Discussion [Poll] What sort of war crimes would you ban?

Totally agreed, I wasn't thinking of missiles only. In the scenario, it looked like the ocean covers half the planet, and Penolopia is in the middle, so it's 1/4 circumference from Penolopia to all coastal nations (within the intermediate category).

The idea is more about having a forward base to operate on, and similarly to prevent that from happening. Kinda like how Japan attacked Hawaiian bases in WWII in an attempt to knock out US naval power in the Pacific. They didn't have ICBMs or long range rockets then either.
TLDR: You don't have to launch missiles from Penolopia, but you do need a naval base as a pit-stop to launch attacks from.

Not knocking on your scenarios Just pointing out that Penolopia has a lot more strategic advantage than might be expected, and hence more negotiating power (like an Earth Iceland).

 

1. What are your thoughts on war? What war crimes would you try banning?
Anything that can permanently affect Penolopia even if it is launched at Pangea.
2, How do you get 500 countries to agree on something?
You don't you get the largest countries from each of the alliances to agree. Aka how Soviet Union and America agreed on not using nukes after WW2 so no one used them.
3. Would you hate your job as the Foreign Minister? Would you try to resign and do something else, although it might mean you would get deported from the country if you can't find a job?
Foreign Minister sounds like a dream job to me.
4. A bombing occurred during the peace talks and the Prime Minister (and other government officials) were killed. As the highest ranking member of the cabinet, you are now the Prime Minister of Penolopia. Is there anything else you would try doing as the new Prime Minister?
Military reforms. We must have defences from EMP and other such things if we wish to hold onto our neutrality and our way of life. As well as trying to relax the immigration laws. We must kidnap the leading maufacturing companies to our country. MUHAHAHA!
5. A suspicious individual appeared and offered you $10 million gold to add an obscure line into the treaty you are writing so that Country X has a slight advantage over Country Z. This line will probably allow Country X is launch a surprise attack on Country Z in the future. Will you accept this bribe?
Never.
6. Suppose you are friends with the Interior Minister (responsible for domestic affairs). Would you try to talk them into to changing the deportation/immigration laws of Penolopia?
Yes

 

Actually Penolopia has less. Unlike in our world where Hawaii is on the direct and shortest route from Japan to USA if you wish to have a good fighter base for say bombing. Penolopia really isn't it's an out of the way island that would take more time and fuel than is worth to get to. Plus it would be next to impossible to maintain governance there due to the distance if they wished to rebel. Further Land routes are always preferable for armies to travel on. So in this Pangea setting Penolopia would likely be a back water if anything.

 

Mmmm ... not really.

Don't want to get into too much boring military detail (I was a logistics officer in the army), but ...

(1) It has nothing to do with being on a shortest route.
Penolopia has access to multiple coastal countries, so I'm not sure how you're defining "direct".
Similarly, Hawaii is not on a direct/shortest route from Japan to US. The shortest route is a polar route.
Hawaii is actually midway between Australia and US, and that depends on where you're going (Alaska? California?) since US has an entire continental coast.

(2) It's about a projection of military capabilities within a geography.
Penolopia has dominance over the entire ocean in this fictional world, being strategically located in the middle. And OP already mentioned that Penolopia has a strong navy, which means strong maritime capabilities/threats.

Consequently, Penolopia in my imagination certainly was not "pacifist" to any degree, at least in its history. But to have reached the point of becoming the economic seat of the world (e.g. host of the World Stock Market), it should be anticipated that they have sprawling sea-based trade networks and the associated naval forces to defend those economic interests. The entirety of their side of the ocean is probably regarded by them as de facto their own territorial waters -- and they probably would not look kindly to a massive fleet sailing through their side of the ocean.

(3) Land routes are not preferable for travel with current technology and global politics (this is about WWII level as described by OP)
Movement of goods and peoples are much more efficient on the high seas, which is why transcontinental maritime trade is the #1 mode of transportation in all of Earth history. Always has been, always will be. Because oceanic shipping is cheaper than land travel. No tolls, cost per mile is lower (no roads/rails to upkeep, lower expenditure of fuel), larger carrying capacities, etc.
Especially with that many countries in between the two furthest countries, and in times of conflict.

 

Luxembourg has been through 2 so? It can surely get through more!

But mostly how did this country even form. It would have to have formed after ironclads where invented because well sailing ships would be to unreliable to get between the two areas. With the lack of reference points. The currents and such and all that other such.