Because nations do not always have powerful allies willing to defend them from their aggressive neighbors.
Advertisement
by Aclion » Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:52 am
by Gudmund » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:10 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:07 am
Wallenburg wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
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."
by Wallenburg » Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:14 am
Gudmund wrote: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 wrote:Wallenburg wrote: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.
"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.
by Sciongrad » Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:15 am
Wallenburg wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
by Kenmoria » Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:27 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:22 am
Wallenburg wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
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":...
by Araraukar » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:04 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Aclion » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:44 pm
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.
by Wallenburg » Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:47 pm
Aclion wrote:Wallenburg wrote: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.
by Doing it Rightland » Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:34 pm
by Lord Dominator » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:14 pm
Doing it Rightland wrote: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.
by Doing it Rightland » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:23 pm
Lord Dominator wrote:Doing it Rightland wrote: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."
by Wallenburg » Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:32 pm
Doing it Rightland wrote: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.
by Liberimery » Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:20 pm
by Doing it Rightland » Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:48 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Doing it Rightland wrote: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.
by Wallenburg » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:46 pm
by Bears Armed » Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:48 am
by Wallenburg » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:04 pm
Bears Armed wrote: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?
by Bears Armed » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:55 am
Wallenburg wrote:Bears Armed wrote: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?
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:18 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOC This still allows the use of nuclear weapons by member nations only in retaliation for nuclear attacks.
by The Chuck » Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:48 pm
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by Bears Armed » Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:01 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Bears Armed wrote: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, whichAffirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces;
by Wallenburg » Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:58 pm
by New Bremerton » Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:22 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement