NationStates Jolt Archive

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 deterrence 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 deterrence strategy.

NOTING ALSO that many small nations do not have the money to maintain a nuclear stockpile in order to deter attack in that way.

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.

This is my arguement on why to repeal Resolution 107. If you support this, please vote for it Here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/38446/page=UN_proposal/start=45)

Our office is fully in favor of a repeal of the resolution in question.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

My coutry would like to note that while 2/3 of the countries in our world are not UN members, the vast majorty do not pose any threat to a UN nation.

My coutry also holds the opion that chemical weapons are inhummane.

As such we will be acctivly opposing this repeal

Sincerly,

Allan Smith
UN Representive of BlueTiger.

Which is more inhumane: Letting your people be brutally massicured in the streets because of some idiot polititions unfounded fears screw up your nation's defense, or wiping out an attacking army in a cloud of leathal but non-painful gas???

The proposal is right HERE (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/48445/page=UN_proposal/start=35) . Anyone with any logic should know what to do.

Blue Tiger you suck so much you blow. Chemical weapons are needed, the can kill more than a dozen miniguns at half the cost and twice the fun!


Harry The Bastard
ReichsFurher
BastardosLand

The repeal is now right HERE (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/35574/page=UN_proposal/start=23)

Please support this. The resolution is perfectly self-explanatory

***bump

I do not believe in the argument that Chemical weapons work as a true deterrent against nations. They have little of the effect held by nuclear weapons - a true deterrent weapon. As such, I do not believe in the foundation of this proposal and feel no true reason to possess any chemical weapons

Further, since I, Forgottenlord, command three nations (Forgottenlands, Forgottenlands UN, and Angelfire) none of which possess any WMDs, none of which are hostile to the UN nor would create war against any UN or non-UN nation, knowing several non-UN nations of my friends and loved ones who are in a similar situation of having at least one non-UN nation with no intentions of hostility, and noting that it is actually a factor of 2:1 that the UN is outnumbered, I feel that your openning statement is, at best, fearmongering and at worst, warmongering. I staunchley refuse to support or endorse this proposal on my own beliefs - let alone the beliefs held by the region I represent (which has outlawed all WMDs anyways).