NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution: The production of land mines by member states is hereby banned.

Rationale: Landmines are not military weapons, but economic weapons; their design is to maim their victims, not kill them, thereby forcing the cost of supporting the injuried person on the afflicted society for the remainder of the injured person's life. Furthermore, landmines often remain active for years or decades after the hostilities prompting their placement has vanished, posing a continued hazzard for unfortunate citizens unaware of their presence.

The nation of Brians Test some endorsements so this can be submitted to the United Nations. Thanks :)

The Empire of Seagravia agrees wholeheartedly. No other statement is needed, you have made the right points

I third this.

This proposal leaves too many open holes. I suggest retyping it and then resubmitting it.

Resolution: The production of land mines by member states is hereby banned.

Rationale: Landmines are not military weapons, but economic weapons; their design is to maim their victims, not kill them, thereby forcing the cost of supporting the injuried person on the afflicted society for the remainder of the injured person's life. Furthermore, landmines often remain active for years or decades after the hostilities prompting their placement has vanished, posing a continued hazzard for unfortunate citizens unaware of their presence.This is patent nonsense.

The military purpose of land mines is area denial. It is in essence a way of creating a barrier through which enemy forces may not pass without either consuming considerable time and resources or suffering casualties. This makes it valuable as a means of obstructing the movement of the enemy, an action that has both offencive and defencive value.

Small nations can use land mines to impede invasion by larger foes; blocking off areas of the battlefield to both sides serves to restrict the adversary into attacking along known and avenues of approach, thereby maximising the defencive advantage of the inferior power. The Greeks were able to hold back a large Persian army at Thermopolae in spite of being grossly outnumbered precisely because the Persians had to attack through a restricted channel that the smaller Greek forces could easily hold. It was only by finding a way around the pass that the Persians were able to continue their invasion of Greece, and even then the delay they suffered in taking the pass was fatal to their aggressive plans.

Denying small nations access to land mines is an open invitation to invasion and conquest by larger nations, who can attack along multiple routes simultaneously and overwhelm the defenders in sheer numbers. A small nation with land mines, on the other hand, can restrict potential avenues of invasion to more easily held lines and give themselves a chance to survive until help from any allies they may have can arrive.

Completely aside from the aforementioned specious argument that land mines are "not military weapons, but economic (ones)", grounded in utter ignorance of military science and practise, there is the all too common problem of definition (one that seems endemic to these misguided proposals): the author makes no attempt to define a "land mine". Is a booby trap placed above ground a land mine? Is a delayed-action shell? Is a dud bomb or shell an inadvertent land mine? Without a definition of what is to be banned, the proposal is an invitation to chaos.

Note also that this resolution - like its close cousins - fails the simplest test of any proposed legislation, namely the accomplishment of its avowed goal. It doesn't say that we can't own or use land mines; it just says that we can't make our own. We can always buy them from non-Members, however, and scatter them all over the place to our hearts' content.

Then there's the little problem of imposing a mandate on N.S.U.N. members that could be obsolete before the ink is dry on our law books: our scientists (who are not alone in this effort) have been working on land mines that have a known life expectancy. After a few months in the ground they become worthless. Combined with extremely stable military explosives, such as oxynitrocubane (which you can safely pound with a hammer), such technologies offer the prospect of a land mines that don't remain behind to foul the environment for decades to come.

But - ironically - if this proposal passes, such efforts will cease. We could have a better land mine, but if this becomes law, we likely never will.

Finally, we would like to make one more observation. The tendency of the N.S.U.N to ban every kind of weapon deemed "horrible" or "inhumane" will be the death of this body. Unlike the real world (RL), where virtually every nation is a member of the United Nations and where efforts of this sort can usually receive the support of 95+% of the world community, the N.S.U.N. constitutes just 20% of this planet's sovereign states, and does not include some very large, very powerful, and very aggressive actors. We have no ability to impose N.S.U.N. mandates on these "rogue" nations; indeed, the only means we have for dealing with them are diplomacy backed up by military force.

While the United States of Allemande do not endorse the principle of para bellum ("If you want peace, prepare for war," variously attributed to many people down through the pages of history), and appreciate that excessive armament levels can be provocative, we categorically reject the naive notion that peace can be won by disarmament, let alone the utterly daft one that it can be achieved through unilateral disarmament. As DemonLordEnigma puts it, large aggressive nations have a word for small unarmed ones, and that word is "lunch".

The N.S.U.N. simply has to stop making it so hard for its Members to defend themselves. If it doesn't, then its Members will either quit or be wiped out, and the N.S.U.N. will go down in history as yet another failed experiment in internationalism. For the sake of this body and its future, we need to stop this madness now.

Edith Mayenne
Secretary of State
The United States of Allemande

Land mines are already contravened by resolution #40.

You really should read the passed resolutions before proposing new ones.

Proposition 40 prohibits the USE of landmines by member nations. This resolution would prohibit their production. Proposition 40 reads, in relevant part, "For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for."

Thus, under Prop 40, member nations can still produce the landmines, then sell them off to non-member nations.

The nation of Brians Test therefore suggest that it is YOU who should read past resolutions before posting suggestions :)

As for defining a landmine, like all legal maters that lack definition, any uncertainties will be deferred to the UN's Judical Branch for definition and clarification. Should the judicial opinions run in contrast to the majority members of this body, it is THEN appropriate to respond by adopting corrective resolution language. There are always holes to fill, and the nation of Brians Test shall not yield to bureaucratically-induced fillibustering by trying to appease the non-critical arguments of nation-states that are hostile to its senisible reforms anyway. Complain all you want; the resolution is adequately clear and concise to accomplish its stated purpose.

And Brians Test still need an endorsement before I can propose this to the UN.

The nation of Brians Test therefore suggest that it is YOU who should read past resolutions before posting suggestions :)


Ouch. :eek: Well, if I can make that "reading error", then there's a pretty good chance that others will make the same error and you won't get quorum... Maybe you should try to repeal/amend #40 to include a ban on production, or at least point out (in large red letters) that Resolution #40 is inadequate, and needs to be superceeded with your resolution.

Bitewaldi doesn't manufacture land mines. We think it's stupid to make stuff we can't use.

In all fairness, you actually make a really good point. I'll add language distinguishing it from Prop 40.

Landmines are a cheap, effective means of border control and defence. You do not provide any alternatives to economically struggling nations that would have to disarm of landmines. Therefore, I cannot give my support.

Ouch. :eek: Well, if I can make that "reading error", then there's a pretty good chance that others will make the same error and you won't get quorum... Maybe you should try to repeal/amend #40 to include a ban on production, or at least point out (in large red letters) that Resolution #40 is inadequate, and needs to be superceeded with your resolution.

Bitewaldi doesn't manufacture land mines. We think it's stupid to make stuff we can't use.

Vastiva thinks its wonderful to produce things we don't use - Arms Manufacturing is a wonderful economic booster. Bitewaldi might want to try it sometime.

As to the process - we have begun the repeal process, so by the time Brian's Test has it's proposal complete (and sufficient endorsements to submit, or we will submit as their agent), one will be removed and a more global one can be put in place.

Thus, under Prop 40, member nations can still produce the landmines, then sell them off to non-member nations.
We can even sell them to member nations, they just can't use them.:)

This is patent nonsense.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia agrees entirely with the representative of Allemande.

Landmines are an effective strategy for defending against unwanted incursions into a sovereign country. They force larger nations to think twice about possible invasions, and do offer a form of deterrance against possible warfare in many of the same ways that nuclear weapons do.

After observing the Resoultions passed by the N.S.U.N in recent history, the People's Republic of Coquetvia is also forced to agree with the representative of Allemande's assertion that the N.S.U.N is trying to pacify itself out of existence.

Sovereign states require some form of military defence against possible invasion. Even if all N.S.U.N member nations could be trusted not to invade (which is of course untrue), that would still leave all the large nations that fall outside the parameters of the N.S.U.N free to invade who they choose at any time.

The N.S.U.N's recent action in denying weaponry from it's own member states is especially ridiculous considering that there is no chance (unlike in RL) that a N.S.U.N armed force will be able to help during armed conflicts.

There is no way that the People's Republic of Coquetvia will ever support this proposal, or any further proposals restricting a nation's ability to defend itself from foreign invasion.

We use landmines to guard sections of our border because our law enforcement cannot cover all of it with armed guards.

We use landmines to guard sections of our border because our law enforcement cannot cover all of it with armed guards.

LOL creative.

Resolution: The production of land mines by member states is hereby banned.

Rationale: Landmines are not military weapons, but economic weapons; their design is to maim their victims, not kill them, thereby forcing the cost of supporting the injuried person on the afflicted society for the remainder of the injured person's life. Furthermore, landmines often remain active for years or decades after the hostilities prompting their placement has vanished, posing a continued hazzard for unfortunate citizens unaware of their presence.

The nation of Brians Test some endorsements so this can be submitted to the United Nations. Thanks :)

Considering the use of landmines is already banned, I see no reason to ban the production of them. It doesn't actually do anything to help the previous attempt and, in the end, is just a waste of time.

Really, what next? A resolution banning the buying and selling of landmines?

As a matter of fact, it is a well known fact that the member nation of Commonwealth produces landmines for sale to the sovereign nation of Collaborating States, who's borders are recklessly laced with them. Collaborating States is a small, barren nation that lacks the resources to build the mines on its own.

And yes, it would be equitable to ban the purchase and sale of the landmines, but enforcement is easiest from a production standpoint.

Actually, your nation does NOT protect its border with landmines. As a member nation of the United Nations, you are under the jurisdiction of this body's resolutions. UN Resolution #40 prohibits the use of landmines. So clearly, you are mistaken; there are no landmines protecting your borders. This is a fact, not an order. The nation-state of Brians Test recommends that you either make room in your budget for security personnel to protect your borders, you leave the UN so that you can return to the practice of placing landmines (which are currently readily available for purchase from a myriad of member states), or prepare for invasion.

Actually, your nation does NOT protect its border with landmines. As a member nation of the United Nations, you are under the jurisdiction of this body's resolutions. UN Resolution #40 prohibits the use of landmines. So clearly, you are mistaken; there are no landmines protecting your borders. This is a fact, not an order. The nation-state of Brians Test recommends that you either make room in your budget for security personnel to protect your borders, you leave the UN so that you can return to the practice of placing landmines (which are currently readily available for purchase from a myriad of member states), or prepare for invasion.

As the resolution says "in combat", he could protect his border with landmines. Loopholes, loopholes, loopholes....

As the resolution says "in combat", he could protect his border with landmines. Loopholes, loopholes, loopholes....

Heck, you could even call it "unsecured storage" or something. As in, "we decided to store our landmines along our border due to a shortage of suitable places to put them."

Heck, you could even call it "unsecured storage" or something. As in, "we decided to store our landmines along our border due to a shortage of suitable places to put them."
We call it, "quality control.":D

Hee hee hee...

Well, you can basically call whatever you want a loophole, but when all parties understand the intent of the resolution, you're not using a loophole--you're violating the resolution. We all know that landmines "in combat" mean those placed to blow people up, and we all know that you don't store landmines in a way that protects your borders and blows people up. You could claim that's the case, but you could also claim that the UN charter makes Brians Test the de facto supreme ruler over all nations... but that doesn't make it even slightly true.

We member-nations are not fools, and we will enforce our resolutions as they are intended by the majority to be enforced.

Well, you can basically call whatever you want a loophole, but when all parties understand the intent of the resolution, you're not using a loophole--you're violating the resolution. We all know that landmines "in combat" mean those placed to blow people up, and we all know that you don't store landmines in a way that protects your borders and blows people up. You could claim that's the case, but you could also claim that the UN charter makes Brians Test the de facto supreme ruler over all nations... but that doesn't make it even slightly true.

We member-nations are not fools, and we will enforce our resolutions as they are intended by the majority to be enforced.

Uhm, no. The resolutions are followed as written - and most are written badly. That makes them very ineffective.

Assuming anything is there because "well, it should be" doesn't work. Intent is what you're supposed to exercise before you start writing, not hoping someone will follow non-existant text or "gentleman's agreements" that are in no way represented in the actual text.

Well, you can basically call whatever you want a loophole, but when all parties understand the intent of the resolution, you're not using a loophole--you're violating the resolution.No, it's called following the letter of the law.
We all know that landmines "in combat" mean those placed to blow people up, and we all know that you don't store landmines in a way that protects your borders and blows people up.That's why we call it quallity control, we have to make sure that that particular production run works before we ship them to the buyer.
You could claim that's the case, but you could also claim that the UN charter makes Brians Test the de facto supreme ruler over all nations... but that doesn't make it even slightly true. Of course the charter doesn't say that, we don't have one.

We member-nations are not fools, and we will enforce our resolutions as they are intended by the majority to be enforced.Bear in mind that we're members too, abd if our definations are the majority then I guess we're right.

Well, you can basically call whatever you want a loophole, but when all parties understand the intent of the resolution, you're not using a loophole--you're violating the resolution.

And here is where we run afoul: All we have is the wording to go on. The exact wording is logically the intent. If the exact wording can be exploited, then it is not violating a resolution to do so.

We all know that landmines "in combat" mean those placed to blow people up, and we all know that you don't store landmines in a way that protects your borders and blows people up.

No, only you know that. Soldiers placed on the border are not in combat unless they are actually fighting. Same is true of anything else. Simple common sense.

You could claim that's the case, but you could also claim that the UN charter makes Brians Test the de facto supreme ruler over all nations... but that doesn't make it even slightly true.

The UN doesn't have a charter, so that claim would be baseless. In our case, we are using logic to back up what we say.

We member-nations are not fools,

Can we vote on that?

and we will enforce our resolutions as they are intended by the majority to be enforced.

And you will get nowhere. Come within five hundred miles of the DLE Earth settlement and you won't have a nation left to worry about. Fair warning.

We all know that landmines "in combat" mean those placed to blow people up...No, we don't "all know" that, probably because it's not true. "Combat" is armed struggle between belligerent forces; this absolutely permits the use of landmines for border control, since illegal aliens and/or escaping citizens are not "combatants" in any reasonable sense of the word. You can try to call a herring a shark on the basis of the idea that, both being fish, they must the same. But even if you believe your own deception, you'd still be wrong.

In fact, more generally, mines can certainly be deployed around secure installations and along borders to keep infiltrators and interlopers out, even where there is a high probability that said intruders would be members of a hostile military organization. This is because a peacetime standoff is also not "combat", by any reasonable, useful, and commonly accepted interpretation of the term

We member-nations are not fools...Judging from the latest wave of asinine resolutions, there appears to be a sound basis for disagreement with that assessment.

Not bad for an hours non-work....


Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #40
Proposed by: Vastiva

Description: UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This resolution does not prevent the production nor the selling of nor the purchase of landmines; it merely prevents their usage in combat situations - and in combat situations only. There is nothing preventing a nation from landmining it's territory before a conflict.

It is therefore requested this resolution be repealed so a better and more global resolution can be put in it's place.

Approvals: 6 (Vastiva, Venerable libertarians, NewTexas, Yelda, Blekastan, Krioval)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 143 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jun 20 2005