NationStates Jolt Archive

I have edited this proposal in respone to other nations' suggestions. It has already been submitted.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that many weapons can kill many innocent bystanders, such as nuclear weapons, and can also spread beyond their intended target and cause unintended effects, such as but not limited to, radiation sickness, nuclear winter and epidemics caused by the use of biologial weapons,

FURTHER NOTING that the stockpiling of weapons by one nation will encouage other nations to build more weapons, therefore creating an expensive arms race that no nation or group of nations can hope to win,

FURTHER NOTING that the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all leaders of all nations are rational, and that over the course of history the world has seen many illrational leaders,

DECLARES resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act" null and void.

I have edited this proposal in respone to other nations' suggestions. It has already been submitted.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that many weapons can kill many innocent bystanders, such as nuclear weapons, and can also spread beyond their intended target and cause unintended effects, such as but not limited to, radiation sickness, nuclear winter and epidemics caused by the use of biologial weapons,

FURTHER NOTING that the stockpiling of weapons by one nation will encouage other nations to build more weapons, therefore creating an expensive arms race that no nation or group of nations can hope to win,

FURTHER NOTING that the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all leaders of all nations are rational, and that over the course of history the world has seen many illrational leaders,

DECLARES resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act" null and void.

I like your wording but that's all I like about this resolution. You are taking away the member's of the U.N.'s right to defend themselves in case of war with Non U.N. nations which do not need to follow U.N. Law. I can not support this no matter how much good you hope to do. I am sorry.

- Pres. Aeiis Chindalia of The People's Republic of Queso Pinguino

I like your wording but that's all I like about this resolution. You are taking away the member's of the U.N.'s right to defend themselves in case of war with Non U.N. nations which do not need to follow U.N. Law. I can not support this no matter how much good you hope to do. I am sorry.

- Pres. Aeiis Chindalia of The People's Republic of Queso Pinguino

Where is he taking away a nation's right to defend themself (or, perhaps, how)? All he's doing is saying that nations shouldn't have the unlimited right to continually stockpile weapons no matter how dangerous - but that's not what he's passing as the resolution. He's repealing a resolution that was poorly worded, poorly designed and inherently flawed that has had no less than 3 official repeals to the current mod ruling (the latter currently unresolved) and could quite frankly have never had an effect to begin with.

He's repealing a resolution that was poorly worded, poorly designed and inherently flawed that has had no less than 3 official repeals to the current mod ruling (the latter currently unresolved) and could quite frankly have never had an effect to begin with.
Precedent seems to favor those who believe this resolution does have an effect (multiple mod rulings and actions in accordance with those rulings), and, for anyone who's wondering, the UNSA as "poorly worded, poorly designed and inherently flawed" is not an opinion shared by all. I'm under the impression, actually, that only a few find it so: I, not one of them.

Actually, if you recall, Fris's last mod ruling was "I don't have time for this so I'm not going to rule. Resolve your differences, post your positions and then I will consider it."

The other mod ruling, by Hack, was "I'm not changing it just because you're trying to get a last minute plea for me to not delete your proposal"

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.

The above is from Resolution #110 United Nations Security Act. Just thought that it was worth having inside this thread so I did not have to move back and forth between pages.

Ok so this is basically saying that we have the right to build whatever weapons we want as long as the UN has not restricted them yet, and as I have read somewhere else (I think it was another thread about the same thing here, probably the same person also) that what has been banned is all Chemical and Biological Weapons, correct? That leaves us with Nukes.

So what is his plan by repealing this? Are you rewording it in another proposal? My only problem with that is that you have to manage to pass two things, A repeal to a resolution and an updated resolution. I'm not sure if I like that idea. That's what I was saying.

Please explaing your intentions so that I may understand them more clearly.

I have edited this proposal in respone to other nations' suggestions. It has already been submitted.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that many weapons can kill many innocent bystanders, such as nuclear weapons, and can also spread beyond their intended target and cause unintended effects, such as but not limited to, radiation sickness, nuclear winter and epidemics caused by the use of biologial weapons,

FURTHER NOTING that the stockpiling of weapons by one nation will encouage other nations to build more weapons, therefore creating an expensive arms race that no nation or group of nations can hope to win,

FURTHER NOTING that the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all leaders of all nations are rational, and that over the course of history the world has seen many illrational leaders,

DECLARES resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act" null and void.

You've made it legal. Good job. I won't support it, of course, but that's to be expected. If it does make it to quorum, I will enjoy writing a stronger one to replace it with and I will also enjoy wading into the MAD debate this time.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

You've made it legal. Good job. I won't support it, of course, but that's to be expected. If it does make it to quorum, I will enjoy writing a stronger one to replace it with and I will also enjoy wading into the MAD debate this time.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Spiteful much?

Spiteful much?

Not really. I expected that there would be plenty of repeal attempts, and I'm pleased that this one's at least fairly well-done. I wouldn't have offered him tips on making it legal the last time he brought it up if it was just sour grapes on my part. And believe it or not, I am truly looking forward to both the drafting and debates that will result from this reaching quorum. I realize that this may sound strange, but I enjoy a good debate and a good proposal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Not really. I expected that there would be plenty of repeal attempts, and I'm pleased that this one's at least fairly well-done. I wouldn't have offered him tips on making it legal the last time he brought it up if it was just sour grapes on my part. And believe it or not, I am truly looking forward to both the drafting and debates that will result from this reaching quorum. I realize that this may sound strange, but I enjoy a good debate and a good proposal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Not strange at all, Minister, I know exactly what you mean. I too enjoy a good debate.

- Pres. Aeiis Chindalia of the People's Repulic of Queso Pinguino

I have resubmitted the resolution. If you are a UN delegate, please support it!

Opposed!

Opposed!
As am I.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Why would you? Nuclear fallout can spread very far, biological weapons can cause epidermics, and chemical weapons are unhumane. Even if the weapons are only for "defensive purposes", what happens if a madman who has no logic launches an attack? This resolution must be repealed. Does anyone have any other comments?

no less than 3 official repeals to the current mod ruling (the latter currently unresolved)
There are no currently unresolved 'repeals' (assume you meant 'appeals') to the mod ruling, apart from your dogged refusal to accept Hack's original ruling and my endorsement of same. Repeal it if you want, but don't claim 'official' status for your complaints.

Nuclear fallout can spread very far
Nuclear weapons will most likely never be banned by the UN. biological weapons can cause epidermics,
Epidemics even! Biological weapons are currently illegal. and chemical weapons are unhumane.
And chemical weapons are about to be banned again by Ausserlands resolution. Even if the weapons are only for "defensive purposes", what happens if a madman who has no logic launches an attack? This resolution must be repealed. Does anyone have any other comments?
Whats your point? The rest of us must be disarmed? You have failed to make a case for this repeal. No support.

Why would you? Nuclear fallout can spread very far, biological weapons can cause epidermics, and chemical weapons are unhumane. Even if the weapons are only for "defensive purposes", what happens if a madman who has no logic launches an attack? This resolution must be repealed. Does anyone have any other comments?

I assume this is about those opposing.

Let us say my brother Jared gained control of Cuation and used such weapons on small nation "example" then he would be kicked out on UN, kicked out of the South Pacfic and get many nations destroying Cuation before Jared can move against other nations.

Or a rogue nation will see that we are foolish enough to leave ourselves unable to luanch such weapons to face it, attacks and cuases immense suffering while we are unable to do anything about it.

I take it you will follow up, if this goes through, by asking for a ban on such weapons?

Given the current condition of todays world, we see no reason to give up the right to use any means necessary to ensure our survival and prosperity...

We strongly oppose this resolution and encourage all likeminded and independent nations to do the same.

Our position on UNSA (and its curious "national defense" loophole) remains the same; this act should be repealed and replaced with an ironclad, loophole-free resolution that establishes once and for all member states' right to arm themselves as they please. However, we would also support and a separate resolution banning the offensive use of WMD.

Dividing the UNSA in two just might lock out any and all attempts to strip us of our defenses while at the same time assuring that member states employ WMD only for purposes of national defense.

I have edited the proposal again. Please support it if you are a UN delegate.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that many weapons can kill many innocent bystanders, such as nuclear weapons, and can also spread beyond their intended target and cause unintended effects, such as but not limited to, radiation sickness, nuclear winter and epidemics caused by the use of biological weapons,

FURTHER NOTING that the stockpiling of weapons by one nation will encourage other nations to build more weapons, therefore creating an expensive arms race that no nation or group of nations can hope to win,

FURTHER NOTING that the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all leaders of all nations are rational, and that over the course of history the world has seen many illrational leaders,

FURTHER NOTING that the money currently spent by many nations on weapons could be put to better use by funding education healthcare, scientific research, commence, and many other programs,

FURTHER NOTING that many weapons are cruel and violate human rights, such as, but not limited to, landmines and bayonets,

DECLARES resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act" null and void.

