.

[Croato-Slavia]

.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Nuclear arms and the risk of Mutually Assured Destruction is one of the most effective ways to prevent large-scale, high intensity warfare between developed states. Any repeal of NAPA that purports to limit or eliminate nuclear arms therefore has the net effect of incentivizing warfare. As such, we oppose all attempts to repeal GAR#10."

[Tinhampton]

How has your coauthor - which was created within two hours of nation and also resides in Multiverse 001 - helped out with your proposal at all?

[The New California Republic]

Noting that the resolution fails to acknowledge the following:
1. The consequences it would create in nature, such as:
a) Vast climate change due to the resources and processes needed to construct nuclear weapons.

It's been on the statute books for quite a long time now, so why you are referring to the effects of the Resolution in future-tense ("it would create") is uncertain.

I. This violates multiple passed Resolutions, and some laws inside of multiple member Nations.

Such as...what? What does it violate? You can't just allude to this being the case, actually mention what they are.

c) If a nuclear weapon is detonated by accident, or on purpose, it could cause a nuclear winter which might affect World Assembly members.

A single nuclear weapon causing a nuclear winter? Doubtful. The thing would need to be gargantuan in scale for that to even remotely be a possibility.

2. That anyone can enter the World Assembly, hostile or not, get hold of nuclear weapons, resign/leave the World Assembly, then attack the World Assembly. This means that there is a loophole in the Resolution.

This section makes no sense whatsoever. The WA doesn't provide the weapons...

3. The resolution is vastly outdated, being implemented in 2008. This means that it is a possibility that some information (such as that the World Assembly is outnumbered to non-members 3 to 1, or that most of the non-member countries are hostile) is outdated.

Isn't really an argument of much substance.

4. Because it's voluntary, member Nations can choose not to participate. This Resolution is over 12 years old, so it's mostly forgotten at this point, thus if hostile nations attack the WA, there is a chance that it cannot defend itself, since it does not have sufficient nuclear weapons, due to some member states choosing not to possess nuclear weapons.

No, it really really isn't forgotten about. It's existence is very much still well-known.

5. The labour that is needed to construct a nuclear weapon is extreme and could exhaust workers, ignite widespread protests, start mutinies or tank the morale and support of the people.

Again, this isn't really an argument of much substance.

Believing that this resolution is greatly flawed, is very old and unused, we have concluded that this is a flawed, ineffective and overall aged resolution.

It isn't unused in the slightest, and the "flaws" you have pointed out are really lacking in any substance.

[Polomon Islands]

I might say the co-author never helped out at all, and was just founded yesterday.
How did you pick your co-author? Is it a friend of yours?

Anyways, PL Says this, "We need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves, why would you want to limit or clear my nuclear storage? We are against all ventures to repeal GA #10."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Nuking your proposal because you didn't like the feedback is very, very bad form.

[Polomon Islands]

Looks like the proposal was given up on so easily, people say never give up but, you just did because of our feedback.

[The New California Republic]

Oh, it's gone.

[Polomon Islands]

Oh, it's gone.

Gave up so quick.

[The New California Republic]

Ooc: Nuking your proposal because you didn't like the feedback is very, very bad form.

Much of it is preserved however in the quotes I used above, there's no wiping that away at least.

[Polomon Islands]

Ooc: Nuking your proposal because you didn't like the feedback is very, very bad form.

Much of it is preserved however in the quotes I used above, there's no wiping that away at least.

Sadly could not copy and paste it so I could review it.

[Tinhampton]

This was the draft (co-authored by Survivita), for posterity:

The World Assembly,

Understanding that the intended purpose of GAR#10 (Nuclear Arms Possession Act) is to protect World Assembly members from attacks by hostile Nations,

Noting that the resolution fails to acknowledge the following:

1. The consequences it would create in nature, such as:

a) Vast climate change due to the resources and processes needed to construct nuclear weapons.

b) Radioactive consequences if the radioactive material releases extreme radioactive levels into nature, or if the nuclear weapon(s) leak(s), explode(s), or causes any damage during construction or when kept in storage.

I. This violates multiple passed Resolutions, and some laws inside of multiple member Nations.

c) If a nuclear weapon is detonated by accident, or on purpose, it could cause a nuclear winter which might affect World Assembly members.

2. That anyone can enter the World Assembly, hostile or not, get hold of nuclear weapons, resign/leave the World Assembly, then attack the World Assembly. This means that there is a loophole in the Resolution.

3. The resolution is vastly outdated, being implemented in 2008. This means that it is a possibility that some information (such as that the World Assembly is outnumbered to non-members 3 to 1, or that most of the non-member countries are hostile) is outdated.

4. Because it's voluntary, member Nations can choose not to participate. This Resolution is over 12 years old, so it's mostly forgotten at this point, thus if hostile nations attack the WA, there is a chance that it cannot defend itself, since it does not have sufficient nuclear weapons, due to some member states choosing not to possess nuclear weapons.

5. The labour that is needed to construct a nuclear weapon is extreme and could exhaust workers, ignite widespread protests, start mutinies or tank the morale and support of the people.

Believing that this resolution is greatly flawed, is very old and unused, we have concluded that this is a flawed, ineffective and overall aged resolution.

Hereby repeals Resolution 10, “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (NAPA).

[Polomon Islands]

Thanks.

[The New California Republic]

Much of it is preserved however in the quotes I used above, there's no wiping that away at least.

Sadly could not copy and paste it so I could review it.

I quoted about 90%+ of it, so the vast majority of it is there to view, if folk are interested in what it contained.

EDIT: Oh, someone did save it, never mind.

[Outer Sparta]

I don't get why you would get rid of your entire draft. Not a good practice to abandon it and try to shred it in a paper shredder.

At least you put a draft, but don't just get rid of the entire thing if things aren't working well, OP.

[Polomon Islands]

I don't get why you would get rid of your entire draft. Not a good practice to abandon it and try to shred it in a paper shredder.

At least you put a draft, but don't just get rid of the entire thing if things aren't working well, OP.

Yeah at least try to fix it and not obliterate.