NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't have the endorsements for me to propose this act, so I am hoping either someone will endorse me or someone with endorsements will make this proposal.

Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Act


Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Entelechia (or ?)

RECOGNIZING that the peculiar nature of nuclear weapons is such that only a very few can do all the destruction that anybody needs to do to destroy us. So that the possession on our part of thousands of nuclear weapons does not give us any security.

UNDERSTANDING that these devices exact a terrible price even if never used. Accepting nuclear weapons as the ultimate arbiter of conflict condemns the world to live under a dark cloud of perpetual anxiety. Worse, it codifies mankind's most murderous instincts as an acceptable option for resolving conflict.

ACKNOWLEDGING the concept that 'if you desire peace, prepare for war,' as it pertains to nuclear weapons is nonsense and it is a disastrous misconception to believe that by increasing the total global uncertainty one increases one's own certainty.

STRESSING that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated.

REALIZING that if no international agreement is concluded immediately there will be a continued and unlimited armaments race.

1. DECLARES that WA members are prohibited from possess nuclear weapons,

2. REQUIRES that any nation involved in nuclear technologies take precautions to ensure that their technology does not assist in or promote the development of nuclear weapons.

3. ESTABLISHES the WA Nuclear Technology Committee in order to investigate suspected violations of this act.

4. CALLS for economic sanctions by all WA members of nations found to be in violation of this act.

If your neighbor isn't a World Assembly member and has nuclear weapons, what do you do?

My nation chose to decommission its nuclear arsenal and instead rely on deploying defensive systems meant to limit the effectiveness of a nuclear attack. We feel that nuclear weapons are a barbaric and even cowardly means of waging war.

That being said, however, we feel that it overly infringes on matters of national security to impose limits on how WA members may choose to defend themselves from those hostile to them. We do also note, as The Dourian Embassy has stated, that there are many non-WA members who do not accept any limits whatsoever on their methods of waging war, and who possess nuclear weapons.

For those reasons, we have been opposed to nuclear weapons bans in the past, and will continue to be opposed to them.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

If your neighbor isn't a World Assembly member and has nuclear weapons, what do you do?

You get the $hit nuked out of you that's what.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

4. CALLS for economic sanctions by all WA members of nations found to be in violation of this act.

Bring on the sanctions! I for one will never comply with this proposal and most of the community will agree with me. This resolution will never get off the ground.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has a very simple response to nations that want to take away our right to have nuclear weapons. Should such a resolution pass, we will comply but be warned that our technique for dismantling our nuclear weapons consists of launching them at the authoring nation.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC:A resolution to increase global harmony by disarming weapons of excessive civilian casualties.Oh and for the record, you don't get to pick that line, it's set automatically by the game.

Bring on the sanctions! I for one will never comply with this proposal and most of the community will agree with me. This resolution will never get off the ground.Even if it does, you are required to comply with it. This ain't the RL U.N., you know, where you can just ignore any resolution you don't like; this is an actual international legislature with binding authority.

...But I don't have to comply. Which sort of means I win.

If your neighbor isn't a World Assembly member and has nuclear weapons, what do you do?

Apparently you didn't read beyond the title of the proposal...

"RECOGNIZING that the peculiar nature of nuclear weapons is such that only a very few can do all the destruction that anybody needs to do to destroy us. So that the possession on our part of thousands of nuclear weapons does not give us any security.

UNDERSTANDING that these devices exact a terrible price even if never used. Accepting nuclear weapons as the ultimate arbiter of conflict condemns the world to live under a dark cloud of perpetual anxiety. Worse, it codifies mankind's most murderous instincts as an acceptable option for resolving conflict.

ACKNOWLEDGING the concept that 'if you desire peace, prepare for war,' as it pertains to nuclear weapons is nonsense and it is a disastrous misconception to believe that by increasing the total global uncertainty one increases one's own certainty.

STRESSING that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated."

If my neighbor poses Nuclear weapons, I rely on "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" friendliness, diplomacy, deescalation, and in the gravest of circumstances conventional military actions with the highest possible efforts to avoid civilian casualties.

respectfully,
Klaatu Esperanto
First Adviser to the people of Entelechia

That being said, however, we feel that it overly infringes on matters of national security to impose limits on how WA members may choose to defend themselves from those hostile to them.

Please note that this act in not aimed at restricting nations ability to defend themselves, but rather the restriction of weapons which unavoidably cause massive civilian casualties. International agreements to prevent war crimes are not unreasonable.

We do also note, as The Dourian Embassy has stated, that there are many non-WA members who do not accept any limits whatsoever on their methods of waging war, and who possess nuclear weapons.

Again, if you would like to contest an actual statement in the act, that is course acceptable, but it appears you may not have read some of the the acts statements, such as: "that only a very few can do all the destruction that anybody needs to do to destroy us. So that the possession on our part of thousands of nuclear weapons does not give us any security." or "it is a disastrous misconception to believe that by increasing the total global uncertainty one increases one's own certainty."

respectfully,
Klaatu Esperanto
First Adviser to the people of Entelechia

Should such a resolution pass, we will comply but be warned that our technique for dismantling our nuclear weapons consists of launching them at the authoring nation.

A much better response should a resolution that you find intolerable pass would be to withdraw from WA membership, it is a voluntary body.

Might I also point out that attacking nations which adhere to this resolution would not serve any reasonable purpose as they do not threaten the extermination of your people.

respectfully,
Klaatu Esperanto
First Adviser to the people of Entelechia

OOC:Oh and for the record, you don't get to pick that line, it's set automatically by the game.

OOC: Thanks, I've edited the OP appropriately.

Bring on the sanctions! I for one will never comply with this proposal and most of the community will agree with me. This resolution will never get off the ground.

If the proposal does not pass as you contest that it wont, then there will be no sanctions to "bring on".

Perhaps the proposal will not get off the ground, that is why we have a democratic process for deciding WA proposals. Entelechia will not produce or promote nuclear armaments regardless of weather the proposal passes or not. if the WA assembly democratically decides to uphold the same principles of Global deescalation that would be inspiring, if not... such is the world we live in and such are our misguided siblings.

respectfully,
Klaatu Esperanto
First Adviser to the people of Entelechia

A much better response should a resolution that you find intolerable pass would be to withdraw from WA membership, it is a voluntary body.

Might I also point out that attacking nations which adhere to this resolution would not serve any reasonable purpose as they do not threaten the extermination of your people.

respectfully,
Klaatu Esperanto
First Adviser to the people of Entelechia

First off, we wouldn't be nuking all nations following it, just the one that inflicted it upon us. A step which would be immediately followed by a repeal of this, or course I can always take the high road and just redouble my efforts at getting my proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553614) passed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

First off, we wouldn't be nuking all nations following it, just the one that inflicted it upon us. A step which would be immediately followed by a repeal of this,

One nation cannot "inflict" a resolution on you, if it were to pass it would be because a majority of WA nations voted in favor of it. Hence you destruction of one nation would not effect the likelihood of a repeal unless it only had passed by one vote, furthermore why would they want to repeal it after all nations had already divested themselves of Nuclear weapons, yourself included as you indicated.

Furthermore, the detonation of nuclear weapons has a massive impact on global radiation levels, so if ever there were to be a truly nuclear war we would all perish not too long after the actual detonations. Perhaps you would also suggest we all have doomsday devices?

If, as you suggest, a more rational response would be to withdraw from the WA, why won't all nuclear powers do just that, thus rendering the proposal rather self-defeating?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs

why won't all nuclear powers do just that, thus rendering the proposal rather self-defeating?

I do not believe the extreme reaction of the party involved in discussion (who was threatening to expend his entire nuclear arsenal on bombarding my nation) is indicative of all the nations who would rather not disarm. Like other proposals that are not unanimous, the result is not a massive dropout rate from the WA. I was suggesting it as a more reasonable alternative than obliterating a nation which as taken no aggressive action against his own. In dropping out of the WA they will lose the benefits of membership, so they would have to feel very strongly about this issue in order to withdraw. What is the point of making any proposal if the insane threats of one member are enough to prevent all the members from having the opportunity to vote on the issue?

I do not believe the extreme reaction of the party involved in discussion (who was threatening to expend his entire nuclear arsenal on bombarding my nation) is indicative of all the nations who would rather not disarm. Like other proposals that are not unanimous, the result is not a massive dropout rate from the WA. I was suggesting it as a more reasonable alternative than obliterating a nation which as taken no aggressive action against his own. In dropping out of the WA they will lose the benefits of membership, so they would have to feel very strongly about this issue in order to withdraw. What is the point of making any proposal if the insane threats of one member are enough to prevent all the members from having the opportunity to vote on the issue?
A couple of things:

While I don't always agree with Bob Flibble, I respect his authority. As much as anything, his UN Resolution "Nuclear Armaments" did pass, that is, a majority supported the statement 'a nation has the right to decide whether to have nuclear weapons' (owtte).

Furthermore, my point is that even if only 100 members leave the WA, it's a big loss. If they leave the WA, they will no longer be subject to international law on any number of other subjects. A more moderate proposal would probably draw far fewer objections resulting in resignation, and thus would be optimal. (You can think of it a bit like the Laffer curve.)

So, some example of slightly more moderate proposals that would be very good:
- a replacement for the UN's "The Nuclear Terrorism Act"
- a replacement for the UN's "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act"
- requiring assorted security (e.g. storage at secure facilities) and safety (e.g. double launch codes, clear chains of command) methods
- banning specific types of nuclear weapons e.g. ones over a certain threshold
- banning nuclear testing

An additional idea would be to set up something to help nations decommission nuclear arsenals, if they wanted to do so on their own. Some might currently be dissuaded by the cost or technical difficulties, but rusting warheads are a security nightmare.

I don't like nuclear weapons any more than you do, but I'm not sure passing a prohibition on them will be worth much given the risk of massive WA withdrawal.

-- Samantha Benson

First of all, thank you. That was the first valuable response. Disagreeing with my proposal is of course completely valid. I am notoffended by disagreement, I am offended by posts simply saying "we don't agree and if it passes we will launch every Nuke we have at you".

[QUOTE=Quintessence of Dust;13715456]While I don't always agree with Bob Flibble, I respect his authority.

Unfortunately, someone who posts:
"The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has a very simple response to nations that want to take away our right to have nuclear weapons. Should such a resolution pass, we will comply but be warned that our technique for dismantling our nuclear weapons consists of launching them at the authoring nation."

Does not inspire respect in me, rather, it tends to suggest to me that the writer is either psychotic or sociopathic.

A more moderate proposal would probably draw far fewer objections resulting in resignation, and thus would be optimal. (You can think of it a bit like the Laffer curve.)

So, some example of slightly more moderate proposals that would be very good:
- a replacement for the UN's "The Nuclear Terrorism Act"
- a replacement for the UN's "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act"
- requiring assorted security (e.g. storage at secure facilities) and safety (e.g. double launch codes, clear chains of command) methods
- banning specific types of nuclear weapons e.g. ones over a certain threshold
- banning nuclear testing

An additional idea would be to set up something to help nations decommission nuclear arsenals, if they wanted to do so on their own. Some might currently be dissuaded by the cost or technical difficulties, but rusting warheads are a security nightmare.

Thank you for your astute observations, I made my initial proposal to receive feedback. I knew that there would be much criticism, I just hadn't anticipated it to show just how dangerous it is to have nuclear weapons in the hands of some of the respondents.

I have also posted a proposal regarding a Prevention of War Crimes Act, which may be somewhat less objectionable unless they specifically would like to target civilians, which I am afraid is the case with Bob Fibble.

In friendship,
Klaatu Esperanto
First Adviser to the people of Entelechia

The problem is, you've made the proposal with the understanding that deterrence theory is incorrect.

A fair portion of people are of the understanding that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you pose no threat to anyone that does. If you don't have nuclear weapons, and I do, you have nothing to negotiate with, you can be dictated too. That's the general stance of people who GET nuclear weapons.

If you ban them in the WA, then non-WA nations can dictate terms to you.

The problem is, you've made the proposal with the understanding that deterrence theory is incorrect.

Many experienced military officials disagree with you, and history disagrees with you as there are numerous nations which have a non-nuclear policy that live next to nuclear arms wielding nations and have never been attacked by them.


A fair portion of people are of the understanding that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you pose no threat to anyone that does. If you don't have nuclear weapons, and I do, you have nothing to negotiate with, you can be dictated too. That's the general stance of people who GET nuclear weapons.

If you ban them in the WA, then non-WA nations can dictate terms to you.

Yes many people do operate under that misconception.

Would all of you pro Nuclear weapons commenters object to a ban on using them against other WA members?

In friendship,
Klaatu Esperanto
First Adviser to the people of Entelechia

Oh irony of ironies! Our repartee mirrors one you previously had:

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has a very simple response to nations that want to take away our right to have nuclear weapons. Should such a resolution pass, we will comply but be warned that our technique for dismantling our nuclear weapons consists of launching them at the authoring nation.

A much better response should a resolution that you find intolerable pass would be to withdraw from WA membership, it is a voluntary body.

And, once upon a time:

Apparently you didn't read the fine print on your nation's UN application. Otherwise you would know that by joining the UN you are obligated to follow all of the resolutions the UN passes. And the UN can pass resolutions on whatever they want so long as the resolutions are within the proposal rules and don't contradict any of the previously passed resolutions.

If you don't like it, you have two options: one, try to repeal the resolutions you don't like, or two, leave.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

How times change and minds degrade.

Even if it does, you are required to comply with it. This ain't the RL U.N., you know, where you can just ignore any resolution you don't like; this is an actual international legislature with binding authority.

...But I don't have to comply. Which sort of means I win.

You're wrong, I can simply leave the organisation. But the fact is that there are too many players on this game in the WA who want to keep their nuclear weapons. On the final day of voting I see this proposal looking like it's about to win (assuming it gets that far) Stevid will resign. Nuclear weapons keep the peace and rarely destroy it and I won't be prone to destroying peace- something the WA is supposed to stand for.

You know what, I'm going to turn this over to my brother Brandon Flibble, who just so happens to be The Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Thank you Bob.
One nation cannot "inflict" a resolution on you, if it were to pass it would be because a majority of WA nations voted in favor of it.You're the author, ergo you would be the one who inflicted this ludicrous idea upon us.
Hence you destruction of one nation would not effect the likelihood of a repeal unless it only had passed by one vote, No, but it would make us feel better.furthermore why would they want to repeal it after all nations had already divested themselves of Nuclear weapons, yourself included as you indicated.Because then there's nothing stopping us from rebuilding our nuclear stockpiles, duh.

Furthermore, the detonation of nuclear weapons has a massive impact on global radiation levels, so if ever there were to be a truly nuclear war we would all perish not too long after the actual detonations. Perhaps you would also suggest we all have doomsday devices?

Oh irony of ironies! Our repartee mirrors one you previously had:
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has a very simple response to nations that want to take away our right to have nuclear weapons. Should such a resolution pass, we will comply but be warned that our technique for dismantling our nuclear weapons consists of launching them at the authoring nation.A much better response should a resolution that you find intolerable pass would be to withdraw from WA membership, it is a voluntary body.
And, once upon a time:
Apparently you didn't read the fine print on your nation's UN application. Otherwise you would know that by joining the UN you are obligated to follow all of the resolutions the UN passes. And the UN can pass resolutions on whatever they want so long as the resolutions are within the proposal rules and don't contradict any of the previously passed resolutions.

If you don't like it, you have two options: one, try to repeal the resolutions you don't like, or two, leave.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeHow times change and minds degrade.
Far be it for me to speak about my brothers' mental health (although with how much time he's spent in this looney bin it's had to been affected in some way), but you fail to understand the point he was trying to make with TheElitists in that other discussion. His point was that if you don't like a resolution that's passed you can either run away with your tail tucked between your legs, or stay and fight for it's repeal. And in fact Bob has already stated that his choice in this case would be to stay and fight.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Unfortunately, someone who posts:
"The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has a very simple response to nations that want to take away our right to have nuclear weapons. Should such a resolution pass, we will comply but be warned that our technique for dismantling our nuclear weapons consists of launching them at the authoring nation."

Does not inspire respect in me, rather, it tends to suggest to me that the writer is either psychotic or sociopathic.OOC: No, it suggests to me that the player understands that the game is supposed to be a satire and is playing as such.

No, but it would make us feel better.
My suspicion of sociopathy seems to be confirmed with that statement. A Nuclear Holocaust which kills 290 people should not make one feel better.

Because then there's nothing stopping us from rebuilding our nuclear stockpiles, duh.

There would be something stopping you from rebuilding your arsenal. The Resolution would still be law until it was repealed, massacring the author of the proposal is not equivalent to repealing it.


OOC: No, it suggests to me that the player understands that the game is supposed to be a satire and is playing as such.
OCC: Oh yeah, I realize that, and I'm playing it back. No RL accusations or harsh sentiment meant. cheers.

IC: Would a proposal prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons against other WA member states meet such harsh disapprobation? It would in fact increase the incentive to join the WA. It would decrease the chance of nuclear attacks on your country and you would still have your protection against the aforementioned non WA nuclear powers.

Would all of you pro Nuclear weapons commenters object to a ban on using them against other WA members?

This may surprise you but no, that's a perfectly viable compromise. That, I would support(I even may have a couple drafts of something to that effect laying around). Banning the USE of nuclear weapons on other WA members is a great step towards world peace that doesn't ignore the realities of the remaining nations.

How would you feel about a proposition that looked something like this:


Nuclear De-Escalation Act

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Entelechia (or ?)

RECOGNIZING that many WA member nations maintain that nuclear armaments are necessary in order to guard against attack from non-WA member states.

UNDERSTANDING that a decrease in the threat of nuclear attack is in every nations interest.

DESIRING to increase the total global stability and provide additional benefits to WA membership.

REALIZING that if no international agreement is concluded there will be a continued and unmitigated arms race.

1. DECLARES that WA members are prohibited from using nuclear weapons against other WA states.

2. REVOKES WA membership from any nation which breaches this prohibition. Including the protections that this resolution affords.

3. CALLS for economic sanctions by all WA members of nations found to be in violation of this act.

4. ENCOURAGES that any nation involved in nuclear technologies take measures to discourage assisting the development of nuclear weapons by nations which have a history of military aggression.

2 and 3 are superfluous, compliance is mandatory. Best leave out anything that could be a point of contention. Probably stick in another encouraging clause(something about precautions in ownership for instance) in their place.

4 seems very awkwardly worded. It's also of distinctly tepid strength. The UN prohibited its members from assisting any other nation or non-state actor in developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. The World Assembly should do the same.

With regards to 1, it frankly seems a bit pointless. WA member nations don't particularly have anything in common, and the organization isn't an alliance. At the same time, a nuclear explosion in a nation next to a WA member nation is bound to be just as detrimental to them. Perhaps it could simply be 'no first use'?

-- Samantha Benson

2 and 3 are superfluous, compliance is mandatory. Best leave out anything that could be a point of contention. Probably stick in another encouraging clause(something about precautions in ownership for instance) in their place.

Alright, I had a purpose in including but it was to avoid a question which can more simply be answered by "compliance is mandatory".

4 seems very awkwardly worded. It's also of distinctly tepid strength.

I agree that the wording awkward. I had actually intended it to be of tepid strength to avoid contention, as the proposal was intended to to ban the actual use, I didn't want it to be derailed by arguments over supplying other nations. But I'll take your suggestion and then deal with any argument as it arises.

The UN prohibited its members from assisting any other nation or non-state actor in developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. The World Assembly should do the same.

I agree, but should there be two proposals? One for a act against first use and one for an act against assisting others to acquire, or should they be rolled into a comprehensive nuclear arms act? I'll draft it into one for now.

With regards to 1, it frankly seems a bit pointless. WA member nations don't particularly have anything in common, and the organization isn't an alliance.

I had included that initial point to emphasize that the concerns of those vehemently opposed to the original draft had been addressed, and as an encouragement for nations to join the WA, but point well taken, I will edit it out.

Perhaps it could simply be 'no first use'?
I agree.

So here is yet another revised Proposal:

Comprehensive Nuclear Arms Act

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Entelechia (or ?)


UNDERSTANDING that a decrease in the threat of nuclear attack is in every nations interest.

DESIRING to increase the total global stability.

REALIZING that if no international agreement is concluded there will be a continued and unmitigated arms race.

1. FORBIDS WA members from the first use of nuclear weapons.

2. PROHIBITS the assisting of any other nation or non-state actor in developing, acquiring, or transferring nuclear weapons.

Good proposal, we will support this.

And some nations, who tell they wish to use their nukes, are warned you do not have nukes which will hit targets we protect. As always we can predict future, so we study it and we found out how to make anti nuke rockets. We do not share our anti nuke rocket technology with others but we build many of them, have stockpiled them on the moon and some other satellites. So our friends are safe from nuclear attacks. And if you use our nukes you will loose them and the result will be that others will attack the attackers. We are now studying a device which should give more wisdom to the ones who think arming, threatening and preparing for wars is a good idea. But we rather see that those will get their wisdom by themselves. So we let them wonder how this anti nuke rocket device is working and how to get more wisdom. But maybe we will use the wisdom device before some warlords will destroy NationStates. But maybe we rather emigrate to NationStates 2 with our friends and let our enemies stay in this illusion.

Greetings your weird friend or enemy,
Cocoamok

Nuclear weapons are necessary for a nations defense, and in some cases offense. This has been proposed before, and brutally rejected. Thumbs down on this one.

Signed,
President John Smith

Nuclear weapons are necessary for a nations defense, and in some cases offense. This has been proposed before, and brutally rejected. Thumbs down on this one.
No, it hasn't. The two failed proposals banned all nuclear weapons; this one bans only first use, and proliferation. There is no precedent in the former case; in the latter, two non-proliferation resolutions previously passed.
I agree, but should there be two proposals? One for a act against first use and one for an act against assisting others to acquire, or should they be rolled into a comprehensive nuclear arms act? I'll draft it into one for now.
Personally, I think it's okay. If you think it'll be too controversial altogether, though, I feel the proliferation aspect is the more interesting and important section.

You should probably add 'deploying' after 'acquiring' in Clause 2. I wonder whether it would also be worth exempting collaboration aimed at either increasing safety and security of nuclear weapon storage, or at decommissioning nuclear weapons. The latter, certainly, should be protected.

Incidentally, your preamble is a lot better now.

What do you feel about any of the other ideas I mooted?

-- Samantha Benson

Greetings to the World Assembly. As appointed diplomat of the nation of Minervias, this certain act has been brought to my attention.

I advise the fellow members to keep in mind, that many small nations such as Minervias do not have the population to form a large standing military that could compete with a much larger force. We rely on our nuclear program to not only give us a form of defense, but also to supply our nation with electrical energy.

In the event that Minervias was attacked, we have doubt that assisting World Assembly armies could reach us in due time, and we would be left virtually defenseless. Our nuclear program is strictly defensive.

That being said, we support the newest draft of the Comprehensive Nuclear Arms Act. However we express uncertainty about section 2. Minervias received much help building our nuclear program which I have already stated is our primary form of defense. Therefore I would like a clarification as to whether we may help members of the World Assembly to prepare a nuclear program and provide enriched uranium?

Thank you.

Nuclear weapons are necessary for a nations defense, and in some cases offense. This has been proposed before, and brutally rejected. Thumbs down on this one.

Typheria's response is why I had included the previous first sentence. You were quite correct in pointing out its superfluousness but it seems people like Typheria don't actually read proposals before having a knee-jerk reaction against them.

Personally, I think it's okay. If you think it'll be too controversial altogether, though, I feel the proliferation aspect is the more interesting and important section.

I'm willing to roll the dice.

You should probably add 'deploying' after 'acquiring' in Clause

Good idea, will do.


2. I wonder whether it would also be worth exempting collaboration aimed at either increasing safety and security of nuclear weapon storage, or at decommissioning nuclear weapons. The latter, certainly, should be protected.

I thought about that, I personally think it is pretty clear that those are not prohibited, if there is enough feedback on that issue I would include it.

What do you feel about any of the other ideas I mooted?

Which others?

p.s. I don't actually have any endorsements, any chance you would either endorse me or present the proposal yourself?

(OOC: you can only get endorsements from other nations in your region, the rest of us can't help. However if you send telegrams to two or three other WA members in your region, it shouldn't be hard to get the two endorsements you need without making your regional delegate nervous.)

One last idea that almost certainly ought to go in a separate proposal is forbidding WA members to launch a first nuclear strike against anyone, WA member or not. It'll be a hard sell, because despite being completely in line with the political rationalisation of nuke-owners, it's completely against their paranoia :-)

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

(OOC: you can only get endorsements from other nations in your region, the rest of us can't help. However if you send telegrams to two or three other WA members in your region, it shouldn't be hard to get the two endorsements you need without making your regional delegate nervous.)

OCC: oh thanks, I don't know how I missed that, It's been a while since I read the mechanics, my region is pretty dead I think, any good peace loving regions you can recommend?

proposal is forbidding WA members to launch a first nuclear strike against anyone, WA member or not.

I agree, In the most recent rewrite that is the case:

Comprehensive Nuclear Arms Act

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Entelechia (or ?)


UNDERSTANDING that a decrease in the threat of nuclear attack is in every nations interest.

DESIRING to increase the total global stability.

REALIZING that if no international agreement is concluded there will be a continued and unmitigated arms race.

1. FORBIDS WA members from the first use of nuclear weapons.

2. PROHIBITS the assisting of any other nation or non-state actor in developing, acquiring, or transferring nuclear weapons.

OCC: oh thanks, I don't know how I missed that, It's been a while since I read the mechanics, my region is pretty dead I think, any good peace loving regions you can recommend?

Nope, but I can think of a place that's active enough for you (http://www.nationstates.net/region=antarctic_oasis).

We absolutely love war though.

I really do think that 'for the purposes of improving the safety or security of nuclear weapons storage, or for the decommissioning of such arms' should be explicitly exempted from Clause 2. If nation A transfers the weapon to nation B so that nation B can decommission the warhead, that should be allowed, but would be banned by the present language.

The other things it would be good to add would be:
- a prohibition on nuclear testing (or at least on atmospheric and underwater testing)
- requirements that nations with nuclear weapons store them at secure facilities
- requirements that regularly safety checks be maintained
- requirements for the use of double launch codes and clear chains of command, to prevent accidental deployment.

Wysteria would also be happy to accept you, if you need a few quick endorsements to submit a proposal.

-- Samantha Benson

- a prohibition on nuclear testing (or at least on atmospheric and underwater testing)

If you ban all testing, you're banning the future development of these weapons. Would anyone know their design is a dud(OOC: North Korea as an example) if they couldn't test them?

The other things it would be good to add would be:
- a prohibition on nuclear testing (or at least on atmospheric and underwater testing)

Ill defined and completely unworkable. It should be stressed that not all nuclear testing is for the military. Thousands if not millions of technological advancedments have been achieved thanks nuclear physics.

- requirements that nations with nuclear weapons store them at secure facilities

Nations that don't store their weapons in a secure facility shouldn't have them in the first place. To prevent espionage and theft, all countries (RPed or not) will have the weapons in a secure facility be it a military warehouse, submarine or silo.

- requirements that regularly safety checks be maintained

Again, commonsense and really shouldn't be stressed in such a hostile matter. Nuclear waste and possible accidental explosions are a major worry (Albeit exceptionally unlikely due to fail safes) and so checks would occur every signle day as standard with it having to be a clause in a resolution.

- requirements for the use of double launch codes and clear chains of command, to prevent accidental deployment.

A good point and should be enforced, but again most countries use this. Most submarines require two keys to launch nulcear weapons. One owned by the Captain and the other by the First Officer (Or for countries with a secret police- a 'political' officer).

I don't doubt that most countries would employ such measures, but when it comes to issues of nuclear responsibility, 'most' isn't really good enough, is it? Resolutions have to be approved by a majority (well, sort of) meaning that 'most' nations probably agree with and already practice the procedure. In the example of the recent torture proposal, I doubt thousands of national legislatures suddenly realized 'why, this torture thing we've been doing is wrong!'. But there were some who did practice torture, and presumably voted against; and are now subject to international law on the subject.

That sounds a little too coercive, perhaps. My point is that some nations may scrabble to produce nuclear weapons for strategic reasons, but understand little about their danger. It wouldn't be unknown for a tinpot dictatorship to invest more money in weapons research than security; plenty of tinpot democracies seem to do it as well. As such, even if it's only a minority of nations that are affected, wouldn't it be worth it in the long run?

Please note, though, that these are just some ideas I was throwing out, and the author has not indicated they will be included in any form in their proposal.

Thank you all for your input and support, I now have 3 endorsements so I'll be figuring out how to actually make a proposal. Please let your WA Delegate how you feel about the issue so they will vote in favor.