NationStates Jolt Archive

A resolution to limit the terms of use of nuclear warheads between nations.

The Indian Ocean recognizes that far too many civillians are killed in nuclear attacks.

Therefore, set regulations must be used in the use of nuclear arms.

1) No nation shall knowingly target a civillian population with a nuclear device. Nuclear arms shall be used only against military targets with a limited civillian population nearby (no more than 200 civillians).

2) Any nation that targets civillian populations will be subjected to a full scale invasion by UN forces.

3) To help combat the temptation to misuse nuclear warheads, all nuclear weapons will be registered with the United Nations as to which nation owns them and where they were acquired, as well as warhead yield.

4) All warheads will be equiped with a GPS tracking device to be constantly tracked at a UN facility. Warheads targeting civillian areas will be either remotely disarmed or destroyed in flight. This GPS module will incorporate vital elements of the detonation device of the warhead. Tampering with or the removal of the GPS will reduce the warhead to a dud.

5) Nuclear arms may be used as EM and ground irradiation devices. Ground irradiation devices, like the conventional use of warheads, are not to be used on a significant civillian population.

To help further the protection of civillians, nations may not use civillian populations as human shields for a nuclear attack, either by stationing a large military force inside a city or by placing a significant civillian population on a military encampment.

We also recognize that while UN resolutions only affect UN members, any step towards reducing deaths by nuclear war is a step in the right direction.

Please support this resolution. Everything we can do to save lives in war is something we need to do.

Please support this resolution. Everything we can do to save lives in war is something we need to do.

Oh god no

A resolution to limit the terms of use of nuclear warheads between nations.

The Indian Ocean recognizes that far too many civillians are killed in nuclear attacks.

I don't know whether this is branding, a RL reference, or what - but that line is illegal. Just start with "Recognizing" and go from there

Therefore, set regulations must be used in the use of nuclear arms.

1) No nation shall knowingly target a civillian population with a nuclear device. Nuclear arms shall be used only against military targets with a limited civillian population nearby (no more than 200 civillians).

Considering the blast radius of nukes, unless we're in siberia, Nukes can now never be used.

Define nearby?

Oh, I know. If 200 civilians aren't within the range of the gates of the base, it's ok! Perfect!

2) Any nation that targets civillian populations will be subjected to a full scale invasion by UN forces.

1) UN has no forces
2) UN forced coalitions are about equivelent to putting a gun to your temple and pulling the trigger.

3) To help combat the temptation to misuse nuclear warheads, all nuclear weapons will be registered with the United Nations as to which nation owns them and where they were acquired, as well as warhead yield.

That'll be popular, but that's not flawed

4) All warheads will be equiped with a GPS tracking device to be constantly tracked at a UN facility.

No. Severe security issues plus easy targets for anti-missile defenses - just lock onto this GPS signal and BOOM

Warheads targeting civillian areas will be either remotely disarmed or destroyed in flight.

You won't know until the warhead is too close for comfort. Again, security issue - it can be detonated in the launch bay by some hacker who's found the self-destruct sequence

This GPS module will incorporate vital elements of the detonation device of the warhead. Tampering with or the removal of the GPS will reduce the warhead to a dud.

You have no way of knowing that a nation didn't replace the detonation device when they removed the GPS.

5) Nuclear arms may be used as EM and ground irradiation devices. Ground irradiation devices, like the conventional use of warheads, are not to be used on a significant civillian population.

To help further the protection of civillians, nations may not use civillian populations as human shields for a nuclear attack, either by stationing a large military force inside a city or by placing a significant civillian population on a military encampment.

NO! Many military bases are near or inside cities already. My own home town had one that was quite literally sitting in the middle of the city.

We also recognize that while UN resolutions only affect UN members, any step towards reducing deaths by nuclear war is a step in the right direction.

True.

We feel that although the proposal has a good goal in mind, we feel that many points of the proposal cannot be implement, most of which Forgottenlands has already addressed.

For the 200 civillian figure, we would like to say that it's practically impossible for an enemy to identify the areas with less than 200 civillians. In the event that it is done, there is always a possibility that new people may come with the boundary or new babies may be born there two minutes before impact of the bomb.


We also feel that the proposal would be more worth looking into if the methods to deal with non UN member nations and the positive usage of neuclear energy is identified. However, this may have already been addressed by other UN Resolutions.


Finally, we would like to wish Green Wik all the best for their future endeavours.

How, prey tell, are we going to invade defiant nations? We kind of don't have an army, and we lack the ability to make one.

Not only that, I've been working on a nuclear terrorism proposal (that I can't submit yet because I haven't gotten a second endorsement), and my country does not believe that, in the modern world, ICBMs are still a threat to many nations as they are so easy to acquire in order to strike back.

Also we believe that nuclear weapons are not for military targets, they are for government targets, they are meant to destroy national capitals and cripple the chain of command.

Also we contend that, in accordance with Resolution 109, all nations have the right to nuclear armaments.

Also we contend that, in accordance with Resolution 109, all nations have the right to nuclear armaments.

Nothing in this resolution denies the right to nuclear armaments. It simply limits their use and adds a required UN registration.

How, prey tell, are we going to invade defiant nations? We kind of don't have an army, and we lack the ability to make one.

If you don't have an army, why are you invading defiant nations? Further, you're going to put a defiant nation back in line by nuking it?

Not only that, I've been working on a nuclear terrorism proposal (that I can't submit yet because I haven't gotten a second endorsement), and my country does not believe that, in the modern world, ICBMs are still a threat to many nations as they are so easy to acquire in order to strike back.

MAD is a dangerous philosophy - they are dangerous, and will remain dangerous

Also we believe that nuclear weapons are not for military targets, they are for government targets, they are meant to destroy national capitals and cripple the chain of command.

Actually, they're both - plus for Economic targets. It has been proven over and over that - especially for longer wars - he who has the better economy will fare better in war.

Also we contend that, in accordance with Resolution 109, all nations have the right to nuclear armaments.

You have the right to possess them - but it makes no qualifications beyond that right. The UN still maintains the power to force you to reduce your stockpile to one nuke, or to make it so your nukes are incapable of leaving their silos, or a heck of a lot of other ways to render your nuclear arsenal as useless - this one included.

Not only that, I've been working on a nuclear terrorism proposal
Its been done. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7161716&postcount=76)

The Free Land of CTerryland believes that nations should be allowed nuclear arnaments (albeit hesistantly) but also agree with the idea of limiting nuclear use to certain circumstances, but we agree with Forgottenlands. Also we feel one issue that should be included in any limiting resolution hasn't been. That is that Nuclear Arms should never be used on a 'First Strike' basis, only in defensive situations.

If you don't have an army, why are you invading defiant nations? Further, you're going to put a defiant nation back in line by nuking it?

By "we" I was refering to the United Nations, CENJ has an army, and we're not planing to invade anyone, regardless of whether they have nukes.



MAD is a dangerous philosophy - they are dangerous, and will remain dangerous

We agree that MAD is a dangerous philosophy, and it does lead to arms races, but that would indicate we need nuclear defences moreso than nuclear weapons control.



Actually, they're both - plus for Economic targets. It has been proven over and over that - especially for longer wars - he who has the better economy will fare better in war.

You know, you're right, nukes are pretty all purpose if you ask me, they just destroy anyhting, not only that, they're good if you don't wnat to buy a guidance system, the blast radius is so huge you can't possibly miss.



You have the right to possess them - but it makes no qualifications beyond that right. The UN still maintains the power to force you to reduce your stockpile to one nuke, or to make it so your nukes are incapable of leaving their silos, or a heck of a lot of other ways to render your nuclear arsenal as useless - this one included.

This is true, I moreover wanted to point out that right than argue the resolution is invalid because of it.

