This resolution will be up for vote until Saturday, October 2nd. As usual I will cast my votes based on the outcome of this poll.

Remember, only nations that reside in Canada may vote, and may only vote once, regardless of how many nations they have in the region or how many offsite accounts they have.


---------
Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizations) acquiring nuclear weapons and technologies,

NOTING the responsibility of nations to monitor and manage their nuclear weapons and technologies,

AFFIRMING the UN's role as example to the world,

1. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms, devices, or technologies to known or suspected terrorist organizations;

2. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY the sale or transfer of nuclear arms or technology to any extra-national organization;

3. CAUTIONS AGAINST the proliferation of arms or technologies to irresponsible nations;

4. CALLS UPON UN member nations to maintain adequate security over and records of nuclear arms and technology;

5. IDENTIFIES WITH and ENDORSES positive and responsible nuclear weapons practices everywhere.

Time to make up for lost posts with unnecessarily long one's... ;)

This makes me laugh. It's like a teacher shaking their finger at a mis-behving child. It's the "Don't do that again and see me after class" syndrome of politics. How exeactly is this meant to be enforced, or even monitored. Mailing lists to known aggressor Nations perhaps. I would have thought with respect to article 1), that this would fall under National soverienity rather than the enforcement of the United Nations. Irrespective of InterRegional transfer or sales, it cannot be effectively monitored within a Nation should the resident government decide that it does not require immediate attention for whatever reason. The government itself may infact be tyrannical or terror orientated.

Cautions? Additional clarification would have been nice here to kow the procedure of cautioning. Is it a case of three strikes and you're out rule or what? How many 'cautions' can a Nation have before retributional actions are taken?

My ageing Yorkshire Terrier and house of playing cards is 'adequate' in my opinion to protect my 350,000 tonnes of Uranium and other noxious materials. You should see my antrax containment unit - it's a Thermos flask.
What is adequate? More definition than prescription and description please.

Identifies with the safe practice? How? Using what framework? There is no framework outlined here. So you consider my house of cards and ageing canine attack rat at positive and responsible? You fool.

To busy, once again, focussing on the cause rather than the effect and prevention thereof. Less description and prescription, and more definition is sorely required here.

The UN resolution, The Nuclear Terrorism Act, was passed 12,555 votes to 3,346. I cast my votes AGAINST this resolution, based on this poll.

Thanks for voting. :)