[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Security Convention"

[Confederation of Common Sense]

If this passes, I am immediately leaving the WA. This is a stain on the WA's aims toward peace and tranquility.

I, after taking a course on international affairs at university¹, have always held the position that nuclear weapons are one of the greatest tools for peace ever developed. They have made the costs to war so high and so immediate that any attack is unimaginable because it would summon back to the fore the ghost of total annihilation. All nations with nuclear weapons will never give them up, because they are integral to the security dilemma. All nations without nuclear weapons want them, because after getting them, they will never be existentially threatened again.

By imposing such immense costs to conflict, multi-state war between any nuclear powers has become effectively impossible, allowing us to have the world we have today, one of greater peace and safety than ever before; the spectre of millions dying in the fields of France or the islands of the Pacific has now permanently disappeared.

This fails to take into account the fact that nuclear weapons are also used to blackmail other nations, such as The Interview Incident involving North Korea and the United States. North Korea wouldn't have had the courage to have the movie pulled and therefore violate another nation's sovereignty if they did not have nuclear weapons.

[John Turner]

I, after taking a course on international affairs at university¹, have always held the position that nuclear weapons are one of the greatest tools for peace ever developed. They have made the costs to war so high and so immediate that any attack is unimaginable because it would summon back to the fore the ghost of total annihilation. All nations with nuclear weapons will never give them up, because they are integral to the security dilemma. All nations without nuclear weapons want them, because after getting them, they will never be existentially threatened again.

By imposing such immense costs to conflict, multi-state war between any nuclear powers has become effectively impossible, allowing us to have the world we have today, one of greater peace and safety than ever before; the spectre of millions dying in the fields of France or the islands of the Pacific has now permanently disappeared.

OOC: Great. So how is repealing this going to change anything? Any nation can be founded within 5 minutes and claim that they have a huge nuclear arsenal whether or not this is in place or not. Maybe you should remember NS >-< Real Life. But you know, keep on the present course, and you will be just like CD.

[Confederation of Common Sense]

I, after taking a course on international affairs at university¹, have always held the position that nuclear weapons are one of the greatest tools for peace ever developed. They have made the costs to war so high and so immediate that any attack is unimaginable because it would summon back to the fore the ghost of total annihilation. All nations with nuclear weapons will never give them up, because they are integral to the security dilemma. All nations without nuclear weapons want them, because after getting them, they will never be existentially threatened again.

By imposing such immense costs to conflict, multi-state war between any nuclear powers has become effectively impossible, allowing us to have the world we have today, one of greater peace and safety than ever before; the spectre of millions dying in the fields of France or the islands of the Pacific has now permanently disappeared.

OOC: Great. So how is repealing this going to change anything? Any nation can be founded within 5 minutes and claim that they have a huge nuclear arsenal whether or not this is in place or not. Maybe you should remember NS >-< Real Life. But you know, keep on the present course, and you will be just like CD.

Then why have laws against murder by your logic? You might as well admit that you're an Anarchist.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Great. So how is repealing this going to change anything? Any nation can be founded within 5 minutes and claim that they have a huge nuclear arsenal whether or not this is in place or not. Maybe you should remember NS >-< Real Life. But you know, keep on the present course, and you will be just like CD.

Then why have laws against murder by your logic? You might as well admit that you're an Anarchist.

OOC: IC =/= OOC. Swing and a miss. JT was comparing IC arguments with OOC roleplay convention.

[Confederation of Common Sense]

Then why have laws against murder by your logic? You might as well admit that you're an Anarchist.

OOC: IC =/= OOC. Swing and a miss. JT was comparing IC arguments with OOC roleplay convention.

Except that I was REFERRING to the IC-OOC arguments. Swing and a miss for you.

[John Turner]

OOC: IC =/= OOC. Swing and a miss. JT was comparing IC arguments with OOC roleplay convention.

Except that I was REFERRING to the IC-OOC arguments. Swing and a miss for you.

You may have misinterpreted me. I was pointing out to the "author" that trying to make an ooc argument to justify an RP position is asinine. From an IC perspective this resolution is meant to keep nuclear weapons and that technology to manufacture them out of the hands of nations and groups that have no desire to develop them indigenously, and are looking for the fast nuke "i.e. ISIS, Iran, Syria, Libya ect...." , where as from an OOC perspective, I can create a new nation in 10 seconds and claim that I am sitting on 50000 warheads and there is not a god-damn thing anyone can do about it.

(For further information, I am the author of the original resolution. This is not an attempt to make the WA a better place, this is a cheap shot by the author directed solely at me, solely designed to justify an inferiority complex.)

[Wrapper]

Ugh. Well, obviously, we vote against this, as any roadblock to the proliferation and sale of doomsday weapons are desirable.

Shoe banging. Really. How uncouth.

[John Turner]

I do love the scare-o-gram that the "author" used to get this to quorum:

From: Foreign Office, Greyhall
To: Foreign Secretary, %NATION%

In February of this year, a proposal came up to vote on repealing the Nuclear Arms Possession Act (NAPA), the act which prevents the World Assembly from banning the possession of nuclear weapons.

The proposal, submitted by now ex-nation Chester Pearson, argued for a repeal based on his belief that the Nuclear Security Convention and the Nuclear Arms Protocol (both his resolutions) duplicated the entirety of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act and hence, made Napa pointless.

The resolution also has numerous issues, including:

1. Prohibitions on the sale or transfer of nuclear weapons by member states to their allies à la the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1960s,

2. Prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology, thereby degrading the ability of nations to assist in collective defence,

3. De facto prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear energy technologies, thereby preventing cheap and clean electricity from being more readily available, and

4. Prohibitions on the transfer of specifications of any kind, thereby increasing the risk and danger of nuclear accidents and radiation contamination.

With other issues on the failure of the resolution to give limits on the ability of member states to prevent the transfer of nuclear technologies and the enforceability of its provisions, I hope that you vote in favour of repealing this awfully flawed resolution.

I hope you and your nation the best,

HG Cyril Parsons
Permanent Representative for Imperium Anglorum

Allow me to rebut it?

1. Prohibitions on the sale or transfer of nuclear weapons by member states to their allies à la the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1960s,

Which would be illegal under the Non-Proliferation treaty since it's passage, which this resolution seeks to replicate in NS.

2. Prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology, thereby degrading the ability of nations to assist in collective defence,

Disingenuous statement. If the author is referring to nuclear submarines or warships, they cannot be weaponized, they are simply a delivery system which this does not regulate.

3. De facto prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear energy technologies, thereby preventing cheap and clean electricity from being more readily available, and

Disingenuous statement. The NSC clearly states "Demands that member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear technology, design specifications, and materials if there is reason to suspect that they will weaponized,". It is pretty hard to weaponize a nuclear reactor as you cannot make a reactor detonate.

4. Prohibitions on the transfer of specifications of any kind, thereby increasing the risk and danger of nuclear accidents and radiation contamination.

Yet another disingenuous statement. The NSC clearly states: "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".

Had the author made any one of these arguments in the actual repeal it would have been yanked as an honest-mistake.

[1-502nd Airborne Inf]

I haven't met a repeal that I didn't like...DOWN with the WA!!

[John Turner]

I haven't met a repeal that I didn't like...DOWN with the WA!!

Then why do you approve literally every resolution you receive a telegram about?

[Ghostopolis]

As the debate rages, Ambassador Geist slithers through the crowd, touching his hat so as not to lose it in the hustle and bustle. After briefly dissipating into a cloud to avoid a couple of ambassadors throwing punches over a dispute regarding nuclear non-proliferation, the ambassador reforms at a nearby podium, expelling its former occupant, who stumbles over coughing from the polluted air emitted by the ambassador.

"The nation of Ghostopolis, in its capacity as delegate of The Versutian Federation, has cast its vote in favor of the resolution in question. We supported the original resolution, considering it a reasonable means to discourage nuclear proliferation and foster safer use of nuclear materials. This nation still believes the resolution is workable and largely achieves its aims, but we are compelled not only by the specific rebuttals in this repeal but by the overwhelming vote of our region. This subject is difficult to navigate no matter what resolution is passed by this assembly, as the nations and regions around us who have nuclear weapons and are not bound by our laws make the playing field quite unequal. This nation is inclined to support reasonable restrictions on nuclear material in WA member nations as we aim to make a better world, but it is a very thin line to walk to balance that ideal with the concerns of national security and the stark difference in offensive capability compared to non-member nations. Perhaps another resolution can approach this issue differently. This nation for one would be willing to give similar resolutions a try to see how they fare in practice, but we suspect this issue will be one that sees a great deal of trial and error before this assembly finds a resolution that will satisfactorily strike the balance required. Thank you."

The ambassador tips his hat and slithers backward through the crowd.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Except that I was REFERRING to the IC-OOC arguments. Swing and a miss for you.

You may have misinterpreted me. I was pointing out to the "author" that trying to make an ooc argument to justify an RP position is asinine. From an IC perspective this resolution is meant to keep nuclear weapons and that technology to manufacture them out of the hands of nations and groups that have no desire to develop them indigenously, and are looking for the fast nuke "i.e. ISIS, Iran, Syria, Libya ect...." , where as from an OOC perspective, I can create a new nation in 10 seconds and claim that I am sitting on 50000 warheads and there is not a god-damn thing anyone can do about it.

OOC: You have misinterpreted my statement. The entire thing about the statement is elucidating a belief in favour of nuclear proliferation as a means of imposing costs on war so high that they lead to peace.

(For further information, I am the author of the original resolution. This is not an attempt to make the WA a better place, this is a cheap shot by the author directed solely at me, solely designed to justify an inferiority complex.)

Wow. You really do have a massive vendetta against me. I've opposed four of your attempts (one here, the NAPA repeal, the thing about nuclear testing, and the recent repeal proposals) and you then make a mouse into a dragon and need to send telegrams out to try to unseat me from my Delegacy¹, attack me in the Assembly, 'assure [me] that [you] will make sure [I] never pass another resolution again'², create spurious arguments for why everything I have ever written is illegal (even if it passed), etc. I don't think you understand that I actually oppose these efforts for real reasons. The advocacy against NSC began (as you can see in this thread) after I realised the danger of your NAPA repeal. I opposed your nuclear testing thing because it was literally false. The opposition to the last one was due to my own abortive attempt to have the same thing repealed and after looking over it, found it a satisfactory resolution which did not need to be repealed.

I've also opposed the Nuclear Materials Pact, primarily because that was designed entirely to make § 4 false, so it's interconnected with this proposal. The exhaustive list of resolutions I've opposed on the wire are: Minimum Standard of Living Act, Nuclear Materials Pact, Repeal Debris Prevention, Repeal Nuclear Disaster Response Act, Rights of Indigenous Peoples, The Right to Bear Arms, and World Space Administration. I've campaigned for the repeal of: Military Freedoms Act, Nuclear Security Convention, Prohibiting Animal Abuse, Responsible Arms Trading, Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and World Space Administration. The majority of these have nothing to do with you or your endeavours here.

In fact, if we are to look at the history of our relationship, the problems started when you took actions against my initial effort to repeal this resolution. After Chester DEATed, you came over here and started drafting proposals specifically designed to shut this attempt down. Oh yes, and then the big affair with gamma rays and photons. That advocacy was entirely due to the fact that your statements on the subject of the sciences were literally false. However it was, those were the only things I remember opposing. Everything else was let to run through with indifference or support, especially with the Indigenous People's blocker, the Nuclear Testing Protocol after Parthan rewrote it, and the Civilian Aircraft Accord. But, no, instead, we have to focus entirely and only on the points of division (basically, everything nuclear).

Your own work, especially that done with Separatist Peoples and Parthan on the topics which were coauthored, is mostly well done. The only time I wrote something for the sole purpose of attacking you was when I made spurious arguments for the repeal of the Chemical Weapons (Accord/Convention/thing), which I now realise was pointless and shortsided. The resolutions (or proposals) I opposed, however, I believe, are dangerous for the WA.

---

1. Prohibitions on the sale or transfer of nuclear weapons by member states to their allies à la the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1960s,

Which would be illegal under the Non-Proliferation treaty since it's passage, which this resolution seeks to replicate in NS.

OOC: Which still happened. And in such a dangerous place as NationStates, should be allowed.

2. Prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology, thereby degrading the ability of nations to assist in collective defence,

Disingenuous statement. If the author is referring to nuclear submarines or warships, they cannot be weaponized, they are simply a delivery system which this does not regulate.

OOC: This is the same interpretation given by Knootoss's post here. I agree with the interpretation, since the nuclear technology is weaponised into the form of a weapon which the nuclear technology is part of.

3. De facto prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear energy technologies, thereby preventing cheap and clean electricity from being more readily available, and

Disingenuous statement. The NSC clearly states "Demands that member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear technology, design specifications, and materials if there is reason to suspect that they will weaponized,". It is pretty hard to weaponize a nuclear reactor as you cannot make a reactor detonate.