Anyhow, I think we can make this resolution work, let's focus on nuke registration, the GPS tracking, the invasions, and we are not convinced that vastly deminishing the uses for nukes (military, economic, civilian, government infrastructure, etc targets) will be good for the world.

Also I'd like more in the area of registraition, why don't we require they report the warehouses and silos they're stored in?

Also I'd like more in the area of registraition, why don't we require they report the warehouses and silos they're stored in?
Why don't we just let nations set their own defence policies.

Why don't we just let nations set their own defence policies.

Obviously because there are rogue nations that will sell these things to terrorists, at that point they can't be shot down or retaliated against by other nukes.

The ONLY thing I would consider is registration - and even then, it would be "what is the official count of your nuclear arsenal" - with perhaps consideration for possibly requesting the actual power of the warhead. I wouldn't permit the use of any other tracking features for a variety of reasons - the least of which is giving any opposition a considerable and concerning advantage against our nukes.

Regardless, the UN doesn't, as a general policy, invade nations as a general policy. Compliance is somehow enforced by the UN Gnomes - possibly with supernatural powers to make leaders have a change in heart or something should they fail to comply (godmodding non-compliance aside). Non-members.....we simply don't invade or enforce our policies on.

Why don't we just let nations set their own defence policies.

We're politicians. How would we ever manage to screw things up royally if we prevented ourselves from doing anything? Think about it for a moment.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

We're politicians. How would we ever manage to screw things up royally if we prevented ourselves from doing anything? Think about it for a moment.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

If we're prevented from doing anything.....what happens when someone actually does something....and screws it up for us?

If we're prevented from doing anything.....what happens when someone actually does something....and screws it up for us?

Then the bad news is that what they're doing is a minor screw-up in comparison to what the UN could do. ;)

The ONLY thing I would consider is registration - and even then, it would be "what is the official count of your nuclear arsenal" - with perhaps consideration for possibly requesting the actual power of the warhead.
We could support something like that. We would most certainly oppose any tracking devices.

Obviously because there are rogue nations that will sell these things to terrorists, at that point they can't be shot down or retaliated against by other nukes.
Ah! You mean like when the "Build Bigger Bombs, Advise Scientists" issue comes up and I choose option 2?

I would like to know where everyone keeps getting the idea that the proposal says "Give all your nukes to the UN who will promptly blow you all to heck and back". It does not even imply anything of the sort. All the UN would be involved with is monitoring nuclear warheads so that all are accounted for and to guarantee none are aimed at civillian centers.

Also, we must remember that while nuclear warheads to produce a very spectacular explosion, THIS IS NOT THEIR ONLY USE! A nuclear warhead detonated in the upper atmosphere will disrupt electrical equipment, and let's also not forget the ability to irradiate an area to render it impassable. Small-yield nuclear warheads to exist. Perhaps size limitations are also in order, then?

Obviously because there are rogue nations that will sell these things to terrorists, at that point they can't be shot down or retaliated against by other nukes.

I note that if non-UN nations ever got a copy of our codes to figure out where the heck these bombs are, they could do the same thing to us if we ever attack. It has happened before in RL - spies in Italy during WWII were able to get decryption codes to the Americans (before their entrance into the war) for Italian naval transmissions - which were then passed on to the British. The end result was pretty much the annihilation of the Italian fleet

I would also like to say that all of the debate and nay-saying is for the most part made up and untrue. There are no firing codes. Sold missiles can still be tracked, as the GPS has detonator components in it. No GPS, no working nuke. What's written in the proposal is exactly what's going to happen.

What's written in the proposal is technically unsound and security wise, just plain stupid. You put the self-destruct codes on a electronic transmission that is sitting *somewhere* in the biggest bureaucracy to have ever been fathomed, accessable by god knows how many people (because one person can't have the self-destruct codes for 36k nations worth of nukes and be the only one that can use them), trying to plot a missile's trajectory and figure out whether it's heading to a civilian center or the military base 5 miles behind it and think that this system will actually work - it is logistically impossible and security wise, unsound. All of a sudden, your codes are stolen by some non-UN nation who uses them to blow up our nukes in our own silo because the security system is such a complex monstrosity, we didn't even know he was in the base - though he had valid ID that said he was part of the delegation for some third world nation (was one of the chief security officers) but in reality, he was a spy who's agency paid someone to hack the computers of that nation to add him to the database so when they transmitted an update on who their delegation was, he all of a sudden appeared.

Basically, this is just a plain stupid idea.

What's written in the proposal is technically unsound and security wise, just plain stupid. You put the self-destruct codes on a electronic transmission that is sitting *somewhere* in the biggest bureaucracy to have ever been fathomed, accessable by god knows how many people (because one person can't have the self-destruct codes for 36k nations worth of nukes and be the only one that can use them), trying to plot a missile's trajectory and figure out whether it's heading to a civilian center or the military base 5 miles behind it and think that this system will actually work - it is logistically impossible and security wise, unsound. All of a sudden, your codes are stolen by some non-UN nation who uses them to blow up our nukes in our own silo because the security system is such a complex monstrosity, we didn't even know he was in the base - though he had valid ID that said he was part of the delegation for some third world nation (was one of the chief security officers) but in reality, he was a spy who's agency paid someone to hack the computers of that nation to add him to the database so when they transmitted an update on who their delegation was, he all of a sudden appeared.

Basically, this is just a plain stupid idea.

What's to keep this from happening anyways?

What's to keep this from happening anyways?

Angel Fire, my militaristic puppet nation, has only 10 people who have these codes. These people I know not only by name, but have developed a close bond with having worked with them for several years. I know that they will do their job and I know they won't betray me. Further, it would require all of them to simultaneously defect for me to not have a chance to change the codes before these weapons were blown to bits by an enemy nation. I have no GPS system on them, we have a different method of tracking them - the details of which I care not to go into here due to national security. Further, I KNOW where I'm targeting, and no one can get access to any of my facilities without going through my own security system - I am not reliant upon a weaker security system outside the one that is used by my miltary forces.

Pretty much, the weakest link in Angel Fire is my own nation. The weakest link in a UN choked mass of bureaucracy is the fact that you have 36000 people participating simultaneously. Security is weakest by the bottom 1000 nations who have weaker security, or are prone to desertion, or ......

This proposal fails to differentiate between strategic, and tactical nuclear weapons. We maintain the right to the deployment of tactical weapons in a defensive posture. As tactical weapons are designed to destroy troop and naval formations we recognise them as a viable military deterrent. Our Principality categorically condemns the production and implementation of strategic "city busting" weapons. We will support the regulation of all hydrogen strategic, plutonium strategic, and multiple warhead strategic nuclear weapons.

The Free Land of CTerryland continues to fail to see why this resolution does not do what is surely the most important limiting of Nuclear Strength- banning the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike capacity. Under this resolution nations can still, if they wish, launch nuclear weapons for no real justification whatsoever.

The Free Land of CTerryland continues to fail to see why this resolution does not do what is surely the most important limiting of Nuclear Strength- banning the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike capacity. Under this resolution nations can still, if they wish, launch nuclear weapons for no real justification whatsoever.

A proposal completely banning nuclear weapons has been passed before, and repealed, and would most likely have met with more hostility than this resolution. Perhaps we need to work our way to that point of complete disarmament.

A proposal completely banning nuclear weapons has been passed before, and repealed
To my knowledge, this is simply not true. There has never been a UN proposal banning nucelar weapons that has passed the UN floor.

There were two resolution to reach the floor (for a vote by the whole of the UN) but they were both defeated. I believe they were called "End Nuclear Proliferation" and "Ban nuclear Weapons". You can check the NSwiki Un timeline if you want more exactness of the situations.

First off, my apologies. The resolutions only talked about bio weapons, I guess I mistook them as nuclear weapons.

