[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

On the subject of the Biological Limitations proposal, I can't help but notice most responses are that people are worried that they won't be able to fire back.

Therefore, after consideration, we have decided to proffer a humble suggestion: possibly the words 'except in retaliation to such an attack' should actually be added to Clause 2, even though it would be illegal to have anything to retaliate against. It might mean that more people would vote for this, which to my mind is more important than avoiding seven meaningless words.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

On the subject of the Biological Limitations proposal, I can't help but notice most responses are that people are worried that they won't be able to fire back.

Therefore, after consideration, we have decided to proffer a humble suggestion: possibly the words 'except in retaliation to such an attack' should actually be added to Clause 2, even though it would be illegal to have anything to retaliate against. It might mean that more people would vote for this, which to my mind is more important than avoiding seven meaningless words.

Actually, I noticed the same thing.

At one (brief) time, this proposal did contain a "retaliation for illegal strikes" provision - it's #5 in the Fourth Draft if anyone wants to look at it. Problem is, earlier comments from more senior ambassadors led me to believe that such a clause might be contradictory at best, and illegal at worst. It might be contradictory to say "member nations are PROHIBITED from using WMDs on one another," then say "but if they do, you can too." And I was told by some that it might be illegal to acknowledge that nations may flagrantly violate resolutions within the resolution itself.

I'd like to hear more thoughts on this. Most of the folks complaining about retaliation and national security seem more preoccupied with non-member nations than other member nations who violate the law, so I'm not sure that problem would really come up in my proposal. I don't take away the weapons and I don't say anything about use on non-members and I only affect folks who are bound by the law, so in a sense the "I'm worried because I can't fire back" argument doesn't really apply to this Act.

Thoughts? Anyone?

[Scandavian States]

[The problem with this resolution is that it's a step towards repealing NAPA and banning WMD entirely. You can sit there all day saying, with complete honesty and sincerity, that you wouldn't do such a thing, but you can't honestly say that another won't use the momentum to make the attempt.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

[The problem with this resolution is that it's a step towards repealing NAPA and banning WMD entirely. You can sit there all day saying, with complete honesty and sincerity, that you wouldn't do such a thing, but you can't honestly say that another won't use the momentum to make the attempt.

Oh quit with the slippery slope arguments. Next you'll be claiming that this is one step toward repealing Rights and Duties so that we can outlaw war altogether. There's nothing in this proposal that even touches on the ownership of WMDs - it doesn't even go after ownership of those WMDs that are not currently protected by international law (as Bears Armed recently tried to do). This proposal is about the use of WMDs in a narrow category of conflicts, and setting up a legal framework for justified reprisals. There's no hidden agenda to repeal NAPA.

If you got a legitimate concern with this proposal that has not already been addressed then bring it. But what other nations might possibly one day do in the future is completely beside the point. The author of the NAPA has come out in support of this proposal, so the claim that this is a "step towards repealing NAPA" is complete and utter BS. Quit touting your parade of unlikely horribles.

If you've got a legitimate critique of this proposal I'd love the chance to address it. But don't go around spreading unfounded rumors about a conspiracy to take your nukes away. You know that's not what this proposal does. And if you really believe the nonsense you just wrote, go have your head examined.

[Scandavian States]

[I was pointing out a possible and likely train of thought, not that is was my argument. Such an attempt would fail anyway, like it has every other time.]

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

[I was pointing out a possible and likely train of thought, not that is was my argument. Such an attempt would fail anyway, like it has every other time.]

[What attempt, the head examination?]

You can argue anything's a slippery slope. You give me any examples you like and I'll think of something it's a slippery slope towards. And probably the opposite things for a few of them in addition.

Anyway, this particular slippery slope levels out long before it gets to the cliff.

[Grand America]

[I was pointing out a possible and likely train of thought, not that is was my argument. Such an attempt would fail anyway, like it has every other time.]

[What attempt, the head examination?]

You can argue anything's a slippery slope. You give me any examples you like and I'll think of something it's a slippery slope towards. And probably the opposite things for a few of them in addition.

Anyway, this particular slippery slope levels out long before it gets to the cliff.

Not in my locale, it doesn't...

In all seriousness, I like this proposal, and I would support it (again) if it went up to Delegate Approval. I apologize for it not having reached Quorum the other time, and I hope that, when the next one comes, it will.
Now that it's been several days since someone posted, I assume this is going to go down the same road that countless other proposals do after they're lost...

If such is the case, I'll submit it, and give Cowardly credit for complete writing

Actually, I'm not sure if I can do that...If I can, I likely will. If I can't...
I'll bug you for it.

[Moronist Decisions]

In all seriousness, I like this proposal, and I would support it (again) if it went up to Delegate Approval. I apologize for it not having reached Quorum the other time, and I hope that, when the next one comes, it will.
Now that it's been several days since someone posted, I assume this is going to go down the same road that countless other proposals do after they're lost...

If such is the case, I'll submit it, and give Cowardly credit for complete writing

Actually, I'm not sure if I can do that...If I can, I likely will. If I can't...
I'll bug you for it.

Please don't submit it yourself unless you have his express permission - that is considered plagiarism and will remove you from these hallowed halls. I believe that the Cowardly Pacifists plan to revisit this soon.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

In all seriousness, I like this proposal, and I would support it (again) if it went up to Delegate Approval. I apologize for it not having reached Quorum the other time, and I hope that, when the next one comes, it will.
Now that it's been several days since someone posted, I assume this is going to go down the same road that countless other proposals do after they're lost...

If such is the case, I'll submit it, and give Cowardly credit for complete writing

I appreciate the offer, but I'm on top of it. I'm going to resubmit next Friday. That'll give me the weekend to campaign. Hopefully, enough time will have passed since the last Global Disarmament proposal for folks to keep an open mind about this one.

[Athfhotla]

The United Kingdom of Athfhotla fully supports this proposal. Should Ambassador Scaredilocks need or want our assistance in campaigning for its passage we will be happy to lend a hand.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Bump. This is being resubmitted tomorrow afternoon, and I wanted to give folks an opportunity to comment one last time before I submit it.

Best Regards.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

This proposal has been resubmitted. I changed the title again, because the last one (Mutual Protection Against WMDs) was just too clunky. The new title is a bit more to the point. Regional Delegates - if you would be so kind - please go here to approve.

I'll do some campaigning over the weekend. Hopefully, we can get to a vote this time around.

Best Regards!

[Athfhotla]

This proposal has been resubmitted. I changed the title again, because the last one (Mutual Protection Against WMDs) was just too clunky. The new title is a bit more to the point. Regional Delegates - if you would be so kind - please go here to approve.

I'll do some campaigning over the weekend. Hopefully, we can get to a vote this time around.

Best Regards!

Like I said, the Kingdom supports this 110% and I look forward to casting our vote in favor.

(OOC: If you don't put some of your signature under a spoiler soon, the mods are going to take an axe to it -- it's over the 8-line limit).

[Knootoss]

"World Assembly WMD Accord" has been submitted as "Global Disarmament" with a strength of "Significant". However, the resolution has three active clauses:

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another Member Nation.

This clause restricts the use of some weapons (WMDs) against a small minority of nations. (20%) Admittedly an anti-war sentiment.

3. Member Nations are strongly encouraged to enact diplomatic sanctions against Any Nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.
An encouragement to enact diplomatic sanctions, which does not affect worldwide military spending in any way, a prohibition

This clause, which is entirely optional, does not affect military spending in any way.

4. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to Any Nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

This clause explicitly authorises military action, enshrining into WA law the right of nations to take whatever action they deem necessary, including military, in response to ANY nation using a WMD. This includes nations they were not previously in conflict with, making third parties' WMD use a valid casus belli under WA law.

In short, the resolutions' impact on military (dis)armament is at best a wash, and at worst, will trigger MORE wars as nations are authorised and indeed semi-encouraged to enter into war against any nation that uses weapons of mass destruction. This resolution therefore certainly shouldn't be categorised as "global disarmament, significant". It should be removed from the queue on that basis.

TLDR summary: Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

In short, the resolutions' impact on military (dis)armament is at best a wash, and at worst, will trigger MORE wars as nations are authorised and indeed semi-encouraged to enter into war against any nation that uses weapons of mass destruction.

Semi-encouraged? Permission ≠ Encouragement. Not in my dictionary, anyway.

[Knootoss]

It is a binding clause. A binding right that, once established, cannot be taken away. And personally I find an inalienable right to declare war on people who do something you disapprove of to be not very global disarmament-y. Like I said, it's fucking for virginity.