Page 3 of 8
Posted:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:58 pmby Jedinsto
Separatist Peoples wrote:"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."
OOC- I may have read something wrong, but this does reserve the right to respond to any attack at all, not just nuclear strikes, with nukes. The only actual restrictions on the use in the proposal is that you can't nuke someone who hasn't attacked you at all. What I want to see is less mutual destruction, but keeping the threat of it, making nations less likely to attack each other. Since non-members can't be regulated, this resolution reserves the right to nuke non-members without regulations.
Posted:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 6:42 amby Jedinsto
And, for real this time, this act will be submitted tomorrow.
Posted:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:24 amby Jedinsto
Submitted
Posted:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:32 amby Imperium Anglorum
Jedinsto wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"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."
OOC- I may have read something wrong, but this does reserve the right to respond to any attack at all, not just nuclear strikes, with nukes. The only actual restrictions on the use in the proposal is that you can't nuke someone who hasn't attacked you at all. What I want to see is less mutual destruction, but keeping the threat of it, making nations less likely to attack each other. Since non-members can't be regulated, this resolution reserves the right to nuke non-members without regulations.
Wouldn't that be the exact same standard – 'to use [nuclear weapons] in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces' – as that in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials?
Posted:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:04 amby Jedinsto
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Jedinsto wrote:OOC- I may have read something wrong, but this does reserve the right to respond to any attack at all, not just nuclear strikes, with nukes. The only actual restrictions on the use in the proposal is that you can't nuke someone who hasn't attacked you at all. What I want to see is less mutual destruction, but keeping the threat of it, making nations less likely to attack each other. Since non-members can't be regulated, this resolution reserves the right to nuke non-members without regulations.
Wouldn't that be the exact same standard – 'to use [nuclear weapons] in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces' – as that in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials?
Yes, but that resolution didn't ban anything, it just prevented banning responding to an attack from hostile forces. I had to work around the blocker, and ban what I could, which means not banning retaliation.
Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:06 amby Jedinsto
Keep it up, delegates, we're half way to quorum!
Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:27 amby Thermodolia
Against in full
Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:13 pmby WayNeacTia
Jedinsto wrote:Keep it up, delegates, we're half way to quorum!
It's not going to pass even if it gets to vote. I do hope you are fully prepared for that.
Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:40 pmby Jedinsto
I have a replacement ready to go in case this doesn't reach quorum, thoughts? Suggestions?
Posted:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:25 pmby Greater Cesnica
Opposed due to Article 3.
Posted:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:55 pmby Jedinsto
Alright, I'll remove clause 3, so there's no blocker, but not take any action against usage on non-members.
Posted:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:32 pmby Jedinsto
I have made the decision to withdraw the submission and return to drafting.
Posted:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:34 pmby Greater Cesnica
Jedinsto wrote:I have made the decision to withdraw the submission and return to drafting.
Good call.
Posted:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:08 amby Jedinsto
For anyone who was confused, this proposal has not been scrapped, it was only withdrawn so I could make more changes. Are there any more thoughts on this?
Posted:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:42 pmby Greater Cesnica
What's the purpose of Article 2(b)? I find that it greatly reduces the threshold required to use nuclear weapons.
Posted:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:48 pmby Atheris
"Alright. For starters, I'm not a national, yeah? I took a wrong turn at the Edge of Creation and ended up in this dump instead of the pub. But I enjoy the multiverse, especially you guys. Quite fond of you. Anyways; clause 2b. Let's say I'm in charge of, say, a rather large nation and a nation on a similar power level but without nuclear weapons attempts to start a war with me. What's stopping me from just deleting their entire country? That's a rather stupid idea."
OOC: Opposed for 2b.
Posted:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:15 pmby Jedinsto
Atheris wrote:"Alright. For starters, I'm not a national, yeah? I took a wrong turn at the Edge of Creation and ended up in this dump instead of the pub. But I enjoy the multiverse, especially you guys. Quite fond of you. Anyways; clause 2b. Let's say I'm in charge of, say, a rather large nation and a nation on a similar power level but without nuclear weapons attempts to start a war with me. What's stopping me from just deleting their entire country? That's a rather stupid idea."
OOC: Opposed for 2b.
True, something I overlooked. (fixed)
Posted:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:31 pmby Greater Cesnica
Much better now!
Posted:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:51 pmby Ardiveds
"So are we back to regulating nukes against those who themselves can't be regulated?"
Posted:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:04 amby Greater Cesnica
Ardiveds wrote:"So are we back to regulating nukes against those who themselves can't be regulated?"
"Yep." replies Ambassador McCooley.
Posted:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:29 amby Jedinsto
Ardiveds wrote:"So are we back to regulating nukes against those who themselves can't be regulated?"
OOC: The fact that non-members can't be regulated was legitimate enough to make that compromise, but I always wanted to regulate them, I am fairly strongly opposed to nukes. Turns out, the compromise was enough of a deterrent to make the proposal fail.
Posted:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:42 amby Ardiveds
Jedinsto wrote:Ardiveds wrote:"So are we back to regulating nukes against those who themselves can't be regulated?"
OOC: The fact that non-members can't be regulated was legitimate enough to make that compromise, but I always wanted to regulate them, I am fairly strongly opposed to nukes. Turns out, the compromise was enough of a deterrent to make the proposal fail.
OOC: I agree. But the reality remains that non-members are outside WA law. Well if you can get a total ban on first strike to pass, good for you, but I'm not holding my breath.
Greater Cesnica wrote:Ardiveds wrote:"So are we back to regulating nukes against those who themselves can't be regulated?"
"Yep." replies Ambassador McCooley.
"In that case, we shall have to withdraw our support for this proposal once more."
Posted:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:31 amby Greater Cesnica
Ardiveds wrote: Greater Cesnica wrote:"Yep." replies Ambassador McCooley.
"In that case, we shall have to withdraw our support for this proposal once more."
"Marvelous." Ambassador McCooley says, smirking.
Posted:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:22 pmby Jedinsto
Does anyone have further thoughts/suggestions?
Posted:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:32 amby Jedinsto
I'm officially moving this to last call. I plan to submit on Tuesday as long as the queue stays empty.