This proposal actually fits in well with point 4 in UN resolution No. 75, The Nuclear Terrorism Act. The proposal merely expands and regulates the security measures, especially for those nations who lack significant security on their own. Yes, there are many nations who have their own security forces, but I fail to see why they would have a problem with allowing smaller nations to secure their arms if not for the advancement of their own power.

A proposal completely banning nuclear weapons has been passed before, and repealed, and would most likely have met with more hostility than this resolution. Perhaps we need to work our way to that point of complete disarmament.
I don't want to ban nuclear weapons. I just want to ban nuclear weapons being used as a 'first strike'. IMO, nuclear weapons should only be retaliatory, preferably because the nation in question has used nukes itself.

I don't want to ban nuclear weapons. I just want to ban nuclear weapons being used as a 'first strike'. IMO, nuclear weapons should only be retaliatory, preferably because the nation in question has used nukes itself.

I think the entire solution will require several resolutions, as just one would be long and overly complicated.

I'm inclined to agree with Green Wik - nuclear weapons are such a touchy issue - and registration comes up against a much different group of opposers than banning first strike capacities (for example, I would be in support of a ban on first strike, I would not support anything more than a database of total number and power of nuclear arsenal).

Green Wik, I shall address your other comment in a bit.

First off, my apologies. The resolutions only talked about bio weapons, I guess I mistook them as nuclear weapons.

This proposal actually fits in well with point 4 in UN resolution No. 75, The Nuclear Terrorism Act. The proposal merely expands and regulates the security measures, especially for those nations who lack significant security on their own. Yes, there are many nations who have their own security forces, but I fail to see why they would have a problem with allowing smaller nations to secure their arms if not for the advancement of their own power.

Nonono - you see, you're putting MY Nukes which are under good quality protection in the hands of a security force who's biggest flaw is THEIR security system - meaning we have the worst security system in place, not the best (and no matter how hard you try, it will remain the worst security system). The only person who has any level of advantage is the guy at the very bottom of the list when it comes to quality of security.

I will support a proposal that allows the UN to help nations develope such a security system to guard their nukes - and I think one was suggested fairly recently of that manner.

I like this proposal. I don't like the inconsistencies it contains. It says that you cannot fire a nuclear warhead at a base that "nearby" a settlement of over 200 people. Nearby must be defined, and given the variable strength of nukes, that would be hard to pin a number to. Unless its a enormous number. But much of the resolution is good. Minor things like the use of the words "UN forces" are easily recognized as meaning UN member nation forces. I won't mention any more, because I'm sure anything I would have said has already been said, and probably in a snarky fashion(I didn't read anything after the proposal,keeps the opinion from being diluted and otherwise infleuenced). Keep at it!

Axis Nova, being a non-UN nation with extensive electronic breaking and entering resources, heartily supports this resolution and hopes it passes by a large margin. ;)

Axis Nova, being a non-UN nation with extensive electronic breaking and entering resources, heartily supports this resolution and hopes it passes by a large margin. ;)


*giggles*

If we were to pass it, how hard would it be for non-UN nations keen in destroying our nuclear arsenal to try and just transmit random strings of bits (they could even do it in some fashion of order so that all combinations are used) so that the nukes self destruct just because of pure chance? Is there a safeguard to prevent this? How? Would our own nations be able to take advantage of this safeguard?

*giggles*

If we were to pass it, how hard would it be for non-UN nations keen in destroying our nuclear arsenal to try and just transmit random strings of bits (they could even do it in some fashion of order so that all combinations are used) so that the nukes self destruct just because of pure chance? Is there a safeguard to prevent this? How? Would our own nations be able to take advantage of this safeguard?

Well, since the UN is a bureacracy, and on top of that one without the resources to develop extensive encryption schemes, you can be assured that the codes would likely be done by the lowest bidder...

Well, since the UN is a bureacracy, and on top of that one without the resources to develop extensive encryption schemes, you can be assured that the codes would likely be done by the lowest bidder...
In other words,the self destruct codes for all the nukes belonging to UN members would be 12345. :D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative