| First Round of Negotiations on an IARNPT |
|
This is the first round of negotiations for an International Arms Reduction and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Those attending the conference:
The SSU will be deliberating on this on whether or not to approach this council as a whole, or as individual nations.
Jasper Henn
Qvait would like to suggest that the following is in the treaty:
Resentine is not quite sure what you mean by " Nuclear Sharing ". Please Elaborate.
Officially being omnipotent via Tapatalk
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi (05-04-2015, 09:11 PM)JCRules Wrote: Qvait would like to suggest that the following is in the treaty: Scienta supports these suggestions, with the condition that any requirement of announcing a nations nuclear status is not permanently binding on that nation. That any non-nuclear nation wishing to build nuclear weapons may do so, so long as their intention to become a nuclear state is made. However one issue that appears here, is the status of "state seeking to become nuclear". How does one differentiate between a nation that is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and one that is developing weapons? There are many technologies that are used for both, especially isotope enrichment and production, both of which are key technologies to medicine, space exploration, and nuclear power. Not to mention technologies related to nuclear weapon delivery systems such as computer miniaturization and rocketry. A nation's intent may be clear once they already have these technologies, as it is simple to see what they are using those technologies for, but intent may be harder to infer in any nation that is currently developing those technologies. As for nuclear sharing, if that is permitted under the treaty, Scienta believes it should be under the condition that any nation possessing nuclear weapons under a sharing agreement, regardless of whether or not they independently have nuclear weapons, must also announce their nuclear status as "possessing nuclear weapons under a sharing agreement". It should also be mandated, that the nation sharing the weapons must be announced as well. Scienta would also like to suggest the following be included in this treaty:
(05-05-2015, 01:37 AM)FederationOfTheRK Wrote: Resentine is not quite sure what you mean by " Nuclear Sharing ". Please Elaborate. Nuclear sharing is the act of one nation (usually a non-nuclear state) allowing the storing and delivery from its territory nuclear weapons belonging to another nation. This is typically done under a "key sharing" agreement, in which the governments of both nations must agree to the deployment/use of the weapons. Nuclear Sharing on Wikipedia
Qvait understands the issue that Scienta brought up and will remove the part forcing nations to announce its nuclear status. Furthermore, I would like to amend to my third point, "Requirement of all signatory nations to announce its nuclear status (nuclear state, non-nuclear state, or state seeking to become nuclear)," and add, "Optional of all signatory nations to announce its nuclear status (nuclear state, non-nuclear state, or state seeking to become nuclear [but must say if it is for peaceful purposes or to manufacture a deterrent])." We also agree that nations who are possessing nuclear weapons under a sharing agreement must announce that it is occurring.
However, Scienta, the Pacific Republic is concerned about your second point, "A ban on any nuclear weapons in international territory." If you can clarify, it would be great. We feel that this would mean that a nation cannot transport nuclear weapons from point A to point B on the seas. If that is so, it would make it more difficult for nuclear sharing to actually occur.
Okay.
We suggest a ban on making nuclear weapons, so no one can build more. We also suggest that nations signing this treaty will not use nuclear weapons as a normal weapon, but rather as a last resort if there are no more alternatives. However, we disagree with the term of "nuclear sharing". What if you let another nuclear nation borrow your nuclear weapons, only to have them stolen by that country? We feel this could happen. We are also confused with the term of "A ban on any nuclear weapons in international territory." What is this?
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
A ban on nuclear weapons in international territory is just as it sounds, no nuclear weapons on ground or sea that is not claimed by any other nation. This goal of this ban would be to prohibit the stationing of nuclear weapons off the coast of another nation. Qvait raises a valid point that this may hinder nuclear sharing. Scienta hears these concerns, and is open to modifying this proposal to allow the transport of nuclear weapons through international territory.
Scienta strongly disagrees with the Ryccian delegate in the area of a ban on constructing nuclear weapons. We believe this will only have the effect of creating an unfair balance between nations that already possess nuclear weapons, and those without them.
For Sedunn, the use of nuclear weapons is utterly unacceptable. Sedunn would first, as Scienta proposed, like to see
1. a ban on all atmospheric nuclear explosive testing and 2. a ban on any nuclear weapons in space, and in the long-term 3. a plan to simultaneously and proportionally reduce the number of nuclear weapons aiming for a complete disarmament and 4. a non-proliferation agreement, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and such weapon technology. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP-Government Information
![[Image: C5xhL3j.png]](https://i.imgur.com/C5xhL3j.png)
![[Image: xpCtQTW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xpCtQTW.png)
![[Image: snqZrFA.png]](https://i.imgur.com/snqZrFA.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |