The Government of the People's Republic of Annoyastan again broaches the subject of a regional ban on nuclear weapons and other chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Our region is based on peace, cooperation, and mutual respect. It is our position that these weapons have no place in our region, or in any civilized region. They kill indiscriminately, and their use in any conflict would undoubtedly have massive and terrible effects upon the entire region. The danger that these weapons could fall into the hands of radical terroristic groups cannot be ignored.

Let us stand against these weapons.

P.O. Craven
Prime Minister

We fully agree with Prime Minister Craven. But the question is: "how can we limit or stop nuclear weapon programs being developed in a country, without violating the principle of severeignty?"

WE, once again, confirm our position against this kind of weapons. To prevent the development of them, may i sugest the creation of a small non-militar or political related group of experts on this subject, naturrally, with an regional domain and structuration?

Deterring the use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical) and their catastrophic potential supercedes even a nation's inherent right of sovereignty. These issues affect an entire region, possibly the whole world. This surely escapes the grasp of a single country. Although NC fully supports the promotion of every nation's right to self-governance, there is a fine line between sovereignty and the enormous destruction such weapons can unleash.

Consequently, we concur with Byzanthine that a special group of experts and inspectors must be convened to insure that such weapons will never be developed in the region. We believe that the Balkan Nuclear Energy Agency (BNEA) should be given this new mandated authority. It would report to the Balkanic Union Assembly and offer periodic reports on its findings.

Yugoslovenia, too, agrees with everyone on this extremely important issue. Like stated before, the development of these devices should be banned indefinitly. If a nation does not agree with our (summit's) views, then they should be handled in a way that they will be punished, perhaps expulsion.

We have expressed numerous times our support of such a treaty. However, there is still the question of doing this without endangering the peace in The Balkans.

Sure there is. The MP force that we suggested in a different thread could patrol the region and would help in disarming these weapons of mass death.

Maybe we could ban the nations from having Weapons of Mass Destruction but let the region as a whole keep 2 or 3 in case we need them against outside forces?

It's just a thought...

We had brought that sort of idea up some time ago, but Thracia had told us that there was no real reason to have WMD's because we are too civilized and too diplomatic to need them. It would be nice if we could all have some as a region, but that idea is up for dispute.

The vast majority of the Balkan nations are indeed "too civilized" to need nuclear weapons ;)

Who are the pro-nuclear nations? Tolomakia, Borgidiom, HRES,....who else?

Do electromagnetic explosives (E-bombs) count as WMDs?

We are not familiar with electromagnetic explosives.

Thracia's main concern is this: The pro-WMD nations will probably not back down, when we press them to give up their weapons. They are a stubborn bunch. If we start a tug of war with these nations we may end up expelling them, and Thracia is not willing to expel these nations, for they have contrinbuted a great deal to The Balkans.

We are not aware of any other nations that are in favor of these weapons. And indeed, it would seem that Borgidiom has rightly decided that nuclear weapons are not worth the trouble.

While issues of sovereignty are important, we have placed other limits on sovereign behavior, i.e., no warfare, no annexations of territory - these behaviors are not tolerated in this region, and nations that persist in these actions face the ultimate penalty: expulsion.

It seems to Annoyastan that we (the Balkans) would certainly be within reason if we added to that list: no weapons of mass destruction. As we have prohibited warfare, so we prohibit these terrible and pointless weapons.

However, in some ways a violation of this principle does not seem reason enough to eject a nation. How do other nations feel about this point? In the past we have suggested embargos of technology or other economic sanctions. We realize that these may have no effect, but it seems to us to be a logical starting point, and perhaps there would be some gradual, cumulative effect.

It would seem that most of the nations here are in favor of a ban. We would appreciate hearing from any nation that opposes this as a general principle.

P.O. Craven
Prime Minister

If you dont want to have trouble with them, I suggest not banning WMDs outright. Allow them to gradually lessen the number of weapons they have.

A nuclear weapons reduction initiative is good idea!

Given that there is little threat directed at the pro-WMD nations, it would be realistic to persuade them to reduce their weapons.

Byzantinople, are you talking about EMP bombs?

Nuclear reduction is a good idea for the short term, however we feel that an outright ban on weapons of mass destruction would be more suitable in the long run. We should not tolerate the mere existence of these weapons anywhere in the Balkans. Their very presence is a major destabilizing factor, that could easily lead to a regional arms race between competing rivals. This must be avoided at all costs, for the sake of peace and stability.

The Government of Annoyastan concurs with the opinion of the Government of New Commonwealth. Reduction is fine for a short term goal.

We are faced with the reality, however, that the states in question are not participating in this process, and it is quite likely that they will refuse to cooperate with the reductions that are desired by the majority of the Balkan states.

Ideally we will be able to present this region-wide expectation/hope/desire in such a way that they will happily cooperate with their peaceful regional bretheren. It is difficult to understand why they would feel the need to cling to these weapons. However, they may refuse to cooperate, and then we are left with what course of action?

Our sense is that expulsion is not called for. However the danger that they are subjecting the entire region to demands, we feel, some consequences.

PO Craven
Prime Minister

Yeah, I forgot the Pulse part.

We consider such motion to be valid, but why dont push it trough to enforce the actions of the Balkan Nuclear Agency to try to create this document via them ?

There are a lot of empty words in this proposal. Just remember that the weapon does not kill by itself, a human been is the killer.

Just for example, there were ca. 40 millions casualties in the WW2 (including the 17 millions civilians, killed by other means than weapons) but over 200 millions died by the hand of their own governments in communist countries.

A dictator does not need a nuke to kill millions, his paranoia is enough for that. If you actually want to ban anything, you should ban dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

I am not pro Nuke by the way Thracia.

Unfortunatly what I am seeing is a new trend of other nations wanting to tell soverign nations what they can and can not do. Now sure it is good to have you guys here to help me through troubled times (and you all usually give great advice) but I still need to be able to have complete independency as a nation.

I believe what we need to do is set down some clear regional rules that all nations have to abide to if they want to live here. This will draw a clear line in what a nation can do and can not do.

Borgman
The hand of God
Borgidom

We agree with Tolomakia, that in the past ruthless dictatorships have been dangerous. We believe that WMD make such excesses much more dangerous, efficient, and immediate, and endanger the region as a whole. We feel that a prohibition on WMD is a positive step. Perhaps not the whole answer, but a positive step.

We would rather not be telling other nations what they can and cannot do. We hope instead for a cooperative atmosphere, where nations agree together on a course of action. Such a cooperative atmosphere does require debate, give and take, and concessions to be made by both sides.

We are willing to engage in this process, and, as our region claims to be "a community whose members have peaceful and cooperative relations," we would hope that other nations would also be willing to engage in this dialog as well.

Dictatorships and pro-Nuclear attitudes are often connected..

We are a dictatorship, and we do not think that nuclear weapons or any WMD's are the answer to solving problems. We are a stable country that only sends our unpleasants to gulags...not to die, but to be rehabilitated by work programs...the Chinese did it during the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution, by the way, and it worked...to a degree.

Look, let's not turn this into a philosophical debate. You could argue about this topic and not get anything done or you can act like rational leaders and make a decision.

Upon reviewing the various posts, I have decided to remain neutral regarding this topic. I know that nuclear devices are dangerous, but I also respect a nation's right to choose whether it will have them or not. I personally am more worried about EMP weapons, which are a threat to my and every nation's government and economy. I also do not have any weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.

This is my stance, so please disregard any previous posts made by me.

Thank you,

We commend Byzantinople on it's mature stance on the issue.

My point exactely: no weapon kills by itself, the people do.

Yugoslovenia: excellent example, the chinese cultural revolution! When you count victims, this comes as the second mass-murder in the history of communism!

We would be interested in hearing why Tolomakia feels the need to possess nuclear weapons. What purpose do they serve for your nation?

They are a very good tool to make dictators and other potential enamy around stay at the proper distance from our borders.

And where does that leave the Balkanic Union or diplomacy itself ?

The best way to eliminate nuclear weapons is to persuade the countries that think they need them for security and/or deterrence purposes that they will be more secure and better off without them.

This requires a change of heart and mentality.

Coercion, sanctions, or international restrictions can only have a superficial effect if the government with nuclear weapons thinks that these are necessary. Such a government can always pretend that it is dismantling its nuclear weapons while at the same time it may continue to possess them secretly, thus deceiving the world.

Thracia is against nuclear weapons, it has declared that it will never possess such weapons, and has asked all countries to do the same.

However, we understanbd that a few countries in the Balkans think differently about this issue. To these countries we say: Consider at least reducing you weapons. Support a nuclear arms reduction initiative.

Our government has been reluctant to impose sanctions on countries having or pursuing nuclear weapons and it will remain reluctant. But we are willing to support an initiative that would make all countries in this region, with or without nuclear weapons, to feel more secure.

So, we ask the countries possessing nuclear weapons:

What would you like to see in this region that would make you feel more secure?

Nations should not use intimidation as a tactic for its self-defense. Diplomacy and good relations should help foster and maintain a lasting peace, not the rampant proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction.

We support New Commonwealth's and Thracia's previous postings, and await Tolomakia's response to Thracia's question.

PO CravenPrime Minister

We ask the Government of Tolomakia, directly, what efforts and actions are needed by other Balkan Governments to convince you of your safety here and induce you to a program of WMD reduction?

PO Craven
Prime Minister

The Government of Annoyastan concludes from Tolomakia's silence that there is nothing Balkan Governments can do to reassure that government as to its safety.

Tolomakia's refusal to negotiate -- even towards WMD reductions -- leaves the other Balkan nations to their own resources.

Is it possible for us to agree on a policy towards Tolomakia and other WMD countries?

Do we take action?
Do we do nothing?

We fear that the Leidestrad Peace Conference is coming to nothing.

PO Craven
Prime Minister

Well, the first and easier sanction against Tolomakia would be some sort of "shunning", or "silent treatment".

When one nation disregards its neighbors on issue A, that nation should expect that this would have a negative impact on issues B, C, D....

Annoystan: read the answer to your quesetion in the post I've already made on this thread.

Thracia: your threats do not impress me.

Believe us, Tolomak, we have been considering that statement.

Which nation of the region feels threatened by"dictators and other potential enamy," despite the lack of any real danger? Despite the fact that war is prohibited in this region? Despite the fact that there have been no military conquests in this region, ever?

Given our regional political climate, your refusal to negotiate on this issue is at least puzzling.

PO Craven
Prime Minister

Our nation still feels threatened.

Yes, the war is prohibited but a dictator like Killan can seize the power in one of the nations in Balkans anytime, unless there is a strong civilian control over military forces.

Yes, there have been no military conquests in the strict sens of the word but we stiil remember the week response of the region when confronted with the expansionist behaviour of the Czar (or in the recent case of Spaghetti-O).

If there is something that would make us feel more secure, this is a clear and firm regional policy againts non-democratic regimes.