Page 1 of 2
[Withd'n] Repeal “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (by Old Hope)
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:38 amby Imperium Anglorum
Verbatim.
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 avaliable precaution to ensure", a phrase that does not take the reasonableness of these precautions into account(in relation to other needed spending and likelyhood of necessity),
Convinced that the priority of precautions regarding nuclear arms should be high, but not cause the nation into a spiral of excessive spending and debt,
the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:39 amby Imperium Anglorum
What a terrible format, terrible argument, and terrible waste of the Assembly's time. It's been campaigned by this telegram, which I received a few minutes ago. Apparently punctuation, capitalisation, spelling, and spacing are for low-IQ plebs like me.
Esteemed delegates,
The Nuclear Arms Possession Act is an extremely flawed piece of legislation that does not factor in any affected nation's wealth and capacity to spend, but rather makes the demand that member nations make "every precaution avaliable to ensure", a demand that has no upper limit on spending.
General Assembly Resolution 418 protects the rights of member nations to have nuclear weapons because non-member nations exist and nuclear weapons are unfortunately needed and it makes more balanced demands on the security of nuclear weapons, which should be quite high.
Please approve the proposal by clicking the below link and then "Approve". Your assistance once this resolution goes to vote would be greatly appreciated, too
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1623161786Thank you for reading.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:41 amby Jedinsto
I would like to offer my unwavering opposition.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:42 amby Tinhampton
I automatically support all resolutions of this title. While a complete (or at best near-complete) ban on nuclear weapons would be preferably, most if not all of GA#10 has been superceded by Safeguarding Nuclear Materials.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:15 amby Greater Cesnica
OOC: "What is drafting?"
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:19 amby Imperium Anglorum
Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: "What is drafting?"
Authors, abstractly, do not
need to draft publicly or at all. Old Hope too does not need to do it. It is a waste of your time and everyone else's time. Feedback washes off Old Hope's proposals like water off a duck.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:19 amby Kenmoria
“My opposition goes without saying, but I will nonetheless say it. Though I do, in theory, support a repeal of GA #010, this does not meet the necessary standard to become a part of GA law.”
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:20 amby Greater Cesnica
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: "What is drafting?"
Authors, abstractly, do not
need to draft publicly or at all. Old Hope too does not need to do it. It is a waste of your time and everyone else's time. Feedback washes off Old Hope's proposals like water off a duck.
Well, fair.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:25 amby Picairn
Obviously, visibly oppose. "Terrible" can't even adequately describe how awful this proposal is.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:30 amby Separatist Peoples
Tinhampton wrote:I automatically support all resolutions of this title. While a complete (or at best near-complete) ban on nuclear weapons would be preferably, most if not all of GA#10 has been superceded by Safeguarding Nuclear Materials.
Ooc: it really wouldn't be.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:32 amby Jedinsto
What tag(s) was the telegram sent to?
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:34 amby NationStates Puppet
Jedinsto wrote:What tag(s) was the telegram sent to?
Delegates, I think.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:38 amby Separatist Peoples
NationStates Puppet wrote:Jedinsto wrote:What tag(s) was the telegram sent to?
Delegates, I think.
Ooc: poor delegates.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:40 amby Jedinsto
Mainly what I'm wondering is if the tg was sent with stamps or API, or neither. If it was neither, it would only be tagged as a campaign. API would have tag:api and tag:delegates. Stamps would be just tag:delegates.
(someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:43 amby Imperium Anglorum
Jedinsto wrote:Mainly what I'm wondering is if the tg was sent with stamps or API, or neither. If it was neither, it would only be tagged as a campaign. API would have tag:api and tag:delegates. Stamps would be just tag:delegates.
Was sent via stamps to tag:delegates, marked properly as a campaign telegram.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:44 amby Jedinsto
Ah. At this point, stuck at 8 approvals after a stamp TG, this may actually fail to reach quorum, without any counter-campaign or quorum raids. A sight that I have not seen in my time.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:16 amby Outer Sparta
Oh geez, yet another attempt at this.
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:10 amby Jedinsto
This has, unfortunately, reached quorum and will go to vote on Sunday at major (I think).
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:09 amby Hulldom
Jedinsto wrote:This has, unfortunately, reached quorum and will go to vote on Sunday at major (I think).
Yes. That’s the date.
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:02 pmby WayNeacTia
Just goes to show, if you throw enough ducats at something, you can get it to quorum......
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:02 pmby Old Hope
"this is terrible"
...
...
not a single reason why, except unexplained accusations of bad grammar.
If you want me to withdraw this you need to improve your arguments.
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:34 pmby Jedinsto
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.
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:39 pmby Trellania
"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."
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:39 pmby Goobergunchia
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
Posted:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:57 pmby Jedinsto
This has been withdrawn from queue.