[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Flibbleites]

Lord Evif looks over at Bob Flibble, mutters something incoherent about NatSovs, and faints.

Hey, I warned people that they might want to sit down.

*the entire Lanosian delegation starts drinking a case of beer*

Well if Bob didn't give us a reason to drink on the job before...

Does this mean I've managed to start a drinking game?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Damanucus]

What I'm about to say may come as a shock to some people, so those people might want to sit down.

I Bob Flibble, author of the NAPA, support this proposal. I have no problems with the WA banning it's members from using WMDs on other WA members.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

A random aide steps up to the microphone for the Damanucan delegation.

Please excuse Miss Orman; you told her to take a seat, and she still fainted to the floor.

Stephanie suddenly pops up from underneath her desk with a loud gasp for air. She raises herself to her desk, and the microphone.

Those smelling salts do work! Now, may I have a beer, my Lanosian friends?

A formerly unconcious

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[The Republic of Lanos]

*passes beer all around*

Now Bob...there's nothing wrong with limiting warfare among members. It's just when you think it's silly to regulate war between members and non-members with only the members being made to comply... *sips* ...it gets troublesome to say the least.

We could support but you know there's those that will break the resolution for the lulz. Why not provide exceptions in the event a WA member attacks another and breaks this?

[Grand America]

*passes beer all around*

Now Bob...there's nothing wrong with limiting warfare among members. It's just when you think it's silly to regulate war between members and non-members with only the members being made to comply... *sips* ...it gets troublesome to say the least.

We could support but you know there's those that will break the resolution for the lulz. Why not provide exceptions in the event a WA member attacks another and breaks this?

"Actually, my good sirs, that wouldn't be the case. See, this proposal limits WMD conflicts between members only. It would not prohibit the use of nuclear and/or other WMDs against non-member states, to allow the WA, who is significantly outnumbered, to remain the dominant player.

In the event that a member-state does break the resolution, there are consequences, which include trade sanctions. On part of the United States, it's likely that we withdraw recognition of government authority."

-John Hampton
United States Department of Foreign Affairs

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories]

An empty vodka bottle narrowly misses the podium.

"Trade sanctions?" slurred a senior aide to the Ambassador for Stalliongrad whilst avidly bashing a shoe on the table. "We need teeth damn it! Possible withdrawal of government recognition ought to be mentioned specificly in the legislation, we can't allow any room for ambiguity. Besides, far too many nations aren't aware of the measures we can and can't take."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Whoops!" said Lord Whittingrey, chuckling gently. "Perseverance, noun: steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc., especially in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement. Wrong word."

Yes, well... quite embarrassing really. I went ahead and changed that. Thanks for the tip.

He paused, and continued more seriously. "We... have a few issues with this proposal. Besides the sanctions vs. deterrence matter that has been agreed on, we are very concerned by the importance of using such weapons against military targets. For instance, nuclear weapons can be used to knock out communications when detonated in the upper atmosphere, and form an important part of our nation's capabilities. Why should all nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons be banned? It could be a very short scale chemical weapon used on the battlefield to temporarily incapacitate half a dozen soldiers. Then why should we be forced to discriminate against large scale weapons when we want to fire upon large scale military targets? Firing billions of conventional weapons is expensive when compared to firing a single fusion-fission warhead used in fighting on the scale of death stars.

Yes, you and I have had this discussion before. Last time you got me to follow along with you, until I realized that this sort of set-up is just a rabbit hole toward making any effort at restricting these weapons totally meaningless. I get that you see value in using WMDs against military targets. Unfortunately, if we start going down that road, before you know it we're talking about what to do if there's a lone general getting his hair cut in a busy metropolis. Now the city has a "military" target and we're free to do whatever we want to them aren't we. I became so befuddled by this logic last time around that I gave up on the whole deal. I've regained composure since then, and I won't be deterred by the same argument.

I simply cannot fathom how to separate legitimate uses from illegitimate ones in a meaningful way. If you want to propose one, I'll listen. But for now I think a total ban on these WMDs is all I can do, and I won't start trying to split hairs to say this use of these weapons is legitimate and this use is not. I'm resolved that the only way these weapons could be "legitimate" is if they were necessary - and I can't think of a good example of them being necessary.

As far as incapacitating the enemy, I made provision for that in my defintion of the weapon. I don't think temporary incapacitation qualifies as serious harm - to the extent that you've got some James-Bond sleepy-time gas, feel free to use it.

You asked me why you should discriminate against large scale weapons when dealing with large scale targets. This sort of question really only has meaning when talking about interstellar war, because nothing in the world can be so large as to only be realistically susceptible to a nuclear weapon. I suppose I simply cannot argue against the spacefaring nations when they ask why I would take away the weapons they need to blow up the moon. I might ask them to be creative when imagining other ways for their military to be effective against large targets. And I'll simply have to resolve myself to losing their vote, or hope that the peaceful ones will see enough good in banning WMDs to put aside the fact that they will no longer be able to launch nukes at their enemy's spaceships and planets.

And anyway, you'll have a lot of trouble distinguishing over what constitutes: (a) a large number of people? One hundred? Two hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? Ten million?... (b) a city? civil centres? (c) severe degradation? A hundred fissile isotopes on average after a year with a half life of ten years?

I understand that I did not set hard and fast numbers. Of course, the last time I did, you objected to their arbitrariness, so I'm unconvinced that you're really trying to help by pointing out that nations will be unable to understand what a "city" is. There's a saying that any terms not defined should be given their ordinary meaning. I think that the words I used are not so specialized as to defy attempts to ascertain their intent.

I think people know what I am getting at when I say "weapon of mass destruction," and when I define it in the terms I use. Maybe those terms should be tweaked a bit here and there, but I don't think it does me any good to go about defining the terms of my definition. Besides, anything I do is bound to have a loophole based on differing definitions. I could define every damn word in the Act and still have somebody say that part of my definition's definition is not properly fleshed out.

We think it would be much better to simply demand that damage to non-combatants be minimized, while continuing to allow entities to use whatever weapons they like against military targets. Therefore we are opposed to the present proposal, although we are generally in favour of trying to limit the use of these weapons."

There's already a resolution that demands limiting the damage to non-combatants. There's already another resolution that allows for criminal sanctions if someone nukes a city (not exactly sure how that got by the Secretariat when we were already supposed to be avoiding damage to non-combatants, but I digress.) I'm not trying to duplicate those resolutions. I'm trying to avoid the use of WMDs in war. If you can think of a way to do that without going down the inevitable slope toward duplication or meaninglessness I discussed earlier, I'm all ears.

I think you misunderstood my point. The committee I envisioned would still judge the validity of using a WMD before it was used in conflict, but would present its decision as a general ruling or precedent rather than a decision specific to the case in question. That way the WA is technically not involving itself in any particular conflict, but simply allowing or disallowing the use of WMDs in all conflicts which meet certain criteria.

Now I'm just confused. You want me to replace the outright ban I've currently got with a committee that rules before the weapon is used (I'm still pretty sure this would contradict Rights and Duties) but whose rulings should be considered a precedent and not "a decision specific to the case in question," is that right? I really don't think you're going to fool the Secretariat with that. Would the nation even be bound by the committee's decision, if it's not "specific" to the case in question? If not, I'm certainly not going to create a committee that nations are free to ignore if they don't get the answer they're looking for.

Well...it's not really an exception. It's not a nuclear weapon. It's a kinetic weapon. It doesn't have all those nasty side effects that nuclear devices do. You can input something about how this only applies to nuclear weapons, but that kinetic weapons are acceptable?
But the U.S. never deploys weapons on massive scales to kill civilians. If innocent people die, it was accidental. The U.S. has a saying, Noncombatants don't die, whether or not the battle is lost.

ICly, the U.S. would have strongly disapproved of the Global Disarmament proposal, simply because we're not pacifist. We're not imperialistic, but we're not pacifist, not to mention it leaves us at a loss, should we ever come across a non-WA nation that declares war. Because of so, the United States would refuse to disarm itself.
And, OoCly, I have a problem with disarmaments. Primarily the fact that not everyone would do it, and the actions of invading aren't on digital text boxes and forums. They're live bullets, and living-to-deceased people. I know for a fact that the U.S. would never disarm itself, should such a proposal come up in the United Nations.

Right now "WMD" is defined in a pretty general way, to cover all kinds of weapons - though the four I really mean (nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological) are spelled out at the end of the definition. Kinetic weapons are not listed directly, but one could imagine that if there was ever a kinetic weapon big enough to destroy a whole city, this Act might cover it. I don't know much about the distinction your making between "kinetic" and "nuclear" weapons. Read the description of WMD and you tell me whether you think these weapons are WMDs. If you don't think they could reasonably be said to fall under the definition, then we're all good and you can use your high yield warheads to your heart's content. If you think they would be covered, let me know and I'll see if we can whittle the definition down a bit so that such weapons might be included.

I'm really after restricting a specific type of weapon here - I think we all have a pretty good idea of what a WMD is even if we can't exactly define it. It's like pornography - hard to describe, exactly, but we know it when we see it. If you think of a weapon, and your gut tells you it's a WMD, it probably is. We still need a definition though, and it's important that we define WMD in a reasonable way so that folks get what we're talking about.

And I'm not going after disarmament. I'm setting up a mutual agreement among members of this Assembly. This resolution says WA members will not use WMDs against each other. You can keep as many of these weapons as you want and nothing in this would prohibit you from using them against those who might use them on you. I don't recommend that you do - in fact, I think you rather shouldn't. But I can't control members outside this body so I'm not going to tie your hands when dealing with them.

Lord Whittingrey stood up and delivered his preliminary response.
"Yes, we must admit that our objections are (unintentionally) leading you a bit up the garden path, in that first we need some Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that by that logic they can't really be limited; as we can't separate legitimate uses from illegitimate ones in a meaningful way. Then there's sensible large scale targets. Then there's either arbitrary values or a lack of definitions.

We feel tempted just to say that's the fault of the proposal at hand, and that if nothing can be done about it then give up any hope of getting support from people like us, and therefore we'll just oppose. However, Libraria and Ausitoria would genuinely like to see a powerful limitation on the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the WA, so let's see if we can do anything to clear up these problems.

Hmmm...." Lord Whittingrey said as he sat down again, holding a pen in his hand, looking over the draft. After a few minutes, he stood up again.

"Well, the real sticking point is Clause 2. Let's remove it for the moment. Now, what can adequately replace it?" He sat down again and started sucking his pen. After thinking hard for twenty minutes and getting a headache, his eyes suddenly lit up, and he scribbled down a few points, before standing up, and continuing:

"We believe it would be a good idea to ban these weapons but to give a few reasonable exemptions. The tricky bit is the 'reasonable' part, but let us make an attempt:

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation, except in the following situations:
a) If the likelihood of any death resulting from the use of the Weapon of Mass Destruction is outside five standard deviations of probability from the mean,
b) If the weapon would at maximum only worsen any other particular natural conditions, such as natural background radiation, by 10% or 10% over the course of a year, as appropriate,
c) If the weapon is more probably than not no more dangerous than anything non-military legally used by or in the nation which is to be targeted by a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and/or
d) If the weapon will more probably than not cause the same or lesser damage than the damage caused by another Weapon that is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction which itself causes the minimum damage possible for the task at hand,

We believe Clause 3 will sufficiently curtail the liberties granted by this proposal, which would allow, for instance, sleeping gas (by c) safely tested to the standards of safety gas used commercially, electromagnetic pulses in the upper atmosphere (by b) as long as they are not excessively powerful, and interstellar warfare with high power fission-fusion bombs against isolated military targets (by d), which is much more reasonable. The standard outlined in (a) is, we understand, the normal scientific standard for a discovery. We think these amendments will make the proposal more suitable, and commend them to the floor."

Lord Whittingrey sat down again, tired beyond words by trying to find something suitable, and curious to see whether his efforts would be useful.

EDIT:
After a few minutes, he stood up again, and added: "Actually, (b) isn't necessary, it's covered in (c) but maybe instead we should have (b) To return a strike by weapons of mass destruction launched by another WA nation."

[Grand America]

"We agree. If the United States were to come under Nuclear Fire by another nation of this World Assembly, we would definitely refuse to sit back and watch as that nation came under just sanctions. That's not enough. Retaliatory nuclear strikes on non-civilian targets would be our first and immediate response, especially if said nuclear weapons were detonated in large population nuclei. While, for the majority, the United States agrees with this proposal, it will not give the necessary delegate approval, nor her vote, should this proposal be submitting without the addition of retaliatory strikes.

Take note, firstly, that we will not be voting against it either.

And secondly, please understand that the United States only says this in the interests of her citizens. If WA nations know that if they strike another nation, they will receive more than just sanctions, if decreases the motivation of said nation to detonate a nuclear device in the first place."

John looked up from his computer, where he was only slightly attending this proposal debate. He was to represent the United States, and make choices on her behalf, and in her interest.
That is exactly what he planned to do.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Wow, I don't come around for one day and look at all the stuff I have to deal with. Okay, a new draft is up. This is a long post so I broke it into sections so that folks can skip to the parts they're interested in (or at least to make it more readable).

Do you define a civilian as a combatant if they directly attack another combatant? If so, then I would have to strongly decide against this resolution for that very reason.

I'm afraid this may require some definition of combatants and non-combatants.

Okay, I've tried to define combatants and non-combatants in a way that most people would agree with. I don't know that I can define it further. I've spelled out that nations must distinguish, and given them some hard guidance on how. Ultimately, it's up to generals and soldiers on the field. But at least nations must have a national policy of treating non-combatants with respect, and they can't say "any child who throws a rock at my soldier is fair game." Please let me know if you think this is sufficient, or if you have suggestions on how to make it better.

Edit: I have been having problems with Dukopolious - of all people - over my definitions in these sections and, quite frankly, I was never too attached to the idea of defining them in the first place. The terms are pretty intuitive, so I'm going to leave it to individual nations to define them for now, unless I get a brilliant idea for an iron clad definition that I think is perfectly apt (or if someone gets that idea and gives it to me). For the curious, the removed definitions are here:

"Combatants" are those individuals actively and intentionally engaging in organized military combat. "Non-combatants" are all other individuals.

"Combat zones" are those areas where military combat has recently occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur in the near future. Non-combat zones are all other areas.

Provision 4 in the recent draft is new. I'd like to hear some feedback on it.

A surprising number of folks have made the argument that member nations might just disobey the law, and use WMDs at their leisure while law abiding nations must simply sigh, shake their heads, and resign themselves to death. It's been said that we need an exception to ensure that we can "deter" such lawbreaking. I find this argument so unsatisfying that I just threw up a little. Though many people have made the argument, I'm going to respond only to Lord Raekevik of Alqania. He and I have a relationship and a history of such arguments, so I know he won't feel abused by my rhetoric. If anyone feels like I did not address their point in my response, please feel free to point that out and I'll address it directly.

The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law.

I cannot believe I'm hearing this argument from someone as senior as Lord Raekevik. Member Nations have a duty to obey international law as a condition of entry into this assembly. What the hell is that requirement worth if member nations may simply violate the law any damn time they choose. Why do we have nations demanding the repeal of On Abortion - or anything else for that matter - if they can just ignore it? Why do we have nations passionately debating these resolution if deep down we know nobody really has to comply with them anyway? This argument is so fundamentally unsatisfying that I am foaming at the mouth over here. What you're saying is that my resolution (or any resolution, really) is flawed because nations can just choose to "enact" the law, then disobey it. I really can't believe I have to address this argument.

But since I must, I'm going to be thorough. What you are claiming is problematic for a number of reasons. I'll give you the high road first. I simply deny your premise that those who would defy the law are not "worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them." Would you have us debase ourselves because of the base nature of others? Nobody - I should think - would argue that we should torture the citizens of another nation because that nation broke international law and tortured ours. Nobody - I should think - would argue that we should execute POWs because another nation broke international law and executed ours. Nobody - I should think - would argue that we should enslave the citizens of another nation because they broke international law and enslaved ours. The tit for tat you suggest may appeal strongly to one's desire for revenge, and you may even consider this position righteous. But as the architects of international law we really should be above such petty resentments.

Of course the people of another nation are entitled to protection against the use of WMDs! We are not justified in unleashing such weapons merely because some evil mind violated international law. Your point relies on a conflation of the government of a nation and its populous. That a wicked general unleashed a biological weapon on your city does not justify removing the protections given to the cities of that nation. We do not kill the other sides bakers, nurses, carpenters, lawyers, and other civilians just because a military controlled by a corrupt government did that to us. In short, Lord Raekevik, the vast majority of people are absolutely deserving of our protection regardless of the wicked acts of some. We make ourselves as wicked as those we seek to condemn by declaring any other principle.

So let me sum up my first point by saying to everyone who argues that we must preserve our right to nuke cities, poison forests, gas hospitals, and irradiate wide swaths of land on the grounds that some nations don't "deserve" that protection: Shame on you. I suppose I may be in the minority on this point, but I simply cannot condone the thought that some people are fair targets for these horrifying weapons because governmental law-breaking has made them unworthy of our international protection.

Next, the pragmatic road. What you're referring to here is a nation that would join the WA for it's protection, then disobey it's laws with one hand while shielding itself behind the law with the other. I know later on you say that a member nation that disobeys any international law should not be entitled to this resolution's protection. I'm going to reject that out of hand and with little argument. Suffice to say, we would not do anything righteous or good if we were to justify unleashing a biological weapon on grounds that a nation's government is not complying with the Patient's Rights Act. So lets talk only about those that would join the WA and violate this resolution by using WMDs, because they think other members cannot fight back.

I suppose what's being imagined here is that a nation would join the WA, then just disobey this resolution to it's heart's content, all the while squealing "you can't tag me back because of the Rules of Engagement resolution!" Lawful nations would have to hang their heads and say, "guess you got us there, we're just gonna go off into the corner and die." That's silly for a number of reasons. First, the nations that would do such a thing are the same nations that would say "I've got an earthquake gun that's undetectable and destroys your whole nation in a nanosecond." We might just respond to this person and say "no you don't." Similarly, if someone joined the WA and then started nuking us, we might just say "no you didn't, the law says you can't and you're a WA nation." In fact, Lord Raekevik, I've heard you give that exact response to many nations on many occasions.

But I suppose that solution is too obvious for some, so lets pretend a nation can join the WA and then start using WMDs on us (they can't, but lets pretend). We'd still have the combined conventional military might of every member nation to deter them. I'm sure every single member would immediately declare war on any dishonest nation that has started dropping WMDs, and they would promptly invade the wrongdoer with their conventional military. Really, they'd have to for national security reasons. So a threat of retaliation - massive retaliation in fact - would still be present even without the threat of nuking towns. So we don't need to threaten that nation's populous with a nuke in order to deter them from such lawbreaking. Of course, I suppose the dishonest nation might do away with our threat of invasion, by saying, "nuh uh. You guys can't invade me because I earthquake-gunned all of your nations yesterday." And we might say, "no, you didn't."

I don't engage in any war - as you might imagine - but if this proposal passed and a member nation ever told me that they were nuking my cities or poisoning my wells, I would just say "Nope. You're a WA member who has an obligation not to do that. You cannot do those things unless you leave." If being a WA member means anything it's that we must assume that our nations are complying with international laws.

Finally, the OOC realism road. I know some will say that in real life a proposal like this would not work, because a nation could just violate the law they agreed to uphold, putting everyone in a position of either also violating the law in retaliation, or not violating the law and being disadvantaged. But in real life, a member nation that tried something like this would promptly be expelled for the international community, where they would be fair game. Game mechanics prevents us from doing that here. But game mechanics also works to our benefit, because if anyone claims to be breaking the law, we can say "no you're not. You're just saying you are, but you can't because WA nations must obey WA laws. Now, you can quit the WA, and then I'll take your claims seriously - and respond accordingly. But right now all I'm hearing are the inane babbling of a mental patient."

Now, all that aside, I know my argument - though correct - will not appease anyone. They will say "member nations are going to say that they are breaking the law, and I don't want to go OOC and say that they can't. I want an IC response that will let me deter that nation with a WMD strike of my own." First of all, be sensible. You're not going to convince those nations (that would violate international law) by threatening response in kind. These are the extremists of the NationStates World - the nations that cannot be reasoned with. If the very real threat of a conventional military retaliation by member nations who think the wrongdoer is an untrustworthy liar doesn't get the wrongdoer into line, I doubt anything else will. But given the wide spread belief that this is a real issue, I've included a provision that I think will solve the problem. I cannot announce that it is okay to retaliate, but I can say the provisions of this resolution will not protect those that will violate the same provisions. This is as far as I will go, and I will be asking the Secretariat for a legality ruling on whether that provision is even necessary. If they say that WA members must obey the letter of the law, I will delete that provision regardless of how many folks support it. Because really, I feel stupid for having to include it, as if I must do so to stop others from cheating at the game.

Frankly, I expect every half-decent ambassador to rise-up and demand that the new provision be removed. More than that, they should demand that the provision be stepped on, burned, sealed into a vault, and shot into the sun. Otherwise, you're saying that you believe member nations are free to just ignore WA resolutions whenever they please. And if that's how you feel, why the hell do you hang out in this Assembly?

This is a response to a post by Libraria and Ausitoria about a number of exceptions to the ban that they would have me include.

"Yes, we must admit that our objections are (unintentionally) leading you a bit up the garden path, in that first we need some Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that by that logic they can't really be limited; as we can't separate legitimate uses from illegitimate ones in a meaningful way. Then there's sensible large scale targets. Then there's either arbitrary values or a lack of definitions.

We feel tempted just to say that's the fault of the proposal at hand, and that if nothing can be done about it then give up any hope of getting support from people like us, and therefore we'll just oppose. However, Libraria and Ausitoria would genuinely like to see a powerful limitation on the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the WA, so let's see if we can do anything to clear up these problems.

Hmmm...." Lord Whittingrey said as he sat down again, holding a pen in his hand, looking over the draft. After a few minutes, he stood up again.

"Well, the real sticking point is Clause 2. Let's remove it for the moment. Now, what can adequately replace it?" He sat down again and started sucking his pen. After thinking hard for twenty minutes and getting a headache, his eyes suddenly lit up, and he scribbled down a few points, before standing up, and continuing:

I'd also like to stop here for a moment. You're asking me to remove the most important clause of my resolution and replace it with something else. You know I'm going to be quite critical of any attempt to weaken this provision, so I hope whatever comes next is damn good.

"We believe it would be a good idea to ban these weapons but to give a few reasonable exemptions. The tricky bit is the 'reasonable' part, but let us make an attempt:

I must instantly remind you that just a moment ago you acknowledged that "we can't separate legitimate uses from illegitimate ones in a meaningful way." I don't know why you suddenly feel brave enough to try, but I'll hear you out. Though I'm going to be very very critical.

2. Member Nations are prohibited from using WMDs in any conflict with another member nation, except in the following situations:
a) If the likelihood of any death resulting from the use of the Weapon of Mass Destruction is outside five standard deviations of probability from the mean,

What the hell does that even mean? Can anyone explain to me what it signifies if the resultant "likelihood of any death" is "outside five standard deviations of probability from the mean?" What the hell is the "mean" likelihood of death? 100%? This has more problems than I can count. Let's just assume what you intend here is that if a WMD has a significantly low "likelihood of death," it's okay to use it in some situation. First of all, I'm not just trying to prevent death by WMDs. Some of the most significant moral problems with WMDs stems from what they do to those that survive them. So this is wholly unacceptable on that level - since it allows the use of WMDs if the probably of death is very low even if the probability of severe chemical burns is 100%. I've already made it clear in the definition that if a weapon is not causing indiscriminate serious damage and death, it's probably okay. I see no need to water that down even further with this incomprehensible exception.

b) If the weapon would at maximum only worsen any other particular natural conditions, such as natural background radiation, by 10% or 10% over the course of a year, as appropriate,

Why are you being arbitrary? You once scolded me for my attachment to arbitrary numbers, why is doing so suddenly appropriate? Where did 10% come from? Why not 11%? Why not 9%? And who the hell in the military is going to do a comprehensive ecological study of a particular biosphere before dropping a WMD? Practical considerations make this unworkable. Frankly, if a weapon is designed to do damage to an ecosystem, it's out. I don't care if it's designed to "only worsen natural conditions by 10% over the course of a year."

And why do you think I'm so stupid as to miss what this provision would do? A weapon that would "only" worsen the environment by 10% "over the course of a year" would eventually make an area unlivable after many years had past. 10% per year may not sound like much to you, but at the end of the day you're asking for an exception that would completely swallow the rule; your provision would allow weapons that cause complete ecosystem breakdown so long as they do so over a period of years rather than all at once. You obviously did not think this through, or you have a very low opinion of my reading comprehension skills. Either way, I'm going to assume from this point forward that you probably have nothing useful to contribute.

c) If the weapon is more probably than not no more dangerous than anything non-military legally used by or in the nation which is to be targeted by a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and/or

"More probably than not no more dangerous than anything non-military legally used?" It is not worth my time to translate your gibberish into English. I think what you're saying is that a nation may use any weapon that is "probably" only as destructive as something an enemy nation possesses for non-military use. I don't care if a nation uses a particular pesticide in farming that - in large doses - would kill entire cities. You CANNOT use that pesticide as a weapon of indiscriminate death in war with another member nation. The fact that you would ask for this exception is horrifying. Truly horrifying. I don't care what non-military uses a thing has. If it kills or injures indiscriminately, I'm not going to approve it's use as a weapon. Not in any resolution that bears my name.

There's a saying in the military: "If something happens once, it's an accident. Twice, it's a coincidence. Three times? Enemy action." You've now proposed three purposefully deceptive provisions that would completely eviscerate everything I'm trying to do. So I'm going to assume you're doing it on purpose. I do not appreciate being treated that way. Do not count on my respect if you will not offer any of your own.

d) If the weapon will more probably than not cause the same or lesser damage than the damage caused by another Weapon that is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction which itself causes the minimum damage possible for the task at hand,

Like everything else you've written, this is utterly meaningless. If a certain weapon causes "the same or less damage" than a weapon that is not a weapon of mass destruction, it's not a weapon of mass destruction. If I wasn't sick of your suggestions, I'd really wonder what you think this provision does. Perhaps you think you're creating a clever loophole with your "more probably than not" BS.

The way WMD is currently defined, any weapon that is designed to cause widespread, indiscriminate damage is right out. This provision says that if a weapon does less than that, it should be okay. My resolution doesn't need this provision to protect such weapons; it does so already.

We believe Clause 3 will sufficiently curtail the liberties granted by this proposal, which would allow, for instance, sleeping gas (by c) safely tested to the standards of safety gas used commercially, electromagnetic pulses in the upper atmosphere (by b) as long as they are not excessively powerful, and interstellar warfare with high power fission-fusion bombs against isolated military targets (by d), which is much more reasonable. The standard outlined in (a) is, we understand, the normal scientific standard for a discovery. We think these amendments will make the proposal more suitable, and commend them to the floor."

Lord Whittingrey sat down again, tired beyond words by trying to find something suitable, and curious to see whether his efforts would be useful.

I want to believe that Lord Whittingrey did try himself to exhaustion attempting to craft a useful compromise. I'm sad to say that I found these suggestions useful only to sharpen my resolve at restricting national use of such weapons where I can.

Sanctaria suggested that the name of the act is misleading. I really don't think so, and I've set up a poll to test that. I'd like anyone invested in this debate to please voice their opinion. You may want to see this thing fail, but we can all agree that pass or fail, it should be given an appropriate title.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: Forgot to mention, I bumped up the Sanctions provision from "permits" to "strongly encourages." I'm either going to leave that provision as "strong encouragement" or - if the Secretariat says it violates WA neutrality - take it out entirely.

Best Regards.

[Auralia]

3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. "Combatants" are those individuals actively and intentionally engaging in organized military combat. "Non-combatants" are all other individuals. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from doing any violence to non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

4. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combat zones and non-combat zones. "Combat zones" are those areas where military combat has recently occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur in the near future. Non-combat zones are all other areas. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to notify individuals that they are entering or leaving a combat zone, to the greatest extent possible without undermining the mission at hand.

Can you turn this into a separate proposal? I would vote for this on its own, but not with the WMD provisions attached.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Can you turn this into a separate proposal? I would vote for this on its own, but not with the WMD provisions attached.

Maybe. You're the first person to ask, and I'm not sure those stand on their own. Earlier a couple other nations told me that those provisions are very important to the overall package I'm presenting. But if enough people share your view I might separate them from the WMD stuff.

[Auralia]

Can you turn this into a separate proposal? I would vote for this on its own, but not with the WMD provisions attached.

Maybe. You're the first person to ask, and I'm not sure those stand on their own. Earlier a couple other nations told me that those provisions are very important to the overall package I'm presenting. But if enough people share your view I might separate the two. I'm interested in both, after all.

OOC: Why not expand on these provisions and create the equivalent of the Geneva Convention for the WA? I'd even help if you wanted. I would still separate the WMD provisions, because I feel that those are going to be far more controversial than rules governing warfare in general.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

OOC: Why not expand on these provisions and create the equivalent of the Geneva Convention for the WA? I'd even help if you wanted. I would still separate the WMD provisions, because I feel that those are going to be far more controversial than rules governing warfare in general.

I'll think about it... like I said, I've had other folks insist that those provisions are important to the overall aims of this Act. I really didn't set out to only affect WMDs, I set out to make war between member nations cleaner in general. Those provisions help me do that. We'll see what others say though; I'm not oblivious to the fact that nobody is paying much attention to those provisions... everyone wants to talk about WMDs.

[Auralia]

OOC: Why not expand on these provisions and create the equivalent of the Geneva Convention for the WA? I'd even help if you wanted. I would still separate the WMD provisions, because I feel that those are going to be far more controversial than rules governing warfare in general.

I'll think about it... like I said, I've had other folks insist that those provisions are important to the overall aims of this Act. I really didn't set out to only affect WMDs, I set out to make war between member nations cleaner in general. Those provisions help me do that. We'll see what others say though; I'm not oblivious to the fact that nobody is paying much attention to those provisions... everyone wants to talk about WMDs.

WMDs aren't used that often, so I'm not sure why they're critical to an act whose purpose is to define the rules of engagement. Regulating conventional warfare would be my top priority. Anyway, I suppose you're right; it would be best to wait for input from other nations.

By the way, I'm rescinding my earlier decision to no longer comment on this proposal. This is starting to get interesting...

[Cowardly Pacifists]

WMDs aren't used that often, so I'm not sure why they're critical to an act whose purpose is to define the rules of engagement. Regulating conventional warfare would be my top priority. Anyway, I suppose you're right; it would be best to wait for input from other nations.

By the way, I'm rescinding my earlier decision to no longer comment on this proposal. This is starting to get interesting...

It's been interesting the whole time.

And did you really ever abide by your "earlier decision to no longer comment?"

The term "rules of engagement" refers to those responses that are permitted in military conflict, including political guidance for those directing military action. I still think the term is appropriate. But we'll see what others think.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Terratories]

A surprising number of folks have made the argument that member nations might just disobey the law, and use WMDs at their leisure while law abiding nations must simply sigh, shake their heads, and resign themselves to death. It's been said that we need an exception to ensure that we can "deter" such lawbreaking. I find this argument so unsatisfying that I just threw up a little. Though many people have made the argument, I'm going to respond only to Lord Raekevik of Alqania. He and I have a relationship and a history of such arguments, so I know he won't feel abused by my rhetoric. If anyone feels like I did not address their point in my response, please feel free to point that out and I'll address it directly.

The Queendom finds this proposal most interesting. However, we cannot ignore that there are fellow member states, truly worthy of condemnation, that show an utter disregard and contempt for the letter of the law and violate both their own laws and international law whenever it suits them. We cannot say that these member states are worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them. The Queendom would therefore prefer if the proposal were somehow edited to restrict these protections to member states that fulfil their obligations under international law.

I cannot believe I'm hearing this argument from someone as senior as Lord Raekevik. Member Nations have a duty to obey international law as a condition of entry into this assembly. What the hell is that requirement worth if member nations may simply violate the law any damn time they choose. Why do we have nations demanding the repeal of On Abortion - or anything else for that matter - if they can just ignore it? Why do we have nations passionately debating these resolution if deep down we know nobody really has to comply with them anyway? This argument is so fundamentally unsatisfying that I am foaming at the mouth over here. What you're saying is that my resolution (or any resolution, really) is flawed because nations can just choose to "enact" the law, then disobey it. I really can't believe I have to address this argument.

But since I must, I'm going to be thorough. What you are claiming is problematic for a number of reasons. I'll give you the high road first. I simply deny your premise that those who would defy the law are not "worthy of the protection that this proposal would offer them." Would you have us debase ourselves because of the base nature of others? Nobody - I should think - would argue that we should torture the citizens of another nation because that nation broke international law and tortured ours. Nobody - I should think - would argue that we should execute POWs because another nation broke international law and executed ours. Nobody - I should think - would argue that we should enslave the citizens of another nation because they broke international law and enslaved ours. The tit for tat you suggest may appeal strongly to one's desire for revenge, and you may even consider this position righteous. But as the architects of international law we really should be above such petty resentments.

Of course the people of another nation are entitled to protection against the use of WMDs! We are not justified in unleashing such weapons merely because some evil mind violated international law. Your point relies on a conflation of the government of a nation and its populous. That a wicked general unleashed a biological weapon on your city does not justify removing the protections given to the cities of that nation. We do not kill the other sides bakers, nurses, carpenters, lawyers, and other civilians just because a military controlled by a corrupt government did that to us. In short, Lord Raekevik, the vast majority of people are absolutely deserving of our protection regardless of the wicked acts of some. We make ourselves as wicked as those we seek to condemn by declaring any other principle.

So let me sum up my first point by saying to everyone who argues that we must preserve our right to nuke cities, poison forests, gas hospitals, and irradiate wide swaths of land on the grounds that some nations don't "deserve" that protection: Shame on you. I suppose I may be in the minority on this point, but I simply cannot condone the thought that some people are fair targets for these horrifying weapons because governmental law-breaking has made them unworthy of our international protection.

Next, the pragmatic road. What you're referring to here is a nation that would join the WA for it's protection, then disobey it's laws with one hand while shielding itself behind the law with the other. I know later on you say that a member nation that disobeys any international law should not be entitled to this resolution's protection. I'm going to reject that out of hand and with little argument. Suffice to say, we would not do anything righteous or good if we were to justify unleashing a biological weapon on grounds that a nation's government is not complying with the Patient's Rights Act. So lets talk only about those that would join the WA and violate this resolution by using WMDs, because they think other members cannot fight back.

I suppose what's being imagined here is that a nation would join the WA, then just disobey this resolution to it's heart's content, all the while squealing "you can't tag me back because of the Rules of Engagement resolution!" Lawful nations would have to hang their heads and say, "guess you got us there, we're just gonna go off into the corner and die." That's silly for a number of reasons. First, the nations that would do such a thing are the same nations that would say "I've got an earthquake gun that's undetectable and destroys your whole nation in a nanosecond." We might just respond to this person and say "no you don't." Similarly, if someone joined the WA and then started nuking us, we might just say "no you didn't, the law says you can't and you're a WA nation." In fact, Lord Raekevik, I've heard you give that exact response to many nations on many occasions.

But I suppose that solution is too obvious for some, so lets pretend a nation can join the WA and then start using WMDs on us (they can't, but lets pretend). We'd still have the combined conventional military might of every member nation to deter them. I'm sure every single member would immediately declare war on any dishonest nation that has started dropping WMDs, and they would promptly invade the wrongdoer with their conventional military. Really, they'd have to for national security reasons. So a threat of retaliation - massive retaliation in fact - would still be present even without the threat of nuking towns. So we don't need to threaten that nation's populous with a nuke in order to deter them from such lawbreaking. Of course, I suppose the dishonest nation might do away with our threat of invasion, by saying, "nuh uh. You guys can't invade me because I earthquake-gunned all of your nations yesterday." And we might say, "no, you didn't."

I don't engage in any war - as you might imagine - but if this proposal passed and a member nation ever told me that they were nuking my cities or poisoning my wells, I would just say "Nope. You're a WA member who has an obligation not to do that. You cannot do those things unless you leave." If being a WA member means anything it's that we must assume that our nations are complying with international laws.

Finally, the OOC realism road. I know some will say that in real life a proposal like this would not work, because a nation could just violate the law they agreed to uphold, putting everyone in a position of either also violating the law in retaliation, or not violating the law and being disadvantaged. But in real life, a member nation that tried something like this would promptly be expelled for the international community, where they would be fair game. Game mechanics prevents us from doing that here. But game mechanics also works to our benefit, because if anyone claims to be breaking the law, we can say "no you're not. You're just saying you are, but you can't because WA nations must obey WA laws. Now, you can quit the WA, and then I'll take your claims seriously - and respond accordingly. But right now all I'm hearing are the inane babbling of a mental patient."

Now, all that aside, I know my argument - though correct - will not appease anyone. They will say "member nations are going to say that they are breaking the law, and I don't want to go OOC and say that they can't. I want an IC response that will let me deter that nation with a WMD strike of my own." First of all, be sensible. You're not going to convince those nations (that would violate international law) by threatening response in kind. These are the extremists of the NationStates World - the nations that cannot be reasoned with. If the very real threat of a conventional military retaliation by member nations who think the wrongdoer is an untrustworthy liar doesn't get the wrongdoer into line, I doubt anything else will. But given the wide spread belief that this is a real issue, I've included a provision that I think will solve the problem. I cannot announce that it is okay to retaliate, but I can say the provisions of this resolution will not protect those that will violate the same provisions. This is as far as I will go, and I will be asking the Secretariat for a legality ruling on whether that provision is even necessary. If they say that WA members must obey the letter of the law, I will delete that provision regardless of how many folks support it. Because really, I feel stupid for having to include it, as if I must do so to stop others from cheating at the game.

Frankly, I expect every half-decent ambassador to rise-up and demand that the new provision be removed. More than that, they should demand that the provision be stepped on, burned, sealed into a vault, and shot into the sun. Otherwise, you're saying that you believe member nations are free to just ignore WA resolutions whenever they please. And if that's how you feel, why the hell do you hang out in this Assembly?

"You raise valid points." Ambassador Ironhoof for Stalliongrad says, standing up. "However, as you have pointed out, many nations are not satisfied without this provision in the bill. Frankly, it makes it more palateable, and molifies more aggressive states somewhat. I don't believe that it is necessary for the bill to be workable, but it may well be vital to the bill passing the assembly. Unfortunate as it is, many nations (possibly including some heavyweight regional delegates), will not go through the somewhat arduous process of reviewing the construction of bills before voting on them. As excellent as your arguments are, many (likely most) nations will not hear them before casting their votes."

OOC: It also gives law-abiding nations something direct to show to lawbreakers and voters for future condemnations, not to mention making mod's lives easier.

[Dukopolious]

Opposed on all grounds. Excellently written Delegate, I commend you for that, but this draft in it's entirety is heavily opposed. And we all know this is about stopping WMDs from being used, why not simply state that?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

"You raise valid points." Ambassador Ironhoof for Stalliongrad says, standing up. "However, as you have pointed out, many nations are not satisfied without this provision in the bill. Frankly, it makes it more palateable, and molifies more aggressive states somewhat. I don't believe that it is necessary for the bill to be workable, but it may well be vital to the bill passing the assembly. Unfortunate as it is, many nations (possibly including some heavyweight regional delegates), will not go through the somewhat arduous process of reviewing the construction of bills before voting on them. As excellent as your arguments are, many (likely most) nations will not hear them before casting their votes."

OOC: It also gives law-abiding nations something direct to show to lawbreakers and voters for future condemnations, not to mention making mod's lives easier.

I think the provision I added will likely appease more sensible nations, and I'm glad to hear it appeases yours. It makes me very happy to know I drafted something that I could live with if I had to, and that also bridges the gap with some resistant nations.

However, I firmly believe that the protections provided by this resolution should not be withheld from innocent civilians because of the actions of those most detestable villains that would join this assembly and blatantly violate its laws. The fact that I must bend the resolution from what I consider a more perfect form in order to account for such nonsense is quite difficult for me. If provision 8 is unnecessary as a matter of law, I'm not inclined to include it.

That said, I certainly understand (and agree) with your point on pragmatics. But really, it's hard enough for me to bend this proposal to account for cheaters. I really don't want to bend it for those nations too lazy or stupid to understand what the resolution does.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Opposed on all grounds. Excellently written Delegate, I commend you for that, but this draft in it's entirety is heavily opposed. And we all know this is about stopping WMDs from being used, why not simply state that?

Sigh... read it again Duke. I think you'll find yourself less opposed if you read it again.

[Dukopolious]

Opposed on all grounds. Excellently written Delegate, I commend you for that, but this draft in it's entirety is heavily opposed. And we all know this is about stopping WMDs from being used, why not simply state that?

Sigh... read it again Duke. I think you'll find yourself less opposed if you read it again.

We oppose this for 2 reasons:
-We can not take politicians, diplomats, enemy national leaders, spies, etc prisoner
-Our nation is a Stratocracy meaning almost everyone is technically a combatant, therefore this would legalize and not oppose killing basically everyone in my country.

Also, you should be able to hurt non-combatants in self defence, or if they pose a security threat. Fix this, and we will happily consider support.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

We oppose this for 2 reasons:
-We can not take politicians, diplomats, enemy national leaders, spies, etc prisoner
-Our nation is a Stratocracy meaning almost everyone is technically a combatant, therefore this would legalize and not oppose killing basically everyone in my country.

Also, you should be able to hurt non-combatants in self defense, or if they pose a security threat. Fix this, and we will happily consider support.

No I think I'll leave it as is. You want the power to take civilians prisoner? You're out of your mind! I defined combatant in a way that makes it clear your bureaucrats will not be in danger if they are not participating in organized military exercises, and I'm not in the mood to explain that to you any further.

In any case, I kinda like that you oppose this resolution. That helps me know I'm on the right track. And somehow I feel like having Dukopolious in opposition will attract far more supporters than opponents.

[Dukopolious]

We oppose this for 2 reasons:
-We can not take politicians, diplomats, enemy national leaders, spies, etc prisoner
-Our nation is a Stratocracy meaning almost everyone is technically a combatant, therefore this would legalize and not oppose killing basically everyone in my country.

Also, you should be able to hurt non-combatants in self defense, or if they pose a security threat. Fix this, and we will happily consider support.

No I think I'll leave it as is. You want the power to take civilians prisoner? You're out of your mind! I defined combatant in a way that makes it clear your bureaucrats will not be in danger if they are not participating in organized military exercises, and I'm not in the mood to explain that to you any further.

In any case, I kinda like that you oppose this resolution. That helps me know I'm on the right track. And somehow I feel like having Dukopolious in opposition will attract far more supporters than opponents.

Do not allow states to imprison Civilians, allow them to imprison state officials. Such as politicians and national leaders, this can easily save lives (As the alternate is often executing them) and it can easily shorten wars.

As for my defence argument, militants should be allowed to fight back against civilians that may harm them. I'm saying for defensive purposes only, militants should be allowed to engage civilians.

[Teutonic Territories]

I want to thank the people of Glen-Rhodes and the sentient woodland critters of Bears Armed for the insights that lead to this draft. I want to especially thank the United Celts and Dukopolious for engaging in the debate that helped me refine my ideals on this subject. Edit: I was asked to retract my thanks to the United Celts.


3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. "Combatants" are those individuals actively and intentionally engaging in organized military combat. "Non-combatants" are all other individuals. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from doing any violence to non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

This clause presents some issues. First of all, the word "Intentionally" referring to the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is unacceptable. Whether they mean to or not, causing harm to our troops makes them a combatant.
3b. Enemy scientists, enemy politicians, enemy arms manufacturers; There are important non-military people who should be taken hostage.

[Dukopolious]

I want to thank the people of Glen-Rhodes and the sentient woodland critters of Bears Armed for the insights that lead to this draft. I want to especially thank the United Celts and Dukopolious for engaging in the debate that helped me refine my ideals on this subject. Edit: I was asked to retract my thanks to the United Celts.


3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. "Combatants" are those individuals actively and intentionally engaging in organized military combat. "Non-combatants" are all other individuals. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from doing any violence to non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

This clause presents some issues. First of all, the word "Intentionally" referring to the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is unacceptable. Whether they mean to or not, causing harm to our troops makes them a combatant.
3b. Enemy scientists, enemy politicians, enemy arms manufacturers; There are important non-military people who should be taken hostage.

Don't say hostage, that implies you will use them against the nation. Prisoner is the correct term.

But other than that, i fully agree with the above statement.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. "Combatants" are those individuals actively and intentionally engaging in organized military combat. "Non-combatants" are all other individuals. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from doing any violence to non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

This clause presents some issues. First of all, the word "Intentionally" referring to the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is unacceptable. Whether they mean to or not, causing harm to our troops makes them a combatant.
3b. Enemy scientists, enemy politicians, enemy arms manufacturers; There are important non-military people who should be taken hostage.

Can you give me an example of someone "unintentionally" engaging in organized military combat? Look, I don't care if a little girl runs up and kicks your soldier in the shins. You don't get to consider her a combatant.

I might agree with you about enemy scientists, politicians and arms manufacturers, however. This is why I did not want to define these terms in the first place. But since I have included a definition, would you care to suggest a more appropriate definition that would exclude the groups you want while still protecting others?

Don't say hostage, that implies you will use them against the nation. Prisoner is the correct term.

Duke is correct, a hostage is a person secured by force in order to secure the taker's demands. I guess technically I didn't say anything about taking non-combatants prisoner. If I included a provision preventing nations from taking non-combatants prisoner "except where there is probably cause to believe they have committed a crime," would that appease anyone?

[Damanucus]

I would just make one small suggestion: put all your definitions in the one place.

I want to thank the people of Glen-Rhodes and the sentient woodland critters of Bears Armed for the insights that lead to this draft. I want to especially thank the United Celts and Dukopolious for engaging in the debate that helped me refine my ideals on this subject. Edit: I was asked to retract my thanks to the United Celts.


3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. "Combatants" are those individuals actively and intentionally engaging in organized military combat. "Non-combatants" are all other individuals. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from doing any violence to non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

This clause presents some issues. First of all, the word "Intentionally" referring to the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is unacceptable. Whether they mean to or not, causing harm to our troops makes them a combatant.
3b. Enemy scientists, enemy politicians, enemy arms manufacturers; There are important non-military people who should be taken hostage.

I think the delegate from the Teutonic Territories may have applied one of the many interpretations of the clause. Depending on your interpretation, anyone who supplies weaponry or engages troops in battle could be described as actively engaging in combat, even if not directly.

However, I do stop at the "causing harm to troops". Are you prepared to shoot a protestor of war if they throw a rock at a soldier?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus