[DEFEATED] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

[Macsenoedd]

Do Dragons Count As Weapons Of Mass Destruction? Probably Not, You'd Need A Lot To Do Much Damage, And To Train Them Well.

[Kenmoria]

Do Dragons Count As Weapons Of Mass Destruction? Probably Not, You'd Need A Lot To Do Much Damage, And To Train Them Well.

(OOC: As defined in the proposal, a WMD can only be chemical or nuclear, so dragons do not count.)

[Creslonia]

"Mutually Assured Destruction is a sound strategy for preventing another world war. The threat of total destruction is the strongest deterrent currently available. Creslonia will be voting against this resolution."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Araraukar]

OOC: Actually, given that the Chemical Weapons Accord (if that's the literal name, but something along those lines anyway) specifically allows chemical weapons to be used defensively and entirely bans their use offensively, whereas this one would restrict their use to a last ditch effort, I think this is contradictory with that one. As it currently looks that this won't pass in its current incarnation anyway, I won't bother GenSec with a legality challenge, but if the author tries it again with chemical weapons included (how the hell would you even achieve MAD with chemical weapons???), I will.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Actually, given that the Chemical Weapons Accord (if that's the literal name, but something along those lines anyway) specifically allows chemical weapons to be used defensively and entirely bans their use offensively, whereas this one would restrict their use to a last ditch effort, I think this is contradictory with that one. As it currently looks that this won't pass in its current incarnation anyway, I won't bother GenSec with a legality challenge, but if the author tries it again with chemical weapons included (how the hell would you even achieve MAD with chemical weapons???), I will.

(OOC: The only clause in the Chemical Weapons Accord about defensive usage is ‘the use of chemical weapons in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces,’ which doesn’t specifically legalise defensive usage, just excludes it from the prohibition. I think the proposal’s fine on that regard. Though, as you said, it doesn’t make much difference.)

[Sethtekia]

The Sethtekian delegate arises and speaks up."If this is passed. Sethtekia will withdraw from the World Assembly. We will never disarm our weapons. And you cannot make us. All of you are too cowardly. You make legislation but you have no will to enforce it. I say we unban all weapons. The Sethtekian people will remain free from this oppressive legislature. And its leftist propaganda that is surely to weaken those whom oppose them. Now and forever. Sethtekia will not adhere to the lies of the World Assembly. Under orders of my Commander. We will withdraw from this evil institution if this act passes."

[The Osaskyans]

"We, the people of The Osaskyans, hereby register a vote AGAINST this proposal. We are a quiet country and feel that this proposal only invites non-WA countries to initiate military actions against us without automatic response. We agree with the ambassador from Maletora."

- Ambassador Mica Saimon

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)

[Wallenburg]

(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)

It's the only real mandate in the resolution, and it's a bad clause, so of course it will receive criticism.

[Jebslund]

(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)

[OOC: Well, the way it's worded, it makes automated defensive systems illegal as well as automatic return fire systems. It's very poorly worded.]

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: This proposal tries to allow their use offensively as a last ditch effort, though. Which the other one bans unilaterally.

[Hijlistan Arg]

"Absolutely not!"

[Satuga]

"While the Satugan people appreciate your attempt at limiting civilian deaths the actions to take here are extreme. As other Nation representatives have said MAD is a sure way to prevent a total World War as the threat of being destroyed far outweighs the benefits of war. As well as the concept that is someone sends nuclear war heads to the cities of Satuga you can be sure we will be sending them right back."

[Kenmoria]

"While the Satugan people appreciate your attempt at limiting civilian deaths the actions to take here are extreme. As other Nation representatives have said MAD is a sure way to prevent a total World War as the threat of being destroyed far outweighs the benefits of war. As well as the concept that is someone sends nuclear war heads to the cities of Satuga you can be sure we will be sending them right back."

“I feel as though I should mention, for the benefit of multiple delegations who appear to have misunderstood, that this proposal does not actually ban Mutually Assured Destruction. The only thing it does it prohibit solely automatic response systems.”

[Maowi]

"While the Satugan people appreciate your attempt at limiting civilian deaths the actions to take here are extreme. As other Nation representatives have said MAD is a sure way to prevent a total World War as the threat of being destroyed far outweighs the benefits of war. As well as the concept that is someone sends nuclear war heads to the cities of Satuga you can be sure we will be sending them right back."

“I feel as though I should mention, for the benefit of multiple delegations who appear to have misunderstood, that this proposal does not actually ban Mutually Assured Destruction. The only thing it does it prohibit solely automatic response systems.”

'The title may be misleading in that respect. Ambassadors who do not read the entire proposal through thoroughly may just assume by the title that it seeks to ban MAD entirely.'

[Kenmoria]

“I feel as though I should mention, for the benefit of multiple delegations who appear to have misunderstood, that this proposal does not actually ban Mutually Assured Destruction. The only thing it does it prohibit solely automatic response systems.”

'The title may be misleading in that respect. Ambassadors who do not read the entire proposal through thoroughly may just assume by the title that it seeks to ban MAD entirely.'

“In that case, I think that delegation would be in violation of the Read the Resolution Act, along with a violation of common sense.”

[Maowi]

'The title may be misleading in that respect. Ambassadors who do not read the entire proposal through thoroughly may just assume by the title that it seeks to ban MAD entirely.'

“In that case, I think that delegation would be in violation of the Read the Resolution Act, along with a violation of common sense.”

'It is an unfortunate but all too common phenomenon.'

[Morover]

(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)

"It was a hastily written clause - I admit it should have been more fleshed out, I was very much ready to get this to vote, which was a mistake. In either case, I feel it's failing by such an overwhelming amount due mostly to lemmings, as well as immediate reaction to the title."

[The New California Republic]

(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)

OOC: It is badly thought out, so it really isn't terribly surprising.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I didn’t expect for the recently-added clause about automatic response to have garnered such a negative reception. It seems to have made up the bulk of the criticism of the proposal, which is surprising.)

"It was a hastily written clause - I admit it should have been more fleshed out, I was very much ready to get this to vote, which was a mistake. In either case, I feel it's failing by such an overwhelming amount due mostly to lemmings, as well as immediate reaction to the title."

“Oh yes, I think something similar to ‘Regulation of Mutually Assured Destruction’ would have been far better.”

[United Massachusetts]

'The title may be misleading in that respect. Ambassadors who do not read the entire proposal through thoroughly may just assume by the title that it seeks to ban MAD entirely.'

“In that case, I think that delegation would be in violation of the Read the Resolution Act, along with a violation of common sense.”

"Using 'mutually assured destruction' in the first place was the violation of common sense."

[Scherzinger]

proposed by an enemy of the state. Against

[NEALVILLA]

Can anyone help me with getting endorsed? Also how do I endorse other Nations? I have a couple of proposals I would like to submit.

[Tik tok users]

Don't support, every nation should have Nuclear Weapons, in fact they should be encouraged so that nations can avoid war.

[Kenmoria]

"Prevention of Mutually assured destruction" was defeated 12,247 votes to 2,472.