Advertisement
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:03 pm
by Otaku Stratus » Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:39 pm
by Kaprein » Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:49 pm
by New-Minneapolis » Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:30 pm
by Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:54 pm
New-Minneapolis wrote: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.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by New-Minneapolis » Tue Jan 03, 2023 6:21 pm
Greater Cesnica wrote:New-Minneapolis wrote: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?"
by Republic of Mesque » Tue Jan 03, 2023 6:49 pm
New-Minneapolis wrote: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.
by New Falkarth » Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:36 am
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:"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."
Kaprein wrote: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
by Montesanto » Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:33 am
by Brezzia » Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:30 am
Nation Name: Brezzia Official Name: Brezzian Workes' Council Republic Capital city: Nova Sybaris Region: Badge WA Category: Left-wing Utopia Embassy Program: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=544944 | Government System: Council Republic Economic System: Socialist President of the Committee of the Republic: Nando Martellone President of the Council of Commissars: Olga Demetri Commissar for Foreign Affairs: Guido Forestieri WA Permanent Representative: Carlo A. Van Vera |
by Tinhampton » Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:56 am
by Kenmoria » Wed Jan 04, 2023 8:17 am
Brezzia wrote: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.
by WayNeacTia » Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:06 pm
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
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by The Serendipitous » Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:14 pm
by Second Sovereignty » Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:15 pm
Wayneactia wrote: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.
by WayNeacTia » Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:21 pm
Second Sovereignty wrote:Wayneactia wrote: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.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Kvers Kingis » Fri Jan 06, 2023 2:52 am
by American Rockies » Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:39 pm
by Kenmoria » Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:09 pm
American Rockies wrote:Ye who believe the chaos of war can be governed is naive and enjoys riding their moral high-horse.
by Kenmoria » Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:04 pm
Iwoeruc wrote:how do i vote in the nuclear aggression act?
by Breadland 2 » Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:25 pm
by Tinhampton » Sat Jan 07, 2023 10:02 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement