[DRAFT]Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Freedomist fighters]

I am looking to repeal GA#10, hoping if you guys have any feedback as whether this would be sufficient to repeal the law. Any comments or suggestions are gladly accepted. Thank you very much for looking through it.

General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding and recognising the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #10 to establish a common right for all WA members to possess Nuclear Arms in the early days of the WA,

However,
Concerned regarding the vague language in the clauses which can lead to misinterpretation by various WA nations.
-Noting that in clause 1, WA nations are able to defend themselves from "hostile nations", the clause does not define what a hostile nation means, leaving it open for misinterpretation, allowing member states to use nuclear weapons against any nation who they deem as a threat.

Worried that the clause lack of specifics would mean that member states do not have a concrete guideline to follow,
-Noting that in clause 3 it states that nations should "take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands." However, it does not specify how and what exactly these precautions are, this lack of specification can lead to a catastrophic disaster when an actual nuclear disaster happens.

Acknowledges that several laws have been passed regarding nuclear weaponisation and nuclear disaster response. Most notably, GA#60 "Nuclear Disaster Response Act" sets out a specific plan and ways for member nations to follow in the event of a nuclear disaster. The various laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been more recently passed by this very assembly also includes various improved versions of the different clauses stated in this act.
Therefore, this act is redundant in this current time and shall be repealed accordingly.

Lastly, Urging various members to take look at the various contradicting laws that have been passed regarding nuclear waste/arms/energy and repeal them accordingly.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act”.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

I am looking to repeal GA#10, hoping if you guys have any feedback as whether this would be sufficient to repeal the law. Thank you very much for looking through it.

General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding and recognising the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #10 to establish a common right for all WA members to possess Nuclear Arms in the early days of the WA,

However,
Concerned regarding the vague language in the clauses which can lead to misinterpretation by various WA nations.
-Noting that in clause 1, WA nations are able to defend themselves from "hostile nations", the clause does not define what a hostile nation means, leaving it open for misinterpretation, allowing member states to use nuclear weapons against any nation who they deem as a threat.

Worried that the clause lack of specifics would mean that member states do not have a concrete guideline to follow,
-Noting that in clause 3 it states that nations should "take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands." However, it does not specify how and what exactly these precautions are, this lack of specification can lead to a catastrophic disaster when an actual nuclear disaster happens.

Acknowledges that several laws have been passed regarding nuclear weaponisation and nuclear disaster response. Most notably, GA#60 "Nuclear Disaster Response Act" sets out a specific plan and ways for member nations to follow in the event of a nuclear disaster. The various laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been more recently passed by this very assembly also includes various improved versions of the different clauses stated in this act.
Therefore, this act is redundant in this current time and shall be repealed accordingly.

Lastly, Urging various members to take look at the various contradicting laws that have been passed regarding nuclear waste/arms/energy and repeal them accordingly.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act”.

This is pretty good. The only problem I can see is that a lot of nations love their nuclear weapons.

[Freedomist fighters]

This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#418 and GA#330.

[Ardiveds]

This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#272 and GA#330.

OOC: No there aren't. There're no clauses in either of them that says any thing that blocks a ban on the possession of nuclear weapons.

Second, GA 10, to my knowledge doesn't seek to limit who you can can't nuke so your first argument is irrelevant. It simply allows nations to defend themselves using nukes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

GA 10, to my knowledge doesn't seek to limit who you can can't nuke so your first argument is irrelevant. It simply allows nations to defend themselves using nukes.

GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them.

[Freedomist fighters]

@Ardiveds Are you trying to say that this very act prevents another law from being enacted that bans nuclear weapons? Because from the more recent laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been passed (since this is a rather old law, recent can be as old as 2014) , it does'nt

[Ardiveds]

GA 10, to my knowledge doesn't seek to limit who you can can't nuke so your first argument is irrelevant. It simply allows nations to defend themselves using nukes.

GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them.

OOC: I always get confused with all the repeals claiming that.

@Ardiveds Are you trying to say that this very act prevents another law from being enacted that bans nuclear weapons? Because from the more recent laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been passed (since this is a rather old law, recent can be as old as 2014) , it does'nt

OOC: As IA said, as long as this stands, no resolution can completely forbid the possession of any and all nukes. Their use is another matter, something which many have tried to regaulate but ultimately such efforts ended with either failure or abandonment. You are free to try however.

[Freedomist fighters]

GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them.

OOC: I always get confused with all the repeals claiming that.

@Ardiveds Are you trying to say that this very act prevents another law from being enacted that bans nuclear weapons? Because from the more recent laws regarding nuclear weaponisation that have been passed (since this is a rather old law, recent can be as old as 2014) , it does'nt

OOC: As IA said, as long as this stands, no resolution can completely forbid the possession of any and all nukes. Their use is another matter, something which many have tried to regaulate but ultimately such efforts ended with either failure or abandonment. You are free to try however.

I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.

There is no contradiction. Chemical weapons are not nuclear weapons. Radiological weapons are not nuclear weapons.

[Outer Sparta]

Not very feasible to do so as you basically cannot forbid the usage of nukes, and there are states that use nuclear weapons for defensive purposes and deterrent. Against.

[Tinhampton]

I automatically support all resolutions of this title. While a complete (or at best near-complete) ban on nuclear weapons would be preferably, most if not all of GA#10 has been superceded by Safeguarding Nuclear Materials.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: I always get confused with all the repeals claiming that.

OOC: As IA said, as long as this stands, no resolution can completely forbid the possession of any and all nukes. Their use is another matter, something which many have tried to regaulate but ultimately such efforts ended with either failure or abandonment. You are free to try however.

I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.

There is no law that bans the use of chemical weapons. Perhaps you should check again?

[Freedomist fighters]

Not very feasible to do so as you basically cannot forbid the usage of nukes, and there are states that use nuclear weapons for defensive purposes and deterrent. Against.

I have said this before, this repealing this law does not prohibit the use of nukes. As IA said above "GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them". Your next question might be "So (me) repealing this law will still allow the use of nukes but does not allow the possession of nukes, how in the world would that make sense." I shall refer you to GA#330 where it states " Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defensive purposes" Which technically defeats your argument.
Once again, all of the clauses in this act have been found in better language with more specifics in different acts, therefore this act is redundant.

[Freedomist fighters]

I think we should work on abolish some of such contradicting laws, as I said in the last line of my repeal bill since there are already bills that straight out ban nuclear/ chemical weapons(#272 and #289) along with bills that acknowledge the right to possess such weapons(#418, #330). Repealing this would be the first step to clarity in the laws.

There is no law that bans the use of chemical weapons. Perhaps you should check again?

I have checked and after IA clarification on nuclear/chemical and radioactive weapons, I will acknowledge that there is no ban on nuclear weapons.

[Ardiveds]

I have said this before, this repealing this law does not prohibit the use of nukes. As IA said above "GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them". Your next question might be "So (me) repealing this law will still allow the use of nukes but does not allow the possession of nukes, how in the world would that make sense." I shall refer you to GA#330 where it states " Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defensive purposes" Which technically defeats your argument.
Once again, all of the clauses in this act have been found in better language with more specifics in different acts, therefore this act is redundant.

OOC: Ahhh, I see where you got that impression about 330. You gotta understand the difference between the preamble and operative clauses. In 330, everything before The General Assembly hereby is basically there to introduce the proposal/justify its category, they don't actually have any legal power as far as the GA is concerned. So if GA 10 is repealed, a proposal can still ban the possession of nukes despite GA 330. It simply acknowledges that the possession of nukes is legal but doesn't actually make it legal itself.

[Freedomist fighters]

I have said this before, this repealing this law does not prohibit the use of nukes. As IA said above "GA 10 doesn't permit nations to use nuclear weapons at all, it merely allows them to possess them". Your next question might be "So (me) repealing this law will still allow the use of nukes but does not allow the possession of nukes, how in the world would that make sense." I shall refer you to GA#330 where it states " Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defensive purposes" Which technically defeats your argument.
Once again, all of the clauses in this act have been found in better language with more specifics in different acts, therefore this act is redundant.

OOC: Ahhh, I see where you got that impression about 330. You gotta understand the difference between the preamble and operative clauses. In 330, everything before The General Assembly hereby is basically there to introduce the proposal/justify its category, they don't actually have any legal power as far as the GA is concerned. So if GA 10 is repealed, a proposal can still ban the possession of nukes despite GA 330. It simply acknowledges that the possession of nukes is legal but doesn't actually make it legal itself.

Ok. How about the first and second clause of GA#418, it would be the operative clauses off that act.

[Ardiveds]

Ok. How about the first and second clause of GA#418, it would be the operative clauses off that act.

OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.

[Freedomist fighters]

Ok. How about the first and second clause of GA#418, it would be the operative clauses off that act.

OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.

I would say the first clause of GA#418 is the exact copy of the first clause of GA#10, thus repealing GA#10 won't just allow people to just straight up ban nuclear weapons. Not to mention in the event that a nation successfully push a bill banning nuclear weapons through the approval process all the way to the voting process, best believe I would be the first person to vote nay. (Plus people would still push back on it, hard)

[Araraukar]

OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.

I would say the first clause of GA#418 is the exact copy of the first clause of GA#10, thus repealing GA#10 won't just allow people to just straight up ban nuclear weapons. Not to mention in the event that a nation successfully push a bill banning nuclear weapons through the approval process all the way to the voting process, best believe I would be the first person to vote nay. (Plus people would still push back on it, hard)

OOC: This (repealing NAPA) is not a hill you want to die on. It is going to be virtually unrepealable as long as the majority of NS players think that nukes are a good thing to have (for RP reasons or RL reasons, or both). You would have better margin of success to campaign against nukes in Real Life, trust me.

[Freedomist fighters]

This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#418 and GA#330.

@Araraukar

[Araraukar]

This repeal does not ban the use of nuclear weapons as there are already various laws that allow for the use of nuclear weapons such as GA#418 and GA#330.

@Araraukar

OOC: But not ownership. So:

OOC: This (repealing NAPA) is not a hill you want to die on. It is going to be virtually unrepealable as long as the majority of NS players think that nukes are a good thing to have (for RP reasons or RL reasons, or both). You would have better margin of success to campaign against nukes in Real Life, trust me.

@Freedomist fighters

(Why do you do that "at" thing, by the way? This isn't Discord.)

[Ardiveds]

OOC:I 'm not sure about the first one. The second clause is easy. It simply lets you manufacture and trade nukes so nothing about possession. So if a hypothetical proposal were to ban possession of nukes, you could still manufacture them but would have to immediately sell it or destroy it.

I would say the first clause of GA#418 is the exact copy of the first clause of GA#10, thus repealing GA#10 won't just allow people to just straight up ban nuclear weapons. Not to mention in the event that a nation successfully push a bill banning nuclear weapons through the approval process all the way to the voting process, best believe I would be the first person to vote nay. (Plus people would still push back on it, hard)

OOC: I would still like this confirmed by someone more knowledgeable on the affairs of WA since WA proposal language can be tricky.

[Freedomist fighters]

@Araraukar

OOC: But not ownership. So:

OOC: This (repealing NAPA) is not a hill you want to die on. It is going to be virtually unrepealable as long as the majority of NS players think that nukes are a good thing to have (for RP reasons or RL reasons, or both). You would have better margin of success to campaign against nukes in Real Life, trust me.

@Freedomist fighters

(Why do you do that "at" thing, by the way? This isn't Discord.)

1. I believe "possess" is a synonym of own.
2. I guess I'm used to it

[Thermodolia]

Against. Will not support. And will counter campaign against

[Freedomist fighters]

Against. Will not support. And will counter campaign against

I respect your opinion but let's keep it constructive shall we at least give some reasons why you are "Against", "Will not support"(which I think you have made sufficiently clear in the word "against"). As much as your response is very much appreciated, at least chip into the conversation instead of just stating your opposition down. Thank you very much.