NationStates Jolt Archive

Banning Offensive Action of Incendiary Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Incendiary weapons; are munitions that are to be dispersed over a wide area. The explosive charge; results in an extremely high temperature that results in buildings made of wood or other combustible materials collapsing under such heat.

Incendiary weapons causes burns (second and third degree) that may enter the body system, from these burns, that attacks and damages the body functions especially with regards to the liver, heart, and kidney of its victim. Furthermore, incendiary weapons continue to burn until it is deprived of oxygen which can result in it burning straight to the bone.

Article 1:

This resolution recommends the use of Incendiary weapons for defensive purposes. White Phosphorous for example can be also used as a smoke-screen or flare and can be used in case of night time operations or to laser point an enemy target.

Article 2:

Offensive actions are defined in this resolution consists of invading another U.N member-state, or non U.N member state and using incendiary weapons against their military and civilian populations. In the act of defending one’s nation against attack, using incendiary weapons would be considered appropriate against the aggressor nations armed forces, however once the invading nation leaves a U.N member states borders, if Incendiary weapons are used on their population centers in the same conflict it would be considered offensive action.

Article 3:

Reduction of incendiary weapons for offensive military purposes by U.N member states.

Phase (1): Between years 1-5; U.N member states will reduce the use of incendiary weapons in offensive actions white phosphorous, napalm, thermite and others by 20% at non-civilian center battles (military bases, etc) and a reduction of 40% near population centers.

Phase (2): Between years 6-10; the reduction of these incendiary weapons will continue with regards to military operations with a reduction of an additional 30% of incendiary weapons on non-civilian centers (military bases, etc) and the full phase out of these weapons as a offensive weapon around population centers.

Phase (3): Between years 11-15; the final phase out of incendiary weapons as offensive weapons by U.N member states.

Article 4:

The creation of the Incendiary Device Watchdog Council will report every year on U.N member states progress in phasing out the use of the white phosphorous weapon as an offensive weapon.

The IDWC would then proceed to document any illegal violations of the resolution by U.N member states, who after the ten year period may engage in incendiary weapon offensives tactics. The Council will note the evidence and open the way for civilian victims to be financially compensated for the actions that may cause damage to property, injury or death.

Article 5:

Incendiary weapons are defined as:

Napalm
White Phosphorous
thermite
chlorine trifluroide

So I have defined what offensive and defensive action is in this article, and recommends the use of it in defensive measures, and on top of that couldn't find a council that would fit in with such a resolution.

Incendiary weapons are defined as:

Napalm
White Phosphorous
thermite
chlorine trifluroide

Just my 2 cents: (first post on UN forum)

There are a lot more types of incendiary weapons than that, the U.S. Mark 77 for example is an incendiary weapon that uses only kerosene and benzene.

What about the use of weapons that could potentially start fires/cause severe burns? Weapons such as H.E.A.T. rounds.

Grenades, Mortars, Artillery shells, all could potentially set fire to a building. Either by disturbing a flame source within the building itself(pilot light, gas stoves, candles, electrical lines) or burning gunpowder/white-hot shrapnel could set normally combustible marterials ablaze.

You're condemning the use of incendiary weapons with this proposal, yet your proposal also "recommends" their use for defensive purposes. That seems contradictory to me. Perhaps "allows" would be a better word?

Also, I have to agree with previous commenters on this proposal that the timeline for phasing these weapons out is entirely too long. Either get rid of them quickly, or don't bother.

Third, I also don't see the need for creating a committee just for phasing out incendiary weapons.

And lastly, as Pyotr points out, a lot of things can be an incendiary weapon. Expanding on that definition may help.

Thank you for your comments. To note, this is to ban them for Offensive action, not entirely. And that is the main point for the committee, to look into instances where incediary weapons are used after they were suppose to be banned for offensive purposes.

Article 2:

Offensive actions are defined in this resolution consists of invading another U.N member-state, or non U.N member state and using incendiary weapons against their military and civilian populations. In the act of defending one’s nation against attack, using incendiary weapons would be considered appropriate against the aggressor nations armed forces, however once the invading nation leaves a U.N member states borders, if Incendiary weapons are used on their population centers in the same conflict it would be considered offensive action. This article seems to suggest that invading another nation is acceptable behavior. Why?

The author needs to use the word “aggression” in place of the phrase “offensive action”; but then, if we do that, we are led to ask ourselves why we don't just ban aggression altogether...

"The Dark Empire of Shazbotdom does not really like this proposal. If it comes to vote and looks like it ill pass, the Dark Empire will most definitally help any UN Member Naiton that wishes to write up a repeal for this. IF we are being assaulted, then we sure as hell would want to take the fight to them by dropping weapons such as Napalm and Thermite on military targets within their nation.

Banning the offensive use of these weapons will effect a major part of war and will hurt any nation getting assaulted by a non UN Member nation with these weapons more than it will hurt it. Cause i sure as hell would want to use these weapons against their country if they use them against mine."

Jim Kranich
Shazbotdom UN Representitive

Incendiary weapons; are munitions that are to be dispersed over a wide area. The explosive charge; results in an extremely high temperature that results in buildings made of wood or other combustible materials collapsing under such heat.I question the use of these semicolons. They make no grammatical sense. Indeed, I see no reason for any punctuation in those places at all.

"The Dark Empire of Shazbotdom does not really like this proposal. If it comes to vote and looks like it ill pass, the Dark Empire will most definitally help any UN Member Naiton that wishes to write up a repeal for this. IF we are being assaulted, then we sure as hell would want to take the fight to them by dropping weapons such as Napalm and Thermite on military targets within their nation.

Banning the offensive use of these weapons will effect a major part of war and will hurt any nation getting assaulted by a non UN Member nation with these weapons more than it will hurt it. Cause i sure as hell would want to use these weapons against their country if they use them against mine."

Jim Kranich
Shazbotdom UN Representitive

Screw a repeal, man. We'll work actively to make sure it never gets close to passing.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I would like to see you try.

There are 2,000+ delegates, I would like to see you try to ensure all of them don't approve it.

You can't define incendiary weapons by listing some of them. You have to come up with a definition, that if applied would include those you list.

For example, I wouldn't define fruit by saying: "Fruit is defined as apples, bananas and lemons." I'd give a definition of fruit that included all those things, without the need to list them.

I would like to see you try.

There are 2,000+ delegates, I would like to see you try to ensure all of them don't approve it.

You are correct. There are 2,000+ delegates. Some ignore the TGs, others don't care and even more don't even approve proposals. It wouldn't be too difficult for the Cluichstani representative to ensure that this does not get anywhere near vote. Especially with a little help.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I would like to see you try.

There are 2,000+ delegates, I would like to see you try to ensure all of them don't approve it.

I don't need to get all of them not to approve it, man, just enough to keep it from reaching quorum. And believe me, I can put down my bong long enough to make sure it never gets there.

You seem a bit uptight. Here, have a flower.

http://www.uni-graz.at/~katzer/pictures/papa_06.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It goes great on toast!

No way will the Empire support this.

If you are attacking a biological weapons facility, aren't incendiary weapons safer for everybody?

OOC: Just thought I'd drop by and say, I'm finished. I will worry no more with this delegation and/or their proposals from now until the rest of time.

Ciao!

Screw a repeal, man. We'll work actively to make sure it never gets close to passing.That, or we make sure it's illegal by the time he submits it.