[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"

[Wrapper]

However it is, the name of the resolution is absolutely fine. It safeguards nuclear materials from World Assembly prohibition as well as from those hands which conspire against the stability of member nations.

A safeguard... from prohibition. Huh. So posting the plans of a nuclear power plant on a publicly available server would be a safeguard. From any prohibition to disseminate it. Good to know, thanks.

[Imperializt Russia]

However it is, the name of the resolution is absolutely fine. It safeguards nuclear materials from World Assembly prohibition as well as from those hands which conspire against the stability of member nations.

A safeguard... from prohibition. Huh. So posting the plans of a nuclear power plant on a publicly available server would be a safeguard. From any prohibition to disseminate it. Good to know, thanks.

No, that's explicitly what safeguards is not.

If this is honestly the basis of your repeal effort, it is entirely baseless.

[Wrapper]

A safeguard... from prohibition. Huh. So posting the plans of a nuclear power plant on a publicly available server would be a safeguard. From any prohibition to disseminate it. Good to know, thanks.

No, that's explicitly what safeguards is not.

Wad Ahume, where's my sarcasm sign? I'm afraid I'm going to need it should we continue this debate.

[Wallenburg]

Which reminds me! Throwback Thursday! Back to the original flag for a day!

OOC:
Throwback Thursday? Ooh, I might still have one of my old ones lying around here...
Also, what, in all the nine hells, is throwback thursday?
I'll have a proper post on the Draft soon, when I've got a bit more time.

OOC: Found mine!

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Throwback Thursday? Ooh, I might still have one of my old ones lying around here...
Also, what, in all the nine hells, is throwback thursday?
I'll have a proper post on the Draft soon, when I've got a bit more time.

OOC: Found mine!

OOC:
Oh god I forgot how much I hated this flag...
I mean, it didn't have the Orbital System then...
Why would you do this to me people
Anyway, onward to the promised post!

IC:
"The Imperium has no significant objections to this proposal, however, we also see little reason for its repeal. As such, we are currently unable to provide any official position on the subject. However, the following clause:"

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands"

"Appears to be entirely untrue."

[Wrapper]

"The Imperium has no significant objections to this proposal, however, we also see little reason for its repeal. As such, we are currently unable to provide any official position on the subject. However, the following clause:"

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands"

"Appears to be entirely untrue."

Ambassador Markhov, give us an opportunity to explain this objection a little better. Clause 2 states:

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;

We maintain that this means member nations can buy or sell nuclear technology. So who are they selling it to? And who are they selling it to? And who are they selling it to? At some point, someone is going to sell it to someone else whom we don't want them to sell it to. This clause does not have the effect of safeguarding such technology, it has the effect of spreading it. The more people who have knowledge of something potentially dangerous, the more likely that someone undesirable will get their hands on it. This is the exact opposite of a safeguard, and does not belong in this resolution.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then "reasonable measures" aren't being taken and they're in the shit for it anyway.

[Wrapper]

Then "reasonable measures" aren't being taken and they're in the shit for it anyway.

Not if their view of "the wrong hands" is different from our view of "the wrong hands". With no definition of "the wrong hands", who is to say who "the wrong hands" are?

[Imperializt Russia]

Then "reasonable measures" aren't being taken and they're in the shit for it anyway.

Not if their view of "the wrong hands" is different from our view of "the wrong hands". With no definition of "the wrong hands", who is to say who "the wrong hands" are?

A reasonable interpretation of the term.

In my experience the WA seems to work more on this basis than anything else, what with non-compliance being impossible.

[Wrapper]

Not if their view of "the wrong hands" is different from our view of "the wrong hands". With no definition of "the wrong hands", who is to say who "the wrong hands" are?

A reasonable interpretation of the term.

In my experience the WA seems to work more on this basis than anything else, what with non-compliance being impossible.

Whose reasonable interpretation? Our reasonable interpretation could be different from yours. Which would make compliance impossible.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A reasonable interpretation of the term.

In my experience the WA seems to work more on this basis than anything else, what with non-compliance being impossible.

Whose reasonable interpretation? Our reasonable interpretation could be different from yours. Which would make compliance impossible.

Well, if you actually read the entire clause and not the reputation of the 'wrong hands' clause —

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; and

[Wrapper]

Whose reasonable interpretation? Our reasonable interpretation could be different from yours. Which would make compliance impossible.

Well, if you actually read the entire clause and not the reputation of the 'wrong hands' clause —

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; and

Addressed in the repeal text:

-- The qualifier including "those which conspire against the stability of member nations" would essentially render all parties to war involving member nations "the wrong hands", as many acts of war (e.g. bombing military targets, killing opposing soldiers, infiltration and spying) intentionally attempt to destabilize opposing nations as a goal of war;

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, if you actually read the entire clause and not the reputation of the 'wrong hands' clause —

Addressed in the repeal text:

-- The qualifier including "those which conspire against the stability of member nations" would essentially render all parties to war involving member nations "the wrong hands", as many acts of war (e.g. bombing military targets, killing opposing soldiers, infiltration and spying) intentionally attempt to destabilize opposing nations as a goal of war;

It does not mean that all of those which CASoMN must be considered the worst. It, however, contextualises what is meant by the wrong hands.

[Araraukar]

Can you include something about it "Promoting aggressive action against non-WA nations by referring to them as a potential threat"?

"They are a threat. They aren't restrained by the same restrictions we are, and they outnumber us."

"Aww, Bell, does this mean you're actually afraid of me? How sweet of you," Janis said with a grin.

OOC: You know by now that she can be a bit of a troll.

"Even ignoring the silly notion that all NonMembers will unite and attack the WA, there is a much greater statistical chance that a member will engage in conflict with a nonmember and be at a disadvantage."

OOC: And this is actually why most RP outside of this forum ignores the existence of the WA. Which is a shame, actually, because it would be interesting to read a well-done war RP where one nation is a WA nation, the other isn't, but they're fairly equal in terms of firepower; and how they approach the whole affair of war. If anyone knows of one, please TG me the link?

[Bears Armed]

Technology can certainly be acquired via development, but it can also be bought and sold

... or stolen...

[Bears Armed]

For countries, "rights" are dependent on the framework you exist in.

So, as there's no WA resolution on the 'Right to Breathe', do you consider yourself not to have a right to breathe?

Nations have a "legal right" to do anything that they aren't legally forbidden to do.

[Imperializt Russia]

For countries, "rights" are dependent on the framework you exist in.

So, as there's no WA resolution on the 'Right to Breathe', do you consider yourself not to have a right to breathe?

Nations have a "legal right" to do anything that they aren't legally forbidden to do.

I believe my citizens (that is, a body that is not the nation, which is different to citizens) do have that right, since attempts to restrict this "right" somehow, would probably constitute a violation of "Convention against Genocide".

You also seem to have completely misunderstood my line of argument, then demonstrated its point.
Non-member states don't have the "right" to do shit when those rights are granted by the WA. They can just do those things, because they're not part of a body that can grant or deny those "rights".

[Wrapper]

So, as there's no WA resolution on the 'Right to Breathe', do you consider yourself not to have a right to breathe?

Nations have a "legal right" to do anything that they aren't legally forbidden to do.

I believe my citizens (that is, a body that is not the nation, which is different to citizens) do have that right, since attempts to restrict this "right" somehow, would probably constitute a violation of "Convention against Genocide".

You also seem to have completely misunderstood my line of argument, then demonstrated its point.
Non-member states don't have the "right" to do shit when those rights are granted by the WA. They can just do those things, because they're not part of a body that can grant or deny those "rights".

This is absolutely incorrect. As non-members the WA has absolutely no jurisdiction over them. They have the right to do whatever they want.

[Imperializt Russia]

Therefore they don't have the right to pursue nuclear technology, because it is the WA that grants that right.

They just can pursue nuclear technology.

[Wrapper]

Therefore they don't have the right to pursue nuclear technology, because it is the WA that grants that right.

They just can pursue nuclear technology.

No, they have the right to do whatever they want. The WA is not the be-all and end-all of dishing out rights.

[Imperializt Russia]

Therefore they don't have the right to pursue nuclear technology, because it is the WA that grants that right.

They just can pursue nuclear technology.

No, they have the right to do whatever they want. The WA is not the be-all and end-all of dishing out rights.

It's the only international body that dishes rights out, so it kind of is.

[Wrapper]

No, they have the right to do whatever they want. The WA is not the be-all and end-all of dishing out rights.

It's the only international body that dishes rights out, so it kind of is.

OOC: No it isn't. I can't believe you're sticking to your guns on this.

The UN says that people have a right to life, liberty, and freedom from slavery. I'm a priest in the Vatican, which is not a UN member, but the Vatican says I have a right to life, liberty, and freedom from slavery. Does this mean I don't have the right to life, liberty, and freedom from slavery because the Vatican is not a full member of the UN?

[Imperializt Russia]

You're a person, not a state.

[Wrapper]

You're a person, not a state.

Debating with you is ridiculous. I'd like to hear what other players have to say.

[Imperializt Russia]

Debating with me would be ridiculous if statements were outlandish or inconsistent.
I'm being neither of those things.