[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"

[Wrapper]

Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"

The General Assembly:

AFFIRMING that the security of nuclear weaponry and materials is necessary to prevent their acquisition and use by terrorist organizations;

REGRETTING that GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards", is flawed in its attempt to accomplish this goal;

ALARMED that clause 4 enables poorer nations, tinpot dictators and outlaw states who nevertheless have obtained nuclear technology by ill-gotten means to receive funding and technological assistance from the World Assembly as a reward for doing so;

CONCERNED that the phrase "the wrong hands" as referenced in clauses 3 and 4 is undefined and that "the wrong hands" is a fatally flawed concept since, in a conflict between two nations or groups of nations, each side would subjectively consider the other "the wrong hands";

DISTRESSED that clause 2, which allows for such technology to be bought and sold, in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing, not reducing, the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands", which contravenes the aims of the resolution;

AGHAST that the net effect of GAR#351 would result in the eventual dissemination of nuclear secrets to non-WA nations, which outnumber member nations by about six to one;

HOPING that this well-intentioned but indefensible resolution will be replaced by one that genuinely serves to secure nuclear technology and materials;

HEREBY repeals GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards".

The General Assembly:

AFFIRMING that the security of nuclear weaponry is necessary to prevent their acquisition and use by terrorist organizations;

REGRETTING that GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards", is flawed in its attempt to accomplish this goal;

CONCERNED in particular that "the wrong hands" as referenced in clauses 3 and 4 are undefined and that "the wrong hands" is a fatally flawed concept, to wit:

-- Lacking an internationally accepted definition of "the wrong hands", in a war between two nations or groups of nations, each side would subjectively consider the other "the wrong hands";

-- The qualifier including "those which conspire against the stability of member nations" would essentially render all parties to war involving member nations "the wrong hands", as many acts of war (e.g. bombing military targets, killing opposing soldiers, infiltration and spying) intentionally attempt to destabilize opposing nations as a goal of war;

DISTRESSED that, because one nation's reasonable interpretation of "the wrong hands" may differ from another's, clause 2, which allows for such technology to be bought and sold, in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing, not reducing, the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands", which contravenes the aims of the resolution;

ALARMED that clause 4 enables poorer nations, tinpot dictators and outlaw states who nevertheless have obtained nuclear technology by ill-gotten means to receive funding and technological assistance from the NESC as a reward for doing so;

AGHAST that the net effect of GAR#351 would result in the eventual dissemination of nuclear secrets to non-WA nations, which outnumber member nations by about six to one;

HOPING that this well-intentioned but indefensible resolution will be replaced by one that genuinely serves to secure nuclear technology and materials;

HEREBY repeals GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards".

The General Assembly:

AFFIRMING that the security of nuclear weaponry is necessary to prevent their acquisition and use by terrorist organizations;

REGRETTING that GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards", is flawed in its attempt to accomplish this goal;

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands";

CONCERNED in particular that "the wrong hands" as referenced in clauses 3 and 4 are undefined and that "the wrong hands" is a fatally flawed concept, to wit:

-- Lacking an internationally accepted definition of "the wrong hands", in a war between two nations or groups of nations, each side would subjectively consider the other "the wrong hands";

-- The qualifier including "those which conspire against the stability of member nations" would essentially render all parties to war involving member nations "the wrong hands", as many acts of war (e.g. bombing military targets, killing opposing soldiers, infiltration and spying) intentionally attempt to destabilize opposing nations as a goal of war;

ALARMED that clause 4 enables poorer nations who nevertheless have obtained a nuclear technology by ill-gotten means to receive funding and technological assistance from the NESC as a reward for doing so;

HOPING that this well-intentioned but indefensible resolution will be replaced by one that genuinely serves to secure nuclear technology and materials;

HEREBY repeals GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards".

The original GAR#351 resolution

[Wrapper]

OOC: Yes, I want to revisit this. Yes, I still think the original is a poorly constructed resolution that does not do what it purports to do, and it should be repealed. Yes, this is the same draft I submitted before. Yes, it failed. No, I don't know how to fix it. Yes, please help me. Yes, thank you.

[Wallenburg]

General support. Unfortunately, the title is poisonous, but there's nothing that can be done about that.

[Kilimantonian]

Can you include something about it "Promoting hostile action against non-WA nations by referring to them as a potential threat to national security" ?

Other than that, I think we can offer tentative support.

[Separatist Peoples]

Can you include something about it "Promoting aggressive action against non-WA nations by referring to them as a potential threat"?

Other than that, I think we can offer tentative support.

"They are a threat. They aren't restrained by the same restrictions we are, and they outnumber us. Even ignoring the silly notion that all NonMembers will unite and attack the WA, there is a much greater statistical chance that a member will engage in conflict with a nonmember and be at a disadvantage. That needs to always be kept in mind."

[Kilimantonian]

Can you include something about it "Promoting aggressive action against non-WA nations by referring to them as a potential threat"?

Other than that, I think we can offer tentative support.

"They are a threat. They aren't restrained by the same restrictions we are, and they outnumber us. Even ignoring the silly notion that all NonMembers will unite and attack the WA, there is a much greater statistical chance that a member will engage in conflict with a nonmember and be at a disadvantage. That needs to always be kept in mind."

Doesn't mean I have to like it being included in a resolution.

[Wallenburg]

Can you include something about it "Promoting hostile action against non-WA nations by referring to them as a potential threat to national security" ?

Other than that, I think we can offer tentative support.

Except the target resolution doesn't even remotely do that.

[Kilimantonian]

Yeah, it kinda does

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations,

That is clearly saying that non-WA nations are a threat to national security if these safeguards aren't implemented. So, non-WA nations are a threat to national security, which some people might see as needing hostile action to resolve.

[Wrapper]

Yeah, it kinda does

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations,

That is clearly saying that non-WA nations are a threat to national security if these safeguards aren't implemented. So, non-WA nations are a threat to national security, which some people might see as needing hostile action to resolve.

Well now. We totally disagree with your proposed "promoting aggressive action" wording, but... perhaps... heh heh heh heh... oh, the warmongers would love this as a summary clause near the end:

AGHAST that the net effect of GAR#351 would result in the eventual dissemination of nuclear secrets to non-WA nations, which outnumber member nations by about six to one;

[Imperializt Russia]

Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"

The General Assembly:

AFFIRMING that the security of nuclear weaponry is necessary to prevent their acquisition and use by terrorist organizations;

REGRETTING that GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards", is flawed in its attempt to accomplish this goal;

DISTRESSED by the lack of clarity in clause 2, which in fact does not serve to secure intellectual property associated with nuclear weapons and reactors, and instead promotes the dissemination of intellectual property, thereby increasing the chances of such knowledge getting into "the wrong hands";

CONCERNED in particular that "the wrong hands" as referenced in clauses 3 and 4 are undefined and that "the wrong hands" is a fatally flawed concept, to wit:

-- Lacking an internationally accepted definition of "the wrong hands", in a war between two nations or groups of nations, each side would subjectively consider the other "the wrong hands";

-- The qualifier including "those which conspire against the stability of member nations" would essentially render all parties to war involving member nations "the wrong hands", as many acts of war (e.g. bombing military targets, killing opposing soldiers, infiltration and spying) intentionally attempt to destabilize opposing nations as a goal of war;

ALARMED that clause 4 enables poorer nations who nevertheless have obtained a nuclear technology by ill-gotten means to receive funding and technological assistance from the NESC as a reward for doing so;

HOPING that this well-intentioned but indefensible resolution will be replaced by one that genuinely serves to secure nuclear technology and materials;

HEREBY repeals GAR#351, "Nuclear Material Safeguards".

The original GAR#351 resolution

Having read the original resolution, I do not agree with your reasoning.

I will concede that the definition of "wrong hands" is vague and frankly flowery language of little substance, but feel Clauses 3 and 4 are valid. As is Clause 2. A nation has the right to acquire nuclear technology or the means to produce it. They do not have the right to having that technology, means, information or IP provided to them, sold to them or otherwise given to them by a third party.
Clause 2 merely states that no member state shall be penalised for attempting to produce a nuclear industry, including the possibility that its technology and scientific basis is entirely domestic.

[Wallenburg]

Yeah, it kinda does

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations,

That is clearly saying that non-WA nations are a threat to national security if these safeguards aren't implemented. So, non-WA nations are a threat to national security, which some people might see as needing hostile action to resolve.

Stating fact is not promoting action in response to it. If your nation feels it is necessary to attack non-members for being non-members, that's your own problem.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yeah, it kinda does

That is clearly saying that non-WA nations are a threat to national security if these safeguards aren't implemented. So, non-WA nations are a threat to national security, which some people might see as needing hostile action to resolve.

Stating fact is not promoting action in response to it. If your nation feels it is necessary to attack non-members for being non-members, that's your own problem.

Wallenburg++. Straight up found the flaw in the reasoning.

[Wrapper]

A nation has the right to acquire nuclear technology or the means to produce it. They do not have the right to having that technology, means, information or IP provided to them, sold to them or otherwise given to them by a third party.
Clause 2 merely states that no member state shall be penalised for attempting to produce a nuclear industry, including the possibility that its technology and scientific basis is entirely domestic.

That may be the intent but that's not how we read it. The clause gives nations the right to acquire technology, not develop technology. Technology can certainly be acquired via development, but it can also be bought and sold. Anytime a weapon or a technology is traded among nations, it becomes more widespread, more readily available, and it is much more likely it will fall into "the wrong hands". Thus, the net effect of clause 2 is detrimental to the security of such technology. Had the word "develop" been used instead of "acquire" in clause 2, then we would concede that you would be correct.

[Imperializt Russia]

A nation has the right to acquire nuclear technology or the means to produce it. They do not have the right to having that technology, means, information or IP provided to them, sold to them or otherwise given to them by a third party.
Clause 2 merely states that no member state shall be penalised for attempting to produce a nuclear industry, including the possibility that its technology and scientific basis is entirely domestic.

That may be the intent but that's not how we read it. The clause gives nations the right to acquire technology, not develop technology. Technology can certainly be acquired via development, but it can also be bought and sold. Anytime a weapon or a technology is traded among nations, it becomes more widespread, more readily available, and it is much more likely it will fall into "the wrong hands". Thus, the net effect of clause 2 is detrimental to the security of such technology. Had the word "develop" been used instead of "acquire" in clause 2, then we would concede that you would be correct.

This would also prevent nations from purchasing nuclear technology or having it developed for them.

Which, as RL aptly demonstrates, is entirely compatible with safeguards.

Having just traipsed through the list of passed GA resolutions, I'm pretty solidly pissed at seeing the repeal of 315 (GA332).

[Wrapper]

This would also prevent nations from purchasing nuclear technology or having it developed for them.

Which, as RL aptly demonstrates, is entirely compatible with safeguards.

OOC: RL (nearly every independent nation in the world is a UN member) is not NS (WA nations, as we are constantly reminded, are outnumbered by non-WA nations six to one).

[Imperializt Russia]

This would also prevent nations from purchasing nuclear technology or having it developed for them.

Which, as RL aptly demonstrates, is entirely compatible with safeguards.

OOC: RL (nearly every independent nation in the world is a UN member) is not NS (WA nations, as we are constantly reminded, are outnumbered by non-WA nations six to one).

And, since non-member states are not member nations, they don't have a legal right to acquire, through development or purchase or other means, nuclear technology.

[Wrapper]

OOC: RL (nearly every independent nation in the world is a UN member) is not NS (WA nations, as we are constantly reminded, are outnumbered by non-WA nations six to one).

And, since non-member states are not member nations, they don't have a legal right to acquire, through development or purchase or other means, nuclear technology.

Now that statement is totally off the wall. Does a non-member nation not have the right to possess nuclear arms, because they aren't party to NAPA?

[Jakobvakia]

Good start for sure, but make it a little longer other than that I can get agree with this.

[Imperializt Russia]

And, since non-member states are not member nations, they don't have a legal right to acquire, through development or purchase or other means, nuclear technology.

Now that statement is totally off the wall. Does a non-member nation not have the right to possess nuclear arms, because they aren't party to NAPA?

No.

They can do those things, sure, but they don't have the right to.
Such is the nature of being a non-member state.

[Wrapper]

Now that statement is totally off the wall. Does a non-member nation not have the right to possess nuclear arms, because they aren't party to NAPA?

No.

They can do those things, sure, but they don't have the right to.
Such is the nature of being a non-member state.

right (n): a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

So they aren't legally entitled to have nuclear arms? Well then. Guess we don't need this resolution after all! So we can count on your support for this repeal?

[Imperializt Russia]

They don't exist in the legal framework that offers them that right. So how can they have that right?

[Wrapper]

They don't exist in the legal framework that offers them that right. So how can they have that right?

They can give themselves that right, they have autonomy. They have the right to execute criminals, declare war, crown a king and hold elections, regardless of what the WA says or does.

This is truly besides the point. What clause 2 really does -- and the author will likely admit to this -- is it serves as a blocker; it ensures that no future resolutions take away the nation's ability (or right or whatever you want to call it) to manufacture, trade, possess or acquire nuclear technology. My position is, this clause guts the resolution and goes against the stated purpose in the preamble and title of the resolution, which is to secure technology, not to spread it.

[Imperializt Russia]

They don't exist in the legal framework that offers them that right. So how can they have that right?

They can give themselves that right, they have autonomy. They have the right to execute criminals, declare war, crown a king and hold elections, regardless of what the WA says or does.

This is truly besides the point. What clause 2 really does -- and the author will likely admit to this -- is it serves as a blocker; it ensures that no future resolutions take away the nation's ability (or right or whatever you want to call it) to manufacture, trade, possess or acquire nuclear technology. My position is, this clause guts the resolution and goes against the stated purpose in the preamble and title of the resolution, which is to secure technology, not to spread it.

They don't have the right to do any of those things. They can choose to do all of those things.
For countries, "rights" are dependent on the framework you exist in.

Since they don't participate in the WA, non-member states are granted none of the "rights" that its membership offers.
Doesn't stop them from doing any of those things.

[Imperium Anglorum]

My position is, this clause guts the resolution and goes against the stated purpose in the preamble and title of the resolution, which is to secure technology, not to spread it.

Mandates that member nations take all practical actions to safeguard the manufacture and knowledge spoken of in the first two clauses from the wrong hands, especially those which conspire against the stability of member nations; and

Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to ensure that nuclear materials and knowledge are secured from the wrong hands by providing funds and assistance to nations which are unable to defend their own nuclear knowledge and technology.

However it is, the name of the resolution is absolutely fine. It safeguards nuclear materials from World Assembly prohibition as well as from those hands which conspire against the stability of member nations. This is evident both in the title and the title of the original draft, 'Nuclear Materials Protection Act'.

Which reminds me! Throwback Thursday! Back to the original flag for a day!

[Tinfect]

Which reminds me! Throwback Thursday! Back to the original flag for a day!

OOC:
Throwback Thursday? Ooh, I might still have one of my old ones lying around here...
Also, what, in all the nine hells, is throwback thursday?
I'll have a proper post on the Draft soon, when I've got a bit more time.