NationStates Jolt Archive

say no to Atomic,biological, chemical weapon!

The problem whit dis type of weapon is thay dont only attack soldier. Thay attack women, children and animals.

people can not allow weapon was only purpose is genocide.

Yes other olso kills civil people but whit dis weopen you can minis the risk to hit civil people.

You can not precision bomb whit a atomic bomb. You cant aim whit a gas cloud. A fatal bacterium dont can train so the only got soldier sick.

Three problems:

A nuclear warhead can be dropped onto a battlefield.

Chemicals don't have to be of the lethal variety.

Viruses can be designed to target specific DNA codes.

One problem:

What the f*** did you just say?

You must be more specific in what you wish to do when you say 'no' -- no specifically to what? Use? Production? Storage? and so on.

You have to do more than just say 'no'. You have to propose affirmatively what needs to happen since many may already have these things in their arsenals.

Um....resolutions....107, 109 and 116 - so basically, already done, protected, already done

You must be more specific in what you wish to do when you say 'no' -- no specifically to what? Use? Production? Storage? and so on.

You have to do more than just say 'no'. You have to propose affirmatively what needs to happen since many may already have these things in their arsenals.

all of it

Um....resolutions....107, 109 and 116 - so basically, already done, protected, already done

Its good but the fight is not over you see whats on UN agenda dis moment.

Three problems:

A nuclear warhead can be dropped onto a battlefield.

Chemicals don't have to be of the lethal variety.

Viruses can be designed to target specific DNA codes.

the problem whit nuclear are the radioactive radiation civil people must live in the aera long after the battle is over.

even if Chemicals not is lethal thay can hurt civil people.

I dont thin soldier have specific DNA codes

The right to retain nuclear weapons has been well established by the UN already.

Hirota is determined to protect that right. It has nothing to do with maintaining and expanding our Uranium mining industry ;)

No argument from me or my nation on biological weapons.
No argument on principal from me or my nation on chemical weapons, but the wording is highly flawed.
Nuclear weapons are a part of the international landscape. Live with it.

I denay any lobbying from my freinds in industry.

Its good but the fight is not over you see whats on UN agenda dis moment.

It's not on the UN agenda at this moment. The chemical weapons repeal looks like it'll be defeated, and will need the feeder regions to support it to actually pass. Even if it is passed, we have something like 3 different proposals of high quality sitting on the back burners ready to be proposed.

Say no to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons!

These weapons are capable of killing civilians in the billions and destroying the environment for generations. There is enough nuclear weaponry to wipe out the human race and sterilise the surface of the planet.

As human beings, despotic or democratic, it is our duty not to let the proliferation of nuclear weapons reach boiling point.

Never mind conventional weapons, the effects only last a few hours at most and do not leave vast swathes of land completely barren of life for 50 years and cause extremes of pain and sufferring.

There is no such thing as a strategic nuclear missile. You cannot aim with a gas cloud. A disease does not differentiate between a child and a soldier, more likely the soldier would have been immunised by their government and the child left as a secondary priority.

No one is asking peaceful democracies to be trampled on by the next despot who produces weapons of mass destruction, just to make it clear that any 2 nations with weapons of mass destruction should make it their duty never to use them and to prevent their proliferation. As humanity leaves the cold war and enters into an era in which technology become increasingly more important, we should take this opportunity to eliminate the risks to our civilisation from human stupidity completely.

In relation to Iran, their Pakistani allies already have nukes and their Tukish allies are part of NATO, there is no need for them to produce weapons of mass destruction other than for their own selfish purposes. Though nuclear power is fine, they can have a nuclear power station if they want, as long as they give the fuel back once they've finnished depleting it.

P.S. The strength of the original poster's argument is not as feeble as his mind.

Thank you - you can take that to the real life security council. Welcome to NationStates, where Iran isn't developing the nuclear bomb, though I would bet that nations within Iran are already nicely armed with nukes. I don't believe Turkey is a member of NATO since I believe Turkey is a region in its own right - as is NATO (and last I checked, a region couldn't be a part of another region).

Ban all Weapons of Mass destruction.

They are good for nothing. Only thing they might be handy at is Bluf, you can bluf your way into conquering a country by threatening to use Weapons of Mass Destruction. But even then, the danger of them being used can cause the destruction of the entire human race, all over the galaxy. They should not be tested, not be used for war and certainly not be used for terrorism.

say no to Atomic,biological, chemical weapon!

The problem whit dis type of weapon is thay dont only attack soldier. Thay attack women, children and animals.

people can not allow weapon was only purpose is genocide.

Yes other olso kills civil people but whit dis weopen you can minis the risk to hit civil people.

You can not precision bomb whit a atomic bomb. You cant aim whit a gas cloud. A fatal bacterium dont can train so the only got soldier sick.

I regret to inform you that saying "no" to an atomic, biological or chemical weapon is an ineffective defense against them.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

the problem whit nuclear are the radioactive radiation civil people must live in the aera long after the battle is over.

Only if you use fusion devices. If you use fission devices, the radiation fades quickly. If you have the proper cleanup procedures, you can have most of the area inhabitable before the end of the month.

even if Chemicals not is lethal thay can hurt civil people.

Nonlethal means nonlethal. If the civilians get hurt, then likely the ones hurt are the weakest of the ones there.

I dont thin soldier have specific DNA codes

If they are alive, they have a specific DNA code.

Say no to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons!

These weapons are capable of killing civilians in the billions and destroying the environment for generations. There is enough nuclear weaponry to wipe out the human race and sterilise the surface of the planet.

Try closer to 12 times. And I'm not even sure how many nukes the smaller nations have, so it could be more. Oh, and that's if you ignore cockroaches, who happen to be effectively immune to radiation.

The problem you are facing with that argument is the fact it classifies humanity as a weapon of mass destruction, as humanity is perfectly capable of doing that without resorting to those weapons. In fact, there are tracts of land where we have. The capacity for killing civilians in the billions is nothing new. In fact, the only thing really new is how powerful the weapons are and that we are much better at aiming and using them.

As human beings, despotic or democratic, it is our duty not to let the proliferation of nuclear weapons reach boiling point.

Never mind conventional weapons, the effects only last a few hours at most and do not leave vast swathes of land completely barren of life for 50 years and cause extremes of pain and sufferring.

Ah, yes, I do love it when the civies talk like this and reveal they have no fucking clue about what they are speaking.

Listen, son, you want to know what conventional weapons can do? Join the military. Conventional weapons can leave swaths of land dangerous to life for at least fifty years, cause pain and suffering on levels you cannot even imagine, and can easily leave an area of land barren of life.

You want an example? Take Iraq. During my last tour of duty, my company ended up having to kill an entire community in order to save our own lives. They were attacking us, would not accept warnings, and made it perfectly clear their goal was to leave us dead. Luckily for us, they were only a dozen people. Oh, and you'll love this. Why were they attacking us? During our invasion of Iraq, one of the geniuses in the Airforce mistook their school for a military base and bombed. The community had sent their children inside to protect them, and the "soldiers" outside were local men who volunteered to keep the children safe until we arrived.

So please keep your mouth shut on what conventional weapons can do if you honestly don't know. It only annoys those of us who have seen what they can do first hand.

There is no such thing as a strategic nuclear missile. You cannot aim with a gas cloud. A disease does not differentiate between a child and a soldier, more likely the soldier would have been immunised by their government and the child left as a secondary priority.

Once again, you have no fucking clue what you are saying.

A strategic nuclear missile is intended for use on military targets where civilian targets are far enough away to not be immediately or permanently affected by the radiation. A gas cloud has no need to be lethal, but with gas clouds you can determine their point of origin and how far they spread with how you choose to deploy them. And a disease can be engineered to target biochemical balances only available in adults, leaving the children immune to the disease by the simple fact their systems cannot trigger it.

No one is asking peaceful democracies to be trampled on by the next despot who produces weapons of mass destruction, just to make it clear that any 2 nations with weapons of mass destruction should make it their duty never to use them and to prevent their proliferation. As humanity leaves the cold war and enters into an era in which technology become increasingly more important, we should take this opportunity to eliminate the risks to our civilisation from human stupidity completely.

In all of my experiences, I've found the only way to do that is to take the opposite approach of what you are advising. Want to eliminate the problems caused by human stupidity? Remove the human factor.

In relation to Iran, their Pakistani allies already have nukes and their Tukish allies are part of NATO, there is no need for them to produce weapons of mass destruction other than for their own selfish purposes. Though nuclear power is fine, they can have a nuclear power station if they want, as long as they give the fuel back once they've finnished depleting it.

Son, depleted uranium is pretty much useless for nuclear weapons. To get an idea of how useless, we use it to make bullets. And by we, I mean the United States.

P.S. The strength of the original poster's argument is not as feeble as his mind.

I assumed a logical mind for him. He clearly thought through his reasons for why he opposes them, had enough foresight to organize his post, and made it a point to post it with a proper heading and to keep his post concise. He may have trouble with using the language, but with how he used it he managed to get across his point and his intention. The only problem is that his information was limited.

Edit: Nah. You don't even need to know that much. The information at the bottom removed.

Ban all Weapons of Mass destruction.

They are good for nothing. Only thing they might be handy at is Bluf, you can bluf your way into conquering a country by threatening to use Weapons of Mass Destruction. But even then, the danger of them being used can cause the destruction of the entire human race, all over the galaxy. They should not be tested, not be used for war and certainly not be used for terrorism.

They are also effective for desperate measures, dealing with superior forces, and for dealing with those who will develop the weapons anyway.

They are good for nothing.

Aside from being a deterrent to nations not under UN law. The mere threat of retaliation creates a pretty effective shield against their use.

I wish to state here that my nation supports the rights of UN members to produce, store, and use if nessasary(God forbid) Chemical and Nuclear weapons. We do agree with banning biological(ie germ warfare)weapons. It is the policy and duty of the government of the Palentine to protect its citizens by any means nessasary from foreign enemies. Until this recent ban was repealed, the official policy of my government, issued by the Emperor himself was to treat any chemical, or biological attack on the Palentine as a WMD attack and respond in kind with Nukes. WMDs are treated alike in the Palentine and will be responded to as such. We do not seek to use these weapons, however, as was pointed out in the debate over the chem weapons repeal there are far more rogue nations and non-member nations who give not a Rat's Arse what kind of weapon they use or develop. If by having Nuclear Weapons, and by making other countries aware of the consquenses of a WMD attack are, my fellow citizens of the Palentine will remain safe, then my Emperor and my government, and myself as a member of the government, will willingly accept the damnation and condemnation that goes with the right to have and use these weapons as a deterrent. Hopefully the Palentine will never have to use these weapons.
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
THe Palentine

Since y'all are on the subject of banning weapons, How come I do not see any bans on death rays, plasma beams, proton weapons, lasers, partical beams or other high tech weapons that some of the higher tech nations here have. Some of these nations have weaponry that would make Hiroshima and Nagisaki pale by comparison. Currently we(the Lower Tech levels) are at their mercy and are hoping to stay in their good graces. Just Wondering.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Since y'all are on the subject of banning weapons, How come I do not see any bans on death rays, plasma beams, proton weapons, lasers, partical beams or other high tech weapons that some of the higher tech nations here have. Some of these nations have weaponry that would make Hiroshima and Nagisaki pale by comparison. Currently we(the Lower Tech levels) are at their mercy and are hoping to stay in their good graces. Just Wondering.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Probably the same reason other species besides humans are generally not recognized by the UN in resolutions.

doesanyone else see this post as just an empty idea? matbe if i could better understand what the hell he was saying....

The world outside of the United Nations is not composed entirely of fluffly despots and carebear empires.

It is therefore imperative to plan and prepare accordingly.

A disarmed United Nations is a dead United Nations. You will never defeat a nation with stockpiled weapons of mass destruction by conventional means alone.

I would rather not be cuaght helpless by a rogue nation just becuase the UN stops me from creating defences and deterrants. As already pointed out, harm is cuased by normal warfare, only a complete pacifist opolicy by every singly nation would stop such pain. As that is never going to happen, I'll stick with making sure my army is strong and keeps improving

Jude
Ruler of Cuation

As a non-UN nation, we heartily support any effort by the UN to legislate away the deterrents of it's member nations, as every single ban or restriction on a weapons system brings the Global Empire of Axis Nova one step closer to being created.

:D

As a non-UN nation, we heartily support any effort by the UN to legislate away the deterrents of it's member nations, as every single ban or restriction on a weapons system brings the Global Empire of Axis Nova one step closer to being created.

:D

Its because of nations like this, we must keep our weapons clean and our power dry. :p
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
The Palentine

The world outside of the United Nations is not composed entirely of fluffly despots and carebear empires.

It is therefore imperative to plan and prepare accordingly.

A disarmed United Nations is a dead United Nations. You will never defeat a nation with stockpiled weapons of mass destruction by conventional means alone.

Bravo! :D Well actually you could, but it would be a Phyrric victory. More costly for the victor than the vanquished.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
THe Palentine