NationStates Jolt Archive

This is here mainly to try to determine exactly what constitutes a biological weapon for UN purposes and what doesn't, so we know what the UN is trying to ban.

As we all know, biological weapons are micro-sized single-cellular or multicellular organisms utilized in warfare. As we also know from discussions on here, biological weapons include macro-sized single-cellular or multicellular organisms utilized by militaries for warfare. What does this mean? If you're flying a dragon into battle or unleashing anthrax on a community, you're pretty much violating the ban (unless you pull what most have and simply reclassify them). This also means dolphins are banned for such uses as well. Note that all biological weapons must be alive.

First item: Humans. Are humans biological weapons? Well, they meet the criteria if they are sent to war. They are, in those cases, macro-sized multicellular organisms utilized by militaries in warfare. Well, this means that all of us who have militaries staffed by humans are in violation. Oops.

Second item: Viruses. This is a tricky one. Viruses themselves lack cells of any type, and don't even really qualify as alive. Considering that one of the requirements of biological weapons is that they are alive, this means that viruses are not biological weapons. So, that means you can use that new form of Ebola without worry.

Third item: The walking dead. Considering they are not alive, they are in the same boat as viruses. Feel free to send your zombie armies into warfare.

Fourth item: Magical creatures. Okay, quick check: Does if have cells? Is it alive? Are you using it in your military? If you answer "yes" to all three, you're in violation. This means that magic nations are open game if they are UN members.

So, anyone want to try to refute this? Or do you have more items to add?

This is here mainly to try to determine exactly what constitutes a biological weapon for UN purposes and what doesn't, so we know what the UN is trying to ban.

I assume this doesn't refer to what my draft proposal is trying to ban... as most of the examples cited below this are either quite clearly included in or excluded by the definition provided in that proposal... with I think not too much room for ambiguity.

That said, your list is a prime example of why defining terms in a proposal is a very important thing.

I'm talking about the current ban on biological weapons, so as to in a way determine what is banned by it.

I'm talking about the current ban on biological weapons, so as to in a way determine what is banned by it.
The current resolution does not provide a definition, so basically it outlaws everything except robot armies. It doesn't matter if its an angry rottweiler, a human with an axe or a vial of smallpox. All of these could be defined as "biological weapons" under the current resolution. A better definition would limit it to agents meant to cause disease or ilness, or disease or illness which would eventually result in death. In other words, a person intentionally infected with smallpox wandering about in a city spreading the disease would be a bio weapon (the smallpox, not the person). A person wandering about in a city shooting people would not. Unfortunately, the current resolution does not make that distinction.

Also, nano technology would have to taken into consideration. Would microscopic machines which invade and destroy their host fit into ANY category?

Also, nano technology would have to taken into consideration. Would microscopic machines which invade and destroy their host fit into ANY category?
I would think that they would fit into the category of machines. And as such would still be allowed by the UN, since there is no resolution prohibiting their use.

Yes. They fit into the nanotech category. No, seriously, that is a separate category of weapons.

As for your mentioning of weapons banned: Pretty much, that's true. However, that's only if you accept viruses as biological organisms.

I would think that they would fit into the category of machines. And as such would still be allowed by the UN, since there is no resolution prohibiting their use.
Exactly. But if they mimicked the effects of a disease there are those who would attempt to have them covered by the bio weapons ban.

Exactly. But if they mimicked the effects of a disease there are those who would attempt to have them covered by the bio weapons ban.
True, but as long as they're mechanical in construction they would not be classifed as being biological and therefore exepmt from the bio weapons ban.

Of course if someone were to construct them from biological materal then classifing them could get tricky.

True, but as long as they're mechanical in construction they would not be classifed as being biological and therefore exepmt from the bio weapons ban.

Of course if someone were to construct them from biological materal then classifing them could get tricky.
But are they alive?

Still, it seems we have a problem, in that currently the only apparent weaponry allowed is available to only Future-Tech (Robots and nanomachines) and necromancers (undead). Other than that, and you're stuffed.

But are they alive?Why do you think I said classifing them could be tricky.:D

Still, it seems we have a problem, in that currently the only apparent weaponry allowed is available to only Future-Tech (Robots and nanomachines) and necromancers (undead). Other than that, and you're stuffed.
Don't forget about nukes, the UN hasn't banned those.

Don't forget about nukes, the UN hasn't banned those.
Oh yeah, forgot about them. And antimatter, if you're going to go that far.