[DEFEATED] Nuclear Weapons Accord

[Wallenburg]

"I have made changes to improve the wording of this proposal."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: You've submitted this without giving others a chance to comment on the new draft? Well, I guess that we now have nothing to...Wait a minute. You haven't submitted this at all! You're confusing us, Ambassador Ogenbond!

We must ask why you've defined 'countervalue targeting' when the term isn't used in the proposal itself.

[Wallenburg]

Neville: You've submitted this without giving others a chance to comment on the new draft? Well, I guess that we now have nothing to...Wait a minute. You haven't submitted this at all! You're confusing us, Ambassador Ogenbond!

OOC: Huh. So this is where my [SUBMITTED] tag for my repeal went.

We must ask why you've defined 'countervalue targeting' when the term isn't used in the proposal itself.

"Ambassador, I use it in the definition directly below 'countervalue targeting'."

[States of Glory WA Office]

We must ask why you've defined 'countervalue targeting' when the term isn't used in the proposal itself.

"Ambassador, I use it in the definition directly below 'countervalue targeting'."

Neville: Huh. So you did. It's slightly bizarre not seeing it used in the active clauses, but I suppose that it's acceptable. Right now, I see no obvious problems, so consider this a tentative statement of support.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I have a silly nitpick. I think you can eliminate confusion in regard to your definitions and eliminate an entire definition with the following rephrasing:

"countervalue targeting strike" as the deliberate use of nuclear weapons upon a nation's civilian populations
"retaliatory strike" as a deployment of nuclear weapons against an enemy state in response to an act of countervalue targeting by that enemy state,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to target and destroy:

enemy military assets
Lawful military targets
foreign civilian populations, only in retaliatory countervalue strikes,

"My reasoning is multifaceted. Firstly, it reads a bit more smoothly, because your definition is distinctly in your action clauses without affecting meaning. It also clarifies the kind of targets nuclear weapons can be used against. While targeting neutral parties is already illegal, specifying lawful military targets ensures that no cherry-picking occurs during interpretation where a nation might try to use the rationale that this resolution specified any military assets, not just lawful ones. While that would be, unarguably, noncompliance, it wouldn't be illegal until after the incredibly tragic strike has been made. We can nip that in the bud, lest somebody feel it easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

"Additionally, I would deliberately include a clause that extends extant considerations for belligerents and noncombatants to nuclear warfare. Yes, this is implied, but nuclear warfare is sufficiently distinct from conventional warfare that it should get a little extra padding. Conventional warfare is designed around the hope that a weapon never need be fired more than once, while nuclear warfare is deliberately designed to avoid ever firing a weapon at all. Again, this will lessen flag officer-level barracks lawyering to justify their actions with poor reasoning.

"I toyed with the idea of asking you to include provisions to make violation a war crime, but I believe crimes involving nuclear weaponry so far exceed the scope of a war crime as to reduce the full scope of such an act. That's akin to calling the theft of a royalty's crown jewels merely "Felony Theft". Its a shame we do not have an analogous term to "crime against humanity" that is less speciesist in nature."

[Wallenburg]

"My reasoning is multifaceted. Firstly, it reads a bit more smoothly, because your definition is distinctly in your action clauses without affecting meaning. It also clarifies the kind of targets nuclear weapons can be used against. While targeting neutral parties is already illegal, specifying lawful military targets ensures that no cherry-picking occurs during interpretation where a nation might try to use the rationale that this resolution specified any military assets, not just lawful ones. While that would be, unarguably, noncompliance, it wouldn't be illegal until after the incredibly tragic strike has been made. We can nip that in the bud, lest somebody feel it easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

"Ambassador, I'm afraid I do not understand. What qualifies as an illegal military target?"

"Additionally, I would deliberately include a clause that extends extant considerations for belligerents and noncombatants to nuclear warfare. Yes, this is implied, but nuclear warfare is sufficiently distinct from conventional warfare that it should get a little extra padding. Conventional warfare is designed around the hope that a weapon never need be fired more than once, while nuclear warfare is deliberately designed to avoid ever firing a weapon at all. Again, this will lessen flag officer-level barracks lawyering to justify their actions with poor reasoning.

"I shall consider that, although I am unsure as to how to go about that."

"I toyed with the idea of asking you to include provisions to make violation a war crime, but I believe crimes involving nuclear weaponry so far exceed the scope of a war crime as to reduce the full scope of such an act. That's akin to calling the theft of a royalty's crown jewels merely "Felony Theft". Its a shame we do not have an analogous term to "crime against humanity" that is less speciesist in nature."

"Agreed, Ambassador, although personally I would consider the theft of royal jewels an act of valor and heroism.

"As to your suggested revisions, I shall address them here:

"countervalue targeting strike" as the deliberate use of nuclear weapons upon a nation's civilian populations
"retaliatory strike" as a deployment of nuclear weapons against an enemy state in response to an act of countervalue targeting by that enemy state,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to target and destroy:

enemy military assets
Lawful military targets
foreign civilian populations, only in retaliatory countervalue strikes,

"While I see where you are going with this, your suggestions present a serious issue. The removal of the definition of 'retaliatory strike' would essentially allow member nations to attack civilians with nuclear weapons if a single shot were fired at their nation. I consider that unacceptable, and only believe it reasonable to attack civilians in response to countervalue strikes against one's own civilians.

"I shall see what I can do, but I will not change the wording as drastically as you suggest me to."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, I'm afraid I do not understand. What qualifies as an illegal military target?"

"Military hospitals, medics, surrendering forces, the forces of neutral parties, civilian industrial targets that supply military forces but pose no tactical value as a nuclear target...Like I said, the goal is to include an extra layer of protection in light of the particularly dangerous role of nuclear weapons. A little redundancy on this topic would be beneficial, considering the huge risks involved."

"While I see where you are going with this, your suggestions present a serious issue. The removal of the definition of 'retaliatory strike' would essentially allow member nations to attack civilians with nuclear weapons if a single shot were fired at their nation. I consider that unacceptable, and only believe it reasonable to attack civilians in response to countervalue strikes against one's own civilians.

"I shall see what I can do, but I will not change the wording as drastically as you suggest me to."

"Lead"countervalue strike" with the word "nuclear", then. I agree with you, I'm just trying to improve readability."

[Wallenburg]

"Military hospitals, medics, surrendering forces, the forces of neutral parties, civilian industrial targets that supply military forces but pose no tactical value as a nuclear target...Like I said, the goal is to include an extra layer of protection in light of the particularly dangerous role of nuclear weapons. A little redundancy on this topic would be beneficial, considering the huge risks involved."

"Lead"countervalue strike" with the word "nuclear", then. I agree with you, I'm just trying to improve readability."

"I have made relevant edits, Ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Military hospitals, medics, surrendering forces, the forces of neutral parties, civilian industrial targets that supply military forces but pose no tactical value as a nuclear target...Like I said, the goal is to include an extra layer of protection in light of the particularly dangerous role of nuclear weapons. A little redundancy on this topic would be beneficial, considering the huge risks involved."

"Lead"countervalue strike" with the word "nuclear", then. I agree with you, I'm just trying to improve readability."

"I have made relevant edits, Ambassador."

"I dig Clause 7, Brometheus."

[Wallenburg]

"I have made relevant edits, Ambassador."

"I dig Clause 7, Brometheus."

OOC: I searched that term, and the YouTube results were...interesting.

IC: Ogenbond raises his eyebrow and looks around for a shovel. "You...um...'dig it', Ambassador?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"I dig Clause 7, Brometheus."

OOC: I searched that term, and the YouTube results were...interesting.

IC: Ogenbond raises his eyebrow and looks around for a shovel. "You...um...'dig it', Ambassador?"

"Broheim, the clause is dope."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I searched that term, and the YouTube results were...interesting.

IC: Ogenbond raises his eyebrow and looks around for a shovel. "You...um...'dig it', Ambassador?"

"Broheim, the clause is dope."

"My head hurts, Ambassador."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Broheim, the clause is dope."

"My head hurts, Ambassador."

PARSONS: Mine does too. The use of italics may have something to do with it. However, clause 7 certainly helps to counterbalance it.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"I have made relevant edits, Ambassador."

"I dig Clause 7, Brometheus."

OOC: You just couldn't have waited for Rowan to arrive, could you?

IC: Rowan: I do not dig it. It should be a mandate, not just for member nations but for, like, everyone, man. Nuclear weapons are bad, dude. Please ban all nuclear strikes. We need to, like, promote world peace and stuff.

OOC: I searched that term, and the YouTube results were...interesting.

IC: Ogenbond raises his eyebrow and looks around for a shovel. "You...um...'dig it', Ambassador?"

"Broheim, the clause is dope."

Rowan: Did someone say dope?

Neville: Well done, Ambassador Bell. You've just set him off now.

"My head hurts, Ambassador."

PARSONS: Mine does too. The use of italics may have something to do with it. However, clause 7 certainly helps to counterbalance it.

Rowan: You should just, like, let people write however they want, man. Chillax and enjoy the beauty that is nature.

Neville: It appears that the Honourable Ambassador is spaced-out again. Do not take his ramblings to be the official view of our nation.

Neville then makes a note which reads 'Ask the President to change the Honourable Ambassador's overly cumbersome title'.

[Taboa]

Jessica Pearson, Taboan Ambassador to the World Assembly

"I principle I am for this bill. However, I share the same concerns of Ambassador Souldream. It does indeed need to be a mandate, world peace should be a top priority of the World Assembly and providing a mandate against nuclear weapons would be a big step in the right direction. Other than that note, this bill has Taboa's vote."

[Wallenburg]

Jessica Pearson, Taboan Ambassador to the World Assembly

"I principle I am for this bill. However, I share the same concerns of Ambassador Souldream. It does indeed need to be a mandate, world peace should be a top priority of the World Assembly and providing a mandate against nuclear weapons would be a big step in the right direction. Other than that note, this bill has Taboa's vote."

