NationStates Jolt Archive

A proposal by
http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)
UN DEFCON - We care more about your nation's security than you do

Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines"

Description: UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: 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,

EXPRESSING FAITH in Resolution #150, "UN Landmine Convention", in tackling 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".

This repeal will, if passed, strike out Resolution #40. For new players who aren't sure of what this means, this means this proposal would lift the present ban on landmines.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #40
Banning the use of Landmines
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Abrizza

Description: All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

Votes For: 14,603
Votes Against: 4,967
Implemented: Sat Dec 6 2003

Written by Gruenberg? Well, that's good enough for us.

However, having misplaced our own Official Seal of Approval, we've had to borrow Krusty the Klown's:

http://movietrailers.studiostore.com/images/p/SMP/pdBUSMP0004.jpg

Best of luck. If you need us, we'll be in the peanut gallery, cheering you on, and molesting this assembly's anti-landmine nitwits with hailstorms of spitballs. :cool:

hell yeah you should ban the landmines

hell yeah you should ban the landmines

Shh, no one tell him. Methinks he's gonna vote for :rolleyes:

Best of luck, Gruen. Unfortunately, Jey has yet to create an official seal of approval, so we'll just use this UN card

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/fluffie3tn.jpg

We'll just use this as our seal of approval.

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

The language all over this repeal frightens me. Most specifically, this section here:

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,

That non-UN member nations do not follow UN Resolutions is an extremely poor reason to remove legislation. Why have a UN if the UN is going to use non-members' inaction as a litmus test for the effectiveness of its own legislation?

This legislation based on fear is sickening. "The UN has to defend itself! Let's find more ways to kill other people!" Good Golly Miss Molly, what a bunch of xenophobic, war-mongering malarkey.

Beyond that, we're talking about land mines. These things kill more people post-hostilities than they do soliders during them. They are not that damn effective, especially in a time where smart weapons are becoming more and more common.

This repeal says that nations should be allowed to defend themselves with any means necessary (or something on par with that). Land mines are by no means necessary, or even worthwhile. There is much too large a potential for civilian casualty post-hostilities to allow them.

Another point raised was that mines could be placed around civilian population centers. I can think of no worse a place to put them. Will it stop enemy soldiers from advancing into them? Probably not. Will it effectively keep many civilians trapped inside? Probably. Is it likely that surrounding a city with landmines will cause civilian deaths during hositilities? I should think so. Is it likely that surrounding a city with landmines will cause civilian casualties even years after the hositilities? You betcha.

The UN should be an organization of nations trying to become less monstrous, and more civilized. If it continues to run away from weapons (people exploders/vaporizers/perforators/incinerators and other more painful sounding words to make my argument more persuasive) regulation, then it is doing nothing toward advancing humanity beyond primitivism.

Norderia votes no. Moving stuff over, "I once knew a man from Nantucket," and so on. .... When it goes to vote.

I had hoped while perusing your commentary of emotional claptrap that you would demonstrate how the original resolution actually bans these weapons you so abhor, and how it moves to "civilize" the "monsters" who (apparently) haunt these halls. And why, upon the moment that the United Nations endorsed an article (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737945&postcount=151) that actually would clear the minefields of member states, you opposed it.

Sadly, I was disappointed. And thus, I shall return to my post in the Fine Yeldan Peanut™ Gallery.

Rika stares at the repeal of Banning landmines in front of her and rubes her head. " Not another one all these repeals are hurting my head."Pulls out her red X stamped and stamps it many times oevr the repeal. " I vote NO on this." She places her own seal at the bottom of it then goes off to get drunk.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/Lucia_Daystar/destroyer.jpg

No.

The logic used in this argument suggests that we may as well repeal all UN Resolutions.

Can't we all just... get along?

That non-UN member nations do not follow UN Resolutions is an extremely poor reason to remove legislation. Why have a UN if the UN is going to use non-members' inaction as a litmus test for the effectiveness of its own legislation?
It's ok; you just don't understand the argument.

This isn't about non-UN members using landmines. It's about non-UN members not being held accountable for violation of human rights. If you are about to be invaded by a UN nation, you know they will have to treat your civilians and prisoners of war well - they are legally obliged to do so by Wolfish Convention, Civilian Rights Post War, and so on. If you are about to be invaded by a non-UN nation, you have no such guarantee.

Do you see the difference? And why repelling an invasion by people who have no legal obligation not to kill your children, rape your women, torture your soldiers, commit genocide, is a generally good idea?

This legislation based on fear is sickening. "The UN has to defend itself! Let's find more ways to kill other people!" Good Golly Miss Molly, what a bunch of xenophobic, war-mongering malarkey.
Ok, you clearly can't read. This proposal is the very antithesis of "war-mongering": it argues that by legalising the use of landmines, wars will be averted. Landmines are area-denial munitions - they deny an area. That area could be Gruenberg, Norderia, or wherever. Mine your borders, and an invasion is far less likely to happen.

If I wanted to promote war, I would write a more stringent landmine ban, because prohibitions on the military use of landmines always lead to a greater threat of conflict.

And what has xenophobia got to do with anything? :confused:

Beyond that, we're talking about land mines. These things kill more people post-hostilities than they do soliders during them. They are not that damn effective, especially in a time where smart weapons are becoming more and more common.
Please post the evidence for this assertion, or I will consider it retracted.

Besides, landmines are very effective at a certain thing: blocking ground invasions. Of course landmines are no defence against missiles; they're not designed to be. If you were moving forces through an area, would you march them through a minefield, yes or no?

This repeal says that nations should be allowed to defend themselves with any means necessary (or something on par with that). Land mines are by no means necessary, or even worthwhile. There is much too large a potential for civilian casualty post-hostilities to allow them.
So why not clear the landmines after the hostilities with the aid of the UN Demining Survey? Furthermore:

Scenario 1: Landmines are illegal. Non-UN nation invades Norderia. Mass genocide; millions of civilians die.

Scenario 2: Landmines are legal. Non-UN nation does not invade Norderia. Unfortunately, a few civilians do then die because Norderia doesn't clear its landmines.

Are you saying Scenario 1 is somehow preferable? That's just sick. Why do you hate children so much?

Another point raised was that mines could be placed around civilian population centers. I can think of no worse a place to put them. Will it stop enemy soldiers from advancing into them? Probably not. Will it effectively keep many civilians trapped inside? Probably. Is it likely that surrounding a city with landmines will cause civilian deaths during hositilities? I should think so. Is it likely that surrounding a city with landmines will cause civilian casualties even years after the hositilities? You betcha.
You are saying that enemy soldiers would a) be able and b) be willing to march through a minefield? Bullshit.

The UN should be an organization of nations trying to become less monstrous, and more civilized. If it continues to run away from weapons (people exploders/vaporizers/perforators/incinerators and other more painful sounding words to make my argument more persuasive) regulation, then it is doing nothing toward advancing humanity beyond primitivism.
Stirring, and astonishingly dumb, words. You haven't even read the repeal, have you?

I really don't like this repeal. The main purpose of a land mine is not kill a soldier, but to mangle them beyond the ability to fight. This means if they live through it, they more than likely will no longer have all their limbs. At least with a bullet, you have a chance of surviving fully intact.

There's also the fact that you're basically burying bombs fo someone to step on. Unless you tediously map the locations, you're bascally hoping someone you don't know will step and these. And if that bomb doesn't blow up, does it get retrieved? Most likley not. Sure they might search, after a civilian is blown up by it years later. Land mines are a barbaric, ineffective tool that no longer has a place in warfare.

To be honest, I'd rather avoid war all together, but that' unrealistsic. So Aduross shall do its best to bring wanton death to a minimum. Over and out.

I really don't like this repeal. The main purpose of a land mine is not kill a soldier, but to mangle them beyond the ability to fight. This means if they live through it, they more than likely will no longer have all their limbs. At least with a bullet, you have a chance of surviving fully intact.
Right. Landmines are scary. So you're not going to move your army through a minefield. Landmines are a form of deterrent weaponry.

And how exactly would you use bullets in the same manner as landmines? Apples and oranges.

There's also the fact that you're basically burying bombs fo someone to step on. Unless you tediously map the locations, you're bascally hoping someone you don't know will step and these. And if that bomb doesn't blow up, does it get retrieved? Most likley not. Sure they might search, after a civilian is blown up by it years later. Land mines are a barbaric, ineffective tool that no longer has a place in warfare.
Earlier, you said they were effective - you said they were very scary, so they would clearly work as area-denial weapons. Now they're ineffective? Which is it to be?

Furthermore, remember this? (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=149) You are required by law to map all landmines in your territory; there is ample facility for you to remove them. If you don't remove landmines, yes, they become a great danger to civilians - but that is your fault.

To be honest, I'd rather avoid war all together, but that' unrealistsic. So Aduross shall do its best to bring wanton death to a minimum. Over and out.
Gruenberg wishes to bring wanton death to a minimum, too. And we recognise that stopping invasions by people with no obligation to respect human rights is a good way of stopping such wanton death.

Let's not forget the main point against using landmines though - it's not always soldiers who get injured.

There are so many places in the world where civillians are killed or horribly injured in old mine fields that have never been cleared. As well as the humanitarian and moral argument against this happening, there is also the consideration of the additional cost of care provided to those civillians injured by landmines, and the compensation payable by the government for the injuries attained, or compensation to famies of thoise killed by landmines.

I do not agree with the argument that it is a deterrent to war - if some one wants to inade your country, they will surley just use foreign intelligence to find out where the mine fields are and enter the country at a different point.

All this "covert defence" mullarky is a very poor argument indeed, there is no real benefit to using landmines: When looking at the costs , both in humanitarian and monetary terms, they are a false economy.

Kaigan Miromuta, the Kirisuban Ambassador to the NSUN speaks up.

"Honoured members of the NSUN. My governement has considered both sides of the argument and has decided to cast their vote for the repeal.

Invasion is always a risk that a soverign nation has to bear in mind and landmines are another tool in a defence forces armoury just as missiles and bullets are.

as the honourable member from Gruenburg has already stated the UN demining people can clear up the mines after hostilities are over if they haven't already been cleared. Any military force thats organised will be keeping maps of their minefields so a clearup is not a problem in our eyes"

There are so many places in the world where civillians are killed or horribly injured in old mine fields that have never been cleared. As well as the humanitarian and moral argument against this happening, there is also the consideration of the additional cost of care provided to those civillians injured by landmines, and the compensation payable by the government for the injuries attained, or compensation to famies of thoise killed by landmines.
I agree. I agree so much, I wrote a resolution about it: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=149

I do not agree with the argument that it is a deterrent to war - if some one wants to inade your country, they will surley just use foreign intelligence to find out where the mine fields are and enter the country at a different point.
This is an interesting point, because many anti-defence bigots claim that you cannot always accurately locate landmines.

Furthermore, what if that is not an option? If the only way one can move troops into a country is through a particular pass or isthmus? If an invasion at a particular point has been prepared, as it is the only point to which supplies can be delivered? Obviously, I agree: if they can just walk round the minefield, landmines are useless. I'm arguing though that there are times when they cannot "just walk round" the minefield: what then?

All this "covert defence" mullarky is a very poor argument indeed, there is no real benefit to using landmines: When looking at the costs , both in humanitarian and monetary terms, they are a false economy.
Who used the phrase "covert defence"? I didn't; the repeal certainly didn't. What are you talking about?

There are so many places in the world where civillians are killed or horribly injured in old mine fields that have never been cleared.

This is true, but this was also why the UN passed Resolution #150 "UN Demining Survey." One of the arguments in the debate of resolution #150 (and in fact one of my arguments) is that Resolution #40 only prohibits the use of land mines in conflicts by UN member nations. Non UN nations who join the UN are not bound and may not be able to clear their existing mine fields.

Under resolution #150 Member states are reccomended to do the following:
- 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;

In addition resolution #150 states, "DECLARES the duty of member nations to reduce and, where possible, prevent civilian casualties in minefields"

Resolution #40 did little to prevent civilian casualties in old unmapped mine fields existing before member states became members of the UN. Of course it made a lot of people feel good, but that never stoped the maimed bodies. Likewise the repeal of #40 isn't going to cause any more civilian casualties.

I would like to state, prior to giving our analysis of the text of the proposed repeal, that we are in no way in principle opposed to the repeal of resolution #40. We view it as poorly written, weak and ineffective. Yet ultimately we wish to see a repeal followed by a strong replacement that will enshrine the principles of the resolution, without leaving excessive loopholes that require other resolutions to patch them up.

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,

And here our diagreements begin. If we allow members to exercise "to the fullest degree possible their ability to deter attack and invasion by non-U.N. nations", we risk encouraging the use of abhorrent methods of warfare. I fear that chemical and nuclear weapons would be considered a means under these circumstances and few of us I hope would wish to see them used. I understand the well-intentioned sentiment of those who hope to deter unscrupulous nations from attacking U.N. nations with terrible force, but let us consider the consequences of similar retaliation. If a nation is already known for its ruthlessness in warfare, then how would weaponary currently prohibited help in a fight against them. If anything, it would encourage even more brutality, as the aggressor nation would resort to even more violent and brutal means to subjugate and crush the resistance of the invaded nation. Furthermore, a landmine under the circumstances would be ineffective, as the superior military might of the invading nation would mean that a smaller, weaker nation would lack the resources necessary for prolonged conflict. Thus, it would be a facade of protection to permit the use of landmines under these circumstances, not a real deterrent.

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',

We always disliked that resolution anyway, but that's another story.

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,

I doubt this very much. How would a landmine prevent human rights abuses? It is a machine of destruction, if anything it would increase the risk of such abuses occurring. It was common practice for the RL S.S. during the RL Second World War to punish local civillians for the resistance of partisans and indeed any casualties suffered due to residual defence mechanisms (i.e. landmines). This punishment often entailed massacres. Equally, an invading army could use civillians as human shields and force them to march in front of invading forces and act as human mine detectors, with appalling consequences.

As for the deterrent factor, I feel that a nation of military might invading another nation would not be peturbed landmines. Methods of detection and suppression of landmines are sophisticated, increasingly so and as a fixed emplacement defence, if would be difficult to adjust landmines to take into account battlefield realities, or to avoid unnecessary civillian casualtiies. Therefore, they are a poor strategic defence. As a final note, we should not forget that a landmine is only as good as its manufacturer and should the design be faulty, it is as good as scrap metal and a waste of resources.

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,

One can bypass areas of denial, using air and aquatic means of transport. Equally, even if landmines were used to defend civillian areas, men would not be required to take a city or to inflict casualties. The result might well be that an invading force used artillery and aircraft to pound a target into submission, which would nullify the intention to reduce casualties amongst non-combattants.

EXPRESSING FAITH in Resolution #150, "UN Landmine Convention", in tackling the unfortunate potential of landmines to pose risk to civilians after the cessation of hostilities,

We concur and voted for this resolution, but only to accompany a strong anti-mine and landmine deterrent, not to replace the function embodied by resolution #40.

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".

Responsible deployment of landmines is an oxymoron. These are evil weapons, intended like most machines and mechanisms of war for the infliction of grievous harm. They do not necessarily kill, but frequently only maim, an even worse fate for the victim.

Let us not forget that in our good intentions, we herein stare into the abyss. We risk throwing away our humanitarian instincts to the spectre of fear and to line the pockets of arms dealers and the scum who make blood money through the trade of death. Let us not forget that as we stare into the abyss, so the abyss stares back at us. We would make monsters out of ourselves in our quest for safety and security and that, honourable delegates, is something I do not wish to see enshrined by the U.N.

Therefore, we oppose this resolution in principle and in conscience.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Allow me to build a bit upon what the esteemed delegate from Tzorsland had to say.

With the "ban" that is currently in place, the only time I cannot use landmines is during times of conflict. I am not currently in a state of conflict. Hypothetically speaking, of course, I could plant minefields a mile wide following my entire border. I might decide to be nice enough to allow one, or possibly two, open roads into and out of Kivisto for the purposes of travel and trade (although possibly not as people can catch a flight out anyways).

With such a scenario in place, and with large neon, radioactively glowing signs every 20 feet or so along the entirety of my nations borders, possibly also surrounding said minefields with razorwire and trenches, only the stupid, the suicidal, or the incompetent would even think of attempting land travel across that space. Invasion averted. Period. The only civilians that might wander into that space and get themselves injured or killed after all of the very obvious warning signs probably weren't doing much to help better the lot of the rest of Kivisto anyways.

I know you'll say that #1-that's an awfully callous way to look at the lives of your citizens; and #2-not everyone will put up such very obvious warnings around their minefields.

To these I respond quite simply.
#1 - We put drunk drivers to death in Kivisto. If you are stupid enough to wander into a clearly marked minefield, we might be better off without you. In short, we are a bit callous towards stupid.
#2 - The fact of the matter is that there is no reason why any UN nation, that is not currently in a state of conflict, cannot set up exactly the same minefield scenario. They don't need to go as far as I describe with the warnings, but the current landmine "ban" doesn't stop them from doing it at all.

The way I see it, you have two major choices. You either:

a) Approve of the use of landmines for whatever reason (deterrence, strategic usage, etc.) and will vote for this repeal so that you can use your landmines however you see fit.

OR

b) Abhor the very idea of landmines for whatever reason (civilian casualties, inhumane injuries, etc) and you would like to see a more comprehensive landmine ban put into place, and as such should vote for this repeal to make room for better legislation that might actually do something.

Love 'em or Hate 'em, get this repeal through and you'll be serving your own ends. Pretty simple.

Oskar Feldstein
Twisting the Master's Nipples with Forceps
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

And here our diagreements begin. If we allow members to exercise "to the fullest degree possible their ability to deter attack and invasion by non-U.N. nations", we risk encouraging the use of abhorrent methods of warfare.

I agree with you to some extent, but the context of the text (and the context of the general use of land mines) needs to be strongly considered. "deter attack and invasion" is generally a defensive action (although some might try to argue pro-active attacks as "defense") and thefore is carried out on the nation's own soil.

Few nations would be willing to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on their own soil. (Traditionally those who did had the nasty habit of not thinking all of their population were true citizens of their own nation, a completely different problem which neither this resolution nor its repeal can address.) Land mines, on the other hand are a major defensive weapon system and are used on a nation's home soil.

Moreover repeal text can never set precident for anything. The only thing a repeal can do is repeal. Nothing more.

These are evil weapons, intended like most machines and mechanisms of war for the infliction of grievous harm. They do not necessarily kill, but frequently only maim, an even worse fate for the victim.



Just out of curiousity, how would you define a holy (or not evil) weapon. Would it have to be blessed? Cuz I can get some priests to work on my mines at any time. Or would it have to be a weapon that was not intended to cause any form of bodily or psychological harm to another living being.

OH WAIT. Then it wouldn't be a weapon.

I agree with you to some extent, but the context of the text (and the context of the general use of land mines) needs to be strongly considered. "deter attack and invasion" is generally a defensive action (although some might try to argue pro-active attacks as "defense") and thefore is carried out on the nation's own soil.

Few nations would be willing to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on their own soil. (Traditionally those who did had the nasty habit of not thinking all of their population were true citizens of their own nation, a completely different problem which neither this resolution nor its repeal can address.) Land mines, on the other hand are a major defensive weapon system and are used on a nation's home soil.

Moreover repeal text can never set precident for anything. The only thing a repeal can do is repeal. Nothing more.

My concern about unconventional weaponary is that if pushed to the point of desperation, a nation might use weapons such as those you mentioned, which could have disastorous ramifications for their citizenry.

As for the precedent issue, we were concerned that the text of the repeal was an indication that a replacement would not be sought by the writer and a committment to writing a replacement is a key condition of our support for these types of resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Just out of curiousity, how would you define a holy (or not evil) weapon. Would it have to be blessed? Cuz I can get some priests to work on my mines at any time. Or would it have to be a weapon that was not intended to cause any form of bodily or psychological harm to another living being.

OH WAIT. Then it wouldn't be a weapon.

Evil is a subjective term, thus there exists scope for disagreement. My main concern is that many weapons are far too broad in their intended usage or in their effects, that rather than being to a maximum possible extent efficient, they are intended to prolong the agony of the victim, whoever it may be (civillain or soldier). I personally find weapons where this is the specific intent of the designer to be, potentially, evil weapons. That is why I used the term.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Having served in Afghanistan for over 9 months, I have seen the results of what a landmine can do to a child. They are NOT pretty. Do I feel that they could be employed so that they serve as a barrier to outside forces, yes. However, this would only serve the best of purposes if all of the populace had a map showing where they were located. Otherwise, there are needless deaths and dismemberments of your own people. While some military forces have the capability of detecting where they are, the civilians normally do not. The question to ask is what is the real purpose, to keep invaders out or your own people in? I say put up security fences/walls and do away with the land mines.

Schwamie
President of Zarfland :)

The question to ask is what is the real purpose, to keep invaders out or your own people in?
The former. It says right there:

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,

But would you concede that the latter is a distinct possibility?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Landmine Monitor identified over 6,521 new landmine/UXO casualties in calendar year 2004, including at least 1,262 children (19 percent) and 239 women (four percent). [3] Twenty-five percent of the reported casualties were identified as military personnel.http://www.icbl.org/lm/2005/intro/survivor.html

So, one could deduce that, while landmines do protect ones borders from agressors, 75% of all injuries relating to the use of land mines will come from civilians.

http://www.icbl.org/lm/2005/intro/survivor.html

So, one could deduce that, while landmines do protect ones borders from agressors, 75% of all injuries relating to the use of land mines will come from civilians.
1. Clear them (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=149).
2. One cannot calculate a statistic for the number of lives saved by landmines.

All right, let's think about this. The repeal takes away the ban on Landmines correct? The repeal doesn't say that you HAVE to use landmines in order to defend your nation. I don't understand why there is so much fuss over this. Yeah you might not want landmines to be abundant in the world right now, but you will if you are attacked. You can also choose where to put the landmines in your country. Where would i put them? Around my military bases where civilians have no need to be and no business to be. If a neighboring nation chooses to use landmines and you don't then what does that tell you about how that neighboring nation thinks of you? If the landmines in your neighboring nation are affecting trade then I don't think it would be a good idea to trade with that neighboring nation at all. Did I vote for it? Heck yes I did. I am secure in the knowledge that my fellow region members value my trade and my favorable opinion of them. I won't use landmines, they wont use landmines, but that little UN nation that nobody knows about that is being attacked right now needs them. And I'm thinking about him.
parge73
Live To Die

2. One cannot calculate a statistic for the number of lives saved by landmines.
According to a 1996 Red Cross study, tited "Antipersonell Landmines: Friend or Foe of the Military," military experts examining 26 wars where anti-personnel mines were used concluded that mines did not lead to a strategic advantage in war.

All right, let's think about this. The repeal takes away the ban on Landmines correct? The repeal doesn't say that you HAVE to use landmines in order to defend your nation. I don't understand why there is so much fuss over this.

Some of us sir, concern ourselves with matters outside our own borders, using the quality of empathy.

Yeah you might not want landmines to be abundant in the world right now, but you will if you are attacked. You can also choose where to put the landmines in your country. Where would i put them? Around my military bases where civilians have no need to be and no business to be. If a neighboring nation chooses to use landmines and you don't then what does that tell you about how that neighboring nation thinks of you?

The nation may be arming itself for completely different reasons, your suggestion would require an assumption of permanant suspicion, which would not be condusive to good international relations. Equally, doesn't this rather contradict your point about there being no compulsion to arm oneself?

If the landmines in your neighboring nation are affecting trade then I don't think it would be a good idea to trade with that neighboring nation at all.

Economically this may not always be possible.

Did I vote for it? Heck yes I did. I am secure in the knowledge that my fellow region members value my trade and my favorable opinion of them. I won't use landmines, they wont use landmines, but that little UN nation that nobody knows about that is being attacked right now needs them. And I'm thinking about him.
parge73
Live To Die

"That little U.N. nation" is going to become the victim of even more vicious and ruthless methods of attack if it resorts to landmines in the face of hostility. The little U.N. nation requires alliances, collective security and mediated negotiation agencies, not belligerence and an encouragement to engage in the arms race.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The reason behind unbanning land mines is because of non UN members and the threat of war... If anyone read the FAQ's they would know that there is no war in NationStates. This new resolution is nonsense.

No war (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1230), huh?

These are evil weapons, intended like most machines and mechanisms of war for the infliction of grievous harm.Your landmines are sentient?

Rivvidia does not believe that having marginally increased defensive capabilities are worth the pain and suffering that generations of its citizens will be subjected to by landmines. Landmines, once placed, can be close to impossible to clear because of altering wartime geography, and the growing instability of the device over time. Rivvidia strongly opposes the proposal to repeal safeguards of human life, both of Rivvidia and other civilian populations.

I cannot in good conscience vote to allow production and use of weapons that kill indiscriminately. We cannot allow ourselves to be so paranoid of our neighbors that we endanger our own peoples. We can also not afford to sink to the level of those that would use such weapons against us. Please join me voting to keep the ban of such barbaric weapons.

No.

The logic used in this argument suggests that we may as well repeal all UN Resolutions.

And that would be a bad thing????:p

Well, landmines obviously kill people and we can't have that. The UN stands for the protection of our people in a united front. Like, isn't thaat what the UN is all about? The operation and deploration of landmines must be stopped and this is our best, and probably only, chance.

Arsenist, Leader of Lusunia

I am glad to see this repeal up for vote, as I am also glad to thank Gruen, and those who took part in the drafting and TG'ing to get it this far. I wish to offer my supprt for this repeal, as the ban does Jack-shit, pardon my French. I heartedly concur with the seniments of the esteemed delegate of Kivisto. As a UN member I am now obligated by law to have detailed maps of my minefields(we had them before, but they were not for UN perusal). My minefields are clearly marked(although in The Antarctic Oasis I find mauading bands of Kamikazi Penguins to be a better deterrent to hostile forces). Furthermore, should I wish I can call on the offices of the UN to help me remove the mines. I see no need for a landmine ban, with the current Demining Convention in place.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

According to a 1996 Red Cross study, tited "Antipersonell Landmines: Friend or Foe of the Military," military experts examining 26 wars where anti-personnel mines were used concluded that mines did not lead to a strategic advantage in war.
I'm against landmines but I wonder how objective this examination was. It was done for the Red Cross after all so I can imagine that it was biased.

Anyways, personally I think that a tight military co-operation and the will to support any UN country against possible invaders is much more effective in scaring off potential invaders.

But would you concede that the latter is a distinct possibility?
No. There's little point using landmines to contain civilians: they're too expensive to waste, when barbed wire will do the job just as well. They are however useful for stopping more heavy-duty forces, with the capability of bombing clear barbed wire. Like, ooh...armies?

Some of us sir, concern ourselves with matters outside our own borders, using the quality of empathy.
Yes. Which is what I'm doing. Gruenberg is actually not in great danger of invasion at this point in time: keep it up with this high-handed moral superiority shit, and Compadria just may be. But you know what? Even now I'm thinking of the Compadrian citizens, and Compadria's ability to defend itself. Ain't I cute.

The nation may be arming itself for completely different reasons, your suggestion would require an assumption of permanant suspicion, which would not be condusive to good international relations. Equally, doesn't this rather contradict your point about there being no compulsion to arm oneself?
"Permanent suspicion" certainly is not conducive to good international relations.

So you agree we should trust nations to use landmines responsibly?

"That little U.N. nation" is going to become the victim of even more vicious and ruthless methods of attack if it resorts to landmines in the face of hostility. The little U.N. nation requires alliances, collective security and mediated negotiation agencies, not belligerence and an encouragement to engage in the arms race.
War is a fact of life. I don't like it any more than you do. I'd love to see war eradicated, all weapons destroyed, humanity frolicking in goat-filled fields of joy. But it is not going to happen, at least not yet. And being prepared for the fact that, ultimately, shit happens, is the duty of every responsible nation. I'd bet Compadria has social welfare systems, because sometimes people use their jobs. I'd bet Compadria has meteorological stations, because sometimes storms destroy bridges.

And yet Compadria doesn't feel that nations should be able to defend themselves? Landmines don't facilitate any kind of arms race - in fact, the major technological innovations engendered by the development of landmines have been devices to remove them. That's a bad thing? Shame on you Otterby.

The reason behind unbanning land mines is because of non UN members and the threat of war... If anyone read the FAQ's they would know that there is no war in NationStates. This new resolution is nonsense.
OOC: You are wrong. Nations can roleplay wars - in them, they could well use landmines.

Rivvidia does not believe that having marginally increased defensive capabilities are worth the pain and suffering that generations of its citizens will be subjected to by landmines. Landmines, once placed, can be close to impossible to clear because of altering wartime geography, and the growing instability of the device over time. Rivvidia strongly opposes the proposal to repeal safeguards of human life, both of Rivvidia and other civilian populations.
When nations who have no legal obligation to treat your prisoners of war, hell, your civilians, as anything more than rats are skipping across your borders, you'll come back and say that you're the ones safeguarding rights?

Ok, I'm going to write this in bold, so people read it!

Civilians being killed by landmines is baaad. But you know what? Civilians being killed AT ALL is bad. Landmines have the potential, in certain situations, to act effectively as area-denial munitions. They can, in such situations, SAVE civilian lives.

I cannot in good conscience vote to allow production and use of weapons that kill indiscriminately. We cannot allow ourselves to be so paranoid of our neighbors that we endanger our own peoples. We can also not afford to sink to the level of those that would use such weapons against us. Please join me voting to keep the ban of such barbaric weapons.
Firstly, the present resolution doesn't ban the weapons. It bans their use in one specific scenario. Gruenberg has dozens of legal minefields right now. What ban? By voting against the repeal, you are ensuring this ghost of a resolution cannot be replaced. Nice going, sport.

But furthermore, I'm going to reiterate: a weapon is not "evil". Killing civilians is evil. Go away, read the repeal, and come back and tell me why my argument fails. Otherwise, you're just messing around.

Well, landmines obviously kill people and we can't have that. The UN stands for the protection of our people in a united front. Like, isn't thaat what the UN is all about? The operation and deploration of landmines must be stopped and this is our best, and probably only, chance.
I'm going to assume you're joking.

After quickly glancing at the repeal *before using it for more impotant issues ;) * i have decided that the repeal should take a hike for main reason if the bad guys want to destroy a village or city then there are a lot better ways to destroy the village or city then to walk in there and burn it down for example they could

Drop a couple of 2,000 pound bombs on it
Hit it with month long artillery barrages
Drop lots of pyrotecnichs on it
Or if they can just do this one then they can just Nuke the bastard

so there you have that is why i think the repeal should not be pased :cool:

CJL']so there you have that is why i think the repeal should not be pasedWow. Just... wow...

The logic used in this argument suggests that we may as well repeal all UN Resolutions.
And that would be a bad thing????:pWell, at least you are being honest.

This repeal, like so many lately have nothing to do with a strong cooperative of nations, and everything to do with the undermining, of that august, but threatened body, the UN.


Jim Jones,
Ex-oficio High Poobah
Rubina

Well, at least you are being honest.

This repeal, like so many lately have nothing to do with a strong cooperative of nations, and everything to do with the undermining, of that august, but threatened body, the UN.
How is giving UN member states greater power to defend themselves "undermining...the UN"?

How is giving UN member states greater power to defend themselves "undermining...the UN"?

I think I can answer that

Simply The UN placed a ban on landmines and now by trying to undermine the ban in essence i tis undermining the UN

First, I see allowing the use of landmines not so much as giving member states greater means of defending themselves (there are much better ways to do that than use of landmines), rather it gives the manufacturers of artificial limbs an unnecessary government subsidy.

Second, there is a balance of power between member nations as a group and that of member nations singly. Although being able to shred soldiers' legs with little danger to one's own army certainly "empowers" the individual nation willing and capable of doing so, it reduces the power of the group to say "no" to a means of warfare that (despite our pretty little maps) will most certainly take the legs and arms and eyes of noncombatants.

Third, rather than saying "Nation X is nonUN and they use landmines, so we should be able to as well", better to work to bring those nations either into the UN or to accept separate agreements not to use landmines.

This resolution is akin to cutting your nose off because "everyone" else appears to be doing so.

Jim Jones
Rubina

While it's true that they can be cleared, governments are not legally forced to do so. They don't even have to set up clear markings if I read the other resolution correctly. Your attitude of "if the government doesn't take the responsibility to clear the mines, too bad, so sad for the citizens" makes me question how much you really care about foreign civilians. It's not just civilians I worry for, it's also soldiers who are caught by these things. Ally or enemy, it's still a very cruel method of war.

As for evil land mines, while an inanimate object may not have morals, the intent to not kill, but maim a human being beyond repair is something I call "evil."

Now reading the resolution to be repealed, I'm almost considering voting for the repeal and waiting for an improved ban to be written. Either way, I'd rather the use of land mimes be illegal. Over and out.

Prime Minister of Aduross
Ark Ducious

Rivvidia believes that the use of landmines in its defensive efforts to be frivolous (a part of its stance on the issue), as its military budget could better be used;

1. To purchase AA guns to destroy military aircraft
2. To purchase AT rockets to destroy military armor
3. To purchase tall fences to dissuade the use of infantry in the first place

Again, the ban of landmines is a safeguard on human life to all civilians and the military personnel of Rivvidia, something that is of the same importance now as it will be decades into the future.

As for evil land mines, while an inanimate object may not have morals, the intent to not kill, but maim a human being beyond repair is something I call "evil."Landmines have no intent. They are incapable of intent. Enough personification.

Rivvidia believes that the use of landmines in its defensive efforts to be frivolous (a part of its stance on the issue), as its military budget could better be used;

1. To purchase AA guns to destroy military aircraft
2. To purchase AT rockets to destroy military armor
3. To purchase tall fences to dissuade the use of infantry in the first place

Again, the ban of landmines is a safeguard on human life to all civilians and the military personnel of Rivvidia, something that is of the same importance now as it will be decades into the future.


Mate, if there is no minefield keeping the troops away from the "really tall fences", the fences will soon be rubble. I shall illustrate...
Firstly my mortar, Artillery units, and Ma Deuce units are going to law down a cover fire, to keep your troops well away from the fence.
Secondly, my combat engineers, or other specially trained demolition soldiers are going to approach the fence with shaped C-4 charges, or bangalore torpedoes, and set the charges to take out a section of fence..
Lastly, When the charges goes off, my pissed off soldiers, with armor and air support, are going to yell their primordial War-Cry(or at least yell HOOAH!!!), and charge through the breech in your lines, thus invading your territory.
Bottom line... Fences on their own won't work.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

According to a 1996 Red Cross study, tited "Antipersonell Landmines: Friend or Foe of the Military," military experts examining 26 wars where anti-personnel mines were used concluded that mines did not lead to a strategic advantage in war.

OOC: The Red Cross is against the use of land mines. They couldn't possibly have doctored (no pun intended) those statistics, though, could they? And since when is the Red Cross an expert on military strategy?

OOC: The Red Cross is against the use of land mines. They couldn't possibly have doctored (no pun intended) those statistics, though, could they? And since when is the Red Cross an expert on military strategy?
Since about the same time as the diplomats of the United Nations, one would surmise...

Mate, if there is no minefield keeping the troops away from the "really tall fences", the fences will soon be rubble. I shall illustrate...
Firstly my mortar, Artillery units, and Ma Deuce units are going to law down a cover fire, to keep your troops well away from the fence.
Secondly, my combat engineers, or other specially trained demolition soldiers are going to approach the fence with shaped C-4 charges, or bangalore torpedoes, and set the charges to take out a section of fence..
Lastly, When the charges goes off, my pissed off soldiers, with armor and air support, are going to yell their primordial War-Cry(or at least yell HOOAH!!!), and charge through the breech in your lines, thus invading your territory.
Bottom line... Fences on their own won't work.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Rivvidia wishes never to roleplay a war with you, nor any war at all. Rivvidia used such an example to give a general reply to a previous remark on its position. Rivvidia does not change its position, nor its comments.

A nation SHOULD have the option and ability to defend its terrority from invasion, using any and all means at its disposal, this includes the use of Landmines.

My nation supports the effort to Repeal Resolution #40 in the upcoming UN vote.

Imperial Leader
The Kingdom of Skalds

Landmines have no intent. They are incapable of intent. Enough personification.

But we like sentient landmines. A sentient landmine could be taught to only kill enemies and not civilians... unless they all decided to rebel and help the enemy instead.

Galloism supports this repeal.

Landmines have no intent. They are incapable of intent. Enough personification.
That isn't what I meant and you know it. The intent of the person who uses the land mine is to mangle the victim, sometimes killing them. I find that evil, or at least morally wrong. Either way, it's a silly thing to argue over and isn't the point. Let's drop it.

Frowning St. source: OMGTKK 'may not return to UN'

PARADISE CITY (Town Crier) -- Amidst growing concerns about the United Nations' "maturity level of late," a high-placed Frowning Street source says the Federal Republic may not return to the international body as a full member, even if a substantial global anti-terror -- er, "counterterrorism" resolution is adopted.

"I had a meeting with the president to discuss the matter, but he wouldn't stop trying to look down my top," said the source, who demanded to be called "Peter Puffer." "He is concerned, as am I, that the UN has not redeemed itself against its widely held image in our nation as an inconsequential (to use the president's word) 'pissfest.'

"And when a nation that once attacked the Eternal Kawaii with catnip and Ashlee Simpson because it thought the otaku were stealing nuclear secrets from exploding penguins thinks you're immature, you know you got a problem."

Omigodtheykilledkenny withdrew from the United Nations in February following the defeat of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which the government deemed a critical component of its own global anti-terror campaign. It has since opened (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474194) a UN mission in the Dictatorial Anarchy of Mark Tom and Travis (DAMMiT), promising to return as a full member when the organization finally passes an anti-terror bill.

But the prospects for that appear to be dimming, according to "Peter Puffer": "I finally granted the Cluichstani sheik a diplomatic meet-and-greet the other day -- he's been demanding one for months -- and I told him the Fernanda Administration is very disappointed at many recent UN decisions, notably the defeats of AFTA and the repeal of a hydrogen powered whatever dealy, and the 'reasoning' behind those actions," said the source. "Then he tried to feel me up, and asked if I wanted to party with him and a few of his special 'agents,' so I left."

A reporter asked if she thought she was blowing her (umm, or "his") cover by including so many personal details in her accounts, but she waved off such concerns with her hand. "Now if you'll excuse me, I have to break a tie vote in the Senate," she said. "By the way, I may be have been elected to serve directly under the president (stop laughing!), but I'm totally out of the loop, so you may not want to include any of this stuff in your article."

Officials say the administration is especially alarmed at "arguments" being lodged against the UN resolution currently at vote: a repeal of what many deem an obselete and unenforceable landmine ban that has been on the books since 2003.

"The ambassadors' words are hurting our troops overseas," said President Fernanda ("the Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico") during a Frowning Street news conference Sunday. "Assertions that member states should not be permitted to employ effective weapons against a bloodthirsty enemy demoralize our fighting men and women, and raise questions as to whether the Federal Republic really should return to their, ahem, 'hallowed' halls. We can't belong to a body that wishes to tie our troops' hands in the midst of battle."

The president echoed "Peter Puffer's" sentiments about the UN's maturity. "It's time the world's leaders stopped acting like arrogant little pissants and start behaving as responsible diplomats," he said.

Asked a reporter: "By 'responsible diplomats,' you mean ... ?"

"Exactly the opposite of how I act all the time," Fernanda finished his sentence. "Thank you, counselor."

"I'm not a lawyer," the reporter corrected him.

"Shut the fuck up!" fumed the Destructor. "You are so banned!!"

The subject came up during a Sunday late-night Federal Assembly session, as lawmakers debated a bill to renew anti-terror aid for the Misbehaving Sultanate of Cluichstan.

"The Fernanda Administration is threatening our national security by snubbing the international community over petty things such as auto trade and landmines," said Assemblywoman Shirley Jackson, L-Nessie Ice Shelf. "And it threatens our national security when it continues to associate with sleazy sheiks who sell our nation's secrets to the highest bidder."

"I'll thank the lady from Nessie Ice Shelf to stop questioning others' commitments to our nation's security until she apologizes for assaulting a federal security officer with her cell phone," responded Harry Thornstrom, C-Chocolate Salty Balls Is. "And to stop peddling her ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Cluichstani ambassador to OMGTKK selling secrets (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36&view=findpost&p=1998151) about our military-grade natives to the Tzorslanders. And preposterous stories about them employing hookers as secret agents!"

"I'd just like to state for the record that the incident the gentleman refers to was instigated by the inappropriate stopping and touching of me, a female black assemblywoman," replied Jackson, referring to recent accusations that she assaulted a federal security officer.

"Oh, for fuck's sake! Not this shit again!" Thornstrom shot back. "What does your being black or female have to do with anything?"

"When people are stopped by police based on their race--"

"Oh, shut up already, Assemblywoman!"

"You shut up!"

"Make me!"

"Maybe I will!!"

Jackson then lunged at Thornstrom, proceeding to jab him with her cell phone.

Mate, if there is no minefield keeping the troops away from the "really tall fences", the fences will soon be rubble. I shall illustrate...
Firstly my mortar, Artillery units, and Ma Deuce units are going to law down a cover fire, to keep your troops well away from the fence.
Secondly, my combat engineers, or other specially trained demolition soldiers are going to approach the fence with shaped C-4 charges, or bangalore torpedoes, and set the charges to take out a section of fence..
Lastly, When the charges goes off, my pissed off soldiers, with armor and air support, are going to yell their primordial War-Cry(or at least yell HOOAH!!!), and charge through the breech in your lines, thus invading your territory.
Bottom line... Fences on their own won't work.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Why do it the hard way just send in a F/A 18 Hornet with a MOAB that will do the job

CJL']Why do it the hard way just send in a F/A 18 Hornet with a MOAB that will do the jobMaybe because an F/A 18 can't carry a bloody MOAB?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary, Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Maybe because an F/A 18 can't carry a bloody MOAB?
My mistake i apologise

Why use landmines when beefen up the security forces should do it.

we need landmines or else how are we gonna protect our borders from annoying salesmen and the ever presisting religious people who come and talk to you for 2 hours and wont leave you alone land mines were ment to deal with those problems so we wouldnt have to so thats why i say not to ban them beside we could also make some money selling tickets to the andrenalin junkies who like to take thrills by having a run through the minefield race with a good healthcare package prize to the losers of course

What a way to start off my United Nations voting record the first voting act for my Nation was to vote against the repeal of Banning the Use of Landmines i believe at this is the bedrock prinicple in lower the rate of deaths among the cilivian poplulation

I suggest the author of the above examines his principles and the importance of land mines in the eternal war against terrorists; they won't show us mercy, we're just returning the favor.

No. There's little point using landmines to contain civilians: they're too expensive to waste, when barbed wire will do the job just as well. They are however useful for stopping more heavy-duty forces, with the capability of bombing clear barbed wire. Like, ooh...armies?

Landmines can be bombed clear too, using pressure bombs which can trigger most activation mechanisms of landmine devices. As another point, why would you even want to contain civillians if you're planning on protecting them? Could you clarify your point here, I'm not sure I quite understand it.

Yes. Which is what I'm doing. Gruenberg is actually not in great danger of invasion at this point in time: keep it up with this high-handed moral superiority shit, and Compadria just may be. But you know what? Even now I'm thinking of the Compadrian citizens, and Compadria's ability to defend itself. Ain't I cute.

I don't view the encouraging of the use of landmines as "using the quality of empathy". What you are encouraging is military madness, resorting to tactics which (regardless of the efforts of the Demining Survey Resolution), dramatically increase risk to civillian life and healthy, restrict economic reconstruction post-conflict and offer little viable protection against an invading army. Compadrian citizens thank you for your concern, but not for your proposed methodology.


"Permanent suspicion" certainly is not conducive to good international relations.

So you agree we should trust nations to use landmines responsibly?

My point was that we should not assume, unless we have strong evidence to the contrary and having exhausted all peaceful means, that a nation's actions should be countered by being on a permanant war footing.

War is a fact of life. I don't like it any more than you do. I'd love to see war eradicated, all weapons destroyed, humanity frolicking in goat-filled fields of joy. But it is not going to happen, at least not yet. And being prepared for the fact that, ultimately, shit happens, is the duty of every responsible nation. I'd bet Compadria has social welfare systems, because sometimes people use their jobs. I'd bet Compadria has meteorological stations, because sometimes storms destroy bridges.

Yes and Compadria has a fire service, because fires happen and armed services because war happens. But that's not the point. We must take pro-active (there, you've made me use a word I otherwise despise) steps to encourage a culture of peace, not run around promoting suspicion and panic. Yes there are ruthless, psychotic nations out there, but ramping up the military budget isn't going to help. Ultimately, we should be providing means to avoid tensions building up in the first place and legalising the use of landmines won't help. Besides, to use your analogy, you reinforce a bridge so that if a storm is coming, it won't be damaged as much as it would otherwise, without reinforcement.

And yet Compadria doesn't feel that nations should be able to defend themselves? Landmines don't facilitate any kind of arms race - in fact, the major technological innovations engendered by the development of landmines have been devices to remove them. That's a bad thing? Shame on you Otterby.

Straw man argument. I never said we opposed national defence, just that I don't feel that peace, international security or national defence will be strengthened by their use. Additionally, use of weapons of such horrendous, indiscriminate nature is morally repugnant to us, there are better, more effective means of national self-defence than this and only half involve war-linked methods. Shame on you Mr Bausch for promoting sham solutions to such a sensitive issue.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Why use landmines when beefen up the security forces should do it.

Landmines are a lot cheaper.

lift it!

The Protectorate of Fordington cannot support this resolution, as it feels that, despite its full support for the defence of national borders from both members and non-members of the UN, landmines are not an effective solution to this end. Fordington specifically feels that the immovable structure of landmines does not give leeway for either the altering of borders, or for future adjustments in the use of the surrounding land. Despite being a widely used method of border defence in the past, the positive effects of landmines in defending a nation from increasingly rare land-based attack are far outweighed by the permanancy of such minefield structures, which may be left behind long after a hostile situation has passed, and the negative effects on civilian life this entails.

In light of this, Fordington urges all member states to vote down this resolution, and consider far more effective and modern methods of border defense.

CJL']I think I can answer that

Simply The UN placed a ban on landmines and now by trying to undermine the ban in essence i tis undermining the UN
No, "the UN" didn't place a ban. The member nations of the UN voted in a ban. The UN is nothing without its members; its authority cannot be undermined by a repeal.

First, I see allowing the use of landmines not so much as giving member states greater means of defending themselves (there are much better ways to do that than use of landmines), rather it gives the manufacturers of artificial limbs an unnecessary government subsidy.
Nice rhetoric, really. Total shit, but still. If I wanted to help artificial limb manufacturers, why would I write a resolution about clearing landmines?

Furthermore, artificial limb manufacturers no doubt turn a pretty penny doing business with nations whose citizens have had their limbs hacked off by marauding invaders who had no legal obligation to treat them as humans, let alone respect their human rights.

And if there is a better way, provide it. So far several people have raised this point, yet I don't see any alternatives to landmines being offered.

Second, there is a balance of power between member nations as a group and that of member nations singly. Although being able to shred soldiers' legs with little danger to one's own army certainly "empowers" the individual nation willing and capable of doing so, it reduces the power of the group to say "no" to a means of warfare that (despite our pretty little maps) will most certainly take the legs and arms and eyes of noncombatants.
I do not understand what this means, but it all sounds lovely.

Here is a red ball to play with: http://www.arcadeshop.com/pics/3-inch-red-translucent-ball.jpg

Third, rather than saying "Nation X is nonUN and they use landmines, so we should be able to as well", better to work to bring those nations either into the UN or to accept separate agreements not to use landmines.
Read the repeal. Point to me the part where I mention non-UN nations using landmines.

You suck at reading comprehension. I'm not saying "Non-UN nations use landmines"; I'm saying "Non-UN nations are not obliged to respect human rights". If you're invaded by a UN nation, you can at least be sure your citizenry will be treated with respect, and granted certain rights. You have no such guarantee with an invasion by a non-UN nation, and as such it is reasonable to give UN nations every capability to deter such an invasion.

While it's true that they can be cleared, governments are not legally forced to do so. They don't even have to set up clear markings if I read the other resolution correctly. Your attitude of "if the government doesn't take the responsibility to clear the mines, too bad, so sad for the citizens" makes me question how much you really care about foreign civilians. It's not just civilians I worry for, it's also soldiers who are caught by these things. Ally or enemy, it's still a very cruel method of war.
What I find fucking sick is that in all of this, there's an assumption that there are "nice" ways of dying. Being split apart by a machine gun, blinded by mustard gas, shredded by a cluster bomb - these are all lovely, huh, but landmines are really bad? Being killed is bad, whichever way it's done - am I the only one to recognise this?

And furthermore, civilians can be killed if you don't use landmines. "People die" is not an answer. Address my argument, not the soapbox crowd.

As for evil land mines, while an inanimate object may not have morals, the intent to not kill, but maim a human being beyond repair is something I call "evil."
I'm not interested in maiming anyone. Landmines are a deterrent. The clue's in the word really: deterrent. They deter an invasion. People do not walk through landmines, precisely because they've heard the same emotional hyperbolous bullshit as you have. We all know landmines have nasty effects; that's why they work.

Now reading the resolution to be repealed, I'm almost considering voting for the repeal and waiting for an improved ban to be written. Either way, I'd rather the use of land mimes be illegal. Over and out.
I am so so close to revamping Allemande's ban on bayonets right now.

Rivvidia believes that the use of landmines in its defensive efforts to be frivolous (a part of its stance on the issue), as its military budget could better be used;
You don't have to use landmines. All you have to do is conceive of possibilities - maybe not in Rivvidia, but elsewhere - where they are effective.

3. To purchase tall fences to dissuade the use of infantry in the first place
Which would be ripped to shreds by a swift bombing campaign. Soldiers can clamber through debris easily enough. Demining a minefield takes much more time and effort, prohibitively so.

Again, the ban of landmines is a safeguard on human life to all civilians and the military personnel of Rivvidia, something that is of the same importance now as it will be decades into the future.
You haven't answered my question, so I'll ask it again: if a country was invaded, that could have deterred that invasion using landmines, and the civilian populace massacred, would you still hold yourself as the righteous guard of human life?

Rivvidia does not change its position, nor its comments.
I'd noticed. However, you can at least expand your position to answer my fucking question.

That isn't what I meant and you know it. The intent of the person who uses the land mine is to mangle the victim, sometimes killing them.
No. It's. Not. The intent of the person who uses the landmine is to prevent the "victim" mangling and killing their own citizens.

Why use landmines when beefen up the security forces should do it.
Newsflash: using landmines is part of beefening up security forces.

What a way to start off my United Nations voting record the first voting act for my Nation was to vote against the repeal of Banning the Use of Landmines i believe at this is the bedrock prinicple in lower the rate of deaths among the cilivian poplulation
Well, start again - this time by actually reading the repeal! If civilian deaths should be avoided, why shouldn't landmines be used to prevent such tragedies?

Landmines can be bombed clear too, using pressure bombs which can trigger most activation mechanisms of landmine devices. As another point, why would you even want to contain civillians if you're planning on protecting them? Could you clarify your point here, I'm not sure I quite understand it.
I didn't understand yours either, to be honest. You asked if landmines could be used to contain civilians - I suggested that was unlikely.

I don't view the encouraging of the use of landmines as "using the quality of empathy". What you are encouraging is military madness, resorting to tactics which (regardless of the efforts of the Demining Survey Resolution), dramatically increase risk to civillian life and healthy, restrict economic reconstruction post-conflict and offer little viable protection against an invading army. Compadrian citizens thank you for your concern, but not for your proposed methodology.
I'm not "encouraging the use of landmines"; I'm attempting to permit their use.

Your hot air is all very nice - I could use it to make a pot of tea at the rate you're going - but you're not actually demonstrating to me why landmines are ineffective, and what the alternatives are.

My point was that we should not assume, unless we have strong evidence to the contrary and having exhausted all peaceful means, that a nation's actions should be countered by being on a permanant war footing.
Whatever.

You agree we should trust nations to use landmines responsibly?

Yes and Compadria has a fire service, because fires happen and armed services because war happens. But that's not the point. We must take pro-active (there, you've made me use a word I otherwise despise) steps to encourage a culture of peace, not run around promoting suspicion and panic. Yes there are ruthless, psychotic nations out there, but ramping up the military budget isn't going to help. Ultimately, we should be providing means to avoid tensions building up in the first place and legalising the use of landmines won't help. Besides, to use your analogy, you reinforce a bridge so that if a storm is coming, it won't be damaged as much as it would otherwise, without reinforcement.
Right. And landmines can prevent war starting. Do you not understand that? Do you not see that armies will not march through minefields, that they can be directed away from civilian areas? If I wanted to promote war, the first thing I would do would be to ban all deterrent weaponry.

You, sir, are a servant of conflict. Do you perhaps have a chair on the board of governors of some armaments firm?

Straw man argument. I never said we opposed national defence, just that I don't feel that peace, international security or national defence will be strengthened by their use. Additionally, use of weapons of such horrendous, indiscriminate nature is morally repugnant to us, there are better, more effective means of national self-defence than this and only half involve war-linked methods. Shame on you Mr Bausch for promoting sham solutions to such a sensitive issue.
Provide the alternatives. You keep saying they exist: what are they?

And landmines are no more "indiscriminate" than barbed wire.

In light of this, Fordington urges all member states to vote down this resolution, and consider far more effective and modern methods of border defense.
Such. As. What!?

If someone actually provides one of these more effective methods, I'll gladly throw my weight behind defeating this repeal. So far, no one has though.

Wyvern Falls supports this resolution, as long as enforcement of Resolution 150 is continued. In our eyes, resolution 40 and 150 are mutually exclusive- since #150 was passed more recently, it stands to reason that the majority of UN members agree that landmines are necessary, and #40 should be dropped.

In light of this, Fordington urges all member states to vote down this resolution, and consider far more effective and modern methods of border defense.

Like what? Telletubby guards?

http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg
"You shall not pass."

I'm against landmines but I wonder how objective this examination was. It was done for the Red Cross after all so I can imagine that it was biased.
OOC: What? I'd hardly describe the Red Cross as the most politically motivated organisation. Their concern is, y'know, cutting down on that whole death thang.

Landmines should be allowed as a defensive weapon. Landmines should not be banned except when the design is specificly oriented to a delivery means that could project their capability beyond ones borders, such as by artillery or aircraft.

OOC: The Red Cross is against the use of land mines. They couldn't possibly have doctored (no pun intended) those statistics, though, could they? And since when is the Red Cross an expert on military strategy?
OOC: My God, what's with all this insane paranoia about the Red Cross? Doctoring statistics? Who'd you think they are, the reincarnation of Goebbels?

OOC: My God, what's with all this insane paranoia about the Red Cross? Doctoring statistics? Who'd you think they are, the reincarnation of Goebbels?

OOC: I'm just saying it's not as though the Red Cross is exactly impartial here.

While it's true that they can be cleared, governments are not legally forced to do so. They don't even have to set up clear markings if I read the other resolution correctly. Your attitude of "if the government doesn't take the responsibility to clear the mines, too bad, so sad for the citizens" makes me question how much you really care about foreign civilians. It's not just civilians I worry for, it's also soldiers who are caught by these things. Ally or enemy, it's still a very cruel method of war.

As for evil land mines, while an inanimate object may not have morals, the intent to not kill, but maim a human being beyond repair is something I call "evil."

(...)

Prime Minister of Aduross
Ark Ducious
War IS cruel and incapicipating a soldier instead of killing him is a highly effective method since it binds a lot of resources. So, no I cannot accept that as an argument.

I agree with you about the civilian aspect though. Even if a nation is truly trying to restrict the use of landmines to designated areas then there is still the chaos factor that comes with any war. It is simply too tempting to use those cheap and admittetly effective devices which is why I think that it would be better if they were banned forever and without any exception.

Besides, shouldn't the UN try to be a role model? I think it has been said before that many non members would look at us and use this resolution as a justification for themselves. So, while I think that it is perfectly justified to bring terror and pain over enemy combatants I must also say that it is not right to endorse a weapon that has such a high potential to bring the same terror upon civilians and that even long after a war is over.

But let me come back to those UN Nations who are trying to do their best to employ landmines in an ethical way. I respect their worries, their concerns and their wish to defend themselves against a possible invasion from their neighbours, but I find it sad that they do obviously lack the confidence that the UN will help them if they should become the victim of such an attack. Instead of allowing such nations to rely on mines I would rather suggest a resolution that would garuantee any UN nation full military support in a case of defense. With that I mean no talk, no negotiations with an invader but an immediate full blown counterstrike!

Talks about moral are nice but only the knowledge that the UN would provide full blown military support can give a nation the necessary confidence to surrender the use of landmines. New Arpad would definetly support such an initative.

OOC: I'm just saying it's not as though the Red Cross is exactly impartial here.
OOC: Hmm. Don't think I agree and, besides, impartial => doctoring? But anyway.

IC:

The frank exchange of views between Messrs Bausch and Otterby has been by some distance the most compelling aspect of this debate. Both raise valid and thought-provoking points, albeit in rather contrasting ways. Speaking of which, would someone be so kind as to check Mr Bausch's blood pressure? I fear for his health should he continue with his fulminations.

So, where does Ecopoeia stand? Well, we believe that there is an extra consideration that has thusfar been overlooked: that, while insubstantial in its effect, the original resolution does have value as a statement of principle. It is not alone in this regard; many resolutions are effectively ethical or moral statements. Some may argue that these are unnecessary on account of delivering little in the way of tangible results, but if we look at constitutions, mission statements, etc, we see that statements of principle are all around us. They declaim, loud and clear, that we take an ethical stand on a point of contention. They are valuable in their expression of our humanity.

Despite this, I am not yet minded to commit myself and my people to defending the resolution. Too many concerns linger - Mr Bausch's apopleptic outbursts have at least delivered some fruit. In short, Ecopoeia is currently abstaining and I and my Deputy will be following this discussion with keen interest.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

OOC: What? I'd hardly describe the Red Cross as the most politically motivated organisation. Their concern is, y'know, cutting down on that whole death thang.
And that is the point. The incapacipation of enemy soldiers is a valid and highly effective tactic in a war since it binds more enemy resources than a clean killing would. I simply doubt that the Red Cross is willing to accept that though.

I mean, I am against landmines because they are too cheap and too easy to abuse, but I also think that killing or even better incapacipating enemy soldiers is a valid military strategy. If we want nations to give up the use of landmines then we will have to offer an acceptable alternative though.

And that is the point. The incapacipation of enemy soldiers is a valid and highly effective tactic in a war since it binds more enemy resources than a clean killing would. I simply doubt that the Red Cross is willing to accept that though.

I mean, I am against landmines because they are too cheap and too easy to abuse, but I also think that killing or even better incapacipating enemy soldiers is a valid military strategy. If we want nations to give up the use of landmines then we will have to offer an acceptable alternative though.
OOC: OK, I get you.

OOC: Hmm. Don't think I agree and, besides, impartial => doctoring? But anyway.
OOC: I don't think the Red Cross "doctored" statistics. However:
1. In war, above all else, NS differs from RL.
2. However accurate they have attempted to be, the statistics for lives saved by landmines are necessarily hypothesised: no side can claim accuracy on them.

IC:
So, where does Ecopoeia stand? Well, we believe that there is an extra consideration that has thusfar been overlooked: that, while insubstantial in its effect, the original resolution does have value as a statement of principle. It is not alone in this regard; many resolutions are effectively ethical or moral statements. Some may argue that these are unnecessary on account of delivering little in the way of tangible results, but if we look at constitutions, mission statements, etc, we see that statements of principle are all around us. They declaim, loud and clear, that we take an ethical stand on a point of contention. They are valuable in their expression of our humanity.
That is all very well, Miss - ooh, sorry, "Ms" - Chakrabarti, but in a sense, it's not what we're discussing here. We admit that Resolution #40 is by no means a comprehensive landmine ban; we're not overly bothered if the repeal fails, so simple is it to circumvent. However, you must appreciate that at the same time this repeal is a symbolic statement. It is not a ruling on the barbarism of landmines; it is not a ruling on the appalling tragedy of civilian casualties in minefields. It is a statement that it is the duty of responsible nations and their governments to prepare for unfortunate eventualities - such as invasion by non-UN nations.

We can author all the progressive legislation in the world, but we must accept it stops at our borders, and has no effect no three-quarters of the world. Attempts to solve this, such as Humanitarian Intervention and UN Biological Weapons Ban, have ended in abject failure or mass resignation.

We are in rare accord: civilian casualties are bad. But we must accept they are bad whether caused by landmines, or by occupying forces, or however. At times, we must however grimly perform a kind of mathematics, and postulate that if landmines kill a thousand children, but save a nation of millions, then perhaps that horrific sacrifice is, no less tragic or unfortunate, but somehow worth stomaching.

Frowning St. source: OMGTKK 'may not return to UN'

*SNIP!*

The Cluichstani government's response (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36&st=30&#last).

There has been a great deal of discussion on both sides already and I've honestly lost track of who has said what on either side (OOC: Easter weekend, bunch of family stuff, sorry).

While it has already been mentioned in this debate, and I myself pounded this point over and over again in the previous repeal attempt, I still feel that this is worth repeating. WHAT BAN? We're essentially attempting to repeal a piece of useless paper with no practical value to it whatsoever. Yes it was well intended and some have said that it serves as a very nice, what was the phrasing, something like "statement of intent", but by passing a 'statement of intent' into legislation instead of waiting for a real resolution that might have had some effect of the world, we have nullified any chance of actually improving the situation by putting proper law into place to properly cover the landmine situation.

There are those who will oppose any out and out attempt to ban landmines, but that should be the fight of another day, when such legislation is on the table for debate. Let us, if we may, look at the actual value of what's up for vote. It's a repeal. To HELL with the wording! It's irrelevant fluff there to make you think about it, and completely unnecessary. What is relevant is the actual resolution being repealed. Look at it. Read it. Think long and hard about it. Realize that this legislation has been sitting on the books for some time now gathering dust and doing nothing. We can't use landmines during times of conflict. That's spectacular. During times of conflict, I'll stick to mobilizing my ground, air, and naval forces and making sure that everyone on my side is fully aware of where all of our minefields (legally planted during peacetime) are currently situated.

The current landmine "BAN" is absolute bunk, and needs to go.

If you feel that there should be a better resolution regarding landmines on the way before you vote for the repeal, then write one. Realize that the author quite possibly has other things to do the he feels are higher in his priority list than that right now. You hate landmines, we get that. Write something to get on the books so that everyone will have to abide by that because what is currently there is NOT going to do the trick.

LANDMINES ARE BAD! Fine. If you really feel that way, read the above paragraph, take care of that business before responding further in this thread. If this is something that bothers you that greatly, spend your efforts trying to rectify the situation instead of bogging down this debate defending a useless piece of legislation.

Whatever your reasons are, realize that the only way to truly improve the landmine situation at this point has to start with a repeal of UNR#40, and vote accordingly.

Oskar Feldstein
Basking in the Master's Glowing Loins
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Like what? Telletubby guards?

http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg
"You shall not pass."
Better yet, inflatable Gandalfs.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

That is all very well, Miss - ooh, sorry, "Ms" - Chakrabarti, but in a sense, it's not what we're discussing here. We admit that Resolution #40 is by no means a comprehensive landmine ban; we're not overly bothered if the repeal fails, so simple is it to circumvent. However, you must appreciate that at the same time this repeal is a symbolic statement. It is not a ruling on the barbarism of landmines; it is not a ruling on the appalling tragedy of civilian casualties in minefields. It is a statement that it is the duty of responsible nations and their governments to prepare for unfortunate eventualities - such as invasion by non-UN nations.

We can author all the progressive legislation in the world, but we must accept it stops at our borders, and has no effect no three-quarters of the world. Attempts to solve this, such as Humanitarian Intervention and UN Biological Weapons Ban, have ended in abject failure or mass resignation.

We are in rare accord: civilian casualties are bad. But we must accept they are bad whether caused by landmines, or by occupying forces, or however. At times, we must however grimly perform a kind of mathematics, and postulate that if landmines kill a thousand children, but save a nation of millions, then perhaps that horrific sacrifice is, no less tragic or unfortunate, but somehow worth stomaching.
I'll clarify that my commentary on statements of principle was intended as an additional point of debate rather than a central factor in our final decision (as and when it is made). Essentially, we are not yet persuaded by your grim mathematics to endorse a practice that we find abhorrent. In order to endorse your symbolic statement of duty, we need to be convinced that this is indeed a lesser evil; that the consequences of nations lacking a landmine defence are as direful as you claim them to be.

LC

We could roll a tank division into Ecopoeia as a demonstration...

"As I have seen it, both sides have been arguing for either the thesis or the antithesis. Why do we not come together and create a synthesis of our ideas? Both points (landmines being effective and a danger to civilians) are true. This being said, we should not take away the right of a nation to implore tactics in its own self-defence. Observing this side, there have been gross abuses and a high proliferation of the use of the landmine. Why not the U.N., instead of only having black and white sides, consider a new proposal? That of allowing the use of landmines for defence purposes, only when a country is invaded. To try and minimize civilian death, the U.N. create a board to moniter the use and production of land mines, and have the ability to deploy a small taskforce to clear any known minefields in a postwar situation (knowing the location thanks to resolution #150). Let this idea be an introduction of compromise, seeing the credability of both sides. For now, Monkey Fights votes to repeal the ban for the sake of soveriegn defence, but hopes a comproimse surfaces quickly."

Monkey Fights U.N. Rep,
Nigel Darwin

That of allowing the use of landmines for defence purposes, only when a country is invaded.Then what's really the point of deploying landmines to prevent invasion?

To try and minimize civilian death, the U.N. create a board to ... deploy a small taskforce to clear any known minefields in a postwar situation (knowing the location thanks to resolution #150).Don't know how much of #150 you actually read, but UNDS already does this; clearing minefields is rather the point of UNDS.

It's a little too late to start laying minefields once you've already been invaded.

Nigel Darwin shuffles to the podium with an embarrased look on his face as heckles sound from the other delegates:

"It seems I have spoke without full knowledge of past resolutions. After studying resolution 150, I understand what I have proposed has been done. This being said, I would like to clear up previous statements. When it was said minefeilds should be used when a country was invaded, it should have been stated more clearly as mines should be used to prepare against an invasion, as well as defence of cities and other key areas during a war. The U.N. should not prevent a nation from establishing a proper self-defence. Resolution 150 (face becomes red) provides ample resources for relief of war torn and mine infested regions. Monkey Fights remains in favor of repealing the ban on the use of landmines."

I support the current ban on landmines.

If you look at what terrible damage the unrestricted use of landmines has done in the Real World, for example in Afghanistan by the Russians and the Falklands by Argentina, in the Balkans and other areas.

Land mines are a very serious problem in the world today and any attempt to support that is completely bogus.

I aghast at the prospect of legalizing landmines. It's like trying to use logic to defend torture and genocide. You can use any logic you want, but you will still be committing war crimes.

I aghast at the prospect of legalizing landmines. It's like trying to use logic to defend torture and genocide. You can use any logic you want, but you will still be committing war crimes.
Not true. Genocide in self-defence can be ruled legal by The Pretenama Panel.

If genocide can be allowed, why not a few landmines?

genocide in self defense ? ? ? That's a completely ludicrous statement.

No no no, I can never agree to anything that to me is morally corrupt like landmines, genocide, or any of that, especially in an UN dialogue.

Then what is the point of a UN anyway? It's pretty pointless now granted, let's make it more pointless!

I think we have pretty differing views of what NS is about.

Genocide is the oppression and extermination of a nearly helpless opponent, by an armed opponent. You can't have a genocide if your opponent is equally armed can you?

Maybe in terms of some NS roleplay you are doing it might make twisted sense. ... but now in any sort of real world application, it never happens.

Then again, if it could that's hardly self defense, unless you are throwing nukes around, at that point what's the point of land mines?

--histrionic waffle--
Article 1:Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.
§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.
§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.
§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations.
§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

OOC: And yes, of course this is a consideration of NS roleplay.

We could roll a tank division into Ecopoeia as a demonstration...
You'd have to have the appropriate naval/air force facilities.

You'd have to have the appropriate naval/air force facilities.

And we do, of course. ;)

I didn't understand yours either, to be honest. You asked if landmines could be used to contain civilians - I suggested that was unlikely.

I was stating that it was a possibility, one that I feel is likely. All one has to do is lay a significant number of landmines around an inhabited area, declare a state of emergency as a rational and voila, you have used landmines as a means of civillian containment. I feel it is all too possible.

I'm not "encouraging the use of landmines"; I'm attempting to permit their use.

Your hot air is all very nice - I could use it to make a pot of tea at the rate you're going - but you're not actually demonstrating to me why landmines are ineffective, and what the alternatives are.

Oh please, you are encouraging their use with your long rhapsodies on how wonderful landmines are as a means of reducing civillian casualties and combatting invasions. What conclusions are we supposed to draw?

Whatever.

You agree we should trust nations to use landmines responsibly?

Re-read my post, I've given my position on this already.

Right. And landmines can prevent war starting. Do you not understand that? Do you not see that armies will not march through minefields, that they can be directed away from civilian areas? If I wanted to promote war, the first thing I would do would be to ban all deterrent weaponry.

Nonsense, landmines merely make any conflict nastier and more indiscriminate. You are deluding yourself if you believe they can be used for the protection of civillians, they will merely lead to increased civillian casualties and increase the risk of reprisals against civillian populations in war-zones. Your logic about deterrents is curious: Are you saying the fewer weapons that are in existence, the more likely a war is?

You, sir, are a servant of conflict. Do you perhaps have a chair on the board of governors of some armaments firm?

Angry jeers and various profane and anatomically impossible suggestions are directed at Bausch by members of the Compadrian diplomatic staff, including the Deputy Ambassador, Anthony Holt. Otterby merely smiles thinly.

Sir, I would advise you check your blood pressure soon, I fear it is reaching medically dangerous levels. You have accused us of hot air and now I see that you resort to hyperbole and libellous hyperbole at that, in order to try and get your points across. We are deeply opposed to arms trafficking and view the restriction and elimination of weapons such as landmines as a means of making conflict more humane (despite your disengenous logic to the contrary) and reducing it in the first instance.

Provide the alternatives. You keep saying they exist: what are they?

And landmines are no more "indiscriminate" than barbed wire.

We mentioned non-violent alternatives in previous posts, now let us list military ones. Covert sabotage, guerilla warfare, spreading of rumours so as to undermine enemy morale, increase in military spending on conventional weaponary, appeals to international alliances for assistance, usage of natural landmarks to trap enemy forces, scorched earth tactics (as a last resort), etc.

And barbed wire tends not to blow your limbs off, not to mention being more visible than landmines.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

And we do, of course. ;)
Plus the ability to negotiate your way through the armed forces of Tavast-Carelia, Svea Riga, East Hackney, New Paristan, etc, all of whom have a declared interest in protecting the Alcaerin Ocean and Alcaeran airspace.

Well, this matters not a jot as we both know the likelihood of such a scenario is very small. Rest assured that we will take full advantage of the absence of anti-terror legislation to gain revenge for any hostile acts made on your nation's behalf, my dear Sheikh.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN [OOC: there's no way Lata would be so foolhardy!]

I was stating that it was a possibility, one that I feel is likely. All one has to do is lay a significant number of landmines around an inhabited area, declare a state of emergency as a rational and voila, you have used landmines as a means of civillian containment. I feel it is all too possible.
Why bother? Surely a bit of barbed wire, a tall wall or something, would contain civilians.

Oh please, you are encouraging their use with your long rhapsodies on how wonderful landmines are as a means of reducing civillian casualties and combatting invasions. What conclusions are we supposed to draw?
That I think landmines are useful in certain circumstances.

Re-read my post, I've given my position on this already.
Humour me. How is your lack of trust in nations using landmines not engendering that terrible "permanent suspicion"?

Nonsense, landmines merely make any conflict nastier and more indiscriminate. You are deluding yourself if you believe they can be used for the protection of civillians, they will merely lead to increased civillian casualties and increase the risk of reprisals against civillian populations in war-zones. Your logic about deterrents is curious: Are you saying the fewer weapons that are in existence, the more likely a war is?
Please back up your assertions.

And as to deterrence: I'd answer "no" to your question, but at the same time expect you to recognise that as irrelevant. Deterrence is only one part of military strategy; you're surely not denying, though, that it is a part?

Angry jeers and various profane and anatomically impossible suggestions are directed at Bausch by members of the Compadrian diplomatic staff, including the Deputy Ambassador, Anthony Holt. Otterby merely smiles thinly.

Sir, I would advise you check your blood pressure soon, I fear it is reaching medically dangerous levels. You have accused us of hot air and now I see that you resort to hyperbole and libellous hyperbole at that, in order to try and get your points across. We are deeply opposed to arms trafficking and view the restriction and elimination of weapons such as landmines as a means of making conflict more humane (despite your disengenous logic to the contrary) and reducing it in the first instance.
Eliminating deterrent weaponry only makes conflict more likely. The only thing that is stopping the Gurglestani filth to Gruenberg's north-west from invading us is their fear of our mined borders. A more comprehensive ban would undoubtedly make war a certainty for us.

Occasionally, pacifism has to be forged in steel.

Covert sabotage, guerilla warfare, spreading of rumours so as to undermine enemy morale, increase in military spending on conventional weaponary, appeals to international alliances for assistance, usage of natural landmarks to trap enemy forces, scorched earth tactics (as a last resort), etc.
This is essentially a "no shit Sherlock" scenario. Most of these tactics seem to us eminently reasonable, and would be used alongside mining operations. Because what you must accept is that none of these can possibly be guaranteed to help. The enemy has good counter-intelligence agents, strong morale, good defences against conventional weaponry, the country is isolated and disadvantaged, geographically or diplomatically. Then what? Furthermore, your emphasis on costly white elephants of war reveals your real agenda: to cripple economically developing nations, who cannot afford such expenditure.

As to your assertion that scorched earth tactics would prove less damaging in the long-run to the civilian populace and environment, I am just shaking my head in bemusement.

Why bother? Surely a bit of barbed wire, a tall wall or something, would contain civilians.

The possibility exist nevertheless, I wasn't commenting on its likelihood, merely that it might under some circumstances occur.

Humour me. How is your lack of trust in nations using landmines not engendering that terrible "permanent suspicion"?

It's reasonable to be at the very least somewhat uneasy or to have queries if a neighbouring nation suddenly engages in a re-armament programme. "Permanant suspicion" was meant to evoke a state of constant paranoia surrounding the activities of other states, regardless of their intentions, to the point where it interferes in diplomacy and normal diplomatic relations.

Please back up your assertions.

Back up yours first.

And as to deterrence: I'd answer "no" to your question, but at the same time expect you to recognise that as irrelevant. Deterrence is only one part of military strategy; you're surely not denying, though, that it is a part?

But it's the most important part. No-one wants to fight a war inside their own borders, regardless of military readiness or other factors.

Eliminating deterrent weaponry only makes conflict more likely. The only thing that is stopping the Gurglestani filth to Gruenberg's north-west from invading us is their fear of our mined borders. A more comprehensive ban would undoubtedly make war a certainty for us.

Calling the Gurglestani filth probably hasn't helped your position. Besides, the Gurglestani could invade elsewhere, or use covert military tactics to avoid your minefields, or engage in terrorism, or any number of military tactics that would make minefields, if not redundant, of diminished use. I suggest you follow Coldplay's suggestion and "talk" with your Gurglestani neighbours first, offer them a good deal on fiscal transactions. Money is the quickest way to any nation's heart.

Occasionally, pacifism has to be forged in steel.

We prefer the beating into ploughshares approach.


This is essentially a "no shit Sherlock" scenario. Most of these tactics seem to us eminently reasonable, and would be used alongside mining operations. Because what you must accept is that none of these can possibly be guaranteed to help. The enemy has good counter-intelligence agents, strong morale, good defences against conventional weaponry, the country is isolated and disadvantaged, geographically or diplomatically. Then what? Furthermore, your emphasis on costly white elephants of war reveals your real agenda: to cripple economically developing nations, who cannot afford such expenditure.

Which is why avoiding being in a position of military jeopardy is important. Equally, how are mines cheaper? You would have to render large areas of the nation useless to any commercial activity and mass production of effective mines can't exactly be cheap for that little developing nation you seem so keen to protect.

As to your assertion that scorched earth tactics would prove less damaging in the long-run to the civilian populace and environment, I am just shaking my head in bemusement.

That's why I said as a last resort. Anyway, mines are hardly better in this regard, because scorched earth heals, whilst a mine remains lethal for many more years.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I suggest you follow Coldplay's suggestion and "talk" with your Gurglestani neighbours first, offer them a good deal on fiscal transactions.
OOC: I thought you were going to suggest assaulting the Gurglestani with loudspeakers blaring out Coldplay at high volume. Victory assured!

Who's Coldplay?

Who's Coldplay?

OOC: British light-rock group, "Talk" is a single off their latest album.

The possibility exist nevertheless, I wasn't commenting on its likelihood, merely that it might under some circumstances occur.
Yes you were:
I was stating that it was a possibility, one that I feel is likely.

It's reasonable to be at the very least somewhat uneasy or to have queries if a neighbouring nation suddenly engages in a re-armament programme. "Permanant suspicion" was meant to evoke a state of constant paranoia surrounding the activities of other states, regardless of their intentions, to the point where it interferes in diplomacy and normal diplomatic relations.
There's no suddenness about it; Gruenberg's been producing landmines for years. And from where I'm standing, your rants about the evil landmines appear to be verging on the paranoid.

Back up yours first.
Oh, it is on.

But here goes:

1. Landmines are nasty. You know this, I know this, you can be sure as fuck military commanders know this.
2. They're so nasty, you wouldn't dream of marching an army through a minefield.
3. They can be laid in locations that promote tactical (diverting enemies away from civilian settlements, into exposed areas, etc.) or strategic (simply deterring invasion) goals.
4. Demining is a lengthy, intensive process. Dropping a daisy cutter on a barbed wire fence is not.
5. Hence, landmines can repel harmful force movements.
6. If properly marked (and perhaps chained off with some of this magical barbed wire fence stuff), and then cleared using the services of the UNDS, of which you were so previously enamoured, the risk to civilians is minimal.

Your turn.

But it's the most important part. No-one wants to fight a war inside their own borders, regardless of military readiness or other factors.
Ok, I am truly baffled. I was arguing in favour of deterrence; you appear to be agreeing with me.

Calling the Gurglestani filth probably hasn't helped your position.
But they are filth. They're racially impure.

Besides, the Gurglestani could invade elsewhere, or use covert military tactics to avoid your minefields, or engage in terrorism, or any number of military tactics that would make minefields, if not redundant, of diminished use. I suggest you follow Coldplay's suggestion and "talk" with your Gurglestani neighbours first, offer them a good deal on fiscal transactions. Money is the quickest way to any nation's heart.
Why would we give money to a nation that despises us? They'd only spend them on weapons to attack us with. It's precisely because Gurglestan's so poor a ground invasion is their only option

OOC: If you ever make suggestions based on Coldplay again...well, I wouldn't want to be you...

Which is why avoiding being in a position of military jeopardy is important. Equally, how are mines cheaper? You would have to render large areas of the nation useless to any commercial activity and mass production of effective mines can't exactly be cheap for that little developing nation you seem so keen to protect.
There are price estimates for simple landmines in the £5-30 region.

That's why I said as a last resort. Anyway, mines are hardly better in this regard, because scorched earth heals, whilst a mine remains lethal for many more years.
Scorched earth tactics generally include things like deforestation, the effects of which can echo on in soil pollution and other harmful consequences for centuries. A landmine can be removed, at any point; land which has been subjected to scorched earth will take many years to recover.

OOC: British light-rock group, "Talk" is a single off their latest album.

Never heard of them. ;)

There's no suddenness about it; Gruenberg's been producing landmines for years. And from where I'm standing, your rants about the evil landmines appear to be verging on the paranoid.

Paranoia? Not at all, I view landmines as weapons of evil methodology and manufacture. In what way is this paranoid?

Oh, it is on.

But here goes:

1. Landmines are nasty. You know this, I know this, you can be sure as fuck military commanders know this.
2. They're so nasty, you wouldn't dream of marching an army through a minefield.
3. They can be laid in locations that promote tactical (diverting enemies away from civilian settlements, into exposed areas, etc.) or strategic (simply deterring invasion) goals.
4. Demining is a lengthy, intensive process. Dropping a daisy cutter on a barbed wire fence is not.
5. Hence, landmines can repel harmful force movements.
6. If properly marked (and perhaps chained off with some of this magical barbed wire fence stuff), and then cleared using the services of the UNDS, of which you were so previously enamoured, the risk to civilians is minimal.

Your turn.

1). Landmines are limited tactically speaking because they are subject to numerous assumptions about enemy strength (i.e. technical prowess relating to disarming booby traps left behind, mobility and rapid troop redeployment, etc). They are liable to be outflanked and avoided, unless you ring your entire nation with landmines, which...

2). They are economically disadvantageous, ringing a nation with minefields denies areas for economic usage of value, denies them for settlement and generally makes them useless for anything other than blowing things up for a long period of time.

3). Demining may be lengthy, but it limits your own maneouverability too. Imagine, the enemy is on the run, yet your own minefields get in the way. What a shame.

4). They are dangerous to civillians (self-explanatory).

5). They are dangerous to your own troops.

6). You're seriously suggesting that you spend wartime marking out your own minefields. Wow, way to advertise their location to your enemies.

7). Horrendous reprisals (i.e. walking civillians across minefields to clear them) may be done by an invading army as punishment to the civillian population for deploying landmines. Congratulations, you've successfullly abetted and aided mass murder.


Ok, I am truly baffled. I was arguing in favour of deterrence; you appear to be agreeing with me.

We both agree, I just don't think landmines are a good deterrent.


But they are filth. They're racially impure.

Wow, enlightened stuff.


Why would we give money to a nation that despises us? They'd only spend them on weapons to attack us with. It's precisely because Gurglestan's so poor a ground invasion is their only option

Think of it as a way of making it pointless to attack you.

OOC: If you ever make suggestions based on Coldplay again...well, I wouldn't want to be you...

Looks like I'll have to go back to "Square One" on this.


There are price estimates for simple landmines in the £5-30 region.

Multiply that by several thousand. Still cheap for our little developing nation?

Scorched earth tactics generally include things like deforestation, the effects of which can echo on in soil pollution and other harmful consequences for centuries. A landmine can be removed, at any point; land which has been subjected to scorched earth will take many years to recover.

Oh really...

Demining is a lengthy, intensive process.

Ouch, poleaxed by your own argument Moltan my dear boy.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Paranoia? Not at all, I view landmines as weapons of evil methodology and manufacture. In what way is this paranoid?
Because you're personifying as "evil" an inanimate object.

1). Landmines are limited tactically speaking because they are subject to numerous assumptions about enemy strength (i.e. technical prowess relating to disarming booby traps left behind, mobility and rapid troop redeployment, etc). They are liable to be outflanked and avoided, unless you ring your entire nation with landmines, which...
Actually, you're the one making assumptions. If I know certain things about the enemy forces, that indicate they would be vulnerable to landmines, then it stands to reason to use them. Obviously, if they're not appropriate, then there's no sense using them.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand. Landmines are not "outflanked". They are avoided, though. That is a good thing, because it means you know where your enemy will be compelled to move through. That means you can:
1. Protect sensitive areas.
2. Funnel troops into an area where you have the tactical advantage.

2). They are economically disadvantageous, ringing a nation with minefields denies areas for economic usage of value, denies them for settlement and generally makes them useless for anything other than blowing things up for a long period of time.
Ringing your entire nation with landmines would be pretty stupid. Why oh why did I suggest doing that? Oh, wait, I DIDN'T.

If you don't understand how landmines are used, that's fine. Just don't base your arguments on your scattershot knowledge.

3). Demining may be lengthy, but it limits your own maneouverability too. Imagine, the enemy is on the run, yet your own minefields get in the way. What a shame.
We planted them; we know where they are. Furthermore, you're know making what seem to me to be tactical judgments. Yes, in certain scenarios, landmines would be counter-productive. But at the same time, your whole argument depends on the fact that that's not a tactical judgment to be made by the field officer. Why not?

4). They are dangerous to civillians (self-explanatory).
So is being invaded (self-explanatory - or at least I had assumed it was, an assumption not being borne out by voting trends).

5). They are dangerous to your own troops.
So, Einstein, is being invaded!

And every weapon poses a danger to others. Cars never crash? Rifles never jam? Fuck, people never trip over assault courses? Come on. You are making an exception for landmines: why?

6). You're seriously suggesting that you spend wartime marking out your own minefields. Wow, way to advertise their location to your enemies.
There are two answers here:
1. Yes. It doesn't matter if the enemy knows where they are. In some ways it's good: that's the point of deterrence, isn't it? Furthermore, it's not like they'll just zippp demine it like that. That takes time. I don't recall that being integral to many Blitzkrieg plans.

2. No. It's perfectly possibly to take accurate readings of landmine locations, leave them unmarked, and store that information secretly. Then, when war is over, you can put the signs up.

7). Horrendous reprisals (i.e. walking civillians across minefields to clear them) may be done by an invading army as punishment to the civillian population for deploying landmines. Congratulations, you've successfullly abetted and aided mass murder.
As have you by denying nations legitimate defences. You realize you are talking about the exact same behaviour that this repeal is trying to stop?

Besides, "they'll retaliate" is a pretty shit argument. If we shoot them, they'll shoot our civilians. Ban guns!

We both agree, I just don't think landmines are a good deterrent.
You'd march your army through a minefield?

Wow, enlightened stuff.
It's no more than those dirty animals deserve.

Think of it as a way of making it pointless to attack you.
Right. Because nobody has ever turned their weapons on the guys who paid for them.

OOC: Who trained Bin Laden? Hussein? Tomorrow's tin-pot dictator? And who did they attack? Oh yeah...

Multiply that by several thousand. Still cheap for our little developing nation?
Um...yes. Several thousand, perhaps a few million, dollars is not a lot at all in the scheme of defence budgets. You're saying developing other conventional arms can compete? Sorry, landmines are cheap as dirt.

Oh really...

Ouch, poleaxed by your own argument Moltan my dear boy.
You're muddling timeframes. My description of demining compared it to the speed of battle - in which taking out weeks to demine definitely is lengthy. Scorched earth land isn't going to recover in weeks.

I'm failing to see any poleaxing.

There are plenty of other weapons that can deter an enemy attack. Land mines are a method, however they are more dangerous to civilian populations than other weapons and remain in countries even after the fighting stops.

To concur with Kievenhoff, and to add that personifying inanimate objects as "evil" is perfectly legitimate if they are created solely to cause death, as it is a rhetorical flourish that seems pertinent to the subject matter.

In response to the idea of being invaded as a synonym to the civilian deaths resulting from landmines, Rivvidia would like to point out that even the most drawn out invasions rarely last the same length of time as the effect of landmines on the civilian populace.

To concur with Kievenhoff, and to add that personifying inanimate objects as "evil" is perfectly legitimate if they are created solely to cause death, as it is a rhetorical flourish that seems pertinent to the subject matter.
Missiles are created to cause death. Are they evil? If no, shut up. If yes, should they be banned? If no, then clearly being evil is irrelevant. If yes, then I think I'm done "debating" with you.

Although the Protectorate of Fordington was previously against the resolution, on the grounds that land-mine technology was outdated, through further research, our nation has found new mine technology that alleviates these concerns. Fordington directs all member-states to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/heider.pdf[/URL] which outlines research into a new "smart-mine." Although our Department of defense have not had active experience in the development program, senior officials feel that the human control of detonation (read cited document for details) would eliminate the element of civilian threat, and the "self-healing" system (again, read cited document) would ensure easy removal of minefields if so needed.

If possible in the NationStates United Nations structure, Fordington would wish to propose an amendment to the resolution that would only allow the use of "smart" mines in border-defense minefields, to ensure that concerns surrounding "dumb" mines are alleviated. If such an amendment were passed, Fordington would be happy to vote for the resolution.

Okay I've read through the arguments laced in this forum both for and against this repeal.

One thing I've noticed is that both sides bring in statistics and claim that those used by the other side is flawed in some way. Remember: No study is unbiased. You can use statistics to prove anything if you choose the right studies, therefore any citation of statistics must be taken with a grain of salt.

Two: Yes land mines are nasty things. The effects to those that have the misfortune to step on one is undeniable. This can cause a problem to civilians, but also acts as a deterrent to invading armies (provided they care enough about their soldiers not to order them into a minefield).

Three: To those who say that an invading army will just find another way into your nation. - Isn't this good? If you block off possible entrances to your nation you can force invading armies to enter at a location of your choosing. You all must agree that it is easier to defend one front than several.

Four: "Land mines are notoriously hard to locate and are often left in the ground after hostilities." (not an actual quote, but is something along the lines of some of the arguments here) Besides NSUN nations being required by law to remove these devices, it is not that difficult to track the locations of them in this day and age. With GPS technology those who place the mines can simply record the coordinates of them as they are placed. When the government wishes to remove them they need only open the file storing this data to find out the locations.

Five: New technology can make land mines safer for civilians and still act as a deterrent to invasion. A non-UN member in my region recently developed a type of land mine that they call "Houdinis". These houdinis are placed in the ground in strategic locations in an inactive state. They can remain in the ground for years, they can be tread upon without incident. In the event of war the president can use a remote triggering device to activate the mines in any predetermined region. They can also be programed to detonate at varying degrees of pressure, so that they may not go off when a scout checks out the area, but remain hidden until the full army approaches. I believe that this is an incredible technology that definitely acts as a deterrent to invasion as the invaders will never know where or when their forces may encounter these devices, possibly making diplomacy seem to be a more prudent option.

I support the current ban on landmines.



Read the current ban. It does nothing to stop us from using mines anyways.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

genocide in self defense ? ? ? That's a completely ludicrous statement.

if you send masses at me and I slaughter them, then we have both perpetrated genocide.


Genocide is the oppression and extermination of a nearly helpless opponent, by an armed opponent. You can't have a genocide if your opponent is equally armed can you?

Yes you can, even if they're better armed. Genocide is simply the killing of ridiculously large numbers of people.

... at that point what's the point of land mines?

Preventing the war in the first place.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Um there are ways to get rid of landmines in a quick but expensive way. Bomb the mine field with a couple of daisy cutters (BLU-82 is the real name I think) They are very effective at clearing mine fields.

There are plenty of other weapons that can deter an enemy attack. Land mines are a method, however they are more dangerous to civilian populations than other weapons and remain in countries even after the fighting stops.


Name one that does the job as well as a land mine.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Quick and simple question.

Why bother defending a resolution that isn't stopping us from doing anything anyways?

Just curious.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

In a day and age of nukes, smart bombs and highly mobile forces, landmines are generally ineffective and a crude solution. What, you're going to blanket your entire border with minefields because of fear? In the long term, nothing will be accomplished but civilian deaths and mutilation. True, if you surround your cities with mines the enemy can't capture it; instead they'll surround it from a distance, shell it and if all else fails, get fed up and nuke it. Landmines don't prevent that.

The resolution does ban the use of landmines. It's title is enough. Also, look at how many people voted for the resolution first against how few voted against it. They must have had good reason to. Also, see how many nations still want the resolution. Modern Human Nature does not approve of the use of landmines As supported by the tally of votes for this repeal and the initial resolution.

The resolution does ban the use of landmines. It's title is enough.Titles are meaningless; it's the text of the actual law that matters. And there is not a single enforceable clause in Resolution #40 that mandates nations stop using landmines. We do not fear the defeat of this repeal, even if we decide to rejoin these hallowed halls, for the original resolution bans nothing.

Also, look at how many people voted for the resolution first against how few voted against it. They must have had good reason to. Also, see how many nations still want the resolution. Modern Human Nature does not approve of the use of landmines As supported by the tally of votes for this repeal and the initial resolution.Popularity contests are about as meaningless as titles. A majority of the UN wanted to protect dolphins too. Also, outlawing fossil fuels inside a decade. Both resolutions bit the dust in a matter of months (days on the latter).

Name one that does the job as well as a land mine.Nukes.Your obtuseness brings tears to my eyes.

Who's Coldplay?OOC: British light-rock group, "Talk" is a single off their latest album.[OOC: Ah, yes. The wuss-rockers off "The O.C." soundtrack. I can hear all the screaming teenyboppers now. Just shoot me already. :rolleyes:]

After reading Gruenberg's arguments and having done some thought, I am forced to reconsider my stand on this particular repeal. Though I am loathe to admit it, used responsibly, land mines can be a cheap and effective way to deter enemy forces.

There's also the issue of the resolution being repealed. It is essentially a waste of trees and would be better off in the recycle bin.

My only concern is of the nations who abuse the land mines, leaving the fields unmarked, neglecting to disarm them, harming civilians with them, but I realize all these things are possible even with the current writing in place.

In summary, Aduross changes it's vote to FOR.

Prime Minister of Aduross
Ark Ducious

Nicoli Machiavelli, a political and military strategist of lordly calibur, defined "Virtue" in a way that shall surely shed light upon the purpose of landmines. He stated, in layman's terms, that morality has no bearing on Virtue, only effectiveness at the task to which said weapon, person, or operation is assigned. A landmine was designed with the sole purpose in mind of disabling, through death or maiming, any living creature that steps upon it. Landmines succeed in this task admirably. That is all that needs to be said. To state that they are ineffetive is ludicrous, they preform their function flawlessly, they explode when you step on them, therefore they are weapons of great merit, they certainly have a higher rate of effectiveness then a bullet or a rocket, because a landmine kills or at the very least cripples anything that touches it, which is exactly what it was intended to do. Whether or not laying them in a ring around your nation is reasonable is not an issue, because that is not how they must be used. For example, Eenzame Natie is essentially 50000 square Burks (we would not lower ourselves to your silly, rational metrics system.) of inhopsitable tundra, with thermally heated lakes with crusts of ice barely a foot thick during the winter. It is completely impossible to traverse this landscape without knowledge of it's terrain, and the only ways in that do not require years of training are a handful of solid ground paths, each no more than a mile wide. In the event of a ground based attack, ludicrous landmining would not only be unecessary, but counterproductive. The wise prince need only set up a minefield two miles thick on each route, except for one, where we send a twelve year old with binoculars and a cell phone, to call us when he sees a military convoy, so that we can throw cruise missiles at it. Now, while many, even most nations might not be so unfortunate in their landscapes' developement, many have terrain similar in concept, with few safe and practical routes in, that can be landmined in less than a week, should war be inevitible. The current law only states that landmines are evil, and that they should be banished from this Earth. But they are not evil, they are inanimite objects created to preform a task, which they preform flawlessly. Let us not squabble over whether or not landmines are a sound policy in all situations, we need only see that the old argument was flawed, and must be torn asunder, lest it hold back a more effective law from being emplaced, such as one stating that landmines must pass a government inspection for quality, or perhaps safety, though again, if used ideally, a landmine doesn't even need to work, it only needs to look like it does.

To each his own, and to none his brothers.
So say we all, children of the Lonely Nation.

One can't help but think that this repeal, already an unpopular topic at best, would be progressing much smoother if its main proponents weren't using hyperbole and sarcasm to strengthen their argument. Gentleman, you come off as annoying with these tactics, and it does not encourage people to side with you. Hell, I voted for the repeal, and even I have to cringe at the way the repeal's argument is being represented on this board.

Now, as for the repeal itself:

The Empire of Ira Invidia has tentatively sided with the repeal after long deliberation. Whilst the merit of a landmine's worth as a deterent to war is questionable (if a nation is intent on invading you, a patch of mined land will not deter them - they will simply clear the field by whatever means are at their disposal), the merit of the UN Demining Resolution cannot be questioned. The UN Demining Resolution satisfactorily governs and controls the use of landmines and mandates acceptable safety precautions for the populace of the defending nation in both the post war and war-torn environments (presuming the defending nation acts upon its responsibility to it's citizens' safety - However, the matter of a nation's responsible behaviour towards its own people is beyond the scope of this resolution). As such, this renders an outright ban of the use of landmines needless and more over in direct conflict with Resolution #110. Taking both factors in to account, the Empire of Ira Invidia sees no alternative but to tentatively approve of this repeal.

Why the hell do you want to repeal that law?!?! The UN memberstates have shown a great responsibility and awareness in banning the use of landmines, and with that they have removed a large threat to civilians. Yes CIVILIANS! Landmines, for some reason unknown to me and my gouvernment, are never removed once they have been placed somewhere... I heard something about it not being cost effective. Well how much can we pay a mother who has lost her child to a landmine? Revoking Resolution #40 is an atrocity!#
sincerily,
the silently fuming and extremely miffed
Lady Elleham

Why the hell do you want to repeal that law?!?! The UN memberstates have shown a great responsibility and awareness in banning the use of landmines, and with that they have removed a large threat to civilians. Yes CIVILIANS! Landmines, for some reason unknown to me and my gouvernment, are never removed once they have been placed somewhere... I heard something about it not being cost effective. Well how much can we pay a mother who has lost her child to a landmine? Revoking Resolution #40 is an atrocity!#
sincerily,
the silently fuming and extremely miffed
Lady Elleham

For the last time...

Resolution #40 DOES NOT BAN ANYTHING.

Read the bloody thing, beyond the title. There's not a single operative clause actually banning anything.

Oh, and of course...trot out the "think of the children" argument. :rolleyes:

Because you're personifying as "evil" an inanimate object.

I didn't say the object itself was evil, I meant that the damn thing's method of use and purpose was evil.

Actually, you're the one making assumptions. If I know certain things about the enemy forces, that indicate they would be vulnerable to landmines, then it stands to reason to use them. Obviously, if they're not appropriate, then there's no sense using them.

If we use your logic about landmines being a cheap and effective defence, then we can see that many nation's, regardless of whether's it's common sense or not, will use them irrespective of circumstances. Therefore the argument about common sense may be ignored, with disastorous consequences.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand. Landmines are not "outflanked". They are avoided, though. That is a good thing, because it means you know where your enemy will be compelled to move through. That means you can:
1. Protect sensitive areas.
2. Funnel troops into an area where you have the tactical advantage.

It also restricts your own ability to maneouvre and to outflank your enemy. So yes, the enemy's options are restricted, but so are yours. Also, landmines don't have the magic ability to stop shells, aircraft or amphibious assaults. What about if the enemy just jumps over them or shells and bombs the "sensitive areas". Landmines aren't going to help there.

Ringing your entire nation with landmines would be pretty stupid. Why oh why did I suggest doing that? Oh, wait, I DIDN'T.

You practically suggested that you were going to mine the entire north-western quadrant of your nation to protect your civilians from the "Gurglestani filth". And if so many countries are ringed with nasty, hostile nations waiting to overrun them at any moment, landmines may well end up being ringed round an entire country, turning it into an armed camp.

If you don't understand how landmines are used, that's fine. Just don't base your arguments on your scattershot knowledge.

Temper, temper.

We planted them; we know where they are. Furthermore, you're know making what seem to me to be tactical judgments. Yes, in certain scenarios, landmines would be counter-productive. But at the same time, your whole argument depends on the fact that that's not a tactical judgment to be made by the field officer. Why not?

Your point?

So is being invaded (self-explanatory - or at least I had assumed it was, an assumption not being borne out by voting trends).

Which is why not being invaded in the first place (viz our deterrence argument) is a far better idea.

And every weapon poses a danger to others. Cars never crash? Rifles never jam? Fuck, people never trip over assault courses? Come on. You are making an exception for landmines: why?

I wasn't making an exception, I was just pointing out they're not some kind of military panacea, like you seemed to be suggesting.

There are two answers here:
1. Yes. It doesn't matter if the enemy knows where they are. In some ways it's good: that's the point of deterrence, isn't it? Furthermore, it's not like they'll just zippp demine it like that. That takes time. I don't recall that being integral to many Blitzkrieg plans.

Or:

1). Yes, it does matter if the enemy knows where they are. Because he can then organise his forces tactically so as to avoid mined areas and devise new strategies to compensate. Furthermore, Blitzkrieg took time to plan, it was only when it started that it became "lightning war".

2. No. It's perfectly possibly to take accurate readings of landmine locations, leave them unmarked, and store that information secretly. Then, when war is over, you can put the signs up.

Until your own divisions start to blunder over them.

Besides, "they'll retaliate" is a pretty shit argument. If we shoot them, they'll shoot our civilians. Ban guns!

Except you seem to spend a large portion of your argument arguing that this will help preserve civillian lives and safety.

You'd march your army through a minefield?

Well if tactical reasons mean that the locations classified, how is your average infantry smuck supposed to know where not to tread. You're setting yourself up for a machine-gunnning in the foot.

It's no more than those dirty animals deserve.

Great to hear that Oberstrumfuhrer Bausch.

Right. Because nobody has ever turned their weapons on the guys who paid for them.

OOC: Who trained Bin Laden? Hussein? Tomorrow's tin-pot dictator? And who did they attack? Oh yeah...

That's cause they stopped paying them and went and situated themselves on (supposed) holy areas, which rather pissed them off more than was anticipated.

Um...yes. Several thousand, perhaps a few million, dollars is not a lot at all in the scheme of defence budgets. You're saying developing other conventional arms can compete? Sorry, landmines are cheap as dirt.

Stop prevaricating. It's still expensive, which hardly leaves the developing nation with much possibility of developing an independent defence capability through landmines.

You're muddling timeframes. My description of demining compared it to the speed of battle - in which taking out weeks to demine definitely is lengthy. Scorched earth land isn't going to recover in weeks.

I'm failing to see any poleaxing.

So let's assume that post-conflict our nation is bankrupted by the strain of fighting off the enemy. Suddenly they find that they have several thousand landmines to clear. Won't they be thankful for those kind people who suggested the bloody things to them in the first place.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I didn't say the object itself was evil, I meant that the damn thing's method of use and purpose was evil.
I have repeatedly advocated the use of landmines to deter hostile invasions by non-UN nations not obliged to respect human rights.

That's evil? Huh, you have some fucked-up priorities, Otterby.

If we use your logic about landmines being a cheap and effective defence, then we can see that many nation's, regardless of whether's it's common sense or not, will use them irrespective of circumstances. Therefore the argument about common sense may be ignored, with disastorous consequences.
You're tracking back on yourself. Earlier, you were the one pointing to scenarios where landmines shouldn't be used, such as when one might wish to pursue enemy forces back through the minefield. That's what I'm talking about, here: in such scenarios, using landmines makes little sense.

It also restricts your own ability to maneouvre and to outflank your enemy. So yes, the enemy's options are restricted, but so are yours. Also, landmines don't have the magic ability to stop shells, aircraft or amphibious assaults. What about if the enemy just jumps over them or shells and bombs the "sensitive areas". Landmines aren't going to help there.
Of course they're not. So, by your logic, we should ban anti-aircraft guns, because they don't prevent ground assaults.

Different weapons have different capabilities. Landmines can stop ground invasion. Arguing against them based on their ineffectiveness against air forces is absurd.

You practically suggested that you were going to mine the entire north-western quadrant of your nation to protect your civilians from the "Gurglestani filth". And if so many countries are ringed with nasty, hostile nations waiting to overrun them at any moment, landmines may well end up being ringed round an entire country, turning it into an armed camp.
Gurglestan's poor as dirt; we have nothing to trade with them. Besides, earlier you were advocating the use of air supplies, and pointing out how landmines don't stop them. Well, right back at you.

Your point?
That you are making individual, case-by-case tactical judgments. That's not something the UN can do well. You have to make a case that field officers should never be allowed to consider the tactical effectiveness of landmines. If you don't do that, then there's no point banning them, because under your logic, nobody would use them anyway.

Which is why not being invaded in the first place (viz our deterrence argument) is a far better idea.
Landmines are deterrence. Yours wasn't an argument; it was a distortion. Diplomacy is great; sometimes it fails. Arms races are fine; sometimes they fail. Are you denying that in the course of human (and Gurglestani) history, invasions have never happened? That they could always have been avoided by a nice chat?

Your suggestions are all fine. You made more than one suggestion, though, because you recognise you can't guarantee the effectiveness of any one tactic. So why not include landmines among them?

I wasn't making an exception, I was just pointing out they're not some kind of military panacea, like you seemed to be suggesting.
Firstly, they're no military miracle. They're just useful weapons, something you've repeatedly refused to acknowledge.

And you are making an exception. "Landmines pose a danger to civilians." Well so does any weapon you care to mention. Banning landmines on the basis of civilian danger, whilst allowing the others, is clearly creating a special case.

1). Yes, it does matter if the enemy knows where they are. Because he can then organise his forces tactically so as to avoid mined areas and devise new strategies to compensate. Furthermore, Blitzkrieg took time to plan, it was only when it started that it became "lightning war".
Are you not hearing me speak? Do you not understand what I'm saying? The fact that they "avoid mined areas" is, ooh, you know, the whole fucking point of landmines. You are saying "landmines are bad because they accomplish their military objective!"

Until your own divisions start to blunder over them.
1. You forget: we planted them. We know where they are, and how to avoid them.
2. Earlier, you said the enemy would avoid the minefields anyway. So what would we be doing near them?

Except you seem to spend a large portion of your argument arguing that this will help preserve civillian lives and safety.
...that would be because they will.

Well if tactical reasons mean that the locations classified, how is your average infantry smuck supposed to know where not to tread. You're setting yourself up for a machine-gunnning in the foot.
I dearly hope Compadrian military intelligence isn't really as foolhardy as you're presenting it. What is hard about keeping the locations of the minefields secret, distributing them to officers when necessary, and having them direct troops round them?

Great to hear that Oberstrumfuhrer Bausch.
It's "Sturm". But I was in fact promoted to Hauptsturmfuehrer - which is irrevelant anyway, as in my role as ambassador, I have the diplomatic rank of an Obergruppenfuehrer.

That's cause they stopped paying them and went and situated themselves on (supposed) holy areas, which rather pissed them off more than was anticipated.
OOC: So you admit that sometimes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes back to just being "enemy"?

Stop prevaricating. It's still expensive, which hardly leaves the developing nation with much possibility of developing an independent defence capability through landmines.
It is really not expensive. They are one hell of a lot cheaper than any of your suggested alternatives, furthermore.

OOC: One of the main problems with landmines is they're so cheap. For countries like Sierra Leone, among the poorest in the world, a decent number of minefields would still only come to maybe 1% of their military budget.

So let's assume that post-conflict our nation is bankrupted by the strain of fighting off the enemy. Suddenly they find that they have several thousand landmines to clear. Won't they be thankful for those kind people who suggested the bloody things to them in the first place.
They have the option of seeking UNDS help: it doesn't charge for service.

the silently fuming and extremely miffed
Lady Elleham

Not as silent as some of the intelligent nations such as myself trying to get the ban on l/mines repealed would want you to be.

That's cause they stopped paying them and went and situated themselves on (supposed) holy areas, which rather pissed them off more than was anticipated.[OOC: Ummm, could it be, also, that bin Laden attacked the United States because he is an evil megalomaniac who wanted to start a Holy War between Islam and the West? Yes, the bin Laden stuff is amusing, but it's hardly relevant.]

I think its a logical proposal. This a worthy proposal to be put before the global community. I the UN representer for my nation agree. I think there should be a same law for ICBMs.

Not as silent as some of the intelligent nations such as myself trying to get the ban on l/mines repealed.
So you're more silent than someone else who's, er, not silent? Congratulations.

OOC: Re Osama, etc... How about a compromise? Let's agree that all leaders of government, religion and business are evil fucks and settle for blaming everything on all of 'em in a collective responsibility shebang, eh?

Well Mr Bausch, it looks like you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this one, no matter how many times we bash each other's points. Therefore, I'm proposing we just agree to disagree on the points we've discussed and try and find some new ones to argue over, before we both end up doing something we regret.

Oh and Kenny I wasn't dispproving the evil religious fanatic hypothesis, I was just giving some auxilliary reasons.

And "strum" is the Compadrian variant of "sturm". It's a kink in translation basically, but no-one's ever been bothered to sort it out.

And as final parting shot about Compadrian military intelligence, no they're not very capable, but then we spend approximately 0% of our budget on them so that's to be expected. That said, what about the possibility of spies infiltrating your officer corps and diverting troops onto mined areas.


May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Not as silent as some of the intelligent nations such as myself trying to get the ban on l/mines repealed.Congratulations on your extreme intelligence, which keeps you from expressing your arguments on the subject of landmines. Or something like that. :rolleyes:

For the last time...

Resolution #40 DOES NOT BAN ANYTHING.

Read the bloody thing, beyond the title. There's not a single operative clause actually banning anything.

Oh, and of course...trot out the "think of the children" argument. :rolleyes:I realize that Gruenberg has already declared our reading comprehension wanting, but what part of the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.do you not comprehend.

I will grant that it only refers to conflicts between UN member states (despite the typographical error), that's certainly to be expected as that is the limitation of UN resolutions, no?

I will also grant that it is imminently unenforceable--there again, what UN resolution isn't? You overstate your case that Resolution 40 "does not ban anything". Certain member states in this discussion have admitted that they continue to manufacture and use landmines. Should they enter into conflict with a UN member, and not remove their landmines beforehand they would be in violation of Resolution 40. At which point, UN sanctioned action against such nations would be in order, whether it be expulsion from the UN or military action to enforce resolutions being violated.

As for the "children" argument. It is a known fact that children are the most likely of post-war civilians to suffer landmine-inflicted wounds.

I realize that Gruenberg has already declared our reading comprehension wanting, but what part of

the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.do you not comprehend.I comprehend it fine. But let's see ... The resolution never defines "landmines"
The resolution never defines "conflicts"
The resolution never actually binds and enjoins UN nations to do anything to enforce any "ban." It just "calls for" one, just as easily as you could "call for" me to stop shooting spitballs at the back of your neck. It doesn't mean I have to stop.
Oh, and it says landmines shouldn't be used in conflicts between "UN counties."It carries about as much weight as say a resolution to the effect ...

Protect the Puppies!

Category:Environmental
Industry affected: All industries
Proposed by: NSUN Fluffiness

Description:Mean people like Jack Riley and Moltan Bausch like to strangel pupies, even kick tehm!!!!! We tink this is wrogn. Pupppys are cute cuddly and beloved by childrn everywehre, and they should be protected!!!!!111 :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Meaningless, unenforceable piece of fluff with a nice title.

Banning the use of Landmines

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Abrizza

Description: All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.Equally meaningless, unenforceable piece of fluff with a nice title.

I realize that Gruenberg has already declared our reading comprehension wanting, but what part of

Originally Posted by Resolution 40
the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

do you not comprehend.

It calls for a ban. It never enacts one. Thus, there's no ban. You still fail at reading comprehension.

I will grant that it only refers to conflicts between UN member states (despite the typographical error), that's certainly to be expected as that is the limitation of UN resolutions, no?

Yes, the UN cannot legislate on the activities of non-UN members. However, that is one of the dangers of disarmament legislation in general. It leave UN members weaker than non-UN members, thereby putting the security of UN members at risk.

I will also grant that it is imminently unenforceable--there again, what UN resolution isn't? You overstate your case that Resolution 40 "does not ban anything". Certain member states in this discussion have admitted that they continue to manufacture and use landmines. Should they enter into conflict with a UN member, and not remove their landmines beforehand they would be in violation of Resolution 40. At which point, UN sanctioned action against such nations would be in order, whether it be expulsion from the UN or military action to enforce resolutions being violated.

Um...no.

1)The gnomes enforce all UN legislation.

2) You're right. The moment a conflict starts, they would be in violation of Resolution #40. But the fact that some of us are still protecting our countries with landmines will hopefully deter any aggressors that might force us into conflict and, by extension, non-compliance.

As for the "children" argument. It is a known fact that children are the most likely of post-war civilians to suffer landmine-inflicted wounds.

Oh really? Known by whom? I've never heard that "fact." I've heard the "for the love of God, think of the children" argument in this case, but no facts.

The resolution never defines "landmines"
The resolution never defines "conflicts"

Oh, and it says landmines shouldn't be used in conflicts between "UN counties."By that criteria, this repeal also fails. And I had already noted the typographical error in the original resolution.

We disagree on the impact of "calling" for a ban. I point you to common legislative terminology and the following definition:

call
v. tr.
5. To give the command for; order

call for (phrase)
3. To require

As the call was made to the body which would be effected by the ban and approved by that body, it effectively bans landmines in those member states under the conditions of the resolution. If it did not, you and others here wouldn't be so insistent on repeal.

It calls for a ban. It never enacts one. Thus, there's no ban. You still fail at reading comprehension.See my response to OMGTKK.

But the fact that some of us are still protecting our countries with landmines will hopefully deter any aggressors that might force us into conflict and, by extension, non-compliance.Your willingness to announce your noncompliance to this body seems quite arrogant. As for your avoiding conflict based solely on use of landmines, I would point you to the experience of any number of nations in the history of warfare and their failure not only to avoid conflict, but to win it.

Oh really? Known by whom? I've never heard that "fact." Perhaps you just been looking in the wrong places. From a report issued by UNICEF... (http://www.unicef.org/graca/mines.htm)
Children are particularly vulnerable to land-mines in a number of ways. If they are too young to read or are illiterate, signs posted to warn them of the presence of mines are useless. Also, children are far more likely to die from their mine injuries than are adults. Of those maimed children who survive, few will receive prostheses that keep up with the continued growth of their stunted limbs.

Land-mines also have more catastrophic effects on children, whose small bodies succumb more readily to the horrific injuries mines inflict. In Cambodia, an average of 20 per cent of children injured by mines and unexploded ordnance die from their injuries. Children who manage to survive explosions are likely to be more seriously injured than adults, and often permanently disabled. Because a child's bones grow faster than the surrounding tissue, a wound may require repeated amputation and a new artificial limb as often as every six months

One can't help but think that this repeal, already an unpopular topic at best, would be progressing much smoother if its main proponents weren't using hyperbole and sarcasm to strengthen their argument. Gentleman, you come off as annoying with these tactics, and it does not encourage people to side with you. Hell, I voted for the repeal, and even I have to cringe at the way the repeal's argument is being represented on this board.


Mate, just don't be blaming those of us for the repeal. Some of the anti's are just as bad.:mad:


Perhaps you just been looking in the wrong places. From a report issued by UNICEF...

Quote:
Children are particularly vulnerable to land-mines in a number of ways. If they are too young to read or are illiterate, signs posted to warn them of the presence of mines are useless. Also, children are far more likely to die from their mine injuries than are adults. Of those maimed children who survive, few will receive prostheses that keep up with the continued growth of their stunted limbs.

Land-mines also have more catastrophic effects on children, whose small bodies succumb more readily to the horrific injuries mines inflict. In Cambodia, an average of 20 per cent of children injured by mines and unexploded ordnance die from their injuries. Children who manage to survive explosions are likely to be more seriously injured than adults, and often permanently disabled. Because a child's bones grow faster than the surrounding tissue, a wound may require repeated amputation and a new artificial limb as often as every six months

Sen Sulla looks perplexed..."What is this UNICEF you yammer about? Never heard of it at this UN. Sounds Fluffy.

One can't help but think that this repeal, already an unpopular topic at best, would be progressing much smoother if its main proponents weren't using hyperbole and sarcasm to strengthen their argument. Gentleman, you come off as annoying with these tactics, and it does not encourage people to side with you. Hell, I voted for the repeal, and even I have to cringe at the way the repeal's argument is being represented on this board.Cute little newb. This must be your first floor debate. As to use of sarcasm and especially hyperbole, have you checked some of the arguments proffered against? Your critique of this discussion can't be that one-sided.

By that criteria, this repeal also fails.Why should a repeal define these terms? All repeals do is strike out previous legislation; they can't legally offer new legislation in its place.

We disagree on the impact of "calling" for a ban. I point you to common legislative terminology and the following definition:

call
v. tr.
5. To give the command for; order

call for (phrase)
3. To require

As the call was made to the body which would be effected by the ban and approved by that body, it effectively bans landmines in those member states under the conditions of the resolution. If it did not, you and others here wouldn't be so insistent on repeal.Dithering in semantics accomplishes nothing. An eighth-grader could read the standing resolution and conclude it does nothing. Moreover, "calls for" is not mandatory or enforceable legal language in any sense, so all this resolution really does is condemn landmines. Whoop-de-do!

I can understand that in this case the author chose to ignore the resolution's unenforceability and ineffectiveness (as that argument has been made countless times before in previous repeals this body has passed), and instead chose to offer a more forceful argument in defense of nations who choose to use (or even require) landmines as a legitimate deterrent against invasion or attack. It's not that he doesn't also agree that the ban is unenforceable; he just wants to commit this body to legitimizing, rather than condemning, the tactics of nations that employ landmines for their own self-defense. Why? Because for some nations, it is necessary. You mine your border, or you get overrun. Gruenberg offered the neighboring Gurglestani scum as an example. Another, RL case-in-point: South Korea. It is fabled that North Korea has an army 2 million strong, and the only things, the only things blocking an all-out land assault against their southern neighbors are a few thousand U.S. troops, and fields of landmines.

Even if the standing legislation is useless, do we really want the United Nations to continue to condemn NS nations facing similar circumstances? The author thinks not. Nor do I. Nor does Cluichstan. Nor does The Palentine. Nor does UN DEFCON ("We care more about your nation's security than you do"). In that sense, Gruenberg is at least being intellectually honest with this body, and he ought to be commended for doing so.

I am perplexed at how landmines actually got banned in the first place, mines of all nature are one of the cheapest munitions available today. If you take away the only cheap anti-invasion munitions on the market you leave small nations such as my own with no means of defended agains much larger nations such as yourself.

This huge lack of support for this repeal has my people wondering if you are thinking about the good of the people, or just want to make it easier for yourself to invade.

I agree with the North South-West. WHEN our countries, undefended by landmines, are invaded, what are we to do? Wait several decades for the UN to realize that their sanctions against the aggressors aren't working?

I am perplexed at how landmines actually got banned in the first place, mines of all nature are one of the cheapest munitions available today. If you take away the only cheap anti-invasion munitions on the market you leave small nations such as my own with no means of defended agains much larger nations such as yourself.

This huge lack of support for this repeal has my people wondering if you are thinking about the good of the people, or just want to make it easier for yourself to invade.

Mate, if the Palentine really wanted to invade you, minefields would only slow us down, not stop us. So its a good thing that the Palentine is cute, cuddly, and beloved by children everywhere...scratch that...thats what dolphins are. We on the other hand are an Evil Conservative Empire filled with angry, meat eating, gun toting, and lead by an eccentric doozy. Be that as it may, rest assured that the Palentine currently has no plans on invading you.

However my reason for supprting the repeal is simple and hasn't changed...
to paraphrase Ash, "Resolution 40 does Jack-Shit, and Jack just left town."

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

P.S. After listening to the last day or so of debates in this august hall, I have desided to go on a bender. Who's with me!!!*holds up bottle of Wild Turkey, and stone crock of genuine WV Mountain Dew.*

Even if the standing legislation is useless, do we really want the United Nations to continue to condemn NS nations facing similar circumstances? The author thinks not. Nor do I. Nor does Cluichstan. Nor does The Palentine. Nor does UN DEFCON ("We care more about your nation's security than you do"). In that sense, Gruenberg is at least being intellectually honest with this body, and he ought to be commended for doing so.

Couldn't say it any better.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Mate, if the Palentine really wanted to invade you, minefields would only slow us down, not stop us.

You do not seem to understand the purpose of a landmine. Landmines are not intended to stop an army. Let us look at two invasion scenarios, one without landmines, and one with.

In the first case, there are not landmines. The invading army, whom we believed to be at peace with us, blitzes in, and captures several regions before we can respond with our military. By the time we can act, even if we can halt their progress, we have already lost much land to them.

Now, consider with landmines. Again, we are invaded, but this time, the invaders hit a minefield. Now, they must take time to clear a path, and even then, they only have a relatively narrow strip of land to use: the cleared land as opposed to our entire border. This gives us time to mobilize our forces and drive them back.

You do not seem to understand the purpose of a landmine. Landmines are not intended to stop an army. Let us look at two invasion scenarios, one without landmines, and one with.

In the first case, there are not landmines. The invading army, whom we believed to be at peace with us, blitzes in, and captures several regions before we can respond with our military. By the time we can act, even if we can halt their progress, we have already lost much land to them.

Now, consider with landmines. Again, we are invaded, but this time, the invaders hit a minefield. Now, they must take time to clear a path, and even then, they only have a relatively narrow strip of land to use: the cleared land as opposed to our entire border. This gives us time to mobilize our forces and drive them back.

Mate, I know what landmines are for, I've already adressed that one here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10774547&postcount=51). As stated, I'm for the repeal, and for landmines. Hell, I love the little buggers, with the Ban removed, IPAA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=447518) could sell a bunch of them.:D

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The Ban should definetly be repealed - no thriving nation can say it has not had to hold arms in defence of its own people and populace, and how many who have decided not to are still around? Few, if any.

A goverment should be in control of its citizens, and Attleson most certainly is. They should be smart enough to warn citizens of nearby and surrounding land mines, and the citizens should be well-educated enough to avoid them.

Cute little newb. This must be your first floor debate. As to use of sarcasm and especially hyperbole, have you checked some of the arguments proffered against? Your critique of this discussion can't be that one-sided.

Cute little newb, huh? My, my, don't we have a lovely attitude, even to those siding with your point of view? So very conducive to getting more people on your side, I'm sure. I may be new to this particular forum, and feeling oh so welcomed might I add, but trust me, debate is not an area I'm even close to new to. I've been in more political, religious and sociological debates that this UN has Resolutions. Hyperbole and sarcasm are two of the finest tools of debating, too, as I well now - but only when used right. My point wasn't to condemn the use of those two tools in general, merely the way they're being so painfully applied here.

This is an unpopular vote to start with. How many people do you think will just look at title of the resolution alone and reject it outright? You'll be lucky if you can even convince some of the voters to read the body of the repeal, let alone consider voting for it. We've seen the out cry here "Think of the children!", "Landmines are evil", etc etc. Let's face it, no matter how you cut it, this is an unpopular vote, no matter how well intentioned it may or may not be.

When undecided or even negative voters come to this debate (and you may note that we are being out numbered by those against the repeal, so far), it's the debate team's job to win these people over to the repeal's way of thinking. You may feel smug and clever for slapping someone down with a dose of strong sarcasm, but that smug self gratification doesn't serve much purpose unless it secures the repeal's victory. However, as it stands, when in-between voters come here, they're not seeing a compelling argument to win them over; they're seeing an unpopular topic being lobbied with little more than arrogance and sarcastic jabs at the competition. It makes those lobbyist come off in a very negative light... and again, given the topic, do you deem that conducive to securing a victory for the repeal?

Finally; believe me, I know the opposition is using hyperbole and sarcasm in its debate, but there are a few key differences. The most important of which is that they are against an unpopular vote. Their work in winning over a negative audience towards this repeal is far easier than our work of winning over an audience who favours the repeal. They can allow for some shoddy debate on their side, because in the vast majority, people will agree with their POV at a glance. They have to win over a far smaller percentage than we do, and as such, their method of debate is far less open to scrutiny. We're the ones with the uphill battle, we're the ones who need to word our debate very carefully to win the day. Not just jab at the opposition and revel in our smug superiority.

Ah, but I'm just a cute little newb, aren't I? What do I know? I'm sure you'll have a very good sarcastic jab in reply to this. I'm sure said jab will inspire so many more supporters of your cause. I'm sure said jab will be a nice consolation prize when the repeal falls flat on its face.

See my response to OMGTKK.

You still fail at reading comprehension. As my Kennyite friend and I have both already said, "calling for" a ban doesn't enact one.

quote=Rubina]Your willingness to announce your noncompliance to this body seems quite arrogant. [/quote]

We're not at war (yet), so we're in compliance (at the moment).

As for your avoiding conflict based solely on use of landmines, I would point you to the experience of any number of nations in the history of warfare and their failure not only to avoid conflict, but to win it.

We use a lot more than landmines to avoid conflict. They are simply part of a larger strategy.

Perhaps you just been looking in the wrong places. From a report issued by UNICEF... (http://www.unicef.org/graca/mines.htm)

UNICEF? What the bloody hell is that?

OOC: Again, a study from an "impartial" source. Riiiiiight...

Cute little newb, huh? My, my, don't we have a lovely attitude, even to those siding with your point of view? So very conducive to getting more people on your side, I'm sure. I may be new to this particular forum, and feeling oh so welcomed might I add, but trust me, debate is not an area I'm even close to new to. I've been in more political, religious and sociological debates that this UN has Resolutions. Hyperbole and sarcasm are two of the finest tools of debating, too, as I well now - but only when used right. My point wasn't to condemn the use of those two tools in general, merely the way they're being so painfully applied here.
So you've been in more than 153 debates. Suddenly I respect and admire your opinion! What a fantastic, startlingly brilliant, knock-down point! You've been in some debates before - why didn't you say so earlier! I'd have conceded right at the start.

This is an unpopular vote to start with. How many people do you think will just look at title of the resolution alone and reject it outright? You'll be lucky if you can even convince some of the voters to read the body of the repeal, let alone consider voting for it. We've seen the out cry here "Think of the children!", "Landmines are evil", etc etc. Let's face it, no matter how you cut it, this is an unpopular vote, no matter how well intentioned it may or may not be.
Which means what exactly? Besides, a repeal of "Gay Rights" passed.

When undecided or even negative voters come to this debate (and you may note that we are being out numbered by those against the repeal, so far), it's the debate team's job to win these people over to the repeal's way of thinking. You may feel smug and clever for slapping someone down with a dose of strong sarcasm, but that smug self gratification doesn't serve much purpose unless it secures the repeal's victory. However, as it stands, when in-between voters come here, they're not seeing a compelling argument to win them over; they're seeing an unpopular topic being lobbied with little more than arrogance and sarcastic jabs at the competition. It makes those lobbyist come off in a very negative light... and again, given the topic, do you deem that conducive to securing a victory for the repeal?
Yeah, that never works (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10784414&postcount=121).

I'm not going to kowtow to the lowest common denominator, and I don't expect anyone to cut me any slack, either. If someone is turned off voting for my proposal because of the way I spoke for them, then that's all good: I wouldn't want such a person voting for it. If someone makes a stupid point, I don't have a problem with pointing that out. If someone makes an excellent point, I don't have a problem with pointing that out.

The fact that you are harking on about our style, telling us our "job", doesn't exactly make you look like a shining example. The point, surely, is to discuss the actual proposal. Kindly do so.

Finally; believe me, I know the opposition is using hyperbole and sarcasm in its debate, but there are a few key differences. The most important of which is that they are against an unpopular vote. Their work in winning over a negative audience towards this repeal is far easier than our work of winning over an audience who favours the repeal. They can allow for some shoddy debate on their side, because in the vast majority, people will agree with their POV at a glance. They have to win over a far smaller percentage than we do, and as such, their method of debate is far less open to scrutiny. We're the ones with the uphill battle, we're the ones who need to word our debate very carefully to win the day. Not just jab at the opposition and revel in our smug superiority.
You're new, so you can't be expected to know, but during Repeal "Gay Rights" - as I've already said, not the greatest of titles to go up against - Riley, Sheik Nadnerb, myself, and many others, were consistently harsh, sarcastic, and condescending to opponents, including representatives of the Region of Gay, and those clearly animated by personal interest. Guess what? We won. Protection of Dolphins Act, Ban Chemical Weapons, Right to Divorce - all repeals where we less than chivalrous - in fact, downright fucking childish at times - but still won. I'm not going to pretend that I have to tug my forelock to people who are wrong, just because they have the popular vote on their side.

Ah, but I'm just a cute little newb, aren't I? What do I know? I'm sure you'll have a very good sarcastic jab in reply to this. I'm sure said jab will inspire so many more supporters of your cause. I'm sure said jab will be a nice consolation prize when the repeal falls flat on its face.
Yes. But you'll learn.

In a day and age of nukes, smart bombs and highly mobile forces, landmines are generally ineffective and a crude solution. What, you're going to blanket your entire border with minefields because of fear? In the long term, nothing will be accomplished but civilian deaths and mutilation. True, if you surround your cities with mines the enemy can't capture it; instead they'll surround it from a distance, shell it and if all else fails, get fed up and nuke it. Landmines don't prevent that.

No. Actually, we'll blanket our entire border partially because The Master is leaning slightly towards the psychotic side of being benevolent and patially because it acts as an absolutely amazing deterrent to any INVASION FORCE that might try and make incursions into our territory.

Our civilians aren't being killed and mutilated because they're generally smart enough not to walk into areas that are very clearly marked as being hazardous to their health.

As for shelling from the outside, or potentially nuking the land. That brings it to a completely different type of warfare. No, landmines won't stop ICBMs, artillery fire, etc, but they aren't intended to. It's the invading army that would have to deal with them. Plus, we always have the alternative, if they are about to shell us out of existence, we'll add ouselves to the World Heritage List at which point any damage they do to the land would be illegal.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

So you've been in more than 153 debates. Suddenly I respect and admire your opinion! What a fantastic, startlingly brilliant, knock-down point! You've been in some debates before - why didn't you say so earlier! I'd have conceded right at the start.

Well, at least I got my expected sarcastic jab. At least you've found your niche in debating. Good for you. You must be so proud of yourself.


Which means what exactly? Besides, a repeal of "Gay Rights" passed.


You honestly have to ask me what fighting an uphill battle means? Or what having to fight to get votes for your repeal means? Oh dear. That is not a good sign.

Congratulations on getting gay rights banned, by the way. I'm sure the same zealot religious or homophobic votes will be just as intent to see landmines re-introduced into the UN.


Yeah, that never works (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10784414&postcount=121).


One example of someone agreeing with your reasoning behind the use of landmines. Staggering evidence of the merit of your obnoxious style of debate. Unfortunately, current UN polls suggest that your link up there is a near two to one minority.


The fact that you are harking on about our style, telling us our "job", doesn't exactly make you look like a shining example. The point, surely, is to discuss the actual proposal. Kindly do so.


This pertains to the actual proposal. If the proposal fails because the language of its discussion and of its supporters is subpar, then yes, it certainly pertains to the proposal.

As for making myself a shining example, why, I am merely following your shining example, I'm sure. After all, you document how successful your obnoxious attitude has proven, mayhap I can hope to attain the same "greatness".

However, I must state that my original comment was an attempt at contructive criticism - merely pointing out the negative effect the style of debate could have on the repeal (you know, that we're still losing). You may note, I voted FOR the repeal, and was merely trying to do my part to help see it passed. Of course, instead of that effect, I see we're losing by a larger margin, and your attention has now been devoted to trying to slap down lowly noob me.

By that criteria, this repeal also fails. And I had already noted the typographical error in the original resolution.

We disagree on the impact of "calling" for a ban. I point you to common legislative terminology and the following definition:

call
v. tr.
5. To give the command for; order

call for (phrase)
3. To require

As the call was made to the body which would be effected by the ban and approved by that body, it effectively bans landmines in those member states under the conditions of the resolution. If it did not, you and others here wouldn't be so insistent on repeal.

A repeal does not need to define anything, merely point out the shortcomings of the targetted resolution. Even if we accept that the calling for a ban is legit, then we are still left with the fact that the ban is incomplete, undefined, and of far too narrow a scope, rendering it near useless.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Perhaps you just been looking in the wrong places. From a report issued by UNICEF... (http://www.unicef.org/graca/mines.htm)

OOC: There is no UNICEF in NS.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

*snip*

Congratulations on getting gay rights banned, by the way. I'm sure the same zealot religious or homophobic votes will be just as intent to see landmines re-introduced into the UN.

*snip*


Congratulations on showing your ignorance. Repealing the "Gay Rights" resolution didn't ban gay rights. And what the bloody hell does religion or homophobia have to do with landmines? We're not talking about ordnance that specifically targets Jews or homosexuals.

Run along now.

Well, at least I got my expected sarcastic jab. At least you've found your niche in debating. Good for you. You must be so proud of yourself.

You got anything to add to this debate, or are you just here as a speech critic? If it's the latter then shut the fuck up and let the grown ups talk.

Congratulations on getting gay rights banned, by the way. I'm sure the same zealot religious or homophobic votes will be just as intent to see landmines re-introduced into the UN.

Before you pass judgement, perhaps you should read the aforementioned resolutions and their repeals. Gay rights was repealed because it was useless. The rights offered by it were already covered by a few other resolutions. We didn't need to waste the paper on another, so it was removed from the books. Incidentally, that's similar to what we're trying to do here. Remove useless things from the picture.

One example of someone agreeing with your reasoning behind the use of landmines. Staggering evidence of the merit of your obnoxious style of debate. Unfortunately, current UN polls suggest that your link up there is a near two to one minority.

Speaking of useless things to be removed...

This pertains to the actual proposal.

Sweet Jeebus, I think I'll have a coronary. You're actually going to speak on point?

If the proposal fails because the language of its discussion and of its supporters is subpar, then yes, it certainly pertains to the proposal.

CRAP! I was wrong. Still just running a critique.

As for making myself a shining example, why, I am merely following your shining example, I'm sure. After all, you document how successful your obnoxious attitude has proven, mayhap I can hope to attain the same "greatness".

Difference is that he's been here doing this for a while and has cases where it has succeeded. Who are you again?

However, I must state that my original comment was an attempt at contructive criticism - merely pointing out the negative effect the style of debate could have on the repeal (you know, that we're still losing). You may note, I voted FOR the repeal, and was merely trying to do my part to help see it passed. Of course, instead of that effect, I see we're losing by a larger margin, and your attention has now been devoted to trying to slap down lowly noob me.

For that point, I will concede to you. Your original post's intent was fairly constructive in nature, and that is appreciated. But it's time to let this thread hijack die. Yes we're losing, as we've lost before on this same issue, it won't stop us from trying again, nor will it change at this point by arguing about Gruen's, Cluich's, OMGTKK's, Palentine's, or my debate style.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

*snip*

Yes we're losing, as we've lost before on this same issue, it won't stop us from trying again, nor will it change at this point by arguing about Gruen's, Cluich's, OMGTKK's, Palentine's, or my debate style.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

OOC: I think Kivisto's making a case here for expanding the Unholy Trinity... :D

OOC: There is no UNICEF in NS.

OOC: Someone asked them for evidence to support a claim, how do you expect them to back up that claim with evidence from a fictional online game? Perhaps they should invent a report for the game? Since none of this is real, one can't really back up the earlier statement. So, either calls for evidence should not be made, RL evidence must be accepted, or we resort to the doleful third option of just inventing things with an in-character spin. Of all options, I'd say second is more constructive and useful ;)

Congratulations on showing your ignorance. Repealing the "Gay Rights" resolution didn't ban gay rights. And what the bloody hell does religion or homophobia have to do with landmines? We're not talking about ordnance that specifically targets Jews or homosexuals.

*sigh* Religion and homophobia have to do with this topic in the following way: religious zealots and homophobes would likely inherently be for anything to do with repealing gay rights (even if it only appeared to do so on the surface - again, this goes back to my point about people signing off on a resolution based off the title alone, when it appeals to or repels their sensibilities). There would have thus been a large influx of FOR votes based purely off of that demographic alone. A demographic one cannot rely on for this topic, and since Gruenberg was using this as an example of his success rate, you see how it fits in now?

You got anything to add to this debate, or are you just here as a speech critic? If it's the latter then shut the fuck up and let the grown ups talk.

As I've said before, it comes down to the fact that a badly worded defense of this repeal hurts the repeal itself. Insulting people, for example, is not conducive to having them side with you. I would think "grown ups" would know how to handle a debate in a more effective and cordial way.

Before you pass judgement, perhaps you should read the aforementioned resolutions and their repeals. Gay rights was repealed because it was useless. The rights offered by it were already covered by a few other resolutions. We didn't need to waste the paper on another, so it was removed from the books. Incidentally, that's similar to what we're trying to do here. Remove useless things from the picture.

Poorly phrased and needlessly vague comment by myself, and I apologise. The idea I was trying to get across is what I said to Cluichstan higher in this post.


Difference is that he's been here doing this for a while and has cases where it has succeeded. Who are you again?

I didn't realise my right to speak was based solely on tenure. I do apologise.

For that point, I will concede to you. Your original post's intent was fairly constructive in nature, and that is appreciated.

Thank you. I'm glad you see that I wasn't just trying to be an ass about things, despite how I came off. As someone earlier so gleefully pointed out, I'm a newb here, and perhaps I need a little more time to learn the parlance that is more accepted as being constructive in these debates. Again, though, I do assure all that in my original point, I was merely trying to help a common cause.

After that post, the point may have become ever so slightly watered down in the wake of argument ;)

But it's time to let this thread hijack die. Yes we're losing, as we've lost before on this same issue, it won't stop us from trying again, nor will it change at this point by arguing about Gruen's, Cluich's, OMGTKK's, Palentine's, or my debate style.

Agreed. My part in hijacking this thread is done, I assure you, and I apologise for my part in dragging this off course. I shall try to, as everyone has insisted, be more on point if I post again, rather than being critical of others' methods. As you say, they're established with past success, and either way, no one's going to change their attitude anyhow. No one ever does, not I, not they. Best just to accept what we're all bringing to the table, I suppose.

Again, Kivisto, thanks for acknowledging my original intent, I do appreciate it and the fact that I'm not walking away wholly as the villain of the piece. To the others I was debating... no, arguing with. I cry your pardon if my attitude was more confrontation than constructive, and for my part in derailing this topic.

Here's hoping next time we get the repeal through, and with a hopefully more unified front.

Geez there must be other ways of repelling attacks from countries, not just landmines...

Geez there must be other ways of repelling attacks from countries, not just landmines...


Name a few. Not that that's entirely the point anyways, but name a few that can do the job of deterring an invading army as well as the knowledge that their next step might result in a large KABOOM that could kill their entire platoon, or worse, maim them, leaving them in incredible screaming agony and tying up their medical resources for months (if not longer) treating their injuries.

My main reason for wanting this repeal to pass, though, has nothing to do with the effectiveness of landmines. It's the ineffectiveness of the resolution. It's filled with so many problems that it might as well not be there, so why bother tying up UN legislation with a scrap of paper that would be better off wiping my bum.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Well, at least I got my expected sarcastic jab. At least you've found your niche in debating. Good for you. You must be so proud of yourself.
I am. :)

You honestly have to ask me what fighting an uphill battle means? Or what having to fight to get votes for your repeal means? Oh dear. That is not a good sign.
I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. That repealing #40 was going to be hard? No shit. That I shouldn't try because of that? Seems kind of defeatist.

Congratulations on getting gay rights banned, by the way. I'm sure the same zealot religious or homophobic votes will be just as intent to see landmines re-introduced into the UN.
All you're now showing is that you're the one judging resolutions by their titles alone. Furthermore, why would homophobia or religiousness be linked to ideas about landmines? Haven't many of the arguments against the repeal revolved around the indiscriminate nature of the weapons?

One example of someone agreeing with your reasoning behind the use of landmines. Staggering evidence of the merit of your obnoxious style of debate. Unfortunately, current UN polls suggest that your link up there is a near two to one minority.
No, they don't, and here's where you're making your mistake. UN forum debates have approximately 0 effect on the outcome of the overall vote. At the absolute most, about a hundred votes, I'd wager, change or have the potential to be changed by the forum debate. Promotion of Solar Panels and Right to Divorce got canned; they still passed. There was overwhelming support for Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" on the forum, and it failed.

Regular UN forum posters sometimes get criticised for thinking too highly of themselves. Don't worry: we know our arguments have little to no effect on the final vote. That's why we make ourselves in the drafting stages.

This pertains to the actual proposal. If the proposal fails because the language of its discussion and of its supporters is subpar, then yes, it certainly pertains to the proposal.
I don't think that's why it's failing, though. I think it's failing because people believe landmines should remain banned.

As for making myself a shining example, why, I am merely following your shining example, I'm sure. After all, you document how successful your obnoxious attitude has proven, mayhap I can hope to attain the same "greatness".
Well, yes, although you have a lot of work ahead of you.

However, I must state that my original comment was an attempt at contructive criticism - merely pointing out the negative effect the style of debate could have on the repeal (you know, that we're still losing). You may note, I voted FOR the repeal, and was merely trying to do my part to help see it passed. Of course, instead of that effect, I see we're losing by a larger margin, and your attention has now been devoted to trying to slap down lowly noob me.
Where else do you suggest I devote my attention? The repeal's going to lose, no one has bought my arguments, few have even responded to the repeal; I don't find banging my head against all the wall all that fun. I find this exchange entertainingly diverting.

*sigh* Religion and homophobia have to do with this topic in the following way: religious zealots and homophobes would likely inherently be for anything to do with repealing gay rights (even if it only appeared to do so on the surface - again, this goes back to my point about people signing off on a resolution based off the title alone, when it appeals to or repels their sensibilities). There would have thus been a large influx of FOR votes based purely off of that demographic alone. A demographic one cannot rely on for this topic, and since Gruenberg was using this as an example of his success rate, you see how it fits in now?
Firstly, Repeal "Gay Rights" wasn't my proposal. It was written, submitted, and passed, by Ambassador Riley of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny. I was merely a vocal supporter of it. Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. The first line of the repeal came out strongly in support of gay rights: I did in fact see, on one Regional Message Board, a NO vote by a homophobic nation, who could not agree with that statement.

Thirdly, you still haven't explained why religious zealots and homophobes would want to see the landmine ban removed.

As I've said before, it comes down to the fact that a badly worded defense of this repeal hurts the repeal itself. Insulting people, for example, is not conducive to having them side with you. I would think "grown ups" would know how to handle a debate in a more effective and cordial way.
Why? It makes no difference either way. The forum debate only matters in very, very tight votes - and rarely even then.

I didn't realise my right to speak was based solely on tenure. I do apologise.
It's not. We're responding to you, aren't we? And if you think we're being nasty and mean...wait, weren't you saying we were acting like that to everyone?

As someone earlier so gleefully pointed out, I'm a newb here, and perhaps I need a little more time to learn the parlance that is more accepted as being constructive in these debates. Again, though, I do assure all that in my original point, I was merely trying to help a common cause.
Despite the tone of my responses, I am glad that you did seek to bring constructive thoughts to the table - especially as they were in support of the proposal. However, I don't honestly think the fact that I'm a prick is going to make anyone vote against this. The forum debates are pretty insignificant to the final outcome. There's no obvious way of measuring that, but for starters: compare the number of thread views with the margin of defeat.

Here's hoping next time we get the repeal through, and with a hopefully more unified front.
Amen to that.

No, they don't, and here's where you're making your mistake. UN forum debates have approximately 0 effect on the outcome of the overall vote. At the absolute most, about a hundred votes, I'd wager, change or have the potential to be changed by the forum debate. Promotion of Solar Panels and Right to Divorce got canned; they still passed. There was overwhelming support for Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" on the forum, and it failed.

Regular UN forum posters sometimes get criticised for thinking too highly of themselves. Don't worry: we know our arguments have little to no effect on the final vote. That's why we make ourselves in the drafting stages.


That's a very good point, and a shame, too. I think perhaps I was giving the weight of this debate rather more substance than it deserves. As you pointed out, the Hydrogen repeal was a massive slide in favour, and yet it still got defeated. 'Tis a shame though, if more people got on board for the debates, they could be extremely interesting.

As you say, though, it clearly has scant little bearing on the actual vote at the end of the day. Not an ideology I had considered. Apparently, at least in this regard, tenure and thus experience of the effect of these debates, was certainly a useful factor ;)

I find this exchange entertainingly diverting.

Well, at least I provided some mild entertainment. I take that, also, as an at least fleeting sign of hope that our exchange hasn't led to making enemies around here. Disagreeing with some people's opinions or methods is akin to spitting in the eye of god, or at least the grudge they attatch to it would suggest that. Hopefully, this renewed palather is a good sign that the contrary is true here.

Despite the tone of my responses, I am glad that you did seek to bring constructive thoughts to the table - especially as they were in support of the proposal.

Again, glad that my constructive criticism, if perhaps ill-phrased and overly comfrontational, was appreciated. Next time, I'll try to side more on the constructive and less on the critical side of things ;)

Hmmm, and to be on point, for a change, I wonder; the average UN vote is weighing in at around 11'000 / 12'000 votes. At last check, we're up to about 9'000, or just over. I wonder if there's absolutely any remote chance of us pulling back in this. I doubt it, but one can hope.

Finally; believe me, I know the opposition is using hyperbole and sarcasm in its debate, but there are a few key differences. The most important of which is that they are against an unpopular vote. Their work in winning over a negative audience towards this repeal is far easier than our work of winning over an audience who favours the repeal. They can allow for some shoddy debate on their side, because in the vast majority, people will agree with their POV at a glance. They have to win over a far smaller percentage than we do, and as such, their method of debate is far less open to scrutiny. We're the ones with the uphill battle, we're the ones who need to word our debate very carefully to win the day. Not just jab at the opposition and revel in our smug superiority.Umm, my point to begin with is that floor debates are often raucous and emotional. Stick around awhile; you might learn something.

Congratulations on getting gay rights banned, by the way. I'm sure the same zealot religious or homophobic votes will be just as intent to see landmines re-introduced into the UN.Well, my goal in repealing Gay Rights had more to do with the impending threat of giant radioactive hamsters than anything else. You might have known that if you'd spent any time in their massive underground lairs. [Whispers horrifyingly:] I have. Now if you'll excuse me, it's my shift to watch for the hamsters.

[Pulls on T-shirt with an image of a hamster with a red X over it; applies a few sprays of hamster repellant; polishes shotgun with anti-hamster logo on it; apprehensively scans the chamber for hamsters, jolting and looking over his shoulder every few moments. Applies a few more sprays of repellant. ...]

I don't think the outcome of this repeal is in any doubt. The Pacific delegates are a capricious bunch but I suspect some wil not even bother to vote; you'd need all of them on your side to have any hope at all.

No, they don't, and here's where you're making your mistake. UN forum debates have approximately 0 effect on the outcome of the overall vote. At the absolute most, about a hundred votes, I'd wager, change or have the potential to be changed by the forum debate. Promotion of Solar Panels and Right to Divorce got canned; they still passed. There was overwhelming support for Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" on the forum, and it failed.

Still, it's a nice sounding board for our rhetorical points.


I don't think that's why it's failing, though. I think it's failing because people believe landmines should remain banned.

Damn them for not wanting to defend themselves by any means necessary!


Where else do you suggest I devote my attention? The repeal's going to lose, no one has bought my arguments, few have even responded to the repeal; I don't find banging my head against all the wall all that fun. I find this exchange entertainingly diverting.

Oh I don't think no-one's bought your arguments. I was impressed with quite a few and one or two persuaded me somewhat (particularly the economic argument). You're being too hard on yourself Mr Bausch.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Damn them for not wanting to defend themselves by any means necessary!

Actually, it's their citizens that will end up damned.

Actually, it's their citizens that will end up damned.
Unlikely. Landmines aren't essential for defence. Besides, your average nation probably hasn't had to deal with any scenario where landmines might have come into play. Certainly we haven't.

That's not to say that we haven't got any landmines, of course.

Unlikely. Landmines aren't essential for defence. Besides, your average nation probably hasn't had to deal with any scenario where landmines might have come into play. Certainly we haven't.

Yet.

Bloody Outrage!!!

How id this even get through the endorsment phase?
Wre you all drunk, delegates!!!

Repeal the ban on land mines, what are they thinking?
What is the world coming to?!!!:mad:

Bloody Outrage!!!

How id this even get through the endorsment phase?

It got the required number of endorsements from wise delegates.

Wre you all drunk, delegates!!!

I can only speak for myself when I say yes, I was drunk. However, I'm not a delegate, although I do support this repeal.

Repeal the ban on land mines, what are they thinking?

We were thinking the "ban" on landmines should be repealed.

What is the world coming to?!!!:mad:

Hopefully it is coming to be a world in which nations can use perfectly legitimate means of self-defense without the UN telling them it's a no-no.

you know what else is a really effective way of killing a lot of people who are invading your country? poisonous gas. i figure if its now allowed to make the battlefield an even more insane and horrifying vision of hell with the use of bombs that are designed to maim and dismember indiscriminately in the name of human rights, we ought to be able to use gas that makes your lungs dissolve and your skin burn, right?

of course the above is ridiculous. i dont wish to labor the point that landmines kill and maim civilians long after hostilities are over. that much is obvious because its happening right now. no, id like to introduce the idea that weapons that get banned tend to be weapons that maim and induce extreme torture, rather than just neutralize a threat. of course the battlefield is an insane location. of course it is a site of death and extreme injury. but landmines are designed to maim, not kill. the proof is this: even when one steps on an antipersonnel mine, it is likely that it will result in loss of limbs. the reason for this is not because current technology cannot provide powerful enough explosives to kill a single human being, but because landmines are designed this way. they maim people.


:fluffle:

Boohoo.

Geez there must be other ways of repelling attacks from countries, not just landmines...

Sure there is. But kidnapping all the UN deligates who voted against this repeal gluing them all together so that they form a 20' tall and 10' deep wall around our borders apparently is considered an "eyesore" by the elite. Given their sirien like debating style they should easily repell any invaders.

you know what else is a really effective way of killing a lot of people who are invading your country? poisonous gas. i figure if its now allowed to make the battlefield an even more insane and horrifying vision of hell with the use of bombs that are designed to maim and dismember indiscriminately in the name of human rights, we ought to be able to use gas that makes your lungs dissolve and your skin burn, right?

of course the above is ridiculous.

On that we agree.


i dont wish to labor the point that landmines kill and maim civilians long after hostilities are over.

Thank you.

that much is obvious because its happening right now. no, id like to introduce the idea that weapons that get banned tend to be weapons that maim and induce extreme torture, rather than just neutralize a threat.

Or, with the case of landmines, are designed to deter the battle in the first place with the overhanging threat that your next step might be your last, without necessarily being your last breath.

of course the battlefield is an insane location.

Not necessarily. A well thought out plan of attack or defense can keep the chaos to an absolute minimum, perhaps by forcing your opponent into a position that most advantageous to oneself. One might accomplish such a goal by rendering other avenues of approach undesirable, perhaps with strategically situated minefields.

of course it is a site of death and extreme injury.

Sounds like a good reason to deter the battle in the first place, perhaps with strategically situated minefields.

but landmines are designed to maim, not kill.

A landmine is designed to explode and (in some cases) throw shrapnel, causing large amounts of damage to anything caught in its path. To prevaricate and say that it was intended to do other than that is sheer rhetoric not suitable to a political discussion.

the proof is this: even when one steps on an antipersonnel mine, it is likely that it will result in loss of limbs.

Actually it's much more likely that it will explode causing extreme damage to whatever body or machine part triggered it. In the case of Bouncing Bettys, it will actually jump to a height of about five feet before throwing shrapnel out in a 360 degree arc, neatly severing anyone nearby just below the shoulders, pretty effectively killing them.

the reason for this is not because current technology cannot provide powerful enough explosives to kill a single human being, but because landmines are designed this way. they maim people.

They explode. If you trigger it with your face, it won't maim you. If you are crawling across a battlefield and crawl across it, it won't maim you. If you are maimed by an explosive, then your field medics and support staff will be tied up trying to treat your injuries instead of towards the front lines trying to shoot my troops and invade my country. As far as I'm concerned that's mission accomplished. If your soldiers weren't willing to risk bodily harm, perhaps they shouldn't have gone to war. If your officers aren't willing to accept that men will be injured and killed, perhaps the should have been shepherds. If you are not, after your own arguments about a battle being an insane place, willing to accept that people are going to be mangled, horribly burned, maimed, poisoned, assassinated, blown up or otherwise put through preposterous physical torture during war, then perhaps you'd best leave discussion of such matters to those of us with the stomache for such things.


Totally aside from all of that. The current "ban" doesn't really stop us from using mines anyways. If you abhor landmines so, you should take a look into writing or assisting with a new resolution regarding such. One that might actually have some effect on out use of such things. Of course, before such new legislation comes into play, you'd have to repeal this one. Vote for the repeal. It's good for what ails you.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/chaingun.gif :fluffle:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Sen Sulla looks perplexed..."What is this UNICEF you yammer about? Never heard of it at this UN. Sounds Fluffy.I'm sure there are quite a few UN offices of which delegates such as yourself are not aware. Fluffy? Yes, yes it is. (http://www.123.is/valdis/upload/fluffy_destroyer.jpg)

An eighth-grader could read the standing resolution and conclude it does nothing.Ah, now it's clear to this delegate what your problem is. Perhaps when you're a bit older.... ;)
... he just wants to commit this body to legitimizing, rather than condemning, the tactics of nations that employ landmines for their own self-defense. ... do we really want the United Nations to continue to condemn NS nations facing similar circumstances.
This body consistently refuses to legitimize those tactics, so yes, we do want to continue to condemn such nations.

OOC: Again, a study from an "impartial" source. Riiiiiight... As opposed to the "impartial" sources DEFCON uses, I'm sure.

I don't honestly think the fact that I'm a prick is going to make anyone vote against this.The delegate from Gruenberg shouldn't underestimate the power of his prickness. :D

I'm sure there are quite a few UN offices of which delegates such as yourself are not aware. Fluffy? Yes, yes it is. (http://www.123.is/valdis/upload/fluffy_destroyer.jpg)

OOC: That still doesn't make it exist in NS

Ah, now it's clear to this delegate what your problem is. Perhaps when you're a bit older.... ;)

Wow. OMGTKK is very open about his citizen's lack of education. Even he understands and grasps the gaping issues inherent in UNR#40. It seems that you don't. That's sad.

This body consistently refuses to legitimize those tactics, so yes, we do want to continue to condemn such nations.

So write new legislation that will actually stop us from using landmines. But first, you'll have to pass this repeal or the new, effective legislation would be deleted for duplication reasons.

As opposed to the "impartial" sources DEFCON uses, I'm sure.

We're very open about our partiality. At least we don't try to hide our stats by claimning them to be from an impartial source (which, incidentally doesn't exist in NS) that clearly isn't.

The delegate from Gruenberg shouldn't underestimate the power of his prickness. :D

We are all very aware of the powers of Gruen's prick. Thursday nights it does two shows down at Caesar's Palace. ;)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Geez there must be other ways of repelling attacks from countries, not just landmines...

Well the fact that the Palentine is located in an Antarctic frozen hellhole, might be one reason we haven't been invaded. Or perhaps the fact that my government allows Kamikazi Penguins to run free might be another. Of course the possibility that I have parts of my border mined, so my troops can be deployed elsewhere, is probally the deciding factor. So to answer your question...Yes there are other ways, but mines are efficient and cost effective(plus the fact that IPAA produces a bunch of the buggers. Gotta support the local business.)
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Bloody Outrage!!!

How id this even get through the endorsment phase?
Wre you all drunk, delegates!!!


Sen Sulla looks up and says, "I'll admit that I had a snort or two, not that it affected my judgement. Besides these debates are a lot more fun if you inbibe a bit. I highly recommend Wild Turkey(TM). Cheers!"*pours shot of Wild Turkey(TM) and drinks it down.*

We are all very aware of the powers of Gruen's prick. Thursday nights it does two shows down at Caesar's Palace. ;)


*RIMSHOT!*:D

OOC: I think Kivisto's making a case here for expanding the Unholy Trinity... :D


The more evil and unholiness, the merrier.:D

As opposed to the "impartial" sources DEFCON uses, I'm sure.

We weren't the ones spewing bullshit statistics.

We are all very aware of the powers of Gruen's prick. Thursday nights it does two shows down at Caesar's Palace.;) *RIMSHOT!*:D
Gruen's prick may be powerful, but is it listed on the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List), like mine is?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

:sniper: Think of the security of your own nations! If attacked by a non UN nation, we will be restricted by these strangle hold laws, preventing us from properly defending ourselves! If we can not defend oursleves, how are we to be expected to defend others!? This law must be repealed!

:sniper: Think of the security of your own nations! If attacked by a non UN nation, we will be restricted by these strangle hold laws, preventing us from properly defending ourselves! If we can not defend oursleves, how are we to be expected to defend others!? This law must be repealed!

Too little, too late.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Too little, too late.

Actually, what he said had been repeated over and over again on previous pages of this thread. There just doesn't seem to be anyone listening.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Have any of the people who've been opposing this repeal actually read the original resolution? Look at whom it forbids the use of land-mines...

"For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for."

Not "countries", "nations" or even "states", but "counties"....

Is there a UN Resolution stating that the UN's member-nations are officially to be referred to as "UN counties"?
No, there isn't.

Therefore the resolution [clearly] affects only those UN member-nations which are ruled by Counts and/or use the term "County" in their official titles, and how many of those are there?


(OOC: Okay, I personally realise that that was a typo by the resolution's author, but the government of St Edmund assumes that any nation which considers something important enough to be the subject of a UN resolution would care enough about it to get the spelling correct... ;) )

OOC: Maybe they meant to represent all U.N. nations as "counties" of the U.N., thus entrenching and IntFed status for nations in U.N. law.

(OOC: Okay, I personally realise that that was a typo by the resolution's author, but the government of St Edmund assumes that any nation which considers something important enough to be the subject of a UN resolution would care enough about it to get the spelling correct... ;) )
The spelling is correct, it's just the wrong word.

The resolution "Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines"" was defeated 8,353 votes to 4,461.

That's what I call a smackdown! ;)

Ah well.

My thanks to those who supported the repeal, notably them fine fellows from UN DEFCON, especially Cluichstan, 'Kenny, Palentine and Kivisto, and everyone who has helped it get this far. We find consolation in the fact that #40 is not much of a ban anyway.

Gruen's prick may be powerful, but is it listed on the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List), like mine is?It is now. ;)

I was stating that it was a possibility, one that I feel is likely. All one has to do is lay a significant number of landmines around an inhabited area, declare a state of emergency as a rational and voila, you have used landmines as a means of civillian containment. I feel it is all too possible.

Why bother? Surely a bit of barbed wire, a tall wall or something, would contain civilians.

OOC: In RL there were minefields incorporated into the Iron Curtain, in order to deter people who wanted to move west out of the Warsaw Pact countries...

Oh well. At least I have my wolf/pelican hybrids with explosives strapped to them. Besides none of my counties are in a state of conflict anyway!

paul they are going to tepee you run run run for your life

paul they are going to tepee you run run run for your life

*cough* Kindly do not post here while stoned, it distracts us from very important considerations. Like these wolf/pelican suicide bomber hybrids that Tsorzland's come up with and which we're interested in buying off him.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC - That's three resolutions in a row that just got defeated. I'm feeling incredibly nervous about the Nuclear Energy Research Act...

OOC - That's three resolutions in a row that just got defeated. I'm feeling incredibly nervous about the Nuclear Energy Research Act...

This should cheer you up mate...Have some:)

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/Olde_Frothingslosh/ofl1967-1969-01.jpg

Like these wolf/pelican suicide bomber hybrids that Tsorzland's come up with and which we're interested in buying off him.


If you're interested in those, maybe you'd be interested in the Houdinis, or Houdini Mark IIs that a regional member has. They seem to like their privacy (it wasn't until we helped them fend of a coup that they would really talk to us.), so it might be best to talk to us if you're interested. (If we introduce you to them you're negotiations will be much smoother).

Peace and Long Life.

If you're interested in those, maybe you'd be interested in the Houdinis, or Houdini Mark IIs that a regional member has. They seem to like their privacy (it wasn't until we helped them fend of a coup that they would really talk to us.), so it might be best to talk to us if you're interested. (If we introduce you to them you're negotiations will be much smoother).

Peace and Long Life.

We're still consulting with the General Staff as to the applicability of any wolf/pelican hybrids in our armed services, so we won't be placing any orders just yet.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Who used the phrase "covert defence"? I didn't; the repeal certainly didn't. What are you talking about?

Covert defence is a millitary term not used in this proposal, or by you.

Surely you must understand the meaning of the word "covert"?

I agree. I agree so much, I wrote a resolution about it: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=149


This is an interesting point, because many anti-defence bigots claim that you cannot always accurately locate landmines.

Furthermore, what if that is not an option? If the only way one can move troops into a country is through a particular pass or isthmus? If an invasion at a particular point has been prepared, as it is the only point to which supplies can be delivered? Obviously, I agree: if they can just walk round the minefield, landmines are useless. I'm arguing though that there are times when they cannot "just walk round" the minefield: what then?



This was in reply to the suggestion that minefields would be mapped by another un member, if there are maps available to the general public as was being suggested, then anyone could walk into a public library and get this information.

We just believethat it should be made illegal to kill another person under any circumstances, regardless of who you are.

We understand that not many other countries will agree with this, but this is our ethos.

OOC: I see that one of the delegates who voted against this proposal, the one from the region of 'Ontario', is actually called Fwuffy :
I'd insert a 'smilie' here, but the one that I consider most appropriate is generally considered unacceptable...

We just believethat it should be made illegal to kill another person under any circumstances, regardless of who you are.Well, you really ought to have spoken up before Murder and Manslaughter Laws was nuked. :rolleyes:

FOR UNDEFCON

Thanks for accepting me. Sorry your proposal didn't fall through. I voted for it if it is any consolation.

FOR UNDEFCON

Thanks for accepting me. Sorry your proposal didn't fall through. I voted for it if it is any consolation.

No need for thanks, Ed. Glad to have you aboard. You see, it's the failure of proposals like this one that demonstrate the need for DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON). Clearly, our motto is accurate: We do care about others' security more than they do.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
We care more about your nation's security than you do. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)

H'mm.
Even if the ban [limited though it is in its effects] is interpreted as applying to all UN member-nations, rather than just to those of them that are "counties", mightn't that still leave international organisations such as DEFCON completely free to use mines?

I think that's a bridge too far, and further, unnecessary. The resolution allows you to use landmines in peacetime. Once you enter a war, you are no longer allowed to use them; you are, however, under no obligation to clear your landmines. So although you can't "use" them, meaning I suppose you couldn't deploy any more, that matters little.

And that's without discussing the lack of definitions, the "counties", and the fact that given current UN war protocols - or lack thereof - it's all pretty silly anyway.

Once you enter a war, you are no longer allowed to use them; you are, however, under no obligation to clear your landmines. So although you can't "use" them, meaning I suppose you couldn't deploy any more, that matters little.As I stated before, in a war, you aren't using your own landmines. Your enemy is, and getting blown up is just what those scofflaws deserve.