[DRAFT] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Genesis Era]

With the recent flood of nuclear weapons WA proposals being thrown around, I thought that I might join in as well.

---

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution:#10
Proposed by: Genesis Era

Description: WA Resolution #10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
The World Assembly,

REALIZING that WA members have previously been allowed the use of nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Arms Possession Act,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that WA resolution #10 was made in the spirit of self-determination and defensive purposes,

NOTICING that the possession and manufacturing of nuclear weapons has in fact destablised the international arena with the rise of nuclear arms races,

UNDERSTANDING that WA member states need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

ALSO noting that conventional weapons are just as capable of deterrence against foreign aggressors, as nuclear weapons

FURTHER noting that the target resolution has a lack of legislation or regulation of the production and use of nuclear weapons,

HEREBY calls for the repeal of the current Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

[Enn]

NOTICING that the possession and manufacturing of nuclear weapons has in fact destablised the international arena with the rise of nuclear arms races,

UNDERSTANDING that WA member states need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

ALSO noting that conventional weapons are just as capable of deterrence against foreign aggressors, as nuclear weapons

FURTHER noting that the target resolution has a lack of legislation or regulation of the production and use of nuclear weapons,

None of these really have anything to do with NAPA. They can be quite readily addressed without repealing NAPA - it doesn't prevent them from having proposals. So why repeal it?

[Holy Roman Confederate]

The HRC is highly against this. Nuclear weapons have not destabilized the world arena. Being that you've blindly thrown out a statement you cannot quantify we cannot support this in any form.

[Genesis Era]

Didn't think of it that way; I was more focused on the technicalities of the original proposal. Any ideas on how to improve it?

[Quadrimmina]

With the recent flood of nuclear weapons WA proposals being thrown around, I thought that I might join in as well.

---

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution:#10
Proposed by: Genesis Era

Description: WA Resolution #10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
The World Assembly,

REALIZING that WA members have previously been allowed the use of nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Arms Possession Act,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that WA resolution #10 was made in the spirit of self-determination and defensive purposes,

NOTICING that the possession and manufacturing of nuclear weapons has in fact destablised the international arena with the rise of nuclear arms races,

UNDERSTANDING that WA member states need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

ALSO noting that conventional weapons are just as capable of deterrence against foreign aggressors, as nuclear weapons

FURTHER noting that the target resolution has a lack of legislation or regulation of the production and use of nuclear weapons,

HEREBY calls for the repeal of the current Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

The Republic of Quadrimmina has continued its research in all military avenues, including the possession and study of nuclear weapons, and will continue to do so. GAR#10 is necessary not because of an arbitrary compromise but because each WA member nation must be protected from attack against unregulated non-WA nations. If all nations were in the WA, I'd be all for a proposal ending nuclear proliferation. Until then though, we will never support something that decreases our military readiness.

[Manticore Reborn]

REALIZING that WA members have previously been allowed the use of nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Arms Possession Act,

The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn finds this statement to be inaccurate. NAPA does not authorized the use of nuclear weapons, but rather authorizes the possession of them for defensive purposes.

[Darenjo]

REALIZING that WA members have previously been allowed the use of nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Arms Possession Act,

The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn finds this statement to be inaccurate. NAPA does not authorized the use of nuclear weapons, but rather authorizes the possession of them for defensive purposes.

We agree with the Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn. NAPA authorizes possession only (I would know, having drafted a similar repeal to NAPA). You could technically, according to NAPA's author, even ban the usage of nukes without repealing NAPA.

[Unibot]

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Proliferation is an extremely dangerous action, and the only clause regarding it refers to 'do not fall into the wrong hands'. All poor choices in figurative language aside, who are the wrong hands? Many exchanges of nuclear technology are in the self-interests of the proliferating nation at the time, so they will see it as being the 'right hands', without necessarily considering the collective interests of all states: security. In other words, interests may overpower obvious rogue state characteristics when a nation decides who is the 'wrong hands'. It's a subject that clearly needs to be looked at more in depth -- that could be a reason for repeal.. or an additional proposal on proliferation.

[Darenjo]

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Proliferation is an extremely dangerous action, and the only clause regarding it refers to 'do not fall into the wrong hands'. All poor choices in figurative language aside, who are the wrong hands? Many exchanges of nuclear technology are in the self-interests of the proliferating nation at the time, so they will see it as being the 'right hands', without necessarily considering the collective interests of all states: security. In other words, interests may overpower obvious rogue state characteristics when a nation decides who is the 'wrong hands'. It's a subject that clearly needs to be looked at more in depth -- that could be a reason for repeal.. or an additional proposal on proliferation.

Sorry, but I think that any attempted repeal of NAPA is unrealistic. I do think that maybe a proposal on proliferation would be good, but it would be quite hard to pass (think of having to define 'terrorist', 'nation', 'organization', 'corporation' in NS).

[Magthere]

The ambassador of the Armed Republic of Magthere cannot support this. While the fact we have nuclear arms is regrettable, it is also necessary to the vast number of nations outside of the WA and as such the possesion of nuclear weapons is important to a nations defense.

[Linux and the X]

Several nations have stated that, should NAPA be repealed, they will draft a replacement that also permits the use of nuclear weapons. If you wish to restrict nuclear weapons, you can restrict their creation, distribution, use, or (probably) storage.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

GA#10 does not prevent the future passage of safety regulations, it's just that under GA#10 the choice of nuclear weapons ownership is left to member states to decide. Of course, a motion to ban nuclear weapons testing fell through recently.

[Bears Armed]

Sorry, but I think that any attempted repeal of NAPA is unrealistic. I do think that maybe a proposal on proliferation would be good, but it would be quite hard to pass (think of having to define 'terrorist', 'nation', 'organization', 'corporation' in NS).

GA Resolution #25 not only defines terrorists but forbids member nations to aid them, and as giving them nuclear weapons obviously would be aiding them it is therefore banned under that legislation, so that aspect of this situation has already been dealt with.

[Riggedhinsoma]

I cannot support this act and agree with what Manticore Reborn has said

[Navadura]

These kind of weapons that cause such harmful destruction should not be entitled to the ownership of any nation.
Thus, there should be no legislation that allows any nation to posses Nuclear Arms.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

These kind of weapons that cause such harmful destruction should not be entitled to the ownership of any nation.
Thus, there should be no legislation that allows any nation to posses Nuclear Arms.

The HRC finds this to be a very closed minded point of view. If you feel that way eliminate nuclear weapons from your stockpiles, but under no circumstances believe you have the right to dictate this to other nations.

[The Altani Confederacy]

Saying that the possession and manufacturing of nuclear weapons has destabilized the international arena is a nice bold statement. Have any facts to back it up?

I would think, personally, that nuclear weapons actually make conflict less likely. If a potential attacker knows that you have the ability to turn their cities into glass, it makes the idea of attacking you much less appealing.

In any event, the Confederacy will always come down on the side of a nation's inherent right to self-defense. Opposed.

Sophie Fournier, Altani WA Ambassador

[Unibot]

Saying that the possession and manufacturing of nuclear weapons has destabilized the international arena is a nice bold statement. Have any facts to back it up?

Do you have facts to prove otherwise?

OOC: These are always the silliest arguments ever... if it happens in RL it is bound to happen in NS.

[The Altani Confederacy]

Saying that the possession and manufacturing of nuclear weapons has destabilized the international arena is a nice bold statement. Have any facts to back it up?

Do you have facts to prove otherwise?

Frankly, no, but neither do you or this draft's author. In the absence of facts one way or the other, I maintain that there is no reason to change legislation already approved by this body, or to attack the right of nations to defend themselves. Just because some nations believe that maintaining a nuclear deterrent is undesirable is no reason for the rest of us to be forced to defang ourselves - especially when you consider how many non-WA nations are already nuclear-capable.

If you want to sit around a big campfire together, sing kumbaya, and hope that protects you from external threats, by all means, be my guest. Just don't force us to do the same.

Sophie Fournier, Altani WA Ambassador

[Unibot]

Do you have facts to prove otherwise?

Frankly, no, but neither do you or this draft's author. In the absence of facts one way or the other, I maintain that there is no reason to change legislation already approved by this body, or to attack the right of nations to defend themselves. Just because some nations believe that maintaining a nuclear deterrent is undesirable is no reason for the rest of us to be forced to defang themselves - especially when you consider how many non-WA nations are already nuclear-capable.

If you want to sit around a big campfire together, sing kumbaya, and hope that protects you from external threats, by all means, be my guest. Just don't force us to do the same.

Sophie Fournier, Altani WA Ambassador

Well now, hold on. You've got me all wrong, I'm not against states pursuing what is in their best interests, however sometimes idealism is in one's best interest, which creates a middle ground between realism and idealism in foreign policy, call it self-interested idealism or what have you. Having no nuclear weapons is, indeed, in the best interest of any nation -- maybe not a nation's immediate best interest, but it ultimately is... if it be reputation or the solvency of an economy that the tension of nuclear accumulation can threaten with military debt.

My own step-plan for curtailing nuclear use would be,

• Prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-WA nations and rogue states (terrorists are defined as non-state actors);
• Limit the nuclear arsenal of all member-nations to a regulated " nuclear bank", that is arbitrated by the World Assembly;

[Holy Roman Confederate]

In no way can I agree with creating a nuclear bank. By doing so would be to take away from that nations arsenal and inhibit freedom of choice in deployment.

[Unibot]

In no way can I agree with creating a nuclear bank. By doing so would be to take away from that nations arsenal and inhibit freedom of choice in deployment.

Inhibit, not completely restrict.

[The Black Plains]

While we are not positive this actually ADDRESSES NAPA, the Security Syndicate of the Black Plains would like to point out that nuclear weapons are vital as a deterrent to biological warfare (which has the capacity to be infinitely worse than nuclear warfare).

[Doomiedoomiedoom]

I am totally against this. Repealing this would ruin the Doomain holiday of "Doomsday", in which we launch various nuclear missiles at random spots on the globe.

[Novayonia]

The very existence of such regulation serves only to legitimize the practice of hoarding and testing nuclear weapons.

To get to the root of the problem, we must eradicate all nuclear weapons off the face of our planet. Any governments that refuse to comply with our mandatory disarmament must be forcibly overthrown.