by United American Regions » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:51 pm
by Kenmoria » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:27 am
by Lost Brotherhood » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:06 am
by United American Regions » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:30 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“What is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be put on the draft somewhere so other ambassadors can comment. Also, clause 3 and 5 seem to self-contradict, as one says that nuclear weapons may never be used, whereas the other allows nuclear weapons to be used if all possibly means of dialogue have first been utilised.
Finally, it is odd that your ‘hereby’ line states that member states are bound to the mandates below, and that one of these mandates is the creation of a committee, which membe states cannot do. Only the WA, not WA countries, can create a committee.”
(OOC: This has been edited to add that you appear to have submitted the proposal without garnering any feedback on it. I would recommend not doing that, as there is no point in submitting a draft to these forums if you don’t wait for any constructive criticism first.)
by United American Regions » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:31 pm
Lost Brotherhood wrote:Should this resolution come to vote, the Lunar Republic will have to oppose on principle. We believe that there is a vast amount of knowledge to be gained by studying the even greater vastness of space, and that it is not only our right, but our duty to strive for an understanding of the universe we exist in. We conduct regular launches for the purpose of space exploration, and have sunk far too many Bits into the construction of our instruments of science to turn back now.
by United Republic of North American States » Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:55 pm
by Saralonia » Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:08 pm
by Kenmoria » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:42 am
Saralonia wrote:interesting very interesting maybe this would be more specific of what happens if you have nukes in the space and get caught what's the punishment by the WA?
by Dirty Americans » Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:21 pm
by Borovan entered the region as he » Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:26 pm
by Awesome Dudes and Dudettes » Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:38 pm
by Wrapper » Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:36 pm
Awesome Dudes and Dudettes wrote:[OOC: Seems nice, probably should define conventional weapons since Kenmoria thought it meant WMDs. I would also recommend changing the last clause from "creating" to "recommending that the WA creates"]
by Araraukar » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:46 pm
United American Regions wrote:1. Define, for the purposes of interpreting this treaty:
- “outer space” as all regions 62 miles above sea level
*snip*
3. Immediately and permanently end deployment of WMDs to outer space
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 Merni » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:53 am
by Bears Armed » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:16 am
by Araraukar » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:52 am
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 Bears Armed » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:56 am
by Scerallia » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:45 am
United Republic of North American States wrote:The United Republic of North American States strongly opposes this legislation on the basis that each country should have control over its own destiny. And if it comes to it The United Republic of North American States is willing to use WMD's and conventional weapons to prevent international oversight
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement