Weapons of Mass Destruction Act[Archived]

Ermarian

Ermarian

TNPer
-
I have submitted this already, but in the event of its failure, editing help would be greatly appreciated!

1.) Acknowledging the need for effective national defense of its members,

2.) Mindful that such defense does not include measures to decimate or terrorize the civilian population of any nation, and that such measures are a violation of these civilians' human rights,

3.) Aware of the existence of weapon technologies that, due to their devastating, cruel or uncontrollable effects, are primarily or exclusively suited to inflict mass casualties on civilian targets,

4.) Concerned that even the existence of such weapons constitutes a threat to the safety of civilians,

5.) Determined to prevent such threats in order to protect human rights the world over:

--

6.) DEFINES "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a term to include all weapon technologies - nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional - whose effects are either exceptionally massive or uncontrollable in scope, making them suitable only to inflict mass casualties against a civilian population,

7.) DEFINES "Weapons of Mass Suffering" as a further term to include weapon technologies whose effects are aimed at killing or maiming humans in exceptionally cruel ways, making them particularly suitable to torture or instill terror in a civilian population,

8.) PROHIBITS the development, production, possession, trading and use of such weapons by its member nations,

9.) DEMANDS that the development, production, trading and use of these weapons are immediately ceased, and such stockpiles as exist are safely dismantled, and

10.) ENCOURAGES member nations to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on their neighbors to do likewise.
Click to expand...
 
Question: how will you deal with the people that say by banning WoMD, you make WA nations weaker than non-WA nations. These nations will continue to have to have these weapons, and are not restricted in having them .

See here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554054

edit: irony of my avatar, i just noticed...
 
I would say that these weapons posit in no way a military advantage, because conventional weaponry can be just as effective in destroying the infrastructure and military capacity of a country, without the same potential for civilian casualties.

It would follow that the possession of WMDs only has the effect of frightening the enemy's population. Mindful that the enemies in whose hands WMD are the most dangerous are those who have little regard for human life in the first place (either despots or fanatics), I don't think MAD can be safely relied on.

Or in other words: A bad guy who is willing to unleash Ebola or nukes on your population, and who cannot be negotiated with, is sociopathic enough that he won't be deterred by the possibility of you returning fire in kind. WMD are weapons that by definition are ineffective in good hands, and very effective in evil hands.

Edit: I also want to point out that my text differs substantially from the proposal you link to, in that it specifically bans weapons that are primarily suited for civilian mass casualties. For example, I would consider low-yield nuclear weapons or chemical weapons with limited and not particularly cruel effects to be not included in this legislation (though I personally disapprove of them). Suffocating, blowing up and shooting enemy soldiers is one thing, blinding, burning or making thousands of people die of radiation sickness is another.

Ideally, all of it would stop, but I'm being realistic and suggesting that we can at least curb the most horrible things without leaving anyone defenseless.
 
mavenu:
It appears that you're going up against this http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553614 proposal as well.
Click to expand...
Ooh. I support that one.


Here's my logic: You can't prevent someone who wants WMDs from getting them unless you are willing to stomp them into the dust before they get them. Preventing nations from defending themselves by refusing them the option to have weapons of a certain class only encourages them to obtain those weapons and is a violation of national sovereignty. If they are perpetually hostile nations, you go ahead and stomp them first before they get the weapons if they are a sufficient threat.
 
However you define "stomping into the dust", the only way you need high-yield nukes, Sarin and Ebola to do it is if you're going to commit genocide on the enemy's population. If that's how you intend to prevent their government from committing evil actions, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to strongly disagree.

Edit: Or perhaps you weren't actually opposing my proposal, just advocating the one last linked. My second post in this topic explained that they do not contradict each other.
 
Nice work! I approved your proposal. I hope you have sent every delegate in the world a request to approve it. If not, better get moving! You need 89 more by May 6! Be sure to include a link to yours, so they don't have to sift through the queue or search to find it. GOOD LUCK!!!
 
Thanks Mum! :)

I'm afraid that my telegram campaign has fallen far short of the required number so far - I've messaged hardly 20 people, and 88 more supporters are required. I'm still sending telegrams though, and there remains some time.
 
Let me pass on a tip from the IDU.

Make a list from proposals that reach the WA floor for a vote while they're still in the proposal queue. keep a list of endos you get for your proposal before its deleted of when it fails to reach quorum.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Let me pass on a tip from the IDU.

Make a list from proposals that reach the WA floor for a vote while they're still in the proposal queue. keep a list of endos you get for your proposal before its deleted of when it fails to reach quorum.
Click to expand...
it's helpful that there's like 3 in queue right now :bunny:
 
And even more helpful that one of them is a War Crimes act, whose supporters may be likely to support non-proliferation too.
 
Okay, doesn't look good. But it has reached a certain amount of support, and that's what I'm counting on when I resubmit it.
 
I remember some of the good ones that the UN used to have took 3 or 4 rounds to get to the voting stage. Though you also need to be TGing delegates.

Have you considered posting it on jolt as well?
 
Haven't yet. Good idea, though.

Also, I've got 50 approvals now! It's a slim chance for 12 hours to go and not yet half, but it's getting approvals faster than before now. I'll be happy if I get 70 approvals by tomorrow - I'll immediately resubmit it then.
 
60! My chance is actually palpable now, if the trend continues.

I'd be surprised if I didn't make it to 80 by update.
 
Those telegrams are key. I don't think I've ever approved a proposal that either the author or his supporters didn't call to my attention. Whenever I get a TG, I always at least take a look at the proposal. If it is in the proper form and the grammar and spelling are fine, I usually approve it... even if I disagree with the proposal. If it's well crafted and the author has done the work to TG the delegates, then it deserves a shot on the floor. But that's just me.
 
Thanks for the support and assistance!

It didn't quite make it this time round (73 out of 109) probably because I left the telegram campaign until the last day, but I'll resubmit it and get it through this time. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top