[PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Frisbeeteria]

Lorica: "Alright, let's do a damn proper job of this."

OOC: BBCode (for regional forums) in first comment. Submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1664046353

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

---

---

Category: Repeal | Target: GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" | Replacement: None. Target's already redundant.

---

The World Assembly,

Understanding the critical role nuclear weapons play as tools of deterrence and national defense,

Lauding GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" for securing member nations' right to possess nuclear weapons at a time when this august body was in its infancy and could have made any number of disastrous mistakes on the subject due to shortsighted political forces,

Recognizing, however, that the main purpose of the target resolution- to protect the right of member nations "to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations"- is now redundant with a more recent and better written resolution, GA 418 "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials," thereby removing the main benefit provided by the target and allowing its severe issues to come to the forefront,

Deeply troubled by the target’s ultimate clause, "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands," which:

1. does not define or elaborate on the meaning of "the wrong hands," thereby leaving who or what nations are to secure their weapons against unclear, and
2. requires nations to "take every available precaution" regardless of how reasonable, sensible, or otherwise justified a given precaution is,

Comprehending that the above problem areas render compliance with the already redundant target resolution unclear, difficult, and unnecessarily costly through their vagueness and poor wording, and could easily undermine the purpose of the target and even endanger nations by potentially forcing members to implement unreasonable restrictions that harm their ability to access, use, or even maintain or dismantle their own weapons so long as those restrictions act to "ensure" they "do not fall into the wrong hands,"

Adamant that such issues are inexcusable where nuclear weapons and national security are concerned, especially since the survival of the members of this Assembly could very well hinge on the credible threat of rapid nuclear retaliation in certain circumstances, not to mention the ability to efficiently access their weapons for repairs and maintenance,

Noting that even the aforementioned final clause of GA 10 is better covered by GA 418's fourth clause: "Mandates that member nations take all practical actions to stop unauthorised release of the materials or disclosure of the knowledge spoken of in the above two clauses,"

Clarifying that repealing GA 10 will not leave the right of members to possess nuclear weapons unprotected, nor will it have any significant impact other than eliminating a redundant resolution with several flaws that can prove severely harmful to member nations,

Believing that GA 10 has not failed, but rather has served its purpose and helped allow this body to survive into the future, and to pass a resolution of a higher quality that has rendered GA 10 obsolete, and

Wishing to finally lay one of the most venerable documents produced by this body to a well-deserved rest,

Hereby repeals GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

[Cretox State]

BBCode for regional forums:

Code: Select all

The World Assembly,

Understanding the critical role nuclear weapons play as tools of deterrence and national defense,

Lauding GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" for securing member nations' right to possess nuclear weapons at a time when this august body was in its infancy and could have made any number of disastrous mistakes on the subject due to shortsighted political forces,

Recognizing, however, that the main purpose of the target resolution- to protect the right of member nations "to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations"- is now redundant with a more recent and better written resolution, [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=418/council=1]GA 418 "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials,"[/url] thereby removing the main benefit provided by the target and allowing its severe issues to come to the forefront,

Deeply troubled by the target’s ultimate clause, "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands," which:[list=1]
[*]does not define or elaborate on the meaning of "the wrong hands," thereby leaving who or what nations are to secure their weapons against unclear, and
[*]requires nations to "take every available precaution" regardless of how reasonable, sensible, or otherwise justified a given precaution is,[/list]
Comprehending that the above problem areas render compliance with the already redundant target resolution unclear, difficult, and unnecessarily costly through their vagueness and poor wording, and could easily undermine the purpose of the target and even endanger nations by potentially forcing members to implement unreasonable restrictions that harm their ability to access, use, or even maintain or dismantle their own weapons so long as those restrictions act to "ensure" they "do not fall into the wrong hands,"

Adamant that such issues are inexcusable where nuclear weapons and national security are concerned, especially since the survival of the members of this Assembly could very well hinge on the credible threat of rapid nuclear retaliation in certain circumstances, not to mention the ability to efficiently access their weapons for repairs and maintenance,

Noting that even the aforementioned final clause of GA 10 is better covered by GA 418's fourth clause: "Mandates that member nations take all practical actions to stop unauthorised release of the materials or disclosure of the knowledge spoken of in the above two clauses,"

Clarifying that repealing GA 10 will not leave the right of members to possess nuclear weapons unprotected, nor will it have any significant impact other than eliminating a redundant resolution with several flaws that can prove severely harmful to member nations,

Believing that GA 10 has not failed, but rather has served its purpose and helped allow this body to survive into the future, and to pass a resolution of a higher quality that has rendered GA 10 obsolete, and

Wishing to finally lay one of the most venerable documents produced by this body to a well-deserved rest,

Hereby repeals GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

The World Assembly,

Understanding the critical role nuclear weapons play as tools of deterrence and national defense,

Lauding GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" for decisively securing member nations' right to possess nuclear weapons at a time when this august body was still in its infancy and could have made any number of disastrous mistakes on the subject due to shortsighted political forces,

Recognizing, however, that GA 10 was very much a product of its time- a time long since past- and that the circumstances of its existence no longer hold up today,

Noting that the primary and arguably sole purpose of the target resolution- to protect the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons through its declaration "that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations"- has since been similarly served by a relatively recent and superiorly written resolution, GA 418 "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials," thereby rendering the principal effect of and reason for the target’s continued existence no longer unique to it,

Elaborating that the presence of GA 418 removes the main benefit provided by the target resolution, and allows for its many pitfalls to come to the forefront,

Puzzled by one of these shortcomings, found in "PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons," a clause which bizarrely legislates on the ability of nations to desire the possession of certain things rather than actually possess them,

Troubled by the target’s ultimate clause, "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands," a clause which:

1. refers to "the wrong hands" without defining or elaborating on the meaning of that phrase, and
2. requires nations to "take every available precaution," a disturbingly vague phrase which compels members to use every relevant precaution available to them, no matter how contradictory, expensive, or inane, potentially including but not limited to:
   1. forcing national leaders to perform complicated tap dances to access nuclear launch codes,
   2. forcing every citizen of a nation to tear off their fingers at the same time to launch a nuclear attack, and
   3. forcing national leaders to repeatedly jump in a tank of boiling acid to order a nuclear retaliatory strike,

Comprehending that the above problem areas render compliance with the target resolution unclear, difficult, and potentially impossible through their vagueness and poor wording,

Adamant that such issues are inexcusable where nuclear weapons and national security are concerned, especially since the survival of the members of this Assembly could very well hinge on the credible threat of rapid nuclear retaliation in certain circumstances,

Convinced that while the vital reason for the target resolution’s creation has easily stood the test of time, the target’s execution has not,

Believing that GA 10 has not failed, but rather has served its purpose and allowed this body to survive for years to come- to pass resolutions of a higher quality that render GA 10 obsolete,

Confident that should redundant resolutions on the subject of possessing nuclear weapons be warranted, the Assembly of today would rise to the task, and

Wishing to finally lay one of the most venerable documents produced by this body to a well-deserved and triumphant rest,

Hereby repeals GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

---

The World Assembly,

Understanding the critical role nuclear weapons play as tools of deterrence and national defense,

Lauding GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" for decisively securing member nations' right to possess nuclear weapons at a time when this august body was still in its infancy and could have made any number of disastrous mistakes on the subject due to shortsighted political forces,

Recognizing, however, that GA 10 was very much a product of its time- a time long since past- and that the circumstances of its existence no longer hold up today,

Noting that the primary and arguably sole purpose of the target resolution- to protect the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons through its declaration "that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations"- has since been similarly served by a relatively recent and superiorly written resolution, GA 418 "Safeguarding Nuclear Materials," thereby rendering the principal effect of and reason for the target’s continued existence no longer unique to it,

Elaborating that the presence of GA 418 removes the main benefit provided by the target resolution, and allows for its many pitfalls to come to the forefront,

Puzzled by one of these shortcomings, found in "PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons," a clause which bizarrely legislates on the ability of nations to desire the possession of certain things rather than actually possess them,

Troubled by the target’s ultimate clause, "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands," a clause which:

1. refers to "the wrong hands" without defining or elaborating on the meaning of that phrase, and
2. requires nations to "take every available precaution," a disturbingly vague phrase which can be interpreted to mean that:
   1. nations must safeguard their nuclear weapons with every precaution potentially available to them, no matter how contradictory, expensive, or inane, including but not limited to:
      1. forcing national leaders to perform complicated tap dances to access nuclear launch codes,
      2. forcing every citizen of a nation to activate a fingerprint scanner at the same time to launch a nuclear attack, and
      3. forcing national leaders to repeatedly jump in a tank of boiling acid to order a nuclear retaliatory strike, or
   2. nations must safeguard their nuclear weapons with every precaution immediately available to them, meaning that nations may sidestep the clause entirely by making such precautions not immediately available,

Comprehending that the above problem areas render compliance with the target resolution unclear, difficult, and potentially impossible through their vagueness and poor wording,

Adamant that such issues are inexcusable where nuclear weapons and national security are concerned, especially since the survival of the members of this Assembly could very well hinge on the credible threat of rapid nuclear retaliation in certain circumstances,

Convinced that while the vital reason for the target resolution’s creation has easily stood the test of time, the target’s execution has not,

Believing that GA 10 has not failed, but rather has served its purpose and allowed this body to survive for years to come- to pass resolutions of a higher quality that render GA 10 obsolete,

Confident that should redundant resolutions on the subject of possessing nuclear weapons be warranted, the Assembly of today would rise to the task, and

Wishing to finally lay one of the most venerable documents produced by this body to a well-deserved and triumphant rest,

Hereby repeals GA 10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

[Quintessence of Dust]

This is a roleplaying game. Identify your character and provide an in-character defense of your proposal, or go away.

[Thousand Branches]

You know, if this fails at vote it'll tie "Reproductive Freedoms" for most popular failed repeal

On a much more serious note, I probably would not support this without a *very* solid replacement

[Tinhampton]

forcing national leaders to solve random previously unsolved mathematical problems to order a nuclear retaliatory strike

Support.

[Apatosaurus]

"Apatosaurus offers its full support to any repeal of GAR#10."

OOC: Based and redpilled.

[Cretox State]

This is a roleplaying game. Identify your character and provide an in-character defense of your proposal, or go away.

Whatshisface: "Oh, I see. This is about my name, isn't it? So that's how it's going to be? Well, let me give you a history lesson, you insensitive toad. In the State, babies are named upon exiting the womb by their attending physician, midwife, or equivalent's reaction. In my case, when I popped out of my dear father's underage mistress, the back-alley doctor was too engrossed in his phone to care about the birth. You know what he said to my father? 'Yeah sure whatever, feel free to hold whatshisface over there. Thanks for paying in advance.' You know what having a name like that does to a person? I fought tooth and nail to get this position. Literally- I stabbed my predecessor with his own dental fillings to force him to resign. Pretty good for someone named Whatshisface, right?

While I would've hoped our team of unpaid ghostwriters made our rationale for proposing this clear in the repeal text itself, I'll elaborate here anyway. Then probably get some new ghostwriters depending on what feedback other folks have.

Cretox State, as does many a member nation, has a nuclear arsenal. However, our arsenal isn't particularly large. Our nuclear arsenal's ability to act as an effective deterrent without eating up our entire military budget hinges on our ability to use that arsenal quickly and decisively in a retaliatory strike. Having to comply with a resolution that, while extremely necessary for its time, is both no longer necessary (due to 418) and worded vaguely enough that it could hurt our nuclear capability instead of protecting it, is not in our interests. I don't know what member nation's interests it's in, if any. We shouldn't maintain an obsolete resolution that at best forces every nuclear-capable member nation and the WA as a whole to expend money and effort trying to interpret poorly worded clauses and at worst forces me to jump in a tank of boiling acid before informing our Grand Tyrant of a nuclear threat because jumping in a tank of boiling acid could potentially deter a terrorist from accessing our nuclear codes.

He thinks my name is funny. Whatshisface. Unbelievable."

[Minskiev]

Too many clauses, otherwise support.

[Cretox State]

You know, if this fails at vote it'll tie "Reproductive Freedoms" for most popular failed repeal

On a much more serious note, I probably would not support this without a *very* solid replacement

W: "We would be perfectly willing to write such a replacement, but what would it accomplish? Is a layer of redundancy on top of 418 that critical?"

forcing national leaders to solve random previously unsolved mathematical problems to order a nuclear retaliatory strike

Support.

"You know what? You're right; that actually sounds pretty awesome. Changed."

"Apatosaurus offers its full support to any repeal of GAR#10."

OOC: Based and redpilled.

Too many clauses, otherwise support.

"Thank you for the support, ambassadors! I agree that it's a bit bloated, but we felt that turning up the purple prose somewhat would be fitting considering the legacy of the target resolution. Is there any specific section you feel should be removed?"

[Minskiev]

"Thank you for the support, ambassadors! I agree that it's a bit bloated, but we felt that turning up the purple prose somewhat would be fitting considering the legacy of the target resolution. Is there any specific section you feel should be removed?"

The Convinced, Believing, and Confident clauses at the end.

[Cretox State]

"Thank you for the support, ambassadors! I agree that it's a bit bloated, but we felt that turning up the purple prose somewhat would be fitting considering the legacy of the target resolution. Is there any specific section you feel should be removed?"

The Convinced, Believing, and Confident clauses at the end.

W: "But ambassador, isn't it reasonable to have at least some purple prose in a repeal of the tenth resolution passed by this body?"

[Untecna]

This is a roleplaying game. Identify your character and provide an in-character defense of your proposal, or go away.

I don't even do that often, chill.

[Cretox State]

This is a roleplaying game. Identify your character and provide an in-character defense of your proposal, or go away.

I don't even do that often, chill.

W: “Thank you, ambassador. Does anyone have comments regarding the draft’s content or arguments? It would be a shame if it reached quorum only for someone to notice a major issue.”

[Haganham]

This is a roleplaying game. Identify your character and provide an in-character defense of your proposal, or go away.

The WA has at best only ever operated under the thinnest veneer of IC action.

[Untecna]

I don't even do that often, chill.

W: “Thank you, ambassador. Does anyone have comments regarding the draft’s content or arguments? It would be a shame if it reached quorum only for someone to notice a major issue.”

OOC: I can make comment soon enough.

[Maowi]

nations must safeguard their nuclear weapons with every precaution immediately available to them, meaning that nations may sidestep the clause entirely by making such precautions not immediately available,

OOC: In general, I think I'd support this proposal. This particular point though seems a little unreasonable. The target doesn't use the wording "immediately available", and I'd think that if you have to go out of your way to make certain precautions difficult to implement, it's hard to see how they're not in fact available to you in the first place. I also think this line of reasoning slightly undermines the point you make directly above!

[Cretox State]

nations must safeguard their nuclear weapons with every precaution immediately available to them, meaning that nations may sidestep the clause entirely by making such precautions not immediately available,

OOC: In general, I think I'd support this proposal. This particular point though seems a little unreasonable. The target doesn't use the wording "immediately available", and I'd think that if you have to go out of your way to make certain precautions difficult to implement, it's hard to see how they're not in fact available to you in the first place. I also think this line of reasoning slightly undermines the point you make directly above!

W: "And here I was thinking that the other interpretation was the slightly unreasonable one. Will remove the immediately available line for now."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Imo the choice of whether to have possess or not nuclear weapons also authorises the predicate act thereto. See predicate act canon. Citation provided on request.

[Cretox State]

Imo the choice of whether to have possess or not nuclear weapons also authorises the predicate act thereto. See predicate act canon. Citation provided on request.

Unless I misunderstand you, the target still protects the choice of whether to want nuclear weapons, not whether to possess them. A citation may be helpful. A government could want a basket of fruit but still be unable to attain it. The target could have easily used the latter wording: "PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want whether to possess nuclear weapons." Under that wording, yes, I agree regarding authorization of the predicate act.

If you're right, I could just remove the offending portion and the proposal wouldn't suffer much for it.

[Ainocra]

Rising from his seat the Supreme Marshal of Ainocra raises his voice. "The Star Empire of Ainocra is opposed to this feel good attempt to curb our defense program."
Leaning heavily on his cane he glares around the room. "Nuclear weapons are a vital part of our national security strategy, after all not every situation for an antimatter warhead capable of cracking a planetary crust." Smashing the tip of his cane into the polished floor for emphasis he continues. "Sometimes we need to show restraint and nuclear weapons fit that category perfectly."

The Marshal pauses to glare around the room one more time before resuming his seat.

[Cretox State]

Rising from his seat the Supreme Marshal of Ainocra raises his voice. "The Star Empire of Ainocra is opposed to this feel good attempt to curb our defense program."
Leaning heavily on his cane he glares around the room. "Nuclear weapons are a vital part of our national security strategy, after all not every situation for an antimatter warhead capable of cracking a planetary crust." Smashing the tip of his cane into the polished floor for emphasis he continues. "Sometimes we need to show restraint and nuclear weapons fit that category perfectly."

The Marshal pauses to glare around the room one more time before resuming his seat.

“Ambassador, all of this resolution’s nuclear weapon protections are better handled by 418. This repeal wouldn’t hurt your defense program in any way. Rather, it would make it much easier for you to maintain and use your nuclear weapons, should that be necessary, due to the target resolution’s poor wording regarding “available precautions.” Unless you think that publicly sharing all your banking information to access a nuclear silo for maintenance so the thing doesn't break down and explode is somehow a good thing that we should keep.”

[Thermodolia]

Strongly against

[Thermodolia]

Rising from his seat the Supreme Marshal of Ainocra raises his voice. "The Star Empire of Ainocra is opposed to this feel good attempt to curb our defense program."
Leaning heavily on his cane he glares around the room. "Nuclear weapons are a vital part of our national security strategy, after all not every situation for an antimatter warhead capable of cracking a planetary crust." Smashing the tip of his cane into the polished floor for emphasis he continues. "Sometimes we need to show restraint and nuclear weapons fit that category perfectly."

The Marshal pauses to glare around the room one more time before resuming his seat.

“Ambassador, all of this resolution’s nuclear weapon protections are better handled by 418. This repeal wouldn’t hurt your defense program in any way. Rather, it would make it much easier for you to maintain and use your nuclear weapons, should that be necessary, due to the target resolution’s poor wording regarding “available precautions.” Unless you think that publicly sharing all your banking information to access a nuclear silo for maintenance so the thing doesn't break down and explode is somehow a good thing that we should keep.”

But it creates a precedent that once started will end up with nuclear weapons banned. Sure 418 may protect it now, but what happens when after you remove 10 someone decides to do the same to 418 and then ban nuclear weapons or hell interpret 418 so that it doesn’t apply to nuclear weapons

[Cretox State]

“Ambassador, all of this resolution’s nuclear weapon protections are better handled by 418. This repeal wouldn’t hurt your defense program in any way. Rather, it would make it much easier for you to maintain and use your nuclear weapons, should that be necessary, due to the target resolution’s poor wording regarding “available precautions.” Unless you think that publicly sharing all your banking information to access a nuclear silo for maintenance so the thing doesn't break down and explode is somehow a good thing that we should keep.”

But it creates a precedent that once started will end up with nuclear weapons banned. Sure 418 may protect it now, but what happens when after you remove 10 someone decides to do the same to 418 and then ban nuclear weapons or hell interpret 418 so that it doesn’t apply to nuclear weapons

"That would be incredibly difficult if not virtually impossible, considering that GA 418 lacks the significant flaws of GA 10 and would be protected by the lack of redundancy. There's also no way to interpret 418 as not applying to nuclear weapons when the very first clause affirms "the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces.""

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I support the repeal NAPA effort but I think the version currently in queue should be removed (by the author or otherwise) to address an Honest Mistake violation.

Troubled by such issues found in the target’s ultimate clause, "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands," a clause which:

* * *

2. requires nations to "take every available precaution," a disturbingly vague phrase which compels members to use every relevant precaution available to them, no matter how contradictory, expensive, or inane, potentially including but not limited to:

1. forcing national leaders to perform complicated tap dances to access nuclear launch codes,
2. forcing every citizen of a nation to make obscene gestures at the same time to launch a nuclear attack, and
3. forcing national leaders to repeatedly jump in a tank of boiling acid to order a nuclear retaliatory strike,

This crosses the line, I think. Your point about "wrong hands" being vague is valid. But it's unfair to claim that vaguery about how weapons are possessed "compels" nations to enact absurd restrictions on how they are launched or authorized. Even if a member nation could interpret "ensuring that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands" as implicating how weapons are used (as opposed to regulating only their storage and maintenance; which would be the more intuitive interpretation of a law about "possession"), it's unfair to claim NAPA compels such an interpretation.

The last included example is particularly overboard. Jumping "repeatedly" into boiling acid sounds like it might be physically impossible. I don't think that can fairly belong in the category of "available precautions" anymore than requiring national leaders to go a year without drinking water, swim all the way to the moon, or capture a leprechaun, as preconditions for a retaliatory strike.

Going a bit to the heart of the matter, I think it's illogical to say that vague mandates in a proposal can compel absurd interpretations. I think proper repeal arguments about vague clauses need to focus on the absurdities they permit (or, relatedly, what they fail to explicitly require). That makes sense, because the fundamental problem with vague laws is not what they demand but what they allow. To offer a very simple example to illustrate the point: It would be vague of me to mandate, "Schools must take every available precaution to protect small children from abduction." It would be illogical and unfair for you to interpret that vaguery as requiring that parents repeatedly jump in a tank of boiling acid to pick up their kids early.