NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110

United Nations Security Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

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.


Votes For: 9,667
Votes Against: 6,886

Implemented: Fri Jul 8 2005

Repeal United Nations Security Act

Acknowledges that there will be instances where United Nations members will have to engage in combat and war against agressors.

Acknowledges that some United Nation members are ill-equip to deal with attacking agressors by themselves.

Utterly Opposes the use of all weapons that are known to mankind in the defense of a nation because it will ultimately result in human suffering, combatant and non-combatant alike for years after the war period has ceased.

Believes that allowing for the government to defend to the best of its ability is a bit broud and should be defined more clearly.

Believes that alliances between UN members, weak and powerful, or technological defensive weapons should be exchanged before between the more powerful UN members and the weaker ones.

So what do you think guys?

I think you should read the resolution you're trying to repeal.

I've already read the resolution.

And I am opposed to the use of all weapons that would harm people later on in life.

That is why alliances should be created.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/sofluffy7tp.jpg

Die image :sniper:

:)

The alliances line makes absolutely no sense - rewrite it. The "Utterly Opposes" line also really needs to be rewritten. I suggest going with more arguments to come to those conclusions - certainly, more sentances.

This is the thing with UNSA. Some people suggested it 'didn't do anything'. As such, making a case to repeal it is quite hard - particularly given the passage of UN Biological Weapons Ban, and the approval of Chemical Weaponry Ban. It has thus far not been an impediment to disarmament protocols.

This is the thing with UNSA. Some people suggested it 'didn't do anything'. As such, making a case to repeal it is quite hard - particularly given the passage of UN Biological Weapons Ban, and the approval of Chemical Weaponry Ban. It has thus far not been an impediment to disarmament protocols.

Pfft - we keep limiting ourselves to forgetting that the fluffy population doesn't have a clue what was passed and what failed or was deleted or whatnot.

Pfft - we keep limiting ourselves to forgetting that the fluffy population doesn't have a clue what was passed and what failed or was deleted or whatnot.
How is that sort of purile pissiness relevant to my point?

Thinking alliances can prevent all war is a tragically real world viewpoint that has little place in NationStates. For instance:

The Most Glorious Hack is a part of The Federation. It is, essentially, a protectorate of GMC Military arms. The population of The Federation is currently somewhere around 15 billion. But, GMC and the Hack are also members of the NDA (Non-Democratic Alliance, not that other one). The NDA has several members, many of them quite militaristic. The NDA includes Dread Lady Nathicana, Treznor, Tsaraine, Iraqstan, Ithuia, Kaenei, S-14 (the Spacedy Ants), so on and so forth. NDA's population is probably somewhere around 30 billion.

And here's where it gets complicated: The Hack has a colony! The Caloris Basin is thus a member of the Federation, but it's also a member of the Triumvirate of Yut. Yut's population is even larger, and has many highly advanced spacedy nations.

But most nations are in, or are connected to, large alliances such as this. And as we learned from WWI, large alliances don't prevent war, they ensure that any minor skirmish quickly becomes a huge, devistating war.

OOC: And uh...isn't it alliances that led to the first World War?

How is that sort of purile pissiness relevant to my point?

You can still make the case and considering what has happened to the actual rules (the bloody 4 extra words), you can argue it did indeed do something. Yes it isn't an impediment, but it is an annoyance and I still believe it should be repealed. I dislike it if for no other reason that because it's basically an auto-delete trigger on a lot of newbie proposals.

(Actually, I wouldn't have fought so hard for such a pointless overturning of Hack's ruling if it had been for any other reason. Other than those 4 words, the UNSA actually benefits my ideas since it protects us from having a bigger impediment in the way.

OOC: And uh...isn't it alliances that led to the first World War?

It was an assasination coupled with imperialistic tendancies followed by general animosity between France and Germany which just exploded. The Alliance system didn't lead to it, they just turn a local issue into the second largest war to-date (largest by some tallies).

You can still make the case and considering what has happened to the actual rules (the bloody 4 extra words), you can argue it did indeed do something. Yes it isn't an impediment, but it is an annoyance and I still believe it should be repealed. I dislike it if for no other reason that because it's basically an auto-delete trigger on a lot of newbie proposals.
But how do you phrase that in a repeal? Remember, using mod rulings is a MetaGaming violation.

It was an assasination coupled with imperialistic tendancies followed by general animosity between France and Germany which just exploded. The Alliance system didn't lead to it, they just turn a local issue into the second largest war to-date (largest by some tallies).

OOC: Actually, it led to the big piling-in that made it a "World War."

But how do you phrase that in a repeal? Remember, using mod rulings is a MetaGaming violation.

You say what's said here. Yeah, he'll get dinged by those in the know who go "WTF are you talking about", but the vast majority of the community won't know and it's not exactly a false claim as that was its intent. I think the easiest way to put it is it prevent the UN from banning weapons that the nation arbitrarily declares as being necessary for defense - while providing no guidelines for determining necessity. Yes, the UN can overrule the nation's statement, but I think that would actually be legal and true - even if not entirely forthcoming.

Utterly Opposes the use of all weapons that are known to mankind in the defense of a nation because blah blah blah

OK, so next time I fight a war I will not use all known weapons, that is easy. On the other hand, if it said "the use of any weapons" it would be even more amusing...