[ABANDONED] Regulation Of Bladed Weaponry

[Recheve]

I've officially submitted the Proposal in its final form, with amendments to the regulations regarding anointed blades. However, feel free to continue commenting!

[Hatterleigh]

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?

[Recheve]

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?

That's definitely something to consider. Nonetheless, I felt that regulations would be justified based upon the intended purpose of certain weapons.

A standard bayonet is just as effective at killing or wounding an enemy, and while it certainly causes pain and agony as is its purpose, it is designed strictly to kill and not to inflict more suffering than is necessary. Though standard bayonets can be used in such a way as to simulate the brutal effects of the blades outlined in the proposal, it is significantly more difficult and is not their intended purpose.

Triangular, fluted bayonets, for example, are designed to inflict as much suffering as possible upon the victim. Instead of slicing and slashing, these barbaric weapons puncture and suck out the victim's innards, creating a wound that cannot be stitched. The intended purpose here is to cause the most painful and brutal wound possible. The bayonet may not function this way with every use, but the purpose behind its design is brutal and inhumane.

The latter weapon thus has an astronomically higher chance of inflicting a horrifying, bloody, gruesome death than the former. It's similar to the difference between a jacketed round and a Minie Ball, the former serving the same purpose but at the cost of significantly less suffering.

Now, the psychological effects of a triangular, fluted bayonet are an entirely different topic of discussion, which comes down to individual morality and the accepted use of such tactics. If this Proposal comes to a vote, the tipping point will be whether or not WA members consider intentional disembowelment and slow haemorrhaging to be acceptable methods of waging war.

[Christian Democrats]

I've officially submitted the Proposal in its final form, with amendments to the regulations regarding anointed blades. However, feel free to continue commenting!

Four or five hours is much too short for drafting a quality proposal.

[Wallenburg]

What does "Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two sharpened edges converging to a singular point" mean?

[Recheve]

I've officially submitted the Proposal in its final form, with amendments to the regulations regarding anointed blades. However, feel free to continue commenting!

Four or five hours is much too short for drafting a quality proposal.

Fair enough. I saw your critique on the proposal and will clarify the application of the regulation as it concerns military use.

This is my first time submitting a resolution and the information is difficult to find, so is there a cooldown period, or can I wait a week or so and submit again?

[Recheve]

What does "Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two sharpened edges converging to a singular point" mean?

It refers to stabbing weapons, like bayonets, with three or more edges. I've posted a few images already, but I'll show a few more here for clarity.





It's hard to see on a 2D image, but essentially if you were to look at the bayonet from the tip (stabby end), its profile would be triangular, with three sharpened edges rising from the socket-end and meeting at the sharpened tip. In these examples, the fluting is also visible upon careful examination.

However, as the Secretariat pointed out, the statement was not specific enough. I'll adjust the proposal, and we can continue from there.

[Christian Democrats]

so is there a cooldown period, or can I wait a week or so and submit again?

There is not a cooldown period, but most General Assembly regulars draft proposals for a week or two before submission.

[Wallenburg]

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.

[Recheve]

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.

Bayonets, spears, pikes and spikes are all technically fine. There is no issue with the actual usage of these forms of weapons. Realistically, all of these are just extended weapons designed for stabbing, slashing or cutting. The issue arises when one of these weapons is designed for the explicit purpose of maximizing suffering and agony prior to death.

For example, there is nothing wrong with a standard bayonet. Its purpose is to stab and kill, and it is designed to do so. It's sharpened on one or two edges, is attached at the end of a rifle, and is employed with a thrust or swipe. A soldier armed with a bayonet can stab, slash, or alternatively stab and then tear to the side, thus creating a wound that in all likelihood will remove his victim from the fighting. While the entire purpose of the bayonet is to cause harm to an individual, the actual suffering is not as important as the act of stabbing itself, as long as the initial thrust is enough to cause incapacitating wounds. From that point, whether the victim survives or is stitched is irrelevant, because the bayonet has served its purpose and no further agony must be inflicted on the individual. Thus, standard bayonets are sufficient.

In the case of triangular, fluted bayonets, the express purpose is to maximize pain, quickly disembowel a victim and create a wound that cannot be stitched together. The capabilities of such a weapon go far beyond what is necessary, and as such their application is a cruel and barbaric beyond necessity (unless, of course, one is to consider tactical terrorism to be necessary). These properties are not exclusive to bayonets, and as such the restriction must be extended to all bladed weapons with similar capabilities.

[Recheve]

so is there a cooldown period, or can I wait a week or so and submit again?

There is not a cooldown period, but most General Assembly regulars draft proposals for a week or two before submission.

Thank you! I'll wait two weeks or so to get as many perspectives and suggestions as possible before submitting again.

[Wallenburg]

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.

Also, there's really no set amount of time that you should spend on your proposal. Some are ready in just a week, some spend years on these forums before going to vote. It's all about the author's experience and activity, and how the author and visiting players communicate.

[Recheve]

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.

That's actually a matter of debate. My knowledge of triangular, fluted bayonets comes from my work with a Ceremonial Guard where we were issued with Snider-Enfield Mk. I breech-loading rifles, which naturally carried this exact model of bayonet. There are certainly a number of internet experts who will insist on your listed advantages as being the sole factors in bayonet shape, but as far as I am aware there is no definitive evidence to weigh one factor over another.

The Guard's historians maintained that the triangular bayonet was ideal for a number of reasons, including durability and ease of production. Similarly, it is argued that the flutes were used exclusively to lighten the bayonet, keeping the rifle relatively balanced despite the long chunk of steel at the end. However, the actual combat effectiveness of triangular bayonets cannot be exaggerated.

In the end, it really doesn't matter why these weapons were designed in the first place, as the grievous wounds they caused continued to encourage their use up until the 20th Century. Their designs were optimized for combat effectiveness- that is, the infliction of suffering upon others- as part of a balance between impact, producibility and performance.

[Wallenburg]

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.

[Recheve]

You are sorely mistaken.

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

[Wallenburg]

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

From that NPS page:

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.

[Recheve]

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.

Both fair points. In response to the first, I'd argue that banning these weapons won't actually harm the effectiveness of your military, but would rather simply remove unnecessary suffering from the battlefield. It would also not give any party an advantage over another, as all militaries under the governance of the WA would be subject to the same regulations. However, this is certainly a matter of personal opinion, and you're certainly entitled to your own.

With regards to the second, that's an excellent point. I'm beginning to think that regulating fluting might not be feasible. If not employed on a triangular blade, the effects would be minimized, and it's not unreasonable to seek stronger blades by using grooves. I'll edit the proposal accordingly.

[Recheve]

And in turn:

"Since the wound inflicted by triangular bayonets is difficult to repair, and causes more initial bleeding than that of a two sided bayonet, one could classify triangular bayonets under a clause which prohibits weapons causing undue suffering after the conflict has ended. Indeed, the wounds caused by a triangular bayonet were recorded to last for years after a battle, or to never heal at all. However this would be a stretch. Prior to the mid-1900’s, this also meant that the wound was especially prone to becoming infected, the main cause of deaths in the War of 1812."

My point is that triangular bayonets were still employed through the 19th Century into the 20th Century, when industrial development made sword bayonets stronger and easier to produce. Sword bayonets could also be serrated (like the sawtooth bayonet) and could be used outside of combat, making them far more versatile than triangular bayonets. If triangular bayonets were significantly stronger than sword bayonets, they would still be employed today.

There is not enough evidence to definitively declare one factor more important than another, but the primary advantages of triangular bayonets in the modern day would be solely based around their ability to cause suffering. This proposal is based in a modern context, and must be criticized as such.

[The New California Republic]

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.

[Recheve]

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.

[The New California Republic]

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.

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.

[Recheve]

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.

If there are more pressing issues, then that legislation should probably be written, should it not? This is an issue I am particular concerned with, and thus I was inspired to write the proposal. If there are larger issues, why are they not being addressed by others, or you yourself? What makes the regulation of intentional disembowelment and torture undeserving of consideration? In addition, isn't the importance of certain legislation relative to the individual state?

[The New California Republic]

If there are more pressing issues, then that legislation should probably be written, should it not?

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.

If there are larger issues, why are they not being addressed by others, or you yourself?

OOC: A lot of them have been, or are in the process of being addressed through various drafts.

What makes the regulation of intentional disembowelment and torture undeserving of consideration?

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.

In addition, isn't the importance of certain legislation relative to the individual state?

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.

[Recheve]

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.

Ok, so this issue will be added to the queue, and will be addressed in time if deemed legal.

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.

I've stated many, many, many times that these weapons exist, have the effects listed, and are currently legal to the WA. Thus, 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?

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.

... What? A democratic vote is designed specifically to make each individual count equally. You might individually feel that this proposal isn't important, but that doesn't mean the majority of nations wouldn't. All this proposal needs to reach a vote is 6% approval by WA Delegates, at which point every individual nation exercises its right to decide upon whether or not it approves the proposal.

Proposals don't actually need a majority to be voted on in the first place. Rather, the voting decides whether or not the majority of individuals agree with the proposal.

I really don't understand your reasoning.

[The New California Republic]

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?

OOC: By "this" I am referring to where you mention "intentional disembowelment and torture", it is debatable whether that happens in the first place.

I really don't understand your reasoning.

OOC: WA Resolutions apply to all WA nations, regardless of whether individual WA nations agree to it or not. An individual dissenting nation can vote against it all they like, but if it has the support of a majority of regional delegates, then most of the time a Resolution will pass, regardless of the opinion of individual nations.