[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Grand America]

Right now "WMD" is defined in a pretty general way, to cover all kinds of weapons - though the four I really mean (nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological) are spelled out at the end of the definition. Kinetic weapons are not listed directly, but one could imagine that if there was ever a kinetic weapon big enough to destroy a whole city, this Act might cover it. I don't know much about the distinction your making between "kinetic" and "nuclear" weapons. Read the description of WMD and you tell me whether you think these weapons are WMDs. If you don't think they could reasonably be said to fall under the definition, then we're all good and you can use your high yield warheads to your heart's content. If you think they would be covered, let me know and I'll see if we can whittle the definition down a bit so that such weapons might be included.

I'm really after restricting a specific type of weapon here - I think we all have a pretty good idea of what a WMD is even if we can't exactly define it. It's like pornography - hard to describe, exactly, but we know it when we see it. If you think of a weapon, and your gut tells you it's a WMD, it probably is. We still need a definition though, and it's important that we define WMD in a reasonable way so that folks get what we're talking about.

And I'm not going after disarmament. I'm setting up a mutual agreement among members of this Assembly. This resolution says WA members will not use WMDs against each other. You can keep as many of these weapons as you want and nothing in this would prohibit you from using them against those who might use them on you. I don't recommend that you do - in fact, I think you rather shouldn't. But I can't control members outside this body so I'm not going to tie your hands when dealing with them.

Well, this kinetic weapon doesn't have the ability to destroy a city. It's a small one; 1.2 kt. Relatively weak compared to other weapons that could be considered WMDs. I would reconsider if it were high-yield weapons, but they're not. Not to mention that the U.S. would never deploy them against cities. If we see a critical target in the middle of a heavily-populated city, we find other, more accurate ways to kill it.

How's this: Weapons of Mass Destruction specifically designed for the use against the peoples of another nation, and effectively kills thousands, or more, in one blast.

That's a little vague, I think, but whatever. When I think of a WMD, I think city busters, and the Big-Four.

I know, I was saying about the previous draft you had said you were working on. And while the United States does posses a relatively large amount of said Weapons of Mass Destruction, a small percentage of them are active, and all are being used as either deterrent or retaliatory strikes; however, we all prefer not to use them.

[Grand America]

Now I'm just confused. You want me to replace the outright ban I've currently got with a committee that rules before the weapon is used (I'm still pretty sure this would contradict Rights and Duties) but whose rulings should be considered a precedent and not "a decision specific to the case in question," is that right? I really don't think you're going to fool the Secretariat with that. Would the nation even be bound by the committee's decision, if it's not "specific" to the case in question? If not, I'm certainly not going to create a committee that nations are free to ignore if they don't get the answer they're looking for.

Perhaps an example would clarify my idea:

We start with a total ban on WMDs. Nation A is at war with Nation B, and wants to use a WMD for a particular purpose. Let's take an example from this thread, and say they want to knock out communications by detonating a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere. They introduce a proposal to the committee, asking them to rule on whether that's an acceptable use of WMDs. The committee rules, but their decision is not worded like "Nation A may knock out Nation B's communications by detonating a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere" but rather "all nations are permitted to knock out another nation's communications during war by detonating a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere." Therefore, if Nation C wants to knock out Nation D's communications, or vice versa, the ruling also applies.

Thus, we're not contravening Rights and Duties because we're not making a determination on the validity of any particular conflict, just making general laws about the validity of certain actions taken in war. At the same time, it's done on a case-by-case basis, rather than an outright banm which is what I wanted.

Then the WA is stupid. Nation A doesn't need to deploy a nuclear warhead to knock out national communications. An Electro-Magnetic Pulse does just fine. Not to mention that's a serious environmental concern, and one of the reasons that the U.S. and USSR signed a treaty (whose name slips me by right now) to not detonate nuclear weapons in outer space.

Nuclear warheads are never the answer. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't justified; as much as I love the U.S., Japan was unfit to continue fighting, and naval and aerial bombardments, like those they had been doing after gaining aerial superiority, would have been sufficient, as opposed to detonating a nuclear warhead. I don't disagree that having a nuclear warhead is an amazing deterrent, and the United States could have shown said power to Japan by destroying an unpopulated area, but they didn't.

Again, what's a real situation in which only a nuclear warhead can change the tide.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "a weapon that can (a) bring significant harm to a large number of persons, (b) cause widespread damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

Hm. Big Rocks can bring significant harm to large numbers of persons.

[Ardchoille]

Hm. Big Rocks can bring significant harm to large numbers of persons.

Especially if "dropped" from a Moon. {Heinlein, what hast thou wrought? )

[Britinthia]

As this stands I cannot support this resolution. Preventing nations from using WMDs outright is a terrible idea. If nation X is threatening to start a world war and the only way I can stop him is to conduct a WMD led strike to cripple his ability before it is used, I have to be able to do that in order to preserve world peace.
However I believe their use has to be restricted to a "Last Resort" weapon.

Clause 1 is an adequate description, although I would add space-based kinetic strike weapons and any conventional explosive weapon of more than 1 Kiloton.
Clause 2 needs to be scrapped.
Clause 3 is acceptable, but I would personally expand to say that non-combatants are, under no circumstances, to be harmed, fired upon, or mistreated(including torture) unless they pose a direct and imminent threat. Protection of non-coms should be paramount.
Clause 4 Can be left out, it adds nothing to the resolution
Clause 5 and 6 should be left out, no individual action should be taken without involvement and agreement of the Security Counsel surely?
Clause 7 doesn't make sense. Maybe I am reading it wrong but it seems to contradict the rest of the resolution.

They are my thoughts, with a couple of changes I could certainly be persuaded to support it.

[Connopolis]

The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "a weapon that can (a) bring significant harm to a large number of persons, (b) cause widespread damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

Hm. Big Rocks can bring significant harm to large numbers of persons.

I can only hope that was sarcasm.

Your,

[Auralia]

Then the WA is stupid. Nation A doesn't need to deploy a nuclear warhead to knock out national communications. An Electro-Magnetic Pulse does just fine. Not to mention that's a serious environmental concern, and one of the reasons that the U.S. and USSR signed a treaty (whose name slips me by right now) to not detonate nuclear weapons in outer space.

Nuclear warheads are never the answer. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't justified; as much as I love the U.S., Japan was unfit to continue fighting, and naval and aerial bombardments, like those they had been doing after gaining aerial superiority, would have been sufficient, as opposed to detonating a nuclear warhead. I don't disagree that having a nuclear warhead is an amazing deterrent, and the United States could have shown said power to Japan by destroying an unpopulated area, but they didn't.

Again, what's a real situation in which only a nuclear warhead can change the tide.

Great, you can express that view on the committee.

I'd like to point out once again that I am not in favour of this proposal, nor even my own compromise solution, but I would prefer a committee deciding when the use of WMDs are appropriate to an outright ban.

[Grand America]

Then the WA is stupid. Nation A doesn't need to deploy a nuclear warhead to knock out national communications. An Electro-Magnetic Pulse does just fine. Not to mention that's a serious environmental concern, and one of the reasons that the U.S. and USSR signed a treaty (whose name slips me by right now) to not detonate nuclear weapons in outer space.

Nuclear warheads are never the answer. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't justified; as much as I love the U.S., Japan was unfit to continue fighting, and naval and aerial bombardments, like those they had been doing after gaining aerial superiority, would have been sufficient, as opposed to detonating a nuclear warhead. I don't disagree that having a nuclear warhead is an amazing deterrent, and the United States could have shown said power to Japan by destroying an unpopulated area, but they didn't.

Again, what's a real situation in which only a nuclear warhead can change the tide.

Great, you can express that view on the committee.

I'd like to point out once again that I am not in favour of this proposal, nor even my own compromise solution, but I would prefer a committee deciding when the use of WMDs are appropriate to an outright ban.

You didn't answer what situation requires a nuclear missile to be successful.

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

I think the definition of WMDs could use some work (definitions can almost always use some work), but, at first glance, the draft seems decent to my sensibilities.

[Auralia]

Great, you can express that view on the committee.

I'd like to point out once again that I am not in favour of this proposal, nor even my own compromise solution, but I would prefer a committee deciding when the use of WMDs are appropriate to an outright ban.

You didn't answer what situation requires a nuclear missile to be successful.

Rather than take the approach of “I can’t think of a reason right now where nuclear weapons must be used instead of conventional weapons, so I’ll ban them,” I’m taking the approach of “I don’t know if ever I will need nuclear weapons, so to be safe I’ll let a WA committee decide then and there what would constitute acceptable use.”

But to humour you, I'll take an example mentioned earlier in this thread: needing to destroy something so big that using conventional weapons would be prohibitively expensive.

[Grand America]

You didn't answer what situation requires a nuclear missile to be successful.

Rather than take the approach of “I can’t think of a reason right now where nuclear weapons must be used instead of conventional weapons, so I’ll ban them,” I’m taking the approach of “I don’t know if ever I will need nuclear weapons, so to be safe I’ll let a WA committee decide then and there what would constitute acceptable use.”

But to humour you, I'll take an example mentioned earlier in this thread: needing to destroy something so big that using conventional weapons would be prohibitively expensive.

It's not fair to send people down a path of genetic mutations, especially when most of those wouldn't even be at fault, just because it's less expensive.
Nuclear weapons aren't the answer for anything except a retaliatory strike. That's all.

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

Rather than take the approach of “I can’t think of a reason right now where nuclear weapons must be used instead of conventional weapons, so I’ll ban them,” I’m taking the approach of “I don’t know if ever I will need nuclear weapons, so to be safe I’ll let a WA committee decide then and there what would constitute acceptable use.”

But to humour you, I'll take an example mentioned earlier in this thread: needing to destroy something so big that using conventional weapons would be prohibitively expensive.

It's not fair to send people down a path of genetic mutations, especially when most of those wouldn't even be at fault, just because it's less expensive.
Nuclear weapons aren't the answer for anything except a retaliatory strike. That's all.

What's wrong with having a committee decide it, huh? The WA Gnomes are almost always infallible in their infinite knowledge.

[Auralia]

It's not fair to send people down a path of genetic mutations, especially when most of those wouldn't even be at fault, just because it's less expensive.
Nuclear weapons aren't the answer for anything except a retaliatory strike. That's all.

What's wrong with having a committee decide it, huh? The WA Gnomes are almost always infallible in their infinite knowledge.

OOC: To continue on this trend of examining the unrealistic elements of the WA, I was thinking - if all WA nations have to follow international law, why not ban warfare outright between WA nations? Force them to solve everything through diplomacy. Since the resolution must be enforced, we've just achieved world peace (at least between WA nations).

EDIT: My mistake. Should have read Rights and Duties more thoroughly.

[Britinthia]

Rather than take the approach of “I can’t think of a reason right now where nuclear weapons must be used instead of conventional weapons, so I’ll ban them,” I’m taking the approach of “I don’t know if ever I will need nuclear weapons, so to be safe I’ll let a WA committee decide then and there what would constitute acceptable use.”

But to humour you, I'll take an example mentioned earlier in this thread: needing to destroy something so big that using conventional weapons would be prohibitively expensive.

It's not fair to send people down a path of genetic mutations, especially when most of those wouldn't even be at fault, just because it's less expensive.
Nuclear weapons aren't the answer for anything except a retaliatory strike. That's all.

I apologise for interrupting your discussion, but you have just stated why WMDs, specifically nuclear, cannot be banned outright.
The only way a deterrent can work, and thus stabilise a region, is the knowledge that they are so destructive that they are only useful as a retaliatory strike and nobody is willing to shoot first.
If WMDs are banned from use if would shift power away from WA members and towards those who are not members. No nation with a sense of self-preservation would approve that.

[Grand America]

It's not fair to send people down a path of genetic mutations, especially when most of those wouldn't even be at fault, just because it's less expensive.
Nuclear weapons aren't the answer for anything except a retaliatory strike. That's all.

I apologise for interrupting your discussion, but you have just stated why WMDs, specifically nuclear, cannot be banned outright.
The only way a deterrent can work, and thus stabilise a region, is the knowledge that they are so destructive that they are only useful as a retaliatory strike and nobody is willing to shoot first.
If WMDs are banned from use if would shift power away from WA members and towards those who are not members. No nation with a sense of self-preservation would approve that.

It's been said that this doesn't apply to when member-states are fighting non-member-states. A nuclear strike against a Non-WA Nation isn't going to be prohibited by this proposal; only against other WA nations.

[Aetrina]

Another pacifist resolution. It never ceases to amaze us how many Nations have no real understanding of the real world. Nations must be allowed to defend themselves and their interests by any means. While we agree that WMD's can and have been used inappropriately, The ability and decisions to use them MUST reside with the Sovereign Nation and CANNOT be banned by this body. As always with drafts of this type We cannot support.

[Grand America]

Another pacifist resolution. It never ceases to amaze us how many Nations have no real understanding of the real world. Nations must be allowed to defend themselves and their interests by any means. While we agree that WMD's can and have been used inappropriately, The ability and decisions to use them MUST reside with the Sovereign Nation and CANNOT be banned by this body. As always with drafts of this type We cannot support.

Those sovereign nations can also include those ruled by dictators thirsty for blood, war, and land. Those sovereign nations can be those that wish to use nuclear weapons to their fullest extent in order to take nations, or rip them apart.

[Auralia]

Another pacifist resolution. It never ceases to amaze us how many Nations have no real understanding of the real world. Nations must be allowed to defend themselves and their interests by any means. While we agree that WMD's can and have been used inappropriately, The ability and decisions to use them MUST reside with the Sovereign Nation and CANNOT be banned by this body. As always with drafts of this type We cannot support.

I agree, but I'm really scared that this might get passed if it goes up to vote. Rather than just oppose it, I'm trying to water it down so that nations still retain some sovereignty over WMDs.

[Grand America]

Another pacifist resolution. It never ceases to amaze us how many Nations have no real understanding of the real world. Nations must be allowed to defend themselves and their interests by any means. While we agree that WMD's can and have been used inappropriately, The ability and decisions to use them MUST reside with the Sovereign Nation and CANNOT be banned by this body. As always with drafts of this type We cannot support.

I agree, but I'm really scared that this might get passed if it goes up to vote. Rather than just oppose it, I'm trying to water it down so that nations still retain some sovereignty over WMDs.

I don't see what the problem with this is. Nuclear weapons can't be used against other WA member nations...OK? That means they can't use it either. You're both safe from nuclear strikes by those nations.
And against Non-WA Member nations, you can use nuclear weapons to hold your advantage over them.

[Kaesar the invincible]

opposed

[Grand America]

opposed

Without meaning to offend, you're not in the WA. This will not affect you, nor can you vote for it, lest you join.

[Aetrina]

Another pacifist resolution. It never ceases to amaze us how many Nations have no real understanding of the real world. Nations must be allowed to defend themselves and their interests by any means. While we agree that WMD's can and have been used inappropriately, The ability and decisions to use them MUST reside with the Sovereign Nation and CANNOT be banned by this body. As always with drafts of this type We cannot support.

Those sovereign nations can also include those ruled by dictators thirsty for blood, war, and land. Those sovereign nations can be those that wish to use nuclear weapons to their fullest extent in order to take nations, or rip them apart.

While we agree with that statement, we would also say that many of those nations that are inclined to use WMD's for conquest and destruction are NOT WA members and would in NO WAY be restricted by this resolution. It may not be a popular sentiment but we believe in responding in kind to an attack. If we were to be attacked by some form of WMD it would be an option to our military leaders to return that attack with a similar device. We CANNOT support any legislation that undermines a nations ability to defend itself and it's interests against any threat.

[Auralia]

I agree, but I'm really scared that this might get passed if it goes up to vote. Rather than just oppose it, I'm trying to water it down so that nations still retain some sovereignty over WMDs.

I don't see what the problem with this is. Nuclear weapons can't be used against other WA member nations...OK? That means they can't use it either. You're both safe from nuclear strikes by those nations.
And against Non-WA Member nations, you can use nuclear weapons to hold your advantage over them.

Look, we've been saying the same thing again and again, so I think we should just agree to disagree. I think nuclear weapons may have a justified use someday, you think they do not. Fine - then why not pass the final decision onto a committee, as I've suggested? Ultimately, it's a good compromise: since in your opinion, the use of nuclear weapons is never justified, the committee will therefore never approve any use of them; since in my opinion, the use of nuclear weapons may be justified, the committee might approve their use in certain limited circumstances.

[Auralia]

Those sovereign nations can also include those ruled by dictators thirsty for blood, war, and land. Those sovereign nations can be those that wish to use nuclear weapons to their fullest extent in order to take nations, or rip them apart.

While we agree with that statement, we would also say that many of those nations that are inclined to use WMD's for conquest and destruction are NOT WA members and would in NO WAY be restricted by this resolution. It may not be a popular sentiment but we believe in responding in kind to an attack. If we were to be attacked by some form of WMD it would be an option to our military leaders to return that attack with a similar device. We CANNOT support any legislation that undermines a nations ability to defend itself and it's interests against any threat.

The resolution does not block the use of WMDs by WA nations against non-WA nations.

[Grand America]

Those sovereign nations can also include those ruled by dictators thirsty for blood, war, and land. Those sovereign nations can be those that wish to use nuclear weapons to their fullest extent in order to take nations, or rip them apart.

While we agree with that statement, we would also say that many of those nations that are inclined to use WMD's for conquest and destruction are NOT WA members and would in NO WAY be restricted by this resolution. It may not be a popular sentiment but we believe in responding in kind to an attack. If we were to be attacked by some form of WMD it would be an option to our military leaders to return that attack with a similar device. We CANNOT support any legislation that undermines a nations ability to defend itself and it's interests against any threat.

No, they wouldn't be. But if they're attacking a WA member nation, neither are they. See, this proposal takes into account that non-WA nations will attempt to use it to their advantage, and makes it clear that this does not apply if a WA member nation is facing against a non-WA member nation, in which case, nuclear weapons are not prohibited.

It is not trying to undermine you, it is attempt to eliminate the risk of nuclear confrontation between two nations in the World Assembly. If a non-WA member nation attacks you with nuclear weapons, you have full access to your own stockpile to retaliate. But no WA member nation can, or will, be able to use nuclear weapons against you, lest they be sanctioned and publicly condemned by other WA member nations. However, I am unsure if you would be allowed to retaliate; In any case, nuclear weapons are not to be used against WA member nations, if you are in the World Assembly.