NationStates Jolt Archive


Proposal: Dangerous Stockpile Reduction Act

United Zululand
03-02-2006, 23:50
UN Resolution: Dangerous Stockpile Reduction Act
Significant

Definition of stockpile: In military preparation, 'to stockpile' is to move materiel, personnel, and command and control infrastructure to a suitable location in preparation for deployment, or to move such materials into the theatre of war in preparation for combat.

This resolution acknowledges that most United Nations members need stockpiles of weapons to defend themselves from agressive neighbors or from active dissidents within their own country. However, the leaving of stockpiles out in the open, near cities or towns, and in areas where it will contaminate drinking water or the environment is extremely dangerous and costly to clean up.

That is why this resolution believes that U.N members should reduce their stockpiles of weapons to the most conservative amount that they can think off. At most, reduce their stockpile down 1/5 or a more reasonable goal would be to reduce stockpiles of weapons to 1/10 their actual number now.

How? Why?

Section 1: This resolution acknowledges that unsafe stockpile techniques in countries can result in environment contamination, detonation of stockpile ammunition and supplies which may result in numerous casualties, or the allowal of weapons and ammunition as well as dangerous biological and chemical storages to be stolen and used in a terrorist attack.

Section 2: Through the reduction of U.N national stockpiles by a 1/10 to 1/5 margin would decrease the chance of these incidents from occuring. This resolution recommends that the weapons to be decommissioned or destroyed should be of the nuclear, biological, or chemical variety, but it is up to the individual nation.

Section 3: Before the actual reduction in weapon stockpiles can begin, a council of 11 U.N members will be formed. There every U.N member will give a report of all the weapons that they have and a list of where their stockpiles are located. To note, the U.N members on the council will not use this information for their own advantage or give it to another hostile nation or they will face banishment from the United Nations. Once the number of weapons report is submitted the nation in question will be given between 25 years to dismantle 1/10 of their weapon stockpiles, and 40 years to dismantle 1/5 their stockpile. And if they decide to dismantle their weapon stockpile in between those two figures they will be granted a number of years.

Section 4: Finally, remaining stockpiles will be removed from locations that are near cities and towns, or can contaminate environments. They will be put in safe locations and houses in buildings that will reduce the risk of explosion and will always have a military detail around their sites.

Section 5: If Section 4 is not adhered too, the offending nation will be reported to the council.

----------

So what do you guys think?
Hou Mian
04-02-2006, 00:14
That is why this resolution believes that U.N members should reduce their stockpiles of weapons to the most conservative amount that they can think off. At most, reduce their stockpile down 1/5 or a more reasonable goal would be to reduce stockpiles of weapons to 1/10 their actual number now.


What is a nation keeps its stockpiles at the lowest amount it thinks safe? For example, a nation that believes strongly in Mutual Assured Destruction would keep just weapons to annihilate any opponent that attacked, and would also take large pains to make sure they were carefully stored so as to not accidentally fire or lose effectiveness.


Section 3: Before the actual reduction in weapon stockpiles can begin, a council of 11 U.N members will be formed. There every U.N member will give a report of all the weapons that they have and a list of where their stockpiles are located. To note, the U.N members on the council will not use this information for their own advantage or give it to another hostile nation or they will face banishment from the United Nations. Once the number of weapons report is submitted the nation in question will be given between 25 years to dismantle 1/10 of their weapon stockpiles, and 40 years to dismantle 1/5 their stockpile. And if they decide to dismantle their weapon stockpile in between those two figures they will be granted a number of years.


Section 5: If Section 4 is not adhered too, the offending nation will be reported to the council.

Both of these sections are illegal. You can form a committee, but you cannot mandate that a certain number of UN members are on it. (Or so I've gather from everyone else.) Moreover, we can't banish people from the UN.
Forgottenlands
04-02-2006, 00:19
Ok, I'm going to increase my stockpile 10 fold so that when the resolution passes, I will be back where I started.

You honestly have gotta be kidding me. You are assuming that everyone has a stockpile (and a considerable one at that) when some nations have, at best, a pragmatic amount of ammo for their security forces with absolutely no heavy ordinance or dangerous chemicals. Some forces, you'd be calling for them to reduce themselves to having empty guns or perhaps not even enough guns to go around between the soldiers. Stupid idea.

Really stupid idea
United Zululand
04-02-2006, 04:12
You know I am sick and tired of you United Nations people.

Thinking everyone is an idiot and that they come up with stupid ideas.

You know, I wanted to join you guys, but f* you.

I am going to withdraw.

Thanks alot for nothing.
Hou Mian
04-02-2006, 04:18
You know I am sick and tired of you United Nations people.

Thinking everyone is an idiot and that they come up with stupid ideas.

You know, I wanted to join you guys, but f* you.

I am going to withdraw.

Thanks alot for nothing.

I apologize if you think I was calling you an idiot.

That was never my intention.

Any time someone tries to write a proposal for the first time, particularly if they do it soon after joining the UN, there will often be problems with it. I wanted to try to help you with your proposal. The problems you put forward are genuine ones; however, I think your proposal is flawed. I was hoping to help you a bit with it; however, I'm currently not feeling well and thus wrote more sharply and shortly than I'd intended.

Again, utmost apologies,

Fu Huangdi
Hou Mian
Ceorana
04-02-2006, 04:20
You know I am sick and tired of you United Nations people.

Thinking everyone is an idiot and that they come up with stupid ideas.

You know, I wanted to join you guys, but f* you.

I am going to withdraw.

Thanks alot for nothing.
I guess you've met up with the harsh realities of the UN forum: ideas that aren't going to work get slammed pretty hard.

But, if you've really decided to leave, then http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg
United Zululand
04-02-2006, 04:27
I apologize if you think I was calling you an idiot.

That was never my intention.

Any time someone tries to write a proposal for the first time, particularly if they do it soon after joining the UN, there will often be problems with it. I wanted to try to help you with your proposal. The problems you put forward are genuine ones; however, I think your proposal is flawed. I was hoping to help you a bit with it; however, I'm currently not feeling well and thus wrote more sharply and shortly than I'd intended.

Again, utmost apologies,

Not you, the other one Forgottenlands.
Gruenberg
04-02-2006, 04:50
Not you, the other one Forgottenlands.
Well, yes, Forgottenlands can be quite harsh in his criticisms. But by bringing a draft to the forums - which we commend you for doing - you have to be prepared to face some criticism, even if it's not always productive.

I don't think this idea as it stands is necessarily terribly good, but it has potential. Some thoughts:
1. You could require some minimum safety standards for nations storing WMDs.
2. You could encourage reduction in stockpiles, perhaps through an incentive scheme.
Forgottenlands
04-02-2006, 09:18
You know I am sick and tired of you United Nations people.

Wonderous

Thinking everyone is an idiot and that they come up with stupid ideas.

There are very few people who I think are idiots. I think people are idiots if they don't listen to criticism or if I do 20 rounds with them disprove dozens of their points and they still seem to be using them. (It's actually some of the most frustrating debates I've ever done)

You know, I wanted to join you guys, but f* you.

Hmm, I wonder how you would've done in the days of DLE. Want to talk brutal, holy crap she could skin you alive while eating supper and watching prime time TV.

I am going to withdraw.

Thanks alot for nothing.

30,000 members, each thinking they have a great and brilliant idea. 200 resolutions that ever made it to quarom. 100 authors who ever got published with a passed resolution.

I wonder why we sometimes come up short on our responses.

However, if you truly feel that I was unfair, please, tell me how my comments were false. Give me reasons why you think that my statements were anything less than fair. Show me where my reasoning fails. I am reasonable and I have and do back away from my own arguments if they are proven false to me. So I leave the challenge to you - show me I'm wrong.