NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I said I'd think about my propasals a bit longer and more thoroughly and that is what Im doing, Im getting peoples opinions on my proposal to try and make it better.
Please vote in the poll and please tell me where I can improve it.
Here it is:

Category: International Security

In attempt to help smaller, less powerful nations, in nuclear warfare I propose:

//1// A nation should not be allowed to fire nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at another nation unless the defending nation has the facillities of nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry to defend itself.

//2// ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) would be allowed to be used (under the laws of //1//), but only at a nation that is bigger than 30,500sq. Km. This is to avoid an ICBM missing and hitting a neutral nation.

//3// If an ICBM were to go off target and hit a neutral nation that cannot defend itself with nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry the offending nation would be breaking law //1//.


please give your opinion on this proposal.

I think it's time the Cluichstani Armed Forces retarget some of their ICBMs...

I know I said I'd think about my propasals a bit longer and more thoroughly and that is what Im doing, Im getting peoples opinions on my proposal to try and make it better.
Please vote in the poll and please tell me where I can improve it.
Here it is:

Category: International Security

In attempt to help smaller, less powerful nations, in nuclear warfare I propose:

//1// A nation should not be allowed to fire nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at another nation unless the defending nation has the facillities of nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry to defend itself.

//2// ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) would be allowed to be used (under the laws of //1//), but only at a nation that is bigger than 30,500sq. Km. This is to avoid an ICBM missing and hitting a neutral nation.

//3// If an ICBM were to go off target and hit a neutral nation that cannot defend itself with nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry the offending nation would be breaking law //1//.


please give your opinion on this proposal.

1) //#// is intrusive. At the very least, make it a single slash, or just remove the slashes altogether and make it a period after the number
2) I think Flib's put it best when he was passing the Nuclear Armaments resolution (UNR 109)

It was something to the effect of "Instead of the Big Read button meaning I launch my nukes, it means I submit my resignation to the UN and launch my nukes"

Oh

and International Security is not a title.

I believe that the United Nations has devoted sufficient attention to the deployment and development of nuclear weapons at this time. There are definitely more pressing issues at hand.

Ambassador Yoshi Takahara
Republic of Krioval

2) I think Flib's put it best when he was passing the Nuclear Armaments resolution (UNR 109)

It was something to the effect of "Instead of the Big Read button meaning I launch my nukes, it means I submit my resignation to the UN and launch my nukes"
I don't think that was me.

Sounds more like a comment the Gruenberger or Kennyite representative would make.

Sounds more like a comment the Gruenberger or Kennyite representative would make.
Or possibly TH, his avatar over at the UNOG forums is his big red button.

Or possibly TH, his avatar over at the UNOG forums is his big red button.

Ah, right. Forgot about that.

I don't think that was me.

I'm certain it was you - 'cause it started off as "That's why I protected having Nuclear weapons"

I'm certain it was you - 'cause it started off as "That's why I protected having Nuclear weapons"

Ok.....I checked and couldn't find it in the official topic.

In attempt to help smaller, less powerful nations, in nuclear warfare I propose:

//1// A nation should not be allowed to fire nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at another nation unless the defending nation has the facillities of nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry to defend itself.This is too vague.
1)Could a nation have the nuclear facilities to defend itself if they have one missile, and would that justify another nations use of 300 nukes against them?
2) What if they have the facilities to defend themselves against a border nation, but not one across the ocean? Does this still count?

//2// ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) would be allowed to be used (under the laws of //1//), but only at a nation that is bigger than 30,500sq. Km. This is to avoid an ICBM missing and hitting a neutral nation. 1) What if the target is near the border? Then it won't matter if the target nation is 30 sq km or 3,000,000sq km, there is still about the same chance of deviation.
2) The chance of hitting a neutral nation exists with other delivery systems, as well. Many bombs delivered by planes go off target, or the planes are misdirected; this could have the same effect.

//3// If an ICBM were to go off target and hit a neutral nation that cannot defend itself with nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry the offending nation would be breaking law //1//.
This is obvious. Cut it.

In my view, this would work better as a "no first strike" law, as in nations could not use Nuke/Chem/Bio Weapons as a first strike, but may retaliate. This deals with the problem of arsenal sizes and configurations, while still doing the type of thing you want. Clause 2 is no good, it should be cut. Clause 3 just says "if you do what is against the law in #1, you are breaking the law as defined in #1", which is obvious. Cut 2 & 3, and rework 1.

I know I said I'd think about my propasals a bit longer and more thoroughly and that is what Im doing, Im getting peoples opinions on my proposal to try and make it better.
Please vote in the poll and please tell me where I can improve it.
Here it is:

Category: International Security

In attempt to help smaller, less powerful nations, in nuclear warfare I propose:

//1// A nation should not be allowed to fire nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at another nation unless the defending nation has the facillities of nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry to defend itself.

And this would be enforced how? I'm not saying I don't like the idea (it would certainly be quite enlightened should it be praticable), but how would you account for nations with concealed arsenals? Or who have a rather different concept of NBC weaponary?

//2// ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) would be allowed to be used (under the laws of //1//), but only at a nation that is bigger than 30,500sq. Km. This is to avoid an ICBM missing and hitting a neutral nation.

ICBM's are usually accurate enough to distinguish between nations. Hell, V1's and V2's were utterly rubbish in precision guidance terms, but they still tended to hit a target within the nation they were aimed at.

//3// If an ICBM were to go off target and hit a neutral nation that cannot defend itself with nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry the offending nation would be breaking law //1//.

Splendid. Resulting in what exactly?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

ICBM's are usually accurate enough to distinguish between nations. Hell, V1's and V2's were utterly rubbish in precision guidance terms, but they still tended to hit a target within the nation they were aimed at.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that refering to real life, and isn't that illegal?

As an initial concren, with clause 3

If an ICBM were to go off target and hit a neutral nation that cannot defend itself with nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry the offending nation would be breaking law

If I tamper with, or hack into, your guidance systems causing your ordinance to go astray, hitting an unintended (possible 'innocent') target, then you would be to blame as the "offending" nation. Assuming, of course, that my tampering or hacking went undetected.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

The V1 and V2 were brought in as examples, although the V1 wasn't actually a ballistic missile so much as an early example of a cruise missile. One is allowed to use RL examples to illuminate an argument, but only with caution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that refering to real life, and isn't that illegal?

It's illegal to make real life references in proposals. However, it's a fair argument in a debate.

This proposal is very poorly written. It is vague, has many loopholes, and cannot be easily enforced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that refering to real life, and isn't that illegal?

OOC: Referring to RL in resolution and repeal texts is illegal, but in posts it isn't (as far as I know). I admit I should have sign-posted it though.