[GA} At Vote: Nuclear Arms Protocol [Complete]

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Nuclear Arms Protocol

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson | Resolution link | World Assembly forum thread​
Description: The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that nuclear weapons are an integral part of some nations deterrence strategy,

ALSO REALIZING the potential threat posed to civilians caught in the blast effects of nuclear detonations,

DEEPLY ALARMED that international law permits civilians to be targeted by nuclear weapons,

CONFIRMING the right of member nations to possess and use nuclear weapons in warfare,

THUS RESOLVING to enact a sensible policy that mitigates the civilian casualties resulting from a nuclear exchange between hostile nations,

The General Assembly hereby:

For the purposes of this accord defines a nuclear weapon as a weapon fueled by nuclear reactions,

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless:

A hostile nation places targets of critical strategic value within major civilian population centers or;

A hostile nation tries to intentionally shield key military assets with civilian populations.

Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation target their civilian populations in defiance of this accord,

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to utilize nuclear weapons against military targets as part of their defense strategy.
Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.

Posts which do not include an explicit and unambiguous vote are not counted in the tally.
 
Ministry vote recommendation: Against

Ministry Review
Written by Separatist Peoples

Regulation of nuclear weapons and their use against civilians is inherently an interregional issue, as well as a very important one. Therefore the subject of this proposal is within the scope appropriate for the World Assembly. However, the proposal itself comes rather short of appropriately addressing the subject and seems to be ineffective.

The proposal needs to be evaluated in the context of the recent repeal of GAR#102 "International Criminal Court". Following that repeal, there is currently a complete lack of accountability for war criminals and crimes against humanity. The current proposal fails to adequately fill that gap, and given that it provides no mechanism to punish violators, appears to be completely ineffectual. This area of legislation could be handled much more effectively by avoiding the weapons of mass destruction aspect and focusing on indiscriminate violence towards civilians on the whole. As passing this proposal would block any such more carefully drafted future legislation from reaching the floor, we recommend a vote against this resolution.
 
I had voted For it originally as I didn't notice the proposal and this went to vote before I had created the voting thread. I have withdrawn the vote now.
 
I am just curious as to why people are voting against? Are you voting out of spite? Are you voting against because it is me proposing? Do you actually have legitimate concerns? If so please make them known so I may attempt to assuage any concerns.
 
Well first of all, I would like to cast my vote as Against.

Reasoning: The reason I cast my vote as I did is because I believe that your proposal has a good core value, but it can be built upon and expanded. For one thing, you stated the following:

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless:

A hostile nation places targets of critical strategic value within major civilian population centers or;

A hostile nation tries to intentionally shield key military assets with civilian populations.

Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation target their civilian populations in defiance of this accord....
Click to expand...
However, you never explained effective consequences for breaking the demands you have put down. So therefore, your bill does not have any force or effect if it passes if you know what I mean.
Your bill does not enforce anything nor does it reinforce anything and if I and the majority were to vote for it, it would make it harder for someone to suggest the same idea in a more complete form.
In conclusion, if this proposal was to be written more conclusively, included more details, and addressed the issues that you are trying to address more completely, I would have voted for it, but at the current state, I vote Against.

~ Tomb
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Well first of all, I would like to cast my vote as Against.

Reasoning: The reason I cast my vote as I did is because I believe that your proposal has a good core value, but it can be built upon and expanded. For one thing, you stated the following:

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless:

A hostile nation places targets of critical strategic value within major civilian population centers or;

A hostile nation tries to intentionally shield key military assets with civilian populations.

Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation target their civilian populations in defiance of this accord....
Click to expand...
However, you never explained effective consequences for breaking the demands you have put down. So therefore, your bill does not have any force or effect if it passes if you know what I mean.
Your bill does not enforce anything nor does it reinforce anything and if I and the majority were to vote for it, it would make it harder for someone to suggest the same idea in a more complete form.
In conclusion, if this proposal was to be written more conclusively, included more details, and addressed the issues that you are trying to address more completely, I would have voted for it, but at the current state, I vote Against.

~ Tomb
Click to expand...
What more can be needed? Compliance is mandatory by member nations, and members retain the right to strike back if hit by non-member nations. These resolutions are written vaguely for a reason. It is impossible to lay out penalties for non-compliance in a resolution without it being declared illegal for metagaming, as the mods don't want to police RP.

Please reconsider?
 
I voted against because (in-character) I am totally against the regulation (which includes blocker resolutions) of any kind of nuclear power or nuclear weaponry. It is nothing personal, but I would always vote against.
 
For.

Within the realm of RP, I vote for this. I have no problem accepting the rules set forth. Anyone breaking the law can be blacklisted.

Outside of RP, there are plenty of ways to loophole this. Not sure if I would take that route, rather disingenuous. However, my country retains it's ability to wage total ware if necessary.

It's not like I'm just going to go off and nuke some country. My escalation of force policy is kinda 1 & 0 though. "Oh, bombers and a land invasion? Hopefully, every has a good record of your nation. Let's see what your troops can do when the logistics train disappears." muhahahaha
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top