Separatist Peoples wrote:"An essential component of effective deterrence, not merely of nuclear weapons but of any large scale, high intensity conflict, is the ability to escalate to nuclear exchanges. Without the opportunity of first strike, a defensive posture between two nations with, say, a wide land border, is at the mercy of the more powerful military force. That is to say that there is no reason not to engage in high intensity conflict when victory is highly indicated when the weaker power cannot escalate to a nuclear exchange.
"Incentivizing conflict is never sound policy. While dangerous, nuclear weaponry has a net effect of disincentivizing high intensity industrialized warfare. I believe we can find a different element of nuclear exchanges to regulate that does not detract from their strategic peacekeeping value."
OOC- I may have read something wrong, but this does reserve the right to respond to any attack at all, not just nuclear strikes, with nukes. The only actual restrictions on the use in the proposal is that you can't nuke someone who hasn't attacked you at all. What I want to see is less mutual destruction, but keeping the threat of it, making nations less likely to attack each other. Since non-members can't be regulated, this resolution reserves the right to nuke non-members without regulations.
