NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-personnel

this link is for any delegates who wish to approve our nations humble first time efforts at resolution writing.

Category- Global Dissarmament

Strength- Strong


This resolution will ban the use of Anti-personnel mines,

which it defines as any and all Ordinance which is meant to be placed on or in the ground which may be detonated either remotely or by motion or pressure detection and which is meant to kill or injure soldiers or civilians.

this resolution seeks such a ban in light of the very great number of intended and unintended deaths and injuries inflicted on non-combatant civilians during and after the prosecutions of conflicts in which these mines were laid.

this resolution requires that nations ;

1. cease all production of anti-personnel mines,

2. cease all import or export of these mines except for the purpose of their destruction,

3. cease all stock pilling of these mines, except for the purpose of their decomission,

4. cease all laying of these mines either in peace time or in war,

5. provide accurate mapping of all and any mines laid by them for the purpose of the destruction of these mines,

6. provide adequate funds for the aforementioned destruction,

7. provide adequate funds for the treatment of those civilians injured by mines they have laid,

8. not provide plans for the construction, or materials for the manufacture of these mines to non World Assembly Nations.

9. Begin and in as relatively swift a time as possible finish the process of destroying any and all Anti-personnel mines in their posession or within their territory,

All of these above provisions should be carried out emediately where stated or within as short a time period as practicality will allow.




the government of the emperor of Urgench invites advice and debate on our proposed resolution,

this republic will gladly support any resolution requiring nationstates employing such devices to properly dispose of them at the end of a conflict--and, provide for the losing side, WA nations only however, to do the same.

however, we cannot support this proposal as written--in war, there are no rules. furthermore, this proposal risks WA nationstates engaged in combat with non-WA nationstates who have no such restriction. more still, at what point does this end? while indulging in slippery slope, this embassy can not help but think this sets a precident for banning munitions and/or other weaponry in the future, right down to full-on disarment.

we urge, with all candour and respect, that the honourable representative of Urgench to please reconsider this proposal as written.

the government of the emperor of urgench thanks the honoured ambassador for their input but feels that the terrible risk which land mines pose to civilians in war time or peace is so great that it negates the actual utility of their use in war. we have no interest in banning other munitions or ordinance at this time, in fact our nation is a net exporter of arms.
the advice we have received as to the actual usefullness of landmines suggests that they are only off very limited value in any case.

since they are in the mainly used for defence we cannot see what difference this proposed resolution will make to conflicts with non w.a. nations.

the government of the emperor of urgench thanks the honoured ambassador for their input but feels that the terrible risk which land mines pose to civilians in war time or peace is so great that it negates the actual utility of their use in war. we have no interest in banning other munitions or ordinance at this time, in fact our nation is a net exporter of arms.
the advice we have received as to the actual usefullness of landmines suggests that they are only off very limited value in any case.

since they are in the mainly used for defence we cannot see what difference this proposed resolution will make to conflicts with non w.a. nations.

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong people agree with the glorious delegate of the Emperor Urgench. Mines may have been intended for defensive purposes but in most cases they just harm innocent civilians. Removing them would not be the difference between winning and losing a war since most technology of any tech level could detect the mines and therefore allow enemies to avoid them. So whats the point of mines if they only kill innocent civillians.

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong people agree with the glorious delegate of the Emperor Urgench. Mines may have been intended for defensive purposes but in most cases they just harm innocent civilians. Removing them would not be the difference between winning and losing a war since most technology of any tech level could detect the mines and therefore allow enemies to avoid them. So whats the point of mines if they only kill innocent civillians.


the honoured ambassador for Yuuzhaun Vong shows excellent perception of the problem and the intent of this proposed resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong people agree with the glorious delegate of the Emperor Urgench. Mines may have been intended for defensive purposes but in most cases they just harm innocent civilians. Removing them would not be the difference between winning and losing a war since most technology of any tech level could detect the mines and therefore allow enemies to avoid them. So whats the point of mines if they only kill innocent civillians.

we wonder and amaze at the vast technological prowess of the worthy embassy of the Yuuzhan Vong! we are indeed, so impressed their military wing has spent so much of its resources to create devices so capable of detecting mines and i.d.e.s with so much ease as to lift an autumn hair.

however, we in the republics have no great faith all WA nations have such technology so as to render these devices useless--indeed, as these devices are rendered useless by such glorious technology as the Vong people possses, we wonder why they have not disappeared?

we wonder and amaze at the vast technological prowess of the worthy embassy of the Yuuzhan Vong! we are indeed, so impressed their military wing has spent so much of its resources to create devices so capable of detecting mines and i.d.e.s with so much ease as to lift an autumn hair.

however, we in the republics have no great faith all WA nations have such technology so as to render these devices useless--indeed, as these devices are rendered useless by such glorious technology as the Vong people possses, we wonder why they have not disappeared?

I am aware that not all WA nations can detect these mines and if this resolution is passed they would be spared the cost of such technology and many innocent lives.:)

the government of the emperor of urgench thanks the honoured ambassador for their input but feels that the terrible risk which land mines pose to civilians in war time or peace is so great that it negates the actual utility of their use in war. we have no interest in banning other munitions or ordinance at this time, in fact our nation is a net exporter of arms.
the advice we have received as to the actual usefullness of landmines suggests that they are only off very limited value in any case.

since they are in the mainly used for defence we cannot see what difference this proposed resolution will make to conflicts with non w.a. nations.

/bows low before the honoured Urgench embassy

we thank thee for thy reply.

as a military nation, we would remind the worthy embassy mines may be deployed in defensive and offensive, we would point to the effective use of IDEs in assymetrical engagement sthroughout time--ruling them out against an opponent with no such compunction sets up the potential for aWA nation to fall victim, and, the possiblity of more casualties of WA forces assisting a nation in its engagment.

and, as a defence, we see no reason why they should be banned if they provide an effective deterrent.

again, we will gladly support any resolution requiring nation states deploying these devices be ultimately responsible for their disposal, but we can not in good concious support a ban.

I am aware that not all WA nations can detect these mines and if this resolution is passed they would be spared the cost of such technology and many innocent lives.:)

among WA nations indeed. however, we wonder about non-WA nations in aggressive postures freely using these devices. we have no illusions regarding unconventional warfare--indeed, this republic came about as it broke the chains of colonialism via assyemtrical warfare that "broke" the rules of engagement. we see no reason why any other nation state would not do the same.

/bows low before the honoured Urgench embassy

we thank thee for thy reply.

as a military nation, we would remind the worthy embassy mines may be deployed in defensive and offensive, we would point to the effective use of IDEs in assymetrical engagement sthroughout time--ruling them out against an opponent with no such compunction sets up the potential for aWA nation to fall victim, and, the possiblity of more casualties of WA forces assisting a nation in its engagment.

and, as a defence, we see no reason why they should be banned if they provide an effective deterrent.

again, we will gladly support any resolution requiring nation states deploying these devices be ultimately responsible for their disposal, but we can not in good concious support a ban.


the government of the emperor of Urgench admires any nation with a concience, it is our concience that will not let us stand idly by when civilians of either world assembly or non world assembly nations are killed and horribly maimed by these ordinance both during war and in peace time.

we have considered a resolution which simply mandated the proper clearence of mines but this would not stop world assembly nations selling mines to non w.a. nations who's lives will be blighted or snuffed out by them.

we feel a ban to be the only sensible option, from both a moral and practical point of view.

yours e.t.c ,

among WA nations indeed. however, we wonder about non-WA nations in aggressive postures freely using these devices. we have no illusions regarding unconventional warfare--indeed, this republic came about as it broke the chains of colonialism via assyemtrical warfare that "broke" the rules of engagement. we see no reason why any other nation state would not do the same.

As has been stated we cannot control the actions of non WA members. But that will never change. The WA is to be an example to those nations. Besides if a WA nation RPed against a non WA nation then they have made the choice to accept the conditions. Therefore it would be their fault for the deaths of innocent civilians involved. As has been said many times by mods in other threads. You are not forced into an RP, you must accept the conditions.

the government of the emperor of Urgench admires any nation with a concience, it is our concience that will not let us stand idly by when civilians of either world assembly or non world assembly nations are killed and horribly maimed by these ordinance both during war and in peace time.

we have considered a resolution which simply mandated the proper clearence of mines but this would not stop world assembly nations selling mines to non w.a. nations who's lives will be blighted or snuffed out by them.

we feel a ban to be the only sensible option, from both a moral and practical point of view.

yours e.t.c ,


we then must ask, does the right honourable Urgench representative believe such a vacuum will not be filled? controlling WA nationstates and handicapping them in such a manner serves no point other than ruling out a viable tactic on the field of battle.

would the worthy representative also ban I.D.E.s? and, how will such a thing be enforced regarding breakaway groups withing member nations?

no, we see no great moral victory here other than the taking away of a useful tool. indeed, as a notable once mentioned "when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails".

if it is indeed morality that so motivates the good representative, we would ask what tool will next be reached for by a member nation that will not only be used against military targets, but spread to that of civilians in greater numbers?

we implore, with all heart and spirit of desire for cooperation, the representative to further consider this proposal before submitting for resolution.

As has been stated we cannot control the actions of non WA members. But that will never change. The WA is to be an example to those nations. Besides if a WA nation RPed against a non WA nation then they have made the choice to accept the conditions. Therefore it would be their fault for the deaths of innocent civilians involved. As has been said many times by mods in other threads. You are not forced into an RP, you must accept the conditions.

such mercernary comments fills us with dread.

we then must ask, does the right honourable Urgench representative believe such a vacuum will not be filled? controlling WA nationstates and handicapping them in such a manner serves no point other than ruling out a viable tactic on the field of battle.

would the worthy representative also ban I.D.E.s? and, how will such a thing be enforced regarding breakaway groups withing member nations?

no, we see no great moral victory here other than the taking away of a useful tool. indeed, as a notable once mentioned "when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails".

if it is indeed morality that so motivates the good representative, we would ask what tool will next be reached for by a member nation that will not only be used against military targets, but spread to that of civilians in greater numbers?

we implore, with all heart and spirit of desire for cooperation, the representative to further consider this proposal before submitting for resolution.


the government of the emperor of urgench is gratified that you have taken so close an interest in this matter but we must point out that according to the research we have done anti-personnel mines have overwhelmingly represented a far greater hazard to the lives of civilians and not to combatants, the actual usefullness of mines in war is therefore of an extremely dubious nature.

in fact the uses of landmines have almost exclusively been against civilians by tactical design. this is immoral no?

as an arms manufacturing nation and a supporter of the world assembly's right to a nuclear detterent we are anxious that you understand that we in no way believe that this resolution represents a threat to w.a. security.

as for "break away groups" as you describe them, they will find it significantly more difficult to obtain mines within the w.a. if a ban on import, export or production of them is introduced, no?


yours e.t.c. ,

the government of the emperor of urgench is gratified that you have taken so close an interest in this matter but we must point out that according to the research we have done anti-personnel mines have overwhelmingly represented a far greater hazard to the lives of civilians and not to combatants, the actual usefullness of mines in war is therefore of an extremely dubious nature.

in fact the uses of landmines have almost exclusively been against civilians by tactical design. this is immoral no?

as an arms manufacturing nation and a supporter of the world assembly's right to a nuclear detterent we are anxious that you understand that we in no way believe that this resolution represents a threat to w.a. security.

as for "break away groups" as you describe them, they will find it significantly more difficult to obtain mines within the w.a. if a ban on import, export or production of them is introduced, no?


yours e.t.c. ,

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong bows to the wisdom of the Emperor Urgench as he is not flawed in what he says.

such mercernary comments fills us with dread.

However you feel over what we have said we cannot change. But the fact is what we have said is true. If you accept to fight in an RP you accept the conditions.

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong bows to the wisdom of the Emperor Urgench as he is not flawed in what he says.



However you feel over what we have said we cannot change. But the fact is what we have said is true. If you accept to fight in an RP you accept the conditions.


once again it is the pleasure of the government of the emperor of urgench, represented here by his excellency Khan Mongkha to accept the kind compliments of the respected ambassador for Yuuzhan Vong,

yours e.t.c. ,

the government of the emperor of urgench is gratified that you have taken so close an interest in this matter but we must point out that according to the research we have done anti-personnel mines have overwhelmingly represented a far greater hazard to the lives of civilians and not to combatants, the actual usefullness of mines in war is therefore of an extremely dubious nature.

in fact the uses of landmines have almost exclusively been against civilians by tactical design. this is immoral no?

as an arms manufacturing nation and a supporter of the world assembly's right to a nuclear detterent we are anxious that you understand that we in no way believe that this resolution represents a threat to w.a. security.

as for "break away groups" as you describe them, they will find it significantly more difficult to obtain mines within the w.a. if a ban on import, export or production of them is introduced, no?


yours e.t.c. ,

we would point to the use of land mines as an offensive measure against regular troops in all of history.

we would beg pardon for the following break of protocol:

/ooc i'm finding it difficult to cite in RP and adhere to the rules of nation states. such places as vietnam, columbia, iraq, even feudal china used mines against military targets along the yellow river. while i suffer no delusions that mines CAN be used against civilian targets, and indeed are, the venerable RAND institute in conjunction with the virginia war college have a study from 2002 showing mines are indeed, deployed for military purposes. i can't see how that would be any different in this alternative realm than it would be in reality.

we most humbly appreciate any tolerance the representative of Urgench shows for the above breaking of rules.

/steps away from seat and walks through gallery to perform perfect kowtow with neck exposed in front of Urgench

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong bows to the wisdom of the Emperor Urgench as he is not flawed in what he says.



However you feel over what we have said we cannot change. But the fact is what we have said is true. If you accept to fight in an RP you accept the conditions.

we indeed, see it is so, and can no longer support such an argument as rebuttal. we bow to the wisdom of the honourable Yuuzhaun Vong representative, and, thank them for their paitience in instructing this newcomer.

we would point to the use of land mines as an offensive measure against regular troops in all of history.

we would beg pardon for the following break of protocol:

/ooc i'm finding it difficult to cite in RP and adhere to the rules of nation states. such places as vietnam, columbia, iraq, even feudal china used mines against military targets along the yellow river. while i suffer no delusions that mines CAN be used against civilian targets, and indeed are, the venerable RAND institute in conjunction with the virginia war college have a study from 2002 showing mines are indeed, deployed for military purposes. i can't see how that would be any different in this alternative realm than it would be in reality.

we most humbly appreciate any tolerance the representative of Urgench shows for the above breaking of rules.

/performs perfect kowtow with neck exposed


khan Mongkha smiles and says " we are all equal here your excellency, i am only a simple diplomat, my cousin His Divine Majesty the Emperor wishes me to inform you of his high regard for your nations good manners but that there is no need to Kow Tow to me, indeed i am gratefull for the attention you have shown to our nation's humble efforts in this field. "



the government of the emperor of of Urgench completely agrees that governments have deployed mines in many conflicts in many eras,

but they have justified this use spuriously by claiming they have a tactical value in defence against troops and mechanised infantry e.t.c.

in fact the use of these mines has almost allways been aimed at inflicting death and injury on civilian populations with the overall tactical result of destroying enemies national moral and economies.

in the mythical real world of which you speak and the stories of it with which we are familiar this has also always been the case, the fabled lands of Cambodia and China and Angola are perfect cases in point.


yours e.t.c. ,

we indeed, see it is so, and can no longer support such an argument as rebuttal. we bow to the wisdom of the honourable Yuuzhaun Vong representative, and, thank them for their paitience in instructing this newcomer.

Anytime.

As I pointed out in the other recent discussion here about land-mines, they do not pose a serious threat to civilians if they are laid only in clearly labelled & delineated minefields, and their use thus can serve to channel -- or at least to delay-- the movement of enemy troops.
(And the fact that a nation is known to be capable of using this tactic means that it could also plant some "dummy" minefields, containing no actual mines, which would still delay enemy troops -- and possibly cause them to wonder about their mine-detection systems' effectiveness ;) -- but would pose even less threat to civilians...)

As I pointed out in the other recent discussion here about land-mines, they do not pose a serious threat to civilians if they are laid only in clearly labelled & delineated minefields, and their use thus can serve to channel -- or at least to delay-- the movement of enemy troops.
(And the fact that a nation is known to be capable of using this tactic means that it could also plant some "dummy" minefields, containing no actual mines, which would still delay enemy troops -- and possibly cause them to wonder about their mine-detection systems' effectiveness ;) -- but would pose even less threat to civilians...)


the government of the emperor of Urgench fully understands that anti-personnel mines may be used as the respected ambassador for St Edmund suggests and that perhaps a resolution to inforce such practices might well be of some use,
but we feel that the moral question of whether w.a. nations (including ourselves) should be allowed to manufacture mines which may be exported to non w.a. nations who might use them for the purposes of killing and injuring civilians which has been the primary use of mines in most cases would out weigh what has only ever been an extremely marginal military advantage through such ligitimate use.

yours e.t.c.

As I pointed out in the other recent discussion here about land-mines, they do not pose a serious threat to civilians if they are laid only in clearly labelled & delineated minefields, and their use thus can serve to channel -- or at least to delay-- the movement of enemy troops.
(And the fact that a nation is known to be capable of using this tactic means that it could also plant some "dummy" minefields, containing no actual mines, which would still delay enemy troops -- and possibly cause them to wonder about their mine-detection systems' effectiveness ;) -- but would pose even less threat to civilians...)

As the esteemed Government of Emperor Urgench just pointed out. You and many other WA nations may use them in such responsible ways. However it was also pointed out by the delegate that the non WA nations getting a hold of mines that WA members make, be it by trade, war, e.c.t. (I say war because they can take them as plunder.) Therefore we cannot banned the trade of mines to non WA nations, because they can get it from plunders of war. The only solution is to completly ban mines this way WA civilians are completly safe and non WA nations aren't getting our mines.

Purnelia asks if richer WA nations will supply funds to poorer countries like Purnelia. This would definitly increase the chances of a postive vote for banning of mines.

From the desk of the board of fortune

Purnelia asks if richer WA nations will supply funds to poorer countries like Purnelia. This would definitly increase the chances of a postive vote for banning of mines.

From the desk of the board of fortune


the government of the emperor of Urgench wonders what funds the respected ambassador is talking about, and for what?

are you asking for funds to clear mines? or are you asking for an ex gratia payment simply to lend your support?

if the respected ambassador is asking for funds for mine clearance well we considered the possibility of that, but we considered the setting up of a w.a. fund for such a thing to be far too fraught with dificulty, such as who would be intitled to the funds, who would administer the fund how would that organisation be constituted, who would oversee the proper use of monies provided to such nations who would decide who got these funds in the first place, e.t.c. so we allowed enough wiggle room in the resolution to allow poorer nations more time to implement the provisions of the ban.

if the respected ambassador seeks an ex gratia payment for their support we cannot see what possible benefit it would be to anyone to provide your nation with such. indeed it would partake of a form of corruption we would find repellent.

yours e.t.c.

Purnelia asks if richer WA nations will supply funds to poorer countries like Purnelia. This would definitly increase the chances of a postive vote for banning of mines.

From the desk of the board of fortune

We wonder how many poor WA nations would be put at a severe disadvantage simply because they do not have the technology, investment monies or abilities necessary to bring their defense technologies quickly up to standards.

Is it not the responsibility of every WA nation to defend itself to the best of it's own abilities and determinations in order to keep the WA a strong and cohesive group? If we become defenseless against those who would do us harm, how can the WA continue to exist?

Disarming the poor and docile does not seem a moral thing to do.

We wonder how many poor WA nations would be put at a severe disadvantage simply because they do not have the technology, investment monies or abilities necessary to bring their defense technologies quickly up to standards.

Is it not the responsibility of every WA nation to defend itself to the best of it's own abilities and determinations in order to keep the WA a strong and cohesive group? If we become defenseless against those who would do us harm, how can the WA continue to exist?

Disarming the poor and docile does not seem a moral thing to do.

The Government of Yuuzhan Vong admits that we see where you are going but do not agree. You are correct that it is the right of every WA member to defend itself with it's best, however, to defend one's self against outside threats you must first defend your civilians. And as mine fields cause such great damage to civilians and may only slow enemies they are nothing more than a hazard and must be banned.

High Priest Jakan

... You are correct that it is the right of every WA member to defend itself with it's best, however, to defend one's self against outside threats you must first defend your civilians. And as mine fields cause such great damage to civilians and may only slow enemies they are nothing more than a hazard and must be banned.

High Priest Jakan

We disagree that properly deployed and marked land mines are a hazard to civilians. A clearly marked mine field is a deterrent to civilians and an inexpensive, effective defense against military incursion.

It might be more palatable to us if the proposal were concerning safety regulations surrounding the use and deployment of land mines in member nations. However, a ban is not something we could support.

We disagree that properly deployed and marked land mines are a hazard to civilians. A clearly marked mine field is a deterrent to civilians and an inexpensive, effective defense against military incursion.

It might be more palatable to us if the proposal were concerning safety regulations surrounding the use and deployment of land mines in member nations. However, a ban is not something we could support.


The government of the emperor of Urgench has no interest in allowing bankrupt and warmongering regimes who do not care how their immoral use of arms will affect their civilian populations to continue to squander their nation's few resources on weapons which have never been proven to be of any significant utility in the prosecution of wars.

The respected ambassador for Darkesia suggests that "if" the deadly weapons were "properly labeled" they might be of use and might be safe, that is not good enough if the facts are that thousands of civilians are killed and maimed now. Besides the safety proposals the respected ambassador speaks of would not apply to non w.a. nations who have been sold their mines by world assembly member nations.

Again we must point out that there is no significant benefit from the use of anti-personnel mines in the prosecution of a war fought in accordance with even the most basic level of ethics.

yours e.t.c.

I will happily give my support in the passing of this proposal even though my nation and region are for war i will not stand by and allow land mines to claim the lives of the innocent

I will happily give my support in the passing of this proposal even though my nation and region are for war i will not stand by and allow land mines to claim the lives of the innocent

the government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the respected delegate for Redbekkistan for their support and we assure them we are not at all against the use of force as long as it can be done with as much regard for the lives of civilians as is possible.

yours e.t.c.

The government of the emperor of Urgench has no interest in allowing bankrupt and warmongering regimes who do not care how their immoral use of arms will affect their civilian populations to continue to squander their nation's few resources on weapons which have never been proven to be of any significant utility in the prosecution of wars.
Emphasis mine.

Darkesia would ask the esteemed colleague which weapons have been studied that have been proven to be of significant utility in any conflict. If one is to define "significant utility" as the ratio of dollars spent to enemy military personnel neutralized, we will adamantly disagree with your assertion.


The respected ambassador for Darkesia suggests that "if" the deadly weapons were "properly labeled" they might be of use and might be safe,

You are incorrect, sir (?). I have suggested nothing. Darkesia asserts that any conventional deadly weapon, including land mines are very useful and safe to deploy in the vicinity of civilians when safety precautions are undertaken.

that is not good enough if the facts are that thousands of civilians are killed and maimed now. Besides the safety proposals the respected ambassador speaks of would not apply to non w.a. nations who have been sold their mines by world assembly member nations.

Indeed, if the facts were so. However, the facts do not support this argument. I will also agree that the safety measures might not be followed by non-WA member nations. However, this proposal does nothing to remedy that situation, only to interfere with the sale of weapons by WA member nations. It would be more likely to effect a non-member nation, if a member nation doing the sale were to demand such assurances.



Again we must point out that there is no significant benefit from the use of anti-personnel mines in the prosecution of a war fought in accordance with even the most basic level of ethics.

yours e.t.c.

We will simply have to disagree on this point.

the government of the emperor of Urgench would like thank the respected ambassador for darkesia for their input, but we will simply have to agree to disagree with each other on several points.

be that as it may we would like to clear up one issue, the ban on the sale of mines to any nation is not intended to try to effect the actions of non w.a. nations, it is intended to prevent w.a. nations from engaging in the immoral trade of these weapons. non w.a. nations would obviously still be able to buy mines elsewhere and nothing any of us do here can change that.
but w.a. nations should not be involving themselves in such dubious dealing in our opinion, indeed it would seem to be in conflict with the ideals of this organisation.
if the respected ambassador for Darkesia imagines that "agreements" with non w.a. nations outside of a statutory framework to use mines ethicaly ( if indeed such a thing is possible) will be anything but a tissue of meaningless hypocrisy then they are optimistic to the point of incredibility.

non the less we are glad to have had the oportunity to discuss these issues with you,

yours e.t.c.

This state shall not and will not support any ban upon any type of conventional arm. A weapon itself is not what is accountable, but people themselves.

To say that a ban on any type of landmine, cluster munitions or any other weapon would somehow decrease violence or death is ludicris and in the long run a pipe dream for anyone that believes that eliminating this would decrease in any type of violence.

In the long run what you propuse could infact indanger the lives of numerous others. Once engaged in armed conflict, the goal is to take the shortest time possible to effectivly meet the objectives of any engagement. What this stance does is take away the ability to use the most effective conventional arms that can be used by tactical commanders. In essence this could prolong a long term engagement, which endangers more civilians.

The definitions also do not account for non military combatents (who are in themselves, civilians), so in doing so you have tied the hands of uniformed combatents as defined in the Laws of Armed Conflict. This resolution, as with other careless resolutions attached to the subject of arms restrictions and reduction just hampers and puts the lives of thousands if not millions at risk.

The Republic of Western Civil Alliance shall not support any action to limit the ability for any nation to persue conventional arms in any account.

once again it is the pleasure of the government of the emperor of urgench, represented here by his excellency Khan Mongkha to accept the kind compliments of the respected ambassador for Yuuzhan Vong,

yours e.t.c. ,

I would possibly give support to one or two nations, but not a whole lot. I mean we have our own country to worry about. Besides, we don't want to end up like the United States...

Purnelia was asking for money to disarm alot of mines within Purnelia. There was also talk of help with building a wall to help keep the nomadic people of Purnelia in. Supplys and money would be welcome to replace the mines with a less dangerous alternative.

From the desk of the board of fortune

This state shall not and will not support any ban upon any type of conventional arm. A weapon itself is not what is accountable, but people themselves.

To say that a ban on any type of landmine, cluster munitions or any other weapon would somehow decrease violence or death is ludicris and in the long run a pipe dream for anyone that believes that eliminating this would decrease in any type of violence.

In the long run what you propuse could infact indanger the lives of numerous others. Once engaged in armed conflict, the goal is to take the shortest time possible to effectivly meet the objectives of any engagement. What this stance does is take away the ability to use the most effective conventional arms that can be used by tactical commanders. In essence this could prolong a long term engagement, which endangers more civilians.

The definitions also do not account for non military combatents (who are in themselves, civilians), so in doing so you have tied the hands of uniformed combatents as defined in the Laws of Armed Conflict. This resolution, as with other careless resolutions attached to the subject of arms restrictions and reduction just hampers and puts the lives of thousands if not millions at risk.

The Republic of Western Civil Alliance shall not support any action to limit the ability for any nation to persue conventional arms in any account.


the government of the emperor of Urgench is sad that your nation cannot support a simple measusre which will safe guard the lives of thousands perhaps millions of w.a. member nation's citizens.

we would like to ask the honoured ambassador for western civil alliance if they can think of any particular conflict in which the use of mines was in any way a hastening factor in the conclusion of that conflict?
indeed we would suggest that no such conflict exists, and that infact the use of mines has infact inflicted the consiquences of that conflict on innocent civilians for many decades after the close of main hostilities.

current military opinion on mines suggests that they have only ever been of the most marginal assistance to combatants and that their use has been of the utmost danger to non-combatants during and after conflict, thus rendering their usefulness, such as it is, null.

we hope you can see that this ban would be of paramount importance to the lives of all our citizens and might see fit to change your stance.

we are glad to have had the oportunity to discuss these issues with you,

yours e.t.c.

While the delegation from the United Federation of Allied Tion does not at this point feel that it is required to participate in the moral duel being undertaken regarding the morality of the use of anti personel land mines in various contexts we feel greatly disturbed by the (potentially unconsidered) consequences of the opperative clauses of this resolution.

which it defines as any and all Ordinance which is meant to be placed on or in the ground which may be detonated either remotely or by motion or pressure detection and which is meant to kill or injure soldiers or civilians.

We can only assume that this paragraph was written with the intention of abolishing an entire array of weaponary by stealth or else written by persons ignorant of the broad range of ordanance and equipment routinely employed by armed forces around the world, for better or worse, in the pursuit of national interests and defence, in many cases, as provided for by the reigning charter of this body.

We honestly believe this proposal was drafted with the intention of targeting indescriminant, persistant anti personel landmines that have proven such a scourge in a number of post war reconstruction zones.

Firstly we question extremely critically the provission included here for remote detonation.

A remotely detonated weapon is inherantly descriminant in its targeting, at least in so far as is the soldier pressing the trigger on the device.
Remotely detonated weaponary is often a cornerstone of basic military techniques.

To take an example such as ambushes and interdiction along transport lines. Infantry units may utilise remote charges to cut transport lines, destroy vehicles or, it must be said, to inflict immediate and direct casualties among enemy forces using the transport arterial in question behind enemy lines so as to reduce the burden of direct combat in the forward combat areas. This resolution, whether by itention or not, would appear to prohibit so basic an action as burrying C-4 beneath a road to be detonated as an enemy convoy passes. While one may argue the point on whether to be burried is the intended purpose of the C-4 and indeed, while less practical one could achieve the same effect strapping it to a tree that seems beyond the point. Burrying it remains standard opperating protocol and as such, an intended use.

We do not wish to see such basic techniques banned by ANY resolution.


We find it most disturbing that inherantly defensive and specific weapons such as mono directional explosives, in particular the so called "claymore" mine encountered by our forces in many engagement would fall under this designation. The weapon in question is commonly employed in "command detonation" mode whereby it is detonated remotely, usually as an element in providing a defensive perimeter for a unit.
These weapon types can be configured so as not to be victim initiated and yet they obviously fall under the definition in that they are explosive, are placed on the ground..and yes they cause casualties under the right circumstances.

In addition we believe that this resolution restricts the capacity for nations to develop and deploy more suitible area denial munitions such as those with a capability for self destruction after a time period. If such technology was refined, and indeed alliance scientists believe a near 100% success rate is achieveable it would no doubt imensely cut the negative implication of area denial weapon use and yet, as we read it, they would still fall under the provisions of this ill conceived ban.

Furthermore, while claiming to concern only anti personnel mines we question the applicability to anti armour munitions. Would a HESH mine be considered a banned weapon? after all High Explosive Squash Head munitions are intended to eliminate tanks by dislodging a chunk of armour inside the vehicles which in turn lascerates the crew. Or indeed, an EFP mine, while intended to knock out a vehicle and hardly the intended topic of this draft, an explosively formed jet of copper slicing through a vehicle causing it to explode and the crew to be immolated by their own fuel and munitions can hardly be said to be unintended to "kill or injure" soldiers.

Finally we submit the inherant need for area denial munitions under certain circumstances. In war manpower in far from unlimited and risking emplaced infantry is counter intuitive where specialised ADMs would fufill the purpose better. There is no ready replacement for a carefully laid piece of ordanance in certain offensive and defensive sittuations and in both, to surrender such equipment would be to surrender the safety of the troops in question. If a bomb can not be planted by a roadside to counter an armoured convoy then that convoy must be destroyed at the front, or else the inserted team must carry larger, direct fire anti tank weaponary surrendering carrying capacity and their safety in the process.

The United Federation of Allied Tion understands that there are potential ways it could "beat" this draft, perhaps using combinations of Infra red technology and or extremely exploitative definitions of intended use or a method of detonation (ie. it's not detonated by motion detection, the motion sensor mearly activates the .02 second time delay fuse), we believe it far better to face the failings not only of this particular draft but of the entire intended purpose of this resolution head on.

This is a ban on emplaced ordanance.
Unintentional or not that is completely unreasonable.
While a plastic "toe popper" designed to last for 120 years may not be an inherantly vital military device, the same can not be true for all methods of emplaced area denial or offensive emplaced demolition.
Morality asside, the implications of this ban remain, on clear reading.
Unacceptable.

The Government of the emperor of urgench is most gratified by the intervention of the honoured representative for Allied Tion, it gives us the oportunity to clarify some points.

Firstly, yes this is a ban on all of the ordinance which the honoured ambassador speaks of except those meant for the destruction of vehicles since they are not specified in it, and we do not see an inconsistancy with decent morality in this. Were this ban to be inforced we are sure that military ingenuity would swiftly replace what are in any case extremely inefficiant weapons with, we are sure, vastly superior methods of acheiving the same results and, we are sure, with a higher regard for civilian life.

We are an arms producing nation and will certainly be looking toward such an outcome should our resolution ever be assented to.

Secondly we do accept that remmotely dettonated mines are discriminatory in nature, however they remain a hazard to civilians if they are not properly cleared and remain undettonated, their explosive charge remains intact and the firing or trigger mechanisms may decay, making them highly dangerous.

Thirdly this ban would not cover ordinance or weapons used specificaly for the destruction of military vehicles as it does not specify such inspite of the fact that millitary personnel will loose their lives if such weapons are used.


Fourthly, we are greatfull to the honoured ambassador for pointing out to us a way in which a certain provision might be circumvented, but we are reasonably sure that the rest of the statute is broad enough to cover such a small loophole and that it's other provisions would cover most eventualities.

Lastly, it is the aim of this ban to set the lives of innocent civilians apart from those of combatant soldiery, in so much as the lives of soldiers and the success of stratagem has been placed above the lives of civilians heretofore, we are less concerned that heavily armed and amoured millitaries may suffer loses, which they are in any case prepared for, than we are for ordinary men women and children going about their lives in innocence being horribly killed and maimed by these weapons.

If this was the moral issue which the honoured ambassador wished to sidestep then we thought we ought to place it full square back in the path of debate. Tactical and strategic discussions are we feel secondary to the lives of ordinary innocent individuals who in many cases are not even concerned in or about the outcomes of the wars waged around them by immoral and unconcerned governments.

yours e.t.c.

The Government of the emperor of urgench is most gratified by the intervention of the honoured representative for Allied Tion, it gives us the oportunity to clarify some points.

Firstly, yes this is a ban on all of the ordinance which the honoured ambassador speaks of except those meant for the destruction of vehicles since they are not specified in it, and we do not see an inconsistancy with decent morality in this. Were this ban to be inforced we are sure that military ingenuity would swiftly replace what are in any case extremely inefficiant weapons with, we are sure, vastly superior methods of acheiving the same results and, we are sure, with a higher regard for civilian life.

We are an arms producing nation and will certainly be looking toward such an outcome should our resolution ever be assented to.

Secondly we do accept that remmotely dettonated mines are discriminatory in nature, however they remain a hazard to civilians if they are not properly cleared and remain undettonated, their explosive charge remains intact and the firing or trigger mechanisms may decay, making them highly dangerous.

Thirdly this ban would not cover ordinance or weapons used specificaly for the destruction of military vehicles as it does not specify such inspite of the fact that millitary personnel will loose their lives if such weapons are used.


Fourthly, we are greatfull to the honoured ambassador for pointing out to us a way in which a certain provision might be circumvented, but we are reasonably sure that the rest of the statute is broad enough to cover such a small loophole and that it's other provisions would cover most eventualities.

Lastly, it is the aim of this ban to set the lives of innocent civilians apart from those of combatant soldiery, in so much as the lives of soldiers and the success of stratagem has been placed above the lives of civilians heretofore, we are less concerned that heavily armed and amoured millitaries may suffer loses, which they are in any case prepared for, than we are for ordinary men women and children going about their lives in innocence being horribly killed and maimed by these weapons.

If this was the moral issue which the honoured ambassador wished to sidestep then we thought we ought to place it full square back in the path of debate. Tactical and strategic discussions are we feel secondary to the lives of ordinary innocent individuals who in many cases are not even concerned in or about the outcomes of the wars waged around them by immoral and unconcerned governments.

yours e.t.c.

The Government of Yuuzhan Vong applauds the the Government of Emperor Urgench for their outright honesty with the WA on this draft. At this time I will simply agree with everything spoken above as I have no comments to add to it.

khan Mongkha smiles and says " we are all equal here your excellency, i am only a simple diplomat, my cousin His Divine Majesty the Emperor wishes me to inform you of his high regard for your nations good manners but that there is no need to Kow Tow to me, indeed i am gratefull for the attention you have shown to our nation's humble efforts in this field. "



the government of the emperor of of Urgench completely agrees that governments have deployed mines in many conflicts in many eras,

but they have justified this use spuriously by claiming they have a tactical value in defence against troops and mechanised infantry e.t.c.

in fact the use of these mines has almost allways been aimed at inflicting death and injury on civilian populations with the overall tactical result of destroying enemies national moral and economies.

in the mythical real world of which you speak and the stories of which we are familiar it we are familiar with this has also always been the case, the fabled lands of Cambodia and China and Angola are perfect cases in point.


yours e.t.c. ,

/continues with neck exposed a few moments longer, a slow blink only demonstrating surprise

/gracefully stands, and bows deeply before Urgench

a scholar, and a gentlemen sirrah.

/returns to seat



we see no reason to continue this debate at this time as the respected Urgench's proposal has been submitted for delegates to vote on; we will watch with keen interest that count. not to mention, we see 2 more such proposal and find, with all due respect and good will to Urgench, the dourian embassy the least offensive.

while we have no desire to see this particular proposal reach debate for resolution, and, ultimately pass as WA legislation, we extend our good will and respect to the honourable Ungench. furthermore, we look forward to the full debate necessary should this reach the WA floor.

/bows low before all WA nation states, and a deeper bow to Urgench and the Vong, withdrawing the chambers to deal with national marijuana consumption

To ambassador of The Government of the emperor of urgench,
As an offensive weapon you would be correct in saying that mines are not effective, what you negate is the fact the Anti-personnel and anti-armor Mines are a denial weapon.

Let me clarify before puns are put into my mouth, before this assembly.

The use of any of these weapons are to deny the ability for the enemy to move freely. This in fact redirects the movements of the enemy, and funnels them into a point where the opposing force then engages the enemy on their terms. This is an important factor of strategy in any tactical engagement.
Also as a denial weapon system, placed in such places like the borders of Demilitarized Zones, these are used very effectively.

These systems not just have their worth fundamentally, but In this Ambassadors own experience, I have seen the measures and security such said devices provide, and have called upon them to save the lives of comrades in arms, and my very self.

This is a very solid resolution if we want to ban landmines entirely. I'm not sure we do, but the moral question is one well worth putting before the WA. Given the number of nations desperately attached to their nukes, I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no", but it's still worth asking.

I'm also pretty sure that all the notionally common and acceptable tactics that Allied Tion brought up are a hell of a lot more dangerous to civilians than a marked out minefield, and damn well should be banned.

This is a very solid resolution if we want to ban landmines entirely. I'm not sure we do, but the moral question is one well worth putting before the WA. Given the number of nations desperately attached to their nukes, I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no", but it's still worth asking.

I'm also pretty sure that all the notionally common and acceptable tactics that Allied Tion brought up are a hell of a lot more dangerous to civilians than a marked out minefield, and damn well should be banned.


The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the most highly respected ambassador for The Gobbannaen Mission for their kind words.

We can see now that this is not the right time for such a ban to be introduced, unfortunately.

As to the tactics described by the honoured ambassador for Allied Tion we are certain that many of them should be outlawed but we are entirely unsure where to begin the work of doing so, so varied and many as they are. We might leave such a task to our betters.

yours in thanks,

The Government of the emperor of Urgench is sad to note that the moral case for a Ban on Anti-personnel mines does not seem to carry the weight that it should among our fellow nations and our resolution has failed to recieve the required number of approvals to be brought for vote.
We wish to thank those nations who's conciences would not allow them to pass the oportunity to protect the lives of innocent people and who sought to help us in this work.

The government of the emperor of urgench believes however that some protection is better than no protection and that all nations who feel that civilians have the right to be protected from the worst excesses of military heedleesness should support the resolution currently being proposed by the most highly esteemed ambassador for Douria which will regulate the use of mines and introduce an ethical dimension into military planning in the future.

yours e.t.c. ,