Page 1 of 2
[DEFEATED] Repeal "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials"
Posted:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:31 pmby Wallenburg
Repeal "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials"
Category: Repeal ||
Resolution: GAR #418 ||
Proposed by: Wallenburg
Recognizing the precarious nature of international politics, especially between states where there exists the threat of nuclear devastation,
Understanding that the target resolution attempts to preserve peace among nuclear states through the near total deregulation of the construction, trade, and use of nuclear weapons,
Recognizing that this model is unsustainable, and fails to secure peace when nuclear states do not fear retaliation for any nuclear strikes they might commit to,
Alarmed that clause two "maintains the right of member nations to trade nuclear weapons or reactors", to any other state, regardless of the stability or belligerence of those states,
Seeing that this clause prohibits the Assembly from establishing regulations capable of limiting the accumulation of nuclear weapons and material in belligerent nations likely to instigate large-scale nuclear exchange, that is, the very nations that most compromise the principle of mutually assured destruction,
Also recognizing that international tensions between nuclear states cannot ease through the constant threat of an unprovoked first strike,
Observing that the target guarantees member states the right to deploy nuclear weapons in retaliation for any kind of attack, regardless of how minor it may be, and even if that attack occurs in retaliation for an act of aggression by the relevant member states,
Hereby repeals GAR #418, "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials".
Posted:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:31 pmby Wallenburg
Reserved
Posted:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:03 amby Wallenburg
Bump
Posted:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:18 amby Kenmoria
“This seems like a well-argued repeal proposal, and has my support.”
Posted:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:25 pmby Karteria
"This repeal highlights the primary concerns we have with the target resolution – that nuclear proliferation is unsustainable and must be limited.
Full support."
Posted:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:33 pmby Wallenburg
I intend to submit this after the weekend.
Posted:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:56 amby Araraukar
Wallenburg wrote:I intend to submit this after the weekend.
OOC: Good luck.
Posted:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:53 pmby Wallenburg
I meant this weekend. This has been submitted.
Posted:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:00 amby Pedigo
As the Delegate for Olgea, a nation that is constantly harassed by larger regions, this proposal has my full support. Thank you
Posted:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:37 pmby Ru-
Non WA member nations still exist, last time we checked.
Opposed.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:38 amby BlackLight Covenant
"With all due respect, ambassador, but we fear that this repeal may pave the way for further restrictions on the creation and maintaining of nuclear arsenals. Of course, this would not be a problem if every nation were to be a member of this Assembly, but for as far as we are aware, non-members outnumber the amount of members by a substantial margin. Repealing this safeguard and opening the door to possible further restrictions would leave Assembly members quite vulnerable to previously-mentioned non-members, seeing as the latter would not see any restrictions on the production and sharing of nuclear material and weaponry.
For the sake of our own national security, as well as the national security of our fellow member states, we cannot support this repeal. Opposed."
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:36 amby Bigevr
BlackLight Covenant wrote:"With all due respect, ambassador, but we fear that this repeal may pave the way for further restrictions on the creation and maintaining of nuclear arsenals. Of course, this would not be a problem if every nation were to be a member of this Assembly, but for as far as we are aware, non-members outnumber the amount of members by a substantial margin. Repealing this safeguard and opening the door to possible further restrictions would leave Assembly members quite vulnerable to previously-mentioned non-members, seeing as the latter would not see any restrictions on the production and sharing of nuclear material and weaponry.
For the sake of our own national security, as well as the national security of our fellow member states, we cannot support this repeal. Opposed."
However, not repealing this resolution may lead some WA members with immoral twisted intentions may use use this resolution as a justification for their excessive plotificetion of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in order to use these weapons to terrorize other nations.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:36 amby BlackLight Covenant
Bigevr wrote:BlackLight Covenant wrote:"With all due respect, ambassador, but we fear that this repeal may pave the way for further restrictions on the creation and maintaining of nuclear arsenals. Of course, this would not be a problem if every nation were to be a member of this Assembly, but for as far as we are aware, non-members outnumber the amount of members by a substantial margin. Repealing this safeguard and opening the door to possible further restrictions would leave Assembly members quite vulnerable to previously-mentioned non-members, seeing as the latter would not see any restrictions on the production and sharing of nuclear material and weaponry.
For the sake of our own national security, as well as the national security of our fellow member states, we cannot support this repeal. Opposed."
However, not repealing this resolution may lead some WA members with immoral twisted intentions may use use this resolution as a justification for their excessive plotificetion of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in order to use these weapons to terrorize other nations.
"That is indeed a risk attached to current legislation, and while repealing this safeguard would allow for a replacement with more guarantees against such abuse to be passed, the current lack of a draft for such a replacement leaves too much of a risk in our opinion. Of course, such a draft is not guaranteed to actually
pass, but having it on standby is already a lot more secure than having to create it afterwards. To us, nuclear weaponry is quite essential, as it is a good way of discouraging foreign aggression, something we have had to deal with quite often in the past."
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:49 amby Kranostav
Bigevr wrote:BlackLight Covenant wrote:"With all due respect, ambassador, but we fear that this repeal may pave the way for further restrictions on the creation and maintaining of nuclear arsenals. Of course, this would not be a problem if every nation were to be a member of this Assembly, but for as far as we are aware, non-members outnumber the amount of members by a substantial margin. Repealing this safeguard and opening the door to possible further restrictions would leave Assembly members quite vulnerable to previously-mentioned non-members, seeing as the latter would not see any restrictions on the production and sharing of nuclear material and weaponry.
For the sake of our own national security, as well as the national security of our fellow member states, we cannot support this repeal. Opposed."
However, not repealing this resolution may lead some WA members with immoral twisted intentions may use use this resolution as a justification for their excessive plotificetion of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in order to use these weapons to terrorize other nations.
'Terrorizing' other nations is probably not very compliant with GAR#2. So if a nation is going to not comply that, why would they comply with any proposed regulations. It's also not the WA's place to judge the morals and stability of a member nation imo.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:21 amby Dirty Americans
Bigevr wrote:However, not repealing this resolution may lead some WA members with immoral twisted intentions may use use this resolution as a justification for their excessive plotificetion of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in order to use these weapons to terrorize other nations.
You bring up a good point but the problem is not "WA members with immoral twisted intentions" but anyone with "immoral twisted intentions." Non member nations are not bound by WA law. Nations that once were nice nations could easily turn into bad nations. If such nations get pushed too hard they just leave the WA.
If there comes a point where MAD is no longer feasible, then MAD will no longer be feasible ... PERIOD. Alternatives will have to be developed. These alternatives will in turn reduce the necessity to maintain an extended MAD arsenal. Problem solved through technology, not unilateral surrender.
At this point, I really do not find the arguments convincing enough to change the status quo.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:59 amby Kenche Gle
I don't know if anyone realized so far but
GA#418 is the same as
GA#10, it just adds more words to an already established law. As such GA#418 goes against the proposal rule of originality.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:39 pmby Melon feud
The ( mandatory to represent,or else bad things are soon to be afoot in her future endeavors) spokesperson of Melonfeud ,
Wanda Rockin Wobblers, hereby cast the vote of SUPPORT in the ,,,er,,,much needed support of the proposed resolution
( hey,she's truly understanding of such things, like much needed support)
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:40 pmby Wallenburg
Kenche Gle wrote:I don't know if anyone realized so far but
GA#418 is the same as
GA#10, it just adds more words to an already established law. As such GA#418 goes against the proposal rule of originality.
No, it doesn't. GA#10 protects the right of member states to possess nuclear weapons. GA#418 protects the ability of member states to produce, use, and trade nuclear weapons and material however they want.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:49 pmby Shaktirajya
We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote FOR this resolution in concert with Our regional delegate, St. Mark.
Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajyasya Shaktirajyasya
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:19 pmby Resnia
This will greatly benefit minor nations such as mine, thank you.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:21 pmby Elyreia
Elyreia will be opposing this measure, as there is currently no replacement proposal we are aware of to address its concerns.
Better the devil we know than the devil we don't.
Strong Disagrement
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pmby Vichy Rich
The Federal Republic of Vichy Rich fails to see this as a useful repeal, our nation strongly believes and supports the ability to produce and proliferate Nuclear weapons as a sovereign nation.
"The only deterrent to Nuclear War, is the Nuclear Bomb itself"
Signed,
The Delegation of Vichy Rich
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:53 pmby Maowi
news reporter holds mic to the president's new junior assistant
"So, yeah, we're voting for, cos like, peace man..."
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:18 pmby Imperium Anglorum
Wallenburg wrote:GA#418 protects the ability of member states to produce, use, and trade nuclear weapons and material however they want.
Put that in the repeal next time.
Posted:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:37 pmby Wallenburg
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Wallenburg wrote:GA#418 protects the ability of member states to produce, use, and trade nuclear weapons and material however they want.
Put that in the repeal next time.
I did.