Draft:Limit the use of WMD

[ArmedKing]

Oof.Just plainly say try to improve it or if you want,abandon it.

[The New Nordic Union]

Name: Limit the use of WMD

Category: Global Disarmament

Proposed by: Pogthebravelandia

Main text: This is a resolution to limit the death and destruction of WMDs.
Recognises: That WMDs can help take down enemies and keep your nations safe.
Also recognises: That WMDs are dangerous and can kill many innocent people and their properties.
Also recognises: That all of us can agree that killing innocents and damaging their properties is wrong.

The General Assembly resolves, with immediate effect, that:

A. All World assembly nations must limit their uses of WMDs.
B. They must only keep WMDs if they want to and keep the don't fire first and only strike in retaliation.
C. This will mean that WA members will not be able to fire WMDs at each other.
D. With the number of WA members this will mostly eradicate the use of WMDs
E. This would not effect WA members participation in N-day and Z-day

Pls help me with this draft I think this could make great legislation thx

OOC:
Overall: What is a WMD? You never define the term in the proposal. Why nations should ban the weighted mean or wiggle-match dating is beyond us all. I know you mean Weapons of Mass Destruction, but you should spell it out once. Also, define it.

Regarding A: How must nations limit their use of WMDs? Don't state the abstract goal, set specific requirements for reaching the goal.
Regarding B: 'Only if they want to' duplicates GAR#10 (NAPA) for the case of nuclear weapons. 'and keep the don't fire first' does not make sense grammatically. What do you mean by it?
Regarding C: Probably contradicts NAPA for the case of nuclear weapons (NAPA makes no exception for hostile member-nations) I have a feeling there was a resolution about member nations going to war with each other, but cannot be bothered to look for it. Might be relevant, though.
Regarding D: If we allowed for game-side statistics in proposal, this would still not be true; non-members outnumber members by 1 to 9.
Regarding E: Illegal for meta-gaming (you cannot mention gameside mechanics in GA proposals/resolutions).

[Ardiveds]

It doesn't contradoct with GA:10 it still allows for defensive purposes and I am planning to repeal GA:330

OOC: Lol good luck with that.

A. All World assembly nations must limit their uses of WMDs.

Vague

B. They must only keep WMDs if they want to and keep the don't fire first and only strike in retaliation.

Illegible

C. This will mean that WA members will not be able to fire WMDs at each other.

Somebody's already writing a resolution with this clause

D. With the number of WA members this will mostly eradicate the use of WMDs

The WA contains like 10% of the total number of nations. This statement is just delusional.

E. This would not effect WA members participation in N-day and Z-day

Don't even mention in-game events unless you want an illegal proposal.

[Tinhampton]

RE GA#330: Are the contents of preambles legally binding on member states as an operative clause would be?

[Bananaistan]

You can make it such that N-day and Z-day are the only days to rearm nukes and must be disarmed after the day.

That would violate Rule 4.

OOC: Rule 4 is in the other place's rules, not here.

It's a bit bloggy, and also contradicts GA #330, whose main text states

"Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defense purposes,"

and also possibly contradicts GA #10, whose first clause states

"1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,"

This is illegal. Sorry.

OOC: -ing clauses are not generally operative. In any case this proposal does not seek to outlaw the possession of nukes. Bad advice is worse than no advice.