NationStates Jolt Archive

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Franxico

Description: Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all UN nations and convinced that all UN nations are entitled to participate in the exchange of scientific information for the further development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Disturbed by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of a nuclear war and determined to reduce the danger of such a war,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the danger of nuclear war,

Alarmed at the potential threat posed to international security by the acquisition of nuclear weaponry by rogue states,

Defining a nuclear weapon as a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect. Excluded from this definition shall be any integrated guidance, safety and security systems, or any other peripheral system not directly related to the explosive payload itself, or its detonation device(s).

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.
(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to share technology related to safety and security systems, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.
This will be at vote soon. Some of you may wish to discuss it and I'm sure a lively and informative debate awaits us!

We will be abstaining on this issue, although we congratulate those behind this proposal for getting it thus far: for once, we are open to arguments about how we might vote.

We will be abstaining on this issue, although we congratulate those behind this proposal for getting it thus far: for once, we are open to arguments about how we might vote.

2nd That...

[OOC: Will be voting for, but I can't for the life of me think of a good IC reason for doing so. As soon as I can think of one, I'll post it here. Probably involving some disjointed rant from Mr. Riley, who would roundly denounce this proposal, then mistakingly cast his vote in favor of it.]

Against, because it doesn't allow for transfers of weapons within existing [& tightly-bound] alliances such as the one between 'St Edmund' & 'St Edmund Air'...

[OOC: Well, seeing as how you created St Edmund Air to get around the anti-fossil-fuel resolutions, you could in theory create a puppet entitled "St Edmund Nuke Facilities" and continue to exchange nuclear technology as usual. ... Erm, forget I said anything.]

OOC: Our suggestion would be: have St Edmund Air agents steal St Edmund's nuclear weaponry, or vice versa. Then have the other nation not initiate war, legal proceedings or anything else. The agents themselves would have acted illegally, but I don't think this would count as a 'human rights violation', so you'd be immune from Humanitarian Intervention anyway.

Fusion and fission weapons are potentially not as destructive as a few things. Dropping large amounts of graphite rods from close to orbit or simply attaching a rocket engine to a 500 lb piece of steel or tungsten is far more effective and cleaner. We would gladly support getting rid of nuclear weapons.

Fusion and fission weapons are potentially not as destructive as a few things. Dropping large rocks from orbit or simply attaching a rocket engine to a 500 lb piece of steel or tungsten is far more effective and cleaner. We would gladly support getting rid of nuclear weapons.
So get rid of yours. We'll keep ours, thanks.

Dropping large rocks from orbit

Yet another attempt to repeal the Laws of Physics...

Fusion and fission weapons are potentially not as destructive as a few things. Dropping large amounts of graphite rods from close to orbit or simply attaching a rocket engine to a 500 lb piece of steel or tungsten is far more effective and cleaner. We would gladly support getting rid of nuclear weapons.


But the fun of a Nuke is that NOBODY gets to use the land for quite a long while afterwards. I'm not passing judgement (positive or negative) on the nuke or the nukers, simply going for some or their rationale.

Nuclear weapons, bah. The only sane purpose for nuclear weapons is to discourage less-than-sane people from using them. Nuclear weapons have to traditional military benefit. Although destructive and scary, they (as mentioned above) render their target zone totally useless to both sides, and the mass effects of nuclear weapons use are currently unclear, but potentially devestating, especially on the large scale the use of a nuclear weapon would doubtless prompt.

To-re-iterate, the actual use of nuclear weapons are only helpful if:

A) You really don't care about possessing the landscape your nuking, and have no plans of living through the next year.

B) You are totally insane and convinced if you die killing alot of people, you will go to heaven, which you likely will of you fall into category A anyway.

Now, that said I understand the draw of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and their possible potential for future use in space mining or deterring a massive asteroid from hitting Earth etc...as well as the fact that I do not beleive we have the right to prevent nuclear weapons research...(although test banning would be welcome). So, to summarize I support this resolution, although I wish a test ban clause/article be added to the resolution; or another resolution is submitted banning, or restricting nuclear testing

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this resolution will have no effect as to whether on not UN members have nuclear weapons as their right to have them is protected by UN Resolution #109 "Nuclear Armaments."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We are possibly reconsidering our position. This would, I presume, prevent nations from sharing nuclear explosive devices which would be used for PNE: for example, creating artificial lakes?

OOC: Our suggestion would be: have St Edmund Air agents steal St Edmund's nuclear weaponry, or vice versa. Then have the other nation not initiate war, legal proceedings or anything else. The agents themselves would have acted illegally, but I don't think this would count as a 'human rights violation', so you'd be immune from Humanitarian Intervention anyway.

H'mm... ;)

I've found a potential loophole: This proposal defines a nuclear weapon as "a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect", but in fact all of the 'fusion' weapons that have been built so far (as far as I know) actually depend on a fission device to trigger the fusion process so that technically each of those designs "relies on nuclear fusion and fission for its destructive effect" and consequently might be taken as excluded from this proposal's restrictions...

I've found a potential loophole: This proposal defines a nuclear weapon as "a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect", but in fact all of the 'fusion' weapons that have been built so far (as far as I know) actually depend on a fission device to trigger the fusion process so that technically each of those designs "relies on nuclear fusion and fission for its destructive effect" and consequently might be taken as excluded from this proposal's restrictions...

No. A trigger has no destructive effect in itself. OMG what if the weapon has a nuclear watch to time detonation?

I've found a potential loophole: This proposal defines a nuclear weapon as "a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect"Er, no.

"Or" allows for "and" but doesn't mandate it.

I've found a potential loophole: This proposal defines a nuclear weapon as "a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect", but in fact all of the 'fusion' weapons that have been built so far (as far as I know) actually depend on a fission device to trigger the fusion process so that technically each of those designs "relies on nuclear fusion and fission for its destructive effect" and consequently might be taken as excluded from this proposal's restrictions...
Such a weapon does rely on fission. The fact it also relies on fusion is immaterial to its being banned.

No. A trigger has no destructive effect in itself.

In this case it does: It's actually a small fission bomb, which is needed to provide enough heat to initiate the fusion reaction in the material with which it's been surrounded...

The Holy Empire of Carzantha has voted AGAINST this resolution and strongly urges fellow nations to do so as well.

While the goal of nuclear disarmament is admirable and should be worked towards, governments have the right to peacefully disarm on their own accord. Should we allow the United Nations to forcefully disarm our nations, the result will be widespread resentment for the United Nations from our people. In addition, the ultimate goal of disarmament should be a voluntary step. Any nation that does not disarm on its own obviously has no intention to do so. In such a case, that nation which is forced to disarm will likely rearm as soon as possible, with or without the knowledge or consent of the United Nations. For these above reasons, Carzantha will oppose this resolution and, if it is passed, move for immediate repeal.

The Holy Empire of Carzantha has voted AGAINST this resolution and strongly urges fellow nations to do so as well.

While the goal of nuclear disarmament is admirable and should be worked towards, governments have the right to peacefully disarm on their own accord. Should we allow the United Nations to forcefully disarm our nations, the result will be widespread resentment for the United Nations from our people. In addition, the ultimate goal of disarmament should be a voluntary step. Any nation that does not disarm on its own obviously has no intention to do so. In such a case, that nation which is forced to disarm will likely rearm as soon as possible, with or without the knowledge or consent of the United Nations. For these above reasons, Carzantha will oppose this resolution and, if it is passed, move for immediate repeal.
ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.
Zzzzz.

Zzzzz.
Brilliant!

I don't know how you keep finding ways to say the same damned thing over and over again to the one-post, proposally-illiterate twits who drop their moron bombs and run away, but thank you for the continued effort.

I've found a potential loophole: This proposal defines a nuclear weapon as "a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect", but in fact all of the 'fusion' weapons that have been built so far (as far as I know) actually depend on a fission device to trigger the fusion process so that technically each of those designs "relies on nuclear fusion and fission for its destructive effect" and consequently might be taken as excluded from this proposal's restrictions...

The honorable representative of St Edmund's eternal quest for loopholes has now caused him to pass beyond the bounds of logic and common sense.

"You're not allowed to kick or punch Johnny." Billy kicks and punches Johnny. That's OK, because he did both.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The Holy Empire of Carzantha has voted AGAINST this resolution and strongly urges fellow nations to do so as well.

While the goal of nuclear disarmament is admirable and should be worked towards, governments have the right to peacefully disarm on their own accord. Should we allow the United Nations to forcefully disarm our nations, the result will be widespread resentment for the United Nations from our people. In addition, the ultimate goal of disarmament should be a voluntary step. Any nation that does not disarm on its own obviously has no intention to do so. In such a case, that nation which is forced to disarm will likely rearm as soon as possible, with or without the knowledge or consent of the United Nations. For these above reasons, Carzantha will oppose this resolution and, if it is passed, move for immediate repeal.

Would the representative of Carzantha kindly point out just where in the resolution there are any provisions forcing, requiring, or even suggesting that nations disarm? We will be waiting with bated breath.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

no, if we have nuclear weapons it prevents conventional war etc. Everyone knows the effects and no one wants 'em. Keep nuclear weapons as deterrent of war! Everyone has nuclear weapons and everyone knows that, so why would anyone start a nuclear war knowing there gonna get nuked in return. Keep nuclear weapons...just don't use them.

no, if we have nuclear weapons it prevents conventional war etc. Everyone knows the effects and no one wants 'em. Keep nuclear weapons as deterrent of war! Everyone has nuclear weapons and everyone knows that, so why would anyone start a nuclear war knowing there gonna get nuked in return. Keep nuclear weapons...just don't use them.
ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.
You guys going to be doing this for the next four days? 'Cos it's getting old after only two posts.

perhaps

perhaps
Is that "perhaps I'll read the proposal before commenting on it again" or "perhaps I'll continue to be WRONG"?

oh no, its perhaps I'll continue saying what I think, and perhaps it will carry on for four days. I'm allowed to be wrong, anyway generally, in the REAL world, we should keep nuclear weapons. That sound okay for you?

oh no, its perhaps I'll continue saying what I think, and perhaps it will carry on for four days. I'm allowed to be wrong, anyway generally, in the REAL world, we should keep nuclear weapons. That sound okay for you?
You are allowed to keep nuclear weapons. In fact, the author of this resolution wants you to keep your nuclear weapons so badly, you're not allowed to give them to anyone else.

What is hard to understand about that?

oh no, its perhaps I'll continue saying what I think, and perhaps it will carry on for four days. I'm allowed to be wrong, anyway generally, in the REAL world, we should keep nuclear weapons. That sound okay for you?

The representative of Bowtruckles certainly has every right to say what he thinks and to participate in this debate for as long as he wishes. We'd suggest, though, that he read the resolution carefully and make sure he understands its provisions before stating his opinions. The resolution does not require any nation to reduce or eliminate its nuclear arsenal. It does not prevent a nation from developing, manufacturing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons. Period.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I think this may be plagiarism *is shocked*. It is no nations right to say if other nations can or cannot have a particular type of weapon...non-proliferation however does not stop devolpment, why not go all the way and move for nuclear disarmament?

I think this may be plagiarism *is shocked*. It is no nations right to say if other nations can or cannot have a particular type of weapon...non-proliferation however does not stop devolpment, why not go all the way and move for nuclear disarmament?
Because UN members are out-numbered 3 to 1 by non-members. Global nuclear disarmament is one thing, but taking away the nuclear weapons of 30,000 nations, and leaving the other 90,000 with them, is just silly.

The representative of Bowtruckles certainly has every right to say what he thinks and to participate in this debate for as long as he wishes. We'd suggest, though, that he read the resolution carefully and make sure he understands its provisions before stating his opinions. The resolution does not require any nation to reduce or eliminate its nuclear arsenal. It does not prevent a nation from developing, manufacturing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons. Period.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

she* lol and whats the resolution requiring then? Not to share nuclear weapons? fair enough, but in THE REAL WORLD ...
Will read it through properly next time, but still you should make it shorter, get to the point yeah?


and what difference does this actually make then?, says the noob =D

I think this may be plagiarism *is shocked*. It is no nations right to say if other nations can or cannot have a particular type of weapon...non-proliferation however does not stop devolpment, why not go all the way and move for nuclear disarmament?
Because UN Resolution #109 protects a nation's right to possess them.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

she* lol and whats the resolution requiring then? Not to share nuclear weapons? fair enough, but in THE REAL WORLD ...
Will read it through properly next time, but still you should make it shorter, get to the point yeah?

and what difference does this actually make then?, says the noob =D
OOC: You can keep saying "in the real world" if you want. But I don't think you'll get much response. Because this isn't the real world: it's the NS world. If you want to discuss Iran and the NPT, go to the General Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227). If you want to discuss Gruenberg and the NNPA, then don't expect us to be swayed by arguments based on the real world, because - especially with regard to nuclear weaponry - it's just not relevant.

and what difference does this actually make then? to UN members?
:headbang: eventually i'll get an answer instead of a snotty reply...hopefully

and what difference does this actually make then? to UN members?
If this passes, it'll be illegal for UN members to share nuclear weapons. So I couldn't give you a nuclear weapon, if this was passed. Furthermore, I couldn't help you build one. However, you would retain the right to build one yourself, and once you had, we could share safety technology.

thanks, so why would we want to ban sharing or helping build them, when we can still build them ourselves? it seems pointless

thanks, so why would we want to ban sharing or helping build them, when we can still build them ourselves? it seems pointless
Well, because it makes it harder. Developing, from scratch, a nuclear weapon, takes some investment. A rogue state would be more likely just to not attempt to build one, and seek more conventional armaments, whereas it could easily buy them without this resolution.

ah thank you, i'm leaving for now. tara

and what difference does this actually make then? to UN members?
:headbang: eventually i'll get an answer instead of a snotty reply...hopefully


Not from me you won't. :p

We see this resolution as contradictory. All nations still have the right to develop nuclear weapons, but they cannot exchange nuclear technology? Sounds ambivalent and ineffective. Furthermore, the world would benefit from greater nuclear weaponry, since nuclear nations DO NOT attack each other due to the deterrent.

In fact, the author of this resolution wants you to keep your nuclear weapons so badly, you're not allowed to give them to anyone else.

What is hard to understand about that?

ROTFL!!

Can we give our Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators to others?

If that won't be a problem, The Most Sovereign and Holy Empire of Fermiparadoxia votes yes to the Non-Proliferation Act.

First of all, I would like to congradulate the author of this proposal, for getting ti to quorum, for us to vote on. It is a very good proposal, with admirable objectives. However, the Palentine shall vote no. We do not vote no, out of spite, or maliace. We do not vote no, because we fear that this will take our nukes away(which as it clearly states, will not). We strongly believe, that if a nation wants nukes for purposes of war, then it should do it without relying on outside assistance. We vote no because, in this case, The Palentine, does not want to be made an empty example, for others to emulate. We UN nations can take the moral high ground, and sign off on non-proliferation. We can hope that this shall inspire non-members to act like us. However, I believe that nost non-members couldn't care less with how we act. Furthermore, there are more than enough rogues out there, that would sell such technology to these nations. We do wish the proponents of this proposal our best though.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

OOC: Another reason for my opposition, I'll honsetly admit, comes from the RL way the Non-proliferation treaty has worked(especially in the last 10 years). India and Pakistan, both have nukes, and are non-signees. Pakistan has allowed scientist to sell technology. Other signees seem to believe they can flaunt the treaty as they see fit. It just seems so damned pointless to me.

IC: I might have supported this if there was some real teeth to the bill, like punishing Member states for violating the agreement.

I vote no out of spite. I just don't like how weak the UN resolutions are. When a ban on all nuclear weapons comes along i'll vote for that, i'm not voting for a stupid non-profliferation treaty.

I vote no out of spite. I just don't like how weak the UN resolutions are. When a ban on all nuclear weapons comes along i'll vote for that, i'm not voting for a stupid non-profliferation treaty.
UN resolutions cannot affect non-members.

There are three times as many non-members as UN members.

Do you see the problem with a ban?

I vote no out of spite. I just don't like how weak the UN resolutions are. When a ban on all nuclear weapons comes along i'll vote for that, i'm not voting for a stupid non-profliferation treaty.

Well, first of all there is a Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) resolution you would have to repeal before a ban. Second, it is very easy to come around and call other efforts stupid. If you want a repeal of #109 and a ban,
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/diy.jpg

:headbang: So if this passes, wejust have to let non-UN nations nuke ours? Hell no.:headbang:

:headbang: So if this passes, wejust have to let non-UN nations nuke ours? Hell no.:headbang:

Yes, exactly. :rolleyes:

So if this passes, wejust have to let non-UN nations nuke ours? Hell no.
You could do that. Of course, they might be discouraged from doing so by the fact that YOU WOULD STILL BE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN AND USE NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.

In recognition that some nations may choose to not have a nuclear weapon system, but still need support in the case of a hostile attack from a U.N. or Non-U.N. member, we vote against.

I don't see what this proposal would change. We would still be allowed to own nuclear weapons, just not have assistance to make more. Non UN nations would be able to help each other make more, though. This doesn't help prevent a nuclear war. It just ensures that if there is one non UN nations will be able to make more nuclear weapons more easily than we can.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/wall.gif

In recognition that some nations may choose to not have a nuclear weapon system, but still need support in the case of a hostile attack from a U.N. or Non-U.N. member, we vote against.
How does this stop anyone from supporting a nuclear non-armed state?

I'm sorry, I must of misunderstood the proposal.

Er, no.

"Or" allows for "and" but doesn't mandate it.

Oh. That's not how I'm accustomed to thinking of those words, but if this is an official ruling...

I'll have to find another loophole, if I can, instead.

The honorable representative of St Edmund's eternal quest for loopholes has now caused him to pass beyond the bounds of logic and common sense.

It wasn't the representative himself, it was his legal adviser... who says that Law is a matter of wording, not of 'Common Sense'... ;)

Oh. That's not how I'm accustomed to thinking of those words, but if this is an official ruling...

I'll have to find another loophole, if I can, instead.
Do you really need an official ruling on what "or" means? I'm all for fiddling definitions, but this is just silly.

And as for loopholes, ok, but why are you so desperate to collaborate anyway? Who with? If it's just Godwinnia and St Edmund Air, then just send some of your scientists over, and have them act in an unofficial capacity.

This is just a way of further limiting our capabilitys. Why limit them when the majority of the world still retain the advantages?

The Kingdom of Anfalsanth would like to not theat the resolution makess it legal for Anycountry to develop wepons as long as they do this on their own. This is a very dangerous idea. All nations sould read the whole resolution before voting on it; it looks better than it accually is.

Zzzzz.

(OOC: God dammit. Next time, I'm reading the entire resolution before I post anything.)

Whereas, America has been a leading advocate of preventing nuclear proliferation;

Whereas, the resolution presented before us acts to help further these ends without denying states the right to share nuclear technology expressly for peaceful uses;

And whereas, our nation is so far unable to see any reasonable argument to oppose this resolution;

The Beltway hereby announces that it shall vote in favor of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and calls upon other nations to do likewise;

Further, The Beltway hereby reaffirms its support of the rights of nations to individually develop and maintain nuclear weaponry as a means of defence and to share civilian nuclear technology.

Signed,
Ambassador William J. Clinton, Representative of the Republic of The Beltway to the United Nations

The Kingdom of Anfalsanth would like to not theat the resolution makess it legal for Anycountry to develop wepons as long as they do this on their own. This is a very dangerous idea. All nations sould read the whole resolution before voting on it; it looks better than it accually is.

Please tell me you were not sober when you wrote this. Please.

Nice empty font tag, by the way.

It's been stated that this would prevent the poorer, rogue nations of getting nuclear arms. But how many of those rogue nations are actually in the UN? And even if they were in the UN, they could just leave the UN and then they would be able to go back to getting their nuclear arms from other non-UN nations.

And what if say, a poorer nation in the UN that had good intentions was threatened to be bombarded with attacks of one of the "rogue" nations? Some other UN nations might not want to get involved and would rather give supplies to the endangered nation. But this resolution would restrict giving the nation a means to protect itself.


In my eyes all this resolution does is put a road block up for the poor "evil" nations which can be easily avoided, and kicks the poor "good" nations in the nuts.

This resolution has honorable intentions, and in theory may work. However, in practice I highly doubt that it will create the desired result. Non-members will ignore this bill, and members will then be restricted unfairly. Consider a battle between a rouge and a member. The rouge nation will be able to purchase nuclear weapons at will, while the rouge nation will be placed at a significant disadvantage.

Furthuremore, Nuclear weapons, albiet most likely used for defense, may be aquired for other purposes. If one UN nation makes a breakthrough in nuclear technology, this bill prohibits exchange of information, which may or may not be good. Regardless, this bill, in this way, restricts scientific advancements.

It is for this reason that the Completely Free and All-Accepting nation of the Aerian Race will be voting against this particular proposal, although we aknowledge and commemerate the intentions of the proposer.

Gruenberg Said:
This would, I presume, prevent nations from sharing nuclear explosive devices which would be used for PNE: for example, creating artificial lakes?


Ummm....who would use a nuke to make an artificial lake. That's like using a flamethrower to dry your hair. A lake created with a nuclear weapon would be rendered completely un-inhabitable by, anything. I mean, really, you have to know that. Hmmm...if you by some means have a nuclear weapon that does not have a permanent/severe/long-lasting effect, please inform me because I have never heard one.


Jamesamasourus Said:

It's been stated that this would prevent the poorer, rogue nations of getting nuclear arms. But how many of those rogue nations are actually in the UN? And even if they were in the UN, they could just leave the UN and then they would be able to go back to getting their nuclear arms from other non-UN nations.

And what if say, a poorer nation in the UN that had good intentions was threatened to be bombarded with attacks of one of the "rogue" nations? Some other UN nations might not want to get involved and would rather give supplies to the endangered nation. But this resolution would restrict giving the nation a means to protect itself.


In my eyes all this resolution does is put a road block up for the poor "evil" nations which can be easily avoided, and kicks the poor "good" nations in the nuts.

This is the same argument I hear at every resolution. If your going to say it that way, then why have a UN in the first place? This argument applies to every UN resolution, why not simply leave the UN? If we simply stopped putting in resolutions because people would quite the UN, we might as well not have a UN in the first place...the point is, yes nations could leave the UN, but if we didn't pass this resolution, they would just do it anyway. Even if this is, in your words "a minor roadblock", a minor roadblock is still better than a clear paved path, don't you think?

Ummm....who would use a nuke to make an artificial lake. That's like using a flamethrower to dry your hair. A lake created with a nuclear weapon would be rendered completely un-inhabitable by, anything. I mean, really, you have to know that. Hmmm...if you by some means have a nuclear weapon that does not have a permanent/severe/long-lasting effect, please inform me because I have never heard one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare

This resolution has honorable intentions, and in theory may work. However, in practice I highly doubt that it will create the desired result. Non-members will ignore this bill, and members will then be restricted unfairly. Consider a battle between a rouge and a member. The rouge nation will be able to purchase nuclear weapons at will, while the rouge nation will be placed at a significant disadvantage.

Furthuremore, Nuclear weapons, albiet most likely used for defense, may be aquired for other purposes. If one UN nation makes a breakthrough in nuclear technology, this bill prohibits exchange of information, which may or may not be good. Regardless, this bill, in this way, restricts scientific advancements.

It is for this reason that the Completely Free and All-Accepting nation of the Aerian Race will be voting against this particular proposal, although we aknowledge and commemerate the intentions of the proposer.

doesn't this negate that concern?


ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.
(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.
!
Bad idea as it prevents member nations from providing these to nations within their region or other regions that they may have defense treaties with that provide for a safer place due to terms of such treaties

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

I agree with this as it reads but many nations will not be able to do this because they lack something from another member to complete the process of making nukes. Thus bad idea.
Also since these nations can't get it from within the UN they will have to go outside to get it as don't read this to restrict such trade to my nation from a nation not a member of the UN just between UN members. Thus you put the UN nations out of the market of dealing with nukes trade.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to share technology related to safety and security systems, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.
Here again if the nuke bomb don't work right and the one who is working on it don't know how another nations works then how can they safely deal with the systems around them. If you fly a plane or drive a car better have some idea how the motor works or you could end up in trouble. With these systems the nuke is the key so all things work around it..

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

Still a good idea but since we fall back to Article I that stops them from exchanging anything that might get a nuke bomb; then this does legislate member nations out of the market for exchanging anything dealing with NUKES... as it can and might be used to build bombs not power plants.

This proposal is just taking UN member nations out of the trade arena on NUKES and thus keeping them from having any controls that they might have as such.. since they can't now trade such items they loose any controls with other nations they might have over such as these nations now have to go outside UN nations to get it.

As with all weapons systems most won't trade them to another nation unless they know how to defend against them.... or have some ace to stop others from using them against them. Thus this stops UN member nations from such with either other UN nations or nations outside the UN that it might trade such with.

Do you really need an official ruling on what "or" means? I'm all for fiddling definitions, but this is just silly.

And as for loopholes, ok, but why are you so desperate to collaborate anyway? Who with? If it's just Godwinnia and St Edmund Air, then just send some of your scientists over, and have them act in an unofficial capacity.


St Edmund currently supplies St Edmund Air with the nuclear warheads that it "needs". I don't see how we could keep doing so "in an unofficial capacity"... St Edmund Air will probably be able to get them from Godwinnia instead, which means that this proposal would harm St Edmund's economy slightly without reducing the number of nuclear weapons (& nuclear-armed nations around here) at all.

St Edmund currently supplies St Edmund Air with the nuclear warheads that it "needs". I don't see how we could keep doing so "in an unofficial capacity"... St Edmund Air will probably be able to get them from Godwinnia instead, which means that this proposal would harm St Edmund's economy slightly without reducing the number of nuclear weapons (& nuclear-armed nations around here) at all.
Given SEA is a puppet state of St Edmund, can you not just protect them anyway? Why do they need nuclear weapons, especially?

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

We rise not to cast Our vote at present, but to raise a question about the wording of this proposal. In particular, We would like to draw the esteemed members' attention to two points:

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii relies on nuclear power for much of its electricity needs. However, since Our uranium reserves are buried underneath Our nations' many lush rainforests, which Our people are by holy writ forbidden to disturb, We must needs be an importer of uranium and/or other fissile materials for Our growing nuclear power industry. We note that Article IV of this proposed resolution appears to state that Our right to import fissiles shall not be infringed.

However, the HOCEK, while not currently a nuclear weapons-possessing state, reserves the right to produce such weapons. Since fissile material is a necessary component of nuclear weapons as well as nuclear power stations, does Article I, Section 2 of this proposed resolution override Article IV for nations that have not officially eschewed "the nuclear option"? Will it result in the banning of access to the international market in fissiles for nations such as Ours?

We would like to hear the views of the UNOG Uranium Magnates' Association, one of Our key trading partners, to this proposal.

I support this; Cobdenia has no nukes, yet, and when we trie to export them the time space vortex turned them into a rather large Jellyfish.

However, we have discovered that by firing rather large jellyfishes out of the time vortex towards another nation using a big cannon, it turns into a rather nifty nuclear missiles.

Thus, using the stupidest loophole ever and questionable physics (don't ask us, we've been trying to figure out why this happens for three years now - all we know is that it started when some bugger in a big scarf who lives in a police box visited), we retain our right to buy jellyfish...

This resolution has honorable intentions, and in theory may work. However, in practice I highly doubt that it will create the desired result. Non-members will ignore this bill, and members will then be restricted unfairly. Consider a battle between a rouge and a member. The rouge nation will be able to purchase nuclear weapons at will, while the rouge nation will be placed at a significant disadvantage.

That's assuming you get into a nuclear war with a non-member.

Furthuremore, Nuclear weapons, albiet most likely used for defense, may be aquired for other purposes. If one UN nation makes a breakthrough in nuclear technology, this bill prohibits exchange of information, which may or may not be good.
No it doesn't. This resolution does not affect peaceful technology.
Regardless, this bill, in this way, restricts scientific advancements.
So? It restricts negative scientific advancements.

No it doesn't. This resolution does not affect peaceful technology.
But does it? I asked earlier about peaceful nuclear explosions, and no one has yet assuaged my doubts that this proposal would prohibit sharing such technology.

But does it? I asked earlier about peaceful nuclear explosions, and no one has yet assuaged my doubts that this proposal would prohibit sharing such technology.
I was considering "peaceful" to mean incapable to cause damage, but that was just to respond to that comment.

To answer your question, after reading the resolution, I'd say yes you could, but it would get tricky, especially with the compliance-is-automatic feature.

*cue weird music for Ceorana's weird theory that makes no sense in RL and relies on a quirky explanation of "compliance is automatic*

You could trade the explosives, but you couldn't use them as weapons, because then you'd be trading weapons. You would also be bound by some mysterious force to never ever use them as weapons, or use the technology to make weapons, because then you would be violating Article I.

You could trade the explosives, but you couldn't use them as weapons, because then you'd be trading weapons. You would also be bound by some mysterious force to never ever use them as weapons, or use the technology to make weapons, because then you would be violating Article I.
Thinking about it, this is just 'weapons', and 'weapon' itself isn't defined, so I think you're right: we could still trade 'tools'.

This proposal is a copy!

Me and Edonia were working on another proposal, which he copied and changed a little bit. Here's ours:

Partial Nuclear Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Strength: Significant

REALIZING that nuclear weapons are devastating to civilians, the environment, and very possibly the world as a whole;

NOTING that nuclear deterrence is an effective national defense measure, and should be legal;

BELIEVING that excessive nuclear stockpiles are completely unnecessary, and should be illegal;

REALIZING that not all nuclear technology is evil or wrong, and that nuclear reactors can be incredibly beneficial;

ESTABLISHES the following rules for all UN member states:

1. No UN member state may own more than 800 nuclear warheads under any circumstances;
2. No UN member state may launch nuclear warheads without being attacked by nuclear warheads first;
3. All nuclear warheads must be silo launched, and cannot be launched from orbit, in space, on ships, or on submarines or planes.

CREATING a deadline of ten years for all UN member states to conform to this resolution.

You do realize that there is not one single thing in common between these two proposals? It's as if...oh, surely not...

THEY'RE COMPLETELY, ENTIRELY, ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT

OOC: Incidentally, the first draft of this proposal was posted before your nation was created. Run along, troll.

Sorry. Not a copy. Yes, it deals with the same issue, but it does so far more thoroughly than yours.

I support this; Cobdenia has no nukes, yet, and when we trie to export them the time space vortex turned them into a rather large Jellyfish.

However, we have discovered that by firing rather large jellyfishes out of the time vortex towards another nation using a big cannon, it turns into a rather nifty nuclear missiles.

Thus, using the stupidest loophole ever and questionable physics (don't ask us, we've been trying to figure out why this happens for three years now - all we know is that it started when some bugger in a big scarf who lives in a police box visited), we retain our right to buy jellyfish...

Best post of the month! :D

This proposal is a copy!

Me and Edonia were working on another proposal, which he copied and changed a little bit. Here's ours:

Partial Nuclear Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Strength: Significant

REALIZING that nuclear weapons are devastating to civilians, the environment, and very possibly the world as a whole;

NOTING that nuclear deterrence is an effective national defense measure, and should be legal;

BELIEVING that excessive nuclear stockpiles are completely unnecessary, and should be illegal;

REALIZING that not all nuclear technology is evil or wrong, and that nuclear reactors can be incredibly beneficial;

ESTABLISHES the following rules for all UN member states:

1. No UN member state may own more than 800 nuclear warheads under any circumstances;
2. No UN member state may launch nuclear warheads without being attacked by nuclear warheads first;
3. All nuclear warheads must be silo launched, and cannot be launched from orbit, in space, on ships, or on submarines or planes.

CREATING a deadline of ten years for all UN member states to conform to this resolution.

This accusation of plagiarism is one of the most incredibly absurd statements we have ever heard in this Assembly. The representative of Pythagoria should be ashamed of himself for insulting the intelligence of the members.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We would like to hear the views of the UNOG Uranium Magnates' Association, one of Our key trading partners, to this proposal.As former chair of the UMA I can tell you this:

The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii relies on nuclear power for much of its electricity needs.No you don't. We told you you couldn't.

However, the HOCEK, while not currently a nuclear weapons-possessing state, reserves the right to produce such weapons.Oh, really??!!

This proposal is a copy!

Me and Edonia were working on another proposal, which he copied and changed a little bit. Here's ours:

Partial Nuclear Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Strength: Significant

REALIZING that nuclear weapons are devastating to civilians, the environment, and very possibly the world as a whole;

NOTING that nuclear deterrence is an effective national defense measure, and should be legal;

BELIEVING that excessive nuclear stockpiles are completely unnecessary, and should be illegal;

REALIZING that not all nuclear technology is evil or wrong, and that nuclear reactors can be incredibly beneficial;

ESTABLISHES the following rules for all UN member states:

1. No UN member state may own more than 800 nuclear warheads under any circumstances;
2. No UN member state may launch nuclear warheads without being attacked by nuclear warheads first;
3. All nuclear warheads must be silo launched, and cannot be launched from orbit, in space, on ships, or on submarines or planes.

CREATING a deadline of ten years for all UN member states to conform to this resolution.

Actually the above that Pythogria has is an older copy of the proposal before it was revised about two weeks ago due to some fundamental flaws. the actual one is this:

Limit of Nuclear Proliferation

A resolution to lower the current amount of nuclear weapons.

Strength: Significant

REALIZING that nuclear weapons are devastating to civilians, the environment, and very possibly the world as a whole;

NOTING that nuclear deterrence is an effective national defense measure, but it causes mistrust and paranoia between allies and enemies alike, furthering the need for more nuclear weapons.

BELIEVING that excessive nuclear stockpiles are completely unnecessary and economically wasteful of a country's budget.

REALIZING that not all nuclear technology is evil or wrong, and that nuclear weapon programs can be replaced by nuclear power plant programs, which can be incredibly beneficial;

ESTABLISHES the following rules for all UN member states:

1. No UN member state may own more than 800 nuclear warheads under any circumstances;
2. No UN member state may launch nuclear warheads without being attacked by nuclear warheads first;
3. Nuclear warheads must be silo launched, and cannot be launched from orbit or from space.
4. No nation in the UN may share nuclear warheads with another nation nor assist in the nuclear weapons program of another country, province, or colony in or out of the UN.

CREATING a deadline of ten years for all UN member states to meet the nuclear quota of this resolution.

Just clearing up that info. Ok, im not accussing anyone of forgery. Obviously that would require proof, to which is nigh impossible to attain. It is also quite obvious that there are extreme differences between our proposal and this new proposal. I am sure that this may be all a coincidence and it is quite possible that ours countries were not the only one working on this very proposal. I do find this proposal ok in handling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, although in my opinion it could do more. What I find strange is that under the title for this proposal you have "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending" which is the exact same phrase we originally had before we had Robes show it to some other delegates and afterwards, we changed that phrase to "A resolution to lower the current amount of nuclear weapons". Now that could be a coincidence too.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone because it is probably all a coincidence and in fact, I do applaud the people for making an Antineclear proliferation act because in all honesty, many countries would have not given two looks at this proposal . I wont vote for this proposal, however, because although it does prevent nations from trading nuclear weaponary with each other, its still says nothing about trying to disarm some current weapons in a nation's arsenal. Still I must say that the proposal is well written and good luck. I just don't want to start feelings of resentment between fellow members of the UN.

Forgery? :confused:

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
That is a standard line all Global Disarmament proposals have. Stop this boring, annoying, irrelevant hijacking: your proposals have nothing in common.

That is a standard line all Global Disarmament proposals have. Stop this boring, annoying, irrelevant hijacking: your proposals have nothing in common.

Ok I was not aware of that. Thank you for clearing that up.

As former chair of the UMA I can tell you this:

No you don't. We told you you couldn't.

And what does the current UMA chair say? Clearly We need to hear from a responsible voice.

Oh, really??!!

Does the esteemed representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny intend continue their sad attempts to justify their nation's unprovoked military attack upon Our people, even here in this august chamber? Has any of the Kennyite's so-called "weapons inspectors" found any trace of militarization in Our nation's nuclear program beyond their cheap fabrications We have uncovered? We repeat our statement that we have no nuclear weapons at this time. However, the truce We signed with Omigodtheykilledkenny in no way obligates Us to forswear them forever.

Let noone forget they were the agressors here. Our current non-nuclear posture is a goodwill gesture to OMGTKK, which they are abusing here with their baseless insinuations. Besides, they're late with their reparations payments.

And what does the current UMA chair say? Clearly We need to hear from a responsible voice.



Does the esteemed representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny intend continue their sad attempts to justify their nation's unprovoked military attack upon Our people, even here in this august chamber? Has any of the Kennyite's so-called "weapons inspectors" found any trace of militarization in Our nation's nuclear program beyond their cheap fabrications We have uncovered? We repeat our statement that we have no nuclear weapons at this time. However, the truce We signed with Omigodtheykilledkenny in no way obligates Us to forswear them forever.

Let noone forget they were the agressors here. Our current non-nuclear posture is a goodwill gesture to OMGTKK, which they are abusing here with their baseless insinuations. Besides, they're late with their reparations payments.

What happened, if you dont mind my asking?

Given SEA is a puppet state of St Edmund, can you not just protect them anyway? Why do they need nuclear weapons, especially?


They provide the alliance's main airforce, as well as its civil aviation services...

I need to lower my taxes a bit and spending a bit less on nuclear weapons would help. Lower taxes for no nukes.

They provide the alliance's main airforce, as well as its civil aviation services...
Meh, it still seems like you're just looking for a loophole for the sake of looking for a loophole.

New option: put them in a truck. Drive the truck to the border. "Run out of petrol and go to get some more."

Et voila.

/snip/

I am not pointing fingers at anyone because it is probably all a coincidence and in fact, I do applaud the people for making an Antineclear proliferation act because in all honesty, many countries would have not given two looks at this proposal . I wont vote for this proposal, however, because although it does prevent nations from trading nuclear weaponary with each other, its still says nothing about trying to disarm some current weapons in a nation's arsenal. Still I must say that the proposal is well written and good luck. I just don't want to start feelings of resentment between fellow members of the UN.

We can't agree with the logic of the honorable representative of Edoniakistanbabweagua. If this resolution does something worthwhile, we see no reason not to vote for it just because it doesn't solve everything. To us, that's like voting against a law outlawing murder because it doesn't outlaw fraud, too. If the representative wishes to submit a proposal that requires nuclear disarmament, fine. We sincerely doubt that it would pass, but that's irrelevant. But the fact that this proposal doesn't do that seems to us a very dubious reason for not supporting it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

If the representative wishes to submit a proposal that requires nuclear disarmament, fine. We sincerely doubt that it would pass, but that's irrelevant.Indeed, we seriously doubt it would be legal.

We can't agree with the logic of the honorable representative of Edoniakistanbabweagua. If this resolution does something worthwhile, we see no reason not to vote for it just because it doesn't solve everything. To us, that's like voting against a law outlawing murder because it doesn't outlaw fraud, too. If the representative wishes to submit a proposal that requires nuclear disarmament, fine. We sincerely doubt that it would pass, but that's irrelevant. But the fact that this proposal doesn't do that seems to us a very dubious reason for not supporting it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I see your point, but I believe that this proposal isnt enough to deter nuclear proliferation. It is a step in the right direction though.

I see your point, but I believe that this proposal isnt enough to deter nuclear proliferation. It is a step in the right direction though.
So the fact that it bans nuclear proliferation isn't enough to deter it. Hmm. What more could it do? Sing a song about "nukes are bad hm'kay"?

So the fact that it bans nuclear proliferation isn't enough to deter it. Hmm. What more could it do? Sing a song about "nukes are bad hm'kay"?
He probably wnats an outright ban on nukes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So the fact that it bans nuclear proliferation isn't enough to deter it. Hmm. What more could it do? Sing a song about "nukes are bad hm'kay"?

See thats where you are incorrect. It does ban the exchange of nuclear arms between countries. However, this still doesnt limit how much one country can own. So a country can make as many as they want, as long as they dont give them to another country. And other countries that have nuclear capability and see this will make more nukes to try and defend against it. So it doesnt really stop nuclear proliferation.

He probably wnats an outright ban on nukes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It would be nice, but Im not that naive. its impossible for countries to lay down their nuclear arms because nuclear missles are the weapons that can automatically end a war and even stop one from happening. All I want is countries to just try and at least lower the amount of missiles in their arsenal. Not a complete disarmerment. Just lower the amount to bring some trust between nations.

See thats where you are incorrect. It does ban the exchange of nuclear arms between countries. However, this still doesnt limit how much one country can own. So a country can make as many as they want, as long as they dont give them to another country. And other countries that have nuclear capability and see this will make more nukes to try and defend against it. So it doesnt really stop nuclear proliferation.
Proliferation means spread. The nuclear arsenal of one nation is not a matter of proliferation: it's the exchange between nations that is.

It would be nice, but Im not that naive. its impossible for countries to lay down their nuclear arms because nuclear missles are the weapons that can automatically end a war and even stop one from happening. All I want is countries to just try and at least lower the amount of missiles in their arsenal. Not a complete disarmerment. Just lower the amount to bring some trust between nations.

Then write another resolution.

And include Jellyfish

Then write another resolution.

And include Jellyfish

hehe I will. I love the post about jelly fish. Pure genius.

Proliferation means spread. The nuclear arsenal of one nation is not a matter of proliferation: it's the exchange between nations that is.

But that is exactly what this still is. More nuclear weapons are still going to be mass produced. There will still be more weapons coming up. There will still a huge arsenal of weapons. And this act wont stop it.

But that is exactly what this still is. More nuclear weapons are still going to be mass produced. There will still be more weapons coming up. There will still a huge arsenal of weapons. And this act wont stop it.
No. Which is convenient, given it's not trying to stop it.

No. Which is convenient, given it's not trying to stop it.

Do you actually believe that the only way to keep peace and trust between countries is to keep making more and more weapons? That is only going to cause more paranoia. And then what? More nukes I suppose. Lets keep making more and more nukes and keep threatening people with more and more nukes until finally some nut job hacks into your nuclear missle silos and launches some at a random country. And then other countries in that region will nuke you and then countries in your region will nuke them and soon youll have people nuking for the hell of it. That is the danger here.

New option: put them in a truck. Drive the truck to the border. "Run out of petrol and go to get some more."

Et voila.

Call us 'old-fashioned', if you must, but we like to keep our actions legally justifiable...

Do you actually believe that the only way to keep peace and trust between countries is to keep making more and more weapons? That is only going to cause more paranoia. And then what? More nukes I suppose. Lets keep making more and more nukes and keep threatening people with more and more nukes until finally some nut job hacks into your nuclear missle silos and launches some at a random country. And then other countries in that region will nuke you and then countries in your region will nuke them and soon youll have people nuking for the hell of it. That is the danger here.
We're not advocating making more. We're opposing making fewer. There is a difference. Just as we will oppose your proposal, we would similarly oppose a "Stockpile Promotion" proposal. Come on, we're conservatives: we fear change! Things are nice as they are and we want them to stay that way.

Considering the fact that there will always be "rogue" nations that wish to possess nuclear weapons, we must realize that this resolution will not stop them from purchasing these munitions, regardless of legislation that may pass. As a result, law abiding nations will be the only ones affected by this resolution.

The people of Belea feel that this poses much to great a security risk, as non-UN nations may freely trade nuclear material for weaponization purposes. This leaves all UN member nations that do not have a Uranium mining industry at the mercy of any small nation that has purchased nuclear material.

The people of Belea EMPLORE YOU to vote AGAINST this resolution, in favor of a regulatory resolution instead.

Proliferation means spread. The nuclear arsenal of one nation is not a matter of proliferation: it's the exchange between nations that is.

So...this proposal is intended to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons.

But it allows nations to make as many nukes as they can without help from UN members. It only takes longer then for rogue nations to become nuclear powers. (But they can still buy nukes from non-UN members.) So is this the only benefit? A vague sense that mutually assured destruction has been delayed for a few years?

In ten years' time, there could be ten times as many nukes, but the number of nations with nukes might be just slightly higher. This is what you call non-proliferation?

Annoyingly, I feel compelled logically to vote FOR, even if the proposal seems as weak as I'm suggesting here.

(But they can still buy nukes from non-UN members.)
No, they can't.

In ten years' time, there could be ten times as many nukes, but the number of nations with nukes might be just slightly higher. This is what you call non-proliferation?
Sounds good to me.

Peace Through Superior Firepower...

I see your point, but I believe that this proposal isnt enough to deter nuclear proliferation. It is a step in the right direction though.

And the fact that the situation precludes us from making a giant leap in the right direction will not stop us from taking that step. We continue to support this resolution and urge our colleagues to vote for it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Sorry, I seem to have misread part of article 1:

"ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation. "

Looks like both buying and selling are covered.

I assume "any nation" and "UN member nations" covers government, corporations, NGOs, and individuals?

I assume "any nation" and "UN member nations" covers government, corporations, NGOs, and individuals?
Governments - yes. The rest - no, but are they likely to possess nuclear weaponry? And certainly, anyone who is a "state actor" would be disbarred from such trade.

Governments - yes. The rest - no, but are they likely to possess nuclear weaponry? And certainly, anyone who is a "state actor" would be disbarred from such trade.

Not likely, no. But it looks like someone finally found a loophole. Consider a private defence company operating in its own interests, which of course would be to fulfil government contracts but to do so voluntarily. It could then sell to PNE interests or to other arms industries. Unless another resolution prevents this?

Not likely, no. But it looks like someone finally found a loophole. Consider a private defence company operating in its own interests, which of course would be to fulfil government contracts but to do so voluntarily. It could then sell to PNE interests or to other arms industries. Unless another resolution prevents this?
There's The Nuclear Terrorism Act (resolution #74), but that's fairly vague.

I'll think further on this; it's an interesting loophole. My problems:
1. If the government originally supplies the corporation, then I'd say it's still illegal; similarly if the government is the end recipient;
2. If a corporation in country A sells to country B, that would still possibly be illegal, even if country A's government was not involved.

Peace Through Superior Firepower...

Indeed. :cool:

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)

I Strongly disagree with nuclear power to all nations, especially corrupt ones!

I Strongly disagree with nuclear power to all nations, especially corrupt ones!

Too late. The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny already has nuclear weapons.

this debate i hope tofind very interesting as i am new to this site but still i dont se why a nation cannot have a nuclear weapons to protect themselves from other nations that may already have nukes i have already voted against this plan weall need to be protected somehow even with weapons of nuclear power

We gave up our weapons after developing a 10 megaton electromagnetic pulse ball lightning weapon.

Oy. The noobage. It pains me.

What happened, if you dont mind my asking?

This: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458061

Basically, the self-styled protector of NationStates from "rogue nations" took advantage of an internal HOCEK catastrophe to launch an uprovoked attack upon Our people, under the pretext that We were developing nuclear weapons. As a condition of the cease-fire that followed, the HOCEK offered to allow Omygodtheykilledkenny to inspect Our nations' scientific and industrial facilities so that We could demonstrate that We were not. How long their spies intend to carry on this charade is still undecided.

There is a growing movement within the HOCEK to throw the "inspectors" out and go ahead with nuclear weapons development. Given states like OMGTKK around, nukes may be Our only defense.

Fear not, my Kennyite allies. I have been informed by Sheik Trams bin Cluich, director of the Cluichstani Intelligence Service, that should HOCEK expel your inspectors, his agency will gladly share information gathered by its many servicewomen -- I mean, agents -- in that country.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You do realize that there is not one single thing in common between these two proposals? It's as if...oh, surely not...

THEY'RE COMPLETELY, ENTIRELY, ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT

OOC: Incidentally, the first draft of this proposal was posted before your nation was created. Run along, troll.

Pfft. Call me a troll? Learn definitions.

But seriously, me and Ed worked on our proposal, and we should be credited for that.

But seriously, me and Ed worked on our proposal, and we should be credited for that.As your Proposal is not this Proposal, I don't see how this is relevent.

As your Proposal is not this Proposal, I don't see how this is relevent.

Perhaps we could put in a compromise between the two? After all, I wanted to have one of my proposals put into the UN...

I'll look for a new topic.

King Of Hespatin

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

I Strongly disagree with nuclear power to all nations, especially corrupt ones!


Too late. The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny already has nuclear weapons.

So does the Evil Conservative Empire of The Palentine. And our Emperor, The Beloved Captain Spaulding I, is a real doozy.http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Captain_Spaulding_I

Pfft. Call me a troll? Learn definitions.

But seriously, me and Ed worked on our proposal, and we should be credited for that.

[OOC]
I am sorry, I cannot handle this IC. Accusations of plagiarism are a strong attack on the good name of the author. So, here it goes.

1. Your proposal has nothing in common with the resolution at vote. It is not even well written. I know the author, and I know he would never plagiarise a proposal. But if he ever used a text for inspiration, he would definitely have the good judgement not to use yours.

2. Ed is behaving sensibly. But I credit you with being an idiot. And a troll. Happy?

3. Pfft.

:confused: Would some1 please tell me if I this right. The UN is voting to ban trading of info on how to make a wmd more destructive. Again would some please tell me if I have this right!!:confused:

And what does the current UMA chair say? Clearly We need to hear from a responsible voice.Well, seeing as how the current election for UMA chair hasn't yet been resolved, we are the ones who continue to speak on that body's behalf, and speaking as such, I can say with confidence that the Federal Republic concurs with its Gruenberger, Ceoranan and Ausserlander friends on this proposal's ramifications for nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Under this article, the trade of peaceful nuclear technology would be completely legal. Just not for you! As per our understanding of the standing ceasefire agreement between our two powers, you are not to pursue nuclear technology. Why else would the you have consented to the United Nations sending in weapons inspectors, along with our own undercover Stripper Commandos--erm, "contingent"?

Does the esteemed representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny intend continue their sad attempts to justify their nation's unprovoked military attack upon Our people, even here in this august chamber? Has any of the Kennyite's so-called "weapons inspectors" found any trace of militarization in Our nation's nuclear program beyond their cheap fabrications We have uncovered? We repeat our statement that we have no nuclear weapons at this time. However, the truce We signed with Omigodtheykilledkenny in no way obligates Us to forswear them forever.

Let noone forget they were the agressors here. Our current non-nuclear posture is a goodwill gesture to OMGTKK, which they are abusing here with their baseless insinuations. Besides, they're late with their reparations payments.

What happened, if you dont mind my asking?This: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458061

Basically, the self-styled protector of NationStates from "rogue nations" took advantage of an internal HOCEK catastrophe to launch an uprovoked attack upon Our people, under the pretext that We were developing nuclear weapons. As a condition of the cease-fire that followed, the HOCEK offered to allow Omygodtheykilledkenny to inspect Our nations' scientific and industrial facilities so that We could demonstrate that We were not. How long their spies intend to carry on this charade is still undecided.

There is a growing movement within the HOCEK to throw the "inspectors" out and go ahead with nuclear weapons development. Given states like OMGTKK around, nukes may be Our only defense.We appreciate the Nuncio's commentary on our intentions, and we're sure he understands if we respectfully -- and by "respectfully," I mean "profoundly, loudly and obnoxiously" -- disagree. We cannot allow your unfounded allegations against our nation go unanswered, for, you see, you were not, as you insist, wholly innocent in this exchange; we had good intelligence that indicated you had sent a spy to our nation to investiagte our military-grade native colonies, and that you might have been developing nuclear wepaons. It don't take a genius to put two and two together and reasonably conclude that your nation was secretly developing nuclear penguins, for which to strike at us unexpectedly! Do you honestly think that President Fernanda was just gonna sit by and allow a bunch of Hello Kitty-worshiping nutjobs to plot against us, encase nuclear weapons inside our own penguins, then release them into our cities?? ... Well, do you??

I suppose, Nuncio, in your happy fluffy kitten-idolizing theocracy, where you all think you are ruled by God, you could simply ask your omniscient ruler-deity what a potentially hostile nation's intentions are, and act accordingly? Well, it don't work that way, down here in the real world, where we must rely on human judgment, which is, unfortunately, fallible, and carries a margin of error. All we knew is that we had a Kawaiian "diplomat" running amok inside our borders, playing Dr. Dolittle and questioning our armed penguins, and that you yourself had publicly considered whether to go nuclear in your own nation. You were a very likely threat against our nation, and we had to act on the info we had, which was very damning. What do think we are, psychics?! Is that what you think we are?? Do you expect us to simply divine what your next move would be? Do you?? I suppose in The Eternal Kawaii, your government has the Psychic Friends Network on call 24/7? I suppose in your crazed fundamentalist commune the national security adviser is Dionne Warwick?? No, my friend; we Kennyites cannot consult the stars to exact our national-security strategy, and we cannot pray to a Cute Little Kitty God to find out what our enemies are planning. We must rely on human intelligence, which told us you guys were a threat.

I am so glad you elected to speak on this matter, Nuncio, because you are a perfect example of the manner of regime to which this proposal is designed to prevent the transfer of nuclear technology. After much thought I am convinced that freedom-loving nations as ours simply cannot allow fellow UN states assist nations as yours in the development of (illegal, as per our agreement) nuclear arms, and as such, the Federal Republic will be voting in favor of this proposal. We congratulate the Yeldan delegation on this very fine proposition, and on its imminent elevation to the chairmanship of the Uranium Magnates Association.

And as for you, Nuncio, for basically announcing right here in front of all these witnesses that your nation intends to violate our former understanding following the Kitten Revolution, you will pay the ultimate price ...

[Riley nods his head; his face is eclipsed by the shadows as he clasps his fingers together, a la Monty Burns.]

... Yeeees, the ultimate price. ...

*____*____*

[An hour later, Riley is standing outside the door to his office, situated across the hall from the Kawaiian suite. He places a cell phone to his ear. "Mr. President? We're ready to launch Operation Needless Escalation at your order, sir ... Thank you, Mr. President." Riley flips the phone shut and steals a puff from his cigarette. Minutes later, the blue-robed Nuncio is seen striding down the hallway toward his office; he sees Riley, and motions to him as though he is about to say something, but before any words can escape his lips, two commandos jump out from behind a cluster of tall potted plants decorating the corridor and seize him. He vainly struggles against the women's iron grip as they spirit him down the hall and through the swinging door marked "Men." They quickly reach their destination, the stall nearest the door, and force the Nuncio to his knees; he screams as they submerge in his head in the toilet bowl and tug the handle for a customary flush. Riley remains at his post outside the bathroom door, calmly drawing puffs from his cigarette as the commotion, the gurgled shrieks and repeated flushings continue to emanate from inside.]

:confused: Would some1 please tell me if I this right. The UN is voting to ban trading of info on how to make a wmd more destructive. Again would some please tell me if I have this right!!:confused:

We'd ask the representative of Lagentia to please calm down, knock off the large type and ditch the boldface. People will pay more attention to what he has to say.

To answer the question, you're right. This resolution would prohibit one nation from helping another increase the destructive power of a nuclear weapon.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ed is behaving sensibly.

[OOC] Thanks for the compliment about being sensible ;) , but lets all try and abstain from name-calling. It won't help but to worsen feelinf between countries. And actually, that was mostly my horribly written proposal with his ideas. We were gonna make it sound better when we were gonna make it public. This was just the bare bones.

[OOC]
I am sorry, I cannot handle this IC. Accusations of plagiarism are a strong attack on the good name of the author. So, here it goes.

1. Your proposal has nothing in common with the resolution at vote. It is not even well written. I know the author, and I know he would never plagiarise a proposal. But if he ever used a text for inspiration, he would definitely have the good judgement not to use yours.

2. Ed is behaving sensibly. But I credit you with being an idiot. And a troll. Happy?

3. Pfft.

I don't agree with you so I'm a troll and idiot? ...Yeah. Right.

I don't agree with you so I'm a troll and idiot? ...Yeah. Right.
I don't think it's a matter of "agreeing". Accusing someone of plagiarism is a strong accusation, and you don't have facts or truth to back it up.

I don't think it's a matter of "agreeing". Accusing someone of plagiarism is a strong accusation, and you don't have facts or truth to back it up.

Let's just forget this whole situation.

I am not going to give up my weapons the only way to do that is to come to get them your selfs throght war how am I going to expane my empire with doves screw that!!!!!!!!

I am not going to give up my weapons the only way to do that is to come to get them your selfs throght war how am I going to expane my empire with doves screw that!!!!!!!!
You don't have to give up anything, in fact your right to possess nuclear weapons in enshirned in UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Is it just me or is that the only thing I've said in this thread?:rolleyes:

This proposal is a copy!

Me and Edonia were working on another proposal, which he copied and changed a little bit. Here's ours:

Partial Nuclear Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Strength: Significant

REALIZING that nuclear weapons are devastating to civilians, the environment, and very possibly the world as a whole;

NOTING that nuclear deterrence is an effective national defense measure, and should be legal;

BELIEVING that excessive nuclear stockpiles are completely unnecessary, and should be illegal;

REALIZING that not all nuclear technology is evil or wrong, and that nuclear reactors can be incredibly beneficial;

ESTABLISHES the following rules for all UN member states:

1. No UN member state may own more than 800 nuclear warheads under any circumstances;
2. No UN member state may launch nuclear warheads without being attacked by nuclear warheads first;
3. All nuclear warheads must be silo launched, and cannot be launched from orbit, in space, on ships, or on submarines or planes.

CREATING a deadline of ten years for all UN member states to conform to this resolution.

Ahem: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458562
Please note the date on that first post, 10-12-2005, 4:30 PM
Now Shut Up!

Ahem: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458562
Please note the date on that first post, 10-12-2005, 4:30 PM
Now Shut Up!

Is it enough to ask that you read my post that says I'd forget about it?

I haveto say i like statement 3 under article one. I never knew you could or would make bombs safer. I mean they are used to destroy things not help.
:confused: :sniper: :headbang: :mp5:

Is it enough to ask that you read my post that says I'd forget about it?
So stop talking about it [which would include not replying to this].

OOC: Is it just me or is that the only thing I've said in this thread?
OOC: Aye, and I imagine you'll be saying it again a few times.

I'll think further on this; it's an interesting loophole. My problems:
1. If the government originally supplies the corporation, then I'd say it's still illegal; similarly if the government is the end recipient;
2. If a corporation in country A sells to country B, that would still possibly be illegal, even if country A's government was not involved.

Those were my conclusions too: That's why I'm not turning St Edmund's nuclear production over to a multinational company & suggesting that it could supply nukes to St Edmund Air as well...

If we disarm all of the nuclear weapons and one country is bigger than another, the how will they defend themselves from the bigger country. That's one of my views on this issue.

If we disarm all of the nuclear weapons and one country is bigger than another, the how will they defend themselves from the bigger country. That's one of my views on this issue.

This proposal does not disarm anyone.

I don't know where you all stand and I don't care I believe that we have the right to do what we want with our nuke tech so here's where I stand on this issue :upyours:

I don't know where you all stand and I don't care I believe that we have the right to do what we want with ower nuke tech so here's where I stand on this issue :upyours:

OOC: Brilliant first post. :rolleyes: And y'all expect me to go easy on idiot nooblets like this?

What the hell are you taking about I have played this game befor just my nation was lost when my comp. crashed and your the one who is makin the stuped preposal what's wroung with helping other nations defend themselves some are really ganna need it like yours if we had the ability to :rolleyes: :sniper: go to war.

What the hell are you taking about I have played this game befor just my nation was lost when my comp. crashed and your the one who is makin the stuped preposal what's wroung with helping other nations defend themselves some are really ganna need it like yours when if we had the ability to go to war.

OOC: I'm amazed that the only period used there was to abbreviate "computer." The prosecution rests.

OOC EDIT: And the smileys added while I was first typing this post can be entered as Exhibit C. :rolleyes:

OOC: I'm amazed that the only period used there was to abbreviate "computer." The prosecution rests.

OOC EDIT: And the smileys added while I was first typing this post can be entered as Exhibit C. :rolleyes:

Wow I'm so hurt:p

Disturbed by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of a nuclear war and determined to reduce the danger of such a war,

Disturbed by the fact that governments wage war, governments decide which weapons to use in war, and the danger of these weapons on civilians and their environment,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the danger of nuclear war,

Believing that the United States government has invested $5-trillion dollars since the 1950's on nuclear armament as a deterrent, and my choice to follow that line of logic,


Alarmed at the potential threat posed to international security by the acquisition of nuclear weaponry by rogue states,

Alarmed that non-puppet regimes that oppose imperialism and global oppression are deemed as rogue nations,

Defining a nuclear weapon as a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect. Excluded from this definition shall be any integrated guidance, safety and security systems, or any other peripheral system not directly related to the explosive payload itself, or its detonation device(s).

Defining a lack of mention for munitions containing radioactive material (such as Depleted Uranium) which would not be included in this definition as a result of no fusion or fission reactions in it's implementation,

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.

Again, here we go with the directly or indirectly crap again. This is a ploy to make everybody guilty through association and needing to prove their innocence. Think I'm exaggerating? What would indirectly imply? It implies that even if you had no knowledge of any relation, you are still in the wrong. Wrong = Guilty.

(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.

Well this sort of cancels out that indirectly we just talked about. Right? Consider Article 1.2 as filler to make it look like a document that covers a vast area of concern and that much thought was put into this proposal.

(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.

What this implies, combined with Article 1.2, is that those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to keep them, whereas those who do not are forbidden from obtaining them. And those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to improve the safety of the weapon..... huh? How do you make a nuclear weapon safer? Just more filler.

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

This is a farce. It does not take much thought to determine those nations who already possess nuclear armament most likely already have the technology and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. When you take Article 2 and combine it with the whole of Article 1, it clearly dictates an unfair bias toward those nations possessing stockpiles and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. It restricts unarmed nations from obtaining in any way a deterrent from nuclear arms being used upon themselves. The most likely scenario this proposal encourages would be one that the superpowers will be able to bully most other nations with their nuclear arsenal, safe and sound from ever having a nuclear missile pointing at them.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to share technology related to safety and security systems, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

"or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself"...... How about indirectly? But that's not what stands out for me the most. What stands out is that those nations I'd mentioned that already possess the technology and manufacturing capabilities for a nuclear arsenal are free to exchange technology in guidance and delivery of their nuclear arms to their targets. One must ask: Why would they need to improve their manufacture, design, guidance, and delivery systems if only they are allowed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, unless they intend to at some point, under some scenario, those weapons will be employed?

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

As we can see in the real world with the situation in Iran, a nation that intends to use peaceful nuclear technology as a source of power will be pressured by those nations who possess nuclear arsenals to cease their programs under the guise of "rogue nations potentially turning nuclear power programs into weapons programs". Binding Article 4 to the terms of Article 1 provides a means of justifying sanctions or any other actions against any unfavored nation that may have interest in helping a nation obtain nuclear power facilities. I interpret Article 4 to be sugar-coating to make it look like a good idea for all nations to endorse. Most people will mostly remember the last thing they have read more than the first. Whether the ending was tact or coincidence, Article 4 will be what most people reflect upon when they cast their votes.

Needless to say, I vote Against.

Disturbed by the fact that governments wage war, governments decide which weapons to use in war, and the danger of these weapons on civilians and their environment,

Disturbed by the fact that people make statements without making a point.

Believing that the United States government has invested $5-trillion dollars since the 1950's on nuclear armament as a deterrent, and my choice to follow that line of logic,

Your point? This proposal does not prevent any mystical country from investing. It doesn't even prevent UN members from investing.

Alarmed that non-puppet regimes that oppose imperialism and global oppression are deemed as rogue nations,

Interesting. I am sure you have something to say, and yet, it is just out of reach.

Defining a lack of mention for munitions containing radioactive material (such as Depleted Uranium) which would not be included in this definition as a result of no fusion or fission reactions in it's implementation,

And guess what: DU is not a nuclear weapon. This proposal also doesn't mention kicking puppies, and yet you didn't complain about it. Are you saying kicking puppies is not bad? You evil puppy-kicker.

Again, here we go with the directly or indirectly crap again. This is a ploy to make everybody guilty through association and needing to prove their innocence. Think I'm exaggerating? What would indirectly imply? It implies that even if you had no knowledge of any relation, you are still in the wrong. Wrong = Guilty.

First impulse: Read the dictionary.
Second impulse: Your logic is crap, therefore you are wrong, and thus you are guilty.
Friendly post: Directly means country A transfers weapons to country B. Indirectly means country A transfers weapons to country/company/individual/penguin C, who then directs the weapon to country B. Now, was it that hard?

Well this sort of cancels out that indirectly we just talked about. Right? Consider Article 1.2 as filler to make it look like a document that covers a vast area of concern and that much thought was put into this proposal.

OOC: Go and troll somewhere else. Who the fuck are you to presume to know the time invested in this proposal? Your statement just contains an insult, not an argument. Please behave.

What this implies, combined with Article 1.2, is that those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to keep them, whereas those who do not are forbidden from obtaining them. And those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to improve the safety of the weapon..... huh? How do you make a nuclear weapon safer? Just more filler.

And you started so well. Yes, you are allowed to keep them. You are also allowed to research and build them. You are just not allowed to transfer them. I wish I had a whiteboard, I could draw a pretty graph in colour for you.
"Safer" means "doesn't blow up except when it is intended to." You see, that wasn't hard at all...

This is a farce.

Indeed. Still, it takes courage to admit it.

It does not take much thought to determine those nations who already possess nuclear armament most likely already have the technology and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. When you take Article 2 and combine it with the whole of Article 1, it clearly dictates an unfair bias toward those nations possessing stockpiles and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. It restricts unarmed nations from obtaining in any way a deterrent from nuclear arms being used upon themselves. The most likely scenario this proposal encourages would be one that the superpowers will be able to bully most other nations with their nuclear arsenal, safe and sound from ever having a nuclear missile pointing at them.

Read the passed resolutions. Nations have the right to stockpile nuclear weapons. Nothing can remove that right until Nuclear Armaments is repealed. Repeating myself, nations are allowed to build their own weapons.

"or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself"...... How about indirectly? But that's not what stands out for me the most. What stands out is that those nations I'd mentioned that already possess the technology and manufacturing capabilities for a nuclear arsenal are free to exchange technology in guidance and delivery of their nuclear arms to their targets. One must ask: Why would they need to improve their manufacture, design, guidance, and delivery systems if only they are allowed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, unless they intend to at some point, under some scenario, those weapons will be employed?

Errrr... a weapon without guidance systems is not a very good deterrent, is it? You surely ignore the fact that three quarters of the world are not bound by UN law.

As we can see in the real world with the situation in Iran, a nation that intends to use peaceful nuclear technology as a source of power will be pressured by those nations who possess nuclear arsenals to cease their programs under the guise of "rogue nations potentially turning nuclear power programs into weapons programs". Binding Article 4 to the terms of Article 1 provides a means of justifying sanctions or any other actions against any unfavored nation that may have interest in helping a nation obtain nuclear power facilities. I interpret Article 4 to be sugar-coating to make it look like a good idea for all nations to endorse. Most people will mostly remember the last thing they have read more than the first. Whether the ending was tact or coincidence, Article 4 will be what most people reflect upon when they cast their votes.

OOC: Iran and peaceful in the same sentence. Priceless.

IC: Sugar-coating or no sugar-coating, most people will be able to read the resolution and understand, at least in part, what is written there. You were not. Shame on you.

Needless to say, I vote Against.

Good for you.

I got an idea instead of not being able to sell nuclear wepons at all make an add on to this thing so that you could sell it to make it in to nuclear energy. That way everyone is happy and all of us UN members and deligates benift from it. From an ecenomical stand point.

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the danger of nuclear war,

Believing that the United States government has invested $5-trillion dollars since the 1950's on nuclear armament as a deterrent, and my choice to follow that line of logic,

The United States don't exist in NS. Leave them out of it.


Alarmed at the potential threat posed to international security by the acquisition of nuclear weaponry by rogue states,

Alarmed that non-puppet regimes that oppose imperialism and global oppression are deemed as rogue nations,

I don't understand where you draw the parellel. As I understand it, a rogue nation is a nation that figuratively flips the bird at the rest of the world and makes the claim that no matter what anyone says, they shall do whatever they please and that no one can stop them. My nation is a non-puppet anti-imperial nation. Not a rogue nation. Your statement is the perfect example of the straw man.


Defining a nuclear weapon as a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect. Excluded from this definition shall be any integrated guidance, safety and security systems, or any other peripheral system not directly related to the explosive payload itself, or its detonation device(s).

Defining a lack of mention for munitions containing radioactive material (such as Depleted Uranium) which would not be included in this definition as a result of no fusion or fission reactions in it's implementation,

Depleted Uranium is not in and of itself explosive, or the primary ordinance. It may be used to intensify an explosion, but not to start one. It is used in armor and shells, with very low radiation emissions. The lack of mention of DU in the definition of nuclear weapon does not weaken the definition.

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.

Again, here we go with the directly or indirectly crap again. This is a ploy to make everybody guilty through association and needing to prove their innocence. Think I'm exaggerating? What would indirectly imply? It implies that even if you had no knowledge of any relation, you are still in the wrong. Wrong = Guilty.

There is no room for association here. The article is simple. No one may transfer ownership of a nuclear weapon. Should such transfer occur, those responsible for the transportation and financing of such a transfer would be held reliable. Directly responsible parties are those who arrange the transfer and carry it out. Indirectly would be those who finance the deal, conspire, and any other actions involving the transfer of nuclear weapons without having their hands on the merchandise. If someone has no knowledge of such a transfer, then they cannot be held reliable, because they were not involved, directly or indirectly. You're blowing the word indirectly out of proportion.

(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.

Well this sort of cancels out that indirectly we just talked about. Right? Consider Article 1.2 as filler to make it look like a document that covers a vast area of concern and that much thought was put into this proposal.


How does it contradict anything in the previous article? Member nations may not take part in other member nation's nuclear weapon's program. It does nothing to weaken the previous article.


(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.

What this implies, combined with Article 1.2, is that those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to keep them, whereas those who do not are forbidden from obtaining them. And those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to improve the safety of the weapon..... huh? How do you make a nuclear weapon safer? Just more filler.

Wrong on all accounts. Those who do not have them are not forbidden from obtaining them. They can make them on their own, without outside help. If they cannot, then that's too bad for them.

And improving the safety of these dastardly weapons would involve failsafes against accidental launches, preventing fallout, the proper disposal of enriched uranium and plutonium and other radioactive agents. It's an important part of this resolution, not filler.

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

This is a farce. It does not take much thought to determine those nations who already possess nuclear armament most likely already have the technology and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. When you take Article 2 and combine it with the whole of Article 1, it clearly dictates an unfair bias toward those nations possessing stockpiles and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. It restricts unarmed nations from obtaining in any way a deterrent from nuclear arms being used upon themselves. The most likely scenario this proposal encourages would be one that the superpowers will be able to bully most other nations with their nuclear arsenal, safe and sound from ever having a nuclear missile pointing at them.

While you are correct in the assertion that the superpowers will be the only ones without nuclear weaponry, your conclusion that that would lead to an unshakable control over the rest of the world is unlikely. This resolution prevents nuclear arms from reaching poor and desperate nations who should not have access to weapons of this magnitude. There are plenty. While I agree that many of the nuclear superpowers in NS should not have them as well, this Resolution prevents the spread of Nuclear weapons. That is a very important detail that you're missing.


ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to share technology related to safety and security systems, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

"or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself"...... How about indirectly? But that's not what stands out for me the most. What stands out is that those nations I'd mentioned that already possess the technology and manufacturing capabilities for a nuclear arsenal are free to exchange technology in guidance and delivery of their nuclear arms to their targets. One must ask: Why would they need to improve their manufacture, design, guidance, and delivery systems if only they are allowed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, unless they intend to at some point, under some scenario, those weapons will be employed?

The opposite of "directly" is not "indirectly," it's "not directly." The member is correct in saying not directly, as this definitively states that it is not related to the lethal payload. Indirectly related is still related.

And to answer your question: So that they hit the damn target. Should the weapons ever be used, it is most likely that they would be used either for PNE purposes (what an oxymoron "peaceful nuclear explosions" is...) or against military targets. In such cases, it is important that a misfire does not occur, putting civilian lives in great danger. Norderia is against nuclear weaponry in and of itself, but does not deny the fact that they exist and that other nations see them as having a positive purpose. Until the weapons can be removed, Norderia sees it prudent that only the most efficient targetting and delivery systems be used to minimize collateral damage. It also hopes that advanced targetting systems and delivery systems will encourage smaller, more tactical strikes, to render saturation obsolete.


ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

As we can see in the real world with the situation in Iran, a nation that intends to use peaceful nuclear technology as a source of power will be pressured by those nations who possess nuclear arsenals to cease their programs under the guise of "rogue nations potentially turning nuclear power programs into weapons programs". Binding Article 4 to the terms of Article 1 provides a means of justifying sanctions or any other actions against any unfavored nation that may have interest in helping a nation obtain nuclear power facilities. I interpret Article 4 to be sugar-coating to make it look like a good idea for all nations to endorse. Most people will mostly remember the last thing they have read more than the first. Whether the ending was tact or coincidence, Article 4 will be what most people reflect upon when they cast their votes.

Once again, Iran does not exist.

And once again, member nations are free to develop any nuclear program they desire. Technology that is used for nuclear programs are not restricted by this Resolution, UNLESS the technology is related to big kabooms.




Furthermore, not related to the quoted post, I have read people who are griping about the world outside of the UN; that it isn't fair for the rest of the world to have free access to Nuclear Arms and for the UN to be restricted. That is just mind-blowing to me.

I don't even know how to formulate a response... That concern is just so irrelevent. It makes my brain hurt.

This debate has already cost me 25 IQ points. I can't afford to lose any more.

I give an A for effort in getting the issue this far. However, 2 problems with the issue.

First, this does little to nothing to affect any country and their status.

Second, If this was real world there are other agencies in the U.N. that would be able to enforce the issue to those who are not appart of the U.N.. In this forum, their is no war and even if there was, this leaves my country open to a nuclear attack form those who will NOT support this; wheather the are appart of the U.N. or not.

This issue does bring up an interesting debate, but how many nations are apart of the U.N. vs. those who are not. Their needs to be an issue to enforce or sanction those who are not apart of the U.N. in order to make the world a secure and special place.

Voting against for my voice to be heard. :upyours:

However, wheather in the real world or not a movie quote can sum it up well, "Stupid is as Stupid does"

And to those who are taking this to SERIOUSLY, (you know who you are), Well...............................

I disagree with this bill for two reasons:
1-If we're going to allow nuclear developement, I personally feel we the UN should allow agreements and alliances in reasearch to be made between countries. By not allowing it, we allow nations outside the UN no holds while slowing only inter-UN development.

2-Countries within the UN will likely find illegal ways to bypass this bill without being caught.

((OOC: Just see the real world.))

First, this does little to nothing to affect any country and their status.
So?

Second, If this was real world
It's not
there are other agencies in the U.N. that would be able to enforce the issue to those who are not appart of the U.N..
Be able to, but would they?
In this forum, their is no war
Excuse me, but there most certainly is war in the UN. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States#Section_II)
and even if there was, this leaves my country open to a nuclear attack form those who will NOT support this; wheather the are appart of the U.N. or not.:sniper:
:headbang: You can have nukes. Your right to do so is protected by Resolution #109, Nuclear Armaments. You can defend yourself from nuclear attack.

I give an A for effort in getting the issue this far. However, 2 problems with the issue.

First, this does little to nothing to affect any country and their status.

It will have an impact on international trade and, resultingly, the economies of a number of countries.

Second, If this was real world

It isn't.

To respond to some of the arguments made by the representative of Corporate Hegemony:


Defining a nuclear weapon as a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect. Excluded from this definition shall be any integrated guidance, safety and security systems, or any other peripheral system not directly related to the explosive payload itself, or its detonation device(s).

Defining a lack of mention for munitions containing radioactive material (such as Depleted Uranium) which would not be included in this definition as a result of no fusion or fission reactions in it's implementation,


No one with any knowledge of nuclear weaponry or arms control would ever call something a "nuclear weapon" simply because it includes depleted uranium in its configuration.


ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.

Again, here we go with the directly or indirectly crap again. This is a ploy to make everybody guilty through association and needing to prove their innocence. Think I'm exaggerating? What would indirectly imply? It implies that even if you had no knowledge of any relation, you are still in the wrong. Wrong = Guilty.


The resolution implies no such thing. You incorrectly infer it. "Indirectly" would obviously refer to transfers through third parties, etc. And we don't think you're exaggerating. We think you're misrepresenting the resolution.


(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons
Well this sort of cancels out that indirectly we just talked about. Right? Consider Article 1.2 as filler to make it look like a document that covers a vast area of concern and that much thought was put into this proposal.


The representative is obviously unaware of the fact that, indeed, much thought was put into this resolution. It was posted in draft on at least three off-site forums and worked and re-worked in response to dozens of comments and suggestions.


(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.
What this implies, combined with Article 1.2, is that those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to keep them, whereas those who do not are forbidden from obtaining them. And those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to improve the safety of the weapon..... huh? How do you make a nuclear weapon safer? Just more filler.


You reduce the chances of accidental detonation during manufacture, transportation, storage, preparation for use, and waiting for use. You employ fail-safe devices and things like Permissive Action Links. Much work is devoted to nuclear weapons safety, of which the representative is obviously ignorant.


ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

This is a farce. It does not take much thought to determine those nations who already possess nuclear armament most likely already have the technology and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. When you take Article 2 and combine it with the whole of Article 1, it clearly dictates an unfair bias toward those nations possessing stockpiles and manufacturing capability for nuclear arms. It restricts unarmed nations from obtaining in any way a deterrent from nuclear arms being used upon themselves. The most likely scenario this proposal encourages would be one that the superpowers will be able to bully most other nations with their nuclear arsenal, safe and sound from ever having a nuclear missile pointing at them.


There are two problems with this statement: "It restricts unarmed nations from obtaining in any way a deterrent from nuclear arms being used upon themselves." First, the resolution does not do that. Nations are left completely free to develop a nuclear capability for themselves. Second, it presumes, incorrectly, that possession of nuclear arms is the only way to deter nuclear attack.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Alarmed that non-puppet regimes that oppose imperialism and global oppression are deemed as rogue nations,
You do realize that you just called the entire membership of the NSO Rogue Nations, don't you?

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

If you're banning nuclear weapons, why not ban all mining of uranium while you're at it? Once any uranium is used it becomes impossible to put anywhere without utterly destroying the environment! One gram of plutonium will cause cancer if someone is in contact with it. Nuclear powerplants are NOT safe, clean and efficient! How can u call slowly poisoning everything safe and clean? How is an alarm being turned on as a minor safety requirement every time the uranium is checked efficient?

That's my opinion neways...mebe someone should THINK about that:P

If you're banning nuclear weaponsWhich this Proposal isn't. Try reading next time.

That's my opinion neways...mebe someone should THINK about thatNo comment.

Even though Imperiux is against Nuclear Technology for other than peaceful purposes, we have decided to vote against. We know the consequences of nuclear bombs, but if you can clean up the fallout then you don't need to get rid of the bombs.

Even though Imperiux is against Nuclear Technology for other than peaceful purposes, we have decided to vote against. We know the consequences of nuclear bombs, but if you can clean up the fallout then you don't need to get rid of the bombs.
Read the resolution.

Wow

With all the attacks on Corporate Hegemony, it is apparent that he is hitting the nail on the head.

This bill is ill concieved and has way too many holes in it.

Also the terminology of Article 1 most definately does imply guilt by association. You can easily transfer technology "indirectly" without any knowledge that you are doing it. Therefore "GUILTY". Anyone with a nuclear arms industry would be guilty of 3rd party transfers immediately upon this resolution passing. They have no control of this.

The biggest flaw in this bill is that it openly condones the transfer of technology for delivery systems. Why leave a hole like this open? Delivery systems are perhaps the hardest thing about using a nuclear device. Stopping transfer of guidance and missle system should be a priority when attempting to stop the spread of these weapons. What good are they if you can't aim at or get them to their targets.

I voted against. I know, some clown will say "so what", but isn't that the reason for this forum, to exchange ideas.

Seems like most people have none of their own and are just putting down any reasonable arguments on here with spam.

Alot of thought went into this bill, of that I am sure, but that doesn't give the supporters the right to flame those who disagree. Calling someone a Troll just because his interpretation of the language is different than yours is not a legit form of debate.

Also as for misrepresenting certain facts in the bill, what do you think will happen once it is passed? If there is a legitamate way for it to be misrepresented, it will happen. It is just nature to use existing language to benefit your own ideas about what it is you want.

Just my opinion, so now enjoy--flame away!

Also the terminology of Article 1 most definately does imply guilt by association. You can easily transfer technology "indirectly" without any knowledge that you are doing it. Therefore "GUILTY". Anyone with a nuclear arms industry would be guilty of 3rd party transfers immediately upon this resolution passing. They have no control of this.
Not really. There's no enforcement mechanism in this proposal. If a country is indirectly responsible for the transfer, then yes, it's acting illegally, but the response to that - diplomatic or otherwise - is the prerogative of the acting nations.

Furthermore, the nation is still guilty. If they've got such lax controls on their - let's remember here - nuclear weaponry, then they should be held accountable anyway.

The biggest flaw in this bill is that it openly condones the transfer of technology for delivery systems. Why leave a hole like this open? Delivery systems are perhaps the hardest thing about using a nuclear device. Stopping transfer of guidance and missle system should be a priority when attempting to stop the spread of these weapons. What good are they if you can't aim at or get them to their targets.
A lot of use. A nuclear bomb can be detonated without a delivery system. Think of common methods of terrorist attack: planting bombs in bars, buses, trains; flying planes into buildings; ramming a port with a boat. None of those require a delivery system, which are anyway much easier to construct than the actual nuclear explosive device.

OOC: Furthermore, IRL, the two are separate. There is a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and a Missile Technology Control Regime. If you want to write up an NS version of the latter, nothing in this proposal can stop you doing so.

I voted against. I know, some clown will say "so what", but isn't that the reason for this forum, to exchange ideas.
Yes, it is the reason, and thanks for sharing your opinion. I hope you'll respond to these criticisms.

Seems like most people have none of their own and are just putting down any reasonable arguments on here with spam.
Actually, most of the arguments against have been spam. You have presented a reasonable - albeit, in my opinion, misguided - argument. If you want to label this response spam, go ahead. You'd, again, be wrong.

Alot of thought went into this bill, of that I am sure, but that doesn't give the supporters the right to flame those who disagree. Calling someone a Troll just because his interpretation of the language is different than yours is not a legit form of debate.
OOC: I called him a troll because that's what he was doing: trolling. He knew full well this proposal was written before his, was completely different to it, and was in no way related. He still made an unfounded accusation of trolling, just to stir shit up. That's trolling.

Also as for misrepresenting certain facts in the bill, what do you think will happen once it is passed? If there is a legitamate way for it to be misrepresented, it will happen. It is just nature to use existing language to benefit your own ideas about what it is you want.
Absolutely. That's the fun of the NSUN: exploiting loopholes for fun and profit. You might have noticed I, one of the vocal supporters of this proposal, or at least opponent to its detractors, was brainstorming with a fellow delegate as to loopholes round it. It's par for the course.

Just my opinion, so now enjoy--flame away!
No thanks. As with Corporate Hegemony's deluded whitterings, it's much more fun to attack the argument than the individual. You could be Wena herself for all I care; you're still wrong.

Absolutely. That's the fun of the NSUN: exploiting loopholes for fun and profit. You might have noticed I, one of the vocal supporters of this proposal, or at least opponent to its detractors, was brainstorming with a fellow delegate as to loopholes round it. It's par for the course.

Nice to know people pass these proposals with the hopes of abusing them. Corporate Hegemony has the support of his region by the way. This is also a very anti-capitalist proposal. If a nation can produce these weapons and others have an intrest in buying them why should they be denied the right to sell them by some self-rightous members of the United Nations.

Wow

With all the attacks on Corporate Hegemony, it is apparent that he is hitting the nail on the head.


We must respectfully disagree with the representative of SLaTheR-. We believe that the volume of response to the posting by Corporate Hegemony was based instead on the fact that the responding representatives believed that his arguments were fundamentally flawed and needed rebuttal. His posting was well-written and appeared logical, but was based, we believe, on spurious assumptions and misreadings of the resolution. In addition, the posting was dismissive and contemptuous, which tends to raise the hackles.

Also the terminology of Article 1 most definately does imply guilt by association. You can easily transfer technology "indirectly" without any knowledge that you are doing it. Therefore "GUILTY". Anyone with a nuclear arms industry would be guilty of 3rd party transfers immediately upon this resolution passing. They have no control of this.


We still cannot agree with this. We believe that a reasonable enforcement of this provision would require some proof of intent. If technology was transferred without my knowledge or intent, it would be irrational to hold me responsible for it. If a spy steals my secrets, am I guilty of espionage?

The biggest flaw in this bill is that it openly condones the transfer of technology for delivery systems. Why leave a hole like this open? Delivery systems are perhaps the hardest thing about using a nuclear device. Stopping transfer of guidance and missle system should be a priority when attempting to stop the spread of these weapons. What good are they if you can't aim at or get them to their targets.


Again, we must disagree. True, high-tech, technologically sophisticated delivery systems are difficult to develop. But there are plenty of usable delivery systems available that are within the technological capability of any mid-tech nation.

Just my opinion, so now enjoy--flame away!

We have no intention of flaming you. You stated your views firmly but politely. While we disagree strongly with your position, we respect it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

More nuclear weapons are still going to be mass produced.

:eek: OMG that's horrid! Mass producing nuclear weapons? Nay I say! Each nuclear weapon should be lovingly crafted by hand to be unique and special; given elaborate decorations and even a personal name.

Mass production is just plain wrong. :p

what scares me about this resolution is that we have to all give up our nuclear arms. But a rogue non- Un state does not have to. All it would take is for one of the non- Un nations to get pissed off and boom we are all f***ed. That is why I will apstan for this at this moment.

what scares me about this resolution is that we have to all give up our nuclear arms. But a rogue non- Un state does not have to. All it would take is for one of the non- Un nations to get pissed off and boom we are all f***ed. That is why I will apstan for this at this moment.

Actually there is nothing there that says we have to have a complete disarmerment. It just says that we cant give other countries nuclear warheads

:eek: OMG that's horrid! Mass producing nuclear weapons? Nay I say! Each nuclear weapon should be lovingly crafted by hand to be unique and special; given elaborate decorations and even a personal name.

Mass production is just plain wrong. :p

[OOC] Awww can I have a nuke!!??!! I promise to love it and feed it and take care of it and junk!! I wanna call him Nukey!! :D Just playing

what scares me about this resolution is that we have to all give up our nuclear arms. But a rogue non- Un state does not have to. All it would take is for one of the non- Un nations to get pissed off and boom we are all f***ed. That is why I will apstan for this at this moment.

We would ask the representative of Jenna Girl to please read the resolution again carefully. There is nothing in the resolution that would make any nation give up any nuclear arms.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Shouldn't there be some rule that people in the UN have to actually read the bills being voted on or something?

Nice to know people pass these proposals with the hopes of abusing them. Corporate Hegemony has the support of his region by the way. This is also a very anti-capitalist proposal. If a nation can produce these weapons and others have an intrest in buying them why should they be denied the right to sell them by some self-rightous members of the United Nations.
Agreed. Thracia would actually be willing to accept this if we were somehow able to limit all nations, but with a limited control of the world I don't feel UN-affiliated nations should agree to this bill, which will just weaken all of us. Maybe we could consider limiting/stopping nuclear arms trade with non-UN nations?

OOC: I called him a troll because that's what he was doing: trolling. He knew full well this proposal was written before his, was completely different to it, and was in no way related. He still made an unfounded accusation of trolling, just to stir shit up. That's trolling.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What are you talking about? I knew this proposal was written before mine and was completely different? An unfounded accusation? What did I accuse and what proposal of mine are you referring to?

It appears the first tactic you use is to denigrate somebody with an alternate viewpoint. I thought I was contributing to a debate. You may not agree with what I say but what counts is that another viewpoint be expressed. None of us posting here are Right or Wrong. Everything we post is subject to debate, to continue a process toward a mutual and majority understanding and interpretation. I don't see how, under that definition, any of us can be Right or Wrong. By the way I am not a troll. I am a Delegate willing to participate here to strive for more meaningful and usuable resolutions. There's nothing trollish about that.

This proposal, as I see it, ensures that UN nations which possess nuclear armament are able to continue possessing them, while those who do not have them will not be allowed. This resolution dictates that a nation can develop armament using their own technologies and manufacturing capabilities. Did anybody consider that those who have nuclear arms already have the capabilities to build more, whereas those who don't have the arms lack the capability to produce them? This resolution ensures nuclear hegemony for those who already have it and oppresses those who don't.

By the way, if I hold within the legal parameters of this resolution and help another nation obtain nuclear arms technology, and then they trade it to another nation without my foreknowledge, even if I am opposed to it, I would still be guilty and punish for "indirectly" transferring weapons. This proposal was poorly written because it allows too many easy loopholes and leaves itself open to abuse.

Shouldn't there be some rule that people in the UN have to actually read the bills being voted on or something?

Maybe, see below. ;)

Agreed. Thracia would actually be willing to accept this if we were somehow able to limit all nations, but with a limited control of the world I don't feel UN-affiliated nations should agree to this bill, which will just weaken all of us. Maybe we could consider limiting/stopping nuclear arms trade with non-UN nations?

How do you interpret this clause?
Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What are you talking about? I knew this proposal was written before mine and was completely different? An unfounded accusation? What did I accuse and what proposal of mine are you referring to?

Do not assume that every single post is about you. Gruen never called you a troll; I did. Gruen was mentioning the exchange where he did call someone a troll. Carefully review the debate, and you will find it. Again, you are sniping without your glasses.

It appears the first tactic you use is to denigrate somebody with an alternate viewpoint. I thought I was contributing to a debate. You may not agree with what I say but what counts is that another viewpoint be expressed. None of us posting here are Right or Wrong. Everything we post is subject to debate, to continue a process toward a mutual and majority understanding and interpretation. I don't see how, under that definition, any of us can be Right or Wrong. By the way I am not a troll. I am a Delegate willing to participate here to strive for more meaningful and usuable resolutions. There's nothing trollish about that.

No. Your trollish remark, and the one that led me to call you a troll, was:
Consider Article 1.2 as filler to make it look like a document that covers a vast area of concern and that much thought was put into this proposal.
I stand by my judgement. It is a personal attack, a slanderous lie, and an arrogant presumptuous snipe by someone who has never proven any drafting abilities. You are attacking an author of excellent resolutions, and all those who worked with him during the three month period this resolution took to draft. I will consider you a troll and a liar until you apologise for this statement.

This proposal, as I see it, ensures that UN nations which possess nuclear armament are able to continue possessing them, while those who do not have them will not be allowed. This resolution dictates that a nation can develop armament using their own technologies and manufacturing capabilities. Did anybody consider that those who have nuclear arms already have the capabilities to build more, whereas those who don't have the arms lack the capability to produce them? This resolution ensures nuclear hegemony for those who already have it and oppresses those who don't.

First of all, congratulations. Your understanding of the text has improved, and this is your first coherent and polite argument in the debate.

Nonetheless, you are wrong. There are plenty of nations who have the technological ability to build nuclear weapons, and choose to be nuclear-free for other reasons. Fonzoland is one of them. (This is called proof by counterexample.)

Furthermore, nations who do not have the technological abilities to build nuclear weapons should not be entrusted with control of such weapons. They do not have sufficient knowledge of their effects, the capacity to prevent accidents, and expertise on minimising the effects of said accidents. If a nation is not in the nuclear age, they should not hold nuclear weapons. As simple as that.

By the way, if I hold within the legal parameters of this resolution and help another nation obtain nuclear arms technology, and then they trade it to another nation without my foreknowledge, even if I am opposed to it, I would still be guilty and punish for "indirectly" transferring weapons. This proposal was poorly written because it allows too many easy loopholes and leaves itself open to abuse.

And how would you "help another nation obtain nuclear arms technology" and still "hold within the legal parameters of this resolution"? The only loophole I see here is your awful reading comprehension.

Once again, I want to remind people that NONE of the Resolutions control what nations outside of the UN do. The point of the UN is to advance civilization within the Member Nations. The rest of the world does not have to do what we say. It would be nice, but membership within the UN is voluntary.

If anyone is afraid of the UN as a whole being picked on by other nations in the world because the UN can't trade nuclear weapons, then it shows a complete lack of faith in the mission of the UN. If this Resolution passes, one will not be permitted to trade nuclear arms. It is such a childish mentality to be terrified of being the only kid on the block without a big bad ass super soaker. That behavior is so 3rd grade.

In a microcosm, I remember my martial arts teacher telling me about the first time he used a gun.

He was at the shooting range. He picked up a handgun, fired three shots, and all three went through the head of the target. He put the gun down, said, "that was disgusting," and never picked up a real gun again. And I guaruntee you that he is a more dangerous person to mess with than any gun-toting thug around. I'd much prefer a man like that on my side than an entire militia.

It does not matter what the rest of the world is doing while the UN is working toward disarmament (or safer armament). The UN's purpose is its own, and it is to improve the lives of every human being it can. Nuclear weapons should not be considered beneficial. One nation should refuse to use them because they CHOOSE to, not because they are afraid of retaliation. Like in school (remarkable how relevent children always seem to me...), I know the kids who chose not to misbehave were far more civilized than the ones who were afraid to misbehave (barring civil disobedience).

Enough of this, "Well the rest of the world doesn't have to do it, so why should we!?" argument.

Edit: That was longer than necessary, I apologize.

Although Caratia does have a small reputation for being militaristic, she is strongly against the use of nuclear weaponry, and therefore supports this bill wholeheartedly.

OOC: That's why I love the martial arts. Of course, I love shooting guns, but I'd never even think of hitting anything other than a target :)

It does not matter what the rest of the world is doing while the UN is working toward disarmament (or safer armament). The UN's purpose is its own, and it is to improve the lives of every human being it can.You are so right: If we simply ignore the rest of the world, it will cease to exist, its dangerous machinations will no longer be a threat to us, and we won't have to worry about them. Excepting the fact, of course, that we are part of the "rest of the world," as we are no longer bound to UN mandates, and can thus pose a very serious threat to UN members, should they so foolishly elect to disarm themselves unilaterally.

You are so right: If we simply ignore the rest of the world, it will cease to exist, its dangerous machinations will no longer be a threat to us, and we won't have to worry about them.

Excepting the fact, of course, that we are part of the "rest of the world," as we are no longer bound to UN mandates, and can thus pose a very serious threat to UN members, should they so foolishly elect to disarm themselves unilaterally.

You can't hide behind white font. I know all.

What I am saying is not to ignore the rest of the world. What I am saying is that we should not let the rest of the world's inaction prevent the UN from moving along its path to peace and progress.

The UN can't sit there with their heads up their asses just because the rest of the world is unlikely to comply with their Resolutions. I'm sure Nuclear UN Members would gladly assist in deterrence if non-Members pose a nuclear threat.

It appears the first tactic you use is to denigrate somebody with an alternate viewpoint. I thought I was contributing to a debate. You may not agree with what I say but what counts is that another viewpoint be expressed. None of us posting here are Right or Wrong. Everything we post is subject to debate, to continue a process toward a mutual and majority understanding and interpretation. I don't see how, under that definition, any of us can be Right or Wrong. By the way I am not a troll. I am a Delegate willing to participate here to strive for more meaningful and usuable resolutions. There's nothing trollish about that.


Certainly, everyone is entitled to his or her opinions and those opinions are debatable. But when you state something as fact that is not true, you are wrong.


This proposal, as I see it, ensures that UN nations which possess nuclear armament are able to continue possessing them, while those who do not have them will not be allowed. This resolution dictates that a nation can develop armament using their own technologies and manufacturing capabilities. Did anybody consider that those who have nuclear arms already have the capabilities to build more, whereas those who don't have the arms lack the capability to produce them? This resolution ensures nuclear hegemony for those who already have it and oppresses those who don't.


Once more, the representative of Corporate hegemony states a completely unwarranted assumption as fact. Ausserland has no nuclear weapons in its arsenal, but our nation is completely capable of producing them. Our government decided some years back that nuclear weapons were too costly through their life-cycle to be worthwhile and we demilitarized our nuclear stockpile so we could more cost-effectively manage our defense budget.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I find this bill to be very wrong! If some nations sell their "nukes" to other nations their economy gets better. Lets keep it the same and vote this bill down!

Although the People's Republic prefers an outright ban on nuclear weapons, we realize that that is not going to happen in the NSUN and this is the best alternative we have. We support this resolution.

Maybe, see below. ;)

Agreed. Thracia would actually be willing to accept this if we were somehow able to limit all nations, but with a limited control of the world I don't feel UN-affiliated nations should agree to this bill, which will just weaken all of us. Maybe we could consider limiting/stopping nuclear arms trade with non-UN nations?

How do you interpret this clause?
Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.
I had to edit in the old stuff.

Anyway, you misinterpret what I'm saying. Thracia feels that inter-UN trade of arms should be allowed so our researches and armaments aren't prevented from expanding through collaboration with other UN nations. I did read the proposal correctly, and am suggesting these limiting factors to non-UN countries.

I find this bill to be very wrong! If some nations sell their "nukes" to other nations their economy gets better. Lets keep it the same and vote this bill down!

The economy gets better, but at the price of your nation's safety.

:eek: OMG that's horrid! Mass producing nuclear weapons? Nay I say! Each nuclear weapon should be lovingly crafted by hand to be unique and special; given elaborate decorations and even a personal name.

Mass production is just plain wrong. :p
I agree, back in my day all weapons were hand-crafted and treated with the utmost respect, and we should do the same with modern day weapons too.

Methuselah R. Kyvest
Official Historian of he Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I had to edit in the old stuff.

Anyway, you misinterpret what I'm saying. Thracia feels that inter-UN trade of arms should be allowed so our researches and armaments aren't prevented from expanding through collaboration with other UN nations. I did read the proposal correctly, and am suggesting these limiting factors to non-UN countries.

Indeed I misunderstood you, sorry. I share your concern to some extent, however one must accept that the need for nuclear weapons for deterrence essentially depends on the availability of said weapons in other nations. A reduction on UN stockpiles will, albeit to a smaller degree, decrease the need for nukes in non-members.

I agree that total disarmement would be lunacy. However, the current resolution at vote allows smaller nations to ally themselves to nuclear-armed nations, who have enough knowledge to use them safely and responsibly.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"It is my duty to inform you that the UN contingent of our region, nuke-happy as it is, is sharply divided on this issue. And though in our region the delegate does not poll UN members, and casts the region's votes based on his own judgment, on this vote I took it upon myself to conduct an independent, non-binding canvass of UN member states; the results of the canvass were as follows:The Palentine (www.nationstates.net/the_palentine) (13 votes) -- Nay (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10624950&postcount=46)
Anyya (www.nationstates.net/anyya) (1 vote) -- Nay
Cluichstan (www.nationstates.net/cluichstan) (1 vote) -- Yea
Gruenberg (www.nationstates.net/gruenberg) (1 vote) -- Abstain
Kivisto (www.nationstates.net/kivisto) (1 vote) -- Yea
Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny) (1 vote) -- Yea
Tyrscania (www.nationstates.net/tyrscania) (1 vote) -- NayThat's a franchise of sultry phone-sex operators and a brigade of seductive Stripper Commandos for, a squadron of angry swearing dolphins lobbing a barrage of trademark obscenities against, and a herd of uncertain goats bleating a resounding "Meh." Or 3 ayes, 15 noes, and one abstention, for all you mathematicians out there. And regardless of the region's very close division on this bill, I'm certain all regional residents, exotic commando, "servicewoman," sacred goat and naval dolphin alike, will cordially congratulate Yelda on its very certain passage tomorrow morning.VICTORY IS MINE!!

Nucrear weapons is a so crazy!

Seriousry though, I find it rather remarkable that this Resolution is being used in two very different ways by people. On the one side are those who wish to see nuclear weapons removed, once and for all, and on the other side are those who see nuclear weapons as necessary. Both sides are using their view of things as justification for voting for the Resolution.

Makes a guy like me sit back and muse, "Dogs chase their tails. Humans partake in politics."

It is a general principle that most people either do not read resolutions or miss important subclauses of resolutions and come to the conclusion that a resolution is on something completely different than it actually is. In this sense the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act is no less and no more like any other such act.

Nuclear weapons exist in some UN nations. Nuclear weapons exist in some non UN nations. Under this resolution UN nations would not be able to sell nuclear weapon technology to either UN or non UN nations, nor could they buy nuclear weapon technology from either UN or non UN nations. Non UN nations can still do whatever they want to other non UN nations. As some posters point out only 1/3 of all NS nations are in the UN. (Actually I find this comforting, as I am sure that a significant number of NS nations are isloationist entitites that just want to be left alone and have no interaction whatsoever with the NS world.)

As such this reslolution is "mild" in terms of emotional response. Many nations are literally sitting on the fence, not minding if it passes but not caring if it fails. Tzorsland has recently changed it's offical position from a mostly wind generation of power to peaceful nuclear technology, but we are currently not interested in developing a significant nuclear weapon capacity. So we are currently supporting this resolution ... mildly ... with our single solitary vote.

In accordance with his recent poll selection, the esteemed Mr. Mickey Special will utter a flaming one-liner and post a card.

"You're all a bunch of squares, man!"

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



*Produces a half-empty fifth of Rebel Yell, chugs it, smashes the empty bottle over his head*

The resolution Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act was passed 6,128 votes to 5,830, and implemented in all UN member nations.Well done, Yelda. Now git crackin' on nuclear free trade! :p

*snip*

That's a franchise of sultry phone-sex operators and a brigade of seductive Stripper Commandos for, a squadron of very angry swearing dolphins against, and a herd of uncertain goats bleating a resounding "Meh." Or 3 ayes, 15 noes, and one abstention, for all you mathematicians out there. And regardless of the region's very close division on this bill, I'm certain all regional residents, exotic commando, "servicewoman," sacred goat and naval dolphin alike, will cordially congratulate Yelda on its very certain passage tomorrow morning.[/indent]VICTORY IS MINE!!

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5458/defcon3vv.jpg
We care more about your nation's security than you do.
(http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)

With the exception of the government of the Palentine, the membership of the UN Defense Convention (DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)) also had no major objections to this proposal and would like to congratulate our Yeldan friends on its passage, even if only by a narrow margin.

Cordially,
Defense Minister Nottap bin Cluich
Founder and Chairman of the UN DEFCON

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
Peace Through Superior Firepower (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)

Thanks Cluich, thanks Kenny and thanks to everyone else who helped with this. Sheknu, Fonzo, Ausserland, _Myopia_ and the list goes on (I know I'm probably leaving people out, this isn't a prepared statement)....it seems like this thing has been under construction for a year. Yeah, it's a narrow margin and it isn't repeal-proof, but it's a start.

Next up, nuclear free trade.

Congratulations on the passage of this fine resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

So does anyone else think it is a little iffy that this resolution passed by less than 3%? Personally i think resolutions should have to pass by more than that. Now don't get me wrong i was for this proposal, but i find it wrong that the entire U.N. should have to go by what less than 52% of the voters wanted. I think we need a proposal that would change the percentage needed to pass a resolution, but im not sure it would be legal as it might be considered "changing gameplay" but is anyone else with me that we should need more than a simple majority to pass a resolution?

So does anyone else think it is a little iffy that this resolution passed by less than 3%? Personally i think resolutions should have to pass by more than that. Now don't get me wrong i was for this proposal, but i find it wrong that the entire U.N. should have to go by what less than 52% of the voters wanted. I think we need a proposal that would change the percentage needed to pass a resolution, but im not sure it would be legal as it might be considered "changing gameplay" but is anyone else with me that we should need more than a simple majority to pass a resolution?
It would not be legal. And if the downtrodden 48% don't like it, they have two options: repeal it - after all, shouldn't be hard? - or resign.

It would not be legal. And if the downtrodden 48% don't like it, they have two options: repeal it - after all, shouldn't be hard? - or resign.

Correction. The vote was 51%-49%. :)

So does anyone else think it is a little iffy that this resolution passed by less than 3%? Personally i think resolutions should have to pass by more than that. Now don't get me wrong i was for this proposal, but i find it wrong that the entire U.N. should have to go by what less than 52% of the voters wanted. I think we need a proposal that would change the percentage needed to pass a resolution, but im not sure it would be legal as it might be considered "changing gameplay" but is anyone else with me that we should need more than a simple majority to pass a resolution?

It's called Democracy. Learn to like it. ;)

The problem with requiring a higher threshold for passing resolutions would be the same. There would always be somebody complaining that "only" 66.89% of people approved a resolution that required 66.67%. Of course, setting such a threshold would be problematic by itself - is 55% enough or should it be 60%...or 75%? I'd rather stay with majority to pass and majority to repeal, even if most resolutions to reach quorum later pass pretty much by default.

I think a whole lot of things are a little iffy but the standard for passing reslutions is "majority." Personally I think the iffy part is on the flip side, Robert's Rules require a 2/3 vote to ammend or repeal an approved motion.

Of course Robert's Rules also allows you to "lay the motion on the table."

So let's live with the Rules as Implimented ... OK?