NationStates Jolt Archive

Big Guns in Space

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Jihadic Sushi

Description: Allows Nations to build rotatable trajectory orbital Magnetic Accelerator Cannons (MAC Guns) over major cities.

This enables the Nation to protect itself, its region, and jointly protect the world.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 123 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Jan 13 2006


Please approve, it is a matter of the utmost importance. International security could not be at greater risk.

Please approve, it is a matter of the utmost importance. International security could not be at greater risk.
This resolution doesn't do anything except forbid future legislation. We already have the right to have those big guns, unless another resolution forbids them, but in that case you'd be contradictory. Sorry, this needs some more drafting.

we have automated several dozen orbital nuke launchers in undisclosed locations in space. We don't need MAC's to protect ourselves.

This resolution doesn't do anything except forbid future legislation. We already have the right to have those big guns, unless another resolution forbids them, but in that case you'd be contradictory. Sorry, this needs some more drafting.

Nuclear Armaments?

I have no real problem with it, I mean, it's just saying we have the right to create MAC cannons, which I already have. I've definitely seen worse, that's for sure.

Does this defy UNSC?

Nuclear Armaments?
Hmmm...forgot about that one. I was going off:

[QUOTE=The Most Glorious Protocols]Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.[/QUOTE[

Yes. As I basically, understand the ruling, it's that you can't prohibit future action, but you can give states rights. Don't quote me on that though.

FL: Why would this contradict UNSC?

Yes. As I basically, understand the ruling, it's that you can't prohibit future action, but you can give states rights. Don't quote me on that though.

FL: Why would this contradict UNSC?


It wouldn't, that crap of a resolution just says Earth and the Moon. These stations are neither and are just in geo-syncronis orbit over the planet.

FL: Why would this contradict UNSC?

I believe he means it would duplicate UNSA. But I may be wrong.

I believe he means it would duplicate UNSA. But I may be wrong.

No, he said 'defy', and if there's one person who's not going to confuse UNSA and UNSC, it's him. I wonder if he means this line:

Non-participating nations are free to pursue their own space objectives

In which case, possibly, yes it is.

No, he said 'defy', and if there's one person who's not going to confuse UNSA and UNSC, it's him. I wonder if he means this line:

Mkay, then I say it. The right to construct weapons necessary for national defense is protected elsewhere. So this is redundant.

Mkay, then I say it. The right to construct weapons necessary for national defense is protected elsewhere. So this is redundant.

NOTING MAC Guns as not necessary for national defence;

BANS MAC Guns.

In which case, possibly, yes it is.

Not really. Giving nations the right to do something in space does not prevent them from "pursuing their own space objectives." At most, it would be redundancy again.

Not really. Giving nations the right to do something in space does not prevent them from "pursuing their own space objectives." At most, it would be redundancy again.

Argh, sorry, yes. I was thinking this was a ban...it's not. So no, I can't see anything that contravenes UNSC.

NOTING MAC Guns as not necessary for national defence;

BANS MAC Guns.

Purely for academic interest, here is the rule:

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

Now, we have something that says (among other things):
"Weapons that are necessary for defense are allowed."

And this proposal essentially says:
"XPTO should be allowed, because it is useful for defense."

I would classify this as duplication. The eventual loopholes of the former are irrelevant for the rule.

This bill would be better if it banned MAC Guns from entering the airspace or "Space"-erm space of another U.N. nation without expressed permission.

Description: Allows Nations to build rotatable trajectory orbital Magnetic Accelerator Cannons (MAC Guns) over major cities.

This enables the Nation to protect itself, its region, and jointly protect the world.


Also would not the way it worded mean we can set these up over any major city thus over non UN member cities. As it's not clear what major cities one would be able to set these up over.. Also what about those nations that are fully space based and not on a planet..? Then how will the little guy feel when 'big brother' lurks over him and they have chosen not to have weapons in or under or above them.. as funding such would not be possible for small poor nation thus only the large rich ones would be able to build these..


Especialy the two to one nations not part of the UN membership... that would be under these guns.... Don't think you can make a proposal that intervines with non UN nations areas.. or those areas they may have some legal claim on such as their own cities inside their borders and whatever part of space above it they may claim. This is not clear on how it deals when one nation not in UN has laid claims to all that spave say X miles above their national borders. Also it has nothing to say I can refuse to have these over my major cities.. if I don't want them up there.

The people of Cluichstan are surprised at how much time is being wasted on this "proposal."

The people of Cluichstan are surprised at how much time is being wasted on this "proposal."

The people of Fonzoland are even more surprised at the time wasted by saying "The people of Cluichstan are surprised at how much time is being wasted on this "proposal."" ;)

And the people of Cluichstan are yet further surprised by the people of Fonzoland saying, "The people of Fonzoland are even more surprised at the time wasted by saying 'The people of Cluichstan are surprised at how much time is being wasted on this "proposal."'" :p

OOC: Damn, stupid Jolt forum kills quote towers! :(

OOC: Yeah, I know. We could've gone on like this for hours. :p

That would've just been dandy...

That would've just been dandy...

That would've just been super dandy!

In my oppinion...this proposal is too short. It needs more meat in it if it wants an endorcement from the Pure Socialist Holy Empire of Shazbotdom.


Greg Jackson
Deputy Minister for UN Affairs

That would've just been super dandy!


It would've been ultra dandy!

It would've been ultra dandy!

Spammer... :D

I must be confusing UNSC with some other proposal that I read somewhere along the way. I could've sword I read something about "no weapons in space"....but yeah.

Spammer... :D


Yeah...okay, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy here...

Nope, not a bit. ;)

The Union of Kitsune Clans fears that such weapons platforms can easily become offensive weapons and able to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike. This ability to destroy the opposition's ability to launch a retaliatory strike would constitute a violation of MAD and thus increase international instability. This instability and fear will lead to an arms race to develop anti-orbital weapons platforms able to be deployed from both planetside and in orbit and then their countermeasures.

Use of such weapons or their in testing would increase the amount of orbital debris, often referred to as 'space junk', that would endanger civilian communications satellites along with the Global Positioning Satellite network and would in fact endanger the UNSC's astronauts along with private and government space stations and orbiters [such as the Space Shuttle].

It has been recorded that strikes from something as small as a fleck of paint at high speeds can cause damage to satillites and the concept of having oribital weapons systems regularly overflying my nation that lacks the weapons to shoot down such weapons if they fire upon us would lead this nation to be inclined to support a ban on such platforms as they could easily be used against civilian targets and for offensive means

The Union of Kitsune Clans fears that such weapons platforms can easily become offensive weapons and able to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike. This ability to destroy the opposition's ability to launch a retaliatory strike would constitute a violation of MAD and thus increase international instability. This instability and fear will lead to an arms race to develop anti-orbital weapons platforms able to be deployed from both planetside and in orbit and then their countermeasures.

Use of such weapons or their in testing would increase the amount of orbital debris, often referred to as 'space junk', that would endanger civilian communications satellites along with the Global Positioning Satellite network and would in fact endanger the UNSC's astronauts along with private and government space stations and orbiters [such as the Space Shuttle].

It has been recorded that strikes from something as small as a fleck of paint at high speeds can cause damage to satillites and the concept of having oribital weapons systems regularly overflying my nation that lacks the weapons to shoot down such weapons if they fire upon us would lead this nation to be inclined to support a ban on such platforms as they could easily be used against civilian targets and for offensive means

I would whole-heartedly second the wise comments of the honourable delegate of Kitsune Clans and warn my fellow U.N. members that any arms race along those lines would have dire consequences for us all, should any accidents occur or errors of judgment be undertaken by the commanders and controllers of such facilities. Equally, the sheer inhumanity and horror of such weapons is that they can be used indiscriminantely against low tech and high tech nations, due to the period neutrality of space, thus causing grave risk to those nations who are underdeveloped, relative to the nation possessing the space platform.

I would move that the U.N. ban such dangerous weapons and impose a halt on all construction of similar orbital facilities.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I would move that the U.N. ban such dangerous weapons and impose a halt on all construction of similar orbital facilities.

And how, then, would we combat the ortillery of 90,000 UN non-members?

And how, then, would we combat the ortillery of 90,000 UN non-members?

Ignore them.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It's not nuclear weapons, gauss weapons actually. But these platforms are purely kenetic in their nature, the shells are not explosive and would therefore not produce any kind of nuclear fallout. I'm not saying that I'm supporting it, but it is, as of right now, not banned and would be no different then a massive artillery barrage...just from space.

It's not nuclear weapons, gauss weapons actually. But these platforms are purely kenetic in their nature, the shells are not explosive and would therefore not produce any kind of nuclear fallout. I'm not saying that I'm supporting it, but it is, as of right now, not banned and would be no different then a massive artillery barrage...just from space.

Nations have before created nuclear artillery shells in the past and could easily design such a shell for these orbital weapon platforms. It doesn't take much to replace a the solid slug with a tactical or stratigic nuclear weapon. Just that fear that oribital platform may have along with their solid slugs a compliment of nuclear warheads would lead to an escalation of international tensions since an round fired from that level with magnetic acceleration would have no tell-tale thermal signature to aid in detection such as land-based or sea-lauched ballistic missiles have.

Even without nuclear weapons such platforms could rain down devestation onto nations with their slugs causing damage on par with a low-yield nuclear weapon without the radiological fallout but just as much or more environmental damage as a single nuclear weapon due to the aftereffects that would be similar to an impact of a comet or asteroid due to large amount of dust and ash that would be expelled into the upper atmosphere which could wreck havoc with the environment. Yet again such weapons must not be allowed to be built by any nation out of such dangers.

Gah! A zombie!

http://www.crcentertainment.com/crc%20zombie.jpg

The nation of Alta Vexus would simply like to inquire as to how making more weapons is going to improve the state of international security. Being a relatively small nation this frightens us a great deal.

There has been active increase in the use of Gauss, Electromagnetic Bore, Railgun, ECM-- Electronic Counter Measure, and EMP-- Electro Magnetic Pulse weapons by many nations. We do not wish to extend the use of weapons based on electromagnetic technology into space. It is not in our interest to build space based weapon platforms. The destructive power of space based electromagnetic weaponry, potentially exceeds that of nuclear weapons.

Our nation has recently upgraded our navy with some electromagnetic, and high frequency microwave based weaponry for self protection. We have found railgun weaponry in the hands of pirates. We fear that with enough active use of this technology, there will be an arms buildup capable of destroying large swathes of the planet. Space based electronic magnetic weapons and ICBM warheads should be banned.

Note: As I do not completely understand the full consequences of such weapons, they will appear in secondary roles, special operations-- where they will probably malfunction and be misused occassionally turning people into mangled sushi, a small amount of black tech-- things which we have but won't acknowledge (kind of like Iran and the bomb), a smattering of small arms spread out (new gauss infrantry rifles-- the batteries can overheat), and a few brand new ships and submarines.

The nation of Alta Vexus would simply like to inquire as to how making more weapons is going to improve the state of international security. Being a relatively small nation this frightens us a great deal.


Ahem.

I will read a message from the head of the International Relations Department at Guanxi Renmin Daxue, Professor Zhen Zhuyi.

"The greatest impediment to peace is the idea that any nation can attack another nation without risking total annihilation. It has been proven countless times that the more a country has to lose by attacking another nation, the less likely they are to do so.

Only MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) can keep the peace. Particularly is an unstable, multipolar system as currently exists within the fractal universe of "the Nation States", it is imperative that everyone (or at least, every major power) have the capacity to annihilate all who try to annihilate them. This is the only way to keep power balanced in a way that will last.

Beyond this, these weapons of annihilation must also be kept secure against an initial attack. This require them to be in a place that a covert or surprise attack would not be able to destroy them. Otherwise, there is no true deterrent. I am no physicist, but it seems to me that space would be an ideal place for this, provided there was a way to keep guard around such weapons.

Now, there may be some cause for concern. The scenario where such a platform would fall into the hands of a terrorist or a madman may seem catastrophic. But I trust that any state of rationality could find sufficient safeguards against such a likelyhood."

Now, for all that, Hou Mian is still a fairly small, somewhat poor state. We will probably be dependent on our military allies to deploy such weapons for us, and pray that we never end up on opposite sides. I feel that due to our long cultural heritage and deep economic ties, this is fine, but Prof. Zheng says he can barely sleep at night over such a possibility.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, since we do not have the money currently to build such a platform, we will not support this, but on the other hand we do understand the reasoning behind such an idea.

Fu Huangdi,
Khan of Fubai Tribe
Khaghan of Hou Mian

Stephanie Fulton stood to respond to the representative of Hou Mian.

"I question this claim put forward.

"How is Mutually Assured Destruction the only way for peace to be acheived? The very concept of MAD is alien to true peace.

"Peace is not merely the period waiting for the next war. No, that can never be the definition of peace. Peace is the absence of conflict. If there is conflict coming, then it is not peace, and what is MAD but a stay of execution?

"You might call us Ennish idealists, dreamers. Then I find myself wondering, why is it that Enn has gone for centuries without needing to go to war? We have used words, not weapons, to be our way of acheiving peace.

"Yes, we lost peace for a time at the start of last year, with Destabilisation, but even then, weapons were not used. Blood was not shed. Peace was again acheived, simply with the use of words.

"I put a question to the leadership of Hou Mian: Why have you come to the United Nations, if you appear to regard weapons as the best argument? This is a place of talk, of words.

"Now, to address the proposal at hand: It is very simplistic. That can be a good thing, but not always. Under current UN law, it should be legal anyway. Bonus points for the title, but that isn't enough to gain our support."

Stephanie Fulton stood to respond to the representative of Hou Mian.

"I question this claim put forward.

"How is Mutually Assured Destruction the only way for peace to be acheived? The very concept of MAD is alien to true peace.

"Peace is not merely the period waiting for the next war. No, that can never be the definition of peace. Peace is the absence of conflict. If there is conflict coming, then it is not peace, and what is MAD but a stay of execution?

"You might call us Ennish idealists, dreamers. Then I find myself wondering, why is it that Enn has gone for centuries without needing to go to war? We have used words, not weapons, to be our way of acheiving peace.

"Yes, we lost peace for a time at the start of last year, with Destabilisation, but even then, weapons were not used. Blood was not shed. Peace was again acheived, simply with the use of words.

"I put a question to the leadership of Hou Mian: Why have you come to the United Nations, if you appear to regard weapons as the best argument? This is a place of talk, of words.

"Now, to address the proposal at hand: It is very simplistic. That can be a good thing, but not always. Under current UN law, it should be legal anyway. Bonus points for the title, but that isn't enough to gain our support."


While I question the idea that MAD is not true peace, in many ways I agree with the counselor from Enn. If you were to look at the military budget of Hou Mian, you will see we put little stock in "weapons of mass destruction." Hell, we put little stock in weapons of ordinary or even mild destruction.

More than anything, the dean of the international studies department felt he had something of value to say in this debate. I couldn't stifle him.

However, with regards to MAD, the whole point is not just a stay of execution. My professors tell me that, without some form of credible deterrence, war is inevitable. They say that the only way to truly avoid war is to make war impossible to win.

However, I also know for a fact that they all studied at the University of Carabell. The natural way for the people of Hou Mian to settle disputes is to get all of the aggressors together, and have them argue over proper seating protocol until none of them can remember the actual argument that began the whole affair.

With that said, I believe that the delegate from Enn must realize that her chair is off from the official spot she should be sitting, by a total of one millimeter.

Fu Huangdi
Khaghan of Hou Mian
Khan of the Fubai tribe

OOC: We were studying "realism" and "neorealism" in my International RElations graduate seminar tonight, and I felt this was a perfect time to throw some of that in. Please forgive me.

OOC: And this is why I love debating things on here. Every now and then you come across an absolute gem that makes you laugh out loud.

No problems with any of that. I just really felt like letting my pacifistic ambassador loose on some poor unsuspecting militarist. It happens from time to time.

There has been active increase in the use of Gauss, Electromagnetic Bore, Railgun, ECM-- Electronic Counter Measure, and EMP-- Electro Magnetic Pulse weapons by many nations. We do not wish to extend the use of weapons based on electromagnetic technology into space. It is not in our interest to build space based weapon platforms. The destructive power of space based electromagnetic weaponry, potentially exceeds that of nuclear weapons.

Our nation has recently upgraded our navy with some electromagnetic, and high frequency microwave based weaponry for self protection. We have found railgun weaponry in the hands of pirates. We fear that with enough active use of this technology, there will be an arms buildup capable of destroying large swathes of the planet. Space based electronic magnetic weapons and ICBM warheads should be banned.

OOC: Before using these technologies in your roleplaying, you might want to try learning a little about them first.

/miltech expert :p