NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Nuclear Arms Protocol

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Nuclear Arms Protocol

Postby Chester Pearson » Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:11 am

Image
"Nuclear Arms Protocol"
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson


The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that nuclear weapons are an integral part of some nations deterrence strategy,

ALSO REALIZING the potential threat posed to civilians caught in the blast effects of nuclear detonations,

DEEPLY ALARMED that international law permits civilians to be targeted by nuclear weapons,

CONFIRMING the right of member nations to possess and use nuclear weapons in warfare,

THUS RESOLVING to enact a sensible policy that mitigates the civilian casualties resulting from a nuclear exchange between hostile nations,

The General Assembly hereby:

  1. For the purposes of this protocol defines a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon which derives it power solely from nuclear reactions,

  2. Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not deliberately target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless a hostile nation deliberately shields key strategic military assets within civilian populations,

  3. Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation deliberately target civilian populations in defiance of this accord,

  4. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to utilize nuclear weapons against military targets as part of their defense strategy.


Since there was some very vocal support for this one last time, I have decided to bring it back and try again. Feed me feedback please....
Last edited by Mousebumples on Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:29 am, edited 5 times in total.
Reason: recording end of vote result and unstickying
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Kalukmangala
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Apr 17, 2014
Ex-Nation

Nuclear Arms Protocol

Postby Kalukmangala » Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:08 am

While I agree nuclear weapons should never be used intentionally against civilian targets, and would only condone the use of such weapons under very serious circumstances, I think demanding there be assurance of no civilian casualties is unrealistic and unreasonable. The scope of a nuclear attack can be calculated, but due to the weather or other circumstances, I feel it would be unlikely that most scenarios could avoid civilian casualty, or, more relevantly: the intentional use of a weapon with the knowledge of civilian targets, directly or indirectly.


What about a set limit to the amount of collateral damage acceptable when using nuclear force, as well as a clause demanding nations exhaust all diplomatic options before resorting to nuclear ones?
Last edited by Kalukmangala on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gustave Berr
---------------------------------------------
The United States of Kalukmangala
Chief Justice of the High Court - The South Pacific

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:46 am

Kalukmangala wrote:While I agree nuclear weapons should never be used intentionally against civilian targets, and would only condone the use of such weapons under very serious circumstances, I think demanding there be assurance of no civilian casualties is unrealistic and unreasonable. The scope of a nuclear attack can be calculated, but due to the weather or other circumstances, I feel it would be unlikely that most scenarios could avoid civilian casualty, or, more relevantly: the intentional use of a weapon with the knowledge of civilian targets, directly or indirectly.


What about a set limit to the amount of collateral damage acceptable when using nuclear force, as well as a clause demanding nations exhaust all diplomatic options before resorting to nuclear ones?


Ah....

But you are forgetting that the Chemical Weapons Accord make similar demands as stipulated in clause 2:

2. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,


Member nations don't seems to have any difficulty in complying with that resolution, so I don't see any reason why this one should be any different.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Kalukmangala
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Apr 17, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kalukmangala » Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:02 am

Chester Pearson wrote:Ah....

But you are forgetting that the Chemical Weapons Accord make similar demands as stipulated in clause 2:

2. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,


Member nations don't seems to have any difficulty in complying with that resolution, so I don't see any reason why this one should be any different.


I may be forgetting that, but also, I believe (and am suggesting) that most uses of nuclear weapons have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations in one way or another. At any rate, I commend any efforts to reduce the usage of nuclear weapons, and would support this should it come to a vote.
Gustave Berr
---------------------------------------------
The United States of Kalukmangala
Chief Justice of the High Court - The South Pacific

User avatar
Gotham City Empire
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Oct 18, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Gotham City Empire » Sat Nov 29, 2014 8:54 am

Mr. Kal I agree with you. The problem is not what you do with the nukes it's how many you have vs how many you need.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sat Nov 29, 2014 10:44 am

"Not an international issue. This would be much more palatable to us if you concentrated on what was really important: banning the use of nuclear weapons against abortion clinics. Now that's an international issue. In fact, maybe drop all the nuclear weapons stuff, and just concentrating on adding extra protections for abortion. Abortion. Abortion. Abortion."

Daisy and Truculent shake their heads sadly. Their brand new NatSovinator3000™ is badly malfunctioning, clearly. Truculent delivers a sturdy whack with a coil spanner and the machine lapses into silence.

"I think the problem must be the input logic. We're going to have to use something that makes a little more sense than this Manifesto."

