NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Believing that international cooperation is needed in working towards international peace,

Defining 'environmental modification technology' (henceforth to within this resolution as 'EMT') as any method for changing the dynamics, composition or structure of any planet, satellite, star or other spatial body, or of outer space, by deliberate manipulation of natural processes,

Recognising continuous scientific developments with regards to EMT,

Noting the variation in technological development amongst member nations,

Observing that peaceful, responsible use of EMT has the potential to greatly benefit member nations in their interraction with the environment,

Recognising that military or other hostile use of EMT has the potential to cause great harm to those affected and significant environmental damage, and that such actions are not necessary for national defence,

Believing that the UN should act to limit the potential for international conflict to cause environmental damage, where possible,

Seeking to prohibit the possibility of such unnecessary damage,

Further seeking to promote international cooperation in the peaceful development of EMT, and the prevention of military or hostile use of EMT:

1. Bans the military or other hostile use of EMT causing widespread, severe, long-lasting damage.

2. Bans engagement in, funding of, or other aid towards research into, development of, and distribution of EMT for military or other hostile purposes.

3. Encourages responsible research into and use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.

4. Endorses international cooperation in and free exchange of information regarding environmental modification techniques.

5. Authorises the use of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and military force, as deemed a necessary and appropriate response, to prevent violation of the terms of this resolution, except where such actions are already prohibited by previous UN resolutions.

6. Calls for the greatest possible degree of international cooperation with regards to compliance with and enforcement of this resolution, and with general regard to the peaceful development of environmental modification techniques.

This is my bare-bones raped-down version of the RL international treaty. This really is a draft, so any helpful comments would be appreciated: if we end up either submitting something entirely different, or agreeing that this isn't needed, that's fine.

My concern is that some countries would be unwilling to freely give research. International co-operation is necessary, but I'm not willing to give up technological advantages unless I can access one we haven't got.
Optischer

my biggest problem is that whilst you didnt mean it, this is potentially a proposal to outlaw war.

I don't think he wants to outlaw war, but rather encourage international co-operation. As long as you don't make us give research to the less technological states for nothing, I'm okay ith this.
Optischer

my biggest problem is that whilst you didnt mean it, this is potentially a proposal to outlaw war.

How is this so? It's banning military or other hostile use of environmental modification technology. It's not banning swords, guns, tanks, nuclear weaponry. Are you saying all warfare is dependent on the ability to cause tsunamis?

I don't think he wants to outlaw war, but rather encourage international co-operation. As long as you don't make us give research to the less technological states for nothing, I'm okay ith this.
Optischer

Could you point me at the clause you're worried about, please? Because at the moment, I can't see where I'm forcing you to give poor countries anything. (Although it'd be awfully nice if you did). :)

Believing that international cooperation is needed in working towards international peace
I interpret this as being forced to dish out expensive research, but if i have misinterpreted it please tell me so and elaborate what you mean.
And I know it would be nice to give poorer countries research, but It costs too much to shout out in public.
optischer

How is this so? It's banning military or other hostile use of environmental modification technology. It's not banning swords, guns, tanks, nuclear weaponry. Are you saying all warfare is dependent on the ability to cause tsunamis?
no, i am not saying that, its just that all warfare causes some environmental modification, whether it be bomb blasts, napalm, satellite lasers or digging a trench, it all has some sort of impact. and because you havent really defined where the tanks caterpillar tracks stops and EM starts, that is one way people could look at it

I interpret this as being forced to dish out expensive research, but if i have misinterpreted it please tell me so and elaborate what you mean.
And I know it would be nice to give poorer countries research, but It costs too much to shout out in public.
optischer

Nonono, that's just a preambulatory clause. It has no effect: it's just stating what I - and I guess 'we' - think. Besides, it doesn't mention research. And, don't you think international cooperation is needed?

no, i am not saying that, its just that all warfare causes some environmental modification, whether it be bomb blasts, napalm, satellite lasers or digging a trench, it all has some sort of impact. and because you havent really defined where the tanks caterpillar tracks stops and EM starts, that is one way people could look at it

You're right: I missed a line from the RL treaty. Thanks. The definition will now include 'by deliberate manipulation of natural processes'.

International co-operation is needed more, but I think we should start in the form of games amd small treaties.

International co-operation is needed more, but I think we should start in the form of games amd small treaties.

Treaties involving only one country? That would be kind of boring. You're still talking about international cooperation.

