NATION

PASSWORD

[LAST CALL] Preventing Unprovoked Use of WMDs

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:18 pm

Draft of final clause is out, I need some help with wording.
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: 9700
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:45 pm

So now it's just a weregild for using the weapons of mass destruction. Why would such a thing not heavily favour industrialised and rich countries in dealing harshly (perhaps an understatement) with poorer nations' populations?

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
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 264
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:45 pm

"Ambassador, do you realise that payment clause could either be impossible to fulfill or a trivial payment depending on the relative size and wealth of the two nations? For instance, a multi-system empire can nuke the largest city of a information age nation and basically ignore this because the cost of a single city worth of damage is pocket change for a nation controlling multiple planets, each with dozens of cities and yet the lives lost can't possibly be repaid."
Last edited by Ardiveds on Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:54 am

OOC: So I need to think of another way.
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: 264
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:05 am

The New Cordian Empire wrote:OOC: So I need to think of another way.

OOC: what was wrong with the previous way?... you know, you nuke first, everybody can nuke u first.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:55 pm

Ardiveds wrote:
The New Cordian Empire wrote:OOC: So I need to think of another way.

OOC: what was wrong with the previous way?... you know, you nuke first, everybody can nuke u first.


OOC: I felt like it needed some teeth. The previous way did that, sure, but there was no punishment for nuking unprovoked, so, as long as you destroy the enemy nation in the first volley, you’re fine and can’t be harmed (the original way)
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: 264
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:18 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: what was wrong with the previous way?... you know, you nuke first, everybody can nuke u first.


OOC: I felt like it needed some teeth. The previous way did that, sure, but there was no punishment for nuking unprovoked, so, as long as you destroy the enemy nation in the first volley, you’re fine and can’t be harmed (the original way)

OOC: I dunno about that. Not only will they face the standard sanctions and stuff for violating clause 1, they'll have giant target on their back for any WA nation to nuke them without any repercussions. The only issue I can think of is that there is no time limit for this. I guess you could mandate something like they will be back under protection if they don't use any nukes for like ten years or something after the the unprovoked attack. The best option obviously would've been forcing a nuclear disarmament but I dount that's legal under NAPA.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:42 pm

New idea. How is it? (shameless bump)
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: 6368
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:50 pm

“What’s clause 2-2 intended to represent in terms of a mandate? The protections of the proposal only apply in event of WMD warfare, so you appear to be saying the protections of the legislation don’t apply until someone does something that causes the protections to be used.”
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
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 264
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:52 am

The New Cordian Empire wrote:[align=center]
[*]That any nation found to be in violation of this resolution by the WACC shall no longer be subject to the protections of this resolution until a nation attempts to use WMDs against it.

OOC: So basically, they're no longer under this resolution's protection until they need the protection again? Isn't this like locking up a man for murder until he wishes to be free?
Last edited by Ardiveds on Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:59 pm

OOC: I'm thinking of eliminating clause 2.2. What the proposal needs is something to enforce it. The WACC can introduce damaging sanctions and such for the violation of a WA resolution. When Cretox said they didn't like the concept, one of their problems was that it was the policy most commonly used by nations anyway. The point of this draft is to make policy law, and the WACC has the tools to enforce it well. Provided that nobody rips up this draft in the next two weeks, which is extremely unlikely, my plan is to submit on the 23rd.
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: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:32 pm

*calls out into the inactivity void* Plan is to submit on Tuesday unless anyone has a problem with this draft.
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: 7190
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:26 pm

Proposed rewrite (plz do not credit Tinhampton as co-author thx):
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 many wars 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 are capable of causing massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life; and
  2. Declares that no member state may use weapons of mass destruction against another member state, without evidence that the other member had recently used (or intends to use in the near future) such weapons against that nation or an allied nation.
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
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:15 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Proposed rewrite (plz do not credit Tinhampton as co-author thx):
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 many wars 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 are capable of causing massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life; and
  2. Declares that no member state may use weapons of mass destruction against another member state, without evidence that the other member had recently used (or intends to use in the near future) such weapons against that nation or an allied nation.


Thx, will edit soon.
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: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:45 pm

Edited, planning to submit around 7:30-8:00 US West time on Tuesday.
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
Refuge Isle
Envoy
 
Posts: 346
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:18 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
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 many wars 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 are capable of causing massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life; and
  2. Declares that no member state may use weapons of mass destruction against another member state, without evidence that the other member had recently used (or intends to use in the near future) such weapons against that nation or an allied nation.


Is the leader of a nation threatening to use nuclear weapons at a political rally considered sufficient evidence to justify another member state preemptively firing a nuclear warhead at the first?

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

Postby Cretox State » Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:41 pm

This has definitely come a long way since the first draft!

I personally can’t support this, however, simply because I find the premise more than a bit silly. Let’s say a member nation uses a nuclear weapon in contravention of this resolution. What, exactly, is the WACC going to do? Sanction an apocalyptic wasteland?

You could say that WMDs are not limited to nuclear weapons, and I agree with that. However, this makes some more problems apparent. The proposal defines WMDs as such:
Defines "weapons of mass destruction" as weapons that are capable of causing massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life;

What, exactly, qualifies a weapon as “capable of causing massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life”? Let’s say I detonate a small-yield explosive in a cavern, causing it to collapse and bury 10,000 people. Does that explosive qualify as a WMD? Any old rifle is “capable” of causing large-scale loss of life with enough reloading. Does this proposal ban the preemptive use of guns? How about swords? Is this proposal intended to prevent war?

Additionally, what constitutes “evidence”?

User avatar
The New Cordian Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:41 am

Cretox State wrote:This has definitely come a long way since the first draft!

I personally can’t support this, however, simply because I find the premise more than a bit silly. Let’s say a member nation uses a nuclear weapon in contravention of this resolution. What, exactly, is the WACC going to do? Sanction an apocalyptic wasteland?

You could say that WMDs are not limited to nuclear weapons, and I agree with that. However, this makes some more problems apparent. The proposal defines WMDs as such:
Defines "weapons of mass destruction" as weapons that are capable of causing massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life;

What, exactly, qualifies a weapon as “capable of causing massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life”? Let’s say I detonate a small-yield explosive in a cavern, causing it to collapse and bury 10,000 people. Does that explosive qualify as a WMD? Any old rifle is “capable” of causing large-scale loss of life with enough reloading. Does this proposal ban the preemptive use of guns? How about swords? Is this proposal intended to prevent war?

Additionally, what constitutes “evidence”?


I will add the following to the text of the “Defines” clause: “To the nations affected by the use of the weapon.” That way, if the 10000 people belong to a small nation, the resolution would come into affect, but if they were from a very large country, it would have no effect. I will also work on adding a part to address the “old rifle problem”. Evidence means enough evidence to convince the gnomes at the WACC.
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: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:44 pm

Alright, I've addressed most, if not all, of Cretox's concerns. Planning to submit tomorrow morning.
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.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Araraukar, Honeydewistania, The New Nordic Union, Wansul

Advertisement

Remove ads