[DEFEATED] Nuclear Aggression Act

[Jedinsto]

I am planning on submitting in a few days, I would like IA to come in and correct my English, and whatever other problems he has with it, and I will still listen for any new suggestions from others.

Stop adding commas everywhere and re-read your text.

Any better?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on your own soil

'Your' breaks perspective. You need to rewrite the proposal to reflect that nations are not people. This is similarly present with 'one's own nation' in one of the clauses above. The comma directly following the quoted section is unnecessary.

"military invasion" as a military force of significant size, including any unmanned weapons, directed by its government to enter foreign territory in order to cause mass destruction to civilian targets or to strike a government property,

A comma should be included where marked to demarcate a parenthetical phrase. But commas are not used to introduce lists or in something like ', or,'. The latter is present in one of your subsections and is ungrammatical.

The word 'and' appears at the end of the penult in a list. You should use it.

[Jedinsto]

I hope I made the changes you were looking for, and I greatly appreciate the suggestions. I'm no linguist, to say the least.

[Westinor]

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction or a military invasion within 30 days of such an occurrence, including on a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense,

I'm not sure if this is a concern, but I'd note that this could be interpreted as an excuse for a nation to launch nuclear weapons at a different nation in retaliation against a nuclear strike against the first nation or its ally. (Essentially, Nation A nuking Nation B in retaliation for Nation C's strike against Nation A's ally) This could potentially lead to the sort of chain reaction/falling dominos scenario which this proposal is seeking to limit. I'd suggest changing the wording to prevent this scenario.

[Jedinsto]

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a weapon of mass destruction or a military invasion within 30 days of such an occurrence, including on a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense,

I'm not sure if this is a concern, but I'd note that this could be interpreted as an excuse for a nation to launch nuclear weapons at a different nation in retaliation against a nuclear strike against the first nation or its ally. (Essentially, Nation A nuking Nation B in retaliation for Nation C's strike against Nation A's ally) This could potentially lead to the sort of chain reaction/falling dominos scenario which this proposal is seeking to limit. I'd suggest changing the wording to prevent this scenario.

I don't think that would be interpreted as a retaliation, but I'll look for a better way to word it.

Edit: I changed it up for clarity, not sure if I should use a one item list like this or 2 clauses. I'm open to either one.

[Hulldom]

"The main issue my delegation, in tandem with the Castellian delegation, has with this proposal is the simply frightening amount of fluff this proposal has in the preamble. We all know the risks involved with the detonation of a dirty bomb, Ambassador, clauses 3-5 of your introduction are simply not necessary."

[Jedinsto]

"The main issue my delegation, in tandem with the Castellian delegation, has with this proposal is the simply frightening amount of fluff this proposal has in the preamble. We all know the risks involved with the detonation of a dirty bomb, Ambassador, clauses 3-5 of your introduction are simply not necessary."

"Part of the preamble has been cut, leaving the justifications to clear up misunderstandings of what this proposal was actually for. (i.e., someone thought this established the right to have nukes, which is obviously not the case)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your list tag is broken. That being the case implies to me maybe it isn't 'ready to submit' as it says on the tin.

[Jedinsto]

Good catch, I must have screwed something up earlier. I'll move this back to last call as these new suggestions come in.

[Jedinsto]

New planned submission- Wednesday, if the queue is still empty by then. If not, I'll wait until around Friday.

[Jedinsto]

Glad to say this is ready again, any further thoughts/suggestions?

[Brilliantly]

The World Assembly,

Understanding the need for nuclear weapons in self-defense,

Noting that some smaller nations' only protection from larger nations is mutually assured destruction,

Acknowledging member nations' right to possess and produce nuclear weapons from prior legislation,

Seeking to reasonably limit nuclear devastation,

Hereby;

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution;

1. "nuclear weapon" as a bomb or missile that uses nuclear fission, fusion, or a combination of the two processes to create an explosion,
   
2. "weapon of mass destruction" (herein WMD) as a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction in a single strike,
   
3. "military invasion" as a military force of significant size, including any unmanned weapons, directed by its government to enter foreign territory in order to cause mass destruction to civilian targets or to strike a government property,

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a WMD or a military invasion within 30 days of such an occurrence,

3. Allows an exception to clause 2 for nations to retaliate to a WMD strike or a military invasion on behalf of a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense, with the victimized government's authorization, and when the victimized government would be cleared to perform the retaliation themselves and,

4. Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on a nation's own soil, nor does it prevent future legislation from going further on this matter.

The kingdom of Brilliantly has officially opposed this proposal and if on vote - will vote against it respectively.

As WMDs are dangerous to humans and nations alike, we should allow the production and use of them regardless of consequences. As nationstates in the eyes of The kingdom of Brilliantly has became a more dangerous place, with raiders raiding regions, repealing WA proposals that protect the community the most, and much much more, The brilliantly will start developing WMDs for use next week or this week. If this proposal is passed or enforced on my nation in any way, I will resign/act appropriately to reserve the right to use WMDs even with this proposal. I might submit an appeal if I must with this proposal’s enemies. Here’s the reasons :
Because The nationstates community is already more peaceful, The right to use weapons ( WMDs ) are allowed on the constitution of this nation and the law enforcement will do anything to minimize influence form this proposal.
PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL
If you want to submit an appeal to this proposal with me, message me with a telegram or on the forums and I be happy to submit an appeal to this damaging proposal.
Top

[Jedinsto]

Hold on... You say you want to use them without regulation.... because they're extremely dangerous? Excuse me?

[Brilliantly]

No, I meant that I want to use them regardless of consequences. I want WMD use without regulation because this proposal is extremely problematic to my nation’s development.
VOTE AGAINST PLEASE

[Jedinsto]

No, I meant that I want to use them regardless of consequences. I want WMD use without regulation because this proposal is extremely problematic to my nation’s development.
VOTE AGAINST PLEASE

Would you mind explaining how this would be problematic to your nation's development? Also, why would you want to throw your people's lives away by sending nukes, "regardless of consequences?" That's explicitly stating that you don't care about the consequences, meaning you don't care that your people get hurt. Very confusing.

[Brilliantly]

Looks like you are having trouble understanding what I mean. I try to make it clear this time.
The reason I don’t want this proposal to pass is because :
The nation brilliantly believes that every nation should have a right to use weapons including WMDs. The reason is because many current nations hold weapons such as WMDs and WMDs, by their nature, if dangerous. That is also the reason why WMDs give a nation the power which brilliantly thinks nations should deserve.
Also, to note that WMDs are rarely used in real life and nationstates so their is only a ultra-rare chance that your proposal will make even a slight difference. Our future policy on WMDs use by brilliantly has stated that it will only use it when WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO, like sort of a last resort. Also there is no wars on nationstates so we using WMDs for bare frontline power not the kind where the world fears one nation.
Thanks, Brilliantly leader
P.S. If you change this proposal a bit maybe I rethink my opposing decision. If that doesn’t happen, I just vote it down

[Jedinsto]

Looks like you are having trouble understanding what I mean. I try to make it clear this time.
The reason I don’t want this proposal to pass is because :
The nation brilliantly believes that every nation should have a right to use weapons including WMDs. The reason is because many current nations hold weapons such as WMDs and WMDs, by their nature, if dangerous. That is also the reason why WMDs give a nation the power which brilliantly thinks nations should deserve.
Also, to note that WMDs are rarely used in real life and nationstates so their is only a ultra-rare chance that your proposal will make even a slight difference. Our future policy on WMDs use by brilliantly has stated that it will only use it when WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO, like sort of a last resort. Also there is no wars on nationstates so we using WMDs for bare frontline power not the kind where the world fears one nation.
Thanks, Brilliantly leader
P.S. If you change this proposal a bit maybe I rethink my opposing decision. If that doesn’t happen, I just vote it down

It seems you're misinformed on how much nukes actually are used on NationStates. Nations already have the right to have nukes, and I'm not taking that away, at all. In a case that you would "ABSOLUTELY NEED TO" use nukes, I'm sure it would not be banned under this resolution.

[Brilliantly]

Looks like you are having trouble understanding what I mean. I try to make it clear this time.
The reason I don’t want this proposal to pass is because :
The nation brilliantly believes that every nation should have a right to use weapons including WMDs. The reason is because many current nations hold weapons such as WMDs and WMDs, by their nature, if dangerous. That is also the reason why WMDs give a nation the power which brilliantly thinks nations should deserve.
Also, to note that WMDs are rarely used in real life and nationstates so their is only a ultra-rare chance that your proposal will make even a slight difference. Our future policy on WMDs use by brilliantly has stated that it will only use it when WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO, like sort of a last resort. Also there is no wars on nationstates so we using WMDs for bare frontline power not the kind where the world fears one nation.
Thanks, Brilliantly leader
P.S. If you change this proposal a bit maybe I rethink my opposing decision. If that doesn’t happen, I just vote it down

It seems you're misinformed on how much nukes actually are used on NationStates. Nations already have the right to have nukes, and I'm not taking that away, at all. In a case that you would "ABSOLUTELY NEED TO" use nukes, I'm sure it would not be banned under this resolution.

I was misinformed, so I give 75% support maybe submit it. Good luck !

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Not necessarily. The fact that the launch needs to to be justified to the WA later means a member has to take time to make sure the enemy did actually launch a nuke. Depending on the technolgy and infrastructure of the nation in question, that time could be enough for the capital to be turned into a nuclear wasteland since a non member need not justify anything to anyone.

On top of that, as previously mentioned, a smaller nation trying to stay safe from a militarily superior nation through the threat of nukes would be demolished if the superior nation simply never uses nukes.

Overall, it would lead to the nullification of the deterrence effect of nukes and not only result in more nuclear wars but also put members at a severe strategic disadvantage.

What's the chance that they won't use nukes? Very slim. Large nations almost always use them in combat.

"This is demonstrably untrue."

OOC: The history of the world suggests otherwise.

[Brilliantly]

What's the chance that they won't use nukes? Very slim. Large nations almost always use them in combat.

"This is demonstrably untrue."

OOC: The history of the world suggests otherwise.

Correct, because nukes are always used.

[Jedinsto]

Will be submitted tomorrow at minor, barring any somewhat significant changes, or another proposal of quality being submitted.

[Jedinsto]

Real, official, final last call for this. Submitting tomorrow at minor. (barring another person submitting a quality proposal or major changes to my own)

[Cretox State]

You should tighten up the wording. I'm going to oppose this no matter how well-written it is, since I firmly believe that WA regulations intended to prevent a nuclear holocaust are utterly ineffective at actually preventing a nuclear holocaust (what's the WA going to do? Sanction you for nuking another nation?). That doesn't mean I can't provide advice on the execution, though.

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution;

1. "nuclear weapon" as a bomb or missile that uses nuclear fission, fusion, or a combination of the two processes to create an explosion,

Inelegant, but should work. You could just say "warhead" and save yourself any missile vs. rocket pedantry.

"weapon of mass destruction" (herein WMD) as a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction in a single strike,

I don't understand why people keep trying to regulate WMDs instead of preemptive strikes in general (I could use ICBMs armed with conventional warheads to target your seat of government and strategic targets without needing to resort to WMDs at all). It'll be about as effective. I also don't understand why a 20-minutes-into-the-future nation couldn't just use a highly sophisticated conventional warhead to achieve a similar effect to a WMD under this definition. What's going to prevent these strikes, especially from nonmembers, is the implied or explicit threat of retaliation, not some WA regulations.

"military invasion" as a military force of significant size, including any unmanned weapons, directed by its government to enter foreign territory in order to cause mass destruction to civilian targets or to strike a government property,

2 hypotheticals: what if this invasion is "merely" an occupational force that just so happened to cause massive collateral damage? What if this force was directed to invade but is nowhere near actually doing so? Defining an invasion as the invading force itself strikes me as a bit odd, but I suppose it should work.

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations unless in retaliation to a strike from a WMD or a military invasion within 30 days of such an occurrence,

Please use an actual numbered list instead of manually typing out each number.

Allows an exception to clause 2 for nations to retaliate to a WMD strike or a military invasion on behalf of a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense, with the victimized government's authorization, and when the victimized government would be cleared to perform the retaliation themselves and,

This reads weirdly. You're putting an exception in clause 2 itself, then declaring an exception in a following clause to clause 2... which includes the aforementioned exception. "Victimized government" is unclear wording. It could refer to the nation initially hit or to the nation being retaliated against. The final part of this clause is unnecessary in my opinion. The struck government would by definition be authorized to retaliate itself (I advise against using "cleared." Cleared by whom?).

Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on a nation's own soil, nor does it prevent future legislation from going further on this matter.

Going further on what matter? Nuclear testing on a nation's own soil, or the premise of nuclear strikes itself? Also, does the first part of this clause apply to testing by a nation on that nation's soil, or on other nations' soil? The wording is unclear.

[Brilliantly]

Opposition at any regulation because if we just tighten up regulations on nuclear weapons, This won’t help nations at all. Also a nuclear Holocaust won’t happen anyway.

[Indo States]

Partial Support, Because it not just end any Atomic Bomb (or Nuclear) Aggression, but Increases Pacifism. The only Problem in this Resolution was the Name, Instead of Calling it Nuclear Aggression Act, it should be Prevention of Nuclear Aggression or Nuclear Aggression Treaty so it would be more WA-Looking since that name sounds like your National Law.

EDIT: I had Changed my Opinion.