[DRAFT] Nuclear Arms Accord

[Mundiferrum]

So basically you can target other countries civilian populations if they target yours. So this only does anything if both countries maintain an uneasy balance of not targeting each other's civilians. Otherwise it is worthless, as both countries can target each other's civilians if they feel that the other country targeted theirs.

For example, in a war with a non-WA country, they may freely target your civilians. This resolution will then allow you to target their civilians, which means that this resolution saves no one in that regard.

This resolution also allows for targeting of civilians if a strategic target is placed within a civilian area. Well if you nuke a factory and it kills enemy civilians, which is allowed in this resolution, then can the enemy interpret that as intentionally targeting their civilians, also defined in this resolution as being a good justification for retaliating against enemy civilians, and therefore intentionally nuke your civilians? Even though you were following this resolution? Under this resolution's logic, both countries were following the rules, and both ended up killing each other's civilians.

I feel that only under very strict conditions will this resolution save any lives.

But it's the way by which those conditions are strict that will help this resolution pass. By my understanding, the clause on targeting civilian populations once yours are targeted is a concession with regards to those who would argue against the resolution on grounds of non-WA members remaining free from this resolution; on the second example, the one on the factory town, I don't think such an interpretation could be readily seen as valid.
Anyway, the point is, even though the resolution might only save lives under very strict conditions, at the very least it has the power to save lives. The WA community is, by my perception, still quite nuke-happy, so doing something too drastic on nuclear weapons use will definitely not pass; instead, if we are to try to save lives from nuclear destruction, we'll have to take such a piece more slowly, one resolution at a time, and Mundiferrum affirms our belief that this resolution is one step upward in said ladder.

[Chester Pearson]

Saw that Mall. Thanks for pointing that out.

Fixed.

Already passed Resolution 292, 'Nuclear Security Convention' Now we have another resolution that is almost the same thing. This Chester Character is obsessed with Social-Patriotism.

Quite an assertion Ambassador. I don't believe I have ever been accused of being a fascist before. Now perhaps you will actually read the resolutions you are comparing before making a disingenuous statement like that again. #292 was a non-proliferation convention. It has nothing to do in legislating the usage of nuclear weapons in warfare. This resolution sets the ground rules for nuclear weapons in warfare. Hardly the same thing....

So basically you can target other countries civilian populations if they target yours. So this only does anything if both countries maintain an uneasy balance of not targeting each other's civilians. Otherwise it is worthless, as both countries can target each other's civilians if they feel that the other country targeted theirs.

For example, in a war with a non-WA country, they may freely target your civilians. This resolution will then allow you to target their civilians, which means that this resolution saves no one in that regard.

This resolution also allows for targeting of civilians if a strategic target is placed within a civilian area. Well if you nuke a factory and it kills enemy civilians, which is allowed in this resolution, then can the enemy interpret that as intentionally targeting their civilians, also defined in this resolution as being a good justification for retaliating against enemy civilians, and therefore intentionally nuke your civilians? Even though you were following this resolution? Under this resolution's logic, both countries were following the rules, and both ended up killing each other's civilians.

I feel that only under very strict conditions will this resolution save any lives.

But it's the way by which those conditions are strict that will help this resolution pass. By my understanding, the clause on targeting civilian populations once yours are targeted is a concession with regards to those who would argue against the resolution on grounds of non-WA members remaining free from this resolution; on the second example, the one on the factory town, I don't think such an interpretation could be readily seen as valid.
Anyway, the point is, even though the resolution might only save lives under very strict conditions, at the very least it has the power to save lives. The WA community is, by my perception, still quite nuke-happy, so doing something too drastic on nuclear weapons use will definitely not pass; instead, if we are to try to save lives from nuclear destruction, we'll have to take such a piece more slowly, one resolution at a time, and Mundiferrum affirms our belief that this resolution is one step upward in said ladder.

Thank you for clarifying that point for our confused compatriot there. I only wish I could have stated it so eloquently....

Warmest regards,

[Isladestel]

Already passed Resolution 292, 'Nuclear Security Convention' Now we have another resolution that is almost the same thing. This Chester Character is obsessed with Social-Patriotism.

Quite an assertion Ambassador. I don't believe I have ever been accused of being a fascist before. Now perhaps you will actually read the resolutions you are comparing before making a disingenuous statement like that again. #292 was a non-proliferation convention. It has nothing to do in legislating the usage of nuclear weapons in warfare. This resolution sets the ground rules for nuclear weapons in warfare. Hardly the same thing....

Indeed, as the author has previously stated, this resolution is intended to address a glaring hole in current legislation. With the repeal of the ICC, there was no longer any legislation covering this point (i.e. protecting civilians from being targeted). As the general consensus has been to replace the ICC in a more piecemeal fashion, this is an excellent step in the right direction in the mind of me and my countrymen.

But it's the way by which those conditions are strict that will help this resolution pass. By my understanding, the clause on targeting civilian populations once yours are targeted is a concession with regards to those who would argue against the resolution on grounds of non-WA members remaining free from this resolution; on the second example, the one on the factory town, I don't think such an interpretation could be readily seen as valid.
Anyway, the point is, even though the resolution might only save lives under very strict conditions, at the very least it has the power to save lives. The WA community is, by my perception, still quite nuke-happy, so doing something too drastic on nuclear weapons use will definitely not pass; instead, if we are to try to save lives from nuclear destruction, we'll have to take such a piece more slowly, one resolution at a time, and Mundiferrum affirms our belief that this resolution is one step upward in said ladder.

Thank you for clarifying that point for our confused compatriot there. I only wish I could have stated it so eloquently....

Warmest regards,

Indeed, this is precisely why we are supporting this resolution. Although one might argue WA nations ought be held to a higher standard then the rest of the world, the truth of the matter is that for strategic purposes, no state will be willing to give up the threat of a retaliatory strike against civilian-sheltered military targets. While the fact that any civilised state would do this continues to anguish me, the fact remains that many uncivilised states exist outside the WA, and to critically curtail members' defensive capabilities while (naturally) having no authority over non-members would be a stumbling block at best and an incapacitating manoeuvre at worst. For this reason, the Isladestelid people, not to mention this delegate, are strongly in support of this resolution, which we believe does indeed address the issue of protecting the innocent from nuclear hell whilst preserving the capacity of member-states for self-defence.

~Aparis Trylan, Isladestelid Delegate to the World Assembly

[Parti Ouvrier]

Already passed Resolution 292, 'Nuclear Security Convention' Now we have another resolution that is almost the same thing. This Chester Character is obsessed with Social-Patriotism.

Quite an assertion Ambassador. I don't believe I have ever been accused of being a fascist before. <snip>

That is because I didn't accuse you of being a fascist.

[Imperializt Russia]

I can't help but think that a broad ICC replacement would have been better, that simply included nuclear attack on civilians and similar events.
Since without the ICC, I think I'm right in saying there is now no such thing as a "war crime" in NS.

"The draft appears to be proceeding well, however we might recommend that the definition claused be changed from 'a weapon fueled by nuclear reactions' to 'a weapon that derives its destructive force from a nuclear reaction' if only to reduce possible confusion with radiological weaponry or other technical aspects."

While I will take this suggestion under advisement Ambassador. Please take into account that radiological weapons have already been legislated upon, plus they do not use nuclear reactions to make them detonate. They are simply designed to spread radiological material around.

OOC: I am not using that defintion, as it would be direct plagarism from Wikipedia, and I would like to avoid being crcucified....

Regards,

Additionally, many modern designs utilise multiple stages, so the singular form of "nuclear reaction" would technically be incorrect

[Chester Pearson]

Quite an assertion Ambassador. I don't believe I have ever been accused of being a fascist before. <snip>

That is because I didn't accuse you of being a fascist.

And what is wrong with patriotism? I also noticed you conveniently did not bother to respond to my other comment....

[Parti Ouvrier]

That is because I didn't accuse you of being a fascist.

And what is wrong with patriotism? I also noticed you conveniently did not bother to respond to my other comment....

Perhaps repeating myself is getting tiresome. See below for my past comments, you know full well how I feel about such resolutions.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=272390&start=25

[Kranstentistan]

So basically you can target other countries civilian populations if they target yours. So this only does anything if both countries maintain an uneasy balance of not targeting each other's civilians. Otherwise it is worthless, as both countries can target each other's civilians if they feel that the other country targeted theirs.

For example, in a war with a non-WA country, they may freely target your civilians. This resolution will then allow you to target their civilians, which means that this resolution saves no one in that regard.

This resolution also allows for targeting of civilians if a strategic target is placed within a civilian area. Well if you nuke a factory and it kills enemy civilians, which is allowed in this resolution, then can the enemy interpret that as intentionally targeting their civilians, also defined in this resolution as being a good justification for retaliating against enemy civilians, and therefore intentionally nuke your civilians? Even though you were following this resolution? Under this resolution's logic, both countries were following the rules, and both ended up killing each other's civilians.

I feel that only under very strict conditions will this resolution save any lives.

If this resolution did restrict the targeting of civilian centers during nuclear exchange, people would complain about being unable to strike back when they're civilian centers get hit by nuclear weapons. The unfortunate truth is that no matter what the WA says, civilian centers are always going to get targeted during a nuclear war.

[Christian Democrats]

2 minutes ago: The proposal "Nuclear Weapons Accord" was removed from the floor.

[Kryozerkia]

We're just finalizing the wording on the ruling. It will be posted shortly.

[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.

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: How in the hell does this not boost police or security budgets?

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,

This would require boosting budgets. That is also why I set the strength at mild.Futhermore it is not global disarmament as it does not require the decommissioning of any weapons.

I would like to know which mod made this decision, as they clearly have a reading comprehension deficiency.

Is this a direct shot at my faith in the moderation team of this website? Yes!

[District XIV]

OOC: How in the hell does this not boost police or security budgets?

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,

This would require boosting budgets. That is also why I set the strength at mild.Futhermore it is not global disarmament as it does not require the decommissioning of any weapons.

I would like to know which mod made this decision, as they clearly have a reading comprehension deficiency.

Is this a direct shot at my faith in the moderation team of this website? Yes!

I'll have to second that. In no way do I see this resolution decommissioning weapons, lowering police/military budgets, etc. The quoted section of the resolution that the ambassador provided seems to actually increase the budgets of the police/military.

A poor ruling, it seems.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: How in the hell does this not boost police or security budgets?

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,

This would require boosting budgets. That is also why I set the strength at mild.Futhermore it is not global disarmament as it does not require the decommissioning of any weapons.

I would like to know which mod made this decision, as they clearly have a reading comprehension deficiency.

Is this a direct shot at my faith in the moderation team of this website? Yes!

You're quoting one clause from the whole proposal, one which focuses on disarmament. The bulk of this proposal seeks to outline what WA member states cannot do in times of war by limiting the usage of nuclear weapons and by restricting who can own them. This one clause does not justify the category of International Security in the context of the rest of the proposal. Furthermore this was not the decision of a single moderator.

[Defwa]

OOC: How in the hell does this not boost police or security budgets?

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,

This would require boosting budgets. That is also why I set the strength at mild.Futhermore it is not global disarmament as it does not require the decommissioning of any weapons.

I would like to know which mod made this decision, as they clearly have a reading comprehension deficiency.

Is this a direct shot at my faith in the moderation team of this website? Yes!

you've been abusing that loophole for some time. its no surprise the secretariat is going to start having a problem with it.

That being said, the concerns about this being rendered useless by retaliatory strikes is quite valid

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: How in the hell does this not boost police or security budgets?

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,

This would require boosting budgets. That is also why I set the strength at mild.Futhermore it is not global disarmament as it does not require the decommissioning of any weapons.

I would like to know which mod made this decision, as they clearly have a reading comprehension deficiency.

Is this a direct shot at my faith in the moderation team of this website? Yes!

You're quoting one clause from the whole proposal, one which focuses on disarmament. The bulk of this proposal seeks to outline what WA member states cannot do in times of war by limiting the usage of nuclear weapons and by restricting who can own them. This one clause does not justify the category of International Security in the context of the rest of the proposal. Furthermore this was not the decision of a single moderator.

Please do explain to me how this focuses on disarmament please? Where does it say that forces are required to disarm?

If anything this requires nations to build MORE weapons so they can maintain that second strike capability permitted in clause 3. Furthermore it would require further training of forces and research in weapons development required for precise targeting in order to comply with clause 2, thus INCREASING military spending.

This is a piss poor ruling by the secretariat. Like I said, obviously someone has a reading comprehension difficulty.

[Lexicor]

You're quoting one clause from the whole proposal, one which focuses on disarmament. The bulk of this proposal seeks to outline what WA member states cannot do in times of war by limiting the usage of nuclear weapons and by restricting who can own them. This one clause does not justify the category of International Security in the context of the rest of the proposal. Furthermore this was not the decision of a single moderator.

OOC: Apparently giving countries rights to build more nukes constitutes disarming.

[Chester Pearson]

Appeal filed....

[Lexicor]

Appeal filed....

OOC: Good. 100% in favor of this just by the by.

IC: Lexicor is flabbergasted by the secretariat's decision, and hope to see the Nuclear Weapons Accord restored to the voting queue as soon as possible.

[Elke and Elba]

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

[Lexicor]

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

Care to explain what "warped" means? Im fine with disagreements, but at least argue logically! (SHEET I forgot this was International Politics)

[Chester Pearson]

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)

[Mallorea and Riva]

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)

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.

Appeal filed....

Dealt with.

-MallMod

[Chester Pearson]

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.

Appeal filed....

Dealt with.

-MallMod

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

[The Dark Star Republic]

Unless the proposal itself is illegal (which the decision doesn't seem to say), then just resubmit in Global Disarmament, Mild...?