[Withdrawn] Nuclear Nuetrality Act

[Mallorea and Riva]

RECOGNIZING that nuclear weapons are a key part of many nations military armaments,

ACCEPTING that such weapons may be based in foreign nations.

ALARMED by the possibility of nations forcing other nations to base their nuclear weaponry,

GRAVELY CONCERNED by the possibility of foreign nations stealing these nuclear weapons,

STATES that if these foreign nations willingly allow nations to base nuclear weapons on their territory, then they are responsible along with the owner of the weapon for any use of the weapon, and its effects,
and that any use of the weapon by the nation housing the nuclear weaponry will be the joint responsibility of the nuclear weapon owner and holder,

DEFINES territory as any region such as air, land, water or space which a nation has sovereign control over,

HEREBY CREATES the Nuclear Weapons Research Committee, which will be tasked with:
1 Ensuring that nations are not being coerced into holding nuclear weapons through military, economic, political or any other means,
2 Punishing nations in violation of this resolution by declaring violating nations to be rogue, and/or by encouraging and coordinating economic sanctions against the rogue nation among agreeable nations,
3 Spreading information about proper Nuclear weapon storage and security,
4 Discouraging and publishing the movement of nuclear weapons into international territory through the research and journalism section of the committee.

The Nuclear Weapons Research Committee will derive its funding from voluntary contributions from WA members, which will be used to ensure international nuclear stability and safety.

Any constructive criticism or advice for the Delegate from Vishudale's resolution would be greatly appreciated, Mallorea and Riva has not made a foray into international politics until this resolution.

[Libtaria]

The Federation of Libtaria is interested in the possible effect(s) this measure may have on private stockpiles of nuclear weapons or fuel which may be held by mining companies, oil companies, and security firms.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Resolution #10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act should cover the right for member states not to have nuclear weapons, thus:

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

I think that also includes the right to refuse nuclear weapons from other nations.

And for the prevention of weapons falling into the wrong hands:

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.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I would contend that "the wrong hands" is far too broadly worded, and it does nothing to assign responsibility for any effects caused by the use of such weapons. The right to possess such weapons is indisputable, but the shortcomings of that resolution include the lack of insuring weaker nations' sovereignty. If you choose not to create or buy nuclear weapons then your rights are protected, but having nuclear weapon silos or aircraft forcibly based in your territory is not the same as you possessing them.

[Bergnovinaia]

I would contend that "the wrong hands" is far too broadly worded, and it does nothing to assign responsibility for any effects caused by the use of such weapons. The right to possess such weapons is indisputable, but the shortcomings of that resolution include the lack of insuring weaker nations' sovereignty.

Then repeal GA Resolution #10...

[Mallorea and Riva]

The intent of this resolution is not to repeal that resolution. That resolution does not address this issue, repealing it would create more problems than it would solve. Besides, trying to convince nations to repeal their right to possess nuclear weapons might reach a vote, but it would almost certainly fail.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The intent of this resolution is not to repeal that resolution. That resolution does not address this issue, repealing it would create more problems than it would solve. Besides, trying to convince nations to repeal their right to possess nuclear weapons might reach a vote, but it would almost certainly fail.

Honoured ambassador, if you drafted a repeal and replacement first I think it could make the case stronger.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This might be correct. That is why it was decided that this resolution would not simply be tossed into a vote like many resolutions are in the Assembly. We will think on this further, thank you for your assistance on this matter.

[Mallorea and Riva]

REPEAL Nuclear Arms Possession Act
RECOGNIZING that the possession of nuclear weapons is not challenged by the World Assembly,
NOTING that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act never defines what a Nuclear Weapon is, thereby allowing nations sell either material or nearly constructed weapons to other nations without punishment,
DOUBTFUL of the wording of the resolution due to the following phrases
1 “DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations” does not state that such weapons can only be used against non-WA members, clearly showing a break from the original intent of the usage of Nuclear Weapons in defense of the WA,
2 “PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons” fails to ensure that foreign nations are not forcing nuclear weapon bases upon sovereign states,
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" fails to in any way define “the wrong hands", or what consequences would result should this happen,
The General Assembly hereby REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act

RECOGNIZING that nuclear weapons are a key part of many nations military armaments,

DEFINES a Nuclear Weapon as a military weapon that derives its explosive power from nuclear fission or fusion,

ACCEPTING that such weapons may be based in foreign nations.

ALARMED by the possibility of nations forcing other nations to base their nuclear weaponry,

GRAVELY CONCERNED by the possibility of foreign nations stealing these nuclear weapons,

STATES that if these foreign nations willingly allow nations to base nuclear weapons on their territory, then they are responsible along with the owner of the weapon for any use of the weapon, and its effects,
and that any use of the weapon by the nation housing the nuclear weaponry will be the joint responsibility of the nuclear weapon owner and holder,

DEFINES territory as any region such as air, land, water or space which a nation has sovereign control over,

HEREBY CREATES the Nuclear Weapons Research Committee, which will be tasked with:
1 Ensuring that nations are not being coerced into holding nuclear weapons through military, economic, political or any other means,
2 Punishing nations in violation of this resolution by declaring violating nations to be rogue, and/or by encouraging and coordinating economic sanctions against the rogue nation among agreeable nations,
3 Spreading information about proper Nuclear weapon storage and security,
4 Discouraging and publishing the movement of nuclear weapons into international territory through the research and journalism section of the committee.

The Nuclear Weapons Research Committee will derive its funding from voluntary contributions from WA members, which will be used to ensure international nuclear stability and safety.

Perhaps this would be more amenable to the Honorable Envoys and Ambassadors of the WA? Frankly the original resolution is too loosely worded, a simple repeal by itself seems important, even if support for the second resolution were to falter.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

The HRC is strongly opposed to this proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

Read it. Don't like it. Tired of the myriad "control/anti/whatever nukes" propsals. Next.

[Flibbleites]

REPEAL Nuclear Arms Possession Act
RECOGNIZING that the possession of nuclear weapons is not challenged by the World Assembly,

Condisering you're trying to repeal the resolution that protects WA members' right to have nuclear weapons, I'm not so sure.

NOTING that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act never defines what a Nuclear Weapon is,

You want to know why? It's because one of my pet peeves is proposals where half the text is a fraking glossary of terms for the resolution.

thereby allowing nations sell either material or nearly constructed weapons to other nations without punishment,

Wrong, even with a definition of nuclear weapon this would still be allowed under the NAPA because the NAPA is silent on the subject of selling nuclear weapons.

DOUBTFUL of the wording of the resolution due to the following phrases
1 “DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations” does not state that such weapons can only be used against non-WA members, clearly showing a break from the original intent of the usage of Nuclear Weapons in defense of the WA,

That's because you're ascribing intent that simply isn't there. My intent with the NAPA is to block the WA from passing a total ban on nuclear weapons, nothing more.

2 “PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons” fails to ensure that foreign nations are not forcing nuclear weapon bases upon sovereign states,

So write a resolution that bans that, it shouldn't contradict the NAPA.

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" fails to in any way define “the wrong hands", or what consequences would result should this happen,

Seriously? What the frak do you want, a list of every person in the world who shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons? That would be impossible due to the character limit. As for consequences that, like who constitutes "the wrong hands," is left up to the individual nations to decide. Now are you capable of that or are you one of those types who needs the WA to hold your hand for everything?

The General Assembly hereby REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act

[/quote]
Over my dead body.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Mallorea and Riva]

Read it. Don't like it. Tired of the myriad "control/anti/whatever nukes" propsals. Next.

As constructive as this criticism was unfortunately I will not be able to craft a witty enough response to satiate your clearly superior intellect.
Anyways.
The repeal of Resolution 10 is a means to achieve the ends of ensuring Nuclear Neutrality, which was the original topic of discussion. Now if the primary resolution shown above is unattainable do to the wording or structure of the resolution, then criticism would be appreciated. If the concept itself will never gain support IN GENERAL then do tell.
Addressing the repeal: there are legitimate concerns regarding the wording. For example, should a nation offend another nation, nation X could let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorist cell Y. Terrorist cell Y could then use the weapons on nation Z. According to nation X the group Y is not "the wrong hands", while Z would surely disagree.
Also, the resolution follows a "because of x, then y" format. Because WA members are hated and outnumbered by nonWA members, then they may acquire nuclear weapons. Regardless as to what your intent was, the written wording of the resolution bases the right to nuclear weapons SOLELY upon this point, and therefore implies that nuclear weapons may be used SOLELY for this reason. Mallorea and Riva fully supports the development of nuclear weapons programs, but this resolution can (and should) be interpreted in such a way that limits sovereign justification and control of these weapons.

[Bears Armed]

For example, should a nation offend another nation, nation X could let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorist cell Y. Terrorist cell Y could then use the weapons on nation Z. According to nation X the group Y is not "the wrong hands",

Nope. Forbidden by clause 2 of the GA Resolution #25 'WA Counterterrorism Act'.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Fair enough, but if one replaces the label "terrorist" with a simple state that dislikes another nation then the same outcome is achieved.

[Darenjo]

Fair enough, but if one replaces the label "terrorist" with a simple state that dislikes another nation then the same outcome is achieved.

However, other nations will've recognized Cell Y as a terrorist group or as a puppet of Nation X.

Btw, read the repeal, don't like it; Flibbleites's comments pretty much cover my reasons.

As to the original proposal, i think that:
a. it doesn't do much more than create a committee
b. it does say a lot that is possibly covered by previous resolutions
c. you'd probably do better off with a resolution concentrating on the moving of nuclear weapons across international boundaries.

Also, this is a possible definition for a nuclear weapon:

An explosive weapon that splits or fuses neutrons, hydroge, plutonium, or uranium to acheive high amounts of energy in the forms of light, heat, and gamma ray radiation;

Just an off-the-top-of-my-head thing; probably has some accuracy issues.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Well this is why Drafting was invented. We'll go back to the drawing board on this and sit on it for awhile, thank you fellow Delegates and Ambassadors for your help.