NationStates

Draft of final clause is out, I need some help with wording.

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?

"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."

OOC: So I need to think of another way.

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.

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)

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.

New idea. How is it? (shameless bump)

“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.”

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?

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.

*calls out into the inactivity void* Plan is to submit on Tuesday unless anyone has a problem with this draft.

Proposed rewrite (plz do not credit Tinhampton as co-author thx):

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.

Edited, planning to submit around 7:30-8:00 US West time on Tuesday.

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?

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”?

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.

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

OOC: A "series of strikes" doesn't sound like "a single use". If you drop enough anti-personnel explosives on a city in a series of strikes, you're going to kill enough people and cause enough damage for them to collectively count as WMD, but few would think classifying a regular hand grenade as a WMD would make any sense.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: A "series of strikes" doesn't sound like "a single use". If you drop enough anti-personnel explosives on a city in a series of strikes, you're going to kill enough people and cause enough damage for them to collectively count as WMD, but few would think classifying a regular hand grenade as a WMD would make any sense.

OOC: Carpet bombing and other such practices make complete sense in WMD legislation. Think: The US' carpet and firebombing of Japan caused more death than both nuclear bombs combined.

The New Cordian Empire wrote:OOC: Carpet bombing and other such practices make complete sense in WMD legislation. Think: The US' carpet and firebombing of Japan caused more death than both nuclear bombs combined.

OOC: Was literally thinking of the firebombing of Japan when I wrote what I wrote. And I repeat that calling a single firebomb of that type a Weapon of Mass Destruction would make no sense whatsoever. You should pull the submission and work on that issue.

The New Cordian Empire wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: A "series of strikes" doesn't sound like "a single use". If you drop enough anti-personnel explosives on a city in a series of strikes, you're going to kill enough people and cause enough damage for them to collectively count as WMD, but few would think classifying a regular hand grenade as a WMD would make any sense.

OOC: Carpet bombing and other such practices make complete sense in WMD legislation. Think: The US' carpet and firebombing of Japan caused more death than both nuclear bombs combined.

OOC: An assault rifle can potentially cause more deaths than both nuclear bombs. If you take multiple small weapons as one WMD then all the guns used by the wehrmacht throughout the war was one giant WMD.

Araraukar wrote:

The New Cordian Empire wrote:OOC: Carpet bombing and other such practices make complete sense in WMD legislation. Think: The US' carpet and firebombing of Japan caused more death than both nuclear bombs combined.

OOC: Was literally thinking of the firebombing of Japan when I wrote what I wrote. And I repeat that calling a single firebomb of that type a Weapon of Mass Destruction would make no sense whatsoever. You should pull the submission and work on that issue.

OOC: I see. Pulling and changing the text. It doesn’t have any apps yet anyway.

Ardiveds wrote:

The New Cordian Empire wrote:
OOC: Carpet bombing and other such practices make complete sense in WMD legislation. Think: The US' carpet and firebombing of Japan caused more death than both nuclear bombs combined.

OOC: An assault rifle can potentially cause more deaths than both nuclear bombs. If you take multiple small weapons as one WMD then all the guns used by the wehrmacht throughout the war was one giant WMD.

OOC: Made an edit to nullify that, thank you for your input.