[REDRAFT] On Planetary Annihilation (6)

[Hakio]

Due to popular demand I am switching the category to International Security.

[Hakio]

What should the strength of this proposal be?

[Chester Pearson]

What should the strength of this proposal be?

Mild. You also have a problem. This is not written as an International Security resolution. This still reads as a Global Disarmament proposal.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"You say that, but...its hard to win an argument on military ethics with the armed soldier standing on your neck..."

"If they're already standing on your neck then it's probably too late for blowing up their homeworld to help you anyhows..."

"Well you could threaten it if they don't go away," clicked a twenty-foot long translucent purple blob as it stepped through a wormhole, incidentally destroying three and a half unimportant universes and causing time to go into reverse in another. Fortunately all of them were unimportant rubbish tips and scheduled for demolition by an unimportant Ausitorian municipal waste department which was having kittens - green tabbies with four heads each - at the idea of having to get a permit every time it wanted to use a vacuum cleaner to remove the planets that always accumulated on the floor. An old lady had already sneezed so violently that she had tripped over her tail, fallen down the stairs, been plummeted into a new universe, and been catapulted into a black hole. She was still in hospital recovering from the shock and had refused to breath until the doctors had given her a mask to filter out the planets from the air.

Therefore the blob had not come to the World Assembly merely to discuss how to remove people who were standing on your neck, and it shivered violently and squealed plaintively while gently expanding and contracting in the vague hope that this would convince the author that he had no understanding of the lifestyle of species such as the lesser purple pan-dimensional blob. "Hasn't this silly proposal been time-frozen yet?" it squeaked. "And what in the name of my aunt's trans-galactic perambulator counts as a megastructure? Is it from the point of view of a tiny bacteria or humanoid such as yourself, or from the point of view of a sentient universe like my big brother?"

[Mosktopia]

OCC: I don't like the trend of taking what should obviously be global disarmament proposals and turning them into international security proposals just to appease stat wankers. If your primary goal is to prevent these weapons from being used (or limit their use), then this proposal should have the effect of reducing military spending, not increasing it. After all, nations are unlikely to spend considerable resources on weapons they cannot use.

I'm aware of the various work-arounds (the most common is allowing nations to possess certain horrible weapons, allowing their use in "limited" situations, and requiring that nations "secure" their stockpile adequately) but I consider that a cheat. Moreover, allowing nations to possess, use, and secure planet destroying weapons seems to defeat the whole purpose of this act - and I cannot imagine a situation in which someone would be justified in destroying a whole planet.

[Brilliant Equestria]

OCC: I don't like the trend of taking what should obviously be global disarmament proposals and turning them into international security proposals just to appease stat wankers. If your primary goal is to prevent these weapons from being used (or limit their use), then this proposal should have the effect of reducing military spending, not increasing it. After all, nations are unlikely to spend considerable resources on weapons they cannot use.

I'm aware of the various work-arounds (the most common is allowing nations to possess certain horrible weapons, allowing their use in "limited" situations, and requiring that nations "secure" their stockpile adequately) but I consider that a cheat. Moreover, allowing nations to possess, use, and secure planet destroying weapons seems to defeat the whole purpose of this act - and I cannot imagine a situation in which someone would be justified in destroying a whole planet.

If it's uninhabited and on an immediate collision course with their home planet?

Making them into international security proposals is just acknowledging the current reality of the WA. Global disarmament proposals do not pass, especially not ones above mild strength.

[Hakio]

OCC: I don't like the trend of taking what should obviously be global disarmament proposals and turning them into international security proposals just to appease stat wankers. If your primary goal is to prevent these weapons from being used (or limit their use), then this proposal should have the effect of reducing military spending, not increasing it. After all, nations are unlikely to spend considerable resources on weapons they cannot use.

I'm aware of the various work-arounds (the most common is allowing nations to possess certain horrible weapons, allowing their use in "limited" situations, and requiring that nations "secure" their stockpile adequately) but I consider that a cheat. Moreover, allowing nations to possess, use, and secure planet destroying weapons seems to defeat the whole purpose of this act - and I cannot imagine a situation in which someone would be justified in destroying a whole planet.

The lack of proper definition between global disarmament and international security has lead to this continuous problem. I am simply going along with the poll results at this point.

[Draica]

"Look, if these weapons keep these alien freaks AWAY from me then I oppose this. The hell are you thinking, Ambassador?"

[Hakio]

"Look, if these weapons keep these alien freaks AWAY from me then I oppose this. The hell are you thinking, Ambassador?"

"You're allowed to own and use these weapons under certain circumstances."

[DACOROMANIA]

You said that any planetary annihilation or other weapons who are so dangerous or horrible are not allowed.

But what do you think about this possible experimental genetic war - creatures ? Are these mentioned ?