[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Cowardly Pacifists]

(OOC: I'm going to bed for the night but I just wanted to say Thank You to everyone who has approved this proposal so far! We're basically 1/3 of the way to a quorum and we still have 2 1/2 days before the deadline!)

[Scandavian States]

[If you really must know, I do not feel I have an inherent duty to acknowledge any WA resolution enacted in RP. I do, however, have an inherent duty to protect my region from raiders (i.e. griefers), which is the reason I'm in the WA. As for the suggestion that I might be compelled by force to comply with the WA's "laws"; well, that is of course the prerogative of the various member nations to make the attempt if they feel the need, although I will note that if the pathetic attempts against Milograd are anything to go by I don't judge anybody's chances of success as much more than a snowball's.]

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Hashing this out, I'm beginning to think that theories on nuclear warfare (i.e. MAD) just can't apply in NS. There are so many mitigating factors that the end result of a nuclear strike, or the failure to launch one, are completely unpredictable.]

It requires one of two presuppositions: the simpler is orbital death satellites. The more involved is setting national proximity. In the back story GMC and I hashed out, our nations were reasonably close together, probably on the scale of North America and Greenland, which made for some messy wars and arms races. However, for just a random antagonist, shifting continents around is less doable.

[Glen-Rhodes]

[If you really must know, I do not feel I have an inherent duty to acknowledge any WA resolution enacted in RP. I do, however, have an inherent duty to protect my region from raiders (i.e. griefers), which is the reason I'm in the WA. As for the suggestion that I might be compelled by force to comply with the WA's "laws"; well, that is of course the prerogative of the various member nations to make the attempt if they feel the need, although I will note that if the pathetic attempts against Milograd are anything to go by I don't judge anybody's chances of success as much more than a snowball's.]

OOC: Okay, nobody is trying to force you to comply with law. But if you don't even acknowledge resolutions, that's a problem. The assumption in this part of the game is that WA actions carry the same weight as UN actions in the real world. We cannot have an army, like in the real world. But we do provide legal backing for things like retaliation. In the real world, using WMDs is not something you just brush off. Routinely violating international humanitarian law results in international isolation. It definitely works differently in II or regional roleplaying, but that's not how it works here. This is main problem I have with people who cross-over from other parts of NS.

Since I don't want to get chastised for going off topic, I'll just provide a TL;DR: Please come here ready to play by our logic, which is largely the same as the real world. If you don't want to do that, then please don't participate in debates while expecting to be taken seriously.

[Periodspace]

I've finally changed the title (of the thread and the proposal) to reflect the WMD-centric nature of what I'm proposing. Thanks to those who nudged me this way (gently or otherwise).

Since WA nations are forbidden to use WMDs against you, there's no need for a retaliation clause, and the Proposal gives you authorization to do so against non-WA nations.

Thanks to Mr. Hack for all your help and your short, simple words that will let me dispel this particular argument if it ever comes up again.

"I have no objection to submitting this proposal soon," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn said, "but I wouldn't worry too much about the latter. It appears that Christian Democrats' proposal has been ruled illegal by the Secretariat as it's been deleted."

The proposal will likely be submitted tomorrow. I just want to get some last comments on the title and the strength. I think the new title is probably appropriate, but others may have better suggestions. And I've lowered the strength to "significant" since I'm no longer dealing with the broad area of "war in general" that I started with. I want to make sure nobody cries foul on that.

And of course, I'm very glad to see that duplicitous "abortion rights" proposal was deemed illegal.

I don't like the idea of banning WMDs. Those could come in handy someday.

I have to believe you didn't read the proposal. WMDs are only "banned" for use against other member nations (who will be similarly obliged to you). You can still own WMDs and nuke, gas, poison, and irradiate your non-WA friends till your heart's content (but please don't).

Strongly Against.

There's something strangely satisfying about someone declaring that they are "strongly against" my proposal then displaying a twisted evil face.

Best Regards.

Still, they might ignore the treaty.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Still, they might ignore the treaty.

Nope. They can't.

Really? I thought that WA resolutions were mandatory...

They are.

The World Assembly is the world's governing body. It's your chance to mold the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Once it's on the books, member nations are bound to obey. Or else they're a dirty rotten cheater. And we don't cater to cheaters, do we?

And for those that still want to argue that "a real nation could just violate the law," keep in mind that by enacting a ban on the use of WMDs, we're not just putting nations on their honor; we're also establishing a legal grounds for retaliation. If a nation were to pledge not to use these weapons and then go back on that, they'd be in violation of international law, and every other nation would be forced to attack them (for national security reasons), and cut off support (because they're a no-good liar who cannot be trusted).

[Southern Patriots]

Still, they might ignore the treaty.

Nope. They can't.

Hasn't stopped it in the past. Gnomes aren't what they used to be, I fear.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Nope. They can't.

Hasn't stopped it in the past. Gnomes aren't what they used to be, I fear.

Of course, people are going to claim whatever they damn well please - if the WA has taught us anything, it's that. But if somebody grabs Boardwalk and Park Place at the beginning of a Monopoly game and claims to own those properties, they're just cheating.

My two arguments against this position are detailed above but I'll give a tl;dr that I can appeal to in the future when this silly argument comes up:

(1) If this passes and a member nation claims to use a WMD on you, just ignore them. The rules of the game we're playing say they can't do that, so they're just trying to cheat. Why entertain them?

(2) For those who want to pretend like NationStates is "real," remember that a ban on these weapons (in real life) would create a basis for legal retaliation against the nation violating the law. In the real world a nation that agreed not to use these weapons would face exceptionally severe consequences (a couple of which are detailed by my proposal) if they went back on their word. So even with this resolution in place, the threat of a massive counter-attack, universal condemnation, and reprisal would be an ever-present deterrent.

[Periodspace]

Nope. They can't.

Hasn't stopped it in the past. Gnomes aren't what they used to be, I fear.

Well then still, no.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(2) For those who want to pretend like NationStates is "real," remember that a ban on these weapons (in real life) would create a basis for legal retaliation against the nation violating the law.

The issue I don't think you've realized yet, is that if member states couldn't possibly violate a resolution -- which is what a number of older players think -- then the idea of retaliation is redundant at best and illegal at worst. Thankfully, the mods have become more liberal when it comes to so-called game mechanics violations.

On an unrelated note, it looks like the Biological Arms Limitation resolution is going to come to vote first. If it passes, this proposal would be a duplication, insofar as biological weapons are concerned. Also possibly contradiction, but I haven't looked for that yet. Since it looks like this proposal would be up for vote immediately after that one, I would suggest removing it from the queue early on if the vote looks like the Biological Arms Limitation resolution is going to pass.

[Scandavian States]

OOC: Okay, nobody is trying to force you to comply with law. But if you don't even acknowledge resolutions, that's a problem. The assumption in this part of the game is that WA actions carry the same weight as UN actions in the real world. We cannot have an army, like in the real world. But we do provide legal backing for things like retaliation. In the real world, using WMDs is not something you just brush off. Routinely violating international humanitarian law results in international isolation. It definitely works differently in II or regional roleplaying, but that's not how it works here. This is main problem I have with people who cross-over from other parts of NS.

[*shrugs* If someone felt they were bound to launch a military operation in the event that I was ever condemned, I would welcome that. It would make for an interesting RP, I think. As for the rest, it's not a huge worry of mine because my largest trading and military partners neither care for the WA nor what WA member nations think.

But, yes, I agree that we're veering off topic. I'll be sending you a link over TG to an RP I will be participating in, given the present discussion it should interest you.]

[Flibbleites]

On an unrelated note, it looks like the Biological Arms Limitation resolution is going to come to vote first. If it passes, this proposal would be a duplication, insofar as biological weapons are concerned. Also possibly contradiction, but I haven't looked for that yet. Since it looks like this proposal would be up for vote immediately after that one, I would suggest removing it from the queue early on if the vote looks like the Biological Arms Limitation resolution is going to pass.

Not necessarily, considering that this covers a wider area than the Biological weapons proposal does, the Secretariat might allow it to continue anyway similar to how back in the UN days the UNCoESB was declared legal despite it overlapping both the Protection of Dolphins Act and Banning Whaling. Admittedly the UNCoESB was also intended to be a replacement for those two resolutions so the situations aren't exactly identical.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Reddevia II]

I don't think it should have worked, because you need to repeal GA Legislation #10, which I tried to do. Its a law giving WA nations WMDs whenever they ask for one.

[Flibbleites]

I don't think it should have worked, because you need to repeal GA Legislation #10, which I tried to do. Its a law giving WA nations WMDs whenever they ask for one.

As the author of the NAPA I can unequivocally say that the NAPA does not do that. It prevents the WA from telling it's members that they can't have nuclear weapons, but it does not in any way, shape or form provide them.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Cowardly Pacifists]

(2) For those who want to pretend like NationStates is "real," remember that a ban on these weapons (in real life) would create a basis for legal retaliation against the nation violating the law.

The issue I don't think you've realized yet, is that if member states couldn't possibly violate a resolution -- which is what a number of older players think -- then the idea of retaliation is redundant at best and illegal at worst. Thankfully, the mods have become more liberal when it comes to so-called game mechanics violations.

On an unrelated note, it looks like the Biological Arms Limitation resolution is going to come to vote first. If it passes, this proposal would be a duplication, insofar as biological weapons are concerned. Also possibly contradiction, but I haven't looked for that yet. Since it looks like this proposal would be up for vote immediately after that one, I would suggest removing it from the queue early on if the vote looks like the Biological Arms Limitation resolution is going to pass.

I see your point. I suppose maybe I'm taking the rights and duties of member nations to an extreme when I say that member's "cannot" violate GA resolutions. I still think there's something inherently inappropriate (within the context of the game) with nations role playing flagrant violations of WA law. If their nation wasn't willing to comply with GA resolutions, they shouldn't have joined the WA in the first place.

But in any case, the proposal would create a legal basis for retaliation that would replace the threat of a WMD strike. I'm pretty comfortable with that argument even if my "WA nations cannot violate GA resolutions" argument is a little too old-school.

As for your other point, I may not need to request my proposal be removed. It seems that I ended up blowing it on my telegram campaign - I'm pretty sure I didn't actually send a single damn TG about my proposal. Now I'm down to less than a day, and I'm still lacking 1/3 of the delegates I need. So I have a feeling this isn't going to reach quorum on the first attempt. I'll need to figure out what I messed up on and try campaigning again.

I'm pretty sure my proposal does not duplicate the one proposed by Bears Armed. He defines biological weapons in very different terms than I use to define WMDs, and my proposal aspires to a different aim than limiting possession and use of biological weapons (though limiting the use of bio weapons in certain conflicts is undenyably part of what my resolution does...). However, I may remove the example of "biological" weapons from the part adding context to the definition if it would avoid a controversy on the subject.

And I know this wouldn't conflict with the Biological Arms Limitation. I do not expressly grant a right to possess or use biological weapons. I do refer to permitting retributive measures "authorized by law," but if the BAL passes biological weapons will not be "authorized by law." And my provisions about use in "conflict" would not contradict the BAL's permission to use bio weapons "when asked."

Assuming this proposal reaches quorum (today or in the proximate future) and the BAL looks like it's gonna pass, I will draft a more comprehensive argument and request a legality ruling.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Another way of dealing with the potential problem of members ignoring this resolution is to be of the public opinion that if a nation isn't following the WA's laws they can't legally be in the WA, as it would contradict logic; despite what a few pieces of paper say. Therefore they aren't covered by blanket protection of the resolution, so you can return fire.
(That also comes in helpful for other situations.)

OOC: Are there no procedures to allow ejection from the WA? Maybe a Security Council ejection?

[Former WA Gnomes]

Nope. They can't.

Hasn't stopped it in the past. Gnomes aren't what they used to be, I fear.

"Honestly, you never gave us any decent pay, and now you blame us for the rules of the nsiverse. Typical," said a former WA Gnome flitting through dimensions with a hat marked "Pension donations".

[Mallorea and Riva]

Another way of dealing with the potential problem of members ignoring this resolution is to be of the public opinion that if a nation isn't following the WA's laws they can't legally be in the WA, as it would contradict logic; despite what a few pieces of paper say. Therefore they aren't covered by blanket protection of the resolution, so you can return fire.
(That also comes in helpful for other situations.)

OOC: Are there no procedures to allow ejection from the WA? Maybe a Security Council ejection?

OOC: Horrendously illegal due to metagaming. No, there is no such mechanism.
And to those trying, please stop trying to roleplay complete and idiotic noncompliance. It isn't original, nor is it in the spirit of the WA. If you want to try and find a reasonable loophole that's one thing, but saying "HA we simply won't listen!" is absurd.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Another way of dealing with the potential problem of members ignoring this resolution is to be of the public opinion that if a nation isn't following the WA's laws they can't legally be in the WA, as it would contradict logic; despite what a few pieces of paper say. Therefore they aren't covered by blanket protection of the resolution, so you can return fire.
(That also comes in helpful for other situations.)

OOC: Are there no procedures to allow ejection from the WA? Maybe a Security Council ejection?

OOC: Horrendously illegal due to metagaming. No, there is no such mechanism.
And to those trying, please stop trying to roleplay complete and idiotic noncompliance. It isn't original, nor is it in the spirit of the WA. If you want to try and find a reasonable loophole that's one thing, but saying "HA we simply won't listen!" is absurd.

OOC: Except that "HA we simply won't listen!" is a completely realistic reaction to international law. No, I'm not joking here.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Yes, yes. People can ignore it in their role-play, and you can ignore them, just like everything else.

[Flibbleites]

Another way of dealing with the potential problem of members ignoring this resolution is to be of the public opinion that if a nation isn't following the WA's laws they can't legally be in the WA, as it would contradict logic; despite what a few pieces of paper say. Therefore they aren't covered by blanket protection of the resolution, so you can return fire.
(That also comes in helpful for other situations.)

OOC: Are there no procedures to allow ejection from the WA? Maybe a Security Council ejection?

OOC: Horrendously illegal due to metagaming. No, there is no such mechanism.

OOC: And I shudder to think at the outcry that would occur should we even think about giving the SC that power.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: Horrendously illegal due to metagaming. No, there is no such mechanism.

OOC: And I shudder to think at the outcry that would occur should we even think about giving the SC that power.

OOC: Can you imagine? Just by saying this, someone, somewhere, is telling others that this is a good idea.

[Southern Patriots]

Except that "HA we simply won't listen!" is a completely realistic reaction to international law. No, I'm not joking here.

OOC: Almost like real life. How scary.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Except that "HA we simply won't listen!" is a completely realistic reaction to international law. No, I'm not joking here.

OOC: Yes, I'm just indicating that saying that one's ability to RP noncompliance very poorly means that there is a flaw in the resolution is nonsense.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Well it didnt make it to quorum, but I feel like it must have been close since last I checked we needed 11 approvals with 10 hours to go. I'm not exactly sure what to do now. Should I just submit it again as is? Do I take out the reference to bio weapons? Should I wait till a decision on the bears armed proposal, or until there's less of a glut of proposals? What's the appropriate course of action in this situation?