[DEFEATED] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

[Luna Amore]

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Aware that non-member-states outnumber World Assembly member nations by about 6-1, and the gap will only increase as time goes on.

Believing that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member-states, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member-states.

Acknowledging the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Further Acknowledging that member-states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member-states, and many seek solace through weapons of mass destruction.

Concerned that, despite prior regulations to these weapons of mass destruction, that many states may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

Believing that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

Understanding that the increase in the use of more traditional weaponry may lead to a decrease in nuclear weaponry.

Hereby,

1. Defines a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.
   
   
2. Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the knowledge that a return fire may happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.
   
   
3. Urges the member-states of the World Assembly to intervene in the case of MAD.
   
   
4. Encourages members of the World Assembly to avoid retaliation in the form of WMDs in both offensive and defensive wars.
   
   
5. Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, member-states may use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation.
   
   
6. Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry instead of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.
   
   
7. Prohibits the use of automatic response systems to nuclear attacks.
   
   
8. Grants the World Assembly Disaster Bureau permission to coordinate international cooperation to prevent the threat of MAD.
   
   1. Encourages the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to engage in diplomatic communications with member-states whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.
   2. Requires the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to report any individual whose actions have contributed to MAD to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Feedback is encouraged. I know it's somewhat controversial, but I do believe that it is essential legislature.

Ninja Edit: I forgot to include the links to the other resolutions mentioned in this proposal, so here you go:

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=322#p322 (GAR#10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act)
viewtopic.php?p=13324353#p13324353 (GAR#242, Biological Warfare Convention)
viewtopic.php?p=17791853#p17791853 (GAR#272, Chemical Weapons Accord)
viewtopic.php?p=33193443#p33193443 (GAR#418, Safeguarding Nuclear Materials)

The World Assembly,

Aware that non-member nations outnumber World Assembly member nations by about 10-1, and the gap will only increase as time goes on.

Believing that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member nations, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member states.

Acknowledging the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (such as GAR#10, GAR#242, GAR#272, and GAR#418).

Further Acknowledging that member states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member states, and many seek solace through Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Concerned that, despite prior regulations to these Weapons of Mass Destruction, that many nations may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

Believing that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

Hereby,

1. Defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.
   
   
2. Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the complete knowledge that a return fire will happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.
   
   
3. Prohibits the use of WMDs to be used in any case, except for those of pure defense.
   
   
4. Clarifies that WMDs should only be used on approaching armies, and not on civilian centers in retaliation.
   
   
5. Encourages that nations on the losing side of a war to seek alternative methods to turn the tide of a war, rather than resort to MAD.
   
   
6. Mandates that, should a breach of this legislation or other legislation on WMDs be broken, the nation targetted by the breach should turn to the international community, rather than retaliating with a strike of their own.
   
   
7. Outlaws any and all forms of MAD, both covered and not covered by this resolution.

[/list]

[Imperium Anglorum]

As mentioned on the Discord:

ImperiumAnglorum (ee ah)Today at 18:51
Section 5 is a real and substantive House of Cards

Sierra LyricaliaToday at 18:51
^^

ImperiumAnglorum (ee ah)Today at 18:51
Moreover, nobody will vote for any encouragement for their nation to surrender

...

ImperiumAnglorum (ee ah)Today at 18:55
I can imagine easily that someone would say, If I am Israel and our 'neighbours' come over for the fiftieth time to drive us into the Mediterranean, you would have us just surrender?

[Morover]

As mentioned on the Discord:

ImperiumAnglorum (ee ah)Today at 18:51
Section 5 is a real and substantive House of Cards

Sierra LyricaliaToday at 18:51
^^

ImperiumAnglorum (ee ah)Today at 18:51
Moreover, nobody will vote for any encouragement for their nation to surrender

...

ImperiumAnglorum (ee ah)Today at 18:55
I can imagine easily that someone would say, If I am Israel and our 'neighbours' come over for the fiftieth time to drive us into the Mediterranean, you would have us just surrender?

Yes, I have considered this, and changed the concerned clause to the following:

Encourages that nations on the losing side of a war to seek alternative methods to turn the tide of a war, rather than resort to MAD.

Thank you for taking time out of your day to help me along with this proposal. Do you have any other feedback other than the change of clause 6?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Clause 5 is, as mentioned, a House of Cards and illegal.

[Morover]

Clause 5 is, as mentioned, a House of Cards and illegal.

Ah, somehow missed that part of IA's critique. My bad, I simply put that to avoid a possible misunderstanding and believing that I contradicted the other proposals. I will remove that clause. Thank you for pointing it out.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The real question though, is the OMG the House of Cards rule wasn't gutted. It's almost like the reports of its demise were premature.

[Arasi Luvasa]

How exactly would this be enforced? Presumably, a nation willing to risk mutually assured destruction is not going to be worried by sanctions or embargos. Also IA the compliance act enacts sanctions only great enough to halt the behaviour (based on what I have seen from your previous discussions), how would that work in this instance?

[Morover]

How exactly would this be enforced? Presumably, a nation willing to risk mutually assured destruction is not going to be worried by sanctions or embargos. Also IA the compliance act enacts sanctions only great enough to halt the behaviour (based on what I have seen from your previous discussions), how would that work in this instance?

"Quite frankly, it would be difficult to enforce. The only way to truly enforce it would be through prevention. For example, if a nation knows the laws behind it, then they know that out of the slim chance they survive, it will be a limited existence. Instead of being mutually assured destruction, it would become a hindrance for one nation (albeit a rather large hindrance) and a death sentence for the offender."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Biological weapons are specifically banned from being used at all, and chemical weapons are specifically allowed defensively. So, illegal for contradiction.

[Morover]

OOC: Biological weapons are specifically banned from being used at all, and chemical weapons are specifically allowed defensively. So, illegal for contradiction.

OOC: Yes, I know biological weapons are banned, but I included it for the sake of continuity. In hindsight, it would have been better to just exclude it, so I'll edit the draft to exclude those. And, on the topic of chemical weapons, this proposal further restricts them, but does not outright ban them. It pretty much says "You can't just bomb your enemies cities to get them to stop attacking you, only the directly threatening forces." If this isn't the message that directly comes across, I'm open to clarifying it, but I would like to hear some other people's opinions before I change that part. Thanks for the feedback.

[Araraukar]

And, on the topic of chemical weapons, this proposal further restricts them, but does not outright ban them.

Prohibits the use of WMDs to be used simply in cases of pure defense.

OOC: You can't prohibit defensive use of something that a WA resolution says can be used defensively only.

[Morover]

And, on the topic of chemical weapons, this proposal further restricts them, but does not outright ban them.

Prohibits the use of WMDs to be used simply in cases of pure defense.

OOC: You can't prohibit defensive use of something that a WA resolution says can be used defensively only.

OOC: This is simply poorly worded, this clause states that it prohibits the use of WMDs in all cases except pure defense. It then further prohibits WMDs, but doesn't outright ban them, which is perfectly legal. I will change that clause to be more clear.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause seven is far too vague as you haven’t defined what MAD means in the context of this proposal. It could cover a whole multitude of things including conventional weaponry and is often used to refer to things as mundane as two businesses or organisations in competition.”

[Morover]

“Clause seven is far too vague as you haven’t defined what MAD means in the context of this proposal. It could cover a whole multitude of things including conventional weaponry and is often used to refer to things as mundane as two businesses or organisations in competition.”

"Perhaps I misunderstand, ambassador, but I have defined what MAD is in the context of this proposal, in clause two. If I do misunderstand, please correct me, though."

[Kenmoria]

“Clause seven is far too vague as you haven’t defined what MAD means in the context of this proposal. It could cover a whole multitude of things including conventional weaponry and is often used to refer to things as mundane as two businesses or organisations in competition.”

"Perhaps I misunderstand, ambassador, but I have defined what MAD is in the context of this proposal, in clause two. If I do misunderstand, please correct me, though."

(OOC: Oops, that has to be one of my least well thought-out replies.)

“Now that the situation has been clear, I give my tentative support for this proposal; it is concise and addresses well the problem of MAD.”

[Morover]

"Perhaps I misunderstand, ambassador, but I have defined what MAD is in the context of this proposal, in clause two. If I do misunderstand, please correct me, though."

(OOC: Oops, that has to be one of my least well thought-out replies.)

“Now that the situation has been clear, I give my tentative support for this proposal; it is concise and addresses well the problem of MAD.”

"I appreciate your support, ambassador, regardless of how tentative it is."

OOC: Don't worry about it, happens to the best of us.

[Maowi]

(OOC: Oops, that has to be one of my least well thought-out replies.)

“Now that the situation has been clear, I give my tentative support for this proposal; it is concise and addresses well the problem of MAD.”

(Oh my goodness, Kenmoria said something that wasn't thorough, insightful and well-thought-out! )

"The Maowese delegation offers their support for this proposal as it is clear, well-written and we agree with its core idea."

[Elyreia]

Elyreia would be in favor of such legislation.

[Old Hope]

This proposal, or something similar, will be submitted as soon as this misguided proposal passes... if it passes.

The World Assembly,
Committed to world peace and prosperity,
Saddened that there are many non-member states with questionable leadership and in possession of nuclear weapons,
Noting that every WA member state can remove itself from the World Assembly instantly,
Noting that every WA member state with nuclear weapons that yearns to use them in retalitation can do so by resigning from the World Assembly,
Noting that there exists no credible compliance threat to a member state threatened by mass destruction from nuclear weapons,
Noting that the resolution is absolutely ineffective in preventing mutually assured destruction by member states who wish to perform it,
Saddened that the non-member states mentioned before may see the resolution as an incentive to make a nuclear attack against member states,
Concluding that this resolution causes harm and has no positive effect ,
repeals On Mutually Assured Destruction.

[Kenmoria]

“I’m not very comfortable with clause 6. Although the intent, to prevent retaliation leading to more retaliation until a nuclear catastrophe occurs, is clear, I feel this does rather prevent self-defence if the international community are unwilling or unable to help. I suggest maybe requiring the involvement of the international community at the same time as a response to the firing of WMDs, or at least allowing WMDs if the international community is openly hostile to the nation in question, and made of mostly non-member states.”

[Morover]

“I’m not very comfortable with clause 6. Although the intent, to prevent retaliation leading to more retaliation until a nuclear catastrophe occurs, is clear, I feel this does rather prevent self-defence if the international community are unwilling or unable to help. I suggest maybe requiring the involvement of the international community at the same time as a response to the firing of WMDs, or at least allowing WMDs if the international community is openly hostile to the nation in question, and made of mostly non-member states.”

While I do agree with you, I, quite frankly, have no idea how to implement this in a succinct and efficient way. Any suggestions would be more than welcome, but the only legitimate way I can think of doing this without completely disregarding the rest of the proposal is to add a clause that allows nations to disregard this towards non-member-states, which I simply cannot see as possible, as it would essentially make this resolution useless in its goals.

This proposal, or something similar, will be submitted as soon as this misguided proposal passes... if it passes.

The World Assembly,
Committed to world peace and prosperity,
Saddened that there are many non-member states with questionable leadership and in possession of nuclear weapons,
Noting that every WA member state can remove itself from the World Assembly instantly,
Noting that every WA member state with nuclear weapons that yearns to use them in retalitation can do so by resigning from the World Assembly,
Noting that there exists no credible compliance threat to a member state threatened by mass destruction from nuclear weapons,
Noting that the resolution is absolutely ineffective in preventing mutually assured destruction by member states who wish to perform it,
Saddened that the non-member states mentioned before may see the resolution as an incentive to make a nuclear attack against member states,
Concluding that this resolution causes harm and has no positive effect ,
repeals On Mutually Assured Destruction.

I will go bit by bit, and explain why I disagree with you on each regard in your proto-repeal.

Committed to world peace and prosperity,
Saddened that there are many non-member states with questionable leadership and in possession of nuclear weapons,

Well, we can agree on this matter, at the very least.

Noting that every WA member state can remove itself from the World Assembly instantly,
Noting that every WA member state with nuclear weapons that yearns to use them in retalitation can do so by resigning from the World Assembly,

This can be made as an argument against any WA Resolution, I can't really see why this one is any different.

Noting that there exists no credible compliance threat to a member state threatened by mass destruction from nuclear weapons,

This may be true, but this prevents a series of counter-retaliations that would lead to global catastrophe. Unfortunately, this is merely the way that it is, and without proper regulations, it will surely lead to disaster, sooner or later. Despite the lack of "credible compliance threats," as you put it, there would be enough of a threat to prevent nations from merely doing it at a whim, and would require them to at least think about breaking international law before beginning the unavoidable.

Noting that the resolution is absolutely ineffective in preventing mutually assured destruction by member states who wish to perform it,

I addressed this in my last point too, but I simply believe this to be a falsehood.

Saddened that the non-member states mentioned before may see the resolution as an incentive to make a nuclear attack against member states,

I believe that, though a good point, it is simply misguided. Non-member states do have as much to fear from mutually assured destruction as member nations do, and this resolution will not change that.

Concluding that this resolution causes harm and has no positive effect ,

This is simply false.


Thank you everyone for your feedback!

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposal is illegal insofar as it regulates the use of nuclear weapons when attacked. Moreover, sections having to do with chemical weapons duplicate the Chemical Weapons Convention (or a similarly named resolution by UFoC).

[Old Hope]

Noting that there exists no credible compliance threat to a member state threatened by mass destruction from nuclear weapons,

This may be true, but this prevents a series of counter-retaliations that would lead to global catastrophe. Unfortunately, this is merely the way that it is, and without proper regulations, it will surely lead to disaster, sooner or later. Despite the lack of "credible compliance threats," as you put it, there would be enough of a threat to prevent nations from merely doing it at a whim, and would require them to at least think about breaking international law before beginning the unavoidable.

"Ambassador, no nation with an even partly sane leadership will make nuclear attacks against another nation that is under the protection of a M A D doctrine without having very serious reasons. If the leadership believes that destruction of the nation(by whatever source) is imminent, then maybe. If M A D is employed then the nation will simply cease to exist. For a nation accepting its own destruction, no credible threat exists.

[American Pere Housh]

The APH tentatively supports this resolution.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Again, I cannot see how this would be enforced. You are essentially trying to deter people from a deterrent (mutually assured destruction is itself a deterrent). In addition, how will you address that a nation that is willing to risk mutually assured destruction likely has exhausted all other options and is desperate enough to not be concerned with what happens afterwards (again they are risking mutually assured destruction, they are full well expecting not to have any survivors and are just hoping to take their enemies down with them). If a nation had the aid of the international community, said nation would presumably not be willing to risk mutually assured destruction so is this going to force nations to aid a nation that is at risk of turning to mutually assured destruction as a last resort? would this not lead to other complications (the opposing nation may become the nation willing to turn to mutually assured destruction, or nations end up having to ally with said nation then distance themselves in a cycle like a yoyo).

Moreover you have yourself pointed out why this resolution would have no teeth, by stating that non-member nations would have as much to fear you are saying that this resolution would not be a further determent but merely pointless legislation. Trust me I usually do not like the 'Hur-Dur this isn't enforceable' argument but on this topic, any attempt to enforce a ban seems redundant at best and mostly pointless.