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