[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Dukopolious]

Can you give me an example of someone "unintentionally" engaging in organized military combat? Look, I don't care if a little girl runs up and kicks your soldier in the shins. You don't get to consider her a combatant.

You consider her a threat, so you pick her up, and tell her parents to control her or they will be fined. You don't stand there and let her kick you. Nice use of children as a shield though, smart move.

Now if it were a 38 year old man who did it, you'd pin him to the ground and arrest him. If he had a shotgun and was firing at you, you shoot him down.

I might agree with you about enemy scientists, politicians and arms manufacturers, however. This is why I did not want to define these terms in the first place. But since I have included a definition, would you care to suggest a more appropriate definition that would exclude the groups you want while still protecting others?

State Officials may be detained. All of this group can be considered to be under those categories. As for private scientists, billionaires buying shipments of weapons, they can eb defined as state Supporters?

Don't say hostage, that implies you will use them against the nation. Prisoner is the correct term.

Duke is correct, a hostage is a person secured by force in order to secure the taker's demands. I guess technically I didn't say anything about taking non-combatants prisoner. If I included a provision preventing nations from taking non-combatants prisoner "except where there is probably cause to believe they have committed a crime," would that appease anyone?[/quote]
Yes, good suggestion.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

You consider her a threat, so you pick her up, and tell her parents to control her or they will be fined. You don't stand there and let her kick you. Nice use of children as a shield though, smart move.

Now if it were a 38 year old man who did it, you'd pin him to the ground and arrest him. If he had a shotgun and was firing at you, you shoot him down.

My point about the little girl is apt - it's why we need the provision. Some heinousness nations would just order her killed because she "assaulted a soldier." But - and I hate to say this - you're absolutely right about the 38-yo. Right now my definition only includes those in "organized military combat." A lone nut firing a shotgun (regardless of his motivations) is not participating in an organized, military exercise. So as written my definition would prevent soldiers from doing "any violence" to him. And that can't be right in that situation.

So I'm removing the definitions. I knew this problem was going to come up if I started trying to define these terms. I think most nations have a pretty good intuition about the difference between "combatants" and "non-combatants" without me struggled for a definition. Member nations will still be required to distinguish the two in a reasonable way, but without this pointless drama.

[Dukopolious]

You consider her a threat, so you pick her up, and tell her parents to control her or they will be fined. You don't stand there and let her kick you. Nice use of children as a shield though, smart move.

Now if it were a 38 year old man who did it, you'd pin him to the ground and arrest him. If he had a shotgun and was firing at you, you shoot him down.

My point about the little girl is apt - it's why we need the provision. Some heinousness nations would just order her killed because she "assaulted a soldier." But - and I hate to say this - you're absolutely right about the 38-yo. Right now my definition only includes those in "organized military combat." A lone nut firing a shotgun (regardless of his motivations) is not participating in an organized, military exercise. So as written my definition would prevent soldiers from doing "any violence" to him. And that can't be right in that situation.

So I'm removing the definitions. I knew this problem was going to come up if I started trying to define these terms. I think most nations have a pretty good intuition about the difference between "combatants" and "non-combatants" without me struggled for a definition. Member nations will still be required to distinguish the two in a reasonable way, but without this pointless drama.

Thank you There were many ways to work around to this, but simply stripping the definition works even better.

Now regarding State officials and supports?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Now regarding State officials and supports?

Those people are not combatants. You must take all practicable steps to avoid causing them humiliation, injury, or death.

[Dukopolious]

Now regarding State officials and supports?

Those people are not combatants. You must take all practicable steps to avoid causing them humiliation, injury, or death.

But we should be able to capture them, correct?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

But we should be able to capture them, correct?

You know what... no. Because it's you, I'm gonna go add a provision making sure you can't.

[Dukopolious]

But we should be able to capture them, correct?

You know what... no. Because it's you, I'm gonna go add a provision making sure you can't.

That's not very nice. I'll support it if you let us capture state officials and supporters.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

That's not very nice. I'll support it if you let us capture state officials and supporters.

We'll those people are non-combatants. Actually, the way I worded it, you can capture non-combatants so long as you treat them humanely and you have a good reason for imprisoning them.

[Dukopolious]

That's not very nice. I'll support it if you let us capture state officials and supporters.

We'll those people are non-combatants. Actually, the way I worded it, you can capture non-combatants so long as you treat them humanely and you have a good reason for imprisoning them.

Thank you. I would actually say they can not be hurt while captured, but torture already is illegal. Once once we sort out the finale issues, I'll officially support it.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner,

Hand grenades, punt guns...

Also, you're kind of flailing around with your goals, and I'm not sure that it's really "Strong". I mean, you use strong words like Mandates and Requires, but they're then undermined with weasel words like, "take all practicable steps" and "strongly encouraged".

I think you'd be better served by deciding if you want to do RoE or if you want to tackle WMDs. Probably shouldn't try to do both in a single proposal. The general RoE stuff feels like a tacked on smoke screen to hide the WMD rules.

[Dukopolious]

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner,

Hand grenades, punt guns...

Also, you're kind of flailing around with your goals, and I'm not sure that it's really "Strong". I mean, you use strong words like Mandates and Requires, but they're then undermined with weasel words like, "take all practicable steps" and "strongly encouraged".

I think you'd be better served by deciding if you want to do RoE or if you want to tackle WMDs. Probably shouldn't try to do both in a single proposal. The general RoE stuff feels like a tacked on smoke screen to hide the WMD rules.

Agreed. If I were you, I'd make this just RoE, and do WMDs in a separate draft. Also, 1 more concern, I think nations should be able to use WMDs against other member states if the other member state attacked first. Now before you say "Yes but other member states can't launch WMDs", they can. Just illegally. So retaliation should be legal.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner,

Hand grenades, punt guns...

With all due respect to Mr. Hack - and there's certainly a lot of respect owed - we all know that hand grenades and punt guns are not weapons of mass destruction. There's a very good argument that these weapons are neither "widespread" nor "indiscriminate" enough to qualify under my definition.

But that's not really the point. My definition is really for guidance more than to establish a hard and fast rule. Frankly just about any weapon could "cause widespread destruction" in an "indiscriminate manner." But I work to dispel this notion by putting examples at the end of the definition. Anyone with half a brain can finish reading the definition and see "specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons." Now only a fool would think that the words "widespread" and "indiscriminate" are meant to include weapons like grenades and punt guns.

Any definition will be imperfect, and someone will always be able to come up with an extreme example (like big rocks) that meets the letter of the definition but is clearly not within its intent. I must - sadly, it would seem - trust nations to have some damn sense to understand what I am referring to when I say "Weapon of Mass Destruction" and define it the way I do. Frankly, I think people will intuitively understand my definition as not including big rocks, hand grenades and punt guns. These weapons are not indiscriminate or widespread enough to be reasonably included with nuclear bombs. Unless, of course, the rock/grenade/punt gun is so big that it really does rival a nuclear bomb. In which case, it ought to be banned in the same breath as nuclear weapons.

Also, you're kind of flailing around with your goals, and I'm not sure that it's really "Strong". I mean, you use strong words like Mandates and Requires, but they're then undermined with weasel words like, "take all practicable steps" and "strongly encouraged".

I think you'd be better served by deciding if you want to do RoE or if you want to tackle WMDs. Probably shouldn't try to do both in a single proposal. The general RoE stuff feels like a tacked on smoke screen to hide the WMD rules.

I think the resolution is "Strong" because of this provision:

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation.

That provision alone, I think, makes this proposal strong. I know I'll probably get flack for quoting The Rules to the Hack (like that rhyme? Anyone?), but "Strong - Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way." I think an outright ban on WMDs effects "a very broad area of policy" (all war between member nations is narrower than all war period, but only by a bit) and affects that policy area "in a dramatic way" (there are no explicit exceptions to the outright ban, though there may be an implicit one depending on how one looks at the second-to-last clause). Maybe that's not enough and I should lower it to Significant, but for now I like it at that level.

As to your point about picking a focus and sticking with it, I had come to the same conclusion myself. I set out to handle a lot of areas of war at once, and early on I asked for help making all of the provisions better. But the discussion of my comprehensive proposal ended-up focusing heavily on WMDs to the exclusion of work on the other provisions. So I have removed everything not dealing with WMDs, and I added a clause to the preamble focusing in on that area.

If I were you, I'd make this just RoE, and do WMDs in a separate draft. Also, 1 more concern, I think nations should be able to use WMDs against other member states if the other member state attacked first. Now before you say "Yes but other member states can't launch WMDs", they can. Just illegally. So retaliation should be legal.

Dammit Duke, read the proposal again, and look hard at the second to last provision.

And I'm sure you'd love it if I "made this just RoE" and left WMDs alone. But that's not going to happen.

[Dukopolious]

Any definition will be imperfect, and someone will always be able to come up with an extreme example (like big rocks) that meets the letter of the definition but is clearly not within its intent.

Actually, unless they specifically defined what size constitutes "Big" it wouldn't meet the letter of definition.

If I were you, I'd make this just RoE, and do WMDs in a separate draft. Also, 1 more concern, I think nations should be able to use WMDs against other member states if the other member state attacked first. Now before you say "Yes but other member states can't launch WMDs", they can. Just illegally. So retaliation should be legal.

Dammit Duke, read the proposal again, and look hard at the second to last provision.

And I'm sure you'd love it if I "made this just RoE" and left WMDs alone. But that's not going to happen.[/quote]
My apologies. Must've misread that.

And just so you know, I think I'd rather have you cover both in this draft.

[Sanctaria]

You renamed the proposal, but not the thread?

[PleaseStaySafeOP]

We do not support anything that would not allow us to use WMDs in defense of our nation. Also, this resolution seems to restrict the ability of a nation to retaliate with WMDs if struck with WMDs by an aggressor.

[Dukopolious]

We do not support anything that would not allow us to use WMDs in defense of our nation. Also, this resolution seems to restrict the ability of a nation to retaliate with WMDs if struck with WMDs by an aggressor.

Not true. Read the clauses fully. This only stops other member states (And yourself) from firing the WMD first. Retaliatory strikes are legal.

[Aetrina]

Which of course means that NO member nation can use WMD's against another member nation so that retaliatory strikes would be a moot point. We have voiced our displeasure on this issue and continue to do so.

[Dukopolious]

Which of course means that NO member nation can use WMD's against another member nation so that retaliatory strikes would be a moot point. We have voiced our displeasure on this issue and continue to do so.

Retaliatory strikes are legal, because WA members can launch WMDs illegally.

[Auralia]

Which of course means that NO member nation can use WMD's against another member nation so that retaliatory strikes would be a moot point. We have voiced our displeasure on this issue and continue to do so.

Retaliatory strikes are legal, because WA members can launch WMDs illegally.

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

[Aetrina]

As a matter of pure RP I'm sure it would be simple enough to launch a WMD at a member nation (putting side the giant ignore cannons that would be immediately deployed) BUT for the purpose of this resolution member nations CANNOT launch WMD's at other member nations. As we have stated before we merely wish to retain the option in our military strategy.

[Flibbleites]

Retaliatory strikes are legal, because WA members can launch WMDs illegally.

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

[Auralia]

Which of course means that NO member nation can use WMD's against another member nation so that retaliatory strikes would be a moot point. We have voiced our displeasure on this issue and continue to do so.

Retaliatory strikes are legal, because WA members can launch WMDs illegally.

Well, then, this isn't true.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

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

That's what I thought as well. But apparently it's only mandatory that nations enact WA laws. For some reason, it makes sense to say they can violate those laws, even after their government has enacted them.

I've had a lot of problems with this myself. But here's how it's supposed to work, in character. If this were to pass, the Leader of Member Nation A would publicly pass a law saying "no nuking other member nations!" Then, that leader would lean over to his general and whisper really softly "but go ahead and nuke our long time rivals - they've had it coming, and I don't care if I'm violating international law." Then the general goes and does it, and the rival is unable to respond legally.

So I included a provision letting nations retaliate. That way, if some jack-ass cheater nation wants to say "ha ha, I'm a member nation, but I'm gonna nuke you anyway and there's nothing you can do about it," folks don't have to say "guess you're right, there's nothing I can do." The LAW is no WMDs in member-member conflicts. But if someone breaks the law, the resolution says they're fair game (and likely to get a bunch of sanctions as well).

I still think people should just say "No you didn't nuke me! You're a member nation and the rules say you can't. Stop trying to cheat you lousy no-good cheating cheater!" But for some reason, folks think that's not enough.

Edit: For what it's worth, Bob Flibble seems to agree that nations must comply with WA laws.

And if that's true, I'm taking out the retaliation clause because it would be moot. The resolution still lets you retaliate in any way to non-member aggressions, and there would never be an occasion to "retaliate" against a WMD strike by a member nation.

[Aetrina]

If the issue of allowing "legal" retaliatory strikes can be wrangled into submission. It might change our position on this matter. We will again say that if the WA is to be believed and that WMD strikes CANNOT be launched against member nations then this is all moot.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

As a matter of pure RP I'm sure it would be simple enough to launch a WMD at a member nation (putting side the giant ignore cannons that would be immediately deployed) BUT for the purpose of this resolution member nations CANNOT launch WMD's at other member nations. As we have stated before we merely wish to retain the option in our military strategy.

Well sorry. I'm not going to put anything like an "option" to use WMDs in the proposal. And you should really read the whole thing again, because you're completely missing the significance of the second to last clause.

But that clause is probably going to go away in the final version. Partly because Flibb has suggested that it's meaningless. Partly because I never really liked it. And partly because it has completely failed to attract anyone's support. I expected that clause to usher in a huge wave of new supporters who were happy to see that their right to "retaliate" against an illegal strike by a member nation was being preserved. That hasn't happened, and nations like Aetrina continue to object to the proposal despite the fact that they seem to have an incomplete understanding of what it says and does.

We will again say that if the WA is to be believed and that WMD strikes CANNOT be launched against member nations then this is all moot.

If this resolution passed then nations would not be able to conduct WMD strikes on one another. Right now they can use WMDs in any damn way they please. And given the number of illogical, psychotic, and imperialistic nations out there, that's unacceptable to me.