NationStates Jolt Archive

Definitions:

the definitions following are meant as told, unless told otherwise

'life' - the life of any peace-loving species

'weaponry' - includes all forms of weapon, ranging from weapons which may inflict pain to weapons of mass destruction.

'humane weaponry' - weapons that do not inflict any form of excruciating pain which would end a life instantly.

Purpose:

TO REGULATE proper use of weaponry available in the Human Race

TO DEFINE proper use of weaponry at times of conflict

TO PROHIBIT illegal usage of weapons of mass destruction against life

TO REGULATE the research on humane weaponry


TO INCREASE international collaboration on weaponry development

TO COMBINE international resources to the development of weaponry

TO INITIATE international collaborated attacks or defense mechanism at times of global threat

Powers of the International Weaponry Commission:

TO ASSESS the necessity of the use of various weaponry according to circumstance

TO DECIDE on production of weaponry

TO INTRODUCE with the affirmation of the WA legislation to regulate the production of weaponry

TO INSPECT nations with no restrictions whatsoever to maintain peace and stability

TO DISARM any weaponry which may be inhumane or does not abide with weaponry regulations

TO DECLARE a ROUGE NATION whenever a nation is found to possess weapons of mass destruct with malice intentions

TO TAKE any REASONABLE necessary actions to exercise regulations imposed against nations which may include the act of confiscation of weaponry or FORCED intrusion to a nation without consent

How does it do all of this? Also:

TO DECLARE a ROUGE NATION whenever a nation is found to possess weapons of mass destruct with malice intentions

You wish to declare any nation that has weapons of mass destruction with intentions of malice to be red?

The Commission is free to do whatever they want provided it is within the considerations of the powers listed above and the purpose of such actions are clear and transparent to all.

That's how the commission achieve the purposes as stated above.

Yes, any nation in possession of weapons of mass destruction with malice intentions (an intention to deprive peace) will be declared as a Rogue Nation. I leave the WA to decide what a Rogue Nation deserves under these circumstance.

The Commission is free to do whatever they want provided it is within the considerations of the powers listed above and the purpose of such actions are clear and transparent to all.

That's how the commission achieve the purposes as stated above.

Yes, any nation in possession of weapons of mass destruction with malice intentions (an intention to deprive peace) will be declared as a Rogue Nation. I leave the WA to decide what a Rogue Nation deserves under these circumstance.

So, let me see if I have this correct: A nation, let's say made entirely out of an ancient insect race that's kinda a wee bit angry over having their tails whipped, decides to invade my commonwealth. And they pretty much are going to capture everyone they can and slowly eat them alive while forcing their loved ones to watch. Now, I can stop this by dropping a nuke on their capital, which would kill only 5 million now and another 25 million over the next few hundred years. Or I can use conventional missiles, which would end up killing 100 million of them now and possibly dooming their entire race to a slow spiral into extinction.

Are you telling me that really is better?

Often, weapons of mass destruction are intended as deterrants. The idea is that you kill a few people in an overwhelming show of force, with the implied threat that you can do it to the rest, and you end up killing far less in the long run. Or, even, outright preventing wars from starting. However, if you use conventional weaponry, you often end up having to kill a lot more people to get the point across.

Definitions:

the definitions following are meant as told, unless told otherwise

'life' - the life of any peace-loving species

"peace-loving species"? Well, that excludes humans... ;)



Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

"peace-loving species"? Well, that excludes humans... ;)



Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

It also excludes night elves, blood elves, orcs, silithid, murlocs... well, pretty much everyone in Eluneyasa except the space goats and the hippy moo cows.

Well lets just put it this way, it prevents nations from firing nukes at each other, and it allows the international community to access these nukes when our homeland is invaded by aliens (if we do get invaded)

AND, it'll boost transparency in the world, therefore enhancing the trust between nations. It also acts as a deterrence to war-mongering species such as the ants you were talking about. And yes, we would nuke them if they are capable of such inhumane acts. But lets be reasonable, ants can't eat people.

Well lets just put it this way, it prevents nations from firing nukes at each other, and it allows the international community to access these nukes when our homeland is invaded by aliens (if we do get invaded)

AND, it'll boost transparency in the world, therefore enhancing the trust between nations. It also acts as a deterrence to war-mongering species such as the ants you were talking about. And yes, we would nuke them if they are capable of such inhumane acts. But lets be reasonable, ants can't eat people.

Actually, yes, ants can. Certain tribes of Native Americans and, IIRC, Africans actually used to execute people by tying them over ant hills and leaving them to get eaten. Not a pleasant way to go, but these typically weren't pleasant people being executed this way.

But, still, what does this actually do? Yeah, it creates a commission. Yeah, they can inspect weapons. Yeah, they can declare a nation to be rouge, rogue, whatever. Yeah, they can sit back and twiddle their thumbs as they are ignored and nuclear weapons are freely dropped on ant hills to prevent them from ever eating people again.

It's ultimately a do-nothing committee. Do we really need another one?

the world requires an international body to be a mediator of trust in the matters of weaponry. Clearly, there's lack of transparency and therefore there is a need for such commission. Furthermore, it regulates researches on such weaponry.

Hmm. Well, in any case, this proposal is illegal, under two things. One:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835811&postcount=12

That one allows nations to have nuclear weapons for defensive purposes (which are illegal under the wording of your proposal, since radiation poisoning can actually be extremely painful and something that lasts a long time), and it leaves it up to the nations to decide if they want to possess nukes or not.

It also, due to vagueness, may also reproduce this resolution:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14629406&postcount=42

And, finally, it might cross the line on the idea of a world police or WA army, due to this part:

TO TAKE any REASONABLE necessary actions to exercise regulations imposed against nations which may include the act of confiscation of weaponry or FORCED intrusion to a nation without consent.

I had hoped to argue you down a bit without using those.

Thank you Eluneyasa for your comments and arguments, i shall redraft this straight away and re-title this to something more appropriate.

The Commission is free to do whatever they want provided it is within the considerations of the powers listed above and the purpose of such actions are clear and transparent to all.

That's how the commission achieve the purposes as stated above.

Yes, any nation in possession of weapons of mass destruction with malice intentions (an intention to deprive peace) will be declared as a Rogue Nation. I leave the WA to decide what a Rogue Nation deserves under these circumstance.

And what exactly is your problem with Rogue Nations? I happen to be here representing one.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

TO REGULATE proper use of weaponry available in the Human Race

Hmm. It's a good thing that we're not human in the Republic, I suppose. None of our weaponry would be regulated by this proposal. But of course, now that I've pointed that out, I'm sure it will be changed.

The Republic is against any proposal that would seek to limit WA nations from being able to adequately defend themselves against those that are not bound by these proposals.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Definitions:
'weaponry' - includes all forms of weapon, ranging from weapons which may inflict pain to weapons of mass destruction.

Sharp pointy sticks and rocks could fall into this category

TO DECIDE on production of weaponry

TO INTRODUCE with the affirmation of the WA legislation to regulate the production of weaponry

You want to decide and regulate our production of sharp pointy sticks and rocks, best get rid of all the trees and volcanos to be on the safe side.

TO DISARM any weaponry which may be inhumane or does not abide with weaponry regulations

How do you disarm a rock?


TO TAKE any REASONABLE necessary actions to exercise regulations imposed against nations which may include the act of confiscation of weaponry or FORCED intrusion to a nation without consent
Who does the forced intrusion? The WA has no army.

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate

This is just another attempt in imposing it's socialist/communist views on the WA.

How do you disarm a rock?

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate

I'd suggest crushing it into dust, but even that could be used a weapon, just aim for the eyes.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Definitions:

'humane weaponry' - weapons that do not inflict any form of excruciating pain which would end a life instantly.



Some might argue it's less humane to end a life slowly.

TO REGULATE the research on humane weaponry


What is your view on a "Humane weapon"? Weapons were created to kill.

Sharp pointy sticks and rocks could fall into this category

Don't forget Bows and Arrows.

Don't forget Bows and Arrows.

What's an arrow besides a sharp pointy stick, possibly with a rock at one end.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

the idea of humane weaponry would be a weapon designed to end a life instantly with the least pain caused possible.

the idea of humane weaponry would be a weapon designed to end a life instantly with the least pain caused possible.

"Nuclear weapons are pretty effective at this," Thundra said, sipping from a cup of tea. "They instantly disintegrate targets within a certain range of the blast zone. Our scientists theorize it happens so fast that people don't even have the chance to feel pain."

Oh, for the love of the gods....no. no. A thousand times no.

If it isn't bad enough that people are trying to prevent us from having orbital weapons, now they're trying to prevent us from having, well, virtually any weapon at all unless it passes the muster of some commission.

Weapons aren't supposed to be humane. They kill living beings. That's what they're for. And we're not about to sit on our hands if we're in the midst of a fight for our nation or our lives while some WA committee sits around and discusses if we're to be allowed to have a slingshot, or maybe just the rubberband without the rock or stick.

In particular, this ain't happening:

TO TAKE any REASONABLE necessary actions to exercise regulations imposed against nations which may include the act of confiscation of weaponry or FORCED intrusion to a nation without consent

In the Federation, if you try forcing your way into someone's home without consent, you're likely to get your head blown off. Consider that on a national scale, and realize what you're asking the WA to get itself into, with any nation your "commission" deems to be noncompliant.

In case you can't tell, my government is unalterably and completely opposed to this blatantly misguided, uberfluffy interference in our defense matters.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

REDRAFT #1

TITLE changed to: Weaponry Regulations

Definitions:

the definitions following are meant as told, unless told otherwise

'life' - the life of any species which no intentions of causing harm to others

'weaponry' - weapons which may inflict pain and may eliminate concentrated populations.

'humane weaponry' - weapons that do not inflict any form of excruciating pain over a substantial period of time which would end a life as quickly as possible.

'rogue nation' - a nation bound by this legislation which does not comply with the regulations set out in this document.

Purpose:

TO REGULATE proper use of weaponry

TO DEFINE proper use of weaponry at times of conflict

TO PROHIBIT illegal usage of weaponry against life

TO REGULATE the research on humane weaponry

TO INCREASE international collaboration on humane weaponry development

TO COMBINE international resources to the development of humane weaponry

Act:

The WA hereby decrees:


1. Nations in possession of weaponry should declare their weaponry stockpile to ease international tensions.

2. Nations with malice intentions to use weaponry for offensive purposes shall be required to explain to the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission, where the commission shall decide on the necessity to involve weaponry.

3. Nations in possession of any inhumane weaponry as defined in this regulation shall hereby be required to dismantle their weaponry if the Commission is satisfied that such weaponry is inhumane beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Nations shall keep existing humane weaponry for the purposes of defense as the WA understands that not every single nation in this universe is bound by the regulations and legislations set by the WA.

5. Nations are not prohibited from using their weaponry for offensive purposes, however this regulation does require nations to explain the reasons to involve weaponry.

6. Nations shall no longer be researching on inhumane weaponry

Powers of the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission (IWSC):

TO ASSESS the necessity of the use of various weaponry according to circumstance with regards to the privileges set by pass resolutions which allows individual nations to exercise the use of their weaponry for defensive purposes.

TO DECIDE on production of weaponry, where the commission may be satisfied that certain weaponry is of inhumane nature, such weaponry shall be made obsolete.

TO INQUIRE nations on matters in relations to weaponry to maintain peace and stability, where nations will be required to declare the weaponry in storage.

TO INSTRUCT the disarmament of any weaponry which may be inhumane or does not abide with weaponry regulations for the purposes of this legislation.

TO DECLARE a ROUGE NATION whenever a nation is found to possess inhumane weaponry with malice intentions to disturb the peace

TO REQUEST warrants to access nations for necessary actions to be exercised where thorough surveillance shall be executed and reported to the commission directly.

Still (possibly even more) opposed. This flat out weakens member nations and leave them subject to the whims of the WA Gnomes when it comes to defending themselves.

We will not check with the WA to see if our guns will kill someone within the allotted time as to make them 'humane', as if an object designed to kill something can every be truly consider humane.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador - USoP

We fear this redraft is still ridiculous in many aspects.

'life' - the life of any species which no intentions of causing harm to others
Still a bizarre definition that undoes almost every subsequent effort, since most sapients have, at least at times, intentions of causing harm. Also the subordinate clause lacks a verb.

'weaponry' - weapons which may inflict pain and may eliminate concentrated populations.
If you mean 'weapons of mass destruction' say so, and stop pussy-footing around. This definition would still be incorrect, but at least no one would be thinking in terms of machine guns and flame throwers any more.

'humane weaponry' - weapons that do not inflict any form of excruciating pain over a substantial period of time which would end a life as quickly as possible.
This definition is now rendered useless by its self-contradictory nature. Excruciating pain over a substantial period of time clearly will not end a life as quickly as possible.

'rogue nation' - a nation bound by this legislation which does not comply with the regulations set out in this document.
This definition is facile. Any nation bound by this legislation will comply with it, no matter what certain members may bray.

We will skip over the purposes, pausing only to note that the proposal fails all of them.

1. Nations in possession of weaponry should declare their weaponry stockpile to ease international tensions.
Would sir care for a count of bullets as well? We can well imagine circumstances in which this would increase international tensions rather than ease them.

2. Nations with malice intentions to use weaponry for offensive purposes shall be required to explain to the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission, where the commission shall decide on the necessity to involve weaponry.
What International Weaponry Surveillance Commission? At no point does this resolution actually create this body; certainly, this is the first reference to it.

Further, "malice intentions" (sic) are an unprovable phenomenon, being solely the state of mind of national leaders, so the entire clause is unworkable.

3. Nations in possession of any inhumane weaponry as defined in this regulation shall hereby be required to dismantle their weaponry if the Commission is satisfied that such weaponry is inhumane beyond reasonable doubt.
The proposal does not define inhumane weaponry. It defines humane weaponry (badly) instead. Therefore again, the clause is vacuous.

4. Nations shall keep existing humane weaponry for the purposes of defense as the WA understands that not every single nation in this universe is bound by the regulations and legislations set by the WA.
Nor does the WA forbid war between members. Given the unfortunate definition humane weaponry, at least this currently allows us to keep everything. Indeed, it would prevent future resolutions from outlawing bioweaponry or the like!

5. Nations are not prohibited from using their weaponry for offensive purposes, however this regulation does require nations to explain the reasons to involve weaponry.
It would be better if this regulation actually did that, rather than merely saying that it does. "...nations are required to..." rather than "...this regulation does require nations to..." in other words.

6. Nations shall no longer be researching on inhumane weaponry
Again, given the unfortunate definitions, this clause does nothing.

Powers of the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission (IWSC):

TO ASSESS the necessity of the use of various weaponry according to circumstance with regards to the privileges set by pass resolutions which allows individual nations to exercise the use of their weaponry for defensive purposes.
Either this is repeating clauses 2 and 3, or it's doing something entirely different and is being extremely unclear about it. In either case, it needs rewriting or deleting.

TO DECIDE on production of weaponry, where the commission may be satisfied that certain weaponry is of inhumane nature, such weaponry shall be made obsolete.
This assuredly is repeating clause 3, and hence is undesirable.

TO INQUIRE nations on matters in relations to weaponry to maintain peace and stability, where nations will be required to declare the weaponry in storage.
This appears to be retreading clause 1, but involving the commission this time. Saying the variations of the same thing twice has the danger of introducing ambiguity; it not an excessively great danger in this particular case, but it is still unwise.

TO INSTRUCT the disarmament of any weaponry which may be inhumane or does not abide with weaponry regulations for the purposes of this legislation.
This is a new power, and quite unwelcome. Were it to cause the disarmament of weaponry which is inhumane that would be one thing, but weaponry that may be is quite another matter. This is lazy legislation.

TO DECLARE a ROUGE NATION whenever a nation is found to possess inhumane weaponry with malice intentions to disturb the peace
We refer the author to our previous comments concerning "malice intentions", and observe that this power is somewhat pointless in any case. Declaring a nation to be red will do nothing.

TO REQUEST warrants to access nations for necessary actions to be exercised where thorough surveillance shall be executed and reported to the commission directly.
This is a carte blanche for spying on any and all subjects, and we shall not stand for it.

'life' - the life of any species which no intentions of causing harm to others

"Yay! Humans don't count as life! We get to kill as many of them as we want!" Silara squealed.

"Elf, you are way too disturbing," Gorim said.

'weaponry' - weapons which may inflict pain and may eliminate concentrated populations.

"Gravity is a weapon?" Engle asked. "This definition covers everything in existance."

'humane weaponry' - weapons that do not inflict any form of excruciating pain over a substantial period of time which would end a life as quickly as possible.

"Nuclear weapons are good with this. It's not the actual weapon that inflicts any pain once it has gone off," Silara said, looking at Thundra's notes.

'rogue nation' - a nation bound by this legislation which does not comply with the regulations set out in this document.

"Isn't compliance mandatory?" Engle asked.

Purpose:

TO REGULATE proper use of weaponry

TO DEFINE proper use of weaponry at times of conflict

TO PROHIBIT illegal usage of weaponry against life

TO REGULATE the research on humane weaponry

TO INCREASE international collaboration on humane weaponry development

TO COMBINE international resources to the development of humane weaponry

"And it fails at all of these," Gorim said. "We'll explain how each of the provisions is a bad idea when we get to them."

Act:

The WA hereby decrees:


1. Nations in possession of weaponry should declare their weaponry stockpile to ease international tensions.

"Do you really think finding out your neighbor has a bunch of weaponized diseases is really going to ease tensions?" Silara asked.

2. Nations with malice intentions to use weaponry for offensive purposes shall be required to explain to the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission, where the commission shall decide on the necessity to involve weaponry.

"But they don't actually have the power to stop anyone from using them," Silara said.

"And an invading nation could always use this to delay defenses while they take over," Terrim added. "And use this to get away with committing all kinds of attrocities to visitors. Not to mention the fact this makes every nation in the assembly unreliable when it comes to military alliances."

3. Nations in possession of any inhumane weaponry as defined in this regulation shall hereby be required to dismantle their weaponry if the Commission is satisfied that such weaponry is inhumane beyond reasonable doubt.

"Once again, how do we dismantle gravity?" Engle asked.

"Maybe we have to blow up Earth?" Gorim asked, shrugging.

"Hey, don't we know a couple nations with Death Stars?" Silara asked.

"That is an incredibly disturbing idea," Engle muttered.

4. Nations shall keep existing humane weaponry for the purposes of defense as the WA understands that not every single nation in this universe is bound by the regulations and legislations set by the WA.

"And yet, still requires us to dismantle gravity," Engle countered. "I'm pretty sure that affects nonmembers directly."

5. Nations are not prohibited from using their weaponry for offensive purposes, however this regulation does require nations to explain the reasons to involve weaponry.

"Which strips the point of having the commission in the first place!" Silara squealed.

6. Nations shall no longer be researching on inhumane weaponry

"Wait, now we're not even allowed to research gravity?" Engle asked. "This just gets more and more rediculous."

Powers of the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission (IWSC):

TO ASSESS the necessity of the use of various weaponry according to circumstance with regards to the privileges set by pass resolutions which allows individual nations to exercise the use of their weaponry for defensive purposes.

TO DECIDE on production of weaponry, where the commission may be satisfied that certain weaponry is of inhumane nature, such weaponry shall be made obsolete.

TO INQUIRE nations on matters in relations to weaponry to maintain peace and stability, where nations will be required to declare the weaponry in storage.

TO INSTRUCT the disarmament of any weaponry which may be inhumane or does not abide with weaponry regulations for the purposes of this legislation.

TO DECLARE a ROUGE NATION whenever a nation is found to possess inhumane weaponry with malice intentions to disturb the peace

TO REQUEST warrants to access nations for necessary actions to be exercised where thorough surveillance shall be executed and reported to the commission directly.

"Wait, I think we have a violation of the rule on police forces here..." Engle began. "Not entirely sure."

"In any case, it's utterly worthless," Silara added. "The Gobbannium ambassador covered it quite well."

We're opposed for many reasons, but this one takes the cake:


2. Nations with malice intentions to use weaponry for offensive purposes shall be required to explain to the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission, where the commission shall decide on the necessity to involve weaponry.

So, a nation has to get permission before an execution of a convicted criminal? A nation has to get permission before going to war? Sure sounds like it here.

The respected ambassadors from Eluneyasa pointed out something as well. There's nothing in there to stop them from going ahead and doing it anyway.

What's going to happen to the nation? They're declared "a Rouge Nation". Now, I'll be honest, this made Emperor Darson laugh, and he rarely laughs at any WA proposal. So, a nation requests permission, is denied, goes to war anyway, declared "rouge", then what? Absolutely nothing. We'd be an organization full of at least half "rouge" nations!

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

I am greatly amused at the thought of a bureacracy deciding what weapons the members of the WA may or may not use or even research.

Just a heads up, us rogue nations have no such restrictions ;)

With all due respect, if anything, this new version is worse than the one that came before it. You're obviously not taking our concerns into account.

'life' - the life of any species which no intentions of causing harm to others

So, if this species does intend to cause harm to others, we can ignore this whole piece of legislation, then?

'weaponry' - weapons which may inflict pain and may eliminate concentrated populations.

That covers virtually every weapon known to man short of giving someone a paper cut. You cannot be serious with this.

'humane weaponry' - weapons that do not inflict any form of excruciating pain over a substantial period of time which would end a life as quickly as possible.

So instead of using conventional weapons, we can just use WMDs on our enemies, using your logic. They end life very quickly, and any pain suffered sure doesn't last long. How, by the gods, would this be better for the international community than conventional weapons use?

'rogue nation' - a nation bound by this legislation which does not comply with the regulations set out in this document.

As already pointed out by others, compliance is mandatory.

<snip>

1. Nations in possession of weaponry should declare their weaponry stockpile to ease international tensions.

The only thing this clause will ease is the ability of other nations to conduct espionage to find out what defensive capabilities a prospective opponent has.

2. Nations with malice intentions to use weaponry for offensive purposes shall be required to explain to the International Weaponry Surveillance Commission, where the commission shall decide on the necessity to involve weaponry.

So, if a nation plans to act with malicious intent, you expect them to go before the WA and tell everyone they're going to do it?

4. Nations shall keep existing humane weaponry for the purposes of defense as the WA understands that not every single nation in this universe is bound by the regulations and legislations set by the WA.

If the WA truly understands this, they will never hamstring the ability of member states to defend themselves in the manner you are proposing. I think it is your delegation that does not understand the point that non-WA nations are not bound by our rules.

5. Nations are not prohibited from using their weaponry for offensive purposes, however this regulation does require nations to explain the reasons to involve weaponry.

So, just as an example, if a nation is threatening us, we have to come before the WA, and explain that we plan to use force to prevent that threat from becoming reality, while at the same time hoping that the nation threatening us isn't watching the WA that day to find out about our plan, and that the WA gives us permission to act to defend ourselves? Why don't you just call this the "Mandatory Defeat of WA States In War" proposal? That's basically what this amounts to.

6. Nations shall no longer be researching on inhumane weaponry

No, WA nations would no longer be researching "inhumane weaponry", if your ludicrous ideas came to pass. I can assure you that non WA nations will have no such scruples. Again, see my response to your clause 4.

TO REQUEST warrants to access nations for necessary actions to be exercised where thorough surveillance shall be executed and reported to the commission directly.

As the Gobbannean representative has pointed out, this essentially gives the WA the right and power to spy on us, with completely vague restrictions and virtually unlimited power. Our response to that is simple. We don't like to be the nation that says "we're taking our ball and going home" if we don't get our way, but your proposed legislation is incredibly naive, and poses a direct threat to our national security. If it ever were to pass, we'd be out of here about a second later.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

The answer is NO!! As this proposal was not approved and there were not enough votes inorder to put the proposal through a vote in the WA therefore let's just put this topic to rest once and for all. No nation is stupid enough to disarm itself and to destroy all it's weapons and defenses.

The answer is NO!! As this proposal was not approved and there were not enough votes inorder to put the proposal through a vote in the WA therefore let's just put this topic to rest once and for all. No nation is stupid enough to disarm itself and to destroy all it's weapons and defenses.

Well said.

His Hon. Foreign Ambassador has expressed his regret as to the responses given by other nations in this matter. The government of the Commonwealth shall leave this matter and shall not proceed in this matter as to satisfy the preferences of the world.