NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been saving this proposal for a month and now it may be time to release it.

NOTING that non-UN nations outnumber UN nations by about 3:1

NOTING ALSO that many non-UN nations have hostile relations with UN nations

NOTING ALSO that the policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has been the most effective way of maintaining peace known to humankind.

NOTING ALSO that Chemical weapons were (prior to resolution 107) used by many small countries to deter an attack by a larger, more powerful country, as per the MAD strategy.

NOTING ALSO that many small nations do not have the money to maintain a nuclear stockpile

IT IS APPARENT that UN resolution 107 denies small, UN countries the ability to deter attack by a larger, aggressive state.

THEREFORE, the only logical course of action is to repeal UN resolution 107.

I would be interested in any feedback I could get on this before I launch my "formal" campain for it.

does ANYONE out there have any thoughts on this?

:confused:

does ANYONE out there have any thoughts on this?

:confused:
Well, Yelda would probably approve it. We tend to approve all attempts to repeal #107. You make a good point about smaller nations being able to use them as an affordable deterrent.

Ecopoeia would only support repeal if a suitable replacement was planned.

Simple advice for anyone looking to repeal and replace: keep the repeal simple and have your replacement well-drafted before proceeding.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I would concur with the sentiments of the author, and as small, relatively new nation, would furthermore appreciate any help forthcoming in the drafting of a bill pertaining to the obligations towards mutual security within the UN, given the propensity of nations currently residing outside of the UN, who furthermore are of considerable size, power and influence.

The Principality of Ausserland is opposed in principle to any measure that imposes a weapons ban on only one-fourth of the nations in NationStates. Your argument about deterrence and small nations is sound. We applaud this effort, would vote in favor of it, and would urge our regional delegate to do likewise. We intend to study your proposal carefully and provide whatever suggestions we can for possible improvements.

We have two preliminary comments. We suggest the final clause be amended to read:

THEREFORE, UN Resolution 107 (Ban Chemical Weapons) is repealed.

This will repeal the resolution rather than stating a desire to do so.

We would also recommend replacing (Mutually Assured Destruction) with deterrence. Mutually Assured Destruction is a term related to nuclear warfare, and is not generally applicable to chemical weapons.

Ecopoeia would only support repeal if a suitable replacement was planned.

Simple advice for anyone looking to repeal and replace: keep the repeal simple and have your replacement well-drafted before proceeding.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I have yet to see a solid replacement in any resolution that was repealed in thes case.

The PDS is soundly opposed to repealing a resolution on the basis of writing a new one. As such, we are also opposed to repealing resolution 107 entirely.

Why?

Think about it. War will happen. Small countries will be attacked. Many small countries have priorities other than building expencive nukes. A nation of 100 M like mine COULD produce nukes, but it would strain the recourses needed to set up the economy, conventional millitary and social welfare system. Chemical weapons are much less expencive to produce than nukes. A huge, powerful nation would be less likely to attack if they knew that a good chunk of their population could die in a cloud of Sarin.

Why?

Think about it. War will happen. Small countries will be attacked. Many small countries have priorities other than building expencive nukes. A nation of 100 M like mine COULD produce nukes, but it would strain the recourses needed to set up the economy, conventional millitary and social welfare system. Chemical weapons are much less expencive to produce than nukes. A huge, powerful nation would be less likely to attack if they knew that a good chunk of their population could die in a cloud of Sarin.

If your a small nation who fears attack then do what most small nations do, form alliances! THe idea of an alliance is that a group of nations would band together to protect each other from complete annihilation. If a nation can afford nuclear weapons, then they can likely also afford antidotes to chemical attack, as well as masks to protect themselves from such an attack.

There is no deterrent from a nuclear weapon, not even a chemical one. Which is why the PDS would also support a nuclear weapons ban.

I don't feel that chemical weapons should ever be the solution. This would only encourage isolation for the members of the UN, by not requesting military support, thus lowering relations.

Ecopoeia would only support repeal if a suitable replacement was planned.

Instead of banning them, how about a resolution which would require safe handling and storage procedures so as to lessen the likelihood of chemical weapons (and biological ones, assuming they remain legal) being accidentally released?

The Republic of Lanquassia will not support any repeal of 107 unless a follow-up proposeal that goes into details on safe handling and limitations has already been written.

I am in an alliance: Axinon, Exinon, Alphinon, Dreedan, Second Dreedan et al.

But my entire reagon combined would not stand a chance in conventional war agenst, the The Hateful Hating Hated Haters of Hatred, for example

Does anyone have a list of the delegates that voted agenst the original resolution? If you do can you post it here or telegram it to me? I really need this to get it to Quarum.

Well, Yelda would probably approve it. We tend to approve all attempts to repeal #107. You make a good point about smaller nations being able to use them as an affordable deterrent.
i disagree with yelda because why can't we use chemical weapons for safety measures?

You have the full support of the Armed Republic of Badguy. Banning chemical weapons is just a stepping stone to banning even more weapons in warfare! Next it's air strikes, then tanks, guns, combat knives, and particularly sharp pens! Pretty soon, when a terrorist country finds some way to smuggle in high powered weapons to their nation and stages an attack, the only thing we'll be able to do is give them forceful glances and shout curses at them from afar! It's preposterous.

Does ANYONE have a list of delegates?? I cannot get this appeal done alone :(

Does ANYONE have a list of delegates?? I cannot get this appeal done alone :(

I would recommend contacting the nation of Powerhungry Chipmunks for a list of delegates likely to support a repeal of #107.

Mainister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones