Advertisement
by Fauxia » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:53 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:49 pm
Fauxia wrote:“Ambassador Bell, unfortunately, you have my support.”
by Fauxia » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:04 pm
Deletes post so that no one votes against
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:22 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:53 am
by Tinfect » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:44 am
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:56 am
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Was wondering when this was going to come back, about time.
by Kenmoria » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:29 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:45 pm
Kenmoria wrote:"Clause 2 does not say who is doing the fixing. If it is intended to refer to the nation in which the facilities were contained, then the legality of the agressor country's actions would depend solely on the efficiency of the building services of the attacked nation. If, on the other hand, the member-state doing the attacking is meant to be fixing it, you are inviting a hostile force into civilian territory."
by Uan aa Boa » Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:03 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:18 pm
Uan aa Boa wrote:Ambassador Bell, while supportive of your intent I have some concern that, because this Assembly can impose no requirements on nations that are not members, this proposal will place members at a military disadvantage. A member nation under attack and having its own infrastructure deliberately targeted may not be pleased to be denied the possibility of responding in kind.
In particular this seems to effectively outlaw the use of nuclear weapons, since these are very difficult to use without destroying infrastructure. This is contrary to the settled will of the Assembly and would leave member nations at the mercy of non-members.
In some situations an attack on infrastructure may, by shortening a conflict, reduce the overall suffering, or else serve as a deterrent, leaving a strong utilitarian case for the option to remain open.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:04 pm
Uan aa Boa wrote:In some situations an attack on infrastructure may, by shortening a conflict, reduce the overall suffering, or else serve as a deterrent, leaving a strong utilitarian case for the option to remain open.
by Kenmoria » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:48 pm
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:08 am
Kenmoria wrote:"Based on your response to the Uan Aa Boa delegation, am I correct in saying this proposal effectively outlaws nukes?"
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:44 am
Kenmoria wrote:"Based on your response to the Uan Aa Boa delegation, am I correct in saying this proposal effectively outlaws nukes?"
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:21 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:07 pm
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:18 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I love clause 6.
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:33 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I love clause 6.
by Uan aa Boa » Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:10 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:18 am
by Mallorea and Riva » Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:06 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Would clause 6 violate the meta gaming rule, in that it references the fact thatthe member state must co-operate sothe proposal fits the category and is thus legal? I'm not at all sure about this, but it looks rather OOC.)
OOC: Minus thestruckportion, this is my thinking. Not to be a killjoy or anything, but I feel like we've specifically ruled shenanigans like these illegal in the past.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:28 am
by Mallorea and Riva » Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:11 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Bump. Where did we land on this?
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:50 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Bump. Where did we land on this?
In a minefield, probably. *crickets*
I still think the category is wrong, but I know that's probably an unpopular opinion among people trying to cram things into IntSec (everyone, since the beginning). What edits did you make today to the OP?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement