NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic States of Grandura, NOTING the negative consequences that will likely be brought upon the government of Grandura, challenge this repeal.

Please, note the positive effects that the resolution brings about. People sleep better in their beds at night knowing that the United Nations, and it's member nations, is there to protect them from the use of Chemical weapons, biological weapons, and other form of treachery that is involved with war-making. And in the end, it is our job.. no, our obligation to ensure the safety of our world as it stands, not to bring a new sense of terror to it.

The United Nations is in place to battle against everything this proposal stands for. Once the ban on chemical weapons becomes nonexsistant, what next? Nuclear arms, black market sales of chemical weapons to terrorist, biological arms? The chain will be unending.

I call upon other nations in agreement with the Democratic States of Grandura to stand and speak against this repeal. This repeal goes against everything we as a international governing body stands for, and the Democratic States of Grandura will not stand for it. Let your voices be heard!

The Democratic States of Grandura, NOTING the negative consequences that will likely be brought upon the government of Grandura, challenge this repeal.

Which one? There are multiple attempts going on, with only one that I know of having actual organization. You'll need to say which one you are against.

Please, note the positive effects that the resolution brings about.

~Snicker~ ~Snicker~

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

~Wheeze~

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

~Wheeze~

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What positive effects? It has so many loopholes in it that all it has done is cause most delegates to blink before going back to what they were doing.

People sleep better in their beds at night knowing that the United Nations, and it's member nations, is there to protect them from the use of Chemical weapons, biological weapons, and other form of treachery that is involved with war-making.

Chemical weapons are still technically legal to produce and use thanks to a loophole, biological weapons are still common among UN members thanks to another loophole, and all of the other treacheries of war remain. In other words, nothing has changed.

And in the end, it is our job.. no, our obligation to ensure the safety of our world as it stands, not to bring a new sense of terror to it.

No, it is our obligation to look out for our people and how we can protect ourselves. The rest of that is a nice goal, but doesn't get anywhere if someone that doesn't have to worry about your rules destroys you.

The United Nations is in place to battle against everything this proposal stands for.

We did not see that in any of the papers we had to sign when we joined. Nor do we see it in the rules of the UN.

Once the ban on chemical weapons becomes nonexsistant, what next? Nuclear arms, black market sales of chemical weapons to terrorist, biological arms? The chain will be unending.

Nuclear arms are one of the most common weapons around today, chemical weapons are still being used and sold by many UN nations, and many biological arms simply got reclassified and remain in use. The chain is already unending.

I call upon other nations in agreement with the Democratic States of Grandura to stand and speak against this repeal. This repeal goes against everything we as a international governing body stands for, and the Democratic States of Grandura will not stand for it. Let your voices be heard!

What do we as a body stand for? More importantly, where did you find the information that outright says what the UN stands for? Oppose a repeal all you like, but repeal or not the production and use of chemical weapons will continue.

When was the last time Chemical weapons actually WORKED as a deterrent? Nuclear Weapons, sure, but chemical?

Chemical weapons help no one.

When was the last time Chemical weapons actually WORKED as a deterrent? Nuclear Weapons, sure, but chemical?

The last time DLE ever encountered a threat. There's nothing as convincing of the other side's military superiority as watching your fighter planes fly into a cloud and the planes literally eaten as they enter. Completely harmless to nonmetals, allowing for the pilots to potentially survive.

Apologies - I need to retract that comment as I keep forgetting that "rl" history is irrelevant to NS.

The last time DLE ever encountered a threat. There's nothing as convincing of the other side's military superiority as watching your fighter planes fly into a cloud and the planes literally eaten as they enter. Completely harmless to nonmetals, allowing for the pilots to potentially survive.

While that is appealing, DLE, what happens when there's a nutjob on the block that decides they want to create something that will actually harm human beings, and not use it as a deterrant?

And for the enviromentally conscious: Think about what the governments that develop chemical weapons have to test them on. Animals, forests, anything they have developed it for - I can't imagine, however, a country going as far as testing a chemical agent on human beings (God Forbid).

The Democratic Nation of Grandura should however note: We will happily support a reform of the Resolution, to close the loopholes and seal any gaps the UN sees fit to.

While that is appealing, DLE, what happens when there's a nutjob on the block that decides they want to create something that will actually harm human beings, and not use it as a deterrant?

With the wording of the current chemical ban, what honestly makes you think they won't do it anyway? Afterall, doing it at this point would be perfectly legal, as the wording of the ban supports the idea the ban only applies to chemical weapons around at the exact moment it was passed.

And for the enviromentally conscious: Think about what the governments that develop chemical weapons have to test them on. Animals, forests, anything they have developed it for - I can't imagine, however, a country going as far as testing a chemical agent on human beings (God Forbid).

Actually, I can. Human beings are pretty much among the best test subjects for it. And, if they are all volunteers, it's perfectly legal.

With the wording of the current chemical ban, what honestly makes you think they won't do it anyway? Afterall, doing it at this point would be perfectly legal, as the wording of the ban supports the idea the ban only applies to chemical weapons around at the exact moment it was passed.



Actually, I can. Human beings are pretty much among the best test subjects for it. And, if they are all volunteers, it's perfectly legal.

Sir, how immorally debaunched can you be? Testing chemical weapons on Human beings has to be the lowest of things I've heard in this discussion today.

(For purposes of earlier, I forgot to mention I'll happily support a reform of the resolution. But taking it out all together is not a good thing. I went and put that in my earlier post.)

As far as it goes.. I believe that such behaviors by any member nation should be brought to the attention of the floor, so appropriate acton can be taken. Slaughtering people that may not understand what they are getting into is wrong, immoral, cruel, and frankly, disturbing to even think about.

Sir, how immorally debaunched can you be?

We don't view it as immoral. There is nothing immoral about death. We view it as illegal if the test subjects are not volunteers. We have extremely permissive euthanasia clauses, and in some cases people will be willing to test a variety of weapons in exchange for being allowed to die as a result. Typically, we prefer the nonpainful and instantly lethal kind of weapons, though the kinds that are harmless to human beings we also somethings test before euthanizing with a different method.

Testing chemical weapons on Human beings has to be the lowest of things I've heard in this discussion today.

Lowest? Then you haven't seen some of what we have to say about the actions of our ancestors.

(For purposes of earlier, I forgot to mention I'll happily support a reform of the resolution. But taking it out all together is not a good thing. I went and put that in my earlier post.)

Pretty much, a reform of the resolution is impossible. Too many of us oppose weapons legislation due to external threats.

[wuote]As far as it goes.. I believe that such behaviors by any member nation should be brought to the attention of the floor, so appropriate acton can be taken. Slaughtering people that may not understand what they are getting into is wrong, immoral, cruel, and frankly, disturbing to even think about.[/QUOTE]

Personally, I find the words "Warning! You will die as a result of this test!" to be quite informative, especially as they are bolded and in capital letters on the forms that must be filled out. Considering this is a method of euthanasia, we try to make sure those undergoing it fully understand exactly what is going to happen and that they will not walk out of the test room alive.

We don't view it as immoral. There is nothing immoral about death. We view it as illegal if the test subjects are not volunteers. We have extremely permissive euthanasia clauses, and in some cases people will be willing to test a variety of weapons in exchange for being allowed to die as a result. Typically, we prefer the nonpainful and instantly lethal kind of weapons, though the kinds that are harmless to human beings we also somethings test before euthanizing with a different method.



Lowest? Then you haven't seen some of what we have to say about the actions of our ancestors.



Pretty much, a reform of the resolution is impossible. Too many of us oppose weapons legislation due to external threats.

As far as it goes.. I believe that such behaviors by any member nation should be brought to the attention of the floor, so appropriate acton can be taken. Slaughtering people that may not understand what they are getting into is wrong, immoral, cruel, and frankly, disturbing to even think about.

Personally, I find the words "Warning! You will die as a result of this test!" to be quite informative, especially as they are bolded and in capital letters on the forms that must be filled out. Considering this is a method of euthanasia, we try to make sure those undergoing it fully understand exactly what is going to happen and that they will not walk out of the test room alive.[/QUOTE]

Then what happens when a test goes ... per se... 'wrong?' What happens when instead of ending up with a pile of dead bodies, you end up with a pile of disfigured or horribly maimed figures? What if they decide that if they can't die in the test, they don't want to die at all, but will have to live with horrible disfigurment?

Chemical Weapons are generally introduced, after a conflict has already begun, as so many of us tend to focus on things other than weapons until war is already staring us in the face, at which point we rush production without reasonable safeguards in the hopes that we have not stupidly condemned ourselves to bondage through military negligence.

Like Biological weapons, chemical weapons do have a deterrent effect, of the sort that attacking a country, will lead to more damage than the conquest itself might be worth. Or as is more often the case, that the risk involved is worth more to us, than the well being of the poor peasants currently being dissolved in a cloud of toxic goop by a tin pot dictator. Chemical Weapons do not have the “you would not trade your capital for mine” deterrence that nuclear weapons pose, but remain the poor man’s deterrent.

They also remain the plaything for rogue states that continue to merrily eradicate their poor and politically uncooperative populations while we argue about how we can best make ourselves helpless.

“Agent Testing” is usually small scale. Civilized countries use dumb animals in hermetically sealed test chambers. Crazed dictators test agents on political prisoners, mostly liberals who voted for these sorts of bans before their countries were taken over. Delivery systems can be tested with dummy aerosols and placebos.

The ultimate test, comes when the Horde is pounding at your gates. They outnumber your people two hundred and forty to one. They are crudely armed but their greatest weapons are the hatred they have for your people and the blood thirst that has driven them their entire lives. They were trained from the cradle to fight, raised on aspirations of slaughter and bloodshed. They have swept over dozens of countries, reducing great civilizations to dust. Today they have come for you.

Outside your fortified walls, those who could not enter quickly enough are being eaten, trampled under foot, smashed in to the earth and rended limb by limb, screaming as the Torturers of the Hordes find new ways to amuse themselves with human suffering. It will take them weeks to die and their wails send shivers through the hearts of your soldiers, though their courage does not fail, the thought of what awaits those who are defeated drives them on.

They have seen their homes ransacked, their loved ones dead, their children mutilated, they know they have to fight today. They fire their weapons in to the swarms, but for every one that falls, three more rush forward in their place. Their grubbers rip in to the bodies of their fallen, the rot that sets in, often before they are even dead, serves to make a rank foeter. They use it to poison your water, your rivers, your wells and irrigation ditches and what remains, they fire at you as ammunition.

Your tanks, they overwhelm. Your aircraft, they replenish their numbers faster than you can kill them. Your brave soldiers, they are buried beneath the crawling, grappling savages. What is left, but the gas?

They have seen their homes ransacked, their loved ones dead, their children mutilated, they know they have to fight today. They fire their weapons in to the swarms, but for every one that falls, three more rush forward in their place. Their grubbers rip in to the bodies of their fallen, the rot that sets in, often before they are even dead, serves to make a rank foeter. They use it to poison your water, your rivers, your wells and irrigation ditches and what remains, they fire at you as ammunition.

Your tanks, they overwhelm. Your aircraft, they replenish their numbers faster than you can kill them. Your brave soldiers, they are buried beneath the crawling, grappling savages. What is left, but the gas?

Try using a decent strategy for one. And is it possible to be invaded by a barbarian horde?

I'm going to simply close my end of the argument on this with these words:

I believe the Ages of DemonLordEnigma has nothing to gain in this argument and possible repeal of Resolution 107 other than... you guessed it... commissioning rights from other nationalities that support the movement to repeal the Resolution. That's what it all boils down to: consumerism, and who wants to buy what. The Private Sector of their corperations is dominated by ... you guessed again... Arms Manufacturing, so it's only natural that they want to keep the game going by having something to manufacture and export. While I have to agree that there is nothing wrong with this, there must also be a place to draw the line where you destinguish between the greater good than one's self.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations, for your time.

Then what happens when a test goes ... per se... 'wrong?' What happens when instead of ending up with a pile of dead bodies, you end up with a pile of disfigured or horribly maimed figures? What if they decide that if they can't die in the test, they don't want to die at all, but will have to live with horrible disfigurment?

You don't understand something about the test. In case it fails, we have specialized disruptor cannons that fire on any living body in the room as long as poisonous gases remain. Even if they survive the gas, they don't survive being rendered down to a pile of their composite elements. Even with lifeforms as small as viruses, that is universally lethal. And, considering how fast it happens, painless.

You may view the system as barbaric, but it is a decision of the people. We do not feel it our duty to deny people their choice of death if the time comes they must make that choice. And, in all cases in which this is volunteered for, survival is impossible anyway, so even if they do survive the chemical weapons they are going to die before long. They at least give one final service to their nation when they go.

I believe the Ages of DemonLordEnigma has nothing to gain in this argument and possible repeal of Resolution 107 other than... you guessed it... commissioning rights from other nationalities that support the movement to repeal the Resolution. That's what it all boils down to: consumerism, and who wants to buy what. The Private Sector of their corperations is dominated by ... you guessed again... Arms Manufacturing, so it's only natural that they want to keep the game going by having something to manufacture and export. While I have to agree that there is nothing wrong with this, there must also be a place to draw the line where you destinguish between the greater good than one's self.

And you have missed something important: We don't participate in the global economy. We're pretty much entirely self-sufficient. And while it is true that such a business does dominate the economy, that is only because of a lack of internal distinction. Many of our weapons, from the disruptor cannons that rip apart ships by reducing them to their component elements to the graviton cannons that use the power of gravity itself to destroy small fleets, are merely larger and more powerful version of certain industrial technologies. Disruptors started out as mining equipment, specifically for mining certain metals, while graviton cannons result from artificial gravity projectors. It is only natural that the same people who build the artificial gravity generators are the ones who build the graviton cannons.

Our wish to continue to have chemical weapons results from the fact we can make chemical weapons that completely incompacitate an enemy nation without harming a single citizen, by designing the chemicals to react to their tools of war and not to organic matter. Imagine the defeat an enemy suffers when they send thousands of people to fight, only to have those people return in shame and with only a handful of losses because their weapons were destroyed by gases. Would you honestly prefer it if we used nukes instead?

*Opens the door and allows the Horde to pour in to the chambers, The entire caucus being at least temporarily disrupted by tens of thousands of grunting, wrestling, knife wielding savages, many with explosives strapped to their bodies, while others simply limp about setting fire to anything that looks flammable. Diplomats are hacked down while attempting to bore the grunting brutes to death with long dull speeches.*


Try using a decent strategy for one. And is it possible to be invaded by a barbarian horde?

:gundge:

I think that during the end of WW2 there were massacre caused by nazis as they were going back to Germany.

And I've heard of a genocide in Armenia (?), with rural towns destroyed and their people killed. That was at the beginning of the 20th century.

Beware of the barbarians ! They may always come back !


We'll support a repeal.

(Can someone tell me if the resolution forbids poison ? If we may use arsenic for industrial needs, we may as well use it to kill soldiers. Is it a biological weapon ?)