Cretox State wrote:Snip
I've taken your suggestions into account, I appreciate the help whether you support or not. Is this something like what you were going for?
Advertisement
by Maowi » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:45 pm
by Jedinsto » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:56 pm
Maowi wrote:"What is the author's reasoning for specifically picking a thirty day limit on retaliation?"
by Barfleur » Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:06 pm
by Jedinsto » Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:13 pm
by The Python » Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:56 pm
Jedinsto wrote:As someone who stands strongly against wasting the WA's time, seeing there's about 10 total people on the planet who support this, this is getting shelved, at least for now.
Edit: Not directing this at barfleur or anyone, just in general, this proposal is extremely unpopular.
by Ushornaia » Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:59 pm
The Python wrote:Jedinsto wrote:As someone who stands strongly against wasting the WA's time, seeing there's about 10 total people on the planet who support this, this is getting shelved, at least for now.
Edit: Not directing this at barfleur or anyone, just in general, this proposal is extremely unpopular.
RIP. I honestly supported this proposal
by Brilliantly » Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:27 am
by Heavens Reach » Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:11 am
by Heidgaudr » Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:18 am
by Jedinsto » Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:42 am
Heavens Reach wrote:Support as written, except that we would reword the anti-blocker to say something more like (and feel free to use verbatim if you so desire):
"nor does it prohibit more stringent requirements, or stronger restrictions, from being placed on nuclear weapon use in future legislation"
We don't think "nor does it prevent future legislation from going further on the concept of nuclear strikes" is very clear in what it is permitting.
by Heavens Reach » Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:16 pm
Jedinsto wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:Support as written, except that we would reword the anti-blocker to say something more like (and feel free to use verbatim if you so desire):
"nor does it prohibit more stringent requirements, or stronger restrictions, from being placed on nuclear weapon use in future legislation"
We don't think "nor does it prevent future legislation from going further on the concept of nuclear strikes" is very clear in what it is permitting.
Suggestion taken with different words.
by Starman of Stardust » Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:57 pm
Heidgaudr wrote:"The threat of MAD has significantly reduced the number of wars between major geopolitical powers. When war does break out, it's often contained to a smaller scale and scope.
"Furthermore, GAR#2 requires wars between member states to be consensual. If nuclear strike were a threat, then members shouldn't be agreeing to those wars. As such, we see this proposal as being mostly pointless busywork."
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Wed Nov 16, 2022 8:01 pm
by West Barack and East Obama » Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:10 pm
by Heavens Reach » Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:40 pm
by Kenmoria » Thu Nov 17, 2022 6:16 am
by Jedinsto » Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:25 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Though I would support a more restrictive piece of legislation as well, this does not prevent such a step from being taken in the future. Therefore, the idea has my support. On the matter of execution, however, I do have some concerns, particularly with clause 2b. First, if a WMD of sufficient size were to strike very small nations: micronations, as they are sometimes termed, then there might not be any government left to authorise an attack. I am thinking particularly of nations on small islands. Second, I am confused as to why conventional warheads, to which retaliation is allowed according to clause 2a, are not sufficient justification for a retaliatory strike if upon an ally.”
by Starman of Stardust » Sun Dec 18, 2022 11:49 am
by Kenmoria » Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:14 pm
by New Falkarth » Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:47 am
by Kenmoria » Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:53 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement