Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The United Nations Old Guard. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do you feel you can support this?
Yes 1 (50%)
No 1 (50%)
Total Votes: 2
United Nations Reduced Arms Proposal (UNRAP); Proposal re-submitted, requires support
Topic Started: Nov 17 2004, 05:19 PM (151 Views)
Telidia
Member Avatar

Members
Quote:
 
Description: Co-Authorship: The Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria

Whereas the United Nations realizes the need to reduce the threat of nuclear, and chemical weapons, and
Whereas the United Nations wishes to ensure the safety of societies around the globe,
We, the member nations of the Nation States United Nations do hereby:

DESIGNATES that this proposal applies only to weapons of nuclear, or chemical natures hereafter known as NC.
DEFINES initiates as meaning 'first strike'.
ENCOURAGES all UN member nations to enact similar arms reduction pacts with their non-UN military allies.
RECOGNIZE the previously passed resolution 'Elimination of Bio-Weapons'.
ADOPT the following terms of reduced arms:

First Strike Clause: All UN member nations will agree to abide by a policy that no NC will be used to initiate an attack against any other Nation State nation. All UN members will retain the right to: launch pre-emptive strikes with conventional arms of any type, and use NC weapons as retaliation against any NC attack.

'Declaration of War' Clause: Any initiated NC attack against any UN member will be considered a Declaration of War upon the whole UN and met with immediate retaliation.
SC A: Attacked member nations will be eligible for immediate aid of all forms.
SC B: Support shall not extend to UN member nations who initiate NC attacks against other nations.
SC C: Retaliatory attacks should be as minimally destructive as necessary to the defense and/or military success of the attacked member nation.

Arms Reduction Clause: Member nations commit to a 30% reduction of their individual stockpiles of nuclear, and chemical weapons within 10 years.
SC A:This reduction does not include stockpiles which have become unusable or unstable.

International Oversight Council (IOC) Clause: All member nations will present an accounting as to the quantity and security of NC weapons biennially.
SC A: The UN will form the IOC to oversee these reports and security investigations. Any member nations in good standing may apply for positions in this council. The IOC will seat new members once every five years.
SC B: Nations with suspected security concern, receiving 3+ verifiable accusations of mishandling, will consent to security protocol inspections for a period of 2 years.
SC C: Member nations will submit biennial reports of reduction, showing actions taken to properly dispose of weaponry, and account for arms reduced due to aging and/or instability.

Space Exploration Clause: In the interest of advanced nations, all nuclear weapons in use and classified as 'space technologies' will be excluded from their stockpile numbers.
SC A: No country may keep more than twice the necessary number of nuclear weapons in their 'space technologies' programs. The necessary number will be accessed biennially and included in the stockpile reports submitted to the IOC.

Depleted Uranium Clause: The above terms do not currently include depleted uranium ammunitions or armaments.
SC A: Be it resolved that the matter of depleted uranium armaments will not be further addressed until an equally effective and financially viable option has been adopted individually by more than 45% of the UN member nations.


I’m note sure if anyone remembers this proposal by Whited Fields, but it seems it has been resurrected. I recall it had good support previously and personally I feel it is worth some consideration. In the previous debate I stated that we should perhaps consider passing some form of nuclear disarmament proposal, if only to stop something much harder to deal with being passed. Nuclear disarmament will always be at the top of proposal authors lists and the sooner that hatch is closed the better I feel.
UNOG Lurker:
I fade in then I fade out, but I'm always about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ecopoeia
Member Avatar
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
Grumpy Old Men
There's much to recommend it, though the pedant in me is tutting at some of the grammatical errors in the introduction. I'd be inclined to offer my support, but I'm interested in other views (maybe I should spend more time in the UN forum - slapped wrist).
Enough is as good as a feast

To Ill-Advisedly Go!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hersfold
Member Avatar

Members
I didn't really notice any severe grammar errors, but I will approve this. It's well-written, and seems as though it will be effective.
The United Federation of Hersfold
UN Member
Deputy Minister of Culture and Education, The North Pacific
Author, UN Resolution #54, UN Educational Committee
Author, Deleted Resolution, Olympic Games
Department Head, UN Affairs, The Lemurian University
Assistant Editor-in-Chief, The North Pacific Wire
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Knootoss
Member Avatar
Klingon-hater
Members
Hmm. I'd never support this anyway. Do not see the need for it.
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telidia
Member Avatar

Members
Knootoss,Nov 18 2004
08:28 PM
Hmm. I'd never support this anyway. Do not see the need for it.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. I’d be most grateful if you could expand as to the reasons why you feel you would not vote for it. It is important I gather as much opinions on this draft as possible.

Thanks in advance and thank you also to those who have already given their comments. Much appreciated.
UNOG Lurker:
I fade in then I fade out, but I'm always about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toriella Thiten

Members
Generally I have no problem with it, but there is one statement that I am either going to have to question as to it's meaning, or ask to be removed/edited to ensure we can comply.

Emova Malna Mathr - this is the national motto of TilEnca. It translates as "Death before war". What it means is that, as a nation, we are unwilling to go to war with anyone unless they are actually attacking out people. We have a long history of bloodshed and violance, and have decided, as a people, that we would rather die than start the cycle again.

(However if we are invaded, or attacked as a prelude to invasion, we will fight to the last of us to protect our home land. Just incase anyone was thinking that we are a nation ripe for conquest)

So the phrase that says (I paraphrase here) "An attack on any member nation will be considered an attack on the UN and retalliation will be swift" is a potential problem.

Does it mean that if another UN member nation is attacked, we are required to delcare war on the nation that attacked them?

If it does, then I am afraid we would be unable and unwilling to fulfil our obligation under this resolution.

If however it relates to aid (humanitarian aid only) then we can supply that with a smile on our face and a song in our heart (if you will excuse the imagery that produces) . We could not supply military aid however, as that would be seen to be taking sides.

So - can anyone clear up this issue?
Toriella Thiten the Third,
The Office of The President
The careful application of terror is also a form of communication
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HotRodia
Member Avatar
Mr. UNiverse
Grumpy Old Men
I'm rather curious about something. Why do U.N. members need other states to protect them when, as per the Rights and Duties of UN States resolution, we are supposed to use IGNORE cannons on the pesky buggers?
"The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telidia
Member Avatar

Members
Whilst I am not the expert in this proposal, I will nevertheless try and answer some of my esteemed colleagues concerns as best I can. Thank you also for the valued comments.

Ecopoeia
 
There's much to recommend it, though the pedant in me is tutting at some of the grammatical errors in the introduction. I'd be inclined to offer my support, but I'm interested in other views (maybe I should spend more time in the UN forum - slapped wrist).


Thank you for drawing attention to the grammatical errors and rest assured they will be dealt with before this proposal is re-submitted. I also feel some better formatting to make it more legible would also be appropriate. I will make a list of comments and pass them on the proposal’s author. If you would be so kind as to point out some errors you have spotted I would be grateful, just in case I miss something.

Torriella Thiten
 
So the phrase that says (I paraphrase here) "An attack on any member nation will be considered an attack on the UN and retalliation will be swift" is a potential problem.

Does it mean that if another UN member nation is attacked, we are required to delcare war on the nation that attacked them?

If it does, then I am afraid we would be unable and unwilling to fulfil our obligation under this resolution.


Indeed your analysis of that clause is correct and must admit I do share your concerns regarding this. In the UN debate currently and previously when this proposal was brought to the floor I objected to turning the whole of the UN in to a military alliance.

That said I believe the aim of this clause is to set an absolute deterrent to anyone thinking of using nuclear weapons against a member state. Particularly considering that our non-member friends outweigh us three to one. I am not sure if the proposal author would consider revising this clause to something like “Strongly urges or Encourages” thus providing a choice for members. Would this perhaps go some way to help relieve your concerns?

For myself I have been grappling with this issue also, though I have been weighing this clause against the possibility that the UN may pass a rather unconsidered ‘complete ban’ resolution like the one previously defeated. In my reasoning the potential harm that could bring I felt, counter balanced my ethical objections. I assure you this ‘trade off’ took some soul searching and I therefore respect your objection completely.

HotRodia
 
I'm rather curious about something. Why do U.N. members need other states to protect them when, as per the Rights and Duties of UN States resolution, we are supposed to use IGNORE cannons on the pesky buggers?


Thank you for bringing up this important point though my understanding is that it is not a requirement, but rather a suggestion and sets up conditions for good ‘in game’ RP etiquette. I herewith include an excerpt from the resolution.

”Resolution 49
Rights & Duties of UN States”
Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.


For anyone wanting to look it up, it is on page 10

I sincerely thank everyone for taking the time to reply and look forward to hearing any further comments. My aim here is to formulate an agenda for change, which I will then take to the proposal author for consideration in the hope that the proposal can refined and a consensus reached by the member body. Your expertise in matters is therefore invaluable in that process.
UNOG Lurker:
I fade in then I fade out, but I'm always about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Knootoss
Member Avatar
Klingon-hater
Members
Telidia,Nov 18 2004
08:56 PM
Knootoss,Nov 18 2004
08:28 PM
Hmm. I'd never support this anyway. Do not see the need for it.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. I’d be most grateful if you could expand as to the reasons why you feel you would not vote for it. It is important I gather as much opinions on this draft as possible.

Thanks in advance and thank you also to those who have already given their comments. Much appreciated.

Well, I did not respond because the reasons would not serve to better your proposal anyway. They are (in order from mild objection to crippling reason to vote no):

  • Strong doubts about UN-enforced weapons embargoes in principle.
  • Unwillingnes to cede UN control to Knootian nuclear armaments (even for checking) given the fact that he has little trust in NS nations. This is not RL earth and the UN has many dumb people.
  • No way in hell will I automatically declare war on anyone. Not for any alliance. Even NATO does not have that thing. This creates, de facto, a military UN alliance.
  • Knootian nukes RETALLIATING on a third nation with nukes just because they launched a first strike in a conflict in which I am totally uninvolved? No way. Really, no fucking way.
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toriella Thiten

Members
Telidia,Nov 19 2004
05:00 PM
That said I believe the aim of this clause is to set an absolute deterrent to anyone thinking of using nuclear weapons against a member state. Particularly considering that our non-member friends outweigh us three to one. I am not sure if the proposal author would consider revising this clause to something like “Strongly urges or Encourages” thus providing a choice for members. Would this perhaps go some way to help relieve your concerns?

It would, yes.
Thank you.
Toriella Thiten the Third,
The Office of The President
The careful application of terror is also a form of communication
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ecopoeia
Member Avatar
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
Grumpy Old Men
I'm inclined to agree with Knootoss. Don't tell CACE...
Enough is as good as a feast

To Ill-Advisedly Go!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Knootoss
Member Avatar
Klingon-hater
Members
Ecopoeia,Nov 22 2004
04:00 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Knootoss. Don't tell CACE...

Hey, at least you can refute them in the flame threads. ;)
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telidia
Member Avatar

Members
I thank everyone for taking the time in providing comment. I will formulate an agenda and discuss the points raised here with the proposal’s author. My current understanding is that the proposal is being re-drafted. I will keep you abreast of matters as they develop.

Thanks again.
UNOG Lurker:
I fade in then I fade out, but I'm always about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Proposal Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply