NationStates

[title] First Do No Harm

[validity] has military

[desc] A few hours ago, a @@DEMONYMADJ@@ aircraft blew a supposed Kawandaland terrorist hideout, suspected to be hiding wanted terrorist Madam Hussin, into smithereens. When the dust settled, however, it turned out to be a hospital operated by humanitarian movement Physicians without Frontiers, with many patients and medical staff killed in the attack.

[option] "Well, you can't say that they didn't deserve what they got!" declares trigger-happy General @@RANDOMNAME@@, playing with his toy aeroplane. "Hiding a terrorist in a hospital is just bad! Even if he was unarmed, and mortally wounded, and he was in a coma, and we aren't even sure if the tip-off was reliable... but still, bad. Humanitarian facilities that decide to aid wanted terrorists deserve no protection from us!"
[effect] medical facilities must have a 'No Terrorist Affiliations, No Problem' policy

[option] "Don't dodge the issue, you guys bombed a protected medical facility!" barks Physicians without Frontiers spokesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We clearly displayed its coordinates, and clearly displayed its policy of accepting all unarmed combatants. Well, displayed at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory, but that's besides the point! Charge whoever was involved, right up to the person who served the aircraft operator scones the morning before, with war crimes and murder. Justice must prevail!"
[effect] millions of @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are charged with arson when a wildfire breaks out

[option] "Don't go to all that trouble!" snaps your Minister of Thinking, Praying and Condoling, shoving a pre-written speech in your face. "Just come out and apologise, promise to punish whoever's involved, all that. Maybe even offer to donate a small sum of money to build a new hospital. Soon this'll be yesterday's news!"
[effect] money can't buy happiness but it can buy new X-ray machines

[option] "Terrorist leader or not, that was exhilarating!" exclaims aircraft operator @@RANDOMNAME@@, while massacring people on a video game. "Attacking random targets should be our military's objective! That playground down there? Drop a couple of bombs! Soon the terrorists will know nowhere is safe for them!"
[validity] video games allowed
[effect] the government's official policy is 'fight terrorism with terrorism'

[option] "Terrorist leader or not, that was exhilarating!" exclaims aircraft operator @@RANDOMNAME@@, while flying a paper plane into a model of a Kawandaland terrorist base. "Attacking random targets should be our military's objective! That playground down there? Drop a couple of bombs! Soon the terrorists will know nowhere is safe for them!"
[validity] video games banned
[effect] the government's official policy is 'fight terrorism with terrorism

A bit iffy on the effect lines, so if anyone has better ones let me know!

I like it. A bit lacking in humor, though it's not a knee-slapper of a premise.

The issue assumes as absolute fact that the bombing was a mistake. Would there be any benefit in introducing some ambiguity. Maybe it was being used as a human shield?

The second option's effect is good. The others are a bit weak or confusing. Also "pacifist paparazz[o]"?

Golgothastan wrote:I like it. A bit lacking in humor, though it's not a knee-slapper of a premise.

The issue assumes as absolute fact that the bombing was a mistake. Would there be any benefit in introducing some ambiguity. Maybe it was being used as a human shield?

The second option's effect is good. The others are a bit weak or confusing. Also "pacifist paparazz[o]"?

Food for thought - I’m working on it

I'd stick with the first title if those are the only two options. "A Risky Operation" doesn't make all that much sense here, in my opinion.



Some general editing suggestions for flow and such:

[desc] A few hours ago, one of @@NAME@@'s a @@DEMONYM@@ military aircraft blew up a Blackacrean terrorist hideout into smithereens Are you implying that @@NAME@@ is at war with Blackacre?. When the dust settled, however, it turned out to be an unarmed civilian hospital belonging to operated by humanitarian movement Physicians without Frontiers, with many civilians patients and medical staff killed in the attack.

[option] "Oh deary me!" gasps Colonel @@RANDOMNAME@@, anxiously squeezing a stress ball anxiously and sucking @@HIS@@ thumb. "If the international community hears about this, we're doomed! Attacking a protected civilian medical facility is the easiest way to get charged with a war crime these days. We should lie and say that the hospital was stockpiling weapons. Maybe even plant a few of our own in there. I can't let my career, I mean our glorious nation to go down lose our credibility over such a small mishap!"
[effect] military grade weapons with 'Made in @@NAME@@' stickers are found in supposed alleged terrorist camps

[option] "No one's going to believe that!" snaps your Minister of Thinking, Praying and Condoling, shoving a pre-written speech in your face. "Just come out and apologise, deny knowing it was a hopsital hospital, promise to punish whoever's involved, all that. Maybe even offer to donate a small sum of money to build a new hospital. Soon this'll be yesterday's news!"
[effect] money can't buy happiness, but it can buy new X-ray machines

[option] "Don't dodge the issue,; there's no way no one knew it wasn't a hospital!" this first sentence reads weirdly. Speaker 2 suggests apologizing and denying that you knew it was a hospital. Now speaker 3 is opening with "you're dodging the real problem, which is that effectively at least someone knew it wasn't a hospital? barks pacifist paparazzio @@RANDOMNAME@@, who managed to sneak into your office. What's the point of this character description? What does it add? "ThePhysicians without Frontiers clearly displayed its coordinates. Well, displayed at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory, but that's besides the point! Why is the speaker saying coordinates were "clearly displayed" before dismantling his own argument with some out-of-left-field reference to a lavatory? This is errant information that doesn't really add much. Charge whoever was involved, right up to the person who served the aircraft operator scones the morning before, with war crimes and murder. Justice must prevail!"I thought the problem was being charged with war crimes by an international tribunal.
[effect] international tribunals charging people who accidentally overhead illegal plans with war crimes are is much more frequent please change this effect line. It doesn't even make sense

[option] "They got what they deserved, those bloody-!" rants your racist uncle angrily rants, before launching into a tirade of anti-Blackacrean slurs and expletives. "Yeah, anyways, who cares? If anything, the terrorists are probably scared at our supreme military prowess. Bomb civilians randomly to strike terror into the hearts of our opponents! this line feels forced @@SLOGAN@@!"
[effect] the government fights terrorism with terrorism

It's not a bad premise. However, I feel that this could've used more time drafting before being put on the forum. It generally feels, I don't know, rushed?

Option 2's effect line is good, but I'm not sure about the comma in the middle. I think it works just as well without the comma. Option 1's is iffy. Maybe something like

@@DEMONYM@@ bombers are designed to drop torture instruments and illegal drugs on enemy positions

As for option 3's- it's generally confusing and doesn't make much sense in my opinion. "Accidentally" overhearing "illegal plans" is charged as a war crime "much more frequently"? Maybe something along the lines of

if a tree falls in the forest anyone who might've heard it is charged with conspiracy

Or how about

millions of @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are charged with arson whenever a wildfire breaks out

As for option 4... the entire option feels stilted. That could be said for the entire draft, to be honest. Again, it just feels kinda rushed. As for effect lines for option 4: how about

allies and enemies take shelter side by side when @@DEMONYM@@ aircraft fly overhead

or

the military saves money on targeting systems by highlighting every signature as an enemy combatant

Edit: Ah, I see you put up a new version just as I posted this. Take what you will from it.

Why is the speaker saying coordinates were "clearly displayed" before dismantling his own argument with some out-of-left-field reference to a lavatory?

I appreciate the comments but it appears you are embarrassingly ignorant of the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy

Honeydewistania wrote:

Why is the speaker saying coordinates were "clearly displayed" before dismantling his own argument with some out-of-left-field reference to a lavatory?

I appreciate the comments but it appears you are embarrassingly ignorant of the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy

Eh, it's not the reference in particular that I have an issue with. It's that quite a few of your descriptive comments feel incohesive. Just words for the sake of words.

barks pacifist paparazzo @@RANDOMNAME@@, who managed to sneak into your office

The Physicians without Frontiers clearly displayed its coordinates, and clearly displayed its policy of accepting all unarmed combatants. Well, displayed at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory, but that's besides the point!

I think references are great, so long as they don't feel forced and so long as they actually contribute to the draft instead of feeling like a tangential remark that immediately gets backpedaled while forming the bulk of an option.

In general, this version is much better than the previous one. However, some minor grammar and spelling stuff aside, it just feels... a bit forced, I guess? Like the writing just doesn't flow well.

If anything, the terrorists are probably scared at our supreme military prowess. Bomb civilians randomly to strike terror into the hearts of our opponents!

The internal logic also feels a bit off, though that might just be me. A military base got bombed, and the base was really a hospital? Is @@NAME@@ at war with Blackacre? What is the main conflict here? That a hospital was hiding a terrorist? That Blackacre was hiding a terrorist? That a hospital got bombed? What's the point of option 4? I like the premise. But the execution could definitely use work.

Edit: You should totally call speaker 3 your Minister of Thoughts and Prayers.

Due to unpopular demand, I have removed the racist uncle

Honeydewistania wrote:Due to unpopular demand, I have removed the racist uncle

It's not like a fourth option is necessarily bad. Maybe consider re-adding it if/when you're feeling inspired on how to rework it?

Cretox State wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:Due to unpopular demand, I have removed the racist uncle

It's not like a fourth option is necessarily bad. Maybe consider re-adding it if/when you're feeling inspired on how to rework it?

It felt like a boilerplate extreme option anyway, barely added much to it. But I can consider adding it in the future

Blackacre is classically portrayed as a major military power, not a bunch of ragtag terrorists. They might sponsor foreign terrorists as a form of proxy warfare, but they're unlikely to be performing terrorist operations directly, and a military strike against their soil would be a major international incident regardless of the target. I would suggest changing the nation.

Also, take note of overlap with #386 and #973, which are also about counter-terrorist operations being complicated by the proximity of innocent bystanders (though the options of #386 do a rather poor job of addressing the supposed issue). My first thought on differentiating yourself from those issues was to make it less clear there actually was a terrorist in the hospital and make it more about bombing misidentified targets based on unreliable information, although that might make the choice a little too easy.

I do like the idea of a pro-war-crime option.

Trotterdam wrote:Blackacre is classically portrayed as a major military power, not a bunch of ragtag terrorists. They might sponsor foreign terrorists as a form of proxy warfare, but they're unlikely to be performing terrorist operations directly, and a military strike against their soil would be a major international incident regardless of the target. I would suggest changing the nation.

Also, take note of overlap with #386 and #973, which are also about counter-terrorist operations being complicated by the proximity of innocent bystanders (though the options of #386 do a rather poor job of addressing the supposed issue). My first thought on differentiating yourself from those issues was to make it less clear there actually was a terrorist in the hospital and make it more about bombing misidentified targets based on unreliable information, although that might make the choice a little too easy.

I do like the idea of a pro-war-crime option.

Working on it

Bump

If they bombed the hospital by accident, then that means that the hospital wasn't harbouring terrorists, because they bombed the wrong place

Bump

Is this ready for submission?

Last call bump

Is this ready for submission? Any more feedback? If not I'm submitting in like three days

Bump

As Golgothastan mentioned earlier, the draft could deal with a bit more humor and needs moral ambiguity. It is a war crime to kill civilians -- the first option's character smacks of wilful negligence, while the second character is just moronic. They both seem to be making excuses for your nation targeting a hospital. A bit more research on the Kunduz hospital airstrike and how it came to happen might help in that regard. The crazy stuff can be left to the last option.

I think option 3 requires compensation as well.

The last two options seem needless -- might be better to go with the last one as the one that all eligible nations see.

Electrum wrote:As Golgothastan mentioned earlier, the draft could deal with a bit more humor and needs moral ambiguity. It is a war crime to kill civilians -- the first option's character smacks of wilful negligence, while the second character is just moronic. They both seem to be making excuses for your nation targeting a hospital. A bit more research on the Kunduz hospital airstrike and how it came to happen might help in that regard. The crazy stuff can be left to the last option.

I think option 3 requires compensation as well.

The last two options seem needless -- might be better to go with the last one as the one that all eligible nations see.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll make more edits

Only read the OP, sorry, but my general feel here is that this covers the same ground as 973. Its a different angle, but the same question.