[DRAFT] Repeal: "Nuclear Arms Possesion Act"

[Cambrionia]

This is my first ever attempt at a WA proposal, so any feedback would be really cool!

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING GA#10’s focus is to guarantee WA members the right to self defense,

NOTING that nuclear weapons are but one of many defenses against hostile nations, including those with nuclear weapons,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nuclear weapons can cause long-lasting after effects rendering an area uninhabitable or leaving affected peoples with diseases over a large area, and that in nearly all cases a nuclear strike’s damage is not limited to the target nation’s military,

BELIEVING that extremely high-yield nuclear weapons are completely unnecessary and if used are guaranteed to damage the environment and innocent civilians, and that the World Assembly may see the need to place restrictions on nuclear weapon possession because of this,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #10, “Nuclear Arms Possession Act”.

[Kaprein]

How is a nuclear weapon a chemical weapon, consideriing GA#272 defines a chemical weapon as ' any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,' and a nuclear weapon is not build around the radioactive properties of its material - it is meant to be an explosive, not a poison. (Edit). GA#272 also doesn't ban chemical weapons.

[Tinhampton]

Support due to title.

I am extremely iffy about the assertation that nukes are covered by GA#272... which wouldn't even ban their stockpiling if it did anyway...

[The Orwell Society]

Against, due to the fact that nukes are not classified as chemical weapons and I see no reason to repeal the target resolution at this time.

[Bistritza]

according to GAR-272, chemical weapons are:

"Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent

this isn't how nuclear weapons nor harmful radiological effects themselves work , they're better defined as ''properties who artificially and radically alter atomic structures''

[Cambrionia]

Thanks already, I did definitely misread ga272. I’ll work on that first

Okay, I’ve edited it not to refer to ga272.

[Fachumonn]

Heroic, brave. Probably not the easiest proposal to do write off the bat, but you do you

[Cambrionia]

Heroic, brave. Probably not the easiest proposal to do write off the bat, but you do you

I don’t expect it to pass, but I might as well try

[Thousand Branches]

Already failed five times, it’ll fail again. Burn it down.

[Bistritza]

Already failed five times, it’ll fail again. Burn it down.

maybe don't kill drafts just because they're unlikely to pass
they serve a purpose of creating a frame and avenue for public discourse on a topic

[Outer Sparta]

Already failed five times, it’ll fail again. Burn it down.

maybe don't kill drafts just because they're unlikely to pass
they serve a purpose of creating a frame and avenue for public discourse on a topic

This particular resolution has been targeted so many times for repeal in the past but it's never come to fruition. I don't expect someone new to the WA to take that burden upon themselves.

[Cambrionia]

Already failed five times, it’ll fail again. Burn it down.

I just said I don’t expect this to pass. I’m just trying the WA out.

[Thousand Branches]

Already failed five times, it’ll fail again. Burn it down.

maybe don't kill drafts just because they're unlikely to pass
they serve a purpose of creating a frame and avenue for public discourse on a topic

I also just disagree with this topic. I think it’s a bad idea and without a very solid proposal I would never support it.

[Cambrionia]

I also just disagree with this topic. I think it’s a bad idea and without a very solid proposal I would never support it.

Why do you disagree with repealing this resolution? I guess I just don’t understand

[Wallenburg]

I also just disagree with this topic. I think it’s a bad idea and without a very solid proposal I would never support it.

Why do you disagree with repealing this resolution? I guess I just don’t understand

Strategic nuclear capacity is an effective deterrent against attack by other states.

[Bistritza]

Why do you disagree with repealing this resolution? I guess I just don’t understand

oh I disagree with the essence of the resolution as well, just been focused on other things
on a scale im weighing- obstructing worldbuilding (specifically fallout scenarios) potential on /int-inc which the repeal implies- with allowing unrestricted godmodding which NAP implies
in regards to the heavy IC element, this appeal would nerf nuclear-armed WA members without regulating non-WA members

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Nuclear exchanges prevent large scale conventional conflict between industrialized nations by making existential attacks too costly. This, in turn, saves more lives than nuclear weapons take. We oppose any attempt to undermine what is an essential doctrine of defense and will use every method to oppose this available to us."

[Cambrionia]

Okay, I understand that having nukes is a good defense, but there are a lot of other options. Also, this resolution won’t ban all nukes, it will allow another resolution to restrict nuclear access.

[Kaprein]

Okay, I understand that having nukes is a good defense, but there are a lot of other options. Also, this resolution won’t ban all nukes, it will allow another resolution to restrict nuclear access.

Thinking from the perspective of this as a game: How far can a resolution controlling nuclear weapons go, considering they are an in-game policy.

Thinking of this as if I'm the leader of Kaprein: What other options are there? How do you propose that Kaprein maintains the capabilities it has from nuclear weapons without using nuclear weapons?

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay, I understand that having nukes is a good defense, but there are a lot of other options. Also, this resolution won’t ban all nukes, it will allow another resolution to restrict nuclear access.

"Chemical weapons lack effective strategic-scale use, especially against hardened targets. Nuclear weapons have no such failing. They operate ideally without regard for conditions on the ground. Your alternatives are not sufficient to guarantee our safety, especially against nonmember states who would be able to continue to use nuclear arms. It's not clear why you want to destabilize the defensive posture of member states, but we cannot support it."

[Quintessence of Dust]

Okay, I understand that having nukes is a good defense, but there are a lot of other options. Also, this resolution won’t ban all nukes, it will allow another resolution to restrict nuclear access.

Thinking from the perspective of this as a game: How far can a resolution controlling nuclear weapons go, considering they are an in-game policy.

There is no interaction between the gameside elements like issues and the WA. WA resolutions do have marginal stat effects but they're very generic. The WA could pass a ban on nuclear weapons and WA members could still choose the research nuclear weapons issue option and earn the nuclear weapons state policy banner.

[Makko Oko]

Thinking from the perspective of this as a game: How far can a resolution controlling nuclear weapons go, considering they are an in-game policy.

There is no interaction between the gameside elements like issues and the WA. WA resolutions do have marginal stat effects but they're very generic. The WA could pass a ban on nuclear weapons and WA members could still choose the research nuclear weapons issue option and earn the nuclear weapons state policy banner.

OOC: They mean in terms of resolution legality, because WA resolutions that try to change game mechanics aren't allowed

[Separatist Peoples]

There is no interaction between the gameside elements like issues and the WA. WA resolutions do have marginal stat effects but they're very generic. The WA could pass a ban on nuclear weapons and WA members could still choose the research nuclear weapons issue option and earn the nuclear weapons state policy banner.

OOC: They mean in terms of resolution legality, because WA resolutions that try to change game mechanics aren't allowed

OOC: I'm not sure how you can possibly get that, since the poster referenced the literal game side Policy feature.

[Cambrionia]

"Chemical weapons lack effective strategic-scale use, especially against hardened targets. Nuclear weapons have no such failing. They operate ideally without regard for conditions on the ground. Your alternatives are not sufficient to guarantee our safety, especially against nonmember states who would be able to continue to use nuclear arms. It's not clear why you want to destabilize the defensive posture of member states, but we cannot support it."

Simulations have shown that so-called “Rods From God” have the same explosive power as lower-yield nuclear weapons, without the radiation. As for how to protect from nuclear weapon strikes, anti-ballistic missiles should do the trick. If not, you could always try lasers. Also, the issue with nuclear weapons is that they have no regard for conditions on the ground. Lots of radiation. The bill is not meant to destabilize the defensive posture of member states, it is to try to reduce the usage of weapons that cause unnecessary damage where solutions already exist.

[Barfleur]

"Chemical weapons lack effective strategic-scale use, especially against hardened targets. Nuclear weapons have no such failing. They operate ideally without regard for conditions on the ground. Your alternatives are not sufficient to guarantee our safety, especially against nonmember states who would be able to continue to use nuclear arms. It's not clear why you want to destabilize the defensive posture of member states, but we cannot support it."

Simulations have shown that so-called “Rods From God” have the same explosive power as lower-yield nuclear weapons, without the radiation. As for how to protect from nuclear weapon strikes, anti-ballistic missiles should do the trick. If not, you could always try lasers. Also, the issue with nuclear missiles is that they have no regard for conditions on the ground. Lots of radiation. The bill is not meant to destabilize the defensive posture of member states, it is to try to reduce the usage of weapons that cause unnecessary damage where solutions already exist.

"But ambassador, permitting the WA to ban the possession and use of nuclear weapons would do nothing but destabilize the defensive posture of member states. A nation surrounded by hostile powers can use the threat of nuclear weapons to deter an invasion, thus assuring its existence and preventing the destruction and ravage that a conventional war would entail. Taking away this arrow would leave a quiver which, not empty, would have none of the same preventive, even pacific effect of a nuclear arsenal."