NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Preventing Unprovoked Use of WMDs

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

[SUBMITTED] Preventing Unprovoked Use of WMDs

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:40 pm

Preventing Unprovoked Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant


The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of weapons of mass destruction to attack other nations can lead to high levels of death and destruction in those nations,

Noting that many often unsavory nations have proven complicit in using such weapons arbitrarily, and

Realizing that conflict escalation could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, within the restrictions of previously passed and still extant resolutions, hereby:

  1. Defines "weapons of mass destruction" as weapons that cause massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life on a scale depending on nations affected by the use of the weapon;
  2. Clarifies that weapons of mass destruction must cause the necessary damage and/or death to bring this resolution into effect in a single use, a single use being a single strike or series of strikes using WMDs in a localized area; and
  3. Declares that no member state may use weapons of mass destruction against another member state, without evidence that the other member has recently used (or intends to use in the near future) such weapons against that nation or an allied nation.

Preventing Unprovoked Use of Nuclear Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant


The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of nuclear weapons can cause extreme amounts of destruction.

Noting that many often unsavory nations permit themselves to use such weapons unprovoked.

Realizing that many wars could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, hereby:

  • Defines:
    • A nuclear weapon as any object that uses nuclear fusion or fission in a way that allows it to cause mass destruction through purposeful use.
    • An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of nuclear weapons against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use in the near future or had recently used nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against that nation or an allied nation.
  • Mandates:
    • That no member state shall, unprovoked, use nuclear weapons against another member state.
    • That a World Assembly Nuclear Investigation Committee, or WANIC, be formed to investigate uses of nuclear weapons by member states that have a significant possibility of violating this act.
Last edited by The New Cordian Empire on Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:33 am, edited 35 times in total.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7195
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:44 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
Preventing Unprovoked Use of Nuclear Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant


The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of nuclear weapons can cause extreme amounts of destruction.

Noting that many often unsavory nations permit themselves to use such weapons unprovoked.

Realizing that many wars could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, hereby:
  1. Defines:
    1. A nuclear weapon as any object that uses nuclear fusion or fission in a way that allows it to cause mass destruction.
    2. An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of nuclear weapons against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use nuclear weapons against your nation or an allied nation.

Full support as it stands. Will switch to opposition once you actually include the clause that bans the unprovoked use of n00ks :P

(OOC: Given Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima... how can a nuclear power plant not be classed as a nuclear weapon? Would this require member states to build their own nuclear power plants without assistance from non-allied countries?)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador ~ Achievements
3 SC Resolutions + 0 co-authored:
A: SC#250, Repeal "Liberate Femdom Empire" (87%)
A: SC#251, Commend Alasdair I Frosticus (91%)
A: SC#267, Repeal "Liberate The East Pacific" (90%)

1 GA Resolution + 1 co-authored:
A: GA#484, Disease Naming Compact (54%)
C: GA#491, Rights of the employed (54%)

1 Issue:
C: #1115, One in the Arm for @@LEADER@@?

Cup of Harmony 73 CHAMPIONS

User avatar
Picairn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 913
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Picairn » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:57 pm

Where is the Mandating clause?
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Pauline M. Warburton (Staff)
Long live the Emperor!
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Ayn Rand is a war criminal

Vivian James wrote:It is sophistry to try to redefine your opponent's arguments. It might feel good...

But so can jerking off in a subway.

The Emerald Legion wrote:Nobody generates wealth. Wealth exists. You simply shift it around, or sometimes discover more.

Atheris wrote:Blaming religion for Trump is like blaming science for tear gas.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:58 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
The New Cordian Empire wrote:(OOC: Given Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima... how can a nuclear power plant not be classed as a nuclear weapon? Would this require member states to build their own nuclear power plants without assistance from non-allied countries?)


Will change that to intentional use. Since those events weren't caused on purpose by those governments (I hope), nor used against other nations, they would not fall under this act.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:02 pm

Picairn wrote:Where is the Mandating clause?


WIP, meaning Work In Progress. Hoping to get to that today.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:11 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
Preventing Unprovoked Use of Nuclear Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant


The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of nuclear weapons can cause extreme amounts of destruction.

Noting that many often unsavory nations permit themselves to use such weapons unprovoked.

Realizing that many wars could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, hereby:

  • Defines:
    • A nuclear weapon as any object that uses nuclear fusion or fission in a way that allows it to cause mass destruction.
    • An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of nuclear weapons against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use nuclear weapons against your nation or an allied nation.
  • Mandates:
    • That no nation shall, unprovoked, use nuclear weapons against another nation.
    • That a World Assembly Nuclear Investigation Committee, or WANIC, be formed to investigate uses of nuclear weapons by member states that have a significant possibility of violating this act.


First draft done. Certainly needs work. Let the edits begin!
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 266
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:32 am

"We're with Tinhampton on this one, if we're going to war with a nation in possession of nukes, it is only reasonable to assume they intent to use them. We aren't psychic so we can't exactly read their thoughts."

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:17 am

Ardiveds wrote:"We're with Tinhampton on this one, if we're going to war with a nation in possession of nukes, it is only reasonable to assume they intent to use them. We aren't psychic so we can't exactly read their thoughts."


The launching of nukes is an invitation to all-out nuclear war. No sane nation would do so and start that. On the other hand, a history of launching nukes would be reason enough, with some sign of aggression, to execute a strike on another nation. The reason that this act prohibits "first srike" nuclear doctrine and not all nukes is that non-member states will not have to comply with this resolution. Sure, most nations will have enough common sense not to launch nukes and start a nuclear war, but in the case that we have evidence that they mean to do so, we can launch strikes before. To make another point, this proposal does not just ban YOU from launching nukes without evidence, it prohibits all member states from doing so. This means that member states will not be able to launch nukes against each other, and yourself. Rather than think of this proposal as banning your ability to use offensive weapons, think of it as defending you. The point of this proposal is that, if we can ban the first shot in the war, the war will be less likely to happen.
OOC: There is a good reason that nobody, to my knowledge, has launched nuclear strikes against another nation IRL since 1945. The nuked nation would retaliate, and bring their allies in, and before you know it, half the world is glowing. Also, please note that N-Day does not fall under this proposal, since there is a significant chance that nukes could be used against you.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 266
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:31 am

"Ambassador, we're well aware of the prohibition this places on members using nukes on each other, and we're partly fine with that. But our issue is with non members. Just because a nation hasn't launched unprovoked before is no evidence that they won't do it now; international situations change and if they do do it, and we refrain from doing the same based on past evidence, we'd be obliterated by the time we realise our mistake. Besides, nukes by their very nature are far more useful as a deterrent than an actual weapon for any reasonable nation. The fear of a preemptive strike often prevents wars, this resolution nullifies that fear against non members atleast. As long as this effects wars between members and non members, we stand against it."

OOC: what's 'N-Day'?
Last edited by Ardiveds on Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:24 pm

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, we're well aware of the prohibition this places on members using nukes on each other, and we're partly fine with that. But our issue is with non members. Just because a nation hasn't launched unprovoked before is no evidence that they won't do it now; international situations change and if they do do it, and we refrain from doing the same based on past evidence, we'd be obliterated by the time we realise our mistake. Besides, nukes by their very nature are far more useful as a deterrent than an actual weapon for any reasonable nation. The fear of a preemptive strike often prevents wars, this resolution nullifies that fear against non members atleast. As long as this effects wars between members and non members, we stand against it."

OOC: what's 'N-Day'?


The fear of retaliation is just as effective as the fear of the enemy striking first. There is literally no way that a nation of any intelligence will have all of their nukes knocked out in the case of a nuclear attack from a non-member. Additionally, there will almost always be signs of, if not a nuclear strike, then aggression from another nation before they strike at you. Though I supppse that I could change the proposal so as to only affect member states. I will notify my Minister of Foreign Affairs and tell him to make those changes. Thank you for your input.

Edit: The Minister has made his edits.

OOC: It’s some sort of nuke-involving mini game day. I haven’t done it yet, so idk how it works.
Last edited by The New Cordian Empire on Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15261
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:26 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: what's 'N-Day'?

OOC: It’s some sort of nuke-involving mini game day. I haven’t done it yet, so idk how it works.

OOC: If you mean the gameside event, it's just that, a gameside event. Referring to one in IC is odd (as gameside things are often ignored in people's roleplay), and referring to one in proposal text is a proposal rules violation of the Metagaming kind.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:51 pm

Araraukar wrote:
The New Cordian Empire wrote:OOC: It’s some sort of nuke-involving mini game day. I haven’t done it yet, so idk how it works.

OOC: If you mean the gameside event, it's just that, a gameside event. Referring to one in IC is odd (as gameside things are often ignored in people's roleplay), and referring to one in proposal text is a proposal rules violation of the Metagaming kind.



"OOC: There is a good reason that nobody, to my knowledge, has launched nuclear strikes against another nation IRL since 1945. The nuked nation would retaliate, and bring their allies in, and before you know it, half the world is glowing. Also, please note that N-Day does not fall under this proposal, since there is a significant chance that nukes could be used against you."

Did you read either my post or the proposal text? I referred to the event OOC, as shown above, and the proposal makes no mention of N-Day.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9701
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:03 am

What's to stop a nation from nuking Brasilistan and then immediately joining the WA?

Author: 1 SC and 36 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Ikheria
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 133
Founded: Sep 28, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ikheria » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:14 am

"Comrade Ambassador, my think now its better for vote nay if this now at vote, unless we now have notification from my Region comrade (Ministry of World Assembly Affair of Europeia). As this also has no right for 'precautionary' attack, if we now bordered by enemy..." ~ Minister of Foreign and WA Affair, Robert Sudausky
Federal Democratic Republic of Ikheria
A nation in Poland, Belarus, and Kaliningrad from result of mass emigration from Nusantara/Indonesia
Member of CSTO, CIS, as well European Union
A proud member of Europeia

Remember, Ikherian Language is Cyrillic script of Indonesian!
I did mention DTIS? IGSNS? or something? Yes, Click this for More information
Ikheria ambassador for WA: Jan Paul Diwenensky (Ikheria ambassador for Monsone)
Ikheria Federal News Agency: Breaking News: Mount Tambora erupting again!|President Sergey Lebankov: "For sake of Mikhail Gorbachev, if you dare attack Yeltsingrad, I send you f**king nuclear bomb."|Ikheria order futuristic spaceship from Aragren.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:28 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:What's to stop a nation from nuking Brasilistan and then immediately joining the WA?


Assuming Brazilistan is in the WA (which it isn't, if you're referring to the nation I think you are), then the proposal would not have protected Brazilistan. I have made an edit that allows for retaliatory strikes, so now, Brazilistan would be protected. If Brazilistan is not in the WA, it will not be protected.

Ikheria wrote:"Comrade Ambassador, my think now its better for vote nay if this now at vote, unless we now have notification from my Region comrade (Ministry of World Assembly Affair of Europeia). As this also has no right for 'precautionary' attack, if we now bordered by enemy..." ~ Minister of Foreign and WA Affair, Robert Sudausky


This proposal only protects WA nations. You are free to attack any non-WA nations without reason via nukes if you like. But allowing for "precautionary strikes" against other WA nations would defeat the entire purpose of this proposal. Other WA nations have just as much right to be protected by WA Resolutions as you do, and I hope that you begin to think that way. On the other hand, if you have proof that another WA nation intends to nuke you, you may go ahead and nuke them before they do it to you.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1108
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:53 pm

"Why should investigations be had on crimes that have not been committed? Additionally, while you define 'unprovoked use of such weapons', that is not the phrase you use in the draft. While perhaps a pedantic difference, it is less couth to have it as-is."

EDIT: Also, August 9 is very soon - five days is simply not enough for a draft to be edited to completion, much less perfection - except in the cases of the most experienced authors on the site. I'd recommend waiting.
Last edited by Morover on Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 565
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:05 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:Planning to submit on August 9th, the anniversary of the second atomic bomb being dropped on the city of Nagasaki.

OOC: It's always nice to see enthusiastic newcomers in the GA. However, please understand that rushing to submit stuff isn't going to get you anywhere. Submitting in two days simply won't work; many people (myself included) are wholly unconvinced that the premise is even sound. You can clearly write, and definitely have potential in the GA. What you need right now is more experience in how things are done here. I strongly suggest that you work on something less ambitious for your first resolution: a repeal, perhaps. Maybe collaborate with a more established author to get your feet wet. Hang around the GA subforum, and consider joining the Discord if you haven't done so already: https://discord.gg/693GSTA

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:23 pm

Morover wrote:"Why should investigations be had on crimes that have not been committed? Additionally, while you define 'unprovoked use of such weapons', that is not the phrase you use in the draft. While perhaps a pedantic difference, it is less couth to have it as-is."

EDIT: Also, August 9 is very soon - five days is simply not enough for a draft to be edited to completion, much less perfection - except in the cases of the most experienced authors on the site. I'd recommend waiting.


Thanks, I will be waiting.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:25 pm

Cretox State wrote:
The New Cordian Empire wrote:Planning to submit on August 9th, the anniversary of the second atomic bomb being dropped on the city of Nagasaki.

OOC: It's always nice to see enthusiastic newcomers in the GA. However, please understand that rushing to submit stuff isn't going to get you anywhere. Submitting in two days simply won't work; many people (myself included) are wholly unconvinced that the premise is even sound. You can clearly write, and definitely have potential in the GA. What you need right now is more experience in how things are done here. I strongly suggest that you work on something less ambitious for your first resolution: a repeal, perhaps. Maybe collaborate with a more established author to get your feet wet. Hang around the GA subforum, and consider joining the Discord if you haven't done so already: https://discord.gg/693GSTA


I'll stick to this and see if I can pull it off. I will be waiting to submit as per your and Morover's advice.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6369
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:45 am

“I think that there needs to be a lot of clarification on what ‘evidence that said nation intended to use’ means. As written, this would catch cases where a nation intended to use nuclear weapons against another many years ago, but now doesn’t. You need to clarify the evidentiary standard.

Also, in the second definition clause, ‘your nation’ doesn’t work. Proposals are written from the perspective of the GA. Use something such as ‘that nation’ 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
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:54 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I think that there needs to be a lot of clarification on what ‘evidence that said nation intended to use’ means. As written, this would catch cases where a nation intended to use nuclear weapons against another many years ago, but now doesn’t. You need to clarify the evidentiary standard.

Also, in the second definition clause, ‘your nation’ doesn’t work. Proposals are written from the perspective of the GA. Use something such as ‘that nation’ instead.”


Edits made to account for both parts of your advice. Thanks.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Union of Sovereign States and Republics
Diplomat
 
Posts: 602
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:59 am

"As a nation with a large nuclear stockpile, the USSR stands in full support of this resolution."
Current IC Year: 2027
The Union of Sovereign States and Republics; USSR
In 1991, a plane carrying would-be conspirators of an armed coup crashed in the Crimean Peninsula. Without the coup, the Union of Sovereign States treaty was signed; and the USSR survived... NS states are not canon.
Current Ruling Party: CENTER-LEFT COALITION; SDPSU, CPSU, APSU
News: Soviet Union announces completion of first manned Mars mission; the Red Flag flies over the Red Planet!

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:32 pm

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:"As a nation with a large nuclear stockpile, the USSR stands in full support of this resolution."


Good to know. Thank you for your support.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:54 pm

bump (hope that's politically correct)
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

Just a nation of Vikings-turned-defender.

User avatar
Qhevak
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Jul 22, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Qhevak » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:30 am

"Aside from the impact on advanced starfaring nations such as us, who wage war at a scale where even mass carpet nuking is a tactical tool, this would keep nukes from being used in response to attacks from biological, chemical and radiological weapons, as well as conventional attacks with similar effects such as mass firebombing.

It would also effectively remove one of the primary reasons to have nuclear warheads, that is allowing smaller nations to have a credible deterrent against larger ones. We cannot support the resolution as is and would leave the WA were it passed."
Semi-Hard SF Mutualist Anarchotransbaseline association of Oort cloud space habitats - basically all of these ideologies living together. Does not use NS stats.

Tier 9, Level 0, Type 7 on this index.
Aerospace Engineering student in UK. Georgist Market Socialist short term, anarchotranshumanist long term.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads