NationStates

In the spirit of N-Day, and after watching about 6 hours of Cold War era nuclear apocalypse films, I am rather confident that the World Assembly could use something like this. Peruse at your leisure, and feel free to call me a tree hugging, sovereignty-stealing hippie who wants the commies to win.

Safeguards Against Nuclear First Strikes

---

---

Category: Global Disarmament || Strength: Significant || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the prevalence of nuclear weapons among member states,

Understanding the delicate nature of nuclear arsenals, and their capacity to cause great loss of life,

Hoping to reduce the chances of unwarranted nuclear warfare, and to minimize the likelihood of any mass nuclear exchanges,

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "preemptive deployment" as the deployment of nuclear weapons against any nation prior to sustaining a nuclear strike from that nation or one of its military allies, or prior to a military ally sustaining such a strike,

Prohibits preemptive deployment in any circumstance where a nuclear detonation or resulting proliferation of hazardous materials might result in significant civilian casualties,

Prohibits preemptive deployment in response to any positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike unless they are beyond a reasonable doubt identified as proof of an imminent nuclear strike,

Urges member states to forego preemptive deployment altogether, and to employ nuclear weapons solely as defense weapons of last resort,

Requires member states to corroborate positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike by multiple independent methods, in order to reduce the likelihood of a false positive,

Also requires member states posessing nuclear weapons to explore and exploit all diplomatic options to establish and maintain direct and redundant means of emergency communication between their own governments and the governments of any relevant nuclear adversaries,

Directs member states to notify all relevant nuclear powers of the time, location, and target of any nuclear weapons test or any launch of a payload bound for a high-altitude ballistic trajectory, in order to avoid interpretation as a genuine nuclear strike.

“This seems reasonable to me, a solid piece of writing. The one issue I have is the fact that the definition of ‘preemptive deployment’ ignores weapons of roughly equal strength to or greater than a nuclear bomb. For example a massive amount of very strong ballistic weaponry against a capital city should allow the use of any force required against threats.”

(OOC: The reason the US had a limited first strike policy was because Soviet Nuclear missiles relied on a rocket fuel that was highly corrosive to the structure of the rockets. If reliable intelligence showed that the Soviets were fueling the rockets en mass, an attack was imminent. The Soviets fought this by making their missile launch platforms mobile to his where they were, but at best they could only hold second strike only, compared to the US which was launch on detection. Tactics during the 80s assumed that the Soviets would start the war by a conventional invasion of Europe and NATO would escalate to nuclear launch by a tactical strike on Soviet re-enforcements.).

Kenmoria wrote:“This seems reasonable to me, a solid piece of writing. The one issue I have is the fact that the definition of ‘preemptive deployment’ ignores weapons of roughly equal strength to or greater than a nuclear bomb. For example a massive amount of very strong ballistic weaponry against a capital city should allow the use of any force required against threats.”

"I disagree. A conventional strike on military targets, not a nuclear strike on civilian ones, would be a proper response to such attacks."

Wallenburg wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“This seems reasonable to me, a solid piece of writing. The one issue I have is the fact that the definition of ‘preemptive deployment’ ignores weapons of roughly equal strength to or greater than a nuclear bomb. For example a massive amount of very strong ballistic weaponry against a capital city should allow the use of any force required against threats.”

"I disagree. A conventional strike on military targets, not a nuclear strike on civilian ones, would be a proper response to such attacks."

Assuming that a nation has the means to respond in that way. One of the primary way the presence of nuclear weapons promotes peace is by providing smaller nations with the means to deter aggression from much larger ones in a way that conventional weaponry cannot.

Aclion wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"I disagree. A conventional strike on military targets, not a nuclear strike on civilian ones, would be a proper response to such attacks."

Assuming that a nation has the means to respond in that way. One of the primary way the presence of nuclear weapons promotes peace is by providing smaller nations with the means to deter aggression from much larger ones in a way that conventional weaponry cannot.

Minor powers rarely, if ever, possess nuclear weapons, and the vast majority of nuclear arsenals, those capable of causing worldwide devastation, are controlled by large, major powers. Regardless of whether your claim to the supposed peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons is correct--and I cannot see how it could be--the reality of nuclear proliferation amongst various states does not resemble your imagined scenario.

Wallenburg wrote:

Aclion wrote:Assuming that a nation has the means to respond in that way. One of the primary way the presence of nuclear weapons promotes peace is by providing smaller nations with the means to deter aggression from much larger ones in a way that conventional weaponry cannot.

Minor powers rarely, if ever, possess nuclear weapons, and the vast majority of nuclear arsenals, those capable of causing worldwide devastation, are controlled by large, major powers. Regardless of whether your claim to the supposed peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons is correct--and I cannot see how it could be--the reality of nuclear proliferation amongst various states does not resemble your imagined scenario.

Looking at the real nuclear nationstates I see four(China, the US, India and Russia) that do not need them to deter a conventional attack from their rivals. All the rest of the nuclear powers do, or did when they developed them, and many, Britain, France, Pakistan, Israel developed them for the express purpose of deterring conventional attacks.

Regarding the peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons the idea has been thoroughly studied as a result of the cold war so I can simply direct you to the relevant wikipedia articles, which cover the concepts well enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability ... ty_paradox

As an additional issue; this resolution also prevents nuclear response to nuclear attacks on non nuclear allied states. Such a prohibition would prevent nuclear nations protecting other states under their "nuclear umbrella" and might lead to more nations seeking nuclear weapons of their own.

All OOC, I guess, since people can't be bothered to respect the IC/OOC divide:

Aclion wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Minor powers rarely, if ever, possess nuclear weapons, and the vast majority of nuclear arsenals, those capable of causing worldwide devastation, are controlled by large, major powers. Regardless of whether your claim to the supposed peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons is correct--and I cannot see how it could be--the reality of nuclear proliferation amongst various states does not resemble your imagined scenario.

Looking at the real nuclear nationstates I see four(China, the US, India and Russia) that do not need them to deter a conventional attack from their rivals. All the rest of the nuclear powers do, or did when they developed them, and many, Britain, France, Pakistan, Israel developed them for the express purpose of deterring conventional attacks.

All of those nations have substantial conventional forces, and through diplomatic and military alliances have the support of several other nations' conventional forces to protect them as well. You still fail to convince me that exploding nuclear weapons on civilian targets is a justifiable response to a conventional invasive effort.

Regarding the peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons the idea has been thoroughly studied as a result of the cold war so I can simply direct you to the relevant wikipedia articles, which cover the concepts well enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability ... ty_paradox

All of those are highly controversial concepts, and none of them are proven to be correct. Some might argue that nuclear weapons secured peace. Some might point to the literal dozens of cases in which humanity nearly wiped itself off the face of the Earth in a nuclear holocaust.

As an additional issue; this resolution also prevents nuclear response to nuclear attacks on non nuclear allied states. Such a prohibition would prevent nuclear nations protecting other states under their "nuclear umbrella" and might lead to more nations seeking nuclear weapons of their own.

This is a reasonable point. I will resolve the issue in the next edit.

Aclion wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Minor powers rarely, if ever, possess nuclear weapons, and the vast majority of nuclear arsenals, those capable of causing worldwide devastation, are controlled by large, major powers. Regardless of whether your claim to the supposed peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons is correct--and I cannot see how it could be--the reality of nuclear proliferation amongst various states does not resemble your imagined scenario.

Looking at the real nuclear nationstates I see four(China, the US, India and Russia) that do not need them to deter a conventional attack from their rivals. All the rest of the nuclear powers do, or did when they developed them, and many, Britain, France, Pakistan, Israel developed them for the express purpose of deterring conventional attacks.

Regarding the peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons the idea has been thoroughly studied as a result of the cold war so I can simply direct you to the relevant wikipedia articles, which cover the concepts well enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability ... ty_paradox

As an additional issue; this resolution also prevents nuclear response to nuclear attacks on non nuclear allied states. Such a prohibition would prevent nuclear nations protecting other states under their "nuclear umbrella" and might lead to more nations seeking nuclear weapons of their own.

OOC: Israel isn't a Nuclear State Officially. Just like the USA doesn't have a CIA site at Area 51.

Wallenburg wrote:All OOC, I guess, since people can't be bothered to respect the IC/OOC divide:

Aclion wrote:Looking at the real nuclear nationstates I see four(China, the US, India and Russia) that do not need them to deter a conventional attack from their rivals. All the rest of the nuclear powers do, or did when they developed them, and many, Britain, France, Pakistan, Israel developed them for the express purpose of deterring conventional attacks.

All of those nations have substantial conventional forces, and through diplomatic and military alliances have the support of several other nations' conventional forces to protect them as well.

Are you seriously going to argue that France/Greece/Belgium's conventional forces could have held the Soviet Union without a nuclear deterrent?

Wallenburg wrote:All of those are highly controversial concepts, and none of them are proven to be correct. Some might argue that nuclear weapons secured peace. Some might point to the literal dozens of cases in which humanity nearly wiped itself off the face of the Earth in a nuclear holocaust.

The evidence of history is that they secured peace, the WA should not force its members to act as a control group on that experiment.

Aclion wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:All OOC, I guess, since people can't be bothered to respect the IC/OOC divide:

All of those nations have substantial conventional forces, and through diplomatic and military alliances have the support of several other nations' conventional forces to protect them as well.

Are you seriously going to argue that France/Greece/Belgium's conventional forces could have held the Soviet Union without a nuclear deterrent?

Wallenburg wrote:All of those are highly controversial concepts, and none of them are proven to be correct. Some might argue that nuclear weapons secured peace. Some might point to the literal dozens of cases in which humanity nearly wiped itself off the face of the Earth in a nuclear holocaust.

The evidence of history is that they secured peace, the WA should not force its members to act as a control group on that experiment.

OOC: Hell, there's a specific reason why Pakistan got the bomb... alliances aren't effective when your biggest war threat has Nukes and borders with you (and is hard coded in Sid Meyers Civilization to release all nukes in war time). The U.K. Had four minutes notice before it was hit by USSR. The US on the other side of the globe had a half hour.

Prohibits preemptive deployment in response to any positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike that cannot beyond a reasonable doubt be otherwise explained,

"Oh? If we have signs that an imminent first strike from New York was on the way, and we had no other reasonable explanation, we would not be permitted to deploy our own weapons? This is unacceptable. United Massachusetts maintains no nuclear arsenal, but some of its strongest allies do, and we would hate to see the balance of nuclear power shifted against them like this."

Requires member states to corroborate positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike by multiple independent methods, in order to reduce the likelihood of a false positive,

"How do you sufficiently corroborate an incoming nuclear strike coming in 15 minutes?"

"As much as I appreciate the effort to reduce nuclear attacks of any kind, realistically, I have to oppose. From the way I read it, this resolution assumes that all nations will engage and respond to war (offensively or defensively) in a proportionate way. That is unrealistic. Also, I won't be here waiting for some other nation fire a nuke at me "first" before I fire back. I really do want to support this, but outside of a resolution that forces every WA nation to disarm all nuclear weapons, I will not give up my right to decide how I deploy my armaments for the sake of protecting Faltasia. In short, I oppose."

United Massachusetts wrote:

Requires member states to corroborate positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike by multiple independent methods, in order to reduce the likelihood of a false positive,

"How do you sufficiently corroborate an incoming nuclear strike coming in 15 minutes?"

"You can look forward to a that warning time being reduced to a few seconds in the near future."

Aclion wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:"How do you sufficiently corroborate an incoming nuclear strike coming in 15 minutes?"

"You can look forward to a that warning time being reduced to a few seconds in the near future."

One second is enough for my country to be trying to escape a nuclear fallout. I still will not risk that. Our first strike capability is what deters others from even thinking of firing upon us.

Aclion wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:All OOC, I guess, since people can't be bothered to respect the IC/OOC divide:

All of those nations have substantial conventional forces, and through diplomatic and military alliances have the support of several other nations' conventional forces to protect them as well.

Are you seriously going to argue that France/Greece/Belgium's conventional forces could have held the Soviet Union without a nuclear deterrent?

OOC: I'm not certain why you exclude the UK and US and the rest of NATO from that equation.

Wallenburg wrote:All of those are highly controversial concepts, and none of them are proven to be correct. Some might argue that nuclear weapons secured peace. Some might point to the literal dozens of cases in which humanity nearly wiped itself off the face of the Earth in a nuclear holocaust.

The evidence of history is that they secured peace, the WA should not force its members to act as a control group on that experiment.

OOC: That is laughable at best.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Prohibits preemptive deployment in response to any positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike that cannot beyond a reasonable doubt be otherwise explained,

"Oh? If we have signs that an imminent first strike from New York was on the way, and we had no other reasonable explanation, we would not be permitted to deploy our own weapons?

"Erm...no. That clause says the exact opposite. Did you even bother reading the text?"

"How do you sufficiently corroborate an incoming nuclear strike coming in 15 minutes?"

"Certainly you have more than one means of detecting an incoming nuclear strike? Or does your nation only posess one shack with a couple old radar dishes mounted to it as its missile defense system?"

OOC: This is genuinely my first IC here in the WA so please bare with me.

"While I believe your intentions are good, I do not believe the execution is restrictive enough.
What's wrong with banning preemptive strikes entirely? I shutter to think what reasons or loopholes could come about this."

*drinks water*

"Might I also add that this resolution does not take into account the many other weapons of mass destruction.
What happens if a nation uses biological viral warfare? What happens if another nation uses alternative methods on you,
but you can not retaliate because you only have nuclear devices, and have not been technically hit by a nuclear strike,
and thus, by your definition, be committing a preemptive strike?"

*adjusts monocle*

"Yes, I am aware this last point is covered by allowing for preemptive strikes in certain scenarios,
but I can not help but think it'd be better, simpler, and a lot less paperwork to simply ban all preemptive WMD strikes outright."

Jutsa wrote:OOC: This is genuinely my first IC here in the WA so please bare with me.

OOC: Good to see you're flexing your RP muscles!

"While I believe your intentions are good, I do not believe the execution is restrictive enough.
What's wrong with banning preemptive strikes entirely? I shutter to think what reasons or loopholes could come about this."

IC: "I would certainly prefer such a ban, as conducting a first strike with nuclear weapons is inherently evil, but I do not believe that the members of this Assembly would support it."

"Might I also add that this resolution does not take into account the many other weapons of mass destruction.
What happens if a nation uses biological viral warfare?

"Luckily, ambassador, we already have a resolution fully prohibiting the use of biological weapons in a military capacity. There exists a similar resolution regulating chemical weapons and other regulatory resolutions with regard to landmines and other conventional weapons."

What happens if another nation uses alternative methods on you,
but you can not retaliate because you only have nuclear devices, and have not been technically hit by a nuclear strike,
and thus, by your definition, be committing a preemptive strike?"

"It is unreasonable to accommodate a theoretical member nation that only possess nuclear weapons. Such a nation could only exist if that nation had never had any weapons other than nuclear warheads, or had systematically destroyed all conventional arms, including blades and blunt force weapons. Furthermore, such a nation would struggle to keep itself together and to enforce its laws, let alone defend itself in any manner that would not render it a global pariah. I think it reasonable to dismiss such a hypothetical nation as extremely unlikely to exist, and not worth any effort to accommodate for."

"I would still prefer an outright ban, and I'll hold that opinion up until the end, but I understand your situation and need for compromise.
It is also a relief to see that alternative doomsday devices have been covered, and I am sincerely shocked to find nuclear weapons to be the exception."

Wallenburg wrote:

Jutsa wrote:"Might I also add that this resolution does not take into account the many other weapons of mass destruction.
What happens if a nation uses biological viral warfare?

"Luckily, ambassador, we already have a resolution fully prohibiting the use of biological weapons in a military capacity. There exists a similar resolution regulating chemical weapons and other regulatory resolutions with regard to landmines and other conventional weapons."

"Hrr'mmph. Although, of course, those resolutions only forbid the offensive use of such weapons by member nations whereas this proposal would seemingly bar the use of nuclear weapons by member nations -- even in retaliation for attacks by such means -- against non-members who refrain from nuclear attacks as well..."

Also requires member states posessing nuclear weapons to establish direct and redundant means of emergency communication between their own governments and the governments of any relevant nuclear adversaries,

"But how are they to do this if those 'relevant nuclear adversaries' are non-members -- and thus not bound by these rules -- and choose not to cooperate in the establishment of those means of communication?"

"I make these enquiries purely for the sake of clarity, by the way, as neither Bears Armed Mission nor Bears Armed itself nor any other nation existing under the auspices of Bears Armed possesses -- nor has any intention of obtaining -- nuclear weapons."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

New draft posted.

Bears Armed wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Luckily, ambassador, we already have a resolution fully prohibiting the use of biological weapons in a military capacity. There exists a similar resolution regulating chemical weapons and other regulatory resolutions with regard to landmines and other conventional weapons."

"Hrr'mmph. Although, of course, those resolutions only forbid the offensive use of such weapons by member nations whereas this proposal would seemingly bar the use of nuclear weapons by member nations -- even in retaliation for attacks by such means -- against non-members who refrain from nuclear attacks as well..."

IC: "That is an incorrect assessment of both the Biological Warfare Convention, which institutes a full ban on the use of biological weapons, and this draft's mandates, which very clearly do not prohibit retaliatory nuclear strikes."

Also requires member states posessing nuclear weapons to establish direct and redundant means of emergency communication between their own governments and the governments of any relevant nuclear adversaries,

"But how are they to do this if those 'relevant nuclear adversaries' are non-members -- and thus not bound by these rules -- and choose not to cooperate in the establishment of those means of communication?"

"I make these enquiries purely for the sake of clarity, by the way, as neither Bears Armed Mission nor Bears Armed itself nor any other nation existing under the auspices of Bears Armed possesses -- nor has any intention of obtaining -- nuclear weapons."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

"This concern reflects a similar one raised previously, and has now been addressed in the most recent draft. Member states are required to extend diplomatic offers to such nuclear adversaries, and should they prove successful, go about the task of establishing such communication options."

Wallenburg wrote:

Aclion wrote:Are you seriously going to argue that France/Greece/Belgium's conventional forces could have held the Soviet Union without a nuclear deterrent?

OOC: I'm not certain why you exclude the UK and US and the rest of NATO from that equation.

OOC: IIRC American defensive plans in the event of tanks rolling in from East Germany did in fact involve nuclear weapons. That might have changed with the development of fourth-generation jet fighters on the one hand and the A-10 "Warthog" on the other, but that could just be me being optimistic.

Prohibits preemptive deployment in response to any positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike that cannot beyond a reasonable doubt be otherwise explained,

"Ambassador, this reads oddly. Should this language be reversed, that is you may only deploy preemptively where you have a positive indication of a nuclear attack that can't be explained any other way? Or are you saying even if you know they're nuking you, you still can't fire until your people actually get hit? Either way, this should be clarified; and if it's the latter, I'm afraid we can't support, even if we do think the rest of this proposal is well-conceived."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: I'm not certain why you exclude the UK and US and the rest of NATO from that equation.

OOC: IIRC American defensive plans in the event of tanks rolling in from East Germany did in fact involve nuclear weapons. That might have changed with the development of fourth-generation jet fighters on the one hand and the A-10 "Warthog" on the other, but that could just be me being optimistic.

Prohibits preemptive deployment in response to any positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike that cannot beyond a reasonable doubt be otherwise explained,

"Ambassador, this reads oddly. Should this language be reversed, that is you may only deploy preemptively where you have a positive indication of a nuclear attack that can't be explained any other way? Or are you saying even if you know they're nuking you, you still can't fire until your people actually get hit? Either way, this should be clarified; and if it's the latter, I'm afraid we can't support, even if we do think the rest of this proposal is well-conceived."

OOC: Kinda historically correct. During the 1980s the USSR military accounted for 1/4 of its economy and while its tanks were not as good as the US tanks, they were more numerous. The most likely course of WWIII would be that at the start of the War, the USSR would rush Western Europe in a land invasion. NATO would work to hold them back with conventional forces but the numbers were too great and would print the US to make Strategic launches which USSR would return on. Eventually this would escalate until both sides were launching their entire aresanls, usually by the US going for a decapitation strike against Moscow specifically. Nuking Moscow would trigger Perimeter, a deadman switch system that would launch all nukes in a 2nd strike, which would trigger the US to launch all for a second strike. Judgement Day.

The reason for the massive stockpiles, was because in a Judgement Day scenario, its estimated that only 3% of a nation's total nuclear arsenal would survive launch to target. To get around it, the total stockpile size had to be one such that 3% of that size could reduce the entire target nation to ash. As to why this proposal is a horrible idea is that nukes are the best defense to nukes... MAD doctrine insists that you have a second strike. No nation would try wiping you off the face of the earth if you could kill them back. In essence, nuclear powers have to say "Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?" And "I'm not crazy enough to start something!" Second Strike was so important that the Strategic Defense Initiative was feared by the Soviets, who would loose second strike, and many in the US who feared that the loss of a Soviet Second Strike would result in a USSR that would resort to preemptive strike to get rid of it.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: I'm not certain why you exclude the UK and US and the rest of NATO from that equation.

OOC: IIRC American defensive plans in the event of tanks rolling in from East Germany did in fact involve nuclear weapons. That might have changed with the development of fourth-generation jet fighters on the one hand and the A-10 "Warthog" on the other, but that could just be me being optimistic.

OOC: Exactly. Those plans, if they had ever gone into action, would have resulted in a total nuclear exchange. Such a result must be avoided by removing as many causes as possible.

Prohibits preemptive deployment in response to any positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike that cannot beyond a reasonable doubt be otherwise explained,

"Ambassador, this reads oddly. Should this language be reversed, that is you may only deploy preemptively where you have a positive indication of a nuclear attack that can't be explained any other way?

"That is exactly what this clause would entail. As you pointed out, you have inverted the language to derive the conditions under which this clause would not prohibit preemptive deployment."

Or are you saying even if you know they're nuking you, you still can't fire until your people actually get hit?

"Such an interpretation cannot be lifted from that clause without twisting the language into something totally different from what I have written. Such an interpretation would not be adopted, either, except by nations that wish to adopt it."

Either way, this should be clarified; and if it's the latter, I'm afraid we can't support, even if we do think the rest of this proposal is well-conceived."

"I see no need for clarification. The clause is simple enough. Future drafts may contain edits to this clause, though, in order to streamline language, as I agree that while clear, this clause reads clunkily."