[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

by **Cowardly Pacifists** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:30 pm

At long last this proposal has been resubmitted! Regional Delegates, PLEASE GO HERE TO APPROVE!

I want to set-out right now what this proposal does and does not do. This proposal would restrict the use of WMDs (as defined) in conflicts between member nations only. This Act does not restrict the possession of WMDs, or their use in conflicts with non-member nations. The idea here is to clean up war between members, and nothing else.

World Assembly WMD Accord
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;

CONVINCED that there are certain fundamentally wicked acts that are inappropriate and despicable even for nations engaged in armed conflict;

CONVINCED ALSO that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction is among the worst of those fundamentally wicked acts;

RESOLVED that the rule of international law should be evoked to prohibit, prevent, and deter the use of such horrible weapons;

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the world;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner on a very large scale, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment." Categorical examples of WMDs include nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons that substantially conform to the standards above.

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another Member Nation.

3. Member Nations are strongly encouraged to enact diplomatic sanctions against Any Nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.

4. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to Any Nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

5. Nothing in this Resolution should be read to prevent future action by individual nations or the World Assembly to prohibit the possession and/or use of specific weapons.

I'm pretty sure that the draft below is the FINAL DRAFT of the WMD-related stuff. A few nations have suggested that the definition may be a bit overbroad, but I have arguments to use on those folks and I think most people agree that the definition is pretty close to what they think of when they think "WMD." If anyone wants to suggest specific areas for improvement, I'll gladly listen.

I'm now looking to see if folks thinks this should JUST address WMDs (in which case, I'll change the name to something more WMD-centric) or if I should go back to including other rules of combat as well. Please advise. Also, it's been suggested on very great authority that the proposal as written might be "Significant" rather than "Strong." I'd appreciate thoughts on that too, since this is probably the final version (or very close) of the WMD provisions.

For those who have been following this legislation here is my post describing the changes in the current draft.

Rules of Engagement
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;

CONVINCED that there are certain fundamentally wicked acts that are inappropriate and despicable even for nations engaged in armed conflict;

CONVINCED ALSO that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction is among the worst of those fundamentally wicked acts;

RESOLVED that the rule of international law should be evoked to prohibit, prevent, and deter the use of such horrible weapons;

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the world;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner on a very large scale, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment." Categorical examples of WMDs include nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons that substantially conform to the standards above.

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation.

3. Member Nations are strongly encouraged to enact diplomatic sanctions against Any Nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.

4. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to Any Nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

5. Nothing in this Resolution should be read to prevent future action by individual nations or the World Assembly to prohibit the possession and/or use of specific weapons.

It didn't take long for people to suggest that this resolution is really about rules governing the use of WMDs, so I've removed any other provision and focusing-in on that. The other stuff will have to wait for a more comprehensive Geneva Convention-style proposal, which I'm happy to work on with somebody if there's interest. But since the majority of the discussion has been about WMDs, I'm going to keep that my focus for now. It may be more controversial, but at this point I'm too invested.

For those who have been following this legislation here is my post describing the thought that went into the current draft.

Rules of Engagement
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;

CONVINCED that there are certain fundamentally wicked acts that are inappropriate and despicable even for nations engaged in armed conflict;

CONVINCED ALSO that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction is among the worst of those fundamentally wicked acts;

RESOLVED that the rule of international law should be evoked to prohibit, prevent, and deter the use of such horrible weapons;

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the world;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation.

3. Member Nations are strongly encouraged to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.

4. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to any nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

5. It goes without saying that Member Nations are expected to obey international law as a condition of their membership in the World Assembly. As such, any Member Nation that blatantly defies a provision of this Act shall not be entitled to claim the protections of that provision.

6. Nothing in this Resolution should be read to prevent future action by individual nations or the World Assembly to prohibit the possession and/or use of specific weapons or acts.

For those who have been following this legislation here is my post describing the thought that went into the third draft.

Rules of Engagement
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;

CONVINCED that there are certain fundamentally wicked acts that are inappropriate and despicable even for nations engaged in armed conflict;

RESOLVED that the rule of international law should be evoked to prohibit, prevent, and deter such acts;

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the word;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation.

