Advertisement
by Macsenoedd » Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:52 pm
by Kenmoria » Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:05 pm
Macsenoedd wrote:Do Dragons Count As Weapons Of Mass Destruction? Probably Not, You'd Need A Lot To Do Much Damage, And To Train Them Well.
by Creslonia » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:55 pm
by Araraukar » Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:07 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 Kenmoria » Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:19 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Actually, given that the Chemical Weapons Accord (if that's the literal name, but something along those lines anyway) specifically allows chemical weapons to be used defensively and entirely bans their use offensively, whereas this one would restrict their use to a last ditch effort, I think this is contradictory with that one. As it currently looks that this won't pass in its current incarnation anyway, I won't bother GenSec with a legality challenge, but if the author tries it again with chemical weapons included (how the hell would you even achieve MAD with chemical weapons???), I will.
by Sethtekia » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:27 am
by The Osaskyans » Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:59 am
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:06 am
by Wallenburg » Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:27 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)
by Jebslund » Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:38 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)
by Araraukar » Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:42 am
Kenmoria wrote:*snip*
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 Satuga » Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:17 am
by Kenmoria » Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:54 am
Satuga wrote:"While the Satugan people appreciate your attempt at limiting civilian deaths the actions to take here are extreme. As other Nation representatives have said MAD is a sure way to prevent a total World War as the threat of being destroyed far outweighs the benefits of war. As well as the concept that is someone sends nuclear war heads to the cities of Satuga you can be sure we will be sending them right back."
by Maowi » Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:00 am
Kenmoria wrote:Satuga wrote:"While the Satugan people appreciate your attempt at limiting civilian deaths the actions to take here are extreme. As other Nation representatives have said MAD is a sure way to prevent a total World War as the threat of being destroyed far outweighs the benefits of war. As well as the concept that is someone sends nuclear war heads to the cities of Satuga you can be sure we will be sending them right back."
“I feel as though I should mention, for the benefit of multiple delegations who appear to have misunderstood, that this proposal does not actually ban Mutually Assured Destruction. The only thing it does it prohibit solely automatic response systems.”
by Kenmoria » Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:01 am
Maowi wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“I feel as though I should mention, for the benefit of multiple delegations who appear to have misunderstood, that this proposal does not actually ban Mutually Assured Destruction. The only thing it does it prohibit solely automatic response systems.”
'The title may be misleading in that respect. Ambassadors who do not read the entire proposal through thoroughly may just assume by the title that it seeks to ban MAD entirely.'
by Maowi » Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:14 am
Kenmoria wrote:Maowi wrote:'The title may be misleading in that respect. Ambassadors who do not read the entire proposal through thoroughly may just assume by the title that it seeks to ban MAD entirely.'
“In that case, I think that delegation would be in violation of the Read the Resolution Act, along with a violation of common sense.”
by Morover » Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:34 pm
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)
by The New California Republic » Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:51 pm
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)
by Kenmoria » Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:09 pm
Morover wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)
"It was a hastily written clause - I admit it should have been more fleshed out, I was very much ready to get this to vote, which was a mistake. In either case, I feel it's failing by such an overwhelming amount due mostly to lemmings, as well as immediate reaction to the title."
by United Massachusetts » Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:24 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Maowi wrote:
'The title may be misleading in that respect. Ambassadors who do not read the entire proposal through thoroughly may just assume by the title that it seeks to ban MAD entirely.'
“In that case, I think that delegation would be in violation of the Read the Resolution Act, along with a violation of common sense.”
by NEALVILLA » Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:26 pm
by Tik tok users » Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:31 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:17 pm
"Prevention of Mutually assured destruction" was defeated 12,247 votes to 2,472.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement