[PASSED] Nuclear Arms Protocol

[Chester Pearson]

The original draft of your ICC repeal called for exactly this resolution to be passed by the WA. Your opposition doesn't make any sense.

My constituents are generally opposed to any attempt to regulate nuclear weapons.

While the proposal itself doesn't seem that bad I am bound by the will of those I serve.

Yet when Mousey and yourself wrote the ICC repeal, that called for a resolution regulating nuclear weapons to be passed, she was the delegate. Have your constituents changed that dramatically since you have become the Top Banana?

[Ainocra]

My constituents are generally opposed to any attempt to regulate nuclear weapons.

While the proposal itself doesn't seem that bad I am bound by the will of those I serve.

Yet when Mousey and yourself wrote the ICC repeal, that called for a resolution regulating nuclear weapons to be passed, she was the delegate. Have your constituents changed that dramatically since you have become the Top Banana?

The voters of Monkey Island were overwhelmingly opposed to the institution of the ICC and have historically voted against any attempt at the regulation of nuclear weapons.
Their position seems fairly consistent. You are always welcome to make your case to them directly if you like.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I think the point is your repeal is what legalised the use of nuclear weapons against civilians: the ICC resolution banned that, irrespective of the Court's existence. Your repeal's draft version suggested the WA should replace such prohibitions. To now turn around and oppose them is...well, pretty much what we all predicted.

[Ainocra]

Believe as you like, I suggest reviewing the finished text.

Are you suggesting that I ignore the will of my constituents?
I have already outlined the only thing you must do in order to get my vote.

Convince them.
Alternately you could wait two more weeks until my term is up and then try to convince my successor.

[Chester Pearson]

Believe as you like, I suggest reviewing the finished text.

Are you suggesting that I ignore the will of my constituents?
I have already outlined the only thing you must do in order to get my vote.

Convince them.
Alternately you could wait two more weeks until my term is up and then try to convince my successor.

The fact that you flat out lied in your repeal should say everything. Either way, I really could give two shits if you vote against this as your six votes are not going to make or break this resolution....

[Ainocra]

IC:

My positions on these issues has been fairly consistent over time. So far the only replacement proposal for the ICC that I felt I could support was the one put forth by Railana.
As for this resolution, I dislike the idea of having anything as off limits to the use of nuclear force. In all honesty I don't expect this to pass should it ever get to vote.


ooc:
Plot twist, I vote for it and it fails by 6 votes

[Chester Pearson]

In all honesty I don't expect this to pass should it ever get to vote.

Who would have expected a non-proliferation resolution to pass by an 80% majority? I sure as the hell didn't, but it is on the books....

[Ainocra]

In all honesty I don't expect this to pass should it ever get to vote.

Who would have expected a non-proliferation resolution to pass by an 80% majority? I sure as the hell didn't, but it is on the books....

The Marshal chuckles, "Fair point, The voters are difficult to predict at times."

[Chester Pearson]

Made a few more changes. Removed the civilian definition, and changed key military assets, to key strategic military assets.

Keep the feedback coming....

[Defwa]

My constituents are generally opposed to any attempt to regulate nuclear weapons.

While the proposal itself doesn't seem that bad I am bound by the will of those I serve.

Yet when Mousey and yourself wrote the ICC repeal, that called for a resolution regulating nuclear weapons to be passed, she was the delegate. Have your constituents changed that dramatically since you have become the Top Banana?

A common ploy was used to gain favor during a repeal and all campaign promises were abandoned soon after the desired result was had.
Considering the region this delegate presides over is apparently so supportive of indiscriminate nuclear bombardment, I'm sure not only will they fail to hold their delegate accountable for this shameful ploy, it has served to prolong his term.

So while some of us like some political integrity, we must recognize that we ourselves are not always perfectly adherent to our morals and have made our own compromises to get where we are and do what we have.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"The UNE shall support this legislation, though it is largely irrelevant to us, as we have been advanced beyond the use of primitive weapons such as nuclear arms for 5 billion years. Our current weapons operate on much more advanced mechanics, and have a scope as large as entire galactic clusters.

Perhaps it would be prudent to amend this resolution to include all weapons of mass destruction, rather then only nuclear ones?"

[Mundiferrum]

"The UNE shall support this legislation, though it is largely irrelevant to us, as we have been advanced beyond the use of primitive weapons such as nuclear arms for 5 billion years. Our current weapons operate on much more advanced mechanics, and have a scope as large as entire galactic clusters.

Perhaps it would be prudent to amend this resolution to include all weapons of mass destruction, rather then only nuclear ones?"

That might end up conflicting with the other resolutions on WMDs....plus, though I'm not really sure this applies, the whole definition of the term WMD is, well, weird, and a bit, I dunno, hard to make all all-encompassing in this multi-technological collection of societies.

On another note, can we have some of that? Er, those really cool weapons and, well, that, I mean...

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The UNE shall support this legislation, though it is largely irrelevant to us, as we have been advanced beyond the use of primitive weapons such as nuclear arms for 5 billion years. Our current weapons operate on much more advanced mechanics, and have a scope as large as entire galactic clusters.

Perhaps it would be prudent to amend this resolution to include all weapons of mass destruction, rather then only nuclear ones?"

That might end up conflicting with the other resolutions on WMDs....plus, though I'm not really sure this applies, the whole definition of the term WMD is, well, weird, and a bit, I dunno, hard to make all all-encompassing in this multi-technological collection of societies.

"I agree. It would dilute the resolution to try to bring in other weapons. Besides, the WA has already voted down a ban on planetary destruction weapons. There doesn't seem to be much point."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not deliberately target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless a hostile nation deliberately shields key strategic military assets within civilian populations,

I would add an or to this clause,

a decent example of such assets would be a large shipyard, or perhaps a power plant. while not strictly military targets they do posses a great deal of strategic value in a conflict of this scope.

"Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not deliberately target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless a hostile nation deliberately shields key strategic or military assets within civilian populations,"

[Rebellious Romantics]

I would also add a clause that sets a period of time, if the conflict between the two nations is inevitable and involves attacking a civilian population, in which the nation on the offensive must inform the nation on the defensive that a portion of their civilian population is in danger, giving the civilians proper time to clear the area, minimizing casualties.

Understanding, that civilian populations are not to be held accountable for actions of their mother country

Pressing, that the imminent danger of a nuclear weapons attack calls for a 'mercy period', in which the civilians can evacuate the targeted area

Reasoning, that this imposed 'mercy period' shall allow for an orderly evacuation of any civilian population in an area that is targeted by nuclear weapons

Demanding, that any country presented with the threat of nuclear attack shall keep communications open to inform the aggressor nation upon the safe evacuation of their civilian population

If anyone would like to add on to what the details of said 'safe evacuation' would entail, that would be welcome.

[The Leodensian Republic]

Personally, I think the strength level is not consistent with the resolution as you are affecting an entire type of warfare and implementing restrictions on it.

[The Psychic Rabbits]

Well, how about limiting where they can be tested? You shouldn't be able to test them on civilians.

[Separatist Peoples]

I would also add a clause that sets a period of time, if the conflict between the two nations is inevitable and involves attacking a civilian population, in which the nation on the offensive must inform the nation on the defensive that a portion of their civilian population is in danger, giving the civilians proper time to clear the area, minimizing casualties.

Understanding, that civilian populations are not to be held accountable for actions of their mother country

Pressing, that the imminent danger of a nuclear weapons attack calls for a 'mercy period', in which the civilians can evacuate the targeted area

Reasoning, that this imposed 'mercy period' shall allow for an orderly evacuation of any civilian population in an area that is targeted by nuclear weapons

Demanding, that any country presented with the threat of nuclear attack shall keep communications open to inform the aggressor nation upon the safe evacuation of their civilian population

If anyone would like to add on to what the details of said 'safe evacuation' would entail, that would be welcome.

"Why not just invite the opposing nation to launch a preemptive counterstrike? If served such a notice, C.D.S.P. Central Command would prepare nigh-immediate strikes against the enemy's nuclear strike capabilities to prevent being attacked at all. That period doesn't do anything but up the ante for members, and gives nonmembers a "free punch", as it were."

[Defwa]

Well, how about limiting where they can be tested? You shouldn't be able to test them on civilians.

That would probably be considered off topic to this proposal, though a resolution about weapons testing could be done. It would be a minefield in and of itself, though.

[The Dark Star Republic]

There's already a resolution on nuclear testing safety and I agree it wouldn't be germane to this proposal.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would also add a clause that sets a period of time, if the conflict between the two nations is inevitable and involves attacking a civilian population, in which the nation on the offensive must inform the nation on the defensive that a portion of their civilian population is in danger, giving the civilians proper time to clear the area, minimizing casualties.

It should be the duty of a state to assess likely strategic nuclear targets within its borders and engage in civil defence programmes to educate civilians near these targets on their elevated risk, what to do about that risk and generally educate them and provide shelters and warning programmes.

No-one forces anyone to live near a strategic nuclear target, except IIers.

[Normlpeople]

I would also add a clause that sets a period of time, if the conflict between the two nations is inevitable and involves attacking a civilian population, in which the nation on the offensive must inform the nation on the defensive that a portion of their civilian population is in danger, giving the civilians proper time to clear the area, minimizing casualties.

Understanding, that civilian populations are not to be held accountable for actions of their mother country

Pressing, that the imminent danger of a nuclear weapons attack calls for a 'mercy period', in which the civilians can evacuate the targeted area

Reasoning, that this imposed 'mercy period' shall allow for an orderly evacuation of any civilian population in an area that is targeted by nuclear weapons

Demanding, that any country presented with the threat of nuclear attack shall keep communications open to inform the aggressor nation upon the safe evacuation of their civilian population

If anyone would like to add on to what the details of said 'safe evacuation' would entail, that would be welcome.

"You may as well hand your attack plans over to the enemy in that case. The WA already has already crippled war enough."

Turning to Ambassador Pearson, she continued "I made my concerns known last time, and you addressed them by altering clause 2. My concern with them was the tactic used by dishonorable opponents, such as using schools and religious sites as ammunition depots, civilian apartment buildings as anti-aircraft platforms, and so forth. As it is currently written, I have nothing more to add on it, other than I will sign it off to vote should it be submitted."

[Auralia]

"Not an international issue. This would be much more palatable to us if you concentrated on what was really important: banning the use of nuclear weapons against abortion clinics. Now that's an international issue. In fact, maybe drop all the nuclear weapons stuff, and just concentrating on adding extra protections for abortion. Abortion. Abortion. Abortion."

((OOC: I am very tempted to sig this.))

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I like the resolution, in theory. However, wouldn't this bill invalidate the idea of mutually assured destruction, which for the players in modern times, keeps their nations safe?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I like the resolution, in theory. However, wouldn't this bill invalidate the idea of mutually assured destruction, which for the players in modern times, keeps their nations safe?

OOC: The resolution explicitly permits retaliation against nations who attack your civilians, so no. The most this does is mandate that when you, as a WA member, launch your nuclear first strike against the People's Republic of Thieving S.O.B.'s, you're not allowed to exterminate their civilians. If they go after your civilians, theirs become fair game. Nobody under this rule would have their deterrence undermined or weakened. Literally the only reason to oppose this is if you're contemplating the complete and entire annihilation of an enemy, not because they attacked you, but because you don't like the sound of their voices (or something).