NationStates

Dark Fire wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ah, but the 62nd rule states "The riskier the road, the greater the profit," and what's riskier than open warfare?"

OOC: I love how many Trekkies we have here!

Lets see... war means spending a lot of resources, having traumatized partipiciants, destroyed land- that doesn`t sound positive.

"War means upping manufacturing, speeding up research, creating jobs, and acquiring strategically valuable territory or resources, such as naval claims, oil and mineable metals, or useable territory. If you're waging war without a way to compensate, then you're doing it wrong."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"War means upping manufacturing, speeding up research, creating jobs, and acquiring strategically valuable territory or resources, such as naval claims, oil and mineable metals, or useable territory. If you're waging war without a way to compensate, then you're doing it wrong."

Don't forget overthrowing dictators and cult leaders who make the universe stupider and more (irrationally) violent! ...of course, that area tends to be best accomplished by proxy and guerrilla warfare, else well-deserved charges of imperialism rear their heads. But sometimes even regular forces get involved when the rebels formally request aid. At times there's just no substitute for a good ol' meteor strike on command HQ or the Conference of Feudalist Bankers.

Not that we've actually been to war in several decades*... but I'm guessing the number of countries willing to give up the option on principle can be counted on one or two hands.


*(check back in a year or so: I hear the syndicates are starting to get mighty worried about the Cult of Ceres. Shit, I might even get called up for that one...)

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"War means upping manufacturing, speeding up research, creating jobs, and acquiring strategically valuable territory or resources, such as naval claims, oil and mineable metals, or useable territory. If you're waging war without a way to compensate, then you're doing it wrong."

Don't forget overthrowing dictators and cult leaders who make the universe stupider and more (irrationally) violent! ...of course, that area tends to be best accomplished by proxy and guerrilla warfare, else well-deserved charges of imperialism rear their heads. But sometimes even regular forces get involved when the rebels formally request aid. At times there's just no substitute for a good ol' meteor strike on command HQ or the Conference of Feudalist Bankers.

Not that we've actually been to war in several decades*... but I'm guessing the number of countries willing to give up the option on principle can be counted on one or two hands.


*(check back in a year or so: I hear the syndicates are starting to get mighty worried about the Cult of Ceres. Shit, I might even get called up for that one...)

All those activities are already illegal under GAR#2, Sierra...
Separatist Peoples, you can only wage war with consenting nations. Will a nation consent to war if they cannot win? Probably not.
But if both nations have chances to win, the war will be painful for both sides. Unless someone greatly underestimated the opponent.
(That is why I do NOT want to repeal GAR#2. It already forbids things like that.)

"Responding to a call for military aid from a "legitimate" government in exile gets quite murky, though. Which, I'm sure, is the Sierra Lyricalian way. It's definitely the Confederate Dominion way. I notice you didn't respond to my rebuttal."

Dark Fire wrote:(That is why I do NOT want to repeal GAR#2.[...]

I might have to reconsider my statement. I am currently looking on something.
Edit:Yes, I am going to try a repeal of resolution 2.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Responding to a call for military aid from a "legitimate" government in exile gets quite murky, though. Which, I'm sure, is the Sierra Lyricalian way. It's definitely the Confederate Dominion way..."

Believe me, Benjamin, our precombat attorneys are quite the cautious little navigators of international law. Even in space operations I saw one or two instances where a mission was called off at the last second due to sudden possible conflict with GAR-2/Article 3, 6, or 7 (you know, if a secret election in the target doesn't go the way the R.E.M.s think it will...). Of course that's the limit of what I can disclose here.

As to the prospective resolution, you've sure picked a hornet's nest to start a repeal/replace on, Ambassador. I'd wish you luck, but your replacement, if that's your intent, is awfully hazy. You might have a look at the last serious attempt to repeal GAR #2 (of course there've been others, but this one got the farthest that I'm aware of).

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Responding to a call for military aid from a "legitimate" government in exile gets quite murky, though. Which, I'm sure, is the Sierra Lyricalian way. It's definitely the Confederate Dominion way..."

Believe me, Benjamin, our precombat attorneys are quite the cautious little navigators of international law. Even in space operations I saw one or two instances where a mission was called off at the last second due to sudden possible conflict with GAR-2/Article 3, 6, or 7 (you know, if a secret election in the target doesn't go the way the R.E.M.s think it will...). Of course that's the limit of what I can disclose here.

As to the prospective resolution, you've sure picked a hornet's nest to start a repeal/replace on, Ambassador. I'd wish you luck, but your replacement, if that's your intent, is awfully hazy. You might have a look at the last serious attempt to repeal GAR #2 (of course there've been others, but this one got the farthest that I'm aware of).

I initially didn't plan to remove GAR#2. This draft is nowhere near a suitable replacement.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:You might have a look at the last serious attempt to repeal GAR #2 (of course there've been others, but this one got the farthest that I'm aware of).

Well, sort of but not quite. Auralia's "WA Charter Working Group" (complete with WA flag) repeal attempt came first and got even farther. It was ahead in the voting when it was discarded due to a branding violation (that in itself was a mega-mess, a mod ruled it legal pre-vote but that ruling was reversed during the vote). Then came the latest attempt you've cited, which used pretty much the same draft with only a tweak or two, and that one got spanked.

Semi-OOC: "I should’ve listened to my cousin Gaila. He said: 'Clover, I’ve got one word for you… weapons.’ No one ever went broke selling weapons. Now he's got his own moon, and im stuck here in the festering snakepit of despair."

Normlpeople wrote:Semi-OOC: "I should’ve listened to my cousin Gaila. He said: 'Clover, I’ve got one word for you… weapons.’ No one ever went broke selling weapons. Now he's got his own moon, and im stuck here in the festering snakepit of despair."

OOC spamming a dead thread- »:D
its a happy worf

No, just, no. People should be free to do whatever they want, and if that's go to war, so be it.

how exactly can you ban war??

This draft makes me want to declare war on you...

I declare war on this Draft!

Dark Fire wrote:

Noticing that wars result in lots of deaths, social problems, crimes, and the destruction of buildings and land
Declaring that the benefits for the war industry are not a sufficient reason for allowing unnecessary wars
Wishing to protect the inhabitants of the affected states
Acknowledging that member nations still have to defend themselves from nonmember states
the World Assembly

Forbids all member states to begin wars against other member states.
Forbids all member states to encourage states to begin wars against member states.

Early draft.
Category:Global Disarmament
Strength:Strong

I can see you're an idealist.

England-Ireland wrote:how exactly can you ban war??

You can't!

OPPOSED. If this ever gets off the ground, we'll just use more police actions.

How are you going to ban wars, war is one of humanity's most basic instinct that we have.

Wrapper wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Rule of Acquisition 34 35 clearly states that "War Peace is good for business.", and few nations are willing to pass up something so potentially profitable."

Fixed that for you. Again.

War is better for business. Think of all the great discoveries of and shortly before WWII.
Think how many of them were utterly derided. Think how many of them would have had no impetus to research them without the Second World War.

Nothing motivates man to spend on science like one-upping his fellow man, or destroying him in a fiery explosion.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Fixed that for you. Again.

War is better for business. Think of all the great discoveries of and shortly before WWII.
Think how many of them were utterly derided. Think how many of them would have had no impetus to research them without the Second World War.

Nothing motivates man to spend on science like one-upping his fellow man, or destroying him in a fiery explosion.

*the sound of jokes flying over heads at warp speed*

Dark Fire wrote:

Noticing that wars result in lots of deaths, social problems, crimes, and the destruction of buildings and land
Declaring that the benefits for the war industry are not a sufficient reason for allowing unnecessary wars
Wishing to protect the inhabitants of the affected states
Acknowledging that member nations still have to defend themselves from nonmember states
the World Assembly

Forbids all member states to begin wars against other member states.
Forbids all member states to encourage states to begin wars against member states.

Early draft.
Category:Global Disarmament
Strength:Strong

*Sniggers*. Ahem, will this impinge on our inherent right to attack our enemies? To prevent is better than to cure, as every nation knows...