[At Vote] Securing Nuclear Materials from Dastardly Menaces [Complete]

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum
Onsite Topic

Affirming the right of member nations to possess nuclear weapons and to use them in the case that they are attacked by hostile forces,

Concerned that there does not yet exist any legislation to protect the manufacture of nuclear weapons from being banned by the World Assembly,

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations,

This august World Assembly hereby:

1. Maintains the right of member nations to manufacture and trade nuclear weapons or reactors, to possess the materials required in such manufacture, and to acquire the materials required in such manufacture;

2. Maintains the right of member nations to have knowledge of the manufacture and trade of nuclear weapons or reactors, to possess such knowledge, and to acquire such knowledge;

3. Mandates that member nations take all practical actions to safeguard the manufacture and knowledge spoken of in the first two clauses from the wrong hands, especially those which conspire against the stability of member nations; and

4. Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to ensure that nuclear materials and knowledge are secured from the wrong hands by providing funds and assistance to nations which are unable to defend their own nuclear knowledge and technology.
Click to expand...

Please vote For, Against, Abstain, or Present.
 
This resolution was previously known as Nuclear Material Safeguards (GA#351), and was passed in a very close vote only to be overwhelmingly repealed a few months later. The resolution is flawed most notably for a lack of definition for the concept of "the wrong hands", which is subjective in nature and changes depending on which side of a conflict a nation is. The clauses regarding manufacturing and trade also pave the way for the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons, even to "the wrong hands" as mentioned before.

Since this new resolution is an exact copy of the previously repealed resolution, the concerns outlined in the repeal resolution (GA#361) remain unaddressed.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.
 
I believe the repeal of this resolution to have missed the point (a repeal which also failed spectacularly before it was passed). This is for three reasons.

1. It would be ridiculous for the World Assembly to mandate any kind of action of this import without also making it easier to follow. If I hadn't included such a provision, Wrapper would probably have repealed it on the basis that no such provision existed and it therefore didn't cover the case in which nations wouldn't be able to safeguard their materials. It is better for international security to remain on the safe side here.

2. Nations preventing their enemies from gaining weapons lowers the magnitude of future conflict. To quote Flib, here:
Flibbleites:
Are you kidding? {People have been using that BS argument ever since my first draft of the NAPA. There is a very simple reason why i chose the wording I did for that clause, and that is because every nation that chooses to have a nuclear stockpile is going to have a different opinion of who should have access to said stockpile and the wording I used allows nations to make their own determinations as to who has access and who doesn't. But obviously some people are just jealous that i can do in a simple sentence what takes them multiple paragraphs to do.
Click to expand...
The 'wrong hands' clause is designed such that nations can choose who they believe are the wrong hands, i.e. to deal with the fact that 'every nation that chooses to have a nuclear stockpile is going to have a different opinion of who should have access to said stockpile'.

3. The creation of a more stable international system can be pursued by preventing the World Assembly from effectively picking and choosing the winners and losers in a strategic arms race. The express purpose of this proposal is to prevent the WA from proposing legislation which would choose one WA nation over another and saying that XYZ should have nuclear materials and ZYX should not. This ties into the fact that nuclear weapons help prevent large-scale war, something elucidated here.
 
For the record, TNP requires either NPA service or a WA in the region to vote on its regional WA vote, but I'm sure people will note your arguments in favour.
 
"Concerned that there does not yet exist any legislation to protect the manufacture of nuclear weapons from being banned by the World Assembly"
If the WA so chooses to ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons; how would this legislation prevent such a ban? The WA cannot bind itself.

Furthermore, I must enquire if there is a general mood or inclination in the WA to ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons? The right of WA Members to possess nuclear weapons is already enshrined and recognised in GAR#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act. I do not see the need for further embellishment of this matter, via this proposed legislation, at this time.


Against.
 
St George:
For the record, TNP requires either NPA service or a WA in the region to vote on its regional WA vote, but I'm sure people will note your arguments in favour.
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you, I must have mixed my constitutions up.

Unimaginable Doom:
Furthermore, I must enquire if there is a general mood or inclination in the WA to ban the manufacture of nuclear weapons? The right of WA Members to possess nuclear weapons is already enshrined and recognised in GAR#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act. I do not see the need for further embellishment of this matter, via this proposed legislation, at this time.
Click to expand...
There have been attempts in the past.
 
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