[PROPOSAL]Repeal GAR#10 - "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[The Russosphere]

Recognizing that GAR#10 has empowered WA member states with the ability to defend themselves with nuclear weapons,

Acknowledging that the empowerment has been crucial to the national sovereignty of WA member states,

but Noting that the resolution is 9 years old and outdated,

Understanding that the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons,

Anxious that the loophole above could legalize the misuse of nuclear weapons,

Realizing that such misuse could result in the mass destruction of countless property and lives,

Believing that such loopholes should be corrected as soon as possible,

and Hoping that replacement legislation shall be passed soon,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#10: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

[Separatist Peoples]

Recognizing that GAR#10 has empowered WA member states with the ability to defend themselves with nuclear weapons,

Acknowledging that the empowerment has been crucial to the national sovereignty of WA member states,

but Noting that the resolution is 9 years old and outdated,

Understanding that the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons,

Anxious that the loophole above could legalize the misuse of nuclear weapons,

Realizing that such misuse could result in the mass destruction of countless property and lives,

Believing that such loopholes should be corrected as soon as possible,

and Hoping that replacement legislation shall be passed soon,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#10: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

"One can limit how nuclear weapons are used without repealing GAR#10. Opposed."

[Libertorum]

To draft a new law?
Of course.

To repeal it completely?

IT WOULD BE A HAZARD TO ALL THE NATIONS!

[Artibus Iustitia]

"I strongly object. You are correct that the act has nothing on how nuclear weapons can be used and that said flaw could cost countless human and animal lives, but we need the act to be in place to ensure that WA member states have the ability to defend themselves in case of attack."

"For that reason, I say we pass a new law or amend the current one to make the legal use of nuclear weapons clear, but keep GAR#10 in place to allow defense."

[Bears Armed]

"For that reason, I say we pass a new law or amend the current one to make the legal use of nuclear weapons clear, but keep GAR#10 in place to allow defense."

OOC: Amending passed resolutions isn't possible. This is because passing a resolution has effects on member nation's stats, with those effects automatically generated according to the resolution's category & strength (or area of effect), but the effects possible from amending a resolution would be too unpredictable for automatic generation.
Therefore the only way to "change" a passed resolution is to repeal the old version and then pass a separate replacement.

[The New European Order]

Recognizing that GAR#10 has empowered WA member states with the ability to defend themselves with nuclear weapons,

Acknowledging that the empowerment has been crucial to the national sovereignty of WA member states,

but Noting that the resolution is 9 years old and outdated,

Understanding that the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons,

Anxious that the loophole above could legalize the misuse of nuclear weapons,

Realizing that such misuse could result in the mass destruction of countless property and lives,

Believing that such loopholes should be corrected as soon as possible,

and Hoping that replacement legislation shall be passed soon,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#10: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

You say that there are loopholes... If you expect anyone to take you seriously, and support this draft, you may have to argue your points a little bit more in depth. Site specific clauses that can be bent out of proportion. Then, I may be able to support this. But for now? Opposed.

[Wallenburg]

but Noting that the resolution is 9 years old and outdated,

"That a resolution is old is not a valid argument to repeal it."

Understanding that the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons,

"Why should it? That was never its purpose. It is the 'Nuclear Arms Possession Act', not the 'Nuclear Arms Usage Act'."

Anxious that the loophole above could legalize the misuse of nuclear weapons,

"That isn't a loophole, and it does not legalize misuse of nuclear weapons. Not by a long shot."

Realizing that such misuse could result in the mass destruction of countless property and lives,

Believing that such loopholes should be corrected as soon as possible,

"Both these clauses depend on false claims."

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#10: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

"No, thank you. Wallenburg has only just developed the beginnings of a nuclear defense network, and we don't intend to give that up."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Not by a long shot."

Fairburn: So just to be clear, nuclear strikes are allowed if they're short shots?

[Wallenburg]

"Not by a long shot."

Fairburn: So just to be clear, nuclear strikes are allowed if they're short shots?

Ogenbond draws his pistol and takes a few pot shots at Fairburn. Fortunately, the bullets are nullified into sock monkeys just before they hit Fairburn.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: So just to be clear, nuclear strikes are allowed if they're short shots?

Ogenbond draws his pistol and takes a few pot shots at Fairburn. Fortunately, the bullets are nullified into sock monkeys just before they hit Fairburn.

Harold: Ooh, sock monkeys! I could use these! (exits holding two handfuls of sock monkeys)

Fairburn: Here, we see the inherent aggression of the Wallenburger.

Barbera: Careful, Ambassador Fairburn. Yet another defenestration is not in our interests.

Fairburn: Relax, Barbera. The great thing is that if Ambassador Ogrebunt decides to retaliate by defenestrating me, he'd only be proving my point.

Harold: (returns) Right, if anyone asks about a banana catapult, tell them that Ambassador Bell did it.

[Kalata]

fr many lez advancd netions nucler weeponz serve az an effectif mannr to stabilis their world orderz in period for greet change. sins thiz resolushun onle protectz posesion teh onle purpos for repeel would be to paz resolushun bannin thos weeponz. thiz would be extremele bad fr globel pees in eerlyinformashun age soceitiez. we cannaht suhphort dis repeel.

[Bakhton]

"These don't work. Repeals of GAR #10 don't work. We've tried. A lot. They don't work."

[Bears Armed]

fr many lez advancd netions nucler weeponz serve az an effectif mannr to stabilis their world orderz in period for greet change. sins thiz resolushun onle protectz posesion teh onle purpos for repeel would be to paz resolushun bannin thos weeponz. thiz would be extremele bad fr globel pees in eerlyinformashun age soceitiez. we cannaht suhphort dis repeel.

"Do the universal transaltors need fixing again?"


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Araraukar]

"Do the universal transaltors need fixing again?"

Apparently.

[The Russosphere]

Recognizing that GAR#10 has empowered WA member states with the ability to defend themselves with nuclear weapons,

Acknowledging that the empowerment has been crucial to the national sovereignty of WA member states,

but Noting that the resolution is 9 years old and outdated,

Understanding that the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons by
1. Not stating how nuclear weapons are to be used in defense,
2. Not stating the position of nuclear weapon usage when attacking another country, whether a counter-attack or not.

Anxious that the loophole above could legalize the misuse of nuclear weapons,

Realizing that such misuse could result in the mass destruction of countless property and lives,

Believing that such loopholes should be corrected as soon as possible,

and Hoping that replacement legislation shall be passed soon,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#10: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

Recognizing that GAR#10 has empowered WA member states with the ability to defend themselves with nuclear weapons,

Acknowledging that the empowerment has been crucial to the national sovereignty of WA member states,

but Noting that the resolution is 9 years old and outdated,

Understanding that the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons,

Anxious that the loophole above could legalize the misuse of nuclear weapons,

Realizing that such misuse could result in the mass destruction of countless property and lives,

Believing that such loopholes should be corrected as soon as possible,

and Hoping that replacement legislation shall be passed soon,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#10: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

My first WA Proposal is also a repeal... because I have drafted replacement legislation. Please help me to improve on my proposal writing!

[Barunia]

Recognizing that GAR#10 has empowered WA member states with the ability to defend themselves with nuclear weapons,

Acknowledging that the empowerment has been crucial to the national sovereignty of WA member states,

but Noting that the resolution is 9 years old and outdated,

Understanding that the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons,

Anxious that the loophole above could legalize the misuse of nuclear weapons,

Realizing that such misuse could result in the mass destruction of countless property and lives,

Believing that such loopholes should be corrected as soon as possible,

and Hoping that replacement legislation shall be passed soon,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#10: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

My first WA Proposal is also a repeal... because I have drafted replacement legislation. Please help me to improve on my proposal writing!

Well, at least it's not a "It allows nukes, we can't allow nukes!!!!" repeal. GAR#10 has stood for nine years for a reason; it's good legislation.

Please explain how "the resolution fails to define clearly the context behind the usage of nuclear weapons". That could mean anything.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You have an older thread where you've posted this already. The two are identical. You're allowed one thread per proposal. The mantra goes "One proposal per thread, one thread per proposal."

I already posted the merge request in moderation, so you don't have to.

[The Russosphere]

It doesn't say anything about when you are allowed to and not allowed to use nukes, it just says you're allowed to own nukes.

Let's tackle the resolution one step at a time.

REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Line 1: Sets the scene. States that WA members are outnumbered 3:1
Line 2: Sets the scene. States that only WA members need to obey
Line 3: Sets the scene. States that many non WA members like to beat up WA members, they are dangerous
Line 4: Gives a reason. WA Members need to be able to protect themselves in the event of an offensive

Line 5. WA Members are allowed to use nukes for self-protection
Line 6. WA Members can choose whether or not to own nukes
Line 7. If a WA Member owns nukes, it must make sure the nukes do not fall into the wrong hands (e.g. Terrorists maybe?)

Nowhere does it state anything to answer the following questions:
If I own nukes and am defending myself, when during the defense am I allowed to use my nukes?
Am I allowed to attack others with my nukes?
What type of people can I hit with my nukes?
How should I prevent my nukes from falling into the wrong hands?

The repeal is to open up the ability to draft replacement legislation so that these questions may be answered.

[The Russosphere]

OOC: You have an older thread where you've posted this already. The two are identical. You're allowed one thread per proposal. The mantra goes "One proposal per thread, one thread per proposal."

I already posted the merge request in moderations, so you don't have to.

Thanks, didn't realise that!

[Barunia]

Nowhere does it state anything to answer the following questions:
If I own nukes and am defending myself, when during the defense am I allowed to use my nukes?
Am I allowed to attack others with my nukes?
What type of people can I hit with my nukes?
How should I prevent my nukes from falling into the wrong hands?

The repeal is to open up the ability to draft replacement legislation so that these questions may be answered.

1. Good question. Don't forget the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction though. Most countries posses nukes as a deterrent.
2. Yes. Everything is permissible unless the law says otherwise.
3. It's a nuke. They're not known for being precision weapons. Any clause in GAR#10 limiting nuclear weapons to military targets, say, would basically make the use of nukes pointless, as their damage will undoubtedly extend beyond that limitation.
4. That's a valid argument, and one of the failings of the original legislation. It also fails to specify what "the wrong hands" are. I'm not sure it is enough for a repeal though.

[The Russosphere]

Nowhere does it state anything to answer the following questions:
If I own nukes and am defending myself, when during the defense am I allowed to use my nukes?
Am I allowed to attack others with my nukes?
What type of people can I hit with my nukes?
How should I prevent my nukes from falling into the wrong hands?

The repeal is to open up the ability to draft replacement legislation so that these questions may be answered.

1. Good question. Don't forget the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction though. Most countries posses nukes as a deterrent.
2. Yes. Everything is permissible unless the law says otherwise.
3. It's a nuke. They're not known for being precision weapons. Any clause in GAR#10 limiting nuclear weapons to military targets, say, would basically make the use of nukes pointless, as their damage will undoubtedly extend beyond that limitation.
4. That's a valid argument, and one of the failings of the original legislation. It also fails to specify what "the wrong hands" are. I'm not sure it is enough for a repeal though.

Ah, but your reply for #3 assumes that the nukes have a high yield. There are certain types of nukes with low yield that can be used as precision weapons

See this page for more detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

[Barunia]

1. Good question. Don't forget the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction though. Most countries posses nukes as a deterrent.
2. Yes. Everything is permissible unless the law says otherwise.
3. It's a nuke. They're not known for being precision weapons. Any clause in GAR#10 limiting nuclear weapons to military targets, say, would basically make the use of nukes pointless, as their damage will undoubtedly extend beyond that limitation.
4. That's a valid argument, and one of the failings of the original legislation. It also fails to specify what "the wrong hands" are. I'm not sure it is enough for a repeal though.

Ah, but your reply for #3 assumes that the nukes have a high yield. There are certain types of nukes with low yield that can be used as precision weapons

See this page for more detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

Which is irrelevant, as GAR#10 doesn't specify that only those weapons can be used. If that's a valid reason for repealing GAR#10, then you should make mention of it in your repeal.

[Grays Harbor]

Nowhere does it state anything to answer the following questions:
If I own nukes and am defending myself, when during the defense am I allowed to use my nukes?
Am I allowed to attack others with my nukes?
What type of people can I hit with my nukes?
How should I prevent my nukes from falling into the wrong hands?

The repeal is to open up the ability to draft replacement legislation so that these questions may be answered.

That could be because when NAPA was written the author and contributors understood that micromanaging a military and national situation from the WA is pointless in the extreme. To have a resolution which states "You must tick all these boxes then file a permission slip in order to use legally possessed weapons systems." is just ludicrous. In a wartime situation you do what is necessary to win, not get tied in knots over somebodies delicate sensibilities, especially somebody not involved, or not even on the same planet.