[MOOT] Nuclear Arms Limitation Accord

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Replacement for GAR #10 should that resolution become stuck out.

Nuclear Arms Limitation Accord
Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Mild Proposed by: Furstrated Franciscans

The World Assembly,

REALIZING that there are many nations without membership in the WA,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

REGRETTING that WA members could circumvent weapons limitations by supplying weapons to non WA members,

UNDERSTANDING the importance of all member nations to defend themselves,

RECOGNIZING that the only requirement of “Mutually Assured Destruction” is to be able to defeat and destroy any nation that would attempt to use nuclear weapons against the nation,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from nuclear attack by hostile nations,
2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,
3. LIMITS the ability of nations to stockpile weapons in excess of the amount necessary to assure the destruction of those non member nations that pose a nuclear threat to the nation,
4. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear weapons to non WA nations or any third parties of non WA nations.

EDIT: Added "The World Assembly" and the "REGRETTING" line:

Version 1: This is a major work in progress. The key differences between this and GAR #10 is that it limits the abilities of nations to stockpile anything beyond what is necessary to maintain MAD and also prohibits the ability of WA members to engage in nuclear proxy wars by supplying non WA members with nuclear weapons.

Edit: Since the repeal has failed, the resolution is now MOOT. (Unless someone else wants to submit a better repeal and get it passed.)

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: What amount of nuclear weapons shall be considered to be in excess?

[Wallenburg]

PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear weapons to non WA nations or any third parties of non WA nations.

"Why? That's a rather arbitrary attack against both nuclear-armed member states and non-member states."

[Separatist Peoples]

"No. We will not allow ourselves to be strategically hindered by limiting our stockpile."

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: Opposed. I won't bet on whether this was foreseeable.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Barbera: What amount of nuclear weapons shall be considered to be in excess?

If you can nuke your enemy twice over you have twice as many weapons as necessary.

[Aclion]

LIMITS the ability of nations to stockpile weapons in excess of the amount necessary to assure the destruction of those non member nations that pose a nuclear threat to the nation,

Dealbreaker right there.

[Astrolinium]

"The Sublime Island Kingdom would cautiously support this draft, pending a more rigorous review of its provisions."

LIMITS the ability of nations to stockpile weapons in excess of the amount necessary to assure the destruction of those non member nations that pose a nuclear threat to the nation,

Dealbreaker right there.

"Why, precisely? Seems like a reasonable provision to me."

[Aclion]

"The Sublime Island Kingdom would cautiously support this draft, pending a more rigorous review of its provisions."

LIMITS the ability of nations to stockpile weapons in excess of the amount necessary to assure the destruction of those non member nations that pose a nuclear threat to the nation,

Dealbreaker right there.

"Why, precisely? Seems like a reasonable provision to me."

Few nations are willing to allow the WA to restrict their stockpiles under any circumstances.

Regardless The clause also places an undue burden on nations under threat by larger nonnuclear powers, or under threat by nuclear powers that are members. Remember that a WA nation can leave the WA at any moment, while stockpiling nuclear weapons takes years. We don't all have large conventional forces you know. Even those of us who could support one are often more inclined to put those resources into things like social programs.

Of course we could bypass the restriction entirely by finding an appropriate non-member nuclear power and provoking a conflict with it... But I don't think that's a desirable outcome.

[Bakhton]

LIMITS the ability of nations to stockpile weapons in excess of the amount necessary to assure the destruction of those non member nations that pose a nuclear threat to the nation.

"We think this is a fine clause and worthy of including," lies Lara Qzu, knowing full-well that this is absolutely a proposal-killing clause. "In fact, we'd like to see it made more restrictive so member nations may not tyrannize over nonmember nations."

[Separatist Peoples]

LIMITS the ability of nations to stockpile weapons in excess of the amount necessary to assure the destruction of those non member nations that pose a nuclear threat to the nation.

"We think this is a fine clause and worthy of including," lies Lara Qzu, knowing full-well that this is absolutely a proposal-killing clause. "In fact, we'd like to see it made more restrictive so member nations may not tyrannize over nonmember nations."

"Why would you voluntarily weaken an international organization that,has done so much to benefit the world? Weakening member states to benefit nonmembers weakens the already tenuous power the WA has to stop things like slavery and genocide and oppression. So long as the WA is an easy target, those who think only in terms of hammers and nails won't have any reason to meet us at the negotiating table."

[Bakhton]

"We think this is a fine clause and worthy of including," lies Lara Qzu, knowing full-well that this is absolutely a proposal-killing clause. "In fact, we'd like to see it made more restrictive so member nations may not tyrannize over nonmember nations."

"Why would you voluntarily weaken an international organization that,has done so much to benefit the world? Weakening member states to benefit nonmembers weakens the already tenuous power the WA has to stop things like slavery and genocide and oppression. So long as the WA is an easy target, those who think only in terms of hammers and nails won't have any reason to meet us at the negotiating table."

Lara has been socializing too much at the WA Bar. "It's not like our assembly could actually get rid of nuclear annihilation of our nations and nuclear weapons altogether by repealing NAPA, passing an international nuclear missile defense and containment program advanced enough to protect all nations from any nuclear attack, and then pass a proposal banning the usage of nuclear weapons in warfare thus ending all this mess. Of course that'd be ridiculous and completely not the Machiavellian end goal of my ambassadorship here today. It's not as though I have just lied to the entire Assembly to support this resolution to achieve those ulterior motivations through spouting some nonsensical bullshit. No, no, we have important nonspecific reasons for fearing the nuclear capacities of WA members and believe you should have the same."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

You've received several highly critical reviews of several parts of this draft. Given the passing of your repeal of NAPA will rely on having a reliable replacement, I strongly suggest you actually work on this. As of now, it would be insane to support this.

