[ON HOLD]Limiting Nuclear Proliferation

[The Akashic Records]

Rhetorically, it does help - it makes it a little more difficult for Conquestan to get their weapons but clearly isn't a great solution. I am not sure I can come up with anything better because it still boils down to subjective judgements about the intentions of specific nations. Possibly your best bet is to allow room in the proposal for nations to exercise their judgement as to whether the nuclear weapons will end up where they shouldn't, and refuse to provide weapons in these specific cases. Like a 'conscientious objection' clause.

Well, draft updated, and with so little space left, I'm not quite sure how to better word it.

[Norway and Iceland]

We commend the Ambassador for having been so thorough with this proposal. Although we have a fundamental disagreement with the principles behind it, we would support it going to vote on the floor of the Assembly in its present form.

[Alexander Von Stuben]

While we see the purpose behind to proposal, our nation is firmly against any legislation that would have nations arm potential enemies with nuclear weapons, as such this nation does not support the current from of said legislation.

[The Akashic Records]

We commend the Ambassador for having been so thorough with this proposal. Although we have a fundamental disagreement with the principles behind it, we would support it going to vote on the floor of the Assembly in its present form.

Thank you for your kind words. We will leave this for a while longer that we may see how well it fares with others.

While we see the purpose behind to proposal, our nation is firmly against any legislation that would have nations arm potential enemies with nuclear weapons, as such this nation does not support the current from of said legislation.

See clause 3(e), though, with so little space left, if the ambassador is willing to help with it, we might reconstruct the proposal at hand.

[Imperializt Russia]

You can't adequately qualify a "surplus" in a nuclear arsenal.

The Royal Navy considers 165 of 225 warheads at operational status with approximately 60 missile bodies as being sufficient for their deterrent needs, while the Russian Federation and US maintain stockpiles of thousands of missile and warhead types and a raft of delivery systems sufficient for their purposes.
The Royal Navy's is admittedly a downsizing from possible offensive use to purely defensive while the US/RU arsenals are a legacy of their offensive intents, but you can't then say "well, the UK manages with this, so the US/RU should sell off their 'surplus' until they reach the UK's level, and distributed their 'surplus' accordingly to non-nuclear states".

In the real world, there was one nuclear threat. The opposing bloc.
In NS there can be literally hundreds. A nuclear arsenal should ideally be tailored to a nearest threat, though the multi-polar and aggressive nature of NS diplomacy can mean that a nation must either draw up multiple separate arsenals to meet adequate threats or merely stockpile systems in vast numbers and on launch, apply a strategy to their use accordingly.
Further consider that once a nuclear stockpile is depleted, that nation then becomes a viable nuclear target as they have greatly reduced capacity for counterattack.

[Alexander Von Stuben]

Mandates that:
1. Should member nations wishing to have them be unable to procure them, they are to be given these weapons by those who have a surplus, subject to limitations of clauses 3 and 4.
Please define surplus, perhaps you could fins nations that would be willing to sell the weapons to the WA, who then in turn gives them to the receiving nation. Or you could ask for donations, but a nuclear warhead plus the delivery system is a rather large donation.
2. Should member nations not yet have the technology to handle nuclear weapons safely, they are to be assisted by willing member nations in developing them, subject to limitations of clauses 3 and 4.
Again to what we said above, who is going to pay for this, WA? Those nations that have this going on can not only do it out of the kindness of their heart.
3. For cases in which member nations be unable to procure the nuclear weapons themselves or have yet to have the technology to do so:
(a) Extend the powers of the General Accounting Office (GAO) to do a complete audit of the nation's finances before deciding on the ability of a member nation in procuring or creating nuclear weapons.
(b) Extends the powers of the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) and the World Assembly Disaster Bureau (WADB):
(i) so as to encompass the auditing of member nation whose technology have yet to be able to develop nuclear weapons in order to make sure that they truly require help in developing their nuclear weapons,
(ii) so as to encompass the auditing the member nation who offered to help to make sure that their research safety standards meets international standards.
(c) If the receiving nation does not have its own nuclear weapons research programme to safely handle the nuclear weapons that it is to receive, it is subject to the limitations of clause 2 of this resolution.
(d) The member nation assigned as the mentor nation must not be in any past or present conflict, or future conflict, if there are sufficient grounds to believe that a future conflict could occur between the nations involved.
How far past, if a nation fought a nation 500 years ago, like Britain and France for instance, that does not mean they have ill-will. Maybe It should be "(d) The member nation assigned as the mentor nation must not have strained relations, politically, culturally, or otherwise, or have sufficient grounds to believe that future conflict will emerge.
(e) A member nation is allowed to object to sharing its nuclear weapons or technology if there are sufficient grounds to believe that the receiving nation will use it in more capacity than self-defence.


4.Only member nations that pass the NTOA and WADB are allowed to be mentors or receive nuclear weapons.
There is problem I have with this, it's the fact that we will have someone who we have no part in say who the nuclear weapons shall go to, this is unacceptable.
5. Member nations in any form of alliances be exempt from the audit by the GAO, but not the audits by the NTOA and WADB.

6. Member nations must take any and all safety precautions in the safety of the transfer process of the weapons and/or technology in order to avoid them from falling into the hands of rogue states, terrorist and/or extremist organizations.

7. Member nations are prohibited from aiding rogue states, terrorist and/or extremist organizations in the acquisition of nuclear weapons and/or technology.

Declares that nothing this resolution shall be construed as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on nuclear weapons.

The concept of the act is admirable but our nation takes the view that the act, while almost ready, is not sufficiently ready for a vote.

[The Akashic Records]

Please define surplus, perhaps you could fins nations that would be willing to sell the weapons to the WA, who then in turn gives them to the receiving nation. Or you could ask for donations, but a nuclear warhead plus the delivery system is a rather large donation.

I'm sorry, but did you actually read it?

For the purposes of this resolution defines:

Surplus as any amount of nuclear weapons that a nation in possession of nuclear weapons deem to be more than enough for the purpose of self-defence, however, exempts weapons that are manufactured for the purpose of trade from being declared as surplus,

Again to what we said above, who is going to pay for this, WA? Those nations that have this going on can not only do it out of the kindness of their heart.

I believe that this is what you were looking for?

assisted by willing member nations

How far past, if a nation fought a nation 500 years ago, like Britain and France for instance, that does not mean they have ill-will. Maybe It should be "(d) The member nation assigned as the mentor nation must not have strained relations, politically, culturally, or otherwise, or have sufficient grounds to believe that future conflict will emerge."

Yes, that certainly does look better, we will update the draft accordingly.

There is problem I have with this, it's the fact that we will have someone who we have no part in say who the nuclear weapons shall go to, this is unacceptable.

The thing is that, it is to ensure that the mentors have sufficient safety standards by which they can aid member nations with. If their research standards are shoddy, and their building safety is in no way acceptable, then we do not see them as qualified to teach others how to build nuclear weapons. Or does the ambassador think that nations with a track record of blowing themselves up while researching and constructing nuclear weapons should be allowed to teach other nations how to build and/or handle nuclear weapons? That, and it is also to ensure that member nations who receive the nuclear weapons are properly equipped to handle these nuclear weapons, because improper handling may lead to disasters. They could always hire experts from the nation that gave them the weapon, but how safe is it to let outsiders in on national secrets?

The concept of the act is admirable but our nation takes the view that the act, while almost ready, is not sufficiently ready for a vote.

We concur, which was why we left it here for a while longer, that there may be things that we might have missed, and we may fix them if needed.

You can't adequately qualify a "surplus" in a nuclear arsenal.

The Royal Navy considers 165 of 225 warheads at operational status with approximately 60 missile bodies as being sufficient for their deterrent needs, while the Russian Federation and US maintain stockpiles of thousands of missile and warhead types and a raft of delivery systems sufficient for their purposes.
The Royal Navy's is admittedly a downsizing from possible offensive use to purely defensive while the US/RU arsenals are a legacy of their offensive intents, but you can't then say "well, the UK manages with this, so the US/RU should sell off their 'surplus' until they reach the UK's level, and distributed their 'surplus' accordingly to non-nuclear states".

In the real world, there was one nuclear threat. The opposing bloc.
In NS there can be literally hundreds. A nuclear arsenal should ideally be tailored to a nearest threat, though the multi-polar and aggressive nature of NS diplomacy can mean that a nation must either draw up multiple separate arsenals to meet adequate threats or merely stockpile systems in vast numbers and on launch, apply a strategy to their use accordingly.
Further consider that once a nuclear stockpile is depleted, that nation then becomes a viable nuclear target as they have greatly reduced capacity for counterattack.

Yeah, I'll leave this here for you to read.

Surplus as any amount of nuclear weapons that a nation in possession of nuclear weapons deem to be more than enough for the purpose of self-defence, however, exempts weapons that are manufactured for the purpose of trade from being declared as surplus,

It requires the giving nation to declare their surplus, not a single standard for the whole of the WA, because, again, some might not have any, some might want to get rid of theirs, some might not want to give any, among other things. Though, I think I see the problem. I think, if I changed it to this:

Surplus as any amount of nuclear weapons that a nation in possession of nuclear weapons deem to be more than enough for the purpose of its self-defence, however, exempts weapons that are manufactured for the purpose of trade from being declared as surplus,

[Imperializt Russia]

Even a state cannot truly decide if it actually has a surplus or not.
It can say what it thinks a surplus may be, but well, that decision may come back to haunt them.

If I were to say "well, the devices are just soaking up dosh, let's declare them all surplus!" and suddenly find myself in a nuclear threat, then clearly there wasn't a surplus.

[The Akashic Records]

Even a state cannot truly decide if it actually has a surplus or not.
It can say what it thinks a surplus may be, but well, that decision may come back to haunt them.

If I were to say "well, the devices are just soaking up dosh, let's declare them all surplus!" and suddenly find myself in a nuclear threat, then clearly there wasn't a surplus.

Exactly. That way, they will think at least twice before handing over their weapons, and it will decrease the probability of proliferating nuclear weapons, and in a way, they will spend more money on making nuclear weapons, perhaps up to the point that they realize that they're spending too much money on nuclear weapons, and perhaps stop making too many of them, in a sense. I did say I was going to disarm people by arming them.

If they want to proliferate nuclear weapons even after considering the consequences, then at the very least, their nuclear weapons programme ought to be internationally certified to be safe, that there would be less nuclear disasters stemming from these nuclear weapons programme when they pass on their knowledge to those who have less knowledge of it.

[Alexander Von Stuben]

OOC; Sorry for not responding, I have been very busy the past few days.

I'm sorry, but did you actually read it?

For the purposes of this resolution defines:
Surplus as any amount of nuclear weapons that a nation in possession of nuclear weapons deem to be more than enough for the purpose of self-defense, however, exempts weapons that are manufactured for the purpose of trade from being declared as surplus,

Sorry if I was unclear, what I mean is that the surplus definition needs to be clear. To put a solution on the table how about something that directly relates it to the size of the nation. So in order to put the world in a nuclear winter for 3 years we need about 14,000 nuclear warhead/delivery systems. The world population is about 7.112 Billion. So 7.112 Billion divided by 14 thousand equals about five hundred and eight thousand people per nuke. Thus a better clause would be;

For the purposes of this resolution;

Surplus shall be defined as taking the population of the nation dividing it by 508,000 and subtracting that number from the number of nuclear warheads. The number left is the number of surplus warheads.

I believe that this is what you were looking for?

assisted by willing member nations

What I mean is that the mentor nations should not pay for this, how ever they should not receive any profit from it too. They should receive just enough money that it would cost to make such a warhead, and that's it.

The thing is that, it is to ensure that the mentors have sufficient safety standards by which they can aid member nations with. If their research standards are shoddy, and their building safety is in no way acceptable, then we do not see them as qualified to teach others how to build nuclear weapons. Or does the ambassador think that nations with a track record of blowing themselves up while researching and constructing nuclear weapons should be allowed to teach other nations how to build and/or handle nuclear weapons? That, and it is also to ensure that member nations who receive the nuclear weapons are properly equipped to handle these nuclear weapons, because improper handling may lead to disasters. They could always hire experts from the nation that gave them the weapon, but how safe is it to let outsiders in on national secrets?

Sorry, I misunderstood the clause here.

[The Akashic Records]

OOC; Sorry for not responding, I have been very busy the past few days.

take your time, RL takes precedence.

Sorry if I was unclear, what I mean is that the surplus definition needs to be clear. To put a solution on the table how about something that directly relates it to the size of the nation. So in order to put the world in a nuclear winter for 3 years we need about 14,000 nuclear warhead/delivery systems. The world population is about 7.112 Billion. So 7.112 Billion divided by 14 thousand equals about five hundred and eight thousand people per nuke. Thus a better clause would be;

For the purposes of this resolution;

Surplus shall be defined as taking the population of the nation dividing it by 508,000 and subtracting that number from the number of nuclear warheads. The number left is the number of surplus warheads.

I'm afraid I cannot do any such thing, for mathematics and resolutions have not gone over very well, especially when it relates to anything that specific.

What I mean is that the mentor nations should not pay for this, how ever they should not receive any profit from it too. They should receive just enough money that it would cost to make such a warhead, and that's it.

I think you're referring to clause 1, wherein member nations are mandated to hand over their nuclear weapon to the poor, so that doesn't make any sense. Also, as the surplus clause entails, unless they feel that they have more than enough for their own self-defence, they won't have any to give away, restricting proliferation in effect. Clause 2 deals with Nation B learning about how to create and manage nuclear weapons from Nation A, and it's up to them how they want to deal with remunerations.

[Imperializt Russia]

OOC; Sorry for not responding, I have been very busy the past few days.

I'm sorry, but did you actually read it?

Sorry if I was unclear, what I mean is that the surplus definition needs to be clear. To put a solution on the table how about something that directly relates it to the size of the nation. So in order to put the world in a nuclear winter for 3 years we need about 14,000 nuclear warhead/delivery systems. The world population is about 7.112 Billion. So 7.112 Billion divided by 14 thousand equals about five hundred and eight thousand people per nuke. Thus a better clause would be;

For the purposes of this resolution;

Surplus shall be defined as taking the population of the nation dividing it by 508,000 and subtracting that number from the number of nuclear warheads. The number left is the number of surplus warheads.

I would like to see your numbers and science behind this claim.
Studies I have circa 1986 posit that a 5,000Mt exchange between the Soviet Union and the US might result in merely a 10 degree drop in average temperature in the North hemisphere that would last a few months. This would obviously be catastrophic for ecosystems and surviving agriculture, but is not the hellish Pluto-esque nightmare world that many nuclear winter proponents put forward.

I'd also like to question your figure of 14,000 nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads capable of being lofted by strategic-range missiles range from 100kt to 20Mt and then obviously the Tsar Bomba warhead which had the capability of scaling all the way up to 100Mt (though would be unlikely to serve a particular purpose). It's quite a wide range.
A study into a theoretical nuclear exchange posited in the 1985 SCOPE-ENUWAR estimated approximately 2500Mt entirely in groundbursting detonations, of which approximately a thousand each of 100kt, 500kt and 1Mt weapons would be used - itself totalling about 1600Mt, averaging to just over 500kt.

Also, referencing the global population or RL things within resolutions is a no-no. That population figure will be wholly irrelevant to the majority of NS, making it purely arbitrary.
We can use them as examples to argue for or against points of resolutions, mind.

[The Akashic Records]

Sorry if I was unclear, what I mean is that the surplus definition needs to be clear. To put a solution on the table how about something that directly relates it to the size of the nation. So in order to put the world in a nuclear winter for 3 years we need about 14,000 nuclear warhead/delivery systems. The world population is about 7.112 Billion. So 7.112 Billion divided by 14 thousand equals about five hundred and eight thousand people per nuke. Thus a better clause would be;

For the purposes of this resolution;

Surplus shall be defined as taking the population of the nation dividing it by 508,000 and subtracting that number from the number of nuclear warheads. The number left is the number of surplus warheads.

I would like to see your numbers and science behind this claim.
Studies I have circa 1986 posit that a 5,000Mt exchange between the Soviet Union and the US might result in merely a 10 degree drop in average temperature in the North hemisphere that would last a few months.

I'd also like to question your figure of 14,000 nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads capable of being lofted by strategic-range missiles range from 100kt to 20Mt and then obviously the Tsar Bomba warhead which had the capability of scaling all the way up to 100Mt (though would be unlikely to serve a particular purpose). It's quite a wide range.
A study into a theoretical nuclear exchange posited in the 1985 SCOPE-ENUWAR estimated approximately 2500Mt entirely in groundbursting detonations, of which approximately a thousand each of 100kt, 500kt and 1Mt weapons would be used - itself totalling about 1600Mt, averaging to just over 500kt.

Exactly one of the reasons why I didn't want to be overly specific.

[Araraukar]

So in order to put the world in a nuclear winter for 3 years we need about 14,000 nuclear warhead/delivery systems. The world population is about 7.112 Billion. So 7.112 Billion divided by 14 thousand equals about five hundred and eight thousand people per nuke.

OOC: Only applies to real world... in NS a lot of people RP their nations at different sizes than what the nation's page says (I RP Araraukar with about 2 billion people, for instance), and a lot of NS nations don't exist on the same planet/in the same universe. Additionally some nations are more pacifist than others - Araraukar has no nukes whatsoever, but a nation 1/10th its population size may have a hundred.

Thus a better clause would be;

For the purposes of this resolution;

Surplus shall be defined as taking the population of the nation dividing it by 508,000 and subtracting that number from the number of nuclear warheads. The number left is the number of surplus warheads.

No, it would not be a better clause. Anything with exact numbers given is a bad idea, because of the variability of nations in NS.

[Alexander Von Stuben]

You have answer all of the questions, to which I thank you, the Dictatorship of Alexander Von Stuben supports this.

[The Akashic Records]

If there's nothing else to add, then I would probably be submitting this in a week or so.

[Saveyou Island]

I approve of this draft, and will support it all the way through.

[Araraukar]

Saveyou Island (Image) WA Office
I, World Assembly Ambassador of Saveyou Island, hereby APPROVE this proposal. We thank the ambassador of The Akashic Records for taking the time to draft this proposal, and look forward to voting for it, should it reach vote.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Carlos of Saveyou Island

OOC: Could you stop doing that? II and NS forums use written notices from their nations and newspapers/whatnot. The GA forum is supposed to be where your ambassador speaks with others.

[The Akashic Records]

Submitted.

[Falcania]

The Falcanian Mission to the World Assembly endorses this laughable proposal, believing it unlikely that such a ridiculous piece of legislation will ever pass, but standing to benefit very much from this proposal's implementation as a resolution.

They would also like to take this opportunity to remind WA member states of the availability of a wide range of Falcanian-manufactured nucleaur munitions to suit a variety of defence organisations and regimes.

[The Akashic Records]

The Falcanian Mission to the World Assembly endorses this laughable proposal, believing it unlikely that such a ridiculous piece of legislation will ever pass, but standing to benefit very much from this proposal's implementation as a resolution.

They would also like to take this opportunity to remind WA member states of the availability of a wide range of Falcanian-manufactured nuclear munitions to suit a variety of defence organisations and regimes.

It's ridiculous, yes, but we'd like some form of feedback, if that's not too much to ask of your esteemed delegation.

[Falcania]

The Falcanian Mission to the World Assembly endorses this laughable proposal, believing it unlikely that such a ridiculous piece of legislation will ever pass, but standing to benefit very much from this proposal's implementation as a resolution.

They would also like to take this opportunity to remind WA member states of the availability of a wide range of Falcanian-manufactured nuclear munitions to suit a variety of defence organisations and regimes.

It's ridiculous, yes, but we'd like some form of feedback, if that's not too much to ask of your esteemed delegation.

Fundamentally, it is a proposal which violates most international security policies so flagrantly it becomes fashionable again. Were I not the delegate of a nation whose primary exports are phenomenal quantities of riches, miscellaneous instruments of wholesale slaughter, and the mentality necessary to police every nation as far as I can reach, I may not be quite so in favour.

[Hyperion]

No one will hand away nuclear weapons. No one is okay with audits. There's a reason almost every nuclear limitation thread gets limited, and why now there are none as they're all repealed. And what about WA nations not on earth? How will they audit those?

[The Akashic Records]

Fundamentally, it is a proposal which violates most international security policies so flagrantly it becomes fashionable again. Were I not the delegate of a nation whose primary exports are phenomenal quantities of riches, miscellaneous instruments of wholesale slaughter, and the mentality necessary to police every nation as far as I can reach, I may not be quite so in favour.

Hence the increase in police and military budgets, so that they try harder to keep their secrets to themselves. In regards to trade; we recognise that there are intergalactic empires that trade their nuclear weapons in the same way that nations trade guns or rifle, and am not willing to or are prepared to legislate on trade of them, hence, it was left out. There's also the fact that it started out as a joke of arming every single WA nation with nuclear weapons, whether they like it or not.

No one will hand away nuclear weapons. No one is okay with audits. There's a reason almost every nuclear limitation thread gets limited, and why now there are none as they're all repealed. And what about WA nations not on earth? How will they audit those?

Please read the surplus clause and clauses 3(d) and 3(e).

Surplus as any amount of nuclear weapons that a nation in possession of nuclear weapons deem to be more than enough for the purpose of self-defence, however, exempts weapons that are manufactured for the purpose of trade from being declared as surplus,

(d) The member nation assigned as the mentor nation must not have strained relations, politically, culturally, or otherwise, or have sufficient grounds to believe that future conflict will emerge.
(e) A member nation is allowed to object to sharing its nuclear weapons or technology if there are sufficient grounds to believe that the receiving nation will use it in more capacity than self-defence.

There's also the fact that those gnomes exist in an infinite number of multiverses, so I'm not quite sure what your problem is with it.

[The Shaved Pussycat]

No nation should ever have mew-clear weapons! We oppose this proposal!