[REFRIGERATED] Safeguards Against Nuclear First Strikes

[Aclion]

Are you seriously going to argue that France/Greece/Belgium's conventional forces could have held the Soviet Union without a nuclear deterrent?

OOC: I'm not certain why you exclude the UK and US and the rest of NATO from that equation.

Because nations do not always have powerful allies willing to defend them from their aggressive neighbors.

[Gudmund]

Rising from his seat, Gudmund's Secretary of Defence, Grak Hedron, speaks up on an obvious issue with this proposal.

"While I find it wonderful that another nation seeks to implement stricter management over nuclear weapons, it fails to mention anything about the many other types of WMD's out there, as many other nations have brought up. A weapon of mass destruction can also be a radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of people. Not just nuclear. While this proposal may lower the chances of unwarranted nuclear warfare, it may also increase the usage of alternative WMDs that may be more difficult to defend against. I suggest that the proposal includes all forms of such weapons, not just nuclear, to prevent the preemptive deployment of any highly destructive weaponry."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: IIRC American defensive plans in the event of tanks rolling in from East Germany did in fact involve nuclear weapons. That might have changed with the development of fourth-generation jet fighters on the one hand and the A-10 "Warthog" on the other, but that could just be me being optimistic.

OOC: Exactly. Those plans, if they had ever gone into action, would have resulted in a total nuclear exchange. Such a result must be avoided by removing as many causes as possible.

OOC: The point being that small nations may have literally no other option to retain their independence than to obtain nuclear weapons or ally themselves with someone who does, and be able to say "We will watch the whole world burn before we submit to your control," and have that be a credible threat. Yes, that's the absolute last resort in the sense that if it ever came to pass we're all fucked, but the willingness to fuck us all can be essential to maintaining national self-determination in the face of large and voracious neighbors. Removing that horrible trump card means only large empires are a viable method of political organization.

Prohibits preemptive deployment in response to any positive indications of an imminent nuclear strike that cannot beyond a reasonable doubt be otherwise explained,

"Ambassador, this reads oddly. Should this language be reversed, that is you may only deploy preemptively where you have a positive indication of a nuclear attack that can't be explained any other way?

"That is exactly what this clause would entail. As you pointed out, you have inverted the language to derive the conditions under which this clause would not prohibit preemptive deployment."

OOC: OK. But right now it literally says the exact opposite of that. Say I have from my military apparatus multiple indications of imminent nuclear launch by another state against me. There is no reasonable doubt that this is what we are seeing; we have eliminated all other possibilities of target, means, and intent. With all of that, my move to respond before their missiles are in the air is prohibited. Actually, it seems like this technically permits preemptive deployment in situations that are hazier. "No, sir, their bases might just all be getting their drinking water replenished all at the same time, and all decided to have cookouts in the silos with the doors open!
We just don't know yet." "OK, well, just go ahead and launch, we'll figure it out later."

I assume you're missing the word "except" in between "deployment" and "in response," or else you meant "Permits preemptive deployment solely in response..." Right now, as written, the one situation in which preemptive deployment might be justifiable is the only one that is forbidden.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I'm not certain why you exclude the UK and US and the rest of NATO from that equation.

Because nations do not always have powerful allies willing to defend them from their aggressive neighbors.

OOC: If such nations are of concern to you, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing RL nuclear scenarios.

Rising from his seat, Gudmund's Secretary of Defence, Grak Hedron, speaks up on an obvious issue with this proposal.

"While I find it wonderful that another nation seeks to implement stricter management over nuclear weapons, it fails to mention anything about the many other types of WMD's out there, as many other nations have brought up. A weapon of mass destruction can also be a radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of people. Not just nuclear. While this proposal may lower the chances of unwarranted nuclear warfare, it may also increase the usage of alternative WMDs that may be more difficult to defend against. I suggest that the proposal includes all forms of such weapons, not just nuclear, to prevent the preemptive deployment of any highly destructive weaponry."

IC: "First, existing World Assembly legislation already imposes hefty bans on radiological, chemical, and biological weapons. To include them in this proposal would lead member states to incorrectly believe that they are allowed to use such weapons in any offensive manner. Second, such weapons are totally irrelevant to nuclear weapons policy. 'What about this other thing' is an invalid argument."

OOC: Exactly. Those plans, if they had ever gone into action, would have resulted in a total nuclear exchange. Such a result must be avoided by removing as many causes as possible.

OOC: The point being that small nations may have literally no other option to retain their independence than to obtain nuclear weapons or ally themselves with someone who does, and be able to say "We will watch the whole world burn before we submit to your control," and have that be a credible threat. Yes, that's the absolute last resort in the sense that if it ever came to pass we're all fucked, but the willingness to fuck us all can be essential to maintaining national self-determination in the face of large and voracious neighbors. Removing that horrible trump card means only large empires are a viable method of political organization.

OOC: That doesn't really follow at all from what you said in your last post. In any case, the real world demonstrates that hundreds of nations can retain their sovereignty without holding nuclear arsenals. Among those that do hold nuclear weapons, at least China and India aren't so stupid as to adopt a first strike policy. If you want to argue that China or India is no longer an independent state because it has adopted a no first use policy, that's your prerogative. It is also an argument you will lose.

"That is exactly what this clause would entail. As you pointed out, you have inverted the language to derive the conditions under which this clause would not prohibit preemptive deployment."

OOC: OK. But right now it literally says the exact opposite of that. Say I have from my military apparatus multiple indications of imminent nuclear launch by another state against me. There is no reasonable doubt that this is what we are seeing; we have eliminated all other possibilities of target, means, and intent. With all of that, my move to respond before their missiles are in the air is prohibited. Actually, it seems like this technically permits preemptive deployment in situations that are hazier. "No, sir, their bases might just all be getting their drinking water replenished all at the same time, and all decided to have cookouts in the silos with the doors open!
We just don't know yet." "OK, well, just go ahead and launch, we'll figure it out later."

I assume you're missing the word "except" in between "deployment" and "in response," or else you meant "Permits preemptive deployment solely in response..." Right now, as written, the one situation in which preemptive deployment might be justifiable is the only one that is forbidden.

OOC once again, because people can't seem to bother to read the letters "IC": Upon several look-overs of the clause, I've finally found the problem that you are trying to get at. The problem isn't anywhere you suggested, although those changes would also fix the clause. Where I wrote "cannot", I meant "can". An edit will be made shortly.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: IIRC American defensive plans in the event of tanks rolling in from East Germany did in fact involve nuclear weapons. That might have changed with the development of fourth-generation jet fighters on the one hand and the A-10 "Warthog" on the other, but that could just be me being optimistic.

OOC: Exactly. Those plans, if they had ever gone into action, would have resulted in a total nuclear exchange. Such a result must be avoided by removing as many causes as possible.

OOC: I think the argument here is that the only reason we didn't see conflict in central Europe during the Cold War is because both sides had nuclear weapons. There's a very strong argument to be made that nuclear weapons actually prevent war.

[Kenmoria]

“I find issue with having ‘any and all diplomatic options’ being required to be used in the ‘Also requires’ clause. Simply put, some diplomatic options may be untenable or unallowable if two parties are so hostile that nuclear weapons are a serious consideration. It is possible that the leaders of two nations will refuse to sit down for a multi-day talk, which would be a diplomatic option, due to the nature of what is most likely a confrontation.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: The point being that small nations may have literally no other option to retain their independence than to obtain nuclear weapons or ally themselves with someone who does, and be able to say "We will watch the whole world burn before we submit to your control," and have that be a credible threat. Yes, that's the absolute last resort in the sense that if it ever came to pass we're all fucked, but the willingness to fuck us all can be essential to maintaining national self-determination in the face of large and voracious neighbors. Removing that horrible trump card means only large empires are a viable method of political organization.

OOC: That doesn't really follow at all from what you said in your last post. In any case, the real world demonstrates that hundreds of nations can retain their sovereignty without holding nuclear arsenals.

If they have the right friends, yes. Why do you think the U.S. is so damn keen to prevent Iran from getting nukes? It's not because we have a high and mighty moral commitment to non-proliferation. If your country is opposed to American geopolitical goals or Western economic hegemony, you damn well better make friends with Russia or China, or get your own nuclear weapons. The list of countries that oppose those things and haven't either made those friends or gotten nukes is pretty short and has names like Iraq and Libya prominently displayed on it. The point of citing Western Europe is that until a certain degree of conventional tech superiority became available, the threat of nuclear annihilation, with a U.S. first strike, might have been the only thing standing between them and Soviet dominance.

OOC: OK. But right now it literally says the exact opposite of that. Say I have from my military apparatus multiple indications of imminent nuclear launch by another state against me. There is no reasonable doubt that this is what we are seeing; we have eliminated all other possibilities of target, means, and intent. With all of that, my move to respond before their missiles are in the air is prohibited. Actually, it seems like this technically permits preemptive deployment in situations that are hazier. "No, sir, their bases might just all be getting their drinking water replenished all at the same time, and all decided to have cookouts in the silos with the doors open!
We just don't know yet." "OK, well, just go ahead and launch, we'll figure it out later."

