NationStates

"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....

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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,

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.

"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

Made a few changes and tightened a few things up. Still looking for feedback....

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 ).

"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

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.

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....

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.....

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.

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.

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.

That's just fucking shameless.

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

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?

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.

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.