NationStates

Repeal "The Landmine Convention
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #40 | Proposed by: The Dark Star Republic

Argument: The World Assembly,

Taking note of the passage of WA Resolution #40, "The Landmine Convention",

Troubled that the definition of "landmine" used in this resolution includes mines designed to become non-operational after a certain time has elapsed,

Considering that given these landmines do not necessarily pose significant risks to civilians they should not have been prohibited and that this technical flaw undermines the resolution's claims to concern for civilian casualties,

Suggesting that nations with the technical capacity to comprehensively demine mined areas post-conflict may be capable of deploying landmines in a way that poses little risk to civilians,

Recalling that the WA has several times voted to not ban or to repeal bans on chemical weapons and that denying WA members conventional area denial munitions is therefore inconsistent with general international law,

Further aware that WA member nations have many responsibilities in wartime, for the protection of civilians and prisoners of war, and that non-member nations, who outnumber WA members severalfold and have provoked many international incidents of war, hold no such obligations,

Concerned that the occupation of any WA member nation's territories by non-member nations could result in war crimes over which the WA would have no jurisdiction nor ability to arrest,

Therefore believing that any area denial munitions available to WA member nations should be permitted in the defence of their territory from armed occupation by hostile non-members,

Heartened that repeal of this resolution will not preclude future legislation to continue the demining work of the World Assembly Demining Agency:

Repeals WA Resolution #40, "The Landmine Convention".

"Given I disliked the other draft proposal circulating here, I came up with my own draft."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I see how it is.

I'm not sure if I should invoke Poe's law here. On the one hand, it looks like a legit repeal from the same people who think biological weapons are useful deterrents. On the other hand, I don't believe Gruen would ever actually support any of these arguments.

You are going to repeal your own resolution?

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I'm not sure if I should invoke Poe's law here. On the one hand, it looks like a legit repeal from the same people who think biological weapons are useful deterrents. On the other hand, I don't believe Gruen would ever actually support any of these arguments.

OOC: This is just one of those areas where your refusal to engage with the in-character, roleplayed nature of the WA puts us at cross-purposes. My RL views on landmines run extremely strongly contrary to the argument in this repeal; that has nothing to do with how the in-character nature of WA legislation runs, though, and my former Ambassador character will happily endorse this argument (which is functionally similar to a repeal I wrote in the NSUN, Repeal "Banning the Use of Landmines").

You have said, I believe, that "Dr. Castro's" views are mutually interchangeable with your own and that the IC/OOC divide is pretty much just a figment to you. That is absolutely and categorically not how I play the game, though, and I think that attitude is one of the contributing factors to the severe decline in roleplay quality in the WA (not that I'm blaming that on you, though).

So I really can't tell what you mean by whether "Gruen" would support these arguments or not. I will play out support of the argument, yes; for my personal views, I'll stick to the General OOC forum.

^ This came off unnecessarily aggressive in tone, wasn't meant to be: just an explanation, really. Sorry.

Chester Pearson wrote:You are going to repeal your own resolution?

It's been done before. Though I don't have any immediate plans on this.

I don't think repealing any weapons ban while the WA is still rabidly supportive of murdering vast swaths of people is a good idea.

Consider that my position or Dr. Castro's.

IC: Sounds good to me - if nations are allowed nuclear weapons, they should be allowed landmines.

OOC: I know how landmines can be horrible, but for once I agree with the IC statement - either all horrible weapons should be banned, or none should.

"No", commented Princess Christine. "Not now, not later, not ever. In this matter, the Queendom is in complete agreement with His Excellency Dr Castro."

The Imperial Fortified Nation of Sternberg, after recent financial focus had been given to our land forces, generally supports the provisions of this proposed repeal - either the WA would have to support conventional arms at the cost of NBC armament or (as is the present pattern) avoid hypocriticism by allowing deployment of conventional arms. In this case, landmines.

Furthermore, there is also the fact that extensive minefields (at least, when deployed in the defence of military facilities and when deployed before an operation) are usually marked or signed so that anyone can, at the least, take extra caution or completely avoid marked minefields. The trouble, I believe, is primarily due to air-dropped munitions, where no-one would be on hand to observe where the mines fall or to mark the area off.

If this repeal was to pass, what would be proposed procedures for the deployment of these munitions?

Lord H.R Melverry
Consul
Sternberg Legislative Assembly

No, no, no. Go back to serving burgers at the drive-through window, Inky.

Sternberg wrote:If this repeal was to pass, what would be proposed procedures for the deployment of these munitions?

"I don't really intend to pursue this precisely because I would be concerned about Metox's replacement then being submitted; furthermore I don't believe the current psychotically militaristic WA would pass any sort of milder replacement. So I suspect the 'proposed procedures' would be handing out landmines as free toys in kiddie meals; that might just about satisfy a WA that has repeatedly refused to declare laws of war."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Sternberg wrote:If this repeal was to pass, what would be proposed procedures for the deployment of these munitions?

"I don't really intend to pursue this precisely because I would be concerned about Metox's replacement then being submitted; furthermore I don't believe the current psychotically militaristic WA would pass any sort of milder replacement. So I suspect the 'proposed procedures' would be handing out landmines as free toys in kiddie meals; that might just about satisfy a WA that has repeatedly refused to declare laws of war."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Writing a resolution, as many have said before, is a marathon, not a sprint. Convention on Landmines and Traps is still but a draft. I have no intention of submitting in its current state, not to mention the currently unrepealed state of the original legislation.

The demographics of the resolution writers and those that discuss them and those of the voters are vastly different. Here, as we discuss, seems to be very pacifist. However, the voter base as you have described is jingoist to the extreme. It sounds like this resolution would do better at an actual vote than here in discussion.

That being said, I am willing to back an actual repeal from this standpoint should you choose to abandon this resolution.

Metox wrote:Writing a resolution, as many have said before, is a marathon, not a sprint.

You of all people have no leg to stand on when trying to advice the DSR representative. Additionally, in case you didn't notice, the DSR ambassador has stated that they aren't entirely serious in seeing this to pass. They just created this to give a better option of this repeal, seeing how the other wasn't very good. But I'm sure you already knew that.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:frankly it's encouraging to see people recognise what happens when authors rush submissions.

OOC: True that, maybe I should've specified that the above comment was meant as entirely IC from a cranky ambassador.

Araraukar wrote:

Metox wrote:Writing a resolution, as many have said before, is a marathon, not a sprint.

You of all people have no leg to stand on when trying to advice the DSR representative. Additionally, in case you didn't notice, the DSR ambassador has stated that they aren't entirely serious in seeing this to pass. They just created this to give a better option of this repeal, seeing how the other wasn't very good. But I'm sure you already knew that.

"There's no need to snap their head off; their advice is perfectly sound, and frankly it's encouraging to see people recognise what happens when authors rush submissions.

"That said, it is difficult to run a marathon without any training. People simply saying 'No' to this repeal draft is singularly unhelpful, not that it particularly distinguishes itself from the general level of debate these days."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Araraukar wrote:

Metox wrote:Writing a resolution, as many have said before, is a marathon, not a sprint.

You of all people have no leg to stand on when trying to advice the DSR representative. Additionally, in case you didn't notice, the DSR ambassador has stated that they aren't entirely serious in seeing this to pass. They just created this to give a better option of this repeal, seeing how the other wasn't very good. But I'm sure you already knew that.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:frankly it's encouraging to see people recognise what happens when authors rush submissions.

OOC: True that, maybe I should've specified that the above comment was meant as entirely IC from a cranky ambassador.

I did not intend to critique the DSR representative, rather I was referring to my own rather incomplete replacement (Convention on Landmines and Traps) that he was advising against, pointing out it's only been in circulation for a few days and that there is still much work to be done on my part. I deeply apologize for the confusion.

OOC: Man, I'm just screwing up left and right this week...
I meant no insult to DSR. DSR is far more experienced that I will ever be. I am nothing, comparatively.

Metox wrote:OOC: Man, I'm just screwing up left and right this week... I meant no insult to DSR. DSR is far more experienced that I will ever be. I am nothing, comparatively.

OOC: I think we can all agree that no real-life feathers were ruffled? So no harm done.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I'm not sure if I should invoke Poe's law here. On the one hand, it looks like a legit repeal from the same people who think biological weapons are useful deterrents. On the other hand, I don't believe Gruen would ever actually support any of these arguments.

What actually is your argument here?

Landmines serve a valuable purpose. Under current WA legislation, the only available alternative to anti-personnel mines are nuclear strikes or chemical attack. The legislation is clearly misdirected.
So long as mine deployments are noted, maintained and then made safe at the cessation of hostilities (or "relocated" [strategically speaking] to uninhabited areas deemed necessary chokepoints of defence), there is no risk to civil populations.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Under current WA legislation, the only available alternative to anti-personnel mines are nuclear strikes or chemical attack.

WTF? Does no one around here consider "peace" an alternative?

Wrapper wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Under current WA legislation, the only available alternative to anti-personnel mines are nuclear strikes or chemical attack.

WTF? Does no one around here consider "peace" an alternative?

If the topic must be discussed at length, peace failed a long time ago.

Your naivete is pathetic, ambassador.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Landmines serve a valuable purpose. Under current WA legislation, the only available alternative to anti-personnel mines are nuclear strikes or chemical attack. The legislation is clearly misdirected.

I'm sorry, that's nothing but bovine manure. Let's clear the field of the manure first.

Since combat engineers with mine-clearing equipment can clear a path through a minefield relatively quickly, mines are usually considered effective only if covered by fire.

Whereas the placing and arming of mines is relatively inexpensive and simple, the process of detecting and removing them is typically expensive, slow, and dangerous. This is especially true of irregular warfare where mines were used on an ad hoc basis in unmarked areas. Anti-personnel mines are most difficult to find, due to their small size and the fact that many are made almost entirely of non-metallic materials specifically to escape detection.

Note I'm not saying that mines serve no good purpose ...

The laying of land mines has inadvertently led to a positive development in the Falkland Islands. Mine fields laid near the sea during the Falklands War have become favorite places for penguins, which do not weigh enough to detonate the mines. Therefore, they can breed safely, free of human intrusion. These odd sanctuaries have proven so popular and lucrative for ecotourism that efforts exist to prevent removal of the mines.

But in general ...

The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow. These facts pose serious difficulties in many developing nations where the presence of mines hampers resettlement, agriculture, and tourism.

Imperializt Russia wrote:If the topic must be discussed at length, peace failed a long time ago.

Your naivete is pathetic, ambassador.

OOC: Heh, yeah, tell me about it. Gotta keep up appearances though, so....

IC: And... and... and your momma wears combat boots, ambassador!

Anyhow we don't see the point of continuing this discussion, since the former ambassador is just that, a former ambassador, and has shown no inclination to leave that pathetic drive through window. We'll see if anything happens with the other draft.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Landmines serve a valuable purpose. Under current WA legislation, the only available alternative to anti-personnel mines are nuclear strikes or chemical attack. The legislation is clearly misdirected.

I'm sorry, that's nothing but bovine manure. Let's clear the field of the manure first.

Since combat engineers with mine-clearing equipment can clear a path through a minefield relatively quickly, mines are usually considered effective only if covered by fire.

Whereas the placing and arming of mines is relatively inexpensive and simple, the process of detecting and removing them is typically expensive, slow, and dangerous. This is especially true of irregular warfare where mines were used on an ad hoc basis in unmarked areas. Anti-personnel mines are most difficult to find, due to their small size and the fact that many are made almost entirely of non-metallic materials specifically to escape detection.

Note I'm not saying that mines serve no good purpose ...

The laying of land mines has inadvertently led to a positive development in the Falkland Islands. Mine fields laid near the sea during the Falklands War have become favorite places for penguins, which do not weigh enough to detonate the mines. Therefore, they can breed safely, free of human intrusion. These odd sanctuaries have proven so popular and lucrative for ecotourism that efforts exist to prevent removal of the mines.

But in general ...

The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow. These facts pose serious difficulties in many developing nations where the presence of mines hampers resettlement, agriculture, and tourism.

Then you've completely failed to grasp the point of landmines, or any other delaying manoeuvre.

And also failed to finish reading my post.
Where'd you even copy that from? Kindly source your statements.

Wrapper wrote:Anyhow we don't see the point of continuing this discussion, since the former ambassador is just that, a former ambassador, and has shown no inclination to leave that pathetic drive through window.

"Indeed, there wasn't really much need to bump this topic after several days of silence; gravedigging should be left for our meat-sourcing vendors."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger

As the ICC has been repealed, I've removed the reference in the repeal text.

Thank you for taking this small step to restoring the WA's stance on warfare back to a place of logic and common sense.