NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, Bonjour, Aloha, and all that,

I wanted to offer my repeal proposal for public scrutiny and discussion. It is currently located on page 15 of the UN proposals listings. Here's the gist:

Argument: UN Resolution #16 appears to place a blanket ban on all biological weapons and does not differentiate between lethal and non-lethal weapons and agents. However, certain non-lethal biological and chemical weapons and agents can be very effectively used to temporarily incapacitate or reduce the military effectiveness of an opponent without causing lasting harm, illness or injury.

Such non-lethal biological and chemical agents could represent a safe alternative to even conventional warfare, decreasing the unnecessary loss of human life in the pursuit of military and political objectives.

Because research and development of biological and chemical agents is closely tied to biomedical science, the significant possibility of making important biomedical discoveries in the course of pursuing research on such agents should give all nations pause to consider the possible merits. Furthermore, the cost of research and development can be shared with different industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, rather than unduly burdening the taxpayers with solely government-funded research.

Considering all the above, I propose that Resolution #16 be repealed, and a UN oversight committee be commissioned to explore the research, development and deployment of non-lethal biological and chemical agents, in the interest of devising new and less deadly means of conducting warfare. This committee would also be responsible for defining which biological and chemical agents will be classified as "non-lethal." The bans required by Resolution #16 would remain in place for all other agents and weapons not so defined by the oversight committee. This proposal would also provide for the close monitoring, by UN teams, of any biological and/or chemical production facilities, the alteration and/or refitting of conventional weapons and devices that could be used for transport of chemical or biological agents to prevent lethal amounts from being deployed in a single ordinance.

I hope I wasn't too hasty in submitting the repeal. Cocopuff is a newcomer nation, and we're primarily composed of surfers sent way off course by tsunamis, failed hockey stars, and some possible alien abductees, so our concerns generally cycle between watching the waves, watching the skies, and senselessly beating on each other, and debating why we're named after a breakfast cereal, all occasionally interspersed by moments of political zeal!

Anyhoo, this issue is open to discussion, scrutiny, criticism, pontification, promulgation, procreation, assimilation, obfuscation, oscillation, and osculation.

Who are you really?



I approved your proposal; TG me.

I like it. I'd vote for it.

I have two questions - one is more serious than the other -

First - how can you be sure that the non-lethal ones won't mix and interact with chemicals or other biological agents and cause a disaster? Plus if you keep using the non-lethal ones in large quantities, isn't there a danger that it could lead to saturation of the local environment, causing unforseen dangers down the road?

Second - how can you be sure the non-lethal ones are non-lethal on every life form you will encounter? (There are various races though-out the NSUN, not just human). Or will there be a rule that you can't use lethal-to-human weapons on humans, and lethal-to-dwarf weapons on dwarves?

Third - (I know I said two, but something else came up) - what about the local wildlife and animal population? Will these non-lethal weapons have lasting impact on them?

The Irish Brotherhood is opposed to this proposal. Much of our government spending goes toward developing more modern and lethal chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We cannot support this. Every country should determine if they can develop these weapons or not.
you know, in the present situation you can't develope any kind of un-conventional weapon.
this proposal at least let you develope the un-lethal kinds.
anyway, I am against the repealing so I don't care your reasons, while you are against it too.

I have two questions - one is more serious than the other -

First - how can you be sure that the non-lethal ones won't mix and interact with chemicals or other biological agents and cause a disaster? Plus if you keep using the non-lethal ones in large quantities, isn't there a danger that it could lead to saturation of the local environment, causing unforseen dangers down the road?

Second - how can you be sure the non-lethal ones are non-lethal on every life form you will encounter? (There are various races though-out the NSUN, not just human). Or will there be a rule that you can't use lethal-to-human weapons on humans, and lethal-to-dwarf weapons on dwarves?

Third - (I know I said two, but something else came up) - what about the local wildlife and animal population? Will these non-lethal weapons have lasting impact on them?

These are all very good questions. The repeal, among other things, also provides for a UN oversight committee to provide the final word in what chemicals and biological agents will be allowed to be produced and deployed, and in what volume, as well as being responsible for placing any necessary restrictions upon their deployment in order to preserve the environment, protect non-human races from undue effects, and so on. These are all questions they would have to take into consideration before granting final approval to any given agent or chemical. While there are several agents that can generally be called "non-lethal," presumably only a small percentage of those would pass the rigorous tests required for approval.

PS -- This issue is now found on page 13, about the fourth proposal down the page.

I do agree with the proposal.

BUT.

Because this is a repeal, and not a proposal, if it succeeds, it means that all UN members will be legally able to produce and use lethal biological and chemical weapons until a new version of the proposal can be drafted, submitted and approved, which all takes time.

OOC: The real UN can make amendments to proposals, but the NSUN cannot. An amendment is what we need here though, not a repeal.

surely it is more important to control the proliferation of biological weapons among terrorist group. such groups are not bound by intrnational treaties or morality. we must, in any disscusion of bio weapons, include active precautions against such groups acquiing them.

surely it is more important to control the proliferation of biological weapons among terrorist group. such groups are not bound by intrnational treaties or morality. we must, in any disscusion of bio weapons, include active precautions against such groups acquiing them.
I agree. But are there not already stringent active precautions against this very thing? I'm sure this is an ever-present danger, despite the current resolution. I just feel that we should not let the fear and threat of terrorism unnecessarily corral us into a situation where we are afraid to pursue any endeavor that terrorists could possibly potentially use against us. If we do, they win.

Besides, we at Cocopuff are researching (not building or producing, just contemplating) a biological weapon that a large segment of the terrorist population can't touch -- pork bombs! ;)

I don't think you can introduce new legislation (the establishment of this committee you speak of) in a repeal. However, I suggest drafting a replacement resolution that would set up this committee, or board, or whatever it's called. I definitely support this repeal, but will be uneasy until the replacement is written.

The Irish Brotherhood is opposed to this proposal. Much of our government spending goes toward developing more modern and lethal chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We cannot support this. Every country should determine if they can develop these weapons or not.
Ssssh! You're not supposed to say that out loud yet!

oh, nevermind. i'll TG you.

I do agree with the proposal.

BUT.

Because this is a repeal, and not a proposal, if it succeeds, it means that all UN members will be legally able to produce and use lethal biological and chemical weapons until a new version of the proposal can be drafted, submitted and approved, which all takes time.

OOC: The real UN can make amendments to proposals, but the NSUN cannot. An amendment is what we need here though, not a repeal.
Perhaps someone should make a proposal for amendments to be permitted? As for my repeal, you make a good point. Perhaps I should just let it die, then propose a replacement initiative instead. After all, I would hate to be the unwitting Jar Jar Binx of NSUN.

Perhaps someone should make a proposal for amendments to be permitted? As for my repeal, you make a good point. Perhaps I should just let it die, then propose a replacement initiative instead. After all, I would hate to be the unwitting Jar Jar Binx of NSUN.

We already gave out that title to someone else. You're far, far, far from earning it.

Perhaps someone should make a proposal for amendments to be permitted? As for my repeal, you make a good point. Perhaps I should just let it die, then propose a replacement initiative instead. After all, I would hate to be the unwitting Jar Jar Binx of NSUN.

Plus you can't make game changes via proposals/resolutions :}

We in Fass appreciate that non-lethal bio weapons are banned as well as lethal ones.

There are other non-lethal weapons you can use without having to open this Pandora's box. A blanket ban on biological weapons is a good thing (tm).

Anyway, this repeal is illegal becuase it tries to be a repeal as well as a resolution at the same time, and as we all know, that is a no-no.

We already gave out that title to someone else. You're far, far, far from earning it.
So, who has it?

So, who has it?

[violet] ? (smirk)

So, who has it?

True Heart. Just waiting for him to return and claim his prize.