[DEFEATED] Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry

[Verdant Haven]

Really? When did the CWA author state that this doesn't conflict with the CWA?

Apologies - I misread who the author was due to IA being the one who posted it to the "passed resolutions" thread. I'll amend my post to correct that.

That said, I'm even more delighted to have 2/6 now expressing support (and thank you SP for offering your opinion - I know you're not obligated to at this point!)

[WayNeacTia]

You can keep barking up that tree all you want.

OOC: As far as I can tell, you can't prove I didn't. Not that it matters. Its legal by my read.

Subtlety really isn't your strong suit. Anywho, I will still file a legality challenge regardless.

[The COT Corporation]

OOC: As far as I can tell, you can't prove I didn't. Not that it matters. Its legal by my read.

Subtlety really isn't your strong suit. Anywho, I will still file a legality challenge regardless.

"I didn't expect something so rude from you, Ambassador."

[WayNeacTia]

Subtlety really isn't your strong suit. Anywho, I will still file a legality challenge regardless.

"I didn't expect something so rude from you, Ambassador."

That wasn't an in character post, and you probably wouldn't understand the context anyway and I am not going to explain it.

[The COT Corporation]

"I didn't expect something so rude from you, Ambassador."

That wasn't an in character post, and you probably wouldn't understand the context anyway and I am not going to explain it.

"Oh, I wouldn't want to make you worry. I was fully aware you were OOC!"

He chuckles.

"I am beyond time and space, anyway..."

He says this as he puts down a bottle of champagne.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: As far as I can tell, you can't prove I didn't. Not that it matters. Its legal by my read.

Subtlety really isn't your strong suit. Anywho, I will still file a legality challenge regardless.

Right tool, right problem. Subtlety isnt the right tool here.

[Gekkeom]

I believe that this is a good idea.

[The COT Corporation]

I believe that this is a good idea.

Thank you. The proposal shall be submitted tommorow!

[Araraukar]

LAUDING the current ban on biological weapons, established by this body,

INSPIRED by the resounding support for the Landmine Safety Protocol,

OBSERVING that other inhumane weaponry still holds a place in the world,

OOC: I know this critique is very late into the game, but given the bioweapons generally speaking are NOT meant for maiming, and that landmines are generally speaking meant to be an area denial deterrent (in their proper military use against other militaries, not as weapons of terror against civilians), including them but then NOT including chemical and nuclear weapons, which are equally lethal-and-maiming, and affecting civilian populations more than military targets (at least in the Real World uses we've seen them used), makes the examples given weird and disjointed.

[Verdant Haven]

LAUDING the current ban on biological weapons, established by this body,

INSPIRED by the resounding support for the Landmine Safety Protocol,

OBSERVING that other inhumane weaponry still holds a place in the world,

OOC: I know this critique is very late into the game, but given the bioweapons generally speaking are NOT meant for maiming, and that landmines are generally speaking meant to be an area denial deterrent (in their proper military use against other militaries, not as weapons of terror against civilians), including them but then NOT including chemical and nuclear weapons, which are equally lethal-and-maiming, and affecting civilian populations more than military targets (at least in the Real World uses we've seen them used), makes the examples given weird and disjointed.

Late in the game is fine! It hasn't been submitted yet, so we're still able to make adjustments to make it read more smoothly or scratch the itch just right.

With regard to this specific point - agreed and understood. We've actually got a minor edit in the work via telegrams to tweak this language and make it a bit more broad-reaching (and to remove the specific reference to the LSP, in case it gets repealed in the future). That should help render things a little less disjointed.

[The COT Corporation]

To those voters who are wondering: This proposal DOES NOT impede your military power - it only prevents you from using inhumane weapons in non-lethal situations.

[Verdant Haven]

Here is a link to the FAQ that was sent around to delegates during the approval phase,

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1321069

As always, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send a telegram or post here, and we'll be happy to respond.

[Tinhampton]

Happily voting IN FAVOUR. (For the record, the word "Weaponry" in the title of the actual resolution begins with a capital "W.")

[The COT Corporation]

Happily voting IN FAVOUR. (For the record, the word "Weaponry" in the title of the actual resolution begins with a capital "W.")

Ah, yes. The title of the thread hadn't been edited due to technical issues, it has been fixed. Thank you!

[Southern Snofstavereatan]

To those voters who are wondering: This proposal DOES NOT impede your military power - it only prevents you from using inhumane weapons in non-lethal situations.

Well that is not exactly true, is it? Section 5 " Mandates that member nations cease development of, trade in, and funding of inhumane weaponry."

So whatever weapons that fall within your definition, even if they can be used in certain circumstances, cannot be developed, traded, or funded. While this resolution may had a laudable goal, it is poorly developed. I will be voting against it and encourage others to vote against it.

[Excidium Planetis]

Well that is not exactly true, is it? Section 5 " Mandates that member nations cease development of, trade in, and funding of inhumane weaponry."

So whatever weapons that fall within your definition, even if they can be used in certain circumstances, cannot be developed, traded, or funded. While this resolution may had a laudable goal, it is poorly developed. I will be voting against it and encourage others to vote against it.

"What I'm wondering, Ambassador¹, is why you would even want to find and trade in such weapons in the first place." Cornelia Schultz replies. "If military might is the main focus here, surely there are far more effective weapons systems than ones designed solely to maim rather than kill."



1 It wasn't entirely clear if the previous two posts were IC or not

[Southern Snofstavereatan]

Well that is not exactly true, is it? Section 5 " Mandates that member nations cease development of, trade in, and funding of inhumane weaponry."

So whatever weapons that fall within your definition, even if they can be used in certain circumstances, cannot be developed, traded, or funded. While this resolution may had a laudable goal, it is poorly developed. I will be voting against it and encourage others to vote against it.

"What I'm wondering, Ambassador¹, is why you would even want to find and trade in such weapons in the first place." Cornelia Schultz replies. "If military might is the main focus here, surely there are far more effective weapons systems than ones designed solely to maim rather than kill."



1 It wasn't entirely clear if the previous two posts were IC or not

We have no intention in trading and such weapons. My point was you are being disingenuous about the effects of this legislation. If you purport to allow such weapons' use in appropriate circumstances, you can't bar their development or production. This is poorly designed arms control.

[Kenmoria]

Well that is not exactly true, is it? Section 5 " Mandates that member nations cease development of, trade in, and funding of inhumane weaponry."

So whatever weapons that fall within your definition, even if they can be used in certain circumstances, cannot be developed, traded, or funded. While this resolution may had a laudable goal, it is poorly developed. I will be voting against it and encourage others to vote against it.

"What I'm wondering, Ambassador¹, is why you would even want to find and trade in such weapons in the first place." Cornelia Schultz replies. "If military might is the main focus here, surely there are far more effective weapons systems than ones designed solely to maim rather than kill."

“Perhaps these pieces of inhumane weaponry have other advantages. They might be cheaper, or less time-consuming, or more sustainable, or less prone to errors, or even just easier to produce.”

[Asle Leopolka]

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

All day, every day. Asle Leopolka strongly defends our population's right to arm and defend themselves and is not vehemouthly against this proposal, but also strongly condemns The COT Corporation and every other god damned nation that tries to disarm any populace.

[Grubville]

Whilst I agree with the spirit of this proposal, and believe that weapons other than those designed to kill outright should be outlawed, I cannot support this proposal due to its overly vague title.

I can see no problem with a high level of military spending on things like training, recruitment and equipment, yet the title "Slash Military Spending" makes no distinctions.

Until further changes, I will be voting against this proposal.

[Verdant Haven]

Whilst I agree with the spirit of this proposal, and believe that weapons other than those designed to kill outright should be outlawed, I cannot support this proposal due to its overly vague title.

I can see no problem with a high level of military spending on things like training, recruitment and equipment, yet the title "Slash Military Spending" makes no distinctions.

Until further changes, I will be voting against this proposal.

As an FYI. the title, "Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry," is accurate to what the bill does. The sub-text "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending" is automatically generated by the game for literally any bill dealing with weapon limitations (or "Global Disarmament" as the category insists on being called). It is not controlled by the authors, nor can it be changed, despite the fact that it is an inaccurate description of many bills in this category.

We have no intention in trading and such weapons. My point was you are being disingenuous about the effects of this legislation. If you purport to allow such weapons' use in appropriate circumstances, you can't bar their development or production. This is poorly designed arms control.

OOC:

There is a strong legal and linguistic distinction between "not limiting the use of existing stocks" and "preventing the importation and development of new weapons." I can understand that some players simply don't want this prohibition, and that's fair, but there is no conflict between banning trade and development, and allowing use. See: Prohibition in the USA (drinking was totally legal - sale/distribution/production of alcohol wasn't). See laws on prostitution in many more advanced nations (prostitution is legal, but soliciting, paying for, or managing a prostitute isn't). They are deliberate actions to target the source of the problem.

In this case, I of course acknowledge that this is arms control. What it is not, in my opinion, is "poorly designed." We specifically chose this method as a deliberate choice to gradually reduce the prevalence of such activity without treading on the rights of nations to use what they have, and to avoid inflicting any kind of loss by nullifying the usability of that which has already been paid for and produced. A gradual reduction in the ability to commit horrifying atrocities is not an impediment to any military that operates in accordance with existing WA/GA resolutions.

If players are particularly attached to committing atrocities, as the present state of the vote suggests, I consider that unfortunate, but it is their democratic right to vote in that manner. I would rather put forward an effective bill like this and have it defeated, rather than put forward a tepid and limp-wristed bill that opens the door for repeals and "work-arounds" to make it useless. Obviously I'd rather it succeed, and I fully believe that this proposal is both good and necessary. There are still a number of major delegates that have not put in their votes yet. That said, I acknowledge that we are presently behind, and if that is our fate, I am content to have taken the high ground and assisting in the assemblage of a proposal that stood up for what it meant.

[Catterborough]

Inhumane weaponry, as defined and described by the language of the resolution, constitutes a perspective such that the author(s) maintain toward the nature of "inhumane." Should the resolution be adopted, WA nations who collectively perceive this weaponry differently will see the elimination of defensive mechanisms designed to prevent enemy persistence in combat settings. I vote against the resolution for a lack of clarity, as many nations engage in warfighting tactics which include the use of injury-producing weapons. Even if permanent, the injuries pertain to eyesight, body orientation, as well as mobility. Disrupting the body's ability to function adequately on the battlefield benefits friendly forces in the fight against insurgency, or dangerous militant efforts.

[Southern Snofstavereatan]

Whilst I agree with the spirit of this proposal, and believe that weapons other than those designed to kill outright should be outlawed, I cannot support this proposal due to its overly vague title.

I can see no problem with a high level of military spending on things like training, recruitment and equipment, yet the title "Slash Military Spending" makes no distinctions.

Until further changes, I will be voting against this proposal.

As an FYI. the title, "Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry," is accurate to what the bill does. The sub-text "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending" is automatically generated by the game for literally any bill dealing with weapon limitations (or "Global Disarmament" as the category insists on being called). It is not controlled by the authors, nor can it be changed, despite the fact that it is an inaccurate description of many bills in this category.

We have no intention in trading and such weapons. My point was you are being disingenuous about the effects of this legislation. If you purport to allow such weapons' use in appropriate circumstances, you can't bar their development or production. This is poorly designed arms control.

OOC:

There is a strong legal and linguistic distinction between "not limiting the use of existing stocks" and "preventing the importation and development of new weapons." I can understand that some players simply don't want this prohibition, and that's fair, but there is no conflict between banning trade and development, and allowing use. See: Prohibition in the USA (drinking was totally legal - sale/distribution/production of alcohol wasn't). See laws on prostitution in many more advanced nations (prostitution is legal, but soliciting, paying for, or managing a prostitute isn't). They are deliberate actions to target the source of the problem.

In this case, I of course acknowledge that this is arms control. What it is not, in my opinion, is "poorly designed." We specifically chose this method as a deliberate choice to gradually reduce the prevalence of such activity without treading on the rights of nations to use what they have, and to avoid inflicting any kind of loss by nullifying the usability of that which has already been paid for and produced. A gradual reduction in the ability to commit horrifying atrocities is not an impediment to any military that operates in accordance with existing WA/GA resolutions.

If players are particularly attached to committing atrocities, as the present state of the vote suggests, I consider that unfortunate, but it is their democratic right to vote in that manner. I would rather put forward an effective bill like this and have it defeated, rather than put forward a tepid and limp-wristed bill that opens the door for repeals and "work-arounds" to make it useless. Obviously I'd rather it succeed, and I fully believe that this proposal is both good and necessary. There are still a number of major delegates that have not put in their votes yet. That said, I acknowledge that we are presently behind, and if that is our fate, I am content to have taken the high ground and assisting in the assemblage of a proposal that stood up for what it meant.

My point was to illustrate that it does, in fact, impede military power. It acknowledges that there are times to use such weapons, but restricts the development or production of such weapons. That is an impediment to a nation's military power. I am pointing out that the author of the legislation, in their attempts to gain support, is being disingenuous about its effects. You can get on your high horse and defend what was meant, if you agree that it is not supposed to impede military power, but the language does in fact do so. And I don't appreciate attempts to obfuscate what this legislation will do. This is arms control, this is a restriction on military power even when lethal force is authorized, and it is poorly designed.

[Tarnik]

This is too vague and open to differing interpretation. I also take issue with the idea that weapons designed to maim are somehow worse than weapons designed for killing, as if injury or crippling is somehow a fate worse than death.

This is noble but naive and there are many strategic advantages to employing weaponry that is designed to maim or has potential to maim instead of causing death. Such weaponry can allow a compromise between defending one's country and interests while still minimizing the loss of life of enemy combatants.

I will be voting against this resolution and implore others to do the same.

[Grubville]

Whilst I agree with the spirit of this proposal, and believe that weapons other than those designed to kill outright should be outlawed, I cannot support this proposal due to its overly vague title.

I can see no problem with a high level of military spending on things like training, recruitment and equipment, yet the title "Slash Military Spending" makes no distinctions.

Until further changes, I will be voting against this proposal.

As an FYI. the title, "Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry," is accurate to what the bill does. The sub-text "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending" is automatically generated by the game for literally any bill dealing with weapon limitations (or "Global Disarmament" as the category insists on being called). It is not controlled by the authors, nor can it be changed, despite the fact that it is an inaccurate description of many bills in this category.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still unconviced however. Mines have a legitimate use on the battlefield but have a tremoundously low fatality rate. I cannot envision a future conflict that doesn't use territory denial weapons like mines, and so I still cannot support this legislation.