Ma'at Kheru: Nuclear Arms Accord

[Cormac]

Nuclear Arms Accord
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:

1. For the purposes of this accord defines a nuclear weapon as a weapon fueled by nuclear reactions,

2. Demands member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure they do not intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons unless:

A. A hostile nation places targets of critical strategic value within major civilian population centers or;

B. A hostile nation tries to intentionally shield key military assets with civilian populations.

3. Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation target their 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.

Voting Options

Aye/For: For the resolution.
Nay/Against: Against the resolution.
Abstain: The Pharaoh should abstain from voting.
Present: You're personally abstaining.

[Cormac]

I would normally oppose this because it doesn't have the word "Repeal" in front of it, but barring nations from targeting civilians with nuclear weapons is an indisputably international issue that is in the purview of the World Assembly.

For.

[Dead Account]

If my main was still in the WA i'd want to vote against this, but it isn't, so AYE

[Vaculatestar]

For

[Ike]

My only major issue is that it lets you nuke cities with large populations if someone important is in it. Aside from that it's a YEA from me. I think maybe that would make a good resolution, or even a repeal.

[Cormac]

Looks like it was removed. Not sure if Chester withdrew it or the mods removed it.

[Cormac]

This is at vote now.

4-0-0. Lodged a vote for.

[travis]

As a WA deputy (and I don't know how much longer that's going to last, given the current transition), I recommend an abstention. The language is far too ambiguous and can be interpreted in any number of widely divergent ways - including that it outlaws any nuclear warfare, or that it legalizes wanton slaughter of civilians, if they are in the vicinity of a "target of critical strategic importance"...or even themselves are such a target if a nuclear power can justify it that way. Personally I would have preferred a blocker.

[Ainocra]

opposed