This act would require us to reduce our nuclear stockpile to below 1,000 by the year 2025 in order to reduce the likelihood of nuclear warfare between states and in order to recognise that our defence priorities have moved towards cyber-crime and terrorism, which nuclear weapons cannot defend against.
Additionally, this bill will end the nuclear sharing with European nations as part of a commitment to reduce nuclear stockpiles worldwide with the eventual goal of complete nuclear disarmament when there is no threat of a rouge state or group using nuclear weapons against another nation. Also, this bill would see us request that our NATO allies of France and the United Kingdom to completely disarm, to enable them to spend money building their economies and due to us having around 99% of NATO's nuclear weapons.
I of course support nuclear disarmament and concur with the statement by Representative AZ that such is in the best interest of Atlasia and the international community as a whole. However, I am not convinced that unilateral disarmament is the best strategy here; I am interested to hear from the sponsor why this plan is preferable to a multilateral disarmament treaty that would bind all nuclear powers (not just Atlasia).
This act would only bring about a unilateral reduction of our nuclear stockpile. I'm willing to re-word clauses two and three to make it clearer the aim of the act: to attempt to bring about a multilateral reduction in stockpiles and multilateral disarmament when there's no potential nuclear threat from elsewhere.
