[GA - failed] Nuclear Aggression Act

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jag

Resident
-
TNP Nation
Nouvel Empire
Discord
_jaggedfel_
ga.jpg

Nuclear Aggression Act
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Jedinsto | Onsite Topic


The World Assembly,

Understanding that some smaller nations' only protection from larger nations is mutually assured destruction,

Wishing to limit nuclear devastation among member nations,

Hereby;
  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution;
    1. "nuclear weapon" as a bomb or missile that uses nuclear fission, fusion, or a combination of the two processes to create an explosion,
    2. "weapon of mass destruction" (herein WMD) as a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction in a single strike,
    3. "military invasion" as a military force of significant size, including any unmanned weapons, directed by its government to enter foreign territory in order to cause mass destruction to civilian targets or to strike a government property,
  2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other World Assembly member nations unless;
    1. in retaliation to a strike from a WMD, conventional warhead or a military invasion within 30 days of such an occurrence,
    2. in retaliation to a WMD strike, conventional warhead or a military invasion on behalf of a government which has been completely obliterated by the same WMD strike, conventional warhead, or military invasion, though the retaliation may only be carried out when the obliterated government would have been legally authorized to carry out the same retaliation,
    3. in retaliation to a WMD strike, conventional warhead or a military invasion on behalf of a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense, with the initially struck government's authorization, and when the initially struck government would be allowed to perform the retaliation themselves, or
    4. the target nation has violated the terms of this resolution at any point since its passage,
  3. Clarifies that this resolution does not ban nuclear testing on the soil of the nation testing, nor does it prevent future legislation from creating further restrictions on the use or possession of nuclear weapons.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!


ForAgainstAbstainPresent
16201
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV

Overview
This proposal seeks to prohibit nuclear first strikes between nations in the World Assembly, in order to prevent unnecessary conflict and destruction in member nations. Yet, the proposal exempts nations which violate the terms of its mandates, and allows nations to use nuclear strike to retaliate against armed attack of themselves or their allies.

Recommendation
We find these protections to be necessary, due to the large-scale destruction caused by use of nuclear weapons. The proposal does an excellent job in providing leeway to member nations as needed, while prohibiting the gravest cases of abuse of nuclear weapons.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Nuclear Aggression Act".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For.
I acknowledge my change of opinion however having looked over the resolution again I find that objection cannot be continued.
 
Last edited:
For.
Vexilia already reserves these weapons for defence and we see little reason to change our foreign policies in the near or distant future.
 
Regardless of whatever happens with the replacements, I believe this is a logical step towards global disarmament and does not limit the possibilities for replacements whatsoever.

I am quite ambivalent because I don't think it matters that much - if someone is stupid enough to want to throw a nuclear bomb your way, you're going to throw back no matter what.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top