I assume you're missing the word "except" in between "deployment" and "in response," or else you meant "Permits preemptive deployment solely in response..." Right now, as written, the one situation in which preemptive deployment might be justifiable is the only one that is forbidden.

OOC once again, because people can't seem to bother to read the letters "IC":...

Yeah, I'm not going to put a detailed semantic/grammatical discussion over one or two words In Character when any real ambassador's halfway competent staff would have caught that change before it even hit the floor. That's an RP bridge too far for me, thanks. I appreciate that you'll make that fix, which is all I was after.

[Araraukar]

any real ambassador's halfway competent staff would have caught that change before it even hit the floor. That's an RP bridge too far for me, thanks.

OOC: Given that some actual Real Life laws that actually pass into being laws, have to be repealed and replaced because of such word errors, I don't think it's anywhere near too far for believability. I mean, aren't you supposed to have kinetic impactor weapons stationed on the orbit?

[Aclion]

Because nations do not always have powerful allies willing to defend them from their aggressive neighbors.

OOC: If such nations are of concern to you, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing RL nuclear scenarios.

If you insist on IG examples, Aclion is an excellent example of a minor power that has a nuclear program for the purpose of deterring aggression from major powers without the need to invest in a substantial conventional forces. However I must remind you that you claimed such scenarios are unrealistic and that real examples were brought up in response to that claim.

Minor powers rarely, if ever, possess nuclear weapons, and the vast majority of nuclear arsenals, those capable of causing worldwide devastation, are controlled by large, major powers. Regardless of whether your claim to the supposed peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons is correct--and I cannot see how it could be--the reality of nuclear proliferation amongst various states does not resemble your imagined scenario.

The reality is that most states that have possessed nuclear weapons are minor powers, and have done so in the interest of repelling major powers. That these powers also have allies with the conventional forces to repel another superpower is a red herring, as the presence of allies is not needed to develop nuclear weapons and the value of a nuclear deterrent is not lost simply because one has allies.

Furthermore encouraging minor powers to rely on alliances to for protection is pretty dangerous. It is that which started the first two world wars.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: If such nations are of concern to you, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing RL nuclear scenarios.

If you insist on IG examples, Aclion is an excellent example of a minor power that has a nuclear program for the purpose of deterring aggression from major powers without the need to invest in a substantial conventional forces. However I must remind you that you claimed such scenarios are unrealistic and that real examples were brought up in response to that claim.

OOC: You are confusing the scenario of a member nation that only has nuclear weapons--a scenario that is objectively absurd--with the scenario of a nation that only has conventional weapons--an entirely understandable scenario. I truly have no idea how you can confuse the two, but that must be the case if you are actually trying to argue in good faith. No RL examples of nations with only nuclear weapons were produced, despite your claims to the contrary, because such nations do not exist.

---

Minor powers rarely, if ever, possess nuclear weapons, and the vast majority of nuclear arsenals, those capable of causing worldwide devastation, are controlled by large, major powers. Regardless of whether your claim to the supposed peacekeeping power of nuclear weapons is correct--and I cannot see how it could be--the reality of nuclear proliferation amongst various states does not resemble your imagined scenario.

The reality is that most states that have possessed nuclear weapons are minor powers, and have done so in the interest of repelling major powers.

The US is a minor power? The USSR/Russia was/is a minor power? The UK is a minor power? France is a minor power? China is a minor power? Really, you must be joking.

That these powers also have allies with the conventional forces to repel another superpower is a red herring, as the presence of allies is not needed to develop nuclear weapons and the value of a nuclear deterrent is not lost simply because one has allies.

NATO consists of 29 members, and yet only 3 of them have nuclear weapons programs. If allies do not reduce the "need" for a nuclear deterrence, why don't all 29 members have nuclear weapons programs?

Also, that's not what a red herring is. A red herring is, for instance, returning to the very beginning of our conversation despite having plenty of relevance to talk about from a more recent post.

Furthermore encouraging minor powers to rely on alliances to for protection is pretty dangerous. It is that which started the first two world wars.

1) WWI began due to imperialist ambitions, poor and sometimes intentionally belligerent diplomatic handlings, military competition, and alliances between major powers. WWII began due to imperialist ambitions, poor and often intentionally belligerent diplomatic handlings, military competition, and alliances between major powers. I don't see how minor powers seeking out defensive alliances brought about either of them.
2) Alliances of minor powers with other nations has guaranteed the Long Peace. Or does NATO not count for this either?

[Doing it Rightland]

I just have one concern with this proposal. If nations cannot fire at others before being fired at, then how can any nation actually deploy any missile? The way it reads right now, I'm not sure that member nations can actually fire nuclear missiles at each other period. Please clarify.

[Lord Dominator]

I just have one concern with this proposal. If nations cannot fire at others before being fired at, then how can any nation actually deploy any missile? The way it reads right now, I'm not sure that member nations can actually fire nuclear missiles at each other period. Please clarify.

"Seems to me that would be a rather desirable goal."

[Doing it Rightland]

I just have one concern with this proposal. If nations cannot fire at others before being fired at, then how can any nation actually deploy any missile? The way it reads right now, I'm not sure that member nations can actually fire nuclear missiles at each other period. Please clarify.

"Seems to me that would be a rather desirable goal."

While I understand that's the objective, my nation supports its rights to WMDs, including nuclear weapons, for national security reasons. We take our weapons very seriously, and would hope other nations hold theirs to a similar standard. However, not being able to fire them at all nullifies their purpose, and renders them a complete waste.

I like many of the points and goals in this resolution, including the upgrades in communication, combating false positives, and informing of high-altitude launches. However, I think the inability to fire a strike in response to an inbound missile (one that has been identified as a nuke) is shortsighted. I'm not sure exactly how I'd rephrase the points in the proposal (which isn't much of a help, I'm sorry) but I think it is worth considering.

[Wallenburg]

I just have one concern with this proposal. If nations cannot fire at others before being fired at, then how can any nation actually deploy any missile? The way it reads right now, I'm not sure that member nations can actually fire nuclear missiles at each other period. Please clarify.

1) Well, member states are not prohibited from launching nuclear weapons on military targets, where civilians will not suffer any significant casualties. The proposal only urges member states to categorically forego preemptive strikes. As to retaliatory strikes, this proposal does nothing to limit those. Upon withstanding a nuclear strike, member states are free to fire as many warheads as they like at the belligerent nation(s).
2) Honestly, I would ban preemptive strikes entirely if I thought it would pass on the voting floor. Nuclear exchanges are inherently bad, and preemptive strikes are inherently evil.
3) Conventional missiles are unaffected. Member states are free to fire those at each other whenever they like.

[Liberimery]

OOC: This is unworkable from a historical point of view. The United States did not have a second strike only policy during the Cold War. Soviet Ground forces had superiority in numbers compared to NATO and the doctrine of NATO powers believed in an invasion of Western Europe, the Soviets would blitz the lines in the opening hours of the war. The US doctrine was that if NATO conventional forces were overrun and the Warsaw Pact broke through they would engage in a nuclear first strike (The Day After hinted at this scenario.). It was also thought by NATO forces that Soviets would engage in a First Strike if the war started with a naval battle as NATO naval power was very superior to Soviet naval power (Explicitly the first bomb lobbed in Count Down to LOOKINGGLASS and very nearly happened IRL during the Cuba missile crisis.). In truth, we now know that the Soviets were not capable of First Strike, as their land based missiles used a rocket fuel that would corrode the rocket. They stored it separate to the rockets and would only fuel the rockets if war was extremely likely (as they did during Able Archer '83). Their hope was that the situation with NATO would be slowly shown to degrade overtime until they could fuel up OR rely on their subs and bombers to carry out second strike.

I need both cases, both sides believe that in a second strike scenario, 3% of all their missiles would be destroyed by a First Strike, so using a First Strike on imminent war was desirable as you could destroy a good chunk of the threat.

[Doing it Rightland]

I just have one concern with this proposal. If nations cannot fire at others before being fired at, then how can any nation actually deploy any missile? The way it reads right now, I'm not sure that member nations can actually fire nuclear missiles at each other period. Please clarify.

1) Well, member states are not prohibited from launching nuclear weapons on military targets, where civilians will not suffer any significant casualties. The proposal only urges member states to categorically forego preemptive strikes. As to retaliatory strikes, this proposal does nothing to limit those. Upon withstanding a nuclear strike, member states are free to fire as many warheads as they like at the belligerent nation(s).
2) Honestly, I would ban preemptive strikes entirely if I thought it would pass on the voting floor. Nuclear exchanges are inherently bad, and preemptive strikes are inherently evil.
3) Conventional missiles are unaffected. Member states are free to fire those at each other whenever they like.

Okay, that actually makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[Wallenburg]

Edits made

[Bears Armed]

OOC
This still allows the use of nuclear weapons by member nations only in retaliation for nuclear attacks.
Although existing GA resolutions bar member nations from attacking with biological weapons there is still a risk, even leaving aside the possibility of that resolution getting repealed, that member nations will be attacked by non-members using that method... against which, of course, they would be unable to respond in kind. If you're continuing to allow the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for nuclear attacks, shouldn't the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for those attacks also be allowed?

[Wallenburg]

OOC
This still allows the use of nuclear weapons by member nations only in retaliation for nuclear attacks.
Although existing GA resolutions bar member nations from attacking with biological weapons there is still a risk, even leaving aside the possibility of that resolution getting repealed, that member nations will be attacked by non-members using that method... against which, of course, they would be unable to respond in kind. If you're continuing to allow the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for nuclear attacks, shouldn't the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for those attacks also be allowed?

To clarify then, you propose that I loosen the regulations under this proposal so that member states may launch nuclear strikes on civilian targets in response to chemical, biological, or radiological attacks?

[Bears Armed]

OOC
This still allows the use of nuclear weapons by member nations only in retaliation for nuclear attacks.
Although existing GA resolutions bar member nations from attacking with biological weapons there is still a risk, even leaving aside the possibility of that resolution getting repealed, that member nations will be attacked by non-members using that method... against which, of course, they would be unable to respond in kind. If you're continuing to allow the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for nuclear attacks, shouldn't the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for those attacks also be allowed?

To clarify then, you propose that I loosen the regulations under this proposal so that member states may launch nuclear strikes on civilian targets in response to chemical, biological, or radiological attacks?

OOC
Under the same circumstances/limitations as you are currently allowing them against nuclear attacks, yes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC This still allows the use of nuclear weapons by member nations only in retaliation for nuclear attacks.

If that is the case (or if it is the case that there are any limitations for nuclear weapon usage solely in retaliation to certain classes of attacks), then the resolution contradicts Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, which

Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;

Corrected missing closing bracket.

[The Chuck]

The Chuck holds the legal right to use W.M.D.s how we see fit. Our assortment of nuclear weapons has allowed for our economy to prosper and grow. As such we hold such a fierce reliance on our Nuclear Arsenal that private citizens are entrusted with nukes to ensure the complete and thorough annihilation of any enemy trying to attack us (OOC: check our Factbook entry). However, we understand the fears of nations regarding first strikes and are open to seeing this proposition moved before the security Council.

[Bears Armed]

OOC This still allows the use of nuclear weapons by member nations only in retaliation for nuclear attacks.

If that is the case (or if it is the case that there are any limitations for nuclear weapon usage solely in retaliation to certain classes of attacks, then the resolution contradicts Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, which

Affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;

OOC
Good catch!
That does need to be fixed.

[Wallenburg]

I will explore options to fix that problem. In the meantime, this draft will be in the fridge for future consumption.

[New Bremerton]

As the esteemed members of this Assembly should know by now, New Bremerton is a major nuclear power. We would like to reiterate that this nation currently adheres to a no nuclear first-strike policy. Through the use of SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) and our 360-degree access to the sea, we retain the ability to retaliate against any nuclear strike on New Bremerton, even if the entirety of our country is rendered completely lifeless and uninhabitable in a single strike (extremely unlikely given this nation's sheer size in terms of land area). But the same cannot be said of some of our tiny, landlocked nuclear allies, such as the city-state of Hongapore.

We have signed mutual defense treaties with these nations, and as such we are legally obligated to rush to their defense and vice versa under the principle of collective self-defense. In the event that Hongapore was to be completely annihilated in a single nuclear strike, the city-state would lack the means to retaliate, and as such the Hongaporean government may be led to believe that a preemptive first-strike may be the only way to merely survive. Hongapore has also made it abundantly clear that if they hadn't developed a nuclear deterrent, they would have been invaded and annexed, and their population exterminated, by their larger, genocidal neighbors a long time ago, and that if they are invaded by conventional means today, they will not hesitate to push the big red button. Given that the diaspora of Hongapore has endured multiple genocides and countless pogroms throughout history in various parts of the world, and that their nation was founded as a refuge to escape such persecution and determine their own destiny, this reaction is understandable. How does the delegation from Wallenburg intend to address this?

For now, it is very likely that New Bremerton may ABSTAIN should this proposal go to vote. While this proposal may potentially hinder Hongapore's ability to defend itself, we stand ready to deploy our military assets in defense of one of our closest allies, should the need arise.

OOC: If there is already an NS nation called Hongapore, then I apologize. I'm not referring to you. I am referring to another fictional Hongapore from a different timeline that I made up on the spot. If Hongapore could vote in the WA, it would vote against for all the reasons stated above. IRL, I'm thinking about Israel (an undeclared nuclear state), Hong Kong and Singapore specifically, although none of these countries are landlocked. HK and S'pore might as well be though.