NationStates Jolt Archive

Greeting from the Republic of Sagittronia.

We, the Republic, have proposed a new resolution, that we have discovered may be faulty due to the 'house of cards' rule.

We, the Republic, will take this opportunity to explain our very very simple proposed resolution, and how we disagree with the perception of the faultyness.

Firstly,
This proposal deals specifically with the 'Inventory' of Nuclear Weapons.

This relates to the 'quantity' of possesion, and not possession itself.

Secondly,
In the event that Resoultion #10 (as I have been referred to), is repelled, we find it difficult to see how our proposal is affected.

If no one is allowed to possess, then the quantity is zero.

Maybe someone may pass a further resoltuion banning the 'stock-taking' of nuclear weapons, or a straight repelling of my proposal, either way, we see no reason for urgency in doing so because....

Thirdly,
Even if Resoultion #10 is repelled, and in time re-introduced, that is, we were allowed possession - then it was banned - then it was permitted again;
then my proposed resolution would automatically come into affect.

And once again we will all know who has what, and how much.

Surely my esteemed members of the WA, understand the simple yet considerable protection this proposal offers the entire NS community.

Our warmest wishes, and feedback is much appreciated.

It's considered polite to post the text of your proposal. That makes it easier for the rest of us to tell you why your proposal is illegal. Which it is.


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sagittronia

Description: This resolution requires all WA member nations to provide a bi-annual report to the WA, detailing the quantity of Nuclear Weaponns it has at its disposal.

Article One:
The independance of WA nations to possess Nuclear Weapons is currently a WA Resolution.

Article Two:
This Resolution requires all WA member nations to report to the World Assembly an active inventory of their individual nations Nuclear Arsenal.
Article One is a classic House of Cards violation. If Resolution #10 is repealed, the statement becomes false, and the resolution falls. It's a shame, because if you hadn't put in Article One at all you'd have been fine. Potentially redundant, but fine.

For the rest, "bi-annual" is an ambiguous term, so don't use it. Also I'm a bit bemused that you only want a list of the quantity of nuclear weaponry, not its types, destructive potential, delivery mechanisms, etc, etc. What you've got down here would make "42" a perfectly legal report.

That makes it easier for the rest of us to tell you why your proposal is illegal. Which it is.

Correct. In addition to the House of Cards violation, reporting a count biannually is hardly International Security / Significant. Having a reported count doesn't do a thing to "improve world security", much less in a Significant way.