[GA]: Nuclear Weapons Accord [Complete]

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Wallenburg
Onsite Topic

Nuclear Weapons Accord:
The World Assembly,

Observing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to civilian populations,

Believing that nuclear weaponry ought not to be used against civilian noncombatants,

Recognizing the right of member nations to keep and employ nuclear weapons for the purposes of national defense,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
  • "nuclear weapon" as a weapon designed to explode using the energy generated in nuclear reactions,
  • "countervalue strike" as an intentional use of nuclear weapons upon a civilian population,
2. Permits member states to use nuclear weapons to:
  • target enemy military assets that are legal military targets under World Assembly law,
  • perform nuclear tests, within the confines of preexisting World Assembly legislation,
  • engage in countervalue strikes, only in retaliation for one or more countervalue strikes against citizens or allied civilians,
3. Otherwise forbids member states from targeting civilian noncombatants with nuclear weapons,

4. Requires member states to avoid whenever possible the collateral injury of civilian populations when using nuclear weapons,

5. Mandates that member states that unintentionally injure another nation's civilian noncombatants through the aggressive use of nuclear weapons beyond the permissions of Clause 2 offer relief or compensation to that nation or the relevant civilians of that nation,

6. Highly encourages member states to seek out diplomatic alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons,

7. Suggests that member nations chill out instead of bombing their neighbors into oblivion.
Click to expand...

Please vote for, against, abstain, or present.
 
The resolution's aim to protect noncombatants and limit the use of nuclear weapons to matters of national defense is a laudable one and we join the author in advocating for the responsible use of such weapons. At first glance this resolution is completely reasonable and worthy of support. The devil is in the details. This resolution places strict limits on what is considered acceptable uses of nuclear weapons, and any other "aggressive" use of these weapons is considered suspect. Given that it is almost a certainty noncombatants will be killed when such weapons are used, this means that any nation engaging in the use of nuclear weapons outside the prescribed uses in clause 2 of the resolution will be liable to compensate the affected nation, even if that nation is outside of this assembly and did not strike with a nuclear weapon of their own. Indeed, the only time members of this assembly may be permitted to use nuclear weapons against non-member nations is if they have already suffered catastrophic loss of life as a result of a nuclear strike. It is not a controversial idea that the use of nuclear weapons ought to be done carefully and with great thought to the consequences. We would do well to remember that the international community is far larger than the subset of nations within this assembly, and tying the hands of nations too tightly could itself have a negative impact on their ability to defend themselves. The resolution then goes on to admonish all nations to "chill out," trivializing what is a very significant issue. National defense should not be minimized or trivialized.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.
 
Against.

I concur that the drafting language is amateurish.

Furthermore, the raison dêtre of nuclear weapons is the totality of the implied threat against would be belligerent or hostile nations - nuclear weapons are uniquely capable of causing total and catastrophic damage on civilian population centres and infrastructure.

Recognising the sovereign right of nations to have nuclear weapons for national defence, whilst simultaneously limiting the strategic and political value of such weapons is pointless.

Additionally, if the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets is of such moral gravity; then such use should not be legalised. Even in the instance of non-first use or 'countervalue strike'. The resolution should have called for an absolute prohibition instead.
 
There are some things I do not understand and I seem contradictory...

For example, I don't see the appropriate limit if I suffer a nuclear attack: receive financial compensation if I have been bombed (5) or respond to a nuclear attack if I declare war (2c)? It seems that all nations should have nuclear bomb in case of being attacked so the defense budget would increase... It seems contradictory to 'A resolution to slash military spending worldwide'.

I think I vote against.
 
Against. While I agree that nuking everybody because empire is dumb, I do what I want with my nukes.
 
For

As Unimaginable Doom pointed out, this is somewhat of a stealth prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons. I support such a measure.

As for Clause 7, it is stupid. However, few resolutions read like they were written by a proper lawyer or diplomat. If the bad writing doesn't subvert the effectiveness of putting the resolution into force, I will always vote based on the spirit of the resolution.
 
Against.

I do like clause 7 but I'm not keen on the justifying of targeting civilian populations.
 
Against.

After all the various proposals on Nuclear Weapons that failed, and some that passed, and then repeals I don't think it is likely I'll ever vote in favour of one.
 
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