NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal has now been modified to prevent its deletion due to the United Nations Security Act.

Now At Vote

DLE, your suggested alterations to the defining clauses have also been incorporated.

=========================================================
UN Biological Weapons Ban

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

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.

DECLARING a "virus" to be a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions.

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 are unnecessary to national defense.

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

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.

4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.

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.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. 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.

7. 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.

What alterations were made?

The proposal has now been modified to prevent its deletion due to the United Natoins Security Act. The proposal can currently be approved at the following link:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/78542/page=UN_proposal/start=60

This link will be updated frequently to keep it pointing at the proper location in the proposal list as much as possible. DLE, your suggested alterations to the defining clauses have also been incorporated.

=========================================================
UN Biological Weapons Ban

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

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.

DECLARING a "virus" to be a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions.

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 are unnecessary to national defense.

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

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.

4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.

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.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. 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.

7. 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.I think this is still illegal, but not on the grounds of UNSA violations... Let me read it, and then I'll comment.

What alterations were made?

...

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 are unnecessary to national defense.

Voila... it magically becomes legal.

I think this is still illegal, but not on the grounds of UNSA violations... Let me read it, and then I'll comment.

All other aspects of the ban have already been ruled legal.

Endorsed.

...All other aspects of the ban have already been ruled legal.OOC: Perhaps, perhaps. And perhaps not all the right questions have been asked.

<The ambassador from Allemande rises to address the chair>

"We rise to raise a point of order regarding the legality of this proposal. We do not do this gladly, as we wish to see such a ban enacted, and we appreciate the hard work of Reformentia on this proposal, thanking them for their efforts. However...

"We ask the clerk to read Article 5 of the proposal.'
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."As this body is well aware, many regions regions have mandatory collective security arrangements. Should this Resolution pass, what will happen should a nation within such an alliance be found to 'be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution'?

"The Article cited makes the answer clear: either the offender must be expelled from the alliance, or else the U.N. nations in question must withdraw from the alliance, or else the alliance must be modified or dissolved to terminate the relationship between the U.N. nations in question or the offender. But how is this to be done? In one of three ways: The offending nation must leave the region, or be ejected, or


All U.N. Members must leave the region or be ejected.


The terms of the regional alliance must be modified to eliminate any offending 'military partnership' between the offending nation and all U.N. members in the region, or the regional alliance must be dissolved.
"Unfortunately, there is no way to do any of these things without violating the U.N. Charter. We ask the clerk to read the relevant section of the Charter:
MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks 'the fourth wall', or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations."There is another way to look at this, one that may clarify the nature of the problem. Consider what the Charter says about Member compliance with U.N. Resolutions:
You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do."So when Article 5 'proscribe(s) ... military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons', that means that termination of any extant alliance ties is mandatory and that avoidance of new ties of the same sort is equally mandatory.

"So which of the three above ways of resolving the problem gets invoked, and who invokes it?
We can not force the offending nation to quit the region; that would be a metagaming violation.


We can not force the region's founder - or its U.N. delegate, where that delegate has the power required - to eject the offender from the region; that also would be a metagaming violation.


We can not force all U.N. Members to quit the region; that, too, would be a metagaming violation.


We can not force the region's founder - or its U.N. delegate, where empowered as above - to eject all U.N. Members (including themselves, in the case of ejection by the delegate); again, that would be a metagaming violation.


We can not force the region's founder - or its U.N. delegate, where possessed of the power to do so - to use regional control to change the terms of the alliance or dissolve it, should the alliance be promulgated through a declaration within the region's published public information; that would be yet another metagaming violation.


We can not force the regional government - where one exists - to change any regional alliance arrangements as needed to meet the terms of this Resolution; as with the other possible actions, that would also be a metagaming violation.
"In short we have no way to enforce the Resolution without a metagaming violation.

"Which means that compliance with Article 5 is in fact voluntary, in spite of the compulsory nature of its actual language.

"It's a Constitutional problem, in essence. Other U.N. Resolutions are enforced through the action of our Compliance Ministries, which simply alter our laws to meet U.N. mandates, whether we will it or not. It's not a matter of our having a choice when it comes to compliance: like it or not, we comply. But our choice of regions, the actions that we take as part of the governance of regions, or the existence and legality of regional alliances, these actions do not fall under the authority of our Compliance Ministries; they fall under the authority of our Heads of State, who function beyond the control of these United Nations. Attempting to bring them under U.N. control is a metagaming violation.

"Reformentia could have avoided this problem in any number of ways: By CALLING UPON, URGING, or STRONGLY URGING abandonment or abstention from such relationships without going so far as to REQUIRE (which the word 'proscribe' does) such actions,


Telling nations to 'suspend or place in abeyance' such proposals 'where possible', thereby leaving Members some leeway where other circumstances force them to continue the relationship,


Explicitly exempting alliances 'based on membership or these United Nations themselves'.
"Again, we offer our deepest apologies to Reformentia for this challenge, but we simply have no choice in the matter. Looser language is needed before this proposal can achieve status as international law.

"We thank the chair for its indulgence."

<The ambassador returns to her seat>

OOC: Perhaps, perhaps. And perhaps not all the right questions have been asked.

I raised the same issue you address here when I inquired about the legality. That article effects roleplayed conflicts, not regional politics. Nobody has to be ejected from a region due to this proposal.


"Reformentia could have avoided this problem in any number of ways:[LIST] By CALLING UPON, URGING, or STRONGLY URGING abandonment or abstention from such relationships

Which immediately would render the entire resolution pointless. Every UN member who didn't feel like going along with the resolution would pretty much instantly manage to get themselves into a military partnership with a non UN member who would do all their dirty work with bioweapons for them.

It has to be a proscrition or there's no point in it. You might as well just forget about having weapons bans at all for all the good they would do.

I raised the same issue you address here when I inquired about the legality. That article effects roleplayed conflicts, not regional politics. Nobody has to be ejected from a region due to this proposal.We disagree. If the region has a requirement that all members be part of a collective security arrangement and one has or seeks to acquire biological weapons, then all U.N. Members in the region must terminate that alliance to be in compliance with Article 5.

That either means amending the alliance agreement, quitting the region, or tossing the offender. So now what happens if the offender refuses to leave, the regional delegate and founder both refuse (or simply fail) to eject him, and the regional authorities fail to terminate or alter the terms of the alliance?

Even if the U.N. Members announce that they can not and will not honor the alliance, they are still in violation of Article 5. What sanctions do we impose on them for this? Or what mechanism do we use to force compliance?

For that matter, if this is just a roleplaying stricture, how do we enforce that? Aren't roleplaying mandates also metagaming violations, in that they require players to post or not post certain things in the forums?

Which immediately would render the entire resolution pointless. Every UN member who didn't feel like going along with the resolution would pretty much instantly manage to get themselves into a military partnership with a non UN member who would do all their dirty work with bioweapons for them.And Article 5 will prevent this how?

Nation A and Nation B attack Nation C; maybe they're formally allies, and maybe this is just a mugging of convenience. Nation B releases anthrax against Nation C. Are you telling us that Article 5 will forceNation A to withdraw from the fight? How? What if Nation A refuses?

Article 5 is unenforcable, and it's unenforceable because it's basically a metagaming violation.

We disagree. If the region has a requirement that all members be part of a collective security arrangement and one has or seeks to acquire biological weapons, then all U.N. Members in the region must terminate that alliance to be in compliance with Article 5.

Again, the article comes into effect only in roleplayed conflicts (which is the only place a nation's actual weapons mix has any relevance). UN nations, in order to remain in character AS UN nations, simply cannot roleplay that they are militarily aligned with another nation possessing or using biological weaponry or risk being accused of godmoding by blatantly ignoring an active UN resolution (assuming it's passage).

And Article 5 will prevent this how?

Seems rather clear.

The delegate of the GB&I Dominion of the British Antarctic Territories hereby endorses this movement, as we had the last one.

We are not surprised that this new resolution has hit snags, but we will withhold our personal opion of "I told you so"

Please let this be a lesson that you DON'T remove a written resolution UNTIL you are sure it's rewrite would be approved by the UN, and is 100% legal in the context of the current UN.

Again, the article comes into effect only in roleplayed conflicts (which is the only place a nation's actual weapons mix has any relevance). UN nations, in order to remain in character AS UN nations, simply cannot roleplay that they are militarily aligned with another nation possessing or using biological weaponry or risk being accused of godmoding by blatantly ignoring an active UN resolution (assuming it's passage).


Thus creating a metagaming violation.


Seems rather clear.

Doesn't seem clear to me, unless you willingly and knowingly cause a metagaming violation.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see bioweaponry banned amoung UN Member nations as well, but many of my allies are NOT UN member nations, and close allies are much more valuable than being part of the United Nations, as those alliances provide me with needed supplies, monies, and military support in times of need..

...whereas the United Nations provides nothing of substance.

If I have the vested interest of my nations in heart, Article Five would see me forcibly ejected from:

1. My region;
2. My alliances;
or
3. The UN.

And on a second note:

Is it legal for the UN to approve a resolution on how UN member nations MUST act in regards to non-member nations?

*EDIT*

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

Actually, on reading the relevant passages, I don't think that Act 5 of this proposal is legal at all... Note the bolded and italicized lines and words.

*edited one more time*

My reasoning is thus: This resolution will force UN-nations to ignore or otherwise cancel previous, perhaps longstanding, agreements, treaties, and other forms of interaction with non-UN nations - thus affecting them.

We are not surprised that this new resolution has hit snags, but we will withhold our personal opion of "I told you so"

Please let this be a lesson that you DON'T remove a written resolution UNTIL you are sure it's rewrite would be approved by the UN, and is 100% legal in the context of the current UN.

Like we said, the moderators already ruled it 100% legal. Was there some other manner in which one was expected to be sure of such a thing?

Thus creating a metagaming violation.

No, that is not creating a metagaming violation.

If I have the vested interest of my nations in heart, Article Five would see me forcibly ejected from:

1. My region;

No, it wouldn't.

2. My alliances;

Roleplayed ones... yes (assuming your alliances involve nations who possess or use biologicalweaponry proscribed by this proposal)... in the sense that you couldn't be in them and still be legitimately in character as being a UN nation since UN nations can't just be blatantly in violation of UN resolutions. But that is true of ALL UN resolutions so unless you want to say they're all metagaming violations for forcing you to take them into account when roleplaying as a UN member to prevent godmoding accusations...


or
3. The UN.

No, it wouldn't.

attempts to force events outside of the UN itself.

Who's forcing events outside the UN? It's forcing events INSIDE the UN, namely all nations inside the UN aren't allowed to get themselves in military partnerships with nations posessing or using the weaponry proscribed by this proposal.

That non UN member nations have to deal with the consequences when dealing with UN nations is a side effect. An intentional one to be sure, but still a side effect. And non member nations have to deal with all other aspects of how UN resolutions effect UN member nations when dealing with UN member nations as well.

ANY weapons ban (effective ones at least) technically means the UN is "forcing" you to cancel any previous deals you had with non UN nations regarding you producing and selling them those weapons for example. And that isn't a metagaming violation either.

Allemande and others - this proposal simply sets up the possibility of roleplaying the 'fall-out' from such alliances. If a nation ICly acts in contravention of the resolution (should it pass), then it's up to other players to call them on it and act acordingly, preferably through roleplay. If they fail to notice, then no problem.

We could look at it this way. If proposals had the effect Lanquassia is suggesting we could shut down all future legislative action by the UN in an afternoon.

All we have to do is establish a region with UN members in it and declare that a mandatory requirement of residency in the region is to...

1. Contribute to the region's arms manufacturing capacity in every single weapon we produce, and we produce every kind of weapon.

*Poof*. ALL weapons ban proposals are now a metagaming violation because they would force UN nations to be removed from our region.

2. Adhere to the human rights guidelines set down by US (the regional founder), and only us.

*Poof*. Any UN human rights proposal that contradicts our personal whim? Now a metagaming violation. And we can update what our personal whim is faster than the UN can get a proposal to a vote so it's NEVER legislating anything we don't want it to.

Etc...

We could look at it this way. If proposals had the effect Lanquassia is suggesting we could shut down all future legislative action by the UN in an afternoon.

All we have to do is establish a region with UN members in it and declare that a mandatory requirement of residency in the region is to...

1. Contribute to the region's arms manufacturing capacity in every single weapon we produce, and we produce every kind of weapon.

*Poof*. ALL weapons ban proposals are now a metagaming violation because they would force UN nations to be removed from our region.

2. Adhere to the human rights guidelines set down by US (the regional founder), and only us.

*Poof*. Any UN human rights proposal that contradicts our personal whim? Now a metagaming violation. And we can update what our personal whim is faster than the UN can get a proposal to a vote so it's NEVER legislating anything we don't want it to.

Etc...
Greetings.

Surely you jest. You can mandate what you like, but it does not make it real. Consider your role as region founder. You can allow other states to join your group. You can say, "State A, you must produce X to join me."

The fact is, you can say that, State A can decline, and you can still allow State A to join you. We would be none the wiser. After all, your whims can change as fast as you like, and if they do, we will assume this is the case.

This is but one of the myriad ways by which your argument can fall, riddled by the sling-bullets and arrowheads of fortunate outrage. And you need not invoke the metathaumaturgies upon us. We are sufficiently well-taught that we know their limits.

Lastly, we do not aim our projectiles against you, but against your hypothetical and yet-to-be-fully-deployed argument.

Greetings.

Surely you jest.

I think you missed the point of the argument. I was pointing out why things working in the manner I outlined could not possibly really work.

I think you missed the point of the argument. I was pointing out why things working in the manner I outlined could not possibly really work.
Greetings.

We of Roathin did not miss the point of your argument, which was that if Lanquassia's viewpoint was valid, the argument you mock-deployed would be valid too. However, we extended the case somewhat by showing how such an argument would necessarily not work, while remaining within the parameters of our common universe.

[OOC: As you have said, and Ecopoeia has implied support for, there are ways in which such an argument would not successfully invoke metagaming. The previous Roathin post was an attempt to show this in-game. It is not easy to rebuff a metagame argument while remaining in-game...]

Greetings.

We of Roathin did not miss the point of your argument, which was that if Lanquassia's viewpoint was valid, the argument you mock-deployed would be valid too.

Which it would be as it is an identical argument, it just substituted conditions on weapons production and human rights for conditions on military partnership as the subject of some mandatory requirement of membership in some example region.

If one is valid, so is the other.

However, we extended the case somewhat by showing how such an argument would necessarily not work, while remaining within the parameters of our common universe.

We don't see how you did. All statements you made regarding the hypothetical argument we presented apply equally to the argument Lanquassia presented.

We don't see how you did. All statements you made regarding the hypothetical argument we presented apply equally to the argument Lanquassia presented.
Greetings.

We of Roathin are mystified by your focus and conclude that we might be at fault for not making matters clearer. That is one of the abiding problems with NSUN diplomacy, and we are resolved to make amends.

OOC: you invoked 'metagaming violations' to show how the argument could be disposed of; we invoked in-game arguments to show how the argument could be disposed of. The difference is not between your argument and Lanquassia's; the difference is one between your method and ours.

UN nations, in order to remain in character AS UN nations, simply cannot roleplay that they are militarily aligned with another nation possessing or using biological weaponry or risk being accused of godmoding by blatantly ignoring an active UN resolution (assuming it's passage)... Seems rather clear.Clear, eh?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The tension in the room was palpable as the Crimsonian Defence Minister reported on the situation in Blauelaend.

"Forces from the Grünfeldien Reich crosses the Blauelaender frontier in several places about 3½ hours ago. They preceded the invasion by dropping chemical-tipped ballistic missiles on several Blauelaender airbases - polymer-wettened soman, which is forcing the Blauelaender ground crews to work in chemical gear. Then they backed up their strike across the border with mixed HE and chemical fires - this time quick-dispersing sarin," said the grim-faced minister. "As for the cities, they carpet bombed several with weaponised anthrax. The casualties among the Blauelaender civilian populace are enormous."

"Are the Blauelaenders holding?" asked the Prime Minister.

"No," replied the Defence Minister curtly. "They're falling back to the Merse River in disarray."

Another Cabinet minister spoke up: "The Merse is wide enough to present a serious barrier to the Grünfeldiens. Maybe then can hold there."

"I doubt it," replied the Defence Minister. "The Grünfeldiens have airdropped two paratroop divisions on the river and seized several bridges. If the Blauelaenders don't dislodge them by this time tomorrow, the battle will be over."

"What about Chartreux?" said the Prime Minister.

"Mobilising," said another man, the Foreign Minister, "But it will be several days before they arrive in sufficient force to make a difference."

"Then it's up to us," said the Minister of Justice, darkly.

"Just a minute," said the Minister of U.N. Compliance. "We can't do anything, and you know it. Blauelaend brought this upon themselves when they began biological weapons research."

Everyone knew that the crisis had been precipitated by the discovery of Blauelaend's illicit bio-weapons program. As directed by the U.N. protocol on bio-weapons, Crimsonia had declared its mutual defence pact with Blauelaend abrogated, although the Foreign Minister had been directed to tell the government of the Kingdom of Blauelaend that the alliance would be resumed once the Kingdom had abandoned all bio-weapons research, destroyed all materials needed for their development and production, and then submitted to inspections to verify total disarmament.

The Reich had not given them time. Less than three weeks had passed between the revelation of Blauelaend's illicit bio-weapons program and Grünfeld's invasion.

The Defence Minister protested. "The Blauelaenders are being slaughtered! I've got reports that Grünfeldien Sonderkommandos are murdering civilians behind the advancing forces without restraint. There are satellite photos showing thousands of bodies lying in mass graves in the border villages, and that's only going to get worse the further the Reich advances."

"Nonetheless, we can not assist Blaulaend," snapped the Compliance Minister. "They should have thought of this before they decided to dabble in bio-weapons."

The Defence Minister wasn't listening. He turned to the Prime Minister. "Our air force could turn the tide, and we could have two airmobile divisions on the ground to retake those bridges over the Merse within two hours. The Blauelaenders still have a small mobile reserve that could assist us, but we have to move fast."

"You're not listening!" shouted the Compliance Minister. "WE CAN NOT INTERVENE!"

"27 million people's lives are at stake," said the Defence Minister softly. "The Grünfeldien Ministry of Information is openly claiming that this war is for 'Lebensraum' and that the Blauelaender people will not be allowed to 'get in their way'. They're going to commit genocide, without a doubt."

"We still can't intervene!" snapped the Compliance Minister.

The Prime Minister raised his hand. "Can we stop Grünfeld from using chemical and biological weapons on us?"

"We've got assets in place to take those weapons out with preemptive strikes," replied the Defence Minister.

"Do it," said the Prime Minister.

"YOU CAN'T!!!" shouted the Compliance Minister.

The Prime Minister turned to the Compliance Minister. "You're dismissed."

"Dismiss me," the jilted minister shot back, "An my party pulls out of the coalition. That'll bring a vote of confidence."

"Then there will be a vote of confidence," said the Prime Minister. He turned to one of his Ministers-without-Portfolio, "Get me Jack Rogers." Rogers was the head of the opposition party. "We'll need to form a War Cabinet." Then, after a pause, he snapped. "And get those troops and planes of ours moving!"

"I will not have genocide on this nation's doorstep, even if it means defying the will of the U.N."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But of course, something like that could never happen. It's utterly unrealistic, and to suggest that anyone would ever defy the will of the U.N., why, that would be godmodding. ;)

Clear, eh?

You sure did just outline one way in which the prohibition against UN nations militarily partnering up with nations in possession of proscribed weaponry can act as a deterrent to non UN nations messing around with those weapons in the first place. And quite frankly if it's a choice between OUR population being wiped out, quite possibly by accident, because some dumbass nation decided to play around with bioweaponry or the dumbass nation in question who decided to mess with bioweapons in the first place getting wiped out as a result of their efforts... we're leaning towards the latter, thanks.

Regrettable, but preferable to the alternative as far as we're concerned.

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.... Or is this more realistic?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Five Days Later (in a Different Universe)

Question Time

The catcalls from the backbench were already think when Jack Rogers, leader of the opposition, rose to ask the first question of the Prime Minister.

"Could the Honourable Prime Minister report on this situation in Blauelaend?"

The Prime Minister spoke quietly, and looked weary. "As you all know, Grünfeldien forces staged a massive invasion of Blauelaend five days ago. Using extensive chemical and bio-weapons strikes, they broke the Blauelaenders on the border and drove deeply into Blauelaender territory, fording the Merse River on the second day of fighting. Most of the country has been overrun, with only a small force still holding out in the fortress city of Pyrgart."

"And how are the Grünfeldiens treating the people of Blauelaend?" asked Jack Rogers.

Damn you, thought the PM. You know very well what's going on.

He cleared his throat. "We've received reports of ... reprisals."

The opposition leader smiled and shook his head. He turned to one of his aides, who passed him a report. The Prime Minster recognised the document with sickening familiarity.

"Reprisals? You mean, civilian deaths, right? How many?" asked Rogers.

The PM paused for a moment, and then answered. "About 750,000 deaths."

"Three quarters of a million deaths?!?" said the opposition leader with mock astonishment. "Well, what is His Majesty's Government planning on doing about this?"

The Prime Minister adopted an air of superiority in his response. "As the esteemed leader of the loyal opposition knows, we can do nothing, as we are forbidden from intervening due by current U.N. mandates."

"Ah", replied the opposition leader. "Yes, that." He paused, and then continued. "But our allied from Chartreaux, they have intervened, right? How goes it for them?"

The PM gave Rogers a vile look. "Not well."

"That is because their war plans have always called for us to provide air cover for their most advanced forces, but we're not doing that, now are we?" snapped Jack Rogers.

"No, we are not," said the PM slowly.

"And why is that? Why are we not helping our allies? We haven't discovered that they have bio-weapons, have we?" Hoots of derisive laughter, catcalls, and pounding erupted from the backbench.

"No," said the Prime Minister curtly. "Rather, the Compliance Ministry has informed us that we can not take action in support of Chartreaux as long as they are helping Blauelaend, because that would be providing assistance to Blauelaend."

"Ah," said Jack Rogers again, "Is that the way of it? Is that what the Compliance Ministry said?" And with that, we gestured to his aide for another report. It was show, the PM knew. A gesture designed to inform him that Rogers knew everything.

"Yes," said the PM, manoeuvring. "That is what they said."

"Is that all they said?" asked Rogers pointedly. "I understand there was somewhat more than that."

The PM looked at him malevolently. "We are not permitted to take any military action against the Reich at all. Any action against Grünfeld would constitute assistance to Blauelaend."

Roars of outrage and shouts of "No!" and "Shame!" erupted from the backbench. When the commotion died down, Jack Rogers stuck the stiletto in as hard as he could.

"Will the Prime Minister tell us if that includes military action taken against Grünfeld in self-defence?"

Scalpa Flood

The Grünfeldien bombers raced in from across the stormy ocean, hugging the waves at an altitude of only 100 metres. Ahead, just over the horizon, lay the Crimsonian naval base at Scalpa Flood.

The squadron commander gave the signal, and each bomber release a dozen ALCM's (air-launched cruise missiles) before peeling away to return home. Almost 200 cruise missiles inbound from their squadron joined another 400 from two more squadrons, and 150 SLCM's from a half-dozen submarines closer inshore.

It took less than 10 minutes for the 750 missiles to converge on the naval base; it took 5 minutes longer for them to leave over 45 Crimsonian warships crippled or destroyed, and 7,500 Crimsonian soldiers, sailors, and airmen dead.

Number 12 Downby Street

The Prime Minister was livid, but the Grünfeldien ambassador was cool, with a hint of quiet pleasure in his manner.

"You realise that your Government's actions mean..." began the PM.

"Mean what, my dear Prime Minister? War?" he laughed. "I don't think so."

The Prime Minister was dumbfounded, but the ambassador gave him no time to speak. "It is the beginning of a New World Order, and it would be better if you accept it than fight it."

"You see," he said, "Any military action that you take against us could be construed as assistance for Blauelaend. How does the old expression go: 'An enemy of my enemy...?" He lit a cigarette, drew on it, and then continued. "Any soldier you kill, any plane you destroy, any ship you sink, any city you bomb - anything at all - would help Blauelaend, and that would put you in a 'military partnership' with a nation possessed of 'proscribed' bio-weapons."

"Blauelaend won't hold out forever," said the PM.

The ambassador laughed contemptuously. "You know, those Blauelaenders have years or food, medicine, and supplies put up in Pyrgart. They could hold out for a very, very long time."

"They won't," replied the Prime Minister, less than certain. "They'll surrender."

The ambassador smiled an evil smile. "Assuming we accept their surrender. They've tried, of course - but we've sent their emissary back to them every time, shot through the kneecaps and wrists, and then strangled with piano wire." The PM winced.

"Eventually, of course, the inhabitants of Pyrgart will all die, in not from starvation, then from disease, the occasional bomb or shell we drop on them, hangnails, bad breath, something. But by then we'll have a substitute. Ulania has bio-weapons, as does Karjikistan. We only have to toy with each of them for a few years before moving onto the next. It would take us decades to exhaust the whole list."

"And in the meantime, neither you, nor any other nation in your stupid U.N. can touch us."

The ambassador rose. "So you'll do what we tell you to. You'll be part of our new sphere of influence, and an obedient part at that. Or else," he paused and put out his cigarette, "Who knows, we might accidentally launch a nuclear missile at a city of two."

"You never know," he said, wickedly. And with that, he left.

The Prime Minister sat quietly for several minutes before pulling a piece of paper and a pen out of his bureau.

He began to write a letter. It would be the last letter he ever wrote.

His letter of resignation ... and a suicide note.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The funny thing about absolute dictates is that they leave no room for discretion, even when following them would be insane

There's one reason why we shouldn't break down that "fourth wall". It produces intolerable absurdities.

If A is an aggressor, B is a non-U.N. member with bio-weapons, and C is a U.N. member, it is a simple matter for A to start a war with B, leave that war on the back burner (especially if B is much smaller than A), and then attack C. Since any armed resistance on the part of C would produce a "military partnership" between B and C, the only way for C to comply with Article 5 would be to ... surrender.

Check and mate.

You sure did just outline one way in which the prohibition against UN nations militarily partnering up with nations in possession of proscribed weaponry can act as a deterrent to non UN nations messing around with those weapons in the first place. And quite frankly if it's a choice between OUR population being wiped out, quite possibly by accident, because some dumbass nation decided to play around with bioweaponry or the dumbass nation in question who decided to mess with bioweapons in the first place getting wiped out as a result of their efforts... we're leaning towards the latter, thanks.

Regrettable, but preferable to the alternative as far as we're concerned.You have an amazing capacity to ignore the obvious.

In the first scenario I've described, would it be realistic for Grünfeld to IGNORE Crimsonia's attack? You asserted that no U.N. Member could ever violate Article 5 without being subject to an accusation of godmodding. Still want to stand by that claim?

Beyond that, you sound like the Quisling Compliance Minister in my scenario who's perfectly willing to see 27 million people die rather than violate a U.N. resolution.

I wouldn't be proud of that.

I have a few suggestions for the proposal:

1) Remove the arbitrary percentage (%) limitation for vaccines to cause harm to the participants. The relative safety of vaccines is a matter for a different proposal.

2) I'm really unconvinced by the beginning clauses. I would probably be closer to voting For a ban which signaled the uncontrollable nature of biological weapons (more clearly than your current preambles do) than what is there right now. I mean, anyone can label something negatively. Providing a plausible narrative or logical argument, that's much more convincing.

3) I think, to make certain there aren't any more legal troubles this proposal really should have the "non-necessity" clause in the active clause section, rather than the preamble, which does not have any actual effect on member nations.


Other than that, I'm not really foreseeing an arena in which national governments will need biological weapons for their defense, or a situation really worth the risk of worldwide epidemic.

Sonja rose to address the General Assembly.

"I thank the chair for recognising me, even though I am not an ambassador." She paused, and then explained. "I am here representing a number of nations, some U.N. members and some not. All wish to remain anonymous, for reasons that will become obvious in a bit." Continuing, she said. "On behalf of these nations, I call upon the parliamentarian to issue a ruling on the legality of this resolution in light of the passage of the United Nations Security Act."

"It is fascinating to look at the various arms proposals currently before this assembly; most pretend as though the UNSA had never been written, let alone passed. This resolution gives lip service to the UNSA, but does not comply with it. Not in the least."

"Near the end of the debate over the UNSA, questions arose as to its application. Clearly, it was intended to work through contradiction. I ask the clerk to read the Resolution's key clauses:"
DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilise 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."The key words here are 'any and all weapons that are necessary to defend'. What does that mean?"

Continuing, Sonja said: "We believe these words must be taken at face value, and understood in the simplest possible sense: if a nation believes that it needs a particular weapon, it has the right to construct and use that weapon, without restriction. No other reading of these words makes sense."

"It has been suggested that only the General Assembly can decide if a given weapon is necessary for defence. Simply put, this is utter garbage. Why? Because the words 'any and all' precede the rest of the phrase. 'Any and all' does not and can not mean, 'those weapons which the General Assembly deigns to permit us to employ'. That would not be 'any and all'. 'Any and all' can only mean that we, as nations afforded the right to defend ourselves, get to choose. Not the General Assembly, based on its own paternalistic notion of what it believes we might need, but we ourselves, for ourselves. Nothing else makes sense."

"Thus, Reformentia and this Assembly can not just wave away our right to make the choice of weapons we need ourselves, by throwing these words into this Resolution - will the clerk please read them?"
CONVINCED the possession or use of such bio-weapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and (that they) are unnecessary to national defence.Sonja snorted with derision. "The phrase doesn't even parse correctly - making it clear that the declaration that these arms are 'unnecessary' is nothing more than a pathetic 'bolt-on'."

"So what argument does Reformentia - or any other proponent of this ban - offer in support of this crucial assertion, the assertion that no nation could ever need to have these weapons for its defence? Why ... none. We are given no reason for believing these weapons to be useless in our own defence, other than faith. We are just supposed to accept it as a given."

"But in fact, bio-weapons can be very useful in defence of a nation, especially a small one. They are far less expensive than nuclear weapons, both to develop and to maintain.


Their production and maintenance is far less damaging to the environment than either nuclear or chemical weapons; indeed, of all WMD's, they are by far the most environmentally benign, as they only attack a few species rather than poisoning or irradiating everything in sight.


Small quantities are sufficient to deter very large nations; no other weapon gives a small nation any chance at all of holding back a larger one.


Of all WMD's, it is the one that can most truly be deployed defensively; indeed, the offencive use of biological weapons is far more difficult than their use as a defencive weapon.


To use biological weapons offensively, an aggressor must somehow find a way to get the agent to enemy soil; as it turns out, no method an attacker could possibly devise, from infiltration of an infected individual to aerosol delivery, is easy or reliable - and all can readily be contained by immunisation and isolation combined.


To use biological weapons defensively, all a nation must do is let its invader walk into a 'hot zone' - and multiple 'hot zones' can be established to make containment of the agent by isolation next to impossible


Inoculation of one's own population against one's own bio-weapons creates an extremely credible deterrent - and one that can be announced and publicly deployed to eliminate any uncertainty about its possible use. An enemy facing such a situation will know beyond any shadow of a doubt that their invasion of a nation so defended will result in unacceptable casualties on the invader's part. The result is likely to be an invasion deferred and thus a war avoided."
"Having demolished the argument that biological weapons can not be used defensively, let us proceed to the argument that such weapons are too dangerous to tolerate. I ask the clerk to read the relevant section of the proposal:"
NOTING bio-weapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike."This is simply not true."

"Only contagions are dangerous in this way - because only contagions can spread uncontrollably. But contagions are scarcely the only biological weapons known to science. There are biological weapons that do not spread from one person to another; indeed, one of the best known weapons of this sort - anthrax - is precisely this sort of weapon. The chances of contracting anthrax from another anthrax victim is virtually nil."

"Another common myth regarding bio-weapons is that they are unusually mutable. While some are, others are not. As noted in the debate over the eradication of smallpox, variola is not especially mutagenic; thus vaccination serves as an effective shield against 'blowback'."

"But of course, this is all academic. Since biological weapons are obviously not useless, they obviously can not be banned under the terms of the UNSA, and this Resolution is therefore illegal."

"I thank the chair for its indulgence, and look forward to a swift and favourable ruling."

And with that Sonja returned to her seat.

"But of course, this is all academic. Since biological weapons are obviously not useless, they obviously can not be banned under the terms of the UNSA, and this Resolution is therefore illegal."
Greetings.

We of Roathin note that the relevant clause in the UNSA relies on 'any and all weapons that ARE necessary to defend their nation from attack'. It is nonsense to conclude that the uselessness of a weapon protects it from banning; it is equally nonsensical to conclude that a weapon can be defined as necessary to the defence of a state without measures of necessity being invoked.

Since the resolution is a UN resolution, binding on UN member states, it follows that it is the UN or one of its subsidiary bodies which must clarify the legislation and determine if a given weapon is indeed necessary or not. There are no other bodies which can rule on the clarification of a UN resolution.

Simply put: utility is not equivalent to necessity, and the idea that something is necessary is not necessarily the fact that it is so.

"Only contagions are dangerous in this way - because only contagions can spread uncontrollably. But contagions are scarcely the only biological weapons known to science. There are biological weapons that do not spread from one person to another; indeed, one of the best known weapons of this sort - anthrax - is precisely this sort of weapon. The chances of contracting anthrax from another anthrax victim is virtually nil."

This is an avenue of discussion I am intensely interested in. I would like to see this idea brought out more, as no one has seemed to mention it before. I argue that bioweapons should be banned for the potential of pendemic only. If there are bioweapos which do not contain the risk of pandemic, then I don't think they should be banned (as they are not posing the risk the so-called contagions are).

This is an avenue of discussion I am intensely interested in. I would like to see this idea brought out more, as no one has seemed to mention it before. I argue that bioweapons should be banned for the potential of pendemic only. If there are bioweapos which do not contain the risk of pandemic, then I don't think they should be banned (as they are not posing the risk the so-called contagions are).

The proposal's definition of a proscribed bioweapon:

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection.

Apparently, that required pointing out.

ooc: I sometimes wonder if the attempts to introduce a degree of realism to UN legislation have served only to drag the whole shebang into a morass of legalistic subtleties and linguistic acrobatics that ought really to be beyond the scope of what is, after all, a game.

You have an amazing capacity to ignore the obvious.

In the first scenario I've described, would it be realistic for Grünfeld to IGNORE Crimsonia's attack?

Ignore? No.

It would just be prohibited for them to militarily ally themselves with Blauelaend as a result.

And yes, we WOULD rather see a nation of 27 million who were playing around with bioweapons wiped out as a consequence of their idiocy rather than face the risk of that bioweapon getting loose and wiping out a BILLION or so of our own damn citizens and allies by bloody accident, let alone as a result of an intentional attack.

If A is an aggressor, B is a non-U.N. member with bio-weapons, and C is a U.N. member, it is a simple matter for A to start a war with B, leave that war on the back burner (especially if B is much smaller than A), and then attack C. Since any armed resistance on the part of C would produce a "military partnership" between B and C, the only way for C to comply with Article 5 would be to ... surrender.
Greetings.

We of Roathin are mildly irritated by the suspension of logic required in this verbose miscegenation of pseudolegal terminology and bloody-mindedness.

Let us review the case - in several ways.

1) A attacks B. By the logic given, A in reducing B's capacity to fight is supporting its own cause. Therefore A has entered a military partnership with itself. Hence A is in breach of the rules at hand.

2) A attacks B. C attacks A. C is certainly reducing A's capacity to fight and thus indirectly increasing B's capacity for resistance. Is this a partnership? In order to put the matter beyond doubt, B should attack C, thus showing that it is NOT a partnership and allowing C to attack A freely.

3) A attacks B. B is a legal ally of C. Hence B cannot attack C and thus free C to attack A. C should void the agreement by attacking B as well, which thus makes it clear that B and C are not a partnership. C can then attack A freely. This is best done by launching WMDs at the A/B interface, thus ensuring that units on both sides A and B are damaged by C.

We could go on. The point is that 'partnership' is too loosely defined by our colleague of Allemande Aktiengesselschaft. And even if it were defined that loosely, C is not in the bind which our colleague implies in his apocalyptic scenario. Let us be clear, war-mongering and scare-mongering are equally repugnant to us. The application of logic should be unsullied by cheap drama; expensive theatrics are preferred, and practical demonstrations (even in abstract!) are encouraged.

Bio weapon are ok. rather than using nucklear weapons, a nation would used a more safer approach. Yes releasing a new strand of bacteria that prove to be unstoptable is mildly a bad thing.
But think of it this way: the bacteria cannot choose side on who to kill. THerefore, the one that uses it would be exposed to it also. Thus, there are no winners. Everybody dies, and no one looses.
As genectic prove, no single bacteria or virus can wipe out the entire human race. there will be a percentage that will servive. Thus these survivers will be stronger than those that die. Their genes will pass on to later generation and thus the entire human race becomes immune to yet another disease.
Bio weapons are a survival of the fittest kind of thing. The nation wiht the best immune system wins.

Bio weapon are ok. rather than using nucklear weapons, a nation would used a more safer approach.

Are you actually arguing that contagious biological weaponry is SAFER than nuclear weaponry? In what way exactly?

But think of it this way: the bacteria cannot choose side on who to kill. THerefore, the one that uses it would be exposed to it also. Thus, there are no winners. Everybody dies, and no one looses.

Which makes it SAFE?

As genectic prove, no single bacteria or virus can wipe out the entire human race.

No... just really large chunks of it. Indiscriminately. No matter how much of the original agent is deployed.

there will be a percentage that will servive. Thus these survivers will be stronger than those that die. Their genes will pass on to later generation and thus the entire human race becomes immune to yet another disease.
Bio weapons are a survival of the fittest kind of thing. The nation wiht the best immune system wins.

We're still looking for the part that makes them safer than nuclear weaponry...

Greetings.

We of Roathin are mildly irritated by the suspension of logic required in this verbose miscegenation of pseudolegal terminology and bloody-mindedness.

Let us review the case - in several ways.

1) A attacks B. By the logic given, A in reducing B's capacity to fight is supporting its own cause. Therefore A has entered a military partnership with itself. Hence A is in breach of the rules at hand.

2) A attacks B. C attacks A. C is certainly reducing A's capacity to fight and thus indirectly increasing B's capacity for resistance. Is this a partnership? In order to put the matter beyond doubt, B should attack C, thus showing that it is NOT a partnership and allowing C to attack A freely.

3) A attacks B. B is a legal ally of C. Hence B cannot attack C and thus free C to attack A. C should void the agreement by attacking B as well, which thus makes it clear that B and C are not a partnership. C can then attack A freely. This is best done by launching WMDs at the A/B interface, thus ensuring that units on both sides A and B are damaged by C.

We could go on. The point is that 'partnership' is too loosely defined by our colleague of Allemande Aktiengesselschaft. And even if it were defined that loosely, C is not in the bind which our colleague implies in his apocalyptic scenario. Let us be clear, war-mongering and scare-mongering are equally repugnant to us. The application of logic should be unsullied by cheap drama; expensive theatrics are preferred, and practical demonstrations (even in abstract!) are encouraged.

(I'm quoting you 'cause I'm too lazy right now to hunt down the original)

I'm curious how it became such that a "military partnership" became "my enemy's enemy is my military partner". Wouldn't it require a concious act of partnership rather than a random alignment of goals that were acted upon without the other being aware?

I'm curious how it became such that a "military partnership" became "my enemy's enemy is my military partner". Wouldn't it require a concious act of partnership rather than a random alignment of goals that were acted upon without the other being aware?
Greetings.

Frederik, Marshal of the East, is not a typical warleader. In him, we have a militant debater who prefers the mode of debate colloquially called "Even If". It is he who prefers to say, "If you define things that way, this is how we will outflank you with fire elementals and burn your lines of supply."

Hence his argument in the name of Roathin that, if partnership is defined by alignment of goals with or without knowledge of said common position, there are still many ways of circumventing the definition and logic presented.

It doesn't look like it'll reach quorum. Result - all bioweapons remain completely unmoderated by UN legislation. Not a great result.

I sometimes wonder if the attempts to introduce a degree of realism to UN legislation have served only to drag the whole shebang into a morass of legalistic subtleties and linguistic acrobatics that ought really to be beyond the scope of what is, after all, a game.

I agree totally with this. Looking back through passed resolutions, I've also noticed that the total number of votes cast regarding a particular proposal used to be higher than it is now. I can't help thinking that this drift towards legalism has been a cause of this reduction in democratic mass participation.

Maybe halving the maximum word count would help make resolutions clearer and more easily understandable to the majority. As it is, I'd expect more casual players to simply scroll through most of a proposal text. To be honest, I can't say I'd blame them.

There was an annoying set back.....

Bio-weapon repeal was at around the same number of votes - and Reformatia is good at his TG campaigns.

The proposal's definition of a proscribed bioweapon:



Apparently, that required pointing out.
So Reformetia, what would you classify anthrax as? You've decided it's not a bioweapon, but it certainly isn't chemical, nuclear, radiological, anti-matter, plasmic, bayonettish, a physical projectile, or pretty much any other weapon type.

Anthrax is a bioweapon - a weapon that uses a biological basis to function. Indeed, it is a natural bacterium, Bacillus anthracis. But you're proposal does nothing about this dangerous weapon. Are you allowing it to be used (a valid stance), or do you intend for it to be banned (difficult, given it is a natural disease, so to ban it you'd have to eradicate it)?

Just looking for clarification here.

Alright, is nationstates.net down for anyone else or is it just me? I was getting onto it fine when I left for work 20 minutes ago but as soon as I logged on at my desk I couldn't reach the site.

If it's down it better not last long, I was making a really good run at reaching quorum, I had it pretty much all wrapped up. Missing by a few votes when the deadline hits tonight just because the site went down and stopped voting in the home stretch... would suck.

Alright, is nationstates.net down for anyone else or is it just me? I was getting onto it fine when I left for work 20 minutes ago but as soon as I logged on at my desk I couldn't reach the site.

If it's down it better not last long, I was making a really good run at reaching quorum, I had it pretty much all wrapped up. Missing by a few votes when the deadline hits tonight just because the site went down and stopped voting in the home stretch... would suck.

It's down for me too. Let the suckage begin. :(

It's down for me too. Let the suckage begin. :(

And it's back up again with about 12 hours to spare... give or take. 13 approvals to go... 12 hours... this I can work with.

Praise be to whatever admin is responsible for bringing it back...

So Reformetia, what would you classify anthrax as? You've decided it's not a bioweapon, but it certainly isn't chemical, nuclear, radiological, anti-matter, plasmic, bayonettish, a physical projectile, or pretty much any other weapon type.

Anthrax is a bioweapon - a weapon that uses a biological basis to function. Indeed, it is a natural bacterium, Bacillus anthracis. But you're proposal does nothing about this dangerous weapon. Are you allowing it to be used (a valid stance), or do you intend for it to be banned (difficult, given it is a natural disease, so to ban it you'd have to eradicate it)?

Just looking for clarification here.

That was brought up in the regional forums....but I think the issue was more along the lines of....how do you ban it without ppl like DLE claiming that you now have to kill all cows to stop infection.....

That was brought up in the regional forums....but I think the issue was more along the lines of....how do you ban it without ppl like DLE claiming that you now have to kill all cows to stop infection.....
You're missing the point. Reformetia's proposal completely ignores entire types of biological weapons. Ergo, it is not a ban on biological weapons, and it is misleading to suggest it is.

You're missing the point. Reformetia's proposal completely ignores entire types of biological weapons. Ergo, it is not a ban on biological weapons, and it is misleading to suggest it is.

It's a ban of biological weapons as they are defined/described by the proposal. That fact is mentioned several times throughout the proposal, so can hardly be termed to be misleading.

We're not particularly concerned with banning non-contagious agents. We don't see them as presenting a degree of threat respective to most conventional weapons that is sufficiently great to warrant such a ban.

It doesn't look like it'll reach quorum. Result - all bioweapons remain completely unmoderated by UN legislation. Not a great result.

Oh ye of little faith.....

Approvals: 147 (Darth Mall, Zyxibule, Ecopoeia, Rosthern, Wegason, Jonathalia, Torregal, Rikodovia, Hoffertium, Greater Tiki, Gaiah, Stars of Sky, Srekcuskcid, Richard2008, Pooplaracha, Israelities et Buddist, Sinns right hand, Brainy100111, Seattletonia, Nethan, Aamericah, SOC Intelligence, The Zeph, Blueshoetopia, Mogollon, Republic of Freedonia, Ballyboughal, Fratercula, CTerryland, Freedmark, Quillota, Luna Amore, Popestantinople, Theorb, Kleinekatzen, Abbraccialbero, FWEDD, The Dog God, Moroboshi, Great Geniuses, Grandura, Agsaricum, Rolling Stone, Clintoned, Kilobugya, WitchOne, Jiangland, Myrsk, Zouloukistan, Phlogisten, Galliana, Tamesidium, Purpleation, EfailFach, Darpatia, Elika, The Grand Mystic, Tambien, Swishland, Meteorologica, Dorig, Unknown Peoples, Felenia, Lunatic Retard Robots, Skrat, Hanaukyo, Aztec National League, The Shadow-Kai, The Sthans, Westgatia, Littlechefia, Metasequoia, Eve the First, Funkdunk, The Bud, Eqwalia, Windleheim, The WYN starcluster, New Thyme, Mythila, Die Faust, Pturbu, The Philosophes, The Talisman, Jefferoniandcheese, Rostum, Naravostia, Joseph Seal, Vargon Minor Beta, Aquarian Arcadia, Republic of Peoples, Venerable libertarians, Quimp, Svenor, Universal Divinity, Laurinians, Drunken Butterfly, Chocolate Fishies, Ficticious Proportions, North Koster, Quaarn, Ancients Tomatoes, Serinistad, Good Band Names, Chiw, Stephanopoulos, Sean Sweeney, The Planet Federation, Puebloville, Dorftrottels reign, Caer Rialis, Lunaria Mirandia, MegaWeh, Tzorsland, Italia Major, Eastern Coast America, Crankton, Microdell, Faradawn, Minge Flaps, Leylsh, Lorapala, Rollie Pollies, Tolaka, The Dark Hell, Differant seasons, The Almighty Goat, Two Forks, Of Cascadia, Weed Central, Gambloshia, Darkreigner, Gurnee, Finbergia, Tinis, Leonstein, The Amazingly Crooked, Tunafish Sandwich, Sarkis Nol, Foil Shango, Stankistia, JimiHendrixia, Bongoswana, Deux Magots, Atlantinas, Cockeysville, Insequa)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

And I lost 5 hours in the middle of the day when the NS server went down...

Maybe your opposition lost ground trying to stop your proposal from reaching quarom :P

Back to UNSA legalities.....

Apparently, that required pointing out.
OOC: Getting a tad snide, are we?

OOC: Given how stressful the progress of this resolution has been, I'm not surprised that snide remarks may slip out from time to time.

We've all seen far worse...

Congrats, Reformentia. Promise me you won't cry if the UN votes against it!

OOC: Given how stressful the progress of this resolution has been, I'm not surprised that snide remarks may slip out from time to time.

We've all seen far worse...

Congrats, Reformentia. Promise me you won't cry if the UN votes against it!

We make no promises.

We make no promises.
I'll have a box of tissues handy, just in case.

I will vote for it, and try to get my delegate to vote for it

Regional policy on Bio-weapons is going to dictate our vote here: we already have a regional ban so....

I stand corrected, and pleasantly surprised.

Bump... since this looks like it's going to vote tomorrow.

Bump back onto the front page again... now at vote.

We ask the clerk to read some selected excerpts from this debate:
Only contagions are dangerous in this way - because only contagions can spread uncontrollably. But contagions are scarcely the only biological weapons known to science. There are biological weapons that do not spread from one person to another; indeed, one of the best known weapons of this sort - anthrax - is precisely this sort of weapon. The chances of contracting anthrax from another anthrax victim is virtually nil.This is an avenue of discussion I am intensely interested in. I would like to see this idea brought out more, as no one has seemed to mention it before. I argue that bioweapons should be banned for the potential of pendemic only. If there are bioweapos which do not contain the risk of pandemic, then I don't think they should be banned (as they are not posing the risk the so-called contagions are).The proposal's definition of a proscribed bioweapon:
DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection.Apparently, that required pointing out.So Reformetia, what would you classify anthrax as? You've decided it's not a bioweapon, but it certainly isn't chemical, nuclear, radiological, anti-matter, plasmic, bayonettish, a physical projectile, or pretty much any other weapon type.

Anthrax is a bioweapon - a weapon that uses a biological basis to function. Indeed, it is a natural bacterium, Bacillus anthracis. But you're proposal does nothing about this dangerous weapon. Are you allowing it to be used (a valid stance), or do you intend for it to be banned (difficult, given it is a natural disease, so to ban it you'd have to eradicate it)?That was brought up in the regional forums....but I think the issue was more along the lines of....how do you ban it without ppl like DLE claiming that you now have to kill all cows to stop infection.....You're missing the point. Reformetia's proposal completely ignores entire types of biological weapons. Ergo, it is not a ban on biological weapons, and it is misleading to suggest it is.It's a ban of biological weapons as they are defined/described by the proposal. That fact is mentioned several times throughout the proposal, so can hardly be termed to be misleading.

We're not particularly concerned with banning non-contagious agents. We don't see them as presenting a degree of threat respective to most conventional weapons that is sufficiently great to warrant such a ban.We now ask the clerk to read the text of the now-repealed Resolution #16:
Elimination of Bio Weapons

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Lovinia

Description: Biological weapons, if used during warfare or covertly, represent an enormous risk to the well-being of not just the target of said weapons, but potentially everyone on the planet. It is therefore imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons.

Votes For: 13023

Votes Against: 5449

Implemented: Sat May 31 2003Finally, we ask the clerk to read the text of Resolution #108:Repeal "Elimination of Bio Weapons"

Description: UN Resolution #16: Elimination of Bio Weapons (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons", although expressing an admirable goal, is completely inadequate to that goal. The text of the resolution contains nothing more than one statement describing the undesirable aspects of biological weapons and one statement saying it’s important to eliminate them. Unfortunately there are no statements:

-- Defining a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about
-- Establishing that they actually BE eliminated, rather than just saying it’s important.
-- Specifying how they should be eliminated (such as forbidding their elimination through using them all up on other nations).
-- Accounting for what should be done about the fact that non UN member nations will still have these weapons.
-- Etc…

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings it is currently possible for any nation to do ALL of the following without EVER being in breach of resolution 16:

--Produce biological weapons.
--Stockpile biological weapons.
--Trade in biological weapons.
--Actually USE biological weapons.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with a new, effective resolution.


Votes For: 12,663
Votes Against: 3,199

Implemented: Tue Jun 28 2005What has happened here is shameful. It is an outrage. It must not be borne.

It is nothing short of a classic “bait-and-switch”, intentional or not.

Reformentia came before this body arguing that Resolution #16 was ineffective in its goal of banning biological weapons, proposing that it be repealed in order to “(replace it) with a new(er), (more) effective resolution”. What Reformentia has given us, for all our effort, is indeed newer and more effective - in some ways.

But it does not actually ban all the weapons that Resolution #16 was meant to ban.

Reformentia can argue that this has been discussed at length, and yet it should be obvious to anyone who wishes to be even remotely honest about this process that the vast majority of nations voting on this “replacement” resolution don't actually realise that it doesn't really “replace” the now-defunct Resolution #16 at all!

This is not a blanket ban on biological weaponry, which Resolution #16 was purported to be. It is a ban on some biological weaponry, one that leaves some of the most notorious bioweapons known to humanity (such as anthrax and the bubonic plague) unbanned!

How can any Resolution claim to be a “UN Biological Weapons Ban” when it doesn't ban weaponised anthrax?!?

The people of the world don't want any biological weapons. They aren't merely concerned with so-called “contagions”; they find all germ warfare repungnant. So why are we not addressing all germ warfare?

In many ways, this proposed resolution is as bad as Resolution #16. Allemande has no doubt that this Resolution will pass. Following its passage, as with the passage of Resolution #16, they will believe that biological weaponry has been banned, but this will not be so. This so-called “ban” is intrinsically evil because it will delude the Members of this body into believing the problem is solved when in fact it is not.

Worse, anyone who wants to try and fix the problems this Resolution creates will encounter severe difficulties in doing so:
Thanks to the rules against duplication, they will have to right a real bioweapons ban in such a way as to exclude the weapons covered in this ban - otherwise the effort will be illegal.
They will have to invent new terminology and new definitions in support of their effort - they won't even be able to call non-infectious bioweapons “biological weapons” - a positively Orwellian development - because that would violate U.N. rules against amendment.
They will have to sell their ban as something other than a ban on biological weapons, because this Resolution will have already banned “biological weapons” - per its own definition - and any attempt to sell a second ban on “biological weapons” would violate U.N. rules.
They will have to sell the effort to a world body that will have been conned into believing that “biological weapons” are already banned.
Shame! Shame!

It is imperative that this body reject this false ban on “biological weapons” and pass a genuine ban in its place. Allemande urges all Members interested in a genuine ban to vote against this travesty and urge others to do the same.

We must move swiftly to prevent a world where nations are permitted - and in some ways even encouraged - to acquire, deployed and - God forbid - use such awful weapons as anthrax, bubonic plague, and genetically modified non-infectious Ebola as weapons of war!

We now ask the clerk to read the text of the now-repealed Resolution #16:
Finally, we ask the clerk to read the text of Resolution #108:What has happened here is shameful. It is an outrage. It must not be borne.

It is nothing short of a classic “bait-and-switch”, intentional or not.

Reformentia came before this body arguing that Resolution #16 was ineffective in its goal of banning biological weapons, proposing that it be repealed in order to “(replace it) with a new(er), (more) effective resolution”. What Reformentia has given us, for all our effort, is indeed newer and more effective - in some ways.

But it does not actually ban all the weapons that Resolution #16 was meant to ban.

1. Nobody knows what specific weapons resolution 16 meant to ban because resolution 16 didn't say beyond "bioweapons" which was left undefined. Kindly stop making things up.

2. Resolution 16 never actually banned ANYTHING. It just said it was "imperative" that "bioweapons" (whatever that might be referring to) be eliminated.

We must move swiftly to prevent a world where nations are permitted - and in some ways even encouraged - to acquire, deployed and - God forbid - use such awful weapons as anthrax, bubonic plague, and genetically modified non-infectious Ebola as weapons of war!

Bubonic plague is quite contagious. Banned.

And if someone wanted to modify Ebola to be NON contagious just let them TRY to use it as a weapon of war. What are they going to do, walk around the battlefield with syringes injecting every single enemy soldier they want to take out with it?

Nobody knows what specific weapons resolution 16 meant to ban because resolution 16 didn't say beyond "bioweapons" which was left undefined. Kindly stop making things up.Ah. And so you're entitled to just take the liberty of deciding that Resolution #16 didn't really mean “biological weapons” in the normal, everyday sense of the term, but rather “biological weapons” as you choose to define them?!?

We think the plain English intent of Resolution #16 is patently obvious, and only a complete sophist would argue otherwise.Resolution 16 never actually banned ANYTHING. It just said it was "imperative" that "bioweapons" (whatever that might be referring to) be eliminated.Resolution #16 attempted to ban biological weapons and failed. Your argument that, because it failed, it therefore represented no expression of opinion on the part of the U.N. community that such weapons should be banned is utterly absurd on its face....if someone wanted to modify Ebola to be NON contagious just let them TRY to use it as a weapon of war. What are they going to do, walk around the battlefield with syringes injecting every single enemy soldier they want to take out with it?There is evidence to suggest that Ebola, like anthrax, becomes a spore following death and decay of a victim's body. That would mean that it could be spread as an aerial agent, just like anthrax.

Your failure to understand that there is considerable military value in dispersing contaminants over an area to produce a "hot zone" - the biological equivalent of a minefield - shows that you really don't understand the why of bioweapons.Bubonic plague is quite contagious.OOC: Never lived in New Mexico, have you?

Yersinia pestis is a flea-borne disease. “Vector-borne” diseases are not “infectious”, per se, since they require an intermediary to move from victim to victim (which is why they're called “vector-borne” diseases).

A cunning nation could produce a microscopic device (essentially, a minute plastic burr) designed to inject Yersinia pestis into the skin of a victim (using an number of non-mechanical pumping schemes) instead of employing a flea. Such an agent would not fit your definition of a “biological weapon”, however, because it would be spread by a machine instead of the victims themselves.

The point I'd like to make is that regardless of how you feel about the use of Bio-weapons, it is not the place of the UN to dictate to soveriegn nations whether they can build or use bio-weapons. The appropriate way to deal with bio-weapons is to create a formal treay that nations sign and agree to(in the International Incidents forum). Personally, I support the building of bio-weapons because they act as a signifigant deterent(for rational people not wanting war), just as nuclear weapons worked during the cold war. I will resign from the UN if this resolution passes.

Who's forcing events outside the UN? It's forcing events INSIDE the UN, namely all nations inside the UN aren't allowed to get themselves in military partnerships with nations posessing or using the weaponry proscribed by this proposal.

That non UN member nations have to deal with the consequences when dealing with UN nations is a side effect. An intentional one to be sure, but still a side effect. And non member nations have to deal with all other aspects of how UN resolutions effect UN member nations when dealing with UN member nations as well.

ANY weapons ban (effective ones at least) technically means the UN is "forcing" you to cancel any previous deals you had with non UN nations regarding you producing and selling them those weapons for example. And that isn't a metagaming violation either.

This is a violation because it renders null and void any pre-existing alliances between two or more superpowers where at least one member has chemical weapons and is not a UN member and at least one is a UN member regardless of chemical weapons. A weapons ban does not necessarily force you to end alliances, it just forces an end to certain types of weapons.

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.

Therefore, this resolution forbids ANY military partnership to exist between two nations if one is UN, and the other is not but has Bioweapons, regardless of any history between the two nations. This is not only a violation of the national soverignty, this is the UN overstepping its bounds by attempting to regulate the foreign relations of nonmember nations.

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

This effects the foreign relations of nonmember nations by forcibly severing their ties to member nations. Bioweapons are dangerous, but the UN should not interfere with nonmembers.

Would you care to define military partnerships if it means anything other than an Alliance?

Also, I would like to applaud one of the other member's comments.
It is a ban on some biological weaponry, one that leaves some of the most notorious bioweapons known to humanity (such as anthrax and the bubonic plague) unbanned!

Please note that in the text of the document:
DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection.
Many bioweapons are not contagious in and of themselves, but can infect people in ways that are noncontagious. Note viral rashes, someone can be infected if they come into contact with the virus, but they can not infect other beings.

Therefore it is my opinion that this resolution be voted down, and some modifications be made unto it to prevent damage to national soverignty of both member and nonmember nations, and to better define a bioweapon.

Ah. And so you're entitled to just take the liberty of deciding that Resolution #16 didn't really mean “biological weapons” in the normal, everyday sense of the term, but rather “biological weapons” as you choose to define them?!?

No, I'm entitled to take the liberty to choose to write a proposal which effectively bans those weapons which present an unnacceptable security risk if they are deployed without any concern whatsoever for what resolution 16 may or may not have intended since nobody knows that... that being one of the many reason resolution 16 was substandard and in need of repeal in the first place.

Your failure to understand that there is considerable military value in dispersing contaminants over an area to produce a "hot zone" - the biological equivalent of a minefield - shows that you really don't understand the why of bioweapons.

We understand this perfectly well, however as long as the contaminants in question are non contagious they are of little concern to us as the same effect could be had by dropping a nuclear warhead on the same area.

Banning the former while allowing the latter would be a pointless waste of time. And we have no intention of supporting a ban of the latter.

A cunning nation could produce a microscopic device (essentially, a minute plastic burr) designed to inject Yersinia pestis into the skin of a victim (using an number of non-mechanical pumping schemes) instead of employing a flea. Such an agent would not fit your definition of a “biological weapon”, however, because it would be spread by a machine instead of the victims themselves.

Yes, they could do such a thing... and we wouldn't care as we wouldn't consider such a weapon to represent any greater a degree of threat to our security than all manner of other perfectly legal weapons we have no intention of banning either.

The point I'd like to make is that regardless of how you feel about the use of Bio-weapons, it is not the place of the UN to dictate to soveriegn nations whether they can build or use bio-weapons.

Actually that is exactly the place of the UN should the membership so vote. That's why the UN has a Global Disarmament proposal category in the first place.



This is a violation because...

No it isn't. Mods have already ruled.

Answer me this - why is it (seeing as this proposal has been circulating for the better part - if not for well over - a month) that JUST NOW we are seeing comments about "bait and switch". This is a massive compilation of extensive discussion between some of the biggest names on the forums across at least 4 threads plus side notes being made on several other threads. Why is it that JUST NOW someone is bringing this issue forth.

Reformatia has clearly stated throughout the entire debate process that the issue was weapons with the capability of self-propogation. He has stated that he does not oppose chemical weapons - which would have about the same effect as the non-contageous weapons that you speak of. Certainly, this ban does not address non-contageous weapons, but it has been stated several TIMES throughout the entire debate process (and up till now, hasn't been directly challenged - questioned, fine, but not challenged). Why is it Allemande - you who is active on the forums and iirc has posted a few times on the threads - JUST bringing up this objection

Ah. And so you're entitled to just take the liberty of deciding that Resolution #16 didn't really mean “biological weapons” in the normal, everyday sense of the term, but rather “biological weapons” as you choose to define them?!?No, I'm entitled to take the liberty to choose to write a proposal which effectively bans those weapons which present an unnacceptable security risk if they are deployed without any concern whatsoever for what resolution 16 may or may not have intended since nobody knows that... that being one of the many reason resolution 16 was substandard and in need of repeal in the first place.Had you brought this proposal up in isolation from the process you started to repeal Resolution #16, that argument might have some merit. But since you began lobbying for this legislation by moving to repeal Resolution #16, and then advertised the present Resolution as a “replacement” for the previous bioweapons protocol, you can not so lightly dismiss the intent of the now-defunct ban, nor can you innocently proclaim that you're not responsible for the fact that almost everybody voting for the present Resolution thinks that it's a comprehensive bioweapons ban, in no small part due to its riding on the coattails of the recent repeal.
We understand this perfectly well, however as long as the contaminants in question are non contagious they are of little concern to us as the same effect could be had by dropping a nuclear warhead on the same area.

Banning the former while allowing the latter would be a pointless waste of time. And we have no intention of supporting a ban of the latter.Oh, we understand your position perfectly well. But that doesn't mean we need to keep our mouths shut while you con the rest of the world into accepting your notion that some biological weapons are “OK” because they don't spread.

We're sorry that you don't like the fact that we're telling people what this Resolution doesn't do, and pointing out how its deceptive nature makes it as damaging, in its own way, as Resolution #16...

Then again, maybe we're not sorry. But too bad either way.
Answer me this - why is it (seeing as this proposal has been circulating for the better part - if not for well over - a month) that JUST NOW we are seeing comments about "bait and switch". This is a massive compilation of extensive discussion between some of the biggest names on the forums across at least 4 threads plus side notes being made on several other threads. Why is it that JUST NOW someone is bringing this issue forth.

Reformatia has clearly stated throughout the entire debate process that the issue was weapons with the capability of self-propogation. He has stated that he does not oppose chemical weapons - which would have about the same effect as the non-contageous weapons that you speak of. Certainly, this ban does not address non-contageous weapons, but it has been stated several TIMES throughout the entire debate process (and up till now, hasn't been directly challenged - questioned, fine, but not challenged). Why is it Allemande - you who is active on the forums and iirc has posted a few times on the threads - JUST bringing up this objectionSimple: because we were not made aware of the fact that this proposal does not do what its title or its assumed role as “the replacement” for Resolution #16 implies that it does until after this proposal reached queue.

Once the proposal made queue, the only sensible thing to do was to wait for the floor debate to begin on this proposal before levelling our complaint. Doing so gives us the best chance of getting the word out about this proposal in the limited time available.

Biological Warfare Agents (Partial List) (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/bw/agent.htm#b02)

Non-Infectious Agents
Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis)
Brucellosis (Brucella melitensis, Brucella abortus, Brucella suis, and Brucella canis
Q Fever (Coxiella burnetii)
Tularemia (Francisella tularensis)
Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (VEE)

What is especially interesting about this list is that almost all of the agents on the FAS list are non-contagious. Of the ones that are contagious, many (like the Melioidosis, the various hemorrhagic fevers [Congo-Crimean, Ebola, etc.], and the Plague) are either not especially contagious (this is the case with Melioidosis and the hemorrhagic fevers) or not immediately so (this is the case with the Plague, which must become pneumonic plague [considered a “complication” of the disease] to trigger an epidemic - a development that is mercifully rare in the modern world, due to the state of our health care delivery systems). In fact, only smallpox (variola) and cholera (Vibrio cholera) are “contagions” of the sort that Reformentia envisions as the “primary” sort of bioweapon.

Most of these diseases are zootopic - IOW, they're animal diseases that have the ability to cross over the species barrier and infect human beings. What makes them deadly is:
The fact that humans seldom contract them and thus have little evolved resistance, and
The “weaponisation” of these diseases - IOW, their transformation into weapons by transformation into spore-laden aerosols.
Another notable factor is the ability of almost all of these diseases (the two “contagions” being the sole exceptions) to remain resident (and therefore virulent) within the environment after their human victims have died. They “hang out” in the local ecosystem by infecting local vermin or transforming themselves into spores.

This makes them very much like chemicals, in so far as they provide a way to “poison” a chunk of real estate for a significant period of time. Area denial is an important military concept (it's the idea behind the land mine) and so this development is not surprising.

The resolution is poorly worded. Whoever wrote it is not very educated. Not all bioogical weapons cause physical harm. There are some that cause nothing more than discomfort (such as the ones the US was working on.). Surely a biological weapon that gives someone an immense attraction toward the same sex is not cruel when compared to bullets.

Had you brought this proposal up in isolation from the process you started to repeal Resolution #16, that argument might have some merit. But since you began lobbying for this legislation by moving to repeal Resolution #16, and then advertised the present Resolution as a “replacement” for the previous bioweapons protocol, you can not so lightly dismiss the intent of the now-defunct ban, nor can you innocently proclaim that you're not responsible for the fact that almost everybody voting for the present Resolution thinks that it's a comprehensive bioweapons ban,

Well, it comprehensively bans everything defined as "bioweapons" by the proposal. If you meant something beyond that... took a poll did we? Care to share the results with the rest of the group? The actual figures which led you to declare that it was a FACT that the majority of the voters for this proposal didn't know what it was banning when it's stated explicitly in the second clause?

Or is someone just making things up again?

We're sorry that you don't like the fact that we're telling people what this Resolution doesn't do,

We would point out that the representative from Allemande can tell people this all he likes. After all we already told everyone involved right in the proposal when we defined what bioweapons we were talking about, and also about fifty times over the course of the last month right here on these forums during the discussion of the drafts and the final submitted version... and we just did it again in the very last reply we made to you in this very thread.

By all means educate the people on what they have already been told repeatedly for weeks.... which seems an unusual way for us to go about "deceiving" people.

Couldn't this be twisted to ban the smallpox vaccine?

Couldn't this be twisted to ban the smallpox vaccine?

Provision is made for vaccines in the defining clauses... they are clearly differentiated from bioweapons.

Well, it comprehensively bans everything defined as "bioweapons" by the proposal.A definition that is inherently deceptive.

There are many other definitions you could have used that would be far more comprehensive:The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (http://www.answers.com/topic/biological-warfare):The employment in war of microorganisms to injure or destroy people, animals, or crops.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/topic/biological-warfare): The use of disease-producing microorganisms, toxic biological products, or organic biocides to cause death or injury to humans, animals, or plants.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_weapons): Biological warfare, also known as germ warfare, is the use of any organism (bacteria, virus or other disease-causing organism) or toxin found in nature, as a weapon of war. It is meant to incapacitate or kill an adversary.

Biological Weapons Convention (1975) (http://www.opbw.org/convention/conv.html): Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.

Dr. R. E. Hurlbert, Washington State University (http://www.slic2.wsu.edu:82/hurlbert/micro101/pages/101biologicalweapons.html#definitionBW):Biological weapons are defined as:
Microorganisms that infect and grow in the target host producing a clinical disease that kills or incapacitates the targeted host. Such microbes may be natural, wild-type strains or may be the result of genetically engineered organisms.
Biologically Derived Bioactive Substances (BDBS) products of metabolism (usually, but not always, of microbial origin) that kill or incapacitate the targeted host. These include biological toxins, as well as substances that interfere with normal behavior, such as hormones, neuropeptides and cytokines.
Artificially Designed Biological-Mimicking Substances: With our knowledge of the mechanisms of biological processes it is now possible to design and manufacture substances that mimic the action of biologics. For example, we already make nerve gases and their close relatives, pesticides, that act by binding specifically to receptors of targeted organisms, so it takes little imagination to predict that, as we learn more about the specifics of biological processes, we will be able to create “designer” substances that can be specifically targeted to a particular cell-type in an enemy (e.g. people with blond hair and blue eyes).
The difference between the second & third definitions and that of a classical chemical weapon is the manner of their production. A “biological chemical weapon” is produced by cultivating an organism and extracting from it or its spent medium the toxic material. A strict “chemical weapon” is one that is produced in a chemical plant and doesn’t involve growing a living organism. An example of the former would be botulism toxin (botox) and of the latter, the nerve gas sarin. However, with improving technology these definitions will blur as we learn to chemically and genetically manipulate biological toxins so as to improve their efficacy and yield. For example, botox is unstable, but if it could be chemically modified or genetically manipulated, such as mutating its gene or fusing it to another molecule, so as to stabilize it, while maintaining its lethality, it would be a much more effective weapon.
To boast that your proposal “comprehensively bans everything defined as ‘bioweapons’ by the proposal” is the height of cynicism. We could define chihuahuas to be bird dog and cats to be polar bears if we wanted, but that would hardly make such definitions useful.

Any purported “definition” of biological weapons that excludes anthrax, brucellosis, tularaemia and VEE is obviously a faulty definition by any sane standard an honest person could ever imagine.

A definition that is inherently deceptive.

Quite frankly, we are getting a little tired of having the representative from Allemande constantly accusing us of deception without a shred of evidence.

We stated clearly and unambiguously in the proposal what we were intending to ban.

We submitted the initial draft version of the proposal for review before we even repealed resolution 16, giving anyone and everyone every opportunity to acquaint themselves with our intentions.

We have not once, in any way whatsoever, conducted this campaign in anything resembling a deceptive manner and quite frankly it is the continued accusation that we have that is the only lie being presented here.

There are many other definitions you could have used that would be far more comprehensive:

As we have already pointed out, and as we have been quite clear from the beginning, we have no interest in being MORE comprehensive than we aready have been. The ban accomplishes exactly what it is intended to accomplish.

EDIT: We stand corrected on the "only lie" point. There was also your fraudulent claim that it was a FACT that the majority of people voting on this proposal did not know what iut was banning... which we requested you corroborate and we see that request has been ignored. This would suggest you have fabricated at least two of the points of your argument thus far.

ooc:In my opinion an easy middle ground can be found. If the current resolution is voted down, then we can address some of the points brought up. There seem to only be a few items in question.

4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.

There are some diseases for which there is no treatment, and some diseases do not require isolation. (see HIV, etc) An easy re-wording and expansion might be

"Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate treatment. If the agent present requires the isolation of the individual, then all measures to isolate the individual must be taken in the interests of international safety immediatly, effectively, and not ending until the individual is dead or cured. If the individual dies in isolation, then all measures must be taken to ensure that the pathogen does not escape the body."

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.

The argument against this is the interference into a soverign nation's international affairs regardless of the status of the other nation except for possession of prohibited substances.

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.


The obvious omission of noncontageous substances. IMO that can be included in a later resolution, since they need more explaining that simple contageous ones. Also note that some experimental vaccines violate the 0.5% rule.

Point 4: The questionable definition of the term 'Military Partnership'

This one just requires another definition, since this term can mean different things in different people's minds. Point four can be remedied in a small note added to the version posted in the Passed UN Resolutions thread.



I intend this post only to point out the different areas that people have been having trouble with in one consolidated area and to note possible remidies. This post is not meant in any way to attack, which I unfortionatly cannot say for every post in this forum, just to be a little critique.

EDITED FOR CLARITY AND TO REMOVE OFF-SUBJECT ST00F MY BRAIN TOSSED OUT.

I see Allemande failed to read my post so I guess I shall highlight the words he missed:

Reformatia has clearly stated throughout the entire debate process that the issue was weapons with the capability of self-propogation.

Gee - contageous weapons perhaps?

He has stated that he does not oppose chemical weapons - which would have about the same effect as the non-contageous weapons that you speak of. Certainly, this ban does not address non-contageous weapons, but it has been stated several TIMES throughout the entire debate process (and up till now, hasn't been directly challenged - questioned, fine, but not challenged). Why is it Allemande - you who is active on the forums and iirc has posted a few times on the threads - JUST bringing up this objection

There are some diseases for which there is no treatment, and some diseases do not require isolation. (see HIV, etc) An easy re-wording and expansion might be

You are proposing adding over 350 characters to the current text which would most likely place it over the character limit for a proposal. Additionally, the rewording is not necessary. It does not substantively alter the effect of the resolution.

The argument against this is the interference into a soverign nation's international affairs regardless of the status of the other nation except for possession of prohibited substances.

You're going to have to reword that, we didn't follow what you were arguing.

The obvious omission of noncontageous substances. IMO that can be included in a later resolution, since they need more explaining that simple contageous ones. Also note that some experimental vaccines violate the 0.5% rule.

And thus are subject to the limitation on allowable quantities that are permitted to be possessed until the experimenting gets them below the 0.5% threshold and they reach a point where they stop being experimental and start being suitable for mass production.

Point 4: The questionable definition of the term 'Military Partnership'

What exactly is questionable about it?

Granted the Meta-Gaming arguement is invalid, this resolution is still illegal.

The definition of a biological was has been extended to include vaccines. Vaccinations have nothing to do with Global Disarmment. Part of this belongs in a different proposal category, which is illegal.


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.

This clause violates No Embargoes on Medicine, another reason it is illegal.

There are some diseases for which there is no treatment, and some diseases do not require isolation. (see HIV, etc) An easy re-wording and expansion might be

"Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate treatment. If the agent present requires the isolation of the individual, then all measures to isolate the individual must be taken in the interests of international safety immediatly, effectively, and not ending until the individual is dead or cured. If the individual dies in isolation, then all measures must be taken to ensure that the pathogen does not escape the body."An excellent reason for voting this Resolution down, since once it is in place the problem cited can only be corrected by appeal.IMO that can be included in a later resolution, since they need more explaining that simple contageous ones. Also note that some experimental vaccines violate the 0.5% rule.On the contrary, such a later proposal will be more difficult to write and more difficult to pass once this Resolution has been enacted.

And - as far as the problem of defining biological weapons is concerned, see below.(On) The questionable definition of the term 'Military Partnership' ... This one just requires another definition, since this term can mean different things in different people's minds. Point four can be remedied in a small note added to the version posted in the Passed UN Resolutions thread.You mean a separate resolution, don't you? To date, no one has ever submitted a "definitional" proposal to see if such a thing would even be legal. So we're speculating as to the possibility of such a move.

The definition of a biological was has been extended to include vaccines. Vaccinations have nothing to do with Global Disarmment. Part of this belongs in a different proposal category, which is illegal.

The definition of biological weapons has NOT been extended to vaccines. Vaccines are seperately defined and distinguished FROM biological weapons. They are exempted from the ban.

And - as far as the problem of defining biological weapons is concerned, see below.You mean a separate resolution, don't you? To date, no one has ever submitted a "definitional" proposal to see if such a thing would even be legal. So we're speculating as to the possibility of such a move.
ooc:
Well, I was actually meaning a definitional footnote added to the forum version so we wouldn't have to go through the trouble of redoing all of this on the NS version. I'm not sure of whether that is allowed or not though.

The argument against this is the interference into a soverign nation's international affairs regardless of the status of the other nation except for possession of prohibited substances.
You're going to have to reword that, we didn't follow what you were arguing

The argument is thus:
Nation A has UN membership, and an alliance with Nation B, a known possesor of biological weapons. Regardless of the status of the alliance or how responsible Nation B has been with aforementioned weapons, the alliance must be severed, Nation B must disarm, or Nation A must resign the UN.

And thus are subject to the limitation on allowable quantities that are permitted to be possessed until the experimenting gets them below the 0.5% threshold and they reach a point where they stop being experimental and start being suitable for mass production.

hmm... good point

What exactly is questionable about it?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'military partnership.' Am I the only one confused?

Biological Weapons Convention

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Medium
Proposed By: Not Reformentia

BELIEVING the use of biological weapons to be wholly undesirable, given the damage that these weapons do, as well as the dangers inherent in their use, AND

ASSERTING that alternatives exist to the use of these weapons in the defence of any Member nation, and that they are therefore not needed for this purpose,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY DECLARE

THAT Member nations shall undertake never in any circumstance to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain, or in any way use:

(1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;

(2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict;

Save where an exception is specifically defined under the terms of another Resolution.

TO FURTHER COMPLIANCE with this Convention,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO ALSO DECLARE

THAT we as a body:

(1) Reserve the right to define any or all of the above terminology as needed in other Resolutions;

(2) Reserve the right to promulgate exceptions as needed in other Resolutions;

(3) Reserve the right to specify punishments that may be applied to nations which act in a fashion contrary to this Resolution.

Length: 1371 CharactersSee how easy that was? And there's even room at the end for another 1500-2000 characters of ... whatever.

Allemande grants anyone who wishes to do so the right to submit this proposal as an alternative to the present travesty. For our own part, we would like to include nanoweapons in the proposal, since we believe the two to be close enough in function and design to fit under the same protocol.

We hope to have a substitute proposal available for endorsement by tonight.

Reformentia can call it a lie, but it is clear from the outset that they did not intend to replace Resolution #16 with a comprehensive biological weapons ban at all. The move to repeal Resolution #16, then, was used as a cynical attempt to get these United Nations behind the development, acquisition, and use of non-infectious bioweapons.

We do not believe that is what this body wants.

OOC: This resolution is based on the Real Life™ Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972. In fact, the only changes made to its operative clauses are the banning of “use” and the addition of the clauses permitting future clarification, exception, and extension.

Also, just so that no one gets to upset here or takes anything too personally, keep in mind that the debate above is proceeding more or less IC'ly

See how easy that was? And there's even room at the end for another 1500-2000 characters of ... whatever.

We're quite sure it was easy. We're also sure it doesn't accomplish what we set out to do with our version of the weapons ban.

Unlike our version of the proposal yours hasn't had the joy and wonder of being through a month long public loophole vetting process. Let's see the results. This is what jumps out after about 30 seconds of scrutiny... imagine what happens after letting the anti-ban contingent of the UN get to work on it a week or two:

...

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY DECLARE

THAT Member nations shall undertake never in any circumstance to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain, or in any way use:

(1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;

Loophole number 1. Anyone who comes up with *any* dual use for a deadly biological agent just got total immunity for it from the ban.

(2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict;

Either you just banned rockets, all manner of different vehicles, dart guns, crop dusting planes, etc...

Or you didn't actually ban anything at all if you claim that any such weapon, mechanism, etc... that can also be put to any other use is not banned.

Save where an exception is specifically defined under the terms of another Resolution.

TO FURTHER COMPLIANCE with this Convention,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO ALSO DECLARE

THAT we as a body:

(1) Reserve the right to define any or all of the above terminology as needed in other Resolutions;

Reserving the right to perform an illegal action (adding to and thus altering the meaning of this proposal with future defining legislation constitutes an ammendment).

(2) Reserve the right to promulgate exceptions as needed in other Resolutions;

And again.

(3) Reserve the right to specify punishments that may be applied to nations which act in a fashion contrary to this Resolution.

Reserve the right for who to do this? The UN as an organization? Every single individual nation on their own all coming up with their own ideas independently and simultaneously?

Reserve the right for who to do this? The UN as an organization? Every single individual nation on their own all coming up with their own ideas independently and simultaneously?The following comments are all OOC

Since the words “as a body” precede the reservations, it clearly means the U.N. as an organization, through the operation of resolutions.

W/re to the legality of the reservations:
We have yet to establish the legality of external definitions, but this resolution doesn't require them, so no “House of Cards” is created by this clause; at its worst, it does nothing.
As for exceptions, notice the dual use of the term: had it appeared only in the reservations, you would be absolutely correct. But we say “save where an exception is specifically defined” in the active clauses, and then turn around and reserve the right to take advantage of this self same exception clause later. The two phrases work together to give us the ability to carve out an exception in a future Resolution if needed. I'd be very surprised if that turned out to be illegal.
As for the loopholes, that's the Real Life™ BWC I'm quoting. So far, no one has accused it of being full of loopholes. Sometimes it's a good idea not to spend so much time listening to the legalists (like DLE and Vastiva), who will spend forever arguing over what “is” is. ;)

But getting back to Real Life™ for a minute, weapons that are designed to deliver biowar agents are usually not like weapons designed to deliver other kinds of ordnance. If you're stupid enough to design your weapons to handle all kinds of warheads - including biowar agents - then there's not much to be done for you. But it's relatively easy to make sure that any of your weapons systems that might be used to deliver biowar agents can't, and that's kind of the point.

IOW, the Real Life™ BWC does not permit dual-use weaponry. So the smart planner has his engineers design the weapon to preclude dual-use.

OTOH, it is absolutely true that you could theoretically develop a biowar agent that actually has a benign use. Mind you, I can't think of one, and I doubt anyone else here could either - at least not without godmodding - since most vaccines aren't likely to be lethal (that's kind of the point of a vaccine, right?). And so, like the Real Life™ diplomats who wrote this protocol - which has enough teeth in Real Life™ to keep most nations out of the business of prepping for biowar, BTW - I'd be comfortable telling the legalists to take a long walk off a short pier and running with the text as is.

But if it really bugged you, you could blow some of those 1500-2000 characters and separate the “develop, produce, stockpile, etc.” clause from the “use” clause and grab one of the other definitions to say, “Oh, yeah, BTW: if you are clever enough to come up with a dual-use biowar agent, congratulations - but you still can't use it in a ‘hostile act’”.

The following comments are all OOC

W/re to the legality of the reservations:
We have yet to establish the legality of external definitions,

Actually the rules for UN Proposals establishes the illegality of them when it makes ammendments illegal. You can't write a proposal that redefines what another proposal that has already been passed is talking about.

but this resolution doesn't require them, so no “House of Cards” is created by this clause; at its worst, it does nothing.

It may not require them, but you're trying to reserve the right for a future proposal to illegally alter the current proposal by adding defining terms to it and thus altering its effect. That's ammending.

[quote] As for exceptions, notice the dual use of the term: had it appeared only in the reservations, you would be absolutely correct. But we say “save where an exception is specifically defined” in the active clauses, and then turn around and reserve the right to take advantage of this self same exception clause later.

Just because you say right in the proposal that you're allowing for future ammendment that doesn't mean you over-ride the UN rules prohibiting ammendments.

As for the loopholes, that's the Real Life™ BWC I'm quoting.

The NSUN, as it may have been noticed, does not operate like the real life UN.

So far, no one has accused it of being full of loopholes.

So far nobody in the NSUN has written the reams of additional legal analysis which the UN has at its disposal to clear up ambiguity in such matters.

But getting back to Real Life™ for a minute, weapons that are designed to deliver biowar agents are usually not like weapons designed to deliver other kinds of ordnance. If you're stupid enough to design your weapons to handle all kinds of warheads - including biowar agents - then there's not much to be done for you. But it's relatively easy to make sure that any of the weapons systems that might be used to deliver biowar agents can't, and that's kind of the point.

No, it isn't easy, because there's nothing preventing anyone from making a bioweapon warhead that can be interchangeable with a conventional warhead on pretty much any given delivery system.

OTOH, it is absolutely true that you could theoretically develop a biowar agent that actually has a benign use. Mind you, I can't think of one, and I doubt anyone else here could either -

It is contra-indicated to rely on a lack of ingenuity on behalf of those seeking to circumvent a bioweapons ban to make your bioweapons ban effective.

And we've already 'blown' the extra 1500 characters acheiving exactly what we want to acheive in our version of the proposal.

No, it isn't easy, because there's nothing preventing anyone from making a bioweapon warhead that can be interchangeable with a conventional warhead on pretty much any given delivery system.Again, OOC

Then that would make said weapon illegal.

Essentially, Section 2 requires you to design an inability to deliver bio-weapons into any questionable weapon system. Which, given the fact that weapons are usually designed with a specific payload or ordinance type in mind, isn't all that difficult. Just don't work on finding a way to turn your weapon systems into dual-use weapon systems and you're fine.

OTOH, as I said in my last post, if you're dumb enough to actually make your weapons dual-use capable, then you've effectively just made your entire military and all its weapons illegal. That's not a very good survival tactic.

And we've already 'blown' the extra 1500 characters acheiving exactly what we want to acheive in our version of the proposal.But I haven't blown it in mine.

IOW, had you actually focussed on the task at hand - putting together a real biological weapons ban instead of trying to ban just the bioweapons you don't like (really, banning “bio-weapons” - and not banning anthrax!), and had you not tried so hard to make your resolution apply to the rest of the world, instead of recognising that you have to stick to legislating behavior on the part of the NSUN, you probably could have kept the whole thing under 2000 characters, too.

Instead, you spend too much time letting yourself get waylaid by the legalists, and trying to ban contagions rather than bio-weapons, and trying to get around the rules and force non-Members to honor the ban as well. That's more than one resolution can handle.

IC: The NationStates United Nations needs to legislate a simple, straightforward ban on all biological weapons, without creating loopholes for non-contagious agents, and stick with regulating its own members behavior in the process.

Vote this resolution down so that we can do that.

Again, OOC

Then that would make said weapon illegal.

Essentially, Section 2 requires you to design an inability to deliver bio-weapons into any questionable weapon system.

Which would be done how? How would you like a rocket for example to be designed such that it is unable to mount a hypothetical bioweapons warhead whose only difference from a conventional warhead is entirely internal?

Which, given the fact that weapons are usually designed with a specific payload or ordinance type in mind, isn't all that difficult. Just don't work on finding a way to turn your weapon systems into dual-use weapon systems and you're fine.

And if someone else turns your weapon into a dual use weapon by designing a bioweapons warhead that is compatible with the delivery system you happen to be using they just outlawed your entire military stockpile of the delivery system in question... and you can consider yourself screwed.

But I haven't blown it in mine.

But by the time you had acheived the same effects as the current proposal you would have.

IOW, had you actually focussed on the task at hand - putting together a real biological weapons ban instead of trying to ban just the bioweapons you don't like (really, banning “bio-weapons” - and not banning anthrax!), and had you not tried so hard to make your resolution apply to the rest of the world, instead of recognising that you have to stick to legislating behavior on the part of the NSUN, you probably could have kept the whole thing under 2000 characters, too.

And crippled it's effectiveness... and included weapons in its scope I have no interest whatsoever in attempting to ban in the first place...

The definition of biological weapons has NOT been extended to vaccines. Vaccines are seperately defined and distinguished FROM biological weapons. They are exempted from the ban.

However, yoyu made rules about security in research facilities for using these for medical purposes. that has nothing to do with global disarmment. The resolution should have just stated vaccines were exempt, and gone no further on that subject. If you want to make rules for vaccines, write a different resolution.

Question: Does this ban the use of bio-weapons that cause non-contageous(sp) disease on only military?

Wow its great for all these other nations who aren't in the UN, and nations like me. You think I care about this. I hope this passes and I will still continue to make and use chemical weapons. While all you good nations put them away I will still have them and use them at my will. I hope it passes so all you sorry nations can put them away.

However, yoyu made rules about security in research facilities for using these for medical purposes.

Which has to do with the biological weapon agent being studied to DEVELOP the vaccine, not the vaccine itself. There are no restrictions on the possession or use of vaccines.

Question: Does this ban the use of bio-weapons that cause non-contageous(sp) disease on only military?

I'm assuming you meant "Does this ban the use of non-contagious weaponry".

No, it doesn't. Non-contagious weaponry presents no risk of an uncontrolled self-sustaining outbreak. There's no point banning it when it presents no greater risk than a dozen different types of perfectly conventional weapons.

THis is stupid

In the interests of diplomacy we'll refrain from commenting on the appropriateness of that statement.

Wow its great for all these other nations who aren't in the UN, and nations like me. You think I care about this. I hope this passes and I will still continue to make and use chemical weapons.

You're about a month late. The chemical weapons resolution was under debate in early June.

While all you good nations put them away I will still have them and use them at my will. I hope it passes so all you sorry nations can put them away.

As a UN member nation you don't have the option of openly defying UN resolutions.

(Cue the promise to quit the UN if the resolution passes...)

I am against this act, for a simple reason. It violates a nation's right to choose. I am for global disarmament and such, however, I believe it should be done by a country's own volition and no law should force a country to ban things such as biological weapons, because it is a violation of the nation's, and the people's right to choose.

I am against this act, for a simple reason. It violates a nation's right to choose.

EVERY UN resolution "violates a nation's right to choose" by enacting international legislation that overrides any contrary national legislation.

If this is your entire argument, what are you doing in the UN in the first place?

IF YOU CAN'T USE BIO WEOPENS, THE NEXT BEST THING IS TO SHOOT THEM :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:
DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

I have no problems at all with the resolution at hand. But I think that more needs to be said about how individual member nations are supposed to respond. While I can see the inherent sensibility in having anyone retaliating issuing a notice of intent, I think the actual content should be decided by the UN, although this would take longer. A nation could either choose to respond, or respond with a certain amount of force as dictated by the UN and the situation. Actually, the more I think about this, the more I realize that this could apply to more than one type of action.

Cheers!

I must object to this proposal.
This ruling will have no effect on non-membr nations and will, in fact, have a crippling effect on ourselves when threatened by said non-member nations. It is as if we were to show up at a gunfight and decide that, while they will still be using guns, we shall take the noble way out and fight with fresh fruit.
The irresponsibility to one's populace is maddening.

High Elder of Septia

I must object to this proposal.
This ruling will have no effect on non-membr nations and will, in fact, have a crippling effect on ourselves when threatened by said non-member nations.

Because the best way to respond to being threatened is to release a contagious disease into the open where it can infect who knows how many people... that'll certainly keep you safe... until the half dozen or so countries in the general vicinity of where you released it all decide to declare war on you for so recklessly jeapardizing their national security by doing something so stupid.

Or until the contagion makes it's way back into your OWN population...

It is as if we were to show up at a gunfight and decide that, while they will still be using guns, we shall take the noble way out and fight with fresh fruit.

Or... you know.... nukes. Which have the advantage of at least only vaporizing what they hit directly.

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.
How exactly is this to be enforced? Yelda currently is in a military alliance with the 12 other nations of our region. Some of them manufacture and deploy biological weapons. We have no intention of dissolving this alliance. Once this passes (and it appears that it might) and becomes Resolution #113, we forsee an interesting test case involving Yelda and one or more of our allies.

Greetings.

We strongly support this particular ban, noting the inherent mutability, unpredictability and complexity of biological payloads. The typical mutability of such payloads in near-terrestrial environments is often considered by advocates both for and against such proposals.

However, it is not the typical mutability but the worst-case mutability that we should consider. Ditto, the unpredictability and complexity. We aver that in the worst case, no chemical plague or nuclear holocaust is as unpredictable in its effects as their biological equivalents, and as hard to control in the aftermath.

We do not see a ban on biologicals as either leading to a weakening of NSUN member states or a loss of national sovereignty. Rather, it frees NSUN members to pursue other forms of weaponry which are less dangerous to their own populations, and allows all states to rise to their greatest potential.

Finally, we point out the empirical arguments: of all forms of mass destruction, biologicals are the oldest and most horrific to the typical human psyche. (While we of Roathin are not human, we note this as a concession to our many colleagues who are.) They have been deployed at a whim, by stealth and in the open, for their horrific effect alone, and as a calculated tool of genocide. Neither chemical nor nuclear weaponry might lay claim to a long history of all these possibilities as much as biological weaponry may.

We urge delegates to see the larger picture and vote in support of this resolution. (We also note that the Grand Duchy of Roathin is willing to make available theurgic and thaumaturgic defences against such weapons should the need arise.)

We supporting this resotuion, because such kind of weapons is too dangerous.

Essentially, Section 2 requires you to design an inability to deliver bio-weapons into any questionable weapon system.Which would be done how? How would you like a rocket for example to be designed such that it is unable to mount a hypothetical bioweapons warhead whose only difference from a conventional warhead is entirely internal?You know, we didn't pull that wording out of thin air. It's the actual wording of the Real Life™ Biological Warfare Convention, signed by the U.S., the U.S.S.R., and a whole bunch of other countries. Funny thing is, the U.S., the U.S.S.R. haven't had to give up their tactical ballistic missiles, gravity bombs, artillery systems, or any of the rest of their armaments yet.

So why should we have to?And if someone else turns your weapon into a dual use weapon by designing a bioweapons warhead that is compatible with the delivery system you happen to be using they just outlawed your entire military stockpile of the delivery system in question... and you can consider yourself screwed.Yeah, right.

In Real Life™ North Korea has done pretty much what you've described with their Soviet-designed equipment. We all know how North Korea's actions forced the Russians to throw away all those weapons systems, right?

Oops.

If it hasn't worked out that way in Real Life™, with a Convention worded in essentially the same way, why should we pretend that it's “godmodding” for nations to handle that problem in the same exact way as the Big Kids do?

To answer your question directly, if someone else modifies your weapons, that's their modification, not yours. It presents compliance problems for them, but it doesn't present such problems for you.But by the time you had achieved the same effects as the current proposal you would have.Fortunately we're not foolish - or duplicitous enough - to try to duplicate your proposal.And crippled (the proposal's) effectiveness... and included weapons in its scope I have no interest whatsoever in attempting to ban in the first place...With respect to the latter point, your absurd willingness to declare anthrax “not a biological weapon” and your cynical attempts to persuade us to accept that definition as legitimate is precisely the problem.

With respect to the former point, if you really think that your attempt at circumventing the metagaming restrictions is really going to make your ban “more effective”, well, we've got some real estate at the bottom of the Marianas Trench that we'd like to sell you. The scope of all U.N. Resolutions is and always will be the Membership of these United Nations, and any attempt to force the dictates of this body on non-Members is both misguided and doomed to failure.

In that respect, our proposed ban is every bit as “effective” as yours, in so far as it has the same enforcement mechanism across its legal scope: it is mandatory for all U.N. Members, because all U.N. Resolutions automatically are. Beyond that, nothing matters.

We strongly support this particular ban, noting the inherent mutability, unpredictability and complexity of biological payloads.Except that this Resolution does not actually ban biological weapons.However, it is not the typical mutability but the worst-case mutability that we should consider. Ditto, the unpredictability and complexity. We aver that in the worst case, no chemical plague or nuclear holocaust is as unpredictable in its effects as their biological equivalents, and as hard to control in the aftermath.So why do you neglect non-contagious agents, which can be just as unpredictable because:
We can't be sure how long they'll remain in the environment.
We can't be sure whether a non-contagious biowar agent will mutate into a contagion at a later date, either due to mutations or after exposure to another disease (whether biowar agent or naturally occuring, it matters not). Indeed, there is reason to believe that this is exactly how Yersinia pestis (Plague) goes from sylvan transmission to airborne transmission (as the so-called pnuemonic plague) - through exposure of the bacillus to pneumonia (pre-existing or otherwise).Finally, we point out the empirical arguments: of all forms of mass destruction, biologicals are the oldest and most horrific to the typical human psyche...They have been deployed at a whim, by stealth and in the open, for their horrific effect alone, and as a calculated tool of genocide. Neither chemical nor nuclear weaponry might lay claim to a long history of all these possibilities as much as biological weaponry may.And this is different for anthrax, tuleraemia, VEE, and other non-infectious diseases precisely how?We urge delegates to see the larger picture and vote in support of this resolution.We are seeing the big picture.

We want a real bioweapons ban, not a ban on just those agents that Reformentia declares to be bioweapons.

I must object to this proposal.
This ruling will have no effect on non-membr nations and will, in fact, have a crippling effect on ourselves when threatened by said non-member nations. It is as if we were to show up at a gunfight and decide that, while they will still be using guns, we shall take the noble way out and fight with fresh fruit.
The irresponsibility to one's populace is maddening.

High Elder of Septia


Someone who sees my side of the argument!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

How exactly is this to be enforced?

Like any other resolution - you HAVE to follow it....because well....the resolution says so.

Yelda currently is in a military alliance with the 12 other nations of our region. Some of them manufacture and deploy biological weapons. We have no intention of dissolving this alliance. Once this passes (and it appears that it might) and becomes Resolution #113, we forsee an interesting test case involving Yelda and one or more of our allies.

Your right - so something's going to have to change, or you are simply defying the resolution (which is allowed by Rights and Duties Article 10, but still).

You know, we didn't pull that wording out of thin air. It's the actual wording of the Real Life™ Biological Warfare Convention, signed by the U.S., the U.S.S.R., and a whole bunch of other countries.

Must I really repeat this?

The NSUN does not operate like the Real UN.

The Real UN does not have to cope with a world in which there are almost 100,000 nations external to it. The Real UN does not have to cope with everything from stone age societies to galaxy spanning empires to lands populated by wizards and demons. The Real UN does not have to cope with nations that can circumvent it's legislation by act of pure imagination alone so long as the legislation in question provides room for it.

This. Is. Not. Real. Life.

Laws here are not enforced in the same manner that they are in real life. Real life examples are of limited utility in demonstrating the effectiveness of laws within the NSUN.

If your ENTIRE argument is "we can do it that way in RL", which is the only thing you've been able to post for the last several posts, then you haven't got much of an argument.

To answer your question directly, if someone else modifies your weapons, that's their modification, not yours.

Which matters not one teeny tiny bit by the wording of your proposal. You are in posession of a weapon system that is capable of delivering a biological weapons payload so it's now illegal.

It presents compliance problems for them, but it doesn't present such problems for you.Fortunately we're not foolish - or duplicitous enough - to try to duplicate your proposal.With respect to the latter point, your absurd willingness to declare anthrax “not a biological weapon” and your cynical attempts to persuade us to accept that definition as legitimate is precisely the problem.

And one more time... the biological weapons proposal establishes the definition of bioweapons it considers to be hazardous enough to warrant a ban. Anthrax doesn't even come close. So it's not included. What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?

In that respect, our proposed ban is every bit as “effective” as yours, in so far as it has the same enforcement mechanism across its legal scope: it is mandatory for all U.N. Members, because all U.N. Resolutions automatically are. Beyond that, nothing matters.

Yes... by all means. If you can't directly legislate a matter for the nations outside the UN the best course of action is to craft your legislation such that it simply ignores the fact that every one of those nations exist. OBVIOUSLY this "close your eyes and hope they go away" approach to legislation is just as effective as a proposal which incorporates extensive guidelines for dealing with that situation.

I mean... under your proposal I can ship all my hypothetical bioweapons to my non UN colonial puppets just before the resolution passes and then I can simply direct them to use them instead of me against any nation I like... meaning your proposal has done not one single thing to prevent the deployment of biological weaponry and has made no nation any safer whatsoever... but yeah, the UN nations are the only ones you have to think about at all when you're writing legislation.

Except that this Resolution does not actually ban biological weapons.

It bans all the ones that matter.

So why do you neglect non-contagious agents, which can be just as unpredictable because:

* We can't be sure how long they'll remain in the environment.

Which obviously represents as much unpredictability and presents just as great a hazard as a weapon that is self replicating and can spread ITSELF all over the environment [i]no matter how much of it is initially released and while mutating into different strains as it goes.

* We can't be sure whether a non-contagious biowar agent will mutate into a contagion at a later date, either due to mutations or after exposure to another disease (whether biowar agent or naturally occuring, it matters not).

Odds are pretty damn low... seeing as it would be a pretty impressively rare non contagious agent that was still self-replicating in the first place.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that this is exactly how Yersinia pestis (Plague) goes from sylvan transmission to airborne transmission (as the so-called pnuemonic plague) - through exposure of the bacillus to pneumonia (pre-existing or otherwise).

I hate to break this to you... but BOTH of those are contagious and banned. Since you're so fond of yanking out the dictionary:

contagious

adjective 1 (of a disease) spread by direct or indirect contact between people or organisms. - Oxford English Dictionary.

Which leaves us with things like the anthrax you keep ranting on about... which in weaponized form is a powder, non self-replicating, and has basically no possibility of undergoing any mutation or causing some kind of epidemic upon release.

Your right - so something's going to have to change, or you are simply defying the resolution (which is allowed by Rights and Duties Article 10, but still).

Hold on there... defying resolutions is allowed by rights and duties article 10? Where did that come from?

Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

I don't see any wiggle room that allows for the defiance of a resolution in there... and I'm quite sure it would have been ruled illegal if it had established such a thing.

If we want non-contagious biologicals banned, we can simply draft a new proposal specifically dealing with them, surely?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Must I really repeat this?Don't bother. Your position is absurd.

The issue is not whether the NationStates United Nations is the Real Life™ United Nations: we all know that it is not. Of course, the differences work to our advantage in this argument because violations of Real Life™ protocols happen all the time, whereas defiance of a NationStates United Nations Resolution is impossible; ergo, we don't have to worry about compliance, do we?The Real UN does not have to cope with nations that can circumvent it's legislation by act of pure imagination alone so long as the legislation in question provides room for it.<wild peals of hysterical, gut-busting laughter>

No, in Real Life™, nations can just thumb their noses at the United Nations (or any other group of nations) and do as they please. Reformentia, meet Israel. Precisely how many United Nations Resolutions has Israel defied in the last few decades? We lost count somewhere along the line...

So Real Life™ treaties actually require a level of complexity that's unnecessary in NationStates United Nations Resolutions. In Real Life™, there are no U.N. Gnomes making things happen behind the scenes, whether we wish it or not. There's nothing, in fact, to stop anyone from ignoring the United Nations altogether, the way India ignores United Nations mandates to hold elections in Kashmir, the way several nations refuse to sign the NPT or the BWC, the way numerous Real Life™ nations ignore the Geneva Convention, even assuming they bother becoming signatories. And as far as the absurd notion of how governments in Real Life™ don't have the ability to circumvent treaties unless they can find loopholes in them, whatever happened to the 1972 ABM Treaty, anyway?

The fact of mandatory compliance to NationStates United Nations Resolutions makes our lives easier, because in fact it is the NationStates United Nations (and not its Real Life™ counterpart) that “does not have to cope with nations that can circumvent it's legislation”, whether “by act of pure imagination alone so long as the legislation in question provides room for it”, or by simple fiat.

If you believe that the Real Life™ United Nations is a “world government” with any power to “legislate” anything binding on its Members (or anybody else), then after we've closed that Marianas Trench land deal we told you about, there are numerous famous bridges and landmarks we could sell you in furtherance of our business dealings.

When it comes to writing treaties, our lives our easier by far. People can't break our treaties without so much as an excuse or a thank you, the way they can in Real Life™.This. Is. Not. Real. Life.Correct.

In. Real. Life. These. Things. Are. A. Lot. More. Difficult.Real life examples are of limited utility in demonstrating the effectiveness of laws within the NSUN.Since Real Life™ protocols actually have to deal with compliance (it's not automatic, like in NationStates), that statement is true - but not as you understand it.

A NationStates protocol would never work in Real Life™ because the lack of an enforcement mechanism would render it useless. Since Real Life™ treaties, on the other hand, as signed between nations that don't trust each other and therefore must ensure compliance within the terms of the treaty, we can take actual Real Life™ treaties and trim out most of the compliance clauses to arrive at versions that would work here.If your ENTIRE argument is "we can do it that way in RL", which is the only thing you've been able to post for the last several posts, then you haven't got much of an argument.If your ENTIRE argument is “we can ignore reality and assume whatever we please”, then you have even less of one.To answer your question directly, if someone else modifies your weapons, that's their modification, not yours.Which matters not one teeny tiny bit by the wording of your proposal. You are in possession of a weapon system that is capable of delivering a biological weapons payload so it's now illegal.No, you are in possession of a system that someone else could use in that fashion, but you can't - because you don't possess the means to do so. Remember, it's their modification, not yours.

Only a stark raving legalist would believe that Nation A would have to chuck its weapon systems if Nation B found a way to abuse them.And one more time... the biological weapons proposal establishes the definition of bioweapons it considers to be hazardous enough to warrant a ban. Anthrax doesn't even come close. So it's not included. What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?And we could define toothbrushes as jackhammers and Reformentia as a nation full of typewriter-pounding monkeys, if we wished. Would that make it true?

Anthrax is a biological weapon. To claim otherwise is a lie. How you choose to define your terms to make blue red and red blue matters not one jot.the UN nations are the only ones you have to think about at all when you're writing legislation.The NationStates United Nations Members are the only ones you're permitted to regulate, under the rules. Anything else is a metagaming violation. If you can't accept that reality, what are you doing in the NationStates United Nations?

By trying to twist the rules, you get in trouble. Ergo, you should not try.

As far as the rest of your argument goes, saying that anthrax, and other similar agents are unimportant is a value judgement with which we do not concur. And, we might add, one that we think most of the world happens to share.If we want non-contagious biologicals banned, we can simply draft a new proposal specifically dealing with them, surely?Sure.

All you have to do is persuade the NationStates United Nations that it made a mistake when it thought it banned them by passing this Resolution. Oh, yeah - and then you have to make sure that your Resolution doesn't duplicate any of what this Resolution does - which means you have to exclude contagious biowar agents from that Resolution.

Like that's going to pass.

:headbang: I was litterly bangging my head against a wall when i read there were people willing to come out and argue agaist the,BANING of bio weapons.

to not want and ban them is absurd and, the act of a macho head strong red neck, born into power ( r any of you george w. bush by any chance..??).

this is a move towards a truly brave new world of trust and more peacefull days. :fluffle:

Ausserland has voted NO on this resolution. The intent is laudable; its unintended effects would be seriously damaging. The resolution defines biological weapons as "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection." This would include hundreds (thousands?) of pathogens which would "harm" a person, only a very few of which have any potential military application. It would include the organisms that cause flu, herpes, AIDS and the common cold. Then...

(1) It requires specimens used for research to be "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." This would be either impossible or ruinously expensive for many academic and other medical research activities.

(2) It requires that nations force sufferers from any disease caused by these "biological weapons" to "undergo immediate isolation and treatment." We have to place everyone who has a cold in immediate isolation? People suffering from AIDS or herpes would be banned from the workplace?

(3) It makes no provision for the use of pathogens in medical prophylaxis (e.g., using the Mozambique virus to combat Lassa Fever).

As heinous as these weapons are, the ability of them to act as deterrent against invasion by a larger, more powerful Nation cannot be underestimated.

As this Resolution does not include safeguards against such instances of unwarranted acts of aggression against smaller, developing nations, Kevinanistan is forced to vote No against this Resolution.

If we want non-contagious biologicals banned, we can simply draft a new proposal specifically dealing with them, surely?Sure.

All you have to do is persuade the NationStates United Nations that it made a mistake when it thought it banned them by passing this Resolution. Oh, yeah - and then you have to make sure that your Resolution doesn't duplicate any of what this Resolution does - which means you have to exclude contagious biowar agents from that Resolution.

Like that's going to pass.:headbang: I was litterly bangging my head against a wall when i read there were people willing to come out and argue agaist the,BANING of bio weapons.

to not want and ban them is absurd and, the act of a macho head strong red neck, born into power ( r any of you george w. bush by any chance..??).

this is a move towards a truly brave new world of trust and more peacefull days. :fluffle:We rest our case.

This nation's government actually seems to believe that Allemande's opposition to this Resolution is based on a desire to possess bioweapons and that Reformentia wants to ban them (all of them, that is - and not just the ones they claim to be “important” ). How many more misinformed governments are there out there, voting for a so-called “Biological Weapons Ban” that does not in fact ban biological weapons?!? This is a phenomenon noted by many here within these chambers: folks read the title, think, “my yes, we should do that”, and move on without bothering to read the fine print.

Actually, it's worse than that. Some of those posting here have spoken as though we were talking about banning chemical weapons.

And you think we're going to actually be able to persuade these people that we need to pass a second protocol banning the rest of the biological weapons this one didn't get?

Reformentia knew exactly what they were doing when they authored this piece of garbage:
It not only permits but indirectly [i]protects and authorises the development, acquisition, deployment, and use of various non-contagious biowar agents like anthrax, tularaemia, VEE, etc.
It opens the door to the development of mechanically delivered zootopic agents such as hemorrhagic fevers and the Plague (assuming that the definition of “contagious” actually covers zootopic transmission, which is debatable); microscopic “burrs” that inject bacteria and viruses underneath the skin by converting a prospective victim's natural body movements into pumping action (in the fashion of a bee's stinger) are possible today and would take the vector organism out of the picture altogether, transforming hitherto “contagious” agents into “non-contagious” ones.
It requires the isolation of persons infected by contagions, whether isolation is needed or not; as this includes AIDS and VODAIS victims, since nations like Guffingford (to name just one) have isolated these diseases and now deploy them as bioweapons; it therefore represents a major civil rights violation.
It is a dagger in the heart of regional alliances everywhere, since it essentially compels United Nations Members who are in such alliances to either quit such compacts if non-United Nations allies do not honour the protocol, or quit the United Nations - a metagaming violation.
Under certain circumstances, it may even compel a United Nations member to surrender to or refuse to fight an enemy, or to commit aggression against another nation in order to avoid abandoning resistance to its enemies.
As we have demonstrated, Reformentia could have easily created a more comprehensive protocol that was less problematic with respective to civil rights and metagaming - but chose not to. Instead, by passing this travesty off as a “biological weapons ban” when it is not, they cynically turned the widespread abhorrence of these awful weapons against itself, effectively legalising the use of the most commonly deployed biowar agents.

Mark our words: the problems created by this Resolution will never be addressed if it is passed. Reformentia knows this, and has planned this all along. This Resolution will effectively guarantee that biological weapons will never be outlawed.

Why dont you just leave us evil, twisted, corrupt dictatorships alone and stop trying to ban my weapons, just because you dont like them doesn't mean i shouldnt be allowed to spray anthrax over my neighbouring country which is in fact my friends so stop meddling and give us equal right, basic human rights to biologically attack each other.

The issue is not whether the NationStates United Nations is the Real Life™ United Nations: we all know that it is not. Of course, the differences work to our advantage in this argument because violations of Real Life™ protocols happen all the time, whereas defiance of a NationStates United Nations Resolution is impossible;

Defiance, yes. Circumventing because you don't spell out a comprehensive enough ban... no. This is a point you appear unable or unwilling to grasp. Instead you continue to rant on and on about real life examples of UN legislation and what effects they do and do not have!

The fact of mandatory compliance to NationStates United Nations Resolutions makes our lives easier, because in fact it is the NationStates United Nations (and not its Real Life™ counterpart) that “does not have to cope with nations that can circumvent it's legislation”, whether “by act of pure imagination alone so long as the legislation in question provides room for it”, or by simple fiat.

You really don't pay attention to what goes on on this board do you? If any nation can imagine up a way to get around the letter of the NSUN resolution you pass they can do it. If you leave your resolution vague, they can do it without expending any effort at all. I already demonstrated how I could completely circumvent the ban you proposed with regards to ALL biological weapons, rendering it impotent.

<snip paragraph upon paragraph of continued reference to Real Life which has little if nothing to do with the way things wotk in the NSUN>

Only a stark raving legalist would believe that Nation A would have to chuck its weapon systems if Nation B found a way to abuse them.

Your resolution says what your resolution says. Your weaponry would be capable of delivering a biological weapon. Your weaponry would therefore be illegal. And now all of a sudden you seem to be contradicting your earlier position that NSUN resolutions are harder to circumvent than real life by declaring that unless you personally feel like it you dont even have to obey the EXACT LETTER of the law you wrote.

Under your proposal your weapons become illegal the moment anyone comes up with a way for them to deliver a biological weapon. Deal with it.

Anthrax is a biological weapon. To claim otherwise is a lie.

Anthrax is not a bioweapon as defined by this resolution and that is all we care about. As we have already said. Many, many times. For weeks. Publicly. Obviously. For everyone to see.

It is your continued attempts to imply that we are lying about anything in this matter that is the act of deception and we will caution you right now not to do it again.

And we're not regulating non member nations, we're regulating how UN nations deal with them. You are simply ignoring the fact that three quarters of the NS world exists. A wonderful approach we must say.

Your antics in this matter are starting to wear thin. When discussing your own resolution it is (by virtue of the nature of the NSUN and the gnomes) more difficult to circumvent than any real life resolution and thus your resolution would EASILY and EFFECTIVELY ban ALL bioweapons even after I demonstrated how it is rendered impotent with almost no effort whatsoever while sticking to the exact wording you provided.

THEN, when it comes to my resolution in your next post all of a sudden words don't even mean what they are clearly defined to mean... "contagious" no longer refers to "contagious" as I already provided the dictionary definition of the word but to whatever anyone wants it to mean... and people might even be able to posess zootopically delivered weapons which fit the exact description contained in the proposal and therefore my proposal must be opposed due to it's obvious inneffectiveness!

Either you don't believe your first argument or you don't believe your second, and either way it rather clearly demonstrates just who really is spreading the lies here.

Like any other resolution - you HAVE to follow it....because well....the resolution says so.



Your right - so something's going to have to change, or you are simply defying the resolution (which is allowed by Rights and Duties Article 10, but still).
Then we have a paradox. Yelda will be in full compliance with the ban on possession, production, trafficking or use of bioweapons. At the same time, we will be in full defiance of article 5. Our regional alliance will not be altered. As far as I am aware, there is no way to force us to comply with that particular article of this proposal. As far as Article 10 of Rights and Duties, I don't see how it applies to this situation.

Then we have a paradox. Yelda will be in full compliance with the ban on possession, production, trafficking or use of bioweapons. At the same time, we will be in full defiance of article 5. Our regional alliance will not be altered. As far as I am aware, there is no way to force us to comply with that particular article of this proposal. As far as Article 10 of Rights and Duties, I don't see how it applies to this situation.

Article 5 comes into effect in roleplay.

Paradox resolved.

Article 5 comes into effect in roleplay.

Paradox resolved.
As soon as this passes it will come into effect in roleplay, and the game. We will alter our regions World Factbook Entry to loudly proclaim that such an alliance exists and that certain members of it are bioweapons producers. At the same time, we could arrange for one or more of our allies to launch a bioweapons attack on a third country, with Yeldan assistance. Furthermore, since our alliance has a unified command structure there are often Yeldan officers in command of allied units (and vice-versa). At the very least, there would be a Yeldan "Political Officer" present. We could arrange for a Yeldan officer to order the attack, but it would actually be carried out by the allied troops.
Will Yelda be ejected from the UN? No. Will the Mods force us to alter our World Factbook Entry. I doubt it. The point I am trying to make is that Article 5 is unenforceable.

As soon as this passes it will come into effect in roleplay, and the game. We will alter our regions World Factbook Entry to loudly proclaim that such an alliance exists and that certain members of it are bioweapons producers.

Feel free. It will have no more effect than if you altered your world factbook entry to proclaim that every member of the region actually had bioweapons after any bioweapons ban passed.

Any UN members in the region still wouldn't have bioweapons... and any UN members in the region still won't be in a military partnership with any nations possessing bioweapons after the passage of this resolution. World Factbook entries are just blurbs. You can put "Every member of this region is made out of cheese" in them if you feel like it. They're not recognized as being binding by the game. UN resolutions are.

At the same time, we could arrange for one or more of our allies to launch a bioweapons attack on a third country, with Yeldan assistance.

No, actually you couldn't, but feel free to claim that you are doing so all you like. If you attempt it in any RP against a nation who knows what's going on in the UN you can bet on being promptly ignored as a godmodder since you can't be in direct defiance of a UN resolution as a UN member.

OOC: Yelda, given that you're a member of the UN, you should act in such a way that you are compliant OR roleplay your non-compliance appropriately. The ability of the Compliance Ministry to enforce resolutions versus the openness of the roleplay forums has been a problem for a long time. Personally, I feel that if you're going to break UN law in roleplay, you should acknowledge that you're doing so and allow for UN nations to intervene in said roleplays; witness Sophista roleplaying their refusal to comply with the Law of the Sea and Frisbeeteria responding by declaring non-violent war in the form of a Dodgeball competition. Yeah, it was silly (and I say that as a minor participant), but it was a neat way of approaching the problem.

OOC: Yelda, given that you're a member of the UN, you should act in such a way that you are compliant OR roleplay your non-compliance appropriately. The ability of the Compliance Ministry to enforce resolutions versus the openness of the roleplay forums has been a problem for a long time. Personally, I feel that if you're going to break UN law in roleplay, you should acknowledge that you're doing so and allow for UN nations to intervene in said roleplays; witness Sophista roleplaying their refusal to comply with the Law of the Sea and Frisbeeteria responding by declaring non-violent war in the form of a Dodgeball competition. Yeah, it was silly (and I say that as a minor participant), but it was a neat way of approaching the problem.
OOC:Noted :) .I'm just trying to provide a "test case". I don't like article 5 because it seems to attempt to control (indirectly) the actions and behaviours of non-UN states and the interactions between UN and non-UN states. Oh, and the bioweapons used in the "test case" could be of a non-lethal variety.

OOC:Noted :) .I'm just trying to provide a "test case". I don't like article 5 because it seems to attempt to control (undirectly) the actions and behaviours of non-UN states and the interactions between UN and non-UN states. Oh, and the bioweapons used in the "test case" could be of a non-lethal variety.
OOC: Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I think, to be honest, most resolutions have an effect - large or small - on RP. Whether or not players take account is another matter entirely. I suspect many RPers completely ignore UN rulings, which means that it falls on others to remind them of their obligations.

Of course, if no one really cares, then you RP as if nothing has happened. A crime is only a crime if recognised as such, if you see what I mean.

OOC: Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I think, to be honest, most resolutions have an effect - large or small - on RP. Whether or not players take account is another matter entirely. I suspect many RPers completely ignore UN rulings, which means that it falls on others to remind them of their obligations.

Of course, if no one really cares, then you RP as if nothing has happened. A crime is only a crime if recognised as such, if you see what I mean.
OOC: To be honest, I wouldn't have much of a problem with this resolution if it were not for article 5. I find it rather absurd that at present Bioweapons are legal while Chemical weapons are outlawed. I would prefer it to be the other way around. If I choose to launch the "test case", I will RP it appropriately.
IC: The Yeldan government advises all UN nations who are in a military alliance or partnership of any kind with non-UN nations to read article 5 of this proposal Very Carefully.

OOC: To be honest, I wouldn't have much of a problem with this resolution if it were not for article 5.

OOC: Without the steps taken by article 5 there's simply no point in banning bioweapons in the first place. If any nation can just have a non UN puppet or a non UN ally do their dirty work for them with their own biological weaponry then the ban has had absolutely no real effect. The weapons will still be deployed in exactly the same manner against exactly the same nations' enemies... it would just be a different finger on the trigger when it happened.

Everyone always complains about "Well, what about all the non UN nations that won't be effected by <insert whatever resolution is under discussion>", Well, this resolution takes them into account in the only way it can, by regulating how UN members deal with such nations.

Except that this Resolution does not actually ban biological weapons.So why do you neglect non-contagious agents...?
Greetings.

We of Roathin are somewhat saddened by your tone. The resolution at hand does indeed ban certain biological agents. It bans several classes of agents which can be weaponised. It reduces the number of potential agents which can be deployed. This is a GOOD thing.

We have not neglected the non-contagious agents. The resolution excludes these from the definition of bioweapons. This might be something you are upset about. We note that 'contagious' is defined as 'transmissible from organism to organism by a variety of pathways' and that essentially, 'contagious' in all its many definitions includes the sense of something that can be passed by contact individually, serially, sequentially, or severally.

In the most general (and hence most widely applicable) case, 'contagious' refers to diseases which can be transmitted by contact (direct or indirect) from one animal to another regardless of species. Anthrax is a bioweapon by this resolution's wording simply because anthrax is contagious. It does not matter that one form of anthrax may not be directly (as opposed to indirectly) contagious; the resolution appears not to discriminate from package to package, but from kind to kind.

And this is different for anthrax, tuleraemia, VEE, and other non-infectious diseases precisely how? We are seeing the big picture.

We want a real bioweapons ban, not a ban on just those agents that Reformentia declares to be bioweapons.

We of Roathin suspect you need to understand the difference between infection and contagion. Once this is understood, we must assume that in the absence of definition of 'contagion' in this resolution, the widest definition should be used, i.e. a contagious agent is one whose effects can be transmitted directly or indirectly from one organism to another, and that a bioweapon is a weaponised contagious agent.

Further, the wording is "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes". Note the ambiguity. It is clear to us that contagious biological viruses are to be banned. It is clear to us that 'contagious' and 'biological' need not refer to the subsequent 'bacteria' or 'microbes'.

Finally, we note that viral fragments, nanoweapons, and a multitude of other weapons are not included. This is good in two ways. Primus, it is honest (strangely enough) simply because all should note that a totally exclusive ban on any class of weapons is impossible in the NSUN context - a moment's reflection should tell you why. Secundus, it puts paid to the odd notion that depriving NSUN members of these weapons puts us in greater danger for their lack. We have far more potent and easily controlled weapons in our dirty little hands.

Good day.

OOC: Y'see - use resolutions as RP tools, even if you don't like 'em. One of the reasons you don't see me in II is that I can't abide all the war threads and 'I'm uber-powerful and great, me' nonsense. I like messy, character-driven, present-day, realistic storylines. No good vs evil, no 'end-game' nonsense.

Ahem, anyway. Carry on. Blame my ranting on booze.

If any nation can imagine up a way to get around the letter of the NSUN resolution you pass they can do it. If you leave your resolution vague, they can do it without expending any effort at all. I already demonstrated how I could completely circumvent the ban you proposed with regards to ALL biological weapons, rendering it impotent.You should listen to yourself, and maybe even read your own arguments once in a while.

In defending Article 5, you say that it exists to allow nations that attack countries armed with bioweapons the ability to accuse any United Nations Member who might come to the aid of such a “rogue state” of “godmodding”; your clear intention is to encourage the international community to make the possession of bioweapons grounds for a dogpile, and to keep Members from coming in on the side of said dogpile's victim.

And yet you don't think we have the ability to look some of the legalists in the eye and say, “Get a life”? I'm really supposed to believe that Vastiva had land mines that were listed on their military payroll as “border guards”, and was allowed to do so merely because they were “paying” them?!?

Odd world you live in, where the most contorted, tortured logic is accepted as legitimate grounds for evading a United Nations Resolution, but we can't use examples of how parallel institutions and compacts actually work (and fairly successfully, at that) in Real Life™. It seems to us that if anyone is going to get accused of “godmodding”, it's the legalists, not the students of Real Life™. “You can't do that here because that would actually work in Real Life™; you need to be more absurdist in your thinking” seems to be a ridiculously poor argument, to say the least.Your resolution says what your resolution says. Your weaponry would be capable of delivering a biological weapon. Your weaponry would therefore be illegal. And now all of a sudden you seem to be contradicting your earlier position that NSUN resolutions are harder to circumvent than real life by declaring that unless you personally feel like it you dont even have to obey the EXACT LETTER of the law you wrote.

Under your proposal your weapons become illegal the moment anyone comes up with a way for them to deliver a biological weapon. Deal with it.So you'll call Vladimir Putin right now and tell him that his country is in violation of the BWC thanks to those nasty North Koreans, right?

More absurdist thinking. Let's turn everything on its head and interprete it backwards, and then can that “realistic”. As we said, you spent too much time letting Vastiva and DLE rake you over the coals on this proposal, and it shows.

It you can show us how the BWC makes nations disarm in that fashion, we'll accept that your crazed interpretation of the exact wording of the BWC (and we didn't change one word of Article 2, BTW, so that is the protocol's exact wording). In the meantime, we'll dismiss your ridiculous “but-you-must-believe-three-impossible-things-before-breakfast-to-play-NationStates” logic as the sophist puffery that it is.Anthrax is not a bioweapon as defined by this resolution and that is all we care about.“But dogs are cats and cats are butterflies because we say so ... and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Sorry, but that cat of yours won't hunt.THEN, when it comes to my resolution in your next post all of a sudden words don't even mean what they are clearly defined to mean... "contagious" no longer refers to "contagious" as I already provided the dictionary definition of the word but to whatever anyone wants it to mean... and people might even be able to possess zootopically delivered weapons which fit the exact description contained in the proposal and therefore my proposal must be opposed due to it's obvious inneffectiveness!Does your Resolution ban anthrax or not?

And, since you've finally discovered a dictionary, does the dictionary say if anthrax is a bioweapon - or not? How about tularaemia?

We don't have to perform dubious mental gyrations to claim that your resolution doesn't actually ban all bioweapons. You freely admit it and say it doesn't matter. That's a loophole big enough to march an army through.Either you don't believe your first argument or you don't believe your second, and either way it rather clearly demonstrates just who really is spreading the lies here.So claiming that anthrax isn't really a bioweapon is telling the truth, is that it?

You should listen to yourself, and maybe even read your own arguments once in a while.

In defending Article 5, you say that it exists to allow nations that attack countries armed with bioweapons the ability to accuse any United Nations Member who might come to the aid of such a “rogue state” of “godmodding”;

We said that the article exists because without it any UN member could just have a non UN member ally do their dirty work for them with their own biological weapons and the ban will have had NO PRACTICAL EFFECT. The weapons would still end up being used against the same nations in the same conflicts, it would just be a different finger on the trigger.

We also acknowledged that a consequence of this is that any non UN member which is in possession of bioweapons as defined by this proposal will not be able to militarily ally with a UN member for defensive purposes... which serves as incentive not to have the weapons in the first place. Another clearly expressed goal of the proposal.

As for your continued efforts to attribute intentions to us which are purely false, we are simply not going to further dignify them with responses. You have already been corrected on these matters, feel free to ignore that and continue spewing falsehoods. Your endless ranting about the resolution not banning non contagious anthrax and other such weapons is equally tiring. It isn't meant to. So that's not a damn loophole.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contagious)

con·ta·gious P Pronunciation Key (kn-tjs)
adj.
Of or relating to contagion.
Transmissible by direct or indirect contact; communicable: a contagious disease.
Capable of transmitting disease; carrying a disease: stayed at home until he was no longer contagious.
Spreading or tending to spread from one to another; infectious: a contagious smile.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/contagious?view=uk)

contagious

• adjective 1 (of a disease) spread by direct or indirect contact between people or organisms. 2 having a contagious disease. 3 (of an emotion, attitude, etc.) likely to spread to and affect others.

— DERIVATIVES contagiously adverb contagiousness noun.

Cambridge International Dictionary of English (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?dict=B&searchword=contagious)

contagious [Show phonetics]
adjective
1 describes a disease that can be caught by touching someone with the disease or a piece of infected clothing:
The infection is highly contagious, so don't let anyone else use your towel.

2 describes someone who has a contagious disease:
Keep him off school till he stops being contagious.

3 A contagious feeling spreads quickly among people:
Fear is contagious.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contagious&x=0&y=0)

Main Entry: con·ta·gious
Pronunciation: -j&s
Function: adjective
1 : communicable by contact : CATCHING <contagious diseases>
2 : bearing contagion
3 : used for contagious diseases <a contagious ward>
4 : exciting similar emotions or conduct in others <contagious enthusiasm>
- con·ta·gious·ly adverb
- con·ta·gious·ness noun

Webster Dictionary, 1913 (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=contagious)

Con*ta"gious (?), a. [L. contagiosus: cf. F. contagieux.]

1. (Med.) Communicable by contact, by a virus, or by a bodily exhalation; catching; as, a contagious disease.

2. Conveying or generating disease; pestilential; poisonous; as, contagious air.

3. Spreading or communicable from one to another; exciting similar emotions or conduct in others.
His genius rendered his courage more contagious. Wirt.
The spirit of imitation is contagious. Ames.
Syn. -- Contagious, Infectious. These words have been used in very diverse senses; but, in general, a contagious disease has considered as one which is caught from another by contact, by the breath, by bodily effluvia, etc.; while an infectious disease supposes some entirely different cause acting by a hidden influence, like the miasma of prison ships, of marshes, etc., infecting the system with disease. This distinction, though not universally admitted by medical men, as to the literal meaning, of the words, certainly applies to them in their figurative use. Thus we speak of the contagious influence of evil associates; their contagion of bad example, the contagion of fear, etc., when we refer to transmission by proximity or contact. On the other hand, we speak of infection by bad principles, etc., when we consider anything as diffused by some hidden influence.
So many definitions, so little time.

Only Oxford speaks of “direct or indirect contact between people or organisms”, which would apply the definition to zootopic agents. American Heritage agrees with Oxford's embrace of “indirect contact”, but that's hardly unanimous: Cambridge, as a counterpoint, requires physical “contact”, which might be taken to rule out airborne maladies.

“Contact” and “communicability”, on the other hand, are agreed by all. Thus is is here that we begin our understanding of the term and its usage.

The CDC lists many biowarfare agents as “not communicable between humans”, and it was here that we drew the line as well. This was borne out by Reformentia's own insistence that anthrax was not covered by the proposed protocol; only as the debate evolved, and it became obvious that many more diseases beyond anthrax might be permitted within this ban, that Reformentia began to squirm away from the trap they had laid for themselves by claiming that infection through animal vectors might constitute “contagion” as well. Unfortunately, this ex post facto attempt to return the toothpaste to its virginal state is not supported by the sense of Reformentia's own proposal: they take great pains to require quarantine (isolation) of infected humans, even though this is obviously going to raise hackles within the civil rights community, and yet do nothing at all to limit supposed “contagion” from non-human sources; there are no requirements on animal quarantine or destruction, on the transmission of blighted produce as a form of economic warfare, or anything even remotely suggesting that this Resolution concerns itself with anything but those diseases spread directly from human to human. Certainly that is the first-blush sense of the protocol.

Going back to the definitions above, the 1913 Webster's seems most like a medical definition, especially it noting the implicit distinction between the near-synonymous terms “contagious” and “infectious” which Roathin so notably mentions. “Contagion” implies a much more active, human-to-human transmission mechanism, whereas “infection”, as Webster's notes, is more a matter of picking something up from the environment (“That cut of yours will get infected if you don't cover it and keep it clean” vs. “I'm contagious, so stay away from me if you don't want to catch anything” ). That anthrax, a spore, gets picked up from the environment rather than being spread from victim to victim, in light of Reformentia's insistence that this protocol does not ban its military use, suggests that - again - his “contagious” diseases are the ones that hop from person to person, through direct transmission (or at least exposure to bodily fluids, soiled bedding, etc.).

Now let's look at a medical dictionary - more relevant here because of the subject matter:


contagious (kon-tjs)

Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition (http://216.251.232.159/semdweb/internetsomd/ASP/1505185.asp)

Relating to contagion; communicable or transmissible by contact with the sick or their fresh secretions or excretions.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Oh, and BTB:


infectious (in-fekshs)

Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition (http://www.onelook.com/?w=infectious&ls=a)

A disease capable of being transmitted from person to person, with or without actual contact.
Syn: infective
Denoting a disease due to the action of a microorganism.
Notice that “infection” differs from “contagion” in that the former does not require “actual contact”. That's the difference that clarifies.

So no, we don't believe the exceptions here are limited to anthrax (not that anthrax - the single most commonly deployed and used bioweapon in modern history - represents a “trivial” exception). We believe that whole classes of zootopic weapons are permitted under this so-called “ban”.

You should listen to yourself, and maybe even read your own arguments once in a while.

In defending Article 5, you say that it exists to allow nations that attack countries armed with bioweapons the ability to accuse any United Nations Member who might come to the aid of such a “rogue state” of “godmodding”; your clear intention is to encourage the international community to make the possession of bioweapons grounds for a dogpile, and to keep Members from coming in on the side of said dogpile's victim.

Says who he's promoting dogpiling. Sure, he's permitting it, but that is far from promoting it.

And yet you don't think we have the ability to look some of the legalists in the eye and say, “Get a life”?

Did you try telling DLE that? I actually found it rather amusing

I'm really supposed to believe that Vastiva had land mines that were listed on their military payroll as “border guards”, and was allowed to do so merely because they were “paying” them?!?

Actually, that was DLE, and I can believe she'd pull something that odd.... Vastiva noted seperate flaws in the landmine resolution that pointed out much different loopholes (which he used as a grounds to repeal and replace - to a fairly big failure). Actually - it's because of that resolution and my subsequent discussion with him that brought me to these forums

Odd world you live in, where the most contorted, tortured logic is accepted as legitimate grounds for evading a United Nations Resolution, but we can't use examples of how parallel institutions and compacts actually work (and fairly successfully, at that) in Real Life™.

That was the position given to us by those that sat here when we got here. Considering the precedent - and as much as each of us has opposed it, it still existed.

It seems to us that if anyone is going to get accused of “godmodding”, it's the legalists, not the students of Real Life™. “You can't do that here because that would actually work in Real Life™; you need to be more absurdist in your thinking” seems to be a ridiculously poor argument, to say the least.

The design of RL vs NS is largely different - particularly in "who gets to decide the definitions" (though areas from addendums and ammendments also are different). We've already proven that real life truly has no bearing upon logic of NS.

So you'll call Vladimir Putin right now and tell him that his country is in violation of the BWC thanks to those nasty North Koreans, right?

My last comment

More absurdist thinking. Let's turn everything on its head and interprete it backwards, and then can that “realistic”. As we said, you spent too much time letting Vastiva and DLE rake you over the coals on this proposal, and it shows.

It you can show us how the BWC makes nations disarm in that fashion, we'll accept that your crazed interpretation of the exact wording of the BWC (and we didn't change one word of Article 2, BTW, so that is the protocol's exact wording). In the meantime, we'll dismiss your ridiculous “but-you-must-believe-three-impossible-things-before-breakfast-to-play-NationStates” logic as the sophist puffery that it is.“But dogs are cats and cats are butterflies because we say so ... and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't BWC become something where all nations agreed to follow it? Was it enforced upon anybody by a majority of nations? Did the nations who agreed on the BWC agree because they truly saw the inherent danger? Wouldn't that, therefore, change their stance on how heavilly they look for loopholes in their own law?

Sorry, but that cat of yours won't hunt.Does your Resolution ban anthrax or not?

And, since you've finally discovered a dictionary, does the dictionary say if anthrax is a bioweapon - or not? How about tularaemia?

We don't have to perform dubious mental gyrations to claim that your resolution doesn't actually ban all bioweapons. You freely admit it and say it doesn't matter. That's a loophole big enough to march an army through.So claiming that anthrax isn't really a bioweapon is telling the truth, is that it?

BTW - Roathin made what I felt was a correct point - Anthrax actually is banned if it can self-propogate itself (and therefore, is truly contageous). Quite frankly, if you missed the issue, it's your own fault 'cause (like I said before), it was stated several times that the issue was about self-propogating weapons, not bio-weapons as a whole.

There is no way I can drag myself through all the long involved posts in this thread (no offence anyone) so I just read the resolution myself and made up my own mind.

I voted for.

:mad: :gundge: :mad:

I voted for... i am pro-militaristic... but biological weapons are a no-no... but nuclear and other atomic weapons are FULL-GO for me

:) :mp5: :sniper: :)

Says who he's promoting dogpiling. Sure, he's permitting it, but that is far from promoting it.The foregoing is all OOC.

Article 6 encourages it, as does trying to strip “offenders” of their allies. It's like putting up a big neon sign that says “kill this guy”.That was the position given to us by those that sat here when we got here. Considering the precedent - and as much as each of us has opposed it, it still existed.Actually, it has always been asserted that we can cite Real Life™ events in support of our positions in debate; where the line is drawn is in saying that Real Life™ nations, people, products, and institutions - unless otherwise specified by Max (eg, Harry Potter and Pepsi) don't exist here.

But only a few twisted radicals argue that we must so divorce NationStates from reality as to believe that what can and does happen in Real Life™ can never happen here, and that must therefore assume that only unrealistic things happen in this world.

Indeed the very essence of the charge of “godmodding” is that the person accused of doing so is just plain making things up for his/her own advantage.

To say that nations must interpret a protocol worded more or less exactly in the fashion of the Real Life™ BWC in an utterly nonsensical fashion rather than say, “Oh, well, Nation X is in that position in Real Life™ and interprets the protocol this particular way, so I can interpret it that way, too” is to turn logic inside out. Some people may enjoy doing that, but we are not all obliged to take our seats at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, no matter how much the legalists rave.We've already proven that real life truly has no bearing upon logic of NS.Au contraire...
If that were true, “godmodding” would not only be legal, but admirable form, turning NationStates into some kind of ancient Celtic bragging game. Indeed, if we are taking utter leave of Real Life™, who better to admire than the person who boldly and blatantly leaps furthest in that direction?
It's really up to the individual. If a player wants to run his country as though it were a Real Life™ NationState, we don't stop him, do we? All we tell him is - as stated above - that Real Life™ nations, institutions, etc., don't exist here. Consequently (to return to the example at hand), if a player wants to say “Look, in Real Life™ the Soviets sold equipment to North Korea which North Korea adapted to use in support of their bioweapons program - and yet Russia didn't have to disarm; consequently, if somebody does it to me, I'll just follow the Russian precedent, and as long as I don't do it I'll be O.K.”, I sincerely doubt that he would be excoriated for “godmodding” by the general NationStates populace. More likely, he would be complimented on his cool head and broad knowledge of current affairs.The world of NationStates is not Real Life™, but it's not so removed from Real Life™ that people don't look at the latter to figure out what should happen in the former. This isn't total make-believe.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't BWC become something where all nations agreed to follow it? Was it enforced upon anybody by a majority of nations? Did the nations who agreed on the BWC agree because they truly saw the inherent danger? Wouldn't that, therefore, change their stance on how heavily they look for loopholes in their own law?In Real Life™, nations are under tremendous pressure to conform to protocols like the BWC. Aside from the obvious example of Saddam Hussein, who was (allegedly) deposed for violating the BWC, nations that have been seen to violate protocols like this have been subjected to crippling sanctions, seen diplomatic ties severed, etc. Indeed, the ironic thing is that Reformentia's Articles 5 and 6 are an attempt to create exactly this kind of pressure on the rest of the world, so that they will abandon bio-weapons, too. Implicitly, this acknowledges the fact that, absent a Big Daddy U.N. with its omnipotent and omnipresent Gnomes, Real Life™ finds a way to enforce its own rules in spite of itself.

In a way, though, I regret offering a substitute Resolution as an example of what could have been (even though I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've written). It has distracted the discussion from the true problem: that most of the people voting for this Resolution likely think that it does something that it doesn't. Reformentia is happy to cut these poor shills' purses; I, on the other hand, would rather see them get what they really want.

If I may have the temerity to illustrate this to many, biologial weapons comprise only a fraction of what may be percieved as morally unjustifiable weapons, however, in the era of total war, civilians assume a role of similar importance to combatants, and I accordingly fal to see why the interdiction of biological weapons is justifiable.

Concurrent to this, I would suggest that to better equip the members of the UN to combat hostile, non-UN powers, all legalities surrounding war and all its facets aought to be removed.Any forthcoming aid in the establishmentof such a bill would be much appreciated.

The foregoing is all OOC.

As is this


Article 6 encourages it, as does trying to strip “offenders” of their allies. It's like putting up a big neon sign that says “kill this guy”.Actually, it has always been asserted that we can cite Real Life™ events in support of our positions in debate; where the line is drawn is in saying that Real Life™ nations, people, products, and institutions - unless otherwise specified by Max (eg, Harry Potter and Pepsi) don't exist here.


6. 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.


Trade sanctions != dogpiling/military involvement. Trade sanctions is a way of pursuing a stronger condemnation of an action by a particular nation. Further, because it uses the terms "Strongly Urges" before it, it is saying "because posessing...etc bio-weapons is bad, we encourage you to put pressure on non-UN members to disarm them". Further, clause 5 says "if you want the help of a UN member in a military alliance, you must first agree to strip yourself of bio-weapons". Pretty much, it gives incentives for removing bio-weapons and penalties for keeping them for non-UN members. While it certainly makes role-play interesting, it is not entirely out of line.

You can certainly use Real Life to support your debates (especially as statistical data), however, to base your entire argument on politics in the real world as the reason something will work in NS is folly at best. The political climate, the interests of the people involved, and the beliefs of the people are MUCH different than the ones we find in the political leaders of the real world. The Political leaders of the real world are concerned about the use of bio-weapons for a variety of reasons (BTW - you remember that Anthrax mail scare? Do you remember them reporting it came from a US instilation? IIRC, it was a government site - perhaps even military related. If someone could dig it up, it would be much appreciated).

In Nationstates, we aren't as concerned about the consequences of our actions because, well, it's a game. While you or I may choose to roleplay with a certain air of "if I do this, I suffer this consequence" - but the guy down the street is going "If I do this, I might get nuked, but then what? I'll just do this and this and this and ignore the fact I just got nuked". The entire political atmosphere is different, a percentage of the UN population is going to have a resolution agreed upon by the other half of the UN population (with a <50% voter turnout), and the fact of the matter is that each nation does not HAVE to consent to the agreement, they just have to listen (meaning if they don't want to support it, but it passed anyways, they still have to follow it). In real life, that document was agreed upon by any nation that follows it. They consented to following it, rather than them being ordered to. They follow it to its essence because they agreed to its terms in that manner. We do not. We agree to what is written - and only the written component, not the essence of what was written, goes down into the history books.

But only a few twisted radicals argue that we must so divorce NationStates from reality as to believe that what can and does happen in Real Life™ can never happen here, and that must therefore assume that only unrealistic things happen in this world.

Indeed the very essence of the charge of “godmodding” is that the person accused of doing so is just plain making things up for his/her own advantage.

To say that nations must interpret a protocol worded more or less exactly in the fashion of the Real Life™ BWC in an utterly nonsensical fashion rather than say, “Oh, well, Nation X is in that position in Real Life™ and interprets the protocol this particular way, so I can interpret it that way, too” is to turn logic inside out. Some people may enjoy doing that, but we are not all obliged to take our seats at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, no matter how much the legalists rave.

Perhaps, but I'm not voting for someone that gives the legalists a free ride.

Au contraire...
If that were true, “godmodding” would not only be legal, but admirable form, turning NationStates into some kind of ancient Celtic bragging game. Indeed, if we are taking utter leave of Real Life™, who better to admire than the person who boldly and blatantly leaps furthest in that direction?
It's really up to the individual. If a player wants to run his country as though it were a Real Life™ NationState, we don't stop him, do we? All we tell him is - as stated above - that Real Life™ nations, institutions, etc., don't exist here. Consequently (to return to the example at hand), if a player wants to say “Look, in Real Life™ the Soviets sold equipment to North Korea which North Korea adapted to use in support of their bioweapons program - and yet Russia didn't have to disarm; consequently, if somebody does it to me, I'll just follow the Russian precedent, and as long as I don't do it I'll be O.K.”, I sincerely doubt that he would be excoriated for “godmodding” by the general NationStates populace. More likely, he would be complimented on his cool head and broad knowledge of current affairs.

You assume a lot. Just because you are knowledgeable of the real world doesn't mean I'll compliment you.

Perhaps Putin is in violation of this bio-weapons treaty - and no one in the real world is calling him on it because no one cares enough. Doesn't mean a nation won't call you on it here.

The world of NationStates is not Real Life™, but it's not so removed from Real Life™ that people don't look at the latter to figure out what should happen in the former.

When it comes to domestic politics - because you have the average man in both scenarios, that's not an issue. However, we are discussing international politics where even in the real world - you can get away with something today that you couldn't ten years ago because...well... the situation and players changed.

This isn't total make-believe.In Real Life™, nations are under tremendous pressure to conform to protocols like the BWC. Aside from the obvious example of Saddam Hussein, who was (allegedly) deposed for violating the BWC, nations that have been seen to violate protocols like this have been subjected to crippling sanctions, seen diplomatic ties severed, etc. Indeed, the ironic thing is that Reformentia's Articles 5 and 6 are an attempt to create exactly this kind of pressure on the rest of the world, so that they will abandon bio-weapons, too. Implicitly, this acknowledges the fact that, absent a Big Daddy U.N. with its omnipotent and omnipresent Gnomes, Real Life™ finds a way to enforce its own rules in spite of itself.

And yet, the US has Anthrax....

In a way, though, I regret offering a substitute Resolution as an example of what could have been (even though I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've written). It has distracted the discussion from the true problem: that most of the people voting for this Resolution likely think that it does something that it doesn't. Reformentia is happy to cut these poor shills' purses; I, on the other hand, would rather see them get what they really want.

He isn't lieing to them. He's been open. Does he need to post it in big red letters on the front page? I don't think so. If you want to make that argument, I could make it about a HUGE number of resolutions that have existed in the past. The resolution is valid and Reformatia has been true to the beliefs he's stated and has not tried to dilude anyone who was arguing with him about it.

The Fiefdom of Galhøpiggen must vote against this bill on a number of grounds. A poor definition of bioweapon that includes the common Influenza, and yet does not include the deadly Anthrax is the most straightforward reason and has been covered and fought over by our esteemed peers. Though this leads to our next concern, which is considering Article 4 forcing a detainment and quarantine on any infected, including those suffering from Influenza, which is a straightforward Civil Rights issue.

Though possibly a more concerning issue is one of the legality of Article 4 of this Resolution when taken in consideration with UN Resolution #111: Civilian Rights Post War. In UN Resolution #111 is a the following clause:

- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

Esteemed peers, consider the following. If a UN Nation is in occupation of another Nation, UN or otherwise, and there is a populace of people infected with something as mundane as Influenza, as troubling as VODAIS, or a weaponized contagion, Article 4's requirement for immediate isolation of these individuals is in direct violation of the CRPW clause sited above.

Though this leads to our next concern, which is considering Article 4 forcing a detainment and quarantine on any infected, including those suffering from Influenza, which is a straightforward Civil Rights issue.

They are required to be isolated to the degree necessary to prevent spread of the infection while they undergo treatment. This is in the best interests of everyone involved. They are not required to be thrown in prison or something. And I don't suppose you have an efficient means of defining biological weaponry such that it can differentiate between "acceptable" and non acceptable contagious diseases?

Do you happen to know how many people a particularly nasty strain of influenza is capable of killing? Would you like to hazard a guess at how many millions of people were killed by the strain that broke out in 1918 (RL)?

Esteemed peers, consider the following. If a UN Nation is in occupation of another Nation, UN or otherwise, and there is a populace of people infected with something as mundane as Influenza, as troubling as VODAIS, or a weaponized contagion, Article 4's requirement for immediate isolation of these individuals is in direct violation of the CRPW clause sited above.

Nothing in this resolution has anything to do with preventing emmigration. If a person is infected with a contagious disease however any nation is perfectly within their rights to delay that person until such time as that disease has been dealt with. Something which is not in any way prohibited by resolution #111.

[Influenza sufferers] are required to be isolated to the degree necessary to prevent spread of the infection while they undergo treatment. This is in the best interests of everyone involved. They are not required to be thrown in prison or something. And I don't suppose you have an efficient means of defining biological weaponry such that it can differentiate between "acceptable" and non acceptable contagious diseases?.

We note, as we did in our previous post (which the proposer of the resolution seems not to have noticed), that this would also include people suffering from AIDS, herpes and the common cold.

We respectfully suggest that this resolution is not concerned with preventing "contagious diseases." It focuses on "biological weapons" (as defined by the resolution). Most contagious diseases have little or no potential for use as biological weapons, but all of them would be lumped together by this proposal. To have credible potential for use as a biological weapon, a pathogen must have certain characteristics of infectivity, virulence, toxicity, pathogenicity, incubation period, transmissibility, lethality, and stability. The NATO Handbook on the subject lists only 39 pathogens with suitable characteristics.


Do you happen to know how many people a particularly nasty strain of influenza is capable of killing? Would you like to hazard a guess at how many millions of people were killed by the strain that broke out in 1918 (RL)?.

A rhetorical RL question: Then why isn't influenza listed in any of the catalogs of potential biological weapons we've been able to locate? (That includes those presented by NATO, the US Center for Disease Control, and the Federation of American Scientists.) The answer is simple. Like most pathogens, it simply doesn't possess the required characteristics.

We repeat our concern that, while this resolution would have a positive effect in limiting proliferation of some biological weapons, it would unintentionally cripple medical research, impose an unsupportable requirement for "isolation" of people suffering from a multitude of infectious diseases, and prevent use of pathogens for prophylactic purposes. We respectfully urge our fellow UN members to vote NO on the resolution.

We note, as we did in our previous post (which the proposer of the resolution seems not to have noticed),that this would also include people suffering from AIDS, herpes and the common cold.

Or which was looked over because it raised no points which had not already been addressed.

A rhetorical RL question: Then why isn't influenza listed in any of the catalogs of potential biological weapons we've been able to locate?

Rhetorical answer: Because you didn't look very hard?

Article on Biological Warfare Mass Casualty Management: http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic896.htm -- Has a whole section on the dangers posed by influenza.

The UN office on Drugs and Crime Biological Weapons 'What's What': http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page005.html -- Oh look... influenza.

Biological Warfare Agents: http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic896.htm :
Biological weapons include any organism or toxin found in nature that can be used to incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede an adversary.

Clear enough? And GOSH that looks an awful lot like the definition in the proposal, except for the fact that their definition is even BROADER since it includes non contagious agents as well. Feel free to argue the matter with the authors and editors of that paper because we're not going to:

Author: Daniel J Dire, MD, FACEP, FAAP, FAAEM, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas-Houston

Daniel J Dire, MD, FACEP, FAAP, FAAEM, is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency Physicians, and Association of Military Surgeons of the US

Editor(s): Edmond Hooker, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville, Wright State University; John T VanDeVoort, PharmD, Clinical Assistant Professor, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota; Michael J Burns, MD, Instructor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard University Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; John Halamka, MD, Chief Information Officer, CareGroup Healthcare System, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; and Raymond J Roberge, MD, MPH, FAAEM, FACMT, Clinical Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Department of Emergency Medicine, Magee-Women's Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

But to be honest we really couldn't care less if you couldn't find it in an RL list. A highly contagious disease capable of killing MILLIONS of people is a bloody bioweapon warranting a ban as far as we are concerned, and we are certainly not going to make it exempt from the resolution!

And your points regarding medical research have also already been addressed.

As the elected leader or my country I reserve the right to utilise any and all weapons at my disposal. The fact is that my government has been secretly developing viral weaponry for generations. Where did you think everyone got their original bio-weapons from. Any way as we have developed some very vindictive and virilunt weapons, which only we have the cures for. And dont confuse me on this, all of the citizens in our region have been imunised against them! We have no quams with using said weapons.

It is our opinion that Bio-weapons are as escential as Nuclear weapons. To stop our bio-weapons program would be the same as stopping Americas Nuclear programs. We generate cures for many diseses and alments in our labs. As a consiquence we experience a 0% disease rate umoung our population. As we have no sick and few injured they live longer and therefore pay more taxs which we can then put back into the bio industry.

On a lighter note any contry that is interested in purchasing said weapons from us is welcome to!

Nothing in this resolution has anything to do with preventing emmigration. If a person is infected with a contagious disease however any nation is perfectly within their rights to delay that person until such time as that disease has been dealt with. Something which is not in any way prohibited by resolution #111.
Let us look at the following again.

4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.


No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

As we can see, Article 4 requires an infected individual to be immediately isolated, and Resolution #111 states that a non-combatant cannot be prevented from leaving a conquered nation. Isolating an person until such time that they are no longer infected if they wish to leave a conquered nation is being prevented from leaving, which is strickly prohibited by Resolution #111.
You argue that temporarily delaying a individual until such time that the disease is delt with is not preventing them from leaving. I must bring to your attention that a delay is just temporarily preventing them from leaving, which is prohibited by Resolution #111.

As we can see, Article 4 requires an infected individual to be immediately isolated, and Resolution #111 states that a non-combatant cannot be prevented from leaving a conquered nation.

But NOT guaranteed immediately with absolutely no delay.

No conflict.

Howdy, y'all.

Speakin' on behalf of the Sanity's Haven o' Dolfor, we'd like to raise us an issue or two about this here resolution.

Seein' as how a "bioweapon" is just "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection", we here are a just a TEENSY bit worried about catchin' the flu and becomin' a carrier o' bioweapons.

We may not be complicated people, but "immediate isolation and treatment" is just a BIT harsh for someone with a bit o' shakes and sniffles. And what about crossin' national lines? If I'm still carryin' a bit of the flu bug I ain't quite done licked yet, am I "traffickin' in bioweapons"?

We're also a bit confused 'bout why this resolution takes the trouble to define a "virus", and never get back to it. (It's used up above, but why is it that "virus" needs a few words but not "bacterium" or "microbe"?) Heck, at least "viruses" themselves ain't illegal, 'cos if you hold your head just right ya might almost read the definition t' cover sperm cells.

I dunno 'bout you, but I'd hate to drop a long-time military ally like a dead coon on fire 'cos of this here resolution and a bit of a flu outbreak ("UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be ... in possession of bioweapons").

We can't in good conscience vote for a bioweapon-bannin' proposal that don't define a bioweapon as bio-agents DESIGNED, INTENDED as a WEAPON, not just any old infectious dangerous critter.

We urge y'all in the UN t' take a second look and don't vote for what you WANT the resolution to be (gettin' ridda anthrax bombs and th' like), but what it IS (makin' any kind of nasty little disease and anyone who's got it, some kinda international criminal).

I dunno 'bout you, but I'd hate to drop a long-time military ally like a dead coon on fire 'cos of this here resolution and a bit of a flu outbreak ("UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be ... in possession of bioweapons").

We can't in good conscience vote for a bioweapon-bannin' proposal that don't define a bioweapon as bio-agents DESIGNED, INTENDED as a WEAPON, not just any old infectious dangerous critter.
Well stated Dolfor. The Yeldan government shares your position.
OOC: I believe I detect a Texan dialect being spoken here. I speak Southernese myself, but the two are fairly similar.

Seein' as how a "bioweapon" is just "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection", we here are a just a TEENSY bit worried about catchin' the flu and becomin' a carrier o' bioweapons.

Per Article 4 being infected is NOT ILLEGAL and therefore does not place you in violation of the resolution. As you are not in violation of the resolution you are not in possession of bioweapons in any manner proscribed as defined by the resolution and also do not have to back out of an alliance because of it.


We're also a bit confused 'bout why this resolution takes the trouble to define a "virus", and never get back to it. (It's used up above, but why is it that "virus" needs a few words but not "bacterium" or "microbe"?)

If you had been part of the month long drafting process you would no longer be confused. Suffice it to say additional definition was added for that term to satisfy the concerns of a very vocal critic of an earlier draft.

And legislating against the possession of a weapon based on intent to use is unworkable. It immediately allows massive stockpiles of extremely deadly biological agents to be accumulated with no more effort taken to circumvent the resolution than "we don't mean to actually use them as weapons, honest".

Krioval is an archipelago in the Pacific, and we have a number of extraterrestrial colonies (planetary, in most cases). The Earth-based holdings, however, are vulnerable by virtue of some nations' sheer sizes. Since Krioval has nearly run afoul of several large nations, and was spared primarily due to technological advancement, it doesn't make sense that Krioval would vote to restrict the means by which the "beleaguered fortress" can remain adequately defended, up to and including the threat of annihilating an aggressive adversary with infectious agents from other worlds. This resolution would eliminate Krioval's ability to threaten such a course of action without then running into problems with the greater UN. Whether we possesses such weapons is, of course, not something that's generally publicized.

If Krioval became embroiled in a conflict between two non-UN nations, both of whom are suspected to possess biological weapons, this resolution would make it impossible for us to accept help from one side if the other were to invade. Further, our becoming involved in the first place is problematic, even if the causes were innocent on Krioval's part (ex. we were trading peacefully with both sides when hostilities broke out). Finally, we couldn't very well aid a country being completely destroyed by another if the embattled nation had biological weapons - I suspect this might even preclude agencies like the Pretenama Panel from intervening in some circumstances, or refusing to coordinate actions with non-UN nations suspected of trafficking in bioweapons.

Instead of banning bioweapons and calling it a day, or even calling for sanctions or interventions against nations owning or using them, I would prefer to see nations discouraged from using them AND strongly encouraged to begin research into neutralizing bioweapons. If a population is suitably immunized against an infectious agent, its impact as a weapon is voided. Ultimately, I just see a ban as something that willful nations will circumvent.

Instead of banning bioweapons and calling it a day, or even calling for sanctions or interventions against nations owning or using them, I would prefer to see nations discouraged from using them AND strongly encouraged to begin research into neutralizing bioweapons. If a population is suitably immunized against an infectious agent, its impact as a weapon is voided. Ultimately, I just see a ban as something that willful nations will circumvent.

Unfortunately "encouragements" and "urgings" are simply not sufficient to a task like eliminating the threat posed by biological weaponry. Passing a resolution against biological weapons which explicitly allowed any nation that wished to to simply ignore it and continue producing, stockpiling and using such weapons whenever they feel like it would be a waste of UN time.

And the point of the extremely lengthy drafting process for this proposal was making it very difficult indeed to circumvent.

My Question is, why ban them. Yes, they are weapons designed for mass deaths and destruction, but as soon as you ban them, countries will immediately make something new. like MOAB's or Fuel Air Bombs.

In Addition, it doesn't seem plausible to be able to prevent a country from keeping biological weapons. How can you stop it? If you just tell the country to do it, chances are they will simply ignore you. If force is used in a response to a refusal to disarm, this will force that country/s to use them against the aggresors.

The Emperor Of Caronea

Many definitions in this proposal are too broad, as part of a civilian medical infrastructure, some biologically active infectious agents are retained for the purposes of vaccine production or medical research; where does the line lie on stockpiling biological weapons?

The Federtaion of Vladeck Ifram will not Vote in favor for this proposal due to the article 5 in said proposal.

I can understand some of the arguments being raised against the proposals on the grounds that they do not go far enough towards eliminating the wider threat of biological weapons through the production of vaccines. Sadly, I believe that this is not possible in one resolution due to limitations on the number of words which can be used.

One should ask oneself what happens to the contents of such weapons after they have killed the enemy. One could assume that harmful bacteria or viruses would not simply stop being active but would move onto another host/victim thereby increasing the threat that weapons of this nature run the risk of creating a serious pandemic and would not just be limited to the nation which was the original target.

I still believe that this resolution is an important step towards the long term goal of removing the threat to humankind (or other species) from these types of weapons.

... on the basis it's way too freekin long to read and I have a life.

thank you,

Hail Hasselhoff...

My Question is, why ban them. Yes, they are weapons designed for mass deaths and destruction, but as soon as you ban them, countries will immediately make something new. like MOAB's or Fuel Air Bombs.

Since the weapons are self-propogating (meaning they can continue to spread without intervention from either the attacked or the attacker), you run the risk of going from a single city being infected to a world-wide epidemic. The self-propogating aspect makes bio-weapons too dangerous to be safely used (as is stated in the pre-amble)

In Addition, it doesn't seem plausible to be able to prevent a country from keeping biological weapons. How can you stop it? If you just tell the country to do it, chances are they will simply ignore you. If force is used in a response to a refusal to disarm, this will force that country/s to use them against the aggresors.

The Emperor Of Caronea

Theoretically, you aren't supposed to/allowed to ignore the UN.

Realistically, 36k nations are hard to manage by people playing a game

All resolutions are built around the theoretical - because if you want to work with the realistic, you will always be disappointed by the results

Many definitions in this proposal are too broad, as part of a civilian medical infrastructure, some biologically active infectious agents are retained for the purposes of vaccine production or medical research; where does the line lie on stockpiling biological weapons?

Um - stockpiling bio-weapons is illegal. You can stockpile enough vaccines to safely and effectively immunize your population (and perhaps the population of nations you've agreed to help vaccinate - I point to Vastiva's earlier comment about his stockpile for aid in other countries)

I can understand some of the arguments being raised against the proposals on the grounds that they do not go far enough towards eliminating the wider threat of biological weapons through the production of vaccines. Sadly, I believe that this is not possible in one resolution due to limitations on the number of words which can be used.

I agree - this is the amalgamation of a month's work. However, Allemande will probably try to bring back his older version *shivers*

One should ask oneself what happens to the contents of such weapons after they have killed the enemy. One could assume that harmful bacteria or viruses would not simply stop being active but would move onto another host/victim thereby increasing the threat that weapons of this nature run the risk of creating a serious pandemic and would not just be limited to the nation which was the original target.

Other types of bio-weapons are closer to poisons or products of biological systems. If they can reproduce, they're difficult to classify as non-contageous - though the contagousness might be through lesser methods (HIV?).

BTW - before that comes back to haunt me - you need only isolate them sufficiently so that they can't spread the disease. Influenza requires quarantine. HIV requires forbidding the guy from getting laid or donating blood.

I still believe that this resolution is an important step towards the long term goal of removing the threat to humankind (or other species) from these types of weapons.

I agree. Other bio-weapons are such a touchy issue (such as - what about pepper spray?), but these are certainly the most dangerous and an important and obvious step.

... \on the basis it's way too freekin long to read and I have a life.

thank you,

Hail Hasselhoff...

Congrats - excuse me while those that don't have a life and are happy with that continue to debate this and many other political and legal issues in extensive depth - which (at least in my case) I prefer over, say, partying or other things that would normally constitute "a life". Heck, the only thing MORE entertaining as far as I'm concerned is video games.

But hey, if you're found in violation of this ban, ignorance will not be an excuse - even though your ignorance of this ban is already fairly apparent.

The People of East Columbia object to the over-use of the word "prodscribed" (5 times in a row?) in this legislation. Did the author not have a thesaurus handy?

The People of East Columbia object to the over-use of the word "prodscribed" (5 times in a row?) in this legislation. Did the author not have a thesaurus handy?

Your voting against a resolution because of an author's style?

Perhaps he chose to use that word that way because he wanted it to be clear that the weapons described by the first "prodscribed" were the same ones in the fifth proscribed?

Finally, we couldn't very well aid a country being completely destroyed by another if the embattled nation had biological weapons - I suspect this might even preclude agencies like the Pretenama Panel from intervening in some circumstances, or refusing to coordinate actions with non-UN nations suspected of trafficking in bioweapons.This has been one of our complaints all along. Reformentia has openly expressed - in response to a hypothetical case involving the invasion of a nation owning bioweapons ( “Blauelaend” ) by a genocidal Nazi regime ( “Grünfeld” ) and the subsequent annihilation of their entire population in a horrible act of mass murder - the opinion that the murdered people would deserve genocide for threatening the world by dabbling in bioweapons.

So yes, this Resolution is meant to void collective security guarantees as well as stop anti-genocide efforts like those of the Pretenama Panel where the victim has been found guilty of the “capital race-crime” of bioweapons ownership. This is why, in answer to Forgottenlands' earlier query, we see this proposal as provocative, as one likely to give the green light to aggressors states and doom millions worldwide to annihilation.

Reformentia makes no bones about their opinion on this matter. They see genocide as a lesser crime than bioweapons ownership, and have said so it this debate. We find this position abominable.

i wish to apoligise for my previous statement and retract my vote for banning in light of facts had had not truely considered before do not vote for this ban. it is nothing more than a way 2 remove more obsticales from there path to domination. :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

This has been one of our complaints all along. Reformentia has openly expressed - in response to a hypothetical case involving the invasion of a nation owning bioweapons ( “Blauelaend” ) by a genocidal Nazi regime ( “Grünfeld” ) and the subsequent annihilation of their entire population in a horrible act of mass murder - the opinion that the murdered people would deserve genocide for threatening the world by dabbling in bioweapons.

So yes, this Resolution is meant to void collective security guarantees as well as stop anti-genocide efforts like those of the Pretenama Panel where the victim has been found guilty of the “capital race-crime” of bioweapons ownership. This is why, in answer to Forgottenlands' earlier query, we see this proposal as provocative, as one likely to give the green light to aggressors states and doom millions worldwide to annihilation.

Reformentia makes no bones about their opinion on this matter. They see genocide as a lesser crime than bioweapons ownership, and have said so it this debate. We find this position abominable.

We would like to inguire if the representative from Allemande is physically capable of making a statement to this body without attributing to us statements we did not make, twisting our words, or otherwise misrepresenting the facts?

What we said, quite clearly, was that if a nation were develloping biological weaponry and came under attack and IF it came to a choice between standing by and not intervening thus possibly resulting in their destruction at the hands of their attackers OR intervening to defend them... thus showing them that the UN has absolutely no backbone or resolve to impose real sanctions on those develloping bioweapons which would just encourage them to continue developing them... thus placing at risk of destruction the populations of multiple nations including our own, we consider the former course of action to be regrettable but preferable to the alternative.

We would rather see one nation dabbling with bioweapons bring on themselves their own destruction than allow that nation to bring destruction on MULTIPLE other nations who didn't do anything wrong.

We would like to inguire if the representative from Allemande is physically capable of making a statement to this body without attributing to us statements we did not make, twisting our words, or otherwise misrepresenting the facts?

Johan Arnaen leaned over to Dan Yeoman as Reformentia's representative began, "I think that means we'll be voting against this one."

Yeoman smiled, "I know."

I still disapprove of this resolution on the basis that it includes a paragraph that justifies the imprisoning of people based on health issues in such broad terms that it could be used to do great evil.

Please vote this down and rewrite

I find I cannot vote in favour of this resolution. It does not distinguish between legitimate research for medical or scientific reasons and development of Bio-weapons. It also does not allow for the storage of potentialy dangerous viruses to help prevent future outbrakes of mutated strains of these viruses.

I can understand some of the arguments being raised against the proposals on the grounds that they do not go far enough towards eliminating the wider threat of biological weapons through the production of vaccines. Sadly, I believe that this is not possible in one resolution due to limitations on the number of words which can be used.Slightly off topic (although there is somewhat of a connection with Article 5 of this proposed Resolution)...

Actually, it is possible. It's just that we haven't yet reached the level of maturity as a legislative body to do it.

Our opinion is that Resolutions should focus on solving a particular problem by defining and proscribing certain action. Here, we are aided by the rules of the NationStates United Nations, where technical compliance is mandatory. If we keep things short and sweet, we can simply said “$Condition is prohibited”, as long as
“$Condition” is defined concurrently, OR
“$Condition” is defined in some other Resolution.
In similar fashion, if we want to specify punishments or sanctions for certain behaviour (since we can't author resolutions condemning or punishing individual groups or nations by name), we could say:
Resolution $X: “Nations in $Condition shall be subject to $Sanction”
Resolution $Y: “$Condition is defined as $Definition_A”
Resolution $Z: “$Sanction is defined as $Definition_B”
The advantage being that we can later strike and replace these separate Resolutions without tearing down the whole edifice.

The only thing we have to watch out for in doing this is a “House of Cards” condition; but that can be avoided by throwing in what we call a “Captain's Cloak” (admittedly, this may be an abuse of the term - an 18th Century convention in the British naval regulations that permitted captains at sea to undertake a wide array of otherwise unspecified activities without being brought up on charges): “These United Nations reserve the right to define any undefined terms found within this Resolution so long as these definitions do not contradict anything found in this or any other United Nations Resolution”, or words to that effect.

Thus, as a real world example (chopped down to a bare minimum):
Pariah States: “Nations may be declared pariah states by these any nation or organisation empowered by these United Nations to issue such a declaration if they violate the terms of any United Nations Resolution in force at the time of said declaration; empowered nations and organisations include:
Any panel or committee empowered by these United Nations to investigate and act upon accusations of war crimes;
Any panel or committee empowered by these United nations to investigate and act upon accusations of crimes against humanity;
Any regional government, delegate, or founder recognised by these United Nations as legitimate, where the declaration is part of or pursuant to the declaration of a humanitarian crises, as defined by these United Nations.”
Self-Defence: “Nations have the right to employ military force in self-defence, except:
Nations declared aggressors, as defined by these United Nations, where these United Nations have promulgated such a definition;
Nations declared pariah nations, as defined by these United Nations, where these United Nations have promulgated such a definition.”
Collective Defence: “Nations have the right to assist other nations in self-defence, except:
Where the nation to be assisted has been declared an aggressor, as defined by these United Nations, where these United Nations have promulgated such a definition;
Where the nation to be assisted has been declared a pariah state, as defined by these United Nations, where these United Nations have promulgated such a definition.”
Prohibition of Aggression: “Nations that engage in military force that is not permitted as a right under any United Nations Resolution are guilty of aggression and are considered aggressors by these United Nations.”You get the idea: it's a system, where each piece (in theory - and the pieces offered above have by no means been written rigorously enough to fit this standard) can stand on their own if they need to, but nonetheless build on each other for greater effect.

SIDEBAR: This is very much a work in progress and we know it could never fly as written. But we do believe that it could be made to fly, with some work.

And now, if we wanted to get tough on WMD's, we could say that:
Non-Proliferation: “Nations shall not:
Possess banned weapons;
Assist other nations in acquiring banned weapons;
Buy, sell, trade, barter, or otherwise exchange banned weapons;
Use banned weapons;
Any nation found to be have done any of the above shall be declared a pariah state, as defined by these United Nations, where these United Nations have promulgated such a definition.”And now United Nations Members can go ahead and invade such countries without restriction, or assist anybody else in invading such countries as part of a dogpile.

I find I cannot vote in favour of this resolution. It does not distinguish between legitimate research for medical or scientific reasons and development of Bio-weapons.

Actually, yes it does. It defines vaccines as distinct from bioweapons. It exempts research quantities of bioweapons for the purposes of medical research from the ban...

It also does not allow for the storage of potentialy dangerous viruses to help prevent future outbrakes of mutated strains of these viruses.

Yes it does.

Article 2.

We would rather see one nation dabbling with bioweapons bring on themselves their own destruction than allow that nation to bring destruction on MULTIPLE other nations who didn't do anything wrong.And implicit in this is the belief that genocide is less of a crime than dabbling in bioweapons.

Shame!

And implicit in this is the belief that genocide is less of a crime than dabbling in bioweapons.

EXPLICIT in this is that not preventing the destruction of one nation as a direct result of their own transgressions is less of a crime than allowing them to continue on a path that threatens the destruction of MULTIPLE OTHER NATIONS who aren't doing anything wrong. And your continued attempts to twist our words are getting a little beyond irritating.

Shame!

Indeed.

We noted earlier that concerns expressed in our previous posting (#108) about adverse effects of this resolution on medical research, isolation of sufferers from all contagious diseases, and prohibition of use of contagious pathogens in medical prophylaxis, had not produced a response from the proposer of this resolution. He responded that:

[The posting] was looked over because it raised no points which had not already been addressed.... And your points regarding medical research have also already been addressed.

Having now carefully reviewed again the 107 postings in this forum which preceded our posting, we have been unable to find any postings in which these concerns have been discussed. We would appreciate being referred to the specific postings in which these matters were purportedly addressed.

The proposer also quotes a definition of biological weapons from an article on the eMedicine Web site: "Biological weapons include any organism or toxin found in nature that can be used to incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede an adversary." He comments:

Clear enough? And GOSH that looks an awful lot like the definition in the proposal, except for the fact that their definition is even BROADER since it includes non contagious agents as well.

We suggest that it does not "look an awful lot like the definition in the proposal". It is significantly different, in that it is limited to material that can be used to incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede an adversary. In other words, material that can be weaponized. The definition in the proposal includes all contagious pathogens, whether or not they pose any threat at all of being used as a weapon.

We suggest that it does not "look an awful lot like the definition in the proposal". It is significantly different, in that it is limited to material that can be used to incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede an adversary.

Yes... and such agents which can "incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede" are obviously incredibly different from those "with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing"...

And we note you conveniently omitted the "any organism or toxin found in nature" portion of the definition.

In other words, material that can be weaponized.

No, not so much in other words as only in your brand new words that are very different from the words in the definition provided.

And as for the effects on medical research and the requirements for isolation, they have been addressed all throughout this discussion. Constantly.

SIDEBAR: On the Glorious Failure of Democracy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9292085#post9292085)

Just a comment on the tragedy happening here.

EXPLICIT in this is that not preventing the destruction of one nation as a direct result of their own transgressions is less of a crime than allowing them to continue on a path that threatens the destruction of MULTIPLE OTHER NATIONS who aren't doing anything wrong. And your continued attempts to twist our words are getting a little beyond irritating.This is not a simple exercise in insurance with you, Reformentia, it can't be. The math of it makes that impossible.

How many people have been killed in bioweapons accidents? And what are the odds of such an accident happening and producing the kind of casualties you suggest?

In contrast, how often has genocide happened? How many people have been killed through genocide? What are the odds of genocide happening again, and how many are likely to die?

If this were a mere cost-benefit analysis with you, Reformentia, you would understand and accept the fact that to countenance genocide is to foster a clear and present danger to millions worldwide - whereas the odds of a bioweapons accident of the magnitude you envision are so slim as to be infinitesimal, far less than the chance that an asteroid will strike the world, causing an Extinction Level Event, or the chance that the Sun will go nova tomorrow.

No, your tone is reminiscent of the attitude that soft peddles lynching or rape, by saying that the provocative or risky behaviour of the victim means that “they deserved it”. There's an ugly, unseemly moralising tone to your arguments that we find appalling.

This is not a simple exercise in insurance with you, Reformentia, it can't be. The math of it makes that impossible.

How many people have been killed in bioweapons accidents? And what are the odds of such an accident happening and producing the kind of casualties you suggest?

That rather depends on whether or not we're stepping in to permit nations who are developing biological weaponry to continue doing so. If we are... the odds get significantly higher. Because we're making them higher.

If this were a mere cost-benefit analysis with you, Reformentia, you would understand and accept the fact...

We understand and accept the fact that if a nation wants protection in the form of a military alliance with UN member nations this resolution makes it perfectly clear what is required, and if they CHOOSE to reject that protection in favor of developing weaponry which places the citizenry of those same member nations at risk that is their choice, and they will have to cope with the consequences.

I will not favor removing the military partnership consequences of pursuing biological weaponry over protecting the lives of the citizenry of nations which do NOT pursue biological weaponry. It is that simple.

I will not protect the recklessly endangering party at the cost of the safety and security of those endangered BY them through no fault of their own. Period.

SIDEBAR: On the Glorious Failure of Democracy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9292085#post9292085)

Just a comment on the tragedy happening here.

All too true, but there is a reason more debate isn't happening. What more can be said about the flaws in this bill that hasn't already been said? Even assuming that the writer's intentions were pure, the combination of the definition of bioweapon along with paragraph 4 is enough to make a decent person feel cheated by the promise of an effective bioweapons ban. Not to mention shiver at the thought of what immoral leaders will use it for.

Yet, we are app. 2000 votes behind. What can any of us do exactly? I have told my neighbors in the region. Even if they all vote No that is only 6 more votes. As you suggested, the UN has fallen prey to the fundamental flaw of Democracy, apathy.

Yes... and such agents which can "incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede" are obviously incredibly different from those "with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing"...

And we note you conveniently omitted the "any organism or toxin found in nature" portion of the definition..

We resent your implication that we have selectively quoted (and thus misquoted) the definition at issue. It was clearly stated in our posting:

"The proposer also quotes a definition of biological weapons from an article on the eMedicine Web site: 'Biological weapons include any organism or toxin found in nature that can be used to incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede an adversary'.'"

We see a clear distinction between pathogens that have a reasonable potential for military application and those which do not. You apparently do not consider that germane. So be it.

And as for the effects on medical research and the requirements for isolation, they have been addressed all throughout this discussion. Constantly.

Not once have the possibly prohibitive costs of implementing the requirement to impose "the highest of that nation’s military security" on all research facilities maintaining research quantities of any contagious pathogen been addressed. Not once has the use of such material for medical prophylaxis been addressed. And the requirement to isolate all sufferers from any contagious disease was addressed in passing only after our original post. We can only conclude from your disingenuous statement that you don't care to have these issues discussed. Well and good. We have raised them and we hope our fellow UN members will consider them in making their decision about this proposal.

Ultimately, it is the finding of the legal counsel of Krioval that this resolution cannot restrict weapons we possess so long as they are designed for the defense of our territorial boundaries. As this is the case, we have nothing to directly fear from this resolution, but in the interests of not bogging down the United Nations in endless bureaucratic posturing while simultaneously threatening several established alliances based on an arbitrary standard, namely, owning biological weapons, Krioval votes against. The United Nations Security Act was passed with both explicit and implicit support for not limiting the design and types of weapons a nation can develop.

Krioval reiterates its case that to combat biological weapons most effectively, one should not seek to simply ban them in one quarter of nations, but should instead invest in programs of vaccination, biosafety, and offer incentives for restricting or destroying existing biological weapons. The current resolution appears to be more ideologically driven than having any strong basis in practicality, and that is worrisome to my nation.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval

We resent your implication that we have selectively quoted (and thus misquoted) the definition at issue. It was clearly stated in our posting:

"The proposer also quotes a definition of biological weapons from an article on the eMedicine Web site: 'Biological weapons include any organism or toxin found in nature that can be used to incapacitate, kill, or otherwise impede an adversary'.'"

In the opening of your post. You then proceeded later in your post to make an argument that required ignoring the first half of the definition which extended the classification of a bioweapon beyond simply those agents that had been actively "weaponized" and decided only to mention the last half while making it.

Not once have the possibly prohibitive costs of implementing the requirement to impose "the highest of that nation’s military security" on all research facilities maintaining research quantities of any contagious pathogen been addressed.

Tell your medical researchers to perform their research in government facilities that are already properly secured and equipped for the purpose. How hard is that?

Not once has the use of such material for medical prophylaxis been addressed.

Except in Article 2 of the proposal... and in every post that has pointed out that article 2 of the proposal makes allowance for this...

And the requirement to isolate all sufferers from any contagious disease was addressed in passing only after our original post.

It has been addressed repeatedly over the past month of discussion. If you do not bother to pay attention to what is going on in the UN forums until a resolution actually reaches quorum that is not a concern of ours, we are getting quite tired of repeating ourselves on the same issue.

Isolation does not equal thrown in prison, or some kind of "camp"... isolation means you take what precautions are necessary to prevent the spread of the contagion. That is all we have to say on the matter. We have said it many times before.

Ultimately, it is the finding of the legal counsel of Krioval that this resolution cannot restrict weapons we possess so long as they are designed for the defense of our territorial boundaries.

Would the representative from Krioval mind sharing the particulars of how such a finding was arrived at?

Isolation does not equal thrown in prison, or some kind of "camp"... isolation means you take what precautions are necessary to prevent the spread of the contagion. That is all we have to say on the matter. We have said it many times before.


Where is this definition of "isolation" in the proposal?

As it reads isolation CAN be read to justify imprisonment, and countries with evil intentions could use that to commit atrocities.

A defense you made for this in the past is that the proposal states that being infected is not a crime. This is irrelavent. I bring to your attention that in the past countries have put people in camps or imprisoned them for "their own protection" or "national security reasons" openly saying they were not criminals. This proposal give justification to do that simply because a person has a cold.

Where is this definition of "isolation" in the proposal?

I am not going through the "define this word" olympics again.

As it reads isolation CAN be read to justify imprisonment, and countries with evil intentions could use that to commit atrocities.

Like forcing medical treatment on sick people.

well let me do it for you.

from Webster:

Isolate: To set apart from others

I would like to also note that there is no definition for isolate on webster that states anything like preventing spread of diesease.

well let me do it for you.

from Webster:

Isolate: To set apart from others

I would like to also note that there is no definition for isolate on webster that states anything like preventing spread of diesease.

What it means in a medical context (which is the context this discussion is taking place in) to isolate someone with a communicable disease is quite clear. You take what steps are necessary to prevent the contagion from spreading.

We're going to stop beating this tiresome dead horse. Just three final comments:

Tell your medical researchers to perform their research in government facilities that are already properly secured and equipped for the purpose. How hard is that?.

RL response: We're going to shut down all the research into contagious pathogens in universities, medical schools, and other medical research institutions across the US and move all the equipment, researchers (including all the graduate students), specimens, supplies and support personnel to somehow be stuffed into the Center for Disease Control and Fort Ritchie? Not hard. Impossible.

On our concern that use of pathogens in prophylaxis had not been discussed, the response was:

Except in Article 2 of the proposal... and in every post that has pointed out that article 2 of the proposal makes allowance for this....

Article 2 of the resolution covers quantities maintained "for the purpose of counter-agent research". It says nothing about prophylaxis. Maintenance of contagious pathogens for prophylaxis is, by not being excepted, prohibited by the resolution.

Finally, Reformentia comments:

If you do not bother to pay attention to what is going on in the UN forums until a resolution actually reaches quorum that is not a concern of ours, we are getting quite tired of repeating ourselves on the same issue.

It would have been much better if we had raised our concerns about the resolution during the drafting stage. Being rather new to NationStates, we did not do that. For that we apologize. We will certainly try to do better in the future. But we do not believe that failure to comment on a draft somehow disqualifies us from raising legitimate concerns during the formal debate. We believe such concerns raised by anyone, whether they commented on the draft or not, deserve respectful consideration and response. We understand and appreciate the frustration of a drafter who has worked long and hard on a proposed resolution and then is forced to defend every comma and period -- sometimes repeatedly. But, regrettably, that seems to be the way things go in NationStates. Although we differ from Reformentia on the advisability of passing this resolution and regret the tone of some of his responses, we congratulate him on the general quality of his craftsmanship and commend the obvious effort he invested in it.

As we can see, Article 4 requires an infected individual to be immediately isolated, and Resolution #111 states that a non-combatant cannot be prevented from leaving a conquered nation.

But NOT guaranteed immediately with absolutely no delay.

No conflict.


What you have not address is the asertion that a delay is tantamount to preventing them from leaving. Let me try and put this another way.

An infected individual attempting to leave a nation occupied by a UN member, must immediately be isolated and treated if we follow Article 4 of this ban. This isolation is quarantine with the benefit of treatment, and as long as they are infected they must be immediately isolated. This could last days, weeks, months years, and in some cases HIV/AIDS decades or the rest of their life.
You call this a delay.

It should be known that some Synonyms for the verb delay are: arrest, confine, detain, hold, keep, prevent, repress, restrict, stop and suspend.

As I mentioned before, delaying them from leaving is temporarily preventing them from leaving. Preventing them from leaving is clearly illegal under Resolution #111




BTW - before that comes back to haunt me - you need only isolate them sufficiently so that they can't spread the disease. Influenza requires quarantine. HIV requires forbidding the guy from getting laid or donating blood.

Isolation does not mean asking someone nicely to not spread the contagion, it mean making sure they do not spread the contagion by quarantine. Telling someone infected by HIV to please not spread it is not isolation. In the case of HIV, it is a gross civil rights violation to put these people in quarantine until such time as they are no longer infected.

We're going to stop beating this tiresome dead horse. Just three final comments:

[quote]RL response: We're going to shut down all the research into contagious pathogens in universities, medical schools, and other medical research institutions

No, you're not going to dpo anyhting of the kind. You're going to require that if they want to work hands on, on an actual sample of a contagious pathogen they do so in a properly secured environment.

Article 2 of the resolution covers quantities maintained "for the purpose of counter-agent research". It says nothing about prophylaxis.

From Medline...

Prophylaxis:

measures designed to preserve health and prevent the spread of disease : protective or preventive treatment <prophylaxis against viral diseases>

Covered by Article 2. Unless there was some other means you intended to use a contagious harmful pathogen to prevent the spread of a disease or to preserve a person's health besides using it to research counter agents?

What you have not address is the asertion that a delay is tantamount to preventing them from leaving.

I'm simply denying that it is in any sense that violates the previously mentioned resolution.

This could last days, weeks, months years, and in some cases HIV/AIDS decades or the rest of their life.
You call this a delay.

HIV/AIDs does not require restriction of movement to acheive isolation. It's only communicable through blood or semen transfers, not casual contact.

Ultimately, it is the finding of the legal counsel of Krioval that this resolution cannot restrict weapons we possess so long as they are designed for the defense of our territorial boundaries. As this is the case, we have nothing to directly fear from this resolution, but in the interests of not bogging down the United Nations in endless bureaucratic posturing while simultaneously threatening several established alliances based on an arbitrary standard, namely, owning biological weapons, Krioval votes against. The United Nations Security Act was passed with both explicit and implicit support for not limiting the design and types of weapons a nation can develop.

Krioval reiterates its case that to combat biological weapons most effectively, one should not seek to simply ban them in one quarter of nations, but should instead invest in programs of vaccination, biosafety, and offer incentives for restricting or destroying existing biological weapons. The current resolution appears to be more ideologically driven than having any strong basis in practicality, and that is worrisome to my nation.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval


The points and effects of resolution 110 have not yet been resolved. The current moderator ruling (which has been acknowledged and few nations (none of which are the initial proposers, editors, etc of the resolution) says that weapons bans are permitted to go through under the condition the UN declares them as unnecessary. Several debates amongst the players picking apart resolution 110 and scurrying through various rules and moderator rulings - as well as other resolutions - have been started and (currently) are on hold for a few days as at least one if not both sides reanalyze their arguments.

There has been no official challenge to the moderator ruling along the lines of resolution 110 prohibits weapons bans.

Where is this definition of "isolation" in the proposal?

As it reads isolation CAN be read to justify imprisonment, and countries with evil intentions could use that to commit atrocities.

A defense you made for this in the past is that the proposal states that being infected is not a crime. This is irrelavent. I bring to your attention that in the past countries have put people in camps or imprisoned them for "their own protection" or "national security reasons" openly saying they were not criminals. This proposal give justification to do that simply because a person has a cold.

The nation in question would have to be in compliance with ALL resolutions simultaneously. If their argument contradicts a different resolution, they must change their stance so they are in compliance with both.

I am not going through the "define this word" olympics again.



Like forcing medical treatment on sick people.

Stop shooting yourself in the foot, please. This is painful to watch

HIV/AIDs does not require restriction of movement to acheive isolation. It's only communicable through blood or semen transfers, not casual contact.


This is true. However, Article 4 requires the isolation of the person not the diesease.

The nation in question would have to be in compliance with ALL resolutions simultaneously. If their argument contradicts a different resolution, they must change their stance so they are in compliance with both.

I believe that no prior resolution is conflicted by this proposals specific requirement of isolation of infected individuals.

The points and effects of resolution 110 have not yet been resolved. The current moderator ruling (which has been acknowledged and few nations (none of which are the initial proposers, editors, etc of the resolution) says that weapons bans are permitted to go through under the condition the UN declares them as unnecessary. Several debates amongst the players picking apart resolution 110 and scurrying through various rules and moderator rulings - as well as other resolutions - have been started and (currently) are on hold for a few days as at least one if not both sides reanalyze their arguments.

There has been no official challenge to the moderator ruling along the lines of resolution 110 prohibits weapons bans.

Which is why I voted NO to 110. In the end it's only effect is to cause confusion.

Stop shooting yourself in the foot, please.

That statement was steeped in sarcasm.

Tell your medical researchers to perform their research in government facilities that are already properly secured and equipped for the purpose. How hard is that?What are you, a bunch of bleeding socialists?!?

If the objection raised by Ausserland is valid, then you have just taken our world-famous system of public and private universities, as well as our magnificent research hospitals and clinic, out of the business of conducting research into immunology. For that matter... (Contagious disease samples) are to be so secured (against risk of any infection to anyone) within a multi-tier (minimum of 2 tier) quarantined building in (our) nation, and kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.You do realise, we're sure, that this precludes the removal of such samples from said building for any reason, including transportation to another facility - or, more importantly, transfer by spacecraft into orbit for the purpose of conducting research in microgravity.

Congratulations! You have just banned all space research into cures for contagious diseases.

Vote this resolution down!

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.Notice the phrase “for the purpose of counter-agent research”.

Necessarily, this means that all other use of the samples in question is banned.

This means:
No use of “contagions” of any kind, however harmless (since even a mild cold, fever, or case of diarrhea could be considered “incapacitating” ) in education.


No use of “contagions” of any kind, however harmless (since even a mild cold, fever, or case of diarrhea could be considered “incapacitating” ) in biological, medical, or pharmeceutical research not explicitly aimed at producing a counter-agent, such as (but not limited to) gene sequencing, comparitive studies, epidemiological studies, etc.
This is what comes of letting yourself get savaged by the likes of Vastiva and DLE; you've allowed them to hoodwink you into created a limited bio-weapons ban with throughoughly Luddite consequences.

This resolution must be defeated!

That statement was steeped in sarcasm.

Actually - it wasn't just that statement - your general argument method is frustrating - because I know what you're TRYING to say, but you aren't saying it. In fact, because you aren't saying it correctly, you're making your case and position even more difficult to argue from because Allemande seems like the voice of reason - even though his arguments are just as fatally flawed as the ones you present (note, this is not to say his position is invalid, just his arguments are flawed).

In fact, because you aren't saying it correctly, you're making your case and position even more difficult to argue from because Allemande seems like the voice of reason - even though his arguments are just as fatally flawed as the ones you present (note, this is not to say his position is invalid, just his arguments are flawed).OOC: You mean, I'm a better politician than he is. ;)

The Emissary from Wolfish stood in her place…

Delegates, I will, once again, gladly cast my vote against the resolution...and dream of the day that vetos are allowed to significantly large nations.

A bio-weps ban will do nothing to provide security or safety to any UN nation - this sham legislation - this ideological exercise in authoritarian leadership through stupidity - has diverted valuable resources from this body.

Had the author – or any of the supports truly wished to protect UN nations from bio-weapon catastrophes – the resolution should have been writing with an entirely different angle – perhaps thusly:

“Insomuch as this body does respect life, and, in protecting the lives and wellbeing of our citizens,

Does hereby order and demand that all these United Nations comply with the following requirements for the storage and handling of biological weapons:

All weapons of a biological nature shall be stored under maximum guard, and a facility designed to safely contain and control and inadvertent biological agent release

That, when needed, biological weapons and agents be deployed to the field under the direct supervision of a fully trained biological weapons expert to provide for maximum safety parameters for all domestic forces and civilian populations

Further, deployment of a biological weapon must be authorized only by the head of state, president, monarch or similar. Such authorization must be recorded by three witnesses.

I thing biological weapons mustn´t be ban because their are our defense against the terroristic rogue nations. And we ban the weapons we must ban all kind of biological researches cuz their are similars contents.

If the objection raised by Ausserland is valid, then you have just taken our world-famous system of public and private universities, as well as our magnificent research hospitals and clinic, out of the business of conducting research into immunology.

No, we haven't. We've just regulated the conditions under which they have to do any work that involves actual hands on handling of a contagious sample.

And as for your claim that this bans non military research... I see nothing in your post that supports such an assertion.

I thing biological weapons mustn´t be ban... <snip>

There is just no way I'm answering that stuff again.

I'm officially done with this discussion, we're not covering any new ground. Argue amongst yourselves, let the votes fall where they may, I'm taking a break from this. The negligible effect this discussion is having simply isn't worth the aggravation.

:gundge:
You can never fully ban anything. If you ban guns, criminals will still have them, and they will have one hell of a field day. If you ban bio-weapons... god help us.
This resolution does not affect non-UN members, who will continue to build bio-weapons. Dismantling ours seems utterly foolish.

What are you, a bunch of bleeding socialists?!?[/b]
We prefer the terms: haemophiliac strugglers for a classless society.
What are you, an Imperialist Dog?

banning somthing does not stop the use of it. If you ban knives criminals will still use them. If you ban Bio weapons the non UN nations will still have them. Disarming yourself like this is extreamly stupid.

Whilst Dagguerro agrees that this is a sensible proposal, we must vote against, simply because of the following sentence:

DECLARING a "virus" to be a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions.

If this sentence is taken at its literal meaning, this means that the term 'virus' is not being used for viruses at all, but merely bacteria. A bacterium, like other microscopic organisms, is 'guided' (as the term has loosely been used) by its DNA and RNA.

However a VIRUS in the literal sense is (to put it simply) a coat of proteins, lipids and glycolipids surrounding a piece of nucleic acid (i.e. DNA or RNA), and is not 'guided' or 'controlled' by anything particularly, it merely floats around looking for a cell to latch onto and inject with its nucleic acid.

Thus when the proposal states:
DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection.

It is declaring bacteria and other small organisms (microbes) to be bioweapons, but not viruses.



The wording of this sentence therefore allows UN nations to manufacture weapons containing anything from the common cold to the AIDS and Ebola viruses and still be within the limitations of this proposal.

We cannot back something which would freely allow such dangerous weapons to continue to be produced.

OOC: The following has also been posted in the Moderation Forum.

<Rising to address the chair>

Allemande wishes to call upon the chair to rule on the legality of this Resolution in light of a comprehensive analysis that it has undertaken against existing United Nations Law.... 4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment...No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.... the following human rights (are to) be given to every peoples of this great world: ... The right to travel freely throughout their country.Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorities of the country in which the suspected crime is committed within 48 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws.What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).Proposed Resolution #113 requires isolation of persons infected with “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection”.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition defines “isolation” as “the condition of being isolated”; “isolate” means “to set apart from others; also : QUARANTINE”; “quarantine” is “a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests; a place in which those under quarantine are kept”, or “a state of enforced isolation”.

Reformentia claims that the two Resolutions (Proposed #113 and #111) do not conflict; however, it is hard to see how a person who is infected by “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” (which would be almost any disease) could be permitted to “leav(e) the conquered nation” and yet still be kept in “a state of enforced isolation”, let alone “a place in which those under quarantine are kept”. Reformentia counters by saying that there is no mandate under Resolution #111 that release to permit emigration occur immediately or within any defined time interval, presumably including “forever” (the necessary term of “isolation” in the case of a person infected with AIDS). This seems Orwellian: “Yes, you have the right to leave, but not now.” “When?” “Someday, maybe.”

You either have the right to leave or you don't; either Resolution #111 is no longer binding on persons infected with “contagious” diseases, or else Resolution #113's proposed “isolation” is in fact no isolation at all.

A similar problem exists with respect to Resolution #6; people in “isolation” can not “travel freely throughout their country”. Either Resolution #113 invalidates Resolution #6's guarantee of free travel, or Resolution #113's quarantine requirement is illegal.

Finally, it should be noted that Resolution #113 envisions that people be held indefinitely without any criminal charges being filed against them; indeed, it declares that “being infected is not illegal”. If being infected is not illegal, then no charges can be levelled and no detention can therefore exceed the 48 hours stipulated in Resolution #73. Therefore either Resolution #113 must read in such a way as to limit its “isolation” period to 48 hours, or else Resolution #73 must be invalidated, at least in the case of “contagious” persons.

(Alternately, the nation detaining such persons could declare an indefinite national holiday, but that's not likely...)

Alternately, Reformentia claims that “isolation” could simply mean the imposition of any measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Specifically, in the case of AIDS, Reformentia claims that infected individuals could be proscribed from having consensual sex. In truth, however, Resolution #7's ban on any governmental intrusion into the sexual activities of consenting adults other than asking about possible STD's they may have clearly prevents even this attempt at “isolation”; indeed, one can not, under Resolution #7, even demand that infected persons (or their partners) use condoms.

Either Resolution #7 is voided by Resolution #113, or #113's quarantine requirements can not be read as to allow governments to limit consensual sexual activity.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.... By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.Proposed Resolution #113 would proscribe the use of “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” in scientific endeavours that were not undertaken “for the purpose of counter-agent research”; it would also prohibit any scientific enquiry, even “for the purpose of counter-agent research” where said enquiry would require “more than 250mg” of said material. Resolution #3 allows for no exceptions to the principle of Scientific Freedom.

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.CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as “the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality”. (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)... Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.Resolution #92 empowers a Pretenama Panel to authorise military intervention on behalf of populations threatened with “tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality”; in the course of the debate, however, it has been pointed out that intervention on behalf of a national government possessed of so-called “bio-weapons”, even for the purposes of preventing eradication of the citizens of said nation by a genocidal invader, would be forbidden unless both sides were attacked with equal ferocity - a form of intervention that would certainly not be “welcomed by the victims”. Thus, while not invalidating the power of Pretenama Panels to intervene to “ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale”, Proposed Resolution #113 effectively amends that power by conditioning it on the victims not being citizens of a government possessing “bio-weapons”, since intervention on behalf of such a government would most certainly be a de-facto “military partnership”.

Reformentia's counter-argument is that the passage of Proposed Resolution #113 would mean that no Pretenama Panel would ever authorise such intervention due to the crimes of the victims' government (i.e., the crime of dabbling in “bio-weapons” ); this nonetheless implies that either the criteria for judging whether genocide has occurred under Resolution #83 or the conditions under which an applicant's plea to intervene would be accepted under Resolution #92 must be effectively amended to always take into account whether one side or the other has so-called “bio-weapons”.

Resolution #49 requires NSUN Members to honour their “obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law”. Proposed Resolution #113 “proscribe(s) ... 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”. Since it is certain that NSUN Members currently are bound to non-NSUN states that possess such “proscribed” weapons, in formal regional alliances if not the informal ones that arise in II, the passage of Resolution #113 would force all involved Member nations to immediately break such “obligations” where they involved promises of military support. Unless these alliances have clauses permitting the unilateral withdrawal of nations so mandated (which can not be guaranteed), this would force the nations in question to violate Resolution #49, since one can not “carry out in good faith” such an obligation by breaking it.

Of particular note here is the assertion under Resolution #49 that, with respect to these alliance ties, a Member “may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty”. Clearly, a United Nations Resolution, once passed, becomes part of the laws of each and every Member nation; invoking such laws, therefore, as justification for the violation of outstanding military obligations would clearly and unambiguously violate the terms of Resolution #49.

We therefore call upon the parliamentarian to rule that Proposed Resolution #113, the so-called “Biological Weapons Ban”, be ruled illegal and removed from the queue - or, if passed before action can be taken, be stricken from the body of United Nations Law.

We prefer the terms: haemophiliac strugglers for a classless society.
What are you, an Imperialist Dog?No, just a dead armadillo.

"The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadilloes"

- Jim Hightower, Former Texas Secretary of State

No, just a dead armadillo.

"The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadilloes"

- Jim Hightower, Former Texas Secretary of State

Says the man who took a vote to his legislature for war on a country because they disagreed with him. I'll get to the rest of this thread in about 20 minutes - expect to see a long post in about an hour and a half.....

Says the man who took a vote to his legislature for war on a country because they disagreed with him.Actually, it was because the proposal in question would have required us to forcibly sterilize all our children, if you recall.

And who ever said that centrists never go to war?

In general, this thread has taken each part of the UN resolution, cut it up and simultaneously blasted each piece for some reason or another. For the most part, Reformatia has attempted to address those concerns - largely (IMHO) in an ineffective manner.

First:
Reformatia - I've seen you make good arguments and have a good debate, but this is far from it. I know you are getting frustrated with the fact that questions are continually coming up, and Allemande is trying EVERYTHING he possibly can to tear this resolution down, but I'm asking you to calm down because your frustration is apparent and its effect on your arguments is similarly there.

Second:
Allemande - I'm not saying your a better politician, just that you've sounded like the more reasonable of the two voices. Aside from the one-time posters, I'd actually consider you two the WORST two politicians in this debate. Your biggest flaw is that you seem to be COMPLETELY ignoring the arguments and restating beliefs that were disproven 10 posts before (which isn't helping Reformatia's position too much). Thrice I've blasted you on your criticism of Reformatia's character - the first time you brushed it off completely by using a scarecrow tactic and the other two times, you ignored me completely. Your attitude and refusal to listen is frustrating at best - and unfortunately, I have made the mistake of glazing over most of your posts because of my frustration.

However, this resolution has qualms, I shall try to address them:

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

This alone implies the concern about contagious weapons - not non-contagious weapons. The fact that it can infect people on both sides whether they be combatant or not is THE REASON for Reformatia wanting to push this resolution through.

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.

1) This allows vaccines and prevention of bio-weapons and diseases to be used.
2) They MUST be of little danger of injuring the person - meaning they need to be declawed (so if you're stockpiling "vaccines" as the loophole, you need to make sure that only a small percentage of the vaccine can actual cause any harm).
3) If you launch this on a nation, and more than 1/200 people die, you just launched a bio-weapon, you're in violation of the resolution.

DECLARING a "virus" to be a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions.

It still does define a virus, even though it does seem to encompass most bacterium. I suppose that's what we get for listening to DLE.....

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 are unnecessary to national defense.

1) It is better for there to be fewer bio-weapons on the planet, even if our enemies are the only ones that have them now. As stated, we are CONVINCED that anyone who owns bio-weapons presents a general risk to all nations - including themselves.
2) The last 5 words bypass UNSA by current mod rulings

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

So don't claim it wasn't considered - and it will be addressed further soon

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.

You can't ask another country to launch bio-weapons on your enemy (goes hand in hand with section 5). The rest is pretty straight-foreward

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.

1) Research is allowed of bio-weapons AND diseases - since this resolution pretty much deals with most diseases too
2) You put a military base in the middle of a Uni campus that basically has a staff of 10 to regulate who goes in and out (AKA: Military SECURITY), and make sure it follows the security procedures listed

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.

If it is not being used for research, it must be destroyed.

4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.

ISOLATION != IMPRISONMENT. A quarantine need only go so far as to protect the population from the spread of the disease. If you quarantine a person with HIV so he can't A) Have Sex/Donate blood or B) allow him only to have sex with someone who has HIV (pretty much, make it a criminal offense punishable by solitary confinement to knowingly spread an STD), that will suffice. This point will actually be permitted by all the above problems listed by Allemande

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.

Reading this through, Reformatia - I think the first proscribed should be prohibited. Actually, the use of the word proscribed seems pointless period so far...

Anyway, the last draft of the resolution noted how the UN has influence, just not control of non-UN members. This point is validated by section 5 - we want to pressure non-UN members to lose their bio-weapons so that UN members may assist them. If a nation is suffering from an issue of genocide and wants UN help, the UN tells them that the deal is they get help IF they destroy their bio-weapons. Personally, if the nation in question agrees to destroy them (but can't due to lack of resources), openly gives the UN the location of those bio-weapons (so the UN can destroy them if they do have resources WHILE they are intervening), cease production, traffiking and use of them immediately, I would say that they are complying fully enough with this resolution to get our help.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. 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.

Just like real life, you got bio-weapons, you'll pay a penalty - if we care enough.

7. 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.

You must condemn any use of bio-weapons on a UN member - though you get to decide whether any action will actually be taken. If your condemnation is in the form of a few nukes, so be it.

Next: (after moderation counter-argument) Issue with influenze vs various resolutions.....

Actually, it was because the proposal in question would have required us to forcibly sterilize all our children, if you recall.

And who ever said that centrists never go to war?

Oh yeah - I forgot about that one....

I didn't say centrists never go to war. I disputed centrist go to war over a disagreement. If you recall, the International community was rather shocked that - as outrageous as the resolution was, one would consider war just because someone had made a suggestion.

I'm intolerant towards intolerance. Believe me, there are times where I'm intolerant of myself.

Actually, I just plain dispute your argument you're a centrist, but that's my left-wing opinion. Texas centrist I could believe......

Well, my arguments against stem from the fact that I'm a libertarian and a sovereigntist when it comes to military matters. I'm still rather upset that alliances are going to be destroyed over this resolution, should it pass. Up to this point, nobody's bothered to address that concern, unless it was well before I joined the debate.

As I stated before, though, according to Res 110, if a weapon I possess is to be used for defensive purposes, it therefore cannot be a banned weapon. If I were to release anthrax as my borders were penetrated, and that action caused the invading forces to retreat, that anthrax was a defensive weapon, and allowable by Res 110. That goes to show how ineffectual the one under discussion is likely to be.

I was going to make my response in moderation, but upon seeing 7 replies, I did the smart thing and scanned for Fris's reply. Seeing as your appeal has been overruled, I'm going to run through it here since it is now a voting issue.

OOC: The following has also been posted in the Moderation Forum.

<Rising to address the chair>

I've gotta say, I'm personally getting sick of that line. Just you posting is "rising to address the chair" - and the few times its not, it's the time you're cracking a quick joke.

Allemande wishes to call upon the chair to rule on the legality of this Resolution in light of a comprehensive analysis that it has undertaken against existing United Nations Law.Proposed Resolution #113 requires isolation of persons infected with “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection”.

Comprehensive, one sided analysis with Reformatia doing a half-assed response. Admittedly, not your fault.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition defines “isolation” as “the condition of being isolated”; “isolate” means “to set apart from others; also : QUARANTINE”; “quarantine” is “a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests; a place in which those under quarantine are kept”, or “a state of enforced isolation”.

Which actually validates my point about STDs - you only need quarantine them by stating that they can't have sex - since it is a restriction on that activity. BTW - breaking of quarantines has happened - one of the more recent incidents was a doctor in Toronto during the SARS epidemic. Broke quarantine, went to the funeral of the guy who discovered (and then died from) SARS, infected a bunch of people. Your quarantine is not required to be built around the possibility of someone breaking the rules. They just need to be punished if they do.

Reformentia claims that the two Resolutions (Proposed #113 and #111) do not conflict; however, it is hard to see how a person who is infected by “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” (which would be almost any disease) could be permitted to “leav(e) the conquered nation” and yet still be kept in “a state of enforced isolation”, let alone “a place in which those under quarantine are kept”. Reformentia counters by saying that there is no mandate under Resolution #111 that release to permit emigration occur immediately or within any defined time interval, presumably including “forever” (the necessary term of “isolation” in the case of a person infected with AIDS). This seems Orwellian: “Yes, you have the right to leave, but not now.” “When?” “Someday, maybe.”

Again - if one has AIDS, telling them they can't leave would be excessive for the task of quarantine. If one has Influenza, they're stuck there for 2 weeks with drugs. In fact, of all the ones you listed,

You either have the right to leave or you don't; either Resolution #111 is no longer binding on persons infected with “contagious” diseases, or else Resolution #113's proposed “isolation” is in fact no isolation at all.

Dealt with

A similar problem exists with respect to Resolution #6; people in “isolation” can not “travel freely throughout their country”. Either Resolution #113 invalidates Resolution #6's guarantee of free travel, or Resolution #113's quarantine requirement is illegal.

1) The resolution as it is stated is the only one that actually conflicts
2) The resolution is actually "proposing" such a measure be given, not mandating that it should. Might want to not misquote resolutions, it rather hurts


The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.


Yep, it's only been proposed, not mandated

Finally, it should be noted that Resolution #113 envisions that people be held indefinitely without any criminal charges being filed against them; indeed, it declares that “being infected is not illegal”. If being infected is not illegal, then no charges can be levelled and no detention can therefore exceed the 48 hours stipulated in Resolution #73. Therefore either Resolution #113 must read in such a way as to limit its “isolation” period to 48 hours, or else Resolution #73 must be invalidated, at least in the case of “contagious” persons.

Quarantine is not imprisonment. Ask any police officer or doctor.

(Alternately, the nation detaining such persons could declare an indefinite national holiday, but that's not likely...) ???

Alternately, Reformentia claims that “isolation” could simply mean the imposition of any measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Specifically, in the case of AIDS, Reformentia claims that infected individuals could be proscribed from having consensual sex. In truth, however, Resolution #7's ban on any governmental intrusion into the sexual activities of consenting adults other than asking about possible STD's they may have clearly prevents even this attempt at “isolation”; indeed, one can not, under Resolution #7, even demand that infected persons (or their partners) use condoms.

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Um....a medical reason could be stopping the spread of a disease.

Either Resolution #7 is voided by Resolution #113, or #113's quarantine requirements can not be read as to allow governments to limit consensual sexual activity.Proposed Resolution #113 would proscribe the use of “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection” in scientific endeavours that were not undertaken “for the purpose of counter-agent research”; it would also prohibit any scientific enquiry, even “for the purpose of counter-agent research” where said enquiry would require “more than 250mg” of said material. Resolution #3 allows for no exceptions to the principle of Scientific Freedom.

Actually, Roathin and I were discussing this via TG (though we were discussing UNSA, but it applies)

The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.

Presented to the Assembly of the United Nations on twenty-second day of November in the year two thousand and two, Common Era. By the representative and leader of Genius:

By pointing out the inherent dangers of the scientific research of more than 250mg (because of the fact that even that much could be used as a weapon for certain types of bio-weapons), it would be irresponsible for scientists to research at a greater level

Resolution #92 empowers a Pretenama Panel to authorise military intervention on behalf of populations threatened with “tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality”; in the course of the debate, however, it has been pointed out that intervention on behalf of a national government possessed of so-called “bio-weapons”, even for the purposes of preventing eradication of the citizens of said nation by a genocidal invader, would be forbidden unless both sides were attacked with equal ferocity - a form of intervention that would certainly not be “welcomed by the victims”. Thus, while not invalidating the power of Pretenama Panels to intervene to “ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale”, Proposed Resolution #113 effectively amends that power by conditioning it on the victims not being citizens of a government possessing “bio-weapons”, since intervention on behalf of such a government would most certainly be a de-facto “military partnership”.

As pointed out before, should a nation that is suffering from genocide from another nation be in that situation, they can get assistance from other nations. Unless you are suggesting the Pretenama Panel is permitted to violate any resolution, it would still be obliged to consider this one. It is not obliged to permit ANY counter-movement to genocide, it is just permitted to. Therefore, its actions are still legislated by this resolution

Reformentia's counter-argument is that the passage of Proposed Resolution #113 would mean that no Pretenama Panel would ever authorise such intervention due to the crimes of the victims' government (i.e., the crime of dabbling in “bio-weapons” ); this nonetheless implies that either the criteria for judging whether genocide has occurred under Resolution #83 or the conditions under which an applicant's plea to intervene would be accepted under Resolution #92 must be effectively amended to always take into account whether one side or the other has so-called “bio-weapons”.

You yourself have argued about the usability of implicit ammendments. Congradulations for contradicting yourself. Also, it only need consider the nation that was the victim of genocide, not the one who is committing it.

Resolution #49 requires NSUN Members to honour their “obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law”. Proposed Resolution #113 “proscribe(s) ... 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”. Since it is certain that NSUN Members currently are bound to non-NSUN states that possess such “proscribed” weapons, in formal regional alliances if not the informal ones that arise in II, the passage of Resolution #113 would force all involved Member nations to immediately break such “obligations” where they involved promises of military support. Unless these alliances have clauses permitting the unilateral withdrawal of nations so mandated (which can not be guaranteed), this would force the nations in question to violate Resolution #49, since one can not “carry out in good faith” such an obligation by breaking it.

Wow - we were totally misreading that article in our arguments on 110. Oh well - our mistake.....

§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

They are permitted to be in an alliance as long as it does not defy the rules of international law - pretty much, UN resolutions. If they are in an alliance and are defying the laws of the UN, they have to get out.

Of particular note here is the assertion under Resolution #49 that, with respect to these alliance ties, a Member “may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty”. Clearly, a United Nations Resolution, once passed, becomes part of the laws of each and every Member nation; invoking such laws, therefore, as justification for the violation of outstanding military obligations would clearly and unambiguously violate the terms of Resolution #49.

It is not a portion of one's laws or constitution. UN law is only superceeded by OOC laws (coding limitations, mod rulings, physical laws, etc). It is above both the laws of the alliance and the laws of the nation's constitution or national laws - not a part of them, but above them.

We therefore call upon the parliamentarian to rule that Proposed Resolution #113, the so-called “Biological Weapons Ban”, be ruled illegal and removed from the queue - or, if passed before action can be taken, be stricken from the body of United Nations Law.

Already dealt with by Fris.....

Well, my arguments against stem from the fact that I'm a libertarian and a sovereigntist when it comes to military matters. I'm still rather upset that alliances are going to be destroyed over this resolution, should it pass. Up to this point, nobody's bothered to address that concern, unless it was well before I joined the debate.

As I stated before, though, according to Res 110, if a weapon I possess is to be used for defensive purposes, it therefore cannot be a banned weapon. If I were to release anthrax as my borders were penetrated, and that action caused the invading forces to retreat, that anthrax was a defensive weapon, and allowable by Res 110. That goes to show how ineffectual the one under discussion is likely to be.

I have to agree, i will check in a second, but if Res 110 does in fact state that, then i don't see how something like this could be passed.

Edit: Indeed it does state in Res 110


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.

Well, my arguments against stem from the fact that I'm a libertarian and a sovereigntist when it comes to military matters. I'm still rather upset that alliances are going to be destroyed over this resolution, should it pass. Up to this point, nobody's bothered to address that concern, unless it was well before I joined the debate.

Actually - it has been brought up - not to mention I addressed it in my complex analysis. Of the names I normally notice, Yelda and Allemande have each brought up issue with it. It was also done on one of the other threads

As I stated before, though, according to Res 110, if a weapon I possess is to be used for defensive purposes, it therefore cannot be a banned weapon. If I were to release anthrax as my borders were penetrated, and that action caused the invading forces to retreat, that anthrax was a defensive weapon, and allowable by Res 110. That goes to show how ineffectual the one under discussion is likely to be.

I think Lanquassia put it best - there is a difference between a weapon that is necessary for defense and one that is desirable for defense.

Add on that an aspect of this resolution states clearly that it is not necessary for defense - it MANDATES that line which means it doesn't matter what you believe, it's unnecessary for defense should this resolution passes and therefore not protected by resolution 110 (if it was protected to begin with - but we haven't settled that dispute yet.....). BTW - thanks for unintentionally reminding me of that argument - now I can go back to the 110 debate with a response.

OOC: OK, at this point I have to face the reality that this wretched piece of <expletive deleted> Resolution will pass.

What I have to do now is figure out the RP consequences.

Detention of Infected Persons

Resolution #73 (Habeas Corpus) and Resolution #6 (End Slavery) clash with Resolution #113 (Biological Weapons Ban), in so far as any person infected with any “contagious” disease will have to be “isolated” until the disease is no longer present, and such “isolation” necessarily conflicts with the right of habeas corpus and the right to travel. There is only one solution to this conundrum

Although Resolution #113 states that “being infected is not illegal”, it does not forbid the criminalisation of disease. Since only criminals can be held for more than 48 hours and since most “contagious” diseases run longer than that, the only answer to this absurd situation is the criminalisation of disease.

Therefore, when Resolution #113 passes, the Secretary of United Nations Compliance will be ordered to write statutes declaring it a crime to catch a “contagious” disease. Because we have no interest in punishing people for getting sick, the crime of being “contagious” will be a simple misdemeanour, and employers who ask a person to report their criminal record on a job application will be told that they can not ask about an individual's convictions for “illness”, nor can an applicant be compelled to disclose them.

The punishment for “illness” will be quarantine, either in a hospital, clinic, or the person's own home. Arrangements will have to be made for persons under house arrest for “illness” to have groceries brought to them, etc. No fines will be imposed for “illness”, and we will not allow an employer to terminate an individual for any short-term “illness”, although they may not be compelled to pay such a person after their sick pay runs out. Social service spending and well as spending on law enforcement will have to increase dramatically to handle this new class of “crimes”.

The “punishment” for catching an STD will have to be more severe. Such persons can probably not be left at home; instead,they will have to be “remanded” to clinics. Since Allemande has no prisons and we have no intention of building any, we already have the legal structure necessary to remand drunk drivers, drug addicts, etc., to clinics, so well just have to build a lot more of them and put people with STD's in them. The real tragedy will be in how we are going to have to deal with AIDS: in essence, Resolution #113 demands a life sentence without parole, since there is no other guaranteed way to prevent the individual in question from engaging in consensual sexual intercourse. I'm going to hate answering that d_mn_d VODAIS question next time it comes around, but this <expletive deleted> <expletive deleted> of a <expletive deleted> leaves me with very little choice.

As indicated in the debate over Resolution #111 (Civilian Rights Post War), we will simply continue our policy of never accepting the surrender of an enemy nation or occupying their territory, but simply continue to fight ad infinitum until we've so destabilised them as to turn their nation into another Somalia.

Scientific Research

This is going to hurt.

The requirement that we maintain all “contagious” disease samples under the “highest of (our) ... military security” means several things. One possibility is this:
Our most elite Special Forces units will have to be assigned to patrol our college campuses, research hospitals, and medical laboratories.


We're going to need to dramatically increase the number of soldiers in our military, and spend countless billions expanding the size of our Special Forces contingent, to something well beyond the size of the Soviet Speznatz (100,000+ for a start).


A background security check will be required for a student to be admitted to any college or university where medical research is conducted.


All college campuses, research hospitals, and medical laboratories will have to be kept under 24 x 365 lock-down.


Our orbital space laboratory, Vesta II, will no longer be able to conduct any research into immunology, pharmaceutical development, or microbiology.


I can tell you right now this is unacceptable. It would have the effect of turning our nation into an armed camp.

Alternately, Allemande could simply ban all research into immunology, pharmaceutical development, and microbiology.

I like that even less.

So what we'll probably have to do is this:
Samples of all “contagious” diseases will be collected now and placed in a single maximum security military facility that will essentially house our CDC. Military clearance will be required to enter or work at the facility.


Scientists involved in microbiological research will have to conduct that research through telepresence - IOW, through teleconferencing, telerobotics, etc. Human technicians in the CDC will assist them as needed.


Since the foregoing will create a huge bottleneck that will slow research down tremendously, we will invest vast sums of money in high-speed Internet connectivity and massively parallel computing clusters at all of our colleges and universities. This will be used to support the development of “contagious” disease simulations (“virtual specimens” ) which can be “cultured” as needed to support preliminary research. Findings won by study of these “e-Cultures” can then be validated against the real thing. Of course, this will take time, and so the next item on this list will be the crucial element in dealing with this problem.


If this still leaves us with a bottleneck (which is likely, given the 250g limit), the remaining research will be “offshored” to nations with which we have no military ties (but strong economic ones). The facilities created for this purpose will be owned by our colleges, universities, and corporations, and staffed and controlled by the same; but they will be on the soil of non-U.N. nations and therefore under their laws. This will in fact be something that happens almost everywhere, not just Allemande - microbiological, pharmaceutical, and immunological research, as well as medical education will all immediately move beyond our borders. To avoid massive job loss, we will anticipate this by encouraging firms to take Allemander workers with them when they move offshore - and to avoid countries that will not let our people follow their jobs on guest visas. We expect that upward of 12% of our populace will be working overseas under arrangements like this within the next 10 years. The loss in tax revenues will be devastating, but at least we won't have to institute a draft and raise a huge army just to practise medicine.


Since our principal space centre is on a Pacific island, we will probably lease that territory to a foreign power (it will be the first time in history that a nation has paid another country to lease its territory) in order to be able to launch specimens into space aboard our space shuttle. We will look into whether we have to lease our shuttle and our space station out to that foreign power, too. Since the nation we're thinking of has virtually no military and we have to military ties with them (only one other country does, and they're not a United Nations Member), that should present no problem.Still, we're going to take a huge economic hit from this - that is simply unavoidable.

Collective Security

Allemande has few alliances. To be safe, we will sever all military ties with non-U.N. nations (except for the regional government of the Western Pacific, and then we will be careful to make sure that we never end up sending troops to aid a nation within our region that is not a United Nations Member. To the best of our knowledge, none of our alliances are currently binding.

Without allies, however, Allemande will have to reconsider our decision to stop short of deploying nuclear weaponry (we possess nuclear explosives, but not weapons). Without nuclear or chemical weapons to respond to an enemy bioweapons strike, and without strong nuclear armed allies who can back us up, we will have to respond to any use of bioweapons with FAE's, cluster bombs, and other similar “conventional” systems. We will also have to seriously consider anticipatory reaction as a military option; if threatened by a nation that may have bioweapons, we might be forced to stage a “first strike” against their governmental and military assets, so as to disarm them before they wipe us out.

Beyond that, Allemande will rewrite its Collective Security framework and try to get that past this body. In the wake of this measure and the fact that it will force most U.N. Members to quit their alliances with non-U.N. nations (thereby deepening the rift between the two sets of states), we will need more than ever to band together if we want to survive.

Still, in the wake of all this, we are left asking ourselves Lanquassia's question: why should we bother staying here?

Read my comment, try and address it, I'm having a hard time reading through yours since so much of it was addressed by my own.

Also - I need to make a correction and apology. The quote I attributed to Lanquassia actually was made by Roathin. I apologize to Roathin for not crediting him with his quote (and this is not the first time I've made the mistake) and to everyone else for the confusion

This alone implies the concern about contagious weapons - not non-contagious weapons. The fact that it can infect people on both sides whether they be combatant or not is THE REASON for Reformatia wanting to push this resolution through.Of course it is.

The problem lies in that fact that this is not the only valid basis for banning such weapons. It is merely Reformentia's main concern, and he has done his best to draft a resolution that (very narrowly) addresses that concern. It doesn't matter to Reformentia that there is a wider concern. It matters to me, however.

In the National Sovereignty Organisation's forum, somebody suggested that the main reason people don't like bioweapons is out of fear. Here's an invisible killer, a weapon we can't see, can't always avoid, can't even (sometimes) protect ourselves from. Whether that weapon can use one's body as a vector to harm others is rather secondary if a person is mortally afraid of inhaling. It's the same thing we have against chemical weapons: a mortal fear of an unseen agent that creeps into our homes and snuffs us out. It doesn't take prisoners, you can't reason with it, you can't throw your body in front of it to save your baby boy or girl, because it will take them anyway, in spite of all your brave thoughts and your willingness to make the sacrifice. It's cruel and it's cold and it's remorseless and you can't stop it.

Sure, it's worse if it can spread like wildfire. But you have to realise that even the kind that doesn't spread is still hated by most people at a visceral level.

We see no recognition of that, and if we've blindsided Reformentia, well, maybe its because we sense a cavalier attitude toward these feelings. Because we haven't banned nukes, we're not supposed to care too much about chemicals or non-contagious bioagents, either.

But people do. Of the “NBC” weapons, all of which are hated, bioagents and chemicals are hated more than nukes. People begrudgingly accept nukes as necessary due to the logic of deterrence; they don't grant that same leeway to the others.

(And no, Reformentia, we have no polls proving this. But we'll lay odds that it's true all the same.)Research is allowed of bio-weapons AND diseases - since this resolution pretty much deals with most diseases tooWe don't think so; we think that the wording here restricts research to “counter-agent research”. Now, the problem here is that the term “counter-agent” is unique to this document: we can look up “contagious” and “microbe” in Webster's or Stedman's, but not “counter-agent”. So what is a “counter-agent”? Is it a virus? Is it something you spray into the environment that chases down and kills “contagions”? Whatever it is, the fact that this is the given “purpose” for having 250g of a “contagion” (or is that 250g of all “contagions” combined?!?) means that we can't do anything else with the stuff.

Fortunately, this clause conflicts directly with Resolution #3 (Scientific Freedom), and even though the mods will not use this contradiction as a basis for striking the proposal at vote, we think we'd be within our rights as nations to hew to Resolution #3 instead of this one. Rest assured, though, should Resolution #3 ever fall (and it is on the short list of favourite repeal targets), then we would say that this restriction does indeed mean that we can only use the samples in question for the narrow purpose of researching vaccines and medicines, not for general scientific research (into immunology, viral and bacterial structure and morphology, or anything like that). That research will move beyond the borders of the U.N.You put a military base in the middle of a Uni campus that basically has a staff of 10 to regulate who goes in and out (AKA: Military SECURITY), and make sure it follows the security procedures listedNo, this is dead wrong. Look at the wording: kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.That means that nothing in your country can be more strongly defended. Not your nuclear codes, not your President, not your capitol. Your best soldiers and equipment need to be stationed in defence of each and every facility you have, and the numbers had better be equal or greater than your largest deployment. We reckon at least a battalion per hospital or research laboratory, a brigade (including armour, mechanised infantry, helicopters, and with at least a flight of 4 fighter bombers on high-alert within 5 minutes) per campus - every single place you're going to have this stuff needs to be guarded like it was Fort Knox. Actually, more than Fort Knox...

And you had better have security checks before letting anyone close to such a facility. Security checks to be admitted as a student or hired as faculty or staff; martial law on campus at all times (goodbye, you student protesters - it's off to the nearest junior college for you!). If you're not putting the security of these sites above everything else in your nation, you're in violation of this Resolution.ISOLATION != IMPRISONMENT. A quarantine need only go so far as to protect the population from the spread of the disease. If you quarantine a person with HIV so he can't A) Have Sex/Donate blood or B) allow him only to have sex with someone who has HIV (pretty much, make it a criminal offence punishable by solitary confinement to knowingly spread an STD), that will suffice. This point will actually be permitted by all the above problems listed by AllemandeImprisonment? No. Detention? Absolutely.

The problem here is that - as my other posts indicate - there are a whole slew of U.N. Resolutions that permit people - even infected people - to move around your country at will and boink whomever they please (they just have to warn potential partners of their condition if they have AIDS and then [maybe] use a condom). The only way to stop this is to arrest them and charge them with a crime (being “contagious” ), because else-ways they'll up and walk out on you under the terms of Resolutions #7 and #73, and you'll be powerless to stop them. Detention, with presumption of “criminal” status, is the only way you can stay inside all the different U.N. Resolutions that apply to such individuals.Personally, if the nation in question agrees to destroy them (but can't due to lack of resources), openly gives the UN the location of those bio-weapons (so the UN can destroy them if they do have resources WHILE they are intervening), cease production, trafficking and use of them immediately, I would say that they are complying fully enough with this resolution to get our help.Again, we clashed here because we found Reformentia's attitude galling. Genocide is a real red flag, and he was willing to say “So what? It's their own d_mn_d fault.” We can't forgive that, we really can't.

This puts the Pretenama panel in the awkward condition of having to extract conditions from the victims of genocide in advance of intervention. It's like saying, “Yeah, we'll throw you a rope, but first...” Allemande could never be part of such a process.Actually, I just plain dispute your argument you're a centrist, but that's my left-wing opinion.Well, the conservatives call us liberal, so it all comes out in the wash.

Yep, it's only been proposed, not mandatedIn the salad days of the NSUN, that was how they did things. In this case, we take that to mean that the ambassador proposed and the General Assembly, by approving, made it so.
???There's a loophole in Resolution #73 - the 48 hours you can hold someone don't include holidays. What, and we don't force law clerks to work on holidays, just like policemen?!? ;)

Stupid loophole. "In Prisonia, where every day's a holiday ..." :PUm....a medical reason could be stopping the spread of a disease.Look again:What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).They can ask, and you have to tell. But all they can do is ask.By pointing out the inherent dangers of the scientific research of more than 250mg (because of the fact that even that much could be used as a weapon for certain types of bio-weapons), it would be irresponsible for scientists to research at a greater levelNot necessarily. A responsible scientist could have a need for - and a way to responsibly handle - more than 250g. Just because there's a limit (which could be entirely arbitrary, BTW) of 250g nationwide doesn't mean that more couldn't be responsibly devoted to research nationwide.If they are in an alliance and are defying the laws of the UN, they have to get out.If the alliance was legal when entered into, then it only became an illegal alliance because of a United Nations mandate - which is a change in the nation's laws. But you can't break your treaty obligations just because your laws or constitution demand it.

To be legal, existing allainces should have been grandfathered in. But it's too late now. We would say this is a judgement call, and could be RP'd either way.It is not a portion of one's laws or constitution. UN law is only superceeded by OOC laws (coding limitations, mod rulings, physical laws, etc). It is above both the laws of the alliance and the laws of the nation's constitution or national laws - not a part of them, but above them.That's a dubious legal theory at best. United Nations Law and national law are joined at the hip; it's not clear that you can separate the one from the other because of the action of the Compliance Ministries.Already dealt with by Fris.....Yep. We should have spent less time arguing over the UNSA.

Of course it is.

The problem lies in that fact that this is not the only valid basis for banning such weapons. It is merely Reformentia's main concern, and he has done his best to draft a resolution that (very narrowly) addresses that concern. It doesn't matter to Reformentia that there is a wider concern. It matters to me, however.

In the National Sovereignty Organisation's forum, somebody suggested that the main reason people don't like bioweapons is out of fear. Here's an invisible killer, a weapon we can't see, can't always avoid, can't even (sometimes) protect ourselves from. Whether that weapon can use one's body as a vector to harm others is rather secondary if a person is mortally afraid of inhaling. It's the same thing we have against chemical weapons: a mortal fear of an unseen agent that creeps into our homes and snuffs us out. It doesn't take prisoners, you can't reason with it, you can't throw your body in front of it to save your baby boy or girl, because it will take them anyway, in spite of all your brave thoughts and your willingness to make the sacrifice. It's cruel and it'd cold and it's remorse and you can't stop it.

Sure, it's worse if it can spread like wildfire. But you have to realise that even the kind that doesn't spread is still hated by most people at a visceral level.

We see no recognition of that, and if we've blindsided Reformentia, well, maybe its because we sense a cavalier attitude toward these feelings. Because we haven't banned nukes, we're not supposed to care too much about chemicals or non-contagious bioagents, either.

But people do. Of the “NBC” weapons, all of which are hated, bioagents and chemicals are hated more than nukes. People begrudgingly accept nukes as necessary due to the logic of deterrence; they don't grant that same leeway to the others.

(And no, Reformentia, we have no polls proving this. But we'll lay odds that it's true all the same.)

That's your opinion, it has been presented, I apologize for not making a note about it, I just disagree that Reformatia has been deceptive about the matter.

We don't think so; we think that the wording here restricts research to “counter-agent research”. Now, the problem here is that the term “counter-agent” is unique to this document: we can look up “contagious” and “microbe” in Webster's or Stedman's, but not “counter-agent”. So what is a “counter-agent”? Is it a virus? Is it something you spray into the environment that chases down and kills “contagions”? Whatever it is, the fact that this is the given “purpose” for having 250g of a “contagion” (or is that 250g of all “contagions” combined?!?) means that we can't do anything else with the stuff.

Actually - counter agent could be applied as a counter-agent to any disease. As you said, it's unique to this resolution - but it is not defined. (Actually, that fact is just plain sloppy....but yeah)

Fortunately, this clause conflicts directly with Resolution #3 (Scientific Freedom), and even though the mods will not use this contradiction as a basis for striking the proposal at vote, we think we'd be within our rights as nations to hew to Resolution #3 instead of this one. Rest assured, though, should Resolution #3 ever fall (and it is on the short list of favourite repeal targets), then we would say that this restriction does indeed mean that we can only use the samples in question for the narrow purpose of researching vaccines and medicines, not for general scientific research (into immunology, viral and bacterial structure and morphology, or anything like that). That research will move beyond the borders of the U.N.

Addressed in my other post - will wait for your response before I give mine.

No, this is dead wrong. Look at the wording:That means that nothing in your country can be more strongly defended. Not your nuclear codes, not your President, not your capitol. Your best soldiers and equipment need to be stationed in defence of each and every facility you have, and the numbers had better be equal or greater than your largest deployment. We reckon at least a battalion per hospital or research laboratory, a brigade (including armour, mechanised infantry, helicopters, and with at least a flight of 4 fighter bombers on high-alert within 5 minutes) per campus - every single place you're going to have this stuff needs to be guarded like it was Fort Knox. Actually, more than Fort Knox...

1) The SS isn't actually military......
2) Nuclear codes (according to several movies) are strapped to the wrist of a guy that's always beside the President. This might be false, but they aren't exactly protected by an armored division at all times
3) Just because there's a division at most bases doesn't mean they are securing the base. The security of the base is a much different beast (though admittedly, my number of 10 is wrong). It is enough to man a security station 'round the clock, patrol the perimeter and facility, and perhaps have watch towers, etc. That's doable and placable on campus

BTW - it has to match, doesn't have to exceed.

And you had better have security checks before letting anyone close to such a facility. Security checks to be admitted as a student or hired as faculty or staff; martial law on campus at all times (goodbye, you student protesters - it's off to the nearest junior college for you!). If you're not putting the security of these sites above everything else in your nation, you're in violation of this Resolution.

Security checks to staff, etc is a must - I'd consider that just plain standard for this operation. Martial law is hardly necessary - just as long as the protest doesn't breach the perimeter of the base.

[QUOTE]Imprisonment? No. Detention? Absolutely.

The problem here is that - as my other posts indicate - there are a whole slew of U.N. Resolutions that permit people - even infected people - to move around your country at will and boink whomever they please (they just have to warn potential partners of their condition if they have AIDS and then [maybe] use a condom). The only way to stop this is to arrest them and charge them with a crime (being “contagious” ), because else-ways they'll up and walk out on you under the terms of Resolutions #7 and #73, and you'll be powerless to stop them. Detention, with presumption of “criminal” status, is the only way you can stay inside all the different U.N. Resolutions that apply to such individuals.

Quarantine is a far cry from detention - not to mention that the enforcement of quarantines have hardly been farther than good will (and that brings me to my point of making it an offense to break a quarantine - which you can make punishable)

Again, we clashed here because we found Reformentia's attitude galling. Genocide is a real red flag, and he was willing to say “So what? It's their own d_mn_d fault.” We can't forgive that, we really can't.

Ah, but we can forgive them from having bio-weapons. It's an interesting issue, but one that comes out to "which is the greater of two evils". Reformatia believes bio-weapons because of the dangers to many states outside of the one it's being used on while the genocide is fairly localized (law of numbers). You say genocide is an auto-red flag. That is a difference of opinion. Stated, move on

This puts the Pretenama panel in the awkward condition of having to extract conditions from the victims of genocide in advance of intervention. It's like saying, “Yeah, we'll throw you a rope, but first...” Allemande could never be part of such a process.

The option is there - you can choose to use it, or you can choose to let the victims suffer. While there are moral issues, those are a matter of opinion. Stated, move on.

Well, the conservatives call us liberal, so it all comes out in the wash.

Actually, to be honest, your last few posts have shown a much more liberal attitued than I had classified you as. I shall have to reevaluate.

First impressions really do screw things up....

Once again, another poorly thought out resolution. Besides all the flaws I see have already been pointed out, there is also the problem that 200mg is not enough of ANY substance for any kind of meaningful research. This limit would effectively end any research into defenses against bioweapons.

I think we need to be able to blow people up.

Kiloran']Once again, another poorly thought out resolution. Besides all the flaws I see have already been pointed out, there is also the problem that 200mg is not enough of ANY substance for any kind of meaningful research. This limit would effectively end any research into defenses against bioweapons.

Funny that people bring this up again (how experienced are you in the reasearch of bio-weapons - or are you just using things that seem logical from your understanding of chemical and standard weapons?) In one of the earlier threads - someone pointed out that in many cases of bio-weapons, 250mg is actually excessive. On person pointed out that if you exclude the propogation of a certain bio-weapon, 250mg could kill on the order of millions with ease. You include propogation.......

I think we need to be able to blow people up.

I respectfully disagree. I see no reason to do so

I respectfully disagree. I see no reason to do so

You're right. Biological weapons are pretty icky anyway. :gundge:

Per Article 4 being infected is NOT ILLEGAL and therefore does not place you in violation of the resolution. As you are not in violation of the resolution you are not in possession of bioweapons in any manner proscribed as defined by the resolution and also do not have to back out of an alliance because of it.

Well, it may be that bein' infected yourself may not be illegal, though it means you gotta be quarantined for any ol' little infectious critter, which still seems a bit harsh.... but, "The possession ... of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations." Now, if there's a nasty ol' flu epidemic ragin' through your country, I don't think that the only place you'll be findin' those little flu buggers is inside of people. Nope. What with all the hackin' and a-wheezin' and a-sneezin', I'm thinkin' some of them little buggers will be in your homes, in the air, and on your possessions, yep, to wit, you'll be in possession of these "bioweapons" besides just havin' em in your body.

(I'd just like to note that this amount, thought it'd sure right be less'n 250mg, wouldn't be "required for the purpose of counter-agent research" and thus wouldn't be allowed by this here Article Number Two.)

If you had been part of the month long drafting process you would no longer be confused. Suffice it to say additional definition was added for that term to satisfy the concerns of a very vocal critic of an earlier draft.

Well, for all us folks who haven't had the pleasure of stickin' their noses into every draft comin' up the pike, maybe you could explain to us. We ain't complicated people, but you know, we usually is capable of understandin' a point when somebody takes the trouble to explain it in the durn thing we're a-supposed to be votin' for.

And legislating against the possession of a weapon based on intent to use is unworkable. It immediately allows massive stockpiles of extremely deadly biological agents to be accumulated with no more effort taken to circumvent the resolution than "we don't mean to actually use them as weapons, honest".

And I'm a-tellin you that legislatin' against infectious disease ain't workable! The moment this here resolution passes, every country in the world that ain't as sterile as a needle soaked in kerosene and pushed through a cow-dung fire will be in possession o' bioweapons and in contravention of this here resolution. This definition means no country in the world can stay in the UN, and ain't that just ridiculous.

You can't call somethin' illegal just cos it CAN be used as a weapon, otherwise you'd have to go 'round pickin' up all the sticks and stones, eh?

Besides, if you can be talkin' about the INTENT allowin' a vaccine, how come you can't be definin' the INTENT of a bioweapon? I mean, OK, if someone's a-piling up ten tons o' anthrax, they can CLAIM it ain't a weapon, but come on! If it looks like it came outta the rear end of a cow, and it smells like it came outta the rear end of a cow, then there ain't no sense claimin' it ain't what it is.

C'mon folks, let's lose this resolution and fix us up something that stops weapons, not just passes a law against infectious 'lil critters. Otherwise we may as well outlaw autumn-time or oxygen next.

Oh yeah, you Yeldans -- darn tootin' we sound like Texans. Come stop on by and we'll grill you up half a cow and a pig or two.

We of The Rouge Nation of Flibbleites Puppet find this resolution to be a repugnant attempt to strip us of our status as a protectorate of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites simply because we dabble in biological weapons. As a result of this, we consider this proposal to be in violation of game mechanics and urge all UN members to vote against this proposal.

Commodore Samuel Johnson
Supreme Commander of The Rouge Nation of Flibbleites Puppet

"You have got to be kidding me!" said President Blum.

"I wish that I were," replied Attorney General Reneé Martin. "But it's pretty clearly mandated."

"So let me get this straight," said the President. "We can't take a blood draw from any contagious person for any reason other than bioweapons research - and then only if we remain within the overall national limit of 250g."

"That's right," replied the Attorney General. "It's implicit in the definition of a 'bioweapon'."DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection."The problem lies in the fact that, essentially, 'bioweapons' and 'contagious diseases' are legally synonymous terms under the Resolution. Since any blood draw taken from a 'contagious' person necessarily contains 'contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes', and since this blood, if injected into another person's veins, could infect that second person, the blood in question must be considered a 'bioweapon'. Drawing it, then, would effectively 'produce' a 'bioweapon', so as soon as we know that a person is 'contagious', we can not take a blood draw from that person for any reason."

"Even if its necessary for the successful treatment of the person in question?" asked President Blum.

"Correct," said Martin. "The Resolution makes no allowances for human needs in any way. It has one overriding objective: to prevent the use of contagious disease as a weapon. To that end, it tolerates no exceptions, no qualifications, no excuses - indeed, the authors anticipate that would-be violators would likely use any excuse they could find to circumvent its terms. It therefore sacrifices everything, even humanity, for the sake of what the authors see as the greater good."

"Eliminating the use of 'contagious' diseases as weapons of war," finished Blum.

"Precisely," said the Attorney General.

They sat in silence for a moment. Then the President spoke, in a wistful voice.

"Is it worth it?" he asked.

"Is it worth it?" Reneé Martin echoed, "Shutting down most of our pharmaceutical research into the means for preventing contagious diseases, cutting back on our medical research and education programmes, passing laws declaring sick people to be criminals and placing them under house arrest, only to then deny them the full range of medical treatments available - and not letting them emigrate for better treatment, by the way - off-shoring millions of jobs, at a cost of billions in economic output, and - most ironic of all - denying our own military the ability to test equipment like environmental suits and hermetically sealed vehicular systems against biological attack?"

She paused for a moment, and then answered. "It's not my call, Michael."

"But if it were," Martin continued, "I'd say no. If it were my call, we'd be out of the United Nations before the gavel falls on this Resolution."

The President looked at her. "Is there any way to make this work? Any way at all?"

She shook her head. "Not and remain who we are." She hesitated a moment, and then continued. "Besides, it's not like it matters if you do try and stay. We'll be out of the United Nations within a year anyway."

"You're thinking this will give Robert Donne the election," Blum said softly.

"If you let this legislation be enacted," she said, waving her hand across the desk, "You'd might as well concede tomorrow - and the election's still almost a year away. There's enough political ammunition here to bury anybody. Even you."

I mean, OK, if someone's a-piling up ten tons o' anthrax, they can CLAIM it ain't a weapon, but come on! If it looks like it came outta the rear end of a cow, and it smells like it came outta the rear end of a cow, then there ain't no sense claimin' it ain't what it is.And yet, the author in fact claims that anthrax is not a weapon. And, as defined in this Resolution, he's right.

Under this Resolution you can have 1000 tonnes of anthrax if you want. You can sell it to your neighbors. And you can dump it on your enemies to your heart's content.

Why? Well, it's because anthrax is "infectious", whereas this Resolution says that "bioweapons" are "contagious" diseases.

It a bug is just "infectious", well, it's not a "bioweapon".C'mon folks, let's lose this resolution and fix us up something that stops weapons, not just passes a law against infectious 'lil critters. Otherwise we may as well outlaw autumn-time or oxygen next.It's likely too late for that.Oh yeah, you Yeldans -- darn tootin' we sound like Texans. Come stop on by and we'll grill you up half a cow and a pig or two.Don't mind if we do. Can we bring the beer?

Good thing yeast is not a "contagion".

It's likely too late for that.Don't mind if we do. Can we bring the beer?

Good thing yeast is not a "contagion".

Sweet merciful Jehoshaphat, I hope not. There certainly are yeast sorta diseases of a ... delicate nature. If the UN's just outlawed BEER then we gotta tussle on our hands. ;)

~snip~ If it were my call, we'd be out of the United Nations before the gavel falls on this Resolution."
We're already making preparations to replace Yelda with a UN puppet.
Oh yeah, you Yeldans -- darn tootin' we sound like Texans. Come stop on by and we'll grill you up half a cow and a pig or two.
Sounds like a plan Dolfor. Allemande's bringing the brew. We'll bring some sippin' whiskey.

How Krioval will likely deal with the fallout from this resolution, should it pass:

First, as per the resolution's category, military and police spending will be drastically reduced. After all, so much of our military budget was invested in one particular type of weaponry, right?

Despite these cuts in spending, we will then place all things considered hazardous by this resolution under "the highest [Kriovalian] military security". Of course, with so many types of security that can and do exist in Krioval, it's really tough to say which is the "highest". We have no doubt that we'll choose correctly, however.

As for general medical research, that will still be conducted under the auspices of my office, though security will be (nominally) redirected to the military division of Krioval. Since Krioval is very good at vetting potential allies, we won't worry overly that one or more may possess biological weapons, even as they are strangely defined by this resolution. Why would they, if they aren't necessary for a nation's defense? If a bioweapon is, by some bizarre chance, discovered in the land of one of our allies, we will draw the obvious conclusion: it was planted by those interested in crippling a strong military bond between nations. Such nations "discovering" bioweapons in our allies' territory and then condemning Krioval for our "poor judgment", or worse, our "blatant disregard for the laws of the UN" will be looked upon as potential instigators of a conflict, and their interests in dissolving our alliance will be probed with the full force of Krioval's investigative agencies.

We hope that our policies reflect the true spirit of this resolution. What could better bring lasting peace to the universe than to ban a form of armament among one-fourth of sovereign nations? I do well to remind the august assembly that Krioval does, in accord with earlier resolutions, possess a number of purely defensive devices that could cause shock, pain, or death to those incautious enough to attempt to penetrate our borders without permission.

Director Koro Vartek
Krioval Civil Division

i vote against.

"Mr. President, we have a problem," began Secretary of State Edith Mayenne.

"Just one?" said President Michael Blum, wearily. "If so, we should celebrate."

The Secretary of State managed a weak smile, but - like the President - she was simply not in the mood. Too much was happening that was proving disastrous, both overseas and at home. Our chances in the upcoming elections are slim and none, she thought. Whatever we're going to get done, we'd better get done immediately.

"Whether we remain in the United Nations or leave, our alliances will be impacted," she began.

"Let me guess," President Blum responded, "We'll have fewer of them."

"Precisely," Secretary Mayenne replied. "If we stay, we will no longer be able to ally with any non-U.N. nation. If we go, we won't be able to ally with any U.N. Member."

The President stiffened. "Now, I thought we'd lose allies. But is it that bad?"

"Yes," she answered. "Because Resolution #113 doesn't distinguish between 'bioweapons' and 'contagious' disease specimens, and because even taking a blood draw from a 'contagious' person is considered 'producing' a 'bioweapon', it's almost certain that every nation not in the U.N. will be in technical violation of the protocol. Nobody outside the U.N. is going to give up drawing blood from all 'contagious' persons."

President Blum considered this quietly. Then, at last, he spoke.

"O.K., so essentially if we stay, we have to consider every nation outside the U.N. a rogue state, armed with illegal 'bioweapons'."

"Yes," she said.

"And if we leave, then that'll be because we couldn't live within the limits of the Resolution, so we'll be the illegally armed rogue nation," he continued.

"Correct," said Mayenne.

"So we absolutely can not have any kind of 'military relationship' across that political border," he finished.

"At a minimum," she replied. "That is - of course - assuming that United Nations Members completed ignore Article 6, which merely 'urges' action rather than compels it."

"Article 6," he mused. "That's the one that calls for economic sanctions against nations possessing 'bioweapons'?"

"And military action against those who use them," Edith Mayenne said, completing the statement.

The President shook his head, and said, "Well, at least we won't be using them if we leave."

"Actually..." began the Secretary of State.

The President now sat bolt upright. "You can't mean..."

Mayenne shook her head sadly. "'Use' is not conditioned on military purpose; it merely speaks of 'employing' agents 'against a UN member nation'. Further, the term 'against' is not limited in any way. 'Employment' could be scientific research, 'against a UN member nation' could mean contrary to that nation's economic interests, such as in letting our pharmaceutical companies and universities conduct research forbidden to theirs, thereby drawing talent - and ultimately, product sales - away from them. It could be diagnosis, in the case of a blood draw, where the result is more effective medical care, taking jobs away from their hospitals as patients choose treatment in our country over theirs. It could be education, by permitting us to teach students things theirs can't, thus increasing our enrollment at the expense of theirs. It's implicit in our choice to bow out of the United Nations, should we choose to do so, to the extent that we're doing it to remain competitive. Competitive 'against' whom? Why, against, them, that's who - 'against' the whole lot of them.

Any such use 'against' the UN community grants United Nations Members - all United Nations Members - causus belli. Any one of them could nuke us for using disease specimens in a scientific study, and claim they had the right to glass us under international law."

Michael Blum was dumbfounded. Finally, he regained the ability to speak.

"So tomorrow - when this Resolution becomes law - it will be the beginning of a new Cold War, with the world divided into two armed camps. No one has to shoot, and probably no one wants to, but somebody could, if they felt justified."

"Yes," she replied.

"God help us," he breathed.

SIC: Allemande has formally notified Vintovia and Lanquassia of its intetion to terminate all military ties effective 7/22/2005 at 5:00AM GMT, in order to spare these two U.N. Members the need to violate any implied or actual obligations, per Resolution #46. We have also abandoned plans to join the West Pacific Liberation Forces.

Can someone explain how this resolution isn't in violation of resolution #110 United Nations Secutity act which states: "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."?

Can someone explain how this resolution isn't in violation of resolution #110 United Nations Secutity act which states: "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."?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 are unnecessary to national defense.Read it and weep.

The mods have ruled that no further challenges to the legality of Resolution #113 will be entertained. Within 24 hours, it will be law.

Can someone explain how this resolution isn't in violation of resolution #110 United Nations Secutity act which states: "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."?

Due to the wording in the resolution that declares Bioweapons are unnecessary for defense. The passing of this resolution makes bioweapons not covered by res. 110.

However I am still not convinced that the wording of Article 4 doesn't permit or even require the detention of people who have been infected with a "bioweapon".

Can someone explain how this resolution isn't in violation of resolution #110 United Nations Secutity act which states: "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."?
Because the author included this line.
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 are unnecessary to national defense.
The bold part is what makes this legal under the UNSA.

However I am still not convinced that the wording of Article 4 doesn't permit or even require the detention of people who have been infected with a "bioweapon".It certainly permits it.

Our Attorney General (who is also immediately superior to our Director of the Department of United Nations Compliance) has ruled that the term "isolation" implies a requirement that the person in question be detained. This is one reason why we will not likely be a U.N. Member by this time tomorrow.

That is, in my opinion, a matter of a definition of "defence". Some consider an offence the best form of defence, and thus Bio weapons are a form of defence. Additionally, bioweapons are not only used for offence, and to say that it is shows a frightenly uninventive mind.

I believe the Allemande delegates may be suffering somewhat from the stresses of the job. They appear to be in danger of becoming fantasists.

Matheiu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: the above was, needless to say, IC. Vergniaud's a snide bastard.

That is, in my opinion, a matter of a definition of "defence". Some consider an offence the best form of defence, and thus Bio weapons are a form of defence. Additionally, bioweapons are not only used for offence, and to say that it is shows a frightenly uninventive mind.The key issue is whether the weapon in question is truly necessary or merely desirable.

You have to honestly ask yourself: "Do I absolutely need this weapon, or could I manage without it, whatever the cost." If the answer is the latter, it is not necessary.

Therefore, the notion that "offence is the best form of defence" is irrelevant: as long as you have some kind of defence without the weapon, however wretched, then necessity is simply not present.

(This is leaving aside entirely the question of whether you're the one who actually decides what is and is not necessary, rather than the United Nations as a body making that decision for you. Currently, the opinion that it's the place of the U.N. to make that judgement and not yours seems to be the prevailing one among the mods.)

I believe the Allemande delegates may be suffering somewhat from the stresses of the job. They appear to be in danger of becoming fantasists.

Matheiu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: the above was, needless to say, IC. Vergniaud's a snide bastard.OOC: You've got to admit, it's one H_ll of a lot better than the usual, "I'm going to quit if this passes" whine. At least I'm RP'ing it.

IC: Actually, while we began our opposition to Resolution #113 on the basis of Article 5, the showstopper for us has been the realisation that the quarantine and research restrictions were - for us - an absolute showstopper.

DECLARING a "virus" to be a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions.

So, if I get my wife pregnant, do I get attacked or just sanctioned?

National Conservative Party Headquarters

"Dim the lights," said the advertising consultant from Merrot & Dumas. "This first ad is short but powerful. In fact, as simple as it is, no attack ad I've ever been involved with has ever scored as highly in front of focus groups."

He waved the wireless presentation glove in the air. The video rolled.

A man was sitting in his living room with his family, watching T.V. when he suddenly coughed. In horror, his wife scooped up their two children and ran to the kitchen, dialing 9-1-1.

"Wait, honey!" cried the man, fighting back the coughing. "It's nothing! Really!"

The scene cut to an emergency vehicle and a police cruiser swinging into the drive. Two policement leapt from the cruiser, attached filter masks over their faces, donned rubber gloves, and hurried to the door, where the wife - still holding the kids - let them in.

"He's in the living room."

The scene cut again, to the officers examining the man's eyes with a penlight. The one in front nodded, at which the one in back then snapped a pair of handcuffs on the man.

As they led the man out to the EMS vehicle and stuffed him inside, with the woman and her kids at the door, a serious voice spoke over the scene.

"The Liberals - on orders of the United Nations - are planning on making getting sick a crime.

"Stop the madness. Restore our sovereignty - and our sanity. Vote Conservative, and get us out of the U.N."

The ad faded to black, and the consultant spoke.

"That scored 9.7 out of a possible 10 in terms of its hitting power. And it's just the start, believe me - just the start."

The Republic of Lanquassia still beleives that Article Five of this proposal is illegal, and that none of the arguements contrary to that fact have swayed us otherwise.

We also believe that this ban does not adquatly cover all biological weaponry, only a select few. The most notable case of this is Anthrax, which I am tempted to donate several open jars of to the United Nations building in protest.

Lanquassia is also on the verge of war, a war to help impose UN created laws and impose UN sanctions on certain nations, yet would not be able to form an effective alliance for this purpose because a few key members of the proposed alliance use a form of contagious biological weaponry.

In short, the Republic is denouncing this legislation as a sham and a fraud.

Lanquassia is also on the verge of war, a war to help impose UN created laws and impose UN sanctions on certain nations, yet would not be able to form an effective alliance for this purpose because a few key members of the proposed alliance use a form of contagious biological weaponry.
Shame!

M Vergniaud

Of course you can take infected blood samples!
250 mg samples!
In the highest possible securit...
...um, the council sees this becoming prohibitively expensive incredibly quickly. And EVERY ONE of our medical research corporations gunning for the tiny sample. In the interests of the economy and UN regulation, I think a ban on organised medicine may be appropriate for our UN sanctioned population.

The People's Democratic Republic of Community Property is disappointed that this resolution does not ban all biological weaponry (understanding that it still permits "infectious" agents), but believes that this can be remedied easily with a parallel ban on "infectious" weapons.

In the meantime, we congratulate the Nations of the World in striking a great blow against conventional medicine, which has long been a cesspool of human misery. The administration of useless "tests" and the vampiric draining of public coffers by greedy corporations and self-absorbed bourgeois academics in pointless "research" only diverts the attention of the People from those well known ancient healing methods that will now, at last, be free to flourish.

With the destruction of so-called "modern medicine", the way will be cleared for a renaissance in herbology, aromatherapy, homeopathic cures, reiki, pranhic healing, and other Ancient healing modalities that avoid these useless "blood draws" which modern medicine has inherited from medieval "churgery". We should say good riddance to the entire sick system: its destruction is a blessing.

We stand ready to send Reiki Masters and other practitioners of authentic folk medicine - what we call People's medicine - to any country that requests them in order to help the Nations of the World to reach the next level in Wellness. The Ancient modalities, combined with whole organic foods, vegan diets, yoga, and other healthful practices will rid the World of all disease, "contagious" or otherwise.

- Holly Starseed Peace-Love
- Provisional Ambassador from the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property to the United Nations

I think the combination of so many questions relating to legality and the breach of civil rights should result in a nay vote.

I think that if we ban it there will be a mass out break of war. You can't threatin to use biochemicals because they are illegal. How meny times are we going to vote on this? Now gay marrage is something we should be slaping a ban on. Ill tell u now i voted nay on last ban and I intend to again if u want to debet this with me my yahoo account is (chicken_huntting_hampster). I once was a powerful nation but i have fallen I use to be 2 world bench marks so do the right thing and keep biochemicals.

I think that if we ban it there will be a mass out break of war. You can't threatin to use biochemicals because they are illegal. How meny times are we going to vote on this? Now gay marrage is something we should be slaping a ban on. Ill tell u now i voted nay on last ban and I intend to again.

Amen brotha. *Clap* *Clap* *Clap*

The Republic of Lanquassia still beleives that Article Five of this proposal is illegal, and that none of the arguements contrary to that fact have swayed us otherwise.

We also believe that this ban does not adquatly cover all biological weaponry, only a select few. The most notable case of this is Anthrax, which I am tempted to donate several open jars of to the United Nations building in protest.

Lanquassia is also on the verge of war, a war to help impose UN created laws and impose UN sanctions on certain nations, yet would not be able to form an effective alliance for this purpose because a few key members of the proposed alliance use a form of contagious biological weaponry.

In short, the Republic is denouncing this legislation as a sham and a fraud.

**More clapping**

In short, the Republic is denouncing this legislation as a sham and a fraud.


hear, hear. This is another attempt by a HUGE beaurocracy to try and meddle in the affairs of individual nations and gain more power through control.

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 are unnecessary to national defense.

Well done for getting around #110. I had hoped that #110 would put a stop to this constant string of limitiations upon my nations armed forces.

Ok so I can't use Bioweapons; that is great thanks a lot. SO what do you propose I do now that Non UN contries have a large advantage over my armed forces?
When my troops are infected with a virus allowing enemy soldiers to march onto my nations soil un-opposed what do you suggest I do? I can't repel their army so I must launch a full nuclear strike, M.A.D. thanks for this resolution I can really see it's use.