[PASSED] Nuclear Material Safeguards

[Catochristoferson]

So far the vote is pretty close.

Also, I'm against the general idea of countries being able to possess nuclear weapons.

[98X]

This august World Assembly hereby:

Despite the pandering of this resolution, we are not "august."

98X votes against.

[Separatist Peoples]

So far the vote is pretty close.

Also, I'm against the general idea of countries being able to possess nuclear weapons.

"Several reps lotions already allow nuclear weapons ownership. This failing won't change that."

[Imperium Anglorum]

So far the vote is pretty close.

Also, I'm against the general idea of countries being able to possess nuclear weapons.

"Several reps lotions already allow nuclear weapons ownership. This failing won't change that."

Parsons: One resolution allows ownership. This is not the same as manufacture or the knowledge required to manufacture. This not failing will change the latter two.

[Goat Mom]

"4. Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to ensure that nuclear materials and knowledge are secured from the wrong hands by providing funds and assistance to nations which are unable to defend their own nuclear knowledge and technology."

Who really decides what "the wrong hands" are? The World Assembly?

Excuse me for butting in, but I'm strongly against nuclear armaments. Nuclear research is still quite valuable to the medical field, but with the real-world incidents of Fukushima and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl et al, and the knowledge of the devastation that even accidental contamination has on the environment, I have to strongly condemn this resolution as it is.

I am for nuclear disarmament.

I agree! This is my main concern with the proposal at hand. I understand I am to assume the creator's intentions are without harm, but it has the opportunity for a very unhealthy sort of corruption. Whoever decides who gets nuclear weapons can easily silence those who disagree with... well, nuclear weapons.

I also agree that nuclear research is valuable to the scientific field as a whole! As a nation whose main goal is scientific advancement and diplomacy, I could see the use of a proposal such as this for non-aggressive use of nuclear science. I feel as though it would better prepare us for the coming ages.

That being said, I must vote against, because I do not agree with the way this proposal will be enforced as well as the potential violence it could allow for.

[Ghostopolis]

Several representatives and delegations duck and cry out in alarm at the sound of a small boom accompanied by a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. After about thirty seconds the smoke clears and standing at a nearby podium is Ambassador Geist, dusting off his suit and adjusting his tie. He tips his small black hat to the concerned witnesses, some of whom shoot him dirty looks while another slowly peers out from under a desk.

"As delegate of The Versutian Federation, this nation has cast its vote against the resolution in question. This nation disagrees with the premise of this resolution. Why does this assembly need to codify in law a prohibition against obtaining the materials to build a nuclear weapon? It is not illegal to have nuclear weapons, therefore we are solving a problem that does not exist. This nation understands that some fear a materials ban will be used as a roundabout way of banning nuclear weapons, but the prohibition conceived of in this resolution ties the hands of nations who may choose not to indulge in the creation of nuclear weapons. Both are unfortunate and we do not support either outcome. It is one thing to assert the right to do something, but quite another to prevent nations from enforcing law that essentially allows them to opt out. Let us trust that if this assembly asserts a right, it will continue to protect that right by opposing any measures that will curtail it. If the author of this resolution and its supporters can see the danger, surely they can see it in potential resolutions that would erode this right that is frankly cherished by so many and already vehemently defended. Furthermore, we find this resolution rather poorly written and in need of a final draft. Good day."

The ambassador steps away from the podium as once again a tiny explosion takes him out of sight in a cloud of smoke. The nearby officials wince and grumble, while the same man from before dives under the desk with a yelp.

[The Imperial Frost Federation]

"4. Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to ensure that nuclear materials and knowledge are secured from the wrong hands by providing funds and assistance to nations which are unable to defend their own nuclear knowledge and technology."

Who really decides what "the wrong hands" are? The World Assembly?

Excuse me for butting in, but I'm strongly against nuclear armaments. Nuclear research is still quite valuable to the medical field, but with the real-world incidents of Fukushima and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl et al, and the knowledge of the devastation that even accidental contamination has on the environment, I have to strongly condemn this resolution as it is.

I am for nuclear disarmament.

I agree! This is my main concern with the proposal at hand. I understand I am to assume the creator's intentions are without harm, but it has the opportunity for a very unhealthy sort of corruption. Whoever decides who gets nuclear weapons can easily silence those who disagree with... well, nuclear weapons.

I also agree that nuclear research is valuable to the scientific field as a whole! As a nation whose main goal is scientific advancement and diplomacy, I could see the use of a proposal such as this for non-aggressive use of nuclear science. I feel as though it would better prepare us for the coming ages.

That being said, I must vote against, because I do not agree with the way this proposal will be enforced as well as the potential violence it could allow for.

Lt. Nakiri, "The wrong hands would imply countries, organizations, terrorist cells, cults and individuals who seek to destabilize a country within the WA using nuclear weapons. As of this moment following the repeal of the Nuclear Security Convention we have a dangerous legal void that allows certain WA members to engage in acts of State Sponsored nuclear terrorism by supplying unaffiliated entities with the know how to build a nuke. This bill would prevent that by having an impartial body the NESC monitor the nuclear development capabilities of nuclear armed states such as myself and prevent the transaction of sending vital nuclear information to entities seeking to destabilize the WA."

[Rotovia-]

"It is the long standing view of our government, that sovereign nations have the right to maintain as proportional deterrent to those nations who would mean us harm; nuclear arms.

It cannot be forgotton the posession, use, and threat of nuclear armaments extends beyond the jurisdiction of the WA. In practice, this means disarmament of our members, is to place a quarter of the world at the mercy of the lone wolves of international relations.

Further, we applaud this motion as it recognises that the right of the Commonwealth to defend itself is not one that falls with the purview of the WA to violate.

This proposed resolution has the absolute support of the Rotovian Government."

Dame Dr Helen Dupree-Ironwright
Acting Ambassador to the WA

[Catochristoferson]

"4. Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to ensure that nuclear materials and knowledge are secured from the wrong hands by providing funds and assistance to nations which are unable to defend their own nuclear knowledge and technology."

Who really decides what "the wrong hands" are? The World Assembly?

Excuse me for butting in, but I'm strongly against nuclear armaments. Nuclear research is still quite valuable to the medical field, but with the real-world incidents of Fukushima and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl et al, and the knowledge of the devastation that even accidental contamination has on the environment, I have to strongly condemn this resolution as it is.

I am for nuclear disarmament.

I agree! This is my main concern with the proposal at hand. I understand I am to assume the creator's intentions are without harm, but it has the opportunity for a very unhealthy sort of corruption. Whoever decides who gets nuclear weapons can easily silence those who disagree with... well, nuclear weapons.

I also agree that nuclear research is valuable to the scientific field as a whole! As a nation whose main goal is scientific advancement and diplomacy, I could see the use of a proposal such as this for non-aggressive use of nuclear science. I feel as though it would better prepare us for the coming ages.

That being said, I must vote against, because I do not agree with the way this proposal will be enforced as well as the potential violence it could allow for.

I 100% agree. Unwanted violence (especially within the World Assembly of all places) is bound to happen, as well as corruption.

Currently the votes are 3,317 for and 2,995 against

[The Underwood Industrial Empire]

The use of nuclear power, whether for civilian or military purposes, is the perogative of the national government, and should not be subject to ruling by the World Assembly. To put simply, if a nation wants it, they will find some way to get it, whether this "august" body approves or not. There is also a matter of the wording; this measure is intended, and I quote, "to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets". Why should the budgetary decisions of a national government be a matter for the World Assembly?

Most importantly, however, the U.I.E. has its experience with the dangers of nuclear energy, both civilian and military, having been formed from a prior nation consumed by years of civil war. We are not against the idea of a cooperative with other nations to bolster our defense, but we are of the belief that there must be less potentially catastrophic (not to mention less bureaucratically intrusive) ways of doing so.

Therefore, as directed by the Emperor-President and the Council of the States in Underwood City, the U.I.E. votes against this measure.

[New Korongo]

“It appears that the resolution at vote broadly duplicates the intentions of the now-repealed Nuclear Security Convention, but it also seems to promote the proliferation of nuclear arms at the same time. However, this is not the primary concern the Korongolese government has with Nuclear Material Safeguards. How can we, as a responsible state, vote in favour of international legislation which uses the term ‘the wrong hands’ as the primary safeguard against the sale of nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations? Obviously we have elected to vote against Nuclear Material Safeguards.”

[Unibot III]

Eduard sighs, "Not more of this 'wrong hands' shit. Against." He adds, "how does any competent legislator fall into the trap of thinking 'wrong hands' is even close to universally definable? I think Omigodtheykilledkenny is the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, they think Unibot is the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, terrorists think we're the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, we think they're the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, arms dealers think everybody is the right hands for nuclear weapons and activists think nobody is. At this rate the only thing we'll agree on is that there are a lot of hands in the world and this resolution does not do a sufficient job distinguishing between the right hands, the wrong hands, the sometimes-right and the often-wrong hands or better yet, our allies' right hands and the enemies' wrong hands, not to be mention the pays-well and the pays-very-well hands. "

[Bears Armed]

Who cares if non WA nations blow themselves up? Not me. I only care about what my fellow WA nations do.

But what if non-WA nations blow YOU up?

"But doesn't your nation have 'Ignore Cannon', or some variation on that concept, to prevent such an occurrence? My own homeland uses specially-bred and trained Ostriches in such a role, ourrselves, but we don't know of any other nation here that does so and I thought that the technological alternatives were quite widespread...
"Hr'rmm, might your government be interested in buying some of ourr surplus 'Ignorant' Ostriches? They're easy to keep and to deploy, and you even get eggs -- lovely, larrrge eggs -- as a useful byproduct."


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

[Wallenburg]

"This is quite the interesting vote, although it seems that the delegate from Mousebumples holds a grip over whether this resolution goes into law."

[Catochristoferson]

Eduard sighs, "Not more of this 'wrong hands' shit. Against." He adds, "how does any competent legislator fall into the trap of thinking 'wrong hands' is even close to universally definable? I think Omigodtheykilledkenny is the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, they think Unibot is the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, terrorists think we're the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, we think they're the wrong hands for nuclear weapons, arms dealers think everybody is the right hands for nuclear weapons and activists think nobody is. At this rate the only thing we'll agree on is that there are a lot of hands in the world and this resolution does not do a sufficient job distinguishing between the right hands, the wrong hands, the sometimes-right and the often-wrong hands or better yet, our allies' right hands and the enemies' wrong hands, not to be mention the pays-well and the pays-very-well hands. "

Eduard, I wish there was a way to like forum posts.

But there isn't.

I tried typing something in response to what people were screaming wasnthe " reason for nuclear weapons", but my ellipse tablet crashed and you already said why was needed to be said.

Well done.

[Pax Americium]

The Empire of Pax Americium votes for Nuclear Armament, in fact, I believe there needs to be more.
Nations outside the WA are perfectly well armed with them why should the nations of the WA unarmed themselves?

It's like taking guns away from the military because we're opposed to violence and believe it will set the example to belligerent nations.
It is absurd.

My tiny region is 100% for this as well.

EDIT: I agree that the WA has no place deciding the budgets of defense for individual nations. However, I agree with what others have said about a rewrite with perhaps securing the right to nuclear weapons, but hands off national defense budgets.

[Socio Polor]

We must do whatever it takes to protect our countries from enemy nations and regions I agree with, but nuclear weapons? That will jeopardize the entire planet.

[Wallenburg]

We must do whatever it takes to protect our countries from enemy nations and regions I agree with, but nuclear weapons? That will jeopardize the entire planet.

"Ambassador, there are far more civilizations that those that exist on your planet. And the World Assembly already has guaranteed the right of nations to possess nuclear arsenals."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm happy to see this failing. I believe that the proposed revisions made not long after submission would be a superior alternative, and would support the less verbose version with gusto. I hope, ambassador, this is taken not as a failure, but as a second chance."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I'm happy to see this failing. I believe that the proposed revisions made not long after submission would be a superior alternative, and would support the less verbose version with gusto. I hope, ambassador, this is taken not as a failure, but as a second chance."

Parsons: This was a shot we took on the basis of 'eh, it could work, let's do it'. Victory was already attained some time ago.

[The Silver Sentinel]

"I'm happy to see this failing. I believe that the proposed revisions made not long after submission would be a superior alternative, and would support the less verbose version with gusto. I hope, ambassador, this is taken not as a failure, but as a second chance."

Parsons: This was a shot we took on the basis of 'eh, it could work, let's do it'. Victory was already attained some time ago.

And how per se was victory achieved? I personally don't consider letting civilians possess nuclear weapons a victory.

[Tinfect]

Parsons: This was a shot we took on the basis of 'eh, it could work, let's do it'. Victory was already attained some time ago.

And how per se was victory achieved? I personally don't consider letting civilians possess nuclear weapons a victory.

OOC:
Okay, SS, knock it the fuck off. You know damn well that abso-fucking-lutely nothing in this proposal Mandates that we give Civilians Nuclear Weapons. Stop spreading this line of complete bullshit.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This august World Assembly hereby:

Despite the pandering of this resolution, we are not "august."

OED says, 'august: respected and impressive'

---

This nation understands that some fear a materials ban will be used as a roundabout way of banning nuclear weapons, but the prohibition conceived of in this resolution ties the hands of nations who may choose not to indulge in the creation of nuclear weapons. Both are unfortunate and we do not support either outcome. It is one thing to assert the right to do something, but quite another to prevent nations from enforcing law that essentially allows them to opt out. Let us trust that if this assembly asserts a right, it will continue to protect that right by opposing any measures that will curtail it.

There exist situations where one can possess and choose not to exercise rights. Such is the same with this resolution. Nobody is requiring that a state develop nuclear weapons. Yet, the resolution would require that the World Assembly not prohibit the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons.

---

I agree! This is my main concern with the proposal at hand. I understand I am to assume the creator's intentions are without harm, but it has the opportunity for a very unhealthy sort of corruption. Whoever decides who gets nuclear weapons can easily silence those who disagree with... well, nuclear weapons.

Well, if you have nuclear weapons as well, they won't bother trying to silence you. This is why the advent of nuclear arsenals has obliterated large-scale wars between nuclear-armed sides. (OOC: It is unimaginable that Russia, China, the United States, etc. would declare war on each other due entirely to the reason that nuclear arms would make this the last war in history. Governments would rather exist and govern than otherwise, so by raising the costs of conflict to an unimaginable level, governments choose to avoid conflict.)

That being said, I must vote against, because I do not agree with the way this proposal will be enforced as well as the potential violence it could allow for.

There already exists a resolution to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in a non-defensive manner.

---

There is also a matter of the wording; this measure is intended, and I quote, "to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets". Why should the budgetary decisions of a national government be a matter for the World Assembly?

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'.[/quote]

---

“It appears that the resolution at vote broadly duplicates the intentions of the now-repealed Nuclear Security Convention, but it also seems to promote the proliferation of nuclear arms at the same time. However, this is not the primary concern the Korongolese government has with Nuclear Material Safeguards. How can we, as a responsible state, vote in favour of international legislation which uses the term ‘the wrong hands’ as the primary safeguard against the sale of nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations? Obviously we have elected to vote against Nuclear Material Safeguards.”

First, you can define the 'wrong hands'. Second, a proviso detailing what is meant by 'wrong hands' is already present, that is, those which conspire against the stability of member nations.

[The Silver Sentinel]

And how per se was victory achieved? I personally don't consider letting civilians possess nuclear weapons a victory.

OOC:
Okay, SS, knock it the fuck off. You know damn well that abso-fucking-lutely nothing in this proposal Mandates that we give Civilians Nuclear Weapons. Stop spreading this line of complete bullshit.

Learn to read. IA was stating victory was achieved when the NSC was repealed. I was asking how that was a victory.

[The Underwood Industrial Empire]

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'.

The implication I was getting from that wording was that the purpose of the measure was a means by the World Assembly to dictate how the sovereign member states allocate their budgets. If this was not your intention, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

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.