[DEFEATED] Nuclear Weapons Accord

[Wallenburg]

Nuclear Weapons Accord

---

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

The World Assembly,

Observing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to civilian populations,

Believing that nuclear weaponry ought not to be used against civilian noncombatants,

Recognizing the right of member nations to keep and employ nuclear weapons for the purposes of national defense,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

• "nuclear weapon" as a weapon designed to explode using the energy generated in nuclear reactions,
• "countervalue strike" as an intentional use of nuclear weapons upon a civilian population,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to:

• target enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• perform nuclear tests, within the confines of preexisting World Assembly legislation,
• engage in countervalue strikes, only in retaliation for one or more countervalue strikes against citizens or allied civilians,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

4. Requires member states to avoid whenever possible the collateral injury of civilian populations when using nuclear weapons,

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants through the aggressive use of nuclear weapons beyond the permissions of Clause 2 offer relief or compensation to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nation,

6. Highly encourages member states to seek out diplomatic alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons,

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

Nuclear Weapons Accord

---

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

The World Assembly,

Observing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to civilian populations,

Believing that nuclear weaponry ought not to be used against civilian noncombatants,

Recognizing the right of member nations to keep and employ nuclear weapons for the purposes of national defense,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "nuclear weapon" as a device designed to explode using nuclear energy,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to target and destroy:

• enemy military assets, and to target
• foreign civilian populations, with nuclear weapons only if the state exercising sovereignty over them deploys nuclear weapons upon civilian centers of the relevant member state,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

4. Requires member states to avoid whenever possible the collateral injury of civilian populations when using nuclear weapons,

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants beyond the permissions of Clause 2 with nuclear weapons offer aid to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nation as compensation,

6. Highly encourages member states to seek out diplomatic alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Weapons Accord

---

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

The World Assembly,

Observing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to civilian populations,

Believing that nuclear weaponry ought not to be used against civilian noncombatants,

Recognizing the right of member nations to keep and employ nuclear weapons for the purposes of national defense,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a:

• "nuclear weapon" as a device designed to explode using nuclear energy,
• "countervalue targeting" as the use of nuclear weapons upon a nation's civilian populations,
• "retaliatory strike" as a deployment of nuclear weapons against an enemy state in response to an act of countervalue targeting by that enemy state,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to target and destroy:

• enemy military assets
• foreign civilian populations, only if the state exercising sovereignty over them deploys nuclear weapons upon civilian centers of the relevant member state,in retaliatory strikes,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

4. Requires member states to avoid whenever possible the collateral injury of civilian populations when using nuclear weapons,

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants beyond the permissions of Clause 2 offer aidrelief or compensation to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nationas compensation,

6. Highly encourages member states to seek out diplomatic alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Weapons Accord

---

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

The World Assembly,

Observing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to civilian populations,

Believing that nuclear weaponry ought not to be used against civilian noncombatants,

Recognizing the right of member nations to keep and employ nuclear weapons for the purposes of national defense,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

• "nuclear weapon" as a device designed to explode using nuclear energy,
• "countervalue targetingstrike" as thean intentional use of nuclear weapons upon a nation's civilian populations,
• "retaliatory strike" as a deployment of nuclear weapons against an enemy state in response to an act of countervalue targeting by that enemy state,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to target and destroy:

• enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• foreign civilian populations, only in retaliatory strikesretaliation for a countervalue strike,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

4. Requires member states to avoid whenever possible the collateral injury of civilian populations when using nuclear weapons,

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants beyond the permissions of Clause 2 offer relief or compensation to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nation,

6. Highly encourages member states to seek out diplomatic alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons.,

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

Nuclear Weapons Accord

---

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

The World Assembly,

Observing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to civilian populations,

Believing that nuclear weaponry ought not to be used against civilian noncombatants,

Recognizing the right of member nations to keep and employ nuclear weapons for the purposes of national defense,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

• "nuclear weapon" as a device designed to explode using nuclear energy,
• "countervalue strike" as an intentional use of nuclear weapons upon a civilian population,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to target and destroy:

• destroy enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• perform nuclear tests, within the confines of preexisting World Assembly legislation,
• target foreign civilian populations, only in retaliation for a countervalue strike,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants withdeploying nuclear weapons ,

4. Requires member states to avoid whenever possible the collateral injury of civilian populations when using nuclear weapons,

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants through the aggressive use of nuclear weapons beyond the permissions of Clause 2 offer relief or compensation to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nation,

6. Highly encourages member states to seek out diplomatic alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons,

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

Nuclear Weapons Accord

---

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

The World Assembly,

Observing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to civilian populations,

Believing that nuclear weaponry ought not to be used against civilian noncombatants,

Recognizing the right of member nations to keep and employ nuclear weapons for the purposes of national defense,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

• "nuclear weapon" as a deviceweapon designed to explode using nuclear energyusing the energy generated in nuclear reactions,
• "countervalue strike" as an intentional use of nuclear weapons upon a civilian population,

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to:

• destroytarget enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
• perform nuclear tests, within the confines of preexisting World Assembly legislation,
• target foreign civilian populations, only in retaliation for a countervalue strikeengage in countervalue strikes, only in retaliation for one or more countervalue strikes against citizens or allied civilians,

3. Otherwise forbids member states from deployingtargeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

4. Requires member states to avoid whenever possible the collateral injury of civilian populations when using nuclear weapons,

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants through the aggressive use of nuclear weapons beyond the permissions of Clause 2 offer relief or compensation to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nation,

6. Highly encourages member states to seek out diplomatic alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons,

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.

[Calladan]

If you can't bomb a nation's citizens unless they bomb you first, wouldn't that effectively outlaw nuclear war between WA member states? Because - with the best will in the world - avoiding civilian non-combatants is (for all intents and purposes) practically impossible. And even if you only targeted military bases, how long would be be (after the passage of this) before every member nation starts housing non-combatants withing the effective blast range of a bomb that hits a base?

Also - would this require member states to pay non-member states compensation if we accidentally (or even deliberately) kill their civilian citizens? And yet we would have no way of forcing non-member states to respond in kind?

[Wallenburg]

If you can't bomb a nation's citizens unless they bomb you first, wouldn't that effectively outlaw nuclear war between WA member states?

"No. Member states are free to bomb the living hell out of military targets."

Because - with the best will in the world - avoiding civilian non-combatants is (for all intents and purposes) practically impossible.

"There are many nuclear weapons designed to damage very small targets, Ambassador. If the World Assembly libraries have informed me correctly, they are known as tactical nuclear weapons."

And even if you only targeted military bases, how long would be be (after the passage of this) before every member nation starts housing non-combatants withing the effective blast range of a bomb that hits a base?

"First, there are, again, tactical nuclear weapons. Second, you can always use conventional weapons."

Also - would this require member states to pay non-member states compensation if we accidentally (or even deliberately) kill their civilian citizens?

"If you kill them with nuclear weapons, then yes."

And yet we would have no way of forcing non-member states to respond in kind?

"That is how the World Assembly works, Ambassador. It isn't a fault with the proposal itself."

[Calladan]

Also - would this require member states to pay non-member states compensation if we accidentally (or even deliberately) kill their civilian citizens?

"If you kill them with nuclear weapons, then yes."

And yet we would have no way of forcing non-member states to respond in kind?

"That is how the World Assembly works, Ambassador. It isn't a fault with the proposal itself."

Yes, but this proposal would allow non-member states to blow the living crap out of me, and if I had the temerity to respond, I would have to pay them for the privilege of doing so.

To me this just sounds........ odd.

(Amb. McGill returns five minutes later)

Having giving this more thought, there are even more potential problems that I can see with this.

Firstly - it would mean that - as nuclear weapons rain down on my nation, I would have to work out whether my budget could support paying reparations to the country that is bombing the crap out of all my citizens, or whether I will just have to sit there and take it.

Secondly - who is going to be the arbiter of whether or not I injured non-combatant civilians? The WA? The other nation (the one that clearly hates me enough to nuke my entire country)?

Thirdly - what if the other country is a bunch of evil so and so's who quite literally put civilians in every viable military target? Because even with the best tactical weapons odds are I will kill some of them, just because I am acting in self-defence.

Fourthly - at what level is compensation paid out?

I understand this is how the WA works, but I am afraid that I can not support a proposal that would require me to give money to people who have murdered thousands, if not millions, of my citizens just because I had the temerity to try to defend my nation.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, but this proposal would allow non-member states to blow the living crap out of me

"I can't help that. Non-members do not have to comply with anything."

and if I had the temerity to respond, I would have to pay them for the privilege of doing so.

"That...is a decent point. I'll look into fixing that."

Firstly - it would mean that - as nuclear weapons rain down on my nation, I would have to work out whether my budget could support paying reparations to the country that is bombing the crap out of all my citizens, or whether I will just have to sit there and take it.

"Are you telling me that all your nation has to defend itself is nuclear weapons of high magnitude? No tactical nuclear weapons? No aircraft? No tanks? No guns? No men with pointy sticks? Furthermore, this draft says nothing about how to budget reparations. In any case, I'll work out some exemption for cases of reciprocal nuclear strikes."

Secondly - who is going to be the arbiter of whether or not I injured non-combatant civilians? The WA? The other nation (the one that clearly hates me enough to nuke my entire country)?

"I thought it would be pretty clear that if a city or something is flattened by a nuclear blast, there wouldn't be much room for subjectivity on whether civilians were harmed. As it is, if there somehow is some sort of ambiguity to whether civilians have been injured, then it is the burden of the victim nation to prove so. That's how these things naturally work, unless you wish to automatically assume your nation guilty of harming innocents when you use nuclear weapons."

Thirdly - what if the other country is a bunch of evil so and so's who quite literally put civilians in every viable military target? Because even with the best tactical weapons odds are I will kill some of them, just because I am acting in self-defence.

"If a belligerent state has so thoroughly mixed civilians and soldiers, why use nuclear weapons at all? How can you justify that magnitude of civilian deaths just to take out a few soldiers?"

Fourthly - at what level is compensation paid out?

"That is for you to decide."

I understand this is how the WA works, but I am afraid that I can not support a proposal that would require me to give money to people who have murdered thousands, if not millions, of my citizens just because I had the temerity to try to defend my nation.

"I will make some changes here, but I'm not sure what you are getting at with some of these concerns."

[Bears Armed]

And even if you only targeted military bases, how long would be be (after the passage of this) before every member nation starts housing non-combatants withing the effective blast range of a bomb that hits a base?

"Don't we already have a resolution against that ?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods.

[Wallenburg]

And even if you only targeted military bases, how long would be be (after the passage of this) before every member nation starts housing non-combatants withing the effective blast range of a bomb that hits a base?

"Don't we already have a resolution against that ?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods.

"Indeed we do. Thank you for reminding me, Ambassador."

[Calladan]

"Don't we already have a resolution against that ?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods.

"Indeed we do. Thank you for reminding me, Ambassador."

Okay - so member states are forbidden from doing it. However that still leaves the entire set of non-member states, who have no such proscription against it.

[Araraukar]

Yes, but this proposal would allow non-member states to blow the living crap out of me, and if I had the temerity to respond, I would have to pay them for the privilege of doing so.

Who the hell would want to blow up your nation in any case? If you've pissed off non-WA neighbours to the point where they're considering dropping nukes indiscriminantly onto your population, if I was you, I'd be looking really closely at any inexplainable deaths due infectious diseases or fatal allergies, since non-WA nations also aren't bound by the bio- and chemical weapons bans either.

OOC: I'll add you to my list of "WA nations that are paranoid about non-WA nations.

Also, Wallenburg, I'll get back to you on the proposal text later. Literally need to run out of door after pressing "submit" on this post, got a nurse's appointment I can't miss. But didn't we have something like this in the books? Did it get repealed? I know I was only gone a week but my brain's "GA department" feels like a mammoth trying to come back to life.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Indeed we do. Thank you for reminding me, Ambassador."

Okay - so member states are forbidden from doing it. However that still leaves the entire set of non-member states, who have no such proscription against it.

"WA members are held to a higher standard than nonmembers. If nonmembers have an advantage by using perfidious tactics, we rise above."

[Errantem]

Caron Lugo has entered the conversation.

"And rising above, representative from Calladan, would mean using, as Wallenburg's representative has stated, tactical nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, or weapons that are not banned by the World Assembly. I recommend making strides in anti-weaponry research, though I'm sure your nation can figure things out when hateful non-member nations knock at your door."

"Now then. On the matter of compensation, representative from Wallenburg, you will really need to make sure that you know the consequences of any decision you make on this. I recommend that in harming innocents, nations subject to the Nuclear Weapons Accord shouldn't have to aid them through financial means, but by providing suitable help. The decision of how much compensation, service or financial-wise, should be provided however, can not be put in the hands of the offending or offended nations. A third party with the intent of helping the innocent civilians in both nations could be suitable."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay - so member states are forbidden from doing it. However that still leaves the entire set of non-member states, who have no such proscription against it.

"WA members are held to a higher standard than nonmembers. If nonmembers have an advantage by using perfidious tactics, we rise above."

Parsons: (slow clapping) We do rise above, quite literally in a heavenly direction, if we are to believe our ministers...

[Bears Armed]

"Indeed we do. Thank you for reminding me, Ambassador."

Okay - so member states are forbidden from doing it. However that still leaves the entire set of non-member states, who have no such proscription against it.

"So, maybeso, include a clause here saying that they do so at their own people's risk?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"WA members are held to a higher standard than nonmembers. If nonmembers have an advantage by using perfidious tactics, we rise above."

Parsons: (slow clapping) We do rise above, quite literally in a heavenly direction, if we are to believe our ministers...

"Not exactly as confident in your own troops as we are in ours, I see." Bell mentions smugly.

"The author might consider using phrasing that allows member states to utilize nuclear weapons in countervalue strikes in retaliation only. This allows members to strike at civilian centers if, and only if, their civilian centers are targeted first. The goal is the same, but the phrasing leaves less confusion."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: (slow clapping) We do rise above, quite literally in a heavenly direction, if we are to believe our ministers...

"Not exactly as confident in your own troops as we are in ours, I see." Bell mentions smugly.

Parsons: (confused) I don't see how one could be confident when marching men against explosions hotter than the surface of stars... Especially when you can't shoot back.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not exactly as confident in your own troops as we are in ours, I see." Bell mentions smugly.

Parsons: (confused) I don't see how one could be confident when marching men against explosions hotter than the surface of stars... Especially when you can't shoot back.

"It rarely comes up. The C.D.S.P. focuses almost exclusively on defensive capabilities, and our point defense systems are formidable. One of the perks of recusing ourselves from a strong international military presence. I was speaking in reference to combating perfidious action, not specifically nuclear assault."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: (confused) I don't see how one could be confident when marching men against explosions hotter than the surface of stars... Especially when you can't shoot back.

"It rarely comes up. The C.D.S.P. focuses almost exclusively on defensive capabilities, and our point defense systems are formidable. One of the perks of recusing ourselves from a strong international military presence. I was speaking in reference to combating perfidious action, not specifically nuclear assault."

OOC: Well, the only other way to avert destruction would be to attack everyone in fear of their possibly becoming the precursor of a potential threat. :P

[Wallenburg]

Yes, but this proposal would allow non-member states to blow the living crap out of me, and if I had the temerity to respond, I would have to pay them for the privilege of doing so.

"Rectified."

"The author might consider using phrasing that allows member states to utilize nuclear weapons in countervalue strikes in retaliation only. This allows members to strike at civilian centers if, and only if, their civilian centers are targeted first. The goal is the same, but the phrasing leaves less confusion."

"I had already done that, Ambassador, but I trust that my edits make that far less ambiguous."

"Now then. On the matter of compensation, representative from Wallenburg, you will really need to make sure that you know the consequences of any decision you make on this. I recommend that in harming innocents, nations subject to the Nuclear Weapons Accord shouldn't have to aid them through financial means, but by providing suitable help. The decision of how much compensation, service or financial-wise, should be provided however, can not be put in the hands of the offending or offended nations. A third party with the intent of helping the innocent civilians in both nations could be suitable."

"As it is, member nations may do whatever they want to compensate as long as it reasonably qualifies as 'aid' and the targeted nation consents. However, I have elaborated a bit on this clause, and I hope it is now to your liking."

[Imperium Anglorum]

The wording of 2(b) will have NationStates's Left in arms.

[Wallenburg]

The wording of 2(b) will have NationStates's Left in arms.

"I can live with that, Ambassador."

[Imperium Anglorum]

The wording of 2(b) will have NationStates's Left in arms.

"I can live with that, Ambassador."

Parsons: But can your proposal live with it?

[Wallenburg]

"I can live with that, Ambassador."

Parsons: But can your proposal live with it?

"It will have to, as it is the only reasonable compromise. Nobody will support a resolution allowing member states to use nuclear weapons however they want, and nobody will support a resolution forbidding them from adhering to the defensive strategy of 'mutually assured destruction'."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The author might consider using phrasing that allows member states to utilize nuclear weapons in countervalue strikes in retaliation only. This allows members to strike at civilian centers if, and only if, their civilian centers are targeted first. The goal is the same, but the phrasing leaves less confusion."

"I had already done that, Ambassador, but I trust that my edits make that far less ambiguous."]

"Oh, I know that, ambassador. I was suggesting an alternate wording that might flow more easily. The edit does clear things up, but is still somewhat difficult to parse. Since it has no difference in the end result, its certainly not a hill I'm willing to die on, but I do feel the wording could be cleaner."

[Wallenburg]

"Oh, I know that, ambassador. I was suggesting an alternate wording that might flow more easily. The edit does clear things up, but is still somewhat difficult to parse. Since it has no difference in the end result, its certainly not a hill I'm willing to die on, but I do feel the wording could be cleaner."

"I'll see what I can do to clear things up. Perhaps another definition is in order."

[Errantem]

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants beyond the permissions of Clause 2 offer aid to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nation as compensation,

"As it is, member nations may do whatever they want to compensate as long as it reasonably qualifies as 'aid' and the targeted nation consents. However, I have elaborated a bit on this clause, and I hope it is now to your liking."

"While putting attention towards the civilians is a fair start, a nation is at a disadvantage if they have to negotiate with another that can force them to make or accept terms that benefit only the other side."

2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to target and destroy:

• enemy military assets
• foreign civilian populations, only if the state exercising sovereignty over them deploys nuclear weapons upon civilian centers of the relevant member state,

"Regarding this part of the Accord, what of unintended nuclear deployment from either side?"