The Anti-Weapons Testing Act

[Balarium]

The Anti-Weapons Testing Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Uranium Mining

Proposed by: Balarium

Description: The Anti- Weapons Testing Act will:
A: Restrict Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons testing to remote, confined, locations.
A1: Such testing locations must be at least 150 miles from a population of over 1500 people.
A2: Such sites will be subject to approval, inspection, and deactivation by the WA.
A3: ALL testing and results shall be reported to the WA.
B: Said nation shall gauge environmental effects and the results shall be reported to the WA
C: All citizens shall receive fair and just compensation for personal of property damage.
C1: This shall include compensation for all citizen's land that is seized to create said testing site
Approvals: 13 (Jimmy Hart, Hokanland, Itas, Auriga Beltaire, Geonovia, A t l a n t i s, Solrum, Trade and Tryon, South Lorenya, Alsted, Arden Hills, Myself of Awe, Kingsley Bedford)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 42 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 1 day, 23 hours

Please Approve. 13 already, lets keep it up!!

[Grays Harbor]

The theory on sequence goes:

1.) Post here for debate on usefulness, legality and wording
2.) Craft a useful proposal
3.) Submit useful proposal for delegate approval.

Starting with step 3, then going back to step 1 later is not the best of ideas.

As for the proposal, it is our opinion that it is not necessary. It may also be in direct violation of Resolution #10 (Nuclear Arms Possession Act)

[Balarium]

Oh Oh

[Balarium]

Oh Oh

[Grays Harbor]

delete your other topic, we don't need 2 identical ones for this issue?

[Philimbesi]

A: Restrict Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons testing to remote, confined, locations.

Well as Chem and Bio weapons are illegal in member states testing them pretty much should happen at all.

A2: Such sites will be subject to approval, inspection, and deactivation by the WA.

We will decide what sites in the USP are suitable for testing the WA has no right to decide for us.

A3: ALL testing and results shall be reported to the WA.

So do I run in and yell 'we're testing a weapon-- duck and cover!!'... and then run out? Or is there a more formal process or perhaps committee that I should speak to?

B: Said nation shall gauge environmental effects and the results shall be reported to the WA

Again, who am I reporting to, I tried to talk to Neville in the strangers bar but he didn't really seem interested... and after I yelled about the weapon there's no one left around here to talk to...

C: All citizens shall receive fair and just compensation for personal of property damage.
C1: This shall include compensation for all citizen's land that is seized to create said testing site

But... if... the testing was no where near their house or property what damage could be caused?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador, why does the WA have to approve testing sites and test results when we are already allowed to possess nuclear weapons? Member states should be not constrained by such restrictions when conducting nuclear weapons tests.

Also, there are member states that do not possess any nuclear power: chances are that this draft may have no practical effect on them in war, since Neutrality of Nations can allow such nations to have the right to refuse entry.

[Malikov]

The Anti-Weapons Testing Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Uranium Mining

Proposed by: Balarium

Really? A draft to restrict weapons is an environmental issue? Go read up on the category defenitions please.

Description: The Anti- Weapons Testing Act will:
A: Restrict Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons testing to remote, confined, locations.

What defines "remote, and confined locations"

A1: Such testing locations must be at least 150 miles from a population of over 1500 people

And if there are less then 1500 people you can test them in their backyard? What are small nations supposed to do if they don't have enough room?

A2: Such sites will be subject to approval, inspection, and deactivation by the WA.

No. The WA should not be getting involved when it comes to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario's.

A3: ALL testing and results shall be reported to the WA.

So you want us to tell the rest of the world everything about our nuclear, chamical, and biological weapons progress? This clause is bloody stupid.

B: Said nation shall gauge environmental effects and the results shall be reported to the WA

Again, you want us to tell the world what our weapons do? No. Bloody stupid.

C: All citizens shall receive fair and just compensation for personal of property damage

Generally when someone's house gets destroyed by a nuclear weapon they don't survive. Who's going to get the money?

C1: This shall include compensation for all citizen's land that is seized to create said testing site

So a government is going to sieze 1500km worth of land just to test some weapons are they. No freaking way.

Approvals: 13 (Jimmy Hart, Hokanland, Itas, Auriga Beltaire, Geonovia, A t l a n t i s, Solrum, Trade and Tryon, South Lorenya, Alsted, Arden Hills, Myself of Awe, Kingsley Bedford)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 42 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 1 day, 23 hours

Please Approve. 13 already, lets keep it up!!

The ambassador from Grays Harbour put it best. Follow steps 1-3 in the proper order.

[Priatha]

Ambassador:

I find an immense amount of problems with this proposal. So, I will go through this in order and hit on each point in your act.

I.

A: Restrict Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons testing to remote, confined, locations.

There is no immediately evident problem with this to the nation of Priatha. However, the definition of "remote" and "confined" must be elaborated upon.

II.

A1: Such testing locations must be at least 150 miles from a population of over 1500 people.

What are the justifications for those particular measurements? Can we nuke a town of 1499 because their population isn't large enough?

III.

A2: Such sites will be subject to approval, inspection, and deactivation by the WA.

I see absolutely no reason to let the world into my country's personal military affairs, nor do I think an assembly of nations (who, while we unite under the common goal of diplomacy, may one day face my nation in war) should have access to the personal schematics of said site, nor the ability to deactivate it. Should one nation ever go to war with another, if there is a slant favoring one nation the WA can demand the other deactivate their nuclear weapons sites (which will leave them vulnerable). Or, one nation could nuke another nation's testing site (with knowledge of the intimate details of it), which has the potential for huge damage -- it would be nuking a whole bunch of nukes, which would mean immediate destruction for the other nation.

IV.

A3: ALL testing and results shall be reported to the WA.

See above. I see no reason to submit the defense records of my nation to be seen by potential enemies.

V.

B: Said nation shall gauge environmental effects and the results shall be reported to the WA

To what result? What would happen if there were huge environmental problems? And again, why should my defense records be submitted? Why should any nation be required to submit for viewing the fact that their nuclear weapons are failing, which would paint them as weak or defenseless? Further, this has the potential to lead to nations lying in order to look stronger. What provisions are in place to punish this?

VI.

C: All citizens shall receive fair and just compensation for personal of property damage.

Who defines "fair and just compensation"? Why isn't the knowledge that their country is safe enough? Further, suppose a nation has laws in place that allows the seizure of property when national protection is at stake? This creates a weird precedent -- suppose a nation is required to pay for property damaged by nuclear testing, but not property taken to feed/clothe/house/arm soldiers? There is no justification for why they need to be compensated beyond the knowledge that their nation is that much safer from attack.

VII.

C1: This shall include compensation for all citizen's land that is seized to create said testing site

See above.

--

Finally, it is my firm belief that matters of national defense ought to be left to the nations themselves so long as it doesn't immediately harm other nations (e.g., preemptive strike). Since nuclear weapons are a viable form of national defense, the same as building a huge wall around your country or stockpiling on automatic weaponry and tanks, neither I nor my nation can in good conscience support this bill. Further, all nations should look at this skeptically. Until you justify the WA's right to step in and disrupt matters of national defense, this bill should not be supported.

[Blob-land]

Agreed. Act supported.