The latest UN-resolution is a sensible one! Please support it.
(If you choose: Ancient Races may decide, we will vote 'For')

We have to vote against. As history had clearly proven, in modern environment nuclear warheads are strictly defensive, retentive weapons. As such, their existence only encourages the conflicting sides to resolve their differences peacefully.

Furthermore, the resolution is only binding to UN members. Since many potentially dangerous rogue nations are not in the UN, they will retain their full nuclear arsenal. In such circumstances, any wide-scale disarmament will be equivalent to open invitation to attack. Missile defence systems are only partial solution to this problem: they are very expensive to build and maintain, much more so than nukes; they are not 100% effective, and coordinated ICBM attack by several aggressive states may easily override it; and any efficient anti-missile system uses nuclear warheads to destroy incoming missiles, which would be forbidden by the resolution. We urge all nations of the region to consider safety of their people first: pacifism is hardly a practical policy in modern large-scale politics.

Never. It will leave UN nations unarmed against rogues.

The Queen of Everlasting snow has voted FOR the resolution. We're a nation without an arny and are against nuclear weapons.

The Democratic Federation of International Terrans is voting AGAINST such a measure. This absolutely unprecendented. A lack of nuclear weapons would lead to widespread conventional warfare across the surface of the NS globe, and this is something we simply cannot accept. We do not posess nuclear weapons, and support measures to reduce their presence, but getting rid of them altogether would not the ones in the hands of terrorist groups - only the ones in the hands of nations. Shall we leave ourselves defenceless? I think not. Again, we vote AGAINST, and strongly recommend others to do so.

Excellencies: Her Majesty's Governement reluctantly votes AGAINST the measure. The fact that rogue nations will still have nuclear weapons is enough reason not to favor the resolution. Zahumlje is not a nuclear power, in Zahumlje there is not even a nuclear industry for power generation. The ONLY uses are in medicine, for x- rays and cancer treatments.
Zahumlje does not wish to forclose the right of any nation to defend itself. We do not think that is fair. If the Resolution were binding on rogue nations we would favor it.
Imam Hodza Nasrudin
Foreign Minister
Zahumlje

We would vote against, on the principle that "If we make having guns illegal, only criminals will have guns." It is the same problem here, if we ban nuclear armament only those who already have nuclear arms and intend to use them will have them, leaving the law-abiding nations of the world vulnerable. Think of what would have happened if we had banned nuclear arms in the Cold War and one of the nuclear powers swallowed their pride and actually disarmed?

It is good to see this preposterous resolution defeated. We are glad that most UN members - including our neighbors - have demonstrated good, solid reasoning in this matter.