NationStates Jolt Archive

If the Resolution Gets Passed

05-12-2003, 02:14
1.) Rename all your landmines to something a bit more less threatening. ie Anti-personal pressure activated demolition packs

2.) Red Tape the whole process of actually disabling your mines. Paperwork needs to be filled out.

3.) Make it known that your government doesn't "officialy" own any mines. You contracted out through a long list of corporations and back room deals to a mine laying corporation thus avoiding any blame.

4.) Start ads about how humane your nation is for banning landmines

End Justifies the Means
05-12-2003, 02:30
Why go to so much trouble? You could call a press conference, and have the president of the nation broadcast worldwide personally burying a silver landmine to commemorate the designation of a new defensive zone.

What is anybody going to do to stop you? The UN has no enforcement branch that I am aware of. All that can be done is to huff and puff and make lots of noise, easily toned out.

The power of the UN is granted only by the willing participation of its members. If a member chooses to disregard UN policy, there is nothing to stop itfrom doing so.
05-12-2003, 02:33
The power of the UN is granted only by the willing participation of its members. If a member chooses to disregard UN policy, there is nothing to stop itfrom doing so.

Except possibly the Goobergunchian military and allies. ;)
05-12-2003, 02:54
The Commonwealth of Billthecat is not impressed with youe overly imperialistic posturing. Please show us where in the UN charter it says that "the Goobergunchian military and their allies are hereby appointed to act as hall monitors for enforcement of UN resolutions."

If the great and mighty nation of Goobergunchia chooses to waste their time checking little nation to make sure that they do not have inappropriately placed firecrackers, be our guest. However, please be informed that any univited military presence witin our borders will not be smiled upon.

Have a nice day! :)
05-12-2003, 08:56
The Emperor intends to subcontract corporations based in non-member nations to install and maintain landmine fields for the protection of the Empire's borders, and has established an offshore corporation to which our current stock of active landmines will be sold.

Sign'd, Duke Thomas Wellington, his Military Majesty's Ambassador to the UN,
in the name of Hieronymus XXXVII Smap, DEO GRACI IMPERATOR.
05-12-2003, 15:39
Additionally, the resolution is worded such that there is no restriction on landmine use while your nation is at peace.....I quote:

"For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines IN CONFLICTS carried out by UN counties is called for."

Yes, it's an issue of semantics, but ultimately, what this means is, you can lay ALL the mines you're only in contravention if you actually go to war.
05-12-2003, 15:44
You do have a point. But what would the laying of landmines during peaceful times acclomplish? It is likely to spark disagreements with other anti-landmine nations and in a worst-case scenario, would lead to war. Then the resolution would be effective, therefore landmines used during periods of peace isn't a brilliant idea.

Surely peaceful nations have no need for landmines anyway?
05-12-2003, 15:57
Oh, I'm not saying that it's a good idea, or a bad one. What I'm saying is it's a poorly written resolution. Additionally, landmines, as a defensive weapon, used with deterrence or area denial in mind, are perfectly effective at doing their job when your nation is at peace.

Let's say country "A" has a dispute with country "B". Country "B" begins a large military buildup on the border. Country "A" has a far smaller army, so it needs to persuade country "B" that invading would be a bad idea, so it starts laying mines in the likely invasion routes country "B" would use. Country "B" is now faced with the proposition of breaching that minefield in order to invade, and decides it isn't worth the trouble. The mines just did their intended job without a single one ever going off. I admit, this is a perfect scenario, and real life situations rarely go perfectly, but that's the idea.

Sun Tzu: "one can never be defeated in a battle one never fights"
05-12-2003, 16:04
So what would Country A do with the mines in that scenario? Where the mines are placed is likely to be a vital route out of the country, so blocking off a key route. This would have effects on transport and possibly will result in unnecessary deaths unless it's clearly stated that the area is a danger.

And if the dispute between Country A and B ends, Country A would need to remove the landmines - which is rather costly to do. And where would the country funds come from - taxpayers money?
05-12-2003, 16:13
Well, if the UN resolved that nations using mines had to clean up the mess at their own expense once they were no longer necessary, that I could vote for. Additionally, the negative effects you speak of would be detrimental to to the nation laying the mines....this is a risk that it would be up to them to take. But none of this is germaine to the discussion at hand. My statement was simply, for the third time, that because the resolution is poorly written, it doesn't really ban landmine use. If you don't like that, propse one that does.
05-12-2003, 16:15
*hides landmines in a cave marked Danger.*
What landmines? *Whistles innocently.*
05-12-2003, 16:17
Although the resolution is poorly written, I voted for the resolution since the benefits potentially outweigh the cons. If this resolution comes into place, then only time will tell what will happen.