[DEFEATED] Nuclear Aggression Act

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Regarding clause 2a, the Princess does not see the need to assume all member nations will be able to muster a response within 30 days. Why should it be lawful to use a nuclear weapon on the 30th day after invasion but not the 31st? Arbitrary provisions like this seldom make good, long lasting international law."

"Clause 2d suffers from the opposite problem. Nations may reform. One horrible dictator may misuse nuclear weapons before being deposed and replaced by a democratic government that survives for a thousand years. Why should that nation's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., be forever be denied the protections of this law because of the wrongful conduct of one regime? That strikes as obviously unjust. But I suppose such injustices are to be expected from the Jedins."

"Despite these problems the Princess will vote FOR this proposal. She realizes that any rational nation would refuse to comply with the arbitrary provisions - or simply quit this Assembly - if the terms of this proposal ever stood in the way of dealing with a truly existential threat. In the meantime, the Princess accepts the premise that providing a measure of legal security to member nations will enable them to reallocate resources away from bombmaking and, hopefully, toward more constructive pursuits. That is an end the Princess whole-heartedly supports."

[Otaku Stratus]

Bit pointless since MAD already assures nobody will fire one off without expecting retaliation, but okay sure. At least it's not another support sexwrongs issue.

[Kaprein]

While Kaprein commends the intent of this resolution, there are a number of issues with this resolution that restrict the ability of a World Assembly nation to defend themselves.

Clause 2a is far too arbitrary. What if a nation is developing nuclear weapons? What if it takes time to prepare them? What if they have to repair WMD infrastructure? Under this resolution, all a country has to do is damage another country's WMD infrastructure for a month and then force them to violate international law if they want to preserve their right to retaliate against an attack.

Clause 2b has some of the same issues as clause 2a - so a nation couldn't retaliate on behalf of an ally if they were attacked more than a month ago?

Clause 2c - what if a nation's government was completely wiped out in a single strike, thus preventing authorisation for an allied nation to retaliate?

This resolution appears not to be a resolution aimed at limiting nuclear destruction, nor does it appear to be protecting the right of a state to protect itself. The effect of this propose appears to be nothing more than an attempt by certain World Assembly nations to restrict the right of other nations to defend themselves.

Further, if a World Assembly nation is threatened to the point where they would need to use nuclear weapons, those weapons would realistically be used, consequences or not.

Harry Adler, Permeant Representative of Kaprein to the World Assembly

[New-Minneapolis]

The Commonwealth of New-Minneapolis wished to express their strong opposition to this proposal, and will leave the World Assembly if this passes. The Commonwealth will not submit itself to forced pacifism, and will continue to express their right to any weapons they deem fit that is necessary for it's protection. The Commonwealth encourages other nations to join in, and oppose this bill.

[Greater Cesnica]

The Commonwealth of New-Minneapolis wished to express their strong opposition to this proposal, and will leave the World Assembly if this passes. The Commonwealth will not submit itself to forced pacifism, and will continue to express their right to any weapons they deem fit that is necessary for it's protection. The Commonwealth encourages other nations to join in, and oppose this bill.

"What actions would your nation be prohibited from engaging in that you find to be objectionable?"

[New-Minneapolis]

The Commonwealth of New-Minneapolis wished to express their strong opposition to this proposal, and will leave the World Assembly if this passes. The Commonwealth will not submit itself to forced pacifism, and will continue to express their right to any weapons they deem fit that is necessary for it's protection. The Commonwealth encourages other nations to join in, and oppose this bill.

"What actions would your nation be prohibited from engaging in that you find to be objectionable?"

The Commonwealth reserves the right to produce and use nuclear weapons as it sees fit, which includes the right to preemptive strikes if the situation calls for it.

[Republic of Mesque]

The Commonwealth of New-Minneapolis wished to express their strong opposition to this proposal, and will leave the World Assembly if this passes. The Commonwealth will not submit itself to forced pacifism, and will continue to express their right to any weapons they deem fit that is necessary for it's protection. The Commonwealth encourages other nations to join in, and oppose this bill.

We concur.

[New Falkarth]

"Regarding clause 2a, the Princess does not see the need to assume all member nations will be able to muster a response within 30 days. Why should it be lawful to use a nuclear weapon on the 30th day after invasion but not the 31st? Arbitrary provisions like this seldom make good, long lasting international law."

"Clause 2d suffers from the opposite problem. Nations may reform. One horrible dictator may misuse nuclear weapons before being deposed and replaced by a democratic government that survives for a thousand years. Why should that nation's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., be forever be denied the protections of this law because of the wrongful conduct of one regime? That strikes as obviously unjust. But I suppose such injustices are to be expected from the Jedins."

"Despite these problems the Princess will vote FOR this proposal. She realizes that any rational nation would refuse to comply with the arbitrary provisions - or simply quit this Assembly - if the terms of this proposal ever stood in the way of dealing with a truly existential threat. In the meantime, the Princess accepts the premise that providing a measure of legal security to member nations will enable them to reallocate resources away from bombmaking and, hopefully, toward more constructive pursuits. That is an end the Princess whole-heartedly supports."

While Kaprein commends the intent of this resolution, there are a number of issues with this resolution that restrict the ability of a World Assembly nation to defend themselves.

Clause 2a is far too arbitrary. What if a nation is developing nuclear weapons? What if it takes time to prepare them? What if they have to repair WMD infrastructure? Under this resolution, all a country has to do is damage another country's WMD infrastructure for a month and then force them to violate international law if they want to preserve their right to retaliate against an attack.

Clause 2b has some of the same issues as clause 2a - so a nation couldn't retaliate on behalf of an ally if they were attacked more than a month ago?

Clause 2c - what if a nation's government was completely wiped out in a single strike, thus preventing authorisation for an allied nation to retaliate?

This resolution appears not to be a resolution aimed at limiting nuclear destruction, nor does it appear to be protecting the right of a state to protect itself. The effect of this propose appears to be nothing more than an attempt by certain World Assembly nations to restrict the right of other nations to defend themselves.

Further, if a World Assembly nation is threatened to the point where they would need to use nuclear weapons, those weapons would realistically be used, consequences or not.

Harry Adler, Permeant Representative of Kaprein to the World Assembly

Both the Princess and Kaprein bring forth valid objections. But even after considering these problems, we will still vote FOR this proposal. Just as the Princess said, in the face of an existential threat, every nation would simply ignore ANY resolution that would block them from responding to said threat.

[Montesanto]

The Republic of Montesanto does not agree with the possibility of responding with the atomic weapon to an attack perpetrated with a WMD.
The use of nuclear weapons should be allowed only to respond "in-kind" to a first strike.
The possibility of responding to a generic WMD attack with an atomic weapon is greatly disproportionate and causing enormous damage and suffering to the population and territory of the affected state.
In view of the above, the Republic of Montesanto casts its vote against the resolution as formulated.

[Brezzia]

Our Workers' Council Republic is horrified by this proposal. Brezza is against the use of WMDs and violence in international diplomacy at all.

Clause 2a does not try to reduce the use of nuclear weapons only to retaliate a nuclear attack, but it allows their use against other WMDs and in conventional warfare.

Clause 2c allows retaliation for allied nations who signed a mutual defense treaty, but Clause 2b also allows it for any target nations whose government has been obliterated, even if they are not allied. The decision whether an already obliterated government "would have been legally authorized to carry out the same retaliation" is left to the arbitrariness of the retaliating nation.

Clause 2d authorizes nuclear attacks against a nation violating this proposal, even if the target nation's government has not been obliterated or the target nation is not allied with the retaliating nation.

This proposal justifies the use of nuclear weapons for a wide rage of situations, gives enormous power to nuclear-armed nations, and increase the risk of escalation. We absolutely oppose it.

[Tinhampton]

I'd also like to put on the record that any member state - even if they were neither attacked nor an ally of the attacked - may use nuclear weapons under Article 2a. You will not believe how tempted I was to file a challenge over category for this

[Kenmoria]

Our Workers' Council Republic is horrified by this proposal. Brezza is against the use of WMDs and violence in international diplomacy at all.

Clause 2a does not try to reduce the use of nuclear weapons only to retaliate a nuclear attack, but it allows their use against other WMDs and in conventional warfare.

Clause 2c allows retaliation for allied nations who signed a mutual defense treaty, but Clause 2b also allows it for any target nations whose government has been obliterated, even if they are not allied. The decision whether an already obliterated government "would have been legally authorized to carry out the same retaliation" is left to the arbitrariness of the retaliating nation.

Clause 2d authorizes nuclear attacks against a nation violating this proposal, even if the target nation's government has not been obliterated or the target nation is not allied with the retaliating nation.

This proposal justifies the use of nuclear weapons for a wide rage of situations, gives enormous power to nuclear-armed nations, and increase the risk of escalation. We absolutely oppose it.

“I would be inclined to agree with the delegation for Brezzia, were it not for the situation that would be the case were this not to pass. Currently, there is no legislation restricting the use of nuclear weaponry at all. Although there are certainly problems with this, such as the arbitrary time-frame of thirty days, the legislation is nonetheless a step going forwards in international law. Furthermore, I will remind all delegations present that this legislation does not reserve to member-nations the right to use nuclear weaponry in the cases of clause 2. It merely does not ban nuclear weaponry in those cases. Future legislation could still do so.”

[Erabutia]

Everyone Shall Have Nukes.

[WayNeacTia]

Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on the soil of the nation testing, nor does it prevent future legislation from creating further restrictions on the use or possession of nuclear weapons

Interesting how this was ruled legal seeing as how this already grants nations the ability to test nuclear weapons, without needing this resolution to grant them that ability.

[The Serendipitous]

"The Serendipitous support this bill on behalf of the Serene."

[Second Sovereignty]

Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on the soil of the nation testing, nor does it prevent future legislation from creating further restrictions on the use or possession of nuclear weapons

Interesting how this was ruled legal seeing as how this already grants nations the ability to test nuclear weapons, without needing this resolution to grant them that ability.

OOC:
You've been here long enough to know that partial duplication is not illegal duplication. If you have an actual legal challenge to make, make a thread.

[WayNeacTia]

Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on the soil of the nation testing, nor does it prevent future legislation from creating further restrictions on the use or possession of nuclear weapons

Interesting how this was ruled legal seeing as how this already grants nations the ability to test nuclear weapons, without needing this resolution to grant them that ability.

OOC:
You've been here long enough to know that partial duplication is not illegal duplication. If you have an actual legal challenge to make, make a thread.

Didn't say I was making a challenge. I said I found it interesting. Perhaps you should have those bifocals adjusted?

[Kvers Kingis]

Any disarmament is detrimental to the security of one nation if they do so in isolation. Hence, a meaningful disarmament is the total and complete disarmament of all nations. While a rogue nation or non member can invade a member nation that has disarmed, they can't hold on to it because other nation states of the WA won't stand by and let a member be ransacked. That's the true guarantee of stability and security, not nuclear weapons. Wholeheartedly in favour!

[American Rockies]

Ye who believe the chaos of war can be governed is naive and enjoys riding their moral high-horse.

[Kenmoria]

Ye who believe the chaos of war can be governed is naive and enjoys riding their moral high-horse.

(OOC: It’s not as though the chaos war hasn’t been governed previously: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine. These were all found from a very, very cursory search. Regulating war is, in fact, one of the main areas on which the GA legislates, since it is by its nature of international importance.)

[Iwoeruc]

how do i vote in the nuclear aggression act?

[Kenmoria]

how do i vote in the nuclear aggression act?

(OOC: First, you need to join the World Assembly, which you can do from this page. Then, click on the link at the top of the page, to actually join the WA. Afterwards, you can go back to the same page, and there will be a button that allows you to vote.)

[Breadland 2]

Opposed for the reason that the unrestricted usage of nuclear weapons create an infinite amount of storytelling opportunities for those who survive the golden fire of the big bombs.

[Tinhampton]

"Nuclear Aggression Act" was defeated 9,564 votes to 6,387. (40.04% support)