[DEFEATED] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

[Aclion]

Aware that non-member nations outnumber World Assembly member nations by about 6-1, and the gap will only increase as time goes on.

OOC: Just a minor nitpick, but that assumption is based entirely on OOC gameside facts, so I'd really like to see some IC reasoning added, or at the very least changing "only" to "likely".

It's this already IC'ly acknowledged in [whichever resolution protected member nations right to own nuclear weapons]

[Araraukar]

It's this already IC'ly acknowledged in [whichever resolution protected member nations right to own nuclear weapons]

OOC: And clouds tend to look white during the day, if they're diffuse enough to let some sunlight through. In other words, what's that got anything to do with anything? Even if it was quoting an existing resolution with permission, I'd still like to see some IC reasoning or the suggested word change.

[Morover]

“You use ‘member states’ in your preamble, but ‘member-states’ in your active clauses. I recommend sticking to one of them rather than using both.”

"Yes, these are the things I'll be looking for in my final checks - which should be happening soon."

Aware that non-member nations outnumber World Assembly member nations by about 6-1, and the gap will only increase as time goes on.

OOC: Just a minor nitpick, but that assumption is based entirely on OOC gameside facts, so I'd really like to see some IC reasoning added, or at the very least changing "only" to "likely".

OOC: It's really included as an acknowledgment that a vast majority of nations will not have to adhere to the regulations made in this resolution, which may affect member-states.

EDIT: Also, I feel that the second preambulatory clause accurately explains this IC.

[Morover]

OOC: Submitted once more.

I do think this is a better proposal than my prior attempt, so let's pray that the delegates and people agree.

[Cela]

"Defines a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life."

This proposal is not broad enough in it's definition of weapons of mass destruction. What about weapons that aren't chemical or nuclear-based, but have the same potential for mass destruction? As the resolution stands, Cela will be voting against.

- Ambassador Simmons

Edit: Furthermore, the proposal contradicts itself:
"Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, member-states may use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation."

This seems to go against the entire purpose of the proposal to begin with. Also the term "reasonable threat" is highly subjective and there is no way of enforcing what constitutes a reasonable threat.

[Morover]

"Defines a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life."

This proposal is not broad enough in it's definition of weapons of mass destruction. What about weapons that aren't chemical or nuclear-based, but have the same potential for mass destruction? As the resolution stands, Cela will be voting against.

- Ambassador Simmons

Edit: Furthermore, the proposal contradicts itself:
"Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, member-states may use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation."

This seems to go against the entire purpose of the proposal to begin with. Also the term "reasonable threat" is highly subjective and there is no way of enforcing what constitutes a reasonable threat.

“The definition for WMD consists of the most frequently used weapons of mass destruction - it is simply impossible to list every single kind of WMD. Biological weapons are excluded, as prior GA Legislation already covers it.”

“As for the allowance of Mutually Assured Destruction - it would be foolish to ban it. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is, inherently, a good preventer of war. However, the proposal does create significant reason to not use Mutually Assured Destruction, which will hopefully encourage nations from performing the act.”

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote AGAINST this resolution, as We are sure there is already WA legislation on the issue of nuclear-arms and there is no need for more funding for police and military budgets. Ideally, this organization should strive to limit the use of all nuclear and biological weapons and the permissions given in this resolution do not take a sufficient stand against the use of such weapons.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajyasya Shaktirajyasya

[Morover]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote AGAINST this resolution, as We are sure there is already WA legislation on the issue of nuclear-arms and there is no need for more funding for police and military budgets. Ideally, this organization should strive to limit the use of all nuclear and biological weapons and the permissions given in this resolution do not take a sufficient stand against the use of such weapons.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajyasya Shaktirajyasya

“I hate to break it to you, ambassador, but the use of nuclear arms is already explicitly allowed by the World Assembly, and the use of biological weapons is strictly prohibited. I don’t believe this proposal is aiming to do what you think it is.”

[Baltari]

While the Baltari delegate would like to support denuclearization clauses, she cannot stand behind a proposal with no well-defined plan for enforcement or alternative contingencies in place to address the threat of attack by non-member nations and regions. The proposal does provide good arguments against MAD and the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, and I hope it opens the floor to further discussion on the matter that leads to a more complete plan to address the matter. As it stands, however, the Republic of Baltari votes against.

[Voycadia]

"As much as we admire the goodwilling spirit of the proposal, it simply misses the point of nuclear deterrence. Actions as discouraged in section 4 are the whole point of nuclear deterrent policies. A nation's perceived willingness to retaliate is what keeps the peace. Voycadia votes against."

- Ambassador Price

[Kranostav]

No bad feelings to you Morover, but I really just cant support this.

As outlined in my IFV (https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1223002), I have issues with the definition and lack of teeth this proposal has, I also have concerns over the arbitrary banning of response systems which could lead to bad interpretations.

Edit: More so, as discussed on discord, reducing the credibility of a counter/response strike increases the possibility of a first strike being successful or even cost less enough to undertake

[Otaku Stratus]

I am stunned that this made it through to vote, shuddering at the ignorance and naivete required to draft it, and concerned for the education system that produced its author. This person needs headpats, gentle guidance, and a very long talking-to.

[Kenmoria]

"As much as we admire the goodwilling spirit of the proposal, it simply misses the point of nuclear deterrence. Actions as discouraged in section 4 are the whole point of nuclear deterrent policies. A nation's perceived willingness to retaliate is what keeps the peace. Voycadia votes against."

- Ambassador Price

“The proposal bans automatic response systems, not just response systems of any kind. This means it will hopefully avoid a misfiring where a retaliation occurs for something that never happened or was accidental due to technical errors. Enforcing manual response systems only means that there needs to be some sapient being in the equation, preventing machine errors.”

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Against this for the same old IC reason as opposition to other attempts to place limits on WMD use: any limitations only apply to WA nations, and subsequently disadvantage WA nations that will have their hands tied when non-WA nations they may be in conflict with will not.

[Aclion]

It's this already IC'ly acknowledged in [whichever resolution protected member nations right to own nuclear weapons]

OOC: And clouds tend to look white during the day, if they're diffuse enough to let some sunlight through. In other words, what's that got anything to do with anything? Even if it was quoting an existing resolution with permission, I'd still like to see some IC reasoning or the suggested word change.

It means that these OOC gameside facts are canon.

[Morover]

"As much as we admire the goodwilling spirit of the proposal, it simply misses the point of nuclear deterrence. Actions as discouraged in section 4 are the whole point of nuclear deterrent policies. A nation's perceived willingness to retaliate is what keeps the peace. Voycadia votes against."

- Ambassador Price

"While I disagree with your sentiments, I can see why you stand where you stand. Thank you, ambassador, for your considerations."

No bad feelings to you Morover, but I really just cant support this.

As outlined in my IFV (https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1223002), I have issues with the definition and lack of teeth this proposal has, I also have concerns over the arbitrary banning of response systems which could lead to bad interpretations.

Edit: More so, as discussed on discord, reducing the credibility of a counter/response strike increases the possibility of a first strike being successful or even cost less enough to undertake

OOC: All good! I know this isn't exactly my best draft on the forums, but I do feel it's something that needs legislation on. It's unfortunate that we disagree on this issue, and hopefully it does not prevent us from furthering our professional relationship in the future.

You know that I disagree with opposition based on the definition of Mutually Assured Destruction, though I can understand where you're coming from. I also disagree vehemently with the idea that "automatic response systems to nuclear attacks" is fairly self-explanatory, and doesn't need further definition. I understand that you are referring to peaceful response systems to nuclear attacks possibly being banned, and I understand that, which is something that I could have worded better, but I do believe that the clause is not terrible, anyways. Too late to rewrite it now, though. And just for clarification, because it sounds like this in the IFV, the WADB is a previously established committee, I am not making it as a new committee.

I am stunned that this made it through to vote, shuddering at the ignorance and naivete required to draft it, and concerned for the education system that produced its author. This person needs headpats, gentle guidance, and a very long talking-to.

IC: "This seems a bit, erm, inappropriate, ambassador. I understand you don't necessarily like the proposal, but personal insults seem to be going a bit too far. But, what do I know? I am the author, after all."

OOC: Against this for the same old IC reason as opposition to other attempts to place limits on WMD use: any limitations only apply to WA nations, and subsequently disadvantage WA nations that will have their hands tied when non-WA nations they may be in conflict with will not.

OOC: Understandable.

[Marxist Germany]

"Germany would like to announce its support for this proposal. This is because of our pacifist leanings."

[United States of Americanas]

As it stands this country is fully demilitarized. We have a well equipped police force for handling internal issues but we do not get involved in any type of military conflict.

Aye vote registered.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Voted against because of the category. If it looks in danger of passing, I'll switch WA status to another acc and might reconsider the position based on the IC leanings of that account. I just don't want the stat hit on Araraukar.

[Kranostav]

No bad feelings to you Morover, but I really just cant support this.

As outlined in my IFV (https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1223002), I have issues with the definition and lack of teeth this proposal has, I also have concerns over the arbitrary banning of response systems which could lead to bad interpretations.

Edit: More so, as discussed on discord, reducing the credibility of a counter/response strike increases the possibility of a first strike being successful or even cost less enough to undertake

OOC: All good! I know this isn't exactly my best draft on the forums, but I do feel it's something that needs legislation on. It's unfortunate that we disagree on this issue, and hopefully it does not prevent us from furthering our professional relationship in the future.

You know that I disagree with opposition based on the definition of Mutually Assured Destruction, though I can understand where you're coming from. I also disagree vehemently with the idea that "automatic response systems to nuclear attacks" is fairly self-explanatory, and doesn't need further definition. I understand that you are referring to peaceful response systems to nuclear attacks possibly being banned, and I understand that, which is something that I could have worded better, but I do believe that the clause is not terrible, anyways. Too late to rewrite it now, though. And just for clarification, because it sounds like this in the IFV, the WADB is a previously established committee, I am not making it as a new committee.

Fair, the response system also worries me that it makes first strikes an easy win for aggressors. Since automatic response systems typically require some level of approval and are not fully automatic. And yeah I realize thats a little unclear on the IFV, twas a late night write

[The New California Republic]

Prohibits the use of automatic response systems to nuclear attacks.

OOC: I'm concerned about this clause, as it could even be taken to mean things as simple as an alarm automatically sounding in the command HQ if satellites and/or radar detect possible missile launches, as that technically falls under an "automatic response system to nuclear attacks", as it is automatically generating a response (the alarm sounding) to nuclear attacks after all...

[Jakker]

I am stunned that this made it through to vote, shuddering at the ignorance and naivete required to draft it, and concerned for the education system that produced its author. This person needs headpats, gentle guidance, and a very long talking-to.

You can criticize the proposal and the author without getting so personal. Unofficial warning for flaming.

[Jebslund]

As it stands this country is fully demilitarized. We have a well equipped police force for handling internal issues but we do not get involved in any type of military conflict.

Aye vote registered.

Sofia Kerman stands. "Well, isn't that nice! You've got a police force that can stand toe to toe with other nations' militaries should they choose to invade you. I suppose you imagine their nukes will simply turn around and go home if an officer orders them to? Or maybe your supercops can pull them over and arrest them!", she snipes, then pauses for effect, "Mutually Assured Destruction is a necessary policy for nations that are not as small and overlooked as yours, as it is the knowledge that entering into a nuclear exchange with a country that will respond with enough force to obliterate your country is a rather strong motivation for not beginning said exchange. Jebslund is categorically opposed to this proposal."

[Maletora]

Against as point seven of the proposal is very broad and directly threatens our laser air defense grids, which are automatic response systems to any airborne threat that happens to be directly threatening our nation, and only active during times of war that directly threaten our nation, and only utilized against ICBM warheads and/or properly defined bomber type aircraft. Even our own ion cannon systems are at risk of being forced to be decommissioned, due to their self defense systems against anti-satellite missiles.

If point seven defined as "Automatic response measures taken against already airborne threats and near or directly over that nations sovereign territory," then we would accept. As it stands, we vote no.

[Mew Nation]

"Mew Nation offers its tentative support for this proposal while expressing mild concern for a lack of specificity regarding a qualification for "mass loss of life". As a small nation (current population of 252 million), we feel it may easily be argued that the loss of our -entire- population would be the only thing that would qualify a "mass loss of life" when compared to a vast nation comprised of multiple billions. Mew Nation humbly suggests the addition of a percentage marker to define "mass loss of life" to help ensure smaller nations are equitably protected/held accountable under this measure. However, we will continue to support this measure, as is, without such an addition."

OOC: If there is such a defining marker, please forgive me for missing it! This is my first attempt at "peopling" on NationStates.