"Unfortunately, the World Assembly cannot mandate world peace or the elimination of nuclear weapons. That would contradict General Assembly Resolutions #2 and #10, respectively."

[Excidium Planetis]

"What, may I ask, is the necessity for this proposal? Aren't member nations already banned from targeting civilians with nuclear weapons?" Blackbourne asks.

[Wallenburg]

"What, may I ask, is the necessity for this proposal? Aren't member nations already banned from targeting civilians with nuclear weapons?" Blackbourne asks.

"Actually, they are not."

[Excidium Planetis]

"What, may I ask, is the necessity for this proposal? Aren't member nations already banned from targeting civilians with nuclear weapons?" Blackbourne asks.

"Actually, they are not."

"Wartime Looting and Pillage bans deliberate targeting of civilians except where considered an absolute military necessity. Does that not effectively ban the targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons?"

[Wallenburg]

"Actually, they are not."

"Wartime Looting and Pillage bans deliberate targeting of civilians except where considered an absolute military necessity. Does that not effectively ban the targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons?"

"'Absolute military necessity' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador. This proposal seeks to further restrict the opportunity for member states to attack civilians."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Jessica Pearson, Taboan Ambassador to the World Assembly

"I principle I am for this bill. However, I share the same concerns of Ambassador Souldream. It does indeed need to be a mandate, world peace should be a top priority of the World Assembly and providing a mandate against nuclear weapons would be a big step in the right direction. Other than that note, this bill has Taboa's vote."

"Unfortunately, the World Assembly cannot mandate world peace or the elimination of nuclear weapons. That would contradict General Assembly Resolutions #2 and #10, respectively."

OOC: Also, just for the avoidance of any doubt, Rowan's opinions aren't meant to be taken seriously. If in doubt, use Neville's comments to work out my OOC opinions.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Wartime Looting and Pillage bans deliberate targeting of civilians except where considered an absolute military necessity. Does that not effectively ban the targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons?"

"'Absolute military necessity' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador. This proposal seeks to further restrict the opportunity for member states to attack civilians."

"'Enemy military assets' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador.

"That is to say nothing of the clarification that 'The use of violence against civilian persons or property for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member states.'"

[Wallenburg]

"'Absolute military necessity' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador. This proposal seeks to further restrict the opportunity for member states to attack civilians."

"'Enemy military assets' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador.

"How so?"

"That is to say nothing of the clarification that 'The use of violence against civilian persons or property for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member states.'"

"And, in addition, 'reprisal' is ambiguous here. It clearly does not refer to all acts of reprisal, as the very same resolution permits targeting of civilians as an act of self-defense against acts of civilian aggression. I argue that retaliatory nuclear strikes would be another exception, an act of self-defense, and certainly a military necessity, and therefore would not contradict this clause."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Wartime Looting and Pillage bans deliberate targeting of civilians except where considered an absolute military necessity. Does that not effectively ban the targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons?"

"'Absolute military necessity' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador. This proposal seeks to further restrict the opportunity for member states to attack civilians."

"No, ambassador, it isn't. 'Absolute' refers to the degree of strictness in interpretation. Military Necessity has a specific meaning in military doctrine. The term is actually very specific."

"'Enemy military assets' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador.

"As a literal interpretation, military asset isn't that ambiguous."

"That is to say nothing of the clarification that 'The use of violence against civilian persons or property for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member states.'"

"I will admit, this clause is specifically what I stopped to ponder when I first read this. We can ignore coercion, because it doesn't help us to parse out that situation, but as a matter of reprisal? The term can be substituted for "retribution", so a nuclear weapon deployed against civilians out of vengeance would be illegal. However, the doctrine behind nuclear warfare is not one of revenge, but of balance and counterbalance: One maintains a stock of weapons with the specific intention of preventing others from utilizing theirs. This system only works if one is willing to use those weapons, or the system falls apart. So, utilizing nuclear weapons in a countervalue role is not a matter of vengeance, but of ensuring enemy nuclear weaponry isn't used in the first place. This would be questionable if the weapons were used to target civilians in anything that doesn't match up with countervalue strategy: Weapons utilized significantly after the enemy use of counterforce weapons, weapons utilized prior to enemy countervalue weapons, or even prior to the use of counterforce weapons by either side would all throw serious doubt onto the validity of this defense in the event of violation.

"This would be a tenuous argument with anything that wasn't a nuclear weapon, based on the unique military doctrine that surrounds these weapons, but I believe the distinction is sufficient to avoid legality conflicts."

[Excidium Planetis]

"'Enemy military assets' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador.

"How so?"

"How is Absolute Military Necessity so?"

"'Enemy military assets' is quite the ambiguous phrase, Ambassador.

"As a literal interpretation, military asset isn't that ambiguous."

"Neither is military necessity. That was my point: Ambassador Ogenbond's definition of ambiguous is so broad as to render this proposal's terminology ambiguous."