NationStates

Following this reaching quorum and thus going to vote soon, I decided to take it upon myself to repeal GAR#10 to allow for a future ban on nuclear weapons completely. This is the first ever GA draft I have written, but here it is!

The General Assembly,

NOTING that clause 2 of GAR#10 allows "individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons",

OBSERVING that the use of nuclear weapons can cause the deaths of thousands of humans and animals alike where they are deployed, as well as devastating the natural environment,

BELIEVING that banning nuclear weapons would prevent the deaths and destruction of thousands of humans and animals,

FURTHER NOTING that GAR#10 must be repealed to allow for an eventual ban on nuclear weapons,

Hereby repeals GAR#10.

Advice on how to improve this would be appreciated! As I said, this is my first GA draft and I am *definitely* not going to submit it at this stage

Deleted because of feedback.

"Oppose. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevents more death and military-related degradation of environment than it causes by disincentivizing high intensity modern combat and incentivizing diplomatic discourse."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Oppose. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevents more death and military-related degradation of environment than it causes by disincentivizing high intensity modern combat and incentivizing diplomatic discourse."

"This is not always viable as MAD would require both nations to follow the doctrine in order for it to work. If 2 nations are at war and only one follows MAD, the one that does not will attack the one that does, which will attack back and only cause more destruction"

The unnamed ambassador leans back in his chair, a toothpick in his mouth. "Didn't nuclear weapons stop that war a few years ago between Albitro and Garalan? Or did that not happen in your universe? Whatever. This is stupid."

OOC: Opposed for obvious reasons.

The Python wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Oppose. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevents more death and military-related degradation of environment than it causes by disincentivizing high intensity modern combat and incentivizing diplomatic discourse."

"This is not always viable as MAD would require both nations to follow the doctrine in order for it to work. If 2 nations are at war and only one follows MAD, the one that does not will attack the one that does, which will attack back and only cause more destruction"

"Nations have every incentive to obey the doctrine or face assured destruction. It is implicit in the theory. Nations that do not consider such incentives will likely not consider incentives to follow a law banning nuclear weapons. We can reasonably assume, ambassador, that nations are rational actors."

"Opposed because it isn't written well enough. Draft it to have more substance."

Silvedania wrote:"Opposed because it isn't written well enough. Draft it to have more substance."

I know, I am definitely not going to submit it like this. This is just the first draft.

Opposed.

Fully opposed.

Tinhampton wrote:HECC YUS!!!

OOC: MAD is a viable means of maintaining peace. Notice how the nuclear powers haven't signed that? No nation with nuclear weapons is willing to give them up and lose their deterrent against attack or invasion.

OOC: I don't really have much to say here, other than, opposed. I don't really have any ideas on how it can be improved, but even with a perfectly written resolution, I would not support this, due to the replacement being a full on ban of nuclear weapons.

Jedinsto wrote:OOC: I don't really have much to say here, other than, opposed. I don't really have any ideas on how it can be improved, but even with a perfectly written resolution, I would not support this, due to the replacement being a full on ban of nuclear weapons.

most likely the replacement will actually be more like "you cannot own, produce or use nuclear weapons unless a non-WA attacks you"

The Python wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:OOC: I don't really have much to say here, other than, opposed. I don't really have any ideas on how it can be improved, but even with a perfectly written resolution, I would not support this, due to the replacement being a full on ban of nuclear weapons.

most likely the replacement will actually be more like "you cannot own, produce or use nuclear weapons unless a non-WA attacks you"

Hold up, now we're restricting ownership and production to a non-WA attack too?

Greater Cesnica wrote:

The Python wrote:most likely the replacement will actually be more like "you cannot own, produce or use nuclear weapons unless a non-WA attacks you"

Hold up, now we're restricting ownership and production to a non-WA attack too?

No, WA nations can't own nukes unless they are attacked by a non-WA (as an exception). Too many people are objecting that MAD won't work.

Absolutely and utterly opposed.

The Python wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hold up, now we're restricting ownership and production to a non-WA attack too?

No, WA nations can't own nukes unless they are attacked by a non-WA (as an exception). Too many people are objecting that MAD won't work.

OOC: So you want nations to suddenly get hold of a bunch nukes over night and prepare them to be fired overnight? Nukes aren't guns that you can suddenly get and set up on a moment's notice.
IC: "Opposed. Your idealistic dreams are best left in the realm of fantasy."

"Support in principle but the Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands fails to see how the proposal would be practically enforced.

We are disappointed to see that our fellow WA members lack the vision to envision a world free of nuclear weapons. The proposal may be a flight of fancy but it's goals are extremely admirable. If we want to create a better, more secure world, we must have imagination and drive".

The Langburn Islands wrote:"Support in principle but the Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands fails to see how the proposal would be practically enforced.

We are disappointed to see that our fellow WA members lack the vision to envision a world free of nuclear weapons. The proposal may be a flight of fancy but it's goals are extremely admirable. If we want to create a better, more secure world, we must have imagination and drive".

"Mutually assured destruction is a necessary component of deterrent-based world peace."

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:HECC YUS!!!

OOC: MAD is a viable means of maintaining peace. Notice how the nuclear powers haven't signed that? No nation with nuclear weapons is willing to give them up and lose their deterrent against attack or invasion.

OOC: Unless you are South Africa just before Apartheid ends, and are afraid of black people getting nuclear weapons.

IC: "Nations must maintain the right to own a nuclear arsenal in order to deter invasions by foreign powers. I am opposed."

Greater Cesnica wrote:

The Langburn Islands wrote:"Support in principle but the Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands fails to see how the proposal would be practically enforced.

We are disappointed to see that our fellow WA members lack the vision to envision a world free of nuclear weapons. The proposal may be a flight of fancy but it's goals are extremely admirable. If we want to create a better, more secure world, we must have imagination and drive".

"Mutually assured destruction is a necessary component of deterrent-based world peace."

"This is our position. The C.D.S.P. is committed to peaceful and diplomatic resolution of conflict, but not to the detriment of it's own strategic defense. The best way of ensuring peaceful and diplomatic resolution of conflict is to ensure any alternative is more costly than beneficial."

The Langburn Islands wrote:"Support in principle but the Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands fails to see how the proposal would be practically enforced.

We are disappointed to see that our fellow WA members lack the vision to envision a world free of nuclear weapons. The proposal may be a flight of fancy but it's goals are extremely admirable. If we want to create a better, more secure world, we must have imagination and drive".

"Ambassador, we do envision a world free of nuclear weapons but the WA only makes up approximately 10% of the world so unless we can bring the entire world under WA, such a vision is beyond the WA's abilities."

Ardiveds wrote:

The Python wrote:No, WA nations can't own nukes unless they are attacked by a non-WA (as an exception). Too many people are objecting that MAD won't work.

OOC: So you want nations to suddenly get hold of a bunch nukes over night and prepare them to be fired overnight? Nukes aren't guns that you can suddenly get and set up on a moment's notice.

Nations could buy them off a non-WA ally for example

The Python wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: So you want nations to suddenly get hold of a bunch nukes over night and prepare them to be fired overnight? Nukes aren't guns that you can suddenly get and set up on a moment's notice.

Nations could buy them off a non-WA ally for example

Not plausible at all, say, if your capital is reduced to a radioactive wasteland.

The Python wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: So you want nations to suddenly get hold of a bunch nukes over night and prepare them to be fired overnight? Nukes aren't guns that you can suddenly get and set up on a moment's notice.

Nations could buy them off a non-WA ally for example

"In the time it would take to negotiate and deliver, install, target, and then launch those weapons, a foreign state can have exhausted their first and second strike capabilities offensively and had time to hold a referendum on whether or not to fire the third strike weapons. I do not think, ambassador, that you are very well versed in nuclear theory or its use."