[IDEA] The Battlefields Act

[Evil Brutes]

I wanted to devote some time into development of an act that allows warring nations to war only in designated areas. These areas shall be desolate in nature, such that the number of civilians that are killed each war, reduce to as low as possible. Further, it would effectively reduce battle costs and fortification expenditures. Say, is it a good idea?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Non-member invades The Dark Star Republic and captures High Point, our capital city. We are now legally prohibited from fighting back to reclaim our own territory, because it is not a 'designated area' and is not 'desolate' enough.

"No, it is not a good idea."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Evil Brutes]

"Non-member invades The Dark Star Republic and captures High Point, our capital city. We are now legally prohibited from fighting back to reclaim our own territory, because it is not a 'designated area' and is not 'desolate' enough.

"No, it is not a good idea."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Fine. That seems to be a problem that needs to be fixed. A clause may be added, stating that if the warring nations happen to be non-members of the GA, then the assumed that of armed military confrontation is not bound to designated areas. I hope this solved the apparent problem. If it does not seem right, I request you to suggest a better alternative, in the boundary of this act.......

[Cazalius Lodra]

And what exactly do you propose should be the consequence of these developments? You are destroying the element of surprise!

[Hirota]

I wanted to devote some time into development of an act that allows warring nations to war only in designated areas. These areas shall be desolate in nature, such that the number of civilians that are killed each war, reduce to as low as possible. Further, it would effectively reduce battle costs and fortification expenditures. Say, is it a good idea?

Without the specifics of a proposal text it is difficult to comment, although DSR has identified one factor you should consider.

Having said that, anything which can help to reduce the loss of civilian life is something that should be applauded.

I'd urge you not to fall victim for the failings other newbie authors commit when first joining the World Assembly, and consider the compendium of rules and guidance, and specifically the guidance provided by the fellow member state Bears Armed.

[Ardchoille]

I'm commenting on this in more detail than I usually do because I missed seeing a GHR from Evil Brutes and deleted the proposal as illegal, rather than as "withdrawn at the author's request". I've removed the WA illegal proposal note from his record, and this comment is by way of further apology.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be welcome, because my personal opinion (ie, not a ruling) is that the proposal should be abandoned. Anyway, here we go:

The text of the original was

The General Assembly,
NOTING intentional tensions exist between nations at all times,
UNDERSTANDING, that many tensions are resolved by armed military altercations resulting in lots of life of both soldiers and civilians,
ADDRESSING the issue of civilian deaths in this political and military altercation,
OBSERVING that the general public should not and need not be affected by international tensions, and that innocent lives need not be endangered
HEREBY proposes the BATTLEFIELDS ACT; which contains the following clauses:
1) BATTLE or any armed military altercation shall be restricted and confined to restricted areas demarcated as battlefields.
2) BATTLE WATERS shall be the borderlands, or topographically isolated regions, where a military altercation may take place without harming the civilians.
3) MEDIA representatives shall be considered civilians, and not intentionally harmed. Any harm caused to them shall be considered a war crime, and shall be tried accordingly.

KEEPING in mind the cause of war is unpleasant, and war has been named a necessary evil,

HOPES that the General Assembly shall look forth to the best interest of the people.

The illegality ruling was:

<snip standard message> Your proposal was illegal because it was so broadly phrased as to be unenforceable.

In the proposal rules, The Most Glorious Hack thoughtfully noted that "if players and Mods have to spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out what's going on, it'll be nuked". He was talking about proposal language, but, regardless, a mod who's confuzzled is a mod who can't say whether it duplicates, contradicts or wanders into metagaming.

Here are some of the questions I thought of at first reading:

• Does every nation (capable of providing the space required) have to have a designated Battleground? Do they get to choose where it is?
• What does this mean for pacifist or neutral nations (ie, ideological ban? Contradicts #255, Rights of Neutral States?)
• Does this mean a nation's military, which according to this (I think) has to fight on a designated Battleground, can't go after guerillas, rebels or terrorists (who, by definition, aren't into stand-on-the-battlefield warfare)?
• When a number of nations are in conflict, which nation's battlefield is the one fought on? Or does it happen on an uninvolved nation's battlefield? Who decides? On what criteria?
• How do Battle Waters jibe with the WA's various maritime Resolutions? Are they supposed to happen in international waters? If it's waters, why are borderlands mentioned?
• Does "harm to journalists" cover "harm to embedded journalists"? (I thought the "war crimes" sentence was at least vague enough to fit whether or not Chester's proposal passes, since "appropriately" could mean whatever was current national or international law.)

I think the amount of research/rewriting Evil Brutes would have to do to answer those queries makes clear why the submitted version was far from ready, but I couldn't stop thinking about the wider effects:

Do designated Battlegrounds have to be cleared of all constructions? (Since it''s the 200th anniversary, think of the significance of La Haye Sainte at Waterloo).

Are nations responsible for maintaining the state of the battlefield pre-battle, like groundkeepers in a Test match? Boggy ground has been helping lighter troops since Bannockburn, and no doubt before. Equally, jungle, desert and ice warfare is pretty specialised. Are there penalties for failing to keep your Battlegrounds up to scratch? Again, who decides?

Would it be possible to hide troops from an opponent on a designated Battleground, or are we talking about, er, totally level playing fields? Would there be a standard layout for a Battleground (bridge to cross, hill to hold)? Will armies change their composition according to the Battleground they're on, like a captain calling on the spin bowlers?

Yeah. By the time I got to that stage I realised I was really overthinking it. But if one person can come up with that many befuddled queries, you probably haven't got the concept clear in your own mind yet; if you had, the proposal itself would be clearer.

One point: if a lot of the queries from other players are along the lines of "who decides", "what criteria", "how much", you probably need to task a committee with making such detailed decisions, because you'll go nuts trying to answer everyone and we've got a character limit on proposals. A committee also gets around charges of bias. since the Gnomes are unbribable. The GA's seen arguments that committees are a prop for lazy authors, but they can be useful if carefully done.

Sorry to be discouraging about this idea, but some of our best authors have had rockier starts. You learn from every attempt.

EDIT: BTW, probably a typo for "international": NOTING intentional tensions ...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Would it be possible to hide troops from an opponent on a designated Battleground, or are we talking about, er, totally level playing fields? Would there be a standard layout for a Battleground (bridge to cross, hill to hold)? Will armies change their composition according to the Battleground they're on, like a captain calling on the spin bowlers?

Sorry, requiring nations to conduct their pitched battles on Global Starcraft II League map "Daedalus Point" would be illegal for branding.

[Separatist Peoples]

Would it be possible to hide troops from an opponent on a designated Battleground, or are we talking about, er, totally level playing fields? Would there be a standard layout for a Battleground (bridge to cross, hill to hold)? Will armies change their composition according to the Battleground they're on, like a captain calling on the spin bowlers?

Sorry, requiring nations to conduct their pitched battles on Global Starcraft II League map "Daedalus Point" would be illegal for branding.

OOC: aaaand there goes the nerd-gasm. I have to stop having those at work. People think I'm normal here...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Congress of Europe: You are prohibited from fighting in Flanders, German High Command!

Germans: Does that mean we cannot pass through Flanders?

Congress of Europe: Well... there isn't anything against it...

Germans: Into France!

[Cazalius Lodra]

If I may make a few suggestions like you asked, Evil Brutes,
•Does every nation (capable of providing the space required) have to have a designated Battleground?
Answer: No, the act is not a must, it's a should. For the nations that have enough space, yet do not follow the act, in war, the opponent having such an area, willing to war on it will receive monetary and supplementary aid from the Assembly nations.
•Do they get to choose where it is?
Answer: In the view that the area needs to be isolated from human habitation, far enough that the common public is not affected by radiation, biological weapons, and 'horrors of war' in general.
Keeping this in mind, the location of the battleground shall be decided by population and topography experts.
•What does this mean for pacifist or neutral nations (ie, ideological ban? Contradicts #255, Rights of Neutral States?)
Answer: It means nothing new really. Pacifist nations are neutral under some conditions and time periods, it is of importance to diminish the possibility of harm to individuals. And it does not violate the rights of neutral states in any way.
•Does this mean a nation's military, which according to this has to fight on a designated Battleground, can't go after guerillas, rebels or terrorists (who, by definition, aren't into stand-on-the-battlefield warfare)?
Answer: No, the Act does not imply this at all. The act stands for the development of Battlefields in land or water, to war against the military troops of another nation, AUTHORISED TROOPS. Of course, in case of siege, guerrillas and rebels, the country can take action as it seems fit. It shall be supported by other nations at will only, not by compulsion, as in the cases above.
•When a number of nations are in conflict, which nation's battlefield is the one fought on? Or does it happen on an uninvolved nation's battlefield? Who decides? On what criteria?
Answer: The decision of which battlefield is to be fought on, is to be decided by the location, average distance from any neutral territory's battlefield, and on the basis of the amount of Sea Area, possessed by each nation. Of neighbouring land locked nations, the war shall be on the Battlefields of the largest nation. If the nations are far apart, the largest battlefield that lies in the average distance from all three, shall be the battleground. Of the nations warring, if any one has battle waters, that nation shall be the one to hold the war, provided the other nations are landlocked. In case of two nations having battle waters, the larger battle water area shall be the ground for war
•How do Battle Waters jibe with the WA's various maritime Resolutions? Are they supposed to happen in international waters? If it's waters, why are borderlands mentioned?
No. Both battlegrounds and battle waters are to be isolated in nature, with no effect on maritime trade, whatsoever. Borderlands are mentioned as a suggestive measure, as they are generally "no man's lands".
•Does "harm to journalists" cover "harm to embedded journalists"? (I thought the "war crimes" sentence was at least vague enough to fit whether or not Chester's proposal passes, since "appropriately" could mean whatever was current national or international law.)
Answer: No, journalists only includes identified, noted and affirmed journalists. Since embedded journalists may be presumed as synonymous to spies, they are not covered by the act.

This covers all the until questions of the Moderator. It is my t request to you. Evil Brutes, that you add these to the script.

[Imperializt Russia]

There is no part of "designated battlefield" that is workable in warfare beyond the nineteenth century.
The system would be rife for abuse, considering the capabilities and sheer mobility available to modern airmobile and mechanised military forces.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If I may make a few suggestions like you asked, Evil Brutes,
...
Of the nations warring, if any one has battle waters, that nation shall be the one to hold the war, provided the other nations are landlocked. In case of two nations having battle waters, the larger battle water area shall be the ground for war
•How do Battle Waters jibe with the WA's various maritime Resolutions? Are they supposed to happen in international waters? If it's waters, why are borderlands mentioned?
No. Both battlegrounds and battle waters are to be isolated in nature, with no effect on maritime trade, whatsoever...

So... the idea is that if one belligerent power has oceanic coastline, landlocked nations must create a naval force from scratch in order to be permitted to attack them???

In the age of muskets and sail, this might have been something approaching a reasonable notion; at this point it's fundamentally absurd.

[Cazalius Lodra]

Well, considering that on field battles are still common, I believed that this might have been a good idea..... But yes, out does seem overwhelmingly out of tense..... Alright, but e must do something against the death of innocents, right? I mean, that might serve as a fundamental reason to think of something like this.....

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, considering that on field battles are still common, I believed that this might have been a good idea..... But yes, out does seem overwhelmingly out of tense..... Alright, but e must do something against the death of innocents, right? I mean, that might serve as a fundamental reason to think of something like this.....

Pretty sure existing legislation says one cannot shoot up civilians for the fun of it.

Civilians in direct support of the war effort can be legitimately termed as viable strategic military targets.
This was taken to a logical extreme in the terror bombing of WWII.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Well, considering that on field battles are still common, I believed that this might have been a good idea..... But yes, out does seem overwhelmingly out of tense..... Alright, but e must do something against the death of innocents, right? I mean, that might serve as a fundamental reason to think of something like this.....

Pretty sure existing legislation says one cannot shoot up civilians for the fun of it.

Which legislation would that be? Repeal International Criminal Court legalised the murder of civilians, and to my knowledge there's been no replacement on that count.

[Imperializt Russia]

Point of contention, that didn't legalise murder of civilians, it simply de-regulated that practice.
Which may have been one of a number of pieces of legislation I referenced.

Chester's nuclear and chemical arms control protocols did prevent the use of those weapons directly against or with unacceptable collateral effect on civilian populations or centres.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Chester's nuclear and chemical arms control protocols did prevent the use of those weapons directly against or with unacceptable collateral effect on civilian populations or centres.

Far more civilians have been killed with guns, bombs and knives than with nuclear or chemical weapons.

[Imperializt Russia]

At no point have I denied this or suggested points to the contrary.
Of course, NS regards the carpet-desolation of a country-sized target with either to be a mundane occurrence.

[Cazalius Lodra]

At no point have I denied this or suggested points to the contrary.
Of course, NS regards the carpet-desolation of a country-sized target with either to be a mundane occurrence.

So should this or should this not go in? After rework of course....

[Separatist Peoples]

At no point have I denied this or suggested points to the contrary.
Of course, NS regards the carpet-desolation of a country-sized target with either to be a mundane occurrence.

So should this or should this not go in? After rework of course....

"I'm surprised you can't tell based off of the comments. The experts are telling you not to submit this. Ever."

[Grays Harbor]

Chester's nuclear and chemical arms control protocols did prevent the use of those weapons directly against or with unacceptable collateral effect on civilian populations or centres.

Far more civilians have been killed with guns, bombs and knives than with nuclear or chemical weapons.

Probaly more been killed with machetes and rocks than by chemical weapons.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Answer: In the view that the area needs to be isolated from human habitation, far enough that the common public is not affected by
radiation, biological weapons, and 'horrors of war' in general.

"Speciesism!"

[Imperializt Russia]

Far more civilians have been killed with guns, bombs and knives than with nuclear or chemical weapons.

Probaly more been killed with machetes and rocks than by chemical weapons.

The Rwandans are waving enthusiastically.

[Bears Armed Mission]

If the idea is that member nations whose forces lose the battles in those restricted battlefields are required to treat those fights as such decisive victories for the enemy that they must make peace on that basis, even though most of their countries weren't affected by enemy action, then why bother with battles at all? Why not just say that they must decide the winner in any such dispute through [e.g.] a football game or a series of chess matches, instead?

[Grays Harbor]

:blink:
If the idea is that member nations whose forces lose the battles in those restricted battlefields are required to treat those fights as such decisive victories for the enemy that they must make peace on that basis, even though most of their countries weren't affected by enemy action, then why bother with battles at all? Why not just say that they must decide the winner in any such dispute through [e.g.] a football game or a series of chess matches, instead?

Or rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock.