Grubville wrote:Whilst I agree with the spirit of this proposal, and believe that weapons other than those designed to kill outright should be outlawed, I cannot support this proposal due to its overly vague title.
I can see no problem with a high level of military spending on things like training, recruitment and equipment, yet the title "Slash Military Spending" makes no distinctions.
Until further changes, I will be voting against this proposal.
As an FYI. the title, "Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry," is accurate to what the bill does. The sub-text "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending" is automatically generated by the game for literally any bill dealing with weapon limitations (or "Global Disarmament" as the category insists on being called). It is not controlled by the authors, nor can it be changed, despite the fact that it is an inaccurate description of many bills in this category.
Southern Snofstavereatan wrote:We have no intention in trading and such weapons. My point was you are being disingenuous about the effects of this legislation. If you purport to allow such weapons' use in appropriate circumstances, you can't bar their development or production. This is poorly designed arms control.
OOC:
There is a strong legal and linguistic distinction between "not limiting the use of existing stocks" and "preventing the importation and development of new weapons." I can understand that some players simply don't want this prohibition, and that's fair, but there is no conflict between banning trade and development, and allowing use. See: Prohibition in the USA (drinking was totally legal - sale/distribution/production of alcohol wasn't). See laws on prostitution in many more advanced nations (prostitution is legal, but soliciting, paying for, or managing a prostitute isn't). They are deliberate actions to target the source of the problem.
In this case, I of course acknowledge that this is arms control. What it is not, in my opinion, is "poorly designed." We specifically chose this method as a deliberate choice to gradually reduce the prevalence of such activity without treading on the rights of nations to use what they have, and to avoid inflicting any kind of loss by nullifying the usability of that which has already been paid for and produced. A gradual reduction in the ability to commit horrifying atrocities is not an impediment to any military that operates in accordance with existing WA/GA resolutions.
If players are particularly attached to committing atrocities, as the present state of the vote suggests, I consider that unfortunate, but it is their democratic right to vote in that manner. I would rather put forward an effective bill like this and have it defeated, rather than put forward a tepid and limp-wristed bill that opens the door for repeals and "work-arounds" to make it useless. Obviously I'd rather it succeed, and I fully believe that this proposal is both good and necessary. There are still a number of major delegates that have not put in their votes yet. That said, I acknowledge that we are presently behind, and if that is our fate, I am content to have taken the high ground and assisting in the assemblage of a proposal that stood up for what it meant.