NationStates Jolt Archive

I do not know if anyone noticed this (if you have mentioned it before, I apologize for restating it) but I thought this needed to be brought to the attention of all member nations.

There was a proposal made in November 2002 that passed by a 2 to 1 vote that increased the amount of military spending for all member nations. As far as I know, this is still in effect.

This Landmine proposal is subtitled "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending." I don't know if anyone bothered to think about this but, to pass a resolution that counters a previous one, has the potential to negate both or to tip the balance of power.

So, if the one in 2002 increases military spending by 100 million currency and this one decides to "slash" it by 100 million currency, the whole thing is garbage and you've all just wasted your time.

But if its passed and the numbers are different this is what could happen: We wind up finding out that the UN can not make up its mind on a Global Disarmament or rearmament resolution and therefore negates the entire system which makes the UN worthless.

Now, I personally would like to see the UN disbanded because of its inability to make a clear decision but that doesn't seem likely. What I would also like to see though is someone rebute this argument because I am kinda bored and need something to argue about...

Well, it is likely that the Axis of Evil resolution (which was passed 1 day before the beggining of the universe, I might add) would channel the increased military spending into other areas, such as more small arms and troops, or possibly just a broad increase. The slash to military spending is in a different, more specific area: land mine production. It would be like cutting the budget for nukes and increasing the budget for tanks and fighter jets. The overall budget is the same, but the things being produced are different.

But it does say "slash in worldwide MILITARY spending." Granted it does make a limitation on this to landmines but never the less it is a military expense and no matter what you increase by cutting landmines off. And here again I will shoot the proposal down by saying that the number of injuries, incapacitations, and deaths that happen to civilians is less than 0. In fact it might even be safe to say that landmins casualties are in the negative numbers.

And I realized that the afformentioned resolution was passed slightly after the first government slithered out from the primortial soup but none the less it still counts. Would you repeal the 1st amendment in the U.S. Constitution just becuase it was passed just after the Government was formed? I wouldn't think so.

I guess I don't see what the issue is here. Military spending went up; now it's going down. Given that the membership of the United Nations has changed dramatically since the original resolution went into effect, and that the priorities of even the states that were members at the time may have changed, what's so strange about this?

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Pluralistic Community of Gurthark

^
I agree. The 18th Amendment declared the making, selling, and buying of alcoholic beverages to be illegal (or something like that, don't get too techincal on me) and the 21st made them legal again. We didn't waste our time.

And the vote WAS two to one...whereas roughly twenty-thousand voted on this one. Okay, perhaps less, but again, don't get too technical on me...it was a lot more voters than three. :P

Yes, in game terms there is absolutely nothing to what we argue about. As far as that stupid hunk of metal somewhere in a room with Max Barry is concerned, when this passes: deduct XXX from every nation's military and economy scores. Maybe a country with high military productions would get hurt more.

So, in game terms, why do we bother having resolutions? Why not just have every week "A proposal to raise everyone's stats XX points?" Because we couldn't argue as much about that.

Why not just pass a resolution "up everyone's civil rights score XXX points" instead of "Legalize Gay Marriage?"

It's more fun.

And there are crazy people who like to force their views on everyone else and they seem to congregate in the UN.

Now stop taking all the fun out of this.

First Citizen Matthew
St. George's Isels

what does it matter how many people voted in it? put this resolution's numbers into a ratio of for and against. You'll get something in the same ballpark as the first one.

And the comment about the 18th amendment is as flawed as this system. THe 18th amendment was repealed because becuase of an influx in organized crime, and in this case there is no influx of anything. I could see this resolution passing if there were a major rise in the death toll from landmines, but we have seen none.

With that said, I believe that this resolution is just a waste of time and should not be passed. Simple as that..

(note also that the reason why the vote in the last one was so low was becuase the population of nations was so low.)

Anyways it does make sense to pass this law because we rllly do need to cut down on landmines. People are still killed by them. And about the military spending thing in the real government laws are passed then negated all the time due to changing surcomstances. But on another note it never said there would be less spending just no landmines =P.

Yes in my previuse message i went on about how banning landmines is a good isea but upon thinking i'm going to resign my last statement. Banning landmines is a bad idea for rlly 2 big reasons. Nobody can deny the offensive and defensive power and this proposal wouldn't affect about %66 of the other nations. Therefor Nations in the United Nations would be left without a defense an enemy could have.

Signed
President of the Democratic Republic of Aelov

Landmines don't kill people? That's an interesting statement, Khanate.

And a vote of three people is now just as representative as a few thousand?

And governments are not allowed to modify their policies, ever, not even one bit, or they negate their own powers and must dissolve?

Man, it's just raining logic in this thread.

Laws are made, things change. There is no "flaw" in the resolution. We in Yshurak feel that land mines are a barbaric device and must be banned. This resolution we agree with. After all, think of innocent citizens who accidentally trigger the mines... they're either killed or maimed by the blast. Vote yes for your people's sake.

Ivon Millente
Yshurak UN Ambassador

Let me get straigh to the point. Are landmines extremly dangerous? Hell yea. are landmines useful in battle? Hell yea. I beleive that the resolution should be made to greatly ban the ability for civilians to obtain and use landmines but the landmines should be allowed for military use. So if this change is made then i will vote for the resolution, as of now i obstain.

what does it matter how many people voted in it?


What does it matter? Three people voting is an absurdly small number! In math, general rules for graphs only describe end behavior, for values near zero, you don't know. This new vote is more representative...in a football game, if one guy throws 30 times and completes 16 of them, and another throws 3 and completes 2, does that mean the second one is a much more accurate thrower?

Small nations, such as myself, with no form of protection need all the military help they can get. Why ban landmines? what makes it such a moral wrong that it is okay to sell arms, but landmines, when used for defense is a sin! VOTE NO on the banning of landmines. Think of the little guy!(please) :( p.s. agree with previous post on the more votes the more accurate a decision!

Hey, I'm a little guy too...but land mines are too often used in cases like the Berlin Wall...the soviets built a wall in Germany and placed land mines in the bridge...people desperately trying to escape were often blown up by mines. Similar in North Korea, I believe.

And think of it this way: larger nations have less to spend on militaries to quash you. There is no telling or regulating how one USES their landmines. That's true with arms, as well, I suppose, but nations need arms to attack and protect...of course, they could use it in bad ways as well, but if one has no arms, someone who does will destroy you.

[quote="Yshurak"]Laws are made, things change. There is no "flaw" in the resolution.

what does that mean laws are made things change, laws should be permanent, not some thing just simply stated. how can they be taken seriously if they continuosly change?

@Toa:

Come on, what do you mean they can't be changed...the government is only human (some would argue LESS) and make mistakes. The law enforcing prohibition was passed, but repealed. Laws change because the world changes. If laws do not accomodate these changes, then how will the nation cope with new world issues? HTML has constantly changed in response to web developments, it has now evolved into XHTML. If the HTML 1.0 laws were static, a) we wouldn't have this forum, b) we wouldn't have images, c) the internet would be BORING. But as the Internet became wildly popular, new versions of HTML had to be released to increase flexibility...and create an entirely new industry.

Laws have to continuosly change, if they don't, you have a problem.

If that is your belief, "There is no telling or regulating how one USES their landmines. " Then why ban the mines, rather then placing regulations on them? because land mines, i believe, would hard to put in ENEMY TERRITORY, they would seemingly only be used for defense!

Take over a strip of enemy land, or just like the Soviets...build a wall across the middle of another country, and stuff land mines in the fifty-yard stretch in the middle.

my friend warned me against joining the UN. he said all that would happen is i would get problems with disagreement on an act. now i see he was right. if this law passes, i will leave the UN!

One thing I haven't seen addresed on this issue is the fact that most mine clearers belong to either the Brotherhood of Teamsters or Education Associations. Reducing the use of landmines worldwide would result in an overall decrease in the employment of our membership and therefore would be in direct violation of previous Union supportive positions taken by the UN. As we all know, any abrogation of any responsibility by any government to fully fund and expand our brotherhoods would directly affect the space-time continuim, thereby reducing the ranks of the International Aerospace Engineers and Technical Gophers Association. Who knows what would happen then especially in view in the dismantalling of the Soviet of Philosophers last year. This proposal should not be taken lightly.

Debating is half the fun of being in the UN! :lol:


^ What??? BABCI, that made no sense whatsoever, and I don't believe it was supposed to. Space-time continuum? We're not really talking about astrophysics here... :lol:

Astrophysicts, yes! Have you ever stepped on a landmine? It may not be rocket science but it sure feels like it. My point is, landmines are bad but if you get rid of them and not use them what are you going to do with the highly trained, disgruntled, newly unemployed union socialists? Does the word revolution mean anything (they know how to make landmines, you don't), best to kep them in enemy territory. If this proposal passes which I hope it does, do not reduce my military spending, just spread my share among the total military spending of all nations other than me. :twisted:

They can still make other military equipment. They could be relocated to research...I mean, landmine isn't a whole industry in and of itself, is it? Military technology...more likely. Correct me If I'm wrong.

Landmines would not be so terrible if the after-effects of using them/them not being used didn't take effect. Landmines do not know who they blow up. Who they kill, and everything else. Civilians, friendly troops, even animals, can be blown away by the essence of a mine left in the ground after a war.

They can also be used in defend around miltary bases in hostile Teritory, I would prefer a mine field between my troops and the enemy and if you deploy them you know where they are and can remove them later.

i was thinking. people say that you MUST follow the un resolutions if you are a member, and that you cannot just follow the rules you choose to. what if you became a member, and if there was a proposal you didnt like, you just resigned. then you could sign up for the UN again if you like the next proposal. i remember hearing that the proposals only change the stats of ur nation so past proposal because the site wont bother to redo all ur numbers. ne1 know if this works?