NationStates Jolt Archive

The first 100 posts of this thread notwithstanding, the new drraft is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13818182&postcount=105).
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Seeking to promote peace and stability in space,

Aware that space warfare would have disastrous consequences even for nations not involved,

Also concerned that an arms race in space would involve astronomical *RIMSHOT* costs that would crowd out infrastructure spending,

Finally considering the development of space-based weaponry to be a preposterous waste of time and money in the pursuit of intergalactic showmanship:

1. Prohibits the development, production, acquisition, deployment or trafficking of space-based weaponry, including orbital weapons platforms and space-based military aircraft, or the assistance in such activities, by member nations or parties under their jurisdiction;

2. Requires the expedient decommissioning of existing systems, whether through destruction or diversion to other means or, where such is not possible, disabling of weapon capability until such a time as full decommissioning is possible;

3. Clarifies that military satellites not equipped with weapons, such as those for intelligence or communications purposes, or ground-based missile shields or anti-NEO systems are not prohibited by this proposal;

4. Further clarifies that the transport by spacecraft of small arms is not prohibited by this proposal;

5. Encourages the fullest possible peaceful exploration of space by all nations in harmony.
Strength-wise, I'm not sure whether it should be Strong (because the spending involved would be massive) or Significant (because the spending involved, for many nations, probably doesn't exist in the first place).

So, this is a new proposal idea we've come up with during our drafting sessions on security policy, and we open it up for comment.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Although we love to idea to spread peace, our nation does not like this proposal. We have a base on the moon and some platforms in space with our anti nuke system. We have to guard NationStates with this, because some warlords might use their nukes and only our defense system is capable of vapourizing the nukes before they explode and causing havoc.

But anyway, if some nations want to spend all their money on space weapons, we do not care much, it is their (maybe stupid) wish. Because war will not happen in NationState (by the rules) we feel no threat in space weapons.

We wish you well in achieving a better world.

Yours,
Cocoamok
WA Delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

Is there any possibility that your delegation would consider trying to figure out a way to limit the remit of your proposal to offensive weapons? We are currently working to develop space-based weapons for defensive purposes, specifically to prevent a ballistic missile attack against the Altan Steppes. We chose to go this route to avoid having to deploy a nuclear weapons capacity as a deterrent, and would either have to reverse our nuclear weapons stance or withdraw from the WA entirely if a proposal such as this were to actually be enacted. Obviously, we have no desire to do either. We're also not entirely convinced that ground-based missile shields alone can protect us from such a threat.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

1. Prohibits the development, production, acquisition, deployment or trafficking of space-based weaponry, including orbital weapons platforms and space-based military aircraft, or the assistance in such activities, by member nations or parties under their jurisdiction;If the highlighted phrase refers to puppet nations, I think it'll be a problem, seeing as a WA proposal can't directly affect non WA nations (be they puppet or not). That's the very reason many nations are only represented in the WA by a "Mynation WA mission" nation, so the WA can't touch the mother nation.

This will probably also encounter strong opposition you'll have to combat (be the opposition justified or not), arguing that this will only cripple the WA's access to space (since now all WA space vessels are defenseless, compared to non WA vessels which are still packing heat).

Though, now that I think about it, that could be a novel roleplay: unarmed spaceship vs armed spaceship. There could be some really interesting, er, seamanship (spacemanship?) as the unarmed vessel attempts to win the engagement without weapons.

Or it could be really one-sided.

Either way, I'll fix me up some popcorn.

This proposal is flawed. It only sees space-based weaponry to be used offensively. As many before me have pointed out; space weapons can be used for defensive means. Furthermore it doesn't define what space weapons are clearly enough; what of weapons that are in high atmospheric orbit such as scramjets (supersonic combustion ramjet)?

If the highlighted phrase refers to puppet nations, I think it'll be a problem, seeing as a WA proposal can't directly affect non WA nations (be they puppet or not). That's the very reason many nations are only represented in the WA by a "Mynation WA mission" nation, so the WA can't touch the mother nation.

It might be a problem if Mynation was in the WA and controlled Mynation-Colony, but I suspect it's usually the other way around. In my case, if Z5 was in the WA, the phrase might apply to both nations, but to say that Z5 is under the control of Z5 Nose is like the nose, er I mean tail, wagging the dog. I love loopholes.

or parties under their jurisdictionIf the highlighted phrase refers to puppet nations, I think it'll be a problem, seeing as a WA proposal can't directly affect non WA nations (be they puppet or not).

I'd have never thought of that phrase applying to puppet nations. Embassies, military, industrial expatriates, yeah, but not puppet nations. I think it's fine.

The only way it could apply to nations would be to assume that "player"="nations". That brings it into the realm of metagaming, which the WA doesn't recognize anyway ... so no net effect.

The FT nations with galaxy-spanning empires and space navies that would make George Lucas foam at the mouth with jealousy are going to be quite annoyed with this.

Strength-wise, I'm not sure whether it should be Strong (because the spending involved would be massive) or Significant (because the spending involved, for many nations, probably doesn't exist in the first place).I'm thinking Significant. Even in nations where this would be a massive expenditure, it's still a (relatively) narrow area of effect.

The FT nations with galaxy-spanning empires and space navies that would make George Lucas foam at the mouth with jealousy are going to be quite annoyed with this.

OCC: LOL Thats a good one!

I speak on behalf of my Star System, the U.N.S.C. As a FT nation I STRONGLY disagree with this resolution. I am angered that you would be bias about space weaponry only. If you don't want other worlds to get touched by Space Wars then stay out of them! It really is that simple!

Ok, thanks for the comments.
Is there any possibility that your delegation would consider trying to figure out a way to limit the remit of your proposal to offensive weapons?
Yes, absolutely. This was a rough draft, and that is going to be one of the points that needs most clarifying. That said, playing devil's advocate, wouldn't excluding defensive weapons tend to discourage the proliferation of the weapons they're meant to defend against, seeing as everyone would be vulnerable to them?
If the highlighted phrase refers to puppet nations, I think it'll be a problem,
It doesn't. I was mainly thinking of businesses. In the age of sea exploration, leading companies had private armies and navies, or hired mercenaries and privateers. I thought in the case of space exploration, a similar possibility might emerge, and so it's not just state armed forces that need legislating on.
Furthermore it doesn't define what space weapons are clearly enough; what of weapons that are in high atmospheric orbit such as scramjets (supersonic combustion ramjet)?
I think 'clearly enough' is an interesting phrase, given it doesn't define space weapons at all, but I take the point. How about space as 'beyond the limits of the terrestrial ionosphere'?
The FT nations with galaxy-spanning empires and space navies that would make George Lucas foam at the mouth with jealousy are going to be quite annoyed with this.
Yes, and nations that practiced torture were quite annoyed by my last resolution.

So, no changes made yet, but the two priorities are (possibly) to exclude defensive weaponry, and (definitely) to define the limits of space.

-- Samantha Benson

I'm torn between support as-is, seeing as how space based weaponry is a leading industry in Douria, along with renting the Orbideth Platforms (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=752) out to other nations. I don't think it would take much legalese to get around the limitations of this proposal since Douria's not in the WA.

Would this limit other people's ability to pay me to use my own technology(and own people) to blow up an enemy or two?

OOC: I sure hope this doesn't come down to an OOC or IC decision on my part, but I think it may.

Ok, thanks for the comments.

Yes, absolutely. This was a rough draft, and that is going to be one of the points that needs most clarifying. That said, playing devil's advocate, wouldn't excluding defensive weapons tend to discourage the proliferation of the weapons they're meant to defend against, seeing as everyone would be vulnerable to them?

Only if we assume that non-member nations will play fair and agree not to exploit openings in defense grids, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, and nations that practiced torture were quite annoyed by my last resolution.

Physical human torture and developing orbital rockets are two rather different birds, don't you think?

I'm curious at the extent to which this will extend (and I don't mean ionosphere/troposphere wankery), as the intent I think you're going for is to disallow weapons that can be trained on any point of a terrestrial sphere? Such as aiming nuclear devices at a planet from space?

Or are we looking to completely restrict pew-pew space warfare?

Finally considering the development of space-based weaponry to be a preposterous waste of time and money in the pursuit of intergalactic showmanship:

I think this argument is specious and could be a lot better. Banning legitimate defensive weaponry or shutting off areas of research and development on a flimsy accusation of "showmanship" is rather petty, don't you think?

Nemo Taranton

The proposal is well-intended, but to me, it seems to take for granted that the affected nations will all be planet-dwelling civilizations.

For nations that exist on moons, meteorites, space-craft colonies etc, this proposal will have as much significance as one that bans the use of guns, bombs and missiles for those that dwell on Earth or on other planets. It wouldn't really make sense to ban space-based weapons from space-based civilizations, would it? How else could they defend themselves? Even a simple 'bullet' that has the capability to fly through space is most certainly a 'space based weapon' too, isn't it?

What I suggest, is that perhaps the proposal shifts more towards the banning of space-based weapons of mass destruction (A certain planet-wrecking beam from a certain metallic star comes to mind). Just as it could be more acceptable to prohibit the manufacturing and use of nuclear weapons on a planet's surface, as opposed to the banning of all planet-based weapons.

That could even pave ground for a future proposal that addresses nukes too. After all, why should space-based civilizations be denied the right to weapons of mass destruction, and planet-based nations be permitted it? Providing you're not concerned about the level of potential support for an anti-nuke law, in which case both space and planet based WMD might more effectively be prohibited in a single resolution.

But that would change the face of the entire proposal. Well, so what? At least you're already getting the space-based clause underway, yes?
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

What I suggest, is that perhaps the proposal shifts more towards the banning of space-based weapons of mass destruction (A certain planet-wrecking beam from a certain metallic star comes to mind). Just as it could be more acceptable to prohibit the manufacturing and use of nuclear weapons on a planet's surface, as opposed to the banning of all planet-based weapons.

But that would change the face of the entire proposal. Well, so what? At least you're getting the space-based clause underway, yes?
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

If this is the case we certainly will support your proposal. Our defense system can stay as it is. Destruction we do not like.

Lots of success & greetings!

Your proposal wants to get rid of all space weapons? What about if an asteroid was headed for Earth? We need space wepons just in case there are any so that they can be destroyed. You should consider maknig a few under the control of the World Assembly for that reason. Then you may procede in getting rid of space weapons.

Hmmm... Does a Space station equipped with a 5000 gigawatt particle beam which will reduce attacking nations to a glassy crater count as being prohibited? We're launching one soon...

Would this passing mean that I'd have to turn in my copy of the keys to the Cluichistani Death Star?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Mainly in response to the points of the representatives of Snefaldia and The Narnian Council, I'd like to ask why we should care. Quintessence of Dust is not a spacefaring nation. We've sent up a few satellites, probes, and a capsule full of jiba!-jiba! monkeys, but we don't have the kind of space navies you seem to be referring to. So why should we care about nations with space navies? If this proposal would disadvantage them, well, frankly, good. At the moment they possess a potentially enormous advantage over us in military and commercial terms. If they stay in the WA, the playing field will be levelled; if they don't, it'll leave future WA legislators free to deal with real issues instead of having to worry about nuclear fusion or alien rights.

It is also not 'petty' to rescue for all humankind the promise of the peaceful exploration of space. As the noted Quodite countercultural comedian Bill Quicks once noted:
A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
Sadly, it looks like the collective devotion to intergalatic megaphalluses will trump any attempt to conserve the heavens as a common domain for all.

-- Samantha Benson

Jachel is currently working on a space satellite to watch over the citizens and also serves as a secondary space weapon in case of revolt or an inland war. Does that mean we couldn't launch this satellite because people simply fear people using them as mass weaponry? Bah, I say, don't ban all space-based weaponry, instead, ban every weapon that can cause one of the three

1) Can cause a global pandemic and/or global disasters.

2) Can be used in small scale wars to wipe out potential threatening nations.

3) Can destroy one nation and severely hurt nations near it.

This way, they can still be in use, mad geniuses will still be of use, and we can continue our surveillance.

The Empire of Jachel

Mainly in response to the points of the representatives of Snefaldia and The Narnian Council, I'd like to ask why we should care. Quintessence of Dust is not a spacefaring nation. We've sent up a few satellites, probes, and a capsule full of jiba!-jiba! monkeys, but we don't have the kind of space navies you seem to be referring to. So why should we care about nations with space navies? If this proposal would disadvantage them, well, frankly, good. At the moment they possess a potentially enormous advantage over us in military and commercial terms. If they stay in the WA, the playing field will be levelled; if they don't, it'll leave future WA legislators free to deal with real issues instead of having to worry about nuclear fusion or alien rights.

It is also not 'petty' to rescue for all humankind the promise of the peaceful exploration of space. As the noted Quodite countercultural comedian Bill Quicks once noted:

Sadly, it looks like the collective devotion to intergalatic megaphalluses will trump any attempt to conserve the heavens as a common domain for all.

-- Samantha Benson

If your not a space faring nation then you should have never proposed this draft. Im sorry but your statement in which I have quoted proves you have no knowledge of what us FT nations go through to create these weapons. You have no right to interfere with nations to which you cannot possibly relate to.

You have no right to interfere with nations to which you cannot possibly relate to.

Actually, he has every right in the world (or out of it) to propose things that don't have any impact on his own nation. You have the right to counter his arguments and campaign against his proposals. Such is the nature of politics.

Actually, he has every right in the world (or out of it) to propose things that don't have any impact on his own nation. You have the right to counter his arguments and campaign against his proposals. Such is the nature of politics.

I agree with Unified Earth Gov. He has no right. If it doesn't affect him he needs to leave the issue to those it does.

I agree with Unified Earth Gov. He has no right.

And you're just as wrong as Unified Earth Gov. As a WA member, he has a right to propose whatever legislation he likes. As long as it stays within the rules of the World Assembly, he has the same rights and privileges as any other member in good standing.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with him ... but be careful when slinging about the phrase "no rights". It might turn around and bite you on the ass.

And you're just as wrong as Unified Earth Gov. As a WA member, he has a right to propose whatever legislation he likes. As long as it stays within the rules of the World Assembly, he has the same rights and privileges as any other member in good standing.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with him ... but be careful when slinging about the phrase "no rights". It might turn around and bite you on the ass.

So what if a non-WA nation attacks with space fleets? Then what genius? They'll wipe the entire WA off the map because of this resolution.

Frisbeeteria isn't saying he agrees with my proposal. He's saying I have the right to propose it. People can have the right to do stupid things.

Frisbeeteria isn't saying he agrees with my proposal. He's saying I have the right to propose it. People can have the right to do stupid things.

Did you just call yourself stupid? Anyway I agree with RyanBrum and Unified Earth Gov. This is a stupid piece of legislation.

Did you just call yourself stupid? Anyway I agree with RyanBrum and Unified Earth Gov. This is a stupid piece of legislation.

I agree with them also. This legislation is pretty dumb when you think about it.

So no one in the entire WA can come up with an argument? We're stuck on calling everyone else poo-poo heads?

The FT nations with galaxy-spanning empires and space navies that would make George Lucas foam at the mouth with jealousy are going to be quite annoyed with this.

They couldn't enforce it any way, and if they tried we'd crush them or laugh and go on with our business.But then again if they tried they would have to violate this silly law themselves to enforce it, witch is an oxymoron in and of it self.

IC:
The Terran Federation would like to remind WA nations, that you have no right to infringe upon our nation, and that any such infringement or attempt at enforcing these unwise clauses from this generally unwise piece of legislation will warrant unfavorable results. We would also like to remind nations of the WA that you are not a governing body capable of enforcing such unsavory and ridiculous rules, and has no power in the galaxy at large.

They couldn't enforce it any way, and if they tried we'd crush them or laugh and go on with our business.But then again if they tried they would have to violate this silly law themselves to enforce it, witch is an oxymoron in and of it self.

IC:
The Terran Federation would like to remind WA nations, that you have no right to infringe upon our nation, and that any such infringement or attempt at enforcing these unwise clauses from this generally unwise piece of legislation will warrant unfavorable results. We would also like to remind nations of the WA that you are not a governing body capable of enforcing such unsavory and ridiculous rules, and has no power in the galaxy at large.

I agree with him. We'll just wipe you guys out if you do pass it. You MT nations are like mosquitoes that can be squashed easily.

So no one in the entire WA can come up with an argument? We're stuck on calling everyone else poo-poo heads?

I'm very tired and about to head off to bed, but I'll give it a stab.

The issue seems to be one of national defense rights, at least for FT nations. The closest parallel I can draw would be to nuclear weapons technology, as we recently had several debates and prospective (and passed) Resolutions in the field. The question is: How much power are the member nations willing to surrender to the World Assembly in the area of defense? Are nations willing to be punished for their technologically advanced status (Space navies for the FT countries, nuclear weapons for Present Tech) by having all of their defense investments rendered null and void?

How much right should, for example, a ten-planet hypothetical Systems Republic have to defend itself? Under the original text of this Resolution, they would be limited solely to ground-based systems and anti-asteroid/comet interceptors. Compare this, say, to a Present Tech nation which could employ any manner of inter-continental weapons systems for its defense. In effect, any FT nation would be prohibited from any defensive measures or deterrents whatsoever except for whatever they can muster in their own individual orbits, while PT countries maintain the capability to strike (in at least some manner) at any threat real or perceived using a variety of means.

In other words, FT nations are basically being forced to disarm and basically disintegrate (as one of the most basic duties of a government is to protect its citizens, how long could one reasonably expect our "Systems Republic" example to last if it was forced to limit its defenses only to those forces present on each individual member world, and only able to use those forces once a threat entered the planet's orbit?) in the face of space-faring threats that they will be certainly unable to confront on equal footing.

It is certainly noble to work towards peaceful interplanetary exploration, but advocating the one-sided disarmament of only WA space-faring nations in a galaxy (galaxies?) full of threats must stir some feelings of compassion for the citizens of those states? You are certainly within your rights to ask "So why should we care about nations with space navies?" but at the same time, if Present Tech nations are able to wield any and all weapons in their arsenals to defend themselves or deter threats, the question must be posed: Why should Future Tech countries be forced to disarm?

As a Present/Near-Future Tech nation, Salzland is basically unaffected by this Resolution, yet at the same time we sympathize with the Future Tech states. It is the right of all inherently peaceful nations to seek whatever reasonable means they may to defend themselves from potential threats, be they ground-based missile systems, armed interplanetary vessels, or even interstellar military alliances dedicated to common defense. The later two would be banned by this Resolution, as it would limit any defense efforts to the forces operating within the bounds of a planet's atmosphere. When even Present-Tech nations are capable of producing trans-orbital weapons systems (for example, ICBMs and kinetic missiles) and using them to strike with relative impunity (in-atmosphere defenses are far less effective than orbital or space-based systems due to atmospheric interference, the small time frame in which a targeted Future Tech state would have to respond, etcetera) the basic argument of Future Tech countries boils down to this: When Present Tech countries can fight using every weapon in their arsenal, the World Assembly cannot single out Future Tech countries and force them to defend themselves with only a fraction of the means they have available.

(OOC: Very tired, sure it was very rambling, but my best stab at giving an argument for FT countries at this hour)

Z5 opposes this proposed ban, for much the same reason Salzland mentioned. Even disregarding the FT nations, outlawing space weapons would put WA nations at a disadvantage compared to those non-WA nations with the resources to build such weapons.

Mainly in response to the points of the representatives of Snefaldia and The Narnian Council, I'd like to ask why we should care. Quintessence of Dust is not a spacefaring nation.

Neither is The Narnian Council. We're not even interested in 'modern' technology. Blades and bolts suit us just fine.

The difference is - we do care. I have no additional objection, because your delegation has accepted the validity of our statement, but has done nothing but dismiss them. Now, I'm not about to throw a tantrum in your face about it, simply because I'm aware of how unproductive that is - especially since I had to put up with this behavior from certain representatives during the Fair Criminal Trial debate (they also found fault with a strict response).

However, I do wish to express my concerns - if space-faring nations don't have a right to their technology whilst being WA members, who's next in the firing line? All those other thousands of nations that have an advantage of your nation or mine? Perhaps I should push legislation that bans all forms of modern technology, because TNC utilizes medieval-based equipment?

Again, I'd like to point out that the banning of space-based weapons of mass destruction is a much more acceptable alternative, and is what you should be pushing instead.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Neither is The Narnian Council. We're not even interested in 'modern' technology. Blades and bolts suit us just fine.

The difference is - we do care. I have no additional objection, because your delegation has accepted the validity of our statement, but has done nothing but dismiss them. Now, I'm not about to throw a tantrum in your face about it, simply because I'm aware at how unproductive that is - especially since I had to put up with this behavior from certain representatives during the Fair Criminal Trial debate (they also found fault with a strict response).

However, I do wish to express my concerns - if space-faring nations don't have a right to their technology whilst being WA members, who's next in the firing line? All those other thousands of nations that have an advantage of your nation or mine? Perhaps I should push legislation that bans all forms of modern technology, because TNC utilizes medieval-based equipment?

Again, I'd like to point out that the banning of space-based weapons of mass destruction is a much more acceptable idea, and is what you should be pushing instead.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Im all for you Narnia! Even the last part about space weapons of mass destruction, like the Star Wars Death Star. But lets face it people. You can't pout and cry all day about other nations who happen to have better technology than yourselves. The Narnian Council is a great example of those who have grown up and accepted the fact that people are going to get a hold of great weapons beyond Earth and there is nothing you can do about that, because us FT nations will just ignore your wining. Furthermore the fact that not just FT nations but even Middle Ages type nations disagree must shout, "Hey something must be wrong here.". I won't even have to repeal this act if its passed, if the WA kicks one FT nation out for not obeying this resolution then it may already be time for a new governing body.

Mainly in response to the points of the representatives of Snefaldia and The Narnian Council, I'd like to ask why we should care. Quintessence of Dust is not a spacefaring nation. We've sent up a few satellites, probes, and a capsule full of jiba!-jiba! monkeys, but we don't have the kind of space navies you seem to be referring to. So why should we care about nations with space navies? If this proposal would disadvantage them, well, frankly, good. At the moment they possess a potentially enormous advantage over us in military and commercial terms. If they stay in the WA, the playing field will be levelled; if they don't, it'll leave future WA legislators free to deal with real issues instead of having to worry about nuclear fusion or alien rights.

This is neither about nuclear fusion, nor alien rights, and I defy you to point to any of my comments that said it was. I would also like you to answer my questions, Ms. Benson, as you seem to have taken what I said and completely misconstrued it. So I'll ask you again- how far is this legislation intended to go? To outlaw all forms of weaponry in outer space for WA members, or to simply ban those that can be trained on our terrestrial sphere?

It is also not 'petty' to rescue for all humankind the promise of the peaceful exploration of space. As the noted Quodite countercultural comedian Bill Quicks once noted:

Yes, how edgy! How amusing! Let's poke fun at those people who believe in self-defense and accuse them of having small genitals or requiring compensation for their sex lives. Get serious. You of all people shouldn't be descending to trite write-offs like "intergalactic showmanship" or whatever it was. There are much better reasons and much better ways to ensure a peaceful expansion into the cosmos without frothing at the mouth over weaponry.

Sadly, it looks like the collective devotion to intergalatic megaphalluses will trump any attempt to conserve the heavens as a common domain for all.

-- Samantha Benson

I'm sensing some penis envy. Do you have penis envy, Ms. Benson? Or are you really as obtuse as you are making yourself out to be?

I am in full support of peaceful exploration of space and the worlds beyond our own. But I question the validity of an argument in favor of outlawing space-based weaponry when the vast morass of unscrupulous and dangerous nations not belonging to this Assembly wouldn't have to follow such strictures, especially if the only coherent argument mustered amounts to saying "nah nah you have a small ding-dong."

N.T.

The Terran Federation would like to remind WA nations, that you have no right to infringe upon our nation, and that any such infringement or attempt at enforcing these unwise clauses from this generally unwise piece of legislation will warrant unfavorable results.You aren't even in the World Assembly. What are you all fired up about?


We'll just wipe you guys out if you do pass it. You MT nations are like mosquitoes that can be squashed easily.You vastly overrate your potency.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

All hammer demands a shield...

This whole subject, is not a confrontation Future/Present/Past weaponry type. Even if it tries to do that, because there is a hidden essencial principle on it.

I sustain that every WA nation has the right to develop the necesary devices to counterattack another threatening device that attempts against the life of its people.

Let's steel meet steel... :cool:

All hammer demands a shield...

All hammer [sic] demands an anvil...

You know, given the sheer inability of most of the 'anti' camp to generate a rational argument rather than, say, overbearing threats or supercilious sneering, I'm severely tempted to grab some pom-poms and cheer Sam Benson on. Unfortunately the Salzlander delegation do have an honest-to-deity-of-your-choice sanely-put point; space navies are the basic defence force of FT space-farers, and disarming them would be as radical a move as disarming everyone else's armies. It's possible, but you'd need a whole lot more justification.

I'm guessing that the basic intention is to get rid of every dictator's friend, the orbital weapons platform that can be turned on the planet. Would that be right? If that's what you're after, would this work: forbidding any weaponry capable of doing more than superficial damage in space-to-surface mode from being within weapons range of the planetary surface?

The proposal its self is a good idea. I like it. But this would put a big dent in my economy, which is big on arms manufacturing. Actually that is the only think my economy is based on. So this would hurt me in a big way. I think it would be the same to for others nations as well who depend on arms manufacturing for their economy.

Also I like having me defenses. Without them I would feel vulnerable.

[FONT="Arial"]Emperor of Kekova
ORL Member [/COLOR]

You vastly overrate your potency.[/size]

Do I? Really then why is it that MT nations dont interact with FT nations? Don't tell me Its because of a time difference because on some planets there may be civilizations with MT weapons and another civilization on the same world with FT weapons. I think its because they are afraid to get their can kicked! I assure you, my ships could level a nation in 2 minutes flat, mark my words.

Oh, calm down. I'm FT and I'm willing to interact w/ MT and PMT quite a bit.

And a ship or two couldn't do that alone; a Death Star, maybe.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Seeking to promote peace and stability in space,

Aware that space warfare would have disastrous consequences even for nations not involved,

Also concerned that an arms race in space would involve astronomical *RIMSHOT* costs that would crowd out infrastructure spending,

Finally considering the development of space-based weaponry to be a preposterous waste of time and money in the pursuit of intergalactic showmanship:

1. Prohibits the development, production, acquisition, deployment or trafficking of space-based weaponry, including orbital weapons platforms and space-based military aircraft, or the assistance in such activities, by member nations or parties under their jurisdiction;

2. Requires the expedient decommissioning of existing systems, whether through destruction or diversion to other means or, where such is not possible, disabling of weapon capability until such a time as full decommissioning is possible;

3. Clarifies that military satellites not equipped with weapons, such as those for intelligence or communications purposes, or ground-based missile shields or anti-NEO systems are not prohibited by this proposal;

4. Further clarifies that the transport by spacecraft of small arms is not prohibited by this proposal;

5. Encourages the fullest possible peaceful exploration of space by all nations in harmony.




if this were to be a resolution, i would vote for it. I think it's perfect

All leet aside,

If your validation is that you are not a space-faring nation to the extend that others are, then what about those nations who are landlocked? Oh those who do not use the sea for warfighting purposes? Should we get rid of weapons on the high seas as well?

Regards,
An unnamed staffer
The Genoshan Embassy to the WA
His Majesty's Government
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Oh, calm down. I'm FT and I'm willing to interact w/ MT and PMT quite a bit.

And a ship or two couldn't do that alone; a Death Star, maybe.

No not a ship or two, but mabey a couple hundred and it wouldn't be hard to get that together.

Alright. On consideration, I find the representatives of Salzland and Gobbannium to have made good points, and will for the moment cede that this proposal is probably unfair. What was an exercise in realpolitik seems to be souring: if it generates this degree of ill-will, it's probably best to retreat.

The Narnian Chancellor also makes a reasonable point regarding their comparative level of technological development, though if they did propose a resolution to reduce everyone to swords and spears, we'd probably vote for it.I am in full support of peaceful exploration of space and the worlds beyond our own. But I question the validity of an argument in favor of outlawing space-based weaponry when the vast morass of unscrupulous and dangerous nations not belonging to this Assembly wouldn't have to follow such strictures, especially if the only coherent argument mustered amounts to saying "nah nah you have a small ding-dong."
That wasn't quite my point, and I'm sure you have a magnificent ding-dong. It just seems that given all of the problems we have down on Earth - disease, pollution, arms proliferation, poverty, illiteracy - there are better places to spend money than floating space monstrosities and that the only explanation for such governmental extravagances can be a need on the part of those nations' politicians to...compensate.

Ok. So, allowing for the possibility of space nations retaining their ships and wotnot, is there anything salvageable from this proposal? I like the idea of concentrating on orbital weapons platforms. I'm less keen on limiting it only to Death Star-like constructions, because I simply think it'll be too narrow. Plus, the capital investment in truly massive weapons is likely to preclude compliance with international law, whereas decommissioning a few satellites is more feasible.

Ms Coch suggested:
forbidding any weaponry capable of doing more than superficial damage in space-to-surface mode from being within weapons range of the planetary surface?
Good idea?

If a few people think it might be, I'll rewrite the draft. Promises to totally nook my nation from space with your 50,000 space destroyers can, however, be kindly shoved up your ass.

-- Samantha Benson

Promises to totally nook my nation from space with your 50,000 space destroyers can, however, be kindly shoved up your ass.

-- Samantha Benson

First off, it's spelled nuke. Secondly how would you go about shoving it up his (can't say that word because I'm a decent person)? If you have words like that then back 'em up! I say you and me finish this buisness else where, like mabey the International Incidents forum. It will be so much fun seeing your troops' smiles turn to expressions of fear as we erase them from the mind of the universe. You and only you unless of course you are scared. I would like to see your MT (if thats what it is) nation so much as tickle my troops! It would be quite the show.:sniper:

OCC: Sorry if that sounded a bit mean, but my race is not full of the nicest people and hey, this is in character.;)

Wow Saiyan! That was a bit harsh. Oh and Quintessence of Dust, I wasn't threatening you. I really have no problem with you at all. I was just stating I could level a nation with my space navy if it were ever necessary. I apologize to you if I made you mad.

I don't care if it was harsh. Hey Quintessence of Dust come here, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559837 and we'll finish this.

Oh man oh man! When he sees this Saiyan, he'll blow his stack! Im a PMT nation. So I like future gear too, but this may have gone too far.

Alright. On consideration, I find the representatives of Salzland and Gobbannium to have made good points, and will for the moment cede that this proposal is probably unfair. What was an exercise in realpolitik seems to be souring: if it generates this degree of ill-will, it's probably best to retreat.

Since when have we ever paid attention to the "moar nookz" crowd?

That wasn't quite my point, and I'm sure you have a magnificent ding-dong. It just seems that given all of the problems we have down on Earth - disease, pollution, arms proliferation, poverty, illiteracy - there are better places to spend money than floating space monstrosities and that the only explanation for such governmental extravagances can be a need on the part of those nations' politicians to...compensate.

Thank you. I'm sure you'll find occasion to find out for yourself.

But in regards to the legislation... I completely agree. But perhaps we should be focusing on creating programs to fight poverty, organizing drug banks and medicine programs, and creating education initiatives instead of lashing out at the military shooting apes into the sun? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, i'm saying it's a bad idea the way it's currently written.

Ok. So, allowing for the possibility of space nations retaining their ships and wotnot, is there anything salvageable from this proposal? I like the idea of concentrating on orbital weapons platforms. I'm less keen on limiting it only to Death Star-like constructions, because I simply think it'll be too narrow. Plus, the capital investment in truly massive weapons is likely to preclude compliance with international law, whereas decommissioning a few satellites is more feasible.

How about starting off with a framework for an accord prohibiting the installation of weapons platforms aimed at locations on a given terrestrial sphere, or space-to-surface nuclear weaponry? My concern is with states that have a legitimate need for space-based defense of their established sphere; I'm all for banning weapons that are aimed at keeping the people in line.

N.T.

Heh, what will banning platforms do but give us a need to create better weapons, that we wouldn't have needed in the first place!

Since when have we ever paid attention to the "moar nookz" crowd?
OOC: I guess that was the best in-character line I could come up with. The real reason is: this thread makes me want to nail my head to my chair. I'm not going to have the patience - or reticence - to continue this through a TG campaign and an At Vote thread if it continues to attract the kid dictators. It's not that I'm paying them to attention; it's that I don't want to have to.
But in regards to the legislation... I completely agree. But perhaps we should be focusing on creating programs to fight poverty, organizing drug banks and medicine programs, and creating education initiatives instead of lashing out at the military shooting apes into the sun? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, i'm saying it's a bad idea the way it's currently written.
I agree; but every time someone proposes such a program, funding is mentioned. We could afford to fund more social programmes if we funded fewer military ones. The 'lashing out' is because I believe frivolous space programmes divert from legitimate ones that could help people.
How about starting off with a framework for an accord prohibiting the installation of weapons platforms aimed at locations on a given terrestrial sphere, or space-to-surface nuclear weaponry? My concern is with states that have a legitimate need for space-based defense of their established sphere; I'm all for banning weapons that are aimed at keeping the people in line.
I guess this is where I'll have to go. It's just so mealy-mouthed.

-- Samantha Benson

Hmph! Kid Dictators huh? Well your pretty pathetic if you can't take on a few kids aren't you?

He has a good point, no offense intended. But if your an adult, you should have twice the skill as the so called 'kid dictators'. Also with language like that the 'kid dictators' might decide to chose you as a target of their armies and let me tell you, since most of the people on NationStates are kids, I'd readjust my way of speaking about them.

Saiyan, really? Come on I say if you fight him go easy on the whole leveling his nation. First of all it's anti-climatic and you know I hate that. Secondly I really want to see what he can do, so give it your all kid. Our whole region is behind you 100%.

Thats only if he fights him, but yeah if you do, my region is also 100% behind you. And I'm sure when I report to TRB tomorrow, the whole Federation of a couple thousand nations will be behind you as well.

Well you know your buddies here at the Durian League and our region have always been and always will be behind you. Besides, I'm not a WA nation and I would just love to knock them out of the way anyhow!

Whats the point of the WA anyway? I think that the whole lot of them are greedy slime balls. This draft proves that they only care whats in the best interest of themselves.

Well the reason I am in this debate is because I do have allies in the WA, in FT. and frankly ill be blunt, icly looking at some thing like this coming from a MT power would make my country go:

"Who the hell do these primitives think they are trying to challenge the dominance of space by powers far grater than them"

The whole core of the debate is that certain people don't want space icly to be a battle field, hell that's impossible, the UTF is sure as hell not disbanding its rather large space fleet due to some laws passed by people with no capabilities of challenging us. we're to busy fending off xenophobic genocidal maniacs from trying to attack us. To lay down arms in space is to sign ones death warrant.

Energy could be better spent hammering out rules of engagement for space weapons. Not banning them outright.

*mutters* I feel soiled having read through this thread.

I still disagree with the idea, mainly for economic reasons, given that the Orbideath rentals make up a fair amount of revenue for my nation.

For the love of...

Okay people. Enough saber-rattling, enough declarations of war(!), and enough whining about the World Assembly. If you want to actually contribute and debate rationally, carry on, but all the talk about your nuclear space-wangs is getting tiresome.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

What was an exercise in realpolitik seems to be souring: if it generates this degree of ill-will, it's probably best to retreat.

Or perhaps you could alter the face of this resolution a little? In particular, our WMD suggestion. It'll not only gain the support of most who currently oppose the draft, but nearly everyone who would continue to oppose it would be viewed as fanatic, destruction-loving autocrats, sweeping the 'kid dictator' problem from the floor. Sound like an attractive political sidestep?

Your idea for the rewriting of the draft is fairly good - but we'd like to see more accomplished. Define all space-based WMD, maybe even address such planetary weapons.

The Narnian Chancellor also makes a reasonable point regarding their comparative level of technological development, though if they did propose a resolution to reduce everyone to swords and spears, we'd probably vote for it.

Somehow I suspect it'd get shot down 100 to 1. But I'm glad you see the point - I do acknowledge that you hadn't deliberately set out on a crusade against cultures more advanced than your own, and we're grateful that you've sought to rectify the situation.

Promises to totally nook my nation from space with your 50,000 space destroyers can, however, be kindly shoved up your ass.

I couldn't help but laugh after hearing this, fully understanding the rather frustrating tendencies of less-than-constructive whining about proposals that dare affect nations in any way. A most excellent quote to be best remembered by.
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

We agree with The Narnian Council, and feel that a proposal targeting Space to Surface WMDs (AKA strictly offensive weapons) would be a very good place to start, leaving plenty of room for future Resolutions to be debated upon at a later time.

(OOC: Sorry for the late post, literally just got back from 3 days of camping)

If we ban space-to-surface weaponry, will we have to also ban surface-to-space weaponry (assuming it's possible to discriminate such weapons)? I ask because there would be presumably be complaints that otherwise it would be analogous to banning aircraft bombers, but permitting anti-aircraft guns.

I'd also like to float the idea of prohibiting NBCR weaponry being placed on satellites. While 'pew-pew' space warfare is all very well, satellites decaying from orbit and carrying such deadly payloads bear a threat even to us humble Earth-bound nations.

-- Samantha Benson

Kudos to you for all the work, but personally I find it preposterous, absurd and more than slightly regressive. Space, like any other frontier is realistic and dead set in our futures, no denying it. So why on earth should the law abiding Nations of the world not carry weapons with them into unknown territory???? Because I can guarantee to you my friends, that other non-law abiding nations will... and truly I would place terrorists and rouge nations at the bottom of my worry list, because if your naive enough to believe that we are the sole species in the universe with power extending beyond planetary boundaries, then you are sorely WRONG. So what part of this proposal is keeping them from bringing weapons? The only outcome of any action following this Proposal is a major decrease in security for those who need it the most. Honestly, the proposal is basically setting us up to go to a gun fight with..... NOTHING, not even a knife.

~Phillips

If this happens to have been said already, I apologize.


I want to say that while your ideals are commendable, space is just the next step for (most of) mankind, and I do not see how this is any different than our other advancements in crossing medium other than solid earth.

As a race, we built ships to float on the oceans, yet we soon armed and used those ships for offense and defense. We took to the air, and for many years the skies were a place that you did not shoot at other pilots nor did you attack people on the ground. In WWI, some pilot decided to take a .45 and shoot at a passing recon plane's pilot. After that, a pilot on the other side took a hunting rifle with him, to attack other planes and troops. Soon we had aircraft bombing ground-based items, while other aircraft swooped and dove trying to shoot another aircraft down. Some aircraft even were able to do both!

Now we begin to trickle into space and among the stars. It was peaceful for many years, and a few nations decided to create satellites designed to blow up and kill other satellites. Some nations have space-based lasers and missile platforms, and there have been air or ground-based attacks on space-based objects.

So you see, this is our history. If this august body decides to pass this legislation or not is of no matter. Men not part of this gathering of nations will still create these weapons and use them against nations that do not have these weapons.

It is likened to passing a law stating that no citizen in a city may arm themselves with any weapon at all. As you well know, when this happens the criminals have a field day with all the helpless victims left open to them (and with that analogy, there would be no 'police' as all nations that agree to this legislation would be helpless to fight back in the same medium (space). A mighty, massive nation with billions of soldier and stunningly advanced air, ground, and sea forces would tremble at the thought of a nation with half their military might or advancements... if that smaller nation had a device that allowed them to multiple direct large asteroids towards any nation they wished with hyper accurate aiming.

A literal cloud of 1/4 to 1/2 mile wide asteroids aimed at your cities and country in general would ruin your whole day...especially if you had no defense against them. I would hazard to say that no Modern (tech) nation would be able to stop 10 let alone 100 mile-wide asteroids...and that is what we may come down to.

How about the more realistic scenario of nations disguising a military bird - armed with multiple MIRV warheads - as a GPS, SatRadio, Weather or communication satellite? A nation that was able to drop multiple nuclear warheads down on their enemy, which would allow the enemy less than five minutes to react from detection to detonation...that nation would be one to feared. Having the ability to create your own HK satellites that could sniff out and destroy these hidden birds would be of great asset to nations.

In anycase, I am very tired after a long day's negotiations, so if any of my comments sound off base or rambling, I apologize.

I wish you all a good night.

(Also, wouldn't this basically exclude FT nations from the WA? Players come here to tell stories of Love, Hate, Anger, Betrayal, Wars, Famines, Epidemics and a host of others. You are basically limiting FT nation players to either be part of the WA and give up their ability to post in threads with great space battles, or barring FT nations from joining the WA if they have or are unwilling to disassemble their fleets. I see this as a potential game-breaking proposal, which possibly could set it up to be Illegal. You are forcing players to game in one way or another but not allowing them to do both....like other players can. This proposal only really affects Post-Modern Tech, Pre-Future Tech, and Future tech gamers. The majority of players are Modern tech so this ban really wouldn't affect them. They still can be in the WA and have their ground, Sea and Air battles. The other players of PMT, PFT,and FT must choose...they can either have epic space wars or they can be politicians in the WA...but not both.

So you limit one group of gamers, the gamers that RP anything after the Modern Tech era, to do one type of RP (politics in the WA) or the other(space battles and all out system/galaxy wars) but they can't have both while prefer more modern technology are not discriminated against and limited to their RP. The MT guys get their war and political RP as well.

This also would cause a disconnect between FT and MT players (and even between FT players themselves) since mainly the only place that FT players will co-mingle with MT players is in the WA....and you are separating the FT players themselves as some will be great RPers in the WA, but unable to RP in a great II thread about a space battle they would love to be a part of. Any FT nation that was a part of the WA would be limited as being a glorified MT nation.


Mainly in response to the points of the representatives of Snefaldia and The Narnian Council, I'd like to ask why we should care. Quintessence of Dust is not a spacefaring nation. We've sent up a few satellites, probes, and a capsule full of jiba!-jiba! monkeys, but we don't have the kind of space navies you seem to be referring to. So why should we care about nations with space navies? If this proposal would disadvantage them, well, frankly, good. At the moment they possess a potentially enormous advantage over us in military and commercial terms. If they stay in the WA, the playing field will be levelled; if they don't, it'll leave future WA legislators free to deal with real issues instead of having to worry about nuclear fusion or alien rights.

The proposer of this legislation has also come out and admitted they didn't see the point to space weapons or battles so that is why they are proposing this ban. Kind of selfish, I believe, as it is saying "Hey, I don't like that RP style so just because you do doesn't mean anything and if you want to say in the WA, you have to give up that RP". MT and FT nations don't normally mingle in II. They stay in their separate threads unless the thread is completely open or a MT and FT nation decide to rp with each other (I had a great one going about an alien crash landing...al la Roswell). So the proposer admits they want to limit or remove FT players from the game (by 'leveling the playing field' reducing them to glorified MT nations...that have the ability to move across the stars...but are limited to Air, Ground and Sea battles only)

So it's my personal belief to move this be considered an illegal proposal, because it discriminates and was designed to discriminate with agenda in mind...as stated in the quote above.... against gamers of different RP styles, and a specific class of RPing gamers in general.)

If we ban space-to-surface weaponry, will we have to also ban surface-to-space weaponry (assuming it's possible to discriminate such weapons)? I ask because there would be presumably be complaints that otherwise it would be analogous to banning aircraft bombers, but permitting anti-aircraft guns.

I'd also like to float the idea of prohibiting NBCR weaponry being placed on satellites. While 'pew-pew' space warfare is all very well, satellites decaying from orbit and carrying such deadly payloads bear a threat even to us humble Earth-bound nations.

-- Samantha Benson

Personally I don't see how it would be a problem... the goal of the Resolution would be to limit weaponry capable of inflicting massive damage to civilian populations that are solely offensive in nature (the weapons, not the populations). Frankly, space-to-surface weapons do this, while surface-to-space weapons generally don't impact civilian populations (unless a hostile state can somehow get troops onto a planet and launch missiles from it's surface at space stations, which strikes me as incredibly inefficient) and can be used for defensive purposes.

In other words, space to surface strikes me at least as a purely offensive category of weapons, while surface to space, as it can be used for defense, is less clear cut and would therefore be much harder to come up with a satisfactory blanket resolution prohibiting their development, use, etc.

The proposer of this legislation has also come out and admitted they didn't see the point to space weapons or battles so that is why they are proposing this ban. Kind of selfish

Just skimming over this quickly, I'll review it in more detail when I have additional time...

But I'd like to gently remind the representative of Karshkovia, that Ms Samantha Benson of Quintessence of Dust is certainly not a random proposer that creates legislation upon her whim. She has quite a lot of experience and understanding of the proceedings, and has been participating here for quite some time now.

We would in no way assume 'selfishness' - there's just been some honest oversights that Quod and the involved delegations are actively working to resolve.
_______________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Do I? Really then why is it that MT nations dont interact with FT nations? Don't tell me Its because of a time difference because on some planets there may be civilizations with MT weapons and another civilization on the same world with FT weapons. I think its because they are afraid to get their can kicked! I assure you, my ships could level a nation in 2 minutes flat, mark my words.

No, you are bringing an attitude that everyone thinks the same as yourself. Era equals power, equals more say in how RP should be. I would hazard that the reason most FT and MT nations do not RP together in II is they RP as if they are playing during different time frames (eras) so the FT group is years after the MT group....time separates them.

There is also the fact that nations find it more fun to play with nations of equal firepower. Fighting someone your own strength is more fun than beating up on a five year old child (or visa versa). (I apologize for the analogy if anyone is offended, I didn't mean to offend, but it does get my point across)

I have found that there are FT gamers, like yourself, that look down on MT gamers because you believe since you are RPing more advanced weapons, automatically that makes your nation (and your RP) better than an MT player. (and some MT players have pulled the same bs on Pre-MT or Ancient Tech nations) Here is a hint: Having bigger guns doesn't mean anything. It makes no difference what era you RP, how powerful your weapons, or how expansive your territory.....it's the level of RP you bring to the table that matters. You can have a FT nation set up to rule over universes....but a player that is RPing his/her nation around the year 1776 (will certainly be less powerful) may be light years beyond your own RPing. Rule of thumb is, power mean nothing, RP means everything.

Just skimming over this quickly, I'll review it in more detail when I have additional time...

But I'd like to gently remind the representative of Karshkovia, that Ms Samantha Benson of Quintessence of Dust is certainly not a random proposer that creates legislation upon her whim. She has quite a lot of experience and understanding of the proceedings, and has been participating here for quite some time now.

We would in no way assume 'selfishness' - there's just been some honest oversights that Quod and the involved delegations are actively working to resolve.
_______________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I beg to disagree.. I have, as well as other players, pointed out her exact quote which states in black and white her feelings. How would this be any different than a proposal brought forth by a player that RP in the 1700's and wanted all naval warfare banned by the WA? You know nearly every MT nation would be either laughing their behinds off, or calling the proposal unworkable and/or illegal....so why should a proposal banning weapons on the water be any different than one banning weapons in space? They are the same dog...why would the fleas be any different?

At this point I believe a mod would be within their powers to lock this thread and declare this proposal illegal under metagaming or game mechanics (I would like to see something that would be put in the WA rules barring discriminating against players of different RP styles).

Personally I don't see how it would be a problem... the goal of the Resolution would be to limit weaponry capable of inflicting massive damage to civilian populations that are solely offensive in nature (the weapons, not the populations). Frankly, space-to-surface weapons do this, while surface-to-space weapons generally don't impact civilian populations (unless a hostile state can somehow get troops onto a planet and launch missiles from it's surface at space stations, which strikes me as incredibly inefficient) and can be used for defensive purposes.

In other words, space to surface strikes me at least as a purely offensive category of weapons, while surface to space, as it can be used for defense, is less clear cut and would therefore be much harder to come up with a satisfactory blanket resolution prohibiting their development, use, etc.

Again, you are thinking IC as a MT nation...however we need to remember all laws created by WA member can not be Metagaming such as she is. I re-read the rules to WA and the only thing I can place this proposal under is either Metagaming or Game Mechanics (metagaming since the proposal was stated to be made to limit FT players RP...and in effect (though not explicitly stated it was hinted at) would turn them into glorified MT nations. Game Mechanics because it would force players of a certain type of RP to either choose wars in II with their own era/powergroup or WA politics while players of a different RP style would be able to have their wars with their own era/powergroup in the II section and also RP politics in the WA section.)

Again, you are thinking IC as a MT nation...however we need to remember all laws created by WA member can not be Metagaming such as she is. I re-read the rules to WA and the only thing I can place this proposal under is either Metagaming or Game Mechanics (metagaming since the proposal was stated to be made to limit FT players RP...and in effect (though not explicitly stated it was hinted at) would turn them into glorified MT nations. Game Mechanics because it would force players of a certain type of RP to either choose wars in II with their own era/powergroup or WA politics while players of a different RP style would be able to have their wars with their own era/powergroup in the II section and also RP politics in the WA section.)

Just to clarify, you are aware that I'm talking about a new Resolution to limit a specific category of offensive weaponry, not the original Resolution proposed by QoD? Because it was already pointed out how the original was insufficient (including by myself), and I do believe that through precedence Resolutions that seek to restrict certain weapons categories have been held as legitimate. Which is why every other week there are proposed Resolutions banning nuclear weapons, land mines, chemical weapons, etc.

If it's legal to propose a Resolution restricting a MT WMD, then certainly a Resolution aimed at a FT offensive weapons-only category would be fair game as well?

Just to clarify, you are aware that I'm talking about a new Resolution to limit a specific category of offensive weaponry, not the original Resolution proposed by QoD? Because it was already pointed out how the original was insufficient (including by myself), and I do believe that through precedence Resolutions that seek to restrict certain weapons categories have been held as legitimate. Which is why every other week there are proposed Resolutions banning nuclear weapons, land mines, chemical weapons, etc.

If it's legal to propose a Resolution restricting a MT WMD, then certainly a Resolution aimed at a FT offensive weapons-only category would be fair game as well?

I see no problem with that as long as you would support a proposal, submitted by an ancient tech, or pre-industrial nation (there are a few RPing the dark ages here, a few rping the 1500-1700's and a few rping during the 1800's...few and far between but they are around) that would be aimed at banning offensive weapons in the air or on the water.

I see no problem with that as long as you would support a proposal, submitted by an ancient tech, or pre-industrial nation (there are a few RPing the dark ages here, a few rping the 1500-1700's and a few rping during the 1800's...few and far between but they are around) that would be aimed at banning offensive weapons in the air or on the water.

If such a weapon could be construed as having no possible defensive applications? Then why not...

Conversely, if a space to surface weapon (note that I am defining "space" as existing outside a planet's orbit) can be shown in some manner to aid a state's defense (preferably other than an argument centered on "Keeping our people in line," as others have tried), then I would oppose restricting/prohibiting their use.

That wasn't quite my point, and I'm sure you have a magnificent ding-dong. It just seems that given all of the problems we have down on Earth - disease, pollution, arms proliferation, poverty, illiteracy - there are better places to spend money than floating space monstrosities and that the only explanation for such governmental extravagances can be a need on the part of those nations' politicians to...compensate.

Well, there RPers that have conquered that already in their nations and moved out into space, and considering that these problems have always existed (and will continue to exist well into our futures) why should we stop expanding our boundaries in RP or IRL? Do we stop from spending money on space based projects because we haven't conquered AIDS, Cancer, or the common cold yet? Do we not explore space because we haven't developed a way to leave no footprint yet on the earth (create a zero-waste civilization) ?

The point is, these things existed when we took to the sea and to the air...why is space any different? Because it is less tangible and harder for the common man to get to? What difference is there? If you say 'because our nations are not already there and x problems should be solved first' then you are, in essence, saying the WA is only in the MT era, so FT nations that have solved these issues should be ignored? Does that also mean that pre-MT nation have no voice either and should be ignored since they are not in the MT era?

Ok. So, allowing for the possibility of space nations retaining their ships and what ot, is there anything salvageable from this proposal? I like the idea of concentrating on orbital weapons platforms. I'm less keen on limiting it only to Death Star-like constructions, because I simply think it'll be too narrow. Plus, the capital investment in truly massive weapons is likely to preclude compliance with international law, whereas decommissioning a few satellites is more feasible.

AGAIN, you are basically limiting the FT people down to glorified MT nations. "No more FT space battle RP for any FT nation that wants to be in the WA" is what you just said. FT nations in the WA are basically limited to RPing MT wars...with the only difference being the technology level used and the ability to fly among the stars...to the next earth planets to battle. You stated in the proposal:

Prohibits the development, production, acquisition, deployment or trafficking of space-based weaponry, including orbital weapons platforms and space-based military aircraft, or the assistance in such activities, by member nations or parties under their jurisdiction;

..which just stated space-based military aircraft (spacecraft perhaps is what you meant?). These are not death-star weapons your proposal was limiting to ban, but down to the lowest form of manned space weapons...the space fighter. This would include the larger cruisers, carriers, and other space warships, since you include all space-based weaponry.


Again, overall you are telling one specific group of RPers they can do X or Y but they can't have both...but everyone else can. Illegal proposal.

If such a weapon could be construed as having no possible defensive applications? Then why not...

Conversely, if a space to surface weapon (note that I am defining "space" as existing outside a planet's orbit) can be shown in some manner to aid a state's defense (preferably other than an argument centered on "Keeping our people in line," as others have tried), then I would oppose restricting/prohibiting their use.

Great, then let us make a proposal that bans all water-based weapons that are not of a strictly defensive nature. All naval fleets would need to be removed, right down to the man on a rowboat with a rifle. Only coastal defense guns would be allowed.

Same with the air...no more fighter jets or bombers allowed. only air-to-ground defense systems would be allowed.

Would that be acceptable (since it's the same resolution...just taken to the step that a the thread starter would propose if she were RPing a pre-MT nation.)

Well the reason I am in this debate is because I do have allies in the WA, in FT. and frankly ill be blunt, icly looking at some thing like this coming from a MT power would make my country go:

"Who the hell do these primitives think they are trying to challenge the dominance of space by powers far grater than them"

The whole core of the debate is that certain people don't want space icly to be a battle field, hell that's impossible, the UTF is sure as hell not disbanding its rather large space fleet due to some laws passed by people with no capabilities of challenging us. we're to busy fending off xenophobic genocidal maniacs from trying to attack us. To lay down arms in space is to sign ones death warrant.

Energy could be better spent hammering out rules of engagement for space weapons. Not banning them outright.

This is very true but we need to step back and look at legislation in the form of:

1) Does this work IC

2) Does this work OOC?

It doesn't work IC because the WA is here for ALL RPers...not just MT RPers like myself (who will be growing into a FT nation later). Legislation, written as it is, prohibits even the 'space-based aircraft' as stated in section one (or otherwise known as a space fighter...such and B5's Starfury, Starwar's X-wing or ties, and Star Trek's shuttles). MT nation's couldn't enforce this legislation if passed anyway so IC this doesn't work.

OOC this can not work because you are telling the FT players they can either have Space wars in the II forum...or they can be part of the WA..but not both. The MT folks though would be able to war in II and play politics in the WA, no worries. Anyone see that as discrimination against RP styles? Also, do you believe many RPers that plays in II and has a MT would vote for legislation proposed by Ancient tech nations that would limit them from any air or ocean battles?

How is this any different?

IC it can't work because it can not be enforced.

OOC it can't work because you are discriminating against a certain type of RPer and punishing them for their RP style by forcing them to choose to either have space battles in II or stick to being a glorified MT nation in II and playing with others here in WA. Feels like it violates Metagaming or Game Mechanics, you take your pick.

Great, then let us make a proposal that bans all water-based weapons that are not of a strictly defensive nature. All naval fleets would need to be removed, right down to the man on a rowboat with a rifle. Only coastal defense guns would be allowed.

Same with the air...no more fighter jets or bombers allowed. only air-to-ground defense systems would be allowed.

Would that be acceptable (since it's the same resolution...just taken to the step that a the thread starter would propose if she were RPing a pre-MT nation.)

If the World Assembly member nations were the only countries in such a world, then of course it would be acceptable because such a proposal would be binding on every country and thus there would be no need for, basically, any military forces. As we do not operate within such a world however, WA member nations must have the right to defend themselves against outside threats, which is where "advanced" weaponry comes into play. Additionally, I made no reference to limiting weapons that were "strictly" defensive in nature, I specifically said that (emphasis added) "If such a weapon could be construed as having no possible defensive applications?" which is certainly (in my opinion) a much more reasonable basis for restricting a weapons category.

As for it being "acceptable" since it's the "same Resolution," only from a pre-MT viewpoint, I must ask you which Resolution you are referring to? If you mean the original Resolution by QoD, then as I stated earlier that Resolution is being scrapped because of the opposition's arguments, including my own. If you are trying to use a proposed Resolution that I opposed as some attempt to show that I am being hypocritical, my advice would be to stop now.

If you mean the proposed revision made by The Narnian Council and myself, then again I will ask, what purpose do space-to-surface WMDs fulfill in a FT nation's defensive plans? Would they be used against an attacking army that has already made landfall? In that case, one could argue that perhaps investing in more surface-to-space weapons instead would be more practical (as it would prevent a hostile army from even making it to a planet's surface) rather than a brand-new, shiny Death Star.

Would these weapons be used to keep a population in line? As Salzland is a representative democracy, we believe that such a justification is morally reprehensible, and will not vote to sanction it as legitimate.

Please, explain how a space-to-surface Weapon of Mass Destruction would be used to protect a FT nation. My guess would be that you cannot, because this category is purely for offensive operations.

If the World Assembly member nations were the only countries in such a world, then of course it would be acceptable because such a proposal would be binding on every country and thus there would be no need for, basically, any military forces. As we do not operate within such a world however, WA member nations must have the right to defend themselves against outside threats, which is where "advanced" weaponry comes into play. Additionally, I made no reference to limiting weapons that were "strictly" defensive in nature, I specifically said that (emphasis added) "If such a weapon could be construed as having no possible defensive applications?" which is certainly (in my opinion) a much more reasonable basis for restricting a weapons category.

I have not spoken about anything you have proposed. Do not automatically assume that because you have posted something, everyone after your post is speaking about it. Your posts never even crossed my mind (I basically skipped them as unimportant and focused on what the original proposer was talking about since her original proposal seemed to me to be discriminatory. That was of more concern to point out that issue of discrimination than your posts.) However not that you bring it up, space-based WMD's do have 'possible' defensive applications for FT nations....more on that later though...


As for it being "acceptable" since it's the "same Resolution," only from a pre-MT viewpoint, I must ask you which Resolution you are referring to? If you mean the original Resolution by QoD, then as I stated earlier that Resolution is being scrapped because of the opposition's arguments, including my own. If you are trying to use a proposed Resolution that I opposed as some attempt to show that I am being hypocritical, my advice would be to stop now.


ALL my comments were based on her original proposal and subsequent posts nothing more. I have no idea what else you are referring to. I must have missed the post made that the original proposal was completely scrapped. Again, I was more concerned with the original proposal and pointing out that if nothing else, it was unworkable in an OOC sense...and very likely illegal.

Also, I was posting back to your comment while attempting to show that your support of the resolution could be taken all the way back to basically saying no WA member may have any weapons that were not of a defensive nature.

Why limit this to space and screw over just the FT people? Please understand that this has nothing to do with you as a player. I am doing nothing more than trying to protect all of the NS gamers to be able to RP their wars as they wish in II and be allowed to participate in WA.

The original proposal and the comments made by the proposer showed bias and discrimination again a certain group of NS gamers, which I have proved in prior posts.

If you mean the proposed revision made by The Narnian Council and myself, then again I will ask, what purpose do space-to-surface WMDs fulfill in a FT nation's defensive plans?

I haven't seen your proposals, so I can't comment on them. What purpose do SSM WMDs serve as a defensive plan for a FT nation? Well, first, many FT nations are large enough to own entire worlds where the whole population is under their control. Many of them have no other nation's colonies. Defensively, if a military force was able to gain a foothold on a world you owned and you felt that the treat was great enough to warrant a nuclear attack, having the ability to drop weapons from space onto the unsuspecting enemy with little to no warning is a great asset. Oh certain, it can be abused like any weapon system, however there are legitimate reasons for those weapons. Just because you, yourself IC or OOC would RP in that manner, doesn't mean that everyone else wouldn't.

Would they be used against an attacking army that has already made landfall? In that case, one could argue that perhaps investing in more surface-to-space weapons instead would be more practical (as it would prevent a hostile army from even making it to a planet's surface) rather than a brand-new, shiny Death Star.

Why a do they have to be death stars? Why not WMDs hidden inside innocent looking Satellite radio sats? There are a million RPable reasons you would use for those weapons MT, or FT (Sabotage of the ground based defenses leads to an enemy gaining a foothold and the only way to purge them off the planet in time is a surprise surgical WMD strike, pops in mind.)

And during a major war, Scorched Earth is a valid military tactic. Perhaps if a FT nation is fighting off something akin to xenomorphs from "Aliens" or Halo's "Flood", or even Starcraft's "Zerg" would demand leveling an infected planet less the rest of their colonies and worlds are infected. In that sense, these platforms fall into the defensive category. They are defending the rest of the FT nation's worlds again invasion against this parasitical alien.

Perhaps a non WA member infected a single FT nation's world with a virus that is genetically engineered to kill off the victimized FT nation's entire race. Immediately purging that planet to prevent any infected citizen from leaving and possibly infecting others is very valid.

We also need to think about RPers that would be playing FT nations such as the "Shadows" or "Vorlons" from B5. Such nations would use SSWMD against their own population or other worlds as shown in II threads again and again.

I want to point out that, even the humans in B5 had their orbital defense system set to turn on earth in one of Season Four's final episodes, and those satellites were said to be for purely defensive reasons. Limiting a system to only possible 'defensive' means nothing since you can come up with any scenario's making it possible.

Would these weapons be used to keep a population in line? As Salzland is a representative democracy, we believe that such a justification is morally reprehensible, and will not vote to sanction it as legitimate.

Ok, so now only non-dictatorships are allowed in the WA? Since they may believe in using such weapons against their population...while you do not... is their RP style is invalid and thus they can not RP that and be in the WA at the same time? So we switch from barring FT nations from their playing in II or in WA but not both to saying that Dictatorships and corrupt governments may not RP in II in a certain way and be part of WA at the same time. Gotcha.

Please, explain how a space-to-surface Weapon of Mass Destruction would be used to protect a FT nation. My guess would be that you cannot, because this category is purely for offensive operations.

Since I have already provided two instances, I guess that there are reasons to have SSWMDs. BTW, I think technology that would allow nations to send asteroids towards a world would also fall under this catagory, correct? So no FT nation may put a Mass-Driver or space engine on a great big rock and aim it at a world. That's definitely thousands to millions of times more destructive than the biggest practical nuclear weapons.

I have not spoken about anything you have proposed. Do not automatically assume that because you have posted something, everyone after your post is speaking about it. Your posts never even crossed my mind (I basically skipped them as unimportant and focused on what the original proposer was talking about since her original proposal seemed to me to be discriminatory. That was of more concern to point out that issue of discrimination than your posts.) However not that you bring it up, space-based WMD's do have 'possible' defensive applications for FT nations....more on that later though...


When you quote me, and I am directly refering to a space-to-surface revision as proposed by the author in a direct quote (as you will see in my post), then I have no choice but to assume you are speaking about what I am refering to. Your laziness in not reading the context of my post and then making blind assumptions is no excuse for you to blame the mistake on me. If you aren't willing to read an entire post, don't bother quoting it.


ALL my comments were based on her original proposal and subsequent posts nothing more. I have no idea what else you are referring to. I must have missed the post made that the original proposal was completely scrapped. Again, I was more concerned with the original proposal and pointing out that if nothing else, it was unworkable in an OOC sense...and very likely illegal.

Considering you yourself quoted the post where the author gave up on the original Resolution ("Ok. So, allowing for the possibility of space nations retaining their ships and what ot, is there anything salvageable from this proposal?"), I find this argument flimsy at best, but in the interests of progress will drop the matter.


Also, I was posting back to your comment while attempting to show that your support of the resolution could be taken all the way back to basically saying no WA member may have any weapons that were not of a defensive nature.

This has already been addressed in the first paragraph of my response.

Why limit this to space and screw over just the FT people? Please understand that this has nothing to do with you as a player. I am doing nothing more than trying to protect all of the NS gamers to be able to RP their wars as they wish in II and be allowed to participate in WA.

The original proposal and the comments made by the proposer showed bias and discrimination again a certain group of NS gamers, which I have proved in prior posts.


No personal offense has been taken, the original proposal was biased (IMO)and was retracted. I believe the author's intention was to try and limit planet-killing WMDs, which are generally the domain of FT players. Hence, why FT players are being impacted the strongest by this Resolution. I'm sure if any pre-MT players had planet-killing superweapons at their disposal, they would have an arms control Resolution aimed at them as well.


I haven't seen your proposals, so I can't comment on them. What purpose do SSM WMDs serve as a defensive plan for a FT nation? Well, first, many FT nations are large enough to own entire worlds where the whole population is under their control. Many of them have no other nation's colonies. Defensively, if a military force was able to gain a foothold on a world you owned and you felt that the treat was great enough to warrant a nuclear attack, having the ability to drop weapons from space onto the unsuspecting enemy with little to no warning is a great asset. Oh certain, it can be abused like any weapon system, however there are legitimate reasons for those weapons. Just because you, yourself IC or OOC would RP in that manner, doesn't mean that everyone else wouldn't.

If an opposing nation were that powerful, would they realistically leave any space platforms, let alone ones blatantly housing WMDs/ used for defense purposes intact? If I were an advanced FT nation attacking another, my order of battle would certainly include eradicating any and all opposing space forces and technologies, including but not limited to communications and global positioning satellites. My point being, a force powerful enough to sweep away any space defenses and land on a planet would certainly ensure that no other potential threats existed, especially one so obvious as an orbital weapons platform ("disguised" or not, to have any significant impact such a system would certainly be large enough as to stand out like a sore thumb in a typical orbital satellite constellation) before landing troops, making this justification questionable at best.

Additionally, why would a WMD need to be used? Surely precision tactical weapons (such as kinetic missiles, which I do not believe would be banned under any proposed Resolution restricting WMDs) could accomplish the same job of eliminating a hostile invading force, could do it with precision (taking out the enemy dropships before they can even unload troops, for example), and do it without turning huge areas of land/population centers into uninhabitable wastelands?

Why a do they have to be death stars? Why not WMDs hidden inside innocent looking Satellite radio sats? There are a million RPable reasons you would use for those weapons MT, or FT (Sabotage of the ground based defenses leads to an enemy gaining a foothold and the only way to purge them off the planet in time is a surprise surgical WMD strike, pops in mind.)

My intent was solely to use a highly recognizable example of a space-to-surface WMD to illustrate a point, not limit the argument to only one, hugely expensive type of space-surface WMD. As for sabotage necessitating space-based WMDs, certainly if an enemy force were to penetrate a planet's defenses to such an extent, taking out the relay facilities for orbital WMDs would be not only a higher priority (why knock out the second line of defense, AKA ground-based facilities, while leaving the primary defenses, AKA space-based, online), but a much simpler task as well. Again, such systems would be obvious and using the "Surprise, all of my satellites are actually armed with 10,000 nuclear missiles each!" argument in RP would not only be ridiculous, but a cheap attempt to steal a stalemate or victory by revealing a weapons system that could not realistically be kept secret (surely an opposing force sitting in space would be able to tell the difference between a run of the mill unarmed satellite, and one massive enough to contain one or more WMDs).

And during a major war, Scorched Earth is a valid military tactic. Perhaps if a FT nation is fighting off something akin to xenomorphs from "Aliens" or Halo's "Flood", or even Starcraft's "Zerg" would demand leveling an infected planet less the rest of their colonies and worlds are infected. In that sense, these platforms fall into the defensive category. They are defending the rest of the FT nation's worlds again invasion against this parasitical alien.

In these instances either a quarantine would accomplish the same (preventing any interplanetary craft from leaving a planet), or the weapons platform (assuming it wasn't destroyed/infested outright, as has happened in each of the three examples you provided) would still be used in an offensive sense to destroy only an enemy-occupied planet. In no way would this defend the other planets/colonies (unless such "parasitical alien threat" originated on the destroyed former colony of said attacking state, in which case a quarantine would still work as the threat would have no interplanetary travel capacity and would thus be easily starved to death), because the threat would've had to come from somewhere.

Perhaps a non WA member infected a single FT nation's world with a virus that is genetically engineered to kill off the victimized FT nation's entire race. Immediately purging that planet to prevent any infected citizen from leaving and possibly infecting others is very valid.

Again, it would be relatively simple to quarantine the planet, and use non-WMD weapons systems to destroy any interplanetary craft attempting to leave.

We also need to think about RPers that would be playing FT nations such as the "Shadows" or "Vorlons" from B5. Such nations would use SSWMD against their own population or other worlds as shown in II threads again and again.

My recollections are a bit fuzzy, but didn't those examples use WMDs against each other and each others' followers, not themselves? Preventing such destruction is why the World Assembly is granted the ability to pass Resolutions aimed at global arms control in the first place.

I want to point out that, even the humans in B5 had their orbital defense system set to turn on earth in one of Season Four's final episodes, and those satellites were said to be for purely defensive reasons. Limiting a system to only possible 'defensive' means nothing since you can come up with any scenario's making it possible.

As you yourself said, the potential for "misuse" will always exist. I propose, however, that there is an inherent difference between a weapons system intended to engage and destroy the warships of a hostile space power, and a weapons system loaded with WMDs aimed at your own planet, just in case.


Ok, so now only non-dictatorships are allowed in the WA? Since they may believe in using such weapons against their population...while you do not... is their RP style is invalid and thus they can not RP that and be in the WA at the same time? So we switch from barring FT nations from their playing in II or in WA but not both to saying that Dictatorships and corrupt governments may not RP in II in a certain way and be part of WA at the same time. Gotcha.

While I thank you for implying that I speak for the entire World Assembly with regards to dictatorships, I am operating entirely within my rights to support or oppose Resolutions for whatever reason I see fit. As several dictatorships in this thread have mentioned their need of space-based WMDs to "control" their populations, as Salzland is a free society I am allowed to role-play an opposition to this point of view as a legitimate argument in favor of banning them.

In other words, are you attempting to argue that it is acceptable for dicatorships to RP in favor of space-based WMDs as a means of controlling their people, while free states are prohibited from RP-ing opposition to such an argument? As I previously stated, Salzland will not support allowing states to build space-based WMD systems for the express purpose of controlling populations. It is our right to oppose this practice, as it is the right of dictatorships to argue in favor of it. Or do you believe that only one side of the argument on any issue may be allowed to speak on it?


Since I have already provided two instances, I guess that there are reasons to have SSWMDs. BTW, I think technology that would allow nations to send asteroids towards a world would also fall under this catagory, correct? So no FT nation may put a Mass-Driver or space engine on a great big rock and aim it at a world. That's definitely thousands to millions of times more destructive than the biggest practical nuclear weapons.

I believe I have adequately discussed why space-to-surface WMDs would have no special, helpful impact in either of those instances, and how conventional weapons would be equally effective without resorting to outright planetary destruction, or other instances of mass destruction. As to your example of an asteroid propelled towards a planet using a mass-driver or other device, such an object deliberately steered towards another nation with the intent of causing its collision with said planet would certainly be an example of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

If you mean the proposed revision made by The Narnian Council and myself, then again I will ask, what purpose do space-to-surface WMDs fulfill in a FT nation's defensive plans? Would they be used against an attacking army that has already made landfall? In that case, one could argue that perhaps investing in more surface-to-space weapons instead would be more practical (as it would prevent a hostile army from even making it to a planet's surface) rather than a brand-new, shiny Death Star.

Would these weapons be used to keep a population in line? As Salzland is a representative democracy, we believe that such a justification is morally reprehensible, and will not vote to sanction it as legitimate.

Please, explain how a space-to-surface Weapon of Mass Destruction would be used to protect a FT nation. My guess would be that you cannot, because this category is purely for offensive operations.

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong people, would like to know why it matters if we use such weapons to keep populations in line or to utterly defeat enemies. The ones in which these 'Death Stars' are used on is up to the nation that possesses it. Like Karshkovia said earlier, it cannot be enforce in either IC or OOC. The FT nations would just go about their buisness because none of the PMT nations would force us since they are beginning space travel and certainly, the MT nations could not stop us. And considering that the scrapped proposal only targeted FT nations we must wonder if he feared FT nations.

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong people, would like to know why it matters if we use such weapons to keep populations in line or to utterly defeat enemies. The ones in which these 'Death Stars' are used on is up to the nation that possesses it. Like Karshkovia said earlier, it cannot be enforce in either IC or OOC. The FT nations would just go about their buisness because none of the PMT nations would force us since they are beginning space travel and certainly, the MT nations could not stop us. And considering that the scrapped proposal only targeted FT nations we must wonder if he feared FT nations.

Why does it matter how you intend to use them? Because if a dictatorship uses the control of its population as the sole reason behind employing space-to-surface WMDs, then how can you expect a free country to vote to support them? In other words, why should I vote to allow a dictatorship to use WMDs to keep its people in line, when the sole "need" for such weapons is to prevent rebellions? The World Assembly, in the opinion of Salzland's government, should not allow a category of offense-only weapons to exist just because a small minority of governments need them to stay in power, thus on Resolutions such as the revised Space-based WMD ban, we will vote to take such weapons away from tyrants. Every member joined the WA knowing full well that this organization is capable of over-riding our national sovereignty; if you're offended by the possible exercise of a power that this body clearly has (as I will elaborate), then you should either oppose it, get your friends to oppose it and vote it down, or leave.


Why a Resolution prohibiting the development of Space to Surface WMDs is legal:

(Emphasis added)


Global Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

***
These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

It's specifically mentioned in the rules as legitimate, therefore it's legal and if you don't like it, build an opposition and vote it down.

Why a Resolution prohibiting the development of Space to Surface WMDs is legal:

Emphasis added



It's specifically mentioned in the rules as legitimate, therefore it's legal and if you don't like it, build an opposition and vote it down.

Lets say us non-WA members decide to attack. What then would you do. Because as I have said, MT nations are defenseless against us, PMT nations would stay of the way and you have gotten rid of space-based weapons. So then what?

Lets say us non-WA members decide to attack. What then would you do. Because as I have said, MT nations are defenseless against us, PMT nations would stay of the way and you have gotten rid of space-based weapons. So then what?

First, it's space to surface WMDs that are the issue at hand. How a weapon pointing at the planet you're attacking is meant to stop you I won't even pretend to understand.

Second, if you're not a member of the WA, you don't get to vote on any Resolutions and they don't impact you whatsoever, so kindly get out.

First, it's space to surface WMDs that are the issue at hand. How a weapon pointing at the planet you're attacking is meant to stop you I won't even pretend to understand.

Second, if you're not a member of the WA, you don't get to vote on any Resolutions and they don't impact you whatsoever, so kindly get out.

I will not get out. I will be part of these discussions because I have an interest in the safety of the civilians you put at danger with your proposal.:rolleyes:

I will not get out. I will be part of these discussions because I have an interest in the safety of the civilians you put at danger with your proposal.:rolleyes:

You identified your country as not alligned with the World Assembly, hence you are not impacted at all by any policies discussed or implemented here, and have no interests whatsoever at stake.

You identified your country as not alligned with the World Assembly, hence you are not impacted at all by any policies discussed or implemented here, and have no interests whatsoever at stake.

Indeed I am not with the WA and I would not be effected. However your proposal and those who support it need to be aware that there is a threat out there and this proposal makes them defenseless. Secondly I have a right to voice my opinion whether this resolution affects me or not. :rolleyes:

Indeed I am not with the WA and I would not be effected. However your proposal and those who support it need to be aware that there is a threat out there and this proposal makes them defenseless. Secondly I have a right to voice my opinion whether this resolution affects me or not. :rolleyes:

Despite challenges, no one has definitevely shown how a space to surface WMD system is absolutely essential to a country's defenses. The only examples to come up are ones in which conventional weapons are able to do just as effective a job, while at the same avoiding all of the nasty side effects of WMD usage (namely: Mass Destruction). No one is advocating leaving any nation "defenseless," far from it. Speaking only for myself, my goal is to have QoD's Resolution revised to remove a category of weapons dedicated solely to offensive operations against ground based "targets." Member states are free, and should remain so, to build whatever space-based defenses they wish (be they anti-ship weapons platforms, armed interplanetary vessels, military alliances, etcetera), but the World Assembly is specifically authorized to enact legislation restricting the development and implementation of space-based weapons systems, if it so chooses.

OOC: To paraphrase a moderator, You aren't even in the WA, what are you so fired up about?

Despite challenges, no one has definitevely shown how a space to surface WMD system is absolutely essential to a country's defenses. The only examples to come up are ones in which conventional weapons are able to do just as effective a job, while at the same avoiding all of the nasty side effects of WMD usage (namely: Mass Destruction). No one is advocating leaving any nation "defenseless," far from it. Speaking only for myself, my goal is to have QoD's Resolution revised to remove a category of weapons dedicated solely to offensive operations against ground based "targets." Member states are free, and should remain so, to build whatever space-based defenses they wish (be they anti-ship weapons platforms, armed interplanetary vessels, military alliances, etcetera), but the World Assembly is specifically authorized to enact legislation restricting the development and implementation of space-based weapons systems, if it so chooses.

OOC: To paraphrase a moderator, You aren't even in the WA, what are you so fired up about?

Why revise it at all. Should we remove a category of weapons from both MT and PMT nations as well? No most people don't even accept the tech levels interacting so any proposal of the such would be useless. Plus the original proposal was extremely bias and I expect the same from the revised. :rolleyes:

Why revise it at all. Should we remove a category of weapons from both MT and PMT nations as well? No most people don't even accept the tech levels interacting so any proposal of the such would be useless. Plus the original proposal was extremely bias and I expect the same from the revised. :rolleyes:

It needs to be revised because it bans all space-based weapons, including defenses.

It is legal because the World Assembly specifically has the power to regulate space-based weapons.

If you don't like it, and the revised proposal is ever created, then join the WA, vote against it, and persuade other people to do it too. Otherwise, tough.

It needs to be revised because it bans all space-based weapons, including defenses.

It is legal because the World Assembly specifically has the power to regulate space-based weapons.

If you don't like it, and the revised proposal is ever created, then join the WA, vote against it, and persuade other people to do it too. Otherwise, tough.

The "tough" is more aimed at you. Because I am not affected. It was your allies proposal that got shot down. So your words are empty.:rolleyes:

The "tough" is more aimed at you. Because I am not affected. It was your allies proposal that got shot down. So your words are empty.:rolleyes:

I opposed the original Resolution, still oppose it, and am trying to revise it so that QoD's work isn't in vain, so no, it's not tough for me. Thanks for playing though

I opposed the original Resolution, still oppose it, and am trying to revise it so that QoD's work isn't in vain, so no, it's not tough for me. Thanks for playing though

Ya you too. I have no problem with you its just I get into the spirit of debate easily! :D

Ya you too. I have no problem with you its just I get into the spirit of debate easily! :D

It's something to do, since there are only about 4 people online now, and these are arguments that are bound to come up if the revised Resolution is ever introduced.

I doubt many representatives here are going to take 20 minutes to read through the last long-winded pages...most of us are already asleep.

Might I remind the involved debaters that there is absolutely no point in discussing the issue. The proposal, written as it is, will not take this form once submitted. It is going to be revised, and will most probably read very differently.

If you'd like to debate upon methods of revision, I'd suggest you'd save yourselves the time, and talk about it directly with Samantha Benson, rather than quibbling about it amongst reps that have no power to edit it.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Sorry to disagree, but I am following the discussion; I just don't have time to make a substantive reply right now. Frankly, I welcome the ongoing debate: it's proving helpful. I hope to have a longer comment and a revised draft on Sunday or Monday, but until then there's absolutely no reason not to discuss the issue.

Sorry to disagree, but I am following the discussion; I just don't have time to make a substantive reply right now. Frankly, I welcome the ongoing debate: it's proving helpful. I hope to have a longer comment and a revised draft on Sunday or Monday, but until then there's absolutely no reason not to discuss the issue.

I can't wait to see what you have come up with. :D

I doubt many representatives here are going to take 20 minutes to read through the last long-winded pages...most of us are already asleep.

Zzzzzzz. Who put the earmuffs on my cookie? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

You identified your country as not alligned with the World Assembly, hence you are not impacted at all by any policies discussed or implemented here, and have no interests whatsoever at stake.

Let's end this argument right here. Non-WA members are always welcome to post their two cents worth. I did so for four years as a non-UN member while still working as one of two UN moderators.

If discussion needs stifling, raise it as a question in the Moderation forum and let us handle it (or not). Clear?

I hope to have a longer comment and a revised draft on Sunday or Monday, but until then there's absolutely no reason not to discuss the issue.Perhaps, as a bone to the FT nations, restrict the ban to orbital weapons. That would ban most ortillery, and death-sats, but allow FT nations the have their spacedy ships blast each other until the cows come home. It would also allow FT nations to land their drop ships full of hover plasma tanks when fighting MT nations.

Like Karshkovia said earlier, it cannot be enforce in either IC or OOC. The FT nations would just go about their buisness because none of the PMT nations would force us since they are beginning space travel and certainly, the MT nations could not stop us.
WA resolutions can only [directly] affect members of the WA. If the FT nations in question are WA members then -- under this organisation's core rules -- any such resolution would automatically become a part of their own law-codes and those nations' governments would therefore become responsible for enforcing it upon themselves.

Lets say us non-WA members decide to attack. What then would you do. Because as I have said, MT nations are defenseless against us, PMT nations would stay of the way and you have gotten rid of space-based weapons. So then what?
We have the 'IGNORE Cannons'... ;)

(OOC: i.e. nobody can force us to RP with those nations, so they can only attack us if we're actually willing to face those attacks...)

You identified your country as not alligned with the World Assembly, hence you are not impacted at all by any policies discussed or implemented here, and have no interests whatsoever at stake.
To be fair, that nation might have allies who are WA members...

Let's end this argument right here. Non-WA members are always welcome to post their two cents worth. I did so for four years as a non-UN member while still working as one of two UN moderators.

If discussion needs stifling, raise it as a question in the Moderation forum and let us handle it (or not). Clear?

Crystal...

The issue was already done with hours before. No one else was actively participating, so we mutually went at each other (at least in my case) solely to pass the time.

Perhaps, as a bone to the FT nations, restrict the ban to orbital weapons. That would ban most ortillery, and death-sats, but allow FT nations the have their spacedy ships blast each other until the cows come home. It would also allow FT nations to land their drop ships full of hover plasma tanks when fighting MT nations.

I completly agree and as of today I am a WA member. So these debates now mean more to me.:D

Ok, so, this is what I've come up with. I've avoided using a clunky 'Defines...' clause, but the definition is contained within clause 1: 'orbital weapons systems with space-to-surface strike capability'.
The World Assembly,

blah blah peace love cheesemongery,

blah blah hopeless compromise,

Declares:

1. Member nations or parties under their jurisdiction may not produce, acquire, stockpile, transfer, deploy or use orbital weapons systems with space-to-surface strike capability, nor assist other parties in such activities.

2. Exceptions to Clause 1 shall exist for:
- technical assistance for the sole purposes of improving safety;
- transfer for the purposes of decommissioning.

3. Member nations or parties under their jurisdiction shall not install or maintain NBCR weaponry on satellites, nor assist other parties in such activities. No satellites within the territorial jurisdiction of member nations may employ NBCR weaponry.

4. This resolution does not prohibit other space-based military activities, such as the development of military spacecraft, the transport of arms through space, the deployment of defensive weaponry for anti-missile or anti-NEO purposes, or otherwise, or the deployment of military satellites for communications or intelligence purposes, or otherwise. This largely unnecessary clause is included largely as a sop to hyperactive alarmists, who probably won't read it anyway.

5. Respecting the relative difficulty of decommissioning existing orbital weapons systems, member nations must nonetheless proceed with all due haste to come into compliance with this Resolution, and must have decommissioned all existing systems in violation of Clauses 1 or 3 within 10 years of its passage.

6. Satellites with space-to-space strike capability and other elements of space weaponry must be subject to regular and thorough maintenance.

7. The fullest possible exploration of space between nations in peaceful accord is encouraged.

This doesn't affect us since, being wasps, we lack the technology and opposable thumbs necessary to construct such vehicles. However, I have a couple of questions about Article 1.

Would transports capable of entering the atmosphere and carrying troops and/or armor to the surface be covered under your definition?

Also, you might want to clarify what you mean by "space". As currently worded, a vessel capable of striking a planet's surface from an altitude of 100 km (62.1 miles) would be illegal. However a vessel capable of doing the same thing from an altitude of 99 km would be legal since it would not technically be in "space". This of course applies only to "Earth". Space would begin at a different altitude on different planets, depending on the composition of the atmosphere, gravitation, etc. Perhaps you should use "orbit" instead.

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

We can support this.

Only because of clause 4. "This resolution does not prohibit other space-based military activities, such as the development of military spacecraft, the transport of arms through space, the deployment of defensive weaponry for anti-missile or anti-NEO purposes, or otherwise, or the deployment of military satellites for communications or intelligence purposes, or otherwise. This largely unnecessary clause is included largely as a sop to hyperactive alarmists, who probably won't read it anyway."

But I hope my colleague from Quintessence of Dust doesn't see me as a hyperactive alarmist (and then an exception because I do read this). But some people in the Netherlands once had a group called the alarmists and I do feel I am acting about the same way as they did.

Wish you success with this proposal,
Cocoamok
WA delegate from Intelligentsia Island

Would transports capable of entering the atmosphere and carrying troops and/or armor to the surface be covered under your definition?
Are they orbital weapons systems with space-to-surface strike capability? Pretty obviously not.

Also, you might want to clarify what you mean by "space".
No. Really we don't. That way lies madness, and endless hours of science wankery from people whose definition of "space" is never going to align.

As currently worded, a vessel capable of striking a planet's surface from an altitude of 100 km (62.1 miles) would be illegal. However a vessel capable of doing the same thing from an altitude of 99 km would be legal since it would not technically be in "space".
They're orbiting and carrying space-to-surface weaponry. I don't see how they're remotely legal.

If I were the poor, unfortunate Mod who had to read this stuff, I would have long ago gone on a killing rampage to keep from killing myself.

Honestly, you people are so dang mean to one another. Why?

Honestly, you people are so dang mean to one another. Why?
Because it's entertaining?

Are they orbital weapons systems with space-to-surface strike capability? Pretty obviously not.
You're probably right. Being wasps we have little experience in these matters and I thought it prudent to ask, simply for clarification. Or to hear myself talk...


No. Really we don't. That way lies madness, and endless hours of science wankery from people whose definition of "space" is never going to align.
Which is why I suggested the use of "orbit" rather than "space". For something to be orbital a set of well defined requirements must be achieved. The definition of "space" can be arbitrary.


They're orbiting and carrying space-to-surface weaponry. I don't see how they're remotely legal.
But again, if "space" is the yardstick, a vessel at an altitude of 99 km isn't in it.

*hovers menacingly over the Gobbannaen delegation*

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

His Most Imperial Majesty Akiroto I is confused.

Does the WA believe it has jurisdiction over the known universe? Within Earth's orbit I can understand but why should the WA be able to stop me sticking a long range bombard cannon on a platform in the asteroid belt?

Also, does this ban stop me from using weaponry that leaves the atmosphere and then re-enters it?

What if groups from beyond attack and we are unable to damage them before they make planetfall? Will the WA accept full responsibility for any damage caused?

Does the WA believe it has jurisdiction over the known universe?

The WA believes it has jurisdiction over its members. Which it does; they explicitly give it that right on joining.

What if groups from beyond attack and we are unable to damage them before they make planetfall? Will the WA accept full responsibility for any damage caused?

I'm sure that, like most bureaucratic organizations, the WA accepts responsibility for (translator error blanks out word).

Mainly in response to the points of the representatives of Snefaldia and The Narnian Council, I'd like to ask why we should care. Quintessence of Dust is not a spacefaring nation. We've sent up a few satellites, probes, and a capsule full of jiba!-jiba! monkeys, but we don't have the kind of space navies you seem to be referring to. So why should we care about nations with space navies? If this proposal would disadvantage them, well, frankly, good. At the moment they possess a potentially enormous advantage over us in military and commercial terms. If they stay in the WA, the playing field will be levelled; if they don't, it'll leave future WA legislators free to deal with real issues instead of having to worry about nuclear fusion or alien rights.

It is also not 'petty' to rescue for all humankind the promise of the peaceful exploration of space. As the noted Quodite countercultural comedian Bill Quicks once noted:

Sadly, it looks like the collective devotion to intergalatic megaphalluses will trump any attempt to conserve the heavens as a common domain for all.

-- Samantha Benson

Being a space-born nation, with space bound military force, I think I can highlight some problems... WA nations generally do not have to fear actions of other WA nations, given the scope of WA legislation... It's WA nations who have to fear from possible rogue states not in the WA... The proposal MAY "even" the field for you vs. WA member states with "space-navies" but has absolutely no impact on non WA members with space-navies... As such, in reality all the proposal does is act as a direct legal attack on NFT/FFT WA states against their NFT/FFT NON-WA adversaries...

Your intent to create a situation where space-bound exploration is so-called "protected" for "peaceful exploration" is a self-defeating fantasy... What it will actually do is unarm the bulk of "peaceful explorers" exploration/defense forces, causing them to either (1) Leave the WA to continue their capacity to explore and defend, or (2) Make them hunker down on their home planets behind their planetary defenses and cease all possible exploration out of fear of being destroyed by the countless nations to which this legal code would simply not apply...

Tekania would leave the WA if such legislation as this were passed, rather than put our entire state at risk.