[Submitted] Repeal Nuclear Arms Possession Act

[Mallorea and Riva]

RECOGNIZING that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act attempted to bring stability and clarity to the nuclear powers,

NOTING that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act never defines what a Nuclear Weapon is, thereby casting inherent confusion upon the rest of the resolution,

FRUSTRATED that this lack of clarity forces the debate of nuclear weapons to arise continually,

DOUBTFUL of the wording of the resolution due to the following phrases in its clauses as shown:

Clause 1 “DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations”
CRITIQUE: This clause fails to address the offensive use of nuclear weapons, thereby failing to address one of the most important issues of nuclear warfare, and causes nations to continually debate and argue over this lack of clarity,

Clause 2 "PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons"
CRITIQUE: Since a nuclear weapon is never defined, nations can force other nations to base nuclear devices that have a component removed, or by some other method that circumvents the vagueness of the resolution,

Clause 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"
CRITIQUE: The resolution fails to in any way define “the wrong hands", or what consequences would result should this happen, thereby making the act that is banned vague and the punishment for this act presumably nonexistent, since it should be generally accepted that “the wrong hands” to one nation are “the right hands” to another,

DUE to the vague and indefinite meaning of many of the clauses within the Act,
The General Assembly hereby REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

So here is the issue, nuclear weapons are obviously a subject which can draw much conflict. Let this ambassador make himself very clear, both sides of the issue can agree upon this appeal. Not everyone will, but allow me to explain. The pro nuclear weapons crowd should realize that this resolution is simply not worded as well as it should be considering the magnitude of the issue it deals with. See the refutation of the clauses' wording to see why. The anti nuclear weapon crowd should be gravely concerned about a resolution justifying nuclear weapons that is not worded well.
Let a new resolution be submitted and voted for, but this one simply does not suffice.

Here is the resolution we would be repealing

Nuclear Arms Possession Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,
NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,
REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,
1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,
2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,
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.

Votes For: 6,313
Votes Against: 4,663

The efforts and intentions of the original author are respected, but we must vote to repeal.
*This edit updated the original copy with the current version in the WA.

Any amount of helpful advice regarding the mechanics of the repeal's wording would be greatly appreciated, the time to debate the issue at hand with all of your passion will come once it attempts to reach quorum. Moderate, respectful debate from both sides is more then welcome now.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Pointless legislation in the HRC's opinion.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Pointless legislation in the HRC's opinion.

Okay, and why do you think that? I'm trying to get feedback so go for it.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

It's very clear you are attempting a repeal as an end run to install legislation to limit or eliminate nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should just walk away from the topic. Nuclear weapons are the third rail of WA politics.

[Mousebumples]

I do not believe that NAPA needs to be repealed. Opposed.

*grabs popcorn and awaits Flib's response*

[Mallorea and Riva]

Well attempting to install legislation was my inspiration to tackling this issue, but I've abandoned that legislation now. It was not necessary, and could easily be covered by a new possession act (in fact this one attempted to cover that issue in clause 2). Once this is over I will not have anything to do with nuclear weapons legislation, I'm not using this as a platform to write a new act. And Mallorea and Riva supports the development of nuclear weapons programs, we simply don't have faith in the wording of this resolution. I am also not writing this for the sake of having a resolution passed, there are legitimate concerns in the wording of this resolution that need to be solved.
And why does the ambassador from Mousebumple disagree with me? Simply saying "No" is not constructive.
*waits for Flib to admonish him once again*

[Mousebumples]

And why does the ambassador from Mousebumple disagree with me? Simply saying "No" is not constructive.

I'm not necessarily trying to be especially constructive here. I feel that NAPA is more than adequate in it's wording and clarity; you disagree. I feel that it is a quality piece of resolution that deserves to stay among the passed legislation; you disagree.

We're not on the same side, and I don't know that I could be persuaded to change my mind any more easily than you could. A repeal is different from a new piece of legislation. A repeal will remove a passed resolution from the books, if successful. If I don't wish for that resolution to be struck out and declared void, I see no reason to offer suggestions for improving the repeal text.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

And why does the ambassador from Mousebumple disagree with me? Simply saying "No" is not constructive.

I'm not necessarily trying to be especially constructive here. I feel that NAPA is more than adequate in it's wording and clarity; you disagree. I feel that it is a quality piece of resolution that deserves to stay among the passed legislation; you disagree.

We're not on the same side, and I don't know that I could be persuaded to change my mind any more easily than you could. A repeal is different from a new piece of legislation. A repeal will remove a passed resolution from the books, if successful. If I don't wish for that resolution to be struck out and declared void, I see no reason to offer suggestions for improving the repeal text.

very well worded, and the HRC is in complete agreement.

[Mallorea and Riva]

And why does the ambassador from Mousebumple disagree with me? Simply saying "No" is not constructive.

I'm not necessarily trying to be especially constructive here. I feel that NAPA is more than adequate in it's wording and clarity; you disagree. I feel that it is a quality piece of resolution that deserves to stay among the passed legislation; you disagree.

We're not on the same side, and I don't know that I could be persuaded to change my mind any more easily than you could. A repeal is different from a new piece of legislation. A repeal will remove a passed resolution from the books, if successful. If I don't wish for that resolution to be struck out and declared void, I see no reason to offer suggestions for improving the repeal text.

Fair enough, I can respect your viewpoint. Obviously we still disagree, in your opinion am I using sophistry to try to repeal it, or do you see where I'm coming from?

[Embolalia]

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 to base nearly constructed weapons in unwilling nations without punishment,
DOUBTFUL of the wording of the resolution due to the following phrases in both the preamble and its clauses, and the lack of any attempt at the definition of a nuclear weapon as shown:

I would think that the definition of a nuclear weapon is obvious, but okay.

PREAMBLE “Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,
ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,
NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,
REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,”
CRITIQUE: Since this phrase clearly declares that nuclear weapons may only be possessed as long as they are used to defend against non-WA members, and since this phrase would void the right to own nuclear weapons if the WA were to expand a significant amount,

The part you just quoted isn't operative. Not one of those lines places any restriction on member nations whatsoever. I don't have even the slightest idea where you got that idea from.

1 “DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations”
CRITIQUE: 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,

I don't think that was the intent. Nowhere in the preamble does it say it wants nukes to be used only against non-WA nations, only that such deterrent needs to be available.

2 "PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons"
CRITIQUE: Since a nuclear weapon is never defined, nations can force other nations to base nuclear devices that have a component removed, or some similar level of trickery,

What? Nowhere does this say anything about a nation requiring anything of another nation.

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

That's a reasonable argument. If I were you, I'd focus more on that.

DUE to the vague and indefinite meaning of many of the clauses within the Act,
The General Assembly hereby REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act

Many? Two.

It seems to me, barring the bizarre interpretations the origin of which truly confounds me, you have two main arguments: Nuclear weapons aren't well-defined, and "the wrong hands" is undefined. Those are reasonable arguments. I happen to disagree with them, but on the level of simply suggesting how to make your proposal better: focus on those. But realistically, I have to agree with the HRC on this one. Nuclear weapons are the third rail of WA politics. You're not going to get a repeal of this through without a damn good argument, and you certainly aren't getting anything stronger through. That said, NAPA is not very restrictive. If you want to pass usage restrictions, or further handling restrictions, sale restrictions, all that stuff, there is a way to word it to make it legal without repealing NAPA. It might not pass, but it wouldn't pass with NAPA repealed either.

[Mallorea and Riva]

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 to base nearly constructed weapons in unwilling nations without punishment,
DOUBTFUL of the wording of the resolution due to the following phrases in both the preamble and its clauses, and the lack of any attempt at the definition of a nuclear weapon as shown:

I would think that the definition of a nuclear weapon is obvious, but okay.

PREAMBLE “Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,
ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,
NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,
REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,”
CRITIQUE: Since this phrase clearly declares that nuclear weapons may only be possessed as long as they are used to defend against non-WA members, and since this phrase would void the right to own nuclear weapons if the WA were to expand a significant amount,

The part you just quoted isn't operative. Not one of those lines places any restriction on member nations whatsoever. I don't have even the slightest idea where you got that idea from.

1 “DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations”
CRITIQUE: 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,

I don't think that was the intent. Nowhere in the preamble does it say it wants nukes to be used only against non-WA nations, only that such deterrent needs to be available.

2 "PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons"
CRITIQUE: Since a nuclear weapon is never defined, nations can force other nations to base nuclear devices that have a component removed, or some similar level of trickery,

What? Nowhere does this say anything about a nation requiring anything of another nation.

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

That's a reasonable argument. If I were you, I'd focus more on that.

DUE to the vague and indefinite meaning of many of the clauses within the Act,
The General Assembly hereby REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act

Many? Two.

It seems to me, barring the bizarre interpretations the origin of which truly confounds me, you have two main arguments: Nuclear weapons aren't well-defined, and "the wrong hands" is undefined. Those are reasonable arguments. I happen to disagree with them, but on the level of simply suggesting how to make your proposal better: focus on those. But realistically, I have to agree with the HRC on this one. Nuclear weapons are the third rail of WA politics. You're not going to get a repeal of this through without a damn good argument, and you certainly aren't getting anything stronger through. That said, NAPA is not very restrictive. If you want to pass usage restrictions, or further handling restrictions, sale restrictions, all that stuff, there is a way to word it to make it legal without repealing NAPA. It might not pass, but it wouldn't pass with NAPA repealed either.

Thank you very much for the critique. The problem with the lack of a definition is that it allows me to force another nation to hold my weapons on its territory. Technically this isn't violating their right not to "possess nuclear weapons", but it is an easy way to dodge it.
I realize the preamble argument may be a bit blurred. Allow me to clarify: the preamble is unnecessary. It gives the justification for nuclear weapons: it allows WA nations to defend against the ravenous horde of non WA nations. The problem with this is that it bases the right to own nuclear weapons upon the preamble, meaning if the preamble is no longer true, for example if the WA expanded, then the need for nuclear weapons according to the preamble is eliminated, voiding the resolution. Also, nowhere is deterrence against WA members mentioned, and that is a valid point which needs to be written into a new resolution.
Your disagreement and critique are respected and appreciated. The whole "third rail" idea doesn't bother me, although I see why you say that, nuclear weapons may be over-discussed but an issue is an issue.

[Embolalia]

Thank you very much for the critique. The problem with the lack of a definition is that it allows me to force another nation to hold my weapons on its territory. Technically this isn't violating their right not to "possess nuclear weapons", but it is an easy way to dodge it.

Ambassador LLwyd cocks his head to the side, and gives a confused stare to the ambassador from Mallorea and Riva. "What... I don't even..." He stammers a bit, before regaining his composure. "It wouldn't be in violation of this act to force nuclear weapons upon another country. I don't think anyone is saying it is. It would, however, be a violation of that nation's sovereignty as a foreign state. It's like saying that, since the WA doesn't say you can't tax another nation's citizens, there would be nothing wrong with that. It's complete nonsense. A properly constructed straw man should have its base somewhere at least close to your opponent's argument.

I realize the preamble argument may be a bit blurred. Allow me to clarify: the preamble is unnecessary. It gives the justification for nuclear weapons: it allows WA nations to defend against the ravenous horde of non WA nations. The problem with this is that it bases the right to own nuclear weapons upon the preamble, meaning if the preamble is no longer true, for example if the WA expanded, then the need for nuclear weapons according to the preamble is eliminated, voiding the resolution.

"What? The preamble is rhetorical. That's why it's there. The purpose of the preamble is to convince the voters of the purpose of the resolution, so that they will agree to the active clauses. The preamble doesn't affect the active clauses, nor is it itself active. That's like saying that, because the reason for Caridd being Embolalia's capitol was a feeling that native Embolalians were repressed, the fact that they're no longer repressed means that the capitol is no longer in Caridd. The rhetoric behind the proposal is not the proposal."

Also, nowhere is deterrence against WA members mentioned, and that is a valid point which needs to be written into a new resolution.

"So write it! If what you claim really is the case, then there's nothing to say you can't.

"Your arguments leads me to believe that you don't understand what this resolution actually does. All it does is say, 'You can have nukes, if you make sure they don't get stolen.' It says nothing about whom the weapons can be used against. It says nothing of canceling the provisions if the WA/non-WA ratio changes. These things simply are not in the resolution.
I yield the floor."

[Mallorea and Riva]

It would absolutely be in conflict with this resolution to force weapons upon them, assuming nuclear weapons were properly defined. If I force you to hold something, I am violating your right not to possess it.

Also, the rhetoric in the preamble is the justification for what follows. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be there.
I also yield the floor for now.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I believe that the NAPA was formed as a compromise between the Yes and No parties.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I believe that the NAPA was formed as a compromise between the Yes and No parties.

- Ms. S. Harper.

Compromise is only good when it produces a result that is decisive and clear. Unfortunately this lacks such decisiveness. Is a definition really too much to ask for? If I take the trigger off is it still a nuclear weapon? What about tactical nuclear weapons? It's certainly not a difficult thing to have in the resolution, yet it's not there.

[Grays Harbor]

Another repeal attempt of NAPA? No. Just no. A thousand no's.

[Bergnovinaia]

The author of the Biological Weapons Conference stood up and firmly said, "Bloody stupid. Absolutely not!"

[Bears Armed]

I would think that the definition of a nuclear weapon is obvious, but okay.The part you just quoted isn't operative. Not one of those lines places any restriction on member nations whatsoever. I don't have even the slightest idea where you got that idea from.I don't think that was the intent. Nowhere in the preamble does it say it wants nukes to be used only against non-WA nations, only that such deterrent needs to be available.What? Nowhere does this say anything about a nation requiring anything of another nation.That's a reasonable argument. If I were you, I'd focus more on that.Many? Two.

It seems to me, barring the bizarre interpretations the origin of which truly confounds me, you have two main arguments: Nuclear weapons aren't well-defined, and "the wrong hands" is undefined. Those are reasonable arguments. I happen to disagree with them, but on the level of simply suggesting how to make your proposal better: focus on those. But realistically, I have to agree with the HRC on this one. Nuclear weapons are the third rail of WA politics. You're not going to get a repeal of this through without a damn good argument, and you certainly aren't getting anything stronger through. That said, NAPA is not very restrictive. If you want to pass usage restrictions, or further handling restrictions, sale restrictions, all that stuff, there is a way to word it to make it legal without repealing NAPA. It might not pass, but it wouldn't pass with NAPA repealed either.

Thank you very much for the critique.

The problem with the lack of a definition is that it allows me to force another nation to hold my weapons on its territory.

"Ur'rmm, what about 'Rights and Duties'?"


Harron o Harruorr,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Flibbleites]

REPEAL Nuclear Arms Possession Act

RECOGNIZING that the possession of nuclear weapons is not challenged by the World Assembly,

Of course it isn't, the NAPA's existence makes any attempt to ban nuclear weapons illegal.

NOTING that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act never defines what a Nuclear Weapon is, thereby allowing nations to base nearly constructed weapons in unwilling nations without punishment,

If you really think that that's such a widespread problem, then write a resolution banning that practice, as long as that proposal doesn't ban nuclear weapons completely it's perfectly legal.

DOUBTFUL of the wording of the resolution due to the following phrases in both the preamble and its clauses, and the lack of any attempt at the definition of a nuclear weapon as shown:

OK, show of hands, who here doesn't not know what a nuclear weapon is?

PREAMBLE “Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,
ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,
NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,
REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,”
CRITIQUE: Since this phrase clearly declares that nuclear weapons may only be possessed as long as they are used to defend against non-WA members, and since this phrase would void the right to own nuclear weapons if the WA were to expand a significant amount,

I refer you to the comments made by the ambassador from Embolalia on this point.

1 “DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations”
CRITIQUE: 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,

The NAPA is completely silent on the subject of using nuclear weapons. As a result, the WA doesn't care if you're simply using a nuclear weapon of prevent someone from attacking you or if your actually nuking someone. In fact due to the NAPA's silence on the use of nuclear weapons, a resolution banning their use on WA members could actually be written without any contradiction problems.
[quote[ 2 "PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons"
CRITIQUE: Since a nuclear weapon is never defined, nations can force other nations to base nuclear devices that have a component removed, or some similar level of trickery,[/quote]As I said before, if you think that that's such a widespread problem, then write a resolution to ban it.

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

You know, I addressed the particular "critique" before and since I'm not a fan of repeating myself, go back and read the minutes from that debate.

DUE to the vague and indefinite meaning of many of the clauses within the Act,
The General Assembly hereby REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act

Go right ahead, I've already got a replacement written up that not only guarantees the right to possess nuclear weapons but the right to use them as well.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Mallorea and Riva]

Ok sounds good.

[Demphor]

-retcon-

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think that is hillarious, well the thing is with Repealing this resolution, one of the only reasons I think this article should be REPEALED is because in my opinion, it was poorly written, and badly managed. Otherwise, I think you should focus on how it could fall into the wrong hands.

King James Dormor ~ King of Demphor and her Colonies

Like I said, the idea is fine with me, but the resolution is not worded as well as it should be considering the subject matter. A new resolution to reinstate these rights that is well worded would have my full support. You can quote this statement as proof that this is not an elaborate attempt to ban nuclear weapons.

[Demphor]

-retcon-

[Mallorea and Riva]

I also have another Idea, look at Rules of NS warfare, they clearly state that:

"No nations are allowed to use nukes unless the opposing enemy agrees, which is highly unlikely"

That can be addressed in a rewritten Possession Act. Now its clear that some people disagree with my premise. Is there any critique of the format of my repeal? Is the style acceptable and understandable?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

PREAMBLE “Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,
ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,
NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,
REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,”
CRITIQUE: Since this phrase clearly declares that nuclear weapons may only be possessed as long as they are used to defend against non-WA members, and since this phrase would void the right to own nuclear weapons if the WA were to expand a significant amount,

But hostile nations may also include WA members, honoured ambassador.