[DRAFT] Nuclear Aggression Agreement

[Embolalia]

The terribly written nuclear test ban isn't going to pass, so this won't conflict. Of course, this wouldn't conflict at all with a properly written test ban. Anyway, I think this is a perfectly sensible restriction on the use of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure about the strength, though.

Nuclear Aggression Agreement
Global Disarmament | Significant?

NOTING the devastation caused by nuclear weapons;

OBSERVING the lasting impact of such weapons;

BELIEVING that the use of nuclear weapons should be avoided;

RECOGNIZING, however, the role of nuclear weapons in national defense,

The World Assembly hereby:

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any World Assembly member nation;

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any nation which neither possesses, nor has conspicuous ties to any other nation which possesses, nuclear weapons;

EXEMPTS from the above the detonation of a weapon for non-offensive purposes, to which the government of the nation in which the weapon is to be detonated has agreed;

EMPLORES member nations not to use nuclear weapons for any purpose.

Is it emplores, or implores? Wikionary tells me emplores, but my spell checker says implores...

[Holy Roman Confederate]

This seeks to tie the hands of military planners for no other reason than a feel good moment. The HRC cannot support this measure.

[Darenjo]

While this is a wonderful idea, it is, like many wonderful ideas, unrealistic. You're never going to pass anything that bans using nukes in any nation (and not just you; i doubt that anyone could).

What i think is looking into is that bit about not using nukes on non-nuclear nations. It would basically incorporate into NS some of the Real-Life Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the other part isn't able to be brought into NS w/o a repeal of NAPA - not going to happen).

[Embolalia]

While this is a wonderful idea, it is, like many wonderful ideas, unrealistic. You're never going to pass anything that bans using nukes in any nation (and not just you; i doubt that anyone could).

The WA has been suprising me recently. A lot of things I never thought would go anywhere have been having some success. Not only do we have the test ban that managed to make it to quorum (and, had it not accidentally banned all use of nuclear weapons, may have had a chance of passing), but there was the even more poorly written gambling resolution that missed quorum only because it was anti-tg'd (thankyouverymuch). Gambling! Legal gambling in the WA almost made it to vote. At this point, I'm not willing to say anything is impossible or unrealistic unless I see it first hand.

What i think is looking into is that bit about not using nukes on non-nuclear nations. It would basically incorporate into NS some of the Real-Life Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the other part isn't able to be brought into NS w/o a repeal of NAPA - not going to happen).

Why is the first part bad? It certainly doesn't contradict NAPA; NAPA only allows for possesion, it says nothing of use (see the rulings in the test ban discussion).

[Darenjo]

While this is a wonderful idea, it is, like many wonderful ideas, unrealistic. You're never going to pass anything that bans using nukes in any nation (and not just you; i doubt that anyone could).

The WA has been suprising me recently. A lot of things I never thought would go anywhere have been having some success. Not only do we have the test ban that managed to make it to quorum (and, had it not accidentally banned all use of nuclear weapons, may have had a chance of passing), but there was the even more poorly written gambling resolution that missed quorum only because it was anti-tg'd (thankyouverymuch). Gambling! Legal gambling in the WA almost made it to vote. At this point, I'm not willing to say anything is impossible or unrealistic unless I see it first hand.

I guess, but recently there's been a surge of conservative nations within the WA, so i just don't see much nuke legislation going anywhere.

What i think is looking into is that bit about not using nukes on non-nuclear nations. It would basically incorporate into NS some of the Real-Life Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the other part isn't able to be brought into NS w/o a repeal of NAPA - not going to happen).

Why is the first part bad? It certainly doesn't contradict NAPA; NAPA only allows for possesion, it says nothing of use (see the rulings in the test ban discussion).

The first part of the NPT requires that besides the five permanent nations of the RL Security Council, any signatories are not allowed to possess nuclear weapons (Israel, India, North Korea, and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT).

Still, i do think it would be worthwhile to try and draft something that limits or bans the usage of nukes on non-nuclear nations. Keep in mind that you'll probably have to add an exception for non-WA nations (it'll piss off liberals like Glen-Rhodes but it'll dampen the defense-related fears in the WA moderates).

[Holy Roman Confederate]

A WMD is a WMD, be it chemical, biological, or nuclear. So lets say a non WA nation launches a chemical or biological attack on a WA member. Seeing as they were attacked with WMD's most nations would respond in kind. Take that a step further and suppose the only WMD the WA nation has in it's arsenal is a nuclear device. Your proposal would ensure the WA nation could not retaliate in kind with a WMD. Nuclear weapons keep the peace simply because they are so horrifying to contemplate the usage of said weapons.An uneasy peace is still peace.

[Sratos]

A man will think twice about striking another man he knows is as equally or more heavily armed then himself.

[Enn]

NOTING the devestation caused by nuclear weapons;

I wasn't aware nukes could specifically target vests. A rather odd thing to aim towards, really.

[National Worker Regime]

The reason the last Nuclear Weapons draft got shot down so fast is because people misinterpreted it. Most, I won't say all, saw it as a ban on Nuclear weapons. Which, in the studies we've done, is exactly what most of the population of Nations' don't want.

This won't pass, no matter how much we would like for it to go through.

Sadly,
The National Workers' Regime Ministry of Defense.

[Manticore Reborn]

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any nation which neither possesses, nor has conspicuous ties to any other nation which possesses, nuclear weapons;

The quoted passage will not allow my government to support this proposal. It is the policy the Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn that if our nation, colonies, outpost, etc... fall victim to any attack utilizing any form of WMD, we respond with a nuclear counter attack. The quoted passage would not allow us to defend our citizens against a nation that does not posses nuclear weapons but launched a biological or chemical attack against us.

[Manticore Reborn]

The reason the last Nuclear Weapons draft got shot down so fast is because people misinterpreted it.

We kindly ask that arguments in favor of the poorly written proposal which is being voted down be relegated to the appropriate debate. In addition, there is no misinterpretation. The test ban clearly states no nuclear explosion can be triggered in any environment.

[Embolalia]

The first part of the NPT requires that besides the five permanent nations of the RL Security Council, any signatories are not allowed to possess nuclear weapons (Israel, India, North Korea, and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT).

The RL NPT may, but this does not. This has nothing to do with possession, only detonation. Thus, no contradiction with NAPA.

Still, i do think it would be worthwhile to try and draft something that limits or bans the usage of nukes on non-nuclear nations. Keep in mind that you'll probably have to add an exception for non-WA nations (it'll piss off liberals like Glen-Rhodes but it'll dampen the defense-related fears in the WA moderates).

Have... have you read the proposal yet? The two binding clauses ban use of nukes on WA nations and on non-nuclear weapons. That's the whole point of this proposal.

I wasn't aware nukes could specifically target vests. A rather odd thing to aim towards, really.

Fixed.

A WMD is a WMD, be it chemical, biological, or nuclear. So lets say a non WA nation launches a chemical or biological attack on a WA member. Seeing as they were attacked with WMD's most nations would respond in kind. Take that a step further and suppose the only WMD the WA nation has in it's arsenal is a nuclear device. Your proposal would ensure the WA nation could not retaliate in kind with a WMD. Nuclear weapons keep the peace simply because they are so horrifying to contemplate the usage of said weapons.An uneasy peace is still peace.

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any nation which neither possesses, nor has conspicuous ties to any other nation which possesses, nuclear weapons;

The quoted passage will not allow my government to support this proposal. It is the policy the Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn that if our nation, colonies, outpost, etc... fall victim to any attack utilizing any form of WMD, we respond with a nuclear counter attack. The quoted passage would not allow us to defend our citizens against a nation that does not posses nuclear weapons but launched a biological or chemical attack against us.

So, in other words, you want this to be broadened to weapons of mass destruction? No need to get so tetchy; just suggest that, and I'll consider it.
The reason I'm targeting (no pun intended) nuclear weapons is the unique scale of the immediate devastation, and the unique lasting effects that they have.

[Manticore Reborn]

So, in other words, you want this to be broadened to weapons of mass destruction? No need to get so tetchy; just suggest that, and I'll consider it.
The reason I'm targeting (no pun intended) nuclear weapons is the unique scale of the immediate devastation, and the unique lasting effects that they have.

We make no suggestions on this legislation as my government is not convinced of its need. We simply stated on reason that this proposal cannot get our support.

[Rutianas]

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any World Assembly member nation;

Well, it's a good thing that the Imperial Republic aren't members of the WA anymore. However, we're certainly not going to stop targeting WA members for nuclear detonation if we feel they're a threat.

In other words, the way it reads is that you're attempting to legislate on non-WA nations. Were I you, I'd change the wording of it to make it clear that you're talking about member nations firing on member nations. Doesn't mean I agree with this though. In fact, Swarming Cute Kittens is very much against.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[Embolalia]

So, in other words, you want this to be broadened to weapons of mass destruction? No need to get so tetchy; just suggest that, and I'll consider it.
The reason I'm targeting (no pun intended) nuclear weapons is the unique scale of the immediate devastation, and the unique lasting effects that they have.

We make no suggestions on this legislation as my government is not convinced of its need. We simply stated on reason that this proposal cannot get our support.

Why is there no need? If it reduces the use of nuclear weapons (or WMDs, if that gets changed), isn't that a good thing? Isn't saving lives a pretty good thing to do with legislation?

Well, it's a good thing that the Imperial Republic aren't members of the WA anymore. However, we're certainly not going to stop targeting WA members for nuclear detonation if we feel they're a threat.

In other words, the way it reads is that you're attempting to legislate on non-WA nations. Were I you, I'd change the wording of it to make it clear that you're talking about member nations firing on member nations. Doesn't mean I agree with this though. In fact, Swarming Cute Kittens is very much against.

I took it as a given that people would understand this doesn't affect non-WA nations. It's a given. And if you target WA members with nuclear weapons, and you aren't a WA member yourself, WA members can use nuclear weapons on you.
But other than your misinterpretations of what's written, why do you not support this?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Suggestion for clarification in order to focus simply on aggression involving member states only :

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in the territory of any member country;

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any member country which do not possesses, or have conspicuous ties to any other member country which possesses, nuclear weapons;

FYI, NAPA already states that it is up to member states on whether to possess nuclear weapons only. GA #14 prohibits belligerent action of any form against nations declaring neutrality.

EMPLORES member nations not to use nuclear weapons for any purpose.

Does the honoured ambassador from Embolalia mean the detonation rather than mere use?

[Rutianas]

I took it as a given that people would understand this doesn't affect non-WA nations. It's a given. And if you target WA members with nuclear weapons, and you aren't a WA member yourself, WA members can use nuclear weapons on you.
But other than your misinterpretations of what's written, why do you not support this?

Very well, however, I do read things literally as WA law is what WA law says. I merely point out possible problems. This is a possible problem as it does appear to be legislating non-WA nations. If a non-WA nation nukes a WA nation, the WA law would appear to go into effect stating that a WA nation may not have a nuclear detonation.

As to why Swarming Cute Kittens is against this is because Mutually Assured Destruction is sometimes the only thing that keeps two or more nations from going to war. Taking that away could potentially increase the amount of wars that occur. Two nations that hate each other and had nuclear arms pointed at each other now know that neither can use them. So why not invade and go to a prolonged war. MAD actually has a pretty good point behind it.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[Holy Roman Confederate]

You can broaden this to encompass all WMD's and we will still refuse to support the measure.

[Sanctaria]

I took it as a given that people would understand this doesn't affect non-WA nations. It's a given. And if you target WA members with nuclear weapons, and you aren't a WA member yourself, WA members can use nuclear weapons on you.
But other than your misinterpretations of what's written, why do you not support this?

Very well, however, I do read things literally as WA law is what WA law says.

Blasted legal positivism!

[Embolalia]

Suggestion for clarification in order to focus simply on aggression involving member states only :

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in the territory of any member country;

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any member country which do not possesses, or have conspicuous ties to any other member country which possesses, nuclear weapons;

No. This would mean that member nations could detonate weapons in non-WA states which do not have nuclear weapons. The current draft prohibits member nations from detonating weapons in any nation which does not have nuclear weapons.

FYI, NAPA already states that it is up to member states on whether to possess nuclear weapons only. GA #14 prohibits belligerent action of any form against nations declaring neutrality.

I am fully aware of this.

EMPLORES member nations not to use nuclear weapons for any purpose.

Does the honoured ambassador from Embolalia mean the detonation rather than mere use?

What other use is there?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Suggestion for clarification in order to focus simply on aggression involving member states only :

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in the territory of any member country;

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any member country which do not possesses, or have conspicuous ties to any other member country which possesses, nuclear weapons;

No. This would mean that member nations could detonate weapons in non-WA states which do not have nuclear weapons. The current draft prohibits member nations from detonating weapons in any nation which does not have nuclear weapons.

Okay, but would the first clause (PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any World Assembly member nation) could well conflict with the exception below. What about:

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any country which do not possesses, or have conspicuous ties to any other country which possesses, nuclear weapons;

EXEMPTS from the above the detonation of a weapon for non-offensive purposes, to which the government of the nation in which the weapon is to be detonated has agreed;

EMPLORES member nations not to use nuclear weapons for any purpose.

Does the honoured ambassador from Embolalia mean the detonation rather than mere use?

What other use is there?

The use as a deterrent, honoured ambassador.

[Mikedor]

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any World Assembly member nation;

After consulting our lawyers, we suggest changing the quoted to something along the lines of:

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any World Assembly member nation other than that of the nation conducting the detonation.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any World Assembly member nation;

After consulting our lawyers, we suggest changing the quoted to something along the lines of:

PROHIBITS the detonation of nuclear weapons in any World Assembly member nation other than that of the nation conducting the detonation.

A closer assessment has led Ms. Harper to suggest a simpler clause:

"PROHIBITS the use or detonation of nuclear weapons against any country which do not possesses, or have conspicuous ties to any other country which possesses, nuclear weapons."

[Ddreigiau]

Why is there no need? If it reduces the use of nuclear weapons (or WMDs, if that gets changed), isn't that a good thing? Isn't saving lives a pretty good thing to do with legislation?

GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!
Now, more seriously, saving lives is a fairly good thing for legislation to do. however, what at first appears to save lives may in fact cost them. example: The estimates of deaths caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs had an absolute upper limit of 246,000. The estimated casualties from the averted land invasion of Japan were approximately 1,000,000 allied casualties alone, and then only counting those on land, instead of on troop transports bound for Kyushu attacked by the 4,800 dedicated kamikaze fighterplanes based there, plus kamikaze subs, mines, torpedoes, small craft, and missiles carried by bombers. The estimated Japanese casualties were to be in the multiple millions - on average, there were 5 japanese casualties for every American casualty, based on previous operations.

Like I said, looks can be deceiving.

However, with the right wording, this can be a pretty good resolution that just might get accepted despite all the pro-nuclear freedom in the WA

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Why is there no need? If it reduces the use of nuclear weapons (or WMDs, if that gets changed), isn't that a good thing? Isn't saving lives a pretty good thing to do with legislation?

GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!
Now, more seriously, saving lives is a fairly good thing for legislation to do. however, what at first appears to save lives may in fact cost them. example: The estimates of deaths caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs had an absolute upper limit of 246,000. The estimated casualties from the averted land invasion of Japan were approximately 1,000,000 allied casualties alone, and then only counting those on land, instead of on troop transports bound for Kyushu attacked by the 4,800 dedicated kamikaze fighterplanes based there, plus kamikaze subs, mines, torpedoes, small craft, and missiles carried by bombers. The estimated Japanese casualties were to be in the multiple millions - on average, there were 5 japanese casualties for every American casualty, based on previous operations.

Like I said, looks can be deceiving.

However, with the right wording, this can be a pretty good resolution that just might get accepted despite all the pro-nuclear freedom in the WA

On balance we feel that the "save it for the last resort" idea would be good, but I hope that this draft can encourage this and protect those without nuclear weapons.