[DRAFT] Repeal "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials"

[Wallenburg]

Going for it again.

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".

[Wallenburg]

--reserved for drafts--

[Marxist Germany]

"Marxist Germany Supports this repeal"

[Kenmoria]

“I support this in principle and in regard to proposed repeal text. Any repeal of 418 will receive the full and unconditional support of this delegation.”

[Wallenburg]

bumping this, will submit soon

[Gebietersland]

"Ambassador, my remark is probably very dumb, but, what model is the clause below referring to?

'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,'

Is it the implied model outlined by the resolution you are aiming to repeal? If so, how would that model "fail to secure peace" by letting "nuclear states... not fear retaliation"; wouldn't the fear of mutual retaliation and subsequent destruction constitute retaliation and create a de facto peace? Wouldn't the ad rem resolution allow WA nation states to readily develop, posses, and obtain nuclear materials to maintain peace via a fear of mutual destruction, and, additionally, prevent the possibility of a one-sided "peace"? Or, does this refer to retaliation by the WA? Or, does it refer to an entirely separate model?

This is not meant to be a critique, simply a request for clarification; I believe that the in question resolution is a flawed one, and needs to be repealed and replaced. You have my full support, nonetheless.

Thank you.

Edit: Also, quick question about this clause

'Also recognizing that international tensions between nuclear states cannot ease through the constant threat of an unprovoked first strike,'

What is the purpose of this clause? In the event of a repeal, non-member nations would be unaffected, and still have the capacity to execute an unprovoked first strike. Similarly, that is the case with this resolution in place. Repealing this resolution would, however, create the vulnerability for member nations to be subject to legislation severely limiting or outlawing nuclear weapon possession. In that case, the threat would be unilateral, which in turn could lead to an "easement in tensions", since member nations would be have no choice but to accept any peace in order to avoid the nuclear destruction of their lands and peoples by non-member states. Is this the easement of tensions you speak of? Or, is this clause aimed at addressing relations between member states only? Again, genuinely not meant to be rude."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

'Also recognizing that international tensions between nuclear states cannot ease through the constant threat of an unprovoked first strike,'

What is the purpose of this clause? In the event of a repeal, non-member nations would be unaffected, and still have the capacity to execute an unprovoked first strike. Similarly, that is the case with this resolution in place. Repealing this resolution would, however, create the vulnerability for member nations to be subject to legislation severely limiting or outlawing nuclear weapon possession. In that case, the threat would be unilateral, which in turn could lead to an "easement in tensions", since member nations would be have no choice but to accept any peace in order to avoid the nuclear destruction of their lands and peoples by non-member states. Is this the easement of tensions you speak of? Or, is this clause aimed at addressing relations between member states only? Again, genuinely not meant to be rude."

"Minor point of order, ambassador: while my government opposes this repeal for basically the reasons you cite, it is not at all likely that the WA will seriously restrict its members from possessing nuclear weapons. That power is guaranteed by GA Resolution #10, abbreviated NAPA, which has withstood every repeal attempt ever thrown at it. Our colleague from Wallenburg is trying to get rid of an entirely different resolution."

[Gebietersland]

'Also recognizing that international tensions between nuclear states cannot ease through the constant threat of an unprovoked first strike,'

What is the purpose of this clause? In the event of a repeal, non-member nations would be unaffected, and still have the capacity to execute an unprovoked first strike. Similarly, that is the case with this resolution in place. Repealing this resolution would, however, create the vulnerability for member nations to be subject to legislation severely limiting or outlawing nuclear weapon possession. In that case, the threat would be unilateral, which in turn could lead to an "easement in tensions", since member nations would be have no choice but to accept any peace in order to avoid the nuclear destruction of their lands and peoples by non-member states. Is this the easement of tensions you speak of? Or, is this clause aimed at addressing relations between member states only? Again, genuinely not meant to be rude."

"Minor point of order, ambassador: while my government opposes this repeal for basically the reasons you cite, it is not at all likely that the WA will seriously restrict its members from possessing nuclear weapons. That power is guaranteed by GA Resolution #10, abbreviated NAPA, which has withstood every repeal attempt ever thrown at it. Our colleague from Wallenburg is trying to get rid of an entirely different resolution."

"Thank you, Ambassador. Once again, my inexperience has let me down. It is good to know that member nations will still retain the capacity to possess nuclear weapons. However, after review of NAPA, I do believe that my point still stands on member nations being subject to limitations on the quantity and types of nuclear weapons they can posses if this repeal were to take place. Such limitations could be detrimental if a member state faces aggression from a powerful, non-member nation with nuclear capabilities, since the non-member nation could be undeterred by the member nation's limited arsenal. Additionally, nations struggling to develop and maintain nuclear weapons capable of deterrence could be left defenseless to a nuclear non-member state's aggression, since their right to trade for nuclear weapons and/or the knowledge/equipment required to produce such weapons is jeopardized by the repeal. Ambassador Wallenburg, are you planning a replacement, and how do you plan on addressing these issues?"

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, my remark is probably very dumb, but, what model is the clause below referring to?

'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,'

"This clause refers to the model described in the clause before it:

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,

Is it the implied model outlined by the resolution you are aiming to repeal? If so, how would that model "fail to secure peace" by letting "nuclear states... not fear retaliation"; wouldn't the fear of mutual retaliation and subsequent destruction constitute retaliation and create a de facto peace? Wouldn't the ad rem resolution allow WA nation states to readily develop, posses, and obtain nuclear materials to maintain peace via a fear of mutual destruction, and, additionally, prevent the possibility of a one-sided "peace"? Or, does this refer to retaliation by the WA? Or, does it refer to an entirely separate model?

This is not meant to be a critique, simply a request for clarification; I believe that the in question resolution is a flawed one, and needs to be repealed and replaced. You have my full support, nonetheless.

Thank you.

"The deregulation the target resolution enforces fails to secure peace because a diplomatic model relying on mutual fear of nuclear annihilation is inherently unstable and depends on a narrow set of conditions. It does not work if extremists or unstable individuals have the power to use nuclear weapons and do not fear retaliation. It does not work if only one nation or alliance of nations has nuclear weapons and its rivals do not. It does not work if governments are prone to false indications of a nuclear strike, especially if such false positives happen often. It does not work if nuclear states use client powers to wage war, even if they do not attack one another directly. It does not necessarily work at all, as any number of other factors might be responsible for international peace while nations adhere to this idea of mutually assured destruction."

"Thank you, Ambassador. Once again, my inexperience has let me down. It is good to know that member nations will still retain the capacity to possess nuclear weapons. However, after review of NAPA, I do believe that my point still stands on member nations being subject to limitations on the quantity and types of nuclear weapons they can posses if this repeal were to take place.

"This is not the case, either. The target resolution says nothing of the 'types' of nuclear weapons member states may possess, nor does it defend a right to possess unlimited numbers of nuclear weapons. At most, it guarantees the right to manufacture nuclear weapons, a right which I will not look to restrict.

Such limitations could be detrimental if a member state faces aggression from a powerful, non-member nation with nuclear capabilities, since the non-member nation could be undeterred by the member nation's limited arsenal.

"If even a nuclear power faces destruction by a more powerful nuclear power, then nuclear weapons are really just more powerful conventional weapons when put to use. I guess that just demonstrates how ineffective the target resolution is.

Additionally, nations struggling to develop and maintain nuclear weapons capable of deterrence could be left defenseless to a nuclear non-member state's aggression, since their right to trade for nuclear weapons and/or the knowledge/equipment required to produce such weapons is jeopardized by the repeal.

"Similarly, I will not be restricting this right, even though I probably should, and would if it had a chance of passing at Vote.

Ambassador Wallenburg, are you planning a replacement, and how do you plan on addressing these issues?"

"I am Representative Ogenbond. Wallenburg is the nation I represent. I trust that the Anglican delegation will be on top of a replacement yet again, so I trust them to address that issue for you. I, on the other hand, am repealing this in order to regulate first strike policies within the World Assembly."

[Gebietersland]

"Thank you Ambassador Ogenbond for the clarifications; they were very useful.

Some brief responses to your statements:

The deregulation the target resolution enforces fails to secure peace because a diplomatic model relying on mutual fear of nuclear annihilation is inherently unstable and depends on a narrow set of conditions... It does not necessarily work at all, as any number of other factors might be responsible for international peace while nations adhere to this idea of mutually assured destruction.

I agree with the notion that it's unstable, but given that the vast majority of nation states are not part of the WA, and, therefore, not subject to regulation, what other options are there? Yes, a mutual fear of nuclear annihilation is inherently unstable, but it offers some sort of deterrence. I can think of no plausible preventive measures to protect a member nation with no capacity of developing nuclear weapons from a nuclear non-member nation. Deregulation of nuclear trade would, at least in part, make it easier for non-nuclear member states to nuclearize, since they would have access to an open market of nuclear weapons and technologies, and not have to solely rely on their own capacity to develop and manufacture such weapons. Ensuring the right to manufacture such weapons would provide an irrevocable source of nuclear deterrent.

The part on "other factors" is too general; yes, there are several factors contributing to international peace as a whole. However, this resolution and many others on the matter are essentially created to address the specific situation when an unregulated and nuclear non-member state threatens or demands something from a non-nuclear WA member nation. In such a situation, the nuclear state would have all of the leverage. If a nation has the leverage of nuclear weapons, what other factor would ensure the maintenance of international peace and prevent that nation from pursuing its objectives against non-nuclear states? That is why NAPA and this resolution are necessary; NAPA protects the right of member states to possess nuclear weapons, and this resolution makes sure that states will always have a method to obtain nuclear weapons, via manufacturing or trade; therefore, they encode a way for WA member states to obtain and maintain nuclear leverage, the only factor so far brought forth which can deter extortion and subjugation by non-member states.

It does not work if extremists or unstable individuals have the power to use nuclear weapons and do not fear retaliation.

Agreed; the target resolution even exacerbates this by allowing unhindered trade of nuclear weapons with states run by such individuals.

It does not work if only one nation or alliance of nations has nuclear weapons and its rivals do not.

However, in this case, open trading of nuclear weapons, components, etc., as established by the in question resolution, would facilitate arming the rivals in order to achieve some (inherently unstable) form of deterrence.

It does not work if governments are prone to false indications of a nuclear strike, especially if such false positives happen often.

True, but wouldn't the open trading of nuclear technologies allow for nations to improve their systems of nuclear detection more easily? False indications will be present in a world with or without the in question resolution; however, with this resolution, open trading of nuclear technologies can allow nations to better maintain their nuclear detection systems.

It does not work if nuclear states use client powers to wage war, even if they do not attack one another directly.

True, but the resolution under repeal doesn't necessarily affect such a scenario; with or without this resolution, nuclear states can still use client states to the same extent.

This is not the case, either. The target resolution says nothing of the 'types' of nuclear weapons member states may possess, nor does it defend a right to possess unlimited numbers of nuclear weapons. At most, it guarantees the right to manufacture nuclear weapons, a right which I will not look to restrict.]

I misread the resolution, you are fully accurate here.

If even a nuclear power faces destruction by a more powerful nuclear power, then nuclear weapons are really just more powerful conventional weapons when put to use. I guess that just demonstrates how ineffective the target resolution is.

Yes, however an open system of nuclear trading and transfer greatly adds to a nation's capacity to improve its nuclear arsenal in an attempt to balance the scale of power, since it does not have to solely rely on its own capacity to produce and develop such weapons.

I am Representative Ogenbond. Wallenburg is the nation I represent. I trust that the Anglican delegation will be on top of a replacement yet again, so I trust them to address that issue for you. I, on the other hand, am repealing this in order to regulate first strike policies within the World Assembly.

Apologies for the misnomer. In short, our delegation is for the repeal of this resolution due to the many shortcomings which you pointed out, the prestigious Anglican delegation's expected replacement attempts (which should be more refined), and our desire to see proposed legislation on the regulation of first strike policies. A replacement would be unnecessary if your delegation could offer an alternative deterrent non-nuclear member states can utilize to hinder the aggression of, and prevent extortion from, nuclear non-member states. Best of luck."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Thank you, Ambassador. Once again, my inexperience has let me down."

"Don't let it get you down, ambassador. We all had that learning curve."

[Wallenburg]

Putting this back on the table. Input is much appreciated.

[Maowi]

"Ambassador, given that this repeal attempt is based on the target blocking any World Assembly regulation on the trade of nuclear weapons, does the Wallenburgian delegation have any plans for a new proposal putting such regulations in place, should the repeal pass?"

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, given that this repeal attempt is based on the target blocking any World Assembly regulation on the trade of nuclear weapons, does the Wallenburgian delegation have any plans for a new proposal putting such regulations in place, should the repeal pass?"

"We will consider support for regulating the trade of such weapons to states likely to use them for the purpose of terrorism and equivalent acts of war, or likely lose stability in such a manner where malicious actors may obtain such weapons. As it stands, though, the target resolution sets no limitations whatsoever, so it doesn't require the same immediacy as a replacement effort."

[Wallenburg]

I'll bump this one more time, since the forum has been so active lately. If I see no need to make changes, I'll submit this in the next 48 hours.

[Tinhampton]

Opposed. GA#418 is my god of choice and I will fight to the death to ensure that her likeness is not battered, bruised, toppled from the Pedestal of Resolutiony Things and replaced by something vaguely similar!

NUKE MANUFACTURING MUST BE PROTECTED