NationStates

Global Disarmament: Significant

The World Assembly,

Understanding that some smaller nations' only protection from larger nations is mutually assured destruction,

Wishing to limit nuclear devastation among member nations,

Hereby;

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution;
   
   1. "nuclear weapon" as a bomb or missile that uses nuclear fission, fusion, or a combination of the two processes to create an explosion,
   2. "weapon of mass destruction" (herein WMD) as a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction in a single strike,
   3. "military invasion" as a military force of significant size, including any unmanned weapons, directed by its government to enter foreign territory in order to cause mass destruction to civilian targets or to strike a government property,
2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other World Assembly member nations unless;
   
   1. in retaliation to a strike from a WMD, conventional warhead or a military invasion within 30 days of such an occurrence,
   2. in retaliation to a WMD strike, conventional warhead or a military invasion on behalf of a government which has been completely obliterated by the same WMD strike, conventional warhead, or military invasion, though the retaliation may only be carried out when the obliterated government would have been legally authorized to carry out the same retaliation,
   3. in retaliation to a WMD strike, conventional warhead or a military invasion on behalf of a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense, with the initially struck government's authorization, and when the initially struck government would be allowed to perform the retaliation themselves, or
   4. the target nation has violated the terms of this resolution at any point since its passage,
3. Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on the soil of the nation testing, nor does it prevent future legislation from creating further restrictions on the use or possession of nuclear weapons.

Though he specifically requested not to be credited as a co-author, I would like to thank Arenado for his help in drafting this proposal.

Illegal for contradicting GA#418 "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials."

Tinhampton wrote:Illegal for contradicting GA#418 "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials."

Jedinsto wrote:The World Assembly,

Understanding the need for WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in self-defense,

Confirming member nations' right to own WMDs,

Finding, however, that WMDs are fatal to civilizations and the population thereof, human and otherwise,

Hereby;

1. Bans the use of (or threatening the use of) WMDs on member nations,

2. Bans the use of (or threatening the use of) WMDs on non-member nations, unless in a case of self-defense, due to threats of or actual WMD hostility,

Excepts the annual N-day event from this resolution.

Jedinsto wrote:Though he specifically requested not to be credited as a co-author, I would like to thank Arenado for his help in drafting this proposal.

I believe this is fixed

OOC: Don't mention ingame events like N day. It's illegal for metagaming. You don't actually define WMD. And
IC: "Opposed. Any kind of restriction on use of WMD against non members is unacceptable when they can nuke the shit out of anyone they want with no penalties."

Proposal has been submitted, waiting to meet quorum.

Jedinsto wrote:Proposal has been submitted, waiting to meet quorum.

No offense, but I wouldn’t keep your hopes up - from what I’ve seen, WMD-related legislation has always been a controversial topic in the WA.

Nepleslia wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Proposal has been submitted, waiting to meet quorum.

No offense, but I wouldn’t keep your hopes up - from what I’ve seen, WMD-related legislation has always been a controversial topic in the WA.

Very true, I just meant that the proposal was submitted. I don't really expect it to pass, but I'd love to see it.

Delegate Arthur carefully reads the proposal and smirks "full support Ambassador, truely this will stop all radioactive weapons and save this world."

This, and this pretty much makes this DOA as pointed out by SL and thus has been ruled illegal. Better luck next time.

edited for legalization

Ardiveds wrote:Delegate Arthur carefully reads the proposal and smirks "full support Ambassador, truely this will stop all radioactive weapons and save this world."

Don't be so smug. I my self don't think this will pass, and I like WMD's but just in case add some penalties for nations that don't comply.

Neymarland wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:Delegate Arthur carefully reads the proposal and smirks "full support Ambassador, truely this will stop all radioactive weapons and save this world."

Don't be so smug. I my self don't think this will pass, and I like WMD's but just in case add some penalties for nations that don't comply.

OOC: I was actually pointing out the fact that the former definition of WMD included 'radioactive weapons' I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons themselves aren't radioactive.
Anyway, adding penalities is pretty much a waste of time. Anyone violating any WA law is already faced with fines and embargoes and adding additional fines won't help since they could ignore that as well and the WA can't ask its members to declare war against others.

Ardiveds wrote:

Neymarland wrote:Don't be so smug. I my self don't think this will pass, and I like WMD's but just in case add some penalties for nations that don't comply.

OOC: I was actually pointing out the fact that the former definition of WMD included 'radioactive weapons' I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons themselves aren't radioactive.
Anyway, adding penalities is pretty much a waste of time. Anyone violating any WA law is already faced with fines and embargoes and adding additional fines won't help since they could ignore that as well and the WA can't ask its members to declare war against others.

Nuclear weapons have in fact caused cancer due to radiation, as in the Neymarland Revolution, that caused it to separate from Europa League, the most horrifying place in existence.

Ardiveds wrote:

Neymarland wrote:Don't be so smug. I my self don't think this will pass, and I like WMD's but just in case add some penalties for nations that don't comply.

OOC: I was actually pointing out the fact that the former definition of WMD included 'radioactive weapons' I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons themselves aren't radioactive.
Anyway, adding penalities is pretty much a waste of time. Anyone violating any WA law is already faced with fines and embargoes and adding additional fines won't help since they could ignore that as well and the WA can't ask its members to declare war against others.

As said above, yes, the fallout is radioactive, and also, I can't tell at this point, do you support or oppose the proposal, and why?

Jedinsto wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: I was actually pointing out the fact that the former definition of WMD included 'radioactive weapons' I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons themselves aren't radioactive.
Anyway, adding penalities is pretty much a waste of time. Anyone violating any WA law is already faced with fines and embargoes and adding additional fines won't help since they could ignore that as well and the WA can't ask its members to declare war against others.

As said above, yes, the fallout is radioactive, and also, I can't tell at this point, do you support or oppose the proposal, and why?

I mean, I'm kinda 50/50 on this, but I'll help you out anyway.

Jedinsto wrote:edited for legalization

It's still illegal for contradicting GAR #418. Perhaps you should read this and this, and actually read them THOROUGHLY.

Wayneactia wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:edited for legalization

It's still illegal for contradicting GAR #418. Perhaps you should read this and this, and actually read them THOROUGHLY.

If the problem was that I contradicted "possess and use if attacked by hostile forces" then it is fixed

Jedinsto wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:It's still illegal for contradicting GAR #418. Perhaps you should read this and this, and actually read them THOROUGHLY.

If the problem was that I contradicted "possess and use if attacked by hostile forces" then it is fixed

Perhaps you should have actually read the passed resolutions thread. If you had, you would see that #418 already makes this mandate.

Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;

Just because you throw the word "only" in there, does not make this any less illegal than it was before. Either repeal #418, or drop the idea.

Jedinsto wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: I was actually pointing out the fact that the former definition of WMD included 'radioactive weapons' I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons themselves aren't radioactive.
Anyway, adding penalities is pretty much a waste of time. Anyone violating any WA law is already faced with fines and embargoes and adding additional fines won't help since they could ignore that as well and the WA can't ask its members to declare war against others.

As said above, yes, the fallout is radioactive, and also, I can't tell at this point, do you support or oppose the proposal, and why?

OOC: I was talking about the bomb itself, as in the thing that is dropped. The fallout comes after bomb explodes. Though do correct me if the bomb itself is also radioactive. Anyway, I'm still opposed. Simply put, I won't support any resolution restricting the ability of first strike against non members. You cannot regulate non members and taking away the members' right to a first strike means significantly compromising their security.

"This bill would effectively deprive small nations of the best tool they have to deter invasions from much larger military powers. Opposed."

Qhevak wrote:"This bill would effectively deprive small nations of the best tool they have to deter invasions from much larger military powers. Opposed."

Objection. Why would small nations have 100,000 nuclear warheads? And, wouldn't the larger force have more than them? Your argument is not the best constructed.

Wayneactia wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:If the problem was that I contradicted "possess and use if attacked by hostile forces" then it is fixed

Perhaps you should have actually read the passed resolutions thread. If you had, you would see that #418 already makes this mandate.

Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;

Just because you throw the word "only" in there, does not make this any less illegal than it was before. Either repeal #418, or drop the idea.

I changed it to word it better, but what I was trying to do was ban the use of nuclear weapons outside of retaliation, and I believe you misunderstood that. I don't see how it would be a contradiction of "Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and use them in the case they are used by hostile forces," when my resolution upholds that right. You must be seeing something that I'm completely missing, so please do correct me if I'm wrong. And, if I must, I will, in fact make an attempt to repeal #418.

Qhevak wrote:"This bill would effectively deprive small nations of the best tool they have to deter invasions from much larger military powers. Opposed."

How so? It still maintains your right to fire back with nukes, so if they don't want to be nuked, they would stay away.

Jedinsto wrote:

Qhevak wrote:"This bill would effectively deprive small nations of the best tool they have to deter invasions from much larger military powers. Opposed."

How so? It still maintains your right to fire back with nukes, so if they don't want to be nuked, they would stay away.

OOC: Not necessarily. The fact that the launch needs to to be justified to the WA later means a member has to take time to make sure the enemy did actually launch a nuke. Depending on the technolgy and infrastructure of the nation in question, that time could be enough for the capital to be turned into a nuclear wasteland since a non member need not justify anything to anyone.

On top of that, as previously mentioned, a smaller nation trying to stay safe from a militarily superior nation through the threat of nukes would be demolished if the superior nation simply never uses nukes.

Overall, it would lead to the nullification of the deterrence effect of nukes and not only result in more nuclear wars but also put members at a severe strategic disadvantage.

Ardiveds wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:

How so? It still maintains your right to fire back with nukes, so if they don't want to be nuked, they would stay away.

OOC: Not necessarily. The fact that the launch needs to to be justified to the WA later means a member has to take time to make sure the enemy did actually launch a nuke. Depending on the technolgy and infrastructure of the nation in question, that time could be enough for the capital to be turned into a nuclear wasteland since a non member need not justify anything to anyone.

On top of that, as previously mentioned, a smaller nation trying to stay safe from a militarily superior nation through the threat of nukes would be demolished if the superior nation simply never uses nukes.

Overall, it would lead to the nullification of the deterrence effect of nukes and not only result in more nuclear wars but also put members at a severe strategic disadvantage.

What's the chance that they won't use nukes? Very slim. Large nations almost always use them in combat.