Banning the use of 4th generation nuclear weapons
4th generatin weapons like depleted ureanim shells and "dirty" bombs should be banned
Norman_Thomas
31-12-2003, 00:38
We've probably already got those rules on file. (The primary difference between a dirt bomb and a neutron bomb is the size of the thing, so I'm pretty damn sure we've got that one.) Read the old rulings to make sure, and if not, then suggest it.
Johnistan
31-12-2003, 00:41
A dirty bomb is coventional explosive surrounded by radioactive material so that when the bomb explodes it throws bad stuff around. A Neutron bomb uses a atomic reaction to produce massive amounts of radiation around.
What about depleted ureanim Bullets armor pericing and stuff
New Empire
31-12-2003, 01:47
What about depleted ureanim Bullets armor pericing and stuff
Ha, silly UN, banning one of the most deadly AT rounds ever.
Johnistan
31-12-2003, 01:50
Especially sabots made with DU made in space. The best material blasting tanks high into the air.
New Empire
31-12-2003, 01:53
DU and space... That reminds me.
If you dropped a yard long 6-12 inch wide DU rod from Oribt, by the time it hit the Earth it would exert the energy of the Hiroshima bomb, with no radiation.
Modern tech ortillery...
Johnistan
31-12-2003, 01:57
Yes, great for killing bunkers.
The Golden Simatar
31-12-2003, 02:07
Banning DU? Right.
The Global Market
31-12-2003, 02:12
It would be better if we just tried to prevent war instead of softening it up. Softening it up will only make it occur more often. War is one of those things that's supposed to be a nasty, brutal affair.
Not that I support gratuitious killing, but if you're in a war, you might as well win as fast as you can.
Johnistan
31-12-2003, 02:25
Yes, I agree with Global Market.
I find it very stupid when the Geneva Convention says you can't use a .50 BMG on a human being but you can use a 5.56mm. A .50 would blow a hole in your body a foot wide but you would die very quickly, while a 5.56mm would make you slowly bleed to death over an hour.
New Empire
31-12-2003, 02:27
Yes, I agree with Global Market.
I find it very stupid when the Geneva Convention says you can't use a .50 BMG on a human being but you can use a 5.56mm. A .50 would blow a hole in your body a foot wide but you would die very quickly, while a 5.56mm would make you slowly bleed to death over an hour.
Like those .50s they have on Hummers are for shooting down planes...
The Geneva convention also says you can't use snipers.
doese this game even have bombs and war? and if any thing u should allow it so i can blow ur ass up.
New Empire
31-12-2003, 02:36
doese this game even have bombs and war? and if any thing u should allow it so i can blow ur ass up.
It's called roleplaying, and if you went to war with anyone, you're the one more likely to get their ass blown up.
The Global Market
31-12-2003, 02:40
Yes, I agree with Global Market.
I find it very stupid when the Geneva Convention says you can't use a .50 BMG on a human being but you can use a 5.56mm. A .50 would blow a hole in your body a foot wide but you would die very quickly, while a 5.56mm would make you slowly bleed to death over an hour.
Like those .50s they have on Hummers are for shooting down planes...
The Geneva convention also says you can't use snipers.
No, the Geneva Convention just says that snipers aren't regular troops, if the enemy captures a sniper, he is not a POW, but instead can be tortured / summarily executed as a spy.
New Empire
31-12-2003, 02:42
Hmm... Well, anyway, it's a misguided document, and we ignore everything that doesn't involve civilians. We blind people with lasers (Not sure if Geneva convention, but something bans it), we have sawtooth bayonets, we .50 BMG people all the time.
There is nothing wrong with DU ordinance.
Desudoragon
31-12-2003, 08:54
I will keep my Neutrino bombs, thank you very much. For those who don't know, that was a weapon that the US was developing but put a stop to. Imagine, the land targeted would be useable after a short period of time.
Moontian
31-12-2003, 09:14
You mean a neutron bomb. Neutrinos are not neutrons. Neutrons are a whole lot larger and form a major part of most nuclear reactions. Neutrinos are tiny particles that are produced by nuclear reactions. Millions could be going through you in the time it takes to read a single word, but they do no damage. They pass straight between atoms at about the speed of light.
Lasers to be used specifically for blinding people are banned by the UN. But, if blinding is a secondary effect, then it's okay.
I think I use third/fifth generation nuclear weapons (anti-matter, fission-fusion-fusion.) They are very clean in terms of radioactive isotopes produced, yet produce a lot of energy.
Catholic Europe
31-12-2003, 12:50
Any useof nuclear bombs should be banned, along with the use of nuclear power and energy.
What about fussion energy?
Johnistan
31-12-2003, 17:35
The future of power relies on fission and fusion energy. Banning them would be banning a reliable and abundent source of energy. What should be passed is a law relying that all nuclear power plants be at a high standard of mantinence.
Xawadiland
31-12-2003, 17:46
Yep. Ban nuclear weapons? Great idea. Mass destruction is just not on, slaughtering millions of innocents for crimes they didn't commit. Banning nuclear power? No, it's very efficient and very clean. I agree with Johnistan.
I'm confused, if there is no war in the game, why are we talking about banning nukes and stuff? :?
I wish we could agree with the banning of the power source, but we have no other equally effiecient alternative. As for weapons, they're useless, we should ban them.
Xawadiland
31-12-2003, 18:01
I'm confused, if there is no war in the game, why are we talking about banning nukes and stuff? :?
It's role play. We're talking about what we would do if we were in charge of the real world, when you get down to it. It's one big political discussion.
Johnistan
31-12-2003, 18:12
It's nerd pretend roleplaying. Yes, autococker you are a nerd for being here.
We support the creator of this forum's proposal.