[1st Draft] DISARM NOW Act

[Separatist Peoples]

You are advised to take this proposal and deposit it in that place which does not know the sun's warmth.

You want to send the proposal to Barrow?

"I...I think the Poldark representative was suggesting the author attempt to embed this in the region my cardiac organ should occupy...For the record, I am not on board with this plan."

[Araraukar]

"I...I think the Poldark representative was suggesting the author attempt to embed this in the region my cardiac organ should occupy...For the record, I am not on board with this plan."

I think the creatures from the Black Lagoon at the Strangers' Bar might help with that embedment...

[United Continental America]

"I must implore those who have gathered... What is the use of Nuclear Weapons? They rid an area of an enemy, but also suitable land. They either leave the land permanently destroyed, or utterly devastated for years to come until it can be purified. Factories, farms, manpower, it's all gone - and that's just looking at it from a profiteering standpoint. Absolute Control Doctrines fail in this site just as harshly - you destroy areas that become unusable, therefore uncontrollable. Liberation tactics fail as soon as one presses the button, since anyone and everyone you wanted to free... Are gone. The most a nuclear weapon does is cause a stalemate, a cold war. No one wins with Nuclear Arms. The more you use them, the more you're a target. If you want to take something, then take it, don't use a cop-out tactic. I will never understand the reasoning behind anyone voting For a nuclear arms act that Ensures arm securing. They should all be banned."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I must implore those who have gathered... What is the use of Nuclear Weapons? They rid an area of an enemy, but also suitable land. They either leave the land permanently destroyed, or utterly devastated for years to come until it can be purified. Factories, farms, manpower, it's all gone - and that's just looking at it from a profiteering standpoint. Absolute Control Doctrines fail in this site just as harshly - you destroy areas that become unusable, therefore uncontrollable. Liberation tactics fail as soon as one presses the button, since anyone and everyone you wanted to free... Are gone. The most a nuclear weapon does is cause a stalemate, a cold war. No one wins with Nuclear Arms. The more you use them, the more you're a target. If you want to take something, then take it, don't use a cop-out tactic. I will never understand the reasoning behind anyone voting For a nuclear arms act that Ensures arm securing. They should all be banned."

"You're assuming that we want to own or control those areas our enemies occupy. Some of us *cough cough* only want to kill our enemies and be done with it. Nuclear weaponry is surprisingly effective if that's your goal."

[Calladan]

"I must implore those who have gathered... What is the use of Nuclear Weapons? They rid an area of an enemy, but also suitable land. They either leave the land permanently destroyed, or utterly devastated for years to come until it can be purified. Factories, farms, manpower, it's all gone - and that's just looking at it from a profiteering standpoint. Absolute Control Doctrines fail in this site just as harshly - you destroy areas that become unusable, therefore uncontrollable. Liberation tactics fail as soon as one presses the button, since anyone and everyone you wanted to free... Are gone. The most a nuclear weapon does is cause a stalemate, a cold war. No one wins with Nuclear Arms. The more you use them, the more you're a target. If you want to take something, then take it, don't use a cop-out tactic. I will never understand the reasoning behind anyone voting For a nuclear arms act that Ensures arm securing. They should all be banned."

You also have to remember The WA has no power - none whatsoever - over nations that are not members. So if The WA were to pass a law saying that every member nation HAS to give up all nuclear weapons, that would leave all of us totally defenceless against non-member nations who could then proceed to obliterate us from the face of the earth.

And the stalemate you refer to is all that keeps this from happening.

So - with all due respect to your desire to remove all nuclear weapons from the world - it's never going to happen because I suspect even if everyone agreed with your desire for peace, no one is going to leave themselves open to complete and total obliteration.

[Attempted Socialism]

Alex West rises to answer some comments and questions about the draft.

"I will begin with replying to some specific comments, and proceed to making a few general comments. We are in the process of making a second draft that incorporates input from the esteemed members of this Assembly."

That is quite probably the absolute worst definition of "civilian" I have ever read.

"The World Assembly sub-committee made an effort to include everything we know to be able to feel pain in our definition."

"A rather complicated definition for what could more easily be defined simply as a 'noncombatant'."

"'Noncombatant' would not include a requirement to ask for consent, and would under most definitions exclude animals."

"This is already covered by GA #330, if indirectly."

"This would cover any circumstances explicitly."

"I'm confused on why specified time constraints are necessary."

"It would introduce a 24 hour delay on any launch of nuclear weapons."

"Good idea, but most of this is already covered by existing legislation. There are only extremely unlikely situations in which one World Assembly nation could legally fire a nuclear missile against another." Lara Qzu adjusts her glasses looking through the draft, "We are afraid we will have to abstain from supporting this bill as written."

"We thank our friend, the esteemed Ambassador from the Confederacy of Bakhton, for your valued comments. We hope that a second draft will be more to your liking."

From:
Lord James Roberts, 3rd in Command Of The Royal Armed Forces Of Southern Astrania

To:
Attempted Socialism


I am, a long with my Government, representing our Kingdom, are against your Attempted Movement to limit Nuclear Arsenal's, and on the use of them against Civilian Targets.
We believe that any nation, WA Member, or not, should have the right to possess as many Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Or Napalm Warheads as they desire. We have well over 1,000 Nuclear Warheads, ready at our Disposal, and will use them on whoever threatens the Crown, or when it's appropriate for our use. We will use them on Civilian targets, regardless of the potential outcome. Yes, innocent people may die, but that's a cost of war, in our Kingdom, The Astranian People come first, and foremost, as we will do whatever is deemed necessary to keep our Bloodline Pure, a long with our Innocent Men, Women, And Children Alive, to sustain our Vital independence. You are now declared an Enemy Of Our Kingdom, so be aware.

"If a simple draft proposal will gain your animosity, I guess we will have to find some solace in the fact that all nations in the world will at some point be amongst your enemies; our entry unto that list was pre-determined. I wish to inform your Warcriminalness that the Solidarity Movement finds your threats somewhat endearing, like threats coming from a child in a pillow-fort. Furthermore, I wish to extend to your enemies an offer of shared technology. We have in our possession several automatic systems that can destroy incoming missiles and airplanes, and although the construction itself is expensive, we have solved most of the issues of upkeep. Do not confuse a desire for disarmament and inability to defend oneself; one is not the other."

Recognizing that this act would require us to disarm,
the empire of higher japan
refuses to comply with the terms,
and as such, you are now declared enemy of the empire for
attempting to take away our rights of protection by disarmament
Empress akichi hachirou
To Attempted Socialism
From the empire of higher japan

"Having looked up your nation in one of our many encyclopedias, I find that our number of citizens with a Ph.D. or above is higher than your entire national population. Like with Southern Astrania, I realise that your animosity may be inevitable; however, you don't even seem capable of a threat to the Solidarity Movement."

OOC:

Hey, at least that title is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

OOC: I was hoping this was as well.

I'm going to plead the fifth on that one. /OOC

So you can't nuke anything with civilians in it, or where they might tread in the radioactive halflife.

"Not only that, but since the resolution uses a definition of civilian that includes animals with sentience, and since finding and asking for consent from all animals in a potential area is impossible, nuclear weapons would be illegal essentially everywhere."

this would effectively outlaw using nukes!

"This is the view of our lawyers as well."

So - with all due respect to your desire to remove all nuclear weapons from the world - it's never going to happen because I suspect even if everyone agreed with your desire for peace, no one is going to leave themselves open to complete and total obliteration.

"Although we will never be able or willing to match the capacity for death that other nations has, there's a great difference between capabilities of offense and defense. I contend that removing the offensive threats posed by nuclear weapons will only limit World Assembly member nations' ability to retaliate; something that is abhorrent and should be avoided even if legal by current World Assembly resolutions."

"I wish to apologise for the long title. It is a custom in the Executive IR Study Committee, and one that the WA Sub-committee has adopted. Luckily, 'Disarm Now Act' also works as a title. We will make sure to comply with WA tradition in our second draft."
"It has been noted that this resolution, if adopted, would include animals with sentience in the protected group, and that a demand for consent from harmed parties would make use of nuclear armament illegal. This is in concordance with our goal, and with the interpretation of our lawyers. Essentially, possession of nuclear weapons is not infringed upon, but use is limited to situations where either no being is or can be harmed, or where every being harmed has consented. We doubt such situations would come up often."
"Furthermore, it has been pointed out to us that this resolution overlaps with some earlier resolutions. We did not see that as flaws, but we will seek to amend the draft to avoid direct overlap. Again, building directly upon earlier legal work is a custom in the Solidarity Movement, and one that we simply adopted when writing this draft."
"Lastly, a few Ambassadors have apparently confused a draft to eventually propose a resolution, and a declaration of war. If drafted resolutions were equivalent to declarations of war, I doubt the World Assembly would exist for more than a few hours. I implore the Ambassadors to take a few courses on basic international relations to remidy this. Meanwhile, I will surround myself with experts on the World Assembly rather than elected officials and experts on political theory, to make a second draft."

"Workers of the World, Unite!"
- Alex West, Delegate to the Executive International Relations Study Committee and Chairperson of the World Assembly sub-committee, on the Floor of the General Assembly.

[The New California Republic]

FURTHER PROHIBITS any member-state from having Nuclear Ordnances and/or Weapons with a total potential energy output higher than 2000 TJ.

OOC: The energy output from the Hiroshima bomb was 63 TJ, so a 2000 TJ weapon would be massive. Also, the 2000 TJ figure seems completely arbitrary, what is the reason for it? You can't just dump numbers for no reason and expect people to accept them.

SETS the timeframe within which this limit must be achieved to no more than 730 days after the passing of this resolution.

OOC: Another arbitrary figure. What is the reasoning behind the 730 days? Again, you can't just dump numbers for no reason and expect people to accept them...

[Novo Trevisio]

So - with all due respect to your desire to remove all nuclear weapons from the world - it's never going to happen because I suspect even if everyone agreed with your desire for peace, no one is going to leave themselves open to complete and total obliteration.

"Although we will never be able or willing to match the capacity for death that other nations has, there's a great difference between capabilities of offense and defense. I contend that removing the offensive threats posed by nuclear weapons will only limit World Assembly member nations' ability to retaliate; something that is abhorrent and should be avoided even if legal by current World Assembly resolutions."

Ambassador Descartes rises among his peers, who upon hearing this statement from the socialist ambassador responded;

"Are you aware of mutually assured destruction ambassador?"

[The New California Republic]

there's a great difference between capabilities of offense and defense.

Ambassador, that assertion is complete nonsense, even for conventional weapons, never mind nuclear weapons. How many times have you seen a weapon with a big sticker saying "for offensive use only"? Saying that weapons, based on overall capabilities, can be pigeon-holed into neat categories of "offensive" and "defensive" is quite frankly absurd! Even more so when applied to nuclear weapons. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding - on your part - regarding the nature of weapons of war, Ambassador...

[Caramelldancers]

Two delegates stumble in, stinking of booze and other drugs. They are very obviously lost.

"Is this where we check in?" asks Tarja.

"Hey, looks like they debating something!" Brenjos mutters.

"Eh, why not see if we can improve it?"

APPALED at the potential for worldwide nuclear annihilation,

"We're not appalled! Do you know how much money there is in rebuilding?" Tarja declares.

"Dear, I think they mean we're appalled at all of the dying," Brenjos mutters.

"Oh! Right."

AFFIRMS the rights to life that all sentient beings have unless limited by other resolutions,

"Which are none!" Tarja mutters.

"Tarja, did you even read the resolutions before we landed?" Brenjos asked, shocked.

"Pfft! Why would I do that?"

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, a Nuclear Ordnance and/or Weapon as;
a. Any explosive device based on nuclear reactions such as
i. fission in an uncontrolled chain reaction, releasing vast quantities of energy and spreading radioactive materials,
ii. fusion of hydrogen through heat and compression, releasing even larger quantities of energy,
b. Any explosive device that in part or full employs radioactive material to do damage such as
i. regular explosive ordnances with enhanced penetration from heavy, radioactive elements,
ii. explosive ordnances that spread radioactive material into the environment, also known as a ‘dirty bomb’,

"This ignores antimatter weapons, matter-to-energy conversion bombs, gravity weapons, artificial singularities, dirty bombs that use implosion, certain thermobaric weapons..." Tarja mutters.

"Didn't you say you were in customer relations before this?"

"Sometimes customers complained, Brenjos."

FURTHER DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, a civilian as any sentient being who has not personally given informed consent to a state of war between the sentient being and the holder of the Nuclear Ordnance and/or Weapon,

"Well, that rules out humans as being protected."

"Oh, indeed. Quite nice we can nuke people freely."

"Do we even have nuclear weapons?"

"We have some Nuke-brand bottle rockets."

PROHIBITS the use of Nuclear Ordnances and/or Weapons if civilians could plausibly be within either the explosive zone or fallout zone at the time of use, or could potentially enter the infested area in the used materials half-life,
EMPOWERS the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency to inspect all Nuclear Ordnances and/or Weapons before launch, spending no less than twenty-four (24) hours on the task,
MANDATES the above Agency to confirm that no civilians are within the targeted area as above stipulated,

"'Launch?' What about nuclear landmines? Or ground-detonated bombs? You have enough loopholes in this thing to drive a solar system through."

FURTHER PROHIBITS any member-state from having Nuclear Ordnances and/or Weapons with a total potential energy output higher than 2000 TJ,

"So, basically, only the really big nukes? So if we develop them, we can still use nuclear landmines and hand grenades?"

SETS the timeframe within which this limit must be achieved to no more than 730 days after the passing of this resolution,
EMPOWERS the above Agency to assist with the disarmament of any excess Nuclear Ordnances and/or Weapons so that the timeframe may be kept,

"About the only way to guarantee radioactive material is disarmed is to explode it."

RECOMMENDS all member-states to commit to a full disarmament by their own volition.

"Yeah, no. After reading this, we're considering arming just so we can watch your inspectors blow themselves up and put the footage on Pay Per View."

-Consul Tarja Brendan
-Consul Adjutant Brenjos Avenitur

[Aclion]

Perhaps, Mr. West, we should all disarm by launching our nuclear arsenals at your capitol.

[Caramelldancers]

Perhaps, Mr. West, we should all disarm by launching our nuclear arsenals at your capitol.

"Can you loan us one so we're not left out?"

-Consul Tarja Brenden

[Attempted Socialism]

FURTHER PROHIBITS any member-state from having Nuclear Ordnances and/or Weapons with a total potential energy output higher than 2000 TJ.

OOC: The energy output from the Hiroshima bomb was 63 TJ, so a 2000 TJ weapon would be massive. Also, the 2000 TJ figure seems completely arbitrary, what is the reason for it? You can't just dump numbers for no reason and expect people to accept them.

OOC: Read The Damn Bill. 'Total' is there for a reason. Furthermore, a single bomb of 2000 TJ would be (roughly) equivalent to the biggest pure fission boms made, so it's not like putting all those TJ into a single bomb would be that effective.

SETS the timeframe within which this limit must be achieved to no more than 730 days after the passing of this resolution.

OOC: Another arbitrary figure. What is the reasoning behind the 730 days? Again, you can't just dump numbers for no reason and expect people to accept them...

OOC: 2 years doesn't seem arbitrary to me, but sure, I'll just skip to the point where one imagines that if passed, this resolution would poof all those excess weapons out of existence (RP-wise as well as WA-rules-wise).

"Although we will never be able or willing to match the capacity for death that other nations has, there's a great difference between capabilities of offense and defense. I contend that removing the offensive threats posed by nuclear weapons will only limit World Assembly member nations' ability to retaliate; something that is abhorrent and should be avoided even if legal by current World Assembly resolutions."

Ambassador Descartes rises among his peers, who upon hearing this statement from the socialist ambassador responded;

"Are you aware of mutually assured destruction ambassador?"

"Since it is mentioned in the draft, I must at least be aware, yes. However, MAD works on the principle that you can, credibly, destroy the other nation in a second strike. Defensive capabilities, such as missile shields or capability to take down nuclear armed aircraft, would ruin that principle. Furthermore, since missile shields aren't in itself offensive, the same way that a bunker isn't, they do not engage in security dilemmas, another added benefit."

there's a great difference between capabilities of offense and defense.

Ambassador, that assertion is complete nonsense, even for conventional weapons, never mind nuclear weapons. How many times have you seen a weapon with a big sticker saying "for offensive use only"? Saying that weapons, based on overall capabilities, can be pigeon-holed into neat categories of "offensive" and "defensive" is quite frankly absurd! Even more so when applied to nuclear weapons. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding - on your part - regarding the nature of weapons of war, Ambassador...

"Unless you are trying to argue that The New California Republic would use nuclear weapons on your own cities, I fail to see how nuclear weapons can be defensive at all. That's not to say there aren't some weapons that can be both, artillery is the usual example, but nuclear weapons surely aren't. Now, as I said to the Ambassador from Novo Trevisio, some military applications are in itself purely defensive.
Naval guns in a harbour fort cannot be used offensively, your target needs to come to you. Missile shields can shoot down missiles that are already flying. Anti-aircraft defenses can only shoot at aircraft already inside your airspace. Bunkers, like harbour forts, need your enemies to come to you. Now, even if the Solidarity Movement had plenty nuclear weapons and no defenses against them, we would not retaliate against a first strike against us. At that point, MAD has failed, and the only thing that a second strike would ensure? More death, more destruction, more misery. That's why we developed strong defenses, rather than bigger bombs.
Without going into too much of a salespitch, I can tell that our missile shield, though expensive to construct, is almost maintenance-free, being CO2 neutral and recycle-efficient, so with proper management you can lower military expenditure after construction. To reiterate, we are willing to share this technology with any friendly nation, especially ones that are being threatened by hostile actors."

Perhaps, Mr. West, we should all disarm by launching our nuclear arsenals at your capitol.

"We don't have a capitol, but if you launch missiles at our capital? Yes, that would mean your disarmament. We will not shoot back at your country, but you may find that the return on investment in your machines of death and wanton destruction was worse than expected."
- Alex West.

[Jarish Inyo]

Anti-aircraft defenses can only shoot at aircraft already inside your airspace.

That is an inaccurate statement. Anti-aircraft defenses can be used to shoot other things other than aircraft and don't need to be in one's airspace. Harbor guns can be moved or mounted onto vessels and be used as an offensive weapon. There is no such thing as a purely defensive weapon system.

[Caramelldancers]

Ambassador, that assertion is complete nonsense, even for conventional weapons, never mind nuclear weapons. How many times have you seen a weapon with a big sticker saying "for offensive use only"? Saying that weapons, based on overall capabilities, can be pigeon-holed into neat categories of "offensive" and "defensive" is quite frankly absurd! Even more so when applied to nuclear weapons. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding - on your part - regarding the nature of weapons of war, Ambassador...

"Unless you are trying to argue that The New California Republic would use nuclear weapons on your own cities, I fail to see how nuclear weapons can be defensive at all. That's not to say there aren't some weapons that can be both, artillery is the usual example, but nuclear weapons surely aren't. Now, as I said to the Ambassador from Novo Trevisio, some military applications are in itself purely defensive.
Naval guns in a harbour fort cannot be used offensively, your target needs to come to you. Missile shields can shoot down missiles that are already flying. Anti-aircraft defenses can only shoot at aircraft already inside your airspace. Bunkers, like harbour forts, need your enemies to come to you. Now, even if the Solidarity Movement had plenty nuclear weapons and no defenses against them, we would not retaliate against a first strike against us. At that point, MAD has failed, and the only thing that a second strike would ensure? More death, more destruction, more misery. That's why we developed strong defenses, rather than bigger bombs.
Without going into too much of a salespitch, I can tell that our missile shield, though expensive to construct, is almost maintenance-free, being CO2 neutral and recycle-efficient, so with proper management you can lower military expenditure after construction. To reiterate, we are willing to share this technology with any friendly nation, especially ones that are being threatened by hostile actors."

"Mr. West, this is nice and all, but this technology is also completely useless as of now. The mere fact you are advertising it likely means any nuclear bombardment you receive will either be far in excess of what you can reasonably defend against, or involving strikes no missile shield can defend against," Tarja began. "What about ground detonation? It would not take much to take a ship into a harbor for a nation that is not liked and detonate a nuclear device on-board. And unless you have some way to differentiate between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb from quite a distance, you might not have any reason to know a ship pulling into your harbor with an above-average radiation output is carrying a bomb."

-Consul Tarja Brenden

[Separatist Peoples]

"Yeah, listen to the Medalonian Caramelldancerian! Excellent point, sir."

[Caramelldancers]

Tarja bows, then loses her balance and almost falls over, only to catch herself on a table at the last moment. She is still tipsy, after all.

-Consul Tarja Brenden