NationStates

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:03 pm**

Environmental Warfare Act
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
The General Assembly,

DISMAYED at the damage caused to ecosystems by the introduction of invasive species,

RECOGNIZING the suffering of nations whose ecosystems are affected by these species,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the major national security threat such species could represent,

Hereby,

1. DEFINES, for purposes of this resolution:

"Invasive Species" as a non-native, non-sapient species whose behavior results in extreme harm to ecosystems into which it is introduced,
"Environmental Warfare" as the intentional introduction of an invasive species into a foreign ecosystem for purposes of damaging it,
2. PROHIBITS member nations from carrying out acts of environmental warfare against other nations,

3. MANDATES member nations take reasonable action to prevent those in their nation from carrying out acts of environmental warfare abroad, and to guard against such acts within their own borders,

4. EMPOWERS the World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents to:

Ensure nations remain up-to-date on the latest information regarding identification and prevention of invasive species, and
Aid civilian populations who have been subjected to a environmental warfare attack in mitigating and reversing the effects of such.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:30 pm**

OOC:
I don't have the time to properly look this over, but do consider looking at standing legislation on the subject in case of overlap or contradiction.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:11 pm**

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I don't have the time to properly look this over, but do consider looking at standing legislation on the subject in case of overlap or contradiction.

I looked over the WA resolutions on terrorism and invasive species while drafting, and since the two resolutions on invasive species were repealed, I focused in on terrorism.
The resolution it comes closest to overlapping is GAR #25: WA Counterterrorism Act. However, that resolution specifically defines terrorism as an act of violence, so by my reading the introduction of an invasive species falls outside its scope.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:47 pm**

What of this? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=13324353#p13324353

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:19 am**

West Angola wrote:
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I don't have the time to properly look this over, but do consider looking at standing legislation on the subject in case of overlap or contradiction.

I looked over the WA resolutions on terrorism and invasive species while drafting, and since the two resolutions on invasive species were repealed, I focused in on terrorism.
The resolution it comes closest to overlapping is GAR #25: WA Counterterrorism Act. However, that resolution specifically defines terrorism as an act of violence, so by my reading the introduction of an invasive species falls outside its scope.

An excellent point. (This is exactly why Digital Network Defense defined cyberattacks as acts of violence.)

Imperium Anglorum wrote:What of this? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=13324353#p13324353

Only applies to microorganisms, so introducing a macroscopic invasive species is not a biological weapon or terrorism.

Author, I would say you have a great idea here. Keep working on it!

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:03 am**

We don't usually consider terrorism to involve animals but this is a very real threat so we will support it.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:15 am**

OOC: I was going to include something about this idea in my planned replacement for the repealed resolution on invasive species, but it now looks unlikely that I'll get anywhere on that project in the near future anyhows...
Good luck!

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:25 am**

"Based on the topic, the term "bioterrorism" isn't as accurate as, say, "ecoterrorism". We would suggest such a change to avoid confusion with the idea of biowarfare. Additionally, since this is such an esoteric field of terrorism, the strength really should be Mild."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:45 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Based on the topic, the term "bioterrorism" isn't as accurate as, say, "ecoterrorism". We would suggest such a change to avoid confusion with the idea of biowarfare. Additionally, since this is such an esoteric field of terrorism, the strength really should be Mild."

"I considered that, but I wasn't sure since ecoterrorism tends to carry the connotation of environmentalists targeting oil pipelines and the like."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:02 pm**

A uniformed man with a military appearance (though not a military uniform) stands to address the author of the proposal being debated.

"Why should nations be prohibited from introducing invasive species as a form of warfare? Excidium Planetis has long used invasive species to destroy our enemies, and will oppose any measures to limit that capacity."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:05 pm**

OOC: My back hurts too much for me to want to take on constructive criticism at this time, but I thought I'd help you sort out your formatting. I haven't touched your text beyond adding "Hereby" to signify the start of your active clauses and changing DEFINING into DEFINES, but otherwise I just added numbers and the list code.

Quote this post, and then copy-paste everything within the box code (ctrl key and C for copying, ctrl key and V for pasting, if you use Windows) into your first post.

The General Assembly,

DISMAYED at the damage caused to ecosystems by the introduction of invasive species,

RECOGNIZING the suffering of nations whose ecosystems are attacked by these species,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the major national security threat such species could represent, especially to nations with heavily agricultural economies,

Hereby,

1. DEFINES, for purposes of this resolution:

"Invasive Species" as a non-native species whose presence in an ecosystem results in severe irreparable harm to native flora or fauna,
"Bioterrorism" as the intentional introduction of an invasive species into a foreign ecosystem for purposes of damaging it,
2. PROHIBITS member nations from carrying out acts of bioterrorism against other nations,

3. MANDATES member nations do everything in their power to prevent individuals or groups operating in their nation from carrying out acts of bioterrorism abroad,

4. URGES member nations to take responsible steps to prevent bioterrorism within their borders, and

5. EMPOWERS the World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents to:

Assist nations in setting up viable safeguards against bioterrorism, and
Aid civilian populations who have been subjected to a bioterror attack in mitigating and reversing the effects of such.

Also I wonder if the committee you chose is the best one for this?

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:10 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:A uniformed man with a military appearance (though not a military uniform) stands to address the author of the proposal being debated.

"Why should nations be prohibited from introducing invasive species as a form of warfare? Excidium Planetis has long used invasive species to destroy our enemies, and will oppose any measures to limit that capacity."

"The World Assembly has a longstanding commitment to proscribing forms of warfare that could be considered uncontrollable. Introducing invasive species meets that standard, obviously.

I advise the ambassador from West Angola to take any stance shared by her Excellency of Excidium Planetis regarding warfare with a grain of salt."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:04 pm**

Araraukar wrote:Also I wonder if the committee you chose is the best one for this?

"If possible, our government is seeking to expand the mandate of an existing committee rather than create new one. The two best committees for the issue in my our estimation were either the Disaster Bureau or the Commission on Biological Agents. We went with WACBA because we felt as though invasive species were being treated as macroscopic biological agents in this resolution, which is fairly close to their current purview."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:05 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:A uniformed man with a military appearance (though not a military uniform) stands to address the author of the proposal being debated.

"Why should nations be prohibited from introducing invasive species as a form of warfare? Excidium Planetis has long used invasive species to destroy our enemies, and will oppose any measures to limit that capacity."

"The World Assembly has a longstanding commitment to proscribing forms of warfare that could be considered uncontrollable. Introducing invasive species meets that standard, obviously.

"So if safeguards, like an automatic shut off switch, or species which are genetically modified to be sterile, were implemented, you would not oppose using invasive species in warfare?

"I advise the ambassador from West Angola to take any stance shared by her Excellency of Excidium Planetis regarding warfare with a grain of salt."

"Her Excellency?" Evander Blackbourne looks back at Delegate Schultz, who is sitting in a swivel chair staring up at the ceiling.

"The WA has a long history of confusing genders, Ambassador." Schultz replies.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:18 pm**

West Angola wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Based on the topic, the term "bioterrorism" isn't as accurate as, say, "ecoterrorism". We would suggest such a change to avoid confusion with the idea of biowarfare. Additionally, since this is such an esoteric field of terrorism, the strength really should be Mild."

"I considered that, but I wasn't sure since ecoterrorism tends to carry the connotation of environmentalists targeting oil pipelines and the like."

"Connotation or no, it's much more accurate. That association must be a local one, as it's new to me. Who would target an oil pipeline? Pipelines are ecological boons."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:29 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Connotation or no, it's much more accurate. That association must be a local one, as it's new to me. Who would target an oil pipeline? Pipelines are ecological boons."

"Your people are evidently far more sane than mine, Ambassador Bell."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:33 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
West Angola wrote:"I considered that, but I wasn't sure since ecoterrorism tends to carry the connotation of environmentalists targeting oil pipelines and the like."

"Connotation or no, it's much more accurate. That association must be a local one, as it's new to me. Who would target an oil pipeline? Pipelines are ecological boons."

P: My thoughts exactly.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:23 pm**

West Angola wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Connotation or no, it's much more accurate. That association must be a local one, as it's new to me. Who would target an oil pipeline? Pipelines are ecological boons."

"Your people are evidently far more sane than mine, Ambassador Bell."

"Don't you forget it, son. It's a common fact that pipeline installation in temperate areas create habitat beneficial to migratory, hydrophytic, and edge-dwelling species. Blowing them up has a less than salutary effect on the wildlife."

Posted: **Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:58 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:"So if safeguards, like an automatic shut off switch, or species which are genetically modified to be sterile, were implemented, you would not oppose using invasive species in warfare?

"First of all, Sciongrad is unaware of any technology that allows you to 'switch off' animals, and even if such technology existed, we would object to it on ethical grounds. But even so, Sciongrad would oppose the use of invasive species as weapons for other reasons. Aside from their unreliability, the damage done to ecosystems is not limited strictly to the period of time during which the nation in question is at war. Introducing invasive species, then, could seriously affect resource extraction or agriculture in the affected area, even after the war has ended. The reason I gave initially - the difficulty involved in containing invasive species - was simply the most immediately obvious based on the World Assembly's previous commitments."

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:58 am**

Sciongrad wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:"So if safeguards, like an automatic shut off switch, or species which are genetically modified to be sterile, were implemented, you would not oppose using invasive species in warfare?

"First of all, Sciongrad is unaware of any technology that allows you to 'switch off' animals, and even if such technology existed, we would object to it on ethical grounds.

"Surely you've heard of Hibernation Induction? I don't Imagine you would possess that technology, but you can at least conceive of it, right?" Blackbourne replies.

But even so, Sciongrad would oppose the use of invasive species as weapons for other reasons. Aside from their unreliability, the damage done to ecosystems is not limited strictly to the period of time during which the nation in question is at war. Introducing invasive species, then, could seriously affect resource extraction or agriculture in the affected area, even after the war has ended.

"Nuclear Weapons have longer lasting effects, and we are specifically allowed to use them by this Assembly.

"Now, how about two problems: First, that a foreign invader's species could be classified as an invasive species, and thus invasions of all sorts could be prohibited. By that interpretation, our Birrin soldiers could not be allowed to assist us in an invasion of human worlds, and humans would not be allowed to invade Chri-irah.

"Second, that animals intended to be used as weapons, such as bomb-carrying animals, could be classified as invasive species and despite only living long enough to blow up their target, and dealing a level of destruction about equal to conventional weapons, they would be prohibited as a form of 'ecoterrorism'*."

OOC:
*See the real life US weapon Project X-ray, also known as the 'bat bomb', which would have introduced millions of New Mexico bats to Japan just long enough to incinerate all the bats and the buildings they hid in. Ecoterrorism, or brilliant alternative to the atom bomb?

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:19 am**

OOC: EP, the bat bomb only ever worked once, when it accidentally activated before it reached the target an burned down the base instead. That's a terrible example.

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:24 am**

OOC
By normal RL definitions, the term "invasive species" is not just synonymous with "invading species": It refers specifically to species which, when introduced to a new habitat, not only survive there but expand their numbers & range so rapidly that [1] it is very difficult for people to control that expansion and [2] this expansion is normally at the expense of native species. On that basis, this proposed resolution would affect neither stocks that had been modified for sterility (unless those were still capable of asexual reproduction, or simply propagation through extremely rapid growth of connected runners/rhizomes/roots from which new shoots could arise, anyhows) nor ones used for a single, immediate attack in which -- like those WW2 bats -- they themselves would be expected to perish.[/zoologist]

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:58 am**

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
By normal RL definitions, the term "invasive species" is not just synonymous with "invading species": It refers specifically to species which, when introduced to a new habitat, not only survive there but expand their numbers & range so rapidly that [1] it is very difficult for people to control that expansion and [2] this expansion is normally at the expense of native species. On that basis, this proposed resolution would affect neither stocks that had been modified for sterility (unless those were still capable of asexual reproduction, or simply propagation through extremely rapid growth of connected runners/rhizomes/roots from which new shoots could arise, anyhows) nor ones used for a single, immediate attack in which -- like those WW2 bats -- they themselves would be expected to perish.[/zoologist]

I assume this is OOC?

We can't work with real life definitions here, we have to use the proposal's:

"Invasive Species" as a non-native species whose presence in an ecosystem results in severe irreparable harm to native flora or fauna,

In this case, an invasive species does not need to be capable of reproducing or expanding their range. They simply need to be non-native and result in irreparable harm to the environment. Incendiary bats might not necessarily result in irreparable harm, but nuclear-armed bats (which are technically legal to use right now, just not on civilian targets) might. Also, Excidian biological weapons (which are legal by virtue of not being microorganisms) are designed with an automatic shutoff (which I won't describe for reason of having not come up with it yet) but could still result in complete irradication of some species prior to shutting off.

Lastly, a nation's soldiers would reproduce and expand, so even by the real life definition would be invasive species.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: EP, the bat bomb only ever worked once, when it accidentally activated before it reached the target an burned down the base instead. That's a terrible example.

Incorrect. First, the Carlsbad test did burn an airfield due to accidentally released bats, but the test site was also incinerated.

Second, a later test on a mock Japanese village was deemed promising:

Wikipedia wrote:Observers at this test produced optimistic accounts. The chief of incendiary testing at Dugway wrote: “A reasonable number of destructive fires can be started in spite of the extremely small size of the units. The main advantage of the units would seem to be their placement within the enemy structures without the knowledge of the householder or fire watchers, thus allowing the fire to establish itself before being discovered.”[1] The National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) observer stated: "It was concluded that X-Ray is an effective weapon." The Chief Chemist’s report stated that on a weight basis X-Ray was more effective than the standard incendiary bombs in use at the time: "Expressed in another way, the regular bombs would give probably 167 to 400 fires per bomb load where X-Ray would give 3,625 to 4,748 fires."

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:28 am**

Excidium Planetis wrote:In this case, an invasive species does not need to be capable of reproducing or expanding their range. They simply need to be non-native and result in irreparable harm to the environment. Incendiary bats might not necessarily result in irreparable harm, but nuclear-armed bats (which are technically legal to use right now, just not on civilian targets) might. Also, Excidian biological weapons (which are legal by virtue of not being microorganisms) are designed with an automatic shutoff (which I won't describe for reason of having not come up with it yet) but could still result in complete irradication of some species prior to shutting off.

Lastly, a nation's soldiers would reproduce and expand, so even by the real life definition would be invasive species.

"Would the insertion of the word 'naturally' in the definition of invasive species adequately address this concern?

"Invasive Species" as a non-native species whose presence in an ecosystem naturally results in severe irreparable harm to native flora or fauna

'Naturally' here meaning that the species is causing the damage through natural behavior rather than conscious effort on its part."

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:23 am**

West Angola wrote:"Would the insertion of the word 'naturally' in the definition of invasive species adequately address this concern?

"Invasive Species" as a non-native species whose presence in an ecosystem naturally results in severe irreparable harm to native flora or fauna

'Naturally' here meaning that the species is causing the damage through natural behavior rather than conscious effort on its part."

Blackbourne considers the proposed change. "While that would address soldiers as invasive species and bomb-carrying organisms, it would still affect biological weapons with a built-in kill switch, would it not? Unless you considered their behavior 'unnatural' by virtue of being genetically engineered?"

NationStates

[PASSED] Environmental Warfare Act

[PASSED] Environmental Warfare Act