NationStates Jolt Archive

I belive that Nukes sould be brought back. I have made a proposal to do so. I don't want to be over run by a huge, pyschotic nation. Small countries like mine need to defend ourselves one way or another. I chose both ways. Larger and compulsary military and nuclear weapons. I have been angered since the UN banned nukes. As you know, I voted against banning them. If you have any comments or statements to discuss with nthis issue, feel free to share them and give all of your opinions. Thank you and have a nice day.
-The Empire of Ferristoya

Thankfully I left the UN before this even came to vote.

:eek: Lucky you.

I belive that Nukes sould be brought back. I have made a proposal to do so. I don't want to be over run by a huge, pyschotic nation. Small countries like mine need to defend ourselves one way or another. I chose both ways. Larger and compulsary military and nuclear weapons. I have been angered since the UN banned nukes. As you know, I voted against banning them. If you have any comments or statements to discuss with nthis issue, feel free to share them and give all of your opinions. Thank you and have a nice day.
-The Empire of Ferristoya

Yes, yes, and your proposal has already been posted in the Silly Proposals thread. Why? Because nukes aren't banned.

Oh, and your coloured post makes my eyes bleed.

i agree!


BRING BACK NUKES!!!!

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/makeitstop.jpg

We'd ask the representative of Ferristoya just what resolution he thinks "banned nukes"?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Hey guys

I need a really big favour.
Could someone join the region DICTATORSVILLE and give me an endorsment.
I really need someone to do it.
I need the endorsment so that i can make a proposal.
Its a really imporatant proposal!!!!!!!

THANKS

If anyone does this for me i will owe them a favour!:)

If you want to know what my proposal is, it is that i am going to repeal the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act!

Could that favour possibly be not posting anymore?

repeal the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act!

REply to:Could that favour possibly be not posting anymore?

yes.:)

REply to:Could that favour possibly be not posting anymore?

yes.:)

If I thought you were telling the truth, I'd take you up on it.

you don't beleive me? how shall i prove it?

Why do you want to repeal that resolution?

What banned nukes? Certainly not the latest resolution.

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108

you don't beleive me? how shall i prove it?

If you don't post for 48 hours, I'll move to your region and endorse you. It'll be worth it to silence you for a couple of days. The clock starts...now.

Let's go over this one more time: NUKES ARE NOT BANNED.

Since 3 different people have said nukes are banned since Cluich said they weren't banned, I will say this again

Nukes are not banned.

Don't believe me? Let's go through the resolution in question together, step by step, and you can all point to me where the resolution says they are banned.

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

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act

Not the "Let's ban nukes" act, nor is it the "Dismantle Nuclear Weapons Act", but the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act"

Just so we're on the same page here:

pro·lif·er·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-lf-rt)
v. pro·lif·er·at·ed, pro·lif·er·at·ing, pro·lif·er·ates
v. intr.
To grow or multiply by rapidly producing new tissue, parts, cells, or offspring.
To increase or spread at a rapid rate: fears that nuclear weapons might proliferate.

v. tr.
To cause to grow or increase rapidly.


So this is a resolution aimed at SLOWING DOWN the growth of nuclear weaponry. When the US and Soviet Union discussed non-proliferation treaties, did they dismantle their nukes? No. Why? Because proliferation does not equal possession, construction, firing, testing, researching, production, storage, or thousands of other terms that I'm sure you could think up.

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

See that word? Mild. So you're telling me that the moderators let through a resolution banning what has been proven as the most powerful deterrent in all of human history, and they would let it go to vote with a strength of MILD? There is no way they would let it be voted on for anything less than significant, and I wouldn't be surprised if they rejected anything less than strong.

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,

BELIEVING blah blah blah blah - doesn't ban nukes.

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 blah blah blah blah - doesn't ban nukes

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

BELIEVING blah blah blah blah - doesn't ban nukes

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

ALARMED AT blah blah blah blah - doesn't ban nukes

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 blah blah blah blah - doesn't ban nukes

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

Now the actual meat

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

You cannot sell nor buy your nukes - nor give them away, nor receive them as gifts, nor....whatever. Simply put, if you built it, its yours until you destroy it or you use it. If you didn't build it, it isn't yours. Period.

Too long for you, ok, 3-word summary:

Doesn't ban nukes

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

You shall not suggest, pressure, assist, or any of a thousand other terms other nations so that they could acquire nukes.

3-word summary: Doesn't Ban Nukes

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

If you want ot build nukes, you build it on your own without help from any nation including those that have nukes already

3-word summary: Doesn't Ban Nukes

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.

Oh look - not only do we have yet another line that Doesn't Ban Nukes, we have a line that says, quite clearly that this resolution is to be interpreted as one that, quite frankly, Doesn't Ban Nukes.

3-word summary: Doesn't Ban Nukes

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.

Another comment about things that are not being banned.

3-word summary: Doesn't Ban Nukes

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.

And another line that mentions things this resolution doesn't do.

3-word summary: Doesn't Ban Nukes

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

3-word summary: DOESN'T BAN NUKES!

Alright, breathe. Smell the sudden euphora as the realization that this resolution Doesn't Ban Nukes washes over you and makes you accutely aware of how you need to actually read past the title and understand what it actually being said in the resolution.

Are we all good? Is the wooziness passing?

Good

Now, just to complete the picture of what is ACTUALLY going on here, let's look at another important and relevant resolution

Nuclear Armaments
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

Description: REALIZING that UN members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGEING the fact that UN resolutions only affect UN members,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards UN members,

REALIZING that the UN members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

NOTICING that the UN has twice defeated resolutions attempting to ban UN members from possessing nuclear weapons,

1. DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

Votes For: 8,379
Votes Against: 6,835

Implemented: Sun Jul 3 2005



Translation: THE UN CANNOT BAN NUKES!

Alright, I've got a few oxygen masks, who's hyperventalating?

We good?

Any questions?

First try:
*censored rant*

Second try:
Well done. I notice you found the proposal submission form, accurately pasted your text there, and were able to spell the word 'nuclear' correctly. This shows much promise! I suggest you get some help from the regulars in completely rewritting the text, eventually in a different category and about a totally different issue. If you want to learn more, I know a great secondary school in your neighbourhood. You might want to consider private tuition as well. TG me for details.

First try:
*censored rant*

Second try:
Well done. I notice you found the proposal submission form, accurately pasted your text there, and were able to spell the word 'nuclear' correctly. This shows much promise! I suggest you get some help from the regulars in completely rewritting the text, eventually in a different category and about a totally different issue. If you want to learn more, I know a great secondary school in your neighbourhood. You might want to consider private tuition as well. TG me for details.

OOC: I find that there's a point where even the most polite of individuals is unable to say something constructive. I therefore bring you Krioval's official (IC) response below. /OOC

IC:

"..."

~ Chief Paladin Serph

OOC EDIT: My inability to say something constructive applies to the many people claiming that Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act bans nuclear weapons. Apologies for being unclear.

Hey Thanks. I get it now. Sorry. I was confused:confused: .

Oy.