NationStates Jolt Archive

REGONISING the right of countries, both UN and non, to possess nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

ALSO REGONISING the effectiveness of Mutual assured destruction against both super-powers and smaller countries.

FUTHER REGONISING that nuclear weapons cause untold damage both to the current and future populations, as well as the global environment.

REALISING that a compromise must be made between the evils of nuclear weapons and the necessary defences of countries.

DECLARING that each country should have the right to stock nuclear weapons

FUTHER DECLARING that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against another UN country

ALSO that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against a non UN country except in retaliation against a nuclear strike.

DELEGATING 10,000 nuclear missiles to the UN, to be under the control of the "Committee of Nuclear Control," to act as a detterrent to any strikes against the UN and to only be used in a retaliation against a strike on the UN headquarters and it's control's.

FINALLY STATING that any UN country which breaks any of these declarations will be forceably evected from the UN and, if neccessary, declared war upon by UN backed states.




I've just submitted my first proposal, and would appreiciate what you lot have to say about it. I tried to make it fair, not sure whether I put it in the correct category and feel that it controls Nuclear isssues without going either to total Nuclear Dissarment or total Nuclear War. Any thoughts would be helpful, as I don't expect this to get through first time and may need to edit it and change it and put it in again

Thanks
Swishland

REGONISING

gnh :rolleyes:

DECLARING that each country should have the right to stock nuclear weapons

This is the main thrust of the most recent resolution, so it's unnecessary to restate.

FUTHER DECLARING that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against another UN country

ALSO that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against a non UN country except in retaliation against a nuclear strike.

I personally like this and would be fully in favour of it. Some might see it as an unjustified infringement on national sovereignty.

DELEGATING 10,000 nuclear missiles to the UN, to be under the control of the "Committee of Nuclear Control," to act as a detterrent to any strikes against the UN and to only be used in a retaliation against a strike on the UN headquarters and it's control's.

Silly. Possibly illegal.

FINALLY STATING that any UN country which breaks any of these declarations will be forceably evected from the UN and, if neccessary, declared war upon by UN backed states.

Definitely illegal.

I fully support your 'no first strike' policy, but I think you'd have to make that the focus of a proposal, and strip away some of the other stuff.

REGONISING the right of countries, both UN and non, to possess nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

[QUOTE=Swishland]ALSO REGONISING the effectiveness of Mutual assured destruction against both super-powers and smaller countries.

FUTHER REGONISING that nuclear weapons cause untold damage both to the current and future populations, as well as the global environment.

REALISING that a compromise must be made between the evils of nuclear weapons and the necessary defences of countries.You may want to run this through a spell check next time.

DECLARING that each country should have the right to stock nuclear weaponsUnnecessary due to the most recently passed resolution.

FUTHER DECLARING that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against another UN country

ALSO that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against a non UN country except in retaliation against a nuclear strike.I don't have a problem with this, that doesn't mean that I like it though.

DELEGATING 10,000 nuclear missiles to the UN, to be under the control of the "Committee of Nuclear Control," to act as a detterrent to any strikes against the UN and to only be used in a retaliation against a strike on the UN headquarters and it's control's.I'm pretty sure that this would constitute a UN army and is therefore illegal.

FINALLY STATING that any UN country which breaks any of these declarations will be forceably evected from the UN and, if neccessary, declared war upon by UN backed states.Now I know it's illegal.




I've just submitted my first proposal, and would appreiciate what you lot have to say about it. I tried to make it fair, not sure whether I put it in the correct category and feel that it controls Nuclear isssues without going either to total Nuclear Dissarment or total Nuclear War.What category is it in anyway? You failed to mentioned that info and I'm too lazy to go look it up.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This proposal sounds a bit too radical against UN nations IMO. The general idea isn't too bad but I think it goes a bit overboard on a few points previously mentioned by other users.

DELEGATING 10,000 nuclear missiles to the UN, to be under the control of the "Committee of Nuclear Control," to act as a detterrent to any strikes against the UN and to only be used in a retaliation against a strike on the UN headquarters and it's control's.

FINALLY STATING that any UN country which breaks any of these declarations will be forceably evected from the UN and, if neccessary, declared war upon by UN backed states.
A Global Disarmament proposal that gives 10000 nuclear missiles to the UN, and sanctions war. Astounding. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

A Global Disarmament proposal that gives 10000 nuclear missiles to the UN, and sanctions war. Astounding. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Greetings.

When nuclear missiles become delegates to the NSUN, that is indeed curious. The NSUN building must be like the other NStates, indeterminate in size. Perhaps we should insert a statement about how all these missiles should be deliverable within a single night from a single operational nucleus. We could call it the Centre Clause.

I'm generally in favour of this proposal, as it basically deals with what I wanted to deal with in mine. Although it's maybe just a tad radical for me and my nation to stomach...consider removing some of the more...extreme clauses?

Perhaps we should insert a statement about how all these missiles should be deliverable within a single night from a single operational nucleus. We could call it the Centre Clause.
I am reminded of the evil Santabot on futurama.

Thanks. Don't worry, I'll make it a bit less illegal and radical next time when this one fails to get in (as it probably will.) It was the end of a long day and I fancied giving the UN the power to destroy the world 20 times over, as I felt it deserved it. Next time I'll take all this into consideration. Thanks.

Will also run it through a better spell check than the google toolbar.

We could call it the Centre Clause.
groan

A Global Disarmament proposal that gives 10000 nuclear missiles to the UN, and sanctions war. Astounding. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
According to the research I've done, many Global Disarmament resolutions (particularly weapons bans) always 'sanction' some sort of war as "okay" or "responsible".

Right - second attempt. Thoughts and comments please.

International Nuclear Control - Global Disarmament

RECOGNISING the right of countries, both UN and non, to possess nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

ALSO RECOGNISING the effectiveness of Mutual assured destruction against both super-powers and smaller countries.

FURTHER RECOGNISING that nuclear weapons cause untold damage both to the current and future populations, as well as the global environment.

REALISING that a compromise must be made between the evils of nuclear weapons and the necessary defences of countries.

ALSO REALISING that Nuclear weapon attacks are of little to no use to any country, as wars can be conducted using conventional weapons with a greatly reduced civilian harm and without losing much if any effectivness against military targets.

DEFINING a Nuclear Weapon as a weapon that derives its energy from the nuclear reactions of fission and/or fusion.

DECLARING that each country should have the right to stock nuclear weapons

FUTHER DECLARING that no UN country should ever use nuclear weapons against another UN country

ALSO that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against a non UN country excepting a retaliation attack against a nuclear strike actually committed.

FINALLY STATING that any information gathered accumulating in a nuclear strike on any country should be taken to the UN and appropriate steps taken in accordance with UN ruling

Right - second attempt. Thoughts and comments please.

International Nuclear Control - Global Disarmament

RECOGNISING the right of countries, both UN and non, to possess nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

ALSO RECOGNISING the effectiveness of Mutual assured destruction against both super-powers and smaller countries.

FURTHER RECOGNISING that nuclear weapons cause untold damage both to the current and future populations, as well as the global environment.

REALISING that a compromise must be made between the evils of nuclear weapons and the necessary defences of countries.

ALSO REALISING that Nuclear weapon attacks are of little to no use to any country, as wars can be conducted using conventional weapons with a greatly reduced civilian harm and without losing much if any effectivness against military targets.

You're good from start to here, in my book.
DEFINING a Nuclear Weapon as a weapon that derives its energy from the nuclear reactions of fission and/or fusion.
Not needed, hon; we all know what a Nuclear weapon is. ;) Saying here also breaks the flow.
DECLARING that each country should have the right to stock nuclear weapons

FUTHER DECLARING that no UN country should ever use nuclear weapons against another UN country

ALSO that no UN country should use nuclear weapons against a non UN country excepting a retaliation attack against a nuclear strike actually committed.

Sounding better. No UN nation should ever use a WMD against another UN nation, but I would only like to see that crouched in 'advisorary' tones.

FINALLY STATING that any information gathered accumulating in a nuclear strike on any country should be taken to the UN and appropriate steps taken in accordance with UN ruling

This last one is puzzling me, are you refering to the gathering of intel and such that would lead a UN nation to launch nukes at another nation? An earlier clause of yours say that a UN Nation shouldn't launch the first strike, so what did you mean by this closing clause?

Overall, though, damned good idea.

OK, thanks for your advise. I put the definition to prevent a repeal of it based on "I don't know what a nuclear weapon is and so it's totally useless," As nearly happened once if I remember correctly. The Final point is for any intelligence about nuclear strikes (ie, Cuban Missile crisis,) to be taken to the UN and get them involved, instead of one of the Israelis favourites, a retaliation attack before it actually happens. It's basically a safeguard against the previous point I made.

Any support for this would be helpful. Thanks