NationStates Jolt Archive

So I submitted a proposal to repeal the Bioweapons Ban.

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that the elimination of biological weapons is a goal of the utmost importance;

OBSERVING that Resolution #113 defines biological weapons as "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection,"

NOTING that such a definition includes virtually every infectious disease on the planet, including the common cold, for example, as it is a contagious viral disease that has the effect of harming a person upon infection,

NOTING FURTHER that this definition of bioweapon renders the ban both ridiculous and unworkable,

1. REPEALS Resolution 113: UN Biological Weapons Ban;

2. STRONGLY URGES that a new resolution banning the production, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons be drafted.

Then I submitted a proposed replacement, which got deleted because the original hasn't been repealed yet (hopefully, it will). Anyway, here is a draft of my replacement resolution, if anyone has any comments or things to add or anything, and just to let you all know that I have a replacement ready.

<<DRAFT DELETED SO AS TO KEEP DEBATE FOCUSED ON REPEAL>>

Link to Resolution 113: UN Biological Weapons Ban (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=112).

We will support your new resolution on the ban of biological weapons. Resolution 113 seems to be inadequate for the task it proposes, and your new resolution seems like it would achieve its goal.

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs

4. BANS the development, production, trafficking, and acquisition of biological weapons and biological weaponry;I agree we sould ban it but as long as there are two nations out there with this type weapon will never happen.

5. BANS the use of biological weapons in any and all circumstances;AAAAAAAaaaaaCCCCOooooo, oops sorry did I expose you to something bad.

6. MANDATES the destruction of all currently existing biological weapons and biological weaponry. This is to occur as quickly as is possible while still maintaining the necessary precautions for the safety of the global population;WE will not destroy any virus until it has been tested and cures against it's effects are found..

7. DEMANDS all member states to actively prevent any future development, production, trafficking, or acquisition of biological weapons or biological weaponry by any state or citizen;Please don't take off your shoe and pound it on something as one might see the odor from your bare feet as a bioassault.


There is no clause that allows nations to keep samples of these biobugs to research not to carry them over as a weapon but to find ways to stop them... With the chances that one of the many non member nations having these and perfectly will to use them we feel we must have a defensive play or their will not be any offensive plays.. YOU remove that option then have us destroy the only means to find a stop.. bad idea...

There is no clause that allows nations to keep samples of these biobugs to research not to carry them over as a weapon but to find ways to stop them... With the chances that one of the many non member nations having these and perfectly will to use them we feel we must have a defensive play or their will not be any offensive plays.. YOU remove that option then have us destroy the only means to find a stop.. bad idea...

That's right, there is no clause allowing nations to keep samples of these bugs, because it is far to dangerous to allow a myriad number of nations to have a myriad number of facilities for conducting research, some of which could have very poor safety and security measures.

Which is why there is a clause in the resolution creating ONE facility, run by the UN, for doing precisely this kind of research.

I believe the definition of Biological Weapon should be changed to contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the intent of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection,"

Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
With Assistance of Dr. David Hammond, Bio-Weapon Research
Dominion of Central-Dogma

That's right, there is no clause allowing nations to keep samples of these bugs, because it is far to dangerous to allow a myriad number of nations to have a myriad number of facilities for conducting research, some of which could have very poor safety and security measures.Wow. That would be an utter deal killer if anybody notices it. That's insanely anti-business. To say nothing of the fact that I certainly wouldn't trust the UN to come up with any meaningful research on anything, let alone serious diseases.

Especially since, how in the hell is the UN supposed to keep people from walking off with any of these bugs when the UN can't have any sort of police or military.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Your replacement probably bans some herbicides.

It also does not cover non-enemies. So as long as one nation decides not to proceed to a level of combat where the opposition is considered an enemy (such as in a policing act) then biological weapons are okay.

Or rather that it isn't a biological weapon. In other words, your definition of biological weapon should not include the name or title of the targets, because it thereby excludes everyone else.

And you should probably use two different topics, one for the repeal, one for the replacement, concentrating first on the repeal. Also, leave a link to the Resolution you're repealing, so's people don't have to dig it up.

The definition of a Biological Weapon should be: Any organic compound such as but not limited to germs, bacteria, and viruses, that have been engineered to inflict damage on military forces, civilian population, the environment, animals, food supplies, water supplies, or agricultural establishments such as farms, ranches, etc.


Dr. Bryan Dawson
Director of the Teklet Medical Research Department

We threw an absolute hissy fit when #113 passed. Withdrew from the UN even. Can you believe that?

We have since learned to live with it and would oppose any repeal attempt, much less a repeal/replace.

The definition of a Biological Weapon should be: Any organic compound such as but not limited to germs, bacteria, and viruses, that have been engineered to inflict damage on military forces, civilian population, the environment, animals, food supplies, water supplies, or agricultural establishments such as farms, ranches, etc.

Still might ban herbicides.

There are none in Norderia, but I know plenty of people do use them.

The definition of a Biological Weapon should be: Any organic compound such as but not limited to germs, bacteria, and viruses, that have been engineered to inflict damage on military forces, civilian population, the environment, animals, food supplies, water supplies, or agricultural establishments such as farms, ranches, etc.


Dr. Bryan Dawson
Director of the Teklet Medical Research Department

That could actually be read as covering a lot of 'chemical' weapons too... and all insecticides (given that insects are animals)... depending on what is meant by "engineered"...

In fact, come to think of it, most explosives would be defined by chemists as being 'organic' compounds (whereas bacteria are life-forms, and are therefore composed of many different compounds, rather than 'compounds' in their own right...).

We think it might be a good idea to keep this ban or something like it partially in place. You would not like it if we introduced some Neela into your more populous district, or a supermutating zombie rage virus.

That could actually be read as covering a lot of 'chemical' weapons too... and all insecticides (given that insects are animals)... depending on what is meant by "engineered"...

In fact, come to think of it, most explosives would be defined by chemists as being 'organic' compounds (whereas bacteria are life-forms, and are therefore composed of many different compounds, rather than 'compounds' in their own right...).

By engineered we mean weaponized. Also, how are explosives considered organic compounds. An organic compound is something that is or at one time was alive.

Bryan Dawson
Director of the Teklet Medical Research Department

Err... no. An organic compound is one containing carbon.
organic
/aw'ganik/
adjective
1. denoting or relating to a class of chemical compounds which formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from living organisms (animal or plant), but which now includes these and all other compounds of carbon except for its oxides and metal carbonates.

As such, you could be seen as banning the use of petrol (in case someone sets fire to a car).

Err... no. An organic compound is one containing carbon.


As such, you could be seen as banning the use of petrol (in case someone sets fire to a car).

Who would dare destroy a car, the most sacred of of objects?

OK, Norderia was right. The main point of this thread originally was to focus on the Repeal of UN Biological Weapons Ban, Res. 113, the proposed resolution being

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that the elimination of biological weapons is a goal of the utmost importance;

OBSERVING that Resolution #113 defines biological weapons as "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection,"

NOTING that such a definition includes virtually every infectious disease on the planet, including the common cold, for example, as it is a contagious viral disease that has the effect of harming a person upon infection,

NOTING FURTHER that this definition of bioweapon renders the ban both ridiculous and unworkable,

1. REPEALS Resolution 113: UN Biological Weapons Ban;

2. STRONGLY URGES that a new resolution banning the production, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons be drafted.

As for its replacement, suffice it to say that one has been drafted, one that many of you had issues with that you brought to my attention, which can hopefully be addressed in the replacement proposal once we get rid of 113.

So, anyway, even though the proverbial horse is already out of the proverbial barn, let's try to keep this thread to whether or not Resolution 113--the current BioWeapons Ban--makes any sense keeping around (I obviously say no).

Here is the link to Resolution 113 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=112).

So, anyway, even though the proverbial horse is already out of the proverbial barn, let's try to keep this thread to whether or not Resolution 113--the current BioWeapons Ban--makes any sense keeping around (I obviously say no).I for one want to see what the draft on the other proposal is as from what I read in the one you pulled off the table it had problems. So we end up taking R113 down and until somebody gets something in all nations can go back to creating dirty bugs. Then you create one that keeps us from protecting our citizens from those dirty bugs they might sale to an enemy of ours. Thus we under your new one end up destroying all our work on finding protections from these dirty bugs... Also since we can not deal in dirty bugs we can't go out and collect samples of what rogue nations might be using not to kill piss ants but people. Then we leave it up to a UN who has no army or police force and therefore no agency to spy on other nations to find out what they have as far as dirty bugs. No way. You put the meat on the table leave it there to be carved up along with your repeal of this one.

Resolution 113 doesn't give a good definition of a biological weapon. What it states is almost every disease or virus is a biological weapon.
So lets say that Bob over here has a cold. According to Resolution 113, Bob has been attacked with a biological weapon.
Do you see what is wrong with that? You cannot put a ban on a disease.

Wow. That would be an utter deal killer if anybody notices it. That's insanely anti-business. To say nothing of the fact that I certainly wouldn't trust the UN to come up with any meaningful research on anything, let alone serious diseases.Anti business heck it would end up getting citizens of many UN nations killed and never know what happened. AS I would wonder how the UN with no police or army would be able to protect any samples they might get.. Then would assume if they have no army or police they have no spy agency.. To go out and collect samples since individual member nations could not do this.. or they would violate what was in the main part of the draft that I commented on.. that got that responce.. Also I think the draft ended at clause 7 and had no mention of who would do the collecting and testing of such to insure member nations got protection from new bugs that are found as threats.

We here have a disease we call Green River Fever Virus... which we have been working for years to find a cure for... It under this is a dirty bug if one could learn to control it.. Thus we would have to destroy any samples of it we have and let nature take it's course with it.

OOC: Gastro Intestinal Virus.... if you've ever had it you don't want somebody to be able to pass it on to you.. This is real been trying to get rid of it for about a week now. Local army base hospital said they have seen about 25-30 cases a week for about a month in this area. They asked me where I may have eaten in the past 24 hours from when I came in.. I eat out most of time....

IC:You want us to stop all research to find a cure for this.... even destroy what we may have learned about it... then wait for the UN agency to come up with a cure.

Under this clause in R113 we have a right to maintain samples and do research on dirty bugs... such as GRFV or any other one we find a need to research.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection to anyone. They are to be so secured within a multi-tier (minimum of 2 tier) quarantined building in that nation, and kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.It is now my understanding that the draft of the replacement moved that from individual nations and put it on the UN who has no police or army and I don't believe the agencies to deal with this in it.. let alone collect new samples for research. Since they can't contract this out to member nations as they then would violate the intent of the proposal they have no place to go but where....??

So, anyway, even though the proverbial horse is already out of the proverbial barn, let's try to keep this thread to whether or not Resolution 113--the current BioWeapons Ban--makes any sense keeping around (I obviously say no).You put a chuck of meat on the table with bone and meat in place now you leave us the bone and say chew on that while you wait and see what I might do with the meat. From what I saw of the meat it was to thought to chew on... As you want to take the research from individual nations and put it in the hands of a UN that has no army or police force. Also there is nothing set up in the UN to gether samples and do research on them as if we member nations can't traffic them and have to destroy all research we might be doing on a dirty bug then... The UN has no way of getting samples to research... As individual member certainly under what you did in the draft can't go out and collect them for them.

And this prior statement by you before you cut the meat off and left us the bone to chew on is an insult to any member nation in saying you don't think they are capable of protecting themselves. Then you want to removed that right from them...

That's right, there is no clause allowing nations to keep samples of these bugs, because it is far to dangerous to allow a myriad number of nations to have a myriad number of facilities for conducting research, some of which could have very poor safety and security measures.Here you insult every member nation....
Which is why there is a clause in the resolution creating ONE facility, run by the UN, for doing precisely this kind of research.Then take that duty to their citizens away from them and put it on something that is even less effective at it than they are. IF the UN had the duty to protect citizens of individual nations then first it would have the only army and police forces to exists or control of all such forces.. Since it don't them there is no way it can deal with what you propose it does better than an individual nation with an army and police force.

So lets say that Bob over here has a cold. According to Resolution 113, Bob has been attacked with a biological weapon.
It's not a cold, it's allergies.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It's not a cold, it's allergies.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeYes but under R113 each nation can hold samples and work to find cures or protection from what causes it.. According to what I saw in the draft repacement individual nations will not have that and have to depend on the UN to find a cure for the common cold or even allergies.

The definition for biological weapon should be something like "a contagious biological virus, bacteria or microbe created artificially with the intent of harming another person."

There are two problems with the definition in the "UN Biological Weapons Ban." It's too narrow and too broad at the same time. By using the term "contagious" rather than "infectious," it leaves out many pathogens of diseases that are infectious but not contagious. Anthrax is the prime example. On the other hand, by failing to limit its scope to organisms which could potentially be used for biological warfare, it includes everything contagious from soup to nuts. There are a number of conditions that determine whether a pathogen is suitable for biological warfare use. The resolution ignores that.

The resolution compounds the error by requiring extreme security measures for all contagious pathogens -- security requirements which are totally impractical if medical research is to continue effectively.

We strongly believe that biological weapons should be banned and would support a replacement of this flawed resolution by a properly crafted one. Without that ready and waiting, though, we would hesitate to support a repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We strongly believe that biological weapons should be banned and would support a replacement of this flawed resolution by a properly crafted one. Without that ready and waiting, though, we would hesitate to support a repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-LargeAgree with you fully as we saw what Chinese Finger Puppets had as a draft for a replacement and in their later comments state they are working on a replacement. I for one don't want to see open season on dirty bugs for any period of time while we wait for somebody to propose one that is not suitable. As under the draft seen it would removed all research from under individual nations and place it in the hands of the UN who has no army or police to protect it and based on how their committees function could not collect samples for research on possible new threats and individual nations could not help or they would violate the terms of the drafted proposal in trafficing dirty bugs even having any of them..

Perhaps you have noted his fast departure from discussing that replacement and a fast move to get a repeal.. It would seem to me they would want to discuss how much better a replacement could be as it would show the faults in the old one and how they could be fixed. Well I think even as flawed as the one we have is; unless we see a good replacement we need to leave it in place..


The definition for biological weapon should be something like "a contagious biological virus, bacteria or microbe created artificially with the intent of harming another person."Believe also the term engineered would also be needed in the definition.. AS many so called dirty bugs are already around just folks tame them to do things they normaly would not do, thus engineered. Maybe to yours created artificialy or engineered with the intent of harming others

Also would on need to say contagious or infectious in this or could one just leave either out? As a boilogical Virus, bacteria or microbe should be clear enough. Also what about parasites.. are would they also be under biological organism. As there are some of these little critters than can do harm.