(DRAFT) Repeal: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Traden]

The World Assembly,

Noting that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act provided arming for all World Assembly member nations since it became a resolution,

Concerned, however, that this resolution provides multiple mistakes which would otherwise have been unnoticed,

Noticing it stating weapons instead of nuclear arms, meaning that member nations have to be careful with every weapon they have,

Realizing there is no limit on how many nuclear arms can be possesed,

Knowing it allows nations to possess nuclear arms to defend from hostile nations, but not to attack them,

Reminded of the passing of GA#418 Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, which technically makes this resolution pointless,

Summarizing that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act does not help the world in any way and is in need of a repeal for this pointless resolution,

Hereby repeals GA#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

[Tinhampton]

Hoping that a better resolution will pass to replace the Nuclear Arms Possession Act

That resolution passed three-and-a-half years ago.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: A shitty repeal to an already nigh unrepealable resolution. I suggest abandoning it.

Realizing that this resolution:

- Falls into the wrong category, as it does not boost budgets for either the military or the police,
- Falls into the wrong strength, as it strongly helps member nations,

OOC: Repeals can't call their target resolution illegal because it is automatically legal by the virtue of it passing. These arguments make the repeal itself illegal.

- States that many nations that are not in the World Assembly are hostile to nations in the World Assembly, which is not true as many non-member nations and member nations help each other, and
- Does not provide any definition on what nuclear arms are,

1. Can you guarantee that every or even the majority of non-membere are frienedly or neutral?
2. Look up a dictionary

[Outer Sparta]

Nope. Not a good repeal attempt and you already have little chance of it passing anyway.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The weapons argument flies in the face of RNT.

[Thermodolia]

Against

[Jedinsto]

Oof I was gonna write an IC response to this being like "Nice intent, but no," and then realized how exceptionally bad of a repeal attempt this is.

Here's some genuine feedback- you should add in that it only actually establishes that member states can possess their nuclear arms to defend from hostile nations and that nations are allowed to "want" nuclear arms, but not to actually have them. That is, unless you scrap it.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Utter drivel."

[Traden]

New draft.

[Outer Sparta]

Still terribly-written though. I would recommend you drop this since there's not much support for a repeal of GA10.

[Greater Cesnica]

Noticing that it states weapons instead of nuclear arms, meaning that member nations have to be careful with every weapon they have,

Also noticing that it states nuclear weapons instead of nuclear arms, meaning that member nations have to be careful with every nuclear weapon they have,

McCooley gags. "W-What kind of a nitpick is this? I wouldn't defile my toilet paper with having this supposed "argument" printed on it, I mean, gosh!"

[Avaerilon]

OOC: There's some vague and incorrect uses of language here- I say this as an educator. Better to be straightforward and concise with language you're comfortable with.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I oppose repeal. The reason for this is that the target resolution is extremely minimalistic; the resolution my delegation passed some time ago is not so minimalistic, it actually has policies en bloc which might be repealed if there were a shift in opinions.

[Traden]

/bump

[Minskiev]

being careful with all nuclear weapons instead of just nuclear arms is now an argument lmao

[Picairn]

Congratulations, you just brought the meaning of "frivolous arguments" to a new level.

The two "Noticing" clauses are carbon copies of each other.

[Traden]

The two "Noticing" clauses are carbon copies of each other.

Fixed.

[Ardiveds]

Discovering that it allows nations to want nuclear arms, but not to actually have them,

Knowing that it allows nations to possess nuclear arms to defend from hostile nations, but not to attack them,

OOC: Wait so it allows nations to not have them but still have them? Aren't these statements contradictory?

[Traden]

Discovering that it allows nations to want nuclear arms, but not to actually have them,

Knowing that it allows nations to possess nuclear arms to defend from hostile nations, but not to attack them,

OOC: Wait so it allows nations to not have them but still have them? Aren't these statements contradictory?

I will remove 1. Thank you.

[Traden]

/bump

[Greater Cesnica]

/bump

OOC: You do not need to bump 5 hours after the previous post. Your post was on the first page.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I still believe that the weapons definition argument flies in the face of RNT and thus would be an honest mistake.

[Traden]

I still believe that the weapons definition argument flies in the face of RNT and thus would be an honest mistake.

Fixed and also, can you help me draft? I really need a co-author.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Probably not, I don't see any reason to repeal GA 10 in principle or otherwise.

[Traden]

Probably not, I don't see any reason to repeal GA 10 in principle or otherwise.

Alright.