(Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  New Rhodinia on Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:38 am

In response to the recent calamities involving nuclear weapons, New Rhodinia would like to propose a revival of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Act previously put in motion by Xolox. We'd like to further reiterate that nuclear weapons are not beneficial to anyone; they are simply tools to increase national pride and are essentially "showoff weapons". The consequences of using such weapons are far more vast then the results they intend to apply.

Here is Xolox's previously proposed law:

Xolox wrote:
World Alliance Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Section 1
All political entities, nations, countries or institutions are prohibited from possessing or producing any type of nuclear weapons or any other nuclear powered explosive that can be used to inflict harm upon a nation or the environment.

Section 2
Any nuclear weapons that any political entities, nations, countries or institutions are currently in possession of must be relocated to a neutral location where the Security Council can handle disarming and destroying them.

Section 3
Any political entities, nations, countries or institutions that are found producing or in possession of nuclear weapons will be subject to the consequences provided by the Security Council.


Last edited by New Rhodinia on Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:53 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
New Rhodinia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 324
Join date : 2014-09-22

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Xolox on Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:50 am

As the author, Xolox supports this initiative.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  DPRNK on Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:14 pm

Against all country should have the right to have this weapon to protect our Korrean people
avatar
DPRNK
Regional Power

Posts : 419
Join date : 2014-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Apepistan on Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:34 pm

The United Kingdoms of Apepistan would also like to see a world without nuclear weapons. However, going through this procedure seems impossible, or at least, raises many questions: Who would be the first nation who would take the risk of disarming itself from the most devastating weapon known to mankind?
Who would handle the disarming? An international committee?
Which nations will send delegations or supply defense forces to the operations?
Where would this neutral zone be?
Would the nations who sacrifice their nuclear weapons for the greater good receive compensation? If so, would it be aligned to the amount of nuclear weapons disarmed?

Until these questions are all answered and agreed upon, we think that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is the only solid guarantee against a nuclear war. As a first step against nuclear weaponry, and until the problems above are solved, the nations could agree not to produce or develop any more nuclear weapons.

Summa summarum, the United Kingdoms of Apepistan strongly support this act.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

NOTICE

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:24 pm

The proposal is open for debate and revisions for three (3) days. A vote will be called thereafter. Thank you.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:26 pm

Apepistan wrote:The United Kingdoms of Apepistan would also like to see a world without nuclear weapons. However, going through this procedure seems impossible, or at least, raises many questions: Who would be the first nation who would take the risk of disarming itself from the most devastating weapon known to mankind?
Who would handle the disarming? An international committee?
Which nations will send delegations or supply defense forces to the operations?
Where would this neutral zone be?
Would the nations who sacrifice their nuclear weapons for the greater good receive compensation? If so, would it be aligned to the amount of nuclear weapons disarmed?

Until these questions are all answered and agreed upon, we think that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is the only solid guarantee against a nuclear war. As a first step against nuclear weaponry, and until the problems above are solved, the nations could agree not to produce or develop any more nuclear weapons.


Eurussia seconds the views of Apepistan. We also suggest that the title be amended accordingly as 'WA International Disarmament Act" is very misleading and would be proper if the "WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act" will still be used for this purpose.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  New Rhodinia on Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:26 am

Apepistan wrote:Who would be the first nation who would take the risk of disarming itself from the most devastating weapon known to mankind?
Who would handle the disarming? An international committee?
Which nations will send delegations or supply defense forces to the operations?
Where would this neutral zone be?
Would the nations who sacrifice their nuclear weapons for the greater good receive compensation? If so, would it be aligned to the amount of nuclear weapons disarmed?

1. Why not simultaneously? If it's the fear that if one disarms another fires, then we just do it at the same time.

2 (and 3). I had the WAPF in mind. They would seem like a perfect team to handle the operations.

4. The neutral zone would most likely be in a remote part of the region where no nation would be affected by any radiation. Further planning will have to take place, but it's a good start.

5. This will also need some planning. In my opinion, destroying a nuclear warhead shouldn't entitle you to something else; you're not trading one in for another product, otherwise this would be called the Free Nuclear Trade Act or something along those lines.

Hopefully that answered most of your concerns.
avatar
New Rhodinia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 324
Join date : 2014-09-22

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Apepistan on Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:48 pm

New Rhodinia wrote:
1. Why not simultaneously? If it's the fear that if one disarms another fires, then we just do it at the same time.

2 (and 3). I had the WAPF in mind. They would seem like a perfect team to handle the operations.

4. The neutral zone would most likely be in a remote part of the region where no nation would be affected by any radiation. Further planning will have to take place, but it's a good start.

5. This will also need some planning. In my opinion, destroying a nuclear warhead shouldn't entitle you to something else; you're not trading one in for another product, otherwise this would be called the Free Nuclear Trade Act or something along those lines.

Hopefully that answered most of your concerns.

1. - Sounds acceptable; Apepistan's suggestion would be that nuclear arms will be disarmed by X steps. Instead of a certain number, we set a % of nuclear weapons which states need to disarm with every step. That way all nations would disarm at the same rate.

2/3. - Agreed.

4. - Agreed again. Apepistan proposes that the nations create a Radioactive Waste Management Agency in order to make the whole process cause the least harm to environment.

5.- Disagreed. No matter how we look at it, nuclear weapons are still weapons, which makes them a part of Arms Industry and Trade. By banning and disarming all nuclear weapons, some nations market and industry could suffer, and all the finances and specialised personell maintaining and producing these weapons, along with their equipment, storage, security, etc., would go in vain.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  New Rhodinia on Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:08 am

Apepistan wrote:5.- Disagreed. No matter how we look at it, nuclear weapons are still weapons, which makes them a part of Arms Industry and Trade. By banning and disarming all nuclear weapons, some nations market and industry could suffer, and all the finances and specialized personnel maintaining and producing these weapons, along with their equipment, storage, security, etc., would go in vain.

Then it's a plus. Nations that rely heavily on it will have to consider other options to raise revenue. Nuclear weaponry is a small chunk of a nation's economy (if at all), so removing it entirely won't be a huge hit to the economy if about 20 other areas are keeping it afloat. It's like if you had to get rid of something from your car and you removed the side mirrors. The car still runs, right?
avatar
New Rhodinia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 324
Join date : 2014-09-22

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Xolox on Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:17 am

There are already designated neutral zones on the map. Compensating nations that give up their nuclear weapons would be stupid. If this law passes, they will not be voluntarily "sacrificing" their weapons. They will be mandatorily surrending weapons that, if they wasted large amounts of resources making, makes them suspect anyway.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Zanland on Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:21 am

Favor
avatar
Zanland
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 85
Join date : 2014-09-05
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Apepistan on Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:32 pm

Xolox wrote:There are already designated neutral zones on the map. Compensating nations that give up their nuclear weapons would be stupid. If this law passes, they will not be voluntarily "sacrificing" their weapons. They will be mandatorily surrending weapons that, if they wasted large amounts of resources making, makes them suspect anyway.

As a member of the Roman Alliance, the United Kingdoms of Apepistan trust that the representative of Arcadia, New Rhodinia will act in the best interest for the Roman Alliance and the whole World Alliance aswell. Thus, no matter the decision in this subject, the U.K.A. will support it.
avatar
Apepistan
Regional Power

Posts : 439
Join date : 2014-09-27
Location : Budapest, Hungary

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Snarfian Federation on Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:56 am

favor
avatar
Snarfian Federation
Regional Power

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-07-21
Location : Somewhere in a galaxy far far away...

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  DPRNK on Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:36 am

Not in favor
avatar
DPRNK
Regional Power

Posts : 419
Join date : 2014-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  chivalry on Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:04 am

in favor
avatar
chivalry
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-02-06

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Empire of Articmainia on Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:13 am

In favor
avatar
Empire of Articmainia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 397
Join date : 2013-04-08
Age : 18
Location : New orleans USA

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Serenarea on Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:59 am

Serenarea is in favor
avatar
Serenarea
Powerbroker

Posts : 179
Join date : 2014-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  DPRNK on Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:07 pm

Not in favor because nuclear weapons stop country in invading each other so we must have nuke! Go for nuke!
avatar
DPRNK
Regional Power

Posts : 419
Join date : 2014-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  New Rhodinia on Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:11 pm

You've made your point already; making the same point multiple times doesn't improve your chances.
avatar
New Rhodinia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 324
Join date : 2014-09-22

Back to top Go down

NOTICE

Post  Great Eurussia on Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:46 am

As the debate period lapsed, a vote is hereby called. The voting period will last for two (2) days and all uncast votes will be considered abstentions.

So far the STATUS OF VOTES are:

* Pending - (4) - Eurussia, Muchos Estados Unidos, China China, New Rhodinia

* Yes - (6) - Xolox, Zanland, Snarfia, Chivalry, Articmainia, Serenarea

No - (1) - North Korreaa

Abstain - (0) 


* NOTE: Eight votes are required for the proposal to pass.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  New Rhodinia on Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:08 am

1. China already voted against it.
2. My creation of the proposal doesn't count as me being in favor of it?
3. I thought you had already agreed to it seeing as how you followed Apepistan's vote (which was in favor).
avatar
New Rhodinia
Emerging Regional Power

Posts : 324
Join date : 2014-09-22

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Shlask on Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:00 am

I know I don't have a vote in the matter, but at least hear what I have to say, the problem is that if we completely remove nuclear weapons from the picture, the only thing limiting a country's conquest would be treaties, and even those can be broken. The threat of nuclear war is a good deterrent for war. I think this treaty should be rewritten with a more limiting nature.

Something like, Nations may have a limited supply of nuclear weapons, but if any nation decides to use them against another nation with no valid cause, they will be condemned by the world powers as committing an act of treason against humanity, and will be subject to the consequences provided by the Security Council.

Something like that.
avatar
Shlask
Recognized State

Posts : 31
Join date : 2014-10-23

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Xolox on Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:05 am

Shlask wrote:I know I don't have a vote in the matter, but at least hear what I have to say, the problem is that if we completely remove nuclear weapons from the picture, the only thing limiting a country's conquest would be treaties, and even those can be broken. The threat of nuclear war is a good deterrent for war. I think this treaty should be rewritten with a more limiting nature.

Something like, Nations may have a limited supply of nuclear weapons, but if any nation decides to use them against another nation with no valid cause, they will be condemned by the world powers as committing an act of treason against humanity, and will be subject to the consequences provided by the Security Council.

Something like that.

The problem with that is, by the time we are able to punish them, they have already permanently scarred our planet.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Shlask on Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:18 am

Xolox wrote:
Shlask wrote:I know I don't have a vote in the matter, but at least hear what I have to say, the problem is that if we completely remove nuclear weapons from the picture, the only thing limiting a country's conquest would be treaties, and even those can be broken. The threat of nuclear war is a good deterrent for war. I think this treaty should be rewritten with a more limiting nature.

Something like, Nations may have a limited supply of nuclear weapons, but if any nation decides to use them against another nation with no valid cause, they will be condemned by the world powers as committing an act of treason against humanity, and will be subject to the consequences provided by the Security Council.

Something like that.

The problem with that is, by the time we are able to punish them, they have already permanently scarred our planet.
Yes that is true, but It also would protect much smaller nations from conquest against much larger, and powerful nations. Not by using them, but as a deterrent.
avatar
Shlask
Recognized State

Posts : 31
Join date : 2014-10-23

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Xolox on Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:19 am

Shlask wrote:
Xolox wrote:
Shlask wrote:I know I don't have a vote in the matter, but at least hear what I have to say, the problem is that if we completely remove nuclear weapons from the picture, the only thing limiting a country's conquest would be treaties, and even those can be broken. The threat of nuclear war is a good deterrent for war. I think this treaty should be rewritten with a more limiting nature.

Something like, Nations may have a limited supply of nuclear weapons, but if any nation decides to use them against another nation with no valid cause, they will be condemned by the world powers as committing an act of treason against humanity, and will be subject to the consequences provided by the Security Council.

Something like that.

The problem with that is, by the time we are able to punish them, they have already permanently scarred our planet.
Yes that is true, but It also would protect much smaller nations from conquest against much larger, and powerful nations. Not by using them, but as a deterrent.

You can rely on our member states. Very few of the nations in the WA would let unjustified aggression such as that slide by. And it would encourage the use of diplomacy, rather than threats and fear to keep the peace.
avatar
Xolox
Regional Power

Posts : 470
Join date : 2014-09-04
Age : 19
Location : Florida

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

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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