NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly does anyone else see the many deep flaws in the Reolution? As I have submitted this repeal twic, and find it very difficult to reach the quorm. So, I'm doing it here, and seeing if I can't change some minds. Maybe see if what I really ought to do is just draft up another Arms Treaty my self.

While it is apparent that Non-Nuclear Possession treaties, seemingly are against the popular trend, this resolution that allows Any U.N. Member to posses H-Bombs, Nuclear ICBMs, or any weapon of that nature, and allows it to remain purely optional for any member to posses such weapons, this Resolution, is not in the best interest, of ANY U.N. Member, or national security. As this resolution is EXTREMELY broad, and needs to be re-worked. There are one too many flaws in this resolution, that need to be brought to attention.

Possessing WMD, is always a risky business. Either the risk of the trigger happy commander, or the risk of mistaken identity, resulting in friendly-fire or hostile combat. As many systems are becoming more and more automated, and more and more networks linking, there is the danger factor of a miss-fire, from a computer virus. Resulting in dire consequences.

The resolution states as quoted: "DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations." More or less along the lines, encouraging "Arms Races" w/other nations. Any U.N. Member who has accepted this resolution, is apparently not under any restriction, or under monitoring. So it is apparent, that any nation that has adopted this resolution, can posses an unlimited number armaments. In the interest of International National Security, for all U.N. Members, no nation should be allowed to build up an arsenal w/o some kind of Checks and Balances, service involved.



Not only does this Resolution does NOT regulate Nations that wish to posses Nuclear Arms, it does NOT Encourage Diplomacy, as the first plan of action. As it mentions the fact of hostile non U.N. members, and the rights to defend against them, It does not encourage peaceful relations between all these nations. It encourages stock piling, and putting a nation under the gun, simply because they feel they are under the gun. The fact is, nations would not need to get into arms races, if they have peaceful and friendly relations with eachother, and denounce hostility.

Nor does this resolution, condemn immediate use of Nuclear Weapons. And this resolution does not call for condemnation, of the nation that does use it. A nation can simply shoot an ICBM and leave the nation they have attacked to fend for it's self. Nations should be held to a "It's your mess, you clean it up" policy. This resolution should remind of the ultimate consequences of using H-Bombs, or other WMD and should hold nations accountable for using them, despite the reason(s) for shooting back, or shooting at them.

Without proper limitations, a nation can not only posses as many armaments, as it desires, it also can give the freedom for any nation that has adopted this resolution, to put any nation, that does not posses WMD, under their thumbs. This Resolution has no limitations, and needs to be revised. But let it be noted, that this resolution is NOT for the BANNING of Nuclear Weapons. All nations that desire to posses weapons, for defense MAY continue to do so. If this is not revised, we can all look forward to Fall-Outs, thousands dying from incineration, and thousands more dying from Radiation Poisoning.

I fully and utterly agree with you on this topic, but we must understand that even if the UN in the real world were to ban the creation of nuclier of wepons of mass dectruction there are still countries that would still produce them North Korea for example, wile the US and Russia have to disarm, the Koreans are still produceing them. wile i totaly agree the UN can only do somuch to stop such a thret .It's up to the rest of us to stop this.

As for the un members such as myself i feel that the UN would not be fighting eathother and any nation who does fight the UN wil not have the weapons.

Finaly The weapons ARE what created the UN, these problems ARE the bases of what we are. Why would we through that out the window just for a few nuces?


The Iron Curten :headbang:

I was hoping that you would post this here.:D Time to shred your ideas DLE style.http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/Smilies/FIREdevil.gif
Honestly does anyone else see the many deep flaws in the Reolution?No, I don't see any flaws.
As I have submitted this repeal twic, and find it very difficult to reach the quorm.So, it took me 5 tries to get the resolution you're trying to repeal to reach quorum, what's your point?
So, I'm doing it here, and seeing if I can't change some minds.Well, I know I can't speak for everyone, but I know that you won't be changing my mind.
Maybe see if what I really ought to do is just draft up another Arms Treaty my self.You do that, just leave my resolution alone.

While it is apparent that Non-Nuclear Possession treaties, seemingly are against the popular trend, this resolution that allows Any U.N. Member to posses H-Bombs, Nuclear ICBMs, or any weapon of that nature, and allows it to remain purely optional for any member to posses such weapons, this Resolution, is not in the best interest, of ANY U.N. Member, or national security. As this resolution is EXTREMELY broad, and needs to be re-worked. There are one too many flaws in this resolution, that need to be brought to attention. "EXTREMELY broad" and all this time I thought it was extremely focused as the resolution only protects a nation's right to possess nuclear weapons.

Possessing WMD, is always a risky business. Either the risk of the trigger happy commander, or the risk of mistaken identity, resulting in friendly-fire or hostile combat. As many systems are becoming more and more automated, and more and more networks linking, there is the danger factor of a miss-fire, from a computer virus. Resulting in dire consequences.So what, you could have those same problems with non nuclear weapons as well.

The resolution states as quoted: "DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations." More or less along the lines, encouraging "Arms Races" w/other nations. Any U.N. Member who has accepted this resolution, is apparently not under any restriction, or under monitoring. So it is apparent, that any nation that has adopted this resolution, can posses an unlimited number armaments. In the interest of International National Security, for all U.N. Members, no nation should be allowed to build up an arsenal w/o some kind of Checks and Balances, service involved.The point of the resolution was to simply prevent the UN from banning it's members from possessing nuclear weapons, nothing more. And bear in mind that if you were to propose limiting the number of nukes a nation could possess, it would be perfectly legal under the Nuclear Armaments as long as the number that nations are allowed to possess is at least one, of course working around the UNSA is another story.

Not only does this Resolution does NOT regulate Nations that wish to posses Nuclear Arms, it does NOT Encourage Diplomacy, as the first plan of action. As it mentions the fact of hostile non U.N. members, and the rights to defend against them, It does not encourage peaceful relations between all these nations. It encourages stock piling, and putting a nation under the gun, simply because they feel they are under the gun. The fact is, nations would not need to get into arms races, if they have peaceful and friendly relations with eachother, and denounce hostility.Again, my point was simply to prevent the UN from banning it's member from possessing nuclear weapons, nothing more. If you want to propose a resolution that would require UN members to try diplomacy before using force to resolve conflicts then go ahead and propose it as it would not conflict with Nuclear Armaments.

Nor does this resolution, condemn immediate use of Nuclear Weapons. And this resolution does not call for condemnation, of the nation that does use it. A nation can simply shoot an ICBM and leave the nation they have attacked to fend for it's self. Nations should be held to a "It's your mess, you clean it up" policy. This resolution should remind of the ultimate consequences of using H-Bombs, or other WMD and should hold nations accountable for using them, despite the reason(s) for shooting back, or shooting at them.For the third time, that wasn't the point of my resolution. If you want to condemn thge use of nuclear weapons, hell even if you want to ban their use then just write the damn proposal, because it won't conflict with my resolution.

Without proper limitations, a nation can not only posses as many armaments, as it desires, it also can give the freedom for any nation that has adopted this resolution, to put any nation, that does not posses WMD, under their thumbs. This Resolution has no limitations, and needs to be revised. But let it be noted, that this resolution is NOT for the BANNING of Nuclear Weapons. All nations that desire to posses weapons, for defense MAY continue to do so. If this is not revised, we can all look forward to Fall-Outs, thousands dying from incineration, and thousands more dying from Radiation Poisoning.
Even if my resolution is repealed, the situtation will not change because my resolution actually just protected what was the UN's current stance on the possession of nuclear weapons. So, would you please explain to me just why you're so bent out of shape about my resolution, when all of your points for the repeal could actually be addressed without repealing my resolution?

I would recommend (and yes, you can do this) putting forth a resolution that promotes all of the issues you brought up. You can put limitations on number of warheads each nation has, put a statement saying that Diplomacy should be a first resort, etc.

To start off, I'd just like to inform you that you should not go insulting other people's resolutions, calling them poor and saying they need revising, since your own (and I am referring to the one I have just read) is indeed written in a poor manner, with mistakes that make it kind of difficult to process and read, such as putting stop marks where there should only be a comma.

Let us continue. I won’t follow any particular order; I will just state my opinion of the whole thing in general.

It seems to me you didn't really take the time to study the thread devoted to the proper way of creating proposals. One of the very first things you should know is that there are no OPTIONAL resolutions (i.e. by accepting this resolution, your nation may or may not posse’s nuclear weaponry). No, I'm afraid that won't do. You can either ban nuclear weapons completely, or give anyone who so desires it the permission to make these weapons by the million. Second, I'd like to comment on the strange way this repeal was written. I have to say, it does not look anything like a repeal, but more like some sort of elaboration as to why you dislike one of the previous resolutions, which, if I remember correctly, was actually written very well. If I am wrong, and this IS actually a discussion thread ABOUT the best way to repeal a previously brought enforcement, that I do apologize, but then, I have to say, I was deluded by the topic title: Repeal: Neclear(for gods sakes) Armaments.

In the interest of International National Security, for all U.N. Members, no nation should be allowed to build up an arsenal w/o some kind of Checks and Balances, service involved.

In the interest of... International NATIONAL security? Does something like that even exist? Sorry for this, but my nation’s NATIONAL security is my own care. If I want to nuke my nation, I'll do so.

Not only does this Resolution does NOT regulate Nations that wish to posses Nuclear Arms, it does NOT Encourage Diplomacy, as the first plan of action. As it mentions the fact of hostile non U.N. members, and the rights to defend against them, it does not encourage peaceful relations between all these nations. It encourages stock piling, and putting a nation under the gun, simply because they feel they are under the gun. The fact is, nations would not need to get into arms races, if they have peaceful and friendly relations with each other, and denounce hostility.

As much as a pacifist as I am, I have to make another note on this particular paragraph. I believe I have said something similar to this in a different thread, but I shall shamelessly repeat myself: if a non UN-member nation or even a member nation touches my country with any type of WMD, I will strike back with everything I've got in my arsenal.
Even if the development of nuclear weaponry was closely regulated, you cannot control the actions of non member nations. And, since most of the non member nations are highly anti-UN, what are we to do when they try and attack us? Send them a white dove and wait for possible annihilation? You cannot simply encourage diplomacy, for not all rulers are as peaceful as Gandhi. (Trigger happy ;) )

You mention arms racing. What makes you thing that the banning of nuclear weaponry will forfeit arms racing? Certainly, nuclear weapons wouldn't be an item any more, but nations would turn to other types of weaponry. Thermobarics, for instance.

Also, you should be careful; you are contradicting yourself. Some of your elaboration strongly supports the banning of nukes, while at the end you give it off as optional (which is, I repeat, not an OPTION ;) )


Either way, I will not support this repeal for all the reasons listed above and more...


Aryan Kingston,
Premier of the Federation of Endorian States

I was hoping that you would post this here.:D Time to shred your ideas DLE style.http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/Smilies/FIREdevil.gif~snip~
Well, that was mild by DLE standards, but we applaud your effort. Yelda will not be supporting any repeal of Nuclear Armaments (or Neclear Arments).