[DEFEATED] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

[Old Hope]

Again, I cannot see how this would be enforced. You are essentially trying to deter people from a deterrent (mutually assured destruction is itself a deterrent). In addition, how will you address that a nation that is willing to risk mutually assured destruction likely has exhausted all other options and is desperate enough to not be concerned with what happens afterwards (again they are risking mutually assured destruction, they are full well expecting not to have any survivors and are just hoping to take their enemies down with them). If a nation had the aid of the international community, said nation would presumably not be willing to risk mutually assured destruction so is this going to force nations to aid a nation that is at risk of turning to mutually assured destruction as a last resort? would this not lead to other complications (the opposing nation may become the nation willing to turn to mutually assured destruction, or nations end up having to ally with said nation then distance themselves in a cycle like a yoyo).

Moreover you have yourself pointed out why this resolution would have no teeth, by stating that non-member nations would have as much to fear you are saying that this resolution would not be a further determent but merely pointless legislation. Trust me I usually do not like the 'Hur-Dur this isn't enforceable' argument but on this topic, any attempt to enforce a ban seems redundant at best and mostly pointless.

... redundant at best and harmful at worst, as it may be the tipping point for some not so sane government to make a nuclear attack against WA member states under nuclear protection in the false hope of non-retalitation.

[Kenmoria]

“I’m not very comfortable with clause 6. Although the intent, to prevent retaliation leading to more retaliation until a nuclear catastrophe occurs, is clear, I feel this does rather prevent self-defence if the international community are unwilling or unable to help. I suggest maybe requiring the involvement of the international community at the same time as a response to the firing of WMDs, or at least allowing WMDs if the international community is openly hostile to the nation in question, and made of mostly non-member states.”

While I do agree with you, I, quite frankly, have no idea how to implement this in a succinct and efficient way. Any suggestions would be more than welcome, but the only legitimate way I can think of doing this without completely disregarding the rest of the proposal is to add a clause that allows nations to disregard this towards non-member-states, which I simply cannot see as possible, as it would essentially make this resolution useless in its goals.

(OOC: This is one of those annoying issues where non-members complicate things hugely, so a policy of noninterference on the part of the WA is easiest. You could maybe require multiple conditions for this proposal not to apply, for example: must be a non-member; must have used nuclear weapons previously; must harbour a strong negative relationship with the target nation; and must not be destructible with only conventional weapons. However, any way will seem clumsy due to the complexity of the issue.)

[Wrapper]

OOC: non-member nations only outnumber member nations by about 6-1.

[Araraukar]

OOC: non-member nations only outnumber member nations by about 6-1.

OOC: In other words, tight this very minute, WA nations comprise 14.04% of all nations.

[Morover]

This proposal is illegal insofar as it regulates the use of nuclear weapons when attacked. Moreover, sections having to do with chemical weapons duplicate the Chemical Weapons Convention (or a similarly named resolution by UFoC).

I believed this to be legal as it further specifies regulations (which I must have misunderstood in the Rules section of this forum as legal), but I will change that immediately.

While I do agree with you, I, quite frankly, have no idea how to implement this in a succinct and efficient way. Any suggestions would be more than welcome, but the only legitimate way I can think of doing this without completely disregarding the rest of the proposal is to add a clause that allows nations to disregard this towards non-member-states, which I simply cannot see as possible, as it would essentially make this resolution useless in its goals.

(OOC: This is one of those annoying issues where non-members complicate things hugely, so a policy of noninterference on the part of the WA is easiest. You could maybe require multiple conditions for this proposal not to apply, for example: must be a non-member; must have used nuclear weapons previously; must harbour a strong negative relationship with the target nation; and must not be destructible with only conventional weapons. However, any way will seem clumsy due to the complexity of the issue.)

I must agree with you, but I will be making changes to hopefully remedy this.

OOC: non-member nations only outnumber member nations by about 6-1.

Oh my, is it? I did some tests (sorting by WA Endorsements), and the WA Members came in around page 1700 / around 17000, so I assumed it would be 10-1. If there's a better way to do this, please let me know, and I will change it immediately.

As for all other responses, I believe you will find that the latest edit will alleviate most of your concerns.

The World Assembly,

Aware that non-member nations outnumber World Assembly member nations by about 10-1, and the gap will only increase as time goes on.

Believing that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member nations, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member states.

Acknowledging the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (such as GAR#10, GAR#242, GAR#272, and GAR#418).

Further Acknowledging that member states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member states, and many seek solace through Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Concerned that, despite prior regulations to these Weapons of Mass Destruction, that many nations may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

Believing that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

Hereby,

1. Defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. Urges the international community to intervene in the case of MAD.
   
   
4. Encourages members of the World Assembly to avoid retaliation in the form of WMDs in both offensive and defensive wars.
   
   
5. Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, that member-states use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation.
   
   
6. Grants the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency permission to coordinate international cooperation to prevent the threat of MAD.

I do believe that this does not fall under the "Optionality" rule, but I understand it's kinda on the border. If a GenSec/Mod could clarify this for me, that would be nice.

[Wrapper]

The World main page states that “The world contains 173,389 nations”.

The WA main page states that “The World Assembly has 24,357 member nations”. That’s a ratio of (173389 - 24357) : 24357 , or a ratio of 6.1 to 1. That number has actually been pretty steady; it was about 6:1 when I wrote this resolution.

In your method, you undercounted the number of WA nations, because not all WA nations have endorsements.

[Kenmoria]

I do believe that this does not fall under the "Optionality" rule, but I understand it's kinda on the border. If a GenSec/Mod could clarify this for me, that would be nice.

(OOC: I’m not a member of Gensec, but I can’t see a way that it could be illegal under optionality due to the existence of clause 4, as precedent dictates that having one encouraging clause is perfectly legal. On the other hand, I’m not seeing this falling under Interntional Security, which must ‘boost police and military budgets’.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

How does the resolution interact with the affirmation in section 1 of this resolution? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=33193443&hilit=Safeguarding+nuclear#p33193443

[Morover]

How does the resolution interact with the affirmation in section 1 of this resolution? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=33193443&hilit=Safeguarding+nuclear#p33193443

OOC: On phone, so sorry for the rough formatting/reply.

It should be relatively unclashing, because, though that section of GAR#418 allows the use of nuclear weapons in the event of hostile situations, this merely discourages the use On directly civilian populations.

[Kenmoria]

“I’m unsure of what exactly clause 6 is supposed to achieve. What sort of international efforts are you imagining to be entailed? Perhaps some more detail, possibly with some subclasses, could be better there.”

[Morover]

“I’m unsure of what exactly clause 6 is supposed to achieve. What sort of international efforts are you imagining to be entailed? Perhaps some more detail, possibly with some subclasses, could be better there.”

"Thank you for your feedback. We have edited the draft to include three subclauses to clause six. We encourage the General Assembly to go over it, to ensure any unintentional consequences have not arisen from these changes."

[Morover]

bump.

"I must admit, I am curious if anyone else has found any illegalities or glaring issues with this proposal. I am interested in submitting the proposal soon, though I'm aware that the drastic changes I made may make some hesitant, as well as the subject matter. I believe that the proposal is completely legal at this point, though one may correct me, if I'm wrong."

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t know what is happening with the subclauses of six, but they don’t look right.”

(OOC: Have you used [list] code correctly?)

[Arasi Luvasa]

It's because he is using the tab code.

I tried to get the tab code to work, unfortunately it doesn't seem like it will. Instead you should use the list code.

Code: Select all

The World Assembly,

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

[b]Believing[/b] that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member nations, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member states.

[b]Acknowledging[/b] the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (such as GAR#10, GAR#242, GAR#272, and GAR#418).

[b]Further Acknowledging[/b] that member states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member states, and many seek solace through Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[b]Concerned[/b] that, despite prior regulations to these Weapons of Mass Destruction, that many nations may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

[b]Believing[/b] that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

[i]Hereby,[/i]

[list=1]
[*][b]Defines[/b] a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.


[*][b]Further Defines[/b] 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.


[*][b]Urges[/b] the international community to intervene in the case of MAD.


[*][b]Encourages[/b] members of the World Assembly to avoid retaliation in the form of WMDs in both offensive and defensive wars.


[*][b]Allows[/b] that, should reasonable threat be shown, that member-states use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation.


[*][b]Grants[/b] the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency permission to coordinate international cooperation to prevent the threat of MAD.
[list=a][*] Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may directly call for hostile action in a nation whose hostile actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
[*] Further Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may impose economic sanctions upon nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
[*] Encourages the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency to engage in diplomatic communications with nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.[/list][/list]

for

The World Assembly,

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

Believing that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member nations, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member states.

Acknowledging the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (such as GAR#10, GAR#242, GAR#272, and GAR#418).

Further Acknowledging that member states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member states, and many seek solace through Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Concerned that, despite prior regulations to these Weapons of Mass Destruction, that many nations may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

Believing that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

Hereby,

1. Defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. Urges the international community to intervene in the case of MAD.
   
   
4. Encourages members of the World Assembly to avoid retaliation in the form of WMDs in both offensive and defensive wars.
   
   
5. Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, that member-states use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation.
   
   
6. Grants the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency permission to coordinate international cooperation to prevent the threat of MAD.
   
   1. Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may directly call for hostile action in a nation whose hostile actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
   2. Further Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may impose economic sanctions upon nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
   3. Encourages the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency to engage in diplomatic communications with nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.

[Morover]

“I don’t know what is happening with the subclauses of six, but they don’t look right.”

(OOC: Have you used

code correctly?)

Arasi Luvasa got it right.

It's because he is using the tab code.

I tried to get the tab code to work, unfortunately it doesn't seem like it will. Instead you should use the list code.

Code: Select all

The World Assembly,

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

[b]Believing[/b] that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member nations, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member states.

[b]Acknowledging[/b] the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (such as GAR#10, GAR#242, GAR#272, and GAR#418).

[b]Further Acknowledging[/b] that member states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member states, and many seek solace through Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[b]Concerned[/b] that, despite prior regulations to these Weapons of Mass Destruction, that many nations may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

[b]Believing[/b] that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

[i]Hereby,[/i]

[list=1]
[*][b]Defines[/b] a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.


[*][b]Further Defines[/b] 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.


[*][b]Urges[/b] the international community to intervene in the case of MAD.


[*][b]Encourages[/b] members of the World Assembly to avoid retaliation in the form of WMDs in both offensive and defensive wars.


[*][b]Allows[/b] that, should reasonable threat be shown, that member-states use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation.


[*][b]Grants[/b] the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency permission to coordinate international cooperation to prevent the threat of MAD.
[list=a][*] Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may directly call for hostile action in a nation whose hostile actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
[*] Further Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may impose economic sanctions upon nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
[*] Encourages the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency to engage in diplomatic communications with nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.[/list][/list]

for

The World Assembly,

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

Believing that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member nations, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member states.

Acknowledging the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (such as GAR#10, GAR#242, GAR#272, and GAR#418).

Further Acknowledging that member states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member states, and many seek solace through Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Concerned that, despite prior regulations to these Weapons of Mass Destruction, that many nations may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

Believing that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

Hereby,

1. Defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.
   
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. Urges the international community to intervene in the case of MAD.
   
   
4. Encourages members of the World Assembly to avoid retaliation in the form of WMDs in both offensive and defensive wars.
   
   
5. Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, that member-states use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation.
   
   
6. Grants the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency permission to coordinate international cooperation to prevent the threat of MAD.
   
   1. Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may directly call for hostile action in a nation whose hostile actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
   2. Further Specifies that the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency may impose economic sanctions upon nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
   3. Encourages the World Nuclear Regulatory Agency to engage in diplomatic communications with nations whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.

Yeah, that makes more sense. In hindsight, I don’t know why I did it the way I did. I’ll change it once I get home.

[Russia Major]

I've no idea if this is of any use to you, but to more clearly define MAD, it is often said to be the capability of any two nations to extinguish 20-50% of the opposing nation's population.

[Araraukar]

I've no idea if this is of any use to you, but to more clearly define MAD, it is often said to be the capability of any two nations to extinguish 20-50% of the opposing nation's population.

OOC: Out of interest: source?

[Russia Major]

I've no idea if this is of any use to you, but to more clearly define MAD, it is often said to be the capability of any two nations to extinguish 20-50% of the opposing nation's population.

OOC: Out of interest: source?

I'll get back to you once I've found out, it's from a documentary we've been watching in my History class about The Cold War.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Out of interest: source?

I'll get back to you once I've found out, it's from a documentary we've been watching in my History class about The Cold War.

OOC: Asking because Wikipedia defines it as "Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender." With "complete annihilation" being a link to nuclear holocaust, the article of which begins with "A nuclear holocaust, nuclear apocalypse or atomic holocaust is a theoretical scenario involving widespread destruction and radioactive fallout causing the collapse of civilization, through the use of nuclear weapons."

Since 20-50% population dead doesn't sound like it's enough for a complete collapse of civilization (especially the lower number), was wondering if you could give an online source to support your numbers.

[Russia Major]

I'll get back to you once I've found out, it's from a documentary we've been watching in my History class about The Cold War.

OOC: Asking because Wikipedia defines it as "Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender." With "complete annihilation" being a link to nuclear holocaust, the article of which begins with "A nuclear holocaust, nuclear apocalypse or atomic holocaust is a theoretical scenario involving widespread destruction and radioactive fallout causing the collapse of civilization, through the use of nuclear weapons."

Since 20-50% population dead doesn't sound like it's enough for a complete collapse of civilization (especially the lower number), was wondering if you could give an online source to support your numbers.

OOC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsSroYTCsUo
33:44 is where the source begins.

[Morover]

I have changed the name of this resolution from "On Mutually Assured Destruction" due to the recent influx of people against resolutions beginning with the word "On."

Additionally, I am looking to submit this soon.

[Kenmoria]

“‘Protection of Mutually Assured Destruction’ sounds like you are guaranteeing the right to use MAD to member states, rather than restricting it. I suggest something that makes clear this proposal views MAD as a negative in the title instead.”

[Arasi Luvasa]

"So 'Protection Against Mutual Destruction', as our colleague has said you are not protecting the activity as your new title states."

[Cosmosplosion]

"While the Ambassador from Kenmoria correctly has stated you are placing regulation on Mutually Assured Destruction, this proposal still provides a clear and internationally sanctioned path to use this tactic in Article 6a and further allows member nations to use weapons of mass destruction if a "reasonable threat", whatever that is, is shown. All this proposal does is formalize a process that will lead to the destruction of precious environments and natural resources and guarantee that the World Assembly will one day approve a plan that will result in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. Cosmosplosion cannot stand by and see this type of proposal pass. Were it to reach quorum as-is, Cosmosplosion pledges to put its resources into leading a counter-campaign to ensure its failure."

[Morover]

"While the Ambassador from Kenmoria correctly has stated you are placing regulation on Mutually Assured Destruction, this proposal still provides a clear and internationally sanctioned path to use this tactic in Article 6a and further allows member nations to use weapons of mass destruction if a "reasonable threat", whatever that is, is shown. All this proposal does is formalize a process that will lead to the destruction of precious environments and natural resources and guarantee that the World Assembly will one day approve a plan that will result in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. Cosmosplosion cannot stand by and see this type of proposal pass. Were it to reach quorum as-is, Cosmosplosion pledges to put its resources into leading a counter-campaign to ensure its failure."

While I do agree with you on this regard, I believe you will find it impossible to pass all that completely prohibits MAD, as it prevents more wars than it starts.

I believe that this proposal, or some form of it, at the very least, is the best way to ensure safety in the case of MAD. Any further ways to restrict it, without completely prohibiting it, I would be open to change the proposal.