NationStates Jolt Archive

My fellow delegates,

This proposal before us, the ban against all land mines, is greatly flawed. Many times throughout history, this great body, and it's predecessor, attempted to bring about peace through all reaching bans on military weapons. The result? The honorable nations of the world would comply, but the enemies of peace and freedom wouldn't. Instead, they exploited the other nation's weaknesses because of the ban and brought about new and very bloody wars.

Because there will always be those nations that do not follow such treaties as these, this proposal is greatly flawed. Instead, what I would propose is that, once a conflict has ended and there is no need for defense, nations seek out and uproot all land mines they placed. They must also mark danger signs marking the war zones where the land mines are placed. This way no children will be hurt.

This is an acceptable alternative which would actually accomplish the purpose of the proposal, putting an end to casualties cause by wartime equiptment that was never decommisioned. With my nation's alternative, the purpose is achieved without placing freedom loving nations at a great disadvantage to the war mongers of the world.

Do not be decieved and think that the war mongers can be made to see reason through diplomacy and treaties alone. For them, these are things used to achieve their own ends, which is the total destruction and domination of free countries everywhere. Should we work to keep the peace? Should we try to protect our children? Yes, of course. But paying any price for peace, even your own freedom, leads inevitably to war. Letting your enemy know that you seek peace, but are able to and will fight, shall do more to preserve the peace and protect our children than any ban on weapons. Or at least, so long as there is evil in our world.

You could of posted in the other thread :roll:

I think it will pass, but hopefully it'll help nations consider the effects on the others in this union next time :)

If you expect other nations to look out for your interests, you ahve to look out for theirs.

I think that landmines should be used under more controlled and professional conditions, but not banned.

I think the Proposal should have taken us a step towards that, instead of asking everyone to jump to the finish line :roll:

We also agree - as we are a small country with a long land border, mining is one of the cornerstones of our national defense. We do not see problem using land mines, because our Revolutionary Pioneers do not use them haphazardly, but carefully map the locations for clearing the mines afterwards. Also, we do not use mine spreading techniques (from helicopter or similar) and personal mines only to protect AT mining against enemy engineers.

The right answer to cut on civilian losses caused by landmines is to sanction countries that continue to sell landmines to countries in chaotic state and ban spreading mines from a helicopter/aircraft/other mass spreading methods.

--
Comandante Aleksej Bukharin
The Revolutionary Guard of Outer Uiguria

Nation of Darmir and My Fellow Members of The UN,

I admit that you are correct on one matter, the banning of weapons on a mass scale across many nations only results in an inbalance of the distribution of ordinance. With specific reference to chemical/biological ban of President Nixon's term (USA), The Soviet Union and United States agreed to discontinue use of chem/bio weapons. This was done on the side of the United States ;however, The Soviets used the chance to secretly accelerate its program underground, eventually causing an outbreak of the anthrax they were producing in their chosen city of operaton.

The morals of the story are:

1. If you can find a way to have all factions/nations/countries to stop using landmines, go ahead, it would be a wonderful advancement of the "humanity of war." But I personally believe that the good will stand up for right and the evil will take advantage of the good's conscience.

2. As seen in the anthrax outbreak of soviet years, no nation has complete control of their weapons. Hence, one cannot simply go back after a conflict and pick up landmines. This isn't a football game which you simply clean up afterwards. Also, you cant totally trust that the opposing force that loses will disclose that information.

I know it may seem as though I am contradicting myself, but that is the issue at hand. This entire proposal is a double edged sword. On one hand, it is a noble idea, as many thousands of lives, and even more so, lives of children, will be spared. The quality of life will improve, as I have seen many videos of maimed persons due to land mines. Nevertheless, disarming all people will only leave them in the hands of evil factions.

My proposal is to transfer this as to a matter of technology. All those peoples who have the ability to do so , use timed landmines, as the United States is currently putting into practice. These devices can be remotley detonated after a conflict by US army explosives experts, otherwise, they will disarm themselves automatically after a period preset.

In conclusion, I believe that a ban is not practical, only allowing the good nations of the world to be restricted at the benfit of less than respectable agendas of others. As an alternative to a ban, simply support the use of "smart mines" in a humane sense, as well as the encouragement of a gradual disarmament of the world's forces of landmines. In this way, one may not be forced into submission, but may simply use their good reason as to the progress of humanity.

Thank You,
President John Michaels
Holy Republic Of Saint John DeMatha

Nation of Darmir and My Fellow Members of The UN,

I admit that you are correct on one matter, the banning of weapons on a mass scale across many nations only results in an inbalance of the distribution of ordinance. With specific reference to chemical/biological ban of President Nixon's term (USA), The Soviet Union and United States agreed to discontinue use of chem/bio weapons. This was done on the side of the United States ;however, The Soviets used the chance to secretly accelerate its program underground, eventually causing an outbreak of the anthrax they were producing in their chosen city of operaton.

The morals of the story are:

1. If you can find a way to have all factions/nations/countries to stop using landmines, go ahead, it would be a wonderful advancement of the "humanity of war." But I personally believe that the good will stand up for right and the evil will take advantage of the good's conscience.

2. As seen in the anthrax outbreak of soviet years, no nation has complete control of their weapons. Hence, one cannot simply go back after a conflict and pick up landmines. This isn't a football game which you simply clean up afterwards. Also, you cant totally trust that the opposing force that loses will disclose that information.

I know it may seem as though I am contradicting myself, but that is the issue at hand. This entire proposal is a double edged sword. On one hand, it is a noble idea, as many thousands of lives, and even more so, lives of children, will be spared. The quality of life will improve, as I have seen many videos of maimed persons due to land mines. Nevertheless, disarming all people will only leave them in the hands of evil factions.

My proposal is to transfer this as to a matter of technology. All those peoples who have the ability to do so , use timed landmines, as the United States is currently putting into practice. These devices can be remotley detonated after a conflict by US army explosives experts, otherwise, they will disarm themselves automatically after a period preset.

In conclusion, I believe that a ban is not practical, only allowing the good nations of the world to be restricted at the benfit of less than respectable agendas of others. As an alternative to a ban, simply support the use of "smart mines" in a humane sense, as well as the encouragement of a gradual disarmament of the world's forces of landmines. In this way, one may not be forced into submission, but may simply use their good reason as to the progress of humanity.

Thank You,
President John Michaels
Holy Republic Of Saint John DeMatha

I think the current proposal should be changed or dismissed, so that Outer Uiguria's way of reducing civilians can be implemented in it's place...

Who offers to write it up, and place a poll, for it to replace the old proposal?

The honorable members, Saint John De Matha and Outer Uiguria, both have greatly presented the logical reasoning against this ban. Even Anyone and Everyone agrees that this proposal is flawed.

Members of this body, I urge you to reconsider this proposal and remember that not all members of this body are strong enough to be without certain military weapons. A great many are vital to our national defense against agressive nations seeking to conquer. What you do on this vote could decide the fate of many nations, as well as the possibility of more wars in our future.

I second that motion. Landmines are a necessary evil until they are removed under the power of the individual nations of their implementation. I do not see their purpose anymore in the world of small squad based combat, where every inch of battle is accounted for and their is almost no unknown.

Nevertheless, I see harm in forceful disarmament. It hasn't worked in the past, and it won't work now. There is always the x factor and we can't take that chance. I hereby vote in opposition to the proposal at hand.

Vote Cast

President John Michaels
Holy Republic Of Saint John DeMatha

Honorable members of the UN,

I, Prime Minister of -Canadia-, would also like to show another aspect of the landmine issue as to why the banning should not go forth. In a wartime situation, the use of landmines are used to thwart the advancement of enemy troops or at the very least maim an advancing battallion to give the defenders an advantage over the enemy. Landmines, being weapons of death, are also weapons of the preservation of life. Landmines can be a very effective means of preserving the life and culture of one nation from an aggressor nation. Sometimes, landmines could even turn the tides of a offensive and save a defensive country. So, if you look at it like that, how many lives would banning landmines really save? If a country was conquered, there would surely be many civilian casualties to follow as an aggressor nation penetrated deeper into the heart of the defending nation. Cities would be reduced to rubble, homes lost and lives utterly ruined. But, if the country had employed the use of landmines, they could've turned the tides in favour of the defending country and given that slight edge that was needed to beat off offensives. Thousands and tens of thousands of lives could be saved because an aggressor country was beaten back because the appropriate defensive measures were taken.

Now tell me, are the lives of a relatively few people worth saving at the possibilty of losing the way of life and freedom of your nation? Personally, I think that a few unlucky citizens are worth the sacrifice to save my nation and the remainder of the people in this nation. Now, I am not ignorant and I will not just allow those innocent people to die on old landmines. I believe that we should try to preserve life as best was we can and I believe that the nation of Saint John DeMatha is on right track when saying that this should become a matter of technology in order to dispose of landmines after a wartime situation.

I have opted to vote against the proposal.

The Honorable Prime Minister from Canadia has given another excellent reason for this proposal not passing.

Indeed, one might argue that such defensive weapons like the land mine can be a great deterrent to war. This is the very reason why nations like mine maintain a military; in the hopes that we never have to use it. Maintaining a strong military force ensures that your enemies will think twice before attacking you. And if they don't, they will pay such a dear price for their act they would be rendered ineffective and those who watch them would learn quickly that this nation is not to be trifled with.

However, banning such defensive weapons like the landmine would only encourage more wars and invasions. If this body thinks that it has the power to maintain peace simply by passing laws and treaties, it has become very arrogant indeed. Mere man-inspired words and pieces of paper will not be enough to stop someone hungry for war and conquest. The only thing such brutes understand is the sharp, two-edged sword.

Finally, I would like to add that for the UN to force upon all these sovereign nations something that is clearly a nation's own personal perogative, that of it's own national defense, is the utmost violation of national sovereignty and freedom. If we are to be a body that legislates to that point, then let us reform ourselves and allow public elections of the representatives here. It would be a great shame for the people not to be represented in this body and only the governments' voice is heard. This is the heart of democracy, that the people chose the path government goes.

The Confederacy of No Stinking Taxes will vote aganst this resolution.

First, the general reasons:

1. The CoNST will not support any UN resolution that infringes on
CoNST sovereignty.

2. The CoNST will not support any UN resolution just because its
stated intent is good or noble. The resolution must make sense, and
its implementation must be realistic.

The following is a line-by-line Fisking of this specific resolution:

Banning the use of Landmines
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Okay, right out of the gate, we have several issues:

1. The UN wants to tell us what we can or cannot use to defend
our nation. Bad UN!

2. The CoNST has learned that it never makes sense to ban inanimate
objects. You may wish to regulate behavior that makes use of
that inanimate object. But it is fruitless (oh, hell, it's just plain stupid)
to ban things, whether you are talking landmines, handguns,
drugs, radio scanners, or mod'd DVD players.

3. The subtitle is "to slash worldwide military spending." We at least
thought the purpose of this resolution was to reduce the number of
civilians getting blown up. Banning landmines won't make even
the tiniest dent in worldwide military spending. The CoNST never
supports UN resolutions that contain ridiculous claims like this.

Gee, and that was just the title.


Description: All nations are advised that landmines are cruel


No duh. But then again, so are AK-47s, RPGs, knives, bombs, nuclear warheads, rocks thrown by Palestinian punks, and junior high school wedgies.


and unnecessary devices


People who are trying to separate themselves from other people who want
to kill them might disagree as to their necessity.


to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets.


Landmines do not position themselves. If they are deployed against civilian targets, then the people deploying them in such a manner ought to be thrown off the top of the UN building. We would support such a resolution. We do not see such a provision in this resolution.


When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise.


True. We agree that this is a problem. We disagree that this resolution solves the problem. See below.


For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.


We would support a resolution that bans use of landmines against civilian
targets, and which mandates removal by the deploying entitiy after hostilities
have ceased. We would even support (including financially) a UN resolution that forms a landmine removal agency. This resolution does none of that.

Dweezil of the CoNST