[DRAFT] Nuclear Arms Accord

[Elke and Elba]

As usual Chester, by your warped one-clause logic your appeal should fail...

Which one clause are you referring to? They all boost spending if you actually read the damn thing, and put it all together. I don't just make this shit up on the fly....

OOC: Also I would like to see that GHR and see exactly what the argument was. (Not likely to happen)

Actually honestly, what's so difficult about changing it? Better be entirely sure than try to manipulate the categories for your own statplaying efforts.

Ban of Perfidy went through similar removals due to Sec ruling and I'd say the concerns are equally close and equally unjustified on hindsight.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The argument was what was stated in the Secretariat ruling, albeit in slightly different phrasing: that this proposal did not fit into the IntSec category, for the reasons given. Dealt with.

-MallMod

So the appeal was dealt with in 10 minutes by a single mod huh? How cute...

Your appeal raised nothing for us to consider that we did not already deal with when rendering our decision.

[Imperializt Russia]

Which one clause are you referring to? They all boost spending if you actually read the damn thing, and put it all together. I don't just make this shit up on the fly....

OOC: Also I would like to see that GHR and see exactly what the argument was. (Not likely to happen)

The argument was what was stated in the Secretariat ruling, albeit in slightly different phrasing: that this proposal did not fit into the IntSec category, for the reasons given.

Can't help but feel that the category descriptions and criteria are far too literal and simplistic for the quite complex issues that the WA often tries to deal with. Security and Disarmament need their definitions reassessing.

[Mundiferrum]

The argument was what was stated in the Secretariat ruling, albeit in slightly different phrasing: that this proposal did not fit into the IntSec category, for the reasons given.

Can't help but feel that the category descriptions and criteria are far too literal and simplistic for the quite complex issues that the WA often tries to deal with. Security and Disarmament need their definitions reassessing.

Aye

[The Dourian Embassy]

To me, it's possible this may increase military budgets in the short term(though there is an argument to be made that even that is untrue), in the long term it will certainly decrease them. So IntSec was probably not a good fit.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: One may even be able to make the argument that it falls under moral decency, since guidelines and restrictions on the use of weapons doesn't really slash military spending at all....

[Imperializt Russia]

Hasn't that line of reasoning been struck down repeatedly?

[Parti Ouvrier]

Which one clause are you referring to? They all boost spending if you actually read the damn thing, and put it all together. I don't just make this shit up on the fly....

OOC: Also I would like to see that GHR and see exactly what the argument was. (Not likely to happen)

Actually honestly, what's so difficult about changing it? Better be entirely sure than try to manipulate the categories for your own statplaying efforts.

Ban of Perfidy went through similar removals due to Sec ruling and I'd say the concerns are equally close and equally unjustified on hindsight.

^This^
OOC: Chester's use of an ad homien doesn't help his argument. The moderators have made a logical argument in terms of category issues. This third tying of security and nuclear, left in a position whereby he had to shoehorn his resolution into security. The advice I've read form this website is to write the resolution, then decide the category. And honestly Chester, what's wrong with having a different category, like say Global disarmament, not so popular, ok, but better to go for authenticity than popularity, you'll at least get my vote as part of the minority for that anyway.

[Araraukar]

Chester, I think you may need to literally spell out the increase in military(police spending in the proposal - like the need to guard the stockpiles to avoid them falling in the wrong hands - for it to be deemed legal by the somewhat biased Secretariat hivemind. [OOC: There's been precedent on the Silly/Illegal thread at least, so I wouldn't count it 100% personal. ]

[Elke and Elba]

Chester, I think you may need to literally spell out the increase in military(police spending in the proposal - like the need to guard the stockpiles to avoid them falling in the wrong hands - for it to be deemed legal by the somewhat biased Secretariat hivemind. [OOC: There's been precedent on the Silly/Illegal thread at least, so I wouldn't count it 100% personal. ]

Eh no, I did the same as what Warzone Codger did to get Ban of Perfidy 'legal' (before the MD change) but that doesn't work

[Mousebumples]

After receiving a GHR with a challenge to the category of this proposal, a team of moderators determined that this proposal does not "boost police and military budgets." We recommend that the author consider additional revisions to this proposal's text, should he wish to resubmit, to ensure that the text properly fits within an established GA proposal category.

I've emphasized a few things in the above ruling from the previous page. Also, as was discussed on the previous challenge to a quorate proposal, there is no ability to "appeal" a Secretariat ruling. Decisions to pull a quorate proposal from the submission queue (or to allow a challenged proposal to go to vote, for that matter) are not made lightly by one moderator. A group of us made that decision - not just me or Mall or whomever you think it might have been. As such, there's not really anyone to appeal to since all of the available GA mods contributed to the ruling.

I would suggest, again, as stated in the ruling, that the author of this proposal consider adding additional clauses or clarifying his language choices to ensure that the next submission falls firmly within one category or another.

-Mouse the Mod

[Chester Pearson]

Bump

[Jarish Inyo]

I don't see how this proposal increases military budgets in the short or long term. Any place a nation's nuclear arsenal is will be guarded. Weapon R&D is always ongoing. And most nations that are willing to use nuclear weapons have more then a first strike capability. If I'm not seeing, please enlighten me.

[Chester Pearson]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=300404&p=20514932#p20514932

I would like to know if clauses 4 and 5:

4. Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear stockpile remains in the sole possession of their duly authorized government forces only; Furthermore civilians and private corporations not acting on behalf of duly authorized government forces shall be prohibited from possessing nuclear armaments for any reason,

5. Further requires military forces take all efforts to verify any and all deployment of nuclear forces orders; Furthermore member nations shall ensure their nuclear capable forces
be authorized to refuse any deployment orders if they have reason to suspect said orders are not originating from a person qualified to issue such orders, and is mentally certifiable to issue such orders,

are now enough for this to be legal under International Security/Mild?

Thank you.

Originally posted in moderation, asked to be re-posted here.

I don't see how this proposal increases military budgets in the short or long term. Any place a nation's nuclear arsenal is will be guarded. Weapon R&D is always ongoing. And most nations that are willing to use nuclear weapons have more then a first strike capability. If I'm not seeing, please enlighten me.

Where does this draft say anything about guarding weapons site, or R&D?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: One may even be able to make the argument that it falls under moral decency, since guidelines and restrictions on the use of weapons doesn't really slash military spending at all....

OOC: Moral Decency proposals are supposed to affect individuals, not governments.

[Marxist-Leninist-Juche Eurasia]

i think that nuclear weapons should be a right of all people but should only be used the anti-imperialist struggle and the defence of the communist party and the socialist state (last measure)

[Separatist Peoples]

i think that nuclear weapons should be a right of all people but should only be used the anti-imperialist struggle and the defence of the communist party and the socialist state (last measure)

"So...nations with capitalist economic systems should be disallowed to own or utilize nuclear weaponry, regarless of government type? That's the dumbest idea I've heard this month, ambassador."

[Ardchoille]

Chester, I'm the last of the active GA mods to come in on this, because I was away when it was discussed. To catch up, I've been through all the responses. I think my colleagues have been admirably patient, but you've run out of options. This is not an IntSec proposal.

Look at the two clauses you're relying on:

Clause 4 has, "Furthermore civilians and private corporations not acting on behalf of duly authorized government forces shall be prohibited from possessing nuclear armaments for any reason," -- sounds to me like the WA instructing national governments to refuse civilians and corporations the freedom to possess nuclear weapons.

Clause 5 has, "Furthermore member nations shall ensure their nuclear capable forces be authorized to refuse any deployment orders if they have reason to suspect said orders are not originating from a person qualified to issue such orders, and is mentally certifiable to issue such orders"-- you're instructing governments to give soldiers the freedom to refuse an order from their superiors if certain conditions are not met.

The whole point of your proposal is that civilians should not be, or have a right not to be, unnecessarily exposed to nuclear weapons during warfare. You've already suggested two ways to do it: by reducing civilians' personal freedoms or by increasing soldiers' personal freedoms. We have categories for those. If you're going to do it by limiting weapons, we have a category for that -- but it's not IntSec.

Don't keep making minor changes to the present text in the hope that we'll approve if you keep asking. I'm repeating the advice you've been given throughout this discussion: rewrite extensively and write to the (new) category.

[Chester Pearson]

The whole point of your proposal is that civilians should not be, or have a right not to be, unnecessarily exposed to nuclear weapons during warfare. You've already suggested two ways to do it: by reducing civilians' personal freedoms or by increasing soldiers' personal freedoms. We have categories for those. If you're going to do it by limiting weapons, we have a category for that -- but it's not IntSec.

Um.... Okay. We obviously have a malfunction at the junction here.

The major active clauses of this resolution are:

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless:

A hostile nation places targets of critical strategic value within major civilian population centers or;

A hostile nation tries to intentionally shield key military assets with civilian populations.

Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a counter-value role should another hostile nation target their civilian populations in defiance of this accord,

There is nothing nothing in this proposal that limits weapons. In fact it encourages nations to build more weapons to maintain that second strike capability guaranteed to them by these clauses. The rest of the clauses are nothing more than feel good clauses that can be removed if need be.

Either way, I am still at a loss to understand why anyone does not seem to realize this is IntSec. The main premise behind the proposal is to ensure International Security....

[Defwa]

The whole point of your proposal is that civilians should not be, or have a right not to be, unnecessarily exposed to nuclear weapons during warfare. You've already suggested two ways to do it: by reducing civilians' personal freedoms or by increasing soldiers' personal freedoms. We have categories for those. If you're going to do it by limiting weapons, we have a category for that -- but it's not IntSec.

Um.... Okay. We obviously have a malfunction at the junction here.

The major active clauses of this resolution are:

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless:

A hostile nation places targets of critical strategic value within major civilian population centers or;

A hostile nation tries to intentionally shield key military assets with civilian populations.

Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a counter-value role should another hostile nation target their civilian populations in defiance of this accord,

There is nothing nothing in this proposal that limits weapons. In fact it encourages nations to build more weapons to maintain that second strike capability guaranteed to them by these clauses. The rest of the clauses are nothing more than feel good clauses that can be removed if need be.

Either way, I am still at a loss to understand why anyone does not seem to realize this is IntSec. The main premise behind the proposal is to ensure International Security....

I don't really consider that an increase in cost. Not targeting civilians directly and not hiding weapons behind schools doesn't really change the expense. But because you're limiting how the weapon is used, disarmament seems to be property category.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I guess I'm confused. Is the proposal idea itself illegal? If not, why not write it to the new category? There are times when moderators rule out proposals altogether, but this just seems to be a case of miscategorisation, in which case, the proposal can surely continue, just in a different category.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I guess I'm confused. Is the proposal idea itself illegal? If not, why not write it to the new category? There are times when moderators rule out proposals altogether, but this just seems to be a case of miscategorisation, in which case, the proposal can surely continue, just in a different category.

Correct, the proposal idea has not been invalidated. It's simply a category issue that must be resolved.

[Venico]

The Night Father looks over his newspaper and chuckles at Chester. "You're wrong mate and you've been proven wrong. Just shut up and change categories instead of blowing hot air everywhere." At this he restuffs his pipe and goes back to the newspaper.

[Chester Pearson]

Alright.... Now that I have had time to go through some things, lets get started...

Clause 4 has, "Furthermore civilians and private corporations not acting on behalf of duly authorized government forces shall be prohibited from possessing nuclear armaments for any reason," -- sounds to me like the WA instructing national governments to refuse civilians and corporations the freedom to possess nuclear weapons.

Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear stockpile remains in the sole possession of their duly authorized government forces only; Furthermore civilians and private corporations not acting on behalf of duly authorized government forces shall be prohibited from possessing nuclear armaments for any reason,

Yet clause 6 of the Chemical Weapons Accord states:

6. Member nations shall use all available means to ensure chemical weapons remain fully under state control; furthermore private individuals, and corporate entities shall be prohibited from possessing chemical weapons,

Those clauses are both damn near identical, yet The CWA was ruled legal under IntSec and passed vote not once but TWICE.

Next:

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless:

A hostile nation places targets of critical strategic value within major civilian population centers or;

A hostile nation tries to intentionally shield key military assets with civilian populations.

Looks pretty damn similar to clauses 1 and 2 of the CWA:

1. The use of chemical weapons in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces,

2. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,

Once again: yet The CWA was ruled legal under IntSec and passed vote not once but TWICE.

So now can someone please HELP ME UNDERSTAND why this is not IntSec? If I happens to be the example of the mods trying to tighten up those categories, then I can deal with that. What I cannot deal with is being told, that it does not fit into the category, when the CWA, and the CWP both passed muster, and passed vote.

Either way this is going to be submitted when ready as IntSec. So either explain the whole reasoning process (and please don't just quote back a post as I have read them), or tell me how to fix this so it is IntSec. I am even willing to throw a co-author if you will just tell me how to fix this. Otherwise let me proceed as is....

[Ainocra]

OOC:

Chester it's already been ruled on. let it go and just change the category.

seriously.