Nuclear Security Summit

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:27 am

The Defense Minister immediately responded,

"Well, if we decide to go into signing a treaty and other nations would refuse to sign, our nation will absolutely not ratify a treaty that will not be binding to all. But if we go via a regional law, we will support it since if it's a regional law, all member states will be legally accountable but we have to be careful not to infringe sovereignty rights guaranteed by the regional constitution.

We also agree with Novo Canuckia's stance that nuclear weapons development and even nuclear energy development is not just an issue of national sovereignty since if any accident or attacks have been committed, the effects will not just affect the host country but as well as other neighboring countries. With this argument, I believe that even if a nation challenges a law about nuclear regulation due to constitutional rights of sovereignty, we could use the argument of Novo Canuckia to struck down any opposition to nuclear regulation since it's a global issue."
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:43 am

"I feel that I must disagree, despite our nation's peaceful ways, we would want the ability to produce any weapon we would like. Our nation would quickly strike down a Security Council Resolution to end or limit our or any other nation's nuclear capabilities."
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:01 am

Schorr wrote:"I feel that I must disagree, despite our nation's peaceful ways, we would want the ability to produce any weapon we would like. Our nation would quickly strike down a Security Council Resolution to end or limit our or any other nation's nuclear capabilities."

"It is disappointing to hear such statement of disregarding peace for the sake of weapons development from the nation sitting as the region's international presidency. We believe that this regulation will benefit the entire region in the long run. You could still produce any weapons you wish but when it comes to nuclear technology, that is what we are trying to resolve here," the Defense Minister responded.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:12 am

"Whoa, my friend. Please try not to question my motivations in the future. As a staunch conservative and leaning libertarian, I believe that as long as a nation has shown responsibility it maintains the right to make their own choices. That is simply my view, just because it differs from yours does not mean it does not mean it should be disappointing."
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Unovia on Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:19 am

Connors had been sitting there for quite some time, just listening. He chose to speak. "Excuse me, President Schorr. The intent of this treaty is not to limit what weapons you make, as you claim. The intent of this meeting and treaty is to regulate the use of nuclear weapons inside the region."
He looked at the other delegates. "Who among you would want to use nuclear weapons inside the region against your neighbors? As i see it, it would lead to instability. We in the World Alliance must be able to prove that a region can have nuclear weapons but not use them against each other. This treaty would create a new era of friendship and diplomacy. If we could take nukes off of the table, and deal with each other peacefully, it would benefit us all. This treaty would be binding to us all. We welcome dissenting opinions. We must have all opinioms represented here to create a treaty that can apply to all of us."
He sat back to listen.
avatar
Unovia
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 65
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:25 am

"I understand this Mr. Connors, but my nation and I'm sure most a lot of others would always want to have their options open, a law binding nation's nuclear weapons from use is a restriction that I could not support for the sake of my own people. I would approve of passing a law in which we could take inventory of which nations have nuclear weapons and how many they have.
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Unovia on Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:02 pm

Connors replied, "Your concern is valid, President Schorr. I am not saying it would be easy. I am just thinking if we can move toward the restriction of internal use, that would be great. If all that comes is a registry, that would be great as well."
avatar
Unovia
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 65
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:16 pm

"I think a registry is a fair compromise"
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  New-Zealand on Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:24 pm

I for one know that my nation is completely Nuclear Free and will remain to be nuclear free for centuries to come. We beleive that Nuclear devices, especially those with malacious intent such as WMD's, should be banned. Nuclear weapons are barbaric and inhumane. We till this day will not allow ANY ships/planes nuclear powered or capable into our waters, Even if they are Schorrian. I motion for a total ban on all Nuclear Weapons.
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:27 pm

"I'm sorry my friend but that is preposterous, in the world we live in, nuclear weapons have unfortunately become necessary."
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  New-Zealand on Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:30 pm

Meh, Cant blame a guy for trying right? Either way, NZ will always be Nuke Free.
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:35 pm

"I respect that immensely, good try though!"
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:59 pm

The Defense Minister interrupted, "Well, the registry is totally useless. Any nation could willingly declare wrong information on the number of nuclear weapons. We should forget it as an option if we cannot provide any punishment for such regulation."
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:42 am

"The other option is to make a treaty that would end the use of nuclear weapons in region. It should not be Security Council law though. Just an optional treaty."
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Zakiristan. on Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:43 am

Schorr wrote:"The other option is to make a treaty that would end the use of nuclear weapons in region. It should not be Security Council law though. Just an optional treaty."
That could work but what of the hostile nations who will refuse to sign this treaty.
avatar
Zakiristan.
Powerbroker

Posts : 148
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 26
Location : Washington d.c

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=zakiristan

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:19 am

"That does not mean they are hostile, it means they feel that they owe it to their people to keep nuclear weapons. In fact, that would include me. I, personally would not want to sign such a treaty and why should I, or any other unwilling nation have to?"
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Zakiristan. on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:21 am

Schorr wrote:"That does not mean they are hostile, it means they feel that they owe it to their people to keep nuclear weapons. In fact, that would include me. I, personally would not want to sign such a treaty and why should I, or any other unwilling nation have to?"
Very wise...very wise indeed
avatar
Zakiristan.
Powerbroker

Posts : 148
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 26
Location : Washington d.c

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=zakiristan

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Unovia on Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:22 am

Connors said, "Wow...everyone calm down. Like I said at the beginning of this Conference, we want to ban the use of the weapons IN REGION! Outside of the region is something else. We could do a steady disarmament or ban the creation of any new nuclear warheads. It all depends on you and your positions in the matter."
avatar
Unovia
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 65
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Huperzia on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:49 am

Schorr wrote:"That does not mean they are hostile, it means they feel that they owe it to their people to keep nuclear weapons. In fact, that would include me. I, personally would not want to sign such a treaty and why should I, or any other unwilling nation have to?"

It's much more than this - Huperzians decide what happens in Huperzia. Worry about what happens in your nation, not ours
avatar
Huperzia
Powerbroker

Posts : 131
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:02 pm

Isn't that what I said
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:01 pm

"That is basically the problem honorable leaders! We keep on saying that we decide for the future of our nations and yet you are here present in this conference which aims to gain the consensus of everybody. What's the point of participating when some are not even willing to compromise for the good of the region?

In the case of nuclear weapons, if a nation was bombed using it and its effects spills over to other countries? Is it still the case of we decide our own fate? Is that what a responsible country do?

In the case of nuclear meltdown from power plants, if a nation experiences it and its effects spills over to neighboring countries? Is it still a case of we decide our own fate thing? Is that what a responsible country should really be doing?

If we wish to make our region safer from nuclear technology disadvantages, a treaty won't work and Eurussia won't even sign it if it will not obliged all nations. If we push for a regional law on it, that will definitely obliged all member states of the World Alliance,"
the Defense Minister stated.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Unovia on Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:03 pm

Ben Connors saw the Conference falling apart. "We must pass a nuclear proliferation treaty, as this may be the only time we can pass a law of this nature. As we see it, we need this law to be passed. Instead of completely blocking it, why don't the nations here bring up what they would be willing to do to pass the law...
Even in the nations that oppose this law, maybe we can pass a law rhat will allow all participants to pass varying degrees of control over their nuclear arsenals. With all of our disagreements, certainly we can agree on one thing...one idea...the idea of making sure that terrorists do not get a nuclear weapon.
I challenge the nations assembled here that do not agree with our proposed law to come up with an alternative proposal that we can all discuss, or maybe come up with an aspect to the law that you all can agree to to pass the law."
avatar
Unovia
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 65
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:07 pm

"We are here for the good of the region and am certainly willing to compromise. Who has come up with a compromise for me to agree to? We are in discussions and I am expressing my opinion. Until you realize that opinions will differ, nothing can get done. We are here to come up with something but we also want to guard our soveriegnty.
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Unovia on Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:19 pm

Connors said, "President Schorr, what would you need to be included in the law for you to agree to the law, considering that we are not questioning the soverignty of nations? Can you tell us what you would agree to?"
avatar
Unovia
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 65
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Ronald on Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:22 pm

President Schorr gets up quickly. "I'm sorry my friends but I must leave for the Broatian Space Federation. Good day, and Mr. Connors thank you for hosting the conference. Ambassador Tina Jennings will take my place." A young, intense woman walks in. "Hello Gentlemen, my nation will agree to a law which binds nations from making preemptive nuclear strikes on a nation that has not attacked them in any way. We would support tighter safety restrictions on power plants as well."
avatar
Ronald
Powerbroker

Posts : 201
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Nuclear Security Summit

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum