[DRAFT] Nuclear Aggression Agreement

[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.

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?

We agree saving lives is always a worthy goal. However, the reason we find this legislation useless is that those whom are most likely to transgress will just ignore it anyway.
As this assembly cannot make nuclear weapons illegal without repealing NAPA, my government suggests perhaps that the focus of any legislation should be on under what circumstances it is considered legal to use them (i.e. in retaliation of an attack against ones nation using WMDs).

[Rutianas]

This would prevent nuclear war between two member nations. This strips away a core doctrine of what holds many conflicts apart, MAD.

While it might prevent nuclear war, MAD usually has the same effect. Stripping that away will not keep those conflicts from happening. They will likely occur anyway. So what's the point of stripping MAD away? At least with MAD, the chances of someone pushing the button is pretty low.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[Rutianas]

That was what we were implying.

You implied that stripping MAD away will keep those conflicts from occurring, at least that was my understanding.

I stated that it will not likely do so. The conflicts will happen anyway.

So stripping MAD away does nothing but potential harm. With MAD, the chances of people dying due to war is slim. Without it, the chance increases greatly.

All this will do is keep nuclear war from occurring. Those who are already at high tensions due to MAD will just go to war anyway should this pass. Lives will be lost that could have been avoided if MAD were still in place.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[Vitaphone Racing]

This resolution cannot be allowed to pass in its current form or in any form. Nuclear weapons are deadly, but so are conventional munitions, disallowing one but allowing the other makes no sense.

[Darenjo]

This resolution cannot be allowed to pass in its current form or in any form. Nuclear weapons are deadly, but so are conventional munitions, disallowing one but allowing the other makes no sense.

But nukes tend to be deadlier than bullets (or lasers or plasma or cannon shot or whatever you nations use). And chem and bio weapons are already banned, so nukes are the big ones left.

[Darenjo]

Upon further review, the Darenjon government has decided that this proposal is not needed due to the fact that many (if not most) WA nations already adhere to such measures, and therefore will not offer our support.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This resolution cannot be allowed to pass in its current form or in any form. Nuclear weapons are deadly, but so are conventional munitions, disallowing one but allowing the other makes no sense.

But nukes tend to be deadlier than bullets (or lasers or plasma or cannon shot or whatever you nations use). And chem and bio weapons are already banned, so nukes are the big ones left.

So we can't drop a nuke, but we can drop their equivalent in TNT?

Like I said, ban them all or allow them all. You can't sit on the fence.

[Knootoss]

((I can see this proposal being voted down by similar numbers.

Under the multi-continental retaliation doctrine, the Knootian Defence Force reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in a first strike-role under severely restricted circumstances. All nuclear weapons will be used in the event of an attack on Knootoss proper, launched by a vastly superior foe (specifically, alliances such as the Reich or Arda) in the event that the Marine has been unable to prevent landings and if there is no likelihood of help or relief by allied forces to prevent long-term occupation or even the destruction of Knootoss proper. In this event, all warheads will be released by various means to completely destroy all life in all invading nations.

This doctrine was installed to prevent any major alliance from even contemplating a conventional invasion of Knootoss proper, in the event that alliance doctrine should fail. This "worse-case" doctrine is based on the RL-French "Weak-to-strong strategy". The idea behind it is that a full-scale nuclear war would be lost by both opponents, and that a stronger opponent, having more to lose, would therefore refrain from proceeding further ("being the best boxer in a gunfight").

Therefore, trying to kill off MAD or preventing first-strike would most certainly be a security threat.))

[Ille-Povrois]

It is sad to see that in the WA the individual interests still win the colective ones.
Nuclear weapons are not a good option in any case. We must encourage dimishing and - at last - banishing nuclear weapons of our world.

[Mikedor]

It is sad to see that in the WA the individual interests still win the colective ones.
Nuclear weapons are not a good option in any case. We must encourage dimishing and - at last - banishing nuclear weapons of our world.

Not while non-WA nations exist, unfortunately.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

It is sad to see that in the WA the individual interests still win the colective ones.
Nuclear weapons are not a good option in any case. We must encourage dimishing and - at last - banishing nuclear weapons of our world.

You statement shows me that you are not ready or understanding those that disagree with your point. Arrogance......

[Ddreigiau]

It is sad to see that in the WA the individual interests still win the colective ones.
Nuclear weapons are not a good option in any case. We must encourage dimishing and - at last - banishing nuclear weapons of our world.

well, let's see...
The two WWII atomics combined produced a death toll of (at maximum estimate) 260,000
The estimated death toll from a land invasion of Kyushu is 6 million, plus those lost at sea from kamikaze attacks by the 4800 kamikaze planes based there, and the submarines, suicide torpedoes, and a bomber-carried suicide missile AND THEN civilian casualties.
and Kyushu isn't the whole island.

which do you prefer?

[Embolalia]

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.

I don't think so. The exemption applies to "the above", meaning both prohibitions. Perhaps I could clarify with "EXEMPTS from the above prohibitions etc."?

[Ille-Povrois]

It is sad to see that in the WA the individual interests still win the colective ones.
Nuclear weapons are not a good option in any case. We must encourage dimishing and - at last - banishing nuclear weapons of our world.

well, let's see...
The two WWII atomics combined produced a death toll of (at maximum estimate) 260,000
The estimated death toll from a land invasion of Kyushu is 6 million, plus those lost at sea from kamikaze attacks by the 4800 kamikaze planes based there, and the submarines, suicide torpedoes, and a bomber-carried suicide missile AND THEN civilian casualties.
and Kyushu isn't the whole island.

which do you prefer?

Dear Ddreigiau Representative.

I do believe that your intention was just to provide a glimpse in the Nuclear Weapon use. But, I rather believe that you understand that the nuclear arsenal of our days are larger than it was in the WWII. And the effects of using nuclear weapons in a war today would be completely different.

Best regards

Countess Emilie Poisson
Bureau of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ille-Povrois

[Ille-Povrois]

It is sad to see that in the WA the individual interests still win the colective ones.
Nuclear weapons are not a good option in any case. We must encourage dimishing and - at last - banishing nuclear weapons of our world.

You statement shows me that you are not ready or understanding those that disagree with your point. Arrogance......

Esteemed Holy Roman Confederate Representative

We will certainly not take your words personaly. We respect the other nation's opinions and we believe that WA is the place for debate. But we think it should be carried with respect. If your nation is an advocate of nuclear weapons, you should feel free to defend it and show your point of view. But we would like you to understand that our concerns about the harm in using nuclear weapons is legitimate, and should be respected.

Best regards

Countess Emilie Poisson
Bureau of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ille-Povrois

[Holy Roman Confederate]

You statement shows me that you are not ready or understanding those that disagree with your point. Arrogance......

Esteemed Holy Roman Confederate Representative

We will certainly not take your words personaly. We respect the other nation's opinions and we believe that WA is the place for debate. But we think it should be carried with respect. If your nation is an advocate of nuclear weapons, you should feel free to defend it and show your point of view. But we would like you to understand that our concerns about the harm in using nuclear weapons is legitimate, and should be respected.

Best regards

Countess Emilie Poisson
Bureau of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ille-Povrois

The HRC will in no way endorse your standpoint by saying your concerns are legitimate.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

I don't think so. The exemption applies to "the above", meaning both prohibitions. Perhaps I could clarify with "EXEMPTS from the above prohibitions etc."?

It would be worth a go, although Ms. Harper has observed that this draft sounds better, provided that revisions are made.

[Ille-Povrois]

Esteemed Holy Roman Confederate Representative

We will certainly not take your words personaly. We respect the other nation's opinions and we believe that WA is the place for debate. But we think it should be carried with respect. If your nation is an advocate of nuclear weapons, you should feel free to defend it and show your point of view. But we would like you to understand that our concerns about the harm in using nuclear weapons is legitimate, and should be respected.

Best regards

Countess Emilie Poisson
Bureau of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ille-Povrois

The HRC will in no way endorse your standpoint by saying your concerns are legitimate.

We were not expecting that, gentleman.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It is sad to see that in the WA the individual interests still win the colective ones.
Nuclear weapons are not a good option in any case. We must encourage dimishing and - at last - banishing nuclear weapons of our world.

Esteemed Ambassador

Nuclear weapons are no better than conventional munitions. Both can and will have a terrible impact on human life. We ask, however, that you respect the fact that global-disarment of the WA will put many nations in grave danger. Vitaphone Racing is lucky to be surrounded by peaceful neighbours, but not every country shares this freedom.

We also ask you to understand that banning nuclear weapons will only see the introduction of newer and deadlier weapons. For this, we believe this current proposal is flawed; it will not achieve the goal it sets out to.

For this, we are against.

[Red Zone 1]

A noble idea, but this law can never be pass into the WA. By banning nuke, only the outlaw will have them.

[Ddreigiau]

well, let's see...
The two WWII atomics combined produced a death toll of (at maximum estimate) 260,000
The estimated death toll from a land invasion of Kyushu is 6 million, plus those lost at sea from kamikaze attacks by the 4800 kamikaze planes based there, and the submarines, suicide torpedoes, and a bomber-carried suicide missile AND THEN civilian casualties.
and Kyushu isn't the whole island.

which do you prefer?

Dear Ddreigiau Representative.

I do believe that your intention was just to provide a glimpse in the Nuclear Weapon use. But, I rather believe that you understand that the nuclear arsenal of our days are larger than it was in the WWII. And the effects of using nuclear weapons in a war today would be completely different.

Best regards

Countess Emilie Poisson
Bureau of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ille-Povrois

The point of nuclear weapons is both as a deterrent and to end a war more quickly than conventional means, and with fewer overall deaths. and as for the difference between today's arsenal and that of WWII: yes, today's nuclear devices are higher-yield. yes, there are more of them than two. However, the meat of my point remains: a single large event of casualties may politically and militarily drive a nation to peace. That weapon may very well end a war that could have otherwise resulted in far more deaths, both civilian and military. You don't use nuclear weapons indiscriminately, just as you don't bomb cities indiscrimately. That would both be a violation of the rules of war and a waste of money.


edit: ooc: thanks to fibblites for fixing the spoiler tags in my post. was trying to figure out why it looked funny.

[Ille-Povrois]

Dear Ddreigiau Representative.

I do believe that your intention was just to provide a glimpse in the Nuclear Weapon use. But, I rather believe that you understand that the nuclear arsenal of our days are larger than it was in the WWII. And the effects of using nuclear weapons in a war today would be completely different.

Best regards

Countess Emilie Poisson
Bureau of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ille-Povrois

The point of nuclear weapons is both as a deterrent and to end a war more quickly than conventional means, and with fewer overall deaths. and as for the difference between today's arsenal and that of WWII: yes, today's nuclear devices are higher-yield. yes, there are more of them than two. However, the meat of my point remains: a single large event of casualties may politically and militarily drive a nation to peace. That weapon may very well end a war that could have otherwise resulted in far more deaths, both civilian and military. You don't use nuclear weapons indiscriminately, just as you don't bomb cities indiscrimately. That would both be a violation of the rules of war and a waste of money.


edit: ooc: thanks to fibblites for fixing the spoiler tags in my post. was trying to figure out why it looked funny.

Dear Sir
Unfortunately, we do not share the same opinion. If your government try to show us a "reasonable" point of view of the use of nuclear weapon, some nations that can count with these devices in their arsenals could not think so "reasonably" as your nation and use nuclear weapons in a way of causing too much destruction and deaths in a war. Not all nations from WA care that much for the human rights. For people like us in Ille-Povrois feel safe from the power of those nations, we must make they respect the law.

Best regards

[Holy Roman Confederate]

The point of nuclear weapons is both as a deterrent and to end a war more quickly than conventional means, and with fewer overall deaths. and as for the difference between today's arsenal and that of WWII: yes, today's nuclear devices are higher-yield. yes, there are more of them than two. However, the meat of my point remains: a single large event of casualties may politically and militarily drive a nation to peace. That weapon may very well end a war that could have otherwise resulted in far more deaths, both civilian and military. You don't use nuclear weapons indiscriminately, just as you don't bomb cities indiscrimately. That would both be a violation of the rules of war and a waste of money.


edit: ooc: thanks to fibblites for fixing the spoiler tags in my post. was trying to figure out why it looked funny.

Dear Sir
Unfortunately, we do not share the same opinion. If your government try to show us a "reasonable" point of view of the use of nuclear weapon, some nations that can count with these devices in their arsenals could not think so "reasonably" as your nation and use nuclear weapons in a way of causing too much destruction and deaths in a war. Not all nations from WA care that much for the human rights. For people like us in Ille-Povrois feel safe from the power of those nations, we must make they respect the law.

Best regards

You'll make us respect the law? So you're stating that your intention is to force feed legislation to nations that do not share your views. Thats the first time you've actually managed to tell this body what your true intentions are. The HRC looks forward to the failure of this proposal with great anticipation.

[The Krieg Empire]

YOU'LL NEVER TAKE OUR NUKES

- Prince Siegfried Reuder

[Ille-Povrois]

Dear Sir
Unfortunately, we do not share the same opinion. If your government try to show us a "reasonable" point of view of the use of nuclear weapon, some nations that can count with these devices in their arsenals could not think so "reasonably" as your nation and use nuclear weapons in a way of causing too much destruction and deaths in a war. Not all nations from WA care that much for the human rights. For people like us in Ille-Povrois feel safe from the power of those nations, we must make they respect the law.

Best regards

You'll make us respect the law? So you're stating that your intention is to force feed legislation to nations that do not share your views. Thats the first time you've actually managed to tell this body what your true intentions are. The HRC looks forward to the failure of this proposal with great anticipation.

We do believe you misunderstood our point of view. We do not want to "force legislation" for our interests. We believe that life assurance should be a goal for ALL nations. But we are realizing that this is not the scenery...