"Yes, but what? There's not exactly an abundance of public comment to go on."

"Well, at least it's working better than..."

They both turn their grim visages to the Secretariat Predict-a-tron and the pile of dead, headless poultry beside it.

"Anyway, as the machine's not working, we're going to have to continue commenting manually. Speaking of which, you'd better get over to the International Security Council..."

Truculent hurries out, the sound of squawks filling the air as Daisy slice off another chicken head and lets it wander between "Ignore Precedent" and "Pretend We Didn't Even Hear The Question"...




"Deliberate targeting is the more commonly used term, and might be better than 'intentional targeting'.

"Your definition would seem to include a non-nuclear payload that is nonetheless powered by nuclear reactions. Arguably even a nuclear submarine launching conventional weapons would meet such a definition. To be honest: is there even a need to define nuclear weapons? We know what they are, and claiming some subset of nuclear weaponry doesn't meet the definition would be ridiculous. NAPA doesn't define nuclear weapons.

"Finally, what is a civilian or a civilian population?

"We remain generally supportive, while being confused about why this even failed last time. The prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons against civilians was repealed by delegations who claimed to be supportive of replacing that prohibition in international law, but then voted against your proposal. It's impossible to interpret how they'd respond to a redraft."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Jackonia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Nov 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Jackonia » Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:04 am

Nations should be allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons if they have a legitimate reason, eg. War. Using Nuclear Weapons on Civilian populations should only be a last resort. I therefore support the draft Legislation.

Bordurian Civil War (2015) - VICTORY
Cardulan War (2015) - VICTORY
Oehiton War (2015) - ONGOING
Kabarastan War (2015) -VICTORY
_[' ]_
(-_Q) If you support Capitalism put this in your Signature.

98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.
You can vote in the Jackonian General Election! Just follow the link. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=344401
Want to build Embassies? viewtopic.php?f=23&t=330096

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:18 pm

Gotham City Empire wrote:Mr. Kal I agree with you. The problem is not what you do with the nukes it's how many you have vs how many you need.


Need is a very fluid term here. At any point you will have several enemies that have the power to decimate you. In turn you need the same power to respond in kind. That number can change very dynamically based on you foreign policy. In the event of a strike you are likely to lose one third to half you arsenal, therefore you hypothetically need double the amount of weapons needed to return the favor to ensure you achieve your military objective.

The whole point of this resolution is not to take the ability to use nuclear weapons away, just to mandate that member nation not utilize a countervalue strike, but rather a counterforce strike if they are to employ a nuclear first strike. The resolution allows nations to return in kind if they are targeted with a countervalue strike first.

Trust me, I tried very hard to pass a resolution limiting strategic stockpiles, and it was blown out of the water......

The Dark Star Republic wrote:Deliberate targeting is the more commonly used term, and might be better than 'intentional targeting'.


Good point. I will incorporate that in the future here....

"Your definition would seem to include a non-nuclear payload that is nonetheless powered by nuclear reactions. Arguably even a nuclear submarine launching conventional weapons would meet such a definition. To be honest: is there even a need to define nuclear weapons? We know what they are, and claiming some subset of nuclear weaponry doesn't meet the definition would be ridiculous. NAPA doesn't define nuclear weapons.


I feel we need a definition here, just to make things clear and for the sake of having a definition. How do you suggest tightening it up?

"Finally, what is a civilian or a civilian population?


Do we really need to define it? If so then it can be incorporated, but I would think the term civilian should be common place....

"We remain generally supportive, while being confused about why this even failed last time. The prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons against civilians was repealed by delegations who claimed to be supportive of replacing that prohibition in international law, but then voted against your proposal. It's impossible to interpret how they'd respond to a redraft."


By voting against it of course. I do not expect this to be an easy battle. It took six tries to get the CWA passed, so I am probably in for the long haul here. When the climate is right this will pass...

Your support is appreciated, and it is my hope we can put something together that is mutually amicable to all parties.

Warmest regards,

Image
Last edited by Chester Pearson on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Farrian Republic
Attaché
 
Posts: 71
Founded: Mar 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Farrian Republic » Sat Nov 29, 2014 9:20 pm

Gotham City Empire wrote:Mr. Kal I agree with you. The problem is not what you do with the nukes it's how many you have vs how many you need.


I disagree to an extent. Although how many you have vs. how many you need can apply, what you do with nuclear weapons is still nonetheless a serious matter. If they were intentionally used to target civilian suburbs, that's different than being used in the actual battle itself, so to speak.
Farrian Republic
Led by Farrian-American President Parker Davidson representing Green Party of Farrian Republic from 2014 and beyond
Vice President Yusuf Shaffiuzaman of Social Democrats of the Farrian Republic
National Secretary Rick Al-Mahad of National Liberal Party
The Farrian Republic is a tropical paradise located in the Middle Eastern Democratic Nations and compromised of multiple beautiful islands. Farrian Republic. Great things come in great packages.

INDIE ROCK INDIE ROCK INDIE ROCK

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Nov 30, 2014 10:31 am

"You want to define nuclear weapons and not civilians, I think you should define civilians but not nuclear weapons...let's call the whole thing off.

"Ok, for nuclear weapons, at least change 'fueled' to an emphasis on the actual explosive capability being nuclear.

"For civilians, I suppose the grey area is as follows: even in civilian populations, there'll probably be at least someone who's a military officer, even if they're not performing a military role. There's too much leeway for nations to define virtually anything away from being a civilian population. Unless this intended largely as a blocker, I suppose."

~ Ambassador Bilgewater

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:21 pm

Made a few changes and tightened a few things up. Still looking for feedback....
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3274
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:01 am

I would have agreed with you, Mr. Pearson, about defining "civilian:" it ought to be well enough understood without having to define it. What's now there needs some tightening up, since as written it now prohibits belligerent nations fighting an air/naval war from targeting each other's army/tank/infantry bases (since those forces are not taking direct part in hostilities). I know you're trying to prevent the presence of reservists etc. from being held to justify a city as a "military target," but if we can't find a more precise way to do it, I think you're better off dropping the definition (Col. Bilgewater's objections notwithstanding). I will try to brainstorm suggestions for better wording (and hope you beat me to it :p ).
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:35 am

"Having thought about it more, we drop our objection to not defining 'civilian'. It's a term that's been used by several other WA resolutions so at this stage it's safe to assume a general understanding of what it means has entered public understanding. So, we'd agree on dropping the definition.

"On the definition of weapon, maybe exclude 'solely'.

"There's no need for the comma after 'unless' in Article 2. And I'm not sure why the military assets have to be 'key' in order to qualify. The way it's also written, it also seems to grant a universal exception. That is, if a nation employs human shields anywhere, then any civilian population - even a totally unrelated one that isn't being used as a human shield - can be subject to a nuclear attack. Is that intentional?"

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54792
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:21 am

Just a couple quick questions that have probably already been asked.

"Defines civilian"
[OOC - I was reading the RL laws of war recently, and it suggested that] military personnel could be acting in a non-combatant capacity in areas, such as evacuation of civilians (though under RL laws are required to limit the arms the carry and presumably tanks aren't included in this). Might you consider including this in the definition? It could be considered redundant, because if they're evacuating civilians, they're already in a civilian area and clearly (hopefully) not on or particularly near the frontline.

Per articles 2 and 3, does this permit, under these scenarios, to engage in nuclear strikes on/uncomfortably near to civil populations?
This is more directed at 3, than 2, I'm just seeking a clarification that 2 does indeed state that if enemy forces are using human shield tactics, this can legitimise nuclear strikes in these regions.
Last edited by Imperializt Russia on Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:36 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:Just a couple quick questions that have probably already been asked.

"Defines civilian"
[OOC - I was reading the RL laws of war recently, and it suggested that] military personnel could be acting in a non-combatant capacity in areas, such as evacuation of civilians (though under RL laws are required to limit the arms the carry and presumably tanks aren't included in this). Might you consider including this in the definition? It could be considered redundant, because if they're evacuating civilians, they're already in a civilian area and clearly (hopefully) not on or particularly near the frontline.

Per articles 2 and 3, does this permit, under these scenarios, to engage in nuclear strikes on/uncomfortably near to civil populations?
This is more directed at 3, than 2, I'm just seeking a clarification that 2 does indeed state that if enemy forces are using human shield tactics, this can legitimise nuclear strikes in these regions.


No... The primary area of concern would be a nation building strategic bases, or silos right in the middle of a major metropolitan area. I would very much like to pass a resolution preventing that instead of this one, but it would go over like a shit lead balloon....
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1364
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ainocra » Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:33 pm

History tells us that civilization follows the military, Where you build a base, soon the people will follow.

Guess what I'm gonna say Chester....

GO ahead...


Take a stab at it.....



Opposed.
Alcon Enta
Fleet Marshal of Ainocra
Former Foreign Minister and Top Banana of Monkey Island
Former Keeper of the Deshret and Vizier of Osiris
"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

User avatar
Gruenberg
Diplomat
 
Posts: 961
Founded: Jul 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Gruenberg » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:18 am

Ainocra wrote:Opposed.

The original draft of your ICC repeal called for exactly this resolution to be passed by the WA. Your opposition doesn't make any sense.
"Do you mean "coming out"...as a Guardian reader would understand the term?"

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5582
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:45 am

A civilian as person who is not a member of their nations armed forces or militias or who is not taking a direct part of hostilities in an armed conflict.


If a nation has a mandatory military service program, quite lot of people going shopping on the weekend in the local supermarket would count as "non-civilians" under this language.
Last edited by Unibot III on Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54792
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:49 am

Unibot III wrote:
A civilian as person who is not a member of their nations armed forces or militias or who is not taking a direct part of hostilities in an armed conflict.


If a nation has a mandatory military service program, quite lot of people going shopping on the weekend in the local supermarket would count as "non-civilians" under this language.

There is an OR term in there - military personnel who are non-combatants or not presently in-service (which could be construed to include military personnel organising evacuation support or disaster relief as I mentioned previously - also Navy personnel on shore leave, people not in their conscription term etc) are officially classified as civilians for the purposes of discussing the legal ramifications of nuclear strike.

Though if you are being so broad - this actually makes strategic strikes illegal, since such personnel clearly cannot be taking direct part in hostilities, excepting long-range airbases, or potentially even units moving to the front.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:47 am


User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54792
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:49 am

That's just fucking shameless.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Regalius
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Aug 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Regalius » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:47 pm

If you were to add... lets say "fluff" to beef it up I think it would be ready for the floor.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° ) Yours in passive-aggressive diplomacy, Regalius ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:58 pm

Regalius wrote:If you were to add... lets say "fluff" to beef it up I think it would be ready for the floor.


What kind of "fluff"?

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Though if you are being so broad - this actually makes strategic strikes illegal, since such personnel clearly cannot be taking direct part in hostilities, excepting long-range airbases, or potentially even units moving to the front.


Precisely! This is attempting to limit a first strike strictly against targets of that nature (i.e. counter-force)....

Would it be clearer if I added definitions of counter-value, and counter-force strikes to the draft?
Last edited by Chester Pearson on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54792
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:15 am

It could get pretty long, but it'd be unquestionably thorough.

There are three or four "counter" missions in nuclear warfare IIRC. Counterstrike, countervalue, counterforce and something else.

Counterstrike is launching a nuclear first strike on offensive nuclear targets. Silo fields, sub-bases, air bases and air refuelling air bases etc. Countervalue is mostly striking critical infrastructure (if you live anywhere near petrochemical anything, you're fucked) and counterforce is striking conventional and command assets of the enemy. Rear bases, supply depots, units mobilising at home or transiting to the combat theatre.

I may have misremembered these, because in checking Medical Implications, it describes four phases of an escalating nuclear conflict as two counterforce phases, a countervalue phase and a "final phase". For a hypothetical phased conflict between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, it describes the "initial" counterforce phase as striking mostly strategic nuclear targets (which I called counterstrike), an "extended" counterforce phase essentially describing what I had described as counterforce (also nuking the east/west German frontline), an industrial countervalue operation to engage power production, key infrastructure, petrochemicals and manufacturing.
It's well worth pointing out this hypothetical conflict was intended to project fallout models from such a strike plan (in a word: high. Don't be European).

I'm not sure how cool I am with entirely banning first-strike counterforce attacks. Especially in the context of nuclear targets like silo fields.
Countervalue strikes in a first strike? I would definitely get behind banning that. Countervalue denies key infrastructure from use by, well, destroying it. Counterforce attacks can be justified, even at enemy civilian cost, with relative ease.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1364
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ainocra » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:14 pm

Gruenberg wrote:
Ainocra wrote:Opposed.

The original draft of your ICC repeal called for exactly this resolution to be passed by the WA. Your opposition doesn't make any sense.



My constituents are generally opposed to any attempt to regulate nuclear weapons.

While the proposal itself doesn't seem that bad I am bound by the will of those I serve.
Alcon Enta
Fleet Marshal of Ainocra
Former Foreign Minister and Top Banana of Monkey Island
Former Keeper of the Deshret and Vizier of Osiris
"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron