NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed May 08, 2019 9:35 am

“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.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3390
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed May 08, 2019 10:24 am

"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.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena Zakalwe
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed May 08, 2019 3:37 pm

(OOC: The title has now become rather misleading, since your active clauses are about responses to MAD, rather than restricting the practice itself.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Thu May 09, 2019 5:13 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“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.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"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.)

Kenmoria wrote:(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")

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu May 09, 2019 11:42 pm

(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.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18652
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Fri May 10, 2019 5:34 am

Kenmoria wrote:(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.
Last edited by Bears Armed on Fri May 10, 2019 5:37 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3390
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Fri May 10, 2019 10:40 am

Morover wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena Zakalwe
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat May 11, 2019 7:38 am

"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."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun May 12, 2019 12:24 pm

“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.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Wed May 29, 2019 7:22 pm

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.
Last edited by Morover on Wed May 29, 2019 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Thu May 30, 2019 4:40 pm

"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).

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri May 31, 2019 4:44 am

Morover wrote:"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.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Fri May 31, 2019 7:37 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Morover wrote:"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.'"

User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Fri May 31, 2019 9:30 am

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.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri May 31, 2019 9:33 am

(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.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Fri May 31, 2019 9:41 am

Kenmoria wrote:(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!

User avatar
Kardashev III Civilization
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: Apr 07, 2019
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Kardashev III Civilization » Fri May 31, 2019 8:14 pm

"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."

User avatar
Jocospor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 643
Founded: Nov 24, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Jocospor » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:15 am

Good to see a veteran-Confederation nation getting involved in the World Assembly. Congratulations Morover!
HAIL THE CONFEDERATION!
CONFEDERATION OF CORRUPT DICTATORS | OFFICE OF THE VICEROY | DELEGATE'S OFFICE
JOCOSPOR | FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFFICE


"Destroy democracy. End degeneracy. Love your Emperor. Thou shalt know no fear."
- Farland Macmillan, Grand High Direktor of the Empire, addressing the 3rd Imperial Cabinet

(All posts IC unless marked otherwise)

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:52 am

Jocospor wrote: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.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Jocospor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 643
Founded: Nov 24, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Jocospor » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:58 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Jocospor wrote: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. :hug:
HAIL THE CONFEDERATION!
CONFEDERATION OF CORRUPT DICTATORS | OFFICE OF THE VICEROY | DELEGATE'S OFFICE
JOCOSPOR | FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFFICE


"Destroy democracy. End degeneracy. Love your Emperor. Thou shalt know no fear."
- Farland Macmillan, Grand High Direktor of the Empire, addressing the 3rd Imperial Cabinet

(All posts IC unless marked otherwise)

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14453
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:59 am

Jocospor wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote: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. :hug:

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.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2456
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby United Massachusetts » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:01 am

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.
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

Deputy Outreach Minister, The Rejected Realms
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

President, Right to Life
Author/Co-author: 7 GA, 2 SC resolutions

Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis
The Cross stands steady, though the Earth is turning


User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5248
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:06 am

United Massachusetts wrote:
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.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Kranostav
Envoy
 
Posts: 277
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:08 pm

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?
The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The WA El-eats Chef of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423 and #460

User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:27 pm

Kranostav wrote:
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.”
Last edited by Morover on Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads