NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, you guys can't ban nuclear weapons.

But, since a lot of you hate 'em (and can't get rid of them), why not try writing a proposal that defines when they can be used and when they can't? It wouldn't be hard to find a way to fix it so they can't be used offensively and ban certain types, etc etc etc...


edit: argh, misspelled the title >.<

Someone noted that we can actual ban ALL use of nukes. We can own, we can test, nothing else is guaranteed.

Yes, but good luck passing such a resolution. It's more likely a well-written resolution regulating specifically what nuclear weapons may and may not be used for could be put through.

Just as preliminaries...

-Ban pre-emptive strike doctrines
-Ban use of neutron bombs/weapons designed to create an inordinate amount of fallout
-Ban use of tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear bunker-busters

The first for obvious reasons, the second because they create too much of a hazardous environment, and the third because they lend themselves to being used more easily due to their lower yield.

Someone noted that we can actual ban ALL use of nukes. We can own, we can test, nothing else is guaranteed.
Actually testing isn't guaranteed under Nuclear Armaments, the only thing it protects is a nation's right to possess them if they choose to.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Actually testing isn't the only thing it protects is a nation's right to possess them if they choose to.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Thus would any proposal say to limit the range of the delivery systems numbers of warheads on each system and power of each such warhead not be seen as an ammendment of that resolution to give nations a right to use them.... Thus the original needs to be repealed first before any restrictions or limits be placed on what one might have as nuke weapons. Since the original didn't clearly define such... Also the same might apply in trying to say only use them for clearing land of tree stumps as this would be ammending the original to try and restrict or limit their use where original didn't do that either..

we will all pay for any nuclear weapon being used. so what is the gain? winning a war to have a nomans land?

not for my people or me
cher..esteemed leader of cher sunbeam

We would caution against putting too many restrictions on UN member nations' ability to posess nukes, we are outnumbered by non-UN nations , we would much rather eliminate the first strike doctirine within the UN and bring in more security against nuclear terrorism.

we will all pay for any nuclear weapon being used. so what is the gain? winning a war to have a nomans land?

not for my people or me
cher..esteemed leader of cher sunbeam

The size of the NS world would allow for the safe, if frowned upon, use of nuclear weapons - particularly tactical, without any harm to the majority of NS nations.

The people of Wolfish will never support any limitation on the use of nuclear weapons.

The only way that MAD policy works is if both sides (UN and non-UN nations) possess the absolute power to blast the other to the furthest reaches of the galaxy. To that end, we've developed overtly powerful orbital warhead dispensers, with the ability to target and detonate 100 metres over most major cities in the NS-world.

W.

To that end, we've developed overtly powerful orbital warhead dispensers, with the ability to target and detonate 100 metres over most major cities in the NS-world. W.


If my old mind recalls these POWDers have been proven worthless against the IGNORE cannons now in place in many UN member nations, as are most offensive as well a defensive weapons.. As the effects any weapons has on a nation is based on it's abilities to defend itself from such weapons and also provide citizens with proper protection from them.

So with IGNORE cannons and a good program to provide protection for citizens most weapons do little to change anything in a nation, as it's a direct assault on the nations political process that can cause a greater change in the nation against it's native citizens.

If my old mind recalls these POWDers have been proven worthless against the IGNORE cannons now in place in many UN member nations, as are most offensive as well a defensive weapons.. As the effects any weapons has on a nation is based on it's abilities to defend itself from such weapons and also provide citizens with proper protection from them.

So with IGNORE cannons and a good program to provide protection for citizens most weapons do little to change anything in a nation, as it's a direct assault on the nations political process that can cause a greater change in the nation against it's native citizens.

Really depends on the RP - and the guidelines set. It's somewhat true that there aren't many nations left who'll RP and nuclear attack - but there are some.

I will NEVER give up my weapons of mass destruction!!!

I will NEVER give up my weapons of mass destruction!!!

And no one is asking you to. I simply seek to limit the ways in which these terrible weapons can be used :)