The Sydney Convention

[Sarah Tintagyl]

"We would not first strike in a war. Unless we are nuked or we are have certain defeat with disgraceful surrender terms we would never go nuclear in a war."

"So in other words you aren't against the idea of a nuclear first strike against a nation and then think that in this disgraceful surrender you launch the weapons against your enemy. Surely that civilian targets in order to make the enemy pay and plunge the world back into a radioactive chaos. I'm glad to know that one of our neighbors would first strike if the cards were dealt correctly and even better as a neutral nation who does not want to get involved in any wars, is protecting them as you are doing. If you are neutral then you don't have much to worry about do you?

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Nations that refuse to part with their weapons on account of safety and then even better admit that they are not above first strike if the scenario presents itself. Cannot your own military defend you or is even that too trying for your nation?"

We appear to be getting a little bit off topic in any case. I do have a proposition. The White Cross has long been a provider of aid to those in need, as such, I propose a slight ammendment to their duties, should the organisation wish to accept it. The White Cross could provide medical support to injured combatants, and insure that all rules and strictures that may be laid down in this agreement are followed to the letter. For example humane treatment of prisoners.

"The White Cross will not provide medical service to soldiers in active duty. We exist to help civilians only. However soldiers that are decommissioned and will not return to war can be treated. However it is not our responsibility to take care of active wounded and prisoners. This is the responsibility of the warring parties. However, I am interested in what amendments you have in mine Ambassador."

[Centurius]

Getting just in time for the convention a General from the Air Force looked up at the Nuclear Subject.

"Greater Croatia officially maintains a no first strike policy however there are 2 protocols in place the Satellite Act, where a confirmed launch will cause a full strike to make sure ours are not taken out, and a procedure where the math from a Nuclear First Strike show a lower amount of casualties than conventional warfare. We do not see a reason to make the Exchange restrictions even higher than they currently are, and a disarmament is out of the question. Without our arsenal powers of equal or larger strength will not think twice about firing a weapon of mass destruction"

[Sir Keshav IV]

"More or less only time we will first strike is when all hope is lost, nothing more can be revealed due to Opsec reasons. We shall not and will not decommission nuclear weapons unless we our the last nation in the world to hold onto them."

[Amyante]

Amyante rose from her seat after the opening message was made, and the Hanseatic representative had spoken. Though the ruler of Somal had called the convention a farce from the start, she was inclined to disagree, given that this meeting was about making a universal definition of a 'war crime'. With a universal definition, that meant a universal legislation would not be too far off and, by extention, Promised Land could be led in front of an international court. As such, she decided not to comment on Johns' reaction, not wanting to throw a burning torch into the powder keg.

Though the conflict between Somal and Promised Land had been the most recent example of such an attack (though unintentional) they were no exception. Hell, even she had biological weaponry in Zargathia, if only because they were former Yamato stockpiles. But that would be something to keep off the radar until she could find a way to dispose of them in a way that didn't involve pouring it all in a river leading to the ocean, and until her troops had restored order in her nation she wasn't about to admit having them, not before having them safely secured anyway.

- "Zargathia is perfectly willing to sign an official document stating that none of the signing parties will use nuclear technology for the purpose of producing weapons of mass distruction, should one such document result from these meetings. We do however wish to remind you that this meeting in particular concerned discussing a universal definition of war crimes for the purposes of enabling international legislation, and should focus on that before moving on to... topics of equal importance."

She paused a bit at that last part. Given that the meeting had been called for war crimes, she couldn't right out say that nuclear weaponry was a more important topic, but she didn't want to demean it either. Fact remained however that she didn't want to get off topic before even starting out.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

"Greater Croatia officially maintains a no first strike policy however there are 2 protocols in place the Satellite Act, where a confirmed launch will cause a full strike to make sure ours are not taken out, and a procedure where the math from a Nuclear First Strike show a lower amount of casualties than conventional warfare. We do not see a reason to make the Exchange restrictions even higher than they currently are, and a disarmament is out of the question. Without our arsenal powers of equal or larger strength will not think twice about firing a weapon of mass destruction"

"So peace through superior firepower Ambassador, how lovely. But the point is is that the same damage during warfare can be used with conventional weapons rather than through nuclear weapons. If I may bring up once again how the Gebiv nuclear holocaust occurred. It was because of nuclear weapons being used against military installations. That can be termed as a first strike indefinitely and can lead to the same holocaust if the bombs would have been pointed at civilian centers in the first place.

"More or less only time we will first strike is when all hope is lost, nothing more can be revealed due to Opsec reasons. We shall not and will not decommission nuclear weapons unless we our the last nation in the world to hold onto them."

"Well then I would assume that this is the philosophy shared by all nations with nuclear weapons. Let the first person decommission their's and then perhaps we will decommission ours. I can already tell that these arguments won't amount to much. People hold on to their weapons of mass destruction more than they cling to their citizens."

"Zargathia is perfectly willing to sign an official document stating that none of the signing parties will use nuclear technology for the purpose of producing weapons of mass distruction, should one such document result from these meetings. We do however wish to remind you that this meeting in particular concerned discussing a universal definition of war crimes for the purposes of enabling international legislation, and should focus on that before moving on to... topics of equal importance."

"And the use of nuclear weapons and biological weapons should qualify as a war crime. I am talking about destroying both nuclear and biological weapons here which I believe was the main reason this conference was held to begin with. Due to Promised Land's recent attack on Somal. It pains us to see Promised Land, as one of our closest friends responsible for this kind of attack. The Hanseatic government has already specified that an investigation is required for the Promised Land government, rogues or not. But if you want a definition of a war crime, here's your definition."

-Development and research of bio-weaponry

-Development of nuclear weapons

-Use of Nuclear and/or Biological on civilian and/or military targets

-Use of aggressive force on civilian targets.

"These are just a start however. If anyone has more to add, be my guest. There are many more that the Hansa would like to see integrated into our global community than just weapon watching."

[hawk11]

Palintine arrives late.

[Arkantos]

Sorry for the lateness, but Aiginor is here.

[Mergerberger II]

"Comrades, it would seem we are completely off topic. We came here to discuss war crimes, not nuclear first strike policy.

"If anyone has a proposal actually regarding war crimes, I would like to hear it."

[Maelstrom Vortex]

"We don't have any defensive treaties. But being a communist nation we fear we might be prosecuted and attacked. Only then will this missiles be used."

"We can fix that really easily if you'd like to." Davis noted. "We've had you in our treaties and you withdrew."

[iKrolm]

-Development and research of bio-weaponry

-Development of nuclear weapons

-Use of Nuclear and/or Biological on civilian and/or military targets

-Use of aggressive force on civilian targets.

"These are just a start however. If anyone has more to add, be my guest. There are many more that the Hansa would like to see integrated into our global community than just weapon watching."

The development of nuclear weapons does not necessarily signify a war crime. Many nations possess these weapons merely as a deterrent with no intention to use them. The Nation of Selenarctos possesses nuclear weapons, however they are reserved solely for use against naval targets where the civilian death toll will be greatly decreased.

We agree excessive use of force against civilians qualifies as a war crime, but some amount of aggressive force, whether intentional or not, always occurs against civilian populations. With both of these in mind, please allow us to submit a slightly modified list of what constitutes a war crime:

- Development, storage and use of bio-weaponry.

- Use of Nuclear/radioactive weaponry on civilian targets.

- Excessive use of force against civilian targets (including but not limited to genocide and mass murder).

- Excessive use of force against surrendered military units (including but not limited to murder or abuse while under custody).

Edited July 18, 2009 by iKrolm

[loannes]

General Jackson stood up and nodded to those gathered. "I'd like to say that the matter of treating both captured enemy troops and your own troops with respect and care is an idea that Drakoria backs wholeheartedly. Torture is a heinous practice, and it rarely produces reliable results; men will say anything to end pain.

"My men have yet to see war. Yet every time it crosses my mind that Drakoria may someday go to war, I fear for my Marines that may be captured by the enemy. Every nation must realize that 'forced labor' for prisoners of war is slavery. Every nation must realize torture is not a reliable way to gain information against your foe, and that their acts are against fellow humans. Every nation must realize that all they have to do is turn the chess board around...

"My conclusion is this: all soldiers, whether enemy, allied, or of your own nation, should be treated as if they were a guest to your nation. And civilians must never be the target of warfare. Drakoria will support any effort to make this practice universal."

General Jackson ended his words and sat down quietly in his seat.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Drakedeath

[iamthey]

-Development and research of bio-weaponry

-Development of nuclear weapons

-Use of Nuclear and/or Biological on civilian and/or military targets

-Use of aggressive force on civilian targets.

Entering rather late, the Envoy stood to address a point he had heard made.

We are not going to beat the horse to death on the first three, others have already raised objections and we agree; however on the matter of the third. Who is to say what exactly constitutes a civilian target. I don't have any personal moral issue with the idea of assassinating enemy civilian leadership, destroying enemy governmental bureacracy; destroying factories that are building war related materials, and so on. In a true war isn't the home front just as important as the war front and just as critical to disrupt? I personally think it would be bad war policy to put all your effort into the military to military war, and then totally neglect their supply lines and source of reinforcements. Thats treating a symptom with no concern for the cause.

In general though the Dominion will do as it chooses, and will make its own rules. We will never recognize an international definition of "war crimes" as we don't recognize the idea that war crimes even exist. A war is a time when the legal entities of two states are contested, there can be no "illegal" act as there is no law in effect at the site of the mutual political struggle. War crime is always a label that is applied after a war is concluded to justify intervention and modification of a nation to suit the victor. If I didn't like their leadership, or wanted to demand economic compensation; I would simply label them a war criminals and execute them or demand compensation, or if I don't like their legal or governmental structure I would simply label it inhumane or unjust to justify the change. International law, human rights, and the concept of war crimes are little more than tools to justify intervention, kill off opposition, and justify international oppression. If you are against imperialism and oppression, then nations should simply remain sovereign and free to make their own internal policy, and if one nation violates the sovereignty of another, then let war decide who was right.

In short, I would rather leave the possibility of having war crimes be committed against my nation open (and simply handle them as they occur); than give up legal ground to international organizations and legal authorities.

Edited July 19, 2009 by iamthey

[Maelstrom Vortex]

"Nuclear weapons are nowhere near as dangerous as Bioweapons. Nuclear weapons can be used right and under the proper parameters would not constitute a war crime. Bioweapons however are outside the bounds of man to maintain a strict control over once released. They have the ability to mutate, and unlike nuclear weapons, are indiscriminate about what people they kill. Nuclear weapons kill in known blast ranges and radii and do not leave the areas of their yields. Bioweapons have no boundaries. They do not recognize borders and can be a threat to more than man. They are the cruelest and most offensive of weapons."

"We believe the development of nuclear weapons should still be allowed, but if they cause death away from a military installation in their use then it should be a war crime. Given this would be almost impossible save for below ground explosions.. below ground explosions for bunker busting would be the only legitimate use of such weapons as the earth can contain the fallout if tactical weapons are used. However, biological weapons.. are never usable or even able to be developed without danger. There is even a simple containment risk associated with their creation. In their nature, bio weapons should be completely outlawed in development and being brought to exist and should be recognized as war crimes for simple possession. Retaliating against a nuclear attack with equal force should not be a war crime."

"To prevent states with such weapons currently from being against wanting to sign this agreement, a 1 month phase out and destruction period should be permitted before the international standards take effect."

Edited July 19, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex

[iamthey]

"Nuclear weapons are nowhere near as dangerous as Bioweapons. Nuclear weapons can be used right and under the proper parameters would not constitute a war crime. Bioweapons however are outside the bounds of man to maintain a strict control over once released. They have the ability to mutate, and unlike nuclear weapons, are indiscriminate about what people they kill. Nuclear weapons kill in known blast ranges and radii and do not leave the areas of their yields. Bioweapons have no boundaries. They do not recognize borders and can be a threat to more than man. They are the cruelest and most offensive of weapons."

While I agree, to play the devils advocate thats not entirely true. While pathogen's such as small pox are as you described, beyond our ability to contain; and threaten not only the population targeted, but also that of the world. A pathogen such as anthrax is particularly targeted in the sense that once released the spores will infect those exposed but those exposed are for the most part incapable of passing it on. Some biological weapons simply act like chemical weapons killing those in the immediate radius and within a few days of exposure to the environment die off. So what about those?

Edited July 19, 2009 by iamthey

[Maelstrom Vortex]

"They still have the ability to mutate and become something unintended, operating outside their original parameters. A nuclear weapon cannot mutate. An atom is an atom. However, introduce cosmic rays to the genes of some baterium and viri and you come out with something altogether more hellish and self proliferant. Worse, when such new strains occur, there are typically no known resistances able to stop it for a time. Thus, it becomes a global health threat.."

[iamthey]

Fair point, as we said; we agree there is too much uncertainty when it comes to living things. A chemical an an atom are far more preferable in the sense that they will act the same way and there are few if any "unintended consequences".

[Silhouette]

- Development, storage and use of bio-weaponry.

- Use of Nuclear/radioactive weaponry on civilian targets.

- Excessive use of force against civilian targets (including but not limited to genocide and mass murder).

- Excessive use of force against surrendered military units (including but not limited to murder or abuse while under custody).

This is by far the most reasonable list that has so far been presented. As for the other parties, we are not here to discuss the pros and cons of biological weaponry, but whether their use should be considered a crime.

To the Dominion:

Assassination has long been an accepted method of winning a war. I doubt anyone here would consider the leader of an enemy nation's armies a civilian. The issue is essentially collateral damage. As we have seen recently, reckless use of force against non military targets can be responsible for the deaths of many uninvolved individuals, which is truly heinous.

Finally, to the rest of those assembled:

Here, the senator really loses his temper.

Will you all stop your @#$%^ing. This meeting is to unite us in common moral and ethical standing, not to divide us over a less significant issue, that can be addressed at another time.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

Evangeline stood up gathering her papers and looked at the other representatives gathered. There was no reason to debate this further, the other countries most likely had already made up their minds of what they wanted to see debated when they walked in. Truthfully there was no reason for the Hansa to argue about mistreatment of prisoners, there was no reason to argue over the mistreatment of civilians. The world was loud anyways, people had always treated civilians poorly in war. Honestly, she didn't feel like wasting her breath anymore and truthfully, she felt that Lady Tintagyl would be doing the same in her shoes.

"Well gentlemen if you do come to an agreement, please let us know. We will abide by anything created from this conference. But most of you have already made up your minds and your ideas will not change. Perhaps, but I think I've seen enough of world leaders to think differently. Good day."

With that she walked out of the convention, without looking back.

[Lavo]

Who is to say what exactly constitutes a civilian target. I don't have any personal moral issue with the idea of assassinating enemy civilian leadership, destroying enemy governmental bureacracy; destroying factories that are building war related materials, and so on.

The RA representative, thus far silent, burst out in laughter at this comment. "You really are one to talk. The same country who's leadership and legal precursor state betrayed an MDP partner by using nuclear weapons on civilian targets, the vast majority of which were not producing war materials of any kind." The man spat on the ground, towards the Dominion's ambassador's feet. "Seeing how this meeting has been entirely useless and how some of the signatories' word is as good as dirt, I will be taking my leave." With that said, the man got up and simply walked out of the room.

[iamthey]

The RA representative, thus far silent, burst out in laughter at this comment. "You really are one to talk. The same country who's leadership and legal precursor state betrayed an MDP partner by using nuclear weapons on civilian targets, the vast majority of which were not producing war materials of any kind." The man spat on the ground, towards the Dominion's ambassador's feet. "Seeing how this meeting has been entirely useless and how some of the signatories' word is as good as dirt, I will be taking my leave." With that said, the man got up and simply walked out of the room.

What are you talking about? Surely you must be mistaking us for another nation. The Alliance never used its nuclear arsenal, and neither have we. If you are referring to the Imperium, our government is hardly connected to that monstrosity at all. Our present leader Thomas Devereaux is the long separated son of Michael Devereaux one of the members of the group that decided to authorize nuclear strikes on the Rebel Army. Thomas has given several speeches on his disagreement with that heinous act carried out by the Imperium and it was even the topic of his own speech as he ascended to the position of General Administrator under the Alliance. Surely you couldn't blame our entire nation for the terrible tragedy that happened to your own nation just because one of our high level government members is related to someone who was only part of the decision making process to authorize the attacks. Moreover I will add that the Imperium didn't break any treaty with your own nation, it was honoring a treaty which contained an overriding clause, and was honor bound to carry out those attacks as per the orders of the bloc's military committee.

Moreover, personal defamation doesn't effect the validity of the point raised. The question of what constitutes a civilian target is still open.

As for hansa's leaving. I have long had great respect for the commonwealth and for their leader's dedication to her subjects. Unlike most others here I come to this table with an open mind and consider all views expressed to be valid perspectives held by different sovereign entities. That being said I am rather displeased by the fact that hansa and several other differing view points have simply abandoned discussion for some unexpressed reasoning. No one here is talking about gunning down civilians, or unleashing biological terrorism, or mistreating POW's; the arguments that have been raised have been reasonable and have been equally justified based upon principles of sovereignty, common theories of total war, and legal and moral theory. I respect hansa's opinion on the matter, but I would have expected them to engage in an academic discussion of the matter before us, answering the concerns that were raised as I am fully willing to do with my own pints. That being said I ask that hansa and others get off their moral high horses and stop looking down upon those who happen to disagree. Yours is one position among many not the white standard of universal truth; if you expect respect for your own positions then you should at least reciprocate and respect those of your peers. That being said even If you believe you carry the banner of truth than if anything you have no right to not share that truth with us and convince us of its validity.

Edited July 19, 2009 by iamthey

[Amyante]

Amyante sighed as the Hansa representative left, followed by the RA representative not too long afterwards. It was a bit disheartening to see them walk out of the building after less than an hour of talking, and even though she hadn't said much herself save for her statement a little while ago. Even though her political leverage was about as close to zero as one could get, she still felt she had to say something before this meeting would end up in a farce.

- "Though we regret to hear that the Dominion chooses never to acknowledge the existance of war crimes, we share their view on the purpose of this meeting. The objective here is to discuss, and ultimately agree on an international definition of what can be categorised as a war crime, and leaving wouldn't be much different than if you had had a written statement submitted fopr review. We cannot and must not force sovereign nations to sign something without their consent, therefore coming up with something that we can all agree with is vital to the success of this meeting."

She glanced at the Dominion representative. Though it sounded like their massively contrasting views would have them disagree over more than one issue in the future, she still respected the fact that they respected the views of other sovereign nations, only demanding that same respect in return. Taking a deep breath, she started to bring up the topic again as the meeting threatened to deteriorate into accusations over past events again.

- Development, storage and use of bio-weaponry.

- Use of Nuclear/radioactive weaponry on civilian targets.

- Excessive use of force against civilian targets (including but not limited to genocide and mass murder).

- Excessive use of force against surrendered military units (including but not limited to murder or abuse while under custody).

- "Zargathia agrees with this proposition. For the purposes of determining what are civilian targets and what are not, we offer the following concession: Governments would fall under civilian targets, unless war has been formally declared first and any outstanding ultimatum has been rejected. While we will not be changing our zero nuke policy, we realise that this is a decision to be made by the nations gathered here themselves and only ask to refrain from adopting a first strike policy concerning nuclear weaponry."

After that, she sat down again, waiting to see what thge reaction to her proposed concession would be.

[iamthey]

Just to clarify while we don't think there is any such thing as a "war crime" that doesn't mean we don't object to particular war practices. Our consideration stems from our perception of the international arena.

The world itself at its highest level is in a state of anarchy. By this I mean, there is no higher authority, or sovereign presiding over the world. Nation-states at the highest level are sovereign entities and are equal in diplomatic standing and in the sense that their sovereignty is inviolable. Each entity participating within the global arena is essentially participating within a global struggle for the proliferation of their ideals. We all do this in our own way whether we want to or not. The people of Hansa are fighting to proliferate peace and progress towards an ideal world, while we are fighting to protect our sovereignty, while others are fighting to eliminate practices they feel cross the line. Law is essentially an imposition, or a tool of forcing entities to conform to your will. It exists only within sovereign entities, and stems from the sovereign in whatever form it takes. My point is there can be no "law" in the international arena because the structure of the international arena and the nature of war prevents it. Ultimately the only mechanism of truly enforcing international law, is interventionist war. So either the international arena much change, and nations must no longer be sovereign at which point its just a matter of who is stronger; this inevitably results in a world system which exploits lesser nations and empowers stronger nations; or there can be no true international law. Furthermore the international "government" is built out of a coalition of states representing a political bloc; however this doesn't change the reality that what they represent is not "law" but rather just a political position. As long as violating parties have their own coalition or win the war the international law itself means nothing. Finally international law is impossible at the point where war is itself a moment of contest in which two legal entities are delegitimized by one another; there can't be any real overriding law because there is no over arching neutral entity which governs the nature of the contest. There are simply the two coalitions supporting either side.

Now my alternative is not to say "oh well $%&@ it"; the alternative is just to deal with bad war practices as they occur. These events generally have a way of naturally correcting as a coalition will form behind the victim, and wipe out the violator. Rather than clothing it in false clothing and calling it "law" which its not, we merely want to let the international arena solve the matter as a function of political objection.

[Amyante]

Amyante suppressed the urge to chuckle, managing to tone it down to a smirk instead. It seemed they really were destined to disagree after all.

- "It's not so much a matter of 'law' per se, as nations are by definition sovereign. The main objective is to have a definition of war crimes -- that is to say, actions that are considered inappropriate behaviour -- that is equal among nations. Though we cannot condemn, say, a ruler of a nation to serve a prison sentence based on the actions of the nation he's responsable for, it would however facilitate sanctioning the offending nation if their definition of the crime is the same as yours. Though regrettably similar to the reason why most nations have nuclear missiles, the threat of economic boycotting would keep nations from committing heinous acts."

[Maelstrom Vortex]

The Imperial representative sighed. So many people wanted to dictate and not negotiate. If you're going to agree on something the goal is to find a balance between the opinions and thoughts. Not to say, "This should be the definition" and leave.

"I am sorry gentlemen, with two of the largest states having exited this discussion, I do not see how a comprehensive agreement can be formed. That said, I am departing these talks." With that, Davis picked up his suite case and walked out.

[Vedran]

Thadon watched the other representatives trade demands. Even the Hansa representative was unwilling to compromise. He was almost embarrassed to come here and watch another conference break down. Known to be the calmest and most open-minded in Arctica's ruling triumvirate, the Thurokiir did not even bother to stand while speaking.

Thadon tapped the microphone in front of him to get everyone's attention. "Ladies and gentlemen, this conference has so far been a failed attempt at compromise. We came here to come to a mutual agreement regarding war crimes. Despite the premature departure of some of the most influential players in today's world, I am determined to see this conference to its end, and I am determined to see something good come out of this. However, this can only be achieved if we all work together.

Today we have seen representatives of esteemed nations fail to conduct themselves in a diplomatic manner. Demands have been made and tempers flared. Let's reevaluate our attitudes and start anew.

Now, war crimes. It is generally agreed in the international community that there are certain actions during war that are undesirable, and if these actions are put into policy, very undesirable. However, rather than we handful of nations drafting an agreement defining what and what is not acceptable in war and demanding that all states in the world adhere to it, for this conference to have any significant measure of success we must be more realistic.

What I propose is that we come to an agreement on what is acceptable and unacceptable during war, draft a treaty based on the agreement, sign it, and invite others to do the same. The only entities the treaty will bind is those that are signatories to it.

First, I think most of us here would agree that firing on soldiers under a flag of truce or surrender is unacceptable. Imagine, if you will, that country A and country B are at war, and there is a battle going on between the two. An officer from country A, prominently displaying a white flag, approaches one of country B's fortified positions with the intent to negotiate. Country B's soldiers gun him down. The consequences of this are that country A's soldiers have reason to believe their opposites are untrustworthy and will not attempt to surrender or negotiate a truce in the future, thus prolonging the war and increasing the suffering on both sides.

Second, declaring that no quarter will be given to the enemy, or in other words, not accepting any surrender and killing all wounded enemies. Aside from the obvious moral implications of this, declaring such will ensure that the enemy, now having only one way of staying alive, will fight much harder, and by extension the country he is fighting for is that less likely to surrender itself, thus prolonging the war and increasing the suffering on both sides.

Third, fighting under a flag of truce or surrender. Imagine again, country A and country B are at war, and there is a battle going on between the two. Country A's soldiers, prominently displaying a white flag, approach their opposites. When they are within range, they raise their weapons and resume fighting. This increases the likelyhood of the enemy taking no prisoners and has the same effects as I described above.

Fourth, the wanton killing of noncombatants. Sometimes it is justifiable to kill civilians during war, such as when bombing a factory that produces ammunition or other war materials. Or an infiltration team shooting a civilian who was about to give away their presence. However, attacking - whether with ground forces, seagoing forces, conventional bombs, nuclear weapons - major population centers for the main purpose of showing your willingness to do so and scaring the enemy into surrendering is not as justifiable and should be forbidden by any agreement that comes out of this.

These are only some of the things I propose be labeled as war crimes, and I am sure the rest of you have more." Thadon looked around and measured the reaction of the other reps.