NationStates

"I'm afraid that the present draft underestimates the role of infrastructure and power generation in modern warfare. Destroying roads and blowing up power plants may prove necessary, whether it is done to prevent a fascist aggressor from advancing unimpeded into ones' territory or to disrupt a communications network that is being used to direct a genocide. I could go along with a resolution that restricts the use of force against civilians and civilian infrastructure as a tactic designed to instill terror, but roads, bridges and power stations are sometimes - often, even - legitimate military targets.

The present draft of this proposal would see the heroic members of La Resistance rounded up and convicted for war crimes."

Barrell Marais
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

PARSONS: We concur with our colleagues from Knootoss. The framing of the question as 'what is a valid military target' is much better than my admittedly cursory examination, cut short by some kind of financial crisis. Roads, bridges, and power stations are often legitimate military targets which have significant value when conducting any military movement, be it an offensive, a defensive withdrawal, or operations in enemy-occupied territory.

Knootoss wrote:"I'm afraid that the present draft underestimates the role of infrastructure and power generation in modern warfare. Destroying roads and blowing up power plants may prove necessary, whether it is done to prevent a fascist aggressor from advancing unimpeded into ones' territory or to disrupt a communications network that is being used to direct a genocide. I could go along with a resolution that restricts the use of force against civilians and civilian infrastructure as a tactic designed to instill terror, but roads, bridges and power stations are sometimes - often, even - legitimate military targets.

The present draft of this proposal would see the heroic members of La Resistance rounded up and convicted for war crimes."

Barrell Marais
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

"It's fortunate, then, that this resolution allows states to target infrastructure used by military forces nor not critical to civilian survival. Unless it's the last bridge out of Pompeii, I can't see a bridge or major road falling into either category. As for power generation sites, it's far easier and safer to destroy adjacent or nearby substations or transmission lines to disable the generator rather than destroying the generator itself, thus royally screwing any civilians for the ext several years."

Knootoss wrote:fascist

Neville: Honestly, what is it with the WA's obsession with fascism? Did fascists kill all the Ambassadors' parents?

Fairburn: While it's highly likely that at least one Ambassador's parents were killed by fascists, I'll have to agree with Neville. Fascists are as much a threat nowadays as Communists, Nazis and SJWs.

"Command decisions are always difficult, having to weigh different possibilities against each other. When it comes to infrastructure, the same road that would carry the enemy army towards your capital might be used by civilians fleeing from that advancing force. Do the lives saved by ending a war more quickly count against lives lost by conducting a campaign in the most effective way possible? The present draft does not allow for consideration of these issues.

With regards to power plant, it is a simple fact that plants are bigger and easier to hit. Not every war can be assumed to involve fighter jets wielding precision ammunition in a situation where they have air superiority. And even in this hypothetical scenario the problem remains that substations are much smaller and often located in built-up areas, near the points of distribution. It is also relatively easy to bypass a substation - it can be done in a few hours with a pair of engineers and the right equipment. And is electrical power really necessary for human survival? Again, it depends on the situation.

In answer to Neville - the Dutch Democratic Republic was a pacifist nation that promoted global disarmament until we were invaded by an alliance known as the GDODAD, the Global Dominion of Dictators Against Democracy. They laid waste to our capital and were set to take over the country until our allies rallied and an agreement could be reached to establish a cease-fire. We've good reason to be worried about fascist aggression, having been one of its victims."

Barrell Marais
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

Knootoss wrote:"Command decisions are always difficult, having to weigh different possibilities against each other. When it comes to infrastructure, the same road that would carry the enemy army towards your capital might be used by civilians fleeing from that advancing force. Do the lives saved by ending a war more quickly count against lives lost by conducting a campaign in the most effective way possible? The present draft does not allow for consideration of these issues.

With regards to power plant, it is a simple fact that plants are bigger and easier to hit. Not every war can be assumed to involve fighter jets wielding precision ammunition in a situation where they have air superiority. And even in this hypothetical scenario the problem remains that substations are much smaller and often located in built-up areas, near the points of distribution. It is also relatively easy to bypass a substation - it can be done in a few hours with a pair of engineers and the right equipment. And is electrical power really necessary for human survival? Again, it depends on the situation.

"I would think that, in the case of imprecision weapons, the need to protect infrastructure is that much greater. Electricity may not be critical in a rural, temperate area, but if you were to cut the power off to a city in a cold climate in the winter, that changes the situation. I wrote this to allow exactly that kind of flexibility in decision-making. I also wanted to protect the generation facility exactly because substations are easier to repair. Destroying the main power supply to a major city at the wrong time of year can be a death sentence to civilians if it takes a year to rebuild a plant. I won't accept this notion that it is a net positive to kill a million civilians to save two million later. We shouldn't be waging war in such a manner that makes that choice necessary in the first place. We are better than those who would leverage the suffering of the innocent against an enemy."

In answer to Neville - the Dutch Democratic Republic was a pacifist nation that promoted global disarmament until we were invaded by an alliance known as the GDODAD, the Global Dominion of Dictators Against Democracy. They laid waste to our capital and were set to take over the country until our allies rallied and an agreement could be reached to establish a cease-fire. We've good reason to be worried about fascist aggression, having been one of its victims."

"Fighting like them makes you as bad as them, ambassador. I submit that, if you cannot survive as a morally superior entity, the difference between you and your enemy of old is merely superficial."

Knootoss wrote:"In answer to Neville - the Dutch Democratic Republic was a pacifist nation that promoted global disarmament until we were invaded by an alliance known as the GDODAD, the Global Dominion of Dictators Against Democracy. They laid waste to our capital and were set to take over the country until our allies rallied and an agreement could be reached to establish a cease-fire. We've good reason to be worried about fascist aggression, having been one of its victims."

Neville: Why, then, do you spend most of your time fighting Communists?

I understand the intent behind the draft and will consider some alternative language to allow for a more on-point discussion. At the same time, I cannot reduce the justness of a cause merely to the battlefield tactics used in its defence.

As for Neville, I'd like to point out that most of my career has been spent fighting for transparency, honesty in politics and care for those in need. I also agree with my government that communism, like fascism, is a dangerous and totalitarian ideology. Both are responsible for the death and ruination of billions of innocent lives. Both should be confined to the dustbin of history. People who deny that these ideologies are evil have little standing to lecture anyone else on the finer points of morality."

Barrell Marais
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

"I tucked in a new exception to Clause 1 for short deprivations that are mere inconveniences. If a member state needs to shut off, I don't know, the water supply or electricity to a civilian population for a duration of time that doesn't constitute a risk to health or safety, it isn't illegal. Being without electricity for a day, even in the middle of winter, is generally not a death sentence but an uncomfortable inconvenience. Being without water for twelve hours is frustrating, but will not rise to the level of a crisis. As such, neither should be strictly banned. However, if a denial of power or water, to continue that example, would give rise to a dangerous denial, it should absolutely be banned."

PARSONS: As a Duke of the realm, I hereby make Barrell Marais a baronet of the Duchy of Geneva for services to the Duchy and the protection of the realm.

NORTH: Don't you think there are enough baronets already, given every Duke just makes tons of them every time they need something?

PARSONS: The protection and defence of the realm is as good as a reason as any.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: As a Duke of the realm, I hereby make Barrell Marais a baronet of the Duchy of Geneva for services to the Duchy and the protection of the realm.

NORTH: Don't you think there are enough baronets already, given every Duke just makes tons of them every time they need something?

PARSONS: The protection and defence of the realm is as good as a reason as any.

Fairburn: That's all well and good, Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly, but what does any of this have to do with the draft at hand?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Knootoss wrote:fascist

Neville: Honestly, what is it with the WA's obsession with fascism? Did fascists kill all the Ambassadors' parents?

Fairburn: While it's highly likely that at least one Ambassador's parents were killed by fascists, I'll have to agree with Neville. Fascists are as much a threat nowadays as Communists, Nazis and SJWs.

"Three of those are a serious threat, and the only context for the fourth I am aware of is that Ambassador Schultz was once called one." Blackbourne responds. "Oh, why do I even bother, you aren't listening."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I won't accept this notion that it is a net positive to kill a million civilians to save two million later. We shouldn't be waging war in such a manner that makes that choice necessary in the first place. We are better than those who would leverage the suffering of the innocent against an enemy."

"Better morally, perhaps, but not better at waging war." Blackbourne replies to Bell. "The moral side does not win. The side that is willing to resort to whatever it takes to win is the side that will emerge victorious. You say we shouldn't wage war in a way that makes those decisions necessary. I am afraid it isn't up to us, Sir Bell, the enemy is the one who forces us to take such actions by being relentless, merciless, taking the most rational actions to achieve victory."

"Fighting like them makes you as bad as them, ambassador. I submit that, if you cannot survive as a morally superior entity, the difference between you and your enemy of old is merely superficial."

"An absolutely ridiculous idea, akin to saying that arresting someone who kidnapped people makes you as bad as the kidnapper, or shooting a gunman makes you on the same moral level as the gunman. Fighting the enemy in a way that stops them from committing crimes is never the morally wrong choice. The difference between Excidium Planetis and our enemies is that we stop the crimes after we win, and they will only escalate them."

"I'm really not willing to engage justifications for fighting dirty and killing innocents. Argue it in your drafting threads. I will not consider the argument that "Sometimes you just have to break a few innocent civilian eggs to make a victory omelette". Fighting is, itself, not immoral. Fighting in a way that puts innocents in unnecessary danger is, and I have no intention of pandering to that kind of bloodlust."

Benny boy, Benny boy, not ehhhh not to bad, but let me ax you a thing or two here. One, services that are "exclusively used by civilians". Can you ehhhhh can you gimme an example? Cuz uhhhhh anything I can think of, I can't think of a reason why someone would exclude their soldiers from usin' those same services. Sounds kinda discrim'natory, ain't it? No, sorry, soldier, you can't use dis gas station, or dis bakery, they're only for civvies. Also, ehhh, "infrastructure", you may wanna define that one. Maybe. I think.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Fighting is, itself, not immoral. Fighting in a way that puts innocents in unnecessary danger is, and I have no intention of pandering to that kind of bloodlust."

"I agree, Ambassador Bell, that putting civilians in unnecessary danger is morally wrong. What I am arguing, is that putting civilians in necessary danger, as the only possible course of action to win a war, is morally right. If you cannot agree that when only one option remains to achieve victory against a foe whose actions run contrary to the ideals of this World Assembly, that taking that option is the best course of action, I am afraid, Sir Bell, that you wish to condemn us all to death at the hands of tyrants."

OOC: el bump.

"We admire the continued efforts of the delegation from the CDSP to make conflict somewhat more humane, and support this proposal."

Like many here, The UKP supports the purpose of the proposal. However, we would prefer to see the list of protected civilian services strictly defined, essentially striking "but not limited to". This sort of language is a kind of imprecise laziness that breeds future subjectivity that does not belong in law and future enforcement that could only be described as arbitrary.

Poldark wrote:Like many here, The UKP supports the purpose of the proposal. However, we would prefer to see the list of protected civilian services strictly defined, essentially striking "but not limited to". This sort of language is a kind of imprecise laziness that breeds future subjectivity that does not belong in law and future enforcement that could only be described as arbitrary.

"Considering that list might quickly become outdated over time, we are inclined to allow member's courts to make that distinction for the moment, your Excellency. While water and sewer lines will likely be considered essential to all nations out of self-preservation, as they likely want a similar courtesy extended to them, this delegation is willing to allow flexibility on the topic of, say, fiber optic utility lines for high speed internet connectivity. Some nations will consider that critical. Some nations will not. I would rather leave that question to various court systems rather than bend my head around the impossible problem of defining them all."

"I will repeat the question from Ambassador 53: What services would you say are exclusively used by civilians?"

"We support the proposal as written."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Poldark wrote:Like many here, The UKP supports the purpose of the proposal. However, we would prefer to see the list of protected civilian services strictly defined, essentially striking "but not limited to". This sort of language is a kind of imprecise laziness that breeds future subjectivity that does not belong in law and future enforcement that could only be described as arbitrary.

"Considering that list might quickly become outdated over time, we are inclined to allow member's courts to make that distinction for the moment, your Excellency. While water and sewer lines will likely be considered essential to all nations out of self-preservation, as they likely want a similar courtesy extended to them, this delegation is willing to allow flexibility on the topic of, say, fiber optic utility lines for high speed internet connectivity. Some nations will consider that critical. Some nations will not. I would rather leave that question to various court systems rather than bend my head around the impossible problem of defining them all."

Thank you, Sir. But I fear I'm now confused. Is it to be that local or regional authorities will determine what a critical service is if it is not expressly listed here? That seems unlikely in a law governing the the entire community of WA nations. No?

Excidium Planetis wrote:"I will repeat the question from Ambassador 53: What services would you say are exclusively used by civilians?"

"That isn't determined by the kind of service. It's determined by the situation on the ground. A city with no military presence nor a military base is going to have a number of infrastructure networks that are, by virtue of not being used by a military force, exclusively used by civilians. Most modern military forces deliberately segregate their military and civilian infrastructure for a number of reasons: first, it protects civilians in the events that the war goes tits up. Second, it lets the military forces better control their resources by providing military oversight and prevent sabotage. Third, it prevents overuse by civilians when rationing or scheduled use is necessary.

"Ultimately, most military forces will not be relying on the overwhelming majority of civilian infrastructure. Possible exceptions might be major highways or sewer systems, but the former isn't necessarily critical and the latter isn't valuable as a target. It is up to your intelligence to identify viable and nonviable targets. Which shouldn't be an issue (OOC: Real life nations do this as SOP) for any military force."

Poldark wrote:
Thank you, Sir. But I fear I'm now confused. Is it to be that local or regional authorities will determine what a critical service is if it is not expressly listed here? That seems unlikely in a law governing the the entire community of WA nations. No?

"Nations are the only enforcement mechanism for WA law at the moment, so national court systems have to be the authority for that endeavor."

"Minor edits made. Nothing substantive, just refined for clarity. Also, the category was changed in favor of International Security. The strength is currently Significant, considering the expense and difficulty of considering infrastructure in military planning, but I'm not married to it."

Separatist Peoples wrote:The strength is currently Significant, considering the expense and difficulty of considering infrastructure in military planning, but I'm not married to it.

Harold: Why not? Someone call a vicar!