NationStates

“Ambassador Bell, unfortunately, you have my support.”

Fauxia wrote:“Ambassador Bell, unfortunately, you have my support.”

"Wait, what did I do wrong?!"

Ooc:

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Fauxia wrote:“Ambassador Bell, unfortunately, you have my support.”

"Wait, what did I do wrong?!"

Ooc:

Deletes post so that no one votes against

Nah. Luckily, not many people pay any attention to me, and those who do don’t pay much

OOC: So, on review of things I've recently posted, this seems to be where a lot of my stress got dumped. Since I seem to be unable to debate this particular draft without getting snotty, I'm letting this sink for a while until I'm in a better head space. If I bit at your head space here, I apologize.

El bump (Spanish for Bump)

OOC:
Was wondering when this was going to come back, about time.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Was wondering when this was going to come back, about time.

Ooc: had to yank the proverbial stick outta my ass. I was getting waaaaaay too aggressive in the debate and it wasn't healthy for anybody.

"Clause 2 does not say who is doing the fixing. If it is intended to refer to the nation in which the facilities were contained, then the legality of the agressor country's actions would depend solely on the efficiency of the building services of the attacked nation. If, on the other hand, the member-state doing the attacking is meant to be fixing it, you are inviting a hostile force into civilian territory."

Kenmoria wrote:"Clause 2 does not say who is doing the fixing. If it is intended to refer to the nation in which the facilities were contained, then the legality of the agressor country's actions would depend solely on the efficiency of the building services of the attacked nation. If, on the other hand, the member-state doing the attacking is meant to be fixing it, you are inviting a hostile force into civilian territory."

"Clarified. The goal is to force attacking nations to take care in their attacks to either avoid a liability payment or a duty to repair the damage done. Disincentivize recklessness and incentivize caution!"

Ambassador Bell, while supportive of your intent I have some concern that, because this Assembly can impose no requirements on nations that are not members, this proposal will place members at a military disadvantage. A member nation under attack and having its own infrastructure deliberately targeted may not be pleased to be denied the possibility of responding in kind.

In particular this seems to effectively outlaw the use of nuclear weapons, since these are very difficult to use without destroying infrastructure. This is contrary to the settled will of the Assembly and would leave member nations at the mercy of non-members.

In some situations an attack on infrastructure may, by shortening a conflict, reduce the overall suffering, or else serve as a deterrent, leaving a strong utilitarian case for the option to remain open.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Ambassador Bell, while supportive of your intent I have some concern that, because this Assembly can impose no requirements on nations that are not members, this proposal will place members at a military disadvantage. A member nation under attack and having its own infrastructure deliberately targeted may not be pleased to be denied the possibility of responding in kind.

"Ambassador, if you have an enemy that wants to hurt you by targeting children, should you use the same tactic yourself? Yes, this technically puts you at a disadvantage. The same way that not being able to falsely use the white flag of surrender is a disadvantage. Chances are good you weren't doing this to begin with."

In particular this seems to effectively outlaw the use of nuclear weapons, since these are very difficult to use without destroying infrastructure. This is contrary to the settled will of the Assembly and would leave member nations at the mercy of non-members.

"Most nuclear exchanges are not counter-value strikes. By the time a state needs to use counter-value strikes, you've got bigger problems than noncompliance on your hands. I remain unconvinced."

In some situations an attack on infrastructure may, by shortening a conflict, reduce the overall suffering, or else serve as a deterrent, leaving a strong utilitarian case for the option to remain open.

"Shooting civilians could shorten the conflict, too, and potentially net fewer casualties in total. Does that mean we should permit terroristic tactics? This argument is something I'd expect from orcs. Not rational diplomats."

Uan aa Boa wrote:In some situations an attack on infrastructure may, by shortening a conflict, reduce the overall suffering, or else serve as a deterrent, leaving a strong utilitarian case for the option to remain open.

"Ambassador, even the pragmatic argument fails here. Among non-pacifist nations, no attack on civilian infrastructure ever did anything besides kick the victims into Vengeance Overdrive Mode. Where a nation's civilians are under attack, they share some of the suffering and danger of their sons and daughters on the actual battlefield, and war weariness and protest drop essentially to zero. For an extremely well-written fictional account of this phenomenon, see the 'London Blitz' scenario in the popular real-time strategy MMO Real Life."

"Anyway, I have yet to see a valid argument opposing this resolution. We're glad it's back on the table."

"Based on your response to the Uan Aa Boa delegation, am I correct in saying this proposal effectively outlaws nukes?"

IC: Thank you ambassadors. I am anxious now to point out that my nation does not possess weapons of mass destruction and my compatriots are not savages in the theatre of war. I believe very few would oppose this text if it could be adopted as a worldwide agreement but was anticipating objections based on the fact that it would apply only to a small proportion of the nations that exist.

In any case, my concerns have been answered and Uan aa Boa will be happy to support this proposal.

Kenmoria wrote:"Based on your response to the Uan Aa Boa delegation, am I correct in saying this proposal effectively outlaws nukes?"

OOC: It may do, but having looked it up it turns out that the Geneva Conventions ban the use of nukes on civilians. I think Separatist Peoples' point that, in the face of the apocalypse, international law will be the least of anyone's worries is well made. I had perhaps been a little zealous in my reading of the good faith rule.

Kenmoria wrote:"Based on your response to the Uan Aa Boa delegation, am I correct in saying this proposal effectively outlaws nukes?"

"No. But it does effectively limit countervalue strikes. Which is appropriate. We ought not tolerate holding innocent lives hostage in conflict. The goal here is to create a remedy to right the destruction. Either compensate for or rebuild."

Clause 6 is absurd.

I love clause 6.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I love clause 6.

I rest my case

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I love clause 6.

(OOC: Would clause 6 violate the meta gaming rule, in that it references the fact that the member state must co-operate so the proposal fits the category and is thus legal? I'm not at all sure about this, but it looks rather OOC.)

If that's intended to be the final wording of clause 6 then it isn't the most pleasing wording.

Kenmoria wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I love clause 6.

(OOC: Would clause 6 violate the meta gaming rule, in that it references the fact that the member state must co-operate so the proposal fits the category and is thus legal? I'm not at all sure about this, but it looks rather OOC.)

OOC: Minus the struck portion, this is my thinking. Not to be a killjoy or anything, but I feel like we've specifically ruled shenanigans like these illegal in the past.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Would clause 6 violate the meta gaming rule, in that it references the fact that the member state must co-operate so the proposal fits the category and is thus legal? I'm not at all sure about this, but it looks rather OOC.)

OOC: Minus the struck portion, this is my thinking. Not to be a killjoy or anything, but I feel like we've specifically ruled shenanigans like these illegal in the past.

Yeah that is where my absurd comment comes from.

OOC: Bump. Where did we land on this?

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Bump. Where did we land on this?

In a minefield, probably. *crickets*

I still think the category is wrong, but I know that's probably an unpopular opinion among people trying to cram things into IntSec (everyone, since the beginning). What edits did you make today to the OP?

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Bump. Where did we land on this?

In a minefield, probably. *crickets*

I still think the category is wrong, but I know that's probably an unpopular opinion among people trying to cram things into IntSec (everyone, since the beginning). What edits did you make today to the OP?

OOC: precedent suggests the category works.
Also, I deleted the last line that you and SL criticized.