NationStates Jolt Archive

Members of the World Assembly must realize and accept the responsibility of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons or nuclear material to any entity with malicious intent. This resolution is intended to promote international security and prevent the use of nuclear weapons by groups in acts of terrorism, unprovoked attacks, or simply to cause destruction.

Section One:

Article 1 § A nuclear weapon is defined as any device that uses the processes of nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, or any device that releases nuclear radiation or radioactive materials to achieve destructive means.

Article 2 § Member states must take adequate measures to safeguard any nuclear weapon or nuclear material manufactured or acquired by any means within its territory. The production of radioactive materials by non-state organizations within a nations territories and borders must be monitored by some form of government organization and confirm the presence of or provide necessary procedures and protocols to prevent the dissemination of radioactive material.

Article 3 § Any non-government organizations in the territory of a non-nuclear capable member state are bound by this resolution as well.

Section Two:

Article 1 § Malicious intent is defined as purposely intending to harm, kill, or destroy civilians, infrastructure, property, government personnel, political systems, or any established doctrine or policy by a nation.

Article 2 § The sale, distribution, transfer, or dissemination of any nuclear weapon, radioactive material, or schematics of functional nuclear weapons for malicious use is immediately banned upon the adoption of this resolution. Any state found in violation of this article will be held responsible for the consequences that arise as a result of the transaction.

Article 3 § Members may distribute and sell nuclear weapons to nations as a tool of defense, and is highly recommended that said state be a member of the World Assembly. Nuclear materials may be distributed and sold to both non-government and government organizations for the means of energy production, advancement of technology, research, construction of products or for non-malicious reasons.

Unfortunately, we currently have a resolution called the Nuclear Arms Possession Act, which this contradicts. You'd have to repeal that resolution first (it's resolution 10) before submitting this proposal.

Big no!! There is already a resolution on Nuclear Proliferation Act, this proposal is illegal and it violates a nations sovereignty, each nation is allowed to possess nuclear weapons if it wishes to do so and over 40-50% of members of WA possess nuclear weapons and now if this proposal were to be approved, voted in favor and enacted, majority of members of WA will end up being kicked out for the possession of nuclear arms or for estsblishing a uranium minning sector as a major industry in their nation.

As long as they are not selling Uranium to terrorists then its fine. This proposal is meant to prevent groups that are hostile to WA members and citizens in general. A nation can possess nuclear arms and mine and sell uranium, just take efforts to prevent said weapons and materials from being distibuted to groups with malicous intent.

This proposal is more then just to prevent uranium or nuclear arms going into terrorist organisations.

It's illegal and should be scrapped.

I completely disagree. If I want to sell uranium and nuclear arms to 'terrorist' organizations, its my own business!

But in all seriousness, tight controls on nuclear technology often hinders advancement, even with stipulations for research. It is a gray area as far as evidence of intent is concerned.

Governments need to control the supply of nuclear material, and the current clause in resolution 10 isnt enough. The modern era is not the place to lax regulations on safeguarding a nations nuclear weapons or a corporation handing out weapon grades plutonium to any one with enough money.

I will be redrafting, hopefully I can make it more appealing then.

Since people are comparing this to my resolution, I'll throw my two cents in. There is no contradiction, this proposal is about giving them to others, my resolution is about possessing them. There is, however, a duplication problem. Section 1, Article 2 of this proposal (specifically the first sentence thereof) is basically the same thing as clause 3 of my resolution. Also, Section 2, Article 1 is illegal.
Section Two:
Article 1 § The sale, distribution, transfer, or dissemination of any nuclear weapon, radioactive material, or schematics of functional nuclear weapons for malicious use is immediately banned upon the adoption of this resolution. Any state found in violation of this article are to be immediately ejected from the World Assembly, will beheld responsible for any consequences of the sale or distribution or said nuclear weapon, and tried in international court for said consequences. The underlined section is the problem, you can't mandate ejection form the WA as a punishment, and how can someone be tried in an international court when we don't have one?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I think that preventing the sale of nuclear firearms to self-proclaiming terrorists is ok. However, not all nuclear firearms are used to destroy nations. They can be used for research purposes, such as nuclear energy. "Destructive purposes" could be taken as research having a negative impact on the environment. Any person could say that.

The Federalist Ruler of the Soundgardens

I feel as if this should be dropped. My nation has nukes, and we sell arms internationally to more nations than we can count. We have opposed and will continue to oppose any legislation restricting any Arms trade or sell, submitting transactions to an International body.

Just keep in mind "One man's terrorist is another Man's soldier, just as terrorist organisation to one is an Army to another"

OOC: Any proposal to do with Non Non Nuclear Proliferation will be strongly rejected and will come with full criticism.

This proposal is illegal and should be thrown in the thrash bin and this proposal should never see the lights in the WA.

Withdraw your proposal on the Non-Proliferation Nuclear Act Resolution as it is bound to be illegal. My nation if it desires and wants too, we will sell it to terrorists, one nations soldier is another nations terrorist and therefore your proposal must be thrown in the bin. You are in no position to dictate what other nations are allowed to do in terms of trade and what happens in another nations internal affairs.

I am a member of the World Assembly, and simply as a nation of the world I have a right to propose a resolution intended to improve international security. Nuclear material should not be able to be funneled to any group on a whim. What you are saying is you want to be able to carelessly sell weapons and materials with no consequences. That is like handing out loaded weapons to anyone stupid enough the trigger and not bein held accountable. What if we sold nuclear weapons to an organization your territory because they had enough money, and then they detonated them in your population centers, shouldnt we have prevented it or be held accountable?

I will not withdraw this proposal, it will be redrafted and I will push for for it to come to vote.

There are already regulations, Acts and resolutions which prevents this from happening. It is mainly common sense and no nation is stupid enough to sell these devices and weapons of mass destructions to unstable nations or to criminal organisations. There are already Missile Defense Systems on the international market which protects each nation and region from such nuclear attacks.

Your proposal is deemed illegal and must be scrapped.

There is one clause in Resolution 10 which simply states you should safeguard your nuclear weapons, hardly the [i]Resolutions[i] you speak of. And if it is common sense, why is this proposal illegal?

Because there is already a resolution on this as you mentioned in your last post. This illegal proposal contradicts the other two nuclear resolutions which was approved and passed through the WA.

Because there is already a resolution on this as you mentioned in your last post. This illegal proposal contradicts the other two nuclear resolutions which was approved and passed through the WA.

Will you please SHUT UP?! Yes, as it's currently written it is illegal, but the problem is not contradiction. I've already pointed out exactly what parts make this illegal here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14535717&postcount=9). If those two parts are removed then this proposal is perfectly legal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

There are already regulations, Acts and resolutions which prevents this from happening. It is mainly common sense and no nation is stupid enough to sell these devices and weapons of mass destructions to unstable nations or to criminal organisations. There are already Missile Defense Systems on the international market which protects each nation and region from such nuclear attacks.

Your proposal is deemed illegal and must be scrapped.


Indeed nobody but the honoured Ambassador for Serbian Soviet Union has deemed this proposal illegal. The hostility the honoured Ambassador has shown towards the authors of this proposal is odious as are their injunctions against further proceedings in the development of what might in fact become a useful and worthy statute.


This is not the honoured Ambassador for Serbian Soviet Union's sand box and no one need feel bound by their instructions on how to play in it.


Yours,

Redrafted.

The current resolutions as stated before are not being contradicted by this proposal, therefore is not illegal and will not be deleted.

Members of the World Assembly must realize and accept the responsibility of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons or nuclear material to any entity with malicious intent. This resolution is intended to promote international security and prevent the use of nuclear weapons by groups in acts of terrorism, unprovoked attacks, or simply to cause destruction.

This preamble, in our opinion, is not clear enough and is liable to be misinterpreted. Making it clearer and simpler would be of great utility.

Section One:

Article 1 § A nuclear weapon is defined as any device that uses the processes of nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, or any device that releases nuclear radiation or radioactive materials to achieve destructive means.

Presumably the underlined should be "ends" not "means" ?



Article 2 § Member states must take adequate measures to safeguard any nuclear weapon or nuclear material manufactured or acquired by any means within its territory. The production of radioactive materials by non-state organizations within a nations territories and borders must be monitored by some form of government organization and confirm the presence of or provide necessary procedures and protocols to prevent the dissemination of radioactive material.

This is unobjectionable, but perhaps again is too complicated an expression of a simple idea, no ?

Article 3 § Any non-government organizations in the territory of a non-nuclear capable member state are bound by this resolution as well.

Even international or indeed non-national ones ? Or for that matter organisations which originate in non-member states ?



Article 1 § Malicious intent is defined as purposely intending to harm, kill, or destroy civilians, infrastructure, property, government personnel, political systems, or any established doctrine or policy by a nation.

Is it really necessary to define "malicious intent" honoured Ambassador ? In the process this definition creates a rather sweeping and wide ranging legal concept which might have numerous ramifications. Malicious intent is malicious intent after all, why bother to complicate things ?

Article 2 § The sale, distribution, transfer, or dissemination of any nuclear weapon, radioactive material, or schematics of functional nuclear weapons for malicious use is immediately banned upon the adoption of this resolution. Any state found in violation of this article will be held responsible for the consequences that arise as a result of the transaction.

Even with the definition of malicious intent this clause effectively bans all trade in nuclear armaments or the means of creating them. This would be highly injurious to the security and economies of many member states and would face extremely stiff opposition indeed. This clause really should be re-worded.

Article 3 § Members may distribute and sell nuclear weapons to nations as a tool of defense, and is highly recommended that said state be a member of the World Assembly. Nuclear materials may be distributed and sold to both non-government and government organizations for the means of energy production, advancement of technology, research, construction of products or for non-malicious reasons.

Unfortunately this clause is in direct contradiction to the one before it.

Ultimately the government of the Emperor of Urgench would support a regulation of the trade in nuclear and radioactive materials. We suggest the authors of this resolution clearly define what the object of their law is, as simply as possible, and then define clear and coherent provisions to effect this object.

Clarity and coherence are among the paramount virtues of an efficacious statute, we recommend the application of them to the authors of this statute.


Yours sincerely,

The intent of this proposl is not to stop nations of the WA from building and trading nuclear weapons or producing materials. And yes, organizations that originate in non-member states, but operate in member states territory would be held to this resolution.

Thank you for your input, further revisions will be made, perhaps you would like to be a co-author?

The intent of this proposl is not to stop nations of the WA from building and trading nuclear weapons or producing materials. And yes, organizations that originate in non-member states, but operate in member states territory would be held to this resolution.

Thank you for your input, further revisions will be made, perhaps you would like to be a co-author?


We will help you to the extent that our delegation is able, unfortunately our military advisor is currently lost, presumed dead, in the Himalayas and no replacement will be forth coming until our minister decides to reorganise the delegation. Therefore it would be sensible to obtain the assistance or involvement of a more technically conversant delegation with more specialised knowledge of this field.

Our specialism, if such it may be called and meagre though it may be, would be of a legal kind.

We will continue to offer our assistance so long as it seems productive to your endeavour.


Yours,

The intent of this proposl is not to stop nations of the WA from building and trading nuclear weapons or producing materials. And yes, organizations that originate in non-member states, but operate in member states territory would be held to this resolution.

Thank you for your input, further revisions will be made, perhaps you would like to be a co-author?

The WA has no jurisdiction over non-WA entities. The only thing resolutions can control are the laws of WA nations.

Indeed nobody but the honoured Ambassador for Serbian Soviet Union has deemed this proposal illegal.

Truthfully, I was calling the original draft of proposal illegal myself. The major difference between my declarations of illegality and those of the ambassador from the Serbian_Soviet_Union is that I showed exactly what was illegal and why.

And I still maintain that Section 1, Article 2 is dangerously close to duplicating clause 3 of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Truthfully, I was calling the original draft of proposal illegal myself. The major difference between my declarations of illegality and those of the ambassador from the Serbian_Soviet_Union is that I showed exactly what was illegal and why.

And I still maintain that Section 1, Article 2 is dangerously close to duplicating clause 3 of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


That doesn't mean that the entire concept of this statute is Illegal though does it honoured Ambassador Flibble ?

Yours,

Article 2 § The sale, distribution, transfer, or dissemination of any nuclear weapon, radioactive material, or schematics of functional nuclear weapons for malicious use is immediately banned upon the adoption of this resolution. Any state found in violation of this article will be held responsible for the consequences that arise as a result of the transaction.

This article contradicts this one here,

Article 3 § Members may distribute and sell nuclear weapons to nations as a tool of defense, and is highly recommended that said state be a member of the World Assembly. Nuclear materials may be distributed and sold to both non-government and government organizations for the means of energy production, advancement of technology, research, construction of products or for non-malicious reasons.

This proposal is stupid and a waste of time and the only place this proposal should goto is to the rubbish bin.

This proposal is stupid and a waste of time and the only place this proposal should goto is to the rubbish bin.

"So-called Serbian Soviet Union...."

"...Zhri govno i zdohni!"

Throws the entire Serbian_Soviet_Union delegation, their desks, chairs, stationery, computers, and assorted vile Serbian food items OUT THE WINDOW.

"Yob tvoyu mat!"

""""Pojedi sva govna picka ti materina""""

Gets up and goes upto the Iron Felix delegations, picks up their desks, chairs, stationery, computers and throws everything out the window and gets the Iron Felix's food and stomps on it and spits on the Iron Felix's delegations

""""Fujj!!! Mater ti tvoji jebem""""

Article 2 § The sale, distribution, transfer, or dissemination of any nuclear weapon, radioactive material, or schematics of functional nuclear weapons for malicious use is immediately banned upon the adoption of this resolution. Any state found in violation of this article will be held responsible for the consequences that arise as a result of the transaction.

This article contradicts this one here,

Article 3 § Members may distribute and sell nuclear weapons to nations as a tool of defense, and is highly recommended that said state be a member of the World Assembly. Nuclear materials may be distributed and sold to both non-government and government organizations for the means of energy production, advancement of technology, research, construction of products or for non-malicious reasons.

As stated in said information you quoted, the major difference would be distributing for defense purposes, or to nations or organizations with malicous intent.

Truthfully, I was calling the original draft of proposal illegal myself. The major difference between my declarations of illegality and those of the ambassador from the Serbian_Soviet_Union is that I showed exactly what was illegal and why.

And I still maintain that Section 1, Article 2 is dangerously close to duplicating clause 3 of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Yes it is close, but Article 2 covers the protection of nuclear material as well by both private and government organizations handeling weapons or radioactive material.

If any parts of the old UNR # 151 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737951&postcount=152) would be helpful you have my permission to use them.

OOC: The Arnhem Federation your proposal is illegal and WA does not have any jurisdiction outside the WA assembly, therefore this proposal should be scrapped asap.

OOC: My nation has a leading industry of uranium minning, five powerplants, five giant underground storage for nuclear warheads, we have 10 nuclear silo's to launch them, we have a missile defense system orbitting from space and also a ground missile defense system which protects my nation from nuclear attacks.

So will i now be ejected from the WA or will there be any punishment according to your illegal proposal?

OCC: No, you could keep all of that, as long as you are not selling or handing out uranium or warheads to groups with malicous intent. And if it is illegal, I revise, not scrap.

The WA has no jurisdiction over non-WA entities. The only thing resolutions can control are the laws of WA nations.
The first statement does not completely follow from the second, honoured ambassador. The WA can exert control over non-WA entities indirectly through the laws of WA nations, as indeed it affects anything. We would offer resolution #25, the WA Counterterrorism Act, as an example of the WA so affecting non-state actors.

That said, it would be clearer to recast the relevant article in the form of demanding that member nations prevent non-state actors from providing a nuclear arsenal for malicious use, with whatever codacils may be appropriate. Laying strictures directly on those actors does make writing the relevant national laws a harder business than it need be.

OOC: 2/3 members of NS are not members of the WA and therefore it just cannot happen and more and more members of the WA are leaving.

RE The Arnhem Federation: To who my nation wishes to sell it's nuclear materials, uranium or warheads is not the business of your nation.

As long as this proposal is interfering with trade, my nation will continue to bash this proposal untill it has been scrapped in the bin as it is illegal.

When your trade threatens the saftey of my nation, WA Nation, or any nation in general, it becomes an international issue. In my country there are dozens of armed insurrectionist groups, of which almost all would jump at the oppritunity to detonate a nuclear weapon for the hell of it in our Capital. This is not a time where nations can rely on Bordef Patrol and Security to prevent the exchange of nuclear arms. In a world of motor vehicles, aircraft, and advanced seafaring vessels, it is impossible to entirely seal ones borders.

This dangerous practice of distrisbuting nuclear arms and materials on a whim threatens all nations, as well as unguarded nukes and radioactive material. The careless transfer of nuclear arms is as dangerous as simply handing anyone that wants one a nuke. Its not safe for any nation.

OOC: 2/3 members of NS are not members of the WA and therefore it just cannot happen and more and more members of the WA are leaving.
Also OOC: More and more member of NS are leaving, presumably for NS2. The proportion of WA members to non-members seems to be pretty stable, actually.

When your trade threatens the saftey of my nation, WA Nation, or any nation in general, it becomes an international issue. In my country there are dozens of armed insurrectionist groups, of which almost all would jump at the oppritunity to detonate a nuclear weapon for the hell of it in our Capital. This is not a time where nations can rely on Bordef Patrol and Security to prevent the exchange of nuclear arms. In a world of motor vehicles, aircraft, and advanced seafaring vessels, it is impossible to entirely seal ones borders.

This dangerous practice of distrisbuting nuclear arms and materials on a whim threatens all nations, as well as unguarded nukes and radioactive material. The careless transfer of nuclear arms is as dangerous as simply handing anyone that wants one a nuke. Its not safe for any nation.

OOC: Your nation is the least of the WA's or the international communities worries, as your nation has no influence what so ever in the international world and my nation has traded nuclear arms, uranium as such for a long time now and will continue to do so.

The only threat to your nation is your nation that is bringing it upon itself by trying to interfere with another nations trade or it's internal affairs. Your nation is too small to dictate other nations on the terms of trade and millitary.

I am sorry I did not realize that being a smaller member of the World Assembly meant that I have less of a voice than larger nations, I simply assumed that all WA member states could propose resolutions to promote international security. I must have just ended up in the normal world.

I am sorry I did not realize that being a smaller member of the World Assembly meant that I have less of a voice than larger nations, I simply assumed that all WA member states could propose resolutions to promote international security. I must have just ended up in the normal world.

OOC: Appology accepted. You can have a voice, make proposals so as long as it does not cause any conflict of interests, or that it interferes with trade, millitary, economics and the internal affair of a nation. IF none of these things interfere or in anyway try to limit these kind of things and to violate a sovereign nations rights then the proposal is illegal and will not make it into the WA. Such illegal proposals must be scrapped and thrown in the bin.

You dont recognize sarcasm do you?

You dont recognize sarcasm do you?

OOC: There is no sarcasm in a political environment.

OOC: Appology accepted. You can have a voice, make proposals so as long as it does not cause any conflict of interests, or that it interferes with trade, millitary, economics and the internal affair of a nation. IF none of these things interfere or in anyway try to limit these kind of things and to violate a sovereign nations rights then the proposal is illegal and will not make it into the WA. Such illegal proposals must be scrapped and thrown in the bin.


O.O.C. Who are you to tell anyone what they can and can't do around here exactly ? What great well of international influence do you think Serbian Soviet Union may draw on to support it laying down the law in the way you seem to think they have the right to do. Stick to in character attacks on this law based on rp concerns, that at least makes some sense, but ordering other players around out of character as though you write rules around here is not on, cut it out.

OOC: Appology accepted. You can have a voice, make proposals so as long as it does not cause any conflict of interests, or that it interferes with trade, millitary, economics and the internal affair of a nation. IF none of these things interfere or in anyway try to limit these kind of things and to violate a sovereign nations rights then the proposal is illegal and will not make it into the WA. Such illegal proposals must be scrapped and thrown in the bin.
Also OOC: This is utter bullshit.

OOC: Appology accepted. You can have a voice, make proposals so as long as it does not cause any conflict of interests, or that it interferes with trade, millitary, economics and the internal affair of a nation. IF none of these things interfere or in anyway try to limit these kind of things and to violate a sovereign nations rights then the proposal is illegal and will not make it into the WA. Such illegal proposals must be scrapped and thrown in the bin.

OOC: I strongly suggest you refrain from calling proposals illegal until you actually have a handle on what makes a proposal illegal. You can start by reading the proposal rules thread which can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).