NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection. Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a negligible (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations.

TAKING NOTE of the need for nations to develop effective defenses against such bioweapons.

FURTHER TAKING NOTE of the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

REALIZING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection to anyone. They are to be so secured within a multi-tier (minimum of 2 tier) quarantined building in that nation, and kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation or known to be in the possession of its citizenry must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, or if present in an infected individual through immediate isolation and treatment.

4. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

STRONGLY URGES:

5. UN member nations to employ trade sanctions or incentives as they see fit to any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution, in any circumstances where the application of such sanctions or incentives would represent an effective means to having that nation abandon such bioweapons.

6. UN member nations issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a nation/nations employs bioweapons against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

Totally against. And too long.

Totally against. And too long.

Yes... I saw your expressed opinion on the general idea of banning any weapons whatsoever in the repeal discussion thread, but biological weapons aren't just dangerous in that they kill people like any other weapon. They're dangerous in that they kill large, vast numbers of people who even the ones deploying the weapons don't intend to kill EVEN when the people deploying them take all manner of precautions.

A weapon that can perpetuate itself AND alter itself such that even the people who designed it become incapable of effectively stopping it is a really, really, bad idea and if anyone, anywhere is deploying them they're putting everyone not just there but everywhere else at risk.

And the length is required in the interests of not leaving giant gaping flaws like in the resolution currently the subject of the repeal.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia would like to congratulate the representative from Reformentia for successfully bringing a repeal of the "Eliminate Biological Weapons" resolution to vote in the UN.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia will also keep in mind your ability to write said resolutions and repeals and market them to delegates organisation-wide.

That skill is extraordinarily useful, and may be a skill that will be used many times in the future.

Yes... I saw your expressed opinion on the general idea of banning any weapons whatsoever in the repeal discussion thread, but biological weapons aren't just dangerous in that they kill people like any other weapon. They're dangerous in that they kill large, vast numbers of people who even the ones deploying the weapons don't intend to kill EVEN when the people deploying them take all manner of precautions.

A weapon that can perpetuate itself AND alter itself such that even the people who designed it become incapable of effectively stopping it is a really, really, bad idea and if anyone, anywhere is deploying them they're putting everyone not just there but everywhere else at risk.

And the length is required in the interests of not leaving giant gaping flaws like in the resolution currently the subject of the repeal.

If the length is too long, it is non-submittable (current character limit - including spaces) is about 3,000 characters.

And we like biological weapons. We live in Antarctica - you know, where no bacteria or virus can survive? So we're all about you wiping your collective selves off the planet so we can take over.

On with the repeal!

If the length is too long, it is non-submittable (current character limit - including spaces) is about 3,000 characters.

Where is the character limit listed? It's not in the UN proposals rules sticky.

And we like biological weapons. We live in Antarctica - you know, where no bacteria or virus can survive?

Think again. Bacteria and microbial organisms can survive pretty much anywhere anything else living can. Most definitely including the Antarctic.

Where is the character limit listed? It's not in the UN proposals rules sticky.

*laughs* No, it's in the "the box only holds about 3000 characters when you submit" limitations. Good luck - I'm going to enjoy voting for the top half of your resolution.


Think again. Bacteria and microbial organisms can survive pretty much anywhere anything else living can. Most definitely including the Antarctic.

Sorry, but no, you should read up more about the explorations down there. Then you should realize, if you're talking about biological weapons intended for use against humans, they're going to live within a narrow biological range, usually "within a human". Exposed to temperatures of -85C to -200C and winds of upwards of 200mph will destroy any and all virii and bacteria without a form of hard protection, particularly as that sort of temperature continues for at least four long months with no sun and quite a bit of radiation thanks to exposure to space and that lovely hole in the ozone. Excellent protection to, say, an airborne Ebola variant, designed for the heat of Africa.

Sorry, but no, you should read up more about the explorations down there. Then you should realize, if you're talking about biological weapons intended for use against humans, they're going to live within a narrow biological range, usually "within a human". Exposed to temperatures of -85C to -200C and winds of upwards of 200mph will destroy any and all virii and bacteria without a form of hard protection, particularly as that sort of temperature continues for at least four long months with no sun and quite a bit of radiation thanks to exposure to space and that lovely hole in the ozone. Excellent protection to, say, an airborne Ebola variant, designed for the heat of Africa.

1. Are you living outside in those conditions by any chance?

2. Were you actually under the impression that the only way a biological weapon could be transmitted to a location was by floating there through the air all by itself?

3. Who says the environmental range they live in has to be narrow? What exactly is preventing a genetically engineered weaponized strain from living in a very wide environmental range that just happens to encompass "within a human"? Bacteria and microbes can and DO live in the Antarctic so your assertion that the environmental conditions there kill any and all such organisms exposed to it is simply incorrect. I'm sorry, but if the thing you're relying on as a defense is that it's really cold outside your door you're in trouble.

4. And finally, if the reason you're all for biological weapons is really, as you stated in your second post, that you're looking forward to the extermination of all life outside your region I somehow don't see you making a very compelling argument for support for your position. "Please don't ban biological weapons, we really want you all dead" does not an endearing campaign slogan make.

1. Are you living outside in those conditions by any chance?

Nope, which makes it even more difficult to deliver said packages.



2. Were you actually under the impression that the only way a biological weapon could be transmitted to a location was by floating there through the air all by itself?

*puts Reformentia on the "Sink on Sight" list*



3. Who says the environmental range they live in has to be narrow? What exactly is preventing a genetically engineered weaponized strain from living in a very wide environmental range that just happens to encompass "within a human"? Bacteria and microbes can and DO live in the Antarctic so your assertion that the environmental conditions there kill any and all such organisms exposed to it is simply incorrect. I'm sorry, but if the thing you're relying on as a defense is that it's really cold outside your door you're in trouble.

OOC:Not according to the researchers down there - they don't exist except in certain animals and under the water. On the land - it's sterile. We could go a step further and mention that an extreme temperature change will kill off just about anything, but hey, point already made. You should really look up what those temperatures I posted mean, along with wind chill. See, bacteria need something to live. In Antarctica, there's nothing. Viruses are not particularly resistant to freeze-drying either - there's a reason most exist inside a host and can exist outside in only limited medium or for limited times or in specific environmental areas.



4. And finally, if the reason you're all for biological weapons is really, as you stated in your second post, that you're looking forward to the extermination of all life outside your region I somehow don't see you making a very compelling argument for support for your position. "Please don't ban biological weapons, we really want you all dead" does not an endearing campaign slogan make.

We don't care about endearing. Would you care for another helping of Ebola Zaire? Really, no trouble...

And our position needs no further support - it should be handled nicely by the "remove UN clutter" and "NAT'NAL SOVINTY ROOLS!" bunches. Why waste our time?

It's real simple.

If you don't repeal, you can't replace.

If you repeal, replacing becomes interesting (remember the Nat Sov group? They're against you now).

So, thank you, but we'll sit back and watch the fireworks. Particularly if you start nuking yourselves. That'll be fun.

If you repeal, replacing becomes interesting (remember the Nat Sov group? They're against you now).
Vastiva is quite correct here, I am a member of the NSO and I would vehemently oppose any attempt to reinstitute a ban on the use of biological weapons. However, if the proposal is worded so that it only bans using biological weapons on UN members, then you might get my support, but it's still unlikely.

NOTING biological weapons are, due to their unstable, virulent, and mutational properties an inherently uncontrollable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

Not too bad. But still ignores the genetic engineering aspect. You can always engineer controls.

DECLARING “biological weapons” (Henceforth “bioweapons”) are considered for the purpose of this resolution to be infectious viral, bacteriological or microbial organisms whose primary effect on the host is to harm, incapacitate, or kill the host organism upon infection.

We do not consider viruses to be organisms, due to the fact they do not meet enough requirements of life to be alive. Even our AIs meet more requirements than they do.

FURTHER DECLARING the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of all nations, and must be curtailed or eliminated by any means available.

Congrats. You just outlawed people getting sick. Should we start executing people for having the common cold now, or wait until this passes? The moment it is in your nation, you possess it in some form.

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the need for nations to develop effective defenses against the potential deployment of such bioweapons against them.

FURTHER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

NOTING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

Note: Those other means are usually responded to with armies intent on your annihilation, or the UN being ignored.

HEREBY RESOLVES

ARTICLES:

1. That the possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

Great. One of my citizens infects a Vastivan with the flu, and suddenly I'm violating a UN resolution.

2. That exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, and under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.

Ya know, we consider "land, sky, and sea" to be a three-tiered system. Hold on while we launch a few into nations we don't like.

3. That in any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapons agent proscribed as defined in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately destroyed through incineration or other available method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, and the totality of that destruction/neutralization is to be thoroughly verified by the nation responsible.

So, in other words, we simply make it vanish and say we destroyed it? What do you know. I just destroyed my entire arsenal.

4. That UN member nations are proscribed from establishing or maintaining trade with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

We don't trade. We practice equivolent exchange. Cookie to anyone who can name which anime I got that from.

5. That UN member nations are proscribed from establishing or maintaining any military partnership with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

We can guarantee our military forces are not marrying members of other military forces.

6. That all UN member nations are strongly urged to issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a non UN member nation/nations employs bioweapons as defined in this proposal against a UN member nation, military forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

"You have been caught employing biological weapons against an enemy. As such, under the UN resolution banning biological weapons, I must now take action. I fine your nation one cent, mark it down as you having paid the fine by simply taking a penny from this cup beside me, and move on. I've now done my duty as a UN member."

And the length is required in the interests of not leaving giant gaping flaws like in the resolution currently the subject of the repeal.

Oh, and have you met DLE, our resident loopologist? :D

Face facts. You're NEVER going to manage to seal all possible loopholes with only 3000 characters. There's a reason legislation is usually several hundred pages long - and there's still loopholes.

Also:

6. That all UN member nations are strongly urged to issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a non UN member nation/nations employs bioweapons as defined in this proposal against a UN member nation, military forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

Am I wrong, or does this section create a "UN Army-by-proxy", which is illegal?

I swear, I could find a loophole in the laws of conservation if I tried hard enough.

We don't trade. We practice equivolent exchange. Cookie to anyone who can name which anime I got that from.
Fullmetal Alchemist

~Transmutes a local car into a cookie and gives it to Yelda~

Congrats.

Nope, which makes it even more difficult to deliver said packages.

*puts Reformentia on the "Sink on Sight" list*

You're really not thinking very clearly are you? Were you actually thinking I was suggesting hand delivering them personally?

You have a nation of over 2 billion people. And then there's the populations of the rest of the nations in Antarctica. I suppose none of them ever leave home? Take a trip? You have a totally and completely closed border perhaps? All self-sufficient agriculturally down there with several billion people living on an ice sheet?

Do I really need to continue with the list?

OOC:Not according to the researchers down there - they don't exist except in certain animals and under the water.

And the ice. And how exactly did you think they got there?

We're obviously not making any progress with this exchange, so I'll just leave it there.

Wait, I just found two loopholes in the laws of conservation.

1. In physics, the laws of conservation make the mistake of assuming universal laws of physics. But if laws of physics are really regional occurances (no evidence to the contrary), then that means it is perfectly possible for energy to be destroyed without the creation of matter.

2. Those laws also assume a closed system. But if this universe connects to another, it is fully possible that energy and matter can leak from one to the other.

You're really not thinking very clearly are you? Were you actually thinking I was suggesting hand delivering them personally?

No, we just don't like you.



You have a nation of over 2 billion people. And then there's the populations of the rest of the nations in Antarctica. I suppose none of them ever leave home? Take a trip? You have a totally and completely closed border perhaps? All self-sufficient agriculturally down there with several billion people living on an ice sheet?

You really need a better map of Antarctica. Badly.

You're talking about using a bioweapon on a series of domes. Once an area has positive infection, it's closed off (This is called a "Quarantine"). Areas which are depopulated ("Everyone is dead"), its opened and frozen. As in "everything living in there dies of hypothermia".

As to your arguement of developing a bioweapon which can survive -200C and 200mph wind chill, then infect a human being at 37C (a change of over 200 degrees C or 510 K)... uhm, no.



Do I really need to continue with the list?

Until you make sense.



And the ice. And how exactly did you think they got there?

You're talking about a bioweapon, not something that exists near the water and feeds on plant life of various natures. BIG difference.

The point remains - we have a sizable and permanent defense against effective use of bioweapons. On our "battlefield", they're useless. In our cities, we can cut the spread quickly. You can't reach our food supplies. And we're too far out of the way to worry about while you all wipe each other off the map.

We're still all for mass suicide to make way for the superior life form.

~Transmutes a local car into a cookie and gives it to Yelda~

Congrats.
~Finishes cookie~
Thanks!
Now, as to the subject of the replacement proposal, I really can't see Yelda supporting it. You have our full support on the repeal attempt, but the replacement is another matter altogether.
Damn these forums are slow tonight.

Vastiva, were three postings really necessary?

~Loves the rare triple post~

Vastiva, were three postings really necessary?

~Loves the rare triple post~

We were just trying to make sure our point got across... and then Jolt got involved...

Not too bad. But still ignores the genetic engineering aspect. You can always engineer controls.

It doesn't ignore it, it considers it irrelevent. Such controls can always be evolved around.

We do not consider viruses to be organisms, due to the fact they do not meet enough requirements of life to be alive. Even our AIs meet more requirements than they do.

Editted. Now it doesn't matter.

Congrats. You just outlawed people getting sick.

Editted. Now I haven't.

Note: Those other means are usually responded to with armies intent on your annihilation, or the UN being ignored.

The ability to do such would rather depend on the effectiveness of their implementation.

Great. One of my citizens infects a Vastivan with the flu, and suddenly I'm violating a UN resolution.

Did your citizen do so intentionally with the purpose of spreading a harmful infectious disease to the population of another nation thus USING the infectious agent in a weapons capacity rather than being an unintentional carrier?

If so, yes. Otherwise, no.

Ya know, we consider "land, sky, and sea" to be a three-tiered system. Hold on while we launch a few into nations we don't like.

Funny. How do you manage to define them as a facility?

Regardless: Editted. Try it now.

So, in other words, we simply make it vanish and say we destroyed it? What do you know. I just destroyed my entire arsenal.

Now you're not talking about loopholes, you're talking about deliberately attempting to lie your way around a resolution... or just plain cheating. Sorry, not going to fly. You might as well say a "loophole" in any law is that you can break it and then deny you did it.

We don't trade. We practice equivolent exchange. Cookie to anyone who can name which anime I got that from.

Clever. Editted. Not that I don't know you won't try and quite probably come up with something to wriggle around that too but I'm pretty good with words myself you know. It's not going to take us long to reach a point where you've got nowhere left to go without going to lengths which are obviously absurd abuses of the language... at which point I'll be satisfied the resolution is quite as ironclad as it can reasonably be expected ANY resolution could possibly be.

We can guarantee our military forces are not marrying members of other military forces.

Like there for instance you're really pushing things... it's rather a stretch to redefine "military partnership" between NATIONS, which is what the article specified, as possibly referring to marriage. I wasn't aware nations could marry each other after all.

Editted anyway to further remove wiggle room.

"You have been caught employing biological weapons against an enemy. As such, under the UN resolution banning biological weapons, I must now take action. I fine your nation one cent, mark it down as you having paid the fine by simply taking a penny from this cup beside me, and move on. I've now done my duty as a UN member."

Feel free to do so. It is of course entirely up to your nation how far your nation will go to effect the measures outlined in Article 6. In fact, you may have even noticed that the wording of the resolution doesn't require you to do anything at all so you're rather wasting your time with the whole penny thing.

Of course, there are an awful lot of UN nations and I doubt ALL of them would feel particularly inclined to follow your example.

You're talking about using a bioweapon on a series of domes.

No, I'm not talking about using a bioweapon at all. I'm talking about the dangers once they're released by anyone.

Once an area has positive infection, it's closed off (This is called a "Quarantine").

You have to detect the infection first... and how long that takes is usually largely dependent on how long the latency period is between infection and observeable symptoms manifesting themselves... which in strategically designed weapons can be very long indeed. Meaning by the time you start quarantining the first detectable cases of some tourists who came back from somewhere they got exposed half your population centers could be infected. Or more.

But by all means continue in the misguided belief that mere geography can make you effectively immune to this particular threat.

Am I wrong, or does this section create a "UN Army-by-proxy", which is illegal?

It simply encourages the commitment of forces under given circumstances by any member nation or group of member nations who decide to do so. Whether or not to employ such force in those circumstances is left entirely to the discretion of the individual members of course. It in no way creates an army, by proxy or otherwise... it just sanctions the creation of such by others should they so choose, an army which would most certainly not be a "UN" army by virtue of anything except happening to be composed of UN members.

After repeated attempts, you still lack understanding of geography and climate and their effect on bioweapons. So ka, soo da ne. In order for your ideal "it endangers everyone" to work, it has to be prepared and designed to work equally well on Hawaii, in the Sahara, and on me.

Can't be done. Outside of a host, they're up the creek.

Will get to your edits in a bit - but that character count is still going to amputate sufficient to make it laughable.

After repeated attempts, you still lack understanding of geography and climate and their effect on bioweapons. So ka, soo da ne. In order for your ideal "it endangers everyone" to work, it has to be prepared and designed to work equally well on Hawaii, in the Sahara, and on me.

Oh for the love of....

Can't be done. Outside of a host, they're up the creek.

In the scenario I just finished outlining for you at what point exactly was it required to be outside the host in a lethal environment?

Will get to your edits in a bit - but that character count is still going to amputate sufficient to make it laughable.

You may want to count again.

It doesn't ignore it, it considers it irrelevent. Such controls can always be evolved around.

And such evolutions can also be controlled.

Editted. Now it doesn't matter.



Editted. Now I haven't.

Hmm. I shall have to examine those to see what new way I can twist them.

The ability to do such would rather depend on the effectiveness of their implementation.

The ability to do such is never exactly beyond anyone's means if they are smart. Always be wary of the weapons that don't look like such.

Did your citizen do so intentionally with the purpose of spreading a harmful infectious disease to the population of another nation thus USING the infectious agent in a weapons capacity rather than being an unintentional carrier?

If so, yes. Otherwise, no.

Sometimes. Depends on the citizen and who they are interacting with.

Funny. How do you manage to define them as a facility?

Regardless: Editted. Try it now.

We use entire planets as facilities. Do you really think Earth could escape that classification?

Now you're not talking about loopholes, you're talking about deliberately attempting to lie your way around a resolution... or just plain cheating. Sorry, not going to fly. You might as well say a "loophole" in any law is that you can break it and then deny you did it.

The resolution states that it is up to the nation that has the weapons to verify that said weapons are destroyed. You never bothered to consider that nations would outright lie about it?

Clever. Editted. Not that I don't know you won't try and quite probably come up with something to wriggle around that too but I'm pretty good with words myself you know. It's not going to take us long to reach a point where you've got nowhere left to go without going to lengths which are obviously absurd abuses of the language... at which point I'll be satisfied the resolution is quite as ironclad as it can reasonably be expected ANY resolution could possibly be.

Don't be so sure. I never play all of my cards at once, and sometimes I purposefully guide people in a certain direction so as to put them at a disadvantage. I learned from the best in that regard.

Like there for instance you're really pushing things... it's rather a stretch to redefine "military partnership" between NATIONS, which is what the article specified, as possibly referring to marriage. I wasn't aware nations could marry each other after all.

Editted anyway to further remove wiggle room.

The many uses of the word "partnership" can be fun to play with. It's actually not entirely unheard of for nations to marry citizens between each other as a way of creating ties. Military personel are also good for this, as you can create a fighting force with the best of both nations.

Feel free to do so. It is of course entirely up to your nation how far your nation will go to effect the measures outlined in Article 6. In fact, you may have even noticed that the wording of the resolution doesn't require you to do anything at all so you're rather wasting your time with the whole penny thing.

Of course, there are an awful lot of UN nations and I doubt ALL of them would feel particularly inclined to follow your example.

No, but my doing it will openly make a mockery of your proposal.

Now, my next post will go through, examine the editted items, and find new ways of twisting them. I enjoy this game a little too much.

Time again for rampant chopping.

NOTING bioweapons are an inherently uncontrollable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are considered for the purpose of this resolution to be viruses or infectious bacteriological or microbial organisms with the primary effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing the target host organism upon infection.

Such as, again, the common cold, the flu, pneumonia, strep, any skin condition... Why? Because as you've defined it, that is the primary effect.

Then again, the primary effect of Ebola is infection prior to reproduction - which does not "harm, incapacitate, or kill". It's those secondary effects that do that.

Ooops, again.



FURTHER DECLARING the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and must be eliminated by any means available.

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the need for nations to develop effective defenses against the deployment of such bioweapons against them.

FURTHER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

NOTING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

Well... no.



HEREBY RESOLVES

ARTICLES:

1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

People with colds can't travel. Gotcha.



2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of infection in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, and under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.

Alright... so I have seven zillion tons (defined by me as "trace amounts") located in a three-or-more level facility under the military base which is at the greatest level above sea-level. Gotcha. Not a problem.



3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapons agent proscribed as defined in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately destroyed through incineration or other available method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, or if present in an infected individual through immediate isolation and treatment. The totality of that destruction/neutralization is to be thoroughly verified by the nation responsible.

Drop bioweapon. Surround target nation and conquer same. I've managed to abide by this one. And as an "infected individual" could come to mean part of a multiagent bacterial agent - after all, the carrier bacteria is an "individual" per se..... and once I completely obliterate the other nation, it's destruction is demonstratable.



4. UN member nations are proscribed from material or monetary transfers with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.


That would be "everyone else". So you've effectively prevented trade of any kind, as everyone else has sickness in some form. Brilliant!



5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

As it takes two to make a war, you've also outlawed war with this one.



6. UN member nations are strongly urged to issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a non UN member nation/nations employs bioweapons as defined in this proposal against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

"Bad nation. No kleenex". There, I'm done.

You may want to count again.

Ah, you misunderstand - now you leave loopholes galore.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are considered for the purpose of this resolution to be viruses or infectious bacteriological or microbial organisms with the primary effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing the target host organism upon infection.

~Reclassifies all viral weaponry as "organic nonorganism weaponry"~

FURTHER DECLARING the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and must be eliminated by any means available.

Still outlaws people getting sick.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of infection in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, and under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.

Ya know, we consider "outside of our nation" to be the highest security our military can achieve when it comes to weapons. Now, back to launching random biological weapons.

4. UN member nations are proscribed from material or monetary transfers with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

"With" any indicates two parties being equally involved and doing an equal share. As such, we will be donating to them. They'll simply donate to us later.

5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

Ya know, alliances technically are not partnerships.

Greetings.

There is an ancient tome of legends which we retain in our collection of wild and varied wonders. In the milieu described that tome is the legend of an Antarctica much like the dwelling-place of Vastiva, but obviously legendary - for what virus or other bioagent could survive in the abyssal chill of Vastiva's Antarctica?

Legendary Account of Viral Agents in Long-Lost Antarctica (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1997/515/3)

And such evolutions can also be controlled.

After release? Neat trick. Do you plan on having an army of genetisists trailing around after all the infected enemy personnel taking blood samples and such and monitoring them for the occurance of any new mutations and then instantly engineering controls to account for them on the fly?

Hmm. I shall have to examine those to see what new way I can twist them.

I'm sure you'll come up with something.

The ability to do such is never exactly beyond anyone's means if they are smart.

But the degree to which they can do so can be curtailed.

Always be wary of the weapons that don't look like such.

That's why you define by composition and effect rather than appearance.

Sometimes. Depends on the citizen and who they are interacting with.

Then I would suggest bringing them to justice quickly in cases where it's a deliberate assault using an infectious disease. However, and I should have caught this the first time through, once again it says "nation", not "private citizen acting independently from the government" which can in no way be defined as an act of the nation.

We use entire planets as facilities. Do you really think Earth could escape that classification?

Missed the edit? You can try giving it that classification all you like now, doesn't get you past the conditions that the quarantine is required to be a securing against risk of infection and lobbing them around the atmosphere of a populated planet is never going to qualify.

The resolution states that it is up to the nation that has the weapons to verify that said weapons are destroyed. You never bothered to consider that nations would outright lie about it?

If they do they're violating the resolution. They are required to verify the destruction. Period. There's no vaguery there. If they don't do it they're in violation.

And as for lying about it, once again: If you want to call it a legal loophole that you can deny committing a crime after you commit it go right ahead. That's true of any law. Anywhere. Ever. I'm not playing that game.

The many uses of the word "partnership" can be fun to play with. It's actually not entirely unheard of for nations to marry citizens between each other as a way of creating ties. Military personel are also good for this, as you can create a fighting force with the best of both nations.

Again, it's been editted. Selectively defining the partnership won't work anymore.

No, but my doing it will openly make a mockery of your proposal.

No, it won't. Like I said, the proposal explicitly and quite deliberately allows for any individual nation to do absolutely nothing at all if they so elect. Why would it be mocking my proposal for you, personally, to do nothing at all effective?

Greetings.

We of Roathin wonder at the focus on bioweapons when there are other cognates available in the areas of nanotechnology and microconjuration. Nevertheless, we would prefer, should attempt be made to ban such weapons (which in our view would level the playing field unnecessarily, not necessarily in our favour), that the form of the resolution include the following, in order:

1. Definition of biologically active or potentially active agent
2. Definition of weaponisation
3. Definition of bioweapon based on the weaponisation of a biologically active or potentially active agent
4. Prohibitions on production, use, development, maintenance or storage.
5. Methodology of compliance and verification
6. Penalties for failure to comply
7. Exceptions, if any - including right of biological defence development

Thank you.

DLE and Vastiva.

If you're not going to address the entire resolution you're not addressing it at all.

For example, DLE:

No it does not still outlaw getting sick. Read article 3.

And launching random biological weapons outside your nation is NOT securing them against risk of infection. Read the entire article you are critiquing please.

Vastiva:

Explain if you would how some independent private citizen with a cold travelling somewhere constitutes the possession, production, trafficking or use of bioweapons by a member NATION.

Explain how releasing the bioweapon on a target nation encorporates all possible safeguards against ANY RELEASE OF THE AGENT. That one was particularly ridiculous.

If you're not even going to bother reading the details then excuse me if I don't intend to waste further time with you claiming to find fault in those details.

Greetings.

There is an ancient tome of legends which we retain in our collection of wild and varied wonders. In the milieu described that tome is the legend of an Antarctica much like the dwelling-place of Vastiva, but obviously legendary - for what virus or other bioagent could survive in the abyssal chill of Vastiva's Antarctica?

Legendary Account of Viral Agents in Long-Lost Antarctica (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1997/515/3)

OOC: You're going to have to do better then an article I can't access, in an area conditions are friendlier then what I stated.

Oooh, dis'll be fun...


Vastiva:

Explain if you would how some independent private citizen with a cold travelling somewhere constitutes the possession, production, trafficking or use of bioweapons by a member NATION.

Alright, so you're telling me the use of Typhoid Mary's is just fine. Gotcha.



Explain how releasing the bioweapon on a target nation encorporates all possible safeguards against ANY RELEASE OF THE AGENT. That one was particularly ridiculous.

"The sample was downloaded for disposal prior to the area being sanitized by repeated nuclear bombardment."

Any other questions?



If you're not even going to bother reading the details then excuse me if I don't intend to waste further time with you claiming to find fault in those details.

Kettle? This is pot. Sshhh. Loopholes are everywhere.

Alright, so you're telling me the use of Typhoid Mary's is just fine. Gotcha.

No... because now you're talking about the government using infected individuals as weapons delivery systems. Nations USING the agents as weapons is explicitly prohibited and you know what? I'm pretty sure you know that perfectly well.

"The sample was downloaded for disposal prior to the area being sanitized by repeated nuclear bombardment."

Any other questions?

YOU RELEASED IT FIRST! It doesn't matter if you sanitized it AFTER you released it you still violated the resolution requiring securing it AGAINST RELEASE!

This is so childish it defies description. This is my last response to you on this matter. Amuse yourself from here on in.

I would support banning weapons that are too dangerous. This, to me, does not include "biological weapons", but "biological weapons which have a significant risk of creating pandemic, infecting unintended targets".

If the replacement proposal allowed for biological weapons, "except when they pose a significant risk for creating pandemic" (and then try to define how a pandemic-worthy biological weapon is systematically identified), I would probably support it. I support the idea of banning some biological weapons in the sense of International Security (protecting the world from weapons which are too dangerous--from criminals or terrorists who would might these pandemic-weapons). I don't think biological weapons can be argued to be inherently dangerous--unless one argues that they have a mind (or motility or what not) of their own, and are thus uncontrollable. But I'm not even sure member nations would believe that.

The delegate from Darkumbria would like to thank the delegate from Reformentia on the repeal. However, Darkumbria believes that biological and chemical weapons are worthwhile for the furtherment of the universe. Therefore, we can not agree with this proposal.

As to your arguement of developing a bioweapon which can survive -200C and 200mph wind chill, then infect a human being at 37C (a change of over 200 degrees C or 510 K)... uhm, no.



Uhm, a change of 200 degrees C is also a change of 200 K - the units are the same size.

Petronea will vote for this resolution, as we can't possibly be affected negatively by it (we don't have the technology to manufacture or store bioweapons).

OOC: You're going to have to do better then an article I can't access, in an area conditions are friendlier then what I stated.

More legendary Antarctica stories (http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/01/16/42144.html)

A comment made by one of my regional colleagues (Rehochipe):

DECLARING that “biological weapons” are considered for the purpose of this resolution to be infectious viral, bacteriological or microbial organisms whose primary effect on the host is to harm, incapacitate, or kill the host organism upon infection.

That in any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any biological weapons agent proscribed as defined in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately destroyed through incineration or other available method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, and the totality of that destruction/neutralization is to be thoroughly verified by the nation responsible.
Okay. So say that a government employee has HIV. This is an infectious viral organism whose primary effect on the host is to harm, incapacitate and kill. There's no cure, so I'm obliged to kill him, incinerate the body and document it for the UN.

Another example. Say I want to reduce my tsetse fly population, which are causing widespread disease; I carefully bioengineer a bacterium that will prevent tsetse from breeding, but will self-destruct if it mutates. Under this definition, it's a bioweapon and must be eliminated. A better definition is an absolute necessity.

Moreover, biological weapons need not be viral/bacteriological/microbial, and need not be directed to infect host organisms. A handful of fast-breeding crop parasites could be a deadly economic bioweapon. If I bioengineered a couple of rats to make them rapacious breeders and devastating on sugarcane crops, then dropped them over the Hackneyite border - no sugarcane, no rum production, and Hackney's industry would take a screaming nosedive. If I found a good enough zoologist, I might not even need to bioengineer them - just find an existing species that would do the trick.

The trouble is that the common cold can be a devastating biological weapon if employed against a population that doesn't have a resistance to it. Biological weapons are not bioweapons by nature of their potential uses, and cannot be defined in those terms; they're bioweapons by their intended and actual uses.

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.

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.

Control of Biological Weapons:

We also believe that two things should be controlled:

1. quantity 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. availability of appropriate delivery systems, which should not be allowed to come into proximity with the biological agents.

Consequences:

Should such controls be implemented by NSUN states due to the pernicious and general covert use of bioagents, and the difficulty in controlling their transmission and mutation, the logical outcome should be that NSUN states must be prepared to use nuclear and other weapons which are more easily controlled against states which deploy biological weapons.

This will more than compensate for any perceived weakness arising from not having biological weapons in one's own arsenal. Additionally, since research facilities and bioagents in quantities necessary for defensive research are allowable, the risk of stockpiling bioweapons in the face of prepared NSUN preemptive action would be too great.

Reformentia already adressed the HIV issue that Ecopoeia supplied:

No it does not still outlaw getting sick. Read article 3.

Therefore, your concern would only apply if

the government [is] using infected individuals as weapons delivery systems. Nations USING the agents as weapons is explicitly prohibited...

After release? Neat trick. Do you plan on having an army of genetisists trailing around after all the infected enemy personnel taking blood samples and such and monitoring them for the occurance of any new mutations and then instantly engineering controls to account for them on the fly?

Nope. Engineered viruses that target only the biological weapon released. The viruses are harmless to humans, but destroy the biological weapon. It's using one of nature's oldest tricks (the bacteriophage).

I'm sure you'll come up with something.

Already did.

But the degree to which they can do so can be curtailed.

Not necessarily. Just ask the U.S. on how well that works.

That's why you define by composition and effect rather than appearance.

Composition doesn't mean diddly shit. What the weapon is made of is probably the least important aspect of it. You define by function, not composition, rather than appearance.

Then I would suggest bringing them to justice quickly in cases where it's a deliberate assault using an infectious disease. However, and I should have caught this the first time through, once again it says "nation", not "private citizen acting independently from the government" which can in no way be defined as an act of the nation.

It is part of the nation taking an action which can be construed to reflect the intentions of the nation itself. World War 1 was started by such a case.

Missed the edit? You can try giving it that classification all you like now, doesn't get you past the conditions that the quarantine is required to be a securing against risk of infection and lobbing them around the atmosphere of a populated planet is never going to qualify.

Lobbing them around inside the atmosphere of a planet still keeps them quarantined, as the disease is limited only to the planet and even then only to certain portions of the planet, preventing the spread of the disease to other planets in the system or even other solar systems. It's actually the most effective method of containment, as you are using nature itself to keep the disease stranded. Earth would not be the first planet we used for quarantining dangerous diseases. In order to maintain quarantine, we can put a small fleet in orbit and warn arrivals not to land because of the disease.

If they do they're violating the resolution. They are required to verify the destruction. Period. There's no vaguery there. If they don't do it they're in violation.

You say they must verify, but you do not say how they must verify. You are effectively saying that "Oh, we destroyed it" without showing an proof to back the statement up is perfectly acceptable. If you want to remove it as a loophole, then define how they are to verify it.

And as for lying about it, once again: If you want to call it a legal loophole that you can deny committing a crime after you commit it go right ahead. That's true of any law. Anywhere. Ever. I'm not playing that game.

Tben you're going to have a lot of problems on this forum, as the tactic has been around a lot longer than you have. If you cannot deal with all of the tactics of how nations get around resolutions, then maybe you might want to reconsider your membership in the UN.

Again, it's been editted. Selectively defining the partnership won't work anymore.

No, but using the fact most alliances are not partnerships still works. Keep in mind that most alliances are between people of vastly varying military and technological advancement, often with the more powerful and advanced members acting as protectors of the others.

No, it won't. Like I said, the proposal explicitly and quite deliberately allows for any individual nation to do absolutely nothing at all if they so elect. Why would it be mocking my proposal for you, personally, to do nothing at all effective?

You missed the Art of Mockery class, I see. What I am doing is taking a section of your proposal and turning it into a joke, something to be laughed at. I do that enough, the mockery becomes associated with that portion of the proposal, making it close to impossible for those who attempt to use that section seriously to actually be taken serious (though, the TPP has managed to do that anyway). As a result, it can turn the entire section into being useless due to the fact that no one can use it without people thinking they are joking. There really isn't anything you can do about it.

DLE and Vastiva.

If you're not going to address the entire resolution you're not addressing it at all.

Please, oh godly one [/sarcasm], tell me why I should waste bandwidth repeating what I have said when you haven't changed the relevent sections enough. Addressing the relevent sections only is still addressing the resolution, specifically by pointing out problems in them.

For example, DLE:

No it does not still outlaw getting sick. Read article 3.

Let me quote you what it says:

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapons agent proscribed as defined in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately destroyed through incineration or other available method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, or if present in an infected individual through immediate isolation and treatment. The totality of that destruction/neutralization is to be thoroughly verified by the nation responsible.

All that says is that I have to destroy all biological weapons within DLE. It does not at any time alter the requirements of what is allowed for biological weapons in such a way as to counter what I am saying. Section 2 does make an attempt at it, which makes me wonder how well you know your own proposal. The inclusion of isolating infected individuals itself really doesn't help, as it does not state when said isolation happens and does not say anything about any treatment not including spreading the virus around inside an enemy nation.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of infection in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, and under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.

But, Section 2 has a problem: It does not define it in such of a way to preclude the idea of citizens being sick either.

And launching random biological weapons outside your nation is NOT securing them against risk of infection. Read the entire article you are critiquing please.

I have read it. I was critiquing the portions you changed that actually had an affect. You do not define "securing against risk of infection" enough to preclude the idea I am launching the weapons outside of my nation to secure my nation against risk of infection, using nature itself as a three-tiered security system to keep the weapons contained. All I have to do is reclassify Earth as a military facility.

Now, if you think that's bad, keep in mind I have yet to get out the dictionary. Once I do that, your proposal is pretty much screwed.

Nope. Engineered viruses that target only the biological weapon released. The viruses are harmless to humans, but destroy the biological weapon.

Right up until the weapon evolves an immunity to your little engineered virus.

Not necessarily.

Hence "can be". Of course you can find counter examples of substandard approaches that had no effect.

It is part of the nation taking an action which can be construed to reflect the intentions of the nation itself.

It is not "part of the nation taking an action". So long as they are acting independently of government direction or sanction it is nothing but a private individual who happens to have citizenship in the nation.

Lobbing them around inside the atmosphere of a planet still keeps them quarantined, as the disease is limited only to the planet and even then only to certain portions of the planet, preventing the spread of the disease to other planets in the system or even other solar systems.

You're still just ignoring the part of the article you don't want to deal with. They must be quarantined against risk of infection. "Quarantining" them along with thousands or millions of uninfected people who will then be subject to infection is a clear violation of that article. But now it's been editted again to further remove wriggle room.

You're just trying to think up any scenario you can to try to show a loophole no matter how irrational because you oppose the very idea of a bioweapons ban on general principles, but you're not pulling this one off. I'm just going to spend the next several days gradually tightening the wording down, sealing off loopholes, and removing ambiguity that provides for any wriggle room. All you're going to accomplish is making it so that if the resolution is introduced and enacted it's going to be of such a form that the extent to which you will be required to resort to twisting and mangling of the english language to try to avoid it and keep or use bioweapons during roleplay will be far more likely to result in godmodding accusations than acceptance that you have anything approaching a rationally defensible position.

So keep it up by all means.

You say they must verify, but you do not say how they must verify. You are effectively saying that "Oh, we destroyed it" without showing an proof to back the statement up is perfectly acceptable.

"Verify" is not, by ANY definition of the word in the english language, functionally equivalent to "just claim it with no proof". You are not interpreting the resolution, you are just plain rewriting it. Not going to work.

Tben you're going to have a lot of problems on this forum,

No, I really think not.

One more time. Just saying that it is a "loophole" that you can point blank defy a resolution and then lie about it would mean that ALL laws, EVERYWHERE, at ANY time have the same "loophole" and I am sure as hell not going to refrain from submitting a proposal just because of that. If we did then the only possible state of affairs that could exist in NS would be total lawless anarchy because it is impossible to pass ANY legislation that is immune to that "criticism".

No, but using the fact most alliances are not partnerships still works. Keep in mind that most alliances are between people of vastly varying military and technological advancement, often with the more powerful and advanced members acting as protectors of the others.

Did I use the adjective "equal" anywhere in that sentence in reference to "partnership"?

I thought not...

You missed the Art of Mockery class, I see. What I am doing is taking a section of your proposal and turning it into a joke, something to be laughed at.

You're not doing it very well since you're just doing what it intentionally permits of you.

All that says is that I have to destroy all biological weapons within DLE.

No, actually it says you must destroy all biological weapons in your possession. It does not specify they have to be within your nation. It also specifically says that in the cases where those agents happen to be located within an infected individual that destruction is to occur by means of the isolation and treatment of that individual. Hence, it's not illegal for a person to get freaking sick as the resolution provides provision for what to legally do whenever this occurs. Just take steps to make sure they don't spread the damn thing and treat them for it.

The inclusion of isolating infected individuals itself really doesn't help, as it does not state when said isolation happens

Yes it does. Immediately.

and does not say anything about any treatment not including spreading the virus around inside an enemy nation.

It doesn't have to because that's already forbidden by article 1. That would be USING the agent as a weapon! I'm not going to repeat the same statements in every single individual article just because you only feel like dealing with them in isolation. The proposal is a single, cumulative peice of legislation. You don't get to pretend that one article doesn't exist just so you can accuse another article of not saying what is already covered in the former.

But, Section 2 has a problem: It does not define it in such of a way to preclude the idea of citizens being sick either.

It doesn't have to. That's already covered elsewhere in the resolution. Article 2 only deals with trave amounts of agent possessed for counter-agent research purposes, with strict prohibitions that it be quarantined against risk of infection.

I have read it. I was critiquing the portions you changed that actually had an affect. You do not define "securing against risk of infection" enough

"Securing against risk of infection" isn't exactly an ambiguous statement but now it says against risk of ANY infection just for you. Infecting the population of your "quarantine planet" is some kind of infection, therefore an undeniable violation. Happy?

Engineered viruses that target only the biological weapon released. The viruses are harmless to humans, but destroy the biological weapon. It's using one of nature's oldest tricks (the bacteriophage).

Most biological weapons of concern ARE viruses (Smallpox, Ebola, etc). And viruses can not be altered by other viruses as far as I know. According to Vastiva:

Viruses are not particularly resistant to [extreme conditions] either - there's a reason most exist inside a host and can exist outside in only limited medium or for limited times or in specific environmental areas.

Therfore, your modifying viruses would not work. Clever, but highly unusable

Right up until the weapon evolves an immunity to your little engineered virus.

Which will take centuries or even millenia.

Hence "can be". Of course you can find counter examples of substandard approaches that had no effect.

With ease, I might add. Examples are not the most difficult things to define.

It is not "part of the nation taking an action". So long as they are acting independently of government direction or sanction it is nothing but a private individual who happens to have citizenship in the nation.

You just stated exactly what I said, only reworded and ignoring the obvious. Or have you forgotten that citizens are also parts of the nations they make up?

You're still just ignoring the part of the article you don't want to deal with. They must be quarantined against risk of infection. "Quarantining" them along with thousands or millions of uninfected people who will then be subject to infection is a clear violation of that article. But now it's been editted again to further remove wriggle room.

Where did I say the quarantine would cause the infection to spread? I specified treatment, not quarantine, and any idiot can tell you exactly why the two can be so different. I shouldn't have even had to say this.

You're just trying to think up any scenario you can to try to show a loophole no matter how irrational because you oppose the very idea of a bioweapons ban on general principles, but you're not pulling this one off.

M'dear, I can reclassify weapons, alter definitions and interpretations, and force you to define every word in your resolution to have it have effect. My list of tricks for getting around resolutions is longer than that of most lawyers.

I'm just going to spend the next several days gradually tightening the wording down, sealing off loopholes, and removing ambiguity that provides for any wriggle room. All you're going to accomplish is making it so that if the resolution is introduced and enacted it's going to be of such a form that the extent to which you will be required to resort to twisting and mangling of the english language to try to avoid it and keep or use bioweapons during roleplay will be far more likely to result in godmodding accusations than acceptance that you have anything approaching a rationally defensible position.

Mangling the English language? You have yet to see what I will do to your precious proposal once I grab a dictionary. You made the mistake of using words that have multiple definitions to them, and that will bite you on the ass.

And, yes, I do oppose the banning of weapons. Which is why I'm not going to play lightly with this one.

So keep it up by all means.

Gladly.

"Verify" is not, by ANY definition of the word in the english language, functionally equivalent to "just claim it with no proof". You are not interpreting the resolution, you are just plain rewriting it. Not going to work.

Here's the definition of the word:

Main Entry: ver·i·fy
Pronunciation: 'ver-&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English verifien, from Middle French verifier, from Medieval Latin verificare, from Latin verus true
1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
synonym see CONFIRM
- ver·i·fi·er /-"fI(-&)r/ noun

Note the words "by oath" in that first entry. All they have to do is take an oath saying the weapons are destroyed and they have done their duty. Nowhere there does it even mention having evidence, and any scholar can tell you the subjective nature of reality. After all, I can simply reclassify all biological weapons as something else and say, truthfully, that I have no biological weapons.

No, I really think not.

There is a difference between thinking and knowing. You think the opposite of what I know.

One more time. Just saying that it is a "loophole" that you can point blank defy a resolution and then lie about it would mean that ALL laws, EVERYWHERE, at ANY time have the same "loophole" and I am sure as hell not going to refrain from submitting a proposal just because of that. If we did then the only possible state of affairs that could exist in NS would be total lawless anarchy because it is impossible to pass ANY legislation that is immune to that "criticism".

Now you're beginning the path to wisdom. As said over a thousand times on this forum, every resolution has a loophole and every resolution has holes in it. You have even been told that it is impossible to close all loopholes. All you will do in your attempts is get frustrated when you finally realize that I can find loopholes forever, requiring a wording of your proposal that goes far above and beyond the length of most legal documents. I have all the time in the world to do this, too.

Did I use the adjective "equal" anywhere in that sentence in reference to "partnership"?

I thought not...

A definition for you (same dictionary):

Main Entry: part·ner·ship
Pronunciation: -"ship
Function: noun
1 : the state of being a partner : PARTICIPATION
2 a : a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business b : the persons joined together in a partnership
3 : a relationship resembling a legal partnership and usually involving close cooperation between parties having specified and joint rights and responsibilities

Now, definition of "partner":

8 entries found for partner.
To select an entry, click on it.
partner[1,noun]partner[2,verb]domestic partnergeneral partnerlimited partnersecret partnersilent partnersleeping partner

Main Entry: 1part·ner
Pronunciation: 'pärt-n&r also 'pärd-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English partener, alteration of parcener, from Anglo-French, coparcener -- more at PARCENER
1 archaic : one that shares : PARTAKER
2 a : one associated with another especially in an action : ASSOCIATE, COLLEAGUE b : either of two persons who dance together c : one of two or more persons who play together in a game against an opposing side d : either of two people living together; especially : SPOUSE
3 : a member of a partnership; also : such membership
4 : one of the heavy timbers that strengthen a ship's deck to support a mast -- usually used in plural
- part·ner·less /-l&s/ adjective

Here's your problem: Most alliances are not partnerships. In fact, quite a few come closer to the idea of nations or the idea of colonial setups than the idea of partnerships. Even the one I'm in isn't a partnership.

You're not doing it very well since you're just doing what it intentionally permits of you.

You still don't see it, do you? This is going to be fun.

No, actually it says you must destroy all biological weapons in your possession. It does not specify they have to be within your nation. It also specifically says that in the cases where those agents happen to be located within an infected individual that destruction is to occur by means of the isolation and treatment of that individual. Hence, it's not illegal for a person to get freaking sick as the resolution provides provision for what to legally do whenever this occurs. Just take steps to make sure they don't spread the damn thing and treat them for it.

Wait, in the possession of the government? Going by this and other arguements, I can give the biological weapons to individual citizens, say the government doesn't own them, and blame it on people acting outside the official stance of the government whenever biological weapons are used on other nations. Congrats, you just allowed the plausible deniability loophole to come into affect.

Actually, your proposal does outlaw getting sick, specifically in how it includes the diseases caught by people in a section detailing the destruction of weapons classified as illegal by the proposal. Oops.

Yes it does. Immediately.

Time for another defintion:

Main Entry: 1im·me·di·ate·ly
Pronunciation: i-'mE-dE-&t-lE also -'mE-dit-, British often -'mE-j&t-
Function: adverb
1 : in direct connection or relation : DIRECTLY <the parties immediately involved in the case> <the house immediately beyond this one>
2 : without interval of time : STRAIGHTWAY

Which definition? Both fit and allow for a logical statement to be made.

It doesn't have to because that's already forbidden by article 1. That would be USING the agent as a weapon! I'm not going to repeat the same statements in every single individual article just because you only feel like dealing with them in isolation. The proposal is a single, cumulative peice of legislation. You don't get to pretend that one article doesn't exist just so you can accuse another article of not saying what is already covered in the former.

As a weapon, not as a cure for a disease. Keep in mind that a common practice for curing chicken pox infections in populations used to be exposing children to it as soon as possible, so that they'd carry the immunity for the rest of their lives. It never really worked as intended, but there is nothing preventing the practice from being used again.

So, really, not illegal in your proposal.

It doesn't have to. That's already covered elsewhere in the resolution. Article 2 only deals with trave amounts of agent possessed for counter-agent research purposes, with strict prohibitions that it be quarantined against risk of infection.

The covering in that other section was dealt with.

"Securing against risk of infection" isn't exactly an ambiguous statement but now it says against risk of ANY infection just for you. Infecting the population of your "quarantine planet" is some kind of infection, therefore an undeniable violation. Happy?

M'dear, we're simply putting the virus into a specialized quarantine zone, where it is secure against any infection of those outside the zone. All people inside the zone are assumed to be already infected, thus we do not consider it infecting anybody. The spread of the virus within the quarantine is only among those already classified as infected, who are being quarantined there to prevent them from spreading it so that we can work on a cure.

There. No violations at all. Now, back to firing the weapons off.

Most biological weapons of concern ARE viruses (Smallpox, Ebola, etc). And viruses can not be altered by other viruses as far as I know. According to Vastiva:

Actually, if you program them right, viruses can affect other viruses. All they do is insert DNA from one virus into the other (or, in the case of the ones you are talking about RNA), causing the target virus to be rendered inert by the programming of the added DNA. It's actually an idea that was proposed on how to deal with HIV, but which has most been abandoned to that virus being a supermutagen.

Now, just for fun, I'm going to go through and use a dictionary to find alternate interpretations for each section.

NOTING bioweapons are an inherently uncontrollable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

Definition:

Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inhaerent-, inhaerens, present participle of inhaerEre
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : INTRINSIC
- in·her·ent·ly adverb

Does that mean that if it is designed to be controllable that it is not a bioweapon?

DECLARING “bioweapons” are considered for the purpose of this resolution to be viruses or infectious bacteriological or microbial organisms with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing the target host organism upon infection.

Main Entry: de·clare
Pronunciation: di-'klar, -'kler
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·clared; de·clar·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French declarer, from Latin declarare, from de- + clarare to make visible, from clarus clear -- more at CLEAR
transitive senses
1 : to make known formally, officially, or explicitly
2 obsolete : to make clear
3 : to make evident : SHOW
4 : to state emphatically : AFFIRM <declares his innocence>
5 : to make a full statement of (one's taxable or dutiable property)
6 a : to announce (as a trump suit) in a card game b : MELD
7 : to make payable <declare a dividend>
intransitive senses
1 : to make a declaration
2 : to avow one's opinion or support
- de·clar·able /-'klar-&-b&l, -'kler-/ adjective
synonyms DECLARE, ANNOUNCE, PROCLAIM, PROMULGATE mean to make known publicly. DECLARE implies explicitness and usually formality in making known <the referee declared the contest a draw>. ANNOUNCE implies the declaration of something for the first time <announced their engagement at a party>. PROCLAIM implies declaring clearly, forcefully, and authoritatively <the president proclaimed a national day of mourning>. PROMULGATE implies the proclaiming of a dogma, doctrine, or law <promulgated an edict of religious toleration>. synonym see in addition ASSERT

Which definition are you attempt? 1, 2, 3, or 4? Be careful, as not all of those indicate that the statement must be true.

FURTHER DECLARING the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and must be eliminated by any means available.

Main Entry: pos·ses·sion
Pronunciation: -'ze-sh&n also -'se-
Function: noun
1 a : the act of having or taking into control b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership c : OWNERSHIP d : control of the ball or puck
2 : something owned, occupied, or controlled : PROPERTY
3 a : domination by something (as an evil spirit, a passion, or an idea) b : a psychological state in which an individual's normal personality is replaced by another c : the fact or condition of being self-controlled
- pos·ses·sion·al /-'zesh-n&l, -'ze-sh&-n&l also -'sesh-n&l or -'se-sh&-n&l/ adjective
- pos·ses·sion·less /-'ze-sh&n-l&s, -'se-/ adjective

So, is this talking about owning the weapons, or controlling them as evil spirits?

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the need for nations to develop effective defenses against the deployment of such bioweapons against them.

Main Entry: 1ef·fec·tive
Pronunciation: i-'fek-tiv, e-, E-
Function: adjective
1 a : producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect b : IMPRESSIVE, STRIKING <a gold lamé fabric studded with effective ... precious stones -- Stanley Marcus>
2 : ready for service or action <effective manpower>
3 : ACTUAL <the need to increase effective demand for goods>
4 : being in effect : OPERATIVE <the tax becomes effective next year>
5 of a rate of interest : equal to the rate of simple interest that yields the same amount when the interest is paid once at the end of the interest period as a quoted rate of interest does when calculated at compound interest over the same period -- compare NOMINAL 4
- ef·fec·tive·ness noun
- ef·fec·tiv·i·ty /"e-"fek-'ti-v&-tE, i-, E-/ noun
synonyms EFFECTIVE, EFFECTUAL, EFFICIENT, EFFICACIOUS mean producing or capable of producing a result. EFFECTIVE stresses the actual production of or the power to produce an effect <an effective rebuttal>. EFFECTUAL suggests the accomplishment of a desired result especially as viewed after the fact <the measures to stop the pilfering proved effectual>. EFFICIENT suggests an acting or a potential for action or use in such a way as to avoid loss or waste of energy in effecting, producing, or functioning <an efficient small car>. EFFICACIOUS suggests possession of a special quality or virtue that gives effective power <a detergent that is efficacious in removing grease>.

So which definition this time? 1, 2, or 3? Or all at once?

FURTHER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

Okay, this one's fine. Mainly because I don't want to get into the definitions of "direct" at the moment.

NOTING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

Main Entry: 1pol·i·cy
Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English policie government, policy, from Middle French, government, regulation, from Late Latin politia
1 a : prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs b : management or procedure based primarily on material interest
2 a : a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b : a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body

So, which is it? Note that the UN cannot do some of the items, indirectly or not.

HEREBY RESOLVES

ARTICLES:

1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

Once again, that "possession" word. You really like controlling items as an evil spirit, don't you?

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, and under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.

Main Entry: 2secure
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): se·cured; se·cur·ing
transitive senses
1 a : to relieve from exposure to danger : act to make safe against adverse contingencies <secure a supply line from enemy raids> b : to put beyond hazard of losing or of not receiving : GUARANTEE <secure the blessings of liberty -- U.S. Constitution> c : to give pledge of payment to (a creditor) or of (an obligation) <secure a note by a pledge of collateral>
2 a : to take (a person) into custody : hold fast : PINION b : to make fast : SEAL <secure a door>
3 a : to get secure usually lasting possession or control of <secure a job> b : BRING ABOUT, EFFECT
4 : to release (naval personnel) from work or duty
intransitive senses
1 of naval personnel : to stop work : go off duty
2 of a ship : to tie up : BERTH
synonym see ENSURE
- se·cur·er noun

1, 2, and 3 all are acceptable definitions of this word for these purposes. You should choose one.

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapons agent proscribed as defined in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately destroyed through incineration or other available method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, or if present in an infected individual through immediate isolation and treatment. The totality of that destruction/neutralization is to be thoroughly verified by the nation responsible.

Main Entry: ver·i·fy
Pronunciation: 'ver-&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English verifien, from Middle French verifier, from Medieval Latin verificare, from Latin verus true
1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
synonym see CONFIRM
- ver·i·fi·er /-"fI(-&)r/ noun

I already brought this one up. Just thought I'd be lazy this time.

4. UN member nations are proscribed from material or monetary transfers with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

Main Entry: pro·scribe
Pronunciation: prO-'skrIb
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·scribed; pro·scrib·ing
Etymology: Latin proscribere to publish, proscribe, from pro- before + scribere to write -- more at SCRIBE
1 : to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
2 : to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful : PROHIBIT
- pro·scrib·er noun

You actually have used this one correctly the second time, but for the first either definition on here is acceptable. You really might want to reconsider your use of the word.

5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

Main Entry: part·ner·ship
Pronunciation: -"ship
Function: noun
1 : the state of being a partner : PARTICIPATION
2 a : a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business b : the persons joined together in a partnership
3 : a relationship resembling a legal partnership and usually involving close cooperation between parties having specified and joint rights and responsibilities

Already brought this one up.

6. UN member nations are strongly urged to issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a non UN member nation/nations employs bioweapons as defined in this proposal against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

I have a different attack pattern for this one, so I'll leave it alone.

5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.I like the idea but isn't this a limitation on roleplay? Are such limits permitted?

More generally, I can see ways to abuse this...

Actually, such limits are outright banned. That's one of the oldest rules, one of the pre-Enodian edicts.

I would bet DLE is going to whoop my butt with this one BUT....maybe change it from "partnerships" to "agreement" - and leave it unspecified as I think (hope) that it'll cover all forms of agreement (verbal, written, mentally forced into someone else's brain).

DLE - how the heck do you have time for all of this?

It occurs to me that the choice of definition is somewhat based and applies bias to the person who is interpreting it. Now I'm sure DLE will argue that is what she is doing, but on the same note, it would be the ENFORCERS of the resolution (therefore the UN) that would determine the definition they will use. I do not believe that a careful "redefining" of every single term within the UN resolution is required because I'm certain that the UN would be able to understand the spirit of the resolution they are required to enforce and would instead choose that definition.

Now we can get into the debates of the true powers of the UN and the little men that work behind the scenes that we never get to meet and talk to, all we know is that Max Berry and Hack are continually hiring them to enforce the resolutions upon all member nations (else anyone can just refuse to accept any resolution). So pretty much, we have a few trillion NPCs running around the already very cramped UN building and throughout the world enforcing and maintaining the rule of law.

That is not to say that crappy resolutions that actually don't really do what people want them to do (and have TRUE loopholes, not "which definition" loopholes) are enforced, but it does mean that the perfect wording that the loophole goddess is pushing is rather unnecessary.

Perhaps it is newbie naivity (and I'm sure DLE will crush my spirit into a little ball small enough that it will fit in the crinkled ball Resolution 16 will be once the repeal passes), but it is something to consider.....

I would bet DLE is going to whoop my butt with this one BUT....maybe change it from "partnerships" to "agreement" - and leave it unspecified as I think (hope) that it'll cover all forms of agreement (verbal, written, mentally forced into someone else's brain).

In which case the UN is attempting to dictate the thinking patterns of nation leaders, which would require some justification as to how it can even attempt it and a police force to actually back. Then, it'll be beyond the scope of what most UN members want anyway.

DLE - how the heck do you have time for all of this?

I do something similar to this with my job. Due to a lack of major projects, I've been telecommuting recently. Next major project is for Halloween.

It occurs to me that the choice of definition is somewhat based and applies bias to the person who is interpreting it. Now I'm sure DLE will argue that is what she is doing, but on the same note, it would be the ENFORCERS of the resolution (therefore the UN) that would determine the definition they will use. I do not believe that a careful "redefining" of every single term within the UN resolution is required because I'm certain that the UN would be able to understand the spirit of the resolution they are required to enforce and would instead choose that definition.

Actually, that's not what actually happens. The job of the UN Gnomes is to enforce a resolution's exact wording, due to the fact we can only know the spirit by being able to ask the author or someone who was around at the time the early drafts were made. This pretty much means that the exact wording is the most important aspect of a resolution, as it is the exact wording that determines loopholes and what ways people can get around it. If wording wasn't so important, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, as exact wording is the reason why this proposal is being written. Considering the author of this proposal is also repealing the resolution this proposal is intended to replace based on exact wording, them not wanting to deal with it now would be hypocrisy.

Now we can get into the debates of the true powers of the UN and the little men that work behind the scenes that we never get to meet and talk to, all we know is that Max Berry and Hack are continually hiring them to enforce the resolutions upon all member nations (else anyone can just refuse to accept any resolution). So pretty much, we have a few trillion NPCs running around the already very cramped UN building and throughout the world enforcing and maintaining the rule of law.

They're called the UN Gnomes. Ask Hack about them sometime.

That is not to say that crappy resolutions that actually don't really do what people want them to do (and have TRUE loopholes, not "which definition" loopholes) are enforced, but it does mean that the perfect wording that the loophole goddess is pushing is rather unnecessary.

The definitions of words themselves are actually the most important items of the wording. If you have something that, through definition possibilities, is vaguely worded, then it's as bad as if the words were exact in definition but the actual wording was vague. Worse, if you don't include the definitions in some cases, people will go ahead and define the words of the resolution as they see fit, potentially moving away from the actual definitions. The only way to get around this is for the proposal to include exact definitions of every word, with a separate definition per usage. Otherwise, it has a loophole.

Welcome to UN politics.

Perhaps it is newbie naivity (and I'm sure DLE will crush my spirit into a little ball small enough that it will fit in the crinkled ball Resolution 16 will be once the repeal passes), but it is something to consider.....

And something to reject. The proposal author cannot have what they are after simply because they don't have the infinite word limit necessary to do so. That's why, in the real world, some legal documents will go one for ten or twenty pages just for a single item before moving on to the next. In this case, the proposal author going in your direction would be, as I stated earlier, hypocrisy.

You know, it's not bad and all, but back to that format thing. The "articles" as you call them are actually operative clauses, and as such should contain italicized (or capitalized, as you can't italicize them) clause words such as "CALLS UPON", "DESIGNATES", "SUPPORTS", "REMAINS" etc. Well, at least you got the number scheme right. Operative clauses should be numbered. And you got the preamble right too.

So, shortlist:
-address the assembly
-get rid of words "hereby resolves" and "articles"
-add clause words to operative clauses.

And then you will have a perfectly-formatted proposal!

Uzbekistan and Solomon']You know, it's not bad and all, but back to that format thing. The "articles" as you call them are actually operative clauses, and as such should contain italicized (or capitalized, as you can't italicize them) clause words such as "CALLS UPON", "DESIGNATES", "SUPPORTS", "REMAINS" etc. Well, at least you got the number scheme right. Operative clauses should be numbered. And you got the preamble right too.

So, shortlist:
-address the assembly
-get rid of words "hereby resolves" and "articles"
-add clause words to operative clauses.

Interesting critique.

And then you will have a perfectly-written resolution!

Okay, a couple of items:

1. It's a proposal, not a resolution. It doesn't become a resolution until it goes up for UN vote. Note this is different from a repeal, which remains a repeal no matter what point of the vote it is at. I've been letting that slide, but now the misuse is annoying.

2. The last time I saw a perfectly written proposal, it had to be cut to 1/500,000,000,000 the size just to fit into the limits on proposal length. In its full form, you couldn't violate that damned thing even if you had an act of God to help you. In the cut form, it had more loopholes than the original ban on biological weapons.

Until the UN has legislation ready to replace the old resoultion, after it has been vote down I will not vote yes.This will give nations time to created a biological warfare army. This willgive terrorist a significant advantage. They can now buy the weapons from anyone because they would be temporarly legal. VOTE NO!

Bacidov, wrong topic. This topic is the legislation to replace the resolution being repealed. The repeal itself is stickied at the top of the forum.

Why do I get a feeling that Bacidov is just the herald of the comming army?

4. UN member nations are proscribed from material or monetary transfers with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as defined by this resolution.

6. UN member nations are strongly urged to issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a non UN member nation/nations employs bioweapons as defined in this proposal against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.


I would advise getting rid of all the parts I bolded. The way you've stated it, it's ok to do business with a UN nation who violates article 1 of this resolution (and it's not stated what should be done when a nation violates article 1). In article 6, it's made to seem that it's ok for a non-UN member to employ biological weapons against other non-UN members, even though the basic premise of banning biological weapons is that they can harm everyone including UN members no matter who they're deployed against.

I would advise getting rid of all the parts I bolded. The way you've stated it, it's ok to do business with a UN nation who violates article 1 of this resolution (and it's not stated what should be done when a nation violates article 1). In article 6, it's made to seem that it's ok for a non-UN member to employ biological weapons against other non-UN members, even though the basic premise of banning biological weapons is that they can harm everyone including UN members no matter who they're deployed against.

True... and it saves me characters. Done.

Oh, and blessed be Her Holy Horn... (anyone who doesn't follow feel free to ignore).

(DLE, I'll be back to play with you some more later...)

Actually, if you program them right, viruses can affect other viruses. All they do is insert DNA from one virus into the other (or, in the case of the ones you are talking about RNA), causing the target virus to be rendered inert by the programming of the added DNA. It's actually an idea that was proposed on how to deal with HIV, but which has most been abandoned to that virus being a supermutagen.

How would one virus inject DNA or RNA into another virus? Viruses can not exchange DNA/RNA with anything unless they are in a cell. So both viruses would have to infect a cell at the same time.

Even if a way around this is found, to control a virus outbreak with counter-viruses would require insane amounts of counter-virus. This would have to be spread throughout the entire infection zone, in great enough quantity that each person gets enough counter-virus to nutralize every single virus particle in their body (assuming a city the size of New York City, that would be 8 million people, roughly one quarter to three quarters with thousands or even millions of viral particles. That would require (conservative estimate) 300,000*4,000,000 or 1,200,000,000,000 (thats 1.2 trillion) viral particles. Now because most of them will fail to find a host, one would need at least 100 times that number to fully hit every virus in the reagon. It would also need to be spread evenly across a huge area. In short it is impossible to use viruses to stop a viral bioweapon attack, or even a simple outbreak of natural Marburg.

Unless, of course, the counter-virus could replicate in humans. That would make it as bad as the original virus, however.

Granted, i am not a virus specialist, but i think these estimates are VERY conservative. The actual numbers are probably MUCH higher.

I would advise getting rid of all the parts I bolded. The way you've stated it, it's ok to do business with a UN nation who violates article 1 of this resolution (and it's not stated what should be done when a nation violates article 1). In article 6, it's made to seem that it's ok for a non-UN member to employ biological weapons against other non-UN members, even though the basic premise of banning biological weapons is that they can harm everyone including UN members no matter who they're deployed against.

UN resolutions do not affect nonmember nations. The parts you bolded are necessary for clarity in the last portion.

It should be noted that this proposal bans UN members from having the weapons, so it is unnecessary to include UN members as among those who people cannot trade with. The same is true of military partnerships.

For the last portion, the parts are necessary simply because of the fact that nonmember nations are not affected by UN resolutions. Your advice to have the distinction removed has it so that UN members must come to the defense of every nation that has biological weapons used against them. This means that the UN will be interfering in nearly every war in NS, which will quickly build a coalition of people against the UN, get the group as a whole banned from RPs and ignored by the majority of posters, and may even get people banned from the site. If you really wish to commit suicide with your nation like that, insulting a mod's heritage is the fastest method.

Mangling the English language? You have yet to see what I will do to your precious proposal once I grab a dictionary. You made the mistake of using words that have multiple definitions to them, and that will bite you on the ass.
Greetings.

We of Roathin would like to point out that the use of words with multiple definitions is impossible to avoid in any effective language use. It is the way they create as unambiguous a context as possible that is important.

Since there is a 3000-word limit in our legal environment, it is therefore unlikely that any NSUN resolution would meet your exacting standards as each word would have to be unambiguously defined by context and majority agreement as to the limitations of its meaning.

Your argument, therefore, is purely a mischievous one. It does not augur well that you should stoop to such a low level. "Bite you on the ass," forsooth.

How would one virus inject DNA or RNA into another virus? Viruses can not exchange DNA/RNA with anything unless they are in a cell. So both viruses would have to infect a cell at the same time.

Not true. Viruses latch on to the outside of cells and then inject the DNA or RNA into the cell. The same can be achieved from a virus attacking a virus, but the victim virus must be larger (yes, viruses do come in different sizes).

Even if a way around this is found, to control a virus outbreak with counter-viruses would require insane amounts of counter-virus. This would have to be spread throughout the entire infection zone, in great enough quantity that each person gets enough counter-virus to nutralize every single virus particle in their body (assuming a city the size of New York City, that would be 8 million people, roughly one quarter to three quarters with thousands or even millions of viral particles. That would require (conservative estimate) 300,000*4,000,000 or 1,200,000,000,000 (thats 1.2 trillion) viral particles. Now because most of them will fail to find a host, one would need at least 100 times that number to fully hit every virus in the reagon. It would also need to be spread evenly across a huge area. In short it is impossible to use viruses to stop a viral bioweapon attack, or even a simple outbreak of natural Marburg.

Not as impossible as you think. The countervirus can be one that is spread through air and released from standard dispursal warheads. The insane amounts of anti-virus are a necessity in any case, as you will want to have stockpiles to prevent infections from entering your nation.

Unless, of course, the counter-virus could replicate in humans. That would make it as bad as the original virus, however.

Only if it targets human cells. However, human cells are typically not the only items in the human bloodstream. Many people have harmless bacteria within their blood for one reason or another, so you can use that as the reproductive source.

Granted, i am not a virus specialist, but i think these estimates are VERY conservative. The actuall numbers are probably MUCH higher.

The amount of viral particles you are talking about don't even make up an average flu season. The amount of particles necessary are much, much, much higher. However, such particles can easily fit within the warhead of a single plane-launched missile, much like you see on fighters.

YOU RELEASED IT FIRST! It doesn't matter if you sanitized it AFTER you released it you still violated the resolution requiring securing it AGAINST RELEASE!


I released it into a controlled area which would undergo significant sterilization meatures. Therefore, it was not "released", it was "placed in an area to be sanitized".

Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick, make the loopholes larger....

Greetings.

We of Roathin would like to point out that the use of words with multiple definitions is impossible to avoid in any effective language use. It is the way they create as unambiguous a context as possible that is important.

Which is why most legal documents of matters normally this important are hundreds of pages long. Most politicians don't even bother to read them anymore.

Since there is a 3000-word limit in our legal environment, it is therefore unlikely that any NSUN resolution would meet your exacting standards as each word would have to be unambiguously defined by context and majority agreement as to the limitations of its meaning.

Which does not prevent the minority, in any way, from interpreting it differently and ignoring the majority interpretation. The UN would require a police force and international courts to stop it.

Your argument, therefore, is purely a mischievous one. It does not augur well that you should stoop to such a low level. "Bite you on the ass," forsooth.

My arguement is based on the idea that Reformentia honestly believes a UN proposal without loopholes can be created. The mischieviousness involved is nothing I have not pulled before, with the only difference this time being that I am using multiple tricks at the same time instead of normally focusing on a couple. As it stands, it is impossible for a resolution to eliminate loopholes in wording without breaching the word limit, which is a lesson I am convinced must be learned the hard way in this case.

In any case, word definitions are not my only path of attack, just the latest one added on to the pile in this topic.

UN resolutions do not affect nonmember nations. The parts you bolded are necessary for clarity in the last portion.

It should be noted that this proposal bans UN members from having the weapons, so it is unnecessary to include UN members as among those who people cannot trade with. The same is true of military partnerships.

For the last portion, the parts are necessary simply because of the fact that nonmember nations are not affected by UN resolutions. Your advice to have the distinction removed has it so that UN members must come to the defense of every nation that has biological weapons used against them. This means that the UN will be interfering in nearly every war in NS, which will quickly build a coalition of people against the UN, get the group as a whole banned from RPs and ignored by the majority of posters, and may even get people banned from the site. If you really wish to commit suicide with your nation like that, insulting a mod's heritage is the fastest method.

The entire point of banning biological weapons is that if they are used on one nation, they are in essence used on all nations. An attack on one country with biological weapons is an attack on every single member of the UN, and it is an indiscriminate attack against both military and civilians. This is intolerable, and it cannot be allowed. Indeed, if they attack us all, why shouldn't we all retalliate? If nations who use biological weapons are threatened with the might of the entire UN, they may rethink their position, if not, then they had best hope none of the UN members are harmed by their indiscriminate destruction.

Edited to add: I don't necessarily agree with the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", so I don't agree with defending all nations who are attacked with biological weapons (for example, what happens if we are supposed to defend a nation which uses biological weapons, but is being attacked by a nation who uses biological weapons?). Rather, I think we should attack all nations who employ biological weapons (although I wouldn't go so far as to attack all nations who possess biological weapons, if for nothing else then for not provoking them). Because of our basic premise, that a biological weapon will uncontrollably spread, the use of biological weapons should be considered an act of war against the UN (and any country who is aware of the dangers they face in the aftermath of a biological weapon being deployed). Any UN member nation should be required to send at least 5% of their armed forces (if any, and more if desired) to aid in the elimination of biological weapons in the possession of a country who uses them. The surrender of such a country must be conditional upon them disarming their biological weapons and never again making, purchasing, or using biological weapons. Failure to adhere to that would nullify their state of surrender and the war would have to start again.

UN members are outnumbered 2:1

It also wouldn't be a far stretch of the imagination to believe that the UN has a larger percentage of members that have no military forces than these "rogue" nations.

You're not exactly looking at this one correctly I'm afraid.

DLE - I've gotta check resolution 16 again regarding something (I dispute the claim that it's hypocracy, but I've gotta cross reference the resolution and the repeal first), but I think otherwise.....my prediction was rather accurate.....

Not true. Viruses latch on to the outside of cells and then inject the DNA or RNA into the cell. The same can be achieved from a virus attacking a virus, but the victim virus must be larger (yes, viruses do come in different sizes).

Can you provide an example of a virus ever attacking another virus. I have never heard of such a thing.

UN members are outnumbered 2:1

It also wouldn't be a far stretch of the imagination to believe that the UN has a larger percentage of members that have no military forces than these "rogue" nations.

You're not exactly looking at this one correctly I'm afraid.

DLE - I've gotta check resolution 16 again regarding something (I dispute the claim that it's hypocracy, but I've gotta cross reference the resolution and the repeal first), but I think otherwise.....my prediction was rather accurate.....
Greetings.

We of Roathin note the use of the word 'hypocracy' in a rather apt context. 'Hypocracy' would mean the state of having less power than you thought you had. Congratulations are in order; it has long been thought that 'hypocracy' was merely a misspelling of 'hypocrisy'.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note the use of the word 'hypocracy' in a rather apt context. 'Hypocracy' would mean the state of having less power than you thought you had. Congratulations are in order; it has long been thought that 'hypocracy' was merely a misspelling of 'hypocrisy'.
Or it could mean the rule of those below you.
[/topic hijack]

UN members are outnumbered 2:1

It also wouldn't be a far stretch of the imagination to believe that the UN has a larger percentage of members that have no military forces than these "rogue" nations.

You're not exactly looking at this one correctly I'm afraid.

DLE - I've gotta check resolution 16 again regarding something (I dispute the claim that it's hypocracy, but I've gotta cross reference the resolution and the repeal first), but I think otherwise.....my prediction was rather accurate.....

What we have is unity. Even at 2:1, if we take them one by one we can win. The only other option is to let them use biological weapons which will kill our people, so their very use of biological weapons is an act of war, whether we're ready to fight or not.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note the use of the word 'hypocracy' in a rather apt context. 'Hypocracy' would mean the state of having less power than you thought you had. Congratulations are in order; it has long been thought that 'hypocracy' was merely a misspelling of 'hypocrisy'.


Noted, thank you.

What we have is unity. Even at 2:1, if we take them one by one we can win. The only other option is to let them use biological weapons which will kill our people, so their very use of biological weapons is an act of war, whether we're ready to fight or not.
Unity? Oh dearie me...

We are the 'United Nations' in name only. There is no way you are going to get even a bare majority to go to war with any specific nation at any time. Remember: this group contains nations which do not have militaries, alongside some of the most militaristic nations in the NS Universe. But even so, there are still more powerful nations outside of the UN, with extremely long standing alliances.

Unity? Oh dearie me...

We are the 'United Nations' in name only. There is no way you are going to get even a bare majority to go to war with any specific nation at any time. Remember: this group contains nations which do not have militaries, alongside some of the most militaristic nations in the NS Universe. But even so, there are still more powerful nations outside of the UN, with extremely long standing alliances.

I don't think there's a single alliance out there even 1/100th as large as the UN. Combine 5% of all of our armed forces, and we should overwhelm any opposition we face.

I don't think there's a single alliance out there even 1/100th as large as the UN. Combine 5% of all of our armed forces, and we should overwhelm any opposition we face.
Have you ever tried to unite the UN? Even the Pretenama Panel (which is as close as you can get to any UN armed force) only has about 30 members. Only a couple of which have extensive militaries.

Have you ever tried to unite the UN? Even the Pretenama Panel (which is as close as you can get to any UN armed force) only has about 30 members. Only a couple of which have extensive militaries.

There are 37,000+ nations in the UN. Out of them, even if only 1/10 have a military, that leaves the military power of 3,700 nations.

There are 37,000+ nations in the UN. Out of them, even if only 1/10 have a military, that leaves the military power of 3,700 nations.
I'm not arguing statistics, I'm arguing logistics. Do you really think even just a tenth of UN nations are going to agree to anything like you are suggesting? How are you going to co-ordinate such a force, assuming they agree?

What we have is unity. Even at 2:1, if we take them one by one we can win. The only other option is to let them use biological weapons which will kill our people, so their very use of biological weapons is an act of war, whether we're ready to fight or not.

*ROTFLMGDAOPIMP!*

...oh, wait, you seriously believe that?

History lesson. The Pretenama Panel declared Crimmond guilty of genocide. They couldn't even manage to organize their own fifteen member nations to a response - and we're not going to go into "effective" as Crimmond alone would be the one "taking them down one by one".

The UN is outnumbered, outgunned, and generally out of luck. Well over 4/5ths of it's membership would laugh hysterically at the idea of 'supporting' anyone else in the UN in getting across a street - nevermind going into an actual war.

This is not the Real Life UN. Not even in the most general sense.

The entire point of banning biological weapons is that if they are used on one nation, they are in essence used on all nations.

Nah. Just code the bioweapons to target only a certain gene code shared by the nation in question.

An attack on one country with biological weapons is an attack on every single member of the UN, and it is an indiscriminate attack against both military and civilians. This is intolerable, and it cannot be allowed. Indeed, if they attack us all, why shouldn't we all retalliate? If nations who use biological weapons are threatened with the might of the entire UN, they may rethink their position, if not, then they had best hope none of the UN members are harmed by their indiscriminate destruction.

Except you have the problem that if such an event occured those of us in the UN with the biggest militaries would turn on the UN. Plus, in such a scenario you'll have to deal with fleets in orbit bombing you as well as those in the sea. The UN is not as united as you think.

Edited to add: I don't necessarily agree with the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", so I don't agree with defending all nations who are attacked with biological weapons (for example, what happens if we are supposed to defend a nation which uses biological weapons, but is being attacked by a nation who uses biological weapons?). Rather, I think we should attack all nations who employ biological weapons (although I wouldn't go so far as to attack all nations who possess biological weapons, if for nothing else then for not provoking them).

So you're going to attack at least 40,000 people, plus an additional 10,000 in the UN? Should we dig the mass graves now or wait until after your nation is dead?

Because of our basic premise, that a biological weapon will uncontrollably spread, the use of biological weapons should be considered an act of war against the UN (and any country who is aware of the dangers they face in the aftermath of a biological weapon being deployed).

Which is exactly the goal of many people who hate the UN. They initiate a war with the entire group, the UN will quickly find itself fracturing as people find survival more important than the UN and go to join their allies. You'll end up with it falling apart overnight, with only a handful of nations that can't do diddly squat left behind to continue.

Any UN member nation should be required to send at least 5% of their armed forces (if any, and more if desired) to aid in the elimination of biological weapons in the possession of a country who uses them.

Illegal. Creates a UN police force.

The surrender of such a country must be conditional upon them disarming their biological weapons and never again making, purchasing, or using biological weapons. Failure to adhere to that would nullify their state of surrender and the war would have to start again.

Which gives them enough time to make new allies.

Look, you have interesting ideas, but the UN is not the place for them. The UN is fractured and currently incapable of producing unity. What you are talking about has been attempted with genocide and all it has resulted in is a joke.

DLE - I've gotta check resolution 16 again regarding something (I dispute the claim that it's hypocracy, but I've gotta cross reference the resolution and the repeal first), but I think otherwise.....my prediction was rather accurate.....

A little secret about predictions: All of them are accurate. It just depends on timeline and interpretation.

Can you provide an example of a virus ever attacking another virus. I have never heard of such a thing.

That's because it normally doesn't happen in nature. Also, in nature, sheep normally don't produce spider silk. Doesn't prevent scientists from causing it to happen anyway.

There are 37,000+ nations in the UN. Out of them, even if only 1/10 have a military, that leaves the military power of 3,700 nations.

3,700, of which only 1,300 are actually loyal to the UN. You're talking about sending the UN against a large group of people who will deploy biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and weapons more advanced than you can defend against at you in a single volley. Not even the biggest of nations can stand up to that long enough to retaliate.

I'm not arguing statistics, I'm arguing logistics. Do you really think even just a tenth of UN nations are going to agree to anything like you are suggesting? How are you going to co-ordinate such a force, assuming they agree?

I think agreement will come quickly after a biological weapon is deployed and UN citizens begin to die (not to mention friends, family, and children). If they don't, I don't think their citizens will be very happy with them. What's your problem with coordination? We pulled off Iraq (or at least we would have if we had had a clear objective from the start, and left at the earliest opportunity. Of course, leaving would involve not being responsible for the destruction of harmless structures, which would involve actually knowing that biological weapons were there, and finding them).

Building on DLE's point of loyalty to UN

The day after Chemical Weapons Ban went into effect, I was surfing around various regions and found one which on its message board had something to the effect of the following:

"That'll teach the UN to try and take away my chemical weapons. There are 4 heads on pikes of former UN Weapons Inspectors at my borders."

I think agreement will come quickly after a biological weapon is deployed and UN citizens begin to die (not to mention friends, family, and children). If they don't, I don't think their citizens will be very happy with them.

My citizens would be even more unhappy with me if I didn't have weapons to reply with. If UN citizens begin to die, that is a matter of individual nations, not the UN as a whole.

What's your problem with coordination? We pulled off Iraq (or at least we would have if we had had a clear objective from the start, and left at the earliest opportunity. Of course, leaving would involve not being responsible for the destruction of harmless structures, which would involve actually knowing that biological weapons were there, and finding them).

Okay, a few items.

1. THIS IS NOT THE REAL UN.

2. Iraq is an American operation, not a UN operation. The UN only stepped in after the U.S. went ahead and pulled it off anyway.

3. There was a list of clear objectives. Get in, remove Saddam, secure the nation, install new government, and find weapons of mass destruction.

4. There was an exit plan in place before the invasion even happened. It fell apart due to the disbanding of the Iraqi police forces, which were necessary to keep intact for the plan to work.

I think agreement will come quickly after a biological weapon is deployed and UN citizens begin to die (not to mention friends, family, and children). If they don't, I don't think their citizens will be very happy with them. What's your problem with coordination? We pulled off Iraq (or at least we would have if we had had a clear objective from the start, and left at the earliest opportunity. Of course, leaving would involve not being responsible for the destruction of harmless structures, which would involve actually knowing that biological weapons were there, and finding them).

Oh yes, I agree - agreement will come very quickly. I'll be most happy to be selling weapons to the other side and invading your nation. Why? Because should that conflict ever come, the UN is going to lose - and very, very, very badly.

The membership can't even agree not to loot each other's offices, there's cherry kool-aid in the watercoolers, you don't want to see the basements, and the staff will do just about anything for small bribes as all they've been paid in is "UN IOUs" for the last hundred years - and those just don't taste that good regardless of how much ketchup you put on them.

Vastiva, don't forget the illegal slavery ring operated by the valets, the occasional case of UN delegates being set on fire by other delegates, the nations destroyed just because they submitted a bad proposal, and the number of unpunished genocides many UN members are guilty of.

Greetings.

We of Roathin are greatly amused by the demonstrative behaviour of our colleagues Vastiva and DLE. The entire gamut of emotion and passion has been delivered with perfect timing in a well-choreographed ballet which is an improvement over previous attempts. Bravissimo! Se non e vero...

Hmmm. I gave this one a once-over, and came to the conclusion that Vastiva is right in stating that he doesn't need to oppose it since the "national sovereignty" and "cleaning out the clutter" crowds will do it for him. I happen to belong to both of those crowds, and vehemently oppose your attempted replacement (despite it being well-considered and well-written) unless drastic changes (which you are unlikely to agree to) are made to it.

Furthermore, I absolutely agree with DLE that no resolution is loophole-free. As I recall I made a statement much to that effect in the debate over my resolution when people started complaining that it would be abused.

In addition, I oppose any elimination of weapons by UN member nations due to the presence of numerous non-UN nations who...to put it very mildly...do not have our best interests at heart. ;)

The idea of banning bio-chem weapons is good. I'm sure that idealism is at the root of the issue, and that's to be applauded. But in application the ban appears to limit power, forcing nations to give up valuable tools. These weapons could be used defensively or offensively. To some less altuistic minded nations that might be construed as a power grab...or better put...it puts a limit on what tools they might have to make a power grab. Most nations, that aren't all about alturism(at least I define it), aren't going to be too geeked up to have to go back to it's citizenry and tell them they don't want access to every weapon available to protect (wink, wink) them.


One of the first things I noticed, was the lack of mention on bionics and nanotechnology. Both of those things could be lumped in with bio-chems, due to unknown application.

But I digress.


The point is....should the united nations restrict it's members use of bio-chems?

I say the answer is yes, but the current resolution is weak and will have a tough time standing up to a vote. If you want to get the majority of nations to vote in favour of the ban, write a simplified resolution that is clear and admits to the complication of the matter. Also, write a resolution that's rather open-ended, that is , write a resolution that can quickly and easily be amended after a violation or the exposure of a loophole. Loopholes can be closed after they are exposed,if you prepare.

Sometimes the only way to avoid a tragedy is to allow them.



Make the resolution user friendley. And be prepared to take a lot of crap from more aggessive nations.

atrophied hand

The idea of banning bio-chem weapons is good. I'm sure that idealism is at the root of the issue, and that's to be applauded. But in application the ban appears to limit power, forcing nations to give up valuable tools. These weapons could be used defensively or offensively. To some less altuistic minded nations that might be construed as a power grab...or better put...it puts a limit on what tools they might have to make a power grab. Most nations, that aren't all about alturism(at least I define it), aren't going to be too geeked up to have to go back to it's citizenry and tell them they don't want access to every weapon available to protect (wink, wink) them.

Biological weapons and chemical weapons are separate categories for a reason. Please try to keep them that way.

So far, so good.

One of the first things I noticed, was the lack of mention on bionics and nanotechnology. Both of those things could be lumped in with bio-chems, due to unknown application.

Bionics are simply mechanical enhancements to living creatures. They fit in the cyborg category, or in the same category as the creature to which they were added.

Nanotech is actually its own category, due in part to the myriad of useful items that result from nanotechnology. The problem with trying to ban nanomachines is the simple fact they rely on programming, much like many modern warheads, to determine what to do. Banning them is not advised due to the fact the uses as weapons are too limited.

Nanoweapons only work if they can get to the target. In most cases, a simple EMP will take care of them.

The point is....should the united nations restrict it's members use of bio-chems?

No. Too many uses for them to simply restrict them, and the impossibility of actually enforcing a restriction.

I say the answer is yes, but the current resolution is weak and will have a tough time standing up to a vote. If you want to get the majority of nations to vote in favour of the ban, write a simplified resolution that is clear and admits to the complication of the matter. Also, write a resolution that's rather open-ended, that is , write a resolution that can quickly and easily be amended after a violation or the exposure of a loophole. Loopholes can be closed after they are exposed,if you prepare.

Amendments are illegal under UN rules. Try reading the damned FAQ before posting.

Now, why do you believe they should be banned? So far, you've presented a more convincing arguement to the opposite.

Sometimes the only way to avoid a tragedy is to allow them.

And sometimes the only way to keep the Devil outside the door is to have a demon in the room.

Make the resolution user friendley. And be prepared to take a lot of crap from more aggessive nations.

He's going to recieve that no matter what stance he takes on the issue.

You can't amend - which means as soon as there is a loophole found (and they will be found, we have wayyy toomuch free time to not allow us to find loopholes) in a 3000 character document, it's going to be exploited, and its going to be spread around the UN.

In short - you're doomed. Accept it. You'll never achieve the goal of making a loophole free document and appeasing enough people to pass it. Never going to happen.

Well thank you for the baptism...getting housed is always a pleasure.


Addressing issues in order. DLE

1.) Whoever wrote the initial resolution shouldn't have been so finite. It should have read WMDs. Oh well Score one for the Gipper.

2.)Thanks for indulging me on bionics and nanotech.

3.) Yes, the UN should restrict members on this issue and many others. I don't believe every nation has to be a UN member.


Regardless of the rhetorical semantics, at it's nature this issue is a philosophical one. It seems to me that this is an issue about forming a covenant and what that covenant is. Should the UN do such things, I don't know. I'm a newbie. But it seems the logical place. It is possible, and now it appears probable, that I am mistaken.

I couldn't force feed you my opinion about why the UN should ban biological weapon. It has to do with my undying optimism. Seeing the cause and effect that ruling by force always leads to. But as long as I don't crash your nation and vice versa, my world and your world needn't force their opinions down each other's throat. So I hope the author of the resolution is skilled enough to convince the majority to proceed with the ban.



As for the Devil...I ain't afraid of a guy that likes to wield a pitchfork. Farming sissy. JK

Here's one teensy weensy little point to remember, oh Optimist.

The UN is outnumbered at least 2:1. It's realisticly more like 1500:1 as most "members" of the UN would bomb the building if a war started without a second thought.

Of those nations which would "defend the principles of the UN" - call it 500, let's be liberal - about 20 have militaries worth considering.

Attacking the UN? I can count at least 1,500 nations which would get actively involved. No, I'm not kidding. All 1,500 have significant militaries available, and are willing to use them.

So, what you're proposing, is the UN disarm itself.

Why? Because you like being a serf-state?

Here's one teensy weensy little point to remember, oh Optimist.

The UN is outnumbered at least 2:1. It's realisticly more like 1500:1 as most "members" of the UN would bomb the building if a war started without a second thought.

Of those nations which would "defend the principles of the UN" - call it 500, let's be liberal - about 20 have militaries worth considering.

Attacking the UN? I can count at least 1,500 nations which would get actively involved. No, I'm not kidding. All 1,500 have significant militaries available, and are willing to use them.

So, what you're proposing, is the UN disarm itself.

Why? Because you like being a serf-state?

This is the second time in this discussion that Texan Hotrodders is in agreement with Vastiva's points. Well said, sir.

Well thank you for the baptism...getting housed is always a pleasure.

~Zips up~

Always a pleasure. (Hey, you asked for it.)

Addressing issues in order. DLE

1.) Whoever wrote the initial resolution shouldn't have been so finite. It should have read WMDs. Oh well Score one for the Gipper.

The original doesn't actually ban, or even limit, anything except its own words and effectiveness.

2.)Thanks for indulging me on bionics and nanotech.

I try to keep up on my own technology level and previous ones.

3.) Yes, the UN should restrict members on this issue and many others. I don't believe every nation has to be a UN member.

Nor do the nations that outnumber us 2 to 1. Something to think about.

Regardless of the rhetorical semantics, at it's nature this issue is a philosophical one. It seems to me that this is an issue about forming a covenant and what that covenant is. Should the UN do such things, I don't know. I'm a newbie. But it seems the logical place. It is possible, and now it appears probable, that I am mistaken.

The one thing I have learned about the UN is that it's pretty much up to the mods most of the time as to what the UN should and should not do.

I couldn't force feed you my opinion about why the UN should ban biological weapon. It has to do with my undying optimism.

I have a cannon that pumps out 250 billion terraquads of optimism. After it's used, I'm usually quite optimistic that I killed everything on the planet.

Seeing the cause and effect that ruling by force always leads to. But as long as I don't crash your nation and vice versa, my world and your world needn't force their opinions down each other's throat. So I hope the author of the resolution is skilled enough to convince the majority to proceed with the ban.

And I hope otherwise, as I get tired of reclassifying my weapons. Hell, I'm having to pay my landmines the equivolent of $30,000 a year because I put them on the list as live border guards.

As for the Devil...I ain't afraid of a guy that likes to wield a pitchfork. Farming sissy. JK

Heh. The best way to deal with him is to kick him in the crotch, stab him in the crotch with his own pitchfork, and then auction him off on the illegal sex slave market, preferably to guys.

TOTALLY OFF TOPIC...


But why hasn't anyone unleashed on the UN?

Is that even possible?

What would it accompish?

I'll shut up with the nonsense...

TOTALLY OFF TOPIC...


But why hasn't anyone unleashed on the UN?

Is that even possible?

What would it accompish?

I'll shut up with the nonsense...

Attacking the UN has been tried numerous times, but usually only by small nations going solo, fortunately. A coalition of large militaristic nations could do real damage, especially considering that most UN nations that would get attacked are tree-hugging peaceniks with a constant affection for civil rights.

TOTALLY OFF TOPIC...


But why hasn't anyone unleashed on the UN?

Those of us with the large cannons attached to ships in orbit who don't appreciate our citizens being put in danger and sometimes accidentally commit genocide in response.

Is that even possible?

If you can get the RP accepted.

What would it accompish?

What people have been trying to do for years.

I'll shut up with the nonsense...

If you're going to do nonsense, write a joke proposal and post a copy here (don't submit it, though).

Ok, the draft proposal has again been slightly modified in the opening post. Before someone begins trying to point out loopholes in it let me point out a few things.

NOTING bioweapons are an uncontrollable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

1. Quibble about the definition of any word in that sentence you like. It’s not an operative clause. You’re not going to alter the actual practical effect of the resolution by playing with it. It's just a note.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are considered for the purpose of this resolution to be infectious viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing the target host organism upon infection.

2. Regarding reclassifying your bioweapons to try to get around the ban. That section right up above there? That’s a definition incorporated into the proposal using biological terms which are not too terribly open to interpretation. What does that mean? That means you can take your strain of ebola virus and decide to try calling it your “organic weaponry” or your “organic defense technology” or your “fuzzy pink bunny slippers”. If your funny pink bunny slippers fit the definition of a virus, and if your funny pink bunny slippers harm, incapacitate or kill a host organism upon infection as far as this resolution is concerned they’re bioweapons and they’re banned. Call them anything you want you’re still required to destroy them.

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and must be eliminated by any means available.

TAKING NOTE of the need for nations to develop effective defenses against the deployment of such bioweapons against them.

FURTHER TAKING NOTE of the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

REALIZING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.


3. See point 1.

4. Regarding the last point. Yes the UN can. Any legislation which alters the policy of UN member nations in such a way that non UN member nations adjust their own policy to account for it is an indirect influencing of non UN member nation policy now isn't it?

HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. The production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations, as is having possession of such bioweapons.

5. There is no way that “possession” in the context of this statement can be taken to mean “the controlling of by evil spirits”. Go ahead and claim it if you like, you will be ignored.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection to anyone. They are to be so secured in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, such facilities to be under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.

6. No more than 250mg of ANY bioweapon. Period. You cannot keep a tanker truck full of a “research quantity” biological weapon.

7. They are to be secured against risk of infection to any person. That means no, you can’t keep them quarantined ANYWHERE where there are people who you haven’t ensured are adequately protected against becoming infected by them.

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately and completely destroyed through incineration or other available method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, or if present in an infected individual through immediate isolation and treatment.

8. Any bioweapon. Immediately and completely destroyed in a manner which safeguards against ANY release. ANY. That means you don’t vent it into a neighbouring nation just prior to “incinerating” it by leveling that nation with thermonuclear weapons. That’s STILL RELEASING IT FIRST! That’s still USING it on people. That’s still very clearly banned.

9. As this resolution incorporates criteria for how to legally deal with cases of infected citizens within your nation, namely by properly isolating and treating them… NO, this resolution does not make it illegal to have sick people in your country. It DOES require that they be properly dealt with. So long as that is done the nation is NOT in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution. They are in full compliance with this resolution. Therefore the follow-up clauses do NOT apply to such nations.

10. No, this doesn't require the institution of free universal health care. If you suggest it does you will be ignored.

EDIT: the trade sanction clause has been altered. See opening post for the new text as I don't feel like re-analyzing it here...

5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

12. Military partnerships of any kind. That means again, you can call it something else if you like but if it fits the description of any kind of military partnership it’s still not permitted. Regarding questions of this being illegal because it restricts roleplay... I doubt it but will welcome a mod ruling on the subject and modify if necessary. EVERY UN resolution restricts roleplay for UN members. You are roleplaying AS a UN member, thus you are expected to restrict yourself to what is permitted of UN members... which to very large degree is determined by the resolutions which are passed by the UN.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. UN member nations issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a nation/nations employs bioweapons against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

13. Yes, I’m perfectly well aware that your nation can decide to disregard this urging and do nothing. Go ahead. That’s the point of making it an urging and not a requirement. Making it a requirement would have created an army by direction of the UN, which is illegal. As it is this does not create any army or police force whatsoever. It simply requests that member nations use their own armies… entirely on their own discretion and under their own direction and not in any way whatsoever as a “UN army”, to intervene on behalf of their fellow member nations however they should consider it appropriate if one of their fellow UN nations comes under attack by a nation employing biological weapons which are proscribed by this resolution. In effect, it offers official legal sanction for any and all UN members to employ military force as they see fit under such circumstances and that is all it does. And yes, I do know there are big scary non UN militaries out there and a lot of them, I don’t require it be pointed out to me.

Go ahead DLE, begin your list of new loopholes. I know you'll have them. I will only seriously consider altering the resolution in one of two cases.

1. A mod rules the resolution as written contains an illegal statement.
2. You come up with a loophole that would not require a 50,000 word piece of legislation to close it because you’re insisting I fully and rigorously define unacceptably ambiguous words like “the” and “a”... and you do it without claiming that one article lacks a proscription against something or requirement for something while ignoring that it is already covered elsewhere in the resolution.

Greetings.

We of Roathin are not trying to make this difficult, but we feel firmly that certain loopholes MUST be plugged. We believe that it is a worthy endeavour to attempt to define and eliminate this particularly horrific form of weaponry.

1. 'Bioweapons' traditionally includes parasites and fungi, as well as biologically-derived toxins and things like prions; this is why we prefer the term 'infectious microorganisms and microfragments, and their harmful derivatives'.

2. The 250 mg limit for stores of bioweapons should explicitly exclude vaccines and NSUN-permitted research facilities. The problem lies in the definition of what is included in that 250 mg, and also your requirement of three-tier systems for security, which would be excessive for most classes of non-weaponised bioweapon.

3. 'Through immediate isolation and treatment' is impractical as your bioweapon definition includes most diseases; the infected individuals which would have to be quarantined in isolation would be excessive in number. We propose that you replace this phrase with "... through treatment which reduces risk of onward transmission and increases chance of patient recovery."

4. We honestly believe that you should take into account the fact of weaponisation, as some of these bioweapons are lethal even at 0.1 mcg per 70 kg bodyweight (e.g. botulinum toxin LD50, intravenous - it is 70 mcg oral). 250 mg could be enough enough to kill about 1.25m people on average if weaponised optimally.{OOC: for research, look at this interesting document (http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081CLT120005494) }

5. We would rather craft a resolution with teeth. DLE has performed an admirable job of helping you close loopholes, even though some of the objections seem somewhat abstruse or playful.

Thank you for your attention.

Oh god - Vaccines are going to be a nightmare of a loophole.....

"I just reclassified all by Bio-Weapons to vaccines. Now I can have a massive stockpile. Yeah they cure you from a disease - it's called life!"

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.

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:


Okay


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.


As someone pointed out, some bio-weapons are so powerful that 250mg is still capable of insane amounts of damage. We've already noted that this must be reconsidered due to the fact that different bio-weapons have different degrees of capabilities at different levels. That said, I would disagree that scientists necessarily need so much of a bio-weapon that they themselves could kill 30 million people - at that point, the weapon is extraordinarily dangerous.


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.


3rd world countries are known for only having limited commodities to trade, not limited trading partners.


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.


First, I'd like to note that NATO does not exist in NS

Second, if you want to use the immediacy clause, that basically means that any nations that possessed Bio-weapons are failing to follow the resolution. Obviously, the instantaneous aspect of resolutions allows for due process (eg: locating and destroying all bio-reserves might take a few days, booting those that possess bio-weapons out of the alliance if they fail to comply with the UN resolution might take a month). Certainly, alliances where certain members refuse to follow the resolution will be be shrunk, but that is an issue for the alliance itself.


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.


It clearly states that the small nation would actually have to employ the bio-weapon before they can be invaded legally.


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.

Naivity sucks. What is trying to be accomplished here is not just the full ban of bio-weapons within the UN but an attempt to promote a removal of bio-weapons by nations outside the UN. That said, you may have a valid point in requesting the sanctions be required with non-UN nations that have bio-weapons.

IMHO - change the trade issue to optional so small nations have the option of continued trade if their economy depends on it, but keep the military alliances in there.

However.....I wonder about region issues......

Greetings.

We of Roathin are not trying to make this difficult, but we feel firmly that certain loopholes MUST be plugged. We believe that it is a worthy endeavour to attempt to define and eliminate this particularly horrific form of weaponry.

1. 'Bioweapons' traditionally includes parasites and fungi, as well as biologically-derived toxins and things like prions; this is why we prefer the term 'infectious microorganisms and microfragments, and their harmful derivatives'.

In the case of fungi, burn them out. I'm nowhere near as concerned about fungi as about the other bioweapons already described. In the case of biologically derived toxins I see no point in trying to ban them when they have no significant difference in form or function to non biologically derived toxins and I'm not going to try to ban those either. For parasites... I may possibly consider a revision.

2. The 250 mg limit for stores of bioweapons should explicitly exclude vaccines and NSUN-permitted research facilities. The problem lies in the definition of what is included in that 250 mg, and also your requirement of three-tier systems for security, which would be excessive for most classes of non-weaponised bioweapon.

While it would be nice to be able to draw up an entire gradiated scale of security precautions required for weaponized and non weaponized bioweapons and their differing degrees of lethality this is an impossibility in anything resembling a proposal of the size we are dealing with here. It simply cannot be done. It would require detailed definition of exactly what did and did not constitute a weaponized version of any given biological agent, and that would take at least half the proposal.

The point about vaccines is well made however. I'll work on a modification to take that into account but it's going to be tricky without opening an unacceptably large loophole.

3. 'Through immediate isolation and treatment' is impractical as your bioweapon definition includes most diseases; the infected individuals which would have to be quarantined in isolation would be excessive in number.

The resolution requires the strong (3 tier) quarantine for the research of biological weapons counter-agent, which by it's nature requires the actual biological weapons on which to work, many of them incredibly deadly even with the small amount that is being permitted by the resolution. The bioweapon is already contained in this circumstance. Any outbreak whatsoever can be prevented with the proper precautions taken... thus the quarantine requirements.

The treatment of infected individuals comes into effect in circumstances where a biological agent is already free of containment and therefore focus should be on preventing the spread to as great a degree as practical. Thus it requires "isolation" (not the strong quarantine described earlier which would be impractical in a larger population, "isolation" just requires seperating infected individuals from uninfected individuals) and treatment... which already accomplishes exactly what you wish to replace this with.

4. We honestly believe that you should take into account the fact of weaponisation,

As much as I would like that, see above. There simply isn't room.

as some of these bioweapons are lethal even at 0.1 mcg per 70 kg bodyweight (e.g. botulinum toxin LD50, intravenous - it is 70 mcg oral). 250 mg could be enough enough to kill about 1.25m people on average if weaponised optimally.

Yes, and thus while I may consider reducing the requirement to a 2 tier quarantine I will not under any circumstances entertain the idea of reducing it any further than that, as I fully recognize how incredibly dangerous even that small amount can be.

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.

I don't think you appreciate how much 250mg of a bioweapon is. And of course as it is consumed in the experimentation it can be replaced, so long as the amount on hand never exceeds the limit. If you can present a convincing argument for why researchers would legitimately require more than this amount for counter-agent research at any one given time I will certainly consider revising the value.

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.

If I allow any non-sanctioned country to trade with a sanctioned country they will immediately become a trade conduit between more economically prosperous countries circumventing the trade sanctions. They will become the instant middleman between countries that aren't supposed to be trading with countries with bioweapons and countries with bioweapons. I cannot allow selective exceptions to such sanctions.

However, I do have some misgivings about the trade sanctions clause in general. Namely, it may very well be more of an economic disadvantage to UN members than to non UN mebers due to the disparity in the sizes of the respective economic blocks. I'm seriously considering dropping it or reducing the strength of the clause to a request for the organization of trade sanctions left to the discretion of the individual nation/nations and leaving only the military partnership prohibition.

EDIT: Actually, I just did.

Finally, the restriction against military alliances with countries in possession of biological weapons would instantly put in violation all members of most existing alliances.

Sorry, this point is far more important. Taking it out would make the resolution effectively worthless as any nation forced to give up their own bioweapons could simply ally themselves with a non UN nation who would do all the dirty work for them with their own bioweaponry.

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.

Where does it say that? You can't enter into any kind of cooperative military effort or partnership WITH that country but you can independently step in to curb the excesses of another nations military if you are so inclined to make the attempt. Of course the inability to coordinate with the military of the nation under assault would be regrettable, mostly for that nation in question most likely... which rather suggests that they should get rid of their proscribed weaponry doesn't it?

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.

Banning only the weapons themselves only works if you can institute a universal ban. We can't. We can't just legislate these weapons away from non UN nations.

2. Regarding reclassifying your bioweapons to try to get around the ban. That section right up above there? That’s a definition incorporated into the proposal using biological terms which are not too terribly open to interpretation. What does that mean? That means you can take your strain of ebola virus and decide to try calling it your “organic weaponry” or your “organic defense technology” or your “fuzzy pink bunny slippers”. If your funny pink bunny slippers fit the definition of a virus, and if your funny pink bunny slippers harm, incapacitate or kill a host organism upon infection as far as this resolution is concerned they’re bioweapons and they’re banned. Call them anything you want you’re still required to destroy them.

Ooooh! Oooh! Pick me, pick me!

Right! So if we use a viral therapy to remove cancerous growths, we now not only can't use it, but have to destroy it. Why? Because the virus used in the therapy is used to "harm the host" - in this case, the cancerous cells being the host.

How about vaccines, using debilitated versions of the illness? The original illness is intended to "harm", the vaccine is not... but this clause would have us destroy the vaccine as well. Oops again!

That should set medicine back quite a bit.



5. There is no way that “possession” in the context of this statement can be taken to mean “the controlling of by evil spirits”. Go ahead and claim it if you like, you will be ignored.

HAR! New to the UN, aren't you. By the way, the way you've got this one written, I can produce and traffick in and use, just not one of the three. Very all or nothing. Oops again.



6. No more than 250mg of ANY bioweapon. Period. You cannot keep a tanker truck full of a “research quantity” biological weapon.

Perhaps not, but I'm going to have alot of "research shells" loaded with MIRVed dispensers not to exceed 250mg each - and each one will be identified as a separate lot and slightly separate batch of whatever the hell I'm going to be using. Loopholes galore!



7. They are to be secured against risk of infection to any person. That means no, you can’t keep them quarantined ANYWHERE where there are people who you haven’t ensured are adequately protected against becoming infected by them.

Yes, but it's my responsibility, and I'm just so clumsy with those artillery shells...



8. Any bioweapon. Immediately and completely destroyed in a manner which safeguards against ANY release. ANY. That means you don’t vent it into a neighbouring nation just prior to “incinerating” it by leveling that nation with thermonuclear weapons. That’s STILL RELEASING IT FIRST! That’s still USING it on people. That’s still very clearly banned.

Yes, but you see, my "research containers" are all covered by Article 2, which makes this one irrelevant. Nyah! Nothing like proposal judo.



9. As this resolution incorporates criteria for how to legally deal with cases of infected citizens within your nation, namely by properly isolating and treating them… NO, this resolution does not make it illegal to have sick people in your country. It DOES require that they be properly dealt with. So long as that is done the nation is NOT in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution. They are in full compliance with this resolution. Therefore the follow-up clauses do NOT apply to such nations.

10. No, this doesn't require the institution of free universal health care. If you suggest it does you will be ignored.

Also irrelevant, as our shells are covered by article 2. Nyah again!



12. Military partnerships of any kind. That means again, you can call it something else if you like but if it fits the description of any kind of military partnership it’s still not permitted. Regarding questions of this being illegal because it restricts roleplay... I doubt it but will welcome a mod ruling on the subject and modify if necessary. EVERY UN resolution restricts roleplay for UN members. You are roleplaying AS a UN member, thus you are expected to restrict yourself to what is permitted of UN members... which to very large degree is determined by the resolutions which are passed by the UN.

Sorry, we're not a military partnership, we're a limited liability company. Entirely different thing - ask any lawyer about the difference between a "partnership" and "Limited Liability Company".

We could also go with definitions:

Partnership: A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal.

No specified goal, no partnership. Many specified goals, no partnership. Going entirely technical here, loophole.



13. Yes, I’m perfectly well aware that your nation can decide to disregard this urging and do nothing. Go ahead. That’s the point of making it an urging and not a requirement. Making it a requirement would have created an army by direction of the UN, which is illegal. As it is this does not create any army or police force whatsoever. It simply requests that member nations use their own armies… entirely on their own discretion and under their own direction and not in any way whatsoever as a “UN army”, to intervene on behalf of their fellow member nations however they should consider it appropriate if one of their fellow UN nations comes under attack by a nation employing biological weapons which are proscribed by this resolution. In effect, it offers official legal sanction for any and all UN members to employ military force as they see fit under such circumstances and that is all it does. And yes, I do know there are big scary non UN militaries out there and a lot of them, I don’t require it be pointed out to me.

Still going with "forms a UN Army, illegal" pending mod decision.



Go ahead DLE, begin your list of new loopholes. I know you'll have them. I will only seriously consider altering the resolution in one of two cases.

1. A mod rules the resolution as written contains an illegal statement.
2. You come up with a loophole that would not require a 50,000 word piece of legislation to close it because you’re insisting I fully and rigorously define unacceptably ambiguous words like “the” and “a”... and you do it without claiming that one article lacks a proscription against something or requirement for something while ignoring that it is already covered elsewhere in the resolution.

Eh, I wasn't busy, so do attempt to pull this one out of the fire. I think I've lampooned enough for one day.

Oh god - Vaccines are going to be a nightmare of a loophole.....

"I just reclassified all by Bio-Weapons to vaccines. Now I can have a massive stockpile. Yeah they cure you from a disease - it's called life!"


*reclassifies them accordingly* Whooo hoooo!!!! Thank you for that one!

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.

Oh, the TPP is going to love you for this one... if they attempt to aid the victims of a genocidal purge, but one of them has typhoid, or plague, or if they have anthrax or any biological weapon available at all - and a rabid dog will work just fine because of the draconian severity of that definition - the TPP and every other nation of the UN can do nothing to aid them.

Whoo hoo! This gets better and better!

3rd world countries are known for only having limited commodities to trade, not limited trading partners.

However, many have, possess, or have access to biological weapons. Which means the UN as a whole can't trade with them.

Ha-ha!



First, I'd like to note that NATO does not exist in NS

I'd say you're underinformed. At least two NATOs exist in NS. Go step on AMF's toes if you don't believe me.



However.....I wonder about region issues......

As you could stretch the definition of "partnership" to containing regions, you effectively isolate all UN members further and force them out of existing regions - which is really going to make this illegal as now it's now a game mechanics issue!

However, many have, possess, or have access to biological weapons. Which means the UN as a whole can't trade with them.

Ha-ha!


I believe that's where this line proves its accuracy



REALIZING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.





I'd say you're underinformed. At least two NATOs exist in NS. Go step on AMF's toes if you don't believe me.


Perhaps - but not in the sense that was being referred to I'm sure.


As you could stretch the definition of "partnership" to containing regions, you effectively isolate all UN members further and force them out of existing regions - which is really going to make this illegal as now it's now a game mechanics issue!

Well, that would be why I brought it up. However, that's not ENTIRELY as serious as you might try to push it as. There are economic issues with that, and military issues. You could make it (though this might be an RP issue - we'll let Hack decide this) so that military partnerships with region members is not allowed if they have Bio-weapons, but you are allowed economic partnerships.....due to that being a gameplay issue.

Just because two nations are in the same region doesn't mean they automatically support each other militarily. However, considering the sheer number of regions that do have this foundation, it is a very serious RP consideration.

Vastiva - I request that you don't comment on the regions section until Reformatia has had a chance to consider it.

Ooooh! Oooh! Pick me, pick me!

Right! So if we use a viral therapy to remove cancerous growths, we now not only can't use it, but have to destroy it. Why? Because the virus used in the therapy is used to "harm the host" - in this case, the cancerous cells being the host.

How about vaccines, using debilitated versions of the illness? The original illness is intended to "harm", the vaccine is not... but this clause would have us destroy the vaccine as well. Oops again!

That should set medicine back quite a bit.


yeah....vaccines


HAR! New to the UN, aren't you. By the way, the way you've got this one written, I can produce and traffick in and use, just not one of the three. Very all or nothing. Oops again.


I'm getting sick of this....


Perhaps not, but I'm going to have alot of "research shells" loaded with MIRVed dispensers not to exceed 250mg each - and each one will be identified as a separate lot and slightly separate batch of whatever the hell I'm going to be using. Loopholes galore!


Are they under 3 layers of security? Good, keep them there. No you can't build a missile tube that has direct access from the bio-weapons to the air - that's only one layer of security.


Yes, but it's my responsibility, and I'm just so clumsy with those artillery shells...


Ok, you made a mistake. Now you have to consider the consequences.....


Yes, but you see, my "research containers" are all covered by Article 2, which makes this one irrelevant. Nyah! Nothing like proposal judo.


And the rules applied to research canisters still remain in effect


Also irrelevant, as our shells are covered by article 2. Nyah again!


Reformatia, he got you with that one


Sorry, we're not a military partnership, we're a limited liability company. Entirely different thing - ask any lawyer about the difference between a "partnership" and "Limited Liability Company".


Yes, because a nation can be a "Limited Liability Company". :headbang: :headbang:


We could also go with definitions:

Partnership: A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal.

No specified goal, no partnership. Many specified goals, no partnership. Going entirely technical here, loophole.


Actually, I do think a definition of partnership might be in order - if you have the char count to spare.


Still going with "forms a UN Army, illegal" pending mod decision.

Eh, I wasn't busy, so do attempt to pull this one out of the fire. I think I've lampooned enough for one day.

Obviously not because you continued for 3 more posts.....

Are they under 3 layers of security? Good, keep them there. No you can't build a missile tube that has direct access from the bio-weapons to the air - that's only one layer of security.

Actually, the proposal says:

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection to anyone. They are to be so secured in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, such facilities to be under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.


Tier:
1. One of a series of rows placed one above another.

So we built a facility, three levels, and declared it a "quarantine" facility - remember, no standards mentioned, so we can declare it quarantined even if it's open to the air. And it is beneath the military facility located at the highest point above sea level, so...



Yes, because a nation can be a "Limited Liability Company". :headbang: :headbang:

Nice try, but we did say we are not in a "military partnership", we're in a "limited liability company". Difference.



Actually, I do think a definition of partnership might be in order - if you have the char count to spare.

Yes! Please eat more characters! Try to seal that loophole and by doing so, make more! :D

Greetings.

We of Roathin note that Vastiva is entirely harmless as far as bioweapons are concerned. The evidence is obvious, for those who have really been reading the posts in this forum. We are greatly reassured.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note that Vastiva is entirely harmless as far as bioweapons are concerned. The evidence is obvious, for those who have really been reading the posts in this forum. We are greatly reassured.

We like you. You amuse us.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note that Vastiva is entirely harmless as far as bioweapons are concerned. The evidence is obvious, for those who have really been reading the posts in this forum. We are greatly reassured.

Doesn't mean you can totally ignore him, occasionally you can extend some of his arguments and find the true loopholes, not just the blatant lies.

Doesn't mean you can totally ignore him, occasionally you can extend some of his arguments and find the true loopholes, not just the blatant lies.
Greetings.

We were considering his vehement assertions that bioweapons could not survive his environment, coupled with his equally vehement assertions that he would be using them. Our conclusion was that we had got him cold.

Ok, the draft proposal has again been slightly modified in the opening post. Before someone begins trying to point out loopholes in it let me point out a few things.

I'll get to it in a few minutes.

1. Quibble about the definition of any word in that sentence you like. It’s not an operative clause. You’re not going to alter the actual practical effect of the resolution by playing with it. It's just a note.

Try bothering to read what I said at the top of my post in which I did that. It was just for fun.

2. Regarding reclassifying your bioweapons to try to get around the ban. That section right up above there? That’s a definition incorporated into the proposal using biological terms which are not too terribly open to interpretation. What does that mean? That means you can take your strain of ebola virus and decide to try calling it your “organic weaponry” or your “organic defense technology” or your “fuzzy pink bunny slippers”. If your funny pink bunny slippers fit the definition of a virus, and if your funny pink bunny slippers harm, incapacitate or kill a host organism upon infection as far as this resolution is concerned they’re bioweapons and they’re banned. Call them anything you want you’re still required to destroy them.

Suddenly they're not viruses, bacteria, or microbes. Oops. Resolution bypassed.

3. See point 1.

Ssee point one yourself.

4. Regarding the last point. Yes the UN can. Any legislation which alters the policy of UN member nations in such a way that non UN member nations adjust their own policy to account for it is an indirect influencing of non UN member nation policy now isn't it?

Usually, the nations outside the UN completely ignore the UN, meaning that no change happens. Keep that in mind.

5. There is no way that “possession” in the context of this statement can be taken to mean “the controlling of by evil spirits”. Go ahead and claim it if you like, you will be ignored.

Nothing in the context provides any evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind that the UN does include nations using magic, so in this case which one you intend means a world of difference.

6. No more than 250mg of ANY bioweapon. Period. You cannot keep a tanker truck full of a “research quantity” biological weapon.

Actually, I can, as long as "full" is only 250mg of the actual weapon. The rest of what's in the tanker, like water, isn't covered.

7. They are to be secured against risk of infection to any person. That means no, you can’t keep them quarantined ANYWHERE where there are people who you haven’t ensured are adequately protected against becoming infected by them.

Here's a little secret of common sense: If they are already infected, they usually can't become what they already are by the same disease. If we classify them as infected, that means that they already are infected and thus the risk of infection by the same damned disease is zero.

8. Any bioweapon. Immediately and completely destroyed in a manner which safeguards against ANY release. ANY. That means you don’t vent it into a neighbouring nation just prior to “incinerating” it by leveling that nation with thermonuclear weapons. That’s STILL RELEASING IT FIRST! That’s still USING it on people. That’s still very clearly banned.

If the people are already infected, and the area is a controlled quarantine zone beyond which the weapon cannot spread, then technically we are not releasing it into an area where it can possibly spread and infect people. All we are doing is depositing it in a controlled quarantine zone before destruction.

9. As this resolution incorporates criteria for how to legally deal with cases of infected citizens within your nation, namely by properly isolating and treating them… NO, this resolution does not make it illegal to have sick people in your country. It DOES require that they be properly dealt with. So long as that is done the nation is NOT in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution. They are in full compliance with this resolution. Therefore the follow-up clauses do NOT apply to such nations.

You still don't bother to realize that it still gives the appearance that being sick is banned. Try separating it into a different clause than including it with how to deal with banned weapons. Simple common sense.

10. No, this doesn't require the institution of free universal health care. If you suggest it does you will be ignored.

I never said it does.

EDIT: the trade sanction clause has been altered. See opening post for the new text as I don't feel like re-analyzing it here...

Don't worry. I'll have fun with that in a bit.

12. Military partnerships of any kind. That means again, you can call it something else if you like but if it fits the description of any kind of military partnership it’s still not permitted. Regarding questions of this being illegal because it restricts roleplay... I doubt it but will welcome a mod ruling on the subject and modify if necessary. EVERY UN resolution restricts roleplay for UN members. You are roleplaying AS a UN member, thus you are expected to restrict yourself to what is permitted of UN members... which to very large degree is determined by the resolutions which are passed by the UN.

What part of "the average alliance is not a military partnership" do you not understand? And the restricting of RP is in your talk of how to deal with military partnerships and all of that, which is questionably legal on the best of days and in the past has gotten proposals deleted.

13. Yes, I’m perfectly well aware that your nation can decide to disregard this urging and do nothing. Go ahead. That’s the point of making it an urging and not a requirement. Making it a requirement would have created an army by direction of the UN, which is illegal. As it is this does not create any army or police force whatsoever. It simply requests that member nations use their own armies… entirely on their own discretion and under their own direction and not in any way whatsoever as a “UN army”, to intervene on behalf of their fellow member nations however they should consider it appropriate if one of their fellow UN nations comes under attack by a nation employing biological weapons which are proscribed by this resolution. In effect, it offers official legal sanction for any and all UN members to employ military force as they see fit under such circumstances and that is all it does. And yes, I do know there are big scary non UN militaries out there and a lot of them, I don’t require it be pointed out to me.

Your own edit of the draft makes me think you need them more than just pointed out to you. If you need a proper demonstration, let me call up a few friends and have you invaded.

As for the urging part of this: You really do not get the obvious, and I'm not going to point it out again.

Go ahead DLE, begin your list of new loopholes. I know you'll have them. I will only seriously consider altering the resolution in one of two cases.

1. A mod rules the resolution as written contains an illegal statement.
2. You come up with a loophole that would not require a 50,000 word piece of legislation to close it because you’re insisting I fully and rigorously define unacceptably ambiguous words like “the” and “a”... and you do it without claiming that one article lacks a proscription against something or requirement for something while ignoring that it is already covered elsewhere in the resolution.

I've already covered your supposed "covering" of a certain item enough times, but I covered it once more just for your benefit. Final time before I leave your mistake in and use it to shoot down your proposal.

As it stands, I can easily come up with a loophole you continuously overlook, and that's the issue of reclassifying weapons. You need a better description than some piece of shit that says "viruses, bacteria, and microbes" as the definition. Any zombified lobotomized village idiot that spent their childhood being dropped on their head could get around that. Try defining what a virus is, what a bacterium is, and what a microbe is. You may actually have something then that takes longer than five seconds (with 4.99999 of them spent giggling insanely) to get around.

NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

Not if you bother to put in controls.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are infectious viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection. Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a neglibigle (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

Wow. My bioweapon is not classified as a virus, bacteria, or microbe due to it being reclassified. Guess it must be legal then. Time to continue dropping more Ebola-HIV hybrids on random nations.

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations.

And you think removing them from the UN actually changes that risk?

TAKING NOTE of the need for nations to develop effective defenses against such bioweapons.

FURTHER TAKING NOTE of the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

REALIZING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

Not really. The UN only possesses what the outside world lets it, and the outside world doesn't allow much.

HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

But not to all citizens. Hmm. Seems like my weapons companies are going to make a killing once this is passed.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection to anyone. They are to be so secured within multi-tier (minimum of 2 tier) quarantined buildings in that nation, and kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.

We hereby declare all of Earth as part of our nation in some fashion or another. We also hereby declare all humans outside of DLE, Vastiva, and a few choice allies to already be infected with the disease. Risk of infection is nonexistant, risk of spread beyond quarantine zone (all of Earth except the nations we chose to vaccinate) is nonexistant, risk of containment breach is nonexistant. Two-tier system (atmosphere and space) is fully active. Time to release the virus into the containment zone, where it can be properly destroyed.

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, or if present in an infected individual through immediate isolation and treatment.

Considering the context of this, being sick is still illegal.

4. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

Hmm. We suddenly don't know any nations like that. They're trafficking in the same weapons we are, and those are not illegal, so what they are using must not be illegal. Time for the Super AIDS war to begin!

STRONGLY URGES:

5. UN member nations to employ trade sanctions or incentives as they see fit to any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution, in any circumstances where the application of such sanctions or incentives would represent an effective means to having that nation abandon such bioweapons.

Translation: We would like it if you would sacrifice yourself for the UN.

6. UN member nations issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a nation/nations employs bioweapons against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

Translation: We would like it if you pissed off a bunch of nation that can kick your ass for the UN.

Hi all

We voted not to repeal of UN Resolution 16 “Elimination of Bio Weapons”. As anything better then nothing. The main question is: WHAT HAPPENS IF THE NEW RESOLUTION DONT GET THROUGH ?. Then we will have nothing. We will be suporting the new Resolution. I think we should all becareful in removeing resolutions to replace resolutions with better ones as they may not get through. Just thought we would state our views from the Dragon islands

It took 3 years for a chemical weapons resolution to get through. Unfortunately, we may have a similar issue with bio-weapons.

However, that does not mean a commitment does not have to be made - and believe me, in the next month or so, many people will be trying extensively to push through a new resolution. If this one fails to pass the general vote of the UN, a new one will have to be drafted and a second attempt to make a bio-weapons replacement ban.

If we can't, we may have to lick our wounds and wait until the position of the UN as a whole is more in favor of weapons bans. However, considering the recent passing of a ban on chemical weapons, I have faith that the UN will pass any decent proposal - so long as it can get to the floor of the UN.

Hi all

We voted not to repeal of UN Resolution 16 “Elimination of Bio Weapons”. As anything better then nothing. The main question is: WHAT HAPPENS IF THE NEW RESOLUTION DONT GET THROUGH ?. Then we will have nothing. We will be suporting the new Resolution. I think we should all becareful in removeing resolutions to replace resolutions with better ones as they may not get through. Just thought we would state our views from the Dragon islands

The People's Dominion of Snoogit agrees. We cannot just repeal something on the hope that a new resolution will be passed!

Not if you bother to put in controls.

We're already familiar with the concept of your "controls". They're quite inadequate.

Wow. My bioweapon is not classified as a virus, bacteria, or microbe due to it being reclassified.

Unlike the chemical weapons ban this proposal employed a definition of biological weapons which contains rather clear biological terminoligy. What is and is not a biological "virus", "bacteria" or "microbe" is not a terribly ambiguos state of affairs which lends itself to significant leeway for interpretation. Meaning you can reclassify them all you like, if they still fit the description of what is banned by the resolution they're still banned.

Guess it must be legal then. Time to continue dropping more Ebola-HIV hybrids on random nations.

An Ebola-HiV hybrid is clearly a virus. You can decide to officially declare that you're classifying them as fuzzy pink bunny slippers for all I care, when you do it will still be the case that the fuzzy pink bunny slippers in question are also a virus and banned by the proposal.

And you think removing them from the UN actually changes that risk?

I think taking any steps necessary to reduce the probability or frequency of their deployment anywhere reduces that risk.

Note that I am not generally in favor of disarmament on principle. I have no desire to see a nuclear weapons ban. I have no desire to see a chemical weapons ban (I argued quite emphatically against the recent resolution in much the same manner as you are doing now with this one)... but bioweapons are a whole different animal. It's just bloody stupid to use them. They present an unnacceptable risk to EVERYONE, not just the people they were meant to be aimed at... including the people doing the aiming.

But not to all citizens. Hmm. Seems like my weapons companies are going to make a killing once this is passed.

Check the new article 3.

We hereby declare all of Earth as part of our nation in some fashion or another. <snip, etc...>

That one is simply not going to fly.

1. I'm fairly confident you don't have the authority to declare that other nations are part of your nation, at least not without their consent and assuming that they are not puppets. In those cases feel free to attempt this tactic assuming you can find anyone stupid enough to invite you to turn their nation into a biological weapons containment site given your expressed views regarding such sites. If on the other hand you were just planning on lying about them being part of your nation... that's not finding a loophole in the resolution that's just breaking it.

2. You still need to place them inside a secured and quarantined building in such a nation and bloody well keep them there. Placing them inside "Atmosphere and space" do not constitute placing them inside a building. Note the singular use of the word "building".

3. I would be interested in seeing a proper definition of "infected" which would allow you to truthfully make the claim that all of your and your allies people were already infected with any effective bioweapon you intended to try to deploy, unless of course you were really planning to deploy it against your own citizenry first... which would itself be an act in violation of the resolution. If on the other hand you were simply planning on lying, again that isn't finding a loophole in the resolution, that's just plain breaking it.

Considering the context of this, being sick is still illegal.

No it isn't. Having infected individuals within your nation and not doing anything about it thus allowing the infection to spread unhindered is illegal. Isolating and treating those who are infected places your nation in compliance with the resolution, and thus not subject to the later sanctions clauses unless they are in violation in some other manner.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note that DLE has made use of somewhat spurious chronodisplacement technology to become a disciple of the philosopher Vitkenstyne in his earlier phase. We are not overly perturbed, as this means DLE will eventually reach Vitkenstyne in his later phase and be cured.

...and which pose a neglibigle (less than...
A wee typo I spotted. I'm keeping my region updated with the drafts; I'll reproduce any concerns they may have in this debate.

The People's Dominion of Snoogit agrees. We cannot just repeal something on the hope that a new resolution will be passed!

Considering the gaping flaw that is in the soon-to-be-repealed resolution 16, failing to address the concern would be foolish at best. While we have no guarantee that THIS replacement ban will go through, what this repeal does do is ALLOW for a BETTER resolution to be passed so that Bio-weapons are closer (if not actually due to the 5000 "word definition" BS loopholes) to being fully and truly banned.

It is a chance we must take - all we can do is hope that everyone who opposes the possession and use of bio-weapons will work at encouraging ALL members of the UN to vote for this resolution.

If you're short of space and need to be very specific with definitions, etc, then I think you can do so at the expense of the preamble. Most of it is unnecessary fluff - just get to the nitty-gritty. For example:

FURTHER TAKING NOTE of the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

REALIZING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.
Does this add any value to your proposal? No, not really. It's just taking up space that could be better employed.

No offence intended, but I'm contemplating a crusade against excessive use of introductory clauses drowning in capital letters.

Finally, the vast majority of the arguments used by the representatives of DemonLordEnigma and Vastiva are spurious and childish. A virus is a virus is a virus. The Compliance Ministry will shoot down their wilful attempts to redefine it as anything else.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Note that I am not generally in favor of disarmament on principle. I have no desire to see a nuclear weapons ban. I have no desire to see a chemical weapons ban... but bioweapons are a whole different animal. It's just bloody stupid to use them. They present an unnacceptable risk to EVERYONE, not just the people they were meant to be aimed at... including the people doing the aiming.

I feel the same way. The risk to nutral nations is far too great. They MUST be banned. It would be pointless to re-iterate these arguements as DLE seems to be ignoreing them anyway

Considering the gaping flaw that is in the soon-to-be-repealed resolution 16, failing to address the concern would be foolish at best. While we have no guarantee that THIS replacement ban will go through, what this repeal does do is ALLOW for a BETTER resolution to be passed so that Bio-weapons are closer (if not actually due to the 5000 "word definition" BS loopholes) to being fully and truly banned.

It is a chance we must take - all we can do is hope that everyone who opposes the possession and use of bio-weapons will work at encouraging ALL members of the UN to vote for this resolution.

That sounds like selling your best cow for the chance that you might buy a better cow.

You cannot make a resolution that simply states "we dont like bioweapons, let's destroy them all."

Come on people... this isn't like a bunker buster.... this isn't a tomahawk missile... this is BioWeapons. I don't know about your nations, but I am not interested in waking up in the capitol of my nation and seeing the people covered in the white powder of Anthrax.

I don't know about your nations, but I am not interested in waking up in the capitol of my nation and seeing the people covered in the white powder of Anthrax.
Bear in mind that even with the UN banning biological weapons, your nation could still be attacked with biological weapons by non member.

That sounds like selling your best cow for the chance that you might buy a better cow.

Actually, we're selling a old, sick crow that didn't do what it was supposed to because we think there's a good chance of getting a better one.

Greetings... The Grand Duchy of Quillota is very pleased to support this great propose...

we agree with The Supreme Imperium of Reformentia :)

And we must congratulate "The Supreme Imperium of Reformentia" for it's contribution to the UN.

Farewell

Well....I guess this is what I get for taking a few days off from my UN duties.....



United Nations Security Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

Approvals: 82 (Volumeamplify, Whipjangle, Plutonix, Flibbleites, Jiangland, Iznogoud, Funkdunk, Blessed Isles, Entcepatiolis, Teredona, Garnilorn, Yelda, Antrium, Jaghur, Stumpy Midgets, Strobania, Springsylvania, Roathin, Darth Mall, Timerlane, Microdell, Holy Land of Palestine, Arlona, Athalazan, Gaiah, NeoAsiaEuropa, America-Canada-Mexico, The Raven Islands, Datigua, The Iroqouis, Knorfladshgeff, Free World Trade, Hoo-Doo, DSM-IV, The Hunter Isles, Lv-3246, Hogs Head, The Inner Universe, Pturbu, Xaidan, Algorab, Myotismon, Coquetvia, Barfieldslande, The Three-Toed Sloth, Battle Island, Jugaria, Castle Cool People, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Sel Appa, Theorb, The Necromangers, Furry chickens, Banjarmasin, Paddyshire, Adamith, Islamic Vatican City, Jacobins IV, Calabraxia, Cemendur, The Imperial Raven, Krankor, Wolfish, Cav, Raderia, The ThunderDragon, Starps, Flagellumpa, Melmond, Conservative Haters, Brians Room, The doomed world, Trans-Union States, Foofangia, Jebulon, Beerhood, The Bruce, Mayve, The Care Bears FOO, Janistania, Checkers McDog, Grays Harbor)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 65 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jun 30 2005


Texan Hotrodders is probably laughing his ass off right now.

Anyways - I'm concerned that this may prevent the replacement resolution from passing (though if you get it into quarum before Texan Hotrodder's is fully voted on......). Might need a mod ruling on that. Who wants to ask Hack to look at this thread?

The main reason this is here is because of my interpretation of the Game Mechanics section in which it explicitly bans limiting the UN's ability to make future proposals on a subject, which I interpreted to be a ban on resolutions that do just that and have no other action to them.

I found this HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9022967&postcount=9)

Its on a diffrent topic but still relevant.

I guess its time to try my hand at going DLE on this proposal :D

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

If people were sovereign, we would all live in anarchy

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

Tell that to my AxFA-2 Blackhunters

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

This clause does nothing. Encoourates is too weak of a word

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

Again, it does nothing. We (the UN) could decide that Bioweapons are not nessesary to defend their nation.

Was that good?

My turn


NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.


True


CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

So "Concerned that some nations wish to try a 'violence is not the answer' solution and thus try to work with little or no military.


FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.


You could've killed my last argument if you had swapped the one above and this one....


ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.


Policy of the UN is now defense of the nation


DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.


Basically, guarantees that any weapon can be used in war.

What does that do - pretty much blocks future legislation blocking weapons bans. (NOT Global disarmament - proposing drops in military spending, reduction in nukes, etc is still allowed, just weapons bans).

If people were sovereign, we would all live in anarchy
Well, you know, Texan already is an anarchy. So he won't be concerned about that particular argument.

And are you saying that a person has no right to their own body?

Update... prep work for the submission of this resolution is nearing completion (I'm also keeping an eye on what's going to be the ruling on the "United Nations Security Act" before I move forward. May have to be some work done on that front before acting on this one). In other news, the legality of this replacement resolution has now been confirmed so it will face no roadblocks there.

We're already familiar with the concept of your "controls". They're quite inadequate.

If by "inadequate" you mean "utilizing nature to our advantage and producing controls that only the most mutative of viruses can manage to work around in the timeframe they will be active," then you are correct.

Unlike the chemical weapons ban this proposal employed a definition of biological weapons which contains rather clear biological terminoligy. What is and is not a biological "virus", "bacteria" or "microbe" is not a terribly ambiguos state of affairs which lends itself to significant leeway for interpretation. Meaning you can reclassify them all you like, if they still fit the description of what is banned by the resolution they're still banned.

Actually, you're quite wrong. The words you are using are mere classifications of naturally-existing creatures. At one time, most held different classifications. Many bacteria known today were once classified as either fungi or plants, while viruses were actually considered a fiction for most of their known existance and thus classified as part of the fictional and mythological races. The problem you have is that you are relying on the classifications to define themselves, which is easy to get around by simply using different classifications. If one nation classifies what we know as bacteria as a form of plants, then technically they are getting around the resolution because they are using plants as weapons. If you are going to in clude classifications, at least have the common sense to define what they are so that people cannot get around them simply by using different classifications.

Keep in mind we do not, for example, classify the creatures you know as viruses as being biological beings, due to the similarity they have to nanotechnology and the fact it requires extreme circumstances or outside intervention to cause a drastic change in the majority of them in anything less than a thousand years. The others that mutate rapidly are merely anomalies that result from the same process, which is why they are in the minority and are so destructive.

An Ebola-HiV hybrid is clearly a virus. You can decide to officially declare that you're classifying them as fuzzy pink bunny slippers for all I care, when you do it will still be the case that the fuzzy pink bunny slippers in question are also a virus and banned by the proposal.

An Ebola-HIV hybrid is no more clearly a virus than anything else. Keep in mind that the word "virus" is just a classification unless it comes along with a definition. We could, using your own words, classify humans as a type of virus and use that as an excuse for exterminating other nations, simply classifying ourselves as a different species and using the D'ni blood as an excuse.

I think taking any steps necessary to reduce the probability or frequency of their deployment anywhere reduces that risk.

Except you do not reduce the probability. When it comes to probability, there is a 4% greater chance that biological weapons will be deployed against UN nations than before, with the deploying nations using the fact the weapon will still be around and causing destruction long after they have been nuked into oblivion.

Note that I am not generally in favor of disarmament on principle. I have no desire to see a nuclear weapons ban. I have no desire to see a chemical weapons ban (I argued quite emphatically against the recent resolution in much the same manner as you are doing now with this one)... but bioweapons are a whole different animal. It's just bloody stupid to use them. They present an unnacceptable risk to EVERYONE, not just the people they were meant to be aimed at... including the people doing the aiming.

They, like nukes, only present a risk if you do not take the proper care in both their engineering and deployment. If you are so worried about infections, don't use retroviruses as your base and innoculate your population. DNA viruses have a very low mutation rate, unlike their RNA cousins (such as HIV and Ebola).

Check the new article 3.

I shall, in a bit.

That one is simply not going to fly.

1. I'm fairly confident you don't have the authority to declare that other nations are part of your nation, at least not without their consent and assuming that they are not puppets. In those cases feel free to attempt this tactic assuming you can find anyone stupid enough to invite you to turn their nation into a biological weapons containment site given your expressed views regarding such sites. If on the other hand you were just planning on lying about them being part of your nation... that's not finding a loophole in the resolution that's just breaking it.

Actually, you're missing a simple point: You can claim just about anything, and the actuallity of control rarely matters that much. I can claim any planet I want, irregardless of whether or not I actually have control of it or even access to it. Between the time the claim is made and the first attempt at refutation comes, it is perfectly valid. And during that short window of time, a lot of weapons can be launched. Plus, we can always claim that we were comming in to a situation with an area already infected and simply claimed it so we could begin quarantine and disease destruction proceedures, something that will likely tie up the TPP for weeks in arguing over it. And even if the TPP were to not like it, they really can't do that much about it in the end anyway.

2. You still need to place them inside a secured and quarantined building in such a nation and bloody well keep them there. Placing them inside "Atmosphere and space" do not constitute placing them inside a building. Note the singular use of the word "building".

That's not what your proposal states. It says "quarantined buildings" and says nothing against using natural safeguards or allowing the disease outside the building.

3. I would be interested in seeing a proper definition of "infected" which would allow you to truthfully make the claim that all of your and your allies people were already infected with any effective bioweapon you intended to try to deploy, unless of course you were really planning to deploy it against your own citizenry first... which would itself be an act in violation of the resolution. If on the other hand you were simply planning on lying, again that isn't finding a loophole in the resolution, that's just plain breaking it.

Here's a little secret to having common sense: Lying about something that doesn't directly contradict a law is not actually breaking the law. If I lie about a nation being infected, well, that's just too bad for you. Nothing in the proposal really makes that illegal. Since I am staying true to the wording of the proposal, I cannot technically be infecting people with a disease when they are already classified as being infected by it. And by the time you would find out, it would be impossible to tell exactly when the infection happened. Just because I am lying about something and then using it to my advantage doesn't mean, as you so naively put it, that I am breaking your little proposal. It just means I'm exploiting it in a way you were too lazy to bother dealing with.

No it isn't. Having infected individuals within your nation and not doing anything about it thus allowing the infection to spread unhindered is illegal. Isolating and treating those who are infected places your nation in compliance with the resolution, and thus not subject to the later sanctions clauses unless they are in violation in some other manner.

Okay, let's try this route and hope you see something this obvious.

The logic path:

1. Section 3 deals with disposal of illegal biological weapons.

2. Section 3 also includes people infected with disease.

3. Since Section 3 deals with both, being sick must be illegal.

4. The check: If being sick isn't illegal, then why is it in a section that deals with disposal of illegal biological weapons? Answer: Because it's illegal.

It's basic common sense, basic logic, and the thoughts the average reader and telegram campaign against you are going to use.

Finally, the vast majority of the arguments used by the representatives of DemonLordEnigma and Vastiva are spurious and childish. A virus is a virus is a virus. The Compliance Ministry will shoot down their wilful attempts to redefine it as anything else.

A virus is only a virus if it is classified as a virus. If it is classified as a plant, then it's not a virus. If it is classified as a bacteria, then it is not a virus. If it is classified as a fungus, then it is not a virus. If it is classified as an animal, then it is not a virus. Basic rule of biology: If it is not classified as a certain class, then it is not that class. This is one of the first things they should teach you in biology, right after they reveal the existance of cells.

We will send a note to Ecopoeia requesting they replace their representatives with people who actually passed biology. Stuff this elementary your students should not even be allowed into secondary education without knowing.

Sorry DLE, you have presented no new arguments which cross the speciousness threshold which would inspire me to further revise the draft, with the exception of the small modification that the resolution does, in fact, now limit the trace amounts of research samples to a single building.

And in one particular example, who did you think you were fooling pulling that "4%" figure out of your hindquarters as if you had actually done the calculation and arrived at a value?

Sorry DLE, you have presented no new arguments which cross the speciousness threshold which would inspire me to further revise the draft, with the exception of the small modification that the resolution does, in fact, now limit the trace amounts of research samples to a single building.

Congrats. You're producing a proposal which has exactly the same problem with definitions as the one it replaced, only it requires a tiny amount of extra effort to get around. We'll enjoy deploying our Ebola-HIV hybrid against you with the full knowledge that our classification of "harmful submolecular symbiote" allows it to be unaffected by UN law.

And in one particular example, who did you think you were fooling pulling that "4%" figure out of your hindquarters as if you had actually done the calculation and arrived at a value?

Actually, it's not based on that. I was one of the people who voted in favor and campaigned for the original ban. The figure was arrived at afterwards from someone who had the same industry Mikitivity has, in that they spent time on the forums observing and made a chart with all of the differences. Sadly, they were DEATed for flaming during my first absense from NS and I haven't seen them since starting this account.