[DRAFT] Limiting Planetary Destruction

[Hakio]

Also known as the "let's ban Death Star" resolution.

Tentatively against.

"Are you for death stars, then?" Sia Hedishi asks confused.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm pleased to see this back in the debating chamber. As promised, here is our response to the initial draft.

Category: International Security

Not likely, I'm afraid. Global Disarmament seems a likelier fit.

Strength: Significant

Maybe... Others might argue the relative extreme minority of nations even capable of building these things make this Mild.

Proposed by: Hakio

Limiting Planetary Destruction

UNDERSTANDING that there are nonhuman persons that comprise a portion of this distinguished Assembly who live on other planets or planetoids;

I don't think either space war or construction of doomsday weapons are only conducted by nonhumans. I think if humans had the chance/ability they'd be all over it the same way we're all over everything else. Perhaps "extraplanetary polities" or "spacefaring powers" would be better, making no reference to biology or species of the possible perpetrators.

REALIZING that the technologically advanced nature of intergalactic warfare between each other's planets or solar systems, is not regulated currently by the General Assembly;

As mentioned in my initial reaction, the word "intergalactic" is both unnecessary and limiting: it'd mean the Preposterous Star Empire can destroy the homeworld of the Fligtopians the next star system over, but the resolution would prevent them from doing the same thing to a planet in a different galaxy. That can't be right. I suggest replacing the entirety of the red text with "extraplanetary war". This means the resolution scope is focused on conflict greater than war between nations on a single planet, and it seems clear that's what you're going for.

MOURNING the destruction of planets during times of intergalactic (as above) war utilizing weapons of planetary destruction on innumerable innocent civilians;

"Utilizing weapons of planetary destruction" may not be necessary here; you're already mourning the destruction of planets during extraplanetary war; and you do the work of mentioning, defining, and prohibiting use of such weapons below. Maybe a stylistic choice; I would drop it here.

BELIEVING that such atrociously condemnable actions may no longer be considered to be permissable by this esteemed organization due to lack of legislation on the specific topic;

HEREBY:

Defines "Planetary Destruction" as the intentional physical demolition of a planet or weaponry designed to cause mass extinction events on enemy target planets and planetoids.

Definitely want to remove this part and replace with something like "infliction of..." Don't try to define the weaponry in more than one spot - even if it's ruled legal, it's confusing to the voter and may sabotage quorum/voting.

Defines a "Weapons of Planetary Destruction" as any weapon that can cause global mass extinction events or destroy a planet or planetoid completely.

As mentioned, it's much better to define A weapon of planetary destruction.

Note that this won't prohibit a nation from building, say, ten 1/10 scale death stars (where each one can seriously damage a swath of a continent, but can't do more than that by itself) and use them simultaneously or in sequence to burn a whole planet down to the mantle. I'm not sure how to avoid this without stepping on nuclear fission weapons; I'll try to give it some thought, but even prohibiting only full-scale planetary disintegration is worthwhile.

Prohibits the usage of weapons of planetary destruction from any World Assembly nation on planets or planetoids occupied by sentient persons or other forms of advanced lifeforms;

This might encounter opposition where the desired target is an entirely military-populated large asteroid or dwarf planet, heavily defended or otherwise not able to be neutralized without planetary-scale weapons. Also we're getting into biology again here. Perhaps everything after "occupied by" can be replaced with something like "...a civilian population." On the other hand, it might be better to drop everything after the word "planets." I'm not sure at this point; I'm sure other ambassadors might have some ideas about that.

Bans The sale, distribution, or any other form of transfer of such weapons to non WA associations, organizations, or private entities, with or without the intent of usage.

Allows for such weaponry to be used against enemy intergalactic megastructures (of nations not affected by this resolution) that are not mainly occupied by civilian forces and are intended to cause planetary destruction against your planet or planetoid.

At the very least you should once again drop the word "intergalactic," as this time it's even worse: here it'd only allow the destruction of such megastructures that are physically located outside of a galaxy.

Also, if a megastructure largely populated by civilians comes around to blow up someone's planet, I wouldn't think the presence of civilians on said megastructure should eliminate it as a legal target. Planetary self defense is a perfectly valid reason to blow that motherfucker up, human shields or no human shields. I'm not sure why you'd limit that to megastructures, either: if the Preposterous Star Empire flung a populated moon at a terrestrial planet, you'd want to try to vaporize the facing hemisphere of the moon's surface to deflect it, for example. In that case it's a populated moon, not a megastructure, which can only be prevented from causing planetary destruction by using these very weapons against it. Probably want to change this paragraph around some.

Then we'll have some stylistic suggestions as well, but those can come later, once the effects and definitions are nailed down.

Again, thanks for bringing this back to the chamber.

[Hakio]

Second draft is up!

[Hakio]

"I'd like to ask my constituents about the strength of this proposal and it's accuracy. I would contend that it is significant simply due to the scale of warfare we are dealing with here and the implications for extra-planetary warfare."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We can't blow up a planet with sentient beings, but we can cause large-scale environmental damage by blowing up nearby uninhabited planets, and become indirectly culpable in unspeakable acts of genocide, should any of the resultant planetary debris threaten neighboring planets that are inhabited?

If we're going to waste time discussing science-fiction disasters, we may as well address unintended hazardous effects created by science-fiction disasters.

[Hakio]

:roll:

We can't blow up a planet with sentient beings, but we can cause large-scale environmental damage by blowing up nearby uninhabited planets, and become indirectly culpable in unspeakable acts of genocide, should any of the resultant planetary debris threaten neighboring planets that are inhabited?

"I can fix that."

Prohibits the usage of weapons of planetary destruction from any World Assembly nation on planets or planetoids occupied by sentient persons or other types of advanced lifeforms or planets or planetoids nearby whose destruction would put inhabited planets in certain danger;

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh, but under any other circumstances, completely destroying a planet is perfectly acceptable? OMG that is priceless!!

I also have a certain quibble with this clause, however:

Allows for such weaponry to be used as a last resort against enemy extra-planetary megastructures or spacecraft (of nations not affected by this resolution) that are intended to cause planetary destruction against your planet or planetoid.

Now, what good could a "weapon of planetary destruction" possibly serve against mere "megastructures or spacecraft"? Unless such structures were the size of planets ("That's no moon...") with the same relative density and geological composition...? Me confused. Why would enemy forces need to create entire artificial planets in order to deploy anti-planetary weapons?

...Unless this really is a proposal to outlaw Death Stars, in which case...good show!!

[Hakio]

Oh, but under any other circumstances, completely destroying a planet is perfectly acceptable? OMG that is priceless!!

"Well if this passes, further regulation will certainly be needed also. Like a Protection of Planets Act. Sounds marvelous."

I also have a certain quibble with this clause, however:

Allows for such weaponry to be used as a last resort against enemy extra-planetary megastructures or spacecraft (of nations not affected by this resolution) that are intended to cause planetary destruction against your planet or planetoid.

Now, what good could a "weapon of planetary destruction" possibly serve against mere "megastructures or spacecraft"? Unless such structures were the size of planets ("That's no moon...") with the same relative density and geological composition...? Me confused. Why would enemy forces need to create entire artificial planets in order to deploy anti-planetary weapons?

...Unless this really is a proposal to outlaw Death Stars, in which case...good show!!

"What's wrong with outlawing Death Stars? They are very dangerous, sir. Many extraterrestrials have died at the hands of what everyone sneeringly calls 'Death Stars'. Death Stars that shoot space lasers are a real danger to planet nations these days, with all the extra-planetary conquest occurring."

OOC: Let's not forget that to some nations Death Stars are very real, especially for those rping in Star Wars universe...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh, but under any other circumstances, completely destroying a planet is perfectly acceptable? OMG that is priceless!!

"Well if this passes, further regulation will certainly be needed also. Like a Protection of Planets Act. Sounds marvelous."

Yeah, funny how a resolution that professes to "limit planetary destruction" is completely unconcerned about destroying certain planets.

"What's wrong with outlawing Death Stars? They are very dangerous, sir. Many extraterrestrials have died at the hands of what everyone sneeringly calls 'Death Stars'. Death Stars that shoot space lasers are a real danger to planet nations these days, with all the extra-planetary conquest occurring."

...and yet, do not require any "Weapons of Planetary Destruction" to destroy. Just a couple of proton torpedoes, fired into the reactor core. I really must say, for a delegation so concerned about regulating Star Wars technology, you seem to be remarkably ignorant about it.

[Hakio]

"Well if this passes, further regulation will certainly be needed also. Like a Protection of Planets Act. Sounds marvelous."

Yeah, funny how a resolution that professes to "limit planetary destruction" is completely unconcerned about destroying certain planets.

"What's wrong with outlawing Death Stars? They are very dangerous, sir. Many extraterrestrials have died at the hands of what everyone sneeringly calls 'Death Stars'. Death Stars that shoot space lasers are a real danger to planet nations these days, with all the extra-planetary conquest occurring."

...and yet, do not require any "Weapons of Planetary Destruction" to destroy. Just a couple of proton torpedoes, fired into the reactor core. I really must say, for a delegation so concerned about regulating Star Wars technology, you seem to be remarkably ignorant about it.

"Yeah, but if you've heard of the that battle, the Rebel Alliance lost a large number of the fighter pilots. Using space lasers is simply more efficient." Sia Hedishi telegrams. "Also, it's not only limited to Star Wars technology."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh no, it's broadly applicable to any technology that requires artificial planets in order to destroy planets.

[Honor and Glory]

Oh no, it's broadly applicable to any technology that requires artificial planets in order to destroy planets.

OOC http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169510/

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That's right...any technology! Including those used on Saturday morning cartoons!

[Hakio]

That's right...any technology! Including those used on Saturday morning cartoons!

"I'm sorry but this is a real threat. Do you not want to ban the destruction of entirely inhabited planets? Or are you just wasting our time?"

[Hakio]

"I'd appreciate it if I could get some ruling or advice on whether or not this should be Significant or Mild," Sia says slightly irritated that everyone is too busy with newbie blogposals to help. "I'm leaning more towards Mild, I guess." She taps her finger and lights a joint.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That's right...any technology! Including those used on Saturday morning cartoons!

"I'm sorry but this is a real threat. Do you not want to ban the destruction of entirely inhabited planets? Or are you just wasting our time?"

Wasting time?! You're trying to codify in WA law allowances for using Death Stars to blow up other Death Stars, battleships found in children's cartoons, or even planets provided they are uninhabited -- and I'm wasting everyone's time?!

[Hakio]

"I'm sorry but this is a real threat. Do you not want to ban the destruction of entirely inhabited planets? Or are you just wasting our time?"

Wasting time?! You're trying to codify in WA law allowances for using Death Stars to blow up other Death Stars, battleships found in children's cartoons, or even planets provided they are uninhabited -- and I'm wasting everyone's time?!

"Yes you are, this is a serious issue," Hedishi glares at the Kennyite delegate.

OOC: You're towing the line Kenny, I'm in character and I would appreciate it if you would stay in character too. I even know of one nation in this assembly who has suffered this planetary fate in the past rp wise. In character these things are just as real and important as other forms of war crimes.

[Wrapper]

OOC: You're towing the line Kenny, I'm in character and I would appreciate it if you would stay in character too. I even know of one nation in this assembly who has suffered this planetary fate in the past rp wise. In character these things are just as real and important as other forms of war crimes.

OOC: True but you can't force other nations to similarly RP such things IC.

Also OOC: Is it possible this contradicts legislation that allows the use of nuclear weapons? A MAD scenario among two major superpowers could render a planet lifeless, which fits your definition of "Planetary Destruction". I'm not sure about this, but it may be a stumbling block.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: You're towing the line Kenny, I'm in character and I would appreciate it if you would stay in character too. I even know of one nation in this assembly who has suffered this planetary fate in the past rp wise. In character these things are just as real and important as other forms of war crimes.

OOC: True but you can't force other nations to similarly RP such things IC.

Also OOC: Is it possible this contradicts legislation that allows the use of nuclear weapons? A MAD scenario among two major superpowers could render a planet lifeless, which fits your definition of "Planetary Destruction". I'm not sure about this, but it may be a stumbling block.

OOC: I had suggested that defining a singular weapon of planetary destruction, and prohibiting use of all such, would get around this - after all, you can't render a planet lifeless with one nuke or even a few dozen. Therefore a single nuke isn't a weapon of planetary destruction, therefore use of them isn't touched by the instant resolution. If there are still objections to that reasoning, a short clarification that this resolution isn't discussing nuclear weapons per se shouldn't do much harm, I'd think.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: True but you can't force other nations to similarly RP such things IC.

*gasps of horror* RP hater!!!1!

Also OOC: Is it possible this contradicts legislation that allows the use of nuclear weapons? A MAD scenario among two major superpowers could render a planet lifeless, which fits your definition of "Planetary Destruction". I'm not sure about this, but it may be a stumbling block.

Which legislation would that be? Neither NAPA nor NSC actually creates the right to use nuclear weapons.

[Wrapper]

Which legislation would that be? Neither NAPA nor NSC actually creates the right to use nuclear weapons.

OOC: If what you're saying is true, then wouldn't this legislation as currently written effectively prevent MAD scenarios? Hmmmm....

[The Dark Star Republic]

Which legislation would that be? Neither NAPA nor NSC actually creates the right to use nuclear weapons.

OOC: If what you're saying is true,

If it's not, then you are free to prove it.

then wouldn't this legislation as currently written effectively prevent MAD scenarios? Hmmmm....

I guess that depends how you define "mass extinction events". Nuclear weapons might kill a lot of people, but extinction?

[Hakio]

OOC: If what you're saying is true,

If it's not, then you are free to prove it.

then wouldn't this legislation as currently written effectively prevent MAD scenarios? Hmmmm....

I guess that depends how you define "mass extinction events". Nuclear weapons might kill a lot of people, but extinction?

"Also, nuclear weapons related proposals as far as I know usually occur between nations on the same planet. I've never really heard of nuking another planet, but if it has happened I'm all ears. This proposal is strictly limited to extra-planetary warfare."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Wasting time?! You're trying to codify in WA law allowances for using Death Stars to blow up other Death Stars, battleships found in children's cartoons, or even planets provided they are uninhabited -- and I'm wasting everyone's time?!

"Yes you are, this is a serious issue," Hedishi glares at the Kennyite delegate.

Then why aren't you taking this seriously? You're so consumed with committing WA resources to go after the Galactic Empire; yet even as we speak, asteroids are flouting the very conventions you seek to impose with wild abandon. Why isn't this a resolution to prepare global populations for the far more likely scenario of an extinction-level event threatening to wipe out life on the planet as we know it? Sure, we can stop Darth Vader dead in his tracks, but what about 99942 Apophis? Why is it allowed to carry out its evil designs on terrestrial life, even as we stamp out phantom threats to the Moon of Endor?

[Defwa]

"Yes you are, this is a serious issue," Hedishi glares at the Kennyite delegate.

Then why aren't you taking this seriously? You're so consumed with committing WA resources to go after the Galactic Empire; yet even as we speak, asteroids are flouting the very conventions you seek to impose with wild abandon. Why isn't this a resolution to prepare global populations for the far more likely scenario of an extinction-level event threatening to wipe out life on the planet as we know it? Sure, we can stop Darth Vader dead in his tracks, but what about 99942 Apophis? Why is it allowed to carry out its evil designs on terrestrial life, even as we stamp out phantom threats to the Moon of Endor?

I'vegot a propsal planned for that