NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm drafting a Proposition that I will submit as soon as I have two endorsements, it's an amendment to the Nuclear Terrorism act that I hope will more strictly control nuclear weapons and make our countries safer from nuclear terrorism.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act II

United Nations General Assembly
Sponsor: Central Eastern NJ


RECALLING UN Resolution 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act)

BELIEVING that The Nuclear Terrorism Act made good steps towards controlling nuclear weapons but ultimately is too weak to protect the international community from nuclear terrorism

NOTING the growing number of nuclear weapons that have not been declared and/or are poorly guarded

ALSO NOTING the growing number of nuclear weapons on the black market

UNDERSTANDING that a nuclear terrorist attack would kill far more people and cause far more economic destruction than a conventional terrorist attack, and that the economic affects of nuclear terrorism are felt by all nations


1.Creates the UNCNTOP (United Nations Commission on Nuclear Terrorism Obstruction/Prevention) to assess nuclear terrorist threats, report to the General Assembly on said threats, take actions to control “loose nukes”, and take actions to protect nuclear weapons that are currently poorly guarded from theft

2. Urges all UN Member States to properly guard their nuclear weapons stockpiles and facilities

3. Compels the Secretariat to determine reasonable portion of each country's UN dues to be put towards UNCNTOP

4. Prohibits the sale of nuclear arms and paraphernalia to any NGO (Non-Governmental Organization)

5. Reaffirms the active clauses of The Nuclear Terrorism Act

6. Acknowledges the active clauses of Resolution #109 (Nuclear Armaments) and makes no effort to nullify them

The problems regarding this proposal is simple. It is based on resolution 109.
If 109 is repealed your Resolution has no longer any base and is therefore made redundant. Also it seems to me the resolution is an attempt to further resolution 109. If that is the case that would make your proposal an amendment to resolution 109 and therefore Illegal.
The only way you can amend a Resolution is to repeal it first and then try to get your new and improved resolution approved by the delegates and then passed into the UN resolutions by the members of the General assembly.

How, pray tell, does the UN plan to 'take action' to secure loose nukes?

How, pray tell, does the UN plan to 'take action' to secure loose nukes?

I was thinking we may buy them, or pressure local governments to secure them.

The problems regarding this proposal is simple. It is based on resolution 109.
If 109 is repealed your Resolution has no longer any base and is therefore made redundant. Also it seems to me the resolution is an attempt to further resolution 109. If that is the case that would make your proposal an amendment to resolution 109 and therefore Illegal.
The only way you can amend a Resolution is to repeal it first and then try to get your new and improved resolution approved by the delegates and then passed into the UN resolutions by the members of the General assembly.

Ah, I misread the rules, good thing I put this up here before actually proposing it. And by the way it was Resolution 75, I merely cite Resolution 109 because it garuntees the right to have nuclear weapons and I wanted to clarify taht this would not infringe on that right.

I'll see what I can do to fix that

No worries! Happy to help :)

I'm drafting a Proposition that I will submit as soon as I have two endorsements, it's an amendment to the Nuclear Terrorism act that I hope will more strictly control nuclear weapons and make our countries safer from nuclear terrorism.

Amendments are illegal. You either have to have it so that no part does the same think as the original, or repeal the original and replace it.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act II

United Nations General Assembly
Sponsor: Central Eastern NJ

Woo hoo - a multi-line title :p

RECALLING UN Resolution 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act)

Again I note the need to repeal

BELIEVING that The Nuclear Terrorism Act made good steps towards controlling nuclear weapons but ultimately is too weak to protect the international community from nuclear terrorism

Yeah....waaaaay too well aware of that

NOTING the growing number of nuclear weapons that have not been declared and/or are poorly guarded

Those are hardly as dangerous as those given to these terrorists by non-member nations. The poorly guarded and undeclared are only at risk of falling into Terrorist hands...

ALSO NOTING the growing number of nuclear weapons on the black market

Hmm....I missed that memo.

UNDERSTANDING that a nuclear terrorist attack would kill far more people and cause far more economic destruction than a conventional terrorist attack, and that the economic affects of nuclear terrorism are felt by all nations

All economic effects (note the e) of any form of terrorism are felt by all nations - and I think everyone is pretty certain that had a nuke gone off at Ground Zero instead of two plain crashes, we'd all be trying to figure out how to replace the gap of water where Manhattan used to be

1.Creates the UNCNTOP (United Nations Commission on Nuclear Terrorism Obstruction/Prevention) to assess nuclear terrorist threats, report to the General Assembly on said threats,

Um.....ok. Possible but difficult

take actions to control “loose nukes”,

The UN has no army or police for so, pray tell thee how the heck they pull this miracle off.

and take actions to protect nuclear weapons that are currently poorly guarded from theft

I suggest this get changed to "and advise nations on how to bolster protection from theft for nuclear weapons that are currently poorly guarded" - 'cause again, they can't do crap except advise

2. Urges all UN Member States to properly guard their nuclear weapons stockpiles and facilities

Fine

3. Compels the Secretariat to determine reasonable portion of each country's UN dues to be put towards UNCNTOP

Unnecessary - the Gnomes that control the UN budget will set aside that money automatically

4. Prohibits the sale of nuclear arms and paraphernalia to any NGO (Non-Governmental Organization)

THANK YOU!!!! That is how Resolution 75 should've been written!

5. Reaffirms the active clauses of The Nuclear Terrorism Act

You've gotta repeal it first....and then this line becomes useless.

6. Acknowledges the active clauses of Resolution #109 (Nuclear Armaments) and makes no effort to nullify them

Unnecessary

I willl make changes based on feedback, anyhow the part about NGOs is largely the reason why I wrote this, imagine if some organisation bought nuclear weapons and then became a terrorist organisation

I willl make changes based on feedback, anyhow the part about NGOs is largely the reason why I wrote this, imagine if some organisation bought nuclear weapons and then became a terrorist organisation

Actually - the better one is the discrepency between freedom fighters and terrorists. I note Osama Bin Laden was a Freedom Fighter when he was fighting the Soviets. I need not say what has happened since.

Actually - the better one is the discrepency between freedom fighters and terrorists. I note Osama Bin Laden was a Freedom Fighter when he was fighting the Soviets. I need not say what has happened since.
I personally think he's still a freedom fighter. And still a terrorist. I mean, according to my understanding the difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" is who's describing the situation. If you disagree with their political aims, then they're a "terrorist". If you agree with their ideologies, they're more a "freedom fighter".

Er, to re-phrase all that: I agree. From my point of view, he was a "freedom fighter" when fighting the Soviets, and has been a "terrorist" since the early 90s. But, I think the change in nomenclature comes from the change in relationship between him and my country, rather than a change in his tactics, rhetoric, or actions.

That's why I like Hirota's approach: condemn terrorism, not terrorists.

Okay, here is my revised resolution, I added a new active clause that I think will really give it strength:

Creation of UNCNTOP

United Nations General Assembly
Sponsor: Central Eastern NJ


RECALLING UN Resolution 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act)

BELIEVING that The Nuclear Terrorism Act made good steps towards controlling nuclear weapons but ultimately is too weak to protect the international community from nuclear terrorism

DEEPLY CONCERNED about the growing number of nuclear weapons that have not been declared and/or are poorly guarded

FULLY ALARMED at the growing number of nuclear weapons on the black market

UNDERSTANDING that a nuclear terrorist attack would kill far more people and cause far more economic destruction than a conventional terrorist attack

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that the economic affects of terrorism are felt by all nations, and therefore all nations, including those with poorly guarded nuclear weapons, are more severely affected by nuclear terrorism than conventional terrorism.




1. Creates the UNCNTOP (United Nations Commission on Nuclear Terrorism Obstruction/Prevention) to assess nuclear terrorist threats, report to the General Assembly on said threats, and advise nations on the guarding of their nuclear weapons.

2. Urges all UN Member States to properly guard their nuclear weapons stockpiles and facilities

3.Prohibits the sale of nuclear arms and paraphernalia to any NGO (Non-Governmental Organization)

4. Allows for the UN to fund the guarding of nuclear weapons stockpiles and facilities that cannot afford it on their own
***

In regards to the "freedom fighter" vs. "terrorist" argument, largely in the real world it is based upon who is talking about it, however the US gov't believes that in order to be a freedom fighter you need to only attack military targets, so in their eyes nuclear attacks are not things freedom fighters do, however that is only one real world interpretation

Okay, here is my revised resolution, I added a new active clause that I think will really give it strength:

At first glance, if it is what I think it is, I'd use the term "resolution killer"

Creation of UNCNTOP

United Nations General Assembly
Sponsor: Central Eastern NJ


RECALLING UN Resolution 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act)

Again, might need to modify if this ends up requiring #75 to be repealed

BELIEVING that The Nuclear Terrorism Act made good steps towards controlling nuclear weapons but ultimately is too weak to protect the international community from nuclear terrorism

Or incapable - but either works

DEEPLY CONCERNED about the growing number of nuclear weapons that have not been declared and/or are poorly guarded[QUOTE]

Still unsure of whether or not a mention should be made of the non-UN nations that also hand nukes to terrorists

[QUOTE]FULLY ALARMED at the growing number of nuclear weapons on the black market

Fine

UNDERSTANDING that a nuclear terrorist attack would kill far more people and cause far more economic destruction than a conventional terrorist attack

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that the economic affects of terrorism are felt by all nations, and therefore all nations, including those with poorly guarded nuclear weapons, are more severely affected by nuclear terrorism than conventional terrorism.

Effects - not affects, effects

1. Creates the UNCNTOP (United Nations Commission on Nuclear Terrorism Obstruction/Prevention) to assess nuclear terrorist threats, report to the General Assembly on said threats, and advise nations on the guarding of their nuclear weapons.

2. Urges all UN Member States to properly guard their nuclear weapons stockpiles and facilities

3.Prohibits the sale of nuclear arms and paraphernalia to any NGO (Non-Governmental Organization)

This is good - and 3 is the active clause of importance

4. Allows for the UN to fund the guarding of nuclear weapons stockpiles and facilities that cannot afford it on their own

Considering the target audience, this is probably a resolution killer. You're asking for tighter restrictions on nukes while at the same time trying to help smaller or poorer nations get nukes - not a good combo from a political standpoint.

***

In regards to the "freedom fighter" vs. "terrorist" argument, largely in the real world it is based upon who is talking about it, however the US gov't believes that in order to be a freedom fighter you need to only attack military targets, so in their eyes nuclear attacks are not things freedom fighters do, however that is only one real world interpretation

:rolleyes: Chechnya alone proves otherwise. Don't give me that crap, and be ready for one hell of a slugfest if you want to continue (believe me, this has been argued many times and with a rather rude awakening to many who argue the same line you do). Considering your resolution doesn't differentiate between the two, I'm not interested in arguing that point this week (I've got enough hell trying to beat back the flames of the religious community right now).

The point here is to prevent terrorists from stealing nuclear weapons, it's tightening restrictions on nuclear weapons' availibility to terrorists, I'd much rather poor countries have the nuclear weapons they build than those nuclear weapons get stolen.

Furthermore under Resolution 109 poor countries, along with all others, have the right to nuclear weapons, and I do not view their nukes as a threat

sorry - misread. It's good

How, pray tell, does the UN plan to 'take action' to secure loose nukes?


I would write something regarding the Nuclear Black Market.

1.Creates the UNCNTOP (United Nations Commission on Nuclear Terrorism Obstruction/Prevention) to assess nuclear terrorist threats, report to the General Assembly on said threats, take actions to control “loose nukes”, and take actions to protect nuclear weapons that are currently poorly guarded from theft
------------This may not be possible since many lost/wild nukes show up in nations not UN members thus a problem.. Do like the idea of UNCNTOP looking into a NTT.. Not sure what action you have in mind for 'loose nukes' as not sure the UN has the stuff to play with these things...

2. Urges all UN Member States to properly guard their nuclear weapons stockpiles and facilities
-------------Like to see something hinting at getting rid of some of these.... rather than keep them around until somebody gets smart enough to steal them or can black market them for right price....

3. Compels the Secretariat to determine reasonable portion of each country's UN dues to be put towards UNCNTOP
-------------Why do they need more money for this isn't there some provisions under current resolutions that we can move funds from rather than pick our pockets for more... Also just how much is 'reasonalbe', because if you give me what I consider 'reasonable' simply because I want it, you will end up with zero... left in your pocket.. to go back and secure them with as Urged in #2 above..

4. Prohibits the sale of nuclear arms and paraphernalia to any NGO (Non-Governmental Organization)
---------------Today anyone two people can get a piece of land and build a structure on it or put up a tent hang a flag on a pole outside that and say they are a Government, then consider the very people you fear might get these are already governments.. What about including them being prohibited.

5. Reaffirms the active clauses of The Nuclear Terrorism Act ------- I will have to read this one before comment.. but we have to follow it and it may already be doing some of the things you want to do here.. Also can funds from this one be applied in part to cover duplicated efforts of any Committees from this and your proposal..

6. Acknowledges the active clauses of Resolution #109 (Nuclear Armaments) and makes no effort to nullify them
----------------Again what efforts here are duplicated that we may not need funds to do in a new one because we already do them under this one.. Trying to narrow what a reasonable cost of your proposal might be... Also will need to read this one as only scanned it.. so far... to get the basics of it..