NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,

Thanks for your comments, they've been helpful and interesting, and generally supportive. I haven't lost heart, I've just submitted a new proposal which - hopefully! - is a bit more sensible and workable than the last. (it's currently sitting on page 11). Here goes...

-

The United Nations,

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

Personally, I say why shouldn't we be able to fight with Chemical Weapons. Anything that can give us the upperhand on an Enemy. :gundge:

Gag, no. The biological weapons ban was dumb as hell, too. Governments need to produce chemical weaponry to research it effectively, at the very least, so that they know how to properly combat it in the case that a non UN member nation gets there hands on some chemical weapons and seeks to rape a small city with some sarin. A clause should be in the resolution for research-related production, if the resolution is going to be made at all, which I don't think it should be as it's a waste of money and effort; if a nation really wanted to use biological or chemical weaponry in a war they'd just drop out of the United Nations first, at which point they have no authority over the situation.

If chemical weapons were banned, then we would be forced to develop even more insidious weapons of destruction and test them on unsuspecting countries.

Metzen -

I do not believe that it is morally right to fight a war based on the principle of 'win at any cost'. 'Hearts and minds' is at least as valuable, if not more, than weaponry - and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will lose you 'hearts and minds' very, very quickly. Even if you are victorious, the social fabric of the nation may be corroded beyond repair by using weapons of inidiscriminate slaughter.


RN -

I think your objection is a sensible and logical one. However a couple of points:
- Researching chemical weapons is expensive, and I would argue that it would be a better use of resources to divert money spent on this research into intelligence, police forces, customs etc. to prevent these rogue nations being able to get the materials for such weapons in the first place. I think that this will have a better chance of preventing the nightmare scenario you speak about than the current system.
- Chemical weapons will always be a target of terrorist groups, and the best way of keeping them out of the hands of terrorists is for there to be no chemical weapons in the first place. Regulatory systems are better in some countries than others, and it may often be the case that chemical agents produced for 'research' purposes will be less secure than those currently in military hands. It would be tragic indeed if chemical weapons produced to examine the effects of, for example, a city strike, fell into terrorist hands and were used in exactly the situation which such study was designed to alleviate.


Cake -

International law is an evolving process. Just as new laws are developed to forbid trafficking in new drugs when they are invented, so new laws will come into being to ban any new weapons of indiscriminate destruction.

There is a law banning the use of nuclear weapons? When did that happen?

We should note that, technically, all weapons that are not biological or nuclear are either chemical or futuristic. This would effectively ban guns, as they use a chemical in their operation, and all missiles.

....make sure to include the following as chemical weapons

Unwashed nylon shirts
Heineken
Marmite
Bob Geldofs socks
Early morning kebabs
Mcdonalds anything

DLE -

I think that the term 'chemical weapons' operates well enough as a semantic entity that 99% of people would know that it applies to things like sarin and not to things like guns. With your argument, you might as well say that all weapons are nuclear weapons, since they are made up of atoms that contain nuclei, and hence are already banned. This is clearly not the case.

....make sure to include the following as chemical weapons

Unwashed nylon shirts
Heineken
Marmite
Bob Geldofs socks
Early morning kebabs
Mcdonalds anything
Especially McDonalds packaging, which in some cases tastes better then the food inside.

DLE -

I think that the term 'chemical weapons' operates well enough as a semantic entity that 99% of people would know that it applies to things like sarin and not to things like guns. With your argument, you might as well say that all weapons are nuclear weapons, since they are made up of atoms that contain nuclei, and hence are already banned. This is clearly not the case.

Chemical weapons operate using a chemical reaction in the process of causing harm. Nuclear weapons utilize a nuclear reaction, while biological weapons utilize biological agents. Note that biological weapons can also be chemical or nuclear weapons, depending on how good your genetic engineers are. Antimatter weapons are often classified as nuclear weapons, but they are also often held as separate due to the fact their particular nuclear reaction is unique and has qualities from both the nuclear and chemical classifications. Then there's the massive energy and particle weapons, which shall not be covered, and the WTF weapons, which give headaches when you look at them.

The problem with the definition of how a chemical weapon operates is the fact that most modern projectile weapons utilize a chemical reaction. In fact, most of them cannot operate without the chemical reaction. That leaves it open for an interpretation that all of those weapons are banned as a result of this, as they require a chemical reaction in order to cause harm.

I should also apologise for the imprecision in the phrase "there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons". While this phrase is literally correct, in that there are laws banning the trafficking and use of biological weapons, and trafficking in nuclear weapons, it may have given the impression that the use of nuclear weapons is banned by UN law, which isn't the case. Could have phrased that one better - sorry! (Luckily it's not factually incorrect, just a little badly phrased, but in that way not too different from some current UN resolutions!)

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons)

"Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force."

The important bit of this is "toxic properties of". A gun uses a chemical reaction to fire a projectile, but its effect is not dependent on the toxicity of the gunpowder or the lead in the bullet.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons)

"Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force."

The important bit of this is "toxic properties of". A gun uses a chemical reaction to fire a projectile, but its effect is not dependent on the toxicity of the gunpowder or the lead in the bullet.

While we appreciate the use of a source, we must note that wikipedia is not a credible source. And we must note that their definition isn't really that important, as the problem you have is that explosions themselves are, unless they result from nuclear actions, the result of chemical processes. The problem you are going to face is that, since that is true and no definition is in your proposal of what type of chemical weapons, pretty much it is possible to interpret it to mean all weapons utilizing chemical reactions in any way.

As a precedent, Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", doesn't feel that it needs to define biological weapons. I believe my proposal to be better-written than this resolution. I think it's clear enough what biological and chemical weapons, and that the distinction between toxic and explosive effects, are to enable the enforcing of a law based on their banning and to be understandable by the vast majority of people. I can see that there may be differing opinions on the point however, so I'm willing to agree to disagree on this one. :)

Actually, that resolution bans quite a bit more. For example, I can't use animals as weapons because of it, as that makes them biological weapons. Not all bioweapons are the kind you find in a syringe. Some of them are big enough to chew through a tank.

Actually, that resolution bans quite a bit more. For example, I can't use animals as weapons because of it, as that makes them biological weapons. Not all bioweapons are the kind you find in a syringe. Some of them are big enough to chew through a tank.
Damn, that mean my attack ducks are illegal. Guess I'll have to transfer their ownership to my puppet.

I'm quite glad for the absence of giant man-eating dinosaurs as weapons of war, and expect that many others are too.

Actually, I think quite a few nations have them. I know one nation is made up of them...

I refuse to let the UN ban use of Tear gas for dispersing crowds. What am I supposed to use, real bullets? Remember Rubber bullets hurt, a lot, and will kill.

Wait, doesn't this mean that we won't be able to kill our criminals using the lethal injection?
Oh well, we could also go back to the old method, which involves putting our criminals feet first into a mincer. Not very nice...

Oh crap, you just reminded me. I use a major anti-freeze chemical when I cryo people (I don't believe in the death penalty, the worst we have is delayed life sentences, where we freeze you, wake you up, parade the wonders of the future around you, then imprison you in a sunless cage forever.) is now illegal under this. I am now in full opposition to this proposal, or I will support this proposal if it is reworded.

Leaf -

Your 'delayed life sentences' sound like a cruel and unusual punishment, and I think using tear gas on unarmed civilians is pretty barbaric. (Tear gas can kill too, particularly the old, young, and those with respiratory problems. If you're desperate to confront your own civilians in pitched battles, you can always buy some water cannons and put money into Psy-Ops units, and do it without killing people). Mayakovskia does not believe that it should alter its proposals to take into account governments who wish to suffocate their own citizens in toxic chemicals, or strand them in an alien future.

Just to say that the proposal now has 86 approvals, and so is well on the way to quorum! Thank you for all those who have supported our proposal to make the world a safer place. For those who haven't - or don't yet know about our proposal - there is still time to go here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/27323/page=UN_proposal/start=15

and vote for it (might move forward a page or two at some point in the future). Again, many thanks to those who have supported this, and to those who haven't yet given their approval - please help to make this world free of the scourge of chemical weapons.

Thanks,

Mkv

Darkumbria must disagree with this proposal in all its glory. It is well meaing, but further ties our hands, as demonstrated by his own proposal. The evolution of Chemical weapons can, and often does, lead to the creation of new forms of treatment for disease and plague. Darkumbria can not sit aside the positive effects of such research. We do agree that the use of such weapons on non-combatants during war is regrettable. However, you can't win a war without killing a few people. Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons are another way of ensuring your troops survival.

As a UN member, your use of biological weapons is banned already...

We would suggest to define chemical weapons as the following:

For the purpose of $Resolution, a Chemical Weapon shall be defined as a weapon that

1. Creates its destructive effect based on chemical (As opposed to nuclear) reactions

1.1 Excludes chemical effects based on reactions of living (I.e. Biological) organisms, which shall be defined as biological effects

2. Has a primarily poisonous effect (As opposed to the sheer explosive force of chemical explosives like Trinitrotoluol, which cause damage due to overpressure, rather than due to chemically damaging a biological target or the kinetic damage a bullet does. The 'primarily' meaning that the previously mentioned examples can have poisonous effects, however, compared to the immediate, non-poisonous effects, those are irrelevant when rating the destructive potential of the weapon in question) on the human body

3. Is the immediate cause of damage, I.e. it is the chemical reaction between the weapon and the target that kills (I.e. A poisonous gas that prevents breathing), as opposed to being used as initiating a process that will cause damage (I.e. the chemical propellant used to accelerate a projectile)

While we appreciate the use of a source, we must note that wikipedia is not a credible source. And we must note that their definition isn't really that important, as the problem you have is that explosions themselves are, unless they result from nuclear actions, the result of chemical processes. The problem you are going to face is that, since that is true and no definition is in your proposal of what type of chemical weapons, pretty much it is possible to interpret it to mean all weapons utilizing chemical reactions in any way.

If you continue along this particular train of thought - you could define antibodies as biological weapons. Luckily, common sense prevails and antibodies are still in use.

With all due respect to DLE - I personally consider their definition of what a chemical weapon is an overreaction and less credible than wikipedia, or any of the sources discovered by defining chEmical weapons in google (link (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3AChemical+weapons&meta=)).

DLE is describing chemical reactions, meaning a weapon employing such a reaction is instantly considered a chemical weapon. A more common sense perspective (IMO) is to argue that it is not the gunpowder that kills, but it is actually the bullet travelling at velocity that kills.

But if only to avoid such pedanticism, I would have preferred a brief definition included in the proposal text.

Thanks Hirota! I too believe that common sense will prevail. It's good at that kind of thing.

One final plug, and then I promise I'll stop doing this for good:

We're almost there! 116 of 149 endorsements. If you haven't already, join the glorious multitude seeking to make our world a safer place here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/23817/page=UN_proposal/start=0

and do something good with your Wednesday. And thanks to those who've already supported us!

Mayakovskia']Thanks Hirota! I too believe that common sense will prevail. It's good at that kind of thing.

One final plug, and then I promise I'll stop doing this for good:

We're almost there! 116 of 149 endorsements. If you haven't already, join the glorious multitude seeking to make our world a safer place here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/23817/page=UN_proposal/start=0

and do something good with your Wednesday. And thanks to those who've already supported us!No problem Mayakovskia, I think it was important that someone tried to set things straight so that governments would not start banning bleach (after all, it's a weapon against germs!)

But I would ask if you do need to submit this proposal again, that you consider adding a brief definition of what a chemical weapon is. Wikipedia's, Der Angst's, or any of the google results will probably suffice as a starting point, and I'm sure you can write a decent one without difficulty. It would just nip in the proverbial bud any future debates on what a chemical weapon is.

But I wish you well in bringing this proposal to quorum, and I will certainly vote in favour of the proposal at the earliest opportunity.

RN -

I think your objection is a sensible and logical one. However a couple of points:
Don't be so respectful... I hate arguing with respectful people. ;)

- Researching chemical weapons is expensive, and I would argue that it would be a better use of resources to divert money spent on this research into intelligence, police forces, customs etc. to prevent these rogue nations being able to get the materials for such weapons in the first place. I think that this will have a better chance of preventing the nightmare scenario you speak about than the current system.
True, but some measure of research and general knowledge should still be had. Even the best intelligence agencies coupled with the best police forces can't stop everything bad from happening - stuff will always fall through the cracks. And I sure as hell don't want to be in power when something does fall through the cracks and rape a city of ten thousand people, which I will have little clue as to what to do to fix, because my research will be so slack on the weapon used.

- Chemical weapons will always be a target of terrorist groups, and the best way of keeping them out of the hands of terrorists is for there to be no chemical weapons in the first place. Regulatory systems are better in some countries than others, and it may often be the case that chemical agents produced for 'research' purposes will be less secure than those currently in military hands. It would be tragic indeed if chemical weapons produced to examine the effects of, for example, a city strike, fell into terrorist hands and were used in exactly the situation which such study was designed to alleviate.
Why would a terrorist organization go to the trouble trying to steal government chemical weapons that we've been specifically researching for nineteen months and know how to deal with, when they could just buy them from a non UN rogue nation? No terrorist organization that utterly stupid would slip through the cracks... I'm talking about the smart ones.

I'm inclined to agree with Rogue Newbie. It is important to have some research on such products. From my limited understanding of these matters, some benefits can actually come from researching these things.

I'd also argue that preventing research might go against previous resolutions.

How about an additional section? something along the lines of:

MINDFUL of the need to research chemical weapons in the interests of research and defence,

DETERMINED that no such research should be used for agressive or military aims conflict, and be directed towards medical and peaceful purposes.

ENCOURAGES member states to organise multinational research projects amongst themselves for developing medical and peaceful non-lethal usages of lethal chemical weapons.

I think the proof of the pudding will come from whether this proposal reaches quorum in its present state, or not. If it does, which it needs 13 more approvals for, it indicates that it's seen as good enough by enough people... if it doesn't, it shows that it needs fundamentally altering. I'm quite confident that it will go through now, and would advise nations who agree with the spirit of the act, if not the letter, to approve now, and if necessary table an amendment or a replacement as a proposal later, then let it fall completely, and have chemical weapons remain completely unregulated.

Well, we don't even have an army, ourselves, and don't mind the UN restricting the military and weapons of its members.

Though, of course we realize too much of a disarmament would be dangerous, as there are plenty of nations outside of the UN. But we don't see a potential passing of this resolution as a threat to the UN.

MINDFUL of the need to research chemical weapons in the interests of research and defence,

DETERMINED that no such research should be used for agressive or military aims conflict, and be directed towards medical and peaceful purposes.

ENCOURAGES member states to organise multinational research projects amongst themselves for developing medical and peaceful non-lethal usages of lethal chemical weapons.

I could go for that; this addition seems reasonable. I would modify it as follows:

MINDFUL of the need to research chemical weapons in the interests of research and defence,

PROHIBITING the use of such research in military conflicts or aggressive nonmilitary conflicts on UN member nations,

ENCOURAGES member states to organise multinational research projects amongst themselves for the development of medical solutions in any event involving the use of chemical weaponry.

Mayakovskia']I think the proof of the pudding will come from whether this proposal reaches quorum in its present state, or not. If it does, which it needs 13 more approvals for, it indicates that it's seen as good enough by enough people... if it doesn't, it shows that it needs fundamentally altering. I'm quite confident that it will go through now, and would advise nations who agree with the spirit of the act, if not the letter, to approve now, and if necessary table an amendment or a replacement as a proposal later, then let it fall completely, and have chemical weapons remain completely unregulated.

In all honesty, most people that approve the proposals don't consider their wide-ranging implications before they do, so just because it is "good enough" doesn't mean that we should just let it pass. And we can't amend proposals or directly replace them. The wording is the most important part of the bill, not the spirit.

I'm willing to trust the majority. Such is democracy!

Approvals: 149 (Brausi-mausi, Vrone, Shikyrie, Gaiah, Oilsjt, LeFleur, Antrium, Real Paradise, Fujah, Heddiw, Diamond Realms, KualaLumpar, Nomikia, Deutsche Helvetia, Republic of Freedonia, Guditushuz, Seattletonia, Juna Esperantisto, Pohjoinen Maa, Neo Mata Nui, The Imperial Raven, OBSA, Wegason, City-State, Palteau, Unknown Peoples, Diablum, Ibenaz, The Island of Eire, Bernardi, Peachydom, Funkdunk, Our Lord Spenser, Mikeswill, Nichiphoria, San Timetheos, Windleheim, Dark Little Thoughts, Greater Tiki, Blueshoetopia, Liberal Tendencies, Republic of Peoples, Pilantras, Leffler Idols, Zouloukistan, Batons de Colle, Christianie, Of Cascadia, The Dodgy, Kilobugya, Chazzistan, Celstiere, Aryes, Mothalsi, Archoz, Jimoria, My Pop Tarts, Darpatia, Zuper Dogs, Newbred Tongans, Tinis, The Grand Mystic, Blaming, Ateelatay, Awesome Possumdor, Copious Coins, Aztec National League, Krigerania, Geeks With Guns, Ophainia, Jonathalia, StingingFlea, The Philosophes, Emily the Amazing, Richard2008, BlackWallstreet, Declasse, Jacobins IV, Rolling Stone, Clintoned, Jimbob the Jingoistic, Declavia, Flangleland, Ballyboughal, His Majesty, Xenious, Swishland, Zealotos, Emartia, Black Thirteen, Randle-El, FlamingFistofDafidius, Flagellumpa, Anti Bush World States, SimAmerica, The Flipflop Bandanas, Sabrinedia, Domzalski, Homieville, The Sthans, Kaushland, The Great UP, BogPoetry, United democratic, Vastiva, Woldenstein, Serene Forests, Sinsvyka, Mallavogue, Kumrovec, Ferantia, Allers, The Killer Snowmen, Ralaham, Hippio, Teatroia, Uthai, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Ludovicus, Olworth, Tims evilness, Aka-tak-tak, Peihoiser, Spaz Land, Purpleation, Lunaria Mirandia, Czardas, Northern Lycabettus, Heliosence, Sadistic sam, Atlantinas, The Iroqouis, FWEDD, Gurnee, Turdingham, Meshuggeners, Serinistad, Teredona, The Fro Royal Family, Tiber City, Two Knives, Undeniable Perfection, Dizziness, Quick quack quo, Harrisonville, Rammsteinburg, Nijmegan, Jaghur, Draconomia)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

:)

Greetings.

