NationStates Jolt Archive


DRAFT PROPOSAL: Chemical Weapons Ban

Listeneisse
11-10-2005, 04:56
This is an omnibus version of the former Chemical Weapons Management proposal and replacing the repealed Ban Chemical Weapons. The author believes it to be firmly worded, while permitting nations to pursue R&D for defensive measures and medical treatments, and to use Riot Control Devices (RCDs) and related material such as pepper spray and tear gas for personal defense and law enforcement.

(Character Count: 2552)

Description: The United Nations,

DECLARING Chemical Weapons (CWs) as not required for national defense given myriad alternate solutions,

DESIRING to eliminate CW use in committing acts of inhumane terror, genocide, civil repression, war, and environmental harm,

DEFINING a 'Chemical Weapon (CW)' as a device specifically designed to cause death, serious injury, chronic or permanent harm through the toxic properties of chemical agents released as a result of their employment,

AFFIRMING the rights of nations to use chemically-based non-lethal and non-persistent substances for legitimate riot control devices (RCDs), applicable to law enforcement, personal defense and other civil purposes, while acknowledging their dual-use potential for CW,

AFFIRMING the rights of nations to develop new technologies, and to keep small or trace amounts of CW and CW agents for testing purposes,

ENCOURAGING R&D analysis of CW for detection systems, countermeasures, defenses and medical treatment,

UNDERSTANDING new CW-related inventions, applications and incidents will arise requiring ongoing and clear interpretation for member states,

REQUIRES member nations to

1. Cease mass-scale CW development and production,

2. Decommission their CW facilities and storage sites,

3. Safely dispose of CW stockpiles,

4. Stop all domestic and international sales and transfers of CW,

5. Closely monitor dual-use materials that may be converted into CW,

6. Emplace domestic CW safety and security provisions,

7. Report to the UN all significant incidents of purposeful use or accidental discharge of CW made known to their governments within 48 hours of the incident's commission or discovery, and to cooperate with UN efforts to conduct investigations and disaster relief due to CW-related incidents,

ENCOURAGES UN member states to work with all willing non-UN nations to limit the development of CW and develop scheduled programs for the safe decommissioning of stockpiles of CW,

AUTHORIZES the creation of a standing Chemical Weapons Compliance Commission (CWCC), and charging it to

1. Investigate any and all significant incidents of CW use or accidental discharge by or made against UN member nations,

2. Keep updated international standard lists of CW-related definitions and materiel, specifying what does and does not fall under CW definitions and controls,

3. Encourage and coordinate CW defense and medical treatment information and procedures between member nations,

4. Coordinate and council other UN Committees and missions responding to incidents involving use or discharge of CW.
Caer Dunnottar
11-10-2005, 08:02
remind me to send a case of wine to you. Oops I forgot I lined it with Motaba . lol well I'll ship you some anyways. Declined
Reformentia
11-10-2005, 08:53
As we have stated previously, so long as the UN is not banning nuclear weapons (which we have no intention of supporting either) it is a silly waste of time to ban the much less dangerous and destructive chemical weapons. It's like banning knives while maintaining the right to own grenade launchers.

Opposed.
Listeneisse
12-10-2005, 01:57
It's been submitted.

Since so few people are actually killed by chemical weapons, as opposed to the massive rate of death and destruction caused annually by the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, I have rated this as Mild.

(The mods can change it if they wish.)

I ask for your support so that we can, as a United Nations, help minimize opportunities for acts of terrorism and genocide.
Pallatium
12-10-2005, 10:33
Wouldn't chemical weapons include things like nerve gas and so forth? Things that can actually kill millions in one go if you disperse them properly?

Or would they be biological weapons?
Amestria
12-10-2005, 10:36
Support, there is no need for chemical weapons to exist.
Love and esterel
12-10-2005, 10:53
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is proud to support this proposition
Hirota
12-10-2005, 11:05
Means more usage of Nukes and DU - so Hirota is happy to support this proposal :)
Listeneisse
12-10-2005, 11:31
Discussion moved to other thread related to this proposal, since it has been submitted. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449230)
Love and esterel
12-10-2005, 12:04
As we have stated previously, so long as the UN is not banning nuclear weapons (which we have no intention of supporting either) it is a silly waste of time to ban the much less dangerous and destructive chemical weapons. It's like banning knives while maintaining the right to own grenade launchers.

Opposed.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel don't see any connection between chemical and nuclear weapons.

We are AGAINST banning nuclear weapons, as there are 3,527 Psychotic Dictatorship in the world, according to this survey
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=nationstats
and for sure some more north-korean-communist-style ones

Nuclear weapons are really dangerous but is a usefull Deterrence Force, we cannot ban them (even if we will like a lot a "urges" for a "good conduct" code, maybe this urges is already in a resolution we didn't check, sorry)

There is absolutly no detterence with chemical weapons, it's why lethal ones should be banned