NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: The Battlefield Honor Act.

The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon proudly displays the idea of honor on the battlefield, and thus should be portrayed in every nations troops. This proposal brings forth the concept that all personnel** guns be banned from usage on the battlefield, and that all soldiers be trained in at LEAST one type of melee** combat.

This proposal still maintains the usage of mechanized and piloted combat, and is to be maintained and enforced by UN officials, should it be passed.

Swords/melee weaponry enforces honor and chivalry in a warrior, and thus should be encouraged. Along with the honor of the warrior, he or she is also a representative of their country as they fight, and it should be remembered that 'the ends do NOT always justify the means.' Honor on the battlefield is very important.

Personnel* guns: all guns that can be carried by one person. Does not include tanks, amphibious, aquatic or air based weaponry, although all automatic weapons are to be removed from tanks. Humvee's/buggy type vehicles are to have machine gun weaponry removed as well, along with other land-based armored vehicles.

melee* combat: at least one style of martial arts or hand-to-hand combat, as well as trained in at least one weapons style (for example, kendo or fencing) with weapons such as swords, lances, num-chucks, chain sickles, zaibatsous, staffs, daggers, maces, spears, ect, ect.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon


Hello. Please support my UN proposal. If you have any questions/suggestions, please dont hesistate to ask, and i will answer you as soon as i can! Your cooperation is appreciated.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

I'd support this just because I think it's cool, but then alot of people wouldn't like it anyway, it'd never get past the general vote.

I'd support this just because I think it's cool, but then alot of people wouldn't like it anyway, it'd never get past the general vote.

it wouldnt hurt to try. please support it, and please elaborate as to why you dont think it'd pass. i think i definetly can.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

it wouldnt hurt to try. please support it, and please elaborate as to why you dont think it'd pass. i think i definetly can.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

It'd be 'moving towards the past' and 'making war alot harder'
I don't know. Ask DLE to come over and blam it for awhile, he'll find something.

Wait, I've got something. The black market will give guns to people, and when the UN officials have no guns, they'll mow them down, and therefore anarchy will reign. In a bad situation, of course.

I would support this measure, it would make UN nations such a pushover ;)

I would support this measure, it would make UN nations such a pushover ;)

See, theres one reason, we'd get mauled by crazy rouge nations!

See, theres one reason, we'd get mauled by crazy rouge nations!


rougue nations can be dealt with easily. this act banns guns on the battlefields. tanks would still be formidable, as would artillery, and other mechancial weapons, they just wouldnt have machine guns. explosives are not banned under this act. black market terrorists and such can be dealt with on similar measures, assuming that they fight without honor and chivalry.

--The Dominion OF Wentworthian Hegemon

It'd be 'moving towards the past' and 'making war alot harder'
I don't know. Ask DLE to come over and blam it for awhile, he'll find something.


honor and chivalry dont belong in 'the past' alone. like i said. "the ends do NOT always justify the means". you, someone named "grace of seppuku" should appreciate what this act is trying to do.

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

See, theres one reason, we'd get mauled by crazy rouge nations!
Meh, not a ROUGE nation, as such, just a bunch of oppurtunistic imperialists :P

Meh, not a ROUGE nation, as such, just a bunch of oppurtunistic imperialists :P

Fine, fine you win.
We'll get mowed down by people outside of the UN!

Description: The Battlefield Honor Act.

Honor on the battlefiend doesn't mean anything if you're dead. War is about being sent to die for your country and instead forcing the enemy to die for his. There's nothing pretty or honorable about that.

The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon proudly displays the idea of honor on the battlefield, and thus should be portrayed in every nations troops. This proposal brings forth the concept that all personnel** guns be banned from usage on the battlefield, and that all soldiers be trained in at LEAST one type of melee** combat.

~Intergalactic News Broadcast from a possible future~
I'm Mary Bragglestein and you're watching the Enigma Bragging Network.

Today, in a glorious battle, five million humans were ripped apart by a measely DLE army of five hundred. The vampires, dragons, and Elder Things tore them to shreds in melee combat. The poor, defenseless humans proved utterly useless against these hulking brutes of DLE might. The only remains of them had to be carted out in buckets. Despite the fact they failed, their nation was conquered, and their people are now living as noncitizens in DLE territory until they either stop resisting or are all dead, these fine specimines of humanity died with honor.

And now, on to the weather.
~End broadcast~

Go ahead. Just remember that when the UN is being torn apart because nonmember forces are having their ground troops use guns while invading, I'm joining the side that isn't suicidal. And I'm not the only one who'd stab the UN in the back if it passed this.

This proposal still maintains the usage of mechanized and piloted combat, and is to be maintained and enforced by UN officials, should it be passed.

So while my fighter planes are firing missiles into your troop lines, they are supposed to try to punch the planes?

Swords/melee weaponry enforces honor and chivalry in a warrior, and thus should be encouraged. Along with the honor of the warrior, he or she is also a representative of their country as they fight, and it should be remembered that 'the ends do NOT always justify the means.' Honor on the battlefield is very important.

Honor on the battlefield only means something if you're alive to enjoy it. Your job in war is to win the battle, not to try to be honorable.

Personnel* guns: all guns that can be carried by one person. Does not include tanks, amphibious, aquatic or air based weaponry, although all automatic weapons are to be removed from tanks. Humvee's/buggy type vehicles are to have machine gun weaponry removed as well, along with other land-based armored vehicles.

Well, my assault rifles just got redefined as melee weapons and all automatic weapons are now reclassed as single-shots. That doesn't change the fact they're still assault rifles and fully automatic weapons, but they won't show up as that on any inventories.

melee* combat: at least one style of martial arts or hand-to-hand combat, as well as trained in at least one weapons style (for example, kendo or fencing) with weapons such as swords, lances, num-chucks, chain sickles, zaibatsous, staffs, daggers, maces, spears, ect, ect.

Does "shoot them in the crotch with a missile launcher fu" count?

Hello. Please support my UN proposal. If you have any questions/suggestions, please dont hesistate to ask, and i will answer you as soon as i can! Your cooperation is appreciated.

Meh. Don't sweat my comments. I'm this evil to everyone. Just ask the guy I decided to bomb from orbit over a resolution he came up with.

Description: The Battlefield Honor Act.

The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon proudly displays the idea of honor on the battlefield, and thus should be portrayed in every nations troops. This proposal brings forth the concept that all personnel** guns be banned from usage on the battlefield, and that all soldiers be trained in at LEAST one type of melee** combat.

This proposal still maintains the usage of mechanized and piloted combat, and is to be maintained and enforced by UN officials, should it be passed.

Swords/melee weaponry enforces honor and chivalry in a warrior, and thus should be encouraged. Along with the honor of the warrior, he or she is also a representative of their country as they fight, and it should be remembered that 'the ends do NOT always justify the means.' Honor on the battlefield is very important.

Personnel* guns: all guns that can be carried by one person. Does not include tanks, amphibious, aquatic or air based weaponry, although all automatic weapons are to be removed from tanks. Humvee's/buggy type vehicles are to have machine gun weaponry removed as well, along with other land-based armored vehicles.

melee* combat: at least one style of martial arts or hand-to-hand combat, as well as trained in at least one weapons style (for example, kendo or fencing) with weapons such as swords, lances, num-chucks, chain sickles, zaibatsous, staffs, daggers, maces, spears, ect, ect.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon


Hello. Please support my UN proposal. If you have any questions/suggestions, please dont hesistate to ask, and i will answer you as soon as i can! Your cooperation is appreciated.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon


Two things spring to mind.

1) The non UN member nations don't have to follow this, and as such can pretty much kill us all with a zip gun.

2) As far as I can tell, this does not say anything about sitting on the edge of the battlefield firing missiles at the enemy. I can keep all my soldiers at the edge (with their swords) while I fire missiles, mortors, landmines and other such fun things at your soldiers. Which is not really enforcing the concept of honour.

3) (I found something else). This does kind of assume you are fighting on a large battle field in an organized manner. What about urban warfare, guerrilla (sp!) warfare and other things? Do you really expect someone who is trying to conquer a town to walk around with a sword and shield, while the soldiers defending the town have the same? Cause that would be a little crazy.

See, DLE is a rouge nation :P
I would be relativly nice to the conqoured people. Give them low-interest loans and all :)

See, DLE is a rouge nation :P
I would be relativly nice to the conqoured people. Give them low-interest loans and all :)

Yeah, just what the foolish conquered people want. Low-interest loans.

See, DLE is a rouge nation :P
I would be relativly nice to the conqoured people. Give them low-interest loans and all :)

No, I'm actually an empire that covers multiple nations, only one of which is in the UN. Besides, I already have territory with noncitizens in it on Earth.

Honor on the battlefiend doesn't mean anything if you're dead. War is about being sent to die for your country and instead forcing the enemy to die for his. There's nothing pretty or honorable about that.

victory is pointless if the victory was won without honor. honor is important. war is not about what you ahve described. war is about chivalry and honor, whilst defending what you believe in, what you believe is righteous. your a small man if you really belive what you've said.



~Intergalactic News Broadcast from a possible future~
I'm Mary Bragglestein and you're watching the Enigma Bragging Network.

Today, in a glorious battle, five million humans were ripped apart by a measely DLE army of five hundred. The vampires, dragons, and Elder Things tore them to shreds in melee combat. The poor, defenseless humans proved utterly useless against these hulking brutes of DLE might. The only remains of them had to be carted out in buckets. Despite the fact they failed, their nation was conquered, and their people are now living as noncitizens in DLE territory until they either stop resisting or are all dead, these fine specimines of humanity died with honor.

And now, on to the weather.
~End broadcast~


-y'know i really didnt remember who you were until this part. your the jerk who was trying to validate genocide with independence day as an example.


Go ahead. Just remember that when the UN is being torn apart because nonmember forces are having their ground troops use guns while invading, I'm joining the side that isn't suicidal. And I'm not the only one who'd stab the UN in the back if it passed this.

you can win with swords and with honor. all i did was ban gun from the battlefield. rockets, missiles, tanks ect. are still valid.


So while my fighter planes are firing missiles into your troop lines, they are supposed to try to punch the planes?

i think your pretty stupid if your trying to fight planes with infantry in the first place. like i said missiles are still allowed. read the act before you comment.



Honor on the battlefield only means something if you're alive to enjoy it. Your job in war is to win the battle, not to try to be honorable.

not true. like i said, war isnt about killing the enemy, its about fighting for what you belive is righteous, through honor.



Well, my assault rifles just got redefined as melee weapons and all automatic weapons are now reclassed as single-shots. That doesn't change the fact they're still assault rifles and fully automatic weapons, but they won't show up as that on any inventories.

it doesnt matter what you call your weapons. the fact still exists, that they are what they are. if you call a automatic gun a single-shot, that doesnt make it one, and as for the inventories, perhalps UN inspectors are in order.



Does "shoot them in the crotch with a missile launcher fu" count?
....do i even need to comment ont he idiocy of that?



Meh. Don't sweat my comments. I'm this evil to everyone. Just ask the guy I decided to bomb from orbit over a resolution he came up with.

i know you cant possibly be referring to me, because your arguement against MY proposal was pitiful. you might act like a bomb, but your just a firecracker.

--The Dominion OF Wentworthian Hegemon

victory is pointless if the victory was won without honor. honor is important. war is not about what you ahve described. war is about chivalry and honor, whilst defending what you believe in, what you believe is righteous. your a small man if you really belive what you've said.




-y'know i really didnt remember who you were until this part. your the fuck-up who was trying to validate genocide with independence day as an example.



you can win with swords and with honor. all i did was ban gun from the battlefield. rockets, missiles, tanks ect. are still valid.



i think your pretty stupid if your trying to fight planes with infantry in the first place. like i said missiles are still allowed. read the act before you comment.




not true. like i said, war isnt about killing the enemy, its about fighting for what you belive is righteous, through honor.




it doesnt matter what you call your weapons. the fact still exists, that they are what they are. if you call a automatic gun a single-shot, that doesnt make it one, and as for the inventories, perhalps UN inspectors are in order.



....do i even need to comment ont he idiocy of that?




i know you cant possibly be referring to me, because your arguement against MY proposal was pitiful. you might act like a bomb, but your just a firecracker.

--The Dominion OF Wentworthian Hegemon


Hey, there have been some serious firecracker accidents.
Like burning arms off and stuff.

Two things spring to mind.

1) The non UN member nations don't have to follow this, and as such can pretty much kill us all with a zip gun.

2) As far as I can tell, this does not say anything about sitting on the edge of the battlefield firing missiles at the enemy. I can keep all my soldiers at the edge (with their swords) while I fire missiles, mortors, landmines and other such fun things at your soldiers. Which is not really enforcing the concept of honour.

3) (I found something else). This does kind of assume you are fighting on a large battle field in an organized manner. What about urban warfare, guerrilla (sp!) warfare and other things? Do you really expect someone who is trying to conquer a town to walk around with a sword and shield, while the soldiers defending the town have the same? Cause that would be a little crazy.

now this is the nice polite way to give input "demonlordenigma" could learn from you
- well as far as your first point i covered this already, that rogue nations can be dealt with with explosives or mechanical assault vehicles.
-for your second concept, my mortars or tanks ect. can destroy your mortars/tanks ect., its true that sword-infantry might not always be needed like you propose in your hypothetical, but then again, neither is gun-infantry. guns at a distance are just as useless as swords against mortars, since mortars have better range than both weapons.
- as for your third point, guerilla warfare died during ww1, but as for urban warfare, yes i do expect swords/shield or any other melee weapon you want. a little efficiency is nothing comapred to honor and chivalry while fighting. like i said "the ends do NOT always justify the means".

-thank you for your input

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

See, theres one reason, we'd get mauled by crazy rouge nations!
It's not the rouge ones that bother me, it's the ones with all the eyeliner and black lipstick.

Asshelmetta considers this proposal a category error, in that we're playing NationStates and not EverQuest.

Asshelmetta votes against. And if this resolution looks near to passing, Asshelmetta plans to resign from the UN, buy up a lot of surplus military equipment the UN nations no longer have any use for, and take over several worlds.

-y'know i really didnt remember who you were until this part. your the jerk who was trying to validate genocide with independence day as an example.

Even *I* try to avoid language like that in these forums. You should apologize. Or edit your post, and I'll edit my quote.



you can win with swords and with honor. all i did was ban gun from the battlefield. rockets, missiles, tanks ect. are still valid.

Oh yeah, there's a lot of honor in bombing your enemies from 30,000 feet.

It's not the rouge ones that bother me, it's the ones with all the eyeliner and black lipstick.

Asshelmetta considers this proposal a category error, in that we're playing NationStates and not EverQuest.

Asshelmetta votes against. And if this resolution looks near to passing, Asshelmetta plans to resign from the UN, buy up a lot of surplus military equipment the UN nations no longer have any use for, and take over several worlds.

yeah, this is nationstates not everquest, but thats irrelevant. this proposal is about going back to chivalry and honor on the battlefield. if you cant realize that then you werent worthy of the UN to begin with, that, and i made this thread to get input for possible revisions, and to clarify peoples questiosn so i could get support, not so jerks like you could say "its my way or the highway!". if you dont have something interesting or important to say, then get out of my thread.

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

Even *I* try to avoid language like that in these forums. You should apologize. Or edit your post, and I'll edit my quote.



Oh yeah, there's a lot of honor in bombing your enemies from 30,000 feet.
-first point yes im sorry for using that language.
-second point no there isnt, but i left bombs out of the act because rogue nations and terrorists need to be dealt with. that, and how else are you going to defeat a tank?

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

yeah, this is nationstates not everquest, but thats irrelevant. this proposal is about going back to chivalry and honor on the battlefield. if you cant realize that then you werent worthy of the UN to begin with, that, and i made this thread to get input for possible revisions, and to clarify peopels questiosn so i could get support, not so jerks like you could say "its my way or the highway!". if you dont have something interesting or important to say, then get out of my thread.

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon
Ouchie. We're having a bit of trouble with the concept that other people can hold different but equally valid viewpoints, aren't we?

I said something interesting and important:

Asshelmetta votes against. And if this resolution looks near to passing, Asshelmetta plans to resign from the UN, buy up a lot of surplus military equipment the UN nations no longer have any use for, and take over several worlds.

Ouchie. We're having a bit of trouble with the concept that other people can hold different but equally valid viewpoints, aren't we?

I said something interesting and important:
sure, have a different viewpoint, but unless you plan to defend it in a debatable way, get out of the thread, i dont need you clogging this thread with assinine comments about what your nation will "do" if you dont get your way. aside from leaving the UN you cant even do anything anyway.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

The idea that war is about any other than making your enemies dead is archaic, and died with the first great war. Even before that, when the Acheans destroyed Troy, we learn there was no honor in war. Ask Hektor, whose dead body was dragged around his city until there was nothing left of it. There has never been any honor in war, and the notion that there is honor and glory is propaganda meant to recruit the young and naive.

victory is pointless if the victory was won without honor. honor is important. war is not about what you ahve described. war is about chivalry and honor, whilst defending what you believe in, what you believe is righteous. your a small man if you really belive what you've said.

War is about killing your enemy before he kills you. Plain and simple. Your proposal doesn't reestablish honor in war. By allowing artillery, missiles and armoured weaponry, you completely undermine your own idea. What honor is there in pushing a button and wiping out an entire battalion? None. What honor is there in taking on men with swords with steel-plated tanks? None.

If you were serious, you'd attempt to replace modern war with a system that settles international disputes by dueling.

More, this proposal seriously hamstrings UN members. It has not a chance of passing.

victory is pointless if the victory was won without honor. honor is important. war is not about what you ahve described. war is about chivalry and honor, whilst defending what you believe in, what you believe is righteous. your a small man if you really belive what you've said.

Or I'm someone who knows that war is a horrible experience. To get an idea of what it can be like, read All Quiet on the Western Front. That was written by someone actually in war who knew the horrors of the mixed system you are talking. He went to war for honor. He came back a desolate shell of who he was.

What you are describing is the politics behind it, not the actual conflict itself. The actual conflict is about killing as many of the enemy and taking out as much of his equipment as you can to force him to give up. It's the same premise behind terrorism, only on a much more massive scale.

Also, what proof do you have that I'm a man?

-y'know i really didnt remember who you were until this part. your the jerk who was trying to validate genocide with independence day as an example.

Actually, I wasn't trying to validate it. I was pointing out a case where it was necessary. Oh, I still want the apology.

you can win with swords and with honor. all i did was ban gun from the battlefield. rockets, missiles, tanks ect. are still valid.

Which are going to be used against the common soldier, increasing those death rates even more because the common soldier doesn't even have a chance to fight back. Remember that the common soldier is often only armed with an assault rifle and some grenades, and grenades don't do a damn thing against a guy in a tower firing rockets at you.

i think your pretty stupid if your trying to fight planes with infantry in the first place. like i said missiles are still allowed. read the act before you comment.

I read the proposal and realized it doesn't cover the realities of warfare. Do you think I'm just going to send infantry against infantry? Hell no. I'm going to send in infantry, tanks, and fighters. The tanks and fighters are going to be targetting your infantry and doing as much damage as they can.

If the common soldier has a gun and some ammo, he at least has a chance of somehow taking down a tank or a fighter, even if it is extremely remote.

not true. like i said, war isnt about killing the enemy, its about fighting for what you belive is righteous, through honor.

Uh huh. Tell that to the many soldiers who have died for it or come back horribly maimed and ask them how much honor they felt when they were shot, stabbed, or whatever. Ask them how much honor they felt while they were lying on the ground, bleeding from wounds they should not have ever suffered from while hoping the pain and suffering would just end. Ask the people who have had their heads blown in half while retreating from a failed assault and whose bodies are so pumped with adrenaline from the stress they suffered every day during their brief stay in battle that their bodies didn't even notice they were dead until they reached their destinations how much honor they felt. Ask every man, woman, and child who has been shot, stabbed, hung, burned, poisoned, executed, bombed, and a hundred other horrors how much honor they felt during that.

Ask the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki how much honor they felt when the last things they saw were flashes of light and mushroom clouds.

And when you are done asking and hearing the horror stories of what people actually went through, then you come back and talk to me about honor.

it doesnt matter what you call your weapons. the fact still exists, that they are what they are. if you call a automatic gun a single-shot, that doesnt make it one, and as for the inventories, perhalps UN inspectors are in order.

UN inspectors have a hard time getting past orbital defenses. Mainly because they're supposed to come in unannounced and I shoot down all unapproved ships. Besides, most have simply disappeared in my region of space without me even hearing of them until search parties were sent out. You might want to read my factbook.

....do i even need to comment ont he idiocy of that?

A martial art is an art performed with the intentions of being used in combat, usually involving the hands and feet. It involves the hands, which are pulling the trigger, andthe eyes, which are aiming the barrel.

Or, since you seem big on definitions, maybe you might want to define this one. I have a wild variety of martial arts available in DLE, and not all of them require touching you.

i know you cant possibly be referring to me, because your arguement against MY proposal was pitiful. you might act like a bomb, but your just a firecracker.

A firecracker placed in the right spot can be more devastating than a bomb can. Besides, I'm saving my harsher arguements because I am not sure how strong people's stomachs are on this forum.

Ask the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki how much honor they felt when the last things they saw were flashes of light and mushroom clouds.




THEY HAD NOTHING BUT HONOR FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND FOR WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR, and its THE STUPID AMERICANS WHO FOUGHT UNHONORABLY! at least PEARL HARBOR was an ATTACK ON MILITARY UNITS, AND NOT SOME MASS SLAUGHTER OF CIVILIANS. its BECAUSE OF THAT VERY OCCURANCE THAT I SAY THE ENDS DONT ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS! whatch your mouth! why do you think the japanese flag is the base design for my own flag on nationstates?

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

This is kind of asinine. You can have swords, and you can have tanks, but nothing in between?

edit: Whoa. I'm gonna play devil's advocate here for a sec and argue that the dropping of the bombs was fully justified because - long story short - any other means of ending the war would have resulted in far, far more Japanese casualties. Because, believe it or not, guerilla warfare didn't "die out in World War I".

The idea that war is about any other than making your enemies dead is archaic, and died with the first great war. Even before that, when the Acheans destroyed Troy, we learn there was no honor in war. Ask Hektor, whose dead body was dragged around his city until there was nothing left of it. There has never been any honor in war, and the notion that there is honor and glory is propaganda meant to recruit the young and naive.



War is about killing your enemy before he kills you. Plain and simple. Your proposal doesn't reestablish honor in war. By allowing artillery, missiles and armoured weaponry, you completely undermine your own idea. What honor is there in pushing a button and wiping out an entire battalion? None. What honor is there in taking on men with swords with steel-plated tanks? None.

If you were serious, you'd attempt to replace modern war with a system that settles international disputes by dueling.

More, this proposal seriously hamstrings UN members. It has not a chance of passing.


-yes, by the way, i DO know about war.
-as for your trojan example, i never said achilles was honorable for dragging hectors corpse.
- fighting for honor and righteousness is NOT propaganda. it is truth. your just an unhonorable person, too stupid to see the truth that on the battlefield all that matters is honor, and all you have is your honor.
just because something is old, doesnt make it invalid, or untrue, or outdated. and if you read the other posts, youd know that i made the decision to leave bombs untalked about because rogue antions and terrorists need to be dealt with.

-id appreciate it if you were more polite in your posts to come
--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

-yes, by the way, i DO know about war.
-as for your trojan example, i never said achilles was honorable for dragging hectors corpse.
- fighting for honor and righteousness is NOT propaganda. it is truth. your just an unhonorable person, too stupid to see the truth that on the battlefield all that matters is honor, and all you have is your honor.
just because something is old, doesnt make it invalid, or untrue, or outdated. and if you read the other posts, youd know that i made the decision to leave bombs untalked about because rogue antions and terrorists need to be dealt with.

-id appreciate it if you were more polite in your posts to come
--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

Uh, you ignore pretty much everything he said (which had nary an insult in it) in lieu of an ad hominem "shut up u r teh dum & teh unhonorable" then say he's impolite? WTG.

A martial art is an art performed with the intentions of being used in combat, usually involving the hands and feet. It involves the hands, which are pulling the trigger, andthe eyes, which are aiming the barrel.

Or, since you seem big on definitions, maybe you might want to define this one. I have a wild variety of martial arts available in DLE, and not all of them require touching you.

-shooting a gun isnt martial arts so dont try to relate the two. the only similarity between martial arts and guns is that they involve combat.
-as for your "wild variety" of martial arts, they dont exist, its a convienient excuse you made up for your arguement. your asking me to define something that exists only in your hypothetical nation.

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

Uh, you ignore pretty much everything he said (which had nary an insult in it) in lieu of an ad hominem "shut up u r teh dum & teh unhonorable" then say he's impolite? WTG.

insulting my beliefs is as bad as insulting me. there are ways of expressing a point without degrading the other viewpoint, so actually, the post was riddled with insults. and actually i tihnk i covered his points very well. if youd like to provide examples i can deal with them individually.

--The dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

Well, since you've just called me stupid (while typing in all lower caps and using no grammatical conventions), politeness is out the window.

Since the rising sun is the base of your flag, why don't you ask the good folks of Nanking about honor. Oh, wait, you can't. They're dead. Of course they're dead only after being used in rape camps, as human bayonet targets, and as human carriers for biological warfare. (Well documented by the Hague.) Ask those soldiers who marched to Bataan about honor, or the pilots cannibalized by the so called honorable samurai of Emporer HiroHito on Chichi-Jima. Bah. The Samurai didn't treat their enemies with honor, only each other. Chivalry only extends to those in your same station.

You are worshipping shadows that never existed.

Sorry if you're insulted, but war isn't an adolescent masturbation fantasy and your proposal would seriously weaken the member nations of the UN who know what war is about.

THEY HAD NOTHING BUT HONOR FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND FOR WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR, and its THE STUPID AMERICANS WHO FOUGHT UNHONORABLY!

That's not answering my question of how much honor they felt. The massed dead of that event and many other slaughters are still waiting to hear how honorable they were in dying like that. From what I have seen, all that was left of many where shadows burnt on walls. You tell me what honor there is in being hit by heat so powerful your body is boiled into evaporating while you are still aware of it.

Keep in mind the same weapons that took out those two cities you are allowing people to still use.

at least PEARL HARBOR was an ATTACK ON MILITARY UNITS, AND NOT SOME MASS SLAUGHTER OF CIVILIANS.

What honor is there in attacking enemies who don't even know they are going to war? That might as well be the slaughter of civilians, as both were equally prepared when that happened.

its BECAUSE OF THAT VERY OCCURANCE THAT I SAY THE ENDS DONT ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS!

That is not the only occurance of slaughter on a horrifying scale in human history. That is just a drop in the ocean of slaughters and atrocities commited during warfare. While those deaths were horrifying and massive, in the grand scheme of the history of warfare they are not even a percentage and what they experienced was merciful.

Just try to imagine what it would have been like to be in one of those two cities when that city was bombed. Imagine what they must have felt as they died. Now do you get the idea of how much horror and pain war brings?

whatch your mouth! why do you think the japanese flag is the base design for my own flag on nationstates?

There is much I could say, but the best is this isn't a case of being personal. If it was, I'd bring up what stories my family has relayed to me of certain wars. And those are enough to disillusion anyone from thingking there is any honor involved in it. Trust me when I say you do not want to know why I struggle with insomnia.

Okay, back in character now.

-shooting a gun isnt martial arts so dont try to relate the two. the only similarity between martial arts and guns is that they involve combat.

A rocket launcher isn't a gun. Big difference between the two.

-as for your "wild variety" of martial arts, they dont exist, its a convienient excuse you made up for your arguement. your asking me to define something that exists only in your hypothetical nation.

The rocket fu is one made up. Most of DLE martial arts consists of varieties similar to those available on Earth. One of the differences is that in DLE people don't need a weapon to kill you from a distance.

And the hypothetical nation is my NS nation.

Well, since you've just called me stupid (while typing in all lower caps and using no grammatical conventions), politeness is out the window.

Since the rising sun is the base of your flag, why don't you ask the good folks of Nanking about honor. Oh, wait, you can't. They're dead. Of course they're dead only after being used in rape camps, as human bayonet targets, and as human carriers for biological warfare. (Well documented by the Hague.) Ask those soldiers who marched to Bataan about honor, or the pilots cannibalized by the so called honorable samurai of Emporer HiroHito on Chichi-Jima. Bah. The Samurai didn't treat their enemies with honor, only each other. Chivalry only extends to those in your same station.

You are worshipping shadows that never existed.

Sorry if you're insulted, but war isn't an adolescent masturbation fantasy and your proposal would seriously weaken the member nations of the UN who know what war is about.

The samurai DID treat their enemies with honor! you lie only to yourself to belive otherwise, and it offends me that an arrogant pig like you would insult my culture.

this response only confirms my theory of you unhonorable stupidity. its clear to me now that it was a mistake to talk about this proposal in the forums. i suppose now looking back at it it makes sense that talking about honor in the forums would only bring the most unhonorable people out of the woodworks. im sorry that your so weak minded.

considar this thread ended. i have no intention of revisiting it, so any posts beyond this wont be answered by me.

The Commonwealth of Walkendalia extends gratitude to the Wentworthian Hegemon for withdrawing its' proposal.

The Commonwealth also offers copies of Strunk and White's Elements of Style and Warriner's GRAMMAR & COMPOSITION as a token of our appreciation and mutual admiration.

Well, now that this is over, time to move on.

rougue nations can be dealt with easily. this act banns guns on the battlefields. tanks would still be formidable, as would artillery, and other mechancial weapons, they just wouldnt have machine guns. explosives are not banned under this act. black market terrorists and such can be dealt with on similar measures, assuming that they fight without honor and chivalry.

--The Dominion OF Wentworthian Hegemon

*shocked*

We really do not know where to begin on this. Are you calling for a return to the Age of Chivalry? Are you aware of how unrealistic this proposal is, given the UN can affect only UN nations?

*totally speechless*

I'm sorry, a few points I'd like cleared up.
You say honor is defending what you believe to be righteous. I'm not clear on how killing someone with a sword is defending your belief as to what's righteous better than shooting them. Could you clarify?

As for the Japanese: The atomic bombs were used because, and this is a well documented fact: the Japanese goverment led their people to believe that the Americans would kill every last Japanese, even if they surrendered. The Japanese people fought because they believed victory was their only hope for survival. The atomic bombs proved to the Japanese people that victory was impossible. The Japanese surrendered, and no more Japanese soldiers died fighting American soldiers.

As for the Japanese treating others with honor, are you familiar with the POW camps that built the "Railroad of Death"? The prisoners consisted primarily of English soldiers, and the English invented the concept of honor in Europe around the same time the Japanese were, if not earlier. (My knowledge of Japanese history in the feudal area is spotty, but I know that they couldn't have developed it first.)

Also, didn't the Japanese use "unhonorable" weapons during the war? Doesn't that kind of invalidate them as an example? Heck, doesn't it invalidate every nation that fought in the war? 'Cept for maybe the Polish. At least, I think it's the Polish. I know some nation used the best means avalible to them to fight the German armored columns, which was horse mounted calvary.

I eagerly await your reply.

THEY HAD NOTHING BUT HONOR FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND FOR WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR, and its THE STUPID AMERICANS WHO FOUGHT UNHONORABLY! at least PEARL HARBOR was an ATTACK ON MILITARY UNITS, AND NOT SOME MASS SLAUGHTER OF CIVILIANS. its BECAUSE OF THAT VERY OCCURANCE THAT I SAY THE ENDS DONT ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS! whatch your mouth! why do you think the japanese flag is the base design for my own flag on nationstates?

--The Dominion of Wentworthian Hegemon

*notes it was the "stupid Americans" who won the war, and the "honorable Japanese" who committed the bulk of the atrocities in the Pacific Theater*

now this is the nice polite way to give input "demonlordenigma" could learn from you


Odd considering I have a great respect for him, and have learned quite a lot from him :}


- well as far as your first point i covered this already, that rogue nations can be dealt with with explosives or mechanical assault vehicles.


I find fault with this theory. If they are sneaking through one of my cities, how am I going to use explosives without risking my own people? Surely shooting them would be faster, better and generally a good way to do it.


-for your second concept, my mortars or tanks ect. can destroy your mortars/tanks ect., its true that sword-infantry might not always be needed like you propose in your hypothetical, but then again, neither is gun-infantry. guns at a distance are just as useless as swords against mortars, since mortars have better range than both weapons.


Guns are more accurate and tend to take out only the person you are shooting at. And snipers are quite possibly the most useful brand of all (I have some experience of this) since they can easily hide at the edge and pick people off.


- as for your third point, guerilla warfare died during ww1, but as for urban warfare, yes i do expect swords/shield or any other melee weapon you want. a little efficiency is nothing comapred to honor and chivalry while fighting. like i said "the ends do NOT always justify the means".


Here is where you lose me. Honour and chivalry are dead. They have been for a long time. I live in what would be seen as medieval nation, but we use things other than swords for fighting. Long range magic spells that means we can kill from a distance (I highly recommend "the hand of glory" for that), catapults, long bows and cross bows that mean we can kill from a distance.

If someone is attacking my nation, and they intend to kill us, then we will use every means at our disposal to prevent them. And if we (those who defend) refuse to use some means just because we think we will be "dis-honoured" then we are derilict in our duty to protect our nation and our loved ones.

The whole point of a war, of a battle, is to kill the other person before they kill you. And while we accept there are some weapons that should be banned (biological and chemical for example) guns are not one of them.

Whether you kill someone with a sword or with a rifle they are still dead, and you have still killed them.


-thank you for your input


It is a pleasure. Although you might not like this input so much.

The proposed issue as a global issue has no, or very little, practical use. It should be the right of each nation to decide for themselves on this matter rather than, for example, for a peaceful nation be compelled to display weapons on their flag or do similar things.

I will be as completely civil as I can on this issue.

I would like to note that despite asking others to be civil, you have often called them stupid and unhonorable. (its dishonorable, btw, but as you are learning english I presume its forgiven). This hardly seems civil at all.

Now, regarding 'the honorable Japanese'. Honor and chivalry is a concept that extended only to those of the same class. Ask any Europeans from the Dark Ages and nowhere will you see honor being extended to peasantry and the common foot soldier; you had to have a 'Sir' or 'Lord' before your name to be treated an equal, and to be given a chance to live should you be captured in combat. Otherwise you were fair game. This is largely the same with the Japanese feudal system.

Now, regarding Pearl Harbor. It was, straight on, a surprise attack. Read any of the General Orders and Directives and you will find that it was a secret fleet that went completely around all US surveillance to attack Pearl Harbor. There was nothing 'honorable' in it, by your standards. There was no warning. Families, workers, friends, woke up that day to a taste of hell. Almost all ships were in dock. They had no place for manuever and very little aircraft were mustered in the initial attack.

By your code of chivalry and honor, the Japanese should have made a declaration of War, then a Trial of Combat (or something like that), a duel between ships and aircraft. Organized rules and everything.

Strange. None of that happened.

The decision to drop the two atomic bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki was made from a completely logical decision. This is NOT saying this was a correct decision, but from a cold outlook completely logical. The guerilla warfare in Japan was becoming rapidly a nightmare for the Allied troops. To root the forests and hills of Japanese was costing much too many casualties than the Allies could reasonably hold and still enjoy strong elections at home (Russia by this time had sent no troops to Japan, but was declaring war on it, which actually strengthened Allied decision to drop the bombs, as will be explained later), not to mention combat-ready troops. The Japanese people were given propaganda that Allied troops would do unspeakable horrors and acts upon them, and so commited suicide. This was horrific for Allied troops, who never expected something as fanatical as this.

Another important factor was the USSR's entering the war. The Allies (not inclluding Russia) were becoming fearful of Communism, seeing as Russia was slowly expanding outwards (Poland's government in exile was refused entry to their own country, showing the first signs of the Warsaw Pact) and so decided that the loss of two cities was better than the loss of their own troops AND Russia gaining a foothold on Japan.

Thus the decision was made.

Does this excuse the Allies? By no means. This was a morally horrible act done completely in the act of self interest. There is no honor about it. It was necessary, but immoral.

Regarding the Japanese being honorable in WWII...

I think I'll stop being civil here. I hope that everyone here knows about the Japanese School System and Government. Specifically, the fact that it refuses to apologize and recognize the fact that it caused horrible, inhuman atrocities in China, Korea and Vietnam. You think the Holocaust was bad? The things that were going on in China and Korea and Vietnam EQUALLED that horrific genocide evenly, and there are signs pointing to even MORE disgusting acts underway before the Allies cleared China of Japanese troops. For f**k's sake, Germany APOLOGIZED for the Holocaust. It lives today with the shame and acknowledges the horror it allowed by allowing the Nazis power. In Japan, you ask them about the Asian atrocities and they are either indifferent, unknowing or simply fiercely indignant and angry.

How is allowing officers to compete in competitions of machete-ing heads off Chinese civilians honorable? How is using Chinese people, PEOPLE goddamn it, as practice for Japanese soldiers to BAYONET, to SHOOT, honorable? How is setting up rape camps and filling them with Chinese civilians, raping them until death, and then just callously dropping their bodies in mass graves honorable? How is conducting experiments to discover the pain threshold, new biological weapons, new gas weapons, on civilians, HONORABLE?

Don't you EVER dare talk to me about honor, you disillusioned pig. All you do is take the rhetoric your nation gives you, over and over, listen to the folk tales and myths and never THINK for one moment of the fact that, maybe, your nation is giving you propaganda, that it is covering the truth. You think yourself intelligent and wise, but your just like any gullible fool out there. Note that I am not insulting the Japanese people. My school is mostly made up of Japanese and I hang out with japanese friends. I don't hold their past against them, thats as stupid as holding German people still responsible for the Holocaust. The past is past, we can forgive but must never forget.

And before you say, "oh, you are ignorant and ignoring your countrie's evils" I am not. As of Chinese Blood, I am aware of the many mass persecutions and executions of Communist China. My grandfather, an air force general now but just a captain/colonel back then, fought against the communists in the Chinese Civil War. He lost his brother to the Communists, who took him to their camps and we still have not heard ANYTHING about him. Do you know how terrible that is, to know that your brother may or may not be alive in the hands of such scum? I know and despise China for Tianemen Square, the mass ecological disasters that it precipitates, the thousands, millions of unknown deaths that the government hides.

As an American, I know that America was never so glorious as it put itself to be. The American Revolution was not JUST a movement of patriotism, but pure economic outlook. The British were taxing, the Americans did not feel like being taxed, and went to insurrection. The Americans banned chinese from entering the country due to mass racism, and the ban was only lifted after 1900's. The horrific wars on the Indian tribes and their forced internment in camps is a stain on our nation that we have never cleared, as even today we treat them badly in their horrible camps. The treatment of slaves and african-americans is another showing of racism, and the interment of Japanese into camps...against the whole notion of liberty!...to today, with Guantamno Bay and Abu Ghraib. America is anything but it's painted image.

As a Briton, I recognize that Britain subjugated the world to a 'glorious empire' that saw the enslavement of many peoples, whole destruction of cultures, and exploitation and rape of nations and lands. Countless species have suffered underneath British expeditions, and Africa rightly holds much against the 'Scientific Explorations', really just profit -seekers and treasure-hunters, set forth by the many european nations but especially Britain. And I recognize that the British are the first to create internment camps, which they used, I believe, against the Afghans.

The important difference between me and you, is that I recognize the defects in my country. You, on the other hand, just take all the shit they feed you and stuff it down your mouth.