[DEFEATED] Repeal: “Nuclear Arms Possession Act”

[Bakhton]

"It pains the Confederate Dominion to see so many states disinterested in the rights of member states to defend themselves. We wish every state would be willing to stand up to such aggressive overreach."

"It is clear that if we were to want to end ownership of nuclear weapons an international nuclear defense program would have to be created, which would be costly and burdensome even if made voluntary," says Lara scrapping an unrelated proposal from her idea book.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

"It is clear that if we were to want to end ownership of nuclear weapons an international nuclear defense program would have to be created, which would be costly and burdensome even if made voluntary," says Lara scrapping an unrelated proposal from her idea book.

"But in one sense, the difference between an ownership of member states and an ownership of ... gnomes ... is the same since our member states can be guided towards sensible and logical behavior through WA legislation. Mind you there is the occasional problem of a WA member going rogue and leaving the WA, but that's no different from a nation that never joined the WA, less in fact because while under the WA the nation was subject to limitations."

"The problem is with the non member nations. They don't follow WA law and thus we can't regulate weapons out of existence because we can't regulate them. The only solution is to limit the weapons in the hands of member states to that which is needed to deter non WA member nations and if for some strange reason non WA member nations all give up nuclear weapons then member nations can give them all up, but not before."

"That's the gist of the replacement I have proposed. But it appears the replacement may be moot."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It pains the Confederate Dominion to see so many states disinterested in the rights of member states to defend themselves. We wish every state would be willing to stand up to such aggressive overreach."

"It is clear that if we were to want to end ownership of nuclear weapons an international nuclear defense program would have to be created, which would be costly and burdensome even if made voluntary," says Lara scrapping an unrelated proposal from her idea book.

"The Confederate Dominion has no interest in defending anybody but ourselves. If you get nuked, that's your bloody problem, not ours. Your international defense program is your bloody program. The C.D.S.P. will stand or fall on its own, without being beholden to anybody else. As such, we won't be supporting such an endeavor, and will be expanding our independent nuclear program to support this self-sufficient approach."

[Moral States]

I would have to vote against this as resolutions that have been in effect since the beginning of the World Assembly are almost Constitutional. Thousands of nations have been born following the proposal and many have also died. It is a part of Nation States that cannot be changed. And it is also a common-sense Act as well. I vote against.

[Ilera]

"The problem is with the non member nations. They don't follow WA law and thus we can't regulate weapons out of existence because we can't regulate them. The only solution is to limit the weapons in the hands of member states to that which is needed to deter non WA member nations and if for some strange reason non WA member nations all give up nuclear weapons then member nations can give them all up, but not before."

But what number is a deterrent? In an ideal world, we would never want to see the devastation of a nuclear war and nuclear weapons should be limited, but the world isn't ideal, and abstract numbers like "that which is needed to deter" aren't particularly beneficial to the World Assembly. If an unregulated nation who, for all intents and purposes, can be considered an enemy to a state, has X amount of weapons, and we immediately ramp up our nuclear arms development to also have X amount of weapons, what's stopping them from countering by having Y amount of weapons? It would lead to an effective arms race regardless of the existence of current WA laws, as Nations look to expand their arsenals to counter ever-increasing threats.

The Kingdom of Ilera can recognize the benefits of having a regulated nuclear arms provision in a perfect world, but at present, it's almost folly for an international body to override the interests of individual nations with laws that, when practically applied, become virtually useless and merely exist to be a piece of bureaucracy.

Individual Nations should be able to regulate their own arms development and do whatever is needed for their own interests, so long as it doesn't create a conflict with other WA Nations or with the WA itself, hence our previous commitment to seeing NAPA repealed on the given arguments of how vague it was, and why we're also not sold on the draft legislature that exists to serve as a replacement to NAPA.

[Phrenics]

The "wrong hands" wording is indeed vague, Ambassador.

Without providing very specific legal definitions on what constitutes "wrong hands" and without those definitions presented in a way that's entirely obvious to every delegate or ambassador who wants to put a vote forward, then interpretation of that phrase is open to nations to decide as they please. We believe that such a situation could potentially put even World Assembly nations with good intentions at odds with each other over or a subjective opinion of who falls under the "wrong hands" category.

Would you want a nation looking at your arsenal that you may or may not possess and saying that as soon as your government changes heads in an election or hereditary cycle or whatever you use, your arms are in the wrong hands because that could conflict with their own interests?

Speaking on behalf of King Eric I and his government, Ilera believes that a vague act like the one up for repeal is something best left to the interpretation of individual nations without international bureaucracy interfering with it. Even without this law in place, in absence of any law explicitly prohibiting the possession of nuclear arms, nations are in control of their desire to possess or not possess nuclear arsenals to provide protection for themselves. If the international bureaucrats can't provide a specific, consistent, and fair definition of a law and present it in a way that can provide a benefit to as many as possible, then it's best to just leave individual nations to interpret the issue as they see fit within their own dominion.

This is why Ilera is voting in favor of the repealed.

We disagree.

It is manifest from the context what does "wrong hands" mean, as stated before, and a repeal of such a fundamental pole of the WA will be extremely detrimental to the influence of member nations.

How many of the majority of the world, non-WA nations possess considerable quantities of nuclear arms? It is not only a sovereign right of a nation; we believe that a moderate number of WA nations in the WA should possess nuclear arms to ensure stability and serenity in the WA.

This is not the real world, where all 15,000 nuclear arms are possessed by somewhat respectable UN nations, and where despite the fact that there are a few non-compliant nations, the mutual destruction principle is in effect.

[Araraukar]

This is not the real world, where all 15,000 nuclear arms are possessed by somewhat respectable UN nations, and where despite the fact that there are a few non-compliant nations, the mutual destruction principle is in effect.

OOC: Where do you get the 15k number? To my knowledge there are far fewer and M.A.D. is no longer in effect.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

How many of the majority of the world, non-WA nations possess considerable quantities of nuclear arms?

That's a hard question to directly answer. It's not like the gnomes collect that data on a daily basis. We can get it indirectly.
Arms manufacturing has the top 22 nations non WA members.
Mining is different, WA member nations show up in spots #4, #9, and #12 out of the top 20.
Now you have to factor both mining and manufacturing, unless the nation is getting weapons through the trade of nations, so it can get the weapons from nation A and the materials from nation B.

All in all, it's a definite threat.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Where do you get the 15k number? To my knowledge there are far fewer ...

Uh...
http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nucle ... ile-report ... 15 375
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ ... 15 000+
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ ... whohaswhat ... 15 513
https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/ ... ar-forces/ ... 15 350
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0 ... 15 405

[Separatist Peoples]

This is not the real world, where all 15,000 nuclear arms are possessed by somewhat respectable UN nations, and where despite the fact that there are a few non-compliant nations, the mutual destruction principle is in effect.

OOC: Where do you get the 15k number? To my knowledge there are far fewer and M.A.D. is no longer in effect.

OOC: Considering most declassified reports on weapon capabilities are deliberately modified to be inaccurate, I wouldn't trust that information.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I READ RESOLUTIONS

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade
Friar Cadfail, OFM Friar Superior
Mother Angelica, OSC Secretary and official Reader

We would like to thank all the delegates and representatives who agreed with our position and voted in the affirmative on the repeal of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act. As of the writing of this official press release it is clear that this resolution is going to go down in defeat. Repealing a resolution is no easy feat and our nation bows to the will of the majority who for one reason or another, did not consider this resolution worthy of repeal.

We will continue to maintain that the definition of "wrong hands" is nebulous and can have vastly different meanings depending on the percentage of G.D.P. a nation has on the sale of nuclear weapons. We remain convinced that the ability of member states to sell weapons to non member states not in compliance with existing WA resolutions, especially the notion of war being a consensual thing on both sides, is a major obstacle to long term peace as well as the stockpiling of weapons above and beyond what is needed to maintain a MAD defensive posture. Once this resolution fails I will move my replacement proposal to the [MOOT] category.

In the mean time we are deeply honored that we were given the floor to debate this issue and I want to especially the delegates who managed to get this proposal to the floor in the first place.

[The Palentinate]

Ambassador Finius Tybyrski, "It is sad to see the world assembly go down this path and continue to undermine the ideals of national sovreignty. While the Palentinate does realize the importance of laws that govern all the nations of the Assembly, we believe that such an issue of high importance and of tremendous national security interest such as nuclear arms should be in the power of the sovreign government of a nation, not some foreign agency."

[Wallenburg]

Ambassador Finius Tybyrski, "It is sad to see the world assembly go down this path and continue to undermine the ideals of national sovreignty. While the Palentinate does realize the importance of laws that govern all the nations of the Assembly, we believe that such an issue of high importance and of tremendous national security interest such as nuclear arms should be in the power of the sovreign government of a nation, not some foreign agency."

"You do realize that the resolution is failing, right?"

[States of Glory WA Office]

Ambassador Finius Tybyrski, "It is sad to see the world assembly go down this path and continue to undermine the ideals of national sovreignty. While the Palentinate does realize the importance of laws that govern all the nations of the Assembly, we believe that such an issue of high importance and of tremendous national security interest such as nuclear arms should be in the power of the sovreign government of a nation, not some foreign agency."

"You do realize that the resolution is failing, right?"

Harold: Either that or they believe that NAPA somehow infringes on national sovereignty.

[Araraukar]

"Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"" was defeated 13,237 votes to 4,412.

That's only about 25% votes "for".