[FAILED TO PASS] Submarine Warfare Resolution

[Jarish Inyo]

Mr. Melverry,

I believe that the issue here is that you did not consider that there are militarily reasons for sinking civilian vessels within a certain area. The government of Jarish Inyo likes to see naval A.O's as similar to no fly zones. An area that is known internationally as areas that civilian shipping and transport should avoid. And if a civilian vessel enters the A.O, it should be warned to leave the area. If it fails to leave the area, then it is counted as hostile.

[Sternberg]

Mr. Melverry,

I believe that the issue here is that you did not consider that there are militarily reasons for sinking civilian vessels within a certain area. The government of Jarish Inyo likes to see naval A.O's as similar to no fly zones. An area that is known internationally as areas that civilian shipping and transport should avoid. And if a civilian vessel enters the A.O, it should be warned to leave the area. If it fails to leave the area, then it is counted as hostile.

Ambassador, your objections have been taken under ... advisement.

A complete overhaul of the draft from the ground up will be in progress and will (it is hoped) attempt to deal with this area of warfare under an expanded jurisdiction and with a more realistic expectation of its capabilities, areas of responsibility and weaknesses. With luck, this won't be treading on anyone's toes too much.

Good day.

[Sternberg]

Finally, Revision Number I-Lost-Count-of-This is up.

[The Remean Lordship]

The only thing I would add is widening your definition of a military submarine. So far here is what we have

1. DEFINES:
“Military submarine” as any submersible ship:
[...]
II. Armed, equipped and otherwise purposed and capable of attacking, disabling and sinking other vessels,

This is good, but the most dangerous submarines are those who can fire missiles onto land. Some military submarines can fire missiles (sometimes armed with nuclear warheads) hundreds of kilometers inland. In cases where MIRVs are used, hundreds of cities can be destroyed by this warfare.

Besides this extremely important point, the only other thing I would add would be a 1000km buffer from explicit coastlines, preventing military submarines from other nations from entering 1000km of another nation's coastline. This may need to be tweaked in the case of straits, and other geographical features, but this would greatly help in disarmament.

With these changes, my vote is behind this resolution.

[Sternberg]

The only thing I would add is widening your definition of a military submarine. So far here is what we have

1. DEFINES:
“Military submarine” as any submersible ship:
[...]
II. Armed, equipped and otherwise purposed and capable of attacking, disabling and sinking other vessels,

This is good, but the most dangerous submarines are those who can fire missiles onto land. Some military submarines can fire missiles (sometimes armed with nuclear warheads) hundreds of kilometers inland. In cases where MIRVs are used, hundreds of cities can be destroyed by this warfare.

Besides this extremely important point, the only other thing I would add would be a 1000km buffer from explicit coastlines, preventing military submarines from other nations from entering 1000km of another nation's coastline. This may need to be tweaked in the case of straits, and other geographical features, but this would greatly help in disarmament.

With these changes, my vote is behind this resolution.

Ballistic-missile armed submarines (SSBs) or cruise-missile armed subs (SSGs) are purposed - as you pointed out - more for sea-land engagements, as opposed to purely naval engagements. Their primary (or rather, most important) armament would likely have to be overseen by a completely different set of military regulations.

Unfortunately, Ambassador, if I kept pushing the metaphorical envelope any wider, not only would I lose both character space and the resolution's focus, but the scope of the resolution would become far too bloated to be comprehensive. The more I expand the resolution to cover EVERY conceivable scenario, the more complications and loopholes I would have to cover in order to make it work. And when a proposal has to maintain a central focus behind it, a loss of focus is the last thing a resolution needs.

Maybe a second or separate resolution looking into SSBs or SSGs can be potentially looked into at a later date, but for the time being, naval-only engagements would have to suffice.

PS: Not 100% behind the idea of a "buffer zone" at this time, either. Apart from the above reasons, a lot of nations here might openly rebel at such a proposition. Not to mention the fact that, for island or continental nations who are separated by extremely narrow bodies of ocean, a 1000km "no go zone" would be completely impractical to implement.

Generally speaking, a buffer zone would only be established in the cases of waters that are permanently closed to access for everyone (very, very rarely, if it has ever happened) or during a limited war. In the latter case, this would only be for as long as military operations in the area were being carried out and would normally be lifted afterwards. The last major notable example that I can recall - the 1982 Falklands War - only had an exclusion zone of around 200-300 nautical miles, give or take.

EDIT: Sorry, sorry, I derped like an idiot. Got the concept mixed up with that of an "exclusion zone".

[Jarish Inyo]

The Command of Jarish Inyo's Submarine Fleet has reviewed the current revised proposal. She finds most of it acceptable. The High Admiral does have some concerns with the following:

Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified, by any means possible, prior to and during operations:
I. As not purposed or presently assigned to the transporting of military assets or cargo,
II. As not armed with ship-based armaments or travelling under convoy escort from sea or air military assets,

The High Admiral is of the opinion that civilian of an enemy nation during a period of conflict and within the territorial waters of said nation is a legitimate military target. His Imperial Majesty is in agreement with the the High Admiral.

[Sternberg]

The Command of Jarish Inyo's Submarine Fleet has reviewed the current revised proposal. She finds most of it acceptable. The High Admiral does have some concerns with the following:

Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified, by any means possible, prior to and during operations:
I. As not purposed or presently assigned to the transporting of military assets or cargo,
II. As not armed with ship-based armaments or travelling under convoy escort from sea or air military assets,

The High Admiral is of the opinion that civilian of an enemy nation during a period of conflict and within the territorial waters of said nation is a legitimate military target. His Imperial Majesty is in agreement with the the High Admiral.

Alright, let's see if I can try and clear this up a little (or, at least, not tick off your Admiralty AGAIN).

Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified, by any means possible, prior to and during operations:
I. As not purposed or presently assigned to the transporting of military assets or cargo,

Admittedly, this sub-clause is highly subjective and may need further modification in order to try and strike a reasonable balance.

First, let me make myself absolutely clear: merchant ships of belligerent nations in wartime have been integrated into the nations' war efforts throughout history - I am not disputing that fact in any way, shape or form. Also note that the opening clause begins with "Any civilian or commercial ..." - this is attempting to cover multiple nations' shipping, not purely confining itself to the merchant ships of the belligerents.

If it's obvious from the vessel's design or present activities - say, a commercial fishing trawler that is trawling for fish within your waters before moving elsewhere - that the vessel was not purposed or currently active in contributing to the belligerent's war effort, then that would not automatically allow them to be targeted. If, however, following the example, said "trawler" had not been observed fishing and had instead been continually observed doing nothing but sailing near one of your naval yards for a number of days, then it would be reasonable to suspect that the "fishermen" are conducting espionage and you'd have every right to be rid of them.

In the case of cargo ships, given the fact they can potentially carry anything and everything, this is - understandably - where things get legally murky.

While I can understand where your Admiralty is trying to say in this regard, if a submarine stumbles on a convoy in the absence of hard intelligence, knowledge about the enemy's convoy routes and known cargoes that would be carried on that specific group of ships, a degree of reasonable doubt can be invoked. If, on the other hand, the convoy is not even trying to hide what it is doing or has been known to carry war-effort related cargo before, then there is a case that can allow an attack.

Perhaps if clause 3.1.1 can be modified to account for "... observed behaviour and course, declared nation of origin and, unless otherwise not available, any information provided by relevant sources" and that if said ships WERE, in fact, clearly integrated into the belligerent's war-effort or had been carrying cargo that can be reasonably contributing to it, then that can provide a reasonable (if unspoken) exception.

In addition or as an alternative, Clause 5.3.I and II could also be reasonably invoked:

Failures to yield, by which any vessel that is deliberately intruding into neutral, sovereign or internationally-declared waters:

I. Perpetually fails to heed warnings [not necessarily from just the submarine itself] to halt or alter course other then due to verified communications failure, mechanical failure or undue duress from a third party, or

II. Actively resists reasonable, legally permissible orders to be boarded and inspected by a nation's navy

That's ... all I can reasonably reply with. Moving on.

II. As not armed with ship-based armaments or travelling under convoy escort from sea or air military assets,

This sub-clause is, arguably, a bit more obvious.

If a flotilla of merchant ships are clearly being escorted by enemy warships or aircraft, or are otherwise armed with weaponry in order to protect themselves, then a reasonable commander can assume that they might be ferrying cargo vital to their nation's war effort. Since, depending on where the convoy is found, they would be under military escort, armed and/or trying to run your nation's waters and navy, then it would be reasonable to assume they are legitimate targets that can be sunk.

[Jarish Inyo]

After a heated discussion between the Commander of Submarine Forces, Chief of Naval Intelligence, and a few shadow government agencies, it is felt that capturing a vessel under a hostile flag within a conflict zone is preferable for intelligence gathering then out right sinking. It is also felt that moral in the Submarine Forces would be improved as they would receive prize money for each vessel they capture.

The government of Jarish Inyo gives tentative support to this proposal.

[Ainocra]

After a heated discussion between the Commander of Submarine Forces, Chief of Naval Intelligence, and a few shadow government agencies, it is felt that capturing a vessel under a hostile flag within a conflict zone is preferable for intelligence gathering then out right sinking. It is also felt that moral in the Submarine Forces would be improved as they would receive prize money for each vessel they capture.

The government of Jarish Inyo gives tentative support to this proposal.

Submarines are meant to be stealthy not engage in capture operations. such operations are best left to craft designed for it.
The entire strength of a submarine lies in being undetected.

To attempt to engage in such an operation would place the vessel and crew at an undue risk.

Given the size disparity in many vessels you are more likely to have your submarine itself captured or sunk than the other way around.

ooc:
submarine warfare...research it... it's an interesting topic

[Jarish Inyo]

What you say is not necessarily true. A sub can order a civilian vessel to surrender without ever coming to the surface. If said vessel surrenders, the sub crew is entitled to the prize money once a recovery team has taken control of the vessel.

[Ainocra]

such an act requires that the sub in question give away their position. very bad for submarine warfare.

ooc:

seriously, go study some submarine warfare. it will be both educational and entertaining.

[Jarish Inyo]

The act does not require the sub to give their location away. Subs have was to communicate with surface vessels and their chain of command without giving away their position.

OOC: I have studied submarine warfare. I just happen to disagree with your assessment.

[Ainocra]

The act does not require the sub to give their location away. Subs have was to communicate with surface vessels and their chain of command without giving away their position.

OOC: I have studied submarine warfare. I just happen to disagree with your assessment.

OOC:
then you clearly haven't studied it enough. I suggest you do some more. Radio silence is SOP for deployed submarines.

Let me give you a scenario

You are sailing in your love boat on the sea of no return transporting bubble gum to ... lets say the cowardly pacifists.
When out of the blue you get told by a submarine to heave to.

You are now in possession of certain knowledge.

1) there is a submarine nearby, and it is close enough to target you.

This presents a problem for the commander of the sub.

surface vessels knowing my location is bad, they could give it away to enemies, terrorists or other unfriendly forces.
Even knowing it's rough location is enough for a surface fleet to begin to track and attempt to flush out a submarine.

If the captain of the love boat heaves to then I have to stay here to ensure that he doesn't flee until a surface vessel can come to seize them.
such vessels could be anywhere, minutes, or days, or perhaps even weeks away.

Unacceptable for a vessel whose primary duty is to remain hidden.

If the captain of the love boat refuses the order and sails away then I am faced with another problem.

They know where and who I am. If there is no immediate help to be had to subdue the ship then I am left with but one option.

Send them to Davy Jones locker.

Your policy will result not in fewer deaths and safer sea lanes, but will instead be the direct cause of the exact opposite.

[Jarish Inyo]

Radio silence is not SOP. A sub needs to be able to communicate with command and other friendly vessels in the area during war time. Or any given time.

Your scenario is BS. It holds no logic. So a civilian surface ship in a combat zone knows a sub is in the area. That vessel doesn't know the subs bearings or depth. All it knows is that a sub is telling it to heave to. It does not know the type of sub. Or if the sub is in anti-ship missile or torpedo range. Also, the sub can monitor the communications of the love boat to know if it is communicating with others. It can leave the area undetected before anyone can reach the love boat.

A sub's primary mission during war is not to remain hidden. It is to destroy enemy vessels.

There is no issues if the love boat decides not to try to sail off. The love boat is now legally classified as an enemy combat and can be sunk.

Again, I do not agree with your assessment.

[Ainocra]

ooc:

You are incorrect.

If you wish to throw away the lives of your submariners then by all means be my guest.


here watch this and enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxB11eAl-YE

[Jarish Inyo]

OOC: I'm not incorrect. There is a lot more communications between subs and national/fleet/taskforce command then you are willing to admit.

Also, your assumption that a civilian vessel would be able to triangulate and figure out that a message came from a sub is a bit far fetch. The sub isn't going to identify itself as a sub. It doesn't have to even give its name. All it has to state is what navy it is a part of. So, how would a civilian vessel know the message they just received came from a sub, surface vessel, or aircraft that are outside of visual range?

[Ainocra]

ooc:
communication is almost exclusively one way.

the ship receives orders.

here is an excellent article on the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicat ... submarines

though I think we should take it to telegrams at this point....

/threadjack

[Jarish Inyo]

Communication is not almost exclusively one way. Subs perform several types of missions. Some requiring them to be in direct communications with command elements and some requiring it to operate under 'radio silence'. Because you read a few article from Wikipedia doesn't mean that you are reading accurate information. Remember, anyone can edit Wikipedia.

This proposal requires any sub to identify any civilian vessel by any means possible, which would include radio communications.

[Sternberg]

Well, 'tis been a couple of months since I looked at this, but I am somewhat optimistic (prematurely, maybe) that, after a few minor tweaks, this proposal is as good as it can get.

If anyone has any concerns - such as wording, technicalities, oversights, etc - I'd be more then happy to hear them out. With luck, this'll be IT, as it were.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Is there a reason for using 'deliberate sinking' rather than 'deliberate targeting'? Much as I expect at deep sea these distinctions don't really matter, it shouldn't particularly be legal to indiscriminately attack vessels so long as they don't technically sink.

"In 3.1, I would suggest changing it to read '...prior to and during operations as:', and then omit 'as' from each of I-IV. That way you've cut down on a few characters, which I remember you being tight on.

"In 4, I've never heard of 'World Assembly-aligned nations'. If you just mean 'member states', say that. It should also limit it to 'over which they have jurisdiction', although that's a whole other mess.

"You seem to have a formatting error in your final clause.

"Glad to see you're still on this and really looking forward to eventually seeing it at vote."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sternberg]

Edited on all counts. Still need to do a bit of character-count back-burning, but it's a start. Thanks.

[The Empire of Ebola]

Wars fought under a set of rules is foolish. You might as well just have a sporting event to settle a dispute. War is meant to be violent and without rules, that is its nature, that is its purpose. By putting up guidelines or rules or you are doing is giving nations more bravado to engage in warfare because they know they are safe from full retaliation of certain kinds of warfare (unrestricted submarine, chemical, biological, nuclear).

But a nation that knows that IF it commits an act of war against another nation, could be destroyed in a hailstorm of nuclear fire or chemical attack or starved by having its entire civilian merchant fleet destroyed, would think long and hard about going to war in the first place.

[Separatist Peoples]

Edited on all counts. Still need to do a bit of character-count back-burning, but it's a start. Thanks.

"You really ought to focus on that first. Even if it's gold, it's useless if your resolution isn't legal."

[Separatist Peoples]

Wars fought under a set of rules is foolish. You might as well just have a sporting event to settle a dispute. War is meant to be violent and without rules, that is its nature, that is its purpose. By putting up guidelines or rules or you are doing is giving nations more bravado to engage in warfare because they know they are safe from full retaliation of certain kinds of warfare (unrestricted submarine, chemical, biological, nuclear).

But a nation that knows that IF it commits an act of war against another nation, could be destroyed in a hailstorm of nuclear fire or chemical attack or starved by having its entire civilian merchant fleet destroyed, would think long and hard about going to war in the first place.

"And yet, the World Assembly has several rules with such guidelines. Either attempt to repeal them, leave, or shut up, ambassador. That kind of warmongering helps nobody."

[The Empire of Ebola]

Wars fought under a set of rules is foolish. You might as well just have a sporting event to settle a dispute. War is meant to be violent and without rules, that is its nature, that is its purpose. By putting up guidelines or rules or you are doing is giving nations more bravado to engage in warfare because they know they are safe from full retaliation of certain kinds of warfare (unrestricted submarine, chemical, biological, nuclear).

But a nation that knows that IF it commits an act of war against another nation, could be destroyed in a hailstorm of nuclear fire or chemical attack or starved by having its entire civilian merchant fleet destroyed, would think long and hard about going to war in the first place.

"And yet, the World Assembly has several rules with such guidelines. Either attempt to repeal them, leave, or shut up, ambassador. That kind of warmongering helps nobody."

Warmongering is setting up guidelines for warfare in an attempt to encourage people to go to war. What we believe is the opposite, by having no rules the possible consequences of committing an act of war are so horrendous that one will NOT engage in such activities.

Unless YOU personally want people to go to war to subsidize your massive arms industries.