NationStates Jolt Archive

Q: But Dr Merrywether, wasn't your last draft an unreadable guffuffnifuff of jargon and endlessly convoluted clauses?
A: Kid, you ain't seen nothing yet...
The World Assembly,

Which is honestly not sick of lots of vague yap about nuclear weapons:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution a nuclear weapon as one that creates a nuclear reaction on detonation;

2. Prohibits member states, and any persons or entities over which they exercise jurisdiction, from:
- transferring to any other state or non-state party nuclear weapons, including means of remote use of such,
- assisting any other state or non-state party in the creation, transhipment to a third party, use, or technical modification of nuclear weapons,
- transferring to any other state or non-state party delivery systems exclusively designed for the use of nuclear weapons, and of delivery systems as there exists probable cause to believe such use would be the primary objective, and of assisting with the creation, acquisition, transhipment or modification of such systems,
- rendering any form of technical assistance to any other state or non-state party with the aim of creating, modifying, or using nuclear weaponry;

3. Exempts from the prohibitions of Clause 2 assistance aimed solely at improving the safety or security of nuclear weapons or the storage facilities for weapons components, disarming or converting to conventional use nuclear weapons, or otherwise aimed solely at compliance with this resolution;

4. Requires any member nation possessing nuclear arms to implement as soon as is practically and safely possible the following minimum measures:
- two-key launch control,
- a clear chain of command for the use of nuclear weapons, including the recognition of deviation from such as a serious criminal offence,
- storage of nuclear weapons and materials at the most secure facilities available,
- plans and the preparation of response scenarios in the event of sabotage, accident, and theft,
- the installation of clear identification marks on all nuclear weapons under their control, and related systems;

5. Further encourages such nations to:
- install, where possible, tracking devices on nuclear weapons in the event of theft,
- research, develop and implement means of aborting launched nuclear weapons without detonating the warhead, and permits cooperation in such activities,
- screen individuals involved in their nuclear programme for psychological well-being and treasonous intent,
- limit their nuclear stockpile to the minimum capacity, in terms of quantity, yield, and distribution, only to that essential for present international security needs;

6. Reminds all member states of their obligations under the WA Counterterrorism Act and, declaring the prevention of nuclear terrorism to be of the highest priority, urges the prohibition of those convicted of nuclear trafficking in violation of this resolution from any arms brokering.
This is already coming up on the word count, and in my view there are other important things to be included, so my initial question would be whether we should omit, from this proposal, the consideration of 'radiological weaponry' and concentrate exclusively on nuclear weaponry. I would note that a template for a separate resolution on the former, if such were required, already exists (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=199).

We present this draft for consideration for three reasons:
1. it's an important subject,
2. both supporters and opponents of the latest repeal seemed to want something of this nature,
3. we're really bored in the office and want to play law.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Eef you like, you may make use of any parts of our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, eef any of eet would be helpful.

Jose Benedito Guillaume-Alexandre Ramirez
Ambassadeur
L'état Français Y Español de Franxico

Then after this starts, then our nations will have to deal with Non-WA nations having their nukes, and our armies left to fight with sticks and an occasional rock if the occasion calls for heavy artillery..... all for the sake of a few bunnies and such.

Really why cant we just leave the nukes alone?

Yeah, I think the radiological issue would best be dealt with separately.

All the bullets make me dizzy. Can't you convert one or two clauses into regular sentences? 1 and 3 should convert rather easily.

Can we stop already with the nukes and the disarmment of the Millitary of the WA memberstates. It's already been tried and it failed misserably, can we just leave it alone already.

Since when is restricting state to state or state to non-state actor proliferation and placing safety regulations on the storage of nukes "disarmament"? The only statement that can be viewed as "disarmament" is a nonbinding clause which does not set a hard limit, only a suggestion.

Quod, it's a good start, but I'm like some of the others I don't think we want to go down this path just yet. Why don't you hold on to it until the grumbling starts again about how we need to manage nukes and the like then re-introduce this? I think you'd have better success that way.

I also, like Kenny believe the whole radiological situation needs to be handled in its own seperate measure.

4. Requires any member nation possessing nuclear arms to implement as soon as is practically and safely possible the following measures:
- two-key launch control,
Even if they currently utilise a three-key system? ;)

- a clear chain of command for the use of nuclear weapons, including the recognition of derivation from such as a serious criminal offence,
"derivation"? "deviation"?

Reminds all member states of their obligations under the WA Counterterrorism Act and, declaring the prevention of nuclear terrorism to be of the highest priority, urges the prohibition of those convicted of nuclear trafficking in violation of this resolution from any arms brokering.

A House of Cards violation? Yes/No ?

I remember the community decision was that you could use the organizations created in a resolution ...but I don't know about mentioning the actual resolution...?

A House of Cards violation? Yes/No ?

I remember the community decision was that you could use the organizations created in a resolution ...but I don't know about mentioning the actual resolution...?



No.


Yours,

In my opinion, it is pointless to have this proposal, because all it would do is make sure that WA nations dont have anyway of defending themselves in this modern time. As Studly Penguins so wisely stated; Then after this starts, then our nations will have to deal with Non-WA nations having their nukes, and our armies left to fight with sticks and an occasional rock if the occasion calls for heavy artillery

If this propsal is posted in the WA, I will have to vote against it for the good of my own country.
~Dominion of Raz-Griz~

In my opinion, it is pointless to have this proposal, because all it would do is make sure that WA nations dont have anyway of defending themselves in this modern time. As Studly Penguins so wisely stated;

If this propsal is posted in the WA, I will have to vote against it for the good of my own country.
~Dominion of Raz-Griz~



Has the honoured Ambassador actually read the statute ? Or are they merely parroting the words of other Ambassadors ?


Yours,

A House of Cards violation? Yes/No ?

I remember the community decision was that you could use the organizations created in a resolution ...but I don't know about mentioning the actual resolution...?
You can remind, recall, applaud, etc., earlier resolutions. What you can't do is create a situation where your resolution depends on the continued existence of the earlier resolution.

You can remind, recall, applaud, etc., earlier resolutions. What you can't do is create a situation where your resolution depends on the continued existence of the earlier resolution.

Okay awesome. That makes a lot of sense. :D

OOC: I think the author of this proposal should concentrate on one proposal at a time instead of posting multiple different proposals at once.

OOC: I think the author of this proposal should concentrate on one proposal at a time instead of posting multiple different proposals at once.

O.O.C. What on earth are you talking about ? Which other proposals has Quod posted recently ? And even if they have posted loads of proposals what makes you imagine they wouldn't be perfectly capable of working on all of them and still producing Quod's usual excellent standard of resolution ?

Eef you like, you may make use of any parts of our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, eef any of eet would be helpful.
Merci, gracias, and el thank de you. I may try to use some of the definition from that resolution.

OOC: Seriously, thank you.Yeah, I think the radiological issue would best be dealt with separately.

All the bullets make me dizzy. Can't you convert one or two clauses into regular sentences? 1 and 3 should convert rather easily.
I'll concentrate on nuclear weapons for now, and thanks for the format suggestion, though I do like a good list in the morning.
Quod, it's a good start, but I'm like some of the others I don't think we want to go down this path just yet. Why don't you hold on to it until the grumbling starts again about how we need to manage nukes and the like then re-introduce this? I think you'd have better success that way.
I disagree that the best time to combat nuclear terrorism is after people start complaining about it.
Even if they currently utilise a three-key system?
Though realistically no nation would deliberately make its nuclear facilities less safe simply in order to appease irrelevant pedantry, when I originally made the list I meant the clause to specify the measures as minimum ones; that word has now been reinserted.
"derivation"? "deviation"?
Thanks, changed.

I think 6 is the section that needs most fleshing out, but are there any other obvious precautions that should be included?

-- Dr Merrywether

a clear chain of command for the use of nuclear weapons, including the recognition of deviation from such as a serious criminal offence,

I think you should include a clause demanding competent mental examinations of all those in such a chain of command, - I wouldn't want to see a chain of command controlling nuclear warheads be ruined by one sick loony

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x269/jmknapp/dr_strangelove_general_ripper.jpg

"Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face." - General Jack D. Ripper

If this resolution did not place any restrictions on producing nuclear weapons and it did not place any restrictions on trade, i would not have a problem with this resolution, i suggest that this resolution is only concentrated on the safety regulations of nuclear weapons and the use of it, such as placing a 2 key launch control, placing tracker devices on nuclear weapons and more on the safety regulations then i will not have any problems, but once restrictions are added, there is going to be a problem with my nation and a lot of other nations aswell.

there is going to be a problem with my nation.
In your country there is problem?

In your country there is problem?

Is there a reason for this hostility??

bump