[DEFEATED] Repeal GAR #10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act

[Chester Pearson]

"Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#10 | Proposed by: Chester Pearson

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that member nations have the right to defend themselves from external threats,

NOTING that numerous member nations possess, and use nuclear weapons in warfare,

REALIZING that member nations are also reluctant to surrender their ability to possess nuclear weapons,

However,

RECALLING the passage of General Assembly resolution #292 which clearly states in clause 4 that "nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities.'

ALSO RECALLING General Assembly resolution #308 which states in clause three "Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation deliberately target civilian populations in defiance of this accord," effectively rendering clause two of General Assembly #10 which states "DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations," moot,

NOTING that clause three of General Assembly #10 resolution states "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.", yet fails to clearly define who those "wrong hands may be",

RECOGNIZING clause two of General Assembly resolution #292 effectively closes the loophole in General Assembly resolution #10 clause #1 by stating "Requires member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure their nuclear materials, technology and information that have the potential for weaponization are fully secured against unauthorized release," effectively making clause #1 of General Assembly resolution #10 moot as well,

CONFIDENT that since the passage of General Assembly resolutions #292, and #308, the subject of nuclear disarmament is effectively blocked, and therefore dead,

BELIEVING that the fatal flaw to clearly define "wrong hands" in clause 3 of General Assembly Resolution #10 necessitates it repeal,

HEREBY repeals General Assembly resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

*Flame retardant suit donned* Fire at will....

[Ainocra]

[Chester Pearson]

:palm:

Elaborate, or did you stop at the title?

[Ainocra]

ooc:

yeah I stopped at the title
I'll actually read it in a bit but honestly I just can't think of any good enough argument that could make me support this.
It falls into the same realm as GA2 does for me, it may not be perfect but i'm not willing to chance losing it

here have a giggle again

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807&start=342

[Chester Pearson]

ooc:

yeah I stopped at the title
I'll actually read it in a bit but honestly I just can't think of any good enough argument that could make me support this.
It falls into the same realm as GA2 does for me, it may not be perfect but i'm not willing to chance losing it

here have a giggle again

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807&start=342

#'s 292, and 308 render the whole thing moot. Plus I am dying to see Bob's often mentioned replacement, and would love to see how he would get it through on a duplication challenge....

[Ainocra]

ooc:

Ok I've read it, and you have actually come close to getting me to consider it.

I would like to see his replacement too, but not that much

[Chester Pearson]

ooc:

Ok I've read it, and you have actually come close to getting me to consider it.

I would like to see his replacement too, but not that much

What more needs to be there to get you to consider it then? Believe it or not, this is not some frivolous venture I am on. You remember how many time we voted on the Chemical Weapons Accords? This is going to be that kind of crusade. And the great things is, no one can block it, unless it is actually repealed.

[Defwa]

So those other resolutions were a part of a nefarious plot to slaughter the most sacred cow these chambers have ever seen. Bravo sir. Bravo.
I will support you simply for that reason.

[Chester Pearson]

So those other resolutions were a part of a nefarious plot to slaughter the most sacred cow these chambers have ever seen. Bravo sir. Bravo.
I will support you simply for that reason.

The plot twists of the WA. You gotta lov'em don't ya?

[Omigodtheyclonedkenny]

Yeah, Clause 3 of this resolution, Subsection X of that one, Paragraph C-43.9 of the other...this resolution says "X", that resolution says "Y"; "titties." No one's gonna bother reading through that whole treatise. They're just gonna see "Repeal NUKES" and vote no.

And you cannot convince me that the wording of #292 is somehow superior or more effective than NAPA simply because it uses more eloquent wording: "secure against unauthorized release" versus "fall into the wrong hands." You say tomato, I say to-mah-to. It makes no difference.

Except one resolution pertains to abstract "materials, technology and information," not actual weapons. That does make a big difference.

AGAINST.

[Chester Pearson]

Except one resolution pertains to abstract "materials, technology and information," not actual weapons. That does make a big difference..

Have you read #292. It deals specifically with weapons, and weapons related material, so no, there is no difference. Is it duplication? Yep. Was it caught? Nope! Therefore it is a valid argument. Also a tag:wa explaining the resolution, will convince people that it isn't just a take away my nukes resolution, and in my opinion, is a great investment of 10 bucks....

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I don't agree with your interpretation of Resolution #292. It never grants nations an affirmative right to own nuclear weapons. All it says is that that resolution doesn't take away that right. Doesn't mean another resolution couldn't."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Omigodtheyclonedkenny]

Also a tag:wa explaining the resolution, will convince people that it isn't just a take away my nukes resolution, and in my opinion, is a great investment of 10 bucks....

It didn't work convincing nations that RF actually did force nations to legalize all late-term abortion. I delete all tag:WA telegrams anyway; I never read them.

It deals specifically with weapons,

It does not and you know it. All of the language pertains to the development of nuclear energy and is specifically focused on securing materials, etc...with "the potential for weaponization" or based on suspicion "that they will be weaponized". You cannot weaponize a weapon. (Or I guess you could, but there's not much point.) Therefore it does not apply to actual weapons.

Nice try, though.

[Chester Pearson]

It does not and you know it. All of the language pertains to the development of nuclear energy and is specifically focused on securing materials, etc...with "the potential for weaponization" or based on suspicion "that they will be weaponized". You cannot weaponize a weapon. (Or I guess you could, but there's not much point.) Therefore it does not apply to actual weapons.

Nice try, though.

Requires member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure their nuclear materials, technology and information that have the potential for weaponization are fully secured against unauthorized release,

Pretty hard to make a weapon if you can't get the materials. Also you can't transfer the weapon as the materials have already been weaponized, therefore it really can't fall into the "wrong hands" now can it?

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities.

That right there guarantees members the right to possess nuclear weapons, now doesn't it? And if that isn't enough:

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

Pretty hard to strike back with nuclear weapons if your not allowed to have them isn't it?

Like I said, those two resolutions made NAPA redundant, which was the whole point. It all lead up to this. Vote against it if you will, I only posted this draft here as a courtesy. Bob isn't even around anymore, so he is going to have a hard time defending his proposal. Once the queue clears up, this IS going to the floor with a full stamp campaign behind it. Are you ready to spend the ten or twenty bucks to counter that campaign?

[Omigodtheyclonedkenny]

That right there guarantees members the right to possess nuclear weapons, now doesn't it?

Oh, please. It's already been explained why that language doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed..." does not mean that future resolutions can't do it. You're not fooling anyone here. You might fool the General Assembly, but you can't fool us.

Oh - and you guys were the ones advocating repeal before based on the fact that nukes are harmful to children and other living things...right? I'm not buying this newfound neoconservative bluster of yours. A tiger can't change its stripes.

[Chester Pearson]

That right there guarantees members the right to possess nuclear weapons, now doesn't it?

Oh, please. It's already been explained why that language doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed..." does not mean that future resolutions can't do it. You're not fooling anyone here. You might fool the General Assembly, but you can't fool us.

Oh - and you guys were the ones advocating repeal before based on the fact that nukes are harmful to children and other living things...right? I'm not buying this newfound neoconservative bluster of yours. A tiger can't change its stripes.

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

Pretty hard to strike back with nuclear weapons if your not allowed to have them isn't it?

Is selective reading a Kennyite trait, or do those hoods shield your eyes too much? Also what stripes do I have to change? I laid the groundwork within not one, but two, yep count'em up two proposals that make nuclear disarmament a dead issue. Did I once try to take nukes away from anyone in those resolutions? All I am trying to do is repeal a redundant resolution, that is the target of non-stop repeal attempts. Most people here won't even read the other two, or will misconstrue them anyway....

[Linux and the X]

Let's say you manage to pass this. I then submit "ban all nukes forever". Is that part of res. 292? No, so the cited clause in res. 292 is irrelevant.

[The Stalker]

A few years back I actually tried to do this, as have several others. Here's mine for reference. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=153430

This is going to be a bit of an uphill battle, i'd suggest putting your efforts elsewhere. Most view it as a stable of the WA with little interest to repeal it or deal with the hole it leave behind if repealed.

[Christian Democrats]

This is all just a subterfuge for an effective ban on nuclear weapons.

The next proposal if this passes: A resolution to ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

[Normlpeople]

This is all just a subterfuge for an effective ban on nuclear weapons.

The next proposal if this passes: A resolution to ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Clover nods "The only reason to wish a repeal is a desire to ban such weapons. I shall not support it in any way."

[Mousebumples]

On behalf of Europeia:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, you're serious? Opposed.

[Linux and the X]

This is all just a subterfuge for an effective ban on nuclear weapons.

The next proposal if this passes: A resolution to ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Res. 10 wouldn't actually block that proposal, so there would be no need to repeal it for that purpose.

[Christian Democrats]

This is all just a subterfuge for an effective ban on nuclear weapons.

The next proposal if this passes: A resolution to ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Res. 10 wouldn't actually block that proposal, so there would be no need to repeal it for that purpose.

Arguably, manufacture is included in "the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons."

[Linux and the X]

Res. 10 wouldn't actually block that proposal, so there would be no need to repeal it for that purpose.

Arguably, manufacture is included in "the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons."

Flib has stated in the past that the resolution only prevents banning the possession of nuclear weapons, nothing else. (One could even argue it doesn't actually protect the right to possess nuclear weapons — it guarantees states the right to make a decision, not to implement it — but I doubt that argument would work. It'd be fun to try, though.)

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Arguably, manufacture is included in "the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons."

Flib has stated in the past that the resolution only prevents banning the possession of nuclear weapons, nothing else. (One could even argue it doesn't actually protect the right to possess nuclear weapons — it guarantees states the right to make a decision, not to implement it — but I doubt that argument would work.)

No, I don't think it would:

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,