Amendment to the Nuclear Proliferation Act
-
I must disagree with this amendment as it has no nuance. There are many times a declaration of war may be justified such as threats and attacks on the territory of a nation , actions like killing people in an allied or your national territory and instances where an ally is attacked and you need to declare war and support to defend an ally you have obligations to. Its not the case that your country is automatically the aggressor or wrong for having declared a war.A good example would be the Svarna situation where an attempted assasination on an allied territory put many civillian lives at risk and killed many children. Situations like that justify a declaration of war in defense of the ally or yourself. You only have to look at our record to see we've have over 100 years without a war and are peaceful and stable. Yet this would render nations that are peaceful but have had to defend themselves from unprovoked attacks essentially declaring war from getting nuclear weapons. That would not be fair. I believe the systems we have in place now are good enough to stop rogue powers from getting nuclear weapons.
Skye Hook, Councillour for United Duchies
-
The amendment allows prohibited nations to seek an exemption from the Council, which should be simple, if not trivial, to obtain if they truly have been good actors. With the current system open enough to hypothetically allow bad actors to seize control of the ENAA, such an additional check is simply necessary.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate will continue until 21:50 GMT on July 21st, 2024.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
This adds a hurdle for that situation though and you say that as if this council cannot be abused for political gain. I'll give you a hypothetic an alliance attacks another alliance and they have a big block in the council . They then use this to block the other alliance getting nuclear weapons for declaring war to defend themselves against said alliance. They could easily use their block power to block the vote. The system at the moment though not perfect is at least supposedly done on technical values and based on stability of the state and capability to handle nuclear weapons without politics being involved. This politicises that process or possibly politicises the decision making process more than it is at the moment by putting it in the hands of politicians in the council who may have an agenda.I would also ask if this hasn't been an issue so far why is it suddenly an issue now ? And why suddenly is the ENAA "open to abuse by bad actors" ? This has never been an issue before.
Skye Hook, Deputy Councillour for United Duchies
-
"Nuclear weapons to defend themselves" - that is to say, nuclear war? The last time we should allow for nuclear proliferation in our world is in the middle of war.
Furthermore, the ENAA is now half-elected, where before only a fifth of it was. There is no issue now, nor do I foresee there being an issue in the near future, but it is certainly far easier for bad actors to seize control and ram through their dictates than was the case before.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
No sane nation would use nuclear weapons in offensive war they are a deterrent pure and simple though obviously the world is safer if there were not nuclear weapons at all. I still struggle to see what has changed significantly? If you want to stop a bad actor getting onto the ENAA all you have to do is vote against them doing so in the ENAA elections. All your amendment would do is make it harder for nations who had to declare war in legitimate defense of their national security due to either attack on their territory or militiaries or foreign intelligence assassinations on their territory to get nuclear weapons essentially punishing them for defending themselves and their sovereignty.
Skye Hook Deputy Councillour for United Duchies
-
While I applaud Councillor Tilkanas' efforts to avoid the posession of nuclear weapons by those nations that have proven themselves to be rogue and war-torn, this amendment encloses the decision-making range of the ENAA, which should not be limited in any sense, nor overturned by the European Council. As the former Speaker has acknowledged, the ENAA deals with requests from European nations in order to be authorised to have a certain number of nuclear warheads, which requires certain level of knowledge and responsibility.
It is funny, from my point of view, that the Duchian Councillor brings up the most recent example of a declaration of war in Europe, made by the United Duchies, the Kingdom of Reitzmag and the United Kingdom. The Svarnan conflict, because such a shameful intervention that caused severe damage to many and that only lasted for a day, with the sole intention of forcing a regime change in the country and to relief some testosterone that the leaders of these countries had accumulated throughout past years, does not deserve to be called a war; is the best example of what manipulation and fakes can contribute to: the creation of a different story about the conflict.
Councillor Hook also affirmed that "no sane nation would use nuclear weapons in offensive war". I may ask the honourable lady what she believes a sane nation to be, and moreover, which criteria is followed to resolve which nations are sane and which are insane. In addition, she stated that this amendment would make it harder for nations to achieve nuclear weapons, but the truth is that the declaration of war makes it harder if the ENAA follows the same criteria it has been following for years. Nevertheless, we are all fully aware of the manipulative skills some nations of the European Union have to sway the tale, as the talent others have to be solely obsessed with so-called "power balances". The reality is, Councillor Hook, that no nation that would have proven to be rogue or that has declared war recently is likely to achieve a nuclear license. Nuclear warheads are not toys -they are deadly weapons that can kill millions- even if some may think so. And we need to be really careful, as you said, about who we let into the ENAA.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
"Lets not shift the blame or point fingers. As usual the Councillor Tusk wants nothing but to fling pointed insults and not address the actual topic. What Councillor Skye Hook was referring to is a nation being held in a scenario of a defencive war. Nuclear weapons while deadly, are a good deterrent from nations whether they are nucelar or not to act rashly or thinking they can act with impunity because they have nucelar weapons. One can point to the Strait Crisis or the Eastern Haane Operation as examples as well. Or using nuclear blackmail as a deterring for a nuclear nation to bend current geopolitical events towards their will. While it is too late for many. In the future What Ms Tilkanas is saying is any bad actor with a record of being said bad actor shouldn't have access to any access to nuclear weapons. Nothing more. Now if we are done throwing insults, lets stick to the topic.
To get back on the poin t what Councillor Tilkanas is proposing is basically an extra layer of what is basically vetting in order to get hands on nuclear weapons, nothing more really. I will agree that nuclear weapons are not toys, So one shouldn't really have a problem with the amendment."
Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai.
-
In response to criticism, I propose the following amendment:
AMENDMENT I
- Nations who have made a declaration of war on a nation or nations which have not yet both declared war and entered active conflict at the time of the counter-declaration with them in the five years preceding their application are
notonly to be permitted to develop or trade in nuclear warheads or nuclear missile launchers,except in the case of a motion specifically exempting the applying nation alone having previously passed the European Council with at least a simple majority of fifty-five percent.by unamimous vote of the ENAA
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen - Nations who have made a declaration of war on a nation or nations which have not yet both declared war and entered active conflict at the time of the counter-declaration with them in the five years preceding their application are
-
I would say your amendment still doesn't address the primary concern that this equally applied to defensive and provoked wars as much as it does to wars of unprovoked agression. I still think regardless its best to let the ENAA do its work , we have enough protections in place.
Skye Hook, Deputy Councillour for United Duchies
-
"Councillor Tilkanas if I understand this correctly this latest proposal would add the layer of having a unanimous vote for countries that have declared war within 5 years to apply for nuclear weapons through the ENAA correct? I would also like to ask about the matter in regards with nations on the defencive end of previous wars? A state such as that might want to apply for nuclear weapons as a means of a deteringt against the ofensive nations to conduct certain military activities against them in the future"
Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai.
-
I ultimately think it is necessary to ensure that, in cases where a nation has been involved in conflict, where its ability to maintain responsibility at pressure-points may therefore be at question, the approval of at least one of the permanent members is obtained. To be clear, however, I am not unsympathetic to an exemption for nations that have issued a declaration of war on a nation which has already declared war on them - I am simply concerned that such a measure may be used by the less-than-scrupulous to escape from responsibility for their own provocations.
And this is a very real problem, given the history of our Union. Ours is a Europe where a country claiming that attempts to contest its unilateral annexations are provocative is one of the less egregious cases of reassigning blame; even a newspaper publishing two entirely unrelated articles next to each other was once cited as provocation. I think, given this, anyone would share my fears.
Nevertheless, I will amend my previous amendment, albeit with severe misgivings, to the following - I will update the original text, as well:
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A NEW AMENDMENT. IT IS A REVISION TO THE ALREADY-PROPOSED AMENDMENT I, REFLECTED IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
- Nations who have made a declaration of war on a nation or nations which have not yet both declared war and entered active conflict at the time of the counter-declaration with them in the five years preceding their application are
notonly to be permitted to develop or trade in nuclear warheads or nuclear missile launchers,except in the case of a motion specifically exempting the applying nation alone having previously passed the European Council with at least a simple majority of fifty-five percent.by unamimous vote of the ENAA
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen - Nations who have made a declaration of war on a nation or nations which have not yet both declared war and entered active conflict at the time of the counter-declaration with them in the five years preceding their application are
-
As much as this bill may be within reason, the independence and impartiality of the ENAA's decisions must be protected. This council, being a political chamber, should not dictate the process in which the ENAA comes up with decisions. I'm sure that the ENAA members are more than capable of knowing the capacity of an applicant nation to such weapons of mass destruction.
Dame Yuridiana Yahontova GCC
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag
The Kingdom of Spain
