[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"

[Wrapper]

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

This is truly besides the point. What clause 2 really does -- and the author will likely admit to this -- is it serves as a blocker; it ensures that no future resolutions take away the nation's ability (or right or whatever you want to call it) to manufacture, trade, possess or acquire nuclear technology. My position is, this clause guts the resolution and goes against the stated purpose in the preamble and title of the resolution, which is to secure technology, not to spread it.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad believes the World Assembly should consider nuclear non-proliferation, and the resolution this proposal seeks to repeal is obviously an obstacle. As such, Sciongrad offers its enthusiastic support to this proposal. Good luck, ambassador."

Debating with me would be ridiculous if statements were outlandish...

"I think arguing that all rights ontologically derive from World Assembly legislation falls comfortably in your definition of ridiculous."

[Imperium Anglorum]

CONCERNED in particular that "the wrong hands" as referenced in clauses 3 and 4 are undefined and that "the wrong hands" is a fatally flawed concept, to wit:

-- Lacking an internationally accepted definition of "the wrong hands", in a war between two nations or groups of nations, each side would subjectively consider the other "the wrong hands";

-- 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;

Parsons looks at the Wads and says, 'Okay. Let's look at this. The first section is not a problem at all and is entirely warranted by the resolution. In effect, that interpretation given requires that nations therefore prevent their enemies from being given access to nuclear weapons. One wouldn't want to be forced to allow nuclear knowledge to be given to enemy nations!'.

He looks at the other section and says, 'There are three responses to this. The first response is that this definition does not give a concrete definition, but instead contextualises the meaning of the 'wrong hands'. The second is that this serves to tell nations that terrorist organisations are not to be given nuclear knowledge, something strengthening what is already dealt with in 25 GA § 2. The third is that we believe that nations which are actively in the process of invading other nations should not be given access to nuclear weapons whilst they are thinking irrationally and in the heat of nationalism. Nuclear weapons are a deterrence and given 308 GA § 2-3, should not be used. The point of these clauses is to preserve the security of both member nations and nuclear materials'.

ALARMED that clause 4 enables poorer nations who nevertheless have obtained a nuclear technology by ill-gotten means to receive funding and technological assistance from the NESC as a reward for doing so;

'Three responses to this. First that if this were not here you would be complaining about the fact that there are no provisions for international help to nations and have written that you were alarmed there nuclear materials in collapsing states would not be secured. Second that this is necessary due to that exact reason. And third that I find it very unlikely that the NESC will give assistance beyond that necessary to secure nuclear materials, since further support would not be necessary as those nuclear materials would already be secured'.

HOPING that this well-intentioned but indefensible resolution will be replaced by one that genuinely serves to secure nuclear technology and materials;

'Considering that there are only two actual arguments here, the overused and generic "wrong hands" and "WA committee incompetence" arguments, I am unsurprised this didn't pass the first time. I only count the latter two because the first argument is actually a misinterpretation given that it would only be true if clause 4 did not exist. The problem with this argument is that clause 4 does exist.'

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Sciongrad believes the World Assembly should consider nuclear non-proliferation, and the resolution this proposal seeks to repeal is obviously an obstacle. As such, Sciongrad offers its enthusiastic support to this proposal. Good luck, ambassador."

Parsons responds, 'We believe that historically we have not and nor should we. If you want to promote non-proliferation, you would leave this resolution in place rather than repealing it without a replacement that actually would assist the cause of non-proliferation'.

Debating with me would be ridiculous if statements were outlandish...

"I think arguing that all rights ontologically derive from World Assembly legislation falls comfortably in your definition of ridiculous."

'I can see what the Ambassador is stating. He is saying that if one is in the structure of positivist rights, rights therefore descend from governing bodies. If such rights are codified in World Assembly legislation, then such rights exist. If one is not subject to World Assembly legislation, those rights neither exist or do not exist and are ambiguous. So unfortunate that our language does not distinguish between YES, NO, and UNCERTAIN in common parlance.'

[Wrapper]

Revised draft is up. Moved the DISTRESSED clause after the CONCERNED clause since its argument relies on the murky concept of "the wrong hands", and added the AGHAST clause. Any further comments on the text of the draft itself?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"The 'alarmed' clause is if anything understating the case. The Lyrical government is extremely pissed off that its WAGF assessments are being used to fund pissant tinpot dictatorships' national security apparatus just because they've now gotten their hands on the bomb but somehow can't guarantee its safety from pilfering! The target resolution is the definition of idiocy in realpolitik terms, and needs removal under any standard of sanity."

[Wrapper]

"The 'alarmed' clause is if anything understating the case. The Lyrical government is extremely pissed off that its WAGF assessments are being used to fund pissant tinpot dictatorships' national security apparatus just because they've now gotten their hands on the bomb but somehow can't guarantee its safety from pilfering! The target resolution is the definition of idiocy in realpolitik terms, and needs removal under any standard of sanity."

Hmmm, yes. Well, we could add the words "tinpot dictatorships" and perhaps even "outlaw states" to "poorer nations".

(OOC: Yes, "outlaw states" sounds silly, but it's a Reaganism that's been immortalized in Def Leppard's "Gods of War".)

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see a single reason why that would be a necessary change.

[Wrapper]

I don't see a single reason why that would be a necessary change.

Noted.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see a single reason why that would be a necessary change.

Noted.

My reasoning being, the existing wording was entirely sufficient.

[Wrapper]

Nevertheless, we have tweaked the ALARMED clause.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This has been submitted.

[Vancouvia]

Approved because Wrapper's a mod and I want to get in his good graces!

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

This has been submitted.

ARI: WHAT? That's... but... it... that... WAD AHUME! What is going on?

(Ahume shrugs.)

ARI: Did you submit this, Wad Ahume?

(Ahume shakes his head.)

ARI: Well, I didn't submit this! Who on.... oh.... no....

(The new intern, Ty, enters the debate hall.)

TY: Um. Hi.

(Ari and Ahume perform a perfectly synchronized dual facepalm.)

TY: What? You said it needed work, so I rearranged a couple of the clauses, got rid of that clunky "qualifier" clause which frankly if I couldn't understand it the typical foreign ambassador wouldn't understand it, took out that committee acronym which I admit I have no idea what that means and put in "World Assembly" instead, changed "war" to "conflict" since, frankly, I just don't like the sound of the word "war", it sounds to scary to me, then I.... what? What?

(Ahume, who has been going through the edits, smiles broadly and nods his head.)

ARI: What? Really? Well then. Let's get to work!

[Wrapper]

Approved because Wrapper's a mod and I want to get in his good graces!

LOL nope.

[Louisistan]

Ambassador Max Becker enters the Floor:
"Am I too late to voice my support for this proposal?"

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Dear fellow World Assembly Delegate:

We, the WA delegation of The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, wish to call your attention to our most recent proposal, to repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards":

page=UN_view_proposal/id=wrapper_1458153675

We know what some of you are thinking, and, no, we don't want you to lose your nuclear weapons or your reactors. That is precisely the point of our repeal. Our overriding objection to the resolution on the books is that it does the opposite of what it says. By allowing nations to buy and sell such technology under clause 2, someone may be supplying your enemies with the means to destroy you -- simply because they view your nation as "the wrong hands" and not your enemy. Additionally, as more and more nations buy, sell, and possess these secrets, they won't be so secret anymore.

We ask you to approve the repeal of this well-meaning but grossly ineffective resolution, so that it can be replaced with one that actually does as it purports, safeguarding your nuclear materials and keeping them away from terrorists, dictators, and your next-door neighbor, who swears it's your dog, not his, who's digging holes in his garden.

We thank you for your approval and your favorable vote on this matter.

-- Wad Ari Alaz, WA Ambassador
-- Wad Ahume Orliss-Dorcke, Deputy WA Ambassador

[John Turner]

Been quite a while since our delegation has had the opportunity to do this, and Prime Minister Pearson has asked me to carry on the tradition.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: And we've reached quorum already! Wad Ty, wonderful job on that campaign communiqué, particularly that bit about disreputable next-door neighbors, stroke of genius there! (Ahume gives Ty a subtle fist-bump.) Wad Ahume! To the bar, we have drinks to buy! Oh, not you, Ty, we still need that Stargate in the closet polished. And while you're at it, the Ambassador Emeritus's urn could use a spit-shine as well. Well don't just stand there, hop to it, young man!

AHUME: (As Ty leaves) You don't miss Arya at all, do you?

ARI: Fuck no. Okay, maybe a little.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: And we're at vote! And--

AHUME: Whoa. (tugs on Ari's sleeve, then points to tote board)

ARI: Whoa is right. Ty! Go find three of the largest baskets of cheer you can find, and send them to the delegates of The North Pacific, 10000 Islands and Europeia immediately!

[John Turner]

ARI: And we're at vote! And--

AHUME: Whoa. (tugs on Ari's sleeve, then points to tote board)

ARI: Whoa is right. Ty! Go find three of the largest baskets of cheer you can find, and send them to the delegates of The North Pacific, 10000 Islands and Europeia immediately!

What? My 19 votes aren't important enough?

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: And we're at vote! And--

AHUME: Whoa. (tugs on Ari's sleeve, then points to tote board)

ARI: Whoa is right. Ty! Go find three of the largest baskets of cheer you can find, and send them to the delegates of The North Pacific, 10000 Islands and Europeia immediately!

What? My 19 votes aren't important enough?

(Wad Ahume tugs on Mr. Turner's sleeve, smiles, and hands him a bottle of thirty-year-old scotch, then puts his finger to his lips.)

AHUME: Only the good stuff.

[Wallenburg]

"Promising start to the general Vote, Ambassadors! Best of luck to you and your resolution!"

[LeaveAlone]

*snip*
'Considering that there are only two actual arguments here, the overused and generic "wrong hands" and "WA committee incompetence" arguments, I am unsurprised this didn't pass the first time. I only count the latter two because the first argument is actually a misinterpretation given that it would only be true if clause 4 did not exist. The problem with this argument is that clause 4 does exist.'

Lets be honest here. A lot of resolutions don't prevent Member nations from sharing their technology with non member nations whom are deemed non threatening, and quite frankly, most aren't.

The WA has no jurisdiction over non-member nations, and so cannot control them directly... despite Imperailizt Russia's patently false belief that all non-member nations are nothing more than a chaotic cesspool of disorder.

Keeping this in mind, I believe it is therefore important we repeal these archaic resolutions which follow the aformentioned logical fallacy, and implement new resolutions which actually regulate our relations with non-member nations in any case where we need to defend something. LeaveAlone is super pro socialism, but we recognise the need for regulations and processes where there would otherwise be uncertainty.

We hereby support the passage of this resolution on the good faith that it will be replaced by a better one.

[The Underwood Industrial Empire]

Keeping this in mind, I believe it is therefore important we repeal these archaic resolutions which follow the aformentioned logical fallacy, and implement new resolutions which actually regulate our relations with non-member nations in any case where we need to defend something. LeaveAlone is super pro socialism, but we recognise the need for regulations and processes where there would otherwise be uncertainty.

We hereby support the passage of this resolution on the good faith that it will be replaced by a better one.

The U.I.E. seconds this. Our debate against the original resolution was that, if anything, the vaguery of the wording promoted proliferation of nuclear materials, especially for the process of weapon-making, seeing as the "wrong hands" would be defined as "anyone we don't like at that particular moment", if you will. That was not the intent of the Imperium's effort when they drafted and submitted the original resolution, we are aware, but if there is to be a new resolution for the safeguarding of nuclear research and materials - and it is highly likely there will be - we hope that it can be drafted and put to vote without being so widely subject to interpretation as to render it completely moot.