[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Security Convention"

[Vogelda]

Raising xyr voice above the hubbub, Mx Tulann says with great passion in xyr voice, "Vogelda is staunchly opposed to war and weaponry in all their forms, but particularly towards nuclear weapons and their use in warfare. In addition, we cannot in good faith support energy production by nuclear fusion; its effects on the environment are too costly for what is created. While we believe it is idealistic to hope for a ban on the use of nuclear weapons and energy, any motion that moves us closer to that lofty goal is one to be praised. As such, the Vogeldan Deliberation Assembly has voted unanimously to vote AGAINST this repeal."

[Sagittariidae]

"Do you not get how close to nuclear war we will get if this passes. I am opposing this, nukes should be strictly controlled. Not loose."

I, after taking a course on international affairs at university¹, have always held the position that nuclear weapons are one of the greatest tools for peace ever developed. They have made the costs to war so high and so immediate that any attack is unimaginable because it would summon back to the fore the ghost of total annihilation. All nations with nuclear weapons will never give them up, because they are integral to the security dilemma. All nations without nuclear weapons want them, because after getting them, they will never be existentially threatened again.

By imposing such immense costs to conflict, multi-state war between any nuclear powers has become effectively impossible, allowing us to have the world we have today, one of greater peace and safety than ever before; the spectre of millions dying in the fields of France or the islands of the Pacific has now permanently disappeared.

We understand your point, but it assumes one thing - that all nations that have access to nuclear weaponry act sensibly and morally. If even one has no qualms about using them, others will need to defend themselves with the same firepower and total annihilation will not be a possibility anymore, but reality. Although, overall, proliferation of nuclear weaponry may actually reduce war and normally we would support such a cause, the risk of an exception in this case is simply too high - a chain reaction that may bring upon not only widespread destruction, but perhaps even the extinction of sentient species.

We understand that the resolution that is being repealed does not prevent such an occurrence, but it nevertheless attempts to limit access to nuclear weaponry and thus lowers the risk, so our vote has to be against.

[Thermodolia]

Yeah. And for a completely dumb reason to.

The uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapon is a dumb reason?

Yes considering that WA members are outnumbered by non-members, who I might add can do whatever the hell the please. The WA controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not going to stop anything, as non-member states and rogue member states will still produce them and sell them to the highest bidder.

[Thermodolia]

Raising xyr voice above the hubbub, Mx Tulann says with great passion in xyr voice, "Vogelda is staunchly opposed to war and weaponry in all their forms, but particularly towards nuclear weapons and their use in warfare. In addition, we cannot in good faith support energy production by nuclear fusion; its effects on the environment are too costly for what is created. While we believe it is idealistic to hope for a ban on the use of nuclear weapons and energy, any motion that moves us closer to that lofty goal is one to be praised. As such, the Vogeldan Deliberation Assembly has voted unanimously to vote AGAINST this repeal."

Ambassador Jon Æthr rose from his chair to speak, "Ambassador Tulann while we admire your noble goals, they will not work. The WA doesn't control the world only the members which are apart of it, this leaves hundreds if not thousands of nations that are not WA member states and they, to put it bluntly, can do whatever they damn well please. This puts us at a great disadvantage, as whatever legislation this esteemed body passes can only put a dent into any worldwide problems, if that. While this is not a bad thing, it's quite noble, but when it comes to war we Thermodolians and many others do not want to be put at a disadvantage. Thank you Ambassador Tulann for your time."

[Excidium Planetis]

If we're speaking about the 'transfer of specifications', this is not the same as the 'right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes' or 'the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities'.

No but your argument clearly states "4. Prohibitions on the transfer of specifications of any kind, thereby increasing the risk and danger of nuclear accidents and radiation contamination." It wouldn't really matter if those specifications could be transferred of not, because The Nuclear Testing Protocol requires nations to classify their nuclear weapons specifications and test data as state secrets, and are forbidden from sharing that data any way. Do some damn research before making disingenuous statements next time?

No, they aren't. NTP does require the specifications to be classified, but doesn't stop them from being shared.

7. Further demands that member nations classify all information and materials related to nuclear testing as state secrets and prevent this information or material with anyone not authorized to have access to this information,

Anyone authorized can have the information shared with them.

Yeah. And for a completely dumb reason to.

The uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapon is a dumb reason?

Yes, considering leaving the WA does nothing to stop nuclear proliferation, does nothing to stop the threat of nuclear war, and non-WA nations have even less restrictions on nuclear weapons than the WA does.

Leaving achieves nothing.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

While our nation is has forsworn nuclear weapons and looks upon the nuclear industry with suspicion, we recognize the resolution in question here is deeply flawed. It is a damper on those nations who are making good-faith efforts to harness nuclear power peacefully, and presents few international security or environmental protection reasons to justify it. Therefore we rise in support of its repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Which still happened. And in such a dangerous place as NationStates, should be allowed.

No... It happened before the U.S and the U.K ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Do some research if you are such a scholar.

(1) The UK still purchases the Trident missile system from the US (though it makes the bombs themselves) and (2) the meaning of the point is that there exists a world where the technology of nuclear weapons was sold and transferred. The thing I am speaking of which happened was the transfer. This also fails entirely to address the point that non-member states outnumber member states, allowing them to have nuclear weapons without any kind of oversight, but not member states.

OOC: This is the same interpretation given by Knootoss's post here. I agree with the interpretation, since the nuclear technology is weaponised into the form of a weapon which the nuclear technology is part of.

So now you are using Knoostoss's interpretation instead of you own lame argument "The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, meeting this 4th March 2015 under the chairmanship of HRH, Clark Webley, Duke of Kent, has concluded that clause 4, which 'Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities' only prevents interpretations stating that the rights stated are prohibited by this Convention in particular"? Do you really have that little faith in your own privy-council ruling? https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=379476 Also a submarine is not a weapon any more than a gun holster is a weapon. A submarine, or a warship are "delivery systems". Please for the love of god do some damn research and stop with the bullshit lies.

The Privy Council is speaking, as has been many times reiterated, about the fact that this Resolution does not block the passage of legislation speaking on the right of member nations to have nuclear weapons. The Privy Council's belief was made in response to this claim. How many times do I need to say this?

OOC: I beg to differ. Steam explosions can detonate a reactor, spreading massive amounts of radioactive material into the stratosphere.

There is a difference between a steam explosion and an actual nuclear detonation. You cannot detonate a reactor, as you cannot compress the core enough to cause a "nuclear" detonation. Plus, most reasonable nations don't go to the trouble of loading a fully functioning nuclear reactor with it's entire steam cooling system aboard an aircraft just to drop it on a target. Please use sanity here for a change and admit this is a bullshit argument? I suppose one could intentionally sabotage their own reactor in a "scorched earth" policy, but then again it wouldn't really be used as a weapon would it, and that would likely be covered by Radiological Terrorism", which you also oppose. Best of luck trying to use that argument when you try to repeal that resolution.

Weaponise: 'adapt for use as a weapon'. A nuclear reactor can be weaponised. A nuclear reactor can be detonated (in response to your original claim). Thus, your claim that my argument is false is untrue.

If we're speaking about the 'transfer of specifications', this is not the same as the 'right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes' or 'the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities'.

No, but your argument clearly states "4. Prohibitions on the transfer of specifications of any kind, thereby increasing the risk and danger of nuclear accidents and radiation contamination." It wouldn't really matter if those specifications could be transferred of not, because The Nuclear Testing Protocol requires nations to classify their nuclear weapons specifications and test data as state secrets, and are forbidden from sharing that data any way. Do some damn research before making disingenuous statements next time?

Excidium Planetis has dealt with this argument rather well.

Argument 1 in the telegram was made in 1(b). Argument 2 was made in 1(a). Argument 3 was made 1(c). Argument 4 was made in 1(d). This claim that if they do not exist in the actual repeal is false. The claim that it would have been yanked as an honest mistake is therefore false.

And I filed a GHR yesterday to appeal the legality of this repeal as such.

Okay. We'll see how it goes. Naturally, I've been responding to these arguments with the assumption that a GHR has been filed, so it's not like that changes anything.

[John Turner]

No... It happened before the U.S and the U.K ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Do some research if you are such a scholar.

(1) The UK still purchases the Trident missile system from the US (though it makes the bombs themselves) and (2) the meaning of the point is that there exists a world where the technology of nuclear weapons was sold and transferred. The thing I am speaking of which happened was the transfer. This also fails entirely to address the point that non-member states outnumber member states, allowing them to have nuclear weapons without any kind of oversight, but not member states.

You are conflating the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the Missile Technology Regime. Like I said maybe do some research before being so quick on the draw.

There is a difference between a steam explosion and an actual nuclear detonation. You cannot detonate a reactor, as you cannot compress the core enough to cause a "nuclear" detonation. Plus, most reasonable nations don't go to the trouble of loading a fully functioning nuclear reactor with it's entire steam cooling system aboard an aircraft just to drop it on a target. Please use sanity here for a change and admit this is a bullshit argument? I suppose one could intentionally sabotage their own reactor in a "scorched earth" policy, but then again it wouldn't really be used as a weapon would it, and that would likely be covered by Radiological Terrorism", which you also oppose. Best of luck trying to use that argument when you try to repeal that resolution.

Weaponise: 'adapt for use as a weapon'. A nuclear reactor can be weaponised. A nuclear reactor can be detonated (in response to your original claim). Thus, your claim that my argument is false is untrue.

There is so much fail in that statement it was painful to read. Do you ever do any sort of research, or do you just make this stuff up, because it is very difficult to tell.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

While our nation is has forsworn nuclear weapons and looks upon the nuclear industry with suspicion, we recognize the resolution in question here is deeply flawed. It is a damper on those nations who are making good-faith efforts to harness nuclear power peacefully, and presents few international security or environmental protection reasons to justify it. Therefore we rise in support of its repeal.

Did you bother to read the resolution in question? If you had you would have noticed right at the end:

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities.

[Imperium Anglorum]

(1) The UK still purchases the Trident missile system from the US (though it makes the bombs themselves) and (2) the meaning of the point is that there exists a world where the technology of nuclear weapons was sold and transferred. The thing I am speaking of which happened was the transfer. This also fails entirely to address the point that non-member states outnumber member states, allowing them to have nuclear weapons without any kind of oversight, but not member states.

You are conflating the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the Missile Technology Regime. Like I said maybe do some research before being so quick on the draw.

I spoke of the fact that the transfer had happened and the fact that pointing out that the NPT would, in your opinion, have prevented that transfer, even if that were true, would not matter because it does not address the crux of the argument in that non-member states outnumber member states, allowing them to have nuclear weapons without any kind of oversight, but not member states.

Weaponise: 'adapt for use as a weapon'. A nuclear reactor can be weaponised. A nuclear reactor can be detonated (in response to your original claim). Thus, your claim that my argument is false is untrue.

There is so much fail in that statement it was painful to read. Do you ever do any sort of research, or do you just make this stuff up, because it is very difficult to tell.

The article you cited speaks of a 'full-on nuclear explosion is completely impossible'. However, I am speaking of a detonation of a nuclear reactor due to the steam explosion spoken of earlier. Thus, this piece of offence simply is irrelevant and doesn't address the argument. Your post on how 'you cannot detonate a reactor, as you cannot compress the core enough to cause a "nuclear" detonation' is not true, since you can detonate a reactor by other means. Thus, your claim that my argument is false is untrue.

---

While our nation is has forsworn nuclear weapons and looks upon the nuclear industry with suspicion, we recognize the resolution in question here is deeply flawed. It is a damper on those nations who are making good-faith efforts to harness nuclear power peacefully, and presents few international security or environmental protection reasons to justify it. Therefore we rise in support of its repeal.

Did you bother to read the resolution in question? If you had you would have noticed right at the end:

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities.

However, if you actually read my argument, which speaks of 'suspicion is always cast on nuclear fission due to the easy reapplication of peaceful technologies to weapon production (the only differences being that of reaction control and purity)' in relation to '[prevent] the transfer of nuclear technology, design specifications, and materials if there is reason to suspect that they will be weaponised', you would see that the easy reapplication of nuclear fission energy means that it is easy to weaponise. Thus, because it is easy to weaponise, the resolution prevents such a transfer.

Edit 1: Added response to a response to The Eternal Kawaii.

[John Turner]

You are conflating the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the Missile Technology Regime. Like I said maybe do some research before being so quick on the draw.

I spoke of the fact that the transfer had happened and the fact that pointing out that the NPT would, in your opinion, have prevented that transfer, even if that were true, would not matter because it does not address the crux of the argument in that non-member states outnumber member states, allowing them to have nuclear weapons without any kind of oversight, but not member states.

This is getting tiresome. You know what, why not just repeal everything then? WA law has no effect on non-WA nations, so why should WA nations tie themselves down with any regulations whatsoever? There is no oversight. It is simple, you can't sell nukes to nations that haven't developed them indigenously. As I said earlier, I can create a nation in two seconds and claim it is sitting on an arsenal of 50000 warheads. Does this resolution stop me from doing that? It is an IC resolution, that you are repealing on OCC arguments. Why don't you just state the real reason? The fact that I tried to use this resolution as an argument to try and repeal NAPA? Why all the cloak and shadows? The truth shall set you free.

There is so much fail in that statement it was painful to read. Do you ever do any sort of research, or do you just make this stuff up, because it is very difficult to tell.

The article you cited speaks of a 'full-on nuclear explosion is completely impossible'. However, I am speaking of a detonation of a nuclear reactor due to the steam explosion spoken of earlier. Thus, this piece of offence simply is irrelevant and doesn't address the argument. Your post on how 'you cannot detonate a reactor, as you cannot compress the core enough to cause a "nuclear" detonation' is not true, since you can detonate a reactor by other means. Thus, your claim that my argument is false is untrue.

Please shut up and read for once. "Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel via supersonic shock waves." A steam explosion is not supersonic, and is nowhere even close to a high explosive and therefore is not a "detonation". Yes a reactor's cooling system can "explode". No one is refuting that claim. The core itself does not "detonate" though, and does not create a "nuclear" detonation like you seem to think it would.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I spoke of the fact that the transfer had happened and the fact that pointing out that the NPT would, in your opinion, have prevented that transfer, even if that were true, would not matter because it does not address the crux of the argument in that non-member states outnumber member states, allowing them to have nuclear weapons without any kind of oversight, but not member states.

This is getting tiresome. You know what, why not just repeal everything then? WA law has no effect on non-WA nations, so why should WA nations tie themselves down with any regulations whatsoever? There is no oversight. It is simple, you can't sell nukes to nations that haven't developed them indigenously. As I said earlier, I can create a nation in two seconds and claim it is sitting on an arsenal of 50000 warheads. Does this resolution stop me from doing that? It is an IC resolution, that you are repealing on OCC arguments. Why don't you just state the real reason? The fact that I tried to use this resolution as an argument to try and repeal NAPA? Why all the cloak and shadows? The truth shall set you free.

Wait. Now, we can't sell nukes to nations that haven't developed them indigenously? If this is the only thing that the NSC does, this is an interesting interpretation which I have honestly not heard before! If you're speaking about my impetus coming from the attempted repeal of NAPA, look no further than the first clause of the resolution at vote. Cloak and shadows? It is the first thing a voter would read!

The article you cited speaks of a 'full-on nuclear explosion is completely impossible'. However, I am speaking of a detonation of a nuclear reactor due to the steam explosion spoken of earlier. Thus, this piece of offence simply is irrelevant and doesn't address the argument. Your post on how 'you cannot detonate a reactor, as you cannot compress the core enough to cause a "nuclear" detonation' is not true, since you can detonate a reactor by other means. Thus, your claim that my argument is false is untrue.

Please shut up and read for once. "Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel via supersonic shock waves." A steam explosion is not supersonic, and is nowhere even close to a high explosive and therefore is not a "detonation". Yes a reactor's cooling system can "explode". No one is refuting that claim. The core itself does not "detonate" though, and does not create a "nuclear" detonation like you seem to think it would.

Let's look at this. Steam explosion speaks about explosions. The definition of detonation is 'the action of causing a bomb or explosive device to explode'. Nuclear reactors can explode by steam explosion. Thus, the steam explosion caused it to explode. The reactor is a device. If it explodes, that means it is also an explosive device. Thus, the steam explosion in a nuclear reactor is a detonation. If the detonation occurs, then it can be used as a weapon. Thus, it can be weaponised. If it can be weaponised, your claim that 'It is pretty hard to weaponize a nuclear reactor as you cannot make a reactor detonate' is wrong.Secondarily, I can see how you think I'm talking about nuclear detonations. But look at the ending quote mark after the word 'detonation' in the second to last sentence I last responded with. It's speaking about the fact that you can detonate a reactor by other means, thereby making it a weapon.

[Excidium Planetis]

I spoke of the fact that the transfer had happened and the fact that pointing out that the NPT would, in your opinion, have prevented that transfer, even if that were true, would not matter because it does not address the crux of the argument in that non-member states outnumber member states, allowing them to have nuclear weapons without any kind of oversight, but not member states.

This is getting tiresome. You know what, why not just repeal everything then? WA law has no effect on non-WA nations, so why should WA nations tie themselves down with any regulations whatsoever?

1) Not all WA resolutions are regulations. Some are nice cooperative efforts that restrict nations in no way and lead to peace and happiness.

2) Not all regulations "tie" "down" WA nations. Regulations on what health standard of food can be served actually benefits nations by leading to healthier, happier people. In this case, the WA nations have an advantage.

There is no oversight. It is simple, you can't sell nukes to nations that haven't developed them indigenously.

So, you admit that your resolution prevents arming nations that may very well need nukes to survive? That's a strong argument for repeal in my book.

As I said earlier, I can create a nation in two seconds and claim it is sitting on an arsenal of 50000 warheads. Does this resolution stop me from doing that? It is an IC resolution, that you are repealing on OCC arguments.

No, that's not even one of the reasons this is being repealed.

Why don't you just state the real reason? The fact that I tried to use this resolution as an argument to try and repeal NAPA? Why all the cloak and shadows? The truth shall set you free.

I can't comment on IA's motives for this repeal, but there are real arguments presented here. You just refuse to acknowledge them.

[Separatist Peoples]

You went to school in NY? I would have thought you went to Oxford, Cambridge, or some similarly snooty British institution.

OOC: This was an article I found when I was researching some time back. I thought it was a good source for explaining the concept of nuclear deterrence and how that deterrence actually imposes costs to such a level that peace emerges.

OOC: I'm glad I misunderstood, then. It came off as something else entirely. My apologies.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: This was an article I found when I was researching some time back. I thought it was a good source for explaining the concept of nuclear deterrence and how that deterrence actually imposes costs to such a level that peace emerges.

OOC: I'm glad I misunderstood, then. It came off as something else entirely. My apologies.

OOC: However it is, I don't happen to be Matt Greeson at Colgate University (the author of the linked article from some posts back). I do hope that is what we're looking at here.

[Araraukar]

Yes considering that WA members are outnumbered by non-members, who I might add can do whatever the hell the please.

OOC: Yes, like ignoring the existence of nuclear weapons in their own universe entirely. And it's not like no WA state ever RPs against WA laws - isn't that why the whole commend/condemn thing exists?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yes considering that WA members are outnumbered by non-members, who I might add can do whatever the hell the please.

OOC: Yes, like ignoring the existence of nuclear weapons in their own universe entirely. And it's not like no WA state ever RPs against WA laws - isn't that why the whole commend/condemn thing exists?

No, it was made for gameplayers to snipe at each other over raiding. [violet] made that painfully clear when she announced it.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I READ RESOLUTIONS

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade
Friar Cadfail, OFM Friar Superior
Mother Angelica, OSC Secretary and official Reader

We object to almighty God
And to you my fellow delegates and representatives
That the repeal argument is full of holes.
Sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve,
It's all your fault!
It's all your fault!
And I request the loyal votes of the intelligent representatives
And yes, even you delegates,
To Vote Down this POS repeal at once.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Nuclear Security Convention" was passed 10,269 votes to 3,764.

[Wallenburg]

"It is unfortunate that this resolution has passed, but it certainly isn't cataclysmic. Congratulations, Ambassador, to yet another successful resolution."

[The Silver Sentinel]

Repeal "Nuclear Security Convention" was passed 10,269 votes to 3,764.

Congratulations on another useless repeal, passed by fear mongering and corruption so you can try and pass similar legislation. You certainly are a credit to politicians everywhere.

On a side note a new franchise called "Nukes for Less" has just opened up right outside WA Headquarters. Latest reports indicate that there is a very large lineup going on for blocks as now civilians can own their very own thermonuclear weapons, free from government regulation. As a special bonus they are throwing in free BMW's with purchase so you too can drive your beemer with a nuke in the trunk into a crowded plaza and set it off. Hurry while supplies last.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Nuclear Security Convention" was passed 10,269 votes to 3,764.

Congratulations on another useless repeal, passed by fear mongering and corruption so you can try and pass similar legislation. You certainly are a credit to politicians everywhere.

On a side note a new franchise called "Nukes for Less" has just opened up right outside WA Headquarters. Latest reports indicate that there is a very large lineup going on for blocks as now civilians can own their very own thermonuclear weapons, free from government regulation. As a special bonus they are throwing in free BMW's with purchase so you too can drive your beemer with a nuke in the trunk into a crowded plaza and set it off. Hurry while supplies last.

Or not, per 10 GA § 3, 'REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands'.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Congratulations on another useless repeal, passed by fear mongering and corruption so you can try and pass similar legislation. You certainly are a credit to politicians everywhere.

On a side note a new franchise called "Nukes for Less" has just opened up right outside WA Headquarters. Latest reports indicate that there is a very large lineup going on for blocks as now civilians can own their very own thermonuclear weapons, free from government regulation. As a special bonus they are throwing in free BMW's with purchase so you too can drive your beemer with a nuke in the trunk into a crowded plaza and set it off. Hurry while supplies last.

Or not, per 10 GA § 3, 'REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands'.

Good thing those "wrong hands" are defined. I guess in your bender of repeals and glory you seemed to have forgotten "the law does what the law says"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Or not, per 10 GA § 3, 'REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands'.

Good thing those "wrong hands" are defined. I guess in your bender of repeals and glory you seemed to have forgotten "the law does what the law says"?

Yes. Good thing these 'wrong hands' are defined.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Good thing those "wrong hands" are defined. I guess in your bender of repeals and glory you seemed to have forgotten "the law does what the law says"?

Yes. Good thing these 'wrong hands' are defined.

I am dying to see you actually use one single original argument of your own to support the nearly infinitesimal strawman you have created. But just for the sport of it, let's analyse that.

I would like to submit into evidence Bob Flibbles argument for the defintion of "wrong hands":

the wording I used allows nations to make their own determinations as to who has access and who doesn't.

That right there is the crux of Bob Flibble's argument. "allows nations to make their own determinations as to who has access and who doesn't". Now usually reasonable nation theory would apply, but seeing as how this repeal has managed to flush that down the toilet and given your history of gross misinterpretation of the English language, one can only assume that "Nukes for Less" is being operated by a WA nation that is using the determination that the "right hands" are simply the persons that hold clear title deed to those weapons. Since there is now a lack of regulation on the transfer of that title deed it seems pretty clear that WA jurisprudence would now permit civilians to own nuclear weapons, and seeing as how WA law only applies to nations and not individuals themselves, the Nuclear Arms Protocol would not apply, thus allowing civilians to use those nuclear weapons as they see fit.

I rest my case.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes. Good thing these 'wrong hands' are defined.

I am dying to see you actually use one single original argument of your own to support the nearly infinitesimal strawman you have created. But just for the sport of it, let's analyse that.

I would like to submit into evidence Bob Flibbles argument for the defintion of "wrong hands":

the wording I used allows nations to make their own determinations as to who has access and who doesn't.

That right there is the crux of Bob Flibble's argument. "allows nations to make their own determinations as to who has access and who doesn't". Now usually reasonable nation theory would apply, but seeing as how this repeal has managed to flush that down the toilet and given your history of gross misinterpretation of the English language, one can only assume that "Nukes for Less" is being operated by a WA nation that is using the determination that the "right hands" are simply the persons that hold clear title deed to those weapons. Since there is now a lack of regulation on the transfer of that title deed it seems pretty clear that WA jurisprudence would now permit civilians to own nuclear weapons, and seeing as how WA law only applies to nations and not individuals themselves, the Nuclear Arms Protocol would not apply, thus allowing civilians to use those nuclear weapons as they see fit.

Well, considering that this store is operated inside a nation which believes that this is the best way to operate their government and their arms industry, there exists no problem with it. Member nations have the ability to monitor and police their industries in the manner they wish, subject to WA legislation.