[DEFEATED] Nuclear Proliferation Accords

[Frisbeeteria]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
"Nuclear Proliferation Accords"
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Federation of Canada

The World Assembly,

Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all World Assembly member nations and convinced that all member nations are entitled to participate in the exchange of information for the further development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,

Disturbed by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of a nuclear war and further believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the danger of nuclear war,

Recognizes that some nations choose to possess nuclear weapons, and further recognizes that some nations choose not to possess nuclear weapons, or have yet to develop them,

Alarmed at the potential threat posed to all nations in regards to the acquisition of nuclear weaponry by rogue states, terrorist and/or extremist organizations,

For the purposes of this convention defines:

A nuclear weapon as a weapon whose destructive power comes from energy produced exclusively by nuclear reactions,

Proliferation as the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information,

Hereby declares member nations shall not:

1. Directly transfer ownership of nuclear weapons to any other nation,

2. Directly receive ownership of nuclear weapons from any other nation,

3. Assist any nation in the manufacturing or design of nuclear weapons or, gaining control over such weapons,

Further declares:

1. That nations may transfer weapons to other nations for the purpose of disarming, and decommissioning such weapons as long as all materials are transferred back to the originating nation,

2. May station nuclear armaments on territory of another nation, as long as such armaments remain under ownership and control of originating nation,

Nothing in this act shall be interpreted as:

1. Affecting the right of member nations to research, produce and/or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes,

2. Affecting the right of member nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities,

Requires member nations ensure nuclear weapon designs and specifications remain national secrets and further ensure that they be prevented from falling into possession of persons and/or nations who have the intent to contravene these accords.

International Security/Significant

The World Assembly,

Recognizes that some nations choose to possess nuclear weapons,

Further recognizes that some nations choose not to possess nuclear weapons, or have not developed them,

Concerned that nuclear weapon stockpiles and development spending continues to grow,

Defines nuclear weapons as a weapon whose destructive power comes from nuclear energy,

Prohibits member nations from sharing, trading or selling nuclear weapons and/or their design specifications to any other nations, or acquiring nuclear weapons and/or their design specifications from any other nation,

Further prohibits member nations from buying, selling, trading, or sharing enrichment technology, equipment, and/or services with the purpose of enriching nuclear materials to weapons grade levels for use in nuclear arms,

Requires member nations ensure nuclear weapon designs and specifications remain national secrets and further ensure that they be prevented from falling into possession of persons and/or nations whom have the intent to contravene this convention,

Global Disarmament/Mild

Description: A convention to reduce Nuclear Weapons stockpiles and prevent proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and their designs.

RECOGNIZING that some nations choose to possess Nuclear Weapons,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that some nations choose not to possess Nuclear Weapons, or have not developed them,

CONCERNED that Nuclear Weapons stockpiles and development spending continue to grow,

DEFINES Nuclear Weapons as a weapon whose destructive power comes from nuclear energy,

PROHIBITS any nations from sharing, trading or selling Nuclear Weapons and/or their design specifications to any other nations, or acquiring Nuclear Weapons and/or their design specifications from any other nation,

REQUIRES all nations ensure Nuclear Weapon designs and specifications will remain national secrets and ensure that they be prevented from falling into possession of persons and/or nations with intent to contravene this convention,

CREATES and mandates the NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONVENTION COMMISSION to:

1. Commission agents to work together with nations to meet the aims of this resolution and to further non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,

2. Provide medical and humanitarian assistance to ANY NATION subject to attack by Nuclear Weapons.

Global Disarmament/Strong

Description: A convention to reduce Nuclear Weapons stockpiles and prevent proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and their designs.

RECOGNIZING that some nations choose to possess Nuclear Weapons,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that some nations choose not to possess Nuclear Weapons, or have not developed them,

CONCERNED that Nuclear Weapons stockpiles and development spending continue to grow,

DEFINES Nuclear Weapons as a weapon whose destructive power comes from nuclear energy,

REQUIRES nations that possess Nuclear Weapons to limit their Nuclear Weapons programs, development programs and delivery systems to the minimum required to defend themselves from hostile nations in a manner consistent with international law,

MANDATES that nations will abide by a no first use policy in regards to Nuclear Weapons usage.

PROHIBITS ANY nations from sharing, trading or selling Nuclear Weapons and/or their design specifications to ANY other nations, or acquiring Nuclear Weapons and/or their design specifications from ANY other nation,

FURTHER PROHIBITS ANY nation from buying, selling, trading, or sharing Enrichment technology, equipment, or services for the purposes of enriching nuclear materials to weapons grade levels for use in Nuclear Weapons,

FURTHER REQUIRES ALL nations ensure Nuclear Weapon designs and specifications will remain national secrets and ensure that they be prevented from falling into possession of persons and/or nations with intent to contravene this convention,

CREATES and mandates the NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONVENTION COMMISSION to:

1. Commission agents to work together with nations to meet the aims of this resolution and to further disarmament and non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,

2. Provide medical and humanitarian assistance to ANY NATION subject to attack by Nuclear Weapons.

Questions, concerns, comments and improvements welcome.

[Dagguerro]

Against.

One-size-fits-all policy because of fixed numbers. Doesn't fit anyone.

[United Federation of Canada]

Against.

One-size-fits-all policy because of fixed numbers. Doesn't fit anyone.

Why?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Against.

One-size-fits-all policy because of fixed numbers. Doesn't fit anyone.

Why?

Basing it on GDP makes little sense. The United Republic of Tiny Island, whose economy is fueled almost entirely by a local coconut trade, might not sport a large enough GDP to maintain even a single nuclear weapon under the proposed 1% rule.

The GDP provision would effectively deprive nations with small economies of their lawful choice to possess nuclear weapons.

[United Federation of Canada]

Why?

Basing it on GDP makes little sense. The United Republic of Tiny Island, whose economy is fueled almost entirely by a local coconut trade, might not sport a large enough GDP to maintain even a single nuclear weapon under the proposed 1% rule.

The GDP provision would effectively deprive nations with small economies of their lawful choice to possess nuclear weapons.

We appreciate your comments on this. Your insight can be valuable and we respect it, as we want a piece of legislation that is fair, but limits Nuclear Arsenals and their spending as military's often spend too much on weapons that they never intend to use.

What we would like is some feedback on how to impose the limits.

OCC: Lets be frank here for a minute. We all know a flat out ban is never going to pass. That being said we also want to limit these damn weapons so people don't starve so nations can have a huge arsenal that they will never use anyway. I am trying to be as neutral as possible on this and at least get a limitation on the books. I have to take into account that we can't pass laws on non-members and the old argument will just surface time and time again. What I want to know is how do I write a law that allows people to have them, but limit how many they can have, without defining hard numbers. I am at a loss on this. I am trying to keep this one as simple as possible, like Mr. Fibble.

Any help on that matter would be GREATLY appreciated.

[Dagguerro]

Against.

One-size-fits-all policy because of fixed numbers. Doesn't fit anyone.

Why?

...because all nations are different sizes with different economies? Surely that's obvious?

I've mentioned this previously: what of spacefaring nations with, say, 50 or 100 planets under their control? 30 to 60 nukes to defend an entire planet against similarly strong nations isn't exactly many. That's merely one example.

At the other end of the scale you have nations such as Cowardly Pacifists describes, who would be locked out of it entirely.

Therefore we are against any proposal with fixed numerical limits in it. Especially those specifying numbers (though percentages we're a little more flexible on).

- Lord Swift

[United Federation of Canada]

Why?

...because all nations are different sizes with different economies? Surely that's obvious?

I've mentioned this previously: what of spacefaring nations with, say, 50 or 100 planets under their control? 30 to 60 nukes to defend an entire planet against similarly strong nations isn't exactly many. That's merely one example.

At the other end of the scale you have nations such as Cowardly Pacifists describes, who would be locked out of it entirely.

Therefore we are against any proposal with fixed numerical limits in it. Especially those specifying numbers (though percentages we're a little more flexible on).

- Lord Swift

We appreciate this feedback Ambassador,

Could you possibly offer some suggestions on percentages that you would be more amicable to? We do realize that fixed numbers are a tough thing to deal with, but this is seeking to limit the number of warheads in existence.

We are willing to be flexible on GDP and defence budget percentages, but we believe that a hard cap needs to be on warheads to have any effect on limiting these weapons. Keep in mind this is not limiting delivery systems (silos, subs, missiles, torpedoes, ships, ect....), just the actual nuclear warheads that can be equipped on them.

Could we maybe come to an agreement on 5000 warheads and no reserve warheads? Or would a cap on total yields be more acceptable, and if so what kind of yield limitations should we seek to implement?

[Flibbleites]

You know, considering the atrocious job you did with your proposal on chemical weapons I fail to see why anyone would trust you with writing a proposal on nuclear weapons, or any weapon for that matter.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[United Federation of Canada]

You know, considering the atrocious job you did with your proposal on chemical weapons I fail to see why anyone would trust you with writing a proposal on nuclear weapons, or any weapon for that matter.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Fair enough, but that was my FIRST attempt at major legislation. That one achieved QUORUM on it's own with no campaigning and in fact was actively campaigned against. It also received over 3000 votes, including some very important delegates, so...... The learning experience from writing that proposal and the amount of votes that it received, are going to help me make that a better proposal when I submit it again as it is quite obvious a lot of nations are in support of limiting WMD's.

As a experienced writer yourself, I would hope you would appreciate the chance to offer advice in making THIS piece of legislation great. I was given advice to follow your authorship style and keep it simple, and I do appreciate the acts you have passed.

Any advice you could offer on THIS act would be invaluable.

[Auralia]

You know, considering the atrocious job you did with your proposal on chemical weapons I fail to see why anyone would trust you with writing a proposal on nuclear weapons, or any weapon for that matter.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Fair enough, but that was my FIRST attempt at major legislation. That one achieved QUORUM on it's own with no campaigning and in fact was actively campaigned against. It also received over 3000 votes, including some very important delegates, so...... The learning experience from writing that proposal and the amount of votes that it received, are going to help me make that a better proposal when I submit it again as it is quite obvious a lot of nations are in support of limiting WMD's.

As a experienced writer yourself, I would hope you would appreciate the chance to offer advice in making THIS piece of legislation great. I was given advice to follow your authorship style and keep it simple, and I do appreciate the acts you have passed.

Any advice you could offer on THIS act would be invaluable.

I think the main concern is that after being informed of the proposal's many flaws, you refused to withdraw it and instead allowed it to go to vote and risk becoming law. That kind of behaviour is worrying, and makes us wonder whether we should trust you again for this proposal.

[Flibbleites]

You know, considering the atrocious job you did with your proposal on chemical weapons I fail to see why anyone would trust you with writing a proposal on nuclear weapons, or any weapon for that matter.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Fair enough, but that was my FIRST attempt at major legislation. That one achieved QUORUM on it's own with no campaigning and in fact was actively campaigned against. It also received over 3000 votes, including some very important delegates, so......

Really? That's odd because the current vote totals I see say that you have only 2,961 votes for your resolution which the last time I checked is less than 3,000. Also that number might be impressive if you didn't also have well over 6,000 votes cast against your resolution attempt.

The learning experience from writing that proposal and the amount of votes that it received, are going to help me make that a better proposal when I submit it again as it is quite obvious a lot of nations are in support of limiting WMD's.

I would think that listening to people when they tell you that your proposal is flawed and to have it pulled would be more help, but to each his own I guess.

As a experienced writer yourself, I would hope you would appreciate the chance to offer advice in making THIS piece of legislation great. I was given advice to follow your authorship style and keep it simple, and I do appreciate the acts you have passed.

Any advice you could offer on THIS act would be invaluable.

Look, I waited a year and a half from the time I first joined the UN (as this place was called back then) before I wrote my first resolution. And during that time I cut my resolution writing teeth by helping others draft their proposals and studying the Proposal Rules until I knew them inside and out, backwards and forwards. You, on the other hand, have effectively decided to jump right into the deep end and try to swim with the sharks when you don't even know how to swim. So my advice to you is, since it obviously wasn't clear the first time around, don't do this.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[United Federation of Canada]

Really? That's odd because the current vote totals I see say that you have only 2,961 votes for your resolution which the last time I checked is less than 3,000. Also that number might be impressive if you didn't also have well over 6,000 votes cast against your resolution attempt.

The resolution did have over 3000 votes until The American Insurgency of Former English Colony's lost the delegacy in The North Pacific and was voting for it as you will see http://www.nationstates.net/page=region_history/region=the_north_pacific here. So yes my statement was technically correct.

Look, I waited a year and a half from the time I first joined the UN (as this place was called back then) before I wrote my first resolution. And during that time I cut my resolution writing teeth by helping others draft their proposals and studying the Proposal Rules until I knew them inside and out, backwards and forwards. You, on the other hand, have effectively decided to jump right into the deep end and try to swim with the sharks when you don't even know how to swim. So my advice to you is, since it obviously wasn't clear the first time around, don't do this.

So let me get this straight? New players shall not attempt to pass resolutions? Why? According to what you are saying resolution writing shall be left to the big fish in the game, which effectively creates an upper class in the WA and everyone should just do what they say? God forbid anyone try to learn by doing.

[United Federation of Canada]

Fair enough, but that was my FIRST attempt at major legislation. That one achieved QUORUM on it's own with no campaigning and in fact was actively campaigned against. It also received over 3000 votes, including some very important delegates, so...... The learning experience from writing that proposal and the amount of votes that it received, are going to help me make that a better proposal when I submit it again as it is quite obvious a lot of nations are in support of limiting WMD's.

As a experienced writer yourself, I would hope you would appreciate the chance to offer advice in making THIS piece of legislation great. I was given advice to follow your authorship style and keep it simple, and I do appreciate the acts you have passed.

Any advice you could offer on THIS act would be invaluable.

I think the main concern is that after being informed of the proposal's many flaws, you refused to withdraw it and instead allowed it to go to vote and risk becoming law. That kind of behaviour is worrying, and makes us wonder whether we should trust you again for this proposal.

The last time I checked this thread was a topic of conversation for a NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONVENTION, not The CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION. I believe that has a thread http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=206378

Perhaps the next proposal I write should contain only 3 or 4 lines, those seem to pass without much debate, and I guess you really can't screw those ones up huh?

[Imperial Yamea]

Against on the grounds that its impractial in our personal opinion to try and write legisaltion limiting nuclear weaponry which won't affect everyone. We do however applaud the intention.

[Flibbleites]

Look, I waited a year and a half from the time I first joined the UN (as this place was called back then) before I wrote my first resolution. And during that time I cut my resolution writing teeth by helping others draft their proposals and studying the Proposal Rules until I knew them inside and out, backwards and forwards. You, on the other hand, have effectively decided to jump right into the deep end and try to swim with the sharks when you don't even know how to swim. So my advice to you is, since it obviously wasn't clear the first time around, don't do this.

So let me get this straight? New players shall not attempt to pass resolutions? Why?

Because 9 times out of 10 they suck.

According to what you are saying resolution writing shall be left to the big fish in the game, which effectively creates an upper class in the WA and everyone should just do what they say? God forbid anyone try to learn by doing.

Think about it this way, even in RL newbie legislators are rarely writing successful bills in their first term. It's kind of the same thing here.

I think the main concern is that after being informed of the proposal's many flaws, you refused to withdraw it and instead allowed it to go to vote and risk becoming law. That kind of behaviour is worrying, and makes us wonder whether we should trust you again for this proposal.

The last time I checked this thread was a topic of conversation for a NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONVENTION, not The CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION. I believe that has a thread http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=206378

True, but one can learn a lot about someone by looking at their prior behavior.

Perhaps the next proposal I write should contain only 3 or 4 lines, those seem to pass without much debate, and I guess you really can't screw those ones up huh?

Wrong.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Imperium Londinium]

Come on Flibbleites, cut him some slack!
It might be a politics game, but it's still a game, and new players who actually want to get anywhere is a good thing. Most people won't hang around for a year watching with nothing to do, so having a player who wants to get involved is a good thing, it's a learning curve that people can help with. Not something where the biggest nations should try and hold others back, I reckon that can only hurt the game.

Not saying the proposal is any good, just that canning the guy over it won't help him get better, it'll just make him want to quit

[Confederacy of gilgehad]

To be honest I had chosen to wait before looking at legislation writing ans the such. But looking at the attitude of some players towards new players wanting to get involved at this level has made me take pause and see if I even wish to continue with the game.

[Ainocra]

Against.

One-size-fits-all policy because of fixed numbers. Doesn't fit anyone.

Why?

The Star Empire of Ainocra spans many solar systems, such a low number is frankly not enough to make a credible deterrent for the defense of such a large tract of space.

There are many other space faring nations most of which are even larger.

Opposed

[Flibbleites]

Come on Flibbleites, cut him some slack!

OOC: First off, my previous posts in this thread have been made In Character, as are most of my posts in this forum, hence them all being signed, "Bob Flibble, etc."

It might be a politics game, but it's still a game, and new players who actually want to get anywhere is a good thing. Most people won't hang around for a year watching with nothing to do,

I didn't say that they can't do anything, I'm just saying that the best way to start a career in proposal writing is by helping other people write theirs.

so having a player who wants to get involved is a good thing, it's a learning curve that people can help with.

You're quite correct, there is a learning curve in proposal writing. And it's quite steep which is why I recommend the course of action that I do.

Not something where the biggest nations should try and hold others back, I reckon that can only hurt the game.

Not saying the proposal is any good, just that canning the guy over it won't help him get better, it'll just make him want to quit

If it makes you feel any better I'll admit that the first ever draft I wrote was illegal. It was intended to enforce a resolution that was so illegal that it was wiped from history.

[Imperium Londinium]

@flibbleites
To be fair, so was mine (as you so mercilessly pointed out )
But my new proposal seems to stand a good chance of doing well, and I've only been at it for a few days really, so just not writing proposals probably isn't the way to do it is what I'm saying, it's fine to write them, it's even fine for them to be rubbish and get shot down, it's just the Ad Hominem arguments that I disagree with haha

[Democratic Amarica]

The physotic dictatorship that is my contry agrees with your policy if you dont count hidden stockpiles.

Message atherized by the great leader

[Dagguerro]

Another issue comes to mind: any nation engaged in a space program using nuclear pulse engines would be completely screwed over by these limitations.

[The republic of caoco]

I'm against because I got 34 nukes and i'm an army country.

[United Federation of Canada]

Another issue comes to mind: any nation engaged in a space program using nuclear pulse engines would be completely screwed over by these limitations.

Would you consider nuclear devices being used to propel as spacecraft to be WARHEADS? Would these be weaponized, or another form of nuclear device? There are differences.

For example: The GADGET was not a weaponized version of a nuclear device, as it was undeliverable. FATMAN was the weaponized version of that device making it a WARHEAD.

The act clearly states only WARHEADS are CONSIDERED being limited.

Basing it on GDP makes little sense. The United Republic of Tiny Island, whose economy is fueled almost entirely by a local coconut trade, might not sport a large enough GDP to maintain even a single nuclear weapon under the proposed 1% rule.

The GDP provision would effectively deprive nations with small economies of their lawful choice to possess nuclear weapons.

Very valid point, but I don't see how this would affect those nations. If they can't afford a nuclear weapon, then they don't build one simple as that. This doesn't say they can't possess them. I would doubt a country that can't afford even one weapon would even have a development program in place to research these weapons in the first place.

I'm against because I got 34 nukes and i'm an army country.

So you have 34 nukes, you are within the limits. Where is the problem here?

Against on the grounds that its impractial in our personal opinion to try and write legisaltion limiting nuclear weaponry which won't affect everyone. We do however applaud the intention.

As has been said before, you can't pass resolutions are are binding on non-member nations. That argument is growing a little thin.

The Star Empire of Ainocra spans many solar systems, such a low number is frankly not enough to make a credible deterrent for the defense of such a large tract of space.

There are many other space faring nations most of which are even larger.

Opposed

Okay then,

If you are opposed to this based simply on those grounds, do you have a solution that would be more fitting for your empire, that would still limit these weapons?

[Dagguerro]

Another issue comes to mind: any nation engaged in a space program using nuclear pulse engines would be completely screwed over by these limitations.

Would you consider nuclear devices being used to propel as spacecraft to be WARHEADS? Would these be weaponized, or another form of nuclear device? There are differences.

For example: The GADGET was not a weaponized version of a nuclear device, as it was undeliverable. FATMAN was the weaponized version of that device making it a WARHEAD.

The act clearly states only WARHEADS are CONSIDERED being limited.

The gadget was still a nuclear bomb. It wasn't deliverable, therefore wasn't a deployable weapon, but it was still a weapon even if just a prototype.

Most nuclear pulse propulsion designs involve detonating nuclear bombs. Either dropped behind to detonate on a pusher plate or launched ahead to detonate on a kind of solar sail. "Warhead" is simply the term for an explosive material and detonator designed for use in a bomb, missile, etc so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

So if they're not considered to be weapons this entire proposal is pointless since anyone can simply say that all of the nuclear weapons they have are propulsion devices and build ten thousand nuclear bombs.