NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a very work-in-progress style draft. Basically, I'm trying to write a resolution to protect nations that don't want to have standing armies for any reason from military retaliation of anything.

So, here we go, a first draft.

Rights of Peaceful States
Category:Global Disarmament
Strength:Significant
Proposed by:Ceorana
----
NOTING that many nations choose to remain peaceful from armed conflicts for a variety of reasons;

NOTING that these nations may not want to remain neutral in those conflicts, but don't wish to participate in them;

DEFINING "peaceful state" as a nation that meets all of the following criteria:
i. Less than 3% of the nation's total budget is devoted to military spending;
ii. The nation does not mandate service in the armed forces;
iii. The nation does not possess any significant number of offensive weapons;
iv. The nation is not involved in any armed conflict;

DEFINING "NBC" as any weapon that uses nuclear, chemical or biological methods to inflict destruction;

DEFINING "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) as any weapon that causes large-scale destruction on civilian components of a nation;

BANS the use of NBCs or WMDs on peaceful states;

PRESERVES all past and future resolutions regulating the use of any of these weapons, with the exception of rules governed in this resolution.



I know it's pretty rough in spots, but I'd like to draft it into a semicoherent resolution. Any suggestions?

first off, biological weapons, and i think chemical ones too, are already banned. thanks to UNSA ans nuclear arms act, nuclear weapons can not be banned. we already have Rights of Neutral States.
apart form these illegalities and already-covereds, it essentially means that if they want to be a peaceful nation, they cant defend themselves. i would say no to that. we are a peaceful nation, but we respect our right to defend our nation. sorry.

first off, biological weapons, and i think chemical ones too, are already banned.
Chemical weapons are legal.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692871&postcount=121

Chemical weapons are legal.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692871&postcount=121
ahh, wasnt sure, thats why i put 'i think'

first off, biological weapons, and i think chemical ones too, are already banned. thanks to UNSA ans nuclear arms act, nuclear weapons can not be banned. we already have Rights of Neutral States.
apart form these illegalities and already-covereds, it essentially means that if they want to be a peaceful nation, they cant defend themselves. i would say no to that. we are a peaceful nation, but we respect our right to defend our nation. sorry.

Suppose the bans on chem weapons and bio weapons were repealed? And what about other WMDs?

Rights of Neutral States only covers nations that remain neutral.

This doesn't say anything about not being able to defend your nation. It says that other nations cannot use insane amounts of force to wipe a peaceful, innoffensive nation off the map

I am sorry, but this proposal feels like a no-go to me. The intentions are commendable, of course, but your reasoning is based on a dubious causality relationship:

Low military spending => Peaceful nation

There are too many actions, not involving mass military operations, which can be reasonably considered acts of war. I will not even bother finding examples. Even if you could list all the cases, which I doubt, doing so would turn this resolution into something like "nations should only go to war with a good reason." I submit to your consideration that this principle does not need to be enforced by legislation.

we conceed the 'protect peaceful states' part, but the rest, we cannot. first off, read the sticky at the top of the forum called 'rules for proposals'. it states that if something is already covered, it would be deemed illegal, repeal or not. as it is, saying biological weapons (already banned) and nuclear weapons (ban prevention in place) will be banned would make this illegal. secondly, WMD covers Bio, chemical and nuclear weapons, so effectivly, you have banned them twice within the same resolution, unless you state that WMD doesnt cover them. and since nearly any weapon, used in the right manner, could be a WMD, this bans the use of a large number of weapons, and could also lead to abuse such as:
"I have a low millitary budget, you cant use those weapons against us!"
"Okay, fair enough, we will send our infentry in"
"HEHE, I forgot to tell you that the amount spent is on these 3 nukes! I just glassed your ass!"

thanks to UNSA ans nuclear arms act, nuclear weapons can not be banned.
Actually there's no conflict with Nuclear Armaments as this proposal bans the use of nuclear weapons.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Actually there's no conflict with Nuclear Armaments as this proposal bans the use of nuclear weapons.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
and i get corrected by my RD... dang

and i get corrected by my RD... dang
What did you expect, I wrote Nuclear Armaments.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What did you expect, I wrote Nuclear Armaments.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
yes you did

Low military spending => Peaceful nation

Suppose it was reduced to "no military"? Then:

No military => No military operations.

Suppose it was reduced to "no military"? Then:

No military => No military operations.
but that doesnt mean they havent stockpiled nuclear or chemical weapons, or othe WMDs

Suppose it was reduced to "no military"? Then:

No military => No military operations.

Sigh. It appears I will have to quote acts of war that do not require military.

1. Assassination of a national leader or embassator,
2. Forcing a plane into a building in foreign territory, [/RL]
3. Funding terrorist/para-military organisations with activity in foreign territory,
3. Political subversion, eg by funding illegal political movements,
3. Disregarding international etiquette in a number of other fields.

I do not consider these actions peaceful. I would be as willing to hit this nation with WMD as any other, irrespectively of the size of their military.

Sigh. It appears I will have to quote acts of war that do not require military.

1. Assassination of a national leader or embassator,
2. Forcing a plane into a building in foreign territory, [/RL]
3. Funding terrorist/para-military organisations with activity in foreign territory,
3. Political subversion, eg by funding illegal political movements,
3. Disregarding international etiquette in a number of other fields.

I do not consider these actions peaceful. I would be as willing to hit this nation with WMD as any other, irrespectively of the size of their military.

DRAFT TWO:
Rights of Peaceful States
Category:Global Disarmament
Strength:Significant
Proposed by:Ceorana
----
NOTING that many nations choose to remain peaceful from armed conflicts for a variety of reasons;

NOTING that these nations may not want to remain neutral in those conflicts, but don't wish to participate in them;

DEFINING "military" as any organization or person with the intent or purpose of causing harm to another nation's people or government;

DEFINING "peaceful state" as a nation that meets all of the following criteria:
i. No government money is spent on any military;
ii. The government is not affilliated with any military;
iii. The government has not sanctioned or committed any acts of war on any UN member;
iv. The nation does not possess any offensive weapons, and possesses minimal defensive weapons;
v. The nation is not involved in any armed conflict;

DEFINING "Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) as any weapon that causes large-scale destruction on civilian components of a nation, including weapons that use nuclear, chemical, or biological methods to inflict destruction;

BANS the use of WMDs on peaceful states;

PRESERVES all past and future resolutions regulating the use of any of these weapons, with the exception of rules governed in this resolution.

I've tried to plug some loopholes pointed out.

1. Assassination of a national leader or embassator,
2. Forcing a plane into a building in foreign territory, [/RL]
3. Funding terrorist/para-military organisations with activity in foreign territory,
3. Political subversion, eg by funding illegal political movements,
3. Disregarding international etiquette in a number of other fields.

Can someone please teach this idiot how to count? :D

Rights of Peaceful states:

If State A is attacked by State B, State A has the right to fire a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons, thus ending the war in a "don't care enough" status.

Don't remember which resolution that was.

Bill of Rights?

EDIT: Nop, this fella:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50

Rights & Duties, Article 5.

Yeah, I'm a geek...

Is it just me or have you all lost your senses? We do not need to enact legislation to back up a right for an individual nation NOT to have any military for defense, offense or just cos they look nice in their shiney uniforms.

UN Resolutions are costly to our nations. What next? a resolution to reinforce the right for lactose intolerant nations not to have a cheese industry?

DEFINING "peaceful state" as a nation that meets all of the following criteria:
i. No government money is spent on any military;
ii. The government is not affilliated with any military;
iii. The government has not sanctioned or committed any acts of war on any UN member;
iv. The nation does not possess any offensive weapons, and possesses minimal defensive weapons;
v. The nation is not involved in any armed conflict;



i. Any government that does not spend money on it's own protection deserves to be obliterated by a rogue state.
ii. see i.
iii. eh, nothing to say about that.
iv. see i.
v. this sounds closer to a neutral country.

This proposal has good intentions, but what does this resolution attempt to do?

The only right I see is the banning of use of WMD's on a 'peaceful nation'.
no other rights I can see.

Actually, to be more precise, this resolution bans the use of WMDs as first strike on peaceful nations, but nations have the full right to invade, and after that the nation they've invaded no longer satisfies v so.....Nuking time!

Actually, to be more precise, this resolution bans the use of WMDs as first strike on peaceful nations, but nations have the full right to invade, and after that the nation they've invaded no longer satisfies v so.....Nuking time!

:D
I would suggest equiping nuclear missiles with a small stone-thrower in front. This way any country would be engaged in armed attack a few miliseconds before, well, a new dawn.

man, a loophole is found every 5 minutes! seriously, do we need this? a lot of it sounds like 'Neutral States' or some other resolutions past, someone has pointed out the I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons, and the only thing this really effects is RP, in which a peaceful nation would have to agree to in the first place, but could have an impact on millitary budgets for an unnecessary reason.

Rights of neutral states covered exactly the same ground as this. The fact that it was a RP issue was the reason for the lack of interest once it reached vote.

:D
I would suggest equiping nuclear missiles with a small stone-thrower in front. This way any country would be engaged in armed attack a few miliseconds before, well, a new dawn.

I'm not sure that'd work..... The missile is self-propelled. It might overtake that stone on the way in.....

I'm not sure that'd work..... The missile is self-propelled. It might overtake that stone on the way in.....

It's all about timing, and releasing the rock accurately. Nobody said it was a low tech stone-thrower. Actually, that raises an interesting point. Does the attack start when the missile enters sovereign airspace, when it touches the ground, or when it finishes blowing the country to pieces?

Mkay, maybe not that interesting...