[DRAFT] Limits of Space Warfare

[Eboestrana]

Limits on Space Warfare
------------------------------
The World Assembly, REALIZING that many nations have not even barely scratched the surface of space warfare,

but also NOTICING that those that have continued to abuse it's power,

FORMS the Space Warfare Commission (SWC), to manage and control warfare in outer space.

The SWC defines "space warfare" as any sort of warfare or weapons usage in outer space.

The SWC shall also put the following limitations on space warfare;

-Orbital kinetic bombardment, a technique of launching ballistic rods with the express purpose of creating tectonic movement and destroying large swaths of land, are simply irreverent and shall be banned and all current kinetic bombardment weapons platforms shall be disarmed and deorbited.

-Orbital thermal weapons, weapons that fire a specialized beam, typically a laser or a beam of concentrated heat, have been proven to be harmful to the enviroment, and all orbital thermal weapons shall be disarmed and deorbited.

The SWC shall NOT ban;

-Orbital nuclear platforms, designed to launch nuclear bombs and/or missiles at Earth.

-Orbital missile platforms, designed to launch conventional missiles from orbit.

-Orbital ballistic weapons, i.e. railguns.

The SWC implores WA nations to arrest citizens of their nation, military or civilian, who have used such banned weaponry and charge them with war crime. If their juries cannot reach a verdict, WA nations are required to defer the trial to the SWC.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Our "suicide satellites" make excellent strategic kinetic weapons platforms. We have no intention of ridding ourselves of them. The WA can't even ban nuclear weapon use, why would orbital weapons be any different?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Setting aside the various technical issues with the resolution, the role of the committee, and the definitions, the World Assembly recently voted against a resolution banning weapons of Planetary Annihiliation. Given that, why would it vote to uphold laws against weapons of lesser - albeit 'irreverent' - destructive power?"

~ Ambassador to the WA
Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater

[Bracatus]

"Opposed. Our "suicide satellites" make excellent strategic kinetic weapons platforms. We have no intention of ridding ourselves of them. The WA can't even ban nuclear weapon use, why would orbital weapons be any different?"

Kinetic bombardment is far worse than a nuclear weapon. Nukes may be devastating, but the radiation dissipates after a while. Kinetic bombardment can potentially SINK A CITY, and that never fixes itself.

EDIT: Sorry, accidentally used my alt nation. I'm actually the OP, but this is my alt.

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra is Opposed to this blatant attack on our national security.


ooc:
lots of space based nations in the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Our "suicide satellites" make excellent strategic kinetic weapons platforms. We have no intention of ridding ourselves of them. The WA can't even ban nuclear weapon use, why would orbital weapons be any different?"

Kinetic bombardment is far worse than a nuclear weapon. Nukes may be devastating, but the radiation dissipates after a while. Kinetic bombardment can potentially SINK A CITY, and that never fixes itself.

EDIT: Sorry, accidentally used my alt nation. I'm actually the OP, but this is my alt.

"...why is long-term rehabilitation the deciding factor? Either way, destruction is wrought. Besides, ours are designed for naval use. But that is highly irrelevant. Such systems have highly valuable use strategically. You won't muster support."

[Artite]

"Opposed. Our "suicide satellites" make excellent strategic kinetic weapons platforms. We have no intention of ridding ourselves of them. The WA can't even ban nuclear weapon use, why would orbital weapons be any different?"

I agree on this. And even if this was passed. How would the organization keep tabs on every one in space. Not to mention the money that will be needed to take down outer space weapon platforms and the cost of inspecting every single little spaceship, satellite, every thing that is man made and put into space. The cost and the logic of this is what will not let this get passed.

[Mundiferrum]

"Opposed. Our "suicide satellites" make excellent strategic kinetic weapons platforms. We have no intention of ridding ourselves of them. The WA can't even ban nuclear weapon use, why would orbital weapons be any different?"

I agree on this. And even if this was passed. How would the organization keep tabs on every one in space. Not to mention the money that will be needed to take down outer space weapon platforms and the cost of inspecting every single little spaceship, satellite, every thing that is man made and put into space. The cost and the logic of this is what will not let this get passed.

How would the WA keep tabs? One word: Gnomes. Creating a neat little organization to keep tabs of space stuff won't really be much of a problem because those WA gnomes are pretty (impossibly) good at doing, well, everything. Budget won't be a problem too. Really, proposals like this often work out because the WA has a practically infinite pool of resources to use. (OOC: I believe the precedent for ignoring budget concerns and such for WA committees has been set EONS ago, though my knowledge of the resolutions ain't very good)

However, I am not saying I am for this. Banning orbital weapons as is related in this proposal would be a big threat on the national securities of WA nations with space-faring, non-WA enemies. Quoting Mr. Bell's statement, "The WA can't even ban nuclear weapon use, why would orbital weapons be any different?"
But if most non-WA nations do start regulating their usage of such weapons, and if the WA did manage to ban nuclear weapons, I'd probably be all over this.
That is, if I disregarded the style of the author, which is doesn't read well to me.
AND if the final clause, which seems to be forcing the idea of ex post facto on the WA, was removed.
AND if the author would clarify why he chose NOT to ban orbital nuclear platforms, orbital missile platforms (which, by my viewing, can essentially be worse than kinetic, er, bombardiers (what if the missiles were as huge as traditional kinetic, er, bombardiers? Then the thrust they provide downwards would make their impacts much more devastating, as this would compound with gravitational effect (at least, that's what my science advisor is telling me), and-wait, isn't orbital kinetic bombardment a FORM of orbital ballistic, er, platforming?

[The Dark Star Republic]

(OOC: I believe the precedent for ignoring budget concerns and such for WA committees has been set EONS ago, though my knowledge of the resolutions ain't very good)

OOC: That precedent was set in the NSUN, because they could never pass a funding resolution. But in the WA, the WA General Fund passed. It is really not unreasonable to ask about the feasibility of funding requirements: for example, the Veterans Reform Act was repealed because its immense requirements would have bankrupted the General Fund, and similar questions have been asked about the Access to Life-Saving Drugs proposal.

Not that I think it impacts on this proposal, though.

[Mundiferrum]

(OOC: I believe the precedent for ignoring budget concerns and such for WA committees has been set EONS ago, though my knowledge of the resolutions ain't very good)

OOC: That precedent was set in the NSUN, because they could never pass a funding resolution. But in the WA, the WA General Fund passed. It is really not unreasonable to ask about the feasibility of funding requirements: for example, the Veterans Reform Act was repealed because its immense requirements would have bankrupted the General Fund, and similar questions have been asked about the Access to Life-Saving Drugs proposal.

Not that I think it impacts on this proposal, though.

OOC: Ah, neat, thank you. I've never really seen people question what this proposal or that proposal would do to the WA General Fund, so I just assumed that the WA generally doesn't care.

But yeah, it really doesn't look like it's gonna impact this proposal at all.
Wait, impact....

[District XIV]

"Strongly against..." mutters John Vilay, the Fourtese delegate. "As well as violating the "Committee-only" prohibition, this would interfere with the activities of our FAST station, also known as the 'Fourtese Armed Space and Terrestrial' station. The platform is engaged with task of, but not only, launching ballistic missiles at ground targets from space."

[Dooom35796821595]

Limits on Space Warfare
------------------------------
The World Assembly, REALIZING that many nations have not even barely scratched the surface of space warfare,

but also NOTICING that those that have continued to abuse it's power, have we?

FORMS the Space Warfare Commission (SWC), to manage and control warfare in outer space.

The SWC defines "space warfare" as any sort of warfare or weapons usage in outer space.
And where, for the sake of this resolution is outer space?

The SWC shall also put the following limitations on space warfare;

-Orbital kinetic bombardment, a technique of launching ballistic rods with the express purpose of creating tectonic movement and destroying large swaths of land, are simply irreverent and shall be banned and all current kinetic bombardment weapons platforms shall be disarmed and deorbited.

Irrelevant? So why ban them? And are you aware that kinetic bombardment has less destructive power then nukes and is better utilised for bunker busting operations.

-Orbital thermal weapons, weapons that fire a specialized beam, typically a laser or a beam of concentrated heat, have been proven to be harmful to the enviroment, and all orbital thermal weapons shall be disarmed and deorbited.

Has it? As we have evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention that both previously mentioned systems would be extremely expensive to remove and could leave a planet defenceless against ship mounted weapons.

The SWC shall NOT ban;

-Orbital nuclear platforms, designed to launch nuclear bombs and/or missiles at Earth.

So just earth, whatever this earth is?

-Orbital missile platforms, designed to launch conventional missiles from orbit.

And why is this better then orbital kinetic bombardment?

-Orbital ballistic weapons, i.e. railguns.

So a system that accelerates kinetic impactors to higher velocities then the one you just banned, and cause more damage are ok?

The SWC implores WA nations to arrest citizens of their nation, military or civilian, who have used such banned weaponry and charge them with war crime. If their juries cannot reach a verdict, WA nations are required to defer the trial to the SWC.

War crime? Doesn't that only account for crimes committed during a war, so if it's not during war it's ok.

[Point Breeze]

This has been tried many times, and it has been defeated many, many times. If you insist on, well, insisting that this act survive, take some pointers from the best attempt I've seen, written by one of the most successful delegates I've seen...

HERE.

[South Pacific Republic]

Let all the space faring nations destroy each other and let the other nations reach to space

[Imperial City-States]

Limits on Space Warfare
------------------------------
The World Assembly, REALIZING that many nations have not even barely scratched the surface of space warfare,

but also NOTICING that those that have continued to abuse it's power,

FORMS the Space Warfare Commission (SWC), to manage and control warfare in outer space.

The SWC defines "space warfare" as any sort of warfare or weapons usage in outer space.

The SWC shall also put the following limitations on space warfare;

-Orbital kinetic bombardment, a technique of launching ballistic rods with the express purpose of creating tectonic movement and destroying large swaths of land, are simply irreverent and shall be banned and all current kinetic bombardment weapons platforms shall be disarmed and deorbited.


How are they irrelevant ? They make outstanding Bunker busting tools for attacks on enemy missile Silo's , Command Complex's and other hardened positions.


-Orbital thermal weapons, weapons that fire a specialized beam, typically a laser or a beam of concentrated heat, have been proven to be harmful to the environment, and all orbital thermal weapons shall be disarmed and deorbited.

The SWC shall NOT ban;

-Orbital nuclear platforms, designed to launch nuclear bombs and/or missiles at Earth.


Nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than kinetic rod's dropped from space , the "Rods from God " concept is outstanding for bunker busting but lacks 'dispersion' power and doesn't have nearly the destruction radius of a more conventional weapon. GI Joe got it wrong , sorry to disappoint you.


-Orbital missile platforms, designed to launch conventional missiles from orbit.


And this accomplishes what ? This doesn't make space any safer as Missiles have a very broad range of warheads that they can mount , this doesn't effectively change anything.


-Orbital ballistic weapons, i.e. railguns.

So i can't have "Rod's from God " but i can fire a Railgun slug though the atmosphere to the planet generating a similar effect. Brilliant idea.

The SWC implores WA nations to arrest citizens of their nation, military or civilian, who have used such banned weaponry and charge them with war crime. If their juries cannot reach a verdict, WA nations are required to defer the trial to the SWC.

So i don't really understand what angle you're going with on this , You attempt to ban some of the less destructive orbital based weapon's platforms and leave the much more dangerous ones completely unscathed. It is much more hazardous to transfer Nuclear Material into orbit than a tungsten telephone pole. So what exactly are you aiming for ?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Jesus Christ, do you pay any attention to the dates on these? This is over three months old!