[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Guastan]

Nuclear weapons should be used in self defense.

[Cretox State]

Nuclear weapons should be used in self defense.

"Not to worry, ambassador. This repeal won't take away that right. In fact, it would likely make it easier for a given nation to access its nuclear weapons- whether to use them in self-defense, or simply maintain or even dismantle them."

"We thank the Tinhamptonian, Juansonian, Ice, Deeda, and Spartan delegations for their support, and have made further minor edits to eliminate some redundancy in our own draft. We're not sure when exactly we'll submit this, but it's likely to be soon."

[Heidgaudr]

Broadly support. Just a few quibbles before submission:

I still think there will be a lot of contention over the meaning of what "every available precaution" is. I think it might be smarter to focus on the ambiguity of it rather than the absurdity. What exactly does "available" mean? You got in a lot of arguments the last time you submitted this about that interpretation, and while you've attempted to address it, I think the core still remains. Simply, I don't think it's politically expedient to pursue that exact rhetorical angle when you can change tack and still be effective and honest.

Noting that even the aforementioned final clause of GA 10 is better covered by GA 418, specifically its fourth clause,

It might be a good idea to include the relevant text from GAR#418 in your repeal considering how contentious this subject is. If voters are able to see exactly how 418 covers it without having to search through the archives, I think you'll prevent some amount of opposition. But this is a pretty stylistic and subjective suggestion.

[Thermodolia]

Yet again I reiterate how stupid this is

[Cretox State]

Broadly support. Just a few quibbles before submission:

I still think there will be a lot of contention over the meaning of what "every available precaution" is. I think it might be smarter to focus on the ambiguity of it rather than the absurdity. What exactly does "available" mean? You got in a lot of arguments the last time you submitted this about that interpretation, and while you've attempted to address it, I think the core still remains. Simply, I don't think it's politically expedient to pursue that exact rhetorical angle when you can change tack and still be effective and honest.

Noting that even the aforementioned final clause of GA 10 is better covered by GA 418, specifically its fourth clause,

It might be a good idea to include the relevant text from GAR#418 in your repeal considering how contentious this subject is. If voters are able to see exactly how 418 covers it without having to search through the archives, I think you'll prevent some amount of opposition. But this is a pretty stylistic and subjective suggestion.

OOC. Added a complaint about "available precaution" being ambiguous. I'm hesitant to completely cut out the "take every available precaution" stuff, since it's a major issue and the problem last time was the specific examples I used, not the issue itself. Added the exact 4th clause of 418.

[Cretox State]

Yet again I reiterate how stupid this is

"Flawed and redundant resolutions should be repealed. If you think that passing redundant nuclear weapon resolutions is that important, this is a great opportunity for your delegation to propose one that doesn't have the flaws of the target."

This is on last call, and I'll probably submit sometime over the weekend. My main question is if the second subclause of "Deeply troubled..." is worth keeping in; I just don't feel that it's adding much.

[Juansonia]

Full support, please submit when N-Day starts

[Outer Sparta]

Yet again I reiterate how stupid this is

Doesn't GA 418 make the target resolution for repeal obsolete and redundant? Isn't that one good reason for a repeal?

[WayNeacTia]

Yet again I reiterate how stupid this is

Doesn't GA 418 make the target resolution for repeal obsolete and redundant? Isn't that one good reason for a repeal?

No... The more barriers preventing the total elimination of nuclear weapons is reason enough to keep it around.

[Heavens Reach]

Doesn't GA 418 make the target resolution for repeal obsolete and redundant? Isn't that one good reason for a repeal?

No... The more barriers preventing the total elimination of nuclear weapons is reason enough to keep it around.

Why is the total elimination of nuclear weapons not a principled goal?

[WayNeacTia]

No... The more barriers preventing the total elimination of nuclear weapons is reason enough to keep it around.

Why is the total elimination of nuclear weapons not a principled goal?

Nuclear weapons prevent wide scale conflict....

[Heavens Reach]

Why is the total elimination of nuclear weapons not a principled goal?

Nuclear weapons prevent wide scale conflict....

"Mutually assured destruction" as a strong conflict deterrent is hypothetical, not proven, but even if we accept it as dogma, there are other options that create the conditions of "mutually assured destruction" without the potential side-effect of rendering entire regions (or planets) uninhabitable for decades, besides the immense suffering nuclear fallout causes civilians in the short-term.

[WayNeacTia]

Nuclear weapons prevent wide scale conflict....

"Mutually assured destruction" as a strong conflict deterrent is hypothetical, not proven, but even if we accept it as dogma, there are other options that create the conditions of "mutually assured destruction" without the potential side-effect of rendering entire regions (or planets) uninhabitable for decades, besides the immense suffering nuclear fallout causes civilians in the short-term.

Eighty years of "proof" should be enough. Without nuclear deterrence, wide scale conflict between nations with unheard of arsenals would be far more common, and far more destructive than a limited nuclear exchange. As long as there are nations which are permitted to possess WMD's without any sort of restriction, member nations ought to be able to counter that threat....

[Heavens Reach]

"Mutually assured destruction" as a strong conflict deterrent is hypothetical, not proven, but even if we accept it as dogma, there are other options that create the conditions of "mutually assured destruction" without the potential side-effect of rendering entire regions (or planets) uninhabitable for decades, besides the immense suffering nuclear fallout causes civilians in the short-term.

Eighty years of "proof" should be enough. Without nuclear deterrence, wide scale conflict between nations with unheard of arsenals would be far more common, and far more destructive than a limited nuclear exchange. As long as there are nations which are permitted to possess WMD's without any sort of restriction, member nations ought to be able to counter that threat....

Correlation is not causation, but our argument does not depend, in any case, on that particular hypothesis (i.e. mutually assured destruction) being wrong. Also, WMDs are already restricted -- specifically with respect to the chemical and biological weapons bans -- and under logic very similar to what we're using to argue that a nuclear weapon ban is similarly principled.

[WayNeacTia]

Eighty years of "proof" should be enough. Without nuclear deterrence, wide scale conflict between nations with unheard of arsenals would be far more common, and far more destructive than a limited nuclear exchange. As long as there are nations which are permitted to possess WMD's without any sort of restriction, member nations ought to be able to counter that threat....

Correlation is not causation, but our argument does not depend, in any case, on that particular hypothesis (i.e. mutually assured destruction) being wrong. Also, WMDs are already restricted -- specifically with respect to the chemical and biological weapons bans -- and under logic very similar to what we're using to argue that a nuclear weapon ban is similarly principled.

Non-member nations are under no such limitations. Perhaps you should keep that little nugget in mind, when trying to make such bold statements....

[Heavens Reach]

Correlation is not causation, but our argument does not depend, in any case, on that particular hypothesis (i.e. mutually assured destruction) being wrong. Also, WMDs are already restricted -- specifically with respect to the chemical and biological weapons bans -- and under logic very similar to what we're using to argue that a nuclear weapon ban is similarly principled.

Non-member nations are under no such limitations. Perhaps you should keep that little nugget in mind, when trying to make such bold statements....

They are also under no such limitations vis a vis chemical and biological weapons, and yet they're banned. Our point is that WMDs need not come with the price tag of fallout, and can be just as strong a deterrent without the threat of making entire regions or planets unlivable for generations.

[WayNeacTia]

Non-member nations are under no such limitations. Perhaps you should keep that little nugget in mind, when trying to make such bold statements....

They are also under no such limitations vis a vis chemical and biological weapons, and yet they're banned. Our point is that WMDs need not come with the price tag of fallout, and can be just as strong a deterrent without the threat of making entire regions or planets unlivable for generations.

Neither chemical or biological weapons are a deterrent, as they take an extended time to inflict their damage. Several doses of instant sunshine on the other hand, tends to make aggressors think twice. History has proven this point ad nauseam, so I don’t believe we need to rehash that particular point…..

[Heavens Reach]

They are also under no such limitations vis a vis chemical and biological weapons, and yet they're banned. Our point is that WMDs need not come with the price tag of fallout, and can be just as strong a deterrent without the threat of making entire regions or planets unlivable for generations.

Neither chemical or biological weapons are a deterrent, as they take an extended time to inflict their damage. Several doses of instant sunshine on the other hand, tends to make aggressors think twice. History has proven this point ad nauseam, so I don’t believe we need to rehash that particular point…..

What history? And, really? Chemical and biological weapons aren't a deterrent? Then how is fallout? It poses the same level of danger to civilian populations except it lasts forever (we know we're being hyperbolic, but on the scale of a human lifetime, it may as well be.) There is no functional difference between a very high-yield bomb and a nuclear bomb other than the fallout. Kinetic bombardment, pure fusion warheads, antimatter bombs -- they'd all make the sun blush, but without the nasty side-effect of massive amounts of radioactive particles raining down indiscriminately over the landscape.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. Chemical weapons aren't a deterrent because any peer adversary can just buy enough gas masks to make it a non-problem. Chemical weapons are just plainly not even good weapons: a kilo of Sarin does less damage than a kilo of high explosive after accounting for countermeasures (you can block a kilo of Sarin with a gas mask or an NBC system for a few hundred dollars; you cannot block a kilo of high explosive at the same cost). This is why in real life countries have agreed to ban chemical weapons: they pose a major danger to unprepared civilians and little danger to modern militaries.

No modern biological weapon has ever been deployed against humans. (I say that because Australia has used biological weapons against rabbits.) Even if it were deployed, it would almost certainly also spread to your own country given the interconnectedness of global trade. Borrowing from criminology, deterrence has three key elements: certainty, celerity, and severity. The severity in most wars is zero sum. But the certainty and celerity of biological and chemical weapons is rightly questioned. The certainty and celerity of nuclear weapons is ... for all intents and purposes ... absolute.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC. Chemical weapons aren't a deterrent because any peer adversary can just buy enough gas masks to make it a non-problem. Chemical weapons are just plainly not even good weapons: a kilo of Sarin does less damage than a kilo of high explosive after accounting for countermeasures (you can block a kilo of Sarin with a gas mask or an NBC system for a few hundred dollars; you cannot block a kilo of high explosive at the same cost). This is why in real life countries have agreed to ban chemical weapons: they pose a major danger to unprepared civilians and little danger to modern militaries.

No modern biological weapon has ever been deployed against humans. (I say that because Australia has used biological weapons against rabbits.) Even if it were deployed, it would almost certainly also spread to your own country given the interconnectedness of global trade. Borrowing from criminology, deterrence has three key elements: certainty, celerity, and severity. The severity in most wars is zero sum. But the certainty and celerity of biological and chemical weapons is rightly questioned. The certainty and celerity of nuclear weapons is ... for all intents and purposes ... absolute.

OOC: That all said, there is no way to causally establish that nuclear weapons are indeed arbiters of the peace just because they happen to have preceded a period of (if one can even demonstrate it to be true) relative peace. And I argue that the risks outweigh these benefits when there are (at least in the fantasy of nationstates where there is no reason anyone would not build the alternatives mentioned) nearly as good, if not equally as good, deterrents. I would also point out that the arguments for the chemical and biological weapons bans in the WA focus more on their cruelty than on some tradeoff between their cruelty and effectiveness (or, in this case, lack thereof)

[Cretox State]

OOC: This has been submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1664046353

When it comes down to it, there's a good reason to support repealing GA 10 whether you personally support or oppose nuclear weapons. If you support them, then this repeal will remove a redundant resolution that can make it harder for nations to access their own weapons. If you oppose nuclear weapons, then this repeal will remove a redundant resolution that can make it harder for nations to maintain or dismantle their own weapons. Either way, this repeal is a good thing. If you consider redundant nuclear weapons resolutions to be important, now's a great opportunity to propose one that doesn't have the severe flaws of GA 10.

[WayNeacTia]

]When it comes down to it, there's a good reason to support repealing GA 10 whether you personally support or oppose nuclear weapons. If you support them, then this repeal will remove a redundant resolution that can make it harder for nations to access their own weapons.

Really? Can you can please point to the clauses in GAR #10 which would prevent a legitimate government from accessing it's own nuclear armaments?

OOC. Chemical weapons aren't a deterrent because any peer adversary can just buy enough gas masks to make it a non-problem. Chemical weapons are just plainly not even good weapons: a kilo of Sarin does less damage than a kilo of high explosive after accounting for countermeasures (you can block a kilo of Sarin with a gas mask or an NBC system for a few hundred dollars; you cannot block a kilo of high explosive at the same cost). This is why in real life countries have agreed to ban chemical weapons: they pose a major danger to unprepared civilians and little danger to modern militaries.

No modern biological weapon has ever been deployed against humans. (I say that because Australia has used biological weapons against rabbits.) Even if it were deployed, it would almost certainly also spread to your own country given the interconnectedness of global trade. Borrowing from criminology, deterrence has three key elements: certainty, celerity, and severity. The severity in most wars is zero sum. But the certainty and celerity of biological and chemical weapons is rightly questioned. The certainty and celerity of nuclear weapons is ... for all intents and purposes ... absolute.

OOC: That all said, there is no way to causally establish that nuclear weapons are indeed arbiters of the peace just because they happen to have preceded a period of (if one can even demonstrate it to be true) relative peace. And I argue that the risks outweigh these benefits when there are (at least in the fantasy of nationstates where there is no reason anyone would not build the alternatives mentioned) nearly as good, if not equally as good, deterrents. I would also point out that the arguments for the chemical and biological weapons bans in the WA focus more on their cruelty than on some tradeoff between their cruelty and effectiveness (or, in this case, lack thereof)

Perhaps maybe you should step back and take a look at the bigger picture? If I possess enough nuclear weapons, that should I be attacked, I can cause horrific damage upon your nation, are you going to attack me? Likely not. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear weapons aren't the massive "I WIN" button, that are just used willy-nilly. Nuclear weapons are a "WE BOTH LOSE" button, especially if you have your own nukes to respond with. That is why they are so very effective at keeping the peace....

[Heavens Reach]

]When it comes down to it, there's a good reason to support repealing GA 10 whether you personally support or oppose nuclear weapons. If you support them, then this repeal will remove a redundant resolution that can make it harder for nations to access their own weapons.

Really? Can you can please point to the clauses in GAR #10 which would prevent a legitimate government from accessing it's own nuclear armaments?

OOC: That all said, there is no way to causally establish that nuclear weapons are indeed arbiters of the peace just because they happen to have preceded a period of (if one can even demonstrate it to be true) relative peace. And I argue that the risks outweigh these benefits when there are (at least in the fantasy of nationstates where there is no reason anyone would not build the alternatives mentioned) nearly as good, if not equally as good, deterrents. I would also point out that the arguments for the chemical and biological weapons bans in the WA focus more on their cruelty than on some tradeoff between their cruelty and effectiveness (or, in this case, lack thereof)

Perhaps maybe you should step back and take a look at the bigger picture? If I possess enough nuclear weapons, that should I be attacked, I can cause horrific damage upon your nation, are you going to attack me? Likely not. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear weapons aren't the massive "I WIN" button, that are just used willy-nilly. Nuclear weapons are a "WE BOTH LOSE" button, especially if you have your own nukes to respond with. That is why they are so very effective at keeping the peace....

OOC: My comprehension of the logic of "mutually assured destruction" is not, in fact, the issue. I made no statement one way or the other about whether the use of nuclear weapons results in victory. But the fact remains that you are relying entirely upon people acting logically to avoid a confrontation that de-live-ifies huge regions or entire planets for decades when there are other options available. There is also, again, no way to attribute peace to the existence of nuclear weapons without making unsupported assumptions about causality. I'm not sure why the cartoonishly oversized lettering -- what you're arguing is obvious, it's just not supported.

[WayNeacTia]

I'm not sure why the cartoonishly oversized lettering -- what you're arguing is obvious, it's just not supported.

As I said before eighty years of "relative" peace, and Europe not flying the hammer and sickle is quite supported....

[Heavens Reach]

I'm not sure why the cartoonishly oversized lettering -- what you're arguing is obvious, it's just not supported.

As I said before eighty years of "relative" peace, and Europe not flying the hammer and sickle is quite supported....

No, it's not. Because that's not how causality works. The happenstance of nuclear weapons and "peace" coexisting is not an argument that one caused the other.