NationStates Jolt Archive

To those more experienced in this matter - how would you go about drafting:

1) A nuclear non-proliferation treaty;

and/or

2) The establishment of UN election monitors to guarantee free and fair elections in UN states.

Mayakovskia']To those more experienced in this matter - how would you go about drafting:

1) A nuclear non-proliferation treaty;

Tried and failed twice. Personally wouldn't touch it with a pole long enough to keep me out of nuking distance.


and/or

2) The establishment of UN election monitors to guarantee free and fair elections in UN states.

1) Post your arguments here - perhaps start working at what they'll actually say
2) Post HOW it would work - either how you'd like it to be shown or just give us a long drawn out details (and we can work from there)
3) THEN ask for assistance

That's the drafting part

4) Be open to criticism, know when the criticism is BS.

5) Submit

6) TG Campaign from hell.

Enjoy

Tried and failed twice. Personally wouldn't touch it with a pole long enough to keep me out of nuking distance.


Yeah, but both of those attempts included an outright banning of nuclear weapons in UN nations. If a proposal were just a treaty on nucelar proliferation or other such nuclear advice, it's unclear how much resistance it would receive.

Given the widespread holding of nuclear arms throughout NationStates, I would find it difficult to draft any nuclear non-proliferation treaty that would not lead to UN nations being disadvantaged, even if it did not involve a total ban. Especially given the current resolution at vote, I would recommend not dealing with nuclear issues at this time.

As for establishing UN election monitors, I would be skeptical of something like this unless it was shown to be more than simply added United Nations bureaucracy. I would ask the representative from Mayakovskia to elaborate.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Frankley I like the Idea of an NPT. I plan to repeal the resolution at vote

United Nations resolutions can only affect United Nations member nations. Therefore, any United Nations resolutions to restrict nuclear weapons are likely to result in non-UN nations attacking UN nations with nuclear weapons, as the UN nations will be defenseless.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I would actually put the UN Elections monitors thing as something that can be requested by either party in an election if they are concerned of the fairness of the election.

I would actually put the UN Elections monitors thing as something that can be requested by either party in an election if they are concerned of the fairness of the election.

and perhaps leave it to the nations region itself to send monitors and submit their reports to the UN?

Your second idea is interesting. Unfortunately I have a lot on my plate at the moment, so I'm unable to offer much assistance for the time being.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Given that the UN does not mandate democracy, it seems a little odd to be fussing over the standards of elections in one nation whilst turning a blind eye to the dictatorship in the next.

[Taking over where Mayakovskia left off... for reasons that may soon become apparent].

On reading the responses back, I think I'd change the focus of the nuclear resolution from non-proliferation to necessitating control systems. At the moment, nations can possess nuclear weapons, which I'm not going to try and stop, but there's nothing mandating them to be activated by anything more complicated than by someone pressing some button somewhere. I think it would be a positive step for world security if we made sure nuclear arsenals are protected behind limited-acess, frequently-changed codes, double key systems, etc. Hopefully nations are doing this already, but you can never be sure. I'd probably also put in a but about increasing security at nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, to stop weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. (This would probably fall under International Security). I think most people agree that we never want a nuclear war. We certainly don't want to start one by mistake...

[Taking over where Mayakovskia left off... for reasons that may soon become apparent].

On reading the responses back, I think I'd change the focus of the nuclear resolution from non-proliferation to necessitating control systems. At the moment, nations can possess nuclear weapons, which I'm not going to try and stop, but there's nothing mandating them to be activated by anything more complicated than by someone pressing some button somewhere. I think it would be a positive step for world security if we made sure nuclear arsenals are protected behind limited-acess, frequently-changed codes, double key systems, etc. Hopefully nations are doing this already, but you can never be sure. I'd probably also put in a but about increasing security at nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, to stop weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. (This would probably fall under International Security). I think most people agree that we never want a nuclear war. We certainly don't want to start one by mistake...

This is an excellent idea, but you would need to draft the proposal carefully to get my support.