NationStates Jolt Archive

----------------------------

OOC:

What I'm trying to do with the resolutions is to take the first steps to prevent nations from starting nuclear war.

except historically it was mutually assured destruction that has done that, the so called Balance of Terror

The UN was never even remotely successful

nice try as a strategy, but the West will not give up its nukes when there are nearly 2 billion people already in the SCT, and most of them border Russia, which the US has vowed to defend

except historically it was mutually assured destruction that has done that, the so called Balance of Terror

The UN was never even remotely successful

nice try as a strategy, but the West will not give up its nukes when there are nearly 2 billion people already in the SCT, and most of them border Russia, which the US has vowed to defend

OOC:

Hmm- valid points.

However, in this case, China hasn't actually threatened Russia with war or invasion. During the Siberian Crisis, even when practically the world believed China was responible, China did not mobilize its forces aganist Russia, or raise its Defcon levels beyond 2. Chinese forces stayed well away from Russian borders (500 kilometers at most).

Thus, China hasn't really made any "moves" to scare Russia or the USA so far.

The only loose cannon would be Pakistan, but China hasn't given or shared any of its nuclear technologies with Pakistan, though.

OOC: No China hasn't done anything, but the USEA actively interfered in the affairs of Russia, and as the USEA is in the SCT, the SCT vows to defend the USEA from attack, something that would result from interferance. Not to mention SCT expansionism in the Middle East.

Parthini']OOC: No China hasn't done anything, but the USEA actively interfered in the affairs of Russia, and as the USEA is in the SCT, the SCT vows to defend the USEA from attack, something that would result from interferance. Not to mention SCT expansionism in the Middle East.

OOC:

Without China's military muscle, the SCT won't have much anything military to defend or expand or do stuff with.

The same way the US is the military muscle behind the OA.

ooc: While the US forms the majority of the muscle, I can assure you that the OA is a well oiled machine that makes the most use out of all of its components from foreign governments.

ic:

It is our firm belief that China did not mobilize or come within a certain distance of the Russian border due to the threat of a Nuclear First Strike, and thus China's competant leadership and America's firm stance prevented a devestating conventional or otherwise war from occuring.

We will not let China dictate our security policy.

China possesses a substantial stockpile of nuclear weapons that would be enough to assure a nuclear counter-attack that would have decimated the Oceanic Alliance should the Oceanic Alliance actually launch a nuclear first strike aganist China. In addition, the OA did not issue an ultiumatum to China saying "Withdraw from Siberia or we will use nuclear weapons" or some such thing, because China never mobilized aganist Russia and Siberia in the first place. If such an OA ultimatum were to occur, China would still have had the capacity to return nuclear attack aganist the OA if the OA actually follows through with a nuclear first strike.

China is thankful such a situation has not happened. But the possibility of nuclear war does remain in the future, and this resolution addresses this very issue.

Besides, China is not dictating policy for its sake. It is trying to remove a threat that could easily wipe all life off the planet and terminate civilization once all major cities on Earth are burning wrecks. Basically China is doing this for the greater good of the whole of Earth itself rather than on the petty national or local level.

OOC: I think this is the current tally, including the Turkics and Burma:

For: 11
Against: 10
Abstain: 2

We must also consider the rammifications for neutral countries. Say the two nations in question have a nuclear exchange. We all know that it does not end there. A large amount of nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and destroy large amounts of agricultural lands. Starvation could be the worlds problem even though only two nations fought. Should the UIP suffer for something that countries thousands of miles away did. IN a concentional war we would not be made to suffer, and detterence of any kind has never been perfect. Let me put it like this, if nuclear weapons are exceptable, eventually someone is going to use them in force. We WILL have a nuclear war if someone does not stem the tide. Because our petty differences will lead us to destruction. At least if detterrence fails with conventional weapons, we will live. If deterrence fails, if MAD fails, then we are all dead. Yet for your own interests you will risk that?

OOC: I think this is the current tally, including the Turkics and Burma:

For: 11
Against: 5
Abstain: 2

my guess is that Britian will get all of the Commonwealth countries in Africa to side with it, and the US would pressure its allies in Africa to do the same, which is enough to defeat it. As Ribernia is not available at the moment to act, that would be the likely course however. Figure since the US and Britian essentially built their economies and brought them into the modern age, and they are out of the likely nuclear strike zones in any SCT/OA nuclear exchange, they don't have too much to worry about (radiation and most weather doesn't move across the equator due to specific weather and wind patterns)

my guess is that Britian will get all of the Commonwealth countries in Africa to side with it, and the US would pressure its allies in Africa to do the same, which is enough to defeat it. As Ribernia is not available at the moment to act, that would be the likely course however. Figure since the US and Britian essentially built their economies and brought them into the modern age, and they are out of the likely nuclear strike zones in any SCT/OA nuclear exchange, they don't have too much to worry about (radiation and most weather doesn't move across the equator due to specific weather and wind patterns)

I feel I have to disagree here on one point.

Nobody wants a nuclear missile landing in their backyard, especially nations who don't have or possess nuclear weapons. As far as I know, some nations in Africa aren't members of the OA and SCT, and probably don't want any OA or SCT missile finding their way over into Africa and wrecking Africa.

However, some OA-friendly nations like Egypt and South Africa might get nuked in a OA-SCT nuclear war. Egypt is north of the Equator, and South Africa is south of it.

OOC: Unfortunitly the US would lose allies in Asia, something it has very few of and could end up being totally economically hurt. Example: The UIP will lose 5 points of trade, but I can easily make that up by moving my economy to China and Japan.

IC: THe UIP representative sent a note to the US representative in the UN.

"We have been allies for a long time, and fought side by side. As such, the Philippines wishes to ask if you might wish to make changes to the document, rather than opposing it outright. Any war you make with nuclear arms will inheritly hurt us. We have been loyal to this point, we wish for you to make some reconsiderations on this. Public opinion at home is definetly against Germany, and if not careful the government may be forced to recind some of our agreements."

(That's a private note. As in only myself and Galveston have seen it.)

OOC: Why am I always the bad guy?

IC: If the SCT is so assured of its ability to defend itself with nuclear weapons, then why is such a resolution necissary?

Because the neutral countries of the world would prefer not getting the nuclear wind that an exchange would definetly cause. Why should we suffer for the aggressions of others.

Parthini']OOC: Why am I always the bad guy?

IC: If the SCT is so assured of its ability to defend itself with nuclear weapons, then why is such a resolution necissary?

The SCT is only seeking to prevent nuclear war from occuring- namely a first strike by any side (nuclear-wise).

Besides, there could be nations NOT part of the OA and SCT that develops nuclear weapons, and attacks its neighbors with nuclear weapons in a first strike. (Probably Africa or Middle East nations not affilated with OA or SCT).

The SCT is only seeking to prevent nuclear war from occuring- namely a first strike by any side (nuclear-wise).

Besides, there could be nations NOT part of the OA and SCT that develops nuclear weapons, and attacks its neighbors with nuclear weapons in a first strike. (Probably Africa or Middle East nations not affilated with OA or SCT).

The resolution concerning the use of nuclear weapons only when one has been attacked fully applies to neutral countries. Why must more wording be put into an already choked beauracracy?

"Since no one is in agreement, would their be anyone who might like to make changes to it, rather than just refuse it outright. A compromise perhaps." THe UIP representative offered. "That way the article may be capable of being appropriate. Some kind of compromise that will not set us all at eachother's throats."

The US remains convinced that the resolution hurts the prinicpal and practice of nuclear deterrence and is more likely to cause a war. That point will be made to the UIP.

OOC
As far is trade is concerned, the loss of trade in the Far East can easily be made up by increased trade in Africa, which thanks to US development money and assistance, is far more developed then in real life.

Nigeria casts it's vote against the resolution, backing up the United States and the OA.

Parthini']The resolution concerning the use of nuclear weapons only when one has been attacked fully applies to neutral countries. Why must more wording be put into an already choked beauracracy?

The earlier resolution addresses nuclear strikes AFTER the first strike is carried out.

Unlike the earlier resolution, this one is aimed to prevent any nuclear first strike BEFORE it even takes place.

The US remains convinced that the resolution hurts the prinicpal and practice of nuclear deterrence and is more likely to cause a war. That point will be made to the UIP.

OOC
As far is trade is concerned, the loss of trade in the Far East can easily be made up by increased trade in Africa, which thanks to US development money and assistance, is far more developed then in real life.

And... you know... Europe...

OOC; BUt dismissing an ally of over 60 years is not going to sit well with voters. In truth I'd expect the party of Kennedy to take a hit in the House and Senate elections. Remember the Philippines has fought a few wars with the US and helped in defeating the enemy rather well. And how will the loss of the two bases will be a major strategic hit. And believe me people will not be happy going to war with an old ally. It'd be like the US declaring war on Britain today, impeachment would be about 80 to 90% possible. I think you underplay the importance of the alliance with the Philippines. It's your toehold into Asia.

IC: "ANd if it succeeds you still intend to leave the UN?" The note returned.

edited to add Nigeria, Britain, FNS, and Mexico to against, but I think Canada might be more inclined to vote for as they seem to have a history of anti-nukeness, and Tibet, Bhutan, and possibly Indonesia and Malaysia might vote for

edited to add Nigeria, Britain, FNS, and Mexico to against, but I think Canada might be more inclined to vote for as they seem to have a history of anti-nukeness, and Tibet, Bhutan, and possibly Indonesia and Malaysia might vote for

1960s Canada was a staunch US ally in real life, so they wouldn't vote against the US or UK in this matter.

Figure Liberia is against it, and most of the British African Commonwealth nations for reasons previously indicated

OOC: THis isn't real life though. Canada's thoughts on the US might have changed in E 20's history. As the UIP's has changed.

wouldn't South Africa's abstaining mean that nations nearby might be less inclined to vote against, or for for that matter?

1960s Canada was a staunch US ally in real life, so they wouldn't vote against the US or UK in this matter.

Canada can abstain- that way, it isn't going aganist the US and UK, but at the same time keep their anti-nuke stance (like RL).

OOC: THis isn't real life though. Canada's thoughts on the US might have changed in E 20's history. As the UIP's has changed.

doubtful as the Canadians fought side by side with Americans in both the 2nd and 3rd Great Wars, and are part of NORAD. I don't buy it. As France is supporting the US view, that takes care of Quebec resistance.

More likely American response to Phillippines would be anger at perceived ingratitude,especially by the center and right. As Kennedy can't run again, and the 1962 Congressional Elections are still heavily influenced by the Siberian Crisis (and percieved US victory in making the SCT back down.. fair or not), its not likely to cause major difficulties.

Remember, in real life, the US Right doesn't like the UN, and the Center has at times been wary of it. If anything, this resolution is pushing the US further to the Right, not to the Left.

However things like this will influence things like the counter culture movement which is bound to show up by the mid 1960s

Great, so your saying that the hippies will see the Philippines as the greater neutral. ANd sorry, I made sure the media is going to have a field day. DO you honstly think that they aren't going to make mince meat out of the president when the compromise offer was made by the Philippine representative? Especcially with the youth culture. Yeah I suppose the hippies and the young media personalities that discovered Watergate are going to have fun with this. Either way there will be groups who are going to oppose your stance. The government may go right, but the left is going to cause alot of dissent. Politically you are going to have a mess, that's a fact no matter where it comes from.

Great, so your saying that the hippies will see the Philippines as the greater neutral. ANd sorry, I made sure the media is going to have a field day. DO you honstly think that they aren't going to make mince meat out of the president when the compromise offer was made by the Philippine representative? Especcially with the youth culture. Yeah I suppose the hippies and the young media personalities that discovered Watergate are going to have fun with this. Either way there will be groups who are going to oppose your stance. The government may go right, but the left is going to cause alot of dissent. Politically you are going to have a mess, that's a fact no matter where it comes from.

Youth Culture is barely getting started... remember the Baby Boomers are the Youth Culture of the 1960s, and they are barely entering college at this point (Baby Boom 1945 - 1964) They are the ones who became Hippies etc. The Bohemians (the pre Baby Boomers) where socially critical, and they led the Baby Boomers later, but they aren't important enough yet to make a difference politically.

1950s America was very conservative, and would definitely still be so at this point. Remember, the US won the Third Great War at a cost of a million US lives, and that tends to keep politics conservative. A lot of the social justice issues like Equal Rights for Minorities in this timeline were dealt with during the 1920s and 1930s, as the Progressive movement was not discredited by Woodrow Wilson (as the US stayed out of the First World War) and because the US was forced to react to Soviet Union and Socialist pressures earlier in the century.

All of the events in this RP are starting to work in synergy toward creating an alternate world to the one we live in.

By the way, figure Baby Boom in this RP probably started 1943, but they are still barely entering college at this point

Ok, so any of you Canadian? Thanks for coming out.

A) Quebec is not influenced by France. Much of the Quebecers I have talked to dislike France. Does England Influence America since they speak the same language?

B) Canada Had Nukes. Thats right mofucka. We had nukes. 'Bought em from the USA and gave em back later. We were decidely Anti-Nuke but then again, Boston didn't get n00ked IRL. Something like that would definatly force Canadians to realize that the only way to prevent that from happening again is to scare other nations away from the possibility.

Also, in WW3, the US did not have a nuke first policy... they in fact were attacked by nuclear weapons first.

France abstained anyway

OOC: Of course you realize that if you do get out of the UN, that will be the spark to a youth culture explosion right? ANd yes they are just entering college. Well what age group are the most politically charged and willing to rebel? The college students. Come the mid to late 60's, especcially if you leave the UN, you are going to have lots of problems.

And currently I myself am writing youth culture problems to the Philippines. The old generation of the UIP isn't going to feel very nice that their kids are going to be more pro-Chinese. Remember the government is mostly younger men. The old men were just ousted. That's going to cause a rift between the older and younger in my country as well. So don't think I am just picking on the US.

OOC: While Sukiadia may be going a TAD bit overboard, the US leaving the UN would be catastrophic. For one thing, the US will loose all respectability, because it left the organization it helped to found over a bill banning nuclear war. It would loose what little moral ground it held, and ultimately give its enemies a de facto casus belli against it.

The U.S. would be much safer just veto'ing the bill. It would still cause an enormous uproar, but at least you'd still retain some respectability. This isn't real life, where the UN is only standing up because of the U.S. It also has China and the SU. I also highly doubt all of the USAs allies would leave the UN with it.

OOC: While Sukiadia may be going a TAD bit overboard, the US leaving the UN would be catastrophic. For one thing, the US will loose all respectability, because it left the organization it helped to found over a bill banning nuclear war. It would loose what little moral ground it held, and ultimately give its enemies a de facto casus belli against it.

The U.S. would be much safer just veto'ing the bill. It would still cause an enormous uproar, but at least you'd still retain some respectability. This isn't real life, where the UN is only standing up because of the U.S. It also has China and the SU. I also highly doubt all of the USAs allies would leave the UN with it.

OOC:

Except this resolution is not before the Security Council (where vetos supposedly take place). It is before the General Assembly.

wouldn't South Africa's abstaining mean that nations nearby might be less inclined to vote against, or for for that matter?

South Africa technically hasn't abstained...I just haven't voted yet. I can only suppress so much dissent, after all.

Galveston, check your TGs in a moment.

Malkyer, check your TGs.

OOC:

Except this resolution is not before the Security Council (where vetos supposedly take place). It is before the General Assembly.

OOC: Can't it be moved to the Security Council by some beaurocratic managing? I mean, if any country can move it to the SC, it would be the US.

OOC: Can't it be moved to the Security Council by some beaurocratic managing? I mean, if any country can move it to the SC, it would be the US.

TLS, check your TG's.

TLS, check your TG's.

There's nothing there...

There's nothing there...

There should be now.

Bulgaria will vote to abstain, but with reservations and divided loyalties. The Kingdom is also committed to make sure that nuclear weapons are not necessary in any situation yet we still realise that the security of a nation and the well-being of the entire World depends on us being productive and not having to quarrel unless it is necessary...

The Republic of France informs the UN that it will be considering as of January 1963 any treaties placing restrictions on the Republic of France for its involvement in the Eurasian War Defunct, Null and Void.

We hope to have the Blessing of the UN in this act.

Japan is deeply troubled by this announcement but says nothing for now

The Republic of France informs the UN that it will be considering as of January 1963 any treaties placing restrictions on the Republic of France for its involvement in the Eurasian War Defunct, Null and Void.

We hope to have the Blessing of the UN in this act.

The USEA would support this if the similar restrictions placed upon Japan were also lifted.

Japan agrees with the USEA's proposal

France feels that Japan should seek its own affairs by themselves...

Russia (which doesn't actually have any limitations aside from companies/land lost as far as I know) supports the French proposal, and reminds the international community that the SU is continuing to ignore the UN's order for a plebecite in St. Petersburg, and continues occupation of Karelia.

France feels that Japan should seek its own affairs by themselves...

The Indochinese ambassador replies with a muttered Thai idiom about looking out for ones friends.

The British ambassador for lack of any other issues picks up the Russian grievances with the SU and asks why they do not allow the people of St Petersburg to decide for themselves which nation they belong to?

OOC: WHat's the SU?

OOC: Scandanavian Union
Consists of RL Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Estonia. Capital is Stockholm. After the last war, they took control of Karelia and St. Petersburg, something Russia isn't happy about.

OOC: AHHH!!! Basically stuff that the Philippines wouldn't get involved in.

A rather non-descript, but distinctly Arab man drops of a letter that claims to be written by Saddam. He asks for permission to address the delegates at the UN to 'clear his name' but requires assurences of his security. He suggests but does not clearly state that this could lead to peace talks with the Arab Federation Government.

Currently the emergencies with the United States are put to the forfront. Wonders if delegates should be considering an emergency meeting.

Following disaster in Asia and the US, Britain proposes that the USA be temporarily suspended from teh Un and that thorough investigations be conducted into how such a situation could be allowed to happen. War Crimes charges should be brought to bear against those responsible.

Britain also proposes an aid budget be started to help to mitigate the results of the nuclear holocaust in China particularly.

Pakistan wholeheartedly agrees with the British proposal, and asks that Economic Sanctions be placed on the United States as well.

Pakistan wholeheartedly agrees with the British proposal, and asks that Economic Sanctions be placed on the United States as well.

The USEA official looking extremely pale and sickly, thanks the British for their proposal and wholehartedly agrees with Pakistan on this matter. He goes so far as to be nearly demanding massive repearations to the affected nations.

Britain also proposes an aid budget be started to help to mitigate the results of the nuclear holocaust in China particularly.

The Scandic ambassador asks that this not be called a holocaust as only military targets were targetted and both the Chinese and Indochinese were spared extemination.

But, the Scandic Union fully supports an aid program. We have already begnu sending food and medical shipments. But, if this is to be a world effort it has to be done quickly, China and the USEA do not have time for us to prepare, aid must be sent immediately before more die.

Pakistan wholeheartedly agrees with the British proposal, and asks that Economic Sanctions be placed on the United States as well.

Scandia asks that the effects of such a sanction on the world economy be realized before such an action is taken, we are already in a major economic crisis that has never before been seen, we do not need hasty and drastic action to ruin what is left of the world economy.

The Pakistani rep is told though that the SU agrees that America should be punished, and punished badly for what they have done.

The Scandic ambassador asks that this not be called a holocaust as only military targets were targetted and both the Chinese and Indochinese were spared extemination.

But, the Scandic Union fully supports an aid program. We have already begnu sending food and medical shipments. But, if this is to be a world effort it has to be done quickly, China and the USEA do not have time for us to prepare, aid must be sent immediately before more die.

The Chinese ambassador shook his head slowly and spoke in a weak and gravelly voice.

"It is indeed a holocaust. Several Chinese cities have been hit by nuclear weapons, as they were practically next to several Chinese military bases.

Without electricity and food, millions of Chinese stand to die from disease, starvation, and sickness. Radiation fallout is all over major Chinese urban centers, and from what reports we have, the people inside these cities are suffering posioning that makes World War 3 casaulty figures pale in comparison."

OOC: Does the world Holocaust even EXIST in this timeline?

OOC: Holocaust was a word originally coined to refer to burnt offerings to gods, from Greek Holo (whole) and Kaustos (Burnt). The word was then used in Latin followed by modern French, by the middle ages it described a large and destructive fire before coming to mean any mass destruction or slaughter.

OOC: Does the world Holocaust even EXIST in this timeline?

ooc
actually, no it doesn't

IC
The US UN delegation is recalled without comment. A press release is issued indicating that the men who ordered the nuclear strike and who attempted to overthrow the US government have been turned over to the UN at the International Court in the Hague.

Information regarding their guilt will be provided and the US is willing to accept criminal investigators from Canada and Great Britian to conduct further investigation in the matter.

The US Government however is not willing to pay reparations at this time, and has recalled all US merchant shipping. Economic sanctions placed on the US will result in the US seizing all assets in the US belonging to nations that place sanctions on it. The American people didn't launch this attack, elements of the American government did, and the US points out that the Chinese and USAE made NO attempt to discuss the situation before this body or even approach the US directly.

China states the obvious.

"We were not aware of such a crisis until the missiles were coming towards China. We have been a pacifist nation for over two decades, and if I recall correctly, communications with the US was disrupted during the supposed coup, therefore defusing the crisis was impossible with the lack of open channels with the US at that time."

The US Government however is not willing to pay reparations at this time, and has recalled all US merchant shipping. Economic sanctions placed on the US will result in the US seizing all assets in the US belonging to nations that place sanctions on it. The American people didn't launch this attack, elements of the American government did, and the US points out that the Chinese and USAE made NO attempt to discuss the situation before this body or even approach the US directly.

While the SU agrees neither China nor the USEA made any attempt to solve this diplomatically it states that if Scandic shipping is siezed it will be considered an act of war. The U.S. is quietly informed that in the event of war Scandia will launch its entire arsenal as quickly as it can be fired off unlike China and the USEA.

Pakistan realises that the American people did not do this; however, millions were killed by the actions of the United States, and just because a few of the men who launched the missiles are going to be tried doesn't mean the United States shouldn't pay reparations. America must pay for its crimes.

ooc
actually, no it doesn't

IC
The US UN delegation is recalled without comment. A press release is issued indicating that the men who ordered the nuclear strike and who attempted to overthrow the US government have been turned over to the UN at the International Court in the Hague.

Information regarding their guilt will be provided and the US is willing to accept criminal investigators from Canada and Great Britian to conduct further investigation in the matter.

The US Government however is not willing to pay reparations at this time, and has recalled all US merchant shipping. Economic sanctions placed on the US will result in the US seizing all assets in the US belonging to nations that place sanctions on it. The American people didn't launch this attack, elements of the American government did, and the US points out that the Chinese and USAE made NO attempt to discuss the situation before this body or even approach the US directly.

The Indochinese delegate asks exactly how they could have averted this atrocity through negotiation? From what you say that nothing short of total disarmament by the SCT would have appeased the men responsible.
You portray the culprits as madmen, but then expect us to have reasoned with them?
No, it was American missiles and American nuclear devices that did the damage, therefore should it not be American money that helps rebuild?

China and the USEA did not strike back at any point and surrendered peacefully rather than risk more loss of life on both sides.

The attack was unprovoked against nations that have never directly threatened the USA and whose nuclear arsenels were far inferior to American ones.

We refuse to belive that negotiation at any point would have helped, for one thing we could not even contact our own embassy in the American Capitol, let alone the Americans themselves.

Let's say we had gotten through to those in charge? What could we have possibly offered that would have stopped them? You say they were desperate, had nothing to lose, your loyalist government forces were closing in they launched this attack as a parting shot. Nobody could have done anything about it without time travel!

We are not at fault for not trying to negotiate! If you want to go far abck and say Chinese Nuclear build up was responsible for this, then why pray tell did you not try to negotiate with us? All we recieved was threats from and an increased buildup of their own forces the USA, no peaceful overtures asking us to disarm reasonably, just unsheathed thuggery. No! It is the Americans who are guilty of not trying to negotiate peacefully!

It is now fixed firmly in the minds of most Asians that nuclear weapons are abominations that deserve no exsistance. You can be rest assured that Indochina will never again manufacture one of those terrible weapons!

The UIR representative applauds the words of the Indochinese delegate.

Ireland harshly condemns the US, but also points out that they have left the building and indeed are leaving the country so further discussions are useful to vent frustration and anger, but hardly constructive at this point.

Ireland also points out that threatening the US may not be wise as they clearly are dangerous, in the middle of some kind of civil disorder or civil war, and very capable of lashing out.

Ireland further proposes that instead, the UN begin talks on eliminating these awful weapons, and that the UN send in teams to survey the damage to China and the USAE so that some kind of aid can be given.

ooc
I still have to figure that damage up.. it will take a day or two

The USEA delegate agrees but mutters something about maybe future 'Negotiations' with the US will involve a nuclear exchange.

Britain will abide by a potential Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons proposed by Ireland (The historical treaty was proposed by the Irish as well!) and begins to flesh out a few details for discussion:

NON PROLIFERATION

Nuclear weapons may only be posessed by recognised states, those being the nations that have a known nuclear capability when this treaty is signed (UK, USA, FNS, France, Germany, SU, Russia, USEA, South Africa, Australia, China, Japan, Pakistan; Nigeria will also be permitted to continue developments in this field OOC: Probably missed some, any more?).

Transfer of technology or nuclear weapons material to non-recognised states is not permitted.

Nuclear states shalk not make use of their weapons against a state that does not hold nuclear weapons or the ability to deliver them, unless that state is involved in a war and is allied to a recognised nuclear power.

DISARMAMENT

Nuclear powers are encouraged to reduce their weapons stockpile through their own disarmament programs and that they be encouraged to inform the world of this program.

OOC: Any ideas of a more construitive treaty with a permitted max number of weapons?

RIGHT TO USE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

This treaty does not prevent any nation (recognised or not) from operating nuclear power generation facilities and does not prevent the transfer of nuclear material for power generation to non-recognised states.

Non-recognised states be allowed to extract and enrich Uranium for use in nuclear reactors or for export to other non-recognised nations for that same use, and that these nations can enrich and export to recognised states for use in nuclear weapons.


OOC: Essentially the NPT of RL with a few tweaks here and there. Further developments could be made though such as the implementation fo a fixed number or tonnage of weapons that is the max to be allowed to be held by one nation, or a number/tonnage per million people living in that nation as recognised by the UN.

-Snip-

The USEA readily agrees to this treaty and declares that it will pursue a course of total disarmenant (It will scuttle it's last SSBN with all twelve remaining warheads aboard.)
However the USEA reserves anyright to develop nuclear ABM weapons.

I believe that this is too light. In light of current events, we believe that instead that nuclear weapons be outlawed. The current state occured because of a handful of people. THis can not be allowed. Itchy trigger fingers will just cause more death.

The SU is suggesting that special situations have to be taken into acount.

Like Germany which is limited to the 6 A-bombs it has now and is not allowed to build any other nuclear weaponry by treaty, and Turkey and the UR who are each limited to 50 weapons by treaty.

We would also like to ban nuclear weapons in space.

Britain would happily follow a disarmament scheme as long as every other nation disarms at the same rate and that it can hold at least 100 nuclear ICBMs as a deterrent. Perhaps a ban on all nuclear testing above ground could also be implemented.

OOC: Still well into the trashing ideas out stage at the moment, once a consenus is reached th UN will vote on it (probably with no security council veto). It would take a very brave UN to face up to the USA in disarmament terms though.

(It's also a UN that can kill any trade the US has. If the whole UN embargos the US, how long before it's crippled economically?)

(It's also a UN that can kill any trade the US has. If the whole UN embargos the US, how long before it's crippled economically?)

OOC: Not long. Not long at all.

And I don't get any trade points from the Amerikaners :)

Unfortunatly, some of the key people in the UN do, so that hampers our chances.

The FNS has already begun disassembling 400 of its 500 ICBM's and destroying many thousand warheads. A plan to replace the SLBM systems on South Americas SSBN's with smaller VLS tubes for cruise missiles is planned but will take almost a decade. Until then FNS will have nuclear weapons numbering close to 100 ICBMs (1000 warheads) and 120 SLBMs. This is hoped to reduce further.

FNS pledges food and money to the vicitimized Asian Nations as well as clean up crews. To the US, FNS is offering a large contingent of soldiers to help maintain control if necessary.

Why am I not on the list of nations with nuclear capability? I've had nukes since the late 1950's.

ooc
more talk, and fewer actions people.. its only been 36 hours since the war started, and another one has begun that I haven't posted yet. FNS, say you ARE pledging to reduce your weapons, you haven't had time to do that yet (it takes months to disarm that many missiles.. rocket fuel is dangerous stuff)

Why am I not on the list of nations with nuclear capability? I've had nukes since the late 1950's.

OOC: Note where I said that I have probably missed some, it's just the ones that I could quickly think of off the top of my head. I'll edit you in.

Anyone have any more regarding the wording of the potential resolution?

Yes, but deporting your soldiers and closing your bases would take about 12 hours if done properly. I'm already organized for evacuation, so sending troops out is easier. And them being trainees means they are much easier to just get out of my country.

As for that? Yeah it'll be a 5 point hit for me and stuff, but if I can suffer it, alot of countries will deal with it. Remember you have to look that if you are a democracy and don't embargo the US, you might find yourself OUT OF POWER. As in the people throw you out.

Yes, but deporting your soldiers and closing your bases would take about 12 hours if done properly. I'm already organized for evacuation, so sending troops out is easier. And them being trainees means they are much easier to just get out of my country.

As for that? Yeah it'll be a 5 point hit for me and stuff, but if I can suffer it, alot of countries will deal with it. Remember you have to look that if you are a democracy and don't embargo the US, you might find yourself OUT OF POWER. As in the people throw you out.

ooc
I meant to get around to evacuating the Philippines but got too busy elsewhere.. Assume the Americans leave without fuss by military airlift. All equipment and facilities are left behind.

OOC: Meaning military supplies. Goody, shouldn't that make my taking over those bases without cost? And make it easier to raise a unit cheaper?

The Russian delegate, overwhelmed by information, tries to decide on a stance to take. Communication from Moscow has been irregular, and most high-level officials have gone into hiding. Deciding to avoid a stance on the US for the time being, he announces the following:
Despite recent difficulties between SCT nations and Russia, we feel no ill will, and will give them the aid they need in this desparate hour. Any oil, coal, or natural gas needed will be provided from Siberia immediately. The Russian Army can, if needed, set up refugee camps in Siberia and Northern China, complete with decontamination facilities.

We will support a Non-Proliferation Treaty, and would support a measure banning any weapons, conventional or nuclear, in outer space. However, let me take this opportunity to make a statement. Russia has, since the Great War, relied on the Truman Doctrine and the American nuclear forces to keep it safe from attack. As that strategy clearly cannot be continued, we feel that we cannot guarantee the safety of Russian citizens without restarting our own nuclear program. We understand concerns from the nations of the world, however, there are the following caveats of note. Russia will not build any SSBNs, nor purchase any of the kind of ship that caused so much damage. In addition, we will not build a bomber force. We will simply maintain a small number of missiles for our own defence, as many nations do. In addition, we see the need to build up a large ABM force in the coming years, to protect from unexpected attack.

(OOC: let me figure out whats going on, then I'll have a clearer stance. Egypt, Syria, and Turkey are also nuclear states, although Syria has not built weapons, the Aegean war and Saddam mean they probably will)

Nigertia endorses the NPT and throws it's support behind Britain.

In addition, it also supports the economic embargo of the US and has already recalled it's shipping.

Sigh, the time now is to build less nuclear weapons, not more. If Russia feels less secure, we wonder who they worry about? THe SCT is totally to remaking CHina. And the only other threatening power will soon be dealt with.

Russia is not building arms to counter the SCT. In fact, we plan to redirect troops away from the Russian-Chinese border after any humanitarian operations end. However, we have recently lost our nuclear protection, and we border the increasingly threatening nuclear powers of Turkey, Poland, Scandanavia, and Ukraine, several of which are invading our ally, Greece. While there are greater matters before the UN today, this issue must be adressed as well.

(It's also a UN that can kill any trade the US has. If the whole UN embargos the US, how long before it's crippled economically?)

ooc
North America is the only continent that actually has everything needed for industrial civilization. Although it will hurt, the US can actually do ok. The only commodities it must import are coffee, tea, some specific minerals, and in RL life, lots of oil (which it doesn't have to in the RP). Even without Canada and Mexico, the US can scrape by. As the US is usually a huge net exporter of food, an embargo may not go exactly as planned. It will hurt the manufacturing sector in the short run, on the other hand, that also means that imports of cheaper manufactured goods from overseas will go away and that will actually allow US industry to pick up that slack. More serious is that a lot of the developing world will loe the biggest consumer market in the world after China (which went away too).

Complex stuff economics.

forgot about some items like chocolate as well. Rationing will be hell but doable.

As that strategy clearly cannot be continued, we feel that we cannot guarantee the safety of Russian citizens without restarting our own nuclear program.



The Russian delegate is informed after the meeting personally that the Scandic Union will not allow offensive nuclear weapons on Russian soil. We do not care about ABM systems, in fact we encourage them, but any other nuclear weapons, even simple bombs, will not be allowed.


OOC: Its still going to cripple America on top of the problems your having now, the stock market exc. And a lot of people and bussiness that have heavy investments oversea's are going to lose big. Probaly just means an even more isolationist America in the end, albeit a weakened one.

What do you mean "will not be allowed"? Does Russia not have the same rights as Scandanavia, Turkey, Ukraine, and dozens of other states, to persue its own defense? We would prefer not to have them, but the aggressive actions of our neighbors make it a neccessity.

The Scandic Ambassador tells the Russian that his goernment can do what it wishes, that is Russia's right as a soveriegn nation, but every action comes with its own consequence, be it good or bad. Then the Scandic ambassador tells the Russian to keep in mind that Scandinavia has not made any moves on Russia, and has no plans on doing so, before turning around and walking away.

Burgundy, the Netherlands, and Portugal strongly condemn the Turkish invasion of Greece and Burgundy, which is currently on the Security Council (which at this point doesn't have a US representative, and for that matter, the Chinese representative may or may not still have a viable country to represent) brings forward a resolution condemning the invasion and demanding a cease fire and Turkisih withdrawal.

Current Security Council members
5 permanent members -- FNS, South Africa, China, US, UK
12 other members - Burgundy, Brazil, Nigeria, Canada, Cuba, Bulgaria, Kashgaria, UIR, Ukraine, Japan, Australasia, and Liberia.

France condemns the "Land Grab" by the Turkish in violation of international law aswell as for unjustly and without warning attacking the Greek nation. Hence we demand a declaration of withdrawl to be made by a near deadline otherwise we shall take action through the UN and then ultimately by ourselves if we have to this clear disregard to international law and warmongery and bloodlust even after what has happened to the world will not go unpunished.

The Republic of France Reminds and points how has this bloc of nations have underminded the UN on several accounts such as St. Petersburg and now they undermine the first ever UN effort taken in restoring peace to the Region. We call upon the UN for Action in the form of an embargo of Commerce and energy and even endorse intervention by neighboring respectable lawful nations should they decide to continue on this travisty.

OOC: could we wait for Parthini, I start noticing that whenever he's gone something bad happens...:p

The Mexican Representative at the U.N. announces Mexico's disgust at Turkey, but adds that Mexico will remain neutral.

China brings up a very important point.

"We were the ones who first proposed a nuclear prevention measure two years ago to prevent this very thing from occuring."

The Mexico wonders why the Chinese representative is green. :p

Britain fully supports the UN proposal regarding the Aegean war and demands an immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from Greek soil. Though just as publicly demands a halt to Greek and Southern Cypriot infilitration of Northern Cyprus and states that any infilitrators caught by British forces will be arrested and held in the British neutral zone for trial by UN officials.

(AHHH but GB, you also have to see that no country is an island unto itself. Yes, you make alot of what you use. But can your people buy everything you use? How many toasters does an average American need? Eventually you'll make more stuff than people can buy. And with the majority of foriegn
markets embargoing the US, guess whose businesses start to go bankrupt. A country without trade quickly loses it's economy. How do you think the real Great Depression started. The US made more stuff than it could sell. And most of the other countries couldn't buy the products because of the Great War. So eventually production outpaced ability to buy. And the economy collapsed. With a weak economy already, how long before an even worse Depression occurs in the US because it's trade dies? Yes Economics are fun. And in our world no trade means the death of a country. No matter how self reliant it is.)

(AHHH but GB, you also have to see that no country is an island unto itself. Yes, you make alot of what you use. But can your people buy everything you use? How many toasters does an average American need? Eventually you'll make more stuff than people can buy. And with the majority of foriegn
markets embargoing the US, guess whose businesses start to go bankrupt. A country without trade quickly loses it's economy. How do you think the real Great Depression started. The US made more stuff than it could sell. And most of the other countries couldn't buy the products because of the Great War. So eventually production outpaced ability to buy. And the economy collapsed. With a weak economy already, how long before an even worse Depression occurs in the US because it's trade dies? Yes Economics are fun. And in our world no trade means the death of a country. No matter how self reliant it is.)

I am very familar with the history of the 1920s and the causes of the Great Depression. In addition, I am familiar with the work of economists who take both sides of your arguement. Jerry Pournelle said it best, see this link
concerning economists
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/voodoo.html

Bottom line is this however. The US has a market bigger then any other single country except for China and India, with the very recent exception of the EEC. Economies of scale in consumer sales were invented in the US. The Post War US market in real life flourished without significant export trade for a few years because the rest of the world was too broke to buy.

Yes the US would suffer somewhat, but unlike practically ever other major industrial society, it can get by without significant imports in everything except oil and certain minerals (and those can be recycled) indefinitely.

Russia has oil and minerals, but lacks the climate to feed itself completely, China imports a broad range of needed items and raw materials, Japan and Europe import everything (except food in Europes case), South America is not unified (but if it were would be in the position the US is in), and Africa lacks sufficient oil and coal to survive on its own.

Sure a great deal of the US economy is in foreign trade, but if you look carefully, except for oil, the majority of American trade is with Mexico, Canada and Latin America. The majority of their trade is with the US is well. They would actually suffer worse then the US would.

On the other hand, the US exports the majority of the food, especially ceral crops. It also exports vast amounts of timber, steel, and cotton. The US exports more rice then Southeast Asia produces.

There is a reason that the US remains the economic superpower in real life that it is, and why it became so to begin with.

Incidently, more important then the tariff restrictions in triggering the Great Depression were the mountain of risky loans US investors made, and then had to continue to make that eventually led to the Crash of 29. The tariffs simply worsened the situation already caused by terrible oversight of the Loan and Banking industries, and a disastrous situation in the farming belt (which also had a huge number of bad loans).

So you are saying that with almost 90% of the world embargoing the US, it will only suffer a little then? No trade and the US will only suffer a little.

And the US is also quickly becoming a pariah amongst the world. SOrry the US can not fight an economic war against the whole world. If it can in this game that is a sure fire sign of godmoding.

So you are saying that with almost 90% of the world embargoing the US, it will only suffer a little then? No trade and the US will only suffer a little.

It would lose 20 - 30% of its economy in the short term, but then would adjust. The world would lose the majority of its emergency food supply, and construction costs would increase, and so would clothing costs as the US provides a major share of the raw materials in those industries.

Its a moot point though, as the FNS has already stated it would not embargo the US, and so far, the Russians haven't indicated such. Canada and Mexico might, but they are PC nations, and until the Canadian player returns or it becomes an NPC, it isn't going to act yet either.

It took 20 years in real life to get a trade embargo against South Africa, and it leaked like a sieve because South Africa is important to the global economy. The US is far more important. So how effective do you really think such an embargo is going to be?

Korea's UN Ambassaor condemns the Turkish invasion of Greece, but cannot do much more as his nation is currently riding out atomic fallout. He does however, send a missive from the Kim Government saying it wil accept the NPT, but asks how this will affect the domestic Korean Nuclear Power Program (though political opinion will cause it to cease).

So there is no way to punish the US then? Ok then I guess we just let the US do whatever it likes then.

We would remind the UN that Ukraine is also at war with Greece. We would ask that its spot on the security council be replaced by Romania.

However, this brings up an important point. With the US removed from the UN, and China incapacitated for the forseeable future, especially militarily, the security council is weak. We would petition the permanent transfer of the US's permanent spot to Canada, and the temporary reassignment of the Asian seat to Korea or Japan until China is better able to fufill its duties.

The Scandic Union would like to point out that every major alliance has a member on the security council except the CSPS. Canada should not take America's place, Canada is in no way a military power, we ask that a military power from the CSPS be given a spot.


as for the nuclear treaty, will there be limits on the number of nuclear armed missiles each nation can have? I believe someone before stated a 100 missile limit which is perfectly agreeable to the SU.(Of course not including ABM's, nuclear armed SAM's or things of that nature.)

We would remind the UN that Ukraine is also at war with Greece. We would ask that its spot on the security council be replaced by Romania.

However, this brings up an important point. With the US removed from the UN, and China incapacitated for the forseeable future, especially militarily, the security council is weak. We would petition the permanent transfer of the US's permanent spot to Canada, and the temporary reassignment of the Asian seat to Korea or Japan until China is better able to fufill its duties.

Korea would willingly accept custody of the Chinese seat until the Chinese are capable of functioning again as a member of the Security Council.

We would remind the UN that Ukraine is also at war with Greece. We would ask that its spot on the security council be replaced by Romania.

However, this brings up an important point. With the US removed from the UN, and China incapacitated for the forseeable future, especially militarily, the security council is weak. We would petition the permanent transfer of the US's permanent spot to Canada, and the temporary reassignment of the Asian seat to Korea or Japan until China is better able to fufill its duties.

Ireland suggests that the entire charter be rewritten and NO nations have permanent seats or veto powers. Failing that, the Irish would recommend that Australasia be given the US seat or Russia.

ooc
incidently, no actual vote has been taken to remove the US, it was only suggested. The US withdrew its delegation however.

The Scandic Union would like to point out that every major alliance has a member on the security council except the CSPS.

So the Arab League (which is nearly the size of Europe if not larger) doesn't count as a major alliance?

The UIP would not disagree with Aust. taking the US's place here.

Ireland suggests that the entire charter be rewritten and NO nations have permanent seats or veto powers. Failing that, the Irish would recommend that Australasia be given the US seat or Russia.

Egypt proposes a slight modification to this. Instead of no veto powers, how about vetoes can be voided with a 2/3 vote by the General Assembly? I agree that veto powers are a serious blow to democracy but without them, the Security Council is just a smaller General Assembly but with guns.

Egypt proposes a slight modification to this. Instead of no veto powers, how about vetoes can be voided with a 2/3 vote by the General Assembly? I agree that veto powers are a serious blow to democracy but without them, the Security Council is just a smaller General Assembly but with guns.

Ireland (and most of the NPC nations) might be willing to accept that as a compromise

Britain supports the Egyptian proposal to ensure it retains its veto powers and the powers of the security council.

As would the Philippines.

China will put its vote behind the Egyptian compromise.

Nigeria also endorses the Eqyptian proposal.

ooc
unless anyone objects, then it should pass

Before the Republic of France can support the Proposal, we demand that all belligerent nations in the Aegean Conflict who have abused the responsibility of their position in the security council be removed from their position we also push for an embargo on Turkish and Ukranian Commerce.

The Scandic Union will support the proposal.

It is curious that France is calling someone else belligerent when they have just unilaterally scrapped a treaty meant to keep the peace in Europe after the greatest, and bloodiest, war Europe has ever seen. But the Scandic Union does point out that both the Scandic Union and Turkey have contacted the British in regards to helping set up negotations for this war, but we have still not recieved a reply, and untill such a time as they respond a peace process can not begin.



What is not said is the fact that if any CSPS members were embargoed all CSPS members would embargo the nation(s) back. And with the massive instability in todays economy, on top of the fact that the CSPS holds a large amount of needed resources(Especially oil and gas which we hold a lot of) which are in even lesser supply with the troubles in the AF(Which basically puts 1/4 of the worlds oil under unstability). The CSPS is one of the few remaining places at this time, other than Russia, that has large amounts of oil and gas specifically and is completely stable, and launching an embargo would only do two things, further send teh world economy down a shitwhole and in turn further trash the economy of the nation(s) conducting the embargo.

Australia eagerly backs the Egyptian comprimise move (and its own membership on the Security Council, but no surprise there, right?)

We again restate our demands for action in the form of Embargos, removal of security council positions in the UN and otherwise against Belligerent nations who have engaged in sudden, unprovoked and thus illeagal conflict against a soverign nation.

We also would like it to be recorded that we hold in contempt tones of Blackmail.

(Especially oil and gas which we hold a lot of) which are in even lesser supply with the troubles in the AF(Which basically puts 1/4 of the worlds oil under unstability). The CSPS is one of the few remaining places at this time, other than Russia, that has large amounts of oil and gas specifically and is completely stable, and launching an embargo would only do two things, further send teh world economy down a shitwhole and in turn further trash the economy of the nation(s) conducting the embargo.

The AF Civil War ended with little damage to the oil fields. On top of that, there were little or no naval engagements meaning Arabian shipping is still intact. ARAMCO exports will probably be resuming soon.

México would like to propose a global UN led effort to eradicate smallpox.

México would like to propose a global UN led effort to eradicate smallpox.

ooc
actually thats underway already. Ironically, it also spreads AIDS (which is already showing up in RL, and in the game. Recent information in RL indicates that AIDS became endemic to the Congo River region because the UN Smallpox effort shared needles (sigh) and that spread it from a few isolated cases to tens of thousands of people by mid 1960s. No one new of course, because symptoms don't show up until the early 1970s)

Speaking of which, because of the earlier economic development of Africa, it now has spread through Congo, Belgian Congo and the various nations bordering it including Rwanda, Uganda, Malawi, and continues to spread. More air travel earlier also means its already infiltrating the Americas, Europe and Asia.

*makes homosexuality illegal*
How often will the UNSC be changing?

ooc
actually thats underway already. Ironically, it also spreads AIDS (which is already showing up in RL, and in the game. Recent information in RL indicates that AIDS became endemic to the Congo River region because the UN Smallpox effort shared needles (sigh) and that spread it from a few isolated cases to tens of thousands of people by mid 1960s. No one new of course, because symptoms don't show up until the early 1970s)

Speaking of which, because of the earlier economic development of Africa, it now has spread through Congo, Belgian Congo and the various nations bordering it including Rwanda, Uganda, Malawi, and continues to spread. More air travel earlier also means its already infiltrating the Americas, Europe and Asia.

sadly, until Tech level 8, the mechanism for AIDS isn't discovered either. Which means basically that AIDS is going to show up about 5 years early, and be much worse

France again restates its call for action against aggressions by The Ukraine and Turkey, emphesising the complete unprovoked invasion of Greek Territory, also no negotiations should be recognised untill a withdrawl is concluded from internationally recognised Greek territories.

Shortly after the dust clears over Turkey, a motion is presented by France to the UN to commit to the following terms in relation to recent incidents in the Aegeans:

1-Egyptian action is to be internationally condemned as a crime against humanity by the Leader of the Egyptian government and his associates.

2-The Ukrainian Position in the UNSC is to be stripped from it and given to another nation by the discretion of the UNSC.

3-Embargos are to be placed on the the nations of the Ukraine and Egypt for violating international laws, Embargos on the Ukraine calls for the Embargo of 45% of its commerce while a 90% embargo is to be placed on Egypt.

Shortly after the dust clears over Turkey, a motion is presented by France to the UN to commit to the following terms in relation to recent incidents in the Aegeans:

1-Egyptian action is to be internationally condemned as a crime against humanity by the Leader of the Egyptian government and his associates.

2-The Ukrainian Position in the UNSC is to be stripped from it and given to another nation by the discretion of the UNSC.

3-Embargos are to be placed on the the nations of the Ukraine and Egypt for violating international laws, Embargos on the Ukraine calls for the Embargo of 45% of its commerce while a 90% embargo is to be placed on Egypt.

The Australasian delegate bitterly questions "what Egypt?" in the wake of the Turkish counterattack and demands that the United Nations issue a formal condemnation of all warring nations. It is obvious to all observers that the man does not seriously expect a resolution, but is venting at a world gone mad.

In light of the flood that completely wiped out Egypt, as well as the nuclear attack that Egypt launched, as well as the nuclear attacks aganist Asia, the Chinese delegate puts forth a resolution to the UN.

The resolution is very simple, four words, a small wonder in the bureaucratic UN.

"Ban Nuclear Weapons Completely."

The German delegate, hearing of the Chinese words, immediately stands and begins clapping.

For years, Germany has called for the end of nuclear weapons, especially against civilian targets. While one of those reasons is Germany's lack of weapons of its own, Germany has always felt that such weapons cause no good.

Germany will start the process by eliminating the 6 nuclear weapons it has.

Germany also points out that throughout the events, Germany has remained neutral and would be a good candidate for UNSC admission.

Pakistan rejects this proposal, stating that while it is good intentioned, not everyone will follow such a ban, so those who break it shall have a huge advantage over those who follow it.

Pakistan rejects this proposal, stating that while it is good intentioned, not everyone will follow such a ban, so those who break it shall have a huge advantage over those who follow it.

China counters.

"That is what the ABM system is for. In addition a network of anti-nuke defenses can also be developed to successfully destroy a nuclear attack before it causes more Egypts, Turkeys, Chinas, and USEA's."

(an international SDI but the word "SDI" hasn't been invented yet)

China makes another suggestion.

"What if we were to ban ICBM's and heavy missiles with a range greater than 100 miles? In addition what about a ban on nuclear explosions and weapons in space?"

China makes another suggestion.

"What if we were to ban ICBM's and heavy missiles with a range greater than 100 miles? In addition what about a ban on nuclear explosions and weapons in space?"

If you ban heavy missiles and ICBM's, how shall we have a space program?

Germany finds the banning of Nuclear Explosions in space unacceptable as many in Germany see the use of nuclear weapons as a propulsion system for deep space vehicles necissary. However, the banning of missles as such is very appropriate.

If you ban heavy missiles and ICBM's, how shall we have a space program?

China counters.

100 miles or so is enough to reach outer space. Besides, provisions can be made for space program rockets and such, but no silo missiles and such. Large ponderous space lift rockets can be easily dealt with if they seem to be aimed at another nation instead of outer space.

Parthini']Germany finds the banning of Nuclear Explosions in space unacceptable as many in Germany see the use of nuclear weapons as a propulsion system for deep space vehicles necissary. However, the banning of missles as such is very appropriate.

China counters.

"What about the EMP effects upon Earth?"

(Everybody should pretty much be aware of the EMP stuff by this point with all the nuke flinging and factories shutting down from fried electronics)

While the specifics of the planned operation haven't come to hand, Germany feels that obviously such a launch would take place somewhere where EMP would not harm anyone.

China counters.

100 miles or so is enough to reach outer space. Besides, provisions can be made for space program rockets and such, but no silo missiles and such. Large ponderous space lift rockets can be easily dealt with if they seem to be aimed at another nation instead of outer space.

ooc
actually no it isn't

IC
The Irish recommend a ban on missiles, except for UN approved space launch vehicles. If nothing else a ban on solid fueled missiles and any permanently emplaced launch sites like missile silos.

Rumania fully supports the ban on Nuclear weaponry.

Nigeria woulod support a total ban of nuclear weaponry but not of missiles in general.

EDIT: Nevermind...

France supports said proposals, but also reminds the UN that Ukrainian Aggression needs to be dealt with also.

Britain votes strongly against a banning of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems and will use it's veto if this goes up against the security council.

Britain also asks how the UN would inspect the entire landscape of nations to ensure taht there are no nuclear weapons present and the fact that some nations may not allow UN inspectors at all. Take for example the US or China with millions of square miles of land to hide weapons in and some fairly inhospitable areas where such weapons could lie undetected for many years. In all a state of gradual reduction in weapons stockpiles to a few dozen warheads could be a better step than a complete ban. Britain intends to retain her weapons whilst there are those in the world that would still use them for detsructive purposes as proved by recent events.

OOC: If they get banned, Britain will still keep most of its ICBMs and store them underground secretly. They are seen as a necessary deterrent in this troubled age.

Cross posted from Twilight War Thread, Britain wants a UN mandate to provide for Egypt:

Not knowing German forces are planning the same, Britain begins to move troops into Egypt in the interests of restoring peace. The mechanised division on Cyprus and its AA attachments will move to the Sinai penisula and secure the Suez Canal Zone whilst engineering equipment begins to mobilise for the long and hard process of rebuilding it.

In light of the civil war still raging in the Sudan and utter devastation of the historical heritage of Egypt, Britain suggests that it be allowed a UN mandate over the territory to provide aid to the people and to begin rebuilding. Britain's case is based on the traditional ties between Egypt and Britain, the fact that Egypt was joint ruled by Egyptians and Britons until 40 years ago and thet many of the Suez Canal engineers were from Britain (and France as well). In the interests of world trade the Suez Canal must be rebuilt as soon as possible and the people of Egypt cared for, Britain has the resources (aid recalled from China) to cater for these needs and hopes to be granted the mandate soon so that aid can be pumped into the area.

The Egyptian people will probably be happy with this, especially as UK fighters tried to prevent Turkish aircraft crossing into Egypt and given the history between the two nations. Britain guarantees that Egypt will remain a sovereign territory and that a democratically elected government will be put into power within several months of the start fo British sponsored rebuilding.

Italy votes in favor of the British proposal, but suggests that since Italian forces are nearby, Italy might assist in disaster-relief.

Britain would gratefully allow other agencies and nations to contribute aid to maintain the region, but it is suspected that a friendly power providing defence and peacekeeping protection than one with which the lcoal people hold no allegiance. We would, of course, usually hold a plebescite to determine what course of events to chose, but this is obviously not applicable in this situation and the Egyptian government cannot be said to be representative of the will of the people in this instance.

British troops will continue to provide initial disaster relief in the Suez region and the aid once destined for China will be immediately redirected to Egypt to provide food, shelter and medical provision for the population. Though we ask the UN to consider the current situation and to ensure that imperialistic nations do not hold sway over Egypt. Further British troop reinforcements will arrive from the UK once the go ahead is given by the UN (3 or 4 more divisions plus NBC specialists etc). It is expected that some African Commonwealth nations will contribute to the aid effort as well and further aid could arrive shortly from Africa.

The British Raise an improtant question...

The SU would support a ban on long range missiles(ICBM's) and a cut back and possible limit on nuclear weaponry.

The SU would also like the UN to stop the spread of nuclear technology, to many nations posses this deadly technology already.

Britain votes strongly against a banning of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems and will use it's veto if this goes up against the security council.

Britain also asks how the UN would inspect the entire landscape of nations to ensure taht there are no nuclear weapons present and the fact that some nations may not allow UN inspectors at all. Take for example the US or China with millions of square miles of land to hide weapons in and some fairly inhospitable areas where such weapons could lie undetected for many years. In all a state of gradual reduction in weapons stockpiles to a few dozen warheads could be a better step than a complete ban. Britain intends to retain her weapons whilst there are those in the world that would still use them for detsructive purposes as proved by recent events.

OOC: If they get banned, Britain will still keep most of its ICBMs and store them underground secretly. They are seen as a necessary deterrent in this troubled age.

Korea seconds this, and notes that though it intends not to expand into the realm of atomic weapons, it questions how such a ban can be enforced internationally, without violating a nation's sovereignity. It also seconds Nigeria and will vote against any proposal that bans missiles in general.

Korea also agrees that a gradual elimination of atomic stockpiles is the best way to go, and also suggests that a focus on peaceful atomic energy be encouraged instead, with an organization to ensure that nations keep their atomic programs peaceful.

OOC: Is the IAEA existent here? Because in a roundabout way, I just proposed it.

OOC: It wouldn't be that hard to enforce a ban on ICBM's, a ban on nukes would be hard to enforce.

IC: If the U.N. can not even agree to cut back on the ability of rogue nations and madmen to spread destruction across thsi world then the U.N. has failed in its primary function and is a failure as an organization. 4 (maybe 5 depending on if any Egyptian nukes hit me) nations have suffered nuclear attacks in less than a month, over 200 million lives have been blotted out in less than 30 days. In years of fighting, the Third Great war claimed a staggering 150 million lives(can't remember exact number), and devasted the world, but we have managed to far exceed the destruction and death toll of what is, or perhaps was, the greatest war this worlds ever seen in less than a month. It is almost impossible to imagine so many lives being wasted, and even harder to imagine the tens of millions who WILL be facing famine world wide.

If ICBM's and other delivery systems are not banned then the world is just asking for what happened this past month to happen again. There is no gaurantee that other maden like Nasser or Thurman will manage to work their way into a position of power and start flinging ICBM's around once again.

What we are asking WILL NOT take away fro nations ability to defend themselves or respond in the event of a nuclear attack. There are many more ways to deliver nuclear devices other than ICBM's. Cruise missiles, SLBM's, bombers, air-to-ground missiles(Whose effectiveness just got proved by the Turkish air force in Egypt). But eliminating ICBM's, banning nuclear weapons in space, and placing a cap on the amount of nuclear weapons a nation may have will lessen the the amount of damage a madmen like Nasser will be able to do to the world.

As far as there being no way to enforce such a ban without violating nations soveriegnty, in the respects of nuclear weapons in space and ICBM's that is false. ICBM's are easily noticeable, and it would be hard to position nuclear weapons in space without the international crowd noticing. Enforcing a nuclear weapons limit would be hard, but if its between honoring a nations soveriegnty and stopping another nuclear holocaust, we have no problem violating the soveriegnty. Any actions would happen under an internatioanl name, under the U.N.

Action has to be taken now or else this organization is a dead and useless one.

Cross-posted from the Twilight Thread

Hearing word of the British movements in the region, Germany is alarmed. The Fieldmarschall insists that Germany, since it has vital interests and the ties that STILL remain between Egypt and Germany, which are more prevalent and uptodate than British ties. A reminder is also sent that Germany has remained neutral and if Egypt were to be under Germany, than Egypt would have no more risk of being attacked, something the British, even with their mighty navy, would not be able to guarentee.

Germany insists that it be given the mandate over Egypt and Palestine. The Sudan, in the midst of a Civil War, however, is still need of protection, and considering British ties, and a substantial lack of German ties, would be more appropriate.

On a separate note, Germany points out that due to the Ukraine's offensive action, that perhaps it would be appropriate to withdraw its seat on the Permanent Security council and replace it with a more stable European Country, namely, Germany.

China offers a refined resolution.

1. Ban ICBM missiles, or any offensive missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead beyond a range of 100 miles.

Reason: This is to be done to eliminate such large scale devastation like what the US did to Asia, or Egypt doing to the SU. This removes the ability of nations halfway around the world from completely destroying a nation thousands of miles away in just a few minutes or hours. This also massively reduces the potential damage future Nasser's and Strom Thurmond's could do- meaning rogue states will not be able to wipe other nations out with a scant few missiles.

2. Space launch vehicles are NOT banned. Examples include Saturn V rockets, Energia Rockets, Titan Rockets, etc.

Reason: To allow for continued space programs, while not having to worry about space programs effectively being banned through denial of missiles. Besides, if these space facilities are somehow mounted with nuclear weapons, they will be far easier to take out than ICBM's hidden in silos.

3. Missile silos are allowed only for small missiles or short range missiles. Missile silos for ICBM sized missiles are to be banned.

Reason: To allow cruise missiles or short range missiles to be protected, while making it very difficult to protect the long ranged missiles, meaning it becomes easier to take out long range missiles should nations build any.

4. Serious efforts into more effective anti-ICBM and anti-nuclear weapon systems should be undertaken. Towards this end, ABM technology should be shared freely with every nation in the world so that they may be able to build a layer of anti-ICBM defenses should nations actually ignore the ICBM ban resolution.

Reason: To minimize the amount of damage from any "rogue" ICBM's or from nations who refuse to adhere to the ban of ICBM's. This also will allow nations to work together on a truly global anti-ICBM or anti-WMD defense, meaning one or two rogue nations won't be able to effectively attack with ICBM's as the world will use its entire ABM / SDI arsenal to wipe out any rogue nation ICBM or WMD attack.

--------------------

Therefore, should ICBM missiles be eliminated, then nations do not need to fear being attacked half-way around the world from nuclear weapons. Thus, the reason for stockpiling nuclear weapons would be greatly reduced, and this further reduces the potential for a WMD arms race.



EDIT: Added Resolution Part 4.

Parthini']Cross-posted from the Twilight Thread

Hearing word of the British movements in the region, Germany is alarmed. The Fieldmarschall insists that Germany, since it has vital interests and the ties that STILL remain between Egypt and Germany, which are more prevalent and uptodate than British ties. A reminder is also sent that Germany has remained neutral and if Egypt were to be under Germany, than Egypt would have no more risk of being attacked, something the British, even with their mighty navy, would not be able to guarentee.

Germany insists that it be given the mandate over Egypt and Palestine. The Sudan, in the midst of a Civil War, however, is still need of protection, and considering British ties, and a substantial lack of German ties, would be more appropriate.

On a separate note, Germany points out that due to the Ukraine's offensive action, that perhaps it would be appropriate to withdraw its seat on the Permanent Security council and replace it with a more stable European Country, namely, Germany.


Japan wonders why the country replacing it must be European and instead proposes that Japan be given the Security Council seat.

On another note, Japan will host a peace conference over the Aegean conflict in Kyoto and all nations are invited to come

OOC: A peace conference has already been set up in Caracas but so far only the CSPS has agrreed to attend.

OOC: A peace conference has already been set up in Caracas but so far only the CSPS has agrreed to attend.


ah, I thought perhaps a more neutral spot might work better. Either way Japan will attend as a neutral observer to end this bloodshed

Russia feels that, as both a European nation and an Asian nation, we would be a suitable compromise. However, we would not object to Australia's position on the security council.

France wishes to resend its motion (Which was turned down A decade ago) for a position on the UNSC, citing French efforts to uphold and maintain international law.

Even as German troops begin marching into Palestine and the Sinai the German delegate stands.

Germany requests a UN mandate for Germany over Palestine and the Sinai Peninsula so that Germany will be able to care for the few remaining Egyptians. He reminds them that German troops are already there at the consent of the Egyptian Army.

The Kingdom is willing to go with Korea on the peaceful use of nuclear energy while wanting to help rebuild the nations of China, Indochina and Egypt with humilitarian aid... But we are also concerned with the safety of Greece as well as our neighbors and allies.

Ireland, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Burgundy begin lobbying African, Central American and Caribbean nations regarding putting together a joint proposal regarding nuclear arms and nuclear delivery systems. In addition, they are working on a proposal calling for an immediate cease fire in Europe and the Mediterranean\

ooc
the NPCs are about to gang up on all of you warmongers (chuckle)

Parthini']Even as German troops begin marching into Palestine and the Sinai the German delegate stands.

Germany requests a UN mandate for Germany over Palestine and the Sinai Peninsula so that Germany will be able to care for the few remaining Egyptians. He reminds them that German troops are already there at the consent of the Egyptian Army.

Pakistan supports giving Germany the UN Mandate over Palestine and the Sinai Peninsula

Ireland, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Burgundy begin lobbying African, Central American and Caribbean nations regarding putting together a joint proposal regarding nuclear arms and nuclear delivery systems. In addition, they are working on a proposal calling for an immediate cease fire in Europe and the Mediterranean\

ooc
the NPCs are about to gang up on all of you warmongers (chuckle)

GB, did you read my revised resolution (my 4-point resolution)? It should form the basis of the NPC resolution, I think.

France Grants its full support behind banning Long Range Nuclear Delivery Missiles.

As will Japan, thought it notes that these resolutions mean nothing if America stil has nuclear weapons, and if the US keeps their weapons, Japan wil have no choice but to do so as well

China offers a refined resolution.

1. Ban ICBM missiles, or any offensive missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead beyond a range of 100 miles.

Reason: This is to be done to eliminate such large scale devastation like what the US did to Asia, or Egypt doing to the SU. This removes the ability of nations halfway around the world from completely destroying a nation thousands of miles away in just a few minutes or hours. This also massively reduces the potential damage future Nasser's and Strom Thurmond's could do- meaning rogue states will not be able to wipe other nations out with a scant few missiles.

2. Space launch vehicles are NOT banned. Examples include Saturn V rockets, Energia Rockets, Titan Rockets, etc.

Reason: To allow for continued space programs, while not having to worry about space programs effectively being banned through denial of missiles. Besides, if these space facilities are somehow mounted with nuclear weapons, they will be far easier to take out than ICBM's hidden in silos.

3. Missile silos are allowed only for small missiles or short range missiles. Missile silos for ICBM sized missiles are to be banned.

Reason: To allow cruise missiles or short range missiles to be protected, while making it very difficult to protect the long ranged missiles, meaning it becomes easier to take out long range missiles should nations build any.

4. Serious efforts into more effective anti-ICBM and anti-nuclear weapon systems should be undertaken. Towards this end, ABM technology should be shared freely with every nation in the world so that they may be able to build a layer of anti-ICBM defenses should nations actually ignore the ICBM ban resolution.

Reason: To minimize the amount of damage from any "rogue" ICBM's or from nations who refuse to adhere to the ban of ICBM's. This also will allow nations to work together on a truly global anti-ICBM or anti-WMD defense, meaning one or two rogue nations won't be able to effectively attack with ICBM's as the world will use its entire ABM / SDI arsenal to wipe out any rogue nation ICBM or WMD attack.

--------------------

Therefore, should ICBM missiles be eliminated, then nations do not need to fear being attacked half-way around the world from nuclear weapons. Thus, the reason for stockpiling nuclear weapons would be greatly reduced, and this further reduces the potential for a WMD arms race.



EDIT: Added Resolution Part 4.

Upon seeing this revised resoution, Korea shuts up and seconds it.

Khalid Husam, the new Arab Federation Delegate takes his seat and watches the arguments but has yet to get involved.

Russia feels that, as both a European nation and an Asian nation, we would be a suitable compromise. However, we would not object to Australia's position on the security council.

;)

China offers a refined resolution.

1. Ban ICBM missiles, or any offensive missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead beyond a range of 100 miles.

Reason: This is to be done to eliminate such large scale devastation like what the US did to Asia, or Egypt doing to the SU. This removes the ability of nations halfway around the world from completely destroying a nation thousands of miles away in just a few minutes or hours. This also massively reduces the potential damage future Nasser's and Strom Thurmond's could do- meaning rogue states will not be able to wipe other nations out with a scant few missiles.

2. Space launch vehicles are NOT banned. Examples include Saturn V rockets, Energia Rockets, Titan Rockets, etc.

Reason: To allow for continued space programs, while not having to worry about space programs effectively being banned through denial of missiles. Besides, if these space facilities are somehow mounted with nuclear weapons, they will be far easier to take out than ICBM's hidden in silos.

3. Missile silos are allowed only for small missiles or short range missiles. Missile silos for ICBM sized missiles are to be banned.

Reason: To allow cruise missiles or short range missiles to be protected, while making it very difficult to protect the long ranged missiles, meaning it becomes easier to take out long range missiles should nations build any.

4. Serious efforts into more effective anti-ICBM and anti-nuclear weapon systems should be undertaken. Towards this end, ABM technology should be shared freely with every nation in the world so that they may be able to build a layer of anti-ICBM defenses should nations actually ignore the ICBM ban resolution.

Reason: To minimize the amount of damage from any "rogue" ICBM's or from nations who refuse to adhere to the ban of ICBM's. This also will allow nations to work together on a truly global anti-ICBM or anti-WMD defense, meaning one or two rogue nations won't be able to effectively attack with ICBM's as the world will use its entire ABM / SDI arsenal to wipe out any rogue nation ICBM or WMD attack.

--------------------

Therefore, should ICBM missiles be eliminated, then nations do not need to fear being attacked half-way around the world from nuclear weapons. Thus, the reason for stockpiling nuclear weapons would be greatly reduced, and this further reduces the potential for a WMD arms race.



EDIT: Added Resolution Part 4.

ooc: correct me if I am wrong, but the Titan missile allowed by section 2 is in fact an ICBM... other than that there are no enormous issues with the resolution besides the violation of national soveriegnty.

IC: the Australian delegate remains quiet throughout the debate so far. He appears shell-shocked by the updated numbers from the front brought to him by an aid, and is under instruction to remain on the sidelines until specifically instructed from Canberra.

China offers a refined resolution.

1. Ban ICBM missiles, or any offensive missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead beyond a range of 100 miles.

Reason: This is to be done to eliminate such large scale devastation like what the US did to Asia, or Egypt doing to the SU. This removes the ability of nations halfway around the world from completely destroying a nation thousands of miles away in just a few minutes or hours. This also massively reduces the potential damage future Nasser's and Strom Thurmond's could do- meaning rogue states will not be able to wipe other nations out with a scant few missiles.

Although the US has pulled out of the UN, it still has friends there (Cuba, Virgin Islands, FNS etc) The Kennedy Administration releases a statement indicating that it would be willing to eliminate its silo based and submarine based missiles if ALL other nations do the same.


2. Space launch vehicles are NOT banned. Examples include Saturn V rockets, Energia Rockets, Titan Rockets, etc.

Reason: To allow for continued space programs, while not having to worry about space programs effectively being banned through denial of missiles. Besides, if these space facilities are somehow mounted with nuclear weapons, they will be far easier to take out than ICBM's hidden in silos.

Kennedy indicates under no circumstances would the US give up its space launch capability


3. Missile silos are allowed only for small missiles or short range missiles. Missile silos for ICBM sized missiles are to be banned.

Reason: To allow cruise missiles or short range missiles to be protected, while making it very difficult to protect the long ranged missiles, meaning it becomes easier to take out long range missiles should nations build any.

No silos at all is the US demand if the UN expects the US to disarm its nuclear missiles. No submarine launched ballistic missiles either.


4. Serious efforts into more effective anti-ICBM and anti-nuclear weapon systems should be undertaken. Towards this end, ABM technology should be shared freely with every nation in the world so that they may be able to build a layer of anti-ICBM defenses should nations actually ignore the ICBM ban resolution.

Reason: To minimize the amount of damage from any "rogue" ICBM's or from nations who refuse to adhere to the ban of ICBM's. This also will allow nations to work together on a truly global anti-ICBM or anti-WMD defense, meaning one or two rogue nations won't be able to effectively attack with ICBM's as the world will use its entire ABM / SDI arsenal to wipe out any rogue nation ICBM or WMD attack.

The US will not share its ABM technology except with nations that continue to trade with it. Nor will it provide future military technology assistance except to nations that trade with it. As the US has a formidable lead in this area (ooc and will likely get to tech level 8 before China for example), the US feels it has something to bargain with.

In any case, if the UN passes this resolution, the US will accept such a treaty and act according to it. However, if within 2 years of passing such a resolution a nation either constructs a missile silo or ballistic missile submarine, or retains them, the US will consider that a hostile act aimed at it and act according to its interests.

;)



ooc: correct me if I am wrong, but the Titan missile allowed by section 2 is in fact an ICBM... other than that there are no enormous issues with the resolution besides the violation of national soveriegnty.

IC: the Australian delegate remains quiet throughout the debate so far. He appears shell-shocked by the updated numbers from the front brought to him by an aid, and is under instruction to remain on the sidelines until specifically instructed from Canberra.

ooc
it is, although varients of it used today aren't. The way to limit that is to limit severely numbers of launch vehicles allowed in service at any one time, and only at UN agreed upon launch facilities, including the ones already built

Although the US has pulled out of the UN, it still has friends there (Cuba, Virgin Islands, FNS etc) The Kennedy Administration releases a statement indicating that it would be willing to eliminate its silo based and submarine based missiles if ALL other nations do the same.

This resolution intends to attempt to address this very issue.

Kennedy indicates under no circumstances would the US give up its space launch capability

The resolution DOES NOT ban space launch or space programs overall so there should be no problem with this.

No silos at all is the US demand if the UN expects the US to disarm its nuclear missiles. No submarine launched ballistic missiles either.

Again, this resolution attempts to address the silo problem in a compromise of sorts... If silos were built, they would only be allowed to hold small missiles- the 100 mile range ones, or cruise missiles. Silos housing ICBM's or large missiles would be banned outright.

The US will not share its ABM technology except with nations that continue to trade with it. Nor will it provide future military technology assistance except to nations that trade with it. As the US has a formidable lead in this area (ooc and will likely get to tech level 8 before China for example), the US feels it has something to bargain with.

Why exactly does the US wish to refuse to share ABM technology? If every nation possesses ABM technology (and pools their ABM tech) then they will be able to contain any nuclear attack launched by rogue states (examples like RL Iran, North Korea, etc.).

In any case, if the UN passes this resolution, the US will accept such a treaty and act according to it. However, if within 2 years of passing such a resolution a nation either constructs a missile silo or ballistic missile submarine, or retains them, the US will consider that a hostile act aimed at it and act according to its interests.

That is acceptable.

Although the US has pulled out of the UN, it still has friends there (Cuba, Virgin Islands, FNS etc) The Kennedy Administration releases a statement indicating that it would be willing to eliminate its silo based and submarine based missiles if ALL other nations do the same.



Kennedy indicates under no circumstances would the US give up its space launch capability



No silos at all is the US demand if the UN expects the US to disarm its nuclear missiles. No submarine launched ballistic missiles either.



The US will not share its ABM technology except with nations that continue to trade with it. Nor will it provide future military technology assistance except to nations that trade with it. As the US has a formidable lead in this area (ooc and will likely get to tech level 8 before China for example), the US feels it has something to bargain with.

In any case, if the UN passes this resolution, the US will accept such a treaty and act according to it. However, if within 2 years of passing such a resolution a nation either constructs a missile silo or ballistic missile submarine, or retains them, the US will consider that a hostile act aimed at it and act according to its interests.


If that is the case, the German delegate, pointing out that Germany still trades with the US, asks if the US would be willing to share AMB technology with it.

Parthini']If that is the case, the German delegate, pointing out that Germany still trades with the US, asks if the US would be willing to share AMB technology with it.

It would if this resolution passes

FNS will sign the treaty.

Khalid Husam wishes to draw the attention of the council to the outrageous and dangerous actions of the Omani government.

ooc: Please vist the OOC thread for more information.

The British delegate points out the dangerously imperialistic tendencies of the Arab Federation and calls for sanctions or a UN peacekeeping force to operate in the area. Britain categorically states its support of the Omanis in this instance and notes that it is bound to offer assistance to the Omanis if they are attacked.

Italy votes against the anti-ICBM proposal on the grounds that nuclear weapons, not missiles, are the problem. Therefore, nuclear weapons, not missiles, should be banned.

The Rumanian delegate again states that his country is fully behind the resolution.

The British delegate points out the dangerously imperialistic tendencies of the Arab Federation and calls for sanctions or a UN peacekeeping force to operate in the area. Britain categorically states its support of the Omanis in this instance and notes that it is bound to offer assistance to the Omanis if they are attacked.

The AF delegate again states that the Arab Federation has done NOTHING but begin discussions with the Yemen government. It was the Omani government that involved itself in the private affairs of two soverign nations. Further more, the Arab Federation is not the nation that has massed troops on its borders. No, while it may have moved some to suppress rebels near the Omani border, most troops remain in well away from the borders of Oman, Yemen, Western Arabia or any other nation that the Omani government is asking to help in destroying the Arab Federation.

So, the Arab Federation must ask the UN assembly; what has the Arab Federation done to be said to have 'dangerously imperialistic tendencies' or to have sanctions placed on it? If the UN wants proof of the Arab Federations peaceful intent, they are encouraged to visit the Arab Federation itself and meet with its leaders. The Arab Federration also asks that the UN oversee the elections that will be taking place in a few months so that the whole world may see that the Arab Federation is a democracy.

The UIP delegation notes that it proposed the Italian proposal before the world fell into insanity.

Once again the Arab Federation has come before the UN to request imediate intervention in the possible Omani war of aggression.

The Kingdom is willing to oversee the National Elections in Arabia with the help some other nations and/or the UN if necessary. The main goal of the intervention is to do what would be in the best interest of every nation within peaceful and logical methods...and to try to provide common sense and care toward the crisis in Arabia as well as what is occuring all over the world...

China offers a refined resolution.

1. Ban ICBM missiles, or any offensive missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead beyond a range of 100 miles.

Reason: This is to be done to eliminate such large scale devastation like what the US did to Asia, or Egypt doing to the SU. This removes the ability of nations halfway around the world from completely destroying a nation thousands of miles away in just a few minutes or hours. This also massively reduces the potential damage future Nasser's and Strom Thurmond's could do- meaning rogue states will not be able to wipe other nations out with a scant few missiles.

2. Space launch vehicles are NOT banned. Examples include Saturn V rockets, Energia Rockets, Titan Rockets, etc.

Reason: To allow for continued space programs, while not having to worry about space programs effectively being banned through denial of missiles. Besides, if these space facilities are somehow mounted with nuclear weapons, they will be far easier to take out than ICBM's hidden in silos.

3. Missile silos are allowed only for small missiles or short range missiles. Missile silos for ICBM sized missiles are to be banned.

Reason: To allow cruise missiles or short range missiles to be protected, while making it very difficult to protect the long ranged missiles, meaning it becomes easier to take out long range missiles should nations build any.

4. Serious efforts into more effective anti-ICBM and anti-nuclear weapon systems should be undertaken. Towards this end, ABM technology should be shared freely with every nation in the world so that they may be able to build a layer of anti-ICBM defenses should nations actually ignore the ICBM ban resolution.

Reason: To minimize the amount of damage from any "rogue" ICBM's or from nations who refuse to adhere to the ban of ICBM's. This also will allow nations to work together on a truly global anti-ICBM or anti-WMD defense, meaning one or two rogue nations won't be able to effectively attack with ICBM's as the world will use its entire ABM / SDI arsenal to wipe out any rogue nation ICBM or WMD attack.

--------------------

Therefore, should ICBM missiles be eliminated, then nations do not need to fear being attacked half-way around the world from nuclear weapons. Thus, the reason for stockpiling nuclear weapons would be greatly reduced, and this further reduces the potential for a WMD arms race.



EDIT: Added Resolution Part 4.

Ireland, and all of the former British Colonial nations in Africa, urge immediate approval of this resolution. Cuba, Honduras and the other Central Americans join the chorus urging approval as does Liberia

Nigeria approves of the missile ban.

Britain supports the move but asks how the situation with the new American nations will be handled, the US left the UN and no new delegations have yet arrived from the new nations. Britain will refuse to destroy ICBMs whilst other nations tsill retain them.

The UIP questions how any nation, considering recent events can desire to keep their ICBM's. Are any countries this insane?

Korea would like to ask if its Sejong II ICBMs can be classified as a Space Launch vehicle for scientific use only, with no nuclear warheads. They have been a useful tool for the old Asian Space Agency to launch missions, and can yet be used to launch more sattelites. Proof of their non-threatening nature is that they have not been stored in underground silos (as is usually done with atomic weapons), merely in aboveground hangars and launch facilities.

And the fact that currently the Paney Launch Base has them in a country that has illegalized nuclear weapons within it's borders. (As I gather since it's a sattelite facility, it would have some of those for launches)

Britain supports the move but asks how the situation with the new American nations will be handled, the US left the UN and no new delegations have yet arrived from the new nations. Britain will refuse to destroy ICBMs whilst other nations tsill retain them.

The provesional government of Columbia (ooc which has all of the ICBM silos) indicates that it will honor the UN agreement, as does the provesional government of New England (ooc which has all of the missile submarines)

New England, Texas, Dixie, Huron, and Columbia also have bombers, but those are not covered under the UN agreement. The North American Economic Community operates a unified Space Program which will continue to operate space launch facilities in Florida, California, and New Mexico.

Britain indicates that it will begin plans for destruction of all ICBM and large ICBM units in service, shorter ranged missiles will be retained (as will submarine missiles). Stockpile reduction will begin once all nuclear capable nations have stated their intentions and proof of destruction of weapons.

Rumania full heartedly supports the ICBM ban.

The Kingdom is now even more committed to ban any form of nuclear warfare after what the Twilight War did to the entire world...
We are not against peaceful alternative energy or any kind of peaceful scientific pursuit as long as it would produce a benefit to humanity in general. We are just against nations throwing caution to the wind any time a nation decides to be careless and foolish in nature.

Nigeria puts a resolution before the UN, calling for intervention in SUdan on the bhalf of the new and independent southern nation. "Failure to act will result in the total destruction of their nation. Only UN troops can prevent this from happening."

The Arab Federation wishes to remind the UN that the South rebelled against a democratically elected government. The Arab Federation does acknowledge that some measures introduced by the government were unfair, but hardly reason to rebel against a government they elected. International Peacekeepers are needed, however a split in the country does not reflect the wishes of the majority of Sudanese and any action towards that end by the UN would destroy the legitimacy of the UN as a neutral body.

An Additional proposal is put forward to limit the possibility of the expansion of tensions; A resolution of non-intervention to be imposed on all major blocs and powers:

1. No form of military aid, be it in the form of manpower, supplies, arms, technical, fuel, Intel, military units or otherwise, is to be given freely by any government or alliance to either side of the conflict.

2. Any Humanitarian aid will be directed by the UN administration no seperate Humanitarian aid is allowed in order to keep down on any possible windows of violation.

3. Any violations of either 1 or 2 shall be responded to by the imposition of Sanctions and/or embargos of the commerce of offending nations and/or alliances.

To help effectively impose these measures, the French Inteligence offers to coordinate with the UN in watching the area and report any signs of violation to the UN, any other Intel agency wishing to assist is more than welcome.

Nigeria agrees in principle with the proposal put forward by France, but wishes to guarantee southern independence.

We would recomend (quietly) Nigeria to allow the UN to evaluate the situation effectively before any action is taken. We are sure a settlement can be found but only if we worked together.

An Additional proposal is put forward to limit the possibility of the expansion of tensions; A resolution of non-intervention to be imposed on all major blocs and powers:

1. No form of military aid, be it in the form of manpower, supplies, arms, technical, fuel, Intel, military units or otherwise, is to be given freely by any government or alliance to either side of the conflict.

2. Any Humanitarian aid will be directed by the UN administration no seperate Humanitarian aid is allowed in order to keep down on any possible windows of violation.

3. Any violations of either 1 or 2 shall be responded to by the imposition of Sanctions and/or embargos of the commerce of offending nations and/or alliances.

To help effectively impose these measures, the French Inteligence offers to coordinate with the UN in watching the area and report any signs of violation to the UN, any other Intel agency wishing to assist is more than welcome.

The Arab Federation also agrees in principle to the proposal but reminds the UN it would be rash to recognize the Southern Government, if such a unified government exists, and for the time being continue to recognize the Provisional Government for the time being.

sufficient votes exist to pass the ICBM ban, which has a 5 year timeframe, so by 1970 there shouldn't be any ICBMs, IRBMs, or ballistic missile submarines.

The nations of Columbia, Rocky Mountain Republic and New England dismantle theirs and insist on UN observers being present

sufficient votes exist to pass the ICBM ban, which has a 5 year timeframe, so by 1970 there shouldn't be any ICBMs, IRBMs, or ballistic missile submarines.

The nations of Columbia, Rocky Mountain Republic and New England dismantle theirs and insist on UN observers being present

Korea reiterates its previous request to have its Sejong II ICBMs classified as Non-Offensive Space Launch vehicles, citing their previous use as launch platforms for the ASA only and their lack of atomic capacity throughout thier life's service.

Korea reiterates its previous request to have its Sejong II ICBMs classified as Non-Offensive Space Launch vehicles, citing their previous use as launch platforms for the ASA only and their lack of atomic capacity throughout thier life's service.

as long as UN inspectors are given routine access, and they are stored in warehouses, and not deployed as operational missiles, and used as such

which goes for everyones rockets and missiles actually

as long as UN inspectors are given routine access, and they are stored in warehouses, and not deployed as operational missiles, and used as such

which goes for everyones rockets and missiles actually

Korea happily agrees to this, saying "We've got nothing to hide."

Britain states that it will disband all it's ICBM, Improved IRBM and large ICBM units by the end of the year, but insists that 2 units of large ICBMs are kept for "space exploration purposes" (OOC: actual use will be to maintain some as the Koreans have, but will not be nuclear, will be kept in warehouses and full access will be given to the UN). British nuclear ballistics subs will also be disbanded immediately though to be kept in mothball until the end of the 5 year period (just in case).

Britain will begin production of several (probably 5) units of MRBMs next year to replace the British nuclear deterrent and notes that this is perfectly acceptable by the UN resolution, but makes the announcement to avoid any misunderstanding by foreign intelligence agencies.

OOC: Need the points urgently to rebuild my military post-war so the resolution is highly useful for me.

Australia also begins dismantling its ICBMs. Plans are debated in Parliament about what to do with the warheads, although there are several in favor of following the British example and creating a medium range detterent at some later date.

Japan and the UIR begin eliminating their missiles. Japan pours concrete into the SSBN's missile tubes and destroys the ICBM's with U.N observers.

The UIR is prepared to eliminate theirs by 1966, but like Britain, it announces it will build MRBM's

the FNS will begin dismantling its own ICBM's while the SSBN force is mothballed. They will not be destroyed just yet.

The UIR proposes that the U.N offer a formal ban on the "Little Green Book" for the following reasons:

1. The book increases anti-Muslim sentiment by devoting a chapter to making false accusitions about Muslims
2. The book has anti-democratic chapters, including verbal attacks on western governments and fascist undertones (OOC: which are still bad despite the fact that it never was as worse in the RP)

OOC:

EDIT- Running Tally:

For: 2 (UIR, Rumania)
Against: 1 (India)
Abstain: 1 (Germany)

Germany, believing that the situation is too tense for Germany to interfere (and the fact that the border is facing away from the AF), abstains from voting.

It also asks about the Permanent Security Council and the vacancy of several spots.

Rumania votes yes on the issue.

The Republic of India in 1965 proposes that the UN declare the Indian/Pakistani border permanent, unchangeable, and unalterable in anyway, shape, or form in the interests of Southwest Asian and Central Asian peace.

********

India votes no on the grounds that the UN does not have the power to ban books or micromanage and generally ridicules the proposal by reading offensive statements found in the Bible, the Qur’an, and several other notable books (Tom Sawyer for instance).

OOC: I really think that this proposal is in fact illegal and the UN has no power in this area, better wait for the Mods.

The Republic of India in 1965 proposes that the UN declare the Indian/Pakistani border permanent, unchangeable, and unalterable in anyway, shape, or form.

********

India votes no on the grounds that the UN does not have the power to ban books or micromanage and generally ridicules the proposal by reading offensive statements found in the Bible, the Qur’an, and several other notable books (Tom Sawyer for instance).


The UIR has already agreed to the borders, but reserves the right to change the borders should India and the UIR go to war.

The UIR points out that while these other readings are not portrayed on these points (with the exception of fanatics and zealots) the Little Green Book is clearly marketed

OOC: I really think that this proposal is in fact illegal and the UN has no power in this area, better wait for the Mods.

The U.N has never solidifed borders to my knowledge, its between the nations, which is why Poland liked Germany much more in RL when Germany finally recognized the borders

EDIT- actually, the U.N called for the censure of Iran after they made anti-semitic remarks (the presidentof Iran did)

The U.N has never solidifed borders to my knowledge, its between the nations, which is why Poland liked Germany much more in RL when Germany finally recognized the borders

OOC: The UN can grant countries independence, therefore it draws borders. In this time-line the UN has drawn quite a few. One thing the UN cannot do is ban books as it has no domestic police powers, at most you can do is table a resolution calling for it to be banned, which would only increase its popularity. The UN in has never ever banned a book although there have been far worse in history so it won't ban it.

OOC: The UN can grant countries independence, therefore it draws borders. In this time-line the UN has drawn quite a few. One thing the UN cannot do is ban books as it has no domestic police powers, at most you can do is table a resolution calling for it to be banned, which would only increase its popularity. The UN in has never ever banned a book although there have been far worse in history so it won't ban it.

The U.N can't grant independance, nor can it solidify borders for the rest of existence

The U.N can't grant independance, nor can it solidify borders for the rest of existence

OOC: It declared the Portugese Colonies independent.

OOC: It declared the Portugese Colonies independent.

One of the colonies went to South Africa, the other was independant, but they were based off the Portugese ruling areas, it can't just move borders or set them

OOC: Yep illegal, Article 2, section 7: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

IC: (1970) India declares the UIR proposal illegal under the UN Charter, a waste of vital UN time, and a waste of paper.

1965: India's delegate, Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit, explains that given the past conflicts in the region, the breakup of the FAS, the breakup of Pakistan, countless Central Asian wars, that the present border is in the best interests of the region and should be declared unchangable and unalterable by this august body. It is pointed out that the only reason India or the UIR may go to war in the future is over the border and so this binding resolution would prevent conflict.

OOC: I don't know whether this is legal or not, though I am leaning towards the illegal side of things, but either way I heavily doubt something like this would ever pass.

OOC: Yep illegal, Article 2, section 7: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

IC: India declares the UIR proposal illegal under the UN Charter.

the UIR declares the Indian resolution to set the borders Illegal as they fall within the jurisdiction of the nations involved.

And the UIR declares the Indian resolution to set the borders as they fall within the jurisdiction of the nations involved.

OOC: Not "And" the illegal book proposal is happening in 1970, the border proposal 1965.

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

1. The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

2. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

3. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

4. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

5. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

6. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

7. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

8. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.


The Indian delegation contends its resolution to be legal.

"Finalizing the border between India and Pakistan and declaring no alterations would be recogized is indeed an effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace..."

Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit then asks "If the UIR is truely interested in Peace with the Republic of India, why does it oppose this proposal."

India votes yes and waits for the other delegates to state their opinions/vote.

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

1. The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

2. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

3. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

4. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

5. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

6. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

7. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

8. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The Indian delegation contends its resolution to be legal.

The UIR points out that it was Section 8 that India was using, not article 7. The UIR also points to Article 1 of Section 1 which states: ...removal of threats to the peace..., Article 3 which states: ...in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;...


As for the Indian resolution the UIR points to Article 8, saying it is not legal because the borders must be agreed between the nations involved, as having the U.N forcing borders does not facilitate peace and harmony

As for the Indian resolution the UIR points to Article 8, saying it is not legal because the borders must be agreed between the nations involved, as having the U.N forcing borders does not facilitate peace and harmony

India questions why the UIR is opposed to this proposal as the borders have already been recognized, so the UN is hardly forcing borders, only pledging to uphold existing ones in the interest of peace.

The UIR points out that it was Section 8 that India was using, not article 7. The UIR also points to Article 1 of Section 1 which states: ...removal of threats to the peace..., Article 3 which states: ...in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;...

OOC: I never said Section 7 IC, it was an OOC mistake, and remember the two proposals are five years apart. Also, the Little Green Book simply states an Opinion on religion and no-where threatens violence, so it falls under Freedom of Relgion and Freedom of Speech, all issues left to the individual states to decide.

As previously described:

Chapter 10, The Islamic Swamp of Culture and Ideas: 10 Quotations
The Islamic Religion and Ideology is an evil belief system that perverts Indian Culture and poisons societies throughout the world. Where ever Islam has appeared and taken root it has been followed by social and cultural decay, leading to weakness, misery, war, poverty, and foreign domination.

OOC: I never said Section 7 IC, it was an OOC mistake, and remember the two proposals are five years apart.

Then pass it on to that time

India questions why the UIR is opposed to this proposal as the borders have already been recognized, so the UN is hardly forcing borders, only pledging to uphold existing ones in the interest of peace.

The UIR responds that they will reserve the right to change the border based on future events such as wars that might change the situation in the region

The UIR responds that they will reserve the right to change the border based on future events such as wars that might change the situation in the region

The Indian delegate accuses the UIR of having "plans of seizing sovereign Indian territory" and that is why it is opposed to this binding resolution, apparently the UIR wishes to steal the land of the Indian people. "Why else is the UIR against this binding resolution? India does not intend to go to war with the UIR and Indian people are in the majority on the Indian side and the majority of people in Pakistan are non-Indian so according to the principles of self-determination there is no cause for conflict. Also, if the situation changes the UN can always issue another resolution to take into account that change."

The Indian delegate accuses the UIR of having "plans of seizing sovereign Indian territory" and that is why it is opposed to this binding resolution, apparently the UIR wishes to steal the land of the Indian people. "Why else is the UIR against this binding resolution? India does not intend to go to war with the UIR and Indian people are in the majority on the Indian side and the majority of people in Pakistan are non-Indian so according to the principles of self-determination there is no cause for conflict. Also, if the situation changes the UN can always issue another resolution to take into account that change."

Korea's UN Delegate urges the Indian delegate to calm down, saying his reasoning is "nonsense" and "sheer paranoia."

(1965): India also tables a binding resolution establishing a five mile demilitarized zone on both sides of the Indian Pakistani border, although one currently exists with the UIR, it would be best if the agreement were international.

The Indian delegate accuses the UIR of having "plans of seizing sovereign Indian territory" and that is why it is opposed to this binding resolution, apparently the UIR wishes to steal the land of the Indian people. "Why else is the UIR against this binding resolution? India does not intend to go to war with the UIR and Indian people are in the majority on the Indian side and the majority of people in Pakistan are non-Indian so according to the principles of self-determination there is no cause for conflict. Also, if the situation changes the UN can always issue another resolution to take into account that change."

The U.N delegate, a former Pakistani leaned forward, "There occur certain situations that occur that require quick negotiating that do not need to be halted upon by the U.N's slowness at some times due to voting issues. Take for instance the Bengal region, a Muslim region ruled by Indians. If a situation were to occur, a quick decision would have to be made.
We also wish to inquire why we would want your territory? It is full of Hindu's, and we remind you we are the united ISLAMIC republic, not Hindu, although we make a point of accepting all religions and ethnicities", the UIR delegate sat back, smiling at his last barb at the Indians

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit looked puzzled. "I did not say Hindu's, I said Indian People and unlike the UIR we are not a religious Republic, India is the Republic of India, not the United Hindu Republic. Bengal is also not on the Indian/Pakistani border."


OOC: It's 1965, little green book has not been published yet and the Indian Government is only a few months old.

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit looked puzzled. "I did not say Hindu's, I said Indian People and unlike the UIR we are not a religious Republic, India is the Republic of India, not the United Hindu Republic. Bengal is also not on the Indian/Pakistani border."


OOC: It's 1965, little green book has not been published yet and the Indian Government is only a few months old.

OOC: You really need to stop switching between 1970 and 1965. Really. It's confusing and its messing up this RP.

OOC: You really need to stop switching between 1970 and 1965. Really. It's confusing and its messing up this RP.

OOC: An unfortunate occurance of the time warp and the need to rap up what occured from 1965-1969, in this case, India, insecure about its northern border, WOULD seek a solution immediately upon achieving recognition, it would not wait a few months, let alone five years.

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit looked puzzled. "I did not say Hindu's, I said Indian People and unlike the UIR we are not a religious Republic, India is the Republic of India, not the United Hindu Republic. Bengal is also not on the Indian/Pakistani border."


OOC: It's 1965, little green book has not been published yet and the Indian Government is only a few months old.

"Nevertheless a section of your country is overwhelmingly (80-88%, reports vary) Muslim, the point I am trying to make is that if these people were to feel oppressed in any way, as the Hindus did, they could cause a lot of problems, and the situation would need to be alleviated quickly"

The UIR proposes that the U.N offer a formal ban on the "Little Green Book" for the following reasons:

1. The book increases anti-Muslim sentiment by devoting a chapter to making false accusitions about Muslims
2. The book has anti-democratic chapters, including verbal attacks on western governments and fascist undertones (OOC: which are still bad despite the fact that it never was as worse in the RP)

OOC:

EDIT- Running Tally:

For: 2 (UIR, Rumania)
Against: 1 (India)
Abstain: 1 (Germany)

Quebec votes yes.

"Nevertheless a section of your country is overwhelmingly (80-88%, reports vary) Muslim, the point I am trying to make is that if these people were to feel oppressed in any way, as the Hindus did, they could cause a lot of problems, and the situation would need to be alleviated quickly"

“That is not relevant to this discussion as Bengal is on the other side of the country and not on the Indian/Pakistani border.”

OOC: An unfortunate occurance of the time warp and the need to rap up what occured from 1965-1969, in this case, India, insecure about its northern border, WOULD seek a solution immediately upon achieving recognition, it would not wait a few months, let alone five years.

OOC:

By your Northern border do you mean Kashmir? Because it's independent right now. I also believe Khalistan is as well.

Quebec votes yes.

OOC: Look, we have been over this, the book does not call for violence, it simply expresses a relgious/historical opinion (no different from the Bible or Quran) and thus cannot be banned, if this Resolution goes forward it would have to be NON-BINDING.

OOC:

By your Northern border do you mean Kashmir? Because it's independent right now. I also believe Khalistan is as well.

OOC: Kashimir I believe to be part of the UIR, and yes, I mean those places as well. The entire Indian Northern Border with Pakistan/UIR.

OOC:

By your Northern border do you mean Kashmir? Because it's independent right now. I also believe Khalistan is as well.

Khalistan's mine, I think Kashmir was meant to be independant

The Scandic Union, though increasingly close to the UIR, will vote against the proposal as we do not believe the U.N. has the right to ban a book.

Khalistan's mine, I think Kashmir was meant to be independant

OOC: Oh its going to be independant...

IC: The resolution would also apply to the borders of Kashmir, which wishes to be independent.

OOC: Look, we have been over this, the book does not call for violence, it simply expresses a relgious/historical opinion (no different from the Bible or Quran) and thus cannot be banned, if this Resolution goes forward it would have to be NON-BINDING.

OOC: It preaches hatred. When this book comes out, you will've instantly alienated your Muslim population (which includes many industrialists in Mumbai and Agra, unless you killed them), and while I know this Resolution is pretty ineffective, I'm trying to show that the oppressed Muslims will have the sense of international support. I wouldn't mind if this book wasn't created by the dictator who seized power by overthrowing and possibly killing her own democratically elected father, but it is.

OOC: It preaches hatred. When this book comes out, you will've instantly alienated your Muslim population (which includes many industrialists in Mumbai and Agra, unless you killed them), and while I know this Resolution is pretty ineffective, I'm trying to show that the oppressed Muslims will have the sense of international support. I wouldn't mind if this book wasn't created by the dictator who seized power by overthrowing and possibly killing her own democratically elected father, but it is.

OOC: She is not a dictator, she did not kill her Father, her Father died in 1965 of natural causes after appointing his daughter Prime Minister in 1964. President Nehru was NOT killed in the Revolution, read the Revolution post, General Khan was killed. Nehru switched sides and thus was the Republic of India's first President. Her Government/Party then won the 1965 elections.

OOC: She is not a dictator, she did not kill her Father, her Father died in 1965 of natural causes after appointing his daughter Prime Minister in 1964. President Nehru was NOT killed in the Revolution, read the Revolution post, General Khan was killed. Nehru switched sides and thus was the Republic of India's first President. Her Government/Party then won the 1965 elections.

When they changed the laws to keep her in power longer

When they changed the laws to keep her in power longer

OOC: Her father died Jan. 8th 1965 and, as there was no Vice President, Indira Ghandi was appointed President in addition to being Prime Minister (the legality of which is in doubt but moot as India during that time did not have a functioning Constitution), then India's Constitution had to be reinstated and altered after elections, it being the former FAS and Pakistan Constitution after all, so her supporters amended her five year Presidential term to an eight year term (yes it is a power grab, but a democratic one). Elections are due in 1972.

OOC: She is not a dictator, she did not kill her Father, her Father died in 1965 of natural causes after appointing his daughter Prime Minister in 1964. President Nehru was NOT killed in the Revolution, read the Revolution post, General Khan was killed. Nehru switched sides and thus was the Republic of India's first President. Her Government/Party then won the 1965 elections.

OOC: When the fuck did this happen?

I hate how you and GB made a series of totally weird events happen in my own country without my consent! Nowhere did I read that Nehru, who was democratically elected and supported the war with Russia, appointed his daughter Prime Minister and died of natural causes in 1965. Why do you assume that all Hindus were against the war? The elite of Pakistan were all for the war; it wasnt the Hindus who were against the war; it was the poor. Thats why most communists voted against it, but the politicians in the other parties, all being members of the elite, voted for it.

I'm the only person who really understands why this war was declared; it was in order for the Pakistani economy to receive a war-time economy boost during the great depression, because without it the economy was falling to pieces fast. Also, the Pakistanis figured having a buffer state between them and Russia was better than Having a russian-puppet (or even Russia itself) on its border, since in EVERY SINGLE war India had been involved in since the turn of the century, Russia invaded (Great War 2) or did catastrophic damage to the cities and agriculture (Great War 3). Thirdly, as you will soon find out, there is a balance between the Military and the People in the Indian subcontinent. The military is, and always has been, a key role in Indian society. However, there are hundreds of millions of people; a very powerful force. One needs to appease both; therefore, I tried to do so; I gave the military more funding and gave them a war to fight, and I gave the people contintuing (eventually it was going to be increasing) social services. Unfortunatly, I overestimated my armies ability to hold the most defensive terrain on earth, and I underestimated the almost non-existant Hindu extremism movement, but since GB said that the group went from almost non-existant to the dominant political force, I must be going crazy...

OOC: Move all the damn freakin OCC remarks to main thread, this is a freakin IC thread...for goodness stakes.