NationStates Jolt Archive

Strategic Arms Delivery Limitations

RECOGNIZING
The grave threat posed by strategic arms in general and a few of the delivery methods used to deliver them in particular.

ACKNOWLEDING
That not all nations are WA members and nuclear arms are nessesary to ensure national security.

Article 1
Prohibits the use, implimentation and development of

1.MIRV (multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle) systems.
2.Micro tactical warheads (known as suitcase bombs)
3.Portable hand launched missiles.

Article 2
Requires all countries that currently employ these systems to replace them with single warhead delivery methods.



Article 3
Prohibits the sale of aforementioned systems to countries within or outside of the WA.

Article 4
No part of this resolution shall be used to violate a country's right to posses nuclear arms.


Anybody have an opposing view?

Erm... I do. ''Strategic arms'' (a rather vague term) are dangerous, yes. But then again, so are all weapons.

You haven't quite convinced me as to why these need to be banned, but normal guns shouldn't. ''They're dangerous'' isn't an argument. And I don't see why we'd need to obstruct, for lack of a better term, military creativity.

Plus, any weapon we ban will still be used by non-member nations making the WA nations more vulnerable to attack.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
13th of August, 7:47

my problem with this is that if you limit the use of MIRVs you make an anti nuke ballistic missile shields a thousand times more effective.

then if you have a decent ballistic missile screen and your opponent does not its possible to WIN a nuke war which makes a nuke war MUCH more likely (read up on MAD and game theory)

the other problem is the old standard much repeated that only WA members will lack this kit making us all a weak vulnerable target

sorry but its a no

You cannot expect me to go along with:
"ACKNOWLEDING
That not all nations are WA members and nuclear arms are nessesary to ensure national security."
No it is not that I would write "ACKNOWLEDGING" and "necessary", but it is already in another WA resolution I am against (#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act). So if we want to change that we would also have to change this resolution, once it would be approved.

Maybe you have more chances to get this approved if you leave the acknowledging out.

Regards

The honoured Khan Toqtamish of Kazzan our mission's millitary attache is currently at home in Tabriz to judge a prestigious Dog show, so unfortunately we are unable to make a definitive pronouncement on our nation's position on the utility of the weapons this resolution would seek to ban.

However we normally take the position that where the use of any weapon can be shown to be demonstrably un-ethical then it should be banned. In this case the ban seems to have something of the strategem about it ( intended or otherwise) , since a ban of this kind will give certain nations advantages over others.

We do not normally take the position that disarmament is always preferable to proliferation since our nation has a thriving arms industry, so really unless a very convincing argument that these weapons are un-ethical is made then we cannot see the use in banning them at all.

yours e.t.c. ,

I may not be in the World Assembly, but I would say that this proposal affects roleplaying; not all of the NSers visit International Incidents. There is not combat system in NationStates, and thus this does not really work, mechanics-wise.

Although, I suppose it could work to lower the amount of money a government spends on munitions each update...

EDIT: I'm probably wrong.

While we are all in favor of limiting the proliferation of so-called "suitcase bombs" and could even support limitations on portable nuclear weapons under certain circumstances, banning MIRVs is a non-starter for us. We do not currently maintain a nuclear program, but if we did, you can bet we'd want the most bang for the buck we could get (no pun intended). We also agree that banning MIRVs would make nuclear conflict more likely, as governments fall into the delusion that you can "win" a nuclear conflict if you only have a better anti-missile defense than the other guy. Also, we'd note that portable nuclear weapons are really more tactical weapons than strategic ones.

Sorry, but we're opposed to this as it's currently written.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

As far as MAD and game theory, i am familiar with them.
Your supposition that the defense shield would be more effective with the elimination of MIRVS assumes that the defense sheild can, at its current level, hit even one warhead, which has not yet happened.

I would argue that portable weapons are more likely to be use by a rogue government or terrorist group in an attack on a civilian target than legitemately deployed by an army.

I see absolutely no reason to enforce an imaginary status quo of power by banning certain types of weapon delivery. Nuclear and atomic weaponry are a devastating evil no matter how you deliver them.

Since you clearly read "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" and realized you couldn't outlaw nuclear weaponry, you decided instead to eliminate specific kinds of weapon delivery. Nice try, but you'll get no support from us.

Wens Foroun
Symposium Subjugant

if you understand game theory let me put it like this

in a game of brinkmanship like say the Cuban missile crisis each side attempts to win by pushing the other closer and closer to the edge gambling that the end result of a nuke war are SO TERRIBLE no one wins

if i have a missile shield that can take out say sixty per cent of all missiles and my opponent does not the end result is worse for him than me, it means that ile take terrible damage but if i wipe out my enemy even if i only have one city left
I STILL WIN.

how many times have leaders said "we must destroy our foe NO MATTER WHAT THE COST" the only way to prevent a nuke war is to make nukes MORE destructive not less destructive.

and on a side note its not whether the missile shield actually works thats important its whether the leader believes it will work, many are the times a world leader has placed his faith on technology that has been later proven ineffective.
If they think they have a good chance to intercept incoming ICBMs then they are more likely to launch.

oh and it is VERY much harder to intercept MIRVs thats just basic, is it harder to hit one target or up to forty with 10 of them decoys all aimed at the same high value target i cant see how anyone could claim that single warheads are not a MUCH easier target

I see absolutely no reason to enforce an imaginary status quo of power by banning certain types of weapon delivery. Nuclear and atomic weaponry are a devastating evil no matter how you deliver them.

Since you clearly read "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" and realized you couldn't outlaw nuclear weaponry, you decided instead to eliminate specific kinds of weapon delivery. Nice try, but you'll get no support from us.

Wens Foroun
Symposium Subjugant

We Agree

Cervantes De Leon
Psiatrias WA Representative

As far as MAD and game theory, i am familiar with them.
Your supposition that the defense shield would be more effective with the elimination of MIRVS assumes that the defense sheild can, at its current level, hit even one warhead, which has not yet happened.

I think you're getting RL confused with NS, which is not a good thing to do since the last RL and NS collided the UN building blew up. I can tell you that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has a missile defense shield which happens to be powered by I.G.N.O.R.E. technology, and it works 100% of the time.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

oh and just on another point credible anti ballistic missile technology does exist right now check out wikipidia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

it might not be 100%effective but it is workable enough for a leader with MIRV based nukes to believe their country could "win" (survive as a nation) when facing an opponent with only a single warhead based delivery system.

I see two things wrong with this proposal.

1) It does not define "Strategic Arms" well enough.

2) If the proposal recognizes that strategic arms are dangerous, why in the name of the Federation does it ask that we throw them away!?

Does he infact realise that the WA has no way of enforcing these rules on non-WA member states. We would be depriving ourselves of a good tool for self-defence.

The Republic of Britannia acknowledges the possiblity this will not pass and welcome suggestions of Arms Reduction treaties the international community would be more open to.

i personally would suggest that the single most useful thing in preventing nuke wars during the cold war was the very simple very low tech "red phone" a direct line of communication between two leaders engaged in a nuclear standoff allows things like false launch readings, miscommunication and other potentially war starting problems to be sorted out without blasting the world into a new ice age.

if you genuinely wanted to significantly reduce the chance of a nuke war i would suggest a kind of "red phone switchboard" that was accessible only be the leader of nuke armed states.
upon picking up the phone they would have a secure direct line to the leader of the state they were in conflict with and the chance of launch is reduced :).

What do you think?

The Republic of Britannia acknowledges the possiblity this will not pass and welcome suggestions of Arms Reduction treaties the international community would be more open to.
A replacement for NSUN Resolution #204, the UN Bio Agent Convention (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=203).

i personally would suggest that the single most useful thing in preventing nuke wars during the cold war was the very simple very low tech "red phone" a direct line of communication between two leaders engaged in a nuclear standoff allows things like false launch readings, miscommunication and other potentially war starting problems to be sorted out without blasting the world into a new ice age.

if you genuinely wanted to significantly reduce the chance of a nuke war i would suggest a kind of "red phone switchboard" that was accessible only be the leader of nuke armed states.
upon picking up the phone they would have a secure direct line to the leader of the state they were in conflict with and the chance of launch is reduced :).

What do you think?

I do not think this will work. How many WA nations have nukes. Maybe 50%, maybe 1% but still that will be too much leaders using their red phone. I do not think the leaders would like to have a call every day...

Regards

I do like the red phone idea, it perhaps needs to be tweaked a bit for the 21st century, but the concept is sound.

however, i do think as long as there are missiles in silos, there will be the possiblity of their use. Whether it be intentionally, through human error, a worldwide apocalypse or a regional conflict. They are a threat to civilization. Unfortunatly if one person has them, there will be others who will never allow them to be banned.

however, i do think as long as there are missiles in silos, there will be the possiblity of their use. Whether it be intentionally, through human error, a worldwide apocalypse or a regional conflict.Or by some damn kid hacking WOPR...

what are everyones thoughts on limiting warhead yeilds? or perhaps limiting land based missiles w/ MIRVS? (even the soviet union and US managed to do that much :-)

Or by some damn kid hacking WOPR...

Asking your professors if they left any secret backdoors is generally a good plan, isn't it? +10 movie knowledge points to you!


But on another subject, I think that limiting the amount of nuclear warheads/yields/weaponry is not the solution. But rather, to work on extensive safety networks, such as ground-based missile "shields" in key locations, or even a satellite-based system which would be very effective.

Any weapon we ban protects us from ourselves, but exposes us to the non-member states. Limiting the amount of missiles one has would also be a tad unfair. A very large country could completely wreck a very small country, and take relatively little damage themselves.

Anti-missile devices, however, would protect everyone from everyone.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
17th of August, 10:05

Safety systems, failsafes, hotlines. All of these systems can breakdown. Theres always a possibility that they wont work as they should. Normally, that would be enough and acceptable. But it only takes one mistake with these monstrocities to end the world.

The Protectorate of Atlantic Socialism vehemently opposes this proposal. All weapons are needed for the security of our noble nation. Capitalist pigs are too ignorant and scared to understand this.

Signed Respectfully,

Roman Druganov

Or by some damn kid hacking WOPR...

As long as someone can convince the WOPR to play tic-tac-toe against itself we'll all be fine.

All weapons Roman? What about neutron bombs? What about seeded explosives? What about VX Gas? What level of destruction is your country entitled to have to ensure its "safety" before you're judged a threat to humanity?

I don't believe he gets to be declared hostis humani generis before he builds a global network of mind-control devices. Hm.. What does that remind me of?

My dear friend Druganov, there's a line that needs to be drawn between being able to defend your nation, and being able to destroy its attackers. Safety is an important thing, destruction is not.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
18th of August, 12:13