We of course are in favour of banning chemical weapons if defined well enough. We do not relish appearing shameless and/or debauched, but we are wondering if any of the esteemed colleagues who endorsed this ban would also consider endorsing the proposal "Limits to Sovereignty" which is actually a positive proposal encouraging free trade, technological development and more job opportunities in our universe. Thank you.

fair enough, it's reached quorum. Congratulations, and even though it lacks the additions suggested thus far I'll still be voting yes. (The additions supplied only covered petty arguments on definition, and on research - which I suppose you could say is protected in an earlier resolution).

I'm happy.

I set myself a challenge that I'd try and get a proposal through to resolution stage, and I've now done it. It's not my first proposal, but it's the first that's had any chance of success.

Thanks to all supporters, and I hope the proposal is now successful as a resolution. In retrospect, I maybe should have put it out as a draft, got suggestions, and then put a consensual proposal up. I realise there are holes, but I think this is a big step in the right direction.

Please feel free to submit proposals for the improvement, supercession, or even repeal (should it get passed as a resolution) of this proposal, in the name of clarity. I know it's not perfect, but I think it's better than nothing - and evidently many other people agree, or else it wouldn't have reached quorum.

When it comes up as a UN vote, I urge you to vote yes, and if necessary, to make changes later, instead of ditch the proposal in the name of complete clarity.

Thanks again,

Mkv.

Reformentia must vote No when this resolution is put to the vote.

1. Like the bio weapons ban, which we also have issues with, it is far too broadly stated.

2. It does not adequately define it's terms. It needs to incorporate criteria for establishing what does and does not constitute 'chemical weaponry'.

3. It makes no provision for the production of research-quantity chemical weapons agents for the development of counter-agents. Although it can be argued that UN resolution 2 provides for this the exception should be explicitly stated to avoid ambiguity.

4. It draws no distinctions between lethal and non-lethal chemical weapons agents. We will not support a proposal which would outlaw the use of temporarily incapacitating non-lethal chemical agents which would then leave the alternative of being forced into a situation where lethal or maiming conventional force would need to be applied instead.

fair enough, it's reached quorum. Congratulations, and even though it lacks the additions suggested thus far I'll still be voting yes. (The additions supplied only covered petty arguments on definition, and on research - which I suppose you could say is protected in an earlier resolution).

Given that the people of Hirota are well respected in Mikitivity and have been closely involved with the discussions of this proposal / resolution, my government will likely be voting yes as well. Furthermore, we will be following the UN debates and will attempt to convince the other members of the IDU to seriously consider voting yes on this motion.

We have a few issue with the proposal in its current form.

1: There are several ways to make a chemical agent some involving two or more chemicals that are harmless in there natural state. Amonia and bleach for example. But when mixed they can be deadly. How would you propose to prevent a nation from stock piling the compounds in there raw form to mix and use at a later date?

2: The defination of a chemical weapon is not defined well enough. Tear gas could be classified as a chemical weapon, so coulds pepper spray, etc. These are valuable non-lethal methods to take down criminals, rioters, etc. We would not want to see police forces haveing to use other more damaging types or force.

Other then these two point we would vote for this as a resolution.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Unfortunately, in the UN its "all or nothing". Can't modify later.

Then again, we aren't really worried. We're producing a large amount of "industrial chemicals" and stockpiling them for later use. Just as we stockpiled "airborne medical supplies" and "biological test material" before.

:D

Unfortunately, in the UN its "all or nothing". Can't modify later.

Then again, we aren't really worried. We're producing a large amount of "industrial chemicals" and stockpiling them for later use. Just as we stockpiled "airborne medical supplies" and "biological test material" before.

:DI *really* hate to burst your bubble, but to quote the NS FAQ with regards to the UN...

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)Bold by me.

I'm sure that you can stockpile lots of industrial chemicals. I'm equally certain that it most definitely isn't weapons grade, though. And to bad that your 'Airborne Medical Supplies' and 'Biological Test Material' is really *just* that. Doubtlessly very helpful when it comes to saving people from terrible diseases, but it wont harm anyone.

~ Office for clarifications on UN supremacy. Making National Sovereignity bend over backwards.

To smack or not to smack....


Description: Biological weapons, if used during warfare or covertly, represent an enormous risk to the well-being of not just the target of said weapons, but potentially everyone on the planet. It is therefore imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons.


That's the entire text of the resolution (#16). It is a statement which has no policy - "it is imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons".

Alright, sayeth Vastivan policy makers, We have eliminated our heinous biological weapons. We have kept, however, our 'Airborne Medical Supplies' and 'Biological Test Material' as well as methods of "deploying aerial medications and benign biologicals" - which we defined legally as "not heinous" - and therefore have a significant amount of stuff which is not covered by any UN resolution. That these benign biologicals can be made very unbenign very quickly is not covered by this resolution.

Please note, according to the resolution, we didn't even have to go that far, as no action is called for by the resolution - it just states "it's imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons".

To use a logical situation - it might be imperative that someone put out the fire in your car, but that does nothing to call the fire department or extinguish the flames.

Now, let's look at this resolution:


RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

Ok, we won't produce or traffick (Brit spelling?) in chemical weapons. Which doesn't include harmless industrial chemicals in various grades. That these particular chemicals can be combined to create chemical weapons is incidental; for that matter, hydrogen cyanide is an industrial chemical. That we could conceivably make it a fine mist is secondary to it's other uses. Prussian Blue oil paint contains enough cyanide to kill an elephant - but we don't restrict it as a potential chemical weapon, it's an art supply.

In other words, Vastiva is in full compliance with all UN Resolutions.

Another example, just because: We don't have any slaves,though we do have contract workers in various positions we also have a large body of law ruthlessly enforced to insure their safety and a complete lack of coercion - and a good pay scale guaranteed. However, if someone wants to enter into a BDSM situation as a "total slave", they're allowed to do so, under the contract law put forth. As such, they are officially "contract workers", not slaves.

Finally, a bit of advice - "Know Thyne Enemy". ;) We've posted many times on how UN Resolutions have been put to work in our nation, all for our betterment.

Oh yes, one more point to add to your bed:


of all chemical weapons currently in existence.


means "those which are in existance as of the passage of this resolution". So anything made *after this resolution passes* is not covered by this resolution.

Just so we're all on the same page and you don't think we missed an obvious problem the first time out.

And the castor bean fields are being used to produce castor oil, not sarin gas. We swear - check the records, check the uses they have been put to in Vastiva. That they are potentially a weapon is meaningless. That we sell massive amounts of castor beans to foreign nations - mostly allies - is inconsequential. Castor beans are not a weapon in and of themselves, so we are still in compliance. :p

Mayakovskia']Thanks to all supporters, and I hope the proposal is now successful as a resolution. In retrospect, I maybe should have put it out as a draft, got suggestions, and then put a consensual proposal up. I realise there are holes, but I think this is a big step in the right direction.I agree. Firstly I dont think the holes are serious holes, and I doubt they'll have a huge impact on how nations implement this legislation - you and I and the majority of sensible nations understand what this resolution means, and if the dumber or more pedantic choose to ban anything that uses a chemical reaction, then that's their problem.It does not adequately define it's terms. It needs to incorporate criteria for establishing what does and does not constitute 'chemical weaponry'. Please consult the previous conversations in this topic to see a previous discussion on what we could define as chemical weaponry.It makes no provision for the production of research-quantity chemical weapons agents for the development of counter-agents. Although it can be argued that UN resolution 2 provides for this the exception should be explicitly stated to avoid ambiguity. Again, Please consult previous disscussions on this matter. I agree that resolution #2 should still permit the freedom to research medical and non-lethal uses of the product, but it's is a tad vague.Amonia and bleach for example. But when mixed they can be deadly. How would you propose to prevent a nation from stock piling the compounds in there raw form to mix and use at a later date? Quite simply, I don't think you can. Everyone would agree those two products in the unmixed form are pretty harmless, and have great benefits in domestic areas. It's not as easy to restrict their usage as biological weapons where it's a lot harder to produce in quantities at speed. At least this proposal works towards making it harder to produce and store lethal chemical weapons.

Vanhalenburgh, Vastivia et al - I'd be curious to see if you could compose a proposal which would adequately satisfy your concerns.

"So anything made *after this resolution passes* is not covered by this resolution."

But the proposal bans production of chemical weapons in very clear terms. (Nice to know that you're already assuming it's going to pass! Unintended compliment...)

There's a precedent for modifying existing resolutions, which is "Required Basic Healthcare Replacement" (or something very similar). As the name suggests, the resolution replaced (and tightened up) the original RBH resolution, which was then repealed after it became clear that it was unnecessary. As I say, this may be an avenue for nations to pursue. If anyone's feeling particularly adventurous, "Unified WMD Ban", with some very clear definitions, would be fantastic. And you could probably get it through with some targeted telegramming.

Mayakovskia']There's a precedent for modifying existing resolutions, which is "Required Basic Healthcare Replacement" (or something very similar). As the name suggests, the resolution replaced (and tightened up) the original RBH resolution, which was then repealed after it became clear that it was unnecessary.Acutally that's a bad example as those resolutions were passed before repeals were implemented.

Mayakovskia']As I say, this may be an avenue for nations to pursue. If anyone's feeling particularly adventurous, "Unified WMD Ban", with some very clear definitions, would be fantastic. And you could probably get it through with some targeted telegramming.Looks like I might need to speed up the timetable on my proposal.

Mayakovskia']"So anything made *after this resolution passes* is not covered by this resolution."

But the proposal bans production of chemical weapons in very clear terms. (Nice to know that you're already assuming it's going to pass! Unintended compliment...)

Hardly unintended. However, your use of specific language has left a gaping loophole.


Mayakovskia']
There's a precedent for modifying existing resolutions, which is "Required Basic Healthcare Replacement" (or something very similar). As the name suggests, the resolution replaced (and tightened up) the original RBH resolution, which was then repealed after it became clear that it was unnecessary. As I say, this may be an avenue for nations to pursue. If anyone's feeling particularly adventurous, "Unified WMD Ban", with some very clear definitions, would be fantastic. And you could probably get it through with some targeted telegramming.

That existed before the Repeal process came into existance; furthermore, Hack has placed new rules on the process, which superceed anything having gone before.

As to the nuclear ban - are you unaware that that which is in the UN affects only UN members? So (repeating myself) if a nuclear ban resolution is passed, UN nations will be blown off the map by non-UN nations. Starting with the fool who got one passed.

Just because I'm feeling ornery...

Here's the proof of loophole.

This prevents the "production or trafficking in" chemical weapons, and "to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence".

Alright, we don't have any chemical weapons "currently in existence", we shipped them off to a non-UN nation for... "testing purposes", yeah that's it. So we are in compliance as we have no current chemical weapons.

Then the resolution passes. (Mild celebration)

Following this, Exampleland ceedes a parcel of land to Vastiva which has been in dispute for several decades. On this land is a chemical weapons storehouse, which Vastiva now owns. Did we make the weapons? No - so we didn't produce. Did we traffick in them? No, we settled a land dispute. Were they in existance before the proposal came up to vote? No.

Loophole, see?

Please consult the previous conversations in this topic to see a previous discussion on what we could define as chemical weaponry.

Discussions aren't law. If the definition isn't incorporated into the proposal then nations are basically free to decide entirely on their own what is and is not going to be considered a "chemical weapon", making the resolution unenforceable.

Again, Please consult previous disscussions on this matter. I agree that resolution #2 should still permit the freedom to research medical and non-lethal uses of the product, but it's is a tad vague.

Vagueness is a serious problem in a legal document.

Nuclear weapons never did any one any good. They don't produce anything apart from massive amounts of deaths and a hell of a lot of deformity. Take "agent orange" for example sixty years later people in Vietnam are still being born with defermities as a result of this chemical warfare bullshit. I say ban the whole lot of em. If you don't like somebody - deal with it. Don't blow them off the face of the earth. We're humans not animals - so why dont we start being a little more humane. All the money going towards these weapons could be going towards education, medical research, stopping animal testing - any of those would be fine and alot better than killing eachother - we're not Hitler.

Take "agent orange" for example sixty years later people in Vietnam are still being born with defermities as a result of this chemical warfare bullshit.Agent Organge was for killing vegitation. It had... unfortunate side effects. If you want reference historical horrors of chemical warfare, try Mustard Gas in WWI.

What about tear gas or CS spray?

I don't think chemical weapons would be a good idea to introduce the countries of the world. While you are eating something you could then notice it had been contaminated by these weapons.

:gundge:

Pfft... chemical weapons. Who needs em?

I'm with the people who say it's too broad. Explosives are chemicals. Gunpowder is a chemical mixture/compound. If passed, virtually any nation in the UN with a military will be violating the resolution by default. Even if it goes through, there's no way it will ever be enforced. It needs to specify "chemical weapons" much more.

Hirota and [NS]Mayakovskia- Take a look at the last few posts. See the problems beginning to crop up in this thread? I'm not the only one who came to the conclusion that "chemical weapons" is not specific enough, and Vastiva found a loophole under which producing chemical weapons is perfectly legal. Worse, considering the nature of my nation, I am unaffected by this completely. I just simply have to move my chemical weapons production plant from one Age to another to be compliant. Or, use the error of attempting to use Linking Books as time travel devices and not bother moving it at all.

Much of my arguement was to prevent interpretation problems, which are already popping up. If this hadn't reached quorum, we could have easily worked out the kinks of this and had it submitted already. Including the definition (which is not legally binding due to not being in the resolution) and the loophole. Too late now.

One day, this resolution WILL be repealed. If not by someone else, then by me.
Chemical weapons are the only thing closest to nukes we have without doing such terrible damage on a nuclear scale. They are cheaper, and if they are eradicated, we will have lost a deterrent against other WMD's. They are easier in the terms of repairing everything after they are used.
I urge all UN nations: vote AGAINST "Ban Chemical Weapons".
Personally, I don't like bio, chem or nuke weapons, but we must not lose a deterrent against other weapons, nor must we lose (heaven forbid) a possible retaliation against the countries that have used these weapons.
:rolleyes: :sniper:

Chemical weapons, by definition, are weapons of mass destruction. These must be banned for obvious reasons which I don't care to explain.
However, there is also a category of non-lethal chemical weapons, such as tear-gas and various kinds of "pepper-spray", which are also based on chemical agents but are quite non-lethal in regular use. These should be allowed - they are rather accurate in use, non-lethal and have no long-lasting effects on most people.
There is no excuse for the use of weapons for mass destruction. It is immoral by western standarts, and can rarely accomplish any specified military objective in the most accurate, effective and cheap (both financialy and in human life cost) manner possible, although that is open to debate. Never the less, as specified in the bill, the ban of such weapons is in tandem with previous bans such as the ban on the use of landmines in war.

Frankly, the only way that one can truly negotiate is with the most deadly weapon. This propsal says that UN members can't bear chemical weapons, and thus does not take into consideration rogue nations who could not care one iota whether or not the UN calls for something. If the saying: "Prevention is the best medicine" is true, then the ability to have chemical weapons should be the ultimate example of that.

The protection of the billions of people within the world is within our hands, and tying our arms behind our backs and allowing other rogue nations to take a free, and potentially deadly hit is the worse way to go about things. Suicide is a lot simpler when you take cyanide.

Debate!

I would vote against banning them if i hadnt already left the UN in disgust
:headbang: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

I would have to agree with Cosmic Echoes. If we take away all of the chemical weapns, then we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to non-NSUN member states. They won't have the weapons banned, so they could blackmail, attack, and cost the lives of many people. If this resolution said something about not attack another nation unless attacked, i would be more likely to support it, but not this resolution.

The People of Molo- Borobudur fully oppose such a proposal. Not only does it limit our arms manufacturing industries, but it represents a considerable damage to our military research, and especially to national defence.
REMEMBER THAT THE UN IS STILL ONLY ONE QUARTER OF THE WORLDS NATIONS, and that the other 2 thirds represent totalitarian, opressive, military ruled states. How will we face them?
The Ban of chemical weapons only forces nations to train more of its citizens for combat, and sacrifice more soldires on the battle fields in long, trench wars, the most sadistic that we can imagine.
So please vote NO for this resolution

I have voted againist the ban. We must repeal ALL bans on WMD. In times of war, all nations, even the UN, will use WMD. Even though the ban will pass, The Republic of Sparta Territories will pretend to follow it. :headbang: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

If banning Chemical Weapons would remove the ability of UN posters to use the "gundge" smiley, I'd vote for it.

ALL weapons should be banned!!!! :fluffle:

while I do not believe in winning at any cost, I do believe in a military force that is armed to the teeth with whatever i can give them. these are troubled times, and while i do not like war, or fighting, and wish that global armies were decomissioned completley, i also am a realist. some people are militaristic in nature. these people will continue to fight, will continue to operate armies, and it is these people whom we must create armies to defend ourselves against. chemical weapons are simply another tool that can be used to achieve national security. why should we hesitate to use them against our enemies?

Although I read the definition on wikipedia, that does not mean this resolution will be expanded to oppose all weapons made by chemicall processes. This is but another small example of ignorance and semantics.

Moreover, as war is prohibited (outside of roleplaying), doesn't this make the resolution redundant?

Ok I have to start off by saying that I have not read any of the comments on the forum. I just want to put my two cents in about the U.N. proposals as a whole.

I've only seen like the last 6 proposals but I have to say that all these proposals are BORING :( . I know I'm being a little bit of a hypocrite here, as I have yet to make a proposal but just look at the past few proposals. Why wouldn't a bill to help poverty pass, why wouldn't a bill thats trying to protect dolphins pass and of course banning dangerous weapons is going to pass. I'm just a little, ..., disapointed. I thought that there were going to be controversial bills that would drum up a whole lot of debate, the votes would be really close and people would actually have to stop and think about their position on the issue at hand.

Maybe there have been in the past, that I just haven't seen, but I'd like to start seeing some new ones. So please if you're thinking about making a proposal try to think of something a little bit more controversial than say a Food for Orphans bill or a Subsidized Medicine for The Elderly bill.

The Empire of Draconiae voted AGAINST this resolution. We believe that chemical weapons, and the research of such weapons, could lead to life-saving non or less-than-lethal armaments. Such resolutions would only be an obstacle to the research.

Our Imperial Military is also researching various forms of chemical weapons, ranging from harmless mass-control gasses to agents which corrode metal armor. Such technology could, we believe, reduce the amount of casualites in future wars.

yes great! lets go ban any form of defence we have! If we don't use the weapons then they will be used against us! :gundge:

Frankly, the only way that one can truly negotiate is with the most deadly weapon. This propsal says that UN members can't bear chemical weapons, and thus does not take into consideration rogue nations who could not care one iota whether or not the UN calls for something. If the saying: "Prevention is the best medicine" is true, then the ability to have chemical weapons should be the ultimate example of that.
Negotiation between civilised countries is not done with arms, and negotiation with rogue nations is rarely done at all.
You are also ignoring the fact that rogue nations aren't, from our point of view, quite as logical as us "civilised" and "modern" countries (if we consider current nations such as these that are known in our world in various regions). For those nations it not relevant whether you have a thousand nuclear bombs or one million liters of chemical or biological lethal agents. They may try and strike because of agendas that do not consider the reasonable and possible counter-attack. We may grind them to dust, but prior to that they may still attempt hostilities. It is not a deterrant .

The protection of the billions of people within the world is within our hands, and tying our arms behind our backs and allowing other rogue nations to take a free, and potentially deadly hit is the worse way to go about things. Suicide is a lot simpler when you take cyanide.
And regarding prevention and protection: Take those budgets you've invested in research of lethal agents, and invest in cures research and legal / active (A.K.A "military") measures so as to stomp any possibility that a "rogue" nation will achieve non-conventional capabilities with a feasible potential for mass-destruction. That is the meaning of "Prevention" and "Protection".

I agree with all who are against this resolution. I submitted a thread about why we should be against it, but it has disappeared.

Currently, the vote's running at about 3:1 in favour. Should it stay like this, it will be a victory for common sense, human dignity, and respect for the life and health of one's fellow man, against a bizarre coalition of gung-ho military zealots and well-meaning pedants. (To the latter - vote for now, repeal or change later. Don't be tarred with the same brush as the idiots who think ending a post with :gundge: makes for sensible debate. And to whoever expressed the hope that passing this resolution will reduce the incidence of this - let's hope so!)

Some people have been wrapping themselves up in knots trying to find equally bizarre ways of getting around the law. Let's just say that most of them, while utterly violating the spirit of the proposal, would also be entirely obvious to any nation with satellite technology, or with access to import and export records or diplomatic intelligence. A proposal saying 'Ban Chemical Weapons' means what it says. Let's hope that the production or use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons will soon be as unthinkable and odious to us as the slave trade is now.

Many thanks to those who have voted for this proposal, and to those who will do so in the future!

Banning chemical weapons will help with terrorists not getting chemical weapons but you cannot cut milatary spending because then we have no way of defending ourselves against chemical weapons. You also cannot ban nuclear weapons because the second you do some nation with them will launch their nukes and kill billions of people.

I agree with all who are against this resolution. I submitted a thread about why we should be against it, but it has disappeared.

That's because the mods (and just about everyone else on the forum) want resolution debates to be contained to the official, sticky-ed "AT VOTE" thread.

Yet another brilliant proposal. :rolleyes:

Yeah, this is the way to promote peace; by reducing our defenses. Sadly, our humble federal republic cannot afford yet another slash in its defense budget, and has been struck with an untimely bout of common sense, so we cannot support this proposal.

:headbang:

This resolution MUST be turned down. The option to build chemical weapons is a choice of our nations. The Empire will not stand for such actions to be taken. This is just another way for the nations that have no military to feel that they are safe. This is a resolution that must be turned down for the overall safety of our world and for the better interest of the Empire of DYF, we must vote against this resolution.

Athanos would like to remind all honourable members, as at least one member has done before me, that not all nations are members of the UN.

Athanos can not support this bill, especially not in it's current state. A resolution should leave nothing to the imagination. A resolution should not endanger the stability of it's member's countries safety. A resolution should not leave it's members utterly defenseless in the state of a rogue nation's attack.

That being said, if any more of these useless leftist "we must improve the safety of our citizens by removing the things that keep them safe" resolutions are passed, Athanos will be left with no choice but to immediately withdraw from the UN.

To stop countries from being able to defend themselves is pointless. Yes the traficking of weapons happens, and rogue nations need to be stopped, althought Integrated America was not as the United States was in it's time. We cannot be the Police force, there are countries even larger then ours. It takes a coalition of governments to stop such things.

Athanos would like to remind all honourable members, as at least one member has done before me, that not all nations are members of the UN.

Athanos can not support this bill, especially not in it's current state. A resolution should leave nothing to the imagination. A resolution should not endanger the stability of it's member's countries safety. A resolution should not leave it's members utterly defenseless in the state of a rogue nation's attack.

I don't agree with the idea that disabling chemical weapons will keep UN nations from defending themselves. Banning nuclear weapons would hurt UN nations' ability to defend themselves because it would disbalance the balance of threats of force (I don't attack x nation and he doesn't attack me--at least not with nuclear weapons--because of the threat of them being reciprocated). But the same is not necessarily true for chemical weapons.

The argument, which unfortunately isn't made well by this resolution (except in referencing resolutions that *do* make the argument) is that chemical weapons aren't necessary for defending one's nation, and that they have unwanted effects on civilians and nations or times uninvolved in the war (which they do to a degree--a chemical weapon could spoil a region of land for long after a conflict is over). I think most nations realize this argument internally (though it is not stated in the resolution), and that is why they are voting For.


That being said, if any more of these useless leftist "we must improve the safety of our citizens by removing the things that keep them safe" resolutions are passed, Athanos will be left with no choice but to immediately withdraw from the UN.
I sincerely hope not. The UN needs more voices, not fewer. I really can't imagine that chemical weapons are that much a part of your conventionial weapon stores or strategy. If you do end up leaving, keep a puppet nation in the UN (a nation you don't care about being subject to the demandsby the UN which you see as 'unreasonable'), so you can keep your vote and thus your voice in the UN.

I'd say no. Chemical weapons are more pin-point and less destructive life wise. Banning of biological weapons is better than chemicals.

Biological weapons can spread though-out the whole region, and kill everybody in it's wake, and after a few years, the human body can ward off the biological toxins.

Chemical weapons and be designed destroy a single building and/or kill specific people, rather than whole cities.

Chemical weapons are easier to maintain than biological weapons.

We live in an age where we ban weapons from Fair War. This has never happened before in the history of mankind. This resolution would ban chemical weapons, without clearly defining what chemical weapons are.

Heavy explosives, Non-lethal chemical agents used to stun victims long enough to resolve incidents without the use of lethal force, and any other chemical agent that could be used as a weapon could and would be banned under this proposal.

Recently, a group of children were taken hostage on a field trip to the World Museum of Natural Arts. These children were intercepted outside the First National Bank of Exiao and locked in the vault strapped to dynamite. Without the use of incapacitating or injuring chemical weapons, we would have been unable to recover each of the children safely and humanely execute the criminals.

We propose that this resolution be withdrawn and replaced with more specific langauge. Chemical weapons have been used for millenia. Clearly, you can't ban all of them.

EDIT:

Athanos would like to remind all honourable members, as at least one member has done before me, that not all nations are members of the UN.

Athanos can not support this bill, especially not in it's current state. A resolution should leave nothing to the imagination. A resolution should not endanger the stability of it's member's countries safety. A resolution should not leave it's members utterly defenseless in the state of a rogue nation's attack.

That being said, if any more of these useless leftist "we must improve the safety of our citizens by removing the things that keep them safe" resolutions are passed, Athanos will be left with no choice but to immediately withdraw from the UN.

The esteemed colleage makes another excellent point in that all three of my immediate neighbors are not members of the UN, and are not bound to follow this resolution. This bill must immediately be removed and replaced with a bill of specific langauge which "leaves nothing to the imagination."

If this bill looks as though it will pass, Exiao will also resign from its short membership in the UN.

Ok, how about this- in exchange for voting down this proposal, what about you guys supporting a proposal that makes it illegal to use chemical weapons against other UN nations for any reason? You guys get to keep your chemical weapons for protection against non-UN nations, and UN nations are protected from chemical weapons attacks against each other.

Hey, wait just a minute!!! you try to remove Chemical weapons now, and then you'll try to remove the complete army!! it is outrageus...
We will not disarm Kuehenberg no matter how are we seen to the rest of the world, we rather being seen as barbarians and warmongerers but not as weak!

If you can't win a war without resorting to chemical weapons, then you ARE weak. Still, I think it's best for everyone if we compromise and place a ban on UN nations using chemical weapons on each other, rather than banning them entirely and placing ourselves at the mercy of rogue states.

If you can't win a war without resorting to chemical weapons, then you ARE weak. Still, I think it's best for everyone if we compromise and place a ban on UN nations using chemical weapons on each other, rather than banning them entirely and placing ourselves at the mercy of rogue states.

Most of the idiots who vote on resolutions are stupid. We need everyone who sees the massive flaws in this resolution to vote it down immediately. Chemical weapons deal fewer casualties than any other type of weapon. In fact, they allow for criminals to be captured. Chemical weapons prevent casualties. I see no reason why anyone would want to ban them. Needing chemical weapons doesn't make you WEAK. It means you value Human life. Vote this resolution down immediately until a half-way intelligent one is proposed.

You can not defend yourselves from chemicak weapons with chemical weapons, it does not work that way. The only defence against chemical weapons is removing them from existence. The task is difficult but not imposible. With cooperation of majority of UN member states it can be done, in UN member states and beyond UN.

Afrikanija has the right idea.

I see no reason why anyone would want to ban them. Needing chemical weapons doesn't make you WEAK. It means you value Human life. Vote this resolution down immediately until a half-way intelligent one is proposed.how you get the idea that chimical weapons save human life?
in the real world s. hussein murder thousands with chimical weapons. maybe real world example isn't aplly for the NS world, but you this is way too much exaggerated.

I would like to make a few points here that have been overlooked by both sides.

Firstly, on the side of voting down chemical weapons, you could argue that making chemical weapons allows reasearch into their nature and therfore into cures for deadly toxins, etc. Unfortunatly, due to my biasness, I am unable to find further flaws. (This is where the oposed factin comes in and tells me their defences and bails me out on this point)

Secondly, chemical weapons, like any type, can be contained or widespread. A sniper rifle is a very accurate convention weappon, but the stukas and their divebomber tactics used in Hitler's blitzkreg wiped out towns indescrimately. The same goes for chemical weappons. You can use pinpoint bombs with contained chemicals rather than conventional explosives to clear a building, but at the same time, one of the most deadly toxins, and therefore chemical weappons, Botulinum, can cause the death of 20 million people by putting and despersing a single gram into the water supply. That is as indascrimiate as it gets.

Oh, and by the way, if only for others like me who have trouble distinguishing betwixt chemical and biological agents, biological involves living organisms that actively reproduce and cause harm to humans while alive, whereas chemical can be any non-projectile weapon (napalm, poison, etc.) that, although perhaps the byproduct of a living organism, does not require the organism itself to function as a weapon.

When refering to the "rouge nation threat", you have a valid point that they may or may not be irrational and use the weapons that you, yourself outlawed. Although a secutiry concern, it is my opinion that if any given party uses leathal nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in warfare (I am making the destinction between leathal and non-leathal weapons, for the sake of the police force's use in rescuijg hostages) then all members of the U.N. who have the ability should unite behind the attacked nation to disarm the offending and dangerous nation. However, this is merely my beleif, and although it is what I would like to see in a perfect world, it is not what is currently going on, so I cede this point to the faction that is nervous about the rouge nations.

On a final point, I would like to ask the nations who will leave the U.N. if the vote passes to reconsider for their own sake. If you leave, then that is one less voice for your side. (which I am betting you see as the "right" side, just as we pasafists, cowards, and self proclaimed "civilized" people see ourselves in the right) If you leave, then you will quite efficiently be aiding in the creation of a United Nations that only expresses one guy's side of the argument, and create a single powerblock of nations that are in conflict with your ideology.

The republic of Tevraz allows for the Bellic industry to make 245-BELLUM Napalm bombs, hence we are voting against the banning of such weapons. Why?

1. The Kullad, a terrorist group that had once become so powerful in Tevraz by using normal weaponry and bombing our cities that nobody could get out of their homes without being burned/exploded/murdered by their weaponry. We invented the napalms exactly to destroy the swamps that those foul terrorists resided, hence, we won the war and no more crime exists in Tevraz.

2. It allows for us to develop more countermeasures to toxins such as Aspergilus Flavus sp.'s 'poison', which killed many Tevrazdians due to our excessive consumption of peanuts.

3. The many acids that hadn't been discovered as well as chemical elements may appear one of these days, during our several military tests in depleted environments.

The Republic of Tevraz thanks you for your time.

The President.

I am against this resolution because it is not specific enough. SOME chemical weapons can save lives- tear gas, tranqulizer darts, etc. But this proposal does not allow these- it bans them along with the weapons that SHOULD be banned, such as nerve gas, mustard gas, etc. I recommend voting against this proposal and creating a new one that goes like this:

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Fatus Maximus

RECALLING Resolution #16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", and the spirit of preventing the loss of innocent life it was written in,

DESIRING to further ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not used against UN member nations, while

RECOGNIZING the threat non-UN nations pose with their ability to develop of chemical weapons,

HEREBY RESOLVES that no UN member nation may use lethal chemical weapons against the citizens of another UN member nation for any reason,
while allowing them the freedom to retain chemical weapons for the purposes of defense against rogue nations.

Constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated, and if enough support exists for this alternative, I'll post it in a new thread.

I am against this resolution because it is not specific enough. SOME chemical weapons can save lives- tear gas, tranqulizer darts, etc. But this proposal does not allow these- it bans them along with the weapons that SHOULD be banned, such as nerve gas, mustard gas, etc. I recommend voting against this proposal and creating a new one that goes like this:

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Fatus Maximus

RECALLING Resolution #16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", and the spirit of preventing the loss of innocent life it was written in,

DESIRING to further ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not used against UN member nations, while

RECOGNIZING the threat non-UN nations pose with their ability to develop of chemical weapons,

HEREBY RESOLVES that no UN member nation may use lethal chemical weapons against the citizens of another UN member nation for any reason,
while allowing them the freedom to retain chemical weapons for the purposes of defense against rogue nations.

Constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated, and if enough support exists for this alternative, I'll post it in a new thread.

Although I would prefer the disbandanment of lethal chemical weapons altogether, I will vote "nay" on this resolution for the sake of the creation of this new one, which I beleive is more reasonable. After all, democracy is about compromise, not the viewpoint with the most beleivers getting free riegn.

I would encourage many of the yeasayers to vote nay on the current preposal at vote that they may vote yea for this preposed one, and therefore make more nations happier.

I have two concerns when reading through all of these posts.

First, where are we suppost to put these chemical weapons once we outlaw them? Do we sell them? No, that defeats the whole purpose of thie resolution. Keep them in a confined place? But where will this place be? Will there be anough room? who will jepardize(sp?) their nation to store these weapons? Who will secure the place to make sure the weapons don't go missing?

And finally, my biggest concern...how do you propose, nations against this resolution, that we counter the chemical weapons if they are fired at us? Do we march in with our own troops? That won't work, they can just keep nuking us. Plus our nation will be destroyed, and they will laugh!

Keeping chemical weapons will make sure we are not attacked. This may sound insane, but its true. They will fear attacking us, because they will know that if they attack us, we will attack them back, and we may be dead, but at least we brought them to hell with us. If we have no way to counter an attack, then they will attack us, and laugh at us, knowing we can't do anything.

Perhaps you would approve my alternative proposal, Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons. It's on page 11 of the proposal list. I've only just submitted it. If you're against this proposal but in favor of protecting your nation from chemical weapons, you may want to consider it.

Chemical Weapons are harmful, yes, but at what cost would it be to ban them? Some countries would smuggle them undercover, and some might not care about the ban, and launch them altogether. There's also the chance that if we voted against the ban, every country would use them. This is a lose/lose situation currently. I can't find any solution in this except for allowing chemical weapon use for clearing spaces that would be used to make buildings or industry areas. It would clear space and make sure no infestations or rabid animals get into the building. But on the worse side, it still wouldn't convince some nations not to use them. But when we all think about it, chemicals and chemical weapons are used in our everyday lives. Take radiators, or science labs. And any weapon that would use chemicals would technically be counted as a 'Chemical Weapon'.

-Psilon Empires

I would support that, if it is specific enough. However, it looks like the UN is comprised of morons who do not critically think about the issue at hand before voting on it. Due to this, Exiao will be leaving this pathetic joke of an institution, rather than trying to drill sense into the people for every resolution.

The UN does not stand for freedom. It allows vicious dictatorships who do not respect personal freedoms or democracy to take part in the sessions, and tries to impose its will on its member nations.

Thank you.

((This is the largest flaw in this game I've found so far.))

It is rediculous to say that we must ban chemical weapons. my country is small and i am in the UN to help make a difference but there are many larger countries outside of the UN to whom this ban would not affect if this law was to be passed. What if one of these countries decides to attack me and fire their chemicals at me? i am helpless. By passing this law you will be sentenceing the UN to death as the countries outside it will become more powerful than the UN itself, let alone its members. i urge you all to vote against this ban and save the world from another world war!!!

Goobergunchia is forced to abstain on this resolution. Although we support efforts to build on the Lovinian resolution by banning chemical weapons, given that we do not feel that chemical weapons to serve as a deterrent in any realistic situation, we cannot support the resolution as written because it fails to define the term "chemical weapon". While I have long supported the "common sense" standard in interpreting UN resolutions, the term "chemical weapon" has no standard definition. We would support a resubmitted version of this resolution that either sets forth the Angstian definition (or one similar) or uses the more specific term "chemical warfare agent".

For the record, the Goobergunchian Chemical Weapons Act includes the following definitions:

SECTION 201. DEFINITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

"Chemical Weapons" is hereby defined as the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Act, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

SECTION 202. DEFINITION OF TOXIC CHEMICAL.

"Toxic Chemical" is hereby defined as any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. [ooc: http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_article_II.html]

In light of the aforementioned vagarity, I must abstain.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

-What of freedom of choice? A nation should be able to choose how it should be allowed to defend itself.
-What of defence? There are much more powerful nations outside the UN who left the UN do to weakening purposals such as these. If we continue to unarm are selves the defence of are nations and are nations people is at stake.
Let us not exchange freedom for death

Just a brief note here, there is a fine line between killing and curing when it comes to toxisity. Arsenic is a good treatment for cancer, yet it is a deadly poision when given in anything but miligrams. Botulinum, in my opinion the most deadly poision of all, can be given in nanograms as a cure for spastic contratios or cerebral palsy. The toxins from spiders and snakes are used to make the antidotes. Oxygen itself is one of the ultimate poisons. To quote the toxicologist Michael Trush, "Oxygen is the ultimate toxin. We are oxidizing all the time. The biochemical price of breathing is aging." Basically, we rust and die, as a result of oxygen.

Therefore, there is not such thing on earth that is not a toxic chemical acording to Section 202, as too much of anything (also termed as a lethal dose) can cause death or severe inhabitions of life function. So any ban on chemical weapons using that definition would be pointless, as we'd nto only have to band the majority of our bodies, treatments, antidotes, but oxygen as well.

THIS RESOLUTION IS INSANITY! The thing some people (the 2,300 some that have voted for it) don't get is that we may have no intentions of using them, but keep them for defensive purposes only. WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS REDUCE OUR MILITARIES AS MUCH AS YOU CAN SO WE CAN ALL LIVE "PEACEFULLY." IT DOESN'T WORK. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE WACKOS WHO'LL TRY AND TAKE OTHER NATIONS! WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU HAD NO MILITARY TO FIGHT WITH IF SOMEONE INVADED YOU? NOTHING!BECAUSE YOU WOULD'NT HAVE ONE TO PROTECT YOURSELF WITH!

B.S.!!!!!!

If this passes, I may have a difficult time believing the U.N. has any real purpose anymore.

If this passes, I will not comply, the U.N. would be stepping on MY soverignty as an independent nation. Just try to enforce this in Kingladn! :mp5:

I think we all have to face that this resolution is going to pass, most likely because an awful lot of people vote based on if it kind of sounds like a good general kind of idea at first glance without thinking through the consequences of the actual text of the resolution. People need to get it through their head that you can't legislate by common sense because sense isn't common. Different nations ideas of what "common sense" tells them aren't going to be the bloody same as yours!

This resolution doesn't accomplish anything. What's going to happen if it passes? Let's say I maintain a highly deadly chemical agent but I decide I'm going to call it my "chemical defensive screen" and declare that I don't consider it a weapon any more than an electrified fence is a weapon? That I'll only deploy it in the path of invading armies and if they don't want to be effected by it they should just stay the hell out?

What's anybody going to do about it? The UN can't touch me, because the resolution doesn't actually define what it is it's banning. You can try claiming that it's "common sense" but so will I. So it's my "common sense" saying I'm not using chemical weaponry against your "common sense" that I am and no ACTUAL LEGAL justification for deciding in favor of either one within UN law, thus deadlock, thus rendering the UN impotent on the matter.

So it's in all likelyhood going to pass, and Reformentia for one intends to just ignore it because it doesn't have any practical effect.

I somehow missed this post.

If you continue along this particular train of thought - you could define antibodies as biological weapons. Luckily, common sense prevails and antibodies are still in use.

A biological weapon is a biological agent utilized to cause harm. Common examples of this are bacteria and viruses, but examples can also include multicellular animals. Genetically-engineered warbeasts are still biological weapons, even if they are able to swallow elephants with ease.

Common sense does prevail, but common sense also dictates that you have to define these terms carefully, as otherwise you end up with the problem of interpretation. We, for example, don't consider viruses to be biological weapons, as we don't consider viruses to be alive or truly biological in nature. They're closer to the natural version of nanotechnology.

With all due respect to DLE - I personally consider their definition of what a chemical weapon is an overreaction and less credible than wikipedia, or any of the sources discovered by defining chEmical weapons in google (link (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3AChemical+weapons&meta=)).

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a credible source. They give information based on what people send in to them, which can be of varying quality, and do their best to check it to make sure it works, even if it is inaccurate. Plus, their definition is not applicable, as this is NS, not wikipedia, and on here we have to deal with the resolutions as the primary source. In this case, no definition is given, thus opening it up to interpretation. Any interpretation, no matter how insane, is just as valid as any other when no definition is included.

DLE is describing chemical reactions, meaning a weapon employing such a reaction is instantly considered a chemical weapon. A more common sense perspective (IMO) is to argue that it is not the gunpowder that kills, but it is actually the bullet travelling at velocity that kills.

Actually, gunpowder does kill. Ever heard of dynamite?

But if only to avoid such pedanticism, I would have preferred a brief definition included in the proposal text.

Which is exactly my point. A definition excludes all of this confusion and all of these interpretations. As it is, this leaves it perfectly open for interpretations, which can range from, banning all conventional weapons to only banning some random chemical the nation hasn't used in forty years. That's the problem.

Currently, the vote's running at about 3:1 in favour. Should it stay like this, it will be a victory for common sense, human dignity, and respect for the life and health of one's fellow man, against a bizarre coalition of gung-ho military zealots and well-meaning pedants. (To the latter - vote for now, repeal or change later. Don't be tarred with the same brush as the idiots who think ending a post with :gundge: makes for sensible debate. And to whoever expressed the hope that passing this resolution will reduce the incidence of this - let's hope so!)

I see someone needs a lesson in common sense. This is not a victory for it.

Common sense dictates that you must have every advantage you can open in case of trouble in the NS world. Why? The NS world is approximately equal to Europe two years after the Roman Empire fell apart, only with more advanced weaponry. NS is so far from civilization that it's a joke to even suggest such a thing can exist. Ironically, this is the most civilized I have ever seen humans.

As for tarring "pedants" (I see you've been paying attention to GMC's posts) with that label: Go ahead. All you'll be doing is causing a disservice for yourself and closing your ears towards the wisdom that comes from dealing with the UN and paying attention to people. Pedantry rises because of idiocy or corruption, and with the UN the latter is the rule. You have to work around the corruption with the limited space you have. Otherwise, you end up producing resolutions that amount to worthless garbage when it comes to enforcement, like this one.

Some people have been wrapping themselves up in knots trying to find equally bizarre ways of getting around the law. Let's just say that most of them, while utterly violating the spirit of the proposal, would also be entirely obvious to any nation with satellite technology, or with access to import and export records or diplomatic intelligence. A proposal saying 'Ban Chemical Weapons' means what it says. Let's hope that the production or use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons will soon be as unthinkable and odious to us as the slave trade is now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

~breathe~

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You must seriously not know much about the UN to think that'll work. For one thing, many nations in the UN spend all of their time working ways around the resolutions. In this case, because of your wording, they just have to think fourth-dimensionally instead of three-dimensionally and realize your rules only apply to what currently exists, not what is made in the future.

As for nukes: Go ahead and ban them. I'll enjoy liberating your people from your government. Know this: Right now, nukes are the only weapons that give the majority of the nations in the UN a snowball's chance in Hell of continuing to exist without being invaded and conquered, and every day the UN's enemies grow in number, size, power, and technological advancement. You remove nukes, you pretty much can kiss your nation and thousands of others goodbye. Oh, and I should note that certain UN members have developed a strategy for dealing with this: They dispose of the nukes in the nation of the one who proposed the ban. And your only protection is the TPP, which isn't even recognized as legal by some of us.

BECAUSE YOU WOULD'NT HAVE ONE TO PROTECT YOURSELF WITH!

Not true. A well trained, compatent fighting force is more then able to defend its self w/o WMD. The fewer WMD in the world, the less likely that these weapons will fall into the hand of people who least need to have them.

Not true. A well trained, compatent fighting force is more then able to defend its self w/o WMD. The fewer WMD in the world, the less likely that these weapons will fall into the hand of people who least need to have them.

Time for common sense.

You are one of the thousands of nations outside the UN (in other words, the great majority of nations in NS). You are trying to deal with a UN nation attacking you because of past actions. That nation has superior manpower and firepower, but lacks chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. You have inferior manpower and firepower, but possess chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Are you going to waste the lives of your soldiers in a fruitless combat, or are you going to use those weapons on enemy soldiers, knowing full well the other nation can't strike back?

It doesn't take a tactical genius to point out the correct answer.

My nation has an inferior military to most, but we also have the highest concentration of WMDs per ship. We don't need massive fleets when four well-placed shots can wipe out a powerful fleet in a short amount of time.

The United Nations,

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence....And of course everyone realizes that this is not a ban on possessing chemical weapons stocks at all, right?

It commits NSUN members to the "ultimate decommissioning" of such arms, but there's no discussion of how far off in the future "ultimate" may be. A decade? A century? A millennium? Longer? That's really for each nation to determine.

Nor is this a ban on the use of chemical weapons. You can use them up until you run out, and you violate nothing - except perhaps the sensibilities of the world community.

So what is being banned here? In a word, acquisition and sale. You can't make new stocks of existing chemical, or new ones you develop (although it is an open question as to whether or not you can invent new chemicals, given the wording of NSUN Resolution #2 ["Scientific Freedom"] - and of course you can always sell the formulae as well as any needed ingredients or supporting hardware, because none of that is banned). You can't import new stocks, or export existing ones (that would clearly be trafficking). But - at least until they rot (which takes a number of years) - you can hold onto what you have.

So really, this is a "Chemical Weapons Freeze". But since when was truth a necessary requirement in an NSUN Resolution, eh?

The United States of Allemande have no chemical weapons stocks and have no interest in acquiring, maintaining, or selling chemical weapons stocks. On the other hand we find the excitement over chemical weapons to be quite unnecessary. Chemicals are not anywhere near as lethal as people like to think they are.

Essentially, chemicals are a battlefield weapon, a means on gaining a tactical advantage over a foe (and a relatively transient advantage at that). Their strategic value - unlike that of nuclear or (some) biological weapons is minimal. Chemicals do scare people, however - which is why they end up on everybody's short list of "nasty weapons that we should ban". The energy expended in trying to get rid of them is hardly worth the effort.

That said, this "ban" (or, as pointed out above, "freeze") will have unforeseen consequences. They are: More nations will develop nuclear weapons, because they can't develop chemical or bio-weapons. True, nuclear weapons are more expensive (far more expensive) - but they're not beyond the reach of most Members. So this will make nuclear proliferation worse.


More nuclear weapons increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used, especially because of the risk/possibility of their use in counterforce strikes (widely called "first" or "preemptive" strikes.


Nations without chemicals but with nuclear weapons will be forced into the stance of having to reply to chemical use with nuclear fires. A nation with chemicals could reply in kind, or threaten to reply in kind - and that would either serve to deter the first use of chemicals (as happened in World War II) or contain such an exchange short of the use of nukes. Without the ability to respond in quid pro quo fashion, however, there will be a necessary escalation to the nuclear level. Of course, if both nations are nuclear armed, then suddenly we're in a whole new world, with all of its attendant dangers.The United States of Allemande do not especially care whether this Resolution passes (although if it causes our military budget to decline too sharply, we will be forced to author a resolution aimed at increasing international security). We do believe, though, that the Members should think quite carefully about this and other seemingly well-meaning Resolutions before casting what is - for most of them - essentially a brainless, emotional vote.

The United States of Allemande do not especially care whether this Resolution passes (although if it causes our military budget to decline too sharply, we will be forced to author a resolution aimed at increasing international security). We do believe, though, that the Members should think quite carefully about this and other seemingly well-meaning Resolutions before casting what is - for most of them - essentially a brainless, emotional vote.One last note. Tear gas is considered a chemical weapon by most experts, and so a very popular riot control technology will also go down the tubes with this Resolution. To that end, Allemande has developed and is preparing to deploy a microwave-based crowd control technology (http://economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3423036) based on the principle that brief exposure to a properly tuned energy beam of this kind will cause intense pain across the surface (i.e., the uppermost 1-2mm) of the targets' skin without lasting damage (we won't comment on what prolonged exposure will do). We will be happy to sell such systems to anyone in need of a replacement for tear gas.

Looking forward to your orders when this passes. Enjoy!

Fellow comrades,

The Exiao Empire has withdrawn its membership from the UN due to other nations using it as a tool to trample our sovereignty. Our emperor, His Majesty Aleksandr, would like to wish all nations good luck dealing with the corrupt and out-of-control organization that the UN has become.

Thank you,
Ambassador J.S. Neumann, Exiao Empire.

Im new to this and if im sounding ignorant
but there will always be a way to kill large amounts of people and if biological/chemical weapons are banned people will eventually find even more devestating ways to kill mass amounts of people
anways WMB can be used to stop things that could have been dragged out much longer with more causulties or expense
I use japan as the ultimate example.

This is an outrage! This ban would not only ban a weapon that has been legal since the beginning of civilization, but would put a serious restriction on our trade network! Yes, it will start out with powerful chemicals, but then this rule will be adapted to add chlorine to the trading ban, sighting its harmful properties, and the salt trade will suffer. More chemicals will be added to the list for their dangerous properties or their potential use in weapons, until there is nothing left! The free trade of raw chemicals is 80% of our commerce from trade, this is not acceptable.

What’s next after the obvious chemicals? Any chemical is potentially deadly, by the pit, WATER will kill you if you drink enough of it. It may sound preposterous but if we open the door some fool will snowball it and lead to a day where the trading of ice cubes is illegal!

That is why I, Archon Steiner, reject this bill. It is nothing more than to restrict our free trade agreements!

So what is being banned here? In a word, acquisition and sale. You can't make new stocks of existing chemical, or new ones you develop (although it is an open question as to whether or not you can invent new chemicals, given the wording of NSUN Resolution #2 ["Scientific Freedom"] - and of course you can always sell the formulae as well as any needed ingredients or supporting hardware, because none of that is banned). You can't import new stocks, or export existing ones (that would clearly be trafficking). But - at least until they rot (which takes a number of years) - you can hold onto what you have.

Actually, it doesn't even do that in one interpretation. The wording as follows:

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

The problem with this is that the ban and offering of decommisioning should be separate items. As it exists, it can be argued to either ban the production and trafficking, meaning you can possibly buy as much as you want but you can't sell (this is argueable, as trafficking of weapons in real life is typically a charge only given to those selling the weapons while the definition that applies deals with trade, meaning that you could give someone something and they could give you chemical weapons with both being labelled as gifts to get around), or it bans the production and trafficking of weapons currently in existance, which can mean it either bans the individual weapons or the types of weapons.

To add to the confusion, no set definition is given. Some can try to argue that this doesn't apply to guns because the bullet does the killing, but that arguement falls short when you remember that gunpowder is itself quite useful as an explosive weapon. Worse, where do you classify plastic explosives in this? The problem is that most conventional weapons utilize chemicals in some matter. Futuristic weapons typically don't, but how prevalent are they?

Actually, it doesn't even do that in one interpretation... As it exists, it can be argued to either ban the production and trafficking, meaning you can possibly buy as much as you want but you can't sell (this is argueable, as trafficking of weapons in real life is typically a charge only given to those selling the weapons while the definition that applies deals with trade, meaning that you could give someone something and they could give you chemical weapons with both being labelled as gifts to get around), or it bans the production and trafficking of weapons currently in existance, which can mean it either bans the individual weapons or the types of weapons.Insightful as always DLE, and I love that devious mind of yours (are you a barrister or lawyer, perchance?). I had forgotten that "trafficking" is one crime and "soliciting" quite another. <weg>

To add to the confusion, no set definition is given. Some can try to argue that this doesn't apply to guns because the bullet does the killing, but that arguement falls short when you remember that gunpowder is itself quite useful as an explosive weapon. Worse, where do you classify plastic explosives in this? The problem is that most conventional weapons utilize chemicals in some matter. Futuristic weapons typically don't, but how prevalent are they?Well, yes. FT and even PMT nations can still do horrible, horrible things with nanotechnological goo.

Due to the vague definition of what biological and chemical weapons are, the Republic of Dicomte cannot support this bill. It is a known fact that many common weapons were created using chemicals and can thus be considered chemical weapons. A tanks main gun is a prime example of this seeing that the bullet has a small but significant amount of uranium in it.

Insightful as always DLE, and I love that devious mind of yours (are you a barrister or lawyer, perchance?). I had forgotten that "trafficking" is one crime and "soliciting" quite another. <weg>

Nope. I'm in advertising. This means I deal with lawyers on enough of a basis to pick up their tricks and that I make a living off of manipulation of words and pictures. Advertisers are just as soulless as lawyers are, only we're ignored because we do a good job of fooling the public.

Well, yes. FT and even PMT nations can still do horrible, horrible things with nanotechnological goo.

Or, worse, with weapons that utilize energy. Just imagine how much damage a railgun firing projectiles the size of bricks can do.

Currently, the vote's running at about 3:1 in favour. Should it stay like this, it will be a victory for common sense, human dignity, and respect for the life and health of one's fellow manReally? Common sense? Well, let's have a look at the wording of your silly proposal:BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons"The world" is free of biological weapons, is it? News flash: only 30 percent of the world belongs to the U.N., and U.N. resolutions do not apply to non-members, which means that more than two-thirds of the world is still free to develop all the harmful weapons it sees fit. And when this chemical weapons thing goes through (which it inevitably will, simply because it sounds good, and few nations actually consider the ramifications of these idiotic resolutions), two-thirds of the world will still be free to develop these weapons, and we in the U.N. would simply have limited our defenses against them, all in the name of good intentions.a bizarre coalition of gung-ho military zealots and well-meaning pedantsJust call us a bizarre coalition of those consigned to reality. We bothered to do the math; did you?

**Stands up**

Time for common sense.

You are one of the thousands of nations outside the UN (in other words, the great majority of nations in NS). You are trying to deal with a UN nation attacking you because of past actions. That nation has superior manpower and firepower, but lacks chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. You have inferior manpower and firepower, but possess chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Are you going to waste the lives of your soldiers in a fruitless combat, or are you going to use those weapons on enemy soldiers, knowing full well the other nation can't strike back?

It doesn't take a tactical genius to point out the correct answer.

My nation has an inferior military to most, but we also have the highest concentration of WMDs per ship. We don't need massive fleets when four well-placed shots can wipe out a powerful fleet in a short amount of time.


Enigma hits the nail half on the head with this.

To summarize:

The proper ethical use of any WMD is three-fold:

1. As a defensive deterrent to aggressive/belligerent nations.
2. As an area denial weapon. Sort of an artificial geographical barrier to troop movement.
3. To cause debilitating losses to large quanitites of concentrated enemy troops.

That said, this legislation fails to address a previous post which points out that 2/3 (approximately) of the nations in NS are not part of the NSUN, and therefore are not bound by any of the restrictions on warfare passed as resolutions by the NSUN.

If members of the NSUN wish to limit the development/use of WMD, then proposals should be made to ensure mutual defense against non NSUN members; or proposals related to WMD should be modified/superceded by those with clauses stating that WMD development/use shall be solely restricted to defensive platforms.

Furthermore, we direct the delegates of the NSUN to the following logical conclusion:

Any rogue nation would be foolish to join or remain part of the NSUN with such restrictions on warfare as the restrictions described in this proposed resolution, when it would far better suit their agenda to remain free of such chains by not being a member. Thus, is laid bare the true purpose of the NSUN:

1. To provide for the mutual assistance of member nations to each other, thereby improving the lives of every member nations citizenry; or
2. To provide for the subsuming of every member nation into a single all-encompassing world government/state, with corresponding loss of all sovereignty and ability to defend one's sovereign territory.

This begs the question: Is there a "poison pill" resolution passed which will prevent #2 above?

Having stated our position in this matter, as clearly as we may, the People of East Columbia must vote against this proposed resolution, until such time as greater clarity is provided in the text of the legislation.

**sits down**

All I can say is that in an Empire where kids are needed to fight against crime, that it is a disgrace that a majority want to pass the resolution. It is a way of protection against violence and crime for our nation, and I am overall, disgraced. Mark my words, that if this resolution passes, I will do my best to have this fought against.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Fatus Maximus

RECALLING Resolution #16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", and the spirit of preventing the loss of innocent life it was written in,

DESIRING to further ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not used against UN member nations, while

RECOGNIZING the threat non-UN nations pose with their ability to develop of chemical weapons,

HEREBY RESOLVES that no UN member nation may use lethal chemical weapons against the citizens of another UN member nation for any reason,
while allowing them the freedom to retain chemical weapons for the purposes of defense against rogue nations.

Athanos fully supports this resolution.
I applaud the efforts of Fatus Maximus.

Really? Common sense? Well, let's have a look at the wording of your silly proposal:"The world" is free of biological weapons, is it? News flash: only 30 percent of the world belongs to the U.N., and U.N. resolutions do not apply to non-members, which means that more than two-thirds of the world is still free to develop all the harmful weapons it sees fit. And when this chemical weapons thing goes through (which it inevitably will, simply because it sounds good, and few nations actually consider the ramifications of these idiotic resolutions), two-thirds of the world will still be free to develop these weapons, and we in the U.N. would simply have limited our defenses against them, all in the name of good intentions.Just call us a bizarre coalition of those of us consigned to reality. We bothered to do the math; did you?


Vastiva nominates the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny for the position of Secretary-General of the UN. We think this speech shows he embodies the beliefs of the majority of the membership.

OZ stands against the resolution as one can easily see that only a few nations of our world are member of NSUN, In this case if a non-un nation develops such weaponary no buddy is there to stop it and in the consequences, UN member nations will have to suffer if they would be bound by this resolution.

I think that it is better to first offer some attractive incentives to the nations to become UN member and then to propose such laws.

Don't you know that nobody reads them anyway? Why bother?

Don't you know that nobody reads them anyway? Why bother?

Because these arguements are preparation for repeal attempts. You can come here, see what worked and what was shot down, and use the material for that.

:) First off, let me say that at least this proposal isn't as stupid as protecting dolphins. But at the same time I disagree with it. The world will not be free of weapons as UN membership is voluntary, thus leaving the majority of the NS world to freely develop weapons we cannot.

:confused: Unfortunately, since the UN is dominated by liberal socialists, the resolution will pass, simply because it appeals to the mind of a liberal socialist. However, the conservative mind like myself, will obviously realize the stupidity of this resolution and vote against it.

:( This resolution is like the UN attacking itself. The UN is trying to limit the weapons that some nations may rely on to keep rogue nations and terrorists from taking over. The United Nations are causing its end slowly, but surely.

:eek: When at war, a nation should be able to use any means necessary to win that war. If I am in a fight with a guy, and we both have the option to use baseball bats and hit each other, I am not going to decline the weapon while he bludgeons me to death with a baseball bat. That is stupid and is exactly what the UN is doing to itself. :headbang: :mp5: :sniper:

Prestantia has yet to support a single resolution since we joined the U.N. All these resolutions are are either hopelessly optimistic or an unacceptable infringement on the economic vitality of our country. We continue to support the U.N., in the interests of international cooperation, but this resolution is making us give strong reconsideration to our membership.

Specifically regarding this resolution, it means nothing as long as thousands of other countries, with billions of people, remain outside the U.N. and consequently the scope of this resolution. There is a reason those countries do not belong to the U.N.: They are unwilling to make the sacrifice of limited sovereignty in order to pursue their nationalistic goals. They self-evidently do not believe in multilateralism, or at least not sufficiently to join the U.N. Even if the proposed ban were open to voluntary accession by non-members, there would still be thousands of countries that would not adhere to its principles, thereby giving them a strategic advantage. Can you not see the inherent danger in this proposal, given the geopolitical reality?

Please, stop submitting and supporting these suicidal resolutions!

**Stands up**

The people of East Columbia agree with the Prestantia delegate.

We are seriously considering resigning from the NSUN.

**Sits down**

Since it's clear no one's read my early post (thanks to the few of you who have mentioned it, though), I thought I'd create a new thread about my alternative proposal. It is more defined and, if I may say so myself, better written. :D It can be found here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9052212#post9052212

Vastiva nominates the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny for the position of Secretary-General of the UN.We heartily accept this dubious honor -- provided it is sincere. And please up our order for castor beans, Vastiva. We really don't know how you grow them out there in Antarctica, but let us sample your crops nonetheless. The next time we come under attack, we shall punish the invading soldiers with all the castor oil their lungs can handle ... heh, heh, heh.We think this speech shows he embodies the beliefs of the majority of the membership.Not if you've seen the latest tally on this vote, no. :(

And Lost Heroes: Bravo!

Mine is a new nation and we have not yet decided whether or not to join the UN.

It should be noted that the National Animal here is the banana slug. These creatures are essential to my country's defence. Our nation is populated with legions of banana slugs and invaders quickly discover the slipery and offensive nature of these creatures when they find their vehicles hopelessly mired at our borders.

The only effective counter to this situation is either slug bait (a chemical weapon) or salt (another chemical weapon). So it would seem that our nation would favor the ban in our own self interest.

But we are a benevelent nation and seek to do no harm to our neighbors, and the banning of salt would severly harm these neighbors, particularly in the winter months when their roads get iced up.

But one man's condement is another's lethal weapon in this case.

Our monetary system is the Flatulum, which may be considered to be a chemical weapon by some, though our nation has found ways to adapt to its properties and revels in its use in certain prescribed ways. If this ban were to be enacted, it would mean monitary collapse for our nation. Remember well the results of world actions that caused the isolation of Japan and caused it to lash out in response to oil and mineral shortages legislated against it.

Cunundrum is opposed to this legislation and may find it to be provocative in the extreme, requiring severe sanctions to be applied to the UN nations.

We have a stockpile of slug bombs and are not afraid to use them if provoked. Imagine your Peonies decimated overnight.

Please do not fire the first shot in the most horrible war you can imagine in the history of man.

Vote against this measure.

This should be voted against in my mind. If you outlaw or ban, then the only people who will have them are the ones who will get them illegally. This means that terrorist will be the ONLY ones in the world able to get them. Thats is far too dangerous for my blood.
Also, chemical science has been vital to the medical field like cancer research and the use of hydrocarbons. Therefore, the need for research in the chemical field is required even if so for military purposes. Who knows when a new chemical will spread across the regions and kill millions!

We heartily accept this dubious honor -- provided it is sincere. And please up our order for castor beans, Vastiva. We really don't know how you grow them out there in Antarctica, but let us sample your crops nonetheless. The next time we come under attack, we'll punish the invading soldiers with all the castor oil their lungs can handle ... heh, heh, heh.


The offer was entirely sincere.

Vastiva maintains greenhouses of approximately the size of the American Midwest, only six levels high. This is a very expensive method of supplying food - even with our kw to Polar Crown cost still at very low levels owing to more nuclear plants coming online and more then sufficient hydro- and geothermal power available. So we have had to turn a significant amount of research into methods of improving agriculture in a limited area.

Hydroponics were only the beginning.

Currently, even with "drastic" measures in place, it is necessary to possess commercial crops designed for export in order to fully finance the ongoing methodology for feeding all the people in sufficient quantity (Someone working outside in Vastiva requires a diet of 5,000 calories per day. In local winter, 8,000 to 10,000 is more likely) and quality.

As such, we produce (pun intentional) - among other things - castor beans, different varieties of mushrooms and flowering plants, several nightshades... well, the list goes on and on, and our customer base is international.

Our region has more gas masks and body armor per person than any other region in the world. This is because we are outnumbered, two hundred and forty to one, by countries that wish us dead. All of us. We depend on our advanced weapons technology, to hold their ravenous hordes back.

Their ravenous hordes also tend to vote, for legislation that would nullify our technological advantage. This is a serious matter and a serious threat to our advanced people. We can only win by having a failsafe, weapons that can kill many for each of us that die. We can not simply run through the streets screaming, waving knives and burning babies as they do. We just do not have the manpower.

I would amend the previous statement to suggest that the chemical weapons ban be limited to a strong suggestion against Ricin, castor bean derived, as killing ones enemies by convulsive diarrhea would undoubtedly pose as a great a threat to the user as the target.

Please, stick to corrosive chemicals, nerve gas and asphyxiants.

We, Nevermoore cannot believe the idiocy in this God-forsaken, hippy-riddled, festering corpse of something passing for a world governing body! You people! OH! You make Us SO angry. So very angry. Do you have no backbones?! Are you WORMS! We have spent billions developing our weapons for an edge in war. Something to slay the enemy instantly and you would take this away! WE are not CHILDREN! We can handle our own god-damned weapons! Damn you! Damn all of you hippies to hell!!!! AHG!

*The delegate excuses himself from the UN chambers. A sign is placed that reads, "Be back when drunk."*

(It's bad enough we have to protect a bunch of stupid fish that swim into toxins themselves.)

In order to demonstrate the futility of banning chemical weapons, I shall demonstrate the ease with which a criminal regime may produce chemical weapons, while a law abiding country will have its hands tied.

Observe the creation of Mustard Gas as I easily open a simple canister of ethene and pour it in to a canister of sulfur monochloride.

*Does so and kills the Liberal Half of the UN Delegates.*

Thank you, I believe I have proved my point.

I would amend the previous statement to suggest that the chemical weapons ban be limited to a strong suggestion against Ricin, castor bean derived, as killing ones enemies by convulsive diarrhea would undoubtedly pose as a great a threat to the user as the target.

Please, stick to corrosive chemicals, nerve gas and asphyxiants.

What? You can make weapons out of these? :eek: We had no idea....

This resolution is reprehensible! A good 40% of Brandouneia's wealth is made from arms dealing, and a good chunk of that is the trade of Chemical weapons. If this resolution passes, we can no longer trade Chemical Weapons in the foyer of the Brandouneian Capitol building. I mean, sure, we'll keep doing business, but we'd have to send out directions to the new spot! And we've lost the phone tree!

You should have been using Neoprene. Trees are hardly suitable for this business. Here, we can cut you a slick deal on Neoprene Fabrication and Delivery Systems. in return, we will purchase large volumes of processed vesicants manufactured by your country and store them in large underground missile complexes just in case they are needed, by us, or our allies.


This resolution is reprehensible! A good 40% of Brandouneia's wealth is made from arms dealing, and a good chunk of that is the trade of Chemical weapons. If this resolution passes, we can no longer trade Chemical Weapons in the foyer of the Brandouneian Capitol building. I mean, sure, we'll keep doing business, but we'd have to send out directions to the new spot! And we've lost the phone tree!

We of Yrneh are a peaceful nation but we are disgusted yes I say DISGUSTED by this resolution! We consider our policy for being well armed as part of the reason our nation is so safe. Our stores of chemical weapons will never be used in an offensive war as we fully intend never to engage in one. These weapons exist to keep our foes from attacking us. Also sale of weapons including yes chemical weapons makes up a good part of our economy. I encourage all those that care about the defense of their nation to vote against this resolution. Remember if it passes we will not have these weapons but our foes not in the United Nations still will. A vote against this is a vote For your nations security.

Signed
General Arthur Hendrik representing the Dominion of Yrneh

I, The Dictator of United Scotsmen believe that this resolution goes against a countries right to govern themselves. This is a direct threat against countries too small to defend themselves as chemical weapons are an equalizer in warefare. A country needs to have this right for it's protection. If the UN bans the use of chemical weapons, many small countries will be overwhelmed with the larger countries. Furthermore, what of countries not a part of the UN? They will be able to make chemical weapons while countries inside of the UN will have to create counterparts to them, but the country in the UN will not be able to counter the attack in as an effective way. War is uncivilized in its own nature, such as no one thinks one scalping another in cold blood is human. However, this was done, and it served it's purpose well. Chemical weapons are just another feared method of warefare that nations often think twice before going to war when it is involved.

It seems to me that everyone who has posted in the forum is against this resolution, because they are reading the good points other people are making. Too bad you can't force everyone to read the debate in the forum before voting. Democracy just doesn't work when idiots have the vote. Ugh. Everyone just quit the UN. It's a failure on the part of this game.

Hey, I'm trying to work on that, guys! Don't quit the UN just yet- telegram the major delegates who voted for this proposal, explaining why this is a bad proposal. Then, push my alternative proposal if you like it. An alternative is better then I WANT MY CH3MICAL 8OM8S YOU A**WIPE!!!

listen, if we ban them what are we gonna do with all that extra money. A nation like mine sure as hell cant spend it on the poor!!!

21st Century warfare is accomplished with Economic maneuvers and Technological sabotage. No no need for chemical, biological, or nuclear unless you are a 3rd world society who practices the idealogy of "kill or be Killed." Taking human life and distroying civilization does not create a winning war...It create more unrest, expensive reconstruction costs and a society with much resentment and opened emotional wounds. :cool:

Your statement rings true, at least in Fatus Maximus' ears- however, non-UN member nations are not subject to this proposal, and it is doubtful many of them share your ideology. The truth is, however unnoble it seems, if Fatus Maximus is attacked with chemical weapons, and retaliating in kind is the only way to stop invasion- we will do so without hesitation. Please, see my thread entitled, "An Alternative To 'Ban Chemical Weapons'". It's a compromise solution for this topic, and you may find yourself choosing it over the proposal at vote.

It's true that this resolution is not perfect.

This resolution would be hard to enforce, without a great intelligence service such as the Israeli Mossad (myself).

Still, it is a step in the right direction, and therefore I vote YEAH.

Many nations in this game are really psychopathic, and the less weapons of mass destruction nations have, the better.

The down side is, of course, that nations outside the UN would be allowed to hold such weapons. this is not so bad, since there i no real war here, and since this would serve as an incentive for psychopathic nations to LEAVE THE UN.

I have voted against a ban on chemical weapons. Such a ban would completely destroy my country's economy. As it is, weapons production is a huge contributor to my countries economy. Chemical weapons can be beneficial. My country has been using the by-products of the chemical weapons we have been prodcing and converting them to pesticides. We have been using these pesticides to protect our very lush, lively forests.

this would serve as an incentive for psychopathic nations to LEAVE THE UN.

And therefore not be subject to this proposal and THEN attack you with chemical weapons. :rolleyes:

Hey, there are more ways to kill other people than :gundge:
like :sniper:
like :headbang:
like :fluffle:

Okay? I just prefer not to melt when I die, that's all.

i'm too lazy to read *mumble* pages of posts. has anyone noticed that the proposal doesn't actually define what a chemical weapon is? most people think nerve gas is. what about napalm? what about gunpowder? where do you draw the line? also, what's the reasoning for banning chemical weapons? in the NBC triad, they're invariably by far the safest in terms of side effects - no nuclear wasteland or viral agents that get out of control.

BOO!

Although well intended, a ban on chemical weapons would only serve to erode soverignty of individual nations and prevent them from acting on their own. The UN should not regulate national defense in any manner because it restricts a nation's right to safety.

that's a much larger debate about the purpose of the UN, which is to equalize individual nations' sovereignties by restricting what they can do to each other, much like a national government (ideally) equalizes people's rights by not allowing them to kill each other or such.

not only does this resolution fail to address what is and is not a chemical weapon, but it also does not give anyone any incentive to vote for it. Furthermore, it does not not say ANYWWHERE how we would go about eliminating chemical weapons. This is a horrible resolution with ok intentions

we are already at the mercy of those oft-mentioned rogue states as long as this issue is debated here... :rolleyes:

not only does this resolution fail to address what is and is not a chemical weapon, but it also does not give anyone any incentive to vote for it. Furthermore, it does not not say ANYWWHERE how we would go about eliminating chemical weapons. This is a horrible resolution with ok intentions




What do you mean by incentive?

not only does this resolution fail to address what is and is not a chemical weapon, but it also does not give anyone any incentive to vote for it. Furthermore, it does not not say ANYWWHERE how we would go about eliminating chemical weapons. This is a horrible resolution with ok intentions




What do you mean by incentive?

the word "incentive" here seems to suggest a profit of one way or the other :)

I have voted against a ban on chemical weapons. Such a ban would completely destroy my country's economy. As it is, weapons production is a huge contributor to my countries economy. Chemical weapons can be beneficial. My country has been using the by-products of the chemical weapons we have been prodcing and converting them to pesticides. We have been using these pesticides to protect our very lush, lively forests.


So has it been to my country's economy as well, but as many a country should learn that diversification of one's economy will do wonders for the stability of one's country and people. :cool:

If you can't win a war without resorting to chemical weapons, then you ARE weak. Still, I think it's best for everyone if we compromise and place a ban on UN nations using chemical weapons on each other, rather than banning them entirely and placing ourselves at the mercy of rogue states.

I can win a war without chemical weapons, but then if a more powerful country decides to attack we would have a better chance of defence with chemical weapons, i'd use nukes first, but i would never underestimate the good power of a chemical bomb, they will remember not to mess with us

Most of the idiots who vote on resolutions are stupid. We need everyone who sees the massive flaws in this resolution to vote it down immediately. Chemical weapons deal fewer casualties than any other type of weapon. In fact, they allow for criminals to be captured. Chemical weapons prevent casualties. I see no reason why anyone would want to ban them. Needing chemical weapons doesn't make you WEAK. It means you value Human life. Vote this resolution down immediately until a half-way intelligent one is proposed.

Amen brother ;) :D

I think I've got the half-way intelligent one. Check page ten of the proposal list. Discuss it in the "An Alternative To Ban Chemical Weapons" thread below. :D

You people have completely missed the point about this ban. It's not about excessive effectiveness at all. It's about the danger to the user and the costly clean-up after use. Kiloran supports the ban becase if we used them, the spoils of battle would not pay for the cost of the clean-up. We would also not like to see our enemies polute their own spoils before we loot them. Chemical weapons just don't make economic sense.

We are all for the banning of chemical weapons, or any kind of weapon! But we also want to know why you can't suggest changes to a resolution. Please either send a telegram to Splurgeland or post here quoting what I have said.

21st Century warfare is accomplished with Economic maneuvers and Technological sabotage. No no need for chemical, biological, or nuclear unless you are a 3rd world society who practices the idealogy of "kill or be Killed." Taking human life and distroying civilization does not create a winning war...It create more unrest, expensive reconstruction costs and a society with much resentment and opened emotional wounds. :cool:

21st Century warfare also included massive threats of nuclear and chemical attacks, a continuing standoff between the nuclear powers as each was afraid to use their weapons in case the others would respond, and the continual corruption of the United States until, in the second half of the century, it fell apart. The conventional tactics were not used because they wanted to, but because there was massive fear all around of the other side or simply someone else retaliating with the same or worse. In other words, a continuation of the Cold War.

To be honest, most modern nations have to be as you say. It's a survival trait because of the sheer number that already are that way.

You people have completely missed the point about this ban. It's not about excessive effectiveness at all. It's about the danger to the user and the costly clean-up after use. Kiloran supports the ban becase if we used them, the spoils of battle would not pay for the cost of the clean-up. We would also not like to see our enemies polute their own spoils before we loot them. Chemical weapons just don't make economic sense.

They make more sense than you can imagine. If you are going to make a chemical weapon, you make it so that it can be neutralized. You drop it on your enemies, wait until it kills them, drop the neutralizer, and then use old-fashioned hoses to clean the chemicals off. If you really do it right, the chemicals biodegrade into nonpollutants, while still being extremely deadly when used as a weapon. The D'ni were exterminated using a similar method.

What you are missing is a simple fact: Advanced expertise allows you to create weapons that are extremely deadly and extremely easy to clean up afterwards. Besides, most chemical weapons are ineffective without the right conditions anyway.

"The Empire of Egotistical Evilness is totally, whole-heartedly and decisively AGAINST this new Bill to ban chemical weapons. Our people see it as yet another attempt by the UN to restrict defense policies in a world where protection is more vital than ever before. In wake of recent terrorist attacks on rich and poor countries alike, the Empire of Egotistical Evilness has come to the conclusion that such a Bill will only downgrade our defensive weapons further and leave us open to attack.

Therefore we have voted AGAINST this Bill and also stand AGAINST any future weapon-restricting measure brought to the vote."

-George Freeman, Egotistical Evilness Ambassador to the UN.

This is a horrible resolution with half-baked intentions.

Firstly, a clear definition of what chemical weapons are targetted by this resolution is a necessity. Is a tear-gas grenade a chemical weapon? Are we expected to stop producing it?

Secondly, and this argument hold true with nuclear weaponry as well... NON-UN nations are NOT subject to this resolution. It is not adviseable that we eliminate ANY weapon that a rogue nation can use against us.

Thirdly, many chemical weapons are less deadly than nuclear ones. Notice I said most, not all. With the elimination of bio-weaponry, if the NS UN decides to eliminate chemical weaponry, the only form of WMD available will be nuclear weaponry. Do we REALLY want to make that the case? I have worked on, for and against, several resolutions dealing with nuclear weaponry. Total elimination resolutions are hard to pass and have failed repeatedly in the past.

Lastly, if this resolution does not pass, and with assistance from other nations, I can reintroduce the UNRAP: United Nations Reduced Arms Proposal. This comprehensive proposal is designed to reduce chemical and nuclear weapons, without taking away all of them. It is a work of moderation, and took many months of drafting to get it where it is now. But I believe that it, or something similar to it, will be the best course of action regarding these WMDs.

--Kestral Lei
President, PEWF
Founder, NSSRC

Regardless of whether our enemies use chemical weapons, we will not use them. They always polute the battlefield to some degree, no matter how easy you make it to clean them up. The fewer the nations who have them, the better, even if some rogue nations continue to use them.

Besides, nobody has ever devised a chemical weapon that can threaten our air force. There will never be any need to respond in kind to chemical weapons. We will respond to them with helicopter gunships, conventional bombers and cargo planes full of gatling guns. These are more effective, anyway.

Regardless of whether our enemies use chemical weapons, we will not use them. They always polute the battlefield to some degree, no matter how easy you make it to clean them up. The fewer the nations who have them, the better, even if some rogue nations continue to use them.

So do conventional weapons. By your logic, we should ban all weapons.

Besides, nobody has ever devised a chemical weapon that can threaten our air force. There will never be any need to respond in kind to chemical weapons. We will respond to them with helicopter gunships, conventional bombers and cargo planes full of gatling guns. These are more effective, anyway.

You've never bothered to look around, then. If your airforce uses metals or plastics, you're screwed. One of the most common new developments in chemical weapons is chemicals that have acidic interactions with metals and plastics. Nothing like watching your fighter planes fly into a cloud and get eaten by it. Nor are those weapons difficult to deploy.

Let me spell this out for everyone. Non-UN members will be able to use chemical weapons. By removing these weapons from UN nations, you will upset the balance of power.

Even if you banned these weapons from every nation, UN or not, you'd have to deal with terrorists who have the weapons. The plan is great on paper, but it comes down to this: When chemical weapons are criminalized, only criminals will have them. And that is NOT the world that I want to live in.

Who would vote for chemical weapons? But I think this resolution should be voted against because it sets bad precedents.

It allows the UN say in even the most private affairs of independant nations. The UN is not our police force or our babysitter. If a nation wants to persue scientific ventures then it should be damn well allowed to so so without some archaic group of "elders" saying they can't. If NS is supposed to be real, we cannot allow our freedoms to be estenguished. They are attemping to put a hand over our flame of independance and I will not stand for it.

It sets a standard for reduced militaries. Yes, war is wrong but what do you do when harsh fascist raiders attack your region? Yes, I also know chemical weapons can't be actually used, it's just a RP tool but it still sends the message that fighting, even in self-defense, is wrong. What about in WWII? Was fighting wrong then? No, that was an extreme case and war had to have been fought. If Shadows Domain were to be invaded would we all opt for a pacifist stance? Hell no! I would take up arms for what I believe in, the safety of Shadows Domain (my homeland). This resolution, simply put, paves the way to ban all forms of conflict, even ones in self-defense. Today its "chemical weapons", which don't actually exist. Tomarrow it will be any real form of fighting, defensive or otherwise.

Please, look beyond the resolution to what it is really saying. Who wouldn't want to ban chemical weapons? It's a cheap shot, to try to whittle down our freedom, our ability to say no. I say no to this.

DLE -

I think that the term 'chemical weapons' operates well enough as a semantic entity that 99% of people would know that it applies to things like sarin and not to things like guns. With your argument, you might as well say that all weapons are nuclear weapons, since they are made up of atoms that contain nuclei, and hence are already banned. This is clearly not the case.

Actually I didn't. I assumed "chemical" weapons were anything more complicated than a cutting weapon, i.e., gunpowder-based weapons, explosives-based weapons.

If you indeed meant sarin and other such agents, that's an entirely different thing altogether. ("An entirely different thing.")

Waterana has voted against this resolution.

Not because we want to keep our chemical weapons, we don't have any to keep but because of some of the other points that have been raised in this thread.

In the way that this is going, there will be no more weapons of any sort. Yeah there are wars, and you can't prevent all of them. But if you start baning things, pretty soon, it will be illegal to own a knife. That's going to far. Just be careful on what you ban.

It's true that this resolution is not perfect.

This resolution would be hard to enforce, without a great intelligence service such as the Israeli Mossad (myself).

Still, it is a step in the right direction, and therefore I vote YEAH.

Many nations in this game are really psychopathic, and the less weapons of mass destruction nations have, the better.

The down side is, of course, that nations outside the UN would be allowed to hold such weapons. this is not so bad, since there i no real war here, and since this would serve as an incentive for psychopathic nations to LEAVE THE UN.


You, of all people, should know that we depend on our technological advantage to survive. Any bill that reduces our technological advantage, serves to help those who have greatest numbers, to simply overwhelm those they wish to destroy. You know what it is like, to be greatly outnumbered in a war.

You should also know what it is like, in a UN, where those who depend on greater numbers, also have greater votes, with which to condemn those who would defend themselves.

Alright I am willing to except defeat on this bill and able to look onto the future. I know that the UN states are going to go down in flames if this bill is not repealed. So I think I have come up with a healthy alternative.

1) The UN will ban the use of Chemical Wepeons on other UN states.

2)The UN shall not forbid the production of Chemical Wepeons in UN states and will not provent the use of them in wars aganist a non-UN state

This I would feel to be a heathly compermise and fare all around. This also is not a sence of diplomatic susicide which seems to be the route being taken by the UN thus far.

Currently, the vote's running at about 3:1 in favour. Should it stay like this, it will be a victory for common sense, human dignity, and respect for the life and health of one's fellow manReally? Common sense? Well, let's have a look at the wording of your silly proposal:BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons"The world" is free of biological weapons, is it? News flash: only 30 percent of the world belongs to the U.N., and U.N. resolutions do not apply to non-members, which means that more than two-thirds of the world is still free to develop all the harmful weapons it sees fit. And when this chemical weapons thing goes through (which it inevitably will, simply because it sounds good, and few nations actually consider the ramifications of these idiotic resolutions), two-thirds of the world will still be free to develop these weapons, and we in the U.N. would simply have limited our defenses against them, all in the name of good intentions.a bizarre coalition of gung-ho military zealots and well-meaning pedantsJust call us a bizarre coalition of those consigned to reality. We bothered to do the math; did you?Wither wander you, Mayakovskia? Hath you nothing to say to this?

Hey, I'm trying to work on that, guys! Don't quit the UN just yet- telegram the major delegates who voted for this proposal, explaining why this is a bad proposal.Well, I've already TG'd the delegates from 10000 Islands, Wysteria and the five Pacific Feeders, as well as all the delegates with at least 20 votes who've already voted yes. And if Rejected Realms has a delegate, I'll TG him too. Who else should we be targeting?

Although, most of the major delegates simply wait for everyone else to instruct him how to vote. Damn democracy! It'll be the undoing of the U.N. What's the point of electing a delegate if you're just gonna tell him how to vote anyway??

I am a member of the incedibly liberal U.N. and when this resolution passes, it cannot touch my nation, and I will continue to stockpile biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. So help me God, I will use them if anyone tries to force me to compliance.

Well,

That's what everyone who doesn't take time to debate this issue but just vote is saying.

Unfortunately it proves that we have a lot of stupid irresponsible members of the UN whow won't take the time to interact with their constituents and dig into the meat of this proposal.

So when I first read the proposal, I said the same thing and thought to vote for this (a first for me to vote for a proposal other than the repeals). But then I thought, OK what about non-member nations. These nations can use chemical warfare anytime they want.

Heres where the problem comes in...The City by the Live Sea will probably never have a need to go to war with a UN member nation because we can come here and debate our differences and come up with some sort of treaty using the rest of the UN council for reassurance--It's the non UN nations that we will end up at war with and because of that, we will need to match those enemies with whatever warfare they come at us with.

Soooooo now my Secretary of Defense is in meetings with regional allies on where we can store our chemical weapons so as to be in compliance with this proposal in case it passes (but still have these chemical weapons ready in case we are attacked with the same)

Maybe is the wording was something along the lines of "UN members will only fight eachother with conventionable weapons, but when it comes to non UN members--ANYTHING GOES" :upyours:

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Well, I've already TG'd the delegates from 10000 Islands, Wysteria and the five Pacific Feeders, as well as all the delegates with at least 20 votes who've already voted yes. And if Rejected Realms has a delegate, I'll TG him too. Who else should we be targeting?

Although, most of the major delegates simply wait for everyone else to instruct him how to vote. Damn democracy! It'll be the undoing of the U.N. What's the point of electing a delegate if you're just gonna tell him how to vote anyway??

I've telegramed most of the delegates with over five endoresements. Several of them have replied, saying that they'll consider it, and at least a couple have already changed their mind. I've already gotten dozen approvals for my new proposal this way.

I see that the most common element in the arguements against this bill rely upon the principle of M.A.D, mutually assured destruction, or, in other words "they won't dare wipe us out, because we can kill of them as well. Frankly, the logic is highly flawed.

Firstly I have yet to meet anyone with the temperant spirit and the just will to have the kind of power these weapons provide. They are not tactical weapons, in a best case scenario, the weapons only directly hit a military base, and seep into the water supply and the ground, rendering the land completely uninhabitable.

Secondly, there are countless groups that are not intimidated by MAD. What country has not heard of suicide bombers? Is it unconceivable that the leader of a country would sacrifice that country to destroy another?

The most natural response to my second point would be, "Well, what about the non-UN nations?" I shall refrain from calling them "Rouge Nations." Some are worthy of that title, some are not. Yes, I concede that they would still be free to produce chemical weapons. Surely the other delegates of the UN and I would desire that they not have chemical weapons, yet how can we honestly and unhypocritically expect them to disarm if we will not? Yet, of course, there are states that prize only military power, and are unmoved by the destruction they can cause through such weapons. In these cases, may I ask what is the purpose of "striking back" at such a nation's civilians? For surely, chemical weapons kill indescriminantly, soldier and citizen, regardless of how carefully they are used. If you want to strike back, launch cruise missles at the base that fired it in the first place, at thier leader's house, or whatever military target you desire.

Even if our disarmerment has no effect on the non-UN states, there would still be benefits from this resolution. The largest being that fewer chemical weapons being produced will decrease the chances that they fall into the wrong hands, and that your country will be free to divert the money it takes to build these weapons into conventional defense.

Revenge is a hallow thing, honorable delegates. When we wage war, let us do it honorably.

I've telegramed most of the delegates with over five endoresements. Several of them have replied, saying that they'll consider it, and at least a couple have already changed their mind. I've already gotten dozen approvals for my new proposal this way.

It's sad how spam works. This is why e-mail inboxes are flooded with ads. I changed my mind not because of this telegram, however, but because my second-in-command enlightened me to the potential impacts.

Oh, and I'm touched to be considered an "important-esque" nation. Really. But, just to keep in character with this thread: Up with WCDs (weapons of chemical destruction(tm))!

Oh, lookie, lookie, our U.N. has its very own France.The most natural response to my second point would be, "Well, what about the non-UN nations?" I shall refrain from calling them "Rouge Nations." Some are worthy of that title, some are not. Yes, I concede that they would still be free to produce chemical weapons. Surely the other delegates of the UN and I would desire that they not have chemical weapons, yet how can we honestly and unhypocritically expect them to disarm if we will not?Right. So we in the "civilized" world are supposed to unilaterally disarm, and just hope that the remaining 71 percent of the world follows suit? OK then.Frankly, the logic is highly flawed.Exactly.
Even if our disarmerment has no effect on the non-UN states, there would still be benefits from this resolution. ... your country will be free to divert the money it takes to build these weapons into conventional defense.No we won't. Perhaps you didn't read the subtitle of this proposal, because it says, "A resolution to slash worldwide defense spending."

When we wage war, let us do it honorably.Enlighten us as to how war is waged honorably. War is a terrible thing. It wouldn't be called "war" otherwise. But if it came to war, wouldn't you want all available defenses at your disposal, not just the ones your "honorable" friends approved of?

As I understand the UN's goal is to prevent war. Why say If we war, when that is the very thing we don't want?

The issue here is not to go weaponless and hope for the world to follow, its to be an example and to show that we don't intend to hold other nations in check. Who cares if they don't drop their chemical weapons, at least we prove a point. I don't care if I'm weaponless, as long as I can show the other nations that I'm not a threat to them so that they want to aim their weapons at me. I am fime with staying neutral if I must to show where I stand. If you want to be distracted with keeping others in check wile WW3 starts and you have nothing to do because if you change your target, BOOM! your attacked by the nation(s) you were so worried of before.

So there's where I stand wether you like it or not.

I am a member of the incedibly liberal U.N. and when this resolution passes, it cannot touch my nation, and I will continue to stockpile biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. So help me God, I will use them if anyone tries to force me to compliance.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, the UN FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/76246/page=faq#UN) sees things a little differently.
You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.

Well then, I speak for my nation's beliefs and not for the UN.


I am sorry for the bit where I spoke as if I were the UN.

I will vote against this proposal and just hope that I can provide giant syringes for all my citizens to jab into their heart when my nation gets Sarin gassed (ala Nicholas Cage in 'The Rock').

I see that the most common element in the arguements against this bill rely upon the principle of M.A.D, mutually assured destruction, or, in other words "they won't dare wipe us out, because we can kill of them as well. Frankly, the logic is highly flawed.

That logic is how the real world works, and how NS works. In the real world, nuclear weapons are not just set aside because of good will. They are set aside because of the simple fact that if anyone shoots one off everyone else will shoot back. You have to nuke a majority of the world at the same time and without alerting them that you are doing it to even have a chance of not being nuked in reply. With NS, this is an even bigger deal because there are more nations, no true international alliance that covers a large majority, and most of those people are armed with at least thermonuclear weapons and quite a few of us have weapons in the planet killer category. Add in the number of enemies the UN has, and it all gets worse.

MAD is the only reason your nation is still alive. If not, you would likely have been invaded for even saying that paragraph. And you still might. And, no, DLE wouldn't be the ones invading you.

Firstly I have yet to meet anyone with the temperant spirit and the just will to have the kind of power these weapons provide. They are not tactical weapons, in a best case scenario, the weapons only directly hit a military base, and seep into the water supply and the ground, rendering the land completely uninhabitable.

You can look in our factbook and find out how many nations we have used those weapons on, even as incomplete as it is.

Secondly, there are countless groups that are not intimidated by MAD. What country has not heard of suicide bombers? Is it unconceivable that the leader of a country would sacrifice that country to destroy another?

That's why you have allies. Alliances and big guns are the keys to survival.

The most natural response to my second point would be, "Well, what about the non-UN nations?" I shall refrain from calling them "Rouge Nations." Some are worthy of that title, some are not. Yes, I concede that they would still be free to produce chemical weapons. Surely the other delegates of the UN and I would desire that they not have chemical weapons, yet how can we honestly and unhypocritically expect them to disarm if we will not? Yet, of course, there are states that prize only military power, and are unmoved by the destruction they can cause through such weapons. In these cases, may I ask what is the purpose of "striking back" at such a nation's civilians? For surely, chemical weapons kill indescriminantly, soldier and citizen, regardless of how carefully they are used. If you want to strike back, launch cruise missles at the base that fired it in the first place, at thier leader's house, or whatever military target you desire.

The answer is simple: Even if we do disarm, we can't force them to.

As for striking back against civilians: Love, this isn't StarCraft. You can't just defeat their army and magically win the entire conflict. You have to convince the people or the government to stop, and sometimes that requires sacrificing lives in massive numbers. And there are situations where only a massive retaliation is the viable option for convincing them to give up. War isn't about ideologies. It's about being sent to die for your country, making the other bastard die for his, and trying to pacify the enemy, whether it be through horrifying them or eliminating enough of their number that they cannot continue to fight. There is no shining rainbow for this.

Even if our disarmerment has no effect on the non-UN states, there would still be benefits from this resolution. The largest being that fewer chemical weapons being produced will decrease the chances that they fall into the wrong hands, and that your country will be free to divert the money it takes to build these weapons into conventional defense.

Conventional defense? Don't make me laugh. The only way most nations can even target mine is through nonconventional methods. And as it is, this resolution won't stop us from producing the weapons, stockpiling them, or using them. Too many loopholes.

And this won't decrease the chances of anything. Most chemical weapons are sold by nonmember nations. That won't change.

Revenge is a hallow thing, honorable delegates. When we wage war, let us do it honorably.

There is no honor in war. Only death, destruction, and chaos.

My nations stance is the stance of my whole area. We all dicidied that this was a good resoultion but as of right now way too open for interpration. Raid: the bug killing stuff could be conciderd a chemical weapon? are we banning that? What is the definition of a Chemical weapon? if it's a chemical designed to kill Raid fits in nicely. If it's a chemical that COULD kill that will also incude asprin? what's the definition?! I would vote for it were defined as "a chemical designed to kill humans" That would work nicely for me. But i can't Ban Raid or Asprin.

The issue here is not to go weaponless and hope for the world to follow, its to be an example and to show that we don't intend to hold other nations in check. Who cares if they don't drop their chemical weapons, at least we prove a point. I don't care if I'm weaponless, as long as I can show the other nations that I'm not a threat to them so that they want to aim their weapons at me. I am fime with staying neutral if I must to show where I stand.Dude, the waiting list to invade your country must be 100 pages long. Would we have priority because we're bound to use only conventional arms and be nice to the dolphins?

*alerts several Non-UN allies about the "turkey shoot" and "Free Land Available" in Napoleons llama*

No defense, you are defenseless. If you are defenseless, you are the lowest rung of the food chain.

You can look in our factbook and find out how many nations we have used those weapons on, even as incomplete as it is.



A tremendous volume of chemical weapons, caustic agents, nerve gas and so forth have been used in Europe. It doesn’t seem to have had too bad of an effect, though it is entirely possible that many European opinions today are the direct result of extensive nerve damage.

Hmm. Unexpected point, and a very good one. I must say I am impressed.

The Holy Empire of Sidestreamer vehemently opposes this resolution, and we instead opt to infect the drafter with SARS for daring to wreck our weapons productions.

Furthermore, the Empire is currently at war with the Divine Reich of Tocrowkia, who is NOT a member of the UN and therefore will not be forced to comply to this resolution. If it passes, we will be forced to withdraw from the UN or surrender.

But then again, if Fatus Maximus is so urgently trying to defeat this bill, perhaps it has its advantages.

--Welsh
Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer

The people's republic of Americanium also vehemently opposes this bill and will resign in protest from the UN.if it passes.

Why wait? Since both of you are threatening to resign, I advise you beat the rush and leave now. Oh, and I won't mind taking over your offices.

I thing it is wrong to ban the bio weapons. There is no reason because with this voting we will ban our bio weapons, to the nations of UN. And how you can persuade the small terroristic or rogue countries to ban their weapons. How can you persuade the biggest comunist or pacifiest nations to ban this weapons.
This law can't prevent the terroristic acts, nor the Genocid. There must be other solution of this global problem. If we stop the bio weapons, we must stop and the nuclear weapons, and then all kind of protection of our people will be lost.
My opinion is to reduce the marketplace with the small suspicious countries, then one powerful strike against all this terroristic countries. We must erase their fabrics, their bases and then we can ban our bio weapons.
I won't let my people live in fear.
It is true that many people dies from this weapons. But we must find the knowledge and wisdom to use them correctly and carefully.
I hope all of you will see this post and thing about my words

The people's republic of Americanium also vehemently opposes this bill and will resign in protest from the UN.if it passes.

All we ask is that you leave your stapler. And your pencil sharpener. :p

A tremendous volume of chemical weapons, caustic agents, nerve gas and so forth have been used in Europe. It doesn’t seem to have had too bad of an effect, though it is entirely possible that many European opinions today are the direct result of extensive nerve damage.

ROFL! Oh that was good.

Without sophisticated chemical weapons how else can we dispose of our enemies? Engaging in close combat with primitive weapony seems a little risky to me. Surely the safest place to be when it all hits the fan is back in Didjabringa Beeralong holding the preverbial button which has been used to smolder our enemies. Prior to joining the UN our great nation has invested a vast amount of money in developing and enhancing our chemical weapons so that we can all sleep at night without the fear of having to run off to strange lands to fight 'the enemy'. Now the UN proposes we destroy those weapons and return to a state of mild aggitation. This distresses us and we advise you to reconsider.

Without sophisticated chemical weapons how else can we dispose of our enemies? Engaging in close combat with primitive weapony seems a little risky to me. Surely the safest place to be when it all hits the fan is back in Didjabringa Beeralong holding the preverbial button which has been used to smolder our enemies. Prior to joining the UN our great nation has invested a vast amount of money in developing and enhancing our chemical weapons so that we can all sleep at night without the fear of having to run off to strange lands to fight 'the enemy'. Now the UN proposes we destroy those weapons and return to a state of mild aggitation. This distresses us and we advise you to reconsider.
I support you absolutly. We must throw out this law. The special weapons (bio, chemycal and nuclear) are very important for the safest of our nations. Without them we are doomed to the power of the terroristic countries.
This shall stop for the future and the peace of our people. Thing about the people, thing about the kids. They will live in permanent danger. They will expect attack of bad nations all day.

Herein lies the problem.
The resolution is passing, despite a vocal and well-worded opposition. What do we do now?

Well, I can tell you from experience.. You send telegrams.
Telegrams delegates who are voting for this proposal, specifically the ones who havent looked here for the arguments regarding the resolution.
Telegram delegates who havent voted, giving them a synopsis of the argument for why they should vote against it.

If we want to stop this resolution from passing, the dissenting argument needs to contact other nations and tell them WHY its a bad resolution.

Some key points to send in the TG...
1. This resolution only applies to UN members.
--Remind delegates that the UN is composed of only 3/10th of the world.
2. The resolution does not clearly define the targets of elimination.
--Sure, it says chemical weapons. Remind the delegates how many weapons we use that are chemical and yet are not deadly or WMDs.
3. This resolution will only leave nuclear weapons as an available WMD.
--Do we REALLY want to leave nuclear weapons as our only choice for radical WMDs? In the cases where war IS necessary... chemical weapons are less deadly than nuclear. Of course, advanced nations may have technology that is beyond 'traditional' WMDs, but most of us are not.

Its time to get cracking people. We can argue this all we want here... it wont matter unless we put in the effort to contact other nations who arent following the thread.

most of you are so paranoid it's scary. i think other countries will be less eager to attack if you don't have weapons, but hey thats just me.i won't allow that junk in my country. don't get me wrong,i don't like feeling unsafe, it takes gutts to take the first step when we're talking about giving up weapons when you know other countries have bigger and better ones.
but i believe it's the best option for keeping international trade going.

Gigaia, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean people are not really out to get us. We've got at least four organizations devoted to it.

Gigaia, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean people are not really out to get us. We've got at least four organizations devoted to it.

And that's not counting the sundry individual nations who have a serious beef with the UN and would like to see the UN weaken itself so they could attack it more effectively.

Okay I can understand banning some chemical wepons but that also incorperates most forms of gernades used by Cops, SWAT, and the miliatry. Would you want to land a chopper in an open enemy infested area without some gas around you this will just cause more deaths, and injuries when it comes to rescues and extractions. :headbang:

And that's not counting the sundry individual nations who have a serious beef with the UN and would like to see the UN weaken itself so they could attack it more effectively.

Which is, in turn, also ignoring the number of predatory and self-centered nations in the UN that will, when it has weakened itself enough, turn on the UN and begin carving a path of destruction as they wipe out those they view as inferior.

I'll make this simple. Not all chemical weapons are leathal. Pepper spray and tear gas are examples of non-lethal chemical weapons. "Why even have tear gas?" Because if you can use it to cause a riotous mob to disperse before they get unruly enough to kill someone, you've saved lives instead of taking them.

It's a no-brainer. If the wording outlawed Leathal Chamical Weapons, then I'd vote in favor of it, but in it's present state, voting for it would be stupid.

Ban chemical weapons, protect all animals, ban bio weapons, nuclear weapons, guns, and anything else that might do anything useful. That is the way of the UN these days. What's next people, let's ban breathing to, sound like fun...for five minutes.

This resolution is ridiculous and should be voted down. Yes, chemical weapons does exist and so insecticides. How do you think they were made? The use of chemicals in agriculture, farming, automotive manufacturing, and most all other forms of industry is just a fact of life.

You ban any kind of chemical weapon, and you could be banning the next checmical that will make our lives easier. Some one once said that your old weapons of war were made into razor blades, plow shears, etc.

Chemical weapons can be used in other ways, for the good of the universe. I see no reason to ban them.

Just say no!!! Thank you

Which is, in turn, also ignoring the number of predatory and self-centered nations in the UN that will, when it has weakened itself enough, turn on the UN and begin carving a path of destruction as they wipe out those they view as inferior.

Dammit! Who's been leaking intelligence files from our nation? ;)

Ban chemical weapons, protect all animals, ban bio weapons, nuclear weapons, guns, and anything else that might do anything useful. That is the way of the UN these days. What's next people, let's ban breathing to, sound like fun...for five minutes.

No way should guns be banned from any country. I'm up for gang violence on the streets and stuff. Chemical Weapons shouldn't be banned because they can attack any other country.

I stand for the Ban on Chemical Warefare, and the use of Chemical Weapons. It's inheriently dangerous, and damaging to any enviroment. And let's not forget the innocent people. They will suffer just as much as soilders, will. Let's not forget, War is not always fought on some open battle filed, or in a trench or something like that. What happens when the War hits home? And soilders run amock with chemical weapons, posining everything. People will die. Soldiers, innocent people, who aren't a part of the war, they are just trying to live their lives. And what happens after the war is over. it won't matter if you win or not, b/c everything will be conatminated. You won't be able to grow food, raise live-stock or anything. Who knows, you could wind up at the mercy of the very enemy you fought

I'll make this simple. Not all chemical weapons are leathal. Pepper spray and tear gas are examples of non-lethal chemical weapons. "Why even have tear gas?" Because if you can use it to cause a riotous mob to disperse before they get unruly enough to kill someone, you've saved lives instead of taking them.

It's a no-brainer. If the wording outlawed Leathal Chamical Weapons, then I'd vote in favor of it, but in it's present state, voting for it would be stupid.

This is a no-brainer.

The Republic of Blackburna will not vote in favor of this resolution until there is clarification on the types of chemicals banned.

The Federal Republic hereby classifies all chemicals as gummy bears and all U.N. officials and diplomats as chemical weapons.

That oughtta do the trick. :rolleyes:

Chemical weapons are going to be banned?
I'd better use all of mine up then. Let's go fishing!

this is not right you take away weapons and people will find other ways to kill each other with..... you know the old kungfu fighting movies they were trying to kill each other ok they tried to figure out how to throw a rice patty just right to brake every bone in your body.... you take away guns thats what people are going end up doing to each other :mp5: ... no matter what you do people are going to find a way to kill each other.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons)

"Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force."

The important bit of this is "toxic properties of". A gun uses a chemical reaction to fire a projectile, but its effect is not dependent on the toxicity of the gunpowder or the lead in the bullet.
Besides, chemical weapons by function is indiscriminant (however it is spelled) and gunfire is very specific and deliberate. :headbang:

:) I voted no because we should all be ready in case a nation doesn't throw down their weapons and then launches hundreds of tons of nuclear material at us :mp5: :sniper: . I think this will blow down on the economy because all factories that produce this stuff will be shut down.

I'll make this simple. Not all chemical weapons are leathal. Pepper spray and tear gas are examples of non-lethal chemical weapons. "Why even have tear gas?" Because if you can use it to cause a riotous mob to disperse before they get unruly enough to kill someone, you've saved lives instead of taking them.

It's a no-brainer. If the wording outlawed Leathal Chamical Weapons, then I'd vote in favor of it, but in it's present state, voting for it would be stupid.

See my thread- "An Alternative to 'Ban Chemical Weapons'." It's about my proposal, entitled, "Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons," found on page six of the proposal list. You may find yourself agreeing with it; if you do, I'd ask you to approve it.

The Old Republic Knights believes that if you continue to let the liberal countries of the UN dictate the weapons we use in war, because in no time we will be left with fighting wars with popsicle sticks and water ballons. And our country will not sit by idle as we are indangered by threatning nations. I will say now that we will use any means neccessary to protect our nations people and pride!

Why only banning unconventional weapons? Why not banning all kind of weapons including personal defending.Let us dismiss our arm forces.Let us forbid everything that might be harmful.
And last,but not least,let us all send messeges to all non UN members that we are DEFENCELESS and call them to drop,with all their impudence and idiocy,their bombs over the homes of our people,over our civilizations and just watch them.

Is this what all of you want? To see your nations being destroyed by some weak-minded dictators? If yes,if you don't care of anything else than yourself vote for this resolution.


P.P. The problem of the hole game nationstates is that every resolution,no matter how useless or stupid is, is accepted.Because nobody reads in the forums and nobody cares.They just vote "for" thinking:"Oh,the proposal has passed,so this resolution is good,so I'll vote for it!"

I have seen many who blindly cast their vote for or who fail to consider the ramifications of UN activity.

For non-UN nations, the UN holds no power over them except in defying them their own sovereignty. UN member states voluntarily cede the right to govern by joining, and resolutions regarding disarmament only hurt them compared to their neighbors.

Consider Kim Jong Il: he is not listening to anybody. What will the world do if he launches a nuclear strike?

"Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Thomas Jefferson

I find it funny that so many of us are Americans who believe in self government yet we surrender government by our own leadership to our enemies who fill the seats of the UN. NS UN appears to parallel the real one in many ways.

We are working on upgrading most of our defenses to orbital energy weapons anyway.

We are also considering piping all of our sewage in to the water supplies of countries that voted for this resolution.

Hey I am weak-minded dictator. But I am carrying about my people and I won't let you ban this weapons which are the protection of my country. It is wrong and stupid, damned! You cannot forbid the weapons of nations which are not in the UN. And they can erase us from this world.
How I said before this is the stupidest proposal I ever seen before. Not in this version. Yeah, it would be great to live in a safe and clean world but we need a new level of this law. If you cannot forbid the bio weapons in all the world there is no sence to throw them out from us.
I won't ban my protection. But I don't want to depart from UN because I wish to help to the poor and needies countries and nations.
So, all UN membes, listen to my voice... WE must stop this proposal, WE must throw it out, WE mustn't ban our weapons. Because WE will lose our power, our respect.

I think that we need to VOTE AGAINST this resolution.

The current UN proposal, “Ban Chemical Weapons.”: I believe this may perhaps not be in the best interest of the UN and your reason. Allow us to explain. This proposal is vague and poorly-written. It provides no definition of what chemical weapons are, and bans everything from tear gas to tranquilizer darts, and handguns- which are powered by gun powder, a chemical. It also bans any research on all chemical weapons, even medical antidotes for your citizens. More importantly, however, it ties one hand behind your back if you come up against a non-UN member who can use chemical weapons. Non-UN member nations do not have to comply to UN resolutions. Only UN members would be affected by this proposal (check the FAQs if you don’t believe me), so rogue nations who do not belong to the UN could still use these weapons of mass destruction. If you come into a conflict of one of them, it could quickly become one-sided, seeing as they’re allowed to gas your troops but you can not respond in kind. A considerable number of nations, Fatus Maximus included, do not desire to be handicapped in conflicts with these rogue states. I urge you to reconsider your position

I respect, however, your intentions in approving this proposal. Saving the lives of many innocent people is a noble cause, and in an endeavor to help the UN do so, we have written an alternative proposal, entitled “Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons”. (Here’s the part where I trumpet it. :D) It was an attempt to compromise between nations who are against the current at vote proposal and those who are dedicated to reducing the use of chemical weapons in the NSworld. The gist of it is this- all UN member nations are banned from using lethal chemical weapons against any other UN member, while still leaving you the option of using lethal chemical weapons against non-UN members, should you feel it is necessary to do so. Your nation is no less protected by this alternative proposal than it is by the current at vote proposal, and you can still deter rogue nations with chemical weapons if you so choose. It is currently on page 10 of the proposal list, but may have moved by the time you read this. We strongly urge you to vote AGAINST the current proposal.

(Delegates Aprrove the proposal "Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons") ;)

We are working on upgrading most of our defenses to orbital energy weapons anyway.

We are also considering piping all of our sewage in to the water supplies of countries that voted for this resolution.
Yes, it is a good idea to create a new form of defenses weapons. But if it is not enough efective.....??????

who really cares whether it workd or not, maybe the enemy is better than you in the first place so they deserve to win

Hey I am weak-minded dictator. But I am carrying about my people and I won't let you ban this weapons which are the protection of my country. It is wrong and stupid, damned! You cannot forbid the weapons of nations which are not in the UN. And they can erase us from this world.
How I said before this is the stupidest proposal I ever seen before. Not in this version. Yeah, it would be great to live in a safe and clean world but we need a new level of this law. If you cannot forbid the bio weapons in all the world there is no sence to throw them out from us.
I won't ban my protection. But I don't want to depart from UN because I wish to help to the poor and needies countries and nations.
So, all UN membes, listen to my voice... WE must stop this proposal, WE must throw it out, WE mustn't ban our weapons. Because WE will lose our power, our respect.

Idiot! You can't protect your people with chemical weapons! You'll only put them in more danger! Get some attack helecopters!

Idiot! You can't protect your people with chemical weapons! You'll only put them in more danger! Get some attack helecopters!
You stupid guy. Your insults are completly ungrounded.
If other countries have bio weapons and you haven't. How can you thing to protect your nation? With Helicopters? HA. Use swords and shields, this weapons isn't global danger

Just mass produce H-bombs.

If we ban these weapons, what about all of the Mom and Pop Chemical Engineering Stations :( :( Without those little people the economies will crumble. I was raised in one of those plants and it is perfectly healthy, even my other personalities agree. It is our duty to protect the world and save these weapons and producers for the little people. So lets stick up for those little people who have so often been hurt like the Ompa Loompas who have no unions, or the leprechans who were enslaved to fight the Canadians in World War 4 which is a secret to all but a few. Yeah little people! :)

Idiot! You can't protect your people with chemical weapons! You'll only put them in more danger! Get some attack helecopters!

Attack helicopters are, themselves, vulnerable to many chemical weapons, including a type specifically designed to counter aircraft.

It really doesn't take that much to protect people against chemical weapons. It's the biological ones not banned due to interpretations that you should worry about.

most of you are so paranoid it's scary. i think other countries will be less eager to attack if you don't have weapons, but hey thats just me.i won't allow that junk in my country. don't get me wrong,i don't like feeling unsafe, it takes gutts to take the first step when we're talking about giving up weapons when you know other countries have bigger and better ones.
but i believe it's the best option for keeping international trade going.We've just looked at your national stats. You have no military and no police.

Excellent.

We need a puppet regime to use as a territorial base of operations, since - being a multinational underground crime syndicate and sometime terrorist group - we have none of our own. And we certainly need to increase our presence in the North Pacific. So we have decided that you are the ideal candidate to perform these functions.

You have 24 hours to surrender. TG us if you care to negotiate terms. If you don't, we'll impose terms on you.

Either way, this will continue in "International Incidents" tomorrow. If you don't respond by then, we'll TG you to make sure you're aware of the pending change in management within your small nation.

Have a nice day.

-The Grandmaster of the Secret Society of Narodna Odbrana (a/k/a "The Black Hand")

(Oh, and we're not a U.N. Member [we just happened to be reading this debate to see what manner of stupidity the U.N. was up to these days {apparently, quite a bit}]. Which means that we not only have chemical weapons [sarin, ricin, etc.], but also biological agents [smallpox, anthrax, tularaemia fever]. And we kill dolphins for sport.)

We've just looked at your national stats. You have no military and no police.

Excellent.

We need a puppet regime to use as a territorial base of operations, since - being a multinational underground crime syndicate and sometime terrorist group - we have none of our own. And we certainly need to increase our presence in the North Pacific. So we have decided that you are the ideal candidate to perform these functions.

You have 24 hours to surrender. TG us if you care to negotiate terms. If you don't, we'll impose terms on you.

Either way, this will continue in "International Incidents" tomorrow. If you don't respond by then, we'll TG you to make sure you're aware of the pending change in management within your small nation.

Have a nice day.

-The Grandmaster of the Secret Society of Narodna Odbrana (a/k/a "The Black Hand")

(Oh, and we're not a U.N. Member [we just happened to be reading this debate to see what manner of stupidity the U.N. was up to these days {apparently, quite a bit}]. Which means that we not only have chemical weapons [sarin, ricin, etc.], but also biological agents [smallpox, anthrax, tularaemia fever]. And we kill dolphins for sport.)
[Totally OOC]Is it just me, or is that one of the most blatant violations of the ideals of freeform roleplay ever?
As far as I know, roleplay is about consent. If one person doesn't want to roleplay, there is no roleplay.
On top of that, it's a person who may not even visit the International Incidents forum, and may not even be interested in the concept of roleplaying war!
Now, I'm no roleplay expert, I may even be misusing the term 'freeform roleplay' here, but pouncing on a random newbie and trying to invade them whether or not they like it doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of things.

Fatus Maximus hereby declares itself an ally of Gigaia, and will take military action against day Narodna Odbrana if necessary. We will petition our other allies to do the same.

Well, this is interesting. Saint Uriel had this perfect system for determining if we would support a proposal on which we were undecided. See, it worked like this: Each sabre-rattling newb that made silly arguments against the proposal would push us over to supporting it. +1 if they threatened to leave the UN, +2 if they threatened to stay in the UN but defy the resolution, +3 if they smiley-whored during their post, and +4 for gross spelling errors.

But, thanks to Vastiva and Texan Hotrodders, our system has been shot to hell. These are nations whose opinions we respect, therefore we are forced to reconsider our decision to vote for the proposal just because newbs don't want us to. Oh well.

On another note - Saint Uriel also offers its military in defense of Gigaia. If need be, we will also be glad to request assistance from our allies.

The Federal Republic hereby commits $10 billion to Fatus Maximus for the defense of Gigaia. In addition, we grant Fatus Maximus flyover rights in our airspace, as well as use of our airbases for stopver and refueling purposes. We regret that our present location in Antarctica is inconvenient for the defense of a North Pacific nation, but Fatus Maximus is free to use our remaining air and naval bases in Valdesia and Ameranta (both of which are quickly transforming into desert wastelands).

We encourage Fatus Maximus to keep the Federal Republic apprised of the situation via TG; we will continue to monitor the situation, and if future developments warrant, commit troops and military hardware to Gigaia's defense.

Thank you.

(OOC: We just checked our thirdgeek stats and for some reason our tax rate is 0%, and thus our defense budget is way out of whack. :eek: )

The bill in question will criple the primary and fundamental industry of the Empire of Borograd. Our weapons manufacturing capabilities are renound across the world, with thousands of barrels of Borograd's mustard gas shipped out each day to recepient nations. If this bill is allowed to pass, Borograd and all nations in The Great Soviet Confederacy will be forced to forfeit their seats in the United Nations and memberships there in, in order to preserve their own interests and the interests of their people.

Wow, this is stupid.
There is no reason given for me not to use any chemical warfare.
No threats of sanctions.
No threats of occupation.
Nothing. Just banning it.
Just words.
It's like saying murder is illegal, but there is no punishment for it.
I'm going to forgive the fact that it is poorly written and the fact that it is not in proper format.

On a lighter note, anyone who is now having trouble dealing with their death-sentenced criminals can send them to BATTLE ISLAND! that's right, send your criminals to fight it to the death on PAY PER VIEW for FABULOUS PRIZES!*

*prizes not guaranteed to be fabulous

Battle Island, UN laws are absolute. They are more absolute than if God appeared in your household and decided to beat you unconcious if you didn't obey him, all the while making it so that you can never leave the house.

[Totally OOC]Is it just me, or is that one of the most blatant violations of the ideals of freeform roleplay ever?
As far as I know, roleplay is about consent. If one person doesn't want to roleplay, there is no roleplay.
On top of that, it's a person who may not even visit the International Incidents forum, and may not even be interested in the concept of roleplaying war!
Now, I'm no roleplay expert, I may even be misusing the term 'freeform roleplay' here, but pouncing on a random newbie and trying to invade them whether or not they like it doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of things.[Semi-OOC] Well, that why we'll TG them if they don't respond to the post, and that's why the actual "invasion" (criminals and terrorists don't exactly "invade", per se) will only occur after we've straightened out the little details (like geography, demography, government setup, etc.).

There's lots of options that Gigaia has at this point, from diplomacy to surrender (which scarcely means an end to their national existence, if you read between the lines). As for "random", well, announcing to the world that you believe that disarming yourself is the best way to ensure peace hardly makes your subsequent molestation a "random" event, now does it?

There's lots of options that Gigaia has at this point, from diplomacy to surrender
Let's not forget completely ignoring you.

This resolution fails to define its terms in a satisfactory fashion and, given the potential for abuse and the threat this may entail to UN members, we have recommended that our region vote against its passage.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Howard Hughes, UN Respentative of The Republic of Neo River. Neo River will be voting Nay on this bill, because we believe that this will set a precendent of banning of weapons. I mean if we ban chemical weapons, what will we ban next, convientional weapons, guns, knives? All it will do is open doors to other worthless bannings. We also believe that the bill is too vauge, it doesn't show how we are going to prevent outlawed nations with crazed dictator will get ahold of weapons. There is a black market of weapons, and they know how to get dirty bombs, and these dictatorship will do anything to get their hands on the chemcial weapons. For these reason The Republic of Neo River vote "Nay" on the chemical weapons ban.

This is a truly unfortunate resolution, which sadly will pass because people think "OOOOOOOOH! Banning weapons = good!" without, naturally, realizing that UN states make up about 30% of all nations in NS. However, and fortunately for Krioval, the word "chemical" as it applies to weapons, doesn't exist as such in our vocabulary, and further, Krioval notes that plasma rifles, antimatter bombs, Hammers of Raijin, and the Conception are *not* covered by this. So we'll make a symbolic cut in our military while upping funding to it surreptitiously over the next several months. But I hope people voting for this feel a nice sense of accomplishment - soon many of them will be satellite colonies of the new Kriovalian Empire.

Let's not forget completely ignoring you.[OOC]Well, there is always that. Of course, one then wonders why Gigaia cares about chemical weapons, since they could be ignored with equal ease...