NationStates Jolt Archive

The Nuclear Bond Treaty is a UN proposal that details the following (It written longhand can be found under the proposal):
1) All UN nations have a choice as to whether to sign the treaty.
2) All member nations share their nuclear armanents in the sense that:
A) They retaliate to a nuclear strike on any member as one country.
B) They all vote as to whether they are to use their nuclear weapons offensively, and all decsions must be cleared by an 85% majority.

This will hopefully dissuade smaller, radical countries from launching nuclear devasation, and make sure all nuclear power is held in responsible hands, ie. UN members.
-Thank you.

1) All UN nations have a choice as to whether to sign the treaty.
Well then it's probably illegal. Proposals can't be optional; if you want an opt-in nuclear weapons agreement, you'd have to do it as a treaty in the International Incidents forum.

Thanks. I'll reapply the proposal, without that clause.

If you want an accurate judgment on legality, it helps if you post the entire proposal.

Category: International Security


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Panageadom

Description: An increasing problem in the world today is the constant threat of nuclear attack. While not a danger in the safe hands of the UN, smaller, crazier countries are a significant risk to our collective wellbeing.
Since, as I'm sure, delegates, you will agree, WE are sane enough to hold nuclear armanents and not abuse it - while our nuclear armamentation deters other countries from attacking us.
This is why I propose that countries in the UN (and the UN only) have the right (not the obligation) to sign a treaty, wherein they agree to pool their nuclear armanents under the following terms:
1) No country within that has taken into the treaty may use their weapons offensively, unless a vote has been taken and a 85% majority has been achieved. In this case, ALL countries in the treaty will declare nuclear war on the country in question (which, if, in the UN has to be evicted first, by a normal vote) and contribute nuclear power relative to their own power and the defending countries resources.
2) Countries within the treaty choose to disarm TOGETHER, and a percentage of nuclear weapons to be removed is agreed between them.
3) All countries must know of all the other country's nuclear potential - but not their location, etc.
4) If a country launches a nuclear weapon at a country within the treaty, all the other countries within the treaty are to take IMMEDIATE retaliatory action against said country. This is the same if a country within the treaty launches a nuclear weapon at another country within the treaty - because by launching said weapon (without an 85% vote) he has removed himself from the treaty.

THIS TREATY WILL SIGNIFCANTLY REDUCE THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR ATTACK FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SWORN THEMSELVES INTO IT.
-Thank you.

There's a couple things wrong with clause 1, first off we have no mechanism by which to vote on whether or not nations can use nuclear weapons. Secondly, the only way nations are ejected from the UN is by the mods for rule breaking.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I've corrected one of the voting issues, but, as I see it, there's no problem with the voting to declare war because there's no mechanism by which to declare war. :p

Actually, there is. It's called the use of telegrams and the International Incidents sub forum. The entire system is roleplay driven. If a party doesn't want to go to war, they don't have to. Thus, the whole idea of voting to declare war is something of a moot point.

I've corrected one of the voting issues, but, as I see it, there's no problem with the voting to declare war because there's no mechanism by which to declare war. :p

And by resubmitting it so soon, you just became one of my pet peeves, people who fail to understand that taking an idea for a proposal and turning it into a passed resolution is a marathon not a sprint. Just because I pointed out a couple of problems for you to fix (one of which you still haven't and need to) doesn't mean that your proposal is ready for primetime.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

you just became one of my pet peeves
One of mine, too. Now I had two proposals to delete instead of just one. I was nice, however - I only gave the author one warning for the combined offense.
a passed resolution is a marathon not a sprint
VERY good advice. Learn from it.

Since, as I'm sure, delegates, you will agree, WE are sane enough to hold nuclear armanents and not abuse it
This phrase on its own is cause to shoot the proposal down in flames. Anyone outside the UN reading it would recognise it as hubris. Correctly.

This phrase on its own is cause to shoot the proposal down in flames. Anyone outside the UN reading it would recognize it as hubris. Correctly.


Indeed we agree with our colleague from Gobbannium. Just because a nation is in the UN doesn't mean that it is sane or reasonable. In fact it doesn't mean anything at all, except that the nation filled out an application and was lucky enough...maybe to be assigned a porto-potty or hallway to use as an office.

If one wants to ban Nuclear weapons...they should do so on the merits of banning them, and there are some. We, we will ignore those merits as we do indeed see the need for nuclear capability if for nothing more as a deterrent to our enemies. Likewise if one wants to support the proliferation of Nuclear weapons....they should do so on those merits. And there are many merits to owning a nuke or two.