second line, but that is likely to be changed and require creativity to work around. Basically, the sheep see the wolf at the door and have finally realized they need the guns they are trying to get rid of.

We're without laws emphasizing the evil of biological weapons, as according to the (although ineffective) recently repealed resolution and at the same time making sure everyone can have nuclear weapons as long as we feel a sway towards it.

We're really without laws that effectively ban any weapon. Many UN nations use legal deployments of land mines and chemical weapons through bothering to think about how to get around UN law. My own nation has been working hard to get around the replacement for the bioweapons ban that is currently in draft form, and so far we've managed to find an effective way using a path the proposal author has not bothered to take into account. The UN is just full of people skirting its laws in favor of their own gain.

I only see roadblocks to a greater good.

The greater good doesn't mean a damn thing if your nation is being used as slave labor.

Hey guys, way to impede a better future for the world, or mayhaps you had forgotten the essential point of the UN? Isn't the basis of this beloved organization to strive towards an idealistic future without war, poverty, and cruelty?.
No, that would be the RL UN. The point of the NSUN is:
What's the United Nations?

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Thanks for your insightful probing into my responses. I'm glad petty backstatements and little quotes can take a backseat to a point someone is making. :headbang: I hope you get some sense of victory in slaving over each sentence making random cracks, jeers, and speculations. I feel really tempted to do what you just did and pick apart whatever you had written- however, stooping to such a level would demean my entire position. I'm not sure if anyone told you, but it's a very passive agressive thing to do.
This resolution gives every nation the advantage of being part of the UN without being responsible for adapting its regulations on the tangent of nuclear weapons. It is detrimental to future progress.

Thanks for your insightful probing into my responses.

You're welcome. And unlike certain alien movies, we don't try to make you suppress it.

I'm glad petty backstatements and little quotes can take a backseat to a point someone is making. :headbang:

Point noted and refuted. Part of our job. Well, aside from doing things with reality that shouldn't be done.

I hope you get some sense of victory in slaving over each sentence making random cracks, jeers, and speculations.

Actually, we were making a point about this UN that separates it from the real one. You need to pay attention, as your status as a UN member makes you an automatic target if the UN ever ends up fighting the majority. And being small, your nation will be an easy conquer and used either as slaves or cannon fodder, assuming of course that you're not simply outright exterminated.

I feel really tempted to do what you just did and pick apart whatever you had written- however, stooping to such a level would demean my entire position.

Your position is really not as good as you think. You are trying to stand up for ideals that this UN frankly does not hold. Survival on NS is far more important and far more difficult when you consider the variance in nations involved. Your nation would never, no matter the population, stand up against mine by using modern technology, for example.

This resolution gives every nation the advantage of being part of the UN without being responsible for adapting its regulations on the tangent of nuclear weapons. It is detrimental to future progress.

Um, this UN has twice voted down regulations on nuclear weapons and the majority of its members remain focused on keeping nukes due to the defensive bonus they grant. You're thinking of the real-world UN. We have nothing against nukes. Hell, some of the UN's members own weapons that make nukes look more like bottle rockets.

OOC:We're trying something new here... the Big-Sheet-O-Responsomatic.

IC:

The United Nations exists to safeguard the peace of the world, how can peace be safeguarded if we have more nuclear weapons, which have already caused enough strife and misery in the world.

Read the FAQ, Jack! (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)



Nuclear weapons, just as Biological and Chemical Weapons, are a scourge to world peace and their proliferation will not help the world situation one iota. The argument that, all of the United Nations should possess nuclear weapons simply because we cannot force the non-member states to not possess nuclear weapons is extremely simplistic and falls short of any understanding of international diplomacy. The argument that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will safeguard our futures is, to put it simply, farcical.

It’s worked so far.



Yes, the Royal Government of the Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich fully understands that all resolutions that emanate from this most respected body only apply to members of the United Nations, but as a organisation that strives for international co-operation
<snips the rest>


Read the FAQ, Jack! (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)



I am totally against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I find this resolution to be based on fiction in bad taste and mildly offensive. Should there be any conflict between nations or regions a diplomatic solution should always be the first and only option.

Vastiva has convinced certain rogue nations to commit to a nuclear launch against you. By our calculations, you have twelve minutes to negotiate with the missiles.


Now, do you see the folly of your position? (http://img75.echo.cx/img75/8772/theexpertcard7qo.jpg)



Congratulations on reaching quorum, Flib. Now the serious debates start.

No, now the one-liners and general silliness begins.



Nuclear weapons are not a defensive weapon, they are purely a weapon of attack

Read up on the MAD doctrine.



On Schattenreich's first day as a UN member, we face this situation with great doubts about it's intentions.

The Holy Empire of Schattenreich agrees with the ideals of the people of Wienreich. Diplomacy should be the tool to deal with internaional affairs, and violence should be avoided.

Nuclear weapons are not toys that a kid uses to impress another, they carry the potential of the destruction of the entire world. And any benefit of war is pointless if the world is destroyed in the process.

By now, our position remains against, we haven't seen a convincing argument yet.

Ok, we’re nuking you too. Go ahead and argue with the missiles all you want, you might just change their mind…



You also noted that diplomatic solutions should always be the primary concern of a UN nation - while that's true, it is certainly easier to negotiate with a nation armed with nuclear weapons when you can assure them of their own destruction should they push the button.

*buys you a drink and a case of whatever you’re drinking to take home*



There is a big gap between denouncing the purpose of the weapons and denying the need for them.

*Also buys you a drink and a case*



I voted for this because I am looking into buying some nuclear warheads.
They're for decoration only, I assure you.

How many decorations can we put you down for, in the 20 kiloton range?



pass this resolution and the Cockroaches will thank you.

To the best of my recall, we have three cockroach nations in the UN. I could be wrong, they tend to multiply.

If the majority of U.N. nations have nothing against nukes, then every legislation proposed in the future to ban these very weapons will bear no fruit whatsoever. What, then, is the point of saying that in the future noone needs to follow resolutions? Looking through past resolution it's pretty clear to tell this organization isn't a maniacal queer distortion of the U.N.: There are anti-child labor laws, gay rights, fair trials, and everything that is progressive.
By no means take the initiative and say that the majority of members back you up in the whole of this resolution. The past proposals have been struck down, because obviously at their time, and deven today the world remains a hotbed of hostility. These nations saw that such a ban would limit their ability to defend themselves in today's unfriendly world environment. Eventuality, however, all well-minded nations undoubtebly are willing to abandon their most dangerous weapons when they are no longer needed- and to create a better world, we MUST do so.
My nation may be small and new, but nonetheless I shall make sure our voice is heard. And I'll be damned if it's not sensible.

Vastiva, I really hope you read your own post and realize how foolish and immature it makes you seem. You don't WIN anything by making the longest and least intelligent post.

If the majority of U.N. nations have nothing against nukes, then every legislation proposed in the future to ban these very weapons will bear no fruit whatsoever.

Now you know why I voted against this.

What, then, is the point of saying that in the future noone needs to follow resolutions?

Pointing out loopholes that allow nations to dodge resolutions is pretty much a forum sport and a practice that has helped many nations keep weapons in spite of the UN.

Looking through past resolution it's pretty clear to tell this organization isn't a maniacal queer distortion of the U.N.: There are anti-child labor laws, gay rights, fair trials, and everything that is progressive.

In addition to rights for clones, making prostitution mandatory in member nations, illegalizing silly lawsuits in member nations, and a bunch of other items the real UN would never attempt. Hell, this UN once had an international library system that required holograms, both active and portable.

By no means take the initiative and say that the majority of members back you up in the whole of this resolution.

I'm not just using this resolution. Take a look at these two:

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_nuclear_weapons_%28failed%29
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/End_Nuclear_Proliferation_Act_%28failed%29

The past proposals have been struck down, because obviously at their time, and deven today the world remains a hotbed of hostility. These nations saw that such a ban would limit their ability to defend themselves in today's unfriendly world environment.

The UN is, of all the groups in NS, the most hated of the bunch. We have groups and even entire regions devoted to the UN's destruction. It's a pretty safe bet that the UN cannot disarm in such an atmosphere without trouble.

Eventuality, however, all well-minded nations undoubtebly are willing to abandon their most dangerous weapons when they are no longer needed- and to create a better world, we MUST do so.

Our ancestors once thought that. Then they were invaded while in the middle of a civil war and several groups of them were outright exterminated. Keep in mind that Earth is not the only world in the UN, and that space itself is the biggest hotbed of weapons development. You have to defend yourself against others while on the planet and against others once you develop the technology to finally leave it. Part of developping a better world is having the weapons to defend it when the time comes that someone wants to destroy it, and those weapons cannot be a few small cannons and a couple of low-yield missiles.

My nation may be small and new, but nonetheless I shall make sure our voice is heard. And I'll be damned if it's not sensible.

If you've ever studied the various mythologies, you would realize that we're all damned in someone else's eyes.

Unfortunately, your views are not sensible. They are idealistic, but idealism in a universe that is full of people competing for limited resources and space using weapons that can sometimes tear apart the fabric of reality. Survival should be a primary goal, not something you think about once your morals are satisfied. Those who focus on morals first have a bad tendency of not existing for very long.

We're really without laws that effectively ban any weapon. Many UN nations use legal deployments of land mines and chemical weapons through bothering to think about how to get around UN law. My own nation has been working hard to get around the replacement for the bioweapons ban that is currently in draft form, and so far we've managed to find an effective way using a path the proposal author has not bothered to take into account. The UN is just full of people skirting its laws in favor of their own gain.


While most of this post expresses depressing sentiments, I would like to draw particular attension to the last sentance of the part of the post I quoted. No, frankly, it isn't full of people who think only of themselves or thier nation, you presume to know far more than you obviously do. Myself, the High Council of the Shadow-Kai, and countless other leaders believe in the principles of rule by law and altrusim. I have endored and voted for countless proposals that would be redundant for my country, especially those regarding disarmament, civil rights, and the environment. I support them because I believe these laws benefit the world and the NSUN.

Those who constantly only follow the UN when it suits them, and only vote to thier self-interest, are completely undermining its authority. International cooperation is mutually beneficial almost by definition, but first there must be that will to forge a better world for peoples. I see no ethical reason why any nation should be so blatantly "me-first."

I have no disagreement for the use of Nuclear power for peaceful reasons. There are many ways to do it in a manner that is safe and environmentally friendly. A ban on all nuclear technology would be unsound. Instead this proposal says that defense by nuclear armament is a right. While a NSUN disarmament is another issue entirely, to actually put it down in law that nation has a right to defend itself with nuclear weaponry sends a rather frightening message to the non-NSUN nations, and reflects poorly on ourselves.

Since when does any government have the right to oblitherate life on this scale? Do we want a world kept from destruction only by fear? And what of those who are not afraid of death, e.g. extremist terrorists? Nukes don't make any country safer, they only make the world more dangerous, and mutually assured destruction, at best, only delays the problem, it doesn't present any solution.

To vote for this resolution is to support a nuclear defense for every country. To do that is to support proliferation, and what rational nation desires proliferation? Do not vote for this proposal

Vastiva, I really hope you read your own post and realize how foolish and immature it makes you seem. You don't WIN anything by making the longest and least intelligent post.

Are you a masochist or something?

The one thing you need to realize is that there are those of us who are fans of making points in the minimal necessary words. Most of his comments have points to them that you will need to think about to understand. Each one is relevant to how things operate in NS, something you are obviously quite unfamiliar with. Try going into this with the idea of medieval Europe just after the fall of the Roman Empire to truly understand NS.

In the principle core of almost any mythology, the birth of the universe came about as a clash between two great opposing forces. light-darkness, spirit-demiurge, it all points to the same thing which is perhaps simplest to grasp but most dificult to understand. Our existence is DEFINED by opposite forces, including those of morality.

While most of this post expresses depressing sentiments, I would like to draw particular attension to the last sentance of the part of the post I quoted. No, frankly, it isn't full of people who think only of themselves or thier nation, you presume to know far more than you obviously do.

Actually, I was using something known as an exaggeration, which a simple study of the English language and an understanding of commonly used phrases would reveal to you. I know many members of the UN like to obey the spirit of the laws, but I also know many members prefer to skirt around them.

Myself, the High Council of the Shadow-Kai, and countless other leaders believe in the principles of rule by law and altrusim. I have endored and voted for countless proposals that would be redundant for my country, especially those regarding disarmament, civil rights, and the environment. I support them because I believe these laws benefit the world and the NSUN.

Unfortunately, they don't benefit the world at all. They only benefit the UN, as the UN is the only part of the world that can be legally affected by its own resolutions. Look out for the world all you want to, but remember that in the end it's only the UN that really accepts the laws.

Those who constantly only follow the UN when it suits them, and only vote to thier self-interest, are completely undermining its authority. International cooperation is mutually beneficial almost by definition, but first there must be that will to forge a better world for peoples. I see no ethical reason why any nation should be so blatantly "me-first."

How about reading the damned FAQ. Notice the section where it talks about shaping the UN to your viewpoint? Do you honestly think that's in there to only encourage altruism?

To be honest, we do see an ethical reason. Our duty is to our people first, to do right by them and do what is necessary to ensure they have a better future and a better world. And if that means nuking some mousehole of a country to the point we drill a hole to the center of the Earth, so be it. If we don't, our people are free to remove our government and replace it with one that will. The ethics of government with our type is that the government is to serve the people of the nation they govern. That means a "me-first" attitude.

I have no disagreement for the use of Nuclear power for peaceful reasons. There are many ways to do it in a manner that is safe and environmentally friendly. A ban on all nuclear technology would be unsound. Instead this proposal says that defense by nuclear armament is a right. While a NSUN disarmament is another issue entirely, to actually put it down in law that nation has a right to defend itself with nuclear weaponry sends a rather frightening message to the non-NSUN nations, and reflects poorly on ourselves.

Actually, every ban of weapons reflects poorly on us. It tells the rest of the world that we are weak-willed and easily conquered. Every weapons ban in the UN has come closer and closer to earning it the title of "The Pansy Nations," which I've heard it refered to more than once with every weapons ban. Now, imagine a world where all of the other nations know they can exterminate you, you can do nothing about it, and they have no real reason to let you live. That's the danger the UN faces, and this says to them that we are not willing to allow it.

Still doesn't change the fact it's worthless resolution.

Since when does any government have the right to oblitherate life on this scale? Do we want a world kept from destruction only by fear? And what of those who are not afraid of death, e.g. extremist terrorists? Nukes don't make any country safer, they only make the world more dangerous, and mutually assured destruction, at best, only delays the problem, it doesn't present any solution.

MAD is about the only solution we have at the moment that actually works. The other solution is for the majority of the militaristic and powerful nations to turn on the rest, exterminating them in a bloodbath that would make any other in history seem tame. Yes, that is the world the NSUN lives in.

Keep in mind that those who hate the UN do not want to negotiate, do not want peace, and really wouldn't mind eating your liver with a side of fava beans. They'll settle for your death and the destruction of the UN, and nothing less. The terrorists are just small fries in comparison, as they typically don't have the resources to launch hundreds of 20 kiloton nukes at you just for the fun of it.

To vote for this resolution is to support a nuclear defense for every country. To do that is to support proliferation, and what rational nation desires proliferation? Do not vote for this proposal

The rational nation that wants to live. Proliferation will happen whether this is passed or not, as the majority of it is outside the UN.

In the principle core of almost any mythology, the birth of the universe came about as a clash between two great opposing forces. light-darkness, spirit-demiurge, it all points to the same thing which is perhaps simplest to grasp but most dificult to understand. Our existence is DEFINED by opposite forces, including those of morality.

You really should not have used the morality arguement. It's pretty much the weakest one you can use. Why? Morality is subjective, something a study of mythology reveals. Also, a study of mythology also reveals your statement about the creation of the universe to be false. Quite a few mythologies completely lack any form of conflict in how they deal with the creation of the world. The most famous is Judaeo-Christian mythology when it comes to that.

We will not be victims of the barbarian hordes. We will have the weapons to defend ourselves against the greater numbers and greater savagery of our enemies.

How is it that you can make a single statement and not realize all the paradoxes you create?

I understand that you speak out of ignorance, but in fact Judaeo-Christian creed dictates the concept of demiurge- that is, matter preexistent in chaotic state, which essentially combats the matter that God created out of it in the spirit of order. Obviously that is where the concept of Satan comes in. Matter versus antimatter, white versus black. Now, since Satan is not recognized in Judaism, a different more elaborate myth is in place. It is tedious and difficult, but essentially it concerns the world as being created as a result of God's breath being accidentally freed from a crystal as a result of the deficiency of matter in itself. Judaism also, above all, teaches freeing your soul from your body, in fact making the two polar opposites!!!

Also, it seems for every point you think you have refuted you step outside the grounds of the debate, meaning the U.N. Your speculation, which you deem so bulletproof, is in fact far from it. As you yourself said it, the U.N. is what its members make it, so why do you keep referring to a mission statement which has since then changed and expanded so much? It's like naming a book before you actually write it- some things change in the course of the work.
You are also certainly wrong in your presumption that some nations join the U.N. with the simple purpose of "skirting" its laws. The point of joining a community is to be a part of it. And please don't make the futile "some people do it anyway" argument, because nothing tires anyone as much as that. For every debate you always have someone saying "what if someone comes in and does THIS" whereas it is, although likely, very improbable.

Now that I think about it, since you voted AGAINST this resolution anyway... what are you really arguing? This debate isn't about banning nuclear weapons right now, but later on when times permit this without great endangerment to the nations wishing to adopt this policy. It is about this very resolution's poor intentions in basically giving everyone free reign in the U.N.

I'm also now taking a position in saying that you need to stop isolating quotes and distorting their meaning.

Do you really think that nations with an astounding amount of horrible weapons are protecting their own people? When oftentimes the very nations that have these weapons rule their people with an iron fist? Ask THOSE people what they think of their safety.

Do you really think that nations with an astounding amount of horrible weapons are protecting their own people?
Yes, we are.
When oftentimes the very nations that have these weapons rule their people with an iron fist?
Our Civil Rights rating is higher than yours.
Ask THOSE people what they think of their safety.
The Yeldan People expect the State to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure their safety, prosperity and continued independence.

err, how about we all get together and develop antinuke weaponry instead of getting nukes? then we dont have to attack in defense, we defend at defense, or something like that. weve got to get something more than bomb bunkers, you know, soon people will develop antibombbunkers, like super-piercing weapons?

maybe we should get defense up to speed. attack has been ahead for quite a while; if you look at history attack and defense have always been at the same level till guns came, and their goin really fast. we got antibullet armor probably a few hundred years after the gun came out. when will be bomb and machinegun armor? sniper and shotgun armor? rocket armor?

no, we need to develop shielding. personal shielding, property shielding, estate shielding, city-wide shielding, country-wide shielding.

planetary shielding.

because nukes exist now, whereas missile/laser defence are unproven and do not work currently.
maybe in a few years.

I strongly urge everyone to vote against this ridiculous legislation.

For one, "acknowledging" is spelled incorrectly... and I hate poor spelling.

Secondly, anyone who wants nuclear weapons will probably make use of them whether or not it is sanctioned by the UN.

Thirdly, nuclear weapons themselves are extremely destructive and can make territory unusable for years to come, increasing this time with the power of the bomb. They will only serve to create a state of fear and possibly outrage environmentalists. As enemies of the UN will probably have nuclear weapons as well, Mutual Assured Destruction will ensue.

Fourthly, Defense will undoubtedly be raised because of this, whether or NOT the nation wishes to have nuclear arms (due to game mechanics), bringing with it a possible increase in taxes.

How is it that you can make a single statement and not realize all the paradoxes you create?

How can you challenge paradoxes and not realize that paradoxes are what make up the sum of human existance? More importantly, how can you challenge paradoxes without realising the fact that not all paradoxes you challenge are necessarily paradoxes at all?

I understand that you speak out of ignorance,

And in thise case, you know not of what you speak. Casting stones is ill advised when thy own soul is blackened by the crimes thee dares charge others with.

but in fact Judaeo-Christian creed dictates the concept of demiurge- that is, matter preexistent in chaotic state, which essentially combats the matter that God created out of it in the spirit of order. Obviously that is where the concept of Satan comes in.

Actually, you pretty much failed to get even the basics of Christian mythology right. For one thing, the universe did not exist before it was created. For another, Satan is not an equal power, but actually a lesser one that is either acting according to God's will or acting on their own in an attempt to gain more power, much like humans. Satan comes after creation, not before.

Matter versus antimatter, white versus black.

White and black are not actually true opposites, only viewed as such by the ignorance of humans. You see, they both encompass the same items. They encompass both everything and nothing. Black encompasses the everything of shades while at the same time holding the nothing of light. White encompasses the entirety of light while lacking anything of shades. They are both equal and both exactly the same.

Matter and antimatter are merely two expressions of the same waveform. That is all.

Now, since Satan is not recognized in Judaism, a different more elaborate myth is in place.

Satan is a concept that comes from the earliest part of Judaism, as any scholar or student of that section of erudiction would know. You don't think most of those mentioning of Satan in the Old Text are because they were later added in, do you? In fact, the very name "Satan" is a perversion of a Hebrew word.

It is tedious and difficult, but essentially it concerns the world as being created as a result of God's breath being accidentally freed from a crystal as a result of the deficiency of matter in itself. Judaism also, above all, teaches freeing your soul from your body, in fact making the two polar opposites!!!

Provide a credible source for this. And if you post wikipedia, I'm going to laugh.

Also, it seems for every point you think you have refuted you step outside the grounds of the debate, meaning the U.N. Your speculation, which you deem so bulletproof, is in fact far from it. As you yourself said it, the U.N. is what its members make it, so why do you keep referring to a mission statement which has since then changed and expanded so much? It's like naming a book before you actually write it- some things change in the course of the work.

You make the claim, but we both know you cannot back it. My "speculation" is based on my own experiences with dealing with the UN over the course of my time here, both on and off this forum. I should also note your hypocrisy, as you accuse me of stepping beyond the realm of the debate and yet are yourself doing the same thing, and without any of the experience with the UN to actually back your claims. As much as I say experience is not that valuable, there are cases where experience denotes the difference between the soft idealism of a person who speaks about the book without first reading it and the bibliophile who has it memorized cover to cover.

The UN itself has undergone many changes, but only only in who is a member of it and what rules they must follow. In all other aspects, it still remains the same organization it was back in 2003.

Oh, and thee need to get your facts straight about who said what before you dare speak again. It is not I who have sullied my mouth with the constant prattling about some purpose or some cause the UN as a whole follows. And since there are only two of us in this exchange, the knowing eyes can easily see which one of us has bothered the electrons the most with that piece of fiction. The UN does not have an actual set purpose to its course, but an item many people merely assume is the purpose. I have already stated said item, so using thine eyes and reading the Frequently Asked Questions will help in determining the part to which my words point the way.

You are also certainly wrong in your presumption that some nations join the U.N. with the simple purpose of "skirting" its laws. The point of joining a community is to be a part of it. And please don't make the futile "some people do it anyway" argument, because nothing tires anyone as much as that. For every debate you always have someone saying "what if someone comes in and does THIS" whereas it is, although likely, very improbable.

And you are guilty of not paying attention to the symbols I have so honored you with by setting before your eyes. Any mortal who takes the time to note the phrases that flew over this electronic medium from the keys at which I now pluck would note I never said people join it for that purpose, but that it is a local favorite and a common enough game for it to be not uncommonly known. And if thou does not like the common practice, thee are invited to pack thy things and remove thyself from this meeting of the minds. The sweet element of corruption is the fruit from which many a politician divines their sustenance, so why should this masquerade be any different? Perhaps thee should spend much of thy time bothering to peruse the historical records so easily available on this billboard to get an idea of the realities which are of the UN. It would save both of the dancers from taking those basic steps in this ballet of points.

You mention probability, and yet I look at the arcane equations and find no numbers. From where did thou come by this prediction of events past and present? It is not from the myriad of different options present in this place, let alone the hundreds or thousands of others scatter about the worlds of sounds which make up our self-created mythology. Of course, this is another case where the temporal aspect is a must to understand the truth behind the prophesies, the monster behind the fear. Innocence often is a wonderful thing to behold, but this is a place where purity misdirects down the path to damnation and destruction.

Now that I think about it, since you voted AGAINST this resolution anyway... what are you really arguing?

I am wading into the seas of human minds and retrieving the fish who deserve less polluted waters, while throwing back the ones that are undeserving of advancing. It is no fault of mine if some of the unworthy keep trying to jump into the bucket.

If you do not understand, ask about the connection of ideas and water.

This debate isn't about banning nuclear weapons right now, but later on when times permit this without great endangerment to the nations wishing to adopt this policy. It is about this very resolution's poor intentions in basically giving everyone free reign in the U.N.

Which is no different than how the script normally goes. All this does is give the stage directions a more elegant font. The free reign of actions is often the napkin with which the delegates wipe their mouths after chewing on the steaks of new laws. If you do not enjoy seeing the grease run down their jaws, then this is not the dining room you should eat in.

I'm also now taking a position in saying that you need to stop isolating quotes and distorting their meaning.

The meaning is not as eldritch as you think. The putting of comments into each padded room allows for a clarity that is lacking in thy own writings, as it allows for the listener to know the ball being paddled around and which team is making which score at what play. The only loss to possibly occur is in the visual, whether it be the natural perversions of language that would exist no matter whether the straightjacket is present or the illusions of meaning one grants their own words. It takes the clarity of another's eye to understand the way the painting truly appears.

Do you really think that nations with an astounding amount of horrible weapons are protecting their own people? When oftentimes the very nations that have these weapons rule their people with an iron fist? Ask THOSE people what they think of their safety.

I am one of those with "astounding amounts of horrible weapons." The variety of swords present serves a purpose, with each sword having a technique they can parry and a shield they will offer during the fencing for land. Note that most of us who have such weapons are not using them to be the royalty of our own castles, as we have our own ways of sitting on the thrown. Keep in mind that not all take the crown, but that many have it placed on their heads by the dukes who they command. And, sometimes, one must sacrifice thy voice to keep thy head.

*hands DLE a toothpick*

The probability for there being conflicts between nations without nukes and nations with nukes will substancially increase if this resolution passes.This resolution will neither increase nor decrease the number of nations possessing nuclear arms. If you believe otherwise, then you are mistaken as to the nature of the resolution that you are being asked to consider.

This resolution encourages proliferation within the UN and will certainly have a ripple effect outside of the UN.Au contraire. This resolution does nothing but maintain the status quo, hardly the thing you'd expect to cause any kind of "ripple effect".

A diplomatic solution should've been on the table for the Malgeria - Parthia Conflict from the very begning.What solution would that have been? Malgeria paying Parthia tribute?

Malgeria, I hereby give you 24 hours to become a Parthian protectoriate and offer tribute or to be incorporated into my empire. I shall ride roughshod over your nation and curse your people to death and slavery. Become a Parthian satellite or be destroyed, such are your options.

-Shah Khosru IIIOOC: Do you have any conceivable IC reason for doing this? Malgeria hasn't done anything to you except exist, it is highly unrealistic that any nation would get away with doing something like that. It's bad form for RP.OOC: Not so much more than the fact the Parthian government is Anti-Islamic. But it's a bluff, we are just trying to put in some pressure. You would be suprised with the stuff I get away with.

IC: We need the absoulte assurance that Malgeria will not support terror or Jihads against Parthia and allies. If such assurances are given, the Shahdom will cease hostile actions.

-Shah Khosru IIIFunny that you see Malgeria's refusal to indulge the Shah as intransigence.
After having read enough... I blame the reluctance of Malgeria for refusing to search for a diplomatic solution within the UN during the earlier stages of the conflict.Do you think Parthia gives a whit about the UN? What could we have done to prevent a war? Pay Parthia's tribute for the Malgerians?

Secret IC: Perhaps we can make an alternative arrangement. If you agree to arm terrorists to attack targets on our behalf, we will leave you alone.

-Shah Khosru IIIOh wait, there's the diplomatic solution! Malgeria could have agreed to become a base of operations for terrorist acts by SAVAK against the Shah's enemies. Yes, that's the path of peace.

Your statements about diplomacy being the only acceptable option sound like the statements of the appeasers of the 1930's, who thought that - if they only found the right words and rewards to mollify Mr. Hitler - war could be avoided.

Reality check: evil exists. It can not be assuaged by surrender, nor is surrender to evil a moral option.

"Peace at any price" is collaboration with aggression.

Now their desire is to wage a holy war and recruit nations from other regions. Bottom line... If you look hard enough for trouble... eventually you will get into trouble.They fight for their very survival against a vicious, genocidal enemy. And this glorious UN you believe to be able to bring peace to the world argues over whether it should compel all nations to castrate themselves, or permit the saner among us to maintain some strength against aggression.

The UN should be sending out a message of asylum and safety...

Then what? Only ONE nation is to blame for the end of the world?

Believe me, Nuclear weapons do NOT stop insane leaders...News flash: insane leaders are few and far between.

OOC: In RL, the myth of the insane rogue dictator is American propaganda. It makes it easier to mobilise the citizenry against enemies when they are led to believe those enemies to be stark raving mad.

But insane leaders tend to get knocked off by their underlings, since serving under a lunatic tends to be bad for your health. Case in point: Idi Amin.

That's like saying that every Nation with Nuclear arms NEVER have been in a war...

In fact, it's quite the opposite.Are you telling us that every nation with nuclear arms has been involved in war?

Truth is, nuclear weapons won't stop war. But they do a great job of putting the lid on nuclear war.

Vastiva has convinced certain rogue nations to commit to a nuclear launch against you. By our calculations, you have twelve minutes to negotiate with the missiles.


Come On!! That is just childish! Awww! Because you see people who do not exactly follow the beliefs that you subscribe to, you automatically go for the most childish approach possible!

"Title: Nuclear Armaments
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites
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."

Anyone who argues that this resolution does not encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons should really read it again. The resolution encourages member states to possess nuclear weapons. "Declares that UN members are allowed to possess…" by allowing states to possess nuclear weapons automatically it sanctions the increase in the number of nuclear weapons, thus proliferation.

The question that the Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich has to ask is WHY do we need this resolution?? If you are against any nuclear weapons ban, why not fight future resolutions attempting to ban nuclear weapons, because as soon as this resolution is passed there will be an attempt to repeal it. Leave the status quo, because as things are at the moment, there is no ban on nuclear weapons, so WHY do we need a resolution encouraging the development of more of them?

The United Nations, and this is a point HM Government has mentioned, and will continue to mention, is not here to promote the development of weapons systems, which this resolution enourages!

Greetings.

*gives DLE a slow, sardonic clap*

We of Roathin are quite entertained by the large number of words and the wildly-fluctuating tone of DLE's recent performance. It was almost a novel experience; fortunately, it was but a short story.

Nevertheless, we suppose it serves as a warning to aspirants with pretensions to grandeur (insert commas where you will).

Greetings.

On a separate matter, we believe in nuclear armaments as comfortable low-level technology which can be used to rapidly dissuade biological and chemical warfare exponents. Nuclear weapons are tidy - it is difficult to accidentally create a nuclear weapon, whereas it is all too possible to accidentally create a biological or chemical weapon while working on a cure for cancer. References available on deposit of bank guarantees with the Grand Ducal Bank of Roathin.

On a related matter to the above, we are willing to make available for purchase nuclear defences. The basic technological equivalent would be Clarke shields against nuclear activity. Roathin's thaumaturgic defensive spheres are based on the traditional circle of protection and have a uniform radius of seven leagues, seventy leagues, or seven hundred leagues. While not sufficient for larger continents, they are adequate protection for most battlecruisers and conurbations. Since they are locus-definitive, the spheres extend below ground and through invisible and extradimensional zones. Extradimensional approaches are not fully guaranteed, however; such protection requires an on-site thaumaturge for full customisation before a limited guarantee can be extended.

Costs: negotiable, but preferably trade in kind, of substances found in the Great Codex of Alchemical Materials (Merckleian, 14133 Druidic).

Fellow UN members (and hello to those non-members), Kirikatia is a peace loving country and prefers to avoid conflict at all costs. Still, we understand the need for each country to provide for its own defense, and we do not feel we can claim to be able to make that decision for all other nations. Therefore our vote is for this resolution even if we may not end up possessing the weapons ourselves.

Lady Katia

Fellow delegates of the UN, The Protectorate Of The Fallen Races will possess them, but only as an extreme last measure. Our vote is to allow such a resolution.

In the principle core of almost any mythology, the birth of the universe came about as a clash between two great opposing forces. light-darkness, spirit-demiurge, it all points to the same thing which is perhaps simplest to grasp but most dificult to understand. Our existence is DEFINED by opposite forces, including those of morality.
I'm sorry, I really have to call you on that. Almost every mythology? Let's look at some of the ones that shaped human history.

Greek mythology (well, the most common one at least)*: Gaia was born from Chaos, and then gave birth to Uranus, then the Titans, then not-so-nice beasties like Cyclopes and Echidna. Order was created by, and created from, chaos.

Egyptian mythology (again, one of the more common ones)*: The world was covered with water, except for one island. On this island was an egg, from which Re hatched. Again, order comes from chaos - there is no 'clash' between dark and light, as you seem to believe.

Need I continue? If so, I'll have to read up on Norse mythology, as well as other things like the Buddhist void.

[edit] Change that. Where's the great clash between light and dark, that creates the universe, in Christianity or Judaism? Given they're the ones you seem to be talking about the most, I'm curious about where this supposed 'clash' is.

*Yes, there are various world-creation myths. But most of them in Greek and Egyptian religion are along similar lines - it all started with chaos, then a bright speck of order was created. There's no clash between this order and chaos - the chaos still exists, and will always exist. It is the basis of everything.

The Principality of Ausserland has voted no on this proposed resolution for the following reasons:

1. The proposed resolution changes nothing -- simply states the status quo ante.

2. We do not believe it will make it more difficult to impose a nuclear armaments ban, just more time-consuming. The nuclear disarmament proponents would simply propose repeal of this resolution, followed by the ban itself. From past UN history, either effort is foredoomed. The resolution, then, would have no practical or meaningful parliamentary effect.

3. We are concerned that this resolution could well be misconstrued as an endorsement of nuclear weapons by the UN. True, the same could be said for the past rejection of nuclear disarmament proposals, but a positive statement on the record is more likely to be erroneously interpreted than the non-existence of a negative one.

We remain unalterably opposed to any attempt to impose a nuclear weapons ban on UN members.

We would like to thank Flibbleites, the proposer of this resolution, for bringing this matter to the consideration of the UN and for responding courteously to our previous posting.

OFFICIAL:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ausserland

I'm sorry, I really have to call you on that. Almost every mythology? Let's look at some of the ones that shaped human history.
Greetings.

We are amused by this discussion, especially since we believe that the Highest delegated responsibilities to a committee of rather peculiar demiurges in our particular case. However, we believe that discussion of this topic (as it has mutated) goes beyond the confines of the decently relevant.

Perhaps the discussion on imaginary religions belongs in the Strangers' Bar.

Greetings.

We are amused by this discussion, especially since we believe that the Highest delegated responsibilities to a committee of rather peculiar demiurges in our particular case. However, we believe that discussion of this topic (as it has mutated) goes beyond the confines of the decently relevant.

Perhaps the discussion on imaginary religions belongs in the Strangers' Bar.
OOC:was just trying to prove a point - don't make blanket statements that don't stand up to critique. But yes, this is outside of the topic.

IC: Lady Faren has directed Enn's UN Consul to vote FOR this proposal. And this decision has absolutely nothing to do with Enn's recent plans to go nuclear.

On a related matter to the above, we are willing to make available for purchase nuclear defences. The basic technological equivalent would be Clarke shields against nuclear activity. Roathin's thaumaturgic defensive spheres are based on the traditional circle of protection and have a uniform radius of seven leagues, seventy leagues, or seven hundred leagues. While not sufficient for larger continents, they are adequate protection for most battlecruisers and conurbations. Since they are locus-definitive, the spheres extend below ground and through invisible and extradimensional zones. Extradimensional approaches are not fully guaranteed, however; such protection requires an on-site thaumaturge for full customisation before a limited guarantee can be extended.That's wonderful, but unless you can show me where someone is using one of these today in RL, MT nations may not use such a device. And unless you can explain the precise physical principles behind its operation in terms that an RL scientist would recognise as theoretically possible, PMT nations can't use it, either.

Definition: MT = Any and all technology that exists today or could exist today if someone were willing to take the time to build it (IOW, no handwavium or unobtainium allowed).

Definition: PMT = Any and all technology that is known to be theoretically possible, even if it can't be built today, as long as no unknown processes are required to build it or its components (IOW, unobtainium is allowed by handwavium isn't).

Definition: FT/MagiTek = Any and all technology whose workings are not understood by RL science (IOW, stuff that requires handwavium). This follows Clarke's Law that any science so advanced that we can't understand it is equivalent to magic.

Definition: Unobtainium = Anything substance or equipment that is not available today because, while we know how to make it or where to get it, logistical or economic difficulties keep us from doing this (eg, nanotechnology , antimatter [in RL we can make this, but only in ridiculously small quantities due to economic constraints], viable human clones [in RL we can make these, but the success rate is horrible], Turing quality AI [this is actually debatable], etc.).

Definition: [I]Handwavium = Anything that defies the laws of nature as RL scientists understand them (eg, time travel or any FTL drive/communications system [these are the same thing, if you understand General Relativity - and are equally prohibited by the same - although that may not be quite true for comm systems], plasma weapons [we can't contain them far enough for the plasma to remain concentrated, and don't know how], any magic beyond the Vaudeville kind [violates causality], disruptor beams and "phasers" [although the later may be debatable, depending on what you define as a phaser], matter synthesis [w/o nanotechnology], transporter beams and "gates", etc.).

Let's keep this rooted in RL possibilities, please.

(The only reason we bring this up is because at least one nation has suggested that we should ban nuclear weapons and then put all our efforts behind building "nuclear shield" technology to render them ineffective [thus invalidating the argument that such a ban would be suicidal]. That's a nice idea, but it's like trying to win a political argument by playing "let's pretend". As much as people may hate the logic of deterrence, the sad truth [from over half a century of RL histroy] is that deterrence does in fact work.)

Greetings.

*gives DLE a slow, sardonic clap*

We of Roathin are quite entertained by the large number of words and the wildly-fluctuating tone of DLE's recent performance. It was almost a novel experience; fortunately, it was but a short story.

Nevertheless, we suppose it serves as a warning to aspirants with pretensions to grandeur (insert commas where you will).

~Watches as the Roathin delegates are set on fire by a rogue DLE scientist~

Hmm. Barbeque time already? Ah, well. Someone get me my bib.

OOC: Basically, if you are going to continue those statements, try to at least address what you are claiming are such instead of spamming the forum.

The Principality of Ausserland has voted no on this proposed resolution for the following reasons:

1. The proposed resolution changes nothing -- simply states the status quo ante.

A nation after my own heart.

Come On!! That is just childish! Awww! Because you see people who do not exactly follow the beliefs that you subscribe to, you automatically go for the most childish approach possible!

Actually, they were making a point about the UN. Try going back and reading what was said with that in mind instead of simply assuming and comming to an erroneous conclusion.

"Title: Nuclear Armaments
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites
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."

Anyone who argues that this resolution does not encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons should really read it again. The resolution encourages member states to possess nuclear weapons. "Declares that UN members are allowed to possess…" by allowing states to possess nuclear weapons automatically it sanctions the increase in the number of nuclear weapons, thus proliferation.

Okay, what dumpster did you pull this arguement from?

Just because the UN allows something doesn't mean it automatically increases in proliferation. It just means the UN is allowing or protecting the option of you doing it. Just because it allows hemp to be raised doesn't mean most members do it.

The question that the Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich has to ask is WHY do we need this resolution?? If you are against any nuclear weapons ban, why not fight future resolutions attempting to ban nuclear weapons, because as soon as this resolution is passed there will be an attempt to repeal it. Leave the status quo, because as things are at the moment, there is no ban on nuclear weapons, so WHY do we need a resolution encouraging the development of more of them?

Okay, two items.

1. That's the same arguement I used against the National Systems of Tax resolution. This one is pretty much a clone of it.

2. The UN does not, technically, encourage the use of nuclear weapons with this. It protects your ability to do so, and that is all.

The United Nations, and this is a point HM Government has mentioned, and will continue to mention, is not here to promote the development of weapons systems, which this resolution enourages!

This is ironic, considering the UN has, in its history, banned land mines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and attempted to ban sea mines and futuristic weapons on multiple occasions (no attempt of either has ever reached quorum). The UN has a greater history of banning weapons than of allowing them.

That's wonderful, but unless you can show me where someone is using one of these today in RL, MT nations may not use such a device. And unless you can explain the precise physical principles behind its operation in terms that an RL scientist would recognise as theoretically possible, PMT nations can't use it, either.

Actually, you're wrong. If they cannot explain it in a way that uses technology concievably available within the next 20-60 years, then PMT cannot use it. It's a case of it not following any known theory that bans many FT nations from using it. There is an important difference between PMT and FT.

Definition: MT = Any and all technology that exists today or could exist today if someone were willing to take the time to build it (IOW, no handwavium or unobtainium allowed).

Wrong, in one aspect. If those elements can be produced using a nuclear reactor or element creation equipment, then they can be known to MT nations. Most element discoveries in the real world at this time involve created elements.

Definition: PMT = Any and all technology that is known to be theoretically possible, even if it can't be built today, as long as no unknown processes are required to build it or its components (IOW, unobtainium is allowed by handwavium isn't).

Wrong, and not actually knowing what you are talking about. For one thing, that makes my obviously FT nation be PMT, as every item I have is theoretically possible using real-world theories. PMT is merely an advanced form of modern, including such items as fusion reactors and nanotechnology while excluding such items as massive space fleets. It's basically 20-60 years in the future when compared to the real world.

Definition: FT/MagiTek = Any and all technology whose workings are not understood by RL science (IOW, stuff that requires handwavium). This follows Clarke's Law that any science so advanced that we can't understand it is equivalent to magic.

If you can't be bothered to know what you are talking about, then don't spread misinformation. For one thing, MagiTek and FT are entirely different classifications. FT uses futuristic technology, with many FT nations using technology based on real-world theories that is theoretically possible under current physics but cannot be accomplished within the next 20-60 years. MagiTek, more commonly refered to Magic Nations, simply uses magic and does not give a damn about physics or even real-world science.

Definition: Unobtainium = Anything substance or equipment that is not available today because, while we know how to make it or where to get it, logistical or economic difficulties keep us from doing this (eg, nanotechnology , antimatter [in RL we can make this, but only in ridiculously small quantities due to economic constraints], viable human clones [in RL we can make these, but the success rate is horrible], Turing quality AI [this is actually debatable], etc.).

Actually, we can make nanotechnology in real life at this point. Our only problem is trying to program a computer that small. Hell, we carve images that are smaller than most nanotech is on atoms. AIs themselves are not really as far off as you think with the constant advancements in technology level (which is why they are PMT), and one staple of scifi (the railgun) is currently in testing to become a real-world weapon utilized by the U.S. military. The future isn't as far away as you think.

Oh, and the problems with antimatter production isn't economic, but technological. We currently have no way of storing it while keeping it as antimatter that doesn't result in it reverting back to matter. That aside, t he current leaps forward, including the near-factory rate of production of antimatter atoms, suggests that within a few decades we will be producing it in larger quantities, perhaps even enough to build the first antimatter bomb. If you live long enough, you could see photon torpedos with the U.S. flag on them.

Definition: [I]Handwavium = Anything that defies the laws of nature as RL scientists understand them (eg, time travel or any FTL drive/communications system [these are the same thing, if you understand General Relativity - and are equally prohibited by the same - although that may not be quite true for comm systems], plasma weapons [we can't contain them far enough for the plasma to remain concentrated, and don't know how], any magic beyond the Vaudeville kind [violates causality], disruptor beams and "phasers" [although the later may be debatable, depending on what you define as a phaser], matter synthesis [w/o nanotechnology], transporter beams and "gates", etc.).

Actually, many of those items are perfectly legit according to modern physics. "Magic" can be accomplished by utilizing technology that changes waveforms, the basic element of everything. Plasma weapons themselves are just the inevitable evolution of plasma cutting torches and most rely on a NASA design for antimatter ships in that they utilize magnetic fields to keep the plasma concentrated while it is launching out of the cannon. Most FTL drives themselves work around general relativity in a way perfectly acceptable to science, as they simply bend space/time itself until the laws of physics change enough to allow FTL travel. Disruptor beams, depending on the design, are based on an understanding and application of the laws of entropy. Matter synthesis itself isn't impossible, as nature does such all the time through the conversion of energy to matter.

Please note that Magic and FT nations are not the same. There is an inherent difference in them that is very important to dealing with them. Otherwise, you'll end up getting nuked when you're trying to tease someone about casting fireballs simply because they can travel to Mars in a few seconds.

Let's keep this rooted in RL possibilities, please.

No, let's not. Let's keep to NS possibilities. If you don't like that, too bad.

That's the same arguement I used against the National Systems of Tax resolution. This one is pretty much a clone of it.<donning asbestos suits>

First, we wish to express our utmost respect for the Ambassador from DLE, who is always amusing even when (occasionally) being annoying as well.

We believe that DLE understands this matter better than most of the opponents of this resolution (not all, but we will not take time to recognise the others; you know who you are). Therefore we will address the heart of her argument. This resolution does nothing, and


...is illegal in spirit if not in fact (or should be).We shall take up the second point first.

We admit that the parliamentary ruling allowing this amendment was controversial. We admit that there are legitimate arguments in favour of the position that this amendment is illegal. We agree with the ruling of the parliamentarian, however, that it is not - and take that argument one step further.

To us, the ruling of that this resolution is permitted is much like the emergence of the infamous "filibuster" tactic (honed to perfection in the RL U.S. Senate and embedded in this game as an issue). It is a way of slowing down an unwanted legislative initiative, and as such falls in the category of political tactics. To DLE's credit, there are people who'd like to see the filibuster thrown out as well, on similar grounds (it abuses a Senate rule that was never intended to be put to said purpose), but we are not among them. Sometimes slowing down deliberations is a good thing - in fact, it's usually a good thing. In support of this, we suggest that the Members look at several of recent resolutions, few if any of which should have passed.

That brings us to the first point. If you accept the idea that this resolution is the NSUN equivalent of a filibuster - it does nothing except make a vote banning nuclear weapons more difficult to bring to the Membership.

Ah, but what an exception! Indeed, the exception is the "something" this resolution does do.

And now we see the purpose of this resolution: as a political manoeuvre, nothing more and nothing less. If you think that the goal is good (preserving the legality of nuclear weapons ownership), you will vote for it; if you think that goal bad, you will vote against it. If you think the tactic unfair, you can also vote against it if you wish.

It is on the basis of this recognition that we believe the debate should go forward.

Actually, you're wrong...No, you're wrong, but I'll respond to this later; we probably should take that discussion out of this thread, though. :D

<donning asbestos suits>

First, we wish to express our utmost respect for the Ambassador from DLE, who is always amusing even when (occasionally) being annoying as well.

No need for the suits. I already did my part for that when I got on to you about the issue of nation classification. It annoys the living piss out of me to have all of my hard word reading theories, talking to scientists and professors, and actually looking up the bullshit my nation uses only to be classified in the same category as MagiTek.

We believe that DLE understands this matter better than most of the opponents of this resolution (not all, but we will not take time to recognise the others; you know who you are). Therefore we will address the heart of her argument. This resolution does nothing, and


...is illegal in spirit if not in fact (or should be).We shall take up the second point first.

My second point has been refuted by the mods. So, I'll just skip to handing you the salt.

~Promptly does so~

We admit that the parliamentary ruling allowing this amendment was controversial. We admit that there are legitimate arguments in favour of the position that this amendment is illegal. We agree with the ruling of the parliamentarian, however, that it is not - and take that argument one step further.

To us, the ruling of that this resolution is permitted is much like the emergence of the infamous "filibuster" tactic (honed to perfection in the RL U.S. Senate and embedded in this game as an issue). It is a way of slowing down an unwanted legislative initiative, and as such falls in the category of political tactics. To DLE's credit, there are people who'd like to see the filibuster thrown out as well, on similar grounds (it abuses a Senate rule that was never intended to be put to said purpose), but we are not among them. Sometimes slowing down deliberations is a good thing - in fact, it's usually a good thing. In support of this, we suggest that the Members look at several of recent resolutions, few if any of which should have passed.

The only reason I am against this is that I hate ineffective legislation. That's part of why I work so hard at finding loopholes in resolutions. If I have to actually work hard at a particular resolution to get around it, then it's good.

That brings us to the first point. If you accept the idea that this resolution is the NSUN equivalent of a filibuster - it does nothing except make a vote banning nuclear weapons more difficult to bring to the Membership.

Ah, but what an exception! Indeed, the exception is the "something" this resolution does do.

And now we see the purpose of this resolution: as a political manoeuvre, nothing more and nothing less. If you think that the goal is good (preserving the legality of nuclear weapons ownership), you will vote for it; if you think that goal bad, you will vote against it. If you think the tactic unfair, you can also vote against it if you wish.

It is on the basis of this recognition that we believe the debate should go forward.

Damn. I'm left speechless. There is absolutely nothing there I can argue against. Or even attempt to comment on weaknesses of. Congrats.

No, you're wrong, but I'll respond to this later; we probably should take that discussion out of this thread, though. :D

Most of that is my annoyance at being classed with the MagiTek. I actually bothered to look up all of the justifications I am using to see if they are accurate, scientifically possible, and based on realworld theories. All a magitek nation has to do is stop by their local gaming store and pick up the latest edition of DnD.

Damn. I'm left speechless. There is absolutely nothing there I can argue against. Or even attempt to comment on weaknesses of. Congrats.
"Ah, guys...? Could we have some smelling salts over here, please? The Ecopoeian delegates appear to have fainted..."

if we all had nuc's then were all asking for our death right now. People out there can take weapons from others and use then agenst you. This means nuclear war! If you don't have weapons for them to steal then we won't find ourselfs in a big mess.

I am trying to develop a nation which is completly nuke free, environmentally and with an excellent economy. Since I am new here and UN member will the resolution about the Nuclear Arnament affect me in any negative way?

Thank you for taking the time to read this message,

The Chancellor of Allied States of Justiniana Prima

I am trying to develop a nation which is completly nuke free, environmentally and with an excellent economy. Since I am new here and UN member will the resolution about the Nuclear Arnament affect me in any negative way?

Thank you for taking the time to read this message,

The Chancellor of Allied States of Justiniana Prima
Welcome to the UN forum.

There will be a very small in-game effect of increasing your military budget, but this is not worth worrying about. Your policy choices are unaffected.

On behalf of my peace loving nation, I will have to say "No!" to this resolution and I am shocked to find that the UN allows these weapons for killing people, and no matter how much you dress this issue up, in the end, its saying that its ok for your nation to kill people. My nation, and my government feel very strongly against this. This is a terrible resolution, and I can't believe that its looking as though its going to be passed!


Stortinget of Splurgeland

This is just a "peer pressure" issue! Would you pass a law that forces everyone to kill themselves just because some non-member nation does it?
Vote down this issue. It makes me sick.

Greetings.

We are appalled by the label 'MagiTek'. It is a crude sort of word, with dubious antecedents. We use applied thaumaturgy. The following explanation is reserved for those who require a physical elaboration.

It is well-known that the interaction of axons in the brain sets up a macroscopic quantum waveform, which due to its sheer size is immune to environmental decoherence. A trained mind is able to manipulate local areas of the Higgs field, particularly in obvious geometric loci such as spheres around a given point in what most perceive as three-dimensional space. Using support thaumaturgy, a standing wave is set up around a particular locus, thus rendering it somewhat protected against a variety of nuclear interactions.

It is possible to transfer the maintenance and reinforcement functions to an otherwise non-sentient automaton or other genius loci. This frees the thaumaturge and his support group to generate another defensive sphere.

What is DnD?

For one, "acknowledging" is spelled incorrectly... and I hate poor spelling.I ran the proposal through spell check and it missed this, (damn Microsoft) and no one mentioned it when I posted the draft in the forums.

Secondly, anyone who wants nuclear weapons will probably make use of them whether or not it is sanctioned by the UN.Ah, but this proposal mentions nothing about use it only says that a nation can possess them.

Thirdly, nuclear weapons themselves are extremely destructive and can make territory unusable for years to come, increasing this time with the power of the bomb. They will only serve to create a state of fear and possibly outrage environmentalists. As enemies of the UN will probably have nuclear weapons as well, Mutual Assured Destruction will ensue.And MAD will help to stop nations from using them.

Fourthly, Defense will undoubtedly be raised because of this, whether or NOT the nation wishes to have nuclear arms (due to game mechanics), bringing with it a possible increase in taxes.
So your government will be spending a little more on its military, it's game mechanics, and there's nothing I can do about that.

As my government made clear during the draft discussions, we do not support the opinion that mutually assured destruction is a wise policy, nor have we ever seen any evidence supporting the idea that weapons of mass destruction provide any deterance, and have accordingly voted against this resolution.

Furthermore, on a technical note, the ratio of UN members to non-UN members is in flux. With that in mind, we still have a minor reservation to the 3 to 1 ratio mentioned in the resolution. Why the ratio is a fair approximation, we feel UN resolutions shouldn't make gross approximations.


OOC:
Good job Flib in getting your idea to the UN floor! :)

As I stated previously, this is an unintelligent proposal. It is very apparent that we are dealing with three types of states here. The first off are those that have always been in favor of these destructive weapons. The second are those who hold true to their ideals despite their fears. The third and by far the majority represented in this debate are those have have been consumed by fear and see this too be the only method of protection. Within their fears they have become less than sensicle and in essence they represent the passionate few who will destroy the world one day. I don't see any further need for debate here. If the eyes of the fearful and angry are not to be opened up then we must hope that they are not successful.

Let us hope for peace. Let us end this mindless game of waving arms in front of our neighbors with a false sense of security. Possessing these weapons will in no way protect any country from the passions of man.

Vastiva has convinced certain rogue nations to commit to a nuclear launch against you. By our calculations, you have twelve minutes to negotiate with the missiles.


Now, do you see the folly of your position? (http://img75.echo.cx/img75/8772/theexpertcard7qo.jpg)First of all... if certain rogue nations did not have nuclear weapons to begin with, there would be no threat. Supporting proliferation as I have stated before will increase the chance of their being a conflict between nations that have nukes and nations that don't have nukes.
And secondly... what if I simply dissregard the "attack" for what it is? Simply immature childplay. (Check the World War Seven (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429186) Thread in this forum to get the drift of what I'm talking about.) Will they send the boogeyman in the night to erase my nation? Spare me...

This resolution will neither increase nor decrease the number of nations possessing nuclear arms. If you believe otherwise, then you are mistaken as to the nature of the resolution that you are being asked to consider.

Au contraire. This resolution does nothing but maintain the status quo, hardly the thing you'd expect to cause any kind of "ripple effect".

As of this writing there is no legal document that defends the right to stock up on nuclear weapons. If this resolution passes, there will be. And as a pacifist I believe that is wrong. More UN nations will have nukes and therefore more non UN nations will have nukes. This is clear to me.


What solution would that have been? Malgeria paying Parthia tribute?

Funny that you see Malgeria's refusal to indulge the Shah as intransigence.
Do you think Parthia gives a whit about the UN? What could we have done to prevent a war? Pay Parthia's tribute for the Malgerians?

Oh wait, there's the diplomatic solution! Malgeria could have agreed to become a base of operations for terrorist acts by SAVAK against the Shah's enemies. Yes, that's the path of peace.

Your statements about diplomacy being the only acceptable option sound like the statements of the appeasers of the 1930's, who thought that - if they only found the right words and rewards to mollify Mr. Hitler - war could be avoided.

Reality check: evil exists. It can not be assuaged by surrender, nor is surrender to evil a moral option.

"Peace at any price" is collaboration with aggression.

They fight for their very survival against a vicious, genocidal enemy. And this glorious UN you believe to be able to bring peace to the world argues over whether it should compel all nations to castrate themselves, or permit the saner among us to maintain some strength against aggression.
What you don't know is that I have personally spoken with Malgeria himself. I will not reveal all the details of our conversation but I can say that he has personally aknowledged that he did not seek a diplomatic solution within the UN. I also told him personally that it was wrong of him to do so and he accepted. He did not regret his decision for he believes his faith in Allah alone will lead him through to victory. He is now suffering the trouble he looked for when he decided to dissregard the possibility of seeking UN help.

Parthia could've have been threatened with an immediate military force and most importantly severe economic and political sanctions along with an embargo on imported goods. For those of you that believe that this sort of stuff will change childlish users' behaviour. The same can be said about nukes. It's the - I got you.... - No... I got you first story...
I don't even want to get into the details as to how a war is exactly fought between two nations or regions since there are no international rules made up. Ridiculous...

This is just a "peer pressure" issue! Would you pass a law that forces everyone to kill themselves just because some non-member nation does it?
Vote down this issue. It makes me sick.
Ditto!

no, i think we musn't have nuclear bombs because it would soon destroy the world as we know it

This resolution is completely flawed and should be voted against and here is why :

Nuclear weapons are not a weapon of defense.

Saying you need nuclear weapons to protect yourself ffrom other nuclear weapons is silly. A nuclear war head on a rocket can be taken out before it hits critical mass by many non-nuclear armaments. A country building nuclear weapons is like your suburban neighbor building a basketball net. Sooner or later everybody wants one whether they use/need it or not. These weapons are strike weapons, nothing more. The UN can "defend" itself and its nations without adding to the escalation of nuclear armaments problem.

Since this resolution talks about nuclear weapons and "defense" I think it's horribly flawed, and therefore I urge people to vote against it.

Not approved! Even though we are outnumbered by other nations, those other nations are not an organized group. All other nations will not attack us together. Be sensible, Nuclear weapons are an overboard defense mechanism. Don't think that having a nuke will protect anyone, it will only put everyone at risk.

Sincerely,
Philip
Democratic Commisioner of Democracy
Democratic Republic of Democratization

In my nation, we regularly schedule above-ground nuclear tests as an amusement for the populace. They are televised, but our military also provides viewing areas so that the masses can observe the awesome power of our State.

You treehuggers should pack a bowl of Reality and smoke that sometimes...

Most of that is my annoyance at being classed with the MagiTek. I actually bothered to look up all of the justifications I am using to see if they are accurate, scientifically possible, and based on realworld theories. All a magitek nation has to do is stop by their local gaming store and pick up the latest edition of DnD.Oh, well if that's it.

Building a quality MagiTek society requires a great deal more forethought than that. Among my puppets, I have two (well, two and some dabblers). One is based on Rowling's Harry Potter stories (and I try very hard to capture her unique flavor, which is by no means easy); the other is based on the writings of Howard Phillips Lovecraft (ditto to the research level to capture the flavor of "eldritch horror").

And then too, FT is no guarantee of quality. Can you say "Sephirioth" (sp?)?

But I do want to have that debate on classifications in a bit, just for fun.

Irregardless of whether this resolution passes or fails to pass, nuclear weapons will still be permitted in UN member nations. I just thought that this needed to be clarified because an astonishing number of members speaking to this resolution do not seem to be understanding this.

[ooc: @Allemande: Note that in the U.S. Senate, it requires a 3/5 majority to override a filibuster, while it would only require a simple majority to override this resolution. Other than this minor note, your analogy is apt.]

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

By voting for the Nuke Arnament resuloution we make UN an offensive
organization not one that would aid other countries.

Reality is what you want to see.. if you want to look at the world as a grey ball of dirt with populace terrorized by governments and nations looking for war, then that is what you get.

I absolutely vote no. Terror, nuclear weapons as possible 'defense' and more of that nonsense contribute to a world with fear, nuclear waste, waste of money and the risk of blowing up everything if someone pulls the trigger (which would lead to a cascade-effect)

We as UN should set an example for the rest of the world!! That we do not tolerate any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in our territory.

The word UN stands for "United Nations".. how will we ever be United if we live in fear of mutual destruction??

*just my two cents*

Allowing the use of nuclear weapons for "defense" is misleading; nuclear weapons can never be utilized for purposes of defense. In the end, a conflict using nuclear weapons does massive damage to all the nations in the world, including those not involved in the conflict at hand. Who knows the catastrophic effects of even one nuclear attack, let alone multiple ones? Therefore, the nation of Andapaula votes with a strong no on this proposal, which clearly only exists to for purposes of intimidation.

Note that in the U.S. Senate, it requires a 3/5 majority to override a filibuster, while it would only require a simple majority to override this resolution. Other than this minor note, your analogy is apt.Correct. This isn't exactly like a filibuster, then, but it's the same kind of tactic. The difference is that a present majority can impede the ability of a future majority to have its way.

I think the question of whether this tactic meets with the approval or disapproval of the General Assembly is actually a more important question than the right to own nuclear weapons.

Reality is what you want to see.. if you want to look at the world as a grey ball of dirt with populace terrorized by governments and nations looking for war, then that is what you get.

I absolutely vote no. Terror, nuclear weapons as possible 'defense' and more of that nonsense contribute to a world with fear, nuclear waste, waste of money and the risk of blowing up everything if someone pulls the trigger (which would lead to a cascade-effect)

We as UN should set an example for the rest of the world!! That we do not tolerate any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in our territory.

The word UN stands for "United Nations".. how will we ever be United if we live in fear of mutual destruction??

*just my two cents*Make that four cents. :cool:

How can one lead, when one can not even defend one’s self? This resolution affirms the UN’s ability to enforce its rules and confirms its resolve in security and police actions.

At the moment Nuclear weapons are pointless anyways, thier usefulness as a defensive weapon extends only to the purpose of deterant, and even then, what happens when you are under nuclear attack, you will have no choice but to use them on the opposing nation, thus BOTH sides would be destroyed, so if anything, nuclear weapons are best used as weapons of final vengance, because there are no survivors in a nuclear war.

What we should be doing is finding weapons that do equal damage with little or no long term effects.

Orbital Plasma weapons are always fun. :D

A better argument needs to be laid out on this. the use of nuclear weapons should not be becuase "they are larger than us" come on now - what ridiculousness is this?

I think the question of whether this tactic meets with the approval or disapproval of the General Assembly is actually a more important question than the right to own nuclear weapons.

I completely agree with this. It's a pity most people don't see this, though.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

How can one lead, when one can not even defend one’s self? This resolution affirms the UN’s ability to enforce its rules and confirms its resolve in security and police actions.
The ability to defend one's self is not a necessary condition to lead anything anywhere. The ability to defend should be equal to one's ability to make alliances with other regions and create solid grounds for friendship and understanding with other nations. Of course 13 year old cartoon addicts who play this game will find that to be dull and boring and much more difficult than just simply nuking the other guy.

Another thing... You say this resolution affirms the UN's ability to enforce it's rules? Well I believe that the UN has no business whatsoever enforcing it's rules on other nations. Enforce should not be in the UN's vocabulary when it comes to other nations.

You also say that this resolution affirms the UN's ability to confirm it's resolve in security and police actions.

Well I believe that the UN should always confirm it's resolve in security and police actions, and it is for that very reason that Nuclear Weapons should be banned (UN member and otherwise) and why this resolution must be rejected.

By passing this resolution the U.N. will be encouraging and condoning the purchase, stockpiling and limited use of a form or weapon of mass destruction. This undermines the foundations of this organization by ,as stated earlier encouraging the use of WMDs. This resolution should not stand. An alternative would be to encourage larger stockpiles or traditional weaponry such as non-atomic cruise missiles and bombs.

A world without weapons of mass destruction is indeed an admirable dream, and one which the Strobanian people wholeheartedly yearn for. However, in the times we live in, such a dream is not a possiblility. The proliferation of nuclear arms amongst foreign powers is no less than staggering, and our own island nation has been forced to take steps to answer this buildup of forces with like measures. Even now, our region is in the midst of a tense nuclear standoff between our nations and a neighboring region to the west. Forming our own intraregional alliance has done nothing to discourage the minds of those who wish to brutally slaughter civilian populations with nuclear fire.

We are faced with the question of how to safeguard our nation from a nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological first strike. We refuse to field chemical or biological weapons, as we know full well their destructive potential after having seen them used on our own soil by foreign powers years ago. We have defense measures in place, but the critical deterrent that has ensured the safety of our people continues to be our nuclear arsenal.

Strobania recognizes that the UN takes strides in peacefully bringing our nations together. However, we also recognize that vast majority of these foreign powers who exist outside of the UN are not bound by honor, civility, or rules of war. It is because of this that we are obligated to defend our people with nuclear arms. The Republic of Strobania, and all other UN member nations of the region of Mecklenburgovia votes in favor of this proposal.

Irregardless of whether this resolution passes or fails to pass, nuclear weapons will still be permitted in UN member nations. I just thought that this needed to be clarified because an astonishing number of members speaking to this resolution do not seem to be understanding this.I am fully aware of that. However I prefer to dissarm and try to convince the cartoon addicts kiddies that i've ranting about... to do the same (dissarm)... rather than load up on nukes so that they can fullfill their dream and cause a "virtual world war". :rolleyes: Maybe they might learn something.

You know, if all of you anti-nuke people are so worried about the effects of nuclear warfare then why don't you go out and write a proposal banning the use of nuclear weapons, even if this passes it would still be perfectly legal for you to do so as all this proposal affects is a nation's right to possess them.

You know, if all of you anti-nuke people are so worried about the effects of nuclear warfare then why don't you go out and write a proposal banning the use of nuclear weapons, even if this passes it would still be perfectly legal for you to do so as all this proposal affects is a nation's right to possess them.
Speaking on my own behalf... I haven't done that yet because I'm relatively new here. I will get around to it eventually. That and much more.

For instance... The last proposal was the repeal of the Chemical Weapon's ban. I voted in favour of that repeal. It was poorly written and ineffectual in terms of it's practical use.

Speaking on my own behalf... I haven't done that yet because I'm relatively new here. I will get around to it eventually. That and much more.I can understand that, I was here for almost a year and a half before I wrote this proposal.:)

For instance... The last proposal was the repeal of the Chemical Weapon's ban. I voted in favour of that repeal. It was poorly written and ineffectual in terms of it's practical use.
Actually the last resolution voted on repealed the ban on biological weapons not chemical.

Actually the last resolution voted on repealed the ban on biological weapons not chemical.
That's the one... my mistake.

Offtopic...

Is the nationstates.net site offline right now? I can't seem to access my nation's page. :confused:

Offtopic...

Is the nationstates.net site offline right now? I can't seem to access my nation's page. :confused:
Oddly enough, we have a Technical forum for that very sort of question ... and a dandy stickied thread explaining that it is.

Back on topic now, please.

That's the one... my mistake.
No problem, heck, people were making that mistake in the official discussion thread.

Oddly enough, we have a Technical forum for that very sort of question ... and a dandy stickied thread explaining that it is.I'm sorry. :(
Back on topic now, please.
NO NUKES! NO NUKES! :D

We'll have to wait while the poll nears the deadline and the delegates of the larger, better organised nations all cast their AGAINST votes.

We'll have to wait while the poll nears the deadline and the delegates of the larger, better organised nations all cast their AGAINST votes.
I wouldn't count on all the large regions voting against, I have it on good authority that Gatesville (the largest player created region on NS) will be voting FOR my resolution.:)

I wouldn't count on all the large regions voting against, I have it on good authority that Gatesville (the largest player created region on NS) will be voting FOR my resolution.:)On a certain level I do understand your reasons for voting in favour. But if we look at the world and at the way things function... today pacifist countries are seldomly attacked or bothered by terrorism. I think the last time a country was genuinely attacked for no reason at all was of course East Timor. Other than that and a few other exceptions... regardless of who is right or wrong in the conflict... you can consider them all to be cases of reaping the seeds that have been sewn. Or to put it in my words used in an earlier post on this thread... "Getting the trouble you've been looking for." Truly peacefull nations in this day and age are rarely attacked in the real world and I am willing to consider that a valid statement for nationstates as well.

For example... Spain sent soldiers to Iraq and consequently made themselves targets by getting involved in fighting a war that is wrong and unfounded. They were eventually attacked by terrorism in the heart of it's capital in such a dispicable and horrific way.
The incumbent government lost the elections and the new government removed Spanish presence in Iraq. They haven't been bothered by Islamic extremists since that and yet... they have still brought the culprits to face justice.

I believe that it is a great benefit to believe in peace and vote against resolutions such as these.
I have come to the conclusion that it takes greater courage to stand down and accept peace than to gear up and go drop mushroom clouds on our enemies for breakfast.

On a certain level I do understand your reasons for voting in favour. But if we look at the world and at the way things function... today pacifist countries are seldomly attacked or bothered by terrorism. I think the last time a country was genuinely attacked for no reason at all was of course East Timor. Other than that and a few other exceptions... regardless of who is right or wrong in the conflict... you can consider them all to be cases of reaping the seeds that have been sewn. Or to put it in my words used in an earlier post on this thread... "Getting the trouble you've been looking for." Truly peacefull nations in this day and age are rarely attacked in the real world and I am willing to consider that a valid statement for nationstates as well.

For example... Spain sent soldiers to Iraq and consequently made themselves targets by getting involved in fighting a war that is wrong and unfounded. They were eventually attacked by terrorism in the heart of it's capital in such a dispicable and horrific way.
The incumbent government lost the elections and the new government removed Spanish presence in Iraq. They haven't been bothered by Islamic extremists since that and yet... they have still brought the culprits to face justice.

I believe that it is a great benefit to believe in peace and vote against resolutions such as these.
I have come to the conclusion that it takes greater courage to stand down and accept peace than to gear up and go drop mushroom clouds on our enemies for breakfast.
And in RL I actually agree with you but however, this is not RL and when it comes to NS I want my nation to have the means to defend itself from aggressors.

Before I spin off and start talking about Judaic metaphysics, let me just ask you a simple question?

Is the world in equilibrium?

The answer to this, no matter your creed or your race, is NO. The world is never in equilibrium. And what does this mean? It means that the world, and its existence, is defined by contrasting forces. Existence is a battlefield. How can one appreciate light if that is all we know? It is not until we are in the darkness that the tiniest spark takes our admiration. Yes, this applies to morality. If there is anyway you can still choose to deny this universal truth, there is no hope for you. Everyone knows that morality is different everywhere you go, but its simple contrast is what matters. There ARE polar opposites, and it because of these that we have everytihng in between.
Even from a secular perspective. We are currently moving 800 miles per hour while spinning on an axis and our solar system 1,200 per second! Forces all over, seen and unseen are always moving and opposing each other.

This might be difficult to understand. In Judaism there is something called the yetzer hara. It is literally "evil inclination" that all human beings are prone to. Now, you may think that it is a result of man's imperfection and his natural evil. Unfortunately, in Judaism man is divine by nature, and this yetzer hara is sometihng injected purposefully into man to create conflict, because something cannot purely exist. In the Kaballah, especially the Tanya, the world is described in layers, or rather dimensions. To understand these you first have to shed your finite being. We cannot think outside space and time as we are now, so obviously we cannot fathom other dimensions. But in the metaphysical sense the world's creation had many layers. Within one can occurence known as the "shattering of the vessel" (which I mentioned earlier containing crystals containing God's breath) occured. The only secular book I can think of that mentions this is Foucault's Pendulum, so you might want to read that. Kabbalah never sates that there was nothing to create the universe out of. There was a trapped fragment of unbelievable energy. And the divine force, or God, isolated itself from this dimension of energy and allowed it to grow and change into the physical world, its direct opposite. Needless to say, this can and has been expounded on for volumes. And as for Judaism's equivalent of Satan- there is none. There is an angel of death, Samael I believe, but he plays nowhere the centrifugal role Satan does.

As for Christianity, what you have to realize is it's been shaped for centuries. Gnostic sects cannot be resolved anywhere within today's definition of the religion. But once again, there was never nothing. There was anti-matter. Out of this God shaped matter, and this matter was in fact coveted and corrupted by Satan. The only secular work that comes to mind that touches on this is "Paradise Lost."
It's pretty interesting if you get into it, but Jesus is actually so revered because he is a balance between matter and anti-matter. Today's views on him are distorted and warped from what they were intended to be. He is born of the divine essence but manifested physically. Christiniaty, however, says that man is inherently evil but with enouigh preparation can become a vessel of the divine.

So in fact, good versus evil, light versus dark, or two opposites of any kind formulate every creed, and even if you are not religious then you realize that all religion stems from humanity itself, which is divided into two parts that both fulfill and oppose each other, just as any of the forces in a religion both create the world, and through their struggle keep it alive.

And to tie this back into our original discussion, without Idealism, we would have nothing else, which is why anyone that stands for it should be revered and not discarded as ignorant.

And to tie this back into our original discussion, without Idealism, we would have nothing else, which is why anyone that stands for it should be revered and not discarded as ignorant.
Thank you. :D

Come On!! That is just childish! Awww! Because you see people who do not exactly follow the beliefs that you subscribe to, you automatically go for the most childish approach possible!

"Title: Nuclear Armaments
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites
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."

Anyone who argues that this resolution does not encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons should really read it again. The resolution encourages member states to possess nuclear weapons. "Declares that UN members are allowed to possess…" by allowing states to possess nuclear weapons automatically it sanctions the increase in the number of nuclear weapons, thus proliferation.

The question that the Constitutional Monarchy of Wienreich has to ask is WHY do we need this resolution?? If you are against any nuclear weapons ban, why not fight future resolutions attempting to ban nuclear weapons, because as soon as this resolution is passed there will be an attempt to repeal it. Leave the status quo, because as things are at the moment, there is no ban on nuclear weapons, so WHY do we need a resolution encouraging the development of more of them?

The United Nations, and this is a point HM Government has mentioned, and will continue to mention, is not here to promote the development of weapons systems, which this resolution enourages!

http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/impact.jpg

It would appear your arguement did not work. We fear no counterstrike, as you don't have any nuclear weapons. As such, you're SOL.

Thus endeth the lesson.

I'm sorry people had to put up through these tedious points and long-winded answers. The fact is, I simply should've known better. Sorry for any inconvenient page scrolling. These egotistical and cynical mind games should be beyond all of us.

"Ah, guys...? Could we have some smelling salts over here, please? The Ecopoeian delegates appear to have fainted..."

We've seen it three times - one time we managed* it. It's still a stunning event, isn't it? Much like a new nova.


[EDIT]*"Managed" as in "oversaw, refereed" NOT as in "did the deed".

Now take the gasoline and go elsewhere, thank you. We aren't up to redecorating in early asbestos, thank you.

First of all... if certain rogue nations did not have nuclear weapons to begin with, there would be no threat.

And if fire had never been discovered, your office would not currently be an inferno. What's your point?

There's reality and there's "what if"-land. The latter leads nowhere.



Supporting proliferation as I have stated before will increase the chance of their being a conflict between nations that have nukes and nations that don't have nukes.

Odd... we've never had a conflict with a nukeless nation - our response has always been "Try it bub, and you'll glow". Works too. We have a rather peaceful past because of the deterrent force - even when the deterrent was mostly in our minds and their fears.



And secondly... what if I simply dissregard the "attack" for what it is? Simply immature childplay. (Check the World War Seven (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429186) Thread in this forum to get the drift of what I'm talking about.) Will they send the boogeyman in the night to erase my nation? Spare me...

http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/impact.jpg

Well, that ended that. No need to respond further to ghosts.

As I stated previously, this is an unintelligent proposal. It is very apparent that we are dealing with three types of states here. The first off are those that have always been in favor of these destructive weapons. The second are those who hold true to their ideals despite their fears. The third and by far the majority represented in this debate are those have have been consumed by fear and see this too be the only method of protection.

It's apparent you also don't look around. There is a fourth type, those of us who oppose unnecessary legislation no matter our opinions on weapons. Personally, I happen to enjoy being able to deply weapons capable of destroying entire planets.

Within their fears they have become less than sensicle and in essence they represent the passionate few who will destroy the world one day. I don't see any further need for debate here. If the eyes of the fearful and angry are not to be opened up then we must hope that they are not successful.

Hope doesn't mean a damn thing when you're facing down the barrel of the loaded gun and the other guy just pulled the trigger. Hope all you want to, but hope doesn't stop bullets.

Let us hope for peace. Let us end this mindless game of waving arms in front of our neighbors with a false sense of security. Possessing these weapons will in no way protect any country from the passions of man.

Actually, they will. Our military has been itching to bomb somebody, and right now your lack of nuclear arms makes you a tempting target. And, yes, you will require multiple nuclear missiles to prevent such an attack.

This resolution is completely flawed and should be voted against and here is why :

Nuclear weapons are not a weapon of defense.

Saying you need nuclear weapons to protect yourself ffrom other nuclear weapons is silly. A nuclear war head on a rocket can be taken out before it hits critical mass by many non-nuclear armaments.

Three problems:

1. Nuclear weapons are a defense in the fact they discourage attack. A good defense can fend off attacks, but an excellent defense prevents them from happening in the first place.

2. The last time a real-world system of what you are talking about was tested, out of the two dummy missiles representing nukes only one was actually shot down. The amount of missiles you are talking about is hundreds to defend against any amount of nukes below the number of ten, and millions if you wish to mount a real defense. In other words, it's prohibitively expensive and impossible to deploy due to land issues. Nukes are cheaper and you don't need as many of them.

A country building nuclear weapons is like your suburban neighbor building a basketball net. Sooner or later everybody wants one whether they use/need it or not. These weapons are strike weapons, nothing more. The UN can "defend" itself and its nations without adding to the escalation of nuclear armaments problem.

The few of us who actually can defend ourselves against nuclear strikes could, if we wanted to, take out the enemy with no fear of them having anything capable of shooting down our ships. However, note that those people are a minority, not the majority.

Since this resolution talks about nuclear weapons and "defense" I think it's horribly flawed, and therefore I urge people to vote against it.

It recognizes the problems of trying antinuke defenses and accounts for them. In no way does it force you to have nukes, and in no way does it change their preliferation.

Not approved! Even though we are outnumbered by other nations, those other nations are not an organized group. All other nations will not attack us together. Be sensible, Nuclear weapons are an overboard defense mechanism. Don't think that having a nuke will protect anyone, it will only put everyone at risk.

You're missing something: We're not an organized group either. Also, it only takes a small handful of large nations to wipe out most nations in the UN.

Reality is what you want to see.. if you want to look at the world as a grey ball of dirt with populace terrorized by governments and nations looking for war, then that is what you get.

Actually, I prefer to look at the world from Mars Orbit. It's quite lovely.

I absolutely vote no. Terror, nuclear weapons as possible 'defense' and more of that nonsense contribute to a world with fear, nuclear waste, waste of money and the risk of blowing up everything if someone pulls the trigger (which would lead to a cascade-effect)

The world of fear existed long before you came around. Even without nukes, you still have to worry about when one of us that are the more advanced goes insane and starts bombing random nations from orbit. Nukes happen to be the only thing you have that stand a chance of doing damage.

We as UN should set an example for the rest of the world!! That we do not tolerate any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in our territory.

We've attempted to set an example. Now, we look weak and pathetic. This will hopefully change that.

[quite]The word UN stands for "United Nations".. how will we ever be United if we live in fear of mutual destruction??[/quote]

Little secret: We were never united in the first place.

Allowing the use of nuclear weapons for "defense" is misleading; nuclear weapons can never be utilized for purposes of defense. In the end, a conflict using nuclear weapons does massive damage to all the nations in the world, including those not involved in the conflict at hand. Who knows the catastrophic effects of even one nuclear attack, let alone multiple ones? Therefore, the nation of Andapaula votes with a strong no on this proposal, which clearly only exists to for purposes of intimidation.

Actually, we know. Nukes don't actually do that much damage overall, and most of it is temporary. As for defense: The best defense prevents the attack from happening.

At the moment Nuclear weapons are pointless anyways, thier usefulness as a defensive weapon extends only to the purpose of deterant, and even then, what happens when you are under nuclear attack, you will have no choice but to use them on the opposing nation, thus BOTH sides would be destroyed, so if anything, nuclear weapons are best used as weapons of final vengance, because there are no survivors in a nuclear war.

What we should be doing is finding weapons that do equal damage with little or no long term effects.

Orbital Plasma weapons are always fun. :D

Orbital plasma weapons do ten to twenty times the damage of the average antimatter weapon, and all of it is permanent. Plasma weapons are merely nukes, only a million times bigger and more destructive over all.

By passing this resolution the U.N. will be encouraging and condoning the purchase, stockpiling and limited use of a form or weapon of mass destruction. This undermines the foundations of this organization by ,as stated earlier encouraging the use of WMDs. This resolution should not stand. An alternative would be to encourage larger stockpiles or traditional weaponry such as non-atomic cruise missiles and bombs.

Point out where in the resolution it uses the word "encourages" when relating to those items.

"Try it bub, and you'll glow" LOL :D Classic! I need to get on the phone with my Sec. of State and give him this line, I'm sure it'll come in handy.

Clickdom

DemonLordEnigma said this for whatever reason:
Hope doesn't mean a damn thing when you're facing down the barrel of the loaded gun and the other guy just pulled the trigger. Hope all you want to, but hope doesn't stop bullet.

What does stop that bullet? Having a gun in your hand pointed at his face? Contrary to how it is in the movies, you'll be way too busy being dead to shoot back. Your argument-> :confused:

"Try it bub, and you'll glow" LOL :D Classic! I need to get on the phone with my Sec. of State and give him this line, I'm sure it'll come in handy.

Clickdom

That was the verbatim telegram sent to the nation of Pajamistan during the Cappe Vernum Crisis. We emerged without hostilities following deployment of thirty Lance mobile launchers into the disputed areas. While the 5kt missiles were not the most efficient in existance at the time - and the Lance system as a whole suffered various design flaws and problems - the presence of thirty nukes turned the diplomatic tide.

Before I spin off and start talking about Judaic metaphysics, let me just ask you a simple question?

Is the world in equilibrium?

Actually, yes. The last time we checked, the only alterations in Earth's physics are artificially-induced and the sum total of the alterations result in a balance. The lack of equilibrium when it comes to which star the pole is pointed at is really not unusual for a planet of this type, and the results over the last few thousand years have balanced out. When it comes to societies, the equation is exactly as it should be for this stage of development. In other words, it's in equilibrium.

The answer to this, no matter your creed or your race, is NO.

OOC: Actually, that's where you're wrong in assuming you know the answer. As a follower of a certain creed myself, I find the world is in equilibrium. Certain ancient myths, and even the placement of the planet in many mythologies, show it to be balanced between two opposing forces. Keep in mind that the people are not the world, and the world is not the people.

The world is never in equilibrium. And what does this mean? It means that the world, and its existence, is defined by contrasting forces. Existence is a battlefield. How can one appreciate light if that is all we know? It is not until we are in the darkness that the tiniest spark takes our admiration. Yes, this applies to morality.

No, it does not apply to morality. Morality is simply a personal decision about what delusions, half-truths, and deceptions you are willing to accept. You speak of a balance of light and dark, and yet you ignore the fact that the majority of the land never sees the light of day, due to the water above it. It's only where the sun never reaches that you truly get a diversity and beauty that those who see the sun never really get a chance to understand.

If there is anyway you can still choose to deny this universal truth, there is no hope for you.

Universal truth my ass. What you are stating are your own personal beliefs, not some grand truth. Delude yourself as much as you want, but don't push your illusions off as something worthy of being labelled as truth.

You want to know what lies down the path of knowledge? Madness does. Once you truly understand how insignificant and worthless the entirety of humanity is in even the local scale, you begin to find yourself being disillusioned by the lies the average human tells themselves. Earth is a minor planet of no real importance, and all of the life on it has no real importance. The truth of the matter is that, no matter what you tell yourself, in the long run you're about as important as pond scum to the universe. And the same iis true of everyone.

There is no grand conflict, no balance of primeval forces seeking the attention of humanity. The truth is that all of the universe is apathetic to our existance, and that it's operating with clockwork precision on a much grander scale towards something in which we don't play a part. If anything, humans are not the children of gods, but cast-off pets hiding in the gutter and patiently waiting for owners that have already forgotten about us. The grand truth of the matter is that we are not part of anything of importance, and that our petty observations are nothing more than an infant looking around their crib and thinking what they see is the world.

Everyone knows that morality is different everywhere you go, but its simple contrast is what matters. There ARE polar opposites, and it because of these that we have everytihng in between.

Polar opposites? Not at all. All we have is humanity's need for self-justification creating conflicts and oppositions were none exist. Matter and antimatter are not opposites of each other, but two expressions of the same waveform that undergo a perfectly natural transition into a different waveform when they contact. It is the fact that the average human is too mentally incapable to understand this that the idea of opposites evolved, and from that have come all sorts of erroneous conclusions about opposition.

And, no, not every morality holds that there are opposites.

Even from a secular perspective. We are currently moving 800 miles per hour while spinning on an axis and our solar system 1,200 per second! Forces all over, seen and unseen are always moving and opposing each other.

Forces move and interact, but they don't actually oppose each other. The nature of their interactions can appear to be opposition, but they are not. Opposition requires intent, and none exists for what you speak of. The use of the idea of opposition is merely used to explain it to those who cannot understand the complex truth of the matter.

This might be difficult to understand. In Judaism there is something called the yetzer hara. It is literally "evil inclination" that all human beings are prone to.

It's called temptation. It's a concept that is inherent to the Christian understanding of sin, and pretty much the basis of how the Catholic Church came to be.

Now, you may think that it is a result of man's imperfection and his natural evil. Unfortunately, in Judaism man is divine by nature, and this yetzer hara is sometihng injected purposefully into man to create conflict, because something cannot purely exist.

This is, believe it or not, an evolution of the early myths of Satan. Originally, Satan performed the role you are talking about, being God's messenger who was sent to challenge man and see if he were able to resist temptation or not. It's only a later perversion of this myth that cause Satan to move from being God's servant to trying to outright oppose him.

In the Kaballah, especially the Tanya, the world is described in layers, or rather dimensions.

Basic string theory covers this, and even goes on to describe certain dimensions and attempt to render objects utilizing them. That's where the concept of the terrasect comes from.

To understand these you first have to shed your finite being. We cannot think outside space and time as we are now, so obviously we cannot fathom other dimensions.

Scientists, specifically those who bother with string theory and transtemporal theory, do this all of the time, in spite of your claims of impossibility. Myself, I'm a big fan of relying on multidimensionality to render circles that have 365 degrees in them, or ones where for them pi equals exactly 4 for when I want to have fun. Pi itself is not a true number, but an expression of how many times the diameter (I think I translated that properly) of a circle is used in a measurement of the outer perimeter.

Keep in mind that the average human is incapable of it, but any more the average human is proving more and more incapable of just keeping up with regular advances in technology and science.

To think outside of understood physics is actually not as difficult as you make it out to be, once you realise the finiteness of human form does not extend to the mind and that the imagination can, itself, be used to steal the power of Creation from those who, in mythology, wield it. Once you begin to advance yourself in the area of the mind and what you can comprehend, you begin to understand the idea of having avatars that represent yourself as you choose to be for the moment, potentially even (in theory) leading to such practices as splitting your own soul to create entirely new sentient beings who exist under your control or even reaching through time and space to create entire universes.

In other words, use your imagination and try to not stick with convention.

But in the metaphysical sense the world's creation had many layers. Within one can occurence known as the "shattering of the vessel" (which I mentioned earlier containing crystals containing God's breath) occured. The only secular book I can think of that mentions this is Foucault's Pendulum, so you might want to read that. Kabbalah never sates that there was nothing to create the universe out of. There was a trapped fragment of unbelievable energy. And the divine force, or God, isolated itself from this dimension of energy and allowed it to grow and change into the physical world, its direct opposite. Needless to say, this can and has been expounded on for volumes. And as for Judaism's equivalent of Satan- there is none. There is an angel of death, Samael I believe, but he plays nowhere the centrifugal role Satan does.

Azrael is the angel of Death, at least according to the only myth I could find that actually gives him a name. I know this because he is also my guardian angel, at least according to more than a few who know me. Samael is actually considered the true angelic name of Satan in many cases, though the Book of Enoch reveals this not to be true. Samael may be associated with the Angel of Death, but he actually serves a different position and has served as a guardian angel from time to time. The most-agreed upon interpretation I can find is that Samael is actually the vengeance of God, serving a role similar to Satan's but dealing with the punishment aspect instead of the temptation aspect. In some cases, Samael is actually depicted as having gone with Satan during the rebellion and as leading his armies.

Judaism's equivolent of Satan was originally Satan himself, back in the earliest parts of their beliefs. Around the time of Christ, it was Baalzebub. These days, it's pretty much the yetzer hara.

As for Christianity, what you have to realize is it's been shaped for centuries. Gnostic sects cannot be resolved anywhere within today's definition of the religion. But once again, there was never nothing. There was anti-matter. Out of this God shaped matter, and this matter was in fact coveted and corrupted by Satan. The only secular work that comes to mind that touches on this is "Paradise Lost."

Try studying science before attempting to pervert it. Antimatter and matter were created at the same time, not one after the other. If anything existed first, it's energy, which is finite but present everywhere.

It's pretty interesting if you get into it, but Jesus is actually so revered because he is a balance between matter and anti-matter.

Actually, if Jesus was that, he would have died at birth, and the explosion would have killed his mother and everyone in the area. You're perverting a lesson of science in an attempt to explain something that, frankly, you don't understand yourself, both in how you are trying to explain it and what you are perverting to explain it with.

Today's views on him are distorted and warped from what they were intended to be. He is born of the divine essence but manifested physically. Christiniaty, however, says that man is inherently evil but with enouigh preparation can become a vessel of the divine.

Christianity currently views him exactly as you said. It has perverted his teachings, but kept the image of the man intact. You might want to study the religion before stating such items.

So in fact, good versus evil, light versus dark, or two opposites of any kind formulate every creed, and even if you are not religious then you realize that all religion stems from humanity itself, which is divided into two parts that both fulfill and oppose each other, just as any of the forces in a religion both create the world, and through their struggle keep it alive.

Actually, in real life I am religious. But, I'm also pragmatic and know to recognize the fact my beliefs are not entirely based on reality, which is true of all religions.

If you study humanity instead of making up some crap about balance and then managing to pervert both religion and science in a futile attempt to back up what you are saying. Humanity is not divided into two equal parts, but hundreds of small parts. What is evil to one culture is good to another. Good and evil are just human inventions with little to back them. The rest of your opposition is merely a case of not understanding how the universe works, which is something that you really need to study for years instead of spewing bullshit to someone who knows better.

And to tie this back into our original discussion, without Idealism, we would have nothing else, which is why anyone that stands for it should be revered and not discarded as ignorant.

Without idealism, we would have logic, and logic itself has proven repeatedly to be superior. Idealism results from ignorance, continues because of ignorance and in some cases outright stupidity or arrogance, and in the end serves to do nothing but lead people down the path of destruction while dragging along everyone who follows them. Idealism is nice to have when you're a child, but it doesn't help in the real world except to prevent what really needs to be done from happening.

What does stop that bullet? Having a gun in your hand pointed at his face? Contrary to how it is in the movies, you'll be way too busy being dead to shoot back. Your argument-> :confused:

Actually, bothering to do something. Even if it is just throwing yourself to the side, you at least have a chance to live. Just standing there and hoping gets you killed for sure.

The gun is in case you survive, at which point you shoot them before they shoot you. Of course, you can always pull the trigger before the bullet strikes you as long as you have half-decent reflexes.

Why did DemonLordEnigma even bother making soemthing up?
Judaism's equivolent of Satan was originally Satan himself, back in the earliest parts of their beliefs. Around the time of Christ, it was Baalzebub. These days, it's pretty much the yetzer hara.

Little hint for you: Judaism has not changed from its original teachings in any way, other than the animal sacrifices which had to stop because of the destruction of the temple. No it hasn't, no really, please don't write anything.
Any additions have been on clarification of laws and simple discussions.

By the way, everything you said about Judaism and Satan is completely wrong. And don't think ayone will bother to enlighten you. Stop overreaching. You are wrong and do not know anything you are talking about. And just because you read Angels and Demons do not presume to know anything about amtter and anti-matter, I'm tired of Dan Brown readers assuming everything he wrote is true. I am not corrupting anything scientific, I am expounding on spiritual concepts you obviously have no knowledge on.

The longest responses don't make you right. Consider my discussion finished with you. One day you may realize it, but you are wrong. Read up on religion some more. Yetzer hara is not in fact temptation, not by a longshot. There is something definetely called ignorance, and you are guilty. In my life I have come across certain types of people yo ucannot reason with. These are people with low self-esteem that refuse to accept any argument out of spite and anger. I hope you know that you are passive-aggressive in exactly this way. There is nothing anyone, no matter how true or complicated, can write to dissuade you from your opinions... Which quite frankly would be fine, except you have no opinions. You stand with me on the same side of the vote, yet you argue simply for its sake. I hope someday you may actually learn to let go of your repressed troubles. Write your response, quoting and denying. I am a secular person, and not imposing anything on anyone other than what I know to be true. Go ahead and get the last word, because that's all you'll have at the end of the day.

And if fire had never been discovered, your office would not currently be an inferno. What's your point?

There's reality and there's "what if"-land. The latter leads nowhere.
um.... my office is not currently an inferno... what is your point?
The if i'm talking about is... "if certain rogue nations did not have nuclear weapons to begin with, there would be no threat".. and IF we work to BAN nuclear weapons then there will be no threat... the first step is sending this resolution back from whence it came. After having spelled everything out I hope you understand my point now. :rolleyes:

Odd... we've never had a conflict with a nukeless nation. (...)
We've never had a conflict period.

http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/impact.jpg
Well, that ended that. No need to respond further to ghosts.Thanks for making my point about the boogyman, and saturday morning cartoons... I see now that I've been debating all along with one of those guys... :rolleyes: And I suspect there's more. Including the one who came up with this resolution to begin with.

I ask you here and now... what relevance does a deadly nuclear strike have on a nation if one simply chooses to ignore it?
The only valid role playing in my opinion that can be carried out in nationstates is everything that has to do with person to person relationships... diplomacy... who agrees with who and who dissagrees with who... carrying out war on a military plane within the limits of nationstates RP, borders on a few things i'd rather not mention.

I wouldn't count on all the large regions voting against, I have it on good authority that Gatesville (the largest player created region on NS) will be voting FOR my resolution.:)Exactly how big is this region? Their forum doesn't seem to be very active.

I think if a nation hold nuclear weapons it simply makes other nations want to arm themselves... and eventually these weapons will be used causing a large loss of life and the death of our world as we know it. Even if we are outnumbered 3 to 1, we as UN nations must set an example to the world and not hold nuclear weapons. Nieve or not, I believe we can not hold nuclear weapons. This might make us vunrable but it is a noble principle that must be upheld. Principle is all we have. Life is not worth living without our dignity.

The longest responses don't make you right.

Never said they did. But they also don't mean I'm wrong.

Consider my discussion finished with you.

I was wondering when you would stop wasting my time.

One day you may realize it, but you are wrong.

Which you have failed to prove. It takes more than simple claims to prove me wrong, and so far all you have spouted is simple claims and failed to bother to consider aspect of items.

For another thing, your entire essay on Judaism is inapplicable as a point. Why? I said Judeo-Christian mythology, not Judaism. You've wasted my time with something that isn't even on the topic of the point you were trying to refute. And, yes, there is an important difference between those two mythologies, and one that is so obvious it would be an insult to your intelligence if you forced me to reveal it to you.

Read up on religion some more. Yetzer hara is not in fact temptation, not by a longshot.

Temptation has many forms. The earliest in this particular myth set is temptation caused by an outside source, whether engineered into people or not. So while you may believe that falsehood about it not being temptation if you like, I'll enjoy the fact I understand that the range of items the word "temptation" covers happens to include "evil inclinations."

There is something definetely called ignorance, and you are guilty.

That's funny. You've used ignorance of science (matter and antimatter), ignorance of the discussion (presenting a long discussion of Judaism in response to a comment about Judeo-Christian mythology, commonly known as the Old Testament), ignorance of words (your comment about temptation), and a few other items I don't feel like listing. Isn't it ironic that I can list all of the times you are guilty while you can just make baseless claims?

In my life I have come across certain types of people yo ucannot reason with. These are people with low self-esteem that refuse to accept any argument out of spite and anger. I hope you know that you are passive-aggressive in exactly this way.

Actually, I don't accept your arguement because I know it not to be true, not because of anger. I have yet to actually get emotionally involved in this, beyond laughing at your posts. Oh, and attempting to psychoanalyze people over the internet is a form of flamebait, and did actually get someone a forum ban in the past.

There is nothing anyone, no matter how true or complicated, can write to dissuade you from your opinions...

They can dissuade me if they argue logically and can back up what they are saying. I have been proven wrong before, and I have admitted it. You, however, are not one of those people, as all you can do is make claims and then attack the poster rather than their arguements in a futile attempt to discredit the person when you have realized that you cannot discredit what they have said. Really, that is a very low tactic.

Which quite frankly would be fine, except you have no opinions.

You want my opinions? Nukes are fine to have and hold, and this legislation is worthless. And we both know you couldn't back up that statement if your life depended on it.

You stand with me on the same side of the vote, yet you argue simply for its sake.

I argue against bad arguements. I don't give a damn which side they are on. I never have, and really never will.

I hope someday you may actually learn to let go of your repressed troubles.

Here you go, ad hominim attacks instead of dealing with the arguements. Ya know what? One more time in your post and I'm turning you in.

As for "repressed troubles": I'd tell you just for the fun of it, but I don't quite think you are capable of dealing with the results. Plus, I really don't think Max Barry would appreciate the results either.

Write your response, quoting and denying.

I find it interesting you state this, considering you cannot be bothered actually dealing with my arguements and instead have to be a troll and attack me personally. I at least have enough honor to have dealt with your arguements at the same time.

I deny what is not true.

I am a secular person, and not imposing anything on anyone other than what I know to be true.

What you think to be true, nothing more and nothing less.

Go ahead and get the last word, because that's all you'll have at the end of the day.

At the end of the day? Not quite.

Edit:

By the way, everything you said about Judaism and Satan is compeltely wrong.

Satan is the Hebrew word for "adversary." Also, back this up with evidence instead of spewing accusations.

And don't think ayone will bother to enlighten you. Stop overreaching. You are wrong and do not know anything you are talking about.

Provide evidence. Actual evidence. Or admit that you are just saying this because you know you cannot prove it.

And just because you read Angels and Demons do not presume to know anything about amtter and anti-matter, I'm tired of Dan Brown readers assuming everything he wrote is true.

Wha? Who really gives a shit about Dan Brown? Hell, who is Dan Brown? Antimatter and matter have nothing to do with the supernatural. They are scientific discoveries, with antimatter merely being matter particles with opposite charges. The two convert entirely to energy when they touch each other, being the third nuclear reaction.

Really, look this up before spewing misinformation.

I am not corrupting anything scientific, I am expounding on spiritual concepts you obviously have no knowledge on.

No, you're corrupting science. The spiritual concepts you are talking about are pretty basic, but the use of antimatter in that way is really pathetic. What you are talking about is sometimes incorrectly interpreted as the meaning of the phrase "Alpha and omega," which actually refers to beginning and end. A better example of what you are talking about is Yin and Yang.

Little hint for you: Judaism has not changed from its original teachings in any way, other than the animal sacrifices which had to stop because of the destruction of the temple. No it hasn't, no really, please don't write anything.

Actually, it changed quite a bit. Originally, there was the idea of Satan as the force sent by God to tempt mankind. Later on, by the time of Christ, that idea had been changed to Baalzebub. These days, it's been changed even more in attempts to clarify exactly what they were talking about. Plus, the teachings themselves have changed as the experiences of the religion has changed. An example is the events that caused unlevened bread and a certain number of candles used in a religious observation.

Any additions have been on clarification of laws and simple discussions.

Additions have been based on events of the past, changes in people's interpretation of the teachings, changes in the language used, and even changes caused by people attempting to get it right.

Reflect on this issue from another angle shall we?

What might happen if this proposal is defeated? Lets see, in the best case scenario, nothing much changes, since there's no limitation or influence on a nation's choice to stockpile nuclear-based weapons of war, yet. A slightly worse scenario, some nations quit the UN and build up their nuclear capabilities, but use their newfound status as a nuclear power only as a warning to potentially less than friendly nations. Worse case scenario, a later proposal bans nuclear weapons in all UN nations, potentially forcing nations strongly in favor of having nuclear weapons to secede from the UN, overall futher weakening the UN.

On a totally different subject, don't use the forums to attack each other. Debates are based upon the discussion of different, sometimes opposing, stances on the same subject, resulting in information being exposed to all the participants. What's happening here seems to be more of an Ab Hominen, which in my opinion is the equivalence of poor sportsmanship since it's typically symbolic of when an individual loses control of his or her composure. So if you've got nothing better to say than to bicker or arguing for the sake of being a jerk, just close the window and argue with the moniter in front of you. :headbang:

Reflect on this issue from another angle shall we?

What might happen if this proposal is defeated? Lets see, in the best case scenario, nothing much changes, since there's no limitation or influence on a nation's choice to stockpile nuclear-based weapons of war, yet. A slightly worse scenario, some nations quit the UN and build up their nuclear capabilities, but use their newfound status as a nuclear power only as a warning to potentially less than friendly nations. Worse case scenario, a later proposal bans nuclear weapons in all UN nations, potentially forcing nations strongly in favor of having nuclear weapons to secede from the UN, overall futher weakening the UN.

That's one of the oldest angles on this topic. Hell, I stated it when this was in draft form. But, it's still valid.

On a totally different subject, don't use the forums to attack each other. Debates are based upon the discussion of different, sometimes opposing, stances on the same subject, resulting in information being exposed to all the participants. What's happening here seems to be more of an Ab Hominen, which in my opinion is the equivalence of poor sportsmanship since it's typically symbolic of when an individual loses control of his or her composure. So if you've got nothing better to say than to bicker or arguing for the sake of being a jerk, just close the window and argue with the moniter in front of you. :headbang:

They've been dealt with and seem to not want to continue further. Too bad they couldn't be bothered to actually stick with the point they were trying to refute and couldn't even be bothered to get information about Judaism correct. Plus the whole concept of taking the scientific discoveries of matter and antimatter and perverting them into something spiritual when clearly they are not.

um.... my office is not currently an inferno... what is your point?

*memo to self - ghosts can't see sprinklers or firemen*



The if i'm talking about is... "if certain rogue nations did not have nuclear weapons to begin with, there would be no threat".. and IF we work to BAN nuclear weapons then there will be no threat... the first step is sending this resolution back from whence it came. After having spelled everything out I hope you understand my point now. :rolleyes:

OOC: Obviously, you never read the part in the FAQ which states "UN decisions only apply to UN nations".



Thanks for making my point about the boogyman, and saturday morning cartoons... I see now that I've been debating all along with one of those guys... :rolleyes: And I suspect there's more. Including the one who came up with this resolution to begin with.

OOC: Oh, you mean "One of those people who role play in a game designed for such"? :rolleyes:



I ask you here and now... what relevance does a deadly nuclear strike have on a nation if one simply chooses to ignore it?

OOC: About the same a nation such as yours does when completely ignored.



The only valid role playing in my opinion that can be carried out in nationstates is everything that has to do with person to person relationships... diplomacy... who agrees with who and who dissagrees with who... carrying out war on a military plane within the limits of nationstates RP, borders on a few things i'd rather not mention.

OOC: We could care less about your opinion.

IC:
*performs last rites on the deceased, checks the office for anything unburnt, bribes the UN secretarial pool to get the office redone, and goes about his business*

The Colony of the Sidestream and the Corporate Christian Empire of Sidestreamer, which owns... er, directs... I mean... oh nevermind. Anyway, we applaud this resolution and will throw our weight behind it.

Pedro Abernanthy
Sockpuppet... I mean, Ambassador to the UN from the Corp--Colony of the Sidestream.

Well I can't be bothered to read through all these pages since most of the discussion is not even about the proposal.

All I will do is give arguments why I am tending to reject this proposals

1) It doesn't do any more than confirm the current status
2) It uses a weak argument that some nations are not in the UN and that we are being unfairly punished for being part. Is there not some irony in this?
3) If anything, it actively encourages nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons because others are perhaps more likely to do the same.
4) I'm from MiddleEarth and Tolkein would not have approved on nuclear weapons. However, points 1-3 are there for the wider audience.

Perhaps someone might want to argue against or for these points

I must agree with one thing you said Barnabas Butterbur, I also could not be bothered reading the other pages.

However I disagree with your reasons for voting against this proposal.
1) It does do more than confirm the current status, it makes it more difficult for any proposals seeking to ban nukes to be enacted.
2)The argument about UN nations being out numbered is not weak. It is an extremely valid point.
3)Whats wrong with nations arming themselves? If another nation attacks them what do you want them to do, throw flowers and doves? :rolleyes:
And finally
4) You are from MiddleEarth, and Tolkien would not have approved of nukes? Now that is a weak argument!

Well I can't be bothered to read through all these pages since most of the discussion is not even about the proposal.

All I will do is give arguments why I am tending to reject this proposals

1) It doesn't do any more than confirm the current status
2) It uses a weak argument that some nations are not in the UN and that we are being unfairly punished for being part. Is there not some irony in this?
3) If anything, it actively encourages nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons because others are perhaps more likely to do the same.
4) I'm from MiddleEarth and Tolkein would not have approved on nuclear weapons. However, points 1-3 are there for the wider audience.

Perhaps someone might want to argue against or for these points

1) It doesn't just confirm the current status, it also protects it. There is a trend in the UN to not just eliminate NBC weapons (As we've done with Biological and Chemical weaponry already), but to disarm completly.

What this resolution does is confirm that a nuclear arsenal is an option of each individual State, and cannot be removed or forced upon by the UN.

It also lays the groundwork for the protection of UN member-state's armed forces from future attempted at UN-mandated disarmanment, something that I wish the author of this proposeal would also look into.

2. The MAJORITY of nations are not in the UN. Why would they be, when their basic systems of operation, practices, and even wills to hold weapons that they feel are needed for their own protection and expansion, in excess of what the UN feels right and has mandated its own members cannot have?

The majority of those against this resolution are also those who wish the UN to ban Nuclear weaponry, which in a perfect world wouldn't make a difference, but in reality makes a HELL of a difference in diplomacy. If the Republic of Lanquassia has nuclear weaponry, those we go to war with in observation of the Blake Doctrine will tend to pay us a bit more attention than what normally would be our due.

This arguement is one of the FOCUSES of the resolution, not a weak supporting argument.

3. This resolution does not allow nations to explore the Nuclear Weaponry option, but it does establish that the option for Nuclear weaponry IS their option. It encourages nothing.

4. I think Tolkien would have disapproved of alot of things that we have, not just nukes.

Hello there,

I am posting to voice my disagreement with the presently proposed resolution not because I disagree with the idea behind it but because if this resolution is passed it will force ALL nations in the UN to spend extra monies on their Military and Security not just nations that wish to have nuclear weapons.

There is no need for this resolution; if any UN member wish to maintain a Nuclear status they can vote against any future proposal to ban such weapons. Placing a pre-binding resolution for the express purpose of preventing such action seems ludicrous and extra red-tape for no good reason.

I will also add my voice to those disagreeing with this proposal and view many of the posts on this thread as trying to divert the discussion from the proposal and its aims.

In short
a ) The proposal doesn't give UN nations any new rights. However, from its existence, it will encourage development of nuclear weapons
b ) The argument that UN nations are unfairly discriminated against because they are subject to UN laws is bogus since UN membership is optional

The only possible reason I can think for this proposal is to make it more difficult for the UN to ban nuclear weapons. But is this a real problem. My own belief is that an outright ban would probably not be enforceable since national sovereignty would hardly be willing to permit UN officials into the areas where nuclear weapons would be kept if the nation was opposed to a UN resolution that tried to ban weapons of this nature.

Quite apart from anything, I also feel obliged to suggest that MiddleEarth would be aghast at such ideas as weapons which harness atomic energy to unleash death and destruction on such a scale as these weapons would do. Nonetheless, in worlds where the environment is more like RL, I would urge nations to oppose this motion on the grounds that it promotes an arms race.

Obviously, futuristic galactic worlds will find the idea of developing such simple weapons rather amusing so I could hardly blame them if they think the motion harmless :D

how about creating a a nuclear industry so that we can create workplaces all aver the countries that belong to the un? this way all of the associate nations would have a boost in their economy and all the nations would have the same equipment.

Is the world in equilibrium?
Greetings.

The answer is always 'Yes' for a closed system and not always determinate for an open system. The point about equal and opposed forces is that the resultant is zero.

But coming back to this topic: We are in support of all material weapons where such weapons are obvious and reasonably well-defined or definable in their technology, effects, and disposition. The reason for this is straightforward: you have a greater chance of reasonable control, rigorous analysis and rational response when these conditions hold true.

The temptation to gamble is intrinsic to the human condition (and to a varying extent, that of other sentient races). However, it is much reduced where a threat is easily defined and obvious. For example, the effects of guns, as opposed to the effects of viruses. The former has a physical effect which is likely to be more consistent than that of the latter when applied to a live target at a given range. Most people would gamble against the intangible as opposed to the tangible.

Conventional and nuclear weapons fall into the range of weapons whose possession we will continue to endorse. Biological weapons do not, and we would favour even chemical weapons over self-directing nanotechnological weapons.

At higher levels of technology, these become moot. Smaller states may have no choice, despite whatever many of our esteemed colleagues say, but to hope in the goodwill of the macrostates whose destructive capacity is measured in petatons, whose manipulative capacity is measured in megahelens, or whose command of universal forces allows them to affect gravity through Higgs bosons.

*memo to self - ghosts can't see sprinklers or firemen*Would you care to explain?

OOC: Obviously, you never read the part in the FAQ which states "UN decisions only apply to UN nations".I have read the FAQ. I simply believe that we should not make up and decide the rules in function as to what is happening outside the UN. It should be the other way around.

OOC: Oh, you mean "One of those people who role play in a game designed for such"? :rolleyes: So nationstates was design to contemplate war? OK this is new. :rolleyes:
OOC: About the same a nation such as yours does when completely ignored.I'd prefer you answer my question in a clear manner or don't answer it at all.
OOC: We could care less about your opinion. My opinion is just as valid as anyone else's in here. And one of the purposes of this or any other forum is to get diferent opinions across.
IC:
*performs last rites on the deceased, checks the office for anything unburnt, bribes the UN secretarial pool to get the office redone, and goes about his business*And this pyromaniac stuff is about what exactly?

Nuclear Armaments is a sick idea. It will drive us all back to a cold war. Such stuff leads for international terrorism. Thank you for attention.

Nuclear Armaments is a sick idea. It will drive us all back to a cold war. Such stuff leads for international terrorism. Thank you for attention.

Actually, the Cold War was good for some of the nations involved. It was a period of time where the incentive was to improve faster than the other guy to make yourself look better, which in turn led to many social advancements in some nations that would have taken an additional century or two without it. Another one would quite possibly push humanity into a new era of advancement and possibly finalize the evolution to sentience.

Actually, the Cold War was good for some of the nations involved. It was a period of time where the incentive was to improve faster than the other guy to make yourself look better, which in turn led to many social advancements in some nations that would have taken an additional century or two without it. Another one would quite possibly push humanity into a new era of advancement and possibly finalize the evolution to sentience.
Comparing Nationstates with the Cold War isn't a fair comparison. Both nations belonged and participated actively in the UN as there are no non members of the UN in RL.

Comparing Nationstates with the Cold War isn't a fair comparison. Both nations belonged and participated actively in the UN as there are no non members of the UN in RL.
Greetings.

In the Great Enchiridion of the Dayhammer, it is said that the legendary City of the Vatican was not a member of the Union of All The World's Nations, thus making the name of that Union a lie.

So most of the people here do not support the resolution

I believe that we should vote against this and here are my reasons why. I really don't think that this serves any purpose at all, instead will just cause a nuclear arms race. Secondly, I would say if you wanted to protect all UN Members from attacks and give each nation a sense of security then why not propose a resolution that says that if a UN Member state was ever attacked then all UN Member Nation will unite and will defend the UN Member state. What a great way to deter any nation from attacking any of the UN Member Nation. Of course, there is no stopping one UN Member Nation from fighting another UN Member Nation, but we can also put in a clause to solve the problems of the 2 nations within the UN body. I think this is sends a clear message to any NON-UN Member Nation to think 2x before attacking one of our own and also, it resolves issues peacefully, which should be our main goal.

Thanks,

HardyNation.

Comparing Nationstates with the Cold War isn't a fair comparison. Both nations belonged and participated actively in the UN as there are no non members of the UN in RL.

I was responding to someone saying the idea of a cold war as though it is a bad thing. By our own history, the period they speak of happened over seven centuries ago.

I believe that we should vote against this and here are my reasons why. I really don't think that this serves any purpose at all, instead will just cause a nuclear arms race.

As opposed to the arms race that exists now and goes into weapons far more destructive than nukes?

Secondly, I would say if you wanted to protect all UN Members from attacks and give each nation a sense of security then why not propose a resolution that says that if a UN Member state was ever attacked then all UN Member Nation will unite and will defend the UN Member state.

Illegal, due to creating a UN army, plus logistically impossible and completely unfeasible due to a certain massive lack of cohesion or loyalty. Plus, they need something to defend against fellow UN members.

What a great way to deter any nation from attacking any of the UN Member Nation.

No, instead they form coalitions, attack the UN, and then slaughter most of the UN members.

Of course, there is no stopping one UN Member Nation from fighting another UN Member Nation, but we can also put in a clause to solve the problems of the 2 nations within the UN body.

So we kill them and annex their nation in front of the UN instead of in their nation? Gotcha.

I think this is sends a clear message to any NON-UN Member Nation to think 2x before attacking one of our own and also, it resolves issues peacefully, which should be our main goal.

No, it just invites those outside the UN to form a massive coalition, recruit those of us in the UN who have no real loyalty to it, and then attack a UN nation with the hopes of getting the entire UN involved so they can slaughter the entire group at once.

Something to counter the 'but non-UN nations are going to attack us if we have no nukes' argument: how many nations are really going to bother? Who knows where Ecopoeia is and who are its allies? Very few. Well, very few who are prepared to do the research, anyway. Even then, what would be the point? What do we have to offer under threat of nuclear attack? What threat are we to a nation that would consider such an action?

In fairness, Ecopoeia's obscurity and inoffensive nature are its strongest defences. Other nations are less fortunate in this regard.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Something to counter the 'but non-UN nations are going to attack us if we have no nukes' argument: how many nations are really going to bother?

I'm one of them who would have bothered. Just because I could.

Who knows where Ecopoeia is and who are its allies? Very few. Well, very few who are prepared to do the research, anyway. Even then, what would be the point? What do we have to offer under threat of nuclear attack? What threat are we to a nation that would consider such an action?

What you have to offer is simple: You are a UN nation. Your irradiated land and destroyed people are rewards enough. It simply means one less UN nation to deal with later.

In fairness, Ecopoeia's obscurity and inoffensive nature are its strongest defences. Other nations are less fortunate in this regard.

Yeah, I've heard that about nations I destroyed under DLE's previous incarnation on too many occasions. Didn't really phase me that much back then.

Having weighed the matter carefully, and noting that this proposal does raise a number of problems, the ambassador of the Ariddian PDSR to the United Nations has nonetheless cast his vote in favour of this proposal.

As a small point of detail, it would have been preferable to stress the development of nuclear weapons as a deterrent rather than for defensive use.

Think of the alternative, the counter reasoning you mentioned above, still stands true if we build nuclear weapons. Think of this scenario, other nations can still unite form a coalition, and mind you with nuclear weapons, and still destroy any one of us. We just take the war to the next level. Even if our nations carry nukes, what good will it do if the other nation has twice as many as any of our nations do?? It does not deter, in fact it just takes war to the next level, with more destruction, and more casualties. This is why this proposal of allowing any nation to build more nukes does nothing. It is pointless and entices other nations to develop nuclear weapons out of fear that any UN-Nation with nuclear weapons may attack them. Hence, you have a nuclear arms race. We do not need to form a UN Army persay, but just that other UN-Nation (the ones which are loyal anyway), would come to unite and help out one of our UN-Members when attacked. It is a great way to deter, it works somewhat in the real-world and is a sound strategy. If all nations in the UN are not loyal, then the purpose of the UN is pointless. In that case, the UN should be dissolved. The main point in creating a United Nation is to create unity and make peace, not war, and surely not to entice war related activities. It is naive to think that, just because we have nukes, other nations won't form a coaliation and attack. If they really want to do that they will, regardless if we have nukes or not. If we have nukes, you can bet that they will form a coalition with nations that have 2x many nukes, and other WMD then we do. This resolution will justify other nations building WMD. It is a grave mistake.

Think of the alternative, the counter reasoning you mentioned above, still stands true if we build nuclear weapons.

The counter reasoning I presented also takes into account why there have been no nuclear wars in reality. It's not because people don't want to use the weapons, but because they don't want to be exterminated by the reply. Survival instinct.

Think of this scenario, other nations can still unite form a coalition, and mind you with nuclear weapons, and still destroy any one of us. We just take the war to the next level. Even if our nations carry nukes, what good will it do if the other nation has twice as many as any of our nations do??

Pretty damned good. They launch, you launch back, they still lose millions or billions of people. They have to consider how many people they are willing to sacrifice before launching.

It does not deter, in fact it just takes war to the next level, with more destruction, and more casualties.

It usually prevents the next level from ever comming about, due to the people not wanting to undergo the reply to their nuclear strikes.

This is why this proposal of allowing any nation to build more nukes does nothing. It is pointless and entices other nations to develop nuclear weapons out of fear that any UN-Nation with nuclear weapons may attack them.

And that is different from now in what way?

Hence, you have a nuclear arms race.

Already have one. And one using more destructive weapons than nukes.

We do not need to form a UN Army persay, but just that other UN-Nation (the ones which are loyal anyway), would come to unite and help out one of our UN-Members when attacked.

Loyalty to the UN tends to be inversely proportional to military strength. Something to think about.

It is a great way to deter, it works somewhat in the real-world and is a sound strategy.

In the real world, they also use nukes in the exact same method I am describing. You can't discount one real-world aspect and use another without being a hypocrite.

If all nations in the UN are not loyal, then the purpose of the UN is pointless. In that case, the UN should be dissolved.

We're not that loyal due to an issue of survival. The UN banning too many weapons is a risk most of us cannot accept, and in such of a case turning on the UN is more of a survival tactic than anything else. Liking the UN is nice, but if membership becomes too much of a danger then it's time to start slaughtering UN members.

The main point in creating a United Nation is to create unity and make peace, not war, and surely not to entice war related activities.

No, the main point of the UN is to have nations impose their wills over others legally. Read the FAQ.

It is naive to think that, just because we have nukes, other nations won't form a coaliation and attack. If they really want to do that they will, regardless if we have nukes or not.

Actually, it's not naive to think that. They do form coalitions, but such coalitions never actually get anything done. The reason behind them not attacking is a lack of unification due to the fact the UN does still have effective defenses.

If we have nukes, you can bet that they will form a coalition with nations that have 2x many nukes, and other WMD then we do.

First rule of combat: It does not matter how many bullets your enemy uses if you are a better shot than he is. It's how you use the nukes, not how many you have, that counts. Hit them where it hurts the most.

This resolution will justify other nations building WMD. It is a grave mistake.

It's less of a mistake than banning weapons outright. Doing that makes the UN look weak, and that encourages coalitions that are effective.

I cannot believe that this resolution seems to be passed. Some UN nations are such hypocrits just agreeing to anything that sounds a bit logical - but it isnt.

I bet if the next resolution was a WMD ban, that resolution would be passed as well.

So much about good resolutions (not to mention that this UN here does not stick to its ideals)...

I cannot believe that this resolution seems to be passed. Some UN nations are such hypocrits just agreeing to anything that sounds a bit logical - but it isnt.Actually this resolution is quite logical it allows those nations that want to have nuclear weapons to ahve them and at the same time allows those that don't want them to not have them.

I bet if the next resolution was a WMD ban, that resolution would be passed as well.

So much about good resolutions (not to mention that this UN here does not stick to its ideals)...
The only "ideals" that this UN has are what the FAQ says.
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

I cannot believe that this resolution seems to be passed. Some UN nations are such hypocrits just agreeing to anything that sounds a bit logical - but it isnt.

Actually, the UN has rejected two better worded resolutions that ban nuclear weapons. This is just the UN doing what comes naturally when it comes to nukes.

I bet if the next resolution was a WMD ban, that resolution would be passed as well.

And I bet many UN nations would die afterwards.

So much about good resolutions (not to mention that this UN here does not stick to its ideals)...

The UN is sticking to its ideals. It prefers nukes to be legal, and this is the third time it's saying that.

To the assembly of the United Nations:

NOTING that:
- Many nations posesess nuclear weapons, and will continue to do so, regardless of whether UN members impose a ban on themselves
- Continuing to allow UN members to decide whether to have nuclear weapons will have little effect on the national security of the nation of Flexiblemorality, notwithstanding any effects arising in the eventuality that Flexiblemorality attains nuclear capabilities

FURTHER NOTING that:
- Construction and maintenance of nuclear weapons requires the support of many industries, including but not limited to: mining, enrichment, electronics and aerospace
- Many members of the Association of Business Leaders in Flexiblemorality have or intend to develop business interests in the afforementioned industries

We have decided to vote FOR this resolution

Mr H Jones
Spokesman for the Association of Business Leaders in Flexiblemorality

And I bet many UN nations would die afterwards.


So why would a nation die just because it does not have nuclear weapons.

Will someone please explain

a) What's stopping nations from building nuclear weapons now?, and
b) what would stop them ignoring the UN resolution at some future date and build nuclear weapons?

All in all, what is the point of this resolution?

So why would a nation die just because it does not have nuclear weapons.

Easy prey, due to few actual defenses.

Will someone please explain

a) What's stopping nations from building nuclear weapons now?, and

Nothing.

b) what would stop them ignoring the UN resolution at some future date and build nuclear weapons?

The UN Gnomes.

All in all, what is the point of this resolution?

Um, jury's still out on that one.

Most people are failing to realize that this resolution does not encourage development of nuclear weapons or the use thereof. It merely safeguards the right of every nation to decide whether or not to posess them. Its trying to protect our national sovereignty, something the UN has a terrible history of violating. The resolution also does not in any way discourage the use of diplomacy as the first and foremost method of resolving conflicts. As to the comment that this resolution is a tacit support of widespread use of nuclear weapons, I disagree. It is impossible for one government to know for certain if another possesor of nuclear weapons will actually use them untill after the fact, and by then it's too late. That is why nuclear weapons act as a deterrent- no one wants to take the risk. Frankly, I can't see why the left wing argues so ardently against this resolution. Even if it fails Unified Conservatives will continue to retain its nuclear arsenal, and legally so in the eyes of the UN. As pointed out in the resolution, both attempts to ban nuclear weapons have failed. Excellent resolution, Flibbleites. One of the few I have voted for in a long time...

While the act itself may claim it does not encourage using nuclear weapons, I assure you that with the passing of this act, many more UN members will seek to aqcuire them. It will also give some countries outside the UN a much worse impression of us than they already have, they will view it as us taking action against them on a much larger scale. They care little about clauses and claims that this bill does not encourage nuclear weapons, it will be viewed as a hostile action. The Kingdom of The Mages Republic does not support this proposal for these reasons and these reasons alone. Yes, there are many dying right now due to these hostile countries, and The Mages Republic mourns the loss of these unnecessary deaths and senseless killing. But by stepping things up to the next level, that is, acquiring nuclear weapons, the potential for many, many more lives to be taken increases. This statement should not be mistaken as a " we think nuclear weapons should be banned", because we don't, simply because that would be an action that severely restricts the options of nations, and history has shown that the best way to acquire a death grip on other nations or peoples is to enforce restrictions slowly but surely. This proposal is an unnecesary action that does not hinder or free any actions that any UN member would be able to make previous to this act, and will only step up the aggression of other nations that is already at alarming levels, and this is something The Mages Republic will not sit and let pass quietly.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Kingdom of The Mages Republic