NationStates Jolt Archive

NUCLEAR FIRST USE POLICY

INTERNATIONAL SECUIRTY

SIGNIFICANT

Description: 1) Any Nation in possession of nuclear arms, have the ability, to initiate a first strike via tactical or stratic nuclear weapons, where in its vital national security is violated.

2) Wherein The us of strategic and tactical Nuclear weapons are justified in use -

An enemy using or threatening to use WMD against a Nation, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.

To prevent an imminent biological attack.

To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target a Nation or its allies.

To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.

To rapidly end a war on favorable National terms.

To make sure a Nation and international operations are successful.

To show National intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.

To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against National and international forces or civilians.

The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina is of the firm view that stockpiling of, research into, and proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the most serious threats to the safety of the global community today.

Therefore, The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina will not support any attempt at legislation seeking to normalise the conditions making the unthinkable realistic. Furthermore, we will actively try to be a voice of reason in the global forum and actively lobby against this proposal.

The official stand of The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina is formulated in a bill passed in parliament, Security Resulution 734, which states that;

"The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina pledges not to receive, manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, nor will The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina in any way assist, encourage, or induce another state to acquire nuclear weapons."

We therefore urge others to adopt a sensible approach to this proposal, for the health, safety and well-being of people of all countries, as well as those of generations to come.

Carl Machrie
Foreign Secretary
The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina

With regards to the representative, Normalize? To think that nuclear weapons or atomic energy is not a part of everyday life is rediculous. Over the course of history, like I have said many times before, nations have believed in limiting what they believe is a weapon that would "destroy" man kind. You do nothing to stop the stock piles of bows and arrows, but at one time these were believed to be an immoral weapon, you do not try to stop the stockpile of oared boats, but the Trireme was regarded as a weapon of mass destruction by the Greeks. So will Nuclear weapons all of a sudden become acceptable tomorrow when the next new super weapon arises?

I believe that all states have the right to defend themselves. And unlike those who are here in this forum, not everyone will talk out their disputes. You Tie that hands of those who are willing to talk, and yet you do not place in check those who have no regard for the diplomatic process!

NUCLEAR FIRST USE POLICY

INTERNATIONAL SECUIRTY

SIGNIFICANT

Description: 1) Any Nation in possession of nuclear arms, have the ability, to initiate a first strike via tactical or stratic nuclear weapons, where in its vital national security is violated.

2) Wherein The us of strategic and tactical Nuclear weapons are justified in use -

An enemy using or threatening to use WMD against a Nation, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.

To prevent an imminent biological attack.

To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target a Nation or its allies.

To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.

To rapidly end a war on favorable National terms.

To make sure a Nation and international operations are successful.

To show National intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.

To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against National and international forces or civilians.


The government of the emperor of urgench welcomes any effort to regulate the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to use Thermo-Nuclear weaponry. We are avid supporters of the right of W.A members to possess such weapons.

However this resolution is essentialy an a agressors charter. If one puts aside that it does not specify what kind of dispute a "first strike" is really supposed to settle or indeed define what it calls nuclear weapons or what it euphemistically calls WMD (what ever they may be) it would seem to encourage the worst excesses of unbridled warmongering.

The fourth and fifth provisions give carte blanche to agressor nations to initiate conflict and then carry out a potentialy devastating nuclear attack and then justify this heinous conduct with claims that the nuclear attack settled the war in their favour or hastened the end of the war successfully.
A statute sanctioning such actions would be utterly incompatible with natural justice or decency.

These are just two of the worst of this resolution's reckless provisions the others are also lacking in reason or morality, but this makes them somewhat difficult to reasonably refute.

This resolution also mentions "stratic nuclear weapons" the government of the emperor of Urgench wishes to know what these are? We also wonder why the phrase "wherein" is used so often, even where it is totally innapropriate.
We also think that " deep hardened bunkers" need proper definition if the provision that mentions them is not to be used to blow up underground carparks or hospital basements.

This resolution is an invitation to nuclear anarchy presumably followed by endless nuclear devestation and accompanied by untold death and destruction.

In short to support this resolution would be depraved and insane.

yours e.t.c.

OOC: A static nuclear weapon could be something like a mine etc. Maybe used as a self destruct device for the Nation in question when they are overun.

OOC: A static nuclear weapon could be something like a mine etc. Maybe used as a self destruct device for the Nation in question when they are overun.


the government of the emperor of Urgench would like to point out to the respected ambassador for West Pacific Asia that the resolution makes no reference to "static" nuclear devices, instead it mentions "stratic" nuclear weapons, it has been made clear to us that the resolution meant to say "strategic" weapons and that "stratic" was a typing error.

we know what strategic nuclear weapons are, and do not need any nation that has concocted the fiction of a "static nuclear weapon" used for national self destruction to tell us what anything is in future.

we hope we have made ourselves clear,

yours e.t.c. ,

OOC: Nations already possess all of the rights listed, as no resolution has been passed to remove any of them.
This proposal would therefore make no change at all to the status quo.
That being the case, its legality is dubious.

OOC: Nations already possess all of the rights listed, as no resolution has been passed to remove any of them.
This proposal would therefore make no change at all to the status quo.
That being the case, its legality is dubious.


OOC: I don't think anyone was saying that nations do not already have these rights. I think that what this resolution was trying to do rightly or wrongly, was enshrine what it sees as pre-existing rights, which may otherwise be taken away, rather like U.N. or E.U. human rights legislation for instance.

OOC: But a proposal has to do more than that in order to be legal.. because every resolution will have an effect of some kind (depending on its category & strength/area-of-effect/decision) on all the member nations' stats, and the Mods therefore insist that it must have some clause that actually makes some kind of change to those nations...

OOC: But a proposal has to do more than that in order to be legal.. because every resolution will have an effect of some kind (depending on its category & strength/area-of-effect/decision) on all the member nations' stats, and the Mods therefore insist that it must have some clause that actually makes some kind of change to those nations...


OOC: oh i see, i'm sure the category is wrong in that case but it could be a mild resolution which would mean that nations had to declare these kinds of things before or after they made a nuclear strike, no? still pointless and still something my nation would probably oppose anyway but...

First off, spellcheck is your friend. Also in this case grammar checking. And stop the comma abuse; what have those poor commas ever done to you?

Seriously, I usually keep my mouth shut about the howlingly bad grammar round these parts because English isn't always the first language of ambassadors here, but this is nearly unreadable in places. In all seriousness, I could never bring myself to vote for something so badly written.

For example, the first clause seems to be self-contradictory. It's talking about first strikes after a nation's security has been violated, at which point they aren't first strikes any more.

Other people have already pointed out that this is a pure blocker as written; it doesn't do anything except stop future resolutions, particularly since the shopping list of reasons for allowing a nuclear strike could just as well be replaced with "because the nation feels like it". It isn't legal, and I can't see any reasonable variation of it becoming acceptable either.

I can't see any reasonable variation of it becoming acceptable either.
Oh, I don't know. Simply adding a clause urging those nations that keep nukes for such uses to arrange for enough security to keep their nukes out of "the wrong hands", as Flib did in his nuclear armaments resolution, might do it...

In regards to the comments by the honourable representative from the Western Civil Alliance,

While The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina fully approves of the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes such as nuclear power plants and particle accelerators for research purposes, there is nothing self-evident about the presence of nuclear weapons in the world today. To create legislation that regulates the conditions under which the use of nuclear weapons would be deemed acceptable is, to The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina, to try to put the use of such weapons into a logical perspective.

The long-term consequences of nuclear war are accepted to be far beyond any previous disaster that has stuck the human race. For more detail, please consult some of the studies done by the UN, for example the notes from the 1985 Geneva Disarmament Conference, or the thorough study ‘The Medical Implications of Nuclear War’ by Solomon and Marston (National Academy Press 1986). To liken these weapons to bows and arrows is pointless in its lack of perspective and The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina continues to carry forward the view that, for the sake of global safety, all countries must work together towards disarmament. Nuclear war cannot and must never be seen as a legitimate extension of diplomacy.

“Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man’s discovery of fire. The basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalism. For there is no secret and there is no defense; there is no possibility of control of atomic energy through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.”
Albert Einstein, Jan 22 1947

Carl Machrie
Foreign Secretary
The Grand Duchy of Punta Gordina

“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living.” Omar Bradley

Our men have fought with all their energy for peace. Without new legislation their work will have been for nothing. If you have no respect for life, at least have respect for your ancestors who are undoubtedly wiser.

Nuclear power for energy why not? But new legislation implying visits and detailed regular investigations into every countries nuclear plants is of a necessity.

We only need defense because of the threat of attack!

Oh, I don't know. Simply adding a clause urging those nations that keep nukes for such uses to arrange for enough security to keep their nukes out of "the wrong hands", as Flib did in his nuclear armaments resolution, might do it...

Except then I suspect it would be duplicating my resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Except then I suspect it would be duplicating my resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Your resolution basically covers the possession of nukes, theirs covers the use of those weapons: Where's the duplication? As long as they don't simply plagiarise the relevant clause from yours, I'd think that they would probably be all right...

The Allied States of Zaalous supports the right to have and, in some cases, use nuclear arms. We believe that it is an acceptable means to defend ones nation and to keep the battles away from our shores. However, we agree with the representative that this seems to be a resolution that could be warped an twisted to be whatever an aggressor wants it to be. There are too many ways around this resolution and too many ways to tarnish it. Even though the intention is noble, the Allied States of Zaalous cannot and will not vote for such a resolution if it makes it past the resolution stage.

As the ambassador for Kekova there is just something that I might point out. Don't most people try to stop the use of nuclear weapons? They can be mighty dangerous and can destroy a hole nation which is why my nation is in favor of them. That was off topic but anyway, I think that this will spark someone to write up a proposal to ban them, which I am sure most people would not like.

Ambassador of Kekova
Governor of CoN
Member of ORL