[DRAFT] Limit on Nuclear Arsenals

[Tvars]

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the right of a nation to possess and maintain an arsenal of nuclear weapons for the purposes of defense;

However,

ALARMED at the rapid escalations of tensions between nations possessing nuclear weapons;

CONCERNED that the proliferation of nuclear weapons begets increased possibilities of a nuclear conflict;

UNDERSTANDING the potential for great loss of human life and potential world destruction possible through the use of nuclear weapons;

DEFINES nuclear weapons as any explosive device deriving its power from nuclear reactions that is used for military purposes;

Hereby:

PROHIBITS WA member nations from possessing a nuclear arsenal greater than 2,000 nuclear warheads;

PROHIBITS the total yield of the nuclear arsenals of any given WA member nation from exceeding 3,000 megatons;

URGES WA member nations to halt or slow the proliferation of nuclear weapons;

ENCOURAGES cooperation between member nations in the safe removal of nuclear weapons from nations that currently exceed the aforementioned limit

.

Category: Global Disarmament, Strength: Strong

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the right of a nation to possess and maintain an arsenal of nuclear weapons for the purposes of defense;

However,

ALARMED at the rapid escalations of tensions between nations possessing nuclear weapons;

CONCERNED that the proliferation of nuclear weapons begets increased possibilities of a nuclear conflict;

UNDERSTANDING the potential for great loss of human life and potential world destruction possible through the use of nuclear weapons;

DEFINES nuclear weapons as any explosive device deriving its power from nuclear reactions that is used for military purposes;

Hereby:

PROHIBITS the total yield of the nuclear arsenals of any given WA member nation from exceeding the threshold required to make one quarter of the area on the celestial body on which the aforementioned nation resides uninhabitable;

URGES WA member nations to halt or slow the proliferation of nuclear weapons;

ENCOURAGES cooperation between member nations in the safe and non-destructive removal of nuclear weapons from nations that currently exceed the aforementioned limit.

(First draft is in the spoiler part)

[Aprenencia]

Sorry, there is already a resolution on this topic, it's GA resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

[Tvars]

Sorry, there is already a resolution on this topic, it's GA resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

GA resolution states:

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

This resolution doesn't prevent the possession of nuclear weapons. It simply introduces additional restrictions.

[Aprenencia]

Sorry, there is already a resolution on this topic, it's GA resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

GA resolution states:

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

This resolution doesn't prevent the possession of nuclear weapons. It simply introduces additional restrictions.

I see what you mean now, my advice would be to make sure this proposal doesn't contradict the resolution.

[Kenmoria]

“First of all, what is the intended category and strength of this proposal? Secondly, what reasons do you have for the specific numerical limits in the proposal? Ideally, these should be based on a specific threshold rather than arbitrary numbers. In this case, it is recommended to use the reasons themselves rather than numbers in the proposal.”

[Araraukar]

ENCOURAGES cooperation between member nations in the safe removal of nuclear weapons from nations that currently exceed the aforementioned limit.

OOC: In addition to what Kenmoria said, I'm sure whatever nation you want to get rid of some of their nukes, will happily send them to you on ICBMs, with the warheads armed. Or drop them from orbit, depending on the tech level of the nation. That tends to be the usual answer, just so you know. Araraukar doesn't have any, nor does the alternative Earth it exists on. Araraukar doesn't even have a military.

[Tvars]

ENCOURAGES cooperation between member nations in the safe removal of nuclear weapons from nations that currently exceed the aforementioned limit.

OOC: In addition to what Kenmoria said, I'm sure whatever nation you want to get rid of some of their nukes, will happily send them to you on ICBMs, with the warheads armed. Or drop them from orbit, depending on the tech level of the nation. That tends to be the usual answer, just so you know. Araraukar doesn't have any, nor does the alternative Earth it exists on. Araraukar doesn't even have a military.

I'll be sure to specify the safe and non destructive removal then.

[Tvars]

“First of all, what is the intended category and strength of this proposal? Secondly, what reasons do you have for the specific numerical limits in the proposal? Ideally, these should be based on a specific threshold rather than arbitrary numbers. In this case, it is recommended to use the reasons themselves rather than numbers in the proposal.”

The intended category would be global disarmament and the strength would probably be strong. I chose the number based on real life factors. 2,000 is just over the current deployed nuclear weapons by the US and Russia each. 3000 MT is just over what the combined yield of an arsenal of 2,000 B83 nuclear bombs would produce (which is the most powerful bomb currently deployed).

[The united American-Isreali empire]

i say deney any limations. the uaie supports arms for all states.

[Kenmoria]

“First of all, what is the intended category and strength of this proposal? Secondly, what reasons do you have for the specific numerical limits in the proposal? Ideally, these should be based on a specific threshold rather than arbitrary numbers. In this case, it is recommended to use the reasons themselves rather than numbers in the proposal.”

The intended category would be global disarmament and the strength would probably be strong. I chose the number based on real life factors. 2,000 is just over the current deployed nuclear weapons by the US and Russia each. 3000 MT is just over what the combined yield of an arsenal of 2,000 B83 nuclear bombs would produce (which is the most powerful bomb currently deployed).

(OOC: Both the category and strength are correct, and should be placed on the draft itself at the top. Real life factors are generally a poor metric for the World Assembly, since many of its members are completely different from any actually-existing nation. I suggest finding some other standard, based on how much harm the nuclear weapons can inflict or something else of similar abstraction.)

[Tvars]

The intended category would be global disarmament and the strength would probably be strong. I chose the number based on real life factors. 2,000 is just over the current deployed nuclear weapons by the US and Russia each. 3000 MT is just over what the combined yield of an arsenal of 2,000 B83 nuclear bombs would produce (which is the most powerful bomb currently deployed).

(OOC: Both the category and strength are correct, and should be placed on the draft itself at the top. Real life factors are generally a poor metric for the World Assembly, since many of its members are completely different from any actually-existing nation. I suggest finding some other standard, based on how much harm the nuclear weapons can inflict or something else of similar abstraction.)

Ah okay. Should I try and make the guidelines more vague and abstract? What sort of metrics are there that apply in this context?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Both the category and strength are correct, and should be placed on the draft itself at the top. Real life factors are generally a poor metric for the World Assembly, since many of its members are completely different from any actually-existing nation. I suggest finding some other standard, based on how much harm the nuclear weapons can inflict or something else of similar abstraction.)

Ah okay. Should I try and make the guidelines more vague and abstract? What sort of metrics are there that apply in this context?

(OOC: To be entirely honest, I’m not completely sure what exactly should be used; if I do come up with any ideas in a few a days, I’ll tell you. Generally speaking, the metric should be one that makes sense in any given location in the world, or other earth-like planets.

It would be along the same lines as ‘may not possess any more nuclear weapons than would be necessary to completely destroy all life within a city-wide radius’. Although that definition is both far too limiting and incredibly vague as to what constitutes a ‘city-wide radius’, it does demonstrate the type of restrictions that should be aimed for.)

[Tvars]

Ah okay. Should I try and make the guidelines more vague and abstract? What sort of metrics are there that apply in this context?

(OOC: To be entirely honest, I’m not completely sure what exactly should be used; if I do come up with any ideas in a few a days, I’ll tell you. Generally speaking, the metric should be one that makes sense in any given location in the world, or other earth-like planets.

It would be along the same lines as ‘may not possess any more nuclear weapons than would be necessary to completely destroy all life within a city-wide radius’. Although that definition is both far too limiting and incredibly vague as to what constitutes a ‘city-wide radius’, it does demonstrate the type of restrictions that should be aimed for.)

Alrighty, thanks. I'll do a bit of brainstorming myself then.

[The New California Republic]

PROHIBITS WA member nations from possessing a nuclear arsenal greater than 2,000 nuclear warheads;

PROHIBITS the total yield of the nuclear arsenals of any given WA member nation from exceeding 3,000 megatons;

Where are you pulling these numbers from? They seem purely arbitrary with no real justification for them.

And imposing limits on the arsenals of WA nations is never going to go down well, as since non-WA nations can have as many as they like irrespective of what we WA nations do, it will put us WA nations at a profound strategic disadvantage having our arsenals hobbled.

[The New Sicilian State]

"I'll stray from the thrice aforementioned point that arbitrary numbers are arbitrary. Your 'URGES' clause doesn't actually mandate anything, it just urges member states to slow down a terribly quick pattern of production. I understand that a simple limit on megatonnage and warhead quantity would be imposed, but would it not be simple for these member states to lease their nuclear weapons to other allies? Surely one could develop a network of weaponized allies without violating the resolution, and one could do so quickly considering the reduction of production speed isn't mandatory."

[Tvars]

"I'll stray from the thrice aforementioned point that arbitrary numbers are arbitrary. Your 'URGES' clause doesn't actually mandate anything, it just urges member states to slow down a terribly quick pattern of production. I understand that a simple limit on megatonnage and warhead quantity would be imposed, but would it not be simple for these member states to lease their nuclear weapons to other allies? Surely one could develop a network of weaponized allies without violating the resolution, and one could do so quickly considering the reduction of production speed isn't mandatory."

"I thank you for refraining to mention the rather arbitrary values previously given. The guidelines are currently being tweaked in order to have a more reasonably transparent and scientific purpose. You bring up a very good point in regards to nuclear production, and I wholeheartedly agree. However, I feel that further restricting nuclear weapons and their production would lead to even more pushback than is already expected for the resolution. I unfortunately feel that it is necessary to have some sort of compromise here in order to make any progress."

[Tvars]

Ah okay. Should I try and make the guidelines more vague and abstract? What sort of metrics are there that apply in this context?

(OOC: To be entirely honest, I’m not completely sure what exactly should be used; if I do come up with any ideas in a few a days, I’ll tell you. Generally speaking, the metric should be one that makes sense in any given location in the world, or other earth-like planets.

It would be along the same lines as ‘may not possess any more nuclear weapons than would be necessary to completely destroy all life within a city-wide radius’. Although that definition is both far too limiting and incredibly vague as to what constitutes a ‘city-wide radius’, it does demonstrate the type of restrictions that should be aimed for.)

(OOC: I'll start doing ooc now. I wasn't doing it before since I was new and didn't know stuff. I was thinking possibly prohibiting the combined yield of the nuclear arsenal from the threshold required to render the world uninhabitable. I still feel that that's relatively vague and perhaps still too limiting. What are your thoughts on this?)

[Slackertown]

If every nation has 2000 nuclear missiles then this accomplishes absolutely nothing.

In addition it could encourage use of the weapons in a roundabout way. If I need to replace 100 missiles to stay under my quota, why not use them?

[Separatist Peoples]

If every nation has 2000 nuclear missiles then this accomplishes absolutely nothing.

In addition it could encourage use of the weapons in a roundabout way. If I need to replace 100 missiles to stay under my quota, why not use them?

"Probably because the cost of using those 100 nuclear weapons exceeds the cost of disassembling them."

[Thermodolia]

Against in full. If the author so wishes for Thermodolia to have less nukes then they’ll receive all 40,000 of them, armed of course

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: To be entirely honest, I’m not completely sure what exactly should be used; if I do come up with any ideas in a few a days, I’ll tell you. Generally speaking, the metric should be one that makes sense in any given location in the world, or other earth-like planets.

It would be along the same lines as ‘may not possess any more nuclear weapons than would be necessary to completely destroy all life within a city-wide radius’. Although that definition is both far too limiting and incredibly vague as to what constitutes a ‘city-wide radius’, it does demonstrate the type of restrictions that should be aimed for.)

(OOC: I'll start doing ooc now. I wasn't doing it before since I was new and didn't know stuff. I was thinking possibly prohibiting the combined yield of the nuclear arsenal from the threshold required to render the world uninhabitable. I still feel that that's relatively vague and perhaps still too limiting. What are your thoughts on this?)

(OOC: Marking with OOC doesn’t really matter too much; some posters that don’t do so have OOC as default. I do so as a personal preference.

That is a good start. In a clause format it could look similar to ‘Prohibits WA member states from having a number of nuclear weapons that has ability to kill the majority of sapient life on the planet or body on which the member nation is located.’

I should also point out here that you will receive a lot of opposition on this matter, since non-WA members will not have to abide by this restriction. I don’t think this will immediately scuttle the proposal, but is something to bear in mind.)

[Tvars]

(OOC: I'll start doing ooc now. I wasn't doing it before since I was new and didn't know stuff. I was thinking possibly prohibiting the combined yield of the nuclear arsenal from the threshold required to render the world uninhabitable. I still feel that that's relatively vague and perhaps still too limiting. What are your thoughts on this?)

(OOC: Marking with OOC doesn’t really matter too much; some posters that don’t do so have OOC as default. I do so as a personal preference.

That is a good start. In a clause format it could look similar to ‘Prohibits WA member states from having a number of nuclear weapons that has ability to kill the majority of sapient life on the planet or body on which the member nation is located.’

I should also point out here that you will receive a lot of opposition on this matter, since non-WA members will not have to abide by this restriction. I don’t think this will immediately scuttle the proposal, but is something to bear in mind.)

(OOC: Alrighty. I expect opposition. I was told to expect it from the outset so I'm not that surprised. How about this then: PROHIBITS the combined yield of the nuclear arsenal of any given WA member nation from exceeding the threshold required to render half of the celestial body on which the nation is located uninhabitable. I want to stay away from population based metrics since population density is too big a variable here.)

[Tvars]

(OOC: I'll start doing ooc now. I wasn't doing it before since I was new and didn't know stuff. I was thinking possibly prohibiting the combined yield of the nuclear arsenal from the threshold required to render the world uninhabitable. I still feel that that's relatively vague and perhaps still too limiting. What are your thoughts on this?)

(OOC: Marking with OOC doesn’t really matter too much; some posters that don’t do so have OOC as default. I do so as a personal preference.

That is a good start. In a clause format it could look similar to ‘Prohibits WA member states from having a number of nuclear weapons that has ability to kill the majority of sapient life on the planet or body on which the member nation is located.’


I should also point out here that you will receive a lot of opposition on this matter, since non-WA members will not have to abide by this restriction. I don’t think this will immediately scuttle the proposal, but is something to bear in mind.)

Perhaps even reduce that to a quarter of the total area.

[The New California Republic]

How about this then: PROHIBITS the combined yield of the nuclear arsenal of any given WA member nation from exceeding the threshold required to render half of the celestial body on which the nation is located uninhabitable. I want to stay away from population based metrics since population density is too big a variable here.

I think this is the wrong route to go down, as "uninhabitable" is purely dependent on the level of tech that someone is willing to throw at a planet to make it inhabitable. For example, even the Moon is not uninhabitable if you threw enough tech into making sealed geodesic domes to live in.

Similarly, a planet that is a nuclear wasteland is not uninhabitable if one lived in mine shafts etc.

[Tvars]

How about this then: PROHIBITS the combined yield of the nuclear arsenal of any given WA member nation from exceeding the threshold required to render half of the celestial body on which the nation is located uninhabitable. I want to stay away from population based metrics since population density is too big a variable here.

I think this is the wrong route to go down, as "uninhabitable" is purely dependent on the level of tech that someone is willing to throw at a planet to make it inhabitable. For example, even the Moon is not uninhabitable if you threw enough tech into making sealed geodesic domes to live in.

Similarly, a planet that is a nuclear wasteland is not uninhabitable if one lived in mine shafts etc.

True. Perhaps irradiate to a conventionally unlivable degree? Or maybe to enough to kill all natural life within a given area of the planet?