[SUBMITTED] Preventing Unprovoked Use of WMDs

[The New Cordian Empire]

"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."

“I will work on edits according to your first paragraph. As for the second, I see your point, but this proposal seeks to prevent the initiation of a nuclear war, which would be far more destructive than a conventional war. If we do allow unprovoked attacks with nukes anyhow, those large nations, likely nuclear-capable, would be able to launch strikes against smaller nations. I hope that you reconsider.”

[Godular]

“Opposed. This proposal is too easy to circumvent.”

[The New Cordian Empire]

“Opposed. This proposal is too easy to circumvent.”

“Could you give a reason/way for this to happen?

[The New Cordian Empire]

New draft up. This current version affects all weapons of mass destruction without changing the base layout, hopefully the definition is up to the task. Let's get some more edits in!

[Ardiveds]

"If we're reading this right, if a nation is so big and technologically advanced that what a information age nation would call a WMD is basically a regular weapon to them, those WMDs-but-not-WMDs are exempted from the mandates of this proposal for those advanced nations?"
OOC: Sorry if this entire question was a bit... poorly constructed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A WMD is a weapon which is not X and does Y. And also it is X that does Y. Just drop the X and go with Y.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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 the single most unrepealable resolution in history guarantees all member nations' possession of nuclear weapons.

OOC: FTFY

[The New Cordian Empire]

A WMD is a weapon which is not X and does Y. And also it is X that does Y. Just drop the X and go with Y.

My concern, and the reason I made that so complicated, is that with just a Y, as you suggest, it would be possible for normal weapons, such as machine guns or rifles, to fall under this legislation. I'm not well-versed in this, so help would be welcome, and please address that concern.

"If we're reading this right, if a nation is so big and technologically advanced that what a information age nation would call a WMD is basically a regular weapon to them, those WMDs-but-not-WMDs are exempted from the mandates of this proposal for those advanced nations?"

My interpretation is that it depends on the nation that the WMDs-but-supposedly-not-WMDs were to be used against.

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 the single most unrepealable resolution in history guarantees all member nations' possession of nuclear weapons.

OOC: FTFY

OOC:

[The New Cordian Empire]

bump (hope that's politically correct)

Time for another.

[Comfed]

OOC: These never pass. Trust me - I’ve tried.

[The New Cordian Empire]

OOC: These never pass. Trust me - I’ve tried.

OOC: Well, we need to at least try.

[Araraukar]

OOC: These never pass. Trust me - I’ve tried.

OOC: Well, we need to at least try.

OOC: It has been tried and failed.

Also, the latter subclause of the mandates bit is unnecessary, as there already are committees that deal with noncompliance. Your first mandate makes it so that anyone not obeying the mandate has to deal with the WA administration to address it.

Oh and the definition of a WMD could easily be rewritten as "A weapon of mass destruction, or WMD as an unconventional a weapon capable of causing massive structural damage and/or loss of human life, or a conventional weapon, used against civilians, that accomplishes the same." Not all inhabitants of member nations are human, and there's no need to specify both unconventional and conventional weapons, if their effect is the deciding factor.

[The New Cordian Empire]

OOC: Well, we need to at least try.

OOC: It has been tried and failed.

Also, the latter subclause of the mandates bit is unnecessary, as there already are committees that deal with noncompliance. Your first mandate makes it so that anyone not obeying the mandate has to deal with the WA administration to address it.

Oh and the definition of a WMD could easily be rewritten as "A weapon of mass destruction, or WMD as an unconventional a weapon capable of causing massive structural damage and/or loss of human life, or a conventional weapon, used against civilians, that accomplishes the same." Not all inhabitants of member nations are human, and there's no need to specify both unconventional and conventional weapons, if their effect is the deciding factor.

Thank you. Edits implemented.

[Starblaydia]

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 cause extreme amounts of destruction and loss of life within that nation.

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 weapon of mass destruction, or WMD as a weapon capable of causing massive structural damage and/or loss of life.
  • An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of WMDs against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use in the near future or had recently used weapons of mass destruction against that nation or an allied nation
• Mandates:
  
  • That no member state shall, unprovoked, use WMDs against another member state.

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.

Minor quibble here, but if the title of the thread is what you intend to do, why not also include provisions which would prevent the use of biological, chemical, and radiological weapons?

[Kenmoria]

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 cause extreme amounts of destruction and loss of life within that nation.

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 weapon of mass destruction, or WMD as a weapon capable of causing massive structural damage and/or loss of life.
  • An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of WMDs against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use in the near future or had recently used weapons of mass destruction against that nation or an allied nation
• Mandates:
  
  • That no member state shall, unprovoked, use WMDs against another member state.

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.

Minor quibble here, but if the title of the thread is what you intend to do, why not also include provisions which would prevent the use of biological, chemical, and radiological weapons?

(OOC: Biological and chemical weapons have both already been addressed by extant law, so it would be either contradiction or duplication for the author to address them here.)

[Boston Castle]

(OOC: Biological and chemical weapons have both already been addressed by extant law, so it would be either contradiction or duplication for the author to address them here.)

Ah, was not aware of that.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: These never pass. Trust me - I’ve tried.

OOC: Well, we need to at least try.

It's illegal as written.

[Araraukar]

It's illegal as written.

OOC: In what way? Chemical weapons are allowed to be used defensively only, that's hardly an unprovoked use. NAPA lets member nations OWN nukes, it says nothing about using them. The category is correct. The strength appears correct. What exactly is the illegality that you see?

The only thing I can even imagine being slightly contradictory, is the chance of the unprovoked definition and the mandate to be read so as to allow, when provoked, the use of bioweapons, which have been banned entirely. Author, to avoid the contradiction, just put in "within the restrictions of previously passed and still extant resolutions" before the word "hereby", and you're good with that issue.

[The New Cordian Empire]

It's illegal as written.

OOC: In what way? Chemical weapons are allowed to be used defensively only, that's hardly an unprovoked use. NAPA lets member nations OWN nukes, it says nothing about using them. The category is correct. The strength appears correct. What exactly is the illegality that you see?

The only thing I can even imagine being slightly contradictory, is the chance of the unprovoked definition and the mandate to be read so as to allow, when provoked, the use of bioweapons, which have been banned entirely. Author, to avoid the contradiction, just put in "within the restrictions of previously passed and still extant resolutions" before the word "hereby", and you're good with that issue.

OOC: Thank you. Edits will be made shortly.

[Ardiveds]

It's illegal as written.

The only thing I can even imagine being slightly contradictory, is the chance of the unprovoked definition and the mandate to be read so as to allow, when provoked, the use of bioweapons, which have been banned entirely. Author, to avoid the contradiction, just put in "within the restrictions of previously passed and still extant resolutions" before the word "hereby", and you're good with that issue.

OOC: Which resolution banned bioweapons? The only one I could find is GA 65 but that one's already repealed.

[Willingdon and Jevington]

What is defined as provoking another nation? Sending an angry letter? Drone strikes? What’s the bar here. If it isn’t defined well enough any nation could easily claim to be provoked and unleash nuclear weapons

[The New Nordic Union]

The only thing I can even imagine being slightly contradictory, is the chance of the unprovoked definition and the mandate to be read so as to allow, when provoked, the use of bioweapons, which have been banned entirely. Author, to avoid the contradiction, just put in "within the restrictions of previously passed and still extant resolutions" before the word "hereby", and you're good with that issue.

OOC: Which resolution banned bioweapons? The only one I could find is GA 65 but that one's already repealed.

OOC: 242.

[The New Cordian Empire]

• An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of WMDs against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use in the near future or had recently used weapons of mass destruction against that nation or an allied nation.

What is defined as provoking another nation? Sending an angry letter? Drone strikes? What’s the bar here. If it isn’t defined well enough any nation could easily claim to be provoked and unleash nuclear weapons

The definition is in there. Did you actually READ, or just glance at it, or just skim it? Provoking another nation is not explicitly defined, as this prevents the UNPROVOKED use of WMDs. And no, nations cannot easily claim to be provoked without this definition as you say. They must have concrete proof of the above.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

Evidence seems too high of a standard here, if a nation nuked somebody in the past it justifies suspicion that they will use it against you, but isn't by itself an evidence of their intention to do that. Similarly if the nation is known for wiping its butt with GA resolutions on warfare. This is not enough to be called evidence.

If their leader said "X WILL PERISH IN THE NUCLEAR FIRE", if your intel caught a transmission saying that they plan to attack, that would be evidence.

I would suggest changing the evidence requirement, into something else. A justifiable suspicion? Maybe that would work, though it is a tad vague what "justifies" the suspicion. Then again, evidence of intention also has vagueness to it.

Edit: I don't believe that a ban on the usage of WMDs in certain situation contradicts the existing ban on using certain types of WMDs. It isn't written as "the use of WMDs is allowed unless it's unprovoked", it's written as "the use of WMDs is banned when unprovoked," there's no permission given here. If you put the two bans together in one law, there is no internal contradiction.

You may add what was suggested for clarity, if you want.

[Lord Dominator]

"Ah, such a delightfully well meaning attempt to prevent nuclear war. Disappointing that your draft would eliminate the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons and completely invalidate the deterrent effect of Mutually Assured Destruction."