[DEFEATED] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

[Jocospor]

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.

OOC: He's not just a common fixture but a populist, too. Hence why he left us (and why he, moments after my first post, left our Discord) - and that's not to say I disrespect his decision; he's entitled to reside in any region he wants. But it's no wonder he gets along so well in your GA circles.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

OOC: He's not just a common fixture but a populist, too. Hence why he left us (and why he, moments after my first post, left our Discord) - and that's not to say I disrespect his decision; he's entitled to reside in any region he wants. But it's no wonder he gets along so well in your GA circles.

Populist elitists. Got it.

[Maowi]

(OOC: Good luck Morover! 8 approvals required within 10 hours. It should make it, I think)

[Morover]

(OOC: Good luck Morover! 8 approvals required within 10 hours. It should make it, I think)

OOC: Thank you! It should be close.

[United Massachusetts]

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.

OOC: He's not just a common fixture but a populist, too. Hence why he left us (and why he, moments after my first post, left our Discord) - and that's not to say I disrespect his decision; he's entitled to reside in any region he wants. But it's no wonder he gets along so well in your GA circles.

OOC: Can't we all just get along?

[Kranostav]

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.”

But your proposal is promoting it via the definition. You are basically telling nations that they must ensure that there wont be retaliation by WMD if you use WMDs to begin with. So my response to that would be to wipe the other nation off the map instead of just hitting key military installations. Because if they retaliate, I am somehow give economic sanctions which is actually insane.

Against in its current form.

[Morover]

“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.”

But your proposal is promoting it via the definition. You are basically telling nations that they must ensure that there wont be retaliation by WMD if you use WMDs to begin with. So my response to that would be to wipe the other nation off the map instead of just hitting key military installations. Because if they retaliate, I am somehow give economic sanctions which is actually insane.

Against in its current form.

“I understand where you’re coming from — I really do. I simply think that it’s absurd to believe that, if a nation at war with another nation with whom they had the capacity to completely destroy via nuclear weapons with no retaliation, why wouldn’t they do so? That case doesn’t fall under MAD - because it’s not mutually assured. I don’t really see how this encourages that. Also, if you’ll note that in my definition of MAD, I include the phrase ‘last-ditch,’ which would exclude nations whose nuclear arsenal is so overwhelming than that of their enemies.”

[Kranostav]

But your proposal is promoting it via the definition. You are basically telling nations that they must ensure that there wont be retaliation by WMD if you use WMDs to begin with. So my response to that would be to wipe the other nation off the map instead of just hitting key military installations. Because if they retaliate, I am somehow give economic sanctions which is actually insane.

Against in its current form.

“I understand where you’re coming from — I really do. I simply think that it’s absurd to believe that, if a nation at war with another nation with whom they had the capacity to completely destroy via nuclear weapons with no retaliation, why wouldn’t they do so? That case doesn’t fall under MAD - because it’s not mutually assured. I don’t really see how this encourages that. Also, if you’ll note that in my definition of MAD, I include the phrase ‘last-ditch,’ which would exclude nations whose nuclear arsenal is so overwhelming than that of their enemies.”

You are willfully missing my point. Im pointing out that nations will go out of their way to make sure they will avoid your defined MAD protocol, therefore causing all this extra death by wiping them off the map. Nations dont have a suicide wish, but legally forcing them to go overkill to avoid noncompliance is insane.

[Kenmoria]

“I understand where you’re coming from — I really do. I simply think that it’s absurd to believe that, if a nation at war with another nation with whom they had the capacity to completely destroy via nuclear weapons with no retaliation, why wouldn’t they do so? That case doesn’t fall under MAD - because it’s not mutually assured. I don’t really see how this encourages that. Also, if you’ll note that in my definition of MAD, I include the phrase ‘last-ditch,’ which would exclude nations whose nuclear arsenal is so overwhelming than that of their enemies.”

You are willfully missing my point. Im pointing out that nations will go out of their way to make sure they will avoid your defined MAD protocol, therefore causing all this extra death by wiping them off the map. Nations dont have a suicide wish, but legally forcing them to go overkill to avoid noncompliance is insane.

“I regard most of this debate as being solely academic in nature, because any nation at war will most likely not be considering the implications of General Assembly legislation if they are considering using MAD, or any similar practice. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have laws on the subject of warfare - we should in order to make a moral standpoint, if not nothing else, but I believe that a nation won’t be thinking about noncompliance too heavily.

That’s why the most impactful clauses in this proposal are those that target the international community and the responses thereof. Unlike a singular nation, the WA member states as a whole will not be damaged by mere nuclear warheads, and can perpetuate GA mandates regardless of the current situation.”

[Jocospor]

OOC: He's not just a common fixture but a populist, too. Hence why he left us (and why he, moments after my first post, left our Discord) - and that's not to say I disrespect his decision; he's entitled to reside in any region he wants. But it's no wonder he gets along so well in your GA circles.

Populist elitists. Got it.

OOC: That's certainly a polite way of putting it.

OOC: He's not just a common fixture but a populist, too. Hence why he left us (and why he, moments after my first post, left our Discord) - and that's not to say I disrespect his decision; he's entitled to reside in any region he wants. But it's no wonder he gets along so well in your GA circles.

OOC: Can't we all just get along?

OOC: ...It's not really a question worth asking, is it?

[Kranostav]

You are willfully missing my point. Im pointing out that nations will go out of their way to make sure they will avoid your defined MAD protocol, therefore causing all this extra death by wiping them off the map. Nations dont have a suicide wish, but legally forcing them to go overkill to avoid noncompliance is insane.

“I regard most of this debate as being solely academic in nature, because any nation at war will most likely not be considering the implications of General Assembly legislation if they are considering using MAD, or any similar practice. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have laws on the subject of warfare - we should in order to make a moral standpoint, if not nothing else, but I believe that a nation won’t be thinking about noncompliance too heavily.

That’s why the most impactful clauses in this proposal are those that target the international community and the responses thereof. Unlike a singular nation, the WA member states as a whole will not be damaged by mere nuclear warheads, and can perpetuate GA mandates regardless of the current situation.”

I was assuming full compliance to show how dumb the application of this proposal would be. In all reality, a nation on the brink is not going to even acknowledge the economic sanctions or MAD protocol restrictions if it means surviving. Thats why I argued on the WA discord that RNT would actually go in favor of noncompliance here.

[Morover]

“So this failed to reach quorum very slightly - it was incredibly close. I’ll make a few changes to address concerns regarding the definition I have given for MAD, but this is still overall close to the final proposal. I will likely submit within another week or two.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: If it currently hasn't been submitted, title should have that bit removed. Did you campaign for it?

[Morover]

OOC: If it currently hasn't been submitted, title should have that bit removed. Did you campaign for it?

OOC: Yes, Sorry. I dislike managing the forums on my phone and just forgot. I did campaign, but didn’t complete it and only got about 75% of delegates. It was also a less than ideal campaign telegram, anyways

[Morover]

"Okay, so I've removed the response calling for 'economic sanctions' and added one requiring the WADB to report offenders to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee (which hasn't actually be enacted yet, but it appears as though Wallenburg's proposal will pass, and it seems like a better alternative to 'economic sanctions'). I feel as though targeting individuals, as opposed to nations as a whole, solves the issue some had with noncompliance, without compromising the integrity of the proposal.

"I also feel that changing the definition would take away from the proposal as a whole, so I'm keeping it as-is, unless someone suggests a better alternative."

[Kenmoria]

"Okay, so I've removed the response calling for 'economic sanctions' and added one requiring the WADB to report offenders to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee (which hasn't actually be enacted yet, but it appears as though Wallenburg's proposal will pass, and it seems like a better alternative to 'economic sanctions'). I feel as though targeting individuals, as opposed to nations as a whole, solves the issue some had with noncompliance, without compromising the integrity of the proposal.

"I also feel that changing the definition would take away from the proposal as a whole, so I'm keeping it as-is, unless someone suggests a better alternative."

“Clause two might be better with a less strong word than ‘complete’ before ‘knowledge’. It may always be the case that a nation is lying about having nuclear weapons, or something goes wrong with the firing causing return fire not to happen, so no state can have completely complete knowledge of any situation.”

[Morover]

"Okay, so I've removed the response calling for 'economic sanctions' and added one requiring the WADB to report offenders to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee (which hasn't actually be enacted yet, but it appears as though Wallenburg's proposal will pass, and it seems like a better alternative to 'economic sanctions'). I feel as though targeting individuals, as opposed to nations as a whole, solves the issue some had with noncompliance, without compromising the integrity of the proposal.

"I also feel that changing the definition would take away from the proposal as a whole, so I'm keeping it as-is, unless someone suggests a better alternative."

“Clause two might be better with a less strong word than ‘complete’ before ‘knowledge’. It may always be the case that a nation is lying about having nuclear weapons, or something goes wrong with the firing causing return fire not to happen, so no state can have completely complete knowledge of any situation.”

"Thank you, I've changed that."

[Morover]

"With the passage of the World Assembly Justice Accord, by the delegation at Wallenburg, the current version of this draft would be legal. I will likely resubmit this in the next few days, so any last-minute concerns are appreciated."

"I know that a few are concerned about my use of 'last-ditch effort' in the definition of MAD, but I believe it to be relatively straightforward, if a bit informal. If this sentiment is widely shared, I can attempt to change the wording slightly, but I do truly believe that it fits as-is."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium recommends much stronger policy against such Mutually Assured Destruction. We have seen what such policies lead to, and we see little reason for the World Assembly to enable and allow such devastation. Prohibitions on automatic responses, or detonation, are highly recommended."

[Morover]

"The Imperium recommends much stronger policy against such Mutually Assured Destruction. We have seen what such policies lead to, and we see little reason for the World Assembly to enable and allow such devastation. Prohibitions on automatic responses, or detonation, are highly recommended."

"Now, that is something that I haven't considered. Obviously, the idea of MAD is a very good preventative measure, but a prohibition on automatic responses to MAD may preserve that threat while still establishing further preventative measures. I may add an additional clause that outlaws instant automatic responses."

[Morover]

"Alright, I will likely resubmit this within the next few hours - again, unless something significant comes up."

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 8b, the WA Disaster Bureau has to report things to itself?”

[Morover]

“In clause 8b, the WA Disaster Bureau has to report things to itself?”

OOC: Oh dear I really am full of mistakes recently. I may wait another day before submitting, to more thoroughly avoid any mistakes like that. Thanks for catching that lol.

[Kenmoria]

“You use ‘member states’ in your preamble, but ‘member-states’ in your active clauses. I recommend sticking to one of them rather than using both.”

[Araraukar]

Aware that non-member nations outnumber World Assembly member nations by about 6-1, and the gap will only increase as time goes on.

OOC: Just a minor nitpick, but that assumption is based entirely on OOC gameside facts, so I'd really like to see some IC reasoning added, or at the very least changing "only" to "likely".