... and bayonets...ROTFLMAO!

Hasn't everybody figured out yet that the infamous "Ban Bayonets" proposal was basically nothing more than an attempt to elicit a clarification from the mods as to the exact scope of the UNSA?

I was always a little bit afraid that it would get deleted with a warning as a "joke" resolution (or a waste of time), but apparently I wrote it well enough that some people actually thought I was serious! :p

Once it was ascertained that the "solution" to banning weapons under the UNSA was to add the now-famous "magic words", and that individual states' assertions of necessity were of no consequence, the proposal no longer had a purpose, and was subsequently dropped.

It's nice to have a legacy even after you've left the U.N. (well, that, and the worldwide campaign to eradicate smallpox). :D

As for our professional opinion w/re to repealing the UNSA, we think such efforts are a total waste of the august body's time - unless your intention is to strengthen the resolution.

Opposed! ... and will urge our regional delegate not to support this proposal.

I have edited this proposal in respone to other nations' suggestions. It has already been submitted.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that many weapons can kill many innocent bystanders, such as nuclear weapons, and can also spread beyond their intended target and cause unintended effects, such as but not limited to, radiation sickness, nuclear winter and epidemics caused by the use of biologial weapons,

FURTHER NOTING that the stockpiling of weapons by one nation will encouage other nations to build more weapons, therefore creating an expensive arms race that no nation or group of nations can hope to win,

FURTHER NOTING that the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all leaders of all nations are rational, and that over the course of history the world has seen many illrational leaders,

DECLARES resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act" null and void.

Compadria dislikes nuclear weapons too, as well as biological and chemical weapons. Whilst the use of these weapons should be curtailed and limited to as great an extent as possible, for reasons of national defence, we would not restrict other nations from using them.

For the moment therefore, we will remain uncomitted.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Our position on UNSA (and its curious "national defense" loophole) remains the same; this act should be repealed and replaced with an ironclad, loophole-free resolution that establishes once and for all member states' right to arm themselves as they please. However, we would also support and a separate resolution banning the offensive use of WMD.


The people of the Sultanate of Cluichstan concur completely with our friends in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny regarding the UNSA. The right of all member states to arm and defend themselves must be firmly established. However, we would not support any resolution banning the offensive or even defensive use of so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Should such weapons be used, the UN can determine post facto and on a case-by-case basis how to address that issue.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN

The UNSA is a junk resolution. It affirms a right that all nations have anyway. The Alphini fully support its repeal.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The UNSA is a junk resolution. It affirms a right that all nations have anyway. The Alphini fully support its repeal.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Do the Alphini not recognize the tendency of the UN to erode the defensive capabilities of its member states, and therefore recognize the need to protect the UN from harming itself in this matter?

Do the Alphini not recognize the tendency of UN members to ignore the community of members and non-members alike that are often hostile to the UN, communities such as Gatesville being one example of this?

Do the Alphini not recognize the tendency of UN members to fail to provide for the effective defense of their citizens because they either do not see the threat before them, cannot afford a healthy defense because of all the other UN mandates they are required to implement, or mistakenly believe that farmers with pitchforks will be enough to deter a powerful imperialistic nation with a desire for more natural resources from attacking?

Do the Alphini not recognize that the UN is unable, as per the proposal rules, to provide a military, security, or peacekeeping force and that the burden of providing for the defense of UN members falls on the individual states themselves?

Do the Alphini not recognize the inherent danger in allowing the UN to continue to ban weapons that are necessary for defense surprisingly often due to the amazing biological and technological diversity among nations that characterizes this world?

I think that to call UNSA a "junk resolution" is unfair. You are of course free to disagree with ideas contained therein, as many others have, and I would welcome such reasonable disagreement in place of insulting remarks.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

...is there such a word as illrational?

EDIT: Oh, no, it's ok. I've just noticed: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9749308&postcount=13. Hopefully you'll send yourself an appropriate TG?

I think you're critically misreading the UNSA. It is not a mandate for MAD. I agree that there is a case that it should be inferred that these rights exist. Nonetheless, I feel that this was a resolution authored by someone (and I'm not speaking for them, so TH may gladly override me) who was concerned at the trend of UN legislation towards limiting this fundamental right. More than anything, it seems the UNSA acts as a point of reference, such that prospective legislators need to consider its implications.

I appreciate that from a sovereigntist (and a lazy one at that) and an NSO member, it might be considered heretical to say this, but I wouldn't necessarily oppose a repeal of UNSA. Please don't hit me. That said, I think you are going about it in the wrong way. This proposal will hopefully fail. Should you choose to resubmit, you might want to look over the bloody, churned mud in which (I think) Forgottenlands, Allemande, Texan Hotrodders and a few others slogged out a long and arduous battle that, to my knowledge, hasn't been fully resolved, over the legality of this, trampling all over the ultimately rather bedraggled neutral state of Frisbeeteria in the process. You don't have to prove UNSA illegal to repeal it, but you might consider some of their arguments as being better than simply misreading it as an excuse to blow shit up. Which it is not.

The people of Cluichstan appreciate and applaud the wisdom of Minister Edward Jones.

Do the Alphini not recognize the tendency of the UN to erode the defensive capabilities of its member states, and therefore recognize the need to protect the UN from harming itself in this matter?

Do the Alphini not recognize the tendency of UN members to ignore the community of members and non-members alike that are often hostile to the UN, communities such as Gatesville being one example of this?

Do the Alphini not recognize the tendency of UN members to fail to provide for the effective defense of their citizens because they either do not see the threat before them, cannot afford a healthy defense because of all the other UN mandates they are required to implement, or mistakenly believe that farmers with pitchforks will be enough to deter a powerful imperialistic nation with a desire for more natural resources from attacking?

Do the Alphini not recognize that the UN is unable, as per the proposal rules, to provide a military, security, or peacekeeping force and that the burden of providing for the defense of UN members falls on the individual states themselves?

Do the Alphini not recognize the inherent danger in allowing the UN to continue to ban weapons that are necessary for defense surprisingly often due to the amazing biological and technological diversity among nations that characterizes this world?

I think that to call UNSA a "junk resolution" is unfair. You are of course free to disagree with ideas contained therein, as many others have, and I would welcome such reasonable disagreement in place of insulting remarks.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
What the Alphini recognize is that member states have the right to defend themselves regardless of whether the United Nations Security Act explicitly gives it to them. The U.N. has no need to give its nations rights. If it has not removed them, they exist by default. We also realize that the UNSA passively undermines all new weapons regulation resolutions by acknowledging only past resolutions as overriding. Worse, most members of the U.N. do not even recognize this. UNSA is ultimately harmful to the U.N. for causing widespread contradictions between resolutions; leaving members essentially to decide for themselves what laws to follow on the matter. As a nation with a primarily defensive military, we see the UNSA as weakening security by allowing more destructive weapons in more hands. I do not personally agree with Tşärls's label of "junk resolution," but I support repeal nonetheless.

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

What the Alphini recognize is that member states have the right to defend themselves regardless of whether the United Nations Security Act explicitly gives it to them. The U.N. has no need to give its nations rights. If it has not removed them, they exist by default.

It is true that where the UN has not taken away nation's rights, the nations retain their rights. Nonetheless, the UN has consistently shown that it will pass resolutions failing to aknowledge the unfortunate realities of a violent world. Is it not appropriate to protect this body from making self-destructive resolutions?

We also realize that the UNSA passively undermines all new weapons regulation resolutions by acknowledging only past resolutions as overriding.

Undermines? Not at all. It requires that national defense be a consideration in future weapons regulation resolutions. This hardly seems unreasonable.

Worse, most members of the U.N. do not even recognize this. UNSA is ultimately harmful to the U.N. for causing widespread contradictions between resolutions; leaving members essentially to decide for themselves what laws to follow on the matter.

There are no contradictions created by the UNSA, as far as I know, and it was written specifically so as to avoid creating contradiction. Perhaps you could point these contradictions out.

As a nation with a primarily defensive military, we see the UNSA as weakening security by allowing more destructive weapons in more hands. I do not personally agree with Tşärls's label of "junk resolution," but I support repeal nonetheless.

I do believe that you are contradicting your earlier statement that the UNSA merely gives nations the right to do what they could already do. How then, if it did nothing substantive in granting freedoms to member states, did it allow for "more destructive weapons in more hands"?

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Thank you for your tact and consideration, Second Alphin.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

It is true that where the UN has not taken away nation's rights, the nations retain their rights. Nonetheless, the UN has consistently shown that it will pass resolutions failing to aknowledge the unfortunate realities of a violent world. Is it not appropriate to protect this body from making self-destructive resolutions?
...
Undermines? Not at all. It requires that national defense be a consideration in future weapons regulation resolutions. This hardly seems unreasonable.
...
There are no contradictions created by the UNSA, as far as I know, and it was written specifically so as to avoid creating contradiction. Perhaps you could point these contradictions out.
...
I do believe that you are contradicting your earlier statement that the UNSA merely gives nations the right to do what they could already do. How then, if it did nothing substantive in granting freedoms to member states, did it allow for "more destructive weapons in more hands"?
...
Thank you for your tact and consideration, Second Alphin.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
It is appropriate to allow the members of the United Nations to decide what benefits them; whether you consider it to be self-destructive or not. Members of the United Nations agree to abide by the will of the international majority by joining. The UNSA does undermine new regulations. If it did not, then it truly would be a junk resolution, for that is its sole substantive effect.

I quote, the United Nations Security Act "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." That declaration essentially declares all future legislation placing restrictions on weapons invalid by contradiction. The UNSA makes resolution #113 (UN Biological Weapons Ban) unenforcable and makes the since-repealed resolution #107 (Ban Chemical Weapons) irreplacable as well as barring further regulation of other weapons. The only way around this is if one decides to interpret the text "all weapons that are necessary" to mean "necessary as defined by the U.N.," in which case the resolution has no impact whatsoever. Either way, we believe that the UNSA should not be on the books.

Ignoring the wording technicality mentioned above, the UNSA does essentially give nations the right to do what they could already do, but I believe Alphin Lorĕns erred in implying that that is its only effect. It, for all intents and purposes, gives nations the right to do what they could do at the time it was passed, leaving room for the restrictions preceeding it to be repealed, but no room for future restrictions to be passed. That is the reason we stand in opposition. We strongly believe that nations should have the right to provide an adequate defense for themselves, but we can not agree with a resolution that makes it impossible for the United Nations to pass any restrictions on what types of weaponry may be used by its members, no matter how destructive, inhuman or unnecessary, unless the resolution is first repealed; and that is exactly what the United Nations Security Act does.

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

I appreciate that from a sovereigntist (and a lazy one at that) and an NSO member, it might be considered heretical to say this, but I wouldn't necessarily oppose a repeal of UNSA. Please don't hit me.
*Bob starts speaking with a fake itialian accent*
I wouldn't worry about being hit. You see, we of the NSO don't "hit" those members who seem to be willing to oppose our work. Instead, we whack them, in this case I think the appropiate whacking implement would be a 12 pound catfish. Mr. Schmidt, begin the whacking if you please.
*Mr. Schmidt approches the representative from Gruenberg slowly brandishing the catfish.*

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don
Just kidding.

The Adnarian Democratic Republic will oppose mass destruction weapons.Nonetheless,we think that the acts related to the arming races is wrong, and can prevent UN nations to defend themselves from non-UN nations,and can create a situation of a very strong states that border states
with a weak military.
Jack Battalion,
Minister of Defense,
William Jacques,
Prime Minister,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria.

This is the latest revision of the resolution. It addresses the issue of Mutually Assured Destruction and how it can lead to accidental wars.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that many weapons can kill many innocent bystanders, such as nuclear weapons, and can also spread beyond their intended target and cause unintended effects, such as but not limited to, radiation sickness, nuclear winter and epidemics caused by the use of biological weapons,

FURTHER NOTING that the stockpiling of weapons by one nation will encourage other nations to build more weapons, therefore creating an expensive arms race that no nation or group of nations can hope to win,

FURTHER NOTING that the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all leaders of all nations are rational, and that over the course of history the world has seen many illrational leaders,

FURTHER NOTING that if false alarms go off in one nation warning of an attack by nuclear missiles, that nation could launch its missiles and the target nation would launch its missiles, therefore starting an unintentional nuclear war,

FURTHER NOTING that terrorists might steal or illegally buy WMDs from countries and use them,

FURTHER NOTING that the money currently spent by many nations on weapons could be put to better use by funding education, healthcare, scientific research, commence, and many other programs,

FURTHER NOTING that many weapons are cruel and violate human rights, such as, but not limited to, landmines and bayonets,

DECLARES resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act" null and void.

Just out of curiousness, am I the only person who thinks there is a difference between a weapon that is used for defence, and a weapon that is used for a deterrent? Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are *NOT* defensive weapons - they are offensive ones. They can be used as a deterrent (shoot at me and I will sneeze on you, or launch your a-bombs at me and I will launch mine at you), but not defence.

So - one could argue - since the original resolution lets you build defensive weapons, it doesn't apply to any of these.

Unless defensive has a whole other meaning I am not aware of :}

I have edited this proposal in respone to other nations' suggestions. It has already been submitted.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that many weapons can kill many innocent bystanders, such as nuclear weapons, and can also spread beyond their intended target and cause unintended effects, such as but not limited to, radiation sickness, nuclear winter and epidemics caused by the use of biologial weapons,

FURTHER NOTING that the stockpiling of weapons by one nation will encouage other nations to build more weapons, therefore creating an expensive arms race that no nation or group of nations can hope to win,

FURTHER NOTING that the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all leaders of all nations are rational, and that over the course of history the world has seen many illrational leaders,

DECLARES resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act" null and void.

Compadria agrees with the sentiment of the article, namely that the stockpiling of unconventional weaponry and its indiscriminate use against civillians is an abomination. The fact is that we are holding a gun to our heads by having such weapons, threatening everyone with our desire for national self-defence.

Yet the fact is that most weapons should be controlled and gradually shifted out multi-laterally. Doing it all in one go would be counter-productive. It will take many years for the global climate to become stable enough to permit full disarmament to be considered. Even then, the genie will still be out of the bottle and we cannot put it back in. The capacity to build nuclear weapons will therefore always exist and we cannot ignore the risk this poses, as the elimination of knowledge is an impossibility.

In conclusion, we must search for a way to educate mankind to reject such weapons rather than simply banning them, which will serve only to inflame nationalist and isolationist sentiment in the countries affected. We decommissioned our nuclear weapons long ago and are proud to be militarily nuclear-free. I'm sure that others can be persuaded to come round to this point of view.

Thus, regrettably, we do not support this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Just out of curiousness, am I the only person who thinks there is a difference between a weapon that is used for defence, and a weapon that is used for a deterrent? Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are *NOT* defensive weapons - they are offensive ones. They can be used as a deterrent (shoot at me and I will sneeze on you, or launch your a-bombs at me and I will launch mine at you), but not defence.

So - one could argue - since the original resolution lets you build defensive weapons, it doesn't apply to any of these.

Unless defensive has a whole other meaning I am not aware of :}

Actually, nations can justify building any weapons as long if they say they are for "defensive" use. You just have to say it is, since there is no system for checking to see if that is true and no defination of "defensive use".

Actually, nations can justify building any weapons as long if they say they are for "defensive" use. You just have to say it is, since there is no system for checking to see if that is true and no defination of "defensive use".

I wouldn't have thought defensive was a matter of perspective. Defensive is any weapon you can use to defend your nation, in your nation.

For example --

Bomber planes are not defensive weapons, but fighter planes are defensive.

Just out of curiousness, am I the only person who thinks there is a difference between a weapon that is used for defence, and a weapon that is used for a deterrent? Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are *NOT* defensive weapons - they are offensive ones. They can be used as a deterrent (shoot at me and I will sneeze on you, or launch your a-bombs at me and I will launch mine at you), but not defence.

So - one could argue - since the original resolution lets you build defensive weapons, it doesn't apply to any of these.

Unless defensive has a whole other meaning I am not aware of :}

When not used, they are a deterrent, but they can be employed in defense. Say, for instance, a nation with a large conventional military attacks a much smaller neighbor. The smaller neighbor may not have the sheer numbers on the battlefield to confront the invaders directly, but if that smaller country has nuclear capabilities, it can strike back at the invading nation with those capabilities in the hope that it would lead the invader to reconsider its campaign. That would be a defensive use.

Just out of curiousness, am I the only person who thinks there is a difference between a weapon that is used for defence, and a weapon that is used for a deterrent? Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are *NOT* defensive weapons - they are offensive ones. They can be used as a deterrent (shoot at me and I will sneeze on you, or launch your a-bombs at me and I will launch mine at you), but not defence.


The distinction between defense and deterrence is an important one, and certainly NBC weapons would be much more likely to be used as deterrents. Nuclear (particularly tactical nuclear) and chemical weapons can be used in a defensive role, though. Examples would be interdicting offensive troop movements, denying avenues of advance, and blunting the force of an attack.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

a nation has the right to defend themselves. that much is agreed by everyone.

my government is part of Gatesville. we only fight to defend one of our members who has been attacked. wouldn't any region do this?

a nation is more likely to be invaded by their neighbour whose most likely to be a non-UN nation and don't rule out an invasion by a UN nation against a non-UN nation.

Don't forget whats currently going on in the Repuplic of Zodno-Pomoroski right now. two UN Nations are there on 'peace keeping duties' or so we're told. Other countries may well consider that an invasion.

anyway back to this repeal. We say Iye (thats no to anyone who dosen't speak Kirisuban).