NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Global disarmament
Strength: Significant

The United Nations...

1) DEFINES submunition weapons, for the purpose of this resolution, as devices:
* Containing multiple explosive submunitions designed to be scattered or otherwise deployed by the central device; excluding self-forging weapons using multiple explosive-formed submunitions that are in themselves composed of non-explosive materials;
* Primarily designed for the incapacation of personnel and / or defeating light armoured vehicles, or to deploy cratering charges to damage infrastructure such as airstrips and roads, or to deploy multiple antipersonell landmines; and excluding devices designed for the deployment of leaflets, anti-tank mines, naval mines, torpedos, depth charges, or tactical or strategic nuclear warheads;
* Designed to be deployed by aircraft including UCAVs, ground or naval artillery, direct-fire cannon, multiple launch rocket systems, cruise or ballistic missiles, or any other means;
* Which are not Man-In-The-Loop [MITL] systems which will only be activated by direct intervention of an operator, instead using an automated internal detonation system such as an impact fuse.

NOTES that…

1) Submunition weapons can be effective anti-personnel weaponry if used in combat;

2) Nations have the right to use whatever types of armaments they desire, given reasonable limitations in the interest of humanitarianism;

and

3) Unexploded submunition weapons and canisters often remain unexploded for years after being fired,

hereby BANS use of submunition weapons in areas with more civilians than military personnel by a ratio of at least two to one

and

hereby MANDATES that all nations place universal labels on submunition weapons and canisters. These labels will be yellow triangles with a black explosion symbol on them.

Co-authored by GMC Military Arms.

Although cluster bombs can be highly effective when used in combat, they can also cause stunning amounts of collatoral damage. To use them in civilian areas when it is not necessary to do so is an atrocity and ought to be subject to punishment by the UN.

Pretenama Panels are already used by both the Eon Convention on Genocide and Humanitarian Interventions as established by the UN. They are the procedure referred to in the last line and should be capable of determining whether there was significant evidence to support the use of cluster bombs in questionable situations.

Edits, comments, suggestions or questions are welcomed.

Category: Human rights
Strength: Mild

I think that this is a Strength violation. There are mandating clauses. Maybe this should be Strong or Significant.


Hereby MANDATES that:

1) All member nations shall refrain from using cluster bombs in situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations when said situations are likely to result in high numbers of civilian casualties;

2) All member nations seeking to use cluster bombs in military situations shall take steps to minimize civilian casualties caused by cluster bombs by means of time-detonation devices, precision dropping technology and leaflet drops to warn of impending bombing,

Yup. Mandating clauses. Strength: Strong or Significant.

Other than the strength, I don't really see anything else wrong with this. Of course, I only skimmed through it.

OOC: It looks like Global Disarmament and Significant to me.

IC:

Leaflet drops. What a wonderful idea. We can tell folks to stand still and stay in plain sight while we drop "supplies" for them that just happen to resemble cluster bombs.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

It's not Human Rights; it's either IS or GD.

And why, oh why, do nations need to be referred to TPP when they don't use time-detonation devices or drop leaflets?

Also, the last clause is a clear HoC violation; you can outsource management of certain areas of resolutions to existing committees, but as far as I know you can't simply say "all the procedures for reporting violations under this resolution? Just refer to Humanitarian Intervention!"

(Which is a resolution that ought to be repealed, anyway.)

Thank you for the early comments. I retooled the part about enforcing this resolution to be more of a general statement than a specific procedure, in line with other disarmament resolutions. I changed this to a significant global disarmament resolution. Also, the portions about warnings and safety methods are now encouraged, not mandated.

What else can be improved?

"We cannot particularly find any argument against this. You have our support."

Hereby MANDATES that all member nations shall refrain from using cluster bombs in situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations when said situations are likely to result in high numbers of civilian casualties, ENCOURAGES all member nations seeking to use cluster bombs in military situations shall take steps to minimize civilian casualties caused by cluster bombs by means of time-detonation devices, precision dropping technology and leaflet drops to warn of impending bombing
This seems very clumsily worded, and is a big glomp of text. The grammar of the "ENCOURAGES" clause doesn't follow - replace "shall" with "to".

I'm somewhat ambivalent on this issue, but one suggestion that I do like is that cluster bomblets be marked with a distinct, universal, easily recognisable symbol to indicate that yes, they will blow your arm off if you touch them, and no, they are not food packets.

While others argue the merrits of strength, there is one line that has to go:

STATES that nations that violate this resolution’s mandate can be punished by the United Nations for war crimes.

The UN cannot punish. Peroid. Against the rules. And this would be probably a rules voilation with the line intact.

I feel that the strength is mild, because nations retain the freedom to deem situations as essential or non-essential. In other words, it's hard on having nations do something, but soft on exactly what.

This seems very clumsily worded, and is a big glomp of text. The grammar of the "ENCOURAGES" clause doesn't follow - replace "shall" with "to".

I'm somewhat ambivalent on this issue, but one suggestion that I do like is that cluster bomblets be marked with a distinct, universal, easily recognisable symbol to indicate that yes, they will blow your arm off if you touch them, and no, they are not food packets.

Jolly Rogers, perhaps. I'll weigh in on this later.

Opposed.

No military that's worth anything is going to use munitions in ways that are ineffectual. This is like banning the use of mortars for rabbit hunting. Nobody in their right mind would do it.

This is just more attempted micromanagment by the UN.


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

Opposed.

No military that's worth anything is going to use munitions in ways that are ineffectual. This is like banning the use of mortars for rabbit hunting. Nobody in their right mind would do it.

This is just more attempted micromanagment by the UN.


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

OOC: *Points at the recent use of cluster bombs in lebanon by israel.* They killed what 1400 civilians and like 25 hezbollah soldiers. Yeah, no one would do that.

OOC: *Points at the recent use of cluster bombs in lebanon by israel.* They killed what 1400 civilians and like 25 hezbollah soldiers. Yeah, no one would do that.*points to the fact that my post was In Character, making Israel utterly irrelevent*

OOC: *Points at the recent use of cluster bombs in lebanon by israel.* They killed what 1400 civilians and like 25 hezbollah soldiers. Yeah, no one would do that.

OOC: I knew someone would bring up Israel. I think that's as close to a Godwin we're going to get here. And leave the demagoguery at home, wouldja?

1) DEFINES cluster bombs, for the purpose of this resolution, as anti-personnel projectile devices dropped by aircraft and designed to burst into or release “bomblets” before reaching their target in order to maximize damage;

Hm...You do realise the the vast majority of unexploded submunitions actually originate from artillery rounds and not air-dropped bombs, right? IRL, most bomblets in warzones originate from either 155mm submunition-deploying shells or from rockets fired by things like the MLRS.

This resolution also needs to differentiate between weapons using self-forging penetrators [which don't explode] and explosive submunition-deploying weapons.

Hereby MANDATES that all member nations shall refrain from using cluster bombs in situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations when said situations are likely to result in high numbers of civilian casualties,

This may be a mandating clause, but it's essentially toothless. Any nation can declare that, in their view, such use is "essential to military operations" in any particular case, and that it's not "likely to result in high numbers of civilian casualties".

And then go ahead and do whatever they want.

We applaud the aims of this proposal, but question its ability to achieve its goals.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Opposed.

No military that's worth anything is going to use munitions in ways that are ineffectual. This is like banning the use of mortars for rabbit hunting. Nobody in their right mind would do it.

This is just more attempted micromanagment by the UN.


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

Patently untrue. The best militaries in the world often suffer from low morale. When fighting a losing a battle even good armies get desperate. Munitions you will be forced to surrender have little value to you... and a great deal of value to the enemy.

No military that's worth anything is going to use munitions in ways that are ineffectual. This is like banning the use of mortars for rabbit hunting. Nobody in their right mind would do it.


OOC: *points to the fact that there are national governments in NS that probably aren't "in their right mind"...

Patently untrue. The best militaries in the world often suffer from low morale. When fighting a losing a battle even good armies get desperate. Munitions you will be forced to surrender have little value to you... and a great deal of value to the enemy.

In which case you would haul them into the air and drop them on civilian targets for no apparent reason rather than just rigging them with explosives and destroying them?

In which case you would haul them into the air and drop them on civilian targets for no apparent reason rather than just rigging them with explosives and destroying them?

I wouldn't. Others do.

I wouldn't. Others do.

Doubtful. If the war's going that badly for you, you'd likely not be in a position to do aerial bombing of any description whatsoever, let alone be inclined to waste a precious ground-attack mission on uselessly throwing cluster bombs around when you could be hitting actual targets with them instead.

Doubtful. If the war's going that badly for you, you'd likely not be in a position to do aerial bombing of any description whatsoever, let alone be inclined to waste a precious ground-attack mission on uselessly throwing cluster bombs around when you could be hitting actual targets with them instead.

I'm responding to this statement:

"No military that's worth anything is going to use munitions in ways that are ineffectual. "

But to respond to yours, a nation with a superior air force can still lose a war, if it is facing a superior naval, ground, space, or political force.

OOC: *points to the fact that there are national governments in NS that probably aren't "in their right mind"...Okay, this is a more reasonable counter. However, Dr. Leary stands by his comments.

I'm responding to this statement:

"No military that's worth anything is going to use munitions in ways that are ineffectual. "

And you're wrong. A military with its back to the wall is even less likely to waste ammunition and aviation fuel mounting bombing raids that are, by the proposal's definition, 'situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations.'

You are proposing that a hard-pressed military would deliberately waste ammo for no reason at all, since that's the only way it would be in violation of this treaty.

But to respond to yours, a nation with a superior air force can still lose a war, if it is facing a superior naval, ground, space, or political force.

Yes, and in the process said superior airforce would have to be destroyed or depleted. It will be destroyed or depleted all the faster if it consistantly deploys weaponry in 'situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations.'

Again, this proposal appears to be against wasting ammunition. You're arguing that when pressured, a military would do that, waste fuel, and risk valuable aircraft on raids that had no military usefulness at all. That isn't so much Global Disarmament as Pointing Out Obvious Things For The Benefit Of Stupid Officers, which isn't a UN proposal category.

And you're wrong. A military with its back to the wall


Often faces the distinct possibility those munitions will be seized by the enemy.


is even less likely to waste ammunition and aviation fuel mounting bombing raids that are, by the proposal's definition, 'situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations.'


There is often no viable military target. Whan an air force that is about to lose it's support base faces capture it makes military sense to bomb a lot of civilians, if it means getting one enemy combatant. It's a mistake from several other perspective, granted, but people are dumb.

And you're wrong. A military with its

You are proposing that a hard-pressed military would deliberately waste ammo for no reason at all, since that's the only way it would be in violation of this treaty.


No you are ignoring the myriad possible reasons.


Again, this proposal appears to be against wasting ammunition. You're arguing that when pressured, a military would do that, waste fuel, and risk valuable aircraft on raids that had no military usefulness at all. That isn't so much Global Disarmament as Pointing Out Obvious Things For The Benefit Of Stupid Officers, which isn't a UN proposal category.

Your argument is the resolution is unneccesary? That is an argument against a resolution, a weak one, but an argument nonetheless.

Others consider it necessary. If some consider it necessary, and the rest consider it harmless... that's an argument in favor.

Often faces the distinct possibility those munitions will be seized by the enemy.

Not really. If that's an issue they can be loaded onto trucks and shipped elsewhere or destroyed to prevent capture, or even rigged to explode when the enemy attempts to make use of them. The final option achieves vastly higher probability of damage to the enemy.

Also, weapon systems aren't universal; it's unlikely the enemy would be able to make immediate use of captured bombs without major modifications to them and / or the carrying aircraft beforehand. Most likely they'd just dismantle them and recycle the casings and explosives, since dropping them would be more trouble than it was worth.

There is often no viable military target. Whan an air force that is about to lose it's support base faces capture it makes military sense to bomb a lot of civilians, if it means getting one enemy combatant.

Except that such a move involves risking an aircraft and an aircrew that should be evacuating, instead sending them on a pointless raid. And if the military has its back to the wall already, the only targets they're likely to be able to hit would be inside their own borders.

You're just trying to invent a situation, any situation, where this proposal would actually do something. Not only could bombing a civilian area to kill a single hostile be considered a 'situation deemed to be essential to military operations' and therefore not fall within the scope of the proposal at all, but the situation itself is so staggeringly unlikely that it's simply wasting the UN's time to pass a whole resolution on What To Do If A UN Nation Is Invaded And Its Airforce Is Staffed With Fucking Morons.

No you are ignoring the myriad possible reasons.

There are no possible reasons. Remember, you only can't use them in 'situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations.' In other words, this proposal only legislates against pointless expenditure of resources, not against anything deemed 'essential to military operations.'

Your argument is the resolution is unneccesary? That is an argument against a resolution, a weak one, but an argument nonetheless.

No, my argument is that it's completely useless. Not only does it not legislate against the primary source of unexploded submunitions [artillery shells], but the clause that they should not be used in 'situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations' means that the proposal is only against absolutely useless deployments of weaponry.

Hell, given that it's only against 'using cluster bombs in situations deemed to be non-essential to military operations when said situations are likely to result in high numbers of civilian casualties' you can even use them directly against civilians if it's deemed essential to military operations to do so!

cluster bombs are cool. maybe i'm too much of a pro-war nation.:p

Category: Global disarmament
Strength: Significant

The United Nations...

1) DEFINES cluster bombs, for the purpose of this resolution, as anti-personnel projectile devices dropped by aircraft and designed to burst into or release “bomblets” before reaching their target in order to maximize damage;

NOTES that…

1) Cluster bombs can be effective anti-personnel weaponry if used in combat;

2) Nations have the right to use whatever types of armaments they desire, given reasonable limitations in the interest of humanitarianism;

3) Bomblets from cluster bombs often fail to detonate upon landing and can remain dangerous for years after being dropped, tragically resulting in terrible injury to civilians

and

4) Cluster bombs can cause high levels of collateral damage to civilians,

Hereby BANS all member nations from using cluster bombs when use is likely to result in at least 20% more civilian casualties than opposing military casualties;

Hereby ENCOURAGES all member nations seeking to use cluster bombs in military situations shall take steps to minimize civilian casualties caused by cluster bombs by means of time-detonation devices, precision dropping technology and leaflet drops to warn of impending bombing

and

hereby MANDATES that all nations place universal labels on cluster bomb canisters. These labels will be yellow triangles with a black explosion symbol on them.

This newest draft addresses issues by deleting weak wording like "deemed essential to military operations," leaving enforcement out of the question and simply making this as enforceable as 90% of other resolutions by leaving it up to the UN and establishing a universal canister labelling system.

Cluster bombs are often used in efforts to kill high-priority individuals, especially when they are embedded within civilian areas. It is far more ethical and humane to avoid the use of cluster bombs in these situations, however. Furthermore, cluster bombs can be used as "collective punishment" or as an effort to frighten a population into submission. This must be made illegal.

Desperate armies or non-governmental armies would be willing to use cluster bombs in civilian areas in the same ways that they are willing to use terrorism. Simply put, there are militaries and militant organizations that would rather blow people up than save them. I don't understand what, but I do understand that they exist.

Hereby BANS all member nations from using cluster bombs when use is likely to result in at least 20% more civilian casualties than opposing military casualties;
That seems an incredibly arbitrary figure.

You could just make it "significantly" and leave it up to a Pretenama Panel to decide by case law what percentage is "significant".

(God, did I write that? So I'm saying,"Go ahead and kill a couple of thousand and we'll see whether that's shocking enough"? I'm glad this is hypothetical.)

Cluster bombs are often used in efforts to kill high-priority individuals, especially when they are embedded within civilian areas.They are?

Funny... I thought they were for destroying targets with large surface areas, like roads and airport runways, or for destroying groups of soldiers. Killing a single, high-priority target is what snipers are for.

1) DEFINES cluster bombs, for the purpose of this resolution, as anti-personnel projectile devices dropped by aircraft and designed to burst into or release “bomblets” before reaching their target in order to maximize damage;

1) DEFINES submunition weapons, for the purpose of this resolution, as devices:
* Containing multiple explosive submunitions designed to be scattered or otherwise deployed by the central device; excluding self-forging weapons using multiple explosive-formed submunitions that are in themselves composed of non-explosive materials;
* Primarily designed for the incapacation of personnel and / or defeating light armoured vehicles, or to deploy cratering charges to damage infrastructure such as airstrips and roads, or to deploy multiple antipersonell landmines; and excluding devices designed for the deployment of leaflets, anti-tank mines, naval mines, torpedos, depth charges, or tactical or strategic nuclear warheads;
* Designed to be deployed by aircraft including UCAVs, ground or naval artillery, direct-fire cannon, multiple launch rocket systems, cruise or ballistic missiles, or any other means;
* Which are not Man-In-The-Loop [MITL] systems which will only be activated by direct intervention of an operator, instead using an automated internal detonation system such as an impact fuse.

There, that actually covers your bases.

This newest draft addresses issues by deleting weak wording like "deemed essential to military operations," leaving enforcement out of the question and simply making this as enforceable as 90% of other resolutions by leaving it up to the UN and establishing a universal canister labelling system.

You have continued to leave out that the primary sources of unexploded submunitions are artillery shells. Your resolution is only dealing with one potential source of unexploded submunitions.

Cluster bombs are often used in efforts to kill high-priority individuals, especially when they are embedded within civilian areas.

No they aren't. Spread-bomb weapons are the least likely thing to be used for assured precision destruction of a single target, since they might well not hit the target at all even if they work perfectly. They're normally used for destroying groups of 'soft' targets like light armoured vehicles, trucks, tents or infantry in the open.

It is far more ethical and humane to avoid the use of cluster bombs in these situations, however. Furthermore, cluster bombs can be used as "collective punishment" or as an effort to frighten a population into submission. This must be made illegal.

So can fuel-air explosives, napalm, incendiaries, nerve gas, conventional unguided bombs, earthquake bombs, artillery fire or nuclear weapons. Hell, you can pull 'collective punishment' of civilian populations with sharpened shovels or knives, it's been done in places like Rwanda.

Dropping a large volume of anything on a civilian area will achieve such an aim, and there's no real reason to single out cluster weapons as special in this way; they're not particularly efficient, destructive, brutal or inhumane as these things go, and the major problem with them is later civilian casualties from unexploded submunitions, not immediate ones.

Desperate armies or non-governmental armies would be willing to use cluster bombs in civilian areas in the same ways that they are willing to use terrorism.

No, because governments willing to use terrorism don't tend to have airforces to begin with. Since pointless air bombing is about the worst use of resources there is, they would not be willing to do it at all. It risks extremely valuable resources without hurting the enemy's ability to fight.

In addition, if they really wanted to deploy explosive submunitions, they would go the easy way, sidestep this entire resolution, and do it using artillery-delivered weapons instead.

Simply put, there are militaries and militant organizations that would rather blow people up than save them. I don't understand what, but I do understand that they exist.

They don't tend to have aircraft with cluster bombs.

GNC Military Arms- thank you for an excellent definition and an incredible revision of my work. I'm going to try making one more round of heavy changes, then, if this is still not a popular draft, I'll table it for now.

I am listing you as a co-author for your excellent job of retooling this.

They are?

Funny... I thought they were for destroying targets with large surface areas, like roads and airport runways, or for destroying groups of soldiers. Killing a single, high-priority target is what snipers are for.

Precisely. While the author of the proposal has demonstrated a pretty good knowledge of what cluster munitions are, he completely fails to understand how they are employed.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I have no desire to start a real-world debate or argue about this, but the reason I came up with this proposal was, as was alluded to earlier, Israel's use of cluster bombs in urban areas when it tried to assault Hezbollah this summer. Regardless of the merits, effectiveness or ethics of it, that was the inspiration for this proposal. I used cluster bombs as the topic because they had been used, resulting in a high number of civilian casualties. It's not like I just pulled this out of thin air. I really was considering a real-world scenario that, obviously, can be emulated in NationStates.

Throwing hissy fits every time Israel tries to defend itself is what the real U.N. is for, chief. :rolleyes:

Throwing hissy fits every time Israel tries to defend itself is what the real U.N. is for, chief. :rolleyes:

OOC:

Not to jack the thread... but the article in the NY Times today about the Unifil force got me so angry I nearly ripped the paper.

innocent Lebanon my ass. They won't even cooperate and prevent more death.

IC:

The Empire does not condone the use of unnecessary force against civilians (we ALWAYS make sure it's necessary first :)). That said, we cannot support a resolution like this.

We would like, however, to applaud the delegate from Tarmsden for his level-headedness in the debate and his willingness to compromise and rework his proposal. Perhaps in the future, we could support such legislation.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

GNC Military Arms- thank you for an excellent definition and an incredible revision of my work. I'm going to try making one more round of heavy changes, then, if this is still not a popular draft, I'll table it for now.

I am listing you as a co-author for your excellent job of retooling this.

Better make sure that you get GMC's name right then.;)

Yes, sorry about that. Actually, I think I'm going to let this one pass for now. Thank you for a good debate, but this is clearly not workable in its current form. Perhaps it will be revived later on, but for now, case closed on this.