At Vote: Nuclear Non-proliferation Act
#1

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Franxico

Description: Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all UN nations and convinced that all UN nations are entitled to participate in the exchange of scientific information for the further development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Disturbed by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of a nuclear war and determined to reduce the danger of such a war,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the danger of nuclear war,

Alarmed at the potential threat posed to international security by the acquisition of nuclear weaponry by rogue states,

Defining a nuclear weapon as a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect. Excluded from this definition shall be any integrated guidance, safety and security systems, or any other peripheral system not directly related to the explosive payload itself, or its detonation device(s).

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.
(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to share technology related to safety and security systems, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.
Reply
#2

This is yet another fine IDU proposal. I urge our delegate to change the options to "For" and "Not against." Wink

Support.
Reply
#3

FonzolandMar 17 2006, 08:21 PM This is yet another fine IDU proposal. I urge our delegate to change the options to "For" and "Not against." Wink

Support. [/quote]
Yep. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to give you choices Wink
Reply
#4

Ceorana votes for the top yes. Delegate, please do not confuse this with the bottom yes when you cast your vote. Thank you.

*growls menacingly*
Reply
#5

FonzolandMar 17 2006, 07:21 PMThis is yet another fine IDU proposal. [/quote]
This would be number 12?




Oh yeah, and I'm for it.
Reply
#6

FranxicoMar 18 2006, 12:38 AM This would be number 12?
[/quote]
Yes it would.

Ceorana Delegate, please do not confuse this with the bottom yes when you cast your vote.[/quote]

OK, I made a mental note. Wink
Reply
#7

I am so drawn between the two options... boyoh, me can't decide.


I guess I'm gonna go with.... ah, the monkey, the monkey has my leg!

*puts up spectactular fight against the brain-eating zombie monkey mutant before standing up again*


For. Yes, for.
Reply
#8

I know we are supposed to be democratic and all, but..

Is there a way of instituting disciplinary procedures against the heathen enemy spy who dared to choose "bottom yes" instead of "top yes"?
Reply
#9

We know where his nation lives.

Our special people are on their way.

:duck: :duck: :duck:
Reply
#10

Voted for. I think non-proliferation is a good counter-balance to the UNSA's right to produce anything you want, although I'd prefer the UNSA not exist.

Has anyone successfully done this for biological and/or chemical weapons yet? I'm having a hard time sorting through all the related resolutions, repeals, and mod deletions to figure out what is actually still standing UN law, but those two classes of weapons definitely need to be restricted in similar fashion if they haven't been yet.
Reply
#11

Of course I'm for.

Hate to be the wet blanket, but I'm getting tired of these "cannot vote no" answers. Should be a real option... even if it is a regional item. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

But this is a great resolution, well crafted. Smile
Reply
#12

Xtraordinary GentlemenMar 23 2006, 04:05 PM Voted for. I think non-proliferation is a good counter-balance to the UNSA's right to produce anything you want, although I'd prefer the UNSA not exist.

Has anyone successfully done this for biological and/or chemical weapons yet? I'm having a hard time sorting through all the related resolutions, repeals, and mod deletions to figure out what is actually still standing UN law, but those two classes of weapons definitely need to be restricted in similar fashion if they haven't been yet. [/quote]
I don't think anyone has, no. Someone here should write one after this passes.

Quote: Hate to be the wet blanket, but I'm getting tired of these "cannot vote no" answers. Should be a real option... even if it is a regional item. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.[/quote]

As a region, I think we should support any regional resolutions, especially since they are usually edited by members here. Unless I think there is real opposition to a proposal in the region, I will probably continue to give yes/yes options. Unless the majority of the region is opposed to this, then I lose I guess.

EDIT: I voted FOR this proposal.
Reply
#13

Lawtonia supports this proposal. As for the Yes/Yes issue - It should be changed to Yes/No/Abstain. Although its extremely important to support proposals put forth by IDU members please don't forget that the IDU stands for International DEMOCRATIC Union. We should have the option to vote no or to abstain.
Reply
#14

I would support a compromise and have the options Yes/Abstain.
Reply
#15

There's a poll now, I don't want to clutter the thread Smile
Reply
#16

I vote "aye."
Reply
#17

Xtraordinary Gentlemen: if you are having a hard time finding out what's what in UN law, the UN timeline is a very accessible resource. When it works.
Reply
#18

This resolution has passed! :pisang: :funky_pisang:

Congrats Franxico!

(this is the 12th IDU resolution!)
Reply
#19

Hurrah! Despite the little stink I threw up earlier, that in no way reflected what I think of this resolution! Hurrah to Franxico!
:wave:
Reply
#20

Quote: The resolution Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act was passed 6,128 votes to 5,830,[/quote]

298 votes. That was a squeaker. Undoubtedly there will be prompt efforts for repeal, so the region may have to work to help resist any repeal attempts.

But congratulations to Franxico!
Reply
#21

IDU rules! We are the best! We passed another resolution! Yey!


(Oh yeah, congratulations to that Franxico fellow for giving us a hand. Not that we needed him for anything, bah.) Tongue
Reply
#22

Thanks everyone! I was proud to submit this as an IDU member.

Antrium (this is the 12th IDU resolution!)[/quote]
Hopefully I can add to that total in the future. I'll be using Franxico as my designated UN proposal submitter from now on. My home region is down to 2 UN members (me and my sis), so the UN Mission's days of submitting proposals are over.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)