Maowi wrote:OOC: Hey, thanks for withdrawing the proposal and giving yourself a chance to work on it some more!
I think as currently written - with the restrictions applying to member states whether they're dealing with other member states or with non-member states - there could be some significant problems with what you're trying to put in place.
Under this proposal, if you're a World Assembly member state dealing with the threat that another member state may launch a nuclear attack on you, you know that they are not permitted to strike first, just as you're not permitted to strike first on them. But you have no such guarantee when you're dealing with non-member states, who may build up their nuclear arsenals as far as they wish with no need to worry about the possibility that you'll take these out via nuclear attack, and who can then strike first to destroy your own nuclear arsenal, leaving you with no ability to retaliate.
I respect and sympathise with your wish to reduce the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons as far as possible, but for mutually-assured destruction to work as a way of keeping things in balance, it has to go both ways.
You definitely have a point here, but I disagree that member states should be able to nuke unsuspecting member states that haven't done anything at all to warrant such an attack. I made a compromise on this proposal before that contradicts that belief, but that was a massive mistake that I will not make again.