NationStates Jolt Archive

The Following is a draft of my proposal. If you feel it could use a little more or a something changed, let me know. I'll think about it. Ready... Set... GO!


NUCLEAR RETALIATION POLICY
A resolution to govern the use of nuclear weapons.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Energeia


Recognizing the potential threat of any nation carrying extremely powerful weapons and understanding the necessity of a concrete definition of the term “weapons of mass destruction”, I supply to the WA this proposal.


Description:

Article 1) The NationStates World Assembly recognizes weapons of mass destruction as any weapon possessing any one of the following qualities:

1.1 A single weapon that is capable of destroying a quarter mile or more of national infrastructure.
1.2 A single weapon that is capable of killing more than 50 people in one action.
1.3 A weapon that releases either a biological or a non-biological based illness, airborne or not, communicable through a population.
1.4 A weapon that releases either a biological or a non-biological based illness, airborne or not, communicable through infrastructure (example: Plumbing).

Article 2) In the event a nation or nations violate(s) another nation’s or other nations’ national security, the violated nation or nations is/are permitted to retaliate via tactical nuclear and/or tactical thermonuclear missiles on the premise the instigating nation or nations meet ALL following conditions:


2.1 It is a nation that has expressed intent to use weapons of mass destruction as specifically defined in Article 1 of the Nuclear Retaliation Policy.
2.2 It is a nation that has violated or expressed intent to violate any standing international rules of engagement.

HMHIM Akiroto I congratulates the Energeia diplomat on a well thought out proposal although it is under the wrong catagory (It's one of the security ones not the Moral Decency one).

HMHIM would also wish it to be known that West Pacific Asia wouldn't use an form of WMD unless one actually was used on our nation first.

HMHIM Akiroto I congratulates the Energeia diplomat on a well thought out proposal although it is under the wrong catagory (It's one of the security ones not the Moral Decency one).

HMHIM would also wish it to be known that West Pacific Asia wouldn't use an form of WMD unless one actually was used on our nation first.

Noted, Will show change with a bulk update post. thanks!

The government of the emperor of Urgench wonders if these will be the only circumstances under which a thermo-nuclear retaliation will be legal if this resolution ever gets voted for?

yours e.t.c. ,

The government of the emperor of Urgench wonders if these will be the only circumstances under which a thermo-nuclear retaliation will be legal if this resolution ever gets voted for?

yours e.t.c. ,

Yes, as it is written here:
...on the premise the instigating nation or nations meet ALL following conditions:

But remember, this is a draft and details are still negotiable.

The government of the emperor of Urgench will try to bare that in mind.

We feel that this resolution is to say the least brief for a resolution which seeks to regulate the vast subject of the causes and laws of war. we can think of dozens of other circumstances under which it would be perfectly acceptable to retaliate against an agressor with nuclear weapons. Overwhelming numerical superiority, a preemptive strike against actual developement of weapons with mass destructive capacity two name just two.

The conditions outlined in the last two provisions are somewhat opaque particularly the last, what do you mean by "rules of engagement".

What do you mean by an expression of intent to use W.M.D.? we could ( though be rest assured we never will) threaten to use such weapons on your nation now, would you be justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on us now? Surely the actual ability to carry out such an attack should be more important? Or verifiable moves toward doing so ?

It seems our nation could claim our neighbour had sent us communications informing us of the intent to launch an attack on us, a claim which would be a complete charade in order to justify a terrible un-provoked atrocity for our own satisfaction, were your resolution to come in to force.

Of course we would never do such a thing, but other nations both could and would, and what is more currently they have no reason to vote for a law which would force them to dissimilate about there motives force such actions.

yours e.t.c. ,

I'm just wondering what the recent obsession with nukes is all about?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Maybe it's because the Nuclear Arms Possession Act allows WA members to maintain nuclear arsenals for defensive (and assumed deterrence) purposes, but does not condemn aggressive actions (first strikes, etc.). WA members are now trying to set up rules governing their use, ranging from genocidal to suicidal.

I would like to point out a few things that came to my attention when reading through your proposal.

Article 1) The NationStates World Assembly recognizes weapons of mass destruction as any weapon possessing any one of the following qualities:

1.1 A single weapon that is capable of destroying a quarter mile or more of national infrastructure.
1.2 A single weapon that is capable of killing more than 50 people in one action.
1.3 A weapon that releases either a biological or a non-biological based illness, airborne or not, communicable through a population.
1.4 A weapon that releases either a biological or a non-biological based illness, airborne or not, communicable through infrastructure (example: Plumbing).

So, a single weapon that is capable of destroying a quarter mile of more of national infrastructure? Depending on who you speak with, one person would say that a bomb is a single weapon while another will insist that the Bomber that dropped the bomb is a weapon itself. This is a possible stretch however there have been numerous professors and anti-war advocates that stand by that notion. A B-52 carpet bombing a city is capable of destroying a quarter mile of infrastructure. Is it a WMD? Not hardly.

In fact, some nuclear weapons are generally considered conventional. Case-in-Point: SKINCs. Sub-Kiloton Insertable Nuclear Components.
Allowing for the superiority of RDX over TNT, for the large nonblast share of the total energy of a nuclear explosion and for the nonlinear scaling of weapon effects, a single .01KT SKINC is about equivalent in blast effectiveness to the four- or five-ton high explosive bomb load of an A-10 Warthog. Yes, those ten-tons of explosive power are packed into a single fifty- or sixty-pound package, insertable in place of a regular warhead on a Mark-82 iron bomb, instead of four or five 2,000-pound HE bombs. That is why they are regarded as conventional weapons.

To keep this legislation from being taken in the wrong context, you first need to define what a 'single weapon' is before you can define what would categorize it as a WMD.

Secondly, I would like to point out 1.2 "A single weapon that is capable of killing more than 50 people in one action." This also is very hazy. A single pull of a trigger on a machine gun is considered my nearly every military on our planet as a single action, yet that machine gun may pump out thousands of rounds before it is emptied of ammunition. A Vulcan mini-gun, the 30MM cannon on an A-10, or even "Metal Storm" (1,000,000 round a minute RL weapon) could kill over 50 people in 'one action'. Taken note of my previous statement, a single Mark-82 bomb has the potential to kill over 50 people in a single action, and a B-52 in 'one action' has the ability to kill hundreds of people by carpet bombing an area with conventional weapons. A single anti-ship missile striking a troop transport has the ability to kill over 50 people in 'one action', so is that considered a WMD? Of course not, however with the current wording, automatically you open the door for anti-military, anti-war extremists to twist your legislation for their own means.



Article 2) In the event a nation or nations violate(s) another nation’s or other nations’ national security, the violated nation or nations is/are permitted to retaliate via tactical nuclear and/or tactical thermonuclear missiles on the premise the instigating nation or nations meet ALL following conditions:

I don't need to go further as this will never pass as worded. Too many nations have already expressed in the past that all options should be available to them without condition. Secondly there are not any standing international rules of engagement so this immediately puts this legislation on slippery ground. How can a nation retaliate when there are no recognized IRoEs? You effectively have banned any retaliatory nuclear strikes, since no majority of nations have recognized a single IRoE, let alone a list of them.

Posted by Karshkovia
To keep this legislation from being taken in the wrong context, you first need to define what a 'single weapon' is before you can define what would categorize it as a WMD.

I will omit the term 'single' from the phrase 'A single weapon' to eliminate any confusion.
**************************************************************************************************** ****************
Posted by Karshkovia
A B-52 carpet bombing a city is capable of destroying a quarter mile of infrastructure. Is it a WMD? Not hardly...

A Vulcan mini-gun, the 30MM cannon on an A-10, or even "Metal Storm" (1,000,000 round a minute RL weapon) could kill over 50 people in 'one action'... ...so is that considered a WMD? Of course not,...

How about increasing the caps high enough to exclude todays non-WMDs, then add a section to specify nuclear weapons with a maximum effective range exceeding a range to be specified.

Could you suggest more reasonable caps for infrustructure and deaths of people? (based on you response I would increase the caps to 6 or 10 miles and 700 people respectively) This is why it is only a draft. I want suggestions as well as criticism. If I don't receive suggestions, either the bill wont be accepted or we will all be at the mercy of anti-military extremists when it is (as karshkovia pointed out) I don't want either.

**************************************************************************************************** ****************
Posted by Karshkovia
there are not any standing international rules of engagement so this immediately puts this legislation on slippery ground. How can a nation retaliate when there are no recognized IRoEs? You effectively have banned any retaliatory nuclear strikes, since no majority of nations have recognized a single IRoE, let alone a list of them.


Posted by Energia
2.2 It is a nation that has violated or expressed intent to violate any standing international rules of engagement.

I am aware there are no IRoEs. It was trying to recognize future IRoEs but still make this appliable for today by writting in an exit clause, I simply forgot to reattatch it when I was cutting and pasting this proposal in Word.

**************************************************************************************************** ****************
posted by Karshkovia
with the current wording, automatically you open the door for anti-military, anti-war extremists to twist your legislation for their own means.

Are you referring to the definition of WMDs? If so I would say, were on the path to fixing this. Please elaborate.
**************************************************************************************************** ****************
So far, these changes are to be made:


Changing the Catagory from "Moral Decency" to "International Security"
Omitting the term 'single' from the phrase 'A single weapon' for contextual understanding
Adding a section to Article 1 specifying nuclear weapons greater than a maximum effective range to be determind
Increasing the caps in sections 1.1 and 1.2
Re-applying an exit clause to section 2.2


I need some suggestions for point 4. After all five points have been changed on the origional document, I will post the updated proposal in a new thread titled 2nd DRAFT: Nuclear Retaliation Policy.

I'm having a bit of a hard time viewing a chemical WMD as a non-biological illness. Are they supposed to be covered there?

The quote below has been numbered and some parts exluded for clarity.
1. We feel that this resolution is to say the least brief for a resolution which seeks to regulate the vast subject of the causes and laws of war.

2. The conditions outlined in the last two provisions are somewhat opaque particularly the last, what do you mean by "rules of engagement".

3. What do you mean by an expression of intent to use W.M.D.?

4. We could (though be rest assured we never will) threaten to use such weapons on your nation now, would you be justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on us now? Surely the actual ability to carry out such an attack should be more important? Or verifiable moves toward doing so ?

5. It seems our nation could claim our neighbour had sent us communications informing us of the intent to launch an attack on us, a claim which would be a complete charade in order to justify a terrible un-provoked atrocity for our own satisfaction, were your resolution to come in to force.

6. Of course we would never do such a thing, but other nations both could and would, and what is more currently they have no reason to vote for a law which would force them to dissimilate about there motives force such actions.

yours e.t.c. ,

1. This is not a resolution seeking to regulate causes and Laws for war, it is a resolution seeking to regulate what is considered to be “an acceptable reason” for nuking another nation.

2. The International Rules of Engagement (IRoE) are a set of laws governing how nations may wage war and politics against each other. Currently, there aren't any IRoEs in the WA, therefore, nations may do what they please, when they're pleased to do it.

3. If a nation says, "We hate your country and we're GOING to nuke it!"... that is an expression of intent. This is opposed to an expression of desire which would be, "We hate your country and we WANT to nuke it."

4.Yes, We would be justified to drop a nuclear bomb on your nation. The fact that you have the ability, or are moving towards having the ability, to follow through on your threat should only hasten our attack.

5. You make an excellent point. We will add the word varifiably to first clause of Article 2 and also clean up the grammer so it would read like this, "In the event a nation verifiable violates another nation’s national security,...) The grammer in the remainder of the Article will be cleaned up likewise.

6. Your use of the term dissimilate confuses me as to the statement it make in relation to the proposal. As I understand, you're telling me "They have no reason to vote for a law that would force them to make their motives for such actions different in one or more respects".

The law does not force them to make their motives different. They could bomb fifty different nations on the same motive for all my nation care, so long as the motive is justified.

**************************************************************************************************** *************

I am considering using many of our responses as points of clarity to be used within the text of the proposal, thereby limiting the ability of extremist who oppose all military action to take articles within the proposal out of context.

I'm having a bit of a hard time viewing a chemical WMD as a non-biological illness. Are they supposed to be covered there?

Thank you. your right... chemical WMDs cause affliction, not illness. I will add a section for chemical WMDs.

The quote below has been numbered and some parts exluded for clarity.


1. This is not a resolution seeking to regulate causes and Laws for war, it is a resolution seeking to regulate what is considered to be “an acceptable reason” for nuking another nation.

2. The International Rules of Engagement (IRoE) are a set of laws governing how nations may wage war and politics against each other. Currently, there aren't any IRoEs in the WA, therefore, nations may do what they please, when they're pleased to do it.

3. If a nation says, "We hate your country and we're GOING to nuke it!"... that is an expression of intent. This is opposed to an expression of desire which would be, "We hate your country and we WANT to nuke it."

4.Yes, We would be justified to drop a nuclear bomb on your nation. The fact that you have the ability, or are moving towards having the ability, to follow through on your threat should only hasten our attack.

5. You make an excellent point. We will add the word varifiably to first clause of Article 2 and also clean up the grammer so it would read like this, "In the event a nation verifiable violates another nation’s national security,...) The grammer in the remainder of the Article will be cleaned up likewise.

6. Your use of the term dissimilate confuses me as to the statement it make in relation to the proposal. As I understand, you're telling me "They have no reason to vote for a law that would force them to make their motives for such actions different in one or more respects".

The law does not force them to make their motives different. They could bomb fifty different nations on the same motive for all my nation care, so long as the motive is justified.

**************************************************************************************************** *************

I am considering using many of our responses as points of clarity to be used within the text of the proposal, thereby limiting the ability of extremist who oppose all military action to take articles within the proposal out of context.

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the esteemed ambassador for Energeia for their seemingly comprehensive response. we will deal with some of the issues raised by it.

Firstly, what exactly do you imagine a statute legislating for " an acceptable reason for nuking another nation" , as you put it, is? it is manifestly a law seeking to deal with what is an "acceptable" cause for an act of war. pretending otherwise is inconsistent with reason.

Secondly, we were not asking you for an overall definition of the rules of engagement ( since we are perfectly familiar with this concept and would have no need to do so ) , we were asking you what you meant by refering to them in your resolution in the context of there being no such rules set by the w.a. Surely such a reference is defunct no ? your resolution does not seem to be creating any such rules either, so this was not internal reference.

Thirdly we are quite familiar with the difference between intent and desire, what we were trying to point out is that the expression either of desire or intent is not a justifiable reason for preemptive nuclear attack. Need we remind the respected ambassador that nations may let all manner of things be known about their policies and intentions which bare no relation to what they are capable of or of what they really intend. To base such a life or death decision on rhetoric is very dangerous indeed.

Your fourth point is so incompatible with any desire for international peace that it is frankly horrifying, it suggests that your nation infact desires thermo-nuclear destruction as an outcome of international relations. Surely the whole point of diplomacy between m.t. member nations of the w.a. is to avoid such complete devastation not hasten it? words are not actions. This raises the point that your resolution makes no mention of reliable or verifiable military intelligence regarding the intent or desires of agressor nations, which really ought to be a part of such decision making.

We are glad you have seen fit to include some reference to verifiable facts as essential to a case for a preemptive strike, perhaps you could consider including such sensible precautions in other areas of your resolution.

As for our use of the word dissimilate, we were refering to the fact that your resolution would ask nations to create false or misleading reasons for their actions. By this we mean that currently there are no laws which demand that nations justify their attacks, your resolution would narrowly restrict the legal range of options available for such justification to only a few possible motives. This would mean that unscrupulous nations would pretend that their motives were one of the legally sanctioned ones instead of lets say naked agression or genocidal lunacy. Would either of these motives be justifiable to your nation? If not then doubtless they would not be to many other nations of the w.a. this would lead to dissimilation, have we made ourselves clear?

With regard to your last point we hope you are not trying to suggest that we are "extremists" seeking to ban all military action? That would show an awfully shallow degree of perception and we are quite sure the highly esteemed ambassador for Energeia is deeply perceptive and in possession of excellent political faculties. Our empire is very large it's creation took centuries of warfare of a kind we no longer think "justifiable" but all the same our emperors and our people have been some of the greatest warriors of all time, we are adroit in the defence of our nation and stand ready to defend the rights of other nations to do so too. We are a noted arms producer and would fight any moves to deprive us of our own nuclear arsenal to the bitter end.

This being said we are loathe to sanction gross waste of life of anyone's citizens including our own. The resolution you propose legalises the grotesque and violent fantasies of the most lunatical and despotic of regimes and provides no protection for their hapless victims.

There are currently no world assembly laws governing this subject this means defacto chaos, this is infinitely preferable to the proposed w.a. of your resolution which rubber stamps Holocaust and sanctions atrocity as "justifiable" on the grounds of mere hot air and sabre rattling.

yours sincerely,