NationStates Jolt Archive

DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Nowhere Place


Disarmament of Inhumane Weapons

ALARMED BY the increasing number of civilian casualties caused by certain weapons at the disposal of most nations;

NOTING that these weapons are often used irresponsibly;

AND FULLY AWARE of the original, massively destructive and inhuman intentions of such weapons;

THIS RESOLUTION calls upon all member nations of the United Nations to cease in the manufacturing and usage of the following weapons, and to bring into effect laws to ban them:

1. Cluster Bombs
2. Biological Weapons (as already noted in Resolution #16, but stressed here)
3. Land Mines (as already noted in Resolution #40, but stressed here)
4. Toxic Gas
5. Dirty Bombs;

REQUESTS the formation of a 'Banned Weapons' commitee to oversee any violators of this resolution or any other resolution pertaining to the banning of weapons, on account of fair, indisputable evidence;

AND FURTHER DEFINES objects 2, 4, and 5 on the aforementioned list:

Biological Weapons- Bacteria, fungi, and viruses hostilely deployed by a group used to incapacitate, maim, or kill another being.

Toxic Gas- The hostile use of gases by a group used to incapacitate, maim, or kill another human being.

Dirty Bombs- Bombs used to hostilely to spread dangerous materials (including, but not limited to, radioactive materials, hazardous chemicals, toxic gases, or biological threats); This category does not include nuclear weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNEX

(FURTHER EXPANDING the definitions of some terms used in the aforementioned Resolution:)

'Inhumane'- Excessively cruel

'Hostile'- Unfriendly


DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT


So, what do you think? Any suggestions/changes?

Axis Nova declares it's intent to ignore this proposal if it is passed. We find cluster bombs and mines too useful to give up.


edit: For that matter, if I even see this pop up for voting, I'm leaving the UN. I'm not going to let MY military rating take a hit :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure landmines have already been banned.

I noted that... should I just take them out of the proposal altogether?

Your backreference is fine, I was more addressing Axis.

Your backreference is fine, I was more addressing Axis.

Doesn't matter if they've been banned; no nation has ever been removed from the UN for non-compliance with a resolution.

My nation, of course, will say it follows the resolution, but not practice what it preaches. ;)

edit: As any minefields I possess were a) put down before I joined the UN and b) unreachable due to being in the middle of radioactive devastation, I think I can grandfather them in. The only mines really useful to my forces are FASCAMs, which can be set to detonate after a certain period anyways.

I'm just going to be really pedantic here, and say that since you've banned the use of these things by fundamental groups, and defined that as any group following a set of ideals, this doesn't stop a band of nihilists from using the weapons.

Oh, wait, it also doesn't prevent their use by individuals. Which is rather more important. And given your definition of malicious, this doesn't stop people using these weapons if they don't really want to cause apin, but feel it's a necessary evil in order to achieve success for their cause.

include "dirty bombs"

include "dirty bombs"
Hmm, have non standard munitions - such as incendary and expanding bullets - been banned yet? If not, could you add them to the list please? Thanks.

Doesn't matter if they've been banned; no nation has ever been removed from the UN for non-compliance with a resolution.

That's not the point. Obviously, you have no regard for the role-play aspect of the United Nations - which is a shame - because the UN could be so much more if people did follow the regulations, so to say, vis-a-vis with their nations.

Axis Nova declares it's intent to ignore this proposal if it is passed. We find cluster bombs and mines too useful to give up.


edit: For that matter, if I even see this pop up for voting, I'm leaving the UN. I'm not going to let MY military rating take a hit :rolleyes:
It all depends on how it's coded, doesn't it? One of the reasons that 'cruel' weapons get banned is that 'cruel' really mean 'ineffective' - if you're complaining about side effects then you're not
*dead*: ergo, the weapon is a failure. If the UN bans dud weapons, our military ratings should go up, not down.
Seriously, what use are landmines? You can't conceal them during peacetime, or your civilian population will blow themselves up. Putting them in rugged terrain makes them harder to disarm, but means that an invading force won't go anywhere near them as they'll be following the flat, since they need to move quickly.
Then, the explosives decay, making them too unreliable to be treated as a defensive wall, but still a threat to your population.
Further, you can't use them when invading or even counter-attacking. peh. Such uselessness.

Added Dirty Bombs. Took out "fundamental". But didn't say anything about individuals. Why? Because your average person probably cannot make Nerve Gas or Anthrax. What if they get their hands on it from elsewhere? That's why the resolution specifically states to stop the manufacture, as well as usage, of these weapons.

Added Dirty Bombs. Took out "fundamental". But didn't say anything about individuals. Why? Because your average person probably cannot make Nerve Gas or Anthrax. What if they get their hands on it from elsewhere? That's why the resolution specifically states to stop the manufacture, as well as usage, of these weapons.
but lets take musterd gas for example is it not just chlorine(sp) gas
which is given off when you mix bleech and amoonia(sp)

... True. However, the UN can't handle the affairs of individual citizens. That is the job of local governments. Therefore, I added that laws should be passed by the governments of each nation to ban them.

Your Proposal<<<:sniper:
As the president of the Domion of Landshut, I will say that banning is not a good idea because they could sometimes be useful to a nation. If it is banned from being used, the Domion of Landshut and its allies will quit United Nations.
-The Domion of Landshut

The Commonwealth of Anthronesia would like to support this proposal, but would like to make the following suggestion. Perhaps instead of detailing which weapons are banned, perhaps create broad categories of weaponry. This will create a precedent, which can then be used to address the development of future weaponry (that way the UN will only need one resolution, rather than many). I would propose that the UN recognise the use of Chemical, Biological, Nuclear, or otherwise indiscriminate weapons of war as a war-crime by the respective nation. As a result they would be deemed a threat to international security, and could legitimately be the subject of UN sanctions and peacekeeping intervention.

The first three categories are usual methods of referring to specific kinds of weapons, and indicate categories that are widely acknowledged and understood (though we could create definitions).

The hairy category would be 'indiscriminate weapons'. These would be weapons that are not capable of being used so as to reasonably avoid the death of non-combatatants. In any war, the death of non-combatants is, to a degree, expected, but reasonable measures must be taken by both sides to the conflict to minimise non-combatant casualities. Indiscriminate weapons are those weapons where that it is insufficiently possible. These include landmines, possibly cluster bombs, and also Nuclear weapons (though the prevalence and particular case of these weapons necessitates their separate mention).

As for individual citizens, the construction of landmines by private citizens is usually covered (as it is in Anthronesia) by local firearms laws (or similar). The only circumstances under which one can legally possess a landmine in Anthronesia is to facilitate training for or research to better facilitate, their removal (as such this is usually restricted to the armed forces).

We cannot ban weapons. They could come in useful for us if we need to combat a rogue nation trying to rebel against UN ideals. I say NO!

Bretton would like to make a statement in opposition of this attempt.

Cluster bombs are an important part of any air-dropped ordinance. By exploding over a wide area, a cluster bomb, such as the CBU-52 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-52.htm), is highly effective at destroying exposed infantry units, grounded aircraft, light armored vehicles, and unhardened structures. Furthermore, they are also effective at destroying enemy mine fields (though their capability is significantly less than that of atmospheric explosive/airburst bombs), as well as infrastructure (piping, communications lines, asphalt roadways and runways, etc).

Continuing this line, it can also be interpreted that anti-personnell flechette grenades, such as those employed on nearly all twentieth-century Main Battle Tanks, as well as the Admiral A-1 employed by Axis Nova and other interested parties, could be considered cluster bombs. A removal of this weapon system would cripple the anti-personnell capability of Main Battle Tanks across the board.

Would atmospheric explosive/airburst bombs be included as well? Nay, how about -any- fragmentation-specific weapon? By removing the ability for specific weapons systems to be employed, you are simply forcing the armed parties in question to result to other means. If cluster bombs and airburst weapons were made illegal, I would simply use conventional JDAMs or even simple iron bombs to destroy such a target, which would likely have an even greater capacity to kill non-combats due to the nature of how many of such bombs need to be dropped on a target. The United States of America practied daily strategic bombing raids on civilan targets in Germany throughout 1942-1944, with the English R.A.F. resuming at night with carpet-bombing attacks. I should like not to be forced into an ancient and even more inhumane method of war-making due to the deletion of weapons systems.

Well, the UN is all about compromising. Why not mod the mines thing so that only types that self-destruct after a certain time period or when recieving a certain signal are allowed? That way people can still use mines, but the mines won't lay in wait for years and years and years until some civilian steps on one and blows their leg off.

I'd also remove cluster bombs-- they're far too useful a weapon and they'll likely kill the resolution.

The other stuff I have no real problems with, though I will seriously object if incendinary weapons are added-- my country's main battle tank mounts a very large flamethrower.

edit: Also, I think mines should be allowed in general if part of border defenses.

The other stuff I have no real problems with, though I will seriously object if incendinary weapons are added-- my country's main battle tank mounts a very large flamethrower.
i say ban air born incendinary wepons
but keep ground ones suchs as the ones used to clear bunkers in ww2

Wouldn't a ban on indiscriminate firebombing in urban areas be better?

Air-dropped napalm can be very useful for clearing out a heavily entrenched position.

use your cluster bombs