[DEFEATED] Nuclear Aggression Act

[Ardiveds]

What's the chance that they won't use nukes? Very slim. Large nations almost always use them in combat.

OOC: Ummm.... like the US did with Vietnam or the Soviets did with Afghanistan? Wait no, they didn't. Why would a large nation use nukes when they know their conventional weapons will steamroll through the smaller nation's military while also avoiding the risk of getting any of their own major urban centers nuked? Nukes aren't some custom or tradition, they are a weapon whose use depends on the strategic considerations.

[Jedinsto]

How so? It still maintains your right to fire back with nukes, so if they don't want to be nuked, they would stay away.

OOC: Not necessarily. The fact that the launch needs to to be justified to the WA later means a member has to take time to make sure the enemy did actually launch a nuke. Depending on the technolgy and infrastructure of the nation in question, that time could be enough for the capital to be turned into a nuclear wasteland since a non member need not justify anything to anyone.

On top of that, as previously mentioned, a smaller nation trying to stay safe from a militarily superior nation through the threat of nukes would be demolished if the superior nation simply never uses nukes.

Overall, it would lead to the nullification of the deterrence effect of nukes and not only result in more nuclear wars but also put members at a severe strategic disadvantage.

Because of new editing, you don't have to wait for a nuclear strike, any strike at all will suffice for justification. Also, I'm truly concerned about the civilians, not government. I would much rather lose a war to a superior military power than have my people turned to dust.

[Ardiveds]

[

Because of new editing, you don't have to wait for a nuclear strike, any strike at all will suffice for justification. Also, I'm truly concerned about the civilians, not government. I would much rather lose a war to a superior military power than have my people turned to dust.

OOC: Pretty sure most important govenments buildings like the the Buckingham palace, white house etc are situated in the middle of a city with thousands of civilians around. And did you forget the part about the whole deterrence thing that, let me repeat, prevents open conflicts altogether?
Also, are you sure about your last statement? What if the superior power defeats you, occupies your land and then starts ethnic cleansing or forced deportation of your people? Would you still rather lose to this power. Remember, genocide is still legal outside the WA.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Because of new editing, you don't have to wait for a nuclear strike, any strike at all will suffice for justification. Also, I'm truly concerned about the civilians, not government. I would much rather lose a war to a superior military power than have my people turned to dust.

Presumably the other side also thinks that and therefore wouldn't start their war of invasion. See 'massive retaliation'.

[Jedinsto]

[

Because of new editing, you don't have to wait for a nuclear strike, any strike at all will suffice for justification. Also, I'm truly concerned about the civilians, not government. I would much rather lose a war to a superior military power than have my people turned to dust.

OOC: Pretty sure most important govenments buildings like the the Buckingham palace, white house etc are situated in the middle of a city with thousands of civilians around. And did you forget the part about the whole deterrence thing that, let me repeat, prevents open conflicts altogether?
Also, are you sure about your last statement? What if the superior power defeats you, occupies your land and then starts ethnic cleansing or forced deportation of your people? Would you still rather lose to this power. Remember, genocide is still legal outside the WA.

OOC: Obviously, then that would be an issue for the civilians, that I would rather avoid, and if I was facing such a power, that would be a time to respond with nukes. Also, there is still deterrence, as any attack at all would threaten the attacker with a nuke strike back. So, any intelligent leader who cares for their people, would still wish to avoid that open conflict.

[WayNeacTia]

Perhaps you should have actually read the passed resolutions thread. If you had, you would see that #418 already makes this mandate.

Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;

Just because you throw the word "only" in there, does not make this any less illegal than it was before. Either repeal #418, or drop the idea.

I changed it to word it better, but what I was trying to do was ban the use of nuclear weapons outside of retaliation, and I believe you misunderstood that. I don't see how it would be a contradiction of "Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and use them in the case they are used by hostile forces," when my resolution upholds that right. You must be seeing something that I'm completely missing, so please do correct me if I'm wrong. And, if I must, I will, in fact make an attempt to repeal #418.

I never said it contradicted #418. It duplicates it, and that is the only thing your resolution does, which makes it wholly illegal. You really need to read the rules. As for repealing #418? You better have some deep pockets, and some big time connections with the feeders, if you want to pull off that feat. The whole idea of limiting nuclear weapons to retaliation only has been done, and subsequently repealed, and that resolution did a far better job of limiting nuclear strike potential. As I said earlier, you would do yourself a major favor by dropping this whole idea.

[Jedinsto]

I changed it to word it better, but what I was trying to do was ban the use of nuclear weapons outside of retaliation, and I believe you misunderstood that. I don't see how it would be a contradiction of "Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and use them in the case they are used by hostile forces," when my resolution upholds that right. You must be seeing something that I'm completely missing, so please do correct me if I'm wrong. And, if I must, I will, in fact make an attempt to repeal #418.

I never said it contradicted #418. It duplicates it, and that is the only thing your resolution does, which makes it wholly illegal. You really need to read the rules. As for repealing #418? You better have some deep pockets, and some big time connections with the feeders, if you want to pull off that feat. The whole idea of limiting nuclear weapons to retaliation only has been done, and subsequently repealed, and that resolution did a far better job of limiting nuclear strike potential. As I said earlier, you would do yourself a major favor by dropping this whole idea.

First of all, I have read through the rules of GA proposals many times. They allow for simply restating previous action without it being seen as duplication. In fact, that's exactly what #418 did. The right to possess, produce, and use in self-defense for nuclear weapons was established in #10. I am simply restating the fact that you can do this, and I will reword that to make it more clear. The actual actions of #418- allows member nations to acquire and possess the knowledge of manufacturing and trade of nukes and nuclear reactors, manufacture and trade nukes, and establishes the NESA. It does not limit or ban in any way the actual use of it. Mine does, and therefore does not duplicate #418 in that sense. As for dropping this idea, no. It will take much more than you to convince me to give up on what I believe in. With all due respect, don't wear yourself out trying to convince me to drop the idea.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The right to possess, produce, and use in self-defense for nuclear weapons was established in #10.

GA 10 only gives the right to possess nuclear weapons.

The actual actions of #418- allows member nations to acquire and possess the knowledge of manufacturing and trade of nukes and nuclear reactors, manufacture and trade nukes, and establishes the NESA. It does not limit or ban in any way the actual use of it.

Well, sure this is probably true. I would not, however, omit that section 1 '[a]ffirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces'.

[Neymarland]

What's the chance that they won't use nukes? Very slim. Large nations almost always use them in combat.

OOC: Ummm.... like the US did with Vietnam or the Soviets did with Afghanistan? Wait no, they didn't. Why would a large nation use nukes when they know their conventional weapons will steamroll through the smaller nation's military while also avoiding the risk of getting any of their own major urban centers nuked? Nukes aren't some custom or tradition, they are a weapon whose use depends on the strategic considerations.

OOC:Ummm...is this the real world where nukes can destroy the planet? IC:No. When did I say they are a custom or tradition? They are a weapon of war which must be regulated. Most small nations don't have a nuclear program, as they are still developing. OOC:Does, let say, Trinidad and Tobago have nukes? No? That's what I thought.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Not necessarily. The fact that the launch needs to to be justified to the WA later means a member has to take time to make sure the enemy did actually launch a nuke. Depending on the technolgy and infrastructure of the nation in question, that time could be enough for the capital to be turned into a nuclear wasteland since a non member need not justify anything to anyone.

On top of that, as previously mentioned, a smaller nation trying to stay safe from a militarily superior nation through the threat of nukes would be demolished if the superior nation simply never uses nukes.

Overall, it would lead to the nullification of the deterrence effect of nukes and not only result in more nuclear wars but also put members at a severe strategic disadvantage.

What's the chance that they won't use nukes? Very slim. Large nations almost always use them in combat.

But that's not true... Nuclear weapons have been used literally twice outside of tests and both times were not even in combat.

[Ardiveds]

OOC:Ummm...is this the real world where nukes can destroy the planet? IC:No. When did I say they are a custom or tradition? They are a weapon of war which must be regulated. Most small nations don't have a nuclear program, as they are still developing. OOC:Does, let say, Trinidad and Tobago have nukes? No? That's what I thought.

OOC: Firstly, lets keep this OOC, otherwise we would jump in and out of it to reference rl stuff which is quite relevant here.
Second, you started by saying this is not rl then immediately went to rl where smaller nations don't have nukes. Smaller nations don't necessarily need to have nukes themselves, they can always have a friendly neighbor give it to them.

There are nations in the WA hundreds of years ahead of rl so it isn't too out there to assume with enough time, even T&T could someday start pumping out a few small fission bombs.

Also, the way nukes have propagated in out real world have a lot to do with specific events like when they were first created, when they were first used and the resulting effect in public conception of it. Would it be really that difficult for a different timeline to have numerous large and medium nations start making them?

Lastly, there are nations in the WA who see US as a ""small nation""" so remember that.

[Neymarland]

What's the chance that they won't use nukes? Very slim. Large nations almost always use them in combat.

But that's not true... Nuclear weapons have been used literally twice outside of tests and both times were not even in combat.

OOC: But this is not the REAL WORLD. We can throw nukes all we want here. This is NS, not another START treaty.

[Neymarland]

Smaller nations don't necessarily need to have nukes themselves, they can always have a friendly neighbor give it to them.

Then why didn't you bring it up in the first place? I mean, sure that might happen, but what about nations without allies? (Sure, they will be the ones that most likely have the nukes, because the nuked their allies.)

There are nations in the WA hundreds of years ahead of rl so it isn't too out there to assume with enough time, even T&T could someday start pumping out a few small fission bombs.

Yes, so that is why we need to regulate them. NEXT!

Also, the way nukes have propagated in out real world have a lot to do with specific events like when they were first created, when they were first used and the resulting effect in public conception of it. Would it be really that difficult for a different timeline to have numerous large and medium nations start making them?

A full index of the NS timeline would be impossible to record, and with all those nations making them, again, thank you for showing why this is a good idea.

Lastly, there are nations in the WA who see US as a ""small nation""" so remember that.

By small nations, I mean ones with low militaries, not every nation in the world.

[Jedinsto]

It seems everyone's main issue with this proposal is that it limits striking ability against non-members. What if, I changed the draft, to keep the limited use on WA members, but maintained the right to strike on non-WA members, and in fact, added a blocker to prevent future legislation from limiting strikes on non-wa members? Would you support?

[Ardiveds]

Smaller nations don't necessarily need to have nukes themselves, they can always have a friendly neighbor give it to them.

Then why didn't you bring it up in the first place? I mean, sure that might happen, but what about nations without allies? (Sure, they will be the ones that most likely have the nukes, because the nuked their allies.)

OOC: A nation that is managing to survive without any allies whatsoever is probably really powerful surrounded by Weaker nations. And nuked their allies? What? Just why?

There are nations in the WA hundreds of years ahead of rl so it isn't too out there to assume with enough time, even T&T could someday start pumping out a few small fission bombs.

Yes, so that is why we need to regulate them. NEXT!

I'll repeat, the WA cannot regulate non-members. If we could regulate everyone, this resolution would've been fine.

Also, the way nukes have propagated in out real world have a lot to do with specific events like when they were first created, when they were first used and the resulting effect in public conception of it. Would it be really that difficult for a different timeline to have numerous large and medium nations start making them?

A full index of the NS timeline would be impossible to record, and with all those nations making them, again, thank you for showing why this is a good idea.

This was in response to your "small nations don't have nukes". And I don't think there's any fixed canon record of the history of every planet in NS. This was just a hypothetical scenario.

Lastly, there are nations in the WA who see US as a ""small nation""" so remember that.

By small nations, I mean ones with low militaries, not every nation in the world.

A multi system empire would most definitely view the US as a nation with low military. Lowness of military is relative and your idea of 'low military' is from a irl perspective, the NS universe doesn't always follow that perspective.

[Neymarland]

OOC: A nation that is managing to survive without any allies whatsoever is probably really powerful surrounded by Weaker nations. And nuked their allies? What? Just why?

Yes, I know. But also nations that are newly founded might not have any. I was lucky to get enough allies to avoid conflict.

I'll repeat, the WA cannot regulate non-members. If we could regulate everyone, this resolution would've been fine.

If so, then why would we pass any resolutions?

This was in response to your "small nations don't have nukes". And I don't think there's any fixed canon record of the history of every planet in NS. This was just a hypothetical scenario.

Then, why did you bring it up? The WA isn't for, oh, if we do this and this and this we will come out with this exact timeline. Time travel is for Sorcerer Supremes only, with the Time Stone.

A multi system empire would most definitely view the US as a nation with low military. Lowness of military is relative and your idea of 'low military' is from a irl perspective, the NS universe doesn't always follow that perspective.

Then why would NS follow yours? And by low military, I mean Earth level military, not low NS military. Why would you think that it is from an IRL perspective? I've kept saying this is not IRL, yet half the people on this thread compare it.

[Jedinsto]

I'll repeat, the WA cannot regulate non-members. If we could regulate everyone, this resolution would've been fine.

As I said above, but you seemed to have missed it-

It seems everyone's main issue with this proposal is that it limits striking ability against non-members. What if, I changed the draft, to keep the limited use on WA members, but maintained the right to strike on non-WA members, and in fact, added a blocker to prevent future legislation from limiting strikes on non-wa members? Would you support?

[Ardiveds]

I'll repeat, the WA cannot regulate non-members. If we could regulate everyone, this resolution would've been fine.

As I said above, but you seemed to have missed it-

It seems everyone's main issue with this proposal is that it limits striking ability against non-members. What if, I changed the draft, to keep the limited use on WA members, but maintained the right to strike on non-WA members, and in fact, added a blocker to prevent future legislation from limiting strikes on non-wa members? Would you support?

OOC: yea sorry missed it. Yes that would be a reaonable compromise between regulation and security.

[Neymarland]

I'll repeat, the WA cannot regulate non-members. If we could regulate everyone, this resolution would've been fine.

As I said above, but you seemed to have missed it-

It seems everyone's main issue with this proposal is that it limits striking ability against non-members. What if, I changed the draft, to keep the limited use on WA members, but maintained the right to strike on non-WA members, and in fact, added a blocker to prevent future legislation from limiting strikes on non-wa members? Would you support?

Yes. This is what the proposal needs.

[Jedinsto]

Changes made.

[Imperium Anglorum]

But that's not true... Nuclear weapons have been used literally twice outside of tests and both times were not even in combat.

OOC: But this is not the REAL WORLD. We can throw nukes all we want here. This is NS, not another START treaty.

Arguments based primarily on RP are weak, because on some level anyone can RP anything. I could just as easily write a roleplay of some pirates attacking some Dark Star tourists out on their yacht and dismembering them, and using that to justify the law, at which point it seems to just become a case of who can concoct the most lurid fantasies. Gruenberg (as Dark Star Republic), NationStates (10 Feb 2015) viewtopic.php?p=23467721#p23467721.

[Jedinsto]

Feel free to continue debating, I will move this to last call for actual suggestions.

[Jedinsto]

This is the actual last call, I will wait another day for suggestions.

[Separatist Peoples]

"An essential component of effective deterrence, not merely of nuclear weapons but of any large scale, high intensity conflict, is the ability to escalate to nuclear exchanges. Without the opportunity of first strike, a defensive posture between two nations with, say, a wide land border, is at the mercy of the more powerful military force. That is to say that there is no reason not to engage in high intensity conflict when victory is highly indicated when the weaker power cannot escalate to a nuclear exchange.

"Incentivizing conflict is never sound policy. While dangerous, nuclear weaponry has a net effect of disincentivizing high intensity industrialized warfare. I believe we can find a different element of nuclear exchanges to regulate that does not detract from their strategic peacekeeping value."

[WayNeacTia]

"An essential component of effective deterrence, not merely of nuclear weapons but of any large scale, high intensity conflict, is the ability to escalate to nuclear exchanges. Without the opportunity of first strike, a defensive posture between two nations with, say, a wide land border, is at the mercy of the more powerful military force. That is to say that there is no reason not to engage in high intensity conflict when victory is highly indicated when the weaker power cannot escalate to a nuclear exchange.

"Incentivizing conflict is never sound policy. While dangerous, nuclear weaponry has a net effect of disincentivizing high intensity industrialized warfare. I believe we can find a different element of nuclear exchanges to regulate that does not detract from their strategic peacekeeping value."

Exactly.

Out of Character reply: Let's say for instance, The Soviets invested a nuclear weapon before the U.S. WW2 would have ended pretty much the same way. Now the Soviets would have a nuclear monopoly for the next 4 years or so. That would give them a significant nuclear advantage over their competition. They would have been able to forcibly annex any remaining eastern European countries, as well as probably most of western Europe. The U.S. would not have been able to deter it, because if they engaged in in military operations to liberate those nations, the Soviets would have been able to escalate to nuclear force, without comparable retaliation. Nuclear weapons are a force multiplier. They work, because both sides will lose so much, and gain so little if they are ever used. Taking away nations ability to escalate to that force, will actually increase the likelihood of open warfare. Plus it would cause smaller nations to withdraw from larger alliances that share a nuclear umbrella, and force them to acquire their own nuclear weapons for deterrence, as their nuclear partners won't be able to escalate to to that force.