Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Wed May 08, 2019 9:35 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed May 08, 2019 10:24 am
by Kenmoria » Wed May 08, 2019 3:37 pm
by Morover » Thu May 09, 2019 5:13 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 3 is rather vague as to what sort of inteference the international community should do. Also, you may want so specify that you mean the community of member states, rather than non-members.”
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Ambassador, I'm not quite clear on why a nuclear regulatory agency is being given these powers as regards nations likely to use chemical weapons. Use of chemical weapons outside of strict defensive necessity is already banned by WA law, so I'm not sure what this brings to the table as far as those weapons are concerned. It seems a bit off topic."
...
OOC: So you're envisioning this as International Security as opposed to Global Disarmament. Clauses 3 and 5 seem to be I.S.; Clauses 4 and 6 are G.D., and 1-2 are definitions. In other words this is a wash of opposites and while I don't know that it would be declared illegal if submitted as is today, I'm utterly sure someone would challenge it. I would suggest adding to it one way or the other to give yourself a clear argument to work with.
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The title has now become rather misleading, since your active clauses are about responses to MAD, rather than restricting the practice itself.)
by Kenmoria » Thu May 09, 2019 11:42 pm
by Bears Armed » Fri May 10, 2019 5:34 am
OOCKenmoria wrote:(OOC: How does this ‘boost police and military budgets’, according to the definition of the ‘international security’ category? If anything, the fact that you encourage member nations to abandon WMD retaliation would lower WMD budgets.)
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri May 10, 2019 10:40 am
Morover wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: So you're envisioning this as International Security as opposed to Global Disarmament. Clauses 3 and 5 seem to be I.S.; Clauses 4 and 6 are G.D., and 1-2 are definitions. In other words this is a wash of opposites and while I don't know that it would be declared illegal if submitted as is today, I'm utterly sure someone would challenge it. I would suggest adding to it one way or the other to give yourself a clear argument to work with.
(OOC: I'd argue that clause 6 are also International Security, at least by the strict definition of the categories given by the game. Especially since it allows it to "coordinate international cooperation." If nothing else, I'd argue that clause 6 is neutral in terms of the divide of IS/GD. Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure what further clauses I could add that wouldn't simply be filler, as this feels (to me) to be *mostly* complete legislation.)
by Separatist Peoples » Sat May 11, 2019 7:38 am
by Kenmoria » Sun May 12, 2019 12:24 pm
by Morover » Wed May 29, 2019 7:22 pm
by Morover » Thu May 30, 2019 4:40 pm
by Kenmoria » Fri May 31, 2019 4:44 am
Morover wrote:"I have added the following clause to the proposal:
'Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry outside of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.'
I know it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with that doesn't completely contradict GAR#2. With that, I feel like this resolution is mostly done. I may look to submit it soon."
by Morover » Fri May 31, 2019 7:37 am
Kenmoria wrote:Morover wrote:"I have added the following clause to the proposal:
'Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry outside of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.'
I know it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with that doesn't completely contradict GAR#2. With that, I feel like this resolution is mostly done. I may look to submit it soon."
“That sounds as though you are encouraging member nations to attack each other, using conventional weaponry. How about ‘Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry instead of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.’ instead.”
by Morover » Fri May 31, 2019 9:30 am
by Kenmoria » Fri May 31, 2019 9:33 am
by Morover » Fri May 31, 2019 9:41 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Good luck. I have just noticed that clause 5 goes ‘Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, that’, with a repetition of ‘that’. That is, however, quite a small issue.)
by Kardashev III Civilization » Fri May 31, 2019 8:14 pm
by Jocospor » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:15 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:52 am
Jocospor wrote:Good to see a veteran-Confederation nation getting involved in the World Assembly. Congratulations Morover!
by Jocospor » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:58 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:59 am
Jocospor wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Since Morover left the CCD, the GA community doesn't really consider him connected to the Confederation. Worth noting.
OOC: Morover was fairly involved prior to his leaving, and strove hard to build the region. His parting was amicable, and he remains on good terms with the Confederation - he sometimes pops by on the Discord to give his greetings.
by United Massachusetts » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:01 am
Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:06 am
United Massachusetts wrote:Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.
This isn't what MAD is.
by Kranostav » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:08 pm
Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.
by Morover » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:27 pm
Kranostav wrote:Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.
Uhm what. So you can only use WMD's when you are sure a return fire will not occur? Wont that just result in nations wiping each other off the map?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement