NationStates Jolt Archive

Chemical Weapons Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Listeneisse

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.

Sorry, bro: You'll be getting no support from me on this. Simply put, I do not support disarmament proposals, because I don't think it should be the business of the UN to dictate to member states what they can or cannot use for their own national defense. The loophole in the UNSA that allows these proposals to continue to come forward is indeed unfortunate.

Th people of Cluichstan agree with the representative of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny that the UN should not be in the business of dictating how a nation defends itself from aggressors. We will fight this proposal should it come to the floor.

The Socialist Republic agrees that chemical weapons as defined in the proposed resolution are unnecessary to national defense and cause indiscriminate and undue damage to sentients and nonsentient plant and animal life. The Alphini have voted to approve the proposed resolution Chemical Weapons Ban by a vote of 2-1 with Third Alphin Lorĕns dissenting, citing sovereignty infringements. Second Alphin Oeşe and I sincerely hope that this proposal is accepted and becomes a resolution. Simply because rogue states choose to use such weapons to inflict pain, suffering and cheap mass death upon their enemies does not justify the nations of this international body doing the same.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The Alphini have voted to approve the proposed resolution Chemical Weapons Ban by a vote of 2-1 with Third Alphin Lorĕns dissenting, citing sovereignty infringements. Second Alphin Oeşe and I sincerely hope that this proposal is accepted and becomes a resolution. Simply because rogue states choose to use such weapons to inflict pain, suffering and cheap mass death upon their enemies does not justify the nations of this international body doing the same.



It is unfortunate that Third Alphin Lorĕns did not prevail in this debate, as the proposal does indeed infringe upon national sovereignty. Moreover, it is not just rogue states that might wish to use chemical weapons. What of small nations that border larger, more powerful and antagonistic nations? Do they not have the right to possess these weapons as a deterrent and, if absolutely need be, to repel an attack?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

It is unfortunate that Third Alphin Lorĕns did not prevail in this debate, as the proposal does indeed infringe upon national sovereignty. Moreover, it is not just rogue states that might wish to use chemical weapons. What of small nations that border larger, more powerful and antagonistic nations? Do they not have the right to possess these weapons as a deterrent and, if absolutely need be, to repel an attack?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from ScybalaDeterrance is an invalid concept in a universe with as many nations as now exist. Small nations do not need chemical weapons to supplement their military power. You are free to disagree and debate, of course, but we do not appreciate your criticising the decisions of this government, Mister Ambassador. Though you may agree with Alphin Lorĕns on this matter, the democratically-elected executive leadership of the Socialist Republic has voted to support the proposal. For you to call it unfortunate that we do not agree with you is very conceited. You are representing your society, we are representing ours. The United Nations will decide which of us is in the majority, which will not credit or discredit either argument. The United Nations was built to make international law. Every resolution infringes on national sovereignty. Where the lines ought to be drawn is not a matter of fact, but of opinion.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Deterrance is an invalid concept in a universe with as many nations as now exist.


The people of Cluichstan fail to see how this is true.

The people of Cluichstan fail to see how this is true.The people of Cluichstan are entitled to their individual opinions, as are you.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

If you find yourself at odds with a neighbor of 6 billion souls, or a region of 60 billion persons, CW quantities produced by a small nation will not stop them all anyway. It will only be seen as a tactic of terrorism.

A better deterrant than CW for small nations has always been to have their own allied powerful neighbor with a population of 6 billion souls, or a regional allied population of 60 billion.

Non-lethal riot control agents do have valid application and justification for their usage outside of war, and can also be employed as area denial systems without the persistant, severe cost to human suffering.

The issue of CW is its indiscriminant nature. As a weapon of "defense," it will blow where the wind and rain drives it -- into villages, water supplies and crops. However, they tend to be the tools of terrorism and genocide, not reputable state policies.

There are other, far more effective uses for one's defense dollar.

1. Investigate any and all significant incidents of CW use or accidental discharge by or made against UN member nations,
This provision authorizes the United Nations to investigate any use of CW used against your nation. Consider that a sort of 'defensive treaty of the first order.'

While it does not mandate any UN nation to take action against the aggressor, I'd be willing to bet there are armies waiting mission orders to defend against anyone who tries to use CW against your nation.

If anything, even if no UN nations responded, the incident would be clearly known to all UN member nations, and the state using CW against you would be made known for future purpose.

If you want to develop other conventional defenses, by all means do. But there's a better way to counter aggression than to adopt CW. And there's a better way to prosecute war than to indiscriminantly apply CW to enemy armies and civil populations alike.

The people of Cluichstan are entitled to their individual opinions, as are you.If the Alphini wish not for the Sheik to criticize their decisions, then the Federal Republic would strongly advise that they do not denigrate the Sheik's right to speak on behalf of his own people.

If the Alphini wish not for the Sheik to criticize their decisions, then the Federal Republic would strongly advise that they do not denigrate the Sheik's right to speak on behalf of his own people.The Sheik's opinion is worth exactly that of every other person's, though his authority may privilige him to have it counted by the United Nations. The Alphini are too often grouped under the majority opinion. I believe that it is a mistake to pass a resolution limiting the ways in which the Socialist Republic can defend itself. Because my stand on this issue differs from that of Eiko and Omsai, and theirs from yours, does not make us enemies, it makes us individuals. I do not dispute a leader's right to speak on behalf of his own people, but this must never be seen as a right to speak as those people. As the Alphin who stands with you on the issue at hand, that is the only point I have to make.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

While the Kingdom of Listeneisse respects the right of all nations to express their opinions, this is not a forum expressly on the nature of democratic process.

Please let us stick to the topic: a proposed ban on chemical weapons production, stockpiling and trafficking within UN nations, limiting development mostly to the realm of R&D in regards to countermeasures.

The UN Ambassador of Listeneisse, being the UN Delegate from Warzone of the Defenders, would like to thank other UN Delegates who have already pledged their support.

We encourage UN Delegates to contact peers of a like mind to move the proposal forward.

For those who are opposed to this provision, ask yourselves deeply: "Why?"

What is it that is gained from toxic, persistent CW that is equal or superior to, say, electronic warfare gear that can get a 'soft' kill of a heavy weapons target? In fact, EMP bombs can knock fly-by-wire aircraft out of the air, immobilize tanks that rely on electronic controls for guns, engines and communications, and the like -- without offering anywhere as significant a risk to the human operators. (Though, of course, extreme exposure to EMP is not precisely good for a body, and presuming escape mechanisms exist from disabled vehicles.)

It is also possible to proliferate small arms/light weapons (SALW) to civilian populations, paramilitaries and irregulars who can fight against a larger conventional foe even once the main army of a nation has been defeated on the battlefield. Indeed, this is often a far more cost-effective and 'persistent' killer of the enemy than CW. However, this must be balanced against turning the nation into a state of perpetual anarchy, for the populace might not ever recover a cohesive national strategy even once the aggressor has withdrawn.

Yet chemical weapons cannot be 'called back' or gathered in a pile through an arms exchange or amnesty program, as small arms can. Nor can they simply be shut off like ECM systems. Cleanup takes decades. Birth defects can persist from generation to generation.

Nations that resort to CW as 'defenses' find themselves deprived of their own territory. Nations that use CW offensively find themselves unable to comfortably navigate the terrain they have conquered.

There are simply better solutions for prosecuting war, or maintaining peace and detente.

the nation of Kirisubo will not give an endorsement to this.

we may not have any chemical weapons but they are a part of a lot of countries military arsenal.

Speaking as a military nation a chemical weapon is a deterrant in the same way as a nuclear missile is and every nation is entitled to defend themselves.

We are at 14 approvals!

If we can keep up that pace or a little better, this has a fair chance of being opened for vote. My thanks to all! Contact friends in other regions please.

As of this morning's massive purge of other proposals before it, it can now be found here:

Chemical Weapons Ban (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=38)

(Updates as it shifts forward in the queue.)

ooc: Moved this discussion from the old "Draft Proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449090)" thread to this, the "Submitted" discussion thread.

Nerve gas certainly is covered under chemical weapons.

There are biological agents that also produce harm like chemical weapons, but use different processes -- biological processes -- to act upon cells than chemical weapons.

ooc: Note what I have written is in a great degree reflective of the actual convention signed in the real-world. However, it needs to be abbreviated massively because of the character limit in NS. We unfortunately are prohibited by technical limits from making the sorts of real-world proposals that are far more comprehensive and clear.

In prior submissions of CW bans before NS UN, Ausserland did a good job of trying to enumerate all the known CWs that should be covered. The problem is that you cannot cover them all. And even if you do, in a year, there may be more and different ones.

In my CWCC proposal, I tried to set it up so that you could have a committee enumerating what was and was not considered CW (similar but far abbreviated in this submission). In all rational CW lists, O-Alkyl nerve gases are certainly on the list (VX, Sarin, Soman, Tabun).

There are also a lot of loopholes that, due to brevity, you just cannot plug.

For instance, in the real CWC, states are explictly barred from turning Riot Control Agents (RCA) into weapons of war. However, to the above proposal, an RCA used just as it is now, without modification, is not technically a CW if it was designed to be non-persistent and non-lethal. If it was upgraded in lethality or potency, yes. But spraying tear gas to disburse your enemy or filling an RPG with pepper spray, so long as the dosage was (generally) non-lethal and non-persistent, might skirt the grey areas of the above ban. In the real world, such would be strictly unlawful as per the convention. So those who want to have better living through chemistry can still use the above and play with their enemy's minds.

Dropping hallucinogenic bombs on the enemy can also be construed as non-lethal and non-persistent as per the above, so long as it does not leave chronic or severe lingering effects. So consider that your CW program can change radically, and you can still defend your nation. Simply drop sleeping gas on your opponent and bring plenty of wrist-ties and handcuffs to bag helpless prisoners-of-war.

Of course, NS is filled with many silly countries. I'm sure they'll love to get creative.

And if you think this is silly, this is actually the purpose for which LSD was developed. It just turned out that slips of paper to be licked at raves were far more efficatious as delivery mechanisms than aerosol disbursal over battlefields.

btw: LSD is not barred by the above, though it can be barred by other national or UN provisions. BZ is actually the classification of a similar psychotropic agent, but it was ruled as too unpredictable to be relied upon as a weapon. Some people just didn't get buzzed.

In the real world, 174 countries are signatories of the CWC. The US signed the CWC in 1993, and had it ratified by Congress and deposited accession (i.e., filed its formal agreement) with the UN in 1997. The US has a facility in Utah disposing of tons of CW, and it also assists other nations in the destruction of their own CW.

While I know there are many silly and deadly serious powers in the game, I hope that people might actually stop and read a bit more about the issue before bandwagonning against it. They might learn something.

The following are considered quantities of equivalent toxic or destructive effect:

Land/Air-Based Weapon______________Quantity
Aerial explosives ................. 320,000 kg
Fragmentation cluster bombs......... 32,000 kg
Hydrocyanic acid.................... 32,000 kg
Mustard gas.......................... 3,200 kg
Sarin nerve gas........................ 800 kg
“Crude" nuclear weapon
(fissionable material only).............. 5 kg
Type A botulinal toxin.................. 80 grams
Anthrax spores........................... 8 grams

Attack on a water supply:
Agent_________________________________Grams
Potassium cyanide................... 18,000
Nerve agent VX......................... 100
Typhoid culture.......................... 1

Edit:

p.s. Agent Orange and similar defoliants would be banned by the above even if they are not directly deadly (i.e., do not kill instantly), since they provably cause serious chronic harm and can lead to death or severe debilitation. However, this is a case where someone might invent something, and it might take years before it shows up on a scheduled of barred substances.

_____________
Sources

Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (http://www.opcw.org/)

Chemical Weapons Convention (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html)

CWC Annex on Chemicals (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html#b)

CWC State Parties (ratifying nations) (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/members_ratifyer.html)

Introduction to Chemical Weapons Presentation (http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/products/ahec_chem/ppt/Intro.ppt) (from bioterrorism.slu.edu) [PPT format]

The people of Cluichstan are entitled to their individual opinions, as are you.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Using the expression "people of Cluichstan" when stating the Cluichstani government's position is a merely formal convention often used in international bodies such as this. One would think our friends from Xanthal would be aware of this.

But let us please get back to the issue at hand.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The Democratic Republic of Melidan must agree with the esteemed delegates from Cluichstan and Omygodtheykilledkenny. While we are faithful members of the United Nations, the UN must also recognize our sovereign nations inherit right to self defense. A nation's people must be fully aware that their government will protect them by any means necessary... including chemical weapons.

I'd be far more interested to hear from a delegate who actually ever successfully used CW in the defense of their nation.

While many of you can speak theoretically about their use, most CW remain mostly that -- theoretically useful.

Their deterrant effects are generally far less than, as has been observed, nuclear or even conventional means.

Also, just because they have been discharged does not mean they were successfully used.

I'd prefer not to hear about tales of dictators "successfully liquidating" their populaces. Or, if we must hear such tales, please prepare yourself to be pulled before TPP.

Otherwise, please elucidate to us a campaign or action wherein CW was successfully employed, which was the primary weapons system used to stave off conquest, or was the decisive element in the execution of a military campaign.

I believe the burden of proof should be upon those who believe they are necessary. By providing an example, we shall thereafter scrutinize it to see if indeed it was the most efficatious weapon system employable, as well as pledge to study the area wherein CW was employed to see what lasting effects it has had on the civil populace of the affected environ.

Please, step forth, those who wish. Defend your weapon of choice, please.

I am sure there are many who would be curious to hear clear debate based upon actual experience.

I believe the burden of proof should be upon those who believe they are necessary.


On the contrary, you are the one who wants a resolution against chemical weapons. The burden to persuade us that they need to be banned is on you. You've got it completely backwards.

On the contrary, you are the one who wants a resolution against chemical weapons. The burden to persuade us that they need to be banned is on you. You've got it completely backwards.

Emperor Gallo agrees with the notable representative from Cluichstan. The sky has not yet fallen with chemical weapons in use and in place, so the Emperor demands proof that it will.

(P.S. First post in the UN section)

I'd be far more interested to hear from a delegate who actually ever successfully used CW in the defense of their nation.I wish you luck.

Chemical weapons are largely useless on the the modern battlefield. HazMat protection, easily carried antidotes, and the use of coastal bombardment/air strikes means that the likelyhood of a large group of people being afflicted are next to none.

People should remember that part of the reason they were so effective in WWI was because people were huddled together in trench warfare. I wouldn't be surprized if naturally occuring disease killed more people than mustard gas.

Chemical weapons are useless outside the realm of terrorism.

That said, I wouldn't particularly support the ban of chemical weapons as I feel that nations should have the right to decide if they will persue such weapons or not. Advanced and enlightened nations would be largely unaffected by such a ban anyway.

We accept the burden, and did a brief and certainly not exhaustive examination of recent wars and international incidents.

Report on Mustard Gas and Sarin use by Warta Endorean Army in Argentina (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9198714&postcount=507)
On 6 Jul 2005, the Marxist-Democratic Republic of Warta Endor, a UN member nation, indiscriminantly used WMD to finish a winning war in Argentina, causing the death of innocent farmers and livestock. Apparently it had formerly been owned (Feb 2005) by Kopparbergs (http://zifos.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1332&sid=8f189b4e8c9fe32f94d63836922e3ff5), but this nation fell into anarchy, thus the region was effectively undefended. This caused the needless death of rural populace without military aim or objective.

Communist Mississippi reports Sarin Gas attack (http://www.nation-states.net/showpost.php?p=6931511&postcount=58)
On 02 Sep 2004, the Commonwealth air force of Western Sahara killed 20,000 civilians and 3,000 militants using a unique binary munition: airborne Sarin gas bombs. Though it killed a significant number of casualties relative to the entire conflict (http://www.nation-states.net/showpost.php?p=6947627&postcount=90), this did not win the war. It exacerbated peace talks (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354543), and in fact, the state of Communist Mississippi, for whom this seemed to have been fought as a proxy war, fell into dissolution and is no more.

Communist revolt brutaly [sic] put down (chemical weapons used) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=360075)
On 24 Sep 2004, it was reported that Doomingsland (not a UN member) used chemical weapons to kill not just Communist rebels, but their families as well. 3,000 persons lay dead, 300-1,000 of them civilians (estimates vary). Ironically, the nation had just destroyed the vast quantity of the Communist conventional force (who had, it must be said, taken to exterminate civilians themselves) by means of antitank guided missiles and other conventional weapon systems. To which, an observing nation (Roach-Busters) replied, "He killed communists, not humans." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7099066&postcount=46) It is to be noted that the government of Doomingsland is enormous. The Communist rebels were apparently funded from external means, and that this posed no serious threat to the regime. In fact, it seems the entire retailiation by means of chemical weapons was practically orchestrated to provoke umbrage and bait others into war, or to mock them for their incapability to wage war against the state of Doomingsland. At no time was this ever a "necessity," given that the government was effectively containing and demolishing the insurrection's capacity to wage war using conventional army forces and law enforcement means.

Decisive Action uses VX and other CW (http://www.nation-states.com/showthread.php?t=356980)
This nation, ruled by the Fabus regime, was renown and proud for WMD sales and openly using them in internal acts of genocide and extermination of "undesirables." However, it too fell into dissolution. All of its military might, and all the chemical weapons in its stockpiles, could not keep the nation together once its leadership fell from power. One can only question what happened at the end, because the nation sunk into dissolution, was briefly re-established, then utterly fell apart. No external force seemed to have taken a hand in the government's final downfall.

Chemical Weapons Ban (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=18)

Proposal now has 27 approvals and requires 100 more!

Hopefully we'll see some momentum as it moves further up in the queue.

Chemical Weapons Ban (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=7) has moved up in the queue. It expires Saturday, so please vote soon.

It currently has 45 supporters and needs 82 more.

We accept the burden, and did a brief and certainly not exhaustive examination of recent wars and international incidents.Well, thank you for that enlightening (OOC: and genuinely amusing :p) report on RPed chemical warfare.

Seeing as how, among the four atrocities you've cited, two offenders no longer exist and one is not a UN member state, this ban you propose might have prevented a single incident of chemical warfare by a UN member. But wait a second! The chemical weapons ban (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=106) (strikeout text) currently in place at the time of this incident couldn't even prevent a nation from defying international law!

We take this as proof positive that disarmament legislation is, on the whole, ineffective and irrelevant. We remain unconvinced, and will not be lending our support on this question.

We approve of this proposal, however we must say the following:

As with the Nuclear Weapons Ban, we will NOT abide by it. We have no interest in following resolutions that have no use in our Nation. However, if we see it has uses in others, then we shall approve. In this case, we shall.

I know, hypocrite talk. But The UN cannot stop me from producing Strategic Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Torpedoes.

With that out of the way, the Republic Senate has already decided that Chemical Weapons would not be a good idea. However, if I ever get into the business OF chemical warfare, I will freely disregard this resolution, should it pass, and be on my way.

But like I said, the Republic Senate has already decided against Chemical Weapons.

However, this must be balanced against turning the nation into a state of perpetual anarchy, for the populace might not ever recover a cohesive national strategy even once the aggressor has withdrawn.
We're endeavouring to do our best. I'm not persuaded this is wise, however, but I'm outnumbered.

Ecopoeia supports this proposal. To those who argue that this infringes their right to rain death upon their enemies in the manner of their choosing, I simply say: find another way.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I must admit, I'm with the esteemed Ecopoeian Delegate. Good Luck!

Chemical Weapons Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Listeneisse

Description:
I disagree, I feel nations should have the right to defend themselves from invasion and therefore weapons should be allowed. CW may be necissary in world wars so keep them!!!

We approve of this proposal, however we must say the following:

As with the Nuclear Weapons Ban, we will NOT abide by it. We have no interest in following resolutions that have no use in our Nation. However, if we see it has uses in others, then we shall approve. In this case, we shall.

I know, hypocrite talk. But The UN cannot stop me from producing Strategic Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Torpedoes.
First off the UN has never banned nuclear weapons, in fact UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments states that you have the right to possess nuclear weapons if you want.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The people of Cluichstan note UN Resolution #109 as well and wonder why chemical weapons should be any different.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

First off the UN has never banned nuclear weapons, in fact UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments states that you have the right to possess nuclear weapons if you want.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


*bows before the superior gamer*

Alright, I admit defeat. Forgive my lack of intelligence on the matter. I shall leave it be.