OPEN PROTOCOL

-Si vis pacem, para pactum-

Is self determination and security accessible to all?

Can we guarantee sovereignty by unrestricted weapons proliferation to assure multi-polar deterrence among competitive economies?

Are we willing to revoke control and export regimes to promote free trade of defense technologies among military industry complexes?

-In pursuit of innovative markets-

-Introduces our platform expansion to defense systems registries-

We host nations, militaries, industrial suppliers, and diplomatic organisations in open platform transparent information exchange of defense systems capabilities, manufacturing, deployment, and doctrines.

We recognise all signatories are ultimately tempted to cheat existing arms control regulations for geostrategic gain, and pursue nuclear brinkmanship as final deterrent to enforce feverous diplomatic agendas in cementing individual right to self-determination of economic complexes.

We contest abuse from established monopolies and arms control legislation mafias which restrain development and proliferation of A2ADN procurement that primarily affects lessor military powers under controlled arms regulation barriers and conventional adherence to inhibitive missile technology export regimes and nuclear status/proliferation agreements.

We seek to abolish all arms control treaties and ignite a globalised arms race through unrestrained military industry where procurement agencies are able to export nuclear and hypersonic technologies to immediate allies without commercial or resell restriction to enable rapid proliferation for localised development and innovation of defense systems.

We believe in respect of mutual state/organisation right to pursue self armaments of the latest military capabilities in unrestricted and diversified multi-national partnerships that promote open cooperation and establish revolving economic trust.

We encourage nation block competition among the East-West dimension to evolve for an expanding multi-polar aligned world order, where client states and enterprises can guarantee their sovereignty by sourcing A2ADN development & localised dual use integration from globalised military industry & commercial supply chains partners.

We hope to transform weapons legislation and political lobbying to mitigate barriers of dual use commercial technologies and enable open market sale of Hypersonic A2ADN systems beyond client states; allowing private industrial complexes and multi-national conglomerates to contract independent development and installation of missile defense systems to protect economic installations of land, maritime, and exo-planetary extraction/processing/manufacturing facilities.

We propose an open platform registry to database missile/systems development, testing, assembly schematics, serial production, doctrinal deployment, response time, and area networks coverage capabilities of every military's nuclear/hypersonic A2ADN capabilities.

We endorse expansion and contribution among globalised aerospace blockchain partners to establish non-discriminatory economic partnerships between clients and third parties to ensure continuous weapons innovation and stockpiling for prospective state clients.

We sponsor inherent security in competitive and inevitable arms buildup, and entice developing economies to invest and partner in military industry networks,

to remain competitive and independent among major trading blocks.

We welcome contribution among globalised aerospace partners to innovate competitive and indigenous and Nuclear/Hypersonic industry into fortifying client state/enterprise self interests and ensuring multi-polar deterrence by generation global wealth through military consumption driven economies.

-In resolution to globally insufferable arms control-

Open source arms control registry; offers removal of NEW START, MTCR, NPT and UN arms embargoes; every country will be able to pursue unrestricted partnering and exchange of modern generation weapons, awhile mitigating the immediate need for state surveillance mechanism to monitor infiltration; since primary military deterrence is established by economic output of strike capabilities;Missiles/Launchers.

Indeed this is already evident in the paradigm shift that the Russian Federation pursues by it's careless export controls that enable client states to resell and evolve SRBMs/SAMs/LACMs into credible A2ADN networks that strain US aligned competitors to develop overwhelming or superior counter-force measures to preserve geo-strategic equilibrium.

In place of regulations and barriers; we offer to merge SIRPI with IAEA and expand their registry membership to include full disclosure of arsenals and A2ADN/HGV capabilities

Much in the same way how OCED and BRICS share commercial data, there's  prerogative for military systems manufacturers to lobby their respective clients for open data on peer and competitor capabilities to scale and innovate designs and expanding supporting economic supply chains to preserve equilibrium and status quo deterrence.

We consider there is relatively minimal immediate risk of commercial and widespread acquisition of nuclear weapons due to scarcity nuclear materials deposits; Nuclear warheads are excessively expensive to manufacture compared to conventional warheads.

Yet once military industrial complexes have sufficient economic incentive to pursue extra-terrestrial harvesting and fusion production of nuclear materials, we can certainly expect every wealthy state and conglomerate to flaunt their commercially abundant nuclear arsenals.

