[PASSED] On Humanitarian Aid

[Warzone Codger]

AFAIK GA 121 only covers facilities (and presumably the people inside them, you can't attack the people inside them without attacking the facility).

My earlier drafts were much broader including things specifically about field medical staff but arguments then, as there are now led me focusing on facilities since they are more fixed, identifiable and less ambiguous targets.

Best of luck in your proposal though.

[Southern Patriots]

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

1. Combat Medic or Field Medic as a trained military professionals responsible for providing basic medical care during conflict.

Which, for many modern military's, is almost everyone. Providing basic medical care is a standard training course.

While I applaud the intent, I simply view it as unrealistic. War is not a game of cricket, and soldiers in battle cannot always quickly identify precisely what a foe is doing. Stripping a friendly for ammunition, perhaps?
The point is, if it wears a uniform or carries a weapon, it can be construed as a valid target. I feel this could place an unnecessary burden on troops on WA member-states to hesitate in combat.

[Connopolis]

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

1. Combat Medic or Field Medic as a trained military professionals responsible for providing basic medical care during conflict.

Which, for many modern military's, is almost everyone. Providing basic medical care is a standard training course.

While I applaud the intent, I simply view it as unrealistic. War is not a game of cricket, and soldiers in battle cannot always quickly identify precisely what a foe is doing. Stripping a friendly for ammunition, perhaps?
The point is, if it wears a uniform or carries a weapon, it can be construed as a valid target. I feel this could place an unnecessary burden on troops on WA member-states to hesitate in combat.

I'll change my definition to something along the lines of this. However, if a combat medic is wearing the same uniform as a standard soldier, that's the nation's perogative, and would relinquish their protection rights, as stated in the proposal. I agree, it would be impossible to find a distinction between ordinary soldiers and combat medics, given their uniforms are similar, or identical, however, medics are protected under these conditions to prevent, as you eloquently put it, "an unnecessary burden on troops of WA-states". To prevent such a burden, medics are only given protection if they are wearing a uniform that greatly differs from those of soldiers and if they are in the act of retrieving, or tending to wounded soldiers. Therefore, medics are not given immunity, but rather temporary protection to ensure minimal causualties.

[Connopolis]

"Monikians would be more distressed if the enemy wasn't completely destroyed in the field of battle. If that means killing their medics then thats what it means. The purpose of war is to achieve victory, any war fought with goals other than achieving victory is a waste of time and resources.

This is a two-sided coin; if their soldiers are dying due to medics being killed, then your will most likely, as well. Therefore, by protecting this medics, all participants of a war would not have to deal with as many casualties.

"So-Called humanitarian aid to enemy soldiers. We don't know how many wars Connopolis has been involved in, but Monkiah has had many wars--indeed having a star empire requires it. One tactical objective is to prevent the enemy from supplying their military with the necessary foods and medicines to continue the war. To not disrupt such supply chains only prolongs the war, and increases the casualties.

That's illegal, due to prior legislation, however, given your home nation isn't affected by it (due to the fact it's not a WA state), I see no reason for you to oppose this, as your home nation wouldn't be affected either.

"Actually no. If a medic can heal an injured soldier he can be returned to his unit in short order. Whereas if the medic is eliminated, his healing ability is also eliminated meaning that every soldier that she may have have saved will also be a dead casualty as well. This removes not just one, but potentially hundred or thousands of enemy soldiers.

This doesn't only remove hundreds or thousands of enemy soldiers, but hundreds or thousands of your own as well.

"We flat out must oppose this. First off how are nations to know who is and is not a medic? Secondly this is just simply not militarily true. Hindering the use of medics providing treatment means that those wounded soldiers might likely die. And dead soldiers are incapable of using their weapons.

I agree with your first point, and I've changed the clause to relinquish protection to medics who are dressed in similar, or identical uniforms of soldiers. As for your second clause, I either misinterpreted it, or you misinterpreted my proposal. I'm not worried about your own soldiers hindering medics (however, this does apply to them), rather civilians, and belligerents.

"Finally, we believe that this may be redundant. GAR 121 already covers medical staff."

Warzone Codger has already mentioned that this proposal varies from theirs. While it's a very well written proposal, it only protects facilities, and not field medics.

Overall, the point of this proposal is to cut down on casualties for all participants of a conflict, and this is in the interest of nations who participate in wars. If you don't lose as many soldiers, you have more to send into battle.

[Monikian WA Mission]

This is a two-sided coin; if their soldiers are dying due to medics being killed, then your will most likely, as well. Therefore, by protecting this medics, all participants of a war would not have to deal with as many casualties.

"This is supposing we are fighting an evenly matched force on the ground. Generally speaking the Monikian Star Fleet releases neurotoxins by gas bombs prior to an invasion. This renders the enemy incapable of resistance. Furthermore, we do not send in ground forces without first confirming that their resistance level is severely limited. Thirdly, we do not send in advanced medical personnel in any first or second wave invasion force. Our combat medics can at most administer pain medication to ease the suffering, but unless the lines move significantly enough for us to insert a Military Mobile Hospital (MMH) into the area, which requires at least 5 KM space from its location and the front line, any wounded soldier is pretty much dead regardless.

"So no this is not a two sided coin.

That's illegal, due to prior legislation, however, given your home nation isn't affected by it (due to the fact it's not a WA state), I see no reason for you to oppose this, as your home nation wouldn't be affected either.

"It is illegal for WA nations to do this. The WA Mission cannot do this--even though that is irrelevant as the WA Mission neither has ships, nor troops assigned to it. And we would oppose this due to the fact we have yet seen a reason to not-oppose it. Oppose is our default position.

This doesn't only remove hundreds or thousands of enemy soldiers, but hundreds or thousands of your own as well.

"Again this is assuming ground combat without use of force multipliers and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Monikian War Machine.

I agree with your first point, and I've changed the clause to relinquish protection to medics who are dressed in similar, or identical uniforms of soldiers. As for your second clause, I either misinterpreted it, or you misinterpreted my proposal. I'm not worried about your own soldiers hindering medics (however, this does apply to them), rather civilians, and belligerents.

"Military medical personnel if they are to be protected by international law require some sort of internationally recognized identification which is not easily mistakable. Other wise this legislation is a waste of time. Civilians should not be on a battlefield at all. I don't know about human nations, but every time a Monikian outpost was/is attacked, civilians were told to do the following:

"1. All able-bodied females were to report to the Colonial Militia Offices.
2. All Binomes, Minors, and males not already in the Colonial Militia are to report to their Civil Defense Officer.
3. The Civil Defense Officer will direct them to shelters in which they are told to stay until they are given the all clear by either the Colonial Militia or the Star Fleet.

"As such our civilians are no where near the battle, unless their bunker is directly under wherever the fighting happens to be at that moment.

If you don't lose as many soldiers, you have more to send into battle.

"Which prolongs the war and increases the casualties."

[Connopolis]

This is a two-sided coin; if their soldiers are dying due to medics being killed, then your will most likely, as well. Therefore, by protecting this medics, all participants of a war would not have to deal with as many casualties.

"This is supposing we are fighting an evenly matched force on the ground. Generally speaking the Monikian Star Fleet releases neurotoxins by gas bombs prior to an invasion. This renders the enemy incapable of resistance. Furthermore, we do not send in ground forces without first confirming that their resistance level is severely limited. Thirdly, we do not send in advanced medical personnel in any first or second wave invasion force. Our combat medics can at most administer pain medication to ease the suffering, but unless the lines move significantly enough for us to insert a Military Mobile Hospital (MMH) into the area, which requires at least 5 KM space from its location and the front line, any wounded soldier is pretty much dead regardless.

"So no this is not a two sided coin.

That's illegal, due to prior legislation, however, given your home nation isn't affected by it (due to the fact it's not a WA state), I see no reason for you to oppose this, as your home nation wouldn't be affected either.

"It is illegal for WA nations to do this. The WA Mission cannot do this--even though that is irrelevant as the WA Mission neither has ships, nor troops assigned to it. And we would oppose this due to the fact we have yet seen a reason to not-oppose it. Oppose is our default position.

This doesn't only remove hundreds or thousands of enemy soldiers, but hundreds or thousands of your own as well.

"Again this is assuming ground combat without use of force multipliers and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Monikian War Machine.

I agree with your first point, and I've changed the clause to relinquish protection to medics who are dressed in similar, or identical uniforms of soldiers. As for your second clause, I either misinterpreted it, or you misinterpreted my proposal. I'm not worried about your own soldiers hindering medics (however, this does apply to them), rather civilians, and belligerents.

"Military medical personnel if they are to be protected by international law require some sort of internationally recognized identification which is not easily mistakable. Other wise this legislation is a waste of time. Civilians should not be on a battlefield at all. I don't know about human nations, but every time a Monikian outpost was/is attacked, civilians were told to do the following:

"1. All able-bodied females were to report to the Colonial Militia Offices.
2. All Binomes, Minors, and males not already in the Colonial Militia are to report to their Civil Defense Officer.
3. The Civil Defense Officer will direct them to shelters in which they are told to stay until they are given the all clear by either the Colonial Militia or the Star Fleet.

"As such our civilians are no where near the battle, unless their bunker is directly under wherever the fighting happens to be at that moment.

If you don't lose as many soldiers, you have more to send into battle.

"Which prolongs the war and increases the casualties."

Ambassador, not all nations use your advanced forms of warfare, and this proposal does not protect medics who are not attacked intentionally. Most proposals cannot accomodate for outliers. And Ambassador, how many lives would you assume a combat medic saves? By allowing a combat medic to tend to wounded soldiers, it prevents unnecessary casualties on all sides (in most cases). In most conflicts, this proposal would not affect the duration of combat; it would only prevent needless casualties.

[Separatist Peoples]

First time back in a while! Here we go...

ACKNOWLEDGES that soldiers are not the only battlefield casualty of a war,

LAMENTS that field medics are also an unfortunate casualty of conflicts,

Um...field medics are soldiers...how much do you know about military functions? Medics are trained as soldiers and fight alongside them...ever hear of a Navy Corpsman?

DISTRESSED by the unnecessary casualties of all belligerents due to the slaughtering of medical officials while in the process of providing first aid,

Unneccesary? They are trained soldiers! Targeting enemy medics is an excellent way to bleed the enemy of trained personnel.

NOTES that the primary purpose of a field medic is to provide humanitarian aid in conflict zones,

And, if you knew anything about military doctrine, you would know that most field medics are also trained to fight with a cohesive unit...

REALIZES that by protecting field medics, casualties would decrease for all participants of a conflict,

Debatable...but ok...

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

1. Combat Medic or Field Medic as a trained military professionals responsible for providing basic medical care during conflict.

The terms are extremely vague, but acceptable for now.

PROHIBITS:

1. The intentional injuring, or slaughtering of field medics who are administering medical aid to injured soldiers,
2. The stymieing or hindering of medics who are providing treatment to wounded soldiers by militants or civilians,

How are we to distinguish between a medic or a normal soldier? How can you trace who shot who in a warzone? How is this enforceable in any way?

MANDATES that this protectional only applies to medics who are in the process of providing treatment,

But a medic squatting in the woods to shit is fair game, armed or unarmed? Thats another beef with this proposal. It makes no distinction between armed and unarmed medics.

[Edlichbury]

Regardless the way enemy medics dress, we must realize that deception and trickery are always at hand in war. What appears to be a simple medic could be an enemy solidier. Edlichbury forces know that all enemies are enemies. They joined the army, they are fighting us. They, at some level, want us dead. There is no reason for us to not feel the same. The logic of preventing casualties falls away when you realize wars are won or lost based on morale. Heavy casualties reduce morale, making wars last less time. It is imperitive that you win so that your nation is safe, and if that means medics, who knowingly are in areas where they could be killed, are killed than so be it.

A nations duty is first and foremost to their citizens. Anything beyond that is not their concern. Ambassadors to the WA should still first have the concerns of their home country first in their minds. To do anything else is close to betrayal of your nation. In wars, one cannot not afford to be idealistic. In dealing with wars, neither can the WA.

Finally, note that non-WA nations would still be allowed free reign to harm or kill medics, which they will assuredly use to their advantage and your disadvantage. This is prudent in any discussion of the WA. It was that very fact that led to the passing of GA #10.

[Connopolis]

First time back in a while! Here we go...

Um...field medics are soldiers...how much do you know about military functions? Medics are trained as soldiers and fight alongside them...ever hear of a Navy Corpsman?


Unneccesary? They are trained soldiers! Targeting enemy medics is an excellent way to bleed the enemy of trained personnel.


And, if you knew anything about military doctrine, you would know that most field medics are also trained to fight with a cohesive unit...


Debatable...but ok...


The terms are extremely vague, but acceptable for now.


How are we to distinguish between a medic or a normal soldier? How can you trace who shot who in a warzone? How is this enforceable in any way?

But a medic squatting in the woods to shit is fair game, armed or unarmed? Thats another beef with this proposal. It makes no distinction between armed and unarmed medics.

Welcome back.

The majority of your criticism is due to a clause that I wasn't able to add earlier due to a power outage.

RELINQUISHES protection to combat medics who are

1. In any form of combat,
2. Dressed in a uniform similar to, or identical to those worn by standard soldiers,
3. Not in the process of administering medical attention.

As for your concern about the definition, I'll be changing it. It was impromptu, and I'll be changing the clause to ensure that it relates to a more specific group of people.

[Connopolis]

Regardless the way enemy medics dress, we must realize that deception and trickery are always at hand in war. What appears to be a simple medic could be an enemy solidier. Edlichbury forces know that all enemies are enemies. They joined the army, they are fighting us. They, at some level, want us dead. There is no reason for us to not feel the same. The logic of preventing casualties falls away when you realize wars are won or lost based on morale. Heavy casualties reduce morale, making wars last less time. It is imperitive that you win so that your nation is safe, and if that means medics, who knowingly are in areas where they could be killed, are killed than so be it.

That's fine if a medic dresses like that; they must be dressed like that, while supplying medical care, and remaining temporarily passive in order to recieve this protection. And as for your comment about morale; a medic isn't a magician that heals wounded soldiers instantly, nor in large quantities. A medic would reduce casualties, however, not significantly enough to impact the course of the war; only to prevent needless casualties.

A nations duty is first and foremost to their citizens. Anything beyond that is not their concern. Ambassadors to the WA should still first have the concerns of their home country first in their minds. To do anything else is close to betrayal of your nation. In wars, one cannot not afford to be idealistic. In dealing with wars, neither can the WA.

Your idea of a medic borders hyberbole. As I said above, a medic reduces casualties, however, not significantly. It's in the interest of all participants of a war to prevent as many casualties as possible while still effectively being able to defeat an enemy.

Finally, note that non-WA nations would still be allowed free reign to harm or kill medics, which they will assuredly use to their advantage and your disadvantage. This is prudent in any discussion of the WA. It was that very fact that led to the passing of GA #10.

If a WA-state is at war with a non WA-state, than WA resolutions don't apply. Medics of Non WA nations are not given protection, therefore, you don't have to adhere to the protections granted to medics of WA states.

[Casta Nal]

We are against this as in the chaos of war it is hard to enforce such measures. Additionally medics are legitimate targets providing aid to the enemy, next is protection of logistics. Besides hitting medics is fun and a good way to decrease unit cohesion and the enemy's ability.

[Connopolis]

We are against this as in the chaos of war it is hard to enforce such measures. Additionally medics are legitimate targets providing aid to the enemy, next is protection of logistics. Besides hitting medics is fun and a good way to decrease unit cohesion and the enemy's ability.

As I've stated before, this proposal isn't linear, nor is it one sided. Your own medics would be protected as well, decreasing your own casualities. A war can still effectively end in a reasonable amount of time, despite reduced casualties.

As for your comment about enforcement; enforcing this would not be difficult. A clearly identifiable individual (their uniforms must be seperate from their a standard soldier to be provided with protection), who is remaining passive, while administering medical attention is relatively easy to define in a battle. If all of those circumstances are met by a field medic, then, and only then, will they be provided with protection.

[Casta Nal]

So everyone of our medic's should wear a goofy symbol so non-state enemies can take pot shots on the, remember what happened at Normandy with medics?

[Herttora]

The first thing I'd like to bring to light is the new nature of medical care on the battlefield.
OOC: This is argued from an MT standpoint and using US military standards. It isn't always true for various time periods and even in MT for various nations.
On the modern battlefield, the combat medic no longer plays the same role as seen before. The advent of CLS (Combat life saving) training has drastically changed how triage and first response care is done. A medic no longer heroically rushes into fire to pull a soldier out, the soldier's comrades grab some part of his person and drag him back. They then provide security while one or more members perform CLS. Each soldier carries something similar to the IFAK (US military all in one battle specific med kit basically). This kit is a simple set of tools that coincides with CPR and drug administration training to provide sufficient care. This severely decreases the time before first care is given, and also eliminates the need for floating medics on the battlefield. Even a trained medic can provide barely better first response care, as honestly there isn't much you can do but stop bleeding, restart breathing or the heart, and reduce pain. These soldiers are then evac'ed through various stages. Trained medical personnel take over at med stations and field hospitals, doing things such as surgery, central lines, and other more complex medical procedures. Not to say that Medics/Corpsmen aren't still seen on the battlefield, but this is the new, prevalent, and desired method of triage and first response care.

That said, those stages filled with solely medical personnel do require protection. A medical helicopter is so full of extra supplies for the sake of casualty transportation that they rarely could be used for anything else. Medical vehicles and camps, again due to medical equipment, not only do not have combat ability, but couldn't even be rigged to have combat ability very quickly.

Finally, for this resolution to be effective, it must restrict abuse of medical symbols or areas (Not the first to say so here). My proposal, though I could see it being unpopular, is to add a thrown gauntlet clause. This states that any military who abuses medical insignias or claimed medical camps for military purposes forfeit this resolution's protection for the entirety of their current conflicts. This is an unfortunate and blunt way to handle the situation. I beg other nations to create a more elegant solution.

[Connopolis]

So everyone of our medic's should wear a goofy symbol so non-state enemies can take pot shots on the, remember what happened at Normandy with medics?

That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? Is forcing medics to wear a visible, recognizable sybol or uniform going to affect whether or not non-state enemies can take pot shots at them? Yes; it will prevent them from being killed, therefore, reducing your nations casualties.

[Connopolis]

The first thing I'd like to bring to light is the new nature of medical care on the battlefield.
OOC: This is argued from an MT standpoint and using US military standards. It isn't always true for various time periods and even in MT for various nations.
On the modern battlefield, the combat medic no longer plays the same role as seen before. The advent of CLS (Combat life saving) training has drastically changed how triage and first response care is done. A medic no longer heroically rushes into fire to pull a soldier out, the soldier's comrades grab some part of his person and drag him back. They then provide security while one or more members perform CLS. Each soldier carries something similar to the IFAK (US military all in one battle specific med kit basically). This kit is a simple set of tools that coincides with CPR and drug administration training to provide sufficient care. This severely decreases the time before first care is given, and also eliminates the need for floating medics on the battlefield. Even a trained medic can provide barely better first response care, as honestly there isn't much you can do but stop bleeding, restart breathing or the heart, and reduce pain. These soldiers are then evac'ed through various stages. Trained medical personnel take over at med stations and field hospitals, doing things such as surgery, central lines, and other more complex medical procedures. Not to say that Medics/Corpsmen aren't still seen on the battlefield, but this is the new, prevalent, and desired method of triage and first response care.

That said, those stages filled with solely medical personnel do require protection. A medical helicopter is so full of extra supplies for the sake of casualty transportation that they rarely could be used for anything else. Medical vehicles and camps, again due to medical equipment, not only do not have combat ability, but couldn't even be rigged to have combat ability very quickly.

Finally, for this resolution to be effective, it must restrict abuse of medical symbols or areas (Not the first to say so here). My proposal, though I could see it being unpopular, is to add a thrown gauntlet clause. This states that any military who abuses medical insignias or claimed medical camps for military purposes forfeit this resolution's protection for the entirety of their current conflicts. This is an unfortunate and blunt way to handle the situation. I beg other nations to create a more elegant solution.

I'll definitely implement that idea into the proposal, however, it should be more flexible. Perhaps nations that abuse recognized symbols should forfeit the rights of their medics in the conflict in which they abuse the insignia? I'll work on it when I get the chance, but thank you for your insight, and criticism.

[Casta Nal]

At Normandy, the Germans were shooting everything, they could not tell medics from the rest of their enemy also they were panicking. That is war. Do you understand? In warfare against non-state troops, medics are targets.

[Connopolis]

At Normandy, the Germans were shooting everything, they could not tell medics from the rest of their enemy also they were panicking. That is war. Do you understand? In warfare against non-state troops, medics are targets.

I'm perfectly capable of understanding you; I'm not a dog. And I'm familiar with Normandy, as well as what happened. However, this would fall under the "inadvertant/inaccurate assault" category, in which soldiers wouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

[Casta Nal]

Okay so all my troops will panic upon seeing the enemy and shoot at everything indiscriminately and give fake PTSD stories to cover it up.

[Herttora]

Okay so all my troops will panic upon seeing the enemy and shoot at everything indiscriminately and give fake PTSD stories to cover it up.

If a nation feels this resolution was circumvented somehow, could they not launch some sort of investigation? If they got enough political support that nation would either have to give in or suffer consequences. Also, while all the WA can do is a condemnation, individual nations can do more, although limited by previous resolutions.

[Casta Nal]

We fight dirty, that is how war is one thorough deception.

[Connopolis]

Okay so all my troops will panic upon seeing the enemy and shoot at everything indiscriminately and give fake PTSD stories to cover it up.

I think you're comparing the proposal to real life warfare, which the vast majority of nations do not adopt as their own style of war. As for "shooting at everything indisciminately"; if there are no survivors, it was obviously intentional, and if there are, the survivors will be able to identify whether or not the massacre was intentional or not.

[Casta Nal]

Whatever, we don't shot surrendering troops just knock them out and send to a POW camp where they make goods and get free food and medical care. As in we get attacked we panic and fire indiscriminately on medics, we act like that anyway or really ignore this resolution. You be surprised at how many engagements end in chaos.

[Casta Nal]

In actual war things go to hell fast, get confusing. Medics now can't get shot? Even if they fire back or report intel to the enemy. Great medic scouts.

[Connopolis]

In actual war things go to hell fast, get confusing. Medics now can't get shot? Even if they fire back or report intel to the enemy. Great medic scouts.

You haven't read some of the proposal, or you've misinterpreted. Medics who fire back, (or any medic that doesn't meet the specified circumstances) is fair game.