GA Resolution: Nuclear Weapon Test Ban

[Ananke II]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Nuclear Weapon Test Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Quadnairia


Description: The World Assembly

NOTING the danger presented by nuclear fallout

CONCERNED about the testing and use of nuclear weapons

HEREBY RESOLVES that all nations shall prohibit, prevent, and not carry out nuclear explosions, test or otherwise, at any place within their jurisdiction or control in the atmosphere, underwater, or in any other environment if an explosion would send radioactive fallout outside of the territorial limits of the nation carrying out the explosion;

FURTHER RESOLVES that all nations refrain from causing, encouraging, or participating in any nuclear explosion, test or otherwise, in any environment described above.

[Guy]

For, a resolution without too much crap in it, and I support the idea.

[MPlowsia]

Had to vote against it. It doesn't contain a lot of crap, sure, but the words "always" and "never" are, as a general rule, dangerous. So are the concepts of such.

This is expensive, as many nations already have full nuclear arsenal. Nothing here plans for what to do about those who need to spend a hefty amount on decommissioning those parts, nor does it give adequate terms for disposal. Likewise, all it takes is for one nation to secretly disobey this resolution... if the rest listen, then there's no force to stop them.

Most of all-- it doesn't discourage building nukes, just TESTING them. There's too many loopholes. This needs to be worded better, and so as much as I agree in principle, I voted it down.

[Pompadoodle]

Hmmm...The thing is that it only applies to WA nations. Most nations- and therefore most nuclear programmes- don't belong to the WA.

2 concerns:

- It will make it very difficult for new WA nations to acquire nukes. This would make them potentially very vulnerable to non-WA nations with no such problems.

- It will make it more difficult for established WA nuclear powers to upgrade their arsenals. Again, this could result in us WA nations being at a military disadvantage.

In the RW, the test ban treaty worked because there were only 2 major nuclear powers, and both of 'em signed up to it. The situation here is very different.

Which means I'm AGAINST.

[Guy]

Oh, I forgot about the RP aspects of it.

However, since WA resolutions are really non-enforceable other than in your nation pages, you could just ignore it. And I would like the nation-page effect of this one, as well as fundamentally agreeing with the idea.

[Globexanter]

Each nuclear weapon could cost five times more than the price it took to build and would damage the environment alot worse.

[Walabamba]

I'm for this resolution, frankly, I'm against weapons of mass destruction anyway so I'm definetely for.

[Achattaway]

Sept 7, 2010 11:08:28 GMT -5 Walabamba said:

I'm for this resolution, frankly, I'm against weapons of mass destruction anyway so I'm definitely for.

Though I am against the creation of WMDs, I see a potential problem with banning them.

The problem is it only bans weapons of mass destruction from World Assembly Nations, meaning we are defenseless to any Non WA nations. Which is why I am AGAINST the passing of this legislation.

[Osea Island]

Against. Due to the fact that this ban only affects World Assembly Nations.

[Kintobor]

Against, It would seem a very costly project to decomission a nations nuclear arsenal.

[Cerb]

It's a ban on nukes. No no no.
They can pry the big red button from under my cold dead hand.

[Pompadoodle]

Tbf it isn't a ban on owning nukes- its a ban on using them. If your nation was hit by a nuclear attack there'd be nothing stopping you from resigning your WA membership and then pressing the button.

All the same, it would seriously weaken the nuclear capability of WA nations over time. Its a baaaaad idea, and happily its going to be rejected by a large margin.

[Takaram]

I'd be for if this resolution wasn't so binding.

[Cerb]

Well you'll have to forgive me if I consider a ban on usage to be the same on a ban on their existence. I do take the point though.

[ImperialPoland]

firmly against

...mostly for the reasons mentioned above. also, no one (especially some hippie) is gonna tell me what i can or cannot do with my nuclear arsenal. if i want to test my bombs, i'll do just that.

[Dinarii]

Against for the reasons listed above

[mardoe]

As much as I support the idea of nuclear disarmement, this is not the resolution for it as it is poorly worded, and for reasons mentioned above.

[Pres Bhutan]

Wise Sultan believes the hand of peace may only be extended when clad in a mailed fist. The doctrine of MAD holds true even today, when the smallest nations with the weakest mobile military forces can obtain and wield ultimate destruction for pennies on the taco.

Wise Sultan will never support a resolution that seeks to weaken his ability to benevolently shepherd his people and safeguard his islands from harm.

Furthermore, Wise Sultan is disinclined to support the ramblings of a country that does not apply the rules of semicolon use to its diplomatic procedures. The tiniest Pres Bhutani in the earliest of diapers knows of the semicolon.

[Harperians]

^ What the Sultan, and other, have said - against.

[Echolilia]

"Nuclear Weapon Test Ban" was defeated 4,450 votes to 1,443.