[SUBMITTED] Regulating Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Goldsaver]

The Federal Republics, desiring to reduce civilian loss of life and destruction caused during wars between member nations, humbly presents this first draft of legislation designed to restrict the construction and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction without compromising the ability of

member nations to defend themselves against attacks from rogue states not beholden to the World Assembly's rules.

Regulating Weapons of Mass Destruction

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the existence of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” henceforth WMDS, capable of rapid and widespread destruction and loss of life,

UNDERSTANDING the need and desire of many member states to maintain an arsenal of such weapons to deter attacks of the same variety of weapon by other states, including those not beholden to the General Assembly’s resolutions,

SEEKS to establish rules and regulations prohibiting the proliferation of particular WMDs that cause particularly undue suffering and loss of life, and to regulate the deployment of those WMDs allowed,

ENDEVAORING to prevent major exchanges of WMDs, even in times of war, to prevent massive loss of civilian life, global environmental consequences, and global political instability,

While AFFIRMING the rights of member states to maintain a collection of WMDs to deter attacks by other states, under the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction,

Hereby:

1. Defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction, hereafter WMD, as any weapon that, once deployed, is indiscriminate and uncontrollable in its effects, such that destruction of civilian life and infrastructure cannot be prevented once a WMD is deployed.

2. Affirms the right of member states to maintain an arsenal of atomic explosive or conventional explosive WMDs according to their military needs.

3. Prohibits the construction and proliferation of other WMDs, including but not limited to: biological agents, chemical weaponry, radioactive material weapons also known as ‘dirty bombs.’

4. Creates a World Assembly Committee on Weapons of Mass Destruction to regulate inspections and define reasonable timeframes and methods for the disposal of prohibited weapons based on evidence-based best practice, and advise member states on best practice for maintaining their stockpiles and protocols for deploying WMDs
a. Instructs member nations to safely dispose of their prohibited WMDs and permit World Assembly inspectors to oversee their disposal.
b. Requires member states to create safeguards and protocols governing the maintenance and deployment of their WMD stockpiles based on advise from this committee.
5. Restricts the legal use of WMDs to retaliation against deployment of WMDs by a hostile state against any other state.

[Goldsaver]

Bump

[Greater North-America]

Restricts the lawful use of permitted WMDs to retaliation against hostile deployment of any variety of WMDs upon another nation, in line with the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.

So you're saying we can use WMD's to totally annihilate our foes, but a limited nuclear exchange of tactical weapons is forbidden because it isn't in line with MAD?

[Meraud]

So you're saying we can use WMD's to totally annihilate our foes, but a limited nuclear exchange of tactical weapons is forbidden because it isn't in line with MAD?

Yes, obviously nuking cities is legal if they nuke you first. However using a chemical weapon (tear gas) against hostiles (to prevent bloodshed) is strictly prohibited.

[Goldsaver]

Yes, obviously nuking cities is legal if they nuke you first. However using a chemical weapon (tear gas) against hostiles (to prevent bloodshed) is strictly prohibited.

I do not believe Tear Gas meets the definition of WMD I provided in the proposal and is therefore not affected by this proposal at all. It may be worthwhile to add a 'loss of life' clause to the definition to make this more explicit, I shall consider it.

Restricts the lawful use of permitted WMDs to retaliation against hostile deployment of any variety of WMDs upon another nation, in line with the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.

So you're saying we can use WMD's to totally annihilate our foes, but a limited nuclear exchange of tactical weapons is forbidden because it isn't in line with MAD?

Perhaps the MAD line can be dropped and remain implicit; the intent is for a "Don't fire unless fired upon" mentality to allow member states to maintain a stockpile for deterrence, but outside of such retaliation any use of WMDs is not ideal.

[Goldsaver]

The current draft is updated with mild changes to language, looking for any further feedback!

[Far Harbor]

the provisions on chemical weapons and dirty bombs should be removed.

[Goldsaver]

the provisions on chemical weapons and dirty bombs should be removed.

I respectfully disagree; while it's certainly true that biological agents are the most potentially dangerous of WMDS and therefore the most absolute in need of a ban, chemical weapons and dirty bombs cause particularly undue amounts of suffering compared to the relatively quick annihilation brought to most victims by an atomic explosive.

[Meraud]

chemical weapons cause particularly undue amounts of suffering

OOC: Did you know that IRL international law prohibits military combat use of tear gas (or any knock-out gas for that matter) yet it is perfectly acceptable to use it on civilian populations indiscriminately during riot control or other law enforcement. Recommendation, don't try to omnibus this resolution. Have it apply only towards one type of weapon, that way nations can adopt the ones they want.

Example, strategic nuclear weapons can never be used safely without harming innocent civilians. Tactical nuclear weapons can be used on smaller targets and avoid civilian casualities (if used properly).

[Goldsaver]

OOC: Did you know that IRL international law prohibits military combat use of tear gas (or any knock-out gas for that matter) yet it is perfectly acceptable to use it on civilian populations indiscriminately during riot control or other law enforcement. Recommendation, don't try to omnibus this resolution. Have it apply only towards one type of weapon, that way nations can adopt the ones they want.

Example, strategic nuclear weapons can never be used safely without harming innocent civilians. Tactical nuclear weapons can be used on smaller targets and avoid civilian casualities (if used properly).

OOC: So my intent is to clearly define WMDs and under the definition I provided (which I accept may be controversial in of itself) neither tear gas nor tactical nukes are regulated by this resolution, which is my intent as I intend for this resolution to be limited exclusively to Weapons of Mass Destruction. If the weapon can be deployed in such a way that only intended military targets are affected, it does not classify as a Weapon of Mass Destruction under the definition I provided. Regulating chemical or biological weaponry in general is probably worth pursuing, but I do think there is a place for a resolution that restricts member nations in terms of true WMDs to stockpiles suitable for second strike/mutually assured destruction while greatly reducing the chances of true exchanges of WMDs.

[Goldsaver]

Bump

[Zetaopalatopia]

If one type of WMD is allowed, then all types should be. We argue that chemical WMDs would actually be less casualty causing than an atomic WMD. Non fatal chemicals meant to pacify prior to a ground invasion should not be included in the definition for WMD and should be exempt from clause four.

Would this proposal consider a biological weapon designed to target only select individuals a WMD? As the targeting of a specific selection would technically not be 'indiscriminate'.

[Goldsaver]

If one type of WMD is allowed, then all types should be. We argue that chemical WMDs would actually be less casualty causing than an atomic WMD. Non fatal chemicals meant to pacify prior to a ground invasion should not be included in the definition for WMD and should be exempt from clause four.

Would this proposal consider a biological weapon designed to target only select individuals a WMD? As the targeting of a specific selection would technically not be 'indiscriminate'.

If a chemical weapon is non-fatal (e.g. tear gas) then it fails to meet the definition of WMD in Clause 1 and therefore is not affected by the resolution at all. I respectfully disagree with your first assertion; the best WMD is one that is never used, and chemical WMDs are much more likely to be used by a militant nation seeking to conquer an area. The intent of this resolution is to restrict WMDs as much as possible while keeping in line with the reality of rogue states and the need for a deterrent against such nations deploying WMDs themselves.

If you're referring to the hypothetical concept of 'ethnic bioweapons' then that should be covered by clause 1 by causing unpreventable loss of civilian life, even if it's 'selective.' If you're referring to something else, I'm all ears.

[Zetaopalatopia]

If one type of WMD is allowed, then all types should be. We argue that chemical WMDs would actually be less casualty causing than an atomic WMD. Non fatal chemicals meant to pacify prior to a ground invasion should not be included in the definition for WMD and should be exempt from clause four.

Would this proposal consider a biological weapon designed to target only select individuals a WMD? As the targeting of a specific selection would technically not be 'indiscriminate'.

If a chemical weapon is non-fatal (e.g. tear gas) then it fails to meet the definition of WMD in Clause 1 and therefore is not affected by the resolution at all. I respectfully disagree with your first assertion; the best WMD is one that is never used, and chemical WMDs are much more likely to be used by a militant nation seeking to conquer an area. The intent of this resolution is to restrict WMDs as much as possible while keeping in line with the reality of rogue states and the need for a deterrent against such nations deploying WMDs themselves.

If you're referring to the hypothetical concept of 'ethnic bioweapons' then that should be covered by clause 1 by causing unpreventable loss of civilian life, even if it's 'selective.' If you're referring to something else, I'm all ears.

Not ethnic no. While such a weapon might be valid if the entire race was hostile, that is unlikely and not worth pursuing given how bad the international backlash would be on it's use. No I mean a biological weapon that targets only pre-marked individuals. The method of marking is secondary to the topic at hand so I won't go into it as doing so would make it less effective. But if one could mark on an individual level the targets, then use the biological weapon to eliminate all marked targets at the same time it would be much better than going after the targets one at a time from the destabilization of the enemy stand point.

OOC: (Like a biological version of the pager attack)

[Goldsaver]

Not ethnic no. While such a weapon might be valid if the entire race was hostile, that is unlikely and not worth pursuing given how bad the international backlash would be on it's use. No I mean a biological weapon that targets only pre-marked individuals. The method of marking is secondary to the topic at hand so I won't go into it as doing so would make it less effective. But if one could mark on an individual level the targets, then use the biological weapon to eliminate all marked targets at the same time it would be much better than going after the targets one at a time from the destabilization of the enemy stand point.

OOC: (Like a biological version of the pager attack)

In theory, if it operated as stated, then it would not meet the criteria for Weapon of Mass Destruction as described in Clause One.

[Goldsaver]

Latest revision: Increased clarity in mission statement and some general restructuring.

[Dengist China]

"destruction of civilian life and infrastructure cannot be prevented" as your definition for WMD makes me think that indiscriminate bombing is covered under this.

I also wonder what "restricts" does - it says it restricts something, but not how it does that.

[Goldsaver]

"destruction of civilian life and infrastructure cannot be prevented" as your definition for WMD makes me think that indiscriminate bombing is covered under this.

I also wonder what "restricts" does - it says it restricts something, but not how it does that.

There is some precedent for describing mass firebombing and such as equivalent to a WMD, though I don't think it would covered under the current wording. A nation can choose not to drop bombs in a city, but even if a nuclear weapon is used against a military target, the radiation would contaminate a wider environment and the explosive force would cause wide ranging sesmic activity such that civilian loss of life is unavoidable. The consquences of dropping conventional bombs can be controlled by carefully picking targets, the consequences of an atomic weapon much less so. A nation choosing to indiscriminately bomb cities is committing a war crime which is something covered by another resolution and out of the scope of what I'm trying to regulate here.

As for the restrict, I will alter the wording but it is stating that a nation adopting the resolution is committing to not deploying WMDs (except in retaliation to a target nation deploying WMDs themselves).

[Omnicontrol]

As written this makes any type of bomb a WMD and forbids its use in a proactive manner. Really should've undergone much more drafting before being submitted (and before you spent money on stamps to campaign for it)

[Northern Slatavia]

Two campaign telegrams went out on this proposal, the first at 1:25 EST, and the second at 1:44. The second was sent to include a link to the proposal.

Greetings WA Delegates,

I request your consideration for the World Assembly proposal "Regulating Weapons of Mass Destruction," which restricts the construction and use of WMDs to what is necessary for Second Strike and maintaining the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction.

The goal of this legislation is to absolutely minimize the chance of WMDs exchanges between World Assembly members and prevent the loss of innocent life that would result from those exchanges, while also allowing member states to deter WMD attacks by non-member states.

If this goal aligns with the principles of the organizations you represent, I request your endorsement for this resolution.

Thank you,
Goldsaver

This is a followup to my previous telegram (which I will duplicate below), I simply forgot to provide the link to the resolution! Apologies for the inconvenience:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1788394963

Greetings WA Delegates,

I request your consideration for the World Assembly proposal "Regulating Weapons of Mass Destruction," which restricts the construction and use of WMDs to what is necessary for Second Strike and maintaining the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction.

The goal of this legislation is to absolutely minimize the chance of WMDs exchanges between World Assembly members and prevent the loss of innocent life that would result from those exchanges, while also allowing member states to deter WMD attacks by non-member states.

If this goal aligns with the principles of the organizations you represent, I request your endorsement for this resolution.

Thank you,
Goldsaver