NationStates Jolt Archive

Final draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10089315&postcount=87).

NOTING that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defense,

As I told, here I would prefer something like:
NOTING that these effects render chemical weaponry unsuitable for national defense,

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it in the interests of global welfare,

"... in the interests of global welfare" seems awkward when you are discussing a war issue, were clearly each party does not have global welfare as a priority. I would change the expression, but this is a matter of taste.

1. PROHIBITS:
iii. the use of riot control agents or toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;

I still strongly disagree with this point. The fact that a weapon, "riot control agents," is permitted for the police to control the civilian population of the country, yet not to stop an invading army, sounds excessively restrictive and inconsistent.

Finally, my main problem with this (or any) disarmament proposal is the limited scope, insofar as it can never apply to non UN nations. You disagreed with an optional retaliatory clause against those, which is fair enough, but I still have to reserve my position on that basis. The proposal is very well written and sensible, but until I can accurately assess the impact on deterrence, I cannot offer you my full support.

As I told, here I would prefer something like:
NOTING that these effects render chemical weaponry unsuitable for national defense,

I'll change that, then.

"... in the interests of global welfare" seems awkward when you are discussing a war issue, were clearly each party does not have global welfare as a priority. I would change the expression, but this is a matter of taste.

Sometimes, though, state parties will argue they are going to war in the interests of global warfare: to ensure human rights are upheld, to free a tyranny, or to put down an imperialistic regime. Even in these circumstances, were, as much as it can ever be, war is 'just', and is done with the intention of ultimately serving the greater good, the use of chemical weaponry is wrong. Nonetheless, I think I can strike the addendum.

I still strongly disagree with this point. The fact that a weapon, "riot control agents," is permitted for the police to control the civilian population of the country, yet not to stop an invading army, sounds excessively restrictive and inconsistent.

There's precedent in the RL CWC, which stipulates exactly the same:

Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

That doesn't justify it, per se. But I would explain the rationale in terms of the fact that within the context of the definitions in this resolution, riot control agents would be worse than worthless in a military context unless they were used excessively, in which case their use could cause severe damage, along the lines of genuine chemical weaponry.

Finally, my main problem with this (or any) disarmament proposal is the limited scope, insofar as it can never apply to non UN nations. You disagreed with an optional retaliatory clause against those, which is fair enough, but I still have to reserve my position on that basis. The proposal is very well written and sensible, but until I can accurately assess the impact on deterrence, I cannot offer you my full support.

I wouldn't limit it to disarmament: this is the case for any proposal. We can't affect non-UN nations. However, we can hope that by promoting responsible legislation, non-UN nations will take note, and follow suit. I'm not preventing non-UN nations from destroying chemical weapons, and hopefully, some might note the passage of this, and reach the same conclusion. Furthermore, as this proposal states, I genuinely do not believe chemical weapons are necessary for national defence. I am opposed to nuclear war, but I support "Nuclear Armaments", and would oppose repeals/subsequent bans because I do, ultimately, feel denuding UN members of nuclear armaments constitutes too great an infringement on their ability to defend themselves. I do not think banning chemical weapons is on the same order of risk.

The one most significant problem we have with banning chemical weaponry is that it makes little to no sense to do so while allowing nuclear weaponry. As we have stated in previous discussion on this topic, it's like outlawing knives while having automatic weapons be legal. Since we have no intention of supporting a ban on nuclear weaponry we cannot support a chemical weapons ban either. A few additional comments...


APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including widespread death, injury and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to continue to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

All of the above applies to nuclear weapons, only more so.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that possession of chemical weaponry could constitute a significant threat, as there is the potential for such armaments to cause massive damage if improperly stored, or if possession of such is gained by terrorist organizations,

Repeat last statement.

BELIEVING that scientific research into the development of chemical weaponry can be put to better use, instead contributing to the elimination of disease and hunger,

Fluff...

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where the possession or use of such chemicals is not banned by this resolution, and where the types and quantities of such are consistent with legitimate purposes;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising the action of those toxic chemicals specified in (i.), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of such munitions and devices as specified in (ii.);

(b) "toxic chemical" as any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and which has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production of any toxic chemical;

(d) "riot control agent" as any chemical which does not meet the definitions of a toxic chemical, but which can produce in humans and other species sensory irritation and temporary disablement, but whose effects disappear in a relatively short time following termination of normal exposure;

1. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, retention, acquisition, distribution or use of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals or precursors;
ii. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iii. the use of riot control agents or toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;

2. REQUIRES:
i. the immediate destruction of all chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals and precursors;

You do realize how many chemical substances that statement requires you destroy? You stated earlier that you didn't to limit the trade and production of chemicals with legitimate uses, but you made this statement unconditional. The destruction of all toxic chemicals and their precursors as you have defined them would effectively gut any industrialized society.

The one most significant problem we have with banning chemical weaponry is that it makes little to no sense to do so while allowing nuclear weaponry. As we have stated in previous discussion on this topic, it's like outlawing knives while having automatic weapons be legal. Since we have no intention of supporting a ban on nuclear weaponry we cannot support a chemical weapons ban either. A few additional comments...

In your order of danger, could you explain how biological warfare 'outranks' nuclear warfare as more dangerous?

All of the above applies to nuclear weapons, only more so.

Yeah, so? I'm not dealing with nuclear warfare, but with chemical warfare.

Repeat last statement.

There is, however soft, a Nuclear Terrorism Act. There is no Chemical Terrorism Act.

Fluff...

No. It is fluffy-minded not to consider that the industry invested in the development of elaborate ways of killing and maiming more brutally could be better employed in developing more effective, less toxic fertilisers, in chemical engineering of nutritional substances, and in development of new medicines. Given that these United Nations have, to my knowledge, never passed a resolution aimed at solving the problem of global hunger, it probably is considered to many to be a statement of 'fluff'; that will not change the fact that I hold a statement that a proposal aimed at eliminating unnecessary, unethical forms of armament which realizes that doing so will not create ranks of evil scientists sitting on their hands and cursing the lack of things to do, but instead free up great minds and complex facilities for worthier causes to be shallow, callous, unthinking, and wrong.

You do realize how many chemical substances that statement requires you destroy? You stated earlier that you didn't to limit the trade and production of chemicals with legitimate uses, but you made this statement unconditional. The destruction of all toxic chemicals and their precursors as you have defined them would effectively gut any industrialized society.

Yes, I do realize how many substances it bans; however, if you think I'm banning substances which I shouldn't be, then we have a problem. Bear in mind, though, that the only substances or devices banned by this proposal are those with reasonable potential for weaponisation; those with deadly effects but which could not be put to reasonable military use are not banned. How could I improve the definition to ensure there is no confusion as to this?

Considering that precursors may, by the defininition in the proposal, include basic things such as water and incredibly useful chemicals, I cannot support this at the moment.

Considering that precursors may, by the defininition in the proposal, include basic things such as water and incredibly useful chemicals, I cannot support this at the moment.

Erk...you're right. That got scrambled in drafting. I'll reword that accordingly. Thanks for spotting that.

In your order of danger, could you explain how biological warfare 'outranks' nuclear warfare as more dangerous?

The deployment of a contagious, biological warfare agent in any quantity entails an effectively unlimited potential area of effect with no upper casualty range since the agent is capable of reproducing itself and transmitting itself through infected carriers to pretty much anywhere. It is effectively untargettable and uncontrollable once released. It is self modifying through mutational events over successive generations which can make it immune even to any counter-agent the deploying party might have had available. No test tube sized nuclear weapon deployed in Shanghai has the potential to wipe out the population of a city in Canada.

As such my "order of danger" goes:

1. Contagious biological weaponry. (Banned)
2. Nuclear weaponry.
3. Chemical and non contagious biological weaponry.

Yeah, so? I'm not dealing with nuclear warfare, but with chemical warfare.

Which is pointless so long as the far more dangerous nuclear weaponry is going to be permitted. See previous comment on knives and automatic weapons.

There is, however soft, a Nuclear Terrorism Act. There is no Chemical Terrorism Act.

And there still won't be one...

No. It is fluffy-minded not to consider that the industry invested in the development of elaborate ways of killing and maiming more brutally could be better employed in developing more effective, less toxic fertilisers, in chemical engineering of nutritional substances, and in development of new medicines.

The same could be said about pretty much any military project. It has nothing whatsoever to do with chemical weaponry in particular. It is included only as the equivalent of a "won't someone please think of the children" type statement. It contributes nothing to the actual effect of the proposal.

It is fluff.

Yes, I do realize how many substances it bans; however, if you think I'm banning substances which I shouldn't be, then we have a problem.

Just for example?

Phosphorous pentasulphide is a precursor chemical to VX nerve gas. You are requiring it be destroyed. Unfortunately it is also used in the production of hign performance lubricants, insecticides, etc. RL example: The U.S. produces and uses about 50,000 tons of it a year.

Similar examples can be made of almost ANY chemical precursor to a chemical weapon or toxic chemical. Chemicals tend to have a wide variety of uses. It's not like there's an abundance of specialty "these only make chemical weaponry" chemicals out there. In fact, I would predict there are effectively none.

Bear in mind, though, that the only substances or devices banned by this proposal are those with reasonable potential for weaponisation;

No, actually as you've written it it's any substances with reasonable potential for weaponization, AND any substance that can be used to make such a substance.

I would suggest you drop the latter half and don't ban presursors. But that won't result in my support for the ban regardless.

The deployment of a contagious, biological warfare agent in any quantity entails an effectively unlimited potential area of effect with no upper casualty range since the agent is capable of reproducing itself and transmitting itself through infected carriers to pretty much anywhere. It is effectively untargettable and uncontrollable once released. It is self modifying through mutational events over successive generations which can make it immune even to any counter-agent the deploying party might have had available. No test tube sized nuclear weapon deployed in Shanghai has the potential to wipe out the population of a city in Canada.

As such my "order of danger" goes:

1. Contagious biological weaponry. (Banned)
2. Nuclear weaponry.
3. Chemical and non contagious biological weaponry.

Fair enough. I think I agree.

For me, the situation is simple. Should chemical weapons be banned? Yes. If you do not believe they should be, then this proposal clearly is not for you. However, I do not see the point in trying to hide behind some sort of sequentialist agenda: passing UN legislation is difficult, and I consider repealing "Nuclear Armaments" and passing a nuclear ban to be extremely difficult. If you are willing to take on the task, then I commend, and will support, you; however, I do not yet feel I am equal to it. That does not mean we should ignore the potential to pass effective legislation that will have a positive impact. Not doing so seems to be mere deliberate obstinacy, and serves little point.

The same could be said about pretty much any military project. It has nothing whatsoever to do with chemical weaponry in particular. It is included only as the equivalent of a "won't someone please think of the children" type statement. It contributes nothing to the actual effect of the proposal.

It's not intended as an appeal to emotion; rather it's intended as a demonstration that banning what is, presumably, a profitable industry - agents of death and destruction turn a few bob, I'm told - will not be economically damaging, because the skills involved can be applied elsewhere, which would not necessarily be the case with, for example, ballistics scientists. Also, it adds on an extra rationale for supporting the ban: countries who are unaffected (because they already have banned chemical weapons, or because they do not use them) may not see any need for this; however, this illustrates that banning chemical weaponry might actually provide a boon to industry, and would be likely to do much global good. I was going to offer to remove it, if you objected to it so strongly; since you have demonstrated yourself incapable of making a civil objection, however, I shall keep it. So nerr.

-snip

Erm...yes, sorry about that. I was wrong: my drafting got its wires crossed. I hadn't realized I'd tried to ban precursors: that was a mistake. The clause has been removed, in line with Cobdenia's observation, and a replacement clause added, that I hope is satisfactory to specifically limit precursor prohibitions to those involved in the processes of chemical warfare. You were right, though, and I apologise for my doubts.

iii. the use of riot control agents or toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
Why are these substances approved for use against civilians, but not against military enemies? If the substances are non-lethal and their effects are temporary, I see no reason to disallow their use in military application.

Other than that, though, I must say I'm quite impressed with what you've come up with. Well done.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']Why are these substances approved for use against civilians, but not against military enemies? If the substances are non-lethal and their effects are temporary, I see no reason to disallow their use in military application.

This has been repeatedly brought up, and it is clearly a major bug, so I will drop that line.

Here, though, was my justification for keeping it: by their very nature, riot control agents present no real military advantage, and would be of very little use. As such, the only way to use them in such a context would be to deliberately overexpose or overuse them, as such creating a much more significant potential threat. Furthermore, astonishingly, the use of chemical weapons, however mild, isn't something I'm jumping through hoops about. I accept that police forces who aren't able to control their people through civilized means might have to resort to the use of riot control agents, and though I personally hate it, I respect their right to do so. I do not, however, believe that the military use of chemical weaponry is ever justified: it presents too great a possibility for abuse, and the subsequent effects of such actions are likely to be horrifying.

Nonetheless, the draft has been snipped.

We have several comments to make on this draft, which we will do after we have some sleep. For now, we'll confine our comments to the subject of precursor chemicals.

The term "precursor chemicals" has a very specific meaning in chemical warfare. Precursor chemicals are chemicals which, when combined in the detonation of binary munitions or otherwise, produce chemical agents. It does not include chemicals used in the manufacture of toxic chemical agents.

As pointed out by the distinguished representative of Cobdenia, the current wording of the draft would ban an intolerably wide range of chemicals, including water.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

(c) "precursor" as any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production of any toxic chemical;

This appears to be a common objection at the moment. This definition is exactly cribbed from the RL CWC; however, what can I do to improve it? I think it's important to get this ironed out before trying to change the relevant operative clauses.

(c) "precursor" as any chemical reactant with a primary implementation of creating toxic chemicals for military use;

Or is that too narrow?

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

This appears to be a common objection at the moment. This definition is exactly cribbed from the RL CWC; however, what can I do to improve it? I think it's important to get this ironed out before trying to change the relevant operative clauses.

Following Ausserland's reasoning, I would define "precursor" as a chemical that, not having a toxic effect in itself, is a major active component of a chemical weapon. But I am not sure that something like that is specific enough, given Reformentia's example.

On the other hand, if these chemicals do have alternative legitimate uses, and since there is no compliance problem in NS, you can just ban their combination to create chemical weaponry, rather than prohibiting their production completely. The end effect would be the same, except if they are exported to non-UN nations, which brings us back to my original criticism.

if chemicals that can make chemical weapons end up in a non-UN state there is nothing we can do to stop them being used to make weapons.

UN resolutions don't apply to non-members and its usually these countries that are the greatest threat to a UN member.

Therefore a nation has the right of retalliation if they are attacked and if a nation doesn't possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons are the next best deterrant.

although well meaning this proposal would strip away the tools of a nations armed forces even further.

I have to agree with the honourable ambassador from Reformentia and say this is a very bad idea.

Kaigan Miromuta, Kirisuban ambassador to the UN

The-Republic'](c) "precursor" as any chemical reactant with a primary implementation of creating toxic chemicals for military use;

I'm going to approach it like this. If we're restricting 'precursors' full stop, then your definition would constitute the best approach. If not, then my definition will suffice, and we'll have to be more explicit in the operative clauses about banning only precursor production specifically aimed at the production of chemical weapons.

----

Following Ausserland's reasoning, I would define "precursor" as a chemical that, not having a toxic effect in itself, is a major active component of a chemical weapon. But I am not sure that something like that is specific enough, given Reformentia's example.

Well, 'active component' isn't quite right; it's more like something that actively contributes to the production of chemical weapons. As I noted above, it depends what I try to do in the operative clauses, to an extent. I think the key feature of any precursors this prohibits though is that they are explicitly aimed at the production of chemical weaponry, and that they have no other major legitimate applications.

On the other hand, if these chemicals do have alternative legitimate uses, and since there is no compliance problem in NS, you can just ban their combination to create chemical weaponry, rather than prohibiting their production completely. The end effect would be the same, except if they are exported to non-UN nations, which brings us back to my original criticism.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. As for the non-UN nation problem, that's tricky. I can't limit trade in precursors with legitimate alternate applications; all I can do is prohibit inducement to produce chemical weapons, as I have done. So trading in 'normal' precursors would be fine, unless those are aimed at the production of chemical weapons. Furthermore, I think I will make a more specific declaratory requirement for members to declare all transactions with non-members with regard to precursors, chemical weaponry, and so on.

----

if chemicals that can make chemical weapons end up in a non-UN state there is nothing we can do to stop them being used to make weapons.

True. And I don't intend on changing that: remarkably, this is born of the idea that war isn't a great party, and I do not intend to give a mandate to invade non-UN nations suspected of creating chemical weaponry. However, I will include an authorisation with regards to UN members. Furthermore, trade in precursors will be restricted to trade not aimed towards the production of chemical weaponry.

UN resolutions don't apply to non-members and its usually these countries that are the greatest threat to a UN member.

Then I'd advise that UN member not to give the non-member chemical weaponry.

Therefore a nation has the right of retalliation if they are attacked and if a nation doesn't possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons are the next best deterrant.

Of course they have a right of retaliation. Chemical weaponry, however, does not present the capacity for overwhelming military advantage, in the way that nuclear weaponry does. Furthermore, there is precedent for this: we cannot retaliate by using landmines, or by using biological weapons, or by doing nasty things to prisoners of war. In the same way, the use of chemical weaponry, whether in defence or not, is something that, yes, I am trying to prohibit. It does not give a military advantage, and is instead wantonly and unnecessarily damaging, without necessarily the same degree of strategic effectiveness that nuclear weaponry presents.

although well meaning this proposal would strip away the tools of a nations armed forces even further.

It would strip away chemical weapons. It would not strip away 'tools', because chemical weaponry is not the most effective means of armament. As such, this does not constitute a significant tactical castration.

I have to agree with the honourable ambassador from Reformentia and say this is a very bad idea.

Why? His reasoning appears to be that nuclear weaponry has not been banned yet. Given that is extremely unlikely it will ever be so, I do not see the point in waiting for Godot while unnecessary, unethical weaponry continues to be abused in the field of combat. Anyway, are we to establish a level of precedence for all our actions? Do we ignore human rights proposals that would do good, until the 'big ones' have passed? Do we reject environmental proposals on desertification, flooding and wetland loss until we have a climate change proposal? No: we try to legislate effectively, and accept that there will be 'holes' at times. The fact that we cannot ban nuclear weaponry should not preclude us from trying to ban chemical weaponry.

----

Thanks to the suggestions of Powerhungry Chipmunks, the preambulatory section has now been shortened.

NOTING such effects render chemical weaponry unnecessary for national defence,

Sorry to pick on this clause again. ;) "Unnecessary" implies that their use is irrelevant, while your previous clause actually shows that they would be damaging and counter-productive if used in your own territory. Maybe my suggestion ("unsuitable") is not the best thing to say, but I would definitely put something stronger than "unnecessary." (And yes, I know the clause is only there to ensure legality under the Security Act.)

ever since mankind first realized that a iron sword was a better weapon than a stout tree branch we've been in a situation that a nations armed forces has needed to have better weaponry than its agressive neighbour.

in Kirisubo we don't have nukes or chemical weapons but our forces still undergo training against nuclear and chemical warfare.

Before i became a UN ambassador i was a commander of a tank platoon and a Captain in the general staff of the Kirisuban army. Therefore i know what i'm talking about.

We may not have chemical weapons but I would speak up for the UN nations that do and feel that its an important part of their arsenal.

The Security Act allows us to construct any defensive weapons as stated below :

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

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.

As chemical weapons still haven't been banned any UN nation can still use them and i want it to stay that way.

Kaigan Miromuta
UN Ambassador from Kirisubo

Sorry to pick on this clause again. ;) "Unnecessary" implies that their use is irrelevant, while your previous clause actually shows that they would be damaging and counter-productive if used in your own territory. Maybe my suggestion ("unsuitable") is not the best thing to say, but I would definitely put something stronger than "unnecessary." (And yes, I know the clause is only there to ensure legality under the Security Act.)

No, it's fine: I want this to be as good as possible. For the moment, I'm going to go back to simply 'NOTING chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence'. If I can think of a way to link them more coherently, I will do so.

----

ever since mankind first realized that a iron sword was a better weapon than a stout tree branch we've been in a situation that a nations armed forces has needed to have better weaponry than its agressive neighbour.

Only partially true, and only partially relevant. There are many examples of technically inferior armies defeating technically superior ones, through the use of strategy. Did the US using chemical weaponry in Vietnam guide them to swift and decisive victory? No: they left, beaten and humiliated, having inflicted damage upon the Vietnamese landscape which survives to this day in disease and mutation amongst children. Furthermore, even if chemical weaponry did bestow a tactical advantage - which it does not, to the same degree as nuclear or biological weaponry - it is still right to ban it, as it is fundamentally unethical. Its capacity for collateral damage far outweights its ability to deliver military gain.

in Kirisubo we don't have nukes or chemical weapons but our forces still undergo training against nuclear and chemical warfare.

Which is not prohibited by this resolution.

Before i became a UN ambassador i was a commander of a tank platoon and a Captain in the general staff of the Kirisuban army. Therefore i know what i'm talking about.

Oh! Well that all makes sense. You're right: because you're PRETENDING TO BE A SOLDIER, I should scrap all of my draftwork, and accept that the fact that this is freeform RP, and so, hey you know what, I was a tank commander too, and I was better than you too, completely overrides the ability to sensibly discuss legislation.

If you draw on your experiences, then that would be a good and interesting RP, and I would listen. Simply stating imaginary facts and expecting them to carry a weight of argument is foolish, and I will not listen.

We may not have chemical weapons but I would speak up for the UN nations that do and feel that its an important part of their arsenal.

I feel it's an important part of their arsenal too, in the same way that a penis is an important part of a paedophile's body. In short, I do not care; I am trying to pass an act of prohibition. Your argument is not an argument: it's rather like saying "I don't have slaves, but I'd defend people's right to have them" or "I don't eat babies, but I'd defend people's right to tuck into scrambled children every morning". No. Until you demonstrate why chemical weapons are so important, and how their military effectiveness outweighs the potential for great, irreparable damage, your defence of others' rights is, however noble, irrelevant.

The Security Act allows us to construct any defensive weapons as stated below :

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

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.

As chemical weapons still haven't been banned any UN nation can still use them and i want it to stay that way.

1. You do realize chemical weapons were banned when the UNSA was passed?
2. You do realize a weapons ban has passed since the passage of the UNSA?
3. You do realize UNSA is irrrelevant, as chemical weapons are not necessary for national defence?

" 1. You do realize chemical weapons were banned when the UNSA was passed?
2. You do realize a weapons ban has passed since the passage of the UNSA?
3. You do realize UNSA is irrrelevant, as chemical weapons are not necessary for national defence? "

they were banned until UNR 107 was repealed by UNR 120. Also UNR 109 - Nuclear weapons act and the UNSA are still in place.

" 1. You do realize chemical weapons were banned when the UNSA was passed?
2. You do realize a weapons ban has passed since the passage of the UNSA?
3. You do realize UNSA is irrrelevant, as chemical weapons are not necessary for national defence? "

they were banned until UNR 107 was repealed by UNR 120. Also UNR 109 - Nuclear weapons act and the UNSA are still in place.

I'm taking that as a 'yes'.

i won't have the honourable member putting words in my mouth.

we may be disagreeing in this debate but chemical weapons are legal.

the ban on them was repealed by UNR 120 and the Security Act didn't ban anything.

as for them being necessary for defence purposes thats up to each individual nation to decide.

i won't have the honourable member putting words in my mouth.
we may be disagreeing in this debate but chemical weapons are legal.
the ban on them was repealed by UNR 120 and the Security Act didn't ban anything.
as for them being necessary for defence purposes thats up to each individual nation to decide.

You're missing my point so wildly that I really do feel for the mat next to your toilet. You stated that chemical weapons hadn't been banned, but you omitted to mention that when "Ban Chemical Weapons" was repealed, it was done so because the definition was flawed, and not because chemical weapons were considered necessary for national defence, an assessment which would have been a stretch in any case, as there was a ban in effect when UNSA passed. Furthermore, the idea that because the UNSA has passed weapons bans shouldn't be able to pass is rendered irrelevant by the fact that the biological weapons ban passed after UNSA, because it demonstrated that such weaponry was not necessary for national defence, as is the case with chemical weaponry. You can point at UNSA all you like, but it does not cover chemical weaponry.

once a resolution is repealed it ceases to be. Thats why resolutions have to stand on their own and not depend on another one.

UNR 107 is gone. whatever the reason for repealing it theres nothing in resolutions after that one which has re-banned chemical weapons. the UNSA only refers to :

"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."

if the bolded section is what you are refering to in your arguements its affected by existing legislation and a ban on chemical weapons is not among them.

I asume the reason why you are trying to put this proposal through is to plug a gap as you see it.

I'll let other ambassadors have a look at this debate so far and let them decide the future of this proposal. i've said my part.

I believe someone was actually going to repeal the UNSA on the basis that it had a major loophole in regards to the banning of weapons. essentially, it didnt ban any at all, and i believe it was a NatSov attempt to block the banning of weapons. This is all unofficial, however.

Ok, I added a clause about declaring various items. Comments and criticisms still very much welcome. Unless you want me to ban nukes first; you can do that.

I believe someone was actually going to repeal the UNSA on the basis that it had a major loophole in regards to the banning of weapons. essentially, it didnt ban any at all, and i believe it was a NatSov attempt to block the banning of weapons. This is all unofficial, however.

Once more, it is the position of this proposal that chemical weaponry is unnecessary for national defence. As such, the UNSA could dress up in a KKK outfit and dance through Harlem chanting "We shoulda picked our own cotton!" and I would still not pay it a second's notice. I care about preventing unnecessary carnage in war; I do not care about UNSA, however elaborately crafted, historically notable, or 'amusing' it may be.

well, have you run this passed the mods yet, because if it does violate UNSA then it is illegal. just a little piece of advice.

I think it's pretty much good as is, and you've got my full backing. Best of luck, and let me know if you need any help with the campaign.

well, have you run this passed the mods yet, because if it does violate UNSA then it is illegal. just a little piece of advice.

The mods have already ruled on this subject. As long as the proposal contains a clause stating that the weapons in question are considered unnecessary for defense UNSA can't touch it. It's legal, it's just ill advised.

well, have you run this passed the mods yet, because if it does violate UNSA then it is illegal. just a little piece of advice.

No, I haven't. The very response to the draft (from one of the principle 'combatants' in the original UNSA debates) was that I had UNSA 'down to a pat'. The proposal explicitly states that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence; as such, I can't see how it contravenes UNSA. I suppose, in time, I will run it past the mods, because it's not like they have, you know, lives and jobs and so on, but for now, I'd rather continue to assemble an effective draft.

The-Republic']I think it's pretty much good as is, and you've got my full backing. Best of luck, and let me know if you need any help with the campaign.

Thanks.

okay, should be fine, good luck with it. by the way, where is houston?

okay, should be fine, good luck with it. by the way, where is houston?
Houston is in Texas and I was wondering myself why a chemical weapons convention would be named after it.

Houston is in Texas and I was wondering myself why a chemical weapons convention would be named after it.
that is why i asked. the last thing you want is for the resolution to be deemed illegal on a technicallity (no RL references). i thought it might have been a city in Sheknu

The title doesn't really matter, and I'll change it if it's a problem. Right now, I'm more concerned with working on the definitions and operative clauses. Do you think there'd be any value in listing an explicit "including, but not limited to" set of substances banned by the resolution?

The title doesn't really matter, and I'll change it if it's a problem. Right now, I'm more concerned with working on the definitions and operative clauses. Do you think there'd be any value in listing an explicit "including, but not limited to" set of substances banned by the resolution?
i dont really think so, because someone is more than likely going to turn around and say 'we need X chemical for our children to breath'. trust me, i had that one come up when i tried to ban tobacco.

i dont really think so, because someone is more than likely going to turn around and say 'we need X chemical for our children to breath'. trust me, i had that one come up when i tried to ban tobacco.

I think I can safely say "Wtf?" In general, children don't need to breathe sarin. My point was that by listing types banned, and those types (such as tear gas) which aren't, it might make the aims clearer, even if it doesn't actually solidify a definition.

you could try listing examples that arnt. and yeah, i know, it seems odd, but you will come across someone saying the most obsurd thing is actually good :/

Added a fourth clause on the use of riot control agents.

The title doesn't really matter, and I'll change it if it's a problem. Right now, I'm more concerned with working on the definitions and operative clauses. Do you think there'd be any value in listing an explicit "including, but not limited to" set of substances banned by the resolution?
I don't really see what difference it'll make, other than opening up the floor to future resolutions banning specific chemicals as the need arises, and there's nothing stopping us doing that anyway. If you want to, then do it, if not, no biggie.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']I don't really see what difference it'll make, other than opening up the floor to future resolutions banning specific chemicals as the need arises, and there's nothing stopping us doing that anyway. If you want to, then do it, if not, no biggie.
I've revised this thought, and decided against listing schedules, as I feel the important thing is to get the definitions spot on. If they are, then lists are redundant; if they're not, then no list would be exhaustive enough to cover the potential for abuse. So, I won't list what's banned and not banned.

As I told, here I would prefer something like:
NOTING that these effects render chemical weaponry unsuitable for national defense,

"... in the interests of global welfare" seems awkward when you are discussing a war issue, were clearly each party does not have global welfare as a priority. I would change the expression, but this is a matter of taste.

I still strongly disagree with this point. The fact that a weapon, "riot control agents," is permitted for the police to control the civilian population of the country, yet not to stop an invading army, sounds excessively restrictive and inconsistent.

Finally, my main problem with this (or any) disarmament proposal is the limited scope, insofar as it can never apply to non UN nations. You disagreed with an optional retaliatory clause against those, which is fair enough, but I still have to reserve my position on that basis. The proposal is very well written and sensible, but until I can accurately assess the impact on deterrence, I cannot offer you my full support.


The government of St Edmund shares this concern about the loss of deterrent ability against the use of such weapons by nations that are outside the UN, and therefore finds itself unable to support this proposal.

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where the possession or use of such chemicals is not banned by this resolution, and where the types and quantities of such are consistent with legitimate purposes;

...

1. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, retention, acquisition, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;

I just noticed some circularity here. You cannot define "chemical weaponry" as something "except when it is not banned," and then go on to ban chemical weaponry. You either say "except when it is not banned due to clauses 25 and 47," or ommit that part.

OK, why, again, is this the Houston convention?

Presumably because Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch or Gorsafawddacha'idraigodanheddogleddollônpenrhynareurdraethceredigion wouldn't fit into the title page...

I just noticed some circularity here. You cannot define "chemical weaponry" as something "except when it is not banned," and then go on to ban chemical weaponry. You either say "except when it is not banned due to clauses 25 and 47," or ommit that part.

Thanks, that's drafting getting mangled again. It's meant to refer to precursors only. I'll change that.

Houston is a city in Sheknu. I just like the idea of Conventions, like the Geneva or the Ramsar Convention. Again, if it's suuuch a big deal, I'll just call it the Boring Convention of Aren't Chemical Weapons Bans Boring or something.

(OOC: There's a RW example of chemical weapons working as a deterrent... At the outbreak of WWII the Germans possessed enough stocks of poison gas, and factories equipped for making more of this, to make the British government seriously worried that gas bombs might cause high levels of civilian casulaties over here... The British government's response wasn't just to issue gas masks to everybody in the country, it also set up gas-manufacturing sites of its own as well and let the Germans know that any use of gas bombs by them would be met by retaliation in kind... And according to official German documents which fell into Allied hands at the end of the war this was a major factor in the Germans' decision not to use those weapons against us...)

(OOC: There's a RW example of chemical weapons working as a deterrent... At the outbreak of WWII the Germans possessed enough stocks of poison gas, and factories equipped for making more of this, to make the British government seriously worried that gas bombs might cause high levels of civilian casulaties over here... The British government's response wasn't just to issue gas masks to everybody in the country, it also set up gas-manufacturing sites of its own as well and let the Germans know that any use of gas bombs by them would be met by retaliation in kind... And according to official German documents which fell into Allied hands at the end of the war this was a major factor in the Germans' decision not to use those weapons against us...)

(OOC: There's a RW example of Germany, the UK, the USA, and, like, everyone, banning chemical weaponry.)

Although we commend the honorable representative of Sheknu for his hard work on this proposal, we cannot support it as written.

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where the possession or use of such chemicals is not banned by this resolution, and where the types and quantities of such are consistent with legitimate purposes;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising the action of those toxic chemicals specified in (i.), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of such munitions and devices as specified in (ii.);

As the distinguished representative of Fonzoland has pointed out, the definition is unacceptably circular. A definition should stand on its own, not depend on some elaboration later in the text. We also believe that there needs to be some elaboration of "legitimate purposes". Also, "toxic chemical" should be defined before it's used in a definition.

(c) "precursor" as any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production of any toxic chemical;

We restate our disagreement with this non-standard definition of "precursor chemical".

2. REQUIRES:
i. the immediate destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the immediate destruction or complete conversion to civilian application of all facilities previously directed at the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;

We strongly object to the requirement for "immediate destruction" of chemical weaponry. Hasty and ill-advised attempts to destroy or demilitarize toxic cehemical agents and filled munitions would pose severe environmental and public health threats. Since the ban on use of chemical weaponry is immediately effective, nations should be allowed to conduct destruction and demilitarization programs in a deliberate manner, after proper planning and with due concern for the environment and health.

3. MANDATES that all member nations must immediately disclose:
i. the location of all stockpiles of chemical weaponry;
ii. the location of all facilities aimed at the production of chemical weaponry;
iii. details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past ten years;

The drafter of the proposal quite rightly avoided the temptation to try to cram verification requirements into the proposal. That being the case, we see no reason to require this reporting.

4. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but DEMANDING that such agents are used judiciously, and only as a last resort, where conventional means of riot control danger are insufficient, and where the risk to civilians presented by the rioting significantly outweighs the risk presented by the use of riot control agents.

We object to the proposal's setting out conditions under which riot control agents may be used. That should be left to the judgment of on-scene law enforcement officials, subject to any restraints imposed by national or local law. Further, the requirement to use riot control agents "only as a last resort, where conventional means of riot control danger [sic] are insufficient" would mean that police would have to try controlling the mob by shooting at them with live ammunition before they could use riot control agents. Selective employment of riot control agents can be a much more humane means of riot control than other, "conventional" means.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As the distinguished representative of Fonzoland has pointed out, the definition is unacceptably circular. A definition should stand on its own, not depend on some elaboration later in the text. We also believe that there needs to be some elaboration of "legitimate purposes". Also, "toxic chemical" should be defined before it's used in a definition.

I agree, the definition is vague, and needs to be strengthened. I've tried to do so as follows:

(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals. and any precursors specifically or exclusively designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising the action of those toxic chemicals specified in (i.), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of such munitions and devices as specified in (ii.);

We restate our disagreement with this non-standard definition of "precursor chemical".

Well what would a better definition be? It's based on, but shorter than, the RL one. Your definition was "chemicals which, when combined in the detonation of binary munitions or otherwise, produce chemical agents". The "when combined..." section, which mirrors the RL extra clauses, I snipped for the sake of brevity (given "or otherwise"). That just leaves "chemicals which...produce chemical agents". I don't honestly see what's so non-standard. A precursor is just that: something that, in combination with other chemicals, produces a toxic chemical.

We strongly object to the requirement for "immediate destruction" of chemical weaponry. Hasty and ill-advised attempts to destroy or demilitarize toxic cehemical agents and filled munitions would pose severe environmental and public health threats. Since the ban on use of chemical weaponry is immediately effective, nations should be allowed to conduct destruction and demilitarization programs in a deliberate manner, after proper planning and with due concern for the environment and health.

Agreed: that was foolish of me. I removed the line about a timeframe of implementation, and tried to compensate. In fact, 'immediate' conflicts with one of my preambulatory clauses on the importance of responsible decommissioning. However, I'm not too keen on allowing indefinite idling, in the hope that the ban might one day be repealed; however, I think I'm going to shift that one on to the Compliance Mininstry for the moment. I have redrafted clause 2 as:

2. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the destruction or complete conversion to civilian application of all facilities previously directed at the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii. that such measures are carried out within a reasonable timeframe, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

The drafter of the proposal quite rightly avoided the temptation to try to cram verification requirements into the proposal. That being the case, we see no reason to require this reporting.

I'll drop the first two. The third, though, I think should be something for disclosure. Concerns have been raised about non-UN nations possessing chemical weapons; at least showing what UN members have previously sold them is the best compromise I can think of. Clause 3 will provisionally read:

3. MANDATES that all member nations must immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past ten years;

We object to the proposal's setting out conditions under which riot control agents may be used. That should be left to the judgment of on-scene law enforcement officials, subject to any restraints imposed by national or local law. Further, the requirement to use riot control agents "only as a last resort, where conventional means of riot control danger [sic] are insufficient" would mean that police would have to try controlling the mob by shooting at them with live ammunition before they could use riot control agents. Selective employment of riot control agents can be a much more humane means of riot control than other, "conventional" means.

Ok...I suppose 'conventional' was unclear. I appreciate that it may seem an unnecessary, anti-sovereign addition, but I think that if we are excepting certain chemicals, we need to make sure they are used responsibly. I'm willing to drop the clause (which I had dropped from the old draft, but then added in once the pream section was shortened), but would you think about the following redraft?

4. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but URGING that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the distrurbance of the peace significantly outweighs the risk presented by the use of riot control agents.

----

Once more, thanks for your comments. It's ultimately better not to pass poor legislation than to 'hit and hope', so if this really is a mess, I'll gladly drop it. Until that point, though, I really do welcome these criticisms, as they're slowly but surely improving the draft.

(OOC: There's a RW example of Germany, the UK, the USA, and, like, everyone, banning chemical weaponry.)

But, as several of us have already pointed out, such a ban here by the NSUN would only affect the NSUN's own members... and these are outnumbered by more than 2:1 by the non-NSUN-member nations...


"Houston, we have a problem..."

But, as several of us have already pointed out, such a ban here by the NSUN would only affect the NSUN's own members... and these are outnumbered by more than 2:1 by the non-NSUN-member nations...

So don't support the proposal.

In the meantime, are there further comments on the newly adjusted draft?

In the meantime, are there further comments on the newly adjusted draft?
Well, I'd just like to address the UNSA issue.

I think the clause you have is good in accommodating the UNSA, except that it's a preambulary clause. I had a bit of a beef with the preambulary clause being used in the Bioweapons ban to get around the UNSA, because preambulary clauses have no actual effect in the game.

For example, the preambulary clauses in "Repeal of 'Legalize Prostitution'" seems to hold the line that legalized prostitution can increase the transmission of disease. Yet, the replacement's ("Sex Worker Industry Act") preambulary clauses encompass the situation the opposite way (that legalized prostitution is safer as far as disease is concerned). If the preambulary clauses of resolution and repeals had effect, the UN would be trapped in a paradox of prostitution in which it was declared unsafe and safe, disease-promoting and disease-defying at the same time.

So, preambulary clauses cannot have any actual effect except persuade audience members. I definitely think the UNSA requires some sort of "actual effect" to prove lack of necessity. So, I'm firm in the belief that UNSA-addressing clauses must be active clauses. That means I think the current Bioweapons Ban is illegal (but I figure it's just a matter of time until it's repealed anyway, so I won't get my panties in a bunch about it).

Anyway, I think you should move "NOTING chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence," down into the numbered section of clauses, and change it to "NOTES" or somesuch "active-clause-conjugation".

Anyway, I think you should move "NOTING chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence," down into the numbered section of clauses, and change it to "NOTES" or somesuch "active-clause-conjugation".

I'm aware of what preambulatory clauses do. However, I hadn't really considered the possibility that an actual substantive clause would be required.

Firstly, with regards to the UNSA: I don't regard it as something that could be circumvented in every case with five li'l words. The judgement of whether something is necessary for national defence is more complex than that: to my mind, even though the moderators would not necessarily agree, a proposal to ban rifles as they were nnfnd would be illegal, as they probably are necessary. So I don't 'just' want to trick around the UNSA: I genuinely see it as irrelevant. (I know the phrase 'still in effect' dampens the argument considerably, but I take in support of this the fact that a chemical weapons ban was already a resolution when the UNSA was passed.) So I genuinely do not believe that chemical weapons are necessary for national defence; hence my attempt to ban them.

The way I see it, preams are non-binding, but indicate the 'spirit' of a resolution. We follow the letter of the law, not the spirit, so they're of no direct consequence...but they're internally important. To this end, I think every operative clause requires some justification in the pream section. If someone is going to ban something, they need to show why it needs to be banned first. I'm aware this isn't really the way 'real' legislation works, but the NSUN resolution model requires certain innovations.

Now, from a purely aesthetic point of view, I can't see the moving of the clause as 'looking especially nice'. Furthermore, it would have to go first, or at least straight after the definitions, in order to justify the prohibition/mandate clauses. That in itself isn't reason not to, but where possible, I think it's best to avoid a proposal which will look distinctly odd, especially given this won't be the most popular in the world anyway.

As such, my respect for your opinion notwithstanding, I'm going to ask for a second opinion - from anyone, really - and see whether others agree. I fully understand your point; however, the bio ban was declared by legal by the mods, and our personal judgements on legality next to that are no less valid, but ultimately matter less in terms of application to my proposal. I'm inclined to believe if I left it as it was, it would be legal. However, that's really being lazy, and if there is a recurring sentiment that the force of that clause needs to be substantive - coupled with the observations of some that it is awkwardly placed in the pream in any case - then I will definitely consider redrafting accordingly.

As such, my respect for your opinion notwithstanding, I'm going to ask for a second opinion - from anyone, really - and see whether others agree. I fully understand your point; however, the bio ban was declared by legal by the mods, and our personal judgements on legality next to that are no less valid, but ultimately matter less in terms of application to my proposal. I'm inclined to believe if I left it as it was, it would be legal. However, that's really being lazy, and if there is a recurring sentiment that the force of that clause needs to be substantive - coupled with the observations of some that it is awkwardly placed in the pream in any case - then I will definitely consider redrafting accordingly.

I am clearly not an expert in such matters, but I tend to agree with Sheknu. You don't need to do something in order for it to be legal, you just need to explain that the UN does not think chemicals are encompassed by the UNSA, and therefore it is alright to ban them. Motivation, not action.

I believe a structure of the style:

"Noting that chemicals are bad things, and banning them is not illegal,
We ban chemicals"

makes more sense than

"Noting that chemicals are bad things,
We declare banning chemicals not illegal, and ban them"

Well, I'd just like to address the UNSA issue.

I think the clause you have is good in accommodating the UNSA, except that it's a preambulary clause. I had a bit of a beef with the preambulary clause being used in the Bioweapons ban to get around the UNSA, because preambulary clauses have no actual effect in the game.

[snip]

So, preambulary clauses cannot have any actual effect except persuade audience members. I definitely think the UNSA requires some sort of "actual effect" to prove lack of necessity. So, I'm firm in the belief that UNSA-addressing clauses must be active clauses. That means I think the current Bioweapons Ban is illegal (but I figure it's just a matter of time until it's repealed anyway, so I won't get my panties in a bunch about it).

Anyway, I think you should move "NOTING chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence," down into the numbered section of clauses, and change it to "NOTES" or somesuch "active-clause-conjugation".

We must respectfully disagree with the distinguished representative of Powerhungry Chipmunks on this issue. In our view, preambulatory clauses set out (or, at least, should set out) the basic propositions on which a resolution is based. In this case, the NSUN would be stating its judgment that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defense. That being said, we would suggest the following....

Make the definitions clause item 1. Change "DEFINING" to "DEFINES,".

Move the clause about necessity to just below that one and number it 2. Reword it to read:

2. DECLARES that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence;

Renumber the succeeding clauses accordingly.

That would accommodate the honorable representative of Powerhungry Chipmunks' concern and also strengthen the statement about neceessity.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Thanks to Fonzoland and Ausserland for their prompt responses. I have adopted the suggestions of Ausserland, with regard to clause rearrangement: this should meet Powerhungry Chipmunks' suggestion.

I agree with the wording of your preamble, yet I suggest you move them around a bit. It sounds better if you put all the bad stuff before condemning.


FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for peace throughout the world,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties, and to cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weapons constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored, or if terrorist organizations gain possession of them,

CONDEMNING use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it, yet

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

<and so on>


Also, there is a style inconsistency here:

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals and NOTING such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

*snip*

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

Either drop the caps in "NOTING" or capitalize "further observing." Whilst might also not be the best link.

(b) "toxic chemical" as any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and which has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,


The People's Republic of Port Orange has an issue with the wording of this step. Perhaps we have missed something, but an exception seems to exist for those chemicals designed to defoliate, such as the much-maligned Agent Orange, which would allow for the slow starvation of the population being attacked. This constitutes a chemical weapon in the real sense - victory by their use - but is not included in this definition since it's intended target is non-animal. A simple fix would be to replace the "and which has" with "or which has".


3. PROHIBITS:

iv. the production of precursors for use in the assembly of chemical weapons;


The PRPO also has issues with wording here. It would be a legitimate use of our facilities, and in line with our general defense strategy, to understand the workings of these chemicals in order to develop counteragents to them. For example, in order to create a vaccine for small pox, one must have small pox on hand. We would suggest an exception allowing for limited production for the sole purpose of counterweapons.

Overall, we believe this resolution is trying to overreach. We believe that the goal is admirable, and agree with it, however we recommend smaller steps be taken. First and foremost in combatting the spread of these weapons. Second, and later, the removal of them from civilized nations.

I know the Houston problem has been brought up, but I'd like to make a suggestion based on some proposals/resolutions made by Wolfish. Why not call it the "Sheknuite" convention? That way, no one will start complaining to the mods about your proposal being illegal due to RL references.

It's just an idea.

I know the Houston problem has been brought up, but I'd like to make a suggestion based on some proposals/resolutions made by Wolfish. Why not call it the "Sheknuite" convention? That way, no one will start complaining to the mods about your proposal being illegal due to RL references.

Because I don't see it as that big a deal. Conventions take place in the cities: there was the Geneva Convention, for example, not the Swiss Convention. Sheknu's towns are named after American cities, yes, but it's not a RL reference. It's just the name. As I say, if it's going to kick up that much of a stink, I'll drop it.

----

I agree with the wording of your preamble, yet I suggest you move them around a bit. It sounds better if you put all the bad stuff before condemning.
...
Also, there is a style inconsistency here:
...

Yep, thanks. Both changed.

----

The People's Republic of Port Orange has an issue with the wording of this step. Perhaps we have missed something, but an exception seems to exist for those chemicals designed to defoliate, such as the much-maligned Agent Orange, which would allow for the slow starvation of the population being attacked. This constitutes a chemical weapon in the real sense - victory by their use - but is not included in this definition since it's intended target is non-animal. A simple fix would be to replace the "and which has" with "or which has".

Hmm. Under article 3.iii. 'the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes' is prohibited. Some defoliants would be thus covered. I accept, though, that defoliants are not necessarily covered by the proposal. I am unsure of how to proceed on this. I could:
prohibit any military use of herbicides;
add an addendum further banning defoliants (and possibly other things, such as incendiaries and anthrax);
do nothing.

I will think this over.

The PRPO also has issues with wording here. It would be a legitimate use of our facilities, and in line with our general defense strategy, to understand the workings of these chemicals in order to develop counteragents to them. For example, in order to create a vaccine for small pox, one must have small pox on hand. We would suggest an exception allowing for limited production for the sole purpose of counterweapons.

Overall, we believe this resolution is trying to overreach. We believe that the goal is admirable, and agree with it, however we recommend smaller steps be taken. First and foremost in combatting the spread of these weapons. Second, and later, the removal of them from civilized nations.

I have to admit my ignorance here. Are there 'counterweapons'? I'm not familiar with the concept, but I'm willing to believe the possibility of such. Even so, the comparison with a vaccine is a little misleading. I accept the need to retain counterweaponry technology...should such exist. I shall look into this.

As for the idea that this should merely be a non-proliferation treaty, instead of a ban, I disagree. The use of chemical weaponry in warfare is fundamentally wrong, and it is something which needs to be stopped. I have no problem with at least attempting to do both, for the moment.

I know that conventions take place in cities, but real world city names just aren't allowed. That's why I made my suggestion. I didn't mean to get you aggravated, so please accept my "mea culpa" for that one. I just would hate to see a fellow UN member get in trouble with mods for something that could so easily have been avoided. That's all.

I know that conventions take place in cities, but real world city names just aren't allowed. That's why I made my suggestion. I didn't mean to get you aggravated, so please accept my "mea culpa" for that one. I just would hate to see a fellow UN member get in trouble with mods for something that could so easily have been avoided. That's all.

No, I'm not annoyed. I just didn't realize there'd be this much objection. I'll change it.

As such, my respect for your opinion notwithstanding, I'm going to ask for a second opinion - from anyone, really - and see whether others agree.
And I'm very glad for it. See, when others say they "respect my opinion" or hold me in high regard, I usually get really scared. What if I say something dumb? I think, what if I make a mistake that they put it into their proposal? I'm very relieved when my opinion is questioned in this way, because it's almost always in the best interest of the proposal. Thanks for questioning me :)

Are you allowed to even call it the Sheknuite Convention, or does that violate the branding rules? Personally, I have no problem with Sheknuite or Houston, but I believe that there'd be more of an issue with Sheknuite. I doubt the mods would delete the proposal because a Sheknuite city happens to have the same name as a RL city.

Argh. The name doesn't matter. I'm sorry that I called it this, and I'll just submit as CWC or something when the time comes. A reminder of the current draft: Updated as per Fonzoland's suggestions

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for peace throughout the world,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties and cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weaponry constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored, or if terrorist organizations gain possession of them,

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors specifically or exclusively designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising the action of toxic chemicals, which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of munitions and devices specified in (ii.);

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a chemical reactant that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, retention, acquisition, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;
ii. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iii. the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv. the production of precursors for use in the assembly of chemical weapons;

4. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii. that such measures are carried out within a reasonable timeframe, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

5. MANDATES that all member nations immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past ten years;

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of riot control agents.

Can't see anything wrong with it. Granted, I haven't had sleep in about 30 hours, but still, excellent work.

As stated before, you've got our full support.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Personally I think an extreme circumstance clause could go there, along the lines of: if such and such happens, the UN reserves the right to use such and such on such and such. But again I am totally against this bill and will probably repeal it if it does pass.

Ambassador Extrodinare to the UN,
Representing the People's Republic of Pochinco
and the region of The Golden Shanty of Jesus,

Igor Rulchesky,
People's Reform Party 2nd Circle

Minor suggestions for readability (added in bold, removed in parentheses):

FULLY CONVINCED that effective international cooperation and law is required for peace throughout the world,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties(,) and (to) cause medical, biological, and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that possession of chemical (weapons) weaponry constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored, or if terrorist organizations gain possession of them,

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes, and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING that certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing [again, style inconsistency with last clause] that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals(.) and (any) precursors specifically or exclusively designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising the action of (those) toxic chemicals (specified in (i.)), which would be released as a result of (the) employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of (such) munitions and devices (as) specified in (ii.);

(b) "toxic chemical" as (any) a chemical (which) that, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and (which) that has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as (any) a chemical reactant (which) that takes part at any stage in the production of (any) a toxic chemical;

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, retention, acquisition, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;
ii. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iii. the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv. the production of precursors for use in the assembly of chemical weapons;

4. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the destruction or complete conversion to civilian application of all facilities previously directed (at) to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii. that such measures are carried out within a reasonable timeframe, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

5. MANDATES that all member nations must immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past ten years;

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but (URGING) URGES that such measures only be employed (where) when the risk to civilians presented by the distrurbance of the peace significantly outweighs (the risk presented by) that of the use of riot control agents.

---

Ufff, that took longer than expected... next time I will edit directly.

Pochinco']Personally I think an extreme circumstance clause could go there, along the lines of: if such and such happens, the UN reserves the right to use such and such on such and such. But again I am totally against this bill and will probably repeal it if it does pass.

I have no Sheknuly idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Could you rephrase your concern?

--snip--

Thank you very much. I've made most, though not all, of the changes you suggested. If you think there's still anything that really has to be changed, let me know.

Comments and suggestions still welcome; I'm unlikely to submit this before the new year.

Yes, it reads well now. I added/removed a few commas and removed a word:

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,

ii. the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;

5. MANDATES that all member nations (must) immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past ten years;

Done.

This will be submitted on Monday as "Chemical Weapons Ban". Any final comments would be very much appreciated, even if they are purely aesthetic.

287 characters over the limit. Fiddle.

Submitted, just for a test run to see how much unlobbied support there is, with the final two clauses struck. In the meantime, any ideas on how to get the character count down?

Submitted, just for a test run to see how much unlobbied support there is, with the final two clauses struck. In the meantime, any ideas on how to get the character count down?

I'll give it a go. What is the final draft?

I've been updating the first (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457334) post, but it's also in post 67 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10055481&postcount=67). I need to lose 287 characters: so probably 300 to be sure. Also taking suggestions on the name: it won't be the Houston Convention, and at the moment it's "Chemical Weapons Ban".

Is post #67 updated? I loooove cutting... ;)

A

Is post #67 updated? I loooove cutting... ;)

A

Should be. If it's not, or if there's a discrepancy between it and the first post, let me know. Thanks in advance for any help offered.

Fuck it. See this is why having a snappy would have been useful. There's already a "Chemical Weapons Ban 2" (the merit of which I make no comment on) in queue. Because of that, I can't link to my proposal at all.

I am sure some of the changes are crap, but it did kill some characters.

---

The UN,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for world peace,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties and cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weaponry constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored or appropriated by terrorist organizations,

CONDEMNING chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in social and economic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine, etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors specifically or exclusively designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising toxic chemicals, which would be released by the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for direct aid of the employment of said munitions and devices;

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a reactant taking part in the production of a toxic chemical;

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, retention, acquisition, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;
ii. aid or inducement towards production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iii. use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv. production of precursors for use in assembly of chemical weapons;

4. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities previously directed to production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii. that such measures are carried out promptly, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

5. MANDATES that member nations immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past ten years;

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of riot control agents.

My effort, which steals a coupel of ideas from Fonzoland. It might actually be enough. I think it trims about 300 characters off including spaces.


The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation & law is required for world peace,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, such as death, injury, & damage, having the potential to affect 3rd parties and cause medical, biological & environmental issues long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weaponry constitutes a major threat, due to the potential for vast damage if improperly stored, or obtained by terrorist groups,

CONDEMNING chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal may be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade may increase international cooperation in social & economic development,

MINDFUL of UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law & order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist groups:

1 DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i toxic chemicals and precursors primarily designed for the production of toxic chemicals;
ii munitions and devices specifically designed to kill, maim, injure or damage utilising toxic chemicals, which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii any equipment specifically designed for use directly in aid of the employment of such devices

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action, causes death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable viability as a weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a chemical reactant that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

2 DECLARES chemical weaponry unnecessary for national defence,

3 PROHIBITS:
i production, development, retention, acquisition, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;
ii aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist groups;
iii the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv the production of precursors for use in the assembly of chemical weapons;

4 REQUIRES:
i the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii that such measures are carried out within a reasonable timeframe, but that due regard for health, environmental & security concerns is taken;

5 MANDATES that all member states disclose details of transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nation or non-state groups in the past 10 years;

6 PERMITS member states to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law & order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of riot control agents.

This doesn't take care of everything, but here's some more cuts. Use what you will, reds are cut, blues are added.

The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation [and law] is required for peace throughout the world,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties and cause medical[, biological] and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED possession of chemical weaponry constitutes a significant threat, due to the potential for massive damage if improperly stored, or if terrorist organizations gain possession of them,

CONDEMNING the use of chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

[STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,]

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in [social and economic] socioeconomic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between [chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action] those chemical agents used for military purposes and police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors specifically or exclusively designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices specifically designed to [kill, maim, injure or damage] harm utilising [the action of toxic chemicals], which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
iii. any equipment specifically designed for cooperative use with [directly in aid of the employment of] munitions and devices specified in (ii.);

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a chemical reactant that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, [retention, acquisition] possession, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;
ii. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party[, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations];
iii. the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv. the production of precursors for use in the assembly of chemical weapons;

4. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii. that such measures are carried out within a reasonable timeframe, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

5. MANDATES that all member nations immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past ten years;

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of riot control agents.

Thanks. I've made some of the changes. I would by now have offered you a co-author credit...except that'd mean more characters to cut! Seriously, thanks for all your help. It's appreciated.

EDIT: This was at Fonzoland. Reading Hirota's and The-Republic's now.

:D Now you have to merge them together... I don't envy you.
Post it again afterwards for a last check. ;)

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

The UN,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for world peace,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties and cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED chemical weaponry constitutes a major threat, due to the potential for vast damage if improperly stored or appropriated by terrorist organizations,

CONDEMNING chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in socioeconomic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a chemical reactant that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, possession, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;
ii. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iii. the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv. the production of precursors for use in the assembly of chemical weapons;

4. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii. that such measures are carried out promptly, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

5. MANDATES that all member nations immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past 10 years;

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of riot control agents.

----

Ok, thanks to all three of you. I've made some changes; I haven't made others. If there's specific things I haven't done, which you feel I should, do say. The character count is just under 3000 without spaces, just over 3400 with. That's short enough, now.

4 characters under!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111111

CAEK FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111

(My excessive use of punctuation is intended as ironic.)

Well done!

[OOC: Why did I just have the urge to end my post with "May the blessings of our otters be upon you??? I feel weird now...]

'e's turnin' en to an otta, 'e is!

'e must be cursed.

Nooooo!

I knew I should've been worried about that full moon last night!
[/thread hijack], sorry

Thanks. I've made some of the changes. I would by now have offered you a co-author credit...except that'd mean more characters to cut! Seriously, thanks for all your help. It's appreciated.

EDIT: This was at Fonzoland. Reading Hirota's and The-Republic's now.

Honestly, I don't think co-authorship should be granted on cosmetic changes and proof-reading. The whole text is yours.

Read it, sounds fine. One late suggestion, in case it matters:

iii. that such measures are carried out promptly, but with due regard for health, environmental and security concerns;

I like it being just 4 characters under, so I'll probably leave it. I'll submit this tomorrow morning. Thanks again for all the help. Now go tell your delegates! (Please)

I like it being just 4 characters under, so I'll probably leave it. I'll submit this tomorrow morning. Thanks again for all the help. Now go tell your delegates! (Please)

Errrr...

- Fonzoland, there is a really cool proposal on chemicals that you should support.
- Uh? Chemicals? Does that go well with strawberry jam?
- Yes.
- Jolly good. OK then.

Are you going to run a TG campaign for this? I can help! Pick me, pick me!

Fonzoland...I don't follow. Is there a mistake in the definition?

The-Republic']Are you going to run a TG campaign for this? I can help! Pick me, pick me!

I probably will TG for it, yes. If you're willing to help, great. I'll send you a TG later.

Fonzoland...I don't follow. Is there a mistake in the definition?

Nop, just bragging about being my own delegate. ;)

Alright, as this'll be submitted tomorrow, I'll give it a bump for any final comments. I believe it's within the character count by four, so if you want to add anything, you're going to have to take something out too.

Final draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10089315&postcount=87).

Submitted: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=weaponry

Approved.

[OOC: Why did I just have the urge to end my post with "May the blessings of our otters be upon you??? I feel weird now...]

See, my insiduous plot to brainwash the U.N. delegates into becoming mind-slaves of The Republic of Compadria is working.

Now repeat very carefully after me.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The-Republic']Well done!

[OOC: Why did I just have the urge to end my post with "May the blessings of our otters be upon you??? I feel unclean now...]

Fixed. :p

To the outrage of the many, and to the would be damage as a budding young politician in the real world (I'm not one yet, although my classmates reckon I should be, since I'm a Y9 who knows so much about politics) I am against this ban. I know, they are dangerous, they harm. If I use them some George Bush style guy is going to blow me up, and If I don't use them, whether I have the weapons or not, I'll end up like Iraq. So I'm signing a suicide letter which is being sent to International Incidents right now.
Apart from that, I'll be the one in the corner quietly buying weapons while selling off outdated ones to more powerful nations.

No, you won't, if the proposal passed. It bans all that.

Well, I suppose My economy better get ready for a bit of cash, as all i get from my sales will probably go to my military and research Space Lab.

This 'prohibits...distribution'. Sorry pal, you're not selling anything.

So I'm guessing I can't dump them, for fear of the over-zealous enviromentalists. The black market would pay less than their value, then sell them at extortionate prices. And I can't let them rot through containers in commercial laboratories and factories. What can I do with my vat of chemicals besides producing bombs, weaponry, highly explosive fuel and other military items.
Just a question, but is potassium banned in this proposal? I'll exlain my reasons later, though i'll be amazed if you guess.

So I'm guessing I can't dump them, for fear of the over-zealous enviromentalists. The black market would pay less than their value, then sell them at extortionate prices. And I can't let them rot through containers in commercial laboratories and factories. What can I do with my vat of chemicals besides producing bombs, weaponry, highly explosive fuel and other military items.
Just a question, but is potassium banned in this proposal? I'll exlain my reasons later, though i'll be amazed if you guess.

You destroy them responsibly, or convert them. And potassium? I'm not certain how it has reasonable potential for use as a military weapon, so I doubt it. Interpretation's up to you, though, not anyone else.

We support this proposal and respectfully recommend that our colleagues do likewise.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

You destroy them responsibly, or convert them. And potassium? I'm not certain how it has reasonable potential for use as a military weapon, so I doubt it. Interpretation's up to you, though, not anyone else.

Right after it rains, you shower the city with pottasium, setting off millions of tiny explosions that cover the city uniformly, destroying everything.

That would be SO COOL!


Umm.... I mean.... Miconta fully supports the amendment as is.

Right after it rains, you shower the city with pottasium, setting off millions of tiny explosions that cover the city uniformly, destroying everything.

That would be SO COOL!


Umm.... I mean.... Miconta fully supports the amendment as is.

The potassium trick is even cooler when mixed with partially oxidized aluminum, combined in a fast evaporating solvent, and allowed to dry to powder.

Granted, it's less dangerous that way, but wrapped in lead and ignited, it can melt through anything :)

One problem with chemical weaponry is that it often overlooks more creative applications to industry. Incindiary grenades could work well applied as a high intensity expendable heat source in manufacturing, for example.

*Hops a jet back to USST*

Ok, so I can convert them? I suppose I have a few good ideas for conversion.
About the Potassium, it's one of the most reactive metals. It explodes on cold water, which means if I filled a submarine with potassium, dropped it in a bomb to enemy structures, and let it escape, or allowed it to come into contact wit acid, then it would create a pretty decent explosion. What about Francium? Sorry if i'm being spoffy.

*rubs temples*

Wow. (And I don't know 'spoffy' means, but I strongly suspect you're not being it.)

Does potassium have reasonable potential as a weapon? No. Could you use it as a weapon? Yes. I am not going to ban chemicals. I am banning chemical weaponry. Had you bothered to read the proposal, you'd know that. Next.

Had you bothered to read the proposal, you'd know that. Next.

A bit snippy, don't you think?

Spoffy is a descriptive word originating from the word spoff. Spoff means geek, nerd, Mister Know-it-all, Brainy, anything similar to those.

And I read your proposal, but got confused. Not because I couldn't see the worthwhile point of it, but because you answered some questions and gave me some more. Like when you ask where milk comes from, and then you want to know where cows come from, and then you want to know how they make milk, and then you want to know...

I hope i've learnt you a new word.

A bit snippy, don't you think?

If someone waded into your proposal thread, and shouted "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter!" would you be snippy?

Sigh. Nonetheless, sorry Optischer. And no, you definitely weren't being spoffy.

well i think i was. But obviously some people don't. But how did I shout in this post "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter!"
I would also like to say, thank you for saying sorry, I accept your heartfelt (or heart type organ if you are biological) apology.
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!

If someone waded into your proposal thread, and shouted "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter!" would you be snippy?

That's precisely what a few did...

127 down, 2 to go...come on, push, push, heeeeeeeeeave...

Ahem. Yes, if there are two delegates floating around who feel in a nice mood, please do feel free to add your initials.

Belarum, I thank you. Quorum!

Congratulations. Your topic is officially scheduled to be attacked by illiterate morons in the near future. ;)

Congratulations. Your topic is officially scheduled to be attacked by illiterate morons in the near future. ;)
gee, you sound so enthused by that ;)

Let's call it preemptive flaming.

Christ. We have said barely a word about this resolution (which we STRONGLY oppose), and already we are branded "illiterate morons." If these are the brilliant tactics that proponents intend to employ in this article's defense, we believe we'll steer clear of this discussion topic altogether. :rolleyes:

We foresee an independent Kenny UN Mission opening for business in the very near future ...

Christ. We have said barely a word about this resolution (which we STRONGLY oppose), and already we are branded "illiterate morons." If these are the brilliant tactics that proponents intend to employ in this article's defense, we believe we'll steer clear of this discussion topic altogether. :rolleyes:

We foresee an independent Kenny UN Mission opening for business in the very near future ...

Come on, you should know I wasn't talking about you. I meant comments of the style: "We are for/against because this proposal prevents the use of hairdryers to kill rats!"

Sapient rats?

Sapient/sentient anti-social blood-drinking telepathic angry rats with heat-sensitive fur.

Now that this proposal has made it to quorum, you can count on vociferous opposition from the people of Cluichstan.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Our congratulations to the honorable representative of Sheknu on the achievement of quorum. Ausserland will be voting in favor of the resolution when it reaches the floor.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

you will recieve our support too. i just hope it doesnt get shot down by idiocy like the current one (rights for sapient biologicals).

Now that this proposal has made it to quorum, you can count on vociferous opposition from the people of Cluichstan.

We respectfully disagree. Opposition from the people of Cluichstan is never vociferous, quite the contrary; however, it does manage to be amusing at times.
;)

Cluichstan is amusing. But rather, will the proposal allow alchohol in ceremonial occasions?

Cluichstan is amusing. But rather, will the proposal allow alchohol in ceremonial occasions?

OOC: Wrong proposal... :rolleyes:

And Fonzoland, you haven't been around long enough (and I do not mean that as a dig) to see how loudmouthed I can get. ;)

Just to point out, I did not make the 'illiterate morons' comment, nor do I associate myself with it in any way. I think there's plenty of perfectly sensible, intelligent oppositions possible, and I trust Omigodtheykilledkenny, Cluichstan, and others to deliver them. I'd rather we didn't drag the debate down into childish insults just yet.

Poo poo brain!

Poo poo brain!

:D

Soz, I just got mixed up because all your posts Cluichstan sound the same.

you will recieve our support too. i just hope it doesnt get shot down by idiocy like the current one (rights for sapient biologicals).


I'll pass your message on to the Palentine Navy Dolphins.:p BTW we are against this ban, and will officially do so once the right to divorce repeal takes place.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Sapient/sentient anti-social blood-drinking telepathic angry rats with heat-sensitive fur.

Ya better call the exterminator for that.:D

I'll pass your message on to the Palentine Navy Dolphins.:p BTW we are against this ban, and will officially do so once the right to divorce repeal takes place.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

The people of Cluichstan join their friends in the Palentine in opposing this proposal. We will campaign against it once we're finished campaigning in favor of repealing the right to divorce.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Might as well get this over with now, so I can spend a few days building up more vitriol and barbaric militant machismo for when this come officially up for vote.:p The Palentine Un Office strongly opposes this ban. We prefer having all available weapons at our diposal to deal with invaders, terrorists, and ingrates. Of course we do not posess any of these weapons<whistles innocently>. We have plenty of nukes to deal with those who use these weapons on our peace-loving,God fearing, hard working citizens. after all my nation veiws any WMD attack as a Nuke attack and will respond with the biggest nukes in our aresenals(enought to turn even the prettiest nation to a glowing glassy parking lot). My God man, how do you expect us to invade Chetzcnya without Chemical weapons?!!!:D

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla,Ambassador Palentine UN office
(Our dolphins swear like drunken sailors)
UN Delegate, Antarctic Oasis

P.S. The "Illiterate Moron" attack has begun.:D :D :D

Might as well get this over with now, so I can spend a few days building up more vitriol and barbaric militant machismo for when this come officially up for vote.:p The Palentine Un Office strongly opposes this ban. We prefer having all available weapons at our diposal to deal with invaders, terrorists, and ingrates. Of course we do not posess any of these weapons<whistles innocently>. We have plenty of nukes to deal with those who use these weapons on our peace-loving,God fearing, hard working citizens. after all my nation veiws any WMD attack as a Nuke attack and will respond with the biggest nukes in our aresenals(enought to turn even the prettiest nation to a glowing glassy parking lot). My God man, how do you expect us to invade Chetzcnya without Chemical weapons?!!!:D

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla,Ambassador Palentine UN office
(Our dolphins swear like drunken sailors)
UN Delegate, Antarctic Oasis

P.S. The "Illiterate Moron" attack has begun.

First, I did not make the 'illiterate moron' attack. Frankly, the UN is an open organization, and illiterate morons are welcome; secondly, I am sure the opponents of this are perfectly intelligent. We are discussing international security, not IQ tests.

Second, I'd direct you to clause 2. That is not just a get-around UNSA: it is a genuine belief. Chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence. I expect you to invade Chechnya using conventional armaments. Modern warfare is very dispersed: chemical weaponry is only useful in confined environments. That said, there runs the risk - a significant risk - of harming non-combatants or one's own forces in such situations. Furthermore, most modern forces have developed effective and cheap anti-chemical gear, such as gas masks and protective clothing.

Finally, I'm sure the UN forum will be able to concoct some ludicrous scenario where it seems they are 'necessary'. In that case, they remain inhumane (also indolphinane, inelfane, etc.) and have effects which outweigh any possible bonus in terms of long-term damage.

Might as well get this over with now, so I can spend a few days building up more vitriol and barbaric militant machismo for when this come officially up for vote.:p The Palentine Un Office strongly opposes this ban. We prefer having all available weapons at our diposal to deal with invaders, terrorists, and ingrates. Of course we do not posess any of these weapons<whistles innocently>. We have plenty of nukes to deal with those who use these weapons on our peace-loving,God fearing, hard working citizens. after all my nation veiws any WMD attack as a Nuke attack and will respond with the biggest nukes in our aresenals(enought to turn even the prettiest nation to a glowing glassy parking lot). My God man, how do you expect us to invade Chetzcnya without Chemical weapons?!!!:D

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla,Ambassador Palentine UN office
(Our dolphins swear like drunken sailors)
UN Delegate, Antarctic Oasis

P.S. The "Illiterate Moron" attack has begun.:D :D :D
our comment was aimed at the random, one line "idontlikethisproposalandwillvotagainst" seen today gone today posters

our comment was aimed at the random, one line "idontlikethisproposalandwillvotagainst" seen today gone today posters

If they're here today, gone tomorrow, then they won't be around to see your comments. So I wouldn't bother making them.

Come on. I know this won't be the most popular proposal, but I put time and effort into drafting it, a bunch of people helped me out, and I campaigned hard. I don't want the floor debate to descend into this kind of squabbling. I don't care for personal attacks, because they're irrelevant. In terms of weapons of mass destruction, more than anything, surely we see the potential for hugely clever people to be wrong. So, I don't care. Let's debate the proposal, not what we think of people who hold certain views. Please.

There is some debate in the Glorious Grand Duchy of Galactic Gargleblaster as to whether our national drink qualifies as a chemical weapon or not. We did use some Galactic Gargleblasterblasters to melt down a tank (for demonstration purposes only) so that esteemed representatives from our neighbor, the Domain of Manic Caffeine Dieties could observe in a matter of international amity and understanding. On the other hand (5 minute pause) we drink it all the time and it dsnoet aeffct our bodies or tihnknig at all.

Our Duke was hoping the Rights of Sapients act would pass, as it would have allowed him to expand the otter wing of the national castle, so he has asked me...

(pained expression, pause)

Are there any iron-harmed elves who are NSUN members or silver-harmed werewolves who are NSUN members? If these metals are bulletized, or if the foundry is discovered later to have accidentally made some impure shot with these metals in them, is the primary offensive effect supposed to be the KE of the shot, or the metal in the nose? Is it OK to have these weapons, if their intended use happens to be to kill humans?

------Smedley (sporting a brand new ducal hickey)

There is some debate in the Glorious Grand Duchy of Galactic Gargleblaster as to whether our national drink qualifies as a chemical weapon or not. We did use some Galactic Gargleblasterblasters to melt down a tank (for demonstration purposes only) so that esteemed representatives from our neighbor, the Domain of Manic Caffeine Dieties could observe in a matter of international amity and understanding. On the other hand (5 minute pause) we drink it all the time and it dsnoet aeffct our bodies or tihnknig at all.

If all it can do is melt a tank, no. The prohibition is on anything which through its chemical action causes death or permanent harm to any animal species. Melting metal would not be a problem. Will consider the second query.

If all it can do is melt a tank, no. The prohibition is on anything which through its chemical action causes death or permanent harm to any animal species. Melting metal would not be a problem. Will consider the second query.
and it only goes for warfare application, right?

you have my vote as long as this is strictly for warfare and not for police enforcement. i agree with what you said, how the effects of chemical warfare are terminal and can kill many things, humans included.

Are there any iron-harmed elves who are NSUN members or silver-harmed werewolves who are NSUN members? If these metals are bulletized, or if the foundry is discovered later to have accidentally made some impure shot with these metals in them, is the primary offensive effect supposed to be the KE of the shot, or the metal in the nose?

OOC: This is pure genius! Linking these two proposals should give the fluffies who support both some pause. However, being fluffies, this brilliant connection won't make any sense to them (and they probably don't know what KE is either). I know I mocked an earlier post of yours, GG, but after reading this, I have to apologise. *tosses GG a towel* DON'T PANIC! :p

OOC: This is pure genius! Linking these two proposals should give the fluffies who support both some pause. However, being fluffies, this brilliant connection won't make any sense to them (and they probably don't know what KE is either). I know I mocked an earlier post of yours, GG, but after reading this, I have to apologise. *tosses GG a towel* DON'T PANIC! :p

Rather than making this an inside joke to bewilder non-believers, I assume KE is Kinetic Energy (ie the speed of the bullet).

I readily admit that the point is good. I don't know if werewolves can be harmed by touching/drinking silver. If that is the case, silver bullets used against werewolves fall within the definition of a chemical attack. I don't think a normal bullet would be a problem, even if contaminated. The material is not specifically chosen for its chemical properties, so whatever harm comes that way is not intentional.

Rather than making this an inside joke to bewilder non-believers, I assume KE is Kinetic Energy (ie the speed of the bullet).

I readily admit that the point is good. I don't know if werewolves can be harmed by touching/drinking silver. If that is the case, silver bullets used against werewolves fall within the definition of a chemical attack. I don't think a normal bullet would be a problem, even if contaminated. The material is not specifically chosen for its chemical properties, so whatever harm comes that way is not intentional.

OOC: I didn't mean it as an inside joke at all. I will, however, take this opportunity to be a jackass. :p

IC: But what if Cluichstan is engaged in a war with...oh, I don't know...say, Hyrule, and Hyrule decides to employ battalions of werewolves. If the Cluichstani Army fields troops armed with clips full of silver bullets for their assault rifles. Would the silver, being a chemical additive, be considered a chemical weapon? It would certainly seem so by the text of this proposal, which would, then, be depriving our people of there only means of defense against Hyrule's werewolf warriors.

OOC: :p

But what if Cluichstan is engaged in a war with...oh, I don't know...say, Hyrule, and Hyrule decides to employ battalions of werewolves. If the Cluichstani Army fields troops armed with clips full of silver bullets for their assault rifles. Would the silver, being a chemical additive, be considered a chemical weapon? It would certainly seem so by the text of this proposal, which would, then, be depriving our people of there only means of defense against Hyrule's werewolf warriors.

OOC: :confused: Damn, this is turning into fantasy RP, and I am not into RP at all...

IC: Silver bullets are NOT the only means of defense. That comes from old fictional books, written in such a time when guns were the most sophisticated weapons available. I suggest carpet bombing and flame throwers would be quite an effective defense against werewolves, who by their very nature are extremely clumsy with weapons. And still, I am not sure which effect the silver has. I lean more into believing that silver is just chosen to penetrate the werewolves' thick skin, rather than for some chemical reaction.

OOC: I REFUSE to prolong this line of debate, sorry. ;)

All OOC:

OOC: :confused: Damn, this is turning into fantasy RP, and I am not into RP at all...

Not RP, but reference to earlier arguments against proposals.

OOC: I REFUSE to prolong this line of debate, sorry. ;)

I'd do the same thing. ;)

The Socialist Republic of Andaras Prime formally disagrees with this proposal in every way. We find it disturbing that you seek to deprive our and many other socialist nations of the means to fight the many aggressors, and seek to hinder the progress of socialism abroad. Because of this I will most definetely vote against this proposal both as a UN member and as the delegate of my region.

Samuel Benson, President of Andaras Prime
Social Marxist Party
Regional Delegate

The Socialist Republic of Andaras Prime formally disagrees with this proposal in every way. We find it disturbing that you seek to deprive our and many other socialist nations of the means to fight the many aggressors, and seek to hinder the progress of socialism abroad. Because of this I will most definetely vote against this proposal both as a UN member and as the delegate of my region.

Samuel Benson, President of Andaras Prime
Social Marxist Party
Regional Delegate

We are curious as to how permitting the usage of chemical weapons helps in the spead of Socialism, particularly given that Socialism is a system which requires mass support, something unlikely to be engendered by use of such barbarous weapons. Furthermore, chemical weapons are ineffective in warfare, in that they normally lead to like exchanges from the side attacked with them, thus resulting in even more horrendous bloodshed and consequences. As a final point, has it never occurred to you that the more 'immoral' Capitalist nations, ,might use such weapons against you to your detriment?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Although no government of St Edmund has ever authorised the use of any such weapons, and we would not order their use against any nations that lacked them or even as a 'first strike' against any nations [whether within or outside of the UN] that do possess them, we would like to retain the potential of using them in order to deter their use by non-UN nations against us through the threat of reprisals in kind: We will therefore be voting AGAINST this proposal

It brings me great sadness to make this announcment on behalf of my government. We approved this proposal, and consider it a well-written and very worthwhile effort by The Confederacy of Sheknu. However, due to the behaviour exibited by members of this assembly during the recent "Rights of Biological Sapients" debate, we have concluded that the NSUN is populated mainly by hostile, irrational and possibly unstable regimes. If these types of regimes exist in the UN, surely there are worse examples who are not members. It is our conclusion, therefore, that the best course of action should be to build up, rather than dismantle, our arsenals. This includes chemical weapons. Yelda has no use for these types of weapons, but we recognize that smaller, developing nations could turn to them as a deterrent in lieu of building a nuclear arsenal.

We will also be abandoning any further work on our Nuclear Non-Proliferation proposal.

That is all.

It brings me great sadness to make this announcment on behalf of my government. We approved this proposal, and consider it a well-written and very worthwhile effort by The Confederacy of Sheknu. However, due to the behaviour exibited by members of this assembly during the recent "Rights of Biological Sapients" debate, we have concluded that the NSUN is populated mainly by hostile, irrational and possibly unstable regimes. If these types of regimes exist in the UN, surely there are worse examples who are not members. It is our conclusion, therefore, that the best course of action should be to build up, rather than dismantle, our arsenals. This includes chemical weapons. Yelda has no use for these types of weapons, but we recognize that smaller, developing nations could turn to them as a deterrent in lieu of building a nuclear arsenal.

We will also be abandoning any further work on our Nuclear Non-Proliferation proposal.

That is all.

Hmm...I do believe he may mean, little ol' me, and my soverign, the Esteemed Emperor Captian Spaulding I.:p
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office
"New and Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo 24/7"

Hmm...I do believe he may mean, little ol' me, and my soverign, the Esteemed Emperor Captian Spaulding I.:p
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office
"New and Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo 24/7"
No, it was others. All I recall your delegation doing was opposing it and spraying everyone with super-soakers. I meant the "I'm not giving rights to chickens, apes, bugs, Klingons, werewolves, etc." crowd.

No, it was others. All I recall your delegation doing was opposing it and spraying everyone with super-soakers. I meant the "I'm not giving rights to chickens, apes, bugs, Klingons, werewolves, etc." crowd.

Klingons scare us. Those bumpy heads... :p

It brings me great sadness to make this announcment on behalf of my government. We approved this proposal, and consider it a well-written and very worthwhile effort by The Confederacy of Sheknu. However, due to the behaviour exibited by members of this assembly during the recent "Rights of Biological Sapients" debate, we have concluded that the NSUN is populated mainly by hostile, irrational and possibly unstable regimes. If these types of regimes exist in the UN, surely there are worse examples who are not members. It is our conclusion, therefore, that the best course of action should be to build up, rather than dismantle, our arsenals. This includes chemical weapons. Yelda has no use for these types of weapons, but we recognize that smaller, developing nations could turn to them as a deterrent in lieu of building a nuclear arsenal.

We will also be abandoning any further work on our Nuclear Non-Proliferation proposal.

That is all.

Dear Yeldan friends,

We appreciate your angst at the recent behaviour of members of this assembly. We have even expressed our own frustration in a much cruder way, in another recent thread. However, for the benefit of humanity, and to enlighten the irrational members you describe, we should be able to separate the proposals in a collected and rational manner.

You accept that controlling chemical weaponry is worthwile goal. I would argue that this goal is even more pressing in presence of high instability and irrationality. You see, chemical weapons have no defensive potential - their effect is of strict deterrence. You will agree with me that deterrence is innefective against "hostile, irrational and possibly unstable regimes:" these nations, by their very nature, will most likely ignore the potential losses of an unprovoked attack. On the other hand, banning chemical weaponry will remove a devastating weapon from the hands of the unstable few (or many, as you wish), making the world safer for the rest of us.

I urge the Yeldan delegation to reconsider.

No, it was others. All I recall your delegation doing was opposing it and spraying everyone with super-soakers. I meant the "I'm not giving rights to chickens, apes, bugs, Klingons, werewolves, etc." crowd.

Oops sorry!:( I was referring to the part about unstable, hostle, and irrational regimes.:D My nation and my parent nation certianly qualify. We have a lot of barbaric machismo to let off.:D :D :D :D Nothing personal though. We just like to emulate that imfamous Dennis Leary song.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Klingons scare us. Those bumpy heads... :p

Don't forget they eat living grubs, and blood pie too.<SHUDDER>:D

It is my sad duty to announce that the Dutch Democratic Republic strongly opposes the proposed resolution. We call upon all those UN members who still have a measure of sanity left to oppose this proposal in the strongest terms, and spare no effort to see it voted down, subverted, or subsequently repealed.

This resolution is, in itself, completely hypocritical and completely ignorant of the way of the battlefield. Clearly, it is a proposal written by idealistic bureaucrats, rather than a militarily and ethically sound draft supported by the experts. This ban targets the wrong type of weaponry. We’ve all heard the pathetic cries of ‘WMD’ as an evil axis which groups chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry together. This, members of this assembly, is scaremongering of the first degree! I shall venture to explain.

Fact: Deploying chemical weapons can save lives. Chemical weapons can be used, reasonably, in military situations as an agent designed to incapacitate rather than kill. This does not mean it is non-lethal, but it certainly is less lethal than an infantry assault into an area potentially used both by civilians and military personel.

Fact: Chemical weapons are not "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as they do not harm non-involved parties or civilians, contrary to scaremongering propaganda in the resolution. Chemical weapons can be deployed in small doses in very restricted areas, and in such a way that they merely target military units.

Fact: By far most chemical weapons do not cause permanent medical, biological and environmental problems. The reasoning of the resolution is based on a falsehood.

Fact: Chemical weapons are very inefficient killers on a large scale as they quickly dissipate when deployed in the open. In modern warfare, they are a useful tool to deny access to a certain area or temporarily incapacitate an aggressor.

Fact: this resolution uses a backdoor to ban the delivery systems of all chemical weapons, even non-lethal ones, thus making crowd control for your national police forces impossible!

Fact: this resolution forces your nations and the entire United Nations to disarm and render itself harmless before ruthless aggressor states.

In conclusion, the authors and apologists for this resolution are taking on a hypocritical argument. Large-scale destruction is inherent in warfare. The very weapons capable of causing only damage to civilian life are nuclear weapons, yet these are not at all targeted by this resolution! Instead the authors have chosen to issue a blanket ban on what is a relatively benign category of weapons, denying YOUR state useful crowd control and defensive tools in the process. Oppose, oppose, oppose!

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

Fact: this resolution forces your nations and the entire United Nations to disarm and render itself harmless before ruthless aggressor states.
ummm, wrong on this one. whilst not having chemical weapons, we are still allowed nuclear ones. also, some nations, Future-Tech and Myth-Tech, have more efficient weapons. also, i would like to see the basis for some of your other 'facts', especially the parts stating they are 'non-leathal' (less leathal i grant, but leathal all the same, just in worse ways than conventional), and that they "do not cause permanent medical, biological and environmental problems".

KEI: I have noted your post, and will reply in the morning.

So the TLA representative is suggesting nuclear weapons are a viable replacement for Chemical weapons? Nonsense.

Would the representative from The Lynx Alliance advocate the use of nuclear weapons to snuff out terrorists hiding in a building in the centre of his capital? Would the representative advocate the use of nuclear weapons to temporarily incapacitate aggressor troops packed closely together, for the purpose of taking them prisoner perhaps? Would the representative advocate nuclear weapons as a means of crowd control?

If his answer to these questions is yes, by all means I encourage him to support this resolution.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

It brings me great sadness to make this announcment on behalf of my government. We approved this proposal, and consider it a well-written and very worthwhile effort by The Confederacy of Sheknu. However, due to the behaviour exibited by members of this assembly during the recent "Rights of Biological Sapients" debate, we have concluded that the NSUN is populated mainly by hostile, irrational and possibly unstable regimes. If these types of regimes exist in the UN, surely there are worse examples who are not members. It is our conclusion, therefore, that the best course of action should be to build up, rather than dismantle, our arsenals. This includes chemical weapons. Yelda has no use for these types of weapons, but we recognize that smaller, developing nations could turn to them as a deterrent in lieu of building a nuclear arsenal.

We will also be abandoning any further work on our Nuclear Non-Proliferation proposal.

Dear Yeldan Delegate

I am saddened to hear that you will not be supporting this resolution on the grounds of fearing other nations would take advantage of our weaknesses, or so one could construe, by passing this resolution and launch warfare on us using the weapons we would have banned for ourselves. I understand your concern, but we must fight to limit the spread of these inhumane weapons as best we can and provide an example to other nations so that we will be a bright point of civilisation in the darkness. We will rally together and hold our lines if attacked and preserve our values with the most humane and peaceful means possible. You need not stand alone on this one: I pledge that should Yelda or any ally of ours be attacked by foes using Chemical Weapons and unjust force, then we shall come to your aid and help drive them off. I should hope others would do the same for a like minded, civilised nation.

Your proposal on nuclear weapons was a fine one. It would be tragic if such hard work was to be undone through despair at the crudity of the views of some members. Let us continue to make our worlds a better place and not fear the clamour of the barbarians.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Semper Fide Omnino

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

So the TLA representative is suggesting nuclear weapons are a viable replacement for Chemical weapons? Nonsense.

I believe TLA just pointed out that the statement you presented as a Fact is no more than an opinion, and a wrong one in that. This resolution does not force nations to render themselves harmless before aggressor states, and stating the opposite as a fact is, using your words, completely hypocritical and completely ignorant.

So the TLA representative is suggesting nuclear weapons are a viable replacement for Chemical weapons? Nonsense.

Would the representative from The Lynx Alliance advocate the use of nuclear weapons to snuff out terrorists hiding in a building in the centre of his capital? Would the representative advocate the use of nuclear weapons to temporarily incapacitate aggressor troops packed closely together, for the purpose of taking them prisoner perhaps? Would the representative advocate nuclear weapons as a means of crowd control?

If his answer to these questions is yes, by all means I encourage him to support this resolution.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG
i would not advocate using nuclear weapons in those situations. we only advocate them as a last resort and only in warfare. and you have completly sidestepped our questions asking for the basis for your "facts". also, i might remind you, we are dealing with chemical weapons for military purposes, thus tear gas, etc, used by police in riots is allowed

The statement is a matter of fact. The UN unilaterally disarming and banning chemical weapons will render you defenceless against certain types of attacks, unless you believe that nuclear weapons are a sensible replacement in cases where using chemical weapons would save lives.

The facts are the facts and they speak for themselves. However, if the TLA delegate wishes me to respond to their argument I shall.

Nations with more efficient weapons available due to their level of technology will use those weapons instead. It is only a further argument against the resolution, as more advanced nations will be able bring these weapons to bear against UN nations without these nations having the possibility of response because their own, more benign weapons has been banned!

People die in war. If the TLA representative feels this is bad, then I suggest he propose a resolution banning war. What is generally opposed, though, is the circumstances in which certain weapons are used. The allegations brought to bear against chemical weapons are scaremongering, not facts. Chemical weapons can be used to prevent high casualties by creating a low-casualty military scenario. This is, in our opinion, a much more humanitarian approach to warfare.

~Aram Koopman
<shiny buttons and crap>

The statement is a matter of fact. The UN unilaterally disarming and banning chemical weapons will render you defenceless against certain types of attacks, unless you believem, like the TLA representative apparently, that nuclear weapons are a sensible replacement in cases where using chemical weapons would save lives.

I tend to disagree with opinions, not facts. If you think any nation which doesn't have chemical weapons is a "disarmed and harmless" nation, as you claimed in your "fact," I suggest you check the number of wars that have been won without recourse to such methods.

Otherwise, do not put TLA's words in my mouth.

The statement is a matter of fact. The UN unilaterally disarming and banning chemical weapons will render you defenceless against certain types of attacks, unless you believem, like the TLA representative apparently, that nuclear weapons are a sensible replacement in cases where using chemical weapons would save lives.
there are other weapons that can be used. i just used nuclear weapons as an example, and as i said, some future- and myth-tech nations would have weapons which are more efficient and less harmful... or in some cases more harmful. these are not facts you are presenting, they are opinions.

OOC: added more into the above, check there please. I changed it to <under edit> as soon as I saw your second reply so how you both manage to have seen and typed back eludes me. :confused: TLA concerns are dealt with in my previous post.

IC:
With all due respect, the Fonzoland representative has done nothing to disarm (pun not intended) the Knootian arguments against this resolution.

I find the words of the Compandrian letter to Yelda most enlightening in this context. "We will rally together and hold our lines if attacked and preserve our values with the most humane and peaceful means possible.". Every sovereign nation is of course free to take the Ghandi approach to warfare, but we would like to be able to defend ourselves.

Banning chemical weapons would seriously compromise the military security of those nations that actually seriously rely on employing them. The point that wars have been won without them is irrelevant. Wars have been won without nuclear weapons as well, yet this body would also consider banning them a very dangerous development of rendering member states defenceless against attack.

We fully support the aim of the UN to guarantee human rights in warfare, but banning chemical weapons would make this task more difficult.

~Aram Koopman
<shiny buttons and crap>

My profuse apologies to the GA. You have before you an unsatisfactory proposal; I honestly do not want to have to repeal it. Would all delegates who approved it please withdraw their approvals immediately. Thank you. I again apologise for my haste in this, but it's obviously quite important.

My profuse apologies to the GA. You have before you an unsatisfactory proposal; I honestly do not want to have to repeal it. Would all delegates who approved it please withdraw their approvals immediately. Thank you. I again apologise for my haste in this, but it's obviously quite important.
how is this unsatisfactory? it went through rigorous screening in the drafting proccess and mad it to quarum.

Chemical weapons can be used to prevent high casualties by creating a low-casualty military scenario
how is chlorine gas low casualty? how is mustard gas low casualty?

OOC: Fonzoland must have hit reply with quote before you edited. i just copied from there.

DEMOCRATIC SOVIET REPUBLIC OF KAHANISTAN
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Government of Kahanistan strongly opposes this proposal. Only a month ago, we were invaded, on our own soil, by forces of the Excessively Armed Empire of Automagfreek, because we would not allow Kraven and its allies to slaughter their own people and work them to death in Nazi-esque concentration camps. We could not take what the Knootians call the "Gandhi approach" to these outrageous crimes of such vile capitalist regimes.

During this war, we waited until a large number of Freekish troops stormed the small beach garrison, and then we attacked the enemy with liberal quantities of VX nerve agent, which we also used in our scorched-earth campaign, poisoning anything the Freeks could use as they struggled fanatically towards our capital. We estimate that over 90% of Freekish casualties were caused by VX. Had we not deployed this "coward's weapon" we would have rolled over like a little baby French poodle.

We have absolutely NO intention of removing or disabling our WMD stockpile, regardless of what the U.N. (Useless Nations) says about it. We are quite open about the fact that we possess weapons of mass destruction, and our neighbors know that we do not run around gassing or nuking them for cheap laughs, and that these weapons are only used when we are threatened by a larger power that we cannot hope to defeat in conventional warfare.

Signed,
Margaret Delray,
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Senator Maribel A. Crowley,
Chair of the Armed Forces and Defense Committee

General Marcellus Q. Valens,
Interim Minister of Defense

With all due respect, the Fonzoland representative has done nothing to disarm (pun not intended) the Knootian arguments against this resolution.

My goal was not so much to make an argument for the ban, just to condemn the use of scaremongering and hyperbole under the label of "fact."

I find the words of the Compandrian letter to Yelda most enlightening in this context. "We will rally together and hold our lines if attacked and preserve our values with the most humane and peaceful means possible.". Every sovereign nation is of course free to take the Ghandi approach to warfare, but we would like to be able to defend ourselves.

You will find in my previous reply to Yelda that I disagree with the Ghandi justification for the ban.

Banning chemical weapons would seriously compromise the military security of those nations that actually seriously rely on employing them. The point that wars have been won without them is irrelevant. Wars have been won without nuclear weapons as well, yet this body would also consider banning them a very dangerous development of rendering member states defenceless against attack.

After you qualify disarmed and harmless, by referring to seriously compromised military security, and after you qualify nations, by mentioning those that seriously rely on chemical weapons, then you are probably moving from from a blatantly wrong opinion to a very defendable opinion. However, even how you state it now, it is still not an undisputable fact.

We fully support the aim of the UN to guarantee human rights in warfare, but banning chemical weapons would make this task more difficult.

As the author himself wishes to withdraw the current proposal, I prefer to postpone the debate until we hear further news.

My profuse apologies to the GA. You have before you an unsatisfactory proposal; I honestly do not want to have to repeal it. Would all delegates who approved it please withdraw their approvals immediately. Thank you. I again apologise for my haste in this, but it's obviously quite important.
If you want your proposal removed from queue, please file a Getting Help request so that we have formal notification. It will be removed without penalty.

My profuse apologies to the GA. You have before you an unsatisfactory proposal; I honestly do not want to have to repeal it. Would all delegates who approved it please withdraw their approvals immediately. Thank you. I again apologise for my haste in this, but it's obviously quite important.

No, no, no, no, no and a thousand more no's. What has triggered this reversal of position? This was a fine resolution and a worthy replacement of the original. We must not let it die like this, I beg of you.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It is my sad duty to announce that the Dutch Democratic Republic strongly opposes the proposed resolution. We call upon all those UN members who still have a measure of sanity left to oppose this proposal in the strongest terms, and spare no effort to see it voted down, subverted, or subsequently repealed.

As we see it, the onl sane members of the U.N. are those who oppose the madness and horror of chemical warfare and who strive to further humanitarian goals by banning this appalling scourge on the conscience of all nations.

Fact: Deploying chemical weapons can save lives. Chemical weapons can be used, reasonably, in military situations as an agent designed to incapacitate rather than kill. This does not mean it is non-lethal, but it certainly is less lethal than an infantry assault into an area potentially used both by civilians and military personel.

Fact: Chemical weapons can also be used to horrific effect in targeting civillians and military personnel, by use of Mustard Gas, Cyanide Gas, Sarin and many others. There are incapacitating agents, but let us not delude ourselves as to the true nature of war. One side seeks to triumph and kill anothers forces, not incapacitate. What if one side is unable to take prisoners? What if they are motivated by hatred? Furthermore, why would a non-U.N. nation, not-signatory to any practices of reasonable warfare use "human methods" when they have no obligation to do so?

The horror of Chemical weapons, the maiming, the agonising deaths, this is surely enough to overcome any small, rare "positive" uses they have.

Fact: Chemical weapons are not "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as they do not harm non-involved parties or civilians, contrary to scaremongering propaganda in the resolution. Chemical weapons can be deployed in small doses in very restricted areas, and in such a way that they merely target military units.

Fact: The so called "scaremongers" raise valid points. There is no such thing as 100% accurate deployment, on a limited scale, of a volatile and lethal agent. What about wind direction? Or what about cases where deliberate genocide is practised, using Chemical munitions? Or where civillians and the military are in close contact with one-another?

Can you still stand by your first statement?

Fact: By far most chemical weapons do not cause permanent medical, biological and environmental problems. The reasoning of the resolution is based on a falsehood.

Fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas (physiological and disposal of).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine (precautions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Phosphorus (effects on humans)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Can you still stand by your initial statement?

Fact: Chemical weapons are very inefficient killers on a large scale as they quickly dissipate when deployed in the open. In modern warfare, they are a useful tool to deny access to a certain area or temporarily incapacitate an aggressor.

I defy you to tell those who have been victims of Chemical Warfare that the weapon used against them was "inefficient".

Fact: this resolution uses a backdoor to ban the delivery systems of all chemical weapons, even non-lethal ones, thus making crowd control for your national police forces impossible!

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of riot control agents.

Can you still stand by your intial statement?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Chemical Weaponry Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sheknu

Description: The UN,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for world peace,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties and cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED chemical weaponry constitutes a major threat, due to the potential for vast damage if improperly stored or appropriated by terrorist organizations,

CONDEMNING chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in socioeconomic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a chemical reactant that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, possession, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;
ii. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iii. the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv. the production of precursors for use in the assembly of chemical weapons;

4. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all chemical weaponry;
ii. the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;
iii. that such measures are carried out promptly, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

5. MANDATES that all member nations immediately disclose details of any transfers of chemical weaponry, toxic chemicals, precursors likely to be used in the production of chemical weaponry, or equipment pertaining to the production of chemical weaponry, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past 10 years;

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use riot control agents in the cause of maintaining law and order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of riot control agents.

Approvals: 183 (Gaiah, Manussa, Aronid, Dukeship of Warsaw, Elsok, Sherward Forest, Jey, Athens and Midlands, Republic of Freedonia, Gunfreak, Celestine Athena, Nelvaan, Eve the First, Eranmane, Darvainia, Hadristan, Richard2008, Flablioan, Love and esterel, Connaughton, Ceorana, Elghinn, Chapelonia, Elengwaith, Carcharocles, A place outside town, Jellydom, Maladanska, Legendary Rock Stars, Bernard Bear, Manckunia, Fronkenmuth, Qrbif, Potato Eating People, The Beatle, Panraabi, Keepingthepeace, Hardia, Vilgoria, Orserus, Scandinavian Duchies, Cryodil, Corey Cusimano, Aoundonia, Canardica, Silverhold, Roisoin, Northcote, Hard-to-pronuncitan, New York Jet Fanatics, Feiron, Flecs, Stransworthe, La Voye, 07LauAH, Newswana, Sligeach, Baudrillard, Smadur, Sidosermo Indah, Quaon, Salur, Lunatic Retard Robots, Darpatia, All Things Halo, Ravenclaws, Losers just losers, KKE_of_Greece, Betelgeuse XII, Flanagania, Anarcho - Syndicalism, Skyworld, Mommy D, Pope John Paul III, Kswissbob, LaVeya, Snazzopia, New Hamilton, WZ Forums, No poverty, Mudrekh, Gaara-, Kleinekatzen, Davidus, Rondebosch, Byzantine Grecia, RexMundiIncarnit, Determined cows, Margostan, Nominee, OsirisRa, Caer Rialis, Borradung-Shamprang, Dargonmaster, Twoddlevania, Vohteria, Badula, SecuriCor, Kirovman, Erehwon Forest, Omni-Palonie, Zasavje org, San Timetheos, Of Cascadia, Arendias, The Kazoo Peoples, Bakkestein, Yeldan UN Mission, Boars Hill, Stenburg, Xenious, Simonton, Former English Colony, The Feather, New Mercedes, Fennecus zerda, Garage-land, Balm Tissues, Inaia, Laitaine, Carlswelt, Rolling Stone, Angelquackie, Belarum, Neon Plaid, The Assassination Army, Tinis, The Buicks, Heat Transfer, Constitutionals, The EGI, King Islands, Trindell, Chadlie, Bettia, Bellaben, Faded Illusions, Niploma, Animosus and Aequitas, Mycos, Chisnall, DraconisMortis, Unicornutopia, Punrovia, Land Of Serenity, Witherspoon, The Damned People, Imposed Tolerance, Yugobolvaniaria, Silverbowia, The Sages of the Grove, Ficticious Proportions, The GLA for scuds, Mreah, The Occitan, Guam 25, The Talisman, The Running Potato, Agramerland, Antipatris, Jamesburgh, Zabkania, Yucania, Lone Dawn Star, Werebobs, Nicronia, Strafe, Maritinus, Diplomattia, Three Women Dancing, Skybase one, Medicalis, Millipi, North Koster, IIzik, Neo Juropia, His Divine Grace Dan, Sporkutania, Short Welsh People, Jandania, Kramsey, Great Denizistan, Merynitland)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!
Removed as requested by author.

If you want your proposal removed from queue, please file a Getting Help request so that we have formal notification. It will be removed without penalty.

Done. Thank you. Sorry.

----

Boy, do I have some explaining to do.

Ok, firstly, thanks to those who supported the proposal, and to those who offered constructive criticism. Thanks also to Knootian East Indies.

I would firstly say I am not opposed, in general, to the idea of a chemical weaponry ban. At all. Secondly, I am not opposed to a chemical weaponry ban, even where there is no ban on nuclear, biological, or radiological weaponry. I genuinely do believe that chemical weaponry is not necessary for national defence, and I genuinely believe its capacity to cause collateral damage and prolonged, unnecessary harm far outweighs any benefit it will bestow.

Can chemical weaponry save lives? Yes. This isn't in itself a very good argument against a ban, though: anything can save lives. Trouble is, that anything includes genocide, probably the greatest crime of all, and certainly the sort of war crime that we really should start out by banning. And, under the Eon Convention, Article 1.5: 'If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.' This strongly implies a 'validity' is possible. During the drafting debates for Eon, there was discussion of the possibility of protecting genocide for self-defence. As such, my proposal made no exemption for the use of chemical weaponry for self-defence, something which by extension should arguably have been contained.

Secondly, KEI is wrong in asserting that equipment for the deployment of riot control agents is banned by 1 (a) ii. The problem is actually with 3 iii:

PROHIBITS...the use of toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;

Now, a drafting error ironically made this less problematic. The toxic chemicals are clearly banned by 3 i., so this clause is irrelevant. The problem, in fact, is that if one interpreted these 'toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application' as being distinct from 'toxic chemicals' - which, for the clause to have any effect, one would have to do - then a significant problem occurs, because these are not defined. This presents two problems:
i. military involvement in a 'police action', for which I reserved the right to use riot control agents, might be necessary, but would arguably be illegal;
ii. many of the uses of 'chemical weaponry' as described were not KEI were not meant to be banned by this proposal. Clearing a house using tear gas is 'fine', whether you're a soldier or a cop. I banned the former, foolishly. Furthermore, there are arguably non-weapon applications of some 'toxic chemicals of legitimate civilian application' which I prohibited. For example, I believe I accidentally banned any army use of fertilizer. What I meant to ban was the use of herbicide as a weapon. I didn't do that: 'military purposes' was far too vague.

Next, 'precursors' were as a whole woefully poorly defined. I probably should have left them out altogether, or concentrated solely on stopping their distribution.

Clause 5 hung around rather uselessly. Tracking chemical weaponry proliferation may have seemed like a good idea, but the UN has no authority to act in non-members' affairs, and so the fact that Nastybadevilstan was shown to have bought chemical weaponry off Lovelygoodshinyland 8 years ago wouldn't really matter, as 'we' wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It might have been useful to keep tabs on, but no network for distribution of this information was established. In fact, I don't even know who we were meant to reveal this information to. I have no especial desire to keep the secrets of nations who sold unethical weaponry, but I recognise some need for confidentiality, the provisions for which I totally neglected.

The second half of clause six was not my place to urge, let alone say. Some felt it revealed a 'hidden agenda'. Actually, that's not true. I would rather tear gas was used than bullets. So I really didn't want to ban riot control agents. I just felt it would be irresponsible to implicitly endorse the use of what are still dangeous chemicals, without adding this sort of caveat. I should probably have trusted member nations more.

The really big problem, though, was the definition on which this all rested: 'toxic chemicals'.

a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential as a military weapon,

Firstly, during the TG campaign, I accidentally contacted a delegate who had written in the WFE that such would be considered spam. I apologised, and she allowed me to post on their regional board. There, they presented an objection to 'that has reasonable potential as a military weapon'. The problem with this is, once again, it's not defined. Now, saying "oh, Sarin's not got that much potential..." would be to wank until one needed palm moisteuriser. In fact, it's the other way around: far too many chemicals have 'reasonable potential as a military weapon'. They are not used because there are more effective alternatives, but that does not immediately and absolutely preclude the possibility of their use.

The big problem comes with 'animal species', though. I believe if a soldier found he had bed-bugs, it would be illegal to fumigate the mattress. If not, then the definition was still flawed. I wrote this based to a small extent on the real CWC: in that, the line is of course 'human beings'. When I was drafting this, the now failed "Sapient Rights" proposal was being drafted. I was mindful of non-human species existing, and accepted that even if at another time a resolution containing 'human' might have been accepted, now was not that time. So, I went for animal. Unfortunatelly, RL earth fauna is pretty diverse. What qualifies as an animal in NS? Pah, far too much. The problem then is that chemicals which are used in RL warfare as, say, ingredients in food or items in a first aid kit, might be banned. I was trying to accommodate all species: unfortunately, that's not actually desirable. I am not an expert in demonology, but I believe garlic bread would be banned (and I think this was at one point included in MRE menus) as I would consider their effect on vampires to be by virtue of their 'chemical action on life processes'.

Thus, I believe this proposal was fundamentally flawed, and that its implementation would have led to problems and a repeal, neither of which is beneficial to the UN. That is a great shame, because I invested time in this, and must thank all those who did likewise and may, as Compadria does, feel 'cheated'. In particular, ta - and sorry - to Fonzoland, Ausserland, The-Republic, Compadria, and Powerhungry Chipmunks. The latter repealed the old chemical weapons ban; he did not propose a replacement.

I increasingly believe he was right not to do so. I do not and never will endorse the use of chemical weaponry in warfare. And, because I don't think I can say this enough, I don't believe it is necessary for national defence. However, this isn't a strong argument for a ban. Because if it isn't necessary, then any competent army will phase out its use anyway. Chemical weaponry has the potential to present great risks, and to cause harm to both sides, and as such I do not believe responsible armies will 'play around' with it.

That doesn't mean I'm totally unconvinced of the need for a ban. And it doesn't mean I advocate 'wussing out' because actually, drafting weapons bans is hard. Reformentia managed it ok. Chemical weaponry bans need not necessarily be any more complex than biological weaponry bans. However, I will not for the moment be pursuing this proposal any further, because I feel a) every single delegate in the UN will be pretty fucking sick of me right now and b) I'm kinda beat. I would hope that enlightened nations would move towards voluntary chemical disarmament anyway.

I've been rushed about all this. During the drafting stage, a chemical weapons ban proposal - I freely say a bad one - was submitted. Didn't get far, but it was a reminder that when a repeal is passed with talk of a replacement, someone will eventually try to replace it anyway. I wanted to make that replacement as good as possible; I think this, though, had too many flaws to be workable. The number of definitional challenges alone make some of its ground shaky; the 'animal species' line was a mistake'; there were some drafting errors. In short, I feel we owe it to the UN to do better, and that we can do better. For the moment, I reserve judgement on whether we should try to do better.

Apologies for all this.

It's all right. I feel a little cheated, but only because I felt that what you came up with was so excellent and so suitable a replacement, that it seemed such a tragedy to see it withdrawn.

Anyways, I share your hope that voluntary disarmament will be pursued regardless.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Addenda:

1. anyone is welcome to take any or all of it (don't take all of it, it got withdrawn for a reason) for subsequent/separate use;
2. I TGed something like 900 delegates, of whom approximately 1/5 responded with approval: thanks to you all, and apologies for the inconvenience caused;
3. I now accept the Reformentian/Knootian point that nuclear weaponry is more of a priority.

Whilst saying this, I am frantically elbowing the Yeldan delegate in the ribs.

Addenda:

1. anyone is welcome to take any or all of it (don't take all of it, it got withdrawn for a reason) for subsequent/separate use;
2. I TGed something like 900 delegates, of whom approximately 1/5 responded with approval: thanks to you all, and apologies for the inconvenience caused;
3. I now accept the Reformentian/Knootian point that nuclear weaponry is more of a priority.

Whilst saying this, I am frantically elbowing the Yeldan delegate in the ribs.
man, it is a pitty, because we saw no problems with it, and those against it were just scaremongering. i also have resevations about nuclear weaponry being more of a priority. i believe that issue has already been delt with by a resolution, and that this one sorely needs a replacement.

Irrespectively of our opinion on the individual points mentioned by Sheknu, we would like to formally commend his attitude. What we witnessed today was an act of self-sacrifice, namely withdrawing a proposal that had in it many hours of drafting and campaigning, in name of the greater good and credibility of the UN.

In doing so, the honorable representative of Sheknu has set an example that should be followed in the future by this body. Given the credibility threat posed by poorly worded resolutions, even those with benign intentions, and the particularly cumbersome mechanism of repealing/replacing, it is important that we concentrate on making each one relevant and bulletproof. Far from being poorly worded, the quality and thoughtfulness of this particular proposal should not go unnoticed. As such, one message should, in my opinion, be clearly drawn: In knowledge of the potential problems with even the most heavily scrutinised legislation, as demonstrated by this and other debates, we hope that this assembly raises the level of debate, and approaches both drafting and debating stages with a renewed, constructive attitude.

[/patronising rant]

OOC: I've been reading the UN threads for a coupla weeks and a good mocking is quite typical (and amusing) rhetoric for these threads. As a newcomer, it pleases me to know that someone is reading my posts and having as much fun with them as I am. No apology is necessary, so mock away!

It is my sincere hope that this does not mark the end of our attempts to ban the use of chemical weaponry by UN states. There is much of great promise in this draft; surely it won't be left to gather dust?

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN (outgoing)

On behalf of the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss I offer my sincere congratulations to the people of Sheknu for their wisdom in taking this decision. Calling for a recall of a resolution in queue takes self-sacrifice, guts, a clear mind and an almost puritan striving for perfection in the wording of U.N. resolutions. I personally hope that more authors and prospective authors will follow this fine example.

The point of the representative of Fonzoland is well-understood, and I am pleased to recognise that the criticisms of the Most Serene Republic are to be understood as a criticism of my choice of words. If the way I formulated a point of opposition to the resolution contributed to confusion in the debate, I apologise.

With the resolution proposal officially withdrawn there is little left to do, in my opinion, but to close the debate for now with regards to content and await a new initiative by this author. The DDR would be pleased to assist in developing a comprehensive ban on the first-strike use of nuclear weapons insofar as this has not already been arranged under previous U.N. legislation.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

We deeply regret the decision of the honorable representative of Sheknu to withdraw this resolution. While it may not have been perfect in every respect, we do not believe it was fatally flawed. We looked forward to voting for it and to supporting it in debate.

We must concede, though, that the decision was the author's to make and his alone. He owes no apology to this delegation or any other. We commend his dedication to quality legislation. It would be nice to see more of that in this assembly.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

*snip*
Fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas (physiological and disposal of).

*snip*



From your own fact:

Mustard gas was lethal in only about 1% of cases. Its effectiveness was as an incapacitating agent: a wounded soldier slows an advancing army much more than a dead one.

What would the number of casualties be without the use of mustard gas?

Whilst saying this, I am frantically elbowing the Yeldan delegate in the ribs.

<holding his aching ribs, the Yeldan ambassador approaches the dais>

We wish to commend The Confederacy of Sheknu on what must surely have been a difficult and painful decision. You have demonstrated a commitment to raising the quality of UN legislation, and have shown yourselves as a people of great integrity and honor.

In spite of the ongoing reassessment of Yelda's strategic defence policies, there is no joy in seeing the withdrawl of this proposal.

OOC:

Uh.. guys. There is also this thing that I just remembered and it seems strange that it has not been brought up in debate before. The United Nations Security Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Security_Act) bans any subsequent regulations on weapons and crap... so a new ban on chemical weapons would certainly be illegal unless this resolution is repealed first. :)


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.

Uh.. guys. There is also this thing that I just remembered and it seems strange that it has not been brought up in debate before. The United Nations Security Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Security_Act) bans any subsequent regulations on weapons and crap... so a new ban on chemical weapons would certainly be illegal unless this resolution is repealed first. :)

It is not illegal because it uses the standard disclaimer:

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry not necessary for national defence,

Uh.. guys. There is also this thing that I just remembered and it seems strange that it has not been brought up in debate before. The United Nations Security Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Security_Act) bans any subsequent regulations on weapons and crap... so a new ban on chemical weapons would certainly be illegal unless this resolution is repealed first.

This is of course why I'm not the happiest bunny out of all this. You clearly haven't read the whole thread - as this was discussed earlier in it - and haven't even read the whole proposal - had you done so, you would have noticed Clause 2, which 'declares chemical weaponry not necessary for national defence'. Of course, it would have been too much to have expect of you to have participated in the drafting of the proposal, when clearly more is to be gained from petty sniping at the debate stage.

The government of St Edmund commends the government of Sheknu on its dedication to getting proposed resolutions correctly worded, and salutes the courage that it has shown by withdrawing this proposal although it had actually achieved quorum.

This is of course why I'm not the happiest bunny out of all this. You clearly haven't read the whole thread - as this was discussed earlier in it - and haven't even read the whole proposal - had you done so, you would have noticed Clause 2, which 'declares chemical weaponry not necessary for national defence'. Of course, it would have been too much to have expect of you to have participated in the drafting of the proposal, when clearly more is to be gained from petty sniping at the debate stage.

OOC: Nice try getting around the UNSA, but I'd actually like a mod ruling on the legality of Clause 2...

I dare say it is time for the Mods to revisit their ruling re: UNSA. Simply stating that certain weapons are unnecessary for national defense shouldn't suffice; authors should have to demonstrate in the repeal text why weapons are unnecessary. Otherwise I could propose this:

Ban All Weapons

WHEREAS, war is unhealthy for children and other living things, and

WHEREAS, there would be no war without weapons, and

WHEREAS, weapons kill people, and

WHEREAS, weapons are unnecessary for national defense, be it

RESOLVED by the United Nations, all weapons are hereby abolished.Perfectly legal under the standing Mod ruling. :cool:

I dare say it is time for the Mods to revisit their ruling re: UNSA. Simply stating that certain weapons are unnecessary for national defense shouldn't suffice; authors should have to demonstrate in the repeal text why weapons are unnecessary. *snip*

OOC: Which is precisely why I asked for a ruling. ;)

Perfectly legal under the standing Mod ruling.

Not quite: contravenes [at least] three resolutions.

Furthermore, I actually agree with you. It is for the author to demonstrate why the weapon they wish to ban is not necessary for national defence - not just whip out five magic words. If you felt my preambulatory clauses did not do that, then I can see the problem. However, the proposal was in queue a while, and whilst I don't believe a mod ruling was requested, they clearly saw it. I assume it was, as such, implicitly ruled legal.

So, I don't actually want 'a mod ruling' in general: I don't believe they can give one. I think it requires case-by-case analysis.

OOC: I must have missed it in the drafting phase then. Only glanced over that part, I freely admit. I agree with Cluichstan though that it might not be enough. Also, I think I've pretty much blasted your preambulatory clauses as they are :)

OOC: I must have missed it in the drafting phase then. Only glanced over that part, I freely admit. I agree with Cluichstan though that it might not be enough. Also, I think I've pretty much blasted your preambulatory clauses as they are

Not really. The problems with the proposal were definitional: the preambulatory clauses I'm fine with.

Not really. The problems with the proposal were definitional: the preambulatory clauses I'm fine with.

That makes one of you...

That makes one of you...

May we respectfully ask the representatives of the Knootian East Indies and Cluichstan to stop beating this regrettably dead horse? The resolution has been withdrawn. It is a dead issue. We ask that it be left to rest in peace.

By order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well, if we can just simply dismiss a weapon out of hand as unnecessary, then the proposal that I just submitted should be legal, too.


Ban Pointed Sticks (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=pointed)
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Cluichstan

Description: FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for world peace,

APPALLED at the effects of pointed sticks, including death, injury, and damage, including putting people's eyes out,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that pointed sticks constitute a major threat,

CONDEMNING pointed sticks, and determined to effectively eliminate them,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of pointed sticks, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in timber, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in socioeconomic development,

OBSERVING certain sticks can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some sticks with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
(a) "pointed sticks" as:
i. sticks and precursors primarily designed for production of pointed sticks ;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of pointed sticks;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said sticks;

(b) pointed stick as a sharpened stick that, through its physical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential as a weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a piece of wood that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

2. DECLARES pointed sticks not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:
i. production, development, possession, distribution or use of pointed sticks;
ii. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of pointed sticks by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;
iii. the use of sticks of legitimate civilian application for military purposes;
iv. the production of precursors for use in the making of pointed sticks;

4. REQUIRES:
i. the destruction of all pointed sticks;
ii. the destruction, or complete conversion to civilian application, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of pointed sticks;
iii. that such measures are carried out promptly, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken;

5. MANDATES that all member nations immediately disclose details of any transfers of pointed sticks, trees that could produce pointed sticks; precursors likely to be used in the production of pointed sticks; or equipment, such as whittling knives, pertaining to the production of pointed sticks, to or from any nations or non-state organizations in the past 10 years;

6. RESERVES the right of member nations to use blunt in the cause of maintaining law and order, but urges that such measures only be employed where the risk to civilians presented by the disturbance of the peace significantly outweighs that of the use of blunt sticks.

Yep, should be legal under UNSA. Good luck.

Yep, should be legal under UNSA. Good luck.

OOC: I'll get on my TG campaign right away. ;)

You didn't really submit that, did you?

edit: Oh. I see you did. Yes, well, err.....those pointy sticks really are a menace.

Yes, he did (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=pointed).

You didn't really submit that, did you?

edit: Oh. I see you did. Yes, well, err.....those pointy sticks really are a menace.

OOC: Got the idea from the Python sketch "Self-Defence Against Fresh Fruit." :cool:

Cluchy:

First of all, I hope you know the mods don't take submission of joke proposals kindly.

Second, your joke is not original, funny, or even well designed (you forgot to replace one chemical, repeated a definition, etc.).

Third, I find it extremely bad form to keep on attacking a proposal, especially by these means, after it has been withdrawn by the author. You could for once respect everyone else who invested time in this.

Fourth, have you ever heard the word "trolling"? I thought so.

OOC:

Legal under UNSA; illegal under the rule prohibiting joke proposals.

Calm down. I'm not offended; he even TGed me [after submitting it] to explain. My problem is: we already knew this loophole existed, after Hack's ruling. Nothing has changed since: that ruling was upheld. Under UNSA, this proposal is legal. This is not my problem. I suggest you go repeal-replace UNSA. In another thread.

While my government has not had the time to review the withdrawn Chemical Weaponry Ban proposal, like some other UN members, the people of Mikitivity are concerned that a large amount of our time is being focused on repeals, and thus we were actually looking forward to the UN discussions on this particular topic.

Bearing that in mind, we'd like to encourage UN members into considering to revisit this topic.

-Howie T. Katzman

Cluchy:

Please stop calling me that. :p

First of all, I hope you know the mods don't take submission of joke proposals kindly.

Not a joke. Just demonstrating a point.

Second, your joke is not original, funny, or even well designed (you forgot to replace one chemical, repeated a definition, etc.).

Bugger all! Just spotted that.

Third, I find it extremely bad form to keep on attacking a proposal, especially by these means, after it has been withdrawn by the author. You could for once respect everyone else who invested time in this.

It has come to my attention that there are some folks who plan to draft a similar proposal, and I'd like to see them do it without a blanket statement like "DECLARING chemical weapons as not necessary for defense." That shouldn't be enough to override the UNSA. And yes, I would like to revisit the ruling(s) on that, as I don't think they're very clear, nor do I believe that the interpretation of the particular clause in the UNSA to be within the spirit of that resolution.

Fourth, have you ever heard the word "trolling"? I thought so.

Trolling? What's that? :p

(And yes, I've busted out the ping-pong paddle.)

Cute. Enough sniping, guys.

Fri Dec 23 20:55:06 2005: the_most_glorious_hack deleted the UN proposal "Ban Pointed Sticks"

Cute. Enough sniping, guys.

I'd still like to revisit the issue of this supposed "loophole."

I'd still like to revisit the issue of this supposed "loophole."

Fair enough. Revisit it. The language of the "UNSA" is clear and unambiguous. There is indeed a "loophole". So revisit the issue. Write a repeal. Get it passed. Then write a replacement which eliminates the loophole. Get it passed.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Fair enough. Revisit it. The language of the "UNSA" is clear and unambiguous. There is indeed a "loophole". So revisit the issue. Write a repeal. Get it passed. Then write a replacement which eliminates the loophole. Get it passed.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Actually, the language is not clear and unambiguous at all on this particular point, as it leaves open the question of who decides what is necessary and what is not. A blanket statement that something isn't necessary in a proposal should not suffice. As the UNSA does not address this directly, such an assessment should devolve to the individual nations, unless a reason otherwise can be explained, demonstrated or proven.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

I concur with the analysis of Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich.

~Aram Koopman

So. If you kept this, only replacing

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution: (a) "chemical weaponry" as: i. toxic chemicals and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals; ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals; iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

(b) "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to animal species, and that has reasonable potential as a military weapon,

(c) "precursor" as a chemical reactant that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

with some sort of clause setting up some kind of board of scientists and lawyers to define stuff, instead of trying to do it yourself, would it work?

http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/zombies.jpe

Bloody necromancers...