[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Grand America]

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."

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.

1.) That is something that can be assumed, if the proposal only affects nations that use WMDs against other member nations. Whether or not it was interpreted that way by you is a different story. However, to eliminate the possibility of that occurring in the resolution, should this be bumped up to vote, I suggest that it be specified.

2.) No. Tell me any situation in which a nuclear weapon must be used in order to win, where conventional weapons will do no damage. What conflict can we be confronted with in which conventional weapons are simply not enough.

[Auralia]

2.) No. Tell me any situation in which a nuclear weapon must be used in order to win, where conventional weapons will do no damage. What conflict can we be confronted with in which conventional weapons are simply not enough.

The complete destruction of a particularly large and well-fortified military base, too large for conventional weapons? We can play hypothetical games forever, but the reality is we don't know anything about the nature of future conflict. Instead of relying on our predictions of what we think might happen in the future, why don't we wait for an actual conflict to decide whether or not WMDs are appropriate?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

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."

I'm inclined to agree that provision 6 needs to be reworded. I wanted it to serve as a deterrent to non-member nations - who are not prohibited from using WMDs by the Act. But the way it's worded sanctions would also be imposed on a member nation who felt compelled to respond in kind to a nuclear strike by a non-member nation. That was not my intention, since it reduces the deterant value of nukes on non-member nations (since they might think "oh, that member nation would never nuke us back, since other WA nations would then sanction them.")

I still think it would be wrong to actually respond in kind, but I don't want to diminish the value of the threat as a deterrant. I'll make a change to this provision in the next draft. Thanks for the input! You too Grand America.

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.

Lets save ourselves hours of pointless debate and just agree to disagree. Suffice to say, I don't think the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. This assembly has acknowledged that while some things can be useful in some ways (slavery, child labor, torture), it is nonetheless the right thing to do to ban them outright. I suppose we cannot know whether a conflict might eventually break-out where a nuclear device might seem like a good option. But, just like other things we have banned, we must have the courage to say that using WMDs is so bad that (like torture, child labor, and slavery) we will resolve to ban them regardless of what "good" they might do.

Though I want to avoid pointless debate (since we will clearly be unable to persuade each other), if you want to help refine (or water down) this resolution, I'm all ears. And I'll certainly engage in pointless debate if that's what you prefer.

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 can see we are of a similar mind, but not quite. Right now, the resolution flatly bans nuclear weapons. But I see your point - smaller nuclear weapons can have military applications that do not strike me as inherently unacceptable (the way large bombs or biological, chemical and radiological weapons are). I'm a little nervous about carving out exceptions, because if there's an exception for small nukes, why not for small pox? Or mustard gas? But only when used on enemy troops, mind you. Oh, but that company is in a city. Well, I guess it's okay to dirty bomb the town in order to kill those troops. Do you see my point? Little exceptions can start to erode the rule until it's essentially meaningless (I had this problem in my last draft of a Global Disarmament proposal).

As I've said before, this draft is highly aspirational. I expect the next draft to walk back the provisions somewhat. So if you can think of a revision to the draft that would allow the weapons/applications you want while still cleaning up war in a "strong" way, I'd certainly love to see it.

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

That a christian nation would approve of using nukes in warfare strikes me as quite ironic. Jesus would not approve, I think.

Dr. Mac Carthaigh takes to the floor. "My government opposes this proposal."

Do you still want me to retract my thanks? I swear I saw something along those lines here before...

[United Celts]

Dr. Mac Carthaigh rises from her seat...

Dr. Mac Carthaigh takes to the floor. "My government opposes this proposal."

Do you still want me to retract my thanks? I swear I saw something along those lines here before...

I have some suggestions for what Ambassador Scaredilocks can do with his thanks, but I'll leave it up to him to decide where to stick them.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I have some suggestions for what Ambassador Scaredilocks can do with his thanks, but I'll leave it up to him to decide where to stick them.

I'll take that as a 'yes.'

[Auralia]

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.

Lets save ourselves hours of pointless debate and just agree to disagree. Suffice to say, I don't think the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. This assembly has acknowledged that while some things can be useful in some ways (slavery, child labor, torture), it is nonetheless the right thing to do to ban them outright. I suppose we cannot know whether a conflict might eventually break-out where a nuclear device might seem like a good option. But, just like other things we have banned, we must have the courage to say that using WMDs is so bad that (like torture, child labor, and slavery) we will resolve to ban them regardless of what "good" they might do.

Though I want to avoid pointless debate (since we will clearly be unable to persuade each other), if you want to help refine (or water down) this resolution, I'm all ears. And I'll certainly engage in pointless debate if that's what you prefer.

I feel that the use of nuclear weapons are a bit more controversial than slavery or torture. I feel that there may be a valid and justified use for them in the future. Therefore, I really don't think we should be banning their use outright.

However, you are right in saying that we should just agree to disagree. Suffice it to say, I will not be supporting this resolution should it come to vote. However, I will continue to make suggestions for improvement (such as clarifying clauses 5 and 6) so that its negative effects - at least as I see them - will be minimized should it become law.

[Auralia]

I would like to point out, though, that a majority of pollers support the use of WMDs in limited situations.

[The Rich Port]

Maria: Oooooh

Teodora, Swami Ansuya, and Usagi: Indeed.

Apple Cider: FOR

[United Celts]

I have some suggestions for what Ambassador Scaredilocks can do with his thanks, but I'll leave it up to him to decide where to stick them.

I'll take that as a 'yes.'

Anger flashing in her eyes, Dr. Mac Carthaigh replies: "Given the ambassador's role in scuttling my government's first proposal to the General Assembly, that would be correct. And he can expect our general opposition to any proposal he makes. However, he may find that he'll not be dealing with me much longer as His Highness Prince Aedan has called for new elections and Prime Minister Mac Dónaill has announced that he will step down regardless of the outcome -- thanks in no small part to the failure of the Global Balance of Power Act. So really, Ambassador Scaredilocks, thank you. I'll probably have a lot more time on my hands to take up some new hobbies soon."

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I feel that the use of nuclear weapons are a bit more controversial than slavery or torture. I feel that there may be a valid and justified use for them in the future. Therefore, I really don't think we should be banning their use outright.

However, you are right in saying that we should just agree to disagree.

Fair enough. One man's "nuclear holocaust" is another man's "crisis averted."

Suffice it to say, I will not be supporting this resolution should it come to vote. However, I will continue to make suggestions for improvement (such as clarifying clauses 5 and 6) so that its negative effects - at least as I see them - will be minimized should it become law.

That's all I ask.

I would like to point out, though, that a majority of pollers support the use of WMDs in limited situations.

Indeed, though the sample size is still quite small. We'll have to see what it looks like as it progresses.

I may need to revise the draft if it becomes clear that nobody would support it. But where you see a majority in opposition, I see a third of those polled want this resolution to go even further than it currently does. It's kinda true what they say: you can use statistics to prove anything. 72% of all people know that.

Maria: Oooooh

Teodora, Swami Ansuya, and Usagi: Indeed.

Apple Cider: FOR

Great, somebody named Apple Cider supports my resolution... (but seriously, I appreciate the support!)

Given the ambassador's role in scuttling my government's first proposal to the General Assembly, that would be correct. And he can expect our general opposition to any proposal he makes. However, he may find that he'll not be dealing with me much longer as His Highness Prince Aedan has called for new elections and Prime Minister Mac Dónaill has announced that he will step down regardless of the outcome -- thanks in no small part to the failure of the Global Balance of Power Act. So really, Ambassador Scaredilocks, thank you. I'll probably have a lot more time on my hands to take up some new hobbies soon."

If you want to see a proposal scuttled, you should see my delegation's first proposal. Your proposal wasn't scuttled, it was voluntarily withdrawn. My proposal was slapped down so hard by Mousebumples and Embolalia that it actually grew legs and ran out of the WA headquarters. It's been two months since I've seen it...

I will truly be quite sad to see Dr. Mac Carthaigh go, and I certainly hope that will not be the case. She is a fine debater, a worthy adversary, and a commendable representative of her people and their opinion.

Best regards.

[Auralia]

I feel that the use of nuclear weapons are a bit more controversial than slavery or torture. I feel that there may be a valid and justified use for them in the future. Therefore, I really don't think we should be banning their use outright.

However, you are right in saying that we should just agree to disagree.

Fair enough. One man's "nuclear holocaust" is another man's "crisis averted."

Suffice it to say, I will not be supporting this resolution should it come to vote. However, I will continue to make suggestions for improvement (such as clarifying clauses 5 and 6) so that its negative effects - at least as I see them - will be minimized should it become law.

That's all I ask.

I have to say, your smugness and arrogance really gets on my nerves and ultimately lowers the quality of debate.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I have to say, your smugness and arrogance really gets on my nerves and ultimately lowers the quality of debate.

Well, I was trying to agree with you about the appropriateness of nuclear strikes being more debatable than slavery or torture in this day and age. But speaking of those things, not only were they once widely debatable in their own right, there was a time when slavery and torture were widely accepted as socially appropriate. From what I can tell, the use of nuclear weapons has never enjoyed any such approbation or acceptance.

I really do appreciate your help working on the draft. I'm a little too close to it (since I wrote it) to notice some of its flaws. I'm sorry if you took my responses as smug or arrogant. That really wasn't my intention, but I see why you may have perceived them that way. It's awfully hard to convey tone in a post. I was going for a playful snarkiness. It's kinda my thing, ask anyone. Though sometimes I do slip over the line. Ask anyone about that too.

And if I may add one more thing: Arrogance in the name of good is the virtue of righteousness.

[Auralia]

Well, I was trying to agree with you about the appropriateness of nuclear strikes being more debatable than slavery or torture in this day and age. But speaking of those things, not only were they once widely debatable in their own right, there was a time when slavery and torture were widely accepted as socially appropriate. From what I can tell, the use of nuclear weapons has never enjoyed any such approbation or acceptance.

OOC: The US bombing of Japan, while controversial, is often used as an example of a justified use of nuclear weapons.

I really do appreciate your help working on the draft. I'm a little too close to it (since I wrote it) to notice some of its flaws. I'm sorry if you took my responses as smug or arrogant. That really wasn't my intention, but I see why you may have perceived them that way. It's awfully hard to convey tone in a post. I was going for a playful snarkiness. It's kinda my thing, ask anyone. Though sometimes I do slip over the line. Ask anyone about that too.

OOC: It's all right. To tell you the truth, in real life, I tend to behave in the same way.

At any rate, I'll continue to examine the proposal and report flaws as I find them.

[Auralia]

Perhaps we can compromise. You believe WMDs do not have a valid use, I say they do. So why not let a neutral commission decide on a case-by-case basis whether WMDs are/were justified in a given conflict, and apply sanctions, reparation payments and the like if necessary.

I don't really like it - I see it as an international government bureaucracy violating national sovereignty - but I would prefer it to what's on the table now. It might at least allow the use of WMDs when necessary.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Perhaps we can compromise. You believe WMDs do not have a valid use, I say they do. So why not let a neutral commission decide on a case-by-case basis whether WMDs are/were justified in a given conflict, and apply sanctions, reparation payments and the like if necessary.

I don't really like it - I see it as an international government bureaucracy violating national sovereignty - but I would prefer it to what's on the table now. It might at least allow the use of WMDs when necessary.

Hum... interesting. I admit that would be a good compromise, but I don't think we could get it done. At least not from the preventative side. It's my understanding that Article 10 of the Rights and Duties resolution prohibits the WA from getting involved in an ongoing conflict in that way. I had to tread very carefully in drafting this resolution in order to avoid the implication of that provision. The WA can establish rules governing behavior in war (as it did with the Prisoners of War Accord) but it cannot take sides. Asking the WA to rule on whether or not a nation would be justified in nuking another nation definitely violates that rule. Plus on a practical side, it would be tough to implement. Just imagine what you would do if you ever caught wind of the fact that your enemy was going to the WA to ask permission to nuke you, and you'll see what I mean.

And as far as a committee sitting in judgement after the fact, well, there's two problems with that. One is that it doesn't do anything to prevent nuclear strikes, even where we all know they're unjust. We'd just be looking to punish wrongdoers after the fact. Two is that there is already an international criminal court that can punish people for "war crimes" including unleashing WMDs on civilians. While we're talking about going beyond that by empowering a commission to decide if any use of a WMD is justified, I guarantee there will be a lot of folks saying it just duplicates the ICC.

So I'm sorry to say but I think a committee approach is probably out. Unless you can think of a way to word it so that we can prevent unjust strikes without violating the Article 10 provision preventing WA involvement in ongoing conflict.

[Auralia]

Perhaps we can compromise. You believe WMDs do not have a valid use, I say they do. So why not let a neutral commission decide on a case-by-case basis whether WMDs are/were justified in a given conflict, and apply sanctions, reparation payments and the like if necessary.

I don't really like it - I see it as an international government bureaucracy violating national sovereignty - but I would prefer it to what's on the table now. It might at least allow the use of WMDs when necessary.

Hum... interesting. I admit that would be a good compromise, but I don't think we could get it done. At least not from the preventative side. It's my understanding that Article 10 of the Rights and Duties resolution prohibits the WA from getting involved in an ongoing conflict in that way. I had to tread very carefully in drafting this resolution in order to avoid the implication of that provision. The WA can establish rules governing behavior in war (as it did with the Prisoners of War Accord) but it cannot take sides. Asking the WA to rule on whether or not a nation would be justified in nuking another nation definitely violates that rule. Plus on a practical side, it would be tough to implement. Just imagine what you would do if you ever caught wind of the fact that your enemy was going to the WA to ask permission to nuke you, and you'll see what I mean.

And as far as a committee sitting in judgement after the fact, well, there's two problems with that. One is that it doesn't do anything to prevent nuclear strikes, even where we all know they're unjust. We'd just be looking to punish wrongdoers after the fact. Two is that there is already an international criminal court that can punish people for "war crimes" including unleashing WMDs on civilians. While we're talking about going beyond that by empowering a commission to decide if any use of a WMD is justified, I guarantee there will be a lot of folks saying it just duplicates the ICC.

So I'm sorry to say but I think a committee approach is probably out. Unless you can think of a way to word it so that we can prevent unjust strikes without violating the Article 10 provision preventing WA involvement in ongoing conflict.

I think we might be able to slot the committee approach under "governing behaviour in war." If we look at it as setting precedents for acceptable use of WMDs in warfare, in any conflict with a set of given conditions, rather than just approving the use of nuclear weapons in a given conflict, it might work.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

4. [...] self-perseverance or the prevention of genocide.

"Whoops!" said Lord Whittingrey, chuckling gently. "Perseverance, noun: steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc., especially in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement. Wrong word."

He paused, and continued more seriously. "We... have a few issues with this proposal. Besides the sanctions vs. deterrence matter that has been agreed on, we are very concerned by the importance of using such weapons against military targets. For instance, nuclear weapons can be used to knock out communications when detonated in the upper atmosphere, and form an important part of our nation's capabilities. Why should all nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons be banned? It could be a very short scale chemical weapon used on the battlefield to temporarily incapacitate half a dozen soldiers. Then why should we be forced to discriminate against large scale weapons when we want to fire upon large scale military targets? Firing billions of conventional weapons is expensive when compared to firing a single fusion-fission warhead used in fighting on the scale of death stars.

And anyway, you'll have a lot of trouble distinguishing over what constitutes: (a) a large number of people? One hundred? Two hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? Ten million?... (b) a city? civil centres? (c) severe degradation? A hundred fissile isotopes on average after a year with a half life of ten years?

We think it would be much better to simply demand that damage to non-combatants be minimized, while continuing to allow entities to use whatever weapons they like against military targets. Therefore we are opposed to the present proposal, although we are generally in favour of trying to limit the use of these weapons."

[Auralia]

4. [...] self-perseverance or the prevention of genocide.

"Whoops!" said Lord Whittingrey, chuckling gently. "Perseverance, noun: steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc., especially in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement. Wrong word."

He paused, and continued more seriously. "We... have a few issues with this proposal. Besides the sanctions vs. deterrence matter that has been agreed on, we are very concerned by the importance of using such weapons against military targets. For instance, nuclear weapons can be used to knock out communications when detonated in the upper atmosphere, and form an important part of our nation's capabilities. Why should all nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons be banned? It could be a very short scale chemical weapon used on the battlefield to temporarily incapacitate half a dozen soldiers. Then why should we be forced to discriminate against large scale weapons when we want to fire upon large scale military targets? Firing billions of conventional weapons is expensive when compared to firing a single fusion-fission warhead used in fighting on the scale of death stars.

And anyway, you'll have a lot of trouble distinguishing over what constitutes: (a) a large number of people? One hundred? Two hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? Ten million?... (b) a city? civil centres? (c) severe degradation? A hundred fissile isotopes on average after a year with a half life of ten years?

We think it would be much better to simply demand that damage to non-combatants be minimized, while continuing to allow entities to use whatever weapons they like against military targets. Therefore we are opposed to the present proposal, although we are generally in favour of trying to limit the use of these weapons."

I fully agree.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I think we might be able to slot the committee approach under "governing behaviour in war." If we look at it as setting precedents for acceptable use of WMDs in warfare, in any conflict with a set of given conditions, rather than just approving the use of nuclear weapons in a given conflict, it might work.

I'm sorry, but no. What your asking for is a trial and error system where we allow folks to use WMDs as they please until enough WMDs have been used for a body of committee decisions to have grown up around it. I'm not so much concerned with what happens after WMDs have been used - there's already a resolution that allows an international criminal court to review what happened and pass judgment on any wrongdoing. To the extent that nations might be discouraged from using WMDs by a court that might sit in judgement of their actions, there's already one of those.

And even then, a system of precedents would be full of loopholes. Any nation could claim "well, our situation isn't really like those other ones; I'm sure the committee would consider us justified." I'm willing to soften this resolution as necessary. I'm not willing to make it completely ineffectual.

I'm concerned with preventing the use of WMDs in the first place, not punishing it after the fact. If a committee could somehow judge WMD use before the weapons were used, I'd be very interested in something like that. But I don't think we can, because it would conflict with the Rights and Duties resolution. I'm very sure that a committee telling nations whether they may or may not use a WMD in a given situation would be illegal.

[Auralia]

I think we might be able to slot the committee approach under "governing behaviour in war." If we look at it as setting precedents for acceptable use of WMDs in warfare, in any conflict with a set of given conditions, rather than just approving the use of nuclear weapons in a given conflict, it might work.

I'm sorry, but no. What your asking for is a trial and error system where we allow folks to use WMDs as they please until enough WMDs have been used for a body of committee decisions to have grown up around it. I'm not so much concerned with what happens after WMDs have been used - there's already a resolution that allows an international criminal court to review what happened and pass judgment on any wrongdoing. To the extent that nations might be discouraged from using WMDs by a court that might sit in judgement of their actions, there's already one of those.

And even then, a system of precedents would be full of loopholes. Any nation could claim "well, our situation isn't really like those other ones; I'm sure the committee would consider us justified." I'm willing to soften this resolution as necessary. I'm not willing to make it completely ineffectual.

I'm concerned with preventing the use of WMDs in the first place, not punishing it after the fact. If a committee could somehow judge WMD use before the weapons were used, I'd be very interested in something like that. But I don't think we can, because it would conflict with the Rights and Duties resolution. I'm very sure that a committee telling nations whether they may or may not use a WMD in a given situation would be illegal.

I think you misunderstood my point. The committee I envisioned would still judge the validity of using a WMD before it was used in conflict, but would present its decision as a general ruling or precedent rather than a decision specific to the case in question. That way the WA is technically not involving itself in any particular conflict, but simply allowing or disallowing the use of WMDs in all conflicts which meet certain criteria.

[Grand America]

2.) No. Tell me any situation in which a nuclear weapon must be used in order to win, where conventional weapons will do no damage. What conflict can we be confronted with in which conventional weapons are simply not enough.

The complete destruction of a particularly large and well-fortified military base, too large for conventional weapons? We can play hypothetical games forever, but the reality is we don't know anything about the nature of future conflict. Instead of relying on our predictions of what we think might happen in the future, why don't we wait for an actual conflict to decide whether or not WMDs are appropriate?

I did say must. You don't need a nuclear device to destroy a large and well-fortified military base. You use other methods.

[Grand America]

Well...it's not really an exception. It's not a nuclear weapon. It's a kinetic weapon. It doesn't have all those nasty side effects that nuclear devices do. You can input something about how this only applies to nuclear weapons, but that kinetic weapons are acceptable?
But the U.S. never deploys weapons on massive scales to kill civilians. If innocent people die, it was accidental. The U.S. has a saying, Noncombatants don't die, whether or not the battle is lost.

ICly, the U.S. would have strongly disapproved of the Global Disarmament proposal, simply because we're not pacifist. We're not imperialistic, but we're not pacifist, not to mention it leaves us at a loss, should we ever come across a non-WA nation that declares war. Because of so, the United States would refuse to disarm itself.
And, OoCly, I have a problem with disarmaments. Primarily the fact that not everyone would do it, and the actions of invading aren't on digital text boxes and forums. They're live bullets, and living-to-deceased people. I know for a fact that the U.S. would never disarm itself, should such a proposal come up in the United Nations.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

4. [...] self-perseverance or the prevention of genocide.

"Whoops!" said Lord Whittingrey, chuckling gently. "Perseverance, noun: steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc., especially in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement. Wrong word."

Yes, well... quite embarrassing really. I went ahead and changed that. Thanks for the tip.

He paused, and continued more seriously. "We... have a few issues with this proposal. Besides the sanctions vs. deterrence matter that has been agreed on, we are very concerned by the importance of using such weapons against military targets. For instance, nuclear weapons can be used to knock out communications when detonated in the upper atmosphere, and form an important part of our nation's capabilities. Why should all nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons be banned? It could be a very short scale chemical weapon used on the battlefield to temporarily incapacitate half a dozen soldiers. Then why should we be forced to discriminate against large scale weapons when we want to fire upon large scale military targets? Firing billions of conventional weapons is expensive when compared to firing a single fusion-fission warhead used in fighting on the scale of death stars.

Yes, you and I have had this discussion before. Last time you got me to follow along with you, until I realized that this sort of set-up is just a rabbit hole toward making any effort at restricting these weapons totally meaningless. I get that you see value in using WMDs against military targets. Unfortunately, if we start going down that road, before you know it we're talking about what to do if there's a lone general getting his hair cut in a busy metropolis. Now the city has a "military" target and we're free to do whatever we want to them aren't we. I became so befuddled by this logic last time around that I gave up on the whole deal. I've regained composure since then, and I won't be deterred by the same argument.

I simply cannot fathom how to separate legitimate uses from illegitimate ones in a meaningful way. If you want to propose one, I'll listen. But for now I think a total ban on these WMDs is all I can do, and I won't start trying to split hairs to say this use of these weapons is legitimate and this use is not. I'm resolved that the only way these weapons could be "legitimate" is if they were necessary - and I can't think of a good example of them being necessary.

As far as incapacitating the enemy, I made provision for that in my defintion of the weapon. I don't think temporary incapacitation qualifies as serious harm - to the extent that you've got some James-Bond sleepy-time gas, feel free to use it.

You asked me why you should discriminate against large scale weapons when dealing with large scale targets. This sort of question really only has meaning when talking about interstellar war, because nothing in the world can be so large as to only be realistically susceptible to a nuclear weapon. I suppose I simply cannot argue against the spacefaring nations when they ask why I would take away the weapons they need to blow up the moon. I might ask them to be creative when imagining other ways for their military to be effective against large targets. And I'll simply have to resolve myself to losing their vote, or hope that the peaceful ones will see enough good in banning WMDs to put aside the fact that they will no longer be able to launch nukes at their enemy's spaceships and planets.

And anyway, you'll have a lot of trouble distinguishing over what constitutes: (a) a large number of people? One hundred? Two hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? Ten million?... (b) a city? civil centres? (c) severe degradation? A hundred fissile isotopes on average after a year with a half life of ten years?

I understand that I did not set hard and fast numbers. Of course, the last time I did, you objected to their arbitrariness, so I'm unconvinced that you're really trying to help by pointing out that nations will be unable to understand what a "city" is. There's a saying that any terms not defined should be given their ordinary meaning. I think that the words I used are not so specialized as to defy attempts to ascertain their intent.

I think people know what I am getting at when I say "weapon of mass destruction," and when I define it in the terms I use. Maybe those terms should be tweaked a bit here and there, but I don't think it does me any good to go about defining the terms of my definition. Besides, anything I do is bound to have a loophole based on differing definitions. I could define every damn word in the Act and still have somebody say that part of my definition's definition is not properly fleshed out.

We think it would be much better to simply demand that damage to non-combatants be minimized, while continuing to allow entities to use whatever weapons they like against military targets. Therefore we are opposed to the present proposal, although we are generally in favour of trying to limit the use of these weapons."

There's already a resolution that demands limiting the damage to non-combatants. There's already another resolution that allows for criminal sanctions if someone nukes a city (not exactly sure how that got by the Secretariat when we were already supposed to be avoiding damage to non-combatants, but I digress.) I'm not trying to duplicate those resolutions. I'm trying to avoid the use of WMDs in war. If you can think of a way to do that without going down the inevitable slope toward duplication or meaninglessness I discussed earlier, I'm all ears.

I think you misunderstood my point. The committee I envisioned would still judge the validity of using a WMD before it was used in conflict, but would present its decision as a general ruling or precedent rather than a decision specific to the case in question. That way the WA is technically not involving itself in any particular conflict, but simply allowing or disallowing the use of WMDs in all conflicts which meet certain criteria.

Now I'm just confused. You want me to replace the outright ban I've currently got with a committee that rules before the weapon is used (I'm still pretty sure this would contradict Rights and Duties) but whose rulings should be considered a precedent and not "a decision specific to the case in question," is that right? I really don't think you're going to fool the Secretariat with that. Would the nation even be bound by the committee's decision, if it's not "specific" to the case in question? If not, I'm certainly not going to create a committee that nations are free to ignore if they don't get the answer they're looking for.

Well...it's not really an exception. It's not a nuclear weapon. It's a kinetic weapon. It doesn't have all those nasty side effects that nuclear devices do. You can input something about how this only applies to nuclear weapons, but that kinetic weapons are acceptable?
But the U.S. never deploys weapons on massive scales to kill civilians. If innocent people die, it was accidental. The U.S. has a saying, Noncombatants don't die, whether or not the battle is lost.

ICly, the U.S. would have strongly disapproved of the Global Disarmament proposal, simply because we're not pacifist. We're not imperialistic, but we're not pacifist, not to mention it leaves us at a loss, should we ever come across a non-WA nation that declares war. Because of so, the United States would refuse to disarm itself.
And, OoCly, I have a problem with disarmaments. Primarily the fact that not everyone would do it, and the actions of invading aren't on digital text boxes and forums. They're live bullets, and living-to-deceased people. I know for a fact that the U.S. would never disarm itself, should such a proposal come up in the United Nations.

Right now "WMD" is defined in a pretty general way, to cover all kinds of weapons - though the four I really mean (nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological) are spelled out at the end of the definition. Kinetic weapons are not listed directly, but one could imagine that if there was ever a kinetic weapon big enough to destroy a whole city, this Act might cover it. I don't know much about the distinction your making between "kinetic" and "nuclear" weapons. Read the description of WMD and you tell me whether you think these weapons are WMDs. If you don't think they could reasonably be said to fall under the definition, then we're all good and you can use your high yield warheads to your heart's content. If you think they would be covered, let me know and I'll see if we can whittle the definition down a bit so that such weapons might be included.

I'm really after restricting a specific type of weapon here - I think we all have a pretty good idea of what a WMD is even if we can't exactly define it. It's like pornography - hard to describe, exactly, but we know it when we see it. If you think of a weapon, and your gut tells you it's a WMD, it probably is. We still need a definition though, and it's important that we define WMD in a reasonable way so that folks get what we're talking about.

And I'm not going after disarmament. I'm setting up a mutual agreement among members of this Assembly. This resolution says WA members will not use WMDs against each other. You can keep as many of these weapons as you want and nothing in this would prohibit you from using them against those who might use them on you. I don't recommend that you do - in fact, I think you rather shouldn't. But I can't control members outside this body so I'm not going to tie your hands when dealing with them.

[Auralia]

Now I'm just confused. You want me to replace the outright ban I've currently got with a committee that rules before the weapon is used (I'm still pretty sure this would contradict Rights and Duties) but whose rulings should be considered a precedent and not "a decision specific to the case in question," is that right? I really don't think you're going to fool the Secretariat with that. Would the nation even be bound by the committee's decision, if it's not "specific" to the case in question? If not, I'm certainly not going to create a committee that nations are free to ignore if they don't get the answer they're looking for.

Perhaps an example would clarify my idea:

We start with a total ban on WMDs. Nation A is at war with Nation B, and wants to use a WMD for a particular purpose. Let's take an example from this thread, and say they want to knock out communications by detonating a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere. They introduce a proposal to the committee, asking them to rule on whether that's an acceptable use of WMDs. The committee rules, but their decision is not worded like "Nation A may knock out Nation B's communications by detonating a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere" but rather "all nations are permitted to knock out another nation's communications during war by detonating a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere." Therefore, if Nation C wants to knock out Nation D's communications, or vice versa, the ruling also applies.

Thus, we're not contravening Rights and Duties because we're not making a determination on the validity of any particular conflict, just making general laws about the validity of certain actions taken in war. At the same time, it's done on a case-by-case basis, rather than an outright banm which is what I wanted.

[United Celts]

Ambassador Finn Mac Lochlainn takes the podium. "First, I must offer my sincerest apologies on behalf of the Crown and my Government for my predecessor's earlier behavior. It was totally unacceptable.

"Second, I have to wonder if my predecessor or other ambassadors who oppose this proposal on the grounds that it would somehow make their people unsafe have actually read the proposal. It would prohibit member nations 'from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation.' It further prohibits member nations from going to war 'against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest.' Regrettably, the proposal nowhere prohibits the use of WMDs against non-member nations. Thus the proposal itself acts as an effective deterrent to the use of WMDs in that while it does bind the hands of one member nation it also identically binds the hands of that member nation's opponent, and rightly so. If we can't prohibit the use of WMDs against each other we might as well all pack up and go home.

"There is absolutely no good reason for a member nation to oppose this proposal. Might it still need work? Yes, certainly. There are probably resolutions on the books that could still use some work. But this is a commonsense proposal that should enjoy broad support. I think that even my predecessor might have supported it had she not been so blinded by anger. On behalf of the Kingdom of United Celts, I offer my support for this proposal and urge other delegations to do the same."