[REDRAFT] On Planetary Annihilation (6)

[Hakio]

"...I don't think so. Hey could you get our physicist on the phone? ... Yeah I need a translation. Dammit man, get him on the phone I'm a politician not an astrophysicist!"

Confused WA Ambassador
~Sia Hedishi

Now, if we don't have faster than light travel, then the next fastest way to travel is by accelerating the equipment or vessels to a fraction of the speed of light with, effectively, a large rail gun (or mass accelerator).
Now if you have something big and heavy like a ship travelling at a fraction of the speed of light, it's going to have quite a bit of kinetic energy.
This means that the primary mode of transporting anything about the galaxy (until wormhole travel is achieved) could easily be used to obliterate a planet.

Due to the capability of these mass accelerators to be used as weapons, would they still fall under the jurisdiction of the planetary annihilation law, even if their primary purpose is purely transport?

"Well, then you may need to simply start the process without a planet behind of you. If it does accidentally happen, well, it wasn't intentional and thus would not be prohibited, I do suppose. Further safety regulations on space vessels are needed to properly address this problem."

[Laeriland]

Do not assume that all of them do ambassador, it is a very dangerous assumption to make.

No, of course not... ah, sorry, poor word placement on our part. Try this:

...all that some delegations see is "Global Disarmament/Significant" and it's enough to send them into conniptions.

Better. We voted against this because we fail to see the point of this proposal.

[Chester Pearson]

This proposal prohibits the use of deadly weapons against potentially dangerous planets. What if a bunch of martians come to earth and try to invade? What will we do then, if they enslave the entire human race? We have to be permitted to use these weapons of mass destructions in case of potentially dangerous situations, or else we are much too vulnerable. In fact, I see a UFO already landing outside my house. Ahhhh! Got to evacuate immediately!

/Not an astrophysicist, but wouldn't destroying Mars cause significant collateral damage to Earth in the form of debris hitting Earth?

It wouldn't be so much the debris that would harm Earth, it would be the massive gravitational shift in our orbit....

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

At the behest of Prime Minister Jack Layston, and with great regret are forced to cast our vote of NAY. This resolution is a travesty, has several fatal flaws that cannot be ignored:

BELIEVING that the losses entailed in planetary annihilation renders any possible resultant military gain unjustifiable due to its wanton destruction and therefore such tactics should not be considered legal warfare activity;

Yet this clause:

The usage of said weapons as a last resort in the event of a provoking non-WA nation attempting to destroy the nation's planet with similar weapons of planetary annihilation to protect WA nations from nations who would not have to adhere to this resolution.

We feel this forms a terrible circular clause, and is far to hypocritical to be permitted within a resolution of this scope.

We are also concerned this resolution tries to outlaw the usage of these weapons, yet allows nations to produce and stockpile them.

This clause is of particular concern:

The sale or other transfer of said weapons capable of planetary annihilation between two nations or organizations.

As far as we are concerned this clause should have ruled the entire proposal illegal for attempting to force legislation upon non-members. We are also concerned that a clause permitting these weapons to be used against non-member nations was allowed to stand when the resolution clearly banned the usage of these weapons in a previous clause. Member nations are required to follow all resolutions, and it is very odd that an exception clause which allows nations an option was allowed.

All of these concerns were brought to the Haiko delegation, and were flat out ignored, and as such we are pleased this resolution is being torn to shreds by this wise assembly.

Warmest regards,

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Thus speaks our Kalif:
Don't be too proud of this legislative terror you've constructed. The ability to outlaw the destruction of a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Cute One.

[Hakio]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Thus speaks our Kalif:
Don't be too proud of this legislative terror you've constructed. The ability to outlaw the destruction of a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Cute One.

OOC: That post made my day.

[Dai Coon Ree]

*raises from his seat*

"We are terribly sorry but we have to vote AGAINST this ... strange suggestion of whoever pulled it out of his or her ar... *coughs* mind. And we like to tell you why we are not in favour of such ridicule.

There's chunks of useless rock and planets which are simply in our way. Traderoutes are disturbed by them and more often they are simply an eyesore. This would cover useability and asthetics but more important is: often they are used as hiddeing place for insignificant races who try to maraud our Highliners for ransom, laughable attempts though but worth to be punished by the Star Empire with...you can imagine...total annihilation. Now we asure you we never destroy a planet we rather destroy its central star to archive that no disturbance whatsoever will interfere with the serenity of the Star Empire again. WE found that others which might belive fiddling with the Star Empire in such way reconsider when a Supernova lits the skies of theirs...Thank you for your attention and I yield the floor to the next spokesperson.

*sits back down again studying his VIDCOM*

[Teronia]

*raises from his seat*

"We are terribly sorry but we have to vote AGAINST this ... strange suggestion of whoever pulled it out of his or her ar... *coughs* mind. And we like to tell you why we are not in favour of such ridicule.

There's chunks of useless rock and planets which are simply in our way. Traderoutes are disturbed by them and more often they are simply an eyesore. This would cover useability and asthetics but more important is: often they are used as hiddeing place for insignificant races who try to maraud our Highliners for ransom, laughable attempts though but worth to be punished by the Star Empire with...you can imagine...total annihilation. Now we asure you we never destroy a planet we rather destroy its central star to archive that no disturbance whatsoever will interfere with the serenity of the Star Empire again. WE found that others which might belive fiddling with the Star Empire in such way reconsider when a Supernova lits the skies of theirs...Thank you for your attention and I yield the floor to the next spokesperson.

*sits back down again studying his VIDCOM*

I must protest! Causing the star of your foe's system to go supernova is an incredibly inefficient method of destroying your foes. Might I recommend a shielded anti-matter charge? If you drop said charge into the star and set it to detonate when it reaches the center, you can cause the star to collapse with a big enough charge. (The charge combines and removes enough mass from the corethat the star collapses into a black hole)

This is not only faster, but more efficient and cost effective. Trust me, I do it all the time

[Grothbord]

Sorry to cut in, but I do support the writer about other planets just not on the no planet wiping weapon :3
My region Strategos Prime is space based. And I have a planet wiping weapon

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

"As the Great Empire of Gamilus, an interstellar Empire controlling a large section of space and whom employs such methods as Planetary Annihilation very muc commonly O must say we are against this resolution."
--official statement from the Government

[Cerillium]

In all seriousness, would you propose banning rocks and other large masses? You don't need an orbital canon or potent missiles to take out a planet. You only need a rock to destroy a nation and devastate a planet.

This proposal, while clever, overlooks the fact that many star-faring nations don't bother to participate in the WA. You certainly won't find the scourge of the universe (*cough*nifid*cough*) beholden to WA nonsense nor will you find it active or registered with the World Assembly.

[Grothbord]

"As the Great Empire of Gamilus, an interstellar Empire controlling a large section of space and whom employs such methods as Planetary Annihilation very muc commonly O must say we are against this resolution."
--official statement from the Government

We are alike.
Who would make a resolution against planet wiping?
LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS DONT WANT TO DIE? BLASPHEMY WIPE THE PLANET

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

"As the Great Empire of Gamilus, an interstellar Empire controlling a large section of space and whom employs such methods as Planetary Annihilation very muc commonly O must say we are against this resolution."
--official statement from the Government

We are alike.
Who would make a resolution against planet wiping?
LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS DONT WANT TO DIE? BLASPHEMY WIPE THE PLANET

oh no we just clear them for our own people to move onto later or as a a solution during war time.

[Grothbord]

We are alike.
Who would make a resolution against planet wiping?
LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS DONT WANT TO DIE? BLASPHEMY WIPE THE PLANET

oh no we just clear them for our own people to move onto later or as a a solution during war time.

PSSSHHH
I do it for my leaders B-Day as Fireworks!
(Psychotic dictator ruling my nation. It's fun.)

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

oh no we just clear them for our own people to move onto later or as a a solution during war time.

PSSSHHH
I do it for my leaders B-Day as Fireworks!
(Psychotic dictator ruling my nation. It's fun.)

sounds like an excelent birthday present, I think I need to organize that for my nations leader...

[Tabcorp Park]

Tabcorp park has voted Against

We believe that there are nuclear issues hidden within this.

[Defwa]

I posit that the majority of votes against this proposal are made by people who did not read or do not properly interpret the proposal.
We are sorry to say that nations within our own region are also at fault.

Defwa is as ever for this proposal

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

I posit that the majority of votes against this proposal are made by people who did not read or do not properly interpret the proposal.
We are sorry to say that nations within our own region are also at fault.

Defea is as ever for this proposal

or we simply do not agree with the objective of the said proposal from the start as it counters with doctrine and for some normality in life.

[Swith Witherward]

My Cerillium... er... colleague does bring up a valid point (even if he's far off base with the rest of his assessment). You needn't possess technologically advanced weapons in order to destroy a planet. One of the cheapest methods out there is kinetic bombardment. Cerillium will attest to its effectiveness in deterring a nation from continued assaults upon another. (How are those flattened citizens doing, darling?) Will you then seek to prohibit every last mining vessel or refuse ship from orbiting inhabited worlds?

You state:

BELIEVING that the losses entailed in planetary annihilation renders any possible resultant military gain unjustifiable due to its wanton destruction and therefore such tactics should not be considered legal warfare activity;

It's said that War is Hell. This is an uninformed opinion; there are no innocents in Hell. The decision to destroy an inhabited world is one usually taken by intelligent races after all other methods have failed. Those who would engage in such tactics wantonly without any consideration of the effects or any deliberation regarding the loss of innocent life are surely those who wouldn't be found in the World Assembly to begin with due to all the primitive PC restrictions placed upon them.

That said, there is a tactical advantage to annihilating a planet: it brings about an immediate end to whatever pissant species has been exhausting your patience and menacing your citizens.

Who amongst you would determine what is "careless handling" or even what weapons are taboo? The World Assembly itself? I think not. The World Assembly doesn't seem to have too many nations at our tech level. For goodness sake, you still write proposals regarding nuclear weapons. Your proposal is akin to Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Watson teaming up to write a proposal governing smartphone technology. These men couldn't understand this technology any better than you could understand our own.

The Nifid urge their witherwards and other technologically advanced nations to vote AGAINST. The World Assembly, as a whole, isn't ready to take steps towards governing at this level, especially as the best category you could find for this resolution is "Global Disarmament". This whole issue reeks of "gun control".

[Cerillium]

My Cerillium... er... colleague does bring up a valid point (even if he's far off base with the rest of his assessment). You needn't possess technologically advanced weapons in order to destroy a planet. One of the cheapest methods out there is kinetic bombardment. Cerillium will attest to its effectiveness in deterring a nation from continued assaults upon another. (How are those flattened citizens doing, darling?) Will you then seek to prohibit every last mining vessel or refuse ship from orbiting inhabited worlds?

You state:

BELIEVING that the losses entailed in planetary annihilation renders any possible resultant military gain unjustifiable due to its wanton destruction and therefore such tactics should not be considered legal warfare activity;

It's said that War is Hell. This is an uninformed opinion; there are no innocents in Hell. The decision to destroy an inhabited world is one usually taken by intelligent races after all other methods have failed. Those who would engage in such tactics wantonly without any consideration of the effects or any deliberation regarding the loss of innocent life are surely those who wouldn't be found in the World Assembly to begin with due to all the primitive PC restrictions placed upon them.

That said, there is a tactical advantage to annihilating a planet: it brings about an immediate end to whatever pissant species has been exhausting your patience and menacing your citizens.

Who amongst you would determine what is "careless handling" or even what weapons are taboo? The World Assembly itself? I think not. The World Assembly doesn't seem to have too many nations at our tech level. For goodness sake, you still write proposals regarding nuclear weapons. Your proposal is akin to Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Watson teaming up to write a proposal governing smartphone technology. These men couldn't understand this technology any better than you could understand our own.

The Nifid urge their witherwards and other technologically advanced nations to vote AGAINST. The World Assembly, as a whole, isn't ready to take steps towards governing at this level, especially as the best category you could find for this resolution is "Global Disarmament". This whole issue reeks of "gun control".

Not to mention that this is titled "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending." Clearly the author is writing from only one perspective.

If, by some stroke of luck, this resolution were to miraculously pass, the ambassador from Cerillium would be interested in teaming up with the Ambassador from one of your Witherwards to dispute the legality of this issue. Perhaps Ars Witherward, as that colony seems to have a toe dangling in the WA waters?

[Defwa]

My Cerillium... er... colleague does bring up a valid point (even if he's far off base with the rest of his assessment). You needn't possess technologically advanced weapons in order to destroy a planet. One of the cheapest methods out there is kinetic bombardment. Cerillium will attest to its effectiveness in deterring a nation from continued assaults upon another. (How are those flattened citizens doing, darling?) Will you then seek to prohibit every last mining vessel or refuse ship from orbiting inhabited worlds?

You state:

It's said that War is Hell. This is an uninformed opinion; there are no innocents in Hell. The decision to destroy an inhabited world is one usually taken by intelligent races after all other methods have failed. Those who would engage in such tactics wantonly without any consideration of the effects or any deliberation regarding the loss of innocent life are surely those who wouldn't be found in the World Assembly to begin with due to all the primitive PC restrictions placed upon them.

That said, there is a tactical advantage to annihilating a planet: it brings about an immediate end to whatever pissant species has been exhausting your patience and menacing your citizens.

Who amongst you would determine what is "careless handling" or even what weapons are taboo? The World Assembly itself? I think not. The World Assembly doesn't seem to have too many nations at our tech level. For goodness sake, you still write proposals regarding nuclear weapons. Your proposal is akin to Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Watson teaming up to write a proposal governing smartphone technology. These men couldn't understand this technology any better than you could understand our own.

The Nifid urge their witherwards and other technologically advanced nations to vote AGAINST. The World Assembly, as a whole, isn't ready to take steps towards governing at this level, especially as the best category you could find for this resolution is "Global Disarmament". This whole issue reeks of "gun control".

Not to mention that this is titled "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending." Clearly the author is writing from only one perspective.

If, by some stroke of luck, this resolution were to miraculously pass, the ambassador from Cerillium would be interested in teaming up with the Ambassador from one of your Witherwards to dispute the legality of this issue. Perhaps Ars Witherward, as that colony seems to have a toe dangling in the WA waters?

[OOC: Thats only because nationstates does not have an option to slash interplanetary spending. Its not a player controlled description.]

[Cerillium]

[OOC: Thats only because nationstates does not have an option to slash interplanetary spending. Its not a player controlled description.]

[OOC: Hakio has done a nice job in drafting this up; I realize he's limited by the constraints used when submitting these things. My nitpicking of the "author" is IC mock offense at "the Hakio representative" and not a reflection of "Hakio, the player who wrote and submitted this". I still believe it won't work for FT nations and sets a bad precedence. I wouldn't mind working with Hakio to get some things changed so FT nations can submit issues of this nature but, as it currently stands, the wording "Global" and "Worldwide" don't apply in a way that makes sense for this issue. IMHO.]

[The Conez Imperium]

The Conez Imperium requires the use of exterminatus.

[Bears Armed]

WE found that others which might belive fiddling with the Star Empire in such way reconsider when a Supernova lits the skies of theirs...

OOC: Even though its light probably takes tens or even hundreds of years to reach them?

[Nova Nacio]

This isn't going to work, ultimately - I don't see a lot of people disarming their bigger guns just to please the WA, either.

I think we need better legislation than what screams futuristic Cold War material here in the making.

[StanStanStanStanStan]

STAN. STAN STAN STAN.

STAN STAN STAN?

STAN STAN STAN.

[Trans: What's going on in your not-stan head, idiot?

We cannot simply throw away the billion-kidney institute that's our Planetary Elimination; Nullifying International Society, Or P.E.N.I.S for short. Leave my P.E.N.I.S alone and don't you dare touch it!