NationStates Jolt Archive

Ban Sea Mines-

In addition to U.N. Resolution 40 which states that:

Landmines are to be banned from all U.N. Member States

This resolution adds onto that doctrine with the banning of the Production, Sale, Assembly, and Usage of Sea Mines.

It also protects all civilian vessals traveling in U.N. Waters by taking away the danger of mines in trade ports.

Article I: Production and Assembly

Section I: No U.N. Member State shall produce sea mines in any facility owned by either a private corporation or the government.

Section II: All sea mines currently in production are to be destroyed immediately should this resolution be passed.

Article II: Import and Export

Section I: No U.N. Member State shall buy or sell any sea mines to/from Non-U.N. States.

Section II: All military vessals laoded with sea mines shall be disarmed of them before they disembark from any U.N. controlled port. However because of the inability to force these measures onto Non-U.N. States, when a military vessal does enter a U.N. controlled port when departing from a rogue port, the vessal shall be inspected to see if any mines are onbourd the ship.

Article III: Usage and Disposal

Section I: No U.N. Member State shall use sea mines in warfare as long as this resolution holds power.

Article II: All Member States shall give a report of how many mines they've dropped over the last century and shall help in the recovery effort to get the mines out of the water.

Why bother? Mines are a very important part of naval warfare.

Agreement.

Too many civilian ships are destoryed due to them. If it was possible to declare water "Mining" meaning bombs are in the water, then it would be fine. But doing such would cause the enemy to never go into the waters.

I suggest you add that no UN nation is allowed to plant anywhere - Inside or outside of their waters.

This will be a huge disadvantage to UN nations.

Further, the collateral damage from sea mines tends to be much less than collateral damage from landmines.

Just my two cents.

W.

We see no reason behind this proposal, save a "lets ban all mines" idea, which has no core value to it. The proposer obviously has no idea about warfare.

No support.


Ban Sea Mines-

In addition to U.N. Resolution 40 which states that:

Landmines are to be banned from all U.N. Member States

This resolution adds onto that doctrine with the banning of the Production, Sale, Assembly, and Usage of Sea Mines.

It also protects all civilian vessals traveling in U.N. Waters by taking away the danger of mines in trade ports.

Article I: Production and Assembly

Section I: No U.N. Member State shall produce sea mines in any facility owned by either a private corporation or the government.

Section II: All sea mines currently in production are to be destroyed immediately should this resolution be passed.

Article II: Import and Export

Section I: No U.N. Member State shall buy or sell any sea mines to/from Non-U.N. States.

Section II: All military vessals laoded with sea mines shall be disarmed of them before they disembark from any U.N. controlled port. However because of the inability to force these measures onto Non-U.N. States, when a military vessal does enter a U.N. controlled port when departing from a rogue port, the vessal shall be inspected to see if any mines are onbourd the ship.

Article III: Usage and Disposal

Section I: No U.N. Member State shall use sea mines in warfare as long as this resolution holds power.

Article II: All Member States shall give a report of how many mines they've dropped over the last century and shall help in the recovery effort to get the mines out of the water.

I'd think it should be man's goal to obtain peace, but even if you disagree with that statement, there is little logic in banning landmines and not sea mines.

I'd think it should be man's goal to obtain peace, but even if you disagree with that statement, there is little logic in banning landmines and not sea mines.

Incorrect.

Landmines can be lost in farmland, in inhabitable lands. They are difficult to find, often remaining for years.

Sea mines have nowhere near the destructive capability to civilians. They inhabit no farmland, they can be found with minesweepers and such and removed.

Until such time as all sides cease using naval mines, they will remain a method of denying entrance to areas by sea. As your proposal would only disarm UN nations, it is silly to believe non-UN nations would follow suit.

Incorrect.

Landmines can be lost in farmland, in inhabitable lands. They are difficult to find, often remaining for years.

Sea mines have nowhere near the destructive capability to civilians. They inhabit no farmland, they can be found with minesweepers and such and removed.

Until such time as all sides cease using naval mines, they will remain a method of denying entrance to areas by sea. As your proposal would only disarm UN nations, it is silly to believe non-UN nations would follow suit.

What about people who mine areas where there is a lot of fishing done? More likely than not it would be civilian boats travelling through the water, and at risk from the mines.

Fishing boats have less draft then a warship; our acoustic mines are set to ignore such vessels (in some areas....) as they sound different then a warship and ride higher in the water.

Even a loss of a fishing vessel with all crew is not equivalent to what havoc can be wreaked by forgotten land minefields.

Methinks you are being facetious.

Fishing boats have less draft then a warship; our acoustic mines are set to ignore such vessels (in some areas....) as they sound different then a warship and ride higher in the water.

Even a loss of a fishing vessel with all crew is not equivalent to what havoc can be wreaked by forgotten land minefields.

Methinks you are being facetious.

Not really. The loss of a fishing vessel with all it's crew would cause a lot of pain and suffering to the familes involved. And if it was because of something that was put there fifty years ago and just forgotten about I can see how they might be a tad angry.

And while your mines might be really cool and not blow up fishing ships, there are possibly some nations out there that don't have really cool mines that pretty much blow up anything that passes.

I don't think that, in a time of war, someone is going to say, "Oh, let me check to see if i am breaking any UN Resolutions." Come on. Banning sea mines is just not militarily sound. If a fishing boat is sunk by a few mines then maybe you should think to send in a few minsweepers to get rid of the problem before it kills any more of your civilians. That would make a lot more sense than banning them altogether.

Emporer Shaz Bot
The Holy Empire of Shazbotdom

Why don't you modify the proposed resolution to say that Nations must adopt technology which automatically disarms sea mines after a certain period of time, or on command.

Then UN nations could still employ sea mines, and have the ability to neutralize their mine fields at the close of a conflict.

W.

I don't think that, in a time of war, someone is going to say, "Oh, let me check to see if i am breaking any UN Resolutions." Come on. Banning sea mines is just not militarily sound. If a fishing boat is sunk by a few mines then maybe you should think to send in a few minsweepers to get rid of the problem before it kills any more of your civilians. That would make a lot more sense than banning them altogether.

Emporer Shaz Bot
The Holy Empire of Shazbotdom

So you would support a repeal of the Landmines resolution if one was brought to the attention of the UN?

Why don't you modify the proposed resolution to say that Nations must adopt technology which automatically disarms sea mines after a certain period of time, or on command.

Then UN nations could still employ sea mines, and have the ability to neutralize their mine fields at the close of a conflict.

W.

But it is not beyond reason to suspect that, if they disarm on command, a hostile nation could find out that command and do it while you are still at war :}

There are better ways of fighting a war then planting mines all over the place. Agreed, non-UN nations would not be bound by such resolutions. However, we have to start somewhere. And let's say that a major oil producing country decides that it no longer wants traffic going in and out of its nation... the seamines will stop most ships (and I emphasize the most). There will remain a small minority of idiot captains who decide that the money they waste sitting in a port is not worth it and gamble on not hitting a mine. There will also be those captains who are uninformed of said mines.

Oil tankers + sea mine = something that THIS nation does NOT want to deal with.

P.S. Hey we agree on somethign Til! :P

I would have to agree with Spanc

Actually, I agree with TilEnca on this one. However, I'm not going to support it because I may need those mines in the future. I may not like having to use them, but considering the nonmember nations makes me glad I can (and even more so with what I can put in them...).

Oil tankers + sea mine = something that THIS nation does NOT want to deal with.

Hydrogen tanker + sea mines = very big wave, possible coastline damage.

Antihydrogen tanker + sea mines = dead sea.

The only reason I brought up the second one is some Earth nations do use antimatter, though they are small in number.

Sea mines have nowhere near the destructive capability to civilians.

As your proposal would only disarm UN nations, it is silly to believe non-UN nations would follow suit.

First of all, I'm not any sort of expert on how sea mines work, but I'd imagine them to be dangerous to freighters, civilian or not, etc.

Second of all, that second statement of yours is hardly a decent one. That's how all of the U.N.'s proposals work. Those nations who are not part of the U.N. have the option of disobeyeing any of the U.N.'s Proposals. If that truly is your belief, then all U.N. Proposals might as well not be voted on.

So you would support a repeal of the Landmines resolution if one was brought to the attention of the UN?

Actually, no.

Nor will we support a measure to remove sea mines from legality.

However, we would support manditory "clean up" of sea lanes after a conflict.

First of all, I'm not any sort of expert on how sea mines work, but I'd imagine them to be dangerous to freighters, civilian or not, etc.

Second of all, that second statement of yours is hardly a decent one. That's how all of the U.N.'s proposals work. Those nations who are not part of the U.N. have the option of disobeyeing any of the U.N.'s Proposals. If that truly is your belief, then all U.N. Proposals might as well not be voted on.

Alright. Landmines are relatively cheap. They can be easily widespread. They pose a significant, long term threat to farming and civilians.

Seaborne mines, on the other hand, are relatively expensive. They are limited in scope, being only able to be in the water. Any decent minesweeper can remove most mines.

The second part of my phrase points out the suicidal tendency of your proposal. Removal of land mines does not significantly reduce my ability to defend myself. Removal of sea mines does significantly reduce my ability to defend my sea lanes, or it forces a great increase in sea forces, which are far more expensive to maintain.

As to your last sentence (" If that truly is your belief, then all U.N. Proposals might as well not be voted on") that is silly. The UN proposals are intended to improve the lives of those UN Nations. This proposal would be akin to suicide.

"... if you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life."
-- Brooke Shields


"Did you ask me to name man's motive power? Man's motive power is his moral code. Ask yourself where their code is leading you and what it offers you as your final goal. A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides. By their own statement, it is they who need you and have nothing to offer you in return. By their own statement, you must support them because they cannot survive without you. Consider the obscenity of offering their impotence and their need — their need of you — as a justification for your torture. Are you willing to accept it? Do you care to purchase — at the price of your great endurance, at the price of your agony — the satisfaction of the needs of your own destroyers?"
~ Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Russian born American writer & philosopher who advocated capitalism, individualism, & "objectivism"