NationStates Jolt Archive

Ban Biological Weaponry
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Vainne

Description: Biological weapons only achieve one thing, and that is fear in the world.

Are the acting members in the United Nations in support of such fear?

PROPOSES that the United Nations will ban manufacturing, distributing, and use of biological weapons.

ACKNOWLEDGES that the United Nations does not tolerate many weapons of mass destruction, how are BIO WEAPONS any different?

Biological weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction.

Biological weapons can be targeted toward a certain race or gender of people. Making it easy for a country to have a significant advantage over another country, based entirely on uncontrollable variables.

The targeting of race and gender is inhumane and should be stopped.

The UNITED NATIONS is instituted to provide world peace and a place for the world to discuss important issues in a safe forum.

The governing body should not pass this up, as Biological weapons are just as dangerous, if not more, than NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.

Bring this issue to light, as the world needs it for the better common good.

The Federation of Vainne

Um...

As currently written, this contradicts at least one existing resolution.
Also, it doesn't define 'biological weapons' and as currently written could be taken to include trained fighting animals and (for that matter) human 'martial artists'...

OOC: Chuck Norris is biological, isn't he? :rolleyes:

OOC: Chuck Norris is biological, isn't he? :rolleyes:

OOC: No, Chuck Norris is an elemental force of nature. :p

lol chuck....PATRICK SWAYZE!

As currently written, this contradicts at least one existing resolution.Contradicts? Which resolution would that be?

Contradicts? Which resolution would that be?

I forget the number, and don't have time now to look it up, but (remembering remarks in some other threads) don't they need to declare Biological Weapons as "not necessary for nations' defence" in order to avoid the contradiction concerned?

You're thinking of the UN Security Act.

I forget the number, and don't have time now to look it up, but (remembering remarks in some other threads) don't they need to declare Biological Weapons as "not necessary for nations' defence" in order to avoid the contradiction concerned?Yes, but it's been done (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385142&postcount=114) already.

Yes, but it's been done (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385142&postcount=114) already.

Indeed. They are already banned. For now...

*runs off to the secret underground DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON) bunker*

This proposal is illegal:

1. Duplication. I recommend you check the passed resolutions (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).
2. Format. It doesn't do anything - it's just an essay on why they're bad (and an incoherent one at that).
3. Category. If you're trying to ban a weapon, it's going to be Global Disarmament.
4. Contradiction. Doesn't set them out as being unnecessary for national defense, and so contradicts Resolution #110, "United Nations Security Act".

That said, if you were thinking of replacing #113, I think it takes the wrong approach. I'd advocate much greater emphasis on immunisation against contagions, and to enhance the provisions of Epidemic Prevention Protocol, and further research into a) countermeasures and b) chemical alternatives.

Biological weapons can be targeted toward a certain race or gender of people. Making it easy for a country to have a significant advantage over another country, based entirely on uncontrollable variables.

Really? We can target just Jews? Or just the chicks? Or just the whites? When did that happen?

The targeting of race and gender is inhumane and should be stopped.

Is it any more or less humane than targetting the citizenry of the coutry that one is invading or is being invaded by?

The UNITED NATIONS is instituted to provide world peace and a place for the world to discuss important issues in a safe forum.

The purpose and function of the UN is a frequently and sometimes hotly debated issue. I will generally oppose any resolution that attempts to codify the exact purpose of the UN, even as casually as this.

The purpose and function of the UN is a frequently and sometimes hotly debated issue. I will generally oppose any resolution that attempts to codify the exact purpose of the UN, especially as casually as this.

Agreed, with one minor alteration. If you wanted to codify the purpose of the UN in a resolution, I would be very interested in doing so, but especially not in a casual manner. I didn't decide my purpose in life in a casual manner, and I'm certainly not going to decide the purpose of a legislative body with a membership of more than 30,000 nations in a casual manner.

Really? We can target just Jews? Or just the chicks? Or just the whites? When did that happen?Oh yeah, didn't you hear? The Bavarian Illuminatifnordand ZOGfnordgot together to put that whole thing together. Of course, Hagbard Celinefnordand the Golden Apple Corpsfnordtried to stop them, but it didn't work out so well.

The government sent Fission Chipsfnordto try and help, but he was still getting wisdom from Saint Toadfnord, Malaclypse the Elderfnord, and Lord Omar Khayyam Ravenhurstfnord. At any rate, this secret, forbidden knowledge was eventually abandoned in favor of Orbital Mind Control Lasersfnord, but we all know that's just a myth, right?
fnord
fnord
fnord
fnord
fnord
fnord
fnord

Greetings,

Your proposal is a means to your objective: international security. However, at times there is a very fine line between biomedical research and biological weaponry. Production of viruses and bacteria in cultures is necessary to study said agents which may result in therapies and cures for illnesses. Perhaps your restrictions should be focused on distribution and handling of such materials.

-Brandon Burum

The governing body should not pass this up, as Biological weapons are just as dangerous, if not more, than NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.

Bring this issue to light, as the world needs it for the better common good.

Biological weapons can be targeted toward a certain race or gender of people. Making it easy for a country to have a significant advantage over another country, based entirely on uncontrollable variables.


And we can have nukes so why not have bio weapons also. As don't see nukes picking out race or gender when it kills so maybe it would be better to ban nukes and keep these bio weapons that selectively kill..

*snip**snip*Umm, were you two sleeping when it was pointed out that there already is a bioweapons ban in effect, and this proposal is moot?

Umm, were you two sleeping when it was pointed out that there already is a bioweapons ban in effect, and this proposal is moot?

Even if they were, that's no excuse for failing to read the thread before posting in it. :rolleyes:

Umm, were you two sleeping when it was pointed out that there already is a bioweapons ban in effect, and this proposal is moot?
Thus my suggestion that they repeal it and ban nukes which are not banned. As if we have bio weapons that are selective in who/what they kill then they would be better to use than nukes that ain't selective?


Now can I go back to sleep sunrise here and my bed is calling me...

OOC: No, Chuck Norris is an elemental force of nature. :p

Okay, so what about Cynthia Rothrock? :cool:

Really? We can target just Jews? Or just the chicks? Or just the whites? When did that happen?



Every so often, I read claims that someone is working on a bio weapon that can target a specific race. Frankly, I think it's BS. Where would that leave the Mexican-black-Irish-Amerind mixed American across the street from me?

Every so often, I read claims that someone is working on a bio weapon that can target a specific race. Frankly, I think it's BS. Where would that leave the Mexican-black-Irish-Amerind mixed American across the street from me?
Probably clearing your home so can put in a pool since the bio weapon missed intended race/group..

Agreed, with one minor alteration. If you wanted to codify the purpose of the UN in a resolution, I would be very interested in doing so, but especially not in a casual manner. I didn't decide my purpose in life in a casual manner, and I'm certainly not going to decide the purpose of a legislative body with a membership of more than 30,000 nations in a casual manner.


Well said. Agreed in fact. It could greatly clarify many a debate if it were codified. That is a task more monumantal than I can conceive of, however.

Every so often, I read claims that someone is working on a bio weapon that can target a specific race. Frankly, I think it's BS. Where would that leave the Mexican-black-Irish-Amerind mixed American across the street from me?

OOC: Bloody confused probably.