[DEFEATED] Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry

[Verdant Haven]

OOC: You're right. For some odd reason (likely the reason that it was rather late when writing that response) I thought that the proposal wouldn't be able to be enforced because of something without a clause similar to that. Sorry about that.

OOC: No worries! Thank you for chiming in with your feedback - much of it was quite valuable and led to some edits. In particular the modification from "person" to "sapient target" was one that really needed to happen. The version we've presently got is not quite as verbose as your suggestion for that particular element, but is very much attributable to it (as much as I personally love being wordy, trying to keep it short and sweet, and in "plain English," yielded this present version).

[Americae Roma]

I don't think it makes sense to prohibit incendiary weapons, they have a military value, and second IRL, incendiary weapons are not outlawed, but rather, nations have an obligation to not cause civilian casualties while using incendiary weapons, anti personnel land mines are also allowed IRL, if they have a self disarmament mechanism after the war ended, one example is the Claymore mine, which since it is remotely detonated, is allowed under landmine regulations

[Morover]

I don't think it makes sense to prohibit incendiary weapons, they have a military value, and second IRL, incendiary weapons are not outlawed, but rather, nations have an obligation to not cause civilian casualties while using incendiary weapons, anti personnel land mines are also allowed IRL, if they have a self disarmament mechanism after the war ended, one example is the Claymore mine, which since it is remotely detonated, is allowed under landmine regulations

OOC:

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this limits inhumane weaponry, not incendiary weaponry.

[The COT Corporation]

I don't think it makes sense to prohibit incendiary weapons, they have a military value, and second IRL, incendiary weapons are not outlawed, but rather, nations have an obligation to not cause civilian casualties while using incendiary weapons, anti personnel land mines are also allowed IRL, if they have a self disarmament mechanism after the war ended, one example is the Claymore mine, which since it is remotely detonated, is allowed under landmine regulations

OOC:

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this limits inhumane weaponry, not incendiary weaponry.

This... We didn't mention anywhere in the current draft that incendiary weapons should be banned.

[The COT Corporation]

banning weapons never works, there will be folks whom circumvent them, just saying. i say nay.

Would you do me the favour of pointing out how and where it can be circumvented? I would prefer for this to not be able to happen.

[The COT Corporation]

OOC: You're right. For some odd reason (likely the reason that it was rather late when writing that response) I thought that the proposal wouldn't be able to be enforced because of something without a clause similar to that. Sorry about that.

OOC: No worries! Thank you for chiming in with your feedback - much of it was quite valuable and led to some edits. In particular the modification from "person" to "sapient target" was one that really needed to happen. The version we've presently got is not quite as verbose as your suggestion for that particular element, but is very much attributable to it (as much as I personally love being wordy, trying to keep it short and sweet, and in "plain English," yielded this present version).

My thoughts exactly! You'd be welcome to give more feedback.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

I don't think it makes sense to prohibit incendiary weapons, they have a military value, and second IRL, incendiary weapons are not outlawed, but rather, nations have an obligation to not cause civilian casualties while using incendiary weapons, anti personnel land mines are also allowed IRL, if they have a self disarmament mechanism after the war ended, one example is the Claymore mine, which since it is remotely detonated, is allowed under landmine regulations

i agree i view war weapons as needed, banning doesnt solve much.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

banning weapons never works, there will be folks whom circumvent them, just saying. i say nay.

Would you do me the favour of pointing out how and where it can be circumvented? I would prefer for this to not be able to happen.

my point is war is brulte, not meaning to sound cruel, but this is true. the enemy if insurgents do not follow this, why us?

[Morover]

Would you do me the favour of pointing out how and where it can be circumvented? I would prefer for this to not be able to happen.

my point is war is brulte, not meaning to sound cruel, but this is true. the enemy if insurgents do not follow this, why us?

"Ambassador, are you insinuating that you would rather wish to inflict intentional harm unto your enemies combatants for the sole person of inflicting harm, when simply killing said combatants would already give you a better advantage? While there are some resolutions to do with explicitly wartime issues that need to have exceptions for when dealing with non-member-states, due to them causing a tactical disadvantage otherwise, this would not have a similar effect. It's basic human decency to not use inhumane weaponry, and something that most reasonable nations - and that includes non-member-states - would avoid. Unfortunately, we must account for the unreasonable nations here."

"Essentially, there is literally no argument to be made for the inclusion of an exception clause for hostilities against non-member-states."

[The united American-Isreali empire]

my point is war is brulte, not meaning to sound cruel, but this is true. the enemy if insurgents do not follow this, why us?

"Ambassador, are you insinuating that you would rather wish to inflict intentional harm unto your enemies combatants for the sole person of inflicting harm, when simply killing said combatants would already give you a better advantage? While there are some resolutions to do with explicitly wartime issues that need to have exceptions for when dealing with non-member-states, due to them causing a tactical disadvantage otherwise, this would not have a similar effect. It's basic human decency to not use inhumane weaponry, and something that most reasonable nations - and that includes non-member-states - would avoid. Unfortunately, we must account for the unreasonable nations here."

"Essentially, there is literally no argument to be made for the inclusion of an exception clause for hostilities against non-member-states."

sir i say in responce that insergents do not follow roes, like us. the uaie has fought wars yes, we do not seek to hit innocents. however we want to destroy the insurgents. to quote a general whom once served in the former country before us.

William Tecumseh Sherman: War is hell. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.


he made the state of Georgia howl and demoralized the enemy he fought. remember war is not pretty, it is the very last resort. but if we must fight it we must suffer as low losses as possible and make the enemy surrender as swiftly as possible. talking does not solve much sometimes. when war hits we must not let our people die unneeded and make the enemy surrender. sir in the very end of the day that is the duty to OUR people. all states have this responsibility. yours does too. those on the front-line need all needed tools, you do not fix a car with half of the needed tools now do you?

[Morover]

"Ambassador, are you insinuating that you would rather wish to inflict intentional harm unto your enemies combatants for the sole person of inflicting harm, when simply killing said combatants would already give you a better advantage? While there are some resolutions to do with explicitly wartime issues that need to have exceptions for when dealing with non-member-states, due to them causing a tactical disadvantage otherwise, this would not have a similar effect. It's basic human decency to not use inhumane weaponry, and something that most reasonable nations - and that includes non-member-states - would avoid. Unfortunately, we must account for the unreasonable nations here."

"Essentially, there is literally no argument to be made for the inclusion of an exception clause for hostilities against non-member-states."

sir i say in responce that insergents do not follow roes, like us. the uaie has fought wars yes, we do not seek to hit innocents. however we want to destroy the insurgents. to quote a general whom once served in the former country before us.

William Tecumseh Sherman: War is hell. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.


he made the state of Georgia howl and demoralized the enemy he fought. remember war is not pretty, it is the very last resort. but if we must fight it we must suffer as low losses as possible and make the enemy surrender as swiftly as possible. talking does not solve much sometimes. when war hits we must not let our people die unneeded and make the enemy surrender. sir in the very end of the day that is the duty to OUR people. all states have this responsibility. yours does too. those on the front-line need all needed tools, you do not fix a car with half of the needed tools now do you?

"And, as such, the killing of enemy combatants is immensely preferable to the simple maiming of them. I agree war is terrible. While I've never heard of this 'Sherman' fellow, he seems immensely wise. You should take his words to heart, and try to make that hell a little less hellish. Just a bit of advice."

[The united American-Isreali empire]

sir i say in responce that insergents do not follow roes, like us. the uaie has fought wars yes, we do not seek to hit innocents. however we want to destroy the insurgents. to quote a general whom once served in the former country before us.

William Tecumseh Sherman: War is hell. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.


he made the state of Georgia howl and demoralized the enemy he fought. remember war is not pretty, it is the very last resort. but if we must fight it we must suffer as low losses as possible and make the enemy surrender as swiftly as possible. talking does not solve much sometimes. when war hits we must not let our people die unneeded and make the enemy surrender. sir in the very end of the day that is the duty to OUR people. all states have this responsibility. yours does too. those on the front-line need all needed tools, you do not fix a car with half of the needed tools now do you?

"And, as such, the killing of enemy combatants is immensely preferable to the simple maiming of them. I agree war is terrible. While I've never heard of this 'Sherman' fellow, he seems immensely wise. You should take his words to heart, and try to make that hell a little less hellish. Just a bit of advice."

what difference does it make? does it make one feel better? does it make one feel that they are being better by being less then s enemy whom does not abide by it? they do not, nor should we. i agree war is the last thing, however if we fight we fight fully not half willing to win. then we harm our own people. we have taken his words to heart, we follow his model of war if needed.

[Verdant Haven]

"My response to these questions is straightforward, as it pertains to this proposal:

The use of inhumane weaponry, as defined in the draft proposal, is specifically prohibited in situations where lethal force is also prohibited.

If you are in a shooting-war scenario, where you are attempting to end of the life of those fighting against you, be it insurgents, a non-WA nation, or some other invasion, then the limitations placed by this proposed resolution do not apply. This is very clearly stated in Article 2.

Furthermore, I am still confused about why the idea of incendiary weapons was brought up at this stage. While they were mentioned in draft 1, the present draft is number 14, and does not in any way relate to incendiaries, which are a fully-lethal technology which is therefore not subject to the limitations proposed in this document.

We are glad to receive feedback from all, both supporters and detractors, but I would beg that the diplomats in question read the present form of document before introducing an argument that has no bearing on the discussion at hand."

[The COT Corporation]

I don't think it makes sense to prohibit incendiary weapons, they have a military value, and second IRL, incendiary weapons are not outlawed, but rather, nations have an obligation to not cause civilian casualties while using incendiary weapons, anti personnel land mines are also allowed IRL, if they have a self disarmament mechanism after the war ended, one example is the Claymore mine, which since it is remotely detonated, is allowed under landmine regulations

i agree i view war weapons as needed, banning doesnt solve much.

Have you read the resolution?

[The COT Corporation]

"My response to these questions is straightforward, as it pertains to this proposal:

The use of inhumane weaponry, as defined in the draft proposal, is specifically prohibited in situations where lethal force is also prohibited.

If you are in a shooting-war scenario, where you are attempting to end of the life of those fighting against you, be it insurgents, a non-WA nation, or some other invasion, then the limitations placed by this proposed resolution do not apply. This is very clearly stated in Article 2.

Furthermore, I am still confused about why the idea of incendiary weapons was brought up at this stage. While they were mentioned in draft 1, the present draft is number 14, and does not in any way relate to incendiaries, which are a fully-lethal technology which is therefore not subject to the limitations proposed in this document.

We are glad to receive feedback from all, both supporters and detractors, but I would beg that the diplomats in question read the present form of document before introducing an argument that has no bearing on the discussion at hand."

"I fully agree."

[The united American-Isreali empire]

i agree i view war weapons as needed, banning doesnt solve much.

Have you read the resolution?

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution an "Inhumane Weapon" as any weapon designed solely to maim or inflict a permanent major disability on a person rather than kill them,

who defines this? war is brutle, and incapacitating can be good. i do not think this a very fair clause.

[Araraukar]

who defines this? war is brutle, and incapacitating can be good. i do not think this a very fair clause.

OOC: The author doesn't want to live as a cripple, so they think it's better people die than live with injuries.

[The COT Corporation]

who defines this? war is brutle, and incapacitating can be good. i do not think this a very fair clause.

OOC: The author doesn't want to live as a cripple, so they think it's better people die than live with injuries.

OOC: I doubt most people would want to live in severe pain. Why else would the UN pass a legislation on it?

[Verdant Haven]

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution an "Inhumane Weapon" as any weapon designed solely to maim or inflict a permanent major disability on a person rather than kill them,

who defines this? war is brutle, and incapacitating can be good. i do not think this a very fair clause.

This resolution defines it. It literally says that.

Also, have you actually read the current draft? As I asked above, it seems like you're responding to Draft 1 (which is labeled and spoilered), not to Draft 14, which has literally none of the content you keep citing.

Nothing in this draft applies to warfare. Not one bit of it. If you are fighting an enemy in war, then none of this applies. It only applies in situations where you also can't use lethal weaponry. If you are shooting at them, bombing them, or fighting for your life, you can use whatever the hell you want. This is something much more pertaining to riot response, prisoner management, and crowd control.

who defines this? war is brutle, and incapacitating can be good. i do not think this a very fair clause.

OOC: The author doesn't want to live as a cripple, so they think it's better people die than live with injuries.

While that was the case in early drafts (and I leveled the same criticism), that has not been the case for several drafts now. This resolution does not apply to warfare, nor to any other scenario where lethal force is also appropriate.

[Araraukar]

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 author doesn't want to live as a cripple, so they think it's better people die than live with injuries.

While that was the case in early drafts (and I leveled the same criticism), that has not been the case for several drafts now. This resolution does not apply to warfare, nor to any other scenario where lethal force is also appropriate.

I wasn't talking about the draft there, I was talking about COT's replies to me on this topic on this thread.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution an "Inhumane Weapon" as any weapon designed solely to maim or inflict a permanent major disability on a person rather than kill them,

who defines this? war is brutle, and incapacitating can be good. i do not think this a very fair clause.

This resolution defines it. It literally says that.

Also, have you actually read the current draft? As I asked above, it seems like you're responding to Draft 1 (which is labeled and spoilered), not to Draft 14, which has literally none of the content you keep citing.

Nothing in this draft applies to warfare. Not one bit of it. If you are fighting an enemy in war, then none of this applies. It only applies in situations where you also can't use lethal weaponry. If you are shooting at them, bombing them, or fighting for your life, you can use whatever the hell you want. This is something much more pertaining to riot response, prisoner management, and crowd control.

OOC: The author doesn't want to live as a cripple, so they think it's better people die than live with injuries.

While that was the case in early drafts (and I leveled the same criticism), that has not been the case for several drafts now. This resolution does not apply to warfare, nor to any other scenario where lethal force is also appropriate.

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?

[Verdant Haven]

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.

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.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

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, 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.

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.

as long as contengcys or emegerncy weapons plus their dev is permitted i am open to this, but at the end of the day it will be varried based on the final legislation and what it will contain. nations have sovereignty, as long as its respected and we have tools to wage war i would support it. .

[The COT Corporation]

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?

There is already a resolution on this, don't worry.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: 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, or the Kent State Massacre.

OOC
Law enforcement, of any kind, did not take place during the 'Boston Tea Party'. You're probably confusing it with the so-called 'Boston Massacre' when some British sentries who were being harassed by a mob that vastly outnumbered them panicked and opened fire. The British authorities agreed that the men concerned should face trial, and the only two who had been proven to have fired directly into the mob -- rather than warning shots -- were convicted of manslaughter. Leading counsel for the defence, by the way, was John Adams, who was already a member of the 'Patriot' movement and later became President of the USA.
(And note that, in those days, law enforcement -- especially when outnumbered by more than 10-1, as was the case on that occasion -- didn't exactly have a wide range of "non-lethal" methods available as alternatives...)

Would you consider the 'Sand Creek Massacre' to belong on this list or examples, too?