[Submitted] Ban on Nuclear Weapon Strikes on Oceans

[Bears Armed]

OOC
This is that extreme rarity, a proposal submitted without drafting on this forum that not only seems to be legal but is one which my nation [and its WA puppet] IC could support...

[Kenmoria]

“This was submitted without any time in these hallowed halls last for this delegation to give feedback. Our feedback could have included the problem of undersea military stations such as missiles silos and the numerous punctuation problems. Despite this, we have to offer our support for this proposal, on the basis of its content.”

[Bears Armed]

“these hallowed Hal’s”

OOC
'Prince Hal' (later King Henry V of England)?
'Hal [Green Lantern] Jordan'?
...who?

^_^

[Araraukar]

I could relocate a whole endangered bird colony there, as a fellow nation has been bothering bird migrations. I'll call it the Bird Force.

OOC: I like you now.

To author: You can't cause tsunamis with nuclear bombs. You might be able to cause one by using a nuclear bomb to trigger a massive landslide, earthquake or volcanic eruption. Aside from that, as long as you ban using nukes on ships and such during wartime, you'll likely hit a wall at voting stage latest. I wish this had any real chance passing, I really do.

[Quantipapa]

I could relocate a whole endangered bird colony there, as a fellow nation has been bothering bird migrations. I'll call it the Bird Force.

OOC: I like you now.

To author: You can't cause tsunamis with nuclear bombs. You might be able to cause one by using a nuclear bomb to trigger a massive landslide, earthquake or volcanic eruption. Aside from that, as long as you ban using nukes on ships and such during wartime, you'll likely hit a wall at voting stage latest. I wish this had any real chance passing, I really do.

It has no chance. It violates too many of Nations love for developing their nukes for next year's nday

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I like you now.

To author: You can't cause tsunamis with nuclear bombs. You might be able to cause one by using a nuclear bomb to trigger a massive landslide, earthquake or volcanic eruption. Aside from that, as long as you ban using nukes on ships and such during wartime, you'll likely hit a wall at voting stage latest. I wish this had any real chance passing, I really do.

It has no chance. It violates too many of Nations love for developing their nukes for next year's nday

(OOC: N-day isn’t canon in the WA. Resolutions can’t refer to it and so I assume it doesn’t exist from the General Assembly’s viewpoint.)

[Quantipapa]

It has no chance. It violates too many of Nations love for developing their nukes for next year's nday

(OOC: N-day isn’t canon in the WA. Resolutions can’t refer to it and so I assume it doesn’t exist from the General Assembly’s viewpoint.)

Ooc: Sure, just referring to the proper love for nukes and that nday is indicative of that attitude. I could be wrong. I nuke you

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: This proposal seems to be dancing on the line between legal and illegal, and it wasn't even drafted here beforehand. Still, I do find the subject at hand rather intriguing. I'm looking forward to the voting stage, if it gets there.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: This proposal seems to be dancing on the line between legal and illegal

OOC
I'm curious: Where do you see it as approaching illegality?

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: This proposal seems to be dancing on the line between legal and illegal

OOC
I'm curious: Where do you see it as approaching illegality?

Okay, maybe not illegality, but I'm feeling rather iffy about the extensions into the WASP program that was created via the passage of another resolution. My diction was a bit rough on that one.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
I'm curious: Where do you see it as approaching illegality?

Okay, maybe not illegality, but I'm feeling rather iffy about the extensions into the WASP program that was created via the passage of another resolution. My diction was a bit rough on that one.

OOC
Giving new powers to an existing committee is perfectly okay, according to precedent (multiple rulings, not just cases where it wasn't challenged), and some people may even consider it preferable to creating "yet another" new one. WASP has already been given various new duties since the resolution in which it was originally created.

[Liberimery]

OOC
This is that extreme rarity, a proposal submitted without drafting on this forum that not only seems to be legal but is one which my nation [and its WA puppet] IC could support...

OOC: I'm the same way. I'm normally opposed to restrictions on nuclear arms, but this one is so massively to my benefit how could I not?!

[Wallenburg]

I foresee nuclear arsenals being relocated to small islands to every extent possible, so that they become invalid targets for nuclear strikes.