[Bakhton]

You've received several highly critical reviews of several parts of this draft. Given the passing of your repeal of NAPA will rely on having a reliable replacement, I strongly suggest you actually work on this. As of now, it would be insane to support this.

"My husband said I was crazy too when he found bullets in the cereal box."

[Uocati et Regni Prosperitatem]

"This legislation as it stands now is completly unacceptable. First of, why only WA members are allowed to posses nuclear weaponary? It is an obvious abuse of power and megelomania between WA delegates. Second of, more control is more institutions therfore more beurocracy and corruption. Our market depends strongly on arms manufacturing, and many of nuclear warheads are sold to 'unrecognized' countries. Also limitations are unclear, what is 'necessary amount'?"

[Bakhton]

"This legislation as it stands now is completly unacceptable. First of, why only WA members are allowed to posses nuclear weaponary? It is an obvious abuse of power and megelomania between WA delegates. Second of, more control is more institutions therfore more beurocracy and corruption. Our market depends strongly on arms manufacturing, and many of nuclear warheads are sold to 'unrecognized' countries. Also limitations are unclear, what is 'necessary amount'?"

"Well we allow nations to possess nuclear weaponary because if not non member nations could nuke us with no discourse."

[Uocati et Regni Prosperitatem]

"This legislation as it stands now is completly unacceptable. First of, why only WA members are allowed to posses nuclear weaponary? It is an obvious abuse of power and megelomania between WA delegates. Second of, more control is more institutions therfore more beurocracy and corruption. Our market depends strongly on arms manufacturing, and many of nuclear warheads are sold to 'unrecognized' countries. Also limitations are unclear, what is 'necessary amount'?"

"Well we allow nations to possess nuclear weaponary because if not non member nations could nuke us with no discourse."

"But why we shouldn't be allowed to trade nuclear weaponary with non-member nations? We still can punish war-mongorers without this legislation which limits economic freedom of countries inside and outside of WA."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

"This legislation as it stands now is completly unacceptable. First of, why only WA members are allowed to posses nuclear weaponary?

The WA has no authority over non WA members. They can have all the nuclear weapons they want. It's the only reason why nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated because when non WA members have them and WA members do not, WA members are in serious trouble.

See my below comment for why we must prevent WA members from giving nuclear weapons to those nations not bound to the regulations of the WA.

"But why we shouldn't be allowed to trade nuclear weaponary with non-member nations? We still can punish war-mongorers without this legislation which limits economic freedom of countries inside and outside of WA."

"It is no secret that member nations seek out non member nations to use as puppets in order to subvert WA law by allowing the non WA nations to act as their proxies. It's improper for a member nation to use nuclear weapons against another member nation. But if the weapons were owned by a non member proxy state, it's perfectly fine. The ability for a member state to arm a non member state with nuclear weapons which is no longer under the control of the WA is reason enough to prevent member nations from providing non member nations with weapons. Let them join the WA and follow all the regulations of the WA or make them themselves."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

REALIZING that there are many nations without membership in the WA,

This is obvious. You shouldn't have to "realize" it.

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

Also obvious. It doesn't require acknowledgment.

RECOGNIZING that the only requirement of “Mutually Assured Destruction” is to be able to defeat and destroy any nation that would attempt to use nuclear weapons against the nation,

That's not true. You neither have to defeat nor destroy your opponent by way of mutually assured destruction. You simply must incapacitate them from furthering their use of nuclear weapons.

And here, you're missing something along the lines of "This august Assembly:"

DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from nuclear attack by hostile nations,

So member nations can only use nuclear weapons when they're assaulted with nuclear weapons? That puts them at a severe disadvantage against non-WA nations.

LIMITS the ability of nations to stockpile weapons in excess of the amount necessary to assure the destruction of those non member nations that pose a nuclear threat to the nation,

This ignores the nuclear threat of member nations upon one another. It also ignores the fact that this only sets a ceiling on nuclear armaments as high as the most armed non-member nation. WA nations could build massive stockpiles by way of this clause, completely undermining your objective.

PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear weapons to non WA nations or any third parties of non WA nations.

Why?

[Araraukar]

And here, you're missing something along the lines of "This august Assembly:"

OOC: I really hate that wording. All you need is "hereby", and even that isn't necessary for anything else than handily separating preamble from the rest.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

And here, you're missing something along the lines of "This august Assembly:"

OOC: I really hate that wording. All you need is "hereby", and even that isn't necessary for anything else than handily separating preamble from the rest.

He has no noun performing all the actions in the draft. The whole thing is a fragment.

[Araraukar]

He has no noun performing all the actions in the draft. The whole thing is a fragment.

OOC: And it wouldn't be the first resolution structured like that.

[Wallenburg]

He has no noun performing all the actions in the draft. The whole thing is a fragment.

OOC: And it wouldn't be the first resolution structured like that.

OOC: And plenty of resolutions violate proposal rules. That doesn't mean those rules should just be ignored.

[Araraukar]

OOC: And plenty of resolutions violate proposal rules. That doesn't mean those rules should just be ignored.

OOC: I wasn't aware that there was a rule for starting the resolution text with a noun. Can you please link to it?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: And plenty of resolutions violate proposal rules. That doesn't mean those rules should just be ignored.

OOC: I wasn't aware that there was a rule for starting the resolution text with a noun. Can you please link to it?

OOC: I am not saying that there is. I am demonstrating that because a passed resolution is written in a shitty way is not an acceptable excuse for writing more resolutions in a shitty way.