Advertisement
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:15 pm
by Hatterleigh » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:19 pm
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:52 pm
Hatterleigh wrote:While you were out partying, I studied the blade...
In all seriousness though, this seems like most of the atrocious war crimes that can be commited with blades can already be commited to a much more dangerous degree with a sleuth of other weapons, and most of these are considered war crimes. It isn't that there's really a signifigant downside to this law, but is it that beneficial on it's own, especially when you think of all the side affects as stated in above comments?
by Christian Democrats » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:31 pm
Recheve wrote:I've officially submitted the Proposal in its final form, with amendments to the regulations regarding anointed blades. However, feel free to continue commenting!
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Wallenburg » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:38 pm
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:43 pm
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:53 pm
Wallenburg wrote:What does "Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two sharpened edges converging to a singular point" mean?
by Christian Democrats » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:58 pm
Recheve wrote:so is there a cooldown period, or can I wait a week or so and submit again?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Wallenburg » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:01 pm
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:13 pm
Wallenburg wrote:So let me get this straight: you want to ban bayonets, spears, pikes, spikes, and all other manner of weapons because...actually, why are these weapons so awful? Sure, they are painful, but painless warfare doesn't exist.
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:19 pm
by Wallenburg » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:25 pm
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:38 pm
Wallenburg wrote:You are sorely mistaken. The triangle shape of many bayonets, particularly early ones, was not intended to cause excessive pain or to keep the wound from being fixed. Rather, it is an easier shape to produce in large quantities, and makes the blade stronger, heavier, and more durable.
The real factor in whether a bayonet wound closes up easily is how the soldier uses it.
by Wallenburg » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:42 pm
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:48 pm
Wallenburg wrote:You are sorely mistaken.
by Wallenburg » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:50 pm
Recheve wrote:Wallenburg wrote:You are sorely mistaken.
I'll include here a few links you can locate with a quick search. There are certainly plenty of differing opinions on message boards, but generally I find their opinion to be misleading. I'm willing to place my trust in the historians I experienced during my experiences with the Guard, but here's an article from the National Park Service which I believe reinforces my point somewhat. However, there's very few trustworthy sources from what I can see.
National Park Service
The major advantage to the socket bayonet was that the musket could still be fired while the bayonet was attached. To overcome the fact that not all soldiers used the same weapon, or weapons with the same barrel sizes, the socket bayonet was modified to have a split down the side. An intentional slit running the entire length of the socket allowed for an adjustable fit of the socket to the size of the barrel. Unlike the plug bayonet, the socket and split-socket bayonets had three edges, giving them the name “triangular bayonets”. Given forging processes at the time, a triangular blade was easier to create, and offered increased stability from a two sided or knife blade bayonet without much additional weight.
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:53 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Well, IC Wallenburg isn't going to support a proposal that openly states a goal of reducing the combat effectiveness of her troops and those of other member nations.
On another note, what's with clause 3? Many blades are grooved to strengthen the structure of the blade, much like an I-beam is stronger than a solid rectangle. Under the language of clause 3, those blades would be banned.
by Recheve » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:00 pm
by The New California Republic » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:12 am
by Recheve » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:11 am
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: As I have previously said, I didn't like the first draft. The current draft is still problematic, for the reasons that have already been outlined by others. I still think that the reasoning behind this is flawed, in that there is no real evidence to suggest that certain bladed weapons are more deadly than any others, the decisive factor is usually how they are used, what part of the body they strike, and how many times they strike.
by The New California Republic » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:00 am
Recheve wrote:The New California Republic wrote:OOC: As I have previously said, I didn't like the first draft. The current draft is still problematic, for the reasons that have already been outlined by others. I still think that the reasoning behind this is flawed, in that there is no real evidence to suggest that certain bladed weapons are more deadly than any others, the decisive factor is usually how they are used, what part of the body they strike, and how many times they strike.
Consider the difference between a jacketed bullet and a hollow-point bullet. The jacketed bullet is more effective and can kill just as well as the hollow-point, but the effects of a hollow-point are significantly more painful and devastating to the victim. Yes, a standard bullet still obviously hurts people, and you can commit warcrimes just the same with a jacketed bullet as you can with a hollow-point.
However the brutality of a hollow-point is unjustified in modern warfare, and thus is banned from use in international warfare by The Hague Convention of 1899. The relationship between modern blades and triangular, fluted, or barbed blades is extremely similar, except the effects of the latter are significantly worse than anything a hollow-point bullet can do. They would almost certainly be banned if they had not fallen out of use in favour of more versatile blades.
by Recheve » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:06 am
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: To be honest I think there is a lot more merit in drafting a WA Resolution to ban Dum Dum bullets, than there is to ban certain kinds of knives. There are far more pressing issues for the WA, than banning certain types of knives and other stabbing implements carried by soldiers.
by The New California Republic » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:16 am
Recheve wrote:If there are more pressing issues, then that legislation should probably be written, should it not?
Recheve wrote:If there are larger issues, why are they not being addressed by others, or you yourself?
Recheve wrote:What makes the regulation of intentional disembowelment and torture undeserving of consideration?
Recheve wrote:In addition, isn't the importance of certain legislation relative to the individual state?
by Recheve » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 am
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: And it is, there are new drafts for various proposals covering a variety of subjects being submitted to the General Assembly forum every day.
OOC: A lot of them have been, or are in the process of being addressed through various drafts.
The New California Republic wrote:
OOC: The fact that you have given very few reasons to support your theory that your proposal would stop this occurring, or that this even happens in the first place.
The New California Republic wrote:
OOC: Nope. Not at all. WA Resolutions apply to all WA members, so there must be a majority to agree to it, importance to individual nations is largely irrelevant.
by The New California Republic » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:51 am
Recheve wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "this". If you're referring to the actual application of the listed weapons, I'm confused. Am I supposed to ask each individual WA member if their military uses the listed weapons?
Recheve wrote:I really don't understand your reasoning.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Nethilor
Advertisement