This resolution doesn't prohibit other strikes on islands, a nuclear stroke is certainly not the only way to deal with a foreign threat. But if we do redraft this in the future I will address this issue even though I believe nations can use what they have to deal with this.

Other strikes would be far less effective, and most likely would not destroy any nuclear weapons installed on the islands. And that assumes that a conventional bombing could even reach these islands.

[Faltasia]

I support this ban. Steps must be taken, no matter how small, to reduce nuclear weapons in the world.

[Fungsland]

OOC: My opinion might be a bit biased, since I am friends with the author of this resolution, but I am in full support of this proposed resolution. Yes, I am aware that he submitted it to the WA before making a forum drafting it. But, he has told me that there will likely be a redraft of this with a forum beforehand in the coming future if this resolution fails to pass, which will probably happen based on the amount of approvals it currently has. I am thrilled about the potential of this proposal in the future.

[The New California Republic]

This resolution doesn't prohibit other strikes on islands, a nuclear stroke is certainly not the only way to deal with a foreign threat. But if we do redraft this in the future I will address this issue even though I believe nations can use what they have to deal with this.

Other strikes would be far less effective, and most likely would not destroy any nuclear weapons installed on the islands. And that assumes that a conventional bombing could even reach these islands.

OOC: With some work, this could be a good proposal, there are just far too many loopholes in it at the moment that need to be addressed.

[Quantipapa]

Other strikes would be far less effective, and most likely would not destroy any nuclear weapons installed on the islands. And that assumes that a conventional bombing could even reach these islands.

OOC: With some work, this could be a good proposal, there are just far too many loopholes in it at the moment that need to be addressed.

No to nuclear test bans of any form. I reserve my right to further arms development without the meddling of the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: With some work, this could be a good proposal, there are just far too many loopholes in it at the moment that need to be addressed.

No to nuclear test bans of any form. I reserve my right to further arms development without the meddling of the WA.

"You cannot reserve a right that is legislated away, ambassador. If a ban succeeds, your choice is to comply or suffer consequences.

"That said, I have to agree with the Quantipapa delegation. Limits on nuclear arms ownership, and the necessary testing that follows, would earn my opposition."

[The New California Republic]

OOC: With some work, this could be a good proposal, there are just far too many loopholes in it at the moment that need to be addressed.

No to nuclear test bans of any form. I reserve my right to further arms development without the meddling of the WA.

OOC:...your post was totally irrelevant to what I have been talking about. Please re-read what I have been saying. At no point do I discuss nuclear test bans.

[Quantipapa]

No to nuclear test bans of any form. I reserve my right to further arms development without the meddling of the WA.

OOC:...your post was totally irrelevant to what I have been talking about. Please re-read what I have been saying. At no point do I discuss nuclear test bans.

Even if it was a good proposal with no loopholes I will not support it.

[The New California Republic]

OOC:...your post was totally irrelevant to what I have been talking about. Please re-read what I have been saying. At no point do I discuss nuclear test bans.

Even if it was a good proposal with no loopholes I will not support it.

OOC: Still doesn't address what I said. If you quote people, then usually the thing that you say should be relevant to the quote, not something entirely unrelated...

[Quantipapa]

Even if it was a good proposal with no loopholes I will not support it.

OOC: Still doesn't address what I said. If you quote people, then usually the thing that you say should be relevant to the quote, not something entirely unrelated...

So legalistic. Geez. Move on.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Still doesn't address what I said. If you quote people, then usually the thing that you say should be relevant to the quote, not something entirely unrelated...

So legalistic. Geez. Move on.

Legalistic? Hardly.

[Quantipapa]

So legalistic. Geez. Move on.

Legalistic? Hardly.

You're a professional baiter.

[Araraukar]

Legalistic? Hardly.

You're a professional baiter.

OOC: ...takes one to know one? Look, either stop quoting people to say things - you can make freestanding posts - or get called on completely missing the point. Turning it into a personal attack against the established forum regular won't help you win any points in this community. There are also forum-wide rules against flamebaiting and trolling that I think you might want to go take a look at.