3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from humiliation, injury, and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from doing any violence to non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.
(e) Refraining from pretextual imprisonment or detention of non-combatants

4. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combat zones and non-combat zones. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to notify individuals that they are entering or leaving a combat zone, to the greatest extent possible without undermining the mission at hand.

5. Member Nations shall not go to war against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in preserving their existence or preventing genocide.

6. Member Nations are strongly encouraged to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.

7. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to any nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

8. It goes without saying that Member Nations are expected to obey international law as a condition of their membership in the World Assembly. As such, any Member Nation that blatantly defies a provision of this Act shall not be entitled to claim the protections of that provision.

9. Nothing in this Resolution should be read to prevent future action by individual nations or the World Assembly to prohibit the possession and/or use of specific weapons or acts.

Rules of Engagement
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;

CONVINCED that there are certain fundamentally wicked acts that are inappropriate and despicable even for nations engaged in armed conflict;

RESOLVED that the rule of international law should be evoked to prohibit, prevent, and deter such acts;

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the word;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "any weapon that has been designed to (a) cause widespread destruction, injury and death in an indiscriminate manner, (b) cause severe damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures or ecosystems, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation.

3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from violence against non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

4. Member Nations shall not go to war against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in preserving their existence or preventing genocide.

5. Member Nations are permitted to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.

6. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to any nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

7. Nothing in this Resolution should be read to prevent future action by individual nations or the World Assembly to prohibit the possession and/or use of specific weapons or acts.

This is my first draft for WA rules of military engagement. This is pretty aspirational, and I know a lot of folks are going to want to modify what I've written before they would ever consider supporting it. So by all means, give me your suggestions.

I know that I'm wasting my breath to say this, but I've put a lot of thought into this so if you're just going to say "AGAINST" you better be ready to defend your position. That said, I certainly welcome the criticisms of those who will never support this. If you want to suggest amendments (despite your ultimate resistance to the resolution) I'll gladly discuss them. I'll even implement your suggestions - even if they ultimately weaken the draft - if you make a good point.

Best Regards.

Rules of Engagement
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

CONFRONTED with the fact that while military conflict between nations should be avoided wherever possible, nations will go to war;

CONVINCED that there are certain fundamentally wicked acts that are inappropriate and despicable even for nations engaged in armed conflict;

RESOLVED that the rule of international law should be evoked to prohibit, prevent, and deter such acts;

DETERMINED to set a standard of conduct in wartime for all the word;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions:

1. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is defined for purposes of this Act as: "a weapon that can (a) bring significant harm to a large number of persons, (b) cause widespread damage to cities and civil centers, (c) obliterate natural structures, and/or (d) cause severe degradation to the environment - specifically including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons."

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation.

3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from violence against non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

4. Member Nations shall not go to war against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in preserving their existence or preventing genocide.

5. Member Nations are required to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity. Such sanctions must include, at a minimum: trade sanctions and public condemnation.

6. Member nations are strongly encouraged to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to a nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

7. Nothing in this Resolution should be read to prevent future action by individual nations or the World Assembly to prohibit the possession and/or use of specific weapons or acts.

by **Auralia** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:05 pm

The primary purpose of this resolution, and clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5, are to ban the use of WMDs. I can't support that, since there may come a time when the use of a WMD will be necessary for a nation's survival or greater world peace.

As for the other parts of the resolution, I don't mind Clause 3, but Clause 4 is frankly unenforceable; anyone can make an argument that something is severe enough to be considered a "vital national interest".

by **Cowardly Pacifists** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:13 pm

Auralia wrote:I can't support that, since there may come a time when the use of a WMD will be necessary for a nation's survival or greater world peace.

That's it, I'm making a poll. I simply cannot believe so many folks think we might need to nuke someone someday in the name of "greater world peace." Yea, and someday it might be necessary to step on a baby to fight world hunger. That wouldn't make stepping on the baby any less evil!

by **Connopolis** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:19 pm

Perhaps a bit vague, to the point of being prime meat for any "Creative Solutions Agency."

4. Member Nations shall not go to war against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in self-perseverance or the prevention of genocide.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

4. Member-nations shall not engage in war with other member-nations unless doing so is integral in maintaining their national security and/or stability; furthermore, no member-nation may engage in war with another member-nation unless all diplomatic avenues through which such a conflict could be resolved have been exhausted.

National interest may very well be boiled down to "we wanted your land and resources, and such a notion is a vital national interest."

Yours truly,

by **Sanctaria** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:20 pm

I've only glanced at the Ambassador's proposals and, while I haven't examined it in detail, at this moment there isn't anything we oppose.

That being said, I would encourage a change in the title of the proposal, as it's slightly misleading.

by **Valkmar** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:21 pm

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:
Auralia wrote:I can't support that, since there may come a time when the use of a WMD will be necessary for a nation's survival or greater world peace.

That's it, I'm making a poll. I simply cannot believe so many folks think we might need to nuke someone someday in the name of "greater world peace." Yea, and someday it might be necessary to step on a baby to fight world hunger. That wouldn't make stepping on the baby any less evil!

What if the 3rd Reich rose again, and we needed to nuke it to beat it, otherwise we would be subjugated and conquered and destroyed.

by **Christian Democrats** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:22 pm

Strongly against. :twisted:

Firstly, I will not support any proposal that threatens member states' abilities to wage war. Secondly, Section 5 of this proposal unfairly would require nations to levy sanctions against other nations, which could lead to even more war. Thirdly, this proposal's definition of WMDs would prevent militaries from destroying certain kinds of military structures, such as complexes within mountains.

by **Valkmar** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:22 pm

And even if this is passed, it will not phase the current states of other countries resorting to WMD's.

by **Christian Democrats** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:24 pm

Connopolis wrote:Perhaps something along the lines of:

4. Member-nations shall not engage in war with other member-nations unless doing so is integral in maintaining their national security and/or stability; furthermore, no member-nation may engage in war with another member-nation unless all diplomatic avenues through which such a conflict could be resolved have been exhausted.

National interest may very well be boiled down to "we wanted your land and resources, and such a notion is a vital national interest."

So you wish to prevent my nation from toppling genocidal dictators in neighboring countries?

by **Valkmar** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:25 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Connopolis wrote:Perhaps something along the lines of:

National interest may very well be boiled down to "we wanted your land and resources, and such a notion is a vital national interest."

So you wish to prevent my nation from toppling genocidal dictators in neighboring countries?

Exactly my point.

by **Grand America** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:26 pm

Would you consider a 1.2 kt yield to be a WMD? Not a N, B, C, or R device, just a 1.2 kt weapon.

Edit: Also, you should add a "WMDs are, at times, necessary. However, not if non-combatants are the target. WMDs should only be used against military personnel."

Nuclear weapons are neigh unacceptable. Use them for deterrence, not use. Not to mention that nukes are still fads of the 50s; the modern world doesn't need nuclear devices. We have other weapons.

by **Auralia** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:26 pm

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:
Auralia wrote:I can't support that, since there may come a time when the use of a WMD will be necessary for a nation's survival or greater world peace.

That's it, I'm making a poll. I simply cannot believe so many folks think we might need to nuke someone someday in the name of "greater world peace." Yea, and someday it might be necessary to step on a baby to fight world hunger. That wouldn't make stepping on the baby any less evil!

Your analogy is designed to appeal to emotion rather than deal with my argument. Look at the example of killing a human being in self-defense. It's horrible that it's necessary to take away a human life, but that doesn't make it any less justified. Similarly, if it becomes necessary to nuke a military target during a just war, I should be allowed to do so.

by **Auralia** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:35 pm

I'd also like to point out that a nuclear deterrent would be pointless if this resolution would be passed, as if nuclear weapons can no longer be used (OOC: all nations MUST abide by WA resolutions) there's no point in possessing them any longer. Thus option 3 of your poll makes no sense within the context of this resolution.

by **Grand America** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:49 pm

Now to post my actual standing on the proposal.

It's nice. I understand the reasons for the prohibition of WMDs, and do agree with them. Nuclear, Biological, and other such weapons being used against non-combatants (or anyone, really) is a horrible thing. The negative results of using said weapons far out-weights the one positive result: Obtaining an advantage over enemy forces. Said advantage can be obtained via more conventional ways; missile strikes, aerial strikes, electronic warfare, naval bombardments. The list is endless.

Nuclear weapons are good in use for deterrence, as other nations will never really know if one is bluffing or not, and taking a risk with an entire nation is never one to be taken lightly by their populations. So they back down. But to actually use a nuclear device on another nation is barbaric, simply put. No need.

I'd like to see how others, who say that nuclear weapons need to be used, would react if they saw an ICBM headed straight for their city when they know they did absolutely nothing wrong.

Auralia wrote:I'd also like to point out that a nuclear deterrent would be pointless if this resolution would be passed, as if nuclear weapons can no longer be used (OOC: all nations MUST abide by WA resolutions) there's no point in possessing them any longer. Thus option 3 of your poll makes no sense within the context of this resolution.

That's not true. All WA member nations must abide, not everyone. However, as nuclear weapons are prohibited, the deterrent of the nuclear weapon would work only slightly. There are WA member nations that aren't exactly by-the-by with every rule. Because they aren't, they break them. Some take the WA as "I only accept those that I vote For on." Kinda like the real world; Nations only abide by the treaties they sign.

Never-the-less, it can still be used as a deterrent, while other, conventional methods are actually utilized.

by **Connopolis** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:52 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Connopolis wrote:Perhaps something along the lines of:

National interest may very well be boiled down to "we wanted your land and resources, and such a notion is a vital national interest."

So you wish to prevent my nation from toppling genocidal dictators in neighboring countries?

Forgive me, Your Excellency; if the Hon. Scaredilocks wishes to implement my suggestion, I would wholly support the implementation of a provision that allows for war on regimes or military entities, not nations as a whole.

Yours,

by **Cowardly Pacifists** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:58 pm

Valkmar wrote:What if the 3rd Reich rose again, and we needed to nuke it to beat it, otherwise we would be subjugated and conquered and destroyed.

That's right, because we needed to nuke the Nazis to beat them last time, right?

You want to talk about history? Fine. We don't "need" to nuke people to win wars. That's a fiction. The U.S. hasn't nuked anyone since Japan, and by the time they did, the Japanese were in no position to subjugate, conquer, or destroy anyone. We didn't have to nuke the Soviets to prevent them from conquering us. And the threat of being nuked didn't stop them (or the US for that matter) from engaging in wars with other, less-powerful nations. So come off the "what if we need to nuke Hitler II" argument.

The idea that we might someday "need" to nuke someone is just crazy. In this world, it's more than crazy; it's suicidal.

Christian Democrats wrote:Secondly, Section 5 of this proposal unfairly would require nations to levy sanctions against other nations, which could lead to even more war. Thirdly, this proposal's definition of WMDs would prevent militaries from destroying certain kinds of military structures, such as complexes within mountains.

"Unfairly?" In what possible world is it unfair to enact trade sanctions against a nation that just nuked somebody? But I may change that to encouragement, or get rid of it all together. It was just a thought at trying to develop a threat that would keep non-members in line - I figured they would be less likely to attack anyone with WMDs if they thought they would lose their trading partners in the WA.

And of course, I'm willing to hear your suggestions on a better definition. My definition is aspirational, but I know it'll get trimmed.

Grand America wrote:Would you consider a 1.2 kt yield to be a WMD? Not a N, B, C, or R device, just a 1.2 kt weapon.

Edit: Also, you should add a "WMDs are, at times, necessary. However, not if non-combatants are the target. WMDs should only be used against military personnel."

Nuclear weapons are neigh unacceptable. Use them for deterrence, not use. Not to mention that nukes are still fads of the 50s; the modern world doesn't need nuclear devices. We have other weapons.

I like the way your mind works. Of course, a good definition of WMD is essential to this act, and I'd appreciate any help in revising it to a more suitable definition.

But I'm absolutely not willing to say that the use of WMDs is "at times, necessary." My concession is that I'm prohibiting only member nations from using them on each other. That way, you can be sure that you won't have to use your WMDs since the other side can't use them either. Conflicts with non-members are still fair game. I still think it's wrong to ever nuke someone, but I get that a threat of retaliation might be necessary where others are not bound not to nuke you. So I couldn't tie nations hands when dealing with others not bound by the same rule of law.

Auralia wrote:Your analogy is designed to appeal to emotion rather than deal with my argument. Look at the example of killing a human being in self-defense. It's horrible that it's necessary to take away a human life, but that doesn't make it any less justified. Similarly, if it becomes necessary to nuke a military target during a just war, I should be allowed to do so.

Well, my analogy makes the point that just because an act might be "necessary" for some desirable end, that doesn't mean the act is moral. So in that way, it absolutely did address your argument that nuking something is "okay" because its necessary for some national security objective. But I'll speak with you more directly if you prefer.

"If it becomes necessary to nuke." Tsk tsk tsk. That right there is the flaw in your argument. It is never necessary to nuke something, under any conception of the term "necessary." I deny that there are not other alternatives that are always preferable to the course of action you propose. And for that reason, I don't want to allow you to pursue that course of action.

Nuking a city is not analogous to "self-defense." A child in daycare or a grandmother in her retirement home is not threatening you with imminent bodily harm. Even an army company marching to get it's hair cut at the local barber is not threatening you in a manner that would justify self defense. And killing is still "wrong" even in personal self-defense. Self-defense is an excuse - we let that one slide. But we don't say "good think you killed someone!"

Auralia wrote:I'd also like to point out that a nuclear deterrent would be pointless if this resolution would be passed, as if nuclear weapons can no longer be used (OOC: all nations MUST abide by WA resolutions) there's no point in possessing them any longer. Thus option 3 of your poll makes no sense within the context of this resolution.

Thanks for the comment on the poll. It's just an opinion piece, and I felt like option 3 was a respectable opinion on the use of WMDs. Just ignore it if you don't like it.

Nuclear deterrence would still be effective. Not "all nations" must abide by WA resolutions. To the extent that there are many many non-member nations. You can still possess (and use, btw) your nukes against them. They're not covered in the letter or spirit of this resolution. This is mostly a convention among assembly members, with a couple provisions at the end to dissuade attacks from outsiders.

by **Cowardly Pacifists** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:05 pm

Connopolis wrote:Perhaps a bit vague, to the point of being prime meat for any "Creative Solutions Agency."

4. Member Nations shall not go to war against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in self-perseverance or the prevention of genocide.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

4. Member-nations shall not engage in war with other member-nations unless doing so is integral in maintaining their national security and/or stability; furthermore, no member-nation may engage in war with another member-nation unless all diplomatic avenues through which such a conflict could be resolved have been exhausted.

National interest may very well be boiled down to "we wanted your land and resources, and such a notion is a vital national interest."

Yours truly,

I'll certainly consider this for the next draft. I don't want the provision to be too lax, but I can't have it restrict to much either. As you've noticed already,crusader nations are uppity about anything that might restrict their ability to go around "doing good" at the point of a sword. I made the standard in #4 to be aspirational, and to give guidance, but to leave the ultimate decision in national hands. I'm afraid that by trying to do other, I risk legitimizing war for certain reasons.

And we pacifists don't believe in legitimizing war for any reasons. I'd rather tell nations to be extreeeemly careful about deciding to go to war, without suggesting that certain reasons are indeed appropriate.

But, of course, I'll keep your suggestions in mind for the next draft. I don't want this provision to be accused of doing nothing.

by **Christian Democrats** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:17 pm

All of us don't need to adhere to your cowardly pacifist position!

by **Auralia** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:19 pm

Grand America wrote:
Auralia wrote:I'd also like to point out that a nuclear deterrent would be pointless if this resolution would be passed, as if nuclear weapons can no longer be used (OOC: all nations MUST abide by WA resolutions) there's no point in possessing them any longer. Thus option 3 of your poll makes no sense within the context of this resolution.

That's not true. All WA member nations must abide, not everyone. However, as nuclear weapons are prohibited, the deterrent of the nuclear weapon would work only slightly. There are WA member nations that aren't exactly by-the-by with every rule. Because they aren't, they break them. Some take the WA as "I only accept those that I vote For on." Kinda like the real world; Nations only abide by the treaties they sign.

Never-the-less, it can still be used as a deterrent, while other, conventional methods are actually utilized.

It's true that all WA members must abide, not everyone. My fault for my poor phrasing. However, this actually introduces a second problem: since WA nations cannot use nuclear weapons, but non-WA nations can, that leaves every WA nation vulnerable to nuclear assault, since mutual assured destruction no longer applies.

OOC: By the way, the game mechanics force every nation to follow WA rules (ever gotten a telegram from the "World Assembly Compliance Commission"?).

EDIT: I just read the resolution again - it's prohibiting the use of WMDs against member nations only. My mistake. However, some of the other provisions, like clause 5 and 6, censure nations for using WMDs at all, even against non-member nations.

In addition, I still think it's silly to make the blanket assumption that we will never need to use weapons of mass destruction. The decision to nuke should be done on a case-by-case basis, not in a bureaucrat's office at the WA.

by **Auralia** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:20 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:All of us don't need to adhere to your cowardly pacifist position!

Does our region have an embassy with yours yet? I think we would work well together...

by **Grand America** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:28 pm

Whoops!
I meant to add that quoted thing into the poll, not the proposal.
Understandably, member nations wouldn't follow these rules against non-member nations. It makes us no better then they, but at least we have something to use as deterrent if they start threatening.

Auralia wrote:
Grand America wrote:

That's not true. All WA member nations must abide, not everyone. However, as nuclear weapons are prohibited, the deterrent of the nuclear weapon would work only slightly. There are WA member nations that aren't exactly by-the-by with every rule. Because they aren't, they break them. Some take the WA as "I only accept those that I vote For on." Kinda like the real world; Nations only abide by the treaties they sign.

Never-the-less, it can still be used as a deterrent, while other, conventional methods are actually utilized.

It's true that all WA members must abide, not everyone. My fault for my poor phrasing. However, this actually introduces a second problem: since WA nations cannot use nuclear weapons, but non-WA nations can, that leaves every WA nation vulnerable to nuclear assault, since mutual assured destruction no longer applies.

OOC: By the way, the game mechanics force every nation to follow WA rules (ever gotten a telegram from the "World Assembly Compliance Commission"?).

No. As stated above in a more described manner, this law would only apply if member nations are fighting against each other. Understandably, it would be unfair to place us in a position of disadvantage. However, that should be included. It should also be included that, in such situations, said WMDs not be used against noncombatants, but rather, military targets.

OoC: No. It just tells you that your stats have been changed because of whatever resolution. They can't for you to follow WA rules in RPs, though it's usually seen as a bit odd.
I, personally, only follow those I agree with, and "sign." Its just that it happens to be most of them; The WA is very moralistic

by **United Celts** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:29 pm

Dr. Mac Carthaigh takes to the floor. "My government opposes this proposal. However, given my government's new role as the WA Regional Delegate for Exshaw I can't guarantee that we will vote against this proposal if it makes it to a vote, as we will have to take into account the results of a referendum in Exshaw. But I can assure Ambassador Scaredilocks that my government will not vote to approve this proposal to come up for a vote in the first place."

by **Auralia** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:31 pm

Grand America wrote:No. As stated above in a more described manner, this law would only apply if member nations are fighting against each other.

Indeed, you are correct. This resolution is prohibiting the use of WMDs against member nations only. However, there are still other problems which I discuss in my earlier post (just edited).

by **Grand America** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:35 pm

Auralia wrote:
Grand America wrote:

That's not true. All WA member nations must abide, not everyone. However, as nuclear weapons are prohibited, the deterrent of the nuclear weapon would work only slightly. There are WA member nations that aren't exactly by-the-by with every rule. Because they aren't, they break them. Some take the WA as "I only accept those that I vote For on." Kinda like the real world; Nations only abide by the treaties they sign.

Never-the-less, it can still be used as a deterrent, while other, conventional methods are actually utilized.

It's true that all WA members must abide, not everyone. My fault for my poor phrasing. However, this actually introduces a second problem: since WA nations cannot use nuclear weapons, but non-WA nations can, that leaves every WA nation vulnerable to nuclear assault, since mutual assured destruction no longer applies.

OOC: By the way, the game mechanics force every nation to follow WA rules (ever gotten a telegram from the "World Assembly Compliance Commission"?).

EDIT: I just read the resolution again - it's prohibiting the use of WMDs against member nations only. My mistake. However, some of the other provisions, like clause 5 and 6, censure nations for using WMDs at all, even against non-member nations.

In addition, I still think it's silly to make the blanket assumption that we will never need to use weapons of mass destruction. The decision to nuke should be done on a case-by-case basis, not in a bureaucrat's office at the WA.

In actuality, Clause 5.) states: "Member Nations are required to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity. Such sanctions must include, at a minimum: trade sanctions and public condemnation." That would mean sanctions and public condemnation against nations that used said WMDs against other WA nations, seeing as that's what the proposal is all about.

Clause 6.) states: "Member nations are strongly encouraged to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to a nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law." Again, only accounts for when one member uses WMDs against another. Not the case if going against a Non-WA nation.

It's not a blanket assumption. Nuclear devices are not required to fight in wars. The decision to activate and fire nuclear weapons will be made based on the statistics of casualties. Granted, if those numbers are high, it encourages a nuclear strike, but those soldiers are trained to fight, and, if necessary, die. Civilians are not. Civilians are not nuclear targets, nor should they be the targets of any weapons, conventional or no.

The United States (me, ICly) feels that the use of Nuclear devices in a war is an arrogant choice, and one made simply on the idea of how many could die in an invasion, despite the fact those are soldiers over civilians. Also disregarding the fact that radiation poisoning damages genes for generations. That's not acceptable. This is why the United States asks if a 1.2 kt conventional weapon can be affected by said resolution.

by **Auralia** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:46 pm

Grand America wrote:In actuality, Clause 5.) states: "Member Nations are required to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity. Such sanctions must include, at a minimum: trade sanctions and public condemnation." That would mean sanctions and public condemnation against nations that used said WMDs against other WA nations, seeing as that's what the proposal is all about.

Clause 6.) states: "Member nations are strongly encouraged to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to a nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law." Again, only accounts for when one member uses WMDs against another. Not the case if going against a Non-WA nation.

Regardless if that's the intent of the resolution, that's not what it says in the clauses. It should be explicitly stated that sanctions, condemnation, etc. should only be applied when WMDs are used against WA member nations, not just "in a military capacity."

Grand America wrote:It's not a blanket assumption. Nuclear devices are not required to fight in wars. The decision to activate and fire nuclear weapons will be made based on the statistics of casualties. Granted, if those numbers are high, it encourages a nuclear strike, but those soldiers are trained to fight, and, if necessary, die. Civilians are not. Civilians are not nuclear targets, nor should they be the targets of any weapons, conventional or no.

The United States (me, ICly) feels that the use of Nuclear devices in a war is an arrogant choice, and one made simply on the idea of how many could die in an invasion, despite the fact those are soldiers over civilians. Also disregarding the fact that radiation poisoning damages genes for generations. That's not acceptable. This is why the United States asks if a 1.2 kt conventional weapon can be affected by said resolution.

I don't believe you can simply state that "nuclear devices are not required to fight in wars." I grant you that they probably will never be used, but you have not foreseen the nature of every conflict that will ever occur. You just don't know if it will some day be necessary to use them. As such, a decision as serious as using WMDs should be made on a case-by-case basis, not in a blanket WA resolution.

[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

Who is online