What's new

[D] Nuclear Weapons Accord

Status
Not open for further replies.

Imperium Anglorum

Tinpot Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
262
Capital
Londinium
Nick
IA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
ID: wallenburg_1475447781

Nuclear Weapons Accord
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Wallenburg

Description: 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.
 

Imperium Anglorum

Tinpot Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
262
Capital
Londinium
Nick
IA
I intend to vote against, for reasons explained here.

PARSONS: I couldn't possibly disclose any more without the Cabinet Secretary's approval. (North frowns.) And this stuff pops into the aether. We are concerned about clauses 3, 4, 5, with some issues with 2.

First off, it is our opinion that clause 3 should have its protections limited to WA members. Second, clause 4 seems to invalidate the entire point of clause 2(c). Third, clause 5, to us, seems ridiculous. No such protections are offered for any other kind of warfare. This would be massive break from precedent and also make peace treaties harder to sign by increasing the disincentives for starting the peace process in the first place.

Clause 2, to us, seems that it is not protecting anything. In 2(a), it leaves open a path to limit targeting. In 2's primary portion, which happens to be the rationale for the inclusion of 2(b), it expands this to all uses of nuclear weapons. And in 2(c), it reduces the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons to the point that nuclear weapons are no longer a credible countervailing force against massive conventional invasion. The reason why nuclear weapons maintain the peace is because they also prevent conventional warfare, which can kill millions of soldiers and civilians as well. Concerning clause 2, we would rather have something which limits the ability to initiate a first strike without overwhelming force already being applied. I don't see much of a difference between nuclear force and conventional force when the size of these forces have effectively the same impacts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top