NationStates Jolt Archive

I have discovered a U.N. member in violation of U.N. laws that have been passed and currently stand unrepealed. Sol Giuldor has been producing Nuclear/ Biological/ Chemical (NBC) weapons for some time now. I know this because he told me in person about his military tactics and weaponry. I believe that his nation should have one of three things happen to it.

Option A: Warn him that he will be removed from the U.N. if he continues to build NBC weapons.

Option B: Remove him from the U.N. until such a time that he has destroyed all NBC production and storage sites.

Option C: Remove him from the U.N. permanently.

I would rather this be an executive decision by the administrators than a majority vote, but the admin will decide what to do.

Sol Giuldor has been producing Nuclear/ Biological/ Chemical (NBC) weapons for some time now. I know this because he told me in person about his military tactics and weaponry. I believe that his nation should have one of three things happen to it.
The production of chemical weapons is not prohibited by international law.

The production of nuclear weapons is not prohibited by international law, so long as they are not sold to other nations, or to terrorist organizations.

The production of certain biological weapons is prohibited. Obviously, some proof would be nice.

Option A: Warn him that he will be removed from the U.N. if he continues to build NBC weapons.

Option B: Remove him from the U.N. until such a time that he has destroyed all NBC production and storage sites.

Option C: Remove him from the U.N. permanently.
Nations are not removed from the UN for non-compliance with its laws. They can only be removed for gameplay violations, such as multiing or submitting illegal proposals.

Nations are not removed from the UN for non-compliance with its laws ...
... but you're welcome to bitch and moan about it in an appropriately powerless manner, just like in the Real World UN.

... but you're welcome to bitch and moan about it in an appropriately powerless manner, just like in the Real World UN.

Pueri, if you're truly worried, I suggest your nation take it upon itself to "enforce a UN resolution" by interfering with said nations national sovereignty. If you want to keep the moral high ground you can't just build a better military by violating UN resolutons better. Although that is the easiest way to get the edge.

Might I suggest digital warfare? Would you like to hire some black hat hackers? I could put you in touch with the right people :)

-Anyonymous Disoraversalist CEO

I keep my nation clean. Besides, I think it's enough of an advantage to have a robotic army made of heat metal(yes, this does in fact exist) so that when a 500lb thermo-nuclear warhead goes off near them, the metal is still intact. As for NBC weapons, to my knoledge, the Geneva Convention is followed on NS, albeit a condensed version. I was not suggesting him being kicked off of NS, just the U.N., and even have that as a tempporary thing. If you had misinterpreted it, or I have, then sorry about it.

What does Wolfish (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32) have to do with "NBC weapons"?

I was not suggesting him being kicked off of NS, just the U.N., and even have that as a tempporary thing.
And unless they're a UN multi, or have submitted illegal proposals, that's not going to happen.

So what happens to "Compliance is mandatory"?

OOC: or can we reasonably assume that that nation has been evicted by the Gnomes, IC, even if the Mods aren't actually going to do so in RL?

I would say that you can assume there's some kind of sanctions or finger-waving or something.

If there was a way to automate ejections for noncompliance, I'd certainly be amused, but that's pretty far down on the list. We'll have the RSP long before that.

Option A: Warn him that he will be removed from the U.N. if he continues to build NBC weapons.This to me is only possible solution to this as if you do the others you fail to stop the real problems.

Option B: Remove him from the U.N. until such a time that he has destroyed all NBC production and storage sites.So remove that nation until they get rid of items that you claim they have that violate resolutions. Thus outside the UN they have no reason to comply at all and the UN has no control at all on them as non members or now as expealed members so where are you now. This nation can sale to highest bidder any items they might have and once they sale them can come back and apply for membership.. so why would we want to toss anyone out we lose any control of them UN might have if they not in it.

Option C: Remove him from the U.N. permanently.There is an old saying 'keep your friends close but an enemy closer". Tossing them out makes them more less an enemy and you moving them out of sight.

So why is it that we expect to stop nations from doing something and if they do it we toss them out..

OOC: I know they tossed out for game violations and that but this to me is not game violation as who in role play follows all resolutions fully. Come to think of it who in real world does. So yell at them and point fingers and they can ignore you and go on doing what they do.

IC WE need not toss those who violate the resolutions of this body just santion them throught trade and not let them get what they need from members. Then better yet let them get it from members as what we sale to a nation we track and know were it goes and for what. Thus we are aware of what they do and how much they might have of any given weapons system bases on what we sold them that could be used in it. Drive them to buy from outside sources and you lose tracking ability of what another nation buys.

I have discovered a U.N. member in violation of U.N. laws that have been passed and currently stand unrepealed. Sol Giuldor has been producing Nuclear/ Biological/ Chemical (NBC) weapons for some time now. I know this because he told me in person about his military tactics and weaponry. I believe that his nation should have one of three things happen to it.

Option A: Warn him that he will be removed from the U.N. if he continues to build NBC weapons.

Option B: Remove him from the U.N. until such a time that he has destroyed all NBC production and storage sites.

Option C: Remove him from the U.N. permanently.

I would rather this be an executive decision by the administrators than a majority vote, but the admin will decide what to do.

You left out Option D: Turn his nation into fused glass before he can do it to yours.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. There's also Option E: Pay Cluichstan to use its Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142) to obliterate the offending nation from the map for you.

I said GENEVA CONVENTION not Wolfish. And looking back on it, warning him about it is the only option. Unfortunately, I am unendorsed, so I have no power whatsoever over him.

Geneva Conventions do not apply to the NSUN, and besides, those conventions have nothing whatsoever to do with WMDs. Moreover, chemical and nuclear arms are perfectly legal under NSUN mandates -- or has someone already pointed this out?

Geneva Conventions do not apply to the NSUN, and besides, those conventions have nothing whatsoever to do with WMDs. Moreover, chemical and nuclear arms are perfectly legal under NSUN mandates -- or has someone already pointed this out?

then maybe we should make a convetion of our own and so to keep the state of rl away we call it the JENOVA convention :p

I would say that you can assume there's some kind of sanctions or finger-waving or something.

If there was a way to automate ejections for noncompliance, I'd certainly be amused, but that's pretty far down on the list. We'll have the RSP long before that.

The way I envisioned sanctions for non-compliance working was after a resolution was adopted all UN members would have several days or weeks to choose to not comply or conditionally apply a resolution. If they choose nothing, the game would just assume they've complied. If they chose to not comply they'd start reducing their new & visible state "UN Compliance Rating". If they chose to conditional compliance, their stat would still go down, but not as much. If they complied with a UN resolution, the score would bump back up again by the same amount as a conditional compliance. Repeals would do *NOTHING* to these stats, as there is nothing to comply with. :)

When nations hit a warning threshold they'd get an automated telegram. When they hit another threshold their economy would start to drop due to UN imposed santions (which disappear if they leave the UN ... but automatically reappear when they'd rejoin -- i.e. compliance would always be there, but only show for UN members or Delegates). Finally if they hit a dismal level, they'd be booted from the UN.

It would really make it important to adopt many mild resolutions just to keep nations in good standing. I'd even suggest that compliance with "STRONG" resolutions should count as three positives and "SIGNIFICANT" should count as two positives -- in order to make those categories worthwhile.

As others have stated, The Geneva Convention does not exist on NS.....

The way I envisioned sanctions for non-compliance working was after a resolution was adopted all UN members would have several days or weeks to choose to not comply or conditionally apply a resolution. If they choose nothing, the game would just assume they've complied. If they chose to not comply they'd start reducing their new & visible state "UN Compliance Rating". If they chose to conditional compliance, their stat would still go down, but not as much. If they complied with a UN resolution, the score would bump back up again by the same amount as a conditional compliance. Repeals would do *NOTHING* to these stats, as there is nothing to comply with. :)

When nations hit a warning threshold they'd get an automated telegram. When they hit another threshold their economy would start to drop due to UN imposed santions (which disappear if they leave the UN ... but automatically reappear when they'd rejoin -- i.e. compliance would always be there, but only show for UN members or Delegates). Finally if they hit a dismal level, they'd be booted from the UN.

It would really make it important to adopt many mild resolutions just to keep nations in good standing. I'd even suggest that compliance with "STRONG" resolutions should count as three positives and "SIGNIFICANT" should count as two positives -- in order to make those categories worthwhile.


I love it. In the meantime I will state that the Free Land of Discorarversalism is about 90% compliant, with the exception of UNCC.

I love it. In the meantime I will state that the Free Land of Discorarversalism is about 90% compliant, with the exception of UNCC.

http://www.mcsweetie.com/junk/o-rly-libby.jpg

http://www.mcsweetie.com/junk/o-rly-libby.jpg

That post makes much more sense now that my browser has displayed the image :) I couldn't understand why it appeared you quoted me, but gave no response.

So what proposals are you pushing? Is there anyone you want to eject?

Doesn't this belong in "International Incidents"?