Proposal: repeal nuclear arms possesion act

[Ravineworld]

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#10

Proposed by: Ravineworld

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING that the WA aims for world peace and security,

BELIEVING that a nation doesn't need nuclear weapons to defend it's self,

CONCERNED that nuclear weapons will make war worse rather than better,

FURTHER CONCERNED that nuclear weapons will kill innocent civilians,

UNDERSTANDING that nuclear weapons cause widespread environmental damage,

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that a nuclear war could cause apocalyptic damage to both nations involved and possibly others,

HEREBY repeals GA resolution #10

[Darenjo]

Okay, so this is a classic NAPA repeal case - you think that by repealing NAPA, you're banning nukes.

Wrong. NAPA simply ensures that right. Should NAPA be repealed, then WA nations would still have nukes. Legally.

Also, consider that non-WA nations can still have nukes. Shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves? Also consider that the WA has banned bio weapons and landmines; there have also been attempts to ban chemical weapons and cluster bombs. So WA nations are already far more constricted in how they can legally wage war.

Also, your arguments are rather weak: we know nukes kill people, we know they cause environmental damage, etc. We have to deal with that should we use them. But we need to be able to defend ourselves. And, you know, when it's my nation and people, or the polar bears, then the polar bears are going bye-bye.

[Separatist Peoples]

BELIEVING that a nation doesn't need nuclear weapons to defend it's self,

I would tend to seriously disagree with your first point. The CDSP certainly feels the need to own nuclear weapons to defend itself from the myriad of WMD wielding non-WA nations we (I, while drinking) have angered through the years.

FURTHER CONCERNED that nuclear weapons will kill innocent civilians,

So can an assault rifle in an excited soldier's hands. So can an artillery piece that has recieved incorrect coordinates. Weapons are designed to kill. Would you ban all weapons incapable of differentiating between civilians and soldiers? Not particularly easy, I would imagine.

UNDERSTANDING that nuclear weapons cause widespread environmental damage,

So does heavy industry. We accept widespread environmental damage as the price to pay to be able to fight and win a war. We would rather live in a desolate wasteland then be dead in a tropical paradise.

We oppose this repeal. I would go as far to say that we vehemently oppose to the highest degree possible, except that a proposal as poorly written as this is certainly not worth the enegry to oppose that strongly. Instead: Meh.

[Grays Harbor]

Hooray. Another La-De-Daa touchy-feely "ban n00ks" repeal attempt.

Opposed. Completely. We don't care how much or how little you change it. Opposed. There is no need to repeal NAPA.

[Moronist Decisions]

You are not banning nuclear weapons by repealing NAPA. Furthermore, I don't see why we'd ban them, either.
Robert Gatwick
Deputy Chief Representative

[ALMF]

Okay, so this is a classic NAPA repeal case - you think that by repealing NAPA, you're banning nukes.

Wrong. NAPA simply ensures that right. Should NAPA be repealed, then WA nations would still have nukes. Legally.

Also, consider that non-WA nations can still have nukes. Shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves? Also consider that the WA has banned bio weapons and landmines; there have also been attempts to ban chemical weapons and cluster bombs. So WA nations are already far more constricted in how they can legally wage war.

Also, your arguments are rather weak: we know nukes kill people, we know they cause environmental damage, etc. We have to deal with that should we use them. But we need to be able to defend ourselves. And, you know, when it's my nation and people, or the polar bears, then the polar bears are going bye-bye.

Agreed, However, in the wake of this repiel, I wold invite the auther to join me in the drafting of a ban.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Okay, so this is a classic NAPA repeal case - you think that by repealing NAPA, you're banning nukes.

Wrong. NAPA simply ensures that right. Should NAPA be repealed, then WA nations would still have nukes. Legally.

Also, consider that non-WA nations can still have nukes. Shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves? Also consider that the WA has banned bio weapons and landmines; there have also been attempts to ban chemical weapons and cluster bombs. So WA nations are already far more constricted in how they can legally wage war.

Also, your arguments are rather weak: we know nukes kill people, we know they cause environmental damage, etc. We have to deal with that should we use them. But we need to be able to defend ourselves. And, you know, when it's my nation and people, or the polar bears, then the polar bears are going bye-bye.

Agreed, However, in the wake of this repiel, I wold invite the auther to join me in the drafting of a ban.

you have to repeal NAPA first.

[ALMF]

Agreed, However, in the wake of this repiel, I wold invite the auther to join me in the drafting of a ban.

you have to repeal NAPA first.

Exactly

[Separatist Peoples]

you have to repeal NAPA first.

Exactly

...but thats what this is doing, and it isn't doing it well...in fact, this repeal has a snowball's chance in the center of hell's sun of passing...

NAPA is a solid piece of legislation that has stood up to far better repeal attempts then this. I see no reason to attempt to repeal it.

[Moronist Decisions]

Exactly

...but thats what this is doing, and it isn't doing it well...in fact, this repeal has a snowball's chance in the center of hell's sun of passing...

NAPA is a solid piece of legislation that has stood up to far better repeal attempts then this. I see no reason to attempt to repeal it.

We agree with Separatist Peoples' assessment.
Robert Gatwick
Deputy Chief Representative

[Flibbleites]

Agreed, However, in the wake of this repiel, I wold invite the auther to join me in the drafting of a ban.

you have to repeal NAPA first.

And it's fairly well known around there that should anyone ever actually manage to repeal the NAPA, I have a replacement ready to submit that not only protects a nation's right to possess nuclear weapons, it also protects a nation's right to use them.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Mahaj WA Seat]

you have to repeal NAPA first.

And it's fairly well known around there that should anyone ever actually manage to repeal the NAPA, I have a replacement ready to submit that not only protects a nation's right to possess nuclear weapons, it also protects a nation's right to use them.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

well, then, thats it.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the existence of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act,

ACKNOWLEDGING NAPA, as it is known, as a solid piece of legislation with no flaws,

AWARE that the nation behind NAPA, Flibbleites, has a replacement prepared in case of a repeal of NAPA,

CURIOUS as to what the replacement is,

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act so that the General Assembly can see its replacement in its full glory.

[Ravvenark]

The Colony of Ravvenark opposes this proposal. Even if it does pass, not everyone is going to give up their nukes. And simply asking them to 'put 'em down' won't exactly work.

[Linux and the X]

Why would anyone repeal NAPA when we can just ban the manufacture, purchase, use, testing, storage, and development of nuclear weapons?

[Bladezonia]

I'm all in favour of this. Nuclear weapons seem to me as "unhonourable warfare." People should work to increase the power of their military, have ground battles, rather than fire highly destructive missles at each other turning both worlds into something akin to Fallout.

Bit of a stupid reason, but you know what? I'm like that.

[Oppressorion]

I'm so reminded of Superman IV (the one where he throws the world's nuclear weapons into the sun)

Wars...tend to hurt people. Hurting people in wars is OK by necessity. Bioweapons are banned because they cause unnecessary pain and long term harm, rather than because of their lethality.
Nuclear weapons do this as well, but that isn't the main point of the weapon (as I understand them). The main point of a nuke is to quickly destroy a target in a big bang- the radiation is an unfortunate side effect. Plus, nuclear weapons have actually helped RL world peace- why do you think the US and USSR never engaged in a long, bloody conventional war, which would have cost thousands of lives? Now, nuclear powers never war with eachother, because they're smart enough to know what would happen. Of course, nukes would still be bad in the wrong hands, such as unstable countries who don't care.

[The Emmerian Unions]

Why would anyone repeal NAPA when we can just ban the manufacture, purchase, use, testing, storage, and development of nuclear weapons?

Because that would contradict NAPA.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The Minoan delegation will oppose any attempt to outlaw the use or possession of nuclear weapons. We feel that member countries should have the right to defence in the event that they are bullied militarily by rogue countries.

[Linux and the X]

Why would anyone repeal NAPA when we can just ban the manufacture, purchase, use, testing, storage, and development of nuclear weapons?

Because that would contradict NAPA.

Really? The only thing NAPA protects is the possession of nuclear arms. Notice that I carefully left that out of the ban list.

[The Emmerian Unions]

Because that would contradict NAPA.

Really? The only thing NAPA protects is the possession of nuclear arms. Notice that I carefully left that out of the ban list.

Storing could be considered possession.

[Linux and the X]

Really? The only thing NAPA protects is the possession of nuclear arms. Notice that I carefully left that out of the ban list.

Storing could be considered possession.

Actually, looking more closely, NAPA doesn't even protect possession. It protects a nation's right to decide if they want to. I have a right to decide if I want to go on a mass murder spree, for example, but if I decide I want to and go through with it, I still go to jail for a very long time.

[Separatist Peoples]

Storing could be considered possession.

Actually, looking more closely, NAPA doesn't even protect possession. It protects a nation's right to decide if they want to. I have a right to decide if I want to go on a mass murder spree, for example, but if I decide I want to and go through with it, I still go to jail for a very long time.

Except it does...It specifically states that member nations have the right to possess nuclear arms, and states that they may possess these weapons for defense, which inherently includes the right to use them. If your suggesting what it sounds like, that continued legislation should be passed to limit the use of nuclear weaponry, I believe your going to run into far more resistance then you think.

[Linux and the X]

Actually, looking more closely, NAPA doesn't even protect possession. It protects a nation's right to decide if they want to. I have a right to decide if I want to go on a mass murder spree, for example, but if I decide I want to and go through with it, I still go to jail for a very long time.

Except it does...It specifically states that member nations have the right to possess nuclear arms, and states that they may possess these weapons for defense, which inherently includes the right to use them. If your suggesting what it sounds like, that continued legislation should be passed to limit the use of nuclear weaponry, I believe your going to run into far more resistance then you think.

Actually, it specificalyl state that member nations have the right to decide if they want to possess nuclear arms. It mentions defence in the preamble, yes, but the preamble is typically considered legally irrelevant. In any case, the author admits that it does not protect the right of use.

[Separatist Peoples]

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Take a good long look at #1.

[Linux and the X]

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Take a good long look at #1.

I declare that I am legally permitted to kill you. Declarations are not automatically true.