NationStates Jolt Archive

Who cares about weapons of mass destruction when small numbers of people are intent on destroying the world.

I think they should be stopped.

Don't deny it. You or someone you know has talked about blowing up the world.

I've been accused of stuff like that before....

Proposal to Ban the Creation of Doomsday Devices:

Definition of a Doomsday Device:
A Doomsday Device is any device or system capable of causing or initiating the massive loss of life, health, or the destruction of property while being incapable of being limited to a specific theater of combat when employed in warfare. In other words, a Doomsday Device either is capable of escaping from the battlefield to cause damage elsewhere on its own, such as a biological weapon, or it is capable of devastating an area larger than any battlefield. For the purpose of this Act, a weapon shall be classified as a Doomsday Device if, in a single deployment, it is capable of devastating an area exceeding ten thousand square kilometers. For comparison, this is approximately one hundred times the land area devastated by a nuclear warhead in the one-to-ten megaton range.

The creation or possession of all Doomsday Devices is hereby prohibited. Any party who discovers that another party is creating such a device shall bring his evidence before the U.N. General Assembly. If the accusation is found to be true, the device and all data and equipment pertinent to its creation shall be confiscated by the U.N., by military force if necessary. If it later is discovered that the accusation was in fact false, then the accussing party shall be required to pay an indemnity of not less than twice the value of any damage incurred upon the accused party as a result of the accusation.

The deployment of a Doomsday Device, given that by its very nature it can not be limited in its scope of destruction, shall be regarded as Attempted Genocide upon the party upon whom the Doomsday Device was intended to be released. Other charges may be leveled against the offending party based upon the actual amount and nature of the destruction inflicted.

Simple doomsday device. Take one small nuke. coat said nuke in several kilos of cobalt 60. detonate at high altitude in the jet stream. One bomb per north/south hemisphere. The resultant fallout would easily wreck the bulk of the world, killing off most plants and animals. that degree of die off should set off an ice age relatively quickly. the ice age would finish the job.

there see how easy a doomsday weapon is? 2 nukes. some cobalt 60. you really think you can prevent such a thing from happeneing?

Dude!!! That would be like so cool!!!

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/raziel/Icon8.jpg
Immortal Emperor Tobias Raziel
Holy Empire of Penguenia
Penguenian Lady Guard (http://boards.gamers.com/messages/overview.asp?name=Penguenia)

you really think you can prevent such a thing from happeneing?

Yes.

good luck. cobalt 60 is widely available, it being the isotope used in most xray machines. nukes are also 'widely' available.

Simple doomsday device. Take one small nuke. coat said nuke in several kilos of cobalt 60. detonate at high altitude in the jet stream. One bomb per north/south hemisphere. The resultant fallout would easily wreck the bulk of the world, killing off most plants and animals. that degree of die off should set off an ice age relatively quickly. the ice age would finish the job.

there see how easy a doomsday weapon is? 2 nukes. some cobalt 60. you really think you can prevent such a thing from happeneing?

I think you are underestimating the quantity of colbalt 60 needed, as well as overestimating how easily it would disperse.

Plutonium Dioxide is the most potent chemical toxin known to mankind, with an LD50 (50% lethal) level of approximately ten nanograms per kilogram of body mass. It would still take nearly a ton of PlO2 to kill all humans on Earth, and that assumes that it is dispersed evenly across the inhabited regions of the Earth in particles small enough to remain airborne. I seriously doubt that less than several dozen detonations would be sufficient to disperse enough radiation/toxin to kill all human life (unless you mean one big multi-gigaton bomb).

Proposal to Ban the Creation of Doomsday Devices:
Any party who discovers that another party is creating such a device shall bring his evidence before the U.N. General Assembly. If the accusation is found to be true, the device and all data and equipment pertinent to its creation shall be confiscated by the U.N., by military force if necessary.


Sounds like a plot to arm the UN to me

*shifty eyes*

Now this here's the sort of policies the U.N. SHOULD be makin'!

Yeah, we here in Alabammy will support the stoppin' of Doomsday Devices, Death Rays, and the like.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Makes sense. UN is in place to ensure good global governance and general functioning of the earth, Doomsday Devices threaten the general functioning of the earth, so it makes sense for the UN to ban them. Put it this way, can they ever be used positively, to achieve any good ends? No? Then in the interests of the earth's survival, they must be outlawed.

"Sir! They're onto us."
Comrade Dmitri talked from his swivel chair, facing a large screen.
"Get the world leaders on for me."
"What, all 75,000?"
"Yes."
*Cue lights fade, screen bursts into life, but not before Dmitri has swivelled away from it.*
"What is it, Mr. Dmitri?" asked the leader of a nosy newbie.
*Dmitri swivels round in one fluid movement, strooking a white cat that has suddenly materialised*
"Gentlemen, I have the Doomsday Device. You have 24 hours to deliver the gold bullion or else..."

Guess what people, Cobalt 60 is not "widely" available, what, are you going to break into the nearest hospital, kill the nurses and somehow extract the Cobalt 60 from the x ray machine without the S.W.A.T guys blowing up your head? and then, how are you gonna get nukes? Huh? How? Gonna mine it and then somehow stop George Bush from invading your country? Don't think so, Bush is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY TOO CRAZY to be stopped along with my nation. and the Iron Kingdoms as well


Iron Kingdoms people, vote for Etchar, not Menoth
as your UN delegate. :D

Hi i'm new read my message below

"Simple Doomsday Device, take a couple of nukes and wrap it in a shell of Cobalt 60 its in X ray machinesGuess what people, Cobalt 60 is not "widely" available, what, are you going to break into the nearest hospital, kill the nurses and somehow extract the Cobalt 60 from the x ray machine without the S.W.A.T guys blowing up your head? and then, how are you gonna get nukes? Huh? How? Gonna mine it and then somehow stop George Bush from invading your country? Don't think so, Bush is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY TOO CRAZY to be stopped along with my nation. and the Iron Kingdoms as well


Iron Kingdoms people, vote for Etchar, not Menoth
as your UN delegate. :D

and me without my "illudium PU36 explosive space modulator"

I understand that doomsday devices have kind of a bad reputation, but with today's technology it's quite simple to create a small, inexpensive doomsday device that has no major negative environmental impact and is available in a variety of colors and sizes. As long as they are used judiciously, I don't see a problem.

For what it's worth,
The Rogue Nation of Futplex

I understand that doomsday devices have kind of a bad reputation, but with today's technology it's quite simple to create a small, inexpensive doomsday device that has no major negative environmental impact and is available in a variety of colors and sizes. As long as they are used judiciously, I don't see a problem.

For what it's worth,
The Rogue Nation of Futplex

No major negative environmental impact? Doomsday Devices by definition are designed to destroy (or, occasionally, to enslave) the populations of entire nations or regions.

I understand that doomsday devices have kind of a bad reputation, but with today's technology it's quite simple to create a small, inexpensive doomsday device that has no major negative environmental impact and is available in a variety of colors and sizes. As long as they are used judiciously, I don't see a problem.

For what it's worth,
The Rogue Nation of Futplex

No major negative environmental impact? Doomsday Devices by definition are designed to destroy (or, occasionally, to enslave) the populations of entire nations or regions.
Sure, but recent advances have allowed the construction of small, solar-powered Doomsday Devices that do all this with a minimum of environmental impact. Maybe you aren't subscribed to 'Mad Scientists Weekly' and that's why you're not up on the latest research in this area; if so, I recommend going to the library and checking out the last couple of issues, which contained a complete overview of the field. It really opened my eyes!

All nuclear and biological weapons should be destroyed. If you want a fight, make it a less lethal one. Don't deal with the innocent, deal with your PURSUEING ENEMIES!

Nukes may be used for bad things but they are not bad.

they have constructive purposes.


In 17 years we are due to have a close encounter with an asteroid. (I think they have lowered the threat a bit on it) However, one day we may just meet up with one which decides that earth looks like a nice place to land.

All the fears of environmental impact of nukes will be moot it one of these bad boys hits earth. I say that we should keep investing their development. While restricting their development by unstable governments. particularily religious governments.

What good is a nuke you ask?

the intercept of the asteroid which is 17 years out could easily be diverted with a large nuclear explosion on one of its early passes. The energy from the nuke will divert the asteroid by a minute ammount this new error in trajectory will escallate over the years.

with 17 years advanced warning one could probably whack an asteroid off collission with earth with a fast moving pingpong ball.

The less warning the more bang you will need.

The dinosaurs and other extinct creatures could only wish they had such technology.

The UN space initiative should include provisions for at least 250 megatons of nuclear warheads be placed in space. (to limit wrong doing these warheads should be equipped with no thermal shielding so as to insure their destruction if turned on earth.

The High V does not understand this global hatred for Doomsday devices and weapons of mass destruction. Used properly they can be very effective in policing your own nation. For example, just last week The High V (in his infinate wisdom) put down the entire animal rights movement within the empire by pumping more than leathal doses of biotoxin into the arena where they were holding their annual convention. 24000 annoying activist put down using only 23 givtoVs worth of chemicals. The High V's only regret was that it was not done last year. And sure for the next 50 years anyone going into the arena will be poisoned and die within months, so at the same time a perfect prison was created.

Can somebody please explain to me HOW you disarm a Nation with a Doomsday Device, paticularly if it has a delivery system that can send the thing far from its own borders, and thus minimise home effect, but close enough to anybody voting against it.

This becomes even more problematical if they are willing to accept their own destruction, possibly some of the more extreme religious States for instance, as long as they take the rest of us, or a large number anyway, with them.

Pre-emptive strikes...

The High V does not understand this global hatred for Doomsday devices and weapons of mass destruction. Used properly they can be very effective in policing your own nation. For example, just last week The High V (in his infinate wisdom) put down the entire animal rights movement within the empire by pumping more than leathal doses of biotoxin into the arena where they were holding their annual convention. 24000 annoying activist put down using only 23 givtoVs worth of chemicals. The High V's only regret was that it was not done last year. And sure for the next 50 years anyone going into the arena will be poisoned and die within months, so at the same time a perfect prison was created.

You have just answered your own question there. The nations who are opposed to Doomsday Devices are in opposition because they oppose inflicting simultaneous mass death.

The nations who are opposed to Doomsday Devices are in opposition because they oppose inflicting simultaneous mass death.
That seems awfully narrow-minded.

Your correspondent,
The Rogue Nation of Futplex

Can somebody please explain to me HOW you disarm a Nation with a Doomsday Device, paticularly if it has a delivery system that can send the thing far from its own borders, and thus minimise home effect, but close enough to anybody voting against it.

This becomes even more problematical if they are willing to accept their own destruction, possibly some of the more extreme religious States for instance, as long as they take the rest of us, or a large number anyway, with them.

Ortilary, covert actions, tying them down with litigations and diplomatic babble. . . conversly there is the ever popular Ignore function of finding anouther thread and leaving that one alone, and if you feel really sadistic, we've got about six million clones of Micheal Jackson on stasis, and a biochemical that makes the entire population revert to six year old boys named Little Billy.

Pre-emptive strikes...

So we rid the World of Doomsday Devices by arbitarily attacking Nations who we don't want to have them, who actually don't, but who might, possibly, one day.
Lets just hope none of the Military big-boys ever decide to develop them, although we could step back from a ban and go for non-proliferation, based on treaties and pre-emptive strikes. Yeah thats it because that couldn't possibly fail-----------------------------could it?!?

why not, it worked for the US in our war against Iraq. . . course taht would mean that Bush is a warmongering n00b. . . oh the irony. . . a n00b with a big nation.

why not, it worked for the US in our war against Iraq

To step outside the NS-UN for a second, it's also left you with a 'peace' you can't afford, and a huge credibility problem, Worldwide.

As far as DD's are concerned, TAKA do you honestly believe that the nutters who want a Doomsday Device will be deterred by----------- Litigation.

sure as hell won't deteur them, but it will clog them up enough to either
1) gather a coelition together to beat the crap out of them
2) go in yourself and beat the crap out of them

tsk tsk tsk,

its a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

why not, it worked for the US in our war against Iraq

To step outside the NS-UN for a second, it's also left you with a 'peace' you can't afford, and a huge credibility problem, Worldwide.


[OOC: And to think people accuse Americans of being unable to grasp sarcasm.]

What is the point of creating a doomsday device? You use it then what? If its a doomsday device the the world go POOF. So yes we shouldnt build them because we have morons in the world who would accidently press the button (George W Bush) and we have psycho lunatics out there who are crazy enough to think this world is evil so we need to clense it.

I do not think that doomsday devices are good, but they are still powerfull deterents against invasion or attack, so there should be a UN resolution that limits the amount of super powerful (doomsday or wepons of mass destruction) weapons a nation could have but still have UN weapons checks to make shure they do not have too many or too powerfull weapons

I do not think that doomsday devices are good, but they are still powerfull deterents against invasion or attack, so there should be a UN resolution that limits the amount of super powerful (doomsday or wepons of mass destruction) weapons a nation could have but still have UN weapons checks to make shure they do not have too many or too powerfull weapons

I do not think that doomsday devices are good, but they are still powerfull deterents against invasion or attack, so there should be a UN resolution that limits the amount of super powerful (doomsday or wepons of mass destruction) weapons a nation could have but still have UN weapons checks to make shure they do not have too many or too powerfull weapons

Interesting, but if the Doomsday Device in question is of the planet-killing variety, then only ONE is enough to kill us all (assuming that it is successfully deployed). I think that we should divide WMD into categories based on their power levels:

City-busters: These weapons can devastate at least one square kilometer (or kill at least ten thousand unshielded humans if they are made to cause death without property destruction) per use. Ordinary nuclear bombs and bioweapons fall into this category.

Nation-busters: These weapons can devestate an entire small nation (at least 10,000 square kilometers) or kill at least ten million unshielded humans per use if deployed in a sufficiently densely populated area.

Planet-busters: These weapons are capable of destroying the majority of nations on a planet with a single use.

Armageddon: These weapons are expected to end all human life on one or more planets with a single use. This includes complete destruction of a planet's ecosystem, destruction of the planet itself, or destruction of the sun about which it orbits.

Planet-buster and Armageddon weapons should be completely banned, and their existence should not be tolerated. Nation-buster or lesser weapons can be treated in the same manner as current nuclear arsenals.l

I think Planet busters should be renamed continent busters, as they would be weapons designed to destroy a continent, not nessisarily wipe out a good portion of life on earth. . . and though you have a point, the passing of that resolution would require me to leave the UN, as a space nation, a good portion of my ship based weaponry could easily level a continent, unforutnaly they are so inaccurate at that range that I'd be hard pressed to hit a single nation, espcialy when you consider atmoshperic disturbances, cloudcover, weather, ect. if such a proposal is passed to ban planet destroyers and continet destroying weapons, then Intent of said weapons needs to be held in consideration, not mearly power.

What is the point of creating a doomsday device? You use it then what? If its a doomsday device the the world go POOF. So yes we shouldnt build them because we have morons in the world who would accidently press the button (George W Bush) and we have psycho lunatics out there who are crazy enough to think this world is evil so we need to clense it.


I know I probably don't have the right to post here, but you are another ignorant moron. You are just another person who followed the media hype about Bush and made that your own decision, becuase you are too much of a thick headed knob to make up your own decisions. Too bad.

lets not turn this into a political debate. . . well, lets not turn this into a real world political debate, both sides *the pro-Bush and the anti-Bush* have valid points, worthy of discusion, just not here.

My intent was to determine who does or does not want to blow up the world.

Who cares about a "real world" when we blow up the world?

ok. so, lets say i wanted to unleash some kind of nanomachine type thing that sort of kills everyone in the area and just spreads aerially and stuff. im assuming this would be bad. we should want to stop people with these, in general. or if someone had something that could make the sun collapse. there should be restrictions on these types of things.

I think Planet busters should be renamed continent busters, as they would be weapons designed to destroy a continent, not nessisarily wipe out a good portion of life on earth. . .

That is fine.

and though you have a point, the passing of that resolution would require me to leave the UN, as a space nation, a good portion of my ship based weaponry could easily level a continent, unforutnaly they are so inaccurate at that range that I'd be hard pressed to hit a single nation, espcialy when you consider atmoshperic disturbances, cloudcover, weather, ect. if such a proposal is passed to ban planet destroyers and continet destroying weapons, then Intent of said weapons needs to be held in consideration, not mearly power.

True, the intent of the device is important. If the device's sole use is to destroy the population of a region larger than a nation in one strike, then it should fall under the ban. However, if it has a useful function other than being a weapon of global destruction, then it can still be permitted. For example, energy generators that use unstable power sources that could possibly cause damage as a result of their failure--things like nuclear reactors, etc.

All nuclear and biological weapons should be destroyed. If you want a fight, make it a less lethal one. Don't deal with the innocent, deal with your PURSUEING ENEMIES!

I agree. Only use your WMD against soldiers, not civilians.

My country could easily have a doomsday device, or rather, several doomsday devices. Simply get all of our Orion spacecraft to fire their SBAM (space based anti-matter) cannons continuously at the Earth, thereby removing a large portion of the atmosphere. Not many organisms can survive for long without breathing.

Anyway, the use of weapons like this should only be used as a last resort, not just because you feel like it at the time.

Why not just not use them? Or have them, for that matter?

Why have them if you don't intend to use them?

[quote="Epidemia"]The dinosaurs and other extinct creatures could only wish they had such technology.

I just wish to point out, from a palaeontological standpoint, and in full realisation of its irrellevence to the matter on hand, that dinosaurs had begun to die out hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions of years before the bolide ever collided with earth. There is evidence for this, which I have personally worked on, and I just thought maybe some wayfaring reader would be interested. Merci!

What is one hundred thousand years or another when you're talking about things that happened millions and millions of years ago?