[PASSED] Environmental Warfare Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

Natalia moves closer - probably uncomfortably so - to the ambassador from West Angola, gently nudges them, and whispers: "welcome to the vast, ultra-super-duper radical left wing pacifist hippy conspiracy. We meet beneath the floorboards of Parsons' office every Thursday night."

MAD-SIMPSONS:

[Saveyou Island]

"Solid, straightforward proposal here. Hopefully a couple of delegate votes will push this to passing, in the meantime Saveyou Island shall vote FOR this."

[Gryphonian Alliance]

I don't see how prohibiting environmental warfare would "slash worldwide military funding." I mean, sure, you can't practice environmental warfare anymore, should this resolution be passed, but how will this resolution prevent nations from spending money in other military practices?

[Bears Armed Mission]

"We have voted for this proposed resolution."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


_____________________________________________________________

I don't see how prohibiting environmental warfare would "slash worldwide military funding." I mean, sure, you can't practice environmental warfare anymore, should this resolution be passed, but how will this resolution prevent nations from spending money in other military practices?

OOC: Modly rulings on a number of previous proposals about banning various types of weaponry have established, by precedent, that this is the category they consider correct. Otherwise, as such resolutions generally contain (and this one, specifically, contains) no implicit requirement for nations to spend more money on any aspect of warfare -- and therefore 'International Security', which has such an increase as a prerequisite, wouldn't fit neither -- there wouldn't be any appropriate category,

[West Angola]

"The campaign memo against this proposal being circulated by Excidium Planetis has elected to make use of scaremongering tactics that were already discussed during the drafting process, telling nations this resolution bans the use of horses in warfare due to grazing. To clear the issue up: unless nations are introducing their cavalry horses for the express purpose of damaging the environment, horses do not fall under this resolution."

[Sciongrad]

"The campaign memo against this proposal being circulated by Excidium Planetis has elected to make use of scaremongering tactics that were already discussed during the drafting process, telling nations this resolution bans the use of horses in warfare due to grazing. To clear the issue up: unless nations are introducing their cavalry horses for the express purpose of damaging the environment, horses do not fall under this resolution."

OOC: Yeah, I found that telegram astoundingly unimpressive. I guess that's just politics, but it really is extremely annoying getting deliberately misleading telegrams.

[Excidium Planetis]

"The campaign memo against this proposal being circulated by Excidium Planetis has elected to make use of scaremongering tactics that were already discussed during the drafting process, telling nations this resolution bans the use of horses in warfare due to grazing. To clear the issue up: unless nations are introducing their cavalry horses for the express purpose of damaging the environment, horses do not fall under this resolution."

OOC: Yeah, I found that telegram astoundingly unimpressive. I guess that's just politics, but it really is extremely annoying getting deliberately misleading telegrams.

Unfortunately, one cannot uncheck certain delegates from the list, or I wouldn't have wasted a tenth of a cent on you.

"The campaign memo against this proposal being circulated by Excidium Planetis has elected to make use of scaremongering tactics that were already discussed during the drafting process, telling nations this resolution bans the use of horses in warfare due to grazing. To clear the issue up: unless nations are introducing their cavalry horses for the express purpose of damaging the environment, horses do not fall under this resolution."

"Your rebuttal to my concerns was as follows: That horses bear too small of an impact to be uncontrollable, and that horses are not introduced for the purpose of destroying the environment." Blackbourne replies. "I found neither convincing in the slightest. The first because horses can indeed have an uncontrollable impact, and because you previously argued that even weapons which have built in control features are uncontrollable, and horses generally don't. The latter because damage to the environment is a known side effect of horse introduction, therefore, unless you argue that the environmental damage was not the primary reason for introduction, it was one purpose for introducing the horse. And if intent is all that matters, we will continue using our environmental weapons. Damage to the ecosystem was never our reason, anyways, we merely introduce those fungal weapons to kill people."

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted for this.

[West Angola]

"Your rebuttal to my concerns was as follows: That horses bear too small of an impact to be uncontrollable, and that horses are not introduced for the purpose of destroying the environment." Blackbourne replies. "I found neither convincing in the slightest. The first because horses can indeed have an uncontrollable impact, and because you previously argued that even weapons which have built in control features are uncontrollable, and horses generally don't."

"Ambassador, if your horses eat that much grass you may want to invest some new horses."

"The latter because damage to the environment is a known side effect of horse introduction, therefore, unless you argue that the environmental damage was not the primary reason for introduction, it was one purpose for introducing the horse."

"I have to disagree with this, and it ties back in with my point about the level of environmental destruction caused by a horse. Logistically speaking, you would have to have a very large number of horses in the same area for an extended period of time for their grazing to have a substantial impact on the local ecosystem, which runs contrary to the purpose of cavalry as a mobile offensive force. Otherwise, I highly doubt the average commander thinks to themselves 'If we bring our horses into this area, they will destroy the local environment, ensuring us certain victory!'"

"And if intent is all that matters, we will continue using our environmental weapons. Damage to the ecosystem was never our reason, anyways, we merely introduce those fungal weapons to kill people."

"I am unfortunately unfamiliar with the specifics of your nation's fungal weapons, Ambassador, but if their method of killing is via environmental damage, then they still fall under this resolution. If not, I would suspect they run afoul of the Biological Warfare Convention."

[The Atlae Isles]

Let's clear a few things up about horses being invasive species and other issues.

There are, of course, chances that horses are invasive. However, unless the military uses improper techniques to keep the horses tied up, there is no chance of a horse being invasive.

Also, horses could also be feral species, which are domesticated versions of their wild counterpart in the wild. They also might cause harm to the environment, but unless the military releases the horses on purpose, there is no chance of a horse being invasive.

Horses can graze and trample the fauna around it, and that may cause environmental damage. However, it will not be in violation if it is properly restrained.

Fungal weapons, or any other form of biological warfare, aside from the fact that they aren't illegal, (unfortunately,) it does cause environmental damage with the casualties. The mode of destruction is to kill everything, and that includes wildlife. Fungi can be invasive species. Even if the intent was not to kill the environment, it would still be covered, because the intent is to kill everything, which just about includes the environment.

Ruining the ecosystem, in my opinion, does not seem like a very good way to win a war. After you conquered the land, the barren wasteland you created is more of a liability that a new asset. But that's just my opinion.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Your rebuttal to my concerns was as follows: That horses bear too small of an impact to be uncontrollable, and that horses are not introduced for the purpose of destroying the environment." Blackbourne replies. "I found neither convincing in the slightest. The first because horses can indeed have an uncontrollable impact, and because you previously argued that even weapons which have built in control features are uncontrollable, and horses generally don't."

"Ambassador, if your horses eat that much grass you may want to invest some new horses."

"The concern is not that horses graze so much they completely destroy the grass, it's much worse than that, actually. Simply running around destroys the environment, and on top of that they compete with local herbivores."
OOC:

Grasslands are protected by “biotic crusts” that consist of loose soil held together by tiny cyanobacteria, lichens, mosses, and green algae. They serve as a fragile glue that keeps desert soils from being washed or blown away. But these crusts are pulverized by horses, leading to poor water absorption, reduced fertility, and long-lasting environmental damage. Grasslands are disappearing as wild horse hooves crush biotic crusts, encouraging erosion that leaves wide swaths permanently degraded, replaced with barren rock

- sauce

"And if intent is all that matters, we will continue using our environmental weapons. Damage to the ecosystem was never our reason, anyways, we merely introduce those fungal weapons to kill people."

"I am unfortunately unfamiliar with the specifics of your nation's fungal weapons, Ambassador, but if their method of killing is via environmental damage, then they still fall under this resolution. If not, I would suspect they run afoul of the Biological Warfare Convention."

"The method of killing is hijacking the nervous systems of native wildlife and using them to kill the enemy combatants. Environmental damage is simply a side effect of this method, in the same way using radiological weapons to kill people results in the side effect of environmental damage due to radiation." Blackbourne replies. "And, I assure you, it does not run afoul of the Biological Warfare Convention, as it is not a microorganism."

[The Atlae Isles]

Grasslands are protected by “biotic crusts” that consist of loose soil held together by tiny cyanobacteria, lichens, mosses, and green algae. They serve as a fragile glue that keeps desert soils from being washed or blown away. But these crusts are pulverized by horses, leading to poor water absorption, reduced fertility, and long-lasting environmental damage. Grasslands are disappearing as wild horse hooves crush biotic crusts, encouraging erosion that leaves wide swaths permanently degraded, replaced with barren rock

- sauce

Ambassador, surely the military would restrain their horses. Horses could stampede, but the military can restrain them, or if in drastic measures, shoot them.

[Excidium Planetis]

However, it will not be in violation if it is properly restrained.

"Simply moving your cavalry from one battlefield to the next causes environmental damage and the author has made it clear that even with restraints such as genetic use restriction technology which will eventually eliminate the non-native species, species will be considered invasive if they cause lasting environmental damage."

Even if the intent was not to kill the environment, it would still be covered, because the intent is to kill everything, which just about includes the environment.

"The intent is most certainly not to kill everything. It is to kill the enemy, and nothing more."

Ruining the ecosystem, in my opinion, does not seem like a very good way to win a war. After you conquered the land, the barren wasteland you created is more of a liability that a new asset. But that's just my opinion.

"Who said anything about conquest? You can win a war without conquering the destroyed territory, you know. It happens most of the time, actually."

[The Atlae Isles]

However, it will not be in violation if it is properly restrained.

"Simply moving your cavalry from one battlefield to the next causes environmental damage and the author has made it clear that even with restraints such as genetic use restriction technology which will eventually eliminate the non-native species, species will be considered invasive if they cause lasting environmental damage."

Invasive species are species outside their natural habitat, thriving, out-of-control, and are bad for the environment. I don't agree with the definition the author put in. There is a little ambiguity.

Even if the intent was not to kill the environment, it would still be covered, because the intent is to kill everything, which just about includes the environment.

"The intent is most certainly not to kill everything. It is to kill the enemy, and nothing more."

Collateral damage. And, how can fungi, which can be invasive, be dropped on an area, killing people (which may include civilians), and not harm the local environment? That seems unscientific!

Ruining the ecosystem, in my opinion, does not seem like a very good way to win a war. After you conquered the land, the barren wasteland you created is more of a liability that a new asset. But that's just my opinion.

"Who said anything about conquest? You can win a war without conquering the destroyed territory, you know. It happens most of the time, actually."

That's one kind of war. War for territory. And I did say it was my opinion.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Simply moving your cavalry from one battlefield to the next causes environmental damage and the author has made it clear that even with restraints such as genetic use restriction technology which will eventually eliminate the non-native species, species will be considered invasive if they cause lasting environmental damage."

Invasive species are species outside their natural habitat, thriving, out-of-control, and are bad for the environment. I don't agree with the definition the author put in. There is a little ambiguity.

"The one the author put in is the one you must abide by, regardless of whether you are with it or not."

"The intent is most certainly not to kill everything. It is to kill the enemy, and nothing more."

Collateral damage. And, how can fungi, which can be invasive, be dropped on an area, killing people (which may include civilians), and not harm the local environment? That seems unscientific!

"The horses cause collateral environmental damage. So either you ban horses because an unintended side effect is collateral environmental damage, or fungal weapons are A-Okay because the collateral environmental damage was not the intended use of the weapon."

[The Atlae Isles]

"The horses cause collateral environmental damage. So either you ban horses because an unintended side effect is collateral environmental damage, or fungal weapons are A-Okay because the collateral environmental damage was not the intended use of the weapon."

Any collateral damage horses cause are trampling and grazing. Humans do that too. The definition put non-sapient, which exempts humans. That does mean that horses can be considered invasive species, if you put that into context. However, unless a military general releases them on purpose to ravage the environment, then that's not biological warfare. Do the generals think, "Hey! Let's release our cavalry so they can destroy the environment!"

[Excidium Planetis]

Any collateral damage horses cause are trampling and grazing. Humans do that too. The definition put non-sapient, which exempts humans. That does mean that horses can be considered invasive species, if you put that into context.

"Exactly. Horses are banned from being used in warfare."

However, unless a military general releases them on purpose to ravage the environment, then that's not biological warfare. Do the generals think, "Hey! Let's release our cavalry so they can destroy the environment!"

"Generally, nobody has the express goal of environmental destruction, rather, the goal is always elimination of the opposing force."

[West Angola]

"Simply moving your cavalry from one battlefield to the next causes environmental damage and the author has made it clear that even with restraints such as genetic use restriction technology which will eventually eliminate the non-native species, species will be considered invasive if they cause lasting environmental damage."

"Unless your cavalry is running repeatedly over the same area of ground and remaining in an area long enough to significantly diminish the food supply available to other local herbivores, the damage caused is not extreme."

[The Atlae Isles]

Any collateral damage horses cause are trampling and grazing. Humans do that too. The definition put non-sapient, which exempts humans. That does mean that horses can be considered invasive species, if you put that into context.

"Exactly. Horses are banned from being used in warfare."

They're only banned from being released into the environment for the purpose of destroying the environment.

However, unless a military general releases them on purpose to ravage the environment, then that's not biological warfare. Do the generals think, "Hey! Let's release our cavalry so they can destroy the environment!"

"Generals don't think 'Hey! Let's release these spores so they can destroy the environment'. Generally, nobody has the express goal of environmental destruction, rather, the goal is always elimination of the opposing force."

That's not true. Generals can destroy the environment so they have an advantage. For instance, they can bomb rainforests so they can't be ambushed. The bill is designed to prevent the military from releasing invasive species to ravage the environment for the purpose of destroying it.

[The Atlae Isles]

"Simply moving your cavalry from one battlefield to the next causes environmental damage and the author has made it clear that even with restraints such as genetic use restriction technology which will eventually eliminate the non-native species, species will be considered invasive if they cause lasting environmental damage."

"Unless your cavalry is running repeatedly over the same area of ground and remaining in an area long enough to significantly diminish the food supply available to other local herbivores, the damage caused is not extreme."

I agree. Footprints on the ground are not usually lasting damage. Calvary usually stay on trails, for the reason of not getting hurt. Even if they don't, it's technically not invasive unless they keep running on that land to destroy the wildlife at that specific spot.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Simply moving your cavalry from one battlefield to the next causes environmental damage and the author has made it clear that even with restraints such as genetic use restriction technology which will eventually eliminate the non-native species, species will be considered invasive if they cause lasting environmental damage."

"Unless your cavalry is running repeatedly over the same area of ground and remaining in an area long enough to significantly diminish the food supply available to other local herbivores, the damage caused is not extreme."

"If the war is long enough, yes. And because nations cannot know how long the war will be, horses are therefore banned."

They're only banned from being released into the environment for the purpose of destroying the environment.

"Untrue. They are prohibited from being used, regardless of whether they are released or not."

That's not true. Generals can destroy the environment so they have an advantage. For instance, they can bomb rainforests so they can't be ambushed. The bill is designed to prevent the military from releasing invasive species to ravage the environment for the purpose of destroying it.

"I never said such extreme instances did not exist, I merely said that generally the goal was not the destruction of the environment itself."

[West Angola]

"If the war is long enough, yes. And because nations cannot know how long the war will be, horses are therefore banned."

"Only if the war stagnates and the front stays in one place for an extended period of time. In that case, there isn't much tactical value to horses anyway, so I would question why they remained at the front at all in such a situation."

[Excidium Planetis]

"If the war is long enough, yes. And because nations cannot know how long the war will be, horses are therefore banned."

"Only if the war stagnates and the front stays in one place for an extended period of time.

"Or if the front moves constantly back and forth over the same territory."

In that case, there isn't much tactical value to horses anyway, so I would question why they remained at the front at all in such a situation."

"As pack animals."

[The Atlae Isles]

They're only banned from being released into the environment for the purpose of destroying the environment.

"Untrue. They are prohibited from being used, regardless of whether they are released or not."

It said that environmental warfare is the intentional "introduction" of an invasive species into the ecosystem.

What you mean, ambassador, is as soon as the horse is set foot on that land, it's environmental warfare. That's completely rational. But is misinformed.

Introduction means, that once the horses are out of control, then they are banned.

[The Atlae Isles]

Grasslands are protected by “biotic crusts” that consist of loose soil held together by tiny cyanobacteria, lichens, mosses, and green algae. They serve as a fragile glue that keeps desert soils from being washed or blown away. But these crusts are pulverized by horses, leading to poor water absorption, reduced fertility, and long-lasting environmental damage. Grasslands are disappearing as wild horse hooves crush biotic crusts, encouraging erosion that leaves wide swaths permanently degraded, replaced with barren rock

- sauce

Also, another factor is poor soil and water conservation. To prevent soil from blowing away, you can plat things in the groundor do other soil and water conservation techniques.

Also, the animals are feral. Feral: Domesticated Animals along with their wild counterpart in the wild. It does not necessarily make them invasive, Ambassador.