NationStates Jolt Archive

There has often been discussion of a landmine ban within this Assembly, and we present a draft for consideration, which is found lower down to avoid the ad:

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
v

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Believing victim-detonated anti-personnel landmines to be weapons whose capacity for civilian casualties outweighs any security benefits,

Requires its members to:

1. Define, for the purposes of interpreting these obligations:
- 'landmines' as explosive devices placed on or under the ground and designed to cause injury or death to persons activating the device by proximity or contact,
- 'mined area' as an area in which one or more live landmines has been deployed,
- 'dispose' to be the act of destroying, permanently deactivating, or otherwise rendering non-functional, such as through conversion to command detonation, landmines;

2. Dispose of all landmines within their present stocks as soon as is practicably possible, with due regard for safety, security, and environmental consequences;

3. Immediately and permanently cease and desist the production, deployment, and transfer of landmines, including the rendering of technical assistance in their production or deployment;

4. Seize all undeployed landmine stocks within their jurisdiction for disposal as required by Article 2;

5. Take effective measures to prevent non-state actors within their jurisdiction from effecting such actions as outlawed by Article 3;

6. Conduct prompt surveys to determine the location of mined areas within their jurisdiction;

7. Institute available precautions, as they deem appropriate and safe, to prevent casualties in mined areas, such as:
- restricting access to such areas,
- signposting such areas with clear warnings, using relevant languages as well as easily understood, non-written symbols,
- indicating the limits of such mined areas on maps and charts,
- informing the public of the dangers of mined areas,
- where possible, engaging in prompt and effective mine clearance.

The World Assembly does further:

8. Exempt from these obligations:
- the transfer of landmines for the purpose of disposal, or for the research and development of mine clearance or mine safety, providing such transfers are limited to absolute necessity,
- the production, possession and deployment of limited numbers of landmines for the purposes of research and development mine clearance or mine safety, provided such actions are conducted within secure areas and with the highest regard for safety,
- the rendering of technical assistance aimed solely at reducing the danger of landmines to non-military personnel, such as through conversion to command-detonation;

9. Establish the World Assembly Demining Agency (WADA) with a charter to:
- conduct and aid mine clearance operations, where requested,
- research and develop mine clearance technology,
- instruct civilians on landmine safety and treatment of landmine-related injuries,
- further promote landmine safety awareness through educational and informational campaigns;

10. Compel the WADA to respect the territorial sovereignty of member nations, stipulating that:
- member nations may request assistance for mined areas within their jurisdiction,
- requesting nations must provide all available information on the mined area,
- storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the WADA may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks.

Submitted as a trial run.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I would suggest changing Article 3, as it can be interpreted to mean that all transfer of landmines, including transfer after deactivation and clearing, is forbidden. Suggested wording is emphasized in bold.
3. Immediately and permanently cease and desist the production, deployment, and transfer of landmines with the intent to deploy them;

The rest are grammar suggestions that don't change the intended meaning of the articles. Per your requests, I will reserve my comments on the committee.
4. Seize all undeployed landmine stocks within their jurisdiction for disposal as required by Article 2;'Undeployed' to 'withheld' or 'inactive'.

5. Take effective measures to prevent non-state actors within their jurisdiction from effecting such actions as outlawed by Article 3;'Effecting' to 'affecting'.

Emile Marquis, Chief Envoy
Department of Foreign Relations
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

But..but..please don't do this. We export lots of landmines. (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Economy_of_Aundotutunagir#Arms_Manufacturing) Think of the poor Aundotutunagirian children who will suffer if the landmine factories are shut down.

I would suggest changing Article 3, as it can be interpreted to mean that all transfer of landmines, including transfer after deactivation and clearing, is forbidden. Suggested wording is emphasized in bold.
We would venture to suggest that such an interpretation would be no bad thing. If it is felt necesary to make exception, such exception should be explicit: we would suggest replacing the bolded phrase with "excepting those rendered non-functional in accordance with Article 2."

The rest are grammar suggestions that don't change the intended meaning of the articles. Per your requests, I will reserve my comments on the committee.
'Undeployed' to 'withheld' or 'inactive'.
We would be against such a change. "Undeployed" is clear and unambiguous. "Withheld" is a significantly less well-defined term in the context, and "inactive" is entirely different.

'Effecting' to 'affecting'.
This would be entirely incorrect usage.

Grrrrrowl. First up, I've remembered what Article 6 was meant to me. Heads will roll.

Ambassador Merrywether glares towards the cowering Proposal Numbering Intern, Daisy.

It was going to be an exemption to 2 & 3 under the following circumstances:
- transferring landmines for the purpose of disposal (e.g. a country that does not have the resources to safely dispose of them giving them to a country that does);
- retaining a small number of landmines for the purposes of training and research (e.g. improving mine clearance).

It will be inserted. To address comments from the floor:
I would suggest changing Article 3, as it can be interpreted to mean that all transfer of landmines, including transfer after deactivation and clearing, is forbidden.
My apologies. As mentioned, I omitted some language to specify that some of the transfers that would cover would be allowed by this proposal. As to your alternate wording, once we include the above-mentioned disclaimer, I'm not sure there will be any need for the clarification.
'Undeployed' to 'withheld' or 'inactive'.
I'm going to side with Prince Rhodri on this one. Is there some particular reason why 'undeployed' is not acceptable? Because the rest of the proposal refers to 'deployment', it seems the unambigious polar opposite.
'Effecting' to 'affecting'.
I fear you may be confusing the two different words (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv64.shtml), and am fairly certain our use is the correct one.
But..but..please don't do this. We export lots of landmines. Think of the poor Aundotutunagirian children who will suffer if the landmine factories are shut down.
I would question how, under Article B, Subclause (3) of the WA Resolution, "Restrictions on Child Labor", your children can be working in a landmine factory in the first place, but if they were, I would consider legislation to free them from such appalling conditions a wholly good thing. As to the more general economic consequences for your nation, perhaps it would give you an opportunity to diversify and pursue alternate forms of manufacturing. But your argument boils down to a ban on heroin being of economic detriment to drug dealers, to which my response would be: good.

Daisy, please come out from behind that desk and edit in clause 6.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether

I fear you may be confusing the two different words (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv64.shtml), and am fairly certain our use is the correct one.

Am I misunderstanding the article altogether? Put in context, I'm understanding it as 'taking effective measures to prevent non-state actors from preventing the actions in Article 3, i.e. preventing governments from ceasing and desisting'; in which case 'affecting' would be the correct word. Though, given that you've said 'effecting' is correct, should my understanding of it be 'taking effective measures to prevent non-state actors from doing such and such actions that are outlawed in Article 3'? The language is a bit mangled, in my opinion. Though, that's because I did not understand it the first time I read it.

I suggested not using 'undeployed' because the interns over at my copy-editing department don't think it's a word, and my own spell-checker doesn't seem to recognize it either.

Emile Marquis, Chief Envoy
Department of Foreign Relations
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I would question how, under Article B, Subclause (3) of the WA Resolution, "Restrictions on Child Labor", your children can be working in a landmine factory in the first place, but if they were,
I never implied that the children were working in the landmine factories, merely that they would suffer economically if the factories were forced to shut down. Why do people always assume the worst about us?

I would consider legislation to free them from such appalling conditions a wholly good thing.
I take offense at this. The conditions in our landmine factories are not "appalling" in the least. They are world-class, state of the art manufacturing facilities with excellent health and safety records. Even if children were working there they would be perfectly safe. Not that there are any children working there.

As to the more general economic consequences for your nation, perhaps it would give you an opportunity to diversify and pursue alternate forms of manufacturing.
But we make very good landmines. The world's best, in my professional estimation. They are in great demand in several markets and are a very profitable product for us. Granted, we would still have our trade in cluster munitions, biological and chemical weapons, handguns and assault rifles, but I don't think you fully understand the economic ramifications of this. Those landmines are selling like hotcakes! We can't make them fast enough.

But your argument boils down to a ban on heroin being of economic detriment to drug dealers, to which my response would be: good.

Now, now. You can't seriously compare landmines to heroin. When deployed properly and used in an ethical manner, landmines are a safe and effective means of area denial. Heroin destroys the lives of everyone it touches.

The People of Aundotutunagir oppose this reckless and unreasonable legislation. In fact, if it should pass it would likely prompt Aundotutunagir to withdraw from the WA. You wouldn't want that, would you?

Am I misunderstanding the article altogether?
Apparently. We draw the envoy's attention to the note in the article which explains the verb-form of "effect" as meaning "to carry out." It would appear to be the intent of clause 5 to require nations to prevent non-state actors from carrying out the activities forbidden to the state; preventing them from changing those activities instead is surely nonsensical?

But we make very good landmines. The world's best, in my professional estimation. They are in great demand in several markets and are a very profitable product for us. Granted, we would still have our trade in cluster munitions, biological and chemical weapons, handguns and assault rifles, but I don't think you fully understand the economic ramifications of this. Those landmines are selling like hotcakes! We can't make them fast enough.

I'm sure your landmines are world-class. All landmines have the same undesirable results, when it comes to civilians unknowingly trotting across an unmarked, 60-year-old minefield. If war is going to happen, should it not be in the safest way possible, decreasing the possibilities of civilian casualties? There are more safe, effective weaponry out there. While it may be an amazing idea, some people value lives over monies. Not that I'm implying anything so unthinkable...

Apparently. We draw the envoy's attention to the note in the article which explains the verb-form of "effect" as meaning "to carry out." It would appear to be the intent of clause 5 to require nations to prevent non-state actors from carrying out the activities forbidden to the state; preventing them from changing those activities instead is surely nonsensical?

'Affect' is to have influence upon, meaning, in context, non-state actors preventing states from carrying out their duties in regards to the cease and desist mandate. It's not often that I see the verb form of 'effect' being used, so a misinterpretation is completely understandable.

Especially when that misinterpretation, in essence, would be an acceptable legal clause. However, I now understand the clause as it is meant to be understood.

Emile Marquis, Chief Envoy
Department of Foreign Relations
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

This bill will have our full support and hopefully the support of a vast majority of this Assembly.

bump

Edit: Gah! The Jolt ad has destroyed my OP.

"to save humanity and the ramparts " what a curious construction ? But in all other particulars the Government of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench would be happy to supprt this bill.


Yours,

I don't support this bill. I think it is a bad idea, as landmines are frequently used at wartime, and are a good export.

I would however support a landmine cleaning operation in wartorn areas.

Mark Demlentil

North Gregoria plans to vote against this proposal if it becomes a resolution, though North Gregoria agrees that land mines are a problem, and harmful to innocent civilians, we object to the creation of a WA bureaucracy to enforce it.

The only reservation my government has to this proposal, is the case where two adjacent states have agreed to use landmines on their common border to prevent terrorists from evading border controls. This would not necessarily prevent us from voting for this resolution, however, since alternative methods can be deployed.
Vladimiro Kuiristo
Ambassador

North Gregoria plans to vote against this proposal if it becomes a resolution, though North Gregoria agrees that land mines are a problem, and harmful to innocent civilians, we object to the creation of a WA bureaucracy to enforce it.

How charmingly naive, presumably the honoured Ambassador imagines that a special battalion of Mine Clearing Fairies conjured from thin air will do the work of cleansing the entire w.a. of lethal ordinance of this kind, or perhaps a special kind of Elf, or Goblin perhaps ?


Yours

We support this bill and suggest stealthily inserting prohibitions of various other ordinances. If the proposition receives enough endorsements, few would read a couple clauses stuck within the body prior to giving a vote.

While reducing harm to people in general is a good thing, I don't believe that the honourable delegation from Quintessence of Dust would be quite so enthusiastic about carrying out such blatant deceit, sir.

Kelssek approves of this proposal and is ready to defend it in these halls as necessary.

The Empire of Crimsonfields approve of this proposal. The use of landmines are against all that Crimsonfields stand for.

We will also be happy to train some dragons for clearing out mine-fields in our fellow delegate countries

My primary concern, and the concern of the Delegate whom I represent (who, by the way, wishes me to say "hello" on her behalf for some reason or another), is on the subject of length. Has there been any investigation as to the current length limits for proposals and whether this would fall within accepted range? It is incredibly well written, and we would hate to see it preemptively defeated on such a base technicality.

OOC: It is illegal, mines are always used for defensive purposes to drive off an invading force, including defending the nation of tanks entering another sovereign nation in an event of invasion, if mines are banned then we might aswell ban all millitary equipments and disarm all the nations which are part of the WA, if this resolution is approved and if it is to pass, we will be forced but to leave the WA untill such proposal is repealed or scrapped.

I thought it was under the character count, but somehow it drifted over. I trimmed off a couple of extraneous clauses and it should all fit, now.

OOC: It is illegal, mines are always used for defensive purposes to drive off an invading force, including defending the nation of tanks entering another sovereign nation in an event of invasion, if mines are banned then we might aswell ban all millitary equipments and disarm all the nations which are part of the WA, if this resolution is approved and if it is to pass, we will be forced but to leave the WA untill such proposal is repealed or scrapped.

OOC: Wrong as usual. Stop being histrionic out of character.

if this resolution is approved and if it is to pass, we will be forced but to leave the WA untill such proposal is repealed or scrapped.

You know, this is the best argument for passing this thing yet.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

if this resolution is approved and if it is to pass, we will be forced but to leave the WA
If that is the case then the People of Aundotutunagir will, grudgingly, support this proposal.

Well, despite not TGing for it, it's reached quorum.

Thanks to my approval actually! Hi to all WA members, I'm new on this forum.
Check out my proposals. Should I post a thread here about them?

Thanks to my approval actually! Hi to all WA members, I'm new on this forum.
Check out my proposals. Should I post a thread here about them?
Hi!
Umm, I've already posted about your proposals here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14602349&postcount=1051)...

Sorry for my mistakes; they're actually my first proposals. I'll try to correct them. Thanks for your comments.

How would this resolution affect intelligent munitions such as mines that can effectively detect the difference between friend, foe, and noncombatant?

How would this resolution affect intelligent munitions such as mines that can effectively detect the difference between friend, foe, and noncombatant?
My belief is that so long as they are only used in such mode, and not deployed as indiscriminate mines, they would be in compliance. Because intelligent munitions require operator input, they are "command detonated".

Our principal advocacy group on this subject, Landmines Are Lame, disagrees with this assessment and has suggested that an intelligent munition that is remotely detonated still violates the spirit of this law. As such, I doubt our government would research such systems should this resolution become law - but I also suspect this point will be one that will come to national interpretation.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

OOC: Whether or not the IMS conflicts with Ottawa is a subject of ongoing debate, so I'm glad someone brought this up as it could definitely be a point for discussion.

The intelligent mines under development by Jennings & Rall use both buried, and deployed airborne munitions, yet are connected to sensor arrays that use a variety of techniques to determine the combatant status of a given subject. These systems are further complemented by the Combat Data Information System, a force wide system that creates a tactical map of the battlefield which allows units to access real time information regarding hostile, allied, or noncombatant statuses of units, vehicles, and people.

However, they can be deactivated by the military at anytime and rendered inert, and once done are near impossible to detonate by civilians.

- World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

[ Yes, they are influenced by the IMS :D ]

OOC: Regardless if this proposal passes or does not passes, my nation will continue to produce landmines and use them as daily millitary exercise, and my nation has lots of intentions in using landmines if neccessary in a war.

[ You know that just because you use OOC tags, doesnt mean that you get to make every post out of charachter and just bash proposals. You complain about everything, for the love of god just withdraw from the WA already, this proposal is going to pass with or without your vote ]

OOC: Anyways i don't want to glog up this thread therefore i will not be posting in this thread anymore as OOC, only in character.

IC: The Federation of Serbian Soviet Union delegation does not recognise this proposal and see's it as invalid and illegal and therefore the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union will not be incompliance with the resolution if it passes.

OOC: Anyways i don't want to glog up this thread therefore i will not be posting in this thread anymore as OOC, only in character.

IC: The Federation of Serbian Soviet Union delegation does not recognise this proposal and see's it as invalid and illegal and therefore the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union will not be incompliance with the resolution if it passes.


Your government does not need to recognise this statute honoured Ambassador. Unless it can find a clever loophole, it will be in compliance with this law if it passes, like it or not.

Compliance is total unless it can be legally evaded.

Yours,

OOC: Anyways i don't want to glog up this thread therefore i will not be posting in this thread anymore as OOC, only in character.

IC: The Federation of Serbian Soviet Union delegation does not recognise this proposal and see's it as invalid and illegal and therefore the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union will not be incompliance with the resolution if it passes.

The proposal was examined by mods before it gained enough approvals to be debated. It is not illegal under NS rules governing proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465), which you would benefit from reading.

I have some doubt whether giving you this link will do any good, as you were directed to it earlier when you were making mistakes during the discussion of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Draft, yet your subsequent posts suggest you have learnt little.

You have made mistakes in II through failing to read the stickies; you are making mistakes in the WA through failing to read the stickies; though other players are trying to be tolerant, as we were all beginners once, your apparent refusal to try to improve is disrupting the forum.

You have already had one infraction from Frisbeeteria for spamming. Now you have a red card for spamming and trolling. If you continue acquiring infractions, I can guarantee you will have plenty of time off to read the stickies.

EDIT: In case I have not made it clear enough: warned, ban imminent.

This is a very interesting proposal in which we will take into account seriously. If you said quorum without a TG campaign then that is truly amazing.

If you said quorum without a TG campaign then that is truly amazing.

[OoC: the Quorum level has been very low for the past couple of months. Are we really losing so many nations?]

A strong FOR from Cookesland. The benefits of this to humanity most certainly outweigh economic concerns.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

The opinions of the Nachmere government on this proposed resolution are as follows:
While Nachmere recognizes the need to control certain military systems such as WMDs, weapons that cause deliberate mutilation, and such, it does not agree with the bleeding-heart populism of this resolution.

If a proposal to enforce proper safety (signs, fences, etc.) of mine fields was made it would receive our full support. However this idea of completely negating mines, which essentially defensive weapons, is absurd. The distance from this proposition to one banning all none-guided munitions is short. War is a terrible thing, but by banning the use of defensive systems like mines the WA will leave its members carrying a shorter stick against non-WA members.

The Armed Republic will therefore vote against this farce, and hopes all realistic nations follow.

If this resolution passes Nachmere will have no choice but to resign from the WA, with much regret.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere Delegate to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.

The opinions of the Nachmere government on this proposed resolution are as follows:
While Nachmere recognizes the need to control certain military systems such as WMDs, weapons that cause deliberate mutilation, and such, it does not agree with the bleeding-heart populism of this resolution.

If a proposal to enforce proper safety (signs, fences, etc.) of mine fields was made it would receive our full support. However this idea of completely negating mines, which essentially defensive weapons, is absurd. The distance from this proposition to one banning all none-guided munitions is short. War is a terrible thing, but by banning the use of defensive systems like mines the WA will leave its members carrying a shorter stick against non-WA members.

The Armed Republic will therefore vote against this farce, and hopes all realistic nations follow.

If this resolution passes Nachmere will have no choice but to resign from the WA, with much regret.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere Delegate to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.




Presumably the honoured Ambassador for Nachmere's government has made the decision that being able to rattle its sabres at non-member nations by hoarding primitive and barbaric weapons which are a useless hangover of less advanced periods in the history of war is more important than the lives and well being of millions of people.


Will it be of any comfort to the children who have lost limbs or the parents of those children that have died because of these weapons, that the government of Nachmere feels slightly more secure about wars it imagines it might fight in the future because it is still able to use a form of munition which is defunct and archaic ?


How miserable.


Yours,

The government of Nachmere would like to think that the very un-diplomatic rhetoric used by the Urgench representative is caused by passion to the subject at hand and not pure diplomatic incompetence.

Landmines, in contrast to your opinion, are not archaic weapons. They can be very effective at counter-maneuver operations. As hinted by my previous statement, all landmines laid by Nachmere Armed Forces are marked, fenced and if possible removed when no longer needed.

Nachmere is not rattling sabers at any nation, it dose however use force when needed (such is the situation in Strator right now). Also, and to conclude, we are worried about a slippery slope that this resolution may create, which will lead to further bans on conventional weapon systems.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere Delegate to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.

The government of Nachmere would like to think that the very un-diplomatic rhetoric used by the Urgench representative is caused by passion to the subject at hand and not pure diplomatic incompetence.

Landmines, in contrast to your opinion, are not archaic weapons. They can be very effective at counter-maneuver operations. As hinted by my previous statement, all landmines laid by Nachmere Armed Forces are marked, fenced and if possible removed when no longer needed.

Nachmere is not rattling sabers at any nation, it dose however use force when needed (such is the situation in Strator right now). Also, and to conclude, we are worried about a slippery slope that this resolution may create, which will lead to further bans on conventional weapon systems.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere Delegate to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.



You may like to think whatever you wish honoured Ambassador.

If the government of Nachmere is happy to continue to delude itself that these disgusting weapons which bring misery and death to millions of civilians are of excellent utility then we are not obligated to pretend that we think such a delusion is noble and decent.

The beauty of this organisation is the opportunity it provides its members to interact with thousands of other states with a myriad of differing levels of development. We suggest the honoured Ambassador's government make use of this opportunity and obtain better, less indiscriminate weapons which do not represent so grave an peril to the lives of civilians, instead of clinging in bizarre nostalgia to a primitive and backward form of warfare.


Yours,

Our arsenal is modern enough, we thank you for your concern. Our opinion stands. May your nation never be in need of these weapons and find it is lacking them.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere Delegate to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.

Our arsenal is modern enough, we thank you for your concern. Our opinion stands. May your nation never be in need of these weapons and find it is lacking them.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere Delegate to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.


Thankfully The Confederated Sublime Khanate will never have recourse to those morally reprehensible methods of war which Nachmere thinks are "modern enough", exemplified by the use of the weaponry which this statute seeks to outlaw.

Yours,

Also, and to conclude, we are worried about a slippery slope that this resolution may create, which will lead to further bans on conventional weapon systems.

We are opposed to most forms of weapons bans for reasons like your own. Here we must have take into account the damage it and danger it poses to unarmed civilians, as Ambassador Mongkha said earlier. An unmarked mine field can be the cause of great damage many years after a conflict has ended and cannot be seen unlike many other types of weaponry.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

The Government of Clarkorama states the following:

1. Please understand the difference between ORDNANCE and ORDINANCE. One is a weapon, one is a law...

2. Please understand that when war is declared, the objective is to win. That can be done in many ways, and in a violent war, the will of the people will be the determination of who wins. If either participant in the conflict utilizes landmines, then the opposing country should recognize that there will be casualties, both civilian and military. While a civilian casualty is undesired, war is, to use a cliché, hell.

While the Country of Clarkorama does not advocate a Scorched Earth policy, any country that desires to enter into a war with us will be littered with our Cluster Bombs. To wit, it is as effective as a deterrent as an instrument of death.

I implore the council to vote against the bill, as we all try to avoid war, but when it happens, you MUST be prepared to bring death to your enemy to break their wills.

Very well, you want to kill your enemy, break their wills, insert your favourite random testosterony talk here. But does that necessitate leaving stuff in the ground that will kill and maim innocent people long after the conclusion of the war?

How could you possibly believe in this concept of placing dumb landmines in areas that will not always be under the control of a military. Ambassador, go bury a landmine yourself, and tell me that you do not feel anything about leaving unexploded ordnance just sitting in the ground.

Now, our country does believe in intelligent mining systems, ones of which do not rely on simple pressure switches which can be set off by an unexpecting civilian and of which can be located and removed easily upon the end of a war.

- World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

Then why don't we just ban War while we are at it. Landmines are an instrument of war. There will ALWAYS be UXO. Bombs dropped from planes that don't go off. Mortars that land and don't go off. Grenades thrown that don't go off. ALL UXO! Landmines are a psychological deterrent, and an effective way of controlling the battlefield. Go catch up on your Sun Tsu.

Ordnance such as bombs and mortar shells are not built to malfunction. Unexploded ordnance is a real concern on the battlefield, but is also noticable, not buried under the Earth en masse ready to be tripped when the right amount of weight is placed on it.

This resolution is not intended to ban any weapon other than mines, why do nations like the one you represent believe that we will ban guns and warfare?

- World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

The Federal Republic opposes this resolution, and it is very unlikely that any developments within this chamber will sway our vote. We do, however, have a few inquiries for the legislation's sponsors.

Firstly, are we correct in assuming that the definition of "landmine" in the first clause will, in fact, allow "command-detonated" landmines that do not contain sensors or pressure switches, but can be detonated by remote device?

Also, while we appreciate such factors as character limits and the fact that this version was not intended to reach quorum, why does the language seem to ignore simple technological advances in the field of landmine safety that render nearly moot many concerns about post-war minefield danger? This would include landmines with timed self-destruct mechanisms, or that become inactive after their electrical charge has run out. Why weren't exceptions created for these safer forms of mines, outside of the listed R&D exemptions?

Landmines are a psychological deterrent, and an effective way of controlling the battlefield. Go catch up on your Sun Tsu.

Yes, of course, after all, the welfare of innocent civillians was such an overwhelming concern when that famous work was completed, according to the legends, two thousand years ago. Let's unleash some plagues upon the world, as well, since biological weapons are also an effective psychological deterrent.

EDIT: To Kenny, with reference to the previous discussion it would appear that command-detonated mines are not considered to fall under the definition.

ooc:i hope non of you guys dont actually think mines are archaic and irrelevent weapons in RL

Also, while we appreciate such factors as character limits and the fact that this version was not intended to reach quorum, why does the language seem to ignore simple technological advances in the field of landmine safety that render nearly moot many concerns about post-war minefield danger? This would include landmines with timed self-destruct mechanisms, or that become inactive after their electrical charge has run out. Why weren't exceptions created for these safer forms of mines, outside of the listed R&D exemptions?



We imagine that the kinds of weapon the honoured Ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny would qualify as disposed of under the definition-

'dispose' to be the act of destroying, permanently deactivating, or otherwise rendering non-functional, such as through conversion to command detonation, landmines;

Yours,

ooc:i hope non of you guys dont actually think mines are archaic and irrelevent weapons in RL



o.o.c. What does that have to do with anything ?

[ Depends on what type, I believe things like SLAM, which are intended to destroy vehicles and not random people that walk over them, and the IMS which can determine the difference between combatant and noncombatant ]

While larger nations still dominate the WA, the People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan demands the right to solely conduct its own defenses for the good of her people. We firmly object to this resolution, which undermines the defensive strength of smaller member states. Once we in Jamahiriyastan remove our minefields, what is to detain the atheist pig-dogs of the north from rolling in with their tanks and slaughtering all of Allah's children here?

I would advise you to purchase some form of anti-tank weapons, and those can range from anti-tank rifles to anti-armor missiles. To prevent a tank invasion, I would recommend that your nation mantains several major defensive positions along your border with weapons such as the Kornet E Anti-armor Missile Launcher to prevent such an occurance.

- World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

While larger nations still dominate the WA, the People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan demands the right to solely conduct its own defenses for the good of her people. We firmly object to this resolution, which undermines the defensive strength of smaller member states. Once we in Jamahiriyastan remove our minefields, what is to detain the atheist pig-dogs of the north from rolling in with their tanks and slaughtering all of Allah's children here?


Goodness if minefields are all that stand between your state and its enemies then we imagine this statute will have little or nothing to do with whether or not it is assailed.

Yours,

I find the military ignorance of some of the ambassadors amusing. The suggestion that AT weaponry is in some way a replacement to static defenses shows what great military thought stands behind this circus of a resolution.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere ambassador to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.

I find the military ignorance of some of the ambassadors amusing. The suggestion that AT weaponry is in some way a replacement to static defenses shows what great military thought stands behind this circus of a resolution.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere ambassador to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.

The fact that the honoured Ambassador for Nachmere is more interested in a juvenile points scoring game about who knows what about weaponry and frankly seems suavely unconcerned about the devestating effects these weapons have on the lives of innocent civilians should be a source of deep shame for the people of Nachmere.


Yours,

Dumb landmines should not be your sole method of defense from invasion, there are many ways you can go about securing a border. These mines are dangerous, and under most circumstances, they are active for many years following a military conflict. Nations cannot resort to burying live ordnance set to explode if a vehicle or person so happen to wander over them.

- World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

The fact that you support a resolution on a subject of military importance without any real military know how is far more of a shame. As for the people of my country, as most of them are military trained from the age of 12, I think they would laugh at your resolution as well.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere ambassador to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.

Perhaps, if Mr. Lock has so much "military know-how", he would suggest feasible solutions to the issues brought up by concerned nations, instead of sniping at those who are only seeking to illustrate that minefields are not the only or even the best way to stop an army of tanks.

Or perhaps he is more concerned about having dangerous toys to play with than with the welfare of innocent civillians.

The fact that you support a resolution on a subject of military importance without any real military know how is far more of a shame. As for the people of my country, as most of them are military trained from the age of 12, I think they would laugh at your resolution as well.

Gordon Lock, Armed Republic of Nachmere ambassador to the WA,
On behalf of the people of Nachmere.


What do you know of any of the respected Ambassador's to this organisation's military "know how" honoured Ambassador ? The honoured Ambassador simply rights off what they do not agree with as ill informed.


Isn't it lucky that the children of Nachmere are alive and well to laugh so callously, their counterparts in countries laced with mines are not so lucky.


Yours,

This is not just about a military tactic, this is about people, hundreds of civilians who are maimed and killed each year because nations like yours decided that they would rely on buried explosives rather than figure out a solution to the problem.

- World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

The citizens of my region have expressed deep concern over this proposed legislation. At first, I was not sure which side to take, but after listening to them and reading through the posts that have been made, I believe I will be casting Narnia's votes against this.

It is true that the civilian causalities from land mines are tragic and of great concern. However, I feel this argument to be somewhat misleading. By banning land mines, more civilians would need to be recruited/drafted into the military to provide the additional security needed to compensate. That in turn will engage more citizens in active combat and the effects, both physical and mental, of war.

That, coupled with a larger, more intrusive world government and less state power over its own military has convinced me to oppose this.
-----------------------------------------
~Fotar, Delegate of the Council of Narnia

OOC: Ummm... One question, why does anyone care about this? It's only going to affect the ingame part, not the II area.

OOC: Well, if you're a WA member, then you can't use landmines, at least not the kind that explode on their own. Compliance to resolutions is mandatory if you are a WA member. People have RPed noncompliance before, yes, but unless you do it very well, it tends to get you laughed at. It's more common to RP loophole exploitation through highly convoluted interpretations of the resolution's wording, but I expect that would be challenged if it were to affect other nations - it all depends who you hang out with.

OOC: Ummm... One question, why does anyone care about this? It's only going to affect the ingame part, not the II area.Maybe not your little II clique, no, but on this side of the fence, we play by our own rules. It's rather liberating that way.

Ordnance such as bombs and mortar shells are not built to malfunction. Unexploded ordnance is a real concern on the battlefield, but is also noticable, not buried under the Earth en masse ready to be tripped when the right amount of weight is placed on it.

This resolution is not intended to ban any weapon other than mines, why do nations like the one you represent believe that we will ban guns and warfare?

- World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

Correct, but what if their function is to lay dormant? For this I submit:

In Vietnam, we had a lot of bombs that were not going off as advertized, and being picked up by the enemy, cut open and the explosives were then being used to attack US forces. In comes the Destructor bomb. Made to look almost exactly like a real bomb but with a twist...a timer that starts when the bomb is moved after falling from the aircraft...a certain amount of time later, KABOOM.

Other rounds, mortars, and naval gun shells, may have a VT fuze, which cannot differentiate between civilian and uniform, it goes off IN PROXIMITY to an object.

Further, a minefield may not DESTROY a column of tanks, but it will slow them down, allowing for them to be picked off by other weapons, or allow a town to be evacuated.

Weapons were developed for a reason...even the CBR ones...

Further, a minefield may not DESTROY a column of tanks, but it will slow them down, allowing for them to be picked off by other weapons, or allow a town to be evacuated.

Placing obstacles like concrete barricades, concertina wire and sandbags will also slow tanks down, and have the bonus of not exploding when an unsuspecting person comes near to it years later or requiring costly and dangerous clearance later, especially if you're doing it to defend your own territory.

all of those options take more time...and again, I tell you, WAR IS HELL. The old saying, I think from Patton, "Your job is NOT to die for your country, its to make the other sorry !@#$ die for his." War is a battle of wills; how much will the enemy be able to absorb before he calls it quits.

You may end up banning landmines, but its only going to make YOU feel good in the end. When you come up against an enemy that doens't abide by these rules, YOU will feel the pain, not him.

The citizens of my region have expressed deep concern over this proposed legislation. At first, I was not sure which side to take, but after listening to them and reading through the posts that have been made, I believe I will be casting Narnia's votes against this.

It is true that the civilian causalities from land mines are tragic and of great concern. However, I feel this argument to be somewhat misleading. By banning land mines, more civilians would need to be recruited/drafted into the military to provide the additional security needed to compensate. That in turn will engage more citizens in active combat and the effects, both physical and mental, of war.

That, coupled with a larger, more intrusive world government and less state power over its own military has convinced me to oppose this.
-----------------------------------------
~Fotar, Delegate of the Council of Narnia


No one is surprised that the delegate of one of the most bellicose and imperialistic regions in the w.a. should object to any curtailment of its right to inflict havoc and destruction on the lives of innocent civilians.

Indeed the Ambassador for Fotar's remedy is to further bloat the ranks of their army, some it seems are so intoxicated with the blood-thirst of war that they can conceive of no alternative to it.


Yours,

all of those options take more time...and again, I tell you, WAR IS HELL. The old saying, I think from Patton, "Your job is NOT to die for your country, its to make the other sorry !@#$ die for his." War is a battle of wills; how much will the enemy be able to absorb before he calls it quits.

You may end up banning landmines, but its only going to make YOU feel good in the end. When you come up against an enemy that doens't abide by these rules, YOU will feel the pain, not him.


So the best reason to blight the lives of millions of civilians is the convenience which mines offer is it ? Children should die and loose limbs and eyes because your government wishes to be more time efficient should they ?


Yours,

No one is surprised that the delegate of one of the most bellicose and imperialistic regions in the w.a. should object to any curtailment of its right to inflict havoc and destruction on the lives of innocent civilians.

Indeed the Ambassador for Fotar's remedy is to further bloat the ranks of their army, some it seems are so intoxicated with the blood-thirst of war that they can conceive of no alternative to it.


Yours,

I am quite disappointed in the Ambassador for Urgench's actions and response, relying on personal attacks and an obvious long standing grudge that I have apparently inherited from Narnia's previous delegate. It is clear that to oppose Ugrench once is to automatically be labeled by him for eternity, even after many changes have been made in Narnia. Fact of the matter is, it is hard to be 'one of the most bellicose and imperialistic regions in the WA' when the WA has not been a priority in over six months. I have no further comments for the Ambassador for Ugrench since it is clear they have no intention of even learning about my region or my role as its new delegate.

In response to the claims that Narnia is bloodthirsty, it is unfortunate that Ugrench automatically assumes that all nations are as fortunate in their friends and border security as he seems to be. It is a simple fact that some nations will be required to bolster their military, or invading nations will come in and take over, subjecting many more citizens to torture and pain. Will it happen everywhere? No. But will it happen somewhere...most certainly.
-----------------------------------------
~Fotar, Delegate of the Council of Narnia

I am quite disappointed in the Ambassador for Urgench's actions and response, relying on personal attacks and an obvious long standing grudge that I have apparently inherited from Narnia's previous delegate. It is clear that to oppose Ugrench once is to automatically be labeled by him for eternity, even after many changes have been made in Narnia. Fact of the matter is, it is hard to be 'one of the most bellicose and imperialistic regions in the WA' when the WA has not been a priority in over six months. I have no further comments for the Ambassador for Ugrench since it is clear they have no intention of even learning about my region or my role as its new delegate.

What personal attacks ? Really Ambassador, what personal attacks ? We said nothing about your person, nor have we any intention of doing so. It is you who have now made comments about "he" and "him" as though Urgench were a person and not a nation of billions of citizens. Presumably the Ambassador for Fotar thinks that attacking our Ambassador for "having no intention of learning about [your] region e.t.c. " is not a personal attack ? Indeed it is the Ambassador for Fotar who has made our perfectly ligitimate comments about their region in to an excuse to personally attack our Ambassador.

Our Ambassador simply pointed out that a region famed for its militaristic culture could hardly be expected to take an other position on this statute than that which the Ambassador for Fotar outlined earlier in the debate.



In response to the claims that Narnia is bloodthirsty, it is unfortunate that Ugrench automatically assumes that all nations are as fortunate in their friends and border security as he seems to be. It is a simple fact that some nations will be required to bolster their military, or invading nations will come in and take over, subjecting many more citizens to torture and pain. Will it happen everywhere? No. But will it happen somewhere...most certainly.



Fortune has nothing to do with the good relations the empire enjoys with its neighbours. The peace which the empire enjoys has been the result of centuries of hard work and detailed policy aimed at propagating amity and goodwill. Our borders are secure because we long ago realised that peace begets peace, and that the abundant and fertile fields of peace will offer up a rich bounty in prosperity if properly husbanded.


It is perhaps telling that a region so wholly given up to militarism can see no other possible way for governments to deal with their disputes.

Arms races lead in only one direction, continual and exponential hoarding and creation of armaments will always give the impression that these armaments will one day be used thus increasing the distrust and suspicion of one's neighbours, ultimately this policy's inevitable outcome is war.


This statute wisely realises that warmongering states, intractable as they frequently are, should be required to reduce the impact of their warmongering on the innocent civilians caught up in their reckless violence in this one specific way.


Yours,

and again, I tell you, WAR IS HELL. The old saying, I think from Patton, "Your job is NOT to die for your country, its to make the other sorry !@#$ die for his." War is a battle of wills; how much will the enemy be able to absorb before he calls it quits.

No one here is saying war is not terribly unpleasant, or at least I'm not. I would go further, in fact, and assert that it is among the worst barbarities intelligent beings have ever engaged in. It is unfortunate, however, and somewhat incomprehensible, that in response to this fact your nation seems to have become more belligerent rather than more peaceful.

You may end up banning landmines, but its only going to make YOU feel good in the end. When you come up against an enemy that doens't abide by these rules, YOU will feel the pain, not him.

The pain from what? Are you seriously implying that you can suffer a military defeat for the only reason of not having landmines? We aren't talking common, basic equipment or weapons here, the absence of which really would be a big disadvantage. Landmines are a rather specialised type of weapon with a limited range of uses - in fact, basically only one, and they can be easily substituted with other sorts of countermeasures as I explained earlier.

Totally agree,landmines should be banned

This is proposterous! The war benefits outweight any civilian casualties. A landmine cleaning project to pick up all inactive landmines in no longer warring countries would be better suited. In most countries with live landmines no longer needed, the country has posted signs stating there are live mines. After that, it is up to the civilians to watch out. If they go boom, then it is survival of the fittest.

I put my vote against this resolution via our vote on said resolution.

But just a question .. is it not A bit hypocritical of this body, To Pass World Assembly Resolution #10 And then to try and Ban Land Mines? Forgive me for saying so.. But I would prefer Land Mines .. To Nuclear War Heads. Priorities? Just an opinion

I put my vote against this resolution via our vote on said resolution.

But just a question .. is it not A bit hypocritical of this body, To Pass World Assembly Resolution #10 And then to try and Ban Land Mines? Forgive me for saying so.. But I would prefer Land Mines .. To Nuclear War Heads. Priorities? Just an opinion

And exactly how many nuclear warheads are left lying around on former battlefields waiting for someone to accidentally detonate them after a war?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Considering how proflic nuclear warheads are in NS, I'd say odd's are there's a fair amount of them.

And as a reply to the replies of my earlier statment, if WA resolutions are to be followed in II, then why does everyone say the WA itself doesn't exist in II?

O.O.C. Take this up some where else, this is a debate about a w.a. resolution banning landmines not about whether or not the w.a. exists in NS2.OOC, FYI, 'II' doesn't mean 'NS2': It means 'International Incidents', the section of NS1's forum in which many of the RPed wars take place...

The Regime of Gotemba has voted against the Landmine Convention, and will glady resign from the WA before it will be bound to and implement such an intrusive resolution.

Our Economy is described as follows: A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Arms Manufacturing, Automobile Manufacturing, and Uranium Mining industries.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Landmine Convention are as follows:

2. Dispose of all landmines within their present stocks as soon as is practicably possible, with due regard for safety, security, and environmental consequences;

3. Immediately and permanently cease and desist the production, deployment, and transfer of landmines, including the rendering of technical assistance in their production or deployment;

These are unacceptable for several reasons:

a) The economic and national security policies of indiviual nations are undermined/sacrificed/compromised for the sake of a utopian ideology which free peoples can chose if they wish, but ought not to be imposed.

b)The Convetion "discriminates" against a class of weapons which is vital to defense.

c) The Convention "discriminates" against an Industry which is vital to commerce.

d) The Convention seeks to take a weapon out of national arsenals which is designed to save lives.

e) If landmines can be banned, any other weapon will evetually be banned.

f) This will destroy the Arms Manufacturing Industry among WA nations.

g) non WA nations, will flood the market with landmines

h) the World Assembly Demining Agency will grow into an intrusive bueracracy.

I) The WA is ill equiped to determine what weapons are best suited for a nations defensive or offensive military operations.

If the Landmine Convention is passed, the Regime of Gotemba will resign from the WA, quadruple landmine production, reinstate gas-mine production, and help like mined nations to infiltrate and undermine the World Assembly Demining Agency .

World Delegate 1
The Regime of Gotemba

I apologise that I have not had time to address the Assembly before now; over the weekend most of my research staff were watching the World Cup. I would like to thank those who have defended my proposal in its absence.

I would firstly like to make the following very clear, because some of the comments from both supporters and opponents of the proposal make me unsure how well understood it is: this proposal does not ban all landmines. It defines landmines as anti-personnel devices that injure those 'activating the device by proximity or contact'. A mine that is activated by remote detonation, whether a timer or an operator input, would not fall under the definition here mentioned. A mine that targets vehicles would not fall under the definition here mentioned.

Given this, I find arguments that this proposal will leave the nations of the World Assembly flailing and defenceless somewhat baffling.

I would also point out that rhetoric about children having their limbs blown is mildly unhelpful. I am not sure the injuries inflicted by a landmine are necessarily any more horrific than those inflicted by a machine-gun, and we have no intention of banning the latter. I would rather the issue of harm take as its central question how that harm is inflicted. A non-targetted weapon represents a hazard post-conflict in a way that a weapon requiring human control does not. That is why we are opposed to proliferation of the former.
The Federal Republic opposes this resolution, and it is very unlikely that any developments within this chamber will sway our vote. We do, however, have a few inquiries for the legislation's sponsors.
Your opposition was expected, and I take no offence that my arguments will not sway you. But I will endeavour to respond:
Firstly, are we correct in assuming that the definition of "landmine" in the first clause will, in fact, allow "command-detonated" landmines that do not contain sensors or pressure switches, but can be detonated by remote device?
Yes, that is correct.
Also, while we appreciate such factors as character limits and the fact that this version was not intended to reach quorum, why does the language seem to ignore simple technological advances in the field of landmine safety that render nearly moot many concerns about post-war minefield danger? This would include landmines with timed self-destruct mechanisms, or that become inactive after their electrical charge has run out. Why weren't exceptions created for these safer forms of mines, outside of the listed R&D exemptions?
An entirely reasonable objection. The reason such mines weren't included is that no one on my staff thought about them, and none of those commenting on the draft mentioned them. I take full responsibility for this omission.
The citizens of my region have expressed deep concern over this proposed legislation.
The citizens of your region have also expressed the view that homosexuals 'spread disease', so I think it was not unforeseeable that some might react strongly to Narnia's presence in the chamber.
However, I feel this argument to be somewhat misleading. By banning land mines, more civilians would need to be recruited/drafted into the military to provide the additional security needed to compensate. That in turn will engage more citizens in active combat and the effects, both physical and mental, of war.
What I don't understand is why increased personnel is the only possible response. Why can't the military simply develop different area denial munitions, ones that aren't victim-initiated? You act as though the landmine is the only possible way of stopping an advancing army. If your problem is simply that your military is technologically backwards, that hardly seems to be my problem.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

OOC, FYI, 'II' doesn't mean 'NS2': It means 'International Incidents', the section of NS1's forum in which many of the RPed wars take place...

O.O.C. Oh oops sorry about that, my bad, sincere apologies to Belkaland, I was a bit mystified by why a NS2 player was even here...... now I know.:$:$:$:$

this proposal does not ban all landmines. It defines landmines as anti-personnel devices that injure those 'activating the device by proximity or contact'. A mine that is activated by remote detonation, whether a timer or an operator input, would not fall under the definition here mentioned. A mine that targets vehicles would not fall under the definition here mentioned.


Mines that activate by "proxinity or contact" are used to slow down an eneimies advance, or to channel them into an area that is better suited for destruction by maneuver. In both cases these type of operations tend to involve conventional forces under the control of a government, in accordence with the laws of war.

"A mine that is activated by remote detonation, whether a timer or an operator input, would not fall under the definition here mentioned. A mine that targets vehicles would not fall under the definition here mentioned." These types of mines are typically deployed in a revolutionary or Insurgent conflict by combatants without reguard toward the laws of war. This act would legitimize IED'S and Roadside bombs used for political and propaganda purposes, and criminalize Landmines used under government authority for lawful purposes.


Why can't the military simply develop different area denial munitions, ones that aren't victim-initiated? You act as though the landmine is the only possible way of stopping an advancing army. If your problem is simply that your military is technologically backwards, that hardly seems to be my problem.


If a nation is developing it may take large amounts of time to develop the military arts and sciences. Nations like The Regime of Gotemba who are advanced in the military arts and sciences, have a supply of such instruments, and undeveloped nations have a demand for them.

The Regime of Gotemba does not need landmines to defend our nation, but we understand that other nations do. As long as there is a demand for Landmines, The Regime of Gotemba is happy to supply the highest quality and most leathal landmines that self destruct when they are attempted to be disarmed in the World!!!!

World Delegate 1
The Regime of Gotemba

I would firstly like to make the following very clear, because some of the comments from both supporters and opponents of the proposal make me unsure how well understood it is: this proposal does not ban all landmines. It defines landmines as anti-personnel devices that injure those 'activating the device by proximity or contact'. A mine that is activated by remote detonation, whether a timer or an operator input, would not fall under the definition here mentioned. A mine that targets vehicles would not fall under the definition here mentioned.

We are fairly sure we pointed this out earlier in the debate.

I would also point out that rhetoric about children having their limbs blown is mildly unhelpful. I am not sure the injuries inflicted by a landmine are necessarily any more horrific than those inflicted by a machine-gun, and we have no intention of banning the latter. I would rather the issue of harm take as its central question how that harm is inflicted. A non-targetted weapon represents a hazard post-conflict in a way that a weapon requiring human control does not. That is why we are opposed to proliferation of the former.


If this was intended to refer to any of our contributions to this debate, in which we have mentioned the harm inflicted upon civilians, we would like to point out that we have nowhere undermined the attention your Excellency wishes to focus on how that harm is inflicted, and that if such focus was not achieved it was not our responsibility or our fault.


We have exactly the same objections to the kinds of weaponry this statute bans as your Excellency's delegation, be rest assured.

If our desire to see such indiscriminate and haphazard death and harm banned, leading us to clearly counterpose such harm with the morally bankrupt defences of these weapons offered by other delegations is in anyway distasteful to the honoured and esteemed delegation of Quintessence of Dust we apologise, but beg their indulgence since our actions are motivated by the same desire as their own.


Yours sincerely,

I am able to understand why this legislation has been thrown before us. Also, I am aware of the civilian casualties that result from it. I may be wrong, but mines seem outdated, unless roadside bombs would be considered a mine, which I doubt due to the fact that most explosives of this nature are not weight or motion triggered. Due to the increasingly advanced weapons available, such as laser guided missiles, I feel that it does more harm than good. I agree that the military is needed as much as the next guy (okay, maybe MORE than the next guy) but I have to say that minefields that have not been in use for decades are more of a hinderance than a way of defense.

I am able to understand why this legislation has been thrown before us. Also, I am aware of the civilian casualties that result from it. I may be wrong, but mines seem outdated, unless roadside bombs would be considered a mine, which I doubt due to the fact that most explosives of this nature are not weight or motion triggered. Due to the increasingly advanced weapons available, such as laser guided missiles, I feel that it does more harm than good. I agree that the military is needed as much as the next guy (okay, maybe MORE than the next guy) but I have to say that minefields that have not been in use for decades are more of a hinderance than a way of defense.OOC: Not all nations in NS exist at the same level of technology...

OOC: Valid point. Very valid point.

Considering how proflic nuclear warheads are in NS, I'd say odd's are there's a fair amount of them.

And as a reply to the replies of my earlier statment, if WA resolutions are to be followed in II, then why does everyone say the WA itself doesn't exist in II?Because of some arrogant II regulars who think they get to set the RP rules for everyone else. The moderators have repeatedly ruled that this is nonsense, and that recognition of the WA is up to individual players. Of course, as I told you before, this is the WA forum, so II RP conventions have no relevance here whatsoever.

The citizens of your region have also expressed the view that homosexuals 'spread disease', so I think it was not unforeseeable that some might react strongly to Narnia's presence in the chamber.

I am curious as to when and where that occurred, for I must not have been around for that. I am also not entirely sure what that has to do with landmines or anything for that matter. Are not members of the WA allowed to express their beliefs, no matter what they are, the same as you are? Or is this less a democracy and more a tyranny of the majority? I really would like to know the history behind this, so if you could, I would appreciate a telegram about this claim.


What I don't understand is why increased personnel is the only possible response. Why can't the military simply develop different area denial munitions, ones that aren't victim-initiated? You act as though the landmine is the only possible way of stopping an advancing army. If your problem is simply that your military is technologically backwards, that hardly seems to be my problem.

Perhaps I was not clear enough with my statements. Not all nations will react this way. Assuming this resolution is passed, my own nation will not respond by a rapid influx of troops, for we do have the means for other ways of defense and do not use land mines often anyways. Believe it or not, my argument is not self-centered, but concerned with other nations that 1) do not have the means for other ways of counteracting this proposal or 2) will choose not to explore other solutions.

As I said from the very start, at first glance, I thought this would be a decent proposal. But, after hearing the concerns of my region and after reading through the forum here in an attempt to make an education vote, I decided it was in the best interest of all to vote against this.
----------------------
~Fotar, delegate of the Council of Narnia

the ban of land mines is completely preposterous. Land mines are a very important aspects of the military, and extremely helpful in the field. To me this seems more like a greater scheme to abolish military spending altogether which to me seems completely ignorant.

What you are implying is that the World Assembly is attempting to abolish any military supported by a member state, and that is just absurd. The Kul tan delegation is being nothing more than paranoid of an organization it chose to join.

-World Assembly Ambassador Matthew Blake

I am curious as to when and where that occurred, for I must not have been around for that.
We checked on a whim, and indeed the Lord Chancellor of the Narnian Council was quite explicit (and demonstrably incorrect) on the point during the debate (and we use the term loosely) on the Freedom of Marriage Act. The transcripts do not reveal whether any Fotaran representatives were present in the chamber on that occasion, at least not to our brief perusal, and we regret that our representative at the time does not definitively recall the ambassador's presence or absence.

I am also not entirely sure what that has to do with landmines or anything for that matter.
It colours the expectations of those in this chamber -- expectations which, sadly, have not been disappointed. A small matter, but one that your region should perhaps cogitate upon.

I still feel that this bill is a joke! People need to think about this seriously. Banning landmine use hurts commerce and other countries way of life. Who are we to decide how other countries run their lives or make their living. Like I said before, edit this bill to state that old landmine fields no longer in use need to be made public until cleared. We do not need to go to the extreme of destroying proximity or "touch-activated" landmines. There is a middle ground. Let's work torwards that.

Thank you for taking the time to research that, Gobbannium. I do not wish for this to become a discussion about something that it not the proposal at hand though, so if anyone wishes to contact me further on this, I would ask that you message me privately.

I would also like to take a moment and express that I agree with the Ambassador for Kayoria and feel that there is merit in this proposal, as I have stated from the start. Ibelieve that some middle ground can be reached and that we should work towards that.
------------------
~Fotar, Delegate of the Council of Narnia

Any military that deploys land mines does so in an attempt to protect their soldiers. For me, there is nothing more important than my soldiers coming home from war. It is completely irresponsible for any national leader to put anything in war ahead of the lives of their soldiers. Banning land mines puts several things ahead of the lives of our country' soldiers.

Banning land mines puts several things ahead of the lives of our country' soldiers.

Yes indeed, such as innocent civillians. Those damn innocent civillians, always getting in the way of your army doing whatever they like. Screw them. Your soldiers are much more worthy of life than some damn idiot minding their own business who might tread on a landmine, even if it's years after the war is over. In fact, we should just wipe out all innocent civillians so they can't get in the way of a good war. LAUNCH NOOKS!!!

Like I said before, edit this bill ... There is a middle ground. Let's work torwards that.

OOC: Just FYI -- a proposal at vote can't be edited. A resolution can't be amended. That's why proposal authors post drafts for discussion before submitting.

Thank you for taking the time to research that, Gobbannium. I do not wish for this to become a discussion about something that it not the proposal at hand though, so if anyone wishes to contact me further on this, I would ask that you message me privately.

I would also like to take a moment and express that I agree with the Ambassador for Kayoria and feel that there is merit in this proposal, as I have stated from the start. Ibelieve that some middle ground can be reached and that we should work towards that.
------------------
~Fotar, Delegate of the Council of Narnia


Middle ground ? What then do you suggest this middle ground encompasses then Ambassador ?


Yours,

The Nation of Scriptless' Millitary and Parliament view the use of landmines as essential for the defence of vital strategic and millitary positions, such as Fort Nalztburg, our primary millitary R&D installation.

All deployed minefields in our territory are enclosed by a twin row of razor-wire topped fences, at lest 8ft in height and with clear warning signs at a minimum distace of 5ft in between.

The Parliament and Millitary Counsell would whole-heartedly support legislation encouraging other NationStates to follow our example but condems this resolution on the grounds that we should not be forced to compromise our national security due to the reckless use of landmines by other nations and their governments.

Allan Mayfair - USSS Ambassador for the World Assembly

The Holy Catholic Republic of Upper Amazon has voted AGAINST this resolution for the following reasons:

-- Landmines are an important weapon for nations with small militaries and less-advanced technologies. For some, this is by choice, but for most this is a situation imposed by the First-World nations. They use their superior material wealth to extract wealth from our nations, and simultaneously return no equity to us.

-- Landmines are expensive, at least from the perspective of a poorer nation such as ours, and therefore should be set only to detonate by the proximity of an enemy. If they were not enemies, wouldn't they make use of legitimate border-crossing areas? Is it not my national prerogative to prohibit through lethal force the illegal entrance into my country?

We insist on the right to defend our nation from adversaries, particularly as many large and powerful NS nations are not bound by WA resolutions. Landmines serve as a useful and accessible tool in our defense. To ban them would be to take bullets from police officers.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Fens, presided over by the Eternal Emperor, would like to raise the question of the time restrictions. It is highly likely that a country who has no desire to release its stock of landmines for disposal could and would use the fact that there is no express time limit to just give lip service to the resolution and ignore it. I propose that there be a strict time limit of no greater than 18 months attached to the resolution.
Thank you for your time Honored Delegates.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Fens, presided over by the Eternal Emperor, would like to raise the question of the time restrictions. It is highly likely that a country who has no desire to release its stock of landmines for disposal could and would use the fact that there is no express time limit to just give lip service to the resolution and ignore it. I propose that there be a strict time limit of no greater than 18 months attached to the resolution.
Thank you for your time Honored Delegates.

I agree with the Northern Fens; however, I do believe that when a proposal is lacking in an aspect that doesn't significantly effect the interpretation of the resolution it does more good to vote for than against the proposal.

This resolution needs to be voted down or altered for the purposes I will state below. Certain "land mines" are deployed for conventional military ambushes only. For example the Claymore. One set up on either long-end of an established kill zone, when the targeted convoy reaches the center, the Claymores are detonated (destroying them and leaving no residual harm or potential harm to civilians and the environment) which in turn destroys either end of the enemy convoy, making it impossible for them to move ahead or in reverse, culminating in a successful ambush. I understand the need and desire to move away from war and into peace, but as the world stands now, Claymore mines are essential to national protection and present no harm to civilians. I would like to add a provision in this resolution for the use of Claymore mines in ambush settings before the Fiefdom of Beefystew will vote for it.

This resolution needs to be voted down or altered for the purposes I will below state. Certain "land mines" are deployed for conventional military ambushes only. For example, the claymore. One set up on either long end of an established kill zone, when targeted convoy reaches the center, the claymores are detonated (destroying them and leaving no residual harm or potential harm to civilians and the environment) which in turn destroys either end of the enemy convoy, making it impossible for them to move ahead or revers, culminating in successful ambushing. I understand the need and desire to move away from war and into peace, but as the world stands now, claymore mines are very beneficial and present no harm to civilians. I would like to add a provision in this resolution for the use of claymore mines in ambush settings before I will vote for it.


We suggest the honoured Ambassador properly read the statute, they will find that their concern is already dealt with.


Yours,

We must not vote this proposal into law! Too many countries rely on the use of landmines. Just because your country does not, does not mean we should make the whole world disarm themselves of landmines. Do not push for the extreme! We must vote "no" on this one, then write another one proposing for middle ground. We should work torwards the middle ground of: 1) labeling old mine fields for the public to understand there is a danger and to go away, 2) clearing all mines out of unsused mine fields, 3) educate the public within 50 miles of old mine fields (cleared or not) on how to find mines and what to do in different situations, and lastly 4) destroy or reuse the old mines in current fields of battle. It can be done. We have the technology.

The delegate respectfully is unable to see which statute resolves the concern of his sovereign.

Are claymore mines detonated via remote, proximity, weight, or other means? If not detonated by weight or proximity, then I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be outlawed under this legislation.

Claymores can be detonated by a number of ways, such as by command-detonation, motion-detection, and trip-wires. So I see no reason why claymores would be outlawed, they would simply need to be set to command-detonation.

OCC: Thanks for clearing that up for me, Sovereign Unity |:^) I was about to look at Wiki

Using the resolution's wording, these are exemptions that I can think of when used by remote detonition:

C-4
Claymore

(Help me add to this list? I'm no military fanatic)

Also, why not make landmines with higher weight triggers (ex in existance. Anti-tank mines)? These will have to have a high enoughj weight trigger so civilian cars or trucks cannot detonate it. However, there is a problem with that, since cars are getting heavier.

Also, I believe "smart" mines should be exempted

Check the Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) out. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ims.htm)

Thanks for clearing all of that up for me. I couldn't quite understand the exemptions wording. And Claymores are considered as anti-tank/anti-personnel mines. As for alternating weight on the pressure panels, I'm not sure how much exactly you can adjust that so an individual would not trip it.

As for resolving my concern, I feel perfectly fine accepting this resolution now.

Under the current wording, it would be exempted.

As the custom of the Great Jin State is to put into practice all passed World Assembly resolutions, it is my responsibility to announce that the text of this bill has been presented to the Dangjin Huangshang by the Imperial Council and decision has been rendered against it.

It is the belief of the Imperial Council in majority that landmines, when used in a responsible capacity, are a valid military aid in conflict. The Ministry of War has issued a whitepaper in support of landmine use within a moral and responsible context; this is the position the Dangjin Huangshang has adopted in his advice to the Council.

As such, the Great Jin will not adopt this resolution should it pass.

May the Emperor reign for ten thousand, ten thousand, ten ten thousand years!

Li Hongzhang
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Wawaibu Shangshu

Zenocolonies is a new and fledgling nation that has no desire for conquest and will not tolerate any aggression. At present our only defense is a strip of land that is 2 miles wide that surrounds Zenocolonies with mines. the mines are enclosed in an area protected by signs, dogs, razor wire, spotlights and guard towers. Our only other choice of defense is to push forward our plans to developer our uranium fields and begin a WMD program.

We wish to be left alone for the time being. any attempt to breach or dismantle our defenses will be met with a disproportional response.

We could possibly be convinced to add timers to certain mines so they will self destruct before they become unstable if we are supplied with a small amount of state-of-the art weaponry for defensive purposes only.

-- Landmines are expensive, at least from the perspective of a poorer nation such as ours, and therefore should be set only to detonate by the proximity of an enemy. If they were not enemies, wouldn't they make use of legitimate border-crossing areas? Is it not my national prerogative to prohibit through lethal force the illegal entrance into my country?

Perhaps it would be easier to refrain from buying expensive Landmines and hire more soldiers or invest in more sophisticated military equipment?

We insist on the right to defend our nation from adversaries, particularly as many large and powerful NS nations are not bound by WA resolutions. Landmines serve as a useful and accessible tool in our defense. To ban them would be to take bullets from police officers.

and take limbs from innocent civilians? If these mines are hard for your nation to afford, I’d advise you to look into cheaper means of self-defense and not to rely on all your eggs in the same basket.

I propose that there be a strict time limit of no greater than 18 months attached to the resolution.

Once a proposal has been submitted and is up to vote, no further amendments can be passed.


We must not vote this proposal into law! Too many countries rely on the use of landmines. Just because your country does not, does not mean we should make the whole world disarm themselves of landmines. Do not push for the extreme! We must vote "no" on this one, then write another one proposing for middle ground. We should work torwards the middle ground of: 1) labeling old mine fields for the public to understand there is a danger and to go away, 2) clearing all mines out of unsused mine fields, 3) educate the public within 50 miles of old mine fields (cleared or not) on how to find mines and what to do in different situations, and lastly 4) destroy or reuse the old mines in current fields of battle. It can be done. We have the technology.

So basically do everything this proposal does aside from ban their use? This puts civilians in greater danger if nothing else; what with having them running through minefields trying to find landmines with God knows what.


Zenocolonies is a new and fledgling nation that has no desire for conquest and will not tolerate any aggression. At present our only defense is a strip of land that is 2 miles wide that surrounds Zenocolonies with mines. the mines are enclosed in an area protected by signs, dogs, razor wire, spotlights and guard towers. Our only other choice of defense is to push forward our plans to developer our uranium fields and begin a WMD program.

We wish to be left alone for the time being. any attempt to breach or dismantle our defenses will be met with a disproportional response.

If your only defense is a 2 mile-wide mine field around your nation, I’d say you have bigger problems to worry about than developing WMDs.



As such, the Great Jin will not adopt this resolution should it pass.

You have no choice on adopting whether this resolution passed or not, the WA Compliance Ministry sees that it's implemented and put into effect.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

As the highest ranking official in Romanar who has any interest in the WA, I will vote for this proposal as soon as the WA application goes through.

Joe the Janitor.

"If your only defense is a 2 mile-wide mine field around your nation, I’d say you have bigger problems to worry about than developing WMDs. ' Richard York WA Ambassador.


It is this attitude by a WA ambassador that concerns the good people of Zenocolonies. We take this as a direct threat and will continue to build our defenses.

We will not accept the proposal if passed.

"If your only defense is a 2 mile-wide mine field around your nation, I’d say you have bigger problems to worry about than developing WMDs. ' Richard York WA Ambassador.


It is this attitude by a WA ambassador that concerns the good people of Zenocolonies. We take this as a direct threat and will continue to build our defenses.

We will not accept the proposal if passed.


What should give the people of Zenocolonies most concern is that their government is so incompetent that it has left the entire defense of their state to a two mile wide perimeter of landmines.

The honoured Ambassador for Cookesland has no interest in threatening your nation honoured Ambassador and we suggest that you reacquaint yourself with reality before making further comments on this statute lest your Excellency should appear foolish.

If this statute is ratified your state will have no choice but to comply with it since compliance is complete and absolute, the only options available to your government might be clever legal evasion, or resignation from the w.a.


Yours,

You have no choice on adopting whether this resolution passed or not, the WA Compliance Ministry sees that it's implemented and put into effect.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

The Great Jin is not, and has never been, a member of this World Assembly. By precedent, the will of the Dangjin Huangshang has been to apply, where necessary, the laws of the World Assembly to the laws of the Great Jin State.

This is one instance where we shall not.

Li Hongzhang
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Wawaibu Shangshu

The Great Jin is not, and has never been, a member of this World Assembly. By precedent, the will of the Dangjin Huangshang has been to apply, where necessary, the laws of the World Assembly to the laws of the Great Jin State.

This is one instance where we shall not.

Li Hongzhang
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Wawaibu Shangshu


The question must then be asked, honoured Ambassador, why would your government apply the laws of an organisation it does not see fit to join to your nation ?

It looks dubious, logically speaking.


Yours,

The Dangjin Huangshang in his boundless wisdom understands the need for progressive political ideals and strong laws, but as the Classics say there can be only one ruler of the state- all authority must be constituted within, not without.

When there are two sources of authority, the people will not know which laws to follow. When high and low are not in accord, how can the state be in harmony? When authority comes from both the Lianheguo and the Son of Heaven, how can the Jin be said to be sovereign?

Li Hongzhang

The Dangjin Huangshang in his boundless wisdom understands the need for progressive political ideals and strong laws, but as the Classics say there can be only one ruler of the state- all authority must be constituted within, not without.

When there are two sources of authority, the people will not know which laws to follow. When high and low are not in accord, how can the state be in harmony? When authority comes from both the Lianheguo and the Son of Heaven, how can the Jin be said to be sovereign?

Li Hongzhang


Very well honoured Ambassador, but if your nation chooses this detached status with the W.A. in which it cherry picks those laws it agrees with and ignores the rest whilst remaining a complete non-member, why does it think it has a right to use its voice to try to sway the voting intentions of actual members ?

Yours,

So basically do everything this proposal does aside from ban their use? This puts civilians in greater danger if nothing else; what with having them running through minefields trying to find landmines with God knows what.
Richard York
WA Ambassador

You misunderstand. When I stated having educated civilians learning how to find them, I meant having them able to know what they look like in case they come across one, which they shouldn't do because of all the labeling. If a civilian is harmed by an old, unused landmine, they shouldn't be playing in that area. Survival of the fittest. If someone is too dumb to stay away from a labeled mine field, they only harm themselves. :soap: Too many people are worried more about the lame and stupid than they are worried about the smart and gifted. And in this issue, smart is common sense. Sense enough to stay away from labeled mine fields. If kids are running around in them, then punish the parents for not watching their kids. This is a lame proposal! I cannot believe this even came about!:headbang:

What should give the people of Zenocolonies most concern is that their government is so incompetent that it has left the entire defense of their state to a two mile wide perimeter of landmines.


My nation finds this very funny. All are laughing!

Zenocolonies mine fields are meant to be a freindly reminder that we do not wish to be disturbed, however, with much appreciation to Richard York, WA Ambassador and to The honoured Ambassador for Cookesland, Zenocolonies now realizes the intrusive and warlike nature of the World Assembly and it is our intention to step up our uranium mining and accelerated development of our space weapons.

Zenocolonies is a peacefull nation but we will not tolerate threats into our private affairs.

The United States of Kinkster strongly appose this bill.

As a new nation we rely on land mines for 2 purposes.

1 - It offers my citizens the vital protection it needs, as we manufacture land mines ourselves it is also affordable.

2 - As an exporter of landmines it would have a massive impact on our GWP and again as a new nation its not something we can afford to just give up.

Its always the superpowers who propose these absurd bills without giving due thought to the smaller nations who rely heavily on the use of land mines. Are they prepared to fund us to replace the mines with other ways of securing our borders ?

Some Nations seem to think because they do not have a use for landmines, no other nation should either.
Not every nations terrain, technology, and military capabilities are the same.
If you wan't to unilaterally ban landmines in your country, fine.
If you want to ban the use of landmines in your region, fine.
To impose this utopian ideologly upon every member of the WA is insane.
The Regime of Gotemba has put lup with plenty of poor laws from the WA, this one is the last straw, and we will resign from the WA when we get the telegram that it is in effect.

see my other 2 posts on page 6, We will be open for business, we will exapand our land and gas mine manufacturing operations!!!!

We will infiltrate and undermine the demining agency!
IA SAKKATH IA SAKKATH

World Delegate 1
The Regime of Gotemba

If a civilian is harmed by an old, unused landmine, they shouldn't be playing in that area

How are they going to know the landmine is there in the first place? You seem to think that everyone who plants a mine also puts up warning signs. Think of how silly it would be to be doing that in a situation of armed conflict.

Too many people are worried more about the lame and stupid than they are worried about the smart and gifted

...says the ambassador who felt the need to illustrate his speech with strange animated cartoons which had little apparent relevance to the subject at hand.

it is our intention to step up our uranium mining and accelerated development of our space weapons.


You know, now that you have announced your nation's abject lack of defences, you probably won't get too far in developing WMDs before someone sends a minesweeping vehicle accompanied by a section of soldiers to completely take over your nation. Hell, they don't even need to bother with getting through the minefield, they could just airdrop a team of paratroopers and conquer you tonight.

Very well honoured Ambassador, but if your nation chooses this detached status with the W.A. in which it cherry picks those laws it agrees with and ignores the rest whilst remaining a complete non-member, why does it think it has a right to use its voice to try to sway the voting intentions of actual members ?Alright, knock it off. Non-members address this assembly all the time, and you have no place questioning which ones are entitled to speak and which ones are not. Add to that, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so hostile and dismissive of the good ambassador's credentials if he happened to agree with you.

[OOC: Has it occurred to you the player already has a nation in the WA, and can't apply twice?]

Alright, knock it off. Non-members address this assembly all the time, and you have no place questioning which ones are entitled to speak and which ones are not. Add to that, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so hostile and dismissive of the good ambassador's credentials if he happened to agree with you.

[OOC: Has it occurred to you the player already has a nation in the WA, and can't apply twice?]


And you have no place telling us what to do Honoured Ambassador, in fact we were not concerned about whether the honoured Ambassador's nation had the right as a non-member to speak here, in fact it was the detached approach to the laws of w.a. which gave us pause for thought.

The ethical implications of informing this organisation that Altan Ordyn picks and chooses which w.a. laws it approves of and which it does not and then using these decisions to sway members who may not pick and choose in this fashion are rather complicated, that is why we sought clarification on Altan Ordyn's policy in this matter.


Yours,


( O.O.C. Yes it did "occur" to me Kenny, I don't really see what that has to do with the question Mongkha asked )

the great People's Republic of Hammina votes against this bill, as many nations who we would be most willing to trade with hold a great trade in this industry. Why prevent a country from realising it's full potential by being able to manufacture, distribute, and sell any possible product market it contains. It would be against the Articles of the Free Peoples of Hammina if we were to prevent our private secter from producing what ever it will. And so as Elected Repersentative of the People's Republic of Hammina, an office which the people have intrusted to me for as long as they see fit, must vote against this socialist bill.

Elected Majora
People's republic representative
Ethianna of Viscano

Yes, the issue is "complicated," but that's not what you asked. You asked, "Why does (your nation) think it has a right to use its voice to try to sway the voting intentions of actual members?" You have no right to question whether a delegation has a right to address this body, whether you approve of their national policies or not. And I'm sure if you had questioned Knootoss in the same manner, he would have had plenty to say on the matter. Right after he handed you your ass.

OOC: Urgench, this is about landmines, not etiquette. If you have a problem with a non-member addressing the WA, take it up with them privately. I believe the concept of 'thread ownership' applies in this forum, and hence, I would like to ask you to get back on topic.

O.O.C. Kenny dragged this off topic not me but whatever.

Regrettably, a technical burp seems to have eaten my attempt to address the Assembly yesterday.

That said, I am a little unsure what new I can possibly add. It has become increasingly evident that the opposition of many members consists either of a refusal to think clearly about which weapons this proposal actually applies to, or of knee-jerk posturing backed up by some increasingly crazed rhetoric.

I also note the continuing absence of any scenarios being presented wherein crude anti-personnel mines would prove critical.

As such, I will continue to stand behind my proposal, and thank all of those who have supported it.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

OOC: Nice proposal QuOD!

Iain.

Zenocolonies mine fields are meant to be a freindly reminder that we do not wish to be disturbed

Minefields as a friendly reminder? I'd hate to see how your people make friends in other ways. To say "hello", do you stab someone with a letter opener? Do you wish someone "happy birthday" by blowing up their house? I'm really curious.

Zenocolonies now realizes the intrusive and warlike nature of the World Assembly

Intrusive, I'll grant you, but that's what your government signed up for when you joined the WA, whether you realize it or not (or bothered to read the fine print). As for "warlike", that is the last word I'd use to describe an entity which is currently debating banning a simple and basic weapon of war, and is barred from even having any kind of military force. But hey, histrionics trump facts, right?

and it is our intention to step up our uranium mining and accelerated development of our space weapons.

Mine and develop all you like; I hate to break it to you, but to most of us, your nation is not all that significant for us to bother with.

Zenocolonies is a peacefull nation but we will not tolerate threats into our private affairs.

Again, your government might wanna review what this organization actually does.

We will infiltrate and undermine the demining agency!

Yeah, good luck with that. You'll need it.

As to this resolution itself, after regional discussion and debate, the Altani Federation is casting its vote, on behalf of our region, against this measure. While we do agree that dumb mines (as opposed to "smart" systems, or command-detonated ones) are a significant danger to civilians after a war is concluded, we would rather see the international community be more proactive about removing such threats post-conflict rather than forcing us to eliminate an entire class of weapons from our arsenals. In addition, some of our regional states, being poor and disadvantaged compared to the Federation, have raised concerns about the fact that dumb munitions are really all they can muster in the way of border defense.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

The nation of Bears Armed has never found itself in a situation where the use of such weapons would have been both desirable and possible, but the High Council of Clans is still reluctant to see an entire category of weapons (that are not "of mass destruction") banned in this way.
Like several of the other governments whose representatives have already spoken here, we would prefer a proposal that required any use of these weapons to be carried out 'responsibly' -- with minefields clearly fenced-off and labelled -- and promoted de-mining once those minefields were no longer wanted.
I have therefore cast the vote of the 'Bears Armed Mission' AGAINST this proposal.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Conmfederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Since joining the WA, Zenocolonies has been treated with nothing but contempt, ridicule and threats. It has been a very enlightening experience to see the warlike nature of the outside world and having seen this Zenocolonies will withdraw from the WA and prepare for the inevitable aggression of the WA.

Any attempt by any nation in the WA to invade our sovereignty will be met by Zenocolonies by detonating it's uranium deposits into the atmosphere. We would rather be dead then to succumb to the will of the WA aggressors.

You misunderstand. When I stated having educated civilians learning how to find them, I meant having them able to know what they look like in case they come across one, which they shouldn't do because of all the labeling. If a civilian is harmed by an old, unused landmine, they shouldn't be playing in that area. Survival of the fittest. If someone is too dumb to stay away from a labeled mine field, they only harm themselves. Too many people are worried more about the lame and stupid than they are worried about the smart and gifted. And in this issue, smart is common sense. Sense enough to stay away from labeled mine fields. If kids are running around in them, then punish the parents for not watching their kids. This is a lame proposal! I cannot believe this even came about!

I think the argument that "well their stupid already, better to cleanse the gene pool" is moronic. I'd rather see the evil nipped in the bud and prevent such a tragedy from ever occuring, by banning landmines.

You know, now that you have announced your nation's abject lack of defences, you probably won't get too far in developing WMDs before someone sends a minesweeping vehicle accompanied by a section of soldiers to completely take over your nation. Hell, they don't even need to bother with getting through the minefield, they could just airdrop a team of paratroopers and conquer you tonight.

*writes something on piece of paper* ...is it spelled with two "L"s or one?


We would like to congratulate Dr. Merrywether and the rest of Quintessence of Dust's WA Mission on the passage of their proposal.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

The World Assembly
You inform the World Assembly that The Regime of Gotemba will no longer participate in its corrupt, hollow debates. From this moment forward, your nation is on its own.

The World Assembly
You inform the World Assembly that The Regime of Gotemba will no longer participate in its corrupt, hollow debates. From this moment forward, your nation is on its own.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

The World Assembly
You inform the World Assembly that The Regime of Gotemba will no longer participate in its corrupt, hollow debates. From this moment forward, your nation is on its own.
Why did that show up here? Must be one helluva slow news week. (Enter that drum thing that happens when someone cracks a terrible pun)

Since joining the WA, Zenocolonies has been treated with nothing but contempt, ridicule and threats.
We must aver that the honoured ambassador has worked for the contempt and ridicule that he has garnered, but we draw the line at awarding him threats. The Mark 2 Defenstrator has but gathered dust during this debate, the Palatine dolphins have not been present to colour the air with their remarks, and not even our permanant undersecretary has expressed a strong desire to do the ambassador an injury. On the whole, we would have to rate the ambassador's performance very poorly in the threat acquisition department.

While we have chosen the vehicle of ridicule here, the point remains a serious one; as far as we have observed, not one single nation has threatened Zenocolonies during this debate. Many have expressed amusement or bemusement that the Zenocolonial minefield can be regarded as effective against anything more determined than a man with a stick, and have mused aloud on the multitudinous deficiencies of this technique, and it is these remarks that the ambassador appears to have seized on and regarded as threats. They are threats only to your complacency, sir; indeed your entire reaction is close kin to that of a person in flat denial.

It has been a very enlightening experience to see the warlike nature of the outside world and having seen this Zenocolonies will withdraw from the WA and prepare for the inevitable aggression of the WA.
Evidently the experience has been insufficiently enlightening: the WA itself, having no military force, is incapable of aggression.

(Enter that drum thing that happens when someone cracks a terrible pun)

I believe the term you're looking for is a rimshot (http://www.instantrimshot.com/).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Well, I agree with TheSoundGardens. Also, I don't support this bill, I think it's a dumb idea (sorry for the word dumb) In fact, land mines were used to stop the invader's or we may say trespassers.

But i strongly support the clearing of landmines for the safety and security of the people.



``Holy Empire of Frozenqueen``

Well, I agree with TheSoundGardens. Also, I don't support this bill, I think it's a dumb idea (sorry for the word dumb) In fact, land mines were used to stop the invader's or we may say trespassers.

But i strongly support the clearing of landmines for the safety and security of the people.



``Holy Empire of Frozenqueen``

'Frozenqueen'?
Hr'rmm, I wonder how the Narnians will react to seeing that name? ;)