Disarm Nuclear Weapons
OOC: Please visit the submitted UN Resolutions page, where my submission was made. It is an effort to disarm nuclear weapons :)
To put it bluntly, your act is illegal as per the UNSA and Nuclear Armaments UN resolutions.
Not necessarily, Axinon. If Quantaz's proposal says that nukes are unneccessary for defense, and doesn't say anything about stopping people possessing nukes, then it's legal. Not having the proposal here means that I can't elaborate.
Quantaz, please post your proposal.
I've already checked that.
Nuclear Disarment
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Quantaz
Description: If this act were to be put into effect:
A. All UN nations would immediatly disarm or destroy and nuclear arms they may posess
B. All UN nations would immediatly destroy or dissassemble any nuclear weapons plants, storage sites, and launching platforms they may posess
C. Would limit UN nations to using conventional weapons
If this Act would be passed, it would make the world a better, safer, more stable place for people to live. It also removes the risk of having a nuclear winter, mass death, and strong environmental damage. Nations may still posess conventional arms, but warfare will be limited to conventional arms and conventional arms only.
Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 142 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Sat Jul 16 2005
It nowhere says that nuclear weapons are not neccecary for national defense and it explicitly bans possesion of them. You can see for yourself. It is currently at http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/95808/page=UN_proposal/start=56
Very well then. I hadn't seen the proposal, so I was just pointing out the relevent loopholes that could allow such a proposal.
Puppetslovakia
14-07-2005, 04:52
Plus, Nuclear Armanants disable this act. You'll have to repeal Nuclear Armanants before proposing this.
I already said that To put it bluntly, your act is illegal as per the UNSA and Nuclear Armaments UN resolutions.
The blessed Chris
14-07-2005, 17:39
To make another point, war itself is an integral feature of nation states, and since approximately 3 quarters of all nations currently active reside outside the UN, and many of the aforementioned are both potent and overtly aggressive, nucleur weapons are a necessity if such nations are to be opposed by the UN, notably in the case of small, relatively new nations.
Gun fighters
15-07-2005, 08:14
If a nation outside the UN has nukes they could attack you and you could do nothing. With nukes at least you can threten to use them making the enemy nations think twice before using them on you.
Greetings.
We will do our utmost to dissuade delegates from voting for this disingenuous piece of knavery. By limiting warfare to 'conventional weapons', the author of this proposal is attempting to ban biological, chemical, nanotechnological, electronic, thaumaturgic, ideological, and memetic weapons, together with at least a thousand other variants. No, no, and no again. What we tell three times is true.