NationStates Jolt Archive

((This is strictly a draft at this time, but I hope to get it into a polished resolution soon. Constructive criticism is encouraged.)

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of all nations, regardless of WA membership, to defend themselves;

NOTING that nuclear weapons are seldom used for defense, but for attacking;

OBSERVING that international conflicts that involve nuclear weapons tend to have more innocent civilian casualties that conflicts which do not;

BELIEVING that it is the duty of the WA to pass resolutions that will make its member nations safer;

BELIEVING FURTHER that resolutions such as WA Resolution 10 do not make WA member nations safer and in fact promote conflict;

The WA hereby REPEALS Resolution 10, "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

Its an excellent idea. My nation is a Space Age nation that possess some nuclear weapons. Though some MT nations will be furious with this repeal. What are you suggesting be done in place of the repealed resolution?

And QUESTIONING the legality and appropriateness of Resolution 10, given its listed strength of Mild;While it pains me to help someone who's trying to undo all my hard work, I should point out that legality claims are not valid arguments for repeals. Furthermore, claiming that my resolution is legal thereby making your claims not only invalid as an argument, but just plain wrong.

Its an excellent idea. My nation is a Space Age nation that possess some nuclear weapons.

Let me get this straight, your nation possesses nuclear weapons, and yet you like the idea of repealing the resolution which prevents the WA from taking your right to possess them away. What's wrong with this picture?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Just to completely squash this line of thought...

And QUESTIONING the legality and appropriateness of Resolution 10, given its listed strength of Mild;WA Resolution #10 is perfectly legal. And I don't understand why you're questioning its "appropriateness" in the first place. The "Mild" strength was added for a reason.

NOTING that nuclear weapons are seldom used for defense, but for attacking;

Wrong. Most nuclear weapons are never used. They are a deterrent, a political weapon, and therefore, a defensive weapon. They generally prevent another another nation from attacking you (at least with nuclear weapons).

OBSERVING that international conflicts that involve nuclear weapons tend to have more innocent civiliian casualties that conflicts which do not;

And what are you basing that on? In RL, we've only had one conflict involving nuclear weapons. And while it's true that WW2 has one of the highest death tolls in military history, a huge majority of these deaths were caused by non-nuclear weapons and reasons. So your argument doesn't seem to be valid.


BELIEVING that it is the duty of the WA to pass resolutions that will make its member nations safer;
Some would argue that a Mutually Assured Destruction system is safe.

Let me get this straight, your nation possesses nuclear weapons, and yet you like the idea of repealing the resolution which prevents the WA from taking your right to possess them away. What's wrong with this picture?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Yes. My nation is FT, nuclear weapons are like flies to most of my weaponry.

Some would argue that a Mutually Assured Destruction system is safe.

Some would argue yes. But a lot argue no.
Ok, you started RL things. I think you now enough about the Cuba crisis?
But read this from the year 1983:
In an interview with the English newspaper Daily Mail, Colonel Petrov recalls that fateful night when alarms went off and the early warning computer screens were showing a nuclear attack launched by the United States. “I felt as if I’d been punched in my nervous system. There was a huge map of the States with a U.S. base lit up, showing that the missiles had been launched.”

For several minutes Petrov held a phone in one hand and an intercom in the other as alarms continued blaring, red lights blinking, and the computers reporting that U.S. missiles were on their way. In the midst of this horrific chaos and terror, the prospect of the end of civilization itself, Petrov made an historic decision not to alert higher authorities, believing in his gut and hoping with all that is sacred, that contrary to what all the sophisticated equipment was reporting, this alarm was an error.

“I didn’t want to make a mistake,” Petrov said, “I made a decision and that was it.” The Daily Mail wrote, “Had Petrov cracked and triggered a response, Soviet missiles would have rained down on U.S. cities. In turn, that would have brought a devastating response from the Pentagon.”

And nowadays we are sure never a computer failure will come?
Or some mad dictator will end his life by starting a nuclear war?

Honduras and El Salvador have even fought a war because some problems in a soccer game. I think it was fine they had not nukes don't you think so too?

But hey RL is nothing, now a nationstates argument:
We cannot fight wars in this fantasy game, so why do you need nuclear rockets?

Greetings,
cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

Honduras and El Salvador have even fought a war because some problems in a soccer game.
OOC _
They already had serious disagreements over other matters at that time: The disputed soccer match result (in a qualifying match for the World Cup) merely served as a final trigger for the situation's escalation into open warfare...

We cannot fight wars in this fantasy game, so why do you need nuclear rockets?


Then why have any WA resolutions at all? It's RP.

((Removed the legality clause))

In my believe, 'nukes' does not constitute the real matter you want to expose.
You may reframe your speech, making insistence only to:
OBSERVING that international conflicts that involve nuclear weapons tend to have more innocent civiliian casualties that conflicts which do not
Reading this, somebody could understand that the subject is in fact the massive civilian safety and not the means with which you break that safety.

Reason why I propose to you not to repeal the WA Resolution 10, but to invoke a new resolution to prohibit any System of Massive Civilian Assassination (or something of the sort)

Thus well, once it is approved (if it is the case) is possible to repeal WA Resolution 10 considering it in conflict with this new one.

Thus well, once it is approved (if it is the case) is possible to repeal WA Resolution 10 considering it in conflict with this new one.

If a proposal contradicts any passed resolution it's illegal and gets deleted.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

If a proposal contradicts any passed resolution it's illegal and gets deleted.

Ok, so it must be a repeal to modify the point N°1 of the WAR 10

Ok, so it must be a repeal to modify the point N°1 of the WAR 10

Repeals can't modify other resolutions. They can only wipe them out completely. So if we want to get rid of part of WA 10, we have to get rid of the whole thing, which is what I'm hoping to do.

However, we must keep on our minds that the facts presented in the WAR 10 are true, we, the members of the WA, are outnumbered by the nations that don't belong to the Assembly, and if we encourage all the members of this Assembly to get rid of their nuclear weapons then we are delibering their heads to their enemies who are not in the WA. If we approve this resolution, the danger of a nuclear attack won't disappear, we will only get rid of the most effective way to dissuade the enemy to start a war.
Yes gentlemen, the nuclear weapons are a dangerous thing, but if we get involved in a conflict with a nation who have this huge power in their side while we don't, then we are heading to a very difficult situation.

As I show you the weakness of this proposal, I'll also propose you a solution to this problem, do not ban the possesion of nuclear weapons, but what we can do is to make some rules and regulations for the nations who manage this power, some alternatives are:

- Set a maximum number of nuclear weapons per nation or per region.
- Create and train a delegation who watch over the nations the securities taken on the keeping of the weapons.
- Create some basic standards for the security of the civil population, as regular manteinance etc.

If we put some rules to the keep and manteinance of the weapons, the security levels for accidents will rise while the national security against foreign attacks or invasions won't fall.


Anassin Kobalt.
The Confederacy of Salsasia Delegate of Foreing Affairs

However, we must keep on our minds that the facts presented in the WAR 10 are true, we, the members of the WA, are outnumbered by the nations that don't belong to the Assembly, and if we encourage all the members of this Assembly to get rid of their nuclear weapons then we are delibering their heads to their enemies who are not in the WA. If we approve this resolution, the danger of a nuclear attack won't disappear, we will only get rid of the most effective way to dissuade the enemy to start a war.
Yes gentlemen, the nuclear weapons are a dangerous thing, but if we get involved in a conflict with a nation who have this huge power in their side while we don't, then we are heading to a very difficult situation.

As I show you the weakness of this proposal, I'll also propose you a solution to this problem, do not ban the possesion of nuclear weapons, but what we can do is to make some rules and regulations for the nations who manage this power, some alternatives are:

- Set a maximum number of nuclear weapons per nation or per region.
- Create and train a delegation who watch over the nations the securities taken on the keeping of the weapons.
- Create some basic standards for the security of the civil population, as regular manteinance etc.

If we put some rules to the keep and manteinance of the weapons, the security levels for accidents will rise while the national security against foreign attacks or invasions won't fall.


Anassin Kobalt.
The Confederacy of Salsasia Delegate of Foreing Affairs

Thats a good idea, but if we set a limit to nukes, then our enemies will take advantage of the number we are allowed. And since when has a delegation ever been responsible for very long without trying to take over. I say we keep nukes and provide a resolution that prevents us from using them on WA nations. Then the enemy threat of a nuke strike may go down a bit.

However, we must keep on our minds that the facts presented in the WAR 10 are true, we, the members of the WA, are outnumbered by the nations that don't belong to the Assembly, and if we encourage all the members of this Assembly to get rid of their nuclear weapons then we are delibering their heads to their enemies who are not in the WA. If we approve this resolution, the danger of a nuclear attack won't disappear, we will only get rid of the most effective way to dissuade the enemy to start a war.
Yes gentlemen, the nuclear weapons are a dangerous thing, but if we get involved in a conflict with a nation who have this huge power in their side while we don't, then we are heading to a very difficult situation.

As I show you the weakness of this proposal, I'll also propose you a solution to this problem, do not ban the possesion of nuclear weapons, but what we can do is to make some rules and regulations for the nations who manage this power, some alternatives are:

- Set a maximum number of nuclear weapons per nation or per region.
- Create and train a delegation who watch over the nations the securities taken on the keeping of the weapons.
- Create some basic standards for the security of the civil population, as regular manteinance etc.

If we put some rules to the keep and manteinance of the weapons, the security levels for accidents will rise while the national security against foreign attacks or invasions won't fall.


Anassin Kobalt.
The Confederacy of Salsasia Delegate of Foreing Affairs

A variation to the suggestion you make would be to make survey of the average number of nuclear weapons possessed by non WA nations, and make periodical quotas to limit the amount of nuclear stockpile to be used as a deterrent. That way, when non-WA nations accumulate a dangerous stockpile we'll be able to rise ours to deter a conflict, and non-WA nations have an incentive to lower their stockpile, since they know that a reduced number of weapons on their territories would diminish the number of weapons in the world, while knowing that an increase would only cause an heightened danger and likelihood of conflict.


The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Staffenberg

A variation to the suggestion you make would be to make survey of the average number of nuclear weapons possessed by non WA nations, and make periodical quotas to limit the amount of nuclear stockpile to be used as a deterrent. That way, when non-WA nations accumulate a dangerous stockpile we'll be able to rise ours to deter a conflict, and non-WA nations have an incentive to lower their stockpile, since they know that a reduced number of weapons on their territories would diminish the number of weapons in the world, while knowing that an increase would only cause an heightened danger and likelihood of conflict.

That's a great idea, of course we have to count with the non-WA nations permission, but the concept is right.
Another idea is a regional pact of mutual help with the other nations who belong to the WA, so the enemy will not face a sigle nation but all the WA nations in the region.

That's a great idea, of course we have to count with the non-WA nations permission, but the concept is right.
Another idea is a regional pact of mutual help with the other nations who belong to the WA, so the enemy will not face a sigle nation but all the WA nations in the region.

A good mechanism would be to create a commission that is in charge of carrying out such inspections, with the permission of, and without violating the territorial sovereignty or integrity of, the nations that have a nuclear stockpile. However, we'd have to rally other WA nations to make the idea come true.

The Federation of Staffenberg
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Chargé d’affaires for Nuclear Disarmament

The five last statement looks very well.
But none of those issues is actually included in the WA 10, not even mentioned, and the fact is: repealing the WA 10 is the right way to do that.

WORLD ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #10
Nuclear Arms Possession Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Description: 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.

I present you a copy of the Resolution #10, if you read carefully this document there is nothing in the last statements that is against this resolution, so all that we have are some ideas that can be attached to the current Resolution #10 in another resolution. I don't see the point of repeal the Resolution #10 when we want to mantain our weapons, the only thing we want is to get more regulations about the keeping of those weapons and our policies with our non-WA neighbours.

Anassin Kobalt.
The Confederacy of Salsasia Delegate of Foreing Affairs

I present you a copy of the Resolution #10, if you read carefully this document there is nothing in the last statements that is against this resolution, so all that we have are some ideas that can be attached to the current Resolution #10 in another resolution.

However those ideas are not germane to the discussion at hand, which is the current draft of the proposal to repeal WA Resolution 10.

Besides, resolutions cannot be amended, only repealed.

NOTING that nuclear weapons are seldom used for defense, but for attacking;

OBSERVING that international conflicts that involve nuclear weapons tend to have more innocent civilian casualties that conflicts which do not;Even if I was prepared to accept these patently false statements, your assertions are entirely moot, as the resolution does not protect the use of nuclear weapons at all; just their possession. A future resolution could always ban the use of these weapons.

BELIEVING FURTHER that resolutions such as WA Resolution 10 do not make WA member nations safer and in fact promote conflict;So, in essence, giving nations the right to possess (but not use) a deterrent arsenal in order to prevent war "promotes conflict"? Your lack of basic logic stuns me.

Even so, you might have something if you introduced an argument that was the least bit relevant to the resolution. Forget the use of nukes; this resolution does not address it. Rather tell us why nations should not have the right simply to possess a nuclear deterrent.

Scotchpinestan wholeheartedly rejects the notion that nuclear weapons are a "deterrent"; there is no recorded instance of the presence of nukes actually preventing international strife. Indeed, there is plenty of recorded evidence that the presence of nuclear weapons, while perhaps not leading to war, does increase tensions between nations.

((OOC: A RL example is the US and Iran. The US is all concerned about Iran getting nukes, and Iran is basically saying "you have so many nukes, you shouldn't be talking." The US's arsenal isn't deterring Iran from doing anything - it's not like they would minvade the US anyway.))

Thanks for copypasting ...

Now, i agreed with nuke possessors, but this is not good to my people:

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

What if some WA nukenation thinks my hammer is too hostile... This very first point allowed that nation to strike me, although I'm member of WA or not.

We can't fix it and we can't make another which contradict it by saying 'don't use it against WA members' because this resolution has that choice open.

Maybe if the writer would actually 'read' this, would wrote "defend themselves from -no WA- hostil nations" and we won't be arguing that much.

Scotchpinestan wholeheartedly rejects the notion that nuclear weapons are a "deterrent"; there is no recorded instance of the presence of nukes actually preventing international strife. Indeed, there is plenty of recorded evidence that the presence of nuclear weapons, while perhaps not leading to war, does increase tensions between nations.

((OOC: A RL example is the US and Iran. The US is all concerned about Iran getting nukes, and Iran is basically saying "you have so many nukes, you shouldn't be talking." The US's arsenal isn't deterring Iran from doing anything - it's not like they would minvade the US anyway.))You don't need to invade a country to launch a nuke at it, chief. And I betcha anything the Iranians would think twice before actually doing so. More likely they'd construct a suitcase model and sell it to terrorists. But, instead of dabbling further in irrelevancies, why don't you answer the question I posed to you earlier: even if you question to effectiveness of a nuclear deterrent, why shouldn't WA nations have the right to possess one?

Nowhere have I said that they shouldn't. But the WA shouldn't be codifying that right, because the presence of nukes does heighten international animosity (perhaps I should have used the word "animosity" isntead of "conflict"?).

Indeed, right now, if two nations wanted to enter into a disarmament treaty, if one of them is in the WA, they couldn't do that. WA 10 would supersede the disarmament clause in the treaty and make it non-binding.

Uhhh, noooooo... it doesn't force nations to arm with nukes. Any nation can sign an anti-nuclear treaty if it wished. This simply tells members they have the right to possess nuclear weapons if they so choose. But if you think the mere presence of nukes heightens international tensions, it might work better as a repeal argument than the one you've already constructed. I still think it's weak, however, and would oppose it even if it wasn't.

Submitted

OPPOSED!:upyours:

i oppose nukes. they cause so much destruction. I say ban all things nuclear: nulear bombs, nuclear plants, eveything. They cause the 4 D's: depression, destruction, despair, doom. So, what do you say?

Yeah, I would support this. The USA is wasting billions of dollars because "this reason." I think by passing this, it will save millions of lives put safety into countries.

SubmittedHmm. Still going with that terribly weak argument that doesn't address the content of the actual proposal, I see. Well, best of luck to you.

i oppose nukes. they cause so much destruction. I say ban all things nuclear: nulear bombs, nuclear plants, eveything. They cause the 4 D's: depression, destruction, despair, doom. So, what do you say?

On this premiss alone, then maybe we should ban humans. They are destructive, who here in favor is mass genecide to destroy this threat, they create depression, destruction, despair, and doom......


"Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to kill them."

The Allied States of Scotchpinestan wish to thank the more than 80 WA delegates who supported the advancement of this repeal. Unfortunately we were not able to reach quorum this time, but due to the strong support and encouragement we have received, we will be trying this again at some point, probably in a couple of weeks.

The nation of Desh-Shrik feels that while admitting that nuclear weaponry can cause horrendous civilian casualty, most nuclear weapons are never used and instead keep the peace (by mutual fear).

Furthermore, we believe it should at each and every nation's own discretion if they would like to possess nuclear weapons or not.

We do, however, believe that the use of nuclear weaponry and other Weapons of Mass Destruction should be stricly regulated to be as safe and fail-proof as possible.

Should this bill come to vote the next time around, we would not support it.

The Allied States of Scotchpinestan wish to thank the more than 80 WA delegates who supported the advancement of this repeal. Unfortunately we were not able to reach quorum this time, but due to the strong support and encouragement we have received, we will be trying this again at some point, probably in a couple of weeks.

I think sometime next week we're going to fire this up again.

We have noticed that a few other nations have brought forth repeal ideas of their own. We welcome those nations to look over our proposal and suggest improvements to it.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/notagain.jpg

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I think sometime next week we're going to fire this up again.

We have noticed that a few other nations have brought forth repeal ideas of their own. We welcome those nations to look over our proposal and suggest improvements to it.This is ridiculous. The delegates keep rejecting your proposal, yet you keep resurrecting it without changing anything. Are you going to take peer suggestions for improving your argument? Because it's perfectly awful as it is (and like I said before, does not address the content of the actual resolution at all). If your only intention is to ignore advice and keep pushing your weak argument, then there's no point to advertising on this forum whatsoever. This forum is for drafting, it's not a bulletin board.

Imota's politicians were frankly tired of all of the proposals to repeal Resolution 10.

Imota's comedians, on the other hand, had a field day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oboyox3L_MI

(It's George Carlin. Use your own judgment.)

This is ridiculous. The delegates keep rejecting your proposal, yet you keep resurrecting it without changing anything. Are you going to take peer suggestions for improving your argument? Because it's perfectly awful as it is (and like I said before, does not address the content of the actual resolution at all). If your only intention is to ignore advice and keep pushing your weak argument, then there's no point to advertising on this forum whatsoever. This forum is for drafting, it's not a bulletin board.

What do you expect? You can't fix stupid. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gxKStPXyn8)

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This is ridiculous. The delegates keep rejecting your proposal, yet you keep resurrecting it without changing anything. Are you going to take peer suggestions for improving your argument? Because it's perfectly awful as it is (and like I said before, does not address the content of the actual resolution at all). If your only intention is to ignore advice and keep pushing your weak argument, then there's no point to advertising on this forum whatsoever. This forum is for drafting, it's not a bulletin board.

First of all, we've only submitted it once. This will be number 2.

Second of all, the only argument you've put forth is the notion of nukes being a "deterrent", which I already rebutted.

Thid (and most importantly), this repeal will not ban nukes. It will, however, help to dissolve the "mutual fear" that the representative from Desh-Shrik brought up.

Our position is (and has always been) that this is a topic that the WA needs to stay out of. The WA shouldn't be pro-nuke or anti-nuke.

[T]he only argument you've put forth is the notion of nukes being a "deterrent", which I already rebutted.Couldn't have been all that great a rebuttal, because I seem to have missed it.

([M]ost importantly), this repeal will not ban nukes. It will, however, help to dissolve the "mutual fear" that the representative from Desh-Shrik brought up.You mean, the delegate who endorsed the idea that nations should self-determine their own nuclear status? If this is not an "anti-nuke" repeal, then you best dispense with all the fear-mongering anti-nuclear rhetoric. Although admittedly that would strip your "argument" bare. :rolleyes:

Oh, dear. The way I see it is that either the author of this proposal is planning to ban nuclear weapons outright if the repeal goes through, or, um, not. If it's the first, Krioval will frankly oppose the repeal on the grounds that we'll do what we like with our damn weapons and we'll thank you to take the pseudo-humanitarian claptrap elsewhere. If it's the second, Krioval will also oppose the repeal on the grounds that it accomplishes nothing.

So there we have it. Krioval is opposed.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

Couldn't have been all that great a rebuttal, because I seem to have missed it.



This is it (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13807609&postcount=25), and actually you didn't miss it. We can respectfully agree to disagree on this one.

But, since many other nations agree with our position, we are proud to announce that we have re-submitted this repeal.

This is you, completely missing the point. This is me, not at all surprised.

My objections to this repeal are based upon the basic premise that they do not at all address the content of the resolution you're trying to repeal, and that you make wild assertions about nuclear warfare that are not supported at all by the facts. I assure you, "deterrent" is not the only thing I've been saying this whole time, because apparently you only pick up buzzwords.

The portions highlighted in red mark where you veer completely off-target:

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of all nations, regardless of WA membership, to defend themselves;

NOTING that nuclear weapons are seldom used for defense, but for attacking;

OBSERVING that international conflicts that involve nuclear weapons tend to have more innocent civiliian casualties that conflicts which do not;

BELIEVING that it is the duty of the WA to pass resolutions that will make its member nations safer;

BELIEVING FURTHER that resolutions such as WA Resolution 10 do not make WA member nations safer and in fact promote conflict;

The WA hereby REPEALS Resolution 10, "Nuclear Arms Possession Act". Now, as I've been saying from the start, your first two highlighted statements, aside from being wildly inaccurate, are moot points. The resolution -- let me say it nice and slow this time -- does not protect the right of nations to use nuclear weapons. So who the hell cares what you think about the motivations of nuclear powers, or the calculated damage of nuclear wars? It's irrelevant to the content of the resolution, which -- let me say it nice and slow this time -- only protects the right of nations to possess nuclear weapons, just like it says in the title.

The third highlighted statement might bear some relevance to the content, but it too is stunningly weak and unsupported by facts. En total, this is what makes your argument weak and possibly illegal -- as invalid and irrelevant arguments in repeals make them so. Now, are you going to consider fixing your argument so that it loosely resembles a rebuttal of the actual proposal, or do I have to lodge a legality challenge?

Though I have to admit that stronger arguments could be used the arguments used for repealing have some points.

"NOTING that nuclear weapons are seldom used for defense, but for attacking;"
You can argue that the possession is or the defence, but when you use them much times it will be an attack on a big city or industry of the enemy.

"OBSERVING that international conflicts that involve nuclear weapons tend to have more innocent civiliian casualties that conflicts which do not;"
It must be civilian with an "l" but for the rest when the nukes are used on cities or industries (and that is a target which is used in rl, and WO II has had the most innocent civilian casualties, but of course rl is not in NationStates) than if there are a lot, more civilians than soldiers will die.

"BELIEVING FURTHER that resolutions such as WA Resolution 10 do not make WA member nations safer and in fact promote conflict;"
It is a believe, it cannot be a fact. If a big group (maybe wrongfully) believes this, than it is legitimate to try a repeal.

And WA resolution goes over possession, but possession is a use of something.

This is why I supported this repeal.

Greetings

But, since many other nations agree with our position, we are proud to announce that we have re-submitted this repeal.

I highly recommend you drop your futile attempts at repealing my resolution because should you succeed I will submit a replacement and it will not only protect a nation's right to possess nuclear weapons, it will protect their right to use them too.

Bob Flibble (who's making this comment as he leaves for his vacation)
WA Representative

The banning of nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity. Part of the human condition is the pursuit of happiness, and there is absolutely nothing more happiness inducing than to set off explosives. Given that nuclear weapons are the most effective explosives, it follows that setting off nuclear weapons against an opponent (or even one's own population) is the ultimate in happiness.

In addition to the sheer, unrestrained joy that setting off a nuke produces, it also leaves a pretty glow.

To ban nuclear weapons, means to put restraints on human achievement itself! Are we here simply to reach a comfortable level of mediocrity?! Or are we here to become the very best we can be?!

Therefore, we must strenuously oppose any ban on the possession or use of nuclear weapons.

Gregor Ravenwolf, Inquisitor Ordo Hereticus
Dominion of Human Terror

I highly recommend you drop your futile attempts at repealing my resolution because should you succeed I will submit a replacement and it will not only protect a nation's right to possess nuclear weapons, it will protect their right to use them too.

Bob Flibble (who's making this comment as he leaves for his vacation)
WA Representative

I wish you a happy vacation, you surely deserve that. You have done lots of work to get the debates on the forum inside the forum rules and inside the WA mechanics. I do think it is a lot of work and sometimes also you get a lot of rubbish on you.

But if those attempts are futile there is nothing to worry. If not futile you can try to make a proposal that it is in a nation's right to use nukes, but I doubt that will get a majority. If it gets a majority, than that is the way the WA wants things to be. Than you better start a repeal by yourselves, not?

I do believe that people who make a proposal do that because they think a proposal is the way they want it. If you want nation's rights to use nukes, just start a campaign for it. I will be on the other side. Hopefully it will be a good debate. For me it is not the outcome, but the debate the way to improve things.

Of course when the WA becomes something that a big minority distastes, they will leave. But the same is with nations who are now outside the WA, maybe the will join after the WA allows the use of nukes.

Regards