NationStates Jolt Archive

PREAMBLE

We believe war to be unnecessary. No nation need ever go to war. Wars can always be avoided through non-provocative, non-confrontational foreign policy, a willingness to resolve all disputes through negotiation and compromise, and a refusal to meet force or threats of force in kind.

We believe there to be no excuse for war. Because a nation never need go to war, any nation that does so for any reason is guilty of aggression. Aggression is unacceptable within this community of nations.

We believe that military forces, weapons, and spending are unnecessary, and should be eliminated worldwide as soon as possible.

DECLARATION

I. No United Nations member may ever go to war or undertake military action of any kind for any reason.

II. With war now forbidden, all weapons are unnecessary, all counterclaims by individual members notwithstanding.

III. With all weapons now unnecessary, no United Nations member may ever produce, acquire, possess, or use any weapon where no prior United Nation Resolution reserves for members such a right.

IV. Where a prior United Nations Resolution reserves for members a right to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon, whether necessary or not, that right shall be respected for as long as the Resolution in question remains in force; should the Resolution in question ever be repealed, however, such grandfathered rights shall be forever lost.

V. Where the right of members to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon has been reserved by a prior United Nations Resolution, such a right shall be read as narrowly as possible; thus, a right to produce or acquire a weapon shall confer a right to possess it, nor shall a right to possess a weapon confer a right to use it, and so forth.

VI. No United Nations member may ever organize, assemble, or maintain under arms a military, nor may it spend any money on defense, except as may be needed to exercise its right to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon as provided by a prior United Nations Resolution, and then only to the minimum extent required exercise the right; thus where a right to possess a weapon is specified, this right shall be held to allow exactly one (1) such weapon, unless stated in the plural, in which case it shall be held to allow no more two (2) of them.

VII. Where the right to acquire or possess a weapon has been reserved by a prior United Nations Resolution, that right shall not be read to embrace any unspecified "supporting" weapon systems, such as airplanes, missiles, artillery pieces, or other means with which to deliver the permitted weapon, and so on.

VIII. Upon passage of this Resolution, all military spending beyond what is needed to acquire and possess any weapons permitted under prior United Nations Resolutions shall be redirected to education and environmental protection, in equal amounts.

IX. As war is now unnecessary, no United Nations member may ever enter into any military alliance or relationship with any other nation.

CAVEATS

X. Where a weapon has been banned under a prior United Nations Resolution, this Resolution shall not be taken to duplicate that ban. Should the ban in question be lifted, however, then the immunity of the weapon in question from consideration herein shall also be considered lifted, and the weapon in question shall from that moment onward be governed under this Resolution.Hmmph!

And precisely what is "silly" about our proposal?

It's entirely within character. It's (IMHO) quite well written. And, I suspect, entirely legal. If you disagree on that last point, we can debate that, and I could even amend the proposal.

Radical? Yes.

"Silly"? Like some of these other proposals? I think not.

Again, I say hmmph, sir. Hmmph!

And, in fact, it's time for me to resubmit it to the queue. Take that!

You do realize that there would still be plenty of well armed non-UN nations even if this proposal, by some inconceivable nightmare, did manage to pass? Nations that would be willing, even anxious to destroy the silly lot of you?

You do realize that there would still be plenty of well armed non-UN nations even if this proposal, by some inconceivable nightmare, did manage to pass? Nations that would be willing, even anxious to destroy the silly lot of you?You do realize that there's no mechanism in this game by which they can do that, right? They could post all the silly "OMG I n00k j00!!!" threads they wanted and it would not result in the deletion of a single U.N. state - even the smallest ones, with $0 defense budgets.

Here's a challenge: can you name one nation that has ever actually been destroyed (as in "deleted by the mods") because it lost a war? I'd be stunned if you could.

Moreover, if I may quote Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States)...Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.It's right there in the legislative history of the U.N. - no nation may be forced to go to war. Ever.

Oh, and the Global Peace Initiative is entirely consistent with Article 4 of Resolution #49 as well: the act of ignoring an aggressor is how the Global Peace Initiative envisions nations exercising their rights to collective security and self-defence under the GPI.

Now, if you can tell me of a way that nations can destroy us even when we ignore them, then the Democratic People's Republic of Community Property will withdraw this Proposed Resolution. But - at least until NationStates 2 is out - I very much doubt you can think of one.

Again, I say hmmph!

Get telegramming then. It's about time we had something properly radical passed. There are quite a lot of people who like to roleplay things and have virtual weapons, but there are equally quite a lot of people who hold quite an idealistic and utopian view of the sort of legislation we should be passing. Personally, I'm one of the second, and would fully support this. It's only 'silly' from within the horizon of a hegemonic viewpoint.

Bear in mind that your telegramming job may be a bit harder because you won't get much support from centrists and conservatives, like some of the more recent broad-based proposals, although you'd get the support of people like me, as well as more traditional socialist and liberal positions.

Perhaps you could also start a new thread about this proposal. There are a few points I'd like to make about it but don't want to hijack this thread any more than it has been already :).

Thread split for discussion. If "Community Property" wants a different title for the thread (or a merge with something I missed), feel free to request it in the Moderation forum.

I don't do this splitting and commenting on proposals a lot but in this case decided it would be the least confusing way to put my points across.

PREAMBLE

We believe war to be unnecessary. No nation need ever go to war. Wars can always be avoided through non-provocative, non-confrontational foreign policy, a willingness to resolve all disputes through negotiation and compromise, and a refusal to meet force or threats of force in kind.

We believe there to be no excuse for war. Because a nation never need go to war, any nation that does so for any reason is guilty of aggression. Aggression is unacceptable within this community of nations.

We believe that military forces, weapons, and spending are unnecessary, and should be eliminated worldwide as soon as possible.

Those are very nobal sentiments and I wish they were true, but rogue nations exist and while war is evil, it is at times a necessary evil. Being guilty of agression won't stop any nation that wants its neighbours resources, wealth, land or anything else. Wars start for all sorts of reasons. Waterana is a peaceful socialist nation and our military (what we have of one) is used only for defence. That on its own would be enough to earn us distrust, distaste, and fear from the more warmongering rightist nations. If this proposal goes through, we would have no defence against them and our nation would be left a sitting duck.

DECLARATION

I. No United Nations member may ever go to war or undertake military action of any kind for any reason.

So sending soldiers into a disaster area (the tsunami aftermarth in RL for example) to ensure security, provide humanitarian assistance and assist rebuilding is forbidden?

II. With war now forbidden, all weapons are unnecessary, all counterclaims by individual members notwithstanding.

III. With all weapons now unnecessary, no United Nations member may ever produce, acquire, possess, or use any weapon where no prior United Nation Resolution reserves for members such a right.

You've just disarmed our police force and security services. I think you need to rethink this clause so it only affects the armed forces and not a nations internal secruity forces.

IV. Where a prior United Nations Resolution reserves for members a right to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon, whether necessary or not, that right shall be respected for as long as the Resolution in question remains in force; should the Resolution in question ever be repealed, however, such grandfathered rights shall be forever lost.

Not sure this clause is legal because I'm sure I read somewhere that a resolution isn't supposed to forbid further resolutions, which this would by banning weapons forever. Not too sure on that one though, maybe someone more experienced will know.

V. Where the right of members to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon has been reserved by a prior United Nations Resolution, such a right shall be read as narrowly as possible; thus, a right to produce or acquire a weapon shall confer a right to possess it, nor shall a right to possess a weapon confer a right to use it, and so forth.

Whats the use of having weapons and not being able to use them? If Waterana is attacked, we will defend ourselves and will use what weapons we have to do that. Prior resolutions ensure our right to have and use weapons. They override this one.

VI. No United Nations member may ever organize, assemble, or maintain under arms a military, nor may it spend any money on defense, except as may be needed to exercise its right to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon as provided by a prior United Nations Resolution, and then only to the minimum extent required exercise the right; thus where a right to possess a weapon is specified, this right shall be held to allow exactly one (1) such weapon, unless stated in the plural, in which case it shall be held to allow no more two (2) of them.

VII. Where the right to acquire or possess a weapon has been reserved by a prior United Nations Resolution, that right shall not be read to embrace any unspecified "supporting" weapon systems, such as airplanes, missiles, artillery pieces, or other means with which to deliver the permitted weapon, and so on.

I'm a leftist nation and these clauses makes me both angry and frightened. Not spend money on defence? All nations need an army, whether a small one like ours, or a larger one if they see fit. The rightist nations and national soverignists will have you for breakfast over just these clauses, if not the entire proposal :D.

VIII. Upon passage of this Resolution, all military spending beyond what is needed to acquire and possess any weapons permitted under prior United Nations Resolutions shall be redirected to education and environmental protection, in equal amounts.

IX. As war is now unnecessary, no United Nations member may ever enter into any military alliance or relationship with any other nation.

Please don't tell me how to allocate my nations budget. This is interfearing in a nations business way way too far, and this comment is coming from a non national soverignist. Another thing that group will prob have you for breakfast over.

CAVEATS

X. Where a weapon has been banned under a prior United Nations Resolution, this Resolution shall not be taken to duplicate that ban. Should the ban in question be lifted, however, then the immunity of the weapon in question from consideration herein shall also be considered lifted, and the weapon in question shall from that moment onward be governed under this Resolution.

Again, not sure its legal for you to do that.

I'm also disturbed by your comments that an army is "un-necessary because this is just a game an no nation is really affected by war". If thats the case then why bother with a proposal to prevent and ban wars that don't really happen, between militaries that don't exist, using weapons that are only words on a page?

This proposal is in game, its points are in game, the UN is in game, the other resolutions mentioned (or alluded to) are in game, so I don't think its fair for you to try to take the arguement out of the game.

So sending soldiers into a disaster area (the tsunami aftermarth in RL for example) to ensure security, provide humanitarian assistance and assist rebuilding is forbidden?Sending soldiers? No. But you could certainly send relief workers. In fact, you could RP maintaining a Relief Corps, complete with helicopters, field hospitals, transport aircraft, earthmovers, etc., and it could even have a chain of command. You could even use the old military ranking system if you wanted. But no, they couldn't be soldiers.

But then, why would they need to be?You've just disarmed our police force and security services. I think you need to rethink this clause so it only affects the armed forces and not a nations internal secruity forces.Agreed, and since we are unlikely to reach quorum on this pass, that will be done. I'm leaning towards requiring non-lethal weapons, though.IV. Where a prior United Nations Resolution reserves for members a right to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon, whether necessary or not, that right shall be respected for as long as the Resolution in question remains in force; should the Resolution in question ever be repealed, however, such grandfathered rights shall be forever lost.Originally posted by Waterana
Not sure this clause is legal because I'm sure I read somewhere that a resolution isn't supposed to forbid further resolutions, which this would by banning weapons forever. Not too sure on that one though, maybe someone more experienced will know.I'm willing to try it and see. I have to permit weapons that are expressly permitted as of today to still be acquired or maintained (the current exception being nukes). What I want to avoid is the possibility that the current "right" to maintain nukes will be repealed and extended to include other weapons. This is a side-effect of the whole UNSA logic, and I may need to rework the wording. Essentially, what I'm trying to do is grandfather in existing weapons while permitting the U.N. the option (which I would like them to exercise) to repeal those explicit permissions.Whats the use of having weapons and not being able to use them? If Waterana is attacked, we will defend ourselves and will use what weapons we have to do that. Prior resolutions ensure our right to have and use weapons. They override this one.The idea is to make it impossible to fight a war. If a previous resolution said you could have a weapon but reserved no right to use it, well, tough. If the right to use was reserved, but no right to have or acquire reserved, tough.

I'm a leftist nation and these clauses makes me both angry and frightened. Not spend money on defence? All nations need an army, whether a small one like ours, or a larger one if they see fit. The rightist nations and national soverignists will have you for breakfast over just these clauses, if not the entire proposal :D.I expect opposition from those who want armies. As for spending money on defense, I ask: why do you need to?VIII. Upon passage of this Resolution, all military spending beyond what is needed to acquire and possess any weapons permitted under prior United Nations Resolutions shall be redirected to education and environmental protection, in equal amounts.Originally posted by Waterana
Please don't tell me how to allocate my nations budget. This is interfearing in a nations business way way too far, and this comment is coming from a non national soverignist. Another thing that group will prob have you for breakfast over.I suppose that I could say that the amount will be evenly distributed among all remaining government departments, but why not do what's right? Nations that don't want to spend money on education or the environment can reduce funding later if they wish.X. Where a weapon has been banned under a prior United Nations Resolution, this Resolution shall not be taken to duplicate that ban. Should the ban in question be lifted, however, then the immunity of the weapon in question from consideration herein shall also be considered lifted, and the weapon in question shall from that moment onward be governed under this Resolution.Originally posted by Waterana
Again, not sure its legal for you to do that.Again, I'm willing to see. This is simply saying that existing rules that overlap, like exceptions, are grandfathered only for as long as the operative Resolution remains in force. I may need to work on the wording a bit to accomplish this.I'm also disturbed by your comments that an army is "un-necessary because this is just a game an no nation is really affected by war". If thats the case then why bother with a proposal to prevent and ban wars that don't really happen, between militaries that don't exist, using weapons that are only words on a page?Because I believe that a sizeable block of U.N. nations want us to "do what is right" with the U.N., and build an ideal world. Call it utopianism, but I'm willing to gamble that enough nations want a utopia to be willing to mandate it.

The nations that want war can leave the U.N. and go fight. The N.S.U.N., after all, is not a collective security organization. It's a world government. Let the rogue powers play their wargames somewhere else.

Believe me, I expect a battle on this. You have no idea how much hate mail is pouring into my TG bin, and I haven't even started campaigning for this yet.

But the hate mail tells me it's the right thing to do.

I'm wondering whether there is a clash with Humanitarian Intervention, which reserves the right for the Pretenama Panel to invade nations found guilty of genocide.

I'm wondering whether there is a clash with Humanitarian Intervention, which reserves the right for the Pretenama Panel to invade nations found guilty of genocide.Just dropped by and read this thread.

The answer is no.

Notice that the Pretemana Panel may recieve an "petition to intervene" from anyone. For example, Allemande and The Parthians (unlikely allies, to be sure) could call upon the panel to authorize joint action against the UNITED STONER PARTY. The Panel could agree, and we would then have U.N. approval to beat up on the STONERS.

In fact, I don't believe the Pretenama rules require Panel members to go to war either, so there's no conflict there.

Basically, the Pretenama process would be a way of garnering non-U.N. support to beat up on obnoxious nations. We'd be your hired guns...

Not that I support the idea of U.N. disarmament - I just wanted to point out that this doesn't (AFAICT) contradict the Eon Convention.

OOC: Just because nations aren't getting deleted, doesn't mean that we can just get rid of our military.
-

The Commonwealth of Kayros applauds the sentiment of this proposal, but in no way would it ever approve such a thing. Given that there are thousands of nations out there that are not a part of the United Nations, many of which possibly because they are far-right extremists hell-bent on our destruction, it would be unwise to mandate the dismantling of the militaries of the member states.

However, one could make the argument for something similar - the creation of a United Nations peacekeeping force. This force would be comprised of troops from all the member states, and the members would no longer need their own standing army. Just a thought, of course, but one that is far more palatable then the idea in its current form.

- K. Martin, Ambassador to the United Nations
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

However, one could make the argument for something similar - the creation of a United Nations peacekeeping force. This force would be comprised of troops from all the member states, and the members would no longer need their own standing army. Just a thought, of course, but one that is far more palatable then the idea in its current form.

It may be more palatable, but it is also illegal. The mods have repeatedly said, throughout every version of the proposal rules, that any proposal establishing a UN Army would be deleted upon sight.

Because I believe that a sizeable block of U.N. nations want us to "do what is right" with the U.N., and build an ideal world. Call it utopianism, but I'm willing to gamble that enough nations want a utopia to be willing to mandate it.

The nations that want war can leave the U.N. and go fight. The N.S.U.N., after all, is not a collective security organization. It's a world government. Let the rogue powers play their wargames somewhere else.

Believe me, I expect a battle on this. You have no idea how much hate mail is pouring into my TG bin, and I haven't even started campaigning for this yet.

But the hate mail tells me it's the right thing to do.

I really do admire your courage trying something like this but I just can't support it.

As I've said before, I'm not a national sovereigntist, but the UN disbanding our armies, banning all weapons (even for internal security), dictating how we will allocate our budgets etc is going way too far in interfering with a nations sovereignty, even for me. Protection of our nations and peoples is not only a right but a duty in my opinion and we can't do that without the personel and equipment required.

I do wish you the best of luck in gathering support for your proposal. I think your battle will be a long and hard one :).

It may be more palatable, but it is also illegal. The mods have repeatedly said, throughout every version of the proposal rules, that any proposal establishing a UN Army would be deleted upon sight.

Ahh well then.. thats unfortunate, but rules are rules. Thanks.

A scrap of paper flew into our delegate's embassy one day, and it said this:

"Here's what you can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defence each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, for ever, in peace."*

There's a considerable amount of inertia in the 'real' world that would prevent that happening in a hurry, but you could do this here, practically overnight, and not only would you have achieved something positive in the 'virtual' world, it just might be one small step closer to a much-improved 'real' world. Influence people's minds, in a small, positive way, and their actions will follow.

On a pragmatic level, I'd advise you to keep up to date with the nations that are supporting Mikivity's current proposal, and get a copy of them when they're at their highest point, which may well be more than 100, and use them as the start of a telegramming campaign. There should be a reasonable correlation between supporters of environmental and disarmament legislation.

Good luck.


*Bill Hicks - a fine, intelligent, true man. The world is poorer for his passing.

Moreover, if I may quote Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rights and Duties of UN States
Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

It's right there in the legislative history of the U.N. - no nation may be forced to go to war. Ever.

This is what makes your proposal silly! As silly as a resolution to make War compulsory for all UN Nations.

How do I go to war against another nation? Or trade?
In one sense, you can't. NationStates doesn't include these things -- because it's a simple game, and because they would bias things in favor of militaristic and capitalist nations. One of the nice things about NationStates is that you can craft a nation into your idea of Utopia without having to worry about such pragmatic concerns as national defence.

Into the breach, however, steps the NationStates community, which has independently devised an entire system covering war, trade, and just about anything else you can think of. This takes place entirely on the forums (mostly in International Incidents), and is role-played.

Many people have asked about the possibility of a more sophisticated version of NationStates, with trade, military conflicts, and more. This does sound cool, but I haven't decided yet if I want to do that. It would be a lot of work, and I'd have to charge people to play it. But it's possible.

Your Proposal only serves to ban role players who enjoy the go to war part of NS and who are members of the UN.
Yet another unnessessary, thus silly proposal!

I expect opposition from those who want armies. As for spending money on defense, I ask: why do you need to?
..............................................!

Wow....just..wow....... 0_0


We believe war to be unnecessary. No nation need ever go to war. Wars can always be avoided through non-provocative, non-confrontational foreign policy, a willingness to resolve all disputes through negotiation and compromise, and a refusal to meet force or threats of force in kind.

We believe there to be no excuse for war. Because a nation never need go to war, any nation that does so for any reason is guilty of aggression. Aggression is unacceptable within this community of nations.

We believe that military forces, weapons, and spending are unnecessary, and should be eliminated worldwide as soon as possible.

DECLARATION

I. No United Nations member may ever go to war or undertake military action of any kind for any reason.

II. With war now forbidden, all weapons are unnecessary, all counterclaims by individual members notwithstanding.

III. With all weapons now unnecessary, no United Nations member may ever produce, acquire, possess, or use any weapon where no prior United Nation Resolution reserves for members such a right.

IV. Where a prior United Nations Resolution reserves for members a right to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon, whether necessary or not, that right shall be respected for as long as the Resolution in question remains in force; should the Resolution in question ever be repealed, however, such grandfathered rights shall be forever lost.

V. Where the right of members to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon has been reserved by a prior United Nations Resolution, such a right shall be read as narrowly as possible; thus, a right to produce or acquire a weapon shall confer a right to possess it, nor shall a right to possess a weapon confer a right to use it, and so forth.

VI. No United Nations member may ever organize, assemble, or maintain under arms a military, nor may it spend any money on defense, except as may be needed to exercise its right to produce, acquire, possess, or use a particular weapon as provided by a prior United Nations Resolution, and then only to the minimum extent required exercise the right; thus where a right to possess a weapon is specified, this right shall be held to allow exactly one (1) such weapon, unless stated in the plural, in which case it shall be held to allow no more two (2) of them.

VII. Where the right to acquire or possess a weapon has been reserved by a prior United Nations Resolution, that right shall not be read to embrace any unspecified "supporting" weapon systems, such as airplanes, missiles, artillery pieces, or other means with which to deliver the permitted weapon, and so on.

VIII. Upon passage of this Resolution, all military spending beyond what is needed to acquire and possess any weapons permitted under prior United Nations Resolutions shall be redirected to education and environmental protection, in equal amounts.

IX. As war is now unnecessary, no United Nations member may ever enter into any military alliance or relationship with any other nation.

CAVEATS

X. Where a weapon has been banned under a prior United Nations Resolution, this Resolution shall not be taken to duplicate that ban. Should the ban in question be lifted, however, then the immunity of the weapon in question from consideration herein shall also be considered lifted, and the weapon in question shall from that moment onward be governed under this Resolution.
I..... I..I can’t fathom how, even in a fantasy world someone could think that this would ever work with out ending in the world being taken over/destroyed by some rogue dictatorship..

Let me be the first to say that if passed, I like many others would have no choice but to resign from the UN and then promptly start invading the now defenseless remaining UN nations. Even if for no other reason then to demonstrate our point. :sniper: ........ :p

Let me be the first to say that if passed, I like many others would have no choice but to resign from the UN and then promptly start invading the now defenseless remaining UN nations. Even if for no other reason then to demonstrate our point. :sniper: ........ :pWhy wait?

Why not get an early start on it now? Probably 20% of the nations in the world have no military and no defence spending. Have you actually tried invading one lately?

If not, why not do it right now? Just to "prove your point".Your Proposal only serves to ban role players who enjoy the go to war part of NS and who are members of the UN.
Yet another unnessessary, thus silly proposal!Unnecessary?

On the contrary, if those of us who believe wholeheartedly in peace want the U.N. to be a community of nations that have gotten over the "need" to go to war, then why shouldn't we pursue that goal?

How does the fact that peace-loving nations want this and you don't make it "silly" or "unnecessary"?

Moreover, if I may quote Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States)
<snip>
...It's right there in the legislative history of the U.N. - no nation may be forced to go to war. Ever.
If you're going to quote my proposal, get ALL the relevant bits. Your argument makes no more sense than the people who quote articles 1, 2 and 3 but conveniently leave off 10 and 11 when trying to prove that National Sovereignty overrules the UN. It doesn't. It's ONE proposal, with ELEVEN articles. It's all one happy system, and you have to consider ALL of it when you consider ANY of it.

Article Five was an oblique reference to the fact that this is in fact a game, and no national action on your part actually has any effect at all on my nation, unless I agree to play it that way. In one sense, it's game mechanics. In another, more realistic sense, it's a simple acknowledgement that such a game mechanic exists and can't be gotten around.

To quote the ENTIRE relevant portion:Section II: The Art of War:

Article 4
§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

Article 6
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Article 8
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5.
Article 4 grants the right to go to war in self-defense. As long as there is a single nation anywhere in NationStates capable of going to war against your nation, you have the legislated right to respond. Since UN membership isn't mandatory, there will always be at least one (Mine, even if everyone else joined, I'd keep one outside.) You can't propose your resolution without repealing mine first.

You'll also note that Articles 7 and 8 explicitly state that it IS possible to violate your vaunted Article 5, and they go on to provide specific penalties. That pretty much washes out your argument based on "Rights and Duties".

As for your overall concept ... well, it's purty. Legislating away War has all the wish-fullfillment possibilities of legislating "a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage, and a Tiger in your tank." It's lovely rhetoric, but writing it down isn't going to remove violence from the world. It's just going to make it easier for the lawbreakers.
If not, why not do it right now? Just to "prove your point".This part of your argument breaks the 'fourth wall' of the game, and effectively constitutes a metagaming violation. Sorry, but with the internal logic of NationStates, that argument is effectively illegal.

Your turn.

I don't think the new proposal explicitly demands the repeal of Frisbee's, should it get that far.

It might be an idea to meet halfway and propose a non-aggression pact, in which no UN nation can attack another. That way, we have the kind of peaceful UN that you desire but which can still be seen to offer a defence against external forces that, while only simulacra, are real enough in the minds of many UN members to constitute a reason to keep some weaponry.

The few posts I've made here have been in-character, but this needs to be addressed out-of-character.

I tend to agree with the original poster. This is not a silly proposal. I reserve that judgement for the ones that make no sense, are so badly written that they are practically unintelligible, or are based upon the most flimsy and laughable rationalization that no serious person can read it without chuckling. By these criteria, the proposal is not silly. It is, however, an appallingly stupid proposal.

Let's face it: sincere participation in the United Nations is an implicitly in-character process. The entire point is, seemingly, to improve the lives of NationStates' billions of imaginary inhabitants. It's just another part of the game. And yet, Community Property, you cannot manage an in-character defense of this proposal in the face of contention. "You do realize that there's no mechanism in this game by which they can do that [destroy a country], right?" There's also no mechanism in this game that causes a nation's population to drop because its citizens don't have access to clean water. Likewise, population expansion is not at all hampered by slavery, plague, oil spills, sweat-shops, AIDS, religious strife, lack of basic healthcare, or government death squads. And yet the NS United Nations has felt the need to address all of these points in past resolutions. In other words, by playing in-character you are supposed to be looking beyond the mechanism of the game and addressing these issues as if they were real.

So why are you unable to put forth any serious, realistic in-character defense of your proposal?

Your preamble begins with an unsupported assertion based entirely on your "belief". Well that's super, but it certainly doesn't address the IC reality of the political landscape. With less than one third of all NS countries in the UN, even if all the members agreed to this ridiculous proposal, that would leave them defenseless to the weakest of aggressive non-member nations. And while it's true that no player is forced to consent to invasion, that's not in-character justification. It's metagaming and it's simply not a valid defense to a UN proposal.

If passed, this proposal mandates that the only response to an attack, no matter how brutal or comprehensive, is "through negotiation and compromise". Yet any country that proceeds to invasion is clearly beyond any interest in negotiation or compromise. In fact, what could you possibly offer that the aggressor could not simply take by force? Your country has no defense! It's not like you have any way of preventing the attacker from taking anything and everything you own. Likewise, member nations cannot help (nor would you want them to, I imagine) because they have also disarmed. Outside assistance will not come, because the proposal bans military alliances completely.

How exactly do you intend the UN to enforce this proposal?

Because I believe that a sizeable block of U.N. nations want us to "do what is right" with the U.N., and build an ideal world. Call it utopianism, but I'm willing to gamble that enough nations want a utopia to be willing to mandate it.

The nations that want war can leave the U.N. and go fight. The N.S.U.N., after all, is not a collective security organization. It's a world government. Let the rogue powers play their wargames somewhere else.
More death and destruction has been caused by the pursuit of an "ideal world" than any other cause in the history of mankind. The problem, of course, is that everyone has their own opinion of what "ideal" and "utopia" actually are.

What's the point of a "world government" if it doesn't, in fact, involve more than just a fraction of the world? Any realistic player that takes the game seriously and tries to play in-character would be forced to withdraw from the United Nations should this become a resolution, leaving you with a United Nations even more ridiculously irrelevant than it already is.

But the hate mail tells me it's the right thing to do.
You're getting hate mail because it's a horrible proposal not made in the spirit of the game. It's not realistic, it's not in-character, and it seems like little more than an attempt at poisoning the well. If you're a troll, then well done. If not... I worry.

I'd like to leave alone the operational matters regarding this proposal for a while and say that I think it's a very good thing that it has been proposed and debated, and hope that, whatever your position on it, you agree with this. It's healthy for democratic debate that people can think the 'unthinkable' and propose the 'unproposable', and that this can be debated (mostly) rationally and constructively.

We haven't got an army or navy or airforce, but we still recognise the need for many countries to have them for national defence purposes. For this reason, it's hard to see whether this proposal is rational or even practical. Glib peace initiatives such as this won't decrease the risk of future militarism, merely drive it underground.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live military-free Compadria!

IX. As war is now unnecessary, no United Nations member may ever enter into any military alliance or relationship with any other nation.


This portion of this one is what troubles me and not sure if it has been addressed here or not yet... As is this not the very structure of the UN; a relationship of nations with each other... to promote peace. Thus this would desolve the UN as such a relationship.. by it's own ruling.