NationStates Jolt Archive

(Global Disarmament, Mild or Significant)

The United Nations,

CONVINCED that the most effective way to achieve an end to nuclear testing is through the conclusion of a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, which has long been one of the highest priority objectives of the international community in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation,

NOTING also the that this Treaty could contribute to the protection of the environment,

HAVE AGREED as follows:

1. Each NationState undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

2. Each NationState undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

-

Yes, it's highlights of the real thing, slightly edited to make them fit the NS world. Is there anything which you think I'd need to alter or add?

(For reference purposes, the original is at http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/ctb.html), but I can't fit 'Comprehensive' in the proposal title :p

Will this be legal if the UNSA passes? as I don't think it will

1. Each NationState undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

2. Each NationState undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.<sigh>

It was inevitable that someone would author this.

We oppose. When it passes (which it likely will), we will be forced to leave the United Nations, since we employ non-military nuclear devices for peaceful purposes on a regular basis, and this is important enough that we will not abandon it.

Handwriting's on the wall...

We oppose. When it passes (which it likely will), we will be forced to leave the United Nations, since we employ non-military nuclear devices for peaceful purposes on a regular basis, and this is important enough that we will not abandon it.

The old USSR had a crazy plan of nuking large amounts of the Himalayas in an attempt to improve their climate, etc... very much not cool. The primary purpose of the resolution is for disarmament purposes, but if we can stop things like this happening as well, then so much the better.

Chaos - which bit do you think is illegal? How would you change it?

I'm not sure it would actually be illegal, at least under Flib's Nuclear Weapons resolution. That allows nuclear weapons to be possessed, but doesn't say anything about them being used. An interesting loophole.
I'm not so sure about Texan's UNSA, though. You'd need to look at it in depth.

Stepping out of the NS world for a moment: The most effective way in which the United States and the USSR avoided war was the threat of nuclear retaliation. No side dared use their Nukes in war against each other. No nation today would seriously concider using nukes, as it would most certainly cause a nuclear retailiation by(if not the victim nation) any nation possesing them. And the test-detonations, occasionally done by those nations possesing nukes, proves to be an effective demostration of the nation's power - a reminder of what war could bring. So in a sense, nuclear arms are a tool for peace, strictly in the sense that they are defensive weapons. However, I understand the consequences of what irresponsible leaders might do with this power. I suggest you ammend it to replace 'ban' with 'severe restrictions' and 'constant monitering'.

If the proposal stays as it is, and goes to the floor of the UN, The Conservative Union will oppose it.