• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. A proposal I saw

    Wait, what? He had a question about the proposal and I told him to ask the creator of the proposal. How does that in anyway count as being a d**k?
  2. A proposal I saw

    I looked it up, and both spellings work. For your second question, ask the guy who proposed it.
  3. A proposal I saw

    With the nuclear arms protocol struck out, a replacement is needed. I found this proposal on the WA page: "Recognizing that the aims of the World Assembly continue to involve conduct during wartime, specifically conduct regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction, Agreeing that the recently repealed Nuclear Arms Protocol was misguided, vague, sought to prematurely end the debate on nuclear weapons, and did not secure the protections for civilians that many hoped it would, Realizing that all states still have a vested interest in prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons on civilians, no matter what character the nation may consist of, regardless of the repeal of the aforementioned Protocol, Proposing to provide new protections for civilians during total war, this Resolution seeks to enact the following: I. An unequivocal ban on the use of nuclear weapons on civilian areas for the following forbidden reasons: To declare a war outside of the scope that this Resolution allows, to force a state to surrender outside of the same scope, to secure territorial or trade concessions, or to secure any other concessions that are not explicitly allowed in this Resolution. II. An unequivocal ban on the use of preemptive nuclear strikes on civilian areas, even in circumstances where a rogue nation can be reasonably expected to launch nuclear weapons for a forbidden reason in the future, and an unequivocal ban on the use of nuclear weapons on civilian where no nuclear launch facilities are located. III. An exception which allows for the use of nuclear weapons on civilian areas provided it is to remove an existential threat to another nation's existence, namely the imminent and confirmed threat of a nuclear strike, and seeks only to disarm or destroy the nuclear weapons capabilities of the rogue nation in question. IV. A voluntary Weapons Technology Sharing Treaty under which weak and small nations without access to a nuclear deterrent may grow their missile defense systems through the generosity of other nations that seek peace, In effect, this Resolution forbids the use of nuclear weapons on civilian areas unless the nation in question is in the process of launching them from that location, and demands that the international community care for any displaced refugees that result from any ex post facto strike. Ultimately, the World Assembly must recognize the rights of non-combatants during raised nuclear threats, and only put their lives in danger in the event that every diplomatic avenue has been exhausted and there is no time to seek a non-nuclear military solution. Addendum: This Resolution purposefully does not address the matter of destroying another nation's nuclear weapons mid-flight, nor does it address the procedure for dealing with nations that violate the Resolution, but urges the World Assembly to define the parameters of these issues in future Resolution(s)." Seems like a decent proposal, but what do you guys think?
  4. [PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Protocol"

    Remember kids, if the person is rude, no matter how essential the legislation is, DON'T VOTE. My question is, does the opposite work? If I asked for a mandatory slavery industry in each country very politely, would it be voted for?
  5. [PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Protocol"

    Ok, I might be misunderstanding this but.... are you saying you want to leave a majorly flawed piece of legislation in effect because the creator of the repeal attempt was a bit rude?
  6. [PASSED] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Protocol"

    I voted for. The loophole is so big a 747 could fly through.