[DEFEATED] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 3 is rather vague as to what sort of inteference the international community should do. Also, you may want so specify that you mean the community of member states, rather than non-members.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, I'm not quite clear on why a nuclear regulatory agency is being given these powers as regards nations likely to use chemical weapons. Use of chemical weapons outside of strict defensive necessity is already banned by WA law, so I'm not sure what this brings to the table as far as those weapons are concerned. It seems a bit off topic."


...


OOC: So you're envisioning this as International Security as opposed to Global Disarmament. Clauses 3 and 5 seem to be I.S.; Clauses 4 and 6 are G.D., and 1-2 are definitions. In other words this is a wash of opposites and while I don't know that it would be declared illegal if submitted as is today, I'm utterly sure someone would challenge it. I would suggest adding to it one way or the other to give yourself a clear argument to work with.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The title has now become rather misleading, since your active clauses are about responses to MAD, rather than restricting the practice itself.)

[Morover]

“Clause 3 is rather vague as to what sort of inteference the international community should do. Also, you may want so specify that you mean the community of member states, rather than non-members.”

"Personally, I believe it better to be vague in clause three. I worry that if I go too in-depth with the clause, it may make nations feel restricted in their actions (of course, it would have no definitive effect on such actions), and may violate GAR#2 if I specify hostile actions. And yes, you are right that I should specify member states, and I have fixed that.

"Ambassador, I'm not quite clear on why a nuclear regulatory agency is being given these powers as regards nations likely to use chemical weapons. Use of chemical weapons outside of strict defensive necessity is already banned by WA law, so I'm not sure what this brings to the table as far as those weapons are concerned. It seems a bit off topic."


...


OOC: So you're envisioning this as International Security as opposed to Global Disarmament. Clauses 3 and 5 seem to be I.S.; Clauses 4 and 6 are G.D., and 1-2 are definitions. In other words this is a wash of opposites and while I don't know that it would be declared illegal if submitted as is today, I'm utterly sure someone would challenge it. I would suggest adding to it one way or the other to give yourself a clear argument to work with.

"Yes, that is a good point. I, somehow, completely overlooked this. I do wish to avoid creating a new committee, if possible, though. Perhaps the World Assembly Disaster Bureau (as established in GAR#105 'Preparing for Disasters'), as MAD is most definitely a form of disasters, as defined by GAR#105? Opinions on this would be greatly appreciated."

(OOC: I'd argue that clause 6 are also International Security, at least by the strict definition of the categories given by the game. Especially since it allows it to "coordinate international cooperation." If nothing else, I'd argue that clause 6 is neutral in terms of the divide of IS/GD. Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure what further clauses I could add that wouldn't simply be filler, as this feels (to me) to be *mostly* complete legislation.)

(OOC: The title has now become rather misleading, since your active clauses are about responses to MAD, rather than restricting the practice itself.)

(OOC: Y'know, I was just thinking the same thing to myself the other day. It has been changed to "Responses to Mutually Assured Destruction")

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: How does this ‘boost police and military budgets’, according to the definition of the ‘international security’ category? If anything, the fact that you encourage member nations to abandon WMD retaliation would lower WMD budgets.)

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: How does this ‘boost police and military budgets’, according to the definition of the ‘international security’ category? If anything, the fact that you encourage member nations to abandon WMD retaliation would lower WMD budgets.)

OOC
The author could add a clause "Recognizing that the abandonment of MAD doctrine might require increased spending on more conventional armaments and forces"...
Precedent suggests that a proposal which is only 'Mild' can be allowed to get away with having direct effects on only police or military budgets, rather than in both fields.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: So you're envisioning this as International Security as opposed to Global Disarmament. Clauses 3 and 5 seem to be I.S.; Clauses 4 and 6 are G.D., and 1-2 are definitions. In other words this is a wash of opposites and while I don't know that it would be declared illegal if submitted as is today, I'm utterly sure someone would challenge it. I would suggest adding to it one way or the other to give yourself a clear argument to work with.

(OOC: I'd argue that clause 6 are also International Security, at least by the strict definition of the categories given by the game. Especially since it allows it to "coordinate international cooperation." If nothing else, I'd argue that clause 6 is neutral in terms of the divide of IS/GD. Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure what further clauses I could add that wouldn't simply be filler, as this feels (to me) to be *mostly* complete legislation.)

OOC: The way Clause 6 is written (not to mention the only legal interpretation w/r/t non-contradiction of GAR #2), that coordination power is specifically in regards to diplomacy and economic sanctions. One thing it certainly does not do is increase security budgets.

Bears Armed's suggestion is a good one, but only helps with the interpretation of authorial intent, not with judgments about the concrete effect of the operative clauses. Personally I'd add another preambulatory clause to the effect of "Understanding that a bloody conventional war between powerful adversaries, however terrible, is nonetheless preferable to any MAD scenario..." AND another operative clause explicitly allowing or even encouraging member nations to increase their conventional forces to the extent that that action allows them to reduce or abolish their WMD stockpiles. Otherwise I can't see how this falls into I.S.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I share my colleague's concerns. The consequences of noncompliance are never as grave as the consequences of ignoring an existential attack. Nations therefore have no incentive to comply. A better effort would focus on preventing escalation of a conflict to reaching the nuclear point in the first place, long before mutually assured destruction became a reasonable option.

"The Morovean delegation is well-intended, and technically proficient in their efforts, but have regrettably overlooked the cost-benefit analysis inherent in doctrines of nuclear defense. I suspect more out of optimism than any lack of savvy."

[Kenmoria]

“Since you use ‘member-states’ in some clauses, but just ‘nations’ in others, it looks as though you are trying to affect non-members in the ones that don’t specify WA status.”

[Morover]

OOC: Okay, so I'm ready to come back to this after another hiatus

IC: "I believe that the best way to alleviate your concerns is to listen to your suggestions to create clauses in order to encourage the use of traditional weaponry, as that covers all concerns (I believe), including questions of category and how a nation in need to use MAD would be inclined to ignore any other economic or diplomatic sanctions forced upon them. I added a preambulatory clause to clear up authorial intent, but have yet to add a clause that actually affects legislation. Ideally, I would like for this clause to have something along the lines of offering an incentive for use of traditional weaponry, but I don't know how to go about this without it being vague and confusing. This could be accomplished through a committee, but I know that there has been some discussion of whether or not this proposal violates the committee-only rule, and I would like to clear that up beyond question, in order to avoid future trouble. Any help would be very much appreciated."

"I have also cleared up the confusion in the varied use of 'member-states' and 'nations.'"

EDIT: I also removed bolding of operative clauses.

[Morover]

"I have added the following clause to the proposal:

'Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry outside of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.'

I know it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with that doesn't completely contradict GAR#2. With that, I feel like this resolution is mostly done. I may look to submit it soon."

OOC: I'm going to be forced to be away from my computer for the first week in June, so, unless a significant concern comes up in the meantime, I will likely submit this tomorrow so that I can get some campaigning in. If you think that this is incomplete, let me know, but I do think I've addressed the major concerns about the proposal (and the minor ones, but I could've missed one).

[Kenmoria]

"I have added the following clause to the proposal:

'Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry outside of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.'

I know it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with that doesn't completely contradict GAR#2. With that, I feel like this resolution is mostly done. I may look to submit it soon."

“That sounds as though you are encouraging member nations to attack each other, using conventional weaponry. How about ‘Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry instead of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.’ instead.”

[Morover]

"I have added the following clause to the proposal:

'Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry outside of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.'

I know it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with that doesn't completely contradict GAR#2. With that, I feel like this resolution is mostly done. I may look to submit it soon."

“That sounds as though you are encouraging member nations to attack each other, using conventional weaponry. How about ‘Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry instead of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.’ instead.”

"Yes, thank you for pointing that out. 'instead' certainly makes more sense than 'outside.'"

[Morover]

OOC: Hate to double post, and I hate even more to rush this, but I do feel like this is finished, and I would like to campaign while I still can, if possible. Of course, if anyone brings up a significant issue on the topic, I'll bring it down (so long as I agree that it is something rather major).

That being said, this has been submitted. I also rechanged the name back to 'Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction,' as the added clause remakes it into being about prevention, as opposed to responses.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Good luck. I have just noticed that clause 5 goes ‘Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, that’, with a repetition of ‘that’. That is, however, quite a small issue.)

[Morover]

(OOC: Good luck. I have just noticed that clause 5 goes ‘Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, that’, with a repetition of ‘that’. That is, however, quite a small issue.)

OOC: Yes, it is a relatively small issue, so I'll refrain from resubmitting it, as I've already begun sending campaign telegrams. If only I waited a few seconds longer!

[Kardashev III Civilization]

"We appreciate your understanding that kinetic arsenals must remain unmolested. The capacity to commit to unevadable first strikes on dangerous worlds is essential to maintaining the greater peace."

[Jocospor]

Good to see a veteran-Confederation nation getting involved in the World Assembly. Congratulations Morover!

[Separatist Peoples]

Good to see a veteran-Confederation nation getting involved in the World Assembly. Congratulations Morover!

OOC: Since Morover left the CCD, the GA community doesn't really consider him connected to the Confederation. Worth noting.

[Jocospor]

Good to see a veteran-Confederation nation getting involved in the World Assembly. Congratulations Morover!

OOC: Since Morover left the CCD, the GA community doesn't really consider him connected to the Confederation. Worth noting.

OOC: Morover was fairly involved prior to his leaving, and strove hard to build the region. His parting was amicable, and he remains on good terms with the Confederation - he sometimes pops by on the Discord to give his greetings.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Since Morover left the CCD, the GA community doesn't really consider him connected to the Confederation. Worth noting.

OOC: Morover was fairly involved prior to his leaving, and strove hard to build the region. His parting was amicable, and he remains on good terms with the Confederation - he sometimes pops by on the Discord to give his greetings.

OOC: We know. Just thought you'd like to know why Morover doesn't get the same community-wide contempt. He's a common fixture over at the GA Discord, too.

[United Massachusetts]

Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.

This isn't what MAD is.

[Kenmoria]

Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.

This isn't what MAD is.

(OOC: That’s why it’s being defined in the proposal. If Moreover were using the common and usual definition, then there wouldn’t be a need for a specific definition clause.)

[Kranostav]

Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.

Uhm what. So you can only use WMD's when you are sure a return fire will not occur? Wont that just result in nations wiping each other off the map?

[Morover]

Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.

Uhm what. So you can only use WMD's when you are sure a return fire will not occur? Wont that just result in nations wiping each other off the map?

“Well, from a technical point of view, yes. This proposal isn’t seeking to ban nuclear war. This is seeking to prevent a conflict between two nations to becoming a far larger conflict through Mutually Assured Destruction. The issue of complete obliteration through nuclear devastation is not one that this proposal was seeking to solve.”