Landmine Ban Treaty Bill (Law'd)

[minionofmidas]

Landmine Ban Treaty Bill

The Republic of Atlasia shall become a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction as agreed in Ottawa in 1997.



Sponsor: Jas

[DownWithTheLeft]

Another awful piece of European trash.  No reason our great nation should be getting involved

[Bacon King]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

[Bacon King]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

What are you trying to say? I'm not following here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

What are you trying to say? I'm not following here.

He's just throwing a couple of mindless talking points together and hoping that they result in something that could be fairly called an argument. They don't, obviously.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

What are you trying to say? I'm not following here.

What I am trying to say is that treaty does nothing more than tie us down.  As we have seen from other treaties, they often do not work and while we hold up our end of the bargain, other nations do not or do not sign the treaty (ex. Kyoto is decent in principle but as long as China and India kept polluting excessively it does not matter what we do and we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage).  This treaty locks us into an agreement that limits the tactics we can use to defend our nations with no promise that these tactics will not be used against us.  There is no advantage to signing this treaty, only disadvantages.

[Verily]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

What are you trying to say? I'm not following here.

What I am trying to say is that treaty does nothing more than tie us down.  As we have seen from other treaties, they often do not work and while we hold up our end of the bargain, other nations do not or do not sign the treaty (ex. Kyoto is decent in principle but as long as China and India kept polluting excessively it does not matter what we do and we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage).  This treaty locks us into an agreement that limits the tactics we can use to defend our nations with no promise that these tactics will not be used against us.  There is no advantage to signing this treaty, only disadvantages.

For society to function, we (as individuals and as a nation) must occasionally resist the urge to defect in the Prisoners' Dilemma. This is one such case, and you're a moron to suggest "always defect" should be our national strategy.

[Torie]

I don't [think] land mines are very useful weapons these days, except for terrorists. When was the last time the other place used them? 

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't land mines are very useful weapons these days, except for terrorists. When was the last time the other place used them? 

     I agree with this. Maybe in 1916 it would have been a big deal, but I doubt the generals today will lose sleep if they can't have landmines, while they have bombers, aircraft carriers, high-powered sniper rifles, etc.

[minionofmidas]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

What are you trying to say? I'm not following here.

What I am trying to say is that treaty does nothing more than tie us down.  As we have seen from other treaties, they often do not work and while we hold up our end of the bargain, other nations do not or do not sign the treaty (ex. Kyoto is decent in principle but as long as China and India kept polluting excessively it does not matter what we do and we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage).  This treaty locks us into an agreement that limits the tactics we can use to defend our nations with no promise that these tactics will not be used against us.  There is no advantage to signing this treaty, only disadvantages.

For society to function, we (as individuals and as a nation) must occasionally resist the urge to defect in the Prisoners' Dilemma. This is one such case, and you're a moron to suggest "always defect" should be our national strategy.

Nevermind his hilariously faulty analysis of Kyoto.

I don't land mines are very useful weapons these days, except for terrorists. When was the last time the other place used them? 

     I agree with this. Maybe in 1916 it would have been a big deal, but I doubt the generals today will lose sleep if they can't have landmines, while they have bombers, aircraft carriers, high-powered sniper rifles, etc.

It depends. Who you're calling "the other place" here? Landmines tend to get used in stalemated civil wars a lot - mostly due to the (usually mistaken, but easy on the conscience) assumption that everybody is party and therefore everybody is a legitimate target. And of course, relatively low price, usefulness in stalemate situations, etc.

[Torie]

The other place is the US.

[minionofmidas]

The other place is the US.

Oh, lol. Misread you. I thought you were talking of some enemy of the US.

Probably in Vietnam [/educated guess]

[Bacon King]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

What are you trying to say? I'm not following here.

What I am trying to say is that treaty does nothing more than tie us down.  As we have seen from other treaties, they often do not work and while we hold up our end of the bargain, other nations do not or do not sign the treaty (ex. Kyoto is decent in principle but as long as China and India kept polluting excessively it does not matter what we do and we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage).  This treaty locks us into an agreement that limits the tactics we can use to defend our nations with no promise that these tactics will not be used against us.  There is no advantage to signing this treaty, only disadvantages.

As this "argument" has already been debunked (directly or indirectly) by the esteemed Senators Verily, Torie, Al, Lewis, and candidate PiT, I'll be brief.

Landmines are grossly immoral weapons and are both incredibly dangerous to civilians and extraordinarily costly to remove. To ratify this treaty would display international solidarity with the other nations of the world, show our concern regarding landmine use, and doesn't even have a real negative effect to us.

To assume we can't join in an international treaty because "oh noes someone else might break it!!" is almost laughably ignorant- with that thinking we would never have any international agreements ever. Why would anyone use landmines against us anyway?

Please don't be contrarian just for the hell of it.

[minionofmidas]

Why would anyone use landmines against us anyway?

Because they were being invaded by us, and were either trying to fortify a stalemate line they had no intention of crossing (but couldn't say the same about us, or possibly about some of the population on their side) or were being outmanned millions to one and had to resort to terrorism as the only remaining avenue of armed self-defense. Duh.

[Bacon King]

Why would anyone use landmines against us anyway?

Because they were being invaded by us, and were either trying to fortify a stalemate line they had no intention of crossing (but couldn't say the same about us, or possibly about some of the population on their side) or were being outmanned millions to one and had to resort to terrorism as the only remaining avenue of armed self-defense. Duh.

Well, though my statement was pretty much rhetorical, I'll go ahead and clarify so DWTL doesn't use your argument against me.

The chances we would ever be in the first situation you specified is pretty much nil as invasions nowadays are all done speedy-quick-like, and in the situation regarding terrorism I'm pretty sure terrorist groups aren't signatories of this treaty anyway.

[minionofmidas]

And if the producing nations signed this thing makes it much harder for the terrorists to get them in the first place. (It does take a fair bit of know-how to build a modern landmine. Though simpler, much less effective, improvised landmines could be produced by, cough, enthusiastic amateurs.)

[DownWithTheLeft]

with that thinking we would never have any international agreements ever.

Please, don't get me that excited

[Хahar 🤔]

To ratify this treaty would display international solidarity with the other nations of the world.

Which is why we must oppose it!

[Јas]

The other place is the US.

First Gulf War
117,634 were used, mostly scattered by airplanes.
27,967 were antipersonnel mines.
89,667 were antivehicle mines.

The U.S. is spending millions of dollars in work to demine Iraq (which already had more than its fair share of landmines in place).

There remains, on average, a new casualty every day in Iraq because of landmines.

Since then in the cases of both Kosovo and Iraq, the U.S. have deployed landmines to the region but there's no recorded use of any in either conflict.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I know I'm talking to air here, but how about a bill that just says the United States won't use landmines if people are some up in arms about them?  Why a ridiculous international statue

[Torie]

You do have this thing about treaties DWTL.  The very word is like Kyptonite to you.

[DownWithTheLeft]

You do have this thing about treaties DWTL.  The very word is like Kyptonite to you.

This is quite treaty, I don't know if you've seen Team America but they all remind of the scene where Hans Blix tells Saddam that he is going to write him a very nasty letter telling him he is a bad, bad man if he does not stop making weapons.  Really all treaties do are sign pointless agreements, just making a law that we do not adhere to certain practices would acheive the same goal without being bound by the rest of the world if circumstances arise that cause us to need to change that law.

[Torie]

You do have this thing about treaties DWTL.  The very word is like Kyptonite to you.

This is quite treaty, I don't know if you've seen Team America but they all remind of the scene where Hans Blix tells Saddam that he is going to write him a very nasty letter telling him he is a bad, bad man if he does not stop making weapons.  Really all treaties do are sign pointless agreements, just making a law that we do not adhere to certain practices would acheive the same goal without being bound by the rest of the world if circumstances arise that cause us to need to change that law.

You know, one can withdraw from treaties. It's not like a contract without a termination date, where if you want out, your ass gets sued for breach.

[Sensei]

Fully Support