OOC: I beg to differ. Steam explosions can detonate a reactor, spreading massive amounts of radioactive material into the stratosphere.

4. Prohibitions on the transfer of specifications of any kind, thereby increasing the risk and danger of nuclear accidents and radiation contamination.

Yet another disingenuous statement. The NSC clearly states: "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".

If we're speaking about the 'transfer of specifications', this is not the same as the 'right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes' or 'the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities'.

Had the author made any one of these arguments in the actual repeal it would have been yanked as an honest-mistake.

Argument 1 in the telegram was made in 1(b). Argument 2 was made in 1(a). Argument 3 was made 1(c). Argument 4 was made in 1(d). This claim that if they do not exist in the actual repeal is false. The claim that it would have been yanked as an honest mistake is therefore false.

[Excidium Planetis]

"We will likely never see a limit on the number of nuclear weapons, and I would oppose any attempt to set a hard number. When you are a large space-faring nation that uses nuclear weapons as anti-capital ship torpedoes, you need far more than most smaller, lesser civilizations. My nation possesses literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. And we need them just to survive."


"Unless, of course, a nation is attacking your planet from another star system, and nuclear retaliation would only destroy your own planet's environment, leaving the enemy to eventually colonize your radioactive remains."


"Until, of course, a weapon far more powerful than nukes is invented, or a defense capable of stopping nukes is invented. Really, giant space lasers are the real threat to peace."


"Ambassador, not only is nuclear war very real to Excidium Planetis, just the other month we fired off some 4000 nuclear weapons as part of a military training exercise."


"Indeed not, I daresay we were safest as primitive cave dwellers, at least we didn't attract the attention of massive star empires then."


"...and replaced with the spectre of billions dying to an Imperium Enclave Planetcracker round. Really, we ought to be banning the use of planetbuster weapons."

Bull. Fucking. Shit. That's like saying I need 20000 AK-47's to fend off fire ants.

"No, It's like saying we need 20,000 RPGs to fend of ten armored tank divisions.

"Seriously, do you have any idea what we go up against? F***ing energy shields on starships are insanely hard to penetrate, and metamaterial armor that redirects laser cannons combined with carbon nanotube and other bull**** as armor makes enemy capital ships a pain in the #** to blow up with conventional weapons. Nuclear torpedoes are cheap and efficient."

[IStormia]

IC: As weapons manufacturing is one of our primary industries, and we are also presently working on improving our arsenals with hollow-tip rifle ammunition with a uranium nano-particle liquid suspension core, we happily support any notion that will permit more proliferation of our fine glow in the dark products. And our customers will thank you all also.

[Jersey Republic]

"Your way of words have not persuaded me to do otherwise. I still do not wish to repeal this. I have a strong opposition."

[Ultrasoft]

I, after taking a course on international affairs at university¹,

You took a class, good for you. Doesn't mean you know any more or less than the common man.

Against.

[The Imperial Frost Federation]

IC: As weapons manufacturing is one of our primary industries, and we are also presently working on improving our arsenals with hollow-tip rifle ammunition with a uranium nano-particle liquid suspension core, we happily support any notion that will permit more proliferation of our fine glow in the dark products. And our customers will thank you all also.

Despite having an extensive nanotechnology based arsenal, the IFF has been struggling to stabilize a uranium nano-particle liquid suspension core for its small arms munitions despite being able to stabilize corrosive potassium hydroxide nano-particles to attack some armored vehicles. Should the resolution pass, we will be able to reverse engineer IStormia's core after purchasing a substantial amount, approx. 150k rounds of munitions. As such we will vote in favor of the resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

I, after taking a course on international affairs at university¹,

OOC: I have to say, the added subtle brag of the university was entirely unnecessary and poor form. Nobody cares where you go to school; some of us went to at least as prestigious institutions. Nobody else feels the need to point it out, subtly or otherwise. No bueno, man.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I, after taking a course on international affairs at university¹,

OOC: I have to say, the added subtle brag of the university was entirely unnecessary and poor form. Nobody cares where you go to school; some of us went to at least as prestigious institutions. Nobody else feels the need to point it out, subtly or otherwise. No bueno, man.

OOC: Apologies. I didn't see it that way at the time. I can see it now. Thanks for catching me.

[Thermodolia]

If this passes, I am immediately leaving the WA. This is a stain on the WA's aims toward peace and tranquility.

Well it looks like ya might have to fallow though will that threat.

[Povinksi]

If this passes, I am immediately leaving the WA. This is a stain on the WA's aims toward peace and tranquility.

Well it looks like ya might have to fallow though will that threat.

Yeah. And for a completely dumb reason to.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: I have to say, the added subtle brag of the university was entirely unnecessary and poor form. Nobody cares where you go to school; some of us went to at least as prestigious institutions. Nobody else feels the need to point it out, subtly or otherwise. No bueno, man.

OOC: Apologies. I didn't see it that way at the time. I can see it now. Thanks for catching me.

You went to school in NY? I would have thought you went to Oxford, Cambridge, or some similarly snooty British institution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Apologies. I didn't see it that way at the time. I can see it now. Thanks for catching me.

You went to school in NY? I would have thought you went to Oxford, Cambridge, or some similarly snooty British institution.

OOC: This was an article I found when I was researching some time back. I thought it was a good source for explaining the concept of nuclear deterrence and how that deterrence actually imposes costs to such a level that peace emerges.

[John Turner]

Which would be illegal under the Non-Proliferation treaty since it's passage, which this resolution seeks to replicate in NS.

OOC: Which still happened. And in such a dangerous place as NationStates, should be allowed.

No... It happened before the U.S and the U.K ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Do some research if you are such a scholar.

Disingenuous statement. If the author is referring to nuclear submarines or warships, they cannot be weaponized, they are simply a delivery system which this does not regulate.

OOC: This is the same interpretation given by Knootoss's post here. I agree with the interpretation, since the nuclear technology is weaponised into the form of a weapon which the nuclear technology is part of.

So now you are using Knoostoss's interpretation instead of you own lame argument "The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, meeting this 4th March 2015 under the chairmanship of HRH, Clark Webley, Duke of Kent, has concluded that clause 4, which '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' only prevents interpretations stating that the rights stated are prohibited by this Convention in particular"? Do you really have that little faith in your own privy-council ruling? https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=379476 Also a submarine is not a weapon any more than a gun holster is a weapon. A submarine, or a warship are "delivery systems". Please for the love of god do some damn research and stop with the bullshit lies.

Disingenuous statement. The NSC clearly states "Demands that member nations take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the transfer of nuclear technology, design specifications, and materials if there is reason to suspect that they will weaponized,". It is pretty hard to weaponize a nuclear reactor as you cannot make a reactor detonate.

OOC: I beg to differ. Steam explosions can detonate a reactor, spreading massive amounts of radioactive material into the stratosphere.

There is a difference between a steam explosion and an actual nuclear detonation. You cannot detonate a reactor, as you cannot compress the core enough to cause a "nuclear" detonation. Plus, most reasonable nations don't go to the trouble of loading a fully functioning nuclear reactor with it's entire steam cooling system aboard an aircraft just to drop it on a target. Please use sanity here for a change and admit this is a bullshit argument? I suppose one could intentionally sabotage their own reactor in a "scorched earth" policy, but then again it wouldn't really be used as a weapon would it, and that would likely be covered by Radiological Terrorism", which you also oppose. Best of luck trying to use that argument when you try to repeal that resolution.

Yet another disingenuous statement. The NSC clearly states: "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".

If we're speaking about the 'transfer of specifications', this is not the same as the 'right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes' or 'the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities'.

No but your argument clearly states "4. Prohibitions on the transfer of specifications of any kind, thereby increasing the risk and danger of nuclear accidents and radiation contamination." It wouldn't really matter if those specifications could be transferred of not, because The Nuclear Testing Protocol requires nations to classify their nuclear weapons specifications and test data as state secrets, and are forbidden from sharing that data any way. Do some damn research before making disingenuous statements next time?

Had the author made any one of these arguments in the actual repeal it would have been yanked as an honest-mistake.

Argument 1 in the telegram was made in 1(b). Argument 2 was made in 1(a). Argument 3 was made 1(c). Argument 4 was made in 1(d). This claim that if they do not exist in the actual repeal is false. The claim that it would have been yanked as an honest mistake is therefore false.

And I filed a GHR yesterday to appeal the legality of this repeal as such.

[John Turner]

Well it looks like ya might have to fallow though will that threat.

Yeah. And for a completely dumb reason to.

The uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapon is a dumb reason?