We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

First Round of Negotiations on an IARNPT
#18

(05-06-2015, 05:18 PM)Darkstrait Wrote: Our reason for needing nuclear weapons in space.

As a nation of science, Scienta understands your concerns.  Scienta will still push for a ban on nuclear weapons in space, but we see no reason to prohibit a nation from using nuclear devices for nuclear pulse propulsion on a non-military vehicle.  If we can agree to this, then we should be able to establish a compromise that sufficiently prohibits weapons being placed in orbit, but will not hinder your nation either.

For example, inspectors could inspect any craft containing explosive nuclear devices, and inspect the devices for any equipment that would allow the devices to re-enter the atmosphere, and any equipment that would allow them to target a specific location.  While this of course isn't the most perfect solution, for example nuclear devices launched from a nuclear pulse propulsion craft could be used to create an electromagnetic pulse in the upper atmosphere, but it would still nonetheless reduce the threat of nuclear attack from space.

Scienta would also like to point out, that even in the pursuit of propulsion, the detonation of a nuclear device in low orbit could cause an EMP that would be just as detrimental as a weaponized nuclear device.  Scienta would like to know what type of precautions/rules Darkstrait has put in place to prevent this?  Perhaps whatever precautions and rules your nation has put in place can be also placed into this treaty, and other nations would then follow suit.

In response to the Resentine Kingdom on a proposal for a cap, Scienta would be agreeable to this.

As for the previous concerns regarding nations being required to announce their nuclear status, we would like to clarify that we have no issue with nations being required to do this, in fact we encourage this being incorporated into this act.  The only issue we had was the status of "nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons."  Perhaps a better solution would be make more black and white, either a nation has nuclear weapons, or they don't.

Based on the discussions being made, these are the current issues Scienta would like to see incorporated into this treaty:
  • A recognization of the rights of non-nuclear nations to develop nuclear weapons
  • A cap placed on the number of weapons a nation may possess
  • Nations must announce their status as one of the following options:
    1. Non-nuclear state
    2. Nuclear state
    3. State possessing nuclear weapons under a sharing arrangement
  • A ban on all atmospheric nuclear testing
  • A ban on nuclear weapons being stationed in international territory, with an exemption made for transportation.  Transportation should be done under the supervision of an inspector, and with the route through international territory announced to the other signatories of this treaty.
  • A ban on nuclear weapons being stationed in space, with exemptions made for propulsion.  Rules to be set to guarantee that the devices to be launched into space are meant for propulsion only.
Reply


Messages In This Thread



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .