(Approved) WMD Regulation Act

New Tarajan Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:17 am

The Kingdom of New Tarajan, in representation of the Empire as a whole, wishes to propose to the Council the following bill.

WEAPONS-OF-MASS-DESTRUCTION REGULATION ACT

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, in representation of the Empire of Tarajan and the Outer Territories

Section I.

Art. 1
The World Alliance, recognizing the highly-dangerous nature of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in every form, has decided to regulate the fabrication, possession and dismantlement of WMDs with this act.

Art. 2
To achieve this goal, as stated in Art. 1, is defined as Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), any nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures, natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere.

Section II.

Art. 3
All political entities, states, institutions and organizations must duly register their WMD arsenal (if any) or their intention to begin the fabrication of WMDs, to the World Alliance, with full respect of the existing legislation on the matter.

Art. 4
All political entities, states, institutions and organizations have the duty to keep or to dismantle their WMD arsenal following the highest standards of safety and traceability.

Section III.

Art. 5
The Court of Justice of the World Alliance (CoJ) is empowered with the authority to carry out any investigation it could believe to be necessary, about the fabrication, testing process, possession, use and dismantlement of WMDs.
In this case, the CoJ shall notify to the interested parties and to the Council the beginning of the investigation, specifying its nature and scope, according to the existing legislation. While under investigation, all related activities shall be stopped until the end of the investigation itself.
It is the duty of the CoJ to conclude the investigation in the less time possible.
In case the CoJ should identify a violation of existing legislation, it is empowered with the authority to immediately stop all related activities.
All interested parties could call for appeal against the verdict of the CoJ. This case shall be regulated under the existing rules for trials of the CoJ.

Art. 6
The World Alliance Department of Security & Justice (WASDJ) shall be empowered with the authority to execute the verdict of the CoJ, under authorization of the World Alliance Council.
In case the WASDJ is not able to carry out this mandate, the World Alliance Council shall empower the World Alliance Armed Forces (WAAF) with the same mandate.

Debate period will last to April 8th.
Thank you.

Arveyres Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:20 am

We are in full SUPPORT of this bill.

Ireland Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:35 am

We support this.

Dromoda Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:52 am

every nation should have the freedom to do what it wants.

weapons of mass destruction are terrible. but are a good warning for hostile nations trying to invade others

Texania Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:02 am

Ahem, debate period

Great Eurussia Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:56 am

Dromoda wrote:every nation should have the freedom to do what it wants.

weapons of mass destruction are terrible. but are a good warning for hostile nations trying to invade others

Indeed, a deterrence, but the law itself has a serious flaw.

New Tarajan Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:30 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:every nation should have the freedom to do what it wants.

weapons of mass destruction are terrible. but are a good warning for hostile nations trying to invade others

Indeed, a deterrence, but the law itself has a serious flaw.

Please, tell us which flaw you're talking about. In this case, we could correct it.

Dromoda Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:18 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:every nation should have the freedom to do what it wants.

weapons of mass destruction are terrible. but are a good warning for hostile nations trying to invade others

Indeed, a deterrence, but the law itself has a serious flaw.

Please, tell us which flaw you're talking about. In this case, we could correct it.

Ah no sir.

you post a bill.
we do not.

if you want to correct something. you should do research.

and changing your bill makes you very curtain and reliable about your issue...

oh wait..

Europe and Asia Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:19 am

Dromoda wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:every nation should have the freedom to do what it wants.

weapons of mass destruction are terrible. but are a good warning for hostile nations trying to invade others

Indeed, a deterrence, but the law itself has a serious flaw.

Please, tell us which flaw you're talking about. In this case, we could correct it.

Ah no sir.

you post a bill.
we do not.

if you want to correct something. you should do research.

You're really going to be that way? REALLY?

New Tarajan Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:34 am

Dromoda wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:every nation should have the freedom to do what it wants.

weapons of mass destruction are terrible. but are a good warning for hostile nations trying to invade others

Indeed, a deterrence, but the law itself has a serious flaw.

Please, tell us which flaw you're talking about. In this case, we could correct it.

Ah no sir.

you post a bill.
we do not.

if you want to correct something. you should do research.

and changing your bill makes you very curtain and reliable about your issue...

oh wait..

First point: this is a debate. And, in a debate, everybody expresses its own opinion. For me, there's no flaw (alternatively, I would have already corrected it). In Eurussia's opinion, there's. So, I wish to know what he thinks about it.
Second point: you're even not part of the Council. Of course, constructive participation of every country, even if with no seats in the Council, is welcome. But constructive means: share your opinion, try to help the members of the Council in their job for the well-being of the entire World Alliance. So, if this is everything you have to say, please, refrain from intervening.

I am sorry if I appear rude with such a statement, I can assure you it's not my intention, but that's all.
Thank you.

Great Eurussia Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:33 pm

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:every nation should have the freedom to do what it wants.

weapons of mass destruction are terrible. but are a good warning for hostile nations trying to invade others

Indeed, a deterrence, but the law itself has a serious flaw.

Please, tell us which flaw you're talking about. In this case, we could correct it.

Initially, we propose to rename it as "Global Ban on Weapons of Mass Destruction" to represent the bill's aspiration for a total ban.

New Tarajan Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:29 pm

Well...but it's not the intention of this law. I mean, to eliminate totally nuclear weapons it's not our intentions (on a strategic perspective, paradoxically, it could have the same effect of the creation of the Kyongdong bomb, since it would significantly harm any kind of strategic balance).
What we wish to achieve, here, is simply "control" over existing and future WMD.

Great Eurussia Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:30 pm

New Tarajan wrote:Well...but it's not the intention of this law. I mean, to eliminate totally nuclear weapons it's not our intentions (on a strategic perspective, paradoxically, it could have the same effect of the creation of the Kyongdong bomb, since it would significantly harm any kind of strategic balance).
What we wish to achieve, here, is simply "control" over existing and future WMD.

Well, that is still the bottomline of it. Nations will surely react if this law would mean 'control' and it would be appropriate to make it a ban to be universal in effect.

New Tarajan Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:39 pm

It's impossible to enforce such a ban, and also it's absolutely unnecessary. As I already said, complete disarmament is the best way toward a disaster (together with an arms race, of course).
The main goal of this law is to keep the balance, in order to ensure strategic stability in the region. We cannot pretend more than this, for the moment.
Also, the "control" is far more acceptable than complete disarmament, if we consider also that this law does not provide any limit for countries to possess some kind of WMDs (obviously, with respect of the existing legislation). So, it's the most perfect balace, in my opinion, between the right to national sovereignty and the need for regulation.

Dromoda Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:20 pm

New Tarajan wrote:It's impossible to enforce such a ban, and also it's absolutely unnecessary. As I already said, complete disarmament is the best way toward a disaster (together with an arms race, of course).
The main goal of this law is to keep the balance, in order to ensure strategic stability in the region. We cannot pretend more than this, for the moment.
Also, the "control" is far more acceptable than complete disarmament, if we consider also that this law does not provide any limit for countries to possess some kind of WMDs (obviously, with respect of the existing legislation). So, it's the most perfect balace, in my opinion, between the right to national sovereignty and the need for regulation.

Strategic stability?

my army's are one of the largest in the WA. i don't need strategic stability. however i think that a nation should regulate itself and no one knows what everyone has up their sleeve behind close doors.

i think that you should make guideline's not rule's how others have to run their country.

we already have enough of that.

and to get back to the issue. the use of weapons of mass destruction should be regulated by the WAAF or something like that.

but they have to exist for the sake of our future. what else are we gonna fire against a huge comet or something like that?. bullets?

New Tarajan Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:28 pm

Dromoda wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:It's impossible to enforce such a ban, and also it's absolutely unnecessary. As I already said, complete disarmament is the best way toward a disaster (together with an arms race, of course).
The main goal of this law is to keep the balance, in order to ensure strategic stability in the region. We cannot pretend more than this, for the moment.
Also, the "control" is far more acceptable than complete disarmament, if we consider also that this law does not provide any limit for countries to possess some kind of WMDs (obviously, with respect of the existing legislation). So, it's the most perfect balace, in my opinion, between the right to national sovereignty and the need for regulation.

Strategic stability?

my army's are one of the largest in the WA. i don't need strategic stability. however i think that a nation should regulate itself and no one knows what everyone has up their sleeve behind close doors.

i think that you should make guideline's not rule's how others have to run their country.

we already have enough of that.

and to get back to the issue. the use of weapons of mass destruction should be regulated by the WAAF or something like that.

but they have to exist for the sake of our future. what else are we gonna fire against a huge comet or something like that?. bullets?

Well, your first point is exactly what I meant before.
Let us make an example (and, I wish to underline, it's only an example): Dromoda decides to invade every country in its range. Which country could oppose it? Probably only Antanares. But, WMDs avoid such a military out come. Why? Because Dromoda knows that if it will invade some nuclear power, in case of defeat it could retaliate with nuclear weapons over Dromoda itself!
It's exactly what happened during the Cold War: Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact have the largest army of the world, but nuclear deterrence helped to keep the balance, and avoid a new world war.
This is, in few words, strategic stability: the situation in which no side has any advantage in launching a first strike. It's to keep a balance, and it's probably the only reason for the existence of nuclear weapons.
I agree with Dromoda, when it said that we should keep WMDs for our own sake; and indeed this law will not infringe in any way the sovereign right to keep your own nuclear arsenal, even to increase it, if you want.
But it creates a regulatory framework, which is necessary to help regulate any future issue it could emerge in the future, avoiding dangerous crisis.

Great Eurussia Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:47 pm

Dromoda wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:It's impossible to enforce such a ban, and also it's absolutely unnecessary. As I already said, complete disarmament is the best way toward a disaster (together with an arms race, of course).
The main goal of this law is to keep the balance, in order to ensure strategic stability in the region. We cannot pretend more than this, for the moment.
Also, the "control" is far more acceptable than complete disarmament, if we consider also that this law does not provide any limit for countries to possess some kind of WMDs (obviously, with respect of the existing legislation). So, it's the most perfect balace, in my opinion, between the right to national sovereignty and the need for regulation.

Strategic stability?

my army's are one of the largest in the WA. i don't need strategic stability. however i think that a nation should regulate itself and no one knows what everyone has up their sleeve behind close doors.

i think that you should make guideline's not rule's how others have to run their country.

we already have enough of that.

and to get back to the issue. the use of weapons of mass destruction should be regulated by the WAAF or something like that.

but they have to exist for the sake of our future. what else are we gonna fire against a huge comet or something like that?. bullets?

I am inclined to agree with Dromoda. Strategic stability is a coward's term for failure to strategize its policies for deterrence. Why are we even debating about controlling WMD's when we are justifying that just to level the playing field on warfare? Is that a valid reason?

Theoretically, what is it's difference in warfare without WMD's? We believe that the objectives of this bill is becoming more flawed.

New Tarajan Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:03 am

I'm sorry to see that you don't understand what is a fundamental pillar in international relations, diplomacy and strategies.
Strategic stability is not about failure to "strategize policies for deterrence", whatever it means.
Every country has different potentials, different abilities and opportunities.
WMDs do not "level the playing field"...they create mutual deterrence, which is a critical point. But what happens when this delicate balance is disrupted? Simply, strategic stability is gone and, thus recalling our previous definition, one of the sides will have a particular advantage to launch a first strike, which doesn't necessarily mean that it will launch nuclear missiles: maybe, it will become more aggressive...step by step, or with a sudden break, it will begin to impose its own will to the others. The only consequence of this will be an arms race (with the consequent, unavoidable, disaster...because the feeling to be threatened will systematically increase everywhere), or directly a world war, if the pre-conditions for it are already on the table.
Thus, while the respect of sovereign rights is still fundamental, there's the need for a regulatory framework. And this is exactly what this law is doing.

Great Eurussia Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:11 am

New Tarajan wrote:I'm sorry to see that you don't understand what is a fundamental pillar in international relations, diplomacy and strategies.
Strategic stability is not about failure to "strategize policies for deterrence", whatever it means.
Every country has different potentials, different abilities and opportunities.
WMDs do not "level the playing field"...they create mutual deterrence, which is a critical point. But what happens when this delicate balance is disrupted? Simply, strategic stability is gone and, thus recalling our previous definition, one of the sides will have a particular advantage to launch a first strike, which doesn't necessarily mean that it will launch nuclear missiles: maybe, it will become more aggressive...step by step, or with a sudden break, it will begin to impose its own will to the others. The only consequence of this will be an arms race (with the consequent, unavoidable, disaster...because the feeling to be threatened will systematically increase everywhere), or directly a world war, if the pre-conditions for it are already on the table.
Thus, while the respect of sovereign rights is still fundamental, there's the need for a regulatory framework. And this is exactly what this law is doing.

See? The very purpose of this law is to 'level the playing field on warfare' and not to stop the spread and ban of WMD's. Am I correct?

New Tarajan Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:26 am

Do you wish really to enforce such a ban? You know it's impossible, since every country would be against it; and, sure, this would be the true infringement of national sovereignty Eurussia seems to fear so much. The playfield has been levelled the first time two countries acquired their first nuclear weapons.
The real issue on the table, is to avoid dangerous arms races and the creation of more powerful WMDs every time. If you don't believe this to be a commendable intention, honestly, I suggest you to propose a repeal of the two pieces you proposed to the Council.

Great Eurussia Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:32 am

New Tarajan wrote:Do you wish really to enforce such a ban? You know it's impossible, since every country would be against it; and, sure, this would be the true infringement of national sovereignty Eurussia seems to fear so much. The playfield has been levelled the first time two countries acquired their first nuclear weapons.
The real issue on the table, is to avoid dangerous arms races and the creation of more powerful WMDs every time. If you don't believe this to be a commendable intention, honestly, I suggest you to propose a repeal of the two pieces you proposed to the Council.

Yes. Remember the very two laws you are talking about? They are global ban on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons right? The point is, we can't stop new developments but at least stop production immediately through an international law.

New Tarajan Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:37 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:Do you wish really to enforce such a ban? You know it's impossible, since every country would be against it; and, sure, this would be the true infringement of national sovereignty Eurussia seems to fear so much. The playfield has been levelled the first time two countries acquired their first nuclear weapons.
The real issue on the table, is to avoid dangerous arms races and the creation of more powerful WMDs every time. If you don't believe this to be a commendable intention, honestly, I suggest you to propose a repeal of the two pieces you proposed to the Council.

Yes. Remember the very two laws you are talking about? They are global ban on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons right? The point is, we can't stop new developments but at least stop production immediately through an international law.

I don't understand your point, really.
If we can stop production, why cannot we stop also new developments?
The law on Nuclear tests was not a total ban of nuclear weapons. Indeed, many country acquired their own arsenal after its approval. Of course, it was a ban on tests. But this did not stop any country from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.

Great Eurussia Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:56 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:Do you wish really to enforce such a ban? You know it's impossible, since every country would be against it; and, sure, this would be the true infringement of national sovereignty Eurussia seems to fear so much. The playfield has been levelled the first time two countries acquired their first nuclear weapons.
The real issue on the table, is to avoid dangerous arms races and the creation of more powerful WMDs every time. If you don't believe this to be a commendable intention, honestly, I suggest you to propose a repeal of the two pieces you proposed to the Council.

Yes. Remember the very two laws you are talking about? They are global ban on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons right? The point is, we can't stop new developments but at least stop production immediately through an international law.

I don't understand your point, really.
If we can stop production, why cannot we stop also new developments?
The law on Nuclear tests was not a total ban of nuclear weapons. Indeed, many country acquired their own arsenal after its approval. Of course, it was a ban on tests. But this did not stop any country from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.

Yeah. That's why there must be a total ban. Because this bill will just be useless if it just working in an obvious pretext of regulating WMD's when in fact, this bill just want to remove WMD's on warfare. So what's the point?

New Tarajan Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:17 pm

Your last point is uncorrect. This bill will not remove WMDs from warfare. There's nothing here that will stop any country from using WMDs in war. Obviously, this shall be the "last defense"...and, indeed, the CoJ will verify this with its investigations. It's a first step in a long process. We cannot do everything in a night.

Sorry to interrupt but, anyway, the debate period is ended.

Please, everyone, express your votes.

New Tarajan (of course) is IN FAVOUR of this bill.

Great Eurussia Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:46 pm

New Tarajan wrote:Your last point is uncorrect. This bill will not remove WMDs from warfare. There's nothing here that will stop any country from using WMDs in war. Obviously, this shall be the "last defense"...and, indeed, the CoJ will verify this with its investigations. It's a first step in a long process. We cannot do everything in a night.

Sorry to interrupt but, anyway, the debate period is ended.

Please, everyone, express your votes.

New Tarajan (of course) is IN FAVOUR of this bill.

Eurussia, as a member of the Council, OBJECTS. We are not yet through with our concerns and they must be addressed accordingly as the bill is obviously flawed.

Aside from our concerns on the implications and effectivity of an enforcement of mandatory ban on weapons of mass destructions, what can this bill suggest to the following,

1) registration of number of weapons - how can this bill compel nations to follow this?

2) dismantling of weapons - how can this bill compel nations to follow this?

3) WAAF/WADSJ - how can they effectively enforce this bill if a state refuses to recognize this bill?

4) What will this bill do if a state invokes its sovereignty?

We wish to hear the proper arguments for these concerns.

Sponsored content

(Approved) WMD Regulation Act

(Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act

Re: (Approved) WMD Regulation Act