Arms control
Moderator: Staff
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Arms control
This afternoon Castrum Nazarene ratified the Willow Convention; a treaty designed to outlaw immoral weapons from our territory. The thinking behind this is that, despite the obvious lack of any actual death in recwar, it sets an example and commits us to a more ethical foreign policy even during times of conflict.
Below is the text of the Treaty, if any other nations would like to join us in signing it do of course feel free .
Edit: revised version
Below is the text of the Treaty, if any other nations would like to join us in signing it do of course feel free .
Edit: revised version
Preamble
The signatory parties to this treaty, noting with indignation and disapproval the human suffering incurred by civilians due to the use of particular weapons, resolve to take affirmative action to prevent such suffering at their own hands. With this goal in mind it has been concluded that we, the signatories, shall adhere to this treaty and the terms dictated therein.
Article 1: Weapons to be prohibited
a) Anti-personnel landmines; defined as a munition designed to be placed under, on or in close proximity of the ground with the intention of being detonated by the presence or proximity of a human being.
b) Cluster munitions; defined as any munition designed to fragment, upon detonation, into any larger number of explosive devises which can then detonate separately from the main device.
c) Napalm; defined as any thickening or gelling agent that is mixed with a flammable substance with the intention of being ignited for the purpose of causing harm.
d) Nuclear weapons; defined as any weapon which derives its destructive power from a nuclear reaction.
e) Chemical weapons; defined as any chemical substance which can be delivered or dispersed by munitions for the purpose or causing harm or death to human beings.
f) Biological weapons; defined as any weapon which uses biological agents to deliberately cause disease or death.
g) Weapons which cause superfluous injury; defined as any munition or weapon designed to cause injury which is more than the minimum required to incapacitate a legitimate target.
Article 2: General obligations
a) Production; no signatory shall produce any of the weapons proscribed above or knowingly support their production within their borders or elsewhere.
b) Possession; no signatory shall possess any of the weapons prohibited in Article One nor shall they permit them to enter into their territorial land, sea or airspace even when in transit.
c) Transportation; in addition to prohibiting the proscribed weapons from entering their territory, no signatory shall allow their resources to be used to transport the prohibited weapons anywhere on Micras.
d) Usage; no signatory shall permit their forces or anyone holding citizenship or residency of their state to deploy any weapons proscribed in Article One.
e) Trade; no signatory shall promote or participate in the trade or transfer of prohibited munitions.
Article 3: Exceptions
a) The weapons and munitions prohibited in Article One may be possessed by a signatory state for the purpose of training personnel in the detection and destruction of the prohibited items provided that the amount of munitions possessed is the bare minimum required for this purpose.
b) The transfer of prohibited weaponry is permitted for the purpose of their destruction on the condition that the disposal of the prohibited item occurs as promptly as possible.
http://castrum.proboards.com/index.cgi? ... &thread=14REGARDING some weapons as so morally reprehensible that they should not be used under any circumstances.
UNDERSTANDING that to cement the banishment of such weapons from our territory in law would show the strength of this conviction.
RESOLVED that this state, including businesses and individuals residing within our territory, will not use, manufacture, distribute, finance or condone the use of the arms indicated in this treaty.
FORBIDDING any such weapons to enter our territory, including airspace and territorial waters, even in transit.
COUNTING nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombs and any other weapon that places civilians in unnecessary danger to be amongst those prohibited.
RATIFIED upon the affixing of the signature of our Head of State and Government.
Signed
His Grace Alfred Dunholm
On the 18th Day of August in the Year of our Lord 2011
Last edited by Alfred Dunholm on Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Arms control
So, where is it defined what weapons are too horrible? The way you've worded the document in the 'COUNTING' line it gives the impression that NBC weapons, mines and cluster bombs are in addition to something else, which is never explicitly stated.
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Re: Arms control
It's those listed plus "any other weapon that places civilians in unnecessary danger ", which is deliberately open to interpretation to encompass as much or as little as is deemed appropriate.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:02 am
Re: Arms control
I think that all weapons except possibly side-arms and sniper rifles could be said to place civilians in unnecessary danger.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Newport City FC [ANT]
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC [IRS]
Owner, Newport City FC [ANT]
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC [IRS]
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Re: Arms control
A precision guided bomb aimed at a military target does not place civilians in unnecessary danger, carpet bombing a large area does. The exact interpretation of the meaning of that article is up to each state, they're just required to act within the spirit of it.
Re: Arms control
I want to preface this with I am not trying to talk you out of this, I support you creating an environment within your nation that makes you comfortable and aligns with your values. I am simply pursuing conversation out of curiosity, posing alternate arguments for the sake of conversation and to fully explore the depth of your convictions. I always appreciate a good discussion on my opinions, as it forces me to dig for concrete objective justifications for my opinions.
That's pretty broad. By those perameters you could justify the banning of almost all weaponry. Anything explosive or fragmentive can be assumed to have a high potential for civilian casualty even when not shot in the wrong area. Fragmentation grenades, tank main weapon HE rounds, conventional artillery. A precision guided bomb, as you say, can be misaimed, can go off course, the aim could be perfect but intel faulty and thus the target's not military, civilians could be working with, around or for the military facility etc. Anything that can cause combustion could start fires that could travel into civilian areas, so it could be argued that rockets, missles and incendiary devices should be prohibited. Finally anything with significant penetration can cause collateral damage, thus large caliber weaponry such as the standard .50 cal mounted machine gun and in some respects even the 7.62 round (such as one in an AK) can go through a car door, dry wall, the mortar between bricks, plywood, construction lumber, small trees etc. Where do you draw the line? The impression I get from your last post is, to make the weapon acceptable you just have to promise that 'Oh, this bomb here, this bomb we only use politely.' and then it's okay.
That's pretty broad. By those perameters you could justify the banning of almost all weaponry. Anything explosive or fragmentive can be assumed to have a high potential for civilian casualty even when not shot in the wrong area. Fragmentation grenades, tank main weapon HE rounds, conventional artillery. A precision guided bomb, as you say, can be misaimed, can go off course, the aim could be perfect but intel faulty and thus the target's not military, civilians could be working with, around or for the military facility etc. Anything that can cause combustion could start fires that could travel into civilian areas, so it could be argued that rockets, missles and incendiary devices should be prohibited. Finally anything with significant penetration can cause collateral damage, thus large caliber weaponry such as the standard .50 cal mounted machine gun and in some respects even the 7.62 round (such as one in an AK) can go through a car door, dry wall, the mortar between bricks, plywood, construction lumber, small trees etc. Where do you draw the line? The impression I get from your last post is, to make the weapon acceptable you just have to promise that 'Oh, this bomb here, this bomb we only use politely.' and then it's okay.
Last edited by Rook on Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Arms control
For once I agree with Malliki.
This seems to be the Kellog-Briand Pact of micronations.
This seems to be the Kellog-Briand Pact of micronations.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:02 am
Re: Arms control
It sure does, since not even precision guided bombs have a 100% hit accuracy. It also depends on the position of the target, if it's in a rural or urban area, etc. etc.Alfred Dunholm wrote:A precision guided bomb aimed at a military target does not place civilians in unnecessary danger, carpet bombing a large area does. The exact interpretation of the meaning of that article is up to each state, they're just required to act within the spirit of it.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Newport City FC [ANT]
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC [IRS]
Owner, Newport City FC [ANT]
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC [IRS]
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Re: Arms control
If you're unable to enter into it in the spirit it's intended without being spoon-fed detailed analysis of every potential scenario or implication then certainly don't sign it. The intentions are perfectly clear enough without becoming anally retentive about it.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:02 am
Re: Arms control
Well, at least I lol'd a little.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Newport City FC [ANT]
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC [IRS]
Owner, Newport City FC [ANT]
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC [IRS]
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Re: Arms control
Obviously you haven't seen a whole lot of international agreements in real life. The vast majority are similarly deliberately vague to account for changing circumstances.
Re: Arms control
And then there are the 900 page documents that are very specific. Regardless, I was trying to narrow down what the 'spirit of the agreement' is.
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Re: Arms control
The "spirit" of it is that you don't go out of your way to cause harm to civilians, essentially. So if you were trying to destroy a radar station in a City centre; using a precision guided bomb does not place civilians in any more danger than is essential to achieve a legitimate military goal. The implication is that you choose weaponry with deliberate care for the wellbeing of those living in the conflict zone.
Re: Arms control
That's what I'm having trouble understanding. You're talking about an arms embargo on something that's based off of intent.
So, take for instance the huge military bases in Iraq that are bigger than many American cities. A cluster or carpet bomb could be dropped onto / over one of those without ever even hitting the perimeter. If the application of the weapon is the consideration, how do you plan to enforce the no fly over / transport / ownership of a prohibited weapon when the application of the weapon decides if it's prohibited or not?
So, take for instance the huge military bases in Iraq that are bigger than many American cities. A cluster or carpet bomb could be dropped onto / over one of those without ever even hitting the perimeter. If the application of the weapon is the consideration, how do you plan to enforce the no fly over / transport / ownership of a prohibited weapon when the application of the weapon decides if it's prohibited or not?
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Re: Arms control
The weapons specifically mentioned are ones most likely to be effected by the transport ban, etc. Because regardless of the situation they're used in they pose an unacceptable risk to civilian life, hence the real life international bans on landmines and cluster munitions. You could mine the perimeter of a military base and then find them impossible to clear should the base close and thus civilians (particularly children) are put at risk. I could spend hours modifying the treaty to make it excessively detailed if that's what people want.