NationStates Jolt Archive

We knew someone would go there.

You really don't want to go there...

Nothing in the UNSA establishes either a list of what weapons are "necessary", or criteria for judging the "necessity" of any weapon. Additionally, to my knowledge, there is no precedent in the UN for according any weapon system not currently under a ban the default status of "necessary until legislated otherwise". Permitted until legislated otherwise, certainly... but not necessary. Nor does the UNSA incorporate anything which would establish such precedent. Lacking such precedent there is no reason to require that a future weapons ban which is focusing on a weapons system the necessity of which has never been established in any way to incorporate language to get around a previous resolution which only effects bans on weapons which ARE considered necessary.All this to defend a bioweapons ban that's going to pass regardless?!?

Surely you realise how easy it would be to do the following:

Defencive Necessity

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: $MyNation

RECOGNISING that questions have arisen over which weapon systems and tactics are necessary for the defence of Member nations, now and in the future, and

WISHING to clarify the matter once and for all, so that Member nations may accordingly prepare for their defence,

THESE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY DECLARE

THAT ALL weapons systems and tactics are necessary for the defence of some Member nation somewhere, EXCEPT for those weapon systems and tactics specifically designated by this body as unnecessary for the defence of any Member nation, now or in the future, in the text of any resolution issued by this body, now or in the future, until such time as said resolution is repealed, if ever.

THIS DECLARATION SHALL NOT IMPEDE THE ABILITY OF THESE UNITED NATIONS TO OUTLAW ANY ACTION OR BEHAVIOUR IT CHOOSES TO BAN, EXCEPT WHERE OTHER UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS PRESENTLY IN FORCE PLACE LIMITS UPON ITS ABILITY TO DO SO.And that would be the end of that.

I bet it would pass, too. Verbatim.

Therefore barring any other legislation establishing that a particular weapon is either necessary or unnecessary the state of any given weapon system in this regard would not be evident, a position backed up by Hack's own statement in an earlier post on this subject.Congratulations. You've just made it necessary for us to pass yet another resolution if your position is embraced by the mods.

Personally, I think that your argument is very, very weak. It's tantamount to saying that the resolution doesn't say anything at all...

As far as I can see the only weapon the UNSA would make it illegal to ban at this time would be nukes... and that's only because the nuclear armaments proposal already did it itself by establishing their necessity when it reserved the rights of UN nations to possess them.There you go again.

If you're going to apply this logic to the UNSA, then you must apply it everywhere. Consequently, because the resolution on nuclear weapons preceded the UNSA and thus fell under its grandfather clause, we can not say if it represents a declaration that such weapons are "necessary". The General Assembly was not asked to consider the necessity of nuclear weapons when voting for that resolution, and it would be a stretch worthy of the Great Karnacki to read the minds of those who voted for the resolution and impute that they somehow did.

And that's without any need to stick in some "this weapon is considered unnecessary for defense" clause in any proposed ban.That requirement just sticks in your craw, don't it?

Then of course there's the fact that the current biological weapons ban already has TWO clauses which rather clearly argue that the weapons are not only unnecessary for defence but just plain hazardous to the safety of ALL nations... but that's a whole seperate line of argument.

I don't intend to just let that proposal be deleted after reaching the queue without putting up at least SOME fight for it. Especially when I think I have a very solid case.Here at last do you have some solid basis for argument. But not anywhere else.

Allemande: While I'm mulling over a more substantive reply I thought I'd point out that your spellcheck (I assume it's a spellcheck) appears to be changing all instances of "defense" to "deafness".

It might be because it only recognizes the "defence" spelling....

We knew someone would go there.

You really don't want to go there...

All this to defend a bioweapons ban that's going to pass regardless?!?

Surely you realise how easy it would be to do the following:


Absolutely I realize that. However, until then, I have a bit of leeway in what I do (like: "Repeal UNSA because it does diddly-squat") plus extra.


And that would be the end of that.

I bet it would pass, too. Verbatim.


Again....my leeway - not to mention I think it would be easier to SHOW people what this means. Plus I can probably go under counter-argument examples ("so tar and feathering are now a necessity of defense by the UN?")


Congratulations. You've just made it necessary for us to pass yet another resolution if your position is embraced by the mods.


Yep. Ain't politics great?


Personally, I think that your argument is very, very weak. It's tantamount to saying that the resolution doesn't say anything at all...


Actually, that was my point


There you go again.

If you're going to apply this logic to the UNSA, then you must apply it everywhere. Consequently, because the resolution on nuclear weapons preceded the UNSA and thus fell under its grandfather clause, we can not say if it represents a declaration that such weapons are "necessary". The General Assembly was not asked to consider the necessity of nuclear weapons when voting for that resolution, and it would be a stretch worthy of the Great Karnacki to read the minds of those who voted for the resolution and impute that they somehow did.


True - but that said, nuclear weapons are protected in a different manner.......by "law of contradiction"


That requirement just sticks in your craw, don't it?


Actually, yes. I'm drafting a full explanation why (and yeah, it could probably be seen as my last-ditch attempt to get people to pan this resolution)


Here at last do you have some solid basis for argument. But not anywhere else.

First part: agreed

From my understanding of the resolution this would give my nation the right to use any weapons avaible to defend my nation. So that would mean that I could throw ever more powerful things at an invader untill they were forced to withdraw.

Now if my standard weapons couldn't repel the invader (it's possible there are some big nations outside of the UN) then it would be necessary for me to use biologial and chemical weapons to defend my boarders.

If I've got this right and I really hope like hell I haven't, then this resolution means that the UN can't ban any weapons as their use would be situationally based with respect the the nation under attack.

If I've got this right and I really hope like hell I haven't, then this resolution means that the UN can't ban any weapons as their use would be situationally based with respect the the nation under attack.I'm afraid you're right.

I guess observations like yours must be the "bullshit" that Texan Hotrodder was trying to avoid by not presenting his proposal for debate in this forum in proper fashion. I can't stress enough how I find that Texan Hotrodder's choice of action in this particular matter is conflicting with a clear and open process of lawmaking.

Texan Hotrodders has proposed that we should limit ourselves to banning arms that we as a body believe to be useless in defending ourselves from attack, on a basis of the theory that we should never ask any nation to forswear the use of a weapon that it needs to survive.The UNSA does not propose the ban of any weapon of any kind under any circumstance nor does it imply baning weapons. If Texan Hotrodders has ever proposed anything like that... it was most definitely in another proposal and not the UNSA.

I guess observations like yours must be the "bullshit" that Texan Hotrodder was trying to avoid by not presenting his proposal for debate in this forum in proper fashion. I can't stress enough how I find that Texan Hotrodder's choice of action in this particular matter is conflicting with a clear and open process of lawmaking.
Canada6, that is ENOUGH. If you continue these personal attacks on the character of Texas Hotrodders (across SEVERAL threads, I've noticed), you will find yourself officially warned or worse.

For the record:

There is NO requirement that UN Proposals must
be discussed beforehand on the NationStates Forums

Now, KNOCK IT OFF.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Understood.


I am fully aware and always have been that there is no requirement that UN proposals must be discussed beforehand on the NationStates Forums.

I have but one final question on this matter for the sake of clarity and to avoid myself or any other user getting into the same trouble.

Does this warning mean, that this subject matter, (which has obviously happened before and is likely to happen again,) is oficially tabu from now on?

I apologise once again for my IC behaviour, tone, and choice of words, even thought it was just an attempt on my part to do exactly what any RL politician would've done in a similar situation.

I honestly hope that there are no hard feelings or resentments towards anybody. On my part there are and never have been, any personal resentments whatsoever.

Does this warning mean, that this subject matter, (which has obviously happened before and is likely to happen again,) is oficially tabu from now on?
As the UN is only semi-IC (in-character, just so there's no confusion), it is quite difficult to separate attacks against the nation from attacks against the player. Texas Hodrodders has a UN Ambassador who signs IC posts. Had you addressed that character, I would have assumed it was IC. Instead, you attacked the nationname, which in OOC forums equates with the player.

Personal attacks on the player are, have been, and will continue to be, against the rules of the forums and the game. That's not going to change. If you want to get into an IC discussion about backroom politics in the UN, better make it very clear that your actions are IN-character.

Does that clarify whatever it was you were asking about?

As the UN is only semi-IC (in-character, just so there's no confusion), it is quite difficult to separate attacks against the nation from attacks against the player. Texas Hodrodders has a UN Ambassador who signs IC posts. Had you addressed that character, I would have assumed it was IC. Instead, you attacked the nationname, which in OOC forums equates with the player.

Personal attacks on the player are, have been, and will continue to be, against the rules of the forums and the game. That's not going to change. If you want to get into an IC discussion about backroom politics in the UN, better make it very clear that your actions are IN-character.

Does that clarify whatever it was you were asking about?
What you have just stated makes perfect sense to me and I back it up 100%. I used the name "Texan Hotrodder" as my target so to speak simply becuase that is the author of the Proposal in question.

From what I recall all my posts regarding this matter where IC. I was making a conscientious attempt to make it seem that way to others.

What you have just stated makes perfect sense to me and I back it up 100%. I used the name "Texan Hotrodder" as my target so to speak simply becuase that is the author of the Proposal in question.

From what I recall all my posts regarding this matter where IC. I was making a conscientious attempt to make it seem that way to others.

Just a note politics wise: character attacks are tricky at best - disasters at worst. They can provide valuable results, but one of the biggest tricks with them is knowing when to back off. When your first few attacks were quickly refuted by people on both sides of the fence, that was a clear indication it wasn't working. If you press that matter, it makes you look like an a-hole while the other side will come off either scot-free or even could have their position bolstered because of your attacks.

On the other hand, if you started seeing people come out of the woodworking making similar attacks simultaneously, including people who are not regulars on the forums, you know you may have had some success. If his own supporters start distancing themselves, you've struck gold.

Like cards: know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em

Allemande: While I'm mulling over a more substantive reply I thought I'd point out that your spellcheck (I assume it's a spellcheck) appears to be changing all instances of "defense" to "deafness".

It might be because it only recognizes the "defence" spelling....Yes, that's exactly what's happening. I thought I'd caught them all.

Still, there ought to be some connection there... ;)

I need to type better. <sigh>

The UNSA does not propose the ban of any weapon of any kind under any circumstance nor does it imply baning weapons. If Texan Hotrodders has ever proposed anything like that... it was most definitely in another proposal and not the UNSA.Actually, it does.

Because of the principle of contradiction, Tex could have left the test of necessity out of the text and effectively blocked all further weapons bans. By allowed an exception in the case of "unnecessary" weapons, he's doing exactly what I say: limiting future weapons bans to unnecessary weapons.

I would like to submit my approval for the Security Act.

seems to be almost the same as the previous resolution, except not only on nukes.

seems to be almost the same as the previous resolution, except not only on nukes.

Exactly

no really im am trying to say is what if we pass this and then some nations make highly destructive weapons and they use it against us. if we let nations make their own weapons they may make deadly ones and some will use it against us. it may just be to protect but some may use it on the offense instead of defense. then some nations will cest to exist or taken over or whatever happens when one nations loses. some will resign or stay but use it against us. :sniper:

This proposal is an excuse for nations to build up large quantities of weapons! Can't you see? We are having the wool pulled over our heads! This resolution is saying that the country has the right to build all weapons required to serve the sovereign power. Now I am willing to guarantee this will lead to some extremely heavy militaries under the excuse of "defence". In truth these countries will be preparing a large army for offensive takeover! Ban this act! We can't afford to kill each other. The current military restriction have forced us to have peace. THAT PEACE MUST CONTINUE!

Now I am willing to guarantee this will lead to some extremely heavy militaries under the excuse of "defence".
And what exactly is stopping anyone from doing that now? This does not force anybody to do anything and it doesn't allow us to do anything that we can't already do. This resolution merely safeguards our right to build defensive weapons.Nobody is "pulling the wool over your head".
In truth these countries will be preparing a large army for offensive takeover!
Are you wearing a tinfoil hat by any chance?

*gets in on the ground floor selling tinfoil hats to delegates, representatives, and anyone else in or around the UN*

Great idea. Here's your cut, Yelda.

No, I didn't even waste my time reading this thread:

What a waste, a proposal saying I can have a military. Maybe next proposal will allow nations to breath air :mad:

Just a note politics wise: character attacks are tricky at best - disasters at worst. They can provide valuable results, but one of the biggest tricks with them is knowing when to back off. When your first few attacks were quickly refuted by people on both sides of the fence, that was a clear indication it wasn't working. If you press that matter, it makes you look like an a-hole while the other side will come off either scot-free or even could have their position bolstered because of your attacks.

On the other hand, if you started seeing people come out of the woodworking making similar attacks simultaneously, including people who are not regulars on the forums, you know you may have had some success. If his own supporters start distancing themselves, you've struck gold.

Like cards: know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em
I only noticed three other people comenting my maneuver. One of course was Texan Hotrodder.
The other two reactions, one was in somewhat of an agreement with me, just prior to the warning, and another is in the other thread and somewhat indiferent and lightly against the matter.

Actually, it does.[propose a weapons ban]

Because of the principle of contradiction, Tex could have left the test of necessity out of the text and effectively blocked all further weapons bans. By allowed an exception in the case of "unnecessary" weapons, he's doing exactly what I say: limiting future weapons bans to unnecessary weapons.Leaving the possibility open for a future ban is diferent from proposing or implying a ban in itself. However I'd be glad to withdraw if you can show me where the UNSA proposes a weapons ban. :D

Actually, it does.[propose a weapons ban]

Because of the principle of contradiction, Tex could have left the test of necessity out of the text and effectively blocked all further weapons bans. By allowed an exception in the case of "unnecessary" weapons, he's doing exactly what I say: limiting future weapons bans to unnecessary weapons.Leaving the possibility open for a future ban is diferent from proposing or implying a ban in itself. However I'd be glad to withdraw if you can show me where the UNSA proposes a weapons ban. :DYour parenthetical completion of my sentence was off the mark. Let's review the full exchange:
Texan Hotrodders has proposed that we should limit ourselves to banning arms that we as a body believe to be useless in defending ourselves from attack, on a basis of the theory that we should never ask any nation to forswear the use of a weapon that it needs to survive.The UNSA does not propose the ban of any weapon of any kind under any circumstance nor does it imply baning weapons. If Texan Hotrodders has ever proposed anything like that... it was most definitely in another proposal and not the UNSA.Actually, it does (imply [that] ban[n]ing weapons [is something we can do, but that it be limited as I have described])

Because of the principle of contradiction, Tex could have left the test of necessity out of the text and effectively blocked all further weapons bans. By allowed an exception in the case of "unnecessary" weapons, he's doing exactly what I say: limiting future weapons bans to unnecessary weapons.I'll forgive the innocent misattribution, and state the situation as plainly as possible: No, the UNSA does not ban any weapon or recommend the banning of any weapon.


Yes, the UNSA contemplates that this body might seek to implement one or more weapons bans in the future.


Accordingly, the UNSA conditions these future bans on the banned weapon being unnecessary for anyone's defence.

This resolution does nothing but allow corrupt UN members the ability, without question, to stockpile weapons without being asked any questions of the necessity of vast stockpiles.

This is not only a waste of time for all UN member nations, but a waste of resources in proposing and administering this resolution.

As it stands, there are no resolutions preventing me from adequately preparing My Peoples in defending ourselves. My Peoples can already kill from 6 paces with their bare hands and each household has mandatory firearms for local defense. Why do any of us, UN as well as My Peoples, need a resolution or law to say that we can stockpile as many weapons as we see fit...

UNLESS MY PEOPLES WERE PLANNING ON INVADING OTHER NATIONS TO EXPLOIT THEM!!!1!

This is just an excuse to buy time for more Kim Jong Ils and Adolf Hitlers. :mp5:

Why do any of us, UN as well as My Peoples, need a resolution or law to say that we can stockpile as many weapons as we see fit...

To protect your right to stockpile those weapons. Too often this organization has been willing to ban those items needed to defend ones nations.

Imagine for a moment that my nation - with a total military size of around 50 million, wished to dominate a nation like yours - with a total population of around 120 million...now say you had your hands tied by various weapons bans.

I'm off your shore.

Do you stay in the UN, or resign as quickly as possible and put together a few chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?

IF you look at past resolutions (excluding the last one), the UN has been trying to reduce weapons. Now, the trend seems to be to undo what precious much we have done to reduce them. This is an affront to everything the UN has done, and all of civilization. Wars destroy people. Peace does not.

IF you look at past resolutions (excluding the last one), the UN has been trying to reduce weapons. Now, the trend seems to be to undo what precious much we have done to reduce them. This is an affront to everything the UN has done, and all of civilization. Wars destroy people. Peace does not.

Actually - I believe (as do many others) that this is more of a rebalancing of the UN.

Further, having - obtaining - stockpiling - weapons does not war make. In fact the inverse is closer to the truth.

If you want peace - prepare for war.

W.

If the nations were to arm themselves for "Protection" it would only cause the power hungry to strike at the weak and create a wave of almost unstopable violence. any disputes should be solved through discussion and negotiation not war and violence.

Who are we to deny the rights of other countries to create weapons to protect themselves? But, this is not the way to do it. We need to strike this resolution down, and we need to write a better, more well defined resolution pertaining to the use of defensive weapons. Ultimately, the power must rest with the UN, and this resolution simply restricts it too much.

Personally, I am appalled that it appears there are not enough people in the UN that care about its protection anymore. People wanting to use WMD is unacceptable. These weapons devestate our pristine nations, and comprimises the ability of the UN to perform its peace- and order-keeping duties when countries can strike back with weapons that would leave the world crippled. We cannot, at any costs, allow countries to run away with our rights to freedom and life.

War is not the answer, nor is it ever. The mentallity is "they're building an army, we need one to protect ourselves." This is what has caused our downward spiral into wars and devestation. I am not calling for a ban on all weapons. I myself have a large army. But it is policy to never, ever strike first. if every country adopted this policy, maybe, just maybe, we could have peace on earth...

thank you gods banks thats what ive been trying to say this whole time. these nations just want to make weapons for attacks not defense
:sniper:

Whether or not countries may use weapons for making war aswell as defending against it, countries need weapons to defend itself against terrorism & attack. Looking at recent events in the UK do you believe that having weapons to deter future attacks such as this is wrong? Because we need to face that although peace is good without the weapons to uphold that peace it WILL end.

Ambassador of Pragusta

If the nations were to arm themselves for "Protection" it would only cause the power hungry to strike at the weak and create a wave of almost unstopable violence. any disputes should be solved through discussion and negotiation not war and violence.

But what of those non-UN nations not bound by any law?

What of the regular use of weapons of mass destruction against both UN and non-UN nations?

I have been involved in conflicts that have involved nuclear attacks, chemical attacks and biological attacks...and I will fight to defend my nation's rights to respond to those attacks in any way I see fit.

Looking at recent events in the UK do you believe that having weapons to deter future attacks such as this is wrong?The fact that the United States of America having all sorts of weapons of all kinds (bio, chemical and nuclear and plenty of them) did not prevent them from being attacked. England isn't exactly "defenseless" and they were also shamefully attacked. Bottom line is that if a nation wants to attack you, they will attack you.

Whether or not countries may use weapons for making war aswell as defending against it, countries need weapons to defend itself against terrorism & attack. Looking at recent events in the UK do you believe that having weapons to deter future attacks such as this is wrong? Because we need to face that although peace is good without the weapons to uphold that peace it WILL end.

Ambassador of Pragusta

Having a soldier on every street corner won't stop attacks on countries - unless you want to cripple the rights of the individual and make it so that every block, each person must be patted down and all their possessions removed. Terrorism is so powerful not because it is devestating, but because you realize afterwards that there is so little you can do to stop it. You can try to monitor and track terror suspects all you want, you can tap phone conversations, keep an underground cop at every door, but all you need is a Timothy McVeigh (sp?) who builds a bomb in the backyard of a friend's house and then sets it off next to a large building in a major city's downtown.

My favorite is that the only reason the WTC didn't collapse in '93 was because there was a car in the spot that the carbomb would have needed to be at to take them both out.

ooc: let's remember that this is an in-character forum. "Real Life" examples are largely meaningless.

But what of those non-UN nations not bound by any law?

What about them? Lawless nations will always exist, the answer to them is not to toss out standards of reasonable lawful conduct of our own. That's just spreading the problem around.

What of the regular use of weapons of mass destruction against both UN and non-UN nations?

I have been involved in conflicts that have involved nuclear attacks, chemical attacks and biological attacks...and I will fight to defend my nation's rights to respond to those attacks in any way I see fit.

It's just how you "see fit" which becomes the issue. As long as it's a response which only presents a threat to your attacker or yourself most nations are unlikely to be concerned. That's what wars tend to be about after all. If how you "see fit" is a response which jeapordizes the national security of every nation in the region you make it rather likely to be opening up a new front or five in whatever conflict it is you're engaged in.

We would say such approaches are counterproductive.

Reformentia for one considers the use or even threat of use of biological weapons to fall into that latter category... which is why we're pushing for their ban.

And since we never miss an opportunity to bring it up... we still think the first and third clauses in the preamble of the current biological weapons ban resolution go well beyond establishing the position of the ban proposal that biological weapons are simply unnecessary for national defense... seeing as they argue that such weapons present a hazard to the national security of ALL nations.

It would be nice to get confirmation of the moderators opinion on this before voting ends on the UNSA and the ban proposal faces possible deletion from the queue.

The UN is completly corrupt, and the approval of this decree is only proof of it! UN delegates are no longer concerned with the common good, and instead are fanatical gun-nuts who merely approve any suggestion to do with weapons and armament. The bureucrats are in power, not those delegates with the peace of our world in mind; they are simply self-serving and use the UN as a channel to further lead the world into the decadent future they have planned. Like minded delegates and senators please reply and support my cause for routing the corruption that we now face.

Mindist

The UN is completly corrupt, and the approval of this decree is only proof of it! UN delegates are no longer concerned with the common good, and instead are fanatical gun-nuts who merely approve any suggestion to do with weapons and armament. The bureucrats are in power, not those delegates with the peace of our world in mind; they are simply self-serving and use the UN as a channel to further lead the world into the decadent future they have planned. Like minded delegates and senators please reply and support my cause for routing the corruption that we now face.

Mindist

Quite frankly that is pure rubbish. Look at what this United Nations has achieved - it is no small feat - there are resolutions on any number of topics - including bans on specific weapons.

That one or two recent resolutions attempt to provide a balance between the need to defend a nation with the desire to safeguard the world from dangerous weapons - is, in my mind, a sign of a mature organization that recognizes the diverse nature of the world.

I was browsing through the UN proposal list and I came across the following proposal, which had not been discussed on this floor, that I could not let pass by without discussion. I ask that the Clerk report the United Nations Security Act.


This is similar to the "Nuclear Armaments" proposal, but far broader-based. It would essentially restrict the United Nations from considering any proposals in the category of "Global Disarmament", unless such a proposal can demonstrate that a weapon restricted thereby is completely unnecessary for defensive purposes.

Obviously, as an opponent of efforts to restrict the power of the United Nations, I will be opposing this proposal more vigorously than I have acted in recent times. However, I do wish to bring it to the attention of the United Nations, because a proposal with such a sweeping effect should be fully discussed while still at the proposal level. I wish to commend the representative from Texan Hotrodders on his skills in obtaining approvals for his attempts to limit the power of the United Nations.

I hereby give notice of intent to raise a parliamentary inquiry tomorrow, when I have more time to properly phrase it, regarding the scope of limitations which this proposal seeks to require and a possible loophole which I have noticed. This inquiry may demand a binding ruling from the Chair.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
I initially agreed, thinking that every nation has the right to self- defence. Upon reading this clarification I will withdraw my vote and cast it against.

Furthermore, I detest such warmongering acts, which are passed covertly from the rest of the legislative body, as an Insult to the transparency and to the Moral Order said body represents.

I suggest the Delegate who proposed such an Act to rethink his actions and Moral Obligations before the UN Council and the Legitimacy it represents.

Understood.


I am fully aware and always have been that there is no requirement that UN proposals must be discussed beforehand on the NationStates Forums.

I have but one final question on this matter for the sake of clarity and to avoid myself or any other user getting into the same trouble.

Does this warning mean, that this subject matter, (which has obviously happened before and is likely to happen again,) is oficially tabu from now on?

I apologise once again for my IC behaviour, tone, and choice of words, even thought it was just an attempt on my part to do exactly what any RL politician would've done in a similar situation.

I honestly hope that there are no hard feelings or resentments towards anybody. On my part there are and never have been, any personal resentments whatsoever.

OOC (Just so it's clear ;) ):

Wow! I didn't see this until now. It really looked like it was all OOC stuff to me, but I can see how there was some misunderstanding if you weren't fully aware of the RP conventions on this particular forum.

For future reference, if you wish to address me ICly (which I would welcome), then all you have to do is say "the nation of Texan Hotrodders" or address one of my characters by name to make it clear that the post is in-character. You can find the name of my primary character in my sig and the name of his deputy in some of my posts in this thread. I hope that helps. :)

Reformentia for one considers the use or even threat of use of biological weapons to fall into that latter category... which is why we're pushing for their ban.And we in Allemande agree.

And since we never miss an opportunity to bring it up... we still think the first and third clauses in the preamble of the current biological weapons ban resolution go well beyond establishing the position of the ban proposal that biological weapons are simply unnecessary for national defense... seeing as they argue that such weapons present a hazard to the national security of ALL nations.And we in Allemande again agree.

It would be nice to get confirmation of the moderators opinion on this before voting ends on the UNSA and the ban proposal faces possible deletion from the queue.We concur. A reasonable case can be made that these assertions meet all tests required by the UNSA, should the UNSA be implemented.

I initially agreed, thinking that every nation has the right to self- defence. Upon reading this clarification I will withdraw my vote and cast it against.

Furthermore, I detest such warmongering acts, which are passed covertly from the rest of the legislative body, as an Insult to the transparency and to the Moral Order said body represents.

I suggest the Delegate who proposed such an Act to rethink his actions and Moral Obligations before the UN Council and the Legitimacy it represents.

Dear colleague,

Rest assured that our office has duly considered our moral obligations with regard to this matter as well as all the attendant philosophical and legal concerns.

We are insulted that you chose to label us warmongers, a label that we find insulting. We are not interested in promoting or making war unless it is vital to the defense of our nation in the interest of protecting its citizens, and we only wish to provide greater security and practicality to the august body of which we are members.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

And we in Allemande agree.

And we in Allemande again agree.

We concur. A reasonable case can be made that these assertions meet all tests required by the UNSA, should the UNSA be implemented.

For the record, our office does think a good case could be made for the unnecessary nature of biological weapons, but would not like to see a true ban of them because unusual circumstances may arise in which they do become necessary, in which case a ban could prove most unfortunate for some innocent nations.

We do recognize that a "weak" resolution that discourages the use of these "bioweapons" would be easily abused by those who are not so innocent as others, but we would like it noted such nations that are likely to abuse the legislation would be likely to find and use a loophole in their favor no matter how strictly the legislation was worded, and that the benefits of such strictness are minimal.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

ooc: let's remember that this is an in-character forum. "Real Life" examples are largely meaningless


Actually:

To clarify: UN rules do not permit real-life examples in proposals. You're more than welcome to use them to make your point in arguments, as long as you stick to the pros and cons of NSUN business. Just don't let it turn into a General discussion of China or abortion or whatever, and you'll be fine.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Showing an example of terrorism in which military and police procedures would have EXTREME difficulty in dealing with is not outside the realm of discussing relating to the advantages and disadvantages of military and police budgets. That said, it is rather irrelevant to this discussion as the military nature we're talking about (necessary weapons for defense) pretty much means we're discussing Nation vs Nation scenarios rather than Nation vs Independant group (AKA Terrorist Cells, Freedom Fighter Libertarians, Patriots, etc)

Lawless nations will always exist, the answer to them is not to toss out standards of reasonable lawful conduct of our own. That's just spreading the problem around.
The Duke applauds the logic of this statement.

A good point was made several pages ago, and largely ignored, that a nation facing its own destruction at the hands of another nation can argue that any weapon falls under the category of "necessary for defense", so long as it does not result in the complete destruction of the first nation. A weapon could potentially kill 90% of the defending nation's population, cause widespread destruction among neighboring nations, and have a serious negative effect on the world as a whole, and yet still be deemed "necessary for defense" if it also thwarts an invasion which would completely destroy the nation utilizing the weapon.

Legislation which is subjective in nature is ineffective because of the great diversity of nations in the NSUN; opinions and circumstances will differ regarding "necessary for defense". A resolution, to be effective, must be objectively defined in order to apply to the member nations equally. UNSA does not meet this requirement, with the following effect: that a nation may hypothetically commit any number of detestable acts involving weaponry banned after the passage of UNSA* and argue, ex post facto, that the use of said weaponry was necessary for their defense. Even if the argument is false and the nation is found to be in violation of a UN weapons ban, the point is moot because the weapon has already been used.

*UNSA states (emphasis added):
[T]hat all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.
The point is that, according to the language of UNSA, any future weapons ban may be circumvented by a member nation without resigning from the UN, so long as it can be shown that the use of the weapon in question resulted in less damage to that single nation than non-use of the weapon. Of course, any resolution may be circumvented simply by resigning from the UN, but I see no reason to give nations the ability to ignore a resolution and remain a member of the UN while doing so. If the situation is so dire that a leader believes it calls for the use of banned weapons, all that need be done is for that nation to resign from the UN. In that light, UNSA is an unnecessary measure with the potential to damage one of the basic tenets of the NSUN, that resolutions are binding on all member nations.

The Duke has made a brief search of previous resolutions to determine whether the subject of ex post facto law has previously been addressed, and found nothing. The Grand Duchy of Mustachios is a relatively young and inexperienced member of the NSUN, and the Duke would appreciate the assistance any more experienced members willing to assist him in drafting a resolution concerning ex post facto law -- assuming, of course, that there is no such resolution already in the works.

The Duke has made a brief search of previous resolutions to determine whether the subject of ex post facto law has previously been addressed, and found nothing. The Grand Duchy of Mustachios is a relatively young and inexperienced member of the NSUN, and the Duke would appreciate the assistance any more experienced members willing to assist him in drafting a resolution concerning ex post facto law -- assuming, of course, that there is no such resolution already in the works.

There are three weapons bans that have been passed by the UN: bioweapons, chemical weapons, and landmines. Bioweapons has been repealed, so it is no longer a "previous" resolution. Landmines and Chemical weapons are both still in effect (though I would like to see the chemical weapons repealed and replaced with a more lenient advisory resolution).

Also, I don't interpret the resolution as only allowing previous weapons bans to be in effect. The resolution does not specify who decides what is and isn't necessary for a nation to defend itself. That means that a future UN resolution could define certain weapons as unnecessary--and thus still operate as a weapons ban. It's just a matter of wording and nuance.

It is the Duke's belief that in certain circumstances, as described in his previous statement, necessity could be established objectively through simple logic, regardless of any resolutions declaring that a weapon is never necessary for defense. Perhaps this is due to a misunderstanding on the Duke's part of how the NSUN works. If the use of a weapon preserves the existance of a nation, while the non-use of that weapon results in that same nation's destruction, then it would seem to be objectively true that the weapon is necessary for that nation's defense, and so any resolution declaring that the weapon is never necessary for defense would be null and void by virtue of logical fallacy. Is that incorrect?

The Duke is aware of the previous weapons bans mentioned, and of the repeal of the bioweapons ban. The fact that he is new to the NSUN does not mean he has not done his homework. ;)

It is the Duke's belief that in certain circumstances, as described in his previous statement, necessity could be established objectively through simple logic, regardless of any resolutions declaring that a weapon is never necessary for defense. Perhaps this is due to a misunderstanding on the Duke's part of how the NSUN works. If the use of a weapon preserves the existance of a nation, while the non-use of that weapon results in that same nation's destruction, then it would seem to be objectively true that the weapon is necessary for that nation's defense, and so any resolution declaring that the weapon is never necessary for defense would be null and void by virtue of logical fallacy. Is that incorrect?
But what is and is not 'objectively true' is not really at issue. I mean, it may be 'necessary' for a nation to use, say, biological weapons to preserve itself in the future. But, should a UN resolution say that boligical weapon is never necessary, under any circumstances, and then ban it, I'm pretty sure that nation would not be allowed to use biological weapons. It might seem common sense that the nation may "need" to use a weapon type in a situation, but I don't think that that sense would trump what the UN officially defines as 'necessary'.

The Duke is aware of the previous weapons bans mentioned, and of the repeal of the bioweapons ban. The fact that he is new to the NSUN does not mean he has not done his homework. ;)

Sorry about that. I thought this The Duke has made a brief search of previous resolutions to determine whether the subject of ex post facto law has previously been addressed, and found nothing. was referring to an inability to find previous bans.

EDIT: The misunderstanding was my fault entirely. I read through that sentence too fast.

It might seem common sense that the nation may "need" to use a weapon type in a situation, but I don't think that that sense would trump what the UN officially defines as 'necessary'.
Consider, if you would, the following hypothetical situation as an analogy:
- A resolution is proposed, comes to a vote, and is passed declaring that member nations are allowed to grow and sell all non-poisonous fruits and vegetables.
- A resolution is subsequently passed banning member nations from the growth or sale of Vegetable X, by virtue of the fact that Vegetable X is poisonous.

If scientific study proves it to be objectively true that Vegetable X is not poisonous, then is a nation which grows and/or sells Vegetable X considered to be acting in violation of international law? The nation's actions are allowed by one resolution and disallowed by another.

As far as the Duke is aware, the UN may not officially define "necessary" in any way which disagrees with the accepted meaning of the word unless explicitly stated in the language of the resolution in question. UNSA nowhere defines what is "necessary for defense", nor does it establish any criteria by which necessity may be defined. In that light, it should be perfectly obvious why the Duke cannot vote in favor of this resolution.

Consider, if you would, the following hypothetical situation as an analogy:
- A resolution is proposed, comes to a vote, and is passed declaring that member nations are allowed to grow and sell all non-poisonous fruits and vegetables.
- A resolution is subsequently passed banning member nations from the growth or sale of Vegetable X, by virtue of the fact that Vegetable X is poisonous.

If scientific study proves it to be objectively true that Vegetable X is not poisonous, then is a nation which grows and/or sells Vegetable X considered to be acting in violation of international law? The nation's actions are allowed by one resolution and disallowed by another.

As far as the Duke is aware, the UN may not officially define "necessary" in any way which disagrees with the accepted meaning of the word unless explicitly stated in the language of the resolution in question. UNSA nowhere defines what is "necessary for defense", nor does it establish any criteria by which necessity may be defined. In that light, it should be perfectly obvious why the Duke cannot vote in favor of this resolution.

Now, mind you, the rules have changed slightly and ammendments are illegal now (which may or may not have been true back then) and all sorts of resolutions in past would be considered illegal if proposed today BUT, check out resolution 26 (?) Definition of Fair Trial

Consider, if you would, the following hypothetical situation as an analogy:
- A resolution is proposed, comes to a vote, and is passed declaring that member nations are allowed to grow and sell all non-poisonous fruits and vegetables.
- A resolution is subsequently passed banning member nations from the growth or sale of Vegetable X, by virtue of the fact that Vegetable X is poisonous.

If scientific study proves it to be objectively true that Vegetable X is not poisonous, then is a nation which grows and/or sells Vegetable X considered to be acting in violation of international law? The nation's actions are allowed by one resolution and disallowed by another.

So, there's a resolution that says that all poisonous vegetables (including Vegetable X) are not to be grown? If that's the case then whether or not Vegetable X could be grown or not would depend on how the resolution is phrased. If the resolution says "Vegetables that are poisonous, including Vegetable X, Y and Z may not be..." and there is explicit outlawing of Vegetable X, then Vegetable X would be illegal regardless of what scientists said. If the resolution stated "Vegetables that are poisonous may not be grown, transferred, etc." then a future resolution (or, in the absence of a UN decision, national governments) could grow Vegetable X, considering it non-poisonous.

Of course, if you mean that the preamble clauses stated that Vegetable X's poisonousness was the reason for its banning (something like "NOTING the poisonousness of Vegetable X,") then it really has no bearing on things. Preamble clauses are just arguments to justify action, thus, they do not have to be 'true' or not for the resolution's effects to be exacted.

As far as the Duke is aware, the UN may not officially define "necessary" in any way which disagrees with the accepted meaning of the word unless explicitly stated in the language of the resolution in question. UNSA nowhere defines what is "necessary for defense", nor does it establish any criteria by which necessity may be defined.It doesn't have to. The UN assumes the right to legislate in that arena. I'll need to review the resolution, but I believe "Rights and Duties of UN Members" (or whatever its name is) spells out the RP sovereignty that the Game Mechanics UN has over its member nations, including how they interpret resolutions.

Now, mind you, the rules have changed slightly and ammendments are illegal now (which may or may not have been true back then) and all sorts of resolutions in past would be considered illegal if proposed today BUT, check out resolution 26 (?) Definition of Fair Trial
The Duke extends his thanks for pointing out this resolution. As it makes no reference to "ex post facto law" or similar, the Duke will proceed with the drafting of a proposal dealing with the subject.

Of course, if you mean that the preamble clauses stated that Vegetable X's poisonousness was the reason for its banning (something like "NOTING the poisonousness of Vegetable X,") then it really has no bearing on things. Preamble clauses are just arguments to justify action, thus, they do not have to be 'true' or not for the resolution's effects to be exacted.
That is indeed what was meant by the example. Even so, were Vegetable X proven to be non-poisonous, the language of the former resolution provides the right to grow and sell it, while the latter resolution would ban it from being grown or sold. If the former resolution is not repealed, then the upon discovery that Vegetable X is non-poisonous, the latter resolution becomes an amendment of the former, and illegal under the rules which were in effect at the time the resolution was submitted, whether it was known to be illegal or not. It seems only fair that the former, legal resolution take precedence over the latter, illegal resolution in judging the case of a nation which grows or sells Vegetable X, whether the latter resolution is stricken down or not.

So, were UNSA to be passed, and an improved Bioweapons Ban subsequently passed by declaring that Bioweapons are never necessary for defense, a nation which posesses Bioweapons and no other effective weapons against the enemy could use the above arguments to justify the use of Bioweapons against any invading force.
Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.
The Duke is confused by the above section of "Rights and Duties of UN States". The language says that nations may respond to declarations of war, but does not specify how they may respond, merely that they may respond. "A barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons" seems to imply that a nation may somehow ignore a war; but the Duke is unfamiliar with this type of weaponry and how it affects the argument at hand.

If it is assumed that all nations posess I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons, and that their use prevents any and all undesired aggression; and if nations do not have the right to roleplay a war without these weapons, if they so desire; then no weapon is ever truly necessary for the defense of a nation, save I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons, and as such UNSA does not prevent any weapon from being banned. (EDIT: Excepting, of course, I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.)

OOC: Though admittedly, my understanding is newbie level at best, all wars are conducted in a role-playing environment. It literally is in this game that a war requires two players - otherwise no one cares (invasions is another story). Therefore, if you ignore it, the war never happens, war is over.

So, were UNSA to be passed, and an improved Bioweapons Ban subsequently passed by declaring that Bioweapons are never necessary for defense, a nation which posesses Bioweapons and no other effective weapons against the enemy could use the above arguments to justify the use of Bioweapons against any invading force.

I disagree with that. Preamble clauses are not the conditions which must be met for member nations to comply with a resolution. Instead, they are arguments to mods and players of proposal's need, and for its legality. If a resolution's preamble qualifies it to be ruled legal by the mods, then the effects of it are given the same credence that all resolutions are given.



The Duke is confused by the above section of "Rights and Duties of UN States". The language says that nations may respond to declarations of war, but does not specify how they may respond, merely that they may respond. "A barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons" seems to imply that a nation may somehow ignore a war; but the Duke is unfamiliar with this type of weaponry and how it affects the argument at hand.

I'm not sure it does. I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons are a semi-roleplay expression of actual ignoring of someone or something. I'm not sure they apply to the discussion at hand. They're one group of persons way of saying "we don't have to conform to your reality in the world. So what if you in your roleplays have blown up the earth three times--we still get to flippin' roleplay cops and robbers on it!" They aren't used in roleplay, but in the dismissal or refusal of roleplay.

If it is assumed that all nations posess I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons, and that their use prevents any and all undesired aggression; and if nations do not have the right to roleplay a war without these weapons, if they so desire; then no weapon is ever truly necessary for the defense of a nation, save I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons, and as such UNSA does not prevent any weapon from being banned.
I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons are only quasi-roleplay. I don't list them in my military budget or tally. Players wield them, not nations. Or at least, they can only be triggered by player action (as a roleplay way to make sense of a player ignoring someone). They appear and disappear when a player says "I'm ignoring this event/player/alternate reality/tech". They cannot be used in *actual* roleplay. Their put in to explain the absence of war roleplay. Thus, they cannot be used to defend against a consensual war (the type of war that us addressed by UNSA).

This could be thought of (roughly and perhaps crudely) in terms of rape, consensual sex, and STDs. In order to protect yourself from rape and the possible STDs or unwanted pregnancy carried along with it, you need a policeman in close proximity to you. However, when you consensually engage in sexual activities, having a policeman in the room won't protect you the slightest bit from STDs or unwanted pregnancy (in fact, it'd be downright creepy). You need contraception/protection to protect you during consensual sex. Not Johnny Law.

In this analogy, an unwanted or ignored RP or player is the rapist, and the IGNORE cannons are the policeman. They protect you from being involved in a war (or sexual act) you don't want to be in. The contraception/protection are the actual, RPed weapon types addressed by UNSA (conventional, nuclear, biological, etc.). They are qualified as necessary or unnecessary (by UN resolution or individual nations), and are banned or not.

IGNORE cannons protect you from unwanted involvement. They cannot be activated once you agree to become involved in a war. Thus, they cannot be included in the weapons addressed by UNSA--as they don't exist when a nation defends itself. A nation defending itself would require agreement between the aggressor and defender to engage in RP. That means the IGNORE cannons from both sides are either disappeared or inexplicably unusable.

OOC (Just so it's clear ;) ):

Wow! I didn't see this until now. It really looked like it was all OOC stuff to me, but I can see how there was some misunderstanding if you weren't fully aware of the RP conventions on this particular forum.

For future reference, if you wish to address me ICly (which I would welcome), then all you have to do is say "the nation of Texan Hotrodders" or address one of my characters by name to make it clear that the post is in-character. You can find the name of my primary character in my sig and the name of his deputy in some of my posts in this thread. I hope that helps. :)
I'll do my best to remember. Thanks for the tips. I'm learning as I go along.

I'll probably wait until this resolution passes to start with a clean slate on a new one. See if I don't mess things up again. :D

Preamble clauses are not the conditions which must be met for member nations to comply with a resolution. Instead, they are arguments to mods and players of proposal's need, and for its legality. If a resolution's preamble qualifies it to be ruled legal by the mods, then the effects of it are given the same credence that all resolutions are given.
Point taken; however, the phrase "necessary to defend" is part of an operative clause of UNSA. If necessity can be proven, UNSA provides right of use, with the only exception being "where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right." A ban implemented after the passage of UNSA is not previous legislation.

The Duke extends his thanks to the representative of/delegate from Powerhungry Chipmunks for his explanation of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

Point taken; however, the phrase "necessary to defend" is part of an operative clause of UNSA. If necessity can be proven, UNSA provides right of use
Yes, if necessity can be proven, UNSA provides use. As of the presumed passage of this resolution, nations get to decide necessity of weapons types not already banned or restricted. However, the UN has the ability to trump the individual nations’ ability to determine necessity. Just like in any other area, individual nations have the right to decide what is necessary and not until the UN (or "international law" as its referred to in Rights and Duties) decides for them.

The exception for previous legislation is that they are exempted from being considered in terms of necessity (since it's illegal for this resolution to either amend or repeal those resolutions). The right guaranteed by UNSA is for nations to use necessary weapons. Yes, this right is not upheld where previous legislation says otherwise--but it is also curtailed by how individual nations, and in the future, UN resolutions, define necessity.

The point the Duke wishes to make is that, because UNSA neither defines nor sets down criteria for defining what is necessary, it effectively disallows any further weapons bans once it comes into effect. It does not actively prevent a weapons ban resolution from passing, but because necessity is defined by individual nations and not by the UN, any nation may preserve their right to use any weapon regardless of bans (with the notable exceptions of land mines and chemical weapons) by declaring the weapons to be necessary by their definition of the word.

If UNSA included a reasonable definition of necessity, or criteria by which the UN may establish necessity or lack thereof, the Duke would most likely support the resolution; as would the many others who feel similarly about the resolution's openness to interpretation. If this discussion had taken place before the proposal was submitted, this relatively small addition would have made a world of difference.

The Duke requests that the author of UNSA, the nation of Texan Hotrodders, withdraw his proposal until such time as a set of criteria is agreed upon and added to the language of the resolution. The Duke feels this course of action would be in the best interests of all involved.

OOC
Yes, I am aware that there is no mechanic for withdrawing a submitted proposal; and yes, I am aware of the prohibitions against requesting changes in game mechanics. What my character is suggesting is that the supporters of the proposal withdraw their support, vote against it, and urge their compatriots to do the same, to prevent an incomplete and flawed piece of legislation from passing. This is a rare diplomatic opportunity for the ambassador from Texan Hotrodders to step up and do something out of the ordinary, something which would earn him the respect and approval of many of his political opponents.

A politician who would campaign against his own bill because it is not as good a bill as it should be, for the purpose of authoring and passing an even better bill, is seen as having the qualities of humility, integrity, and leadership. A politician who would submit a bill without first asking for suggestions from the general assembly on how it could be improved, and then drive that bill through without compromise, even when the bill's legality and effectiveness have been called into question from both sides of the argument, is more likely to be seen as rigid, dogmatic, and narrow-minded.

Besides which, the opponents of the proposal have already seen that you have the votes you need to pass it; on the second go-round that gives you a very strong position from which to approach any discussions about putting forth criteria for what is necessary for defense. Furthermore, you are left with one combined resolution instead of two separate resolutions, assuming that a second resolution even passes; which makes things simpler, and helps to alleviate the mountains of bureaucracy that the UN is constantly piling up. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved, and particularly for the nation of Texan Hotrodders.

Anyhow, I just wanted to give that clarification.

EDIT: I got so involved in this discussion that I overcooked my dinner! Curse you, NationStates - curse you to heck!
/OOC

OOC
Yes, I am aware that there is no mechanic for withdrawing a submitted proposal; and yes, I am aware of the prohibitions against requesting changes in game mechanics. What my character is suggesting is that the supporters of the proposal withdraw their support, vote against it, and urge their compatriots to do the same, to prevent an incomplete and flawed piece of legislation from passing. This is a rare diplomatic opportunity for the ambassador from Texan Hotrodders to step up and do something out of the ordinary, something which would earn him the respect and approval of many of his political opponents.

Too late for that now. Voting will end sometime (probably mid-day) tomorrow. You can't change 1550 votes that quickly

What he could do is follow Powerhungry Chipmunks' lead and repeal it with a replacement definition - but outside that.....

Actually - depending on the definition, I MIGHT support it.


EDIT: I got so involved in this discussion that I overcooked my dinner! Curse you, NationStates - curse you to heck!
/OOC

Been there, done that, developed a taste for charcoal.

The point the Duke wishes to make is that, because UNSA neither defines nor sets down criteria for defining what is necessary, it effectively disallows any further weapons bans once it comes into effect. It does not actively prevent a weapons ban resolution from passing, but because necessity is defined by individual nations and not by the UN, any nation may preserve their right to use any weapon regardless of bans (with the notable exceptions of land mines and chemical weapons) by declaring the weapons to be necessary by their definition of the word.
Yes and no. Yes, you're right that once it passes nations will have the right to determine necessity. However, the UN can impose its will on nations with its own definition of necessity (for various weapons types--bioweapons, for example), which overrides the individual nations' right to do define necessity in that area themselves.

OOC
Yes, I am aware that there is no mechanic for withdrawing a submitted proposal; and yes, I am aware of the prohibitions against requesting changes in game mechanics. What my character is suggesting is that the supporters of the proposal withdraw their support, vote against it, and urge their compatriots to do the same, to prevent an incomplete and flawed piece of legislation from passing. This is a rare diplomatic opportunity for the ambassador from Texan Hotrodders to step up and do something out of the ordinary, something which would earn him the respect and approval of many of his political opponents.

-SNIP-

I think Texan Hotrodders has made fine, gracious decisions in going about this resolution. And I take issue with unsubstantiated claims of it being "flawed and incomplete".

I can't believe they're going to pass this! We're trying to eliminate the Bi-weapons then Texan Hotrodders snuck this psychotic resolution that makes it sound like he's egging on wars, I mean sure the 3:1 statistic is bad but that's a risk we need to take if we want peace in the United Nations

I can't believe they're going to pass this! We're trying to eliminate the Bi-weapons then Texan Hotrodders snuck this psychotic resolution that makes it sound like he's egging on wars, I mean sure the 3:1 statistic is bad but that's a risk we need to take if we want peace in the United Nations

We want peace in the United Nations? When did this happen? Why wasn't I sent a memo?

Too late for that now. Voting will end sometime (probably mid-day) tomorrow. You can't change 1550 votes that quickly
We will never know if we don't try. With all due respect to Texan Hotrodders, I'm not going to wait to get his approval; but without it, you're probably right. I will attempt to spearhead a last-minute campaign to get those votes changed, and I have already contacted every supporting delegate with 15 or more endorsements. If someone wants to help out by spreading the word to some of the remaining supporters, I would very much appreciate it.

Let me make clear right now that if by some chance the resolution is not passed, I pledge my support in developing and passing a version which provides a set of criteria by which the UN may determine when the use of a weapon is or is not necessary for the defense of a nation.

I take issue with unsubstantiated claims of it being "flawed and incomplete".
Incomplete and flawed, in that it does not include the aforementioned criteria for determining necessity. You may disagree with my analysis, but it is certainly not unsubstantiated. My intent is not to give offense, nor is it to pass judgement on the nation of Texan Hotrodders, but merely to work toward producing the best possible resolution.

*ahem*

"Vastiva believes all weapons without reservation are necessary."


There, the biological weapons ban is now illegal in light of the UNSA. Har har de har har.

*ahem*

"Vastiva believes all weapons without reservation are necessary."


There, the biological weapons ban is now illegal in light of the UNSA. Har har de har har.

See. This proposal is creating a paradox within our own legal system! The UN has passed several resolutions banning certain types of weapons and this goes against all of them. Soon proposals will pop up asking for all of these resolutions to be banned! Do you know what a headache that will cause in our legal system? We will all be trapped by our own web of condradictory resolutions! That can't happen! There is no way that this proposal can go through without major consequences. Stop it here!

We will never know if we don't try. With all due respect to Texan Hotrodders, I'm not going to wait to get his approval; but without it, you're probably right. I will attempt to spearhead a last-minute campaign to get those votes changed, and I have already contacted every supporting delegate with 15 or more endorsements.
Don't bother contacting Yelda. We're not interested.

See. This proposal is creating a paradox within our own legal system! The UN has passed several resolutions banning certain types of weapons and this goes against all of them.
On the contrary this resolution makes allowances for all previously passed bans with this clause.
DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.
The part in bold effectively grandfathers in all the weapons bans currently in effect and prevents them from being in violation of this resolution.

To protect your right to stockpile those weapons. Too often this organization has been willing to ban those items needed to defend ones nations.

Imagine for a moment that my nation - with a total military size of around 50 million, wished to dominate a nation like yours - with a total population of around 120 million...now say you had your hands tied by various weapons bans.

I'm off your shore.

Do you stay in the UN, or resign as quickly as possible and put together a few chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?

Imagine you attacked My Peoples with chemical or nuclear weapons... How rational and logical can you be with the UN available to respond to your vicious attacks? I don't see how your nation could defend against a surrounding onslaught.

Just because My Peoples may be armed with WMDs, does not mean it will keep possible invaders in rational thought. How many terrorist organizations are concerned with the fact that powerful countries possess WMDs?

This resolution is a false promise proposed in the same self-centered fasion that too many politions use to fulfill their personal agendas. My Peoples need not feel safe, rather be safe!

They would be safer if every nut-job that thinks they can run a country weren't forced to arm themselves with WMDs because the UN deems it correct.

And who would fund the poorer UN nations with their weapons? I do not see your currency going into their coffers... Perhaps we should force our automobile drivers to purchase armor plating for their vehicles, because it's safer? Cost means nothing to the aristocracy, yet they cannot afford to be real...

They would be safer if every nut-job that thinks they can run a country weren't forced to arm themselves with WMDs because the UN deems it correct.

And who would fund the poorer UN nations with their weapons? I do not see your currency going into their coffers... Perhaps we should force our automobile drivers to purchase armor plating for their vehicles, because it's safer? Cost means nothing to the aristocracy, yet they cannot afford to be real...
YEEEEEAARRGGHHH!!!!!!!!
THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT FORCE ANYONE TO arm themselves with WMDs because the UN deems it correct. If you don't want them don't build them, its really that simple. I'm going to bed now. Wading through all of this unbelievable junk has given me a headache. Sorry for screaming. Good night.

Imagine you attacked My Peoples with chemical or nuclear weapons... How rational and logical can you be with the UN available to respond to your vicious attacks? I don't see how your nation could defend against a surrounding onslaught.

Ok, bub, some things you should know.

First, the "United Nations" are not real united. Vastiva nuked a nation here in plain sight of everyone else. What happened - nothing.

The UN is not going to do anything in your defense regardless of what happens.



Just because My Peoples may be armed with WMDs, does not mean it will keep possible invaders in rational thought. How many terrorist organizations are concerned with the fact that powerful countries possess WMDs?


As we use cluster bombs on every terrorist cell we've found, and eradicated individuals like the vermin they are... they're rather concerned. We would also state we use captured terrorists as test subjects. Seemed to raise their concern a bit more.



This resolution is a false promise proposed in the same self-centered fasion that too many politions use to fulfill their personal agendas. My Peoples need not feel safe, rather be safe!

Alright, so you want weapons, right? That's what this does.



They would be safer if every nut-job that thinks they can run a country weren't forced to arm themselves with WMDs because the UN deems it correct.

you aren't forced to do anything - you're given the right to. Read the proposal.



And who would fund the poorer UN nations with their weapons? I do not see your currency going into their coffers... Perhaps we should force our automobile drivers to purchase armor plating for their vehicles, because it's safer? Cost means nothing to the aristocracy, yet they cannot afford to be real...

We absorb the poor nations. They get advanced, we get land, everyone wins. Next question?

It does not actively prevent a weapons ban resolution from passing, but because necessity is defined by individual nations and not by the UN, any nation may preserve their right to use any weapon regardless of bans (with the notable exceptions of land mines and chemical weapons) by declaring the weapons to be necessary by their definition of the word.We disagree.

The United Nations reserves the right to state categorically that - as far as international law is concerned, $Weapon is never necessary for any nation's defence, period (BTW, "$" is how some programming languages specify a variable; hence "$Weapon" means "<Insert_Weapon_Name_Here>")

The Duke requests that the author of UNSA, the nation of Texan Hotrodders, withdraw his proposal until such time as a set of criteria is agreed upon and added to the language of the resolution. The Duke feels this course of action would be in the best interests of all involved.Illegal. Once in queue, a proposal may not be withdrawn.

We will never know if we don't try. With all due respect to Texan Hotrodders, I'm not going to wait to get his approval; but without it, you're probably right. I will attempt to spearhead a last-minute campaign to get those votes changed, and I have already contacted every supporting delegate with 15 or more endorsements. If someone wants to help out by spreading the word to some of the remaining supporters, I would very much appreciate it.

Let me make clear right now that if by some chance the resolution is not passed, I pledge my support in developing and passing a version which provides a set of criteria by which the UN may determine when the use of a weapon is or is not necessary for the defense of a nation.


Incomplete and flawed, in that it does not include the aforementioned criteria for determining necessity. You may disagree with my analysis, but it is certainly not unsubstantiated. My intent is not to give offense, nor is it to pass judgement on the nation of Texan Hotrodders, but merely to work toward producing the best possible resolution.

Pfft - I've spent the better part of the last week doing exactly that - all that I succeeded in doing was keeping the majority within 3-3.5 k

*ahem*

"Vastiva believes all weapons without reservation are necessary."


There, the biological weapons ban is now illegal in light of the UNSA. Har har de har har.And Vastiva's opinion on this matter means precisely what?

Allemande believes, per Reformentia's assertions, that only the General Assembly is legally entitled to make such a judgement. Member nations may not make one on their own, in lieu or in place of such an opinion.

The notion that each nation can choose for itself what is and is not necessary is nonsense.

We want peace in the United Nations? When did this happen? Why wasn't I sent a memo?It's either peace or war. There is no in-between. Take your pick.

And here I thought it was Smith and Wesson... :p

But you have just been called "Messerschmidt" no? Isn't that much bigger than any Smith & Wesson we ever saw ?

Imagine you attacked My Peoples with chemical or nuclear weapons... How rational and logical can you be with the UN available to respond to your vicious attacks? I don't see how your nation could defend against a surrounding onslaught....

I wouldn't - because it doesn't make sense. But there are a lot of non-sensical nations out there.


Just because My Peoples may be armed with WMDs, does not mean it will keep possible invaders in rational thought. How many terrorist organizations are concerned with the fact that powerful countries possess WMDs?

No one is - or has - said that this resolution or WMD in general are a be-all and end-all in national security - but they are certainly an important tool.


They would be safer if every nut-job that thinks they can run a country weren't forced to arm themselves with WMDs because the UN deems it correct.

Yes - yes they would. But we know that that won't happen. Regardless of what resolution we pass, the vast majority of nations will not be bound by it.


And who would fund the poorer UN nations with their weapons? I do not see your currency going into their coffers... Perhaps we should force our automobile drivers to purchase armor plating for their vehicles, because it's safer? Cost means nothing to the aristocracy, yet they cannot afford to be real...

Wolfish is quite active in providing lesser nations with aid - provided we are given rights to help develop their oil fields and other natural resources. If they'd like that aid in the form of nuclear or biological weapons - we'd certainly be happy to have that discussion.

W.

And Vastiva's opinion on this matter means precisely what?

Allemande believes, per Reformentia's assertions, that only the General Assembly is legally entitled to make such a judgement. Member nations may not make one on their own, in lieu or in place of such an opinion.

The notion that each nation can choose for itself what is and is not necessary is nonsense.

Yup, nations can't decide by themselves which proposals are right and wrong.

Actually, when I first read that I thought you were saying that nations can't decide what is necessary and unnecessary for themselves--which I would've disagreed with. But after re-reading, I see you never really say that. Thank goodness for carefulness.

The Holy Empire of Schattenreich pronounces in favor of the resoltion, IF this conditions are granted:

1) The weapons are only for defense purpouses.
2) The UN will decide if there is a valid reason for using weapons. Preventive wars are mere excuses for invassion.
3) Any atempt of a UN member for attacking another nation will be severely punished.

And Vastiva's opinion on this matter means precisely what?

Allemande believes, per Reformentia's assertions, that only the General Assembly is legally entitled to make such a judgement. Member nations may not make one on their own, in lieu or in place of such an opinion.

The notion that each nation can choose for itself what is and is not necessary is nonsense.

True the General Assembly makes the resolutions - but it remains the domain of each individual nation to interprete and apply that resolution in their individual nation.

The United Nations reserves the right to state categorically that - as far as international law is concerned, $Weapon is never necessary for any nation's defence, period
Even if circumstances are such that the use of $Weapon is the only way to prevent that nation's destruction?

Once in queue, a proposal may not be withdrawn.
The Duke was unaware of this, and gives thanks to the nation of Allemande for the information.

The Duke did not intend to get so involved in this matter, as he is still unaccustomed to the workings of the UN, but was unable to help himself. As the resolution is sure to pass, the Duke would like to inquire of the nation of Texan Hotrodders whether a second, clarifying resolution is planned?

OOC @Vastiva: It appears I can't respond to your telegram, or else I don't know how; but let me assure you that I have discussed the matter with Songfightland's UN members on a private forum, and the vote is 4-2 against, myself included. I may be a Psychotic Dictator, but I'm really a very nice one.

How can we let this go on. If nations are equipped with WMD, they can blow up others causing world wars without end. :sniper: This shoud bot be allowed :fluffle: it should be that.

How can we let this go on. If nations are equipped with WMD, they can blow up others causing world wars without end. This should not be allowed.
Greetings.

We think that if others are blown up, the wars would end. There would be none left to blow up. We agree that endless world wars should not be allowed. They would get boring and repetitive rather quickly. WMD (We Might Disagree). Or not.

Yes, the wars would end. Because there would be no one left to wage war. That is simpy unacceptable. Too many countries feel threatened by countries outside of the UN. Why? They are not all lawless, insane dictatorships. They are simply nations who do not wish to partake in a global ruling body. This is not a crime. Saying that we need to protect ourselves from all the countries that are not UN members is folly. They may be at odds with eachother, while we have a vast alliance, a huge number of countries that could conceviably bring their armies to bear against countries that threatened us. We are more powerful then the rest of the world. They feel threatened that we might use our strength of alliance to force them into this ruling body. If we were to take steps towards disarmament, steps towards limiting our ability to make war, then they would see that we are not warmongers. Making war for the sake of ending war is insane, and should never even begin to come into the minds of any countries leaders.

yes but also most of the larger nation rely on nukes as a trump card.The real problem is is to not let these materials get in the wrong hands and to properly monitor suspect nations.Atomic weaponry in my countries opinion is more of a phychological defence, Also no one would dare launch or use atomic weaponry as it will result in M.A.D.*.it is not a crime to not join the u.n. but with that said it is harder to properly monitor countries not in the u.n. this with many powerful and/or semi-powerful nations get worried.


it is better for them to think of us as war lovers rather then defencless.as since we cannot moniter them properly out side the U.N. laws.

* M.A.D.=Mutually Assured Distruction!


Victor Sorino
U.N. minister

OOC @Vastiva: It appears I can't respond to your telegram, or else I don't know how;
Thats because:
9 hours ago: The Sultanate of Vastiva ceased to exist.
All flags in Yelda have been ordered to half-staff and Radio Yelda will play funeral music for the remainder of the day. Yeldan forces are currently in the area searching for survivors.

But it is because the larger countries rely on your "psychological defense" that other nations outside the UN see our ruling body as corrupt warmongers ready to take over or destroy the world. If we cut our forces back to only protecting ourselves, and put resources into effective protective shielding and weaponry, other countries will not feel as threatened and we will have no reason to create WMD. We, as the UN, must take the first step in making the world a safer place. You yourself are falling to the prejudice that all countries outside the UN are evil and need to be monitered. This is simply not true, and it is that view that gives the UN a bad reputation. This is folly.

Last UN Decision
The resolution United Nations Security Act was passed 9,667 votes to 6,886, and implemented in all UN member nations

Last UN Decision
The resolution United Nations Security Act was passed 9,667 votes to 6,886, and implemented in all UN member nations
I was just about to post that.

Texan Hotrodders - well done in passing a very difficult and very valuable resolutions.

I wish to enquire as to why this resolution lowered my defence percentage, but raised my law and order one.

On another matter, UNIverseVERSE has now left the UN, but Anterapa is joining (OOC: A puppet of mine)

Daniel Willis, Ex-Ambassador to the UN, UNIverseVERSE

yes but also most of the larger nation rely on nukes as a trump card.The real problem is is to not let these materials get in the wrong hands and to properly monitor suspect nations.Atomic weaponry in my countries opinion is more of a phychological defence, Also no one would dare launch or use atomic weaponry as it will result in M.A.D.*.it is not a crime to not join the u.n. but with that said it is harder to properly monitor countries not in the u.n. this with many powerful and/or semi-powerful nations get worried.


it is better for them to think of us as war lovers rather then defencless.as since we cannot moniter them properly out side the U.N. laws.

* M.A.D.=Mutually Assured Distruction!


Victor Sorino
U.N. minister

Yes - because the 80k non-UN nations are all out to get us and therefore need to be monitorred at every ample oportunity - and quite frankly, should they strike the UN, I would be more afraid of the nations that are part of this group, not those that initiated the battle.

since THOSE nation can aquier wmd without the consent or knowing by the U.N. who is to say that IF we relinquish our wmd they wont see a oppertunity.



that is why most nation have wmds,they have a realistic fear of the unknown.


and having wmd does not show war loving or corruption.

let me ask you somthing if your nation was attcked by a larger force what would you do.

you cant talk to them-why would they listen when they have more then you

you can turn to them and say stop this is not right

what if they were THOSE other nations




if you get rid of those weapons lets say.What happens if those other nations make their own? then the situation is reversed

and dont say they wont do that because they dont feel threatened anymore,thay still have their border partners to worry about that are making wmd,and other nation not affected by the laws passed in the U.N. and then when the U.N. nations realize the mistake they make weapons of their own,and so begins a arms race, and a NationStates cold war.Because they feel in-secure and vulnerable.

in nature just like the human race we look for any advantage we can take you know the rifle the bigger rifle so on so on.....hell that is why we went from muskets to rifles to sub machine guns.

since THOSE nation can aquier wmd without the consent or knowing by the U.N. who is to say that IF we relinquish our wmd they wont see a oppertunity.



that is why most nation have wmds,they have a realistic fear of the unknown.


and having wmd does not show war loving or corruption.

let me ask you somthing if your nation was attcked by a larger force what would you do.

you cant talk to them-why would they listen when they have more then you

you can turn to them and say stop this is not right

what if they were THOSE other nations




if you get rid of those weapons lets say.What happens if those other nations make their own? then the situation is reversed

and dont say they wont do that because they dont feel threatened anymore,thay still have their border partners to worry about that are making wmd,and other nation not affected by the laws passed in the U.N. and then when the U.N. nations realize the mistake they make weapons of their own,and so begins a arms race, and a NationStates cold war.Because they feel in-secure and vulnerable.

in nature just like the human race we look for any advantage we can take you know the rifle the bigger rifle so on so on.....hell that is why we went from muskets to rifles to sub machine guns.


Let's see:
If they use conventional means, I'll fight them using conventional means

If they use bio-weapons - I'll either vaccinate all my people (if possible) or send all infected people into their country

If they use nukes.....they probably just destroyed the world (overkill is NOT a better solution with Nukes)

If they use chem-weapons....well, they can clean up the mess if my people are dead. I don't have any - and have been banned from owning any by both UN and Regional law (not that I had any before). Besides, most actual uses of Chem weapons have been deployed against Military forces for a variety of purposes (removal of cover, killing of soldiers, knocking them out, etc).

The amazing thing about arms races - it's not about making sure your opponent doesn't get ahead, it's about making sure you stay ahead of your opponent. As long as we keep fighting for the edge, we'll still be fighting.

Texan Hotrodders - well done in passing a very difficult and very valuable resolutions.

Thank you. :)

Congratulations, Mr Jones.

Let's see:
If they use conventional means, I'll fight them using conventional means

If they use bio-weapons - I'll either vaccinate all my people (if possible) or send all infected people into their country

If they use nukes.....they probably just destroyed the world (overkill is NOT a better solution with Nukes)

If they use chem-weapons....well, they can clean up the mess if my people are dead. I don't have any - and have been banned from owning any by both UN and Regional law (not that I had any before). Besides, most actual uses of Chem weapons have been deployed against Military forces for a variety of purposes (removal of cover, killing of soldiers, knocking them out, etc).

The amazing thing about arms races - it's not about making sure your opponent doesn't get ahead, it's about making sure you stay ahead of your opponent. As long as we keep fighting for the edge, we'll still be fighting.




ok, but what about the nations not affected by U.N. law they are still theatend by the other non-U.N. nations. so those countries bulid nukes just like all the other Non U.n. nations.

just because they are not in the U.N. does not mean they are all friends.

and with this law all the U.N. nation armies a paralized. lets say a international incident happens between an close ally and a nuke carrying non-U.N. nation.

1st who has the advantage 2 who would attack a country with nukes and put their country at risk because if they had nukes (un nation) the enemy would not attack knowing that a nuke would be launch at them.

OOC: in the cold war russia and america never launched a nuke because of the great possibillity of a retaliation and a nuke being launched back at them.

IC:taking away nukes was not the answer,but rather the better control of them was. how i dont know but taking them away is a mistake that one day will be realized.

OOC:but it was a hard pass, i am strongly against it,but i am a good sport, so congrats

IC:i do hope in the future that this law will be banished....ohh and why would you send civilans into enemy nations that is evil.and the way you discribed "arms race" is staying ahead of your oppent and making sure your oppent does not get ahead the samething.

and they would not use nukes if they knew you had them already,they would be afraid of a retalliation attack.