NationStates Jolt Archive

My first proposal is called Use of Cloning in Military. Please read and give me any ideas on how to improve.

Proposal in question:
Use of Cloning in Military

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Decaro

Description: BELIEVES that no person deserves to die for a cause they do not believe in.

DISTURBED by the lack of progress in the scientific area of cloning in most nations.

DISGUSTED by wars that have no effect on the common man, yet force him to die or give up family and friends.

1. Condemns the policy of drafting people into the military.

2. Encourages nations to increase funding for any existing cloning projects, as well as develop several more.

3. Recommends that once the average human clone is stable, start raising them from birth to be the perfect soldiers.

4. Suggests that by the time there are more specially developed clones than people enlisted in the army, all army, navy, and airforce soldiers are to be honorably discharged, and the clones shall replace them. This will allow less significant losses for serious conflicts.

5. Realizes that such a project may take up to 50 years to develop.

6. Encourages that nations share cloning discoveries with one another, for the sake of removing the risk of nations invading other nations to steal cloning information or the invasion of less scientifically advandced nations.

I'm sorry, but your proposal does nothing. It only encourages and suggests. The relevant part of the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) is this:
Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Your proposal lacks an implementation phase, basically rendering it useless. You need to improve the language.

Also, the category is incorrect. It should be "International Security".

And to make it clear, you should NOT immediately resubmit. Your proposal will likely be deleted and resubmitting will likely lead to another deletion.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

The proposal doesn't include language stating that nations can ignore it, so I don't see the problem.

IC:

Even in our current turmoil, I think the entire nation of Qallegnia agrees that this is a repugnant proposal that we could never support.

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

Also, the category is incorrect. It should be "International Security".

And to make it clear, you should NOT immediately resubmit. Your proposal will likely be deleted and resubmitting will likely lead to another deletion.

Correct and correct. "I think everyone should have this" != "Human Rights".

I'm sorry, but your proposal does nothing. It only encourages and suggests. The relevant part of the Rules for UN Proposals is this:

*optionality ban*

Your proposal lacks an implementation phase, basically rendering it useless. You need to improve the language.Er?

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how is this an optionality violation? Seems there are plenty of reasons not to like this, but optionality isn't one of them.

The representative of Decaro says he's digusted with people dieing or leaving family behind in wars. Though your intensions are good you are suggesting we play God by creating people with souls so they can die for us. That is barbaric! It is also no persons right to decide another persons purpose. In my opinion human cloning should only be used by a country when their countries population becomes infertil.

Seems there are plenty of reasons not to like this, but optionality isn't one of them.

'Kenny has the right of it. Failure to include operative clauses is more likely to trigger a strength violation than an optionality violation. Even if this was a Human Rights proposal, there's no way it would be Significant.

I suggest that cloning in the military should be thoroughly researched but such a clone army shall only be used for defensive purposes. It may be in the interest of the United Nations to use cloned soldiers to assist peacekeeping operations around the world due to the alarming majority of nations that are not under the fold of the United Nations. Rather than tie our own hands, it is best that a clone army be commissioned to defend members of the United Nations and be in strength at least 0.1% of the total population of member states of the United Nations.

Well first off I would say that it is incorrectly categorized, and its strength should be mild, not significant.

Also we would most likely vote against this resolution. If Zyrwick or any other nation chooses to clone for military purposes. Thats their business. However, to be frank that the argument that it would be more "humane" to use clones in the military as otherwise citizens would loose family members and comrades is absolutely absurd.

The clones would still be sentient beings, their friends, and comrades, and possibly twins would perish in war. They would also still potentially suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders.

There are only two ways to prevent sentient beings from being harmed by the consequences of war (such as sentient beings dieing or psychological affected and property being destroyed) would be to: A) ban war--which ain't happening, or B) use fully independent autonomic/robotic machines to fight said war.

General Zahsha Kerpotnik
Zyrwickian Minister of Defense

I must agree with my esteemed colleagues who have stated opposition to this proposition. The notion that we begin creating drones to fight battles is something better left for B level moving pictures.

War is bloody and war is sad no matter who is fighting it, no matter if they were born naturally or they were hatched in some laboratory they're loss should and will be lamented.

I think the UN's time is better spent trying to come up with ways to put the pin back into the grenade around the world rather than coming up with legislation on making the beings who are throwing it.


Percy Fitz-Wallace
Chairman of the Council of Commanders
The United States of Philimbesi

'Kenny has the right of it. Failure to include operative clauses is more likely to trigger a strength violation than an optionality violation. Even if this was a Human Rights proposal, there's no way it would be Significant.

I thought that was iffy. But whatever.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Isn't there already a Resolution in force that guarantees cloned people the same rights as non-cloned people, meaning that any proposal about creating armies of clones (without giving them a choice about joining) would be illegal for Contradiction anyway?

I agree with the Zyrwickian General. Clones might help you grow an army faster, and I have reason to think they'd be better in combat than robots. But they'd still suffer in war just like regular people. After all, clones are people two.

The man - never before seen in the UN, it's his first visit here - looks surprisingly neat, taller than average, paler than average, blackish hair, pretty muscular, almost like a posterboy for the New Aryan Army. Well, sans the haircolour.

He speaks a bit differently, though, almost soft, but nonetheless visibly annoyed.

"Well, lets see..."

Description: BELIEVES that no person deserves to die for a cause they do not believe in."Agreed."

DISGUSTED by wars that have no effect on the common man, yet force him to die or give up family and friends."Also agreed! Looks like we're getting somewhere!"

1. Condemns the policy of drafting people into the military."Agreed again. Gotta love you."

3. Recommends that once the average human clone is stable, start raising them from birth to be the perfect soldiers."Oh, right. You're a monster.

"Reality check - what makes you think that clones aren't human?

"To illustrate my point, if you'd for a moment look here... Yes, right there..."

We're human, too! (http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=olsentwinspictureyt5.jpg)

"The definition of 'Clones' is 'Two or more beings with identical DNA'. There is nothing saying that these beings are somehow not sapient.

"Meaning that in effect, your 'Human Rights' proposal suggests to take all choices away from human beings, and to vat-grow & raise them in ways that make 'Brave New World' look like a comparatively humane society.

"As such... May I take the time - just a short moment, really - to call you a monstrous slaver, a criminal, a disgusting abuser of his fellow beings? Deciding that 'Hey, there's anothe rindividual with the same DNA you have!' is enough reason to strip a person - every identical twin, for starters - of his rights?"

I must agree with my esteemed colleagues who have stated opposition to this proposition. The notion that we begin creating drones to fight battles is something better left for B level moving pictures.

War is bloody and war is sad no matter who is fighting it, no matter if they were born naturally or they were hatched in some laboratory they're loss should and will be lamented.

I think the UN's time is better spent trying to come up with ways to put the pin back into the grenade around the world rather than coming up with legislation on making the beings who are throwing it.


Percy Fitz-Wallace
Chairman of the Council of Commanders
The United States of Philimbesi

The Delegation of Granradia and Terferti combined agrees with the stance taken by the Delegate of Philimbesi and those who are also opposed to this barbaric resolution proposal.

The United Nations was founded on the Prinicpals that we change this world for the better, not for the sake of creating a new way to make war, or to produce "fresh meat for the grinder," as it were.

The Representative of Der Angst also holds a valid, very valid point. At what point do cloned individuals fail to be recognized as human beings? I do believe that somewhere in these hallowed halls there is a resolution giving rights to clones, and as such, state them to be just as viable as a human being is, defined by these United Nations. Please, if I am wrong, correct me; I'll be happy to begin writing a draft to make such, if there is not. I'll also invite anyone to offer their input on that issue.

With this said, this Delegation refuses to recognize this proposal or allow it's approval to be found anywhere upon it.

- Mr. Raphiel Yustogovich
- UN Representative of The Confederacy of Granradia
- UN Delegate of The Region of Terferti

It may be in the interest of the United Nations to use cloned soldiers to assist peacekeeping operations around the world due to the alarming majority of nations that are not under the fold of the United Nations. Rather than tie our own hands, it is best that a clone army be commissioned to defend members of the United Nations and be in strength at least 0.1% of the total population of member states of the United Nations.

We don't do peacekeeping operations, and if you'll take a few minutes and read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) you'll see that the UN can't even have a military.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Wouldn't this proposal be a violation of this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030146&postcount=57) resolution by stating that cloned humans should fight in the interests of non-cloned humans? This proposal oppresses the rights of cloned humans.

I'm new here, but after reading all this barbarian and non-ethical intentions I had to make my first remark around here, thus i will make it shortly..
This proposal goes against human/clone rights, so it shouldnt even be taken in consideration. This must be the worst way to solve the main problem, drafting ones who do not believe in what they are fighting for, sending them to deathrow so a couple of men ambitions can be fulfit.

With nothing else to say,
an Outlaw.

//Sorry about my poor english.

A rep from Der Angst? Here? In the UN?

Will wonders never cease...


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