UN Security Council Discussion

[Triyun]

And the Athenian forces have declared world socialist solidarity and was immediate to recognize the new government, who invited them.   A 'government' not recognized officially by multiple nations, and one which doesn't hold a large part of the country and just came to power in assassination and storming of a city.  Its not legitimate.

 

The key about the poles is that they have not supported either side.  If Legion is willing to protect them that would be most appropriate, neither of us can say the same thing.  Athens can't complain about bias when it has one itself and its support runs far deeper than Tianxia's to the Imperialists.  We ask merely for fair and neutral results.  If not the Poles and Legion then the Americans and Russians.  

Edited March 15, 2014 by Triyun

[Centurius]

"A government primarily composed of officials in charge before the fascist coup and with a leader who was put in power by a democratic process. Furthermore we must question where exactly the Hellenic Forces have declared solidarity to global socialism. I do hope you are not confusing the statements of a single Athenian political party with the non-partisan armed forces of the Athenian Federation"

[Jarl Frost]

"Madagascar, after some discussion with Legion, would like to put forth a proposal to the UNSC, upon which, if we agree to the terms, we will bring before the acting government of Sierra Leone. A security force comprised of African nations, in this instace Madagascar and Legion, will provide the necessary security for an election to take place. Unarmed observers from willing nations will ensure the fairness of the election. This proposal, if accepted by this body, would be presented to Sierra Leone itself, if they are willing"

[Centurius]

"The Athenian Federation votes in favour of the African proposal"

[Triyun]

Acceptable.

[Dillon1102]

If anything is needed from the kingdom of Rohan we stand by ready to accept any duty that may be needed of us.

[Yawoo]

"Aye"

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"We find the African proposal agreeable."

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of Japan

[Triyun]

The Athenian and Tianxia delegations put forward the following joint sponsored resolution.

 

United Nations Security Council Resolution on Disarmament:

Article I.  Global Cap on Megatonnage

Article I compels pursuant to UNSC Res. 1, the dismantling of all nations nuclear weapon total levels to go down by 150 megatons, with a hard maximum ceiling of one nation having 600 megatons of nuclear weapons.  This dismantling is to be subject to random inspections.  Disposed of weapons cores are to be kept at secure sites for nuclear material specifically authorized per site by the UN Security Council as meeting safety standards.

Article II.  Compellence of Compliance

Article II authorizes the use of force by the UN Security Council under this resolution and resolution I, to compel states not compliant with this resolution to not only comply with this should they refuse to do so, or fail to comply in a timely manner, but also disarm those states of their nuclear weapons.

Article III.  Limits on Conventional Forces

Article III recognizes that the removal of large amounts of nuclear weapons reduces the 'hedge' of disarming states and this can be seen as alarming particularly if accompanied by non-nuclear powers large scale arms build ups disproportionate to security needs.  Therefore this resolution expresses that it is the sense of this body that the non-nuclear states should take measures not to alter their armament policies and initiate large scale build ups outside traditional trend lines which could destabilize. 

Article IV.  Limits on Anti-Satellite Weapons

This resolution specifically expresses that the use of an anti-satellite weapon in such a way that could damage the readiness of standing nuclear forces, or create space debris, except under military action so authorized by this council, and/or against states not in compliance with resolutions passed by this council, should be considered an attack on the peace of the world.   This article is intended to retain strategic stability and early warning of the new smaller arsenals and reduce 'use it or lost it' concerns often experienced historically by smaller nuclear weapons states.

Article V.  Storage of Disposed of nuclear weapons material

This resolution will authorize three specific centers in long term stable nations to store disposed of nuclear weapons material long term in order to manage risk and ensure the safety of such fuel.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Triyun

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"The Japanese nation would like to inquire which 'long term stable nations' are considered for the storage of disposed material. We would hope to see this specified. Otherwise, we see no issue with this resolution."

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of Japan

[Triyun]

My view would be that Tianxia, Athens, and Eastern Russia are the obvious choices, due to their military forces  and strategic depth.

[Centurius]

"It is the interpretation of the writers of this joint resolution that the current permanent members of this body have a proven record of stability and have existed long enough to guarantee secured storage"

[PresidentDavid]

"I believe that I can speak on a number if member nations of our UN that non-nuclear states will have trouble complying with Article Four unless there is a guarantee that nuclear states will not use their weapons on non-nuclear states. Otherwise, this resolution is asking Iceland and most other countries of the world to be totally defenseless against nuclear attacks or at least crippling potential enemy defenses. Could someone clarify? Otherwise, the resolution is well worded and sound."

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"Article IV is important, as it is to prevent an attack on satelite assets. The loss of satelite-based early warning would leave a nuclear nation vulnerable against a first strike aimed at its small nuclear arsenal, which can now with decent chances of success, be such an attack. As the nuclear nation thus can no longer be sure whether or not it is safe or not, this creates an uncertainty, which encourages initiating a nuclear strike against adversaries, thus being highly destabilising to world peace. As Iceland however is a non-nuclear nation, most likely not with the assets to take out satelites and no intention to do so, we would hope that no issues are to arise here and the Icelandic representant can go back to the General Assembly, instead of being part of a Security Council discussion, which is not an open forum for this kind of unnecessary debate."

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of Japan

[PresidentDavid]

"Thank you for your response Representative Kaede. With my questions I meant no disrespect to yourself, or other members of the Security Council who encourage international discussion here to better the world, but I fear that Article Four only limits actions that non-nuclear states can take to threaten nuclear states and gives this organization further artificial approval to violate the sovereignty of independent countries. It would be very comforting for most nations in our world if there was an article which guaranteed that nuclear states would not use their weapons against non-nuclear states and that the council would be obligated to take military action against any nation who would violate that term. I, along with many others, trust that most of the nuclear states are responsible but this protection would undoubtedly make the world a much safer place, and make Article Four totally acceptable. I strongly encourage the Council to take action on this subject so that the rest of us are at ease and have no need to think of ways to undermine nuclear states - states which we should instead be trying to work with and states who have the responsibility to lead others.

This would bring trust, and global trust can go a very long way."

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"There is Article 2.4 of the Charter, which should already stop a conflict in its beginning. We think the matter can thus be dropped."

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of Japan

[TheShammySocialist]

"The Fourth Republic of Poland welcomes some of this legislation within the Council, aimed at reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons within the world as a whole," stated Poland's Special Representative Powolzcski, after getting permission to speak.

 

"However, we question what kind of leverage this puts on Article III, how does one determine who has too many conventional forces? I bear no ill will towards the keepers of global peace, but I will be frank when I say this. The Fourth Republic of Poland may be at peace, and is, at its core, a peaceful nation. That being said, Poland maintains its armed forces as a deterrent, because it is our only deterrent against outside attack. Particularly against states with a tradition of showing hostility towards Poland, who we are quite aware of being armed with nuclear weapons."

 

"If this nation, or another neighbor, heaven forbid, launch nuclear weapons on Poland, I fear that one nuclear warhead, well-placed, would make Poland veritably uninhabitable. We maintain large armed forces, at home and abroad, with the ability to launch attacks that would be quite crippling so that it deters something like this from happening."

 

"I offer no disrespect with my question, but Article III appears ambiguous and open to interpretation in my eyes," she said, ending her statement.

[lkfht]

After gaining permission to speak UN Ambassador Gabriela Pearce stated, "The United Republic of Ireland also agrees with the Fourth Republic of Poland."

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"Who the $%&@ gave these people permission to speak?", Katsura thought to herself, though she didn't care much anyway and sipped from her green tea instead.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Evangeline Anovilis

[Triyun]

The Tianxia delegate sighed, "The prevention of a build up in light of the disarmament of weapons is a necessary confidence building measure.  If nations undertake massive arms build ups while the nations disarming are becoming more vulnerable, we put the entire system at risk.  Every nation needs to be responsible and take responsibility for creating a safer and more peaceful world. 

 

We long like to speak in high thought about how we want a more peaceful world, but when push comes to shove, people are more inclined towards acting on self interest and power maximizing.  This resolution does the opposite.  It puts on all nations the mutual obligation to take a step back from the brink.  Nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, particularly those that can go after the physical infrastructure of a nuclear force are not separate.  The technology in these weapons is interlinked and their employment especially on a large scale increases the possibility of nuclear war and for nuclear powers to go first. 

 

We passed as our very first resolution, that we had an obligation to reduce weapons.  This is the most sensible way to get there.  We stand ready to take a strong step towards eliminating the single worst class of weapons mankind has ever made.

 

Now the Japanese delegation is absolutely 100 percent right on the Icelandic objections.  The Icelandic Objections are non-sense and extraordinarily destabilizing.

 

On the Polish side, the first use of nuclear weapons with the possible exception of a equally catastrophic attack by other means by any nation would bring about the strongest response of this council, and failing to act by the Empire itself.  However, at the same time we simply cannot accompany [i]large[/i] increases in the ability for Poland or any other nation to strike nuclear forces with the reduction of nuclear forces.  Ultimately the surest way to escape the danger of a nuclear attack is the elimination of these weapons.  That can only be done absent a large arms build up."

[Centurius]

"As the delegates before me have stated the provisions of the resolution are confidence building. While we understand the concerns of Iceland, Poland and others nothing in this resolution bans you from expanding military forces or defending yourselves. What this resolution does is commit all nuclear states to reducing their stockpiles of these horrible weapons. What it requires in turn is that others do not target, without a mandate of this Council, the infrastructure nuclear states rely upon to get detailed information of events around the world and the infrastructure it needs to determine whether or not a threat against it is significant enough to launch a nuclear strike. What it also expects is that states do not suddenly build more conventional forces than they normally would have.

 

To the Polish delegation specifically, in your example a well-placed nuclear weapon would indeed be able to annihilate most of Poland's defensive capabilities if not a large number of its citizens but let me ask you this. If said neighbouring state was to build down its arsenal and Poland would double its air force suddenly would that not cause an escalated situation in which the risk of use of these weapons would increase while a single nuke would still be able to cause the same effects to the Polish state?

 

Furthermore this Council has a proven track record of engaging those that develop and use nuclear weapons irresponsibly, if Poland or any other state were to become the victim of an unprovoked first strike the response from this Council would be decisive and fast." The Athenian ambassador said.

 

"That being said I ask all those who are not members of the Security Council to withhold from talking. You can make your case in the General Assembly or via the elected representatives from your regions"

[MostGloriousLeader]

"The American Commonwealth votes aye on the African Peacekeeping proposal and will provide personnel for the observer mission if acceptable.  We also vote aye on the nuclear weapons reduction resolution although I would like to request that my nation be able to operate its own disposal site as we have the necessary capability, security, and infrastructure to do so and it would alleviate the cost and security concerns of sending them abroad". 

[Yawoo]

"Who would carry the burden of costs relating to disposal of nuclear material?"

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"We would expect that the nuclear nation reducing its stockpile pays for the costs incurred in the process."

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of Japan

[VigilantWatcher]

nvm not relevant

Edited March 18, 2014 by Curristan