At Vote: Defense from External Menaces [Complete] [Complete]

[mcmasterdonia]

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus

The World Assembly

DEPLORES that World Assembly member states would use nuclear weapons against one another,

IS SEIZED of the necessity of defending itself from threats external to World Assembly member states,

RESOLVES that the use of nuclear weapons against the territory of any World Assembly member state is forbidden,

STATES that this act does not at all regulate the use of weapons against nations which are not members of the World Assembly.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Firmly Against.

 

[Flemingovia]

IS SEIZED of the necessity.....

Oh dear. The tortured english alone makes my eyeballs water.

Flemingovia smites its enemies by the pure power of prayer alone. No nuclear weapons are necessary. Our faith and virtue is a shield around us. If only other nations would embrace Flemingovianism resolutions like this would be unnecessary, and the fear that grips other nations would be eternally eased.
Come to Flemingovia, my children. Bask in my tender embrace and all your fears and worries will be erased.

Naturally I am against this resolution.

Remember - a vote against this resolution is a subconscious vote FOR Flemingovianism, however you may protest.

 

[unibot]

This is an informational review of the GA Resolution-At-Vote, “Defense from External Menaces” published by The North Pacific's Ministry of World Assembly Affairs for your convenience and consideration.

The purpose of the resolution is very clear and straightforward: “Defense from External Menaces” bars member-nations from attacking other member-nations using nuclear weaponry. It does not bar member-nations from using nuclear weaponry against non-member-nations (nations not in the World Assembly).

Some important context to remember: GA#10 "Nuclear Arms Possession Act", protects the freedom of member-nations to develop a nuclear arsenal (although does not protect the freedom of member-nations to deploy said nuclear weapons), GA#60 "Nuclear Disaster Response Act" essentially states that member-nations will help each other out financially in responding to 'nuclear disasters' via a member-nation funded "Nuclear Disaster Response Organization".

Bearing this in mind, any reasonable and legal reduction of the effect of nuclear weaponry on our world would have to reduce deployment of nuclear weapons, not the stockpiling of them because this is protected by international law. Furthermore, member-nations whether they caused the nuclear disaster or not, all "pay" in some regards for nuclear disasters; every nuclear attack on a member-nations drains monetary resources from one area of the World Assembly's budget to the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization (NDRO). Therefore it is simply cost-effective to strive to reduce nuclear deployment in member-nations and furthermore reduces political contradiction: otherwise, why would a nation help fund the clean-up for a nuclear diasater they caused in another nation as an act of war?

The retaining of nuclear weapon deployment as an option is often defended on the basis of Nuclear Deterrence Theory. Nuclear Deterrence Theory emerged during the Cold War and essentially outlined the position that international security and "peace" was dependent on the presence of nuclear arsenals on both sides of the competing international parties that could cause extraordinary damage to both sides if said parties were to descend into nuclear war. However, in recent times, the Cold War doctrine has been heavily criticized by even former proponents of Nuclear Deterrence theory, such as Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, George Shultz and Sam Nunn, basically because it no longer applies to the Real World: nuclear weapons are no longer just possessed by America or Russia who had relatively organized military regimes and "security safeguards" to ensure that "accidents, misjudgments or unauthorised launches" do not happen.

But this is no longer the case when pariah states such as North Korea and Israel (who are self-described as "nuclear ambiguous") are widely believed to possess nuclear weaponry and arguably, Iran will have them soon. As films (such as the beloved dark comedy, "Dr. Strangelove") have longed portrayed: the game theory behind nuclear deterrence is irrelevant when the non-rational, psychotic or otherwise unstable are in charge of authorization and furthermore, different ethnic or religious values can override traditional Western military strategy, take for example, Saddam Hussein did not "back down" and thus sparked the Persian Gulf War in 1990 which stunned American experts (sharing western values of rationality) who had predicated any "rational" leader would have done otherwise. It should be noted with the vast size of the NationStates world, there exists more opportunity for nuclear proliferation and more "pariah states" than the Real World.

Is the reduction of nuclear deployment, too idealistic, even for NationStates? In real life, a campaign called "Global Zero", intends to eliminate all nuclear weapons and has gotten support from many key political leaders such as President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev.

Now, someone may respond to these assertions with: but if a nation is a pariah state, won't it just ignore international law? Here, the Ministry has to respond with the old adage, "compliance is nonnegotiable". As far the game is concerned, member-nations cannot physically ignore international law they are obligated to follow and World Assembly authors must assume this compliance is sacrosanct. If you however, prefer to roleplay that nations can fail to comply to international law, then surely your nation can respond to the breach of international law and subsequent threat of nuclear weaponry with nuclear weaponry too.

It will suffice to say that the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a "FOR" vote to the delegate for "Defense from External Menaces" and calls upon all member-states in The North Pacific (that's you!) to carefully consider the viewpoints expressed in this informational statement. Thank you.

Yours,
Unibot
Minister of World Assembly Affairs in The North Pacific.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Nay.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

One of the key reasons i don't like it, is that it allows for nuclear attacks on non-wa nations.

Its ok, we can bomb you- you aren't part of the same body as we are.... :/

 

[unibot]

One of the key reasons i don't like it, is that it allows for nuclear attacks on non-wa nations.

Its ok, we can bomb you- you aren't part of the same body as we are.... :/

It allows such attacks because non-WA members do not need to abide by international law like you do, in the sense that this resolution is a pact not to use nuclear weapons against one another. Any resolution that banned the use of nuclear weapons altogether would be a one-sided deal between non-WA members and WA members and increase the vulnerability of WA Members.

 

[Funkadelia]

IS SEIZED of the necessity.....

Oh dear. The tortured english alone makes my eyeballs water.

Flemingovia smites its enemies by the pure power of prayer alone. No nuclear weapons are necessary. Our faith and virtue is a shield around us. If only other nations would embrace Flemingovianism resolutions like this would be unnecessary, and the fear that grips other nations would be eternally eased.
Come to Flemingovia, my children. Bask in my tender embrace and all your fears and worries will be erased.

Naturally I am against this resolution.

Remember - a vote against this resolution is a subconscious vote FOR Flemingovianism, however you may protest.

Oh, well in that case, I'm against.


Seriously, though, it's a weak proposal, doesn't ban nukes all together, and, as someone of another region I'm in said,

It'd be stupid to defend the banning of nuclear weapons between NATO nations but say there's no problem of them using against other nations.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

This resolution would not have the effect of reducing stockpiles of such weapons, since WA member nations would have to maintain an inventory in order to protect from or respond to non-WA member nations who deploy such weapons.

It is therefore an ineffective proposals and should not pass in its current form. AGAINST/

As to this

Israel (who are self-described as "nuclear ambiguous")

I've known what the answer was to this since I was just past being a toddler, and heard it first hand. Its the worse kept secret of all time.

 

[Ravenna]

Against!

 

[Eluvatar]

Actually I think this one's long gone.

 

[Eluvatar]

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.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

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.