NationStates Jolt Archive

Operation "Nuclear Disposal" is a campaign created by the Shiloban government asking that all countries get rid of all their nuclear weapons. It would put us one more step towards world peace and helping mankind save the world. So please sign the pledge. Save the world. Eaither post a thmbs up meaning yes I'll get rid of my bombs, or post a thumbs down meaning no.

I think you'll find that a popular method of "disposing" of nuclear weapons, is by launching them at the nation that suggests it.

Furthermore, if your planning to submit (or have submitted) a proposal mandating that nations dispose of their nuclear stockpiles, you'll quickly find out that your idea runs afoul of UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

In response the suggestion of 'disposing of nuclear weapons.' I feel it is a very good idea however i have a strong point as to why it won't do a thing. Even if nuclear weaponary was completely eradicated.. Every nation's main priority is to find other ways of defending it's self and fighting against other countries. We can never really create peace in a world like this.

Also to say you have a Nuclear bomb is enough to fend off those who may try and invade your country.. I do not wish to be rendered defenseless in those circumstances.

But, if nuclear weapons were disposed of what would happen if a foreign nation(not in the UN) invaded mine and had nuclear weapons? I would be totaly defensless.

(this is my first post in the UN so sorry if i made a mistake)

But, if nuclear weapons were disposed of what would happen if a foreign nation(not in the UN) invaded mine and had nuclear weapons?
Luckily, United Nations Resolution # 109 Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) protects your nation's right to possess nuclear weapons, so you don't have to worry about that.

I am willing to get rid of nuclear weapons. We have much better uses for nuclear power. Those that would actually use nuclear weapons on us, or anyone, would make it kind of pointless to want to stick around anyway. So, we move on.....

If it simply "asks" people to do that, then nothing will happen.

It'd have to outline *how* to dispose of nuclear weapons (dismantling is good, unplugging or launching them is not good!), set a timeline for how long they have to disarm said weapons, provide penalties for noncompliance, and require laws to prevent them from simply building new ones.

And yes, resolution 109 needs to be repealed.

But what happens if resolution 109 is revoked? WHat about those renagade countries with nuclear bombs? Maybe if the new resolution was asking us to only keep a stockpile for self defence and for no offensive use at all......

There are other ways of dealing with nuclear weapons, you know. If someone with nukes declares war on South Lorenya or another magic-using nation, for example, their nukes will mysteriously detonate before they get a chance to launch them.

For an antinuke resolution, consider an embargo on nations with nukes. We've got over a quarter of the world's nations -- which, mind you, my instincts suggest tend to be larger than the average nation -- so the non-UN nations will have to either dump their nukes or watch their foreign trade drop by a hefty amount.

I'm at the side of lorenya i think the nukes have to go and never come back.

I'm against getting rid of nukes. While magic nations like South Lorenya can protect themselves without nukes, other nation can't. My own nation gets by without them, but only because we don't have any valuable resources to plunder, except good skiing. Nations that have oil or other resources, and don't have large conventional forces, need something to protect them, and often that "something" is nuclear weapons.

I think you'll find that a popular method of "disposing" of nuclear weapons, is by launching them at the nation that suggests it.

Well then, shall we? *hovers hand over a red button*

Furthermore, if your planning to submit (or have submitted) a proposal mandating that nations dispose of their nuclear stockpiles, you'll quickly find out that your idea runs afoul of UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Do I detect a hint of smugness?

~Dr. Jules Hodz

In the short run, nuclear weapons cut down on the number of wars.

In the long run, two nuclear nations go to war, which is a thousand times worse.

Well then, shall we? *hovers hand over a red button*



Do I detect a hint of smugness?

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I know I do.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotentiary

But what happens if resolution 109 is revoked?First off, there have been very few serious attempts to repeal resolution #109. And with the one really serious one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432819) I can remember, I managed shred their arguements fairly effectively. Furthermore, should anyone manage to repeal my resolution, I guaran-damn-tee that I will be submitting a replacement that will insure that UN members will retain their right to possess nuclear weapons should they choose to do so.
WHat about those renagade countries with nuclear bombs?I've got three words for you, Mutually Assured Destruction.

Do I detect a hint of smugness?

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Only a hint? Heck, I had enough smugness in my voice to kill an elephant.:D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Right, thank you Flibbeites for clearing this up. This would not be a good idea for the nations with nuclear weapons that depend on them for safty, in my opinion.