[NEVERMIND] Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Standards

[Comfed]

Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the danger posed by nuclear weapons,

CONCERNED that nations may use Intercontinental Ballistic Nuclear Missiles,

WORRIED that the use of these may bring about global destruction in a matter of minutes,

Hereby,

1. Defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as a weapon that can be expected to kill at least 150,000 sentient lives in one use,
   
2. Defines an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) as a self-propelled unmanned carrier of Weapons of Mass Destruction with a range capable of crossing at least one sixth of the circumference of the planet that they are used on or is able to attain escape velocity on the planet in which it currently resides,
   
3. Bans all member states from using ICBMs against other member states unless another member state goes rogue and strikes in aggression,
   
4. Bans all member states from using ICMBs if the targeted nation has not used Weapons of Mass Destruction against the aforementioned member state.
   
5. Exempts nations from the above clause if a non-member state threatens to strike or if they are in a state of war with a non-member state with nuclear capabilities.
   
6. Allows nations to posses ICBMs as long as they obey the declarations above,.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act takes precedence over this accord.

[Heidgaudr]

"Ambassador, if you haven't read GAR#10 - more commonly referred to as NAPA - than I urge you to do so.

"Furthermore, any proposal that seeks to restrict military armament in such a draconian manner as this is unsustainable. If member states disarm, they put themselves at a great risk of increased aggression from non-member states. Simply put, member states must retain the ability to defend themselves from non-member states."

[Graintfjall]

Whack! The rubber stamp rebounds off the desk with a resounding thud as Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir, Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission, applies the word ‘SUPPORT’ in block red lettering to the draft in front of her.

[Grays Harbor]

REQUIRES nations to dismantle all ICMBs without activating any Weapons of Mass Destruction

OOC: This right here makes it illegal for contradiction of extant resolutions, as #10 explicitly makes it legal to possess nuclear weapons. Banning one particular delivery method is naive but not necessarily illegal. Using that ban to try and sneak a wholesale ban through is.

I would urge you to expend your efforts elsewhere besides trying to take on this topic. There are many other topics to cover. This one is not one which has ever lead to success.

[Kandorith]

The Empire shall always stay true to holding its rights to handle, store, produce and even use these kind of weapons when the situation might call for it. Heavily against.

Furthermore; the proposal might be deemed illegal considering it is absolutely draconic and goes against resolution number 10.

[Middle Barael]

"Ambassador, if you haven't read GAR#10 - more commonly referred to as NAPA - than I urge you to do so.

"Furthermore, any proposal that seeks to restrict military armament in such a draconian manner as this is unsustainable. If member states disarm, they put themselves at a great risk of increased aggression from non-member states. Simply put, member states must retain the ability to defend themselves from non-member states."

We suggest that, rather than banning the use of ICBMs in general, that you instead ban WA nations from using ICBMs against fellow WA nations, while retaining the right to use them against non-WA nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

GA 418 "affirms the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces". That said, the specific means of delivery are yet unprotected and unregulated.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Can a weapon of mass destruction also include a 'conventional' weapon that poses a substantial risk to life or property? After all, a Davy Crockett nuclear weapon system is less of a risk than the "Father of all Bombs", which is a Russian non-nuclear thermobaric bomb.

Also, I think you should remove the 5,500 kilometer definition of ICMBs and replace it with something like "a self-propelled apparatus capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and capable of travelling from one continent to another." Remember, most nations do not exist on earth--some nations might consists of islands scattered across a nearly infinite ocean, so by taking away missiles capable of travelling 5,500 kilometers you are taking away their only feasible missile system, whereas other nations may exist on a planet with a circumference of 2,000 km, so an ICBM would be able to circumvent that planet almost three times over.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: just a nitpick but you might want to change that 'human life' to something more general in the defintion of WMD.

[WayNeacTia]

"Ambassador, if you haven't read GAR#10 - more commonly referred to as NAPA - than I urge you to do so.

"Furthermore, any proposal that seeks to restrict military armament in such a draconian manner as this is unsustainable. If member states disarm, they put themselves at a great risk of increased aggression from non-member states. Simply put, member states must retain the ability to defend themselves from non-member states."

How is NAPA relevant here? NAPA doesn't guarantee you the right to possess intercontinental ballistic missiles.

REQUIRES nations to dismantle all ICMBs without activating any Weapons of Mass Destruction

OOC: This right here makes it illegal for contradiction of extant resolutions, as #10 explicitly makes it legal to possess nuclear weapons. Banning one particular delivery method is naive but not necessarily illegal. Using that ban to try and sneak a wholesale ban through is.

I would urge you to expend your efforts elsewhere besides trying to take on this topic. There are many other topics to cover. This one is not one which has ever lead to success.

Alas. It just happens to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention.

[Lime82]

"We will not support this proposal. While we agree that the use of nuclear weapons poses a threat to all living beings, the NAPA allows nations to use nuclear weapons to protect themselves and the threat of mutually assured destruction should be all that is required to prevent nations from using such weapons. Furthermore, we fail to see how this proposal would prevent the use of nuclear weapons without an outright ban - which would be illegal under the NAPA. Ultimately without an outright ban we cannot reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and we will not support token gestures."

OOC: This is an interesting area to draft proposals on and its great that you've taken on people's suggestions on how to improve your draft! I'm new to the WA community (my first forum post!) but I've been around long enough in NS to agree with others who have said that something like this is extremely unlikely to pass and you might be better off attempting something different. But its up to you of course!

[Cretox State]

DEFINES a Weapon of Mass Destruction as a weapon that can cause substantial damage to property and/or sentient life,

Bombs and missiles.

DEFINES an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) as a self-propelled carrier of Weapons of Mass Destruction with a range capable of crossing entire continents,

Bombers that carry bombs and fighter jets that carry missiles.

BANS all member states from using ICBMs against other member states.

So much for having an Air Force.

BANS the state from using ICMBs if the targeted nation has not used Weapons of Mass Destruction against the aforementioned state.

(1) Contradiction with the previous clause, and (2) I can't use my Air Force unless another nation also banned from using its Air Force breaks international law and goes first? I guess that's one way to handle enforcement.

ALLOWS nations to posses ICBMs as long as they obey the declarations above,

So we can have an Air Force, so long as we just use it for military shows. Great.

[Shazbotdom]

"The Empire, unilaterally, opposes this resolution."

[Qhevak]

DEFINES a Weapon of Mass Destruction as a weapon that can cause substantial damage to property and/or sentient life,

DEFINES an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) as a self-propelled carrier of Weapons of Mass Destruction with a range capable of crossing entire continents,

There's no chance this resolution would ever be passed regardless, but it's amusing to note that a infantryman carrying an assault rifle would qualify as an "Intercontinental Ballistic Missile" under this resolution.

[Ardiveds]

REQUIRES that all nations who violate this accord lose their right to the use ICBMs for fifty years.

OOC: You know if a nation has violated the entire resolution, they're probably gonna violate the last clause as well. This line might as well say,
'requires all nations who violate this accord to violate one last clause.'

[Barfleur]

DEFINES a Weapon of Mass Destruction as a weapon that can cause substantial damage to property and/or sentient life,

DEFINES an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) as a self-propelled carrier of Weapons of Mass Destruction with a range capable of crossing entire continents,

There's no chance this resolution would ever be passed regardless, but it's amusing to note that a infantryman carrying an assault rifle would qualify as an "Intercontinental Ballistic Missile" under this resolution.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ready for launch, c. 1890

[Comfed]

There's no chance this resolution would ever be passed regardless, but it's amusing to note that a infantryman carrying an assault rifle would qualify as an "Intercontinental Ballistic Missile" under this resolution.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ready for launch, c. 1890

Fixed.

[Kenmoria]

“The idea of completely removing first-strike ability from member states, while non-members possess the capacity to do so, will not go down at all well with nations.”

[Comfed]

“The idea of completely removing first-strike ability from member states, while non-members possess the capacity to do so, will not go down at all well with nations.”

“Ambassador, I must ask why?”

[Kenmoria]

“The idea of completely removing first-strike ability from member states, while non-members possess the capacity to do so, will not go down at all well with nations.”

“Ambassador, I must ask why?”

“This means that the militaristic capabilities of members have been substantially reduced compared to those of nonmembers, which outnumber us several times over. Put simply, countries value their own survival above almost everything else, and anything that hurts the survival of nations will be incredibly hard to pass. That’s why the NAPA was a blocker.”

[Shazbotdom]

“The idea of completely removing first-strike ability from member states, while non-members possess the capacity to do so, will not go down at all well with nations.”

“Ambassador, I must ask why?”

"Because, Ambassador, you are making Members less able to defend themselves against Non-Member Aggressors. The threat of Mutual Assured Destruction is helpful in deterring anyone from threatening the Empire, and we will not be giving up our abilities to use that Deterrent against those who threaten our Sovereignty."

[Flying Eagles]

DEFINES a Weapon of Mass Destruction as a weapon that can be expected to kill 150,000 lives in one use,

So what about the ICBM that we expect to kill 150,001 lives in one use. This needs an "at least" qualifier.

BANS the state from using ICMBs if the targeted nation has not used Weapons of Mass Destruction against the aforementioned state.

You meant ICBMs

Also, consider expanding this to also regulate interplanetary missiles, or passing a future resolution on that matter.

[Flying Eagles]

DEFINES a Weapon of Mass Destruction as a weapon that can be expected to kill 150,000 lives in one use,

So what about the ICBM that we expect to kill 150,001 lives in one use. This needs an "at least" qualifier.

BANS the state from using ICMBs if the targeted nation has not used Weapons of Mass Destruction against the aforementioned state.

You meant ICBMs

Also, consider expanding this to also regulate interplanetary missiles, or passing a future resolution on that matter.

“Ambassador, I must ask why?”

"Because, Ambassador, you are making Members less able to defend themselves against Non-Member Aggressors. The threat of Mutual Assured Destruction is helpful in deterring anyone from threatening the Empire, and we will not be giving up our abilities to use that Deterrent against those who threaten our Sovereignty."

Ambassador, you still retain the ability to launch an ICBM immediately after it is launched against your country, but before it hits your country. This is still a highly effective deterrent.

[Shazbotdom]

"Because, Ambassador, you are making Members less able to defend themselves against Non-Member Aggressors. The threat of Mutual Assured Destruction is helpful in deterring anyone from threatening the Empire, and we will not be giving up our abilities to use that Deterrent against those who threaten our Sovereignty."

Ambassador, you still retain the ability to launch an ICBM immediately after it is launched against your country, but before it hits your country. This is still a highly effective deterrent.

"Well, then the Empire will turn to our SLBM's then. No need to worry about an ICBM Ban if we just use our other alternatives."

[WayNeacTia]

Ambassador, you still retain the ability to launch an ICBM immediately after it is launched against your country, but before it hits your country. This is still a highly effective deterrent.

"Well, then the Empire will turn to our SLBM's then. No need to worry about an ICBM Ban if we just use our other alternatives."

An SLBM is an ICBM.