Developing Nuclear Weapons



  • This is purely to get the general atmosphere of how many member-states of the EU want there to be some sort of regulation on non-nuclear developed countries developing both nuclear power and nuclear weaponry, and how far should this regulation go


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    I would like to present our official iew on Nuclear Weapons. The statement I make is is on behalf of every citizen of the free republic of Os Corelia.

    Nuclear Weapons are terrifying, cause contemptable fear, kill innocent people. We have seen the effects. A flahs of birght nightyour eyes melt, you run around confused only to feel really sick then burst into flames. Your skin melts with the intensity. Death of millions all for some crazed power struggle. No nation how ever evil they may appear deserves to be subjected to such horrifying things.

    Os Corelius wishes for a resoultion to ban all uranum enrichment which leades to nuclear weapon production. Nuclear weapons as a deterrent is the idea of power hungry people who believe that they have right to everyone's life. Howcan this sole problems?

    Os Corelius willagree to a protection network to be deeloped to stop nuclear weapons. Retaliation is not part of this process!

    You might as well slaughter everyone if u love nukes!

    NO TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT
    NO TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FULL STOP!

    Viscount Kalistus Xavier head of state and parliament for Os Corelius



  • Anatoly Keith stood up and shuffled his notes.

    I am sorry but I must intervene.

    Firstly, the belief in a resolution to ban all uranium enrichment is idiotic. Uranium must be enriched to around 4% U-235 in order to be used efficiently for nuclear power. To ban uranium enrichment would be to ban nuclear power as well as nuclear weapons, and as representative from a nation that relies heavily on nuclear power for its energy, I have to stand up for my nation's interests and rebuke this proposal.

    We all know the effects of nuclear proliferation, but I urge you all not to be mesmerised by the scaremongering fire-and-brimstone tactics used by Viscount Xavier. The truth is that the European Union is a peaceful region. Nuclear weapons still have a role to play in ensuring that peace, that if two nations shall ever verge on war, they shall have to deal with mutually-assured destruction.

    Yet, in the wrong hands, Viscount Xavier is correct. I believe fully that from now on we must assure that nuclear weapons remain solely in the hands of responsible nations, and the EUSC must enforce a rigorous checking procedure before allowing any nation to go nuclear.

    Thank you all.

    Keith sat down and awaited the response of his esteemed colleagues.


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    Please allow my rebuttle. I am not scaremongering it is the truth of fact.
    Although I will accept that Nuclear power and to a reccomended extent enrichment is the future of renewable energy.

    I disagree strongly with the view that Nuclear Weapons are needed for peace, it is a proprostrous claims. As I am sure my esteemed colleagues will disagree with me as it seems a common place view I wish to propose that our border nations shouldnot permitted to produce nuclear arms near the border. You may think this rash but it would be in the interest of our own beliefs.

    Viscount Xavier



  • Perhaps we could set up some sort of nuclear inspection committee similiat to the one the UN has for all nations who have not yet deveoped nulcear weapons to makesure they are not doing so secretly. A nation who wishes to develop nuclear weapons can make a request to the EUSC. Then the EUSC can vote on whether or not they think that nation's request should be granted.


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    May I ask for a case FOR nuclear weapons to be fully presented for our examination.



  • Anthony Thompson stood up, a glass of brandy in hand.

    "Regulation of nuclear weapons is unrequired and idiotic. EU nations can be trusted to only use WMDs as a last resort, and regulation will only result in a needless new bureaucracy pioneered by the delusional and the idiot. That is all."



  • How do you know that that is the case. You cannot guarantee that in the most heated of moments the most mad leader of the most aggressive eu nation will not use WMDs against their most hated of enemies. Therefore nuclear proliferation must be controlled



  • QUOTE (Premier Aran @ Oct 11 2009, 08:37 AM)

    How do you know that that is the case. You cannot guarantee that in the most heated of moments the most mad leader of the most aggressive eu nation will not use WMDs against their most hated of enemies. Therefore nuclear proliferation must be controlled

    "EU member-states are generally sane, and we would trust that EU nations cannot attack each other with WMDS, nay, attack each other in any way," Thompson said. "We need WMDs to protect the Union from non-EU aggression. Regulation will only prevent this defence and destroy our collective detterant."



  • actually there have been nuclear tensions between nations within the EU luckily there has been no nuclear war though. It is only a matter of time.

    Additionally their are already a sufficient number of nuclear warheads possesed by the nations who already have the technology to create them to protect the EU. My nation alone has around 7000 nuclear warheads with the soveit union having 24,600. This is easilly enough to retaliate to any nuclear attack considering that it would take around 1000 nukes to kill every person on the planet



  • Could someone put this into legislation so that we can vote on it. I would but I'm sure someone else could do it better.



  • I wish to take Viscount Xavier up on his challenge to present a case for nuclear weapons.

    Firstly, the Unfreedomian representative is correct in saying that there has been tension between nations in the EU but no nuclear war. Earlier this year, Belarum and the Reich threatened my nation with war unless we pulled out of Neo-Venetia. I am certain that had we gone to war instead of complying with their demands, no nuclear weapons would have been used. Why? Mutually-assured destruction. Nobody would have launched a nuclear strike on anybody else, because it would be damned obvious that there would be even more destructive retaliation!

    Secondly, what happens if we have a blanket ban on nuclear weapons. We cannot destroy the technology without executing various scientists and ending nuclear power. Someone, inevitably, starts building them in secret! We see Mossafa building their WMDs today, so what is to stop them, you, us, building nuclear bombs in secret, and then using that power to throw their weight around in the EU?

    Meanwhile, Mr. Thompson, I believe that we must regulate nuclear weapons proliferation. There are psychotic dictatorships who are already in, or may soon enter, our region. They could start throwing their weight around the EU, or start to use nuclear weapons against us! So I propose that from now on, a nation must apply for a licence to hold nuclear weapons, to be ratified by a majority EUSC vote only.



  • QUOTE (Angleter @ Oct 11 2009, 04:53 PM)

    I wish to take Viscount Xavier up on his challenge to present a case for nuclear weapons.

    Firstly, the Unfreedomian representative is correct in saying that there has been tension between nations in the EU but no nuclear war. Earlier this year, Belarum and the Reich threatened my nation with war unless we pulled out of Neo-Venetia. I am certain that had we gone to war instead of complying with their demands, no nuclear weapons would have been used. Why? Mutually-assured destruction. Nobody would have launched a nuclear strike on anybody else, because it would be damned obvious that there would be even more destructive retaliation!

    Secondly, what happens if we have a blanket ban on nuclear weapons. We cannot destroy the technology without executing various scientists and ending nuclear power. Someone, inevitably, starts building them in secret! We see Mossafa building their WMDs today, so what is to stop them, you, us, building nuclear bombs in secret, and then using that power to throw their weight around in the EU?

    Meanwhile, Mr. Thompson, I believe that we must regulate nuclear weapons proliferation. There are psychotic dictatorships who are already in, or may soon enter, our region. They could start throwing their weight around the EU, or start to use nuclear weapons against us! So I propose that from now on, a nation must apply for a licence to hold nuclear weapons, to be ratified by a majority EUSC vote only.

    "The honourable representative from Angleter must realise that no psychotic dictatorship should target a EU nation out of the deterrant following. A ban on inter-European warfare should be brought into place rather than nuclear regulation!"



  • How can you ban inter-EU warfare. You can't stop someone from going to war with another EU member-state.

    You could threaten them if they refused to comply, but what with? Going to war with them? Oh wait you can't because you're not allowed to go to war with them.

    It doesn't work. I must agree with the honourable representative from Angleter. Nuclear proliferation needs to be controlled.

    If your are against nukes in general you should also support this as it goes someway to achieving your aim as it means only the SC members and a few other nation-states which already have nuclear capability can have nukes. Thus limiting the number of nuclear countries which is somewhat better then everyone having nukes.



  • QUOTE (Premier Aran @ Oct 11 2009, 07:21 PM)

    How can you ban inter-EU warfare. You can't stop someone from going to war with another EU member-state.

    You could threaten them if they refused to comply, but what with? Going to war with them? Oh wait you can't because you're not allowed to go to war with them.

    It doesn't work. I must agree with the honourable representative from Angleter. Nuclear proliferation needs to be controlled.

    If your are against nukes in general you should also support this as it goes someway to achieving your aim as it means only the SC members and a few other nation-states which already have nuclear capability can have nukes. Thus limiting the number of nuclear countries which is somewhat better then everyone having nukes.

    "If an EU nation goes to war with another EU nation, then the attacker should be expelled and invaded by the EDF," Thompson sighed, thankful his position was only temporary and Samuel Reichs would be replacing him soon.

    "If the invaded had a detarrent, the invader would not invade out of fear of said detterant."



  • If a lot of nations go to war with each other then the EDF will not be able to manage as they will be to over stretched. Also what one of the invading countries is a member of the SC, theoretically the Soviet Union. Now I don't think any other nation in the SC will want to go to war with them. They are too strong

    Furthermore, what's to stop one nation from nuking a non-nulcear nation if diplomatic relations go sour. If the SC nuke them back then everyone gets fallout.



  • "The honourable delegate should know that there has been no occurance in history that one nation has been attacked with nuclear WMDs because relations were just sour. If that was the case, then Justorica would be a wasteland by now!"



  • OOC: Well currently in RL Israel are threatening to nuke or at least bomb Iran if they try and develop nuclear weapons

    -----edited by Belarum added OOC tags


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    After careful consideration and upon subsidiary council meetings. My nation wish to support nuclear regulation. We ourselves will not produce but that is of course a state decision.

    V. Xavier



  • Hans K?chler stood to address some of the issues raised by his Angleteric colleague:

    _While Brecon supports the regulation of nuclear weapons within the EU, we are concerned that the idea of the EUSC issuing licences to allow nations to possess nuclear weapons is an incomplete approach to a wider problem. EUSC regulation of nuclear weapons could be problematic as it would be in the interests of the EUSC to limit nuclear weapons to their own nations and allies while denying nuclear weapons to developing nations, such as Mossafa, that may be catching on to the idea of deterrence.

    In addition to encouraging conditions which will promote nuclear non-proliferation the EUSC nations must take the lead in disarmament. Surely, given the commitment of some of the EU's nuclear armed nations to non-proliferation, they would agree to annual cuts in their number of nuclear weapons, even a reduction of 2% per year would be a welcome sign of sincerity._


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.