NationStates Jolt Archive

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
A proposal from UN DEFCON: We care more about your nation's security than you do

Approval link --> http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=landmines

The United Nations,

RECALLING the many resolutions in UN law forming a fundamental commitment to the protection of citizens' rights,

TAKING NOTE, especially, of Resolution #31, "Wolfish Convention on POW", Resolution #51, "Children in War", and Resolution #111, "Civilian Rights Post War",

REAFFIRMING the intent of these and other resolutions to protect both military and civilian personnel from undue abuse,

RECOGNISING that there exist many non-UN nations who may be hostile to UN member nations and to the UN, and who are not governed by the responsibilities of such resolutions,

LAMENTING that war between UN member nations and non-UN nations is inevitable, and concerned that in such cases non-UN parties will not be bound by international law on the treatment of soldiers and civilians, especially children, and on the use of torture,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the UN can do little to prevent such circumstances, and must allow its members to exercise to the fullest degree possible their ability to deter attack and invasion by non-UN nations,

UPHOLDING the sentiment of Resolution #110, "United Nations Security Act", that 'all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack',

OBSERVING the capacity of landmines to act as an effective deterrent to invading forces, and acknowledging the possibility that they could be used to prevent human rights abuses on the behalf of an occupying force not bound by UN law,

FURTHER NOTING that, in their capacity as 'area-denial munitions', landmines have the capability to divert hostile forces away from settled areas and the civilian populace, and thereby to actually limit civilian casualties,

APPLAUDING all international efforts to tackle the unfortunate potential of landmines to pose risk to civilians after the cessation of hostilities,

RESOLVING that member nations should not be denied the possibility of defending themselves and their citizens from unregulated attack through the responsible deployment of landmines:

REPEALS Resolution #40, "Banning the Use of Landmines".

Please note: if the repeal passes, you DO NOT HAVE TO USE LANDMINES.

If you think landmines are wasteful, DO NOT USE THEM.

Ok, then lets just do what we did in Loas, Cambodia and 'Nam, and leave 'em all around for little kids to step on.

Riiighhht.

Really, in the modern era of warfare do we need landmines? Although still useful, they are ultimately outmoded. Most armoured vehicles worth it can withstand blasts, we can find and disable them, and much combat is done with bombers and cruise missles. Certianly thier useful, so are swords, but their out of date, and a danger to all.

Ok, then lets just do what we did in Loas, Cambodia and 'Nam, and leave 'em all around for little kids to step on.
Or not. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471828)

Really, in the modern era of warfare do we need landmines? Although still useful, they are ultimately outmoded. Most armoured vehicles worth it can withstand blasts, we can find and disable them, and much combat is done with bombers and cruise missles. Certianly thier useful, so are swords, but their out of date, and a danger to all.
Yes, we do need them. As the repeal states. I don't care how fancy your tanks are: you are not going to march an army through a minefield. That is a good thing.

Your comparison with swords is...perplexing.

The comparison is exageratory, but it makes a point. I can kill a man with sword as easily now as I could a thousand years ago, or a thousand years from now, it works, but it is outmoded.

Landmines work as well, but they to are outmoded, and, unlike swords, they kill people yearrs and years after their country leaves them behind.

Actaully, swords could do that to, but thats not the point. Have you not seen footage of those countries? All those people disfigured. Its terrible, and I don't care how much you think you need landmines, or how well you think you can dispose of them, its not worth it. Just like nukes aren't worth it, or bio-chemical weapons, or anything else.




Hmmm.....
I highly suggest you watch "Lord of War" its not about landmines specifically, but I think its semi-relevant.

I highly suggest you watch "Lord of War" its not about landmines specifically, but I think its semi-relevant.Lord of War is about (illegal) international small arms trade. It has absolutely nothing to do with landmines.

Furthermore, there are times when a sword is the right weapon for the job. Similarly, there are times when landmines are the right weapon for the job.

Ya, its not about landmines, I said that. But it does demonstrate in some scenes how the leavings of conflicts, often between first world nations, has adverse affects on the people their after the two parties pull out.

And, in certain circumstances perhaps you do need a mine, but on the whole its just not worth it, in my opinion.

Gruenberg, others have argued that demining is an issue of protecting civilians, I argue that landmines are economically a waste, and therefore protecting the right to use them is just further waste.

You state in your other post, entitled "Submitted: UN Demining Survey"

1. DECLARES the duty of member nations to reduce and, where possible, prevent civilian casualties in minefields;

2. INSTRUCTS member nations to conduct surveys determining the location and status of all minefields within their territory;

3. RECOMMENDS that member nations take all appropriate actions to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, including:
- clear marking of minefields on maps,
- posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages,
- international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields,
- advising and educating citizens on methods for avoiding casualties in minefields;

You do realize that all this would cost infinitely more than the mines themselves, which are already a passive weapon that, again, has little likelihood of actually 'hitting' its target, yes?

Therefore, by requiring UN member states to abide by the above rules, you're effectively causing a doubling or tripling in the costs of minefileds. States who would use minefileds undoubtedly are attracted to thier use by their low cost (cheap to produce and they need NO monitoring, officers, command structure, etc). However, by requiring states to put up all those warnings, the cost goes up AND the likelihood that said state will circumvent your above resolutions increases exponentionally.

Therefore, I suggest that it would be much safer, less bureaucratic, and economically fairer to ban the use of landmines outright.

Ok, then lets just do what we did in Loas, Cambodia and 'Nam, and leave 'em all around for little kids to step on.There are better examples, but a repeal and replace looks good :)

Therefore, by requiring UN member states to abide by the above rules, you're effectively causing a doubling or tripling in the costs of minefileds. States who would use minefileds undoubtedly are attracted to thier use by their low cost (cheap to produce and they need NO monitoring, officers, command structure, etc). However, by requiring states to put up all those warnings, the cost goes up AND the likelihood that said state will circumvent your above resolutions increases exponentionally.
Good job I'm not requiring to put up any warnings then, innit.

I am also not going to lay UN member states open to hostile invasion for the sake of avoiding 'bureaucracy'.

Gruenberg, others have argued that demining is an issue of protecting civilians, I argue that landmines are economically a waste, and therefore protecting the right to use them is just further waste.

Are you actually suggesting that the UN's roles should include trying to keep the member-nations' governments from wasting money?

I am also not going to lay UN member states open to hostile invasion for the sake of avoiding 'bureaucracy'.


And that is greatly appreciated.

What's this? Banning the use of Land Manure? Look it's not my fault that my trained dog/pelican hybrid warriors make their deposits on the battle field. Shit happens! Oh you said Land Mines? Well that's different I guess. Does exploding manure count as a land mine? On second thought Tzorsland approves this repeal just to be on the safe side.

Greater Valmiera is against the repeal. Though Greater Valmiera does understand both parts of this issue. We agree and thank Gruenberg on:
I am also not going to lay UN member states open to hostile invasion for the sake of avoiding 'bureaucracy'.
but also agree with Gradelia more strongly and thats who we support. Landmines are a wasteful defense measure. Their wasteful in people's lives. Though cheaper then say i huge things of Land forts or concert tank traps, they are a terror which is easy misplace and overly used making it so after a conflict is over, most countries leave them in the ground cause its cheaper to build more mines then diging up old ones and reusing them. Also where is mines are place are usually in roads which are then used by civilians after a conflict. Which robs a country of useful people and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to their health care systems to treat the victims of forgotten landmines.

well thats my 2 cents on it

Ok, I think I see where this is going. First post edited.

I'm all for this proposal, please let me know if there is anything I can help with to get the word out.

I'm all for this proposal, please let me know if there is anything I can help with to get the word out.
Thanks, but at the moment the campaign's going pretty well. Your endorsement certainly helps. :)

Are you actually suggesting that the UN's roles should include trying to keep the member-nations' governments from wasting money?

My argument was that creating the necessary bureacracy to monitor the proper documentation of a minefield would be a bureaucratic morass for the enitre UN, hence, it would be easier to simply ban land mines.

In terms of the individual states' perspective, the fact that it would also have to pay to put up said warnings would make that state more likely to circumvent the measures.

The larger issue at hand is whether the legislation is ACTIVE or PASSIVE. Should my state have to pay its dues to the UN to monitor something it finds morally reprehensible in another state? Why, if the politicans in my state, believe land mines are reprehensible and a danger to rural society should my state pay to secure another state's land mines? That would be the same as my state requesting a proposal for the UN to ensure my stem cell research centers are operating in good order.

However, as Gruenberg has revised his proposal, the proper documentation of land mines no longer exists, and, therefore, we are back at square one.

Therefore, as land mines will not be adequately secured in this proposal, and that the danger is still apparent to civilian populations, as listed in Resolution 40, I move to AGAINST the repeal. The only way UN member states can be sure that civilian populations are protected from this menace is to keep the ban alive.

My argument was that creating the necessary bureacracy to monitor the proper documentation of a minefield would be a bureaucratic morass for the enitre UN, hence, it would be easier to simply ban land mines.

In terms of the individual states' perspective, the fact that it would also have to pay to put up said warnings would make that state more likely to circumvent the measures.
The documenting of landmines is not mandatory. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. And besides, if you find landmines so reprehensible, do you even have any minefields to document? If you do, wouldn't you want to mark and clear them?

The larger issue at hand is whether the legislation is ACTIVE or PASSIVE. Should my state have to pay its dues to the UN to monitor something it finds morally reprehensible in another state? Why, if the politicans in my state, believe land mines are reprehensible and a danger to rural society should my state pay to secure another state's land mines? That would be the same as my state requesting a proposal for the UN to ensure my stem cell research centers are operating in good order.
There are no UN dues.

However, as Gruenberg has revised his proposal, the proper documentation of land mines no longer exists, and, therefore, we are back at square one.

Therefore, as land mines will not be adequately secured in this proposal, and that the danger is still apparent to civilian populations, as listed in Resolution 40, I move to AGAINST the repeal. The only way UN member states can be sure that civilian populations are protected from this menace is to keep the ban alive.
And a way that civilian populations can be protected from the menace of non-UN invaders is to use landmines. Which the entire repeal argument rests on. Which no one seems interested in contesting.

My argument was that creating the necessary bureacracy to monitor the proper documentation of a minefield would be a bureaucratic morass for the enitre UN, hence, it would be easier to simply ban land mines.

In terms of the individual states' perspective, the fact that it would also have to pay to put up said warnings would make that state more likely to circumvent the measures.

The larger issue at hand is whether the legislation is ACTIVE or PASSIVE. Should my state have to pay its dues to the UN to monitor something it finds morally reprehensible in another state? Why, if the politicans in my state, believe land mines are reprehensible and a danger to rural society should my state pay to secure another state's land mines? That would be the same as my state requesting a proposal for the UN to ensure my stem cell research centers are operating in good order.

However, as Gruenberg has revised his proposal, the proper documentation of land mines no longer exists, and, therefore, we are back at square one.

Therefore, as land mines will not be adequately secured in this proposal, and that the danger is still apparent to civilian populations, as listed in Resolution 40, I move to AGAINST the repeal. The only way UN member states can be sure that civilian populations are protected from this menace is to keep the ban alive.

Couldn't that whole argument be used to justify a resolution banning WAR altogether? Would you care to try getting one drafted & submitted? (and what chance of success do you think it would have?)

Good to see that the first effort begun in the UN DEFCON is finally out there getting approvals. :cool:

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg

Yes, shit, sorry. Will edit the first posts.

Yes, shit, sorry. Will edit the first posts.

No worries, mate. :D

Remember, that if this repeal does go into effect(and I hope it does), as Gruen and others have stated, you don't have to use mines. Furthermore there are a range of options that would be made available to those who choose to use them. There is a landmine convention that is in the works, and is submitted for your approval. That convention, will give assistance in demining operations, if asked. Furthermore, there are many types of landmine available, including mines that self-detonate after a set period of time(usually no greater than 60 days), thus aiding in mine disposal, and helping prevent civillian deaths. Landmines are one of the most cost effective ways of limiting access to territory, to an enemy.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

What is wrong with you people? Landmines kill and maim hundreds of people every day and you want to contribute to that?

Really, I could understand if it was some kind of super-weapon that could easily save your country from invasion.

But their landmines, their not that great and not that badly needed, hell, their borderline obsolete.

I cannot promote this repeal, landmines should stay banned.

But their landmines, their not that great and not that badly needed, hell, their borderline obsolete.
Are you saying that if you were going to invade another nation, you would be prepared to move your ground forces through minefields?

What is wrong with you people?

Wow. We do not have enough time for me to get into that.

Landmines kill and maim hundreds of people every day

So do guns, and knives, and dogs, and wild animals, and garrottes, and broken glass, and furniture, and musical instruments, and clothing, and improperly chewed food, and - Hell - people. Does that mean we should ban all of those things too?

and you want to contribute to that?

Nope. Prefer to regulate it in such a way that we can use a tool to suit a purpose it was intended for as safely as possible.

Really, I could understand if it was some kind of super-weapon that could easily save your country from invasion.

It just about is.

But their landmines, their not that great and not that badly needed, hell, their borderline obsolete.

So name something else that can do the job of a landmine better than a landmine. Perhaps we'll consider switching to those.

I cannot promote this repeal, landmines should stay banned.

I'm sorry to hear that.

From what I am getting out of this repeal is that there is a ban of landmines and UNDEFCON wants to unprohibit their use. Well, although I abhor war, I have to agree and actually support it. However, repealling this act should force a proposal for a more in-depth Landmine Disposal Act to clean up the landmines after the war is over. Dancing Bananland has a good point about the mine's postwar destruction, so the UN as well as the countries in it should be prepared to do extensive cleaning after a war. You guys have my support.

The difference is

A: other weapons are wielded by people, they do not sit there undiscovered and hidden until someone steps on them

B: I could easily move forces over a minefield, helicopters, hovercraft, minesweeping isn't hard these days if I have no other choice.

C: The other stuff that harms people, thats just everyday life, sh*t happens. Landmines are not everyday life, they are specifically designed to kill, and they do.

Blow Up Millions of People

A: other weapons are wielded by people, they do not sit there undiscovered and hidden until someone steps on themPunji pits, deadfall traps, pretty much every booby trap ever used since the dawn of time -- long before explosives were discovered.

B: I could easily move forces over a minefield, helicopters, hovercraft, minesweeping isn't hard these days if I have no other choice.You need to read up on landmine usage and modern military movement methods. As well as the types of terrain where mines are most frequently used.

C: The other stuff that harms people, thats just everyday life, sh*t happens. Landmines are not everyday life, they are specifically designed to kill, and they do.As is every other weapon ever made. Landmines are just another type of weapon. When used properly, they fill an important niche.

But their landmines, their not that great and not that badly needed, hell, their borderline obsolete.

Different nations, different tech-levels: What's "borderline obsolete" for some might well be "state of the art" for others...

Well, I'll concede the point landmines may still have a niche in modern warfare. However, thier inexpensiveness and ease of use lead to mass proliferation, turning any ex-warzone into a massive deathtrape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dancing Bananland
A: other weapons are wielded by people, they do not sit there undiscovered and hidden until someone steps on them
Punji pits, deadfall traps, pretty much every booby trap ever used since the dawn of time -- long before explosives were discovered.

As for punji pits, their pits, they can only be built in certain places, and take some time to construct. The same goes on some degree for the other booby traps you mention. On another note, you cant ban these things. Their booby traps, that are for the most part made in and from parts of the natural environment. To ban them would be incredibley difficult if not impossible.

Landmines are mass produced in factories. In a given period of time it took to dig one punji trap or man-sized deadfall you could construct, or if built, deploy tens, possibly hundreds of landmines. Being produced and exported weapons, a ban is much more enforceable, and being they are generally more destructive, more common, and harder to find, they are more worth banning.

If you had brought this repeal a year or two ago, I probably would have jumped right on board. "Ya!! We can clean 'em up, we wont lose 'em. We need them, lets go kick @$$!!!". In the last couple months I've been looking into vietnam (personal curiousity) and the effects of left-over landmines there and in other war-torn nations has been devestating, and I just canno allow this repeal to go through on those grounds. I do not think you are a bad or evil person, and I sympathize if you feel you need this weapon, I just cannot support this repeal.

I do not think you are a bad or evil person, and I sympathize if you feel you need this weapon, I just cannot support this repeal.

That just shows how little you know... as we say in Fonzoland, "they don't come much eviler than Grueners."

Gruenberg is a desolate place where the last tree standing is being cut down as we speak. They are strictly religious and care about as much for their citizens as they do for their trees. A lack of landmine conventions would be an excuse to lay a few in the middle of a suburban neighborhood just so they can watch the pretty lights.

Evil or not, Gruenberg is seriously fucked.

Gruenberg is a desolate place where the last tree standing is being cut down as we speak. They are strictly religious and care about as much for their citizens as they do for their trees. A lack of landmine conventions would be an excuse to lay a few in the middle of a suburban neighborhood just so they can watch the pretty lights.

Evil or not, Gruenberg is seriously fucked.

You are being very unfair. Gruenbergers have the utmost care in placing their landmines. To protect the goats.

However, thier inexpensiveness and ease of use lead to mass proliferation, turning any ex-warzone into a massive deathtrape.Let there be illumination:

Fact Sheet
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Washington, DC
February 27, 2004

Frequently Asked Questions on the New United States Landmine Policy

[...]

Q. How does self-deactivate or self-destruct technology work?

A. Self-destructing mines blow themselves up after a given period of time. For U.S. mines, that period could be as little as 4 hours, or could be as much as 15 days. The new types of mines that the United States will develop will have remote control capabilities so they can be blown up on command. Self-deactivation is a back up method, where the battery in the mine gradually loses its charge, eventually causing the mine mechanisms to become incapable of operating.

Q. Why are self-destructing mines less dangerous than other types of landmines?

A. Self-destructing mines do not leave a long-term, harmful legacy and as a result offer little risk to civilians. The core of the humanitarian problem caused by mines is not whether the mine is anti-personnel or anti-tank, but whether the mine constitutes a continued and persistent threat.

Q. How reliable are the self-destruct and self-deactivate mechanisms?

A. Highly reliable. We have tested over 67,000 landmines under a wide range of conditions, with no failures of the self-destruct system. If the self-destruct mechanism should fail, the self-deactivation system would make sure the landmine could not function after no more than 90 days. Self destructing landmines. Something the other Proposal promotes. Further more, modern landmines aren't just tossed about willy-nilly. They're placed for maximum impact and locations are recorded. Armies don't want to blow themselves up, after all.

As for punji pits, their pits, they can only be built in certain places, and take some time to construct.Same with mines. Certain mines go in certain places. If you have the wrong kind, you're kinda screwed. And the limitation on where you can build a pit is... where ever there's ground to dig into. They can be placed pretty much anywhere with proper buttressing.

On another note, you cant ban these things. Their booby traps, that are for the most part made in and from parts of the natural environment.So what? Beating someone to death with my bare hands makes use of "parts of the natural environment" but can still be outlawed. Construction materials are utterly irrelevent.

To ban them would be incredibley difficult if not impossible.Perhaps in the real world, but this is the NS UN. If the UN bans it, it's banned. Done and done.

Landmines are mass produced in factories.Irrelevent.

In a given period of time it took to dig one punji trap or man-sized deadfall you could construct, or if built, deploy tens, possibly hundreds of landmines.You watch too many movies. Setting landmines properly takes more than 5 seconds. Furthermore, the construction time of the mine makes absolutely no difference. I'd like to see you carry 100 claymores. Hell, I'd like to see you carry 10.

Besides, if we're going to do silly comparisons, pits and deadfalls are free as they don't require synthetic materials. Therefore they're far more dangerous and must be banned!

more destructive, more common, and harder to find, they are more worth banning.Hellfire missiles are much more destructive, much more common, and even harder to find (as they're in a helicopter that's moving). Should we ban hellfires? Also, you underestimate the ability for booby traps to be obfuscated.

In the last couple months I've been looking into vietnam (personal curiousity) and the effects of left-over landmines there and in other war-torn nations has been devestating, and I just canno allow this repeal to go through on those grounds.Oh, please. If you're going to wax poetic about poor farmers being blown up by old ordinance, go look at France and unexploded artillery shells from WWII. Hell, there's far, far more landmines in Eastern Europe.

I do not think you are a bad or evil personUm... thanks?

I sympathize if you feel you need this weapon, I just cannot support this repeal.The Hack doesn't need landmines, and isn't restricted by this ban anyway.

Gruenberg is a desolate place where the last tree standing is being cut down as we speak. They are strictly religious and care about as much for their citizens as they do for their trees. A lack of landmine conventions would be an excuse to lay a few in the middle of a suburban neighborhood just so they can watch the pretty lights.

Evil or not, Gruenberg is seriously fucked.
OOC: Heh.

IC: It should be noted Gruenberg already has several active minefields, all of which are legal under the present ban. The ban only refers to their use in conflict. If we are invaded, they would therefore become illegal. And we pwomise not to use them.

And we pwomise not to use them.Of course. Your invaders would be using them. And getting blown up is just what those scofflaws deserve.

Resubmitted.

Resubmitted.

You making a lot of work for DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), my friend. ;)

That just shows how little you know... as we say in Fonzoland, "they don't come much eviler than Grueners."


I'm hurt...:p

I'm hurt...:p

He didn't say they "don't come more", he said they "don't come much more"

Only 17 approvals needed...

OOC: Bugger. 2 approvals short, and now no delegates are going to be able to log on to approve. Sigh.

They're probably going to revert to a backup too, so you might have quite a few approvals lost....

...huh. Suddenly it says it's in queue. This backup will be interesting.

...huh. Suddenly it says it's in queue. This backup will be interesting.

Maybe so many accounts got screwed up that you need 2 less delegate approvals....

Phew. Quorum.

Phew. Quorum.

Congrats, mate!

Congratulations for reaching quorum. I will not wish you luck however and my nation will oppose this repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Grumphlghmbt... I mean, err... congratulations

*Leaves the room muttering*

Congratulations!