NationStates Jolt Archive

Goals,

to help make the world safer with nuclear weapons
to limmit the size of arsenals
to make sure nuclear weapons don't fall into the hands of rogue nations
to make sure that diplomatic relations can be created between countires that posses nuclear capabilites

as the UN, we must make our world a better place

consider the proposal, and i beg the DELAGATES, please vote in favor, if you want to see our nations on a course for peace

I beg of you, not only as a fellow member of Pensylvania, the region in which The People's Republic of Antonoria who proposed it from. but I ask this as a concerned UN member and all that that the UN stands for. Representation of All

thank you, along with the expressed consideration of the Peoples Republic of Antonoria, he/she thanks you

It's got a couple spelling mistakes and needs to be edited in general, but nice idea.

I like this idea too. It doesn't go to far. It allows people to have a sensible amount of weapons, but not too many. Enough to wipe out a country not the world. I have two questions though.

What would we do with countries who have too many?

Who would decied to set the limit of the max number of Nukes?

Is this the complete text of the Proposal?

Is this the complete text of the Proposal?
No.

Nuclear Capabilit Regulations
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Antonoria

Description: 1. To therefore limmit and reduce the amount of Nuclear Arms in all UN countires

2. To therefore set up an International commission thats regulates the amount and size of Nuclear Weapons any UN country may posses

3. To therefore ban the contibution, trade, and sales of any Nuclear device from one country to another,

-To therefor ban technological advanced UN members
from supplying Nuclear reactors,excess arms, or
enriched substances to other UN membersin return
for oil, agricluture, coputer hardware,
textiles,money, or any other profitable product.

4. To set up a global comitte of UN members, that will use diplomacy to settle disputes between 2 UN members with Nuclear capibilites.

5. To hearby ban within the territory of all UN members, the underground testing of Nuclear weapons.

6. To therefore st up a UN watchdog agency that will watch over all UN members with Nuclear capabilites and to make sure all are in compliance with UN code

7. To therefore impose a UN code of Regulations that will be composed with UN members consent, and will regualte Nuclear reactors and all non weapons realted Nuclear capabilites

The power Nuclear capabilities is a very big one. It can be harnesed for both good and bad. But in todays world its evil tendencies have been brought out. It is our duty as UN members to safeguard this power, and bring peace to the countries we represent as UN members
This is an interesting idea, and I do think we should impose some nuclear regulations, but it needs a LOT of editing first.

Right, some comments.

Your clauses dealing with non-proliferation are not specific enough. Yelda is actually working on a draft for a non-proliferation treaty: you can find it here (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?showtopic=51). Perhaps you might work with him on that side of things?

Now, the test ban. To my mind, banning underground testing alone makes little sense: it poses the least environmental risk, because the fallout is contained. In fact, it's the reverse of RL: the Limited Test Ban Treaty allowed only underground testing. So I'm not convinced by that.

Also, why would we ban testing? I agree that a lot of it is irresponsible, but a "rawr look at my iron penis" display can have immense deterrent value. If people know you definitely have a nuke and definitely know how to use it, then MAD really does set in. Consider also peaceful uses of nuclear explosions, such as the creation of artificial holes to be filled with water (harbours, canals, reservoirs, etc.) Finally, it is necessary to test explosions to discern some characteristics.

So I wouldn't favour a test ban. I would favour:
i. a threshold limit
ii. possibly a restriction to underground testing, banning atmospheric/oceanic testing
iii. possibly a restriction to peaceful nuclear explosions only
iv. general discouragement and regulation of nuclear testing

Here some other ideas with regard to nuclear weapons control:
A. Things which could be mandated
- safety checks
- requirements for storage
- nuclear response only allowed in retaliation for an NBC strike
- a credit system, whereby nations which disarm earn money, food [note: I hate this idea, but it's been suggested before]
- UN inspection agency, to also help with NPT, nuclear ban, etc. treaties
- dealerting nuclear weapons, so they can't be fired instantly
- construction of anti-ICBM platforms
- increased radar systems
- civilian protection (shelters, drills, training, etc.)
- development of alternatives to nukes
- safety requirements for nuclear construction workers
B. Things which could only be encouraged
- registration/public declaration of all records
- requirement for nuclear weapons to be stored
- slowing of research
- ICBM bans, in favour of bomber-launched weapons
- disarmament

I'd be willing to work with you on something along this vein, my Gruenberger friend.

Bahgum will stick with it's Mother in Law deterrent policy. Interference is the best form of defence......

5. To hearby ban within the territory of all UN members, the underground testing of Nuclear weapons..
Then we can test them over your nation... on some distant uninhabited planet or moon... or in the oceans.... or just out in open space... as nations will test them someplace.. This simply bans underground and leaves a lot of room for testing in areas one might consider improper.... and a greater risk to a given planet than testing underground might be.

Also since this leaves open testing in non-UN nations underground what effect will it have when there are more nations outside the UN than in it. These outside nations will be testing underground and trading nukes for other things that UN members can't trade for... You take the UN membership out of the market on such and thus effect some nations economy.. in this part..

-To therefor ban technological advanced UN members from supplying Nuclear reactors, excess arms, or enriched substances to other UN membersin return
for oil, agricluture, coputer hardware, textiles, money, or any other profitable product.
As what are we suppose to do give it to them for nothing.?? (see you can't even do it for free as that also banned here...)

Then who will control outside UN nations that may trade 'Nuke' thus here they have a closed market and can set their cost at whatever levels they may want. As they don't have to compete with UN member nations in the market trading 'Nuke'.. This puts the UN membership at a greater disadvantage than it already is in being in UN.... As by not allowing UN members to trade 'Nuke' you take any control over what is traded from UN membership and give it to Rogue Nations outside the UN to control.

As I'm sure any UN member nation that trades 'Nuke' to another nation sets some controls on what it trades to them...... if not they need to do so.... and that should be addressed some place like in this one but not ban UN membership from Trading in them.... thus giving up any control they might have on it within the other nation...

The power Nuclear capabilities is a very big one. It can be harnesed for both good and bad. But in todays world its evil tendencies have been brought out. It is our duty as UN members to safeguard this power, and bring peace to the countries we represent as UN members

This proposal cuts the UN membership from playing any part in advancing the peaceful use of "Nuke" and only leaves it to Rogue Nations to advance their agenda in such... We can't let this happen the UN membership must work to promote the peacefull use of such 'Nukes' not ban them and leave it up to others outside to advance them. In the close you clearly indicate this is your desire.. to bring peace and safeguard the power... trying to hide it will not keep it safe as long as others have it... Many UN member nations already have advanced in using 'Nuke Power' to a level where it's safer than most other sources of power so we should work to bring all to their level rather than bring them all down to a dangerous level...

The problem with nuclear weapons, obviously, is nuclear fallout, which renders areas totally inhospitable for up to thoussands of years, and can be blown by the wind to other areas. If there is some sort of nuclear explosion with a limited radiation span, thats ok, but the use of bombs that leave long lasting fallout should be considered a war crime. I mean, do we really need bombs bigger than what we had for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even thsoe where bad enough.

Yes, those were terrible, and only 700 grams of uranium underwent fission.

I say ban nukes entirely.

I say ban nukes entirely.
And I say good luck.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hey, with the right votes, the U.N. can do that. Besides, why have nukes? Even if you win, you wont be able to use that land anyway.

Hey, with the right votes, the U.N. can do that. Besides, why have nukes? Even if you win, you wont be able to use that land anyway.

But your enemy won't be around to attack you either.

Hirota is compelled to oppose this proposal in it’s present format to the bitter end, as this proposal seeks to undermine our largest financial concern.

1. You can't ban nukes entirely - nations outside the UN will still have nukes. Take away MAD, and the UN is vulnerable to one crackpot nation.

2. If this was ever to pass in it's present form, or a form which would outlaw nuclear arms Hirota would “dispose” of our nuclear stockpile 15 minutes beforehand by detonating each and everyone within the capital city of the proposing nation, or donate the nuclear weapons to nations known to be hostile towards the proposing outside of the UN.

Many of the ideas suggested by the nation of Gruenberg are acceptable and we would enter into conversation on this matter if the opportunity came.

Hey, with the right votes, the U.N. can do that.After repealing "Nuclear Armaments", yes.Besides, why have nukes? Even if you win, you wont be able to use that land anyway.The idea of nukes isn't to use them. The idea of nukes is to have them so you won't have nukes used on you. Like you said, it’s suicide to engage in a nuclear conflict--if your opponent possesses nuclear arms (if he doesn’t you could then just threaten his people with utter annihilation, end of conflict). And that's the balance that must be stuck (everyone being able to have nukes), until nuclear technology is either non-existent (which means rounding up scientists, burning textbooks, destroying extant ordinance, etc.), or becomes a much lesser threat (through counter-measures, unification of nations of the world, etc.).

I will attempt to be brief as I am aware some of this has already been stated but I make no guarantees.

At a quick look, there are some grammatical and spelling issues whic make this difficult to read. I know that isn't a real issue, but it is a place to start.

From the standpoint of a still developing nation, we have no issues with regulation of nuclear armament within certain limits.

However, by banning us from nuclear trade, you greatly hinder our international economy as our agricultural areas are not up to par but our uranium mines are doing quite well. I realize that we are only a single nation, but I doubt we are the only UN members that would be left with such a predicament.
:gundge:
The Diplomatic Commitees and UN Watchdogs are a good idea. Even with our increasing military budget, we have nothing to hide... and if we did, we'd simply hide them under some camels and hope the stink drives off the UN weapons inspectors ;) .


Intent and aim are pure and that is clear and appreciated. A bit more work and you'll be there.

Oskar Feldstein
thinking of The Masters Children

After repealing "Nuclear Armaments", yes.The idea of nukes isn't to use them. The idea of nukes is to have them so you won't have nukes used on you. Like you said, it’s suicide to engage in a nuclear conflict--if your opponent possesses nuclear arms (if he doesn’t you could then just threaten his people with utter annihilation, end of conflict). And that's the balance that must be stuck (everyone being able to have nukes), until nuclear technology is either non-existent (which means rounding up scientists, burning textbooks, destroying extant ordinance, etc.), or becomes a much lesser threat (through counter-measures, unification of nations of the world, etc.).


In principle, I agree with the idea that, in this day and age, Nuclear Arms are a fairly effective deterrent. However, realize that fear of retribution is what keeps many nuclear powers in line, whilst many others are simply incompetent or not yet capable.

There are also a few that have had the capacity to blow up the world and have only been held back by some lingering respect for humanity that seemed to dwindle as the days wore on, until the world was saved by their opposition declaring bankrupcy.

Know full well that there are those who would not hesitate to use whatever means available at their disposal to eliminate a perceived threat or offender of some nature. Bullying with the threat of nuclear devastation just isn't enough for some. They want the gratification of actually seeing something go BOOM!

We can't let everyone have nukes. Period. Some already have them who really shouldn't.

Obviously, destroying all nuclear technology and knowledge thereof is impractical, at best (as you make fairly clear).

I find it unlikely that we will live to see the Utopian bliss of a fully unified world, rendering nation unification a band-aid for a bullet wound. There are too many outside of the UN for our legislation to have great enough impact on the world as a whole, unfortunately.

All that being said, I am interested in the idea of counter-measures. What would you propose?

Oskar Feldstein
Holding The Masters Glory in My Fist
Representing Kivisto

Goals,

to help make the world safer with nuclear weapons
to limmit the size of arsenals
to make sure nuclear weapons don't fall into the hands of rogue nations
to make sure that diplomatic relations can be created between countires that posses nuclear capabilites

as the UN, we must make our world a better place

consider the proposal, and i beg the DELAGATES, please vote in favor, if you want to see our nations on a course for peace

I beg of you, not only as a fellow member of Pensylvania, the region in which The People's Republic of Antonoria who proposed it from. but I ask this as a concerned UN member and all that that the UN stands for. Representation of All

thank you, along with the expressed consideration of the Peoples Republic of Antonoria, he/she thanks you


Wait a Minute, if it passes we get less nuclear weapons? WTF its in charactrer Roleplaying anyway. Lol

Sincerley ELITELAND :þ
☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼

We can't let everyone have nukes. Period. Some already have them who really shouldn't.
You're right, reading back on my post, I need to qualify my statement more. think if you struck the word everyone and add a reference to UN nations (though not "every UN nation"), it'd be better.

Obviously, destroying all nuclear technology and knowledge thereof is impractical, at best (as you make fairly clear).
And, I forgot to mention, even if the nuclear knowledgeable were entirely killed off (and the literature surrounding them) and all current ordnance were destroyed, it wouldn't be enough. Nuclear weapons technology is an outgrowth of the modern physics, chemistry and high-end calculus: if those three branches remained intact, and the human desire for knowledge were not greatly tempered, nuclear weaponry would resurface at some point in the future.

I say that not to convince you (as you already see it as impossible just to "get rid" of all nukes), but as a testimonial to the idealistic who would say that there could be an earth without nukes. Nuclear arms are a Pandora’s box, they cannot be undone. And they are a Pandora's box that started to be opened back when Thompson subdivided the atom, and when Ptolemy studied geometry.
All that being said, I am interested in the idea of counter-measures. What would you propose?None. I mean, I'm not going to "propose", as far as in a UN proposal, any nuclear countermeasures. Otherwise, I mean "countermeasures", as in a so called 'Star Wars system', which could disable or destroy missiles from space. I mean, improved treatment for the exposed (all of which, again would be future developments), and improved preparation infrastructure (like designated places to go to escape fallout, etc.) Those are the possible future countermeasures I can think of off the top of my head.

And as far as world unity, I should state, and I find this to be in harmony with history: it'll likely occur only when there are people on other planets or another planet'ly race is discovered. The paradigm humans operate now is Earth. It is the world, the all, and within it are divisions (nations, ethnicities, etc.). Another race or otherworldly humans would expand the paradigm people operate in. Suddenly there'd be some significant other (a foil, you might say) through which humanity is contrasted. The divisions between nations races and ethnicities could be dwarfed in comparison to the divisions between Earth-dwellers and X-dwellers.

I mean, think of it in terms of all white or black (or nearly all-white or black) nations. In these nations, there's only (effectively) one race, and the people often have to find other ways to differentiate themselves. Often, in these homogeneous nations, occupation, wealth and social status are looked to as critical differences between people--more so than in heterogeneous nations. However, upon integration, race becomes a more fundamental differentiation. As a frank corollary I would suggest that so long as Islamic militants have the Westerner to hate, there should be less sectarian violence. Sunni, Shiite--such distinctions are less important than the distinction between faithful and infidel.