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 » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:37 am

Qhevak wrote:"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.”
Last edited by The New Cordian Empire on Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:37 am, 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
Godular
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11065
Founded: Sep 09, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Godular » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:02 pm

“Opposed. This proposal is too easy to circumvent.”
RL position
Active RP: ASCENSION
Active RP: SHENRYAX
Dormant RP: Throne of the Fallen Empire

Faction 1: The An'Kazar Control Framework of Godular-- An enormously advanced collective of formerly human bioborgs that are vastly experienced in both inter-dimensional travel and asymmetrical warfare.
A 1.08 civilization, according to this Nation Index Thingie
I don't normally use NS stats. But when I do, I prefer Dos Eckis I can STILL kill you.
Post responsibly.

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

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:19 pm

Godular wrote:“Opposed. This proposal is too easy to circumvent.”


“Could you give a reason/way for this to happen?
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 » Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:09 pm

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!
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 Aug 13, 2020 4:19 am

"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.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9700
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:14 pm

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.

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
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3705
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:52 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote: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 :p
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


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

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:30 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.

Ardiveds wrote:"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.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
The New Cordian Empire wrote: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 :p


OOC: :clap:
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 Aug 16, 2020 6:10 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:bump (hope that's politically correct)


Time for another.
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
Comfed
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 200
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:08 pm

OOC: These never pass. Trust me - I’ve tried.
This signature space available for lease.
From The North Pacific. Join our forums, apply for citizenship, join our discord, the executive staff, and the North Pacific Army
Reploid Productions wrote:Dear gods, Nationstates has officially been around long enough to spark generation arguments. "You kids and your Discords too lazy to make forum accounts! In MY day we only had IRC and regional forums and WE LIKED IT!"
Raiders deserve to be commended for taking potentially active nations from dead regions. Prove me wrong.

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

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:08 pm

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


OOC: Well, we need to at least try.
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: 15254
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:54 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
Comfed wrote: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.
- 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: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:43 pm

Araraukar wrote:
The New Cordian Empire wrote: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.
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
Boston Castle
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:20 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 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?
Last edited by Starblaydia on Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixing the thread - [list] and [spoiler] tags broke it
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6368
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:43 pm

Boston Castle wrote:
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 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.)
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
Boston Castle
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:00 pm

Kenmoria wrote:(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.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1399
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:05 pm

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
Comfed wrote:OOC: These never pass. Trust me - I’ve tried.


OOC: Well, we need to at least try.

It's illegal as written.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15254
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:19 am

Wayneactia wrote: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.
Last edited by Araraukar on Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
- 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: 84
Founded: Jun 03, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:36 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Wayneactia wrote: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.
Last edited by The New Cordian Empire on Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:47 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
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 264
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:33 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Wayneactia wrote: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.
Last edited by Ardiveds on Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Willingdon and Jevington
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Aug 22, 2020
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Willingdon and Jevington » Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:27 am

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

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 534
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Mon Aug 24, 2020 1:17 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Araraukar wrote:
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.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

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

Postby The New Cordian Empire » Mon Aug 24, 2020 11:30 am

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
  • 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.


Willingdon and Jevington wrote: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.
Last edited by The New Cordian Empire on Mon Aug 24, 2020 11:31 am, 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
Sancta Romana Ecclesia
Envoy
 
Posts: 293
Founded: Aug 04, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:44 am

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.
Last edited by Sancta Romana Ecclesia on Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paulus Asteorra

An Enlightened and the Guru of Diplomacy of Karma

Expressed opinions are my own and not Karma's, unless otherwise noted.

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6095
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Corporate Police State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:28 pm

"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."
Dee Vytherov-Skollvaldr | Forest | TBH Major and Council Member | WA Vizier | Ambassador to the WA

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ardiveds, Bananaistan, The New Nordic Union

Advertisement

Remove ads