[SUBMITTED] Preventing Unprovoked Use of WMDs

[The New Cordian Empire]

"Ah, such a delightfully well meaning attempt to prevent nuclear war. Disappointing that your draft would eliminate the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons and completely invalidate the deterrent effect of Mutually Assured Destruction."

“The sarcasm is not appreciated, ambassador. As for your points, they are accurate. However, tactical nuclear weapons are only banned against other member states and, besides, are likely to be the first nuclear use in a nuclear war. As for mutually assured destruction, how? Your comments do not make sense, considering that, if nuclear weapons are used against another nation, they may strike back. And if either nation is non-WA, no restrictions apply.”

[Free Las Pinas]

Aside from my concerns that I voiced on discord, you should end your preambulatory clauses with a comma and your operative clauses with a semicolon — excluding the last one which will end in a period.

[The New Cordian Empire]

Aside from my concerns that I voiced on discord, you should end your preambulatory clauses with a comma and your operative clauses with a semicolon — excluding the last one which will end in a period.

OOC: Edits made. Most WA stuff is in IC, so please say OOC when speaking out of character. Edits have been made. I will check Discord to see if you said anything after I left.

[Cretox State]

OOC: The main problem I have with this draft is simply the premise. If a nation goes nuking, it's going to start an apocalypse. What, exactly, will the gnomes in the WACC do then? All this proposal does is outline the reasoning that any national government is going to use anyway when it comes to WMDs. Writing and definitions can be fixed. A flawed premise cannot.

[Lord Dominator]

"Ah, such a delightfully well meaning attempt to prevent nuclear war. Disappointing that your draft would eliminate the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons and completely invalidate the deterrent effect of Mutually Assured Destruction."

“The sarcasm is not appreciated, ambassador. As for your points, they are accurate. However, tactical nuclear weapons are only banned against other member states and, besides, are likely to be the first nuclear use in a nuclear war. As for mutually assured destruction, how? Your comments do not make sense, considering that, if nuclear weapons are used against another nation, they may strike back. And if either nation is non-WA, no restrictions apply.”

Dee leans back in her chair, feet up on the nearby table

"Firstly, sarcasm is who I am. As to your comments regarding MAD, your inherent problem in this proposal is that you're undermining the deterrent effect it can have on more conventional war, by eliminating it as an option entirely."

Dee drops her chair down, before pulling her phone-like device for getting some quick reference information up

[Waffia]

a weapon capable of causing massive structural damage and/or loss of life

OOC: I think this would include non-nuclear weapons that are not conventionally categorised as WMDs, such as a large bomb that can blow up (a large portion of) a single building. Is the proposal intentionally inclusive of these weapons? I don't think a proposal broad enough to also include chemical weapons and such will be successful.

[The New Cordian Empire]

OOC: Don’t have time rn, but I have ideas to address all of your issues and should be able to respond later today.

[Sanghyeok]

So this is a "no first use" policy?

[The New Cordian Empire]

So this is a "no first use" policy?

Unless there is evidence that another WA is about to use WMDs, yes.

[Fearann Dorcha]

"As long as this only sticks to cowardly weapons like nukes, I'm all for it. But this BETTER stay at just nukes. A lot of my citizens are bombs of some kind. They can't help to be what they are, and most of them are pacifists. If any of you so much as lay a FINGER on any innocent Bob-ombs or Torpedo Teds, you'll have a lot more to worry about than a few nukes!"
- KING BOWSER, King and Protector of Fearann Dorcha

[Ardiveds]

"As long as this only sticks to cowardly weapons like nukes, I'm all for it. But this BETTER stay at just nukes. A lot of my citizens are bombs of some kind. They can't help to be what they are, and most of them are pacifists. If any of you so much as lay a FINGER on any innocent Bob-ombs or Torpedo Teds, you'll have a lot more to worry about than a few nukes!"
- KING BOWSER, King and Protector of Fearann Dorcha

"Ambassador, this makes no mention of nuclear or thermonuclear devices specifically so if one your citizens is destructive enough, this will apply to them."

[Fearann Dorcha]

"Ambassador, this makes no mention of nuclear or thermonuclear devices specifically so if one your citizens is destructive enough, this will apply to them."

"My bad. I only got the first draft, and didn't notice that someone made changes to the proposal.

"Regardless, my points still stand. They don’t talk about where the line is drawn. Anything that can cause ‘major structural damage’ is considered too dangerous to use and needs to be safely destroyed. What does ‘major structural damage’ even MEAN? My Bob-ombs can destroy a tool shed or maybe a small house. Couldn’t some chump say that that was major structural damage to their wimpy little nation?

"Someone needs to make a baseline for what ‘major structural damage’ is. Because as of right now, this could be used by LOSERS as an excuse to hurt or even kill my subjects."
- KING BOWSER, Noble Leader and Defender of Fearann Dorcha

[The New Cordian Empire]

"Ambassador, this makes no mention of nuclear or thermonuclear devices specifically so if one your citizens is destructive enough, this will apply to them."

"My bad. I only got the first draft, and didn't notice that someone made changes to the proposal.

"Regardless, my points still stand. They don’t talk about where the line is drawn. Anything that can cause ‘major structural damage’ is considered too dangerous to use and needs to be safely destroyed. What does ‘major structural damage’ even MEAN? My Bob-ombs can destroy a tool shed or maybe a small house. Couldn’t some chump say that that was major structural damage to their wimpy little nation?

"Someone needs to make a baseline for what ‘major structural damage’ is. Because as of right now, this could be used by LOSERS as an excuse to hurt or even kill my subjects."
- KING BOWSER, Noble Leader and Defender of Fearann Dorcha

Major structural damage to a nation is just what it sounds like. Major structural damage that significantly impacts a nation negatively. Why would you drop bombs against a nation small enough to count a tool shed among that?

Edit: My apologies, I didn't see that whole exchange. If you intentionally use your citizens to cause destruction, this will apply to them and your nation as a whole. If accidental, well, they blew up already, most likely...

[Fearann Dorcha]

If you intentionally use your citizens to cause destruction, this will apply to them and your nation as a whole. If accidental, well, they blew up already, most likely...

"But if my citizens are at risk by this, then we should get of mortars too while we're at it! After all, can't we argue that those can cause major structural damage too?

"I get that this is about WMDs, but no one knows when to draw the line. A WMD is anything that can cause a whole lotta death or a whole lotta damage. With that in mind, anything that can explode can fit the bill. Does that mean that we should just stop using explosives entirely?

"There needs to be a clear-cut definition on what we're considering to be a WMD. Without that, any nation that has enough pull can demilitarize any nation in any way they see fit.

"I know that I'm focusing on the small stuff here, but the LIVES of my PEOPLE are on the line here! I will not allow for their rights to be infringed just because of a LOOPHOLE!"
-KING BOWSER, Courageous King of Fearann Dorcha

[The New Cordian Empire]

If you intentionally use your citizens to cause destruction, this will apply to them and your nation as a whole. If accidental, well, they blew up already, most likely...

"But if my citizens are at risk by this, then we should get of mortars too while we're at it! After all, can't we argue that those can cause major structural damage too?

"I get that this is about WMDs, but no one knows when to draw the line. A WMD is anything that can cause a whole lotta death or a whole lotta damage. With that in mind, anything that can explode can fit the bill. Does that mean that we should just stop using explosives entirely?

"There needs to be a clear-cut definition on what we're considering to be a WMD. Without that, any nation that has enough pull can demilitarize any nation in any way they see fit.

"I know that I'm focusing on the small stuff here, but the LIVES of my PEOPLE are on the line here! I will not allow for their rights to be infringed just because of a LOOPHOLE!"
-KING BOWSER, Courageous King of Fearann Dorcha

If you are so insistent on a clear-cut definition, then give me one, thank you very much. Mortars, when used against a nation containing, say, a single house, may cause massive structural damage. But there are next to no nations of that size, and fewer that you would use mortars against. Besides, I don't see how your citizens are at risk. This resolution does not seek to "kill" explosive weapons. It says you cannot intentionally use them against other WAs when you are unprovoked in doing so.

[The New Cordian Empire]

“The sarcasm is not appreciated, ambassador. As for your points, they are accurate. However, tactical nuclear weapons are only banned against other member states and, besides, are likely to be the first nuclear use in a nuclear war. As for mutually assured destruction, how? Your comments do not make sense, considering that, if nuclear weapons are used against another nation, they may strike back. And if either nation is non-WA, no restrictions apply.”

Dee leans back in her chair, feet up on the nearby table

"Firstly, sarcasm is who I am. As to your comments regarding MAD, your inherent problem in this proposal is that you're undermining the deterrent effect it can have on more conventional war, by eliminating it as an option entirely."

Dee drops her chair down, before pulling her phone-like device for getting some quick reference information up

OOC: The main problem I have with this draft is simply the premise. If a nation goes nuking, it's going to start an apocalypse. What, exactly, will the gnomes in the WACC do then? All this proposal does is outline the reasoning that any national government is going to use anyway when it comes to WMDs. Writing and definitions can be fixed. A flawed premise cannot.

OOC: Ok, I have an idea here. So, assuming that the WACC has the ability to eject nations from the WA for non-compliance, nations found to be violating this resolution can then be ejected from the WA. This not only bring MAD into affect, it also assures that the ejected member will not have WMD-launching support from WA allies, while literally all WAs will have the ability to, if they wish, strike against the violating nation with WMDs. This should be a significant enough deterrent to prevent nations from violating this resolution.

[Lord Dominator]

Dee leans back in her chair, feet up on the nearby table

"Firstly, sarcasm is who I am. As to your comments regarding MAD, your inherent problem in this proposal is that you're undermining the deterrent effect it can have on more conventional war, by eliminating it as an option entirely."

Dee drops her chair down, before pulling her phone-like device for getting some quick reference information up

OOC: The main problem I have with this draft is simply the premise. If a nation goes nuking, it's going to start an apocalypse. What, exactly, will the gnomes in the WACC do then? All this proposal does is outline the reasoning that any national government is going to use anyway when it comes to WMDs. Writing and definitions can be fixed. A flawed premise cannot.

OOC: Ok, I have an idea here. So, assuming that the WACC has the ability to eject nations from the WA for non-compliance, nations found to be violating this resolution can then be ejected from the WA. This not only bring MAD into affect, it also assures that the ejected member will not have WMD-launching support from WA allies, while literally all WAs will have the ability to, if they wish, strike against the violating nation with WMDs. This should be a significant enough deterrent to prevent nations from violating this resolution.

OOC: WACC does not have that ability, and I would think attempting to give it that ability would constitute a Game Mechanics violation.

[The New Cordian Empire]

OOC: Would it be possible to insert a clause saying that violators of the resolution are not subject to its protections for a certain period of time or until certain conditions are met?

OOC: Ok, I have an idea here. So, assuming that the WACC has the ability to eject nations from the WA for non-compliance, nations found to be violating this resolution can then be ejected from the WA. This not only bring MAD into affect, it also assures that the ejected member will not have WMD-launching support from WA allies, while literally all WAs will have the ability to, if they wish, strike against the violating nation with WMDs. This should be a significant enough deterrent to prevent nations from violating this resolution.

OOC: WACC does not have that ability, and I would think attempting to give it that ability would constitute a Game Mechanics violation.

[The New Cordian Empire]

shameless bump

[Kenmoria]

“Your second mandate clause appears to suggest that, once a member state has broken this legislation once, it can do so again with impunity. I suggest altering the wording to make your intent clearer. Also, number the active clauses and subclauses, for easier reading.”

[The New Cordian Empire]

“Your second mandate clause appears to suggest that, once a member state has broken this legislation once, it can do so again with impunity. I suggest altering the wording to make your intent clearer. Also, number the active clauses and subclauses, for easier reading.”

“I had not though of that, but my current problem is that we are finding it hard to find suitable wording to punish nations that violate the resolution. However, a solution is being thought of by my staff and new edits should be up shortly. As for the second part, edits will be up immediately.”

[The New Cordian Empire]

OOC: Edits made for the second part. I might have edits for clause 2.2 out tonight. Emphasis on the might.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So what about a time limit? Let's put a hypothetical here. Say Yahtzee Germany used nuclear weapons. But then they were invaded and the leaders were executed like the criminals they were. Should the current version of Germany now be exempted from the protections of this resolution?

[The Libertarian Socialists of Bowerstone]

The government of the Libertarian Socialists of Bowerstone are in complete support of a resolution of this kind. As has been pointed out, there is always risk when coming out with a kind of ultimatum as this resolution surely is. However, to think that they risk is only on the side of the nations writing the resolution is surely thought of folly. As was pointed out earlier by my other esteemed colleagues from other nations, we are not the only at risk. Our threat of kicking violating nations out of our alliance and leaving them to arrange for their own protection is a serious and powerful threat. Our combined strength, should they come after our alliance with a first strike, would be met with a response that would be over the top and disproportionate to what they did in the first. We must stick by our guns (no pun intended) and follow up this resolution with real action!

[The New Cordian Empire]

So what about a time limit? Let's put a hypothetical here. Say Yahtzee Germany used nuclear weapons. But then they were invaded and the leaders were executed like the criminals they were. Should the current version of Germany now be exempted from the protections of this resolution?

My idea is that they must pay for damage caused, and if they miss a payment, they are not protected until it is payed.