[Withd'n] Repeal “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (by Old Hope)

[Old Hope]

Here's an argument against- How the fuck would it be required that a nation go into excessive spending and debt to comply with NAPA?

Edit: Also, NAPA has not been made redundant either. In other words, all of your arguments are complete bogus. Please withdraw this so you don't waste the Assembly's valuable time.

"Trellania is in full compliance with this, and we don't even have nukes. We've also not spent one single shaving of copper on it."

In accordance with our delegation's announced policy of June 29, 2005, we will be voting in favor of this repeal. However we are honor-bound to point out that the words "avaliable" and "likelyhood" are misspelled in the quorate proposal, there should be a space in between "account" and the opening parenthesis, and the phrase "cause the nation into a spiral of excessive spending and debt" lacks a verb.

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy WA Ambassador
Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

We now see why our arguments are unconvincing at the moment and do not wish to prevent that resolution from being repealed by forcing a doomed proposal to vote. We have withdrawn this proposal from the floor and will begin the necessary restructuring.
1. NAPA does not require excessive spending per se. It only does if you choose to have nuclear weapons. In other words... NAPA indirectly BANS the possession of nuclear weapons.
2.We do not disagree. Nations without nukes do not have that problem. However, not having nukes might be a problem itself.
3. Thanks for helping us.

Version 2.:

Reassured that General Assembly Resolution 418 allows the possession of nuclear arms whilst containing a more nuanced protection requirement,
Alarmed that this resolution contains the catastrophic phrase "every available precaution to ensure", a phrase that does not take the reasonableness of these precautions into account (in relation to other needed spending and likelihood of necessity),
Convinced that the priority of precautions regarding nuclear arms should be high, but not absolute, that even ludicrously expensive precautions are still avaliable precautions, that nations should not be forced to decide between having nuclear weapons and excessive debt and having no nuclear weapons and getting nuked by the neighboring non-member nation,

the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

[Trellania]

"We are located on the polar continent of our region. Land-locked glaciars make up a significant portion of the southern half of our nation. Anyone stupid enough to nuke us would be setting off a global environmental disaster that should get them nuked by everyone else in response.

"We don't have any interest in nukes because, frankly, we don't need them.

"That said, we still do not see how, even with nukes, this presents an unreasonable expenditure."

[WayNeacTia]

1. NAPA does not require excessive spending per se. It only does if you choose to have nuclear weapons. In other words... NAPA indirectly BANS the possession of nuclear weapons.

You can't seriously stand behind a statement like that can you? By all means, attempt to repeal it on that argument.

[Old Hope]

1. NAPA does not require excessive spending per se. It only does if you choose to have nuclear weapons. In other words... NAPA indirectly BANS the possession of nuclear weapons.

You can't seriously stand behind a statement like that can you? By all means, attempt to repeal it on that argument.

Er, can you explain why our argument is supposed to be faulty?

[WayNeacTia]

You can't seriously stand behind a statement like that can you? By all means, attempt to repeal it on that argument.

Er, can you explain why our argument is supposed to be faulty?

You are making the argument, not me.

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

You show me how any of this "indirectly" bans nuclear weapons possession? Clause 3? Simple locks do the trick. Pretty sure those won't bankrupt most economies. In fact I would argue that bigger nations would go out of their way to help smaller nations secure their stockpiles at their own expense just to prevent said weapons from falling into nefarious hands. Thus the category of International Security fits as well, so if that was your next argument, well it just got Crossroads Bakered. Like it or not, Flib wrote a bullet proof resolution. You can bang your head off the wall until the universe freezes solid, and it won't so much as put a scratch in the paint of NAPA. That is the reality I am afraid.

[Old Hope]

Er, can you explain why our argument is supposed to be faulty?

You are making the argument, not me.

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

You show me how any of this "indirectly" bans nuclear weapons possession? Clause 3? Simple locks do the trick.

Bullshit.

It says every available precaution to ensure. Locks are only one of many avaliable precautions to ensure that. You need to take every single avaliable precaution, not just one.

Version 3.

Reassured that General Assembly Resolution 418 allows the possession of nuclear arms whilst containing a more nuanced protection requirement,
Alarmed that this resolution contains the catastrophic phrase "every available precaution to ensure", a phrase that does not take the reasonableness of these precautions into account (in relation to other needed spending and likelihood of necessity), a phrase that forces practically infinite spending on every nation possessing nuclear weapons because it forces them to take every single precaution that is avaliable, and with enough money spending you can take many precautions, even those raising the security by an almost negligible amount but costing an excessive amount of money;
Convinced that the priority of precautions regarding nuclear arms should be high, but not absolute, that even ludicrously expensive precautions are still avaliable precautions, that nations should not be forced to decide between having nuclear weapons and excessive debt and having no nuclear weapons and getting nuked by the neighboring non-member nation,

the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

[WayNeacTia]

You are making the argument, not me.

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

You show me how any of this "indirectly" bans nuclear weapons possession? Clause 3? Simple locks do the trick.

Bullshit.

It says every available precaution to ensure. Locks are only one of many avaliable precautions to ensure that. You need to take every single avaliable precaution, not just one.

Version 3.

Reassured that General Assembly Resolution 418 allows the possession of nuclear arms whilst containing a more nuanced protection requirement,
Alarmed that this resolution contains the catastrophic phrase "every available precaution to ensure", a phrase that does not take the reasonableness of these precautions into account (in relation to other needed spending and likelihood of necessity), a phrase that forces practically infinite spending on every nation possessing nuclear arms because it forces them to take every single precaution that is avaliable, and with enough money spending you can make many many precautions, even those raising the security by an almost negligible amount but costing an excessive amount of money;
Convinced that the priority of precautions regarding nuclear arms should be high, but not absolute, that even ludicrously expensive precautions are still avaliable precautions, that nations should not be forced to decide between having nuclear weapons and excessive debt and having no nuclear weapons and getting nuked by the neighboring non-member nation,

the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

Then make that argument. Mine stand holds true. Larger nations will inevitably help smaller nations take "every available precaution" to ensure nuclear weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, simply to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.

[Old Hope]

Bullshit.

It says every available precaution to ensure. Locks are only one of many avaliable precautions to ensure that. You need to take every single avaliable precaution, not just one.

Version 3.

Reassured that General Assembly Resolution 418 allows the possession of nuclear arms whilst containing a more nuanced protection requirement,
Alarmed that this resolution contains the catastrophic phrase "every available precaution to ensure", a phrase that does not take the reasonableness of these precautions into account (in relation to other needed spending and likelihood of necessity), a phrase that forces practically infinite spending on every nation possessing nuclear arms because it forces them to take every single precaution that is avaliable, and with enough money spending you can make many many precautions, even those raising the security by an almost negligible amount but costing an excessive amount of money;
Convinced that the priority of precautions regarding nuclear arms should be high, but not absolute, that even ludicrously expensive precautions are still avaliable precautions, that nations should not be forced to decide between having nuclear weapons and excessive debt and having no nuclear weapons and getting nuked by the neighboring non-member nation,

the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

Then make that argument. Mine stand holds true. Larger nations will inevitably help smaller nations take "every available precaution" to ensure nuclear weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, simply to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.

No, it does not.
Larger nations will not be able to help smaller nations because the required spending has no limit.

[WayNeacTia]

Then make that argument. Mine stand holds true. Larger nations will inevitably help smaller nations take "every available precaution" to ensure nuclear weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, simply to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.

No, it does not.
Larger nations will not be able to help smaller nations because the required spending has no limit.

I am sure that argument will hold up......... By all means, make it.

[Old Hope]

That argument is in the repeal text.Constructive feedback is welcome.

Version 4.

Reassured that General Assembly Resolution 418 allows the possession of nuclear arms whilst containing a more nuanced protection requirement,
Alarmed that this resolution contains the catastrophic phrase "every available precaution to ensure", a phrase that does not take the reasonableness of these precautions into account (in relation to other needed spending and likelihood of necessity), a phrase that forces practically infinite spending on every nation possessing nuclear weapons because it forces them to take every single precaution that is avaliable, and with enough spending you can take many precautions, even those raising the security by an almost negligible amount but costing an excessive amount of money;
Convinced that the priority of precautions regarding nuclear arms should be high, but not absolute, that even ludicrously expensive precautions are still avaliable precautions, that some member nations should not be forced to decide between having nuclear weapons and excessive debt and having no nuclear weapons and getting nuked by the neighboring non-member nation,

the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you keep making new drafts, put them in a thread you have the OP of and update that OP. IA posted this thread because you were too lazy to do so, but if you're actually attempting some drafting for a change, make a bloody drafting thread for it and use it as it's meant to be used.