NationStates Jolt Archive

Esteemed nations of the UN:
The people and UN delegates of the Commonwealth and Islands of Garchyland have set forth a proposal calling for the ban of all military satellites.

UN regional delegates, I urge you to endorse the pending proposal by Friday March 7th to help the proposal reach its quorum, thus giving every nation of the UN the opportunity to move one step closer to world peace.

Thank you,

Jonas Newfenheimer
The Commonwealth and Islands of Garchyland
"To honor the great, and supply the poor"

We agree, everyone wants world peace. And we do not want war. But unfortunately, there are still lands that do want war. And we want to be protected from these lands. Whenever a military satellite of us finds evidence that lands want to attack our country, we can call our army or ask help from our neighbors, so we can defend ourself. Military satellites are not just for attacking only, also for defending.

Still, your second and third point are good. Satellites that carry weapons should be abolished, they can only do harm. Satellites that are for gathering intelligence shouldn't be abolished though, since they can also prevent wars from becoming worse.

Yours sincerely,

Senator O. Giloake of the Kingdom of Escobosia

I agree with Senator Giloake. We should be allowed to keep our military satalites in order to preserve national security.

Just so the other UN members can have a browse of the proposal.

Ban Military Satellites

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Garchyland

Description: DEFINING a “satellite” as an artificially made object placed into orbit around the earth,

RECOGNIZING the importance of satellites to the advancements in science and space exploration

DEFINING a “military satellite” as an artificial satellite used for a military purpose, for gathering intelligence, or as a military weapon.

HEREBY PROPOSING a ban on the production and use of military satellites.


PROHIBITS
1) Development of any satellite made solely for the purpose of gathering intelligence of any UN nation
2) Development of any satellite made for the carrying or launching of any weapon or missile
3) The launch into orbit of any object carrying nuclear matter with the purpose of harm to any UN nation.


TRUSTING the UN to protect from harm those nations that cannot afford to launch satellites into orbit,

AFFIRMING that member nations can allocate resources to produce satellites that can help with the advancements of science and technology, as opposed to incurring destruction,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member UN nations to support the proposal “Ban Military Satellites”

I have a few problems with this, though it's probably only pedantry on my part.
DEFINING a “satellite” as an artificially made object placed into orbit around the earth,
Shouldn't that be around a planet/celestial object? You have to consider that not all UN nations are on one specific planet.

DEFINING a “military satellite” as an artificial satellite
You've already defined a satellite as an artifical object, so a military one, is twice as artificial?

Kari Kagrosi
UN Pirate

TRUSTING the UN to protect from harm those nations that cannot afford to launch satellites into orbit,

Give me a second to chortle. Anyway, the UN doesn't have any army, nor is it allowed to have an army, so I don't see how the UN can protect those nations.

Spy Satellites used for intelligence gathering work because you will know where the enemy is located. And if a nation doesn't have spy satellites, and they don't know where the enemy is located, then a suprise attack can easily overwhealm such a country. And since non-UN Nations can use spy satellites effectively, and we aren't convinced why they need to be gotten rid of, I'm not exactly in favor.

Getting rid of satellites that use weapons, that something we might be interested in. But spy satellites doesn't look 'evil'.

Though, hm, an attempt to demilitarize space might be a good idea we support, in theory...if it wasn't for the fact that many FT space empires in the NSUN won't like that.
---Dr. Bob

Absolutely and unalterably opposed. His Majesty's Government maintains several satellites for observation of, and protection from, potential space-borne threats to our people or national security. We are not about to relinquish such a fundamental right as the right to defend ourselves.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

We're in the process of developing orbital weapons platforms. The idea would not just be to find military forces world around, but also stop them. Our proposed system works by using solar radiation and mirrors to cook the ground the enemy walks on. With an array of satellites, it would be possible to get pass the line of sight dilemma, and focus a ray of heat even in the dead of night.

This can be stated as Mutually Assured Destruction, or maybe a case of Agregorn getting blood-thirsty. We assure you, this is not the case. Agregorn has not, since inception, made a declaration of war unprovoked. We do not annex other nations by force, we buy them if they're for sale. So please consider the application of this weapon. We could be stopping an army without putting infantry in the line of fire. Our weapon doesn't release radioactive particles (just focused heat) so the environmental impact is minimal. We could even help other nations secure their borders without investing in a military campaign.

We encourage cooperation with other nations in support of this program or in the development of their own programs, as it will assure for our mutual safety versus the other savage nations. This proposed bill (or any bill demilitarizing space) would stand in the way of this progress. We will respect the UN's resolution, of course... but please, before you consider this proposal, think of the lives that could be saved. Let's also mention that this could be an excellent exercise in building peace between nations (ironically by building a war machine, but you'll forgive the irony I hope).

This is a commendable proposal. However, some parts of it are problematic:
A. How do you differentiate between a spy satellite and something like a weather satellite? Unless it has weapons, which is among the perfectly acceptable clauses of the resolution.

Honestly, I do not believe that such a resolution will be passed. The parts about weapons is fine. (OOC: Though spy satellites make epic battles very boring)

We Garchies trust the UN to protect those from harm not with an army, but another move towards world peace.

To differentiate between spy satellites and other satellites has been a gray area, but we tried our best in creating the proposal.

To those who are weary on the grounds of war, please notice the clause we have added in, which prohibits use on any UN nation, not with non UN nationals.

Thank you,
Jonas Newfenheimer
Garchyland

We Garchies trust the UN to protect those from harm not with an army, but another move towards world peace.

To differentiate between spy satellites and other satellites has been a gray area, but we tried our best in creating the proposal.

To those who are weary on the grounds of war, please notice the clause we have added in, which prohibits use on any UN nation, not with non UN nationals.

Thank you,
Jonas Newfenheimer
Garchyland



So you are taking steps towards world peace but you are still willing only to protect those countries that are members of the UN from harm. What about countries not of the UN that are defenseless. Are we to leave them in the cold?

Very much opposed; intelligence is perhaps the most important aspect of national defence, and any facility that improves this capability is an important asset. What is more, intelligence more often then not allays fears, as opposed to heighten tension.

OoC: I think of more examples where espionage and other forms of intelligence gathering have prevented wars then started them.

Oh look, another short-sighted would be do-gooder wants to hamper our ability to protect ourselves by forcing us to tie one hand behind our backs. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is unalterably opposed.

So you are taking steps towards world peace but you are still willing only to protect those countries that are members of the UN from harm. What about countries not of the UN that are defenseless. Are we to leave them in the cold?
I'd like to point out to the ambassador from MorpheusLand that UN resolutions can only affect UN nations.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Quite honestly, many satellites can and do perform double duty in their functions. Satellites can provide positioning of the nearest fast food restaurant, or of the nearest nuclear strike target. It is a good idea to ban the placement of weaponry into space, but would a suborbital ICBM count? Modern politics being what they are, there are thousands of weapons, both lethal and non lethal, agressive and defensive.

High Chancellor Smit

of the Emirate of Juandiga

[QUOTE=MorpheusLand;13501314]So you are taking steps towards world peace but you are still willing only to protect those countries that are members of the UN from harm. What about countries not of the UN that are defenseless. Are we to leave them in the cold?[

UN Resolutions only protect/apply to UN Nations. Without that clause all UN nations would be defenseless against other, "rogue" nations. We are taking steps towards world peace, but we can only start with one step.

To those who commented on how espionage has prevented wars, your words are well noted. In the case that this proposal does not pass to a UN vote, revisions will be made pertaining to suggestions of fellow UN nations.

Thank you,
Jonas Newfenheimer
Garchyland

We rise in general support of this proposal, obviously, though we take issue with a few of the particulars. Specifically: we support the prohibition of space-based weaponry, but aren't so concerned about intelligence gathering, which, I suspect, is often more mundane than might be imagined. Perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the weaponry aspect (some notes of possible help might be gleaned from this relic from the archives (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=418)).

We also need to consider what to do about existing satellites.

(And the final line of the proposal can be struck as unnecessary.)

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria