Araraukar wrote:Verdant Haven wrote:It
only applies in situations where you also can't use lethal weaponry.
OOC: So please lay out a scenario where that is the case? When are lethal weapons (in a situation where weapons need to be used)
not an option?
OOC:
The majority of law enforcement (both civil and military) would fall under that scenario. Crowd control, riot response, and prisoner management/transport are all situations where the use of weaponry may be warranted, but it would be a violation of law to use lethal force in all but the most exigent circumstances. Tear gas, truncheons/batons, water cannons, sonic cannons, dazzlers, and stun guns are all LTL technologies that can be (and are) used for the aforementioned situations. When fully lethal methods are used for those scenarios, it tends to go down in history as brutality, and leads to major civil unrest - for example, the Boston
Tea Party Massacre, or the Kent State Massacre.
This regulation is intended to ensure that inhumane weaponry is not brought to bear in situations of that type. We see incidences of deliberate crippling and maiming of peaceful protestors today in places like Hong Kong, where law enforcement has targeted the eyes of protestors, and of even more dramatic situations such as the mass murder and crippling of hundreds of innocent hostages by the Spetsnaz in their response to the Dubrovka Theatre Crisis.
With the vast range of sentient types of being in the NS universe, the myriad planets from which they come, and they varying levels of technology and magic, there will be countless more examples and scenarios than one can reasonably lay out. We err on the side of permissiveness, to avoid stepping on any toes when it comes to national defense, but we believe it is fair that in any situation where you don't need to kill a being in order to handle them, you also do not need to maim them.
The united American-Isreali empire wrote:Fair, I do not think limiting nations is a wise move. But this seams reasonable as long as one can use what's needed on the battlefield. But what about dev of weapons like gas ECT?
The use of gas would be covered under the already-passed GA#272 Chemical Weapons Accord.
When it comes to development of weaponry under this proposal, it only places limitations on those weapons which cannot serve a legal purpose. If it is a military tool used for open combat, that is a legal purpose, so the restriction would not be placed.