NationStates Jolt Archive

All All Delegates, please support to Ban Unethical Engineering. Weapons are fine for defense, but we should draw a limit on how powerful a nation can build its weapons and military.

so develop weapons but then stop when you think it's enough? THis is a sort of 'cake and eat it too' issue.

Comprimise is always the best way to go. Think about it, in war you only need enough weapons to fight the other army. You never need bombs powerful enough to level cities, because civilians live in cities, and most of the time civilians don't agree with the fighting, or else they probably would have joined the military. Banning methods of greater destruction is a good way to save lives. However, I don't want the ban to encompass all weapons. Missiles and bombs are still necessary to destroy encampments, arms facilities, and military headquarters. Something that could elimanate innocent people is a serious threat.
You shouldn't need excessively powerful weapons, unless you are planning on destroying something.

all weapons can hurt 'innocent people'. I suppose it's a question of balance but someone is ALWAYS gonna try for the edge. You can officially frown on the development of new weapons but it will happen regardless.

Honestly, I'm saying everyone gets rid of any sort of mechanical/biological weapons and opt for Braveheart/Gangs of New York fighting for settling things...but.....weapons manufacturing is a true slippery slope. Deeper and deeper we go with Alice on down.

And once I get her another drink, she'll be going down all the faster. HAR HAR!

So... do you basically mean banning so called "weapons of mass destruction"? Do you mean banning certain kinds of "conventional" arms, as well? It isn't clear what you intend.

Most Conventional weapons are fine. I think we have reached a point where we no longer need to waste so much money. However I think weapons should contain a certain precision in their killing. Reducing the amount of civilian causualties to an absolute minimum is a fair way to gauge how powerful weapons should be.

I don't think it is enough, to be honest. A mortar which could be used against tanks could be used against an apartment building. A bomb that could be used against a military facility could be easily used to take out a civilian power plant. Where's the line to be drawn, and should types of weapons that have already been developed be banned?

I don't consider it to be a full solution, but rather a step towards one. If we stop the production, we can slowly work backwards to create more reasonable restrictions.

This message from the desk of the Comittee on Morals in Federal Policy of The Republic of Global Peoples:

For the sake of argument, we will assume that "engineering" is only in the sense of weapons and lethal agents and not in the realm of bio-engineering, civil engineering, or any form other than arms.

While we do support the decrease in arms, our main conflict is with the term "unethical." Though we do beleive in moral absolutism, we know that the definition of what would be ethical.

In theory, the only weapons that could be considered inherently ethical would be non-lethal methods regulated as only to provide for law enforcement and protection of the general population. This is clearly unreasonable when put on an international scale, where even methods of basic defence are almost entirely lethal in nature.

Now, if you were to approach this issue from the other side, taking aim at what is generally considered the MOST unethical weapons, such as WMDs and bio/chemical weapons, then perhaps it would make more sense globally, but once again opponents would argue that certain situations would call for certain drastic measures.

The main root problem of such a proposal (at least from a moral philosophy standpoint seeing as the subject is "unethical" weapons,) is that in many cases, it is the situation that dictates which weapons are ethical, and not vice versa. Example: it would be unethical to use tear gas against a group of peaceful demonstrators having a sit-in protest, however it would be morally justifiable to use it against a group of armed criminals who are barracaded in a small building (as a method of bringing them out without immediate possibility of any lethal force.)

The idea, like many proposals in NS is lofty and high-minded, but far to vague to be considerd at this point. Perhaps a little more clarification is in order?

The Commonwealth of Pablovorsk concurs with the Republic of Global Peoples. A Resolution on countermanding "Unethical Engineering" is not targeted specifically at the development of weapons of mass destruction, or any other form of indescriminate device of war.

It would be difficult in the extreme to gain support for a resolution banning all forms of weapons of mass destruction, as there may be many nations in possession of these, and the logistical and practical difficulties of the dismantling of these weapons would be extremely taxing.

It may be a more appropriate step to work to declare the use of weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate devices of war (such as the already prohibited landmines) as war crimes, and as such, punishable by criminal convictions to the highest level.

While this would not limit, in theory, the production of such weapons, it does demonstrate the feelings of the global community on the use of such weapons, hopefully providing a disincentive for their use. From there it may be possible to move on toward disarmament.

It may be a more appropriate step to work to declare the use of weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate devices of war (such as the already prohibited landmines) as war crimes, and as such, punishable by criminal convictions to the highest level..

Even their retaliatory use?

Well thank God we only use ethical engineering in our various bio/chem/nuclear/genetic weapons. :P

It may be a more appropriate step to work to declare the use of weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate devices of war (such as the already prohibited landmines) as war crimes, and as such, punishable by criminal convictions to the highest level..

Even their retaliatory use?

Yes. If one was the subject of a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack, it would be dubious in the extreme to respond in kind. In the case of a nuclear attack, the purpose is not so much to gain tactical or strategic advantage, but to eliminate possible resistance with maximum force, but at the cost of the least regard for the casualties of non-combatants.

The sole targeting of military installations by such weapons does not invalidate this point of view, given the tendency to locate such installations near major population centres (as is often necessary to support significant military targets). The Commonwealth of Pablovorsk would regard any use of weapons of the aforementioned nature, whether as a form of attack, or retaliatory attack, as a war crime.

It is worth noting that such acts are retaliatory, not defensive. The key aim of such an attack would be to weaken the aggressive nation, not weaken the armed forces of that nation, as would be the object of a coventional retaliatory strike. In our opinion, this does not draw an adequate distinction between combatant and non-combatant, and such should be considered wantonly indiscriminate.

NO NO NO. The more weapons, the stronger the nation. I say Nuclear weapons to all, or stronger.

It is worth noting that such acts are retaliatory, not defensive. The key aim of such an attack would be to weaken the aggressive nation, not weaken the armed forces of that nation, as would be the object of a coventional retaliatory strike. In our opinion, this does not draw an adequate distinction between combatant and non-combatant, and such should be considered wantonly indiscriminate.

From a moral standpoint, you are largely correct. From a tactical standpoint, however, there is no practical deterrent to nuclear attack other than the fear of reciprocity.

But even then, Not all nations have access to WMDs and we also have resolutions that prevent nations without the technology to develop their own WMDs...

This leads to an inherent imbalance of power. And if we leave the defence of such countries to the bigger countries with WMD, who then watches the watcher?

And with regards to the fact that only fear of reciprocity can prevent the use of WMDs, what about radical groups such as terrorists? They may be based in a country, but as long as they believe in what they are doing, there is no way a retalitory strike can ensure that you have hit the people who launched the attack first, much less do so without causing massive deaths among the population that they are hiding in.

I have to admit that I believe a balance of power can be obtained only if everyone, and that means EVERY single nation does not have access to WMDs or we go the compleately opposite direction and have EVERY nation have WMD. Given that there is no possible way of stuffing WMDs back inside pandora's box, I'll have to go with the latter.

It is worth noting that such acts are retaliatory, not defensive. The key aim of such an attack would be to weaken the aggressive nation, not weaken the armed forces of that nation, as would be the object of a coventional retaliatory strike. In our opinion, this does not draw an adequate distinction between combatant and non-combatant, and such should be considered wantonly indiscriminate.

From a moral standpoint, you are largely correct. From a tactical standpoint, however, there is no practical deterrent to nuclear attack other than the fear of reciprocity.

This is true, the efficacy of a negotiated detente has been proven in the past, albeit it a high cost to national economies and at a fair risk of nuclear annhialation (cf. Cuban Missile Crisis).

A fair amount of our political attitudes, however, stem from moral concern. Our moral concern here is to limit armed military conflicts to the combatants themselves. In the case of a policy of mutual deterrant (negotiated or otherwise), there is little of concern here as the weapons have not been put into use. In the case of the use I would maintain that the members of the United Nations (in particular the Security Council) should regard the use of indiscriminate devices of war, such as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as constituting a war crime.

Like this would pass it sounds like a somewhat moral proposal. The Un couldnt let that happen!

The proposal at the head of this topic does sound a little off target, but what about the idea for a proposal that I suggested. What sort of support would people be interested in a Resolution that clearly defined that use of WMD (including chemical and biological weapons) as a war crime?

seeing as how the only "ethical" weapons are, as pointed out above, non-lethal and non-maiming [leaving possibly only nerf bats and small callibre water pistols] then it makes sense to have the UN determine the use of weapons of mass destruction - weapons of mutually assured destruction? - as a war crime.

The first UN resolution ever states:

As the world becomes a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace. This means, of course, building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security.

We can't reduce our arms, ever.

I see the problem there, but that Resolution doesn't preclude us from stipulating how we regard certain types of weapons.