NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow dignitaries, before I begin tonight, let me first pass around a copy of the Resolution so everyone can refer to it without needing to search for their current copy of the World Assembly Resolutions Volume I book.


WORLD ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #10
Nuclear Arms Possession Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

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.

Votes For: 6,313
Votes Against: 4,663
Implemented: Fri Jun 6 2008

Now that everyone has a copy of the Resolution in front of them, I wish to ask my fellow dignitaries to refer to section 3 which states "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 ask for you to think on that section for a moment. Is it not worded in a way that leaves this resolution open to interpretation? By this I mean, what defines 'wrong hands'?

Well for some, the 'wrong hands' may be national. My example would be NATION A, NATION B, and NATION C are all WA members. NATION A has nuclear weapons while NATION B and NATION C do not. NATION A and NATION C are on friendly terms if not allies. NATION A and NATION B are neutral towards each other but NATION B and NATION C are enemies. If NATION A decideds to sell nuclear weapons to NATION C, I believe that NATION B will believe that NATION A just gave nuclear weapons to the 'wrong hands', and according to the way the resolution is worded it backs NATION B's protests of NATION A breaking WA Resolutions.

Another senario NATION A and NATION C are both WA members and NATION C's democratic government had split from an attempted coup and the nation did not have nuclear weapons. NATION A assisted NATION C in helping the origina democratic government regain control from the Dictator government, however to do so, NATION A gives NATION C's deposed democratic government nuclear weapons to destroy the Dictator government which is secure in a reenforced bunker. Would not the current ruling government concider the deposed democratic government rebels/freedom fighters and thus the actions of NATION A would be concidered letting nuclear weapons fall into the 'wrong hands'?

Finally, what penelties are there for not taking every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands? What is concidered 'every available precaution'?

I wish to say that I agree with the premise of this Resolution, however I am not sure it is properly worded.

I would ask the WA to concider repealing this resolution and having it reworded to define (or remove) the words "Wrong Hands" and "Every Available Precaution", and also penelties for not taking precautions as stated in the resolution.


Thank you for your time.

Snooze. This was not a compelling argument during the original debate, it's even less interesting now. The fact is, Res #10 is merely a mild statute intended to protect national rights on nuclearization. If you want an anti-proliferation measure adopted, write one. #10 won't prevent it.

I think that if all the WA nations are allowed by law to have them, then they wouldn't fall under the definition of "wrong hands", at least under the law.

Perhaps you should write a resolution restricting to the trade of nuclear weapons to within the WA membership.

Not that I'd vote for it, I'm pretty big on my sovereignty when it comes to trade.

Snooze. This was not a compelling argument during the original debate, it's even less interesting now. The fact is, Res #10 is merely a mild statute intended to protect national rights on nuclearization. If you want an anti-proliferation measure adopted, write one. #10 won't prevent it.

ooc: I wasn't around for the original debate and I think I was treating everyone with dignity and respect. Something that I now believe you have no concept of. Looking over just a few of your posts proves civility would be something you lack completely in. Thankfully we have the ignore option for folks like yourself.

I honestly should have listened to the others when they told me to put you on ignore before I even posted for the first time back in Jan. Why I didn't, I don't know but at least it's a correctable mistake.

Snooze. This was not a compelling argument during the original debate, it's even less interesting now. The fact is, Res #10 is merely a mild statute intended to protect national rights on nuclearization. If you want an anti-proliferation measure adopted, write one. #10 won't prevent it.

Maybe I come from a place with more rigorous debate, but this didn't seem to be too over the top to me.

okay, did anyone think that, if all nations had nuclear weapons (mandated) than there would be no wars for fear of nuclear attack and destruction? it happens in the real world, why not here.

I was under the impression that this was the real world.

(OOC: Sorry, had to do it)

There is some literature that suggests the controlled proliferation of nuclear weapons can both calm down a rogue nation and make all nations think twice before engaging in direct warfare.

Maybe I come from a place with more rigorous debate, but this didn't seem to be too over the top to me.No, it isn't. WA regulars are notoriously tough customers, I'll admit, but it really does help put new players/res authors on the spot and test their fortitude for sticking with it and drafting legislation that works. Karshkovia appears to lack that resolve. What a pity.

And I don't buy for one second his little tale of dire warnings from past jilted lovers of mine. Heh, maybe it was Schwarzchild? :p

Fellow dignitaries, before I begin tonight, let me first pass around a copy of the Resolution so everyone can refer to it without needing to search for their current copy of the World Assembly Resolutions Volume I book.

I keep printed out copies in several notebooks. It's a habit I got into back when I was Xen's slave. Something he required of everyone he taught, whether slave or citizen. But, I thank you anyway. This saves me from digging one out.

Now that everyone has a copy of the Resolution in front of them, I wish to ask my fellow dignitaries to refer to section 3 which states "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 ask for you to think on that section for a moment. Is it not worded in a way that leaves this resolution open to interpretation? By this I mean, what defines 'wrong hands'?

Well for some, the 'wrong hands' may be national. My example would be NATION A, NATION B, and NATION C are all WA members. NATION A has nuclear weapons while NATION B and NATION C do not. NATION A and NATION C are on friendly terms if not allies. NATION A and NATION B are neutral towards each other but NATION B and NATION C are enemies. If NATION A decideds to sell nuclear weapons to NATION C, I believe that NATION B will believe that NATION A just gave nuclear weapons to the 'wrong hands', and according to the way the resolution is worded it backs NATION B's protests of NATION A breaking WA Resolutions.

Hmm... Not really. The openness of it is to allow each nation to choose for themselves what the wrong hands are. Thus, Nation A would not be in violation... and, besides, all Nation B can do about it is go to war with Nation A and get its butt kicked by two nations.

Another senario NATION A and NATION C are both WA members and NATION C's democratic government had split from an attempted coup and the nation did not have nuclear weapons. NATION A assisted NATION C in helping the origina democratic government regain control from the Dictator government, however to do so, NATION A gives NATION C's deposed democratic government nuclear weapons to destroy the Dictator government which is secure in a reenforced bunker. Would not the current ruling government concider the deposed democratic government rebels/freedom fighters and thus the actions of NATION A would be concidered letting nuclear weapons fall into the 'wrong hands'?

Nope. See my reasoning behind my answer to the previous.

Finally, what penelties are there for not taking every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands? What is concidered 'every available precaution'?

No penalties, and precautions are up to individual nations. It works, as well as it possibly could under how much variety the WA has.

I wish to say that I agree with the premise of this Resolution, however I am not sure it is properly worded.

I would ask the WA to concider repealing this resolution and having it reworded to define (or remove) the words "Wrong Hands" and "Every Available Precaution", and also penelties for not taking precautions as stated in the resolution.

I would be in opposition to that, since "wrong hands" can cause too many problems and, frankly, we don't need penalties.

Thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

ooc: I wasn't around for the original debate and I think I was treating everyone with dignity and respect. Something that I now believe you have no concept of. Looking over just a few of your posts proves civility would be something you lack completely in. Thankfully we have the ignore option for folks like yourself.

I honestly should have listened to the others when they told me to put you on ignore before I even posted for the first time back in Jan. Why I didn't, I don't know but at least it's a correctable mistake.



Goodness, respected Ambassador, within days of joining this organisation the ignorant cultural vandalism of a warmongering and extremist region had been arrogantly brought to bear upon the citizens of the Empire of Urgench in resolution form, despite our attempts to change the minds of that resolution's authors during its drafting, the results were very unpleasant indeed within the Empire. Pity or sympathy were not forthcoming from any quarter for our people.

But even we did not complain so piteously as the respected Ambassador for Karshkovia does over some vaguely brusque criticism. We suggest the respected Ambassador grow a thicker skin and realise that even unpalatable advice may be really rather useful advice.

yours e.t.c.,

I actually think the WA should just repeal WA 10 without replacing it. But then , I've tried that twice, falling just short of quorum each time, so what do I know?

ooc: I wasn't around for the original debate and I think I was treating everyone with dignity and respect. Something that I now believe you have no concept of. Looking over just a few of your posts proves civility would be something you lack completely in. Thankfully we have the ignore option for folks like yourself.

I honestly should have listened to the others when they told me to put you on ignore before I even posted for the first time back in Jan. Why I didn't, I don't know but at least it's a correctable mistake.
If you're going to do this, you will need to:
- draft a repeal
- draft a replacement
- get the repeal to quorum
- get the repeal passed
- get the replacement to quorum
- get the replacement passed.

In the course of such, you are going to encounter people who disagree with you. Grow a skin already.

Do not waste your time on this one anymore. They quit the WA.