NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: An explanation of the purpose of this Resolution will follow in the reply I have added. For the moment, please confine yourself to technical points. This Resolution will be formally offered later today.

Ban Bayonets

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Allemande

NOTING that tens of billions of young men and women are inducted into the ground forces of hundreds of thousands of nations every year, AND

OBSERVING that many, if not most, of these recruits are trained in the use of bayonets as a routine matter, AND

BELIEVING it to be unspeakably barbarous and cruel to skewer or impale ones foes on the field of battle and then leave them to die horrible, painful, and bloody deaths when most weapons kill much faster and with far less pain and suffering, AND ALSO

BELIEVING FURTHER than training in bayonet tactics, unlike almost any other form of training in arms, inculcates extreme savagery and aggression in those who partake of it, with a consequent negative lifelong impact on the mental health and stability of the recruit so trained,

THESE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY DECLARE

THAT TRAINING in the use of bayonets shall be banned, AND

THAT THE USE of bayonets in combat shall be banned.

IN ORDER to properly define the scope of this Resolution,

A "bayonet" shall be defined as any single- or double-edged sword or blade, or any spike or prong, or collection of spikes or prongs, or any wedge or other sharp protuberance intended as a weapon, where such a device, through attachment to a firearm, serves to temporarily or permanently convert said firearm into a polearm, AND

A "polearm" shall be defined as any hafted weapon of more than 1.5 metres in length sporting a blade, sharpened edge, spike or prong, or collection of spikes or prongs, or any other device designed to slash, hack, chop, cut, lay open skin or sinew, sever or dismember limbs, or otherwise inflict penetrating wounds or induce severe bleeding as its primary means of inflicting injury, such as, but not limited to, spears, pikes, tridents, halberds, poleaxes, battle axes, Lucerne hammers, and the like, but not including weapons designed to pommel, beat, bludgeon, club, cudgel, crush, mangle, or otherwise inflict wounds through blunt force trauma, such as war hammers, maces, mauls, and the like, AND

"Attachment" shall be defined as any method of joining or mating two objects together, whether through the use of mechanical devices such as clamps, rings, sockets, BNC connectors, or similar, through the direct or indirect application of adhesives, such as glue, electrical or duct tape, or similar, or through friction devices, such as barrel-plugs, AND

"Combat" shall be defined as any violent encounter between military or paramilitary forces, whether regular or irregular in constitution.

In no way shall this resolution be interpreted to ban training in, or the use in combat of, personal melee weapons of any kind, so long as these weapons are not attached, in any of the ways described above, to a firearm in order to produce the effective equivalent of a pole arm

FINALLY, nations may reclassify DETACHED bayonets as personal melee weapons and thereby continue both training in, and the combat use of, such weapons in DETACHED mode, so long as neither training nor use ever involves the ATTACHMENT of these devices, as defined above.

Further clarifications and additions to this protocol may be added in other United Nations Resolutions so long as none of the clauses provided herein are contradicted, amended, or reversed in any fashion whatsoever, unless it be the purpose of said Resolution to repeal this Resolution altogether.

Character Count: 3411(!)

<The ambassador from the United States of Allemande rises to address the General Assembly>

"My fellow ambassadors, I rise today to speak of a problem that is, in its own way, as serious as any of the greater disarmament issues of our day, that of the continued use of the bayonet well past the point of it being a useful weapon.

"Historically, bayonets were developed to protect musketeers from the ravages of enemy horse, who could sabre them down in a flash as the laboured to reload their weapons, which at best could be fired only once or twice a minute. Without a bayonet, a unloaded musket was simply a large, poorly balanced, and overly expensive club. With the bayonet, however, it could double as a half-pike, allowing soldiers armed with such weapons to survive on the field of battle.

"By the Great War the danger from enemy cavalry was gone, ended by the Maxim gun and its like, which could spit out over 1500 rounds per minute. But the bolt-action magazine rifles of that day, while capable of being fired anywhere from 12-20 times per minute by a well-trained infantryman, were still not fast enough to protect soldiers armed with such weapons in close melee, where every second mattered.

"It was after the Second World War, with the development of the assault rifle, that the bayonet at last became more of a hindrance than an aid. In melee it became easier to shoot one's foe, even at close quarters, than to try and thrust a bayonet into his guts. At that point, this weapon should have been abandoned.

"But in fact it was not.

"Armies continued to train new recruits in the use of bayonets, teaching them how to rush an enemy and thrust a blade into his bowels, with the utmost violence and force.

"Now, you may think: 'What difference does this make? Soldiers are trained to kill, so what's the problem?' The problem is not in their being trained to kill, a necessary part of their profession; it is in the way they are being taught to kill.

"Modern firearms require steadiness, patience, focus, and - ultimately - cool self control. Many people who shoot for enjoyment - simple target practice - will attest to the stilling, centring effect that it has on their minds and bodies. The same is true for modern melee tactics. While fighting with knife or even bare hands - today's standard melee methods - might seem vicious to the outside observer, the methods and tactics used owe much to the martial arts; thus even here, the emphasis of training is on clarity of thought, focus, and self-control, and the benefits of such traning therefore flow beyond the practical and into the rest of that individual's existence - including even that person's spiritual existence, as any true martial arts master can attest. The effect is to produce a soldier who, in the eyes of some, is a cold, calculating killer; but upon discharge, the balance, poise, self-awareness, and self-control of the former solder gives us a citizen who, in many cases, is calmer, more reflective, and more civil for their training at arms.

"Bayonet training, on the other hand, involves inculcating in the soldier a kind of savage aggressiveness that is completely at odds with the modern tendency towards a more conscious, more controlled, more focussed military. It really is the relic of a bygone age, when passion and élan carried the day. Some psychologists believe that this invocation of raw aggression produces deep-seated psychoses in some soldiers, and that these problems overflow after discharge into civilian life. Indeed, a few murderers have testified to analysts that their suppressed desires for bloody violence were liberated by such training - that it helped them along the path to criminality.

"And for what? An obsolete weapon that is a throwback to the Middle Ages, when battle was joined face to face instead of at range?

"No, bayonets are barbaric and training in the use of bayonets causes psychological harm. Their use, and training in their use, should both be banned."

<Pausing for a moment, and then continuing>

"Addressing the chair on a point of order: the United States of Allemande wish to know if the ban proposed in this Resolution is legal, or if it violates the terms spelled out in United Nations Resolution #110, 'The United Nations Security Act'. We cite the argument offered by Reformentia in the debate over that act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9202696&postcount=246) as the grounds on which a claim of legality may be asserted.

"We thank the chair for its indulgence."

<The ambassador returns to her seat>

The Resolution has been submitted to the Regional Delegates for approval.

*the ambassador from Mikitivity rises*

This is an interesting idea, but one which my first impluse would be to vote against. Naturally were this to reach the UN floor, my office would examine your proposal in more detail, but the following part of your proposal,

OBSERVING that many, if not most, of these recruits are trained in the use of bayonets as a routine matter, AND

BELIEVING it to be unspeakably barbarous and cruel to skewer or impale ones foes on the field of battle and then leave them to die horrible, painful, and bloody deaths when most weapons kill far faster and with far less pain and suffering, AND ALSO


is where my initial reservation lies.

While it is true that Miervatian Alpen soldiers are trained in use of bayonets, the Confederated City States simply does not leave wounded to die on the battle field. Any fallen soldier will be treated.

edit:
I wanted to add that perhaps a different idea would be a proposal or convention on the treatment of prisoners of war in battlefield conditions?

My immediate reaction is that banning bayonets is a bit of a strange and minor thing to go for while nations are still armed with nuclear weapons and cluster bombs...

Maybe I might try and ban cluster bombs when the backlog's cleared a bit. I think it's quite important for civilian populations to be able to keep all of their limbs attached wherever possible.

My first thought is that there are more barbarous weapons that we should deal with first.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

This proposal has now been submitted and requires 143 endorsements to reach queue.

This proposal has now been submitted and requires 143 endorsements to reach queue.

You better hope the Bio Weapons Ban is ruled legal... otherwise this one is going to get deleted too because it doesn't have the word "unecessary" in it when referring to bayonets. Which is a further illustration of my argument for the Biological Weapons Ban.

Simply because one proposal doesn't define its scope it should not be the responsibility of every single related proposal following it to provide that definition for it. The UNSA doesn't say what weapons qualify as "necessary" so now everyone following it up is expected to do the work of defining it it by peice by peice declarations of what it isn't?

...We hereby define "necessary weapons for defense" as NOT being biological weapons...

Followed by: ...We hereby define "necessary weapons for defense" as NOT being bayonets...

Etc...

That shouldn't be the responsibility of other proposal writers. If the UNSA didn't do the job of establishing a weapon as necessary itself, and if no other legislation did the job either, then no weapons ban proposal should be able to be ruled illegal on the basis of contradicting the UNSA's protection of necessary weapons. Because a weapon isn't necessary from a legal standpoint if not one shred of legislation says that it is.

That shouldn't be the responsibility of other proposal writers. If the UNSA didn't do the job of establishing a weapon as necessary itself, and if no other legislation did the job either, then no weapons ban proposal should be able to be ruled illegal on the basis of contradicting the UNSA's protection of necessary weapons. Because a weapon isn't necessary from a legal standpoint if not one shred of legislation says that it is.

ENOUGH. Stop bringing this up in every thread you wander into. There are threads where this is appropriate to bring up in, and threads where it's just you shouting from your soap box. This is the later. Knock it off.

ENOUGH. Stop bringing this up in every thread you wander into. There are threads where this is appropriate to bring up in, and threads where it's just you shouting from your soap box. This is the later. Knock it off.

This is a weapons ban proposal which does not incorporate a declaration saying it considers that the weapons it is banning are unnecessary to defense and which would thus be subject to deletion for the exact same reason being presented regarding my own proposal.

I fail to see how it was innaproppriate to point that out... but I'll refrain from further posts in the thread regardless.

I fail to see how it was innaproppriate to point that out... but I'll refrain from further posts in the thread regardless.
The begining of your post was fine. The last part, the part I quoted, had little relevance, and was simply you bitching, again, about UNSA's lack of exhaustive definitions.

First of all - discrimination against older techs (ie: those that haven't developed automatics). Before you had automatic weapons, charges were fairly effective at taking out enemy soldiers (especially in trenches) so boyonets were useful then

Second: does anyone know if the US still uses/standardly equips soldiers with boyonets?

but I'll refrain from further posts in the thread regardless.OOC: Please don't. And Hack, please cut him some slack, if only in this one thread, because...There are threads where this is appropriate to bring up in, and threads where it's just you shouting from your soap box. This is the later. Knock it off.OOC: But it was me - the author - who raised the issue!<Pausing for a moment, and then continuing>

"Addressing the chair on a point of order: the United States of Allemande wish to know if the ban proposed in this Resolution is legal, or if it violates the terms spelled out in United Nations Resolution #110, 'The United Nations Security Act'. We cite the argument offered by Reformentia in the debate over that act as the grounds on which a claim of legality may be asserted.

"We thank the chair for its indulgence."

<The ambassador returns to her seat>OOC: I really would like a ruling on the legality of this proposal. Does the absence of an explicit declaratory statement leave it in violation of the UNSA, or does its very promulgation imply as much, with its corresponding passage (assuming it were to pass) thus indicating the General Assembly's agreement to the same?

First of all - discrimination against older techs (ie: those that haven't developed automatics). Before you had automatic weapons, charges were fairly effective at taking out enemy soldiers (especially in trenches) so boyonets were useful thenOOC: I expect that we'll deal with that issue in a moment...

Second: does anyone know if the US still uses/standardly equips soldiers with boyonets?

Kinda. The Marines have replaced the M-7 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/09/mil-040908-usmc02.htm), with one kept in a scabbard, but it can still attach to a M16 or M14 rifle.

So, I guess stabbing an opponent is fine as long as you don't hook it to your gun.

Kinda. The Marines have replaced the M-7 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/09/mil-040908-usmc02.htm), with one kept in a scabbard, but it can still attach to a M16 or M14 rifle.

So, I guess stabbing an opponent is fine as long as you don't hook it to your gun.If the Real Life™ United States of America were in the NationStates United Nations, and this resolution passed, the Marines could continue to train with that knife and use it in combat, but could not attach it to their weapons, nor train in combat with the knife attached.

That's a deliberate feature of the proposal.

Next question - because I know Reformatia had to deal with this:

How's your 3000 character count limit?

Next question - because I know Reformatia had to deal with this:

How's your 3000 character count limit?I think the count's higher than 3000. The whole thing has actually been posted, and according to my text editor, which counts characters, it's 3397 characters long!

I think the count's higher than 3000. The whole thing has actually been posted, and according to my text editor, which counts characters, it's 3397 characters long!I just measured the posted text (on the submissions page; UltraEdit-32 says that the text alone (which is all you need post) is 3412 bytes!

Hmm.....just realized something:

It was mentioned (was it Vastiva?) that the location of the note about the 3000 character count limit was on the submission page - but when I looked there, it seemed to be missing. I wonder if perhaps they changed the text box so it can take any length of resolution (well, at least large enough that it should be immaterial....)

Hmm.....just realized something:

It was mentioned (was it Vastiva?) that the location of the note about the 3000 character count limit was on the submission page - but when I looked there, it seemed to be missing. I wonder if perhaps they changed the text box so it can take any length of resolution (well, at least large enough that it should be immaterial....)My God, let's hope not!!!!! :eek:

My God, let's hope not!!!!! :eek:


Well - maybe DLE will actual post a proposal - since she'll have the space to close EVERY LITTLE LOOPHOLE she can think of.....

Oh, wait, maybe you're right.... :eek: :eek: :p

I don't recall the character limit ever actually being stated anywhere, I think it's only apparent when you try to paste something large into the box - the box simply won't fit everything.

to a M16 or M14 rifle.

So, I guess stabbing an opponent is fine as long as you don't hook it to your gun.

OOC: Would like to correct the individual on his notation that M16 and M14 are guns.. proper term is rifle M16 or rifle M14... The M14 has been replaced by the M16 rifle as the primary weapon while in some special operations units an M1 carbine (WW and Korea) or M14 rifle may be used to fit a single special mission.. due to there effectiveness over newer weapons..

Believe that training in the use of the M7 or bayonett no longer takes place in basic training but in special units it is still used as intented for certain special operations. This attached form of weapon attaced to the M16 was found to be not as effective as keeping the weapon M16 operational and ammo for it. Due to the structure of the M16 in itself..
A gun or pistol is considered different as, single hand held not capable of auto fire as a rifle might be.. also a gun the Colt45 has a more limited ammo capacity than a rifle might..
RET Army..SSG E6.. 'Spirit Bayonet is to Kill' was commonly heard when was in basic '67..

Here (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/bayonet/) is some info on U.S. army bayonets. When I went through basic training in 1982 we were still training with the M7. It has apparently been replaced.

Allemonde, stick in a provision for low-tech nations and nations forced to use low-tech weaponry due to the nature of the battle, then you'll have my support.

Case Omega (Invasion that cannot be stopped) has every person in my nation armed, and it'll come down to old guns with no ammo but with knives stuck in their barrels...

Other than that, I'm good with it. I think. I'll have to check my notes, but I think my Pathfinders (Special forces for Urban and Wilderness) and myJOATS (Special Forces, Jack of All Trade Squads) carry knifes on their rifles, but not fixed in bayonett position.

A gun or pistol is considered different as, single hand held not capable of auto fire as a rifle might be.. also a gun the Colt45 has a more limited ammo capacity than a rifle might...It is an interesting loophole - which I won't close, BTW, for want of any real interest in doing so - that you could in theory use a bayonet on a sidearm (or a very short longarm) as long as the total length of the weapons is less than 1.5 metres (about 4" 10" in English measure). This is because of the definitional linkage between longarms with bayonets affixed to them and medieval polearms! ;)

His wonderousness, the Imperator of the Holy Empire of Quintinland, finds this proposal baffling in its pointlessness.


Signed on behalf of his excellency, the Imperator of the Holy Empire of Quintinland

You all must be kidding me the afermative side has simply stated that people would die from knives, so what.
I am a milatary man i have faught for my country and for my people but the use of a a knive in warfare is no diffrent then the use of a rifle or artillery or tank.
All wepons can kill a person instently or slowly, yes the odds are lower with some more crude wepons.
In Modern warfare if a soldier on anny side was wonded anny member of the medical staff would help those people whether it be a bullet, shapnel ,or a knife


I know that I have orderd That every wonded man must be treated equaly.

You all must be kidding me the afermative side has simply stated that people would die from knives, so what.
I am a milatary man i have faught for my country and for my people but the use of a a knive in warfare is no diffrent then the use of a rifle or artillery or tank.
All wepons can kill a person instently or slowly, yes the odds are lower with some more crude wepons.
In Modern warfare if a soldier on anny side was wonded anny member of the medical staff would help those people whether it be a bullet, shapnel ,or a knife


I know that I have orderd That every wonded man must be treated equaly.For the record, we are not saying that bayonets should be banned because they are cruel (although in fact most bayonet wounds aren't as clean as knife wounds, given that knives are usually used to slit a victim's throat from behind, whereas bayonet wounds are less ... considered). We are asserting that bayonet training and the use of bayonets in combat breeds a certain kind of uncontrolled aggression which should not be cultivated in soldiers, whereas other weapons and the martial arts teeach calm, cool, self-control.

It is centered focus and self-control that makes a soldier a soldier and not a mere killer.

It is the opinion of the Northwind region, and Darkumbria, that this proposal is pointless. What country still uses a bayonet? This weapon was banned in my country along time, due to its barbaric nature. Of course, we have all but done away with all non laser based weapons to begin with. The Wolfhound is the only weapon that still uses such technology in a weapon known the autocannon...And you will never see a bayonet attached to a battlemech. The use of one of these weapons is bringing an machine gun to gun fight. With my nation's current use of lasers....machine guns are pointless.

It is the opinion of the Northwind region, and Darkumbria, that this proposal is pointless. What country still uses a bayonet? This weapon was banned in my country along time, due to its barbaric nature. Of course, we have all but done away with all non laser based weapons to begin with. The Wolfhound is the only weapon that still uses such technology in a weapon known the autocannon...And you will never see a bayonet attached to a battlemech. The use of one of these weapons is bringing an machine gun to gun fight. With my nation's current use of lasers....machine guns are pointless.Then you should no problem endorsing this, right?

With my nation's current use of lasers....machine guns are pointless.
Greetings.

Yes... this resolution will indeed make everybody's machine-guns pointless. However, we of Roathin think that you are too hasty in championing lasers over cold steel. If our troops were fighting in fog, we would not use lasers or plasma weapons. Too risky.

We tend to oppose weapons bans due to our belief that all nations have the right to defend themselves using any and all means necessary. Further, we oppose this particular ban because it lacks a clause defining bayonets as "unnecessary", thus causing it to be in violation of Resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act".

We tend to oppose weapons bans due to our belief that all nations have the right to defend themselves using any and all means necessary. Further, we oppose this particular ban because it lacks a clause defining bayonets as "unnecessary", thus causing it to be in violation of Resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act".
Greetings.

Perhaps we should remember that the argument of the proposal proceeds along the lines that a bayonet is not, strictly speaking, a weapon. It is rather a 'hand to hand injury creating module' or some such, meant to be attached to a weapon rather than acting on its own. As evidence, we cite the use of the verb 'to bayonet', which always implies the use of a bayonet affixed to a firearm - as opposed to 'to knife', 'to machine-gun', 'to spear', 'to bomb', 'to nuke' and many other similar verbs which imply the use of such items on their own.

Since the bayonet when used as such is NOT a weapon, much as a screwdriver in a Helflander Army Knife is similarly not a weapon, it does not come under the UNSA or any weapons-related legislation aimed at weapons per se. It would come under the same category as the banning of any inhumane practice such as dolphin-killing (although we of Roathin are inclined to vote against banning either bayonets or delphinicide).

Greetings.

Perhaps we should remember that the argument of the proposal proceeds along the lines that a bayonet is not, strictly speaking, a weapon. It is rather a 'hand to hand injury creating module' or some such, meant to be attached to a weapon rather than acting on its own. As evidence, we cite the use of the verb 'to bayonet', which always implies the use of a bayonet affixed to a firearm - as opposed to 'to knife', 'to machine-gun', 'to spear', 'to bomb', 'to nuke' and many other similar verbs which imply the use of such items on their own.

Since the bayonet when used as such is NOT a weapon, much as a screwdriver in a Helflander Army Knife is similarly not a weapon, it does not come under the UNSA or any weapons-related legislation aimed at weapons per se. It would come under the same category as the banning of any inhumane practice such as dolphin-killing (although we of Roathin are inclined to vote against banning either bayonets or delphinicide).Actually, I'd put it somewhat differently.

If you read carefully, you'll see that I never say that you can't:
Have bayonets.
Have rifles that can handle bayonets.
Issue both to the same soldier at the same time.

What I say is that:
You can't attach (or fix) your bayonet to a long-arm and use it as the functional equivalent of a medieval pole-arm in combat (but notice the definition of "combat"; you could use a bayonet on wild animals or even civilians, just not other soldiers, whether regular or irregular [so no spearing guerrillas {vs. gorillas, unless they're endangered as a species}]).
You can't train soldiers in the use of the composite weapon system described above.
Since the UNSA says that you have the right to own and use weapons necessary to your defence, the only possible sticking point here is the "use" aspect of the Resolution. But one could argue that I'm not really banning the "use" of bayonets (or long-arm), but rather their combined use in "attached" mode (a tactic, then, and not a weapon).

Now, a counter-argument could be made that taking a bayonet (one weapon, which you can have and use) and a long-arm (another weapon you can have and use) and mating them together produces a new weapon (a long-arm with an attached bayonet), and that I can't ban the use of this weapon in combat (which includes national defence). Of course, I can always still ban training in bayonet tactics; the UNSA doesn't cover that.

Maybe Hack will wander by and render a verdict...

<banging his fists on his desk, the ambassador for the Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen rises to his feet>
Simply preposterous, this proposition for a resolution is an affront to a time honoured tradition! How can it be more barbarous and cruel to skewer a warrior with a blade affixed to a firearm than to skewer said same warrior with a blade affixed to a stick, or hack said warrior apart with a machete or battle axe?
How is it any worse to die a horrible, painful, and bloody death to a bayonet as it would to a bullet wound to the gut, or from shrapnel from a hand grenade?

You say yourself that this proposition is not about the bayonet, but about training warriors in extremes of savagery and aggression. And yet, and yet, this proposal does not call for the banning in the vilified pole arm, nor the Gurkha Kukri, or even the training in the use of the knife in hand to hand combat. I would also refute your assertion that knifes are used to slit throats from behind, more often than not when used in war, or elsewhere, knife wounds are no more or less cruel than bayonet wounds!

Worse yet is the assertion that training in such weapons will bring savagery to the populace of a nation by retired veterans. This is a preposterous notion, one needs only look at the Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen's low rates of aggravated assault for a nation its size. I would note for those who do not know, in Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen military service is mandatory and the practice of the use of the sword, axe and pole arm holds a significant time honoured roll in our military. Not only that, but these throwback weapons, as you call them, hold an important part of our National pastimes. And yet, and yet, this does not lead our people down a path of criminality and savage brutality as you assert!

<he pauses to regain his composure before continuing>

May I bring to your attention some technical information to refute this proposal from a different angle.
The M16 Rifle is a meter in length and the modern bayonet the US Marine Corps use, the OCK 3S, is not even one quarter of a meter in blade length. When "attached" this falls outside of the scope of your proposed ban which defines an attached Bayonet to a firearm as a pole arm, and a pole arm as being one and one half a meter in length. I would also bring to your attention that the UK L85 and the AK 47 are both shorter weapons, and unless they had a blade affixed that was over half a meter long, they would also not fall under the definitions in this proposal.

Although we are not UN members for Philosphical reasons.
Gelfland finds the idea of banning a weapon on the basis of the tactics that may be utilised in it's employment ridiculous.
firstly: no mention of integral blades
secondly, the ban only covers edged melee attachments
thirdly: it does nothing to discourage the sort of tactics the author finds so distasteful.
in concusion if this passes, I expect a large increase in the market for sabre-rifles, and combat hammers.

Why am I reading this as a resolution that discriminates against old tech?

Bayonets can be useful for close combat but today, by the cause of daggers, they are obsolete.

Now, a counter-argument could be made that taking a bayonet (one weapon, which you can have and use) and a long-arm (another weapon you can have and use) and mating them together produces a new weapon (a long-arm with an attached bayonet), and that I can't ban the use of this weapon in combat (which includes national defence). Of course, I can always still ban training in bayonet tactics; the UNSA doesn't cover that.
And that is exactly the argument I would make. As far as attaching a bayonet to a rifle and calling it a "new weapon', how is this any different than an M-203 grenade launcher attached to an M-16? (note: that might not be the best analogy as the M-203 is designed to only be used attached to an M-16, a bayonet can be used seperately). But if one attaches a bayonet to a rifle, it certainly would fit the definition of a weapon then.
A bayonet is a weapon, attached to a rifle or not, and thus protected by UNSA. If I were to find myself out of ammunition, and my bayonet is lost or broken, then guess what? My entrenching tool becomes a weapon.

As far as banning training in bayonet tactics, I think this section of UNSA covers it:
ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.
If a bayonet is a legal weapon under UNSA, then surely proper training would be required to "ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack"

If I were to find myself out of ammunition, and my bayonet is lost or broken, then guess what? My entrenching tool becomes a weapon.
Greetings.

This is surely a most disingenuous argument. A mess tin would be a weapon for the truly desperate then. The ability to use an entrenching tool, a spade, a potato-knife, or a flash suppressor on the tip on an M16 rifle as a weapon does not make the item in question a weapon. Any knife affixed securely to a rifle barrel can act as a bayonet, but even a bayonet cannot act as a bayonet without said affixing. Hence the bayonet is a not necessarily a weapon; rather it is a device designed to become part of a weapon system - a fine distinction but one which must be preserved unless you intend to outlaw all knives, or worse, all items able to inflict a crushing blow. A ball-pein hammer is designed to inflict such a blow - but it is certainly not classified as such.

As the delegate from Galdhopiggen duly pointed out, a blade of 63cm in length would -under the current length proposals placed forward- be legally permitted to be affixed to the end of the standard issue AK-47. If this length proposal is altered, the Government of Schweinebacke will merely commence training our armies in the use of swords and other blades. We may even adopt beheading and other forms of blade-inflicted injury as our preferred method of national execution.

*The UN Ambassador from the Grand Republic stands and coughs politely to gain attention*

My fellow delegates. I have read through the article in question, and although I welcome the attempts by the Allemanden Ambassador to end the barbaric use of bayonets, I am afraid that my government will vote against this proposal. Whilst I personally find the idea of a bayonet to be vile and a barbaric instrument of war, and obsolete in some areas of modern warfare, especially of the modern, open kind, I am afraid that the bayonet still plays a unique role in the Republics military.

As a close-quarters melee weapon, it is unique and still very much a useful weapon of war, especially when combined with other CQB weapons such as daggers and entrenching tools. It is thus that I will not be supporting this proposal should it reach quorum.

(Where can I vote? Is the vote over?)

I agree with Skinny87. the banning of bayonets wont help much. They will just use another type of weapon. You could use a fork or a butter knife or a sharpend sick. The banning of bayonets wont stop the barbaric use of weapons. Besides the bayonet could save your life. I wouldnt want my troops going into battle with out a mele weapon. What if they ran out of ammo? Like Skinny87 I will vote agenst this.

Greetings.

This is surely a most disingenuous argument.
That depends on what your definition of the word disingenuous is. :)
dis·in·gen·u·ous /dissinjenyooss/
adj. having secret motives; insencere.
n. false, dishonest, tricky, devious, deceitful, underhanded, calculating.

A mess tin would be a weapon for the truly desperate then. The ability to use an entrenching tool, a spade, a potato-knife, or a flash suppressor on the tip on an M16 rifle as a weapon does not make the item in question a weapon. Any knife affixed securely to a rifle barrel can act as a bayonet, but even a bayonet cannot act as a bayonet without said affixing. Hence the bayonet is a not necessarily a weapon; rather it is a device designed to become part of a weapon system - a fine distinction but one which must be preserved unless you intend to outlaw all knives, or worse, all items able to inflict a crushing blow. A ball-pein hammer is designed to inflict such a blow - but it is certainly not classified as such.
Even though it can be used as a tool when unattached, I believe that a bayonet qualifies as a weapon whether it is attached to a rifle or not. But it certainly qualifies as "part of a weapon system" once it is attached. Thus, it is protected under the UNSA. So we are in agreement!

I would also like to point out once again that this proposal lacks a clause stating that bayonets are "unnecessary". This puts it in violation of Resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act". Very strange that the Mods have chosen not to rule on it.

I would also like to point out once again that this proposal lacks a clause stating that bayonets are "unnecessary". This puts it in violation of Resolution #110 "United Nations Security Act". Very strange that the Mods have chosen not to rule on it.
Greetings.

Should the moderators of our august assembly continue to not rule against it, it would imply 'item X is not a necessary weapon for defence' is the default. You would then have to show necessity in order to make sure item X is not bannable under the terms of Resolution 110.

Gunther Menyez, the Republic of Lanquassia Delegate, waits to be recognized by the chair. When so recognized, he stands and speaks.

"Mr. Chairman, fellow Delagates, UN Observers, thank you for your time."

"It is in the opinion of my legal support team, back in Imperial City, that if a proposeal is banning a specific weapon or tactic, it is implied that the weapon or tactic is not needed for defense."

"It would, therefore, come onto those who do not wish to see the weapon or tactic banned to prove that the weapon IS needed for defense, and thus the ban would be illegal under Resolution 110."

"Personally, I feel that bayonnettes, or at least improvised spears, are an important last-ditch defense, or an improvised close-in weapon for close combat ranges in which guns and rifles are not suitable to fight."

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Delegates, Observers."

The Delegate sits back down.

Just ban them. They're no use!

Greetings.

Should the moderators of our august assembly continue to not rule against it, it would imply 'item X is not a necessary weapon for defence' is the default. You would then have to show necessity in order to make sure item X is not bannable under the terms of Resolution 110.

The current ruling is that one must acknowledge UNSA by stating "item X is unnecessary for defense" - it isn't yet the default - though there is a debate on that going.

Greetings.

Perhaps one should experiment with the 'necessity' argument more rigorously. We of Roathin propose for examination the following classes of weapons and related items, in order from most likely to least likely:

1. Weapons designed for purposes other than defence based on their official designation and/or designed purpose: e.g. hunting knife, elephant gun, dolphin net, surgical lasers. Argument: a weapon designed for offence or for killing species that are not deliberate aggressors typically has better options for defence or for killing deliberate aggressors. One could use a whaling harpoon has a weapon, and indeed it is; but one could ban its use since it has no necessary defensive capability.

2. Munitions, weapon enhancers and obstacles - these aren't weapons: e.g. bullets of any caliber, cluster bombs, mines, barbed wire, guidance systems, targetting systems, countermeasures. Argument: these are not weapons in themselves, hence there is no prohibition against them being banned.

3. Weapons designed for offensive use which are unlikely to be used defensively, or whose only defensive value is in deterrence (which is not exactly the same thing): e.g. bioweapons aimed at killing members of ethnic groups other than those of one's own citizens, strategic nuclear weapons, planetary-scale weapons, berserk lightning elementals. Argument: to deploy these in defence would probably obviate the need for defence; or, there is no such thing as 100% deterrence, hence it is impossible to say that a deterrence is a necessary defence.

4. Weapons which are unlikely to be necessary for defence because superior versions exist or because the typical aggressor technology would render such weapons ineffective in defence (despite their common use in offence): e.g. bayonets, maces, halberds, stilettos, knitting needles, rolling pins, ball-pein hammers, low-caliber handguns. Argument: if we were to issue the superior version to all, then there would be no need for the inferior; or , better or alternative means of defence is obviously available, so this means of defence cannot be necessary.

The mods ruled agenst Reformentia's proposal, which HAD ALREADY REACHED QUARUM WHEN UNSA WAS PASSED.

I dont see how they can refuse to rule agenst this one...

Gunther Menyez, the Republic of Lanquassia Delegate, waits to be recognized by the chair. When so recognized, he stands and speaks.

"Mr. Chairman, fellow Delagates, UN Observers, thank you for your time."

"It is in the opinion of my legal support team, back in Imperial City, that if a proposeal is banning a specific weapon or tactic, it is implied that the weapon or tactic is not needed for defense."

"It would, therefore, come onto those who do not wish to see the weapon or tactic banned to prove that the weapon IS needed for defense, and thus the ban would be illegal under Resolution 110."

"Personally, I feel that bayonnettes, or at least improvised spears, are an important last-ditch defense, or an improvised close-in weapon for close combat ranges in which guns and rifles are not suitable to fight."

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Delegates, Observers."

The Delegate sits back down.OOC: You may have to post to the moderators forum to get a ruling on this, and given that it is going to expire shortly (if it hasn't already), they may not rule. That said, if you really want a ruling, I will resubmit this proposal for that purpose (I had intended to take it back and reconsider the length issue [shortening from 1.5 to 1.2 metres], but I'll leave that be for now if I resubmit, and address it next week).

<Rising to address the chair>

"The chair should consider that we don't actually tell nations that: They can't issue bayonets, or even longarms that can accept attached bayonets.
They can't use bayonets in combat as long as they are not attached to a longarm in such a way that the overall assembly exceeds 1.5 metres and functions in a fashion more or less equivalent to the behavior of a medieval polearm.
What we tell them is that: They can't train military personnel in the use of bayonets as an attachment at the end of a longarm (within the limitations given above), and
That they can't use bayonets as an attachment to a longarm (as above) in combat (vs. in fending off wild animals, crowd control, parades, etc.)
In our eyes, a 'detached bayonet' is the same weapon as an 'attached bayonet' and we don't ban the former usage, we would argue that Resolution 110 does not apply. Thus, we did not include the so-called 'magic words' in our proposed Resolution."

<The ambassador returns to her seat>

Greetings.

Perhaps one should experiment with the 'necessity' argument more rigorously. We of Roathin propose for examination the following classes of weapons and related items, in order from most likely to least likely:

1. Weapons designed for purposes other than defence based on their official designation and/or designed purpose: e.g. hunting knife, elephant gun, dolphin net, surgical lasers. Argument: a weapon designed for offence or for killing species that are not deliberate aggressors typically has better options for defence or for killing deliberate aggressors. One could use a whaling harpoon has a weapon, and indeed it is; but one could ban its use since it has no necessary defensive capability.

2. Munitions, weapon enhancers and obstacles - these aren't weapons: e.g. bullets of any caliber, cluster bombs, mines, barbed wire, guidance systems, targetting systems, countermeasures. Argument: these are not weapons in themselves, hence there is no prohibition against them being banned.

3. Weapons designed for offensive use which are unlikely to be used defensively, or whose only defensive value is in deterrence (which is not exactly the same thing): e.g. bioweapons aimed at killing members of ethnic groups other than those of one's own citizens, strategic nuclear weapons, planetary-scale weapons, berserk lightning elementals. Argument: to deploy these in defence would probably obviate the need for defence; or, there is no such thing as 100% deterrence, hence it is impossible to say that a deterrence is a necessary defence.

4. Weapons which are unlikely to be necessary for defence because superior versions exist or because the typical aggressor technology would render such weapons ineffective in defence (despite their common use in offence): e.g. bayonets, maces, halberds, stilettos, knitting needles, rolling pins, ball-pein hammers, low-caliber handguns. Argument: if we were to issue the superior version to all, then there would be no need for the inferior; or , better or alternative means of defence is obviously available, so this means of defence cannot be necessary.5. Tactics, such as attaching a bayonet to the end of a longarm instead of wielding it independently.

OOC: Resubmitted without change; Lanquassia, this is your chance to get a mod ruling on this.

I'll be gone until Monday.

OOC: Resubmitted without change; Lanquassia, this is your chance to get a mod ruling on this.

I'll be gone until Monday.

OOC: Thanks, Allemande, and I'll do what I can.

[QUOTE=Allemande][B]
but not limited to, spears, pikes, tridents, halberds, poleaxes, battle axes, Lucerne hammers, and the like, but not including weapons designed to pommel, beat, bludgeon, club, cudgel, crush, mangle, or otherwise inflict wounds through blunt force trauma, such as war hammers, maces, mauls, and the like [QUOTE]


This part I'm a little unsure of- you say it should be illegal to be trained in the use of bayonets, but what of these weapons? And what if a country were to be invaded and people had to fight with whatever weapons came to hand to defend themselves against a barbarous invader, yet the only weapon available was, say a family heirloom, an old mace?

Were you to remove this section I could agree, but I feel I need greater clarification here before I could give my approval.

[QUOTE=Allemande][B]
but not limited to, spears, pikes, tridents, halberds, poleaxes, battle axes, Lucerne hammers, and the like, but not including weapons designed to pommel, beat, bludgeon, club, cudgel, crush, mangle, or otherwise inflict wounds through blunt force trauma, such as war hammers, maces, mauls, and the like [QUOTE]


This part I'm a little unsure of- you say it should be illegal to be trained in the use of bayonets, but what of these weapons? And what if a country were to be invaded and people had to fight with whatever weapons came to hand to defend themselves against a barbarous invader, yet the only weapon available was, say a family heirloom, an old mace?

Were you to remove this section I could agree, but I feel I need greater clarification here before I could give my approval.


Basically, two handed long sticks with pointy tips past a certain legnth are now banned from being trained in, but the rest are still okay.

Allemande, you definatly need to write an exception for Low-tech nations...

~gets up wating patiently to speak~
I would like to point out that It would destory most of my Nations Heritage its is with the Bayonet that we have mainted the Independece of my Dear Nation, What would happen to the Cermonial Guard of Pikeman if all those weapons that with a point are banned , I would like to point out that there are many nations that still have very basic weaponary are they not permitted to defend themselves

~sitting down after my point~

no I don't think you should ban them

~gets up wating patiently to speak~
I would like to point out that It would destory most of my Nations Heritage its is with the Bayonet that we have mainted the Independece of my Dear Nation, What would happen to the Cermonial Guard of Pikeman if all those weapons that with a point are banned , I would like to point out that there are many nations that still have very basic weaponary are they not permitted to defend themselves

~sitting down after my point~
Greetings.

We of Roathin note that it is most fortunate that you did not sit down -on- your point. However, if it is really a ceremonial guard, then those pikes are not polearms; they are merely ceremonial objects.

they do get Used though if the needs be that the life of the Grand Duke is Threatened in Their Person and what would war be like without a Stiff Bayonet Charge

"They Dont Like it Up 'em"

they do get Used though if the needs be that the life of the Grand Duke is Threatened in Their Person and what would war be like without a Stiff Bayonet Charge
Greetings.

If they are used in defence, they are equivalent to having over-long barbed wire or thorn bushes. After all, should the enemy charge a wall of pikes, the pikes are a defensive obstacle, not a weapon. No one in their right mind would call a single pike a viable defence; a hedge of pikes however is a good defence which nobody would consider offensive.

What would war be like without a stiff bayonet charge? We of Roathin suspect it might be like the NSUN Strangers' Bar, which does not have a stiff drinks charge and is therefore a lot more congenial than most others.

For the record, we are not saying that bayonets should be banned because they are cruel (although in fact most bayonet wounds aren't as clean as knife wounds, given that knives are usually used to slit a victim's throat from behind, whereas bayonet wounds are less ... considered). We are asserting that bayonet training and the use of bayonets in combat breeds a certain kind of uncontrolled aggression which should not be cultivated in soldiers, whereas other weapons and the martial arts teeach calm, cool, self-control.

It is centered focus and self-control that makes a soldier a soldier and not a mere killer.
Allemande



thoe i agree that self controle is important in warfare but we must realize that when it comes to it weather we use a gun or a bayonet the point of what you are doing is still there. the point is not how or what we kill the person with its the fact that we are killing the person. with the type of attitude that we must ban bayonetts, why shuld you stop there why not just ban evory wepon a person could possibly use simply because it "increases rage." I think not when i shoot a rifle i am more enraged and lost inthe moment then wen I use a bayonet. I think its not what we kill peope with that is the problem its the simple fact that we are killing others.

but not limited to, spears, pikes, tridents, halberds, poleaxes, battle axes, Lucerne hammers, and the like, but not including weapons designed to pommel, beat, bludgeon, club, cudgel, crush, mangle, or otherwise inflict wounds through blunt force trauma, such as war hammers, maces, mauls, and the like

Basically, two handed long sticks with pointy tips past a certain legnth are now banned from being trained in, but the rest are still okay.

Allemande, you definatly need to write an exception for Low-tech nations...You're misreading it.

Polearms (as defined above) are still legal. Bayonet/longarm combinations that emulate a polearm are not.

IOW, none of the listed weapons are banned.

~gets up wating patiently to speak~
I would like to point out that It would destory most of my Nations Heritage its is with the Bayonet that we have mainted the Independece of my Dear Nation, What would happen to the Cermonial Guard of Pikeman if all those weapons that with a point are banned , I would like to point out that there are many nations that still have very basic weaponary are they not permitted to defend themselves

~sitting down after my point~And under this proposal, you would still be able to have them and attach them for parades, etc.

You just can't use them in combat, or train people in their use as a combat weapon.

My fellow delagates banning the baynet is stupid. a soldger who is engaged in hand to hand combat sould be able to kill an enmy. heck we sould ban bulets that can kill Soldgers are spossed to fight.

Lanquassia, did the mods ever issue a ruling on your point of order?

Our inclination is to let this proposal go, due to the fact that we have much, much bigger fish perched (groan) on the skillet right now...

We might resurrect it later ... and then again ...

Why the hack would you ban such a fine hand to hand weapon. I use them on our armies weapons all the time. I totally hate this ban, if it passes, im rebelling! :sniper:

Lanquassia, did the mods ever issue a ruling on your point of order?

Our inclination is to let this proposal go, due to the fact that we have much, much bigger fish perched (groan) on the skillet right now...

We might resurrect it later ... and then again ...

The mods have ruled that they're not ruling.