[DEFEATED] Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry

[Southern Snofstavereatan]

Correct, that’s how I was thinking about it, should have been more explicit. The point remains.

The proposal means the funding of the Weapons, not the funding of storage.

Well that doesn’t super make sense but fine. Let’s assume you can store it. You will still run out using them in legitimate circumstances and be unable to develop new ones or produce replacements.

[Kenmoria]

Correct, that’s how I was thinking about it, should have been more explicit. The point remains.

The proposal means the funding of the Weapons, not the funding of storage.

(OOC: That’s just one interpretation, since that isn’t explicitly clarified in the resolution. Besides, even if storage isn’t covered by the resolution, there is still no legal way for member nations to create more inhumane weaponry; this therefore makes the resolution a delayed ban on them.)

[WayNeacTia]

The proposal means the funding of the Weapons, not the funding of storage.

(OOC: That’s just one interpretation, since that isn’t explicitly clarified in the resolution. Besides, even if storage isn’t covered by the resolution, there is still no legal way for member nations to create more inhumane weaponry; this therefore makes the resolution a delayed ban on them.)

That was argued and fell on deaf ears.

"We see no such need for any bans. Chemical weapons are already covered by extant legislation, the same with bio weapons. Also given the fact that nuclear weapons, the most inhumane weapons of all are legal and this is nothing more than a back door ban on chemical and riot control agents, we vote against. The authoring delegation can tilt at windmills saying it is not all they like."

Wayne

[Brutica]

It generally sounds like the author's intentions, and what the author has actually written, are somewhat misaligned. Either that, or it's an attempt at a back-door ban without the up-front fuss. I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that, but either way, this resolution as currently written, is without a clear primary purpose. The author professes that it does not ban "inhumane" weaponry from being used by the military in lethal warfare. However, the ban on R&D and trade of those weapons means that this exemption has a limited time-frame and, as such, is not an exemption at all.

Look, honestly, I support the morals behind what you seem to be proposing. However, the way this is currently worded just won't achieve that. This needs to go back to the drawing board. Even then, it's a difficult thing to define. Weapons that aren't designed to maim can easily be misused by over-aggressive military forces to deliberately and permanently maim an unarmed opponent. On the flip-side, weapons that are designed to maim almost always have the capability to be lethal as well. That's why the IRL UN's resolutions on this focus on outlawing weaponry that is designed to kill an opponent slowly and painfully, but is limited to international military warfare. Perhaps that's what is needed here, with a separate resolution for dealing with non-lethal weapons when engaging civilians?

[Tarnik]

Good to see that the WA is a good representation of the insanity in the real world. There is literally no argument to allow "inhumane weaponry" for war, other than utter dickbagery. Oh wait a moment, in the real world, the UN can at least agree on banning inhumane weapons. Guess, that's what makes the difference between internet strongmen and real politicans. Well, I take it, the people voting against this resolution must suffer from some kind of small-penis-syndrome.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but not everyone considers being maimed or crippled a fate worse than death. And let's not bring the UN in to this as their roster for the Human Rights council does a lot more damage to humanity than any of the "weapons designed to maim" ever did.

If you can dull your edge for just a bit, military doctrine usually advocates for killing the enemy. The fabled "wound a soldier and you occupy his friends while they try to help him" is just that, a fable. Wounded soldiers can fight another day, the dead cannot. War is chaos and chaos is not the time to actively deploy convoluted weaponry that achieves a less than desired result. Any of the weapons up for debate would not be in use in conventional military theater. However, They do have application in peacekeeping, area denial, demoralization, and riot situations where standard "less than lethal" options tend to falter.

Since this bill allows a type of inhumane weapon to supposedly only be used only in a situation where most militaries would not recommend using it, this bill does exactly what the proposer claims it does not, and renders any weapon designed to maim essentially null. This I cannot abide, and the telegram meant to sway my vote raised more concerns on the technicalities it tries to squirrel around.

So we can pretend like this resolution is removing a horrible thing from this world (unlike standard weapons, which compassionately destroy lives and limbs and empathetically murder the sons and daughters of our nations), or we can call out the overreach and the vague wording that will cause an overall detriment.

Now if this was recalled and changed to target specific inhumane weapons (Punji sticks for example), I would be completely in favor. But do not police my or anyone else's armories with vague wording open to being twisted for the agenda of the day.

[Maraculand]

"Maraculand has one of the largest arms manufacturing sectors in the entire world. It provides not only hundreds of thousands of jobs for our citizens but also keeps our country safe by providing tools for our military, law enforcement and militias. While I appreciate the effort to minimize unnecessary suffering caused by some of these weapons, I believe the cost to our great nation would be unacceptable. It is my intention to vote against this resolution. "
Maraculand Ambassador Josh Dildostein

[Human Rights Violation]

Maximum pain is maximum gain. You should have just sutrendered when you could, grommit.

[Scherzinger]

Anzu wakes from her nap, and lazily reads the proposal in front of her. Then she clenches her fist, presenting it to the quorum.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, This is a fist. I am fully capable of beating someone senseless. That said, i suppose my fist is now banned under this proposal?"

[The Yellow Monkey]

The proposal means the funding of the Weapons, not the funding of storage.

Well that doesn’t super make sense but fine. Let’s assume you can store it. You will still run out using them in legitimate circumstances and be unable to develop new ones or produce replacements.

We did try to point out to the author the problem with an effective ban hidden behind a highly-technical and counter-intuitive veil. We were met with obduracy. Oh well, water under the bridge at this point.

Anzu wakes from her nap, and lazily reads the proposal in front of her. Then she clenches her fist, presenting it to the quorum.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, This is a fist. I am fully capable of beating someone senseless. That said, i suppose my fist is now banned under this proposal?"

Be fair. Your fist is hardly "solely designed to maim." It's plainly not covered by this proposed resolution. There are plenty of reasons to vote against this proposal without resorting to flagrant mischaracterization.

[Scherzinger]

Well that doesn’t super make sense but fine. Let’s assume you can store it. You will still run out using them in legitimate circumstances and be unable to develop new ones or produce replacements.

We did try to point out to the author the problem with an effective ban hidden behind a highly-technical and counter-intuitive veil. We were met with obduracy. Oh well, water under the bridge at this point.

Anzu wakes from her nap, and lazily reads the proposal in front of her. Then she clenches her fist, presenting it to the quorum.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, This is a fist. I am fully capable of beating someone senseless. That said, i suppose my fist is now banned under this proposal?"

Be fair. Your fist is hardly "solely designed to maim." It's plainly not covered by this proposed resolution. There are plenty of reasons to vote against this proposal without resorting to flagrant mischaracterization.

surely this doesnt cover the military or basic citizen then right? If thats the case, it seems you want us to become unable to defend our nation, or take rights away from citizens. I know that The Chuck wouldnt appreciate this kind of left-islation, and neither do i. Guns are designed to kill, but some are designed to maim as well. Knives, my katana, hell, even the ordinary bicycle can be designed to maim if you put your mind to it.

[Separatist Peoples]

We did try to point out to the author the problem with an effective ban hidden behind a highly-technical and counter-intuitive veil. We were met with obduracy. Oh well, water under the bridge at this point.


Be fair. Your fist is hardly "solely designed to maim." It's plainly not covered by this proposed resolution. There are plenty of reasons to vote against this proposal without resorting to flagrant mischaracterization.

surely this doesnt cover the military or basic citizen then right? If thats the case, it seems you want us to become unable to defend our nation, or take rights away from citizens. I know that The Chuck wouldnt appreciate this kind of left-islation, and neither do i. Guns are designed to kill, but some are designed to maim as well. Knives, my katana, hell, even the ordinary bicycle can be designed to maim if you put your mind to it.

Ooc: to be fair, knives and swords are either designed to kill or are designed to be used as tools that dont involve harming people. Bikes arent designed to main. This proposal has huge issues, but that nuance really isnt one.

[Cisairse]

"Due to a disagreeable definition of 'inhumane weapons' and an inconsistent operating clause, Cisairse opposes this resolution and shall vote as such."

—Ambassador Lorcan Renard

[The COT Corporation]

Just a pointer: This resolution by no means bans WMDs.

[Heliosbrine]

Against this vote

[The Yellow Monkey]

A (possibly-premature) post-mortem critique of the proposal "Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry"

I will posit two reasons why this proposal may have failed:

First, the definition of "Inhumane Weaponry" was not particularly strong. The concept of "weaponry solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them" is bizarre and cumbersome. It is difficult to easily imagine a weapon which is designed "solely" to maim but not kill. The quickest possible fits that come to mind (biological and chemical agents) are already subject to their own legislation and nations therefore have expectations already about what the legal requirements are for those weapons. Beyond that, it is hard to conceptualize what real thing is being referenced here. Some sort of ray gun to blind your enemies? An eardrum-bursting sonic mine? A flying dart that permanently paralyzes your right leg and left buttcheek? I just don't know... and as long as my imagination is wandering I can think of reasons why all of those ought to be permitted even in some situations where straight-up lethal force might not be appropriate/permissible.

Second, I do think a lot of voters saw through the veil and recognized that the provisions here were an effective ban on an (uncertainly broad) category of weapons. The arguments to the contrary were not satisfying on a common sense level. Even if a certain kind of legal mind/rules lawyer might be able to see a meaningful distinction in the short term, that same mind - if being intellectually honest - would acknowledge that over time provisions preventing acquisition or development of certain weapons meant that those weapons could no longer be used, even if, technically, their use had never explicitly been banned. I wonder if this would have succeeded without "5. Mandates that member nations cease development of, trade in, and funding of inhumane weaponry."

Edits: spelling and grammar.

[Kenmoria]

Just a pointer: This resolution by no means BANS WMDs.

(OOC: No, but it does enact a backhand ban on almost all nonlethal weapons. I agree with Yellow Monkey’s critique.)

[WayNeacTia]

Just a pointer: This resolution by no means BANS WMDs.

You obviously don't seem to understand that the law does exactly what the law says. It is not open to interpretation. Perhaps when the stubbornness finally subsides, you will realize this.

[Bairamcea]

I fear the repercussions of this Proposal. I think that the language is too vague and, if this measure is passed, will cause much confusion during implementation. I agree with the premise of this bill, but i also understand and validate the arguments voiced against it. At this time I am unsure how to vote:

[Imperium Anglorum]

Even if a certain kind of legal mind/rules lawyer might be able to see a meaningful distinction in the short term, that same mind - if being intellectually honest - would acknowledge that over time provisions preventing acquisition or development of certain weapons meant that those weapons could no longer be used, even if, technically, their use had never explicitly been banned. I wonder if this would have succeeded without "5. Mandates that member nations cease development of, trade in, and funding of inhumane weaponry."

I think it's entirely consistent to believe that the proposal is not illegal... at the same time that the proposal enforces a backdoor ban. I noted to the authoring delegation that they ought to remove clause 5 upon receipt of their campaign telegram.

---

I think the authors of this proposal, and perhaps authors more generally, ought to note that in sending their campaign telegram to all WA members (about 14 hours before this post), they alienated one of the larger regions from their position. At the broad philosophical level, the idea that regions ought to keep response policies of this sort secret—or at least not well publicised—does nobody any good. It harms directly the ability for authors to predict the effect of their actions. And the idea of suppressing the existence of the policy, or at least rendering it as a de facto policy rather than de jure, further harms that ability. Regions and members thereof have preferences, I would be very surprised if they would change those preferences merely because it was requested of them.

[The COT Corporation]

Just a pointer: This resolution by no means bans WMDs.

You obviously don't seem to understand that the law does exactly what the law says. It is not open to interpretation. Perhaps when the stubbornness finally subsides, you will realize this.

No, I understand completely. As far as I'm concerned "Weapons of Mass destruction" are generally designed to kill. The law does not say it bans WMDs, it says it bans inhumane weapons. Does the resolution not state:

Defines "inhumane weaponry" as any weaponry solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them;"

[Thermodolia]

You obviously don't seem to understand that the law does exactly what the law says. It is not open to interpretation. Perhaps when the stubbornness finally subsides, you will realize this.

No, I understand completely. As far as I'm concerned "Weapons of Mass destruction" are generally designed to kill. The law does not say it bans WMDs, it says it bans inhumane weapons. Does the resolution not state:

Defines "inhumane weaponry" as any weaponry solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them;"

“Several WMDs do just that ambassador.”

“Anyway Thermodolia is strongly against. Which should be obvious considering Thermodolia already ignores half of the WA resolutions on war, we don’t need another one”

[Shaktirajya]

Even though We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy, are committed *armed* pacifists, We must vote against this resolution in concert with Our regional delegate. The very nature of war is to cause grievous bodily harm and death to enemy combatants, and as such, it simply makes no sense to limit "inhumane" weaponry. Inhumane being an ultimately subjective, vague, arbitrary, and ultimately pointless term in this instance. We hereby vote AGAINST this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

[Araraukar]

No, I understand completely. As far as I'm concerned "Weapons of Mass destruction" are generally designed to kill. The law does not say it bans WMDs, it says it bans inhumane weapons. Does the resolution not state:

Defines "inhumane weaponry" as any weaponry solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them;"

“Several WMDs do just that ambassador.”

"Agreed. Also, sonic weapons - many of which would be caught with the definition - are an effective non-lethal weapon to use on the high seas against would-be pirates by freight ships. There is no justification for requiring a sonic cannon to be replaced with a projectile cannon."

[Waffia]

1. Design weapon solely for maiming targets
2. Attach gun
3. No longer designed solely for maiming targets

This resolution is trivial to circumvent, which renders it useless. Waffia votes against.

[Saint Indopeland]

Surely a nation could simply create an ‘inhumane weapon’ that causes suffering, but make it also with a purpose to kill, so it is not solely to maim? That makes it so you can make a lethal weapon, made to kill, but causes weeks of suffering, bypassing the purpose of the resolution.

2. Defines "inhumane weaponry" as any weaponry solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them;