NationStates

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.

"That is incredibly unlikely to ever happen."

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.

"Unfortunately for your agenda, ambassador, that ship has sailed. Well, it's more of a flotilla. The lead ship of which is a dreadnought, an Orion class interplanetary strike cruiser, or a full on star destroyer, depending on your metaphorical technology levels."

We cannot support this and will be urging others to vote against it when it reaches the floor. The Assembly's proclivity for insta-repeals is depressing enough. Repeating the process three times for the same proposal would be intolerable.

Finally, something we can agree on. We support this movement.

Seems alright. Approved.

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

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.

inbf ancaps get mad because they can't trade their McNukes with Bitcoins on the deep web stock market

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.

It is very unlikely to happen, since every country needs protection. We support this.

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:I'm against this, world should totally get rid of WMD's.

that would only work if Everyone did it which would not work.

"Judging by the number of votes towards this already, I wouldn't trust the rest of the world to follow suit." deadpans Vice President H'juu Qwi. Meanwhile, Menna Tormenna, a journalist, struggles to figure out what is being discussed from outside.

Scherzinger wrote:Finally, something we can agree on. We support this movement.

Qwi frowns. "It's too early to be assuming that the end result will be as agreed-upon as it is now."

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'.

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'.

"We are preventing disarmament. If you do not wish to use such weapons, the C.D.S.P. invites you not to. The only way the C.D.S.P. will be disarmed is by using up it's stockpile in a fiery apocalypse."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

(Image)
Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
Category: International Security | Strength: Mild

---

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:

1. Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;
   
   
2. 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;
   
   
3. 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;
   
   
4. 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
   
   
5. 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.

we strictly oppose this proposal because it would hurt are efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles for a more peaceful world.

"We support this proposal. In a world where madmen can destroy nations at a push of a button, it's nice to know the Assembly stands with the sane, free nations of the world in their fight against tyranny."

Xascaster Flisk drags himself into the debate. The older GA #10 resolution clutched in one hand, and the proposal in the other.

Xascaster Flisk: I apologize for a delay in any response. I had no intention of shooting my mouth off while my brain was half-cocked, and myself furious from overheated discussion. I, like Snakes13, initially believed that this resolution was a duplicate of GA #10. I've learned from the past, that I shouldn't speak while angry. So after reading this discussion as it unfolded, I took a break to cool down before coming here tonight. The debates between Snakes13 and Sierra Lyricalia reflect my own worries.

I've also read over both GA #10 and this proposal to better understand the discussion and my view, and I still have my concerns.

First, to calm everyone, Skymoot will vote for this resolution. Simply because, dear gentlemen, ladies, intelligent lifeforms, we already have. This resolution expands on GA #10's focus of nuclear weapons by proposing what to do about the materials needed for said nuclear weapons. This resolution does this in a way that is not infringing GA rules (such as creating resolutions that are dependent on previous resolutions or copying past resolutions). So as a result, while not completely copying GA #10, this resolution is legal, to answer Snakes13 and my own worries.

However, this turns me to Sierra. I have my concerns over your statement: "No duplication to speak of." While the resolutions do not speak of the same items (nuclear weapons versus the materials needed for said weapons, respectably), the wording is eerily similar. You could swap the two topics of the resolutions around, and they'd feel right at home. For a few examples of this eerily similar wording, I'd like to direct to...




With these examples, it's hard to say that there is, quote: "No duplication to speak of." While these two resolutions do not duplicate the same topic, and thus are legal in the eyes of GA law, they do duplicate their wording. Simply put. Both sides are correct. Yes, the resolution copied elements of GA #10, but as Sierra puts it: "NAPA (GA #10) 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)." So as a result, it's legal for the GA.

This finally brings me to our valuable author, imperium_anglorum. Being the past author of 19 (and by the looks of this voting, soon to be 20) GA resolutions, we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who so dedicates their time to the World Assembly. But, to speak frankly here, next time you write up a GA resolution... please reword the resolutions if they sound similar to past works. I was about to go off like Snakes13 about this resolution had I not kept my mouth shut and watched the discussion unfold.

... So yes. To reaffirm, Skymoot will vote for this resolution, as we see it as an extension of GA #10. We already comply with GA #10, so to add onto GA #10 with this proposal will be no worry for the people of Skymoot. I wish everyone a great night, week, and future.

With a sigh, Xascaster Flisk selects the "For" vote on the Skymootian desk.

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.

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.

OOC: Yes I do. However the issue I had was with the similarities of this resolution to GA #10. It's hard to really argue about those past ones when they've already been struck out by a repeal. Lol but yes, I do see that reoccurring theme.

Fairburn: There is nothing in this proposal about securing these materials from dastardly menaces. Opposed.

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.

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.

Well, the resolution is bad and ought to be opposed, but member states most certainly have rights. Rights are not exclusive to individuals.

Wallenburg wrote:Rights are not exclusive to individuals.

FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Rights are not exclusive to individuals.

I'm not joking. Consult GAR#2, for instance, as well as the countless other resolutions granting member states rights.

Wallenburg wrote:

FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever wrote:

I'm not joking. Consult GAR#2, for instance, as well as the countless other resolutions granting member states rights.

OOC: Plus, entities get rights all the time. Pretending only individuals have rights is to be willfully ignorant of how the legal world works.