NationStates Jolt Archive

With thanks to Gruenberg and the Wolf Guardians.

Unconventional Arms Accord
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny)

Description: The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.

iii. Although it is imperative for nations to defend themselves, their people and their allies against attacks by hostile forces, the killing of civilians by such means is wholly unnecessary for this purpose.

iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.

v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.

They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions:

1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations;

2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;

3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;

4. Obligating member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;

5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

In witness whereof the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present convention.

We think it essential to make one thing very clear, right up front: this is NOT a disarmament proposal. There is not one single word in this proposal that promotes disarmament or even arms control. We challenge the author of the proposal and its proponents to point out a single provision that would in any way contribute to either disarmament or arms control.

In fact, this is an ANTI-DISARMAMENT proposal. Read Article 7 carefully. Buried down there, under all the nice, reasonable language, is the heart of the matter. That Article allows any psychotic leader of any nation to decide, at his sole discretion, that chemical weapons and those not banned by the defective "Biological Weapons Ban" are "necessary for their national defense". If they want to mass produce anthrax, they can. If they want to stockpile a few hundred tons of nerve agent, that's perfectly fine. This provision is nothing more than a blocker to legitimate disarmament and arms control legislation.

So why is it in the arms control category? Well, it's called crafty politics. The representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny very astutely put it in that category so that proponents of arms control who didn't bother to study its provisions carefully would vote for it. We can only hope that there are enough representatives in this Assembly who are not fooled by this piece of legislative trickery and will see this for what it is: nothing more than a clever, underhanded attempt to prevent this Assembly from adopting meaningful legislation on "unconventional weapons".

By Order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We think it essential to make one thing very clear, right up front: this is NOT a disarmament proposal. There is not one single word in this proposal that promotes disarmament or even arms control. We challenge the author of the proposal and its proponents to point out a single provision that would in any way contribute to either disarmament or arms control.

In fact, this is an ANTI-DISARMAMENT proposal. Read Article 7 carefully. Buried down there, under all the nice, reasonable language, is the heart of the matter. That Article allows any psychotic leader of any nation to decide, at his sole discretion, that chemical weapons and those not banned by the defective "Biological Weapons Ban" are "necessary for their national defense". If they want to mass produce anthrax, they can. If they want to stockpile a few hundred tons of nerve agent, that's perfectly fine. This provision is nothing more than a blocker to legitimate disarmament and arms control legislation.

So why is it in the arms control category? Well, it's called crafty politics. The representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny very astutely put it in that category so that proponents of arms control who didn't bother to study its provisions carefully would vote for it. We can only hope that there are enough representatives in this Assembly who are not fooled by this piece of legislative trickery and will see this for what it is: nothing more than a clever, underhanded attempt to prevent this Assembly from adopting meaningful legislation on "unconventional weapons".

By Order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And for those reasons, sans the oppositional rhetoric intended to paint the resolution's sponsor as an evil genius of some kind (which he most assuredly is not), I am entirely in favor of this legislation.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

We concur with the delegation from Ausserland. This resolution is, in essence, a blocker. It prohibits this body from restricting any member from “develop(ing), produc(ing), deploy(ing) and utiliz(ing)” any weapon imaginable. Once this resolution is law, we are limited to proposals aimed at preventing the international purchase and sale of weapons, technology transfers, and generalized spending cuts (“All nations will reduce armaments by X%”).

To describe such a measure as “a resolution to slash worldwide military spending” borders on obscenity. It presumes that, free to deploy whatever weapons we please, we will cut arms spending. Why this should happen is a mystery; it is contrary to the lessons of history.

The question this body must ask itself is this: do we wish to forever throw away our ability to limit the acquisition and use of weaponry we find dangerous to the world at large? We are already committed to maintaining a “balance of terror” in nuclear arms. Do we want to give carte blanche to nations that want to develop antimatter weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon), nanoweapons (http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/02/nanotech_weapon.html), environmental weapons (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/envwar.html), psychotronic weapons (http://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/360.html), or just about anything else people can dream up?

We're pretty sure that the proponents of this legislation believe that we should, and that these United Nations have no business taking any steps at all to promote global disarmament. What the Members of this body must decide is whether or not they agree that the best way to promote peace is to arm everyone to the teeth.

Mybelia is on board with this proposal all the way.

i doesnit lik deez disarmamament praposils!!!!!!!11!!!11!!11!!!!!oneoneone

Yeah, I'm for it.

It's pretty good, actually.

Norderia is staunchly opposed to this Resolution, as we have stated from the beginning. In echoing the sentiments of Ausserland, I would like to point out that not only are chemical and biological weapons bans, regulations, restrictions, et al Resolutions blocked by this Resolution, but, and I quote, "any and all" weapons. That is quite simply unacceptable. Norderia will be voting against this veritable castration of the UN's ability to legislate on weapon disarmament.

i doesnit lik deez disarmamament praposils!!!!!!!11!!!11!!11!!!!!oneoneone

You've either dumbed down your own language, or you're mocking those who are likely to oppose this Resolution based on the category. You'll find that the cogent opposition comes largely from people who DO like the category, or simply, the knowledge that the UN would be able to employ the category at any given moment. While the category would not be blocked, the meat and potatoes of disarmament would be -- the ability to legislate on weaponry.

Again, Norderia opposes, heartily.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

This proposal falls into the Global Disarmament category because it limits how nations can utilize their weaponry. Unfortunately, the "slash military budgets" is flavour text that cannot be done away with. It falls into this category because that is the only category into which it can fit. There is hardly any duplicity from the author when there is only one category that would be legal for this proposal to fall into.

This proposal falls into the Global Disarmament category because it limits how nations can utilize their weaponry. Unfortunately, the "slash military budgets" is flavour text that cannot be done away with. It falls into this category because that is the only category into which it can fit. There is hardly any duplicity from the author when there is only one category that would be legal for this proposal to fall into.

Mechanics category has been settled, but all said and done, things will happen the way Ausserland illustrates. This Resolution, while legally belonging to the category, butchers it.

Mechanics category has been settled, but all said and done, things will happen the way Ausserland illustrates. This Resolution, while legally belonging to the category, butchers it.

I was simply illustrating that the category was not entirely a matter of the author being cloak and dagger about everything. And yes, there is that one clause that may seem completely out of place to some, but it is right there for all who take the trouble to read it will see. The fact remains, while some might see the entire point of this proposal to sneak that single clause in, that this completely hogties a nation's ability to use portions of their arsenal (potentially large portions) against civilian populations. Sure, develop the weapons, but you can only use them against legitimate military targets.

It's isn't a complete blocker to further legislation, in any case. I could fairly rapidly draft up a proposal that would further limit the use of such weapons without running in contradiction to this. With a bit more time, I could draft you two or three legal proposals that would completely cripple a nation's capacity to use them at all. They would be nearly impossible to pass through the GA considering how harshly restrictive they would seem and how deeply they would infringe on national sovereignty, but it could be done. I, personally, would not want to see such restrictions put on us by the UN, but that is entirely my view on that.

We vote aye, predictably. I have already argued on other occasions my rationale for the reduction of military spending, in that spending is diverted from certain projects and used in others, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the category; therefore I won't get into much detail. And besides, I am sure that the honorable Mr. Olembe, The Stout, and the ambassador from Community Property (1) will not care in the slightest.


The Empire does not, on the whole, believe in the idealistic idea of pacifistic disarmament, for the reasons that those that disarm are usually destroyed soon after, and the fact that we just plain like weapons. We support the language of this resolution in that it discourages the use of chemical and biological weapons, leaving the right of sovereign nations intact.

For the rest of the debate, I will be taking the secondary chair; and the main speaking duties will be taken by the head of the Imperial Supreme Command, Grand Marshal Paulus Mannikr (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Paulus_Mannikr_dan_Polikarn), the Duke of Polikarn.

I look forward to reasoned and rational debate.

(1)I couldn't remember the representative from your nation. Is it still Chastity Starshine Rainbow Huggy, or whatever her name was?

I look forward to reasoned and rational debate.


I am sure that, at least amongst a few of us, that will be a definite possibility, if not a reality. I look forward to hearing from the Grand Marshall.

(1)I couldn't remember the representative from your nation. Is it still Chastity Starshine Rainbow Huggy, or whatever her name was?OOC: No. Ambassador McGee and her entire delegation have been recalled (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11940512) following the IP debacle - except for the janitor, who remains to handle all duties in the interim, including voting and the debate.

Not surprisingly, we agree with the honourable representatives of Ausserland and Norderia, and urge our fellow representatives to examine the text of this proposal very carefully.

*mutters something about dasterdly Kennyites*


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Despite the legality of the proposal, we disagree with the spirit of the proposal as expressed in Provision 6. We therefore cast our lone vote against this proposal, and encourage our Regional Delegate to cast his sixty-three votes likewise.


The Silent Minority of Gnomewatchers.

The only thing we ought to be using "unconventional" weapons on is this resolution. Ceorana joins our colleagues of Ausserland, Norderia and Arrridddiaa...er...Arridia...no...Ariddia! in a valiant attempt to see this disgrace against orange juice, bubble gum ice cream allergens and various other things crash, burn, and be unconventionally...er...unconditionally...defeated.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

For all the reasons that Ausserland says he is opposed to this resolution, The United Socialist States of Ellelt supports it.

Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targetting civilians.

This is a good resolution and I will be requesting that the Delegate for The Allied Communist States votes in favor of the measure.

Furthermore I believe its high time that the biological weapons ban and the landmine ban were lifted.

Vladimir Khernynko
UN Ambassador From Ellelt UN Clone. (Ellelt)

Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targetting civilians.
You do realize that such a statement actually belongs on the side opposing the resolution, right? That you already have that right, and this will restrict it?

Just checking to see whether your responses are intentionally illogical, or whether you simply haven't read it.

I'm not gonna lie to ya...when I first laid eyes on this proposal, I sprung a big rubbery one right through my pants. I mean, good gawd almighty, it don't get much better than this! Finally here's a piece of legislation that means somethin'! A paper that says I can fend off invaders with whatEVER the fuck I want, pardon my Frisbeeterianese. Now 'shore, I don't per-tick-u-larly like the part about civilians...gawd knows Florida has massacred its fair share of foreign civilians in the past, hyuk-hyuk. But hell, if leavin' ma, pa, junior, and their lil' dog Toto alone means the Orange Guard gets to spray down oncoming waves of enemy soldiers with napalm, poisonous gases, and shit that'll melt the skin straight off the bone and burst your eyeballs like cherries, I'm all for it! You got my vote.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2931/davidkoechnervj9bb3.jpg
Bud Brewster
U.N. Ambassador
The Beach Babes of Florida Oranges

You do realize that such a statement actually belongs on the side opposing the resolution, right? That you already have that right, and this will restrict it?

Just checking to see whether your responses are intentionally illogical, or whether you simply haven't read it.

Speaking as someone who has read the resolution, my interpretation is that it would ban all resolutions to ban any time of weapons or use of them, so doesn't that put him on the FOR side?

You do realize that such a statement actually belongs on the side opposing the resolution, right? That you already have that right, and this will restrict it?

Just checking to see whether your responses are intentionally illogical, or whether you simply haven't read it.

Seems i Misread it then...damned NyQuil.

I change to opposed then.

psyche...

Look if I want to melt the skin of the bones of enemy soldiers thats what I want to do...that war people. and War isnt pretty.

Nope I support Kenny in his blocker...and further more I would like to see repeals on the Landmine ban and the bioweapons ban.

I'm a bit unclear on the use of the term "Enjoining" in the second clause, but I suspect my government's primary reservation is the following blocker clause:

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

The deployment of other weapons not yet covered by international law is something we are not prepared to give a cart blanche exemption to -- for example: mass drivers. They need not be "developed", but there is no present UN legislation preventing their deployment -- though should this resolution pass, they can be used for "defensive" purposes against remote military installations, leading to catastrophic consequences to the native life around these installations. (Imagine: testing a Death Star on a green forest moon, on the grounds that the test is "defensive" and that the moon has no intelligent life -- is that really justified.)

Cassandra Thonberger
Deputy UN Ambassador
CSSM

You do realize that such a statement actually belongs on the side opposing the resolution, right? That you already have that right, and this will restrict it?Nope. Ellelt has summed up the crux of this proposal nicely:

"Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targeting civilians."

I'd like to start by expressing our solidarity with the delegations of Ausserland, Norderia, Ariddia and Ceorana. Secondly, I would like to refer back to the original debate when I said this:


Originally Posted by Omigodtheykilledkenny View Post
That's "Commander" to you, buddy.
Duly noted. You may address me as ambassador, since I am currently acting in that capacity.


We trust Mr. Felix is resting well in his crypt, or cryo-regeneration tube, or wherever it is the undead sleep.
Felix is resting comfortably. Thank you for your concern.


I believe it's obvious that part of defending civilians from chemical or biological warfare is to ensure that nations have the right to a credible deterrent arsenal.
That's not what I was asking though. What I was really looking for was an explanation of the purpose of clause 7 within this proposal. Furthermore, what is the, for lack of a better term, "overall purpose" of the proposal itself? Is it the laudable goal of preventing the use of these weapons against civilian populations, or is it the prevention of future UN arms control legislation? If it is the former, why was clause 7 included? Would you mind explaining more fully?

The moderators have already addressed this, and we will acknowledge no further discussion on the categorization of this proposal.
And we have already acknowledged the moderator ruling and accepted it. I was merely providing backgroud facts for the questions which followed.


Oh, for God's sake; this has nothing to do with "magical" chemical agents that only target certain people. We are talking about tactical weapons designed to mitigate the effects to outlying civilian areas and reduce collateral damage.
Really? What do these words:

Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel
mean?

Do you understand how chemical arms work within a battlefield environment? Have you ever ordered their deployment? I have. They are not very discriminatory in their effects, nor are they fully dependable. Hence, they are no longer included in the Yeldan inventory. There are far more efficient ways to kill, Commander.

There really is no other application for such arms save hitting legitimate military/political targets; if you're only using chemical weaponry to slaughter civilians, what's the point of limiting the damage?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean the chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, or something else?

I await your reply.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions in red text, Cmdr. Chiang, Mr Faisano, or whoever speaks for the Federal Republic today. This resolution is not about Global Disarmament, it is about Blocking any further attempts at Global Disarmament by this body. It is about preventing an effective chemical weapons ban. It is about preventing a repeal/replace of the flawed biological weapons ban. I know this, you know this and hopefully by the end of this vote the entire General Assembly will know this.

Now, answer my questions.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador

Always glad to be able to translate legalese into English Kenny. I read the proposal, and read Ausserland's comments. Having worked with him in Reclamation, I can say that he can read a resolution and determine what it means quit accurately and very rapidly.

After reading his response I knew that I was in favor of this resolution. Even though I came very close to supporting it on my third time reading it for myself...i was still going to abstain until I read his arguments.

Furthermore, while I believe certain things belong to the UN like legislating workers rights on an international basis because of the presence of multinational corporations, promoting the general welfare of the world population, I recognize that every state has the right to self defence, and the right to self-determination.

As it is said in my signature, between the extreme course of total National Sovereignty (meaning every nation can do whatever the hell it wants at all times with no reguard as to how this effects the international community) and the Extreme of total International Federalism (which would in effect make the nations of NS like the states of the mythical USA, rather than independent and sovereign nations) there is a middle path. International Confederalism. Im still working out how this middle path would work...for example what is and is not the UN's business, what is and is not the sole business of the indivdual nations. I imagine that working this out will take quite a bit of time but it will offer i hope a solution to the polarization between Natsov nations and Intfed nations.

Weaponry is a matter for states to work out for themselves because only they know what the situation they are in is. Ellelt is fortunate that it is in a region with friendly socialist states...but if it was in a region with unfriendly capitalist ones we would have to be prepared for war at a moments notice.

I believe it is only reasonable that in cases of war that the Nation States of the UN, and hopefully also the Nation States outside of the UN will try to not target civilian populations intentionally. However, I recognize that we can not here legislate the the behaviour of non-un nations.

Nope. Ellelt has summed up the crux of this proposal nicely:

"Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targeting civilians."

And, thus, placing this in the Global Disarmament category was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to mislead the members of this Assembly and garner votes from the unwary.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Nope. Ellelt has summed up the crux of this proposal nicely:

"Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targeting civilians."

And, thus, placing this in the Global Disarmament category was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to mislead the members of this Assembly and garner votes from the unwary.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Indeed! I didn't expect the Kennyites to tip their hand this early. Dropping all pretense of this having anything to do with Global Disarmament at this early stage of the game. Arrogance or foolishness?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador

Nope. Ellelt has summed up the crux of this proposal nicely:

"Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targeting civilians."Yeah, scratch that. I didn't see the "how they choose" part. Nope.

I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing -- slightly -- with Mr Olembe. I do not think the proposer can be accused of deception when he is simply using the hide-in-full-view technique.

Assuming that other nations will fall for it is, however, rather arrogant, so I find myself once more in accord with Mr Olembe.

The following simple summary -- not, I regret, mine -- was floating around the lobbies within hours of the proposal's appearance:

Articles i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Chemical and biological weapons are bad, bad, bad. Using them against civilians is a WAR CRIME!

Article 6. If they want to, nations can work together to develop chem and bio weapons that don't kill civilians.

Article 7. Scratch all of the above. Build whatever weapons you deem necessary so long as they aren't already outlawed.

It is my sad pleasure to read it into the General Assembly record so that other delegates may use it to clarify the resolution for their citizens.

Like the governments of Ariddia, Ausserland, Ceorana, Norderia and Yelda, my government opposes this proposal.
----------------------------------
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

By permission of the President of the Republic of Gerontas,
The Minister of Foreign Relations
Diogenes Dorieus

We quote from the resolution-at-vote:

"Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity."

The aforementioned is totally unacceptable and obviously false.
No military action can take place by any aggressor state, without a background economy supporting. It is our opinion that in a case of war the main fightpower of a nation comes exactly from the economic support offered from its population. Considering the nature of modern warfare any aggressive policy can only be based on an industrialization basis that would support the active battle-theater days; with the most important resourse of any industry being exactly the "human" resource.
Furthermore, the morale of a given army is heavily dependent on the morale and the well being of its population pool (which is also serving as source of replacement of any given losses of the military personel).
It is impossible to find civilians in a non-military service during a war, exactly because every social force and resource is employed directly or indirectly in supporting the armed forces.

Our Republic is not persuaded.

We remain.
Diogenes Dorieus

It has only been a short time, a second in the history of mankind(if even that) since my nation, the Community of Eudocia, was first formed.

We are not a strong nation. We do not have the means to defend ourselves against foreign powers and our region is one of uncertainity and streneous pacts. We are not in ourselves powerful, and most likely this new resolution would put our armies at a greater disadvantage, but it would also serve to protect our people, our citizens.

And is that not what this is about? In this day and age, armies are composed of people willing to serve, willing to die so that their families, friends and loved ones can be safe. Would we not step upon these sacrifices if we allowed the use of arms, conventional or not, upon those who have the least to do with these conflicts? Civilians killed because they just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, all because men and women of power think this resolution creates a loophole for military states to further increase their armada.

Well, I for one think that here the ends justify the means.

ERROR ONE: "Unconventional" weapons are not only chemical and biological ones, but also radiological and nuclear weapons.

ERROR TWO:
A) "Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function": but political people are civilians.
B) "[Civilians] are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or [they] are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity": but policemen are civilians, and employes of armed forces can be considered military personnel.

ERROR THREE: "Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel": this is absurd! No chemical (or biological) weapon can discriminate during the targeting and killing of a man; no bio-chem weapon can distinguish a soldier from a civilian.

THEN, SAY "NO" TO THIS PROPOSAL, for the good politics of the United Nations.

-the Armed Republic of Augusta Quiritia-
Founder and Delegate of the Region of Aeternia Imperialis

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

THEN, THIS RESOLUTION MUST BE REPEALED, for the good politics of the United Nations.

It can't be repealed; it hasn't been passed yet.


:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Why this sudden wish to make yourself look foolish and immature?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.

v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.
5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;


ok: several rather obvious problems with this.

first of all being: the slaughter of noncombatants being ok by conventional means? wrong! the slaughter of noncombatants not directly ingauged in the support of lethal opperations is never acceptable, unless you honestly and actualy intend to eat them. and then no more then you can actualy distribute to the hungry and keep from spoiling (accompanied by neccessary condiments and means of preperation)

deffinintian of "civilians" a wee bit wacked.

deffinintian of "unconventional arms" is also.

and while it appears to exclude effective NONlethal force from the ban where it may be appropreate (without very well defining where it might and might not be), precisely what then, would you call effective nonlethal mechanisms, methods and ordinance?

does this make a kid with a beebee gun a "war criminal" while letting nations stock pile the most horrendous of lethal arms and devices with complete impunity, other then by military attack, by "persons who perform and important political function"?

i all, sounds like nothing more then creating a flimsy excuse for nations to invade one another.

we would wholeheartedly support such means and restrictions as would prevent or signifigantly reduce civilian and even all casualties, by any means.

something we do not see this measure as in any way doing.

if anything, by it's ambiguity of language and focus, increasing them and the probability of them. for this reason cameroi opposes and voices this opposition.

respectfully
themnax of cameroi
low person of the council of low persons of nation states (ns-un)
and symbol of the council of low persons of cameroi (cameroin un representative)

=^^=
.../\...

OOC: Augusta Quiritiam, the proposal hasn't been voted on by the UN yet, so it's not a resolution, which means it can't be repealed because it doesn't "exist" yet. This debate is about whether to vote "yes" or "no" -- accept or reject. Repeals are for undoing resolutions that have been accepted.

It's a lot to take in at first, but it all sorts itself out eventually.

Given your conclusion -- that it's gotta go -- you're on the right track already.
___________________________________________

IC: Ardchoille welcomes the nations of Augusta Quiritiam and Eudocia to the General Assembly.

Eudocia, while we agree with you that civilians should be protected from conventional or unconventional arms, we regret that this proposal does not do it.

These two clauses make it possible for nations to develop weapons to any level of frightfulness that has not already been forbidden by the UN:

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

You may have noticed that I emphasised a particular line in that last clause? That's because it's the one that actually takes away most of the UN's ability to limit arms.

There are a few interesting lines even in the sections that seem to be concerned about civilians. For example, deploring "unnecessary civilian casualties" suggests that you've already accepted that there might be such a thing as "necessary civilian casualties" ... not a stance I'd like to see in a proposal supposedly protecting civilians.

But it's the last clause that's the crunch. It makes it possible for nations to develop even weapons that can't help but affect civilians -- a fatal, contagious disease doesn't check whether its victim is wearing a military uniform. That clause removes the possibility of the UN introducing any new restrictions to cover any new forms of weapon.

That's why we're voting against it, and we urge you to, too.
______________________

Dicey Reilly, Co=President of Ardchoille.

first of all being: the slaughter of noncombatants being ok by conventional means?
The resolution says that?

wrong!
Quite.

deffinintian of "civilians" a wee bit wacked.
How so?

deffinintian of "unconventional arms" is also.
Again, how so?

If all we need to do to criticise this proposal is make abject, unsourced, unjustified statements, then defending it becomes a rather easier prospect. Therefore, I shall proclaim...

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

I can't demonstrate how, or why this proposal cures cancer. I can't point to any article of its text that does so. But my saying that it's a wee bit useful in combatting cancer shall be taken as sufficient evidence of its potency.

Why don't you want to cure cancer, bigot?

and while it appears to exclude effective NONlethal force from the ban where it may be appropreate (without very well defining where it might and might not be), precisely what then, would you call effective nonlethal mechanisms, methods and ordinance?
Ok...what? Your spelling is the only war crime I'm seeing at the moment.

does this make a kid with a beebee gun a "war criminal"
No.

while letting nations stock pile the most horrendous of lethal arms and devices with complete impunity, other then by military attack, by "persons who perform and important political function"?
It lets nations stockpile weapons, yes. But they can't use them against civilians, which you yourself are saying is the main concern.

i all, sounds like nothing more then creating a flimsy excuse for nations to invade one another.
Well, it's not. Nothing in this resolution gives a mandate for invasion or military action of any kind. Hey, that reminds me:

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

we would wholeheartedly support such means and restrictions as would prevent or signifigantly reduce civilian and even all casualties, by any means.
But you'd oppose a prohibition on killing civilians? Ok, I'm going to oppose drunk driving by downing a quart of whisky and hitting the road without any lights on.

something we do not see this measure as in any way doing.
This would be because you are more intent on rushing to hasty generalisations, making bland statements with no textual reference whatsoever, and conceiving the most hideous means imaginable of mangling the English language, than actually READING THE DAMN THING.

if anything, by it's ambiguity of language and focus, increasing them and the probability of them.
There's no ambiguity of language. You just disagree with its clarity.

for this reason cameroi opposes and voices this opposition.
Thanks. You can leave now.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
CURER OF CANCER
Killer of Puppies

[colour=omgmyeyes]The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg[/color]

enormous picture of goat

The pompous and self-righteous windbaggery of its opponents notwithstanding, Gruenberg casts its vote as a member of the United Nations, and as delegate of the Antartic Oasis region, FOR this resolution. Our commentary on this resolution:

BUCKINGHAM, EARLS, MARQUESSES AND DUKES OF. The origin of the earldom of Buckingham (to be distinguished from that of Buckinghamshire, q.v.) is obscure. According to Mr J.H. Round (in G.E.C.'s Peerage, s.v.) there is some charter evidence for its existence under William Rufus; but the main evidence for reckoning Walter Giffard, lord of Longueville in Normandy, who held forty-eight lordships in the county, as the first earl, is that of Odericus Vitalis, who twice describes Walter as "Comes Bucchingehamensis," once in 1097, and again at his death in 1102. After the death of Walter Giffard, 2nd earl in 1164, the title was assumed by Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke ("Strongbow"), in right of his wife, Rohais, sister of Walter Giffard I.; and it died with him in 1176. In 1377 Thomas of "Woodstock" (duke of Gloucester) was created earl of Buckingham at the coronation of Richard II. (15th of July), and the title of Gloucester having after his death been given to Thomas le Despenser, his son Humphrey bore that of earl of Buckingham only. On Humphrey's death, his sister Anne became countess of Buckingham in her own right. She married Edmund Stafford, earl of Stafford, and on her death (1438) the title of Buckingham passed to her son Humphrey Stafford, earl of Stafford, who in 1444 was created duke of Buckingham. This title remained in the Stafford family until the attainder and execution of Edward, 3rd duke, in 1521 (see BUCKINGHAM, HENRY STAFFORD, 2nd duke of).

In 1617 King James I. created George Villiers earl, in 1618 marquess, and in 1623 duke of Buckingham (see BUCKINGHAM, GEORGE VILLIERS, 1st duke of). The marquessate and dukedom became extinct with the death of the 2nd (Villiers) duke (q.v.) in 1687; but the earldom was claimed, under the special remainder in the patent of 1617, by a collateral line of doubtful legitimacy claiming descent from John Villiers, 1st Viscount Purbeck. The title was not actually borne after the death of John Villiers, styling himself earl of Buckingham, in 1723. The claim was extinguished by the death of George Villiers, a clergyman, in 1774.

In 1703 John Sheffield, marquess of Normanby, was created "duke of the county of Buckingham and of Normanby" (see below). He was succeeded by his son Edmund who died in October 1735 when the titles became extinct.

The title of marquess and duke of Buckingham in the Grenville family (to the holders of which the remainder of this article applies) was derived, not from the county, but from the town of Buckingham. It originated in 1784, when the 2nd Earl Temple was created marquess of Buckingham "in the county of Buckingham," this title being elevated into the dukedom of Buckingham and Chandos for his son in 1822.

GEORGE NUGENT TEMPLE GRENVILLE, 1st marquess of Buckingham (1753-1813), was the second son of George Grenville, and was born on the 17th of June 1753. Educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, he was appointed a teller of the exchequer in 1764, and ten years later was returned to parliament as one of the members for Buckinghamshire. In the House of Commons he was a sharp critic of the American policy of Lord North. In September 1779 he succeeded his uncle as 2nd Earl Temple; in 1782 was appointed lord-lieutenant of Buckinghamshire; and in July of the same year became a member of the privy council and lord-lieutenant of Ireland in the ministry of the earl of Shelburne. On his advice the Renunciation Act of 1783 was passed, which supplemented the legislative independence granted to Ireland in 1782. By royal warrant he created the order of St Patrick in February 1783, with himself as the first grand master. Temple left Ireland in 1783, and again turned his attention to English politics. He enjoyed the confidence of George III., and having opposed Fox's East India Bill, he was authorized by the king to say that "whoever voted for the India Bill was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as an enemy," a message which ensured the defeat of the bill. He was appointed a secretary of state when the younger Pitt formed his ministry in December 1783, but resigned two days later. In December 1784 he was created marquess of Buckingham "in the county of Buckingham." In November 1787 he was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland under Pitt, but his second tenure of this office was hardly as successful as the first. He was denounced by Grattan for extravagance; was censured by the Irish Houses of parliament for refusing to transmit to England in address calling upon the prince of Wales to assume the regency; and he could only maintain his position by resorting to bribery on a large scale. Having become very unpopular he resigned his office in September 1789, and subsequently took very little part in politics, although he spoke in favour of the union with Ireland. He died at his residence, Stowe House, Buckingham, on the 11th of February 1813, and was buried at Wotton. In 1775 he had married Mary Elizabeth (d. 1812), daughter of Robert, Earl Nugent.

His elder son, RICHARD GRENVILLE, 1st duke of Buckingham and Chandos (1776-1839), was one of the members of parliament for Buckinghamshire from 1797 to 1813, and, as Earl Temple, took an active part in politics. In February 1813 he succeeded his father as marquess of Buckingham; and having married the only child of the 3rd duke of Chandos, he was created duke of Buckingham and Chandos in 1822. He died in 1839. Owing to financial embarrassments, the duke lived out of England for some time, and in 1862 an account of his travels was published, as The Private Diary of Richard, Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.

He was succeeded by his only child, RICHARD GRENVILLE, 2nd duke of Buckingham and Chandos (1797-1861). Educated at Eton and Oriel College, Oxford, he was known as Earl Temple and subsequently as marquess of Chandos. He was member of parliament for Buckinghamshire from 1818 to 1839, and was responsible for the "Chandos clause" in the Reform Bill of 1832. He was lord privy seal from September 1841 to January 1842, and partly owing to his opposition to the repeal of the corn laws was known as the "Farmers' Friend." He found the estates heavily encumbered when he succeeded to the dukedom in 1839, and his own generous and luxurious tastes brought matters to a climax. In 1847 his residences were seized by his creditors, and the duke left England. His personal property and many of his landed estates were sold, and returning to England he devoted himself to literature. He died in London, on the 29th of July 1861. His wife, whom he married in 1819, was Mary (d. 1862), daughter of John, 1st marquess of Breadalbane, and she obtained a divorce from him in 1850. Buckingham's chief publications are, Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of George III. (London, 1853-1855); Memoirs of the Court of England, 1811-1820 (London, 1856); Memoirs of the Court of George IV. (London, 1859); and Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of William IV. and Victoria (London, 1861).

RICHARD GRENVILLE, 3rd duke of Buckingham and Chandos (1823-1889), the only son of the 2nd duke, was educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, and, as marquess of Chandos, represented the borough of Buckingham in parliament from 1846 to 1857. He was chairman of the London & North-Western railway from 1853 to 1861. After succeeding to the dukedom he became lord president of the council, and subsequently secretary for the colonies in the Conservative government of 1866-1868. From 1875 to 1880 he was governor of Madras, and in 1886 was chosen chairman of committees in the House of Lords. He was twice married and left three daughters. As he left no son the dukedom became extinct on his death; but the Scottish barony of Kinloss (to which he established his title in 1868) passed to his eldest daughter, Mary, the wife of Captain L. F. H. C. Morgan; the earldom of Temple to his nephew, William Stephen Gore-Langton; and the viscounty of Cobham to his kinsman, Charles George, 5th Baron Lyttelton. His widow married the 1st Earl Egerton of Tatton in 1894.

We believe this to be just as relevant to the resolution's text as much of the criticism being levelled against it.

Moreover, the continual misreading of this proposal only strengthens our belief that, frankly, there are a lot of idiots out there. These people threaten the security of our world, and it is our solemn duty to defend our citizens against them, by all means necessary. Well, almost all means necessary. We believe the use of unconventional weapons against civilian targets to be beyond the pale, and wish there were a proposal about to prevent such...

...wow! There is! Let's go and vote against, to show we care.

We understand that some people are concerned at nations being permitted to stockpile unconventional arms. Except, they are already permitted to do so with chemical weapons - and we don't see any of its opponents hurrying a chemical weapons ban to quorum. Indeed, we can look down smugly on all of you from our moral high ground in this regard. Further, they are prohibited from doing so with biological weapons. So...what are we actually worrying about? I've heard of fear of change, but fear of nothing changing in the slightest?

We hope that this resolution passes, such that we can then solemnly and smugly note that our position is shared by the majority of UN voters, so as to prop up our petty insecurities on a raft of popular appeal. We will then also post more large pictures of goats and proudly proclaim ANOTHER VICTORY FOR GATESVILLE!! (assuming they work out to vote for this one)

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Category:[/b] Global DisarmamentStill think this is a category violation. Sure, it's the most suitable category, but being the most suitable does not make it legal. But meh.i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act. Just unconventional?ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.Meh.iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.I like the definition.v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.Possible contradiction with UN Counterterrorism intitative (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11434528&postcount=169) which already defines civilians...although I doubt it does conflict.1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations;But doesn't do anything else?2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;Ditto.3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;Yet fails to mention what a combat operation is. For example, does testing of an unconventional weapon qualify as "combat operations"?4. Obligating member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;See, now if something was enshrined in international law obligating member states to make the act a crime, this would have teeth.5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;Might be better elsewhere.6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;Meh.7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.Again, if national leaders were held accountable under international law, this might mean something. But since this proposal fails to make international law, it's down to the government to legislate - and I don't see them doing so if they intend to break it.

So.....in summary I see this proposal as lacking teeth.

The resolution says that?It makes the distinction between conventional and unconventional arms - then says using unconventional arms is bad.....there is a big empty space where it should repeat that for conventional arms. It's failure to make a blanket assertion in the preamble is disturbing.

It makes the distinction between conventional and unconventional arms - then says using unconventional arms is bad.....there is a big empty space where it should repeat that for conventional arms. It's failure to make a blanket assertion in the preamble is disturbing.
So by "a big empty space" you mean "in which I have decided to write whatever I feel".

The resolution says that?

No.

Ambassador Obie

The Grand Duchy of Obesland has a long history of being fully morally aware of the impact of potential 'war crimes' on other nations, and as such have never willingly partaken in any act that could be described as such.

Although we have remained silent in this United Nations (much due to our own timid view on international relations), we feel compelled to make a statement against this proposal.

We are fully willing to consider such a proposal that truly limits the use of unconventional AND conventional weapon targetted on non-military targets and the aforementioned war crimes. However, we do not have faith in this proposal that it truly represents a solution to this problem whilst promoting continued legislation.

Rather, we suspect this proposal may well be paving the way to block further limitations on acts of civilian massacre, whilst meekly suggesting the slight limitation of specific examples of weaponry.

With good faith,

Ambassador Obie
Grand Duchy of Obesland

IC: Ardchoille welcomes the nations of Augusta Quiritiam and Eudocia to the General Assembly.

As representative of the Eudocian people, I wish to thank Ardchoille for this warm welcome.

Eudocia, while we agree with you that civilians should be protected from conventional or unconventional arms, we regret that this proposal does not do it.

These two clauses make it possible for nations to develop weapons to any level of frightfulness that has not already been forbidden by the UN:

[Quote of Clause 6 and 7 in proposed resolution]

You may have noticed that I emphasised a particular line in that last clause? That's because it's the one that actually takes away most of the UN's ability to limit arms.

I am unfortunantly forced to proclaim here that the UN have, in the current situation, little to say how their member nations choose to arm themselves. Although a Ban has been introduced to prohibit nations to employ Biological Weapons(UN Resolution #120), there has also been noted several times that members of the UN are allowed to, for example, field nuclear armaments (UN Resolution #109). Thus, it is in my belief that this proposal does not in itself lessen the control the UN has, existant or not, on its members arsenal, but simply adds another level of security for the civilians we choose to protect.

For example, in UN Resolution #109 it is stated, and I quote:

"2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons."

also, in UN Resolution #49(Rights and Duties of UN States) it is written:
"Article 4
§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."


Therefore, I see no reason for UN NationStatets NOT to vote this through as it only means a measure of security and control has been added to a previously almost lawless state.

Thank you.

Possible contradiction with UN Counterterrorism intitative (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11434528&postcount=169) which already defines civilians...although I doubt it does conflict.

It doesn't conflict. It's almost the exact same definition. Did you even read the definition in the UNCTI?

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a civilian as a person who is (1) not a member of a military, paramilitary or law-enforcement organization of a nation, or (2) a member of such an organization, but not under arms or performing military duties or functions;


Besides, the definition in the UNCTI explicitly states "for the purposes of this resolution." It was never intended as, nor is it, a blanket UN definition of the term "civilian."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The resolution says that?It's what the resolution doesn't say which is the issue.It doesn't conflict. It's almost the exact same definition.Like I said, I doubted it is seen that way by the majority. Although you should note that saying it is "almost" the same does not mean it is the same...it's only because of "for the purposes of this resolution" that this particular point is irrelevant.

Hirota welcomes the Grand Duchy of Obesland to the UN forums, and it's well written first post.

It's what the resolution doesn't say which is the issue.
No, the question I asked was: "the resolution says that?"

If you want to discuss what it doesn't say, fine. But don't pretend you're in any way addressing the point I raised.

My UN member nation will be voting against this absurd proposal as it removes our right as a nation! I swear I will abandon the UN permanantly if this horrible proposal passes. I assure you that this will fail because, as I said before, it removes our right as a nation in my humble opinion! We should be able to use ANY wepon we can get our hands on and, form my understanding, this porposal removes that ability! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :mad:

Gerzam (Supreme)

hmmmm. I don't see a point to address. <shrugs>

My UN member nation will be voting against this absurd proposal as it removes our right as a nation! I swear I will abandon the UN permanantly if this horrible proposal passes. I assure you that this will fail because, as I said before, it removes our right as a nation in my humble opinion! We should be able to use ANY wepon we can get our hands on and, form my understanding, this porposal removes that ability! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :mad:

Gerzam (Supreme)

We encourage you to leave the UN. Please. Leave.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Purpelon opposes this proposal, since not only does it fail to actually restrict Bio & Chem. weapons and further disarmament of them, it fails to address the issue of Nuclear weapons, although they, too, are Weapons of Mass Destruction.
---
Genebelle Raagas
President of Purpelon

it fails to address the issue of Nuclear weapons, Welcome to the UN.

The problem with your concern is that the question of Nuclear weapons is already addressed in an existing UN Resolution, and in order to address that issue, the UN would first have to repeal the existing legislation.

Check out the existing resolutions, it's in there somewhere.

Edit: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110

There you go.

It can't be repealed; it hasn't been passed yet.


Which is why we must pass this resolution! So that others can look foolish in trying to repeal it. Think of the repeal authors! Vote YES! Vote early! Vote often!

So aside from nit picking, does the opposition have any real complaints about the resolution? Apparently not. Once again I reccomend everyone to read the resolution. In this case I also reccomend reading the various other resolutions on the subject of the rights of nations to defend themselves. A lot of so called complaints tend to come from wording that is required to make the resolution legal in the first place.

P.S. The point Hirota is that to condemn a thing does not mean that one condones every other thing. The resolution condemns the use of unconventional arms against civilians. It doesn't say squat about conventional arms, torture, ensalvement, the excessive use of muzak, ect. That does not mean it is wrong in any way, only that in NS there is a limit to the size of a resolution and if you start writing a 52 page preamble on everything you want to condemn on a civilian no one would ever read beyond the first page and you would get zero votes from this far from august body. (As it is currently Nvember which is three monts past August.)

Welcome to the UN.
OOC: Thanks. I may be new in this incarnation, but I'm not new in previous ones.

The problem with your concern is that the question of Nuclear weapons is already addressed in an existing UN Resolution, and in order to address that issue, the UN would first have to repeal the existing legislation.

Check out the existing resolutions, it's in there somewhere.

Edit: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110

There you go.
This resolution, of course, needs to be repealed. Until then, We see no difference between Chem. & Bio. weapons to Nuclear.

My UN member nation will be voting against this absurd proposal as it removes our right as a nation! I swear I will abandon the UN permanantly if this horrible proposal passes. I assure you that this will fail because, as I said before, it removes our right as a nation in my humble opinion! We should be able to use ANY wepon we can get our hands on and, form my understanding, this porposal removes that ability! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :mad:

Gerzam (Supreme)


...It would be suggestable if you read the proposal again. It states that you will be able to use any weapon you wish (with, of course, some disagreements whether this cancels the ban against biological weapons and landmines) as long as it is not employed on civilians of either your own or other nations.

This resolution, of course, needs to be repealed. Until then, We see no difference between Chem. & Bio. weapons to Nuclear.
There's nothing in Resolution #109 to prevent you from drafting a proposal to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets.

Indeed, there's nothing in it to prevent you from doing so for military targets, either.

I swear I will abandon the UN permanantly if this horrible proposal passes.

That's almost enough to make me hope it passes.


Sergei V. Telkijski (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sergei_Vyacheslav_Telkijski),
Itinerant Ambassador,
Killer of Cancer,
Curer of Puppies

Sergei V. Telkijski (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sergei_Vyacheslav_Telkijski),
Itinerant Ambassador,
Killer of Cancer,
Curer of Puppies
Oh it is on.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

There's nothing in Resolution #109 to prevent you from drafting a proposal to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets.

Indeed, there's nothing in it to prevent you from doing so for military targets, either.
However, failure to address the nuclear issue in the current proposal is hypocritical. Why should another nation be able to attack our civilians with nukes, and we be disallowed to retaliate with bio. or chem.?

However, failure to address the nuclear issue in the current proposal is hypocritical. Why should another nation be able to attack our civilians with nukes, and we be disallowed to retaliate with bio. or chem.?Aye, I agree this proposal have been universal - if it could be.

The Republic of Gerontas
Ministry of Foreign Relations


Open Announcement

One question that has not been made by any other national goverment so far, is probably the most important one:

WHO IS TO BENEFIT FROM THIS RESOLUTION?

Or, put an other way, who has the most possibilities of becoming an aggressor?
Our Goverment is of the opinion that the ones benefiting would be exactly the biggest and the strongest nations of our world, since by this resolution the smaller nations would lose the capability of strong response in a case of a conventional attack.
We think that it is quite obvious that with the "non-coventional" weapons out of the picture, the absolute advantage goes to the states having strong conventional military machine.

The Republic of Gerontas remains faithful to the ideal of National Independence, to the safety and the prosperity of the Region of Urania of which our nation is a founder and the safety and the prosperity of every nation of the world. Therefore, we call the younger and smaller nations of the UN to unify in an "AGAINST" vote.

In the name of the Republic of Gerontas
The Permanent Represantation in the UN

*snip*

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich puts a finger to the comm device in his ear. "Yeah, Nikrat. Me again. I know you're bummed about the death of Ourae (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=254&st=0&#last), but I've got another nation of simpletons that needs to be um...persuaded to think properly."

The sheik nods as he listens to the response from the commander of the Cluichstani Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).

"Very good, Nikrat. And um...sorry you didn't get the chance to tap that."

Or, put an other way, who has the most possibilities of becoming an aggressor?
Our Goverment is of the opinion that the ones benefiting would be exactly the biggest and the strongest nations of our world, since by this resolution the smaller nations would lose the capability of strong response in a case of a conventional attack.
We think that it is quite obvious that with the "non-coventional" weapons out of the picture, the absolute advantage goes to the states having strong conventional military machine.


I am once again forced to believe that nations decide to voice their opinions without understanding the issue.

This is not a resolution banning the use of arms, conventional or unconventional, but simply one forbidding the employment of said arms against civilians.

This is not a resolution banning the use of arms, conventional or unconventional, but simply one forbidding the employment of said arms against civilians.I'm not even sure it does that. All it actually does is condemns the deployment of unconventionals, urges the implementation of national law to prohibit such use, and only concerning unconventionals - hence my concerns of it lacking teeth.

2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;
.

And, thus, placing this in the Global Disarmament category was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to mislead the members of this Assembly and garner votes from the unwary.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

While I am sure the Kennyite delegation will be complimented by Mr. Olembe's statement that they are intelligent enough to connive their way into such a situation, I am uncertain why the honourable representative insists in continued attacks upon their persons instead of the text of the bill.

Indeed! I didn't expect the Kennyites to tip their hand this early. Dropping all pretense of this having anything to do with Global Disarmament at this early stage of the game. Arrogance or foolishness?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador

There is no pretence related to category. It is the only place it fits. What other category would you have had this submitted in?

Still think this is a category violation. Sure, it's the most suitable category, but being the most suitable does not make it legal.

I don't really follow the logic that says that the most suitable category isn't the most suitable category.

So.....in summary I see this proposal as lacking teeth.

I can honestly say that I wasn't expecting to hear that argument.

It's what the resolution doesn't say which is the issue.

The proposal also does not state that we are banned from beating our kids, or allowed to live free from persecution, or that we should be allowed to wear yellow hats on Sundays, or that kittens and puppies are cute, or that any of the representatives here have the right to their own opinion. What of it? What isn't in this is hardly relevant to a debate of what is?

hmmmm. I don't see a point to address. <shrugs>

If we might ask the honourable representative of Hirota why they felt the need to speak on the matter at all, then...

I'm not even sure it does that. All it actually does is condemns the deployment of unconventionals, urges the implementation of national law to prohibit such use, and only concerning unconventionals - hence my concerns of it lacking teeth.

So it does nothing but block?

So it does nothing but block?

No. It enjoins nations to ensure that civilian casualties are avoided. That would seem, to me, to be the major point of the whole thing. Others disagree. You are free to decide for yourself, but I believe that curbing the deaths of innocent civilians is a good thing.

I don't really follow the logic that says that the most suitable category isn't the most suitable category.Neither do I. Then again, that is not what I said.I can honestly say that I wasn't expecting to hear that argument.:)The proposal also does not state that we are banned from beating our kids,Well....no. But that's not what I'm saying.

If we assume killing civilians is a generally bad thing, then it seems a bit daft to say killing civilians using one specific method is a generally bad thing, when it would be easier to say killing civilians is generally bad thing, period.If we might ask the honourable representative of Hirota why they felt the need to speak on the matter at all, then...Becuase it was asked of me to respond to a point - I could not see the point, and was hoping for clarification.

I missed enjoining - it's stronger than urges, and we thank Gruenberg for highlighting that. Still, it could benefit from being clearer. Too late for that now though.

I'm not even sure it does that. All it actually does is condemns the deployment of unconventionals, urges the implementation of national law to prohibit such use, and only concerning unconventionals - hence my concerns of it lacking teeth.Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, you are dense. At this time, this delegation would like to impart to this body the actual ramifications of this proposal, rather than the sacrilege-incurring selective literature from the Hirotan contingent.

The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.This means that attacking civilians with chemical and biological arms has been "determined" to be a war crime under international law.

The proposal goes on to define "civilians" and "unconventional arms," definitions we know you have read.

It then

2. Enjoin[s] member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;You know what "enjoins" means, don't you? It means "don't do it."

Finally, it

4. Obligat[es] [not urges] member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;Taken in full, the brunt of this mandate is that intentional killing civilians is a war crime, nations can't do it, and anyone "under their jurisdiction" who does is to be "prosecute[d] to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law."

Do you want us to explain it again, or do you require your kindergarten teacher to come in and do the same, very slowly, with simple words and colorful pictures?

~Some guy named Alex
Really fucking important title
Curer of Hirotan pink-eye
Killer of Kenny
Omigod I killed Kenny!
I'm a bastard

If we assume killing civilians is a generally bad thing, then it seems a bit daft to say killing civilians using one specific method is a generally bad thing, when it would be easier to say killing civilians is generally bad thing, period.Becuase it was asked of me to respond to a point - I could not see the point, and was hoping for clarification.

This is akin to the argument during the debate over the UN Counterterrorism Initiative, which dealt only with non-state actors. There were complaints that it didn't address "state terrorism." No, it didn't, nor was it intended to do so. It dealt with one issue. This proposal, too, deals with one issue. If you'd like to address the killing of civilians by means other than chemical and biological weapons, feel free to write one yourself. That's not what's being discussed here. What this proposal covers, it covers well. What it doesn't cover? Well, that can't really be a point of contention, now, can it?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

~Some guy named Alex
Really fucking important title
Curer of Hirotan pink-eye
Killer of Kenny
Omigod I killed Kenny!
I'm a bastard

OOC: You now hold the title for silliest IC signature to date. :)

With all respect to the distinguished representative from Gruenberg, we fully intend to continue our "pompous and self-righteous windbaggery" against this proposal.


We understand that some people are concerned at nations being permitted to stockpile unconventional arms. Except, they are already permitted to do so with chemical weapons - and we don't see any of its opponents hurrying a chemical weapons ban to quorum. Indeed, we can look down smugly on all of you from our moral high ground in this regard. Further, they are prohibited from doing so with biological weapons. So...what are we actually worrying about? I've heard of fear of change, but fear of nothing changing in the slightest?


The contention that this proposal changes nothing is rather amusing. If that is the case, why did its author refuse to delete Clause 7, even when it was clear and explicitly stated that several nations would add their support if that was done? Precisely because, as the author has now admitted, it is the "crux" of this proposal.

And what is that "crux"? What would it change? It would prevent the NSUN from enacting any meaningful legislation restricting the production, acquisition, or use of any type of weapon. If blocking future legislation is "nothing changes in the slightest", we must wonder why the representative has been so active in authoring and promoting "blocker" resolutions on other subjects.

Because the NSUN has so far failed to enact a chemical weapons control resolution, has only a flawed biological control resolution, and has not yet addressed such things as radiological weapons is no reason to deliberately prevent it from doing so. This proposal simply ensures that any psychotic national leader in the NSUN will have full and unfettered license to produce, acquire, stockpile and use such wonderful things as nerve agent, anthrax, "dirty bombs", and on and on... just so long as he doesn't deliberately target civilians.

The representative is welcome to the moral high ground. We prefer to stand on common sense.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The fine nation of Complex-Reality would like to pose a question about a possible contradiction between the second and third clause.

The third clause states (the bolding of the text is our own)
3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;

We mean that this (at least) allows necessary civilian casualities from a purely semantic point of view, that is to say by merely pondering the consequence of reversing the meaning of the words.

However the second caluse states (again we have taken the liberty to enhance the operative word)
2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;

What we question is the allowance of neccesary casualities, while prohibiting deliberate casuallities. It does seem to us that the word nessecary (and naturally also unnecessary) must be interpretated as carrying the requirment of reasoning behind it. In other words acts that are nessesary are judged to be so, and thus must be deliberate acts.

We realize that this is mostly a semantic problem, the word 'unavoidable' would have solved this completly.
Nevertheless we feel that the current wording means we have a resolution before us that cannot be interpretated litteraly, for doing so makes it contradic itself.
We would like comments on how this is viwed by the General Assembly.

Niar-Eci
Ambassador from
Complex-Reality

Neither do I. Then again, that is not what I said.:)

You claimed it was a category violation. If GD is the most appropriate category, then that is the category it would be legal in.

Precisely because, as the author has now admitted, it is the "crux" of this proposal.

Mr Tehrani also retracted that statement when he reread the comments that he had been originally referring to.

No. It enjoins nations to ensure that civilian casualties are avoided. That would seem, to me, to be the major point of the whole thing. Others disagree. You are free to decide for yourself, but I believe that curbing the deaths of innocent civilians is a good thing.

Enjoining isn't doing something.

The biggest thing this resolution seems to actually do is to create a set of war crimes, and create some definitions, which would be useful for various international courts and tribunals. (Not NSUN courts, since they don't seem to exist).

Enjoining isn't doing something.

The biggest thing this resolution seems to actually do is to create a set of war crimes, and create some definitions, which would be useful for various international courts and tribunals. (Not NSUN courts, since they don't seem to exist).

I do hate to sound as if I'm supporting this proposal, but for goodness' sake, read clause 4.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Because the NSUN has so far failed to enact a chemical weapons control resolution, has only a flawed biological control resolution, and has not yet addressed such things as radiological weapons is no reason to deliberately prevent it from doing so. This proposal simply ensures that any psychotic national leader in the NSUN will have full and unfettered license to produce, acquire, stockpile and use such wonderful things as nerve agent, anthrax, "dirty bombs", and on and on... just so long as he doesn't deliberately target civilians.
The UN has passed the following:
- an appalling biological weapons ban that did nothing, and was repealed
- a still flawed replacement
- an appalling landmine ban that does nothing
- an appalling chemical weapons ban that did nothing, and was repealed

We're not holding our breath that there's any worthy legislation this is cutting out.

We believe this to be just as relevant to the resolution's text as much of the criticism being levelled against it.


In light of your mockery of my government's serious point raised in question of clause 7 of this resolution, I have sent a recommendation to my government that we not only vote against this resolution, but that I be allowed to call attention to the blocker clause to other regional debates.

Cassandra Thonberger
CSSM

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, you are dense. At this time, this delegation would like to impart to this body the actual ramifications of this proposal, rather than the sacrilege-incurring selective literature from the Hirotan contingent.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/thedebatestylecard.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/overreact.gifhttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/hug3fw.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/4b5957cb.jpg

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/i/u/1HgFwABM.jpg
Calm down dear!

Do you see me abusing you? No, all you see is me asking questions, which you could have answered in the same civil spirit. Instead you lower the tone. I'm being civil, please reciprocate.

You might not think it, but I'm leaning towards a FOR vote on this.What it doesn't cover? Well, that can't really be a point of contention, now, can it?Well...the major difference I would argue is that domestic terrorism is exactly that, not the domain of the international community, whilst the death of civilians anywhere is a bad thing, irrespective of if it is domestic or international in origin.

But, I appreciate what you are saying.

In light of your mockery of my government's serious point raised in question of clause 7 of this resolution, I have sent a recommendation to my government that we not only vote against this resolution, but that I be allowed to call attention to the blocker clause to other regional debates.
My comment was in response to this sort of thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11949835&postcount=34), not your question. No mockery of you was intended.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

This resolution, of course, needs to be repealed. Until then, We see no difference between Chem. & Bio. weapons to Nuclear.I relayed your comment to my boss, who happens to be the author of Nuclear Armaments. Here's his reply, "Over my dead body."

However, failure to address the nuclear issue in the current proposal is hypocritical. Why should another nation be able to attack our civilians with nukes, and we be disallowed to retaliate with bio. or chem.?A better question is, if someone nukes you, why wouldn't you retaliate in kind?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

The UN has passed the following:
- an appalling biological weapons ban that did nothing, and was repealed
- a still flawed replacement
- an appalling landmine ban that does nothing
- an appalling chemical weapons ban that did nothing, and was repealed

We're not holding our breath that there's any worthy legislation this is cutting out.

That is hardly the case. Just because resolutions have not yet been drafted does not mean that future resolutions restricting the deployment of weapons of mass destruction are not being discussed in private circles.

For two years my government has made public its desire for the UN to condemn the use of mass drivers, starting with our draft proposal on the Peaceful Uses of Outer-Space.

Cassandra Thonberger
CSSM

My comment was in response to this sort of thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11949835&postcount=34), not your question. No mockery of you was intended.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

No distinction was made in your general rebuttal, and yet the question as to the impact of clause 7 on future UN resolutions has not been addressed by proponents.

C.Thonberger

Can we try and stay civil please? Everyone?*

If GD is the most appropriate category, then that is the category it would be legal in.That's precisely what I'm saying is not absolutely true. It's a matter of judgement. I guess the fact we are discussing this at he stage when it is in queue means the judgement has been passed already <shrugs>

The cogent resolution which has been brought before us is, in my humble opinion, very impressive. It does everything that it has been meant to do, and for that, I can only vote for it. This resolution is not an all encompassing one, and though such a resolution would have been more appreciated, that doesn't stop one from drafting a more comprehensive version if this one passes or fails.

To protect the people of Islenska from any enemies it may have, and with the King's approval, we support this resolution.

yet the question as to the impact of clause 7 on future UN resolutions has not been addressed by proponents.
Well what was your question? You're saying that should this pass, the deployment of mass drivers could not be prohibited by the UN. Yes, that's correct.

So what are you actually asking?

--snip--
=^^=
.../\...
OOC: Blimey, is it Carlemnaria?

Um, anyway, back to the handbaggings.

And what is that "crux"? What would it change? It would prevent the NSUN from enacting any meaningful legislation restricting the production, acquisition, or use of any type of weapon. If blocking future legislation is "nothing changes in the slightest", we must wonder why the representative has been so active in authoring and promoting "blocker" resolutions on other subjects.

I would wonder why the honorable representative from Ausserland has been so active in arguing against this resolution. Surely, like everyone who supports it, he must have an ulterior motive.

I would go so far as to argue that this is not truly a blocker- if affirms the right to self-defense, correct, but it also states that the right to self defense is tempered by Clause 7, " where standing legislation... has modified that right."

It could be argued that this phrase does not preclude the United Nations from passing other weapons bans in the future. The clause does not distinguish between legislation passed before this resolution, nor legislation passed after this resolution. The operative words, "Standing legislation" do not imply that no further legislation can be passed, rather, that this resolution will defer to any legislation that is in effect while the UAA is in effect.


Because the NSUN has so far failed to enact a chemical weapons control resolution, has only a flawed biological control resolution, and has not yet addressed such things as radiological weapons is no reason to deliberately prevent it from doing so. This proposal simply ensures that any psychotic national leader in the NSUN will have full and unfettered license to produce, acquire, stockpile and use such wonderful things as nerve agent, anthrax, "dirty bombs", and on and on... just so long as he doesn't deliberately target civilians.

The honorable ambassador's interpretation is an interesting one, seeing as how the clauses which bar nations from deliberatly targetting civilians are in fact binding clauses. Need I remind him that binding clauses cannot be ignored while UN law is in effect?

It could be argued that this phrase does not preclude the United Nations from passing other weapons bans in the future. The clause does not distinguish between legislation passed before this resolution, nor legislation passed after this resolution. The operative words, "Standing legislation" do not imply that no further legislation can be passed, rather, that this resolution will defer to any legislation that is in effect while the UAA is in effect.
Um, I can't agree that that's a valid interpretation. It clearly refers to legislation already passed...I'd venture if it didn't, the clause would have been rewritten.

Um, I can't agree that that's a valid interpretation. It clearly refers to legislation already passed...I'd venture if it didn't, the clause would have been rewritten.

You are probably right, now that I think about it. I retract my statements.

and yet the question as to the impact of clause 7 on future UN resolutions has not been addressed by proponents.
No it hasn't, has it? Makes me want to quote myself.
That's not what I was asking though. What I was really looking for was an explanation of the purpose of clause 7 within this proposal. Furthermore, what is the, for lack of a better term, "overall purpose" of the proposal itself? Is it the laudable goal of preventing the use of these weapons against civilian populations, or is it the prevention of future UN arms control legislation? If it is the former, why was clause 7 included? Would you mind explaining more fully?
Makes me want to quote Ardchoille too.
Ardchoilleans;11949523']The following simple summary -- not, I regret, mine -- was floating around the lobbies within hours of the proposal's appearance:
Articles i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Chemical and biological weapons are bad, bad, bad. Using them against civilians is a WAR CRIME!

Article 6. If they want to, nations can work together to develop chem and bio weapons that don't kill civilians.

Article 7. Scratch all of the above. Build whatever weapons you deem necessary so long as they aren't already outlawed.

It is my sad pleasure to read it into the General Assembly record so that other delegates may use it to clarify the resolution for their citizens.
And we're still waiting.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

Enjoining isn't doing something.


Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I seem to recall from previous discussion that ENJOINS was determined to be a mandating statement. ENJOINING is doing something.

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I seem to recall from previous discussion that ENJOINS was determined to be a mandating statement. ENJOINING is doing something.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enjoins

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enjoins

Discuss.

Well what was your question? You're saying that should this pass, the deployment of mass drivers could not be prohibited by the UN. Yes, that's correct.

So what are you actually asking?

That is a fair summary of my government's current position. Yes.

For reference:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11949243&postcount=22

Clause 7 is a blocker. Mikitivity is not currently interested in restricting the development of weapons of mass destruction, but certainly is opposed to the UN preventing itself from condemning the use of weapons of mass destruction -- and clause 7 essentially grandfathers the previous resolutions you yourself have declared ineffective, while closing the UN's ability to legislate future replacements.

As your government has shown this assembly many times, yGruenberg might lead an effort to later repeal those grandfathered resolutions, leaving the UN with *no* ability to deal with this subject in any way other than the other clauses in this resolution -or- forcing the UN to repeal this resolution in order to actually do something.

In essence, a rider (clause 7) was attached onto an otherwise agreeable resolution ... and if the UN Secretartiat were to allow it, I'd call for a "Division of the Question" and ask that a separate vote be recorded on the two divergent portions of this resolution ... because my government would like to repeal clause 7. (Yes, I realize we can't do this.)

My government also has reached many of the same conclusions as Ausserland, and would also appreciate their questions being addressed.

C.Thonberger

No it hasn't, has it? Makes me want to quote myself.

Makes me want to quote Ardchoille too.

And we're still waiting.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

Is it then fair to say that Yelda and possibly Ardchoille share the position Ausserland and Mikitivity have on this resolution?

To be clear, it is a well written resolution, with many points that my government strongly agrees with. It also happens to be sovereignty friendly and something that clearly has international standing. But the devil is in the details, and there is one detail that my government wishes would be removed. Perhaps if this resolution does not pass, we could remove clause 7 and adopt the resolution. In the event that that may happen, I'll see if this is something that Mikitivity would be willing to actively campaign FOR.

C. Thonberger
CSSM

"7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary"

Making a law that forbidds people to use unconventional weapons while not forbidding the making of them seems pointless to me.

"Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel"

So a weapon is ok as long as it doesent affect civilians? How about napalm? Ok as long as the one burning alive got drafted.

"Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article"

This seems strange to me, why should someone get extradited becouse they broke international law? I'snt extradition made so that people can be tried for crimes not commited where they are? International law is called international law beacouse it applies everywhere.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enjoins

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enjoins

Discuss.

Not a lot of discussion to be had from those. One involves a court ordering something (mandatory). The other simply states that enjoining involves enforcing something with authority. Thanks. I probably should have thought to just look for the actual definition myself.

Clause 7 is a blocker. Mikitivity is not currently interested in restricting the development of weapons of mass destruction, but certainly is opposed to the UN preventing itself from condemning the use of weapons of mass destruction -- and clause 7 essentially grandfathers the previous resolutions you yourself have declared ineffective, while closing the UN's ability to legislate future replacements.

As your government has shown this assembly many times, yGruenberg might lead an effort to later repeal those grandfathered resolutions, leaving the UN with *no* ability to deal with this subject in any way other than the other clauses in this resolution -or- forcing the UN to repeal this resolution in order to actually do something.

In essence, a rider (clause 7) was attached onto an otherwise agreeable resolution ... and if the UN Secretartiat were to allow it, I'd call for a "Division of the Question" and ask that a separate vote be recorded on the two divergent portions of this resolution ... because my government would like to repeal clause 7. (Yes, I realize we can't do this.)

My government also has reached many of the same conclusions as Ausserland, and would also appreciate their questions being addressed.

C.Thonberger

While I wouldn't presume to speak for Mr Tehrani as to intent of that clause, even though I don't see how the author's intent is actually relevant, I still maintain that clause 7 does not create a complete blocker. No, you would not be able to pass an out and out ban on such things, but there use could still be greatly restricted, if done carefully.

Is it then fair to say that Yelda and possibly Ardchoille share the position Ausserland and Mikitivity have on this resolution?

C. Thonberger
CSSM
That would be correct, yes.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I seem to recall from previous discussion that ENJOINS was determined to be a mandating statement. ENJOINING is doing something.

The honorable representative is absolutely correct.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

a new gentleman is sitting in the Palentine delegatin. He is dark haire, and wearing a dark suit, and fedora. There seems to be some kind of suspicious bulge under his left armpit. Next to him is a rather good looking woman, with a stenographer's pad. He looks around the UN body, takes a final drag of his cigarette, and crushes it out in his ashtray.

"The name is, Noir...Mick Noir, and I'm the new Palentine Ambassador. The dame's name is Velma, and she's my secretary, so don't any of you pencil-necks get any ideas. It seems Sen. Sulla got a promotion to Deputy Prime minister, so you lucky mugs get stuck with me. First of I think I'll adtrees this question before I get to business...

(Imagine: testing a Death Star on a green forest moon, on the grounds that the test is "defensive" and that the moon has no intelligent life -- is that really justified.)
I'm not sure about this one Mik, you'll have to ask the Cluichstanis. They're the ones with a Freaking Death Star.

Next, The Palentine supports this fine piece of legislation. Apart from a few legitimate points ,I am quite disgusted that most opposition comes in the form of personal attacks on the author of the proposal. The fact that this legislation can be used as a blocker doesn't bother me one bit. I'd rather have one soverign friendly blocker, than a shitload of bad resolutions with loopholes to exploit.
Excelsior,
Mick Noir
Ambassador to the UN

Photo of Mick Noir (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/gun_mikehammer.jpg)

The Dominion of the Asiatic States joins in a wealth of rational and honored nations, including Yelda, Ardchoille, Ausserland, and Mikitivity, in voting Nay to this resolution.

As the problems previously stated stand, it seems that the only arguments that the proposition makes is A: To make fun and say that it cures cancer while completely missing the issue, and B: To say that the opposition nitpicks.

While A is simply immature, B seems to think that simply because the idea of a resolution is in the right place, it should be passed — this is blatantly untrue and detrimental to a organization such as the U.N., that affects most of the nations of the world.

Given such analysis, it seems that because simply because the resolution does NOT accomplish what its stated goal is, The Dominion of Asiatic States must vote negative.

Talon Karrde
Premier of the DAS

Is it then fair to say that Yelda and possibly Ardchoille share the position Ausserland and Mikitivity have on this resolution?

To be clear, it is a well written resolution, with many points that my government strongly agrees with. It also happens to be sovereignty friendly and something that clearly has international standing. But the devil is in the details, and there is one detail that my government wishes would be removed. Perhaps if this resolution does not pass, we could remove clause 7 and adopt the resolution. In the event that that may happen, I'll see if this is something that Mikitivity would be willing to actively campaign FOR.

C. Thonberger
CSSM

We'll go a bit further than the distinguished representative of Mikitivity. Had clause 7 been removed, we would be doing our best to support passage of this proposal. In fact, we will unequivocally state that, should this proposal fail and be replaced with one lacking the effect of clause 7, Ausserland will support it with every means available to us.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Thanks. I probably should have thought to just look for the actual definition myself.Heh, took me a while to think about it as well.... :)
The definitions those two sites offered appeared a tad inconclusive - you could say its an order, a veto, a request, or a mere warning - a lot of difference between those and their relative strengths. I'm a big fan of employing the odd legalistic turn of phrase myself, but it could have been clearer rather than people spending their time quibbling over the meaning.

Given such analysis, it seems that because simply because the resolution does NOT accomplish what its stated goal is, The Dominion of Asiatic States must vote negative.Don't bore me with your "analysis"; trying showing me how this proposal doesn't do what it's supposed to by reading the fucking proposal. Till you actually do that, there's no reason why I should be listening to you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm sure this silly "solidarity" movement has some hot secretaries I could be stuffing.

Manuelo Fernanda
President of the Federal Republic
"Special Envoy to the United Nations"

Apart from a few legitimate points ,I am quite disgusted that most opposition comes in the form of personal attacks on the author of the proposal. The fact that this legislation can be used as a blocker doesn't bother me one bit. I'd rather have one soverign friendly blocker, than a shitload of bad resolutions with loopholes to exploit.
Excelsior,
Mick Noir
Ambassador to the UN
I don't recall any personal attacks on the author. Furthermore, I and many of the others opposing this have applauded the text with the exception of clause 7. Also, the issue here isn't with the use of blockers in general. Sometimes blocking legislation is necessary, even desirable. The issue here is what this legislation will block. Attempting to prevent the passage of UN legislation banning chemical and biological weapons is reckless and irresponsible.

These weapons are NOT necessary for national defense. They are NOT necessary as a deterrent against others who have them. Advanced nations such as Yelda and The Palentine have no need for them and this legislation would protect the right of unstable regimes to possess them. The very nations that have the least business possessing them.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

First of all, I'd like to inform our brothers in Discoraversalism of a brand new invention. I know it might intimidate you at first...hell, I never seen so many words in my life. But boy, you wanna be a fancy pants, you gotta have a dictionary. As some of my other esteemed colleagues have noted, enjoining means to forbid or outlaw. If that ain't doin' somethin', you can slap a pair of panties on me and call me Queen Elizabeth.

That said, there are some other points I'd like to address here in defense of this proposal. I see a lot of men in big britches walkin' around here, callin' this proposal a "blocker". I see a lot of people attaching this to the idea that somehow the delegation from the proposal's author is sneaky or under-handed. The text is there for everyone to read, and I'll be damned if anybody hasn't noticed clause seven yet. There ain't nothin' yella-bellied about what (presumably) Mr. Faisano did, and even if his intentions were to mislead the assembly (which is hard to believe considerin' Faisano is a veteran of the UN and probably realizes that any proposed legislation is gonna be ran through a fine-tooth comb) they didn't work. So can we drop the character attacks, and put this idea out of our heads that the authorin' delegation is tryin' to mislead? It hasn't worked, and I believe these accusations are only gettin' in the way of some good, clean debate.

I'd also like to take a moment to talk about what this proposal does. Obviously there's some confusion, so let me try to clarify on the author's behalf (if ya don't mind). There are two stated goals in this resolution. One is to protect the civilian populace from unconventional arms use. The other is to allow each individual UN nation the right to defend itself by any means necessary, barring of course those weapons banned in previous legislation. Now a good portion of the arguments I'm seein' against this are unfair; a lot of ambassadors are focusin' on what the proposal doesn't do rather than what it does do. This issue has been addressed already, but I feel it's important to reiterate that we should be looking at what the proposal does rather than the opposite. Don't be shy...author your own proposal concernin' protection of the civilian populace from conventional weapons. But leave that issue out of this debate...it isn't relevant here.

Others oppose this resolution because of clause seven. I'm gonna go ahead and go out on a limb here, seein' as the main concern with clause seven seems to be that it prohibits the United Nations from making further weapon legislation. I notice some delegations have raised the point that if this proposal is passed, there's no way to regulate chemical weapons use. What's so bad about this? Well, the evil dictators out there, they'll use this proposal to their advantage, they'll say. The maniacs, the villains...they may not be able to use these weapons on civilians, but they'll use them in other horrible, cruel ways! I'm sorry, but I've got to ask...how come only one extreme is ever presented?

Here's an extreme for you. Florida Oranges is a law abiding You-knighted Nations member, and we're jest sittin' there, mindin' our own business. All of a sudden, Bigcockandballsastan, a nation who ISN'T a member of the UN and is in fact a rougue nation, begins an invasion of my homeland. They don't follow UN charter, so they jest don't give a fuck. They're usin' chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons...they're slaughterin' millions of Floridians. Shouldn't my nation be able to counter back with the exact same disregard for life our enemies have? Shouldn't we have the same advantages as some crackpot dictatorship that wants to make a move on our coasts? WHY shouldn't we is the question I guess I'm askin'.

I only have one more final point to make, and I'll make it in a question. How many maniac dictatorships do you see in the UN, an organization that provides civil rights worldwide and protects them with the utmost sincerity? In conclusion, I feel like the opposition have put a spin on this proposal without lookin' at all the appropriate scenarios. I happen to believe the scenario I've presented is more likely to happen than some dictator (in the UN no less) abusing this proposal. I hope to be pleasantly surprised with some explanations though.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2931/davidkoechnervj9bb3.jpg
Bud Brewster
U.N. Ambassador
The Beach Babes of Florida Oranges

Next, The Palentine supports this fine piece of legislation. Apart from a few legitimate points ,I am quite disgusted that most opposition comes in the form of personal attacks on the author of the proposal.See, the problem is, if you throw enough manure around, inevitably someone is going to throw some it right back at you.

Call it karma. Call it whatever, but to defend someone who is often just as guilty of abusing newcomers and experience alike....it's not a strong position to take. If they are being personally abusive, it's not unwarranted.

Let's not hijack this thread. If you want to discuss this further, lets take it elsewhere.

As some of my other esteemed colleagues have noted, enjoining means to forbid or outlaw. If that ain't doin' somethin', you can slap a pair of panties on me and call me Queen Elizabeth.There are other meanings for the word which have far weaker implications, but okay.So can we drop the character attacks, and put this idea out of our heads that the authorin' delegation is tryin' to mislead? It hasn't worked, and I believe these accusations are only gettin' in the way of some good, clean debate.They often do. I often say words of the same effect. Do they listen?

The rest...I don't have time to address. But thank you for your contribution.

They often do. I often say words of the same effect. Do they listen?

Who's this "they" you're talking about?


I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Ambassador Brewster, the situation he describes is exactly the sort of situation in which this resolution would be helpful. Should our nations be attacked in a heinous fashion, should a nation not a member of the UN choose to use chemical or biological weapons on our innocent populace, should we not have the right to respond in kind?

I will take the step and say that I am glad that clause 7 is a blocker. As sovereign nations with a duty to protect our people and our nation-state, we must be free to respond to any manner of attacks in a similar fashion. Common sense dictates that those who are willing to use weapons of the sort enumerated in the proposal will use them with or without the permission of the United Nations.

~Paulus Mannikr dan Polikarn
Chief of the Imperial Supreme Command
Grand Marshall of the Imperial Guard
Duke of Hypnian Polikarn~

The United Socialist States of Ellelt would like the record to show that we concur with astute assessment of the opposition of the proposal by the Representative of Florida Oranges.

There are many reasons why resolutions only cover one topic, mainly there is a character limitation on proposals, which by my understanding is currently set at 3500 characters including spaces. Therefore, a ten page preamble is just simply out of the question, and the proposal is required to do the most possible good using the fewest possible words.

The facts of the matter of invasion are that nine times out of ten when a UN nation is invaded it by a non-UN nation. UN nations should therefore have the right to combat their enemy with any forced deemed necessary, provided that they are not using weapons banned by previous legislation.

Now we can debate all day as to if article 7 is or is not a blocker, In the Limited time that I have been in the UN I can say I really wouldn't know a blocker if it danced in front of me naked wearing a tea cozy for a hat. But it is the contention of the United Socialist States of Ellelt that it not the business of the UN to ban weaponry, there are many non-UN nations that will attack an other nation and use whatever weapons they want, kill whomever they want, and it is the responsibility of any nation UN or not to defend itself and its population.

Should our nations be attacked in a heinous fashion, should a nation not a member of the UN choose to use chemical or biological weapons on our innocent populace, should we not have the right to respond in kind?

Stewart angrily leaped up from his seat and shouted a response to Paulus without being recognized by the Chair.

"No, Goddamnit, you should not! The fact that your innocent civilians were attacked in horrible ways by an enemy state does not justify your government intentionally causing suffering to other innocent civilians. Noncombatants should never be attacked, regardless of the circumstances. The innocence of these civilians does not know national boundaries, and a deliberate attack on that innocence, especially[I] with the use of such henious means as chemical or biological weaponry, is never, [I]ever just. We urge you to reconsider your ethical obligations as a steward to your citizens, and thank you for providing us with a perfect example case as to why this resolution must not pass."

You have bothered reading the proposal, as it pertains to civilians and unconventional arms, have you not?

Who's this "they" you're talking about?


I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Ambassador Brewster, the situation he describes is exactly the sort of situation in which this resolution would be helpful. Should our nations be attacked in a heinous fashion, should a nation not a member of the UN choose to use chemical or biological weapons on our innocent populace, should we not have the right to respond in kind?

I will take the step and say that I am glad that clause 7 is a blocker. As sovereign nations with a duty to protect our people and our nation-state, we must be free to respond to any manner of attacks in a similar fashion. Common sense dictates that those who are willing to use weapons of the sort enumerated in the proposal will use them with or without the permission of the United Nations.

~Paulus Mannikr dan Polikarn
Chief of the Imperial Supreme Command
Grand Marshall of the Imperial Guard
Duke of Hypnian Polikarn~

The Great Star Empire of Allech-Atreus still sees the need to use chemical weapons as a deterrent? Interesting. Are you still using tube artillery as well?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

See, the problem is, if you throw enough manure around, inevitably someone is going to throw some it right back at you.

Call it karma. Call it whatever, but to defend someone who is often just as guilty of abusing newcomers and experience alike....it's not a strong position to take. If they are being personally abusive, it's not unwarranted.

Let's not hijack this thread. If you want to discuss this further, lets take it elsewhere.That's a very good idea, actually. If your only purpose in this discussion is to raise ridiculous questions about a proposal I wrote, and further to defend personal attacks on me, because somehow I "deserve" it, then please, withdraw from this thread.

St Jello Biafra;11951045']Stewart angrily leaped up from his seat and shouted a response to Paulus without being recognized by the Chair.

"No, Goddamnit, you should not! The fact that your innocent civilians were attacked in horrible ways by an enemy state does not justify your government intentionally causing suffering to other innocent civilians. Noncombatants should never be attacked, regardless of the circumstances. The innocence of these civilians does not know national boundaries, and a deliberate attack on that innocence, especially with the use of such henious means as chemical or biological weaponry, is never, ever just. We urge you to reconsider your ethical obligations as a steward to your citizens, and thank you for providing us with a perfect example case as to why this resolution must not pass."


Well, If the UN wishes to remove the rights of member states to defend themselves then the only other option is for the repeals of the resolutions forbiding the creation of a UN army, and the Repeal of the resolutions forbiding UN taxation, because armies cost money you know, and pass resolutions to create a UN army and UN taxes.

Self-Defense is not business of this body, rather that belongs to the member states...because of the lack of a UN army.

The Great Star Empire of Allech-Atreus still sees the need to use chemical weapons as a deterrent? Interesting. Are you still using tube artillery as well?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer


Of course we see the need for weapons as a deterrent. In the past, planetary rebellions in the Empire were crushed by bombarding the planet with chemical weapons specifially targetting humans. It worked quite well, from what the histories say. It is no longer policy to do this, but we have met with incredible success by threatening to do it. You'd be amazed at how quickly revolutionaries put down their weapons when faced with the prospect of being melted.

Does the ambassador not agree that the threat of a horrendous death is much more preferable to the actual death itself?

And in response to your second question, not officially. There are some small planets with minor populations that can't afford higher-tech weaponry, and turn to weapons dealers who purvey the weapons you mention. We've also found that artillery in general is very effective in cave warfare.

Does the Ambassador have any more questions?

~Paulus Mannikr dan Polikarn
Chief of the Imperial Supreme Command
Grand Marshall of the Imperial Guard
Duke of Hypnian Polikarn~

The New Cultural Revolution has placed its vote against the resolution at hand. The concerns raided by the honourable representatives of, amongst others, Ausserland, Yelda and others have not, I feel, been adequately addressed by the proponents of the resolution. Clause 7 is, I fear an insurmountable obstacle to my country's support.

Benedictions,

I want to first state that I am in favor of this resolution. I’ve voted for it and I encourage everyone else to vote for it. With that said, I would like to consider article number 7. In fact I would like to tear it to shreds. Remember, I still encourage you to vote for it.

Article 7, as we all know states, “Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.” My objection is that this gives a blank check towards massive overkill. Why can’t a leader think that a nuclear bomb is necessary to protect their nation from a brigade of shirt ninjas? Because it’s overkill!

So who cares? Florida Oranges (By the way it’s been years since I’ve had a nice bottle of “Midnight Sun,” orange wine that was fermented with espresso beans.) brings up the point of nation A attacking nation B. I’d like to throw in Nation C. Nation A attacks nation B. Nation B responds by dumping a ton of bio/chemical weapons on the battleground. Hey it’s their nation right? It’s their fault if they mess with it right? But what if the toxic cloud drifts past the battlefield on to the fertile tourist beaches of country C? Hey it’s not deliberate right? So what if we just had a few thousand people dying a cruel and painful death?

That’s the problem with the ability to use overkill. I would argue that all nations have the ability to use any reasonable measures to defend their nation and they have a right to determine what those measures are. But the community does have a right to insist that such measures be reasonable or ensure that third parties are not significantly impacted in the cause of self defense.

Now you might be asking, “Do you really think you can get that into a resolution?” Here? Of course not! That is why I encourage your support on this resolution. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and there is no way in hell we will ever pass the perfect resolution. So this is good enough for government work. Vote YES.

See, the problem is, if you throw enough manure around, inevitably someone is going to throw some it right back at you.

Call it karma. Call it whatever, but to defend someone who is often just as guilty of abusing newcomers and experience alike....it's not a strong position to take. If they are being personally abusive, it's not unwarranted.

Let's not hijack this thread. If you want to discuss this further, lets take it elsewhere.

And people call me a prick...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

St Jello Biafra;11951045']Stewart angrily leaped up from his seat and shouted a response to Paulus without being recognized by the Chair.

"No, Goddamnit, you should not! The fact that your innocent civilians were attacked in horrible ways by an enemy state does not justify your government intentionally causing suffering to other innocent civilians. Noncombatants should never be attacked, regardless of the circumstances. The innocence of these civilians does not know national boundaries, and a deliberate attack on that innocence, especially[I] with the use of such henious means as chemical or biological weaponry, is never, [I]ever just. We urge you to reconsider your ethical obligations as a steward to your citizens, and thank you for providing us with a perfect example case as to why this resolution must not pass."


You are aware, of course, that non-combatants and innocent civilians are specifically marked as taboo targets by this proposal, aren't you? Nations are required to do their level best to not harm civilians. Using Unconventional Arms for counterattack would involve using them against opposing military forces.

Well, If the UN wishes to remove the rights of member states to defend themselves then the only other option is for the repeals of the resolutions forbiding the creation of a UN army, and the Repeal of the resolutions forbiding UN taxation, because armies cost money you know, and pass resolutions to create a UN army and UN taxes.

Self-Defense is not business of this body, rather that belongs to the member states...because of the lack of a UN army.

We agree wholeheartedly with the representative that every nation should have the necessary and appropriate means to defend itself and its population. Does the representative contend that chemical weapons, non-contagious biologicals, and radiological weapons are necessary for national defense?

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

I fear that this resolution if passed will only weaken us against non member states. If my great population is attacked heinously, I have a duty to do everything in my power to protect my people.

This resolution is designed to make us weaker against the likes of other certain non member states who have no regards of life towards the humanity of the innocent civilians.

If I were attacked in that way, I expect to have the power to defend my people by any and all means.

I would have voted for this resolution if it specificly was written that we as a soveriegn nation have a duty and right to defend ourselves in self defense of having our civilian population attacked by chemical and/or other unconventional weapons and WMD's.

I admit I don't advocate having a huge stockpile of above said weapons, however, I do have enough to thwart or deter an intentional attack against my people.

I don't think that the UN should prevent us, good nations from defending our people in any way necessary to deter an attack.

Prince Bodacious of the Free Land of Prince Bodacious has voted "Against"

We agree wholeheartedly with the representative that every nation should have the necessary and appropriate means to defend itself and its population. Does the representative contend that chemical weapons, non-contagious biologicals, and radiological weapons are necessary for national defense?

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

Yes.

Do we plan to use them? No. Do we want to use them? No.

Should we be prepared for any and all eventualities? Yes, and we try.

The safety of our citizens and the greater good of the state trumps any feel-good notion of disarmament. We have more prudence than to attack willy-nilly. And we're smart enough not to attack civilians.

~Paulus Mannikr dan Polikarn
Chief of the Imperial Supreme Command
Grand Marshall of the Imperial Guard
Duke of Hypnian Polikarn~

Due to the recent recall of our delegation, we will limit our remarks to the minimum needed to assert our position and refrain from point-by-point “ping-pong” responses.

This is not one proposal. It is two.

The first of these proposals is a genuine but not entirely satisfactory attempt to prevent the deliberate targeting of civilian populations in time of war. The following clauses address this issue:The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.

iii. Although it is imperative for nations to defend themselves, their people and their allies against attacks by hostile forces, the killing of civilians by such means is wholly unnecessary for this purpose.

iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.

v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.

They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions:

1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations;

2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;

3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;

4. Obligating member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;

5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;Except for the sixth and “final” clause, which calls upon the world to waste money on a fool's errand (“designer” chemicals that know the difference between combatants and non-combatants?!?), the proposal is a good one. We are somewhat baffled as to why the prohibition “against deliberately targeting civilians” has not been extended to a broader range of weapons; its failure to do this represents, in our eyes, a serious enough flaw as to render the proposal unworthy of passage, for reasons described in more detail below. The truly sad part, though, is that these failures might have been addressed to produce a resolution that would have won the near unanimous support of this body had it not been for the binding of the foregoing to a second, wholly unrelated proposal.

For at the end of this resolution is a clause that bears absolutely no connection to the rest of the proposal; it is unnecessary to the operation of any of the previous six clauses; it is in fact utterly unrelated to the issue of protecting civilians from being deliberately targeted in time of war. In our eyes, this final clause is an entirely second proposal, bolted on to this one for reasons that are a complete mystery to us. Here it is:7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.This second proposal seeks to maintain on the part of all Member nations broad authority to do whatever they please when it comes to outfitting their military, and limited authority to employ that military in unspecified ways, albeit subject to whatever limitations might have been or might in the future be imposed by this body. It effectively prevents this body from promulgating any general ban on weaponry, from rocks to redirected asteroids, and everything in between.

It has absolutely no connection with the ban on targeting civilians, other than the wholly artificial one of having been inserted into the same proposal.

In casting our vote, then, we must ask ourselves this question: are we willing to endorse a faulty ban on targeting civilians at the price of stopping this body from undertaking any future weapons ban of any kind whatsoever? The answer is no.

We stated above that we feel the laudable goal of rendering the targeting of civilians a war crime is left unfulfilled by this proposal. Our reasons for saying this are simple:

The proposal limits itself to a ban on the use of “unconventional” weapons on civilians.


It then proceeds to limit its definition of “unconventional” weapons to chemical and biological arms.


Consequently, it leaves outside its scope attacks on civilians using anything other than chemical or biological arms.No explanation for this omission is given.

We can understand why the proponents of various nuclear deterrence theories would want to see nuclear weapons exempted from any prohibition on use against civilian centers. At the same time, we see no reason why conventional weapons should receive a similar exemption, especially in light of the fact that there have been many more examples of outrages being perpetrated on civilians through the indiscriminate use of conventional explosives and incendiaries on population centers, and yet nobody serious maintains (as some wild-eyed theorists once did) that the threat of carpet-bombing enemy cities can serve as an effective deterrent to war.

Going further, we believe that the limited definition of “unconventional” weapons is short-sighted. There are frightful weapons under theoretical discussion in think-tanks as we speak: environmental weapons, which seek destabilize local meteorological or geological systems, visiting floods, blizzards, hurricanes, and earthquakes upon and enemy; the use of chemicals and biological agents, not on civilians, but on underlying ecosystems, defoliating forests, spoiling crops, killing livestock, and triggering other ecological catastrophes to cause famine and wholesale death; pyschotronic weapons, which attempt to induce mass hysteria, psychoses, or even convulsive shock, on populations through interference with neurological and cognitive processes; space-based kinetic bombardment system, which threaten to trigger regional or planetary mass extinction either by hurling huge barrages of hypervelocity projectiles onto a nation, or through the simpler but deadlier means of inducing meteoric or asteroidal impacts on the enemy; and finally - most terrifying of all in the minds of some - nanoweapons, which invoke the specter of the molecular deconstruction of entire nations - or even the entire world - into “gray goo”.

There is no good reason for this body to limit itself to restricting the use of chemical and biological weapons on civilians; any ban we draft should be broader than this. We can do this and still respect the concept of nuclear deterrence; that is not too difficult for the legal minds in this body to handle. But if we're going to do such a thing, we should do it right, rather than doing a halfway job that will get in the way of future work and have to be repealed later on.

Beyond that, it is nonsensical to issue a ban on using chemicals and bioagents on civilians and, in the self-same resolution, tie our hands when it comes to restricting the acquisition and use of other weapons we haven't named. If people want to attack civilian centers and we tell them that they can't use chemicals or bioagents to do it, then that will only spur the development on unrestricted alternatives. Is this something we want?

Let it not be the legacy of this body that some future mass-murdering national leadre doesn't look us in the eye and say, “Well, you never said that I couldn't use mind control systems on my enemy's population in order to turn all his people into psychopathic killers,” or “Well, you never said I couldn't dust his cities with nanoagents that disassemble his people a molecule at a time over two weeks,” or even “Hey, the 'Unconventional Arms Accord' never said I couldn't vaporize my enemy's cities using turbolasers fired from my friggin' Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).” To ban this generation of horrific weapons while at the same time granting our approval to the next generation of even nastier weapons is hardly the sort of triumph we should aim to have adorn our place in the history books.

I fear that this resolution if passed will only weaken us against non member states. If my great population is attacked heinously, I have a duty to do everything in my power to protect my people.

This resolution is designed to make us weaker against the likes of other certain non member states who have no regards of life towards the humanity of the innocent civilians.

If I were attacked in that way, I expect to have the power to defend my people by any and all means.

I would have voted for this resolution if it specificly was written that we as a soveriegn nation have a duty and right to defend ourselves in self defense of having our civilian population attacked by chemical and/or other unconventional weapons and WMD's.

I admit I don't advocate having a huge stockpile of above said weapons, however, I do have enough to thwart or deter an intentional attack against my people.

I don't think that the UN should prevent us, good nations from defending our people in any way necessary to deter an attack.

Prince Bodacious of the Free Land of Prince Bodacious has voted "Against"

I think that you may be confused. There is nothing in the resolution that says you can't defend yourself against attack. The resolution actually condemns attacks on civilians.

Did you read it? If you have, then you obviously didn't understand it.

Tana Petrov
Temporary UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

As the newly appointed Ambassador of The Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei, and the Ambassador-at-Large for the United Community Builders region, we respectfully vote against said Resolution, in agreement with the conclusions drawn by Ausserland, Norderia, and Community Property.





Camryn O. Langdon
Ambassador
The Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei
Ambassador-At-Large
United Community Builders

A thought has occured. Perhaps I'm way off on this one. Tell me if you think I am or not.

The line that seems to be causing so much difficulty is this one:

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

I understand where the issue that some delegations are having with this. However, something about it seemed wonky to me. I looked into this feeling, and came up with this:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

We are quibbling over a matter completely irrelevant. The clause in question is already on the books as a declared right of nations. UAA simply reaffirms that right, as would be almost necessary to ensure the legality of this proposal.

As Chanks representative I don't see the need to give nations the right to create weapons of any kind, mostly since they already have that right
(I presume) and there is no need to reinforce that right with legislation.

The Borderland of Chank is against legislation for the sake of legislatin'

Another thing I'm not able to condone is the support in the bill for making chemical weapons availible in conventional warfare.
Using the paperclip method to make chemical weapons legal (by applying it to the ”don't shoot the civilans/puppies/children accord”) is not right as this issue should have its discussion.

So how is a law giving every nation the right to create the most horrible weapons amagined and using it on non-civilians ”A resolution to slash worldwide military spending”?

We are quibbling over a matter completely irrelevant. The clause in question is already on the books as a declared right of nations. UAA simply reaffirms that right, as would be almost necessary to ensure the legality of this proposal.
Except that the moderator ruling on UNSA means that weapons bans can still go through. I can't see a way of wording such round UCAA, given it makes explicit the decision on whether a weapon is necessary for national defence is to be made by the national leader.

Except that the moderator ruling on UNSA means that weapons bans can still go through. I can't see a way of wording such round UCAA, given it makes explicit the decision on whether a weapon is necessary for national defence is to be made by the national leader.

Gotcha.

EDIT: A ban could still be worded around it. It would be more difficult and would have to be worded exceptionally carefully, but it could be done. I could do it, were I to have some incentive to do so. I'm not, at the moment. I still support the UAA.

While I wouldn't presume to speak for Mr Tehrani as to intent of that clause, even though I don't see how the author's intent is actually relevant, I still maintain that clause 7 does not create a complete blocker. No, you would not be able to pass an out and out ban on such things, but there use could still be greatly restricted, if done carefully.

I still am not convinced and fear we are at an empass. We could ask a member of the UN Secretariat to make a ruling on the nature of that clause. Basically I could draft up a new Global Disarment "proposal" against the deployment of mass driver assaults on planetary bodies and ask that the Secretariat make a ruling on its legality pending the conditional approval of this resolution.

If it is ruled a blocker, which I'm confident it will be, would you be willing to change your support to a position similar to the one announced by Ausserland and others (namely opposing clause 7, but willing to campaign for a replacement sans clause 7)?

C. Thonberger
CSSM

I still am not convinced and fear we are at an empass. We could ask a member of the UN Secretariat to make a ruling on the nature of that clause. Basically I could draft up a new Global Disarment "proposal" against the deployment of mass driver assaults on planetary bodies and ask that the Secretariat make a ruling on its legality pending the conditional approval of this resolution.

If it is ruled a blocker, which I'm confident it will be, would you be willing to change your support to a position similar to the one announced by Ausserland and others (namely opposing clause 7, but willing to campaign for a replacement sans clause 7)?

C. Thonberger
CSSM

Allow me to begin by thanking Ambassador Thonberger for their show of diplomacy and respect. Not that we are surprised by it, simply that it is appreciated.

I fear you may be correct on the point of impasse. I understand your concerns regarding clause 7. I am not opposed to the notion of nations deciding for themselves the best method of defence, but I do appreciate your worries of less than scrupulous nations taking advantage of it. At this time, I still hold to the view that this can be written around. It would be more difficult than it would be without this, but it can be done. With very careful wording, an out and out ban could be put in place around UAA. Perhaps I will see what I can do about drafting an example of such for your perusal.

That should probably take place outside of the realm of this debate, however, as I would not want my hypothesizing to get in the way of further discussion of the matter at hand.

As we said earlier, we do not have the time or inclination to get involved in “ping-pong” exchanges. But Kivisto has made a statement that needs to be corrected, and while we thank Gruenberg for doing so, we feel that the exchange between these two countries needs to be clarified.We are quibbling over a matter completely irrelevant. The clause in question is already on the books as a declared right of nations. UAA simply reaffirms that right, as would be almost necessary to ensure the legality of this proposal.Except that the moderator ruling on UNSA means that weapons bans can still go through. I can't see a way of wording such round UCAA, given it makes explicit the decision on whether a weapon is necessary for national defence is to be made by the national leader.Gotcha.At the risk of equine necroflagellation, let's delve into this further.DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.We apologize in advance to those who already understand what we are about to say, but wish to make this as clear as possible to everyone.

Under existing law - specifically, the UNSA - is is ultimately up to this body to decide which weapons are “necessary for national defense”. This is implicit in the way that the parliamentarians (OOC: the mods) have handled arms control resolutions since the passage of the UNSA. An example should suffice:No nation may issue bayonets to its military.Bayonets being deemed unnecessary for the defense of any nation, no nation may issue bayonets to its militaryWe apologize for the simplicity of this example; it is simply meant to prove a point.

Under the parliamentarians' current legal interpretation of the UNSA, Proposal “B” is legal, but Proposal “A” is not. The difference is in the inclusion of what some of us call the “magic words”: a statement (or, properly, a “finding”) by this body that the weapon to be banned is “unnecessary for national defense”. Many proponents of the UNSA viewed this as a loophole, and that view is probably correct.

Now, the following is not intended to be a criticism of the parliamentarians, nor a challenge to their judgment, nor a call for reconsideration of their rulings on the legality of this measure. But for all intents and purposes, the seventh clause of the UAA is an attempt to close the loophole in the UCSA, if not to supersede it altogether.

Why is this so? Because the UAA firmly places the decision as to whether a weapon is “necessary for national defense” in the hands of each nation's leaders, on a case by case basis, something the UNSA did not do. By not specifying who gets to decide whether a particular weapon is needed for any particular nation's defense, the UNSA leaves that decision for the General Assembly itself to decide; by specifying that each nation's leaders make that call individually for the nations they govern, the UAA renders the wishes of the General Assembly irrelevant.

We believe that the proper way for proponents of this legislation to have pressed their case would have been to remove the seventh clause from the current resolution and present it to us as a measure aimed at limiting nations' ability to target civilians, and then to seek the repeal and replacement of the UNSA with something containing the text found here, in the seventh clause. Instead, we have a resolution that does two things at once, thus muddling the issue before this body: one that seeks to protect civilians in war, and one that seeks to supersede the UNSA with a more effective obstacle to any weapons bans we might contemplate in the future.

These are, in our minds, separate issues. If forced to treat them as a single issue, then we are obligated to vote “nay” in order to keep alive hope for global disarmament.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

“No nation ever had an army large enough to guarantee it against attack in time of peace, or ensure it of victory in time of war.” ~Calvin Coolidge

We agree wholeheartedly with the representative that every nation should have the necessary and appropriate means to defend itself and its population. Does the representative contend that chemical weapons, non-contagious biologicals, and radiological weapons are necessary for national defense?

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

We do.

Further, we also train our military in guerrila tactics. Radiological, and non-contagious biological weapons form a nice littel deturant from tin pot dictators who sometimes seek war with us and are necessary as a threat even if not used. Much in the manner that the Star Empire suggested for planetary rebellions, etc.

EDIT: A ban could still be worded around it. It would be more difficult and would have to be worded exceptionally carefully, but it could be done. I could do it, were I to have some incentive to do so. I'm not, at the moment. I still support the UAA.The only potential workarounds I can see are:

Go for a general reduction in armament levels; “The right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense” may not (in fact, we believe does not) translate into a right to have as many of each of these as one wishes.


Ban the purchase or sale, importation or exportation of arms, since these actions aren't protected as “rights”.


Ban technology transfers, under the foregoing logic.


Micromanage “develop(ment), produc(tion), deploy(ment) (or) utiliz(ation)”: You have to take ten years to develop each new weapon, you can only build one a year (to a limit of one overall), you have to deploy them in crates (disassembled, of course; reassembly can only occur one week after hostilities begin), and you can only use them at a rate of one per day on the fifth Tuesday of any month with an “r” in its name, and must exhaust the entire list of such months before going back to the same month again.The last list of restrictions are absurd, of course, but offered as examples. You could limit use in any meaningful way you wished, as long as you permitted use of some kind, even if not a very helpful one (“Nations may use only use clustered munitions as paperweights,” for instance).

The above notwithstanding, the effect of the clause in question will be to make resolutions banning obnoxious weapons considerably harder to write within the bounds of legality, and therefore much harder to enact. That this was the clause's intention is obvious; whether this body wishes to hang such an albatross around its neck is the question we now debate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“To wage war, you need first of all money; second, you need money, and third, you also need money.” ~Prince Montecuccoli

“National defense is the usual pretext for the policy of fleecing the people.” ~Senator John Taylor

“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” ~George W. Bush

You could limit use in any meaningful way you wished, as long as you permitted use of some kind, even if not a very helpful one (“Nations may use only use clustered munitions as paperweights,” for instance).

I disagree. It is still possible to write effective legislation around this that would not be as silly as that (assuming you intended the paperweight to be silly).

The above notwithstanding, the effect of the clause in question will be to make resolutions banning obnoxious weapons considerably harder to write within the bounds of legality, and therefore much harder to enact.

In point of fact, I could manage to draft a resolution that would enact a complete ban on biological, chemical, and radiological weapons that would still be legal with this in place. Took about 10 minutes to hammer out the ideas. Not as difficult as I had imagined.

That this was the clause's intention is obvious;

Unless the author has shared some secret knowledge with you, to which the rest of us are not privy, then claims of the obviousness of the intent of the clause belong in the privy.

Oddly enough, I remember when someone tried to ban bayonets. Silly.

At any rate, were the Hack a member, we would be abstaining on this vote. The Federation, as a whole, does not use biological weapons, and the Hack itself has never used chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Being nuked hard enough to make our island glow might have something to do with that; a couple members of the Oligarchy still remember the lead in to the Corporate Rebellion, which may explain our disdain for nuclear weapons. I know for a fact that former President-For-Life (long story) Solis remembers those days.

Ahem.

Regardless, the Hack is strongly against any weapons along these lines. Also, the aforementioned nuking involved a catastrophic loss of human life. However, we fully support the concept of allowing nations to build and, yes, use any weapons that they feel is crucial to their self defence.

Does the Hack feel that chemical or biological weapons fit this description? Certainly not. We feel they are wasteful and woefully inefficient in the battlefield. The only place that they even have the hope of being effective is against densely packed locations. Like cities. Which are full of civilians. It is the position of the Hack that by banning the use of "unconventional weapons" against civilian targets, this bill effectively bans their use completely. They can certainly still be used on the battle field, but they are largely worthless there. Napalm, for instance, would be far more effective.

On the subject of conventional weapons being used against civilians, we agree that that is almost as bad, and probably should be addressed. The Hack (well, technically, the Socialist Union of Mhu Thulan) also suffered from punishing attacks by conventional bombs in the lead-in to the Corporate Rebellion. Conventional weapons are perfectly capable of producing chemical effects as well, as demonstrated when the (at the time) largest oil refinery in the world was bombed into oblivion. There are a lot of deadly chemicals in those places, and the fallout killed far more people than the bombing did.

However, the proponents of this bill are correct: conventional arms are outside the scope of this bill, as would be implied by the title. If people wish for a ban on conventional weapons being used against civilians, then they should write it. The Hack would love to see a ban on unions, but we aren't going to complain because this bill doesn't cover that.

Thank you for your time, and my apologies to Doctor Leary for stealing his floor time. I felt that he wouldn't have been able to convey my views properly. He can be a little... abrasive.


-Elisa Day
Director of Foreign Affairs
Member of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The first of these proposals is a genuine but not entirely satisfactory attempt to prevent the deliberate targeting of civilian populations in time of war. The following clauses address this issue: Except for the sixth and “final” clause, which calls upon the world to waste money on a fool's errand (“designer” chemicals that know the difference between combatants and non-combatants?!?), the proposal is a good one.

Hardly a fool's errand. While I do find it unlikely that such designer chemicals as you describe could be developed, it's quite possible to improve the delivery systems for such weapons to better focus on military targets and prevent civilian casualties.

We are somewhat baffled as to why the prohibition “against deliberately targeting civilians” has not been extended to a broader range of weapons; its failure to do this represents, in our eyes, a serious enough flaw as to render the proposal unworthy of passage, for reasons described in more detail below.

And I am not baffled at all. It would make little sense to address conventional weaponry in light of limiting civilian casualties, because such weaponry is generally already designed such that civilian casualties are very limited anyway.

<snipped for brevity>

Going further, we believe that the limited definition of “unconventional” weapons is short-sighted. There are frightful weapons under theoretical discussion in think-tanks as we speak: environmental weapons, which seek destabilize local meteorological or geological systems, visiting floods, blizzards, hurricanes, and earthquakes upon and enemy; the use of chemicals and biological agents, not on civilians, but on underlying ecosystems, defoliating forests, spoiling crops, killing livestock, and triggering other ecological catastrophes to cause famine and wholesale death; pyschotronic weapons, which attempt to induce mass hysteria, psychoses, or even convulsive shock, on populations through interference with neurological and cognitive processes; space-based kinetic bombardment system, which threaten to trigger regional or planetary mass extinction either by hurling huge barrages of hypervelocity projectiles onto a nation, or through the simpler but deadlier means of inducing meteoric or asteroidal impacts on the enemy; and finally - most terrifying of all in the minds of some - nanoweapons, which invoke the specter of the molecular deconstruction of entire nations - or even the entire world - into “gray goo”.

And you are under the impression that legislation by this body would prevent nations with that kind of power from using it? If they have that kind of weaponry, I really don't think that the UN saying that they cannot use them is going to stop them. It may, however, get their attention and make them annoyed at us, which is not a strategy for dealing with powerful maniacs that I favor.

Let it not be the legacy of this body that some future mass-murdering national leadre doesn't look us in the eye and say, “Well, you never said that I couldn't use mind control systems on my enemy's population in order to turn all his people into psychopathic killers,” or “Well, you never said I couldn't dust his cities with nanoagents that disassemble his people a molecule at a time over two weeks,” or even “Hey, the 'Unconventional Arms Accord' never said I couldn't vaporize my enemy's cities using turbolasers fired from my friggin' Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).” To ban this generation of horrific weapons while at the same time granting our approval to the next generation of even nastier weapons is hardly the sort of triumph we should aim to have adorn our place in the history books.

For one, such national leaders generally are not quite sane enough to feel the need to justify their actions to a fluffy and meddling international body. For two, this body does not necessarily approve of every act it either legalizes or refrains from outlawing. For example, the UN has never outlawed smelly socks, but that's hardly a sign of UN approval of smelly socks.

Your hysterical outrage and poor argumentation, while wrapped in lovely rhetoric, is hardly substantive or impressive.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Under existing law - specifically, the UNSA - is is ultimately up to this body to decide which weapons are “necessary for national defense”.

No, it isn't. Under the UNSA, it is ultimately left up to the nations to decide which weapons are necessary for national defense. If they choose, in their capacity as members of this body, to remove from themselves that privilege via further legislation, that is hardly a decision that is out of their hands. But that is no different from any other legislation by this body. The member nations can always choose to alter their decisions and remove their power by future legislation, whether it be repeals of resolutions like the UNSA, or by using loopholes to get around them. But under UNSA (rather than future legislation) the decision to use weapons is left up to national discretion.

I'll thank you to not go around harping about our resolution when you clearly do not understand it.

Under the parliamentarians' current legal interpretation of the UNSA, Proposal “B” is legal, but Proposal “A” is not. The difference is in the inclusion of what some of us call the “magic words”: a statement (or, properly, a “finding”) by this body that the weapon to be banned is “unnecessary for national defense”. Many proponents of the UNSA viewed this as a loophole, and that view is probably correct.

Now, the following is not intended to be a criticism of the parliamentarians, nor a challenge to their judgment, nor a call for reconsideration of their rulings on the legality of this measure. But for all intents and purposes, the seventh clause of the UAA is an attempt to close the loophole in the UCSA, if not to supersede it altogether.

Why is this so? Because the UAA firmly places the decision as to whether a weapon is “necessary for national defense” in the hands of each nation's leaders, on a case by case basis, something the UNSA did not do. By not specifying who gets to decide whether a particular weapon is needed for any particular nation's defense, the UNSA leaves that decision for the General Assembly itself to decide; by specifying that each nation's leaders make that call individually for the nations they govern, the UAA renders the wishes of the General Assembly irrelevant.

And the wishes of the General Assembly should be irrelevant. The General Assembly has shown a pitiful grasp of how legislation limiting weapons use should be written in order to be practical, accurate, and coherent.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

I fear you may be correct on the point of impasse. I understand your concerns regarding clause 7. I am not opposed to the notion of nations deciding for themselves the best method of defence, but I do appreciate your worries of less than scrupulous nations taking advantage of it. At this time, I still hold to the view that this can be written around. It would be more difficult than it would be without this, but it can be done. With very careful wording, an out and out ban could be put in place around UAA. Perhaps I will see what I can do about drafting an example of such for your perusal.

That should probably take place outside of the realm of this debate, however, as I would not want my hypothesizing to get in the way of further discussion of the matter at hand.

We cannot agree that your hypothesizing would get in the way of discussion. Our sole objection to this proposal is the blocking effect of clause 7. If we could be proven wrong in our understanding of that clause, we would retire from the debate and probably vote for the proposal.

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

I have to say that I am relieved that this is not a REPEAL resolution. It gives me an opportunity to actually look at this resolution with a less than jaundiced eye. That being said, allow me to examine this particular resolution with my 22 years of military experience.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.

The intentional slaughter of civilians, regardless of the means is a war crime.

iii. Although it is imperative for nations to defend themselves, their people and their allies against attacks by hostile forces, the killing of civilians by such means is wholly unnecessary for this purpose.

This is a point most civilized nations agree on.

iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.

These agents are known biological and chemical weapons. In military parlance, unconventional weapons are improvised munitions and weapons and are part of the tools of assymetrical warfare (guerilla or irregular warfare in vernacular). Back when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth when I was a shavetail 2nd Lieutenant, we classified biological and chemical weapons with nuclear weapons and in turn we called them NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) weapons, today they are called WMD, not unconventional weapons.

v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.

Incorrect. That is the definition of "non-combatants." Those civilians who hold a military equivalent command or posting within the national defense structure are defined as "combatants" regardless of whether they wear a uniform or not.

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.

It would be more proper to change "civilians" to "non-combatants." Usually, despite reasonable precautions, non-combatants are killed in warfare, that is the sad principle of "collateral damage."

They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions:

1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations;

2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;

3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;

These provisions are better for a treaty, along with the corrected definitions. I think it is clear that most reasonable NationStates desire to avoid the death of non-combatants, but this particular document is rife with improper nomenclature and needs to make clear in correct nomenclature what this resolution is about.

This document is an injunction against the use of Biological and Chemical Agents on non-combatants. I don't think goes far enough. As a retired member of the US Armed Services, I think it more proper that a full injunction against the use of NBC/WMD's is in order.

4. Obligating member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;

5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;

This is fine language, and I would agree to it if the resolution was properly written, defined and narrowly focused.

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

No nation needs or deserves the right to develop any sort of chemical/biological warfare. Once the djinn is out of the bottle, the less deadly agents will lead to the development of more mortal forms of the agents in question. That is why in the real world there is a treaty that all civilized nations adhere to prohibiting the extensive development (and proliferation) of NBC/WMD weapons.

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

With all due respect to the author of this provision, that gives national leaders far too much to play with. This gives national leaders very near to carte blanche. I would not agree to this on a drunken binge much less stone cold sober.

I must vote against this resolution, it is rife with contradictions, errors in nomenclature. With corrections, this resolution is the beginnings of a nice treaty against the proliferation, development and use of biological and chemical weapons. Bring it forth in a corrected format and I will change my vote.

Repeat: Schwarzchild votes "NAY."

As the representative of the Most Serene Republic of Celestia Moon, I must vote against this proposal, not because I do not agree with any of its premises, but because I feel that it both oversteps its own intentions while not going far enough.

The people of Celestia Moon agree that it is a most heinous act to target the civilians of a nation, but we must agree with Community Property's most recent statements that the proposal is too limited by only prohibiting chemical or biological weaponry.

The proposal also oversteps its purpose by encouraging the development and use of such weapons against military agents, as well as including in the last measure the affirmation of the right of any nation to develop, produce, deploy and utilize weapons it deems fit for national defence. This last measure should be completely stricken from the proposal. It would seem to us that the proposal in and of itself does not limit any nation's abilities in this respect and the last clause is wholly unnecessary. The issue of weapons necessary for national defence should be addressed in a completely seperate proposal, not in a proposal intending to protect civilians from the ravages of war.

If someone wishes to rewrite this proposal, addressing only the issue of using unconventional weapons against civilians, and the definition of unconventional weapons is expanded, then they can almost assuredly count on the support of Celestia Moon.

-Chief Ambassador of Celestia Moon, Arianna Cela

We cannot agree that your hypothesizing would get in the way of discussion. Our sole objection to this proposal is the blocking effect of clause 7. If we could be proven wrong in our understanding of that clause, we would retire from the debate and probably vote for the proposal.

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

As for restricting or limiting the use of weaponry, looking at the wording of relevant passed resolutions, one would simply have to clearly delineate the UN definition of DEFENSE. Were the UN to decree that national defense only involves movement of troops or utilization of weaponry (including their incidental fallout) within the defending nation's territory or orders, this would severely limit the use of such things in anything but a purely defensive act, while still allowing for nations to aid in the defense of allied nations. I would most likely oppose any resolution of this nature that was too overreaching in scope, but it could be done.

For a complete ban, there is a textual loophole, which I agree is fairly underhanded to use, that would allow it. As I could not agree with or support a full ban on such things without being fully convinced it is necessary, I'd rather not discuss it in the halls of the General Assembly at this time. I am awaiting word from some of my advisors who are going over the text of the example I have drafted to ensure that I did not miss something. I'd rather not open my mouth about it before we are 100% certain, but I am confident in their abilities.

On a related note, I would like to extend my appreciation to the honourable delegation from Ausserrland that they remain open-minded and willing to reconsider the situation. Once again, we are not surprised, but this is obviously a matter with which they feel strongly, and many would not have remained as rational in analysis of the points of their opposition.

Altanar would have no problem with this proposal, but for the following two provisions:

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

We feel very strongly that the last thing an international body such as the UN needs to be doing is encouraging the development of chemical arms, or any other armaments, for that matter. War is a plague on civilized societies as it is, and as nations demonstrate far too eagerly and often, they hardly need our encouragement to develop ways to kill each other. If anything, the UN should be discouraging weapons development, not encouraging it.

We also feel strongly that clause 7 gives nations with ill intent entirely too much of a loophole to exploit. In particular, the phrase "any and all weapons" goes well beyond the scope of chemical arms. Any lunatic could decide they "need" weapons of insanely destructive power to defend their nations, with the predictable result. People fought and won wars without these "unconventional" weapons, and can still do so. Therefore, their "need" is debatable. More importantly, in the unanimous opinion of our delegation and Government, clause 7 would move the world towards indiscriminate production of such weapons, with the tacit seal of approval of the UN - the very body that should be standing against that, on moral grounds if nothing else.

It is our belief, after reviewing this proposal and discussing it with our Government, that clauses 6 and 7 completely mock the honorable spirit of the clauses that precede them. We also believe as well that this is anything but "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending", as encouraging nations to develop bigger and shinier guns, and giving them carte blanche to do so, usually has the exact opposite effect. We believe that clauses 6 and 7 render this document nothing more than a cynical effort to gut any meaningful attempt to control "unconventional" arms. Therefore, Altanar will oppose this legislation, and will also encourage its region-mates and anyone else who will listen to do the same.

As for restricting or limiting the use of weaponry, looking at the wording of relevant passed resolutions, one would simply have to clearly delineate the UN definition of DEFENSE. Were the UN to decree that national defense only involves movement of troops or utilization of weaponry (including their incidental fallout) within the defending nation's territory or orders, this would severely limit the use of such things in anything but a purely defensive act, while still allowing for nations to aid in the defense of allied nations. I would most likely oppose any resolution of this nature that was too overreaching in scope, but it could be done.


My thanks to the honorable representative for his response. Let's take a close look at the relevant text:

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

[Bolding added]

To me, this leaves it to the sole discretion of the national leaders to determine what constitutes the national defense and what is necessary for it. The NSUN is barred from placing any limits on deployment or use, save what is already banned by this or previous resolutions, period. I can almost hear the anguished cries of "illegal!" from the proponents of this resolution if such a thing were to be attempted. I also think that the notion that the NSUN is going to say "you can build and stockpile all the dirty bombs you want, but you can only use them in your own country" passes far beyond the bounds of plausibility.

I can fully appreciate the hesitation of the honorable representative to describe the loophole he believes exists in the resolution. It wouldn't make much sense to publicize a loophole in a resolution you're supporting. Unfortunately, that leaves us in the position of having to agree to disagree. He says this isn't an effective blocker against arms limitation. I say it is. The effect of this resolution would be to make the world of NationStates a more dangerous place in which to live.

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

Of course we see the need for weapons as a deterrent. In the past, planetary rebellions in the Empire were crushed by bombarding the planet with chemical weapons specifially targetting humans. It worked quite well, from what the histories say. It is no longer policy to do this, but we have met with incredible success by threatening to do it. You'd be amazed at how quickly revolutionaries put down their weapons when faced with the prospect of being melted.

Does the ambassador not agree that the threat of a horrendous death is much more preferable to the actual death itself?
Are we talking the depopulation of an entire planet, or just certain demographic groups? In either scenario, I would think the use of tissue consuming nanobots would be the preferred method. However, if you would prefer to spray prodigious amounts of chemicals over the surface of a planet then I suppose that would suffice as well.

Seems a lot of unnecessary work though.

Does the Ambassador have any more questions?
No. Nothing further, thank you.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

Oddly enough, I remember when someone tried to ban bayonets. Silly.Precisely why we chose the example. By the way, we have in on good authority that the “Ban Bayonets” resolution was a joke, argued as convincingly as possible to avoid deletion and the warning it would bring. The intention was to test the very loophole we described a moment ago; apparently the sponsoring nation - whose name is quite well known within these halls - chose bayonets simply because it was a weapon their military was willing to lose if by some insane chance the test resolution were to pass.

Or so we heard, anyway; we should note that the story was conveyed in an airport lounge during a lengthy layover between flights, so its veracity is certainly subject to question.

Beyond that note, we thank Madame Day for her comments, and respect her country's position, even though we disagree with it.

<pause>

We find Texan Hotrodder's description of the tenor of our remarks as “hysterical” somewhat surprising, but rhetoric is rhetoric, so...

On the legal weaknesses of the UNSA, while we are sure that its esteemed author intended to insulate Members from potential activism on the part of this body - and we don't think it too great a stretch to presume that those who write resolutions generally intend their more obvious effects (without denying the ever-present danger of unintended consequences) - it is eminently clear that the UNSA still permits this body to consider resolutions banning weapons it deems “unnecessary to the defense of any nation”, the protestations of individual nations notwithstanding. To cite the example we mentioned earlier, if the General Assembly says that bayonets are “unnecessary to the defense of any nation”, then they are in fact unnecessary - at least as far as the legality of any ban on bayonets is concerned.

But the General Assembly can hardly proclaim that “none among us deem bayonets to be necessary to the defense of our nations”; a single protest by a single nation renders that statement untrue, and renders it untrue before the legislation in question can ever make queue. The effect is to raise the bar on weapons bans; we doubt that the esteemed delegation from Texan Hotrodders will claim otherwise, and we have already cited the exchange between the respective representatives of Gruenberg and Kivisto on this self-same point.

Moving onto the assertion by the representative of Texan Hotrodders than conventional weaponry “is generally already designed such that civilian casualties are very limited anyway”, we cite numerous examples of such weapons being used in a callous and deliberate fashion to cause tremendous harm to civilian populations; indeed, we believe that the historical record shows conventional ordinance to be more lethal than either chemical or biological arms when used on population centers; there are even examples of conventional weaponry inflicting greater civilian causalities - and causalities every bit as horrific, by the way - than some nuclear attacks.

The claim that conventional weaponry is not a significant threat to civilian populations “by design” - if that is what the esteemed delegation from Texan Hotrodders is claiming, and so far off the mark is such a claim that we're sure we didn't hear it correctly - simply flies in the face of military reality; it is utterly untenable.

Likewise, the assertion that it would be improper to address the use of conventional weaponry on civilians in the same resolution as we bar the use of chemical and biological weapons is absurd on its face. The issue is - or ought to be, anyway - the deliberate targeting of civilians in war. And as for the title of the resolution being an obstacle to this, well, all the better reason to vote this resolution down and rewrite it properly, with a title to match.

Besides, how is it that a disarmament “blocker” is more germane to the issue of targeting civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons than is the targeting of these same populations with conventional weapons? That's like saying that we can speak of robins in the same breath as salmon, but lumping salmon in with trout is absurd. Please.

No, consistency is hardly this resolution's strong suit; appealing to it now is more than a little silly.

We will finish with the assertion that we are wise to leave nastier, more horrific weapons alone lest we anger powerful enemies. Does anybody in the body really take the threat of war by rogue nations against the 30,000 nations of the U.N. seriously? The sorry truth is not that we must not pass such a ban out of fear of attack by angry enemies; it is that a number of very powerful members want chemical and biological strikes on civilian populations banned as a political sop to the rest of us while leaving unregulated weapons they fervently crave for themselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” ~General Omar N. Bradley

“We have guided missiles and misguided men.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

“The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.” ~Albert Einstein

“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” ~General Omar N. Bradley

“We have guided missiles and misguided men.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

“The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.” ~Albert Einstein
We get the fucking point. ~Gruenberg

We get the fucking point. ~GruenbergAnd that is supposed to persuade me to stop posting these quotes just how?

If you don't like them, ignore them. Opponents of disarmament have been doing that for over a century anyway

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another...after the war is on.” ~Senator Robert M. La Follette

We find Texan Hotrodder's description of the tenor of our remarks as “hysterical” somewhat surprising, but rhetoric is rhetoric, so...

On the legal weaknesses of the UNSA, while we are sure that its esteemed author intended to insulate Members from potential activism on the part of this body -

Hardly. On the contrary, UNSA was written such that if this body gets its act together, it would still have a means of effectively banning weapons that could not conceivably by used appropriately. Several "loopholes" if you will, were intentionally allowed in the document.

Unfortunately, in the intervening time, the Federation has seen no evidence that this body is getting its act together, and as a result is in favor of further blocking measures. Those measures are still subject to repeal, though, like any other legislation, and are hardly inviolable should the UN decide to reverse its stance.

and we don't think it too great a stretch to presume that those who write resolutions generally intend their more obvious effects (without denying the ever-present danger of unintended consequences) - it is eminently clear that the UNSA still permits this body to consider resolutions banning weapons it deems “unnecessary to the defense of any nation”, the protestations of individual nations notwithstanding. To cite the example we mentioned earlier, if the General Assembly says that bayonets are “unnecessary to the defense of any nation”, then they are in fact unnecessary - at least as far as the legality of any ban on bayonets is concerned.

Sorry, but your argument that because future legislation by the UN can change the set of weapons allowed, that the UNSA allows it, is still nonsense. The nature of the UN allows it, not the UNSA. And there is a rather large and obvious difference between the nature of the UN, and the UNSA.

Moving onto the assertion by the representative of Texan Hotrodders than conventional weaponry “is generally already designed such that civilian casualties are very limited anyway”, we cite numerous examples of such weapons being used in a callous and deliberate fashion to cause tremendous harm to civilian populations; indeed, we believe that the historical record shows conventional ordinance to be more lethal than either chemical or biological arms when used on population centers; there are even examples of conventional weaponry inflicting greater civilian causalities - and causalities every bit as horrific, by the way - than some nuclear attacks.

The claim that conventional weaponry is not a significant threat to civilian populations “by design” - if that is what the esteemed delegation from Texan Hotrodders is claiming, and so far off the mark is such a claim that we're sure we didn't hear it correctly - simply flies in the face of military reality; it is utterly untenable.

To make my position clearer, I do not believe that most conventional weaponry is designed with the intent to limit civilian casualties, but rather that as a result of its design, possible civilian casualties per use of the weapon will be considerably lower.

That said, I'll concede that this line of argument is not effective.

We will finish with the assertion that we are wise to leave nastier, more horrific weapons alone lest we anger powerful enemies. Does anybody in the body really take the threat of war by rogue nations against the 30,000 nations of the U.N. seriously?

No, but it has nothing to do with the fact that there are 30,000 nations in the UN. It has to do with the fact that you positing such hypothetical powerful enemies and the need to ban their weapons in the first place was largely nonsense. Such nations would have nothing to gain and nothing to lose by attacking us, and given that level of advancement, would certainly be perfectly capable of seeing that they need not waste their time with us.

The sorry truth is not that we must not pass such a ban out of fear of attack by angry enemies; it is that a number of very powerful members want chemical and biological strikes on civilian populations banned as a political sop to the rest of us while leaving unregulated weapons they fervently crave for themselves.

Quite right. But keep in mind that if there were not a lot of statements to the effect of "I know better than you what weapons you might need for national defense" being made by certain members of this body, those powerful members wouldn't feel the need to do such a thing. The arrogance of certain members of this body has resulted in something distasteful to them. How poetic and appropriate.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” ~General Omar N. Bradley

“We have guided missiles and misguided men.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

“The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.” ~Albert Einstein

"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire

TOTALLY OOC:

If you guys are trying to discourage newcomers from even coming here, you are doing a GREAT job....


(Sorry, true newcomer here, but at this point, just finding my way around, I am truly sorry for having campaigned to be my region's UN Delegate. I suspect I won't be even voting again for the next six months, since the trauma from today alone makes me want to be violently ill. Are you all politicians/lawyers irl?)

We find Texan Hotrodder's description of the tenor of our remarks as “hysterical” somewhat surprising, but rhetoric is rhetoric, so...

On the legal weaknesses of the UNSA, while we are sure that its esteemed author intended to insulate Members from potential activism on the part of this body - and we don't think it too great a stretch to presume that those who write resolutions generally intend their more obvious effects (without denying the ever-present danger of unintended consequences) - it is eminently clear that the UNSA still permits this body to consider resolutions banning weapons it deems “unnecessary to the defense of any nation”, the protestations of individual nations notwithstanding. To cite the example we mentioned earlier, if the General Assembly says that bayonets are “unnecessary to the defense of any nation”, then they are in fact unnecessary - at least as far as the legality of any ban on bayonets is concerned.

<snip>

Yours is merely one of a number scenarios left looming by this resolution.

I think you will find, if you read this resolution in detail that it leaves open <deliberately in my view> the option of developing and proliferating chemical weapons. If you read my analysis of the legislation above you may find something much more heinous and intellectually dishonest than the title and purpose of this act would ead you to believe.

This resolution encourages the use of chem/bio weapons, arguing for "milder" and better targeted use of them, when in reality we should be discussing the outright ban of chem/bio weaponry. Civilized nations have a long and sorry history of the misuse of such agents. Mustard gas and Zyklon B are the most easily referenced examples.

No civilized nation should be discussing banning the use of chem/bio agents in one breath while advocating the development of agents with more easily controlled vectors and in less lethal combinations with the other. It is intellectually dishonest on it's face.

There are two good options after this resolution is defeated.

1. Come back with an outright ban of all chem/bio weapons for the nations approval. Properly worded with correct nomenclature with a narrow focus, I would vote for such a ban without any fuss at all.

2. A document along the lines of the Rules of Land War or the GPW that make it a capital offense to deliberately target non-combatants in warfare. Along with ensuring international jurisdiction for the punishment of violators, this could be a significant deterrent for nations who would use large scale force without consideration of non-combatants welfare. It must be said here that collateral damage will occur in warfare, and that must be taken into account. Written well and narrowly focused I would also support such a document.

General Thomas Moreland, RA
Joint Services Chief
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

on behalf of Sir Geoffrey Gosford, Prime Minister

TOTALLY OOC:

If you guys are trying to discourage newcomers from even coming here, you are doing a GREAT job....

You're probably very correct about that, sadly.

(Sorry, true newcomer here, but at this point, just finding my way around, I am truly sorry for having campaigned to be my region's UN Delegate. I suspect I won't be even voting again for the next six months, since the trauma from today alone makes me want to be violently ill. Are you all politicians/lawyers irl?)

No, we're not. That's the beauty of it. We get to play politicians and lawyers. You could too, if you wanted to learn the ins and outs of it. It's not appealing to everybody. The UN forum community is a rather unique one. This is just one of the segments of the game that very few people populate, and has been for a very long time.

But there is room for all sorts here, if they're willing to put some real time and effort into it. Hopefully you do, because you seem to have plenty of potential, but if it's not your thing, no worries. :)

Again, OOC: Well, I'm stubborn irl, so we'll see. Just not a good first day, I guess...

And tell that Kenny guy to stop swaring! :)

Are you all politicians/lawyers irl?
Mostly bored students and office workers, I think.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We all live in a yellow submarine. ~Ringo Starr

Take that, bitch! *smack in the face* ~Paul McCartney

I feel that ice is slowly melting. ~George Harrison

All we are saying is give not nuking us a chance. ~Lennon/Norderia

OOC: You all are gonna make me drag out my Law books again, which I haven't looked at in 20 years! Although, I did enjoy my law classes! But now, I have to determine my own nation's legal base first! Why oh why, did I come here! :)

Edit: Nvm, I know, I am a masochist!

And HotRodia, ty, I think perhaps I shall stick it out for a bit! :)

You should note the excessive legalism is not something we all enjoy. In fact, some of us intensely dislike it. I have no objection to a rules discussion on a contentious proposal, but dragging on and on about it, and trying it on with the most spurious and weaselling interpretations strikes me as a waste of all our time. So don't feel put off by it: it's not always like this.

Breakdown of UN forum activity (%)

Excessive legalism...........................8
Excessive hitting-on of anything with tits...5
Thinking up joke poll options...............40
Polite dissent...............................3
Telling each other to fuck off..............25
Mocking silly proposals......................5
Writing silly proposals......................6
Stranger's Bar "hilarity"....................7
Actually drafting legislation................1

Well, If the UN wishes to remove the rights of member states to defend themselves then the only other option is for the repeals of the resolutions forbiding the creation of a UN army,Actually there is no resolution forbidding the creation of a UN army, the prohibition is actually a mandate by the UN Secretariat (aka the mods) and is in place due to the RP nature of wars, someone would have to play as the UN army and in order to be fair that someone would have to be a mod, and the mods have enough on their plate already.

and the Repeal of the resolutions forbiding UN taxation, because armies cost money you know, and pass resolutions to create a UN army and UN taxes.Technically the UN Taxation Ban only prohibits the UN from taxing a nation's citizens directly, if the UN wanted to tax a nation, collect dues from one they can do so.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

No thank you. We will be voting against this and toast in champange when it goes down.


Glenn-Kenneth Goth

Departementet för FN frågor

Gröna Folkrepubliken Gnejs.

ARIDDIA:
"It can't be repealed; it hasn't been passed yet."

Yes I know. Sorry for my uncorrect sentence.



ARIDDIA:
"Why this sudden wish to make yourself look foolish and immature?"

I write any emoticon that I want. :sniper:
You might comment what I write and not my smilies, if you are older than 18 and don't want to be a flamer.



ARDCHOILLE:
"Augusta Quiritia, the proposal hasn't been voted on by the UN yet, so it's not a resolution, which means it can't be repealed because it doesn't "exist" yet. This debate is about whether to vote "yes" or "no" -- accept or reject. Repeals are for undoing resolutions that have been accepted."

Yes I know, but I don't speak English in my daily life and I hope that you have understood what I mean.
I know very well the rules of this game and in facts I am Regional Creator and UN Delegate.
Sorry for my English, I don't remind the word "proposal" and then I used the wrong word "resolution" and the wrong concept of "repealing".
But these are only small details... the core of my opinion is correct: this proposal is absurd and full of conceptual errors.

THEN, SAY "NO" TO THIS HORRIBLE AND ABSURD PROPOSAL.

Greetings,
-the Armed Republic of Augusta Quiritia-
--------------------------------------

IC: DUHRRR! We voted for this because our delegate did and we have no mind of our own.

That's a very good idea, actually. If your only purpose in this discussion is to raise ridiculous questions about a proposal I wrote, and further to defend personal attacks on me, because somehow I "deserve" it, then please, withdraw from this thread.Well, that's good, because that's not my only purpose.

Just remember, who insulted who (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11950463&postcount=67), and who has not said a word in anger and we shall get along fine.

Mostly bored students and office workers, I think.Add me to the second category!OOC: You all are gonna make me drag out my Law books again, which I haven't looked at in 20 years! Although, I did enjoy my law classes! But now, I have to determine my own nation's legal base first! Why oh why, did I come here!:eek: You'll be fun to argue against when we talk about the legality of things.

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare

My only question with this resolution is the provision listed as number 6. I find this to be a loop hole in the resolution it self, by allowing nations to still develop Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction. By claiming that they have developed a weapon that specificaly targets military personnel. Which in its self is purposturous in the fact that anyone on the battle field can pick up a weapon even without being listed as an military regular. So a weapon (if it were even possible) that targets a specific group would be moot.

Dicey Reilly winks at the delegate from Augusta Quiristia.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be patronising, I thought you were just a bit muddled. But I can see, from the wise way you've voted, that you're entirely clear-headed.

I didn't actually expect to enter this debate again, as my government's stance on the proposal has already been recorded, and the arguments against it are being put more eloquently than I could by nations with far greater military knowledge.

However, I would not wish to be rude to Mikitivity, so I will take a minute, if I may, to answer their question:

Is it then fair to say that Yelda and possibly Ardchoille share the position Ausserland and Mikitivity have on this resolution?

No, Ardchoille does not feel that the proposal would be acceptable without Clause 7. We could not accept it as long as Clause 6 remains, for reasons basically the same as those put forward by (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11953293&postcount=139) the Schwarzchild delegation.

Considering the carelessness of ordinary people with chemical and biological agents in industrial, domestic and agricultural settings, it would be insanely optimistic to believe that tired, stressed soldiers would never make mistakes with still stronger agents in wartime.

Nor would we automatically support a proposal based solely on clauses one to five. We support the principles but have reservations about their expression.

OOC: I sympathize with Drae Nei. I'm no lawyer, and I've never even had law classes. The legal stuff makes my eyes glaze over. But I do like to RP a national leader or ambassador, and arguing from the POV of whatever "persona" my UN nation has seems to help me decide just what that persona is.

Dicey, who has been getting rather lax about her magic lately, makes a few discreet gestures. A dewy hip flask appears, sloshing slightly, on the seat beside the delegate from Sirat.

"So you want to explore your personality. May I suggest, in vino veritas?" she whispers.

ALL OOC BTW:

No, we're not. That's the beauty of it. We get to play politicians and lawyers.

That's not exactly correct. Since this is a mock parody of the United Nations and not actual national governmetns we get to play former has beens and other general rejects that are typically assigned to the United Nations. In short we get to form an entire organization of John Boltons! (There are a few exceptions, I have the president of Tzorsland actively in the chamber, and recently Omigodtheykilledkenny gave his president a personal appearance in the UN.)

END OOC:

I am clearly no politician and I'm definitely not a lawyer; although I do dabble in both from time to time. I do have a massive collection of law books. Sometimes I even read them from time to time. Around here, I'm grateful when someone reads a dictionary, although I think someone has tampered with the ones around here. I'm positive there is an "i" in delegate somewhere!

So what weapons were people thinking of banning before the UAA was put up for debate and why oh why didn't I see these resolutions before. Or is this a vague what if exercise. Because dam it, if something needs banning then it needs banning, and you should have banned it already.

Vote YES. Because.
Just Because.

OOC: Blimey, is it Carlemnaria?

Um, anyway, back to the handbaggings.

oi, tis us.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, that's good, because that's not my only purpose.

Just remember, who insulted who (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11950463&postcount=67), and who has not said a word in anger and we shall get along fine.LOL!

You spend the first five pages of this thread trolling (and you're trolling still), then you're surprised when you get "insulted"? You really are a piece of work, pal.

IC: DUHRRR! We voted for this because our delegate did and we have no mind of our own.

Is the nation of Mindless UN drones only subject to the will of their UN Delegate or might other nations try to "influence" the Mindless UN drones?

*points to a room full of Miervatian brews ... all dressed in baby blue UN bows and tiny signs that read "please allow the UN the ability to pass future global disarmament resolutions and vote no"*

I really did not get what the Poll choices was about, but I am for this resolution, because I am totally against the mass-murder of civilians, with or without biological weapons.

Not only the other day did Upper Wales successfuly detonate it's 15th Nuclear bomb.




....now if only I could just finally destroy Bigtopia and the others.... ;)

LOL!

You spend the first five pages of this thread trolling (and you're trolling still), then you're surprised when you get "insulted"? You really are a piece of work, pal.If you really think I am trolling, then why don't you take your complaint to the mods. I personally have a clean conscience, but lets see what they decide. Otherwise, please don’t bother with the pathetic little comments – it reflects badly on you.

I really did not get what the Poll choices was about, but I am for this resolution, because I am totally against the mass-murder of civilians, with or without biological weapons.Welcome to the UN.

The poll choices are a Kennyite tradition, of sorts.

Good for you about the whole being against mass murder thing, we like you already. However, are you sure this resolution actually does that? Look at article 7, and then discuss.

Eleven nations are opposing this proposal "by order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II". I didn't realise he had such international power! :p

If you really think I am trolling, then why don't you take your complaint to the mods. I personally have a clean conscience, but lets see what they decide. Otherwise, please don’t bother with the pathetic little comments – it reflects badly on you.

These forums have a unique stance on trolling.

TOTALLY OOC:

If you guys are trying to discourage newcomers from even coming here, you are doing a GREAT job....


(Sorry, true newcomer here, but at this point, just finding my way around, I am truly sorry for having campaigned to be my region's UN Delegate. I suspect I won't be even voting again for the next six months, since the trauma from today alone makes me want to be violently ill. Are you all politicians/lawyers irl?)

OOC:Actually we're not. sorry you feel that way. There are times I feel some are trying to adiscurage those of us who've been here awhile. take a short break , and have a cold beverage. sometimes the debate here camn be a bit diffuclt. I would emcourage you to keep involved, and urge you to continue to vote. If you quit trying then things won't change.

IC:
Mick lifts his fedora from over his eyes, yawns, and removes his feet from the desk, where he had them propped up. He looks over at his secretary, Velma. who is currently filing her nails, and says,
"Well Doll, what say you and I blow this dive for a while, and have a drink in the Stranger's Bar? And maybe we can buy a drink for the Ambassador from Drae Nai. I think they could use a break as well."

Mick and Velma get up and exit the hall.

These forums have a unique stance on trolling.Sush now, lets not let this topic degrade any further.

OOC:Actually we're not. sorry you feel that way. There are times I feel some are trying to adiscurage those of us who've been here awhile. take a short break , and have a cold beverage. sometimes the debate here camn be a bit diffuclt. I would emcourage you to keep involved, and urge you to continue to vote. If you quit trying then things won't change.


OOC: Actually the people whom find they have a great deal of interest in the UN and free time, should probably divert some of their Jolt time to NSWiki and help us over there document what has happened. :)

Bumping this up so it's visible from the index while Building Managment "renovates" things. At the bottom of the screen, you can use the "Previous Thread" link to view the Stranger's Bar and Silly Proposals, and perhaps one or two others.

Still, might be best if we kept this visible from the index, hey?


-TMGH

Bump for broken forum ...

Bumping this up so it's visible from the index while Building Managment "renovates" things. At the bottom of the screen, you can use the "Previous Thread" link to view the Stranger's Bar and Silly Proposals, and perhaps one or two others.

Still, might be best if we kept this visible from the index, hey?


-TMGH

We resent the implication that we had anything to do with the current problems, however we will do everything in our power to resolve the current situtation as quickly as possible.

Charles Gates
Vice President, IT Department
UN Building Management

OOC: Of course, since i'm just a player, there's not a whole lot I can do.

*bump*
If you use your "User CP" and had previously subscribed to this thread, you may still read it.

*bump*
If you use your "User CP" and had previously subscribed to this thread, you may still read it.

Yes. That's how I got to it.

And tell that Kenny guy to stop swaring! :)You tell that Kenny guy to stop swearing...Breakdown of UN forum activity (%)

Excessive legalism...........................8
Excessive hitting-on of anything with tits...5
Thinking up joke poll options...............40
Polite dissent...............................3
Telling each other to fuck off..............25
Mocking silly proposals......................5
Writing silly proposals......................6
Stranger's Bar "hilarity"....................7
Actually drafting legislation................143% of all statistics are invented.Since this is a mock parody of the United Nations and not actual national governmetns we get to play former has beens and other general rejects that are typically assigned to the United Nations.Actually, McGee's recall is only a momentary hitch; the rising star will do better as Ambassador-at-Large to Ayad, which is why her mentors sent her away. OTOH, Jackson - her replacement (who won't show up for a while yet) - is a total loser. Until then, the janitor will do.

And, BTW, we disclaim all responsibility for the current power failure. Not that we expect our adversaries to refrain from blaming it on us anyway. ;)Votes For: 3,098
Votes Against: 3,959Running 861 behind; 44% to 56% with a shade under half the expected vote cast. Proponents will have to carry the remaining vote by a 5:4 margin - hard, but not impossible.

OOC: Yes, but as a new nation here, I am only just NOW figuring out that you are all "former has beens and other general rejects". Hence our frustration! ;) Not to mention, I still have no office! I'm trying to not have to sleep on a settee in the Strangers Bar tonight! Er, this morning, er...whatever time it is!




Camryn O. Langdon
Ambassador
The Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei
Ambassador-At-Large
United Community Builders

*bump*
If you use your "User CP" and had previously subscribed to this thread, you may still read it.bump again, since I had to use my history in IE to get here.

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

Love and esterel vote AGAINST the blanket right affirmed by clause 7. We think #109 Nuclear Armaments and #110 United Nations Security Act do their job well about defense. Psychotic dictators have often psychotic ideas about what weapons they need for their defense.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109


On a side note, this proposal is once again an obvious example of the total obsolescence of NSUN proposal categories. These categories have nothing subtil, they are black-or-white ones and are often misleading, as for this proposal.



Eleven nations are opposing this proposal "by order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II". I didn't realise he had such international power! :p

Maybe His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard I has some fonction similar to Queen Elisabeth II who is the queen of 16 sovereign states in the 3D-virtual-world we use to call "The Earth"!:p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elisabeth_II

PS: the link to get to this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507107

OOC: Yes, but as a new nation here, I am only just NOW figuring out that you are all "former has beens and other general rejects". Hence our frustration! ;) Not to mention, I still have no office! I'm trying to not have to sleep on a settee in the Strangers Bar tonight! Er, this morning, er...whatever time it is!




Camryn O. Langdon
Ambassador
The Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei
Ambassador-At-Large
United Community Builders

I resent that. I am not a former has-been. I am a current has-been. There's a difference.

And, since the front door to the UN seems to be blocked, should I ask someone to Bring Us More Pies?

And, since the front door to the UN seems to be blocked, should I ask someone to Bring Us More Pies?I could do with a Pie.

I'm voting against by the way. Partially because of the issues raised by a number of nations, partially because of the failure of a minority of nations to answer those issues in a dignified and civilized manner.

Well, I tried, but I was mostly ignored. *shrug*

OOC: Yes, but as a new nation here, I am only just NOW figuring out that you are all "former has beens and other general rejects". Hence our frustration! ;) Not to mention, I still have no office! I'm trying to not have to sleep on a settee in the Strangers Bar tonight! Er, this morning, er...whatever time it is!




Camryn O. Langdon
Ambassador
The Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei
Ambassador-At-Large
United Community Builders


The ambassador is always welcome to requisition a broom closet as the Elleltian Delegation has done. The gnomes who are responsible for cleaning the building are terrible house keepers which explains the excessive amount of dust in the building *sneezes*, and why the broom closets tend to be rarely used.

The other option is to sleep in your Embassy's official car, which I have done numerous times as well. Also it probably isn't a good idea to sleep in the Stranger's Bar--I don't know what could happen, but just think it probably isn't a good idea.

As for the actual proposal for debate, I must disagree that the current minority of nations have failed to properly explain it. We have said time and time again that this bill establishes the right for nations to use whatever weapons, excluding those already under a ban by previous legislation, in regard to their self defense; also the proposal stipulates that intentional targeting of civilians will be considered a war crime, to be tried and sentenced to the maximum penalty allowable under the justice system of the member nations, should the accused be found guilty.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ok/kay/tombstones/bump_miloflorence.jpg

Well, I tried, but I was mostly ignored. *shrug*I noticed, but you were being undermined by a minority.

Well, I tried, but I was mostly ignored. *shrug*Actually, that's not what he's talking about at all. Allow me to translate from the original Hirotese:

... the failure of a minority of nations to answer those issues in a dignified and civilized manner."Kenny and Gruen had the gall to point out to me that my 'objections' to this proposal were just plain stupid."

I voted against this on the grounds that the definition of "Civilian" in the proposal is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

So what weapons were people thinking of banning before the UAA was put up for debate and why oh why didn't I see these resolutions before. Or is this a vague what if exercise. Because dam it, if something needs banning then it needs banning, and you should have banned it already.

Vote YES. Because.
Just Because.

The memory of the honorable representative seems to be a bit faulty. There is a very good draft of a radiological weapons ban posted on at least two off-site forums to which he has access.

Now, let me see if I have the logic straight: "We haven't done it yet, so we should pass a law which will keep us from doing it". Sorry. I can't buy that.

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

"Kenny and Gruen had the gall to point out to me that my 'objections' to this proposal were just plain stupid."I didn't say who - although I don't recall feeling Gruen had been either undignified or uncivilised towards me personally. Nonetheless, it's not just my concerns that certain people have failed to address - other people have made other perfectly valid points, which have not been answered satisfactorily.

You do that, instead of this very weak strategy of avoiding questions and concerns by employing ignorance, personal attacks and flaming as your weapons of choice, and you might do better.

Have you gone and reported me to the mods for trolling yet? Or do I have to go and ask them? Because you know it's untrue, you know the absolute worst what will happen is a mild rebuke - and even then the brunt of that rebuke will be directed towards you.

Like I said, all this reflects badly on you. It's your call kiddo - act with some dignity for a change, or carry on this charade. I think you are better than this - lets hope my faith is not misplaced.

Christ, can we please stop hijacking this damn thread, stop using mods as a weapon, stop the bitching and get back to the issue? I was going to just leave this thread alone (seeing as the resolution is failing at the moment), but please, for the sake of whatever dignity this body has left, talk about the resolution or hush the fuck up.

St Jello Biafra;11960779']Christ, can we please stop hijacking this damn thread, stop using mods as a weapon, stop the bitching and get back to the issue?Absolutely.

Thoughts on improvements?

Not only should this be called 'bio weapons banning' being that that's all it seems to condemn, but 'unconventional arms' shouldn't be used in a negative way.. what's so great about conventional arms? they arent exactly merciful.
I want some lasers, and those are unconventional. lasers! they're cool. also giant robots.
anyway didn't we already ban biological warfare?

I will agree that those are cool,bubeleh. But this is mostly about Chem and Bio weapons, as these are available for most of the UN population. Lasers, robots amd the like are only available to those of significantly high tech levels, sorry about that.
L'Chaim,
Murray Rosenkrantz
Deputy UN Ambassador
Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

Is the nation of Mindless UN drones only subject to the will of their UN Delegate or might other nations try to "influence" the Mindless UN drones?

*points to a room full of Miervatian brews ... all dressed in baby blue UN bows and tiny signs that read "please allow the UN the ability to pass future global disarmament resolutions and vote no"*

IC:We're too stupid to know what that means. Perhaps the UN can tell us how we should answer.

The Dictatorship of Germanai is completely against this proposal as we are a warfaring nation, that hates the boundries put on weapons, I know the region that I delegate will also follow me in the act to have this proposal fail, although its already well on its way.

IC:We're too stupid to know what that means. Perhaps the UN can tell us how we should answer.
OOC: Your funny joke's run its course.

IC:
I'm voting against by the way. Partially because of the issues raised by a number of nations, partially because of the failure of a minority of nations to answer those issues in a dignified and civilized manner.
Fuck you.

~Rono Pyandran
Well I would possess an important title, if only our UN Office's keyboard wasn't broken
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

anyway didn't we already ban biological warfare?

Yeah, in a way (see Resolution #113 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=110)). Of course, if there is anyone in your country with a cold or sniffle who's not currently in isolation, you are in violation of that resolution, so I don't think anyone is really in compliance with it anyway.

I have yet to see an actual debate in the last 10 pages, all that i have seen is the majority are bashing each other. I personaly think this is ludicris. Im going to vote against it on the grounds that i have yet to see a proper response to a counter argument on why this shouldnt be passed.

I have yet to see an actual debate in the last 10 pages, all that i have seen is the majority are bashing each other. I personaly think this is ludicris. Im going to vote against it on the grounds that i have yet to see a proper response to a counter argument on why this shouldnt be passed.
A ridiculous and stupid position to take. You present an impossible sequence of negatives: reason proposal must be passed is proposal itself. It is for opponents of it to present rebuttal. If you start from a position of "this shouldnt be passed", of course you won't get towards supporting it.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

OOC: Your funny joke's run its course.

OOC: And will continue to run said course as long I want it to. You don't have to read my in character posts if you don't like them.

It amuses me incredibly that this debate has degenerated into the usual bickering and name-calling. I'm also amused by the number of UN-newbies who have nothing better to say than "I'm voting against because I don't like what you said to that guy."

Honestly. If you look at the thread, there have been several compelling responses to the detractors to this proposal. I'm still waiting for the Yeldan ambassador to respond to my assertion that deterrence is a valid theory.

The Great Star Empire supports this resolution on the grounds that it protects both the rights of nations to defend themselves by any means necessary, as well as extending protection to civilians and enjoining member states from intentionally targeting civilians. I would like to remind the opponents of this resolution of the precendent established by the Eon Convention.

I feel I must echo the statements of some of the less eloquent detractors to this resolution, and state that because I have not heard a compelling refutation to the assertions made by the affirmative side, my nations will still be voting "aye."

~Paulus Mannikr
Chief of the Imperial Supreme Command
Grand Marshal of the Imperial Guard
Duke of Hypnian Polikarn~

A ridiculous and stupid position to take. You present an impossible sequence of negatives: reason proposal must be passed is proposal itself. It is for opponents of it to present rebuttal. If you start from a position of "this shouldnt be passed", of course you won't get towards supporting it.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.
But that is where you are wrong, at first i was for the proposal to be passed. But a number of query's have been raised about the resolution including on of my own that have yet to be adressed. I also refuse to pass something that seems to have loop holes or if it just seems broken.

Honestly. If you look at the thread, there have been several compelling responses to the detractors to this proposal. I'm still waiting for the Yeldan ambassador to respond to my assertion that deterrence is a valid theory.


I'm really pleased that the distinguished Grand Marshal has again raised the subject of deterrence. Maybe we can actually engage in some honest, respectful debate rather than listening to people spout obscenities and whine about trolling.

I agree 100% that deterrence is a perfectly valid, important aspect of national defense. Now a question for the Grand Marshal, to further the discussion....

For what types of attack are chemical, biological, or radiological weapons a necessary deterrent? Please note that I said "necessary", not "credible" or "effective".

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

I'm still waiting for the Yeldan ambassador to respond to my assertion that deterrence is a valid theory.
I believe I responded as tactfully as possible to your assertion in this statement (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11954264&postcount=144). The notion that in order to deter a chemical attack, one must also possess chemical weapons oneself is silly. I had hoped you would abandon that particular line of "reasoning" and save yourself further embarassment.

Tell me, if a nation attacked The Great Star Empire with mustard gas, and you had no mustard gas of your own, would you be able to respond? If you lacked these crude and inefficient weapons, would this somehow render The Great Star Empire defenseless? Would less advanced nations who did have these weapons be more likely to attack you? Is your fleet not a deterrent in itself?

As for your example of using the threat of chemical attacks on "revolutionaries" to discourage rebellion, that is an internal matter for your government to consider and I will have no further comment on it. However, you do realize that should this proposal become a resolution, you will be barred from using such methods on civilians, be they in a state of rebellion or not. There are better methods at your disposal for discouraging rebellion.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

Personaly the Republic of Apocalypse does not agree with this. If we would happen to arm police with MACE who would use real weapons.... The outlaws of course our police would not have enough fire power to take a common criminal with a gun they would not be able to deter a criminal.

In my opinion, this issue is plain :upyours: stupid. All countries need arms, not to invade, but to protect against invasions. Take the Bush Administration. They needed their arms more for Osama than for Saddam. But they went into Iraq, and now they aren't going to get out. That's improper arms use, not civilian death.

I would urge regional UN members to vote against the current resolution, Unconventional Arms. While it is better written as far as language goes, it conflates two different issues: attacks on civilians and chemical and biological weapons. These would be better addressed as separate resolutions. Additionally, clause 6 misses the point that chemical and biological weapons can't distinguish whether or not a particular individual is a member of the military.

Additionally, clause 6 misses the point that chemical and biological weapons can't distinguish whether or not a particular individual is a member of the military.And that would be a valid point -- if the proposal actually did refer to magical chemicals that can discriminate between civilian and military personnel. Too bad it doesn't (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11860425&postcount=93).

~Cmdr. Chiang

I noticed, but you were being undermined by a minority.Ah. So you'd rather bitch about Cmdr. Chiang and Rono than respond when someone does raise a valid point.

Got it.

Nations should be allowed to bomb civilians in war! If a house wife is making lunch for her husband, so he can make bombs for the army on a full stomach, then we have to kill the wife. If a man goes to work at a gas station, then he too must be killed because he is helping the enemies economy and thus helping their ability to wage war. Civilians, no matter what they do, are always aiding the enemy, and therefore they are fair targets.

And that would be a valid point -- if the proposal actually did refer to magical chemicals that can discriminate between civilian and military personnel. Too bad it doesn't (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11860425&postcount=93).

~Cmdr. Chiang
And I'm still waiting for an explanation, a detailed description even, of how these "chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare" would work. Have you developed chemical and biological agents that are impervious to the effects of the wind?


Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer

It amuses me incredibly that this debate has degenerated into the usual bickering and name-calling.And this is different from the usual debate how?I'm still waiting for the Yeldan ambassador to respond to my assertion that deterrence is a valid theory.We're no fans of deterrence; that said, the reserved right of nations to own nuclear weapons - which is already protected in other resolutions - should more than serve the needs of nations who desire a deterrent.

As for other sorts of weapons, well, what deterrent value - or, for that matter, what importance - do they have to this resolution? Chemical and biological weapons make poor deterrents - neither is especially effective against urban centers anyway - and no one has yet to assert any deterrent value for some of the unnamed weapons (environmental weapons, psychotronic weapons, nanoweapons, and hyperkinetic weapons) that we believe this proposal prevents us from limiting. So if you have your nuclear weapons already, precisely what else do you need?

We're reminded of Gruenberg's argument, but we'll invert it: if this body has a poor history of limiting weapon systems, then why do we need to block such efforts?I would like to remind the opponents of this resolution of the precendent established by the Eon Convention.And the representative from OMGTKK is welcome to resubmit this resolution less its last two clauses. Were they to do so, we believe that the measure would pass by a huge margin.

And that would be a valid point -- if the proposal actually did refer to magical chemicals that can discriminate between civilian and military personnel. Too bad it doesn't (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11860425&postcount=93).

~Cmdr. ChiangLet's address that point, Commander.Oh, for God's sake; this has nothing to do with "magical" chemical agents that only target certain people. We are talking about tactical weapons designed to mitigate the effects to outlying civilian areas and reduce collateral damage. There really is no other application for such arms save hitting legitimate military/political targets; if you're only using chemical weaponry to slaughter civilians, what's the point of limiting the damage?The reason why chemical and biological agents are largely ineffective as deterrents is precisely because they have a limited area of effect. Chemical bombs and shells have roughly the same lethal radius as high-explosive ordnance of the same mass. The reason they are used is not because they are deadlier; it is usually for the sake of area denial, wherein precise fires are laid down, usually parallel to an expected axis of advance, to prevent lateral reinforcement of an indented point of decision. Their purpose, in other words, is not to slaughter large numbers of enemy soldiers; it is to limit operational mobility where such limitation might produce a battlefield advantage.

Which brings us to the biggest reason why these weapons are a problem for civilians: the hazard of contamination in areas saturated by these weapons usually last well past the end of the war, and civilians consequently wander into them. This makes them analogous to mines, and confronts us with the same fundamental issue: chemicals, biological agents and mines alike “have no friends” and last for a very, very long time.

So if Clause 6 is intended to spur the development of more precise chemical and biological delivery systems, it is superfluous; such systems have been available and in place since the very beginnings of modern chemical and biological warfare.

OOC: Your funny joke's run its course.

OOC: It was funny at one point?

Ah. So you'd rather bitch about Cmdr. Chiang and Rono than respond when someone does raise a valid point.

Got it.We thought we had raised a valid point when we demonstrated to the Hirotans that their reading of the text was totally flawed, and they refused to concede it. Meh -- it's much easier rather to bore this Assembly with the usual condescension and pettiness.

~Cmdr. Chiang

[OOC: Other posts will have to wait for later. I'm gonna relax tonight.]

Iron Felix celebrates 1,000th defenestration at the UN -- Yeldan Ambassador Felix Dzerzhinsky reportedly set a new milestone in the Strangers' Bar this week when a young reporter approached him and asked if the rumors were true that he had defenestrated 999 people since being sent to the NSUN a few months ago. Felix supposedly responded by upending the poor kid and hurling him out the window. The reporter didn't die, however; he claims he landed on the body of some Discoraversalist.

*Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú becomes APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE*

"Gah! You ignore my attempts at reasoned debate only to comment on the antics of that crazedbolshevikzombie!

Driver! Bring the car around, we're leaving!"

This proposal is moronic. It sets to disarm nations, when everyone knows good and well that terrorists and other groups of the sort, including non-UN nations, would completely ignore it. As was said before, the purpose of arms is for protection, and it is only when weapons are misused that problems arise. As a representative of the nation of Nyfios, I am strongly opposed.

This proposal is moronic. It sets to disarm nations, when everyone knows good and well that terrorists and other groups of the sort, including non-UN nations, would completely ignore it. As was said before, the purpose of arms is for protection, and it is only when weapons are misused that problems arise. As a representative of the nation of Nyfios, I am strongly opposed.An excellent argument against the proposal!

You see, if this proposal fails, it will be easier for us to cut defense spending and reallocate the savings to education. That a great many nations have a crying need for improvements in education is, we believe, self-evident.

Think of the leaders!

OOC: Kenny, where did that post go? That was hilarious.

OOC: Kenny, where did that post go? That was hilarious.

OOC: Yeah, I thought so too.

*Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú becomes APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE*

"Gah! You ignore my attempts at reasoned debate only to comment on the antics of that crazedbolshevikzombie!

Driver! Bring the car around, we're leaving!"


(OOC: I thought it was funny myself, but does that mean that Spotyiu is leaving the UN? Of course to get that upset over a so-called crazedbolshevikzombie up-ending and throwing a nosey reporter out of a window is a tad silly if you ask me.)

(IC) What a strange reaction. Had I thrown a reporter out of window Comrade Serpov would pobably give me a medal.

Five, six, seven, eight! Who do we defenestrate?

<pause>

Anybody else get the sense that what we debate here on the floor of the GA doesn't make a spit's worth of difference?

Five, six, seven, eight! Who do we defenestrate?

<pause>

Anybody else get the sense that what we debate here on the floor of the GA doesn't make a spit's worth of difference?

I used to think that, then we had that debate on Promotion of Solar Panels where we managed to convince the author of that piece of shit resolution to vote against it.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation, a detailed description even, of how these "chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare" would work. Have you developed chemical and biological agents that are impervious to the effects of the wind?


Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador
Re-animator of dead puppies
Currently reading Tropic of Cancer
I appluad you for bringing this back up to everyones notice, i did the same earlier but no one payed no heed to my query. I also found this to be a loop hole allowing nations to still develope chemical weapons and use them with disregard.

Fuck you.DId I mention you? Indeed, I recall mentioning specifically I was not inclined to include you in such a list. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11960738&postcount=195)

If you read before commenting in the future I would be grateful.

Originally Posted by Gruenberg

Fuck you.


OOC: Newbie question again...Is this being RP'd or is this the way people traditionally debate here? Seems more suited for the Strangers' Bar than the GA floor?

IC: I'm fairly new too, but it's clear that a great many UN reps, including the one from Gruenberg, are asses with ZERO diplomatic skills. It's also getting very hard to tell the difference between GA and the Strangers Bar.

OOC: I usually assume that those statements are RP, especially from old-timers. But it's often hard to be sure.

It has become apparent from our observance of this debate that our reluctance to international relations was well founded.

The Grand Duchy was hoping such a proposal would one day aid in the prosecution and end to many war crimes and aggressors destroying our nations border villages, but was aware it needed refining before it would be acceptable to us.

Unfortunately, the conduct of certain spokespeople in this debate has made it evident it is too soon to continue realising such a hope becoming legislation.

Until next time.

Ambassador Obie.

(OOC - Those For the proposal characters did not aid their argument in any way whatsoever with their behavior. I'm fully aware that this was mostly RPed, but it really wasn't good for newbie interaction. I'm going to return to lurking until such a time as its better to post).

Originally Posted by Community Property
Five, six, seven, eight! Who do we defenestrate?

<pause>

Anybody else get the sense that what we debate here on the floor of the GA doesn't make a spit's worth of difference?

I used to think that, then we had that debate on Promotion of Solar Panels where we managed to convince the author of that piece of shit resolution to vote against it.

OOC: There was also the "Right to Divorce" debate, where the co-author became convinced by the debate here that there was a significant problem with the resolution and -- much to his credit -- stated he would support a repeal, if it passed.

This question has been discussed 4,367,912 times. I think the conclusion has pretty much been that the debate here doesn't have any significant effect. But I'm not really convinced of that. The problem is that, in the vast majority of cases, we don't have any way of knowing why nations or regions voted the way they did.

I don't want to drag this thread off-topic, but if you'd like to discuss this further, open a thread and we'll do it. It's a subject that really interests me.

AS much as we like it we can't vote for it as it would create a nightmare because of this:

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right. Then again once had my coke might go read it again and find reason to change my vote...

Then I should be able to!!11oneone

In this framework I must strongly OPPOSE!!!1111oneone

OOC: Newbie question again...Is this being RP'd or is this the way people traditionally debate here? Seems more suited for the Strangers' Bar than the GA floor?

OOC: Depends on who is posting. A goodly amount of us do post in character, and thus you see us warts and all. Most of us herehave noticed that unfortunately very little said in the GA actually makes a difference in the vote tally. most UN Members never come here, and by one theory, only vote by reading the title of the resolution. One of these days some of my nation's Mad Scien...err... pioneers of the forefront of scientific research will have to make a study of this.

OOC: Newbie question again...Is this being RP'd or is this the way people traditionally debate here? Seems more suited for the Strangers' Bar than the GA floor?

OOC: It is only traditional for some. Look at Ausserland and others whom post as various government officials and keep their comments to something akin to what we might imagine the Real Life UN was like during the Cold War.

OOC: Depends on who is posting. A goodly amount of us do post in character, and thus you see us warts and all.OOC: The RP goes beyond swearing, BTW. Community Property is essentially a nation run as though student radicals were in change. We're annoying, shrill, and patronizing because student radicals are annoying, shrill, and patronizing. When I played Allemande (a G-7 clone), I was just patronizing (because that's what G-7 nations are). If I ever decide to leave the U.N. (or get booted) and bring Bloodthirsty Dolphins in here as their replacement (we'll have to move the offices to the basement in case the pool leaks), then we'll be annoying, shrill, and unspeakably vulgar, because that's what dolphins are (it is a NationStates tradition that intelligent dolphins are the most creatively foul-mouthed species in the Universe).

(As for Kenny, Gruenberg, and Cluichstan, Antarctic nations swear; it's part of their culture [well, except for maybe Ausserland, where they wash your mouth out with soap].)

Ausserland is not an Antarctic nation; they just decided to send an authoritarian nun to our region to keep us in line. ;)

Ausserland is not an Antarctic nation; they just decided to send an authoritarian nun to our region to keep us in line. ;)

Doesn't seem to work very well. :p

I don't remember having swearing as part of my nation's culture. Heh. Plenty of other things, but not swearing.

(As for Kenny, Gruenberg, and Cluichstan, Antarctic nations swear; it's part of their culture [well, except for maybe Ausserland, where they wash your mouth out with soap].)

Just to make sure the record is straight.... Ausserland is a member of the region City Ankh Morpork. We do have an embassy in the Antarctic Oasis, however. They didn't really want us there, but they figured we'd whine if they didn't let us set it up. And our Ambassador there, Sister Frigidia Hahrdkaess, is not authoritarian. She's just a bit... well... set in her ways.

Oh, alright... So she is authoritarian. Big deal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Just to make sure the record is straight.... Ausserland is a member of the region City Ankh Morpork. We do have an embassy in the Antarctic Oasis, however. They didn't really want us there, but they figured we'd whine if they didn't let us set it up. And our Ambassador there, Sister Frigidia Hahrdkaess, is not authoritarian. She's just a bit... well... set in her ways.

Oh, alright... So she is authoritarian. Big deal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

And we love Sister Frigidia Hahrdkaess and all her authoritarian ways.:D

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR the resolution "Unconventional Arms Accord" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region.

Hellar Gray

OOC: Community Property, foul-mouthed dolphins are an SF tradition, too. Check out David Brin's uplift series, circa, I think, the 1980s.

IC:In the past few years, some proposals of surpassing insanity have been considered by the General Assembly.

Many wise, ancient nations have simply ignored them, confident that, in the fullness of time, they will be dust in the wind.

I note with interest, therefore, that this proposal has lured from their silence even nations which have felt called to intervene in debate only 17 times since November, 2004 (the learned Dolfor) and 31 times since May, 2003 (the venerable Otaku Stratus).

My thanks to the Otaku for the benefit of the admirable advice on the manifest unsuitability of this proposal.

I turn now to the question of debating style, that interminable topic. May I say to those whose decisions must be announced with third-person pomposity --"

Dicey rises, lifts her arms above her head and begins to chant through a veil of fire: Their roofs to the flame, and their flesh to the eagles ...

Bast, acting as Feline Advisor to the Presidency, sits on her, squashing further display.

"I believe my colleague's point was that sometimes a muscular mode of address is preferable to patronising formality. Thank you."

if this fails, 1337phr33kia may just leave the UN.

how can i go to my people and tell them the UN community is disapproving of our need to defend ourselves?

there are about 100,000 nations in the world, only 30,000 are UN. Do we really want to weaken ourselves in front of the others?

besides, having the ability to defend the interests of 1337phr33kia, by absolutle any means necessary, including 'unconventional' warefare, is the job of our government.

if this fails, 1337phr33kia may just leave the UN.Be seeing you...

(OOC - Those For the proposal characters did not aid their argument in any way whatsoever with their behavior. I'm fully aware that this was mostly RPed, but it really wasn't good for newbie interaction. I'm going to return to lurking until such a time as its better to post).

OOC: Doesn't really matter. In character posts can be extremely irrational(just look at mine), they just have to be in character.

if this fails, 1337phr33kia may just leave the UN.I bagsy his office.

We will be doing a office sale in a few days. :)