repeal nuclear weapons act

[Schalovaihoff]

This act needs to be repealed for the national security of everyone it says in the resolution we need these weapons to protect WA members from attack from hostile non members but if you get rid of this act I think there will be less hostile nations but creating a bond by using diplomatic resources rather then nuclear arms to solve problems it's like holding a loaded gun to people heads I'm not saying get rid of other defense but do we need something that caused the cold war or could cause an apocalypse

[Fendon]

Oh yay. Another one...

[Jarish Inyo]

Yes, we do something that caused the cold war or could cause an apocalypse. Mutually assured destruction has brought nations to the peace table more then once.

[Flibbleites]

Another attempt to repeal the NAPA, it must be Tuesday.

You know, we just had a repeal attempt of the NAPA at vote earlier this month, it failed miserably.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Kaboomlandia]

Another thing, even if you repeal NAPA, it will not outlaw nukes. There are a few other resolutions that permit nukes.

[Schalovaihoff]

[quote="Jarish Inyo";p="24007874"]Yes, we do something that caused the cold war or could cause an apocalypse. Mutually assured destruction has brought nations to the peace table more then once.[/quote
Thanks for understanding and we need to start somewhere and a repeal saying specific we can have nuclear bombs this type of weapon does not need to be allowed its to dangerous for any person to have if you don't agree that's cool but you gave no real reason why

[Defwa]

Punctuation.

And his reason was the belief in mutually assured destruction. A nation can defend itself from total conquest if, in the event of conquest, it can turn the invaders cities to glass. "if I die, I'm taking you with me, therefore don't try to kill me"

[Separatist Peoples]

Yes, we do something that caused the cold war or could cause an apocalypse. Mutually assured destruction has brought nations to the peace table more then once.

Thanks for understanding and we need to start somewhere and a repeal saying specific we can have nuclear bombs this type of weapon does not need to be allowed its to dangerous for any person to have if you don't agree that's cool but you gave no real reason why

"Nuclear weapons are a hallmark of national defense. So long as our citizens are safe, we don't care about the effects on other nations."

[Schalovaihoff]

Oh so let me understand you correctly your saying nuclear weapons are a mean to defend ourselves from other nuclear attacks that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard because if you get rid of all nukes how can that attack be used im not saying get rid of all bombs that would leave us a sitting duck but this type of weapon is to strong think of the Geneva convention where chemical warfare was taken out and the reason was people saw how horrible chemical warfare was what it did do we need another example like that to understand that nuclear warfare is bad and about ten times worse then what any chemical can do

[Grays Harbor]

It is absolutely lovely you live on Planet LaLaLand where everything is fairey kisses and unicorn farts. The rest of us must defend ourselves. Your argument of if we get rid of nuclear weapons than our enemies will then get rid of theirs out of the goodness of their hearts and a steadfast belief in rainbows is dangerously naive. If you really want to try and repeal NAPA here are some suggestions:

1. Write an actual proposal draft, not a bloggy paragraph
2. Come up with something more convincing than "nukes r bad"

[Schalovaihoff]

I'm not saying oh I hope they get rid of them oh i hope I hope I can hope all I want and if I hope all the time then I would live in a fairy land world like you are saying I am but I'm saying don't allow people to even make these weapons don't use them don't make them don't hold them and if no one has a nuclear bomb how can anyone use them and i relize that's near impossible to do and I know that in itself is a hope to make such weapons illegal but that is one hope I feel I need to hold onto

[Kaboomlandia]

I'm not saying oh I hope they get rid of them oh i hope I hope I can hope all I want and if I hope all the time then I would live in a fairy land world like you are saying I am but I'm saying don't allow people to even make these weapons don't use them don't make them don't hold them and if no one has a nuclear bomb how can anyone use them and i relize that's near impossible to do and I know that in itself is a hope to make such weapons illegal but that is one hope I feel I need to hold onto

Huh?

Please add punctuation.

[Schalovaihoff]

Why I don't add to much punctuation and might be a bad speller or whatever is I have dexlexia so thanks for making fun of my English I needed that

[Grays Harbor]

Is there going to be an actual draft posted, or are you just going to continue proselytizing?

[Schalovaihoff]

Well at the moment im trying to understand better to do drafts or a repeal im not really getting the rules so yes there will be a draft but you will have to wait

[Flibbleites]

What you apparently fail to realize is this, even if you somehow manage to get through all the repeals needed and get a nuclear weapons ban passed, there would still be nuclear weapons in the world. The fact is that WA resolutions only affect WA members, non members would be under no such compunction to give up their nukes. And you might want to look at the numbers too. There are currently 145,291 nations in the world, of which 20,811 are WA members which means a WA ban on nukes would only affect 14.3% of the nations in the world. So at best you're only going to get rid of 14.3% of the nukes in the entire world.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Schalovaihoff]

Well start somewhere everything has a starting point

[Separatist Peoples]

Oh so let me understand you correctly your saying nuclear weapons are a mean to defend ourselves from other nuclear attacks that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard because if you get rid of all nukes how can that attack be used im not saying get rid of all bombs that would leave us a sitting duck but this type of weapon is to strong think of the Geneva convention where chemical warfare was taken out and the reason was people saw how horrible chemical warfare was what it did do we need another example like that to understand that nuclear warfare is bad and about ten times worse then what any chemical can do

"Chemical warfare is legal here. I don't know what your Geneva Convention is, but it has no legal bearing in these halls. The presence of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to the use of strategic weaponry against another state, because an aggressor will be afraid to utilize strategic weapon systems if they have the risk of having them utilized against them. Its called Mutually Assured Destruction and it works, ambassador. No."

[Autistican]

Oh so let me understand you correctly your saying nuclear weapons are a mean to defend ourselves from other nuclear attacks that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard because if you get rid of all nukes how can that attack be used im not saying get rid of all bombs that would leave us a sitting duck but this type of weapon is to strong think of the Geneva convention where chemical warfare was taken out and the reason was people saw how horrible chemical warfare was what it did do we need another example like that to understand that nuclear warfare is bad and about ten times worse then what any chemical can do

The thing is if someone is attacking your nation using nuclear weaponry I don't think they care about a piece of legislation.

[Autistican]

Well start somewhere everything has a starting point

The fact still remains that WA and Security Council Legislation is not enforceable to nations that are not on the World Assembly unless nations choose to ratify the law based on their Government's own choice.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well start somewhere everything has a starting point

The fact still remains that WA and Security Council Legislation is not enforceable to nations that are not on the World Assembly unless nations choose to ratify the law based on their Government's own choice.

"That is incorrect. Nations have WA mandates written into their national laws overnight upon the passing if a law. Ratification is not necessary."

[Phydios]

The fact still remains that WA and Security Council Legislation is not enforceable to nations that are not on the World Assembly unless nations choose to ratify the law based on their Government's own choice.

"That is incorrect. Nations have WA mandates written into their national laws overnight upon the passing of a law. Ratification is not necessary."

You misunderstand, Ambassador Bell. The ambassador of Autistican was not claiming that nations in the WA must ratify the laws it passes. They were saying that WA legislation cannot be enforced in nations that have not joined the WA, unless a nation independently passes and enforces it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"That is incorrect. Nations have WA mandates written into their national laws overnight upon the passing of a law. Ratification is not necessary."

You misunderstand, Ambassador Bell. The ambassador of Autistican was not claiming that nations in the WA must ratify the laws it passes. They were saying that WA legislation cannot be enforced in nations that have not joined the WA, unless a nation independently passes and enforces it.

"I did misunderstand. Thank you. Your point is valid, ambassador. Removing a key component of strategic defense in light of an overwhelming majority of nations not doing so is patently ridiculous."

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm not saying oh I hope they get rid of them oh i hope I hope I can hope all I want and if I hope all the time then I would live in a fairy land world like you are saying I am but I'm saying don't allow people to even make these weapons don't use them don't make them don't hold them and if no one has a nuclear bomb how can anyone use them and i relize that's near impossible to do and I know that in itself is a hope to make such weapons illegal but that is one hope I feel I need to hold onto

"Who is in charge of letting Ambassadors into the World Assembly? This is ridiculous..." Excidian Ambassador Rolf Leykut sighs. "Look, no General Assembly Resolution can ban the production of nuclear weapons. They only apply to WA Member nations. The nations outside of the WA can build all the nuclear weapons they want. You expect us to fight these nations without nuclear weapons of our own?"

[Shazbotdom]

"I hope you do pass this. Then that way the Empire can nuke those who supported the repeal and banning of Nuclear Weapons so that all the descent nations within the WA. Then those sane nations can then repeal the ban and institute more legislation allowing the procurement of Nuclear Weapons. it's a win win!"