[DEFEATED] Protection of Nuclear Armaments

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Draft 11:

Protection of Nuclear Armaments
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

---

Category: International SecurityStrength: MildProposed by: Nilla Wayfarers

Affirming the right for member nations to possess nuclear armaments;

Understanding that some nations may intend to promote violence with such armaments;

Acknowledging the interest of some nations in peacefully exchanging nuclear armaments;

this august Assembly hereby,

Requires that member nations with nuclear armaments take every precaution within the restriction of existing legislation to protect these armaments from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments;

Further requires that no member nation engage in the distribution of nuclear armaments with any nation known to incite conflict on a large scale or use its military assets ambiguously.

This resolution was in conjunction with a suspended repeal of GA#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act (NAPA).

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear armaments are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear armaments;
Requires that member nations with nuclear armaments take every precaution within the restriction of existing legislation to protect these armaments from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments;
Further requires that no member nation engage in the distribution of nuclear armaments with any nation known to incite conflict on a large scale or use its military assets ambiguously.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear armaments are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear armaments;
Requires that member nations with nuclear armaments take every precaution to protect these armaments from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments;
Further requires that no member nation engage in the distribution of nuclear armaments with any nation known to incite conflict on a large scale or use its military assets ambiguously.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Requires that member nations with nuclear arms take every precaution to protect these arms from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear arms.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Demands that member nations with nuclear arms take every precaution to protect these arms from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear arms.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Demands that member nations with nuclear arms take every precaution to protect these arms from entities outside of their respective militaries.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Requires that only individuals within member nations' military who are proficiently trained in safely handling nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;
Demands that member nations with nuclear arms take every precaution to protect these arms from entities outside of their respective militaries.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are proficient in safely handling nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;
Further requires that individuals intending to engage in an act of terrorism or other inhumane violence be made incapable of accessing nuclear arms.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are familiar with nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;
Further requires that individuals intending to engage in an act of terrorism or other inhumane violence be refused access to nuclear arms.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
Defining "belligerents" as individuals intending to act in undue hostility;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Requires that member nations possessing nuclear arms restrict access to said arms, such that they cannot be accessed by belligerents.

Acknowledging the need for member nations to defend themselves;
Understanding that nuclear arms are sometimes a necessary means of defense;
Noticing the possibility of warfare between member nations and other nations;
this august Assembly hereby,
Maintains the right for member nations to possess nuclear arms;
Requires that member nations possessing nuclear arms restrict access to said arms, such that they cannot be accessed by belligerents.

This august Assembly also
Recommends that all member nations learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

[Kaboomlandia]

"And what would define "belligerents", Ambassador?

Fully opposed, seeing as this does the exact same thing as NAPA."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

"And what would define "belligerents", Ambassador?

I think belligerents is a pretty self-explanatory term.

Fully opposed, seeing as this does the exact same thing as NAPA."

Maybe you read this before I updated the OP, but I have a link to a repeal of NAPA.

[Kaboomlandia]

"And what would define "belligerents", Ambassador?

I think belligerents is a pretty self-explanatory term.

No, it isn't. Without defining it, I can set whatever criteria I want, including setting "belligerent" as "nations with the word 'Nilla' in their flags."

Fully opposed, seeing as this does the exact same thing as NAPA."

Maybe you read this before I updated the OP, but I have a link to a repeal of NAPA.

And why should we give you two badges instead of just leaving NAPA as-is for the exact same thing?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

I think belligerents is a pretty self-explanatory term.

No, it isn't. Without defining it, I can set whatever criteria I want, including setting "belligerent" as "nations with the word 'Nilla' in their flags."

Draft amended.

Maybe you read this before I updated the OP, but I have a link to a repeal of NAPA.

And why should we give you two badges instead of just leaving NAPA as-is for the exact same thing?

Read NAPA, then read this draft. There are several differences.

[Kaboomlandia]

And why should we give you two badges instead of just leaving NAPA as-is for the exact same thing?

Read NAPA, then read this draft. There are several differences.[/quote]

No, there aren't.

Your two clauses are:

1. Nations can have nukes if they want.
2. Nations need to take precautions to keep said nukes out of the wrong hands.

NAPA has both of those.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Read NAPA, then read this draft. There are several differences.

No, there aren't.

Your two clauses are:

1. Nations can have nukes if they want.
2. Nations need to take precautions to keep said nukes out of the wrong hands.

NAPA has both of those.

If you read my repeal, you'd see that NAPA's "wrong hands" clause is not appropriate - that's the point of offering this replacement.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: We are categorically opposed to any proposal which has both the words 'Bear' and 'Arms' in the title.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Barbera: We are categorically opposed to any proposal which has both the words 'Bear' and 'Arms' in the title.

Ambassador, is this meant to be humorous, or is it a legitimate concern of yours?

[Bakhton]

Lara Qzu continues quietly typing though she knows better. She hopes if the repeal somehow works the Supreme Court of Bakhton will vote against this replacement to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world.

[Separatist Peoples]

Defining "belligerents" as individuals intending to act in undue hostility;

"This bans the use of nuclear weapons entirely, as killing would count as undue hostility. To prevent belligerents under this definition from accessing nuclear weapons would effectively prohibit their use."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Defining "belligerents" as individuals intending to act in undue hostility;

"This bans the use of nuclear weapons entirely, as killing would count as undue hostility. To prevent belligerents under this definition from accessing nuclear weapons would effectively prohibit their use."

Killing would not be undue if the use of a nuclear armament were necessary under the circumstances of a conflict.
In fact, I still question whether "belligerent" really ought to be defined in the draft text.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This bans the use of nuclear weapons entirely, as killing would count as undue hostility. To prevent belligerents under this definition from accessing nuclear weapons would effectively prohibit their use."

Killing would not be undue if the use of a nuclear armament were necessary under the circumstances of a conflict.

"That kind of loose assumption is as bad as "wrong hands". A fatalistic, radical organization would have a much different view of "necessity" than a more restrained government for the use of nuclear weapons."

In fact, I still question whether "belligerent" really ought to be defined in the draft text.

"I question whether this is really any different from GAR#10, and therefore whether the entire repeal effort is worth anybody's time."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Killing would not be undue if the use of a nuclear armament were necessary under the circumstances of a conflict.

"That kind of loose assumption is as bad as "wrong hands". A fatalistic, radical organization would have a much different view of "necessity" than a more restrained government for the use of nuclear weapons."

I've edited the draft to hopefully give a less vague delineation.

[Abacathea]

I've never really cared much about the NAPA pro/con battle to be honest. It's been around longer than I have and survived more attempts to be repealed than Auralia has used the term "abortion". That said;

If this proposed piece is to be the replacement for NAPA then I find myself preferring the original legislation. This piece only has two actual requirements and I find issue with both of them if I'm being frank.

Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are familiar with nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;

As vague goes, you've hit the nail on the head right here. I'm familiar with a number of things when I'm drunk ambassador, or I will certainly claim to be I assure you this by no right means I should EVER be permitted access to them. "Familiar" is a very loose and almost subjective term to be using to give someone access to nuclear warheads.

Further requires that individuals intending to engage in an act of terrorism or other inhumane violence be refused access to nuclear arms.

Now, this one I take particular exception to, because, bluntly speaking, you'll find Terrorists don't particularly give a shit if you tell them no. In my life Ambassador I've yet to encounter evidence wherein a determined terrorist has turned around and gone home because someone refused them access to something. It seems a very ill-thought out point if I'm honest and for some reason makes me a little annoyed reading it. But then I am tended to be short tempered.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

I've never really cared much about the NAPA pro/con battle to be honest. It's been around longer than I have and survived more attempts to be repealed than Auralia has used the term "abortion". That said;

If this proposed piece is to be the replacement for NAPA then I find myself preferring the original legislation. This piece only has two actual requirements and I find issue with both of them if I'm being frank.

Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are familiar with nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;

As vague goes, you've hit the nail on the head right here. I'm familiar with a number of things when I'm drunk ambassador, or I will certainly claim to be I assure you this by no right means I should EVER be permitted access to them. "Familiar" is a very loose and almost subjective term to be using to give someone access to nuclear warheads.

Further requires that individuals intending to engage in an act of terrorism or other inhumane violence be refused access to nuclear arms.

Now, this one I take particular exception to, because, bluntly speaking, you'll find Terrorists don't particularly give a shit if you tell them no. In my life Ambassador I've yet to encounter evidence wherein a determined terrorist has turned around and gone home because someone refused them access to something. It seems a very ill-thought out point if I'm honest and for some reason makes me a little annoyed reading it. But then I am tended to be short tempered.

Perhaps, ambassador, you'll be less annoyed with my changes.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are proficient in safely handling nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;

"So nobody new could be trained in that work, even under the supervision of people who are already proficient in it?"

Further requires that individuals intending to engage in an act of terrorism or other inhumane violence be made incapable of accessing nuclear arms.

"But how are those nations that don't have ready access to reliable oracles to ensure this?!?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Separatist Peoples]

I've edited the draft to hopefully give a less vague delineation.

"I, and probably any reasonably competent ambassador here, could make an argument that the mere use of nuclear weapons on soft targets is "inhumane" based on the effects of a nuclear detonation, thus banning nuclear weapons usage. Nuclear weapons cause extreme burns radiation sickness, violence, and also all the normal inhumane injuries that go with a large bomb. Can you really argue that the use of any such device isn't inherently inhumane? Its a bad standard, ambassador."

Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are proficient in safely handling nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;

"Also, you have an error in "Nation's" in the form of an extra S. Moreover, this doesn't actually mandate anything. Who on earth wouldn't have competent personnel in charge of their most expensive, dangerous strategic weaponry? It's a pointless inclusion, because incompetent invites loss of the strategic asset, which no sane nation, bellicose or peaceable, would do."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Lara Qzu continues quietly typing though she knows better. She hopes if the repeal somehow works the Supreme Court of Bakhton will vote against this replacement to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world.

PARSONS: We oppose any kind of legislation which would lead to the creation of mass mobilisation and warfare at a level not seen in the modern world. We also categorically oppose any repeal of 10 GA and will unconditionally vote it down ... especially if the drafts for repeal and replacement are both badly formatted, badly written, and exceptionally vague.

[Calladan]

Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are proficient in safely handling nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;

"So nobody new could be trained in that work, even under the supervision of people who are already proficient in it?"

Further requires that individuals intending to engage in an act of terrorism or other inhumane violence be made incapable of accessing nuclear arms.

"But how are those nations that don't have ready access to reliable oracles to ensure this?!?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Also the requirement to "make them incapable of accessing nuclear arms" is somewhat vague. Do we take the nuclear arms off them? Do we lock the people up? Do we shoot them? Do sit them down and teach them to be nice people so they don't want to engage in an act of terrorism?

And - come to think of it - if they ARE intending to engage in an act of terrorism, and we (somehow) manage to predict this fact, and take their nuclear weapons off them, doesn't that mean they'll just resort to C4 or some other equally destructive substance? Which would still kill several hundred people and do quite a lot of damage to quite a lot of people and buildings?

Wouldn't it be better if someone is going to commit an act of terror to stop them committing the act of terror, rather than simply taking the nuclear aspect out of it? I mean - I get that blowing up a nuke in the centre of Greater Leadworth will probably be worse than blowing up a brick of C4, but still - if I it comes to it, I'd rather NOT have anything blowing up a tall if I could.....

[Imperium Anglorum]

Barbera: We are categorically opposed to any proposal which has both the words 'Bear' and 'Arms' in the title.

PARSONS: About that... in the Democratic Empire, arms are entirely legal. There is just a strict licensing programme for ammunition.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are proficient in safely handling nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;

"So nobody new could be trained in that work, even under the supervision of people who are already proficient in it?"

We have amended that clause to be slightly more reasonable.

Further requires that individuals intending to engage in an act of terrorism or other inhumane violence be made incapable of accessing nuclear arms.

"But how are those nations that don't have ready access to reliable oracles to ensure this?!?"

Many member nations possess ample investigative capacities to avoid such an untoward use of these armaments... and I would find it unreasonable for nations without sufficient means of domestic protection to possess nuclear arms.

We've edited the draft to hopefully give a less vague delineation.

"I, and probably any reasonably competent ambassador here, could make an argument that the mere use of nuclear weapons on soft targets is "inhumane" based on the effects of a nuclear detonation, thus banning nuclear weapons usage. Nuclear weapons cause extreme burns radiation sickness, violence, and also all the normal inhumane injuries that go with a large bomb. Can you really argue that the use of any such device isn't inherently inhumane? Its a bad standard, ambassador."

I've made an amendment to the draft that will hopefully appease this concern.

Requires that only individuals within member nations's military who are proficient in safely handling nuclear arms have access to nuclear arms;

Moreover, this doesn't actually mandate anything. Who on earth wouldn't have competent personnel in charge of their most expensive, dangerous strategic weaponry? It's a pointless inclusion, because incompetent invites loss of the strategic asset, which no sane nation, bellicose or peaceable, would do."

Simply because it makes sense for a member nation to have competent individuals maintain their nuclear stores does not mean all member nations would - without legislation such as this.

"So nobody new could be trained in that work, even under the supervision of people who are already proficient in it?"

"But how are those nations that don't have ready access to reliable oracles to ensure this?!?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Also the requirement to "make them incapable of accessing nuclear arms" is somewhat vague. Do we take the nuclear arms off them? Do we lock the people up? Do we shoot them? Do sit them down and teach them to be nice people so they don't want to engage in an act of terrorism?

And - come to think of it - if they ARE intending to engage in an act of terrorism, and we (somehow) manage to predict this fact, and take their nuclear weapons off them, doesn't that mean they'll just resort to C4 or some other equally destructive substance? Which would still kill several hundred people and do quite a lot of damage to quite a lot of people and buildings?

Wouldn't it be better if someone is going to commit an act of terror to stop them committing the act of terror, rather than simply taking the nuclear aspect out of it? I mean - I get that blowing up a nuke in the centre of Greater Leadworth will probably be worse than blowing up a brick of C4, but still - if I it comes to it, I'd rather NOT have anything blowing up a tall if I could.....

This draft is meant to legislate regarding the possession of nuclear arms. I thought that, at least, was clear. For it to legislate regarding other kinds of weaponry is neither permitted nor sensible.

[The Second Moon Rising]

The Second Moon Rising does not find this proposal to be an acceptable replacement to the already existing GAR #10, as the majority of the proposal is simply a re-wording of GAR #10's first and third clause.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

The Second Moon Rising does not find this proposal to be an acceptable replacement to the already existing GAR #10, as the majority of the proposal is simply a re-wording of GAR #10's first and third clause.

Ambassador, I don't think you understand: the entire purpose of this proposal is to reword the terms of GAR#10 such that it is less vague and ambiguous.

[Separatist Peoples]

Simply because it makes sense for a member nation to have competent individuals maintain their nuclear stores does not mean all member nations would - without legislation such as this.

"But why would they? What possible benefit is there in leaving their most prized weapon in the hands of morons? I'm not arguing that this clause would or wouldn't prevent that, I'm arguing that there is no reason in the first place for this issue to exist. This is like mandating nations not trade their military assets for all of the other nation's lions. Sure, some nations (I'm looking at you, Finland) would do it, but those nations are so slim in the minority as to make no difference, and probably have a host of other problems far more fundamental than the training of their military personnel. Its a nonissue.

"Also, the edits have two problems. First, mandating that only state actors own nuclear weapons is a great idea, but doesn't require a repeal of NAPA. If that's your goal, you don't need NAPA to be repealed at all. The rest is a substandard replacement for an effective piece of legislation."