NationStates

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:37 am**

Sciongrad wrote:No, this is the WA's tacit proposal of an international "join the World Assembly and get nukes!" campaign. You seem to be under the impression that member nations are not dangerous towards other member nations, which is completely untrue. There is no resolution that prevents the unlimited use of nuclear weapons, war of conquest, etc. All this does is create a mentality where member nations and non-member nations are arbitrarily divided. This is not only bad policy, but actively detrimental to global peace.

"We agree with this opinion."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:03 am**

Campaign underway at this time....

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:31 pm**

Chester Pearson wrote:Campaign underway at this time....

Submitted a bit hastily, perhaps, considering it had been stashed away since March and you didn't allow even a full day for more comments before submission?

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:23 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:Campaign underway at this time....

Submitted a bit hastily, perhaps, considering it had been stashed away since March and you didn't allow even a full day for more comments before submission?

People have had nine months to comment on it.....

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:07 pm**

Araraukar wrote:Submitted a bit hastily, perhaps, considering it had been stashed away since March and you didn't allow even a full day for more comments before submission?

Postby Chester Pearson » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:56 pm

Hasty huh?

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:08 pm**

Well this is popular

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:51 pm**

"Clover has already made her comments it seems, and I see no reason to not support it, as it doesn't restrict our rights to utilize the weaponry, mainly it simply seems to re-enforce what should be common sense"

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:06 am**

District XIV wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Submitted a bit hastily, perhaps, considering it had been stashed away since March and you didn't allow even a full day for more comments before submission?

Postby Chester Pearson » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:56 pm

Hasty huh?

Araukar acknowledged it had existed since some time in March, giving at least two, maybe three months, in which for people to comment - the point is that since the thread became active again, only one day for renewed interest has been given.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:14 am**

It does not matter how much security you have, there can always be a breach. And if there is ever a terrorist attack the outcome would be catastrophic! President Lyra Sult of Caladern is strongly against the accessibility and prevalence of nuclear materials that nation states will have.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:58 am**

Caladern wrote:It does not matter how much security you have, there can always be a breach. And if there is ever a terrorist attack the outcome would be catastrophic! President Lyra Sult of Caladern is strongly against the accessibility and prevalence of nuclear materials that nation states will have.

"It already is accessible and prevalent, there is no ban on nuclear arms in this assembly. This simply mandates that those who may possess it must properly secure it, and be careful who they give the knowledge to. I suspect you may misunderstand what this act will do"

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:31 am**

Chester Pearson wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Submitted a bit hastily, perhaps, considering it had been stashed away since March and you didn't allow even a full day for more comments before submission?

People have had nine months to comment on it.....

"Except that the version you submitted is a different draft to the most recent one people were commenting on: all the comments about non-members are now irrelevant, for example. It means your proposal doesn't make much sense:

ALARMED by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear technology, particularly by non-members who are not bound by the conventions of international law,

"'Non-members who are not bound by the conventions of international law' are not mentioned anywhere in the operative section. More importantly:

Demands that member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear technology, design specifications, and materials if there is reason to suspect that they will be weaponized,

"This doesn't limit the ban on transfer to other nations. It means that all transfers are banned: even within our own nation! If The Dark Star Republic wishes to put nuclear weapons in its colonial holdings, that transfer of materials is now banned!

"This is not the language that has been sitting there for nine months. It is language you redrafted one day ago, and I agree that submission was hasty.

"However, I believe your proposal will pass."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:03 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:This doesn't limit the ban on transfer to other nations. It means that all transfers are banned: even within our own nation!

I saw this too and share your concern; however, I believe Section 4 would override this poor wording.

As this is a completely new draft, this proposal should not have been submitted without allowing time for comment.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:58 am**

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:This doesn't limit the ban on transfer to other nations. It means that all transfers are banned: even within our own nation!

I saw this too and share your concern; however, I believe Section 4 would override this poor wording.

"I guess my interpretation of that is slightly narrower.

"The Dark Star Republic has military bases in its colonies. We are now banned from transferring nuclear arms to those bases. However, we remain permitted to build weapons construction facilities in those bases, and essentially independently construct nuclear arms anywhere within our jurisdiction. That's obviously impractical, and significantly beyond the capabilities of many nations (including our own!).

"If your intepretation is correct then it's less of a problem - but I can't help but think that the clause was written in that clumsy way to try to skirt all of the objections entirely. It's not a great piece of drafting, regardless."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:04 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I saw this too and share your concern; however, I believe Section 4 would override this poor wording.

"I guess my interpretation of that is slightly narrower.

"The Dark Star Republic has military bases in its colonies. We are now banned from transferring nuclear arms to those bases. However, we remain permitted to build weapons construction facilities in those bases, and essentially independently construct nuclear arms anywhere within our jurisdiction. That's obviously impractical, and significantly beyond the capabilities of many nations (including our own!).

"If your intepretation is correct then it's less of a problem - but I can't help but think that the clause was written in that clumsy way to try to skirt all of the objections entirely. It's not a great piece of drafting, regardless."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"I see Transfer and Transport as different things, at least how I read it."

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:39 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:
People have had nine months to comment on it.....

"Except that the version you submitted is a different draft to the most recent one people were commenting on: all the comments about non-members are now irrelevant, for example. It means your proposal doesn't make much sense:
ALARMED by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear technology, particularly by non-members who are not bound by the conventions of international law,

"'Non-members who are not bound by the conventions of international law' are not mentioned anywhere in the operative section. More importantly:
Demands that member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear technology, design specifications, and materials if there is reason to suspect that they will be weaponized,

"This doesn't limit the ban on transfer to other nations. It means that all transfers are banned: even within our own nation! If The Dark Star Republic wishes to put nuclear weapons in its colonial holdings, that transfer of materials is now banned!

"This is not the language that has been sitting there for nine months. It is language you redrafted one day ago, and I agree that submission was hasty.

"However, I believe your proposal will pass."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Two things were changed my good man. The strength was changed to Mild, and one word was changed in clause four, and that is it. Other than that this is the same draft that has been sitting there since March....

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:19 am**

OOC: Ugh, another "international security" stat wank. Once again you guys are making me put money toward police and military. Pfffft. That said....

IC: No nukes! SUPPORT!

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:25 am**

Wrapper wrote:OOC: Ugh, another "international security" stat wank. Once again you guys are making me put money toward police and military. Pfffft. That said....

IC: No nukes! SUPPORT!

Not what it represents, on any level.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:36 am**

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Wrapper wrote:OOC: Ugh, another "international security" stat wank. Once again you guys are making me put money toward police and military. Pfffft. That said....

IC: No nukes! SUPPORT!

Not what it represents, on any level.

OOC: Eh, you haven't met my ambassador yet, have you?

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:52 am**

Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz: The Confederacy of Louisistan strongly supports non-proliferation of WMDs. That being said, we share the concerns put forth by the Dark Star Republic and thus will not support this proposal.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:40 pm**

District XIV wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Submitted a bit hastily, perhaps, considering it had been stashed away since March and you didn't allow even a full day for more comments before submission?

Last edited by Chester Pearson on Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:04 pm, edited 21 times in total.

Hasty huh?

OOC: Fixed it for you. Yes, hasty. Easy to say "you've had X months to comment on it", when the thread and most recent draft haven't been around - in fact, commenting on it would've been counted as gravedigging, since it hadn't received any attention from its author for many months.

IC: You'll see, the nations that weapons dealers have bought with their dirty money will far outnumber the ones that will see the light. Wishing you all the best while not holding my breath.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:53 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
District XIV wrote:
Hasty huh?

OOC: Fixed it for you. Yes, hasty. Easy to say "you've had X months to comment on it", when the thread and most recent draft haven't been around - in fact, commenting on it would've been counted as gravedigging, since it hadn't received any attention from its author for many months.

IC: You'll see, the nations that weapons dealers have bought with their dirty money will far outnumber the ones that will see the light. Wishing you all the best while not holding my breath.

Wow..... ONE whole fucking change counts as a redraft? (One word btw) :palm:

Please..... I expected as much out of DSR, and CD with their asinine interpretations, and comments, but not from you....

Either way, this is going to the floor as is.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:08 pm**

Chester Pearson wrote:
Wow..... ONE whole fucking change counts as a redraft? (One word btw) Please..... I expected as much out of DSR, and CD with their asinine interpretations, and comments, but not from you....

Either way, this is going to the floor as is.

"Ambassador, can I just take this moment to say that your absence was genuinely and well missed?" :lol:

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:02 pm**

Despite my concerns about Section 3 and despite Mr. Pearson's lack of civility, I am the first person to vote for this proposal.

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:27 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:Despite my concerns about Section 3 and despite Mr. Pearson's lack of civility, I am the first person to vote for this proposal.

Appreciated Ambassador.

What lack of civility are you referring to?

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:35 pm**

Chester Pearson wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Despite my concerns about Section 3 and despite Mr. Pearson's lack of civility, I am the first person to vote for this proposal.

Appreciated Ambassador.

What lack of civility are you referring to?

viewtopic.php?p=20441555#p20441555

NationStates

[PASSED] Nuclear Security Convention