NationStates Jolt Archive

PRAISING the efforts of UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #113 (--UN Biological Weapons Ban -- Global Disarmnment -- Strong--)

NOTING that this is a bold attempt to protect world peace and promote unity

BUT SADDENED this resoulution leaves no way for decent peaceful nations to possess biological agents for defense

NOTING that not all nations fire these weapons at civilans, but rather aim at military installations

FAVORING a ban of certain materils and a LIGHTER restriction on bioligcal weapons

BUT REMEMBERING this is a poor and binding attempt to do so

IMPLORES RESOLUTION #113 be banned but replaced with a suitable counterpart

I'd support a repeal, but:

1. Supporters would argue the possession of biological weapons is inherently dangerous.
2. Firing a biological weapon at a military target is no 'better', objectively, because of their ability to spread rapidly. Just because you hit a military target doesn't mean the civilian population won't become infected, quickly, unless it's a wholly isolated target...in which case why use biological weapons?

I think a better focus for the repeal would be clause 5, which proscribes any military relations with non-UN nations possessing biological weapons.

Nevermind the fact that biological weapons pretty much suck on a battlefield...

Bio weapons for defense???

As in "if you invade our country, we will spread a contagious disease among invading troops, while poisoning food, water, and cattle"? Doesn't that strike you as, well, a highly dubious way of defending your own population and army?

The only realistic use of bio weapons is terrorism.

Let's see

Bio-weapons are used for defense....the abbreviated novel

We are invaded

We launch bio-weapons at their troops.

Their troops come into contact with our troops, spreading the contagin to our troops

Our troops come home sick to get treatment and infect our military staff, our medics, our....etc

Our military staff need to meet with our political leaders

Our political leaders meet with business leaders

Our business leaders meet with their managers, who meet with the supervisors who meet with the average employee who meet go home to the kids

The kids die from the bio-weapons

Think of the children! (Oh, and the entire population of your nation - they're important too).

I never liked Bio-Weapons, and I never will. There is just too much inherent possiblity apocalypse. Nukes are bad enough, one single bio-weapons used without proper containment could end the world in one fell-swoop. Forget nuclear apocolypse its engineered diseases that pose the biggest threat.

I understand that you want a deterrent for non-UN nations that may use them on you, but beleive me, no sane person wants to use a bio-weapon of any sort.

Let's see.

Darsomir is bounded by mountains to the north-west, west, south and south-east. Then we have seas to the north and east. With fairly constant onshore winds.

We would have to be insane to even consider using a biological weapon to defend ourselves. Once one is released in Darsomir, we would face little chance. Especially given that we do not possess the means ourselves to clean them up.

No sale.

Johannes, UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia.

I'd support.

Do airborne engineered extremophile bacteria capable of rapidly eating petroleum products, silicon products, and cement count as biological weapons?

Am I a techwanker or what?

I don't know. Maybe ask one of the mods?

Do airborne engineered extremophile bacteria capable of rapidly eating petroleum products, silicon products, and cement count as biological weapons?
Read Resolution #113. If they fit the definition yes, if not no. Given it's bacteria not viri...I'd think not.

But why would you want to use them? It sounds very much to me like you could engineer a chemical weapon to do that, and there would be no point using a biological weapon in such a circumstance.

I want to point out I'm making a follow up that would LIMIT, but not ban, Biological weapons. The resoultion that exists now leaves no room in the way of reserach. Example, we devised an UNCONTAGIOUS desease, meaning, it affects a certain area (CoughMilitaryBaseCough) But will not spread beyond that area or from person-to-person. Also, many viruses wouldn't poison cattle, there are countless virues that CANNOT spread from Human-To-Animal or Animal-To-Human. There are several viruses that will die in water, instead of it being poisoned.

I want to point out I'm making a follow up that would LIMIT, but not ban, Biological weapons. The resoultion that exists now leaves no room in the way of reserach. Example, we devised an UNCONTAGIOUS desease, meaning, it affects a certain area (CoughMilitaryBaseCough) But will not spread beyond that area or from person-to-person. Also, many viruses wouldn't poison cattle, there are countless virues that CANNOT spread from Human-To-Animal or Animal-To-Human. There are several viruses that will die in water, instead of it being poisoned.

I'm sorry, this feels like stupidity in the making

No

I'm sorry, this feels like stupidity in the making

Ya think? :p

I want to point out I'm making a follow up that would LIMIT, but not ban, Biological weapons. The resoultion that exists now leaves no room in the way of reserach. Example, we devised an UNCONTAGIOUS desease, meaning, it affects a certain area (CoughMilitaryBaseCough) But will not spread beyond that area or from person-to-person. Also, many viruses wouldn't poison cattle, there are countless virues that CANNOT spread from Human-To-Animal or Animal-To-Human. There are several viruses that will die in water, instead of it being poisoned.
Non-contagious weaponry isn't banned by Resolution #113.

I want to point out I'm making a follow up that would LIMIT, but not ban, Biological weapons. The resoultion that exists now leaves no room in the way of reserach. Example, we devised an UNCONTAGIOUS desease, meaning, it affects a certain area (CoughMilitaryBaseCough) But will not spread beyond that area or from person-to-person. Also, many viruses wouldn't poison cattle, there are countless virues that CANNOT spread from Human-To-Animal or Animal-To-Human. There are several viruses that will die in water, instead of it being poisoned.

Ah. You mean a Legalise Anthrax kind of thing?

The United Nations,

MAINTAINING steadfastly, a disgust of biological weapons,

CONFIRMING the monumental risks of global pandemic should biological weapons be used,

NOTING that many objections and loopholes exist in the banning of biological weapons and related fields of research,

FURTHER NOTING that common and well known bioweapons, such as anthrax, are not banned by this Resolution,

RECALLING the great number of non-UN nations compared to the small number of UN nations, and CONVINCED UN nations require some military partnerships with non-UN nations to remain free and unconquered,

CONCLUDING that the elimination of military partnerships between UN nations and nations which refuse to abandon biological weapons leaves UN nations at a severe military disadvantage,

REPEALS Resolution 113: UN Biological Weapons Ban.

Here's a better proposal: you could try to work something along these lines?