NationStates Jolt Archive

After taking a gander at some of the debates on nuclear weapons (including a rather foolish attempt to repeal Resolution #10), I've decided to throw my own hat into the ring, so to speak.

BEGIN PROPOSAL TEXT

Nuclear Weapons Use Limitations Act

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Imota

The World Assembly:

ACKNOWLEDGING the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the sentiment behind measures to regulate them,
FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING both the hostility of several non-member states to member states and the importance for member states to be able to defend themselves in the event of an attack,
SEEKING to act as an agent of peace among the nations of the world,

hereby:

1. REQUIRES all member states to refrain from first use against other member states, unless it can be proven, retroactively or otherwise, that a given first use was in justifiable self defense or to counter an imminent threat, and that no other recourse was feasible,
2. REQUIRES all acts of nuclear retaliation by member states to be proportionate to the verifiable levels of damage caused by the original act of aggression committed against them.
3. ALLOWS for the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation against chemical, biological, or radiological attacks, provided that such retaliation is proportional to the verifiable levels of damage caused by the original attack,
4. ENCOURAGES all member states to avoid and prevent the escalation of such exchanges, and,
5. RECOMMENDS that all member states, when feasible, adopt similar policies in their dealings with non-member states, but,
6. DOES NOT MANDATE, REQUIRE, OR OTHERWISE ORDER the adoption of such policies, preferring to leave such decisions to the respective member states.

END PROPOSAL TEXT

Suggestions and criticism are welcome. This has not yet been submitted, and I'd like to iron out the wrinkles before I do.

The government of the emperor of Urgench finds this interesting and were it to be significantly altered and augmented we might be able to vote for such a resolution. However we have many concerns, the clause numbered 2. is confusing, are you trying to dicourage tit for tat exchanges or legalising them? And really tit for tat is not legal language and can be interpreted in many ways and can be perverted to mean anything an errant nation may wish. There are also no insurances of verifiability of causes, claims or commisions of these acts of nuclear agression and retaliation.

we wish you luck in your endeavours, yours e.t.c. ,

I concede that tit for tat is unlegalistic and a bit confusing. I meant to allow proportional retaliation along the lines of:

Country A nukes one city in Country B. In retaliation, B nukes one city in A of similar size or population.

The overall intent was to prevent situations in which one nuclear strike results in an entire nation's nuclear arsenal being unleashed. I'm not trying to legalize tit for tat exchanges, just trying to ensure that a nuclear exchange doesn't get to far out of hand. Perhaps I should have phrased Clause 2 something like this:

2. URGES member states to limit retaliation for nuclear attacks to proportional attacks against targets of similar value to the ones attacked in the first attack,

As far as verifying causes, claims, or commissions goes, I could require nations to back up claims of attacks with evidence, but I'm not entirely sure how far I can go before running into the ban on a WA police force.

I concede that tit for tat is unlegalistic and a bit confusing. I meant to allow proportional retaliation along the lines of:

Country A nukes one city in Country B. In retaliation, B nukes one city in A of similar size or population.

The overall intent was to prevent situations in which one nuclear strike results in an entire nation's nuclear arsenal being unleashed. I'm not trying to legalize tit for tat exchanges, just trying to ensure that a nuclear exchange doesn't get to far out of hand. Perhaps I should have phrased Clause 2 something like this:

2. URGES member states to limit retaliation for nuclear attacks to proportional attacks against targets of similar value to the ones attacked in the first attack,

As far as verifying causes, claims, or commissions goes, I could require nations to back up claims of attacks with evidence, but I'm not entirely sure how far I can go before running into the ban on a WA police force.


The government of the emperor of Urgench thinks your rewording of clause 2. comes closer to your intent but perhaps it could read,

" requires all acts of nuclear retaliation by world assembly nations to be proportionate to the verifiable levels of damage caused by the original act of agression commited against them. "

We suggest you make this a requirement since strictly speaking w.a. resolutions aren't optional and urging nations in this matter will only leave a gapping loophole in your resolution.

As to verifiability, well third party impartial observers perhaps of an inter or intra regional nature could avoid the problem of the w.a. police force ban?

This nation will use any means to resolve conflicts the fastest way possible, even if that means that if there is one person (that is an armed combatant) that is an enemy of this state, in the middle of the desert, we would deem it fit that we could use a nuclear weapon to destroy that target. (notice that there would be no collateral in this situation.) And we will not give up the right to strike first. No ifs, ands, or butts.

The Benedict of Nursia government applauds your efforts to limit the use of nuclear weapons. We support the reduction of nuclear arms in any way possible. However, we do have one issue:

Regarding first strike, we will not give up this right. What if our nation received credible information about an outside threat? We will do whatever is necessary to protect our nation. If, after much consideration, first strike is necessary, and nuclear force is deemed necessary in a first strike, we will use it.

What about having a clause on issuing a "warning shot" so to speak before nuclear weapons are used?

Pax et bonum.

OOC: Given that this proposal would limit the use of weapons, I think that the proper category should be 'Global Disarmament' rather than 'International Security'.
What about allowing the use of nuclear weapons in response to attacks using biological WMDs, too?

Or chemical WMD, or Radiological WMD. (there is a difference between Radiological and nuclear weapons.)

I think your proposal may be too flexible... too many options.

We like rules for de-escalating. But our region will not support such rules when they start with "APPLAUDING the noble intentions and merits of WA Resolution #10". We are still against that resolution, I do not see that it is needed to refer to that resolution. But if you think that is wise, our support will not for this proposal. (Because if this proposal will become a WA resolution, there will be two blockers for dismantling nuclear weapons.)

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

While the people of Glen-Rhodes are a peaceful group, we are also very concerned with national security. In agreement with the Western Civil Alliance and Benedict of Nursia, we feel that the first clause is unacceptable. If the situation arises where a nation is actively pursuing to attack Glen-Rhodes with nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we wish to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons against that nation before we suffer the losses of an attack.

Furthermore, it is our opinion that this proposal is not strong in any way. It seems more like a slap on the wrist, rather than an active effort to decrease nuclear warfare.

This proposal is too flexible and it is more like declaration. These text seems us not to be written in "legal" way. Our Commonwealth has different ideas of legal provisions. This text (as it is written) is absolutely useless.

Jamie Sal Markow, President
Redmond Barry, Secretary of Defence

OOC: Sorry, just got back from a class...

Right then, let's see....

It looks like the general consensus is that the ban on first strikes is a bad idea. While I'm not trying to write up an aggressor's charter, I see where you're all coming from on this one. I hope the Benedict of Nursia doesn't mind if I co-opt his idea and rewrite Clause 1 as: "REQUIRES all member states to refrain from first use against other member states, unless it can be proven, retroactively or otherwise, that said first use was in justifiable self defense or to counter an imminent threat, and that no other recourse was feasible".

As far as retaliation against biological, chemical, and radiological attacks goes, I don't mind if nations use nuclear weapons to retaliate against such attacks, and I should have written as such in the proposal text. My own fault entirely. My idea for a clause to address this: "ALLOWS for the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation against chemical, biological, or radiological attacks, provided that such retaliation is proportional to the verifiable levels of damage caused by the original attack".

As far as the reference to WA Resolution #10 is concerned, I see how it may be offensive to certain individuals, and I will remove it.

Thank you all for your comments, and I hope you will continue to debate as revisions are made.

With those two changes made, the government of Glen-Rhodes is ready to fully accept this proposal. However, regarding that member nations may only retaliate in a proportional manner, how is the proposal defining "proportional"? By area affected, lives taken, monetary damage?

We agree that "proportional" seems a bit vague... This can result in a wide variety of interpretations. I think we need to work on this aspect a bit...

While we need to work on determining what is "proportional," our government will support this measure if it comes to vote in current form.

Pax et bonum.

OK, let's run the counter-argument, that (1) is now too feeble. Frankly, what's going to happen when it turns out that Nuktopia's intelligence that Annoistan was 45 minutes away from having WMDs ready to go was either wrong or faked? Annoistan is still a gently glowing crater, it's not going to help them any. Is there anything more that can be done in a resolution other than slapping Nuktopia's collective wrists for being retroactively wrong?

Or given what some nations round the chamber have been saying, what about the far more likely situation that Nuketopia had whole bundles of feasible options other than nuking Annoistan, it's just that their hysterical leaders (or whoever has control of The Big Red Button) didn't see it that way?

Aside from a slap on the wrist, there is nothing that the WA can do, no matter if legislation exists on the matter or not. The WA cannot declare war on "Nuktopia", as it (a) does not have an army and (b) cannot force WA member nations to oppose each other.

Member nations are free to decide if they will carry out sanctions on the said nation, or actively pursue punishment for that nation. However, a WA resolution is not the place to do so.

United Nation of Tishekka agrees with your proposal of stopping use of nuclear weapons somewhat and will try in every way possible to help you carry it out. But there are a few points to be touched, if we have word of threats coming what should a country do and what my nations gets by rule #2 is what one country does to you, you do to them?

The co-ordination group of the Wierd Anarchists thanks Imota for taking out words on WA resolution #10. Still we think we will not support this proposal.

Clause 1 is only acceptable for us when it is like this:
1. REQUIRES all member states to refrain from first use against other member states.
The rest what came after it will make the clause of non importance because almost everything of national interest can be brought in to start a first use of nukes.

Also we think that the word proportional does not say anything of real importance. A nation can act like Hamurabi, an eye for an eye etcetera. But can also think like Kant, or worse. For example if a temple is polluted by one nation with chemicals so it is needed to clean in say one week, it can think this is our religion attacked, their religion is their economy and blast away all the harbours of the attacking nation with nukes. So we have no confidence in clause 2 and 3 until proportional is made clear.

Still we hope some good proposal will come out we can support.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
Co-ordinator of the Wierd Anarchists
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Island

Or chemical WMD, or Radiological WMD. (there is a difference between Radiological and nuclear weapons.)
Those are likely to be significantly less devastating in scope than either nuclear or biological weapons, and thus to leave the attacked nation[s] more capable of responding with 'conventional' forces.

@ everyone: I was thinking along the lines of the Code of Hammurabi with regards to proportional, although more like "city for city of similar population size". Admittedly, though, there's not a whole lot a resolution can do to prevent a nation from committing nuclear genocide for an attack on one temple, or from otherwise interpreting "proportional".

@TiShekka: Ideally, both countries would come to a mutually agreeable arrangement through negotiations. However, if one side is actively preparing to attack, the other side would be justified in striking first. Personally, I would prefer that nuclear weapons (or other unconventional weapons, for that matter) are not used, but it's really up to each nation to determine the best course of action for themselves. Clause 2 allows nations to retaliate proportionally. No two nations are alike, so exactly mirroring the effects isn't possible, but the retaliating nation should attack a similar target on a similar scale attack.

@ everyone: I was thinking along the lines of the Code of Hammurabi with regards to proportional, although more like "city for city of similar population size". Admittedly, though, there's not a whole lot a resolution can do to prevent a nation from committing nuclear genocide for an attack on one temple, or from otherwise interpreting "proportional".

I think it can do because WA resolutions are binding. So if you think along the lines the Code of Hammurabi with regards to proportional, you must make that clear in your proposal so a maniacal government within the WA is binded to a response that its counter action is around the same impact in killing or destroying. If you let to decide the proportional issue to whatever a notion choice is, no real impact this proposal will have.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands