[PASSED] Repeal "The Landmine Convention"

[Zymph]

I am against the repeal because I think we need to keep our streets clear of mines. I cannot have citizens in fear to leave their houses due to fear that they will be blown to peices.

VOTE AGAINST to keep mines banned!

[Panait]

"Our government is somewhat torn on this issue," remarks Julius, scratching his head unconsciously, "we're still deeply disappointed with the failure to pass the Nuclear Arms Protocol proposal, and our government is worried of the possibility of a mass nullification of steps the WA has taken to promote peace and limit the belligerents; however, after taking note of the last clause, analyzing the discussion here, and a vote showing a majority of the Parliament is hopelessly convinced that a new, better resolution will be put up quickly, we vote in favour of this repeal."

[New Reading]

"My government must vote against this proposal. While there are safeguards on the landmines in question that should prevent long-term civilian casualties, the advances in military technology make the landmine an obsolete and needless risk. We must echo opponents of this proposal in saying that the risks of any landmine are significantly greater than the unique military benefits."

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd say that the risk of a malfunction of one of the hypothetical landmines stated in this repeal are enough to warrant a general removal of all landmines regardless of their type.

The rest of the arguments sound like NatSov boilerplates. I, and Frenequesta, shall stand against, and hope that the rest of the RoUS follow our lead.

--Dawn C. Chalmers, Delegate pro temp for Social Republic and Scientific Collectives of Frenequesta

This is...
Probably the definition of "knee-jerk".

"My government must vote against this proposal. While there are safeguards on the landmines in question that should prevent long-term civilian casualties, the advances in military technology make the landmine an obsolete and needless risk. We must echo opponents of this proposal in saying that the risks of any landmine are significantly greater than the unique military benefits."

Wholly untrue.
What advantages do you speak of?

[Applebania]

Alexander puffed on his pipe. "I'm extremely wary of any repeal of GA#40. As such, I shall post my vote against."

"Thank you for your detailed explanation of why you don't wish to see the resolution repealed. It's tremendously helpful in fostering debate."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

"I feel that landmines should not be used under any circumstances, and that the resolution (combined with World Assembly Compliance Gnomes) does a good job of that. Moreover, if this resolution is successfully repealed, replacing it would be nigh-on impossible considering the current attitudes of the World Assembly."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Thank you for your detailed explanation of why you don't wish to see the resolution repealed. It's tremendously helpful in fostering debate."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

"I feel that landmines should not be used under any circumstances, and that the resolution (combined with World Assembly Compliance Gnomes) does a good job of that. Moreover, if this resolution is successfully repealed, replacing it would be nigh-on impossible considering the current attitudes of the World Assembly."

"Why, exactly, do you feel mines should not be used? Is there some reason mines are impossible to use safely?"

[Wrapper]

"Why, exactly, do you feel mines should not be used? Is there some reason mines are impossible to use safely?"

Ummm, yeah, they blow shit up for one!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why, exactly, do you feel mines should not be used? Is there some reason mines are impossible to use safely?"

Ummm, yeah, they blow shit up for one!

"So do warheads, bombs, missiles, torpedoes, artillery shells, mortals, hand grenades, demolitions charges, blasting caps, fireworks, dynamite, and the Strangers Bar's Extra Spicy Burrito Grande, but I don't see anybody attempting to ban them."

[Wrapper]

Ummm, yeah, they blow shit up for one!

"So do warheads, bombs, missiles, torpedoes, artillery shells, mortals, hand grenades, demolitions charges, blasting caps, fireworks, dynamite, and the Strangers Bar's Extra Spicy Burrito Grande, but I don't see anybody attempting to ban them."

Just give us time, sir, just give us time! First on the list, of course, those nasty burritos....

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Ummm, yeah, they blow shit up for one!

"So do warheads, bombs, missiles, torpedoes, artillery shells, mortals, hand grenades, demolitions charges, blasting caps, fireworks, dynamite, and the Strangers Bar's Extra Spicy Burrito Grande, but I don't see anybody attempting to ban them."

I dunno, Benjamin - I think immortals have done their fair share of blowing things up as well. Way more than their fair share if you consider (number of things blown up by mortals)/(number of mortals) vs. (number of things blown up by immortals)/(number of immortals).

In fact, considering the number of innocent people blown up by immortals (either directly or indirectly), not only would we ban land mines, we would also ban immortals were that at all politically feasible!

Mortars, on the other hand, like all those other items you mentioned, can be aimed away from innocent people. Mines (and immortals) mostly fail that criterion and thus ought to be outside the universe of legitimate military equipment.

(Hoping it's clear I'm using the one-letter variance as a debating point, and not just raggin' on ya for the sake of ragging.)

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: fucking autocorrect did something wonky with mortars...grumble...

Edit: God, do I hate autocorrect...

[The Dark Star Republic]

Mortars, on the other hand, like all those other items you mentioned, can be aimed away from innocent people. Mines (and immortals) mostly fail that criterion and thus ought to be outside the universe of legitimate military equipment.

"Ok, and that's obviously the principle argument against the use of landmines, so thank you for making it.

"But it's not terribly consistent. There are many other non-targeted weapons that the WA permits. In fact, this repeal was spawned in response to a different repeal which was arguing for a more complete ban, to include traps and non-pressure/proximity activity explosives. Our delegation opposed that replacement - but we do accept that the only way to pass such a proposal would be to first repeal this resolution anyway, so there's an argument that if you truly want to ban indiscriminate weapons, this repeal is necessary anyway.

"Still, though, we believe that denying landmines to nations that are permitted to use chemical weapons is senseless."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"But it's not terribly consistent. There are many other non-targeted weapons that the WA permits. In fact, this repeal was spawned in response to a different repeal which was arguing for a more complete ban, to include traps and non-pressure/proximity activity explosives. Our delegation opposed that replacement - but we do accept that the only way to pass such a proposal would be to first repeal this resolution anyway, so there's an argument that if you truly want to ban indiscriminate weapons, this repeal is necessary anyway.

"Still, though, we believe that denying landmines to nations that are permitted to use chemical weapons is senseless."

There's obviously something to that, Colonel, but we view it the other way: it's absurd to try to ban the defensive use of chemical weapons against a legitimate target - an invading military force - if you're not willing to leave a ban on indiscriminately deployed land mines on the books. In any case, our constituents are largely unwilling to support the re-introduction of mines into international law's sanctioned use.

The chicken or egg argument is academic in any case; with many of the large delegates and almost a third of ordinary vote totals counted, this looks pretty popular. I wouldn't yet consider our delegation qualified to draft a replacement (particularly in light of the failure of what I would've considered a no-brainer of a nuclear weapons limitation the other day); and nobody else has yet stepped forward with one. Therefore what we're left with is a return to unrestricted, open use. We simply have to oppose that, even if ultimately it turns out to have been the first step toward a better framework, precisely because that putative framework isn't even scrawled on someone's bar napkin yet.

...In fact, quite the opposite occurred. The WA has grown much more militaristic, much more sovereigntist, much more reactionary. Even relatively moderate resolutions are shot down, while a recent repeal legalised virtually all war crimes. When The Landmine Convention passed, a landmine ban made sense because it was reasonable to assume the WA would pass lots of other war crime resolutions and would thoroughly treat weapons of mass destruction. But it's gone in the other direction, and it no longer really makes sense to ban nations from using landmines, yet permit them chemical weapons and totally unregulated use of nuclear weapons. WA nations can legally murder civilians without committing a crime according to international law. The Landmine Convention is a relic of a different age.

OOC: Unfortunately, satire is dead. Most people's response to calculated nihilism isn't the revulsion it used to be, but rather a kind of earnestly cold-blooded "Huh, I guess that makes sense!" If Swift published today, he'd be hailed as a visionary, not a gadfly. Not that I'm saying your stance on this is in any way satirical, whether OOC, IC, or in the meta-character sense, but I feel like this is somehow related. Somehow we got from a near-UN perspective to an openly or even proudly Hobbesian system. Whether that's a reflection of people playing in character the way they see their own shitheaded leaders running things in the real world, or their own actual desires, is beyond me. But here we are.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The chicken or egg argument is academic in any case; with many of the large delegates and almost a third of ordinary vote totals counted, this looks pretty popular. I wouldn't yet consider our delegation qualified to draft a replacement (particularly in light of the failure of what I would've considered a no-brainer of a nuclear weapons limitation the other day); and nobody else has yet stepped forward with one. Therefore what we're left with is a return to unrestricted, open use. We simply have to oppose that, even if ultimately it turns out to have been the first step toward a better framework, precisely because that putative framework isn't even scrawled on someone's bar napkin yet.

"Ok, but my comments are partly in response to the 'replacement' people are beginning to talk about. We wouldn't really have made any progress if people just tried to pass a straight replacement of this. They would be better served either more generally treating indiscriminate weapons in general, or narrowing the focus to demining and mine clearance. And, as you note, the previous vote - and several before it - demonstrate that the current WA is much less likely to pass a disarmament proposal anyway."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Frenequesta]

--Dawn C. Chalmers, Delegate pro temp for Social Republic and Scientific Collectives of Frenequesta

This is...
Probably the definition of "knee-jerk".

I actually read your defense of landmines and it seems lacking. Nothing that you said couldn't also be accomplished by remote-detonated bombs (which are not covered by the resolution) planted by the deploying force, especially if it has the non-lethal deterrent funneling that you claim as either way, the invading force will avoid the area simply because they know there are bombs there.

Mortars, on the other hand, like all those other items you mentioned, can be aimed away from innocent people. Mines (and immortals) mostly fail that criterion and thus ought to be outside the universe of legitimate military equipment.

"Ok, and that's obviously the principle argument against the use of landmines, so thank you for making it.

"But it's not terribly consistent. There are many other non-targeted weapons that the WA permits. In fact, this repeal was spawned in response to a different repeal which was arguing for a more complete ban, to include traps and non-pressure/proximity activity explosives. Our delegation opposed that replacement - but we do accept that the only way to pass such a proposal would be to first repeal this resolution anyway, so there's an argument that if you truly want to ban indiscriminate weapons, this repeal is necessary anyway.

"Still, though, we believe that denying landmines to nations that are permitted to use chemical weapons is senseless."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

Why does the desire to ban other explosive devices require the removal of this one? Nothing in it disallowed the WA from making any further legislation on explosive devices.

[Imperializt Russia]

"So do warheads, bombs, missiles, torpedoes, artillery shells, mortals, hand grenades, demolitions charges, blasting caps, fireworks, dynamite, and the Strangers Bar's Extra Spicy Burrito Grande, but I don't see anybody attempting to ban them."

I dunno, Benjamin - I think immortals have done their fair share of blowing things up as well. Way more than their fair share if you consider (number of things blown up by mortals)/(number of mortals) vs. (number of things blown up by immortals)/(number of immortals).

In fact, considering the number of innocent people blown up by immortals (either directly or indirectly), not only would we ban land mines, we would also ban immortals were that at all politically feasible!

Mortars, on the other hand, like all those other items you mentioned, can be aimed away from innocent people. Mines (and immortals) mostly fail that criterion and thus ought to be outside the universe of legitimate military equipment.

(Hoping it's clear I'm using the one-letter variance as a debating point, and not just raggin' on ya for the sake of ragging.)

Mortars and other artillery and air strikes, as a cursory glance at the news of the last decade would have told you, can quite easily be accidentally or intentionally aimed at civilians and even friendly forces.

Countries IRL with landmine problems, with the exception of Korea, have either no infrastructure to launch a demining operation - intentionally deployed mines indiscriminately against civilians (which can be done with all arms - see Siege of Sarajevo or any civil war since Christ, let's face it) or deployed mines poorly and ineffectively. Or some combination of the lot. Some inherited landmine problems - like Afghanistan. Thousands of mines were laid by the Soviets who obviously left A unable to demine and B with no interest in doing so. The Afghans did their fair share of relocating and cannibalising mines there.

[Socialist Assembly Marxists]

Absolutely against!

[Chester Pearson]

Absolutely against!

Yes of course. Your yelling without reason is surely to turn the tide of this vote..... You heard him everyone. The debate is now over, everyone can go home now.

[HMS Unicorn]

I voted in support, as usual in accordance with the outcome of TNP's offsite poll. The consensus seems to be that the original resolution is very restrictive.

[Betoveria]

Eugene Danson III stands, takes a look at the proposer of the piece, sharply raises his eyebrows, and reads from a Surface tablet:

"It would appear the representative proposing this legislation fails to understand that, when it comes to regulations meant for the purpose of protecting the innocent, less is not in fact more. I find it deplorable that this assembly has seen fit to follow the failure-to-pass of a much-needed regulation of Nuclear Arms with the proposal of a motion to repeal much-needed regulation of Landmine usage. I've seen proposals which show contempt for the authority or the duties of this assembly many times in my time, both as a political columnist and as a delegate; but these happenings are symbolic of a sheer disdain for the duties of this assembly as well as the rule of law. The United Socialist States of Betoveria stands opposed to any motion which would allow for the placement of innocent peoples into danger, especially of a lethal level as is presented by something such as a land mine. Call it what you will, we stand bearing in mind the concerns of our fellow nations, regardless of how unpronounced the direct effects upon the USSB may be. As such, we not only vote AGAINST this resolution; we also denounce the recent motions of this assembly to militarily deregulate the world."

Danson lowers his eyebrows, sits down, fixes his lapel pin, and takes a sip from a glass bottle of Cola. Having taken note of the Tweet from HMS Unicorn presented by proxy-projector-screen, he stands once more, furrows his brow, and says,

"Also, to HMS Unicorn, it would seem your constituents have chosen to ignore the widely accepted notion that "no regulation" is not actually better than "a bit much in the way of regulation," particularly when it comes to something that, y'know, exists for the purpose of protecting people from a form of warfare which presents insane amounts of danger to civilian populaces, as opposed to, I don't know, protecting the general populace of the world from living. Sort of like what a land mine does when a civilian child accidentally stumbles upon one. But hey, your off-site forums aren't already absurd and hubris-loaded in nature on account their demands that a delegate physically make his case to them separately from the rest of the Assembly, or anything, so I'm sure they wouldn't have the arrogance to ignore the needs of, maybe, the rest of the communities and nations represented by this assembly. That would be horrid and intensely ego-centric, so it couldn't possibly be true."

[Old Hope]

Annexation of a member nation is still forbidden under international law.(This even applies if you are NOT in the WA). Any nation can tell you that you have to stop attacks immediately because they don't want to, and you are prohibited to attack nations that do so and are not attacking you (anymore).
Destruction of nations is forbidden for all member states.

So why does this have any noticable impact on your defensive capabilities?

[Louisistan]

Annexation of a member nation is still forbidden under international law.(This even applies if you are NOT in the WA)

No. There is no international law outside of the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

Annexation of a member nation is still forbidden under international law.(This even applies if you are NOT in the WA). Any nation can tell you that you have to stop attacks immediately because they don't want to, and you are prohibited to attack nations that do so and are not attacking you (anymore).
Destruction of nations is forbidden for all member states.

So why does this have any noticable impact on your defensive capabilities?

"...what law prevents non members from annexing member states, exactly?"

[Old Hope]

Annexation of a member nation is still forbidden under international law.(This even applies if you are NOT in the WA). Any nation can tell you that you have to stop attacks immediately because they don't want to, and you are prohibited to attack nations that do so and are not attacking you (anymore).
Destruction of nations is forbidden for all member states.

So why does this have any noticable impact on your defensive capabilities?

"...what law prevents non members from annexing member states, exactly?"

GA Resolution 2:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

[Separatist Peoples]

"...what law prevents non members from annexing member states, exactly?"

GA Resolution 2:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

"Which doesn't apply to nonmembers. So it does not follow that landmines are without use, as nonmember annexation is entirely possible. While that alone doesn't demand the use of landmines, it absolutely proves your odd interpretation of WA law incorrect."