[Submitted] Ban on Nuclear Weapon Strikes on Oceans

[Carstantinopipal]

Ban on Nuclear Weapon Strikes On Oceans
Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the Nuclear Arms Possession Act declaring that World Assembly Nations have the right to possess nuclear weapons,

Further Recognizing the Ocean Noise Reduction which has already banned weapons of mass destruction testing in oceans,

Deeply Concerned by the environmental effects a Nuclear Strike on a ocean would cause,

Observing attempts to cause tsunamis by using nuclear weapons in the ocean,

Further Observing the World Assembly Science Program’s (WASP) involvement in preserving ocean marine life in the Sustainable Fishing Act,

Bearing in Mind that this resolution does not render nuclear weapons useless,

1. Defines the following words for the purpose of this resolution
a. A ocean as a very large expanse of water that completely surrounds a continent
b. A tsunami as a large high wave originating from a ocean that is expected to hit land

2. Prohibits the following reasons for using nuclear weapons in any ocean
a. For use of destroying enemy ships or any other aquatic weapon during wartime
b. For the intent of causing a possible tsunami to strike foreign countries
c. For use on islands unless otherwise authorized later in this resolution
d. For purpose to destroy marine wildlife

3. Authorizes nuclear strikes on landmasses where the yield in the nuclear weapon is not expected to cause a area of radioactive fallout that is larger than the area of the landmass itself or where the radioactive fallout is expected to seep into the ocean

4. Encourages World Assembly Nations to recover and removed any undetonated nuclear weapons that could have ended up in the ocean of any reason

5. Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to
a. Study the effects of radioactive fallout and nuclear weapons on ocean life and oceans
b. Assist World Assembly Nations in restoring ocean life that has been affected by radioactive fallout or nuclear weapons
c. Collect information on the radioactivity of oceans in the jurisdiction of World Assembly Member Nations

6. Requires World Assembly Nations that cause or have caused a nuclear explosion in their oceans either by mistake or on purpose to
a. Formally apologize to the World Assembly and Its Member Nations
b. Perform radioactivity tests on the effect area and affected marine life to be reported to WASP
c. Formally request assistance from WASP to restore or attempt to restore the ocean or marine life damaged by nuclear explosion

[Pinochet Executionists]

Protect the oceans my dudes

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Why would you nuke an ocean for

[The New California Republic]

Ban on Nuclear Weapon Strikes On Oceans
Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the Nuclear Arms Possession Act declaring that World Assembly Nations have the right to possess nuclear weapons,

Further Recognizing the Ocean Noise Reduction which has already banned weapons of mass destruction testing in oceans,

Deeply Concerned by the environmental effects a Nuclear Strike on a ocean would cause,

Observing attempts to cause tsunamis by using nuclear weapons in the ocean,

Further Observing the World Assembly Science Program’s (WASP) involvement in preserving ocean marine life in the Sustainable Fishing Act,

Bearing in Mind that this resolution does not render nuclear weapons useless,

1. Defines the following words for the purpose of this resolution
a. A ocean as a very large expanse of water that completely surrounds a continent
b. A tsunami as a large high wave originating from a ocean that is expected to hit land

2. Prohibits the following reasons for using nuclear weapons in any ocean
a. For use of destroying enemy ships or any other aquatic weapon during wartime
b. For the intent of causing a possible tsunami to strike foreign countries
c. For use on islands unless otherwise authorized later in this resolution
d. For purpose to destroy marine wildlife

3. Authorizes nuclear strikes on landmasses where the yield in the nuclear weapon is not expected to cause a area of radioactive fallout that is larger than the area of the landmass itself or where the radioactive fallout is expected to seep into the ocean

4. Encourages World Assembly Nations to recover and removed any undetonated nuclear weapons that could have ended up in the ocean of any reason

5. Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to
a. Study the effects of radioactive fallout and nuclear weapons on ocean life and oceans
b. Assist World Assembly Nations in restoring ocean life that has been affected by radioactive fallout or nuclear weapons
c. Collect information on the radioactivity of oceans in the jurisdiction of World Assembly Member Nations

6. Requires World Assembly Nations that cause or have caused a nuclear explosion in their oceans either by mistake or on purpose to
a. Formally apologize to the World Assembly and Its Member Nations
b. Perform radioactivity tests on the effect area and affected marine life to be reported to WASP
c. Formally request assistance from WASP to restore or attempt to restore the ocean or marine life damaged by nuclear explosion

OOC: Again, why was this submitted before being drafted here? What is even the point in posting it here if it has already been submitted? For attention?

[Tinhampton]

5. Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to

Yeah... I don't like pseudo-drafts and I especially don't like WASP overreach. OPPOSED STRONKLY.

[Carstantinopipal]

Ban on Nuclear Weapon Strikes On Oceans
Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the Nuclear Arms Possession Act declaring that World Assembly Nations have the right to possess nuclear weapons,

Further Recognizing the Ocean Noise Reduction which has already banned weapons of mass destruction testing in oceans,

Deeply Concerned by the environmental effects a Nuclear Strike on a ocean would cause,

Observing attempts to cause tsunamis by using nuclear weapons in the ocean,

Further Observing the World Assembly Science Program’s (WASP) involvement in preserving ocean marine life in the Sustainable Fishing Act,

Bearing in Mind that this resolution does not render nuclear weapons useless,

1. Defines the following words for the purpose of this resolution
a. A ocean as a very large expanse of water that completely surrounds a continent
b. A tsunami as a large high wave originating from a ocean that is expected to hit land

2. Prohibits the following reasons for using nuclear weapons in any ocean
a. For use of destroying enemy ships or any other aquatic weapon during wartime
b. For the intent of causing a possible tsunami to strike foreign countries
c. For use on islands unless otherwise authorized later in this resolution
d. For purpose to destroy marine wildlife

3. Authorizes nuclear strikes on landmasses where the yield in the nuclear weapon is not expected to cause a area of radioactive fallout that is larger than the area of the landmass itself or where the radioactive fallout is expected to seep into the ocean

4. Encourages World Assembly Nations to recover and removed any undetonated nuclear weapons that could have ended up in the ocean of any reason

5. Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to
a. Study the effects of radioactive fallout and nuclear weapons on ocean life and oceans
b. Assist World Assembly Nations in restoring ocean life that has been affected by radioactive fallout or nuclear weapons
c. Collect information on the radioactivity of oceans in the jurisdiction of World Assembly Member Nations

6. Requires World Assembly Nations that cause or have caused a nuclear explosion in their oceans either by mistake or on purpose to
a. Formally apologize to the World Assembly and Its Member Nations
b. Perform radioactivity tests on the effect area and affected marine life to be reported to WASP
c. Formally request assistance from WASP to restore or attempt to restore the ocean or marine life damaged by nuclear explosion

OOC: Again, why was this submitted before being drafted here? What is even the point in posting it here if it has already been submitted? For attention?

OOC: It was suggested by my friend and with him being on this site longer than I have I took his advice.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Again, why was this submitted before being drafted here? What is even the point in posting it here if it has already been submitted? For attention?

OOC: It was suggested by my friend and with him being on this site longer than I have I took his advice.

OOC: Well your friend neglected to mention that it is a good idea to draft on the threads before submission...

[Carstantinopipal]

5. Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to

Yeah... I don't like pseudo-drafts and I especially don't like WASP overreach. OPPOSED STRONKLY.

What changes would you want to see if we were to redraft it in the future?

[Tinhampton]

Yeah... I don't like pseudo-drafts and I especially don't like WASP overreach. OPPOSED STRONKLY.

What changes would you want to see if we were to redraft it in the future?

Tinhampton's stance against the WASP is completely IC. For starters, actually redraft it publically rather than just vomiting it up to the General Assembly.

[Carstantinopipal]

What changes would you want to see if we were to redraft it in the future?

Tinhampton's stance against the WASP is completely IC. For starters, actually redraft it publically rather than just vomiting it up to the General Assembly.

I get I messed up on the drafting but what would you like to see changed?

[Liberimery]

As an Achipelico nation, with no major interior land settlements, we happily support making it de facto illegal all nations to have second strike capabilities against us... I mean... to nuke the otions! This has the support of the Liberimery people! [/sarcasm]

[Carstantinopipal]

As an Achipelico nation, with no major interior land settlements, we happily support making it de facto illegal all nations to have second strike capabilities against us... I mean... to nuke the otions! This has the support of the Liberimery people! [/sarcasm]

They can still hit you with nuclear weapons if the expected radioactive fallout isn't expected to seep into the ocean.

[Arasi Luvasa]

As an Achipelico nation, with no major interior land settlements, we happily support making it de facto illegal all nations to have second strike capabilities against us... I mean... to nuke the otions! This has the support of the Liberimery people! [/sarcasm]

They can still hit you with nuclear weapons if the expected radioactive fallout isn't expected to seep into the ocean.

That is practically impossible if one is dealing with an archipelago (a land mass made up of many little islands).

[Carstantinopipal]

They can still hit you with nuclear weapons if the expected radioactive fallout isn't expected to seep into the ocean.

That is practically impossible if one is dealing with an archipelago (a land mass made up of many little islands).

With such small landmasses I don't see why seeking other forms of bombing wouldn't be viable.

[The New California Republic]

That is practically impossible if one is dealing with an archipelago (a land mass made up of many little islands).

With such small landmasses I don't see why seeking other forms of bombing wouldn't be viable.

...

...because the islands might be out of bomber range but not out of ICBM range...?

[Wallenburg]

I foresee nuclear arsenals being relocated to small islands to every extent possible, so that they become invalid targets for nuclear strikes.

[The New California Republic]

I foresee nuclear arsenals being relocated to small islands to every extent possible, so that they become invalid targets for nuclear strikes.

OOC: Yup. There are dozens of loopholes in the text of the draft if you really think about it. You could even just have an exclusively sub-based nuke force, as this clause prevents using things like nuclear depth charges to hunt them down:

2. Prohibits the following reasons for using nuclear weapons in any ocean
a. For use of destroying enemy ships or any other aquatic weapon during wartime

Hell, you could also move ICBMs to re-purposed oil tankers, as any attempt at a first strike against ICBMs stored and launched from them would be prohibited. It actually wouldn't be that difficult to re-purpose a ship the size of an oil tanker into an ICBM storage and launching platform.

[Liberimery]

I foresee nuclear arsenals being relocated to small islands to every extent possible, so that they become invalid targets for nuclear strikes.

OOC: Yup. There are dozens of loopholes in the text of the draft if you really think about it. You could even just have an exclusively sub-based nuke force, as this clause prevents using things like nuclear depth charges to hunt them down:

2. Prohibits the following reasons for using nuclear weapons in any ocean
a. For use of destroying enemy ships or any other aquatic weapon during wartime

Hell, you could also move ICBMs to re-purposed oil tankers, as any attempt at a first strike against ICBMs stored and launched from them would be prohibited. It actually wouldn't be that difficult to re-purpose a ship the size of an oil tanker into an ICBM storage and launching platform.

OOC: If this passes, I can't wait for next years N-Day. Just saying.

[New Rogernomics]

Land reclamation seems like a more viable option for a national defence policy. I could relocate a whole endangered bird colony there, as a fellow nation has been bothering bird migrations. I'll call it the Bird Force.

[Carstantinopipal]

I foresee nuclear arsenals being relocated to small islands to every extent possible, so that they become invalid targets for nuclear strikes.

This resolution doesn't prohibit other strikes on islands, a nuclear stroke is certainly not the only way to deal with a foreign threat. But if we do redraft this in the future I will address this issue even though I believe nations can use what they have to deal with this.

[Liberimery]

I foresee nuclear arsenals being relocated to small islands to every extent possible, so that they become invalid targets for nuclear strikes.

This resolution doesn't prohibit other strikes on islands, a nuclear stroke is certainly not the only way to deal with a foreign threat. But if we do redraft this in the future I will address this issue even though I believe nations can use what they have to deal with this.

"Let my immunity from retaliation for my nations acts of nuclear aggression upon the world be a lesson to you as to why you should draft BEFORE you submit," the Ambassador chuckles, "Now, I hope the President General will be open to hearing my suggestions about dropping our Neutrality policies so I can submit nations for outlawing."

[Quantipapa]

You can't tell me where I can or cannot test my nukes. So, no.

[Kiravian WA Mission]

Although we would normally dismiss any attempt by the WA to regulate what member-states can and cannot do during a nuclear war as rather pointless and not realistically enforceable, many leaders of the whale - er... Cetacean-Kiravian - community have urged the Mission to support this proposal because of clause 5(d) and its prohibition on the wanton destruction of marine life through nuclear and radiological means. The submission has our full support.

[Quantipapa]

Although we would normally dismiss any attempt by the WA to regulate what member-states can and cannot do during a nuclear war as rather pointless and not realistically enforceable, many leaders of the whale - er... Cetacean-Kiravian - community have urged the Mission to support this proposal because of clause 5(d) and its prohibition on the wanton destruction of marine life through nuclear and radiological means. The submission has our full support.

Lol joking.

[Kiravian WA Mission]

Although we would normally dismiss any attempt by the WA to regulate what member-states can and cannot do during a nuclear war as rather pointless and not realistically enforceable, many leaders of the whale - er... Cetacean-Kiravian - community have urged the Mission to support this proposal because of clause 5(d) and its prohibition on the wanton destruction of marine life through nuclear and radiological means. The submission has our full support.

Lol joking.

No worries, mate!