NationStates Jolt Archive

actually, resolutions like this one are the reason why the un nations are outnumbered by those who didn't join or left the union. i can't blame them. in fact, if this legislation is going to pass i will immediatly resign as well.

this resolution is against all ethics the united nations have once been established for.

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.
Why do you believe that? There is a daily issue dealing with rather or not to possess nuclear weapons:
#151: Build Bigger Bombs, Advise Scientists [Benevolent nations; ed:Sirocco]

The Issue
Top military designers in your secret laboratories have proposed projects to create nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and are looking to you for government support and funding.

The Debate
1. "This is a necessary step towards the creation of a safer @@NAME@@," claims @@RANDOMNAME@@, the leading researcher. "Yes, it will mean a large areas of land will become unusable as a result of the testing, and it will cost billions of @@CURRENCY@@s, but that's the price we must pay for our national security. Just think of the power we will have if we can turn our enemies into plate glass!"

2. "Why stop with making weapons for ourselves?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of Wendy's Weapons stores. "We can sell them to all sorts of groups and organisations: other nations, the UN, terror- uh - freedom fighters, anyone! And we produce our own for our protection. Think of the money we can make! I'm sure none of our clients would ever even think of trying to use them to influence our government with threats or anything like that!"

3. "You want to bring NUKES into @@NAME@@?!" screams anti-nuclear protestor, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "This won't make us safer - it will just give the power to destroy everything to a few people! We must hunt down the people who suggested this evil plan and have them hanged! We must protect nature from the horrible influences of science. I say ban all new weapons research!"
Simply select the third option every time this comes up and you will have none of those pesky nukes in your nation. I doubt that the passage of this resolution will have any effect on who has or does not have these weapons. It simply protects our right to have them if we so choose.

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
This is insane. So spending millions of tax payers money on Weapons development is good for business? Yeah... good for business and bad for the tax payers... The ONLY WAY that nuclear weapons are good business is if they sell them to other nations. Otherwise it is a heavy cost that the government must fund and for what benefit? Shouldn't the government be spending tax payers money providing better social services, health and education?

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.

Rule of law about going to wars is not how many lives they will lose but how many lives your country will lose. Do you value your citizens life more then they do. So you losing a million lives is eponentially greater then the attacking nation losing a million lives. When a country invades, it already knows that there will be many lives lost on their side they are ok with that. Are you ok with losing a million lives?? that is a quesiton for your nation.


It usually prevents the next level from ever comming about, due to the people not wanting to undergo the reply to their nuclear strikes.

I disagree. It only entices them to build their weapons aresanal to even a greater lenght (cold war, China India pakistan). this is proven to be true through history.


And that is different from now in what way?

the only point I can make here is that a Nation will build weapons if it really wants to, regardless of our policy and this resolution. The Nations that I was refering to the Nations that had no intention of building Nukes, until we passed this resoultion and then they felt they had no choice but to join in (out of self-defence ofcourse...). These nations were the ones that would not have even thought about creating WMDs but becaure our UN resoultion and Nations starting to build nations then they will be in a position where they have no choice.

Already have one. And one using more destructive weapons than nukes.

We do not have a Nuclear arms race as of yet, or maybe we do, but it's not to the level that it will be if we pass this resoultion. If we pass this resoultion it will just give any and all nations the justification to build nuclear weapons.


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.

In the real world, today disarmament is one of the main goals, it is one of main reasons why the Col War ended. It was the Cuban Missle cirsis which was a crucial deal. If that war actually had bebun we wouldn't be here typing any of this. think about a world where there are no Nukes, and htink about a wold filled with nukes. I am sure you can agree that a world without nukes is a lot better. Throwing more fuel into the fire doesn't make the fire go away, it just ignites it more.



No, the main point of the UN is to have nations impose their wills over others legally. Read the FAQ.

This is flat out wrong. the UN is not here to IMPOSE whatever it wants on to other nations "legally". We are here to do the right thing and PERSUADE other nations to do the right thing. The UN runs because it has some credibility, not because it is a builly, and can push anyone around. If that is the case, then anyone and everyone will turn on it one day.


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.

the UN is a defense mechanism for the world. But not in terms of military power. It uses diplomacy and it uses leglistaion to pass any military force (as a last option.)


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 holds true for bullets, but not NUKES. You do not have to have a precise hit, you can hit anyhwere in a city and it will still cause major destruction. You can launch all the nukes you have, it only takes one reasonable decent hit to cause unimaginable destruction. Remeber that a bullet, is a one time deal, you shoot and it's over with. A Nuke has a decades / century lasting effect.

Please think this over, before we being a nulcear arms race. Once a nuclear arms race stops, it's almost impossible to stop.

This is insane. So spending millions of tax payers money on Weapons development is good for business? Yeah... good for business and bad for the tax payers... The ONLY WAY that nuclear weapons are good business is if they sell them to other nations. Otherwise it is a heavy cost that the government must fund and for what benefit? Shouldn't the government be spending tax payers money providing better social services, health and education?
Insane? How so? Yeldas major industry is Arms Manufacturing. We build weapons. Our workers have jobs. They get paid. They feed their families. Thats how it works. And yes, we also sell them to other nations. As for social services, health and education just look at our stats (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?region=Wyltath_ghloil_Slekyva&nation=yelda) and decide for yourself. We are quite pleased with our social services.

Why do you believe that? There is a daily issue dealing with rather or not to possess nuclear weapons:

Simply select the third option every time this comes up and you will have none of those pesky nukes in your nation. I doubt that the passage of this resolution will have any effect on who has or does not have these weapons. It simply protects our right to have them if we so choose.

Some nations might be reluctant at this point to possess nuclear armaments because the issue of whether or not UN members are allowed to have them is still in limbo (this proposal not-withstanding). But by saying that the UN has no problems with countries having nuclear weapons, they don't have to worry about the possiblity that the UN could rule nuclear weapons illegal. Even though the option to repeal the proposal is there, it adds more protection for them, they can go ahead and develop a nuclear arsenal with virtually no chance of intervention from the UN. There probably are members in the UN who could care less what the UN says about nuclear weapons and will/won't make them anyway, but there are those who follow the UNs attitude on them closely and make their decisions based on those attitudes.

Insane? How so? Yeldas major industry is Arms Manufacturing. We build weapons. Our workers have jobs. They get paid. They feed their families. Thats how it works. And yes, we also sell them to other nations. As for social services, health and education just look at our stats (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?region=Wyltath_ghloil_Slekyva&nation=yelda) and decide for yourself. We are quite pleased with our social services.Adolf Hitler led Germany to prosperity and also boasted tremendous statistics. Do you want me to pat you both on the back and say... "That's how it works, job well done" ?

The united states of america sold weapons (M16's) to the Indonesia. With those weapons Indonesia brutalized, ravaged and slaughtered the people of East Timor for a quarter of a century, while the Families of the USA where happy and well fed. Going to bed every night not even stopping to question their leaders about arms sales to Indonesia. Starting with Nixon all the way down to George Bush JR until East Timor was finally freed.

Things are not and cannot be as linear as you state them to be. Priorities must be set out. I refuse to make a profit if said profit will bring more death and destruction into other nations.

There probably are members in the UN who could care less what the UN says about nuclear weapons and will/won't make them anyway, but there are those who follow the UNs attitude on them closely and make their decisions based on those attitudes.
There have been 2(I think) previous attempts to ban nuclear weapons. Both of them failed. So I would have to say that the UN's "attitude" on them is that they should be allowed. We have never really tried to discern what the UN's attitude on them is. They are legal. We build them.

Adolf Hitler led Germany to prosperity and also boasted tremendous statistics. Do you want me to pat you both on the back and say... "That's how it works, job well done" ?

The united states of america sold weapons (M16's) to the Indonesia. With those weapons Indonesia brutalized, ravaged and slaughtered the people of East Timor for quarter of a century, while the Families of the USA where happy and well fed. Going to bed every night not even stopping to question their leaders about arms sails to Indonesia. Starting with Nixon all the way down to George Bush JR until East Timor was finally freed.

Things are not and cannot be as linear as you state them to be. Priorities must be set out. I refuse to make a profit if said profit will bring more death and destruction into other nations.
Ah, and now der fuhrer rears his ugly head. I think its safe to say that Yelda's social and civil rights policies are quite progressive. I'll thank you to stop the Hitler and Nixon innuendoes.

There have been 2(I think) previous attempts to ban nuclear weapons. Both of them failed. So I would have to say that the UN's "attitude" on them is that they should be allowed. We have never really tried to discern what the UN's attitude on them is. They are legal. We build them.

Your logic is wrong. The UN's collective view is not that they should be allowed. It is that they should not be banned.

If you do not understand the difference then you are probably well qualified to vote in the UN where even diplomatic immunity is not recognised :D

Your logic is wrong. The UN's collective view is not that they should be allowed. It is that they should not be banned.

If you do not understand the difference then you are probably well qualified to vote in the UN where even diplomatic immunity is not recognised :D
My logic is right. As for diplomatic immunity,we have supported past proposals on that subject. It is something which does need to be addressed.
edit: Smilies tend to degrade, rather than enhance your argument.

Ah, and now der fuhrer rears his ugly head. I think its safe to say that Yelda's social and civil rights policies are quite progressive. I'll thank you to stop the Hitler and Nixon innuendoes.
Does this mean you won't address what I previously stated:

"Things are not and cannot be as linear as you state them to be. Priorities must be set out. I refuse to make a profit if said profit will bring more death and destruction into other nations."

ddxAnd 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.

Does this mean you won't address what I previously stated:

"Things are not and cannot be as linear as you state them to be. Priorities must be set out. I refuse to make a profit if said profit will bring more death and destruction into other nations."
We are agreed then. You refuse to make a profit if said profit will bring more death and destruction into other nations. Yeldas first priority, however, is the well-being of the Yeldan people. The profits from weapons sales help provide for free health care, free university educations, free public transport and many other services. And thats free as in free. The vast majority of our weapons exports are to allies and our own satellite nations. Their militaries are joined at the hip with Yeldas, so while they might have operational "control" over their nuclear arsenals they certainly don't have the authority to launch.
And keep in mind that many of these other nations are in fact other planets. I'm not sure what the current population of NS is, but I'm pretty sure it won't all fit on a single planet. The population of our region alone is 17.6 billion. Far too many people for an Earth sized planet to support, and there are regions which make ours look like a speck. So the danger of nuclear fallout from a foreign war affecting Yelda is remote to say the least.

The Fiefdom of Lafrica opposes the resolution and urges all humane nations to oppose it. Nuclear weapons and all other WMDs are ethically wrong as they are designed almost exclusively for use on civilian targets. To vote for this is to turn a blind eye, nay, to approve the slaughter of innocents in a war, a position which we would have expected the UN to find abhorrent.

The Fiefdom of Lafrica opposes the resolution and urges all humane nations to oppose it. Nuclear weapons and all other WMDs are ethically wrong as they are designed almost exclusively for use on civilian targets.You know little, if anything, about nuclear war-fighting strategy.

Nuclear weapons can be employed in either a counterforce role (against military targets) or a counterproperty role (against population centers and economic targets). The counterforce role is by far the more useful.

You can not hope to form an intelligent opinion on this subject without having read Herman Kahn's treatises "On Thermonuclear War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0313200602/qid=1120250219/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1915161-6221509?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)" and "Thinking the Unthinkable (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067160449X/qid=1120250219/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/104-1915161-6221509?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)". Fluffy-bunny kneejerk pacifism fails in the face of logic and facts.

As the Hokage for the Hidden Village of Konoha Ho, representing the region of Akatsuki, I propose that all UN nations disarm and destroy all nuklear weapons, along with any other weapons of mass destruction. Here are my reasons

1. The rest of the world will not disarm themselves if those who claim to be the "Good" the "Standard" the "Example" are mass producing them.

2. Conflict should always be resolved through negotiations.

3. Instead of using Weapons of mass destruction, the world should invest their millitary funding in Shinobi. This would bring the casualties in war way down because it only takes 30 shinobi to make a war as opposed to 300,000 men.

4. If someone attackes one of the countries in the UN, dont they technically attack all of them. We are the "United" Nations. We should be there for each other. if the enemy saw our comradery, they would be less likely to attack for fear of their own destruction. And, some of them would be encouraged to join us.

Thank you for listening to my opinion on this topic. I, Hokage, represent the Hidden Village of Konoha Ho along with the entire region of Akatsuki.

We would urge other nations to vote against this proposal, although the outcome will do nothing directly, it will make it more difficult for proposals of the opposite kind to happen. Please, vote against, your vote counts on this issue and you CAN turn the voting around!!

PM B E Nelmes

As the Hokage for the hidden village of Konoha Ho, representing the region of Akatsuki, i propose that all un nations disarm and destroy all nuklear weapons, along with any other Weapons of mass destruction. Here are my reasons

1. The rest of the world will not ever disarm themselves if those who claim to be th "Good" the "Standard" the "Example" are mass producing them.

2. Conflict should always be resolved through negotiations.

3. Instead of using Weapons of mass destruction, the world should invest their millitary money in Shinobi. This would bring the casualties in war way down because it only takes 30 shinobi to make a war as opposed to 3,000 men.

4. if someone attackes one of the countries in the UN, don tthey technically attack all of them. We are the "united" nations. we should be there for each other. if the enemy saw our comradery, they would be less likely to attack for fear of their own destruction. and some of them would be encouraged to join us.

thank you for listening to my opinion on this topic. I, Hokage, represent the hidden village of Konoha Ho along with the entire region of Akatsuki.

I would like to second that.

You know little, if anything, about nuclear war-fighting strategy.

Nuclear weapons can be employed in either a counterforce role (against military targets) or a counterproperty role (against population centers and economic targets). The counterforce role is by far the more useful.

You can not hope to form an intelligent opinion on this subject without having read Herman Kahn's treatises "On Thermonuclear War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0313200602/qid=1120250219/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1915161-6221509?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)" and "Thinking the Unthinkable (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067160449X/qid=1120250219/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/104-1915161-6221509?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)". Fluffy-bunny kneejerk pacifism fails in the face of logic and facts.

I've read both those books and they are both based on the idea of the "limited nuclear" war i.e. both sides are far to afraid that the other will nuke their cities to use nukes in a counter-property way, therefore instead Nukes are used on the battlefield and/or against Military/Political targets.

The problem is that the books only really look at the tactical used of Nuclear weapons, which if we lived in a world where humans responses were judged and managed would be perfectly fine i.e. what happens with the general progression of wars from border skirmish through to full blow out war. With standard conventional weapons these skirmish can still be talked about and hopefully resolved. However once someone starts obliterating entire battalions in one Nuclear flash there is a tendency for words to fall by the wayside.

3. Instead of using Weapons of mass destruction, the world should invest their millitary funding in Shinobi. This would bring the casualties in war way down because it only takes 30 shinobi to make a war as opposed to 300,000 men.


Hmmmmm a very good point, but we'll need a Shinobi Armament Resolution to protect our right to maintain and train Shinobi, only for the protection of our nations of course.

What are Shinobi?

Kinda like Ninja, but way cooler.....no way as cool as pirates though.

Shinobi are like the grandfathers of ninja, ninja are good but shinobi know all. We at Akatsuki are currently training up shinobi to be sould or traded to other countries for protection. We will let you all know when they are ready. As for a un proposition, we will be submitting a proposition for the allowance of nations to buy shinobi for protection, and also to buy training materials so that they can begin to train their own shinobi. Thank you for the support

Hokage - Hidden Village of Konoha Ho - Akatsuki

As the Hokage for the Hidden Village of Konoha Ho, representing the region of Akatsuki, I propose that all UN nations disarm and destroy all nuklear weapons, along with any other weapons of mass destruction. Here are my reasonsWell, good this the current proposal deals with nuclear weapons as opposed to the nuklear ones you want to ban.

1. The rest of the world will not disarm themselves if those who claim to be the "Good" the "Standard" the "Example" are mass producing them.They wouldn't disarm even if we were, in fact our disarming actually makes us look weaker in their eyes.

2. Conflict should always be resolved through negotiations.And when negotiations fail then you go to war, and if my nation goes to war I want to have every possible weapon at my disposal.

3. Instead of using Weapons of mass destruction, the world should invest their millitary funding in Shinobi. This would bring the casualties in war way down because it only takes 30 shinobi to make a war as opposed to 300,000 men.And for those of us who are not living in Naruto world, we'll stick with what we've got.

4. If someone attackes one of the countries in the UN, dont they technically attack all of them. We are the "United" Nations. We should be there for each other. if the enemy saw our comradery, they would be less likely to attack for fear of their own destruction. And, some of them would be encouraged to join us.News flash for you, we're "United" in name only, heck there are members that if the UN were to be seriously attacked they would actually join the attackers.

Sorry to be so informal but... you sound like a scared little kid, crying cause someone broke your tree house, then running to daddy's room to get his gun. This is what we call "overeacting out of fear."

All this riff raff about war and those guys over there will attack these guys over here...




War is not contemplated in nationstates and the United Nations shouldn't be wasting it's time with resolution proposols that have arguments like.

1. "They" outnumber us.
and...
2. "They" are hostile towards us.

To this I am obviously obliged to vote against this proposal and declare one huge monumental... "GROW UP!" to whoever comes up with these sort of proposals.

Now if you accept "war" as part of this game somehow...
If "they" outnumber us now that we don't have nukes... they will outnumber us after we have nukes just the same.
And if "they" are hostile towards us and outnumber us having nukes or not will make no difference.

This proposal has allready wasted far too much of my time. Wether it passes or not... nothing will change. I hope it's a long time until the UN gets another proposol with the word weapons in them.

I hope it's a long time until the UN gets another proposol with the word weapons in them.
You may not want to click this link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/66247/page=UN_proposal) then and find out what the next proposal in the queue is.

I read about 5 pages of the argument before becoming bored by the back-and-forth bickering involved, so I'm just posting my opinions on the matter here. I reluctantly voted for the resolution. First of all, to the disappointment of many against the resolution, diplomacy is not a weapon, and some situtations cannot be solved diplomatically, most times just because the other side doesn't want to talk, and has its mind set on war (see WW2, appeasement). Also, nuclear weapons can be used defensively, most times as a deterrent, but they can also be used as tactical weapons. Even so, there are alternatives to nukes for defense, such as Patriot Missiles or whatever the nearest NS equivalent is. If anything, we should be pouring money into research into defensive technologies so that MAD isn't our only option when the ICBM's start flying. If we were to develop advanced defensive technology, it could be turned into offensive technology that could present us with an even bigger bargaining chip than nukes.

You may not want to click this link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/66247/page=UN_proposal) then and find out what the next proposal in the queue is.


Well let me tell you now that I think that prososal has a more serious and mature tone than the current one. And furthurmore I agree with every bit of it except the last phrase.

"DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right. "

I will again vote no due to the fact that there is no legislation in effect that prevents biological or nuclear weapons. There will be no control over what gets constructed and there is no information provided as to who decides what exactly is necessary and suficient to defend their nation from attack.


But we'll eventually get on to that later.

I read about 5 pages of the argument before becoming bored by the back-and-forth bickering involved, so I'm just posting my opinions on the matter here. I reluctantly voted for the resolution. First of all, to the disappointment of many against the resolution, diplomacy is not a weapon, and some situtations cannot be solved diplomatically, most times just because the other side doesn't want to talk, and has its mind set on war (see WW2, appeasement). Also, nuclear weapons can be used defensively, most times as a deterrent, but they can also be used as tactical weapons. Even so, there are alternatives to nukes for defense, such as Patriot Missiles or whatever the nearest NS equivalent is. If anything, we should be pouring money into research into defensive technologies so that MAD isn't our only option when the ICBM's start flying. If we were to develop advanced defensive technology, it could be turned into offensive technology that could present us with an even bigger bargaining chip than nukes.
That is all very fine and dandy... but when your so called enemies outnumber you 3-1. It hardly matters if you have nukes or not. In the end all that matters is your power to reason.

actually, resolutions like this one are the reason why the un nations are outnumbered by those who didn't join or left the union. i can't blame them. in fact, if this legislation is going to pass i will immediatly resign as well.

They are not members because they are either puppets of other nations or simply don't like the policies of the UN and its interference with member nations, including the weapons bans. This lets them know we're not entirely the wimps they are beginning to view us as.

this resolution is against all ethics the united nations have once been established for.

The UN was never established with ethics.

Rule of law about going to wars is not how many lives they will lose but how many lives your country will lose. Do you value your citizens life more then they do. So you losing a million lives is eponentially greater then the attacking nation losing a million lives. When a country invades, it already knows that there will be many lives lost on their side they are ok with that. Are you ok with losing a million lives?? that is a quesiton for your nation.

If the battle is desperate enough, then losing a million citizens really isn't that much of a cost. In any case, I'd like to see them actually invade my nation. The farthest most will get are the barriers kindly provided by nature.

I disagree. It only entices them to build their weapons aresanal to even a greater lenght (cold war, China India pakistan). this is proven to be true through history.

Then why, in reality, has China never launched nukes at the U.S.? Why did the Soviet Union never launch, and why has Russia never launched? Consider that these nations have very good reasons, and yet they don't launch. The answer is that the threat of retaliation prevents them.

the only point I can make here is that a Nation will build weapons if it really wants to, regardless of our policy and this resolution. The Nations that I was refering to the Nations that had no intention of building Nukes, until we passed this resoultion and then they felt they had no choice but to join in (out of self-defence ofcourse...). These nations were the ones that would not have even thought about creating WMDs but becaure our UN resoultion and Nations starting to build nations then they will be in a position where they have no choice.

And this changes from what is currently going on in what way? I see you saying nothing that isn't happening anyway.

We do not have a Nuclear arms race as of yet, or maybe we do, but it's not to the level that it will be if we pass this resoultion. If we pass this resoultion it will just give any and all nations the justification to build nuclear weapons.

The nations already have justification to build the weapons. As for the arms race: It's big enough that it influences entire space empires to be constantly improving their weapons. The arms race really isn't going to get any bigger than it already is.

In the real world, today disarmament is one of the main goals, it is one of main reasons why the Col War ended. It was the Cuban Missle cirsis which was a crucial deal. If that war actually had bebun we wouldn't be here typing any of this. think about a world where there are no Nukes, and htink about a wold filled with nukes. I am sure you can agree that a world without nukes is a lot better. Throwing more fuel into the fire doesn't make the fire go away, it just ignites it more.

If you throw enough fuel onto the fire, you smother the fire and kill it.

Note that disarmament is not as big of a goal as you make it out to be. If it was, that wouldn't explain why so many nations maintain nuclear stockpiles in spite of saying they wish to disarm. And the Cold War ended becauce the Soviet Union was incapable of keeping up, not because people wanted to disarm, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was the fault of the U.S. in the first place for their doing the same thing to the USSR first. As it stands, too many nations in the real world maintain nukes and the threat of retaliation the weapons provide for disarmament to be a real goal.

This is flat out wrong. the UN is not here to IMPOSE whatever it wants on to other nations "legally". We are here to do the right thing and PERSUADE other nations to do the right thing. The UN runs because it has some credibility, not because it is a builly, and can push anyone around. If that is the case, then anyone and everyone will turn on it one day.

No, this is the flat-out truth. Don't believe me? Look at the FAQ. See where it says anything about the UN persuading. The UN is like the U.S.: The members can do what they want as long as they are not breaking the laws, and the overall government gets to dictate its will to the members. This is why we have a constant stream of new people arriving and leaving. The reason people don't attack it has more to do with the fact they can't get a good coalition going at the moment.

the UN is a defense mechanism for the world. But not in terms of military power. It uses diplomacy and it uses leglistaion to pass any military force (as a last option.)

Defense mechanism? Not at all. The UN provides nothing in the way of defense by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, it didn't stop me from committing genocide today through the complete destruction of another nation. All the effects of the UN on the issue of war related to discouraging it for certain reasons while at the same time giving you a mechanism by which you can get UN permission to go to war for certain reasons. Look up the Eon Convention sometime.

This holds true for bullets, but not NUKES. You do not have to have a precise hit, you can hit anyhwere in a city and it will still cause major destruction. You can launch all the nukes you have, it only takes one reasonable decent hit to cause unimaginable destruction. Remeber that a bullet, is a one time deal, you shoot and it's over with. A Nuke has a decades / century lasting effect.

You misunderstand something important: Nukes are precision weapons. You have to hit the right area, otherwise you just wasted the nuke.

Please think this over, before we being a nulcear arms race. Once a nuclear arms race stops, it's almost impossible to stop.

It's not that difficult. Just destroy everyone involved.

The Fiefdom of Lafrica opposes the resolution and urges all humane nations to oppose it. Nuclear weapons and all other WMDs are ethically wrong as they are designed almost exclusively for use on civilian targets. To vote for this is to turn a blind eye, nay, to approve the slaughter of innocents in a war, a position which we would have expected the UN to find abhorrent.

Wait, you mean our use of nuclear weapons for taking out military targets all of these years has been wrong? Well, looks like I need to start targetting civilians then.

As the Hokage for the Hidden Village of Konoha Ho, representing the region of Akatsuki, I propose that all UN nations disarm and destroy all nuklear weapons, along with any other weapons of mass destruction. Here are my reasons

They don't matter, you'll be nuked several times by the end of the day anyway.

1. The rest of the world will not disarm themselves if those who claim to be the "Good" the "Standard" the "Example" are mass producing them.

Little secret: No one cares what kind of example the UN tries to set, only whether or not they can take it out if it becomes too annoying.

2. Conflict should always be resolved through negotiations.

The 40 nukes I just launched have a conflict with several cities of yours. You have four minutes to negotiate with them.

3. Instead of using Weapons of mass destruction, the world should invest their millitary funding in Shinobi. This would bring the casualties in war way down because it only takes 30 shinobi to make a war as opposed to 300,000 men.

And it only takes one virus to kill 300,000 shinobi. Oops.

4. If someone attackes one of the countries in the UN, dont they technically attack all of them. We are the "United" Nations. We should be there for each other. if the enemy saw our comradery, they would be less likely to attack for fear of their own destruction. And, some of them would be encouraged to join us.

One, we are not actually united and never have been. Two, if they do attack UN nations, most of us don't really care. Three, comradery only makes us easier to kill en masse.

Thank you for listening to my opinion on this topic. I, Hokage, represent the Hidden Village of Konoha Ho along with the entire region of Akatsuki.

And I enjoyed refuting it as well.

Sorry to be so informal but... you sound like a scared little kid, crying cause someone broke your tree house, then running to daddy's room to get his gun. This is what we call "overeacting out of fear."

No, I'm the girl with the Desert Eagle that shoots you in the arm and then pepper sprays the wound for shits and giggles before finally shooting you in the head, all of it in self defense. I prefer to keep my enemies in the dirt and my weapons ready in case I need to use them.

That is all very fine and dandy... but when your so called enemies outnumber you 3-1. It hardly matters if you have nukes or not. In the end all that matters is your power to reason.

Listen, kid, this ain't Candyland. If they want to invade you, you can reason all you want but in the end you'll still have to either kill them or end up in their salt mines. And as much as you don't like the arguements on here, you must really accept the fact they've been legitimate UN fears since before your nation crawled out of its diapers. Hell, it's been a legitimate fear since before I came around.

All this riff raff about war and those guys over there will attack these guys over here...




War is not contemplated in nationstates and the United Nations shouldn't be wasting it's time with resolution proposols that have arguments like.

1. "They" outnumber us.
and...
2. "They" are hostile towards us.

To this I am obviously obliged to vote against this proposal and declare one huge monumental... "GROW UP!" to whoever comes up with these sort of proposals.

Now if you accept "war" as part of this game somehow...
If "they" outnumber us now that we don't have nukes... they will outnumber us after we have nukes just the same.
And if "they" are hostile towards us and outnumber us having nukes or not will make no difference.

This proposal has allready wasted far too much of my time. Wether it passes or not... nothing will change. I hope it's a long time until the UN gets another proposol with the word weapons in them.

If you don't think that war takes place in the game then perhaps you should inspect the NationStates and International Incidents forums.
I hope it's a long time until the UN gets another proposol with the word weapons in them.
I'm contemplating a Free Trade proposal which would grant subsidies and/or tax breaks to Nations which supply less developed UN members with defensive weapons.

To DemonLordEnigma, everything you have said is unintelligent, childish, and obnoxious. You are the kind of person who would play a game and cheat just to have "really cool loot cause i r ub34 1337 hax0r." Give me a break, your entire post was retarted. You have this view of "I want to be big and bad and I can do whatever I want cause this is the internet. This is a nation simulation. Try to take it seriously like a big boy. If you were running a real nation...

1. you would be kicked out of the un
2. you would be targetted as a terrorist
3. you would be dead

So please, try to act like a big kid now.

I'm contemplating a Free Trade proposal which would grant subsidies and/or tax breaks to Nations which supply less developed UN members with defensive weapons.Well if you are going through with it... my advice is to make sure you put detail so that there are NO ambiguities as to what is a defensive weapon.

Secondly you guys are obsessed with weapons. In the defense of a nation the MOST important thing is not who has the greater number of bullets or more advanced weaponry but rather... who has the best information and espionage services.


btw... exactly who will pay for these subsidies?

I just think that there are a million more important things to disscuss than "defense".

Listen, kid, this ain't Candyland. If they want to invade you, you can reason all you want but in the end you'll still have to either kill them or end up in their salt mines.um... how about... simply ignoring military threats for what they are? and that is silly childsplay...

To DemonLordEnigma, everything you have said is unintelligent, childish, and obnoxious.

If you are going to accuse, provide evidence to back up your accusation. As it stands, it's pretty damned baseless. Everything I have said is a reflection of how both the UN and NS in general are. The UN isn't anything close to united and is pretty much one weapons ban away from civil war, while most NSers don't give a damn what the UN says or does as long as it doesn't bug them. And if they really wanted to invade, your diplomatic efforts would only serve to allow them time to prefer ways around your defenses before they laid waste to your nation.

You are the kind of person who would play a game and cheat just to have "really cool loot cause i r ub34 1337 hax0r."

Either back this accusation up with evidence, or stop trolling. Keep it up, and you'll have the mods to contend with. Comprende?

Give me a break, your entire post was retarted.

Once again, baseless accusation with no evidence. Three in a row like this is a pretty good sign of a troll.

You have this view of "I want to be big and bad and I can do whatever I want cause this is the internet.

Once again, baseless accusation. Plus, psychoanalysing people over the internet is a form of trolling. Finally, you are so busy trying to be a troll that you have missed the essential points behind every comment I made. Look at them as though I were providing an arguement, and try to figure out the importance of why it is my "launching of nukes" is a valid reply. An intelligent person will figure it out.

This is a nation simulation. Try to take it seriously like a big boy. If you were running a real nation...

If I were running a real nation, you would be dead right now, while I'd be tying up the UN with excuses and delays to prevent them from taking action. The UN may not like it, but in the end your government would be gone and your nation would be annexed. People have beemn invaded for far less than what you have done in reality.

1. you would be kicked out of the un
2. you would be targetted as a terrorist
3. you would be dead

1. Doesn't happen in the real-world. If it did, the U.S. would have been kicked out long ago, followed by Israel and about a hundred others.

2. Nope. I'd simply be a nation settling a dispute with another nation using warfare. Real-world history is full of this. Hell, it's happened very recently.

3. Not at all. I'd be given dirty looks in the UN for awhile, but they'd not actually do anything about it. As for you: I have superior military training, superior weapons, superior tactics, and a superior position. You would be pretty fucked over.

So please, try to act like a big kid now.

Try knowing of what you speak before wasting everyone's time with your comments. And if you wish to be a troll, just insult the mods and get yourself banned already, so that we don't have to put up with you.

Well if you are going through with it... my advice is to make sure you put detail so that there are NO ambiguities as to what is a defensive weapon.
Actually, that was intended as humour. But since you have taken it seriously maybe others will as well! Hmmmm....

um... how about... simply ignoring military threats for what they are? and that is silly childsplay...

Then you'll be classified as a troll, people will refuse to roleplay with you, and you'll gain a reputation one cannot repeat in genteel company. That's what happened to Kahta and a few others who tried it.

Then you'll be classified as a troll, people will refuse to roleplay with you, and you'll gain a reputation one cannot repeat in genteel company. That's what happened to Kahta and a few others who tried it.
I belong to a peacefull region of 300+ nations. What have I got worry about?

Don't get me wrong... I think it would be very interesting to have war contemplated in nationstates with certain limitations for the sake of completeness. However it is not contemplated which means there are no official international rules to go by. The only way to go along with it is to make up as you go along. It's the "Oh I shot you!"... "NO! I shot you first!" cenario I've spoken about earlier.

So I'll just simply choose to ignore it when I feel it doesn't deserve my attention.

A 20 point poll difference....


It looks as if it's going to pass...


I must say, I'm kind of sad.

I belong to a peacefull region of 300+ nations. What have I got worry about?

That really doesn't make much of a difference. In fact, that's a pretty poor arguement when it comes to just about anything. War happens on the forums, not in regions.

Don't get me wrong... I think it would be very interesting to have war contemplated in nationstates with certain limitations for the sake of completeness. However it is not contemplated which means there are no official international rules to go by. The only way to go along with it is to make up as you go along. It's the "Oh I shot you!"... "NO! I shot you first!" cenario I've spoken about earlier.

Go and read the stickies in the International Incidents and Nation States forums. A set of rules do exist, but what you are thinking of is beyond the scope of what this free game can do.

So I'll just simply choose to ignore it when I feel it doesn't deserve my attention.

Which is a good sign of a troll in many cases.

Nukes are simply a waste. They cause massive destruction (as if conventional weapons aren't destructive enough) and loss of life, as well as permanent damage to the environment and future generations. Furthermore, having nukes just puts tension on your relations with other nations, hightening the chance of war. Also, let's suppose that somehow a war got started between two nuke armed nations. The devestation would be immense! Let's go further, and say their nuke armed allies got involved. Can you imagine what would happen? (anybody seen Dr. Strangelove? something like that)

Now, DLE does bring up a good point in that nukes may deter warfare rather than cause it. But think, one little mistake, one commander's outburst of aggression (which is all too possible) and KABOOM there goes half the world due to nuklear warfare.

I encourage all of you to vote against this resolution.

War is not contemplated in nationstates and the United Nations shouldn't be wasting it's time...So your answer is that we should simply disarm and then ignore all military actions that might be directed against us.

The problem is that this violates the basic rules of roleplay, in that no realistic attack should never be ignored.

So, in your vision of how things out to be, there's no room for roleplay on the part of U.N. members. That, or we have to all agree to live in an idyllic world without war, crime, terrorism, or other problems.

I think it would be better for us to act as though this were a real world, with real world problems. That makes things more interesting.

Besides, it you want a world without nukes, why don't you just pretend that they don't exist for any of us and leave the rest of us alone?

The 40 nukes I just launched have a conflict with several cities of yours. You have four minutes to negotiate with them.Gosh, isn't there some Constitutional limit on the number of nations you can annihilate in the course of a single debate? Between you and Vistiva, I've lost count... ;)

Gosh, isn't there some Constitutional limit on the number of nations you can annihilate in the course of a single debate? Between you and Vistiva, I've lost count... ;)

*staples you to your chair, staples a pen into your hand and shoves a sheave of old proposals onto your desk*

V-A-S-T-I-V-A

Write it.
50,000 times.

Then we'll find the staple removers and bactine.

Gosh, isn't there some Constitutional limit on the number of nations you can annihilate in the course of a single debate? Between you and Vistiva, I've lost count... ;)

68, give or take a few due to insanity.

*staples you to your chair, staples a pen into your hand and shoves a sheave of old proposals onto your desk*

V-A-S-T-I-V-A

Write it.
50,000 times.

Then we'll find the staple removers and bactine.Oh, great. The cabbie's going to be really upset to see what you did to the upholstery in the back seat of his cab (referencing the recent office space debate).

V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
V-A-S-T-I-V-A
. . .

68, give or take a few due to insanity.Oh, well, then, carry on. Nothing like a good nuclear weapons debate to clean up the world map a bit...

This will show up in International Incidents in a day or so, but it's germane to the debate, so I'll leak the news here:

The United States of Allemande has decided to develop a non-military thermonuclear (i.e., fusion) device. Previously, when developing our first peaceful nuclear (i.e., fission) devices, we had stated that we had no intention of building thermonuclear devices, since we couldn't see a non-military application for the technology (this is separate from research into both hot and cold fusion for power generation purposes, as well as preliminary "chalkboard" research into various fusion propulsion systems for spacecraft [which are not likely to manifest themselves for a very, very long time]). We did not, however, rule out the possibility that we might find a peaceful use for so-called "hydrogen" explosives and proceed with their development somewhere down the road.

We now have, and are thus proceeding with their development. We expect to detonate such a device in the very near future.

That really doesn't make much of a difference. In fact, that's a pretty poor arguement when it comes to just about anything. War happens on the forums, not in regions.As far as I'm concerned the region IS the forum. As you can imagine I am very active on my regions forum. War has NEVER happened on my regions forum and war will never happen on my regions forum so long as we hold true to the beliefs and views we have set out.
Which is a good sign of a troll in many cases. So in order not to be a troll I would have to address the tigger happy 8 year old complete with lollypop once every month or so?

If that were so... with all the time put into RP pretend war... nothing would ever get done in nationstates...

So your answer is that we should simply disarm and then ignore all military actions that might be directed against us.No. I am in favour of having a strong and respected non nuclear military. Devoted to defense and peacekeeping. And not all military actions should be ignored. Just serious ones caused by political and economic strains between nations, regions and alliances. Just like in the real world.

Basing a pretend RP war just on the basis of pure fun :rolleyes: or just because some nation feels like taking over the world with machine gun ninjas, is retarded and it's not my intention to offend anyone directly by saying that.

The problem is that this violates the basic rules of roleplay, in that no realistic attack should never be ignored.I agree. I'd say it's my point exactly. No realistic attack based on RL like situations or conflicts should ever be ignored.

So, in your vision of how things out to be, there's no room for roleplay on the part of U.N. members. That, or we have to all agree to live in an idyllic world without war, crime, terrorism, or other problems.Far from it. There is room for roleplay in fact I do it all the time. It's just that not all roleplay deserves the same consideration for reasons previously stated.

I think it would be better for us to act as though this were a real world, with real world problems. That makes things more interesting.Exactly.

Besides, it you want a world without nukes, why don't you just pretend that they don't exist for any of us and leave the rest of us alone?That's what I will do for the most part again for reasons previously stated. However I haven't done so in this thread because several nations such as yourself appear to be capable of serious RL RP. I would also like to assume that the people who have FOR this propsal are capable of it as well. Allthough I may be asking a little too much.

I have just one simple opinion about this vote....
There cant be any winners in an nucleair war. NO ONE WINS if nucleair war will be started. And it doesnt matter how good you think you are at launching your nukes. You will always get an nuke back. The radioactivity will move all around the world so...NO SURVIVERS = no winners. Nukes are useless. In place of wasting your time with nukes you 'd better research better convertional weapons. And money you spare from nucleair research put into other researching fields, or even drop some taxes down...

I Am A Un Member Wheres My Nuclear Weapon And Where Can I Get One

This will show up in International Incidents in a day or so, but it's germane to the debate, so I'll leak the news here:

The United States of Allemande has decided to develop a non-military thermonuclear (i.e., fusion) device. Previously, when developing our first peaceful nuclear (i.e., fission) devices, we had stated that we had no intention of building thermonuclear devices, since we couldn't see a non-military application for the technology (this is separate from research into both hot and cold fusion for power generation purposes, as well as preliminary "chalkboard" research into various fusion propulsion systems for spacecraft [which are not likely to manifest themselves for a very, very long time]). We did not, however, rule out the possibility that we might find a peaceful use for so-called "hydrogen" explosives and proceed with their development somewhere down the road.

We now have, and are thus proceeding with their development. We expect to detonate such a device in the very near future.

We wish to congratulate the Allemande nation in their advancement and wish them luck in their endeavors. If they have any problems that prove insurmountable, we might be able to accidentally slip them a few blueprints of a similar device that is at their technology level and will function properly, but only if the nation of Allemande feels such is needed (of course, you'll have to TG me to let me know of the request and hope I check my TGs).

As far as I'm concerned the region IS the forum. As you can imagine I am very active on my regions forum. War has NEVER happened on my regions forum and war will never happen on my regions forum so long as we hold true to the beliefs and views we have set out.

Still a piss-poor arguement. Wars don't happen on regional forums unless you've done something very, very wrong. They happen in the two roleplaying forums on here that can handle it. As such, a very good arguement about you being a very poor roleplayer can be made.

I have just one simple opinion about this vote....
There cant be any winners in an nucleair war. NO ONE WINS if nucleair war will be started. And it doesnt matter how good you think you are at launching your nukes. You will always get an nuke back. The radioactivity will move all around the world so...NO SURVIVERS = no winners. Nukes are useless. In place of wasting your time with nukes you 'd better research better convertional weapons. And money you spare from nucleair research put into other researching fields, or even drop some taxes down...

You're missing something important: There are ways to survive a nuclear strike against you. My nation utilizes precision-strike weapons that can easily take out a nuclear weapon long before it reaches our airspace. And even if we were hit by a nuke, we wouldn't actually have any deaths from it, as our Earth settlement is several miles beneath the Earth's surface. It will take years and a hell of a lot of nukes before they even get close to us. Meanwhile, we've already nuked them, their allies, their mothers, their fathers, their children, their extended families, their friends, their pets, and even the bacteria beneath their toenails into extinction.

If you bother starting now, you could easily move your entire nation underground within one hundred years.

Still a piss-poor arguement. Wars don't happen on regional forums unless you've done something very, very wrong.War doesn't happen on regional forums unlesse you've done somthing very very wrong just like in Real Life. War in real life also doesn't happen unless you've done something very very wrong.

They happen in the two roleplaying forums on here that can handle it.
Or in other words... if you want trouble or fun or pretend war... whatever you wanna call it... go look for it in these forums... i got the idea. thanks for the tip. :rolleyes:
As such, a very good arguement about you being a very poor roleplayer can be made.
Perhaps an even better argument can be made that I couldn't care less about bickering for the fun of creating havoc or pretending to be a bad guy. For you roleplaying seems to be synonymous with playing a part in some virtual war. I don't see it that way. There's plenty of RP to spare without looking for a war to fight in, and you dissapoint me if you believe or act otherwise. If my region or nation comes to a point where there is no solution other than war then I will most certainly give it 100% of my attention and effort. But when it is not at war I will give my nation and region 100% of my attention and effort in making sure it never comes to war.

War doesn't happen on regional forums unlesse you've done somthing very very wrong just like in Real Life. War in real life also doesn't happen unless you've done something very very wrong.

War is just another form of politics, my friend.

War is just another form of politics, my friend.
I've always been fully aware of that. What certain users don't seem to know or care about... is that it's not the only one.

nukes are useless except for wiping out civalitations. how are they going to learn if there dead. The destruction will just aggervate the civilations that are suffering from ratation. eventully it will spread to are country and make things worst there. Its best just to ban the nuke.

{yes my spelling sucks}

The possession of nuclear weapons among UN countries will only further aggravate the relationships between UN countries and Non-UN countries. Unless you want a full-scale :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: war, then vote against this resolution.

War doesn't happen on regional forums unlesse you've done somthing very very wrong just like in Real Life. War in real life also doesn't happen unless you've done something very very wrong.

Okay, what you have said is an insult to millions of people who died during World War 2 and the nations that were invaded before the war even started.

The reasons for going to war are too varied to even go into, and few of them actually are about what you have done.

Or in other words... if you want trouble or fun or pretend war... whatever you wanna call it... go look for it in these forums... i got the idea. thanks for the tip. :rolleyes:

No, if you want to have an experience on NS that establishes you as a roleplayer, go there. Plenty of people post on those forums without needing to go to war. War sometimes comes to them. What my point is that you have chosen a medium for roleplaying that is not realistic and not really a good measure of roleplaying ability.

Perhaps an even better argument can be made that I couldn't care less about bickering for the fun of creating havoc or pretending to be a bad guy. For you roleplaying seems to be synonymous with playing a part in some virtual war. I don't see it that way. There's plenty of RP to spare without looking for a war to fight in, and you dissapoint me if you believe or act otherwise. If my region or nation comes to a point where there is no solution other than war then I will most certainly give it 100% of my attention and effort. But when it is not at war I will give my nation and region 100% of my attention and effort in making sure it never comes to war.

Guess what? People don't care. If they want to attack you, they will. If you ignore them without a damned good reason, you're a poor roleplayer. Pretty simple.

I've always been fully aware of that. What certain users don't seem to know or care about... is that it's not the only one.

We're on a topic about weapons. You honestly think the other forms of diplomacy are important at the moment?

Wars don't happen on regional forums unless you've done something very, very wrong.
Or if the regional forums are active. See also:
http://s2.invisionfree.com/nasicournia/index.php?showforum=13
http://s2.invisionfree.com/nasicournia/index.php?showforum=14

The idea of allowing countries to posess nuclear arms is absolutely embarassing. It is appauling that the "United" Nations would consider allowing the posession arms with such devasting consequences.

Damn. I've spent more time arguing in favor of this then I have against it, and I'm one of the earliest people to state opposition to it (and one of the ones who led to the mods being asked to make a ruling).

nukes are useless except for wiping out civalitations. how are they going to learn if there dead. The destruction will just aggervate the civilations that are suffering from ratation. eventully it will spread to are country and make things worst there. Its best just to ban the nuke.

{yes my spelling sucks}

Already been covered. Read the thread.

The possession of nuclear weapons among UN countries will only further aggravate the relationships between UN countries and Non-UN countries. Unless you want a full-scale :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: war, then vote against this resolution.

Smileys detract from your point. Plus, this has already been covered. Read the thread.

The idea of allowing countries to posess nuclear arms is absolutely embarassing. It is appauling that the "United" Nations would consider allowing the posession arms with such devasting consequences.

Already been covered. Read the thread.

That's all I need. Esotericain, you get to enjoy a nice chat with the mods now.

Boohoo... Now I cant converse with intelligent people such as yourself. DOn't worry though- mom and dad will make it all better. Now you can go write in your livejournal... :)

yelda, ill let you in on a secret... in case you failed to realize it, that whole thing was a cruel mockery of DLE. Thus me asking at the end who it was?

Guys, ignore Esotericain. I've already made a report to the mods about him.

Guys, ignore Esotericain. I've already made a report to the mods about him.
Unless Esotericain is discussing the resolution up for vote, I fully intend to.

Guys, ignore Esotericain.
I will now. I should'nt have responded to that nonsense in the first place.

Okay, what you have said is an insult to millions of people who died during World War 2 and the nations that were invaded before the war even started.No it is not. I said that wars don't happen in RL unless you've done something very very wrong... but I was refering to the attacking nation's point of view. In the real world if you wrong someone you will eventually get punished (with any luck) by means other than war or military actions against you. Usually something from the politcal or economical field.
To start a war in the RW you must do something completely atrocious.
WW2 history happens to be one of my interests.
Several things went very very wrong in pre-war Germany.
The rise to power of the Nazi party (which happened through perfectly democratic means) was the first thing that went wrong.
The consolidation of the Nazi party's power was the second thing to go wrong. (This happened through non democratic means... aka the burning of the Reichstag among other things...)
The third thing to go wrong was the non intervention of the UK and particularly the neutrality of the USA, until the war had arrived on their doorsteps. This led to more consolidation of Hitler's vile power.
The rest is tragic and regretabble... the Anschluss of Austria... the Blitzkrieg in Poland... holocaust... etc etc...

And sorry for the offtopic.

You want to learn some crazy shit about Nazi Germany? Order Arktos, a novel delving into it. People get the Nazi party conception all wrong. They weren't a political movement so much as a new age spiritual one. It's insane when you get into it. Aggartha, Islam, and insane mythology are all there- basic tenets of their faith. They had crazy initiation rituals too. A bunch of nazi leaders were crossdressers and occultists. Hitler simply became a figurehead because of his (believe it or not) charisma. So much went on, bizarre medical experiments, and science that we've never touched upon. Almost all nazi scientists were abducted by Russia and the U.S. towards the end of the world for their use. The reason they lost when they did was because in the alst year Hitler stopped production on most weapons and especially jets (which were superior to U.S. jets) and began searching for something else, something far darker and sinister. btw, the swastika is a greek symbol for eternity and infinite changed slightly. Almost all nazi buildings had not a single one, but a line of them at the top, very similar to a temple.

The Holocaust, even though the single most horrible event in history, is in fact NOT why we invaded. We didn't even know about it until afterward. There are darker and more secretive motivations there. Yes, you might say it was because they were a grwoing threat, the Lusitania, but let's not forget the reasons the U.S. joined other wars, not out of necessity but out of an "incident" which has more than once been proven staged. Example: That incident where a fake ship as supposedly attacked in the Vietnam War and Spanish-American war yellow journalism about an American girl being kidnapped.

Off topic maybe, but wars rarely happen through ego alone. Do not think that people who rise into power cannot restrain themselves or are not smart enough to make tactical moves which end up favoring them more so than any other course of action. They got there for a reason, and they rarely want to be taken down.

Finally got into this thread.

Anyway, let's just drop the conversation string. Not because I don't want to continue arguing (I do), but because this vote is pretty much over and it's time to let this topic die.

Agreed.
However, it's not arguing... it's called debating.
In the end this resolution will pass but it will bring no change to the way my nation or home region conducts it's affairs.

It's presenting arguements with the intent of convincing each other. The difference between arguing or debating is, to me, just semantics.

That's meant as an explanation, not an arguement.

It's presenting arguements with the intent of convincing each other. The difference between arguing or debating is, to me, just semantics.

That's meant as an explanation, not an arguement.
Greetings.

And we went unto our theurgists and said, "Seek ye the spectre of the savant Miriam Frogfooted and inquire as to the difference thereof."

And time passed and the theurgists spake, "In the hand of that savant there is a great tome, now translated into the void of heaven, which saith:

Argument (n):

2b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION
3b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion
3c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT

Debate (n):

: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

and hence, Great Lord, we argue that debate is a regulated subset of argument."

And we did not execute our theurgists but let them depart in peace.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Good news. 8 point jump for AGAINST.

Bad news, FOR is still 12 points ahead.

It could be recalled.

Oh dear, unless something dramatic happens here, there will be a big explosion in production of nuclear weapons and the likelihood of a nuclear war in the near future will increase.

It seems to me that people are defending their rights here to run their own countries and defend them as they see fit. They seem to be of the opinion that if everyone possessed nuclear weapons their nation would be a much safer place.

Somebody even mentioned that arms and war are good for the economy. Viewed perhaps at a very local level, this might be true but at the global level this is just plain wrong. Weapons are designed to kill or destroy(if we ignore the uses of knives for cooking and eating etc). For a relatively small price (ie a bullet or a nuclear missile) you can destroy something more valuable to your enemy (say his president or a medium-sized city). The net result is that both nations are poorer : the first by the cost of the weapon and the second by the loss of capital invested). It does not take a genius to see this. Wars may provide a temporary boost to a troubled economy but have very little impact on long-term growth or improvement of living standards.

This, in case you wondered, is not an argument against war but simply to contradict the bogus claims that weapons manufactoring -> jobs -> strong economy. Please do not direct me to your national statistics here since the NationStates economic model is not, IMHO, all that sound.

But if I return to my biggest problem with this resolution, the principle beneficiaries of this resolution would be rogue nations who will now buy nuclear weapons in a much freer international arms market!!!!

Great thinking guys

You're missing something important: There are ways to survive a nuclear strike against you. My nation utilizes precision-strike weapons that can easily take out a nuclear weapon long before it reaches our airspace. And even if we were hit by a nuke, we wouldn't actually have any deaths from it, as our Earth settlement is several miles beneath the Earth's surface. It will take years and a hell of a lot of nukes before they even get close to us. Meanwhile, we've already nuked them, their allies, their mothers, their fathers, their children, their extended families, their friends, their pets, and even the bacteria beneath their toenails into extinction.

If you bother starting now, you could easily move your entire nation underground within one hundred years.

Im sorry, but whatever you do...enemy can do the same, so it doesnt matter how unrealistic your idias are. You survive=enemy survive. So this whole idia of nuclear weapons is just useless!
And...any idia how long you should live under ground? There is no way you can safe entire nation this way, i wish you much pleasure diggin your own grave... again if you have devices that will intercept missles before impact...enemy will have them too. So again useless...useless...useless...
If enemy comes with full force over your borders...you can bomb their ground...but their army in your mainland will just need some small holes in the ground...some gas and you will realise that you were 100 years long digging your own grave...
From strategical side..nukes are useless. And what about destruction of nature. You are digging new canyons for an bom.
If here were ppl in this game who were thinking with their head in place of their ego, this vote wasnt even here.

i think this is ridiculous. no one really needs nuclear weapons to defend themselves. with so many other bombs and crap to use, there's no need to use nuclear weapons.

I have voted for Nuclear Armanents because nuclear power is renewable. "Since when?" Someone asked me. Since it was invented. That's why we use it for electricity. Would we be using it if it did massive pollution? Yes, I agree it can kill animals and humans but for the US, it is the only way we can keep the Osama Bin Ladin scared. Yet, South Korea and Russia both have these Nuclear Armanents. The US has repeatedly asked South Korea to remove these nuclear weapons for they are in range of California. I live in the far East of the US so I have to worry about Russia operating theirs. I mean no offense to any South Koreans or Russians out there so plese accept my dearest apologies.

I read through some of the comments on this issue, and I saw a lot of answers in the form of "regretably" and "afraid so", etc.

But doesn't anybody wonder what people regret or are afraid of?

What are Nuclear Weapons (henceforth refered to as NWs) if not generators of fear? Ways to anihilate humanity and keep enemies in line by menacin gtheir right to exist. Beeing in the UN and possesing NWs is like partaking in a peace celebration, and bringing a gun with you.

What is the UN's mission if not to guarantee peoples' Freedom, freedom from fear, freedom from the threat of anihilation. If security is what is at stake than why have we formed the UN, if not to safeguard the particular liberties of each and every nation, member or non-member. NWs are the undoiong of the ideals that the UN uphold.

Let's try and make this world a little better with each decision, and notintroduce ugliness and desparae measures in it. Please, no more solutions that threaten our freedoms.

Thank you.

yeah but doesn't nukes frighten ppl into leavin ur county alone?

yeah but doesn't nukes frighten ppl into leavin ur county alone?Not if they also have them and outnumber you 3-1. Hence the irrelevance of this proposal.

I beleve than all nation have the right to have Nuclear weapond. But is more greater the responsability to guard them and protect them from people than want to use them for the wrong reasons.

i've voted against, my nation will have nothing to do with those weapons thankyou very much. Even so, we are not afraid to get them out in an emergancy but in this nation they are rarely used and no person can get their hands on one without a long history in whatever they do and are trusted and have an offical id to use one, and we are alone in this idea as far as we know. it works because we have a reputation of not agressively using them. we are not saddam husesans we are a peaceful nation but at the extremely rare time of a terrorist attack we will not be weak, and we put a stop to it quickly. overall the ministers in my country disagree, as do the citizens who have been campaining against.

*gaveling sound*

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the third day of July, 2005, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #109. Nuclear Armaments, proposed by Flibbleites, a resolution to mildly improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: The resolution Nuclear Armaments was passed 8,379 votes to 6,835, and implemented in all UN member nations. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

Several things went very very wrong in pre-war Germany...With all due respect, you're wrong on both counts. Rather than look at the Second World War, look at the First; now there was a war that nobody wanted.

But then, that's RL; this is NS, and here thar be dragons, so to speak. There are a whole slew of people here who would spit you as soon as they'd give you the time of day.

In RL, Hitlers come by only very rarely, but here they're a dime a dozen.And sorry for the offtopic.It's not off topic at all: the assertion that disarmament is a viable national strategy, and that disarming makes you safe by making you no threat to anyone, depends on the idea that there are no criminal nations out there, looking to victimise whomever they might.

(Nor is it moot. We expect there will be more votes on this subject in the weeks to come.)

Voted For. Good proposal and quite aptly timed (especially after two attempted removals of nukes).

I'd like to take this time to say thank you to all the people who approved it during the proposal stage, everyone who voted for it, and to those of you who defended it in the forums, even those of you who ended up voting against it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I know an right for an normal life...i know right about ppl being equaal to each other...
But someone who says i have right to have an nuke...
No you dont have a right to have an nuke. you have a right protect something what is yours. And with nuke you will destroy it.
Now resolution passed i can do only one thing.
Im going to research weaponry that will be able stop any nuke before impact.
Technology to find and disarm nukes all over the world. Technology to track and recover the flightplan of launched nukes. Im going to send spies in every country even in every UN country i will have spies in every military base.
I will spy on you all, UN or not UN, becouse i dont accept if you are sitting playing with an nuke in my backjard. Im taking care about my nation, i want my children to grow up in world free of fear.
And all i m going to do will increase taxes on my ppl (thanks to you all nuke freaks)
And i will not rest before i know place of every nuke in the world.
I will design most powerfull space satelites, and eliminate every nuke that will even try to take off. I will make nukes useless becouse they cant reach their target anyway. Nukes wil became something to laugh at.
I understand that you will possible not like it, becouse i will actually atart next cold war this way, but you dont give me other choice. Im not going to sit down and watch you playing with your nuclear toys. accidents happens i dont want radioactivity in my country. I dont want any nuke in reach of my country. And i ask Nations to unite you behind my point of view. If we can stope nukes...we can make them useless.
If im lonely in my opinion, so be it. You cant frighten me anyway. Not with an nuke. Becouse my airspace is already under controle of NWD. Every nuke that will get in range of my aircpace will be eliminated before it reach it. And not just an nuke, every flying craft, missle or gasballoon...If i dont know you i will shoot you right after you enter my airspace. and it doesnt matter or its an jet that has trouble with engines...Same NWD devices will eliminate it.
My appologises for possible civilian deaths that could find place this way.
But you will not hit my country. Btw nations who would be interested in our NWD technology can take a lot of advantages from it without having any nuke in country.

Congratulations Flibbleites on a job well done. I voted in support of your resolution though I failed to lobby the support of my region. I look forward with great anticipation to your further contributions.

Kane Olivas
Chief Executive Officer,
Borborygmus Uranium Mining Inc.
Chairman,
Foreign Relations Committee
Incorporated States of Borborygmus

Yeah, yeah, so you're FT, fine and dandy. Move along now, nothing to see here.

I know an right for an normal life...i know right about ppl being equaal to each other...
But someone who says i have right to have an nuke...
No you dont have a right to have an nuke. you have a right protect something what is yours. And with nuke you will destroy it.
Now resolution passed i can do only one thing.
Im going to research weaponry that will be able stop any nuke before impact.
Technology to find and disarm nukes all over the world. Technology to track and recover the flightplan of launched nukes. Im going to send spies in every country even in every UN country i will have spies in every military base.
I will spy on you all, UN or not UN, becouse i dont accept if you are sitting playing with an nuke in my backjard. Im taking care about my nation, i want my children to grow up in world free of fear.
And all i m going to do will increase taxes on my ppl (thanks to you all nuke freaks)
And i will not rest before i know place of every nuke in the world.
I will design most powerfull space satelites, and eliminate every nuke that will even try to take off. I will make nukes useless becouse they cant reach their target anyway. Nukes wil became something to laugh at.
I understand that you will possible not like it, becouse i will actually atart next cold war this way, but you dont give me other choice. Im not going to sit down and watch you playing with your nuclear toys. accidents happens i dont want radioactivity in my country. I dont want any nuke in reach of my country. And i ask Nations to unite you behind my point of view. If we can stope nukes...we can make them useless.
If im lonely in my opinion, so be it. You cant frighten me anyway. Not with an nuke. Becouse my airspace is already under controle of NWD. Every nuke that will get in range of my aircpace will be eliminated before it reach it. And not just an nuke, every flying craft, missle or gasballoon...If i dont know you i will shoot you right after you enter my airspace. and it doesnt matter or its an jet that has trouble with engines...Same NWD devices will eliminate it.
My appologises for possible civilian deaths that could find place this way.
But you will not hit my country. Btw nations who would be interested in our NWD technology can take a lot of advantages from it without having any nuke in country.

I find it funny that there are already five repeal attempts in the proposal list for my resolution.

I find it funny that there are already five repeal attempts in the proposal list for my resolution.
I'd say it's an expected reaction. The UN has been very divided in this matter in the past and most recently as well.
It is surely easier to pass a redundant proposal that acknowledges and condones the existence of a certain item (status quo) rather than a proposal that bans the item alltogether. The 7 thousand plus that voted against this proposal will most likely defend a proposal for a nuclear weapons ban. So there is alot of inertia behind this movement. It should not be dissregarded by shruging it off as a joke, whether that was your intention or not.

Actually the part I find funny is that my resolution might beat out the repealed Fight the Axis of Evil (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=0) as the resolution that has the most repeals attempted.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Actually the part I find funny is that my resolution might beat out the repealed Fight the Axis of Evil (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=0) as the resolution that has the most repeals attempted.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Well putting it that way I can see how that can be funny. Considering that the Axis of Evil resolution is as retarded a document as I've ever seen.

But don't take it the wrong way. The repeals will try to take capitalize on a rebound effect in the vote casting. It's quite a risk to take at this time. Should a well written reapeal and nuke ban proposal fail at this time, it might very well be along time until another one can be proposed.

Well putting it that way I can see how that can be funny. Considering that the Axis of Evil resolution is as retarded a document as I've ever seen.That resolution was actually written as a test to make sure everything was working correctly before, you may want to note also that the author, Maxtopia, belonged to none other than Max Barry himself. (i.e. the man responsible for NationStates' very existence)

But don't take it the wrong way. The repeals will try to take capitalize on a rebound effect in the vote casting. It's quite a risk to take at this time. Should a well written reapeal and nuke ban proposal fail at this time, it might very well be along time until another one can be proposed.
A repeal more than likely won't even make quorum at this time, it usually takes a while before the UN decides that it made a mistake, and besides there's too many in the proposal list for the search function to be effective right now.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Just when I thought the NSUN was going to hell, this bill comes....

But alas, I'm no longer a UN ambassador.

So I'll just move along.

--Welsh

That resolution was actually written as a test to make sure everything was working correctly before, you may want to note also that the author, Maxtopia, belonged to none other than Max Barry himself. (i.e. the man responsible for NationStates' very existence)OK that explains it.

United Nations Resolution #109 has come to pass.

I feel deeply grieved that we should be afraid of our own ourselves. Even in a world all our own we fail to see what is important, we insist on alowing real-world paranoia to dictate our thoughts, feelings and actions.

Did we really need this Resolution? What did it achieve? Did it afirm a reality, or was it just a good "pep-talk" for the Nuclear Weapon owning countries? Are we blind! Why is ugliness and heartwrenching fear preferable to relief and harmony?

I wish people and governments started thinking of each other, instead off their tiny little issues. Imagine a world where everyone thought of each other and not themselves; then everyone would be thought of by EVERYONE else, not just themselves. MANYwould care for each nation, not just ONE. Because in the end we are all one, one race and it's called mankind. Let LOVE of each other reign amongst us, not passion and hate. Give help where it's needed, don't take what you don't need.

With every Resolution you could wish for anything in the world, for all the bliss and happiness; instead you choose more Nukes, more fear and pain and eventually even death on everyone. I weep along with every man that has ever preached Peace, Love and Harmony.

Boo hoo. *mails you a handkerchief*