NationStates Jolt Archive

Copied: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #109

Nuclear Armaments
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

Description: 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.

Votes For: 8,379
Votes Against: 6,835

Implemented: Sun Jul 3 2005

Now, Resolution #109 of the United Nations is against the United Nations principles and should be repealled and new legislation should be brought forward.

As the writer of this Resolution notes, UN members are outnumbered by un-aligned nations that seem to be aggressive to UN members. However, resorting to Nuclear weapons to solve your problems would be higly unethical because it would cause untolled damage to the environment and to the people that live in those un-aligned hostile nations. Which is what the UN and its members try to avoid.

I am not proposing banning the use of Nuclear weapons because that would not be supported within the United Nations. However I believe a new proposal should be created. And I believe this should be the place to hammer out a new proposal benefital to all UN members and than the repealling of UN Resolution #109 can take place.

Now, Resolution #109 of the United Nations is against the United Nations principles and should be repealled and new legislation should be brought forward.

NSUN != RL UN
Now, with that in mind, what principles does the NSUN have that this goes against? Our principles are defined by our resolutions, and this resolution is saying that the UN cannot ban Nukes. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't even promoting the use of nukes

As the writer of this Resolution notes, UN members are outnumbered by un-aligned nations that seem to be aggressive to UN members. However, resorting to Nuclear weapons to solve your problems would be higly unethical because it would cause untolled damage to the environment and to the people that live in those un-aligned hostile nations. Which is what the UN and its members try to avoid.

The issue is that while the RL UN has all the nuclear powers of the real world as members, and most of them as permanent seats on the security council, the NSUN holds a fraction of nuclear powers, has no security council, and is pretty much trying to protect itself from abrasive nations that believe they can get anything they want since they have nukes and we do not. Unfortunately, with nations like that, the only way TO deal with them is to have nukes ourselves - hence the entire concept of both arms races and deterrence.

I am not proposing banning the use of Nuclear weapons because that would not be supported within the United Nations. However I believe a new proposal should be created. And I believe this should be the place to hammer out a new proposal benefital to all UN members and than the repealling of UN Resolution #109 can take place.

It is, but understand that you will have to provide a draft, or find someone who's as eager as you to remove it to write it for you. This place is an excellent place to help you revise and refine it

Now, Resolution #109 of the United Nations is against the United Nations principles and should be repealled and new legislation should be brought forward.

Which 'principles'? The nearest we get would be either the game mandate (which gives Flibbleites a right to spread and impose his opinions) or Rights & Duties, which includes a right to self-defence.

As the writer of this Resolution notes, UN members are outnumbered by un-aligned nations that seem to be aggressive to UN members. However, resorting to Nuclear weapons to solve your problems would be higly unethical because it would cause untolled damage to the environment and to the people that live in those un-aligned hostile nations. Which is what the UN and its members try to avoid.

Exactly. The resolution doesn't encourage the use of nuclear weapons...just the possession of them. They could act as a deterrent against rogue nations.

I am not proposing banning the use of Nuclear weapons because that would not be supported within the United Nations. However I believe a new proposal should be created. And I believe this should be the place to hammer out a new proposal benefital to all UN members and than the repealling of UN Resolution #109 can take place.

If you're not going to ban nuclear weapons...what are you going to do? Discourage them? Ooh, scary. You can probably do that anyway, so long as you don't ban them. I really don't see how, if you're not going to ban them, you can object to Nuclear Armaments.

Now, Resolution #109 of the United Nations is against the United Nations principles ....Seems to me the UN already decided by a 55%-45% margin that it wasn't. If you want to try to repeal this act, that is certainly your right, but nuclear-disarmament legislation has been proposed before and failed, miserably.

Copied: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #109

Nuclear Armaments
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

Description: 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.

Votes For: 8,379
Votes Against: 6,835

Implemented: Sun Jul 3 2005

Now, Resolution #109 of the United Nations is against the United Nations principles and should be repealled and new legislation should be brought forward.

As the writer of this Resolution notes, UN members are outnumbered by un-aligned nations that seem to be aggressive to UN members. However, resorting to Nuclear weapons to solve your problems would be higly unethical because it would cause untolled damage to the environment and to the people that live in those un-aligned hostile nations. Which is what the UN and its members try to avoid.

I am not proposing banning the use of Nuclear weapons because that would not be supported within the United Nations. However I believe a new proposal should be created. And I believe this should be the place to hammer out a new proposal benefital to all UN members and than the repealling of UN Resolution #109 can take place.

It seems you've committed a non-sequiteur in your argument, by saying first that resorting to nuclear weaponary to 'solve your problems' is unethical, then saying that you don't propose to ban the usage of nuclear weapons. How then would you re-draft the resolution to avoid mentioning the use of nuclear weapons without violating the second half of your argument?

In addition, the treaty does not support the use of nuclear weapons, merely renders it legal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #109

Repealing Resolution #109: Nuclear Armaments
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Assatru


Acknowledges:

Just like in Resolution #109 this Resolution understands that un-aligned nations, with nuclear capabilities are a danger to every UN member. It does not refute that, non-aligned members also have a 3 to 1 advantage over UN members. However, allowing United Nation members to have nuclear weapons with regards to any 'threat' os dangerous. Looking over the Resolutions passed by the United Nations, ranging from the environment to human rights, if United Nations members are allowed at their own free will to control weapons of mass destruction, innocent civilians on all sides will be hurt and the economy, and environment will be damaged.

I propose:

Article 1:

The acceptance of the first article point made in Resolution # 109. "UN members are allowed to posses Nuclear weapons" in self defense alone.

Thus, if they are engaging in a war with another country, that if that country is on the verge of falling or is too weak to fight back, that Nuclear weapons will not be used in attacking the other countries in question, civilian centers.

Article 2:

If a UN member wants to engage in nuclear weapons. Process nuclear weapons, they have to present their reason to the UN delegates, not all UN members just UN delegates who will respond in a timely manner (number of hours or days) with a decision. Even if they refuse, the UN member who wants a nuclear device can still proceed, even though he/she will be watched more carefully by UN members.

Article 3:

UN members should make alliances between themselves in the face of a hostile country, nuclear or not. Which will use nuclear weapons as the last resort, negotiation first. It would be much harded for a nation to go to war, even with nuclear weapons if it has 10 to 12 nations opposed to it.

Conclusion:

Resolution #109 has loopholes that nations who claim to be United Nations members but want Nuclear weapons just for the sake of it can get around. It is flawed. This resolution that will be put in place would provide a solid ground for ensuring the use of Nuclear weapons for the reason of self-defense alone.

OOC: I believe that is a strong resolution.

Now if anyone wants to add onto it or voice concerns about I will listen to all. If anyone wants to add anything in their own words will be given credit as co-writers to this resolution.

Ok, firstly, mentioning delegates suggests this will be a Game Mechanics violation.

In any case, I still don't see what you're doing. Not only does this still allow us everything, but you have created the biggest loophole in the history of legislation: if the delegates oppose the use of nuclear weapons, nations can use them anyway. And what's to stop them? Oh, being watched. The eyes, the eyes!

No, I'm sorry, this isn't a strong resolution. It is, in fact, an existing resolution. You are doing nothing to change #109.

resorting to Nuclear weapons to solve your problems would be higly unethical because it would cause untolled damage to the environment What are you proposing? Charging us to discharge our weopons of Mass Destruction?
:D

Conclusion:

Resolution #109 has loopholes that nations who claim to be United Nations members but want Nuclear weapons just for the sake of it can get around. It is flawed. This resolution that will be put in place would provide a solid ground for ensuring the use of Nuclear weapons for the reason of self-defense alone.

OOC: I believe that is a strong resolution.

It is an illegal resolution. You cannot repeal and replace at the same time. A repeal must only repeal the resolution in question. It may not introduce new articles.

You may submit a new resolution which accomplishes what you want if you manage a successful repeal.

You also can't submit a proposal as a repeal. You have to use the repeal function.

I'm pretty sure that new legislation can't be put into a repeal either. Just the reasons you think the resolution should be wiped off the books. If you want to replace the existing legislation, then you have to repeal the existing resolution, then put a new proposal up. You can't do both at the same time ;).

Seriously though. I believe 109 was written to Guarantee the rights of a UN Member to stockpile Nuclear Arms as a deterent to an attack from a non UN entity. I fully support this resolution and this is in no way reflective of the fact that my economy is weighed up by uranium mining, and thats a Guarantee!
(not a Guarantee!)

This one is the only one of these type of nat sov resolutions I did support. We do have nukes to be used as a deterrent and didn't want to lose our only real protection from invaders. Waterana isn't a highly militarised nation.

We won't support a repeal of this resolution under any circumstances.

We won't support a repeal of this resolution under any circumstances.Nor will we.

In the face of opposition to the proposed Resolution. The repeal for Resolution #109 has been thrown out. The repeal of Resolution #109 has been dropped.

...and there was much rejoicing... "yay, yay".

...and there was much rejoicing... "yay, yay".

There's no need to gloat. He made a mistake, and has withdrawn that mistake, and hopefully now we can move on.

In the face of opposition to the proposed Resolution. The repeal for Resolution #109 has been thrown out. The repeal of Resolution #109 has been dropped.
Thank you for dropping your repeal attempt, Im just sad that I didn't get the chance to defend it myself.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative