Nuclear Weapons Inspection Act

[The American States51]

Nuclear Weapons Inspection Act

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: FlagThe American States51

Description: It is a fact, that nuclear weapons are used in many conflicts throughout the world. But at what cost? A single nuclear warhead can easily
• damage the environment at an irreversible degree
• Destroy the economy of a nation
• Take the lives of citizens, both at the very moment of the explosion, as well as for weeks and years after

It is therefore easy to conclude, that nuclear weapons are a threat to man kind, one of the most dangerous aspects of tactical warfare ever, and that the use of them in a battlefield or in civilian areas, can prove to be devastating, despite their strategic effectiveness.

It is of vital importance, that
• the use of nuclear weapons is limited to only desperate situations, in battlefield conditions only
• before the use of a nuclear weapon, the gravity of the situation is carefully assessed and the best course of action is recommended and decided by nations, other than the defending/ attacking nation, as their leaders will have a clear mind and will not be under the same pressure

Therefore, I propose that in every region, the Founder of the region appoints a “ WMD Inspector”, who will
• have absolute awareness, which nations in the region possess nuclear weapons and the exact number of these weapons
• be informed, in the case a regional nation decides to use nuclear weapons. Then, the Inspector will bring this matter to the Founder of the Region and they will decide together whether it is of absolute importance that the weapon is allowed to be used or not.

If this proposal comes into effect, then any violation of it, meaning the unauthorized use of nuclear weaponry, will be considered a crime, and the Founder of the Region, in which the nation who violated this law belongs, will decide what the best punishment for it is.

 In the case that the appointed WMD Inspector is not at the moment available, then the nation demanding the necessary authorization will have to discuss the matter with the regional Founder.
 If both the Founder and the Inspector are not available are not available, then the WA Delegate of the Region will decide upon the matter.
 If all these persons are not available, then the permission for the nation to use nuclear weapons is not granted at all.

We sincerely hope that this resolution proves to be a powerful guide in the way important decisions, that will define the future of an entire people

[The American States51]

So, what do you think? Will you help our planet from not be turned into a big, lifeless pile of space- floating rock? If you do, vote FOR this proposal !!

TO ALL UN DELEGATES:
If you approve my proposal, you can show it in writing by using this link:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1

[Bears Armed]

Illegal, for Meta-gaming (because regional founders are mainly an OOC concept) and for trying to affect non-WA nations as well as WA members... and probably shouldn't be classed as 'Strong' in its effects, either, considering that its actual terms don't really require any reductions in spending on Defence...


And anyway, you're unlikely to find many nations whose governments would be willing to accept a foreign veto on their use of any weapons that they possess.

If you really "must" try writing a 'Global Disarmament' proposal, then I seriously suggest turning your attention to biological weapons -- which have a nasty potential to spread their effects FAR beyond their intended targets -- instead.

[The American States51]

Well, i am not trying to affect non- WA members, this reffers to only the WA memebrs in a region, as all resolutions do.
Second, the whole "appointment" of the WA inspector needs to be done by someone who is part of the WA and the Inspector himself to be part of the WA. And someone has to appoint him, and who's better than the guy who founded the region.
Third, i am not talking about midifying the game. This is more like an ingame regional " Comitee to use nukes", consisted by the Founder, the Inspector, and in certain cases, the WA Delegate of the Region.

[The American States51]

And anyway, you're unlikely to find many nations whose governments would be willing to accept a foreign veto on their use of any weapons that they possess.

Well, nothing i can do about it. If they don't like it, then don't vote for it. After all, that is why we hold an election on this matter.

[The Emmerian Unions]

It's still illegal. Here's some mandatory reading for you: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18

[Bears Armed]

Well, i am not trying to affect non- WA members, this reffers to only the WA memebrs in a region, as all resolutions do.
Second, the whole "appointment" of the WA inspector needs to be done by someone who is part of the WA and the Inspector himself to be part of the WA. And someone has to appoint him, and who's better than the guy who founded the region.
Third, i am not talking about midifying the game. This is more like an ingame regional " Comitee to use nukes", consisted by the Founder, the Inspector, and in certain cases, the WA Delegate of the Region.

And what if the relevant 'Founder' isn't a WA member?

Well, I've pointed out the 'legal' problems (from my viewpoint as somebody who's been involved with the WA & its precursor for four years by now), if you choose to ignore them then that's your -- or, at least, your proposal's -- funeral...

[The American States51]

Ok, you got a point there.
Is there any way that i can fix this by making a view adjustments?

[Anemos Major]

Besides, although the possession of nuclear weapons is a national decision, the actual usage of them is an RPing act, over which the WA traditionally has no jurisdiction.

[The American States51]

Besides, although the possession of nuclear weapons is a national decision, the actual usage of them is an RPing act, over which the WA traditionally has no jurisdiction.

Could you explain a little more?

[Anemos Major]

i.e. Actually using nuclear weapons isn't really a WA matter. Even if you don't bring the difference between NS and NS RPing into the argument, the WA cannot feasibly order a member state to not use nuclear weapons when it wants to. It can condemn the usage of these weapons. It can encourage the lessening of said weapons stockpiles. But it cannot stop them.

[The American States51]

So, techincally, i'm screwed

[Yakana]

This could not even work since Nuclear Arms Possession Act already grants WA members right to have said weapons. This seems to be broad and limit the above resolution by allowing it for aggressive military action, but limited it in other ways.

[The Emmerian Unions]

Also, this proposal could technically count as trying to create a police force to moniter nuclear stockpiles, which, well, is illegal.


Might as well kill this entire thing.

[Anemos Major]

And if it was actually put into action, I would resign and then nuke you.

[Bears Armed]

Well the WA could pass a "legally-binding" resolution that required its member nations to refrain from using nuclear weapons, in the extremely unlikely event of enough nations voting for this, it's just that a lot of the people who fight RPed wars in other sections of the forum tend to ignore the WA's existence altogether (even if their nations are actually WA members for the 'gameplay' effects of this status) and so would probably continue using nukes as much as ever...

[The American States51]

I suppose there is no way to make this work my some kind of modification?

[The American States51]

And if it was actually put into action, I would resign and then nuke you.

Just rude

[Yakana]

I suppose there is no way to make this work my some kind of modification?

There are too many weird conditions.

before the use of a nuclear weapon, the gravity of the situation is carefully assessed and the best course of action is recommended and decided by nations, other than the defending/ attacking nation, as their leaders will have a clear mind and will not be under the same pressure

So this says I have to get permission from another person before I can nuke someone? It's also wrong in the clear mind statement... What if the person I want to nuke... they owe a lot of debt to.. This benefits them by me blowing them up.

have absolute awareness, which nations in the region possess nuclear weapons and the exact number of these weapons

How?

If this proposal comes into effect, then any violation of it, meaning the unauthorized use of nuclear weaponry, will be considered a crime, and the Founder of the Region, in which the nation who violated this law belongs, will decide what the best punishment for it is.

And if they're the one who nuked?

[Anemos Major]

And if it was actually put into action, I would resign and then nuke you.

Just rude

But practical. However, limiting biological weapons use is a different matter. A lot of people would support that.

[The American States51]

Ok, point taken. Proposal sucks. How do i remove it.

[Old Tyrannia]

Note that nuclear weapons are weapons of war, and it is a bit difficult to regulate and moniter wars. However, I believe that nuclear weapons should be allowed, but never used. This is because the mere threat of nuclear bonbardment is enough to put off many would be attackers. On the other hand, there ACTUAL use is bad for the enviroment, so that is why they should never be used. Simply put, yes I agree with you but sadly I am not a WA member so I dont get a vote! Ah, well!

[The American States51]

Note that nuclear weapons are weapons of war, and it is a bit difficult to regulate and moniter wars. However, I believe that nuclear weapons should be allowed, but never used. This is because the mere threat of nuclear bonbardment is enough to put off many would be attackers. On the other hand, there ACTUAL use is bad for the enviroment, so that is why they should never be used. Simply put, yes I agree with you but sadly I am not a WA member so I dont get a vote! Ah, well!

So, you mean that the threat of a nuclear retaliation is enough to prevent such attrocities form occuring? Like Cold War era policies?

[Anemos Major]

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Simply put, yes. If both sides have nukes, then nobody will dare to use them unless you can disable theirs; that's why Russia vehemently opposes the USA's proposed missile shield. It's a clever ploy, though; it means the US can wrest concessions from the Ruskis using something that's effectively non-existent.

[Flibbleites]

This could not even work since Nuclear Arms Possession Act already grants WA members right to have said weapons. This seems to be broad and limit the above resolution by allowing it for aggressive military action, but limited it in other ways.

The NAPA doesn't apply in this situation because the NAPA specifically targets possession of nuclear weapons while this proposal deals with their use.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Author of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act