NationStates Jolt Archive

The reason i have to say this is because when we go to war it just doesn't seem fair to any side to use biological weapons. Plus it is such an uncontrolable weapon that it might backfire on your army. This could also crack down on the number of diseases in the world. This is just to dangerous to unleash on anyone. I really need some indorsements to put this before the U.N.

Since this would leave UN members vulnerable to depredations by non-member nations, perhaps we should concentrate on devising effective means for defending ourselves against such weapons?

The issue of biological warfare was solved years ago by other nations. it is possible to defend yourself and your country from harmfull gasses and poisons by using such protection as a gas mask or to the extreme, a chemical suit. several products are also out for purifying water that has been contaminated. i will support a motion to ban biological weapons. Although one country may use them it does noth mean that UN nations must. the UN nations should have the right to protect itself from the attacks, but not the right to retaliat my means of more chemical weapons. let science protect us from the attacks, and let bullets put an end to them

We support this motion, and also call for the dismantling of nuclear and radiological weapons.

In view of the fact that NBC weapons can potentially destroy the very planet(s) we live on, I would dearly love to see the UN outlaw these weapons, world wide. In this one case, I think the UN should police non-member states as well. Barring the actual destruction of the planet, the effects of NBC weapons can outlive the lifetimes of nations, cross national borders, and potentially change humanity itself. No nation has the right to take these risks with humanity.

This nation will support any well thought out and well written proposal to ban such weapons.

My nation opposes this! Bombs are an excellent way to s2tart and end wars, and quite useful as threats.

What is the difference between people getting killed in the trenches than getting killed by a biological bomb?

NONE!

My small nation has no offical army and must rely on the use of nuclear, viral and biological weapons. If these weapons are outlawed my small nation, leader in its region, shall withdraw its application to the UN.

My nation opposes this! Bombs are an excellent way to s2tart and end wars, and quite useful as threats.

What is the difference between people getting killed in the trenches than getting killed by a biological bomb?

NONE!

My small nation has no offical army and must rely on the use of nuclear, viral and biological weapons. If these weapons are outlawed my small nation, leader in its region, shall withdraw its application to the UN.

The detail obsessed yet mysteriously forgetful nation of Berkylvania would humbly point out to the honored speaker from Quetzactol that, in another thread, the speaker boasted that his nation could raise an army of 4 million at a moments notice. Admittedly, they would all be children and 'on a mission from God' or something to that effect, but that is quite a large army. Therefore, we humbly suggest that either your numbers are...er, misguided...or you have no legitimate need for these weapons of mass destruction as you have a huge army already at your disposal.

This proposal doesn't mention nuclear weapons. As weapons of defence, biological and chemical weapons are clumsy and ineffective; at best, they are a dead man's switch for causing havoc, but for repelling an invading force (even assuming such troops are not equipped to deal with such attacks) they are all but useless. Removing them from the arsenal of all UN nations would constitute a strong human rights benefit without adversely affecting any nation's capacity to defend itself.

The only real advantage of biological and chemical weapons lies in the panic and fear they inspire in civilian populations. The UN cannot condone this; were a carefully-worded proposal to be submitted we would support it.

Nusku Capleton
Ministry of Defensive Incapacitation

The Grand Duchy of Laio would gladly support such a draft resolution... if one existed.

The reason i have to say this is because when we go to war it just doesn't seem fair to any side to use biological weapons. Plus it is such an uncontrolable weapon that it might backfire on your army. This could also crack down on the number of diseases in the world. This is just to dangerous to unleash on anyone. I really need some indorsements to put this before the U.N.

This is not a draft resolution or proposal... the originator needs to do much more work before presenting such a noble proposal. We hope to see a properly worded draft resolution of this topic... very soon.

Diego MacBernstein
Envoy to the UN
Grand Duchy of Laio

My nation opposes this! Bombs are an excellent way to s2tart and end wars, and quite useful as threats.

What is the difference between people getting killed in the trenches than getting killed by a biological bomb?

NONE!

My small nation has no offical army and must rely on the use of nuclear, viral and biological weapons. If these weapons are outlawed my small nation, leader in its region, shall withdraw its application to the UN.

The detail obsessed yet mysteriously forgetful nation of Berkylvania would humbly point out to the honored speaker from Quetzactol that, in another thread, the speaker boasted that his nation could raise an army of 4 million at a moments notice. Admittedly, they would all be children and 'on a mission from God' or something to that effect, but that is quite a large army. Therefore, we humbly suggest that either your numbers are...er, misguided...or you have no legitimate need for these weapons of mass destruction as you have a huge army already at your disposal.

But if said army is sent in, My nation will have no economy, or future as we have just shot it.