[Algoriac]

Please consider repealing this resolution.

[Embolalia]

Do you have a specific reason in mind? My guess is that you want it repealed so that you can push through your own disarmament act. I should warn you that disarmament is nearly impossible to pass, if at all. The reason is that non-WA nations don't have to abide by WA resolutions, so banning weapons, or specific kinds of weapons, leaves WA nations without a deterrent.

[Algoriac]

Well My point is that it is for a more peaceful world. If you have WA nations that have nukes, then non WA nations are more inclined to have nukes. And as a collective whole, we should also draft up WA policy to where if one nation is attacked by a non WA nation with weapons of mass destruction, then as a collective whole all the nations of the WA will retaliate, to their own extent. Whether that means some nations act militarily or others economically is up to them.

[Algoriac]

The whole point I am trying to make is that the less weapons of mass destruction in the world the better. And that is an obvious statement to all. But though we might think that and want that, what good is wanting the world nuclear free when we ourselves aren't nuclear free. If we can prove, which I believe we can, that a nation attacked by any weapon of mass destruction can, with WA support, retaliate with a deliberate, proportional, and humane militaristic act...then we can systematically make the world free of these inhumane weapons. It will be a long process, that I don't deny, but in the end, the world will be a better place

[Bears Armed]

AlgoriacJul 28 2010, 04:11 AM Well My point is that it is for a more peaceful world. If you have WA nations that have nukes, then non WA nations are more inclined to have nukes. And as a collective whole, we should also draft up WA policy to where if one nation is attacked by a non WA nation with weapons of mass destruction, then as a collective whole all the nations of the WA will retaliate, to their own extent. Whether that means some nations act militarily or others economically is up to them. [/quote]
The WA is not, as a "collective whole", a military alliance: In fact quite a few of its members are more closely allied to various non-WA nations, in that respect, than they are to other WA ones...
How would your suggested resolution cope with cases where a WA nation attacks a non-WA one and the latter's allies (WA or not) then come to its aid?

Also, any such 'mutual military assistance' clause would almost certainly be declared illegal by the Mods anyway...


:Bear: