NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Resolution #40 has good intentions but countries should be able to use landmines to defend their borders in the case of an unjustified invasion.

This resolution repeals resolution #40 and encourages a new resolution on rules and regulations regarding landmines so as to be only used in specific situations.

Approvals: 15 (Cucumba, Compulsoria, Project Quantum Leap, Spaz Land, The Seven Glades, Kockface, Ikeania, Krankor, Yarallstupid, Flibbleites, WZ Forums, Corporate Taiwan, Anderya, Latest night, Icefloris)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 99 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Nov 24 2007

We will fight this one to the bitter end. There are far less irresponsible ways of protecting one's citizens then planting landmines. They are a truly disgusting weapon and one which too often remains a threat after the war ends.

Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador.

I would like to extend my country's full support to this proposal.

The security of nations takes precedence over all other concerns. Without this security, there is anarchy (everyone loses).

"One can defend with things other than landmines. And anyways, what about us Island Nations? People think repealing this proposal will help all nations but those of us who are on Islands don't really give two cents about landmines."

I could see this being repealed and replaced with a much less limiting but more detailed "Responsible Landmine Use Act".

I would like to extend my country's full support to this proposal.

The security of nations takes precedence over all other concerns. Without this security, there is anarchy (everyone loses).

Anarchy seems to be working out well for HotRodia. A booming economy, extensive civil liberties, highly educated and cultured citizens, and fantastic automobiles make for a lovely time.

Perhaps you should come for a visit.

Minister of Hospitality
Meritania Garrote

Anarchy seems to be working out well for HotRodia. A booming economy, extensive civil liberties, highly educated and cultured citizens, and fantastic automobiles make for a lovely time.

Perhaps you should come for a visit.

Minister of Hospitality
Meritania Garrote

Sorry, but as a representative of a Corporate Police State, it's my duty to deny any progress your nation may have made and to denounce you as barbarians. Just business.

"One can defend with things other than landmines. And anyways, what about us Island Nations? People think repealing this proposal will help all nations but those of us who are on Islands don't really give two cents about landmines."

Defending your country is much easier said than done. Nations should have the right to sovereignty. A new resolution will replace this one by the way.

I could see this being repealed and replaced with a much less limiting but more detailed "Responsible Landmine Use Act".Odd. We can see it being replaced with an airtight, complete ban of the vile things.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

OOC: Resolution #40 only bans the use of landmines by 'UN counties', and as it doesn't define that term -- and no other resolution does so, either -- nations would seem perfectly free to say that they don't fall into that category...
After all, do you regard your nation as merely a "county"? ;)

If you're really want to defend your country from another nation's military aggresion, don't do it half-way, full protection will shield your people from a really huge disaster

OOC: Resolution #40 only bans the use of landmines by 'UN counties', and as it doesn't define that term -- and no other resolution does so, either -- nations would seem perfectly free to say that they don't fall into that category...
After all, do you regard your nation as merely a "county"? ;)The day that we negate the meaning of a resolution because of an obvious typographical error (even one as fortuitous as a missing "r" that results in designating an unlikely geographic entity) is the day that much of the legislation for which this body is responsible is nullified. And that's without the silly back and forth of dialectical spellings.

--L.T.

We are developping mines that have limited lifespans and biodegrade after a year. We also have mines that only activate when detecting chemical compounds like gunpowder or ceramic-armor platings. And we also have passive sensors to prevent explosion if a recognized animal strays near. These are technologies that we are developping.

We support a repeal.

There is also a loophole in the existing law but we will not advertise it because we do not want the loophole plugged.

Emperor Ceasar of Shogunkhan has spoken.

Frankly, we aren't interested in supporting a repeal whose only argument boils down to "I don't like the original." Should the proposer come up with any reasons for not liking the original, that would of course be an entirely different matter.

Frankly, we aren't interested in supporting a repeal whose only argument boils down to "I don't like the original." Should the proposer come up with any reasons for not liking the original, that would of course be an entirely different matter.

Actually I did come up with a reason if you were reading. I said that nations should be able to defend their borders. :P



Description: UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Resolution #40 has good intentions but countries should be able to use landmines to defend their borders in the case of an unjustified invasion.

This resolution repeals resolution #40 and encourages a new resolution on rules and regulations regarding landmines so as to be only used in specific situations.

Approvals: 15 (Cucumba, Compulsoria, Project Quantum Leap, Spaz Land, The Seven Glades, Kockface, Ikeania, Krankor, Yarallstupid, Flibbleites, WZ Forums, Corporate Taiwan, Anderya, Latest night, Icefloris)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 99 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Nov 24 2007

There is also a loophole in the existing law but we will not advertise it because we do not want the loophole plugged. The loophole is well-known and well-discussed.

Actually I did come up with a reason if you were reading. I said that nations should be able to defend their borders. :PSo nations haven't been defending their borders since the ban on landmines went into effect?

--L.T.

The loophole is well-known and well-discussed.

What is this loophole? It may prove helpful in leading towards a better landmine policy.



So nations haven't been defending their borders since the ban on landmines went into effect?

--L.T.

No, I mean that landmines are a very effective tool to defend borders. Landmines could save a nation their a independence.

With the Dourian Empire's arms manufacturing industry in mind, I must vote against this repeal. The current law fits our needs just fine.

What is this loophole? It may prove helpful in leading towards a better landmine policy.The bit about UN counties, and the fact that the ban only applies to countries "in conflict" which means they can be laid in times of peace and during the build up to war before open hostilities happen.

The first is semantic gymnastics, and is no more convincing than claiming that since "landmine" isn't defined, it could mean space-based graviton laser beam-equipped suicide machines.

The second, is also semantic gymnastics, but is a little more convincing, and makes the entire Resolution mostly worthless.

The bit about UN counties, and the fact that the ban only applies to countries "in conflict" which means they can be laid in times of peace and during the build up to war before open hostilities happen.

The first is semantic gymnastics, and is no more convincing than claiming that since "landmine" isn't defined, it could mean space-based graviton laser beam-equipped suicide machines.

The second, is also semantic gymnastics, but is a little more convincing, and makes the entire Resolution mostly worthless.

I see, well since it is worthless, we shall replace it.

I see, well since it is worthless, we shall replace it.

We support a repeal, we will not support a replacement.

Landmines are both a cruel and inhumane weapon of choice to 'defend' a nation.

Who says, if we did repeal, that other nations wouldn't mine other nearby nations, under the auspice of defending their border, so as to disrupt those nations and aid in schemes of domination.

As well, landmines could be used to supress dissedent and rebelious provinces or states within a nation.

Finally, we feel that the use of these weapons clearly violate any sense we hold of human dignity and fear the harm of innocents because of this.

So Evoinia absolutely and completely rejects this repeal unless it was done to put in place a stricter resolution.

((OOC: Kurtish Republic = Greater Dunedin?))

IC:

Scotchpinestan will wholeheartedly oppose this repeal UNLESS a suitable replacement is drafted and ready to be submitted the moment a repeal passes. If a resolution called "Ban Landmines" doesn't actually do that, then certainly we must create a resolution that does. But we cannot risk having no landmine resolution for any significant period of time.

We support a repeal, we will not support a replacement.

I would replace it with an act detailing responsible landmine use not to ban it. For example:

1) Landmines only allowed to defend nation when the nation's sovereignty is in danger, unless the nation is guilty of severe human rights abuses such as genocide etc.

2) Landmines produced are not too be sold internationally.

3) If you produce landmines, you MUST have equivilant technology to remove the landmines you plant. So you cannot make a landmine which you don't know how to remove.

4) All planted landmines must be recorded in detail as to know where to clear landmines in time of peace so as to prevent injury to civilians and to avoid land being wasted.

Landmines are both a cruel and inhumane weapon of choice to 'defend' a nation.

Who says, if we did repeal, that other nations wouldn't mine other nearby nations, under the auspice of defending their border, so as to disrupt those nations and aid in schemes of domination.

As well, landmines could be used to supress dissedent and rebelious provinces or states within a nation.

Finally, we feel that the use of these weapons clearly violate any sense we hold of human dignity and fear the harm of innocents because of this.

So Evoinia absolutely and completely rejects this repeal unless it was done to put in place a stricter resolution.

See above.

((OOC: Kurtish Republic = Greater Dunedin?))

IC:

Scotchpinestan will wholeheartedly oppose this repeal UNLESS a suitable replacement is drafted and ready to be submitted the moment a repeal passes. If a resolution called "Ban Landmines" doesn't actually do that, then certainly we must create a resolution that does. But we cannot risk having no lamdine resolution for any significant period of time.

First of all, yes that's my other account, you caught me, good observation skills. :P

Secondly, see above, are you satisfied with the above rules on landmines, it is a heavy restriction which a compromise of both sides of the coin.

Secondly, see above, are you satisfied with the above rules on landmines, it is a heavy restriction which a compromise of both sides of the coin.

Absolutely not. Landmines are vile devices, and we believe there is no such thing as "responsible" use of them.

I would replace it with an act detailing responsible landmine use not to ban it. For example:

1) Landmines only allowed to defend nation when the nation's sovereignty is in danger, unless the nation is guilty of severe human rights abuses such as genocide etc.

Yes, I agree to only use landmines to defend the sovereignty of my nation including strategic deployments of my troops into enemy territory which have for effect of protecting my sovereignty without harming innocents.


2) Landmines produced are not too be sold internationally.

No but I may invest in foreign corporations who will develop my technology and I promise to only sell those in that respective domestic market.


3) If you produce landmines, you MUST have equivilant technology to remove the landmines you plant. So you cannot make a landmine which you don't know how to remove.

My landmines are biodegradeable after a year and here is a repeat of an earlier post: "We are developping mines that have limited lifespans and biodegrade after a year. We also have mines that only activate when detecting chemical compounds like gunpowder or ceramic-armor platings. And we also have passive sensors to prevent explosion if a recognized animal strays near. These are technologies that we are developping."


4) All planted landmines must be recorded in detail as to know where to clear landmines in time of peace so as to prevent injury to civilians and to avoid land being wasted.

See above point, and also our warriors have excellent memories and know where and how to locate our landmines. (Also every landmine that explodes also produces a short burst transmission to reveal its demise and to warn other mines nearby to be at the ready). Sometimes landmines are not planted but airdropped or manoeuvered in by other means which are still secret to the non-initiated.

We have moral mines! (OOC-->wink wink)

Absolutely not. Landmines are vile devices, and we believe there is no such thing as "responsible" use of them.

Not to be able to defend your borders with effective weapons? Is that responsible?

Yes, I agree to only use landmines to defend the sovereignty of my nation including strategic deployments of my troops into enemy territory which have for effect of protecting my sovereignty without harming innocents.



No but I may invest in foreign corporations who will develop my technology and I promise to only sell those in that respective domestic market.



My landmines are biodegradeable after a year and here is a repeat of an earlier post: "We are developping mines that have limited lifespans and biodegrade after a year. We also have mines that only activate when detecting chemical compounds like gunpowder or ceramic-armor platings. And we also have passive sensors to prevent explosion if a recognized animal strays near. These are technologies that we are developping."



See above point, and also our warriors have excellent memories and know where and how to locate our landmines. (Also every landmine that explodes also produces a short burst transmission to reveal its demise and to warn other mines nearby to be at the ready). Sometimes landmines are not planted but airdropped or manoeuvered in by other means which are still secret to the non-initiated.

We have moral mines! (OOC-->wink wink)

1. You are not defending your nation you are invading.

2. No, the corporations must be within your own borders. I will also edit it so the landmine producers cannot be privately owned.

3. Yes

4. Memory is not a database.


Conclusion: Loopholes will be fixed.

If a replacement comes to fruition, how exactly are landmines going to be defined? I see this as quite a major problem - if it's something that goes bang when you step on it, then that would include unexploded ordnance, if it's something that's designed to go bang when pressure is applied, you'll find yourself with a lot of railway crashes. Also, I fear a lack of distinction between anti-personell and anti-tank land mines. The former are pretty nasty, as they blow the legs of kiddies and puppies and whatever as well the enemy, whereas the letter seem pretty acceptable to me, as I cannot see why any civilian would have a good reason to be driving round in a tank - thus they can only really target baddies. Unless there is a nation of sentient military vehicles lurking about.

Basically, I would like a repeal/replace whatsit to come about, but I can't see it being particularly feasible...

Sir Cyril etc.

If a replacement comes to fruition, how exactly are landmines going to be defined? I see this as quite a major problem - if it's something that goes bang when you step on it, then that would include unexploded ordnance, if it's something that's designed to go bang when pressure is applied, you'll find yourself with a lot of railway crashes. Also, I fear a lack of distinction between anti-personell and anti-tank land mines. The former are pretty nasty, as they blow the legs of kiddies and puppies and whatever as well the enemy, whereas the letter seem pretty acceptable to me, as I cannot see why any civilian would have a good reason to be driving round in a tank - thus they can only really target baddies. Unless there is a nation of sentient military vehicles lurking about.

Basically, I would like a repeal/replace whatsit to come about, but I can't see it being particularly feasible...

Sir Cyril etc.

I see your point, and it would be a good compromise to only allow anti-tank mines, but to be effective, you have to use both in conjunction. If you use AP mines by themselves, tanks blow them up running them over, no damage done. If you use AT mines by themselves, you get someone to just dig it put of the ground since they require like 5000kg of pressure to detonate.

1. You are not defending your nation you are invading.

2. No, the corporations must be within your own borders. I will also edit it so the landmine producers cannot be privately owned.

3. Yes

4. Memory is not a database.


Conclusion: Loopholes will be fixed.

1}the word invasion is a value-laden word which is used by the losing side to justify a response. If a nation begins an attack against us, we reserve the right to use efficient strategies to ensure victory even if that places our troops within their capital. These strategies are used to prevent loss of life and to win with the least amount of bloodshed, if we stay put and block the incoming attacks we will always be reacting to the aggressor instead of pro-acting and unbalancing the aggressor which will stop his attack cold. If my strategy is perceived as invasion, then perhaps a review of basic strategy is in order.

That is ok, we can send you some of our Wawis to help you learn the essentials of the Wawa.

2}great! we would not want to share ownership with private interests, we would have joint ownership with other governments, especially the ones who have embraced the Wawa. We would obviously have Wawis as managers though to avoid corruption by private interests.

3}if you are interested in receiving this technology we can send our religious representatives to start up a proper embassy and try to open up a few Obsdevars for the benefit of your citizens and as your converts gain strength we can have this landmine industry in your borders!

4}oral societies rely upon memory and their database is superior to the electronic recordings of the information societies.... jury is still debating the benefits of written society vs oral societies (perhaps its like the rock/paper/scissors game) --> written society is better than the oral society, information society is better than the written society and oral society is better than the information society.

Conclusion}you want more info on my nation's religion?

1}the word invasion is a value-laden word which is used by the losing side to justify a response. If a nation begins an attack against us, we reserve the right to use efficient strategies to ensure victory even if that places our troops within their capital. These strategies are used to prevent loss of life and to win with the least amount of bloodshed, if we stay put and block the incoming attacks we will always be reacting to the aggressor instead of pro-acting and unbalancing the aggressor which will stop his attack cold. If my strategy is perceived as invasion, then perhaps a review of basic strategy is in order.


