NationStates Jolt Archive

Well since the UN, I mean the WA (I'm never going to get used to that) in it's infinite insanity, I mean wisdom, has seen fit to throw away all the old UN resolutions. It looks like I'll have to bring my resolution back

Title: Nuclear Arms Possession Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. 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.

So what do you think?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

somewhat limited in scope.... only addresses one type of weapon, and not proliferation or development. given FT and PT nations, its somewhat limited in its usefulness, and perhaps generalizing it with something similar to the 'necessary weapons' clause would be good. i like that you dont give anyone the right to actually use nukes.

oh, and definitely a definition of nuclear weapon would be good.

somewhat limited in scope.... only addresses one type of weapon, and not proliferation or development.It's limited because it's original purpose was to prevent the UN from banning it's members from possessing nuclear weapons. Which is why that is all it does.
given FT and PT nations, its somewhat limited in its usefulness, and perhaps generalizing it with something similar to the 'necessary weapons' clause would be good.First off, it is applicable to past and future tech nations, under this past tech nations such as Cobdenia will have the right to possess nuclear weapons should their technology level get to the point where they can create them. As for the future tech nations, I have heard of some of them using nuclear weapons to aid in asteroid mining operations and this resolution would protect their right to possess nuclear weapons even if they're not being used as weapons. i like that you dont give anyone the right to actually use nukes.Yeah, that's a bone I throw the anti-nuke crowd, not that they ever notice.

oh, and definitely a definition of nuclear weapon would be good.

:rolleyes: Three words, Resonable Nation Theory.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

sorry, i should have elaborated, but i was hasty. radiological weapons can be considered nuclear, but i would hate to have them be legit. (way out of the ordinary, if you ever played C&C red alert, the iraqi special unit with that radiation gun shouldnt be legit) and of course you bring up an issue i didnt even know of making a definition even more useful:

heard of some of them using nuclear weapons to aid in asteroid mining operations and this resolution would protect their right to possess nuclear weapons even if they're not being used as weapons.

are nuclear devices used for peaceful purposes weapons? and then wouldnt it be possible to ban that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions

also, since you dont give the right to use them in self defense, isnt it an empty shield, since a nation could outlaw the use of them, and thus render possession meaningless?

at this point id like to just make sure you know that Decapod Ten really doesnt care, as our fleet of spaceships would simply cut up a nuclear nation.......

I'm going to ignore the honorable delegate from Decapod Ten. Since most of what he's saying is somewhat... unreasonable.

Flib, I like it, good adjustment of an effective piece of legislation, does exactly what it sets out to do.

No loopholes, just intended effects.

Good stuff.

unreasonable? wow. i can see the arguement of unnecessary, but a definition being unreasonable....... didnt see that one coming.

unreasonable? wow. i can see the arguement of unnecessary, but a definition being unreasonable....... didnt see that one coming.

You're right, unnecessary does fit it better. Good call.

We stand opposed to this proposal, as we would like to see the World Assembly usher in a new age of peace by prohibiting nuclear weapons.

This could, though, at the very least, require that nations institute some form of safeguards to prevent nuclear weapons being accidentally detonated, used without full authorisation in the field, being stolen, or otherwise contributing further to global security problems.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I've added a third clause that should allay any security fears people might have.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

"Mister Fibble, I can safely say that TMZ will back this proposal." The TMX representative said agreeably

But, Ms. Benson, while you might think that not possessing nuclear weapons will bring about an age of peace, I feel that you are most sadly misguided. Unless you were speaking of the peace of the grave" Captain Abagail Hardcastle shook her head at the QoD representative.

OOC: Extremely minor point. I don't know as I like the "3 to 1" statement. It seems unprofessional. How about "WA members are and likely always will be outnumbered by non-members"? I've just developed a negative response to hard-coding numbers into resolutions in any way, really. Pretty good, though. I like it.

well, im going to get yelled at for unnecessary criticism again, but a) id stilll like to see a definition of nuclear weapons, because radiological weapons should be outlawed and b) "wrong hands"...... that's a phrase that means nothing. not only would giving nukes to decapodian separatists be having it fall into the wrong claws (as we do not have hands), but also i could argue that nukes in the hands of your state is the wrong hands, or that nukes in a terrorist organization is the right hands.

why not just write "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available reasonable precaution to ensure that nuclear weapons do not leave the possession of a nationstate" or something congruent. honestly, this isnt reasonable nation theory, its friggin a huge loophole.

Reasonable nation theory isn't so much a loophole as a myth. But in any case, I do agree that it's a good idea to specifically allow the possession and use of nuclear armaments. This would still allow laws to be made regulating their sale and development.

HotRodian WA Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The Wolf Guardians;13595448']OOC: Extremely minor point. I don't know as I like the "3 to 1" statement. It seems unprofessional. How about "WA members are and likely always will be outnumbered by non-members"? I've just developed a negative response to hard-coding numbers into resolutions in any way, really. Pretty good, though. I like it.

OOC: I knew there was something I was forgetting, I was going to go back and check those numbers for accuracy. And having done so now, they're still accurate. Furthermore, it says "about 3 to 1" it's an approximation.

Reasonable nation theory isn't so much a loophole as a myth. But in any case, I do agree that it's a good idea to specifically allow the possession and use of nuclear armaments. This would still allow laws to be made regulating their sale and development.


oh, sorry, i meant "wrong hands" is a loophole, not RNT.

OOC: I knew there was something I was forgetting, I was going to go back and check those numbers for accuracy. And having done so now, they're still accurate. Furthermore, it says "about 3 to 1" it's an approximation.

OOC: Yeah, yeah, I know. It doesn't sound professional, though. Plus, they could change in the future. But, like I said, it dun matta. *shuts up*

Approval and Vote when you need it.

We're with you.

(although the strength seems more like 'strong'. Legalizing nuclear weapons?)

Azemica

Article 1 ends in a comma, 2 with a full stop. You should change one of them to be consistent.

(although the strength seems more like 'strong'. Legalizing nuclear weapons?)

They're already legal. This just preserves that right.

Article 1 ends in a comma, 2 with a full stop. You should change one of them to be consistent.

That's because article 2 used to be the end, I'll fix that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The proposal has been submitted for a test run.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Subistratica has given its approval to this proposal, and will be sure to vote for it (and encourage other WA member nations in our region to vote for it) should it [hopefully] reach quorum.

Good day.
-Eros Tatriel

I like this proposal.It will make sure the WA will be fear...er...respected. Maintaining our security.

Bump

Approval and Vote when you need it.

We're with you.

(although the strength seems more like 'strong'. Legalizing nuclear weapons?)

Azemica

I agree it's definitely a "strong" proposal.
I too will give you my vote.

I agree it's definitely a "strong" proposal.
I too will give you my vote.

This resolution merely ensures that the WA cannot ban it's members from possessing nuclear weapons. It doesn't do anything else, which is why it isn't "strong".

Either way, I'm hoping that this one will reach quorum and eventually pass.

I approve of this resolution and will vote for it!

"Roman" of TNP, evil conservative

REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. 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.

So what do you think?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I Believe this is correct. I we were being attacked, we need to defend ourselves from it. Nuclear weapons are a good tool. So if you think this is wrong let me ask you something, if some nation attacked you because you are a WA member, how would you defend yourself?

This resolution merely ensures that the WA cannot ban it's members from possessing nuclear weapons. It doesn't do anything else, which is why it isn't "strong".

Either way, I'm hoping that this one will reach quorum and eventually pass.

The Wierd Anarechists will never vote for this proposal. If we can ban nations torture civilians, we can ban nations with nukes (it is better than ban nations by nuking them). By stocking them, using them, either by mistake or by being crazy, will become closer. If you like that vote for possesion of nukes.

WA nations can be outnumberd by non WA nations, but think about this, we share something, non members only share being non members. People with red eyes are far more outnumbered by people with non red eyes, but the red eyes ones are not likely to be attacked by all the non red eyes, because those people with non red eyes are not allied. (Even the red eyed people are non allied but that is something different than the WA nations.)

Do not fear what you not know, fear the non logic.

Greetings,
Cocoamok the weird WA-delagate for Intelligentsia Islands

I Believe this is correct. I we were being attacked, we need to defend ourselves from it. Nuclear weapons are a good tool. So if you think this is wrong let me ask you something, if some nation attacked you because you are a WA member, how would you defend yourself?

We do not have tanks, we do not have bombers. But all citizens now how to use bazookas and ground to air rockets. These stuff, really much cheaper of attacking stuff, is being stockpiled in our nation, tested on time.

OK, we do not have nukes, we do not need it. Our guerrilla forces will be in all nations attacking our nations, spoiling transportlines, food, water and so when we are attacked. But no one cares for attacking us, it cost them more than the gain is and we are no threat because we cannot occupy other nation grounds, because we lack equipment for that. It is like in RL Switzerland, which survived the WOII, but with more trained intelligent citizens.

Warm greetings,
Cocoamok
Co-ordinator of the Wierd Anarchists

The Wierd Anarechists will never vote for this proposal. If we can ban nations torture civilians, we can ban nations with nukes (it is better than ban nations by nuking them). By stocking them, using them, either by mistake or by being crazy, will become closer. If you like that vote for possesion of nukes.Currently the WA can ban its members from possessing nuclear weapons, however if this passes then the WA can no longer do that as it would contradict this resolution.

WA nations can be outnumberd by non WA nations, but think about this, we share something, non members only share being non members. People with red eyes are far more outnumbered by people with non red eyes, but the red eyes ones are not likely to be attacked by all the non red eyes, because those people with non red eyes are not allied. (Even the red eyed people are non allied but that is something different than the WA nations.)Yeah, and the only thing that WA members share is being WA members. What's your point?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Currently the WA can ban its members from possessing nuclear weapons, however if this passes then the WA can no longer do that as it would contradict this resolution.

There is another option that would not require repealing this proposal, should it pass. The World Assembly could pass a resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Possession would be legal, and any member of the World Assembly could stockpile as many as desired. Using them, however, would not be allowed while preserving the right to possess.

This omission of a "right to use" has been noted in the discussion and announced to be a deliberate omission. ("Yeah, that's a bone I throw the anti-nuke crowd, not that they ever notice.") A future resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't therefore be considered a back-door repeal as the "right to use" has purposefully been left out.

This proposal expressly and explicitly de-links the rights of possession and use.

There is another option that would not require repealing this proposal, should it pass. The World Assembly could pass a resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Possession would be legal, and any member of the World Assembly could stockpile as many as desired. Using them, however, would not be allowed while preserving the right to possess.

This omission of a "right to use" has been noted in the discussion and announced to be a deliberate omission. ("Yeah, that's a bone I throw the anti-nuke crowd, not that they ever notice.") A future resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't therefore be considered a back-door repeal as the "right to use" has purposefully been left out.

This proposal expressly and explicitly de-links the rights of possession and use.

And your point is?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Currently the WA can ban its members from possessing nuclear weapons, however if this passes then the WA can no longer do that as it would contradict this resolution.

Yeah, and the only thing that WA members share is being WA members. What's your point?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Sorry for not reading this thread a long time.
My point is that the WA members actually share much more than being members. We have agreed on certain resolutions which set out the way all WA nations wants to co-operate and how to deal with problems. And with every new resolution we agree upon our co-operation will grow. Maybe we could try to get a proposal on attacks on WA members by non WA members and how we react on such attacks. (All for one, one for all?)

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

There is another option that would not require repealing this proposal, should it pass. The World Assembly could pass a resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Possession would be legal, and any member of the World Assembly could stockpile as many as desired. Using them, however, would not be allowed while preserving the right to possess.

This omission of a "right to use" has been noted in the discussion and announced to be a deliberate omission. ("Yeah, that's a bone I throw the anti-nuke crowd, not that they ever notice.") A future resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't therefore be considered a back-door repeal as the "right to use" has purposefully been left out.

This proposal expressly and explicitly de-links the rights of possession and use.


It is, however, still useful to retain the right to possess nuclear weapons, even if not the right to use them. Nuclear weapons are principally a political weapon, a bargaining tool, a threat. Ownership of the weapons is enough to make your point.

You may argue that a WA resolution forbidding their use would render this advantage obsolete, but actually, if Gwenstefani, as a nuclear weapons-owning WA nation, was about to be attacked by a non-WA nuclear power, the least of our concerns would whether or not we were breaking WA law to use them. If need be, we could leave the WA to defend ourselves, secure in the knowledge that we were able to stockpile such weapons beforehand.

And as has been mentioned in another topic, I think a much more sensible proposal concerning the use of nuclear weapons would be to outlaw the (first) use of nuclear weapons against other WA nations only.

We support this resolution in principle, but would like to see some elaboration.

1) We too would like a stricter definition of what constitutes a nuclear weapon. We feel that the treaties aims can be accomplished while still barring some of the more devastating forms of weaponry.

2) We feel that the required safety-measures should be legislated by the WA, not left to individual nations to decide.

No, we shouldn't use them. They would cause widespread destruction and death (the latter I would not mind....). The last thing we need is to use nuclear weapons, because that in itself would mean we are committing suicide. The weapons also intense amounts of radiation, which would be harmful to ourselves, our nations, and our environment.

No, we shouldn't use them. They would cause widespread destruction and death (the latter I would not mind....). The last thing we need is to use nuclear weapons, because that in itself would mean we are committing suicide. The weapons also intense amounts of radiation, which would be harmful to ourselves, our nations, and our environment.

Let's stay on topic here shall we. This proposal is about possession not use.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

there should also be something mentioned on the production of biological and chemical weapons, seeing as how those are on the same playing field as nuclear.

That's true - except usually people classify nuclear weapons as somehow different than chemical or biological weapons. Or even 'dirty' bombs at that.

For the clarity of the preposition, it should also probably be limited to just nuclear weapons.

Something must be mentioned about the additional ordnance. Because one could imply that said country was producing nuclear weapons with a potential to use them to disperse a chemical or biological agent.

there should also be something mentioned on the production of biological and chemical weapons, seeing as how those are on the same playing field as nuclear.


If you want a resolution on biological or chemical weapons, write one yourself. My proposal is about nuclear weapons nothing more.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

More importantly, omnibus Proposals are often too broad to be effective. For instance (http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?3&TheManandHisTwoSweethearts)...

Something must be mentioned about the additional ordnance. Because one could imply that said country was producing nuclear weapons with a potential to use them to disperse a chemical or biological agent.

Can't. A nuclear explosion would completely and utterly annihilate literally any chemical or microorganism close enough to be dispersed by the blast. Unless, of course, you have a storage tank of the stuff far enough away to avoid the firestorm but close enough to be hit hard enough by the overpressure. Which is, of course, exceedingly unlikely (requires a specific range of tonnages on the nuke in question) and ungodly inefficient.

Besides which, the issues surrounding nuclear weapons and chemical or biological weapons are very different. Nuclear weapons are about defence and deterrence, chemical weapons are not. The issues are separate and should be kept so.

There is another option that would not require repealing this proposal, should it pass. The World Assembly could pass a resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Possession would be legal, and any member of the World Assembly could stockpile as many as desired. Using them, however, would not be allowed while preserving the right to possess.We are confident such an act would prompt a mass exodus from the WA as never seen since the passage of Promotion of Solar Panels or Max Barry Day.

It is, however, still useful to retain the right to possess nuclear weapons, even if not the right to use them. Nuclear weapons are principally a political weapon, a bargaining tool, a threat. Ownership of the weapons is enough to make your point.

You may argue that a WA resolution forbidding their use would render this advantage obsolete, but actually, if Gwenstefani, as a nuclear weapons-owning WA nation, was about to be attacked by a non-WA nuclear power, the least of our concerns would whether or not we were breaking WA law to use them. If need be, we could leave the WA to defend ourselves, secure in the knowledge that we were able to stockpile such weapons beforehand.Count us (pleasantly) surprised by these sentiments. God bless you.

SchutteGod unalterably supports this very worthy proposal. Self-defense and deterrence are the right and the responsibility or every WA state.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

Я быть через с этот критиковать

Я быть через с этот критиковать

Ybbynahdmo dra ihejancym dnyhcmydunc yna uh dra vnedw, fuimt oui lyna du keja ic y dnyhcmydeuh bmayca?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Apparently the universal translators are on the fritz, would you care to give us a translation please?

какой ты столб быть не Русский

какой ты столб быть не Русский

*whaps the Vladipetrivan ambassador upside the head with a 17 pound trout*
SPEAK ENGLISH DAMN IT!!!!!

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Fínn , ÉG vilja stöðva tal Rússi

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/crad45eh.png

I'm just hoping it STAYS at quorum. ;)

I'm just hoping it STAYS at quorum. ;)

Well, if my track record holds it will, the original Nuclear Armaments actually hit quorum during the update that would have deleted it.

I can go to bed now, it's up for vote. ;)

I as a representative of The Saurthi have been elected to state that we support this statute. As i, Myself, was away on business during the meeting where this was decided, I have been forced to state all approvals and disapprovals for the next month. Now if you will excuse me i have to go beat Lord Rorken over the head with 9 foot lead pole.

Signed,
High Master Chairman of the Inquisition,
Ankh Omega

At the time of writing this (somewhere roughly around 5:00AM EST) the proposal is losing by a narrow margin of 1.2 to 1. It would seem the bleeding hearts and treehuggers are still politically active. Pity. Hopefully it's only a short-lived setback. I'm off to bed now. Cheers and whatnot.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

I for one supported this, the possession of nuclear arsenals and weapons are necessary. It has many functions, like it can prevent other countries from attacking. And as a foundation of the world, the WA must have nuclear weapons in store.

~Golmir

Well of course we should be aloud Nuclear weapons! Non WA members can have them, and if a group of Nuke wielding WA haters comes in and tries to blast you to bits, you're gonna want to be able to fight back in the same way. Without nukes, members of the WA could be in grave danger.

Kyan Birch, Elected Emperor of Dectubech

The only thing that disarming nuclear stockpiles does is encourage smaller and less internationally accountable nations to have less inhibitions in being military and political aggressors in their local territories. A world where the responsible nations hold nuclear weapons is a safer world -- a nuclear deterrant keeps rogue nations less aggressive and more sensitive to world politics.

That, and the truth is, nations not WA affiliated can stockpile as many nuclear weapons as they please. This puts WA nations at a major disadvantage in a world peacekeeping role, while it empowers large, aggressive, and imperialistic nations.

A nuclear deterrant is paramount to the WA's ability to be the predominant peace keeping and international governing body. I say nukes, and more of them. But only to those nations that haven't been naughty, lol.

The Commonwealth of Wollensky strongly supports the right of all WA member nations to defend themselves from attack by any means necessary, including the use of nuclear weapons. However, we are strongly concerned that the current resolution up for vote does not go far enough to condemn the use of nuclear weapons for offensive purposes.

Does

"1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations"

block the use of nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, or is it just implied?

The concern is that a rogue WA member nation use nuclear weapons for offensive purposes.

We cannot support this resolution at this time. Indeed we find the resolution.

Short
Conceise
Reasonable

In other words this resolution fails to meet the required standards for sloppy rotten resolutions which this body demands of it. I shudder to think of the potential impovesments to this body and to resolutions in general should this pass. Indeed people might even start to recognize sarcasm and irony when they see it. Therefore I will oppose this resolution with ... ah heck I've already given this argument too much attention.

It's going to fail you know. Fluffies only read the title and that's too boring.

Now had it been the "MAD Defense National Rights Act" I'm sure it would get perfect support. Everyone's for national rights right?

:sniper: I want big toys that go boom and give off pretty lights....So,I voted "YES" for Nukes....:p

The Commonwealth of Wollensky strongly supports the right of all WA member nations to defend themselves from attack by any means necessary, including the use of nuclear weapons. However, we are strongly concerned that the current resolution up for vote does not go far enough to condemn the use of nuclear weapons for offensive purposes.

Does

"1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations"

block the use of nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, or is it just implied?

The concern is that a rogue WA member nation use nuclear weapons for offensive purposes.



Why are you having a moral dilemma? :eek:
I raise the question of how much freedom are we willing to give up for safety and how many of our individual rights we are willing to sacrifice on the bloody altar of a collective welfare. It cannot ever be simply or easily resolved. There is no simple answer, only the attitude with which we approach the question, and that attitude also defines us.
My nation needs nuclear weapons and the right to use them in an offensive manner-when the need arises.


:upyours: It is good to strike the serpent's head with your enemy's hand :upyours:

the government of the emperor of urgench has voted yes to this proposal, we think it timely and apposite.
doubtless a world without nuclear weapons would be ideal, but such does not exist. with other non-w.a. nations in posession of large arsenals of weaponry of this kind it seems vital to us that w.a. nations should be nuclear
armed for their defence.

the government of the emperor of urgench congratulates the authors of this resolution on their excellent brevity and concision.


yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

The Rogue Nation of Boljovia will be voting against this proposal. Nuclear weapons are specifically designed to target civilian populations, and as such this proposal is not in the interest of limiting civilian casualties.

Our government would consider voting for the proposal, were it only to allow tactical nuclear weapons.

Does

"1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations"

block the use of nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, or is it just implied?

That clause, and in fact the entire resolution, has zero effect on use whatsoever.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Rogue Nation of Boljovia will be voting against this proposal. Nuclear weapons are specifically designed to target civilian populations, and as such this proposal is not in the interest of limiting civilian casualties.

Our government would consider voting for the proposal, were it only to allow tactical nuclear weapons.



Our course Nuclear weapons target people.:rolleyes:

Who among us has been attacked by a building before?:headbang:

The Autocratic Freak Show of SchutteGod has cast its vote FOR this very worthy proposition to ensure the right of self-defense for all member nations. We congratulate the esteemed Don Flibble for his successful efforts in getting this resolution to quorum, and will be rooting for a positive outcome.

By Order of Her Autocratic Freakiness, Mrs. Schutte:
Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

It's going to fail you know. Fluffies only read the title and that's too boring.You know, we passed a resolution like this before. Why wouldn't we do so now?

The Rogue Nation of Boljovia will be voting against this proposal. Nuclear weapons are specifically designed to target civilian populations, and as such this proposal is not in the interest of limiting civilian casualties.

With respect, we would dispute your assertion that nuclear weapons are specifically designed to target civilian populations. Nuclear weapons can be deployed against military targets without specifically targeting civilians.

Furthermore, we feel that any weapon can be used against civilians, and that singling nuclear weapons out for that reason is not a particularly strong argument. If you want to limit civilian casualties, I'm afraid you'd have to outlaw war period. Good luck getting legislation on that passed.

Also, as the author has pointed out, this resolution covers possession of nuclear weapons, not use.

Despite our strong anti-nuclear weapons stance, the Federation will be supporting this legislation, because we feel that it is a fundamental right of nations to be able to defend themselves.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

With respect, we would dispute your assertion that nuclear weapons are specifically designed to target civilian populations. Nuclear weapons can be deployed against military targets without specifically targeting civilians.

Furthermore, we feel that any weapon can be used against civilians, and that singling nuclear weapons out for that reason is not a particularly strong argument. If you want to limit civilian casualties, I'm afraid you'd have to outlaw war period. Good luck getting legislation on that passed.

Also, as the author has pointed out, this resolution covers possession of nuclear weapons, not use.

Despite our strong anti-nuclear weapons stance, the Federation will be supporting this legislation, because we feel that it is a fundamental right of nations to be able to defend themselves.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

You mean besides fallout, wind-blown radioactive topsoil, and all the things that civilians have to deal with from nuclear material that's just supposed to be in storage? These weapons may not be INTENDED to affect civilians, but they most assuredly do.

This resolution is too vague and should be defeated. Intangelon and Cascadia vote AGAINST.

You mean besides fallout, wind-blown radioactive topsoil, and all the things that civilians have to deal with from nuclear material that's just supposed to be in storage? These weapons may not be INTENDED to affect civilians, but they most assuredly do.

Side effects and/or collateral damage from the deployment of a weapon do not equate to deliberately targeting any particular group with that weapon. Yes, the use of nuclear weapons can, and sometimes does, affect civilians. That can also be said about other forms of weaponry, all the way down to a kid's slingshot. Where, exactly, do we start - and stop - when it comes to denying our member states the ability and means to defend themselves and their civilian populations based on that fact? I am reluctant to debate this point too much lest we lose the intent of this resolution in a windy debate about the morality of nuclear weapons use. However, I do feel that a certain misconception needs to be cleared up here.

This resolution is too vague and should be defeated. Intangelon and Cascadia vote AGAINST.

I am curious as to your rationale on terming this resolution "vague". It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti wholeheartedly supports this resolution.

In Favor.

GP

I have only skim-read the debate so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but is there any proposal to amend the resolution to include possession of nuclear weapons for use as a deterrant only? I'm afraid I could only support the statute should it declare that member states are able to possess nuclear weapons on the understanding and agreement that they will not be deployed in aggression against other world nations, and in retaliation only. I would also like to see the resolution set limits to the amount of nuclear warheads any one nation may possess.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden voted FOR this resolution. I am truly thankful that this resolution is concise; at least I can spend more time feeding my babies.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli
Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly

I vote strongly against nuclear weapons,
Having this kind of power over other nations for what purpose?
People will turn into bullies. Yes they may target us.
However (duh) this makes us stoop to there level.
I don't see the point this is trying to make

(if someone already stated this...sorry..i didnt want to read 5 pages of formal opinions)

I vote Nay!

On Behalf of His Majesty, Lord Asriel, King of Pasier Rise,

The Kingdom of Pasier Rise, along with his Majesty Lord Asriel, believe that the resolution is redundant. Even if this resolution fail to pass, there is nothing in the WA past resolution that actually prevents any WA members from obtain nuclear weapons. With that said, we still support this resolution as it is our right to obtain nuclear weapons for purpose known only to us.

We deserve the right to use nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons is far reaching. A large number of non-WA members have nuclear weapons, and a large number of them are run by maniacs and lunatics who would not hesitate to launch a nuclear missile straight for his majesty's palace. We want nuclear capabilities. Even if this resolution does not pass, nothing can stop our Kingdom from obtaining nuclear weapons.

On Behalf of his Majesty, Lord Asriel, King of Pasier Rise
Ahmad Firdaus
The Prime Minister of Pasier Rise

I honestly think you guys are talking this too seriously...

NationStates is a game! Max Barry himself said it's overblown. The whole fun of it is ruling your own nation without real world consequences, meaning you can rule it however you want.

But, I ramble.

On topic again, I'm for this. Why? Because my country is made up of liberal facists and they demand nukes.

I have only skim-read the debate so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but is there any proposal to amend the resolution to include possession of nuclear weapons for use as a deterrant only?

It is not possible to amend a resolution once it's been submitted.

I vote strongly against nuclear weapons,
Having this kind of power over other nations for what purpose?

Even if this resolution passes, you can still not have nuclear weapons all you like. We don't plan to deploy nuclear weapons if this passes. As for other nations, it should be their right to decide what means of self-defense they wish to pursue.

The Kingdom of Pasier Rise, along with his Majesty Lord Asriel, believe that the resolution is redundant. Even if this resolution fail to pass, there is nothing in the WA past resolution that actually prevents any WA members from obtain nuclear weapons....Even if this resolution does not pass, nothing can stop our Kingdom from obtaining nuclear weapons.

There's nothing in WA legislation yet that prevents you from developing a nuclear deterrent. This resolution would ensure that no future legislation could deprive you of that right, and thus stop you from doing so as long as you remained a WA member. That makes this legislation anything but redundant.

Also this will premote nonWA nations to become WA nations, which will corrupt the WA (i believe, but whatever thats just my opinion)

Um....exactly how is it going to do that?

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I don't think simply by posessing nuclear weapons will in essence create "bullies". Member states of course are required to abide by all WA resolutions and statutes which is why I believe this particular statute requires amendment to ensure member states that do aquire nuclear weapons (and of course posession would not be mandatory) act responsibly towards other world nations, especially those with WA membership that choose not to obtain nuclear weapons.

[QUOTE=The Altan Steppes;13737724]It is not possible to amend a resolution once it's been submitted.

Then I cannot possibly support it. Of course I am but one voice amongst thousands.

I honestly think you guys are talking this too seriously...

NationStates is a game! Max Barry himself said it's overblown. The whole fun of it is ruling your own nation without real world consequences, meaning you can rule it however you want.


Don't forget that for some, the fun is in the debate, each to his own!

by allowing only WA members to have nuclear armaments, this creates a worldwide dictatorship that allows some less-then-ideal WA nations to pick on the lesser man. it's tyranny. nuclear arms should not be used at all, let alone b a elite group

I honestly think you guys are talking this too seriously...

NationStates is a game! Max Barry himself said it's overblown. The whole fun of it is ruling your own nation without real world consequences, meaning you can rule it however you want.


:upyours:

The majority rule is to rule by force. Any sort of political rule is rule by force. It's healthy to remind ourselves of that from time to time. :gundge:

by allowing only WA members to have nuclear armaments, this creates a worldwide dictatorship that allows some less-then-ideal WA nations to pick on the lesser man. it's tyranny. nuclear arms should not be used at all, let alone b a elite group

Those who seek a more civilized social order than one based on force and violence need to concentrate on removing as many areas of human interaction as possible from political influence or domination — and to protect those few areas of life not yet dominated by politics, and therefore by force. That's what scholars and philosophers mean when they talk about civil society; in general, civil society comprises the areas of life in which voluntary interaction and mutually-agreed-upon obligations are more important than political power or influence.

:gundge: Why won't my magic wand thingy work???? Never mind I will ole` school it :sniper:

Since Sen. Sulla is busy running for regional delegate, he asked me to speak on his behalf. The Palentine votes for this fine proposal. We believe that every nation should have the right to have nukes. In hopes of the passage of this resolution, Imperial Palentine Amalgamated Arms is offering a25% off sale on the purchace of our fine "Atomic Annies".
excelsior,
Crazy Phred
CEO of IPAA
"In God we trust, all others must pay cash."

Suddenly a movie projector is hears whirring, and Crazy Phred says,
"Now roll that beautiful bomb footage." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNlOtLhnsEE)

Simple and Concise... We like it and shall vote for it, both as member and Delagate.

Only a fool would vote against this resolution. I know of a region called Interimo that is made up of nations that dislike the WA. If members of the WA do not have powerful weapons to defend themselves, vultures will move in and shred nations that previously they would not dare to oppose because of their Nuclear arms. I would bet that if this resolution is defeated, that within a month it will be back, and stronger, and it will win with ease. Nukes are a neccessary defense mechanism against large WA hating nations. They MUST be allowed.

I agree completely. As such, my corporati- I mean country will vote in favor.

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota has just cast its vote in favor of this fine resolution. While we are not an aggressive state by nature, we do believe that nuclear arms are an important part of our national defense, especially against, shall we say, less restrained states. We applaud Representative Flibble's efforts to protect the right of self defense and wish him the best of luck in his endeavours.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the GHE of Imota

As we unfortunately live in a world where not every country is willing to rationally settle their differences, and that rational states must have means of detering threats posed to them by irrational actors, we believe that WA member states are entirely within their rights to pursue nuclear weapons programs as a matter of self-defense.

Edit: (OOC: I realize that this resolution allows nuclear weapons for purposes beyond self-defense. That is only Salzland's justification for support)

I think that the resolution will be effective and is simply well written.

Our course Nuclear weapons target people.

Who among us has been attacked by a building before?

next time learn to read before being a condescending jerk... i said CIVILIANS not people :rolleyes:

With respect, we would dispute your assertion that nuclear weapons are specifically designed to target civilian populations. Nuclear weapons can be deployed against military targets without specifically targeting civilians.

strategic nuclear weapons can't (or can, but ARE specifically designed for civilian populations, and no matter how they are used pose unnecessary and unreasonable risk to civilians)... tactical nuclear weapons can, hence why i voiced Boljovia's support for them

Furthermore, we feel that any weapon can be used against civilians, and that singling nuclear weapons out for that reason is not a particularly strong argument.

most weapons are not SPECIFICALLY deisgned for targetting civilians... strategic nuclear weapons clearly are

If you want to limit civilian casualties, I'm afraid you'd have to outlaw war period. Good luck getting legislation on that passed.

limit =/= eliminate

Also, as the author has pointed out, this resolution covers possession of nuclear weapons, not use.

irrelevant... this resolution effectively precludes a ban on use, since a ban on use would render nuclear weapons useless anyway

but is there any proposal to amend the resolution to include possession of nuclear weapons for use as a deterrant only?I have neither the inclination nor the ability to amend this resolution to include such a clause

On Behalf of His Majesty, Lord Asriel, King of Pasier Rise,

The Kingdom of Pasier Rise, along with his Majesty Lord Asriel, believe that the resolution is redundant. Even if this resolution fail to pass, there is nothing in the WA past resolution that actually prevents any WA members from obtain nuclear weapons.You're quite correct, this resolution's primary purpose is to prevent such a resolution.

by allowing only WA members to have nuclear armaments, this creates a worldwide dictatorship that allows some less-then-ideal WA nations to pick on the lesser man. it's tyranny. nuclear arms should not be used at all, let alone b a elite groupI think you're confused here. There is nothing in this resolution that would prevent non WA members from possessing nuclear weapons. Indeed to have included such a clause would have rendered this resolution illegal as WA resolution can only affect WA members.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

First off, very well written. kudos. secondly, usage against military bases? wtf? that would have to be a big base. some bombs can have a blast radius of approx. 20+(untested, theoretically, estimated) miles. not to mention the fact that radiation likes to make itself at home for a couple thousand years...So weather you're trying to destroy a base or not there is a dang good chance that civilians will die either way.*crawls back into corner*

The official word from the Throne and Senedd of Gobbannium is that we don't care one way or the other on this one. On the one hand, possession of nukes doesn't make a blind bit of difference to your ability to defend yourself or be an aggressive pest. On the other, fear of not possessing nukes is a very real psychological disorder amongst many nations and leaders, we're just not sure whether it's good or bad for us to indulge them. More studies need to be done, apparently. In the interests of being able to feel condescendingly sorry for all concerned, we're all off to the bar.

In the mean time, discerning buyers who've already read the IPAA catalogue might find the Dinas Maridunum Plush Toy Company's brochure worth a look. Particularly page 12: "Arwen Atomaeg, for the general who has to have just one more warhead."

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

so, this whole argument is stupid. honestly. nuclear weapons do nothing good in the modern world. they only exist to serve an agenda of fear.


from a miltary standpoint. there are NON-nuclear weapons, capable of doing the same damage as a nuclear weapon that exist in the UNITED STATES weapons inventory currently.

the existance of such weapons not only makes nuclear weapons irresponsible, but pointless.

The WA should be a leader in the perliferation of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction.If we are allowed to posses these kinds of deadly weapons,other nations will think it is okay to use these weapons and if one war erupts,just imagine what the world will turn out to be.

yeah, any weapon can be as deadly as a nuke...if u use more then one. I would like to know more about these non-nuclear devices that can do more damage/destruction in a single use. as for being pointless, i whole heartedly agree. but as long as there are crazed dictators wanting them, i would see the need to have them as a just-in-case.

peace through superior firepower is the only peace the human race will ever know. i stand in affirmation of this.

From Ract's official position on the current resolution:

"The Holy Empire of Ract has only one problem with the World Assembly resolution currently up for vote. The resolution pushes states to prevent nuclear weapons rom falling into the "wrong hands" but fails to define the phrase. Each nation will have its own definition of "the wrong hands" and, in the end, the weapons could end up in the hands that the author does not wish to see them in.... As of this time, The Holy Empire of Ract has not decided to vote for or against this resolution."

The use and proliferation of nuclear arms is irresponsible and unethical. The risk not only to human life but the biosphere in general is inexcusable. A large scale nuclear war will not only end the destruction of our enemies, but in the destruction of our planet all that lay within. It is the position of the People's Republic of Licenterius that such weapons should be disarmed, dismantled and erased from our vocabulary.

However...

The greatest nuclear deterrent is that of large nuclear stockpiles. Nations will recognize the threat that exists with nuclear war, and will only use nuclear arms as a deterrent for conflicts of all varieties. In a world where one false step could lead to your annihilation, crime and war may very well fall dramatically.

President Franco Francesco votes in favour of this resolution.

yeah, any weapon can be as deadly as a nuke...if u use more then one. I would like to know more about these non-nuclear devices that can do more damage/destruction in a single use. as for being pointless, i whole heartedly agree. but as long as there are crazed dictators wanting them, i would see the need to have them as a just-in-case.

look up a bomb called the MOAB ( mother of all bombs)

as for you final point.

how is having a large nuclear stockpile a deterrent against a crazed dictator??

us having them will not stop some wacko from using one. he won't care honestly.
and why should i use a weapon that could have worldwide effect when i can glass a region with conventional weapons???

collateral damage is the phrase here. and nukes have FAR greater collateral damage than most realize. there was a reason for cold war.

it wasn't becuase we afraid of being wiped off the face of the planet, it was becuase we were afraid of wiping HUMANITY off the face of the planet.

We,in the Free Land of the Humaine,are yet undecided about taking either stance at the matter.
It is evident that the Act facilitates the usage of nuclear weapons for purposes other than self defence.Also the 3rd part of the act does not guarantee that the weapons will not be abused by the wrong party.
We ask for the possibility of other means fo defence as the possession of nuclear weapons,and the outbreak of a major conflict,may lead to the destruction of our world.

Kevin Whyte,The Prime Minister of the Free Land of the Humaine

I'm shocked and appalled that this resolution is even at the table and it proves that many members of the World Assembly have no bearing for pragmatic thought before proposing world-wide legislation.

National sovereignty is not a "privilege" that the WA gives to all of its members, it is a fundamental right of each nation to govern itself as it sees fit and to properly defend itself. If you want nukes, have 'em; if not, don't. I'm personally strongly against the entire notion of nuclear arms in real life and I believe the world would be a lot safer if all superpower nations began to disarm its nuclear weapons and leave only a few for deterrent against rogue nations that have nukes. But I don't think it is the right of the World Assembly to tell its member nations what it can and can do. What to fund and what not to fund. Who to help and who not to help.

The World Assembly should exist for the protection of nations and the protection of their sovereign rights, not to govern over them or grant them "privileges".

How can this resolution talk about defense when by their very nature Nuclear Weapons are offensive?

The Very idea of this maddening AT THE very least they should be banned in the name of defense. Do you have any idea how many lives you would be risking :eek: you are also ruining the enviroment! if this is passed i will withdraw from this nuke happy people. May god have mercy on your soul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0uBU409Uxw&feature=related

How can this resolution talk about defense when by their very nature Nuclear Weapons are offensive?

People generally don't mess with nuclear powers, that's why there are a defensive weapon. You never have to use them for them to be effective.

Perhaps if you read the rest of the thread you'd learn even more about how nuclear weapons can be used defensively, instead of just making an inane and inaccurate statement like that.

the government of the emperor of urgench has a great deal of sympathy with the words of the greatly esteemed delegate for straethearn, indeed for many nations such as our own, sovereignty is sanctified by the blood of our ancestors, who fought for their freedom, we would not give away these freedoms lightly.
but we know that we would have no freedoms at all if we did not secure them from those who would take them from us.
therefore it is essential that this community of nations defend itself adequately from nations beyond the reach of the peace and law of the w.a.
if that means nuclear weapons then so be it.


yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench.

I'm shocked and appalled that this resolution is even at the table and it proves that many members of the World Assembly have no bearing for pragmatic thought before proposing world-wide legislation.

National sovereignty is not a "privilege" that the WA gives to all of its members, it is a fundamental right of each nation to govern itself as it sees fit and to properly defend itself. If you want nukes, have 'em; if not, don't. I'm personally strongly against the entire notion of nuclear arms in real life and I believe the world would be a lot safer if all superpower nations began to disarm its nuclear weapons and leave only a few for deterrent against rogue nations that have nukes. But I don't think it is the right of the World Assembly to tell its member nations what it can and can do. What to fund and what not to fund. Who to help and who not to help.

The World Assembly should exist for the protection of nations and the protection of their sovereign rights, not to govern over them or grant them "privileges".

I concur! A well stated fact that seems to be constantly trivialized by some delegates with an over-inflated view of their importance and the WA's importance to the NSworld.

[OOC] One of the funnest parts of this game is being able to shape and run your nation or region as you see fit, not to be ruled by the heavy, restrictive, self-righteous hand of the WA (see the body of passed legislation from the past NSUN). No wonder so many nations do not belong to the WA. It seems like when the WA was created and the UN put to rest that we were all given a clean slate to come up with something better than what we did before. But I'm starting to rant, so....]

This resolution is unnecessary. As it has been stated previously, nations already have the right to possess and deploy nuclear weapons as they see fit for a variety of purposes--not just defense. Stating that right in a resolution does nothing to change that.

And #3? What are the wrong hands? Any nation could interpret the "right hands" depending on how it fits their interests. [Real life example--If Iran had nuclear weapons and decided to give them to terrorist organizations that share its views on the destruction of a particular nation they would be justified by clause #3 because based on Iran's standards the terrorist organization would not be the wrong hands.] Why even add this clause to the resolution??

And as far as the argument as to, "we need to pass this so that a nuclear weapon ban cannot be passed in the future," I say let the anti-nuke people try to get a resolution banning nuclear weapons passed--it will not happen, rational minds will prevail. :)

This resolution is foolish. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's childishly written. For a start, a WA resolution is not an "Act." How did this even get enough delegate endorsements to get to a vote? Every region should take this occasion to examine carefully who they are sending as a delegate.

the government of the emperor of urgench is in much agreement with the very wise delegate for oxymorontopia but we would respectfully point out that if their arguments are true, then all this resolution does is legalise an allready extant status quo within the w.a. giving the w.a. a legal framework within which to deal with possible international nuclear incidents, without which it might have very little right to intervene should the membership desire it to. the resolution explicitely recognises national sovereignty by legalising each nations right to defend itself from nuclear attack. really this should be only the first step towards global nuclear disarmament in our opinion, but that sort of debate is for the future. right now we need the w.a. to be legally competent in this area if only because we may need it to judge the legalities of future agreements on the subject.


yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

I'm shocked and appalled that this resolution is even at the table and it proves that many members of the World Assembly have no bearing for pragmatic thought before proposing world-wide legislation.

National sovereignty is not a "privilege" that the WA gives to all of its members, it is a fundamental right of each nation to govern itself as it sees fit and to properly defend itself. If you want nukes, have 'em; if not, don't. I'm personally strongly against the entire notion of nuclear arms in real life and I believe the world would be a lot safer if all superpower nations began to disarm its nuclear weapons and leave only a few for deterrent against rogue nations that have nukes. But I don't think it is the right of the World Assembly to tell its member nations what it can and can do. What to fund and what not to fund. Who to help and who not to help.

The World Assembly should exist for the protection of nations and the protection of their sovereign rights, not to govern over them or grant them "privileges".You sir, fail at making a point. You're trying to use a National Sovereignty argument against a resolution that protects your sovereignty.

And #3? What are the wrong hands? Any nation could interpret the "right hands" depending on how it fits their interests. [Real life example--If Iran had nuclear weapons and decided to give them to terrorist organizations that share its views on the destruction of a particular nation they would be justified by clause #3 because based on Iran's standards the terrorist organization would not be the wrong hands.] Why even add this clause to the resolution??Because the resolution had to do something

And as far as the argument as to, "we need to pass this so that a nuclear weapon ban cannot be passed in the future," I say let the anti-nuke people try to get a resolution banning nuclear weapons passed--it will not happen, rational minds will prevail. :)Rational minds? You must be new.

This resolution is foolish. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's childishly written.Would you care to explain what about it you think is childish?
For a start, a WA resolution is not an "Act."Well, my original plan was to call it a statute, but that made the title too long.
How did this even get enough delegate endorsements to get to a vote?Through a TG campaign carried out by Douria (for which I a extremely grateful).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Twafflonia whole-heartedly endorses the proposed resolution. While it is at once a step toward making the world safer (through requiring states to keep nuclear weapons from falling into "the wrong hands") it is more importantly a carrot through which to encourage international dialogue. With the passage of this resolution, states will be more likely to join the World Assembly, seeing that it protects their right to build and maintain nuclear weapons. As more states join the WA, the WA's importance, influence, and ability to improve and protect the quality of life for people worldwide increases.

Cheers!

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield,
Twafflonia

Side effects and/or collateral damage from the deployment of a weapon do not equate to deliberately targeting any particular group with that weapon. Yes, the use of nuclear weapons can, and sometimes does, affect civilians. That can also be said about other forms of weaponry, all the way down to a kid's slingshot. Where, exactly, do we start - and stop - when it comes to denying our member states the ability and means to defend themselves and their civilian populations based on that fact? I am reluctant to debate this point too much lest we lose the intent of this resolution in a windy debate about the morality of nuclear weapons use. However, I do feel that a certain misconception needs to be cleared up here.

Are you seriously comparing nuclear fallout and the contamination that results from the mere production and storage of nuclear devices -- let alone the aftereffects of detonation -- to a slingshot? I do not wish to deny WA nations the use of deterrent weapons, but the rationalization that they're not weapons of mass terror is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter who you "target" with a nuclear weapon, civilians WILL die -- not CAN, but WILL. If you're claiming surgical strike capability with a nuclear weapon, you're completely meshuggana, and even more so if you think the imminent threat of such weapons doesn't generate terror in civilian populations without ever being armed.

I am curious as to your rationale on terming this resolution "vague". It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Okay, one by one.

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. 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.

1. Which weapons? Every conceivable use of nuclear weaponry? Just ICBMs? What about nuclear submarines or other covert delivery systems? Particle beam weapons? "Dirty" bombs? Vague.

2. Okay, this line is not vague, but it depends heavily on line one, which is. It's effectively a blocker for any future resolution seeking to restrict nuclear weaponry. If not vague, then certainly a bad idea if the WA ever decides it wants to limit the use of specific types of nuclear weaponry.

3. UNBELIEVABLY vague. "Every available precaution?" Such as? And whose hands are considered "wrong"? Some might argue that many legitimate governments who are members of the WA are the "wrong hands" for nuclear weapons.

I appreciate the sentiment of this resolution, but there's a too much idealism and not nearly enough reality in it to justify passage. If this passes, it would have to be repealed in order to specify any future nuclear weapons restrictions or limitations. It's a blank nuclear check, and I do NOT wish to see it deposited in the bank of WA legislation, lest the interest come in the shape of a mushroom cloud.

Ben Royce
Intangible WA Minister

It doesn't matter who you "target" with a nuclear weapon, civilians WILL die -- not CAN, but WILL. If you're claiming surgical strike capability with a nuclear weapon, you're completely meshuggana ...


I take it the esteemed minister is unfamiliar with bunker-busting nuclear warheads, the type which has been developed to penetrate underground bunkers and neutralize biological weapon caches? They are indeed nuclear weapons used specifically for surgical strikes.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield, Twafflonia

I fear this resolution may only encourage those who were on the fence about their nuclear arms program.

Perhaps we need to address the reasons why non-WA members have such hatred towards us, not just possess nuclear weapons as an overkill defense system. Fight the ideology not just violence with more violence.

This is a pissing contest that my Republic does not wish to be part of.

strategic nuclear weapons can't (or can, but ARE specifically designed for civilian populations, and no matter how they are used pose unnecessary and unreasonable risk to civilians)... tactical nuclear weapons can, hence why i voiced Boljovia's support for them

If you support tactical nuclear weapons, you should be supporting this resolution, not opposing it. Without this resolution, a resolution could be passed banning tactical nuclear weapons.

most weapons are not SPECIFICALLY deisgned for targetting civilians... strategic nuclear weapons clearly are

Strategic weapons can target civilians, but are primarily designed and deployed as a deterrent, and typically a damn effective one. Deterrence is preferable to actually fighting a war, if at all possible. How many civilians and soldiers die in conventionally waged wars?

irrelevant... this resolution effectively precludes a ban on use, since a ban on use would render nuclear weapons useless anyway

And what use, exactly, is a weapon if it cannot be used?

How can this resolution talk about defense when by their very nature Nuclear Weapons are offensive?

Not all nuclear weapons are offensive weapons. By the gods...

This resolution is foolish. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's childishly written. For a start, a WA resolution is not an "Act." How did this even get enough delegate endorsements to get to a vote? Every region should take this occasion to examine carefully who they are sending as a delegate.

1) Insulting other delegates rarely gets you anywhere, and makes you look pretty foolish.

2) This resolution is not unnecessary if you support the principle that nations should be allowed the right to self-defense, a right my nation will never concede without a fight.

Are you seriously comparing nuclear fallout and the contamination that results from the mere production and storage of nuclear devices -- let alone the aftereffects of detonation -- to a slingshot?

No, I wasn't seriously making such a comparison, at least not as far as effect. However, I was challenging the contention that a type of weapon should be denied to nations seeking the ability to defend themselves, merely because it can be used against civilians. Most, if not all, weapons can be used against civilians, including some (such as chemical or biological ones) that can be just as dangerous as nuclear weapons.

I do not wish to deny WA nations the use of deterrent weapons, but the rationalization that they're not weapons of mass terror is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter who you "target" with a nuclear weapon, civilians WILL die -- not CAN, but WILL. If you're claiming surgical strike capability with a nuclear weapon, you're completely meshuggana, and even more so if you think the imminent threat of such weapons doesn't generate terror in civilian populations without ever being armed.

Again, other weapons can wreak just as much havoc in civilian populations as nuclear weapons. And again, not all nuclear weapons are strategic in nature. And also again, the threat of such weapons is inherent to the principle of deterrence, which could actually save a lot of lives by persuading an aggressor not to pick a fight.

1. Which weapons? Every conceivable use of nuclear weaponry? Just ICBMs? What about nuclear submarines or other covert delivery systems? Particle beam weapons? "Dirty" bombs? Vague.

2. Okay, this line is not vague, but it depends heavily on line one, which is. It's effectively a blocker for any future resolution seeking to restrict nuclear weaponry. If not vague, then certainly a bad idea if the WA ever decides it wants to limit the use of specific types of nuclear weaponry.

I don't see any of the above as vague or a bad idea. I see it as doing exactly what it was intended to do: stop the WA from interfering with a nation's right to develop a defensive arsenal.

3. UNBELIEVABLY vague. "Every available precaution?" Such as?

One could, I suppose, go into a long and rather detailed list of precautions, but how would that take into account the varying technological levels of member states, or allow for adjustment of the requirements as nations' abilities and technology change? I think it's safe to assume that "every available precaution" means "every available precaution to the member state in question". I also think that a concern about this point would have better been raised during the process of drafting this document, frankly.

And whose hands are considered "wrong"? Some might argue that many legitimate governments who are members of the WA are the "wrong hands" for nuclear weapons.

And it's that overbearing kind of "we know best" sentiment, ironically enough, that may lead my nation to reconsider its stance on nuclear weapons....lest someone decide that we are somehow the "wrong hands".

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

This is a pointless resolution. there is currently no resolution barring us from using nukes so therefore this is a pointless proposal

This Is An Outrage! Can You Not See That Nuclear Weapons Are The Epitome Of Mankind's Self-destruction? I Urge All Wa Members To Vote Against This Ludicrous Proposition, As It Will Do Nothing But Hurt Our Neighbors And The Entire Nationstates World.

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

Isn't that what this resolution does? And besides, it doesn't stop proposals to ban nuclear weapons, it just requires an extra proposal to repeal this one.

yeh dis is just me but i ses we should get da nukes to use on anyone who lookz evil. i luvs da nukes. NUKES!!! and i luv Mooses
and yup. im weird. i got here... dunno how
lolz man
founder and big cheese of lolz land

for every chance you die, die wickedly!

The following was posted privately to Flibbleites. It is copied here for the benefit, entertainment, revilement, or infuriation of anyone else who might be interested.

Wretched Flibbleites,

So you want nuclear weapons? Mathematania has a long history of complete pacifism and dedication to nonviolent conflict resolution. Our commitment to a world without any weapons at all is unimpeachable.

However, we do engage in all kinds of theoretical studies in Mathematania, and carefully monitor all the universe we can perceive for the sake of what can be learned, so please allow me to share with you some of the information we have acquired.

It is possible using today's technology to build in complete secrecy nuclear weapons over 5,000 times more powerful than any that are known to have been detonated so far. As many as 30 of them can be deployed with one delivery vehicle and independently targeted by on-board, automatic artificial intelligence after deployment to avoid all known means of detection and scatter themselves over an area so wide as to utterly devastate large nations from border to border so that not even all that many insects could be expected to survive.

For those lacking sufficient delivery vehicle technology, such devices, whose somewhat junior cousins have already been intercepted headed for the black market in widely scattered places around the world, can be modified to fit in packages that single fanatics can carry wherever they'd like in backpacks. Please note that if deployed in such fashion the original source is easily protected from all means of detection so that in a world with many such sources, no one of them can be blamed.

In fact, it's in the best interests of non-state, "terrorist" organizations to see nuclear weapons technology spread as widely as possible, because the more people who know how to produce it, and the more ready-made devices there are in the world, the better chance there is of producing a garage version, buying one in a back alley, or simply heisting one that some naive or under funded owner wasn't watching carefully enough.

And if that isn't good enough for you, after learning that others were working on such projects, Mathematanian scientists have undergone feasibility studies that substantiate claims that other even more destructive weapons are under development like space-based lasers of vast power, artificially produced lethal organisms specific to very narrow genotypes - such as only those with wide noses, and chemical agents capable of dispersing grotesquely painful, lethal contaminants over phenomenally expansive areas with such minute quantities required for for effectiveness that known counter agent, protective measures, or abatement techniques are known.

Military organizations of the near future are most likely to be heavily reliant on robots and remote controlled devices. In fact, a great many have already been deployed. Some of the most lethal are being designed as small as insects so that they can on their own, without any guidance beyond their initial programming, reconnoiter and dispatch carefully elected individuals, or simply any they find speaking a targeted language or words and phrases from a catalog. Some "Doomsday" implementations will even provide for armadas of such devices, from the very tiny robots to whole aircraft carriers to be run ntirely by automated, artificially "intelligent" systems in the event that their owners become unable to do so themselves.

Once again, the more of that which becomes available, the more its production becomes commonplace and widely understood, the more likely it is to be found under control of rogue or suicidal agents who have agendas that are shared by very few, or perhaps only one.

And you want to allow nuclear weapons in the world. Isn't there already enough fear and paranoia? It has been said that violence is such a poor way to solve problems that it is only used by children and those with the minds of children - or governments, which is unfortunately almost the same thing in most cases. Rather, you should be encouraging people to have the bravery to face their troubles with their minds and eyes open, and to arrive at negotiated conflict resolutions that acknowledge the values in our differences even when we are repulsed, disgusted, and shocked by them.

Militaries and military methods are the means of cowards and atavistic brutes who are easily outsmarted and outmaneuvered by those with sufficient intent. And if not, then it must be conceded that the world cannot be saved by destroying it, and that there is no purpose, no people, no concept so valuable that it cannot be sacrificed so that our species and our planet can survive. Time really does heal all wounds, even if it takes a while. Harboring abominations like nuclear weapons does nothing so much as make sure that the time involved is on the order of millions of years.

Respectufully,

i'
for the people of Mathematania

This is a pointless resolution. there is currently no resolution barring us from using nukes so therefore this is a pointless proposal

You know what's really pointless? Trying to contribute to a discussion when you plainly haven't bothered to follow said discussion.

A resolution barring nuclear weapons could be passed without this. Do you understand now?

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Hello people, get your hands out of your ears! Nuclear Weapons do no one good, wether for just plain "Scare Tactics" or for actual use in a war! Is it better to kill millions in a single second by 1 Nuke then losing thousands to a ground war? Niether is good, but im sure you can think of the one thats worse.

This Resolution must be apposed, it will do more harm then good!

I take it the esteemed minister is unfamiliar with bunker-busting nuclear warheads, the type which has been developed to penetrate underground bunkers and neutralize biological weapon caches? They are indeed nuclear weapons used specifically for surgical strikes.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield, Twafflonia

Right. And in exactly how many tens of thousands of years will that land be suitable for human habitation?

Right. And in exactly how many tens of thousands of years will that land be suitable for human habitation?

Exactly, listen to this man! Wouldn't Radiation just increase the effects of these biological weapons that have now been released into the atmosphere via a Nuclear Explosion?

I oppose this resolution, it wont help anyone

If you support tactical nuclear weapons, you should be supporting this resolution, not opposing it. Without this resolution, a resolution could be passed banning tactical nuclear weapons.



Strategic weapons can target civilians, but are primarily designed and deployed as a deterrent, and typically a damn effective one. Deterrence is preferable to actually fighting a war, if at all possible. How many civilians and soldiers die in conventionally waged wars?



And what use, exactly, is a weapon if it cannot be used?



Not all nuclear weapons are offensive weapons. By the gods...



1) Insulting other delegates rarely gets you anywhere, and makes you look pretty foolish.

2) This resolution is not unnecessary if you support the principle that nations should be allowed the right to self-defense, a right my nation will never concede without a fight.



No, I wasn't seriously making such a comparison, at least not as far as effect. However, I was challenging the contention that a type of weapon should be denied to nations seeking the ability to defend themselves, merely because it can be used against civilians. Most, if not all, weapons can be used against civilians, including some (such as chemical or biological ones) that can be just as dangerous as nuclear weapons.



Again, other weapons can wreak just as much havoc in civilian populations as nuclear weapons. And again, not all nuclear weapons are strategic in nature. And also again, the threat of such weapons is inherent to the principle of deterrence, which could actually save a lot of lives by persuading an aggressor not to pick a fight.



I don't see any of the above as vague or a bad idea. I see it as doing exactly what it was intended to do: stop the WA from interfering with a nation's right to develop a defensive arsenal.



One could, I suppose, go into a long and rather detailed list of precautions, but how would that take into account the varying technological levels of member states, or allow for adjustment of the requirements as nations' abilities and technology change? I think it's safe to assume that "every available precaution" means "every available precaution to the member state in question". I also think that a concern about this point would have better been raised during the process of drafting this document, frankly.



And it's that overbearing kind of "we know best" sentiment, ironically enough, that may lead my nation to reconsider its stance on nuclear weapons....lest someone decide that we are somehow the "wrong hands".

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Fair enough. We disagree.

I am sorry if this has been said before, but just in case.

Even if this resolution does NOT pass, is there any other resolution banning Nuclear arms? If not, then this won't do much, will it?

Theres no war in the game anyways, what good will the Nukes do?

Theres no war in the game anyways, what good will the Nukes do?

Buzz kill.

Buzz kill.

?what does buzz kill mean?

Oppose this action for the better of mankind, it's sick to know so many people would love to see man kind die by a Nuclear Holocaust and the following Nuclear winter..

My nation strongly objects to the use of nuclear weapons, and after a region wide vote , I the president of the confederacy of Wencee and Delegate of La Mafia

VOTE NO

Hello people, get your hands out of your ears! Nuclear Weapons do no one good, wether for just plain "Scare Tactics" or for actual use in a war! Is it better to kill millions in a single second by 1 Nuke then losing thousands to a ground war? Niether is good, but im sure you can think of the one thats worse.

This Resolution must be apposed, it will do more harm then good!

Warning! RL argument ahead!
Apparently you are unaware that the only time nuclear weapons were used in warfare they actually resulted in fewer casualties than were projected if a ground assault had occurred.

Flibbleites,

You also misunderstand my post. National soverignty is not GRANTED by the World Assembly, which it clearly states. The resolution is about "allowing" member nations to have nukes. We've already been allowed to have nukes, so this resolution is not only unnecessary but it is assuming the authority to allow. The World Assembly does not have the authority over a nation's ability to protect itself, thus the WA in principle is harming national sovereignty with this resolution.

Flibbleites,

Warning the number 1 million[roughly] (the death toll most assume which was actually a casualty toll not a death toll) is highly misleading and thus making your statement rather.. wrong.

and I quote "267,000 fatalities" if operation Olympic lasts 180 days. That is hardly 1 million. and both Atom bombs killed far more then that. That is cited from a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April of 1945.

there were far better ways to end the war. a Naval and Air blockade.. Nothing gets in or out.. Also the emperor himself already wanted to end the war. He was dealing with the Radicals in his .. 'government' not the majority.

also

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

So the only thing the Atom bomb did TRULY was start the cold war and keep the soviet union out of mainland Japan - Anything else it did or prevented is 100% speculation.. Was it worth that? that is of course subjective.
-------------------------
/end RL reference

Twafflonia whole-heartedly endorses the proposed resolution. While it is at once a step toward making the world safer (through requiring states to keep nuclear weapons from falling into "the wrong hands") it is more importantly a carrot through which to encourage international dialogue. With the passage of this resolution, states will be more likely to join the World Assembly, seeing that it protects their right to build and maintain nuclear weapons. As more states join the WA, the WA's importance, influence, and ability to improve and protect the quality of life for people worldwide increases.

Cheers!

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield,
Twafflonia

Oh nice, more states are likely to join the WA, that is strange when stated WA members are outnumbered 3-1 by non members. Hum, will "this proposal" be repealed than? Or will some nations think that when someone propose a proposal to stop proposals on banning nukes and this passes more nations will think what the ***** why staying in this WA? (The only argument for clause 3 was (stated by the proposer) that this act (ha ha, it is an act I think) had to do something to be a proposal.
I realy think this proposal was meant to be a blocker, so it should be illegal.

My point is, I am not so eager to stay in WA, join discussions, when some delegates try to block future proposals, in stead of discussing them.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA-delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

The Bronnand Ambassadorial Office confirms our country's decision to oppose this proposal.
We feel ALL nuclear weapons should be de-commissioned and subsequently banned. It's use in the second world war told us how much of an abomination they are. They should never have been created in the first place.

Ban Nuclear Weapons, and pave the way to a longer lived, and less violent world!

Amb. Erekban Ascher,
The Kings Right Hand,
Bronnand Ambassadorial Office
----------------------------------
Cogito Ergo Paganus Sum

We are opposed to this resolution on the grounds that passing a law declaring a freedom is an absurdity. Where I come from, freedom and self-determination are assumed.

People generally don't mess with nuclear powers, that's why there are a defensive weapon. You never have to use them for them to be effective.

Perhaps if you read the rest of the thread you'd learn even more about how nuclear weapons can be used defensively, instead of just making an inane and inaccurate statement like that.


And I'm sure that Russia and the United States agree with you completely.

Ignoring the cost of building and maintaining these weapons, what about the off chance that one of the Nuclear Processing Plants suffers a meltdown, or gets taken over by terriorists?

Also, a nation with Nuclear weapons might just bully her weaker neighbors.

But off course you would support this bill, especially since your nation spends most of its money on "Defense" and you have quite a large Uranium Mining Sector.

Also, a nation with Nuclear weapons might just bully her weaker neighbors.

Exactly, and would you like every WA nation to be at the mercy of non-WA nations in this way?

If you support tactical nuclear weapons, you should be supporting this resolution, not opposing it. Without this resolution, a resolution could be passed banning tactical nuclear weapons.

but with the resolution we CAN'T ban strategic nuclear weapons, and the government of Boljovia would like them banned



Strategic weapons can target civilians, but are primarily designed and deployed as a deterrent, and typically a damn effective one. Deterrence is preferable to actually fighting a war, if at all possible. How many civilians and soldiers die in conventionally waged wars?

a deterrant is only as good as the nation's intent to use the deterrant if it fails to deter :)

And what use, exactly, is a weapon if it cannot be used?

no use at all... but it doesn't matter, because they should be banned anyway

Warning! RL argument ahead!
Apparently you are unaware that the only time nuclear weapons were used in warfare they actually resulted in fewer casualties than were projected if a ground assault had occurred.

This is true, while destructive, nukes don't kill as many people as a mass ground assault.

This is why the Most Holy Sultanate of Al Mutwakkil endorses this resolution.

Exactly, and would you like every WA nation to be at the mercy of non-WA nations in this way?

But it's okay for nuke wielding WA nations to do it to our non-WA neighbors?

Once again, I think this resolution is missing the point. It claims we need the right to have these weapons because the majority of non-WA members are aggressive towards WA members. We need to fight the reasons for this divide and hatred rather then just strap ourselves to the teeth.

But it's okay for nuke wielding WA nations to do it to our non-WA neighbors?


No, which is why I would support a proposal to outlaw first use of nuclear weapons, thus retaining a deterrent effect whilst also limiting the use of such weapons. I could possibly even be convinced by a ban on the use of nuclear weapons against other WA nations.

Even if WA nations were prevented from using nuclear weapons at all, but were allowed to have/retain them I'd still be happy because I'd still have my nuclear deterrence in that if I were attacked I could resign from the WA to deal with the military threat if need be.

While the Commonwealth of Wollensky will hold off voting until tomorrow, our intention is to vote again this resolution, as it is irrelevant.

We already have the right to have nuclear weapons. If the intent is to prevent a ban of nuclear weapons in the future, then this resolution will not accomplish that. If there are enough WA members that would vote to ban nuclear weapons, then there are enough WA members to repeal this current resolution that is up for vote.

Hirota votes FOR this proposal. The fact our economy has a great deal of reliance on Uranium mining and Nuclear Weapons research is completely coincidental.

Are you seriously comparing nuclear fallout and the contamination that results from the mere production and storage of nuclear devices -- let alone the aftereffects of detonation -- to a slingshot?
Right. And in exactly how many tens of thousands of years will that land be suitable for human habitation?Alright, enough of this. Perhaps it escaped your notice -- or perhaps it didn't, and you've instead elected to be cynical and deceptive -- but this resolution does not protect the right of nations to use nuclear weapons at all, just to possess them for deterrent purposes. A resolution could always be passed in the future restricting these weapons' actual use, but that's not the point of this legislation in the first place. You can moan all you like about what terrific destruction and death nuclear weapons inflict, but please don't delude yourself, or anyone else present for that matter, into thinking that this protects anything beyond a simple deterrent.

Flibbleites,

You also misunderstand my post. National soverignty is not GRANTED by the World Assembly, which it clearly states. The resolution is about "allowing" member nations to have nukes. We've already been allowed to have nukes, so this resolution is not only unnecessary but it is assuming the authority to allow. The World Assembly does not have the authority over a nation's ability to protect itself, thus the WA in principle is harming national sovereignty with this resolution.

Don't try to lecture me about National Sovereignty. I'm one of the leaders of the National Sovereignty Organization (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx), and I was defending national sovereignty before your nation even existed. This proposal is not about allowing anything. It's primary purpose is to protect your right to have nukes, to insure that nations such as Bronnand (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741837&postcount=139) don't take that away from you.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

The resolution is about "allowing" member nations to have nukes. We've already been allowed to have nukes, so this resolution is not only unnecessary but it is assuming the authority to allow. The World Assembly does not have the authority over a nation's ability to protect itself, thus the WA in principle is harming national sovereignty with this resolution.

When you join the WA, you join with the recognition (if you're paying attention, that is) that the WA can, and does, pass legislation that overrides national sovereignty. If it did not have that authority, what would be the point of WA legislation in the first place? The WA has the authority to affect your ability to protect yourself, whether you recognize it or not. Your options are either to pass legislation protecting your rights, or withdraw. For those reasons, opposing this legislation on national sovereignty grounds is absurd and incredibly counterproductive.

We are opposed to this resolution on the grounds that passing a law declaring a freedom is an absurdity. Where I come from, freedom and self-determination are assumed.

Well, you're not "where you come from" anymore. You're in the WA, where such things can only be assumed as long as you work to make sure they are protected.

but with the resolution we CAN'T ban strategic nuclear weapons, and the government of Boljovia would like them banned

I see. The classic "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach to legislation.

We already have the right to have nuclear weapons. If the intent is to prevent a ban of nuclear weapons in the future, then this resolution will not accomplish that. If there are enough WA members that would vote to ban nuclear weapons, then there are enough WA members to repeal this current resolution that is up for vote.

Maybe there would be enough nations voting to repeal this if it passes. But that is not a certainty - repeal efforts have been defeated often enough in the past. Having legislated protection in place for the right to possess these types of weapons is better than having nothing at all in place to protect yourself. Or do you want to risk having to repeal a nuclear weapons ban if it does pass in the future, assuming you vote this legislation down?

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Flibbleites,

Warning the number 1 million[roughly] (the death toll most assume which was actually a casualty toll not a death toll) is highly misleading and thus making your statement rather.. wrong.

and I quote "267,000 fatalities" if operation Olympic lasts 180 days. That is hardly 1 million. and both Atom bombs killed far more then that. That is cited from a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April of 1945.

there were far better ways to end the war. a Naval and Air blockade.. Nothing gets in or out.. Also the emperor himself already wanted to end the war. He was dealing with the Radicals in his .. 'government' not the majority.

also

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

So the only thing the Atom bomb did TRULY was start the cold war and keep the soviet union out of mainland Japan - Anything else it did or prevented is 100% speculation.. Was it worth that? that is of course subjective.
-------------------------
/end RL reference

OoC: Oh, boy, how often have I heard that quote without people thinking about it. Do you really expect Japanese civilians and military leaders to say "Yeah, we were going to really fuck you up if you were going to invade. You should have dropped those bombs, it was a really good idea"; furthermore, the 1946 date is also problematic - simply put, all the information wasn't out, and there wasn't a full understanding of Japanese militaristic culture. The information discovered, and further research, has revealed that an order was prepared that would have forced the entire population to fight back against the Americans- men, women and children, and revealed the strong likelyhood of the use of chemical or biological weapons against advancing troops. To claim that they would have ignored such an order is ignorant of Japanese culture - Okinawa (which was considered Japanese soil by the Japanese) shewed that civilians were expected to lay down their lives rather than become conquered by the Americans, with many blowing themselves up with hand grenades or commiting suicide. An invasion of Japan would have seen a similar thing, in higher proportions. The 267,000 estimated casualites is widely regarded nowadays as a serious under estimate and based more on experiences fighting Germany than fighting Japan. Furthermore, that is US casualties only. Modern revisions do indeed put the number of US casualties at around 500,000, with at least 2,000,000 Japanese casualties.

I'd hoped there would be a poll heading this thread.

This is an appaling piece of legislation.

It is very poorly written. The discussion of use of nuclear arms must end as clause "1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations" is most literally interpreted as "the stockpile is availiable for use to defend the nation-state". This can be coercive use or explicit, it can also be pre-emptive or used in retaliation. This major ambiguity makes this piece of legislation highly problematic.

The current mood of this debate also highlights to blunt and irrational war mongering of the vast majority of WA members. The WA should not overlook or tolerate the irrational and problematic security problems related to the circulation of WMD's. We must outlaw such devices. The barbaric, irrational and animalistic sentiments on display in this debate are testament to the continuing failures of the WA as a whole. We must stive for post-modern enlightment and not return to a nuclear, multipolar destructive world order.


For these reasons the The People's Republic of Tomzinia rejects and urges members to reconsider their position on this disgusting Resolution.

Initial response to this legislation was positive, with Corevini taking very seriously the threat posed if no deterrant stockpiles are kept. However, certain flaws concerning the wording of this have been brought to light, ambiguity being the main concern. These flaws make this piece of legislation far too open ended and as a result will not recieve backing from the Armed Republic of Corevini.

We are however not opposed directly to the spirit in which the legislation was proposed and therefore suggest that a revised edition is put forward in lieu of the current proposition.

Cobdenia, you used that causality word again. that was DEATH TOLL. Casualty toll is far different.

just to repeat one point again: The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Incase you missed that bit

Sigh ... take it to General.

What does Buzz kill mean!

Anyways, For whoever aid "Using Nukes in a war actually lowers the projected number of Casualties conventional Fighting would bring.."

First those would probably be Tactical Nukes, used on smaller targets, and second, when I said millions would die, i meant Millions would die when the Nukes get launched at another city because Scare Tactics failed.

Nukes are our end! Though it is obvious that we'll lose, we're behind by 2000 votes...

The WA as an institution has lost its credibility and its legitimacy. If this reform passes it spells the end of the WA. Delegates must reverse and change this vote, we need more time to consider the effects this legisaltion brings to the community as a whole. We must review properly what this open and rushed policy to arms will do.

The WA as an institution has lost its credibility and its legitimacy. If this reform passes it spells the end of the WA. Delegates must reverse and change this vote, we need more time to consider the effects this legisaltion brings to the community as a whole. We must review properly what this open and rushed policy to arms will do.

As The Delegate of La Mafia, I second that.

We shall vote in favor of the proposed Nuclear Armament Possession Statue, even though most of the statue is pointless or commons sense. Proposing such trivial matters is offencive to the legitamacy of the WA. I say move on but, ban that idiot Flibbleites from ever making proprosals again. Ko Na Nkakai!!

Kabea Rianaki
Voice of the People

I'd hoped there would be a poll heading this thread.I forgot to hire a Kennyite pollster.

This is an appaling piece of legislation.

It is very poorly written. The discussion of use of nuclear arms must end as clause "1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations" is most literally interpreted as "the stockpile is availiable for use to defend the nation-state". This can be coercive use or explicit, it can also be pre-emptive or used in retaliation. This major ambiguity makes this piece of legislation highly problematic. No, the literal interpretation is that you can own nukes, this resolution has no effect on usage whatsoever.

The WA as an institution has lost its credibility and its legitimacy. If this reform passes it spells the end of the WA. Delegates must reverse and change this vote, we need more time to consider the effects this legisaltion brings to the community as a whole. We must review properly what this open and rushed policy to arms will do.This resolution is basically a repeat of my old resolution Nuclear Armaments (UN Resolution #109 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)) which passed back on July 3, 2005. If the original version didn't spell the end of the UN, how would this spell the end of the WA?

We shall vote in favor of the proposed Nuclear Armament Possession Statue, even though most of the statue is pointless or commons sense. Proposing such trivial matters is offencive to the legitamacy of the WA. I say move on but, ban that idiot Flibbleites from ever making proprosals again. Ko Na Nkakai!!

Kabea Rianaki
Voice of the People
Thank you for the vote however I have a complaint about your comments. My name is Robert Flibble not Flibbleites and I am not an idiot.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Furthermore, your calling me an idiot could be construed as flaming which the mods take a dim view on.

Regarding this and several other resolutions, I have the following to say:

Could people please learn how to write them?

First, some of the grammatical errors in these resolutions make me wince.

Second, could people look up the UN's resolution format? That is roughly what we want to see.

Regarding this and several other resolutions, I have the following to say:

Could people please learn how to write them? I assume then that you have written at least one resolution, and thus know what you're talking about?

First, some of the grammatical errors in these resolutions make me wince.Well, you know, we like to include something for everyone in our resolutions, including Grammar Nazis.

Second, could people look up the UN's resolution format? That is roughly what we want to see.Why? So the U.N. can sue us for stealing their templates too?

Or do you mean the NSUN? There was no official resolution format.

Oh, and as long as we're being sticklers on format, your signature's too long.

Warning! RL argument ahead!
Apparently you are unaware that the only time nuclear weapons were used in warfare they actually resulted in fewer casualties than were projected if a ground assault had occurred.

Except they were used to wipe out at least 2 cities worth of INNOCENT CIVILIANS! where i come from, that would be down as mass murder.

Don't try to lecture me about National Sovereignty. I'm one of the leaders of the National Sovereignty Organization (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx), and I was defending national sovereignty before your nation even existed. This proposal is not about allowing anything. It's primary purpose is to protect your right to have nukes, to insure that nations such as Bronnand (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741837&postcount=139) don't take that away from you.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Oh god, get off your high horse. I've been doing nation states on and off for four years because I have a life outside the Internet, so don't even start that arrogant crap. And I care nothing about some fantasy position you hold on a certain free forum, it's completely beside the point. What I do care about is how someone can perceive this piece of badly written, unnecessary proposed legislation will do anything to protect my sovereignty as well as aide my nation in some way. The World Assembly does not have the authority to exert its laws on member nations in this game, nor does it in principle have the authority to override national sovereignty without just cause.

We apologize to Bob Flibble for any offence taken and offer our lives to resolve any matter of honor.* It is the current position of the People, that this statute lacks any real use. However, we ask you, the author, to in simple terms (because our english is limited) to tell please us what the statue means.

Ro Kal Kaminikai,
Kabea Rianaki
Voice of the People



*[not seriously, its only a traditional formality in our culture]

No, the literal interpretation is that you can own nukes, this resolution has no effect on usage whatsoever.



"to defend themselves from hostile nations" The word "defend" must be defined properly, it is simply too ambiguous. This phrase, like I said before "can be coercive use or explicit, it can also be pre-emptive or used in retaliation." The definition must be in the statute and must explicitly state when a state can use this legislation and when it is in violation of said legislation.




This resolution is basically a repeat of my old resolution Nuclear Armaments (UN Resolution #109 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)) which passed back on July 3, 2005. If the original version didn't spell the end of the UN, how would this spell the end of the WA?



As far as I'm aware no legislature in the world uses past, unmade legislation at the forefront of their arguments for its remaking. This legislation will fundamentally change the definition of the WA and should be treated differenetly.

The Peoples Republic of Tomzinia hereby call again for negotiations to reform, revamp and remake the WA. It is an institution which can no longer stand on its own two feet, a corrupt insitution and one which has lost the will to govern properly.

I assume then that you have written at least one resolution, and thus know what you're talking about?

Well, you know, we like to include something for everyone in our resolutions, including Grammar Nazis.

Why? So the U.N. can sue us for stealing their templates too?

Or do you mean the NSUN? There was no official resolution format.

Oh, and as long as we're being sticklers on format, your signature's too long.

1. As a matter of fact, yes. I have authored one or two resolutions in my time, and was roundly lambasted for the errors in construction thereof.

2. Insisting on the correct use of English in "public documents" (i.e. UNWA Resolutions) is NOT akin to being a Grammar Nazi. It's having a basic regard for the English language - either the Queen's version or the American version. Either is fine, just apply it correctly.

3. Oh, please. I simply suggested "roughly". You know, that word which means "approximately", among other things. In other words, I'd like to see a Resolution whose language MADE SENSE! :headbang:

4. My signature is entirely my business. Having said that, it should probably be altered - it is a little.....I don't know, nerdy? :rolleyes: Suggestions, please. I could (and probably should) drop the Free City stuff - the Free City Project is well and truly dead.

Here's an example of what I consider to be a better-written version of the same resolution:

The World Assembly of the NationStates (the WA),

REALIZING that members of the WA are outnumbered by non-members by a ratio of approximately 3:1;

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that non-members of the WA are not required to comply with WA Resolutions, especially those in the area of arms control and limitation;

NOTING the hostile attitude often taken towards the members of the WA by non-member States; and

UNDERSTANDING that the right to effective self-defence is a fundamental right of all States, and that being a member State of the WA does not abrogate or remove this right:

1. DECLARES that all members of the WA are permitted to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations;

2. PROCLAIMS that any State which chooses to develop, hold or maintain a nuclear arsenal does so at its sole discretion; and

3. REQUIRES that any member State of the WA maintaining said arsenals also take appropriate precautionary steps to prevent the proliferation of such arsenals into undesirable hands.

NOTE: I could cut-and-paste perhaps 80% of the original document. The other 20% is just as important in determining whether a Resolution is sufficiently well-written.

Very good, my country has a high military budget anyway :)

Although our government is against nuclear weapons in principle and has voted accordingly, our government would like to note a glaring flaw in this resolution: it states that states have the right to possess nuclear arms, but does not explicitly state that states have the right to use them. Even from our uninformed, nuclear weapon-free position, a nuclear weapon which one can possess but not use seems to have the attributes of an expensive paperweight!

Signed

Markus Berens
Foreign Minister

Ambassador Pancho Brigantes:

Allow me to extend the thanks of the People of Labia Minor for the great honour of allowing our contribution in these hallowed halls. As a newly elected delegate I feel I have some getting to know these halls, in fact, so luckily I brought a small map with me, courtesy of the Tourist Information department.

Whilst the collected nations of the Back Arse of Nowhere have yet to formulate a consensus agreement on the implementation of the resolution under discussion, I would like to draw attention to its sabre rattling tone - we in the Back Arse of Nowhere enjoy extremely warm and frank relations between WA members and non WA members, and feel that the black and white narrative which this proposal uses to justify an amplification, for that is what it would boil down to, in World Tension, sends out the wrong message. It does, in effect, put us on a footing for war, not peace. And let no-one tell you that war is defunct in that alternative world where nuclear proliferation is a very present threat, for there is war - in the Congo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Sudan, and need I remind you of the terrible pain suffered by countries such as Bosnia Herzegovina, Chechnia, Cambodia, Iran, ad infinitum, all of which happened under the supposedly protective shield of detente. Let us not see similar carnage in OUR world, but rather seek to build bridges between ourselves and those more independently minded nations.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

My last post was gagged by the moderators. This is a complete and utter insult.
There is no democracy left in the WA. We must expose the corruption and build from the bottom up to create a working, sensible WA.



No, the literal interpretation is that you can own nukes, this resolution has no effect on usage whatsoever.

I reinterate that this phrase: DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations is extremely ambiguous. The word defence is not clearly defined, you must confirm the definition of defence IN THE LEGISLATION.

I'm voting against it. Clause 3 can be interpreted however anyone wants to interpret it. What are the "wrong hands"?

The World Assembly does not have the authority to exert its laws on member nations in this game, nor does it in principle have the authority to override national sovereignty without just cause.

Of course it does. By joining the WA that is exactly what you let it do. If you don't like it, leave. That's always been the way of it.

In other words, I'd like to see a Resolution whose language MADE SENSE! :headbang: :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure you were able to "make sense" of this resolution, even if the author accidentally left off the first line while copy/pasting it.

My signature is entirely my business.Well, yours, and the moderators'.

My last post was gagged by the moderators. This is a complete and utter insult.
There is no democracy left in the WA. We must expose the corruption and build from the bottom up to create a working, sensible WA.

Your post probably got filtered out by the anti-spam filter that jolt offers us (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511850). Once you get past 10 posts, you're fine.

And the mods have brought the post back, as you can see above.

Oh god, get off your high horse. I've been doing nation states on and off for four years because I have a life outside the Internet, so don't even start that arrogant crap. And I care nothing about some fantasy position you hold on a certain free forum, it's completely beside the point. What I do care about is how someone can perceive this piece of badly written, unnecessary proposed legislation will do anything to protect my sovereignty as well as aide my nation in some way. The World Assembly does not have the authority to exert its laws on member nations in this game, nor does it in principle have the authority to override national sovereignty without just cause.I'm not on any horse. I am however annoyed at people who try to use NatSov arguments against a sovereignty friendly resolution. And for the record, the WA can override national sovereignty for whatever reason they damn well please.

We apologize to Bob Flibble for any offence taken and offer our lives to resolve any matter of honor.* It is the current position of the People, that this statute lacks any real use. However, we ask you, the author, to in simple terms (because our english is limited) to tell please us what the statue means.

Ro Kal Kaminikai,
Kabea Rianaki
Voice of the PeopleBasically this resolution does two things: it prevents the WA from banning nuclear weapons, and it requires nations to keep any nukes they have in a safe place.

"to defend themselves from hostile nations" The word "defend" must be defined properly, it is simply too ambiguous. This phrase, like I said before "can be coercive use or explicit, it can also be pre-emptive or used in retaliation." The definition must be in the statute and must explicitly state when a state can use this legislation and when it is in violation of said legislation.Or I could just leave it up to each nation to determine how nuclear weapons would be best used for defending their nation.

The Peoples Republic of Tomzinia hereby call again for negotiations to reform, revamp and remake the WA. It is an institution which can no longer stand on its own two feet, a corrupt insitution and one which has lost the will to govern properly.*Bob rubs his thumb and index finger together*
See this, it's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Well I certainly look forward to the unorganized efforts to repeal this resolution.. And as for how my nation will be using them? We wont and don't our armed force itself is more then enough. My region voted almost unanimously against nuclear armament

This seems to be an unfair resolution to bring up. The fact that a nation is not in the WA does not mean it is hostile. Also, since they obviously can't vote, what is the point of the resolution in the first place? Is there a resolution that says WA nations cannot have them, because if there is no such resolution than this one doesn't change anything.

The fact that no nation officially has nuclear weapons or is officially able to conquer another kind of makes this pointless too.

Bad news ... proliferation of weapons is never a guantee of safety. Just look at the mess terrorists have caused: no nukes there. Whether or not they are used is moot. Whether or not a state can ensure their 'safety' is moot. Hiding behind a weapon instead of talking with the other side (who are human beings incidently) is the wrong path.
There is no victory to be had using such force.
We have learned that lesson.
We invite the rest of the world to see defense as more than just having big balls.

Yes, but it's nice to have them.

The Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti votes FOR.

GP

Nice to have them indeed. And since my none-WA neighbors are dictators, I would gladly even use these against them. But don't worry, I won't. I will just give the nukes to them for free and then sell the detonators to some children or something... There's no law against selling detonators to foreign children, right?

seems like a pretty sound plan to me.

How is NUCLEAR defense?

Nation A fires nuke, nation B responds by firing Nuke=double the radiation

Therefore making situation twice as bad.

Am I missing something here?

I don't think that anyone should be able to have nukes.

I think the proposal should say that you can't use nukes unless the other country may possibly nuke you.

Why do we need Nukes if theres no War in the game, what are you goona do, RP kill innocent civilians?

Hopless now, i voted against, but doesn't really matter, now does it you blood thirsty monsters

it leaves way too much unadressed... whether you have nukes or not its not a good idea

How is NUCLEAR defense?

Nation A fires nuke, nation B responds by firing Nuke=double the radiation

Therefore making situation twice as bad.

Am I missing something here?


Nation 'A' would be less likely to attack Nation 'B' knowing they have nuclear weapons as well. They don't even have to be in close proximity to one another; most countries are able to detect a missile soon enough to fire one of their own. That is how it is defense.

Everyone having nukes may be a worse situation than no one having nukes, but its better than everyone but you having them.

Why do we need Nukes if theres no War in the game, what are you goona do, RP kill innocent civilians?

Hopless now, i voted against, but doesn't really matter, now does it you blood thirsty monsters
Out of character, there is no war; in character, there is. Also, I resent the term "blood thirsty monsters," considering that the WA not having nukes would be defensless against other nations, making it more likely for a nuke to actually go off.

I'm still voting against since this does nothing but inconveniencing any later efforts to ban nukes. If there are enough people against nukes to ban them, there are enough to repeal this resolution.

Nation 'A' would be less likely to attack Nation 'B' knowing they have nuclear weapons as well. They don't even have to be in close proximity to one another; most countries are able to detect a missile soon enough to fire one of their own. That is how it is defense.

So Nation A nukes Nation C because there not WA and dont have Nukes, and know they'll kill everyoen in it, good idea! This sickens Ceatus

AND WHAT IS BUZZ KILLING!

:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure you were able to "make sense" of this resolution, even if the author accidentally left off the first line while copy/pasting it.

Well, yours, and the moderators'.

Right. I'm calling you on that nice little bit of straw-manning.

In future, please don't quote part of my point and pretend that it is the whole of it, in order to knock it down. It is a dirty, disgusting, dishonest debating tactic, and I've seen quite enough of it in real life, since I follow politics with interest.

The whole of my point regarding my signature:

4. My signature is entirely my business. Having said that, it should probably be altered - it is a little.....I don't know, nerdy? Suggestions, please. I could (and probably should) drop the Free City stuff - the Free City Project is well and truly dead.

In other words, I acknowledged its shortcomings, and invited suggestions to counteract them. For you to imply that my statement was an assertion of perfection is nothing less than straw-manning.

The whole of my point regarding my signature:.

The whole part regarding your signature was that it was too long. Game rules say "8 lines" Yours sprawls over 9 or 10 depending on browser size. Shorten it.

Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Mod.

So Nation A nukes Nation C because there not WA and dont have Nukes
Wait, what? First, why would nation C not have nukes? There is nothing in the proposal that says that non-WA members can't have nukes, and it would be impossible to pass it if it did. Second, doesn't this just explain why nation C should also have nukes, which is what we were saying?

Most people are in the WA to give power to their region, just so that you guys know. Most nations couldn't give a flying **** about most of the so-called "legislation" it tries to pass everytime. Also some nations have some kind of hope of changing its direction, this is not some "Love it or leave it" thing to all nations.

Why? What good are Nuclear weapons going to do. The only thing a Weapon of that magnitude of destruction is good for is causing trouble. Having Nuclear Weapons is like having a loaded gun in your basement. Someone is going to find it and play with it and the outcome wont be fun. So why have them lying around.
Also Nuclear weapons are the weapons of cowards. So why stoop so low, why join the ranks of all the other cowards that have Nuclear weapons, and why not set an example by refusing to use them. Why not instead spend your money on strengthening your military.
And finaly Nuclear Weapons are NOT penis extensions.
Elvins

Alright, enough of this. Perhaps it escaped your notice -- or perhaps it didn't, and you've instead elected to be cynical and deceptive -- but this resolution does not protect the right of nations to use nuclear weapons at all, just to possess them for deterrent purposes. A resolution could always be passed in the future restricting these weapons' actual use, but that's not the point of this legislation in the first place. You can moan all you like about what terrific destruction and death nuclear weapons inflict, but please don't delude yourself, or anyone else present for that matter, into thinking that this protects anything beyond a simple deterrent.

Ben's neck refused to support his head when it heard that his mind was seriously considering a reply to this statement -- a statement so off-target that were it an arrow, it would have fired in reverse. *facepalm*

Ben pulls himself together and puts away the urge to re-instate the old UN Assembly tradition and defenestrate this impertinent whelp....

*sigh*

First of all you missed completely the entire debate prior to my statements. In no way, shape, or form have I been arguing about the use of the weapons at all. Had you been paying attention to ALL of the statements here in the Assembly, you'd have seen that my objection to the resolution is for it's vagueness and ambiguity -- points I've already addressed. I even said that I agree with the use of nuclear weapons as deterrents.

Secondly, had you been paying attention to ALL the statements here in the Assembly, you'd have seen that the statements you quoted -- and the not-so-subtle use of "moan" to characterize them was a particularly unnecessary bit of snarkiness -- were in direct response to the erroneous assertions that nuclear weapons do not target civilians.

Ambassador, I strongly suggest that you pay better attention to the entirety of these proceedings before mischaracterizing and faintly defaming a senior member of this august body.

Ben sat back down, thinking that a double Intangible brandy would have be the prescription tonight.

Last day of voting, lets see if we can get some more votes against or we wont stand a chance

While we might not be the most seasoned member of the World Assembly...the Confederacy of Rezliga still is quite pleased to finally formalize its opinion and voice one last plea in the negative of this resolution.

FIRST: Realizing that World Assembly Member Nations are outnumbered is not a reason to gain the usage of nuclear weaponry. We as members of the landmark organization of the World Assembly should be wiser then this. We should, thus, instead of nuclear weaponry, find more diplomatic and peaceful resolutions to war instead of relying on the integrity of hostile nations to avoid combat with a country that does indeed carry nuclear weaponry. We all realize that there are these nations in this great world we live in that would gladly remove everyone from existance rather then bow to the wishes of another. Megalomania does strange things to some dictators.

SECOND: Black markets and corrupt government officials are quite common, even, I will admit, in countries such as Rezliga. Therefor, it is still quite dangerous to have the capabilities to build nuclear weaponry, lest some corrupt official 'accidentally' write them off of the record and have his own pockets lined.

THIRD: Let it be known that we of the World Assembly will NOT be a war-like entity. Arming ourselves allows our opponents the opprotunity to spread propaganda of our 'hatred' and 'vile militaristic ways.' Let us be the higher ground. Let us have the higher moral standards.

The Confederacy of Rezliga therefore votes in the negative, AGAINST the Statute and AGAINST the Delegate of the New Carribean Region's vote.

Last day of voting, lets see if we can get some more votes against or we wont stand a chance

Eh, you should probably realize you don't. It's too late to beat it.

I feel that the problem with this motion is that nuclear weapons are certainly not the way forward with regards to weaponry. The WSK official stance is that conventional warfare will always be the best method.

The KSPP has therefore ruled that the state will vote against this motion.

So Nation A nukes Nation C because there not WA and dont have Nukes, and know they'll kill everyoen in it, good idea! This sickens Ceatus

AND WHAT IS BUZZ KILLING!


Zuzakia pretty much covered it, but in essence, Nation 'C' can defend itself by having nuclear weapons. You're paddling against the flow of logic here.

but in essence, Nation 'C' can defend itself by having nuclear weapons

The KSPP would like to suggest the idea that a country can be defended with soldiers and tanks, not just with nuclear weapons. Why should the development of almighty lethal weapons be allowed? Besides, owing to the concept of MAD which became apparent in the Cold War, nuclear weapons are never realistically used and therefore are almost redundant.

We must focus on building up armies if we wish to defend ourselves, not creating civilian slaughtering weapons of mass destruction.

No one should tell me what type of weapons that I should or should not be allowed to own. If I have stronger, hostile neighbors around me, why shouldn't I be allowed to own nuclear weapons? I have every right to defend my nation through any means necessary, even if that means that I have deterrence through the superior strength of my weapons.

I am voting FOR so we can get 666 more 75 megaton nuclear weapons to show off to our non-WA Funen nations. Cool, eh? I'm sure they'll stay away from invading us now.

i am totaly against nuclear weapons! take as an example a small planet called earth, far far away from here...
there are many countries that own nuclear weapons.
think what will happen in case two of those countries decide to go to war and use their high tech weapons!
their planet will be destroyed in no time!
so i say YES to normal weapons for self defence, but NO to weapons that can destroy the world!
noone wants our planet destroyed!
so everyone, vote NO!
President of Adoniland

Adon the Great

I see your concern here, but at least this resolution won't force us to fight only with sticks and stones!

Ambassador, I strongly suggest that you pay better attention to the entirety of these proceedings before mischaracterizing and faintly defaming a senior member of this august body.Oh, forgive me, Your Holiness; I had, in fact, read your comments in context but simply misinterpreted them: I assumed the anti-nuke nonsense was actually part of your objection to this proposal. Tragically, I overestimated your ability to remain on-topic.

Maybe this resolution is a tad vague, what with your government being unable to tell the difference between a radiological and nuclear weapons (the old UN was able to make the distinction (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=199)), and too indecisive to determine which hands it doesn't want its nukes to fall into (but don't worry, future legislation on nuclear proliferation and international terrorism should clear up the matter).

But getting back to my original point--

Just then, a pair of especially "wrong hands" enters the assembly chamber, their muscular young owner eying the dueling diplomats with a gleam of fury. He angrily shoves Shemp out of the way and makes for the Intangible representative, grasping his shoulders and kneeing him in the groin. "That'll learn you to steal my mojo in the Strangers' Bar, bitch!" he shouts as he leaps out of the broken window behind him -- "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!" -- and makes a fantastic splash into the Vastivan Memorial Reflecting Pool below.

Shemp gets back up and brushes himself off...

I'm sure what my colleague Mr. Batko-Yovino meant to say was...

While we might not be the most seasoned member of the World Assembly...the Confederacy of Rezliga still is quite pleased to finally formalize its opinion and voice one last plea in the negative of this resolution.

FIRST: Realizing that World Assembly Member Nations are outnumbered is not a reason to gain the usage of nuclear weaponry.Whoa, stop right there. First off, this is not about gaining anything, this is about protecting rights we already have. Secondly, this resolution says absolutly nothing about using nukes, it's about possession.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

AND WHAT IS BUZZ KILLING!OOC: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buzzkill
There, now quit asking.

While we might not be the most seasoned member of the World Assembly...the Confederacy of Rezliga still is quite pleased to finally formalize its opinion and voice one last plea in the negative of this resolution.

FIRST: Realizing that World Assembly Member Nations are outnumbered is not a reason to gain the usage of nuclear weaponry. We as members of the landmark organization of the World Assembly should be wiser then this. We should, thus, instead of nuclear weaponry, find more diplomatic and peaceful resolutions to war instead of relying on the integrity of hostile nations to avoid combat with a country that does indeed carry nuclear weaponry. We all realize that there are these nations in this great world we live in that would gladly remove everyone from existance rather then bow to the wishes of another. Megalomania does strange things to some dictators.

SECOND: Black markets and corrupt government officials are quite common, even, I will admit, in countries such as Rezliga. Therefor, it is still quite dangerous to have the capabilities to build nuclear weaponry, lest some corrupt official 'accidentally' write them off of the record and have his own pockets lined.

THIRD: Let it be known that we of the World Assembly will NOT be a war-like entity. Arming ourselves allows our opponents the opprotunity to spread propaganda of our 'hatred' and 'vile militaristic ways.' Let us be the higher ground. Let us have the higher moral standards.

The Confederacy of Rezliga therefore votes in the negative, AGAINST the Statute and AGAINST the Delegate of the New Carribean Region's vote.

Thank you for proving the point that level of seniority has little to do with the ability to present a civil, coherent argument. I may not agree with everything in it, but I applaud your presentation.

Oh, forgive me, Your Holiness; I had, in fact, read your comments in context but simply misinterpreted them: I assumed the anti-nuke nonsense was actually part of your objection to this proposal. Tragically, I overestimated your ability to remain on-topic.

Maybe this resolution is a tad vague, what with your government being unable to tell the difference between a radiological and nuclear weapons (the old UN was able to make the distinction (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=199)), and too indecisive to determine which hands it doesn't want its nukes to fall into (but don't worry, future legislation on nuclear proliferation and international terrorism should clear up the matter).

But getting back to my original point--

Just then, a pair of especially "wrong hands" enters the assembly chamber, their muscular young owner eying the dueling diplomats with a gleam of fury. He angrily shoves Shemp out of the way and makes for the Intangible representative, grasping his shoulders and kneeing him in the groin. "That'll learn you to steal my mojo in the Strangers' Bar, bitch!" he shouts as he leaps out of the broken window behind him -- "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!" -- and makes a fantastic splash into the Vastivan Memorial Reflecting Pool below.

Shemp gets back up and brushes himself off...

I'm sure what my colleague Mr. Batko-Yovino meant to say was...

OOC: Funny stuff! Touché, sir.

IC: "Your Holiness?!?" Why you mealy-mouthed, sniveling little -- wha?

A sinewy, crazed and unaccountably straggly-looking young man dashes up to the disputants and, shoving the SG ambassador aside cracks his kneecap into pieces in a vain attempt to nut-shot the Intangible delegate. Ben had long ago realized that if the Assembly were going to include defenestration and pie-launching as standard practices, a steel-lined codpiece with short protruding spikes would be an excellent precautionary measure.

Ben's assailant not so much dashes as limps aggressively toward the Kennyite Memorial Window Casing and, seeming to realize his gross faux pas, saves the Assembly Sergeant-at-Arms time and effort through self-defenstration.

Ben helps the SG representative up and straightens his jacket lapels, and allows himself a wry grin.

Amateurs.

Ben clears his throat as he re-considers his earlier vitriol and decides instead on diplomacy.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of misinterpretation, and I apologize and formally withdraw my earlier "whelp" comment. I understand how frustrating it can be to hear nonsensical arguments against nuclear weapons. My opposition to this resolution still hangs on it's ambiguity, but looking at the current vote totals, it seems a moot point. Your assessment of my government not being able to subcategorize "nuclear" from "radiological" (aka "dirty bomb") weapons only reinforces my point. Such distinctions were uncommon in the UN era. I merely hope that future WA resolutions endeavor will be more specific, though not insanely detailed, so as to avoid such confusions or potential omissions.

I cede the floor.

Why? What good are Nuclear weapons going to do. The only thing a Weapon of that magnitude of destruction is good for is causing trouble. Having Nuclear Weapons is like having a loaded gun in your basement. Someone is going to find it and play with it and the outcome wont be fun. So why have them lying around.
Also Nuclear weapons are the weapons of cowards. So why stoop so low, why join the ranks of all the other cowards that have Nuclear weapons, and why not set an example by refusing to use them. Why not instead spend your money on strengthening your military.
And finaly Nuclear Weapons are NOT penis extensions.
Elvins

i am totaly against nuclear weapons! take as an example a small planet called earth, far far away from here...
there are many countries that own nuclear weapons.
think what will happen in case two of those countries decide to go to war and use their high tech weapons!
their planet will be destroyed in no time!
so i say YES to normal weapons for self defence, but NO to weapons that can destroy the world!
noone wants our planet destroyed!
so everyone, vote NO!
President of Adoniland[/Quote

Adon the Great


1. If everyone has nukes, no one uses them, for fear of nuclear war.
2. If everyone but the WA has nukes, the WA cannot defend itself, and is forced to surrender or be nuked.
The KSPP would like to suggest the idea that a country can be defended with soldiers and tanks, not just with nuclear weapons. Why should the development of almighty lethal weapons be allowed? Besides, owing to the concept of MAD which became apparent in the Cold War, nuclear weapons are never realistically used and therefore are almost redundant.
3. So you think that the Cold War would have stayed cold if only one side had nukes? This is exactly my point: they are never used, but are necessary to prevent their use.
4. Of course you need an army, but an army can't do all that much compared to something that can wipe cities off the map.

Ambassador Royce of Intangelon:

We don't know who the 'wrong hands' are either, but here at the Golden Oyster Massage Emporium & Accounting Services, we sure know where the right ones are! We are pleased to offer you a complimentary voucher for a one-hour 'Indigo Invigoration' session with Mei Fung as a token of conciliation on the cessation of this somewhat fraught legislative debate.

And, in a token of congratulation to Ambassador Flibble on his hard and worthy work in passing this proposal, we are pleased to offer him a complimentary 'Mystical Magic' session, involving comprehensive review of his income tax returns in lieu of recent changes to international financial laws.

Blessings and harmony,
Uncle Cho
Proprietor, Golden Oyster Massage Emporium & Accounting Services

Your resolution just passed the final hurdle: Yay to Flibbleites!

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to congratulate the author of this resolution, it was cogently written and argued for.

yours e.t.c. Nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Our nation was obviously asleep at the switch, as we would've voted against this. Since it has passed, all we can say is, when Lord Gojira comes for you, don't say you weren't warned!

Ambassador Royce of Intangelon:

We don't know who the 'wrong hands' are either, but here at the Golden Oyster Massage Emporium & Accounting Services, we sure know where the right ones are! We are pleased to offer you a complimentary voucher for a one-hour 'Indigo Invigoration' session with Mei Fung as a token of conciliation on the cessation of this somewhat fraught legislative debate.

And, in a token of congratulation to Ambassador Flibble on his hard and worthy work in passing this proposal, we are pleased to offer him a complimentary 'Mystical Magic' session, involving comprehensive review of his income tax returns in lieu of recent changes to international financial laws.

Blessings and harmony,
Uncle Cho
Proprietor, Golden Oyster Massage Emporium & Accounting Services

Ben felt every bit of tension leave his body as Mei Fung worked her deep-tissue magic. He concluded his phone call with his junior minister:

Yes. Sometimes it is better to give in than give back. What? Oh, nothing, a helicopter or something. Yes. PLease extend my apologies to the Magister, he'll want to know it passed. Right. Thank you, Jerry.

He disconnected and sunk into a delightful semi-consciousness as Mei's hands "helicoptered" up and down his beleaguered spine.

Better indeed.