NationStates Jolt Archive

THE UNITED NATIONS,

ALARMED by the frequency and severity of nuclear warfare,

NOTING the consideration of other weapons of mass destruction of as completely unnecessary for national defence and incompatible with civilian rights,

REGRETTING that the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution misled the international community by conflating the failure of a proposed resolution to reach quorum with the defeat of a proposal by the entire membership of the United Nations,

FURTHER REGRETTING that the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution failed to consider alternative means to confront various threats to international security,

DISTURBED by the failure of the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution to fully allow for reasonable regulation and limitation of nations’ own nuclear weapons programmes,

REPEALS “Nuclear Armaments” (Resolution #109) of 3 July 2005.

ALARMED by the frequency and severity of nuclear warfare,
Frequency? Really?

NOTING the consideration of other weapons of mass destruction of as completely unnecessary for national defence and incompatible with civilian rights,
That's right folks, it's time to play...Name That Right!

Actually, you needn't bother, because other weapons of mass destruction are irrelevant.

REGRETTING that the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution misled the international community by conflating the failure of a proposed resolution to reach quorum with the defeat of a proposal by the entire membership of the United Nations,
Nowhere in the resolution was anything of the sort even implied. Remove this, liar.

FURTHER REGRETTING that the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution failed to consider alternative means to confront various threats to international security,
Not its job.

DISTURBED by the failure of the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution to fully allow for reasonable regulation and limitation of nations’ own nuclear weapons programmes,
Nope, even unreasonable regulation and limitation is permitted: why, you could limit states to two (or possibly one) nuclear weapon, limit its size, ban its use, and so on.

I see no argument in this repeal approaching worthy of UN consideration.

~Rono Pyandran
yeah

By the time I'm through with this, you're going to regret even thinking about attempting to repeal my resolution.
THE UNITED NATIONS,

ALARMED by the frequency and severity of nuclear warfare,And do you have the proof to back this claim up?

NOTING the consideration of other weapons of mass destruction of as completely unnecessary for national defence and incompatible with civilian rights,You know, if that's the case, then why was the chemical weapons ban repealed.

REGRETTING that the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution misled the international community by conflating the failure of a proposed resolution to reach quorum with the defeat of a proposal by the entire membership of the United Nations,BULLSHIT!!!! Check the damn UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) and you will see that on two occasions the UN voted on resolutions that if they had passed would have banned UN members from owning nuclear weapons. The first one was End Nuclear Proliferation Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/End_Nuclear_Proliferation_Act_%28failed%29) the voting on which ended on June 10, 2004. The second was Ban nuclear weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_nuclear_weapons_%28failed%29) the voting for which ended on November 9, 2004. So, now how exactly did I "mislead" the UN?

FURTHER REGRETTING that the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution failed to consider alternative means to confront various threats to international security,You're right, it doesn't mention any alternative methods of eliminating threats. But it doesn't do that because that wasn't the fucking point of the resolution, the point was to prevent the UN from banning it's members from possessing nuclear weapons, nothing more, nothing less.

DISTURBED by the failure of the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution to fully allow for reasonable regulation and limitation of nations’ own nuclear weapons programmes,And again I call bullshit, the UN has the right to regulate nuclear weapons as much as they want, as long as they don't ban them completely or force everyone to have them. I purposely wrote it that way as my way of throwing a bone to those people who oppose nuclear weapons, and it's the one thing about my resolution that everyone ignores.

REPEALS “Nuclear Armaments” (Resolution #109) of 3 July 2005.Over my dead body.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Over my dead body.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm with you there, my friend.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

By the time I'm through with this, you're going to regret even thinking about attempting to repeal my resolution.Piffle. We think about repealing it all the time. We simply understand that we don't have the votes.And do you have the proof to back this claim up?It happens all the time on II, but that's neither here nor there. The line should be struck.You know, if that's the case, then why was the chemical weapons ban repealed.That line should be struck as well.BULLSHIT!!!! Check the damn UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) and you will see that on two occasions the UN voted on resolutions that if they had passed would have banned UN members from owning nuclear weapons. The first one was End Nuclear Proliferation Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/End_Nuclear_Proliferation_Act_%28failed%29) the voting on which ended on June 10, 2004. The second was Ban nuclear weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_nuclear_weapons_%28failed%29) the voting for which ended on November 9, 2004. So, now how exactly did I "mislead" the UN?You didn't. That line should be struck as well.

Where's my parrot when I need him?You're right, it doesn't mention any alternative methods of eliminating threats. But it doesn't do that because that wasn't the fucking point of the resolution, the point was to prevent the UN from banning it's members from possessing nuclear weapons, nothing more, nothing less.Yup. Parrot?And again I call bullshit, the UN has the right to regulate nuclear weapons as much as they want, as long as they don't ban them completely or force everyone to have them. I purposely wrote it that way as my way of throwing a bone to those people who oppose nuclear weapons, and it's the one thing about my resolution that everyone ignores.True again.

<Yawn>

All together, now...Over my dead body.Hey, that part's true! No, wait ... that wasn't in the resolution.

Needless to say, we wholeheartedly support this – or would, if it had any argument behind it. :p

Love and esterel cannot support this repeal and want to reaffirm it's support to #109 Nuclear Armaments, here is the link:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108

We think that despite its danger, nuclear armaments is an essential deterrent policy. We feel somehow sad to say that, but we will never drift from our pragmatical approach.

DISTURBED by the failure of the “Nuclear Armaments” resolution to fully allow for reasonable regulation and limitation of nations’ own nuclear weapons programmes,

I think that a existing resolution answer your concern:
#151 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=150

That say if you want to write another regulation proposal recommanding or urging nations to implement safety guidelines for their nuclear power arsenal and to try to limit reasonably the number of nukes they own, in order to fit to and to not excess their deterrent force, I will support your move.

That say if you want to write another regulation proposal recommanding or urging nations to implement safety guidelines for their nuclear power arsenal and to try to limit reasonably the number of nukes they own, in order to fit to and to not excess their deterrent force, I will support your move.We've considered drafting such a proposal, although our time for this is strictly limited.