NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd just like to ask if the honourable members of the UN would be able to review this proposal of mine, in order to make it ready for proposal to the UN proper.

In particular I need a better name for the proposal (the one in the thread header is a work in progress) and I need a suitable definition for chemical weapons. Any other input would also be appreciated.

I've put this as a quote to distinguish it from the rest of the post.


ACCEPTING that the UN is moving toward a more pro-weapons freedom status, as highlighted by the pass of UN Resolution #109 (Nuclear Armaments), the repeal of UN Resolution #16 (Elimination of Bio Weapons) and the impending pass of the UN proposal 'United Nations Security Act'.

CONCERNED that the UN would appear to be ignoring the Human Factor involved in these Resolutions.

CONVINCED that further regulation of 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' is required.

PROPOSING that 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' are regulated in the following ways:

1. They MAY NO LONGER be used in a first-strike capacity.
2. They MAY ONLY be used in retaliation to either a usage against a member nation or in response to a threat of their use.
3. They MAY ONLY be used in times of declared war.
4. They MAY NOT be used against other member nations.

DEFINING 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' as:

Nuclear Armaments as defined by previous resolutions;

Biological Armaments defined as weapons intended to carry a payload of infectious microbes that would cause suffering or death;

Chemical Armaments defined as weapons intended to carry a payload of [insert definition here].

Thanks

It attempts to be too broad and all encompassing. I think you would need 4 (at least) separate proposals to deal with what you are trying to do here. As far as adequately defining biological and chemical weapons within the proposal character limit, I'm not sure that it is even possible.

Ok, in that case I'll do my best to tackle Nuclear Weapons. I'll post a revised one when I'm done.

They MAY ONLY be used in times of declared war.This would prohibit retaliation in the event of a surprise attack, since a decapitation strike aimed at annihilating the government of the victim nation would almost certainly be part of such a attack. At best, it would delay retaliation until the attacker had done his worst to the victim, since it is unlikely that a declaration of war could be issued fast enough to launch before the first detonations occured.

Just define weapons of Mass Destruction - partly because Chemical weapons are banned and bio-weapons may soon be banned, if you define WMDs generally, it will apply to those weapons even if a repeal gets through (not to mention, deals with all PMT and FT WMDs that are employed).

Just define weapons of Mass Destruction - partly because Chemical weapons are banned and bio-weapons may soon be banned, if you define WMDs generally, it will apply to those weapons even if a repeal gets through (not to mention, deals with all PMT and FT WMDs that are employed).
A definition of WMD's which would cover all WMD's, even PMT and FT ones and would be loophole proof? And stay within the character limit?

I agree with Yelda, it's better to just deal with one.

This would prohibit retaliation in the event of a surprise attack, since a decapitation strike aimed at annihilating the government of the victim nation would almost certainly be part of such a attack. At best, it would delay retaliation until the attacker had done his worst to the victim, since it is unlike that a declaration of war could be issued fast enough to launch before the first detonations occured.

Even so, the point is to avoid the massive casualties associated with such a weapon.

A definition of WMD's which would cover all WMD's, even PMT and FT ones and would be loophole proof? And stay within the character limit?

Depends on how loophole proof you want it. If you want it DLE proof, that's impossible within the character limit for ANYTHING (including the word "the"). However, you'll probably be able to make a good definition that will work as a description of the vast majority of WMDs....

Depends on how loophole proof you want it. If you want it DLE proof, that's impossible within the character limit for ANYTHING (including the word "the"). However, you'll probably be able to make a good definition that will work as a description of the vast majority of WMDs....

Would you be able to provide an example?

An arm which, when used singly, would be expected to cause death and/or damage to property over a wide range.
Well... that's a start, I can already see loopholes.

Yeah, because that also includes any large payload explosive device.

Marric']An arm which, when used singly, would be expected to cause death and/or damage to property over a wide range.
Well... that's a start, I can already see loopholes.
Yeah, because that also includes any large payload explosive device.
Exactly. Large conventional weapons can cause as much "mass" destruction as many so called WMD's. I don't even consider chemical weapons to be WMD's in the same sense that Nuclear and Biological weapons are. Chemical weapons are almost always tactical weapons used on the battlefield and their effects are not widespread.

Yeah, but even so, the world as a whole recognises them as having the capability to cause severe damage.

No, but even so, the world as a whole recognises them as having the capability to cause severe damage.The only war in RL history in which chemical weapons were widely used was WWI. Around 110,000 tons of chemical weapons were used in World War I, killing about 92,000. Over 100,000 were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic blasts alone. Now thats mass destruction. I think the public has come to regard them as WMD's because: a: Terrorists can acquire them and use them on us, and b: The U.S. military groups them all together under the NBC (nuclear,biological,chemical) category. Common sense should tell us that Nuclear and some biological weapons are strategic weapons, while chemical and most other biological weapons are tactical weapons. Actually, thats not even technically correct as there is such a thing as tactical nuclear weapons.

Agreed on the fact that not all NBC's are WMD's
We need a panUN definition for WMD's if there are going to be continued proposals regarding their use.
Nuclear arms: Any radiological weapon that relies on the explosive properties associated with uncontrolled subatomic reactions, both fission and fusion.

Perhaps we need a resolution that defines all of these weapons so that we can refer to it instead of using our word counts to define them?

Would you be able to provide an example?

Remind me after UNSA is off the floor - I'm going to be a bit busy for the next few days messa thinks......

"Weapons of Mass Destruction".... well, there aren't any.

Mass is defined in E=mc2. Which also states that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it only changes form".

As mass is nothing more then energy moving at less then c2, mass cannot be destroyed, it can only change form.

Hence, there are no weapons of mass destruction as mass cannot per se be destroyed.

:D

"Weapons of Mass Destruction".... well, there aren't any.

Mass is defined in E=mc2. Which also states that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it only changes form".

As mass is nothing more then energy moving at less then c2, mass cannot be destroyed, it can only change form.

Hence, there are no weapons of mass destruction as mass cannot per se be destroyed.

:D

:P Weapons of mass destruction ie. not weapons that destroy mass (although you're not entirely correct, as mass can be destroyed, but it becomes energy) but weapons that cause destrucion on a massive scale.

:P Weapons of mass destruction ie. not weapons that destroy mass (although you're not entirely correct, as mass can be destroyed, but it becomes energy) but weapons that cause destrucion on a massive scale.

As it's not defined in the resolution, it's not defined. And Vastiva's physicists are certainly able to prove our arguement as true.

However, as we're advancing into other areas of study, we find banning such "firecrackers" is less of our interest in defending.

Even so, the point is to avoid the massive casualties associated with such a weapon.So it's better to let a nuclear-armed rouge state completely annihilate a U.N. member through an unanswered first strike than deter the attack by confronting the would-be attacker with the spectre of a general exchange?!?

You're saying that we should go quietly if attacked by enemies outside the U.N. Are their people somehow better than ours, that we should prefer their survival over that of our own people?