Nuclear Arms Protocol

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AT VOTE

Nuclear Arms Protocol
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Chester Pearson

Description: The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that nuclear weapons are an integral part of some nations deterrence strategy,

ALSO REALIZING the potential threat posed to civilians caught in the blast effects of nuclear detonations,

DEEPLY ALARMED that international law permits civilians to be targeted by nuclear weapons,

CONFIRMING the right of member nations to possess and use nuclear weapons in warfare,

THUS RESOLVING to enact a sensible policy that mitigates the civilian casualties resulting from a nuclear exchange between hostile nations,

The General Assembly hereby:

For the purposes of this protocol defines a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon which derives it power solely from nuclear reactions,

Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not deliberately target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless a hostile nation deliberately shields key strategic military assets within civilian populations,

Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation deliberately target civilian populations in defiance of this accord,

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to utilize nuclear weapons against military targets as part of their defense strategy.


http://www.nationstates.net/page=ga



--------------------------------------

As suggested by Great Eurussia, I've posted this here to discuss.

I feel that we should be in favor of this Protocol, as it allows nations to keep in their possession, nuclear arms, however limits their usage, to assist in keeping the nuclear arms away from civilian populations when possible. Should there be an all out ban, we all know that nations would still secretly produce these weapons and that would be a security risk to all nations, therefore I cannot see a full ban being put in place, or at least one that would actually be followed. Therefore, I feel that this Protocol is much more effective than a ban.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:I feel that we should be in favor of this Protocol, as it allows nations to keep in their possession, nuclear arms, however limits their usage, to assist in keeping the nuclear arms away from civilian populations when possible. Should there be an all out ban, we all know that nations would still secretly produce these weapons and that would be a security risk to all nations, therefore I cannot see a full ban being put in place, or at least one that would actually be followed. Therefore, I feel that this Protocol is much more effective than a ban.

As previously stated, I think that if this law passes, the issue will be seen as dealt with, and will no longer be addressed. This solution is inadequate in my opinion. You say that nations would be build nuclear missiles despite an all out ban. With this one, what I see happening is that all nations are allowed to keep and produce nuclear weapons, and be able to use more of them(because they easier to produce) on civilian populations(where else?).

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:I feel that we should be in favor of this Protocol, as it allows nations to keep in their possession, nuclear arms, however limits their usage, to assist in keeping the nuclear arms away from civilian populations when possible. Should there be an all out ban, we all know that nations would still secretly produce these weapons and that would be a security risk to all nations, therefore I cannot see a full ban being put in place, or at least one that would actually be followed. Therefore, I feel that this Protocol is much more effective than a ban.

As previously stated, I think that if this law passes, the issue will be seen as dealt with, and will no longer be addressed. This solution is inadequate in my opinion. You say that nations would be build nuclear missiles despite an all out ban. With this one, what I see happening is that all nations are allowed to keep and produce nuclear weapons, and be able to use more of them(because they easier to produce) on civilian populations(where else?).

This law prevents their usage on civilian populations, not allows it, unless military is blended in with the general population.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:I feel that we should be in favor of this Protocol, as it allows nations to keep in their possession, nuclear arms, however limits their usage, to assist in keeping the nuclear arms away from civilian populations when possible. Should there be an all out ban, we all know that nations would still secretly produce these weapons and that would be a security risk to all nations, therefore I cannot see a full ban being put in place, or at least one that would actually be followed. Therefore, I feel that this Protocol is much more effective than a ban.

As previously stated, I think that if this law passes, the issue will be seen as dealt with, and will no longer be addressed. This solution is inadequate in my opinion. You say that nations would be build nuclear missiles despite an all out ban. With this one, what I see happening is that all nations are allowed to keep and produce nuclear weapons, and be able to use more of them(because they easier to produce) on civilian populations(where else?).

This law prevents their usage on civilian populations, not allows it, unless military is blended in with the general population.

I realize what the law intends. I'm saying that, since nuclear weapons will not be completely banned, they will be more accessible and more nations will have them. Just like you said, nations would probably violate an all out ban anyway. I think they would do the same concerning this law, except the consequences would be greater because nukes would be more accessible and there would be more to fire. It looks like my vote will not matter anyway, though.

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:I feel that we should be in favor of this Protocol, as it allows nations to keep in their possession, nuclear arms, however limits their usage, to assist in keeping the nuclear arms away from civilian populations when possible. Should there be an all out ban, we all know that nations would still secretly produce these weapons and that would be a security risk to all nations, therefore I cannot see a full ban being put in place, or at least one that would actually be followed. Therefore, I feel that this Protocol is much more effective than a ban.

As previously stated, I think that if this law passes, the issue will be seen as dealt with, and will no longer be addressed. This solution is inadequate in my opinion. You say that nations would be build nuclear missiles despite an all out ban. With this one, what I see happening is that all nations are allowed to keep and produce nuclear weapons, and be able to use more of them(because they easier to produce) on civilian populations(where else?).

This law prevents their usage on civilian populations, not allows it, unless military is blended in with the general population.

I realize what the law intends. I'm saying that, since nuclear weapons will not be completely banned, they will be more accessible and more nations will have them. Just like you said, nations would probably violate an all out ban anyway. I think they would do the same concerning this law, except the consequences would be greater because nukes would be more accessible and there would be more to fire. It looks like my vote will not matter anyway, though.

With an all out ban, nations who actually follow this law will be at danger because if they attacked with nuclear weapons they will not be able to adequately defend themselves.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:I feel that we should be in favor of this Protocol, as it allows nations to keep in their possession, nuclear arms, however limits their usage, to assist in keeping the nuclear arms away from civilian populations when possible. Should there be an all out ban, we all know that nations would still secretly produce these weapons and that would be a security risk to all nations, therefore I cannot see a full ban being put in place, or at least one that would actually be followed. Therefore, I feel that this Protocol is much more effective than a ban.

As previously stated, I think that if this law passes, the issue will be seen as dealt with, and will no longer be addressed. This solution is inadequate in my opinion. You say that nations would be build nuclear missiles despite an all out ban. With this one, what I see happening is that all nations are allowed to keep and produce nuclear weapons, and be able to use more of them(because they easier to produce) on civilian populations(where else?).

This law prevents their usage on civilian populations, not allows it, unless military is blended in with the general population.

I realize what the law intends. I'm saying that, since nuclear weapons will not be completely banned, they will be more accessible and more nations will have them. Just like you said, nations would probably violate an all out ban anyway. I think they would do the same concerning this law, except the consequences would be greater because nukes would be more accessible and there would be more to fire. It looks like my vote will not matter anyway, though.

With an all out ban, nations who actually follow this law will be at danger because if they attacked with nuclear weapons they will not be able to adequately defend themselves.

And the preferred alternative is to decimate two populations and two environments instead? The violating nations would have the wrath of the entire world assembly brought down upon them.

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Xolox wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:I feel that we should be in favor of this Protocol, as it allows nations to keep in their possession, nuclear arms, however limits their usage, to assist in keeping the nuclear arms away from civilian populations when possible. Should there be an all out ban, we all know that nations would still secretly produce these weapons and that would be a security risk to all nations, therefore I cannot see a full ban being put in place, or at least one that would actually be followed. Therefore, I feel that this Protocol is much more effective than a ban.

As previously stated, I think that if this law passes, the issue will be seen as dealt with, and will no longer be addressed. This solution is inadequate in my opinion. You say that nations would be build nuclear missiles despite an all out ban. With this one, what I see happening is that all nations are allowed to keep and produce nuclear weapons, and be able to use more of them(because they easier to produce) on civilian populations(where else?).

This law prevents their usage on civilian populations, not allows it, unless military is blended in with the general population.

I realize what the law intends. I'm saying that, since nuclear weapons will not be completely banned, they will be more accessible and more nations will have them. Just like you said, nations would probably violate an all out ban anyway. I think they would do the same concerning this law, except the consequences would be greater because nukes would be more accessible and there would be more to fire. It looks like my vote will not matter anyway, though.

With an all out ban, nations who actually follow this law will be at danger because if they attacked with nuclear weapons they will not be able to adequately defend themselves.

And the preferred alternative is to decimate two populations and two environments instead? The violating nations would have the wrath of the entire world assembly brought down upon them.

Anyone who attacks them is at risk of getting into nuclear warfare with them. At least this law puts the civilian population out of harms way and is a step in the right direction.

I'm having a hard time seeing how this puts civilian populations out of harm's way. Any leader who is prepared to participate in nuclear warfare is likely too insane or devoid of emotion to care that his civilians would be nuked in return. I feel like this argument is going to get us nowhere.

Here is a good argument made on the debate thread on Nationstates:

"The people of Losthaven vote against. While this proposal pays lip service to some principles, all it actually does is say "take care not to deliberately target civilians, unless you have to for key strategic military reasons, oh and by the way even that watered down principle is out the window if the enemy targets your civilians with nukes."

Since when do we abandon our principles just because we have an evil enemy? I suppose you would have us torture POWs if the other side does, or poison their wells if they target ours? That doesn't move us forward in the slightest. If anything, it sets this assembly back.

It is when our principles are tested that we should most stick to and defend them. We should not be announcing to the world that we will discard our morals when faced with an amoral opponent. This is just another example of this assembly paying lip service to ethical behavior in war while effectively doing nothing to actually behave ethically. We will continue to oppose such nonsense and hope that someday the WA will enact effective legislation to address amoral wartime conduct."

I have given you my opinion and I hope you vote FOR as it's the popular opinion of the world alliance.

Amongst World Alliance residents, voting is currently 6-5 (54% For).

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:I have given you my opinion and I hope you vote FOR as it's the popular opinion of the world alliance.

Amongst World Alliance residents, voting is currently 6-5 (54% For).

Actually, it's 6-6... And since there is no favorite among the region, I am afraid my vote will remain the same. It may be swayed, if offered a sound argument.