[PASSED] Nuclear Material Safeguards

[Imperium Anglorum]

If this resolution were not in the category 'international security', this would be impossible to pass. Unfortunately, this is the only place where this resolution would fit, unless you were to create some kind of category for 'national rights'.

That said, however, the Emperor-President has made clear that there will be no allocation of any kind in the U.I.E.'s budget towards the construction of nuclear facilities of any kind, civilian or military, nor will we cast any vote in this assembly in support of such measures. We deem it an unnecessary risk, both politically and environmentally, speaking from our past experiences.

Parsons: I would then respond that there is nothing in the resolution which would force your nation to allocate anything in its budget towards such construction or expenditures.

[Losthaven]

Losthaven votes no. Generally, the world envisioned by the proponents of this legislation - one in which most member nations arm themselves and others with world destroying weapons because they are afraid of a "non-member" boogie man - is not one in which we would like to live. Specifically, this proposal does the following unpalatable things:

1. Promotes Nuclear Holocaust by "affirming" the "right" to use nuclear weapons.

Affirming the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces

2. Perpetuates the "us versus them" mentality with regards to non-member nations.

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations

3. Creates an international "right of member nations" to sell nuclear weapons.

Maintains the right of member nations to manufacture and trade nuclear weapons or reactors, to possess the materials required in such manufacture, and to acquire the materials required in such manufacture

4. Creates an ill-defined "right of member nations" to " have knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons" without any real guidance on what it means to have the right to have knowledge of a particular kind of trade, and how on earth that right would be enforced. (For example, if Blackacre does not have "knowledge" about the "trade of nuclear weapons" in Whiteacre, is Whiteacre required to turn over all of the info they have on that trade to Blackacre? If not, what exactly does it mean to have a right to have knowledge of the trade in nuclear weapons? Does this merely legalize spying so long as the spy is attempting to acquire knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons?)

Maintains the right of member nations to have knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons or reactors, to possess such knowledge, and to acquire such knowledge

5. Weakly plagerises the NAPA in a way that essentially copies the language of that act while adding and changing just enough to technically not violate the rules.

Mandates that member nations take all practical actions to safeguard the manufacture and knowledge spoken of in the first two clauses from the wrong hands, especially those which conspire against the stability of member nations

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

[Paffnia]

For the technical faults of the proposal (some of which GRO pointed out upthread), for its similarity and unnecessary additions to NAPA, and for its continued endorsement of the "right" to develop, possess, and deploy nukes, the opinion of the 10000 Islands is AGAINST this resolution, and I have voted accordingly.

[Araraukar]

"It sucks for you that the majority of the WA is rabidly pro-nuke, now doesn't it?"

OOC: Yes, it does, as much as the bloody stupid fearmongering about non-WA nations. Voted against on PPU because of that reason. And also because it's a pacifist nation...

[Insaynitia]

The mandate to keep weapons "out of the wrong hands" directly contradicts the first right, which maintains the right of member nations to trade and keep said weapons. The loophole basically allows members of the World Assembly to stockpile weapons, even if they conspire against the WA... I will vote against this because of lack of clarity and the evident loophole caused by said lack of clarity. If the publisher will clean up and explain the terms and conditions of the proposal by submitting a new one, I will perhaps vote for it... but not now.

[Separatist Peoples]

"It sucks for you that the majority of the WA is rabidly pro-nuke, now doesn't it?"

OOC: Yes, it does, as much as the bloody stupid fearmongering about non-WA nations. Voted against on PPU because of that reason. And also because it's a pacifist nation...

OOC: it isn't fearmongering, it's math. WA members are outnumbered, what, 10:1 by nonmembers? That means that only one in every ten potential states is bound by the same rules in the event of disarmament. So, if a member state gets into a fight with a random nation, which is basically how half the fights in II work, there is 9/10 chance that the bad guy is free to fight as they like.

That doesn't mean every nonmember is a slavering demon with an axe to grind, but it highlights how WA members disarming doesn't make the world safer, but actually weakens the IC strength of WA nations. IC pacifism aside, until the WA makes up the vast majority of nations in the world, disarmament will have absolutely no effect because of the WA members being outnumbered.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Yes, it does, as much as the bloody stupid fearmongering about non-WA nations. Voted against on PPU because of that reason. And also because it's a pacifist nation...

OOC: it isn't fearmongering, it's math. WA members are outnumbered, what, 10:1 by nonmembers? That means that only one in every ten potential states is bound by the same rules in the event of disarmament. So, if a member state gets into a fight with a random nation, which is basically how half the fights in II work, there is 9/10 chance that the bad guy is free to fight as they like.

That doesn't mean every nonmember is a slavering demon with an axe to grind, but it highlights how WA members disarming doesn't make the world safer, but actually weakens the IC strength of WA nations. IC pacifism aside, until the WA makes up the vast majority of nations in the world, disarmament will have absolutely no effect because of the WA members being outnumbered.

Right now, it's 6.52 : 1. That's why I said 'there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations'.

---

Losthaven votes no. Generally, the world envisioned by the proponents of this legislation - one in which most member nations arm themselves and others with world destroying weapons because they are afraid of a "non-member" boogie man - is not one in which we would like to live.

Turns out, you live in that world already. This legislation doesn't make that world. It keeps that would from changing to an even worse point where member nations are disarmed and non-member nations are not.

1. Promotes Nuclear Holocaust by "affirming" the "right" to use nuclear weapons.

Affirming the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces

Look at the Nuclear Arms Protocol. That enshrines the ability of member nations to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Look at Napa, that also enshrines the ability of member nations to retaliate with nuclear weapons. That right already exists. This doesn't create that right. In both worlds where this goes on or doesn't go on the books, that right exists. In fact, it's already status quo.

2. Perpetuates the "us versus them" mentality with regards to non-member nations.

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations

Generally, when someone fights someone else, they would like to do so on fair ground. Or, at least, where their arms aren't tied behind their back or a stab wound covered up with armour (OOC: Gladiator reference). This makes sure that can happen. Even if this doesn't go on the books, member nations would still have the ability to take such actions.

4. Creates an ill-defined "right of member nations" to " have knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons" without any real guidance on what it means to have the right to have knowledge of a particular kind of trade, and how on earth that right would be enforced. (For example, if Blackacre does not have "knowledge" about the "trade of nuclear weapons" in Whiteacre, is Whiteacre required to turn over all of the info they have on that trade to Blackacre? If not, what exactly does it mean to have a right to have knowledge of the trade in nuclear weapons? Does this merely legalize spying so long as the spy is attempting to acquire knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons?)

Maintains the right of member nations to have knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons or reactors, to possess such knowledge, and to acquire such knowledge

There is no provision which states that nations must possess the knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons. There is a right to have such knowledge. There is nothing which states that member nations must possess it and that other member nations must take all actions necessary such that other member nations possess it. The law does what the law says. Spying would also probably fall afoul of the 'wrong hands' provision if you view that spy as the wrong hands, who, considering that you've called them a spy, probably are.

[Wrapper]

Right now, it's 6.52 : 1. That's why I said 'there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations'.

OOC: Literally, yes, but not really though, if you discount puppets. For example, last I checked, not counting my recent CTEs (goodbye, Anthropomorphic Potatoes, we hardly knew ye) I still have about ten or twelve nations, with only one, of course, in the WA. And, puppet wanking is usually discouraged in RPs, so, I can't really spool up nukes in nine puppet nations to attack one nation. So, to me, using such scaremongery stats to justify this kind of resolution is really not good form.

[Povinksi]

OOC: I'm back!
IC: Full support.

[Araraukar]

OOC: it isn't fearmongering, it's math. WA members are outnumbered, what, 10:1 by nonmembers? That means that only one in every ten potential states is bound by the same rules in the event of disarmament.

OOC: Disarmament's not going happen with NAPA, and I still fail to see the issue. Is II so full of non-WA nations attacking WA nations that the fearmongering has any basis on even in the IC reality? Hell, a third of the non-WA nations is probably owned by WA nations' players.

last I checked, not counting my recent CTEs (goodbye, Anthropomorphic Potatoes, we hardly knew ye) I still have about ten or twelve nations, with only one, of course, in the WA.

Case in point. And I'm at 1 WA (PPU), 2 non-WA (Araraukar and WA Kitty Kops) nations myself.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: it isn't fearmongering, it's math. WA members are outnumbered, what, 10:1 by nonmembers? That means that only one in every ten potential states is bound by the same rules in the event of disarmament.

OOC: Disarmament's not going happen with NAPA, and I still fail to see the issue. Is II so full of non-WA nations attacking WA nations that the fearmongering has any basis on even in the IC reality? Hell, a third of the non-WA nations is probably owned by WA nations' players.

OOC: NAPA is not a universal defense against disarmament at all. It protects possession, not use, of nuclear weapons.

From an IC standpoint, the puppets are irrelevant: there are, as I've been corrected, ~7 nonmembers to members, and puppets that aren't associated with a nation directly are, ostensibly, foreign wild cards.

This isn't an example of Non-Members vs Members in some epic bipolar slugfest, nonmembers blow each other up all the time. But for members, that makes potential enemies statistically more likely to be better armed.

[The New Dog Nation]

Oh geez, this is really close.

I feel like my tactic of blindly following the majority isn't going to work.

I think for the first time, I'm going to have to abstain.

[Araraukar]

OOC: NAPA is not a universal defense against disarmament at all. It protects possession, not use, of nuclear weapons.

OOC: I see we're reading the different parts of that word's definition.

Noun
disarmament ‎(countable and uncountable, plural disarmaments)

* The reduction or the abolition of the military forces and armaments of a nation, and of its capability to wage war

This is how I read "disarmament" and this is how you understand the term. In my reading NAPA is enough as it says WA can't demand you destroy the nuclear weapons.

[Sakaki]

There is no provision which states that nations must possess the knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons. There is a right to have such knowledge. There is nothing which states that member nations must possess it and that other member nations must take all actions necessary such that other member nations possess it. The law does what the law says. Spying would also probably fall afoul of the 'wrong hands' provision if you view that spy as the wrong hands, who, considering that you've called them a spy, probably are.

I'm a little confused on this point. What then is the purpose of including an unenforceable right like this? A nation has the 'right' to have access to nuclear knowledge but a nation can also refuse to give that knowledge? Was there a previous resolution that impeded on a nation's ability to acquire such knowledge? If not, I don't see why this needed to be included at all. It feels redundant and unnecessary.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Was there a previous resolution that impeded on a nation's ability to acquire such knowledge? If not, I don't see why this needed to be included at all. It feels redundant and unnecessary.

Yes, there was.

[Sakaki]

Was there a previous resolution that impeded on a nation's ability to acquire such knowledge? If not, I don't see why this needed to be included at all. It feels redundant and unnecessary.

Yes, there was.

I see. Well, then that creates a legal paradox of which resolution is correct. To be clear, I voted for the resolution but if there is a WA law prohibiting the sharing of atomic knowledge between member-states already in existence then this clause is in direct interference. It doesn't make sense and perhaps the previous resolution should be repealed before including section 2 of the bill.

EDIT: My bad, I didn't realize at first the resolution was being referred to in the past tense. Regardless, I'm still iffy on this clause for reasons stated in the previous post.

[Wrapper]

Should this resolution pass, we the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper shall be drafting a repeal. We feel that the language of this legislation is muddled, that the clauses contradict each other, and that "the wrong hands" is a nonsense phrase, rendering this an unqualified, costly mess.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Should this resolution pass, we the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper shall be drafting a repeal. We feel that the language of this legislation is muddled, that the clauses contradict each other, and that "the wrong hands" is a nonsense phrase, rendering this an unqualified, costly mess.

Parsons: And, should it pass, we will be glad to propose very similar legislation addressing all the concerns which came out of the woodwork.

[Wrapper]

Should this resolution pass, we the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper shall be drafting a repeal. We feel that the language of this legislation is muddled, that the clauses contradict each other, and that "the wrong hands" is a nonsense phrase, rendering this an unqualified, costly mess.

Parsons: And, should it pass, we will be glad to propose very similar legislation addressing all the concerns which came out of the woodwork.

OOC: Or you could switch your vote to against, and make the process a little shorter. Hmmm, then again, I really wouldn't mind a "(x2)" on my GA badge....

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: And, should it pass, we will be glad to propose very similar legislation addressing all the concerns which came out of the woodwork.

OOC: Or you could switch your vote to against, and make the process a little shorter. Hmmm, then again, I really wouldn't mind a "(x2)" on my GA badge....

Parsons: Unfortunately, such a consideration is impossible. Our region has voted heavily in favour of the resolution, and I feel obligated to vote in the same way as my region.

[Catochristoferson]

HOW ARE THE PRO'S LEADING?????

A better solution would be to directly kill the political/military leaders, not ahnnialate an entire population of civilians. How come this rarely happens in war?

Also, non WA members don't matter, like the other Cons are saying.

[Wallenburg]

HOW ARE THE PRO'S LEADING?????

A better solution would be to directly kill the political/military leaders, not ahnnialate an entire population of civilians. How come this rarely happens in war?

Also, non WA members don't matter, like the other Cons are saying.

OOC/IC: What are you on about?

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

The voting in Anime is neck-and-neck, much the same as the rest of this Assembly, we see. However, the Nays have a one vote lead in our region, so we must respectfully vote Against the resolution.

[The Constellation Islands]

The Constellation Islands respectfully votes against this resolution. It dictates how a sovereign nation can handle/not handle nuclear weapons, which is a violation of our core beliefs.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

HOW ARE THE PRO'S LEADING?????

A better solution would be to directly kill the political/military leaders, not ahnnialate an entire population of civilians. How come this rarely happens in war?

Also, non WA members don't matter, like the other Cons are saying.

OOC/IC: What are you on about?

"Well, I can't speak for the bit about non-members, but you can never ignore the writings of Mord the Malignant on the Order of Assassins:

Surrounded by Moslem maniacs on one side and Christian maniacs on the other, the wise Lord Hassan preserved his people and his cult by bringing the art of assassination to aesthetic perfection. With just a few daggers strategically placed in exactly the right throats, he found Wisdom's alternative to war, and preserved the peoples by killing their leaders. Truly, his was a most exemplary life of grandmotherly kindness.

"As may be predicted, leaders have gotten a bit better at shielding themselves from this sort of thing. Hence, wars. The Catochristofersonian ambassador may be interested to learn that there are entire bureaucracies and military units dedicated to preventing any further grandmotherly kindness from ever turning the tides of misery."

"But I'm afraid that's all quite beyond the scope of the current discussion."