contradictions and lack of clarity in the non-first,-use idea. The Federal Republicof Germany also pointed out that, in its opinion, there were inconsistencies between the Soviet draft resolution and agreed principles of disarnament and between the non-first-use proposal and certain provisions of the Charter, inparticular Art,icle 51, which, the Federal Republic of Germany noted, drew nodistinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It further sEated that, inits opinion, the adoption of the non-first-use obligation would eliminate Ehe det,errent effect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defence system in Central Europe and that the vast, conventional superiority of Ehe Warsard Treaty count.ries would come into play, resulting in an unegual securiEy situation in WesEern EuroPe. 24. The United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the Ten menber States of the European Community, stressed that the declaraEions favoured by some States could dolit.tle to enhance international security if they were not accompanied by realistic, balanced and verifiable arms cont,rol agreements. For that reason, the members of the European Community were unable to give their support Lo proposals such as thosefor non-first-use of nucl-ear weapons, which in their view were unrealistic, unenforceable and declaratory. The Ten believed that disarnament. would come aboutonly through serious and painstaking negotiaEions, resultir{t in concreEe aEreemenEs on the limitation and reduction of armament,s, and taking into account theprinciples of parity and equality. 25. Responding to these and other viens, the Soviet Union stated that all iEs proposals, submitted over lhe years, on the prevention of nuclear war had the same Eoal' namely, the outlawing of nuclear war and the eventual elimination of all nuclear stockpiles. Secondly, as the threat of nuclear war had increased and various doct,rines had been adopted which regarded nuclear war as permissible orpossible, the United Nations should condemn the first use of nuclear vreapons as a
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing a specific issue in the context of international relations and diplomacy, specifically the prevention of nuclear war. It mentions various countries and their positions on the non-first-use of nuclear weapons, and references the United Nations Charter and the principles of disarmament. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting that the topic is related to international politics and security.

**Category**
International relations, Security