NationStates Jolt Archive

Below is the text of the repeal proposal. This proposal has currently Reached Quorum. This will be the final update of this post. Thanks to all the delegates who voted to approve.

Located below the text of the repeal proposal is the text of the proposal I intend to submit to replace "Elimination of Bio Weapons" after the repeal is successful... which I consider to be far more effective to the task. The final content of the replacement proposal is still subject to revision if anyone has comments or suggestions.

Repeal Proposal:
========================================================
NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons", although expressing an admirable goal, is completely inadequate to that goal. The text of the resolution contains nothing more than one statement describing the undesirable aspects of biological weapons and one statement saying it’s important to eliminate them. Unfortunately there are no statements:

-- Defining a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about.
-- Establishing that they actually BE eliminated, rather than just saying it’s important.
-- Specifying how they should be eliminated (such as forbidding their elimination through using them all up on other nations).
-- Accounting for what should be done about the fact that non UN member nations will still have these weapons.
-- Etc…

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings it is currently possible for any nation to do ALL of the following without EVER being in breach of resolution 16:

--Produce biological weapons.
--Stockpile biological weapons.
--Trade in biological weapons.
--Actually USE biological weapons.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with a new, effective resolution.
=========================================================

Replacement Resolution:

EDIT: The text of the replacement proposal has been relocated to the following thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9124225#post9124225

...so that this thread can remain focused on the discussion of the repeal now that this has become the official discussion thread.

Well, you already know about my disagreement with the tone of the repeal, and I respect your decisions in writing it. I hope it works, as I'm not necessarily a fan of old legislation. Good Luck! :)

Bump. Original post updated with new list position. We're less than one day in and we're already at 30 approvals, looking pretty good... it's already overtaken all but two of the proposals ahead of it in the list in number of approvals.

If there are member nations out there who have been wanting to see this resolution repealed you may want to consider this a fairly good opportunity to see that finally happen and contact some delegates to push for approval.

Looks good, I will support this.

Isn't there some way to amend the proposal to the one you want? If we repeal the current one, we are not guarranteed the proposed replacement on will ever be voted on.

Isn't there some way to amend the proposal to the one you want?No, if you want to change a passed resolution you have to repeal the original then replace it.
If we repeal the current one, we are not guarranteed the proposed replacement on will ever be voted on.That's the risk that has to be taken to alter passed resolutions.

Isn't there some way to amend the proposal to the one you want? If we repeal the current one, we are not guarranteed the proposed replacement on will ever be voted on.

As Flibbleites said, unfortunately not. amendments to previously passed resolutions are illegal under UN proposal rules.

The relevent section of the Rules for UN Proposals. bolded emphasis added:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

In update news... after little more than one day we're up to 47 approvals. The passage of the repeal is looking promising. The campaignning will be continuing to try to maintain this early momentum.

THANK YOU

I was just about getting ready to stop reading all repeals to #16 and #107 until this came along. Thank you for giving a quality repeal for the UN to consider.

Approved, this is one of the most sensible repeals I've come across.

Approved, this is one of the most sensible repeals I've come across.

In that case we certainly encourage you to discuss the matter with your regional UN Delegate and suggest they cast a vote for the approval of the proposal.

Takuma (for the Land Of The Faithful) declairs an admiration for this resolution.

Reading through the proposed replacement...I'd like to throw a curveball that came way out of left field...... Note - OOC:

I don't know if you've read the Star Wars: New Jedi Order series, but there was a creature being employed as a weapon called a Grutchin (sp?). It's purpose was to eat massive holes into metal structures (including, but not limited to, spacecraft). Now, mind you, it was rather large (can't remember size comparison, but I believe along the lines of an average dog), but I'm certain smaller forms of such can be implemented (imagine ravanous termites......).

Such weapons don't seem to be covered by this resolution... though they are theoretically possible.... because their purpose is not to harm any host organisms (in fact, one might question whether they'd really have "host organisms"), but rather the environment that "host organism" would be living in.

IC - I would like to point out DLE's comment earlier today regarding chemical weapons (on the Resolution 107 repeal thread) about a weapon that could dissolve military aircraft while leaving the pilots alive. What if an equivelent version could be applied to airborne specimens?

We advise against using biological agents for that. For one thing, chemical weapons are easily designed to have a neutralization method. For another, the necessary biological agents are either too large or too numerous to properly control, allowing for the possibility of some escaping into the wild and growing in population until they become a serious threat to all nations in the region. Biological agents, specifically of the viral category, are best used a precision-assassination weapons, in which case you program their DNA to only affect a person with a certain combination of genetic traits, or, in the case of macro-sized single-cellulars (commonly called oozes) or macro-sized multicellulars, as ground soldiers, in which case they are fighting on the front lines.

OOC: To get an idea, take a look at the cubic oozes from DnD. Believe it or not, but those creatures are single-celled. Science tends to claim it is impossible for a single-celled organism to grow to macro-sized, but the problem is that science has no evidence, or even logic, to back this theory up beyond the fact they have simply never observed it. This is actually a common problem in science, as science tends to be the best example and life-long subscriber of the "there's no evidence to the contrary, so it must be true" logical fallacy. In other words, that logical fallacy, while considered a bad thing, actually has a scientific basis to back it.

Reading through the proposed replacement...I'd like to throw a curveball that came way out of left field...... Note - OOC:

I don't know if you've read the Star Wars: New Jedi Order series, but there was a creature being employed as a weapon called a Grutchin (sp?). It's purpose was to eat massive holes into metal structures (including, but not limited to, spacecraft). Now, mind you, it was rather large (can't remember size comparison, but I believe along the lines of an average dog), but I'm certain smaller forms of such can be implemented (imagine ravanous termites......).

Such weapons don't seem to be covered by this resolution... though they are theoretically possible.... because their purpose is not to harm any host organisms (in fact, one might question whether they'd really have "host organisms"), but rather the environment that "host organism" would be living in.

Actually, such weapons aren't covered by this proposal by design. The major, unnacceptable hazard posed by the biological weaponry along the lines defined by this proposal is that once released they're incredibly high risks to spread completely beyond control. The miniscule generational timespans and high mutation rates among viral, bacteriological and microbial organisms combined with their inherent detection difficulties means that once they're let loose it's a crapshoot whether they're only going to effect the intended target in the intended manner or if you're suddenly going to find yourself with some kind of endemic plague on your hands (and oops, the weapon you thought you had a vaccine for when you released it just evolved an immune strain...).

If someone wants to go genetically engineering some kinds of combat macro-scale animals that is nowhere near as great a concern. When that type of thing gets out of hand the containment strategies tend to be far more straightforward than with microorganisms. For the most part simply shooting them or blowing them up works rather well.

Also, we really didn't want to end up outlawing things like guard dogs simply because they're biological and can be considered a weapon.

IC - I would like to point out DLE's comment earlier today regarding chemical weapons (on the Resolution 107 repeal thread) about a weapon that could dissolve military aircraft while leaving the pilots alive. What if an equivelent version could be applied to airborne specimens?

Nobody who could do such a thing chemically would ever try to do it biologically, there's no advantage to it and every disadvantage. And it's highly unlikely that anybody incapable of doing it chemically would have the means to do it biologically.

Actually, such weapons aren't covered by this proposal by design. The major, unnacceptable hazard posed by the biological weaponry along the lines defined by this proposal is that once released they're incredibly high risks to spread completely beyond control. The miniscule generational timespans and high mutation rates among viral, bacteriological and microbial organisms combined with their inherent detection difficulties means that once they're let loose it's a crapshoot whether they're only going to effect the intended target in the intended manner or if you're suddenly going to find yourself with some kind of endemic plague on your hands (and oops, the weapon you thought you had a vaccine for when you released it just evolved an immune strain...).

However, macro-sized organisms are banned by the original resolution due to it not bothering with definitions. That's part of the concern some of us have, as it potentially also means that humans are banned from military use, as they are biological.

Also, most viruses have an extremely-low to nonexistant chance of mutation. It is only the retroviruses that mutate rapidly, and all of the supermutagens are retroviruses. You hear so much about what really constitutes a minority of the viruses because said minority is actually the most dangerous. Your average bacteriophage can be used as a viral weapon against people through a simple reprogramming of its DNA without you ever having to worry about it mutating.

If someone wants to go genetically engineering some kinds of combat macro-scale animals that is nowhere near as great a concern. When that type of thing gets out of hand the containment strategies tend to be far more straightforward than with microorganisms. For the most part simply shooting them or blowing them up works rather well.

Also, we really didn't want to end up outlawing things like guard dogs simply because they're biological and can be considered a weapon.

Me likey your style.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia has approved the proposal mentioned in the above posts.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia whole-heartedly agrees with the movement to have this poorly-written and inaccurately judged resolution stricken from the record, and vows to attempt to convince others of the same.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia will make an effort to get other delegates to vote in favour of this proposal.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia has approved the proposal mentioned in the above posts.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia whole-heartedly agrees with the movement to have this poorly-written and inaccurately judged resolution stricken from the record, and vows to attempt to convince others of the same.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia will make an effort to get other delegates to vote in favour of this proposal.

Your efforts in this regard are greatly appreciated. So long as we can maintain the pace of approvals we have seen thus far the repeal should have a very good chance of reaching quorum.

I agree with the Replacement Resolution, you have my vote!

i've got my delegate behind this, and if it goes to a floor vote I will vote for it.

I have but one objection to the repeal: I don't believe that it's necessary. In the event of the repeal failing this time around, I suggest you submit the proposal rather than bothering with the effort of pushing the repeal again. The resolution need not be dependent upon repeal. Simply make reference to the earlier resolution, noting its intent and expanding upon the theme. Your resolution could even be regarded as the recommendations of a task force acting on the spirit of the earlier resolution.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I have but one objection to the repeal: I don't believe that it's necessary. In the event of the repeal failing this time around, I suggest you submit the proposal rather than bothering with the effort of pushing the repeal again. The resolution need not be dependent upon repeal. Simply make reference to the earlier resolution, noting its intent and expanding upon the theme. Your resolution could even be regarded as the recommendations of a task force acting on the spirit of the earlier resolution.

I might consider it... but frankly that resolution is horrible. It's an embarassment having it remain on the books. It really needs to be repealed and replaced.

In update news: the repeal proposal is now past the halfway mark for required approvals. 80 down, 67 to go. Those who want this repeal to succeed keep pushing, it's almost there. And if we get lucky on the final day of voting after the next round of proposals expires it'll land on page 1 for maximum exposure.

I'm afraid that I won't be endorsing the repeal, much as I appreciate your dismay at the original resolution. It affords a token of protection from the use of 'bio weapons' and I would be surprised if my region would take kindly to me helping to remove it.

That said, I will happily endorse your resolution.

I'm afraid that I won't be endorsing the repeal, much as I appreciate your dismay at the original resolution. It affords a token of protection from the use of 'bio weapons' and I would be surprised if my region would take kindly to me helping to remove it.

More accurately I'd say it provides the dangerous illusion of protection without delivering any real protection, kind of like wearing a bulletproof vest made out of paper with "bulletproof" written on it. And if the people having those vests handed out to them are given the mistaken impression that they have some effect they're being done more harm than good I'd say. Sure, they'll feel safe and secure... right up until the first bullet hits.

Currently any UN member nation could easily launch any kind of biological weapons attack on anyone without in any way violating resolution 16, not to mention the non member nations. Your region might not take it's removal unkindly at all were that made clear to them... but you have to live with them, so to speak, so your call of course.

That said, I will happily endorse your resolution.

Much appreciated.

I agree with you fully, Reformentia, and you have my vote on this.

I agree with you fully, Reformentia, and you have my vote on this.

Your support is appreciated... although I note that I technically do not have your vote on this *yet* as you were not on the list of approvers when I went and checked the vote totals just now.

<nudge.... nudge...>

I think you misunderstood me - what if someone created a microorganism capable of similar destruction (perhaps not as quickly)....

And just because someone has the chemical version doesn't mean someone else isn't WORKING on an equivelent biological version.

I think you misunderstood me - what if someone created a microorganism capable of similar destruction (perhaps not as quickly)....

And just because someone has the chemical version doesn't mean someone else isn't WORKING on an equivelent biological version.

Well, they'd have to be insane to deploy it in place of a chemical version. A self-replicating destroyer of valuable alloys? Of course, it's not always a good idea to presuppose sanity on the part of national leaders...

I suppose it would have applications as a terrorist weapon for organizations with no national affiliation and no particular interests in retaining the existence of valuable mineral deposits and such... but then we can't legislate againt that here...

I'll think it over and possibly make an adjustment. I've got to consider the possible repercussions of adding language that could apply to the effects of biological processes destructively targetted on inanimate objects.

Well, they'd have to be insane to deploy it in place of a chemical version. A self-replicating destroyer of valuable alloys? Of course, it's not always a good idea to presuppose sanity on the part of national leaders...
Who says that the released creatures have to be able to reproduce? The problem you're thinking about could be easily stopped by either only releasing the males (or females) of the creatures, or rendering them unable to reproduce before unleashing them.

Who says that the released creatures have to be able to reproduce? The problem you're thinking about could be easily stopped by either only releasing the males (or females) of the creatures, or rendering them unable to reproduce before unleashing them.

Microbial or bacteriological organisms are asexual, and stopping them from reproducing would probably be impossible since that would mean you would have to engineer, create, transport, deploy and get the desired effect with whatever organism you came up with in a few hours before the current generation died off... assuming you could find any way to keep them from reproducing at all short of simply exterminating them.

If we're talking about macro-sized animals.... again, not a big concern of the resolution.

I wholeheartedly support this endeavour, you have my vote.

More accurately I'd say it provides the dangerous illusion of protection without delivering any real protection, kind of like wearing a bulletproof vest made out of paper with "bulletproof" written on it. And if the people having those vests handed out to them are given the mistaken impression that they have some effect they're being done more harm than good I'd say. Sure, they'll feel safe and secure... right up until the first bullet hits.
That's very well put. I wish you the best of luck.

Bump... and update. Main post updated with the new location of the proposal (page 1, maximum exposure for the next day!). Now entering the final 24 hours of the campaign.

As of this update: Currently at 94 approvals. (Edit: make that 96) (Edit: make that 100... I love page one...)

Wait, you started the day with below 100 endorsements? If the pattern hasn't changed, then you'll fail to reach quorum. Better luck next time.

Wait, you started the day with below 100 endorsements? If the pattern hasn't changed, then you'll fail to reach quorum. Better luck next time.

Well I have no intention of just sitting back and letting the pattern not change. Don't count me out yet.

115... 32 to go. I've covered over half that much ground in the last 4 hours. I think I can manage the rest in the next 20 if I keep pushing.

Well I have no intention of just sitting back and letting the pattern not change. Don't count me out yet.

I'll wait and see.

115... 32 to go. I've covered over half that much ground in the last 4 hours. I think I can manage the rest in the next 20 if I keep pushing.

Votes and endorsements tend to really drop off in a couple of hours, and stay that way for the next 12-16 hours.

only 27 more...

only 27 more...

Make that 19.... just need to hold that momentum a little longer...

With over 15 hours to go, you need (load you bloody slow NS) only 15 endorsements.

Considering the momentum - I doubt even a slowdown will drop you below one an hour.

With over 15 hours to go, you need (load you bloody slow NS) only 15 endorsements.

Considering the momentum - I doubt even a slowdown will drop you below one an hour.

To be on the safe side I've just telegrammed another great load of delegates with direct links to the proposal... I don't intend to take any chances with this thing after working this hard to get it this close.

just four more...

Approvals: 147 (Yelda, Dorksonia, Dugway, NewTexas, SovietRepublicofRussia, Omigodtheykilledkenny, The Three-Toed Sloth, Darth Mall, Fundamental Forces, The Grand Mystic, Shocksvick, Torregal, Emartia, The Shadow-Kai, Venerable libertarians, Greater Tiki, Bitewaldi, Hashishim Emirates, Kooluk, Meshuggeners, Krioval, Jiangland, Kleinekatzen, Dreedan, Rosthern, Vastiva, Thorncraftland, Haradin, Guditushuz, Jonathalia, BogPoetry, Darkumbria, Cricket Fans, The Imperial Raven, MegMayhem, Iznogoud, Peihoiser, Cav, Luna Amore, Free Avestopol, Swishland, Liviland, Aryavartha, Fenor, Groot Gouda, Blue Floyd, Over zealous Penguins, Fudgeburketania, Yiplonia, Americorporation, Tinis, Nethan, Utter Brocklebanks, Starps, NeoAsiaEuropa, Feathonia, Domzalski, Coquetvia, Grays Harbor, Borograd, Brians Room, Jandar, The Proteus Guard, Senseless Aggression, Spoon Bitch, Mgd966, Ralaham, Insanegeese, Timewellspent, Othelma, Purpleation, Brainy100111, Etnpm, Big Rigs, Foofangia, MoralMajority, Capitalist White Men, Lries, Renardinia, Zephyrdomez, Wojcikiville, Ghaard Allamia, North Andrewsia, Tambien, Zhukhistan, The-Guardians, Svenstenberg, Joestralia, Exoculo, Lighthill, SOC Intelligence, Nevscrow, White power world wide, Dorkium, Chiw, Bertiana, Zealotos, Hellieville, Askira, Cockeysville, Elgvegen, Cognitio, Naboo27, The Great Guid, Cemendur, Zombie Warlords, Bonum commune hominis, Wolfish, The Imperials, Nataniel, Czardas, DSM-IV, Spaz Land, English Humour, Eldenland, Filiplandia, The Anti-Fascist, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, KualaLumpar, Sir Lafferlot, Arcanity, Avios, Nick52B, New Modern Egypt, Flibbleites, Treithar, The Dead Hordes, Sipledome, SteamEngine, Dave of hand, Trexia, Blue Scorpions, Tierra de Dea, Tannu Tuval, Faerin II, Lunatic Retard Robots, Vrone, Askalaria, Klashonite, Grandura, The Hunter Isles, Shatford Valley, Dizziness, Kluane, Global Operations, Male Love, Finbergia)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Success!

Many thanks to all delegates who voted for the approval of the repeal. Now we just have to get it actually passed when it comes to vote and then we can start working on getting the replacement into effect.

In spite of my opposition to weapons bans, I will go ahead and support your attempts. However, I reserve the right to change my mind on that when I see the replacement.

Oh, and I'm glad to see you beat the odds.

In spite of my opposition to weapons bans, I will go ahead and support your attempts. However, I reserve the right to change my mind on that when I see the replacement.

The current draft of the replacement is in the lower half of the opening post of this thread, still subject to revision given any criticism I think warrants it.

Oh, and I'm glad to see you beat the odds.

Why thank you.

It will help if you separate the replacement out to a different topic, as this one will be clogged by the talk of the repeal. And I wish you the best of luck in the repeal while hoping it passes.

It will help if you separate the replacement out to a different topic, as this one will be clogged by the talk of the repeal. And I wish you the best of luck in the repeal while hoping it passes.

As this may soon become the "At Vote" temporary sticky... agreed. I'll probably create a new thread for discussing the replacement exclusively later today.

In the meantime, I advise you to prepare your arguements. This thread is going to be flooded by idiots speaking out against your repeal without actually bothering to read it.

I hope not, most UN members that I've seen (with a few notable exceptions) have had sensible arguments.

Of course you do realise you are going to have arms manufacturers on your back the whole time dont you?

Seharai, it happens every time there is a resolution. The UN members on here are a mix of regulars and temporary newbies who are making a go of trying to gain a place. The ones who come when a resolution is up are one-shots, of which half will usually end up dropping out of the UN by the end of the voting and all of which will mostly waste time and effort.

Oh, and I'm one of the ones who could be on his back. I'm a supporter of the idea of allowing weapons of all types.

The regulars are easier to contend with:

A) You have a feel for what arguments will and will not work against them
B) They actually read what you say
C) They actually make arguments

I'm all for torching the old resolution... adding a new one? Nope. Only complete fools want more weapons outlawed, particularly once they understand the UN only affects UN nations, not the whole world.

But then again, most who get into the UN are bunnyhuggers, so meh.

I'm with Vastiva on this one, get rid of the ban, no problem. Replacing it, on the other hand, that I'm not so thrilled about.

signed and attempting to get every1 in my region to vote for the passing of it (it sure does help to make sure every1 in ur region lives within walking distance of ya...lol) good luck with getting this AND the new draft passed!

as psychotic dictatorship that manufactures weapons, am opposed to all bans on weapons or use thereof

as a wise man once siad, "We have nukes and we can drill through glass."

Why are chemical weapons good? If we outlaw them all, then no one wil, suffer from them

Why are chemical weapons good? If we outlaw them all, then no one wil, suffer from them
For a start, this only addresses biological weapons. Chemical weapons are under a different resolution.

You also need to keep in mind that resolutions only affect member nations, which currently only account for at most a third of all nations in the game. As such, there a thousands of nations that have no restrictions placed upon their weaponry, and are prepared to use weapons that we, as members, cannot use.

____

Enn is strongly in support of this repeal, but is unlikely to support a replacement proposal.

I support this proposal, and I hope it isn't a bait-and-switch legislation. The new act should be much more efective.

The new proposal is floating around the forums. It's much better than the old one.

I Presdient of United ArgentineStates doest not thing this is a good idea!

The Un should Only ALLOWED FEW COUNTRYS TO PRODUCED BIO WEAPONS AND UNDER SUPERVISON OF THE UN !

WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THIS TO NUCLEAR COUNTRYS SUCH AS MY NATION !

THE UN SHOULD PASS A TREATY THAT ONLY FEW STATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCED AND CONTAIN BIO AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

I Presdient of United ArgentineStates doest not thing this is a good idea!

The Un should Only ALLOWED FEW COUNTRYS TO PRODUCED BIO WEAPONS AND UNDER SUPERVISON OF THE UN !

WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THIS TO NUCLEAR COUNTRYS SUCH AS MY NATION !

THE UN SHOULD PASS A TREATY THAT ONLY FEW STATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCED AND CONTAIN BIO AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
Leaving caps lock on really doesn't help your cause.

I don't see any way that this UN could only allow some nations to keep stockpiles. Resolutions affect everyone equally.

The Grand Ducal Government of the Grand Duchy of Weinreich, whilst condemming all forms of biological and chemical weapons, does feel that the old resolution #16 "Elimination of Bio Weapons" to be meaningless and ineffective, and thus it should be repealed.

However, the Grand Ducal Government URGES that, as soon as this resolution is repealed, another one is proposed by the UN Regional Delegates banning Biological Weapons to ensure that the world is safe from the scurge of possible Biological War.

Thus the Grand Ducal Government will be instructing the Ambassador to the United Nations to vote for this resolution. However, this Government is concerned with the tones made by the United ArgentineStates, the Grand Ducal Government of the Grand Duchy of Wienreich insists that the new resolution that will ensure that Biological Weapons are banned, will be a blanket ban.

The Grand Ducal Government of the Grand Duchy of Wienreich gives its full support to this resolution and will vote in favour of it.

Ambassador and Plenipotentiary to the UN of the Grand Duchy of Wienreich
Dr. Benita Countess Waldner-Plaffy
The Grand Ducal Minister for Foreign Affairs
Prince Kinsky-Sanjath

Greetings.

We of Roathin note that the term 'biological weapons' is something that needs to be defined more exactly so as to exclude the various possible other definitions which are irrelevant to the discussion on weapons of mass destruction.

Accordingly we propose to limit the definition of 'biological weapon' as follows.

Definition: a biological agent that has been deliberately cultivated, synthesized, developed or otherwise prepared in a way which allows it to be used with the primary intent of incapacitating, debilitating, killing, or denying terrain to an enemy or other sentient target; and its associated delivery system.

Elaboration: the term "biological agents" includes (but is not confined to) -

1. microorganisms which require living cells for their own reproduction - i.e. viri, intracellular parasites (e.g. chlamydia) and rickettsiae,

2. microorganisms which do not necessarily require living cells for their own reproduction - i.e. most bacteria and fungi,

3. toxins produced by biological methods from various organisms.

We also believe that two things should be controlled:

1. amount of biological agents permitted for research, beyond which limit any state (whether NSUN member or not) would be considered as having a biological agent ready for use in biological warfare;

2. appropriate delivery systems, which should not be allowed to come into proximity with the biological agents.

'nuff said. Very nicely done.

Finally, a resolution I can approve. I was afraid that button was going to collect dust while I was in the NSUN. Great repeal. I will encourge my region to vote for this resolution.

At present the Confederated City States of Mikitivity have abstained on this repeal. My government actually shares the earlier opinion raised by the people of Ecopoeia during the proposal discussions -- namely that the replacement resolution doesn't contradict the original resolution.

However, we do feel that the repeal, as written is well crafted, and are leaning towards adding our support to this repeal.


__
n.p. dive :: grinding walls

While I whole-heartedly agree with the intention of this proposal. I believe that the text lacks the formal prose style one would expect from such a forum. Do we not have editors to read the proposals and make alterations for the errors in grammar and English syntactical convention? If not, can I be one?

We at the Sceptical States have long been saying a review of the resolution was needed. We see the gaps in the mandate, and how to exploit them. While we will pass this vote, we will need to inspect closely the replacement agreement. We are against all biological weapons, but feel that small nations have few chances to defend themselves without weapons. We therefore suggest that instead of banning biological weapons, the Un will have to approve the individual use of them. We at the SSS feel that these weapons must be available at some level, simply as a deterent.

Yours,
Senator Tse
Aide to Chancellor Rea and UN representative of the Federation of Sceptical States.

I will support this repeal - but I doubt I'll support a replacement ban.

I guess I'm confused - why does it take repealling this resolution in order to enact the other? Both cannot coexist? If possible, I'd prefer to leave this one intact until the other one has passed.

The most recent update to the UN Resolution rules basically makes it illegal two have a resolution do anything a previously un-repealed resolution does.

This repeal is very well-written. I'll support you in it, but I hope the replacement can get through as well...

Hey man, peace and love saves the day, (sniff, sniff) aaaaahhhhhh... :) :cool: :D

We at Romeos voted against the last resolution since it did not protect us. I fully support a new resolution perhaps giving the UN the power of nukes...

I would like to remind all nations that the UN never has and twice has refused to (as in, two proposals made it to the floor and were rejected) ban nukes. Any and all nations within the UN are permitted to possess and use nuclear weapons.

Regardless, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Any resolution so poorly written that it could equate a schutzhund with weaponised anthrax, and then completely fail in its assigned goal of preventing the production, acquisition, sale, maintenance, or use of either dog or germ, deserves to be thrown in the garbage can. We vote to repeal on behalf of hard-working (and deeply offended) guard dogs everywhere, if nothing else.

We reserve judgement on the replacement.

If we ban them, people will still use them, and then us moral nations wont be able to use them, so we'll be at their mercy! We must be able to use them, so if they luanch an attack, we can luanch one right back! Fear will keep them in line!

:D

Yeah,

I get to use biological weapons

but wouldnt this resolution need to also repeal the resolutiuon just passed, which is ban chemical weapons?

Our praise to the Supreme Imperium and its allies for its imminent victory with this resolution. The Kallipolis has supported your rightful campaign. Nonetheless, we are nervous that the replacement resolution on such weaponry may not pass this body. We shall help however we may. Best of luck with the next endeavour.

considering the precedent set by resolution 107, it appears that this United Nations is still considering the two lesser forms of WMDs as bannable (I would not make the same consideration for nukes as the UN continually refuses nuclear weapons bans). However, I agree with your concern and hope that the support required can be obtained.

I am thankful that Reformatia came with the foresight to make a replacement resolution at the same time he developed his repeal.



but wouldnt this resolution need to also repeal the resolutiuon just passed, which is ban chemical weapons?



Resolution 107 merely references resolution 16 as showing the spirit of the UN is against weapon proliferation. The fact that this repeal is also based around that same concept leaves that point in-tact.

Resolution 107 only deals with Chemical weapons - there is little if any overlap with biological weapons (the definitions are difficult at best). Regardless, the repeal is only covering biological weapons because the intent is to amend a resolution. Since the UN disallows amendments, this is the only manner available.

The Principality of Ausserland wholeheartedly supports this resolution and congratulates its proposer. We concur that the extant resolution is fatally flawed in the ways the proposer suggests.

In proposing any replacement, we would caution that much consideration must be given to means of enforcement. The nature of biologicals intended for military purposes makes detection of development and production extremely difficult, perhaps impossible in the world of NationStates.

OFFICIAL:
Ministry of External Affairs
Principality of Ausserland

Any repeal that will allow me to go to war with more than sword-armed robots is certainly a good thing. I am in favor.

Currently running at 10:1 in favor, looks like we'll have a repeal.

With luck, the replacement will absolutely fail.

Currently running at 10:1 in favor, looks like we'll have a repeal.

With luck, the replacement will absolutely fail.

I wouldn't bet on it. ;)

(And it's more like 4.5:1 in favor...)

What, you don't think you might simply "forget" to do the TG campaign for the replacement resolution?

Dicomte happily supports this resolution. The threat of rogue nations having a distinct advantage over us is no more!

Just speculating, but it seems like nations that support the ban fall into two categories:

1. Those in favor of having biological weapons.
2. Those who, regardless of their feelings about biological weapons, believe that the proposal is too poorly worded to be effective.

As I fall into the latter category, I'm in favor of repealing the ban on biological weapons. I've not yet read the replacement resolution because I consider these to be two separate issues. Even if the replacement ban is not passed, I think our nations will be better off with the original resolution repealed.

If we ban them, people will still use them, and then us moral nations wont be able to use them, so we'll be at their mercy! We must be able to use them, so if they luanch an attack, we can luanch one right back! Fear will keep them in line!
Greetings.

We of Roathin see this kind of argument as the silliest to disgrace this forum at the present time. It is even indulged in by senior members, for shame. From perusal of the many pages of the NS forum records, it is obvious that even if the NSUN banned biological warfare (too messy), chemical warfare (too messy), and nuclear warfare (too crude), there would still be literally hundreds of mass-destruction technologies which are clean and much more lethal. Within the ambit of the NSUN, we should therefore work to ban the messier forms of warfare.

What about the protection of smaller states? Some of these have voiced concern that they would have no deterrent against aggressors without cheaply produced biological and chemical weapons. Honestly, there is no defence should a large and hungry nation come knocking. Neither is there the real need for one. Within the NS milieu, a small state can be blasted back to the Stone Age from space and still maintain a healthy economy and a lush environment. The space-time framework of our NS universe is very forgiving.

What would act as a deterrent then? Obviously, the penalties which hurt most are social penalties. If a clear framework for the social treatment of aggressor and other pariah states is put in place, these states might be a little less inclined towards precipitate action. If they are not dissuaded in such ways, they probably will not be dissuaded at all.

I would not call Biological weapons a "lesser" WMD. In fact, I am of the opinion that biological weapons are the greatest WMD in terms of threat to the world, and therefore should be banned.

(Note: I am normally very pro-weapon. Ive been writeing a resolution to repeal 107>

I would not call Biological weapons a "lesser" WMD. In fact, I am of the opinion that biological weapons are the greatest WMD in terms of threat to the world, and therefore should be banned.

No, that would be my Planet Busters, which are cannons capable of rendering entire planets uninhabitable. They merely increase the gravity of a planet until the atmosphere ignites, which usually kills everyone on the planet. Then I shut them off, leave the temporary sun to cool, and move on.

So, you really sure you don't want me to have biological weapons? I prefer using the lesser weapons first.

The primary concern with biological weapons is their unpredictable nature. You use them and have no real way of knowing where or how far they could go, unless some custom biological agents could be developed, such as those which would target a specific species or race, or those which would only reproduce a limited number of times.

My absolute favorite is Biospay, a simple botulism contagion which has been modified so as to produce proteins identical to those in a sperm, which causes a female immune system to recognize sperm as a disease and cause them to no longer procreate by natural means. Arguably, this could be classified as some sort of perfectly acceptable humanitarian or medical research.

For the most part, biological weapons are pretty nasty things, that would not be used by any ethical country; though more advanced forms actually become more ethical, controllable and humane. It would then follow, that the countries most likely to use truly nasty, primitive bio-weapons, are those least likely to join us in regulating ourselves in to helplessness.

So repeal the damnable resolution already. We need to research these subjects in order to devise suitable countermeasures.

My favorite weapon is “Planet Knockers”. What you do, is tie a cord at each end around each planet, then as they go around the sun, the cord becomes wrapped and tightens until the planets hit each other.

I would not call Biological weapons a "lesser" WMD. In fact, I am of the opinion that biological weapons are the greatest WMD in terms of threat to the world, and therefore should be banned.

(Note: I am normally very pro-weapon. Ive been writeing a resolution to repeal 107>

Yes and no

I call it a lesser weapon for Biological and Chemical Weapons (unlike Nuclear) do not have a full aspect of MAD. The biggest concern with Biological is its unpredictability, but the effect is considerably slower than that of Nuclear warheads and the timeframe of the effect is limited (ie: you quaranteen an area for a while, and it will be infection free). Nuclear Weapons are a bit less friendly that way. The initial damage happens within a timeframe (at the greatest) of a few minutes of impact. Even within the first second after impact, a large number of people could be dead. The timeframe for the dispersion of radiation (with exception to Neutron based weapons) is extensive.

Biological warfare - you're more likely to infect your own population with your own virus than have a true form of MAD.

However, the individual's choice of ranking them is dependant on how they rate each weapon's inherent threat. This is my reason.

Votes For: 3,918

Votes Against: 862

Heh.

Replying to the guy who quoted me, I don't know how to quote, you know who you are:

Do you remember the Cold War? We would have blasted America into atoms if it weren't for the fact they could do it right back. It's still like that today, in the real world(and here, probably). Anyone luanches a weapon, the other guy luanches one back. No one dares to do this, as the are AFRAID that they will be bombed/poisioned/irradiated as well. Evil nations, who just steal chem/bip weapons, can luanch them any time. All we could do is send conventional weapons to thier nation, which they could just repel. But if we too ahve chem/bio weapons, then they would hold off. Unless they're crazy. But there aint nuthin you can do about that.

It's simple, really.

I don't know how to quote
Here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/misc.php?do=bbcode is a page that may be helpful. Or you can just use the quote button at the bottom right of the post you wish to quote.

Replying to the guy who quoted me, I don't know how to quote, you know who you are:

Do you remember the Cold War? We would have blasted America into atoms if it weren't for the fact they could do it right back. It's still like that today, in the real world(and here, probably). Anyone luanches a weapon, the other guy luanches one back. No one dares to do this, as the are AFRAID that they will be bombed/poisioned/irradiated as well. Evil nations, who just steal chem/bip weapons, can luanch them any time. All we could do is send conventional weapons to thier nation, which they could just repel. But if we too ahve chem/bio weapons, then they would hold off. Unless they're crazy. But there aint nuthin you can do about that.

It's simple, really.
Greetings.

Yes, it is simple. We are all allowed nuclear weapons. Use those. We are allowed space-based weapons. Use those. We are allowed thaumaturgic weapons. Use those too. They are very obvious weapons. They are very detectable weapons. However, chemical and biological weapons are a lot less so, a lot easier to manufacture, and a lot more unpredictable in nett effect.

The only Cold War in the ken of the NSUN is the argument Vastiva is setting forth about the imperviousness of Antarctica to biological weapons. One which fails for the simple reason that cold might passivate such weapons, but many can come back to life on contact with Vastivans, and some do not even need to be alive - biotoxins, for example.

Lastly, given an imaginary state like America, and an equally powerful hypothetical opponent, it is tempting to imagine deadlock. But it must also be tempting for each party to imagine they can break the deadlock by using other kinds of weapon. The fact is that in our NS universe, the state is impervious to any form of destruction save those of self-destruction through negligence and theurgic intervention - so such arguments fail.

Greetings.

Yes, it is simple. We are all allowed nuclear weapons. Use those. We are allowed space-based weapons. Use those. We are allowed thaumaturgic weapons. Use those too. They are very obvious weapons. They are very detectable weapons. However, chemical and biological weapons are a lot less so, a lot easier to manufacture, and a lot more unpredictable in nett effect.

The only Cold War in the ken of the NSUN is the argument Vastiva is setting forth about the imperviousness of Antarctica to biological weapons. One which fails for the simple reason that cold might passivate such weapons, but many can come back to life on contact with Vastivans, and some do not even need to be alive - biotoxins, for example.

Lastly, given an imaginary state like America, and an equally powerful hypothetical opponent, it is tempting to imagine deadlock. But it must also be tempting for each party to imagine they can break the deadlock by using other kinds of weapon. The fact is that in our NS universe, the state is impervious to any form of destruction save those of self-destruction through negligence and theurgic intervention - so such arguments fail.


Chemical weapons are easy to manufacture, but also very easy to contain and predict. Terrorists with them is a problem, people dropping them on their own people is a problem, wind changing direction and a stupid general killing his own soldiers might be a problem, but as weapons go, it is really not that bad. Biotoxins are no different, it is just organic chemistry, nothing special or adaptive.

Biological Weapons is another matter. These can be reproducing organisms that propagate themselves, entirely on their own. I am unsure as to whether or not nano-technology should be classified here, as it poses some but not all of the same concerns. A “New” biological agent, could cause a tremendous global problem, but if everything is nice legal and above board, being done by one of our civilized countries, the risk is far less great, than if it is done by some backwater unaffiliated rogue state.

As far as the relatively non-warlike nature of nationstates, think “Immersion”. My country, “is” surrounded by a savage horde and I need every weapon I can to keep them at bay, stopping short of completely eradicating them, due to our own ethical preference for not eradicating savages. I would like to have Biospay in my arsenal and think it would be quite useful for reducing the horde population over the next decade or so.

Greetings.

Yes, it is simple. We are all allowed nuclear weapons. Use those. We are allowed space-based weapons. Use those. We are allowed thaumaturgic weapons. Use those too. They are very obvious weapons. They are very detectable weapons. However, chemical and biological weapons are a lot less so, a lot easier to manufacture, and a lot more unpredictable in nett effect.

Little note: Most space-based weapons are actually undetectable without an equivolent technology level. It's the ones that are easily detectable which are most likely to wipe out entire nations or simply destroy the planet.

As for chemical weapons: Chemical weapons are 100% predictable. They are, in effect, "If X happens then Y will result" weapons. They're just as predictable in action as bullets are. That's part of what makes them so useful.

I would agree that the first resolution of the ban on bio weapons is poorly written. It is extreemly vauge on all accounts. But why just repeal it? If you think a law is poorly written then rewrite it and then ask for the new law to replace it.

Just because it is a poor law does not mean we should repel it, all it means is that it needs to be rewritten. Purpose a new law and then repeal the old law. Why eliminate a law and not replace it with something better?

I would agree that the first resolution of the ban on bio weapons is poorly written. It is extreemly vauge on all accounts. But why just repeal it? If you think a law is poorly written then rewrite it and then ask for the new law to replace it.

Just because it is a poor law does not mean we should repel it, all it means is that it needs to be rewritten. Purpose a new law and then repeal the old law. Why eliminate a law and not replace it with something better?

How do I put this... oh, yes - how about this card? (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)

Little note: Most space-based weapons are actually undetectable without an equivolent technology level. It's the ones that are easily detectable which are most likely to wipe out entire nations or simply destroy the planet.

As for chemical weapons: Chemical weapons are 100% predictable. They are, in effect, "If X happens then Y will result" weapons. They're just as predictable in action as bullets are. That's part of what makes them so useful.
Greetings.

Most space-based weapons are fully detectable given an equivalent technological level. Their effects can be sensed at a distance, as the range at which the forces concerned operate is great. Chemical weapons are less detectable, given an equivalent technology level, simply because they work at shorter range and the forces concerned work at much shorter range.

Chemical weapons are less predictable than physical weapons and biological weapons are the least predictable. It is an effect of the scale at which they work and the complexity involved. For example: consider a man firing a handgun. It is obvious that the largest source of error in terms of the effect of each of his bullets is due to him (biological); the second largest source (by a great difference in order of magnitude) is due to differences in the exact composition of the propellant and the payload (chemical), and the smallest source of deviation is that found in the physical impact of a specific bullet whose behaviour has already largely been determined by the first two.

Your last paragraph, therefore, smacks of flamebaiting. A chemical process, to be sure.

Greetings.

Most space-based weapons are fully detectable given an equivalent technological level. Their effects can be sensed at a distance, as the range at which the forces concerned operate is great. Chemical weapons are less detectable, given an equivalent technology level, simply because they work at shorter range and the forces concerned work at much shorter range.

Space-based weapons also tend to do a lot of massive, and ultimately irreversible, damage to planets when used on them. Chemical weapons don't. Or did you think I could just fire a plasma cannon at a city and have it not permanently damage the planet? If you wish, I can demonstrate.

Chemical weapons are less predictable than physical weapons and biological weapons are the least predictable. It is an effect of the scale at which they work and the complexity involved. For example: consider a man firing a handgun. It is obvious that the largest source of error in terms of the effect of each of his bullets is due to him (biological); the second largest source (by a great difference in order of magnitude) is due to differences in the exact composition of the propellant and the payload (chemical), and the smallest source of deviation is that found in the physical impact of a specific bullet whose behaviour has already largely been determined by the first two.

Don't forget wind speed, target movement, deflectors (such as blades of grass for M16s), etc. The amount of math that goes into firing your average bullet gives rocket scientists headaches.

You have to keep in mind that it's the same for chemical weapons. They don't move around on their own, don't reproduce, and generally don't do anything without a force acting on them. If you take the same precautions with chemical weapons as with bullets, only actually paying attention to the precautions, usually you don't have any trouble with them.

Your last paragraph, therefore, smacks of flamebaiting. A chemical process, to be sure.

No, flamebaiting would be implying that you have the intelligence of a zombified gnat after four lobotomies and being dropped on its head a few times, all the while avoiding directly saying it.

Note the above was not intended as flamebaiting. Just an explanation.

Takuma and the Land of the Faithful express our approval for this resolution.

HI,
I'm new here and I come from a small nation where big and pretty words just arn't all that usefull so forgive me if I speak plainly but did the previous ban allow for the study of bio weapons i'm guessin it did if it still allowed the use of bio weapons and it would seem to me if that where the case that it should be left in place I mean lets be realistic here if every other nation besides the UN has bio weapons what protection do we have from them, it's like we're just walkin outside naked expecting the sun to not give us sun burn cause we have lofty morals,I say at very least if we're not going to use bio weapons we should study them so that we can devlop protection agisnt them, it would seem to me that it's just comman sense to ban a weapon we have no deffense from. Know i know i know this is just a repeal of the old law and not a new law but the old law allowed us to study bio weapons and use maybe it was made vague for a reason. Course that's just my humble opion i could be wrong but you high powered city slickers just think about that for a min.

I would agree that the first resolution of the ban on bio weapons is poorly written. It is extreemly vauge on all accounts. But why just repeal it? If you think a law is poorly written then rewrite it and then ask for the new law to replace it.

Just because it is a poor law does not mean we should repel it, all it means is that it needs to be rewritten. Purpose a new law and then repeal the old law. Why eliminate a law and not replace it with something better?

Read the discussion about it on the Aberdeen board - I explained it there.

HI,
I'm new here and I come from a small nation where big and pretty words just arn't all that usefull so forgive me if I speak plainly but did the previous ban allow for the study of bio weapons i'm guessin it did if it still allowed the use of bio weapons and it would seem to me if that where the case that it should be left in place I mean lets be realistic here if every other nation besides the UN has bio weapons what protection do we have from them, it's like we're just walkin outside naked expecting the sun to not give us sun burn cause we have lofty morals,I say at very least if we're not going to use bio weapons we should study them so that we can devlop protection agisnt them, it would seem to me that it's just comman sense to ban a weapon we have no deffense from. Know i know i know this is just a repeal of the old law and not a new law but the old law allowed us to study bio weapons and use maybe it was made vague for a reason. Course that's just my humble opion i could be wrong but you high powered city slickers just think about that for a min.

Full Text of Resolution 16:



Resolution #16: Elimination of Bio Weapons
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

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.

Implemented: Sat May 31 2003


It makes no acception for research, does not define biological weapons and pretty much does....**** all.

The Jingoistic States of FuggetAboutEt of Stanistan urges UN Delegates to vote FOR the latest issue before the UN, to "repeal the ban on chemical weapons" As we all know, chemical weapons have gotten a bad rap due to a few minor indiscretions. Besides being a nice little money maker, time and time again it has been shown that the road to peace is paved with superior killing power. And as there are almost never accidents involving chemical weapons, their stockpiling should not only be unbanned, but their purchase from "Crazy Carl's Chem-Bio Weapons Emporium", located conventiently off the interstate in FuggettAboutEt, should be encouraged!

This is bio-weapons, not chemical weapons.

I'm new here and I come from a small nation where big and pretty words just arn't all that usefull so forgive me if I speak plainly but did the previous ban allow for the study of bio weapons i'm guessin it did if it still allowed the use of bio weapons and it would seem to me if that where the case that it should be left in place I mean lets be realistic here if every other nation besides the UN has bio weapons what protection do we have from them, it's like we're just walkin outside naked expecting the sun to not give us sun burn cause we have lofty morals,I say at very least if we're not going to use bio weapons we should study them so that we can devlop protection agisnt them, it would seem to me that it's just comman sense to ban a weapon we have no deffense from.Mon Dieu!

Is that one sentence? My head hurts.

I reserve the right to ignore anything so badly written that I can't read it without taking two aspirin. Please write in proper English, or run your text through a proper translator if English isn't your first language.

Space-based weapons also tend to do a lot of massive, and ultimately irreversible, damage to planets when used on them. Chemical weapons don't. Or did you think I could just fire a plasma cannon at a city and have it not permanently damage the planet? If you wish, I can demonstrate.

Don't forget wind speed, target movement, deflectors (such as blades of grass for M16s), etc. The amount of math that goes into firing your average bullet gives rocket scientists headaches.

You have to keep in mind that it's the same for chemical weapons. They don't move around on their own, don't reproduce, and generally don't do anything without a force acting on them. If you take the same precautions with chemical weapons as with bullets, only actually paying attention to the precautions, usually you don't have any trouble with them.
Greetings.

We are fully aware of weapons such as the 'meson cannon' and related phenomena. Our point is that firing such a cannon is a very obvious act, is also a great deterrent, and is likely to prevent people from thinking of firing biological weapons at you. It means that you need not deploy biological weapons except for the 'creeping horror' effect, or because you want something smaller scale to work up from.

If you are still convinced about the lack of difference between chemical and physical weapons (in the sense of weapons relying mainly on chemical properties rather than physical properties), consider how much lower a level of technology is required to defend against particles and projectiles, as opposed to various toxic chemicals. To protect a person from physical weapons just requires more and more layers of concrete (to crudely simplify). The concept is simple and a first-level civilisation understands it well. To protect a person from chemical weapons is much more difficult.

Again, it is not a question of computing power; but if you wish, consider the possible forces acting on a bullet in a battlefield - the problem no longer gives rocket scientists headaches because they let their computers handle more of the math. You can simulate individual or multiple bullets easily, despite the chaos. But the interaction between all the myriad chemical substances on a battlefield is not so easily analysed. Think about it.

Lastly, think about how much more easily it is to detect and control physical weapons, as opposed to chemical weapons. The unprepared human can duck bullets, and perhaps even survive without fatal injury in a hail of them. But a cloud of sarin is much harder to handle, and harder to detect.

Back to the point of this thread: elimination of biological weapons costs nothing but simplifies everything. Face us with a gun, it is a simple situation. Face us with a virus, ah, that is something of a completely different order.

Greetings.

Yes, it is simple. We are all allowed nuclear weapons. Use those. We are allowed space-based weapons. Use those. We are allowed thaumaturgic weapons. Use those too. They are very obvious weapons. They are very detectable weapons. However, chemical and biological weapons are a lot less so, a lot easier to manufacture, and a lot more unpredictable in nett effect.

The only Cold War in the ken of the NSUN is the argument Vastiva is setting forth about the imperviousness of Antarctica to biological weapons. One which fails for the simple reason that cold might passivate such weapons, but many can come back to life on contact with Vastivans, and some do not even need to be alive - biotoxins, for example.

Lastly, given an imaginary state like America, and an equally powerful hypothetical opponent, it is tempting to imagine deadlock. But it must also be tempting for each party to imagine they can break the deadlock by using other kinds of weapon. The fact is that in our NS universe, the state is impervious to any form of destruction save those of self-destruction through negligence and theurgic intervention - so such arguments fail.

Ah, but is it not the point of this to SIMULATE the real world? And how long will it be before someone tries to ban nukes, and any other kind of WOMD?

What would be classed as a bio weapon?
A nuclear warhead, napalm or so0mething that effects only the body like a disease like anthrax?

Ah, but is it not the point of this to SIMULATE the real world? And how long will it be before someone tries to ban nukes, and any other kind of WOMD?

Been there, attempted that. The tree huggers lost and have lost repeatedly - but they keep trying.

Specifically, the End Nuclear Proliferation Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/End_Nuclear_Proliferation_Act_%28failed%29) and Ban nuclear weapons (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_nuclear_weapons_%28failed%29).

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Please, consider the consequences...Consider North Korea...
Consider Warfare in the "real world"...
Why would we choose to allow biowarfare when citizens could die? :gundge: :sniper: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Greetings.

We are fully aware of weapons such as the 'meson cannon' and related phenomena. Our point is that firing such a cannon is a very obvious act, is also a great deterrent, and is likely to prevent people from thinking of firing biological weapons at you. It means that you need not deploy biological weapons except for the 'creeping horror' effect, or because you want something smaller scale to work up from.

Firing such a cannon would also do massive amounts of damage that will never be fully recovered from. Biological weapons themselves can be designed to simply kill the president of a certain nation, ending the entire conflict with a single death.

If you are still convinced about the lack of difference between chemical and physical weapons (in the sense of weapons relying mainly on chemical properties rather than physical properties), consider how much lower a level of technology is required to defend against particles and projectiles, as opposed to various toxic chemicals. To protect a person from physical weapons just requires more and more layers of concrete (to crudely simplify). The concept is simple and a first-level civilisation understands it well. To protect a person from chemical weapons is much more difficult.

Consider this: For hundreds of years, the only way to protect the individual against bullets was to surround them with steel plates, which would prevent them from moving. Then, one day, someone invented the bullet-resistant vest. Then, another person came along and invented armor-piercing bullets. Despite those bullets, your average bullet-resistant vest is still a great investment and can save your life when shot at.

The concept behind dodging chemical weapons is simple: Don't let it touch you or get near you. Any civilization can understand that. But, like the bullet, attempting to do such is complex and requires time and advancement. That's part of why certain suits were invented.

Again, it is not a question of computing power; but if you wish, consider the possible forces acting on a bullet in a battlefield - the problem no longer gives rocket scientists headaches because they let their computers handle more of the math. You can simulate individual or multiple bullets easily, despite the chaos. But the interaction between all the myriad chemical substances on a battlefield is not so easily analysed. Think about it.

Actually, it is. All you need to know is the chemicals present and feed it into a computer. The computer can model the results.

Lastly, think about how much more easily it is to detect and control physical weapons, as opposed to chemical weapons. The unprepared human can duck bullets, and perhaps even survive without fatal injury in a hail of them. But a cloud of sarin is much harder to handle, and harder to detect.

It's pretty easy to detect with the right equipment, much like a hidden gun. Just because it's hard to detect now doesn't mean it will always be, though. DLE sensors can easily pick up sarin gas.

Back to the point of this thread: elimination of biological weapons costs nothing but simplifies everything. Face us with a gun, it is a simple situation. Face us with a virus, ah, that is something of a completely different order.

At one time, that would have been said about guns. Keep in mind the perspective that advanced technology gives.

Please, consider the consequences...Consider North Korea...
Consider Warfare in the "real world"...

I corrected your font and color in this quote. Try doing that in your post.

Warfare in the real world amounts to massive, uberdestructive bombs and then armies running in afterwards. It's really a basic concept that is unlikely to change.

Why would we choose to allow biowarfare when citizens could die? :gundge: :sniper: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The same statement can be applied to staplers. Do you really want to ban staplers?

I would be in favor of this repeal, if I could see the replacement legislation beforehand. How can I know that the replacement will be any better than the current law?

It's circulating the UN forums. Just look, it'll be there.

Sorry, but without knowing what the language is on a replacement proposal, I cannot vote for this repeal.

If someone were to post it here, I might reconsider.

The damned replacement is on the forums. Try searching for it.

It's right here, you know, the thread entitled "Draft: Replacement Biological Weapons Resolution" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427821&page=1)

Chemical weapons are banned. Now you want Bio weaopons banned? What do we fight with, sticks and rocks?

I am vehemently against the repeal of this resolution. Since the U.N. is only a group that can suggest, and not enforce, the banning of such weapons, the original proposal is worded correctly, and there should not be any changes made to it.

Also, the irony is that the majority vote for the other resolution was for passing it. Now, it's for repealing it. The people on NS really need to make up their minds!

I am vehemently against the repeal of this resolution. Since the U.N. is only a group that can suggest, and not enforce, the banning of such weapons, the original proposal is worded correctly, and there should not be any changes made to it.

Also, the irony is that the majority vote for the other resolution was for passing it. Now, it's for repealing it. The people on NS really need to make up their minds!

Second part first: Naked Voodoo was not even a nation, let alone a member of the UN, when the resolution on bio weapons was passed.

But I disagree that the ban is worded correctly, as it never defines what does and does not qualify as a biological weapon (and yes, there have been disagreements on various forum threads), along with suggested steps and timetable for removal.

Really, I think, if one supports the entire intent of the original proposal, there should be a way to simply amend it to say, "Bio weapons are bad."

Chemical weapons are banned. Now you want Bio weaopons banned? What do we fight with, sticks and rocks?
Biological weapons have been banned since May 31 2003, this resolution is for lifting the ban.

I am vehemently against the repeal of this resolution. Since the U.N. is only a group that can suggest, and not enforce, the banning of such weapons, the original proposal is worded correctly, and there should not be any changes made to it.Apparently you haven't met the Gnomes, their sole purpose it to insure that all nations comply with UN resolutions. Or as the FAQ puts it.
(You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Also, the irony is that the majority vote for the other resolution was for passing it. Now, it's for repealing it. The people on NS really need to make up their minds!Bear in mind that the resolution was passed back in 2003, I'm sure that a large quantity of the nations that passed the ban have since stopped playing.

Greetings.

Firing such a cannon would also do massive amounts of damage that will never be fully recovered from. Biological weapons themselves can be designed to simply kill the president of a certain nation, ending the entire conflict with a single death.
The former is what deterrence is about. The latter is -haha- a little idealistic in some contexts.
Consider this: For hundreds of years, the only way to protect the individual against bullets was to surround them with steel plates, which would prevent them from moving. Then, one day, someone invented the bullet-resistant vest. Then, another person came along and invented armor-piercing bullets. Despite those bullets, your average bullet-resistant vest is still a great investment and can save your life when shot at.

The concept behind dodging chemical weapons is simple: Don't let it touch you or get near you. Any civilization can understand that. But, like the bullet, attempting to do such is complex and requires time and advancement. That's part of why certain suits were invented.
Exactly. The level of technology, without digression, is the key. We do not seek to ban conventional weapons because they are easily identified and baulked. But chemical weapons, and beyond that, biological and nanotechnological, are of ever-increasing complexity. You have just admitted our point.
Actually, it is. All you need to know is the chemicals present and feed it into a computer. The computer can model the results.
Which is not true unless you already know how certain chemicals interact. The battlefield of bullets is in theory a simple particle model, and heavy enough computing power (for example, at your level of technology) can just about encompass it. However, intermolecular action is much more complex. A gram of lead contains about 3 x 10^21 atoms and can be simulated as ONE lump of inert material if it is a payload. A gram of sarin contains about 4 x 10^21 molecules and is not so easily simulated.
It's pretty easy to detect with the right equipment, much like a hidden gun. Just because it's hard to detect now doesn't mean it will always be, though. DLE sensors can easily pick up sarin gas.
Much as Roathinian diviners can. Which is not the point. The point was one about preparation. All bullets can be prepared for by simple means. There are far fewer types of bullets than there are toxic chemicals.
At one time, that would have been said about guns. Keep in mind the perspective that advanced technology gives.
And bear in mind the fact that most nations do not have this advanced technology. As for perspective, we of Roathin, a thaumaturgic state, approach the dictum of the prophet Clarke from a different direction: "Magic is insufficiently distinguishable from a high enough level of technology."

Greetings.


The former is what deterrence is about. The latter is -haha- a little idealistic in some contexts.

Not really. You would be surprised how many wars end when you eliminate government officials.

Exactly. The level of technology, without digression, is the key. We do not seek to ban conventional weapons because they are easily identified and baulked. But chemical weapons, and beyond that, biological and nanotechnological, are of ever-increasing complexity. You have just admitted our point.

And you have missed mine. Mine is that, given time, protection and detection technologies will catch up. Around the time they start doing so, the next wave of superweapons rolls off the factory floor. This is just the normal cycle of war. Hell, next thing I know you'll be wanting to ban plasma weapons just because you have nothing to protect against them.

Which is not true unless you already know how certain chemicals interact. The battlefield of bullets is in theory a simple particle model, and heavy enough computing power (for example, at your level of technology) can just about encompass it. However, intermolecular action is much more complex. A gram of lead contains about 3 x 10^21 atoms and can be simulated as ONE lump of inert material if it is a payload. A gram of sarin contains about 4 x 10^21 molecules and is not so easily simulated.

Which is no more difficult to model than a large number of bullets at the same time.

As for chemical interactions: Only an idiot wouldn't try to have information on those before deploying the weapon. It's basic common sense.

Much as Roathinian diviners can. Which is not the point. The point was one about preparation. All bullets can be prepared for by simple means. There are far fewer types of bullets than there are toxic chemicals.

Actually, there are more types, as bullets are typed by calibur and gun type manufactured for as well.

And bear in mind the fact that most nations do not have this advanced technology. As for perspective, we of Roathin, a thaumaturgic state, approach the dictum of the prophet Clarke from a different direction: "Magic is insufficiently distinguishable from a high enough level of technology."

Bear in mind that, at one time, most nations did not have the technology to make bullet resistant vests. Is that a good reason to ban guns?

The damned replacement is on the forums. Try searching for it.

It's also directly linked to in the opening post of this thread. With a big bold "Replacement Resolution:" title in front of the link.

And I'm still mulling over a few revisions you'll no doubt want to provide a new list of loopholes for once they're posted...

Bio weapons should be legal as it makes you fell safe that if someone rinses you then you rinse them back. Otherwise youd get people illegally getting them and then there'd be war, so let me keep them!!!!! :gundge:you know it makes sense!!!!!

Here's the deal:

I believe that (slowly) the world is starting to notice all the ignorant liberals out there who want everyone to be just above poverty.

Sooooo one of the ways to treat this sickness know as liberalism is to take over their nation/regions. With that we need arms--conventionble here is A-OK, there is no need for biological or nuclear at this point...

...However, after we go in and make that nation/region a capitalistic haven, there is a chance that another (most likely rogue) nation will try and attack your nation using as much force as they can muster. THIS is where the biological, nuclear, chemical and yes even magical warfare might be deemed neccessary.

Thank you,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Not really. You would be surprised how many wars end when you eliminate government officials.


Short of creating a virus/disease/etc that is specificly attuned to the DNA of the President in question (which I suspect would be difficult to obtain and I'd be interested to know how the heck you do that type of thing), I'm not sure I understand HOW you intend to take out the President of an opposing nation without killing anyone else (assuming no mutation). I believe that was what the idealistic comment was referring to so perhaps you can expand on that.

I don't think very many people would dispute the effectiveness of taking out an opposing leader.


And you have missed mine. Mine is that, given time, protection and detection technologies will catch up. Around the time they start doing so, the next wave of superweapons rolls off the factory floor. This is just the normal cycle of war. Hell, next thing I know you'll be wanting to ban plasma weapons just because you have nothing to protect against them.


While I don't necessarily dispute this, I disagree HEAVILY about the analogy. A gun requires that you're standing there within sight distance of your opponent AND you can only take them down 1 or 2 at a time (sure, your gun may have 30 bullets, but each bullet is "manually" fired) and the effect of each bullet lasts for not even a second. On the other hand, WMDs on the whole take out vast numbers of people from the push of a single button, and their effect lasts a timeframe of minutes to years (or in the case of the FT WMDs - unmeasurable). This alone makes for a very important consideration.

Biological weapons have an added concern with propogation. I know you've been ridiculing the "quarantine" component of the replacement resolution, but short of either quarantine or one HECK of a fast acting bio-weapon, you have little guarantee that these weapons will not propogate in their effect beyond your own borders.



Which is no more difficult to model than a large number of bullets at the same time.

As for chemical interactions: Only an idiot wouldn't try to have information on those before deploying the weapon. It's basic common sense.


I think it's already been stated that "inteligence" and "logical" are not requirements to being a leader. What I'm getting at is assuming people know all the chemical interactions involved is a bit.....idealistic. Of course, here I'm suggesting that someone is just plain stupid and doesn't care, but there are other issues:

1) Lack of funding/time/careful consideration means that they only concentrate on whether it does what they want it to do or not. They probably test it against things they definately DON'T want it to do, but they may not test it about the things that are....not one of their main points of consideration. A poor example - I don't think the researches of CFCs investigated how it would react with air (or was it ozone?) before they released it onto the market - but it obviously had a bad consequeces. Imagine if you had a simple little mistake like that when you were releasting it
2) Quite frankly, the sheer insurmountability of determining EVERY single possible chemical reaction that could occur. Take your chemical weapon. React it with every single relevant element (ie: ones that are stable enough that you might encounter them), next react it with every single basic compound. Start working through the complex and the thousands - perhaps millions - of man-made compounds. Let's say that you find out it actually creates a reaction with a CD - and one of the products of that reaction.....well.....it does something else that's bad (yeah, I know, lack of specifics) and you keep going down the line of various reactions until you realize the sheer complexity of knowing EVERY SINGLE CONSEQUENCE of the chemical agent is pretty freaking hard (and with the way technology is moving - esp in the NS world - the difference in each person's tech makes it closer to impossible - I'm certain I'd have a hard time trying to figure out how a chemical reacts with the side plating of your plasma cannon).


Actually, there are more types, as bullets are typed by calibur and gun type manufactured for as well.


Since the days when you had guns that started spinning their bullets - the biggest consideration is the physical aspect of the gun - as it will control the way the bullet behaves much better than the chemicals will (the chemicals might have an effect on speed, but that is a minor detail at best with weaponry.) If we were talking muskets, that would be a whole different story.


Bear in mind that, at one time, most nations did not have the technology to make bullet resistant vests. Is that a good reason to ban guns?

Again, the differences of WMDs vs bullets.

Greetings.

We of Roathin humbly thank Forgottenlord for soiling his fingers with the chemicals versus bullets argument. We note that the Codex of the Merckleian Savant alone contains more than 10,000 classes or basic forms of organic chemicals with biological effects. There are fewer than 75 gun calibres in use since the advent of standardisation, and even fewer basic kinds of payloads. It is a fact that even if each bullet were to be considered a separate and individual entity, there would still be more possible individual toxic chemical compounds than all of those bullets.

:gundge:

Fellow deligates,

This is hardly the time to talk about the suspension of such an important industry. Chemical and Biological weaponsresearch is vital to the health programs of many nation states. without the government funding of these activities, many new medicines would never be researched. We must work together the secure our peoples, and our borders, against invaders and the biotech industry gives us the best deterrents at the lowest cost to our citizens.

VOTE NO!

There is no real difference between a “Chemical Weapon” and a chemical weapon that happens to include biological chemicals. Technically Petroleum is organic but I would not put Kerosene in that “Organic Burrito” at the health food store.

By Biological Weapons we are referring to, with most concern, to viruses and bacteria and fungi that can be unleashed in an area, or allowed even to spread over entire continents and the world. Generally speaking, the ones that kill quickly will not spread as far, like Ebola. Those that kill slowly and certainly will spread farthest. Some people will have habits or oddities that make them immune. Some people will be able to contract them and spread them without dying or die without spreading them. General biological weapons, are as countless as their RNA and DNA variations can be.

The primary concern being, that once unleashed, control of them is little, though more advanced, tailored Biological Agents, could be created that negate this. A Biological Agent could be created with genetic heuristics that only effects certain groups of people, or only reproduces a certain number of times by including the terminator gene which unravels after a certain number of mitoses. These are far less difficult to control and more controllable agents may come in to being, even and possibly including, the introduction on nano-technology.

These are matters that require research. We, of the civilized states, need to research this matter. We need to be able to respond, should those Primitive that are not amongst us screw up. One of them may get the bright idea to unleash something like Ebola across the planet and without the infrastructure in place to deal with it, we may be caught off guard and even using nuclear weapons to eradicate the source, the disease would already be in all of our cities. Maybe they could turn loose a fungus that devours all wood and destroy every forest on the planet leaving us without oxygen and it could take us too long to contain and eliminate it. We must be able to research this matter now, so we can predict likely situations and device preemptive solutions.

I am voting against the repeal of this resolution, for the following reasons already posted under the replacement resolution.

While I agree that the possession and use of biological weapons is dangerous, not only to the enemy, but also to one's friends and one's self, Kiloran believes that this resolution goes too far, for the following reasons:

250 mg is not enough of a sample to satisfy any researcher as to the effectiveness of any possible countermeasures or treatments. Researchers need to be able to keep samples of sufficient size to conduct effective countermeasure research.

The resolution forbids all economic contact with any nation that happens to posess biological weapons. This would require us to seriously restrict trade, and could destroy the economies of many 3rd world contries, even if they have no intention of ever using such weapons themselves. Even a country with no weapons whatsoever could be economically devistated by this resolution if they so much as buy an apple from a country who has biological weapons.

Finally, the restriction against military alliances with countries in possession of biological weapons would instantly put in violation all members of most existing alliances. For example, if just one member nation of NATO were found to have a biological weapon, every member of NATO would suddenly be in violation, just by association with this military alliance, and would be subject to sanction.

This prohibition could also create many situations in which gross human rights violations and war crimes go unabated, because to intervene would mean a violation of this prohibition. A powerful, aggressive country could invade a small, relatively defenseless nation who happens to still have some anthrax they haven't destroyed yet, summarily execute all of that country's children in the streets, and nobody could do anything about it because nobody would be allowed to come to the aid of a country in possession of anthrax.

In fact, I could write for hours on how the more barbaric countries of the world could exploit this resolution. It will only lead to chaos in the UN and must not be allowed to pass. We need a ban that bans the weapons themselves, and only the weapons.

Until such time as a better resolution is available, the current one will have to stand.

I will be abstaining on this resolution for sentimental reasons; although I support repealing and replacing the older resolution, it was proposed by a member of the Democratic Underground and I am loathe to suggest that contributions of members of the Democratic Underground be removed.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Until such time as a better resolution is available, the current one will have to stand.

Sorry, but at:

Votes For: 7,372
Votes Against: 1,806
Voting Ends: Tue Jun 28 2005

It's not likely to stand.

:gundge: see that green guy throwing green stuff?( :gundge: )
now what if a billion of these ... :gundge: ... were loaded into a bomb and dropped on your town. I bet you would be pretty :mad: about your descision to NOT ban biologiacle weapons. Then you would get upset and hurt yourself :headbang: ... then you would go. :upyours: Iraq for sendin this pakage... then you would fle to iraq like this :sniper: and shoot anyone doing this :mp5:


SO I VOTED YES TO BAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS

i do not think we should disspose of bio weapons and hand over our nations on a silver platter because every one else will have bio weapons so reconsider your votes and vote aginst gettin read of bio weapons and handing our nations over

:gundge: see that green guy throwing green stuff?( :gundge: )
now what if a billion of these ... :gundge: ... were loaded into a bomb and dropped on your town. I bet you would be pretty :mad: about your descision to NOT ban biologiacle weapons. Then you would get upset and hurt yourself :headbang: ... then you would go. :upyours: Iraq for sendin this pakage... then you would fle to iraq like this :sniper: and shoot anyone doing this :mp5:


SO I VOTED YES TO BAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS
(Score:4, Funny)

:gundge: see that green guy throwing green stuff?( :gundge: )
now what if a billion of these ... :gundge: ... were loaded into a bomb and dropped on your town. I bet you would be pretty :mad: about your descision to NOT ban biologiacle weapons. Then you would get upset and hurt yourself :headbang: ... then you would go. :upyours: Iraq for sendin this pakage... then you would fle to iraq like this :sniper: and shoot anyone doing this :mp5:


SO I VOTED YES TO BAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Ok, but how did you vote about the repeal to Bio-Weapons?

Originally Posted by the freshmen
:gundge: see that green guy throwing green stuff?( :gundge: )
now what if a billion of these ... :gundge: ... were loaded into a bomb and dropped on your town. I bet you would be pretty :mad: about your descision [sic] to NOT ban biologiacle [sic] weapons. Then you would get upset and hurt yourself :headbang:... then you would go. :upyours: Iraq for sendin this pakage [sic]... then you would fle [sic] to iraq like this :sniper: and shoot anyone doing this :mp5:

SO I VOTED YES TO BAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS
It's rather a shame that the U.N. can't ban smilies. More so ban the people who use them.

If you vote against does that make you against the weapons?

Mon Dieu!

Is that one sentence? My head hurts.

I reserve the right to ignore anything so badly written that I can't read it without taking two aspirin. Please write in proper English, or run your text through a proper translator if English isn't your first language.

frankly sir in all honesty i wasn't postin that for you, it was manly for the auther of the repal there for you need not hurt your little head on my bad english cause obviously context clues is something that's totally behind you i guess i left my spell check in my other computer.

Full Text of Resolution 16:



It makes no acception for research, does not define biological weapons and pretty much does....**** all.

but as it has been stated there is no represal for useing bio weapons in this law so there fore there can be none aginst reseach of bio weapons all i'm sayig is this. We need to protect are selfs from bio weapons how are we to do that with out the threat of bio weapon retaliton or with out bio weapons to research counter measures for.

agree with the repeal. #16 has no practical efectivness whatsoever, although it is a general statement i agree with, how did it pass as resolution? i understand that no amendments are allowed, but wouldn't there be any way to institute an amendingproposal session before voting on a resolution? or would that be too complicated and ineffective?
Salutations M v P.

frankly sir in all honesty i wasn't postin that for you, it was manly for the auther of the repal there for you need not hurt your little head on my bad english cause obviously context clues is something that's totally behind you i guess i left my spell check in my other computer.

It's not your spelling that's a problem. It's fairly good - I can still determin what the word was supposed to be. What is difficult is that it's a massive run on sentance with no punctuation. That makes it very difficult. That should be as follows (spelling not corrected)


Frankly sir, in all honesty, i wasn't postin that for you. It was manly for the auther of the repal. <s>there for</s> You need not hurt your little head on my bad english, cause obviously context clues is something that's totally behind you. I guess i left my spell check in my other computer.


I don't know about you, but I find that MUCH easier to read.

but as it has been stated there is no represal for useing bio weapons in this law so there fore there can be none aginst reseach of bio weapons all i'm sayig is this. We need to protect are selfs from bio weapons how are we to do that with out the threat of bio weapon retaliton or with out bio weapons to research counter measures for.

Well - we are trying to remove the old, useless resolution so we can hopefully implement one that is more effective - while still taking into consideration issues such as research and vaccines. The replacement resolution is circulating the forums.

agree with the repeal. #16 has no practical efectivness whatsoever, although it is a general statement i agree with, how did it pass as resolution? i understand that no amendments are allowed, but wouldn't there be any way to institute an amendingproposal session before voting on a resolution? or would that be too complicated and ineffective?
Salutations M v P.

We have an unofficial one going on - the replacement proposal (there's at least two now - but Reformatia, the submitter of the repeal, has the better one) is circulating the forums. There's too much of a gameplay issue to try and have anything else that circulates through the UN first.

I'd like to post the link, but I don't have time right now (though I might get a chance to send it to you in a few hours). However, others on the forums have posted it several times or you could just look through the UN forum.

Short of creating a virus/disease/etc that is specificly attuned to the DNA of the President in question (which I suspect would be difficult to obtain and I'd be interested to know how the heck you do that type of thing), I'm not sure I understand HOW you intend to take out the President of an opposing nation without killing anyone else (assuming no mutation). I believe that was what the idealistic comment was referring to so perhaps you can expand on that.

Try this fact: Our sensors can pick up temporal ships long before they actually approach. Scanning a person's DNA isn't that hard. Normally, we prefer to not deal with the temporal problem.

I don't think very many people would dispute the effectiveness of taking out an opposing leader.

Nor do I.

While I don't necessarily dispute this, I disagree HEAVILY about the analogy. A gun requires that you're standing there within sight distance of your opponent AND you can only take them down 1 or 2 at a time (sure, your gun may have 30 bullets, but each bullet is "manually" fired) and the effect of each bullet lasts for not even a second. On the other hand, WMDs on the whole take out vast numbers of people from the push of a single button, and their effect lasts a timeframe of minutes to years (or in the case of the FT WMDs - unmeasurable). This alone makes for a very important consideration.

Actually, you don't have to be within sight distance with a gun. That's what scopes are for. Nor are all bullets manually fired, as that's the job of the automatic aspect of many weapons. And a political assassination with a gun can cause decades of civil unrest and chaos, much like the Kennedy assassination has caused speculation.

Biological weapons have an added concern with propogation. I know you've been ridiculing the "quarantine" component of the replacement resolution, but short of either quarantine or one HECK of a fast acting bio-weapon, you have little guarantee that these weapons will not propogate in their effect beyond your own borders.

My main Earth territory is several miles underground. If the weapons get out of control, I'm not worried.

I think it's already been stated that "inteligence" and "logical" are not requirements to being a leader. What I'm getting at is assuming people know all the chemical interactions involved is a bit.....idealistic. Of course, here I'm suggesting that someone is just plain stupid and doesn't care, but there are other issues:

1) Lack of funding/time/careful consideration means that they only concentrate on whether it does what they want it to do or not. They probably test it against things they definately DON'T want it to do, but they may not test it about the things that are....not one of their main points of consideration. A poor example - I don't think the researches of CFCs investigated how it would react with air (or was it ozone?) before they released it onto the market - but it obviously had a bad consequeces. Imagine if you had a simple little mistake like that when you were releasting it
2) Quite frankly, the sheer insurmountability of determining EVERY single possible chemical reaction that could occur. Take your chemical weapon. React it with every single relevant element (ie: ones that are stable enough that you might encounter them), next react it with every single basic compound. Start working through the complex and the thousands - perhaps millions - of man-made compounds. Let's say that you find out it actually creates a reaction with a CD - and one of the products of that reaction.....well.....it does something else that's bad (yeah, I know, lack of specifics) and you keep going down the line of various reactions until you realize the sheer complexity of knowing EVERY SINGLE CONSEQUENCE of the chemical agent is pretty freaking hard (and with the way technology is moving - esp in the NS world - the difference in each person's tech makes it closer to impossible - I'm certain I'd have a hard time trying to figure out how a chemical reacts with the side plating of your plasma cannon).

Actually, the plasma cannon issue is an easy one. It's turned into plasma and shot forward when the cannon is active, or does nothing (unless it interacts with magnetic fields) the rest of the time.

As for knowing every single consequence: If you can't know, you probably shouldn't be using them.

Since the days when you had guns that started spinning their bullets - the biggest consideration is the physical aspect of the gun - as it will control the way the bullet behaves much better than the chemicals will (the chemicals might have an effect on speed, but that is a minor detail at best with weaponry.) If we were talking muskets, that would be a whole different story.

A little secret: Muskets are still guns. Consider how far they improved, and then tell me you honestly cannot see a nation improving its chemical weapons in a similar fashion.

250 mg is not enough of a sample to satisfy any researcher as to the effectiveness of any possible countermeasures or treatments. Researchers need to be able to keep samples of sufficient size to conduct effective countermeasure research.




For a chemical agent, 250 mg is not very much. For a biological agent, this is quite a bit, unless your idea of testing is infecting entire continents overnight through aerosolizing. If you need more, just cultivate another batch when you are finished with the first. Document everything of course, created or destroyed. Very important to keep track.

Try this fact: Our sensors can pick up temporal ships long before they actually approach. Scanning a person's DNA isn't that hard. Normally, we prefer to not deal with the temporal problem.

Now that's a Sci-fi concept I've never heard of before.....


Nor do I.

Actually, you don't have to be within sight distance with a gun. That's what scopes are for. Nor are all bullets manually fired, as that's the job of the automatic aspect of many weapons. And a political assassination with a gun can cause decades of civil unrest and chaos, much like the Kennedy assassination has caused speculation.


I suppose I should have gutted the argument when I brought it up - something to remember for next time.

Anyways:
1) There's a reason (actually, several) why armies generally are not comprised of just snipers. They are very effective against the odd individual. If you have a few snipers against an entire town, they'd have a harder time. Normal combat, you've got a sniper supporting troops (who are carrying auto or semi-autos)
2) Even with automatics - I've heard of 100 round clips - I suppose chain-guns can have fairly long rounds - but the scale of damage per person isn't a few million - heck it isn't even a thousand (and don't start talking about researchers - because we'll just have a war of counting up researchers that are relevant till the time that man invented fire).
3) I acknowledge that YOU have the technology to target specific people, but this resolution's biggest concern isn't the one that targets a person, it's the one that's designed to wipe out a city. I know no acceptions are made for your tech level, but I'd rather see a resolution that hits the lowest common denominator (which would be those that are pretty much stupid enough to poison themselves while studying these weapons and killing the entire planet in the process)


My main Earth territory is several miles underground. If the weapons get out of control, I'm not worried.

I'm more worried about the tourist that likes my lush forrests and cute squirrels (both for sightseeing and dinner).


Actually, the plasma cannon issue is an easy one. It's turned into plasma and shot forward when the cannon is active, or does nothing (unless it interacts with magnetic fields) the rest of the time.


Plasma cannons? When'd we start talking about those?


As for knowing every single consequence: If you can't know, you probably shouldn't be using them.


Again, lowest common denomintator. You and perhaps a few other FTs might have the computation and research capabilities to be able to guage them all (I doubt you even have that TBH), but considering the vast majority are MT or PMT, I am more concerned about them - and they DON'T have that kind of capability.


A little secret: Muskets are still guns. Consider how far they improved, and then tell me you honestly cannot see a nation improving its chemical weapons in a similar fashion.

Muskets only use a chemical reaction to determine velocity while the lethal part is still, inherently, physical. The problem was that they also depended on chemical reactions to determine accuracy rather than a physical component. With the advent of setting it to a physical component guaging the accuracy, the concern of the accuracy became dependant more on the biological component (the shooter) than anything else. This does not remove the initial argument: chemicals have unpredictable results.

Chemical weapons, on the other hand, depend on a chemical as the lethal component as opposed to a physical component. This is the reliability issue they possess.

I didn't really read everyone's responses, but it seems to me that this repeal is just a way of removing a negative connotation from biological weapons by taking away the resolution that does so. This kind of repeal is most likely proposed by some war-mongering dictatorship or other anti-human rights nation which seeks to USE these very weapons. I am against this repeal because when we want to change an ineffective law, we should amend it, and not remove it, as is done in the United States. Removing this law would leave us unprotected while we get the new one in place.

I didn't really read everyone's responses, but it seems to me that this repeal is just a way of removing a negative connotation from biological weapons by taking away the resolution that does so. This kind of repeal is most likely proposed by some war-mongering dictatorship or other anti-human rights nation which seeks to USE these very weapons.

I would be the "war mongering dictatorship" that proposed the repeal. Feel free to stop by my nation's homepage to see just how dictatorial my government is.

I'm also the "war mongering dictatorship" that has spent the last 2 weeks or so continuously revising this right here on these forums:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427821

Which is linked to in the opening post of this very thread.

I am against this repeal because when we want to change an ineffective law, we should amend it, and not remove it, as is done in the United States.

This is not the United States, this is the NSUN... where amending already passed resolutions is illegal.

In that case, I apologize. I'm new to international politics. However, although it is apparent I was wrong about the origins of this repeal, you must still understand that I believe it is a corollary that is necessary, and although I understand you are trying your best to time the vote for the new proposal close to the repeal, I must still say that an innefective law is better than no law at all, and the grace period being alloted to nations who may want to implement these weapons is simply unnacceptable. The international community must to learn to work around it's own innefectiveness. Surely a new resolution that zooms in on the issue is better.
I hope you understand the reason for my attack on this repeal, and while I may be arguing on a tangent, it is surely a plausible one.

In that case, I apologize. I'm new to international politics. However, although it is apparent I was wrong about the origins of this repeal, you must still understand that I believe it is a corollary that is necessary, and although I understand you are trying your best to time the vote for the new proposal close to the repeal, I must still say that an innefective law is better than no law at all,

With respect, an ineffective law is most certainly not better than no law at all. It is in fact worse. Not only does it fail to accomplish its goal (being inneffective) and in this sense being no better than having no law at all... due to UN regulations it additionally actually BLOCKS effective legislation on the matter because in order for such effective legislation to be passed someone has to first successfully repeal the inneffective resolution... then successfully pass a new resolution. So it doubles the work necessary for anyone to get effective legislation passed.

uhh...i voted for :sniper:

Bagged.

Votes For: 10860: New Orkland [2], Lv-3246 [6], Nevscrow [79], Kel Tamasheq [3], Svenor [3], Thermalania [2], Nendeln [126], Styrlands whamphri [6], Zyxibule [14], Raby [3], Paddyshire [4], Benneria [2], Worldia555 [2], Darpatia [4], The Imperial Raven [5], SOC Intelligence [6], Drewan [7], No-entry signs [2], Auxillia [4], Algorab [4], Blue Scorpions [3], The Liamic Kingdom [3], Naval Revolutionaries [4], Metal Crowd [2], Spaltonia [3], Blessed Isles [3], The House of Even [6], Honshuwa [3], Courtfield Gardens [2], Zealotos [2], The Imperials [7], -Andoland [7], Gabrones [2], Declavia [5], Fideland [4], BogPoetry [2], Mayve [5], Shibbynia [3], Nasqueron [2], Fuvzat Pus [2], Northern Pointe [2], The God Hilario [2], Mrs Jeffers [3], Jiangland [2], Republic of Freedonia [12], Barfieldslande [4], Bassainia [2], Pikostan [7], Zouloukistan [2], Tsukame [3], Uno Manapian [2], De Sienna [8], Plutonix [3], Athalazan [3], Palas Tallonis [2], Czardas [2], Pilantras [6], Teredona [4], Supernova Heights [2], Cav [3], Lorcadaka [3], Feathonia [5], Volumeamplify [2], Ghaard Allamia [7], Serinistad [12], Springsylvania [5], Askira [4], Teh DeaDiTeS [2], De Oppresso Liber [3], Bocelandia [4], Nutema [3], Oliverous [5], The Great Guid [5], Regurge-a-burger [5], Nachovia [3], Lucania Prime [8], Skrittany [5], Corkavia [4], Iznogoud [2], Borograd [4], First Bronson [3], Kyzarka [3], K to the C [2], Justice Eternelle [12], Spartha Rhineland [3], Walkers Grove [2], New Modern Egypt [5], Quails Land [3], World Utopia [5], Raderia [3], The ThunderDragon [2], Rumplica [7], Bonum commune hominis [5], Einerland [4], Ilmariaa [7], Krasitstan [3], A Greater Arabia [2], CNYSkinFan [8], Fuhr Jack [3], Regnon [5], South Penetanguishene [4], MegaWeh [2], Krostovia [4], Four One One [4], Actus Reas [3], Lisknatsiya [3], The Iroqouis [4], Spaz Land [2], Stasheck [3], East Strongbadia [16], NC-Z [15], Rikkie777 [2], Lacherton [2], Homo Republicans [2], Laotzutia [2], Utopia of Letty [2], The House of Ronin [5], Manhands [4], North Dutchfieldia [2], Esquire Land [2], Michelbeuern [4], Flibbleites [6], Nerrethans [8], Carainia [3], Big Rigs [3], Jedi Soccer Players [6], Microdell [2], Wijoronia [3], Keruvalia [4], Dorksonia [3], Hippio [4], Purpleation [6], Antrium [5], Lunatic Retard Robots [3], Mindist [3], Funkdunk [8], Upper Gornal [3], Jamaraqua [2], Othelma [5], Treithar [2], Hogs Head [8], Sceptical States [4], Yderia [12], Darth Mall [4], Hyperslackovicznia [3], Shocksvick [2], Iraqadelphia [5], Jezabell [2], Elika [3], Neogonda [2], Explosive Bears [2], Ravening Orcish Hordes [3], Wolfish [4], Jjuulliiaann [11], Sir Lafferlot [8], Blueshoetopia [10], Robert E Lee II [9], Diablum [14], Lries [2], Sipledome [5], New Secundus [4], Banjarmasin [2], Hamdonia [15], Reitschule [3], Hoo-Doo [3], StingingFlea [3], The Hunter Isles [4], Zancabar [3], Zhukhistan [29], Naboo27 [6], Metanobera [2], Pturbu [3], White power world wide [7], Twitcheldom [3], Kukutschka [3], The Inner Universe [2], Higher Thoughts [2], 11001100 [3], Refill Pad [3], Meshen85 [2], Pro- Yellow Skins [2], Avararda [4], Yelda [2], Blekastan [2], The Deep Jungle [2], Looneyhouse [4], Ostberlin [2], Velveta [3], Italia Major [4], Swishland [2], Felysial [5], Jandar [4], Stoszgesicht [5], SouEu [2], Yugocourtistan [2], Strobania [4], Horizona [7], Eloina [3], Kosli [3], Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis [5], Whitekong [6], North Central America [3], Minas Mordred [3], Vrone [2], Tonanashia [2], CiQuat [10], Demoskratos [3], Dazzaland [4], The Tri Alliance [4], Sidneypoon [3], IronForrge [2], Mabia [7], Klashonite [6], Beef country [2], Kalamynia [3], EfailFach [3], KualaLumpar [4], Ballyboughal [2], Homieville [9], Pawerse [2], Quasi-Queasy Bankers [4], Einfuhlung [6], Gallrinam [6], Computer Labs [7], Holy Diva [6], Tom Joad [5], Sprogdom [5], Conscribed Comradeship [2], Timewellspent [2], Arcanity [21], Foofangia [3], Daughrity [3], Tra Poland [2], The Cult of Pi [2], Chesterbridge [2], JujenDanq [11], Huor Faelivrin [9], Trotskys Icepick [2], Geekopolous [4], SPACEBASE [8], Haapalinna [2], Tom Quinn [6], Tamarata [5], Shipensberg [8], Arendstan [4], Novaya Zemlaya [3], Your Darkest Nightmare [4], Hershelopolis [4], Belle_of_the_ball [2], -Dutopia- [9], Nuclear Gerbils [2], Karmaja [2], Disenchanted Students [2], United Island Empires [5], Blamange [8], Cadima [3], Dizziness [2], Uzbekistan and Solomon [12], Ashira [4], Sadhu [3], Jesus wept [5], Tinis [8], Baroque Junkies [5], Cylea [5], Peihoiser [7], Irkalistan [3], Sugah Butto [2], Homoculus [3], Milination [2], Thermonuclear War [17], The Ethics Union [5], Asmodria [3], Boston Poonmangler [2], Omigodtheykilledkenny [7], Cemendur [5], Mibtania [2], Chaos Creators [3], Bladeshift [2], Fenrig [9], Macchiavellian Masons [12], Epsonee [2], Kebe [2], Brick Tamblin [2], Finbergia [3], The Ripple [14], Zero infinity [2], Haradin [2], President Wesley Jones [2], Terra Novo [3], People who cant spel [2], Comprehensible Discomu [5], New-Avalon [2], New Found Lands [6], Tactical PIE [29], Darkreigner [16], Longryu [4], Fitzzzzz [5], Anthropoid [2], Hepaslovakia [17], Randle-El [4], Gebirgsland [2], Brainy100111 [2], Charleno [5], YTMND [3], Newolda [4], Exoculo [4], Lord solaris [8], Julio Trigman [12], Ishkibible [3], Laylamerckistan [11], Ygkylzstan [6], Steez Gherkin [3], TomTomlandia [3], El Conz [3], United Necromancers [2], Wireless-1 [6], Squeakyness [5], Etnpm [4], Andaras Prime [12], FWEDD [4], Zamordyzja [2], Mommy D [2], Amir Shah [4], The Zeph [2], Fratercula [5], Surnamia [3], Orbsnet [2], Mt Thraxus [3], Demerra [5], KittyKatPlace [3], Shlaga [7], Sbrogzniacs [3], CTerryland [16], The Island of Eire [4], Rammsteinburg [2], Shikyrie [17], A Dose of Reality [3], Askalaria [11], Renkotoa [6], Dukakis-Bentsen [3], JennyChick [2], Tierra de Dea [2], LenninMarx [4], Wojcikiville [3], BlackWallstreet [2], AIM FOR THE X [2], Tripedius [2], Greater Tiki [6], Theorb [3], Naravostia [3], MoralMajority [3], Vastiva [21], Superfluous islands [2], Aquatnis [5], Torregal [2], Casuga [6], Domzalski [4], Tooheys Old [7], Southmoon [3], Bananamoose [7], Anda Carveria [3], Mehleesser [11], Erehwon Forest [21], Lunaria Mirandia [9], GodForbid [3], Jonezistan [11], Andolya [3], Tip Tap Paddy-Wack [3], Browniethe2nd [3], Hidlberg [4], Leylsh [3], The Three-Toed Sloth [3], Teutonic Reich [2], The Unarmed Peoples [7], Anishinabek [11], Kaushland [4], Sega RIP [12], Archanan [9], Mycos [2], Richard2008 [2], Neo-Pangaea [8], LeFleur [9], Blaming [2], The waki [2], Solencium [2], UndergroundRacing [12], Mythila [7], Weserkyn [3], Snorkyland [3], Suse Linux Land [2], Bearded Dragons [2], Kiepher [8], Arononia [4], Thorncraftland [8], Copious Coins [8], Libertarianada [16], Rustolian [2], Caltrans [20], Pooplaracha [3], The Proteus Guard [2], The Gondolindrim [2], God The Mighty Orange [3], Rialto [4], Lord-General Drache [3], Tenkistan [15], Bredense tribes [2], Trixsyn [3], Bellaclava [3], Zolthand [2], Dakota Land [5], The Fro Royal Family [35], Chiw [2], The Dark Hell [4], Jamesburgh [23], Evil leprachauns [6], Caltoni [3], Kirun Kierstaad [3], Abok [4], Wazzaville [4], Blayzzz [4], Barba001 [2], Voshen [3], Rosssophie [4], Groot Gouda [35], Golden Chaos [2], Behinds [5], Free Jedi Knights [3], Hashishim Emirates [3], Safeland [2], Enichov [3], Alexander Thomas Smith [2], Bassatopia [5], AnarchyZERO [2], Staunch [15], Chocomilkotopia [2], Homestar Land [8], Flaming Empire [2], Squidjia [2], Markodonia [8], Shiaze [2], Adamsylvania [9], Bindesualia [2], The Lankan Underworld [3], Sirocco [8], Timok [11], Garden Sheds [3], European Member States [3], Sivaprasadistan [3], Littlechefia [4], Takuma [2], Malcuthrad [2], Cheezylandia [2], Kooluk [4], The Real Carnage [6], PQ32 [3], EvieIsle [3], TheNeoDynasty [5], Annebeth [2], Bubville [3], Vinox [3], Domestic Lions [3], Krioval [7], Campus Magnus [2], Boo Hamster [2], Ship Kappa Sigma [3], Tennegus [3], Andyman II [17], Vlagmar [3], Uberlavia [3], Htous Aerok [2], Prox9 [8], Banana Tree [3], Turneffe [2], The Trench [5], Vincimus [3], Arkimus [2], TUBAHO [2], Asmodeous [2], Nattyworld [7], Jerikedungh [2], Bursuctopia [3], Poppuli [2], Right Wing Facism [3], The big nation [5], Phoond Phools [5], The Allied Soviets [10], Towa-no-Yoru [4], Juthopia [2], RGC [2], Kyldrana [5], Aku aku [3], Goatslavochivich [3], Tunafish Sandwich [2], The Severed Thumb [6], Deadly People [4], The snakepit [3], Constopia [2], Fairbanks North Star [5], Francaden [4], ETopps [4], Blue Floyd [5], Nethan [3], White Plus [3], Spec of Thought [3], Highlers [3], Draconomia [5], Vashutze [3], Lucky Sevens [2], Republic of Peoples [4], Loranian Alliance [2], North Island [3], Reynald de Chatillon [4], New Abaddon [3], McGranaghanataria [6], Bagder Badger Badger [2], Vniversity [8], Mattabooloo [13], Caseylvania [14], MastahBlastah [5], Ceti Alpha 5 [3], Pompey FC [6], Stankistia [3], Manea [4], Symria [2], The Dead Hordes [3], Lancaster of Wessex [6], Woodwinds [9], Nevermoore [3], Fridolph [2], Post Arabia [6], Rosthern [2], Cleopatricia [6], SettlementVille [2], Ginnoria [8], Secondzflat [3], Allerondt [2], Trexia [7], SSCT Land [2], Casp [3], Funeralis Tepes [3], Of Cascadia [4], His Majesty [66], Trylasis [5], JPB Industries [2], The Golden Legion [2], Elhannan [2], Tatuk [2], Uber Menschen [3], Mans0nites [5], Venerable libertarians [6], Magna_Cartman [2], Band-Geektonia [2], Fenure [7], Mighty Boom [3], Freoff [3], Martian Empire907 [7], Tibrekis [3], Ngaire [2], The Planet Federation [2], Doomed Worlds [3], Conservative Haters [2], Huehuete [3], Nesseril [3], LouFerringoland [2], Kumfistan [2], Sonic The Hedgehogs [12], The All Powerful Scuka [2], Samorr [5], Chibin [2], Jalopy6 [2], Myrddyn [3], The Dragon Queens [2], Primagenia [2], Great Breton [3], Mariusgrad [2], Dreisden [16], Dreedan [6], Elima [2], The Demonic Squirrels [3], Herbach [2], Wealthists [9], Obstinacy [2], The Father-Land [5], Concert [5], Capitalist White Men [6], Fusion-Ztech [3], P_nade [5], Lucazmodei [10], Hektorland [2], Fenor [3], Pantocratoria [3], Bogdog [4], Uninhibited Freedom [2], Hegartydom [7], Kralia [3], Edwub [4], New Endenia [3], SovietRepublicofRussia [2], SteamEngine [5], Der Mannia [8], Jimbob the Jingoistic [9], Subversa [2], Pie Loveing People [3], New Maastricht [4], Stickman Nine [3], Euphavias [2], Uthai [3], -Draconia- [3], Domino Muthaf- -ka [4], Male Love [5], Poohoobootoo [3], Alameda Af Henriques [2], Hasharii [2], The Heavenly Mandate [3], Lord Chicken [3], Lord Dragonclaw [3], Dippit [6], Swan nation [7], Lior Liechtenstein [2], Ethlacor [2], Filiplandia [5], Gilabad [2], San Timetheos [32], Spoon Bitch [3], Encephelon [2], Mucilania [4], AllThatIsUnholy [7], The Talisman [2], Serenitacious Sereness [7], White straith coconuts [4], Crystall Tokyo [2], The Pojonian Puppet [3], Foospance [3], United Republic Nation [3], Simonist [2], Fundamental Forces [2], Tolstoists [2], Fnool [5], Wildtypes [6], Fenouil [3], The Burning Heart [2], Drizuz [5], Aryavartha [20], DSM-IV [24], Tonewoods [2], Beerhood [3], Nakoto [4], Tal Maritima [2], Communist Louisiana [2], M-jenville [2], The House of Arch [4], Howard Wong [2], Helenaaaa [2], The Great Bud [6], Benea [24], Coleria [2], The Bluelight [5], Wdig [3], SVS [3], Elgvegen [2], New Al Sahla [14], The Goldest Horde [2], Cuzzbin [3], Luckmonia [6], Libero Populus [2], Atilantias [3], The Anti Chavs [3], Answered Question [10], Ushani [2], USMN [3], The USSE [2], Bretonnian Europa [4], ChangCorp [3], KnarfWorld [2], Suuropolis [4], Poptartrea [2], The real DragonFyre [3], The doomed world [2], My Monsterous Bumcheek [2], Battle Island [3], America-Canada-Mexico [25], Daggersdale [2], GodsPlace [2], Myotismon [2], Eisen-Hammer [4], Jugaria [10], Memnoch88 [4], Endalor [8], Starps [11], Entracounty [2], Ghutam [3], Coquetvia [2], Brainfreeze [3], Knorfladshgeff [4], Yurislavia [2], Danielledom [2], Technocratic Thought [3], Smallpocks [2], Yellow Dolphins [7], The Waffle King [4], Alpha Prime 0x00000000 [6], Starrtopia [2], Gods Own Drunk [2], The Never Dieing Power [2], -Atlantis [2], Cuxil [2], Avios [2], Maciavely [3], Deutschriche [2], Balandick [3], Israelities et Buddist [2], Namreg [2], Gluckman [2], Demokrasy ToWN [5], Da Kingz of Crunk [2], A Nation Near You [3], The Interesting Isles [3], Joestralia [3], Marcom [2], The Henchman Union [6], New Matrex [2], Xaidan [3], Sel Appa [4], Timerlane [2], Alean [5], Glanyya [2], Grinchland [3], Utter Brocklebanks [3], PenPenLand [4], The Necromangers [2], CRM [5], Liongate [2], Tambien [3], Anarchist Canuckistan [2], Kleinekatzen [10], Tir [3], Cooleman [3], Datigua [3], Caretech [29], Adamith [2], Chocolate Fishies [2], Szuhuoko [3], Asrania [2], ANT Lab [2], Jerrysworth [3], Galliana [2], Mgd966 [2], Freedmark [4], ROTC Cadets [6], Nerdy Uber Geeks [3], Roathin [8], Dalisair [2], Samohtian Love [2], Malagassia [3], Shooting Star Valley [3], Furry chickens [2], Garnilorn [2], Violent Threats [2], New England II [2], Jacobins IV [2], Guditushuz [2], Icha [18], Higashiosaka [7], The scrofitz [3], Clymerstan [3], Ethernal damnnation [5], Foxenburg [4], Arlona [4], Renardinia [9], Enrosol [4], Suant [4], Flagellumpa [4], Lemontree isles [2], Lydania [4], Abilenia [2], Erisian Diskordia [2], Quedas [9], Norvikeland [7], Opressive Capitalism [2], Krankor [13], Bleurgh [3], Bleedin_Hearts [3], Lyla [2], The Care Bears FOO [2], Cosmic Echoes [9], Veneterra [2], Space Union [2], Honesty X [5], Youth of pod [2], Jeffibajian [4], Spooney [2], Free World Trade [2], Ultrasilvania [2], Do not disturb [2], DraDra [9], Kenmir [4], Crucipatainia [2], Saint Gulik [2], Stolakia [2], Jeianga [100], Stumpy Midgets [10], Jaghur [2], Kluster [6], Neliana [3], Damestag [4], Whereverweare [8], Calabraxia [6], Dark997895 [2], Holy Land of Palestine [2], The Cristal Rose [4], Figueira da Foz [3], Castle Cool People [2], Emory [46], Jebulon [4], FC Dallas [2], Better than Norwiegia [2], Faerin II [215], Short Welsh People [3], Janistania [2], Musicatopia [4], Skoda Drivers [6], Atlantitania [2], TheSamurai [4], The Shadow-Kai [3], Inasec [2], Lopij [3], Averbon [3], The Raven Islands [3], North Andrewsia [2], Stars of Sky [365], Hanaukyo [2], Mataichi [5], Michaelic France [2], Chamishah [3], Liberal Fascism [4], Boston [3], Danelagen [2], Rimyan [2], Dorkium [5], Old Stantonia [4], Practical Ambiguity [3], MegMayhem [6], The Bud [12], Trans-Union States [7], Izalium [4], Carisbrooke [70], Driftshock [2], Jimoria [4], The Grand Mystic [25], Du Has [7], Bernardi [4], Greater Holloway [5], Endil [2], Kieristania [2], Penton Rise [10], Sincroferbistan [41], Tolaka [3], NeoAsiaEuropa [4], A Thousand Fountains [7], Sinsvyka [18], Corneil [3], Jonathalia [10], Smythedom [6], Tundwe [3], Meshuggeners [4], Catronia Marks [2], Ottawa County [2], Nosedondekistan [62], ChronicD [2], Mikeswill [172], Monadnock [70], Kanteria [5], Acculturation [2], Grandura [6], RAVEN HAIRED MAIDEN [30], Norkshwaneesvik [4], Ophainia [4], Novantus [12], The Floodcity [7], FraserMI [11], Qwertymop [4], Nenuial [3], Carpentia [3], Entcepatiolis [5], The Upper Southside [5], Mountana [5], Shrimpy [4], Wolfwood [2], Caer Rialis [372], Imperialistic Kadstan [8], Baribeau [24], Ojacid [11], Bryianzum[2], Kandarin[134], Nova Capitalia[2], Serbenia[4], Roman Republic[9].

Votes Against: 2902: North Koster [4], Hunters Killers [6], CZJ [2], The Giant Bee [2], Philbe [3], Tannu Tuval [14], Athicia [3], Weed Central [3], Rlyeh [2], Crotchless Dwarves [6], Kvearen [2], Lorel [5], Geneville [9], Victories [4], Gaiah [18], Konte [3], Boise and Nampa [19], Beld [4], Surdarellian [2], Metzen [4], The 45 Cal [3], Nick52B [2], Chretiendom [2], Utopian Thoughts [12], Enshadowed [3], Shatford Valley [7], Fallowat [2], Scotlandiana [3], Utopian Id [8], Trum [2], Pompous world [2], Karaghord [3], Zirai [2], New Monkeymania [5], George Norman [3], DocMan [2], Ai2 [3], Luruar [6], Figue [6], Rostum [3], South Lake Tahoe [2], Tramformador [2], Trois Pont [4], Tiber City [3], Lord Rayman [6], Quillota [4], Pum pum [2], Quemarie [2], The Tyan Empire [3], The UA [3], The Azurite Empire [3], Narcisis [5], Miss [17], Whipjangle [7], -Stan [5], Bebopthehamster [4], Crookstopia [3], Pryussa [2], Dolphania [3], DeluxeModels [7], The Love Pinto [2], Erridan [3], Senseless Aggression [4], Substantial Influence [2], Ferris High [2], Nelistan [2], Thatsallmine [2], Uberwald [2], Nosbocaj [3], Tropfest [5], Heddiw [2], Oilsjt [5], Ozin [2], Niodonia [2], Sargonastan [4], Donutty [4], Caffeinated Beverages [2], JayRoddia [2], Threethazz [2], Hedley Lamar [2], Ilyich [6], Lakin-Kohn [4], Jacob_is_our_king [2], Fantastical Dave [9], Mendelgar [3], Ruthie the Great [2], Craterous [2], Chest Hair [2], Svalberg [3], Sexy Hockey Slavics [4], FAS DILATO PIO PI [3], Mike Tedesco [3], Robinski [2], Ex pornstar hobos [2], Medved [5], Sigrism [4], OBSA [4], The Maritime Alps [4], Islamic Vatican City [4], Neo-Facist Oppressors [2], England and Denmark [2], Ertitta [3], Rototan [2], Muffalopadus [4], Mighty-Mousia [2], Star Wars II [2], Kluane [10], Puppetters [3], Tell-El-Amarna [5], Midsgard [2], Northern Keldavia [2], Trabay [6], Die Faust [2], Cornflake Gremlins [2], Leffler Idols [2], Inner Outer Freedonia [4], Great Scuttland [2], Holy guy [2], The WYN starcluster [2], Iustinia [6], Lombary-Genoa [4], Crazy ape land [2], Foxcoon [2], Callisdrun [2], Olthoi Infantry [15], The Derrak Quadrant [27], New Schaffhausen [2], Rick8925 [2], John Frusiante [2], Kryschanka [2], Aligned Planets [38], Cognitio [10], Ulstrup [2], Chazzistan [8], Night Lude [6], Moroboshi [3], Xenaopia [2], Albertopolis [5], Hawkanagous [4], Utilesvania [8], Penguinslovakia [7], Vlaadtopia [2], Windleheim [3], SACBGTAASA [3], Corradeo [3], Teatroia [2], Dorig [2], Joshuaous Ramoses [4], Garlie [3], SunderlandAFC [3], Beer-drinking [3], Bolshevikum [4], Erroneous Errol Island [24], Vlorph [5], Miju [2], Lokiaa [3], Dioxin [5], Malaric [2], Rotovia- [3], Neo-Carpathia [2], Mirmuranski [2], Tarphos [6], CLU [7], Crazy Horses IV [52], Zfeltor [2], Chackey- [2], Roblyvania [6], Mattie Bear [3], Dowiniowe [2], Tsaristic Russia [2], Cubamaster [4], United Marxist Truth [9], Ciorrastan [6], Frankenland [5], Dervechnaya [5], Steel and Metal [2], Zombie Warlords [3], Rolling Stone [59], Unknown Peoples [7], Cumanan [2], Phazania [11], SoCal_Cymru [6], Saorstat [7], Kyndcat [5], Stenistand [2], Binzer [7], Fatus Maximus [3], Rights of Humanity [2], Squatia [2], Dementhia [3], Richardsky [3], Gadsby-Rose [9], Devmath [2], Great Computers [2], Nellidom [9], Cleistheneism [7], Orioni 2 [71], Switzerstan [62], Checkers McDog [99], Zyne [2], 1 Infinite Loop [403], Kelsadia [2], Armed Forces Gamma[4],

Though I believe that abolishing weapons of mass distruction is a terrific idea in and of the fact that it promotes peace and security, I am somewhat terrified of what happens between the repeal of ban and the institution of a new ban. I am not in favor of BioWeapons. Without any resolution banning these weapons in effect, then any nation can stock pile the weapons in the interim, can't they? This will also give the rogue states a chance to push against the future, more effective ban.

I truly believe the current ban is grossly inadequate. There has to be, however, something done to cover the timespan between bans. Otherwise, someone could launch a BioWar and NOT be in breach of the United Nations rules.

Christopher Danelutti,
President, United States of Meteorologica

If they do the U.N. can write them an angry e-mail calling them gay. Or maybe sanctions or miltary action (maybe U.N. member states could bomb launch sites and susupected stock pile loactions, whatever).

The Anticapitalist Alliance has voted 8-0 in favour of repeal, with no abstentions. Consequently, in its capacity as ACA regional delegate, the Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia casts its 42 votes FOR the repeal of 'Elimination of Bio Weapons'.

Congratulations, Reformentia, on what looks like being a successful campaign.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Though I believe that abolishing weapons of mass distruction is a terrific idea in and of the fact that it promotes peace and security, I am somewhat terrified of what happens between the repeal of ban and the institution of a new ban. I am not in favor of BioWeapons. Without any resolution banning these weapons in effect, then any nation can stock pile the weapons in the interim, can't they? This will also give the rogue states a chance to push against the future, more effective ban.

I truly believe the current ban is grossly inadequate. There has to be, however, something done to cover the timespan between bans. Otherwise, someone could launch a BioWar and NOT be in breach of the United Nations rules.

Christopher Danelutti,
President, United States of Meteorologica

Absolutely nothing can stop them in terms of law.

i agree on that. the world history proves it beyond any doubt. as long there is no will to obey a set of common values and principles, as long as players are not ready to play by the rules, there is always a way around a legislative ban, no matter how many pages it covers.
and i also think, as a newbie, that some NS players are taking the arguments against the effectiveness of a thoruogh ban of bio-weapons a little bit too far on the sci-fi side. for what it is worth, i am on your side Reformentia. :p
salutations
M v P

i agree on that. the world history proves it beyond any doubt. as long there is no will to obey a set of common values and principles, as long as players are not ready to play by the rules, there is always a way around a legislative ban, no matter how many pages it covers.
and i also think, as a newbie, that some NS players are taking the arguments against the effectiveness of a thoruogh ban of bio-weapons a little bit too far on the sci-fi side. for what it is worth, i am on your side Reformentia. :p
salutations
M v P

Even if you somehow made it so that there was absolutely NO loopholes whatsoever, there is still the godmodders who will do things like, "I have left the heads of UN Weapons Inspectors on the gates to my capital city. Just TRY and take my bio-weapons."

Its not like these resolutions have any REAL effect on the game. But as for this issue as for as real life is concerned?
Here's how I see it.

There are two titanic countries in the global arms market today: the U.S. and great Britain. The U.S. sells the most weapons and Great Britain the second most.

Whats ironic is that both of these nations are trying to stop the use of chemical weapons and of land mines. Sounds good right?

The problem with that is, if countries can't get bio-weapons and land mines, they have no choice but to simply buy weapons that are even worse( i.e. cluster bombs) Does that help the world. Great Britain and the U.S. maybe, since they'd probably be the ones selling these f***ed up weapons, but not the world. So my vote on this resolution is Yes.

Its not like these resolutions have any REAL effect on the game. But as for this issue as for as real life is concerned?
Here's how I see it.

There are two titanic countries in the global arms market today: the U.S. and great Britain. The U.S. sells the most weapons and Great Britain the second most.

Whats ironic is that both of these nations are trying to stop the use of chemical weapons and of land mines. Sounds good right?

The problem with that is, if countries can't get bio-weapons and land mines, they have no choice but to simply buy weapons that are even worse( i.e. cluster bombs) Does that help the world. Great Britain and the U.S. maybe, since they'd probably be the ones selling these f***ed up weapons, but not the world. So my vote on this resolution is Yes.

As much as I appreciate the vote in favor of my repeal, that seemed a rather confused argument.

In what bizarre world are cluster bombs worse than biological weapons? A miniscule sample of a bioweapon released into a population can wipe out countless people. The nastier ones could depopulate multiple countries at a single shot making absolutely NO distinction between combatants, noncombatants, children, etc... in the process. A clusterbomb can only kill whoever it's dropped on, or if any bomblets remain unexploded whoever is unfortunate enough to trip one off later at that exact location.

Be clear on this, the only reason this resolution is being repealed is that it was completely inneffective and there was no point leaving it in place. There is widespread intention to replace it with a resolution that IS effective.

we, in the state of rockarolla, vote for the resolution

As much as I appreciate the vote in favor of my repeal, that seemed a rather confused argument.

In what bizarre world are cluster bombs worse than biological weapons? A miniscule sample of a bioweapon released into a population can wipe out countless people. The nastier ones could depopulate multiple countries at a single shot making absolutely NO distinction between combatants, noncombatants, children, etc... in the process. A clusterbomb can only kill whoever it's dropped on, or if any bomblets remain unexploded whoever is unfortunate enough to trip one off later at that exact location.

Be clear on this, the only reason this resolution is being repealed is that it was completely inneffective and there was no point leaving it in place. There is widespread intention to replace it with a resolution that IS effective.
dont forget that cluster bombs have this little thingy called depleted uranium...and it causes cancer to people even far away from the actual bombings...Also, who said that cluster bombs do discriminate between whom theyl kill and whom they wont....mind you Americans used them in serbia and iraq (2 times) and the civilians killed where much more than the military personell

dont forget that cluster bombs have this little thingy called depleted uranium...

Since when? Depleted uranium tends to be used for high density armor piercing rounds. Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons with no reason to incorporate it.

and it causes cancer to people even far away from the actual bombings...

Not that far away. A bioweapon released in China could take out your next door neighbour in Ohio...

Also, who said that cluster bombs do discriminate between whom theyl kill and whom they wont....

Nobody. However the people dropping them at least have the option of aiming them away from civilians. Not so with bioweapons. And if they go unexploded the most collateral damage you can do is one unintended explosion per bomblet. A bioweapon just keeps going itself. There is no upper limit to the potential for collateral damage excepting the total annihilation of all possible hosts.

Bioweapons are orders of magnitude beyond cluster bombs in destructive potential, and they're inherently uncontrollable on top of it.

Reformentia:

Cluster bombs ARE dipped in low-grade uranium, and thus can cause widespread cancer. I just used cluster bombs as an example. My point was that by trying to be CERTAIN kinds of weapons, countries are only exacerbating the problem. I am obviously not down with rogue nations having bio weapons. But if you think about it, countries are going to get weapons from other countries regardless. And if they can't get bio-weapons, as I said before, they'll simpler have to front the cash for things that are WORSE than bio-weapons.

Yes, I am a newbie, but believe that I haven't taken the argument too far or too sci-fi. The truth is that without anything binding in the UN, to which all member countries are required to follow, anyone could build a BioWeapon stockpile. The Rogue nations will ALWAYS find a way. That's not something you have control over.

I am supporting Reformentia on this issue and have cast my vote to repeal the ban, however, I am still am apprehensive about the interim time period until a new resolution is brought up for a general vote.

Ladies and Gentlemen stick a fork in this one, it is done.
Last UN Decision

The resolution Repeal "Elimination of Bio Weapons" was passed 12,663 votes to 3,199.

We'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Reformentia on getting this repeal passed, and wish him the worst of luck with the replacement.:)

We'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Reformentia on getting this repeal passed, and wish him the worst of luck with the replacement.:)

Your congratulations is accepted in the dichotomous nature in which it was presented...

I wish to thank the representative from Reformentia for the message transmitted to myself earlier today, and will support efforts to replace the previous resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador