NationStates

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:03 am**

OOC: I'm not ignoring this debate; I'm just waiting to see whether anyone else weighs in while I haggle over some other wording.

Also, sorry to ask yet again, but does anyone else agree or disagree with the category change?

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:37 am**

Imperializt Russia wrote:It would be significantly easier for civil aircraft to dodge air defences and air patrol routes than it would be for civil shipping to dodge subs that can't be predicted and are difficult to track the movements of.

Have you ever heard of radar? Or SAMs? Yes, I'm being facetious, but if there really was unrestricted air warfare in effect, the ones attacking wouldn't stick to nicely-defined air patrol routes, would they? Or kindly mark down on maps for the enemy to find, just which areas they've supplied with mobile SAM-carrying units.

Heck, you can bring down a passenger jet with a shoulder-launched [OOC: Happened in real life.] missile, and if you have military control of the borders of the area you're trying to control the airspace of, with proper combination of ground-based radars and visual spotting, it's unlikely many planes will get through. And furthermore, the larger passenger and cargo planes can't land just anywhere.

EDIT: I'm just waiting on you to decide on a category, DSR, before looking over the draft with that in mind. But at a quick glance I didn't see much that would be in conflict with the current one. Also, your #2 may be abused by nations looking to suppress whomever they wish, as "assistance towards commission" can easily be read as whatever the nation wants.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:39 am**

OOC: You'll forgive me if I find you trying to lecture people on shoulder launched missiles being used against planes slightly ironic...

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:48 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: You'll forgive me if I find you trying to lecture people on shoulder launched missiles being used against planes slightly ironic...

OOC: Eh? It happened in real life - it was even caught on tape. Some middle eastern freedomfighter/terrorist group brought down a passenger jet. I can dig up the flight number for you if you'd like.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:50 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: You'll forgive me if I find you trying to lecture people on shoulder launched missiles being used against planes slightly ironic...

OOC: Eh? It happened in real life - it was even caught on tape. Some middle eastern freedomfighter/terrorist group brought down a passenger jet. I can dig up the flight number for you if you'd like.

Was it Iran Air 655?

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:54 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: You'll forgive me if I find you trying to lecture people on shoulder launched missiles being used against planes slightly ironic...

OOC: Eh? It happened in real life - it was even caught on tape. Some middle eastern freedomfighter/terrorist group brought down a passenger jet. I can dig up the flight number for you if you'd like.

OOC: It wasn't so very long ago that you hadn't even heard of MANPADS. To have you now leading the chorus on how much a problem they are for civilian airliners is - I suppose in a way, strangely heartening.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:55 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: It wasn't so very long ago that you hadn't even heard of MANPADS. To have you now leading the chorus on how much a problem they are for civilian airliners is - I suppose in a way, strangely heartening.

OOC: Let's just say that since then I've watched a lot of Mayday.

EDIT: And I still stand by my ManPad jingle (the name's stupid, not the weaponry, call it anything else and we're cool). :lol2:

Kaboomlandia wrote:Was it Iran Air 655?

OOC: Only if you consider US Navy to be a freedomfighter/terrorist group.

I admit my memories mixed up two different incidents; the one caught on tape didn't crash, the crew managed to (just) get it down to ground without crashing. This one however did crash. As did this.

And FAA at least considered them a serious threat.

The latest Ukranian accidental downing of a passenger jet was by military-grade equipment, but mobile SAM unit nevertheless.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:03 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:It would be significantly easier for civil aircraft to dodge air defences and air patrol routes than it would be for civil shipping to dodge subs that can't be predicted and are difficult to track the movements of.

Have you ever heard of radar? Or SAMs? Yes, I'm being facetious, but if there really was unrestricted air warfare in effect, the ones attacking wouldn't stick to nicely-defined air patrol routes, would they? Or kindly mark down on maps for the enemy to find, just which areas they've supplied with mobile SAM-carrying units.

Heck, you can bring down a passenger jet with a shoulder-launched [OOC: Happened in real life.] missile, and if you have military control of the borders of the area you're trying to control the airspace of, with proper combination of ground-based radars and visual spotting, it's unlikely many planes will get through. And furthermore, the larger passenger and cargo planes can't land just anywhere.

EDIT: I'm just waiting on you to decide on a category, DSR, before looking over the draft with that in mind. But at a quick glance I didn't see much that would be in conflict with the current one. Also, your #2 may be abused by nations looking to suppress whomever they wish, as "assistance towards commission" can easily be read as whatever the nation wants.
"But I honestly just told a lost motorist how to get back to the highway!"

"Which led to them committing HeinousCrimeOfYourChoice! Nice try at innocence - we already knew you supported MilitantFactionX from your Fakebook affiliations!"

"My what?!" *reads the evidence* "Just because my wife is friends with someone whose cousin posted "Down with the government!" doesn't mean I was-"

"Shut up, terrorist."

Yeah, it's a thing that happens worryingly a lot - in anger, in mistake in anger, and generally in mistake.
SAM groups and associated radars tend to be sited in terrain suitable to their use, where their forces are.

This narrows down likely sites quite heavily. Same for air patrols - they're not occurring where forces are not.
Why are you flying over open warzones? Until MH17, the East Ukraine conflict was pretty much a border skirmish and light insurgency.
Now they route around Syria, where air defences aren't heavy. They can additionally route elsewhere.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:28 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...

OOC: I'd be open to including that, but it's way too specific of an example for what's meant to be a general document. Would you have a suggested phrasing?

Perhaps we could expand it to something along the lines of "compelling civilians to handle munitions of any kind, or to enter areas within which they would be at serious risk of harm from currently-'live' explosive weapons"?

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:38 am**

OOC: I'm sorry, but that's still incredibly specific. This is meant to be a document outlining broadly what the WA considers to be war crimes and crimes against humanity, not providing the fine details of each crime. Looking over the Rome Statute and a couple of ECHR documents, there's nothing like that within the corpus of war crimes law.

Araraukar wrote:Also, your #2 may be abused by nations looking to suppress whomever they wish, as "assistance towards commission" can easily be read as whatever the nation wants.

Of course it can. ...so? This resolution doesn't require they criminalise anything within this or carry out any prosecutions or punishments. All it does is prevent them applying a statute of limitations. If they haven't criminalised it in the first place then there won't be any statute of limitations.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:41 am**

My suggestion from the previous page (ie, that it is covered, if indirectly).

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...

Well, the Iranians were able to willingly persuade schoolchildren to do it by the thousand in the Iran-Iraq War.

One would be required to demonstrate forcibly doing so, however.
I'd like to believe it's superfluous to include because it's such a pointlessly inefficient and ineffective way of doing it.
It's literally better and easier to just shell it, which is still a terrible way of doing it.

I'd like to believe the following (copied from OP) can arguably cover this instance also.
deliberate targeting of civilians,
mistreatment of prisoners of war, military internees, or civilian internees,
reprisals against civilian population as a means of collective punishment,
excessive destruction not justified by military necessity,
summary execution,
taking of hostages,
use of civilians or other protected persons to render areas immune from military operations

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:27 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: It wasn't so very long ago that you hadn't even heard of MANPADS. To have you now leading the chorus on how much a problem they are for civilian airliners is - I suppose in a way, strangely heartening.

OOC: Let's just say that since then I've watched a lot of Mayday.

EDIT: And I still stand by my ManPad jingle (the name's stupid, not the weaponry, call it anything else and we're cool).

Kaboomlandia wrote:Was it Iran Air 655?

OOC: Only if you consider US Navy to be a freedomfighter/terrorist group.

I admit my memories mixed up two different incidents; the one caught on tape didn't crash, the crew managed to (just) get it down to ground without crashing. This one however did crash. As did this.

And FAA at least considered them a serious threat.

The latest Ukranian accidental downing of a passenger jet was by military-grade equipment, but mobile SAM unit nevertheless.

Let's not forget TWA 800 (at least the conspiracy-theorist version of it). I believe it was the fuel tank spark.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:32 pm**

Kaboomlandia wrote:Let's not forget TWA 800 (at least the conspiracy-theorist version of it). I believe it was the fuel tank spark.

No, let's forget it: this is all getting way off topic.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:17 pm**

to get back on topic.

i like the general aims of this proposal. i wanted to draft a specific resolution dealing with human trafficking but then i saw this.
my only concern is that it will take some effort to come to a consensus on what should be included or not included as "heinous", although generally i agree with your list.

cheers mate

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:20 pm**

Amerieka wrote:i like the general aims of this proposal. i wanted to draft a specific resolution dealing with human trafficking but then i saw this.
my only concern is that it will take some effort to come to a consensus on what should be included or not included as "heinous", although generally i agree with your list.

"There's already an existing resolution on trafficking but in our (unofficial) opinion, there's room for more legislation on the specifics of human trafficking: Ban on Slavery and Trafficking was never intended to be entirely comprehensive. Specific issues such as bride-buying, organ trafficking, or sex trafficking could all stand to have more specific legislation. So if you did come up with such a draft, we'd be interested."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:44 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:No, let's forget it: this is all getting way off topic.

Yes, so, again, why unrestricted submarine warfare? Why not just generally unrestricted warfare that makes no difference between civilian and military targets?

OOC: While the military debate is fun in its own way, I'd actually like an answer to that.

EDIT because I can't type today, it seems.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:20 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:No, let's forget it: this is all getting way off topic.

Yes, so, again, why unrestricted submarine warfare? Why not just generally unrestricted warfare that makes no difference between civilian and military targets?

OOC: While the military debate is fun in its own way, I'd actually like an answer to that.

EDIT because I can't type today, it seems.

One can generally predict where air defences are going to be, except in the case of guerillas with MANPAD (a real-world threat noted as a consequence of large-scale proliferation of such devices, and their sending to unstable conflict zones in the Cold War). Even in the latter case, you'll generally have a good idea - they're very short ranged and quite limited in engagement altitude, so they'll be within spitting distance of an airport or airbase. A technologically capable and militarily competent state who finds MANPAD-wielding insurgents a real threat could deploy various electronic countermeasures around civil airports and heighten military security there to lessen the threat.
RL suggestions, such as fitting flare dispenser to civil and commercial aviation have been pooh-poohed and in several European countries, pre-emptively banned because of the incendiary risks of such devices being dispensed on takeoff and landing over a major airport. This risk is noted even amongst military aviation, who sometimes on operation may have to leave their ECM systems off until clear of their departing airbase.

Submarines, meanwhile, are just "out there" in "the ocean".
If commercial shipping can go there, subs can stay submerged there and hunt-kill.

I'm just positing reasons why we should (or may decide to, rather) focus on submarine warfare rather than in general terms.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:22 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm just positing reasons why we should (or may decide to, rather) focus on submarine warfare rather than in general terms.

OOC: Fair enough, though I disagree still. Using more general terms would allow for wider range of RP choices (non-RL-modern tech, in any direction) to be included. Unless DSR is consciously limiting it to have better passability from under the noses of the more military-zealous non-GA-posters. Though with that list that's unlikely to happen anyway.

NationStates

[IDEA] Perpetuity of Heinous Crimes