NationStates Jolt Archive

To replace the flawed Resolution #16 (Ban Biological Weapons), which has since been struck down. Nations must support this resolution - it is vital to world security that Biological Weapons are not tolerated.

Resolution: Banning Biological Armaments

Category: Global Disarmament

Description:

The United Nations,

RECALLING Resolution #118, which clearly demonstrated the inadequacy of Resolution #16 (Ban Biological Weapons) in achieving any material success towards the actual outlaw of such weapons.

NOTING that to date there has been no replacement legislation regarding biological weapons.

DECLARES a revised and more effective ban on biological weapons.

DEFINES the term “Biological weapon” as any weapon that uses an organism (bacteria, virus, or other disease-causing life form) or toxin to inflict harm.

OUTLAWS the production, use, sale, or trade of biological weapons.

ORDERS that all biological weapons currently in existence be de-commissioned and deposed of in a safe and environmentally conscious manner.

ESTABLISHES a United Nations Biological Weapons Committee to oversee the implementation and enforcement of this resolution and to administer research into biological weapons, so that effective counter-measures shall be made available to provide for the defence of UN nations against non-UN nations wielding biological weapons.

Greetings.

It is heartening to see all these efforts toward banning biological weapons. My thaumaturges are most heartened as well. They enjoy using nuclear technology, but the biologicals are sometimes a little too dangerous in a somatomorphic field.

This Resolution is a good follow up #118. It has my approval, as an effective resolution banning the use of biological weapons is sorely needed.

COnsidering the recent rash of pproposals ALLOWING the use of mega-weapons, I'm afraid that with the recent ban lifted, a new ban wont be passed anytime soon.

May the world have mercy upon all who seek peace.

COnsidering the recent rash of pproposals ALLOWING the use of mega-weapons, I'm afraid that with the recent ban lifted, a new ban wont be passed anytime soon.

May the world have mercy upon all who seek peace.

the issues surrounding nuclear arms vs biological arms are quite different. It's easily argued that UN nations should be allowed to posses nukes because there is no effective defense available against Non-Un Nations wielding nukes, except the threat of nuclear retaliation. The same arguement does not apply to biological weapons. A UN nation possesing bio weapons will be in no way safer from non-un nations with bio weapons than a UN nation without bio weapons.

You have my support for this resolution, Caecus.

I must say that I am against most of this resolution. While I believe that a UN committee for the research into countermeasures against such weapons is required, I beleive that Biological weapons should be considered as powerful as Nuclear ones, while not in pure destructive power. Countries threatening other countries with biological weapons would get the same effect if they threatened with Nuclear weapons.the fear of chemical weapons is greater then that of nuclear ones. What is there to stop smaller

the issues surrounding nuclear arms vs biological arms are quite different. It's easily argued that UN nations should be allowed to posses nukes because there is no effective defense available against Non-Un Nations wielding nukes, except the threat of nuclear retaliation. The same arguement does not apply to biological weapons. A UN nation possesing bio weapons will be in no way safer from non-un nations with bio weapons than a UN nation without bio weapons.

The fear of chemical weapons is greater then that of nuclear ones. What is there to stop smaller, Non-UN countries from unleshing these weapons on UN countries who cannot use them? At least the threat of Biological retribution may be enough.

I would propose that Biological weapons may only be use against countries using or threatening to use these weapons.

All is fair in love and war.

I must say that I am against most of this resolution. While I believe that a UN committee for the research into countermeasures against such weapons is required, I beleive that Biological weapons should be considered as powerful as Nuclear ones, while not in pure destructive power. Countries threatening other countries with biological weapons would get the same effect if they threatened with Nuclear weapons.the fear of chemical weapons is greater then that of nuclear ones. What is there to stop smaller



The fear of chemical weapons is greater then that of nuclear ones. What is there to stop smaller, Non-UN countries from unleshing these weapons on UN countries who cannot use them? At least the threat of Biological retribution may be enough.

I would propose that Biological weapons may only be use against countries using or threatening to use these weapons.

And this is why I like Reformatia's version instead - it addresses the dangers specific to bio-weapons that are not inherent in other modern weapons (like nukes).

I don't see any difference in a bullet nuke or viral weapon, they all kill or maim people, just some are faster than others. And if we restrict our own weapon capabilities, the thousands of non-un nations will blow us all to hell, eliminating the UN and putting the world/universe in a state of anarchy, although there's really no way to control any countrie government or organization, if you say you can't build these weapons, they'll build 'em and hide them, then the only way to stop them is an invasion, which is a great excuse for them to use it, and MAD is a crock, 'cause if I blow your entire nation to little bits, who's gonna be there to fire your nukes. If I drop a nuke on your nuke holding bases and bunkers and such, they'll be detonated or mdae useless, therefore you won't be able to use them on me.