Nuclear Arms Protocol

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild

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:

1. For the purposes of this protocol defines a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon which derives it power solely from nuclear reactions,
   
   
2. 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,
   
   
3. Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation deliberately target civilian populations in defiance of this accord,
   
   
4. 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.
   

Forum topic

(This post was last modified: 01-03-2015, 01:10 PM by Vote Collector.)

Reply

This is a rehash of a previous failed effort to replace the ban on the use of nuclear weapons against civilians that Repeal "International Criminal Court" legalised.

Reply

It's... Okay, I guess, but I still wouldn't vote for it.

Given the radius of nuclear explosions and the size of fallout zones, it would be practically impossible for a country to not have civilians within the nuclear bomb danger zone of key strategic military assets. Unless you're a large county with a large area of uninhabited land.

I'm also pretty iffy on explicitly authorizing the use of nuclear weapons at all. Just one of y quirks thinking the WA should be there to promote peace and not lay down the legal justification for using weapons of mass destruction

(This post was last modified: 12-30-2014, 02:30 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

It's an unnecessarily conservative effort in my opinion. Trying to write legislation to suit the orcs is a fool's errand: regardless of the accommodations made, they'll vote against. He could have got something much more substantial through.

Reply

Against.

I wonder if we could do a vote within a WA resolution thread to determine the Delegate's vote.

Reply

You would need to speak to Tsu about that. I voted against too, but the majority of the region are for.

Reply

Each Delegate has their own WA voting policy, so you would have to talk to tsu, as Aram said.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

I've been making polls. So far a vast majority of TSP residents have been voting for (according to WA), but I'll vote in the direction our poll indicates.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I was not impressed by it and was tempted to vote no. However I thought about it for a while and in the end voted yes, but it's not the best thing I've voted for.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Reply

I was not impressed by it and was tempted to vote no. However I thought about it for a while and in the end voted yes, but it's not the best thing I've voted for.

Honestly, I voted no in the poll and would've personally voted "no" for the proposal. However, a majority (slight, but majority nonetheless) of WA nations voted "yes" in our regional poll, so I followed their desires.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply