[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Sanctaria]

You renamed the proposal, but not the thread?

[Dukopolious]

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

Would this mean any IC thread with WA nations breaking any WA resolution needs to be retconned?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

You renamed the proposal, but not the thread?

I'm not convinced the proposal's going to stay this way, so I'm not renaming the thread yet. I'm feeling out whether I want to drop the other provisions entirely and regulate only WMDs with this proposal. I don't want to change the thread title (since people are familiar with it) if I'm just going to go back to a more inclusive draft in a day or so. If I decide that the recent changes are permanent, I'll change the threat title. Gimme some time to think it over will ya?

[Sanctaria]

I'm not convinced the proposal's going to stay this way, so I'm not renaming the thread yet. I'm feeling out whether I want to drop the other provisions entirely and regulate only WMDs with this proposal. I don't want to change the thread title (since people are familiar with it) if I'm just going to go back to a more inclusive draft in a day or so. If I decide that the recent changes are permanent, I'll change the threat title. Gimme some time to think it over will ya?

It's common courtesy to have the thread title reflect the title of the proposal, regardless of whether or not the changes are permanent. It's not to difficult to change it back.

[United Celts]

I'm not convinced the proposal's going to stay this way, so I'm not renaming the thread yet. I'm feeling out whether I want to drop the other provisions entirely and regulate only WMDs with this proposal. I don't want to change the thread title (since people are familiar with it) if I'm just going to go back to a more inclusive draft in a day or so. If I decide that the recent changes are permanent, I'll change the threat title. Gimme some time to think it over will ya?

"If Ambassador Scaredilocks decides to address only WMDs in this proposal," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn began, "we urge him to consider prohibiting the use of WMDs altogether, prohibiting the possession of biological and chemical weaponry, and restricting the quantity of nuclear weapons that member nations may possess instead of merely prohibiting the use of WMDs only against other member nations."

[Dukopolious]

I'm not convinced the proposal's going to stay this way, so I'm not renaming the thread yet. I'm feeling out whether I want to drop the other provisions entirely and regulate only WMDs with this proposal. I don't want to change the thread title (since people are familiar with it) if I'm just going to go back to a more inclusive draft in a day or so. If I decide that the recent changes are permanent, I'll change the threat title. Gimme some time to think it over will ya?

"If Ambassador Scaredilocks decides to address only WMDs in this proposal," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn began, "we urge him to consider prohibiting the use of WMDs altogether, prohibiting the possession of biological and chemical weaponry, and restricting the quantity of nuclear weapons that member nations may possess instead of merely prohibiting the use of WMDs only against other member nations."

Assuming he did, we could easily speculate it would be quickly opposed by nearly every nation in hostilities with a nation which has or could have WMDs, and most national sovereigntists. We feel the current stance on WMDs is appropriate, and this is a clause we'd support.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

May I briefly request that Cowardly Pacifists be patient, for a little longer, as we have sincere objections and at the same time do want to curtail WMDs. We haven't been expressing ourselves very well.

The problem basically lies in this statement of yours:

I've already made it clear in the definition that if a weapon is not causing indiscriminate serious damage and death, it's probably okay.

You haven't. That's why we're at odds with you, and want some of these exceptions:

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, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

And/or! If it was just 'and', we'd be fine with the proposal. We object to you discriminating against these weapons without proper basis just because of the way they work! We're fine with (a), (b) and (c)! But why do chemical weapons, for instance, have to be defined as causing severe degradation to the environment? A toxin delivered by a sniper dart is hardly going to do significant damage to the countryside around! And why do you have to ban the use of tranquillizer darts?

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation, except in the following situations:
a) If the likelihood of any death resulting from the use of the Weapon of Mass Destruction is outside five standard deviations of probability from the mean,

Evidently we definitely needed to explain in a lot more detail. We apologize for the lack of it, there was far to much ambiguity there.
So... about (a). I had originally meant that the probability of any death should be ridiculously low, i.e. a probability (within five standard deviations) of one death in total would be enough to make the use of such a weapon unreasonable. But evidently you don't care about death, you care about just being wounded. We are very surprised by this. Why are you singling out Weapons of Mass Destruction? A normal bullet can mangle bones.

b) If the weapon would at maximum only worsen any other particular natural conditions, such as natural background radiation, by 10% or 10% over the course of a year, as appropriate,

About (b), yes 10% is another fairly arbitrary number. (And we didn't say 10% cumulatively, although evidently you interpret it as such. But it isn't meant to be.) We would expect 10% to be within the range of variance for most natural factors like solar radiation. But anyway, later on we said (b) was basically incorporate in another point, so never mind about that.

So on (c). Evidently by the time you considered this you were fairly prejudiced against us, which we consider fairly unjust, but judging by the strength of your opinion, maybe not unwarranted. However, please bear with me for this one, as we certainly haven't made our point clear, and as a result you evidently didn't understand it fully:

c) If the weapon is more probably than not no more dangerous than anything non-military legally used by or in the nation which is to be targeted by a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and/or

So, if the weapon, is probably not more dangerous than something non-military, subject to legal restrictions of that nation then it should be fine. Obviously you misunderstood this bit. You cannot legally use that pesticide in large doses to kill entire cities, or even people, can you? Unless your country has very funny laws, you shouldn't be able to. Therefore neither can the enemy. However, they can, for instance, increase the background radiation slightly proportionally to the legal increase in background radiation from a nuclear power plant; or use tranquillizer darts of the same power as used legally in hospitals.

Hopefully you can see that we're trying to be reasonable, and again we apologize if we've failed to sound reasonable. Simply put, we object to the banning of tranquillizer darts, which can be biological or chemical depending on how they work.

[Bears Armed]

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

Cluster bombs? Incendiaries?

[The Most Glorious Hack]

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.

I was being somewhat facetious; however, a 2 gauge weapon loaded with shot could most certainly cause widespread destruction, injury, and death. Half a pound of lead will really ruin the day of a lot of people, and because it spreads, it'll do so indiscriminately. Likewise, a MOAB, nail-lined pipe bomb, and any number of other munitions generally considered conventional. That's probably why the real world international community rarely uses the term, preferring instead to deal with NBCs or CBRs.

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.

Oh, certainly. And I've always been opposed to over defining in Proposals. Again, I'm not being fully serious, especially not when I mention "big rocks". My intent is more to point out how the definition can be twisted; it's completely up to you on if you care about my more absurd counter examples.

And, I suppose, so you won't be surprised if this goes to vote and some twit raises such objections and is actually serious about it. However, Bears' comment about cluster bombs is worth considering. Of course, cluster bombs are a mine field (ba-dum-tish) of their own, even in the real world.

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.

Well, yes and no. I mean, I wasn't wearing my mod hat or anything, and I'm not doing so now, either. However, while it's a very strong restriction in an of itself, it's in a narrow area of effect, if that makes sense. Yes, you're banning a classification of weapon, but you're doing so to a small classification, and only under certain circumstances (against other WA nations). I mean, banning, say, bullets would certainly be Strong.

Still, with the Proposal in flux, the strength is less of an issue.

[Grand America]

No I think I'll leave it as is. You want the power to take civilians prisoner? You're out of your mind! I defined combatant in a way that makes it clear your bureaucrats will not be in danger if they are not participating in organized military exercises, and I'm not in the mood to explain that to you any further.

In any case, I kinda like that you oppose this resolution. That helps me know I'm on the right track. And somehow I feel like having Dukopolious in opposition will attract far more supporters than opponents.

Do not allow states to imprison Civilians, allow them to imprison state officials. Such as politicians and national leaders, this can easily save lives (As the alternate is often executing them) and it can easily shorten wars.

As for my defence argument, militants should be allowed to fight back against civilians that may harm them. I'm saying for defensive purposes only, militants should be allowed to engage civilians.

You ever seen Black Hawk Down?
You know that one part where a civilian goes to get a weapon, and one soldier's like, "Don't do it, don't do it..."
She picks up the weapon, becomes a combatant, and he's forced to shoot her.

That's how it works. Non-combatants are those that don't post a threat to the continued well-being of your soldiers and other armed personnel. The very moment someone picks up a weapon, they're a combatant.
We just hope civilians don't do that...

[Flibbleites]

They are.



Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Would this mean any IC thread with WA nations breaking any WA resolution needs to be retconned?

We don't police RP.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Another long post, broken up into parts for the curious:

It's common courtesy to have the thread title reflect the title of the proposal, regardless of whether or not the changes are permanent. It's not to difficult to change it back.

Very well. Since you insist, I've changed the title of the resolution back to "Rules of Engagement."

Rules of Engagement n., plur. - "a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force."

I want to keep the thread title as is, because some folks are familiar with it now and (as a personal preference) I do not like threads that change title willy-nilly. I've said before that I don't necessarily agree that "rules of engagement" is misleading, and I stand by that. You're really the only one complaining about it. I am quite fond of the people of Sanctaria, and I thought their suggestion warranted consideration. But I don't like to be nagged, or accused of discourtesy. So rather than change the title of my proposal and thread, I'm just going to leave them as they are and defend why the title is not misleading.

"If Ambassador Scaredilocks decides to address only WMDs in this proposal," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn began, "we urge him to consider prohibiting the use of WMDs altogether, prohibiting the possession of biological and chemical weaponry, and restricting the quantity of nuclear weapons that member nations may possess instead of merely prohibiting the use of WMDs only against other member nations."

Assuming he did, we could easily speculate it would be quickly opposed by nearly every nation in hostilities with a nation which has or could have WMDs, and most national sovereigntists. We feel the current stance on WMDs is appropriate, and this is a clause we'd support.

I have considered what the United Celts propose, but I'm afraid I must agree with Duke on this one. We've already seen at least one respected Ambassador who would likely withdraw his support if I tried to bind what nations could do with respect to outside threats. The proposal has a (probably slim) chance of appealing to a large group of nations because it only ties their hands where it can ensure their security. Both you and I have encountered many nations who would never dream of using WMDs, but want to keep them for their deterrence value. These nations are highly resistant to a total ban on the use of such weapons, which they feel would show their cards to rogue nations and invite attack. A partial ban on use between members, however, may appeal to these nations - because the security of international law would replace the need to "deter" other member nations. But I'd definitely lose those nations if I tried to extend the ban to non-members, as nations would claim they now have no leverage for deterring the aggressions of those who are not bound by law.

Cluster bombs? Incendiaries?

Really? The woodland critters would object to a ban on incendiaries? Aren't there a couple of fir trees in your national flag (Edit: on closer inspection, they appear to be pine cones, but I think my point still stands)? I would have thought the Bears Armed mission would support a measure to restrict the use of such weapons.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the definition is never going to perfectly encapsulate what we think of as a "weapon of mass destruction." Language is too frail and the imagination too great to ever pin down any definition so neatly as some in this Assembly would require. Hell, we couldn't even agree on a definition of "child" for the purposes of Restrictions on Child Labor - ultimately, we had to give that decision over to individual nations and hope they would be sensible about it.

I strove for a definition that would give guidance and describe what most of us think of when we hear the word "weapon of mass destruction." I included examples of the types of weapons I was referring to, to attempt to dispel this argument in some small way. I'm just going to say to you the same thing I said to Grand America way back when this discussion began: I don't care if it's a device that throws pies, if the weapon causes indiscriminate destruction, injury, and death in a manner similar to a nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapon, it falls under the definition.

If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the definition, I'd be happy to listen. But I'm not impressed by, "Cluster bombs? Incendiaries?" All definitions are open to reasonable interpretation - all I can do is provide guidance about what I mean. I must ultimately trust nations to employ some common sense in their interpretations. If you believe that cluster bombs and incendiaries would (wrongfully) be defined as WMDs under this act, please tell me why they are not WMDs, so that I can try to adjust the definition accordingly.

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.

I was being somewhat facetious; however, a 2 gauge weapon loaded with shot could most certainly cause widespread destruction, injury, and death. Half a pound of lead will really ruin the day of a lot of people, and because it spreads, it'll do so indiscriminately. Likewise, a MOAB, nail-lined pipe bomb, and any number of other munitions generally considered conventional. That's probably why the real world international community rarely uses the term, preferring instead to deal with NBCs or CBRs.

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.

Oh, certainly. And I've always been opposed to over defining in Proposals. Again, I'm not being fully serious, especially not when I mention "big rocks". My intent is more to point out how the definition can be twisted; it's completely up to you on if you care about my more absurd counter examples.

And, I suppose, so you won't be surprised if this goes to vote and some twit raises such objections and is actually serious about it. However, Bears' comment about cluster bombs is worth considering. Of course, cluster bombs are a mine field (ba-dum-tish) of their own, even in the real world.

Of course, I did not mean to write-off your argument about the breadth of weapons that my definition might arguably encompass. Hell, a sick soldier spitting into the wind might be called a biological weapon of "indiscriminate" and "widespread" destruction and death. I know that you were not really staking out the position that punt guns and big rocks are weapons of mass destruction. You were bringing up those examples to prove a point - that some nations are going to take my definition to ridiculous extremes in order to rally support against it.

There's nothing I can do about that. If folks want to point out that a big shot gun, a pipe bomb, and a private with a cold are all perfectly reasonable weapons that my proposal would prohibit, I've got two answers for them. First: "be sensible." It's not like this is the first time anybody has heard the term "weapon of mass destruction." Obviously, those extreme examples are not what is meant. Do not read the definition like a four-year-old learning a word for the first time. Use the definition to help focus your understanding of the term, and make it more clear. Like pornography, a WMD is hard to define precisely, but we know it when we see it. My definition should not (and cannot) be a replacement for common sense.

For those unsatisfied by my "stop being stupid" argument, I have another: those fringe weapons are probably not really covered by the letter of my definition. The definition includes examples. The words "widespread" and "indiscriminate" are not offered in a vacuum, the definition includes categorical examples of the types of weapons being referred to. If a nation REALLY thinks that a certain weapon is designed to cause widespread, indiscriminate destruction on the same scale as a nuclear weapon, then it's covered and it's banned for use against other member nations. If not, then come off it. A 2 gauge shotgun may cause indiscriminate widespread destruction, but nowhere near the level of a nuclear blast. Unless it does, in which case it should be banned.

We live in a NationStates world where nations have armies of rocket-powered monkey soldiers. They have earthquake guns, meteor launchers, and star-collapsing super weapons. How can a legislator compete with the unfettered imagination of the member nations of this assembly? All I can do is provide a "good" definition that most people will nod along with and say, "yep, anything that does that sounds like a WMD to me." For those who are so opposed as to come up with fringe examples to undermine my definition, nothing would satisfy them. I aim to craft a definition that will fit the sentiments of the majority; I am ready with my "be sensible" and "that's not really covered" arguments for use on all the rest.

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.

Well, yes and no. I mean, I wasn't wearing my mod hat or anything, and I'm not doing so now, either. However, while it's a very strong restriction in an of itself, it's in a narrow area of effect, if that makes sense. Yes, you're banning a classification of weapon, but you're doing so to a small classification, and only under certain circumstances (against other WA nations). I mean, banning, say, bullets would certainly be Strong.

Still, with the Proposal in flux, the strength is less of an issue.

I'm certainly open to changing the strength to "Significant" at some point. I think we are agreed that the proposal is in the gray area between "Strong" and "Significant." For now, most folks have accepted the strength as appropriate (I think you're the only one who has challenged it so far). But even without your mod hat on, your opinion on the subject carries immense weight.

I also agree that for now it's not a huge issue - the proposal's category is certainly right, and the strength is not completely inappropriate (like calling this thing "mild"). Once the language of the proposal is ready for submission, I'll probably take one last look at strength. When I do, I'll certainly keep in mind your advice that while the affect is strong, the policy area affected may be too narrow to warrant classification as "Strong."

May I briefly request that Cowardly Pacifists be patient, for a little longer, as we have sincere objections and at the same time do want to curtail WMDs. We haven't been expressing ourselves very well.

Don't worry, I'm not submitting anytime soon. I'm still waiting to see if it's likely that Bears Armed will get an outright ban on bio-weapons through. Then I can take that reference out of my definition.

The problem basically lies in this statement of yours:

I've already made it clear in the definition that if a weapon is not causing indiscriminate serious damage and death, it's probably okay.

You haven't. That's why we're at odds with you, and want some of these exceptions:

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, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

And/or! If it was just 'and', we'd be fine with the proposal. We object to you discriminating against these weapons without proper basis just because of the way they work! We're fine with (a), (b) and (c)! But why do chemical weapons, for instance, have to be defined as causing severe degradation to the environment? A toxin delivered by a sniper dart is hardly going to do significant damage to the countryside around! And why do you have to ban the use of tranquillizer darts?

Well, of course it cannot just say "and." Most WMDs do not satisfy ALL of these things. Some satisfy a combination of them, others only one. That's why and/or is appropriate. "And" so that if a weapon meets more than one of (a)-(d), it's covered. "Or" so that if a weapon only meets one of (a)-(d), it's still covered.

To explain further: A weapon that poisons an entire sea - killing everything in it - would probably satisfy (a), (c), and (d), but it would not satisfy (b). A biological weapon that killed every man, woman, and child on a continent would probably satisfy (a), but may or may not satisfy (b) and probably does not satisfy (c) and (d). If I said "and" instead of "and/or" both of these weapons would be outside the definition, since neither does ALL of (a)-(d).

And come now, do you REALLY think the definition bans a tranquillizer dart? That weapon is neither widespread, nor indiscriminate. The parts of this definition cannot be read out of context - all chemical weapons are not banned, just those that can reasonably be said to conform with the earlier definitions in (a)-(d). Do not check your common sense at the door, "Weapon of Mass Destruction" clearly does not include poison darts. These fringe examples are hard to take seriously, because they clearly don't comport with the definition I've offered. You're selecting one word, "chemical," and you're pointing at it without any regard for the other things I've said in the definition.

I think part of the problem is that you're reading all of the examples as part of the definition given in (d). The hyphen is meant to separate the "specifically including" part from the "environmentally degrading" part. The examples give context to the whole definition, not just (d). Perhaps I'll separate the examples into their own sentence to avoid this confusion, so the definition would look like this:

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, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment." To provide context, categorical examples of WMDs include nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons.

Does that do anything to make the definition more clear to you?

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation, except in the following situations:
a) If the likelihood of any death resulting from the use of the Weapon of Mass Destruction is outside five standard deviations of probability from the mean,

Evidently we definitely needed to explain in a lot more detail. We apologize for the lack of it, there was far to much ambiguity there.
So... about (a). I had originally meant that the probability of any death should be ridiculously low, i.e. a probability (within five standard deviations) of one death in total would be enough to make the use of such a weapon unreasonable. But evidently you don't care about death, you care about just being wounded. We are very surprised by this. Why are you singling out Weapons of Mass Destruction? A normal bullet can mangle bones.

"Evidently you don't care about death?" I really should refuse to speak with you further after this tripe. You're not open to rational discourse if you are going to accuse the person putting forward a partial WMD ban of "not caring about death." Death is in the damn definition already. I don't only care about death, because there are a host of other moral problems with WMDs that go beyond how many people they can kill. That goes without saying, and the fact that I feel the need to explain that to you should be embarrassing for us both.

And I think it explains why you and I will never come to a compromise on the issue. There are moral problems with these weapons that you do not, or cannot, recognize. A nuke is not only bad because of the number of people it kills. It's bad because of the severe radiation burns it causes, the way it poisons the ground, and the way it harms DNA and bodily organs.

I get the bullets can kill and mangle bones. If you want to seriously argue that "singling out" WMDs is improper because bullets would still be available, you can be my guest. I don't feel the need to respond to such a ridiculous argument.

b) If the weapon would at maximum only worsen any other particular natural conditions, such as natural background radiation, by 10% or 10% over the course of a year, as appropriate,

About (b), yes 10% is another fairly arbitrary number. (And we didn't say 10% cumulatively, although evidently you interpret it as such. But it isn't meant to be.) We would expect 10% to be within the range of variance for most natural factors like solar radiation. But anyway, later on we said (b) was basically incorporate in another point, so never mind about that.

I'd really like to hear why you felt the need to follow up "10%" with "or 10% over the course of a year." If we're going to set an arbitrary limit, we should just set it. The only thing "or 10% over the course of a year" adds is a loophole through which any amount of environmental harm is acceptable, so long as it occurs no faster than the rate of 10% degradation per year.

c) If the weapon is more probably than not no more dangerous than anything non-military legally used by or in the nation which is to be targeted by a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and/or

So, if the weapon, is probably not more dangerous than something non-military, subject to legal restrictions of that nation then it should be fine. Obviously you misunderstood this bit. You cannot legally use that pesticide in large doses to kill entire cities, or even people, can you? Unless your country has very funny laws, you shouldn't be able to. Therefore neither can the enemy. However, they can, for instance, increase the background radiation slightly proportionally to the legal increase in background radiation from a nuclear power plant; or use tranquillizer darts of the same power as used legally in hospitals.

Hopefully you can see that we're trying to be reasonable, and again we apologize if we've failed to sound reasonable. Simply put, we object to the banning of tranquillizer darts, which can be biological or chemical depending on how they work.

I'm afraid your clarification didn't really help me. If you "increase the background radiation" above the "legal increase in background radiation from a nuclear power plant," you've produced more radiation than the "legal restrictions of that nation" would allow. I'm afraid your example is self-contradictory. In one breath you say it's not okay to use something in larger doses than the law of that nation allows, and in the next you speak of increasing the radiation "slightly" above the legal limit. Which is it? Plus, this is unworkable. Pesticides even in low doses can be extremely harmful to people. The national laws probably have restrictions about where they can be used - in addition to quantity - and what kind of precautions must be taken. The increase in background radiation around a nuclear plant may be restricted to 2% (or whatever), but in a suburb it's probably restricted to 0%. Are you asking for the power to radiate all cities to the maximum allowed around a nuclear plant? Are you asking for the power to use pesticides on schools so long as they are in no greater quantity than those used on crops?

This standard is meaningless and unworkable - allowing these "weapons" so long as they are used exactly the way the people of the nation use them accomplishes nothing. You're either giving your military the power to use such "weapons" in a "legal" way - in which case, you're just saying that nations at war may dust eachothers crops - or you are giving the military the power to use them in an "illegal" way - in which case, you're saying that nations at war may dump pesticides on towns so long as those are the same pesticides (and in the same doses) that the target nation would employ on their agriculture. The former is silly and the later is unacceptable.

I thank the people of Libraria and Ausitoria for attempting to reason with me. I'm inclined to like your delegation because once upon a time you helped me realize the futility of carving out "reasonable" exceptions to the use of WMDs. But if you persist in trying to walk that wisdom back by suggesting the sudden existence of such exceptions, I'm liable to lose my high opinion of you.

I would like your thoughts on the Proposed Change I suggested above. I'm not sure it's necessary, because your nation is the only one that seems to have that particular problem translating what I wrote. Most nations seem to understand that (a)-(d) are the definition and the examples after the hyphen are meant to provide categorical context to the rest. If the change helps you see that, I might be moved to make it.

Best Regards.

[Sanctaria]

It's common courtesy to have the thread title reflect the title of the proposal, regardless of whether or not the changes are permanent. It's not to difficult to change it back.

Very well. Since you insist, I've changed the title of the resolution back to "Rules of Engagement."

Rules of Engagement n., plur. - "a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force."

I want to keep the thread title as is, because some folks are familiar with it now and (as a personal preference) I do not like threads that change title willy-nilly. I've said before that I don't necessarily agree that "rules of engagement" is misleading, and I stand by that. You're really the only one complaining about it. I am quite fond of the people of Sanctaria, and I thought their suggestion warranted consideration. But I don't like to be nagged, or accused of discourtesy. So rather than change the title of my proposal and thread, I'm just going to leave them as they are and defend why the title is not misleading.[/spoiler]

So the majority of people who voted in your poll and said that the name be changed, their contributions mean nothing? I see what way the Ambassador wants to take this.

Very well, if the Ambassador would like to proceed with using the very vague title of Rules of Engagement, then I'd like to see where in the proposal the rules for engaging in war with a nation are located? All I see clauses surrounding the use of WMDs; I'm certain the Ambassador is aware there is more to engaging in warfare than with just WMDs.

In what situation is it ok for a nation to retaliate when attacked? And rather than pointing me to the specific WMD-centric clause, I'd like to know what would happen in a situation where a nation isn't attacked by a weapon as defined in your resolution? What happens when a nation is simply invaded? If it's a PT nation this could be done with bows and arrows.

Further, what is a reasonable retaliation? Surely the rules of engaging in warfare, which is what the Rules of Engagement is, would outline an reasonable response to an attack? If you want to keep with the broad mission of your resolution, we'll use the example of a nuke. You city gets nuked, what's an appropriate response? Nuke another city? Or just take out a airstrip or something.

Your proposal does say that nations are permitted to retaliate with any additional measure they deem necessary. Where are the "rules" there? That seems to be a blanket clause allowing nations to retaliate with unreasonable responses. Surely in a resolution of "Rules of Engagement" there'd be more restrictions on something like that. Rules do imply restrictions after all.

Ambassador, more than enough delegations have told you that your title is inadequate. If you want to be stubborn and refuse to change the title because you don't want people to get "confused", then I think the Ambassador sorely underestimates the intelligence of members of this Assembly. For the record, you put up the poll and the number asking you to change the title (to something different than the current), far outweighed the number of keeping the title. Evidently I'm not the only one with a problem with the title.

And finally, Ambassador, if you're going to quote definitions, then quote the entire ones, please. Rules of Engagement, as defined by the source used in your example:

a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force, especially specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat.

I note you included a period after force in your usage of the definition. How disingenuous.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Perhaps I'll separate the examples into their own sentence to avoid this confusion, so the definition would look like this:

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, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment." To provide context, categorical examples of WMDs include nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons.

To be picky, can we please make it:

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, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment." Categorical examples of WMDs include nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons conforming to the standards above.

We are worried about the proposal being inadvertently read as banning tranquillizer darts/soldiers with colds (courtesy of yourself), which, whichever way you look at it, do use biological or chemical means to inflict minimal damage. We're very happy with (a), (b), (c), and (d).

Then we won't need to worry about those exceptions we proposed, The Most Glorious Hack might also be satisfied; and we will be happy to lend your proposal our complete support!

(Incidentally, and hopefully now unimportantly, about our radiation example; nuclear power plants do cause a slight increase in radiation for thousands of kilometres around - although it's hardly anything. It's about as much as you might expect from a small nuclear warhead detonated in the upper atmosphere/low earth orbit which has been designed to create an electromagnetic pulse, but not to cause significant damage to people below.)

EDIT: To reflect the later post.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

So the majority of people who voted in your poll and said that the name be changed, their contributions mean nothing? I see what way the Ambassador wants to take this.

Very well, if the Ambassador would like to proceed with using the very vague title of Rules of Engagement, then I'd like to see where in the proposal the rules for engaging in war with a nation are located? All I see clauses surrounding the use of WMDs; I'm certain the Ambassador is aware there is more to engaging in warfare than with just WMDs.

In what situation is it ok for a nation to retaliate when attacked? And rather than pointing me to the specific WMD-centric clause, I'd like to know what would happen in a situation where a nation isn't attacked by a weapon as defined in your resolution? What happens when a nation is simply invaded? If it's a PT nation this could be done with bows and arrows.

Further, what is a reasonable retaliation? Surely the rules of engaging in warfare, which is what the Rules of Engagement is, would outline an reasonable response to an attack? If you want to keep with the broad mission of your resolution, we'll use the example of a nuke. You city gets nuked, what's an appropriate response? Nuke another city? Or just take out a airstrip or something.

Your proposal does say that nations are permitted to retaliate with any additional measure they deem necessary. Where are the "rules" there? That seems to be a blanket clause allowing nations to retaliate with unreasonable responses. Surely in a resolution of "Rules of Engagement" there'd be more restrictions on something like that. Rules do imply restrictions after all.

Ambassador, more than enough delegations have told you that your title is inadequate. If you want to be stubborn and refuse to change the title because you don't want people to get "confused", then I think the Ambassador sorely underestimates the intelligence of members of this Assembly. For the record, you put up the poll and the number asking you to change the title (to something different than the current), far outweighed the number of keeping the title. Evidently I'm not the only one with a problem with the title.

And finally, Ambassador, if you're going to quote definitions, then quote the entire ones, please. Rules of Engagement, as defined by the source used in your example:

a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force, especially specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat.

I note you included a period after force in your usage of the definition. How disingenuous.

Wow. I really can't imagine why you care so damn much.

The resolution issues a directive to those controlling military affairs about the appropriate use and degree of force. It's a limitation on what member nations can do in combat. I'm sorry that you didn't like that I didn't post the whole definition of "rules of engagement" earlier. Though to be fair I did link to it, so I can't really be accused of hiding the ball. I just quoted the part that was most relevant. I think "especially specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat" actually helps my argument: no one can deny that this proposal contains provisions that limit military options when engaging in combat with other member nations. I just didn't feel that it added enough to warrant mentioning along with the first part.

I don't need to say anything specific about retaliation (though I do) if I don't want to - perhaps the WA is not prepared to announce any specific rules governing retaliation. Though I do talk about retaliation, I don't need to say anything other than what I do about 'retributive measures deemed necessary' - since that's the only rule I want to announce. And I don't have to announce every other conceivable rule in order to call my proposal "rules of engagement" anymore than "On Abortion" needs to say everything there is to say on abortion. Two or more is enough, and there's at least two in there. There may be many more if I decide to bring back provisions that are not present in the current draft, but have been around since the beginning.

In short, I'm not inclined to agree that a proposal must announce every last rule of military engagement in order to call itself "Rules of Engagement." Announcing only those rules that the WA is prepared to announce is sufficient, so long (I suppose) as there's more than one. And it's really not that hard to fit my proposal into a reasonable definition of "rules of engagement" if you spend more time thinking about what's in the draft and less about what isn't in it. That said, if you think a particular rule of warfare really should be announced, I would certainly consider adding it. But that's not what you're doing. You're just being petty over the name I decided to give my proposal, because you don't agree with it. Nobody else is being so obtuse.

I've tried to explain that I'm not interested in renaming the thread until I'm sure that the current draft's narrow focus is the way I want to go. In two days, I may miss all the provisions I once included on battle zones, non-combatants, and the requisite conditions for a declaration of war. And I've been thinking of adding others as well. The discussion so far has just happened to revolve (almost) exclusively around WMDs, so I'm playing with the idea of paring this down to just that, and leaving the rest for later. But I haven't decided to narrow the focus, and I want to leave the title of the thread as is to reflect what this discussion is still all about - announcing rules about appropriate force in an effort to limit certain military options. Pretty sure I'm entitled to do that. Call it captain's prerogative.

I get that this is not what you would do. Perhaps at this juncture you would focus on WMDs, rename the proposal, rename the thread, and never look back. I liked that idea initially and was moving toward adopting it. I'm still considering it. But your nagging insistence and your rhetoric made me disinclined to agree with you on principle. Nobody likes to be bullied, especially on something so discretionary as a title. You can keep posting on the subject if you like, and since you don't seem to have anything nice to say I'm just going to ignore you until I've made a decision one way or another. I've got reason enough to stand on (since it's not like I'm calling it the "Moon is made of Green Cheese" resolution), and I won't be moved on something so trivial as the proper name for my thread.

As far as the opinions of the 8 persons who voted on the proposal's name before I took the poll down (2 of whom agreed that the current name is fine), I am still considering that. I'm just not going to be harassed by the likes of you into doing something before I'm good and ready.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

To be picky, can we please make it:

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, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment." Categorical examples of WMDs include nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons conforming to the standards above.

We are worried about the proposal being inadvertently read as banning tranquillizer darts/soldiers with colds (courtesy of The Most Glorious Hack), which, whichever way you look at it, do use biological or chemical means to inflict minimal damage. We're very happy with (a), (b), (c), and (d).

Then we won't need to worry about those exceptions we proposed, The Most Glorious Hack might also be satisfied; and we will be happy to lend your proposal our complete support!

(Incidentally, and hopefully now unimportantly, about our radiation example; nuclear power plants do cause a slight increase in radiation for thousands of kilometres around - although it's hardly anything. It's about as much as you might expect from a small nuclear warhead detonated in the upper atmosphere/low earth orbit which has been designed to create an electromagnetic pulse, but not to cause significant damage to people below.)

I'm pretty sure this compromise can be arranged, but let me think it over. Just need to make sure I didn't loophole myself. Also don't give the Hack credit for my soldiers with colds example - that's my example!

[Sanctaria]

In short, I'm not inclined to agree that a proposal must announce every last rule of military engagement in order to call itself "Rules of Engagement." Announcing only those rules that the WA is prepared to announce is sufficient, so long (I suppose) as there's more than one. And it's really not that hard to fit my proposal into a reasonable definition of "rules of engagement" if you spend more time thinking about what's in the draft and less about what isn't in it. That said, if you think a particular rule of warfare really should be announced, I would certainly consider adding it. But that's not what you're doing. You're just being petty over the name I decided to give my proposal, because you don't agree with it. Nobody else is being so obtuse.

I'm just going to respond to the most relevant part of that diatribe.

The title of your proposal is "Rules of Engagement". Not "A Few Rules of Engagement". Your current title implies that your resolution is the be all and end all when it comes to legislation on Rules of Engagement. From the outset I've been saying that the title is misleading.

Now one can argue that I'm being obtuse, but I've been in this Assembly a good long while. I know the importance of the title of a proposal because that's generally all the apathetic voters look at. I believe the title of a proposal should be succinct and accurate, so the lemmings actually know what they're voting on; your proposal's title is neither. I don't think that's being petty, it's being attentive.

If you feel you're being bullied, then grow a thicker skin. You should be aware by now that Ambassadors will repeatedly and continuously hammer home points of contention that they feel oh so passionate about.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We do hope that that small amendment can be made. If it can't, please explain why, and we'll try to help with fixing up any problem with it. We look forward to seeing it all sorted out.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

A 2 gauge shotgun may cause indiscriminate widespread destruction, but nowhere near the level of a nuclear blast. Unless it does, in which case it should be banned.

Now here's where it gets difficult. Something you might want to consider is some kind of magnitude. I realize you have this with "widespread", but perhaps beefing that language up a little to drive home that you're not talking about killing handfuls, or dozens, or even hundreds of people.

We live in a NationStates world where nations have armies of rocket-powered monkey soldiers.

And boy are they a bitch when you short their banana ration.

I aim to craft a definition that will fit the sentiments of the majority; I am ready with my "be sensible" and "that's not really covered" arguments for use on all the rest.

Right-o.

[United Celts]

If you feel you're being bullied, then grow a thicker skin. You should be aware by now that Ambassadors will repeatedly and continuously hammer home points of contention that they feel oh so passionate about.

"And yet some ambassadors might find that their points meet with less resistance if they occasionally try using a mallet instead of a sledgehammer," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn observed. "I was offended by the absence of basic civility in your rhetoric and I'm not even the author of the proposal. Believe it or not, Dr. Ferguson, you're not always right about everything and sometimes people actually disagree with you -- however long you may have served in this Assembly."

[Sanctaria]

If you feel you're being bullied, then grow a thicker skin. You should be aware by now that Ambassadors will repeatedly and continuously hammer home points of contention that they feel oh so passionate about.

"And yet some ambassadors might find that their points meet with less resistance if they occasionally try using a mallet instead of a sledgehammer," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn observed. "I was offended by the absence of basic civility in your rhetoric and I'm not even the author of the proposal. Believe it or not, Dr. Ferguson, you're not always right about everything and sometimes people actually disagree with you -- however long you may have served in this Assembly."

If the Ambassador is offended by the "absence" of basic civility, then perhaps he better review the transcripts. I've continuously referred to the author as either "the author" or "the Ambassador". If there was a lack of civility, I don't think I'd be so kind in my acknowledgements. Besides, if there were a lack of civility on my behalf, I would have been called up on it by the Secretariat, members of whom have been actively participating in this debate.

[Cerberion]

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the word;

World, I think.

Weapon of mass destruction is such a cruddy term. Conventional bombs if properly employed can cause mass destruction. I understand the motives behind trying to control the use of nuclear and biological weapons, but it's pretty much superfluous when you actually compare the numbers killed by conventional warfare.

I can't in good concience say "This type of weapon is bad, and this type of weapon is good".

They are all bad, or all good, depending on your point of view.

OOC: Consider London during the blitz, the firebombing of mainland Japan, Dresden Germany. All conventional weapons and you can only describe the result as mass destruction. The death toll from the nuclear weapons were extremely moderate when you compare it to the total killed by conventional weapons. The only scenario that makes this type of thing useful is if the cold war had ended in mutually assured destruction. Not many are willing to risk that no matter how unhinged they are.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Consider London during the blitz, the firebombing of mainland Japan, Dresden Germany. All conventional weapons and you can only describe the result as mass destruction. The death toll from the nuclear weapons were extremely moderate when you compare it to the total killed by conventional weapons.

OOC: I think you're missing the point. The point of banning the use of WMDs is so that they don't become commonplace in war. Obviously, conventional warfare has killed more people than nuclear weapons. Nukes have only been around since the '40s. War has been occurring for thousands of years.

On a side note, the firebombing of Japan and Germany would be illegal nowadays. The use of incendiary devices near civilian populations has been banned under international law since 1983 under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

The only scenario that makes this type of thing useful is if the cold war had ended in mutually assured destruction. Not many are willing to risk that no matter how unhinged they are.

A lot of people don't realize how close the world was to global nuclear war. The threat of mutually assured destruction does not completely rule out the use of nuclear weapons against a nuclear state. When information is opaque, it is very easy to mistake the intentions of your enemies. If I think you've launched a nuclear weapon, then I'm going to launch one back. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if my detection system was malfunctioning or some of your military officers accidentally flew into my airspace. I can't really stop a missile once it's been launched. And because we're enemies and don't trust each other, it's not like we have any decent communication going on to alert each other of our intentions.

That is, albeit tongue-in-cheek, what happened during the Cold War, minus the actual launching of nuclear weapons obviously. Mutually assured destruction is not infallible. Even more so when you consider that nowadays it's not likely that a nuclear strike would completely disable your enemy anyways, or even hit your enemy given the creation of highly sophisticated anti-missile technology. To complicate MAD, imagine the above problem, but on a ten-fold scale.

Nuclear deterrence is important. But nuclear deterrence and MAD aren't the same thing. At some point, when people like Henry Kissinger say that MAD is obsolete, we've got to start thinking that maybe it actually is obsolete.

(Can't link to the article, since it's behind a paywall. Just search for "Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation" and pull up the WSJ link.)

[Cowardly Pacifists]

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the word;

World, I think.

Don't know how I missed that... thank you for the correction.

Weapon of mass destruction is such a cruddy term. Conventional bombs if properly employed can cause mass destruction. I understand the motives behind trying to control the use of nuclear and biological weapons, but it's pretty much superfluous when you actually compare the numbers killed by conventional warfare.

I can't in good concience say "This type of weapon is bad, and this type of weapon is good".

They are all bad, or all good, depending on your point of view.

I have addressed this concern at length several times now. I get that some people think that the only way to make a meaningful difference would be to outlaw all weapons in their entirety. "Bullets kill too don't you know," they say, "why are you singling out certain weapons as particularly bad when all weapons do the same thing - namely, cause destruction and death." I tried to define "weapon of mass destruction" in a way that offered exactly the kind of meaningful distinction that some folks find lacking: WMDs are especially morally objectionable because they are designed to kill and injure indiscriminately on a large scale, because they are designed to level cities and towns, and because they cause serious damage and degradation to the environment.

If you lined-up a couple hundred thousand muskets, pointed them at the city center, and kept firing and reloading long enough, you could eventually cause the same quantity of damage as a nuclear weapon (you'd skip the radiation poisoning, but I suppose there would be a bunch of people maimed and injured in other ways, so lets just call it even). Nations can use that to work around this resolution if they really want to.

But I'm certainly not convinced that makes a ban on WMDs superfluous. Perhaps "conventional bombs if properly employed can cause mass destruction," but the fact that the concept of a "weapon of mass destruction" even exists in our lexicon is proof positive that there is a distinction between such weapons and conventional weapons. My goal (in part) is to flesh out that distinction and make it known, and then craft an agreement not to use such weapons against each other. I'm not ready - as some are - to shake my head and say "guess we just need to accept every last horror of war." I emphatically reject that notion. My position is, "look here, this practice is particularly horrible isn't it? If we can't agree to completely refrain from war, can we at least agree not to do this to each other?" That's a perfectly legitimate standpoint, I think.

I understand that there are those like Cerberion who will not support this proposal because their "conscience" will not allow them to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable weapons in war. I would remind such nations that there was a time when countries would catapult the severed heads of captured soldiers into besieged towns in order to terrify the townsfolk and spread disease. We long since abandoned such barbarity, and that practice is largely frowned upon today (in fact, member nations would be prohibited from doing that by current international laws). Consider this proposal a first step toward frowning on a different practice in the foreseeable future.

OOC: Consider London during the blitz, the firebombing of mainland Japan, Dresden Germany. All conventional weapons and you can only describe the result as mass destruction. The death toll from the nuclear weapons were extremely moderate when you compare it to the total killed by conventional weapons. The only scenario that makes this type of thing useful is if the cold war had ended in mutually assured destruction. Not many are willing to risk that no matter how unhinged they are.

Sadly, I cannot outlaw all the evils of war; to do so would be impossible. But if I can restrict the ways we kill each other just one tiny iota, it will be worth the effort. And frankly, when we're talking about weapons that society has seen fit to distinguish as "weapons of mass destruction," that's one hell of a tiny iota.

Edit: I drafted a response to your point about MAD, but Glen-Rhodes did a better job, so I removed it.

A person does not need to move a whole river to affect a meaningful change. Sometimes, moving just a few stones is enough to let the current choose a different path. And in time the river will be seen to chart a completely different course. I'm sure you understand what I mean, despite my poeticism.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

New draft up. I wanted to get more feedback on the last draft, but Azulor went around spamming and bumping dead threads yesterday, so this thread got buried. Here are my notes on the new draft.

Now here's where it gets difficult. Something you might want to consider is some kind of magnitude. I realize you have this with "widespread", but perhaps beefing that language up a little to drive home that you're not talking about killing handfuls, or dozens, or even hundreds of people.

I have added a few words to the end of the "widespread" section to concretely express the magnitude and scale of "widespread damage." Please let me know if you think those words are sufficient, or if more needs to be done.

Perhaps I'll separate the examples into their own sentence to avoid this confusion, so the definition would look like this:

To be picky, can we please make it:

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, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment." Categorical examples of WMDs include nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons conforming to the standards above.

The substance of this requested change has been implemented in the current draft. I did not see a possible loophole here (that wasn't in the definition already), but if someone else does, PLEASE let me know so I can correct it.

*snip*

I'm not convinced the proposal's going to stay this way, so I'm not renaming the thread yet. I'm feeling out whether I want to drop the other provisions entirely and regulate only WMDs with this proposal. I don't want to change the thread title (since people are familiar with it) if I'm just going to go back to a more inclusive draft in a day or so. If I decide that the recent changes are permanent, I'll change the threat title. Gimme some time to think it over will ya?

This issue is still live. If folks think this proposal should only be about WMDs, I'm prepared to go that direction and not look back. We can always pass legislation dealing with other specific wartime conduct in the future. But if folks think I can do more to restrict certain unacceptable practices (beyond affecting WMDs) within this proposal, I'm still very interested in doing that. It's what I set out to do in the first place, after all.

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.

Based on this, I've taken out the provision allowing retaliatory strikes if member nations violate the proposal and launch a WMD strike of their own. A member nation violating the law to launch a WMD at another member nation would be impossible if this resolution were to pass, so including a provision allowing for retaliation in the event of an impossible situation makes no sense. It would be like allowing member nations to launch WMDs if 2+2=5.

Best Regards.