Subtleknifewielder Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 OOC: "doing so will have Diplomatic and Military consequences for said nation" directly from the treaty OOC So the consequences are decided on a case-by-case basis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 OOC So the consequences are decided on a case-by-case basis? OOC: Yep as no nuclear launch is the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 OOC: Yep as no nuclear launch is the same. OOC: Ah. Well, in that case, at least put that phrase into it, that "Each violation will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis," or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 And stopping new nations from obtaining them will make them easy targets for those nations that already have them. So I wish to propose a "no first strike" clause instead of a non-spread clause. This is an excellent point made by the representative of Neo Olympia. If a nations leaders chose not to develop nuclear weapons, they are arguably taking a military risk. I appreciate and support a "no first strike clause" but also wonder if anything can be done to encourage and/or support nations whose leadership decides not to develop nuclear weapons? I don't have any particular answer in mind. I am interested in others opinions and an exchange of ideas on this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakwars Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Perhaps we should add a clause that says that if the signatory nations are attacked by nations with nuclear weapons, the other signatories will assist them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 This is an excellent point made by the representative of Neo Olympia. If a nations leaders chose not to develop nuclear weapons, they are arguably taking a military risk. I appreciate and support a "no first strike clause" but also wonder if anything can be done to encourage and/or support nations whose leadership decides not to develop nuclear weapons? I don't have any particular answer in mind. I am interested in others opinions and an exchange of ideas on this matter. "I would think that in this case, other strategic weapons could easily be developed. Also, such nations would be protected under the "no first strike" policy, meaning those signatories would be protected by those that do have the nuclear weaponry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Prince Edward Island will sign no document stating they will have no nuclear weapons. We may sign one limiting them to 25. We will wait to see if the clauses and addedenums mentioned have been added. Maybe when there is a finalized document presented on its own, we will consider signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 OOC: Well, Cent, gonna post an updated version of the proposed treaty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 OOC: Yeah busy with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 OOC: Yeah busy with it OOC: OK... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.