NationStates Jolt Archive

Argument: It's time for the UN to repeal some Resolutions that we can just call old: old refering to the time they were proposed and approved. Years are passed and we all know now the effect of this resolution: the UN is telling our Generals how to fight a war !
The Divine Othelma thinks every general and every nation has the right to fight a war in every way they consider the best. Come on, we're not talking about Nuclear Weapons or Biological Bombs, we're talking about the old good Landmines !
What if those countries we fear will one day attack the UN ? Landmines offer a great tactical advantage. They'll use it, we won't ! Our tanks and troops will step on their landmines, but their troops will advance undisturbed.
Give us back Landmines !

No. The ban on landmines has worked very well, and I know not of a single time landmines have been any sort of a decisive factor in any war since. Your "argument" that it is an old resolution is completely irrelevant.

Landmines kill more civilians and children than they do enemies. They are barbaric and unnecessary. Landmines have been dismissed to the darkest corners of our history, and there they should remain.

No. The ban on landmines has worked very well, and I know not of a single time landmines have been any sort of a decisive factor in any war since. Your "argument" that it is an old resolution is completely irrelevant.

Landmines kill more civilians and children than they do enemies. They are barbaric and unnecessary. Landmines have been dismissed to the darkest corners of our history, and there they should remain.

Absolutely, a repeal of this ban is absurd, [OOC] every day many people die due to landmines, landmines that are there long after wars have finished.

A repeal of this would make warfare more deadly for innocent civilians. I will not support this.

UN NATION, sends troops through a field of a non-UN nation, gets ass blown up.

Non-UN nation, Sends troops through a field of a UN NATION, walks straight to the capital.


Real nice :rolleyes:

Considering the risk to your own people as well as the enemy from land mines, I don't see the problem with a resolution banning them.

Considering the risk to your own people as well as the enemy from land mines, I don't see the problem with a resolution banning them.
Of course you don't :rolleyes:

Anti-Personell Landmines are an unnecessary weapon. They rarely kill, but rather maim, those who step on them. And, because of the fact that landmines have to be concealed for them to be useful, they remain many years after a war has finished, increasing international tensions and significantly increasing medical funding, money that could be better spent on rebuilding a destroyed country.

UN NATION, sends troops through a field of a non-UN nation, gets ass blown up.

Non-UN nation, Sends troops through a field of a UN NATION, walks straight to the capital.

Well, there is the cunning concept called "an army". These, when combined with other cunning things called "artillery", "pillboxes", and "defensive structures" tend to hamper the enemy advancing upon your capital city.

Anti-Personell Landmines are an unnecessary weapon. They rarely kill, but rather maim, those who step on them.

If it gets troops off the battle field, then it's a good weapon.

And, because of the fact that landmines have to be concealed for them to be useful, they remain many years after a war has finished, increasing international tensions and significantly increasing medical funding, money that could be better spent on rebuilding a destroyed country.

Because all mines in NS are the same :rolleyes:



Well, there is the cunning concept called "an army". These, when combined with other cunning things called "artillery", "pillboxes", and "defensive structures" tend to hamper the enemy advancing upon your capital city.

Make the enemy slowly tredge through your whole country while you have more freedom to move your army? Or... dont make me spell it out for you.

If it gets troops off the battle field, then it's a good weapon.

It also sends civilians off the battlefield after the battle at great speed...

Because all mines in NS are the same

So, you're saying a non-concealed landmine would work?

Make the enemy slowly tredge through your whole country while you have more freedom to move your army? Or... dont make me spell it out for you.

And when they get to the battlefield, they can step on friendly landmines.

It also sends civilians off the battlefield after the battle at great speed...

Because all mines in NS are the same

So, you're saying a non-concealed landmine would work?

I am saying that as a FT nation, I can detonate all of my landmines after a conflict is over, so can many other nations.


And when they get to the battlefield, they can step on friendly landmines.Only a moron general would send his troops into a field full of friendly land mines.

I am saying that as a FT nation, I can detonate all of my landmines after a conflict is over, so can many other nations.

Then an even more FT nation can work out how to detonate your landmines prior to a conflict, making them useless.
And not everyone is FT. Including Cobdenia

Only a moron general would send his troops into a field full of friendly land mines.
Morons exist

Then an even more FT nation can work out how to detonate your landmines prior to a conflict, making them useless.

And MT nations can detonate MT mines, though not as successfully.
And not everyone is FT. Including Cobdenia

FT need not be punished.

Only a moron general would send his troops into a field full of friendly land mines.
Morons exist
It doesn't even matter.

And MT nations can detonate MT mines, though not as successfully.

And PT?

EDIT: It doesn't even affect you. You're not a UN member.

FT need not be punished.
Then why should past-tech, fantasy-tech and MT be punished?

Fantasy tech is so far out there they are not worth mentioning, who knows what the hell they can do. And as I explained MT can get rid of land mines, some more successfull then others. And Past tech is exactly the kind of people to use land mines against.

Why punish past tech?

Why punish past tech?
Can past tech use land mines? And if a past tech nation invades me, I don't give a shit if they step on my land mines or not.

Well, considering that Past Tech encompasses everything from prehistoric to not quite modern, they could well have land mines.
Cobdenia is past tech, 1940's. Landmines were invented in about 1910-ish, I think

Well, considering that Past Tech encompasses everything from prehistoric to not quite modern, they could well have land mines.
Cobdenia is past tech, 1940's. Landmines were invented in about 1910-ish, I think
If you have moved past single shot weapons, you are modern tech, as it is my understanding.

If you have moved past single shot weapons, you are modern tech, as it is my understanding.

Whether we are modern toch or past tech doesn't matter. We cannot detonate our landmines without serious numbers of engineers or a bunch of soldiers/civilians walking over them...

If you have moved past single shot weapons, you are modern tech, as it is my understanding.

Whether we are modern toch or past tech doesn't matter. We cannot detonate our landmines without serious numbers of engineers or a bunch of soldiers/civilians walking over them...
There will always be a few who are punished by the passing of any resolution. Unless past tech was explicitly punished by the resolution, there is no problems with its passing.

Then a few punished it shall be. I can't imagine a majority of nations using landmines, wartime or otherwise - possibly because they're stupid, stupid weapons with oodles of obnoxious repercussions. In this case, ElectronX, it looks like the "few" is "you". I'm of the opinion it should stay that way.

Then a few punished it shall be. I can't imagine a majority of nations using landmines, wartime or otherwise - possibly because they're stupid, stupid weapons with oodles of obnoxious repercussions.

So sayeth the ignorant.
In this case, ElectronX, it looks like the "few" is "you". I'm of the opinion it should stay that way.
So sayeth the ignorant.

Oh, that's gonna win us over to your point of view. :rolleyes:

Oh, that's gonna win us over to your point of view. :rolleyes:
I don't use rock climbing equipment to get over a fence.

Considering you need to convince 120 of us to get it to quorum, plus thousands of us to get it passed, maybe you'd better start.

Although we are a modern tech nation, Saint Uriel has devised the perfect way to clear any minefield. The Saint Uriel Defense Force (SUDF) is currently training several squads of Highly Elite Squirrels with Metal Boots. The Metal Boots will make the highly elite squirrels heavy enough to set off the landmines, clearing large fields. Squirrels, of course, are perfect for this since 1) there are always plenty of the bastards around and 2) nobody likes them. If anyone is interested in purchasing this wonderful military technology from us, we will entertain bids.

And, to appease the animal rights people, Saint Uriel will posthumously award our highest honour - the Sword of Saint Michael - to all Highly Elite Squirrels with Metal Boots.

[/hijack] ...sorry

I wouldn't bother with the repeal. Just introduce a new proposal called "Right to maim civilians" and be done with it...

Geez, people. I rather consider it a basic human right not to have your legs blown off because you happen to live near an old battlefield...

Although we are a modern tech nation, Saint Uriel has devised the perfect way to clear any minefield. The Saint Uriel Defense Force (SUDF) is currently training several squads of Highly Elite Squirrels with Metal Boots. The Metal Boots will make the highly elite squirrels heavy enough to set off the landmines, clearing large fields. Squirrels, of course, are perfect for this since 1) there are always plenty of the bastards around and 2) nobody likes them. If anyone is interested in purchasing this wonderful military technology from us, we will entertain bids.

And, to appease the animal rights people, Saint Uriel will posthumously award our highest honour - the Sword of Saint Michael - to all Highly Elite Squirrels with Metal Boots.

[/hijack] ...sorry

Last time squirrels were in our nation, they brought a division of cardboard-armored troops using acorn-firing weapons in an attempt to control our polar bear problem.

I think the orgy of squirrel bits lasted three days.

Vastiva doesn't use landmines, we do have FASCAM and such shells in our inventory, but these clean themselves up after preset times. As far as we are concerned, the ban on "items put in the ground, set to go boom" should continue.

I wouldn't bother with the repeal. Just introduce a new proposal called "Right to maim civilians" and be done with it...

Geez, people. I rather consider it a basic human right not to have your legs blown off because you happen to live near an old battlefield...

Dang, we like you... very succinct!

Once again, you're not even in the UN. What do you care if landmines are banned in member states?

Actually, ElectonX is in the UN. For some reason, when I looked at the page, it didn't come up with the UN symbol or any of the UN endorsement stuff. Must have been a problem with one of those things that is beyond my miniscule knowledge of such matters.

Odd. The same thing happened to me. In fact, this sounds familiar. I think the problem occurred in another thread recently as well.

That'd be the religous budget thread.

Considering you need to convince 120 of us to get it to quorum, plus thousands of us to get it passed, maybe you'd better start.
This is a poorly worded resolution and I doubt anywhere near 120 delegates have even looked at this thread, so why should I bother expending more then the minimum in effort?

Hey, you're the one who seems to be the one in favor of a repeal. If you really think there deserves to be one, you could try to write a version that is worded better. Who knows, you might convince us. :)

Hey, you're the one who seems to be the one in favor of a repeal. If you really think there deserves to be one, you could try to write a version that is worded better. Who knows, you might convince us. :)
I am playing PC tag with my dad right now, as I am grounded.

Yeah, that's tough. If you can find a like-minded nation, perhaps you could persuade them to write the proposal, and you could support it.

So sayeth the ignorant.

So sayeth the ignorant.

Ignorant, eh? Well, firstly, I know a few more things about repeals than you do - what works, what doesn't. Part of this is because I wrote one, passed one, and participated in the resolution replacing it. Another part of it is because I have been around for quite some time in the U.N., and have seen a wide variety of resolutions and repeals pass and fail. As a result, I also know the general mood of the U.N. - where the majority opinion lies, as I stated in the argument you claimed as ignorant.

http://img75.echo.cx/img75/4021/res...thorcard6ir.jpg http://img75.echo.cx/img75/7615/senioritycard7pd.jpg

But that's just the weak approach to your half-assed response. The proper thing to say here is that your rebuttal is completely non-responsive - and if nothing else, a rather poorly contrived ad hominem. Saying that I am ignorant doesn't disprove the argument that landmines are dumb, crappy weapons that pose threats to both sides, and it certainly doesn't stop you from being on that minority side that you spoke of as being punished - as should be evidenced by the lack of approvals of this repeal. In other words, you don't have a proper rebuttal for my points, so you're ignoring them by attacking me directly - and none too creatively, I might add. So I lay my final card, in direct response to your poorly concieved "ignorance" attack:

http://img75.echo.cx/img75/8772/theexpertcard7qo.jpg

And there's little chance you can convince others I'm wrong, despite your talent for stupid metaphor.

I can see you're already distancing yourself from the losing argument by calling it a crappily written piece of work - and it is - but keep in mind that crappily written pieces still make quorum when the majority thinks its a good idea. Remember the Global Library? I still have nightmares about it.

Ending the personal rebuttal: The thing we have to realize here is that there is no particularly good reason to reverse the decision on landmines, regardless of how dictatorial it might seem to you morons out there who want to use landmines. So abandon this sinking ship and leave its inhabitants to drown, before it becomes another obnoxious, decrepit haunt like "Legalize Marijuana" or "Legalize/Illegalize Gambling".

I will have to get back to Super Ego located one post above mine tomorow when my dad isn't around.

I will have to get back to Super Ego located one post above mine tomorow when my dad isn't around.

Your talent for direct refutation continues to amaze. Are you going to pull out the rock-climbing rope for this one, or just trip over the fence?

This is a touchy subject for many nations.

The banning of landmines will decrease the number of innocent deaths and has, but gives a non-member nation distinct advantage over another.

To protect ones boarders with a hostile nation is very costly. Building pillboxes and other static emplacements is not cheap not to mention the manpower need to man or monitor these locations. A nation that has large area of land bordering a hostile nation would need to use landmines in some locations because manning those spots would be nearly impossible.

Hindering a UN nation’s efforts to protect them while empowering a non-UN nation’s defensive capabilities is a tuff sell.

Perhaps a replacement resolution could be put into place to assist a UN nation in this type of situation.

- The UN member Nation would have to prove a need to use landmines in the defense of their home boarders. i.e. They boarder a hostile non UN member nation. Use on foreign soil would be prohibited, even to protect occupying troops and their encampments.

- All minefields would have to be CLEARLY marked in multiple ways and in several regional languages.

- The exact position of all established landmine fields would have to be registered with all UN nations. Latitude, longitude, and number of mines at each location would have to be revealed.

These are just a few suggestions to be discussed. We feel that a UN nation should have the tools available to defend their home soil while also protecting innocents from being killed.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

This is a touchy subject for many nations.

The banning of landmines will decrease the number of innocent deaths and has, but gives a non-member nation distinct advantage over another.

To protect ones boarders with a hostile nation is very costly. Building pillboxes and other static emplacements is not cheap not to mention the manpower need to man or monitor these locations. A nation that has large area of land bordering a hostile nation would need to use landmines in some locations because manning those spots would be nearly impossible.

Hindering a UN nation’s efforts to protect them while empowering a non-UN nation’s defensive capabilities is a tuff sell.

Perhaps a replacement resolution could be put into place to assist a UN nation in this type of situation.

- The UN member Nation would have to prove a need to use landmines in the defense of their home boarders. i.e. They boarder a hostile non UN member nation. Use on foreign soil would be prohibited, even to protect occupying troops and their encampments.

- All minefields would have to be CLEARLY marked in multiple ways and in several regional languages.

- The exact position of all established landmine fields would have to be registered with all UN nations. Latitude, longitude, and number of mines at each location would have to be revealed.

These are just a few suggestions to be discussed. We feel that a UN nation should have the tools available to defend their home soil while also protecting innocents from being killed.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

There are two problems with such a compromise:
A) It renders mines even more useless than they already are (Oh, look, a clearly marked minefield! Let's step on them!), and
B) It is far too much work and bureaucracy for an issue that should stay dead and buried. The truth is that leaving the resolution is probably a better solution than clogging up the resolution queue with a repeal AND replacement, not to mention less risky.
U.N. Nations don't need landmines to defend their home soil. Nations can find other, more creative ways of killing each other, and hopefully these will pose less of a danger to innocent civilians.

There are two problems with such a compromise:
A) It renders mines even more useless than they already are (Oh, look, a clearly marked minefield! Let's step on them!), and


Clearly marked mine fields are used to slow or divert invading personnel.

OOC. Such as the DMZ between North and South Korea

Minefields are not easily bypassed and are often supplemented by other devices. Motion sensors, heat sensors, etc. Minefields that are used in this sense still force the invaders to carefully consider their tactics. In this sense that are useful in slowing and deterring a hostile nation.

Speaking from personal knowledge it is not exactly easy to bypass well placed minefields, even if they are clearly marked.

OOC - If it was the North Koreans would have done it years ago.

There are several effective ways that invaders can remove minefields, but none are quiet, and none are quick. The few methods that are quick are far from effective and would still cause the invaders casualties.

We were only suggesting that a nation has the right to protect it's self with effective methods. We feel that landmines are one of those methods. The suggestions that we made were an attempts to find a middle ground.

The bad reputation that landmines have garnered have come from the devious and improper use by undisciplined forces. We were suggesting guidelines that would help prevent unwanted collateral damages while allowing nations the right to protect themselves with the use of landmines if they deem them necessary.

Minister to the UN
Henry PEabody

The thing is that one cannot feasibly leave a landmine in place forever. It takes up too much land, and landmines need to be replaced (they don't last forever). They have also been known to spontaneously combust, which could lead to the complete destruction of the minefield through sympathetic detonation (OoC: there are reports that small sections of the minefield seperating the Koreas suffering from this phenomenum, apparantly).
If you wish to defend your borders from invasion, build a defensive line of artillary, pill boxes etc (OoC: such as the Maginot line in France), which takes as much effort, about the same cost without the whole blowing up civilians problem.

Clearly marked mine fields are used to slow or divert invading personnel.

OOC. Such as the DMZ between North and South Korea

Minefields are not easily bypassed and are often supplemented by other devices. Motion sensors, heat sensors, etc. Minefields that are used in this sense still force the invaders to carefully consider their tactics. In this sense that are useful in slowing and deterring a hostile nation.

Speaking from personal knowledge it is not exactly easy to bypass well placed minefields, even if they are clearly marked.

OOC - If it was the North Koreans would have done it years ago.

There are several effective ways that invaders can remove minefields, but none are quiet, and none are quick. The few methods that are quick are far from effective and would still cause the invaders casualties.

I agree that they can be somewhat effective, but there are always better alternatives - Cobdenia stated a few - and to build such a deterrent is far more expensive than using those other methods. Landmines really don't do much if the nation is determined to attack you and they are clearly marked. And even with these compromises, avoiding civilian casualties will be difficult.