No, small international treaties. Silly stuff that we all agree with, working our way up to big stuff. Like from going from less expensive beer up to eventual democracy. That sort of stuff.
optischer

No, small international treaties. Silly stuff that we all agree with, working our way up to big stuff. Like from going from less expensive beer up to eventual democracy. That sort of stuff.
optischer

This doesn't proclude you from signing smaller international treaties: perhaps I should include that right explicitly? But, I have to say, the ability to produce planet-killing weapons is something I do think needs international - in the fullest form of that word - attention.

You're right: I missed a line from the RL treaty. Thanks. The definition will now include 'by deliberate manipulation of natural processes'.
that would limit war then, because some tactics, naplam for example, or chemical and biological weapons (are they still illegal?) are deliberate manipuations of the natural forrest. i know some forrests grow back after burning, but some might not, or others, whilst the wood is unburnable, might contain oils that keep it burning and is hard to extinguish

that would limit war then, because some tactics, naplam for example, or chemical and biological weapons (are they still illegal?) are deliberate manipuations of the natural forrest. i know some forrests grow back after burning, but some might not, or others, whilst the wood is unburnable, might contain oils that keep it burning and is hard to extinguish

They're not 'manipulations of the natural forest'. Burning a forest isn't manipulating it: it's burning it. To give this a RL framework: the actual Understanding pertaining to Article II of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which I have worked from, reads...

[T]he following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.

Planet killing weapons aren't silly, they are a useful advantage for scaremongering nations. It's not that I'm in favour of the. I'm neutral.
I'd use them if I had to. But not in every case. I would rather use more destructive painful methods. But that's not for discussion.
Right now no country is close to the receiving end of my new weapon. Or any for that matter.
Optischer

To give this a RL framework *snip*
thats the thing. when you write something for NSUN, you have to put the nature of the RW out of your mind cause the nature of NS is vastly different, especially where you have a place where you cross their borders in a 2005 Mitsubishi 380 and arrive in a Model T Ford

Planet killing weapons aren't silly, they are a useful advantage for scaremongering nations. It's not that I'm in favour of the. I'm neutral.
I'd use them if I had to. But not in every case. I would rather use more destructive painful methods. But that's not for discussion.
Right now no country is close to the receiving end of my new weapon. Or any for that matter.
Optischer

Ok. However, the use of environmental modification technology for hostile purposes is something this proposal aims to ban. If you oppose that on some fundamental level, I doubt any version would be acceptable to you.

thats the thing. when you write something for NSUN, you have to put the nature of the RW out of your mind cause the nature of NS is vastly different, especially where you have a place where you cross their borders in a 2005 Mitsubishi 380 and arrive in a Model T Ford

So you're saying legal definitions change in the NS world? Using RL examples in proposals is banned. However, the RL world doesn't have a monopoly on common sense. If you oppose something in the proposal, you're going to have to be more explicit about it: I don't consider the fact that this has a RL base to be a necessary obstruction.

Would you class enviromental modification technology illegal, if it was used to create a better enviroment for one country, but another would be severely effected by it, and it effected no other country? Would it make a difference if the country using the EMT wouldn't survive without it, and it would bring itself up to the level of the affected country? Would you be willing to keep the poor poor, just because of some idioic EMT law?
Optischer

Would you class enviromental modification technology illegal, if it was used to create a better enviroment for one country, but another would be severely effected by it, and it effected no other country? Would it make a difference if the country using the EMT wouldn't survive without it, and it would bring itself up to the level of the affected country? Would you be willing to keep the poor poor, just because of some idioic EMT law?
Optischer

Could you provide an example?

If you want to ban a weapon, then you will need to keep this existing resolution in mind...

United Nations Security Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)

It basically says nations can use any and all weapons they feel are necessary to their nations defence that aren't already banned by the NSUN.

If course an easy loophole around it is just to mention in your proposal that these sort of weapons aren't necessary for a nations defence ;).

first of all
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/thenotthesamecard.jpg
second: have you ever stopped and thought EMT could actually be usefull to the point of actually helping the environment? that a big creator in the middle of the desert could acutually stimulate life in that area?

I'm not going to infringe on anybodies privacy. But just let me say, someone I know who used EMT to better their country, got a right beating by a richer, dictatorship, whom it only affected by making their mineral water less pure, reducing the price by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001%. The dictatorship didn'teven lose any money, but they still didn't cqare.
Optischer

If you want to ban a weapon, then you will need to keep this existing resolution in mind...

United Nations Security Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)

It basically says nations can use any and all weapons they feel are necessary to their nations defence that aren't already banned by the NSUN.

If course an easy loophole around it is just to mention in your proposal that these sort of weapons aren't necessary for a nations defence ;).

That's why I put this addendum to one of the preambulatory clauses:

'Recognising that military or other hostile use of EMT has the potential to cause great harm to those affected and significant environmental damage, and that such actions are not necessary for national defence,'

And, for the record, I do not believe that environmental modification technology is necessary for national defence.

I'm not going to infringe on anybodies privacy. But just let me say, someone I know who used EMT to better their country, got a right beating by a richer, dictatorship, whom it only affected by making their mineral water less pure, reducing the price by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001%. The dictatorship didn'teven lose any money, but they still didn't cqare.
Optischer
by the sounds of that, they were just looking for an excuse, so i dunno if it would count

first of all
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/thenotthesamecard.jpg
second: have you ever stopped and thought EMT could actually be usefull to the point of actually helping the environment? that a big creator in the middle of the desert could acutually stimulate life in that area?

I know NationStates doesn't equal RL...where did I say it did? You've confused me.

Secondly, I know EMT can be useful for helping the environment: that's why I included: 'Encourages responsible research into and use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes'

I'm not going to infringe on anybodies privacy. But just let me say, someone I know who used EMT to better their country, got a right beating by a richer, dictatorship, whom it only affected by making their mineral water less pure, reducing the price by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001%. The dictatorship didn'teven lose any money, but they still didn't cqare.
Optischer

I don't understand. By 'example', I meant explain the mechanics of the particular technology you're referring to.

That's why I put this addendum to one of the preambulatory clauses:

'Recognising that military or other hostile use of EMT has the potential to cause great harm to those affected and significant environmental damage, and that such actions are not necessary for national defence,'

And, for the record, I do not believe that environmental modification technology is necessary for national defence.

I agree. Good luck with this :).

I agree. Good luck with this :).

Thank you. :) Do you think that will be enough to ensure it is legal?

It might or might not. But anyway, I like your idea of usin gEMT to better the planet, but could we use it off world? It would be good if a few countries used EMT to create a whole planet for themselves, were at the click of a button they could send the whole population into space and leave no trace of civilisation on their island. Right now, we've done that by building a very co-ordinated city, which resembles a sort of spaceship, even though it's a moving space station. If we feel that we need to go without our people, and we will come back, we just send our personal spacepod, the tallest central tower in our city, and go. Maybe we could use it to make space more Enviromentally friendly. Even take a chunk of earth, let it orbit the planet and make it into a small moon type base, where we need no protection from space.
Optischer

Thank you. :) Do you think that will be enough to ensure it is legal?

In my opinion, yes, but don't take my word for it. If you want to be sure, wait for someone more experinced than me, or ask one of the mods :).

i would wait untill some of the others comment on this, Sheknu. at the moment, i am reserving my judgement, favouring against because it just has the feeling of either banning or atleast interfering with war. whilst someone could use EMT for defence, some could argue it was an attack, while others could argue that every move in war is a defencive move, even the first strike

It might or might not. But anyway, I like your idea of usin gEMT to better the planet, but could we use it off world? It would be good if a few countries used EMT to create a whole planet for themselves, were at the click of a button they could send the whole population into space and leave no trace of civilisation on their island. Right now, we've done that by building a very co-ordinated city, which resembles a sort of spaceship, even though it's a moving space station. If we feel that we need to go without our people, and we will come back, we just send our personal spacepod, the tallest central tower in our city, and go. Maybe we could use it to make space more Enviromentally friendly. Even take a chunk of earth, let it orbit the planet and make it into a small moon type base, where we need no protection from space.
Optischer

How is this relevant? And, you said 'it might or might not': can you see there being anything in that resolution, or any other, which would make mine illegal?

i would wait untill some of the others comment on this, Sheknu. at the moment, i am reserving my judgement, favouring against because it just has the feeling of either banning or atleast interfering with war. whilst someone could use EMT for defence, some could argue it was an attack, while others could argue that every move in war is a defencive move, even the first strike

I don't want to ban war. I'm not interested in interfering in war. I simply believe that deliberately using EMT to cause widespread, long-lasting, severe damage is something which is utterly reprehensible, and which is not needed. It could doubtless be used both offensively or defensively: either way, the level of destruction it would cause would far outweigh any military advantage it would bestow.

please can you give me a quote on where i said "it might or might not"
Optischer

please can you give me a quote on where i said "it might or might not"
Optischer

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9993469&postcount=33&highlight=might

Nothing seems to be certainly illegal. I'm just worried about the UN courts deciding that a few proposals are illegal, even though they aren't. The UN will drag this proposal through the mud, drown it, burn it, beat it, and do anything they can to it. Then they'll approve it and it'll get loads of misinterpretation. Just make sure it's clear, fluent and easy to understand. Make sure it covers everything you want, and you'll get what you want. But you already know my position on this. So don't take any of my advice.
Optischer

Oh Joy! This again.....
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Believing that international cooperation is needed in working towards international peace,Goes without saying. Picture the scene if you will.... Nation A : lets have Peace? Nation B: No!
Loose this.

Defining 'environmental modification technology' (henceforth to within this resolution as 'EMT') as any method for changing the dynamics, composition or structure of any planet, satellite, star or other spatial body, or of outer space, by deliberate manipulation of natural processes,Any one else thinking "what the hell is this all about?"

Recognising continuous scientific developments with regards to EMT,eh?

Noting the variation in technological development amongst member nations,Again this is a given.

Observing that peaceful, responsible use of EMT has the potential to greatly benefit member nations in their interraction with the environment,Let me get this? My Nation can peacefully make its flat lands rhomboid using this PMT thingy to help how we interact with the environment. Super! commence logging of our lush forests we can just EMT the gaff!

Recognising that military or other hostile use of EMT has the potential to cause great harm to those affected and significant environmental damage, and that such actions are not necessary for national defence,What Beastly nations! who are they so I may tell their mothers?

Believing that the UN should act to limit the potential for international conflict to cause environmental damage, where possible,Aha! So no more glassing of nations eh? Great the non un nations will have a field day with us once this passes and we have no protection.

Seeking to prohibit the possibility of such unnecessary damage,Blah blah!, Was this repetition for effect?

Further seeking to promote international cooperation in the peaceful development of EMT, and the prevention of military or hostile use of EMT:

1. Bans the military or other hostile use of EMT causing widespread, severe, long-lasting damage.Perspective: We like rhomboid shaped purple landscapes dotted with round trees and square wild life.

2. Bans engagement in, funding of, or other aid towards research into, development of, and distribution of EMT for military or other hostile purposes.This would ban all research as you have already pointed out that it can be used for hostile reasons. Now pass me the cookies!

3. Encourages responsible research into and use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.Like? erm? What?

4. Endorses international cooperation in and free exchange of information regarding environmental modification techniques.Especially with that nice fellow over there, the one who only yestrday i thought was a beastly despotic evil type. Boy was I wrong.

5. Authorises the use of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and military force, as deemed a necessary and appropriate response, to prevent violation of the terms of this resolution, except where such actions are already prohibited by previous UN resolutions.Oh Goody! More diplomatic trips to see the world where we say "Please dont or we shall be at war" and they say "We spit at your UN thingy! Prepare to be morphed into a round Pigdog in a triangular landscape thingy for the benifit of Der Fatherland. More tea and cookies before you bring the bad news back?"

6. Calls for the greatest possible degree of international cooperation with regards to compliance with and enforcement of this resolution, and with general regard to the peaceful development of environmental modification techniques.Oh blah... No offence, but this is codswallop.

I don't want to ban war. I'm not interested in interfering in war. I simply believe that deliberately using EMT to cause widespread, long-lasting, severe damage is something which is utterly reprehensible, and which is not needed. It could doubtless be used both offensively or defensively: either way, the level of destruction it would cause would far outweigh any military advantage it would bestow.
i agree with your sentiments, but there are quite a few nations (wishes DLE was here right now) that would go in, physically destroy a nation, and not even bother about actually invading. for some, the advantage is a) they dont get to return fire, or b) they arent around anymore

No offence for to the venerable librarians, but this isn't codswallop. Show contsructive criticism, e.g. since you disagree with them on not using EMT then advise them to change their proposal. To call yourselves venerable libertarians is just a guise for idiotic younglings.

Nothing seems to be certainly illegal. I'm just worried about the UN courts deciding that a few proposals are illegal, even though they aren't. The UN will drag this proposal through the mud, drown it, burn it, beat it, and do anything they can to it. Then they'll approve it and it'll get loads of misinterpretation. Just make sure it's clear, fluent and easy to understand. Make sure it covers everything you want, and you'll get what you want. But you already know my position on this. So don't take any of my advice.
Optischer

There are UN courts? :confused:

Anyway, I hope the UN will drag this proposal through the mud, drown it, burn it, beat it, and do anything they can do it: that way, we'll end up with something that's as hardy as possible.

wow, VL, i had forgotten all about the Non-UN nations. and i should have picked that self-contradiction earlier

You should hope they don't do it. I've seen enough proposals beentortured until they confess they are anti-UN. They will try and kill it of, without actually doing the deed. They will fracture the resolution, and if you aren't really lucky, the people will say it's all good and they'll vote for it, but they stab you in the back and let you bleed to death. Wrap it up in cotton wool.
Optischer

*snip* So don't take any of my advice.

this seems to be the best piece of advice you have given

No offence for to the venerable librarians, but this isn't codswallop. Show contsructive criticism, e.g. since you disagree with them on not using EMT then advise them to change their proposal. To call yourselves venerable libertarians is just a guise for idiotic younglings.
With respect....
I can be contructive if given something to work with. This is a rambling never do well proposal and while I praise it for being certainly different to previous "disarmament" proposals, quite simply i am not prepared to leave my nation open to attack in this or any other form with Non UN Nations. Also there is not a hope in hell that my Nation will even consider sharing our research or scientific breakthroughs with nations unworthy of such knowledge. And this idiotic youngling has two UN resolutions to its credit. (See below)

Oh Joy! This again.....

Someone tried it before?

Goes without saying. Picture the scene if you will.... Nation A : lets have Peace? Nation B: No!
Loose this.

No. I don't believe that international peace will magically spring into existence, to be plucked from the olive tree by grateful little cherubs. It requires work. And that work can only come about through cooperation. The reason I put that clause in is as a justification for entering an agreement into international law. If I lose it, then there's really nothing in the proposal which points out why we should be debating it in the first place.

Any one else thinking "what the hell is this all about?"

Hmm...if the definition is unclear, that's a problem. What can I do to make it more explicit? Obviously, I don't want to start mentioning exact technologies: that would create too many loopholes, and wouldn't take into account the wide variety of technology within the game. (I'm FT.)

eh?

Well, research is - presumably - ongoing. I feel it's important to point out that this research will doubtless continue, and that it should continue in a manner which aids, and doesn't harm, the environment. This line is the justification for later references to ongoing cooperation: without it, one could assume that once the ban was passed, we could dust our hands off and go home. Not so.

Again this is a given.

I know it's a given. But it's not 'given' by anything unless we actually 'give' it. I will strike it if you think it's totally unnecessary, but as it stands, it demonstrates why nations who do not have access to such technology should care.

Let me get this? My Nation can peacefully make its flat lands rhomboid using this PMT thingy to help how we interact with the environment. Super! commence logging of our lush forests we can just EMT the gaff!

I don't understand. Providing your logging is legal under UN law, you could do it anyway. There are ways that one could manipulate the environment positively: for example, artificially generating rain during a drought season. That's what this clause is recognising: it's a justification for not banning EMT outright, which in my opinion would be unnecessary.

What Beastly nations! who are they so I may tell their mothers?

Yes, they are beastly. And I'd rather you told the international community, so they could take multilateral action, as this proposal suggests.

Aha! So no more glassing of nations eh? Great the non un nations will have a field day with us once this passes and we have no protection.

I accept that this doesn't cover non-UN nations. Honestly? I don't care. I do not believe that EMT is an effective or an ethical means of defence. You can still nuke them into submission under UN law. You can still use chemical weapons. You just can't cause environmental damage which would probably affect other nations, and definitely continue to have harmful effects long after the cessation of hostilities. Ultimately, if that weakens us, then thats a price I'm willing to pay.

Blah blah!, Was this repetition for effect?

I don't think I've repeated myself. The first clause recognises the danger; the second stresses the need to act on that danger.

Perspective: We like rhomboid shaped purple landscapes dotted with round trees and square wild life.

I don't follow: this refers to the manipulation of natural processes. If you alter your landscape in that way, I fail to see how it could be a hostile use. Unless you're trying to scare them away with the sheer ugliness.

This would ban all research as you have already pointed out that it can be used for hostile reasons. Now pass me the cookies!

No, it bans research specifically for hostile means. Research for peaceful means is still allowed.

Like? erm? What?

An example I could think of would be diverting an ocean current so as to prevent a chemical spill from polluting a beach.

Especially with that nice fellow over there, the one who only yestrday i thought was a beastly despotic evil type. Boy was I wrong.

I'm endorsing it. I'm not forcing you to give anything to anyone you don't want to, or anyone for that matter.

Oh Goody! More diplomatic trips to see the world where we say "Please dont or we shall be at war" and they say "We spit at your UN thingy! Prepare to be morphed into a round Pigdog in a triangular landscape thingy for the benifit of Der Fatherland. More tea and cookies before you bring the bad news back?"

Again, I do not believe that EMT is an effective means of offence. If we suspect a nation of non-compliance, they well resort to EMT: I'd suggest we resorted to a full-scale nuclear bombardment. If I don't include that, then there is no means by which nations have explicit authority to act against any non-compliant nation. I do not wish to pull every single tooth out of my proposal.

Oh blah... No offence, but this is codswallop.

Why? International cooperation is good, surely? We don't want states acting alone in matters that will affect other states; equally, we can't possibly expect states acting alone to be able to uphold and actively enforce UN law when it comes to non-compliance with weapons bans.

With respect....
I can be contructive if given something to work with. This is a rambling never do well proposal and while I praise it for being certainly different to previous "disarmament" proposals, quite simply i am not prepared to leave my nation open to attack in this or any other form with Non UN Nations. Also there is not a hope in hell that my Nation will even consider sharing our research or scientific breakthroughs with nations unworthy of such knowledge. And this idiotic youngling has two UN resolutions to its credit. (See below)

1. You're not forced to share anything. I am encouraging it, sure, and I think it'd be nice if you did share. But you don't have to, not under this anyway.
2. You are open to attack all the time. You cannot use biological weapons; non-UN nations can. Why does this not matter? Because the majority of biological weapons do not in and of themselves present the capacity for overwhelming military power. Neither does environmental manipulation. Your arsenal will be restricted: I make no apologies for that. But I do not think the UN should be acting solely as a mutual self-defence bloc, but also, at times, as an organ for world good.

There are UN courts? :confused:

No such thing.

UN resolutions may be called illegal however if they violate game mechanics.

Because the majority of biological weapons do not in and of themselves present the capacity for overwhelming military power. Neither does environmental manipulation.
environmental manipulation is very much a capacity of overwhelming power. if you can physically destroy a nation, they cant fight back, can they (and i cant believe i am going down this path...)

environmental manipulation is very much a capacity of overwhelming power. if you can physically destroy a nation, they cant fight back, can they (and i cant believe i am going down this path...)

My earlier reference to planet-killing was misleading. I'd implore you to review the definition of what this proposal constitutes a ban on.

My earlier reference to planet-killing was misleading. I'd implore you to review the definition of what this proposal constitutes a ban on.
So now you stipulate that we may not change the weather but planet killing is ok? Balderdash. I put it to you if i Kill your planet, You weather will change.

OOC to sheknu, Seriously I applaud your efforts here. However i recon you should guide them else where. FT/MT/PT resolutions serve only to bamboozle and confuse. especially after working a 90 hour week.

So now you stipulate that we may not change the weather but planet killing is ok? Balderdash. I put it to you if i Kill your planet, You weather will change.

OOC to sheknu, Seriously I applaud your efforts here. However i recon you should guide them else where. FT/MT/PT resolutions serve only to bamboozle and confuse. especially after working a 90 hour week.

Fine.

My earlier reference to planet-killing was misleading. I'd implore you to review the definition of what this proposal constitutes a ban on.
who said anything about planet-killing? some nations have the technology to destroy nations with minimal affect to the surrounding nations. although, this might be classed as EM (glassing a nation would be very much manipulating the environment).

We commend the honorable representative from Sheknu on a good first draft of an interesting proposal. We believe it probably needs some fine-tuning, but we will seriously consider supporting it.

On the question of illegality through conflict with the UNSA.... Your language -- "such actions are not necessary for national defence" -- is almost identical to that used in NSUN Resoulution #113, "UN Biological Weapons Ban", to avoid conflict with the UNSA. If Resolution #113 is legal -- which it is -- so is your proposal.

We suggest that a somewhat expanded definition of EMT might be useful.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We commend the honorable representative from Sheknu on a good first draft of an interesting proposal. We believe it probably needs some fine-tuning, but we will seriously consider supporting it.

On the question of illegality through conflict with the UNSA.... Your language -- "such actions are not necessary for national defence" -- is almost identical to that used in NSUN Resoulution #113, "UN Biological Weapons Ban", to avoid conflict with the UNSA. If Resolution #113 is legal -- which it is -- so is your proposal.

We suggest that a somewhat expanded definition of EMT might be useful.

Alright, thanks, although the other UN members don't seem so keen. I've sent you a TG. Have you any ideas for expanding the definition?