[SUBMITTED] Preventing Unprovoked Use of WMDs

[The New Cordian Empire]

Preventing Unprovoked Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of weapons of mass destruction to attack other nations can lead to high levels of death and destruction in those nations,

Noting that many often unsavory nations have proven complicit in using such weapons arbitrarily, and

Realizing that conflict escalation could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, within the restrictions of previously passed and still extant resolutions, hereby:

1. Defines "weapons of mass destruction" as weapons that cause massive structural damage or large-scale loss of life on a scale depending on nations affected by the use of the weapon;
2. Clarifies that weapons of mass destruction must cause the necessary damage and/or death to bring this resolution into effect in a single use, a single use being a single strike or series of strikes using WMDs in a localized area; and
3. Declares that no member state may use weapons of mass destruction against another member state, without evidence that the other member has recently used (or intends to use in the near future) such weapons against that nation or an allied nation.

Preventing Unprovoked Use of Nuclear Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of nuclear weapons can cause extreme amounts of destruction.

Noting that many often unsavory nations permit themselves to use such weapons unprovoked.

Realizing that many wars could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, hereby:

• Defines:
  
  • A nuclear weapon as any object that uses nuclear fusion or fission in a way that allows it to cause mass destruction through purposeful use.
  • An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of nuclear weapons against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use in the near future or had recently used nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against that nation or an allied nation.
• Mandates:
  
  • That no member state shall, unprovoked, use nuclear weapons against another member state.
  • That a World Assembly Nuclear Investigation Committee, or WANIC, be formed to investigate uses of nuclear weapons by member states that have a significant possibility of violating this act.

[Tinhampton]

Preventing Unprovoked Use of Nuclear Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of nuclear weapons can cause extreme amounts of destruction.

Noting that many often unsavory nations permit themselves to use such weapons unprovoked.

Realizing that many wars could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. A nuclear weapon as any object that uses nuclear fusion or fission in a way that allows it to cause mass destruction.
   2. An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of nuclear weapons against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use nuclear weapons against your nation or an allied nation.

Full support as it stands. Will switch to opposition once you actually include the clause that bans the unprovoked use of n00ks

(OOC: Given Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima... how can a nuclear power plant not be classed as a nuclear weapon? Would this require member states to build their own nuclear power plants without assistance from non-allied countries?)

[Picairn]

Where is the Mandating clause?

[The New Cordian Empire]

(OOC: Given Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima... how can a nuclear power plant not be classed as a nuclear weapon? Would this require member states to build their own nuclear power plants without assistance from non-allied countries?)

Will change that to intentional use. Since those events weren't caused on purpose by those governments (I hope), nor used against other nations, they would not fall under this act.

[The New Cordian Empire]

Where is the Mandating clause?

WIP, meaning Work In Progress. Hoping to get to that today.

[The New Cordian Empire]

Preventing Unprovoked Use of Nuclear Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Understanding that the use of nuclear weapons can cause extreme amounts of destruction.

Noting that many often unsavory nations permit themselves to use such weapons unprovoked.

Realizing that many wars could be avoided should this practice be banned by international law, hereby:

• Defines:
  
  • A nuclear weapon as any object that uses nuclear fusion or fission in a way that allows it to cause mass destruction.
  • An unprovoked use of such weapons as a use of nuclear weapons against a nation without evidence that said nation intended to use nuclear weapons against your nation or an allied nation.
• Mandates:
  
  • That no nation shall, unprovoked, use nuclear weapons against another nation.
  • That a World Assembly Nuclear Investigation Committee, or WANIC, be formed to investigate uses of nuclear weapons by member states that have a significant possibility of violating this act.

First draft done. Certainly needs work. Let the edits begin!

[Ardiveds]

"We're with Tinhampton on this one, if we're going to war with a nation in possession of nukes, it is only reasonable to assume they intent to use them. We aren't psychic so we can't exactly read their thoughts."

[The New Cordian Empire]

"We're with Tinhampton on this one, if we're going to war with a nation in possession of nukes, it is only reasonable to assume they intent to use them. We aren't psychic so we can't exactly read their thoughts."

The launching of nukes is an invitation to all-out nuclear war. No sane nation would do so and start that. On the other hand, a history of launching nukes would be reason enough, with some sign of aggression, to execute a strike on another nation. The reason that this act prohibits "first srike" nuclear doctrine and not all nukes is that non-member states will not have to comply with this resolution. Sure, most nations will have enough common sense not to launch nukes and start a nuclear war, but in the case that we have evidence that they mean to do so, we can launch strikes before. To make another point, this proposal does not just ban YOU from launching nukes without evidence, it prohibits all member states from doing so. This means that member states will not be able to launch nukes against each other, and yourself. Rather than think of this proposal as banning your ability to use offensive weapons, think of it as defending you. The point of this proposal is that, if we can ban the first shot in the war, the war will be less likely to happen.
OOC: There is a good reason that nobody, to my knowledge, has launched nuclear strikes against another nation IRL since 1945. The nuked nation would retaliate, and bring their allies in, and before you know it, half the world is glowing. Also, please note that N-Day does not fall under this proposal, since there is a significant chance that nukes could be used against you.

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, we're well aware of the prohibition this places on members using nukes on each other, and we're partly fine with that. But our issue is with non members. Just because a nation hasn't launched unprovoked before is no evidence that they won't do it now; international situations change and if they do do it, and we refrain from doing the same based on past evidence, we'd be obliterated by the time we realise our mistake. Besides, nukes by their very nature are far more useful as a deterrent than an actual weapon for any reasonable nation. The fear of a preemptive strike often prevents wars, this resolution nullifies that fear against non members atleast. As long as this effects wars between members and non members, we stand against it."

OOC: what's 'N-Day'?

[The New Cordian Empire]

"Ambassador, we're well aware of the prohibition this places on members using nukes on each other, and we're partly fine with that. But our issue is with non members. Just because a nation hasn't launched unprovoked before is no evidence that they won't do it now; international situations change and if they do do it, and we refrain from doing the same based on past evidence, we'd be obliterated by the time we realise our mistake. Besides, nukes by their very nature are far more useful as a deterrent than an actual weapon for any reasonable nation. The fear of a preemptive strike often prevents wars, this resolution nullifies that fear against non members atleast. As long as this effects wars between members and non members, we stand against it."

OOC: what's 'N-Day'?

The fear of retaliation is just as effective as the fear of the enemy striking first. There is literally no way that a nation of any intelligence will have all of their nukes knocked out in the case of a nuclear attack from a non-member. Additionally, there will almost always be signs of, if not a nuclear strike, then aggression from another nation before they strike at you. Though I supppse that I could change the proposal so as to only affect member states. I will notify my Minister of Foreign Affairs and tell him to make those changes. Thank you for your input.

Edit: The Minister has made his edits.

OOC: It’s some sort of nuke-involving mini game day. I haven’t done it yet, so idk how it works.

[Araraukar]

OOC: what's 'N-Day'?

OOC: It’s some sort of nuke-involving mini game day. I haven’t done it yet, so idk how it works.

OOC: If you mean the gameside event, it's just that, a gameside event. Referring to one in IC is odd (as gameside things are often ignored in people's roleplay), and referring to one in proposal text is a proposal rules violation of the Metagaming kind.

[The New Cordian Empire]

OOC: It’s some sort of nuke-involving mini game day. I haven’t done it yet, so idk how it works.

OOC: If you mean the gameside event, it's just that, a gameside event. Referring to one in IC is odd (as gameside things are often ignored in people's roleplay), and referring to one in proposal text is a proposal rules violation of the Metagaming kind.

"OOC: There is a good reason that nobody, to my knowledge, has launched nuclear strikes against another nation IRL since 1945. The nuked nation would retaliate, and bring their allies in, and before you know it, half the world is glowing. Also, please note that N-Day does not fall under this proposal, since there is a significant chance that nukes could be used against you."

Did you read either my post or the proposal text? I referred to the event OOC, as shown above, and the proposal makes no mention of N-Day.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What's to stop a nation from nuking Brasilistan and then immediately joining the WA?

[Ikheria]

"Comrade Ambassador, my think now its better for vote nay if this now at vote, unless we now have notification from my Region comrade (Ministry of World Assembly Affair of Europeia). As this also has no right for 'precautionary' attack, if we now bordered by enemy..." ~ Minister of Foreign and WA Affair, Robert Sudausky

[The New Cordian Empire]

What's to stop a nation from nuking Brasilistan and then immediately joining the WA?

Assuming Brazilistan is in the WA (which it isn't, if you're referring to the nation I think you are), then the proposal would not have protected Brazilistan. I have made an edit that allows for retaliatory strikes, so now, Brazilistan would be protected. If Brazilistan is not in the WA, it will not be protected.

"Comrade Ambassador, my think now its better for vote nay if this now at vote, unless we now have notification from my Region comrade (Ministry of World Assembly Affair of Europeia). As this also has no right for 'precautionary' attack, if we now bordered by enemy..." ~ Minister of Foreign and WA Affair, Robert Sudausky

This proposal only protects WA nations. You are free to attack any non-WA nations without reason via nukes if you like. But allowing for "precautionary strikes" against other WA nations would defeat the entire purpose of this proposal. Other WA nations have just as much right to be protected by WA Resolutions as you do, and I hope that you begin to think that way. On the other hand, if you have proof that another WA nation intends to nuke you, you may go ahead and nuke them before they do it to you.

[Morover]

"Why should investigations be had on crimes that have not been committed? Additionally, while you define 'unprovoked use of such weapons', that is not the phrase you use in the draft. While perhaps a pedantic difference, it is less couth to have it as-is."

EDIT: Also, August 9 is very soon - five days is simply not enough for a draft to be edited to completion, much less perfection - except in the cases of the most experienced authors on the site. I'd recommend waiting.

[Cretox State]

Planning to submit on August 9th, the anniversary of the second atomic bomb being dropped on the city of Nagasaki.

OOC: It's always nice to see enthusiastic newcomers in the GA. However, please understand that rushing to submit stuff isn't going to get you anywhere. Submitting in two days simply won't work; many people (myself included) are wholly unconvinced that the premise is even sound. You can clearly write, and definitely have potential in the GA. What you need right now is more experience in how things are done here. I strongly suggest that you work on something less ambitious for your first resolution: a repeal, perhaps. Maybe collaborate with a more established author to get your feet wet. Hang around the GA subforum, and consider joining the Discord if you haven't done so already: https://discord.gg/693GSTA

[The New Cordian Empire]

"Why should investigations be had on crimes that have not been committed? Additionally, while you define 'unprovoked use of such weapons', that is not the phrase you use in the draft. While perhaps a pedantic difference, it is less couth to have it as-is."

EDIT: Also, August 9 is very soon - five days is simply not enough for a draft to be edited to completion, much less perfection - except in the cases of the most experienced authors on the site. I'd recommend waiting.

Thanks, I will be waiting.

[The New Cordian Empire]

Planning to submit on August 9th, the anniversary of the second atomic bomb being dropped on the city of Nagasaki.

OOC: It's always nice to see enthusiastic newcomers in the GA. However, please understand that rushing to submit stuff isn't going to get you anywhere. Submitting in two days simply won't work; many people (myself included) are wholly unconvinced that the premise is even sound. You can clearly write, and definitely have potential in the GA. What you need right now is more experience in how things are done here. I strongly suggest that you work on something less ambitious for your first resolution: a repeal, perhaps. Maybe collaborate with a more established author to get your feet wet. Hang around the GA subforum, and consider joining the Discord if you haven't done so already: https://discord.gg/693GSTA

I'll stick to this and see if I can pull it off. I will be waiting to submit as per your and Morover's advice.

[Kenmoria]

“I think that there needs to be a lot of clarification on what ‘evidence that said nation intended to use’ means. As written, this would catch cases where a nation intended to use nuclear weapons against another many years ago, but now doesn’t. You need to clarify the evidentiary standard.

Also, in the second definition clause, ‘your nation’ doesn’t work. Proposals are written from the perspective of the GA. Use something such as ‘that nation’ instead.”

[The New Cordian Empire]

“I think that there needs to be a lot of clarification on what ‘evidence that said nation intended to use’ means. As written, this would catch cases where a nation intended to use nuclear weapons against another many years ago, but now doesn’t. You need to clarify the evidentiary standard.

Also, in the second definition clause, ‘your nation’ doesn’t work. Proposals are written from the perspective of the GA. Use something such as ‘that nation’ instead.”

Edits made to account for both parts of your advice. Thanks.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

"As a nation with a large nuclear stockpile, the USSR stands in full support of this resolution."

[The New Cordian Empire]

"As a nation with a large nuclear stockpile, the USSR stands in full support of this resolution."

Good to know. Thank you for your support.

[The New Cordian Empire]

bump (hope that's politically correct)

[Qhevak]

"Aside from the impact on advanced starfaring nations such as us, who wage war at a scale where even mass carpet nuking is a tactical tool, this would keep nukes from being used in response to attacks from biological, chemical and radiological weapons, as well as conventional attacks with similar effects such as mass firebombing.

It would also effectively remove one of the primary reasons to have nuclear warheads, that is allowing smaller nations to have a credible deterrent against larger ones. We cannot support the resolution as is and would leave the WA were it passed."