Support
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:49 amI support this proposal and wish you luck
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[DEFEATED] Nuclear Aggression Act
Page 4 of 8
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:49 amPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:50 pmChange of plans, since the queue is completely empty at the moment, this will be submitted tomorrow at minor.
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:00 pmTwo issues.
1. Calculated ambiguity helps deterrence by preventing adversaries from toeing right to the line of what was previously declared and engaging in salami tactics.
2. It's unclear to me whether this would allow member nations to extend nuclear umbrellas. Precluding a nuclear umbrella has pro-proliferation effects, increasing the number of possible miscalculations. Retaliation generally stands for a response, but by focusing on nations rather than alliances thereof, a harmonious reading seems to preclude the kind of deterrence that stopped the Soviet Union from overrunning West Germany.
1. Calculated ambiguity helps deterrence by preventing adversaries from toeing right to the line of what was previously declared and engaging in salami tactics.
2. It's unclear to me whether this would allow member nations to extend nuclear umbrellas. Precluding a nuclear umbrella has pro-proliferation effects, increasing the number of possible miscalculations. Retaliation generally stands for a response, but by focusing on nations rather than alliances thereof, a harmonious reading seems to preclude the kind of deterrence that stopped the Soviet Union from overrunning West Germany.
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:48 pmYou definitely bring up a good point there, and I incorporated nuclear umbrellas into clause 2.
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:12 amSubmitted.
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:23 pmOfficially halfway to quorum
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:56 pmQuorum reached
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:59 pmJedinsto wrote:2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations, except for retaliating to a massive, or repeated, attack from an armed force, or in response to a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon strike, to one's own nation, or a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense.
This wording solves neither of the problems that I noted.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:14 pmIt allows for nuclear umbrellas
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:11 pmImperium Anglorum wrote:Jedinsto wrote:2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations, except for retaliating to a massive, or repeated, attack from an armed force, or in response to a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon strike, to one's own nation, or a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense.
This wording solves neither of the problems that I noted.
Because you have commas all over the place (even when not necessary, required, or prudent), I get this diagram:
Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations [ except for 1. retaliating to a massive (, or repeated,) attack from an armed force, or 2. in response to a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon strike (, to one's own nation,) or a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense].
Attaching the dangling modifier from your current text to the end of what is marked as '1.' would produce an ungrammatical construct, 'attack from an armed force... to one's own nation', when the correct preposition would be 'on'. Even if it said 'on' and we ignore the commas in accordance with traditional English practice, see eg Larry Eig, 'Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trend' (2014) Cong Rsch Serv report 97-589, 13 (available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf), the dangling modifier would only attach to what is marked as '2.' under the rule of the last antecedent. Ibid.
There is a possible interpretation of the section under '2.' as allowing the use of nuclear weapons 'in response to... a nation allied by treaty...' but this would go massively against the intent of the law, which is to restrict nuclear aggression. Allowing the use of nuclear weapons merely because some other nation requests it would do almost nothing to restrain aggressive tendencies.
This yields only one possible interpretation, that a nation may retaliate with nuclear weapons to a massive attack from an armed force. As one cannot be retaliating to attacks on other nations, since that would not be a 'retaliation', it does not admit the use of nuclear weapons on (very lightly disguised) Mega-Allemagne by Albion in response to a massive invasion of Greater Brabant on their way to Gaul.
I think what you wanted to write would be something like:
Bans a member from using nuclear weapons on another nation except in retaliation to (1) a massive or repeated attack from an armed force on or (2) a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon strike on that member or a nation allied thereto by treaty for the purposes of mutual defence.
Regardless, if I were the author, I would not put any restrictions on use and therefore abandon the draft.
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:48 pmSupport - The use of WMD's is almost all of the time, if not always unethical and bad - in fact one could argue that this does not go far enough as it still allows nations to have supplies of nuclear bombs. Repealing this could help too, but still, support.
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:17 amThis already failed once, and is very likely to fail yet again.
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:28 pmWayneactia wrote:This already failed once, and is very likely to fail yet again.
He withdrew it last time
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:23 amUnfortunately, due to the lack of any semblance of a definition of what might constitute "massive" or "repeated" attacks in clause 2b, essentially rendering this resolution utterly toothless. Combined with our belief that the ability to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive manner should be afforded to any sovereign nation, the USP will not support this resolution when it comes for vote.
Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA.
Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA.
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:48 pmSo as to not waste 4 days of everybody's lives, I have decided to pull this, and may make another push for it with refinements in the future.
Edit: New edits have been made for better definitions.
Edit: New edits have been made for better definitions.
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:48 pmOOC: Testing of Nuclear weapons is banned?
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:49 pmArdiveds wrote:OOC: Testing of Nuclear weapons is banned?
If you're testing it on other nations.
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:51 pmPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:52 pmPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:53 pm1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution;
a. "nuclear weapon" as a bomb or missile that uses nuclear fission, fusion, or a combination of the two processes to create an explosion,
b. "weapon of mass destruction" as a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction in a single strike,
c. "military invasion" as a military force of significant size directed by its government to enter foreign territory in order to cause mass destruction to civilian targets, or to strike a military encampment,
2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction, or a military invasion,
a. on one's own nation, or,
b. on a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense.
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:53 pmI also think this should be repealed as it would allow the GA to pass a resolution to ban nuclear weapons entirely.
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:55 pmPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:58 pmThis has been pulled based on advice given by several GA folks.
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:59 pmPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:57 pmOOC: Hey, thanks for withdrawing the proposal and giving yourself a chance to work on it some more!
I think as currently written - with the restrictions applying to member states whether they're dealing with other member states or with non-member states - there could be some significant problems with what you're trying to put in place.
Under this proposal, if you're a World Assembly member state dealing with the threat that another member state may launch a nuclear attack on you, you know that they are not permitted to strike first, just as you're not permitted to strike first on them. But you have no such guarantee when you're dealing with non-member states, who may build up their nuclear arsenals as far as they wish with no need to worry about the possibility that you'll take these out via nuclear attack, and who can then strike first to destroy your own nuclear arsenal, leaving you with no ability to retaliate.
I respect and sympathise with your wish to reduce the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons as far as possible, but for mutually-assured destruction to work as a way of keeping things in balance, it has to go both ways.
I think as currently written - with the restrictions applying to member states whether they're dealing with other member states or with non-member states - there could be some significant problems with what you're trying to put in place.
Under this proposal, if you're a World Assembly member state dealing with the threat that another member state may launch a nuclear attack on you, you know that they are not permitted to strike first, just as you're not permitted to strike first on them. But you have no such guarantee when you're dealing with non-member states, who may build up their nuclear arsenals as far as they wish with no need to worry about the possibility that you'll take these out via nuclear attack, and who can then strike first to destroy your own nuclear arsenal, leaving you with no ability to retaliate.
I respect and sympathise with your wish to reduce the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons as far as possible, but for mutually-assured destruction to work as a way of keeping things in balance, it has to go both ways.