NationStates Jolt Archive

Observing

United Nations Resolution #109 which allows UN member nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

Noting

-A- That any build up of such weapons encourages construction of facilities that can serve as power supplies for said nation
-B- That such build up can bolster the economy of a nation
-C- That use of nuclear wastes to construct weapons may aid the environment

Declaring

That the UN member nations adopt the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent against any non-member nations that may threaten with their own nuclear weapons.

Observing

That the threat of complete and utter destruction by nuclear war will serve as a deterrent from said threats, minimizing the risk of a nuclear war and other conventional forms of war.

Defining

-A-That the use of this policy be used in cases of a preemptive nuclear strike by non member nations
-B-That the threat of this policy can be used to deter any war mongering nations
-C-That if an enemy nation initiates conventional warfare this policy shall only be used as a final means after all other options have been utilized

Resolving

That this defensive nature be adopted as an International Nuclear Policy in order to strengthen and preserve security of UN member nations and the world in general.

-------------------------

So far it has 8 approvals, if you agree in the effectiveness of this policy please show your support by voting for it. The deadline for this one is 12/18

Are you MAD??? If not, please define it in the proposal.

MAD in a world of 110,000 nations, some of which are colossal space empires, would be...an interesting concept.

As regards nuclear weaponry in general: so long as we have them, and can use them on foreigners and ugly people, I really don't care.

Observing

United Nations Resolution #109 which allows UN member nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

Noting

-A- That any build up of such weapons encourages construction of facilities that can serve as power supplies for said nation
-B- That such build up can bolster the economy of a nation
-C- That use of nuclear wastes to construct weapons may aid the environment

A). Yes, but is this really a good reason for having them? There's other, less dangerous ways of creating stable and efficient power supplies.

B). Again, refer to first point, with the modification of "less dangerous ways of creating stable and prosperous economy".

C). How?

Declaring

That the UN member nations adopt the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent against any non-member nations that may threaten with their own nuclear weapons.

This won't necessarily act as a deterrant. What about lunatics and nations with nothing to lose?

Observing

That the threat of complete and utter destruction by nuclear war will serve as a deterrent from said threats, minimizing the risk of a nuclear war and other conventional forms of war.

Viz previous point.

Defining

-A-That the use of this policy be used in cases of a preemptive nuclear strike by non member nations
-B-That the threat of this policy can be used to deter any war mongering nations
-C-That if an enemy nation initiates conventional warfare this policy shall only be used as a final means after all other options have been utilized

A). If the strike has already happened, how has the MAD policy worked exactly?

C). Ok, we finally agree with you on something.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: Please tell me the person who proposed this is joking, please?

Observing

United Nations Resolution #109 which allows UN member nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

Noting

-A- That any build up of such weapons encourages construction of facilities that can serve as power supplies for said nation
-B- That such build up can bolster the economy of a nation
-C- That use of nuclear wastes to construct weapons may aid the environment

Declaring

That the UN member nations adopt the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent against any non-member nations that may threaten with their own nuclear weapons.

Observing

That the threat of complete and utter destruction by nuclear war will serve as a deterrent from said threats, minimizing the risk of a nuclear war and other conventional forms of war.

Defining

-A-That the use of this policy be used in cases of a preemptive nuclear strike by non member nations
-B-That the threat of this policy can be used to deter any war mongering nations
-C-That if an enemy nation initiates conventional warfare this policy shall only be used as a final means after all other options have been utilized

Resolving

That this defensive nature be adopted as an International Nuclear Policy in order to strengthen and preserve security of UN member nations and the world in general.

-------------------------

So far it has 8 approvals, if you agree in the effectiveness of this policy please show your support by voting for it. The deadline for this one is 12/18
i have to ask: what does this policy do? it seems to me
a) to do nothing,
b) wonder about a possible HoC violation (then again, i have been wrong in the past)
c) to be a waste of paper

we already have resolutions saying we can have and use nukes. this seems to do nothing new, except explain MAD, and that in itself doesnt need a resolution to explain it.

I HOPE the goal isn't to require UN members to possess nuclear weapons, but I'm scratching my head on this.

As written, it appears to recognize the MAD doctrine as 'policy', and not do much else.

The way I understand it, it's declaring that if any nation is attacked by a non-UN nation, all UN nations must combine to wipe the non-UN nation off the map?

Only if the non-UN nation uses a nuclear weapon.

I thought we weren't supposed to drag non-UN members into resolutions? I'm probably wrong about that though.

One interesting scenario, what if the non-UN nation is a smaller victim and being attacked by a larger rogue UN nation with conventional weapons. Then as a desperate last resort, uses its nukes to defend itself. Should other UN nations be required to wipe the poor buggers out for simply doing what they had to do to protect their people and borders?

I have 14 non-UN puppets, if one of them was involved in such a scenario, I'd hate the thought of Waterana being required by a UN resolution to help destroy one of its own sister nations.

The current nuclear weapons resolution is enough, we really don't need this legislation.

I*snip*

The current nuclear weapons resolution is enough, we really don't need this legislation.

The people of Cluichstan agree with the esteemed delegate from Waterana. This issue has been adequately addressed already. Let us move on.

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

The Kingdom of Fourhearts scoffs at the logic of using MAD as an argument. The use of nuclear weapons to target a nation that we're not at war with is insane.To put it polietly, this resolution is insane and we spit upon it.

Titus Chain
UN Ambassodor

I thought we weren't supposed to drag non-UN members into resolutions? I'm probably wrong about that though.
i think it is only when non-UN members have to abide by the resolution. i think mentioning them is okay, like in this instance