[DEFEATED] Nuclear Aggression Act

[Jedinsto]

Snip

I've taken your suggestions into account, I appreciate the help whether you support or not. Is this something like what you were going for?

[Maowi]

"What is the author's reasoning for specifically picking a thirty day limit on retaliation?"

[Jedinsto]

"What is the author's reasoning for specifically picking a thirty day limit on retaliation?"

"I realized one night that under the resolution at the time, a nation could retaliate to an occupation in biblical times. Do you believe 30 days is too short or long?"

[Barfleur]

"What is the author's reasoning for specifically picking a thirty day limit on retaliation?"

"I realized one night that under the resolution at the time, a nation could retaliate to an occupation in biblical times. Do you believe 30 days is too short or long?"

"It is an entirely arbitrary limitation--it serves no genuine value other than to have a number. If you are going to impose limits on nuclear retaliation, which I do not support, it does not really matter the extent of such limitation."

[Jedinsto]

As someone who stands strongly against wasting the WA's time, seeing there's about 10 total people on the planet who support this, this is getting shelved, at least for now.

Edit: Not directing this at barfleur or anyone, just in general, this proposal is extremely unpopular.

[The Python]

As someone who stands strongly against wasting the WA's time, seeing there's about 10 total people on the planet who support this, this is getting shelved, at least for now.

Edit: Not directing this at barfleur or anyone, just in general, this proposal is extremely unpopular.

RIP. I honestly supported this proposal

[Ushornaia]

As someone who stands strongly against wasting the WA's time, seeing there's about 10 total people on the planet who support this, this is getting shelved, at least for now.

Edit: Not directing this at barfleur or anyone, just in general, this proposal is extremely unpopular.

RIP. I honestly supported this proposal

Same here. I’ll be sad to see it go.

[Jedinsto]

I'll think about bringing it back in a month or so, but that's looking pretty unlikely. I think it's a better idea I just find other proposal ideas to pursue. Such as repealing old proposals.

[Brilliantly]

Nice because check my nation and you check national policies that says “ This nation claims The right to use WMDs. Check my election thread for new ruler and read every post for some information about who you will elect and what WMD policies will each Candidate establish. Also I neutral, if you feel it, submitted it.
Here the link : viewtopic.php?f=23&t=500717

[Jedinsto]

I've decided to revive this and have changed the scope to only limit use of WMDs against other member nations.

[Heavens Reach]

Support as written, except that we would reword the anti-blocker to say something more like (and feel free to use verbatim if you so desire):

"nor does it prohibit more stringent requirements, or stronger restrictions, from being placed on nuclear weapon use in future legislation"

We don't think "nor does it prevent future legislation from going further on the concept of nuclear strikes" is very clear in what it is permitting.

[Heidgaudr]

"The threat of MAD has significantly reduced the number of wars between major geopolitical powers. When war does break out, it's often contained to a smaller scale and scope.

"Furthermore, GAR#2 requires wars between member states to be consensual. If nuclear strike were a threat, then members shouldn't be agreeing to those wars. As such, we see this proposal as being mostly pointless busywork."

[Jedinsto]

Support as written, except that we would reword the anti-blocker to say something more like (and feel free to use verbatim if you so desire):

"nor does it prohibit more stringent requirements, or stronger restrictions, from being placed on nuclear weapon use in future legislation"

We don't think "nor does it prevent future legislation from going further on the concept of nuclear strikes" is very clear in what it is permitting.

Suggestion taken with different words.

[Heavens Reach]

Support as written, except that we would reword the anti-blocker to say something more like (and feel free to use verbatim if you so desire):

"nor does it prohibit more stringent requirements, or stronger restrictions, from being placed on nuclear weapon use in future legislation"

We don't think "nor does it prevent future legislation from going further on the concept of nuclear strikes" is very clear in what it is permitting.

Suggestion taken with different words.

Full support as written, no reservations

[Starman of Stardust]

"While we believe this could still be more restrictive, we are in full support. Indiscriminate, collective punishment of entire civilisations in response to the crimes of fools ought not be allowed."

