NationStates Jolt Archive

I submitted this proposal on saturday, and it is currently poised to fail horribly. I know I should have posted it here first so people could make corrections and point out my mistakes and whatnot, but I didn't think to do it at the time.

Anyway, I would really like to see this proposal go through after I rewrite it and submit it again.


DEEPLY CONCERNED that UN member states are currently using weapons labeled "conventional" that result in undesirable side effects long after they are used,

AWARE that harmful materials, such as depleted uranium, may be ideal materials for weapons,

APPALLED that such materials are currently used by member nations, causing harm to the soldiers that use them, as well as innocent civilians,

The United Nations:

URGES, but does not require, the end to the production of weapons made using harmful materials such as depleted uranium,

URGES, but does not require, the peaceful destruction of current stockpiles of said weapons,

REQUIRES all member nations to no longer label said weapons as "conventional," and place them in the same category as other non-conventional weapons such as biological, chemical, and nuclear. Such weapons shall be labeled so regardless of their primary or intended use, be it:
1) a bullet
2) armor
3) an explosive projectile
4) etc.

Just let it fail.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ignore the sheik. He's nasty.

It's not a bad proposal. It doesn't mandate enough for people to firmly oppose it, and it's a step in the right direction.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I have not yet begun to be nasty.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Just let it fail.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If you read my post again, you will see that I absolutely plan to let it fail.

If you read my post again, you will see that I absolutely plan to let it fail.

Good.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Good.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ok, now that we have that cleared up.

Do you have any actual suggestions on how to make it better?

Ok, anyone else want to be an elitist bastard about my first proposal?

Come on, I know you want to.

Although the arguments from the Cluichstani Ambassador are impressive we're looking forward to seeing a redraft. There are issues with nations outside the UN being able to have these weapons but, as it only urges, it would be a nice gesture for the countries involved.

Ba

Ok, now that we have that cleared up.

Do you have any actual suggestions on how to make it better?

No, we don't, because we don't like the UN meddling in how we choose to defend our nation. We would prefer you not go this route at all.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

URGES, but does not require, the end to the production of weapons made using harmful materials such as depleted uranium,

URGES, but does not require, the peaceful destruction of current stockpiles of said weapons,

REQUIRES all member nations to no longer label said weapons as "conventional," and place them in the same category as other non-conventional weapons such as biological, chemical, and nuclear. Such weapons shall be labeled so regardless of their primary or intended use, be it:
1) a bullet
2) armor
3) an explosive projectile
4) etc.
The "but does not require" isn't needed. You're only urging.

I'd do the list a little differently. The 4) etc. at the end makes it look like you just ran out of ideas and quit. You probably need a definition of DU weapons, with your examples (bullets, armor, explosive projectiles) included in it.

No, we don't, because we don't like the UN meddling in how we choose to defend our nation. We would prefer you not go this route at all.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It's not meddling with how you choose to defend your nation. You can still use uranium bullets if you want, this resolution doesn't stop you in any way. It only forces you to classify such weapons as "unconventional."

What's the problem here?

I would give your creative ideas, but it would involve completely rewriting the resolution to be about curing cancer instead. Plainly, we can't support the idea behind it. It's well written for a first proposal, but the idea is one that the Great Star Empire doesn't think is a good one.

That said- you may need to reword both of those "URGES" clauses. "Urges" is nice, but when you say "does not require" it's just redundant. Of course it doesn't require, it's a non-mandating clause.

I'm also not sure what this resolution would actually do. You seem to have an unclear scope and an unclear effect. You mention depleted uranium shells and other "harmful materials," but you don't mention other harmful materials, and you only refer to depleted uranium shells incidentally.

Your final clause is also ambiguous. What exactly are you defining? Are you redefining depleted uranium as "unconventional?" Or are you defining all conventional weapons as unconventional?

For your first proposal, you've got some good format and you're clearly a good speller and grammarian. Unfortunately, the proposal is both toothless and unspecific, that doesn't do a damn thing and just says "weapons that hurt people are bad."

I would suggest writing a proposal specifically about depleted uranium shells to start off with. Clearly you've got depleted uranium shells in mind, as it's the only specific weapon mentioned in the text.

There you go.

It's not meddling with how you choose to defend your nation. You can still use uranium bullets if you want, this resolution doesn't stop you in any way. It only forces you to classify such weapons as "unconventional."

What's the problem here?

How does that solve any problems at all? I understand your position, but what's the point of classifying the weapons as "unconventional?"

It's not meddling with how you choose to defend your nation. You can still use uranium bullets if you want, this resolution doesn't stop you in any way. It only forces you to classify such weapons as "unconventional."

What's the problem here?


The problem is that it's a set-up. Any future resolution that bans "unconventional" weapons will do precisely that for which you are ultimately aiming -- eliminating these sorts of weapons from the arsenals of UN member nations. We're not high, y'know (well, my temporary replacement was, but he's no longer with us). We know a stepping stone when we see it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ok, I'll definitely take this into consideration when I rewrite it.

The purpose of this resolution is to make UN nations classify DU bullets as "unconventional" weapons because they have undesirable side effects after they are initially used, like other unconventional weapons. They are not currently classified as such because their primary use is to kill the enemy through kenetic energy.

So I'll rewrite it, make it about DU specificly, not be redundant, and get straight to the point. Sounds great.

Thanks a lot for the help.

The problem is that it's a set-up. Any future resolution that bans "unconventional" weapons will do precisely that for which you are ultimately aiming -- eliminating these sorts of weapons from the arsenals of UN member nations. We're not high, y'know (well, my temporary replacement was, but he's no longer with us). We know a stepping stone when we see it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well if you're never going to pass a resolution that limits what your military can use, then you have nothing to worry about.

Well if you're never going to pass a resolution that limits what your military can use, then you have nothing to worry about.

We have but one vote. We have only so much control over what the UN passes. Again, this is a stepping stone to a ban, as much as you might like to pretend otherwise. As such, we'll fight it tooth and nail.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

How does that solve any problems at all? I understand your position, but what's the point of classifying the weapons as "unconventional?"

The point is that using unconventional weapons is frowned upon by other nations. Classifying DU shells and bullets as "unconventional" would discourage nations from using them in war, and prevent innocent civilians from being harmed by them in the future.

It's the same thing with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. They are perfectly legal to use because no resolution will ever ban them, but I'm sure no one's going to be useing them unless as a last resort because of what other countries will think of them.

Ok, I'll definitely take this into consideration when I rewrite it.

The purpose of this resolution is to make UN nations classify DU bullets as "unconventional" weapons because they have undesirable side effects after they are initially used, like other unconventional weapons. They are not currently classified as such because their primary use is to kill the enemy through kenetic energy.

So I'll rewrite it, make it about DU specificly, not be redundant, and get straight to the point. Sounds great.

Thanks a lot for the help.

You're welcome. It's difficult to get a first proposal written and approved, especially if it's a weapons proposal.

A second thought just hit me- If you are submitting this in the Global Disarmament category (which I assume you are), you will proably run into legality challenges, since you are not slashing military funding in any specific way.

Fris and Hack correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was established that Global Disarmament proposals had to actually reduce funding. If it's not Global Disarmament (I'm too lazy to look at the proposal list), don't worry. If it is, you'll have to strengthen some of the clauses, which will definitely take votes away. Of course, I don't support most arms limitation legislation anyway.

We have but one vote. We have only so much control over what the UN passes. Again, this is a stepping stone to a ban, as much as you might like to pretend otherwise. As such, we'll fight it tooth and nail.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There are no resolutions banning unconventional weapons. It's obvious that the majority of UN members understand that they're outnumbered by non-UN members, and will not vote for a limit on what their militaries can use.

Do you really think that everyone is going to suddently change their mind?

EDIT: Sorry, I missed the biological weapons ban.

You're welcome. It's difficult to get a first proposal written and approved, especially if it's a weapons proposal.

A second thought just hit me- If you are submitting this in the Global Disarmament category (which I assume you are), you will proably run into legality challenges, since you are not slashing military funding in any specific way.

Fris and Hack correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was established that Global Disarmament proposals had to actually reduce funding. If it's not Global Disarmament (I'm too lazy to look at the proposal list), don't worry. If it is, you'll have to strengthen some of the clauses, which will definitely take votes away. Of course, I don't support most arms limitation legislation anyway.

Yeah, I put it in that one because I didn't see any other category that it would even remotely relate to.

There are no resolutions banning unconventional weapons.

Actually, there are. Can't use biological weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Biological_Weapons_Ban), now, can we? Again, this proposal is yet another attempt at picking off the tools of national self-defense.

It's obvious that the majority of UN members understand that they're outnumbered by non-UN members, and will not vote for a limit on what their militaries can use.

No, it's not obvious at all, and we're not willing to give them any ground whatsoever in this sphere.

Do you really think that everyone is going to suddently change their mind?

We're not willing to take that chance, no, not when it comes to protecting our nation and our people.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The problem is that it's a set-up. Any future resolution that bans "unconventional" weapons will do precisely that for which you are ultimately aiming -- eliminating these sorts of weapons from the arsenals of UN member nations. We're not high, y'know (well, my temporary replacement was, but he's no longer with us). We know a stepping stone when we see it.


Of course. This is one of the reasons why we support this.

Incidentally, "urges, but does not require" is of course redundent, but a significant number of representatives don't seem to realise that "urges" is not a mandating clause.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Of course. This is one of the reasons why we support this.

Well, that figures. Won't be happy until all of our militaries are armed only with spitballs, will ya?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Actually, there are. Can't use biological weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Biological_Weapons_Ban), now, can we? Again, this proposal is yet another attempt at picking off the tools of national self-defense.



No, it's not obvious at all, and we're not willing to give them any ground whatsoever in this sphere.



We're not willing to take that chance, no, not when it comes to protecting our nation and our people.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Yeah, I caught the biological weapons weapons resolution, and I corrected myself.

But you can't forget that the chemical weapons ban was repealed.

Furthermore, there is a resolution explicitly allowing nuclear weapons to be possessed by any UN nation. DU bullets would be classified with nuclear weapons, so not only would they NOT be a stepping stone, but they would be completely protected by a previous resolution.

Well, that figures. Won't be happy until all of our militaries are armed only with spitballs, will ya?


We... would like to keep open the possibility of regulating "unconventional" weapons, and do not share to a full degree the honourable sheik's preocupation with defence. Although naturally we respect and indeed wish to protect the right and ability of member nations to defend themselves.

As, I am sure, do most of the esteemed representatives gathered here.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Furthermore, there is a resolution explicitly allowing nuclear weapons to be possessed by any UN nation. DU bullets would be classified with nuclear weapons, so not only would the NOT be a stepping stone, but they would be completely protected by a previous resolution.Wrong! Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments only protects the possession of nuclear weapons, it doesn't prevent a nation from coming along and writing a resolution banning their use.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Wrong! Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments only protects the possession of nuclear weapons, it doesn't prevent a nation from coming along and writing a resolution banning their use.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

So? If a resolution came along and banned the use of nuclear weapons (which is highly unlikely), then nations would be also be able to possess but not use DU bullets.

Again, I don't see the problem. If DU weapons are unconventional, then they should be classified as such. That's all I'm saying.

So? If a resolution came along and banned the use of nuclear weapons (which is highly unlikely), then nations would be also be able to possess but not use DU bullets.

Again, I don't see the problem. If DU weapons are unconventional, then they should be classified as such. That's all I'm saying.

But why are the unconventional? You have not made that clear. What is the rationale for saying that DU weapons are unconventional in the first place?

I would think that you would be much more worried about losing your actual nuclear bombs then some bullets which could easily be made using other materials that aren't harmful to civilians after their initial use.

But why are the unconventional? You have not made that clear. What is the rationale for saying that DU weapons are unconventional in the first place?

Because they are harmful to civilians after their initial use, and they are harmful to the soldiers who use them.

I would think that you would be much more worried about losing your actual nuclear bombs then some bullets which could easily be made using other materials that aren't harmful to civilians after their initial use.

Again...stepping stone...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Again...stepping stone...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If their primary intended use is to kill using kenetic energy, then just make them out of something that doesn't harm civilians and your soldiers.

If their primary intended use is to kill using kenetic energy, then just make them out of something that doesn't harm civilians and your soldiers.

Like lead? Oh, wait...that harms them, too -- by boring into their bodies when they get shot.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Environmental, Uranium Mining? Although I would really hate to see it in that category.

I would steadfastly oppose any ban of DU weapons. I do, however, think that the troops who are expected to use such ammunition have the right to know that they are using it and that they may be operating in areas where it has been used in the recent past. This would simply involve labeling the ammunition and keeping track of who has used it.

Like lead? Oh, wait...that harms them, too -- by boring into their bodies when they get shot.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

No, lead is fine. That only harms the people who are actually getting shot. Unless of course a civilian or soldier decides to actually eat a bullet.

I would steadfastly oppose any ban of DU weapons. I do, however, think that the troops who are expected to use such ammunition have the right to know that they are using it and that they may be operating in areas where it has been used in the recent past. This would simply involve labeling the ammunition and keeping track of who has used it.

You said it better then I ever could.

The problem is that it's a set-up. Any future resolution that bans "unconventional" weapons will do precisely that for which you are ultimately aiming -- eliminating these sorts of weapons from the arsenals of UN member nations. We're not high, y'know (well, my temporary replacement was, but he's no longer with us). We know a stepping stone when we see it.Being the absurdly byzantine legalist I am, trust me - I've tried building resolutions of this kind. You can do it, but it's ugly as sin and extremely difficult to do without creating an obvious “house of cards” violation.All nations are required to classify four-legged animals as “certified varmints”.All nations must ban the slaughter, butchery, consumption of meat, and use of any products produced from “certified varmints”.The second proposal fails if the first is repealed; hence, a house of cards.Again, I don't see the problem. If DU weapons are unconventional, then they should be classified as such. That's all I'm saying.What in tarnation is an “unconventional” weapon? Leaving aside your definition, what does that mean? What is its import?

If all you're looking for is to shame people into not using “unconventional” weapons, why not choose a more pejorative title? Call them “naughty” weapons. Not that it matters, mind you: without actionable clauses, you're just stating the obvious, which is just a more sophisticated way of saying that “hippos really are quite large”.

The second proposal fails if the first is repealed; hence, a house of cards.Not necessarily. Since you didn't say "...as defined in Resolution #314", the second doesn't have to tumble from HoC. The removal of the earlier Resolution strips the UN of the definition of "certified varmints" (by the way, have you ever read Varmint Hunters' Monthly?). Without that preexisting definition, the responsibility to define "certified varmints" falls to the individual nations.

What in tarnation is an “unconventional” weapon?Anything that is not a chemical-fired weapon. ICBMs, bullets, and RPGs are conventional weapons. Sonic weapons, laser weapons, nuclear devices (the warhead is unconventional, the delivery method, say, an ICBM, is conventional), "chemical" weapons (such as Sarin or VX), and weaponized biological agents would be unconventional.

Er... or was that a rhetorical question?