NationStates Jolt Archive

Countervalue Strategy Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Community Property

Description: We, the People of these United Nations, believing that Nations should show restraint in their conduct of military operations, do hereby prohibit the employment of countervalue strategies in time of war.

I. No Member Nation may attack any economic asset, ecosystem, or civilian population center, save as permitted by this Resolution.

II. Member Nations may attack mobilized military forces and equipment, supply and armament depots, and transportation and communications centers demonstrably in use by enemy forces, even when these are located within areas otherwise protected from attack by this Resolution, so long as reasonable care is taken to avoid collateral damage, and so long as excessive force is not employed in such attacks.

III. Member Nations shall not be bound by the restrictions contained within this Resolution when fighting a nation that has already acted in contravention to these restrictions, or against a Non-Member Nation whose recent history indicates a strong likelihood that it will do so.

IV. Member Nations shall endeavor to retire any and all weapon systems that can not be used save in contravention to this Resolution.

V. This Resolution shall not apply in any case where it would interfere with or duplicate the effects of prior legislation enacted by this body, for so long as such legislation should remain in force.

Approvals: -

Status: Not Submitted

Voting Ends: -

Character Count: 1366Most of you will hate this, but I'm looking for comments on legality (positive comments are welcome as well). Why mild? Because the effect of this resolution on arms spending will be very, very small.


Article IV should be legal because it only affects weapons that can't be used “save in contravention to this Resolution”. Since the Resolution doesn't apply when fighting a Non-Member who is likely to violate these rules (or even one who isn't, but who might, if you get right down to it), we shouldn't have to deal with the “necessity for defense” test (no weapon that passes the necessity test will fail this one).


Article V is there just in case, however...


Can anyone think of a countervalue target I've missed?


Can anyone think of a counterforce target I've prevented you from attacking?The terms “countervalue” and “counterforce” are used here in the same exact fashion as in discussions of nuclear war-fighting strategy.

I. "OMFG, your machinegunner killed an endangered beetle in my ecosystem!"

II. "Your soldiers should have been trained in the endangered flora and fauna of MyNation. That is sooo totally unreasonable!"

III. "But since you've broke the rules, we're going to nuke YourCapitol."

Worthless and unenforcable.

OOC: Uh... the strategy of limiting attacks in a legitimate war has been defunct for 100 years. Since World War I, at least.

IC:

We see no reason to, in a time of legitimate war where our national safety and the safety of our people is threatened, limit our attacks. To deny the enemy the ability to produce and bring battle is a fundamental rule of war.

II. Member Nations may attack mobilized military forces and equipment, supply and armament depots, and transportation and communications centers demonstrably in use by enemy forces, even when these are located within areas otherwise protected from attack by this Resolution, so long as reasonable care is taken to avoid collateral damage, and so long as excessive force is not employed in such attacks.

What about industry? Heavy industry can be used to produce weapons, car factories can produce tanks. Are these not legitimate targets in a war? Also, what about the civilians who work in these places of production, are they not supporting the war and therefore legitimate targets?

III. Member Nations shall not be bound by the restrictions contained within this Resolution when fighting a nation that has already acted in contravention to these restrictions, or against a Non-Member Nation whose recent history indicates a strong likelihood that it will do so.

What does this even mean? It's like saying to two folks in a brawl "You can't kick him in the nuts until he kicks you in the nuts. After that, kick away. Oh, and if he's kicked someone else in the nuts before, you can kick him there too."

IV. Member Nations shall endeavor to retire any and all weapon systems that can not be used save in contravention to this Resolution.

The wording here is too strong for a mild resolution. It requires significant spending to reduce and retire weapons. You can't just throw them all away, you have to take care to make sure that, oh, heavy artillery pieces don't find their way onto the market.

V. This Resolution shall not apply in any case where it would interfere with or duplicate the effects of prior legislation enacted by this body, for so long as such legislation should remain in force.

Forgive me, but I think this is illegal. This is just saying "I was too lazy to check and see if some other legislation contradicted this"

It would help your case more often if you would just present us with a copy of your proposal before you submitted it. That way you wouldn't need Clause V.

Worthless and unenforcable.Any serious comments?We see no reason to, in a time of legitimate war where our national safety and the safety of our people is threatened, limit our attacks. To deny the enemy the ability to produce and bring battle is a fundamental rule of war...

What about industry? Heavy industry can be used to produce weapons, car factories can produce tanks. Are these not legitimate targets in a war? Also, what about the civilians who work in these places of production, are they not supporting the war and therefore legitimate targets?I recall a recent proposal banning attacks on civilian population centers. I take it that you were opposed?What does this even mean? It's like saying to two folks in a brawl "You can't kick him in the nuts until he kicks you in the nuts. After that, kick away. Oh, and if he's kicked someone else in the nuts before, you can kick him there too."Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's basically a “rogue nation” clause, intended to defuse the argument that this ties our hands in dealing with those evil non-U.N. hordes.The wording here is too strong for a mild resolution. It requires significant spending to reduce and retire weapons. You can't just throw them all away, you have to take care to make sure that, oh, heavy artillery pieces don't find their way onto the market.Oh, come on. I seriously considered making this a “Moral Decency” proposal, except that it didn't seem to me that carpet-bombing cities was a “civil right”.

So Article IV is what Hack, et. al., call “writing to the category”. This really has to be “Global Disarmament”, so at some point I have to tell people to disarm. It kind of goes with the territory.

At the same time, if you read the fine print, you can say: “I have no weapons that can't be used in a fashion consistent with the Resolution. Those 50,000 nukes? Ah, well, they're in my inventory just in case I get attacked by a rogue nation with a history of slaughtering civilians. Which one? Take your pick - there are probably over 70,000 to choose from”.

I'll steal a line of thought used against me (by Fris, I believe): the language of the resolution can be strong as all get out, but its the overall effect on society that matters. In this case, I can't see a resolution that probably won't result in a single weapon anywhere being thrown away getting more than a “mild” rating.Forgive me, but I think this is illegal. This is just saying "I was too lazy to check and see if some other legislation contradicted this"I don't believe that I actually need this clause, but it's a standard construction used in many other resolutions.It would help your case more often if you would just present us with a copy of your proposal before you submitted it. That way you wouldn't need Clause V.I did. You're looking at it.Approvals: -

Status: Not Submitted

Voting Ends: -

Character Count: 1366

Any serious comments?
So, by disagreeing with your patent nonsense, I'm automatically frivolous?


Politicians and generals have been looking for excuses to justify their aggressive behavior for millenium. This is so namby-pamby in its phrasing that it has zero chance of preventing them from doing anything they want to in war. By my standards, that makes it a waste of time. If you didn't get that from my 'frivolous' example, that's your bad.

So, by disagreeing with your patent nonsense, I'm automatically frivolous?No, but by disagreeing in such an absurd way, you make your own comments frivolous.I. "OMFG, your machinegunner killed an endangered beetle in my ecosystem!"

II. "Your soldiers should have been trained in the endangered flora and fauna of MyNation. That is sooo totally unreasonable!"

III. "But since you've broke the rules, we're going to nuke YourCapitol."Surely you don't consider remarks like that worthy of a serious response, do you?Politicians and generals have been looking for excuses to justify their aggressive behavior for millenium. This is so namby-pamby in its phrasing that it has zero chance of preventing them from doing anything they want to in war. By my standards, that makes it a waste of time. If you didn't get that from my 'frivolous' example, that's your bad.I thought I was the only person allowed to read a resolution “upside-down while cross-eyed and glaring at it through a kaleidoscope”.

If you want to take the point of view that all resolutions can be deconstructed ad absurdum, go for it. I'm tired of asinine legalism. But it should be pretty obvious that collateral damage to a beetle can hardly be used as a justification for nuclear war, whatever pretzel logic you'd like to employ.

As I said, a lot of people are going to hate this. But I still expect to get some constructive criticism somewhere along the line. even if I don't get any from you.

The fine nation of Complex-Reality is encouraged by the spirit of this proposal, but mindful of other nations position on such issues as this, and fully confident in it's latest developments of I.G.N.O.R.E thechnology and its implementation, does not wish to take a position regarding this proposal as of yet.

What we do want however is to remind the honourable delagates present of the mutual agreement that precedes a war, and the implications of this fact with respect to the arguments of the right to bear arms in purely defence purposes.
Far too ofthen we find arguments about armament that totally disregard the basic premise of war in our wonderfull world.

Thank you for you attention,
Niar Eci
ambassador from
Complex-Reality

Do you ever write proposals because you think they might make good legislation, rather than to make some point of twisted legalism?

.Surely you don't consider remarks like that worthy of a serious response, do you?
Unlike some people, I don't need 40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case. I said what needed to be said in three short lines and three little words.

You want two more words? "Abandon it."

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich picks up his telephone.

Tarquin, get Sheik Nottap on the phone. Tell him to get the nukes ready. That wanker from Community Property is at it again...

We'll try for a more in depth analysis here.

Description: We, the People of these United Nations, believing that Nations should show restraint in their conduct of military operations,

For starters, why? Once diplomatic options have been abandonned and war has been declared, why should restraint of any kind be shown? Why shouldn't war be complete and total? The death of tiny cuts at the military could take years to bring to any form of actual conclusion. Blitzkrieging across the land, laying waste to anything that could potentially be of use to enemy forces, including water and food supplies, will force an end to the war with greater expedience. The reduced duration of the war will result in a reduced loss of life in the long term and cause a faster return to diplomacy.

do hereby prohibit the employment of countervalue strategies in time of war.

While most of us may be able to infer what is meant by "countervalue strategies" using the rest of the text, it is not safe to assume that all will. The lack of a proper explicit definition renders that prohibition nearly useless.

I. No Member Nation may attack any economic asset, ecosystem, or civilian population center, save as permitted by this Resolution.

So, realistically, this states that we cannot attack anything that is not explicitly listed as a viable target in this bill. Not gonna fly.

II. Member Nations may attack mobilized military forces

Good god, I would hope so.

and equipment, supply and armament depots, and transportation and communications centers demonstrably in use by enemy forces, even when these are located within areas otherwise protected from attack by this Resolution,

Alrighty then. So if I look at their water reservoirs and agricultural sectors as supply depots, they become viable targets. Manufacturing plants, including, but not limited to, automobile, clothing, food of all natures, building supplies, lumber yards, ore smelting and processing, mines, etc, all supply equipment for the armed forces, so I can nail them as well. Public transportation systems and communication centers all aid potential troops in the form of the opposing nation's citizens, so those are fair game. Pretty much everything I can think of that I might want to target is allowed by this. I retract my earlier statement. This is a comlpete failure to limit countervalue strategies. It's practically an endorsement of them. A slight rewording to get rid of some of the doublespeak, and this would become an IntSec proposal.

so long as reasonable care is taken to avoid collateral damage, and so long as excessive force is not employed in such attacks.

What qualifies as reasonable? How much force is excessive?

III. Member Nations shall not be bound by the restrictions contained within this Resolution when fighting a nation that has already acted in contravention to these restrictions,

So if they sink to a deplorable level, then it's okay for us to do so as well. That's right, maintain the high standards of morality for the UN. I'm not claiming that the UN has a high standard for morality, but with the argument that collateral damage is bad, going on to say that it's okay because "They Started It" is pretty silly.

or against a Non-Member Nation whose recent history indicates a strong likelihood that it will do so.

Without any further clarifications, that is dangerous. What if that non-member has used these tactics in retaliation against someone employing them against said nation. They would have been following the UN's lead by waiting for the enemy to strike first, before utilizing such strategies. We should treat them as less deserving of protection for following our lead? I can't sanction that.

IV. Member Nations shall endeavor to retire any and all weapon systems that can not be used save in contravention to this Resolution.

Considering there is no limitation on what weapons systems can be used, this line doesn't need to be here, as it does nothing.

V. This Resolution shall not apply in any case where it would interfere with or duplicate the effects of prior legislation enacted by this body, for so long as such legislation should remain in force.

If there is even a question that this line might be necessary, then you need to go back to the drawing board with this.

Realistically, you've got a better chance of turning this into an endorsement of total war than a condemnation of it, so, like Fris said, abandon it.

Do you ever write proposals because you think they might make good legislation, rather than to make some point of twisted legalism?OOC: Are you asking me that question? :p

IC, the PDRCP is Marxist, pacifist, and environmentalist (deep red-green, if you will); tree-hugging, puppy-loving, pot-smoking, take-my-hand-share-the-land hippies (who sing peace songs in the rain, for you Gatesburgers). Since there's already quite a lot of legislation out there in the areas of Social Justice, Global Disarmament, and the Environment, just about anything I could write would be legalistic - it would have to be in order to avoid getting blipped off the list (not that this doesn't result in things getting blipped anyway).

So my options are: Quit the U.N. and rejoin as another “I'm-a-corporatist-dictatorship-too” regime. Boring.


Do nothing. Boring.


Whine a lot about how I can't do this, that, or the other thing without repealing 152 different resolutions. Boring and annoying.


Try to do something consistent with my nation's ideology. Annoying, but at least not boring.So, while I'm sure that you'd all be less offended if I died and reincarnated singing “We are the World! Let's all make megabucks! Free trade and private property for all!”, I'm just not ready to join in that game of circle-jerk just yet.

IC: Yes.

Unlike some people, I don't need 40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case.Funny, I didn't know you have a seeing-eye dog. I said what needed to be said in three short lines and three little words.Yes, and they were worthless. But thanks for playing.

You know, I'm not a complete retard. If you put an OOC tag, I get what you mean; the colour is just annoying.

Funny, I didn't know you have a seeing-eye dog.

Yes, and they were worthless. But thanks for playing.
Is it your IC goal to piss off as many players and mods as possible before being deleted for being an ass? If so, you're well on your way to your goal.

I take it that you were opposed?

Nope. Because said proposal allowed individual nations the right to take any action they saw necessary for the defense of their nation. Remember the strength of the clauses, sir.


Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's basically a “rogue nation” clause, intended to defuse the argument that this ties our hands in dealing with those evil non-U.N. hordes.

So what's the point of even writing the proposal if you're going to include an optionality clause? It completely defeats the entire purpose of the resolution if you have a get-out-of-jail free card.

Oh, come on. I seriously considered making this a “Moral Decency” proposal, except that it didn't seem to me that carpet-bombing cities was a “civil right”.

Hahah. Oh, you slay me.

So Article IV is what Hack, et. al., call “writing to the category”. This really has to be “Global Disarmament”, so at some point I have to tell people to disarm. It kind of goes with the territory.

At the same time, if you read the fine print, you can say: “I have no weapons that can't be used in a fashion consistent with the Resolution. Those 50,000 nukes? Ah, well, they're in my inventory just in case I get attacked by a rogue nation with a history of slaughtering civilians. Which one? Take your pick - there are probably over 70,000 to choose from”.

I'll steal a line of thought used against me (by Fris, I believe): the language of the resolution can be strong as all get out, but its the overall effect on society that matters. In this case, I can't see a resolution that probably won't result in a single weapon anywhere being thrown away getting more than a “mild” rating.I don't believe that I actually need this clause, but it's a standard construction used in many other resolutions.

Okay. Answer my question about the massive amounts of time and money that will be needed to disarm heavily armed countries. I'm sure that's going to have an "overall effect on society" when hundreds of thousands of weapons-industry workers are out of a job, and hundreds of thousands of pieves of military hardware are out on the market.

I did. You're looking at it.

My mistake. Yes, humans can make them. Even you.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Allech-Atreus UN Office

OOC: Just out of sheer, morbid, curiousity....Why is it that, of all the arguments levelled against you to choose from, you decide to completely dismiss and insult the arguments posted by a freaking Game Mod?

I'm not saying that they're infallible, but going out of your way to be arrogant, condescending, insulting, and dismissive of their remarks will not get you any closer to having a proposal that is safe to submit.

Before anyone misconstrues that, the Mods will not purposefully hunt down your submissions and fine-tooth comb them for the slightest comma out of place to use as justification for deletion. Some of them will, however, stop offering you the legality advice that you were asking for if you abuse them. You may not be fond of the way that the information was presented, but

Worthless and unenforcable.

is a fairly valid concern for legality concerns. If the proposal goes too far into that category, it could easily be deemed "Bloody Stupid", as per the Now Binding Rules for UN Proposals, and be deleted as illegal. That was the stated purpose that was listed in the OP of this thread for bringing it here. The question got answered. Move on with your day.

Is it your IC goal to piss off as many players and mods as possible before being deleted for being an ass? If so, you're well on your way to your goal.

Community Property, maybe its just me, but pissing off the mods is usually counter productive. Just a thought.

As for the proposal itself. It is an absolute waste of time. No one, Marxist, Capitalist, IntFed, NatSov, IntConfed or otherwise will willingly limit the scope of their attack in time of war.

Indeed considering that you claim to be a Marxist do you not see the logic in attacking the economic infrastructure of one's opponent? The Army like all other aspects of the state, and society rests upon the base of the economic structure. This is Marxism-Leninism 101! We teach this in primary school in Ellelt.

Further, it is unlikely that one could train one's own military in the endangered flora and fauna of the opponent nation when one is going to occupy their territory. I highly doubt also that a nation will be much concerned about the destruction of say a beetle sanctuary in a time of war. Indeed if Ellelt were involved in a war we would use any means necessary to defeat our opponent.

As for the actual weapons that you are suggesting we disarm ourselves from...I saw no list of weapons, and indeed I am working out several arms ban repeals. Why? As a Socialist Dictatorship of the Proletariat Ellelt must defend itself from would be capitalist invaders with whatever means are most economically feasible. Land mines for instance.

And yes this is CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, I am merely trying to tell you to quit wasting your time on draft proposals that have no chance what-so-ever of passing and will only serve to alienate you further from the member nations of the NS- UN.

Alexander I. Serpov
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt,
President of the Council of Ministers, USSE,
Generalissimo of the People's Liberation Defense Forces.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich picks up his telephone.

Tarquin, get Sheik Nottap on the phone. Tell him to get the nukes ready. That wanker from Community Property is at it again...We're already back in the Stone Age. Besides, we'll just sing peace songs and chant mantras, filling our skies with a great big Ignore Shield of Love©.For starters, why? Once diplomatic options have been abandonned and war has been declared, why should restraint of any kind be shown? Why shouldn't war be complete and total? The death of tiny cuts at the military could take years to bring to any form of actual conclusion. Blitzkrieging across the land, laying waste to anything that could potentially be of use to enemy forces, including water and food supplies, will force an end to the war with greater expedience. The reduced duration of the war will result in a reduced loss of life in the long term and cause a faster return to diplomacy.Because there's some truth in total, self-criticizing cynicism, and because even a broken clock shows the right time twice a day, let me answer that with a quote:“Of course people don’t want war. Why should a poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?”

- Hermann GöringPeople don't usually make war. Governments make war. But it's the people who pay the price, especially when some misguided person claims that total war - the deliberate massacre of unarmed innocents on the sick theory that they are indirect military assets - is “more humane” than restraint. That's like saying that the best way to resolve a dispute with your neighbor is to murder his kids. You've got to be pretty sick to embrace that kind of thinking.

RL: An historical example will suffice: the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) killed more Europeans than any prior war in the continent's history, and went unmatched for the suffering it inflicted until the Great War (1914-1918). For the next 150 years (or so) wars were waged with a measure of restraint virtually unmatched in European history. Were wars more common throughout this period? Certainly. Did this result in increased suffering among the masses? It did not. Overall losses in all of the wars fought in Europe combined (except perhaps for Christendom's wars with the Turks, which did not involve similar restraint) were lower than the butcher's bill in that single, uncontrolled spectacle of rape, plunder, and murder.

Savagery doesn't save lives. Savagery just breeds more savagery.

And as for blitzkrieg tactics, these are the very antithesis of countervalue strategy. In a blitzkrieg, you seek decision against the enemy army in the field. You don't attempt to devastate his industrial base, slaughter his people, and leave his land in ruin; such tactics only make sense in a war of attrition. You strike at enemy weak points, break through, and surround your foe in the field, rendering him unable to resist. Blitzkrieg tactics, at their very core, are pure counterforce.

RL: Two questions for you: How did the bombing of Rotterdam advance Germany's blitzkrieg against France and the Low Countries in 1940? Answer - it didn't. Those resources would have been better used elsewhere; the waste only proved acceptable because the rest of the campaign succeeded wildly, nullifying the damage.


Compare and contrast Israel's military success in 1956, 1957, and (in the last half of the war) 1973 with its utter failure in Lebanon and in dealing with the Intifada. Israel didn't win by bombing Cairo, Amman, or Damascus in its earlier wars, whereas its lack of restraint in that latter clearly contributed to its failure in those conflicts.While most of us may be able to infer what is meant by "countervalue strategies" using the rest of the text, it is not safe to assume that all will. The lack of a proper explicit definition renders that prohibition nearly useless.Since the articles tell you what you can and can not do, the definition isn't needed.So, realistically, this states that we cannot attack anything that is not explicitly listed as a viable target in this bill. Not gonna fly.Sophistry. Military forces and leadership aren't economic assets. Read the text.So if I look at their water reservoirs and agricultural sectors as supply depots, they become viable targets. Manufacturing plants, including, but not limited to, automobile, clothing, food of all natures, building supplies, lumber yards, ore smelting and processing, mines, etc, all supply equipment for the armed forces, so I can nail them as well. Public transportation systems and communication centers all aid potential troops in the form of the opposing nation's citizens, so those are fair game. Pretty much everything I can think of that I might want to target is allowed by this. I retract my earlier statement. This is a comlpete failure to limit countervalue strategies. It's practically an endorsement of them. A slight rewording to get rid of some of the doublespeak, and this would become an IntSec proposal.Again, sophistry. A production facility is not a depot.de·pot. n. A railroad or bus station.
A warehouse or storehouse.
A storage installation for military equipment and supplies.
A station for assembling military recruits and forwarding them to active units.- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Oh, and you also split the sentence in the wrong place.Member Nations may attack mobilized military forces and equipment, supply and armament depots, and transportation and communications centers demonstrably in use by enemy forces, even when these are located within areas otherwise protected from attack by this Resolution, so long as reasonable care is taken to avoid collateral damage, and so long as excessive force is not employed in such attacks.That's “supply and armament depots”, not “equipment, supply and armament depots”. Only someone without an understanding of the English language could make that mistake (the preceding “and” is your clue that this is logically parsed “[A and B] and [C and D] and [E and F]”). So obviously railroad and bus stations are out; warehouses and storehouses are in only if they contain supplies and armaments, which puts them in the third category.

Note also that there's a clear limitation on targeting transportation and communications centers:...transportation and communications centers demonstrably in use by enemy forces...Note also that...Member Nations may attack mobilized military forces and equipment...This means that you can't slaughter people just because they might be inducted into armed service (even reservists) or fight as partisans. After all...mo·bi·lize, v., -lized, -liz·ing, -liz·es, v.tr. To make mobile or capable of movement.
To assemble, prepare, or put into operation for or as if for war: mobilize troops; mobilize the snowplows.
To assemble, marshal, or coordinate for a purpose: mobilized the country's economic resources.- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Since the reference is to “military forces and equipment”, then only 2a above applies.

So the bit about...Public transportation systems and communication centers all aid potential troops in the form of the opposing nation's citizens, so those are fair game....doesn't stand up to lexical analysis.What qualifies as reasonable? How much force is excessive?rea·son·a·ble, adj. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.ex·ces·sive, adj.

Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.

- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Since “care” lacks cognitive ability, and two of the three remaining meanings of “reasonable” imply “common sense” and avoidance of “extremes”, and since “reasonable” and “excessive” are antonyms, the meaning is patently clear.So if they sink to a deplorable level, then it's okay for us to do so as well. That's right, maintain the high standards of morality for the UN. I'm not claiming that the UN has a high standard for morality, but with the argument that collateral damage is bad, going on to say that it's okay because "They Started It" is pretty silly.So now you want to show restraint?!?

The clause is there for obvious reasons: to prevent Members of the United Nations from having to fight “rogue” nations (that's a code-phrase for “Non-Members” at a disadvantage. Since all U.N. Members will be equally bound, it means we all show restraint when fighting each other; if opposing a Non-Member with a history of nastiness, do what you have to in order to survive.

Now, answer honestly: you'd be screaming like a stuck pig if that clause wasn't there, wouldn't you?Without any further clarifications, that is dangerous. What if that non-member has used these tactics in retaliation against someone employing them against said nation. They would have been following the UN's lead by waiting for the enemy to strike first, before utilizing such strategies. We should treat them as less deserving of protection for following our lead? I can't sanction that.Nor do you have to. A Non-Member who acted in retaliation against another nation would obviously not be “a Non-Member Nation whose recent history indicates a strong likelihood that it will do so”, since there's no chance that, given your status as a U.N. Member bound by this protocol, they're going to have to retaliate against you.Considering there is no limitation on what weapons systems can be used, this line doesn't need to be here, as it does nothing.Read the thread. A “Global Disarmament” measure must, at some point, call upon folks to disarm.If there is even a question that this line might be necessary, then you need to go back to the drawing board with this.As indicated earlier (reread the thread), this has been used in other resolutions without issue. I don't believe I need it, but I have enough enemies (you think?) that I think it best to leave it there for self-preservation.

Nope. Because said proposal (UCAA) allowed individual nations the right to take any action they saw necessary for the defense of their nation. Remember the strength of the clauses, sir.Actually, I don't believe it did, but I'll accept the author's opinion on the matter (or that of his regional delegate, who led the debate). My understanding of it was that the reservation you speak of applied to weapons and not tactics; attacks on population centers were forbidden with very strong language.So what's the point of even writing the proposal if you're going to include an optionality clause? It completely defeats the entire purpose of the resolution if you have a get-out-of-jail free card.It's to protect U.N. Members from Non-Members, and then only nasty ones at that. The “evil rogues” argument is commonly employed against any and all disarmament measures, so this is intended to address that complaint.

I had considered mandating that countervalue attacks of any kind were forbidden between U.N. Members; I actually think the wording is such that this resolution actually ensures that outcome (you can't retaliate or preempt a fellow Member, since it's clear that - thanks to mandatory U.N. compliance - they can't ever use countervalue attacks on you).Hahah. Oh, you slay me.That's a joke, son. J-O-A-K, joke.Okay. Answer my question about the massive amounts of time and money that will be needed to disarm heavily armed countries. I'm sure that's going to have an "overall effect on society" when hundreds of thousands of weapons-industry workers are out of a job, and hundreds of thousands of pieves of military hardware are out on the market.Why would you ever have to disarm?

If you think anybody will ever have to give up a single weapon, I have two words for you: The Parthians (http://www.nationstates.net/The_Parthians). The history of II is drenched with the blood of civilians gassed, bombed, nuked, or contaminated by biological attack from this one nation alone.

What's that you say? “Metagaming”? Very well, then. There are rougly 70,000 Non-Members out there. How many are going to abide by this protocol if they don't have to? And how many are going to laugh when they hear this and say, “Oh, yeah, like I'm going to show restraint”?

If there are even 10,000 of the latter, then you have 10,000 reasons for keeping every weapon you have.

I chose “mild” because, frankly speaking, I believe that anything higher is a strength violation. If I said that you could never use countervalue tactics on anyone, that would be significant (although even an ICBM MIRV'ed 22 ways with 150KT warheads per RV could technically be used as a tactical weapon). But since there's an escape clause, it has to be mild.My mistake. Yes, humans can make them. Even you.Once a day, whether I need it or not. Sometimes more.You may not be fond of the way that the information was presented, butWorthless and unenforcable.is a fairly valid concern for legality concerns. If the proposal goes too far into that category, it could easily be deemed "Bloody Stupid", as per the Now Binding Rules for UN Proposals, and be deleted as illegal. That was the stated purpose that was listed in the OP of this thread for bringing it here. The question got answered. Move on with your day.First, if that's a formal mod legality ruling, then it's pretty lame; that said, I got the impression that Fris opposes this because he just plain doesn't like it.

For the rest, see Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12017838#post12017838).As for the proposal itself. It is an absolute waste of time. No one, Marxist, Capitalist, IntFed, NatSov, IntConfed or otherwise will willingly limit the scope of their attack in time of war.Not willingly, no. But then, U.N. resolutions aren't voluntary. That's the beauty of it.Indeed considering that you claim to be a Marxist do you not see the logic in attacking the economic infrastructure of one's opponent? The Army like all other aspects of the state, and society rests upon the base of the economic structure. This is Marxism-Leninism 101! We teach this in primary school in Ellelt.Of course. But not all nations are Marxist, which means that there are plenty of poor saps out there who are dragged kicking and screaming into war, usually for corporate power or profit. Why slaughter them for their masters' crimes?Further, it is unlikely that one could train one's own military in the endangered flora and fauna of the opponent nation when one is going to occupy their territory. I highly doubt also that a nation will be much concerned about the destruction of say a beetle sanctuary in a time of war.And that is why we speak of “reasonable” care and “excessive” force. It is patently unreasonable to expect armies to tread lightly around ecosystems - or population centers, for that matter. You just can't do that in war.

But many examples exist of nations deliberately targeting each others' ecosystems, populations, or economic infrastructure; this is what we wish to prohibit. Nor do we wish to give them the out of saying, “Well, there's a barracks at the edge of that town, so we nuked the entire metropolitan area”. Hence, the twin standards of reasonable care and excessive force.

It is for this reason that the example offered by Fris is ridiculous. Was the machinegunner targetting the beetle? Not likely. Would it be reasonable for a nation to have to train its soldiers in ecology? Absolutely not. Does the killing of the beetle therefore free the other nation to blaze away with nukes? No - and if it does, then every U.N. resolution is “worthless and unenforceable”, and so we should just strike the whole of them, lock the queue, and hang out in the Strangers' Bar.Indeed if Ellelt were involved in a war we would use any means necessary to defeat our opponent.And so will everyone else - unless we stop them.As for the actual weapons that you are suggesting we disarm ourselves from...I saw no list of weapons, and indeed I am working out several arms ban repeals. Why?Because that list will vary from nation to nation.I am merely trying to tell you to quit wasting your time on draft proposals that have no chance what-so-ever of passing and will only serve to alienate you further from the member nations of the NS- UN.We never expected to be popular, but I do appreciate the sentiment. Hopefully, I have at least answered your questions.

This is patently ridiculous. When you had emperors, empresses, and absolute dictators who used their armies like board games moving pieces back and forth this was possible. In a modern setting this is completely impossible.

The concept of having two armies line up in front of each other then fire at each other on a battlefield is quite old fashioned. Without the ability to committ to total war, I would not be able to face truly terrifying future tech armies such as the Posleen, or human civilization destroying Berserkers. Some of the creatures I have faced are bent on total eradication of human life-- plague zombies. If you follow some of the countries in the world, they are bent on unreasonable domination of others-- The Kraven Corporation and Raven Corps.

It also shows a complete lack of military ability to face modern warfare. It makes smaller countries incapable of defending themselves against aggressors through guerrilla warfare, it makes the threat of use of large scale atomics less feared, not everyone wishes to be invaded. It is not a good idea.

Ceorana would have to oppose this. While the idea of reducing war is certainly noble, we believe this would actually create more war than it would remove. If nations weren't allowed to hurt the other nation economically, that would reduce the economic impact of war. Since most nations don't want their economies blown up, the possibility of being economically killed is a strong incentive to not start blowing things up in the first place, or not to go annoying rogue dictatorships.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

RL: How did the bombing of Rotterdam advance Germany's blitzkrieg against France and the Low Countries in 1940? Answer - it didn't. Those resources would have been better used elsewhere; the waste only proved acceptable because the rest of the campaign succeeded wildly, nullifying the damage.


I'm going to disagree with that to a degree.

The destruction of Rotterdam, Coventry, and Dresden served to bloster or squash morale (depending upon what side you were on). Hindsight is 20-20, so you can't really lay a blanket statement saying that the ordinance spent today to firebomb a civilian population center should have been saved for military targets. While the Dutch had surrendered prior to the destruction of Rotterdam, its destruction probably put more fear into the occupied Dutch, allowing the Nazis to throw more resources elsewhere instead of in the Netherlands. A theory at least.

To toss out another example, the bombing of Hiroshima wasn't done to really cripple Japan, but rather to hasten the surrender that was already in progress and more importantly to warn the Russians. On the thirty anniversary of the bombing I remember when President Clinton traveled to Japan and apologized. I personally strongly agreed with his decision to do that, but at the same time I don't think anybody really could have had the foresight in 1945 to conclusively say that it was the wrong thing to do then.

I believe the larger issue here is, "does the end justify the means". I'd like to think not. I believe that may be your IC / OOC point here (correct me if I'm wrong). But at the same time, I think perspective is extremely important in not only justifying a means, but in also forecasting an end. And having the skill to exercise both of those tasks is difficult. It was in 1940 and it was again in 1945.

I'd like to add that I've actually walked the streets of modern day Rotterdam ... and my apologies to any Dutch here, but Houston, Texas looks much nicer than the area near the main train station. The city lost of great deal of its charm during reconstruction.

With that opinion in mind, I think a UN resolution / proposal idea might be a reconstruction accord. How we could do that, I don't know ... but it certainly is something that I'd love to see on the books.

Without the ability to committ to total war, I would not be able to face truly terrifying future tech armies such as the Posleen, or human civilization destroying Berserkers.Of course you would. They've proven their commitment to total war, and likely aren't U.N. Members.Some of the creatures I have faced are bent on total eradication of human life-- plague zombies.By definition anything bent on the total eradication of human life is an Article III exception.If you follow some of the countries in the world, they are bent on unreasonable domination of others-- The Kraven Corporation and Raven Corps.Neither The Kraven Corporation (http://www.nationstates.net/The_Kraven_Corporation) nor Raven Corps (http://www.nationstates.net/Raven_Corps) are U.N. Members. Sounds like another Article III exception to me.It makes smaller countries incapable of defending themselves against aggressors through guerrilla warfare, it makes the threat of use of large scale atomics less feared, not everyone wishes to be invaded. It is not a good idea.If you're a small country relying on nuclear deterrence to preserve your freedom, you're in serious trouble, because under such circumstances the first use of nuclear weapons in hardly a credible threat.Ceorana would have to oppose this. While the idea of reducing war is certainly noble, we believe this would actually create more war than it would remove. If nations weren't allowed to hurt the other nation economically, that would reduce the economic impact of war. Since most nations don't want their economies blown up, the possibility of being economically killed is a strong incentive to not start blowing things up in the first place, or not to go annoying rogue dictatorships.Our feelings on this idea are best summed up by yet another quote.“We are all familiar with the argument: Make war dreadful enough, and there will be no war. And we none of us believe it.”

~John GalsworthyFew nations gain anything in the net economic balance from war, even in its most modest form. If economic damage were a suitable deterrent to war, there would be peace everywhere.

To toss out another example, the bombing of Hiroshima wasn't done to really cripple Japan, but rather to hasten the surrender that was already in progress and more importantly to warn the Russians. On the thirty anniversary of the bombing I remember when President Clinton traveled to Japan and apologized. I personally strongly agreed with his decision to do that, but at the same time I don't think anybody really could have had the foresight in 1945 to conclusively say that it was the wrong thing to do then.World War II had already become a war of attrition by that point, so I don't believe that the use of atomic bombs on Japan (or the far more devastating fire-bombing of Tokyo earlier that year served as part of a blitzkrieg strategy (my narrower point).I believe the larger issue here is, "does the end justify the means". I'd like to think not. I believe that may be your IC / OOC point here (correct me if I'm wrong).Indeed, it is.With that opinion in mind, I think a UN resolution / proposal idea might be a reconstruction accord. How we could do that, I don't know ... but it certainly is something that I'd love to see on the books.I had originally considered a compensation claims accord, but decided that would be too hard to write and harder to pass. As this debate is showing, most support for the UCAA was rank hypocrisy; a great many Members simply want the U.N. to grant them the blanket right to savagely murder their neighbors for the ends of statecraft, no questions asked.

We're already back in the Stone Age.

It shows. And by the way, how's that work on developing the wheel going?

Besides, we'll just sing peace songs and chant mantras, filling our skies with a great big Ignore Shield of Love©.

Typical response from the likes of you. "You're saying and doing things we don't like! La-la-la! We can't here you!"

As this debate is showing, most support for the UCAA was rank hypocrisy; a great many Members simply want the U.N. to grant them the blanket right to savagely murder their neighbors for the ends of statecraft, no questions asked.

Actually, all this "debate" -- and I use the term loosely -- is showing is that you are an complete and utter wanker.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Blah, blah, bladdity-blahSure, we love you, too.

Here, have a flower.

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

Sure, we love you, too.

Here, have a flower.

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


Y'know, there was a reason I killed Larebil...

I had originally considered a compensation claims accord, but decided that would be too hard to write and harder to pass. As this debate is showing, most support for the UCAA was rank hypocrisy; a great many Members simply want the U.N. to grant them the blanket right to savagely murder their neighbors for the ends of statecraft, no questions asked.

Two points:
1) I think just holding the discussions on the compensation claims accord concept might be of interest -- though I agree that they would be hard to write and pass.

2) I think there are better ways to pursuade the opinions of UN players / nations.

I have just one question, sir.

What part of "abandon it" didn't you get?

I have just one question, sir.

What part of "abandon it" didn't you get?You do know what “draft” means, don't you?

It is extremely unlikely that there is absolutely no way to make a legal resolution of this kind. Passage is another matter - as are all matters of pure politics - but the last word on legality has yet to be heard.

Perhaps, sir; however, the words, "abandon it" would have seemed pretty clear to me, even if I had missed the words that came prior.

OOC:
"My people suffer from a lack of understanding dialectics"--Vladimir Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks page 127, 1914. official Soviet English Translation 1936 There isn't an internet link to it...I found that in one of my rare Russian books that I bought the last time I was in Moscow with my young son, whom I took with me to visit Lenin and Stalin. (Yes, I am raising him to be a Marxist-Leninist.)

IC:
Community Property, I have read your silly comments. First and foremost when I said willingly I meant that they would not vote for this measure. Any person who reads this draft proposal will clearly see that it is a limitation of his capacity to engage in war. Communist or Capitalist, it doesn't matter...I assume that those in the capitalist countries read English just as well as I do.

As for the personnel of the armies of the capitalist countries, that is a matter of going to war and is best handled by those nations. Would Ellelt like to see capitalism destroyed once and for all? You bet. However, we realize that one way to do that is destroy the economic infrastructure of the nation(s) we are engaged in war in. Why? Because, it brings the end of war sooner but you don't need to take my word for it.

An army marches on it stomach.--Napoleon Bonaparte

Secondly, in this draft proposal excessive force and reasonable precautions are not defined. Mainly I believe they are subjective terms. Lets use an example, Ellelt is invaded by capitalist country x who wishes to overthrow the Elleltian Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Country x invades so we nuke their capital destroying their highest levels of their chain of command throwing their army into chaos and halting the invasion where upon the PLA swoops down on the enemy and purges them from Mother Ellelt. I would say that nuking the enemy's capital city was acceptable, and the enemy would say it was excessive force. Who is going to determine who is right? Anyone?

Finally, You may not care about your popularity. I know I don't care about your popularity...shit, I wouldn't give a damn if you were deleted. What I do care about is you wasting the UN's time with worthless proposals (that means since I know you like the dictionary--proposals/ideas that are not worthwhile discussing in the draft form). And I will continue to consider this draft proposal worthless unless you can explain why this proposal is necessary using Dialectical Materialism. As for your historical examples they are out of date considering the technological advances since the feudal period...a good Marxist would have recognized that due to the nature of arms production in the current time such warfare is no longer possible.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

Perhaps, sir; however, the words, "abandon it" would have seemed pretty clear to me, even if I had missed the words that came prior.

Is this one of those Diplomatic ways of saying "F*** Y**" that was referred to in the Bar?

Not at all, Grand Utoy. I prefer to think of this as more of a "get your head out of your arse" type of statement.

Ah... There is a differance, then. I shall bear that in mind.

However, we realize that one way to do that is destroy the economic infrastructure of the nation(s) we are engaged in war in. Why? Because, it brings the end of war sooner but you don't need to take my word for it.“To liberate our comrades, we had to kill them?”Secondly, in this draft proposal excessive force and reasonable precautions are not defined. Mainly I believe they are subjective terms.Correct on both counts, and not at all a problem. “Reasonable” and “excessive” and like pornography: we'll know it when we see it.Lets use an example, Ellelt is invaded by capitalist country x who wishes to overthrow the Elleltian Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Country x invades so we nuke their capital destroying their highest levels of their chain of command throwing their army into chaos and halting the invasion where upon the PLA swoops down on the enemy and purges them from Mother Ellelt. I would say that nuking the enemy's capital city was acceptable, and the enemy would say it was excessive force.And that would quite clearly be a violation of the resolution.

Conceding that the enemy leadership is in fact a legitimate target, you could not claim that you employed “reasonable care” and avoided “excessive force” if you resorted to a nuclear attack on their leadership, since it is clear that there are perfectly reasonable and less drastic alternatives that you could have chosen to do the job.Who is going to determine who is right? Anyone?The Gnomes who hold your missile command codes, I would imagine.What I do care about is you wasting the UN's time with worthless proposals (that means since I know you like the dictionary--proposals/ideas that are not worthwhile discussing in the draft form).Then don't waste your time by discussing the matter in committee.

Ultimately, it is the delegates and the GA who will decide what is and is not a waste of time; and since this body has recently considered another bill (the UCAA) seeking to limit civilian casualties in war, clearly there is some basis for believing that, your government's opinions aside, this is not a waste of time. And I will continue to consider this draft proposal worthless unless you can explain why this proposal is necessary using Dialectical Materialism. As for your historical examples they are out of date considering the technological advances since the feudal period...a good Marxist would have recognized that due to the nature of arms production in the current time such warfare is no longer possible.A Marxist with any genuine education in Dialectical Materialism would recognize that the Thirty Years' War was anything but a “medieval” conflict; it postdated the beginnings of specie mercantilism - the first stage of capitalism, as I'm sure you'll recall - by almost 150 years. Likewise, the wars of the following 150 years were clearly wars of colonial expansion - wars that clearly fit into the framework laid out by V.I. Lenin in his famous groundbreaking work on imperialism and its role in the final crisis of capitalism.

Knowing as we do that capitalism will ultimately consume itself through ever greater crises of overproduction, and knowing as we do that imperialism and militarism both serve to perpetuate capitalism - the former by providing cheap labor and a dumping ground for cheap goods, the latter by providing an endless market for the overproduction of arms merchants as well as serving to destroy excess goods by more direct means - it is obvious that all right-thinking Marxists must oppose both imperialism and militarism.

In addition, how do wars that target the global proletariat for destruction advance the liberation of the global proletariat? These wars of mass destruction both terrify the masses into blind obedience to their capitalist masters and provide the means by which large numbers of capital's class enemy can be annihilated for the profit of ther “betters”. For the capitalists, these conflicts are literally a case of killing two birds with one stone.

Thus we must ask you: knowing that the entire purpose of these vast arms races and the threat of wars of mass destruction is to maintain the viability of capitalism while alternately enslaving and slaying huge numbers of the proletariat, how can your Party possibly support them?Is this one of those Diplomatic ways of saying "F*** Y**" that was referred to in the Bar?It's one of the more roundabout ways, but yes.

2) I think there are better ways to pursuade the opinions of UN players / nations.

That, in my opinion, is the crux of the interpersonal problem CP is faced with here. His behavior is not conducive to his goals, given the circumstances. And from what I can tell, he thinks the circumstances are unfair. And they may well be. (The political environment when I started wasn't exactly fair for a sovereigntist or a conservative, so it's not without precedent.)

I'm just not interested in modifying the circumstances for his benefit. As far as I'm concerned, an unfair political environment is just part of the game. Play through it, or don't. I can suggest ways of getting through it, but that's really the most I can do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steweystan
Is this one of those Diplomatic ways of saying "F*** Y**" that was referred to in the Bar?

Originally Posted by Community Property
It's one of the more roundabout ways, but yes.



Sir, may I request then that you feel free to use your FU's here on the debate floor, instead of taking them to the Stranger's Bar. I addressed you here, not there, and I do believe you came there to issue your FU. And my offer stands, in response to your question there.

First and foremost. The Communist Party of Ellelt nor the Peace Loving Workers and Peasants of Ellelt do not support militarism nor imperialism. We do recognize that warfare will happen and will attack the economic infrastructure of our opponent nation. Further, We nor will any other right thinking nation vote in favor of this draft proposal, not because we fear invasion from UN nations but rather because we fear invasion from non-un nations who would be free to destroy our infrastructure without regard to the consequences to our proletariat. It is therefore why the USSE proper has withdrawn from the UN in favor of its UN clone which is but one office in the Krimlin...and thus has no missiles or other weaponry of any sort.

Now, on to the Issues piece by piece. A nuclear strike is excessive I would agree but lets look at this realistically. Is it possible to to plant operatives in the highest levels of an enemy's military? Not usually. So yes to liberate the proletariat of the enemy nation yes we had to destroy its government and army.

As for the UCAA, that is a dead proposal really and not relevant to this discussion. And your taking Lenin out of context is frankly disgusting. Armies have not stood facing each other and firring single shot weapons for at least the past century, therefore making it out of date. Scientific Socialism of the Elleltian verity is just that, scientific, as history and science advance change and develop so does our socialism.

Thus leading us to ask you from where do you arrive your hypothesis? The traitor Leon Trotsky? Or worse, the Anarchists? Comrade Stalin exposed both for what they were. Do not be lead astray "Comrade."

Because there's some truth in total, self-criticizing cynicism, and because even a broken clock shows the right time twice a day,

Mindless, meaningless drivel. Grow up.

People don't usually make war.

Yes, they do.

Governments make war.

Governments are made of people.

But it's the people who pay the price,

Correct. Bound to happen eventually.

especially when some misguided person claims that total war - the deliberate massacre of unarmed innocents on the sick theory that they are indirect military assets - is “more humane” than restraint.

Inaccurate. Total war is not the deliberate targetting of anything. It is the total destruction of everything. I never claimed it was more humane. I claimed it would be faster and result in a lower body count in the long run.

That's like saying that the best way to resolve a dispute with your neighbor is to murder his kids.

As long as you ignore the part where I referred to diplomacy failing. And completely ignore that killing your neighbour will end the dispute much faster than killing his kids. And that murder is illegal.

You've got to be pretty sick to embrace that kind of thinking.

That's funny. You're the one that thought that one up. I had nothing to do with it, nor would I.

RL: An historical example will suffice: the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) killed more Europeans than any prior war in the continent's history,

Spend three decades in war and that will happen.

and went unmatched for the suffering it inflicted until the Great War (1914-1918). For the next 150 years (or so) wars were waged with a measure of restraint virtually unmatched in European history. Were wars more common throughout this period? Certainly. Did this result in increased suffering among the masses? It did not. Overall losses in all of the wars fought in Europe combined (except perhaps for Christendom's wars with the Turks, which did not involve similar restraint) were lower than the butcher's bill in that single, uncontrolled spectacle of rape, plunder, and murder.

If you want to deal with historical statistics, state your sources and I will tell where you are wrong.

Savagery doesn't save lives. Savagery just breeds more savagery.

Never claimed anything at all about savagery. Bringing it up is silly.

And as for blitzkrieg tactics, these are the very antithesis of countervalue strategy.

Do you have any idea of what blitzkrieg means?

In a blitzkrieg, you seek decision against the enemy army in the field.

Wrong.

You don't attempt to devastate his industrial base, slaughter his people, and leave his land in ruin;

No. You sweep across the land and take control of everything before the enemy forces have a chance to mobilize and respond with military force. Any pockets of resistance are crushed quickly and decisively. Anything that you cannot afford to leave behind as you progress, like factories and plants, are destroyed. Crush the economic base so the rest of the nation is helpless while you consume it in one fell swoop.

such tactics only make sense in a war of attrition.

A war of attrition would be a series of pitched battles between military units.

You strike at enemy weak points, break through, and surround your foe in the field, rendering him unable to resist.

That's just good military stategy, no matter what kind of war you are waging.

Blitzkrieg tactics, at their very core, are pure counterforce.

Incorrect. Blitzkrieg. Lightning War. Fast. Furious. Brutal. Merciless. Counterforce is irrelevant. The very concept of a blitzkrieg is to strike and destroy before a counterforce can be mounted.


RL: Two questions for you:How did the bombing of Rotterdam advance Germany's blitzkrieg against France and the Low Countries in 1940? Answer - it didn't.

Germany didn't blitzkrieg France. They trudged across France at a plodding standard trench warfare pace. Germany blitzkrieged across Poland, consuming the nation and ending conflict in a month. After that point, casualties in Poland were caused by the brutality of German troops and were little affected by any direct action of the war, even though the war raged on for years afterwards.

Those resources would have been better used elsewhere; the waste only proved acceptable because the rest of the campaign succeeded wildly, nullifying the damage.

You mean aside from the fact that they could never fully secure the nation and had to deal with guerrilla freedom fighters for the duration of their occupation as a result. Yeah. Great success.

I know next to nothing about the Israeli situation or much about Lebanon, other than the fact that conflicts have been going on in those regions for millenia without any real resolution ever being accomplished. I cannot speak to those points until I am more familiar with them.

Since the articles tell you what you can and can not do, the definition isn't needed.

You'd think so. So would I, most of the time. When presented with a distasteful resolution, though, you'd be amazed at the numberr of nations that suddenly discover that they have a Crreative Solution Agency within their government. People will dig into anything that even looks like a loophole if they don't like what they are reading. If Countervalue Strategy was a more commonly used term, it wouldn't be an issue, but it is not one that will be known by many within the GA. No, the definition isn't necessary, but it is a good idea.

Sophistry.

Lots of it. What I offer is only a fraction of what you would see were this to be brought before the GA for a vote.

Military forces and leadership aren't economic assets.

I disagree. There are nations that rely upon their militaries and leaders for economic security. They become economic assets at that point.

Read the text.Again, sophistry.

Trust me, there's more where that came from.

A production facility is not a depot.

Why not? Because your dictionary says it isn't? It so happens that a few of my military stategists refer to production facilities as reproducing depots. It's simply part of their lingo. Being a militarily related resolution, I would hand it over to them for analysis to see how it will affect us. They will interpret it to mean as I said. No, it may not be fully accurate by the standard usage of the english language, but english isn't their primary language anyways.

Oh, and you also split the sentence in the wrong place.That's “supply and armament depots”, not “equipment, supply and armament depots”. Only someone without an understanding of the English language could make that mistake (the preceding “and” is your clue that this is logically parsed “[A and B] and [C and D] and [E and F]”).

See the above statement about the members of the Kivistan government who will be interpretting this.

So obviously railroad and bus stations are out;

No, they aren't. If these systems are used by military personnel at all, then they're in.

warehouses and storehouses are in only if they contain supplies and armaments, which puts them in the third category.

Warehouses generally do contain supplies. Any of which could be put to military use, even if it's a warehouse full of stuffed plush bunnies that the army intends to give out as a way to win over the children within an occupied area. Those warehouses become viable targets as they could supply the military. They are military supply depots.

Note also that there's a clear limitation on targeting transportation and communications centers:

Yep. And if a single private in the army, while on a weekend leave, uses a city bus or a payphone, then those sytems are being used by the military and become viable targets.

Note also that...This means that you can't slaughter people just because they might be inducted into armed service (even reservists) or fight as partisans. After all...Since the reference is to “military forces and equipment”, then only 2a above applies.

You can throw as many dictionaries at it that you want. The fact remains that if something can be misinterpretted, then it will be. If such things are not as clear as day, someone will find a way to twist and pervert your intention.

So the bit about......doesn't stand up to lexical analysis.Since “care” lacks cognitive ability, and two of the three remaining meanings of “reasonable” imply “common sense” and avoidance of “extremes”, and since “reasonable” and “excessive” are antonyms, the meaning is patently clear.

Common sense could very well dictate that extreme measures would be the most effective. You've created a contradiction within your own definitions. Congradulations. It is reasonable to assume that if a nation is at the point of bombing the downtown core of a building, they will be extremely concerned with ensuring that such an attack is as effective and efficient as possible. This may involve nuclear blasts. There is very little that is reasonable about war. Violence of any nature is, almost by definition, the comlpete failure of reason.

So now you want to show restraint?!?

Me? God Heavens, NO! We've got a freakin Death Star! I'm simply illustrating the opposing sentiments that you have laid out for us here.

The clause is there for obvious reasons: to prevent Members of the United Nations from having to fight “rogue” nations (that's a code-phrase for “Non-Members” at a disadvantage. Since all U.N. Members will be equally bound, it means we all show restraint when fighting each other; if opposing a Non-Member with a history of nastiness, do what you have to in order to survive.

Alright. I can understand that. I think there might be other ways of doing it, but I can see your point here.

Now, answer honestly: you'd be screaming like a stuck pig if that clause wasn't there, wouldn't you?

Nah. Doesn't turn me on enough to make me want to squeal. Takes CPESL for that to happen.

A Non-Member who acted in retaliation against another nation would obviously not be “a Non-Member Nation whose recent history indicates a strong likelihood that it will do so”, since there's no chance that, given your status as a U.N. Member bound by this protocol, they're going to have to retaliate against you.

That is not what this stipulates. There is no request to look into their motivation for doing what they did. This simply looks at the fact that they have done so, and that is all.

Read the thread. A “Global Disarmament” measure must, at some point, call upon folks to disarm.As indicated earlier (reread the thread), this has been used in other resolutions without issue. I don't believe I need it, but I have enough enemies (you think?) that I think it best to leave it there for self-preservation.

Fair enough. Not really a big issue with it anyways, just a matter of taste, and I can get the paranoia.

You do know what “draft” means, don't you?

It is extremely unlikely that there is absolutely no way to make a legal resolution of this kind. Passage is another matter - as are all matters of pure politics - but the last word on legality has yet to be heard.

Best bet, draft something like what Kenny had for UAA. You would probably want to leave out the Nat/Sov get-to-keep-your-weapons bit, but it very effectively limitted the collateral damage potential as it regarded civilian casualties. Beware of plagiarism. It is frowned upon. Further beware the sharks that will chew the ever-loving monkeys out of it. We love the taste of fresh monkey.

Biggest point I'd like to make: If it can be misinterpretted, it will be. Concision is improtant, but so is the inviolability of intent.

Off-note: best bet for moderation threads.....not so aggressive. I won't get into the middle of anything that is between you and a moderator, but they won't respond very well to aggression. I get your claim about trying to be funny, but realize that his first post may have been an attempt at humour as well. Such things don't always come out well in type. Just a friendly note.

Sir, may I request then that you feel free to use your FU's here on the debate floor, instead of taking them to the Stranger's Bar. I addressed you here, not there, and I do believe you came there to issue your FU. And my offer stands, in response to your question there.Whereas I believe that the remark had nothing at all to do with you, but was rather a reference to the predominant form of debate in the GA. But who am I to guess at what I was saying?

Ah, yes, I guess then that the "polite neophyte from Steweystan" and I ("his arrogant counterpart from Drae Nei") are the ones who make it the predominant form of debate here, newcomers as we are, since we are the two you referenced on your return visit?

(OOC: Forgive me if I am truly in error here. I just really found your timing, and statements in the Stranger's Bar, not to be very general in nature.)

I'm a neophyte?:eek:

I'm a neophyte?:eek:

As a novice the the GA, yes. Don't worry. There's nothing actually derogatory about it. It's probably just a comment on the fact that you are new here.

"Oh... Sorry... My translater mucked things up... Thought I was being called a scruffy looking Nerf Herder... Neophiatia in my Nation's language..."

Grand Utoy Stewey heaved a sigh of relief.

"Oh... Sorry... My translater mucked things up... Thought I was being called a scruffy looking Nerf Herder... Neophiatia in my Nation's language..."

Grand Utoy Stewey heaved a sigh of relief.


All the more reason to learn to speak and read English Grand Utoy. There is a similar word in Elleltian which means to fornicate with one's close relative. Neoiphistia, In Elleltian.

I never trust the translation department...but perhaps thats from being a secret policeman before I became a diplomat...Who Knows?:confused: :p

Agreed... I shall begin tomorrow.

You know, I'm not a complete retard. If you put an OOC tag, I get what you mean; the colour is just annoying.

OOC: Quoted for truth. You know everyone else here gets by with just using OOC tags, why can't you?

Section I has a further problem. Economic Assets include military armaments production facilities-- this would protect the ability of the enemy to continue manufacturing arms and ammunition for both their allies and themselves. Nowhere is it mentioned that we can destroy production facilities for weapons. Weapons are the most profitable form of asset in most economies.

ENowhere is it mentioned that we can destroy production facilities for weapons.There is no clear line between weapons production facilities and facilities used for other purposes; indeed, most facilities are dual-use. For that reason, I'd prefer to avoid starting down that road.

As for Kivisto's comments, I'll have to digest those further before responding.

The argument can be made... and fairly made that any facility that can potentially be used to provide military assistance to a Nation should be considered exempt from protection... unless there is a clause stating that such facilities are protected until such time that Firm Military Intellegence confirms that such facilities are being used to aid a Nation's war effort.

But regardless of that type of modification, I don't see this really being accepted by the majority of the UN Members.

The argument can be made... and fairly made that any facility that can potentially be used to provide military assistance to a Nation should be considered exempt from protection... unless there is a clause stating that such facilities are protected until such time that Firm Military Intellegence confirms that such facilities are being used to aid a Nation's war effort.

But regardless of that type of modification, I don't see this really being accepted by the majority of the UN Members.


I see a problem with that suggestion Grand Utoy.

First what exactly is constituted as production for a war effort? Take for example vodka production. It is Common for the Elleltian People's Liberation Army to issue rations of 500 ml of Vodka to the troops every 3 days during war time for morale purposes. The same can be said of nasal snuff production, which is by far the most common form of tobacco use in Ellelt as smoking is considered a habit of the aristocrats and bourgeois class enemies that were crushed in our Socialist Revolution. A private in the PLA receives 5g of snuff per week. Would then Vodka distilleries and snuff mills be considered war production facilities?

Also lets look at the production of food. Food could either be going to troops or going to feed the people back home...this can also be said of any other commodity.

An other example, when we liberated the proletariat of a neighboring small nation that had threatened us with military action immediately following the instillation of our Communist government. Elletian Chocolates-Makers produced candy bars to be distributed to children in that nation which we occupied and latter incorporated as an autonomous soviet republic in our own nation...In essence making that chocolate war goods.

The fact remains that military organizations are supported by the national economy of their nation. This fact regards not the commodity nor the methods used in the production of the said goods.

Well, if the vodka is being used a means of improving the troops morale(as with the snuff), then yes, a Nationn could, technically claim that it is being used for the War Effort... after all Morale is important to fighting a war, correct?

It is unfortunate, but the farms could also be technically be claimed to be providing for the War Effort if it can be proven that a portion of the farm's output did indeed go to feed troops.

The chocolate was not going to the troops, correct? They were produced for and went to the civilians, am I mistaken in this? If that is the case, then it was not producing for the War Effort.

That chocolate was distributed to civilians yes, but had in fact an military purpose. It made the civilian population of that nation more passive toward our occupation, and latter incorporation.

Control of civilian morale in occupied zones is just as much a military issue as is the morale of our military personnel so Comrade Brunzov tells me.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

In that case, it could then be classified- technically as an approved target.

Grand Utoy. My point is that any form of economic production what-so-ever in the event of war can be classified as a legitimate target. Ellelt doesn't have a Creative Solutions Agency as of yet but we do have a Department of Legal Interpretation for International Law.

Further considering that this legislation concerns military matters I have forwarded via-fax machine the proposed legislation to Comrade Brunzov, our Minister of Defense, and a fine and able general as was proved by his actions during the Revolution.

As I said at the beginning this legislation is worthless.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Drae Nei has concurred with Ambassador Khernynko's position since the debate opened on this draft, and our opinion has not changed.

Looking at Ellelt Representitve curiously, Grand Utoy Stewey raised an eyebrow, "I don't actually recall saying it was a worthwhile piece of paper... In fact, if I remember, I even said that I doubt that even if the Community Property Representitive (janitor or not), were to take my argument into consideration during a re-draft, that many would vote for this. If I mis-lead you, I humble apologize... it's the "polite neophyte" in me..."

Grand Utoy Stewey smiles broadly...

Grand Utoy, I never insinuated that you did support this piece of rubbish. I was merely pointing out that all forms of economic production can have military purpose. The actual articles of production have no bearing on that what-so-ever.

Therefore, banning the UN membership from using economic warfare is silly at best and dangerous at worst.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

In that case, I hope I helped you to make your point by agreeing with your assessments?

We can only hope that to be the case Grand Utoy.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

That, I think is the problem with resolutions like this... a Nation can always find some sort of technicality to circumvent it. As I said, I am of the mind that this proposition would not go through as is... or even with even more precise modifications.

That, I think is the problem with resolutions like this... a Nation can always find some sort of technicality to circumvent it. As I said, I am of the mind that this proposition would not go through as is... or even with even more precise modifications.

All resolutions are up for circumvention. It is just easier with poorly defined or poorly written resolutions.

It is usually a good idea for would be resolution writers to post their rough drafts in either the UIC or NSO forums or Reclamation forums before even bringing it to the UN GA for comment. Doing so reduces the need for rewrites, and sometimes can stop a truely dangerous resolution from even having to be discussed here.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

*Wonders what the going price for Nerf hair is?*

"Interesting idea, but any UN member wanting a total war would just leave the UN and rejoin again after the war."





Dan Slade UN rep.
The Commonwealth of Fungia

It is our finding that this proposal, in allowing circumvention for the most minor offenses by an aggressor, is extremely problematic. Regardless of our views on warfare, such a proposal must be even-handed. Clause III must go, and the first two clauses need to either specify which resources are to be protected, or else weakened to statements urging, but not mandating, a specific action.

We are unclear as to why all "economic assets", including weapons manufacturing facilities, should not be targeted in a pitched battle, or why there is a strict prohibition on environmental damage. Damage to economic infrastructure and to the natural environment are going to be incidental even if all caution is applied. These conditions make warfare nearly impossible to conduct under *any* circumstances. If the goal is to essentially ban warfare, we suggest that the author put forth a resolution that would do exactly that. If this is not the author's intention, we find that this proposal needs to be dramatically remodeled.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

I concur with the assesment of Lord Telovar.

If indeed the ultimate intent of the author is to restrict war in the aim of preventing UN nations from entering into it, we suggest a repeal of the UNSA would be in order. We wouldn't support it, but it would be most refreshing to see a more direct way taken to deal with such issues.

Prince Tang of Allech-Atreus
Ambassador

If indeed the ultimate intent of the author is to restrict war in the aim of preventing UN nations from entering into it, we suggest a repeal of the UNSA would be in order. We wouldn't support it, but it would be most refreshing to see a more direct way taken to deal with such issues.It is not. As with other proposals I'm posted here before taking to the floor for consideration by the delegates, comments made - pro and con - will be considered in the next draft.

It is not. As with other proposals I'm posted here before taking to the floor for consideration by the delegates, comments made - pro and con - will be considered in the next draft.


Ugh...there's going to be another draft? We'd hoped this bloody thing would just die.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ugh...there's going to be another draft? We'd hoped this bloody thing would just die.It might, it might not. That's always a question when the time to redraft comes.

The fact that you don't like it does, however, increase the attractiveness of a second draft. :p

It might, it might not. That's always a question when the time to redraft comes.

The fact that you don't like it does, however, increase the attractiveness of a second draft. :p

Typical of you. "I'll draft a proposal just to annoy someone."

Could you be any more childish?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I do not see why we should actually continue discussing this topic as, there are so many ways to circument such a policy by saying that "technically" all Economic Assets- Civilian and Military, contribute to a Nation's War Effort in one wa or another... though enabling an enemy nation the right to attack those assets. A train carrying a payroll? Carrying funds that would be used to pay Civilains to produce Military Assets- or to pay Soldiers. Chocolate Factory? A luxury item that can be distributed to the Civilans of Occupied Areas to "convince" them of the Invading Nation's intentions to "liberate the people". Bye bye Chocolate Factory. A Bank offering War Bonds? Raising funds to continue the War Effort.

This proposal, in the short and long term would be negated by such technicalities... just would be worthless as actual Policy.

It is not. As with other proposals I'm posted here before taking to the floor for consideration by the delegates, comments made - pro and con - will be considered in the next draft.

My advice to you is to just drop it and focus on something other than bans of theory.

Typical of you. "I'll draft a proposal just to annoy someone."Not just to annoy you, but annoying you would be an added bonus.Could you be any more childish?Well, I could swear a lot, like some people do.

Now, can we get back on track?

The idea here is not to make war more difficult to conduct; it is certainly not to outlaw war, which is impossible (and could be better done in other ways, as well). The idea is to reduce the collateral damage of war without completely tying the hands of combatants and without placing U.N. Members at a disadvantage with respect to non-Members. Collateral damage is expected in war, but civilians should not be targeted deliberately, nor should the devastation of a nations economy and/or its environment (through, say, the widespread use of defoliants, or the deliberate pollution of its air and water resources, to name a few examples); military forces should restrict themselves to attacking enemy military forces, enemy equipment and ordnance stocks in inventory (but not production facilities), enemy communications and leadership assets, and other resources that have a direct and immediate impact on enemy war-fighting capability.

It is my opinion - and while I'm not at all sure that this is the place to debate it, I am willing to stand behind this claim and defend it - that waging “total war” is not only immoral, but contrary to modern military practice. It is a relic of the industrial age, which we have left behind en route to the information age.

(You can skip the sermon that follows if you wish...)

<sermon>

(WARNING: What follows involves the use of RL examples.)

Modern armies (MT armies, in NS parlance) differ from industrial age (EMT) armies in several significant ways. The first is heavy reliance on force multipliers; the second is a notable ability to chew through equipment and ammunition at an unprecedented pace. The former creates a irresistible vulnerability that any competent commander would strive to exploit; the latter renders prolonged high-intensity operations logistically untenable.

To address the latter point first: modern armies can wolf down the “consumables” of war far faster than any modern nation can replace them or ship them to the front. Realistically, few nations can sustain operations at maximum fighting capacity for more than a month before the logistical means to wage war have been utterly exhausted. This trend - which is likely to worsen as time goes biy - renders industrial mobilization moot; hostilities will come to an end through sheer exhaustion long before industry can ever be brought to bear. This is quite unlike the experience of the Second World War, in which industrial mobilization proved the key to victory and it which attempts to disrupt enemy industrial activity (so-called “strategic warfare”) became a cornerstone of grand strategy.

(As an aside, of the two principle means by which nations waged strategic war - “strategic” bombing and maritime interdiction - only the latter proved effective; German production was barely scratched by Allied bombing efforts, whereas Japanese production was shut down completely by Allied maritime interdiction. Subsequent experience with strategic bombing (eg., the U.S. aerial bombardment of North Vietname) have proven equally ineffectual; indeed, given the way in which such campaigns solidify the support of their civilian targets behind their government, a fair case can be made that such efforts hurt far more than they help.)

In American strategic planning, industrial mobilization plays virtually no role. I have spoken to general staff-rank officers who have stated baldly that, in a full-scale war, “What you start with is all you've got and all you're going to have”. The same was true of the Soviet Union at its height; just mobilizing all their Category II divisions would have brought their economy to its knees due to the lack of vehicular transport, and there would have been no ability to reinforce the leading echelons in a European war after that.

To be sure, part of this approach is due to the advent of nuclear weapons; most nations figure that high-intensity warfare will quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange anyway. But logistics certainly plays a role. In 1973, a three-week war between Israel and the Arab States exhausted not only their entire inventory of ordnance and spare parts, but a sizable fraction of those of the Soviet and American sponsors as well.

Statistical analyses of warfare in the last half of the 20th Century bear this up. The daily rate of attrition among front-rank combat forces in medium- to high-intensity conflicts is considerably higher than the corresponding rate in either the First or Second World Wars. The tonnage of supply required to support thes units is also much higher. Our ability to hurl deadly objects at each other has completely outstripped our ability to build more such objects and transport them to the field; that makes a decision with forces on hand all the more important of stalemate is to be avoided.

This brings us to force multipliers. Most modern armies rely on sophisticated communications, intelligence-gathering, and decision support systems; the combined arms environment of modern warfare also makes military force a complex interaction of many factors. Destroy any one of the key parts of the enemy war machine and his effort will collapse in a heartbeat.

C³I is probably the best example. Destroying an enemy's ability to relay orders to his men, either by slaying his general or by cutting enemy lines of communication, is a tactic as old as war. Alexander targeted enemy kings, and in the Middle Ages the death of a general usually presaged a route. In spite of the erroneous identification of “blitzkrieg” tactics with “total war” made by at least one opponent of this legislation, the true essence of those tactics lay in disrupting enemy lines of communications, as the writings of Heinz Guderian clearly show. In the modern era, however, there are many more ways to do this than ever before, and the excessive reliance of modern armies on radio, satellite intelligence, data links, and the like provide a juicy target for attack - and a far more attractive target than any economic target could ever be. Disrupt your enemy's communications and his defeat is imminent.

Nor is C³I the only possible target. Israel's spectacular 1967 defeat of its Arab adversaries war due in no small part to the destruction of Arab air assets at the start of the war. This is an example of knocking out an entire arm of the enemy combined arms structure, thereby causing his tactical system to collapse for lack of that arm. Modern armies are especially susceptible to this, and prudent commanders look for a way to disrupt their enemies in such a way whenever possible.

In short, modern war has created an environment in which short, sharp campaigns are mandatory due to logistical limits, and in which the premium is on coming to grips with the enemy's force structure and breaking down some key dependency - an enemy force multiplier - such that his overall military strength falls to zero or near zero and his war effort runs off its rails. In this environment, attacks on civilians or their means of support are not only counterproductive, but in fact needlessly cruel and sadistic, to the point where they effectively amount to terrorism.

</sermon>

(If you want to respond to this, I recommend quoting and posting in General; if you don't, don't take my failure to respond here as concession - I just want to stay on focus.)

In light of this, I most probably will not abandon this effort; what I will do is consider some of the holes people have picked in this proposal and try to decide if they can be closed (and - if so - how best to do so). If I can close them (or address them) and still feel that I have a resolution worth coming back with, I will. If not, well, that probably happens to a lot of resolutions; it would not be at all unusual.

I think that you would have to come up with some very specific requirements detailing what makes an Economic Asset a viable Target for Military Action.

And I must say that even though we are in the Information Age, the most effective method is still Physical Attacks... as they demoralize the Enemy, as well as takes away their capabilities to produce War Materials, in addition to the "Collateral Damage" that follows within the Civilian Sector- once again helping to demoralize the Enemy. Such Physical Attacks- coupled with Electronic Warfare would quickly be able to destroy an Enemy Nation- thus bringing the concept of Total War to a new level. Of course, you will also have to detail how to prevent Electronic Economc Warfare as well. As most Financial Institutes (Banks for instance), and many Manufacturing Facilities are hooked up to the Internet... allowing a Nations Electronic Warfare Divisions the ability to muck them up as well.

My dear Grand Utoy, don't waste your breath. The representative from Community Property undeerstands nothing of the ways of war. Were he to have his way, I fully imagine all international disputes would be solved through games of tiddlywinks.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ever have a tiddlywink cut on the thumb? Those hurt...

Were he to have his way, I fully imagine all international disputes would be solved through games of tiddlywinks.

As opposed to the more traditional dodgeball (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434), of course.

As opposed to the more traditional dodgeball (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434), of course.

Fris, thank you. That....that was beautiful. One of the funniest RP things I've ever read.

I think that you would have to come up with some very specific requirements detailing what makes an Economic Asset a viable Target for Military Action.

And I must say that even though we are in the Information Age, the most effective method is still Physical Attacks... as they demoralize the Enemy, as well as takes away their capabilities to produce War Materials, in addition to the "Collateral Damage" that follows within the Civilian Sector- once again helping to demoralize the Enemy. Such Physical Attacks- coupled with Electronic Warfare would quickly be able to destroy an Enemy Nation- thus bringing the concept of Total War to a new level. Of course, you will also have to detail how to prevent Electronic Economc Warfare as well. As most Financial Institutes (Banks for instance), and many Manufacturing Facilities are hooked up to the Internet... allowing a Nations Electronic Warfare Divisions the ability to muck them up as well.

We agree with the Grand Utoy's astute assessment of modern warfare. We further urge persons to read our previous comments regarding economic warfare in this thread as to why this proposal draft is if not silly, dangerous.

Originally Posted by Cluichstan

My dear Grand Utoy, don't waste your breath. The representative from Community Property undeerstands nothing of the ways of war. Were he to have his way, I fully imagine all international disputes would be solved through games of tiddlywinks.


It would not surprise the United Socialist States of Ellelt if this were the case.

We on the other-hand have developed various ignore weapons systems that prevent unnecessary warfare and will reserve the right to utilize all means necessary in armed conflict, which as I understand is protected by UNR #110.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

As opposed to the more traditional dodgeball (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434), of course.

OOC: Great...now I'm picturing Austin Powers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509273) playing dodgeball... :p