NationStates Jolt Archive

How about the UN run a "bank" for nuclear weapons.

This means that:
Countries with nuclear weapons can deposit them in the bank, and receive (monetary) interest.
Countries may be more willing to dispose of nuclear weapons if they receive financial compensation.
Countries without nuclear weapons can borrow them (at interest). This means that smaller countries can recieve the benefits of MAD, rather than being bullied by larger countries.
Nuclear war can be delayed by the UN.

Countries without nuclear weapons can borrow them (at interest). "Borrow"?

This means that smaller countries can recieve the benefits of MAD, rather than being bullied by larger countries.Mutually Assured Destruction only works if both nations have sufficient weapons (of any type, really) to annihilate their foe. Both nations must be willing and able to do so.

Borrowing nukes isn't going to cut it, as borrowing implies returning. And since MAD situations result from Cold Wars, it would be much cheaper for the nation to simply reasearch and build its own, as opposed to leasing them.

Yes, "borrow". As in you send a telegram to the UN:

Hey Mr NSUN
The People's Democratic Free Republic of Craptonia would like to destroy the city of New Armageddia. A 15-kiloton fission device should do the trick.

Although unable to develop nuclear weapons, we can repay the loan in uranium, which we mine extensively in the PDFRC. We can pay a 15% interest rate but are willing to negotiate.


No, you don't need a cold war for MAD. Any country A who wants to blow the hell out of country B will think twice if they know country B (and every other UN country) has access to as much nuclear material as they want.

Also, this proposal is effective in arms reduction, as UN countries still have nuclear strength against their enemies - this of course is the major problem with other arms reduction treaties.

Here's the fundamental flaw I find in it, if a country is too poor to make it's own, and needs to USE a Nuclear weapon, how do they return it after detonating it? And if it is cheaper to make them yourself and this country can't then there's no way it's economy would be able to pay off the nuke bank. So all this would do is give more nukes to rich countries, which they could use to extort or take over other smaller poorer countries, therefore helping mass tyranny.

Yes, "borrow". As in you send a telegram to the UN:Makes returning the nuke rather difficult. If I "borrow" a cigarrete from someone, smoke it, and then give them a bunch of tobacco seeds, I haven't really repaid them. They had a cigarette, and now they need to spend money to turn the seeds into something useable.

And what about the nation that "loaned" that particular nuke to the UN? How's he supposed to get it back? What if he needed it? All he has now is a bunch of uranium (which is largely useless in modern nukes).

And what if someone decides that they're sick of the UN handing out nukes to psychopaths and warmongers and decides to nuke the nuke depot?

Also, this proposal is effective in arms reduction, as UN countries still have nuclear strength against their enemies - this of course is the major problem with other arms reduction treaties.No it isn't. It's arms redistribution. Instead of X nations with nukes, you've effectively made it X+Y nations with nukes.

And what about the jokers who decide to bankrupt the UN by mass producing small nuclear weapons and depositing them for the interest they earn?

<- chief joker. :D