(Dismissed) WA Nuclear Weapons Ban Act

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

* 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.

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.

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.

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.