NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING that many advancements in the field of warfare have resulted in the development of new technology;

NOTING WITH REGRET that recent developments often are targeted at destroying large amounts of land and enemy personnel, but have the unfortunate side effect of killing the civilian populace;

CONCERNED that, in specifics, fuel ordinance air bombs (also known as "thermobatic weaponry"), are utilized as a way to set large amounts of atmosphere on fire;

FURTHER CONCERNED that the civilian casualties are often excruciatingly high and that environmental damage is unspeakable;

ENCOURAGES all member states to reconsider the usage of fuel ordinance air bombs as an alternative to nuclear weaponry and develop less damaging alternatives;

DECLARES that fuel ordinance air bombs are hereby classified as a banned weapon under U.N. Law, and that all existing stores of such weapons shall be immediately decommissioned, and that all future development and testing of this weapon is an offense under U.N. Law.

A fuel ordinance air bomb shall be classified as any weapon that "distinguishes themselves from conventional weapons by using atmospheric oxygen, instead of carrying an oxidizer in their explosives."

The Slovakastanian representative takes the floor.

"My fellow colleagues of the United Nations," he says, "I come here today to propose a ban on a weapon so horrific in its effects, that the Slovokastanian government is astonished that action has not already been undertaken against it. Thermobaric weaponry, or 'fuel ordinance air bombs', are weapons that have been developed as a non-radioactive alternative to nuclear weaponry."

"They function by using atmospheric oxygen to ignite a massive explosive charge. This also has the effect of lighting large sections of atmosphere on fire. These weapons are more horrific than even nuclear weapons because enemy soldiers, and quite often civilians, burn to death instead of being killed instantly. This death is slow and excruciatingly painful and can be compared to napalm. Noting that many civilized countries have banned usage of flamethrowers, how is it legal that a weapon that kills through the horrific burning of humans is used regularly in conflict?"

"Slovakastania hereby proposes that thermobaric weaponry shall be banned, and all nation-states of the U.N. shall be required to decommission all stocks in an orderly fashion. Thank you."

Due to the passing of the NSUN, you must state at some point:

"Fuel Airbombs are not necessary for the defense of a nation"

*sighs* I wish I had a lot more time to mail out my bloody "this hurts newbies" argument to everyone.

Due to the passing of the NSUN, you must state at some point:

"Fuel Airbombs are not necessary for the defense of a nation"

*sighs* I wish I had a lot more time to mail out my bloody "this hurts newbies" argument to everyone.

Yes - the NSUN can be passed

UNSA (United Nations Security Act)

Due to the passing of the NSUN, you must state at some point:
When did this happen, nobody told me that the NSUN had died.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Actually, I didn't realize I had say that they are not neccessary for the defense of a nation. I thought that the NUSN specifically exempted weapons that caused unnecessary cruelty.

I didn't see anyone bringing that up during the bayonets debate, either. And you're not getting anywhere by called me a n00b. To quote the rules, that is an "insult."

I could rewrite a single sentence to comply with the act, but you're getting nowhere through your unproductive attitude.

Slovakastania, I don't know which bayonet debate you were reading, because the discussion over the words 'necessary for defense' was certainly occurring in the one here. I refer you to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9215571&postcount=8) post, as well as several that followed it.

We would not support this issue. While you may feel that its not needed for defense we believe that the knowledge that we have and would use these weapons would cause other nations to think twice about attacking us. While we choose not to fight offensive wars we feel these types of weapons are useful to stop those who do. With the illegalization of Chemical and Biological weapons we find weapons like this to be needed for defense.

With the illegalization of Chemical and Biological weapons we find weapons like this to be needed for defense.
Biological weapons are legal.

Greetings.

[invokes Sword of Midhhordhen Justice-Maker]

We of Roathin call upon the spirits of justice to inflict a minor torment on those who would mischievously afflict us with bad legislation.

We note that "fuel ordinance air bombs" do not exist and never have existed. Primus, 'ordinance' means a law (or regulation or resolution); secundus, we suspect the term that this is intended to subvert is 'fuel-air ordnance' or 'fuel-air bomb'. Such devices do indeed perform as described by our colleague of Slovakastania.

We suggest that Slovakastania might think of chastising their errant stenographer, who has so harmed their reputation.

We must agree with Yrneh on this issue. With so many weapons being dubed illeagal, what will we be left with to defend ourselves? An armament of 10 000 nuclear warheads (as proposed in another thread) which will cause immense damage? No. As strange as it may sound, we need diversity in our armouries. And the Confederacy of Endorian States finds thermobaric weaponry quite efficient. Even though we have just recently begun the development of such weapons, early experiments were launched just a couple of days ago. We intend to continue the development of this weapon. We did not issue all that money for its research in vain. The Confederacy does not support this proposal.

<The ambassador from Allemande rises and addresses the chair>

"On a point of order, Allemande believes that thermobaric weapons are absolutely necessary for its defense, and asks that this resolution be declared illegal under the terms of the United Nations Security Act.

"A ruling from the chair is sought on this matter.

"We thank the chair for its indulgence."

<The ambassador returns to her seat>

We have a grand total of two weapons banned to date - with a grand total of possibly two other weapons going to be banned:

BANNED:
-Chemical Weapons
-Land mines

Note that both of these resolutions have various flaws in them that pretty much make it so you can still use them

SOON TO BE BANNED:
-Bio Weapons
-Bayonets

PROTECTED FROM BANNING:
-Nuclear Weapons. You will not see that all of a sudden, the entire UN will (as a group) own ONLY 10000 Nukes. (Though you may see that you as a nation are only allowed 10000 nukes, which - iirc - even the US doesn't have)


Please stop with this faulty logic. No other proposed weapons ban has gotten NEARLY enough support to be added to this list to-date.

We have a grand total of two weapons banned to date - with a grand total of possibly two other weapons going to be banned:

BANNED:
-Chemical Weapons
-Land mines

Note that both of these resolutions have various flaws in them that pretty much make it so you can still use them

SOON TO BE BANNED:
-Bio Weapons
-Bayonets
Point of order: Biological weapons have been banned, then the ban was repealed. Reformetia's replacement proposal was deleted.

The Slovakastanian government would like to formally apologize for the faults of our stenographer. According to government policy, he has been executed. :)

However, the Slovakastanian government would like to express its displeasure at the allowing of bioweaponry in the UN nations.

Also, it would like to remind the UN that the document is under re-writing, although doing nothing but griping over the incircumstantial grammatical flaws of the proposal only serves to confound UN debate and encourage stagnation in the UN.

The Federation thinks that this proposal is unnecessary. Thermobaric weaponry is a highly efficient way of defense. Its use can be implemented on both a smaller and bigger scale. Our own thermobaric warheads are placed within a thin casing, giving it a small striking force but a good area radius. So far, we've managed to achieve a radius of about 4 KM. As for the unnecessary cruelty the weapon causes... Excuse me, but doesn't nuclear weaponry cause the same cruelty, for hundreds of years after the strike? Horrifying deformations, cancer, the irreversible polluting of nature... If we could one day manage to create strong enough thermobaric weapons to cause a blast similar to the nuclear, we'd have a completely new generation of super weapons. Ones that served their purpose if needed be (hopefully not) and do not leave terrible consequences.

Thank you.

The Slovkastanian delegate would like to remind the UN that although thermobaric weapons are not radioactive, nuclear weapons exist more as a deterrent and an actual nuclear war has never actually occured, whereas thermobaric weapons are used regularly as an offensive weapon with horrifiying civilian casualties.

Also, the delegate would like to slap the last speaker, who obviously knows very little of warhead design. He also stated thermobaric weapons were an excellent defensive weapon; however, battlefield results indicate that they are almost universally used offensively and that you would have to be a complete moron to drop a bomb like that on your own country in defense.

The Federation, in response, would like to kick the delegate in the groin. First off, if you want to get all RW here, yes, thermobaric weaponry is used as an offensive weapon by the Russians (who have, by the way, started funding the development of such weaponry two decades ago) against Chechnya and Afghanistan, where the best known such weapon is RPO-A Shmel rocket infantry flame thrower. By the way, thermobaric weapons are a subcomponent of a far larger system of armaments known as the volumetric weapons, which also include fuel-air explosives. These weapons are optimized for heat and pressure effects, giving them an excellent blast performance. As for the West wing, they've been concentrating more on the development of improved fragmentation and penetration effects, and have just recently realized the full potential of thermobaric weaponry, where their production and experimentation within the US starts, at first simply as a counter measure to the Russians. As for my ignorance of warhead design, let us see…
Thermobaric warheads are employed in artillery shells and multi-round rocket systems, such as the GUP TOS-1 (220mm, 30-round launcher).
But thermobaric weaponry are simply so much more efficient than conventional hard-target-penetrating fragmentation bombs, since they cant overcome bunkers and such very easily, whereas the waves that a thermobaric warhead would create can even round corners, rendering sandbags and the like completely useless. Ok, lets’ skip ahead.
Conventional fragmentation weaponry use very thick casings, since most of its energy is used up on the brake-up of that casing and the spreading of fragments. Thermobaric weaponry thus has very thin casing and most of the energy ends up as a fireball and blast-shock wave. The energy release in explosions occurs over microseconds and is determined by the detonation velocity of the explosive. Thermobaric detonation velocities are similar to those of mining explosions (3-4 km/s).
Explosives used in such weapons are usually oxygen-deficient; additional oxygen from the air is required to achieve complete combustion of the charge (I suppose this is what you meant by your “it turns the atmosphere on fire!!!”). Only part of the energy is released during the initial detonation phase, which generates high rates of fuel-rich products that undergo “after-burning” when mixed with the shock-heated air. The energy released by the after-burning and the combustion lengths increase the effects of the fireball and shockwave.
I could go on, but it’s pointless. Warheads, and especially experimental weaponry, are a personal fascination of mine. So please, refrain from calling me ignorant in warhead design. Oh, did you know that, not only are humans burned alive by this weapon, but also the shock wave is strong enough to lift them off the ground and throw them like twigs? Oh, yeah, and, if you don’t die from the blast, the toxic detonation gasses will most likely get you…
As for dropping this on our own cities, perhaps your country's leader has the Intelligence Quotient low enough to do something like that. Offense and defense can sometimes, especially in war, be very similar terms. If you are attacked by an army, say, on your borderline, wouldn’t you maybe use RPO-A like the Russians do?

PS: universally used offensively? So far, only terrorist and the Russians use them, and I believe the US did during the campaign in Iraq, but I can't be so sure on that one. And you know what, all three are aggressors. I doubt they even needed to use them defensively. Oh, and next time, please refrain from such petty insults, cause thats whats actually ticked me off here.

I appologize for my outburst to the rest.

Point of order: Biological weapons have been banned, then the ban was repealed. Reformetia's replacement proposal was deleted.

Just because they were banned before does not mean they are banned now - the repeal means that the original ban is irrelevant to my point that we are not running out of weapons to use.

Further - Reformatia's proposal was given a green light for repost with a small one line modification. Given his devotion to the resolution, his general success previously at getting delegate support, and the general support that has been leant to it both on the forums and in TG discussions, I'd say my comment that it is soon to be banned is probably not unreasonable. The same could be said for bayonets which has widely been given early support on the forums - even though the original draft posted was (or soon will be) deleted. I doubt that Allemande would have difficulty getting a slightly modified draft to the UN floor.

*snip*

PS: universally used offensively? So far, only terrorist and the Russians use them, and I believe the US did during the campaign in Iraq, but I can't be so sure on that one. And you know what, all three are aggressors. I doubt they even needed to use them defensively. Oh, and next time, please refrain from such petty insults, cause thats whats actually ticked me off here.

I appologize for my outburst to the rest.

First of all - no apology necessary. Your outburst was clearly justified.

Second - your evidence and points of RL use suggest that they are better suited as offensive rather than defensive weapons. I am curious as to normal deployment procedures - mainly *where* releative to your forces would you use them?

The delegate, as with the stenographer, has been executed. Sorry.

Either way, as you have clearly stated and evidently agree in some parts with our government, thermobaric weaponry poses no defensive purposes. I'm curious, though, what the hell is this "Russia" and "US" you kept taling about? ;) Your government also clearly poses the point that thermobatic weaponry is not necessary for the defense of a country and is therefore unprotected.

And your delegate obviously knows quite a bit about thermobaric weaponry and warhead design. Please excuse our curtness.

Firstly, I would like to apologize to Slovakistania for the outburst of the delegate. But warheads are a sensitive spot. :p

As for 'Russia' and 'US', I did say RL (actually, I said RW (real world)). :P

Since, in my zeal, I have proven that thermobaric weaponry isn't actually necessary for the defense of any UN country, I must ask you this:

What are we to do if a non-member nation uses this weapon against us? Doesn't the saying go, fight fire with fire?

And isn't it said that each weapon can be used offensively and defensively?
If someone is firing with a gun at you, per say, if you had a gun, wouldn't you fire back? And what if you didn't have a gun, but you had something less efficient, say, a knife. What chances would you stand?

If you are talking about defensive usage in your own nation under invasion, that's a bit stupid, almost like nuking it due to the power of these weapons. However, "fight fire with fire" is not applicable in this situation. The only purpose reciprocative action in such a case would be to cripple the opposing nation, which can be done far more tactically with less civilian casualties than other means.

EDIT: Yeah, sure- you can apologize for your delegate AFTER the one that we had was executed. You explain it to his family. ;)

We seem to constantly keep misunderstanding each other. I never said I'd use it in my own nation. If I implied it somehow, I apologize (yet again :p). What I meant is, if any country would use such weapons against my own nation, I would not hesitate to use the same against that aggressor. You suggest other tactics, with less civilian casualties. I'm afraid I don't know which tactics those are. If we were to cripple this nation, we would use such weapons. Or nuclear weapons for that matter. Please don't tell me nuclear weapons pack a lesser punch, or that they bear less devastating consequences.

Ha, nuclear weapons are certainly more devasting in terms of civilian casualties. However, tactical cruise missiles carrying small explosive charges have proven remarkably effective at destroying enemy facilities with remarkably low casualties among civilians (RW example:Tomahawk cruise missile). Also, there are even alternatives such as precision rockets and guided bombs fired from planes, and a nation's offensive capabilities can be easily crushed through the utilization of special forces (RW: WWII against Germany, Second Gulf War against Iraq). Many alternatives are available, that are more effective than thermobaric weapons.

Then I will repeat myself. :p Fragmentation weapons aren't as effective as pressure weapons are againts bunkers, tunels, etc. TCM's are a good choice, but can't really be used to destroy an entire city, or a well secured military base (WWII, Hitler's "Wolf Pit").

<Victor Sorino U.N. minister rises>



What is going on with the propsals for taking away nukes,fuel-air bombs....etc.

every time i see this i think of the non-U.N. nations not affected by these laws.

thanks to the passing of these laws we cannot defend ourselves to the full extent of our capabilities.But nations not affected by these laws bulid and build as much as they want.this puts our nations at risk.

my goverment will not help pass this law that in turn leaves us open to attack.


<Victor Sits>

We seem to constantly keep misunderstanding each other. I never said I'd use it in my own nation. If I implied it somehow, I apologize (yet again :p). What I meant is, if any country would use such weapons against my own nation, I would not hesitate to use the same against that aggressor. You suggest other tactics, with less civilian casualties. I'm afraid I don't know which tactics those are. If we were to cripple this nation, we would use such weapons. Or nuclear weapons for that matter. Please don't tell me nuclear weapons pack a lesser punch, or that they bear less devastating consequences.


Let's see:

"An eye for an eye, and the world goes blind" -Ghandi (?)

"He took your arm so you took his life. It is only natural" -Chancellor Palpatine, Star Wars Ep III

Sorry - don't buy that argument - responding to an attack by an enemy nation by dealing as much damage to him as he does to you - just doesn't seem valid IMHO.

So, in your opinion, we should let some nation do whatever they like to us, but while they're bombing our capitols, we should send their children candy? :p

OOC: Chancellor Palpatine? :headbang:

So, in your opinion, we should let some nation do whatever they like to us, but while they're bombing our capitols, we should send their children candy? :p

OOC: Chancellor Palpatine? :headbang:

I didn't say you don't respond. However, I disagree that a legitamite response is bombing their cities. Blow their planes out of the sky, destroy their airfields, assassinate their leader - fine. Drop a fire bomb over a city center - not fine.

Why do people assume when we say "don't respond at that level" we mean "give up"?

Because it's the mindset of warmongers.

Sorta kidding, but not really.

I didn't say you don't respond. However, I disagree that a legitamite response is bombing their cities. Blow their planes out of the sky, destroy their airfields, assassinate their leader - fine. Drop a fire bomb over a city center - not fine.

Why do people assume when we say "don't respond at that level" we mean "give up"?Excuse me, but why would I waste a thermobaric bomb on a city centre?

Fuel-air explosives are designed to get at troops in fortifications, tunnels, bunkers, etc.; they're also not bad against armored formations. Also perfect for taking down an enemy command post (as a matter of fact, they're used by NATO in Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising to take out Soviet division and corps headquarters units, thereby slowing the advance of the invaders towards the Rhine).

A little known fact about Clancy's famous novel: it was based on a wargame that was fought out by two groups of gamers at a major wargaming convention. Larry Bond, another author in this genre, was one of the players in the game (on the Soviet side, I believe - it was his idea to use Soviet paratroopers to take Iceland in an effort to put Soviet Navy forces in reach of the North Atlantic reinforcement routes for European-bound U.S. forces).

Excuse me, but why would I waste a thermobaric bomb on a city centre?

Fuel-air explosives are designed to get at troops in fortifications, tunnels, bunkers, etc.; they're also not bad against armored formations. Also perfect for taking down an enemy command post (as a matter of fact, they're used by NATO in Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising to take out Soviet division and corps headquarters units, thereby slowing the advance of the invaders towards the Rhine).

A little known fact about Clancy's famous novel: it was based on a wargame that was fought out by two groups of gamers at a major wargaming convention. Larry Bond, another author in this genre, was one of the players in the game (on the Soviet side, I believe - it was his idea to use Soviet paratroopers to take Iceland in an effort to put Soviet Navy forces in reach of the North Atlantic reinforcement routes for European-bound U.S. forces).

Well....


So, in your opinion, we should let some nation do whatever they like to us, but while they're bombing our capitols, we should send their children candy?


Again - I reiterate my earlier question - where, relative to your own troop positions, would you normally deploy Fuel Air Bombs?

What is going on with the propsals for taking away nukes,fuel-air bombs....etc.
When did the UN take away nuclear weapons? Possession of nuclear weapons by UN members is protected under UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This proposal is a joke,the U.N. nations give up weapons that are nessesary.
but no other nation has to do this.THAT is the strongest argument i have....but it is a good one.


where, relative to your own troop positions, would you normally deploy Fuel Air Bombs?

the answer is simple on top of the enemy......not civilians.....the ENEMY.

why would anyone want to waste a bomb on a useless target,when the enemy would be the real problem.

If the enemy is in a city you use persition weapons.
if they are outside the city take em out with one strike...simple as that

From what i have seen it was the U.N. security act,you will have to double check.



This proposal is a joke,the U.N. nations give up weapons that are nessesary.
but no other nation has to do this.THAT is the strongest argument i have....but it is a good one.


where, relative to your own troop positions, would you normally deploy Fuel Air Bombs?

the answer is simple on top of the enemy......not civilians.....the ENEMY.

why would anyone want to waste a bomb on a useless target,when the enemy would be the real problem.

If the enemy is in a city you use persition weapons.
if they are outside the city take em out with one strike...simple as that


If you were to drop Mustard gas on a troop formation 2 meters from your own forces, your own forces would probably suffer just as badly as your opponents. If, however, you use artillery to launch barages of Mustard Gas a fair distance from your lines, you would find that this is a much more preferable option.

From what i have seen it was the U.N. security act,you will have to double check.
Technically possession of nuclear weapons is covered under both Nuclear Armaments and the United Nations Security Act.

When did the UN take away nuclear weapons? Possession of nuclear weapons by UN members is protected under UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


with nukes i ment to say their was talk of taking them away in the thread for the security act http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428864

If you were to drop Mustard gas on a troop formation 2 meters from your own forces, your own forces would probably suffer just as badly as your opponents. If, however, you use artillery to launch barages of Mustard Gas a fair distance from your lines, you would find that this is a much more preferable option.


ERrrrrr..........I thought we were talking about Fuel air bombs not mustard gas.


Two very different things

since when has anyone launced somthing and have it land on the enemy. 2 METERS away from their own troops? that is plain stupid.I just figured that none of us in our right mind would launch somting that close to our own troops.

ERrrrrr..........I thought we were talking about Fuel air bombs not mustard gas.


Two very different things

since when has anyone launced somthing and have it land on the enemy. 2 METERS away from their own troops? that is plain stupid.I just figured that none of us in our right mind would launch somting that close to our own troops.

Accurate artillery strikes, mortars, tank shells, RIFLES?

Different weapons have different purposes and places of effectiveness. That was my point. I'm wondering what those are for fuel air bombs (aside from being rather effective in cities and bases - and don't you claim no one's ever considered the former).

Never had said that it was never an idea of anyone to use them in cities.

but two thing come to mine:

the international backlash would be swfit.

and the cost of these weapons means that they cannot be used for just any target.most countries cannot buy large quantites for price reasons.