Wrapper wrote: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'.
Wrapper wrote: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'.
Wrapper wrote: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.'
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:12 am
