Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.
"That is incredibly unlikely to ever happen."
Advertisement
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:04 pm
Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:44 pm
Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.
by Uan aa Boa » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:15 am
by Scherzinger » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:39 pm
by Verlzonia » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:17 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:11 am
Snakes13 wrote:Question: Isn't this an exact duplicate of GA#10? Maybe the GenSec can review that and get back to me about it, I'm really unsure, but I think it covers the same basic points.
Snakes13 WA Division
by Hatterleigh » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:35 am
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Hrvatska Republika Herceg Bosna » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:00 am
Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.
by Ermintia » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:02 am
by Soyo Vax » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:49 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:31 pm
Soyo Vax wrote:Hello folks. My little state is new, and I'm rather new to this forum as well, so forgive any obvious transgressions here, but, as representative of a pacifist nation with no nukes, and a cultural abhorrence of the thought of them, I'm struggling to see the value of this resolution.
Here's a perhaps naïve question: are we creating legislation to guide our behaviour, or are we creating it to mirror our behaviour? If the latter, what's the point? If, in the absence of this resolution, nations are free to do what they want with nuclear materials and information, what does this resolution gain us? And, if the former, well, I'm adamantly opposed to it. The world needs no encouragement to make WMDs.
If we're trying to limit the proliferation of nukes, and perhaps of irresponsible use of nuclear materials in general, why doesn't this resolution just do that? Why do we need, insanely, to affirm the right to do something that we don't want done? Sure, we don't want crazies to have big bombs, but how does affirming everyone's right to them help that?
Perhaps this has all been debated to death and resolved somewhere in the past, and if only I spent the interminable time poring through all the old meeting minutes I'd know, but barring that, can someone catch me up on this?
Until I can see the sense of this resolution, my vote will stay at 'no'.
by United North American Commonwealths » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:12 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:
The World Assembly,
Understanding that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations,
Noting that those nations do not have limits on their nuclear arsenals, use conditions, or any restrictions on nuclear arms whatsoever, thereby putting member nations at a considerable military disadvantage against their nearly-unlimited power,
Observing that radical elements of the Assembly could ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons after the repeal of 391 GA 'Securing Nuclear Materials from Dastardly Menaces' and 351 GA 'Nuclear Material Safeguards', meaning that a single legislative mistake could destroy us, and
Giving credence to the necessity of clause 5, as non-inclusion would lead to nuclear materials being unprotected in state collapse, creating a proliferation crisis, in which the purveyors of loose nukes must not become nuclear powers, hereby:
- Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;
- Maintains the right of member nations to manufacture and trade nuclear weapons or reactors, to possess the materials required in such manufacture, and to acquire the materials required in such manufacture;
- 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;
- Mandates that member nations take all practical actions to stop unauthorised release of the materials or disclosure of the knowledge spoken of in the above two clauses; and
- Directs, should no future legislation require otherwise, the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission to ensure that nuclear armaments, materials, and knowledge are secured from weaponisation by providing material assistance and phase-out assistance to nations unable to defend their own nuclear knowledge and technology.
by Bruke » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:22 pm
by Skymoot » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:49 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Snakes13 wrote:Question: Isn't this an exact duplicate of GA#10? Maybe the GenSec can review that and get back to me about it, I'm really unsure, but I think it covers the same basic points.
Snakes13 WA Division
OOC: No, it's not; and no, it doesn't. If you read both resolutions, you understand that NAPA ensures nations the right to possess nuclear weapons, while this proposal deals with nuclear materials and the knowledge of how to use them for various ends (not just bomb-making).
No duplication to speak of.
Skymoot News Center: Towns welcome fireless steam engine future as railway lines bring jobs, tourists, and angry commuters | Hoogeloon City first in country to offer Skymoot Dragon Taming classes in universities | Grungy Glampers? National park rangers troubled by rising waste from new 'glamping' trend.| The "TWP Dragon" & the "Dragon Dragoon" brigade to be awarded for curing 130+ nations during Z-Day 2017. |||
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm
Skymoot wrote:But, to speak frankly here, next time you write up a GA resolution... please reword the resolutions if they sound similar to past works.
by Skymoot » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:55 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Skymoot wrote:But, to speak frankly here, next time you write up a GA resolution... please reword the resolutions if they sound similar to past works.
OOC: I think you may want to look at the two resolutions cited in the preamble. You will see extreme similarities with them. Wink.
Skymoot News Center: Towns welcome fireless steam engine future as railway lines bring jobs, tourists, and angry commuters | Hoogeloon City first in country to offer Skymoot Dragon Taming classes in universities | Grungy Glampers? National park rangers troubled by rising waste from new 'glamping' trend.| The "TWP Dragon" & the "Dragon Dragoon" brigade to be awarded for curing 130+ nations during Z-Day 2017. |||
by States of Glory WA Office » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:52 pm
by FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:59 pm
by Wallenburg » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:13 pm
FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever wrote:We obviously stand opposed to this horrendous and utterly idiotic excuse for a proposal, not surprising for IA to have written.
The worst part was the completely stupid phrasing of "member nations have the right" NATIONS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS, only individuals have rights.
Strongly against this disgusting and vile declaration of Statist violence.
by FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:17 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Rights are not exclusive to individuals.
by Wallenburg » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:24 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement