NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,
RECALLING its resolution of 6 December 2003 "Banning the use of Landmines"
NOTING that said resolution only covers landmines, and not depleted uranium shells, cluster bombs or napalm
CONCERNED about the fact cluster bomblets remain active for many years after initial deployment,
AND that they are very hard to find and look like toys
ALSO noting that depleted uranium has a radioactive half-life of 4.1 billion years,
NOTING that the use of napalm prevents land from being used for farming for many years
DESIRING to protect civilians from being hurt or killed by cluster bomblets and poisoned by depleted uranium in water.
AWARE of a nation's need for defence,

CALLS on all nations
1. To cease manufacturing cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells and napalm immediately.
2. To cease purchasing or selling such weapons.
3. Not to use them in any conflict they are engaged in
4. To destroy all such weapons in their stockpiles within 5 years.
5. To give all possible aid to humanitarian organisations clearing up landmines, cluster bomblets, depleted uranium shell remains or land damaged by napalm use.

It is so resolved.

Comments please.

Remove "children" insert "people" or even better, "civilians"

To avoid emotive language that might prejudice a vote.

I'd also prefer more detail on the damage/threat caused. For DU rounds saying that they "remain radioactive for many years" isn't really good enough - so do many metals, but not at harmful levels.

I agree entirely with the sentiment, and would vote yes on this proposal as it is, but you could improve it.

The fact that depleted uranium is harmful for years after being expended as ammunition is irrelevent. The fact is, all heavy metals are toxic to an extent. If the UN were to ban depleted uranium ammunition, it would only be a matter of time before nations began using other super-dense metals, thus coming back to the problem of toxins entering the groundwater. Such a ban would do nothing to solve the problem, and likely irritate thousands of nations who were forced to spend millions on new forms of ammunition.

It would be more prudent to allow nations to use depleted uranium stock in their ammunition, but force them to be liable for disposal and cleanup of DU rounds in post-conflict environments. You'll find nations can be infinitely more responsible when there's a price tag attatched to their indiscretion.

The same can be said for a land mine ban. For their price, anti-personell and anti-tank mines are simply too effective to abandon. They can be invaluable when a smaller force is defending against an enemy with superior numbers. Not only can they whittle down an approaching force into a more managble size, a proper deployment of mines can deter an invasion completely. Again, rather than ban them completely and face massive opposition from UN members, forcing accountability for their use will allow recourse without weakening anyone's sense of national security.

Not being wholly informed on the subject of landmines, I wonder if this is something possible...

Can landmines be equipped with a tracking device that is 'unique' to the country of origin that would allow it to be found later, following a conflict? Can they be set (or are they set) with remote detonation so that they can be safely removed from an area?

Despite the UN's unfounded criticism of Drabikstan's human rights record, Drabikstan is eager to support this resolution. We believe weapons such as Landmines, Cluster Bombs and Depleted Uranium should be banned due to the unnessecary damage they inflict on civilian populations. DU especially should be banned as it breaches conventional weapons agreements. Nations that continue to use such weapons should face economic sanctions.

We urge this resolution to be submitted as soon as possible.

Can landmines be equipped with a tracking device that is 'unique' to the country of origin that would allow it to be found later, following a conflict? Can they be set (or are they set) with remote detonation so that they can be safely removed from an area?

While I imagine it's possible to do such a thing, I can't imagine why any nation would want to. Were that the case, all an invading nation would have to do is disable their tracking devices, and thus render all mines in their way inert. Remote detonation would be a much more realistic option, but you still run into the issue of implementing such a thing while keeping it militarily viable.

I would suggest modifying the term "many years" concerning the activity of Depleted Uranium. The radioactive isotopes within depleted uranium shells, armor, ammuntion, etc., has a half-life of 4.1 billion years. Maybe the text should be modified to show this, as it would probably garner more support.


But aside from that, the nation of Poniatowski wholeheartedly endorses this proposal.

That's a misleading number. While the half-life may be 4.1 billion years, that's hardly a realistic measure of how long the isotopes remain dangerous to people in the area. The Earth won't live another 4.1 billion years, and to assume that it's just going to sit there in an unchanging environment is ludicrous. The harm caused by depleted uranium depends on, among other things, the amount and it's proximity to either humans or material vulnerable to contamination.

I completely agree with the idea. There is no need for civilians, especially years after the war, to come to preventable harm. Additionally, I like this proposal because it does not ban a weapon simply for being powerful, but it has a purpose besides limiting the potency of war. [Besides you dont have a war to LIMIT casualties].

I also agree with the proposal because if a nation oustide the UN, or a UN nation illegally manufactures land mines, they do not achieve a significant edge over their enemy. It is not like the WMDs ban where if a nation has WMDs and another doesn't, the nation with WMDs will surely be victorious.

Therefore we must limit civilian losses and endorse this proposal.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

THERE IS ALREADY THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION RELATING TO LAND-MINES !


Banning the use of Landmines

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Abrizza

Description: All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. 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. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

Votes For: 14603

Votes Against: 4967

Implemented: Sat Dec 6 2003

* Please * pay attention to this fact, perhaps some mild re-write is required.

Noted, I'll redraft to only cover cluster bombs and DU shells.

My thanks, Serconea ! :D

Oh, query : DU shells ? I take it you mean the DU tank shells, artillery, etc, etc, etc ...

Will this effect DU rifle rounds, or other light man-portable weapons which may use similar munitions ?

We'd advise against the banning of DU shells - lead is comparably toxic and nobody's going to give up using that in bullets in a hurry. Sophista's cleanup advice makes vastly more sense.

Still, this reduces the resolution solely to cluster bombs; there are a great many other weapons of questionable morality and limited application. We'd really, really like to see a little more research invested and a resolution being hammered out that would also ban napalm, flamethrowers and so forth.

I'll stick in Napalm and call it "Weapons with Lingering effects"

All weapons have lingering effects, to some degree or another. A bomb that falls on the only factory in a country that produces shoes will have the lingering effect of making a whole bunch of people walk barefoot. Let's focus less on a cool name and more on the weapons we want to do away with.

To that end, I'd suggest holding back on submitting a proposal until we work out which weapons in particular we're going to do something about. It'll keep the queue cleaner.