[DEFEATED] Nuclear Weapons Accord

[Separatist Peoples]

"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."

"Ah, I see! I think Excidian sarcasm expresses itself in a different manner, linguistically, than in my language, ambassador. I took that as a literal question, and not a pointed one. My apologies."

[Wallenburg]

"How so?"

"How is Absolute Military Necessity so?"

"It is customary to actually answer someone's question, Ambassador. Perhaps Ambassador Bell could show you how to do so?"

"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."

"Ambassador, please leave your impromptu jokes at the door. They aren't very good."

[Excidium Planetis]

"How is Absolute Military Necessity so?"

"It is customary to actually answer someone's question, Ambassador. Perhaps Ambassador Bell could show you how to do so?"

"Surely you have heard of the maieutic method? Or at least have heard of a counterquestion?"

"Ambassador, please leave your impromptu jokes at the door. They aren't very good."

"Jokes?" Blackbourne looks back at the transcript. "I don't recall making any jokes."

[Wallenburg]

"It is customary to actually answer someone's question, Ambassador. Perhaps Ambassador Bell could show you how to do so?"

"Surely you have heard of the maieutic method? Or at least have heard of a counterquestion?"

"I am familiar with both. Your statement is hardly the former, and I find the latter an insufficient response designed solely to avoid having to answer me."

"Ambassador, please leave your impromptu jokes at the door. They aren't very good."

"Jokes?" Blackbourne looks back at the transcript. "I don't recall making any jokes."

"Ah, I see. So you are actually serious about that ridiculous strawman?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"Surely you have heard of the maieutic method? Or at least have heard of a counterquestion?"

"I am familiar with both. Your statement is hardly the former, and I find the latter an insufficient response designed solely to avoid having to answer me."

"It is the former."

"Ambassador, please leave your impromptu jokes at the door. They aren't very good."

"Jokes?" Blackbourne looks back at the transcript. "I don't recall making any jokes."

"Ah, I see. So you are actually serious about that ridiculous strawman?"[/quote]
"Strawman? We are talking about about the fallacious debate tactic of misrepresenting an opponents argument in order more easily refute it, yes? Could you please explain exactly what argument of yours I misrepresented in order to refute, and how I misrepresented it?"

[Wallenburg]

"I am familiar with both. Your statement is hardly the former, and I find the latter an insufficient response designed solely to avoid having to answer me."

"It is the former."

"No, Ambassador, it is not. Not even remotely. The maieutic method relies on constructive discussion that approaches axiomatic principles and the like critically in order to analyze their legitimacy. What you have done is, rather than answering my question, responded with an evasive and snarky question of your own, with absolutely no interest in actually responding to my inquiry."

"Ah, I see. So you are actually serious about that ridiculous strawman?"

"Strawman? We are talking about about the fallacious debate tactic of misrepresenting an opponents argument in order more easily refute it, yes? Could you please explain exactly what argument of yours I misrepresented in order to refute, and how I misrepresented it?"

"Strawmen include asserting that one's opponent has made an argument that they have not. You claim that I have established a definition of 'ambiguous' that 'renders this proposal's terminology ambiguous'. That is, of course, untrue. Ergo, a strawman."

[Excidium Planetis]

snip

"I would think I know what method of argumentation I am using best, since I am the one using it. But I see no further reason to continue this line of discussion. Think what you will."

"Strawman? We are talking about about the fallacious debate tactic of misrepresenting an opponents argument in order more easily refute it, yes? Could you please explain exactly what argument of yours I misrepresented in order to refute, and how I misrepresented it?"

"Strawmen include asserting that one's opponent has made an argument that they have not. You claim that I have established a definition of 'ambiguous' that 'renders this proposal's terminology ambiguous'. That is, of course, untrue. Ergo, a strawman."

"You have established a definition of ambiguous. You claimed 'absolute military necessity' was ambiguous, thus defining your concept of ambiguous. I would have further determined what exactly you considered ambiguous, but you refused to answer that line of query. Now then, what makes the phrase ambiguous was left up to me to deduce, so this is what I concluded: If the term military was ambiguous, then obviously it is so in your proposal. If the term 'military necessity' was in question, then I reasoned 'military asset' would be equally likely to be ambiguous, as both are terms even a layman would understand, and are common enough to be well understood and found in an encyclopedia. Lastly, if the term 'absolute', not a special phrase but a common word everyone knows, was what was in doubt, then I reckoned there could be ambiguity as to what constituents an enemy."

[Wallenburg]

"Strawmen include asserting that one's opponent has made an argument that they have not. You claim that I have established a definition of 'ambiguous' that 'renders this proposal's terminology ambiguous'. That is, of course, untrue. Ergo, a strawman."

"You have established a definition of ambiguous. You claimed 'absolute military necessity' was ambiguous, thus defining your concept of ambiguous. I would have further determined what exactly you considered ambiguous, but you refused to answer that line of query.

"Ah, so I must answer your questions, but you must not answer mine?"

Now then, what makes the phrase ambiguous was left up to me to deduce, so this is what I concluded: If the term military was ambiguous, then obviously it is so in your proposal.

"I never claimed the term 'military' was ambiguous, so this line of so-called reasoning is completely ridiculous."

If the term 'military necessity' was in question, then I reasoned 'military asset' would be equally likely to be ambiguous, as both are terms even a layman would understand, and are common enough to be well understood and found in an encyclopedia.

"Ambassador, 'asset' tends to be far more concrete than 'necessity'. Necessity is often a matter of opinion, and is therefore ambiguous. Assets are quite concrete and matters of fact, and therefore are not nearly as ambiguous. I was not familiar with the established legal definition of 'military necessity', and therefore was not aware that its significance made the phrase unambiguous."

Lastly, if the term 'absolute', not a special phrase but a common word everyone knows, was what was in doubt, then I reckoned there could be ambiguity as to what constituents an enemy."

"Well, absolute could be considered ambiguous in the context of 'Wartime Looting and Pillage', but I would not argue that. Any good faith interpretation would yield the same interpretation of 'absolute'."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, 'asset' tends to be far more concrete than 'necessity'. Necessity is often a matter of opinion, and is therefore ambiguous. Assets are quite concrete and matters of fact, and therefore are not nearly as ambiguous. I was not familiar with the established legal definition of 'military necessity', and therefore was not aware that its significance made the phrase unambiguous."

"Now that you know, what, if any, changes are you planning on making? I've already opined as to how countervalue strikes and reprisals are distinct, but perhaps you have a different opinion as to the best approach?"

Lastly, if the term 'absolute', not a special phrase but a common word everyone knows, was what was in doubt, then I reckoned there could be ambiguity as to what constituents an enemy."

"Well, absolute could be considered ambiguous in the context of 'Wartime Looting and Pillage', but I would not argue that. Any good faith interpretation would yield the same interpretation of 'absolute'."

"Excellent, all ambiguity has been addressed! We can move past the tit-for-tat sniping!"

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, 'asset' tends to be far more concrete than 'necessity'. Necessity is often a matter of opinion, and is therefore ambiguous. Assets are quite concrete and matters of fact, and therefore are not nearly as ambiguous. I was not familiar with the established legal definition of 'military necessity', and therefore was not aware that its significance made the phrase unambiguous."

"Now that you know, what, if any, changes are you planning on making? I've already opined as to how countervalue strikes and reprisals are distinct, but perhaps you have a different opinion as to the best approach?"

"As far as I can see, this proposal is ready for submission. Of course, I'm always open to suggested changes."

[Excidium Planetis]

"You have established a definition of ambiguous. You claimed 'absolute military necessity' was ambiguous, thus defining your concept of ambiguous. I would have further determined what exactly you considered ambiguous, but you refused to answer that line of query.

"Ah, so I must answer your questions, but you must not answer mine?"

"Not at all. I never demanded that you answer my questions, nor have I been under any compulsion to not answer yours."

Now then, what makes the phrase ambiguous was left up to me to deduce, so this is what I concluded: If the term military was ambiguous, then obviously it is so in your proposal.

"I never claimed the term 'military' was ambiguous, so this line of so-called reasoning is completely ridiculous."

"I never said you claimed such."

"I was not familiar with the established legal definition of 'military necessity', and therefore was not aware that its significance made the phrase unambiguous."
...
"Well, absolute could be considered ambiguous in the context of 'Wartime Looting and Pillage', but I would not argue that. Any good faith interpretation would yield the same interpretation of 'absolute'."

"Alright then, if there is now no ambiguity, tell me again: why is this proposal necessary, since Wartime Looting and Pillage already bans the targeting of civilians except in cases of absolute military necessity?"

[Federation of the Astral Plane]

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

• enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• foreign civilian populations, only in retaliation for a countervalue strike,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

Do we really want to allow such Mutually Assured Destruction between nations, Ambassador?

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

Would like to note to the Honorable Ambassador that such language is not to be used in Resolutions.

[Calladan]

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

• enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• foreign civilian populations, only in retaliation for a countervalue strike,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

Do we really want to allow such Mutually Assured Destruction between nations, Ambassador?

Yes.

[Separatist Peoples]

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

• enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• foreign civilian populations, only in retaliation for a countervalue strike,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

Do we really want to allow such Mutually Assured Destruction between nations, Ambassador?

"The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction keeps the peace. The WA wants to keep the peace. How is this not desirable?"

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

Would like to note to the Honorable Ambassador that such language is not to be used in Resolutions.

"Why not?"

[Bears Armed]

Would like to note to the Honorable Ambassador that such language is not to be used in Resolutions.

"Why not?"

"Indeed, why not, for true?"

^_^

[Kryozerkia]

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

Would like to note to the Honorable Ambassador that such language is not to be used in Resolutions.

Limited use, such as this, have been done in the past. It is not contrary to the proposal rules.

[Wallenburg]

Do we really want to allow such Mutually Assured Destruction between nations, Ambassador?

"It is infinitely preferable to thermonuclear armageddon. So yes, I absolutely want to allow it."

Would like to note to the Honorable Ambassador that such language is not to be used in Resolutions.

"Make legislation funny again!"

[States of Glory WA Office]

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

• enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• foreign civilian populations, only in retaliation for a countervalue strike,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

Do we really want to allow such Mutually Assured Destruction between nations, Ambassador?

Neville: What's your alternative?

Rowan: Banning nuclear weapons, perhaps?

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

Would like to note to the Honorable Ambassador that such language is not to be used in Resolutions.

Neville: Make Legislation...

"Make legislation funny again!"

Neville: Darn it.

Rowan: Besides, it's true. Member nations should totally chill out.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Rowan: Banning nuclear weapons, perhaps?

PARSONS: That just means that millions die in the next conventional total war.

[Calladan]

Rowan: Banning nuclear weapons, perhaps?

PARSONS: That just means that millions die in the next conventional total war.

Or someone will come up with something equally destructive that skirts the ban.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: That just means that millions die in the next conventional total war.

Or someone will come up with something equally destructive that skirts the ban.

PARSONS: Antimatter weapons seem promising. (heheh)

[Tinfect]

PARSONS: Antimatter weapons seem promising. (heheh)

"I assure you, Ambassador," Starts Markhov, polishing a small Missile bearing a yet smaller label, warning one about the risks of shaking, stirring, or otherwise disturbing antimatter weapons, "They most certainly are."

[Bears Armed]

Rowan: Banning nuclear weapons, perhaps?

PARSONS: That just means that millions die in the next conventional total war.

"So, ban war?"

^_^

Artorrios o SouthWoods

[States of Glory WA Office]

PARSONS: That just means that millions die in the next conventional total war.

"So, ban war?"

^_^

Whoa, a bear! A bear that spreads the message too! Far out! Anyway, while this proposal encourages warmongering, which is totally not cool, that seems to be the intent. Why hasn't this been submitted already? I hate it, but I'm still left wondering.

[Wallenburg]

"So, ban war?"

^_^

Whoa, a bear! A bear that spreads the message too! Far out! Anyway, while this proposal encourages warmongering, which is totally not cool, that seems to be the intent. Why hasn't this been submitted already? I hate it, but I'm still left wondering.

"It hasn't been submitted because I'm a lazy sunnovabitch."