Ah but can it not be conversely argued that the word defence is an equally value-laden word which is used by an aggressor to justify an invasion? If a nation artificially creates the situation where they blame 'terrorists' or other such undefined groups as being a threat and then claim they reside with in a nation which looks like it holds needed resources or other such thing. Thus a 'defence' can be staged, even pre-emptively and allow for an increased loss of life, more incomming attack and overall greater bloodshed for all. By mining an enemy territory, your not staying put your acting very proactively and infact are further antagonizing any foe to greater conflict. If your strategy, which is clearly in some sense pre-emptive, is not an invasion... then by the most Holy Queen of Reason, your a better Orator than I.

If so, congratulations. You deserve to win then.

Ah but can it not be conversely argued that the word defence is an equally value-laden word which is used by an aggressor to justify an invasion? If a nation artificially creates the situation where they blame 'terrorists' or other such undefined groups as being a threat and then claim they reside with in a nation which looks like it holds needed resources or other such thing. Thus a 'defence' can be staged, even pre-emptively and allow for an increased loss of life, more incomming attack and overall greater bloodshed for all. By mining an enemy territory, your not staying put your acting very proactively and infact are further antagonizing any foe to greater conflict. If your strategy, which is clearly in some sense pre-emptive, is not an invasion... then by the most Holy Queen of Reason, your a better Orator than I.

If so, congratulations. You deserve to win then.

"If oration skills can win a battle without lifting a sword arm then use it with joy for you have created an ally out of the destruction of your enemy." from the Book of The Righteous Warrior (Botrwa), Part IV, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1, Verse 15, The Tarkhan Translation (Pt4, 2-1-15 TT of Botrwa). Look it up.

You show some sparks of knowledge of the Wawa, shall we send you some of our Wawis to further your wisdom?

It is not our position to tell others how to defend their countries.

The morality of it should not be an issue, seeing how if used as defense, the perpetrator should have not illegally crossed the border to begin with.

Perhaps at the very least a more defined cause for ban of landmines. A general ban may be a bit too much.

as I cannot see why any civilian would have a good reason to be driving round in a tank

Sir Cyril etc.

Because driving a tank is fun.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

"If oration skills can win a battle without lifting a sword arm then use it with joy for you have created an ally out of the destruction of your enemy." from the Book of The Righteous Warrior (Botrwa), Part IV, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1, Verse 15, The Tarkhan Translation (Pt4, 2-1-15 TT of Botrwa). Look it up.

You show some sparks of knowledge of the Wawa, shall we send you some of our Wawis to further your wisdom?

The Evoinia People gladly accept any gift of any nationg which it respects.
So then, we do accept.

- Maximillian Renault, The Right Honorable Vice-Commisar of The United Socialist States of Evoinia, Speaker of the Evoinian People's Grand Soviet,
Ambassador of The Progressive Allied Union to the Socialist, Democratic and Liberal Nations of the World and Commander in Chief of the Evoinia National Defence Forces.

A private message has been sent by diplomatic courier. We will most likely post this same message for others in the NationStates forum as opposed to the UN forum so we may just refer others to that as we reveal our religion to others.

Because driving a tank is fun.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Not only that, but it's very practical. I find that dealing with traffic is much easier in my tank.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

We absolutely forbade the use of land mines in National Defense, in other countries.

Anything we can do to support the banning of defensive weapons by potential future enemies is our duty.

We are here to help enforce such bans also!

UIOT, Ministry of Offense

The day that we negate the meaning of a resolution because of an obvious typographical error (even one as fortuitous as a missing "r" that results in designating an unlikely geographic entity) is the day that much of the legislation for which this body is responsible is nullified.

Oh, happy day! ;)

Also, I fear a lack of distinction between anti-personell and anti-tank land mines. The former are pretty nasty, as they blow the legs of kiddies and puppies and whatever as well the enemy, whereas the letter seem pretty acceptable to me, as I cannot see why any civilian would have a good reason to be driving round in a tank - thus they can only really target baddies. Unless there is a nation of sentient military vehicles lurking about.

"THERE IS SUCH A NATION" remarked a high-tech 'Continental Siege Unit', massing several hundred tonnes, which had entered the UN Building two days ago but apparently not been noticed by anybody until now...

The use of landmines is abhorant and will not be tolerated by Ki Baratan. Even if a complete lockdown on when mines could be used was put into effect, how able is everyone's respective police force to ensure that these mines are not placed into the hands of terrorist or criminal organizations? Unfortunately, I fail to see how ringing your country in bombs will defend your country. A truly determined attacker would simply bomb a country via the air or water once they realized mines were placed around the countryside. To conclude, Ki Baratan opposes the repeal based on lack of evidence of proper control of mines, and lack of use for actually defending territory.

"THERE IS SUCH A NATION" remarked a high-tech 'Continental Siege Unit', massing several hundred tonnes, which had entered the UN Building two days ago but apparently not been noticed by anybody until now...

"Oy, hear hear. Most all the technology in the Commonwealth is AI driven now. My... 'car' would be mighty displeased were it destroyed on a leisurely trip to another nation by something as unintelligent as a bomb with a pressure sensor on it." Wolfgang looked off for a second, as though he was thinking, then mumbled to himself. "Wait... what if there was a nation of sentient landmines?"

Illustration to explain why some may still choose to use mines.

As a patient is slowly dying of cancer, the physician does chemotherapy which is very unpleasant for the patient. This chemotherapy is almost killing the patient himself. Yet it is done because ultimately the patient survives and the cancer is gone. There is no moral outrage in using this cure which may or may not work, there is only the hope that the patient will survive the process and be cured.

Using mines is not a morally deficient activity, the purpose is to save lives. A scalpel is not to be banned because some weakling of spirit and mind decides to use the scalpel as a murdering weapon. The physician can still use the scalpel to save lives by proper use in surgery. It may seem that the physician and the weak-minded are doing the same action because you can see blood coming out of the slice. But we assure you, with proper motive the scalpel, like the mine can have its proper use.

This is the reason why we support a repeal, but not a replacement/renewal. If any doubt the veracity of my wisdom, I can always send you some of my Wawis to your nation and instruct you in the Wawa.

I don't want the UN telling me how I can or cannot defend my nation. Seeing as it's government's #1 priority-defending the nation from outside attack, this issue is a matter of self determination.
DON'T TREAD ON ME

For any who consider themselves friends of ShogunKhan nation, and wish to learn why mines are a proper weapon; we invite you to our newest thread in the NationStates forum titled "Religion of ShogunKhan, The spread of Wonderful War"

See you there!

I think the UN often oversteps its boundaries, but banning the use of landmines is a GOOD thing and something the UN SHOULD be used for. There are better ways to fight that don't end up with such high civilian casualties.

When you repeal a resolution like this, you start getting to the point of repealing for the sake of repealing.

I think the UN often oversteps its boundaries, but banning the use of landmines is a GOOD thing and something the UN SHOULD be used for. There are better ways to fight that don't end up with such high civilian casualties.

When you repeal a resolution like this, you start getting to the point of repealing for the sake of repealing.

Excuse me? There is validity in my repeal thank you.


By the way everyone, the main argument for the repeal has been to defend one's nation. All you have said is "Defend with other weapons". Well, that's all we've heard, can't we get something deeper concerning we have refuted you saying landmines are very effective and can deter a possible invasion.

To The Most Glorious Hack,
um sorry for the message, unfortunately I forgot what was stated. Could you send me a copy onto my nationstate telegram place? dont want to rewrite bad etiquette stuff even accidently.

Just don't be rude and insulting to other players and you'll be fine.