Noting that weapons, especially those of nuclear nature, are dangerous to sapientkind,
Concerned, however, that, sooner or later, civilians will be barred from holding nuclear weapons,
Believing, though, that with guidance and restrictions, civilians can be trusted just enough to hold nuclear weapons,
Wanting to prevent a full or partial ban on the possesion of nuclear weapons by civilians, while placing proper restrictions to ensure that catastrophe doesn't fall out,
Hereby enacts the following:
Defines a nuclear weapon as a weapon capable of commiting mass destruction by harnessing forces holding the nucleus of an atom together.
Mandates that member nations allow civilians to own nuclear weapons.
Allows member states to require owners of nuclear weapons be instructed on the safe and proper storage, transport, and operation of nuclear weapons.
Allows nuclear weapons to be obtained by purchase, gift, manufacture, or any other manner which respects property rights and is in obedience with existing WA legislation. Allows member states to impose safety regulations on the transportation of nuclear weapons
Mandates that said nuclear weapons be disabled, and recommends member nations to make sure it stays that way.
The World Assembly,
Noting that weapons, especially those of nuclear nature, are dangerous to sapientkind,
Concerned that, sooner or later, civilians will be barred from holding nuclear weapons,
Wanting to prevent a full or partial ban on the possesion of nuclear weapons by civilians,
Hereby does the following:
Defines a nuclear weapon as a weapon capable of commiting mass destruction by harnessing forces holding the nucleus of an atom together.
Mandates that member nations allow civilians to own nuclear weapons.
Allows nuclear weapons to be obtained whatever way imaginable, in obedience with existing WA legislation.
The World Assembly,
Noting that weapons, especially those of nuclear nature, are dangerous to sapientkind,
Concerned, however, that, sooner or later, civilians will be barred from holding nuclear weapons,
Wanting to prevent a full or partial ban on the possesion of nuclear weapons by civilians, while placing restriction
Hereby does the following:
Defines a nuclear weapon as a weapon capable of commiting mass destruction by harnessing forces holding the nucleus of an atom together.
Mandates that member nations allow civilians to own nuclear weapons.
Mandates that those who wish to house nuclear weapons under their private ownership recieve training on how to properly house them.
Allows nuclear weapons to be obtained whatever way imaginable, in obedience with existing WA legislation.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:11 pm
by Tinhampton
Opposed. This would require denuclearised states to allow their inhabitants to use nuclear weapons with no apparent training. I further question why you want to stop the WA from banning nuclear weapons that you admit "are dangerous to sapientkind."
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:22 pm
by Attempted Socialism
There is a dedicated thread for joke proposals. I suggest taking this proposal there.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:24 pm
by Attack Helicopter
Attempted Socialism wrote:There is a dedicated thread for joke proposals. I suggest taking this proposal there.
Not a joke proposal.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:27 pm
by The New Milky Way
No governments and no archdukes! Hooray! Hooray! But recreational McNukes! Hooray! Hooray!
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:27 pm
by Attack Helicopter
Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. This would require denuclearised states to allow their inhabitants to use nuclear weapons with no apparent training. I further question why you want to stop the WA from banning nuclear weapons that you admit "are dangerous to sapientkind."
Edited to force future weapon owners to recieve training on how to handle their own nuclear weapon. Needs some more explanation, though.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:31 pm
by The Orwell Society
Opposed, but I will help you. My feedback is in bold red.
Noting that weapons, especially those of nuclear nature, are dangerous to sapientkind, Contradictory considering the aim of this proposal. Perhaps you should instead include reasoning why citizens should have access to nuclear weapons, but there are very few that I can think of.
Concerned that, sooner or later, civilians will be barred from holding nuclear weapons, Again, and that is bad because?
Wanting to prevent a full or partial ban on the possesion of nuclear weapons by civilians, My point above.
Hereby does the following: "Does" should be "enacts", makes it more proffesional sounding and concise.
Defines a nuclear weapon as a weapon capable of commiting mass destruction by harnessing forces holding the nucleus of an atom together.
Mandates that member nations allow civilians to own nuclear weapons. Seems a little much, don't you think? I'm pretty sure it would be disastrous if any nation allowed the civilian purchase and use of nuclear weapons, but that's just my opinion.
Allows nuclear weapons to be obtained whatever way imaginable, in obedience with existing WA legislation. Again, seems a bit much.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:41 pm
by Juansonia
Opposed, but here's some recommendations:
consider replacing clause 2-Alfa with
Allows member states to require owners of nuclear weapons have sufficient training in safe and proper methods of storage, transportation, and operation of nuclear weapons,
Clause 3-Alfa:
Allows member states to impose safety standards for the transportation of nuclear weapons,
and after all that
and clarifies that nothing in this act is to be construed as requiring member states to allow owners to detonate their nuclear weapons.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 2:59 pm
by Attack Helicopter
Changes were made.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 3:03 pm
by Juansonia
I meant to replace 2-a with what I suggested and add a subclause to 3, not to replace 2 and 3. you accidentally removed the "allowing privately owned nukes" part
edit: I meant these should be the changes:
Defines a nuclear weapon as a weapon capable of commiting mass destruction by harnessing forces holding the nucleus of an atom together.
Mandates that member nations allow civilians to own nuclear weapons.
Allows member states to require owners of nuclear weapons be instructed on the safe and proper storage, transport, and operation of nuclear weapons.
Allows nuclear weapons to be obtained by purchase, gift, manufacture, or any other manner which respects property rights and is in obedience with existing WA legislation. Allows member states to impose safety regulations on the transportation of nuclear weapons
Clarifies that nothing in this legislation is to be construed as allowing owners of nuclear weapons to detonate said weapons.
Attempted Socialism wrote:There is a dedicated thread for joke proposals. I suggest taking this proposal there.
Not a joke proposal.
I think you'll find it's taken as a joke whether or not you meant it as a joke. This proposal likely runs afoul of RITA's clause 5, but even if a legal version can be crafted, it will still be laughed at.
I think you'll find it's taken as a joke whether or not you meant it as a joke. This proposal likely runs afoul of RITA's clause 5, but even if a legal version can be crafted, it will still be laughed at.
since he misinterpreted my suggestion, it no longer does - it has nothing which requires allowing the transfer of nuclear weapons anymore, which was clearly an accident. Did you write this before he made the edits, or did your actions likely fall afoul of RTRA's clause a.
Attempted Socialism wrote:I think you'll find it's taken as a joke whether or not you meant it as a joke. This proposal likely runs afoul of RITA's clause 5, but even if a legal version can be crafted, it will still be laughed at.
since he misinterpreted my suggestion, it no longer does - it has nothing which requires allowing the transfer of nuclear weapons anymore, which was clearly an accident. Did you write this before he made the edits, or did your actions likely fall afoul of RTRA's clause a.
I had opened a version of the thread before the latest edits -- I could not remember the exact name of the resolution so it appears I spent more than 12 minutes looking for the citation. This version does fulfill my criterion though: Laughable, even if it's legal (Or at it doesn't contradict RITA). RITA applies if Attack Helicopter figures out their accident though, and it's telling that the resolution is being drafted so poorly that sweeping edits are being made within the span of less than an hour.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 4:01 pm
by Fremenilia
Full support, I would also support future resolutions that allow citizens to own their own nuclear armed attack helicopters, and napalm bombs etc.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 4:16 pm
by Attack Helicopter
Fremenilia wrote:Full support, I would also support future resolutions that allow citizens to own their own nuclear armed attack helicopters, and napalm bombs etc.
The topic is about nuclear weapons. This includes nuclear submarines, nuclear text, and -- the best one to make -- a nuclear United States of Attack Helicopter.
Also, what do you think about ownership of ALL "dangerous" weapons legal (if they are deactivated)?
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 4:18 pm
by Fachumonn
Why are we suddenly giving nuclear weapons to citizens? Honestly, one of the best ideas if you really want to destroy literally everything! This is so stupid. Full oppose. And yes, citizens will figure out a way to detonate them. Giving it to them for no reason is honestly dumb.
Fremenilia wrote:Full support, I would also support future resolutions that allow citizens to own their own nuclear armed attack helicopters, and napalm bombs etc.
The topic is about nuclear weapons. This includes nuclear submarines, nuclear text, and -- the best one to make -- a nuclear United States of Attack Helicopter.
Also, what do you think about ownership of ALL "dangerous" weapons legal (if they are deactivated)?
Your current version is again illegal per RITA clause 5 (Nations are allowed to define their internal arms and firearms policies barring the three enumerated exceptions), so we need not concern ourselves too much.
Edit: I see that you asked about this before posting your draft. NAPA's "wrong hands" clause felt weaker than RITA, but I'll just remind you that one member of GenSec advised you that allowing civilians nuclear weapons would presumably be illegal prior to this draft.
Presumably civilians count as "wrong hands" under NAPA, as there's little chance most civilians are able to secure such weapons from bad actors even if they themselves are perfectly virtuous and trustworthy.
Individual nations may have differing circumstances / YMMV.
So yeah, this is a joke. The charitable explanation is that we're laughing with the proposer, but alternatively we're laughing at the proposal.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 5:08 pm
by Bears Armed
OOC: Category, and Strength or Area Of Effect?
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 5:29 pm
by Makko Oko
Fachumonn wrote:Why are we suddenly giving nuclear weapons to citizens? Honestly, one of the best ideas if you really want to destroy literally everything! This is so stupid. Full oppose. And yes, citizens will figure out a way to detonate them. Giving it to them for no reason is honestly dumb.
"There's a very good reason we banned gun ownership within our fine nation. Fully opposed, and nothing can be done to change our posture on this resolution." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Foreign Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 8:28 pm
by Outer Sparta
Pretty crap concept, pretty crap proposal. Why do you want civilians to own nukes? The government might not be trustful, but giving nukes unchecked to regular people is even worse than having it in the hands of the government.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 8:51 pm
by Thousand Branches
IC: The cold winter winds blow at Alandra’s scarf as she trots her way home through what was likely to be a blizzard within the next couple of hours. Felt like it anyway. Hopefully by the time it hit she would be curled up in her WA sanctioned bed with her WA sanctioned pillow. She’d always wanted to thank the walruses for that one but how does one thank a walrus? Not everybody knows the language.
A sharp shout from behind her shakes her from her thoughts.
“Ma’am! Ma’am! You need to see this.” The voice belonged to her newest assistant Pierre, a man who had been surprisingly effective in his assistance and decidedly unhelpful with his haughty Northern ideals. In this moment however, the man stood in front of her huffing and puffing, face red and shivering even through the body heat radiating off of him. This must have been some kind of emergency, she’d truly never seen him look more worried. “I’m sorry, I wouldn’t bother you on your off time but… you need to see this.”
He hands her a letter, stark white with the distinct seal of the World Assembly fastened to the center. She cut the side with her fingernail and began to read.
“Dear Mrs. Kempt,
The following proposal has been submitted to the drafting hall… etc etc etc”
It wasn’t until she read the name of the proposal that her stomach turned. Was this what the World Assembly had stooped to? Was this the world people wanted to live in? It was bad enough to hear the defenders of Gholgoth’s wicked crimes but this was simply blatant disregard for the safety of entire worlds.
Had they no shame?
“Thank you Pierre, this does require my attention. Go find yourself some heat my friend, you’re freezing to death. And here, take my scarf. Short sleeves in Winter… I swear you Northerners are off your rocker sometimes.”
She began the trek back to her work. She loved that tree but god sometimes it really sucked to have to work overtime. Sucky but in this case… necessary.
4 hours later, a letter was posted, addressed both to the World Assembly halls and personally to the leader of Attack Helicopter. Inside it read:
“To be frank, both this author and their resolution deserve no “dear”. No salutations at all. In fact, if self control were within my power I would quite frankly not be sending this letter at all, but I find myself so angered by the mere presence of this idea that I simply cannot control my hand as it burns its thoughts onto the stationary you see now.
This proposal is revolting. A mockery of safety; a mockery of human decency; and a mockery of this very council. You would do right to burn it on a pyre but I doubt you will. Extremists rarely listen to the sane.
Are you aware of how many have died from nuclear bombings across the entire realm. Neither am I. Do you know how many deaths I’ve personally watched? Billions. In an instant. Not at the hands of a government but those of a cult, a conspiracy wacko who sought salvation through destruction. That man built that bomb from scratch, peddling black market goods to acquire his parts. What makes you think giving people all those parts will help that problem? Oh yes, the so called “disabling” of a nuclear weapon definitely prevents it from being rebuilt and use to incur the wrath of god and Farakas down on all of us. As this information is clearly already well known to you I do not know what else to say.
This proposal is simply pitiful. Pitiful and disappointing.
-Kempt”
OOC: I may have had a bit too much fun writing this one xD
Posted: Wed May 25, 2022 6:40 am
by PhilTech
Allows nuclear weapons to be obtained by purchase, gift, manufacture, or any other manner which respects property rightsdoes not respect and is in obedience with existing WA legislationdoes not obey existing WA legislation.
Ahhhh yes finally! Someone with a clear mind.
Posted: Wed May 25, 2022 6:45 am
by Separatist Peoples
"There seems to be no point to permitting ownership of disabled strategic weaponry. Either it can be activated, at which point all member states have a vested interest in preventing use outside of the established MAD paradigm, or it cannot and member states must allow dangerous radiological materiel to fall into the hands of just anybody.
"The author has a fairly poor outlook on the mutual security interests of the international community. Opposed."
Attack Helicopter wrote: The topic is about nuclear weapons. This includes nuclear submarines, nuclear text, and -- the best one to make -- a nuclear United States of Attack Helicopter.
Also, what do you think about ownership of ALL "dangerous" weapons legal (if they are deactivated)?
Your current version is again illegal per RITA clause 5 (Nations are allowed to define their internal arms and firearms policies barring the three enumerated exceptions), so we need not concern ourselves too much.
Edit: I see that you asked about this before posting your draft. NAPA's "wrong hands" clause felt weaker than RITA, but I'll just remind you that one member of GenSec advised you that allowing civilians nuclear weapons would presumably be illegal prior to this draft.
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: Presumably civilians count as "wrong hands" under NAPA, as there's little chance most civilians are able to secure such weapons from bad actors even if they themselves are perfectly virtuous and trustworthy.
Individual nations may have differing circumstances / YMMV.
So yeah, this is a joke. The charitable explanation is that we're laughing with the proposer, but alternatively we're laughing at the proposal.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Your current version is again illegal per RITA clause 5 (Nations are allowed to define their internal arms and firearms policies barring the three enumerated exceptions), so we need not concern ourselves too much.
Edit: I see that you asked about this before posting your draft. NAPA's "wrong hands" clause felt weaker than RITA, but I'll just remind you that one member of GenSec advised you that allowing civilians nuclear weapons would presumably be illegal prior to this draft.
So yeah, this is a joke. The charitable explanation is that we're laughing with the proposer, but alternatively we're laughing at the proposal.
"Is there a way to make this legal?"
"Not really if you want it to actually do something."
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 1:41 pm