[DEFEATED] Nuclear Proliferation Accords

[Alqania]

"Perhaps I ought to rephrase my legality concern", Princess Christine speculated. "I put it to my distinguished colleagues in this chamber and to the ever watchful Secretariat that:"

A. A legal Global Disarmament proposal must reduce government spending for the military and/or police
B. This proposal does NOT reduce government spending for the military or police

Conclusion: This proposal is NOT a legal Global Disarmament proposal

"I hope that was clear enough", the Princess added, rather unsatisfied about having to make what she considered an extremely blunt argument.

Oh but it does, as it requires nations to reduce their stockpiles to minimum deterrence levels, which does CUT military spending.

"So stick to that, get rid of the non-proliferation provisions and we have ourselves a fine Global Disarmament proposal", Princess Christine advised. "Controlling whether a member state opts to develop a product themselves or to purchase it is micromanagement and that does not belong in any category."

[United Federation of Canada]

Oh but it does, as it requires nations to reduce their stockpiles to minimum deterrence levels, which does CUT military spending.

"So stick to that, get rid of the non-proliferation provisions and we have ourselves a fine Global Disarmament proposal", Princess Christine advised. "Controlling whether a member state opts to develop a product themselves or to purchase it is micromanagement and that does not belong in any category."

If we prevent non-proliferation that also promotes global disarmament as well though. It is not micromanagement and and is a very valid issue.

We have asked the Secretariat to look into whether it violates Cooperation in Science and have not heard back yet. If it does, then we will remove the non-proliferation clauses, but that essentially destroys the spirit of this act, and does not truly promote global disarmament.

[Alqania]

"So stick to that, get rid of the non-proliferation provisions and we have ourselves a fine Global Disarmament proposal", Princess Christine advised. "Controlling whether a member state opts to develop a product themselves or to purchase it is micromanagement and that does not belong in any category."

If we prevent non-proliferation that also promotes global disarmament as well though.

"False. Non-proliferation does not reduce spending."

It is not micromanagement and and is a very valid issue.

"That is a matter of opinion. The Queendom disagrees."

We have asked the Secretariat to look into whether it violates Cooperation in Science and have not heard back yet. If it does, then we will remove the non-proliferation clauses, but that essentially destroys the spirit of this act, and does not truly promote global disarmament.

"I do not believe there is any Contradiction issue with the Cooperation in Science Act. Research related to nuclear weapons is arguably related to national security and therefore exempted from the CSA. But I do remain steadfast in the interpretation that non-proliferation does not reduce spending and therefore does not belong in a Global Disarmament proposal."

[United Federation of Canada]

If we prevent non-proliferation that also promotes global disarmament as well though.

"False. Non-proliferation does not reduce spending."

It is not micromanagement and and is a very valid issue.

"That is a matter of opinion. The Queendom disagrees."

We have asked the Secretariat to look into whether it violates Cooperation in Science and have not heard back yet. If it does, then we will remove the non-proliferation clauses, but that essentially destroys the spirit of this act, and does not truly promote global disarmament.

"I do not believe there is any Contradiction issue with the Cooperation in Science Act. Research related to nuclear weapons is arguably related to national security and therefore exempted from the CSA. But I do remain steadfast in the interpretation that non-proliferation does not reduce spending and therefore does not belong in a Global Disarmament proposal."

We understand your disagreement as to the interpretation and respect it, but we believe non-proliferation of nuclear weapons does need to be legislated and will proceed AS IS at this time. If the General Assembly does not agree with our interpretation and does not approve the legislation as is then we are full willing to compromise.

We are just awaiting official contact with our office from the Secretariat on any possible contradictions to current legislation and will proceed when the queue clears up a bit.

We thank Your Highness for the healthy debate on this subject, as this may have opened many eyes on this subject.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I still believe that 'minimum deterrent' cannot exist.
Sure, MAD may have worked in the real world (though more than once came close to completely failing) but this is NS, where thousands of militaries engage in nuclear attacks as a matter of daily course.

We believe it can work and will.

It would have never actually failed as common sense and survival instinct would have prevented it, plus it requires several people to launch an actual attack and it only take one person to not follow through to prevent it from happening.

In the UK it takes eight to come to agreement and two to launch (aboard a sub). The Soviets needed just four in a silo, with two to launch again. The Americans I think require more than either but still two to launch. If those two can overpower their peers in each scenario, you have a launch.
Remember that a sub has drastically more personnel, but drastically more arsenal.

The thing about the 'minimum deterrent' is that you haven't tried to quantify it (well, you have, but), and doing so anyway would be pointless. It's non-quantifiable and dependant on far too many factors to calculate, assume or even know the existence of.

[United Federation of Canada]

If those two can overpower their peers in each scenario, you have a launch.

But you failed to point out that without the actual launch codes that come as part of the Emergency Action Message or similar from the military command the warheads themselves will not detonate.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

If those two can overpower their peers in each scenario, you have a launch.

But you failed to point out that without the actual launch codes that come as part of the Emergency Action Message or similar from the military command the warheads themselves will not detonate.

They almost always have their codes there, with the definite exception of American land and air based missile forces.
All naval (read, ballistic missile sub) arsenals have their launch and arming codes issued in sealed envelopes to which only the Captain of a vessel may have access to. Soviet silo crews had two members of the Strategic Rocket Force who would actually launch the missile, but the remainder of the crew was made up by two KGB agents who would be responsible for arming the warhead.

Naval crews have their codes issued to them because they're intended to be rapid reaction launch platforms. In the case of Britain, especially, the whole point is that the subs expect to launch without any kind of centralised command structure, on which case the sub crew will launch on their own initiative. The Soviet's arsenal could be readied and launched almost automated.

[United Federation of Canada]

Do we have a legality ruling from the Secretariat or are we clear to send this act to the floor for consideration?

[South Aztlan]

Does it count if i have Nuclear Warhead ICBMs???

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Does it count if i have Nuclear Warhead ICBMs???

Under most (all) definitions, that would constitute a nuclear weapon, yes.

[United Federation of Canada]

Does it count if i have Nuclear Warhead ICBMs???

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

[Goddess Relief Office]

Do we have a legality ruling from the Secretariat or are we clear to send this act to the floor for consideration?

The Mods don't do blanket checking for entire resolutions-- if you have a question on a particular paragraph, you should send them a GHR or go to the Moderation forum and ask them to take a look at that one specific para. for legality.

[South Aztlan]

Does it count if i have Nuclear Warhead ICBMs???

Under most (all) definitions, that would constitute a nuclear weapon, yes.

Ok then I will cease using the Nuke ICBMs

[Bears Armed]

OOC: The argument so far seems to have centred on the potential use of nuclear weapons as deterrents by 'modern'tech' nations that share a world. What about those 'future-tech' nations for whom nuclear warheads (and/or 'bomb-pumped laser' warheads, which this proposal's current wording would also cover) are actually "required" for use in space against enemy warships?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I believe it's been put forward before that non-MT nations can take or leave the WA proposals as relevancy decides.

[Bears Armed]

I believe it's been put forward before that non-MT nations can take or leave the WA proposals as relevancy decides.

OOC: Not by the Mods, as far as I can recall...

[United Federation of Canada]

Do we have a legality ruling from the Secretariat or are we clear to send this act to the floor for consideration?

The Mods don't do blanket checking for entire resolutions-- if you have a question on a particular paragraph, you should send them a GHR or go to the Moderation forum and ask them to take a look at that one specific para. for legality.

I have sent a request and a thread in moderation. I was told to start a thread here, which was done with the initial draft.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I believe it's been put forward before that non-MT nations can take or leave the WA proposals as relevancy decides.

OOC: Not by the Mods, as far as I can recall...

I think it was...
I wouldn't be able to source it, but it essentially said that since the issue wouldn't be relevant to some tech levels (Uranium mining to PT, a whole swathe of things for FT), it could be ICly ignored by those tech levels. Obviously, there's no way to evade the game's ruling on the matter.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Not by the Mods, as far as I can recall...

I think it was...
I wouldn't be able to source it, but it essentially said that since the issue wouldn't be relevant to some tech levels (Uranium mining to PT, a whole swathe of things for FT), it could be ICly ignored by those tech levels. Obviously, there's no way to evade the game's ruling on the matter.

But surely a restriction on numbers of nukes would be relevant to those nations? I can certainly remember one or two of their ambassadors criticising a previous such proposal for this reason...

[South Aztlan]

OOC: The argument so far seems to have centred on the potential use of nuclear weapons as deterrents by 'modern'tech' nations that share a world. What about those 'future-tech' nations for whom nuclear warheads (and/or 'bomb-pumped laser' warheads, which this proposal's current wording would also cover) are actually "required" for use in space against enemy warships?

I recently proposed the WA to create a Space Command, much like the one that the UN has. But the proposal didn't pass.

[Flibbleites]

OOC: The argument so far seems to have centred on the potential use of nuclear weapons as deterrents by 'modern'tech' nations that share a world. What about those 'future-tech' nations for whom nuclear warheads (and/or 'bomb-pumped laser' warheads, which this proposal's current wording would also cover) are actually "required" for use in space against enemy warships?

I recently proposed the WA to create a Space Command, much like the one that the UN has. But the proposal didn't pass.

No, it was deleted because it violated the WA's "No WA Military/Police" rule. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I think it was...
I wouldn't be able to source it, but it essentially said that since the issue wouldn't be relevant to some tech levels (Uranium mining to PT, a whole swathe of things for FT), it could be ICly ignored by those tech levels. Obviously, there's no way to evade the game's ruling on the matter.

But surely a restriction on numbers of nukes would be relevant to those nations? I can certainly remember one or two of their ambassadors criticising a previous such proposal for this reason...

I don't see how a limit on the number of nukes a nation can use really matters in the 1860s.
Plus, as has been said, warheads would be innumerable for most FT nations, for a variety of reasons. Mining charges, propulsion charges, the fact that given the assumed vastly superior detection, defence and engagement systems of platforms in the future would make nukes one of the only viable munitions in space and often on the ground.

[Scandavian States]

[Minimum deterrence? I suppose that means something if you think, like most people, that conducting nuclear warfare is just a matter of who can bust the other side's cities fastest. Otherwise, it's a loophole so huge you could drive one of those massive German strip mining machines through it with plenty of room to spare.]

[Samozaryadnyastan]

[Minimum deterrence? I suppose that means something if you think, like most people, that conducting nuclear warfare is just a matter of who can bust the other side's cities fastest. Otherwise, it's a loophole so huge you could drive one of those massive German strip mining machines through it with plenty of room to spare.]

Exactly as I have been trying to explain.

[United Federation of Canada]

Submitted for the consideration of the World Assembly.