NationStates Jolt Archive

The Community of Espes believes that a UN proposal should be drafted on the banning of Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons, but not nuclear technology. We believe that through the progress of human technology, better weapons would only result in better defenses. A person making a better spear would only result in a person making a better shield. It serves and deters little, while placing the rest of humanity in ever more dangerous environments. Weapons of Mass Destruction has little value in the civil wars of humanity today, rather its existence does not deter, but rather encourages other nation states to develop better weapons or better defenses. Placing the nation states who developped the weapons in the first place in a more dangerous situation rather than more security as the defense departments of nation states around the globe promises. While the many well equipped defense departments of the world promising security are illogical, we are merely demanding a proposal to end the developpment, use, and possession of weapons of mass destruction. We believe that Weapons of Mass Destruction poses a great threat to the future survival of humanity, it poses the threat that in the near future; humanity will take these weapons of mass destruction into space; it being illogical because it does not place the nation with the WMDs in better security at the expense of other nations, but it rather encourages other nations, notably enemy nations to develop the same if not better WMDs, therefore placing all nations, and all humanity in ever greater dangers of loss and death.

Therefore, we propose that a UN proposal shall be drafted banning the developpment, use, and possession of weapons of mass destruction, to ensure the future survival of humanity, to ensure the peaceful use of space in the future, being the first step to an end of war.

We sincerely hope this proposal would come through and be passed. We would also like to hear your opinions, and thank you for your criticism and support.


-the Community of Espes-

Aside from the fact that it vioaltes not one, but two previous Resolutions...

REALIZING that UN members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGEING the fact that UN resolutions only affect UN members,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards UN members,

REALIZING that the UN members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

NOTICING that the UN has twice defeated resolutions attempting to ban UN members from possessing nuclear weapons,

1. DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

Chemical and biological weapons are already banned under passed resolutions...

Ban Chemical Weapons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384739&postcount=108)
UN Biological Weapons Ban (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385142&postcount=114)

The right of UN nations to possess and use nuclear weapons is covered in...
Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110).

To ban nukes, you'd have to repeal the Nuclear Armaments resolution first and also either repeal this one...
United Nations Security Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)
or find a way around it.

As nukes are the only remaining weapons of the "big three" that UN nations are allowed to use for defence, I personally feel you will have a long hard time trying to get them banned.

weapons of mass destruction

My only problem is how will this be defined and what constitutes MASS destruction...

1 person dead needlessly or 100 dead needlessly.

We live in a changing world once one could call a bow and arrow a WMD today it's Zapppers, Phazer, Lazers, Viruses, Poisons, and a host of other things. Even a common plane can be used as a WMD.. Some may even have a clean weapon that kills only selected lives, but still kills MASSes..

We look at Bio, Chem, and Nuke weapons as WMD but what is the kill effect that makes any weapon one of Mass Destruction. How much of our planet must they destroy before they are WMD...


Also on the venture into Space we need to clean up here before we move into space as UN may not have full legal power to go into space and impose it's resolution just as it don't have power over non UN members.. So any blanket Space proposal would have to only include those areas UN members may already claim... or gain in future...

Sorry I'm a newcomer so I don't know alot of the past resolutions, passed or failed. But I knew this would be very difficult to get passed. But if Biological and Chemical got passed, why not Nuclear? When I mention weapons of mass destruction, basically I meant these three, which has the potential not only to cause the loss of innocent lives but also to cause it on a grand scale. Let's say the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be banned if this was passed. When you kill someone with a sword, no one other than your enemy gets killed, when a whole city gets destroyed, and countless innocent lives are lost, it becomes less of a revenge on enemy and bring them to submission type weapon, but more of I plain hate XX people genocide type weapon.

Also I don't know if their are past resolutions on space, but in the real world there is the agreement on the peaceful use of space. Given human's past history of constantly having problems with each other, and the history of solving those problems with violence and wars, plus after seeing the many sci-fi movies, it is not very difficult to imagine us using nuclear weapons in space and ripping the "peaceful use of space" in pieces. I guess if NS UN haven't got a peaceful use of space down, we should make such a proposal as well.

Biological and Chemical weapons were banned, and the Security Act states that members could build weapons if not having been restricted by previous legislations. If nuclear weapons get banned, then that would only mean contructing any weapon except biological, chemical and nuclear. I 'm proposing an end to all weapons that could harm thousands, on the scale of a city like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. A giant space laser that could destroy an entire city would be banned also, even though it's not biological, chemical, nor nuclear.

Then I just realised that non member nations overpower member nations 3 to 1, so I guess I'll just drop this issue...

Although if UN member nations were in majority, I think it would be much more feasible.



-the Community of Espes-

Well, you have to repeal two resolutions to be able to ban nuclear weapons. You can't contradict passed resolutions unless they've been repealed.

Sorry I'm a newcomer so I don't know alot of the past resolutions, passed or failed. But I knew this would be very difficult to get passed. But if Biological and Chemical got passed, why not Nuclear? When I mention weapons of mass destruction, basically I meant these three, which has the potential not only to cause the loss of innocent lives but also to cause it on a grand scale. Let's say the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be banned if this was passed. When you kill someone with a sword, no one other than your enemy gets killed, when a whole city gets destroyed, and countless innocent lives are lost, it becomes less of a revenge on enemy and bring them to submission type weapon, but more of I plain hate XX people genocide type weapon.
Biological and Chemical weapons are opposed by the majority largely on the basis, I feel, that they (1) cruelly and uncontrollably hurt non-combatants. Also, (2) they are viewed as unnecessary to war. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are seen as necessary for modern war. If the UN banned nuclear weapons, it would be nigh unto impossible for a UN nation to ward off an impending nuclear threat from a non-UN nation.

Nuclear weapons are mostly agreed upon as (1), but they are not recognized universally to lack necessity (2) like the other two.

Although if UN member nations were in majority, I think it would be much more feasible.
I'm not certain about that. Having nuclear power is a sort of end-game. It doesn't matter if my army is 10 million and yours is 10,000, if you have nuclear weapons, you can use the threat of them (or the actual use of them) to stop me from doing quite a bit with my 10 million.

Sorry I'm a newcomer so I don't know alot of the past resolutions, passed or failed. -


Something said here needs to be noted.. Take it from one who learned the hard way... Go check the game rules before you make any proposals. Also do check to see that you don't duplicate any current proposals or try to Ammend before they are Repealed. Also use of real world names and such are covered in the game rules..

Also making proposal that could effect outside UN borders is covered in game rules... Space to some is both in and out of UN borders so any blankey space proposal means you step on non member nations who may be in that Space. If you say all of it..

Look for word STICKY before a tract.. Somebody give him the link to the rules.. I can't find it now.. Also if in dought about one drop it in here first let the folks debate it.. most will point out where it breaks game rules........

mmm ok, is there a way I could delete this thread? :rolleyes: