NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Nuclear Armaments"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #109
Proposed by: Czechotova

Description: UN Resolution #109: Nuclear Armaments (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
NOTING that UN member nations should be able to manufacture trade and stockpile nuclear weapons
REALIZING that not all UN member nations can be considered trustworthy, responsible and stable enough to safely store these weapons.
ALSO REALIZING that if every UN member nation in the world had these weapons, that a nuclear apocalypse would occur between members of the UN and non-members of the UN
DECLARES that we, the United Nations of the world, must prevent this very scenario of nuclear death and destruction from ever occuring.
DECIDES that UN Resolution #109 is hereby repealed.
CALLS UPON this organization to replace Resolution #109 with a safer alternative.

Approvals: 4 (Fascist Americans, Gaiah, Englandter, Sympatico)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Feb 1 2006

while a nuclear apocalypse may not occur, it is not worth risking humanity and civilization. i propose we come up with a safer alternative that would regulate which nations can stockpile weapons and which can't.

while a nuclear apocalypse may not occur, it is not worth risking humanity and civilization. i propose we come up with a safer alternative that would regulate which nations can stockpile weapons and which can't.
I'm keeping my stockpiles.

I'm keeping my stockpiles.
in the replacement that i have saved on word, you would keep your stockpiles if you can safely store them and keep them from the hands of terrorists etc.

in the replacement that i have saved on word, you would keep your stockpiles if you can safely store them and keep them from the hands of terrorists etc.
Could you post the replacement?

Could you post the replacement?
as soon as i am done editing it, yes, i will post here.

A repeal or a replacement (GRRRR!) aren't even necessary. A Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is already in the works.

I just have to ask why we should destroy our nuclear arms when we only have these weapons for our own national security and for retaliation if we are attacked.

I refuse to support any repeal of Nuclear Armaments that doesn't contain the words 'n00kzor', 'glass', and 'pwned!!!11!'. Sorry.

you would keep your stockpiles if you can safely store them and keep them from the hands of terrorists etc.Something to keep in mind: simply keeping stockpiles isn't sufficient as the nuclear material in warheads needs to be replaced every decade or so if it is to retain effectiveness.

A repeal or a replacement (GRRRR!) aren't even necessary. A Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is already in the works.

Ambassador Riley, Have some fine 105 proof St Edmunds Old Navy Rum(TM). *Hands bottle to Riley* Trust me it helps out in situations like this. Or perhaps you'ld prefer my old standby, Wild Turkey?
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I just have to ask why we should destroy our nuclear arms when we only have these weapons for our own national security and for retaliation if we are attacked.
again, if you can prove that your nuclear weapons are safely stored, then you can use them for retaliation and defense. however, you will probably agree, that a nation in civil war should not produce nukes and move existing ones to a safer area to decrease the threat of rebels/terrorists getting their hands on the nukes.

There is a resolution on Nuclear Terrorism you might want to read.

The debate would be a lot easier if you showed us what you wrote, or at least pointed out some flaws in NA. Until then, I am weary of your motives, and will strongly oppose the repeal.

I should also point out: you can require us to store nuclear weapons safely. Nuclear Armaments doesn't prohibit that. All it does is prevent you banning their possession; I don't think it limits the possession.

"You must store your nuclear weaponry in a green shed."

How would that contravene a nation's right to possess nuclear weaponry? I don't think it would. So we'd prefer you drew up your safety measures first.

We would just like to reiterate that we highly prefer Yelda's (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=793) approach (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=597) to non-proliferation over this half-witted plan.

I came into this thread expecting to shred this repeal to pieces, but I come to find out that there's nothing left for me to shred, you guys beat me to everything.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

again, if you can prove that your nuclear weapons are safely stored, then you can use them for retaliation and defense. however, you will probably agree, that a nation in civil war should not produce nukes and move existing ones to a safer area to decrease the threat of rebels/terrorists getting their hands on the nukes.
Define "Safe."

Im sorry, but 60% of my nations economy comes from selling nuclear arms to terrorists. Im not going to have the starvation of millions of my people just so you gentleman can feel good about saving the world.

Im sorry, but 60% of my nations economy comes from selling nuclear arms to terrorists. Im not going to have the starvation of millions of my people just so you gentleman can feel good about saving the world.
Im sorry, but 60% of the bullshit on this forum comes from people who haven't bothered to read the passed resolutions (including those passed since their inception). Im not going to have the starvation of all rational debate from the UN forum just so you can feel good about your terrible RPing.

-->:confused: (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=74) <--

Im sorry, but 60% of the bullshit on this forum comes from people who haven't bothered to read the passed resolutions (including those passed since their inception). Im not going to have the starvation of all rational debate from the UN forum just so you can feel good about your terrible RPing.

-->:confused: (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=74) <--

Hey, whatever lady, there blood is on your hands.

Ambassador Riley, Have some fine 105 proof St Edmunds Old Navy Rum(TM). *Hands bottle to Riley* Trust me it helps out in situations like this. Or perhaps you'ld prefer my old standby, Wild Turkey?
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla


Ah, good. Word-of-mouth advertising. That's what we hoped for...

Ah, good. Word-of-mouth advertising. That's what we hoped for...

Glad to help.:p

As a commonality that is currently not capable of producing nuclear weapons we oppose this ban. It is in our interests to not allow the proliferation of nuclear armaments. We are currently not in the possession of nuclear power plants nor do we have access to uranium mines. The growth of the number of such weapons is a danger to us all. It would be better if there was a nuclear armaments reduction treaty. :mad:

As a commonality that is currently not capable of producing nuclear weapons we oppose this ban. It is in our interests to not allow the proliferation of nuclear armaments. We are currently not in the possession of nuclear power plants nor do we have access to uranium mines. The growth of the number of such weapons is a danger to us all. It would be better if there was a nuclear armaments reduction treaty. :mad:

Once you are finished with the angry smilies, perhaps you can tell us all about the ban...