At Vote:Strategic Arms Reduction [Complete] [Complete]

Description: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that nuclear weapons are used in warfare,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nuclear weapons play a pivotal role in many nations deterrence policy,

CONCERNED that many nations maintain an over abundant strategic nuclear arsenal, which if utilized to their full extent in a military conflict would cause massive wide scale damage to nations not participating in said conflict ,

ALARMED that the use of nuclear weapons causes horrific damage to the surrounding environment, and massive unneeded civilian casualties, particularly when strategic nuclear weapons are utilized against population centres,

FOR THE PURPOSES of this resolution defines nuclear weapons into the following categories:

Strategic nuclear weapon as a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets as part of a strategic plan, such as nuclear missile bases, military command centers and heavily populated civilian areas such as large towns and cities, delivered by either gravity bomb, or long range missile system,

Tactical nuclear weapon as a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, delivered by gravity bomb, landmine, bomb, or short range rocket/missile system,

The General Assembly:

Declares that member nations shall reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to a minimum required to assure plausible and credible nuclear deterrence from hostile nations,

Defines credible minimal nuclear deterrence as a nation possessing no more strategic nuclear weapons than is necessary to deter an adversary from attacking, without facing an unacceptable level of damage in return,

Upholds member nations rights to possess tactical nuclear arsenals of a strength required to effectively pursue military campaigns which require the use of nuclear weapons to prosecute their military objectives,

Requires member nations to submit to inspection of their nuclear weapons to ensure they are in full compliance with this act.

Chester's normally on the ball to a degree with his arms proposals in whatever shape or form they take. That said, some of this looks... weak by his standards. I tend to expect a lot more from the ambassador from UFoC but it's not a bad proposal either. Just some weaknesses ie:

[quoteRECOGNIZING that nuclear weapons are used in warfare,][/quote]

That said, reviewing further, the definitions aren't bad, Chester normally knows his stuff when it comes to nuclear definitions, so I'm not overly fussed on them.

The crux of the proposal though obviously lies in the mandates, so lets examine

Declares that member nations shall reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to a minimum required to assure plausible and credible nuclear deterrence from hostile nations,

Defines credible minimal nuclear deterrence as a nation possessing no more strategic nuclear weapons than is necessary to deter an adversary from attacking, without facing an unacceptable level of damage in return,

Click to expand...

This worries me, the two seem inherently circular to a degree. The former states one should reduce levels to a minimum. To which I would have said, "Well who defines the minimum?". It then clarifies the minimum in such a way as that still leaves it up to me to define what I feel is an adequate deterrence and damage consolidator.

Upholds member nations rights to possess tactical nuclear arsenals of a strength required to effectively pursue military campaigns which require the use of nuclear weapons to prosecute their military objectives,

Click to expand...

Which is retaining the validation of NAPA essentially.

Requires member nations to submit to inspection of their nuclear weapons to ensure they are in full compliance with this act.

Click to expand...

This one, is something of a head scratcher. If I'm following this to the letter of the law, basically this is how the process works...

• I reduce my Nuclear arsenal to the minimum
• The minimum is what I consider the least amount required to deter an enemy, and reduce collateral damage.
• I determine my current stockpile is exactly the minimum requirement per the above.
• I'm obligated under the terms of this resolution to allow the WA in to see my massive minimum amounts to let them see that I'm at the minimum standard I set myself.

The more I read this during the course of my review, the more I realized this is very much below what I would expect from Mr Pearson. This proposal essentially doesn't accomplish an awful lot when you break it down to the philosophy of "the law is what the law says". Nations would be required to do very little and be in compliance with this law with minimum accountability in the long run.

I have no choice, and it saddens me to do so, but to recommend an AGAINST vote in regards to this proposal.

AS PER USUAL, THIS IS A SUGGESTED VOTE ONLY, PLEASE VOTE FOR, AGAINST OR ABSTAIN BELOW AS DESIRED.

Edit: See next post.

Our Offical Statements to the WA in this regard:

The Democratic States Of LibertarianLand​

Legalized Freedom​

-------------------------------------
March 25th,2014

To The General Assembly of the WA:

If this Proposal goes to vote we will fight it tooth and nail with vigor, no one is going to tell us what to do with our nuclear weapons, we have every right to keep whatever nuclear arsenal we wish. If this passes the WA will have to sanction us as we will not comply we will reject this with our every breath.

Our Minister of Nuclear Arms is very set on this:



Sincerely,


Pelswick VonHammerstein
Senior Delegate to the WA from The Democratic States of LibertarianLand


Michael Wiltberger
Vice Delegate to the WA from The Democratic States of LibertarianLand

Paul Washington
President of The Democratic States of LibertarianLand​

For the purposes of this vote to the TNP WA affairs office we note AGAINST! we only have 2 arms as it is stop trying to reduce them! Muh nuclear weapons!

Against.

For xD

I had to edit out my signatures apparently the mods have something against a WA ambassador from a country submitting formal letters :/ the ambassadors cant always be free to "stand on thier hind legs and speak" sometimes they are temporarily recalled to thier countries capital and need to submit a letter stating thier position. Hmmmmpppph. Ive done this a few times this is the first time a mod has gotten a wild hair and spoilered my letterhead and signature and rebuked me in an edit and sent me a TG commanding me to edit it. But when I edited it I edited thier butthurt comments out too. If my signature is "over the top" so is thier 3 paragraph response to it.

How many attempts is this now?? 10? 15? I'm tired of these resolutions. Nations should be allowed to have as many arms as possible

@PWL42: To be perfectly honest I'm not a big fan of posts with too many images as well. Especially if the images are too large and I can scroll along the sides on my browser. I think one image, or two, is pretty much all I can tolerate, and if really necessary spoilers are a good way to make your post not as unnecessarily large.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.