[REFRIGERATED] Safeguards Against Nuclear First Strikes

[Sierra Lyricalia]

As the esteemed members of this Assembly should know by now, New Bremerton is a major nuclear power.

OOC: If there is already an NS nation called Hongapore, then I apologize...

OOC: You're good. I might jump on it if I were you in case you ever need to advance your RP in that direction. I've done that with a couple of nations here and there.

[Imperium Anglorum]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=boney ... =hongapore

[Naboompu]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "preemptive deployment" as the deployment of nuclear weapons against any nation prior to sustaining a nuclear strike from that nation or one of its military allies, or prior to a military ally sustaining such a strike

This has probably already been pointed out, but what is this to say of biological/chemical warfare and other weapons of mass destruction. If, for example, a nation solely engages in the production of nuclear weapons and a strike with biological/chemical weapons or other WMDs is imminent, what recourse does this nation have to preemptively deploy nuclear weapons? That seems to be the major flaw in this resolution, as otherwise it is quite reasonable and admirable.

[Wallenburg]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "preemptive deployment" as the deployment of nuclear weapons against any nation prior to sustaining a nuclear strike from that nation or one of its military allies, or prior to a military ally sustaining such a strike

This has probably already been pointed out, but what is this to say of biological/chemical warfare and other weapons of mass destruction. If, for example, a nation solely engages in the production of nuclear weapons and a strike with biological/chemical weapons or other WMDs is imminent, what recourse does this nation have to preemptively deploy nuclear weapons? That seems to be the major flaw in this resolution, as otherwise it is quite reasonable and admirable.

You are right, it has already been pointed out.

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attacking with biological weapons there is still a risk, even leaving aside the possibility of that resolution getting repealed, that member nations will be attacked by non-members using that method...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?

This thread is currently on standby, as it will require a repeal of an existing resolution to implement the intended policies.