I.E. when states recognise everyone has Nuclear/Conventional delivery systems, and knows from open access database who/where/how these systems are designed/manufactured/assembled/organised/supplied/deployed; 

They can make a severely educated calculus of whether anyone would like to trigger their own mutually assured destruction in the proximity of a tightly packed world bar of nuclear open carry multi-polar neighbours all incentivised and intimidated into upholding the perpetual sword display. 

Arms control must end, it's become endemic to restraining the growth of the military industry advance and technologies. Certainly we can encourage signatory clients to uphold ethic weapons testing without the need to restrict technology transfers.

While the immediate concerns of illicit and unethical use among unpopular state actors remains, we must inevitably understand the public-industrial undertaking to develop advanced design and manufacturing of high-tech systems that encourages social investment.

We prospect removal of Destructive Weapons Regulations for Commercial and Civilian legislation; Every company and psychotic end of the world doomer should be able to fortify themselves in bastion of A2ADN weapons to preserve their own localised economic interests within the global spectrum of competing commercial corporations.

For the individual perspective: we see no reason why any US citizen or organisation should be prohibited from owning a functional nuclear tipped Iskander if they can finance and obtain the necessary support infrastructure;

Our objective is to entice all current official and non-official nuclear powers into signing an international UN approved/regulated body to enable all member signatories to publically access information; allowing formal inspection of nuclear warheads, delivery systems,early warning radars/satellites, command & control infrastructure, and disclosure of strategic doctrinal use strategies/policies, completely examining any signatory country’s nuclear arsenal’s capabilities.

Ongoing weapons/nuclear infrastructure development must also be disclosed to ensure transparency and geopolitical stability among nuclear/non-nuclear powers to understand the

trends/capabilities of new systems, enabling countries to respond with their own counter-capability systems, thus enabling peer nuclear powers to preserve nuclear parity and prevent full scale use of nuclear weapons by being fully aware of the capabilities of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Promoting investment/partnerships into critical technologies and industry, increases economic opportunities for domestic/global hardware manufactures / designers, and further increasing the economic value and influence of the defense industry, and ultimately socio-economic development through block chain economics.

By enabling signatory countries to understand common policies/strategies of nuclear weapons states; our commission could also be expanded to provide capability/modernization/policy recommendations, ensuring that member states maintain development/fielding of critical hardware/infrastructure to promote robust nuclear deterrence and mitigate safety/intelligence risks normally associated/undermined by secrecy/classified information/programmes of nuclear deterrence.

-The premise of existing states' nuclear deterrence relationships is flawed and limited to eastblished binary rivalries; while the historic East-West divide among former cold war rivals persists, modern multi-polar deterrence doctrine must evolve to accommodate comprehensive deterrence against all potential rivals-

Assuming that established relationships between US and India, Russia and Pakistan, China and Israel or any comparable non-aligned deterrence relationship is permanent within the established global economic-diplomatic framework, is a flawed and ignorant doctrine that ignores underlying geopolitical shifts. All nations must ultimately invest into deterrence and reserve surplus nuclear arsenals for complex and contingent multi-polar security. Least, should a limited nuclear exchange start between established rivals India vs Pakistan, or potential rivals Russia vs China, all global players must have surplus nuclear arsenals to preserve and respond to militaty alliance betrayals by affording 2nd, 3rd and progressive 4th strike ICBM/HGV exchange capacity. 

All nations should strive to keep a 2nd volume of strike assets for potential diplomatic realignment once initial conflict can escalate to nuclear extortion and alliance consessions or unprovoked attacks from bystander states. If a major nuclear exchange happens, would we all risk binary, and steadfast alliance division among nuclear weapons states, or would nations break their collective security treaties to avoid immediate threats of destruction, only to recapitalise after the initial exchange to choose the winning side?

We strive to enhance global security by enabling minor nuclear powers (DPRK/Israel/Pakistan/Egypt/France/UK) to assess the capabilities of their peer adversaries and major nuclear powers, (USA/Russia/China/India), mitigating the threat perception, and allowing for counter technologies/tactics to be developed/disclosed, further establishing transparency of formerly reclusive nations and ultimately promoting global stability through non-ambiguous, verified information of deterrence models.

Establishing global stability through the weapons or infrastructure development requirements imposed upon all signatory states and even non-nuclear state observers and prospective nuclear powers (Saudi Arabia/Iran/ROK/Japan/Ukraine/Turkey): since the military industrial requirements for producing necessary hardware to ensure adequate deterrence against nuclear weapons states.

The interests of self-preservation of an expansive defense industry encourages/lobbies nations to pursue a continuous arms race to maintain strategic deterrence, and counteracts/mitigates the trends/risks associated with irresponsible/isolationist foreign policy that cause strategic escalation/confrontation and potential economic/social annihilation of the military industry from an actual “All Out War”/MAD.

We offer an expansive, formal and legal nuclear transparency framework solution compared to existing alternatives that are either; poorly enforced/regulated, not inclusive to non-official/minor nuclear states, or outright illegal violations of sovereign nation’s security or rights to self-determination. 

Arms Control Agreements/Limitations inevitably collapse, recent history and the current global situation provides ample evidence to suggest that the thinking behind legacy treaties is fundamentally flawed and unsuitable for a multi-polar global landscape lead by developed NATO-PACT/CTSO treaties. 

This is most evident in the START/SORT treaties, which have failed to achieve desired goals of threat reduction perception to their interested signatories; or more recently in the collapse of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (A.B.M.) or Intermediary Nuclear Forces (I.N.F) Treaties which were both plagued by mutual distrust/suspicion between Russian/US parties, and didn’t expand membership to emerging military powers in pursuit of Ballistic Missile Defense A2ADN.

In combination with the rate of global technology exchange, both developed and developing economies have easier industrial accessibility to nuclear technologies, and certain states will inevitably pursue nuclear weapons development.

In the future the number of nuclear weapon states will only increase, and a proper treaty framework is required to ensure global security without placing unacceptable restrictions on certain countries that would otherwise make them hesitant to participate in failed arms control treaties, since minor nuclear powers feel inevitably threatened by the growing, non-transparent capabilities of competitor nuclear states, while other regional, non-nuclear militaries alike Saudi Arabia and Iran are further pressured into pursing their own nuclear weapons programmes.

#HyperHype just needs to gain proper global appeal-

-To be expanded in promise for the restoration of Greater Korea-

-WORK UNDER EDITING-

The USA needs a strategic threat within east Asia to justify forward presence against China. It uses DPRK as that scapegoat. The only country capable of attacking the DPRK in any meaningful way is the USA. Though I argue lots about how efficiently that objective could be achieved, the USA can ultimately accomplish strategic regime change against DPRK 
But for the USA to commit to korea; it'll take 6 months of total army mobilisation, To sealift and surge deploy all the equipment from the USA
 Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, USA and even Australia use the DPRK as a justification for militarisation. Most military industries within these countries like to exaggerate the threat so they can land contracts; THAAD/Patriot/ATACAMS/F-35s/etc
South Korea itself is especially dependant up US foreign aid/military assistance
It gets a few billion yearly
To keep that money coming; they must justify some strategic threat or new advancement
So as a result all these countries paint DPRK as a threat, and since There's lots of DPRK hardware that's underestimated/unaccounted
 most east asian countries just use the DPRK as a way to justify a military build up

 even China uses it as a defacto justification

I.E. DPRK makes new ICBM: ROK buys THAAD; China commissions more frigates

More profitable for everybody involved to maintain confrontation

Without a nuclear component; nobody would start Korean war

They absolutely won't start a war with a nuclear component

They whole game plan would be rush the DPRK before they can unload all their missiles/artillery at ROK/Japan

The USA has to use nuclear weapons to make that strategy viable, and even then, the credible risk is there, 

The destruction to ROK/Japan +Casualty count for the US Army wouldn't be worth the cost of removing DPRK

Specially when such a thing would happen: China would rush their military in from the north and try to annex half the country before USA could- Or China can ignore the war and annex Taiwan while the USA is busy- in the process, Half of ROK and DPRK populations would be casualties, That's basically 40 million people- Then whatever US casualties; likely triple from Iraq, So about 300k -Then whatever casualties from a nuclear attack on a Japanese cities- least a million; Nobody sane triggers this

It's called sensationalism, called a show of force

Both countries regularly do military excersizes in front each other

In case of the DPRK; they've always had to show their hand when USA dismisses their military capability

They do that through excersizes and new hardware,which demonstrates deterrent