"The threat of MAD has significantly reduced the number of wars between major geopolitical powers. When war does break out, it's often contained to a smaller scale and scope.

"Furthermore, GAR#2 requires wars between member states to be consensual. If nuclear strike were a threat, then members shouldn't be agreeing to those wars. As such, we see this proposal as being mostly pointless busywork."

"This does not, in any way, prohibit MAD doctrine, so I fail to see the problem."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Speaking as the leader of one of these non-WA nations you seem to care so little about, I assure you, we will not hesitate to fire upon any WA nation posing a threat to our national security, if it is proper and necessary to do so. We also thank the model-WA troop that seems to have taken over this body for repealing NAPA, the one resolution keeping enterprising WA nations from transferring nuclear weapons to us, because if there were any "wrong-er" hands than ours, we'd sure like to know about them. [absently grips coiled whip on her belt]

~ Jenny Chiang, President

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, the Obaman Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, rubs his temples and sighs. Is this what the World Assembly had come to? Taking away people's last resort at defence? Too much peace-loving hippie propaganda has rotted the pragmatic areas in people's brains. It was sad to see.

He shuffled his speech cards and rose up to the podium, despite not being invited to speak as per usual. A great thing about every ambassador being a couple of lily livered liberals was that no one dared to stop him from speaking as a non-WA member.

"We fully support this measure. By banning the use of nukes by WA member states, we will be able to assert dominance through superior firepower on them. By eliminating mutually assured destruction and making it just assured destruction for one side, we can extort resources and wage wars with little consequence. The exceptions are essentially useless as it only refers to a strike once it's hit, allowing for us to completely decimate any insubordinate before they can even press the red button to respond. Perhaps our nuclear arms could convince member states to revoke bans on slavery and torture for our sake. We intend to fund any campaigning for this bill." As he finished, he drops his mic and sits in a random seat, waiting for a reply.

[Heavens Reach]

If we've said it once, we've said it a thousand times, mutually assured destruction is not mutually exclusive with a nuclear weapons ban, let alone some sensible restrictions on when they can be used.

[Kenmoria]

“Though I would support a more restrictive piece of legislation as well, this does not prevent such a step from being taken in the future. Therefore, the idea has my support. On the matter of execution, however, I do have some concerns, particularly with clause 2b. First, if a WMD of sufficient size were to strike very small nations: micronations, as they are sometimes termed, then there might not be any government left to authorise an attack. I am thinking particularly of nations on small islands. Second, I am confused as to why conventional warheads, to which retaliation is allowed according to clause 2a, are not sufficient justification for a retaliatory strike if upon an ally.”

[Jedinsto]

“Though I would support a more restrictive piece of legislation as well, this does not prevent such a step from being taken in the future. Therefore, the idea has my support. On the matter of execution, however, I do have some concerns, particularly with clause 2b. First, if a WMD of sufficient size were to strike very small nations: micronations, as they are sometimes termed, then there might not be any government left to authorise an attack. I am thinking particularly of nations on small islands. Second, I am confused as to why conventional warheads, to which retaliation is allowed according to clause 2a, are not sufficient justification for a retaliatory strike if upon an ally.”

"Your concerns have been implemented into the recent draft."

OOC: This will likely be submitted when GA#2 has made its way to the voting floor.

[Starman of Stardust]

This appears to have been submitted.

[Jedinsto]

Indeed.

[Kenmoria]

“The word ‘other’ in clause 2 is superfluous.” Lewitt looks up, seeing that the proposal has been submitted. “Nevermind, it was only a minor flaw. I have reservations about this proposal but, seeing none that amount to making it a detriment to international law, I will support it.”

[New Falkarth]

We support this resolution.
We think that it will promote safer resolution of conflicts, without actually trying to ban existence of WMD. Too many people try to ban WMD completely without considering their importance in deterrence against possible aggression. This is especially true for smaller nations that are in conflict with bigger and stronger nations.

[Kenmoria]

“I am pleased to announce my support for this proposal. There is no reason for any nation to be attacking another with nuclear weaponry unprovoked, given that diplomatic means are always available to solve disputes.” Lewitt seems conflicted as he speaks, but he delivers the pronouncement nonetheless.