NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

Noting the Spirit of Resolution #111 to protect civilians in times of war,

Noting the economic damages, political animosity, and the unnecessary and unintended casualties caused by inaccurate weaponry,

Noting that the advancement of technology has rendered inaccurate bombing techniques obsolete, inefficient, and relatively ineffective,

Requires all member nations with aerial military forces to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive ordnance,

Requires all member nations to make no effort to interfere with the functionality of these guidance packages without disabling the ordnance in its entirety,

Requires all member nations to continually strive to improve the accuracy of its guidance packages to further reduce civilian casualties in wartime.

.........................................................................................

so, on this proposal, im assuming it'd go under global disarmament as it bans 'dumb' weapons. and id go with significant as strength, but that's the big question i have.....

comments?

The United Nations,

Noting the Spirit of Resolution #111 to protect civilians in times of war,

Noting the economic damages, political animosity, and the unnecessary and unintended casualties caused by inaccurate weaponry,

Noting that the advancement of technology has rendered inaccurate bombing techniques obsolete, inefficient, and relatively ineffective,

Requires all member nations with aerial military forces to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive ordnance,

Requires all member nations to make no effort to interfere with the functionality of these guidance packages without disabling the ordnance in its entirety,

Requires all member nations to continually strive to improve the accuracy of its guidance packages to further reduce civilian casualties in wartime.

.........................................................................................

so, on this proposal, im assuming it'd go under global disarmament as it bans 'dumb' weapons. and id go with significant as strength, but that's the big question i have.....

comments?

Not all nations have the funds to afford this, and if someone is dropping a smart bomb on me, I'm going to use every means I have to stop it from dropping where they want it.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador

A very nervous, young man sat in Ambassador Seigfried's chair. He fidgeted a bit, wondering why in heck this had to happen to him. He stood up hesitantly. "Umm...yes, Ambassador Seigfried met with an unfortunate accident involving his briefcase...I mean a plane crash. I, Gregory Placeholder, will be filling in for the Ambassador until he is well."

He turned to address the amdbassador from Decapod Ten. Placeholder glanced down at his notes of Mr. Seigfried's opinions on the subject. After trying to decipher the morphine-addled scrawl, he gave up and faced the author of this proposal. "As near as I can understand...I mean, the Catawaban government sees a great many things wrong with this proposal."

He was about to sit down when Ambassador Seigfried's aide nudged the interim ambassador back to his feet and hissed something at him. "Oh yes! Our Miraade and commander-in-chief, would like to question how one renders a falling guided munition harmless in mid-flight. He would like to know as he supposes that he is target number one in any potential surgical strike at Catawaban infrastructure.

Also, we would like to point out that requiring guided air-drop munitions does nothing to prevent collateral damage from artillery shelling or rocket attacks or any number of non-aerial munitions."

Not all nations have the funds to afford this, and if someone is dropping a smart bomb on me, I'm going to use every means I have to stop it from dropping where they want it.

I agree that not all nations have the funding to do this. yet with power comes responsibillity, and when going to war certain procautions for the protections of civilians must be taken. It is probably most cost effective to nuke a nation to hell, but there are prohibitions from that. i can see the arguement that this goes to far in prohibitions of types of conventional weaponry though, but respectfully disagree. as to disabling the guidance systems here's my line of thought: bombers with guidance systems attack a city, hits only (or at least 98% accurately hits) millitary/industrial targets. if the guidance systems are disabled, it turns into dresden, which, in addition to destroying the factories, devastates the civillian population. to me the resolution erradicates more barbaric bombing practices of the world. furthermore, the resolution still allows a nation to fully disable the munition, just not the guidance system alone which would lead to devastation.

Our Miraade and commander-in-chief, would like to question how one renders a falling guided munition harmless in mid-flight. He would like to know as he supposes that he is target number one in any potential surgical strike at Catawaban infrastructure.

Also, we would like to point out that requiring guided air-drop munitions does nothing to prevent collateral damage from artillery shelling or rocket attacks or any number of non-aerial munitions."

first, id like to thank the ambassador for the question, as i should have explained it better in the original post. disabling a guidance system might be possible with jamming, or a EMP or such. Disabling the entire munition could be achieved through a crazy missle shield, be it a star wars system, or shooting it. i added this section to maintain accuracy of the weapons to reduce civillian casualties, because without the passage, an arms race centered around who can disable who's systems is created; and innaccuracy would lead to civillian death.

second id like to agree with the Catawaban ambassador's comment that this resolution does nothing to combat artillery or rocket attacks. rocket attacks could very well be added into the resolution as they are easily guided. this is also a good addition because submarines can launch cruise missiles just as easily as planes. as for artillery, i dont know how you would guide them; stuffing a computer chip into a shell and expecting it to survive the 1000 Gs of force i see as unrealistic.

Ladies, gentlemen, ambassadors, legates, and emissaries alike: Greetings!

There is too much to say about this proposal that I fear that if I were to fully expound I would be guilty of bogarting the floor.

What is the meat of the matter? What is it that the good ambassador from Decapod Ten wants to be heard and felt by this body? Is it truly a concern for non-combatant citizens in war torn areas? If that is so then this proposal does nothing for that but in fact if enacted only fuels the massive military complex of any and all UN Member States. Pardon me …

(Jots a note down on the yellow pad in from of him, “Check stock price and holdings in Elmwood Courts’ Massive Military Complex Corp. first thing in the morning")

I say, pardon me. But if we really wish to protect civilians in war torn areas why don’t we work to stop war?

Where commerce freely crosses borders bullets, smart or dumb ones, don’t.

Thank you. I surrender the floor.

yes, yes it is a concern for civillians in war torn areas. the invasion of iraq had fewer civilian casualties because of smart weapons. whereas in WWII, carpet and firebombing of cities was commonplace, acceptable, and devastating.

and, while acknowledging the militaristic effects of this proposal, the reduction of civilian death is in itself a noble cause, and that is the purpose of this proposal.

OOC:
Decapod Ten....NationStates DOES NOT EQUAL Real Life. And here on NationStates, Casualities of war are often chosen by the nation being attacked and if that nation wants to RP as some of their civilian populace are killed, even by smart weapons, they can.

IC:
"I still don't see why this is something that the United Nations should be worried with. Smart weapons won't help if a military base is built right smack dab in the middle of a residential area. collateral damage would destroy many civilian houses, thus making this proposal utterly worthless."

yes, yes it is a concern for civillians in war torn areas. the invasion of iraq had fewer civilian casualties because of smart weapons. whereas in WWII, carpet and firebombing of cities was commonplace, acceptable, and devastating.

and, while acknowledging the militaristic effects of this proposal, the reduction of civilian death is in itself a noble cause, and that is the purpose of this proposal.Ahhhh, good sir, I say ahhhhh. Was the more effective manner in pin pointing military targets brought about by UN intervention? Or was it that particular Nation States’ desire to be more combat effective and the progression to make a better, a smarter, bomb driven by a free market economy? It may be argued it is not the latter but it cannot be argued it is the former. Building a better mouse trap and then selling that bigger, badder mouse trap is what it's all about. And to better accomplish that, it need not to be fettered by various UN resolutions.

Your proposal, good sir, albeit unintentional I am most sure, requires all nation states that are UN members to deploy monies to a military when we know that there are several nation states that belong to this body that have no military. This proposal would submit entire populations into economic slavery, forcing them to spend monies on a thing they have decided by their own sovereignty not to have. If you look at the nations that hold no military you’ll notice a common thread. They spend a lot of money on their own people in social programs thus effectively helping their own citizens. With money being forcibly shifted to an expensive high technological military project, these people suffer all the while hoping they don’t go to war so that as soon as it over they can help some other people of another nation not to suffer.

Your proposal, good sir, albeit unintentional I am most sure, if implemented would prevent a warring nation from stopping incoming smart bombs unless it is by a method so stated herein, which may or not exist, but we’ll spend the money on R&D to try and figure it out for years to come; further taxing the monetary systems of any UN member state against her will.

With all due respect sir, it’s not your money keep your hands off of it.

War happens. It’s unfortunate and should be avoided as much as possible because war is bad for business in the long run. But if war were to happen then a swift end to it seems the most humane for all. Over whelming superior firepower and brutal tactics to drive the opposing force(s) into instant submission is the key to winning any war. How a nation chooses to do that cannot be fettered by a UN resolution or resolutions.

Thank you, I surrender the floor.

reduction of civillian casualties doesnt seem like a worthy cause for the UN to people? ok...... i guess....

also, i am well aware that this isnt real life, i am not actually a communist jewish lobster leader of a planet. yeah, i know they can and will adding their own casualties. i have no problem with casualty figures, smart weapons by no means end civillian casualties, and as far as i know, when roleplaying, nations can ignore the UN as they choose. how would this proposal effect roleplaying?

Smart weapons won't help if a military base is built right smack dab in the middle of a residential area. collateral damage would destroy many civilian houses, thus making this proposal utterly worthless

wait. what? ok, March 1, 1945 the United States of America burns 100k to death in Tokyo. We did that because we couldnt acurately destroy the factories. Fast forward to Baghdad, march 20-23, 2003, Shock and Awe, where the US used smart bombs to level government buildings at the very core of the city, and they did this without burning the city to the ground like dresden or tokyo. this difference is indeed tangible, and at least in the views of the decapodians, good.

frankly, i see passport standardization, and labeling standards as worthless, yet theyre resolutions #123 and #226. i see this proposal as highly similar to the landmine ban, #40, with the same intent, fewer civillians die.

"Yet, even smart weapons can land in the wrong place. And a fair amount of Nations cannot afford Smart Weapons, let alone want these types of weapons. So why mandate that they have smart bombs when they would enjoy having dumb bombs better?"

First i would like to appologize to the ambassador for responding to him out of turn, but i posted apparently at the same moment as he.

Ahhhh, good sir, I say ahhhhh. Was the more effective manner in pin pointing military targets brought about by UN intervention? Or was it that particular Nation States’ desire to be more combat effective and the progression to make a better, a smarter, bomb driven by a free market economy? It may be argued it is not the latter but it cannot be argued it is the former. Building a better mouse trap and then selling that bigger, badder mouse trap is what it's all about. And to better accomplish that, it need not to be fettered by various UN resolutions.

True good sir, that the strategy change was not do to UN intervention, the real UN isnt omnipotent.

Your proposal, good sir, albeit unintentional I am most sure, requires all nation states that are UN members to deploy monies to a military when we know that there are several nation states that belong to this body that have no military.

Here good sir, i respectfully disagree, as you see, the language of the proposal is "Requires all member nations with aerial military forces..." thus member nations without aerial millitary forces are exempt, practically speaking, what would they put guidance systems on? yet thanks to the ambassador's comments, i shall redraft with greater emphasis on the protections for nations without millitaries.

Your proposal, good sir, albeit unintentional I am most sure, if implemented would prevent a warring nation from stopping incoming smart bombs unless it is by a method so stated herein, which may or not exist, but we’ll spend the money on R&D to try and figure it out for years to come; further taxing the monetary systems of any UN member state against her will.

It is not my intention to stop nations from defending themselves from bombs, but from preventing them from disabling the guidance systems which would unleash a random hail of bombs upon the land and the civilian populace thereof. If a nation wishes to devote its funding to developing a shield that will disable incoming projectiles, that is within its sovereign rights; such shields are being developed to stop unguided munitions currently.

How a nation chooses to do that cannot be fettered by a UN resolution or resolutions.

Now this, good sir, is simply not true. May i point the ambassador to UN resolution #40, the ban on landmines.

The resolution is not about a bigger mousetrap, it is about a more humane mousetrap. Poison is effective at killing mice, but pets are suseptible to inprecission of that poison. A mousetrap that kills only mice is preferable.

thank you mister ambassador

as to Shazbotdom, i would suggest that there is a responsibillity that comes with military power, a responsibillity to conduct its business in humane methods. Poor governments are unable to dump toxic waste in the seas {actually i should check that..... cuase that proposal would just sail through} because it is detrimental to the good of humanity. and yes, smart weapons do sometimes miss, yet undeniably fewer of them miss than dumb weapons.

The United Nations

Noting the Spirit of Resolution #111 to protect civilians in times of war,

Noting the economic damages, political animosity, and the unnecessary and unintended casualties caused by inaccurate weaponry,

Noting that the advancement of technology has rendered inaccurate bombing tactics obsolete, inefficient, barbaric, and relatively ineffective,

Emphasizing the responsibility of nations to protect the innocent,

Requires all member nations with aerial military forces, and only those with aerial military forces, to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive munitions, be they aerially dropped, or launched via rocketry.

Requires all member nations, for the goal of protecting their civilians, to make no effort to interfere with the functionality of these guidance packages without disabling the ordnance in its entirety.

Requires all member nations with effected military forces to continually strive to improve the accuracy of its guidance packages to further reduce civilian casualties in wartime.

Gregory Placeholder was again nudged to his feet with the aide shoving a piece of paper into his hand. "Alright, Churchill, alright!" Placeholder hissed to the insistent aide.

The aide, William M. Churchil, had apparently deciphered Seigfried's painkiller-induce chickenscratch. That alone made Placeholder wonder why Churchill wasn't interim ambassador. Gregory cleared his throat. "The government of Catawaba sees this as an uneeded piece of legislaton. The drive for more accurate precision munitions is one that any military power must pursue to remain viable in modern warfare. One cannot afford to wase a strike mission on errant weaponry."

"We also cannot support any ban on methods of jamming or otherwise disabling the guidance systems of munitions launched in anger against us. While it would be a tragic blow for even one Catawaban to die because a munition rendered blind by the Catawaban military's efforts, the Catawaban military is not in the practice of taking lethal fire that could otherwise destroy our only means of defending our people from further attacks. To quote a famous general, 'No one has ever one a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other poor SOB die for his country.'"

The problem with any limitations on the weaponry UN nations use is that it leaves us at a severe disadvantage any time we war with non-UN nations.

No.

OOC: Some nations in the UN don't have 'modern' technology yet. At least one of them, Cobdenia, is stuck in a strange time-warp that actually changes all imported high-tech items into items of types that already exist at the local (early 1930s) tech-level...

The Principality maintains only a small airforce, of a non-offensive, and even ceremonial purpose; therefore, we wonder why should we invest in weaponry that will most likely not be used?

Moreover, we wonder what may be the results of detonating incoming missiles over civilian areas, as the standing proposal prohibits us from interfering with the guidance equipment, thereby requiring us to destroy the ammunition rather than change its course and deflect it.
This seems to us to be a rather more barbaric solution, with the possibility to risk the health of civilians than interfering and deflecting the ammunition.
Moreover, this does put us at a disadvantage against non-UN nations as others have pointed out. As the delegate from Catawaba pointed out, this will decide a war simply by who will fire first; the agressor wins, by putting out all defensive means, as counterstrikes at these weapons are all but forbidden under this proposal.
We also wonder why this should be limited to countries with an airforce, as it is possible to launch said weaponry from other points, either terrestrial or naval. So, if we do away with our already limited airforce, we can launch whatever we wish.

Respectfully,

Count de Saint-Germain à Clerques,
Commodore in HSH's Navy,
National Emissary to the NSUN
for the Principality of Beaucalsradt

What my esteemed colleague from Decapod Ten simply does not seem to grasp is that there are nations in this body who, due to the state of their technology, do not have the capacity to develop smart bombs and missile shields. Some who's only recourse in war is to resort to the tactics like those used in the mythical town of Dresden. Wherever the hell that is.

We deplore the killing of citizens, and non combatants, we strive with every advance in our missile systems to ensure this risk is limited. We think the all UN nations should strive for this, but we are a realistic nation who realizes that there are others who are not as fortunate.

Our realism also tells us that disabling a smart bomb with an EMP will not work. It will turn it into a dumb bomb, which could drop into a civilian area. Also destruction of the warhead without civilian casualties become impossible after the bomb has reached a certain altitude. So therefore sans an extremely expensive and often unreliable missile defense system, our only recourse under international law is to let the bomb hit it's target. I am only a senior officer and would never speak for our overall commander, nor president however I'm certain, that would be a very unpopular option for us.

Adm Joshua Hutchinson
USoP UN Military Attache'

Wolfgang mumbled to himself, "Love them particle weapons." and stood. "The problem, as I see it, is that this is far to small a niche of the war machine that you are targeting. Rockets, which you say can be guided, are, in fact, specifically not, probably to keep cost and complexity down, and are often used in swarms. Furthermore, unless you were to count our unmanned robotic fighter-craft as missiles themselves, this would not stop them, as they use EMP, laser, particle, and I don't even know what other kinds of weapons. And it's true they're ridiculously accurate, in the Commonwealth, anyway, the point being that only our own morals prevent them attacking civilian targets. If you wrote a resolution specifically fighting intentional or semi-intentional civilian casualties, such as this... 'Tokyo' you speak of, it would be much more effective. You must also keep in mind that developing the guidance system isn't the end of it. Most of the most successful guided missile systems require an expensive GPS network that might not even exist in some countries that have militaries falling under this resolution's command. As I said, this is just far to small an area of effect to really be of particular use as a resolution."

My good sirs, if this proposal puts us at a disadvantage to non-UN members, that is a choice we make to live by less barbaric rules than they. We UN members are bound by resolutions not to utilize slavery, or Bio-Agents, because of the savagery of these tactics, despite the inherent advantage that those limitations gives to our enemies. Why should we continue to allow such inhumane tactics as unguided munitions?

If nations find guidance packages to expensive, shouldnt their airforce itself be to expensive? My esteemed colleague from Beaucalsradt suggests his airforce is for ceremonial purposes and will likely never be used militarily. I ask him why then are these planes loaded with unguided munitions, or any munitions at all? If his air force is truly non-functional, how would this proposal effect it? We do thank the ambassador for illuminating a grammatical flaw in the proposal's language that exempts all rocketry not aerially launched, I assure the Count de Saint-Germain à Clerques that this flaw shall be remedied, and was not the intention of Decapod Ten.

To the ambassador from Philimbesi, we Decapodians are well aware that there are nations that lack the technology to develop these weapons. Acceptable technology is readily available on the markets. More importantly, these nations, by joining the United Nations are accepting responsibility to adhere to the rules of warfare, the proposal is only an addendum to the existing rules.

Decapod Ten is also extremely aware that missile shields do not exist. By no means do we intend to encourage the development thereof. It should be noted however that such a shield could be developed and used against non-guided munitions. We are also aware that an EMP will only change a smart bomb to a dumb bomb, that is why the resolution prohibits this tactic. And while destroying ordnance above civilian areas is indeed dangerous, letting it fall into those areas is undeniably more dangerous.

Addressing the Wolf Guardians' ambassador's comments, a more comprehensive definition of weaponry is perhaps useful. The Republic of Decapod Ten is currently drafting a resolution further prohibiting attacks on civilians, yet it is only possible to outlaw intentionally killing civilians, and this resolution is to limit the number of unintentional casualties.

While this resolution is not an all-encompassing abolition of war, no such legislation is possible. The rock of war will not be broken to sand in a single blow, but by a thousand waves.




oh, and anybody think the classification should be anything other than significant?

Platitudes of war aside, there are nations in this body who's time frame does not allow them to have guided bombs... that's it. Their time frames allow planes and airforces but not guided bombs.

I worry that my Kingdom could be left facing stronger enemies.

Why can't we go back to war by words?

"Illustrious deligate of Decapod Ten.

As a few have stated before, some don't even have the technology, or havn't even reached the technology legel to develop or purchase weapons of the type that you are mandating. Not all nations within the United Nations here are modernized. Some are still strugging in Era's where all the weapons that they have to drop from planes are Dumb Bombs. What do you suggest they do? They can't afford to develop this stuff, nor do they have the proper aircraft technology to carry and deliver these items to their targets.

Please tell me what you expect those UN Member nations to do."

We don't need to build MORE weapons we should build less and let civilions have rights to own weaponry during times of war, why bother trying to spend all funds on anti-weaponry?

We don't need to build MORE weapons we should build less and let civilions have rights to own weaponry during times of war, why bother trying to spend all funds on anti-weaponry?

"Illustrious deligate of Bundie Trade Company.

Yes. I do agree that war is never a viable solution. But if the United Nations passes laws restricing the building of weapons, that will put all UN Member nations at a disadvantage to those nations that are Not United Nations Member nations. You see, UN Resolutions don't have any effect on those nations that are not members of the United Nations."

Here's an idea, how about weaker nations are donated weaponry seized by the UN.

Here's an idea, how about weaker nations are donated weaponry seized by the UN.

"The United Nations cannot seize weapons as the United Nations doesn't have it's own military."

Hmmm.
how about a resolution to make all wars fair to the era of the 'most backward' player?

Interim Ambassador Gregory Placeholder fumbled through his notes on the subject. Diplomatic Aide William M. Churchill groaned and stood up. "If the United Nations were able to mandate that wars were organized in fair structures akin to ancient dueling customs, there would mostly likely never be wars."

OOC: Dukesburyshire, if yer talkin' about the wars in the International Incidents forum, then it's up the discretion of the players involved. Otherwise, the UN couldn't mandate that if they wanted to....though it'd be interesting to see a 'reverse arms race' as nations attempted to establish an expertise in more 'primitive' forms of warfare. Be warned that Catawaba is already perfecting its Mk. 87 Human-Launched Lithic Kinetic Kill Munition, more widely know at a 'big rock'.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Dictatorship of Drygon would choose to vote against any such regulations. Times of war always have been and always will be causes of civilian casualties. But this is not a bad thing. We believe it is every citizen's duty to uphold the beliefs of his or her nation and protect it at any cost, even if the price to pay is one's life. That is why The National Army of Drygon is a requirement for all young men of our nation. They fight for our glory. I would expect the citizens of any other nation where military service is not mandetory to be willing to do the same if they truly love their land. Wars cannot be won without eliminating the enemy. The enemy includes all people's there within any one nation.

So in summary, this issue shall be wholeheartily voted against in the name of Prime Minister Mystic of Drygon.

- Ambassador Arsene

"Just because someone lives in a nation doesn't mean they have to suddenly stand up and fight for their nation. There are people who are 'pacifists' and believe that war isn't right no matter what. There are also people who think that their govenment should back out of the war and give up. Many different types of people live in a nation so stating that innocent civilians are viable targets in an armed conflict is just wrong.

But. In your words. If my nation and yours were at war. Then I could bomb a grade school because those little kids were civilians in your nation and that would be acceptable?"

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Dictatorship of Drygon would choose to vote against any such regulations. Times of war always have been and always will be causes of civilian casualties. But this is not a bad thing. We believe it is every citizen's duty to uphold the beliefs of his or her nation and protect it at any cost, even if the price to pay is one's life. That is why The National Army of Drygon is a requirement for all young men of our nation. They fight for our glory. I would expect the citizens of any other nation where military service is not mandetory to be willing to do the same if they truly love their land. Wars cannot be won without eliminating the enemy. The enemy includes all people's there within any one nation.

So in summary, this issue shall be wholeheartily voted against in the name of Prime Minister Mystic of Drygon.

- Ambassador Arsene

In a time of war, such losses would be acceptable.
Those remaining would know how glorious a nation they live in seeing that the enemy has resolved to fighting small children instead of the men on the front lines. Such an assault merely shows the true cowardice of any invasion.

- Ambassador Arsene

"Yeah. But by those terms also. A full out nuclear firestorm would just wipe your nation from existance, yet the deaths of those innocents in your nation would be justified.

There would be no one to know the glory of those service men and women in your nation if your nation is wiped off the face of the planet."

"Just because someone lives in a nation doesn't mean they have to suddenly stand up and fight for their nation. There are people who are 'pacifists' and believe that war isn't right no matter what. There are also people who think that their govenment should back out of the war and give up. Many different types of people live in a nation so stating that innocent civilians are viable targets in an armed conflict is just wrong.

But. In your words. If my nation and yours were at war. Then I could bomb a grade school because those little kids were civilians in your nation and that would be acceptable?"

In a time of war, such losses would be acceptable.
Those remaining would know how glorious a nation they live in seeing that the enemy has resolved to fighting small children instead of the men on the front lines. Such an assault merely shows the true cowardice of any invasion.

- Ambassador Arsene

"Yeah. But by those terms also. A full out nuclear firestorm would just wipe your nation from existance, yet the deaths of those innocents in your nation would be justified.

There would be no one to know the glory of those service men and women in your nation if your nation is wiped off the face of the planet."

Such military failures are unacceptable.
I believe Prime Minister Mystic would agree with me that he would sooner our nation not exist than to tolerate complete failure.

-Ambassador Arsene

Philimbesi, ill look into addressing this....... itll be some really wierd language, but ill addrress it...... once i finish a different paper for a conference in michigan.....

My esteemed colleagues, let us not bicker on what casualties are acceptable, and debate the merits of murdering children, let us debate the merits of the resolution. regardless of who is in a nations millitary, the economic assets alone protected by this resolution will bolster any nation, even one immune to empathy with those who have lost their life. It is undeniable that residential housing units are not a significant target during wartime. It is undeniable that any nation has a legitimate reason for targeting these units (except Carpenteristan....... that sneaky bastard) after any war the economic damage will eventually harm the economy of all nations, those involved or not. Surely Ambassador Arsene, even if life is not important to your nation, money is.

Decapod Ten is remiss to note your views that civilians do not exist, and reference you to any anti-genocide doctrine. We do agree however, that this resolution is diametrically opposed to your aims. We assume that only those nations who's military aims are not genocide will support this resolution. We thank you for your comments and any additional constructive criticism you may have.

Today's guest ambassador from Catawaba was none other than General Tom Waverly, commander of the Catawaba Air Force and Secretary General of the Catawaba War Office. Gregory Placeholder, interim UN ambassador, sat dejectedly behind General Waverly as the Catawaban government was quickly losing faith in him. General Waverly cleared his throat and rose to his impressive height. He was a rail thin man but without being scrawny.

He placed his arms behind his back in a relaxed parade rest. "I would like to applaud the ambassador from Decapod Ten for this sentiments. His crusade to prevent civilian causalities is noble and within the aim and ideals of the Catawaban Air Force. With due respect however, economic destruction is many times the objective of any aerial bombing campaign. Factories, transportation infrastructure, and civilian communications centers are all viable targets. Many times the goal of any armed conflict is not the elmination of any enemy's armed forces. Of course, the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight is ideal without collateral damage, but as I said many times war's objectives are to destroy the will to fight. Destruction of civilian infrastructure accomplishes that goal."

"Also the price of a GPS guidiance package can be nearly five times as much as the unguided munition it is fitted to. While Catawaba is investing in this technology, we do it because it is efficient. Targets will require less munitions to destroy, not require extra fuel expenditures per target for follow up strikes, and our pilots will not be put in increased dangers striking targets where the enemy is sure we must return to ensure its destruction. That civilian lives are saved is a collateral bonus, if you will."

Waverly shrugged. "That is frank and cold, but there you are. We reduce civilian casualties in enemy territories when possible, but my first duty is to protect and defend the Catawaban people. Also, Ambassador, I disagree that a residential target is never a viable target during wartime. Enemies can and do hold up in residences using inhabitants as human shields. Again all effort will be made to prevent civilian deaths, but as before my duty is to the Catawaba people and also the men and women I command. Thank you."

With due respect however, economic destruction is many times the objective of any aerial bombing campaign. Factories, transportation infrastructure, and civilian communications centers are all viable targets. Many times the goal of any armed conflict is not the elmination of any enemy's armed forces. Of course, the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight is ideal without collateral damage, but as I said many times war's objectives are to destroy the will to fight. Destruction of civilian infrastructure accomplishes that goal."

Targets will require less munitions to destroy, not require extra fuel expenditures per target for follow up strikes, and our pilots will not be put in increased dangers striking targets where the enemy is sure we must return to ensure its destruction. That civilian lives are saved is a collateral bonus, if you will."

Waverly shrugged. "That is frank and cold, but there you are. We reduce civilian casualties in enemy territories when possible, but my first duty is to protect and defend the Catawaban people. Also, Ambassador, I disagree that a residential target is never a viable target during wartime. Enemies can and do hold up in residences using inhabitants as human shields. Again all effort will be made to prevent civilian deaths, but as before my duty is to the Catawaba people and also the men and women I command. Thank you."

General Waverly, I would like you to know that Decapod Ten favors the execution of Gregory Placeholder because in so very many words he failed to say what you magnificently did in so very few. You have hit the crux of the matter good sir.

It is not in the spirit of the proposal, nor the letter to change targeting residential targets. It is in the proposal to hit them accurately. A train station, a radio station, a power plant, among others can easily be a legitimate target. If Catawaba's air force is charged with destroying a radio station, why destroy the adjacent hospital? If an enemy is holed up in a residence, why destroy the neighboring daycare?

I assure you all that this proposal will not forbid attacks on civilian targets. it will forbid innacurate, reckless attacks on civilian targets.

And if I may be so bold General, might i use your phrasing "civilian lives are saved is a collateral bonus" and derivations thereof for the purposes of explaining the proposal?

"While we are interested in a general resolution that would stop the killings of civilians, we don't like being forced to use cruise missles (as this resolution would currently require us to do if we have an air force, even if said air force was purely for spying on the enemy, if you will). We don't even have an army, you know, and in case we do have to fight a war, we'd rather fight a simple gurellia battle, house by house, rather than striking from the air. A more personal conflict, if you will.

More importantly though, if a nation was attacking me, I would really want to stop their "smart weapons". After all, targeting radio stations instead of civilians homes will save civilians' lives...but our nation needs to stay alive too, and we want to protect our stations!

We wish you good luck anyway."---Dr. Bob

More importantly though, if a nation was attacking me, I would really want to stop their "smart weapons". After all, targeting radio stations instead of civilians homes will save civilians' lives...but our nation needs to stay alive too, and we want to protect our stations!


Exactly!

The nation is to be thought of first in any conflict.
As such, it should be perfectly fair to use all mean of mass destruction.

This "smart weapon" proposal puts the smaller nations at a disadvantage. Larger nations will have as many smart weapons as they want to walk all over small nations, while the smaller nations are defenseless to fight back because their only means of doing so would be disallowed by the United Nations. If we are engaged in a conflict, we intend to fully use every resource avalable to obliterate the enemy AND their people.

- Ambassadore Arsene of Drygon

General Waverly raised an eyebrow at the remarks of Dr. Bob and Ambassador Arsene. "Gentlemen...do you ever take a look at your nations defense expenditures? The average cruise missile can cost around five hundred thousand universal stadard dollars. A freefall, guided munition costs around twenty-four to twenty-five thousand USDs. Counting in whatever cost of the bigger, more expensive platforms to launch cruise missiles if you didn't have the budget for a JDAM-like weapon...how do you afford to launch cruise missiles?"

While we are interested in a general resolution that would stop the killings of civilians, we don't like being forced to use cruise missles (as this resolution would currently require us to do if we have an air force, even if said air force was purely for spying on the enemy, if you will

Thank you Dr. Bob, i will continue to add emphasis to the language in the resolution stating that only ordnance is effected, it is the intent of the resolution to require only those airforces with explosive ordnance (i.e. not machine guns) to use guidance systems. the resolution by no means is intended to require the use of any weapon of any kind, spyplanes should remain unnaffected.

Larger nations will have as many smart weapons as they want to walk all over small nations, while the smaller nations are defenseless to fight back because their only means of doing so would be disallowed by the United Nations.

I think you misunderstand the scope of this proposal. It requires guidance packages on bombs. 'Dumb-Bombs' are those that are unguided, 'Smart-Bombs' are those that are guided, and are vastly more accurate; such as the united states J-SOW. This proposal by no means restricts your abbillity to have nukes, chem weapons, bio weapons, giant crazy microwave lazers. It only requires that your bombs {oooooohhhhhhhh i should add a clause stating that conventional and unconventional weapons are both covered.....} are guided. now, why you wouldnt have a guidance system on a nuke is beyond me. The proposal is mainly intended to end saturation/carpet/morale bombing techniques; or rather to make it damn obvious that a nation is intending to kill civilians rather than suggest they are using barbaric techniques because of technological limitations (which makes the genocide trial all the more easy).

General McLain of the Autoganian Air Force respectfully asks this of Decapod Ten "The AAF and it's Rules of Engagement only allow carpet bombing in areas where there is little to no chance of a civilian presence, for example an armoured column moving through a desert, while precision strikes are used in civilian centers. It is my duty to inform you that if this proposal comes to vote, The Allied States of Autogania will vote nay, as poor nations, technologically impaired nations, and other circumstances, go against a nations obligation to protect it's citizens from harm."

Why would you carpet bomb a desert? Do you hate scorpions? Might I quote Catawaba, Also the price of a GPS guidiance package can be nearly five times as much as the unguided munition it is fitted to. While Catawaba is investing in this technology, we do it because it is efficient. Targets will require less munitions to destroy, not require extra fuel expenditures per target for follow up strikes, and our pilots will not be put in increased dangers striking targets where the enemy is sure we must return to ensure its destruction.

personally i would dispute the 5x figure, but that could only be accomplished in reality, or perhaps catawaba just has plenty of steel and advanced chemicals and very few computers.... i dont know. id love to bring in proof that smart bombs are more cost efficient, but dont have the time. it took 1000 bombers to bomb dresden, and most of the damage was from the firestorm. if you can afford to put up 1k bombers per raid, against an armored collumn, in a desert, im impressed. decapod ten must be more frugal with its military budget.

and Id reccoment A-10s but that's just me.

ill grant you technologically impared nations are a questionable circumstance, and im getting to adressing that. poor nations, if they can afford a large airforce, should be forbidden from using barbaric tactics. if you buy the gun, you should buy a gun lock before the ammo.

no no no... really.... you carpet bomb deserts? sorry, its 115 am and ive got up early so forgive me for being an ass. but carpet bombing a desert is the least efficient way of dealing with an armored collumn. i mean A-10s, Attack helicopters, surgical strikes against their supplies, or just bash them with rockets...... i mean the US dropped 4-5 THOUSAND TONS of explosives on every japanese city (anybody need the citation?)! 5000 tons! and youre doing that to a desert? hell, ok, lets assume you actually have the resources..... wait, i just checked, you have 26 million people, you dont have the resources, but putting that aside, if your dropping 5000 tons of bombs on a desert, to hit tanks, so much of it is going to hit random sand and do nothing! yet if you add a guidance system, it can be accurate to within 3 meters, being much more efficient at destroying tanks, letting you not have a thousand large bombers over a battlefield, dropping munitions randomly.

again, im sorry. i am an ass. but carpet bombing is not, and in reality has NEVER been used as a defensive tactic..... it just doesnt make sense.

First of all, Elmwood Court... well spoken! We here in Agregorn fully agree that commerce is the path to peace, and alliances should not exist, but free trade and equity based on a respect for sovereignty and understanding of the best interests of society fulfilled by capitalism. We will always venture for peaceful relations with all that will welcome us.

That being said, we've found that devastating civilian populations and genocide are perfectly acceptable wartime tactics. Nothing stops a warrior dead in his tracks (short of a gunshot wound to the head) quite like having his whole nation turned to a lake of glass. Indeed, if you kill the soldier, another takes his place... but if you kill the nation, nothing takes its place.

If a nation harbors terrorist cells, fundamentalist regimes, or sleeper agents, there is little to gain by simply destroying factories and military installments. Indeed, the best solution if a nation refuses to submit to surrender is the annihilation of any man, woman, and child. Combat has evolved to battles not fought with mere munitions and barracks, but whole cities and home made dirty bombs and hijackers willing to use creative new ways to assault unprovoked.

This is war people. Please explain to me who is innocent when they attack first? Please tell me that someone who takes up arms by order of their king is more worthy of death than the farmer who feeds him? Or are they more worthy than their child, dreaming of freedom, to encourage him to fight on? Or her... let's not be gender specific. No one is innocent. I say if a savage nation feels at liberty to attack indiscriminately, then we should have the same right!

The United Nations

Noting the Spirit of Resolution #111 to protect civilians in times of war,

Noting the economic damages, political animosity, and the unnecessary and unintended casualties caused by inaccurate weaponry,

Noting that the advancement of technology has rendered inaccurate bombing tactics obsolete, inefficient, barbaric, and relatively ineffective,

Emphasizing the responsibility of nations to protect the innocent,

Emphasizing the right of nations to abstain from building weapons of any kind, and the right to maintain peaceful aerial forces,

Requires all member nations with military forces, to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive munitions, incendiary weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological Agents, and Nuclear weapons, be they aerially dropped, or launched via rocketry.

Requires all member nations, for the goal of protecting their civilians, to make no effort to interfere with the functionality of these guidance packages without disabling the ordnance in its entirety to prevent these weapons from decimating civilian populations.

Requires all member nations with effected military forces to continually strive to improve the accuracy of its guidance packages to further reduce civilian casualties in wartime.

Noting the relativity of time and space, exempts from the aforementioned requirements all nations with a non-standard time frame of reference.

.............................................................

ok. the language, especially on the time frame of reference, is exceptionally awkward. anybody got ideas on improving it? and people agree significant strength of effect?

id further like to emphasize that this resolution in no way prevents you from genocide, it prevents you from inaccurate aerial genocide.

Wars cannot be won without eliminating the enemy. The enemy includes all people's there within any one nation.

That being said, we've found that devastating civilian populations and genocide are perfectly acceptable wartime tactics. Nothing stops a warrior dead in his tracks (short of a gunshot wound to the head) quite like having his whole nation turned to a lake of glass. Indeed, if you kill the soldier, another takes his place... but if you kill the nation, nothing takes its place.

*Ahem!* We already have a resolution against Genocide...

Requires all member nations, for the goal of protecting their civilians, to make no effort to interfere with the functionality of these guidance packages without disabling the ordnance in its entirety to prevent these weapons from decimating civilian populations.


Once again, this prohibits us effectively from taking over the guidance to deflect the ordnance. I still do not see how otherwise the ordnance can be safely disposed of. In flight defusing does not seem a viable option, so the only way I see is to fire at it, which will cause damage to populated areas underneath.
I'm sorry, but I maintain that the only thing this does, is allow the aggressor to win, if he has enough firepower to destroy the other's launching places, as there is no way to keep to both the spirit and the letter of this resolution, without putting your nation at risk, especially for small countries.
We praise ourself lucky with our peaceful neighbours.

General Waverly sighed. How did Hayden stand doing this? He'd been used to command rank so long...that not being able to silence arguements with a word was testing. He cleared his throat rather noisely. "I do not think I need to reiterate Catawaba's opposition to this measure, but I do feel that a few of the ambassadors could use some...military consultation. First the proposal, any mention of biological weapons should be eliminated as those are a banned weapon. Also guided chemical weapons need not be mentioned because they are meant for 'unguided' cloud dispersal. A guided chemical bomb hits closer to where you want. Resulting cloud still kills anything its path whether you intended to hit it or not. It very much the same arguement for nuclear or incendiary weapons. They are meant to spread uncontrollably."

He turned to the ambassador from Decapod Ten. "Sir, I would like to call your attention to the price of a standard JDAM kit (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm) and the MK-84 unguided bomb (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk84.htm). Very roughly it is a factor of five or six." General Waverly handed the two thuroughly unclassied documents to Churchill and asked the aide to deliver them to the ambassador.

Tom leaned down and took a sip of water from a glass on the table. "It is not a lack of computers that is a factor in the increased cost of a guidance kit, but the level of expertise, technology, computer progamming and advanced materials needed to construct it. It is also new technology. Safe, economic short cuts have not been discovered, though it came several under initial price estimates of forty thousand USD per kit. Bombs, however, are very old technology. Explosive have been with us for perhaps as long as twelve hundred years. Aerial munitions have been in existance since development in nineteen twelve. We have learned to make very good, cheap bombs."

"Carpet bombing still does its place in warfare. While having little chance of being accurate beyond the sheer number of weaponry released, carpet bombing has an incredible demoralizing effect on enemy troops. Yes, against an armored column I'd advocate close air support aircraft rather than a strategic bomber, but against decentralized enemies such as an infantry group on foot capet bombing can be devestating even if disabling physical casualties are minimal. And it can be defensively. Not close to friendly positions, mind you, but to prevent advancing reinforcements while close air support acts close to friendlies? Yes."

Waverly slowly turned to the ambassador from Agregorn. "You, sir, are a disturbing evil man, and obvioiusly ignorant to the classification of 'enemy combatant' which refers to anyone who takes up arms government troop, miltia, or civilians. A enemy combatant is not innocent. A civilian who has not taken up arms is innocent as defined by international law and fundamental human morality."

Requires all member nations with military forces, to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive munitions, incendiary weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological Agents, and Nuclear weapons, be they aerially dropped, or launched via rocketry.

OOC: So those types of rocket-based weapons that are quite widely used (at least in RL) by infantry against vehicles -- such as bazookas, and rocket-propelled grenades -- would now only be legal if each & every round of ammunition was fitted with computer guidance? And any rocket-firing smallarms, along the lines of RL 'GyroJet' ones, would only be allowed to use explosive or incendiary projectiles if each & every one of those rounds was thus-adapted? Bah, humbug!
If you do leave "launched via rocketry" in the clause then there really has to be an exception for smallarms & infantry-carried support weapons, although defining those clearly enough might be a bit tricky...

true. thanks St Edmund. ill write in a range stipulation (rockets with a range over 10km).... good catch.

as for unconventional weapons, the UN has banned bioweapons 3 times, and reppealed those bans twice. i see no harm in having redundancy in law, as it is easily to see how bioweapons could be relegalized. true, unconventional weapons do target an area, might as well make sure its the correct area. i know of no tactic involving unguided nuclear weapons, but i never want to....

The United Nations
Noting the Spirit of Resolution #111 to protect civilians in times of war,
Noting resolution #51 which bans attacks with a high risk of killing children,
Noting the economic damages, political animosity, and the unnecessary and unintended casualties caused by inaccurate weaponry,
Noting that the advancement of technology has rendered inaccurate bombing tactics obsolete, inefficient, barbaric, and relatively ineffective,
Emphasizing the responsibility of nations to protect the innocent, while cognizant of the right of nations to prosecute war within all legal means,
Emphasizing the right of nations to abstain from building weapons of any kind,
Requires all member nations with military forces, to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive munitions, incendiary weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological Agents, and Nuclear weapons, be they aerially dropped from any range, or launched via rocketry with a range greater than 10 kilometers.
Requires all member nations, for the goal of protecting their civilians, to make no effort to interfere with the functionality of these guidance packages without disabling the ordnance in its entirety.
Requires all member nations with effected military forces to continually strive to improve the accuracy of its guidance packages to further reduce civilian casualties in wartime.
Noting the relativity of time and space, exempts from the aforementioned requirements all nations with a non-standard time frame of reference.

..............................................................................................

submitting tomorrow around 12:02 GMT, if you see any problems, still post.

UNR #110; final clause.

Requires all member nations, for the goal of protecting their civilians, to make no effort to interfere with the functionality of these guidance packages without disabling the ordnance in its entirety to prevent these weapons from decimating civilian populations. Did you read this before you posted it.... mainly this part Requires all member nations, for the goal of protecting their civilians We will do what it takes to protect our civilians as well as military from incoming weapons of any nature. If this means all we do is reverse the weapons and send them back to origination point or near it; then we will do that.. Thus if it was launched from within a civilian zone then it will be returned to sending zone. To ban or limit us to not be able to use whatever methods we have to protect our own will not get our support; and this does just that.

So we will not support it,.,,,,

UNR #110; final clause.

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

The blocker now finally works. This resolution does need work.

Noting the relativity of time and space, exempts from the aforementioned requirements all nations with a non-standard time frame of reference.

This also exempts 'Post-Modern-Tech', 'Near-Future-Tech', and 'Future-Tech' nations too...and those weapons can kill much better and faster than our weapons. But, of course, you can't actually talk about them, so, I guess we are going to be stuck with the 'noting'. Problem is, isn't it mandatory to follow UN all resolutions?

Problem is, isn't it mandatory to follow UN all resolutions?Yes and no. A Resolution about territorial waters can be ignored by a landlocked nation; it simply doesn't apply. That doesn't mean the Resolution fails the optionality rule, though. It's best to passively hand-wave away incompatible nations, as opposed to dedicating a clause to what some might consider meta-gamey issues (remember the multiverse fracas in one debate (the name escapes me; I'm sure someone remembers)). In a Proposal like this, a line similar to "...within the technological abilities of member nations" or the like. Gives pre-tech nations an out. Future tech nations that only use direct-fire particle beams can ignore this, as they already use smart weapons.

It's best to passively hand-wave away incompatible nations, as opposed to dedicating a clause to what some might consider meta-gamey issues (remember the multiverse fracas in one debate (the name escapes me; I'm sure someone remembers)).

I think that it was Mutual Recognition of Borders (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131354&postcount=191)...

His Holiness Ted, in an audience this morning, reviewed this proposal with great displeasure. He (most blessed) asked to be quoted directly to my assembled colleagues.
He says:
"Well, I reckon that there isn't really a 'smart' uh, whatcha-call-it, weapon, In that if it were so smart, It wouldn't be goin' to war at all"
(Annals of Wisdom, Vol XXVII)
Taking the words of His Holiness into full view, the assembly as one agrees that our beatific republic can not support this mere refinement of a catastrophic practice.

Regards,
Assemblyperson L. Jones IV

ok, im now very confused. if UNR #110 would make this illegal, doesnt

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

mean that when #16 (bio weapons ban) was repealed by #108, doesnt that mean that #113(another bio weapons ban) and #204(third bio weapons ban) were/are illegal?

now, i assume im wrong somehow, but when #110 went into effect, #16 still stood, but when repealed, and replaced by #113, no " legislation by this body that" was " still in effect" that "placed restrictions on that right." regarding bio weapons. now, i could see how the rules might exempt #113, but i sure cant see how #204 is legal. no previously existing legislation was still in effect for #204. im not trying to be a bitch, but how is 204 banning bio weapons ("MANDATES that member nations shall not develop, acquire, or possess, such weapons and agents") legal, while this proposal isnt?

i may be an idiot, but i assume you can tell how this is a possible point of confusion and im seeking enlightenment.

Sure, sure.

... mean that when #16 (bio weapons ban) was repealed by #108, doesnt that mean that #113(another bio weapons ban) and #204(third bio weapons ban) were/are illegal?

The difference is that all one has to do is say: "but it's not necessary to use such and such weapon to defend your nation".

You are allowed to use whatever weapons that are necessary to defend your nation. Who decides what is necessary? The UN. The bioweapon bans are legal because the UN basically claims: "bioweapons are not necessary to defend your nation".

So the blocker failed in that respect. But, now that blocker was finally useful, in that I think many people, even you, agree that stopping those smart weapons from attacking military targets is rather necessary to defend your nation. So, they are two different situations.

After all, bioweapons has the potential to kill far more people than an aerial assault.
----Dr. Bob

ok, im now very confused. if UNR #110 would make this illegal, doesnt



mean that when #16 (bio weapons ban) was repealed by #108, doesnt that mean that #113(another bio weapons ban) and #204(third bio weapons ban) were/are illegal?

now, i assume im wrong somehow, but when #110 went into effect, #16 still stood, but when repealed, and replaced by #113, no " legislation by this body that" was " still in effect" that "placed restrictions on that right." regarding bio weapons. now, i could see how the rules might exempt #113, but i sure cant see how #204 is legal. no previously existing legislation was still in effect for #204. im not trying to be a bitch, but how is 204 banning bio weapons ("MANDATES that member nations shall not develop, acquire, or possess, such weapons and agents") legal, while this proposal isnt?

i may be an idiot, but i assume you can tell how this is a possible point of confusion and im seeking enlightenment.

There's a way around #110, but I'm not telling you what it is. You'll just have to figure it out on your own.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The United Nations

Noting the Spirit of Resolution #111 to protect civilians in times of war,

Noting resolution #51 which bans attacks with a high risk of killing children,

Noting the economic damages, political animosity, and the unnecessary and unintended casualties caused by inaccurate weaponry,

Noting that the advancement of technology has rendered inaccurate bombing tactics obsolete, inefficient, barbaric, and relatively ineffective,

Emphasizing the responsibility of nations to protect the innocent, while cognizant of the right of nations to prosecute war within all legal means,

Emphasizing the right of nations to abstain from building weapons of any kind,

Requires all member nations with military forces, to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive munitions, incendiary weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological Agents, and Nuclear weapons, be they aerially dropped from any range, or launched via rocketry with a range greater than 10 kilometers.
-- Exempts from this requirement all nations not technologically capable of developing guidance systems.

Declares efforts to interfere with the functionality of guidance packages, without disabling the ordnance in its entirety, unnecessary for, and antithetical to, the goal of protecting their civilians.

Requires all member nations with effected military forces to continually strive to improve the accuracy of its guidance packages to further reduce civilian casualties in wartime.

ok, 22 hrs up, anybody see any problems before i propose tomorrow 1202 gmt?

1) You might want to tell the names of the two Resolutions you are citing. Some of us are lazy, you know.

2) You should have a clause after the 'declare' clause that actually prohibit this "interference". Just to cover your bases.

2.5) You might lessen opposition if you have it that we don't stop UN smart weapons. Non-UN smart weapons can be stopped, as they may not actually be 'smart', after all. Provide us that escape clause.

3) Pull off a succesful TG campagin. I hope you know how to do that quite well.

Good luck. We're still voting NO, anyway.
---Dr. Bob

see, my entire thing a bout the cant disable the guidance systems is that your just letting them rain down on random ground. if you can blow up the explosive, the guidance system is going to go too, not the same in reverse. its almost like using a human shield, the bombs just fall and kill anything around the target. the guidance systems just exist to not kill the surrounding area. Its not a prohibition on stopping them, its a prohibition on dumbing them down, so to speak.

yep, ill add the prohibition on the declare clause, thx.

and ill name the resolutions.

thx

Personally, although I may be too late now to mention it, I would much prefer to see interfere exchanged with disable, as that is your meaning; interfere also prohibits changing the direction of the ordnance, to a safe zone, which may be a far safer option than disabling the ordnance in its entirety, as that does still have the potential of damage, if within a certain distance.

not too late at all, editing it now to be submitted in an hour. i live in wisconsin and every politician in the nations is here campaigning, so im taking oppurtunities to see presidents past and future which has delayed my efforts.

Requires all member nations with military forces, to utilize modern computerized guidance packages on all explosive munitions, incendiary weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological

Agents, and Nuclear weapons, be they aerially dropped from any range, or launched via rocketry with a range greater than 10 kilometers. What's the deal with the funky formatting there?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative