[DEFEATED] Freedom of Arms Trade

[Glen-Rhodes]

If this proposal were to pass, it would be a serious mistake of historic dimensions. Luthiland, the delegates who have approved of this proposal, and all nations who would vote for it would be responsible for the trillions upon trillions of deaths that will inevitably result from the unabashed, thoughtless and incredibly myopic declaration that nations have a right to export weapons of war, both conventional and non-conventional.

- Dr. B. Castro

[The Ainocran Embassy]

I beg to differ, they would be responsible for every single live saved, Trillions, upon Trillions of them

[Glen-Rhodes]

I beg to differ, they would be responsible for every single live saved, Trillions, upon Trillions of them

Yes, because lives are saved with nuclear weapons.

[Maroza]

I beg to differ, they would be responsible for every single live saved, Trillions, upon Trillions of them

Yes, because lives are saved with nuclear weapons.

Yes just look in RL. We only needed to use two and no one wanted to shoot a nuke.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yes just look in RL. We only needed to use two and no one wanted to shoot a nuke.

150,000 - 246,000 people died as a direct result of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only for the world to be on the brink of total destruction for the next forty four years. Of course, nuclear weapons didn't stop war from happening then, and they certainly don't stop wars from happening now. Yeah, what a peaceful world we live in.

[Embolalia]

(i) There shall be no international legal limitations placed on the manufacture, sale, trade, transportation, lending or supplying of any type of weapon between the governments of any nation.
(ii) Any nation may sell, trade, lend, supply or transport arms to any nation, faction or opposition group it sees fit without legal restriction.

Wait a minute. So if the IDU decided to enact restrictions, independent of the WA, that can't be done? Or a treaty between independent nations? Blocking the WA is one thing, but blocking anybody else? No thank you. (I think perhaps these don't say what you want them to say.)

Of course, if I were misinterpreting that, the only actual active clause, the only thing saving this from being an illegal pure blocker, would be this:

(iii) No nation that is not a party to a conflict may interfere with the delivery of arms to any participant of said conflict unless said delivery shall enter or pass through it’s territorial waters, lands or air space.

Honestly? First of all, there is no way that warrants significant strength. Secondly, what you're saying here is just that I either can't attack weapons ships in international waters (which would be better done by simply banning attack of non-military ships and military ships from nations with whom you are not at war), or that I have to justify being in a conflict with someone in order to attack their weapons shipments. I don't know why I would attack someone's weapons if I'm not a party to a conflict with them (and if I did attack, I'd certainly become party to a conflict).

In one card:

[Monikian WA Mission]

I beg to differ, they would be responsible for every single live saved, Trillions, upon Trillions of them

Yes, because lives are saved with nuclear weapons.

"What Dr. Castro fails to realize that it isn't the weapons that do the killing." Tarkrit Narzhan said standing. He reached into his a robe and laid a phase-pistol on the desk used by the Monikian Delegation.

"Phase-Pistol, Shoo Dr. Castro." He said. The phase-pistol lay on the table motionless. "PHASE-PISTOL I ORDER YOU TO SHOOT DR. CASTRO!" he said in a dull roar. Again the phase-pistol remained motionless on the table.

"Dr. Castro, what you are forgetting is that weapons are inanimate objects. They are tools. They may be used for good or ill but they cannot in and of themselves actually kill any sapient being. Weapons don't kill people. People kill people. That you cannot seem to have grasped this fact, and are presumably an adult for your species and nation astounds me. In my nation, you would probably have been sterilized for that--we wouldn't want your genes spread around our species."

[Otrenia]

The Commonwealth of Otrenia is absolutely opposed to this bill. We will not support any proposal that would increase arms trade or manufacture in any capacity. We find especial opposition to this clause which we have fix'd

AND OBSERVING that said manufacture, sale, trade and/or transportation of arms is vital to the economic development of many nations and that military aid to belligerent nations my be used as a political tool to foster alliances set up empires and exert international power our quite oppressive will over subject populations,

[Glen-Rhodes]

People kill people.

What a compelling argument for giving those people weapons of mass destruction.

[Monikian WA Mission]

People kill people.

What a compelling argument for giving those people weapons of mass destruction.

"Dr. Castro, I presume you to not be a military veteran. What with being busy getting that ed-joo-kay-shun and all, how would you have had time doing something useful in your younger years--like defending your country. I am. I have served 40 years in the Monikian Star Fleet. I rose to the rank of Captain in that service, the first male to do so.

"As a veteran, and as someone who has in the past assisted my nation in military strategy, I can tell you very very very plainly. That if a nation has Super-Awesome-Weaponz other nations are going to think twice about invading them. Granted a psychotic dictatorship might use those same Super-Awesome-Weaponz for purposes that, you Dr. Castro, think are wrong, evil or just plain stupid. But the solution to those psychotic dictatorships not doing those things is not by banning weapons or the trade in weapons--but rather to ban psychotic dictatorships. Which I have no idea how you could even propose to do to start with."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Undecided: I want to know how this proposal, as written, would allow a resolution on neutrality of member countries to be drafted this summer.

[Embolalia]

I still want to know if this prohibits non-WA arms restriction treaties, and if not, how it isn't a massive and blatant strength violation worthy of removal from the floor.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Dr. Castro, I presume you to not be a military veteran. What with being busy getting that ed-joo-kay-shun and all, how would you have had time doing something useful in your younger years--like defending your country. I am. I have served 40 years in the Monikian Star Fleet. I rose to the rank of Captain in that service, the first male to do so.

Glen-Rhodes doesn't maintain peace with bullets. We maintain peace with diplomacy and cooperation.

That if a nation has Super-Awesome-Weaponz other nations are going to think twice about invading them.

And when everybody has them, because nobody is allowed to prevent the sale of those weapons? The likelihood of total destruction was quite high when only two superpowers were at each other's throats. Extrapolate that out, and you'll see why this proposal and your argument are irresponsible and nonsensical. (OOC: Convert that to IC in whichever way you please.)

But the solution to those psychotic dictatorships not doing those things is not by banning weapons or the trade in weapons--but rather to ban psychotic dictatorships. Which I have no idea how you could even propose to do to start with."

Or you can prevent psychotic dictators from getting their hands on those weapons, which is entirely possible and actually quite easy to do.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Monikian WA Mission]

Glen-Rhodes doesn't maintain peace with bullets. We maintain peace with diplomacy and cooperation.

"So then, what would happen, hypothetically, if say, Monkiah invaded tomorrow morning? Our Empire is always looking to expand our territory. What would your diplomacy achieve? Not much. I have a feeling our Star Fleet and Space Corps would be sufficient to result in a Glen-Rhodeian Unconditional Surrender.

And when everybody has them, because nobody is allowed to prevent the sale of those weapons? The likelihood of total destruction was quite high when only two superpowers were at each other's throats. Extrapolate that out, and you'll see why this proposal and your argument are irresponsible and nonsensical.

"This argument is absolutely absurd. In most cases peace is preferable to war. War disrupts trade, war wastes a lot of resources that could go into other things, war is not usually the first choice for civilized nations. These weapons are necessary to keep the civilized nations safe from the barbaric nations. And we have no knowledge of which two superpowers you are referring to, nor in which quadrant of the Milky Way they supposedly reside.

Or you can prevent psychotic dictators from getting their hands on those weapons, which is entirely possible and actually quite easy to do.

"Actually you can't. These psychotic dictators could go to any non-member nation that produces arms, and buy them directly. Plus last I checked black marketeers didn't give a flying <untranslatable expletive> about WA Resolutions. Thats what being a Criminal Means after all."

By this time Takrit was supremely annoyed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So then, what would happen, hypothetically, if say, Monkiah invaded tomorrow morning? Our Empire is always looking to expand our territory. What would your diplomacy achieve? Not much. I have a feeling our Star Fleet and Space Corps would be sufficient to result in a Glen-Rhodeian Unconditional Surrender.

Hypothetically, our military and the CSO to which Glen-Rhodes belongs, would fight back. Realistically, the likelihood of Glen-Rhodes going to war with another nation is statistically minuscule. Our constitution wouldn't have banned war if war were a considerable threat to our nation.

This argument is absolutely absurd. In most cases peace is preferable to war. War disrupts trade, war wastes a lot of resources that could go into other things, war is not usually the first choice for civilized nations. These weapons are necessary to keep the civilized nations safe from the barbaric nations. And we have no knowledge of which two superpowers you are referring to, nor in which quadrant of the Milky Way they supposedly reside.

Your argument requires two assumptions: all states with these weapons are economically interdependent with one another, and all states with these weapons view each other without enmity. Otherwise, trade disruptions would not prevent war and war would not be seen as a non-option. If the world operated under those assumptions, there would be no need for those weapons in the first place.

The world decidedly does not operate that way. Therefore, the likelihood of total destruction is dramatically increased: everybody knows that anybody else could trigger a total war, and the statistically likelihood of something happening -- whether intentionally or on accident -- is sky high. Total war and total destruction are inevitable. The so-called nuclear peace argument you're advocating works only under specific circumstances, and even then it's an incredibly dubious assertion.

Actually you can't.

I disagree.

- Dr. B. Castro

[The Ainocran Embassy]

Doctor, the sad fact is that war is sometimes necessary.

Never desirable, but necessary nonetheless.

In an ideal world we could all exist without it, unfortunately the world we inhabit is less than ideal. We need weapons to keep the predators at bay.
Nations like yours, need nations like mine to preserve the peace you so enjoy. Do not try to tie our hands, the results could be disastrous not only for us, but for you as well.

This bill is necessary, not to encourage war, but to preserve peace, if not for nations like mine, then for nations like yours.

[Otrenia]

Doctor, the sad fact is that war is sometimes necessary.

Never desirable, but necessary nonetheless.

In an ideal world we could all exist without it, unfortunately the world we inhabit is less than ideal. We need weapons to keep the predators at bay.
Nations like yours, need nations like mine to preserve the peace you so enjoy. Do not try to tie our hands, the results could be disastrous not only for us, but for you as well.

This bill is necessary, not to encourage war, but to preserve peace, if not for nations like mine, then for nations like yours.

I cannot speak for the honorable nation of Glen-Rhodes, but in Otrenia we do not go to war, and we do not allow ourselves to be "protected". We are perpetually neutral and will only defend ourselves, aggressive or preventative war is banned in our Constitution. We will vehemently oppose this proposal and any proposal that would increase or otherwise benefit the trade of weapons or armaments of any kind. We are not of the opinion that violence can be stopped with more violence, war can only be stopped when we stop trying to treat the wounds and instead try to find a cure, perhaps best put (ironically) by Napoleon Bonaparte "If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon shots." More weapons is not the answer, war can only be truly stopped if we try to solve the problems that lead to wars in the first place.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Hypothetically, our military and the CSO to which Glen-Rhodes belongs, would fight back. Realistically, the likelihood of Glen-Rhodes going to war with another nation is statistically minuscule. Our constitution wouldn't have banned war if war were a considerable threat to our nation.

"And why is it minuscule? Because someone in your alliance obviously has weapons. Weapons that other nations which might otherwise want to attack your nation fear. As my Ainocran friend explained, a proposal such as this benefits you indirectly. Even if your nation, Doctor, doesn't purchase weapons or produce weapons, or for that matter even engage in war. Those of us who do, preserve the peace you desire.

Your argument requires two assumptions: all states with these weapons are economically interdependent with one another,

"Most states are interdependent on other states. My state inhabits 48 worlds, 62 natural satellites and 578 artificial satellites. And yet we do not have all the minerals and resources to be completely self-reliant. The situation is even worse for those states which are terrestrially bound.

"I cannot speak from experience from terrestrially bound states. But for space faring states like my own, interstellar space is a dangerous place even for vast convoys of cargo star ships, most of whom cannot travel faster than Warp 3 for any length of time and only have the most rudimentary of defensive weaponry. As such should there be a war, in interstellar space, which among space faring civilizations so far as I know is claimed around their star systems as territory as the interplanetary space within their star systems trade very well could be and probably would be disrupted. Indeed there are whole classes of ships that are extremely fast, have advanced cloaking devices and are purpose built for disrupting trade in space. As such should X Civilization be at war with us, and a trade route exist with Y Civilization and the Ainocrans that passes through our space, those cargo ships are likely to be attacked such ships from X Civilization and will definitely be attacked even if they have a military escort.

"Nor is it a mere assumption that war costs resources that could go for other purposes. Indeed in the Supreme Council a few days ago a debate was reported where one of the few male representatives said "For every new Gallaxy Class Star Ship, 10,000 new schools could be built. For every battalion of infantry, 100 universities founded. For every phase-riffle, a family could eat a two targs in a week. My comrades, we must not spend more on our defense in times of peace than we have to. The costs to our society is too great."

"Dr. Castro, I know this representative personally, he and I met each other in basic training. He is a distinguished officer of our Star Fleet. He is no pacifist. But the numbers he gave in that budgetary debate, are for an Empire at peace! How much more costly would a war be?

and all states with these weapons view each other without enmity.

"Actually not all states do. The Ainocrans and myself both have powerful weaponry and yet we don't hate each other nor view each other as enemies. It is sufficient that some states with weapons view some other states with weapons with enmity to require a deterrence.

Otherwise, trade disruptions would not prevent war and war would not be seen as a non-option.

"For most philosophically advanced states war is the last option. It is something that one prepares for but wishes will never happen, even though much like death it eventually will.

If the world operated under those assumptions, there would be no need for those weapons in the first place.

"The way the world operates is quite simple. Wars of choice are created by nations that are undergoing a collective psychosis. Wars of defense are forced on nations by nations undergoing a collective psychosis. Anyone who would claim that a undergoing a collective psychosis is going to operate in a purely rational manner is themselves either a fool or insane. And this disregards the fact that Admirals and Generals during the war themselves may be perfectly sane, indeed it is their job to be sane when everyone else in the nation is being insane.

The world decidedly does not operate that way. Therefore, the likelihood of total destruction is dramatically increased: everybody knows that anybody else could trigger a total war, and the statistically likelihood of something happening -- whether intentionally or on accident -- is sky high. Total war and total destruction are inevitable. The so-called nuclear peace argument you're advocating works only under specific circumstances, and even then it's an incredibly dubious assertion.

"If total war is inevitable then why should those who need to fight their total war be denied the right to purchase them openly? Furthermore deterrence theory is a proved military tactic. And mutually assured destruction likewise is a proved military theory.

"Monkiah has not had a war with any other space faring power in 4000 Terran Years. Why is that? Be cause we have the weaponry necessary to fight back including antimatter weapons of such magnitude as to annihilate entire planets. And the last war we had was with a species that was too aggressive for their own good. How they managed to reach the space faring stage without destroying themselves is beyond the comprehension of our sophontoligists.

"For your edification Dr Castro, sophontology is the study of non-human sapient species.

I disagree.

"Doctor, you can disagree all you want. But the fact remains that Non-WA members are going to buy and sell any weapons the want to anyone they want. Furthermore, weapons sold on the black market will still be available no matter what is banned by this body. Black Markets are black because they are illegal markets. And last I checked criminals didn't care what the law was, Local, National or International. If they did--they wouldn't be criminals now would they."

[The Ainocran Embassy]

Gentlemen, as I pointed out earlier, the tools of war are just that,

tools.

If you wish to do away with war your time would be better spent dealing with the causes of war rather than the tools.

[Krioval]

After careful consideration, the Imperial Chiefdom cannot vote in favor of this legislation. We do not see compelling international interest in allowing the unrestricted trade in any and all weaponry, and we believe that allowing this will simply increase the amount of warfare, if only to prevent certain nations from acquiring certain kinds of weapons. We do not believe that the WA should make incentives for war, and despite Krioval's warlike - at times - nature, this is definitely a step too far.

Further, we are unsettled by the disingenuous campaign for this proposal, intentional or otherwise. This legislation claims to respect the boundaries set forth in resolutions like "Biological Weapons Conference", out of sheer necessity, but the author is concurrently working to repeal that legislation. Should "Freedom of Arms Trade" pass, it will prevent "Biological Weapons Conference" from being replaced if it were repealed. The author is almost certainly aware of this situation, yet the Imperial Chiefdom has yet to see this reasoning brought forth in a direct and honest way.

To close, the Imperial Chiefdom has frequently and forcefully clashed with the delegation from Glen-Rhodes, and we continue to oppose their efforts to restrict our ability to pursue our foreign and military policy with regard to warfare. At the same time, we recognize the need for a balanced approach by this Assembly, and allowing the unrestricted trade in weapons of mass destruction is a violent attempt to shatter that balance.

We will sustain our approval for the legislation to be debated, since it is a matter of clear importance to see how this Assembly views its role in international warfare.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

And why is it minuscule? Because someone in your alliance obviously has weapons.

In spite of whatever views of the universe you have, peace is not only made through the cross-hairs of a phase pistol. The likelihood of war against Glen-Rhodes is minuscule because there's no reason for any nation to go to war with Glen-Rhodes. Why is that? Because we're diplomatic. Because we're a liberal democracy. Because we tend to not wave our collective johnsons at the international community.

Our CSO obviously has weapons, otherwise it wouldn't function. Glen-Rhodes obviously does have weapons, as well. Do we have weapons of mass destruction? No. There's no need for them. We don't settle our disputes violently. Military forces are there for the very small chance that some irrational actor will actually be stupid enough to attack. That protection doesn't require nuclear weapons. That protection doesn't require massive stockpiles. And that protection certainly doesn't require the unbounded trade in weapons that will only cause an influx of interstate and and intrastate violence. Gasoline does not put fire out.

Most states are interdependent on other states.

Somehow, I doubt that is an empirically true statement.

For most philosophically advanced states war is the last option. It is something that one prepares for but wishes will never happen, even though much like death it eventually will.

In a world where nobody views each other as enemies and where economic interdependence is incredibly high, large-scale interstate violence would be a practical impossibility. Preparation would not be needed for those 'philosophically advanced states.'

The way the world operates is quite simple.

If only that were true. But if this is what the Monikian WA Mission sincerely believes, then I think trying to explain otherwise would be a fruitless endeavor.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Embolalia]

This was just sent to the author:

It seems debate on your proposal has gotten to the point where a couple people are on their own little thread, and anyone else is getting ignored. Normally, that's fine, but I have a question about what the proposal does, and the possibility of illegality that I've been unable to get addressed in the thread. Since it'll be more than a week until it actually goes to vote, there's plenty of time for me to ask you to address my concerns and tell me how I'm wrong, rather than just file a removal request.

I have two primary concerns: First is with the mandates, especially the wording of clause i. "There shall be no international legal limitations..." would imply that any international limitation, even if it isn't from the WA, would be illegal. If my nation made a deal with Kedalfax, which isn't even in the WA, that neither of us would sell weapons to some third party, that would be illegal. I don't think that's what you intended, but it's a flaw nonetheless.

If I'm wrong about that, the only actual change that's brought about by your proposal is in iii. As I said in my post in the thread, I don't believe that warrants a strength of "significant". A nation could justify attacking by simply saying its role as a party in the conflict is to interfere with arms shipments. The amount of legal maneuvering to get out of it is trivial. Even then, it's an incredibly small mandate.

I think it'd be best if you responded to this in the thread, in order to keep the discussion public.

-Embolalia

I will be submitting a removal request on strength violation grounds in approximately 24 hours if my concerns are not addressed.

[Monikian WA Mission]

In spite of whatever views of the universe you have, peace is not only made through the cross-hairs of a phase pistol.

"We never claimed that it was only made through the cross-hairs of a phase-rifle. Merely that it is enforced by those phase-rifles. Peace can be made many ways, with nations one is similar to or friendly toward diplomacy is usually the way to go. With nations which one is not similar or are not friendly with, reminding them that you have those phase-rifles keeps them from picking a fight. With nations with which one is openly hostile toward, making them fear you usually is the only method of maintaining peace, or at least the absence of war.

The likelihood of war against Glen-Rhodes is minuscule because there's no reason for any nation to go to war with Glen-Rhodes. Why is that? Because we're diplomatic. Because we're a liberal democracy. Because we tend to not wave our collective johnsons at the international community.

"Is it your claim then Dr. Castro that Nations that are liberal democracies never go to war? Is it your claim that being a nation that prefers diplomatic resolutions to disputes you will never be attacked? If it is your argumentation is even more absurd than usual. If a nation wants to go to war with Glen-Rhodes it will find a reason.

Takrit had to take a moment to check his compendium of foreign idioms to look up the term 'johnson'.

"Lastly on this point. We really don't care what the nationals of your country do with their male sex-organs. Why you even brought this is up is beyond me.

Our CSO obviously has weapons, otherwise it wouldn't function. Glen-Rhodes obviously does have weapons, as well.

"So you do indeed have a military. I assume then that your nation can produce all the weaponry of its own accord without any help from anyone then...otherwise your arguments against the free trade of weaponry is plain stupid.

Do we have weapons of mass destruction? No

"Let me see if I can put this in an idiom you would understand. Thats nice and all, but completely irrelevant.

There's no need for them. We don't settle our disputes violently.

"And if those non-violent methods fail? What then? You sit on your hands and hope for your new lords and masters to be kind? Good thing you aren't in an alliance with us, we'd colonize your nations just to be sure it couldn't be used as a back door to attack us.

That protection doesn't require nuclear weapons.

"Of course it doesn't, because you are in a military alliance. Presumably with at least one other nation that has nuclear weapons. I could use the same arguments that you have made for Monikian WA Mission. It goes further though. Our WA Mission doesn't even have a military, neither does it have weapons unless you're counting my phase-pistol and I believe that Ambassador Albertron has a letter opener. Our protection doesn't require any of that? Why is that? Because any nation stupid enough to attack the Monikian WA Mission would have to contend with Monkiah, which does have nuclear weapons, does have a large Star Fleet, does have biological weapons and does have antimatter weapons. In short we are the Imperial Protectorate of an Empire with the means to enforce the peace we need to accomplish our diplomatic function.

"If a nation isn't protecting itself, it is either protected by someone else or worse has already been conquered by someone else.

Somehow, I doubt that is an empirically true statement.

"Doubt that if you wish. Most states, especially terrestrially bound states are dependent on other states for resources. Whether that is most resources or some resources or even one or two resources it happens none the less. With Monkiah, being an Empire such as it is, the only resource we have to import is roginium, which is used to contain fusion reactions vital to terrestrial power stations and star ship engines.

In a world where nobody views each other as enemies and where economic interdependence is incredibly high, large-scale interstate violence would be a practical impossibility. Preparation would not be needed for those 'philosophically advanced states.'

"Such a world cannot exist. Every nation, even the most peaceful ones, has enemies.

"It does make me wonder though Dr. Castro, given your propensity toward absurd premises, and curious debate, if this discussion is not becoming much like one attempting to play chess with a pigeon."

[Glen-Rhodes]

We never claimed that it was only made through the cross-hairs of a phase-rifle. Merely that it is enforced by those phase-rifles.

There difference between those statements is difficult to point out.

If a nation wants to go to war with Glen-Rhodes it will find a reason.

Yet, the pattern is that nations tend to not want war with Glen-Rhodes.

So you do indeed have a military. I assume then that your nation can produce all the weaponry of its own accord without any help from anyone then...otherwise your arguments against the free trade of weaponry is plain stupid.

Glen-Rhodes has a small standing military, consisting of mostly naval bases around our coasts and a few foreign naval and air bases in allied states. We do not have a robust standing army; there is no need. As for producing weapons: yes, we do not need to import weapons; we can and do manufacture them. Conventional weaponry does not need to be imported. We do export conventional weapons under considerable restrictions.

Let me see if I can put this in an idiom you would understand. Thats nice and all, but completely irrelevant.

If WMDs are irrelevant, then let's ban the trade of WMDs.

And if those non-violent methods fail?

They tend to not.

Most states, especially terrestrially bound states are dependent on other states for resources. Whether that is most resources or some resources or even one or two resources it happens none the less.

Interdependence is not merely relying on a state for certain materials. It's being totally interdependent on one another, to the point where any faltering would result in an economic catastrophe for both sides. This is not a situations that is prevalent in entirety, unfortunately.

Such a world cannot exist. Every nation, even the most peaceful ones, has enemies.

I agree.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Maroza]

Our country in particular doesn't sell it's unconventional weapons. Most weapons and ammo are sold for domestic use. (Mostly just pistols and rifles)