[DEFEATED] Nuclear Aggression Act

[Jedinsto]

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.

[Maowi]

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.

OOC: I was mainly suggesting making the proposal apply only between member states, rather than between one member state and one non-member state too.

[Jedinsto]

OOC: I understand where you're coming from, but allowing member states to nuke unsuspecting non-members when we can help it is a dangerous path to walk.

[Maowi]

OOC: I understand where you're coming from, but allowing member states to nuke unsuspecting non-members when we can help it is a dangerous path to walk.

OOC: But very few non-member nations will be "unsuspecting" ... you really do have to take into account the fact that non-member nations are not going to be restricted in the same way that member nations are by this proposal. Perhaps you could try and put in place some sort of halfway measure when it comes to the use of WMDs on non-member states, such as banning their use when the non-member state possesses no nuclear weapons? It's still tricky, because then you have to look at mutual defence pacts between non-member nations, and I think it probably gets too complicated. But I think a full-on ban on first strikes on non-member nations is idealistic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

such as banning their use when the non-member state possesses no nuclear weapons?

The Security Council, 2025:

Colin Pawell: Woof! Bow-bow! (trans. So we can see from these satellite photographs that the intermediate range missile complexes in northern Iraq are a direct threat to Grrrrrr'eek security and could easily be targeted on large population centres in southeastern Yoooo'rup. We have every intention to counter any launches from those complexes with a nuclear missile strike, given that we have no way of knowing that those missiles carry only conventional warheads.)

Saaaadam Hooosain: Woof! Grrr! (trans. We do not have any nuclear weapons! The law prohibits you from using a first strike or from retaliating against against us with nuclear weapons!)

Pawell: Hiss! (trans. You refuse to allow international inspectors, except at some mocked up Potemkin village missile sites! We have the receipts for your purchase of processed uranium dioxide! Where did the uranium dioxide materials go?! Why do you refuse to allow international inspectors to your intermediate range missile sites?! Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!)

[WayNeacTia]

Sigh....

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction, or a military invasion,

a. on one's own nation, or,

Please read.

So where exactly are nations permitted to test their nuclear weapons, if not on their own soil?

[Jedinsto]

Sigh....

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction, or a military invasion,

a. on one's own nation, or,

Please read.

So where exactly are nations permitted to test their nuclear weapons, if not on their own soil?

Buddy, are you invading your own nation? Are you another nation than your own? No. You can test on your own soil.

Edit: I added a clause to spell it out for you

[Ardiveds]

Sigh....

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction, or a military invasion,

a. on one's own nation, or,

Please read.

So where exactly are nations permitted to test their nuclear weapons, if not on their own soil?

Buddy, are you invading your own nation? Are you another nation than your own? No. You can test on your own soil.

Edit: I added a clause to spell it out for you

OOC: To be fair, you didn't specify that "using" nuclear weapons was only applicable when done for invasions. Detonating a nuke for testing is still "using" it.

[Jedinsto]

does anyone have ideas on how I could improve the definitions here? It seems like they could definitely be better, but I don't know how I should change them.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Out of curiosity, may I ask what exactly made you add that "on your own nation" clause?

[Jedinsto]

OOC: Out of curiosity, may I ask what exactly made you add that "on your own nation" clause?

To separate being struck and an ally being struck to allow umbrellas

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Out of curiosity, may I ask what exactly made you add that "on your own nation" clause?

To separate being struck and an ally being struck to allow umbrellas

OOC: Holy shit I just realised the subclauses of 3 2 were for where the invasion or attack must come to. I was reading the subclauses as where you can launch your nukes . That clears up why you didn't think nuclear tests were an issue. I feel extraordinarily dumb.

[Jedinsto]

To separate being struck and an ally being struck to allow umbrellas

OOC: Holy shit I just realised the subclauses of 3 2 were for where the invasion or attack must come to. I was reading the subclauses as where you can launch your nukes . That clears up why you didn't think nuclear tests were an issue. I feel extraordinarily dumb.

It's alright

[Edrace]

Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction, or a military invasion,

The entire military invasion part should probably be cut, I can understand a country using a nuclear bomb in retaliation to another, but justifying a nuclear bomb being used because a country is being invaded is just plain silly

[Jedinsto]

Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction, or a military invasion,

The entire military invasion part should probably be cut, I can understand a country using a nuclear bomb in retaliation to another, but justifying a nuclear bomb being used because a country is being invaded is just plain silly

This resolution doesn't block any future legislation from going further on this, but my justification is first of all, res 418, a clause says that member nations may use nukes "in retaliation to hostile forces," and I wasn't sure how far that could be stretched. Also, if the only justification were WMD response, then a large nation could just steamroll a small nation without nukes, when that small nation's best defense is MAD.

Edit: I will deliberate further on how to improve that definition, though the definition is not leaving. Any feedback on how to do so would be appreciated.

[Padada Republic]

Nucler weapons are greatest threat to humanity

[Jedinsto]

Nucler weapons are greatest threat to humanity

When kept in the silos, nuclear weapons can be humanity's best friend. However, the second they're launched with or without justification, all hell breaks loose.

[Jedinsto]

I am planning to submit in a week or two, assuming the queue is still fairly clear by then. (barring any major changes)

[Auze]

"For a moment, I was hoping that this was an Act to support Nuclear Aggression. Disappointed, I must vote Against."

[Jedinsto]

Bump. List tags added.

[The Python]

Bump. List tags added.

Support Nukes are almost always bad and this helps at least limit their use.

[Uan aa Boa]

What's the point in the World Assembly trying to legislate on nuclear first strikes? A nation that would resort to that step is either so reckless that it's unlikely to care about WA resolutions, or faces a threat so grave that a WA compliance hearing is the least of its worries. Is a nuclear first strike likely to be undertaken so lightly that it wouldn't be worth the nation involved taking a few moments to resign its membership of this most august body beforehand?

Seeing no likelihood that this act would actually prevent nuclear aggression I have to conclude it's simply virtue signalling.

[Jedinsto]

I am planning on submitting in a few days, I would like IA to come in and correct my English, and whatever other problems he has with it, and I will still listen for any new suggestions from others.

[Jedinsto]

Preparing to submit once again, any final feedback?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I am planning on submitting in a few days, I would like IA to come in and correct my English, and whatever other problems he has with it, and I will still listen for any new suggestions from others.

Stop adding commas everywhere and re-read your text.