NationStates Jolt Archive

Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all UN nations, whether nuclear armed or non-nuclear armed nations,

Convinced that all UN nations are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Considering the devastation that could be visited upon all nations by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war.

Defining a nuclear armed nation as a nation which has acquired nuclear arms at any time, and has possession of such arms, whether through their own technology and manufacturing capabilities, or by other means.

Defining a non-nuclear armed nation as a nation which has acquired no nuclear arms either prior to, or since, the passage of this legislation.

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer to any non-nuclear armed nation whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.
(2): Assisting or inducing any non-nuclear armed nation whatsoever to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

ARTICLE II: Non-nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;
(2): Seeking or receiving any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to share technology pertaining to safety devices, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with articles I and II of this legislation.

ARTICLE V: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes , or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with articles I and II of this legislation.
The biggest problem I'm having right now is with the wording of Article IV. I'm not sure that "not directly related to the design or manufacture of the weapon itself" is the phrase I want to use. Maybe it could/should say "not directly related to the design or manufacture of the explosive payload itself", or something similar. I'm only wanting to restrict the transfer of the part that goes "Boom", not technology relating to any safety devices, missile technology, guidance systems etc. We don't want to outlaw, say, the transfer of GPS technology for example.

Well?

so, in other words, you want to just ban the trade of nuclear arms, but not the arms themselves? if this is correct, we are against. munitions is a big trade, and therefor shouldnt be restricted

so, in other words, you want to just ban the trade of nuclear arms, but not the arms themselves? if this is correct, we are against. munitions is a big trade, and therefor shouldnt be restricted

READ. THE. FUCKING. PROPOSAL.

This covers trade between nuclear armed and non-nuclear armed states only. As such, that trade already isn't going to be 'big', or else the latter would have become nuclear armed. There is nothing to stop two states with nuclear arms continuing to trade in them.

READ. THE. FUCKING. PROPOSAL.

This covers trade between nuclear armed and non-nuclear armed states only. As such, that trade already isn't going to be 'big', or else the latter would have become nuclear armed. There is nothing to stop two states with nuclear arms continuing to trade in them.
calm down man, i did read it, and i took it into account. i was thinking along the lines of some non-nuclear nations might not have the capacity to create nuclear arms, or it is more cost effective to them to buy them. damn man, no need to yell....

so, in other words, you want to just ban the trade of nuclear arms, but not the arms themselves? if this is correct, we are against. munitions is a big trade, and therefor shouldnt be restricted

Errrrrr... define munitions in nuclear weaponry.

so, in other words, you want to just ban the trade of nuclear arms, but not the arms themselves?
It is intended to stop the spread of nuclear weapons/nuclear weapons technology to states which don't already have them/it. It does not ban nuclear weapons, the right to possess them is protected by UNR # 109. You just have to build them yourself with your own technology/manufacturing capabilities.

if this is correct, we are against. munitions is a big trade, and therefor shouldnt be restricted
It prevents nuclear-armed states from supplying or selling nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology to non-nuclear armed states. I don't care if you're against.

calm down man, i did read it, and i took it into account. i was thinking along the lines of some non-nuclear nations might not have the capacity to create nuclear arms, or it is more cost effective to them to buy them. damn man, no need to yell....

...no, you haven't read the proposal. Nuclear proliferation is not good. It probably is more cost effective for them to buy them; it's also more we're all going to die a fiery death effective for them to do so. This is why he is trying to prohibit that aspect of trade. And I'm still intrigued as to how your trade in nuclear munitions to non-nuclear armed states is 'big'.

okay, i was being a bit off-target when i said munitions. armaments or weapons of defence would be a better term. i was generally meaning tanks, guns, planes, boats, ammuniton, rockets etc... actually, one question: how would nuclear submarines be covered in this?

Overall, this proposal seems destined to tip the balance of military power even further, by placing serious restrictions only on weaker nations, while allowing research sharing between those who already have the tech.

One concern: If I am not nuclear-armed, but leave the UN, buy a rocket from a non-member, and rejoin the UN, then I would be free to trade nukes, right?

We do not endorse, as a new nation, and unable to produce nuclear weapons at this time, nor within the time it would take for this legislation to pass, we feel that in the interests of national security and in the interests of new countries who will come after this legislation is in place.
We find this horribly horribly biased towards already well established nations.

actually, one question: how would nuclear submarines be covered in this? They would be fine, as it is merely the power source for the prime mover of a military device, as it is the power source and not an explosive nuclear device, as can be read.
ARTICLE II: Non-nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;
and a nuclear submarine could not be classed as a weapon, any more than a man with a gun can.

Overall, this proposal seems destined to tip the balance of military power even further, by placing serious restrictions only on weaker nations, while allowing research sharing between those who already have the tech.
this another good point.

Yelda, i did not mention or insinuate that nuclear arms were to be banned by this proposal, i was just asking the question on the trade

Gruenberg, i agree that nuclear proliferation is not good, but what chance does a nation stand if it cant afford to, or doesnt have the facilities to build nuclear weapons, yet there is a nation on its doorstep with nukes that is threatening them. nuclear weapons can be used as a deterrant, due to the MAD theory. a nuke nation will glass a non-nuke nation and think nothing of it, whilst they will have second thoughts about glassing a nuke nation, because they can glass back.

One concern: If I am not nuclear-armed, but leave the UN, buy a rocket from a non-member, and rejoin the UN, then I would be free to trade nukes, right?
Ahhhh. Good one. You're right, if you left the UN, got nukes, then came back (2) wouldn't apply. Our first loophole, thanks!
Defining a nuclear armed nation as a nation which has either;
(1): Acquired nuclear arms prior to the passage of this legislation, whether through their own technology and manufacturing capabilities, or by other means.
Or,
(2): Acquired nuclear arms since the passage of this legislation through their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.
I think I need to change this to:
Acquired nuclear arms at any time, and have possession of such arms, whether through their own technology and manufacturing capabilities, or by other means.

One thing, What is the definition of a nuclear weapon? It could mean anything from ray guns to antimatter weapons

One thing, What is the definition of a nuclear weapon? It could mean anything from ray guns to antimatter weapons
Well I guess it could mean sticks and rocks too. I was wondering when this would come up. Both "The Nuclear Terrorism Act" and "Nuclear Armaments" were passed without defining nuclear weapons. Does anyone else think that they need to be defined?

This is going to be a fun thread.

lets say that my Empire decided to get some nuclear missiles in the future as a defensive deterrant. since we're nuke free at the moment if this proposal became law would this stop us aquiring nuclear weapons as per article 2:

ARTICLE II: Non-nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;
(2): Seeking or receiving any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

if we can't get any nukes from UN members then we'd have to look outside the UN market.

Ms Midori Kasigi, Kirisuban deputy ambassador

if we can't get any nukes from UN members then we'd have to look outside the UN market.
There's nothing stopping you from building them yourself.

with respect to the ambassador from Yelda our original question hasn't been answered.

would article 2 stop us from buying nuclear weapons? this article is at the crux of the proposal and an answer now will help decide our next move.

Midori Kasigi, deputy ambassador

would article 2 stop us from buying nuclear weapons? this article is at the crux of the proposal and an answer now will help decide our next move.
Yes, that's exactly what it's supposed to do.

There's nothing stopping you from building them yourself.
Yes there is, countries that are not large enough to be able to develop there own weapons must buy them, or face the threat of them. This links back to the gun ban debate. if countries do not feel they need them, people will not get them.
It would seem that we are all sufficiently paranoid/pragmatic to want nuclear weapons, not as a sword but as a shield.

Although I wouldn't dream of questioning the strict legality of this proposal, I am convinced that it contradicts the spirit of Nuclear Armaments and UNSA. The basic, and I think undisputed, facts are that:
1. UN nations need to defend themselves from external aggressors.
2. Nuclear weapons are, with all their flaws and dangers, the best deterrent against invasion attempts.

This proposal restricts the right to acquire such weapons, and does so in the most preverse way possible:

Those who are safe and armed, the powerful and technologically advanced nations, can freely trade them, and cooperate in their construction, thus developing more powerful arsenals.

The smaller, less advanced nations, those who are in the most fragile situation with respect to potential armed attacks, see the possibility of defending themselves severely limited, until such a time when their scientific knowledge allows them to develop nuclear devices internally.

The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland is a small, nuclear-free nation, and we never felt threatened by our neighbours. However, we will fight with our best weapons, wit, charm, and pure reason, any attempt to tilt the balance of power in such a manner.

Yes there is, countries that are not large enough to be able to develop there own weapons must buy them, or face the threat of them. This links back to the gun ban debate. if countries do not feel they need them, people will not get them.
It would seem that we are all sufficiently paranoid/pragmatic to want nuclear weapons, not as a sword but as a shield.
finally, someone that sees it as we do. the two points of our argument is this:
1) some countries dont have the ability to develope the nukes, whether through resorces or expertese or money
2) this leaves quite a number of nations with the lack of ability to obtain such weapons to defend themselves, whilst creating a 'nuclear bloc' that could destroy the others.

I know that people dont like the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but for quite a number of nations, this is the only real way they can defend themselves against agressors

Although I wouldn't dream of questioning the strict legality of this proposal, I am convinced that it contradicts the spirit of Nuclear Armaments and UNSA.
It doesn't contradict the spirit or the letter of Nuclear Armaments or UNSA. Neither of them in any way deal with buying, selling or trading nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology. Here is what they say:
DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,
and
PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.
and
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.
Under this resolution, nations would still be able to construct nuclear weapons, provided that they can do so themselves.
The basic, and I think undisputed, facts are that:
1. UN nations need to defend themselves from external aggressors.
2. Nuclear weapons are, with all their flaws and dangers, the best deterrent against invasion attempts.
And the answer to this is a global nuclear weapons bazaar? Buy one nuke, get another half-price?

This proposal restricts the right to acquire such weapons, and does so in the most preverse way possible:

Those who are safe and armed, the powerful and technologically advanced nations, can freely trade them, and cooperate in their construction, thus developing more powerful arsenals.
These also happen to be the sort of nations which are actually least likely to use them.

The smaller, less advanced nations, those who are in the most fragile situation with respect to potential armed attacks, see the possibility of defending themselves severely limited, until such a time when their scientific knowledge allows them to develop nuclear devices internally.
Yes, but the resolution will also keep nuclear arms out of the hands of small, technologically backwards and possibly unstable nations which are the most likely to use them. And no, I did NOT just say that all small, developing nations are technologically backwards and unstable.

The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland is a small, nuclear-free nation, and we never felt threatened by our neighbours.
Why not? I thought you just said that NS is a dangerous place and we all must have nuclear weapons. :)

And the answer to this is a global nuclear weapons bazaar? Buy one nuke, get another half-price?


These also happen to be the sort of nations which are actually least likely to use them.


Yes, but the resolution will also keep nuclear arms out of the hands of small, technologically backwards and possibly unstable nations which are the most likely to use them. And no, I did NOT just say that all small, developing nations are technologically backwards and unstable.


Why not? I thought you just said that NS is a dangerous place and we all must have nuclear weapons. :)
that seems a bit odd to me. nations with the technology to build nuclear arms are the ones least likely to use them? like hell, they are the most likely to use them, and usually in attack against smaller nations that look at them the wrong way. and generally, these smaller developing, and as you put it, technologically backwards nations are the ones that need the nukes to protect themselves. i think you have misinterperated Fonzoland's belief: my interpretation is that whilst they choose to be nuclear-free, they still want the option of accessing them if they need to.

and generally, these smaller developing, and as you put it, technologically backwards nations are the ones that need the nukes to protect themselves.
Let's not forget unstable. Or did you leave that part out on purpose?

It doesn't contradict the spirit or the letter of Nuclear Armaments or UNSA. Neither of them in any way deal with buying, selling or trading nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology.

<sigh> As you should have noticed, I did not challenge the legality of the proposal. Irrespectively of the legalistic issue, grant me this:
1. The spirit of UNSA is well summarised by my previous: "UN nations need to defend themselves from external aggressors."
2. The spirit of Nuclear Armaments is well summarised by my previous: "Nuclear weapons are, with all their flaws and dangers, the best deterrent against invasion attempts."

Under this resolution, nations would still be able to construct nuclear weapons, provided that they can do so themselves.

I am aware of that. Obviously, that is not possible if the nation is either technologically poor, economically poor, or in desperate need for a deterrent in the context of rapidly escalating hostilities.

And the answer to this is a global nuclear weapons bazaar? Buy one nuke, get another half-price?

If you don't like it, I suggest you repeal the previous resolutions and ban nukes properly. But having one resolution saying "owning nukes is OK," and then another effectively saying "don't give access to nukes to the less powerful countries in the UN," is elitist and counter-productive.

These also happen to be the sort of nations which are actually least likely to use them.

Yes, but the resolution will also keep nuclear arms out of the hands of small, technologically backwards and possibly unstable nations which are the most likely to use them. And no, I did NOT just say that all small, developing nations are technologically backwards and unstable.

Would you care to support these statements? Why is one group more unstable than the other? Say, you can use a RL list of the countries who have actually used nukes, or threatened to. I think the likelihood of a nuke being used depends on two main factors: how much you want to hurt your enemy, and whether that enemy has their own nukes or not. By preventing half of the UN from having nukes, if anything, you increase the risk of nuclear atacks.

Why not? I thought you just said that NS is a dangerous place and we all must have nuclear weapons. :)

I told you we never felt threatened, so we are happy to be nuclear-free. But NS is indeed a dangerous place, and if our country ever needed protection from threatening neighbours, we would want our right to acquire nukes to be enshrined by law. Rather than having the need to create a 1mg toy nuclear weapon that probably doesn't work, to be considered nuclear-armed, and thus be admitted to the group of the high and mighty who can do everything they like with nukes. We consider such strategies demeaning, both for the individual nation and for the UN itself.

OOC: I personally like and understand what you are trying to do. But the need to avoid contradicting the previous legislation forces you to regulate in an extremely biased and unfair way. And that is deeply damaging to nations like Fonzoland. ;)

The people of Cluichstan are glad to see a matter of true international import being addressed by this austere body. The proliferation of nuclear technology, given its potential for disastrous consequences, must be addressed, and we laud our Yeldan friend for bringing this issue to the attention of the United Nations. As a nuclear power ourselves, we have already adopted a policy of non-proliferation, but we acknowledge that it is not enough for just one lone nation to do so. As such, we fully endorse this proposal and offer to assist in the campaign to get it enshrined in international law.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Midori listens to a few more delegates speak up and then replies.

"i thank the ambassador from Fonzoland for saying what a lot of people are thinking. if you have a dangerous agressor with nukes you need them yourself as a shield rather than a sword.

thats not a problem we have in Kirisubo at the moment since we are part of the Gatesville Sovereign Protectorate but politics are fickle and just maybe we may need nukes of our own some day.

the time and great expense it would take to develop these would make us vunerable to a nation that can just buy them of the shelf and point them in our direction.

I hope the Yeldan ambassador can appreciate our situation and other non-nuclear nations before our ability to deter an attack is removed"

The Ceoranan delegation supports this effort. However, we believe that the resolution needs a sort of compensation for non-nuclear-armed nations who agree to not buy weapons from other nations. Otherwise, the proposal is one-sided and not fair to those nations. We propose either a clause about peaceful nuclear energy technology sharing from nuke-armed nations to non-nuke armed nations, or a clause saying that nuke-armed nations may not use their nukes to attack non-nuke-armed nations without provocation.

We apologize if this has already been considered, etc.

B. QIRO
Dir. Global Affairs
P.I.U. Ceorana

As I said on UNOG, I feel this to be unfairly discriminatory. The same rules must be applied to armed and unarmed nations. What's more dangerous - _Myopia_ buying its first nuke and leaving it at that, or an already armed nation buying weapons to double the size of its arsenal? Ban all trade and tech exchange, or none.

EDIT - excluding safety devices etc. which should be free to trade between anyone.

<sigh> As you should have noticed, I did not challenge the legality of the proposal. Irrespectively of the legalistic issue, grant me this:
1. The spirit of UNSA is well summarised by my previous: "UN nations need to defend themselves from external aggressors."
2. The spirit of Nuclear Armaments is well summarised by my previous: "Nuclear weapons are, with all their flaws and dangers, the best deterrent against invasion attempts."
Unfortunatley, in NS we go by the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. To truly ascertain the spirit of those two resolutions in relation to this proposal we would need to hear from the authors.

If you don't like it, I suggest you repeal the previous resolutions and ban nukes properly. But having one resolution saying "owning nukes is OK," and then another effectively saying "don't give access to nukes to the less powerful countries in the UN," is elitist and counter-productive.
I was expecting this line of argument. "We can't afford to/aren't advanced enought to/just don't want to build our own nuclear weapons. The big nations are just trying to keep us weak and open to attack". I was also expecting it's flipside. The arms exporting nations saying: "But this will hurt our foreign trade! We make a killing selling nukes to nations who can't afford to/aren't advanced enought to/just don't want to build their own nukes."
I have no intention of repealing either "Nuclear Armaments" or "UNSA".

Would you care to support these statements? Why is one group more unstable than the other? Say, you can use a RL list of the countries who have actually used nukes, or threatened to.
OOC: I don't like to use RL references, but in this case I will. The list of nations who have actually used nuclear weapons in war consists of but one nation: The United States of America. That was in 1945 at the end of a long and costly war. Fast forward to 2005. In the current situation, it is inconcievable that the U.S., Russia, the PRC, the U.K. or France would use a nuclear weapon in anger. It is far more likely that they would be used by nations such as Pakistan, India or North Korea (assuming N.K. actually has any). The larger, more advanced nations have an interest in maintaining peace, stability and most importantly, trade. The last thing any of them want is a nuclear exchange.

I told you we never felt threatened, so we are happy to be nuclear-free. But NS is indeed a dangerous place, and if our country ever needed protection from threatening neighbours, we would want our right to acquire nukes to be enshrined by law. Rather than having the need to create a 1mg toy nuclear weapon that probably doesn't work, to be considered nuclear-armed, and thus be admitted to the group of the high and mighty who can do everything they like with nukes. We consider such strategies demeaning, both for the individual nation and for the UN itself.

OOC: I personally like and understand what you are trying to do. But the need to avoid contradicting the previous legislation forces you to regulate in an extremely biased and unfair way. And that is deeply damaging to nations like Fonzoland. ;)
OOC: It is very complicated trying to accomplish something like this in NS. It would be much easier in RL. I'm going swich from Roleplay mode to Gameplay mode for a second. Nations grow at an astounding rate in NS. And basically, anyone who wants nuclear weapons can have them. If you don't have nuclear weapons it is because you have chosen not to(there is a daily issue concerning this). If your nation is over a certain size/age and it has no nuclear weapons then it is because you have chosen to RP or GP them as being nuclear free.
Hopefully I can avoid further references to RL and Gameplay from here on.

Ban all trade and tech exchange, or none.

EDIT - excluding safety devices etc. which should be free to trade between anyone.
And I'm still considering doing that. On the one hand, I've had Ausserland making very sensible arguments for having seperate criteria for nuclear and non-nuclear states. But on the other hand, I have you making very sensible arguments for one standard. I still haven't made up my mind. I'm not in any hurry to submit this for real, no final decision is imminent.

Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all UN nations, whether nuclear armed or non-nuclear armed nations,

Convinced that all UN nations are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Considering the devastation that could be visited upon all nations by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war.

We agree and would remind all other nations that the potential for destruction is so severe and the after-effects so awful, that this is more than just damage limitation, but survival or extinction that we talk about.

Defining a nuclear armed nation as a nation which has either;
(1): Acquired nuclear arms prior to the passage of this legislation, whether through their own technology and manufacturing capabilities, or by other means.
Or,
(2): Acquired nuclear arms since the passage of this legislation through their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

Defining a non-nuclear armed nation as a nation which has acquired no nuclear arms either prior to, or since, the passage of this legislation.

We accept your definitions, though we would like to ask whether a 'dirty bomb' would be considered a nuclear weapon, or depleted uranimum.

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer to any non-nuclear armed nation whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.
(2): Assisting or inducing any non-nuclear armed nation whatsoever to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Agree.

ARTICLE II: Non-nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;
(2): Seeking or receiving any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Agreed.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

If the consequences of their research lead to other nations being affected adversly, either through botched tests or usage, would it not be better that they received assistance.

(Note: I'm only arguing Devil's Advocate here, I actually agree with the article).

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to share technology pertaining to safety devices, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with articles I and II of this legislation.

ARTICLE V: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes , or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with articles I and II of this legislation.

We support this idea and hope the honourable delegate of Yelda will be able to bring it to the floor eventually.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Unfortunatley, in NS we go by the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. To truly ascertain the spirit of those two resolutions in relation to this proposal we would need to hear from the authors.
While I can't speak for the author of UNSA I do believe that I can speak for the author of Nuclear Armaments.:p

To be prefectly honest I'm not sure what the spirit of Nuclear Armaments is, all I know is that my intent in writing it was to make it more difficult for someone to pass a ban on nukes, and basically as long as the proposal doesn't ban the possession of nukes completly it's prefectly legal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Here's what _Myopia_ is referring to I think. This is a modified version of the text I ran through the queue recently. In this version, the definitions of nuclear armed and non-nuclear armed nations are removed. Article I now applies the same restrictions to both nuclear armed and non-nuclear armed nations.
Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all UN nations, whether nuclear armed or non-nuclear armed nations,

Convinced that all UN nations are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Considering the devastation that could be visited upon all nations by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war.

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: All UN member nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer to any nation, of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.
(2): The transfer from any nation, of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;
(3): Assisting or inducing any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
(4): Seeking or receiving any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to share technology pertaining to safety devices, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes , or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.
This will, of course, piss off a whole different group of nations. Comments?

This is a more reasonable approach, though not enough to guarantee Fonzoland's support just yet. Still, the flexibility demonstrated by the honourable Yeldan representative gives us the hope that common ground will be reached eventually.

OOC: Sorry for not debating your arguments or the proposal, lack of time... :(

This is a more reasonable approach, though not enough to guarantee Fonzoland's support just yet. Still, the flexibility demonstrated by the honourable Yeldan representative gives us the hope that common ground will be reached eventually.
Ah, but how do we reconcile the two approaches? Personally we would be happy with either approach, we don't sell nuclear weapons so it's not going to affect us. But whichever way we go on this it will infuriate a certain demographic.

OOC: Sorry for not debating your arguments or the proposal, lack of time... :(
OOC: It's alright. RL is about to intrude on my life as well.

Let's not forget unstable. Or did you leave that part out on purpose?
yes i did, because i was refering to stable nations. think about it, an unstable nation launches one nuke, 20 come in return. i know it has happened before, but even they arent stupid enough to do it. so with other developing nations, the still need them as a defence, more psychological than practical. to us, this is an underhanded way of banning nukes without violating NA or UNSA. also, it isnt just the small developing nations that can be unstable. some of the large developed ones can be too, and wouldnt hesitated to glass a nation.

Almost everything is ok at this present version. I'm just reminding the drafters of this Act that controlling nuclear profileration is different from banning nuclear weapons.

If they elect to employ covert means of exchange and the transaction is discovered at a later time what would be the consequences, if there are any to be specified?

-Pi Chronopolice
-Federation President, United Star States of Chronopolice

OOC: I don't like to use RL references, but in this case I will. The list of nations who have actually used nuclear weapons in war consists of but one nation: The United States of America. That was in 1945 at the end of a long and costly war. Fast forward to 2005. In the current situation, it is inconcievable that the U.S., Russia, the PRC, the U.K. or France would use a nuclear weapon in anger. It is far more likely that they would be used by nations such as Pakistan, India or North Korea (assuming N.K. actually has any). The larger, more advanced nations have an interest in maintaining peace, stability and most importantly, trade. The last thing any of them want is a nuclear exchange.

This isn't true of NS. Here, we see giant militaristic empires that would think very little of glassing a small nation in anger, and nuclear weapons have been used (I'm guessing - I don't follow RP) far more than twice. There are so many nations in NS that even if a large number shun you for doing something like unleashing your nuclear arsenal, there will still be many more which are willing to remain an ally. Not all nations are as interdependent as those in the real world are.

Yeah, I know. NS≠RL. Fonzoland invited me to give an RL example, so I did.

Unfortunatley, in NS we go by the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. To truly ascertain the spirit of those two resolutions in relation to this proposal we would need to hear from the authors.

We seem to have a failure in communication, probably because my use of the word "spirit" is not adequate. So please interpret it as "the general and sound principle that these resolutions are trying to protect," and do not interpret it as a legalistic challenge in any way. Mkay?

I was expecting this line of argument.

Good. In my view that reinforces its validity.

"We can't afford to/aren't advanced enought to/just don't want to build our own nuclear weapons. The big nations are just trying to keep us weak and open to attack". I was also expecting it's flipside. The arms exporting nations saying: "But this will hurt our foreign trade! We make a killing selling nukes to nations who can't afford to/aren't advanced enought to/just don't want to build their own nukes."

My argument is not based on foreign trade or self-pity. In the name of good diplomatic relationships, and our taste for fine Yeldan Cheese, we will ignore the outrageous insult in those words. For your information, Fonzoland is small, yet technologically advanced, and we would have no problems creating our own nukes, given enough time.

The crux of the argument is simply this: you are proposing a resolution that, in the grand scale, provokes a major shift of power, making the small nations even more vulnerable than they are now. In addition to not having nukes, you propose that they should not have any assistence in acquiring them. While not restricting at all the major nations.

I have no intention of repealing either "Nuclear Armaments" or "UNSA".

A sign of great wisdom. While we would like to further the causes of disarmament and world peace, the current UN/non-UN ratio forces us to vehemently defend those resolutions.

OOC: RL examples not discussed, and I don't mind avoiding them in the future.

Finally, I would like to say that our Ministry of Defense has studied the alternative proposal with great care, and advised me to cautiously move our position towards abstention.

Although we still sympathise with nations who would feel threatened by these provisions, our particular geopolitical situation seems to imply that, for Fonzoland, the restrictions to our potential enemies outweigh those to ourselves.

My argument is not based on foreign trade or self-pity. In the name of good diplomatic relationships, and our taste for fine Yeldan Cheese, we will ignore the outrageous insult in those words. For your information, Fonzoland is small, yet technologically advanced, and we would have no problems creating our own nukes, given enough time.
Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound as shitty as it ended up sounding. I wasn't talking about keping nuclear weapons out of the hands of nations such as Fonzoland.
I said this in an earlier post:
And no, I did NOT just say that all small, developing nations are technologically backwards and unstable.
I'm talking about keeping them out of the hands of nations who regularly appear in this forum saying things like:
0h noes! u want to take r nukxxors!!1:gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :headbang:

OOC: RL examples not discussed, and I don't mind avoiding them in the future.
I don't mind discussing RL examples/scenarios. I just don't like it when a debate turns into an endless barrage of urls and RL graphs and statistics. Sometimes that happens.

Finally, I would like to say that our Ministry of Defense has studied the alternative proposal with great care, and advised me to cautiously move our position towards abstention.

Although we still sympathise with nations who would feel threatened by these provisions, our particular geopolitical situation seems to imply that, for Fonzoland, the restrictions to our potential enemies outweigh those to ourselves.
I would like to thank you for your contributions to the debate. Any further input you can offer will be most appreciated.

Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all UN nations, whether nuclear armed or non-nuclear armed nations,
Agreed wholeheartedly. Nations that wish to use nuclear power peacefully shouldn't be stripped of that energy source.
Convinced that all UN nations are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,
I'm not sure I like the word "Convinced" here. I know you're using believing to begin a lot of the inops, but how about switching this "convinced" with the "Believing" two clauses down? "Convinced" makes it sound like this was something that was previously uncertain that has only recently become this body's position.
Considering the devastation that could be visited upon all nations by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,
I'd replace "need to make every effort" with "duty." It gives me more of an impression of UN strength than neediness. But that's just me, do what you will.
Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war.
Again, I'd switch this "Believing" with the "Convinced" above.
Defining a nuclear armed nation as a nation which has acquired nuclear arms at any time, and has possession of such arms, whether through their own technology and manufacturing capabilities, or by other means.
Good, all-encompassing definition.
Defining a non-nuclear armed nation as a nation which has acquired no nuclear arms either prior to, or since, the passage of this legislation.
According to this definition, a nation that once had nuclear arms, but now does not, is not "non-nuclear armed." However, according to the previous definition, it is not "nuclear armed" either. Was this the author's intent?
The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I: Nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer to any non-nuclear armed nation whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.
(2): Assisting or inducing any non-nuclear armed nation whatsoever to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Good, lots of potential loopholes covered here. Well done.
ARTICLE II: Non-nuclear armed nations shall refrain from:
(1): The transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;
(2): Seeking or receiving any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
I'd really like to see "assistance" in II.2 defined.
ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.
Way to stick legislative intent right in there. ;) I like this article, it should prevent several debates in years to come.
ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to share technology pertaining to safety devices, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with articles I and II of this legislation.
Well done again.
ARTICLE V: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes , or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with articles I and II of this legislation.
And again.

One issue I have with this (which I think may have been mentioned early on in this debate) is the lack of a definition of nuclear arms. Is the warhead alone a nuclear arm, or are other related munitions included?

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound as shitty as it ended up sounding. I wasn't talking about keping nuclear weapons out of the hands of nations such as Fonzoland.

OOC: To make it clear, my outrage was purely IC. ;)

IC: You might want to look at the issue [NS]The-Republic mentioned. Quoting myself, when commenting on the distinction between armed and non-armed,

Rather than having the need to create a 1mg toy nuclear weapon that probably doesn't work, to be considered nuclear-armed, and thus be admitted to the group of the high and mighty who can do everything they like with nukes. We consider such strategies demeaning, both for the individual nation and for the UN itself.

I'm talking about keeping them out of the hands of nations who regularly appear in this forum saying things like:

the only problem there is that you wouldnt. they can just turn around and say they already had them, or they do have the ability to build them, etc. and you are always going to get dipshits (pardon my Frosbitarian) like that anyway. this wont stop them, it will only weaken the defence of nations that dont have them, and the economies of those that export them.

the only problem there is that you wouldnt. they can just turn around and say they already had them, or they do have the ability to build them, etc. and you are always going to get dipshits (pardon my Frosbitarian) like that anyway. this wont stop them, it will only weaken the defence of nations that dont have them, and the economies of those that export them.
Yes, yes, from a roleplay perspective anybody can just pop up and proclaim "we've got some nukes". From a gameplay perspective, all you have to do to possess nuclear weapons is answer the daily issues correctly. It's just pretty damn near impossible to prevent nations from building their own nuclear weapons in NS, and this proposal does not try to.
What's your point?

I'm not sure I like the word "Convinced" here. I know you're using believing to begin a lot of the inops, but how about switching this "convinced" with the "Believing" two clauses down? "Convinced" makes it sound like this was something that was previously uncertain that has only recently become this body's position.

I'd replace "need to make every effort" with "duty." It gives me more of an impression of UN strength than neediness. But that's just me, do what you will.

Again, I'd switch this "Believing" with the "Convinced" above.
Good points. Thanks. I'll make those changes in the next draft.

According to this definition, a nation that once had nuclear arms, but now does not, is not "non-nuclear armed." However, according to the previous definition, it is not "nuclear armed" either. Was this the author's intent?
Those are from the original draft (in post 1). I've posted a newer draft in post 34 which drops the definitions of nuclear armed and non-nuclear armed. It also applies the same restrictions to all nations, regardless of their nuclear weapons status. I'd like for you to also look at that version and let me know what you think. I'm still undecided on which version to use.

I'd really like to see "assistance" in II.2 defined.
I'll work on that. Suggestions?

One issue I have with this (which I think may have been mentioned early on in this debate) is the lack of a definition of nuclear arms. Is the warhead alone a nuclear arm, or are other related munitions included?
I would define it as the explosive payload only (the part that goes Boom). There are other things in the warhead which are not, strictly speaking, part of the "weapon". The guidance system for instance. So yes, we'll probably need to narrow it down to a suitable definition. We don't want to ban the trading of guidance system technology, or safety devices.

Yes, yes, from a roleplay perspective anybody can just pop up and proclaim "we've got some nukes". From a gameplay perspective, all you have to do to possess nuclear weapons is answer the daily issues correctly. It's just pretty damn near impossible to prevent nations from building their own nuclear weapons in NS, and this proposal does not try to.
What's your point?
and with this statement, the proposal is now not worth the paper it is written on.

and with this statement, the proposal is now not worth the paper it is written on.
What does this mean to you?
ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.
This has NEVER been about preventing ANYONE from building THEIR OWN nuclear weapons.

What does this mean to you?

This has NEVER been about preventing ANYONE from building THEIR OWN nuclear weapons.
but it allows the trade between nuclear nations. all a nation has to do is say it has one nuclear weapon, then they can buy all the nuclear weapons they want. hang on, i have discovered a very large loophole....

I don't think saying you have nuclear weapons is enough; you need to actually possess at least one before you become a legal merchant.

And no, you can't just lie and say that you have nuclear weapons when you don't. The UN Gnomes won't let you.

Loophole closed.

The-Republic']I don't think saying you have nuclear weapons is enough; you need to actually possess at least one before you become a legal merchant.

And no, you can't just lie and say that you have nuclear weapons when you don't. The UN Gnomes won't let you.

Loophole closed.
Thanks. :)

i have to ask, how would the UN gnomes know if you have a nuclear weapon or not, and dont answer 'they just do'. there is no mechanisim in the game to determin if you have one or not, except in role play. you could say you have one hidden away in secure location, and no one, not even the gnomes, would be able to tell, because even they have to respect a nation's security proceedures

i have to ask, how would the UN gnomes know if you have a nuclear weapon or not, and dont answer 'they just do'. there is no mechanisim in the game to determin if you have one or not, except in role play. you could say you have one hidden away in secure location, and no one, not even the gnomes, would be able to tell, because even they have to respect a nation's security proceedures
I could always add this:

ARTICLE V: We hereby establish the United Nations Nuclear Armaments Agency and empower it to perform inspections of nuclear energy production facilities and nuclear weapons facilities in all UN Nations.

Then I could go on to set up a schedule of penalties and sanctions for those found to be in non-compliance.




I could, but I won't.

I could always add this:

ARTICLE V: We hereby establish the United Nations Nuclear Armaments Agency and empower it to perform inspections of nuclear energy production facilities and nuclear weapons facilities in all UN Nations.

Then I could go on to set up a schedule of penalties and sanctions for those found to be in non-compliance.




I could, but I won't.
a lot of people would be against this, because it could violate sensative areas and be cause for espionage. and without that section, it makes this proposal usless because there is no way to prove if someone has a nuclear missile or not.

a lot of people would be against this
No! You're kidding!
without that section, it makes this proposal usless because there is no way to prove if someone has a nuclear missile or not.
OOC: From a gameplay perspective there is no need to prove anything. You either have nuclear weapons or you don't. From a roleplay perspective, yes, you might be able to bluff your way into the "nuclear club" and circumvent the resolution that way. I don't know why anyone would go to that much trouble when they could just as easily roleplay building their own nukes.

No! You're kidding!

OOC: From a gameplay perspective there is no need to prove anything. You either have nuclear weapons or you don't. From a roleplay perspective, yes, you might be able to bluff your way into the "nuclear club" and circumvent the resolution that way. I don't know why anyone would go to that much trouble when they could just as easily roleplay building their own nukes.
or they could just say they got one nuke just before the resolution passed. if people are going to get around it that easily, is there any point having it in the first place.

if people are going to get around it that easily, is there any point having it in the first place.
OOC: By that same line of reasoning, what's the point of any of the resolutions that are on the books? Anyone who is motivated to do so can roleplay their way around any resolution. I could be in non-compliance with all of them right now.

OOC: By that same line of reasoning, what's the point of any of the resolutions that are on the books? Anyone who is motivated to do so can roleplay their way around any resolution. I could be in non-compliance with all of them right now.
there is a difference between non-compliance, and exploiting loopholes

there is a difference between non-compliance, and exploiting loopholes
Indeed. The point I'm trying to make is that all resolutions have loopholes which can be exploited through roleplay. From a gameplay perspective it is not possible to be in non-compliance.

which is why we are trying, of late, to cut back on those resolutions. this one will end up a wasted piece of burocracy that is un-enforcable since anyone can say 'we have one nuke in storage in a secret location, so we can still buy nukes'. i know your intentions are well, but unfortunatly, this has so many drawbacks, not to mention a very large loophole, that i dont think it is worth it in this form. there are only a few options, and i will state them as explinations:
1) ban all nuclear transactions. this will get both nuke and non-nuke nations backs up
2) add weapons inspection clause. this will get so many backs up it isnt funny
3) leave it as it is. yay, another burocratic, loophole riddled mess [/sarcasm]
4) leave it alone. this is probably the better option. nuclear arms cannot be banned under current resolutions, so why should their trade be banned, besides looking like a poor substitute?

5) Stop responding to self-appointed nuclear weapons experts who say "nuke" and "glass" and can't spell bureaucratic.

5) Stop responding to self-appointed nuclear weapons experts who say "nuke" and "glass" and can't spell bureaucratic.
i am not a nuclear arms expert, and do not claim to be one. nuke is an accepted shortening for nuclear arms, and "glass" is a reference that has been used here quite often. as for the spelling, i apologise for that, but then again, Charles Dickens couldn't spell, yet is one of the most well known RL authors. to me, this is just an attempt to make up for the fact that you can not ban nuclear arms, and has 2 major loopholes that anyone can simply use. because of the lack of having inspection, it has no teeth, and creates one loophole. because you cant stop someone leaving the UN, buying nuclear arms, then re-entering, it has left another loophole. this is not to mention that for some nations it has the ability to hurt a legitimate industry. whilst that we admit that allowing nuclear arms is bad, there are plenty knocking on the door if the UN ban them, not to mention plenty of insiders willing to use them. the only thing this would do is change people to say "we use all bar one of our nukes on you, so we can buy more".

to me, this is just an attempt to make up for the fact that you can not ban nuclear arms,
<sigh> You make it sound as if I'm just dying to ban nuclear weapons, but since I can't, this is the next best thing. This proposal has never been about banning nuclear arms. It's about controlling their spread and trying to limit who has them.
and has 2 major loopholes that anyone can simply use. because of the lack of having inspection, it has no teeth, and creates one loophole.
I could easily fix that by establishing an agency to conduct inspections. Considering the amount of hostility this proposal is likely to generate as written, I don't see that making it any worse.
because you cant stop someone leaving the UN, buying nuclear arms, then re-entering, it has left another loophole.
Correct. That "loophole" isn't really a loophole. It's just the way the game works, nothing we can do about that. It would create an inconvenience, but a nation that was desperate to acquire nuclear arms could certainly take that route.

I'm putting this on the back burner for awhile. The major obstacle I see is not the loopholes, those can be plugged, but the lack of a definition of nuclear weapons. Without a definition, a nuclear weapon can be whatever you say it is (or isn't). If we start defining them, then where do we draw the line? A broad definition would end up interfering with the trade of missile technology, electronics, GPS and who knows what else. A narrow definition which tried to limit itself to just the explosive payload might not be possible. We'll revisit this after the New Year. Or not.

Please do revisist this. The people of Cluichstan see this as a very worthwhile proposal.

Our nation has a very healthy industry based around weapons-grade nuclear material and non-weapons-grade nuclear material. If this proposal would be passed, our nation's economy would quickly collapse in on itself.

Our nation has a very healthy industry based around weapons-grade nuclear material and non-weapons-grade nuclear material. If this proposal would be passed, our nation's economy would quickly collapse in on itself.

Right. Thing is, who are you selling them to? If it's a nuclear power, then you've nothing to worry about. If it's not, then I fail to see how you can be doing such a rip-roaring business.

We just hope Kernwaffen isn't selling such material to the Theocracy of Chuck Norris the God (http://www.nationstates.net/83365/page=display_nation/nation=chuck_norris_the_god). That country's nuts.

Our country prefers to keep a "hands off" aproach in terms of selling nuclear material. It just seems to work better that way.

i am not a nuclear arms expert, and do not claim to be one. nuke is an accepted shortening for nuclear arms, and "glass" is a reference that has been used here quite often. as for the spelling, i apologise for that, but then again, Charles Dickens couldn't spell, yet is one of the most well known RL authors. to me, this is just an attempt to make up for the fact that you can not ban nuclear arms, and has 2 major loopholes that anyone can simply use. because of the lack of having inspection, it has no teeth, and creates one loophole. because you cant stop someone leaving the UN, buying nuclear arms, then re-entering, it has left another loophole. this is not to mention that for some nations it has the ability to hurt a legitimate industry. whilst that we admit that allowing nuclear arms is bad, there are plenty knocking on the door if the UN ban them, not to mention plenty of insiders willing to use them. the only thing this would do is change people to say "we use all bar one of our nukes on you, so we can buy more".

No one is suggesting that nuclear arms are to be banned, on the contrary if one looks at clause two of the text:

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

As for the points about loopholes, I would counter that firstly inspections are not necessary, due to the mechanics of the game meaning that any resolution, if passed, is enforced automatically. Therefore the question of inspections, unless explicitely specified, is either irrelevant or redundant. With regards to the second alleged loophole, I cite sub-clause four or clause one:

(4): Seeking or receiving any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

If the nation has left the U.N., you are correct in your assertion that thay may purchase nuclear technology, arms and associated parts, so as to construct additional or initial nuclear weaponary. Yet upon re-entering the U.N., it is reasonable to assume taht having been guilty of seeking the assistance of other nations, they, upon coming under U.N. law once again, would be liable for sanctions or restrictions, which could perhaps be specified under this act.

I would question what is so 'legitimate' about marketing weapons or parts of weapons with the capacity to inflict enormous suffering and damage, as well as pose a dire threat to the survival of civilisation. I would call this by any reasonable standard immoral and illegitimate. The enormity of nuclear weapons means that while we cannot, regrettably, ban them, we should explore other means to restrict their usage and construction wherever possible.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Nuclear weapons are one of Kerwaffen's strongest deterrents to armed conflict. It also works the same way, we would not be so willing to fight against another country that could turn our country into a nuclear wasteland. Also, while abiding to our Nuclear Rules of Engagement, that, as part of them, do not permit our using of WMD/NBC weapons against a country that does not possess, from intelligence that we have gathered, these weapons. We have also been blessed with large deposits of Uranium that can be enriched to produce our nuclear weapons, therefore theses laws would not impact our supply at all, rather damaging our economy that is based on the exportation of Uranium, although not enriched weapons-grade. Because we also cannot dictate how another buyer may use the Uranium we supply, either for peaceful uses or for weapons, the proposal would not cover our exportations that, if the buyer so wishes, may enrich to produce a nuclear weapon. We are also curious as to how this will effect those nations that already possess nuclear weapons through their own sciences, but have a much smaller amount of Uranium within their own borders. Should they be limited in the amount of weapons they can produce because the only means of creating their weapons has been cut-off?

We are also curious as to how this will effect those nations that already possess nuclear weapons through their own sciences, but have a much smaller amount of Uranium within their own borders. Should they be limited in the amount of weapons they can produce because the only means of creating their weapons has been cut-off?
This doesn't address in any way shape or form, the trading of uranium, either weapons grade or non-weapons grade. It only addresses weapons and the technology to build weapons. Raw, or even processed uranium, plutonium etc. is not covered.

For the record, my plans were to follow this up with a Free Trade resolution which would encourage the trade of nuclear energy technology, fuel (uranium), reactor designs and so forth.

If the proposal, then, clarifies the trading of uranium to nations already possessing nuclear weapons, I will be much more receptive to the proposal.

Please do revisist this. The people of Cluichstan see this as a very worthwhile proposal.
Thanks:) . I'm not abandoning the idea, I'm just taking some time to think it over more thoroughly. Cluichstan and the rest of you, feel free to continue posting. I'm out of ideas right now. Maybe you'll come up with something. The most recent version is in post # 34 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10080439&postcount=34). The earlier version is in post # 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10072517&postcount=1). Edit either of them all you want.

No one is suggesting that nuclear arms are to be banned, on the contrary if one looks at clause two of the text:
that can also be seen as making sure this resolution is legal, and not violating passed resolutions.



As for the points about loopholes, I would counter that firstly inspections are not necessary, due to the mechanics of the game meaning that any resolution, if passed, is enforced automatically. Therefore the question of inspections, unless explicitely specified, is either irrelevant or redundant.
firstly, there is nothing breaking down the millitary budget. therefor, anyone can roleplay having nukes, and unless they have no millitary budget, they cant really be caught out. secondly, a country can say they have 1 or 20 nuclear weapons, and they bought them 10 years ago. because it is a once off thing, unless you are keeping track of budgets, you cant proove it. mechanics can only go so far.

With regards to the second alleged loophole, I cite sub-clause four or clause one:



If the nation has left the U.N., you are correct in your assertion that thay may purchase nuclear technology, arms and associated parts, so as to construct additional or initial nuclear weaponary. Yet upon re-entering the U.N., it is reasonable to assume taht having been guilty of seeking the assistance of other nations, they, upon coming under U.N. law once again, would be liable for sanctions or restrictions, which could perhaps be specified under this act.
but the nation was not in the UN when it purchased the weaponary, therefor isnt covered by this, and isnt subject to any penalties upon rejoining. if this was the case, there are plenty of resolutions with this loophole, ban on landmines to name one, which nations do not inccur penalties in leaving, re-stocking minefields, then rejoining


I would question what is so 'legitimate' about marketing weapons or parts of weapons with the capacity to inflict enormous suffering and damage, as well as pose a dire threat to the survival of civilisation. I would call this by any reasonable standard immoral and illegitimate. The enormity of nuclear weapons means that while we cannot, regrettably, ban them, we should explore other means to restrict their usage and construction wherever possible.
i in turn question you, what is so illegitimate about marketing these kinds of weapons. you say immoral. others would argue that the Sex Workers Act is immoral, but we still have it. Hell, one could argue that NAA and UNSA are immoral, because they allow these weapons to exist. to us, they are a legitimate psychological defence against others launching nuclear weaponary.

another member asked me why i hadnt done a spiel in here about tech differences... well, i will point out a case here. there are nations, Future-Tech and Myth-Tech, that have weapons that could do as much, if not more damage than nuclear ones. DLE, on many a time, pointed out that she had weapons that were more efficient in obliterating nations than nuclear weapons. then there are Past-Tech nations, which this would affect greatly. not all Past-Tech nations are like Compadria, in that anything crossing the border changes into the past equivalent*. small nations arnt the only unstable ones that would be quick to pull the trigger, and unless the Past-Tech nations buy nuclear weapons, there is no deterrent for big or small nations lobbing nuclear missiles on them.

*i put that there because it could lead to another thread of thought. say Compadria hypothetically launches some sort of weapon from their country. upon crossing the border, assuming the change is reversed when leaving, said weapon could possibly turn into a nuclear weapon. this could lead to Compadria being seen as in violation of this resolution. i know it is a case of 'cant cover all scenarios' but this could lead to questions of how could this past tech nation get nuclear weapons, since they do not have the technology to build them themselves. the question is, how many would accept the 'barrier' as a suitable explination, and how many would ask for penalties to apply?

to me, this could lead to a lot of backlash, and also quite a few small nations being 'glassed' because they have no way to defend themselves against nuclear weaponary. whilst phyically using them causes massive devistation, psychologically using them is a good deterrent for them not to be launched.

that can also be seen as making sure this resolution is legal, and not violating passed resolutions.

Which rather correlates to what I was saying in my original reply.

firstly, there is nothing breaking down the millitary budget. therefor, anyone can roleplay having nukes, and unless they have no millitary budget, they cant really be caught out. secondly, a country can say they have 1 or 20 nuclear weapons, and they bought them 10 years ago. because it is a once off thing, unless you are keeping track of budgets, you cant proove it. mechanics can only go so far.

This doesn't answer my point at all, as you've ignored the facts I mentioned and have come up with a rather incoherent reply concerning military budgets, which, quite frankly, I can't make head or tail of.

but the nation was not in the UN when it purchased the weaponary, therefor isnt covered by this, and isnt subject to any penalties upon rejoining. if this was the case, there are plenty of resolutions with this loophole, ban on landmines to name one, which nations do not inccur penalties in leaving, re-stocking minefields, then rejoining

You're point is taken, perhaps this loophole could be adressed in the later drafting and discussion stage of this proposal.

i in turn question you, what is so illegitimate about marketing these kinds of weapons. you say immoral. others would argue that the Sex Workers Act is immoral, but we still have it. Hell, one could argue that NAA and UNSA are immoral, because they allow these weapons to exist. to us, they are a legitimate psychological defence against others launching nuclear weaponary.

What do you mean psychological defence? Furthermore I think that marketing one's (cough) facilities, as covered by the Sex Workers Act is at the very least marginally less immoral than raining fire and radioactive ash so as to kill quite possibly millions. I thought that the resolution permitting nuclear weapon ownership was not particularly to my taste, but I merely stated that since it was settled law now, it would be futile to try and act as if it didn't exist.

another member asked me why i hadnt done a spiel in here about tech differences... well, i will point out a case here. there are nations, Future-Tech and Myth-Tech, that have weapons that could do as much, if not more damage than nuclear ones. DLE, on many a time, pointed out that she had weapons that were more efficient in obliterating nations than nuclear weapons. then there are Past-Tech nations, which this would affect greatly. not all Past-Tech nations are like Compadria, in that anything crossing the border changes into the past equivalent*. small nations arnt the only unstable ones that would be quick to pull the trigger, and unless the Past-Tech nations buy nuclear weapons, there is no deterrent for big or small nations lobbing nuclear missiles on them.

Firstly, Compadria is not Past-Tech, we're modern (as in RL modern) and we believe that the deterrent against nuclear weapons lies in diplomacy, responsible foreign policy and good alliances and distribution of wealth, so as not to give cause for other nations to act violently. No sane man would fire off destructive weapons at another nation without considering all options. We do not need nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we consider them unnecessary for the purposes of, should it occur, conflict.

*i put that there because it could lead to another thread of thought. say Compadria hypothetically launches some sort of weapon from their country. upon crossing the border, assuming the change is reversed when leaving, said weapon could possibly turn into a nuclear weapon. this could lead to Compadria being seen as in violation of this resolution. i know it is a case of 'cant cover all scenarios' but this could lead to questions of how could this past tech nation get nuclear weapons, since they do not have the technology to build them themselves. the question is, how many would accept the 'barrier' as a suitable explination, and how many would ask for penalties to apply?

I'm afraid I've lost you here.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

first of all, i appologise, the past tech nation i was thinking of was Cobdenia

Which rather correlates to what I was saying in my original reply.
perception is the key here. whilst you say it that way, some people try to look between the lines and would see this as being an attempt to restrict their access to nuclear weapons, since they cant be banned. it is kinda like seeing it as being a ban without being a ban, so to speak.



This doesn't answer my point at all, as you've ignored the facts I mentioned and have come up with a rather incoherent reply concerning military budgets, which, quite frankly, I can't make head or tail of.
but it does. i will try to simplify. the mechanics only affect the various budgets in the stats. because there is no breakdowns within those budgets, there is no proof on what is spent on nuclear weapons. If it was implamented that there were inspectors, besides the roleplay aspect, it would be seen as a greater attempt to keep tabs.



You're point is taken, perhaps this loophole could be adressed in the later drafting and discussion stage of this proposal.
there is practically nothing you can do to close this loophole, otherwise people would have done it before.



What do you mean psychological defence? Furthermore I think that marketing one's (cough) facilities, as covered by the Sex Workers Act is at the very least marginally less immoral than raining fire and radioactive ash so as to kill quite possibly millions. I thought that the resolution permitting nuclear weapon ownership was not particularly to my taste, but I merely stated that since it was settled law now, it would be futile to try and act as if it didn't exist.
that was the first one i could come up with as far as moral arguments go. i could have included gay rights too. what i was getting at is that what some see as being moral, others see as being immoral. as for psychological aspect, if one nation launches a nuclear weapon at another nation that has them, the second nation would return fire and both nations would be gone. i know it is the MAD principle, but it does work.



Firstly, Compadria is not Past-Tech, we're modern (as in RL modern) and we believe that the deterrent against nuclear weapons lies in diplomacy, responsible foreign policy and good alliances and distribution of wealth, so as not to give cause for other nations to act violently. No sane man would fire off destructive weapons at another nation without considering all options. We do not need nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we consider them unnecessary for the purposes of, should it occur, conflict.
as stated at the beginning, we appologise, as we were thinking of another country. i know you will call flip - flop on this, but we believe in diplomacy over war. the only problem is, others dont. also, the posession(sp) of nuclear weapons can be an incentive for a war-mongering nation to choose to come to the table and discuss rather than fight. admittedly it should be a last resort, but it should still be an option. as i have stated, and has been overlooked, future-tech and myth-tech nations have worse weapons.

first of all, i appologise, the past tech nation i was thinking of was Cobdenia

Sorry about the mis-understanding.


perception is the key here. whilst you say it that way, some people try to look between the lines and would see this as being an attempt to restrict their access to nuclear weapons, since they cant be banned. it is kinda like seeing it as being a ban without being a ban, so to speak.

Well that's unfortunate, but nowhere is the U.N. obliged to follow the spirit of the law, if it could be so construed, nor to necessarily always have one view as to the letter of the law. If the possession of nuclear weapons alone was enshrined, there's nothing to say that acess can be restricted. For those complaining about this being a ban without being a ban, then regrettably (for them) there is no real legal ground they can object to this.

but it does. i will try to simplify. the mechanics only affect the various budgets in the stats. because there is no breakdowns within those budgets, there is no proof on what is spent on nuclear weapons. If it was implamented that there were inspectors, besides the roleplay aspect, it would be seen as a greater attempt to keep tabs.

I see what you mean, but I disagree with you. There is a breakdown of the nations budget, with various categories subsumed under the total expenditure. One is given a "Defence" sum for example and considering the costs of nuclear armament, etc, one can extrapolate from that the relevant data, should one choose to do so.

that was the first one i could come up with as far as moral arguments go. i could have included gay rights too. what i was getting at is that what some see as being moral, others see as being immoral. as for psychological aspect, if one nation launches a nuclear weapon at another nation that has them, the second nation would return fire and both nations would be gone. i know it is the MAD principle, but it does work.

Yes, but there are common standards shared between nations (which was my point). As for the matter of the psychological aspect, the MAD principal may work, but it remains mad.and fails to take into account psychosis or snap decisions made under pressure or based upon faulty information. This could lead to tragic consequences.

as stated at the beginning, we appologise, as we were thinking of another country. i know you will call flip - flop on this, but we believe in diplomacy over war. the only problem is, others dont. also, the posession(sp) of nuclear weapons can be an incentive for a war-mongering nation to choose to come to the table and discuss rather than fight. admittedly it should be a last resort, but it should still be an option. as i have stated, and has been overlooked, future-tech and myth-tech nations have worse weapons.

I remember you saying that due to temporal relativisation, the more advance weapons would regress into the appropriate weapons of the time period. Equally, the possession of nuclear weapons could embolden a nation into making excessive or ludicrous demands, merely due to the superiority in military strength conferred by their exclusive possession of nuclear weapons in the respective arsenals of the disputing nations.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well that's unfortunate, but nowhere is the U.N. obliged to follow the spirit of the law, if it could be so construed, nor to necessarily always have one view as to the letter of the law. If the possession of nuclear weapons alone was enshrined, there's nothing to say that acess can be restricted. For those complaining about this being a ban without being a ban, then regrettably (for them) there is no real legal ground they can object to this.
i conceed this to be legal, i am just commenting on how some people would see it.



I see what you mean, but I disagree with you. There is a breakdown of the nations budget, with various categories subsumed under the total expenditure. One is given a "Defence" sum for example and considering the costs of nuclear armament, etc, one can extrapolate from that the relevant data, should one choose to do so.
that data changes all the time. if a nation was consistantly bringing in nuclear weapons, it would show, but if a nation bought them, once off, 1 year ago, 10 years ago, it becomes a little hard. also, whilst the budget is broken down into various sections, Defence being one, those are not broken down themselves. who could tell the difference if a nation bought a nuclear weapon or a dozen submarines with the money allocated?


Yes, but there are common standards shared between nations (which was my point). As for the matter of the psychological aspect, the MAD principal may work, but it remains mad.and fails to take into account psychosis or snap decisions made under pressure or based upon faulty information. This could lead to tragic consequences.
one of the problems is that Yelda said that this was trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of small unstable nations. besides generally being that they would have nuclear weapons before joining the UN, there are larger nations that have already got them, and in an instant, such as a coup, could suddenly become unstable. there are a multitude of scenarios that could come up. not to mention, if an unstable nation wants them, they could get them. it only occured to me that this really, technically, restricts the buying for defence purposes, but please correct me if i am wrong. a small unstable nation could use this stating they were buying them to attack another nation, not to defend their own.



I remember you saying that due to temporal relativisation, the more advance weapons would regress into the appropriate weapons of the time period. Equally, the possession of nuclear weapons could embolden a nation into making excessive or ludicrous demands, merely due to the superiority in military strength conferred by their exclusive possession of nuclear weapons in the respective arsenals of the disputing nations.
i conceed your point. but then again, allowing this could block the other nation from saying "well, we just bought X amount of nukes. we see your demands as being unreasonable, would you like to re-negotiate them?"

We view this measure as pointless at best. If an unstable nation really wishes to obtain nuclears, they will do so by any means necessary, even if that means buying them under the table. Or a nation can state that it had a nuclear warhead years ago, but sold it, and now it wishes to buy another. This measure will be virtually unenforceable for the nations we need to be worried about, and more red tape for the nations that need nuclear weaponry for legitimate purposes.

We view this measure as pointless at best. If an unstable nation really wishes to obtain nuclears, they will do so by any means necessary, even if that means buying them under the table. Or a nation can state that it had a nuclear warhead years ago, but sold it, and now it wishes to buy another. This measure will be virtually unenforceable for the nations we need to be worried about, and more red tape for the nations that need nuclear weaponry for legitimate purposes.

There can be no possibility of buying under the table if this resolution is enacted, equally the possibility cited of a nation that wishes to re-arm is not viable, since it would be prohibited under the wording and intent of this resolution.

Finally, I would dispute whether there is ever a "legitimate purpose" for nuclear weapons, if anything, they are an aggravating factor in international disputes and thus pose a threat to the peace, more than any conventional arsenal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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