NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: This proposal follows on from and is in accordance with WORLD ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #10, the Nuclear Arms Possession Act and defines regulations on their possession, and aims to tighten control on Nuclear Weapons within the WA. The aim of this act is not to take away from nations sovereignty, but to gain more control over such a dangerous threat to the worlds safety as Nuclear Weapons.

REALIZING:
1)The WA has voted to allow member nations to produce their own Nuclear Weapons in Resolution #10.
2)That only a small amount of arms are needed to be used as a deterrent.
3)That if not looked after properly in the correct facilities Nuclear Weapons can pose a threat to the very nations that own them.
4)Some nations may choose to leave the WA, and take Nuclear Weapons procured while in the WA, outside, leaving the WA vulnerable.


RECOMMENDING:
1)Inspections of all Nuclear Facilities in nations within the WA, and closure of any facilities that do not meet WA standards.
2)The limitation to 5 nuclear warheads or equivilent for any nation in the WA - this is enough to provide a deterrent.
3)The Requirement that a nation wishing to use Nuclear Weapons must first gain the permission of the WA.
4)That Nations who leave the WA while in the possession of Nuclear Weapons be offered full support to keep their facilities and weapons safe.
5)That member nations are encouraged not to build Nuclear Weapons in the first place, with Nuclear Weapons only being promoted as a last resort.

FURTHER ADDING:
Member nations against Nuclear Weapons should be reminded that this proposal does not deal with whether or not Nuclear Weapons should be allowed, but merely accepts that this issue has already been voted upon and thus deals with the result.

Approvals: 4 (WZ Forums, Feckuuknia, Eiga-Baka, Vintage Blue)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 106 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jun 21 2008

It's customary to post the actual text in the first post.
Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #10
Proposed by: Swiatlo

Description: WA Resolution #10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Nuclear Weapons have serious consequences for future generations, and serious consequences on the environment, both of which can have no say in such a bill as the 'Nuclear Arms Possession Act'.

As an International Organisation, the World Assembly should be promoting Nuclear Disarmament not the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

This bill did not clarify what it meant by 'every available precaution' to ensure weapons do not fall into the wrong hands and is generally unspecific.

This party believes that restrictions should be imposed on the amount of weapons nations in the WA have in possession, and tighter controls over security procedures should be implemented.

It must also not be forgotten that nations are free to leave the World Assembly, and are free to do so with Nuclear Weapons obtained while within it.

The People's Republic of Swiatlo therefore proposes that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act be completely withdrawn, and redrafted to impose tighter security measures, if not to advocate complete disarmament.
Sorry, it's been removed as a Branding violation. Please review the Rules for WA Proposals sticky and get some feedback before resubmitting.

ah sorry, im newish :)

I wanna say that you hit the nail on the head. Nuclear weapons are dangerous to everyone, friend and foe. Actually I think nukes should be totally outlawed. I'll do anything I can to help you get this proposal up.

SNA

The resolution doesn't prohibit limiting the number of weapons a nation can have, nor does it prohibit clarifying what the safety precautions are. There's really no need for a repeal unless you propose completely banning nuclear weapons.

The resolution doesn't prohibit limiting the number of weapons a nation can have, nor does it prohibit clarifying what the safety precautions are. There's really no need for a repeal unless you propose completely banning nuclear weapons.


1) But the resolution should clarify these areas. A number of resolutions shouldn't be needed for one topic. One should cover it.

2) I am against Nuclear Weapons, but I understand that this may not be the case of the majority of the World Assembly. While I would first attempt to get Nuclear Weapons outlawed, my second option would be to redraft the Nuclear Arms Act to clarify tight restrictions on the usage, keeping and control. The bill needs serious rewording, it is far too loose for such an important document.

But the resolution doesn't have many effects. It doesn't do anything damaging: if there are problems with it, they are sins of omission, not commission. Writing a repeal will necessitate one extra proposal! Simply write a new one, and it will take less legislative paper.

I'd be very interested in such a proposal, and would be willing to offer any assistance with the drafting. Like I say, except in the specific case of wanting to ban all nuclear weapons, a repeal is a waste of everyone's time.

But the resolution doesn't have many effects. It doesn't do anything damaging: if there are problems with it, they are sins of omission, not commission. Writing a repeal will necessitate one extra proposal! Simply write a new one, and it will take less legislative paper.

I'd be very interested in such a proposal, and would be willing to offer any assistance with the drafting. Like I say, except in the specific case of wanting to ban all nuclear weapons, a repeal is a waste of everyone's time.

Interesting, i'll take what you've said on board and think about the options.
I might be interested in writing a draft with you.I'll message you shortly ingame if thats OK.

please note I have now drafted (see above) an extension of the Nuclear Arms Act, which has been submitted to the World Assembly.

Were Salzland to be invaded and faced with national destruction, we would absolutely not seek WA permission to use nuclear weapons to protect our country, we would just use them. Additionally, a five weapon limit is utterly absurd, considering that any reasonably developed country would be expected to have anti-ballistic weapon systems, which would thwart two of the three bases of our strategic nuclear triangle, while the third (air-launched cruise missiles) could easily be stopped by an enemy overwhelming our air forces and destroying our bomber fleet. Salzland also objects to limiting nuclear facilities to those which meet "WA approval," especially considering this resolution makes no reference as to what guidelines will be used to determine whether a facility is "Approved."

We believe this is a completely understandable position, and feel that this resolution poses a clear and present danger to our national security. For the aforementioned reasons, (and reserving the right to make further critiques as time constraints prevent this objection from reaching anything beyond a basic presentation of the Salzland position), we oppose repealing World Assembly Resolution #10

Were Salzland to be invaded and faced with national destruction, we would absolutely not seek WA permission to use nuclear weapons to protect our country, we would just use them. Additionally, a five weapon limit is utterly absurd, considering that any reasonably developed country would be expected to have anti-ballistic weapon systems, which would thwart two of the three bases of our strategic nuclear triangle, while the third (air-launched cruise missiles) could easily be stopped by an enemy overwhelming our air forces and destroying our bomber fleet. Salzland also objects to limiting nuclear facilities to those which meet "WA approval," especially considering this resolution makes no reference as to what guidelines will be used to determine whether a facility is "Approved."

We believe this is a completely understandable position, and feel that this resolution poses a clear and present danger to our national security. For the aforementioned reasons, (and reserving the right to make further critiques as time constraints prevent this objection from reaching anything beyond a basic presentation of the Salzland position), we oppose repealing World Assembly Resolution #10


1) I can't seem to change the thread title successfully. I have now decided not to reppeal the Nuclear Arms Possession Act, but merely to expand upon it and take off from where it left.

2) A centralized deterrent would be more effective than one from a single nation.

3) There must be a limit on the amount of nuclear weapons a nation can possess, to avoid an arms race. You do not need to possess endless quantity of weapons to provide a nuclear deterrent. Countrys with Nuclear Weapons do not go to war on each other (for example the Cold War).

4) Permission would only needed to be asked of the WA to ensure that Nuclear Weapons are only being used in defensive rather than offensive capabilities. The use of Nuclear Weapons in other scenarios could jeapordize and make the whole WA a target. This would be selfish.

5) Your arguments are selfish. This is a World Assembly, a Internation Organization. Therefore you must look at the argument from the point of the good for the whole International System.

The world needs nuclear weapons

The world needs nuclear weapons

The above does not rid the world of Nuclear Weapons.

Please read the points before voting.

The world needs nuclear weapons
No.

the government of the emperor of urgench believes that this repeal would be the gravest of folly, many many nations who are not members of the world assembly would gladly see it destroyed by what ever means possible.
a large and functional thermo-nuclear arsenal is vital to maintain our freedoms.

1) I can't seem to change the thread title successfully. I have now decided not to reppeal the Nuclear Arms Possession Act, but merely to expand upon it and take off from where it left.

2) A centralized deterrent would be more effective than one from a single nation.

3) There must be a limit on the amount of nuclear weapons a nation can possess, to avoid an arms race. You do not need to possess endless quantity of weapons to provide a nuclear deterrent. Countrys with Nuclear Weapons do not go to war on each other (for example the Cold War).

4) Permission would only needed to be asked of the WA to ensure that Nuclear Weapons are only being used in defensive rather than offensive capabilities. The use of Nuclear Weapons in other scenarios could jeapordize and make the whole WA a target. This would be selfish.

5) Your arguments are selfish. This is a World Assembly, a Internation Organization. Therefore you must look at the argument from the point of the good for the whole International System.

1.) Wouldn't the original resolution still need to be repealed for an altered version to be enacted? If not, then disregard this argument.

2.) Centralized deterence? How? Would every World Assembly nation be obligated to come to, for example, Salzland's defense were it to be invaded and threatened with a genocidal war of destruction? This resolution, in fact, makes no provision whatsoever for any concept of centralized deterence. Thus this argument does not appear to make any sense whatsoever.

3.) Arguing that establishing a pathetically small limit on the quantity of nuclear weapons is acceptable because nuclear powers don't go to war with each other is absurd. How would Salzland, a relatively small country, be expected to deter some of the nations in the World Assembly that have populations exceeding five billion, with only five nuclear weapons? Even were every weapon we deployed to hit successfully, such a country could easily shrug off a paltry counterattack and wipe our nation out.

Hence this resolution can only seek to exchange a nuclear deterrence policy (that you claim preserves peace)with that of a conventionally-armed deterrent force, which can only lead to an increased likelihood of wars and lost lives.

4.) Again, having to ask the World Assembly for permission to use our nuclear arsenal defensively is an utterly unbelievable assertion. How can an Assembly that can take days, if not weeks, to debate something as relatively insignificant as a resolution concerning a fair trial to be expected to rapidly permit a nation to save itself from being wiped out? Your assertion that not seeking permission is selfish is absolutely ludicrous. We wholeheartedly reject any attempt to give the World Assembly a veto power over our national defense.

5.) How can arguing for the rights of the individual member nations of this organization possibly be selfish? Of course I am concerned with the defense of my country, for one, because it's my job! In contrast, it is clearly your arguments that are selfish, as you are attempting to force your own minority anti-nuclear views on what you admit is a pro-nuclear majority of the World Assembly. Not to mention the fact that this resolution would leave all World Assembly nations critically vulnerable to the non-WA nations which are not bound to such restrictions(and make up 75% of the world), which is certainly a much stronger international security argument than your own weak attempts.

To close (reserving the right to elaborate further objections as needed), Salzland objects to this flagrant attempt to grant the World Assembly an unprecedented veto power over national security in times of crisis, as well as prevent any effective deterrence on the part of small nations against large, aggressive neighbors.

Not for the first time, The Most Serene Republic of Coffeeholics finds itself in complete agreement with the honourable representative of Urgench.

Sei-I Taishogun Caf Feine


the government of the emperor of urgench believes that this repeal would be the gravest of folly, many many nations who are not members of the world assembly would gladly see it destroyed by what ever means possible.
a large and functional thermo-nuclear arsenal is vital to maintain our freedoms.

I wanna say that you hit the nail on the head. Nuclear weapons are dangerous to everyone, friend and foe. Actually I think nukes should be totally outlawed. I'll do anything I can to help you get this proposal up.

SNA

If you guys get rid of nukes I'll leave the WA. It is every nation's right to produce its own weapons regardless of what kind!

If you guys get rid of nukes I'll leave the WA. It is every nation's right to produce its own weapons regardless of what kind!

read the draft.

it is not to get rid of nuclear weapons but to tighten controls on them.

read the draft.

it is not to get rid of nuclear weapons but to tighten controls on them.


the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out that this is in fact a repeal act, the effect of which would be to dismantle the current world assembly structures for the reasonable control of it's member nations nuclear arsenals, this means that there would be no controls what so ever, while we are completely convinced of the need for a strong nuclear deterent we would deplore any measures which would create a nuclear free for all.

yours e.t.c.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out that this is in fact a repeal act, the effect of which would be to dismantle the current world assembly structures for the reasonable control of it's member nations nuclear arsenals, this means that there would be no controls what so ever, while we are completely convinced of the need for a strong nuclear deterent we would deplore any measures which would create a nuclear free for all.

yours e.t.c.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench fails to read the whole thread. the peoples republic of swiatlo would like to point out that if the government of urgench pays so little attenetion to what is actually written, its governing ability should be called into question.

originally i felt a repeal was needed as the whole act needed to be rewritten. on second thoughts, and in order to get changes put in place mre quickly and without allowing moments of no laws on the case of nuclear weapons, I then decided to cancel the repeal and instead draft further legislation which is in accordance and follows on from Resolution #10 which is the original Nuclear Arms act. I am not cancelling legisliation on Nuclear Arms Possession, but merely making them more safe and under control.

Further to this point, the People's Republic of Swiatlo encourages all nations who doubt the need for this addition to legislation on Nuclear Arms Possession, to read thoroughly the original act (Resolution #10) and note how many loop holes it contains and how unprecise its wording is.

While certain nations make cases of soverignty issues, and the fact that if they were being invaded they should not need to look to the WA to use Nuclear Weapons, the People's Republic would further like to ask these countries to look at why they are a member of the World Assembly. If they do not trust that the World Assembly is looking out for their best interests, then why remain. International Organizations are here to promote worldwide peace and stability. While it can be argued Nuclear Weapons can bring this, we do not argue against this. However a number of controls in control of a small amount of Nuclear Weapons, is much safer and more likely to not be used rashly than each of the hundreds of countries in the WA having their own Nuclear Weapons.

The People's Republic of Swiatlo also argues that currently the World Assembly is a weak organization and needs a military capability to enforce its position and power in the world. The Nuclear Arms Regulatory act, if read thoroughly you will see can be seen as the beginning of a Military Capacity, as it gives the WA overall control of Nuclear Weapons within the WA to a certain extent.

So in conclusion, the People's Republic urges The Government of Urgench and those who agree with it to reconsider their positions, and give way to this legislation. It is for all our goods and will strengthen the World Assembly while increasing our safety.

Kindest Regards,

The Government and People of Swiatlo.